Religion: The Deuce

[podbaydoor]

Faith comes in to enable people to claim things without evidence. Which means that what can be claimed can be anything. (And we have seen a wide variety of things claimed.) You might have the faith to move mountains in Christianity...buuut so did the guy who underwent the trials of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

[quantumcat42]

In the Chronicles of Narnia, there's a character who worshiped "Taft" (basically a demonic idol) who is accepted by Aslan (basically Jesus/God) who said "you thought you were worshiping Taft but you were really worshiping me".

Minor, tangential quibble: it's "Tash". I only bring it up because this is really, really not this. Although, now I really want to see a scene in a movie where a group of teenagers accidentally summons the wrath of Taft.

[Роберт]

In the Chronicles of Narnia, there's a character who worshiped "Taft" (basically a demonic idol) who is accepted by Aslan (basically Jesus/God) who said "you thought you were worshiping Taft but you were really worshiping me".

Minor, tangential quibble: it's "Tash". I only bring it up because this is really, really not this. Although, now I really want to see a scene in a movie where a group of teenagers accidentally summons the wrath of Taft.

That's a hilarious mistake on my part.

[guenther]

Faith comes in to enable people to claim things without evidence. Which means that what can be claimed can be anything. (And we have seen a wide variety of things claimed.) You might have the faith to move mountains in Christianity...buuut so did the guy who underwent the trials of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Faith is a tool. If I find a hammer to be useful, it doesn't mean I think every use of the hammer is wonderful.

[Zcorp]

Faith comes in to enable people to claim things without evidence. Which means that what can be claimed can be anything. (And we have seen a wide variety of things claimed.) You might have the faith to move mountains in Christianity...buuut so did the guy who underwent the trials of the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Faith is a tool. If I find a hammer to be useful, it doesn't mean I think every use of the hammer is wonderful.

A tool for what?

[guenther]

I believe that faith is about being faithful. Religion typically includes many demands on one's lifestyle, and this hard work can make a person want to bail. It's easier to stick to a challenging path with a higher conviction in your beliefs.

And more broadly, I suspect that a shared narrative helps groups function better as a cohesive unit, enabling better cooperation, motivation, accountability, etc. Faith helps maintain this shared narrative.

[Zcorp]

I believe that faith is about being faithful. Religion typically includes many demands on one's lifestyle, and this hard work can make a person want to bail. It's easier to stick to a challenging path with a higher conviction in your beliefs.

And more broadly, I suspect that a shared narrative helps groups function better as a cohesive unit, enabling better cooperation, motivation, accountability, etc. Faith helps maintain this shared narrative.

Do you believe it is better for a group to share a false belief than for a group to have no faith at all?

[guenther]

First of all, I don't rate the quality of groups by whether they have faith or not. As I said, faith is a tool; it doesn't make something inherently good. So I don't count faith as a black mark, but a group doesn't get props for merely having faith.

But I suppose what your getting at is does the benefit of faith justify a false belief. And if the belief is clearly false, I would not throw my lot behind it. Though I wouldn't necessarily oppose it if there was no evidence of harm.

[podbaydoor]

The problem with faith is that it is intended to strengthen a person's absolute belief in something regardless of the degree of truth. Which is why I am constantly bringing up examples of religions current and historical, hoping to show the parallels between something like Christianity and something like the cult of Demeter, and how faith without evidence can lead to wildly different beliefs with exactly the same amount of merit. The Eleusian Mysteries lasted for two millennia and converted emperors and slaves alike - would you say that their worship of Demeter was "obviously false" even though their faith was just as absolute, just as unwavering as that of any number of Christians or Muslims today? What proof do you have that their belief was "obviously false"? (I mean, the seasons continue to pass and the crops continue to grow, obviously Demeter is continuing her divine work even today.)

[Zcorp]

First of all, I don't rate the quality of groups by whether they have faith or not. As I said, faith is a tool; it doesn't make something inherently good. So I don't count faith as a black mark, but a group doesn't get props for merely having faith.

But I suppose what your getting at is does the benefit of faith justify a false belief. And if the belief is clearly false, I would not throw my lot behind it. Though I wouldn't necessarily oppose it if there was no evidence of harm.

So, you prefer to have true belief and you think that shared beliefs create a better society. Why then, do you place greater value in Christian faith than in secular institutions that strive to create shared beliefs and values in reason, knowledge and human well-being on earth.

[morriswalters]

Guenther, take your faith and enjoy it. It is no better and no worse then the many beliefs held by others. Including the one often espoused here that men are rational and that given time they will make the world a better place. There is no evidence to support that idea and at least some modicum evidence of the contrary. I post an excerpt on the article on faith from Wikipedia.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins criticizes all faith by generalizing from specific faith in propositions that conflict directly with scientific evidence. He describes faith as mere belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking. He states that it is a practice which only degrades our understanding of the natural world by allowing anyone to make a claim about nature that is based solely on their personal thoughts, and possibly distorted perceptions, that does not require testing against nature, has no ability to make reliable and consistent predictions, and is not subject to peer review.

I post this because it, in and of itself, is a statement of faith. He cannot know this is true, since it is not testable, at least at this moment in time. In so far as I know no one has yet defined or explained the biological, physical process that causes us to have faith. Why do we surrender ourselves to an idea or a task that we can't possibly know the outcome of.

[Zcorp]

Guenther, take your faith and enjoy it. It is no better and no worse then the many beliefs held by others. Including the one often espoused here that men are rational and that given time they will make the world a better place. There is no evidence to support that idea and at least some modicum evidence of the contrary. I post an excerpt on the article on faith from Wikipedia.

Excuse me? Every single metric we can conceive of shows an increase in well-being due to human capacity for understanding the world around us. Also no one is claiming that humans are rational just that we have the capacity to be rational, a opportunity many of us want to see increased within the population.

[infernovia]

Guenther, take your faith and enjoy it. It is no better and no worse then the many beliefs held by others.

Takes a lot of faith to say something like that .

In general, superiority and inferiority is inherent in any subjective viewpoint. When one ends up saying that it is "no better or worse," especially on such a broad topic as this, its because they are too exhausted or have lost their purpose.

[ShootTheChicken]

Guenther, take your faith and enjoy it. It is no better and no worse then the many beliefs held by others.

This is demonstrably untrue.

[CorruptUser]

Guenther, take your faith and enjoy it. It is no better and no worse then the many beliefs held by others.

This is demonstrably untrue.

Especially when you have Religions of Evil. Which religions those are, according to most religions, are most other religions.

[guenther]

While I appreciate the sentiment from morriswalters , I'm not going to respond to the challenges to his claim. While I try to be open to questions about my faith, people are welcome to form whatever opinions they want about it .

What proof do you have that their belief was "obviously false"?

By "clearly false" I meant that we could test the claim and come away with a clear negative result. For example that the earth is flat. I don't know enough about the worship of Demeter to know if they made testable claims or not.

So, you prefer to have true belief and you think that shared beliefs create a better society. Why then, do you place greater value in Christian faith than in secular institutions that strive to create shared beliefs and values in reason, knowledge and human well-being on earth.

I value both. I want people well trained in reason and I want our understanding of the world and well-being to increase. And since I see no inherent conflict between that and Christianity, I happily support both.

[Idhan]

Especially when you have Religions of Evil. Which religions those are, according to most religions, are most other religions.

I hate to quibble about TV Tropes terminology here, but...

Spoiler:

People intolerant of another religion usually claim that the other faith is what TV Tropes calls a Path of Inspiration or a Corrupt Church (depending on both the accuser's religion and the accused religion: a fundamentalist protestant might say Catholicism is a Corrupt Church, while Islam is a Path of Inspiration. A Salafist Muslim might claim Christianity and Judaism are both Corrupt Churches, while Hinduism is a Path of Inspiration.). A Religion of Evil needs to not just be evil, but to be evil even according to its own doctrine. There may be a few Religions of Evil on Earth -- I imagine most adherents are rebellious teenagers, to be frank -- but very few. At any rate, while "We're not a Path of Inspiration" or "We're not a Corrupt Church" generally isn't sufficient to establish that a religion is not actually a Path of Inspiration or Corrupt Church, "We're not a Religion of Evil" really is generally sufficient to establish that a religion isn't a Religion of Evil.

[morriswalters]

Guenther, take your faith and enjoy it. It is no better and no worse then the many beliefs held by others.

Takes a lot of faith to say something like that .

In general, superiority and inferiority is inherent in any subjective viewpoint. When one ends up saying that it is "no better or worse," especially on such a broad topic as this, its because they are too exhausted or have lost their purpose.

Sure but it's fun anyway. Having said that, quantify it. The knee jerk response is to say blind faith is responsible for any number of things. But it can't be quantified. People at best are fairly amoral. Religious faith provides the casus belli for any number of evils, but the unanswerable question is what would you have had without it? Man can seem to cause any manner of mischief absent any Religion. It's certainly true that we use faith in very practical ways. We use faith to buffer uncertainty. A majority of small business fail each year, yet we still start them. Isn't this faith?

As to my claim that "there is no evidence that men are rational and that given time they will make the world a better place". While we certainly live longer, and more comfortably today, it's easily arguable that this is true only in the sense that it is very possible to live comfortably on a credit card until you max it out. What happens when resources are constrained. When you point this out the tendency is for people to say, we'll find a way. No oil, well we'll develop fusion reactors. Increasing desertification, we'll create arcologies. Faith, a belief in something demonstrably unprovable.

[infernovia]

hile we certainly live longer, and more comfortably today, it's easily arguable that this is true only in the sense that it is very possible to live comfortably on a credit card until you max it out.

I am not advancing "equality" or "comfort" at all, I am advocating the rise of scientific egoists who want to understand all that is of the world (while understanding that an all-knowledgeable being is impossible). Egoistical artists who want to create the most immersive and epic experience (while understanding that nothing is as immersive as the world), etc. Inequality is inherent in such kinds of progress. What I am advoctating is the experimentation of man to become greater.

A majority of small business fail each year, yet we still start them. Isn't this faith?

If this is faith, what I am saying is that most people do not have faith in their religion. They are happy with simply believing in it. Unable to prove or disprove the existence of god, they are happy just believing he exists. Faith, in essence, is the experiment to live and die by it's cause, to force it to respond it to you. That it doesn't means that it must have died. In the same way that businesses start because they have faith in their skills, courage, and service. But they must let it die when it is not enough.

"Belief is turned to the existence of God - and existence has only an impoverished, residual status, being what is left when all else has been removed - while faith is a challenge to God's existence, a challenge to God to exist, and in return, to die. One seduces God with faith, and He cannot but respond, for seduction, like the challenge, is a reversible form. And He responds a hundredfold by His grace to the challenge of faith. As with all ritual exchanges, the whole forms a system of obligations, with God being obliged and even compelled to respond - even as He is never compelled to exist. Belief is satsified with asking Him to exist and underwrite the world's existence - it is the disenchanted, contractual form. But faith turns God into a stake: God challenges man to exist (and he can respond to this challenge with his death), and man challenges God to respond to his sacrifice, that is, to disappear in return." - Baudrillard.

I have become unable to have faith in such a being through my understanding of the world (philosophically, scientifically, economically, etc.). But I did, and when I realized my passion was in vain, I could not disservice my passion to simply "believe he exists". Death is much preferable to such an existence.

[podbaydoor]

Religious faith provides the casus belli for any number of evils, but the unanswerable question is what would you have had without it? Man can seem to cause any manner of mischief absent any Religion.

Yes. Which is why destroying religion is not the only aim, promoting rationality, evidence-based approaches, critical thinking, and constant re-evaluation of accepted human rights is what's called for. Religion will be dragged along this process whether it likes it or not.

It's certainly true that we use faith in very practical ways. We use faith to buffer uncertainty. A majority of small business fail each year, yet we still start them. Isn't this faith?

No, that's optimism. And the existence of small businesses that do succeed serves as the "evidence" that it isn't automatically futile.

[ShootTheChicken]

It's also risk/reward analysis. High risk means potential for high reward in that situation, and as pbd said, there is clear evidence that high reward is possible.

Also, the idea that morality is religion-driven and that without it we have no morality is pathetic, wrong, and insulting.

[LaserGuy]

By "clearly false" I meant that we could test the claim and come away with a clear negative result. For example that the earth is flat. I don't know enough about the worship of Demeter to know if they made testable claims or not.

So, if a religion were to claim, say, that the Earth was swallowed up by a global flood, and there was concrete evidence that such a flood never happened, then that religion would be "clearly false"?

[morriswalters]

Also, the idea that morality is religion-driven and that without it we have no morality is pathetic, wrong, and insulting.

Who said that? However since you brought it up. Where do you think they come from?

Yes. Which is why destroying religion is not the only aim, promoting rationality, evidence-based approaches, critical thinking, and constant re-evaluation of accepted human rights is what's called for. Religion will be dragged along this process whether it likes it or not.

You seem to have faith in your beliefs, as the idea of dragging Religion anywhere is comparable to and ant dragging an elephant. But be that as it may. Your idea implies that things will always get better, what if they don't. The things you value so highly seem to be products of abundance. In the absence of that abundance will they still hold true. Evaluate it with the lifeboat scenario. As a final observation, you seem to feel like some Christians that coexistence is not possible, if killing or enslaving others as groups was a commonly used method to destroy those who didn't agree with you, would you use those methods?

Infernovia I agree that all things being equal Religion will wither. What I don't believe is that it can or should be attacked directly. It simply hardens positions that might otherwise fall apart on their own. The Germans didn't attack the Maginot Line, they drove around it, therefore making it irrelevant.

[Zcorp]

Who said that? However since you brought it up. Where do you think they come from?

They come from lots of places. For individuals who have the luxury to dapple in philosophy (and it is very much a luxury) they come from trying to a achieve the goal of bettering humanity. For others they come from unreasoned reactions they have to the cultural environment or from the indoctrination of their society and direct guardians.

Yes. Which is why destroying religion is not the only aim, promoting rationality, evidence-based approaches, critical thinking, and constant re-evaluation of accepted human rights is what's called for. Religion will be dragged along this process whether it likes it or not.

You seem to have faith in your beliefs,

While she is confident in her knowledge using the word faith to describe this confidence is amazingly disingenuous within the context if this discussion. You are using that word to try and draw a parallel between a Faith in God (belief in something without evidence) and confidence in belief (or in this case knowledge). The discussion is using the word to mean a belief not based on evidence, you are using the word to represent an entirely different concept. Doing this just adds confusion and works to actively destroy discussion. So please stop.

as the idea of dragging Religion anywhere is comparable to and ant dragging an elephant.

You seem to need a history lesson. As reason has dragged Religion kicking and streaming toward a better humanity for a few thousand years, it has found some ground and pulled back for a few centuries but over all it has just lost ground. Which is one of the primary reasons the Christianity that we say 400-1400 years ago is so different than what see today. Christian beliefs have be forced to accept reality.

Your idea implies that things will always get better, what if they don't. The things you value so highly seem to be products of abundance. In the absence of that abundance will they still hold true. Evaluate it with the lifeboat scenario. As a final observation, you seem to feel like some Christians that coexistence is not possible, if killing or enslaving others as groups was a commonly used method to destroy those who didn't agree with you, would you use those methods?

Her idea implies that we should always try to make things better and that understanding our world through science and reason allows us to do just that. There are many people fighting against this idea.

The concepts of Christianity are incompatible with Reason. One strives to create reasonable beliefs and gain knowledge, the other tries to perpetuate unreasonable beliefs and actively fights against the acquisition of knowledge for its own livelihood. And yes like with any differing value structures there is certainly an possibility that bloodshed is a possibility. However, currently the goal on the side of reason has been to create educational institutions to increase the amount of knowledge the average individual has access to. The response has been anti-knowledge institutions attempting, and in some cases succeeding, to take over that educational system.

[Xeio]

Infernovia I agree that all things being equal Religion will wither. What I don't believe is that it can or should be attacked directly. It simply hardens positions that might otherwise fall apart on their own. The Germans didn't attack the Maginot Line, they drove around it, therefore making it irrelevant.

It's hard to ignore religion when it's one of the biggest motivators for people's positions against abortion, or gender/sexuality equality. You don't ignore something that's holding back society.

[guenther]

No, that's optimism. And the existence of small businesses that do succeed serves as the "evidence" that it isn't automatically futile.

It's also evidence that they will most likely fail. But people starting businesses may divorce their beliefs from the evidence or perhaps even outright deny evidence to take a more optimistic view of their own likely success. Here's an example of that in regards to swimming. If such a thing adds benefit, then our economic system might select for it among business owners.

So, if a religion were to claim, say, that the Earth was swallowed up by a global flood, and there was concrete evidence that such a flood never happened, then that religion would be "clearly false"?

Supposing such evidence, it would mean that a claim of literal truth about Noah's flood is wrong. It does not mean that the religion is false, nor does it mean that every other claim of literal truth about the Bible is false.

It's hard to ignore religion when it's one of the biggest motivators for people's positions against abortion, or gender/sexuality equality. You don't ignore something that's holding back society.

There are options besides ignoring religion and attacking it. One of those options is to stop treating religion like a single thing that demands a single response.

[LaserGuy]

It's also evidence that they will most likely fail. But people starting businesses may divorce their beliefs from the evidence or perhaps even outright deny evidence to take a more optimistic view of their own likely success. Here's an example of that in regards to swimming. If such a thing adds benefit, then our economic system might select for it among business owners.

I would think this just means that people need to be better educated about planning fallacies and positive bias.

So, if a religion were to claim, say, that the Earth was swallowed up by a global flood, and there was concrete evidence that such a flood never happened, then that religion would be "clearly false"?

Supposing such evidence, it would mean that a claim of literal truth about Noah's flood is wrong. It does not mean that the religion is false, nor does it mean that every other claim of literal truth about the Bible is false.

So why would it then matter if Demeterism (or whatever it was called) said the Earth was flat or not?

[guenther]

I would think this just means that people need to be better educated about planning fallacies and positive bias.

While I'm always a fan of better education, I'm not sure that this specific example decries the need. Unfounded optimism isn't inherently bad, and if it helps people endure the hardship of starting a small business, that's a good thing. Of course there's always a balance, and if people are being overly optimistic to their own detriment, then that definitely warrants attention.

So why would it then matter if Demeterism (or whatever it was called) said the Earth was flat or not?

Matter in what sense? For whether I'd adopt that as my own personal religion? I'd say not at all. I'm not saying that Demeterism is clearly false.

[podbaydoor]

So if Demeterism is not obviously false, why not subscribe to it too? Might as well cover all your bases, right?

[morriswalters]

From the top down, you keep track.

That would mean they are made up. Capricious. Unless you can show a verifiable mechanism that produces them.

It's pitched exactly to her definition. Look at the hidden assumption. There is no evidence that most people can or even want to do these things, even some of the time. Reason is easily snatched from us by emotion. My world is composed of frameworks, things designed to remind me that it's not okay to smash someones face in because they are different or because they don't agree with me.

Yeah I agree. 2000 years to get to this point. Quick work.

My point was to highlight the idea that the conditions that you value so highly are a product of a abundance. Take away said abundance and what are you left with. Add to that growing political instability and you have a recipe for a completely different world.

As I reread this statement it sounds more like a Religious statement.

The concepts of Christianity are incompatible with Reason. One strives to create reasonable beliefs and gain knowledge, the other tries to perpetuate unreasonable beliefs and actively fights against the acquisition of knowledge for its own livelihood. And yes like with any differing value structures there is certainly an possibility that bloodshed is a possibility. However, currently the goal on the side of reason has been to create educational institutions to increase the amount of knowledge the average individual has access to. The response has been anti-knowledge institutions attempting, and in some cases succeeding, to take over that educational system.

I would think this just means that people need to be better educated about planning fallacies and positive bias.

If you wait till your sure of success then it is likely that you will achieve nothing.

[Tomo]

I would think this just means that people need to be better educated about planning fallacies and positive bias.

If you wait till your sure of success then it is likely that you will achieve nothing.

I've been in the background through a lot of your posts, but it seems pretty clear that you don't have a solid understanding of the differences between faith and reason at all. Ask someone with a knowledge of probability if they want to bet $1 on a coin toss, 100:1. If it's tails they lose $1. If it's heads they win $100. Everyone should do this, because it's likely they will win money.

THIS IS NOT FAITH.

It's not even belief, it's a rational assumption based on a likely outcome. Ask anyone wether they think the coin will be heads or tails after they've bet, and they'll say "Well it's 50-50, isn't it." You don't need to believe that you'll win to play, and you don't need faith to take a chance.

[LaserGuy]

It's pitched exactly to her definition. Look at the hidden assumption. There is no evidence that most people can or even want to do these things, even some of the time. Reason is easily snatched from us by emotion. My world is composed of frameworks, things designed to remind me that it's not okay to smash someones face in because they are different or because they don't agree with me.

Yeah I agree. 2000 years to get to this point. Quick work.

2000 years? I think you are probably off by at least factor of 10. Probably closer to a factor of 100. While our understanding of morality is much more nuanced now than it was even a hundred years ago, that doesn't mean it didn't exist at all, even in like the Paleolithic periods. Hunter-gatherer tribes who had/have never heard of Christianity or the Bible or any modern religion don't seem to have any problem creating moral structures. .I would be tempted to say that morality of some kind arises naturally in any situation where individuals need to work together in order for the entire group to survive. We have, over time, been able to improve our moral structures alongside our culture, technology, art, and understanding of reality. And then we made up stories to describe where those ideas came from and invented religion in the process. Christian morality has gone through much the same evolutionary arc as secular morality, in fact. The Bible doesn't discuss the immorality of slavery or women's rights or genocide or child abuse or a host of other things that we now consider immoral.

For that matter, Christian morality isn't even particularly unique or remarkable--Buddha taught most of the same things that Jesus did (sometimes even using the same parables!) hundreds of years earlier; the Greeks had a far more sophisticated understanding of morality than is found in the Bible

My point was to highlight the idea that the conditions that you value so highly are a product of a abundance. Take away said abundance and what are you left with. Add to that growing political instability and you have a recipe for a completely different world.

Well, yes. So what?

[morriswalters]

@Tomo

From the Wikipedia

It can also refer to beliefs that are not based on proof (e.g. faith that a child will grow up to be a good person)

This is how Podbaydoor defined it. You can't know the outcome when you start a business. Too many variables, too many unknowns. You have belief in your skills and choose to believe that you can succeed despite the odds. For educative purposes let me remind you that odds and statistics are only generally predictive of outcomes, not definitive indicators.

@LaserGuy

The statement referred to was to Christianity being kicked and dragged into the modern era, so 2000 years would be about right. As to the rest I don't disagree out of hand, simply I would state that morals are often economic in nature and as such can be capricious. As an example in a society with a high infant death rate and low starting population it would be simple to see how a woman could be treated as having the most importance as a baby making machine a position that I can attest to as being repugnant in this fora. Given a world civilization dealing with widespread scarcity it's not hard to see how many things that we hold dear as moral precepts could fall by the wayside. As I pointed out the tendency is to assume that we could reason or invent our way out of this kind of situation. The is a belief not subject to proof, a matter of faith. However I'm drifting off point. My basic thesis is that Christian faith per se is not a major problem in the long term.

[guenther]

So if Demeterism is not obviously false, why not subscribe to it too? Might as well cover all your bases, right?

You're welcome to religiously cover all of your bases, but that is not how I approach religion.

[podbaydoor]

Why?

We've whittled all the justifications for religion down to Just Faith. Faith doesn't require evidence. So, if all that sets a particular religion apart from the others is the faith in it, then we could decide to apportion our faith out to various religions since they're all just as likely to be true. To decide to put your faith in this religion instead of that religion then becomes an exercise in aesthetic preference, since they are more or less indistinguishable as far as reality-based evidence is concerned. Is your faith an aesthetic preference? If it isn't, why isn't it? What makes Christianity more special or more true than the cult of Demeter?

[guenther]

When did you get the impression that my choice in religion is just aesthetics? It's not. I find the Christian values to be relevant and important. I don't know anything about Demeterism. Why should I even consider it? If you want to make me a believer you should make a pitch.

But I suppose that the bigger issue your getting at is why do people (myself included) pick one religion over another. And I suspect a lot of that boils down to how we are raised and what we are exposed to. If I was raised Muslim, I am not convinced that I would have converted to Christianity by now. But I was raised Christian, so that's a moot point. I like the story and values of Christianity, it keeps me spiritually satisfied, it gives me opportunity for growth and betterment, and I'm surrounded by and participate in a large Christian community. Why should I change?

[Drumheller769]

There is also the affect that God has had on our lives.

Mine for example:

Growing up I was a 'Sunday' Christian, in name only. I knew the stories, but didn't really care, I just had to get up early on Sunday. Well when I became an adult and went to college, just trying hard and hoping...yea they didn't get me very far. When your down in the bottom of the shitter because your major is difficult for you, and you cant stop drinking alcohol no matter how hard you try to stop yourself, and something comes along to turn that around, you tend to put some belief in it.
So for me, its not aesthetic, its that its had a profound affect on my life. I spent a year trying to turn myself around, by trying harder, by seeing a counselor, by listening to friends, all that didn't help a bit. So the first time I break down, and pray for help because I can' do it, and I get picked up instantly...yea, that's why I believe.

[guenther]

That's an excellent point. My Christianity has had a profound affect on my life as well, and sometimes I don't make that clear enough in my posts.

[RoberII]

There is also the affect that God has had on our lives.

Mine for example:

Growing up I was a 'Sunday' Christian, in name only. I knew the stories, but didn't really care, I just had to get up early on Sunday. Well when I became an adult and went to college, just trying hard and hoping...yea they didn't get me very far. When your down in the bottom of the shitter because your major is difficult for you, and you cant stop drinking alcohol no matter how hard you try to stop yourself, and something comes along to turn that around, you tend to put some belief in it.
So for me, its not aesthetic, its that its had a profound affect on my life. I spent a year trying to turn myself around, by trying harder, by seeing a counselor, by listening to friends, all that didn't help a bit. So the first time I break down, and pray for help because I can' do it, and I get picked up instantly...yea, that's why I believe.

It's probably worth noting that the beliefs of the cultures we are in can have an effect on us, even if we 'don't believe' - for instance, well-educated academics and skeptics have been known to experience 'hauntings' to the same degree as everyone else here in Denmark. And you own story, of course, is easily explained from a psychological perspective, as profound as it may have been to you. Anyway, good for you that you beat a tough challenge, but you did that yourself.


Guenther:

You could consider changing because, by your own admission, the only reason you believe is social circumstances - isn't that a tacit admission that you don't actually think that it's true in a metaphysical sense? That it is, essentially, just a tribal marker - "I'm a Christian, but I can't be that without Faith, but since I am a Christian, I have Faith!"

[guenther]

When I am with my church group, I am more likely to use reasons like "Because God loves me" or "Because Jesus died for our sins". I don't include those arguments here because they are weak for people that don't share my faith. But I do believe them.

The point about social situations is that I am trying to be honest about the bias that plays into how I came to believe what I do. But that's not actually part of the justifications for my belief. For you and anyone else that's interested, here are a few posts detailing more of my story that brought about my* faith.

* Second paragraph