How can sensible, educated people be religious?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can people who understand basic science also believe that there is a god in heaven protecting them and that they will live there forever after they die here on earth?

What “basic science” rules out God? I suspect your concept of basic science smuggles in a whole host of assumed metaphysical premises that could be disputed if made explicit.

The same "basic science" that rules out Leprechauns, Bigfoot, and universe-farting blue elephants. No reason to think any are there until there is evidence.

What would constitute evidence in your view? I suspect that most believers would take the position that the existence of the universe provides some evidence for a creator, so presumably you have some sort of unstated premise that rules that out. It would be a more interesting conversation if you made that premise explicit. Of course, we also all believe lots of things we don’t have *direct* evidence for, which bears on this.

No I do not rule it out, and it is not my burden to do so. I don't agree the existence of the universe is evidence for anything other than the universe, and despite hearing hundreds of cosmological arguments never heard one that wasn't flawed from the premises onward. And certainly not one that had an iota of evidence for any specific god. More than welcome to listen to another, if you have it.

What are other things we believe that we don't have evidence for, "direct" or otherwise?

It is indeed your burden to do so if you are stating that basic science proves God does not exist.

Good thing I made no such claim, and in fact explicitly stated so, in the very sentence you are posting. Why do you ignore what I have said? Because it makes your narrative more difficult, possibly?

Further, you are starting with a materialist premise that is nowhere proved; it is assumed.

I have done no such thing.

The idea that only things that can be observed directly exist is a metaphysical premise, not an objective fact. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s only that, an assumption.

If we disagree on the presupposition that it is unreasonable withhold belief until there is evidence then we fundamentally live differently.

So too for your view that the existence of the universe proves nothing with regard to the potential for a creator. That’s an interpretation, not a demonstrated fact. Finally you are being slippery about my question on believing things without evidence.

Nope! See the point above. The claim that the existence of the universe is evidence of a creator relies on the presupposition that a creator is required for a universe. Not only is that unsupported by evidence it is wholly circular logic.

Who’s the “we” you are referring to?

The "we" the poster (you?) I was reply to typed with "Of course, we also all believe lots of things we don’t have *direct* evidence for, which bears on this. "

I submit that YOU necessarily take a lot of things on faith because you believe certain authorities are reliable. Is that not so?

I do not believe it to be so. Back up your claim. What do you think I take on "faith" without evidence?

I was assuming you were the OP, perhaps incorrectly. If so, my bad. The statement "how can people who understand basic science also belive that there is a god" seemed to me to be a pretty strong claim that it is *inconsistent* to accept basic science while also believing in god. I'm not sure how this could be interpreted any other way, but i suppose it is possible i misunderstood. I'm waiting to see the inconsistency; this is unproven and indeed not even asserted explicitly IMO. So I will state it a bit more precisely: do you believe the existence of a god is inconsistent with "basic science" and if so how? But if all you are stating is that nobody can *prove* god exists, I freely concede it to be so. That's almost a tautology and would not be controversial even among believers. If the orginal post was merely an honest question, the honest answer is that there is nothing about "basic science" that is inconsistent with the existence of god.

I understand that you don't "agree" that the existence of the universe proves anything wrt a creator, but that doesn't make the alternative prior that it does unreasonable -- the idea that something cannot appear from nothing may be *incorrect,* but its not an irrational premise. It's not "circular," its a just premise you reject. Certainly science does not clam to have an answer to that question at the moment, merely competing, unproven, and potentially unprovable hypotheses.

Also still waiting to hear what you might accept as "evidence" of a god; if there is literally nothing that could change your mind, you're just reiterating your assumptions.

My guess is that there are a host of scientific findings you take as true, not because you have directly observed them, but because you believe the words of others about them. This is true for basically every scientific publication or experiment you don't replicate yourself directly. For example, when you take a medication, you don't yourself replicate the clinical trials that demonstrate the effectiveness of that medication yourself before taking them. Rather, you believe that the medication is more likely to do you good than harm because you believe that the process that led to the approval of the medication--a process conducted by others, of which you don't have direct experiential knowledge--is reliable. This is a totally good and reasonable thing to do, but it is different than having direct evidence; it's just a proxy. Others may have that direct evidence, but you yourself do not. You trust that they do. That's a rational thing, of course, but its a different thing than having that evidence yourself. Again, my point here is "what counts as evidence sufficient to justify a belief," which is a much more complicated thing than your post implies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can people who understand basic science also believe that there is a god in heaven protecting them and that they will live there forever after they die here on earth?

What “basic science” rules out God? I suspect your concept of basic science smuggles in a whole host of assumed metaphysical premises that could be disputed if made explicit.

The same "basic science" that rules out Leprechauns, Bigfoot, and universe-farting blue elephants. No reason to think any are there until there is evidence.

What would constitute evidence in your view? I suspect that most believers would take the position that the existence of the universe provides some evidence for a creator, so presumably you have some sort of unstated premise that rules that out. It would be a more interesting conversation if you made that premise explicit. Of course, we also all believe lots of things we don’t have *direct* evidence for, which bears on this.

No I do not rule it out, and it is not my burden to do so. I don't agree the existence of the universe is evidence for anything other than the universe, and despite hearing hundreds of cosmological arguments never heard one that wasn't flawed from the premises onward. And certainly not one that had an iota of evidence for any specific god. More than welcome to listen to another, if you have it.

What are other things we believe that we don't have evidence for, "direct" or otherwise?

It is indeed your burden to do so if you are stating that basic science proves God does not exist.

Good thing I made no such claim, and in fact explicitly stated so, in the very sentence you are posting. Why do you ignore what I have said? Because it makes your narrative more difficult, possibly?

Further, you are starting with a materialist premise that is nowhere proved; it is assumed.

I have done no such thing.

The idea that only things that can be observed directly exist is a metaphysical premise, not an objective fact. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s only that, an assumption.

If we disagree on the presupposition that it is unreasonable withhold belief until there is evidence then we fundamentally live differently.

So too for your view that the existence of the universe proves nothing with regard to the potential for a creator. That’s an interpretation, not a demonstrated fact. Finally you are being slippery about my question on believing things without evidence.

Nope! See the point above. The claim that the existence of the universe is evidence of a creator relies on the presupposition that a creator is required for a universe. Not only is that unsupported by evidence it is wholly circular logic.

Who’s the “we” you are referring to?

The "we" the poster (you?) I was reply to typed with "Of course, we also all believe lots of things we don’t have *direct* evidence for, which bears on this. "

I submit that YOU necessarily take a lot of things on faith because you believe certain authorities are reliable. Is that not so?

I do not believe it to be so. Back up your claim. What do you think I take on "faith" without evidence?

I was assuming you were the OP, perhaps incorrectly. If so, my bad. The statement "how can people who understand basic science also belive that there is a god" seemed to me to be a pretty strong claim that it is *inconsistent* to accept basic science while also believing in god. I'm not sure how this could be interpreted any other way, but i suppose it is possible i misunderstood. I'm waiting to see the inconsistency; this is unproven and indeed not even asserted explicitly IMO. So I will state it a bit more precisely: do you believe the existence of a god is inconsistent with "basic science" and if so how?

I make no claims about god, generically. It needs to be defined by the claimant. You can define a god into existence if you want to, whether Spinoza's god or the worshipping my coffee mug as one.

But if all you are stating is that nobody can *prove* god exists, I freely concede it to be so. That's almost a tautology and would not be controversial even among believers.

I don't claim nobody can prove god. Please stick with what I do type because I try to be thoughtful about it. I say I have not seen sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in one. Happy to re-evaluate once some is provided.

If the orginal post was merely an honest question, the honest answer is that there is nothing about "basic science" that is inconsistent with the existence of god.

I understand that you don't "agree" that the existence of the universe proves anything wrt a creator, but that doesn't make the alternative prior that it does unreasonable -- the idea that something cannot appear from nothing may be *incorrect,* but its not an irrational premise. It's not "circular," its a just premise you reject. Certainly science does not clam to have an answer to that question at the moment, merely competing, unproven, and potentially unprovable hypotheses.

It's entirely unreasonable and irrational and entirely circular. You have no evidence of "nothing" ever existing, and in fact I doubt you can even define it. You claim a universe can't exist without a creator and the evidence for the creator is the universe. I couldn't make that more circular with a compass.

Also still waiting to hear what you might accept as "evidence" of a god; if there is literally nothing that could change your mind, you're just reiterating your assumptions.

I have no idea what I might accept as evidence of a god. Fortunately I am not making a claim about god so I don't have to. Would have to start with that god being defined, of course.

My guess is that there are a host of scientific findings you take as true, not because you have directly observed them, but because you believe the words of others about them.

Nahh that's bullsh*t. I believe the evidence and research. Just because I am not a doctor doesn't mean I can't look up the research on a medicine. Bad argument, you should stop making that one.

This is true for basically every scientific publication or experiment you don't replicate yourself directly.

You know that's not how science works or how we value it. Really super silly point. But since you make it, whose peer-reviewed evidence supports your belief in god?

For example, when you take a medication, you don't yourself replicate the clinical trials that demonstrate the effectiveness of that medication yourself before taking them. Rather, you believe that the medication is more likely to do you good than harm because you believe that the process that led to the approval of the medication--a process conducted by others, of which you don't have direct experiential knowledge--is reliable.

The others have done the research and gone through a peer review process. For the third time, this is a dumb argument - in fact this works AGAINST your position because you admit others have done research and there are tangible reasons to accept the findings as fact.

This is a totally good and reasonable thing to do, but it is different than having direct evidence; it's just a proxy.

Again, no, it is EXACTLY direct evidence, man.

Others may have that direct evidence, but you yourself do not.

Wrong again, we all have the evidence. The evidence is there. You can find it. You can read it. You can understand it. There is no comperable thing for your god. None. Nada. Zilch.

You trust that they do. That's a rational thing, of course, but its a different thing than having that evidence yourself. Again, my point here is "what counts as evidence sufficient to justify a belief," which is a much more complicated thing than your post implies.

It really isn't, and shouldn't be. Unless, of course, the thing believed is untrue.

[Anonymous]

Culture. Community. Peer pressure.

[Anonymous]

I flip-flop, but believing in God gives me hope and connects me to humanity. I don't read the bible literally but read it in historical context, and I appreciate its figurative language and symbolic storytelling. I focus on the underlying messages and truths rather than every word being factual or every message being relevant to me today. I find that without some level of faith, I easily despair.

[Anonymous]

People need comfort in a scary world with lots of unknowns. For many, religion provides that comfort.

Others desire to feel a sense of belonging/community. Weekly services and cultural religious identify help fill that void.

Still others have been raised in it since birth, so even when their lived experiences say otherwise, it can be very very hard to let go of upbringing.

[Anonymous]

Because:

The Heavens proclaim the Glory of God;
And the Earth proclaims his handiwork.
Day unto day sings out his presence;
And night unto night his praise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because:

The Heavens proclaim the Glory of God;
And the Earth proclaims his handiwork.
Day unto day sings out his presence;
And night unto night his praise.

Says who!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because:

The Heavens proclaim the Glory of God;
And the Earth proclaims his handiwork.
Day unto day sings out his presence;
And night unto night his praise.

Says who!

In this case, of course, King David, in Psalm 19.

But as prior posters have observed, the existence of a well-ordered universe points toward a creator.

Religion is a natural virtue. People are drawn to what is greater than themselves.

“God” is a name given to an essentially unknowable being marked by the ultimate degree of every virtue, power and perfection.

My own admittedly limited experience suggests that a significant percentage of people who reject the existence of a higher power do so because they’re attached to one or another behavior that they know is bad for them and/or others but don’t want to give up. That or they’re fighting with some conception of a deity that they blame for the perceived misconduct of that deity’s all-too-non-divine followers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can people who understand basic science also believe that there is a god in heaven protecting them and that they will live there forever after they die here on earth?

What “basic science” rules out God? I suspect your concept of basic science smuggles in a whole host of assumed metaphysical premises that could be disputed if made explicit.

The same "basic science" that rules out Leprechauns, Bigfoot, and universe-farting blue elephants. No reason to think any are there until there is evidence.

What would constitute evidence in your view? I suspect that most believers would take the position that the existence of the universe provides some evidence for a creator, so presumably you have some sort of unstated premise that rules that out. It would be a more interesting conversation if you made that premise explicit. Of course, we also all believe lots of things we don’t have *direct* evidence for, which bears on this.

No I do not rule it out, and it is not my burden to do so. I don't agree the existence of the universe is evidence for anything other than the universe, and despite hearing hundreds of cosmological arguments never heard one that wasn't flawed from the premises onward. And certainly not one that had an iota of evidence for any specific god. More than welcome to listen to another, if you have it.

What are other things we believe that we don't have evidence for, "direct" or otherwise?

It is indeed your burden to do so if you are stating that basic science proves God does not exist.

Good thing I made no such claim, and in fact explicitly stated so, in the very sentence you are posting. Why do you ignore what I have said? Because it makes your narrative more difficult, possibly?

Further, you are starting with a materialist premise that is nowhere proved; it is assumed.

I have done no such thing.

The idea that only things that can be observed directly exist is a metaphysical premise, not an objective fact. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s only that, an assumption.

If we disagree on the presupposition that it is unreasonable withhold belief until there is evidence then we fundamentally live differently.

So too for your view that the existence of the universe proves nothing with regard to the potential for a creator. That’s an interpretation, not a demonstrated fact. Finally you are being slippery about my question on believing things without evidence.

Nope! See the point above. The claim that the existence of the universe is evidence of a creator relies on the presupposition that a creator is required for a universe. Not only is that unsupported by evidence it is wholly circular logic.

Who’s the “we” you are referring to?

The "we" the poster (you?) I was reply to typed with "Of course, we also all believe lots of things we don’t have *direct* evidence for, which bears on this. "

I submit that YOU necessarily take a lot of things on faith because you believe certain authorities are reliable. Is that not so?

I do not believe it to be so. Back up your claim. What do you think I take on "faith" without evidence?

I was assuming you were the OP, perhaps incorrectly. If so, my bad. The statement "how can people who understand basic science also belive that there is a god" seemed to me to be a pretty strong claim that it is *inconsistent* to accept basic science while also believing in god. I'm not sure how this could be interpreted any other way, but i suppose it is possible i misunderstood. I'm waiting to see the inconsistency; this is unproven and indeed not even asserted explicitly IMO. So I will state it a bit more precisely: do you believe the existence of a god is inconsistent with "basic science" and if so how?

I make no claims about god, generically. It needs to be defined by the claimant. You can define a god into existence if you want to, whether Spinoza's god or the worshipping my coffee mug as one.

But if all you are stating is that nobody can *prove* god exists, I freely concede it to be so. That's almost a tautology and would not be controversial even among believers.

I don't claim nobody can prove god. Please stick with what I do type because I try to be thoughtful about it. I say I have not seen sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in one. Happy to re-evaluate once some is provided.

If the orginal post was merely an honest question, the honest answer is that there is nothing about "basic science" that is inconsistent with the existence of god.

I understand that you don't "agree" that the existence of the universe proves anything wrt a creator, but that doesn't make the alternative prior that it does unreasonable -- the idea that something cannot appear from nothing may be *incorrect,* but its not an irrational premise. It's not "circular," its a just premise you reject. Certainly science does not clam to have an answer to that question at the moment, merely competing, unproven, and potentially unprovable hypotheses.

It's entirely unreasonable and irrational and entirely circular. You have no evidence of "nothing" ever existing, and in fact I doubt you can even define it. You claim a universe can't exist without a creator and the evidence for the creator is the universe. I couldn't make that more circular with a compass.

Also still waiting to hear what you might accept as "evidence" of a god; if there is literally nothing that could change your mind, you're just reiterating your assumptions.

I have no idea what I might accept as evidence of a god. Fortunately I am not making a claim about god so I don't have to. Would have to start with that god being defined, of course.

My guess is that there are a host of scientific findings you take as true, not because you have directly observed them, but because you believe the words of others about them.

Nahh that's bullsh*t. I believe the evidence and research. Just because I am not a doctor doesn't mean I can't look up the research on a medicine. Bad argument, you should stop making that one.

This is true for basically every scientific publication or experiment you don't replicate yourself directly.

You know that's not how science works or how we value it. Really super silly point. But since you make it, whose peer-reviewed evidence supports your belief in god?

For example, when you take a medication, you don't yourself replicate the clinical trials that demonstrate the effectiveness of that medication yourself before taking them. Rather, you believe that the medication is more likely to do you good than harm because you believe that the process that led to the approval of the medication--a process conducted by others, of which you don't have direct experiential knowledge--is reliable.

The others have done the research and gone through a peer review process. For the third time, this is a dumb argument - in fact this works AGAINST your position because you admit others have done research and there are tangible reasons to accept the findings as fact.

This is a totally good and reasonable thing to do, but it is different than having direct evidence; it's just a proxy.

Again, no, it is EXACTLY direct evidence, man.

Others may have that direct evidence, but you yourself do not.

Wrong again, we all have the evidence. The evidence is there. You can find it. You can read it. You can understand it. There is no comperable thing for your god. None. Nada. Zilch.

You trust that they do. That's a rational thing, of course, but its a different thing than having that evidence yourself. Again, my point here is "what counts as evidence sufficient to justify a belief," which is a much more complicated thing than your post implies.

It really isn't, and shouldn't be. Unless, of course, the thing believed is untrue.

That’s all very interesting, but you’re totally handwaving about evidence. You suggest that the only way to have a justified belief is to have evidence. You seem to deny the self-evident proposition that in many cases you rely on the word of others as to the existence of that evidence. If you ever taken a pill without reviewing the underlying clinical studies, you are taking someone else’s word for the evidence. This seems indisputable to me and I don’t know why you find it such a hard bullet to bite. And it’s not “direct evidence, man” it involves a host of assumptions about how the world works, some of which may be true and some of which are potentially not. I mean, people do make stuff up sometimes, right?

You’re wrong about the supposedly circular nature of the argument from the existence of the universe; I’m not using the existence of the universe to prove the existence of a creator in a deductive sense. That would indeed be circular. Rather, it is merely one hypothesis regarding the origin of the universe that has not been falsified. There certainly are others. It’s an empirical question, not a deductive conclusion. The point is, you can have defensible premises that yield the result that the existence of the universe is evidence for a creator. Obviously you can also have other ones where the weight of this evidence is zero. Or you can just handwave the question away, as many do: pay no attention to the universe around you; all questions about its ultimate origin are simply out of bounds. But that’s just another axiom.

And finally, I note you evaded the major question in this thread. The OP suggested that there is an inconsistency in understanding “basic science” and belief in God. It’s fine if you don’t have a position on that question, cool, although it seems to make the rest of this discussion a little academic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because:

The Heavens proclaim the Glory of God;
And the Earth proclaims his handiwork.
Day unto day sings out his presence;
And night unto night his praise.

Says who!

In this case, of course, King David, in Psalm 19.

But as prior posters have observed, the existence of a well-ordered universe points toward a creator.

Religion is a natural virtue. People are drawn to what is greater than themselves.

“God” is a name given to an essentially unknowable being marked by the ultimate degree of every virtue, power and perfection.

My own admittedly limited experience suggests that a significant percentage of people who reject the existence of a higher power do so because they’re attached to one or another behavior that they know is bad for them and/or others but don’t want to give up. That or they’re fighting with some conception of a deity that they blame for the perceived misconduct of that deity’s all-too-non-divine followers.

Why does a universe point to a creator?

And this universe is clearly not well ordered, unless you are a black hole, as stephen hawking said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not all religious people believe that

This. There are people on this forum who want "religious" to mean a specific type of Christianity and then pick fights about it. The majority of the religious world is not Christian, let alone Biblical literalists. And the ancient world knew quite a bit more about science than OP seems to realize.

OP here -- I was never a fundamentalist and know the difference between fundamentalist religion and liberal religion. I think that you've mischaracterized me in hopes of showing that I am some sort of radical. I am not.

I don't think PP accused you of being a fundamentalist. PP just called out the very common issue of posters like you asking questions about "religion" and then defining "religion" with specifically narrow Christian concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because:

The Heavens proclaim the Glory of God;
And the Earth proclaims his handiwork.
Day unto day sings out his presence;
And night unto night his praise.

Says who!

In this case, of course, King David, in Psalm 19.

But as prior posters have observed, the existence of a well-ordered universe points toward a creator.

Religion is a natural virtue. People are drawn to what is greater than themselves.

“God” is a name given to an essentially unknowable being marked by the ultimate degree of every virtue, power and perfection.

My own admittedly limited experience suggests that a significant percentage of people who reject the existence of a higher power do so because they’re attached to one or another behavior that they know is bad for them and/or others but don’t want to give up. That or they’re fighting with some conception of a deity that they blame for the perceived misconduct of that deity’s all-too-non-divine followers.

Why does a universe point to a creator?

And this universe is clearly not well ordered, unless you are a black hole, as stephen hawking said.

The arguments from observed nature are alluded to in prior posts and widely available if you’d like to find them. OP asked how “sensible, educated people” can be religious. The answers are probably as many as sensible, educated believers, but one answer is that the existence of a higher power can be known from nature. People are free to believe or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because:

The Heavens proclaim the Glory of God;
And the Earth proclaims his handiwork.
Day unto day sings out his presence;
And night unto night his praise.

Says who!

In this case, of course, King David, in Psalm 19.

But as prior posters have observed, the existence of a well-ordered universe points toward a creator.

Religion is a natural virtue. People are drawn to what is greater than themselves.

“God” is a name given to an essentially unknowable being marked by the ultimate degree of every virtue, power and perfection.

My own admittedly limited experience suggests that a significant percentage of people who reject the existence of a higher power do so because they’re attached to one or another behavior that they know is bad for them and/or others but don’t want to give up. That or they’re fighting with some conception of a deity that they blame for the perceived misconduct of that deity’s all-too-non-divine followers.

Why does a universe point to a creator?

And this universe is clearly not well ordered, unless you are a black hole, as stephen hawking said.

The arguments from observed nature are alluded to in prior posts and widely available if you’d like to find them. OP asked how “sensible, educated people” can be religious. The answers are probably as many as sensible, educated believers, but one answer is that the existence of a higher power can be known from nature. People are free to believe or not.

You can’t even answer one question directly related to your point.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because:

The Heavens proclaim the Glory of God;
And the Earth proclaims his handiwork.
Day unto day sings out his presence;
And night unto night his praise.

Says who!

In this case, of course, King David, in Psalm 19.

But as prior posters have observed, the existence of a well-ordered universe points toward a creator.

Religion is a natural virtue. People are drawn to what is greater than themselves.

“God” is a name given to an essentially unknowable being marked by the ultimate degree of every virtue, power and perfection.

My own admittedly limited experience suggests that a significant percentage of people who reject the existence of a higher power do so because they’re attached to one or another behavior that they know is bad for them and/or others but don’t want to give up. That or they’re fighting with some conception of a deity that they blame for the perceived misconduct of that deity’s all-too-non-divine followers.

Why does a universe point to a creator?

And this universe is clearly not well ordered, unless you are a black hole, as stephen hawking said.

The arguments from observed nature are alluded to in prior posts and widely available if you’d like to find them. OP asked how “sensible, educated people” can be religious. The answers are probably as many as sensible, educated believers, but one answer is that the existence of a higher power can be known from nature. People are free to believe or not.

You can’t even answer one question directly related to your point.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

Pp wants to believe and the society allows them to believe - even encourages it.

OP here and thanks to all who have posted so far. I think I have a satisfying answer.

It would be like asking "How can sensible, educated people be petty? or sexually deviant? or not be musically talented?"

Just because people are one thing, doesn't mean they can't be something else, that may seem contradictory, but is not, for them.

Some people really want to believe in the supernatural and their minds won't change, especially in a society which encourages them to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because most people, even highly educated ones, struggle with confronting the idea of death. Religion provides comforting stories that assuage those anxieties about our own mortality and the mortality of the ones we love.

For me, I find more comfort in the idea that there is no overarching meaning or plan or design than the thought that there is some megalomaniacal supernatural being demanding my worship or else I’ll be cast into hell.

But I understand needing the comfort of the stories. Life is hard and painful and completely unfair. It is also beautiful.

Yup. It’s a coping mechanism for people who struggle with uncertainty. Or guidance for people who struggle with right/wrong.