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.

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.

Culture. Community. Peer pressure.

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 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 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.

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’ll have to ask the numerous scientists who attend my church. Maybe you are conflating fundamentalist Christians, who believe everything in the Bible is literal, with Christianity, which is a much broader tent.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP here -- thanks. This does somewhat explain how some intelligent people can be religious, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Even if people had our knowledge 2,000 years ago, maybe some of them still would have made up comforting stories and some of them would have believed the stories, just as they do today.

To the OP: as I’ve had religion do some very real damage in my life, I have been on a quest to truly understand to the best of my ability how good, kind, educated people can believe…sometimes in harmful ideas that damage others and humanity at large.
Although I find it somewhat ironic, science explains god belief 100%. It can ALL be explained through neuroscience and the study of psychology. Indoctrination into any belief or belief system is incredibly easy to do to humans that are programmed for survival. Religion answers questions that provoke fear and assuage those fears. It’s actually quite a simple premise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can an educated person look at the universe and think they know all there is to know? ?

Who thinks that? Not non-believers, for sure. It's the religious that think they have all the answers.

How can you not be humbled and realize what a tiny speck we are, tumbling through the universe on a very tiny rock, here for but a moment?

Who is not humbled by that? It is only the religious who think our tiny rock is the center of the universe and that there is something greater than the universe and we are his most important hobby.

And to realize there may be more to this world than what our five senses perceive, and maybe, just maybe, there’s something more to it all

What reason do you have to think there is? Why would you believe something without a reason or evidence?

+1. Not to mention I don’t believe it is in any way humble to believe that out of the thousands of “gods” that have been created or thought up and that millions of people have believed in, that you just so happen to have the right one, and that YOUR god is the only one that exists.

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.

OP here -- thanks. This does somewhat explain how some intelligent people can be religious, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Even if people had our knowledge 2,000 years ago, maybe some of them still would have made up comforting stories and some of them would have believed the stories, just as they do today.

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. Further, you are starting with a materialist premise that is nowhere proved; it is assumed. 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. 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. Who’s the “we” you are referring to? I submit that YOU necessarily take a lot of things on faith because you believe certain authorities are reliable. Is that not so?

Anonymous wrote:I'm a non believer myself but I find this rhetoric unhelpful and counter productive.

Because it's just like that John Mulaney skit "Who'd believe in a man in the sky?" "My mommy, that's who".

Yeah, my mom and dad do. Both highly educated people who raised me to think critically and love science. My Dad's a retired doctor who'd come back from shifts where he treated kids who'd received head injuries from abuse or violence. He's seen the worst of humanity and if belief in God got him through that I’m not going to oppose that.

Do I think this rherotic plays into the worst stereotypes of atheists such that I suspect this is trolling? You bet.

So what if your parents are highly educated? Hopefully you are not defending God belief just because your parents believe.

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.