Intellectuals on why they don't believe in God

[wolfgirl]

Okay...I can't speak for others, but "childishness" wasn't my reason.

You can speak for me, sling. Because this is exactly my position, too.

I'm not an atheist because believing in gods is childish. But because I am for various reasons an atheist, the belief in gods appears childish to me.

 

[slingblade]

You can speak for me, sling. Because this is exactly my position, too.

I'm not an atheist because believing in gods is childish. But because I am for various reasons an atheist, the belief in gods appears childish to me.

I found it rather startling, really, just how silly something once so very important to me had become.

But I don't mean my attitude about it now to reflect poorly on most believers. I'm not saying they're childish. At least in Christianity, the beliefs are so insidious, and the threats towards non-belief so worrisome, even frightening, that I often find it amazing anyone manages to discard them. And I find that sad.

 

[westprog]

On the contrary, science is based on facts. This is why there is no scientific evidence for the existence of Jesus.

There is no body, no bones & no DNA. And no one who actually heard or saw Jesus wrote about his experiences. The existence of Jesus would not stand up in any court of law.

However, a preacher in Judea named Jesus son of Joseph may have existed. But unfortunately, there is simply no hard evidence to prove it.

Did he call himself the Messiah & the Son of God? I doubt it. The late Grand-Rabbi of the Lubavitcher Hassidim never called himself the Messiah and yet tens of thousands of his followers today call him "Moshiach".

Now it's mixing up science and the law.

Most people who ever existed didn't leave body, bones or DNA. We don't therefore conclude that they didn't exist.

 

[RandFan]

Now it's mixing up science and the law.

Most people who ever existed didn't leave body, bones or DNA. We don't therefore conclude that they didn't exist.

But we don't insist Beowulf existed. We don't insist that Jason (of the Golden Fleece fame) existed. We don't insist that King Arthur existed.

This is the point you are missing. That many people in the past lived is no justification to demand that mythical figures lived. We need evidence.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

From New Statesman, includes Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, PZ Myers, Michael Shermer, Stephen Hawking and many others.

Some say that one reason not to believe in God is because the idea seems childish. I think that's a bad reason - there are other facts that are counter-intuitive (the theory of relativity for instance). If the faithies can provide some evidence for their deity, then I'm prepared to believe, however childish that deity may turn out to be.

A belief in God is to some degree “childish”. The patterns of development of morality and beliefs in such things as gods and for a society share a similar patterns of development of morality and beliefs in such things as gods for individual people. Very primitive societies exhibit religious beliefs and moral standards that are consistent with those of young children. As a society grows and becomes more complex, the moral and religious beliefs become more consistent with the types of moral and religious beliefs held by adults in that society. When society (or an individual) establishes a method of critical thinking, the religious beliefs become irrelevant (or at least are show to be made-up information, even if that information may be valuable). In this type of comparison, I would say that belief in God is at least “adolescent” rather than “childish”.

But I don’t think calling a belief in God “childish” is wrong. It is a belief in something that has no factual evidence and can’t be proven false. In that respect, it shares the same characteristic of such “childish” beliefs as the Easter Bunny, Teapots Orbiting Mars, Invisible Pink Unicorns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Those belief are supported by NO FACTS. If there ARE FACTS that can’t be explained, then even a counter-intuitive explanation such as the theory of relativity is on the table as a possible explanation.

And keep this in mind. Because it is important. The theory of relativity was created to explain certain know facts that could not be explained by any other verified theory. And the theory of relativity could be test to prove if it is true of false. The “theory of God” was created many years ago to explain certain know facts that could not be explained by any other theory at the time. The “theory of God” is not needed to explain any know facts. In fact, the “theory of God” has been proven to be wrong about many explains for facts that were replaced by better theories. It is also undefined (for any useful purpose) unless we can map exactly how the “theory of God” works. And the “theory of God” is un-testable.

So the theory of God is childish in a way that the theory of relativity is not.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I haven't read the whole article, rather skimmed through the first ones and I think the OP is misunderstanding.

Those who give impression of saying it's childish say it is their reason to question the whole god thing, not a reason to disbelieve it.

In other words, if your mother tells you to maintain your virginity to avoid STDs, that's one thing. If your mother tells you to maintain your virginity because some invisible creature who sacrficied himself for himself because some woman got an apple from a talking snake several millenia ago tells you because otherwise you'll never get to the magical fairyland in the afterlife because he is so powerful and cares about your sex life so much instead of actually helping out starving kids around the world...

Yeah... You should question that a bit more.

The childish thing is a reason to have doubt, not disbelieve entirely.

 

[westprog]

But we don't insist Beowulf existed. We don't insist that Jason (of the Golden Fleece fame) existed. We don't insist that King Arthur existed.

This is the point you are missing. That many people in the past lived is no justification to demand that mythical figures lived. We need evidence.

Maybe you do. The arguments to which I replied are, however, confused.

 

[Aepervius]

The descriptions of God from the faithful (disregarding the angry drunk and the cruel and abusive parts) sounds a lot like a very young child's belief of their own earthly parents (perfect, all knowing, etc). So yes, God beliefs are indeed 'childish'.

I would go one step further and say that there are good non-insulting reason why the sky-daddy is also soemtimes called santa-in-the-sky : santa figure which know who was good , who was bad, punish the bad one , and give "gift" to the good one, also hear your "prayer" and give you what "gift" you wish for.

 

[Jeff Corey]

This is why I do not consider the belief in God to be an irrational nor illogical one by most people on this Earth. We believe in ghosts, goblins, monsters and spirits as children. These beliefs are then converted and funneled into a belief in God by our parents. A belief is not irrational nor illogical if no amount of analysis and thinking went into the development of such beliefs.

Speak for yourself when you say most children believe in ghosts, etc, I didn;t. Nor Santa Claus, tooth fairy or other BS. My kids didn't either. When my neighbors kid told her the nuns at school said that when you trip and fall, it's because devils in the ground make you trip, my daughter (5) asked me if it was true. I said,"What do you think?"
"I think it's silly."
"Me, too."
Same for all those gods. Just silly. And harmful.

 

[Leumas]

Proof would make me literally believe God existed.

I still wouldn't worship the baby-raping ass*, though.

* Through inaction.

And by action too.....

He COMMANDED (I call that action) the Hebrews to kill all the Midianites (who by the way were the in-laws of Moses) and keep only virgin girls (I assume this includes baby girls) to rape as long as they felt like it.

Notice how the name of the Father In-Law changes

Exodus {18:1} When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father in law,

Numbers {10:29} And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Raguel the Midianite, Moses’ father in law,​

Now for the RAPE and RAPINE command


Numbers

{31:7} And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

{31:9} And the children of Israel took [all] the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

{31:14} And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, [with] the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

{31:17} Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.​

But now notice how a few centuries later the Exterminated Midianites get RESURRECTED...so it is not Jesus.

Judges{6:1}

And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years.​

 

[Craig B]

DevilsAdvocate

A belief in God is to some degree “childish”. The patterns of development of morality and beliefs in such things as gods and for a society share a similar patterns of development of morality and beliefs in such things as gods for individual people. Very primitive societies exhibit religious beliefs and moral standards that are consistent with those of young children.

Perhaps, but there are some god-believers who appear to have the minds of mature adults, and possess high intelligence. My wife, for example, who has a PhD and an MBA.

But what goes on inside her head? We are in Italy at present, and yesterday travelled to a tiny village which was holding a festival in honour of its patron saint - Philomena. And the priest solemnly went through the absurd hagiography concocted by crazed 19th century charlatans and lunatics about this non-existent 4th century figure, while the congregation attended to this pitiful rubbish with complete composure. For Philomena's biog, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philomena
http://www.philomena.org/patroness.asp
http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/philomena.htm
You wonder, are they all quite mad? I simply can't understand it. Ignorance can't account for it.

 

[Craig B]

I might add that the brass band, plates of polenta, sausage and free wine, and firework display provided by the villagers in honour of their patroness made up for the intellectual inadequacy of the drivelling priest, and made the visit worthwhile, physically if not spiritually.

 

[mutile]

I think that it could be viewed as a reason to question ones own belief in God, like Paul Ricoeur talked about with his school of suspicion, the whole God the father thing could be considered to be childish in a Freudian kind of way.

It may not be evidence that God does not exist, but when examining your own beliefs and motivations, there should be a suspicion that the belief may stem from the unconscious and the question of the real reason why you believe in God needs to be examined.

 

[Oystein]

I think you misunderstand me. I don't deny that the gods people believe in are childish. I just don't think that in itself should be the reason for rejection, the reason for it should be a lack of evidence. If the childish gods existed it would be counter-intuitive, but it would still be true. Just as the theory of relativity.

In all fairness, here is an article by the same guy on why some intellectuals believe in God.

Uhm - who is saying that the god's are childish?
I think the argument is that the reasons why people believe in gods are childish: They are arrived at not by the application of rationality and logic, but by the application of unquestioning faith, wishful thinking, and acceptance of things uttered by people higher up in the social order of the believers (such as parents, or any adults are for children, and clergy is for church members)

I guess those who say that god-belief is childish would argue that, if children were never exposed to any superstition until they grow to an age where they can reason for themselves, very few would ever be swayed as adults to adopt this or that religion. It seems to be something that must infect the mind of a child to survive and prosper. In that sense, faith is childish.

 

[paiute]

If all human knowledge was wiped out tomorrow, we would eventually rediscover that F=ma, but we would never find the God of Abraham again. Thus, the former is a persistent and the latter is ephemeral.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I think you misunderstand me. I don't deny that the gods people believe in are childish. I just don't think that in itself should be the reason for rejection, the reason for it should be a lack of evidence. If the childish gods existed it would be counter-intuitive, but it would still be true. Just as the theory of relativity.

In all fairness, here is an article by the same guy on why some intellectuals believe in God.


Quote:
Cherie Blair, barrister
It's been a journey from my upbringing to an understanding of something that my head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true.

Jeremy Vine, broadcaster
There is a subjective reason and an objective reason. The subjective reason is that I find consolation in my faith. The objective reason is that the story of the gospels has stood the test of time and Christ comes across as a totally captivating figure.

Professor Stephen R L Clark, philosopher
I believe in God because the alternatives are worse. Not believing in God would mean that we have no good reason to think that creatures such as us human beings (accidentally generated in a world without any overall purpose) have any capacity - still less any duty - to discover what the world is like.

Whilst I'm not sure I'd describe all of those as intellectuals anyway, their reasoning certainly isn't intelligent:

1. 'my heart knows to be true' - your heart doesn't 'know' anything, it's a large muscle that pumps blood around your body.

2. It's nice to believe and the story has been good enough to last - well let's all believe in the Aenid, The Odyssey etc then. Haven't they been around even longer?

3. Er, miss the point much? Because there's no sky-daddy to look after us and make it all ok, it is absolutely necessary for us to do these things to ensure our continued survival because we're the only ones who can do so.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I've always liked this quote:

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."

— Marcus Aurelius

I'm an agnostic who leans towards being a Deist, but at the end of the day...I don't really care one way if there's a god/force/flying spaghetti monster or not. I definitely don't believe in the God of the Abrahamic faiths, or in Heaven or Hell, so past that...meh, I'm just not really emotionally invested either way. If I could definitively find out that there was or was not a god or godlike force of some kind, I feel like I would be equally fine with either outcome.

My husband (who doesn't follow a particular religion, but does strongly believe that there is a God and does believe in some kind of afterlife/reincarnation) said something once about Bible-literalist fundamentalist Christianity that I really agree with. He said, "You know, I don't really care whether or not I'm wrong, just so long as they aren't right."

 

[Craig B]

Schrodingers Cat

Your Marcus Aurelius, with his agnostic moralism, closely resembles the Kalama Sutta, attributed to Buddha. See, particularly, ch. 17, at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html.

Of course, Buddha doesn't even trouble to imagine any gods, but merely asserts that the question whether or not there are rewards in a future life has nothing to do with personal morality here below.

 

[catscratch]

Yup.

Some say that one reason not to believe in God is because the idea seems childish.

Kinda has to be childish, doesn't it. What they are really against is becoming a child in the Hands of the Living God. Pride is a bar.

 

[hgc]

Kinda has to be childish, doesn't it. What they are really against is becoming a child in the Hands of the Living God. Pride is a bar.

Even His Hands get capitalized? Really, this is going too far. Next we'll be hearing about His Wet Bar and Jacuzzi.

Oh, that last one is supposed to be capitalized, even if it's mortal-owned.