Part IV, Why Believe in God?

by jst2laws 9 Replies latest jw friends

  • jst2laws
    jst2laws

    In preparing this section it got too long so I have decided to break it into two sections.

    WHY BELIEVE IN GOD, PART IV

    If you have read each of this series you have seen I am taking more of a scientific/philosophical look at belief in God or the lack of. I hope I have cast some doubt on the inappropriateness of using hyperbolic doubt to invalidated the existence of God. This scientific method has its place in the physical world of intangibles such as components of the atom, of organisms or makeup of the universe, especially with the use of the tool of modern mathematics. There are other intangibles, however, that cannot be proven by a mathematic formula such as love, sense of family responsibility, self esteem or lack there of.

    Another intangible is the existence of God. Mankind, even Bible writers, literalized our impression of God with words such as: Father, Son, a Thrown, a place He lives called Heaven. This may have helped early, or simple mankind, to relate to a superior Being but for the “enlightened” world it has lead many to believe we should be able to test God’s existence by the Cartesian method as if these things were literal.

    Because these images are not literal, we cannot test them by the scientific method. We will not PROVE there is a place called heaven because there is no literal, physical place. We will not discover an old bearded man sitting on a throne nor find angels with wings. These are only images created by men to convey a thought, a spiritual message.

    If we can dispense with the literal imaging and look instead for its purpose, a spiritual message, then we will no longer be looking for “proof” of existence or scientific evidence. What we will be left with is a spiritual CONCEPT, a BELIEF that is not of a literal nature and therefore cannot be tested by the tools of science.

    FINALLY, WHY BELIEVE IN A SPIRITUAL MESSAGE, OR GOD

    The following are illustrative.

    Monogamy: Why is monogamy generally accepted (I understand nearly one third of the world allows for polygamy, but how do you women feel about that)? From where did this belief come? Why do most of us believe in momogamy? To even consider taking on another partner makes many if not most squirm. It is a belief that just FEELS right. Then we can observe the affects of ignoring this feeling and we see evidence (though not prove) that our belief is valid.

    Responsibility to Children: Why do we feel a responsibility to family? Why do most feel we cannot spawn children and then walk away? One could say this is instinctive, not a belief. But even if this is so, what is an instinct, if not a sense of the way things should be, what is true and proper. If you want to say this is not a belief but it is programmed behavior, then you must prove this by the scientific method that such a literal program exists. Remember, the scientific method does not explain “values’ or “purpose”. (Part III)

    Just as most of us share these beliefs, or values, many of us share a belief in a superior spiritual world. Back to the God Spot! (Part I) As Abaddon expressed in Part I this could be something evolved to protect the species. But this cannot be “proven” by the scientific method anymore than God’s existence. Both explanations are simply CONFESSIONS – improvable beliefs.

    Along with the above examples of concepts in which we believe without requiring a scientific test of validity, I believe there is something spiritual greater them myself.

    WHY?

    1 I SENSE MY SPIRITUAL NEED

    I remember the story of the Russian scientist Dimitri Mendeleiv (father of the periodic chart) contemplating the relationship of the known elements of his time. He eventually realized there were relationships that could be grouped into families of elements. He, like many other seekers of the unproven, saw a harmony, a consistency that was beyond coincidence. He believed there was something there and published his beliefs only to receive the scorn of many of his contemporaries. He was, in just a few years, vindicated. However, those who believe in God cannot expect proof as did Mendeleiv. But many see enough evidence to believe there is something there, something as valid as our sense of monogamy and our care for our children.

    2 I LIKE THE SPIRITUAL MESSAGE

    We have been hurt by religion. Not just the WT society has hurt mankind but all religion, especially fundamentalist religion such as the WT and extreme Islam, if not by orthodox religion as well. I suspect the world would be better off with no organized religion. As pointed out many times on this board the slogan “Religion is a Snare and a Racket” is probably the only thing J. F. Rutherford got right.

    Another poster’s signature here was “Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship”. That is the message of the Bible. But a relationship with who, are what? Surely not the violent, jealous Jehovah of the Hebrew scriptures?

    So if not a religion but a relationship, with what spiritual entity is the relationship to be established? What spiritual ‘message’ is of any value to modern society?

    This will be addressed in the final part of this series soon to be posted.

    Jst2laws

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Hi Jst2laws: I have been greatly enjoying your series on this. Many of the excellent points and questins you raise match my own feelings. Thanks again.

  • SYN
    SYN

    Monogamy
    A quaint practise foisted upon most Westernised cultures of today by men of the past. Duh. "It just feels right" specifically because you like being a part of a Westernised culture.

    Responsibility to Children
    If our children die, the giant memes we carry inside every single cell of our bodies die. We are merely the vehicles of our DNA, their tools for staying alive. Keeping our children alive means the memes stay alive, too, which results in us having extremely powerful instincts geared towards protecting them.

    I SENSE MY SPIRITUAL NEED
    No, you sense your need to follow a pack leader. This is a common characteristic of many mammals, because packs of animals in general are more successful than non-pack animals in an evolutionary sense. Your forebrain filters this sensation into "I sense my spiritual need". Really, you have to follow SOMEBODY, it's just the way the human mind works. I'll reiterate a point I made in a post some time back, and that is that everyone follows SOMETHING or SOMEBODY. Some people just etherialize their follow-the-pack-leader instinct into something more abstract, is all. This is the starting point of religion.

    But it's more complex than that. Blended in with this natural follow-the-leader instinct, is the mind-meme, something which cannot exist but in the enlightened forebrains of human beings. Religion is a very primitive, but powerful, meme, and many people on this planet are infected by it (usually without knowing it). Like all memes, it reproduces, and struggles for survival. That is why so many people are so passionate about their religious beliefs. Trust me, the religion meme doesn't want to die any more than you do.

    But many see enough evidence to believe there is something there, something as valid as our sense of monogamy and our care for our children.
    LOL, so our evolutionary adaptions provide proof that our mental infections are in fact a heightened spiritual state! Tremendous!

    Religion is a Snare and a Racket
    It's far, far worse than THAT, baby!

    Surely not the violent, jealous Jehovah of the Hebrew scriptures?
    Isn't that exactly who you've been talking about in Parts 1, 2 & 3?

    "If men were like their personal ads, they wouldn't need personal ads."

  • SYN
    SYN

    Jst2Laws: I'm not attacking you personally, dude! But I can't ever let sleeping dogs lie, either....

    "If men were like their personal ads, they wouldn't need personal ads."

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Hello, Jst2laws

    I’m reading your series but will wait until the final installment of this first go-round before offering much in the way of observation. It’s good to see your moral compass shaping up, though. So many lose this upon the disappointment of realizing serious flaws of the WTS. For now I’ll comment on one thing that stood out to me like a sore thumb.

    You wrote:

      “We will not PROVE there is a place called heaven because there is no literal, physical place.”

    I’m not sure what should be classified as “literal, physical place” when it comes to whatever “heaven” is. All we can know about is what’s on the inside of outer space. We must assume there is something outside outer space because outer space was able to expand to what it is today, plus it’s still expanding. So what is outside of this? We may never know, or we might. Right now Hubble is gearing up to look to what we call the edge of space. What will we find? Then again, just because we look past the last visible matter only means we’ve looked past the last thing visible. It does not mean we’ve looked beyond outer space to what lay beyond it.

    My thinking is that our Creator must lie outside his creation. If true then outside of outer space is “heaven.” We know it’s there, we just cannot see it.

  • jst2laws
    jst2laws

    Syn,

    I'm not sure you are reading my posts or else you just do not understand. My wife says you are projecting your impressions into my posts rather than getting the point.

    No offense taken, but I have not said what seem to think I am saying.

    Jst2laws

  • Mazza
    Mazza

    J2, I saw your first post and wanted to read it but didn't have time - I was heading off overseas, which is where I am now. I would like to read all of your posts on this subject but the thought of going looking for them is a little daunting. Do you have your comments on email per chance? I would like to take my time to read your thoughtsand could do this if you emailed them to me. I'm a non believer, but try to listen to people I respect. I've noticed some of your other emails and always found you interesting. I'm on
    [email protected]

    if you can't - don't worry, Marilyn

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Hello, SYN

    You wrote:

      Responsibility to Children
      “…which results in us having extremely powerful instincts geared towards protecting them.”

    At least you admit the instinct exists to protect children, some refuse even that premise. Regardless of whether this is learned behavior or an instinct, the fact that we have it does no more to prove your assertion that it stems from our genes than it proves Jst2laws’ assertion that it is learned/gained from a higher source. Frankly, if I had to argue in favor of a Creator then I’d argue for instinct when it comes to protectionism and children rather than learned behavior when it comes to the argument Jst2laws is trying to make on this point, but it’s not my argument.

    If you were to argue against creation by a thinking Creator then I believe you’d have to argue this issue in terms of our genes leaving us with a trait rather than an instinct, but that’s not what you’ve done.

    You wrote:

      I SENSE MY SPIRITUAL NEED
      No, you sense your need to follow a pack leader. This is a common characteristic of many mammals, because packs of animals in general are more successful than non-pack animals in an evolutionary sense. ….

    Packs of animals “in general are more successful than non-pack animals”? Are you kidding us? Where is your evidence for that? And don’t forget to deal with this question in both directions (i.e., macro and micro). As it stands you leave your assertion without evidence that what people feel as a spiritual need is no more than a sense to follow a pack leader.

    You wrote:

      LOL, so our evolutionary adaptions provide proof that our mental infections are in fact a heightened spiritual state! Tremendous!

    Maybe this comment was intended to offset Jst2laws, since both are about equally true. Given the subject both there is as much merit in what Jst2laws has asserted as what you have. You two are using the exact same argument. Both of you are saying X + Y = A and the formula works for both of you because both of you are defining what X and Y is. This is circular reasoning.

    A much tougher argument to beat is one that says the following:

    We know life can beget life as we know it. We do not know that lifelessness can beget life as we know it. If we base our beliefs on what we know then we must believe that life as we know it was begotten by life.

  • jst2laws
    jst2laws

    Marvin,

      “We will not PROVE there is a place called heaven because there is no literal, physical place.”

    I'm not saying what the 'word' heaven represents does not exist. I suggesting it is not a place in the physical sense anymore than the "thrown" is a literal thrown. I feel there is very little separation from the physical universe and what we refer to as the spiritual world.
    I will try to explain:

    What we perceive to be matter is not really particles of STUFF. The components of atoms, as I understand it, are not little particle of matter but little bits of energy, or even energy potentials. I have read an atom's nucleus could be compared to a grapefruit and a few miles away would be the electrons about the size of a pea. While these energy potentials theoretically race around the nucleus what is in between is nothing, just space. So all matter is really some very small bits of organized energy in a great void of empty space. We only perceive this composition as matter because of the way other energies, such as light, interact with it and we detect it in our wonderful sensors, our eyes.

    With just that thought, what if God and all others in the spirit world (HEAVEN) are living creatures with spirit bodies that are similar, bits of organized energy but arranged in a manner that they do not amount to what we call matter, we do not detect with our eyes, ears or sense of touch. If that were to be true (leap) then heaven would not have to be a place inside or outside our physical universe, but could exist parallel with it. What ever the case I personally do not think of it a "place".

    Definitely not an issue to try and prove, just a thought.

    Jst2laws

  • flower
    flower

    Interesting points in this part jst2laws. I admit there are reasons why we could or should believe in God but my problem is with all the questions that arise when we do. Got any thoughts on that stuff?

    flower

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit