the belief that spiritual beings exist......

[momma4fun]

it all comes down to faith right?

i perceive that the main reason why most people believe that there is such thing as spiritual beings, whether it's god, an angel, a ghost, a fairy, an evil spirit, an individual's own soul, is that they like the idea that such beings exist and have faith in that.

i know some people have had extra-sensory experiences. i didn't really start this thread to hear those kinds of anecdotes.

[momma4fun]

woops, accidentally lost some of that.....

i believe that there is an underlying energy to everything.

i feel like that's even scientifically accurate, in that we know there's something bigger that we haven't discovered yet.

but i'm not sure i believe that the energy can take form without matter......

i think it would be super cool if there were such things as fairies and angels, or if i existed in a similar energetic form after my body dies.......

that would be a huge step for me. i feel like i'd just have to decide, i have faith in this because it makes me feel good.

it seems almost impossible for me to believe that not only does energy congregate into forms outside of matter, but that these forms are also part of a hierarchy............

[Sailor]

I do think it comes down to faith. What else?

Otherwise, if you have the facts and scientific proofs ... it's no longer a leap of faith. It's just ... well, fact. Isn't that the very definition of faith? That there are no real facts or mathematical proofs to back it up, and yet, against all odds, you believe.

I think that's why faith is difficult, requires trust, etc.

I'm not capable of faith, personally. I'm ridiculously, extremely scientific, and I need the facts lined up neatly in a row. And I need them in the area of religion before I believe in anything. Hence why I'm an atheist, lol.

[Kyyrah]

Well, OK.. either it comes down to faith OR to "supernatural" experiences. But you don't want to hear about peoples' experiences (which is understandable, after all, you need "faith" that those people are telling the truth, so there's still faith involved).

I guess if you've experienced it for yourself then you have "proof" for yourself (or else you think you're crazy, so I guess you STILL need faith that it really happened and wasn't just in your head).

I guess you do need faith, no matter how you twist it.

What's the quote... "Blessed are those who believe yet do not see"? I'm totally mangling that.

[momma4fun]

well, i've lost all faith in spiritual beings of any kind.....

it was sad for me to lose this faith, as the idea of it does appeal to me

i guess i started this thread as a shot in the dark, wondering if a believer could say something that would spark some truth in it for me, but i guess i don't think that's possible.........

[Bluegoat]

My question would be, what do you mean by faith?

There are lots of philosophical schools that claim that there are spiritual beings of some kind, including God, and that it can be shown to be true by reason. Even St Paul says that any two-bit pagan philosopher can reason his way to God. So I am not sure that all "belief" in spiritual beings requires faith.

Also, if someone has some mystical experience where they see god or angels or whatever, and they then believe in those beings, is that really faith? If I get abducted by aliens, it may be that I can't prove they exist to anyone else, but I sure know they do myself. (Anyone see the movie Contact with Jodi Foster?)

Maybe faith is when we believe someone we trust about something we don't know our selves. I would say that I have faith in black holes, for example. Or that the moon isn't made of cheese.

The word faith, in religion, used to be used differently than it is now, more the way we would use "faithfulness."

[momma4fun]

what i mean by faith is: trust and belief in things you can't see or prove

and yes, taking upon yourself the beliefs of someone you trust would be the same idea to me

i don't believe that reason or logic on it's own can prove god

[Smokering]

Isn't that the very definition of faith? That there are no real facts or mathematical proofs to back it up, and yet, against all odds, you believe.

That's certainly not the Christian definition of faith, just for the record. Nor is:

i have faith in this because it makes me feel good.

momma4fun, I think believing in something because it makes you feel good is rather... unwise. Belief should not be a random decision based on feelings; it ought to correspond to reality. If you have cancer it may make you feel better to believe the cure rate is 70%, but if it's only 3% you're doing yourself a disservice. For anything that matters, belief must be rational. Of course, you can exclude the spiritual/paranormal from 'anything that matters', but that presupposes a particular view of the supernatural. If you believe in, say, the Christian God, it does matter, because your relationship with Him will affect your eternal destiny rather dramatically. If you believe in, say, guardian angels which interact only very occasionally with mankind, it probably won't 'matter' to the same extent (depending on your beliefs about where said angels came from, who they are and so on). You can certainly choose to believe in a less ontologically relevant supernatural world, but then the question arises, on what basis did you make that decision? Now you can (as in, it's a free country) simply declare that you choose to believe in X for no reason other than that it makes you happy, and avoid all philosophical debates from then on. But if truth is an important factor in your spiritual beliefs, you will need something more solid to go on. I agree with you that empirical proof is not a necessary component of justified belief (and under today's model of empiricism, which is naturalistic, it would be impossible to prove a supernatural phenomena in any case), but that doesn't follow that no proof is necessary. Logic 'on it's own' can't prove God, the absence of God or indeed, anything at all; but logic applied to metaphysics can draw some interesting conclusions, which you might like to explore.

[Kyyrah]

I would just like to jump in and say that sometimes, faith brings a different sort of happiness. A sort of spiritual peace. I don't really have words to describe what I mean. But if faith brings you deep peace and joy and you feel it is "right" then I think that's an important factor.

Also, I would say that your belief that the Christian God is somehow more relevant than belief in, say, totem animals... I'm not sure I agree. To someone with faith in them, they could very well affect the individual every day, and potentially beyond death as well. I know I'm not putting that well, but suffice to say that I don't see how the Christian God is somehow more relevant than other.. entities.

:

[Smokering]

Kyyrah: I wasn't meaning to imply that belief in the Christian God is necessarily more relevant than belief in other entities at all. It all depends on the entities (and I don't know much at all about totem animals, so can't comment on that one). Certain belief systems will affect different areas of your life more than others. Belief, say, in the Loch Ness Monster isn't likely to affect your day-to-day life all that much. A few people who believe might study the subject or take a trip, but most will carry on as normal. Belief in a God who requires you to dress a certain way will affect you more noticeably; belief in a spirit who wants you to sacrifice your infant daughter, more noticeably yet. If you believe that disobeying the commands of a deity will land you in hell, you're likely to take those commands quite seriously; if you believe in a deity who created the world, but does not intervene or help or pass judgement, your behavior will reflect that belief.

Or, to put it personally: I believe in Pluto, but if I found it didn't exist it would have very little effect on my life. I also believe in my husband, and if I found he didn't exist it would have a much more devastating effect on me! Because my behavior and life are very bound up in believing he exists, believing certain things about him, and acting accordingly.

Does that make any more sense?

[Sailor]

I've never seen a logical proof in terms of God. I've never seen any logical/scientific/biological/etc. evidence for it.

The Bible is not evidence for me. It's anecdote. Neither are any relics that the Vatican claims are originals. They've never let anyone outside of the Church study them. Nor do I think miracles are proof - especially the type where people see Mary or other Saints. Once again, the Vatican has almost 100% control of the studies of those. Same goes for all other religions - I've never seen proof.

Part of the reason is that science does not prove non-existance. So, if you can't see it, feel it, touch it, or study it under a microscope or via other equipment ... in science, it doesn't exist. And science simply does not prove that something doesn't exist. That would be illogical. The burden of proof always lies in those who believe it does exist.

And, while I have read of people trying to do this. I've never come across any real, valid proof. Usually it takes the form of philosophical discussion and logical discourse. Unfortunately, it's not very convincing to my mind.

Which is why, to me, faith is something one holds against all odds. It's a leap of trust, or courage - however way you'd like to look at it.

If you had the facts of God's existence, there would be ZERO need for faith. You'd simply KNOW.

By the way - I have absolutely nothing against religion. I'm merely stating why I, personally, do not see the proof, and why I'm just not capable of that leap in faith. In anything - not just religion. I don't even have faith in my partner. I KNOW, based on facts and precedent, who he is and why I trust him. I can even write it up mathematically.

Incidentally, I think we're discussing two different things here. Belief and faith are two different things - they're not two words meaning the same thing. At least, in philosophy they're different. I don't know about the "pop culture" meaning.

[Smokering]

I've never seen a logical proof in terms of God... [snip] I've never come across any real, valid proof. Usually it takes the form of philosophical discussion and logical discourse. Unfortunately, it's not very convincing to my mind.

Do you mean you've found each individual argument (such as the argument from reason) logically invalid, or just that you find philosophical discussion as a whole unconvincing?

Part of the reason is that science does not prove non-existance. So, if you can't see it, feel it, touch it, or study it under a microscope or via other equipment ... in science, it doesn't exist. And science simply does not prove that something doesn't exist. That would be illogical. The burden of proof always lies in those who believe it does exist.

Which is pretty much what I said; that modern science is inherently naturalistic, and that it therefore has an official 'no comment' on non-naturalistic phenomena. Even if cosmologists discovered that the galaxies spelled out 'Made By Allah', they would not be able to suggest that this was proof of Allah's extence without stepping outside their own discipline. To be 'scientific' they would have to propose a naturalistic expanation, such as random chance.

That said, technically science can't prove anything does exist either, including the very naturalistic phenomena it claims to study. So there you go. Ultimately there's no getting away from philosophy!

Which is why, to me, faith is something one holds against all odds. It's a leap of trust, or courage - however way you'd like to look at it.

That's the post-Kierkegaard definition, and it's fine if you hold it for you, as long as you realise that when others say 'faith' they may mean something else. It's not the biblical definition of faith, which is basically perfect trust based on rational evidence. When Paul preached the Gospel he didn't say "Take a chance and believe" or "Have faith because it'll make you feel good". He convinced people that Jesus was the Christ by using Scriptural prophecies, and referenced eyewitnesses to the post-resurrrection appearances of Jesus (as indeed Jesus himself used forensic proof to convince Thomas it was really him). In fact, Paul went so far as to admit that the Christian faith would be a lie if it could be proven Jesus had not been raised from the dead. Obviously you don't accept Scriptural testimony, but within Scriptural testimony the definition of faith is very much based on evidence, whether revealed or forensic or philosophical. To paraphrase you, Paul knew based on facts and precedent why he trusted God, and he called that knowledge faith. Not sure if he could have written it mathematically, though.

Incidentally, I think we're discussing two different things here. Belief and faith are two different things - they're not two words meaning the same thing. At least, in philosophy they're different. I don't know about the "pop culture" meaning.

Fair enough! 'Faith' has shades of meaning throughout the Bible, and the Biblical definition is neither the pop culture meaning nor the philosophical one, so there you go. In this context I'd use 'belief' and 'faith' interchangeably, but not in all contexts.

[Bekka]

How do explain scientifically the existence of some things? There are some things that it is nearly impossible to measure (speed of light?) directly, and yet they are accepted as part of physical law. I don't know any way to measure the existence of anti-particles, yet they are accepted. I cannot go far in this particular discussion; dh is the physicist at my house.

I just wonder how a person who accepts scientific "law" as their "evidence" explains these kinds of things?

[Sailor]

Well, in my case, I could show you the formula for calculating the speed of light. I could also show you a heck of a lot of research, studies, and observation into the case of anti-particles. Scientists didn't one day sit down and say, hey, I have an idea, let's pretend there are anti-particles - they stumbled across their discovery via observation and calculation.

I can't, however, give a formula for calculating God. Or the formula for the existence of God. Nor can I see God, the way I can see light. Nor can I conduct experiments with God, the way I can with matter and particles and even waves.

Ergo, when I can't see something, when I can't experiment on something, when I can't calculate something mathematically, when a microscope and any and all lab equipment does not help me to see it or compute it ... for me, it does not exist.

Smokering - re: philosophical discussion - I've read several (definitely not all) treatises on the existence of God, both from the "secular" point of view and from priests. While I can follow their arguments, and logical analysis, personally, it is not convincing to me.

I enjoy philosophy and logical discourse a lot, and find a lot of value in it. From all types of people - I don't discriminate. Of course, I am a total bookworm.

But, in the end, out of all the logical analyses, the one by Richard Dawkins has always made the most sense to me and has always rang as true. For me personally.

In the end, I think a totally objective analysis on the existence of God is impossible. Simply because we are a part of this life, and it is very difficult to be both subject and observer. That's probably true for everything, though some things are fairly certain, i.e. gravity - if I walk off this cliff, I WILL fall.

I don't think there is anything such as a 100% atheist. I'm at 99%, thinking it's the best theory out of all available theories, but if a new theory crops up - I am open to it. Others think differently, obviously. I guess we all find out in the end, though.

I'm curious, though, about your science comment. What did you mean by science, technically, doesn't prove something exists?

[Collinsky]

interesting topic! I do think it is a matter of faith. Because our beliefs color our perceptions - so three people with different underlying understandings could see the same strange vision and come to completely different conclusions about what happened. One might think that a miracle had occurred, another might assume that it was a physical phenomena that could be explained if one had all the information, another might think they were just hallucinating and seek medical attention. (And it seems that whatever the majority of the group believes tends to be contagious - whether that is "it's a miracle!" or "it's aliens!" or "i bet we were exposed to radon")

I personally believe that there is a very real spiritual dimension which isn't really understandable by us, and we envision that as ghosts, spirits, angels, fairies, gods and goddesses. It helps us to connect with that spiritual realm, with the Divine that can't be perceived. It's almost like a lens that we look through to help us make sense of that which we can't see rightly. I very much believe in God. I personally don't believe in the objective existence of angels or fairies, but neither do I believe they aren't real. For some people they are a way of connecting with that which is not of the material world, a tool to achieve that union and understanding.

But yeah, a matter of faith. We can look at the facts that are available to us, but the spiritual world can not be quantified. There are some that believe that quantum physics in many ways hints that there is "something" beyond the material world that we perceive, but that's controversial, and is totally dependent on the way the information is taken and applied. So that also - at least until science does come up with that information - is a matter of faith. Assuming that particles blinking in and out of existence means that there is a whole different reality than we can perceive is a faith in that sort of thing.

I'm thinking that I've been using faith and belief interchangeably. I think I'm actually being inaccurate when I do that. Perhaps "faith" is a right-brained, emotional, intuitive, instinctive, gut-heart thing, with "belief" being the left-brained, logical, intellectual, mind component. Two kinds of knowing. Just some random thoughts....

[Smokering]

Ergo, when I can't see something, when I can't experiment on something, when I can't calculate something mathematically, when a microscope and any and all lab equipment does not help me to see it or compute it ... for me, it does not exist.

So logic doesn't exist? Numerals? Concepts? Those can't be empirically verified.

I'm curious, though, about your science comment. What did you mean by science, technically, doesn't prove something exists?

Science assumes the material world exists (on the grounds that it seems to, and if it doesn't, there's no point studying it). Pragmatically that's fine; philosophically, not so much. It's a logical leap from "I perceive an external world" to "that external world exists", let alone "that external world exists as I perceive it", and so on. Ontology is a branch of philosophy, not science; so science can never prove something either does or doesn't exist.

[skreader]

For some people, the belief that spiritual beings exists comes from faith - they heard about it or read about it & believed.

For others, the belief that spiritual beings/energies/ reality exist comes from experience - they have had "visions" or other experiences where they have met, saw, listened to, or otherwise experienced spiritual beings or spiritual realms. One name for these type of people is "mystics".

The practice of working to attain such experiences is called sometimes called Mysticism.

Wikipedia has a fairly decent run-down on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

[Sailor]

Originally Posted by Smokering

So logic doesn't exist? Numerals? Concepts? Those can't be empirically verified.

Well, in the case of logic - reasoning skills are built into the brain. That's the defense humans got, as opposed to claws or fangs. We got reason, in order to figure things out conceptually. I use logic, daily, to learn about reality. For instance, the most basic of reasoning facilities, i.e. I touch a hot stove and get burned. My brain sends out the pain signals, and then my brain makes the connection - "ok, so I shouldn't touch the stove when it's on."

As we grow, our logic becomes more advanced, capable of handling higher concepts.

The other concepts you mention are human inventions. Numbers, as in the actual number one or two, etc., does not exist in physical reality.

A long time ago, we had a large amount of rocks - it was much simpler to create a numerical system in order to keep track of them. (I don't know how the first caveman decided to use the equivalent of numbers, but I imagine it was something like that.) Mathematics isn't unknown to the most primitive of tribes, after all. It's a neat tool with which to order the world.

Same with words/language. The actual word has no presence in reality. The word "chair" doesn't exist. The object we've named a chair exists. But, the actual word for it is our own construct, present in our minds.

Now, one can argue that spiritual beings are also tools or constructs of the human mind. And, in that way, they are real. Just as words are real to us.

I forget which psychologist this was - I want to say Jung, but I'd have to check to be sure. He believed religion was a consequence of the trauma of self consciousness. When humans first became aware of their self, separate from others, and thus aware of death, it was a very traumatic experience. And, to cope with that, religion was the construct humans invented.

But, I don't think religion or God or spiritual beings is an invented construct to most people. It's very real to them, as the earth is very real to me.

Now, just to write my disclaimer - because I don't want to offend anyone! I'm just speaking about my own experience and my own personal analysis. In no way do I want to convince anyone that my way is "right". I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" here. The belief or disbelief in God is VERY subjective. I'm just explaining my own reasoning, and how I came to think atheism was the best theory for me, personally.

I'm a fan of that Zen metaphor, which I talk about all the time, lol - there are multiple paths up the same mountain, to the same Truth. I happen to find mine in science, others in religion. And I fully respect that!

[Smokering]

Actually post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy, but OK. You haven't answered my question, though. Science can posit a method by which logic evolved, but that doesn't alter the fact that the concept of logic exists, a concept which is not physical or empirical. "A cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense" can't be poked or prodded, measured or examined; yet the law of non-contradiction exists. Similarly numbers, even though they don't 'physically' exist in reality, certainly conceptually exist; again, positing the manner in which we developed the concept is irrelevant. You also bring up some other conceptual entities on your own, namely minds and truth (reified truth, even); again, neither of these are reducible to physical phenomena. As regards the origin of belief in God, aside from merely being speculation it commits the genetic fallacy.

there are multiple paths up the same mountain, to the same Truth. I happen to find mine in science, others in religion.

Since science and religion aren't aiming for the same truth, I'm not sure how this makes sense. What do you mean? If you believe in an objective Truth, doesn't that violate your commitment to recognising only the reality of empirically verifiable phenomena?

[Sailor]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Actually post hoc ergo propter hoc is an informal fallacy, but OK. You haven't answered my question, though. Science can posit a method by which logic evolved, but that doesn't alter the fact that the concept of logic exists, a concept which is not physical or empirical.

I guess that depends on how you understand logic. I see it as a byproduct of the natural processes in my brain. Neurology is mapping the brain. They can show you where your emotions are, where your analytical part is, what your brain does when on drugs, what your brain does when in love, what chemicals are active and when, the paths of your synapses, etc. And while we still have a LONG way to go in understanding the human mind, I think, given time, we'll figure it out eventually.

If we have brains that think, reason, feel, then this is evidence, for me at least, that logic is a product of my mind. And since the mind is a physical thing which can be measured, mapped, etc., by extension emotions, logic, thoughts, etc., are also real/valid. They're not appearing out of nowhere - they're coming from a physical object in my skull.

I mentioned the development of numbers and words to show that I don't think they (as in the actual word or number) exist in reality, which was the answer to your question. I agree that numbers exist conceptually, in our minds. But, I also never said God didn't exist conceptually, in our minds.

The trick, for me, is going from concept to reality. And I just don't see God existing in reality. He/She is not like a number I can easily write down, and then compute. Or that I can use to calculate my budget. Or use in other useful ways. How would I even translate the concept of God to reality the way I can translate the concept of words and numbers?

For me, as an atheist, the concept of "God" has just come to mean "Truth." In the sense of the final answer to everything about life, about what we've wondered about. But, as a being who created me or who watches over me - that concept doesn't translate into reality for me.

For believers, (I assume) that concept is something else entirely. Though, I suppose, it can be also supreme truth/wisdom/knowledge as in most traditions he/she is omniscient.

Since science and religion aren't aiming for the same truth, I'm not sure how this makes sense. What do you mean? If you believe in an objective Truth, doesn't that violate your commitment to recognising only the reality of empirically verifiable phenomena?

By "truth" I mean humans are searching and have been searching for the same answers since forever. Why am I here? What is the purpose to my life? How did I get here? Where are we (as humans) going? Does God exist? Are we alone in the universe? What is the meaning of life? What constitutes ethics? Etc. I think both believers and non-believers have some of the same questions. I certainly do. I have a great time pondering these questions, exploring life's mysteries, etc.

I meant it in that sense - that we're going through this life, contemplating these same questions, and via our various belief systems/methods trying to figure out which answers fit best. I didn't mean we'd all find what we're expecting on that mountaintop. We'll fine one answer, but it might not be what we conjectured. But, while we're here, in our own ways, we're after the Truth. And I don't see any of the paths as invalid or wrong. I see it as we're all living, at the bottom line, "I don't know" and just making the best of it. Though, I understand others even view that differently!

Eventually we'll all find out the answer - either in death (or not if we simply cease to be, but then we won't worry about it any more) or via the progression of research in the next few millenniums or the second (or first, depending on one's religion) coming of Christ or some other divine incarnation of another religion.

Anyway, I didn't want to get this off topic to the original question. So, I'll just agree to disagree on the concept of God, faith, religion. And, why do I always have to write a novel in my responses?! lol I enjoyed the discussion, at any rate.