And that was a serious point. — Sapientia

Come off it!

It was a sneer.

We all make mis-steps like this from time to time, when we get riled by what others say. I know I do.

Just withdraw it and return to making logical arguments, as you generally do, and which are generally excellent.

Sure - it was just the phrasing which I was remarking on. They talk in terms of a relationship with the sacred, but that has a different connotation to what I took to be the sense of the phrase in the context of the OP. — Wayfarer

I don't see the difference between "a relationship with the sacred" and "direct access to God." What, do you think, that God is too busy to deal with us directly? Too much on his mind? Really busy today? He doesn't think we're important enough? Why would God do it any other way than directly?

Come off what? Yes, I could have made the point in a less provocative way, but since when has whether or not there's a point depended on that? Are you going to tell me that you don't think there's a point there, behind what I said? Can't you guys read between the lines a little? You don't have to dig very deep to find it. I will spell it out if need be.

In your arrogance, you've left out the most obvious reason people might believe in god - they have experienced the presence of God in their lives. I assume you've never experienced God. — T Clark

Okay, I'll try again by making the same point in a different way.

I agree that that's one of the most obvious reasons that someone might give for believing in God, but that's also one of the reasons that should least be taken seriously. Why? For the same reason that someone who believes in extraterrestrials should not be taken seriously, or someone who believes in ghosts should not be taken seriously, when they talk about the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their lives. I could elaborate if need be, but need I? Really? And if what you said involved wordplay which you think renders such analogies inappropriate, then I can play that word game too.

Furthermore, you speak of arrogance, but I think it's arrogant to treat belief in God as some kind of special exception which deserves special treatment. To be insulted by the kind of comparisons I've made seems to suggest pride. I make no apologies. If it besmirches your reputation, or the reputation of your God, then so be it.

I assume that you've never experienced the presence of God in your life, or extraterrestrials, or ghosts. Unless perhaps we mean by that something other than what one might expect - something more natural, more ordinary, less controversial...

Okay, I'll try again with a reiteration. I agree that that's one of the most obvious reasons that someone might give for believing in God, but that's also one of the reasons that should least be taken seriously. Why? For the same reason that someone who believes in extraterrestrials should not be taken seriously, or someone who believes in ghosts should not be taken seriously, when they talk about the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their lives. — Sapientia

I don't understand why it shouldn't be taken seriously. You and I both believe people's reports of what they experience every day. You're saying reports of personal experience with God are not to be taken seriously as evidence for God's existence because God doesn't exist and no one can experience something that doesn't exist. A very good example of begging the question.

Furthermore, you speak of arrogance, but I think it's arrogant to treat belief in God as some kind of special exception which deserves special treatment. To be insulted by the kind of comparisons I've made seems to suggest pride. I make no apologies. If it besmirches your reputation, or the reputation of your God, then so be it. — Sapientia

I am not insulted by what you said. I said what I meant - your statement didn't advance the argument. It was, as andrewk wrote, a sneer. I don't believe that belief in God deserves some kind of special treatment. The opposite, I think it deserves just as respectful a hearing as any other position. And - it's not my God. I am not a theist. I only believe people deserve to have their beliefs treated with respect.

I think most people believe in God because that idea satisfy diverse psychological and emotional needs and alleviates existential anxieties. I don`t think there can be a logical explanation for faith since ,in essence, faith is the suspension of logic and reasoning; beliefs are attempts to rationalize faith.

I don't understand why it shouldn't be taken seriously. You and I both believe people's reports of what they experience every day. — T Clark

I think you do understand why. Don't you think that there are important differences between the kind of things that people report? Don't you think that there's something important about the kind of reports that are more likely to be believed and those less likely to be believed? Don't you think that there are important differences between anecdotes (or "anecdotes") of the extraordinary, miraculous, fantastical, absurd, highly unlikely, implausible, incredible, on the one hand, and anecdotes of the antonyms of those terms on the other?

You're saying reports of personal experience with God are not to be taken seriously as evidence for God's existence because God doesn't exist and no one can experience something that doesn't exist. — T Clark

I challenge you to quote me saying that in this discussion.

I said what I meant - your statement didn't advance the argument. — T Clark

As did I - you failed to see the relevance.

It was, as andrewk wrote, a sneer. — T Clark

That remains, as I suggested, an irrelevancy. If I make a point in a sneering way, will I have made point? Yes or no? What's more relevant to the topic: my point or the tone of it?

(This isn't the first time you've had this problem, is it? How many more times?)

I don't believe that belief in God deserves some kind of special treatment. The opposite, I think it deserves just as respectful a hearing as any other position. And - it's not my God. I am not a theist. I only believe people deserve to have their beliefs treated with respect. — T Clark

Okay, that's consistent at least, but that doesn't make it right. There should be a certain level of respect, I agree. Respect, as it happens, can manifest in various ways. Respect can consist in frankness and staying on point. I think that if it's ridiculous, then it's fair game for a fair amount of ridicule, and that if it's incredible, then it deserves to be treated as such.

Are you going to tell me that you don't think there's a point there, behind what I said? — Sapientia

Yes.

Yes. — andrewk

Well, you're wrong, and if you can't see it, or refuse to see it, then that's that, I suppose. Unless you want to properly engage with it?

Happy to engage. What is your claim and its supporting argument?

Happy to engage. What is your claim and its supporting argument? — andrewk

My claim - and I maintain that this was quite apparent from the start, and in retrospect you might be able to see this - is that the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life.

My argument for that would consist in bringing attention to these commonalities. Let's take evidence. What evidence is there that someone has experienced the presence of God, as opposed to having had an experience and concluded that they experienced the presence of God? I would ask likewise with regards to extraterrestrials and with regards to ghosts.

Also if Jesus didn't exist or if he never claimed he was the son of God, than I'm pretty sure that would be a major flaw with Christianity. — dclements

I really do not think that Jesus ever claimed to be Son of God. To my knowledge, he referred to himself as Son of Man. There are two distinct claims involved here, that Jesus claimed to be Son of God, and that Jesus is Son of God. These two are part of a very complex issue surrounding his life, sacrifice, resurrection, and Christianity itself. It may well be a major flaw in Christianity, but Christianity was created by human beings, and this is just a reflection of the imperfection of human existence.

My claim - and I maintain that this was quite apparent from the start, and in retrospect you might be able to see this - is that the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life. — Sapientia

Extraterrestrials and ghosts are thought to be external entities, what if God shows His presence from within?

the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life.

Too vague. Different interpretations of the 'in ways' can lead to it meaning anything from simply that the claimant can speak a human language (claims are made in human language) at one extreme to that the claimant is an untrustworthy loon at the other.

Analogies are a marvellous tool to help somebody understand a difficult, non-controversial concept - like the balloon analogy in cosmology. They are hardly ever of use in debate - at least, not in rational debate (which, admittedly is a tiny proportion of the debate that goes on out there in the world).

You mention evidence. Whether evidence is appropriate depends on the context of the claim. If somebody knocks on my door and tells me I should believe them about their experience of God, and join their religion, then a demand for evidence is appropriate.

On the other hand, if I am conducting a survey, and approach someone to ask them whether they have experienced communication with God and they reply 'Yes', a demand for evidence is inappropriate.

I was taught/trained to believe in God. First parents and siblings, then the influence of Sunday school and church, and peers. By the age of 18 I had not come across anyone seriously urging me to cease believing in God, and I had not heard any sustained arguments against believing in God.

I did not believe in God as a way of meeting psychological needs, any more than saying the pledge of allegiance or learning the Minnesota state anthem met deep psychological needs. It was just something everybody did.

I was taught that I had direct access to God through prayer, and that God had direct access to me through omnipresence and omniscience. (Those words weren't used in Sunday school.) It was more like, "God knows what you are doing and thinking all the time" so there was no escape.

Also if Jesus didn't exist or if he never claimed he was the son of God, than I'm pretty sure that would be a major flaw with Christianity. — dclements

If Jesus had not existed, there would be no such thing as Christianity, never mind it having a flaw.

I am certain Jesus existed. Whether he was the Messiah, whether he performed miracles, whether he said he was the Son of God, I don't know and can not know with certainly.

Why not?

Paul is our first source (but Paul never met Jesus) and the Gospels (formed up and finished later than Paul) are the "authoritative" story of Jesus. There wouldn't have been a Jesus movement for Paul to first resist then join if Jesus had not existed.

What Paul learned about Jesus was apparently powerfully persuasive, and Paul did have access to people who knew Jesus first hand (like Peter and James). What people of Jesus' time experienced of Jesus must also have been persuasive, else there would have been no Jesus movement.

The Gospels were formed up and published by editors in the nascent church several decades after Jesus, the Disciples, Paul, and the first or second generation of witnesses had died. The editors were at a temporal and geographical distance from the time and place of the Gospel narrative. This nascent organization, the letters of Paul, and the pieces of text, oral tradition, and liturgical practice that existed are all testimony to the fact that Jesus had existed, and something remarkable happened in his person.

But what, exactly, happened -- we do not know, and short of Jesus coming to us and telling us all about it, we never will know.

My skeptical view of Jesus-as-God incarnate took quite a while to form up--becoming clearer when I was about 40 years old. From skepticism I settled into a frustrating on/off belief/disbelief pattern.

If now, 30 years since becoming skeptical, I feel a pull towards God, it is the need to resolve cognitive dissonance between the deeply held belief I once had and the skeptical-verging-on-or-being-disbelief position I hold now.

Extraterrestrials and ghosts are thought to be external entities, what if God shows His presence from within? — Metaphysician Undercover

That's ambiguous. What do you mean by that?

By one interpretation, which we could call the "supernatural" or "paranormal" interpretation, then why can't, as you seem to suggest, external entities, such as extraterrestrials and ghosts are thought to be, have the power to do that? There doesn't seem to be anything about extraterrestrials and ghosts,
qua external entities, that would preclude that. And, moreover, there seems to be greater reason to think that they might have such a power, if they do indeed exist, than virtually any known entity, whether human, sheep, fish, chimp, or other. Ghosts especially, come to think of it. Ever heard of possession?

By another interpretation, which we could call the "natural" or "deflationary" interpretation, I refer you back to my earlier comments:

And if what you said involved wordplay which you think renders such analogies inappropriate, then I can play that word game too.

[...]

I assume that you've never experienced the presence of God in your life, or extraterrestrials, or ghosts. Unless perhaps we mean by that something other than what one might expect - something more natural, more ordinary, less controversial... — Sapientia

My claim - and I maintain that this was quite apparent from the start, and in retrospect you might be able to see this - is that the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life. — Sapientia

It wouldn't be at all bizarre to claim one had experienced the presence of extraterrestrials, ghosts, spirits, devils, angels, or any other spooky phenomena IF one had been taught that these beings were real and that one could experience them.

Look, some people see in P.M. May and President Trump splendid, thoughtful, and effective leaders. I don't know why they do; it's probably the work of the devil. But whatever the cause, rational people can believe all sorts of things.

If my memory serves me right, you grew up without any significant religious education, and didn't feel any need to go out of your way to get any. Under those circumstances, it would make sense for you to not believe in God, and to be at least somewhat unsympathetic toward the idea of belief. What would be far more remarkable than your disbelief is for you to experience a spontaneous conversion. God could certainly arrange a bolt out of the blue and turn you into an ardent Jehovah's Witness or Southern Baptist, but hasn't seen fit to do so.

All our knowledge of anything is shown from within. It takes our experience.

The distinction made between "within" thoughts and feelings and "external" thoughts and felling doesn't make sense. Awareness of anything comes from us. In this respect, to be aware of God is no different than being aware of the computer screen in front of you-- one has an an experience, which comes form "within" (i.e. it is your existence) which shows a particular state or distinction.

Too vague. Different interpretations of the 'in ways' can lead to it meaning anything from simply that the claimant can speak a human language (claims are made in human language) at one extreme to that the claimant is an untrustworthy loon at the other. — andrewk

Too vague in and of itself, yes. But I didn't make that comment in isolation. I told you that my argument would consist in bringing attention to these ways, and I started by focussing on one.

Analogies are a marvellous tool to help somebody understand a difficult, non-controversial concept - like the balloon analogy in cosmology. They are hardly ever of use in debate - at least, not in rational debate (which, admittedly is a tiny proportion of the debate that goes on out there in the world). — andrewk

I disagree, but since you haven't elaborated, I won't either. Stating my disagreement will suffice at present.

You mention evidence. — andrewk

Yes, now we're getting somewhere... I hope.

Whether evidence is appropriate depends on the context of the claim. If somebody knocks on my door and tells me I should believe them about their experience of God, and join their religion, then a demand for evidence is appropriate.

On the other hand, if I am conducting a survey, and approach someone to ask them whether they have experienced communication with God and they reply 'Yes', a demand for evidence is inappropriate. — andrewk

That misses the point, which is not about in what kind of situations it would or would not be appropriate to demand evidence, but what kind of evidence could be provided.

Obviously, in any case, we're on philosophy forum, not a door step, and no one here is, as far as I'm aware, conducting a survey. The context makes it highly appropriate to talk about evidence.

The context makes it highly appropriate to talk about evidence. — Sapientia

What is it you want to say about evidence? We have this:

What evidence is there that someone has experienced the presence of God, as opposed to having had an experience and concluded that they experienced the presence of God?

to which the obvious answer is 'to somebody else - probably none, and so what?'

To the OP question 'why do people believe in God?', some made the reply 'because of their own internal experiences'. They have the evidence of their own senses, and nobody else does. The question of why they believe in God has been satisfactorily answered. It is only if Believer A seeks to persuade person B to adopt A's beliefs, on the basis of A's internal experiences, that the question of evidence has any relevance. Otherwise, it's off-topic.

It wouldn't be at all bizarre to claim one had experienced the presence of extraterrestrials, ghosts, spirits, devils, angels, or any other spooky phenomena IF one had been taught that these beings were real and that one could experience them.

Look, some people see in P.M. May and President Trump splendid, thoughtful, and effective leaders. I don't know why they do; it's probably the work of the devil. But whatever the cause, rational people can believe all sorts of things.

If my memory serves me right, you grew up without any significant religious education, and didn't feel any need to go out of your way to get any. Under those circumstances, it would make sense for you to not believe in God, and to be at least somewhat unsympathetic toward the idea of belief. What would be far more remarkable than your disbelief is for you to experience a spontaneous conversion. God could certainly arrange a bolt out of the blue and turn you into an ardent Jehovah's Witness or Southern Baptist, but hasn't seen fit to do so. — Bitter Crank

Granted. Was that meant as just a comment or as an argument against something I've said?

What is it you want to say about evidence? We have this:

"What evidence is there that someone has experienced the presence of God, as opposed to having had an experience and concluded that they experienced the presence of God?"

to which the obvious answer is 'to somebody else - probably none, and so what?' — andrewk

And how does that compare if you swap "God" with "extraterrestrials" or "ghosts"? That's what. That's my point. That point relates to a comment that was made in this discussion by someone else that I was replying to, which started a discussion in itself, between that person and I, and which you chimed in on, leading us to where we are now.

It also relates to my original comment, which relates to part of the opening post, and to what you've just been saying. To somebody else, you'll understandably be suspected of being "crazy". Not crazy as in "I'm a fried egg", but to a lesser degree, like the tin foil hat folk.

That's not off-topic. There's more to a discussion than the title of that discussion.

And how does that compare if you swap "God" with "extraterrestrials" — Sapientia

not very well at all.

Firstly, because aliens are claimed to manifest physically, it defies reasonable expectations based on our scientific knowledge to believe that such manifestations would occur without being observed by others. That consideration does not apply to communications from a deity which are reported as internal psychological events, observable only to the recipient.

Secondly, claims about having been abducted by aliens tend to be made by people that typically have limited education and intelligence, not occupying positions of significant responsibility or influence. In contrast there are many highly intelligent, high-functioning people in positions of social importance that appear to believe they have a relationship with a deity.

Granted. Was that meant as just a comment or as an argument against something I've said? — Sapientia

You had commented on belief in god(s) being like belief in extraterrestrials. "the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life."

I assume you meant that experiencing the presence of extraterrestrials or God was a bit nutty.

It could be nutty. Sometimes it is nutty. But IF one had been taught that it was the case from childhood up, it would be natural rather than nutty to claim that they were present in one's life.

Whether it's nutty or natural would depend on the content they put forward. Christians are suspicious of Christians who hear God making outlandish requests, or who seem overly involved in this presence. It's a different story if a Christian feels called upon by God to help someone out of a very bad situation. (But there are limits, here.) St. Francis deciding to lick the sores of lepers might have gone off the deep end. Similarly, one could think one received messages from extraterrestrials, and that would be OK, more or less, as long as what the ETs were saying wasn't too outlandish--like shoot the prime minister or something.

not very well at all.

Firstly, because aliens are claimed to manifest physically, it defies reasonable expectations based on our scientific knowledge to believe that such manifestations would occur without being observed by others. That consideration does not apply to communications from a deity which are reported as internal psychological events, observable only to the recipient. — andrewk

Based on our scientific knowledge, perhaps. But, of course, aliens could defy our scientific knowledge. That wouldn't be an unreasonable expectation. Who knows what aliens, if they're out there, are capable of?

Why wouldn't what you say apply in the latter case? You seem to be giving undue credit to how it's reported. I'm struggling to make sense of how communications from a deity could be nonphysical, purely internal, or observable only to the recipient.

Secondly, claims about having been abducted by aliens tend to be made by people that typically have limited education and intelligence, not occupying positions of significant responsibility or influence. In contrast there are many highly intelligent, high-functioning people in positions of social importance that appear to believe they have a relationship with a deity. — andrewk

I haven't spoke of claims about being abducted by aliens. I'm matching my wording with that of T Clarke's in the original quote.

I accept that point, but it's weak at best and irrelevant at worst. Crazy is crazy, now matter how you dress it up, how widespread it is, how prominent it is, and so on and so forth. Plenty of examples throughout history.

Crazy is crazy, now matter how you dress it up, how widespread it is, how prominent it is, and so on and so forth — Sapientia

What does that mean?

Are you saying that anybody that believes they have been in communication with god is 'crazy' (whatever that means)? If so, you're back in the hole created by your original sneer, and still digging.

I'm talking about 'logical' type reasoning for believing in 'God', if such a means even exists. — dclements

There are no purely deductive reasons to believe in God, or anything else, independently of premises which are not themselves logically derived (the premises are not entailments, in other words). Premises can never be derived from arguments which they support because that would be viciously circular. Premises should not be illogical (self-refuting) though.

I'm talking about 'logical' type reasoning for believing in 'God', if such a means even exists. — dclements

The three major religions are revelatory in nature. They weren't born out of deduction, rather, intuition seems to be it. Of course one could speculate that god could be an answer to ''who created this universe?'' It's only later, perhaps influenced by the Greeks, that logic had anything to do with religious beliefs. So, the point you're making can only be understood from a modern perspective.

That said, I think there's a bit of reasoning, as in logic, going on in religion e.g. miracles are/were offered as proof of the divine.

Anyways, my point is that many Christians who believe they have some direct access to 'God' are about as crazy as C.C Lewis said about someone who tried to claimed they where a fried egg — dclements

This is a judgment of ''craziness'' is based on our experience of the usual, mundane, run of the mill day to day existence AND the lack of experience in the spiritual. To assume the world is just what we can observe and understand is folly. To assume there's more to reality than just the physical is pure speculation. Only realize that a healthy skepticism is in order, even with well-established truths such as discovered through science.

You had commented on belief in god(s) being like belief in extraterrestrials. "the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life."

I assume you meant that experiencing the presence of extraterrestrials or God was a bit nutty.

It could be nutty. Sometimes it is nutty. But IF one had been taught that it was the case from childhood up, it would be natural rather than nutty to claim that they were present in one's life. — Bitter Crank

That looks like equivocation. The sense in which I'm saying it's nutty is not the sense in which you're saying it isn't nutty if such-and-such. Your sense is about the circumstances in which the belief is formed, whereas my sense is about the belief in relation to evidence. My sense assumes certain things as a prerequisite.

Premises are generally believed on the basis of what the believer considers to be evidence. What you think evidence consists in and what another thinks it consists in might be very different though. There are always presuppositions about what proper evidence consists in that underpin and are not supported by any so-called evidence.