Is It Logical To Believe In God?

Do skeptics, agnostics and atheists have anything in common with people of faith? The recent popularity of books on both sides shows many opinions but not much evidence of similarities. Theologian Michael Novak, author of No One Sees God, argues that believers and nonbelievers often share experiences, including times of doubt. Does doubt lead to disbelief? Does faith always involve leaving reason behind? In this Beliefnet Blogalogue, skeptic and journalist Heather MacDonald, takes on Michael Novak in a lively discussion. Join this conversation about faith and doubt, belief and reason, and whether there is common ground for believers and nonbelievers.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Jonahson]

From the imagination of the human minds since it's existence were created many kind god(s). Each trying to out do each other in being the all mighty. Of course the ultimate God encompass all that is mighty in all sense that the imagination come out with. The problem is, while it is not wrong to believe in your imagination, when you try to prove your imagination real.

[avicenna]

Is anything about our existence logical?

[lewes17266]

Unfortunately and sadly, those who believe are bilked and manipulated and sometimes even abused by self-serving pastors and millionaire famous holymen who have found a legal way to practice fraud, especially on Christian television.
Read my profile please.

[Upcoming]

People please open your eyes. We have to get past this very embarrassing stage of self deception and come to the understanding that we must rely on each other, not imaginary beings, for our own well-being, and if the environment changes very rapidly, for our survival as a species.

[Upcoming]

Imagine the position of an anthropologist from another planet. What would it observe about humans with regard to "god"? It would be extraordinary for the alien anthropologist to observe the successes of humanity based on observation and logic, coexisting with much of humanities professed certainty of the existence beings or entities that have never been, or even more bizarre, can't be observed intervening in our lives.

Even stranger that the very obvious fact of our divergent views of invisible/unknowable beings doesn't raise any doubt that these views might not reflect reality. I.e. why don't believers ask themselves, if the entity I imagine is real, why is it not real to so many others, and conversely, why are the entities others believe are real, not real to me?

That alien anthropologist would observe a profound dysfunction in our species. A willingness to hurt or even kill each other over our different unobserved entities. An enormous amount of effort and energy wasted on our collective obsession with imaginary beings. The absolute inability of our species to see itself as a species and act for the security and comfort of our species as a whole might be baffling. It might conclude that we are indeed one of the more clever apes on our planet, but with significant collective cognitive disorder, and therefore, not much more effectively evolved than our evolutionary cousins.

[Hirnlego]

Educated Catholics have sown dissent and confusion in the Church, claims bishop

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3464073/Educated-Catholics-have-sown-dissent-and-confusion-in-the-Church-claims-bishop.html

Yes, the article is no joke

[SneathLane]

Logic has nothing to do with faith, does it?

If there really was an all-powerful, all-knowing god, how hard would it be for it to just write one complete set of clear instructions, on indestructible paper, and hand it out to everyone at the same time? Given the claims of the faithful, this would be trivial for the creator of the universe, and it would settle all this messy religious argument.

Instead we have only religious texts written by humans who claim that the creator of the universe chose them to talk to, in private, away from other people. And those texts are so varied and so contradictory that everyone agrees this cannot have been true for all those claimants.

Atheists are waiting for someone to come up with objective, testable evidence that their god exists, and everyone else's gods don't. Because that's a huge problem for the religious. Some people claim that it's simple, there is only one God. But in the next breath they start to explain how the God they're talking about is different from the God their neighbor believes in.

There are millions of different definitions of who or what this entity is supposed to be - which of them, if any, is correct? Why can't the religiously oriented work this problem out among themselves before attacking those who do not believe in any of the gods? Why have their god or gods not settled this for them?

[sklfcats]

I would hate to be you if you don't.....

[hairball68]

it's not what you believe. it's how you believe it. i know lots of christians, for example, who are very spiritual and open-minded and try not to judge others. i know other christians who use their faith to condemn others and to make themselves feel superior.

[Yermammy]

There is no God. Unless you believe the Grand Mystery is God. Indian Larry had a question mark as his business moniker for a reason. No one knows. I'm OK with that. It's @ssholes trying to TELL me what it is that's annoying.

[Pacific231]

The entire question is wrong. The real question is whether one's beliefs about God results in harm to others. If there was no such thing as fundamentalism, theocrats or "moral McCarthyism" this discussion would be profoundly moot. Would for that to be the case!

[RaisingAwareness]

To me the idea of whether there is or not a god, higher being, higher power or whatever you want to call it comes down to one simple question...

Did this all happen by chance alone?


Below is a subject materialist scientists refuse to touch. I guess sometimes it's easier to avoid then to look at something head on.

The proof of reincarnation you've been asking for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
Part II::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5965wcH2Kx0&feature=related

[Hirnlego]

"materialist scientists" have touched it many times.
Again: Read Carl Sagan - Demon haunted world and Michael Shermer - Why do people believe in weird things?

[RaisingAwareness]

Actually Carl Sagan in the same book praised the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson who for decades did research on Reincarnation. Carl Sagan before he died said that Reincarnation should be studied further.

Michael Shermer is as close-minded as they get. Seriously, a UFO could hover 10 feet over his house for days-on-end and he'd still say it was a weather baloon.

Skepticism does not equal science. Research, validation and exploring new realms is what science is about.

[liberalissima]

Of the existence of any god or not, it is reasonable to be agnostic. To actually believe god exists is certainly illogical because believing in anything whatsoever without substantial evidence or proof is innately illogical. One could believe in the possibility, but to accept it as fact without such evidence is plainly illogical. Those, like myself, could also be considered illogical since we believe there is no such entity or animate force, period, without similar proof. What motivates me to be an atheist is that every conceivable aspect of nature, or reality, points to purely naturistic scientific realities. When one considers eternity, the ultimate question must be that since reality cannot come from abject, factual nothingness there cannot have been an absolute beginning to existence. Something must always have existed, no beginning! Then one can only decide for oneself was that forever force a god or 'nature'. As I mentioned, existence that is reality indicates to me there is only the likelyhood of natural forces and their evolution.

[woodcut]

Non-believers need to "come out" to family, friends, & co-workers...so everyone can say they know one.
But when people like Star Jones says she would never vote for an atheist, we know it's tough.
I've come out 3 times so far = gay, non-believer, vegetarian!

[JohnFromCensornati]

I hit the same trifecta, but I've got to tell you that Star Jones really didn't enter into the equation. LOL

[DosaHut]

More and more, seems like those who sy they believe in god are the ones who discriminate, promote racial, gender and religious hatred.

[MalloMel]

I'm not sure why that is, but that does seem to be true.

[hominidx]

There are more people who have religious beliefs than don't, therefore more who promote hatred are likely to be religious.

[MalloMel]

"There are more people who have religious beliefs than don't, therefore more who promote hatred are likely to be religious."

It would seem that they would be better than that. After all, wasn't Jesus?

[wondering]

The problem with agnosticism ...

Belief in god has three sources : 1) a vague "feeling" that "something else" is out there, 2) the human need to provide an answer (any answer) for the unexplained, 3) invented notions of god passed along through religion.

None of these sources stands up to scrutiny :

1) Superstition, racism, homophobia are all "feelings", yet not one of them validates their object. Human emotion is much too unreliable to provide a basis for belief in invisible men.

2) Using "god" as an explanation for the unexplained is just a way to insert an empty place-holder into the discussion until science can provide the correct answer.

3) Holy books, myths, church traditions - these are fictions invented by human beings. They may have originated as poetical ways to convey wisdom about the human condition, but (in the end) they are fairy tales. The Bible may as well have been penned by the Brothers Grimm.

So what's wrong with agnosticism? Well, a True Believer embraces the sources of the god notion listed above as valid. Atheists reject the notion of god because the sources are indefensible. The agnostic wants to claim that both positions are valid - but why? Which source is a valid reason to believe in god? Feelings, fear of the unknown, myths?

Come on, agnostics - defend the notion of god as being potentially valid. Which of the sources for the god-fiction works for you? Admit the truth - the emperor has no

[fumes]

agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[wondering]

But that doesn't answer the question - why reserve the right to decide on the existence question at all?

Are the two extremes (belief and unbelief) really equivalent? Saying that nothing can be known of the existence of god means that the agnostic accepts that one of the sources for the belief in god is somehow valid. Which one? Can you come up with any I left off the list?

Agnosticism is not a noble position - it is an abdication of one's right as a sentient human being to judge the worth of arguments and make a decision. It is the coward's way.

[DosaHut]

I think that people began the concept of god, to explain the uneplainable, such as how they got to be on Earth.

I also can't stand the fact that those who believe in god are so closed-minded that they cannot defend the notion of god being potentially invalid.

If there could be a god, then there could also not be a god. Both parties have to acknowledge the other - not just atheists accepting the possibility of god.

[wondering]

No. As an atheist, I do not have to acknowledge belief in god as potentially valid. Give me one good reason why I should? So that I do not hurt someone's feelings? As I pointed out, none of the sources of belief in god are worthy of consideration. Must I also acknowledge my 5-year-old's belief in Santa as potentially valid?

I think the true objection to opinionated atheists is a perceived stridency - "Ooh, those mean old atheists!" The objection does not arise because anyone actually thinks that atheism is equivalent to belief. Agnostics and True Believers are stunned by the audacity of the atheist : that they would actually dare to express their views. They think, "Don't believe in god? - Why you're just begging for a lightning bolt!"

[JohnFromCensornati]

It's all about the odds.

[wondering]

Don't tell me you buy Pascal's wager? You can do better than that!

[Dap]

Odd ? Without question.