Believing in God, But Not Literally

I've read through this thread and I think I understand that you are trying to figure out the psychology of faith.I think there is something here that I can add.Faith is not a once and for all surety. Faith constantly wavers in anyone who seriously engages with it.Faith is a process, not a position that you arrive at suddenly, and then after that you steadfastly believe--unless you are a thoughtless person.The believer will have days when he asks himself, "Why on earth should I believe that?"Not that I'm a believer. But I read about it.

Oh, sure. There are many things about which we waver in our beliefs. Does she love me or does she not? The same is true for any belief for which the evidence is shifting and subjective. Even in science, the belief can go up and down depending on evidence. You might say, what evidence is there for religious belief? Oh, all sorts of subjective and philosophic beliefs. I can talk about them if you like.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-04-2005 21:46 AM

This is the kind of comment that leads to me to think that a lot of the dismissal of religious belief that I've seen on this forum consists of setting up a strawman--a childlike belief or belief of a stupid person, and attacking that instead of discussing and criticizing what an educated religious belief consists of.It's like attacking science on the basis of a ten year old's explanation of science.There is "evidence" to encourage belief though not scientific evidence.And I don't think one can reply that we never make use of unscientific evidence in making up our minds about things in our life. We do it every day.Should I take this job?Should I marry this person?Should I do this, that, or the other?How do we make up out minds? We use common sense and feelings, and the shifting sands of circumstantial evidence of one sort or the other.Now why would a religious belief keep us ignorant? No reason that I can see. Why wouldn't an intelligent religious person want to learn as much as a non-religious person?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-05-2005 13:27 AM

This is exactly the sort of idea I am talking about when I say you don't understand anything about religious belief if you think that "faith" means believing something with no evidence.Nobody believes something with the knowledge that they have no evidence. They think they have evidence. They may be mistaken of course.This is the childlike version of religious belief that I was talking about. A 5 year old might "believe" with no evidence but no grown up would unless they are stupid or crazy.

If by "real evidence" you mean scientific evidence, there is none.If by "real evidence" you mean the non-scientific sort, I will do that but I am not going to waste my time on close-minded people who are just here to mock religious belief.

We do it all the time in our daily lives. We have to. That's all we got--non-scientific evidence.Somebody is offered a new job and he has to make a decision whether to leave his old job and take the new one. He examines all the "evidence" and makes a decision. Are you saying that this is an irrational procedure?

1.6, I'm talking about educated religious belief not a much of claptrap about virgin births and floods and the like.However, the concept of "sin" is something serious--and complicated.But I will tell you what "faith" means: it does not mean believing something with no evidence. What it means is maintaining one's open-mindedness about one's religious belief in the face of what appears to be contrary evidence.A mother loses her wonderful, promising child in a freak accident that is nobody's fault. She says to herself, quite reasonably, how could God do this? Either there is no God or he is a cruel being.When something traumatic happens, we tend to define the entire universe based on that traumatic event. Faith tells us not to do this--or at least to try not to. Look at the big picture. Do not define the universe by one incident, or one thought, or one feeling.

It is not so easy to distinguish between those who believe in the God-idea and those who believe in God.Religious belief is not just for the educated but for anybody. The uneducated may express themselves in a way that suggests that they only believe because they have been told to, but this may not accurately portray their true spiritual state.Religion is more about the integrity of your belief, rather than the belief itself. A doctrine may not be understood very well by a believer, and therefore it may come across in his statements as ridiculous to the educated.But there are many people who claim to be religious--if you ask them--who in fact are not religious at all. There never give it a moment's thought.

Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make about some of the negative criticism of religious belief I've been reading on this forum. They are criticizing a cartoon-version of religious beleif which is what they remember from their childhood, perhaps.I'll finish the thought later. Interruptions.

I'm not sure I'm qualified enough to talk about "adult religion" but perhaps I might start a new topic and give it a try. I'm somewhat educated on the subject. And maybe there are others who can help me out and make corrections when I screw up.And no, it's not about one's own view of God.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-05-2005 19:41 AM

The problem is the subject is too big.Perhaps somebody can suggest how to limit it, what to concentrate on.

That's true. Perhaps I flew off the handle. The remark about faith meaning believing something for which there is no evidence irritated me. If you are asking if belief in the "God-idea" corresponds to the cartoon version and belief in God corresponds to the adult version, I would say not necessarily. I'm referring to what I said above about education not being necessary for sincere religious belief.