Believing in God, But Not Literally

I'm not sure if anyone has read "God's Debris: A Thought Experiment", by Scott Adams (the author of the Dilbert cartoons). In it, one of the characters (it's a fictional book) makes the claim that even though most people claim to believe in God, deep down they really do not. He claims that they don't act the way someone should (or would have to) act if they truly believed in the existence of an all-powerful, supernatural being. If the belief was true deep-down to their core, then their lives should be much more focused on fulfilling the wishes of God and trying to live their lives in accordance. His claim is people say they believe because they enjoy the practical benefits of doing so (comfort, emotional support, etc.). He uses the analogy of believing in a truck that is speeding towards you. Saying you believe in the truck is one thing, but if it truly does not scare you to the point of getting out of the way, then you don't really believe in what it is and what it could do to you.I think this would be an interesting topic to discuss. Note that I don't want to discuss whether God actually exists or not, but rather the question of whether everyone that claims to believe in God *truly believes*. I'm sure a small percentage of them actually do, with everything that encompasses. But perhaps others only believe symbolically, while others may believe in an actual God but one that differs from the traditional view. The second part of this would be to analyze why this phenomenon occurs in the first place.

Here's something else that goes along the same lines. Many people say they believe in God. But if someone claims that God speaks to them, most people (even some devout Christians) have the initial gut-reaction that that person is crazy. So if someone truly believes in God, why does it sound crazy that he talks to people? It seems to be another example of believing in God symbolically, but not truly believing when faced with an actual reality. Does that make sense? Any comments on that?

But that's kind of what I mean...it seems to me that it wouldn't seem odd, even at first, to someone that deeply believed. I mean, what should seem so out of place? If I believe in God, and believe he has spoken to people in the past (according to the Bible), then why would I think it strange if he also spoke to some guy I just met? If I believe that my wife exists, it wouldn't seem odd to me that she speaks to me. If I believe that my dog exists, it doesn't seem odd when she barks. Granted, this is just my opinion and obviously not a hard-fact that applies to everybody. But does anyone at least get why it seems kind of strange to me?

I agree it's more what you do and not what you say. But what about the people that say they believe but don't act accordingly? I don't think they're all evil, nor are they all too stupid to understand the consequences of acting the way they do. So what does that really leave? Does it make sense to say that they must not really believe as much as they say they do, as the character in the book implies?

jar, I guess I should clarify my question. When I asked "But what about the people that say they believe but don't act accordingly?", I didn't mean judge or ask whether they were "good" or "bad". I personally don't think that a belief vs. non-belief in God determines whether one is good or not, nor do I think that being religious has anything to do with it.I'm interested more in the psychology of the human mind as to why someone thinks they believe something that they really don't, or thinks they believe it more than they actually do. This phenomenon has nothing to do with whether a person is good or bad, nor is it even a purely Christian phenomenon. I just think that if a purely symbolic belief still helps someone get through life, what is the harm in them admitting that their belief is symbolic rather than actual?

Perhaps it isn't you, but more that I'm having trouble explaining it. Let me try again...It is when one is convinced that they believe, but don't really act like they do. And I don't mean that as acting in a moral vs. immoral manner, but just acting in a way inconsistent with how someone would HAVE to act if they believed.The truck example is the simplest explanation I've heard (although admittedly, maybe not the best one). If someone stands in front of a speeding truck and says he believes the truck exists and believes that it is capable of hurting him, yet he doesn't seem concerned about moving out of the way, I would call that a symbolic belief in the truck vs. an actual belief in the truck. Of course, this would be assuming he doesn't have a death wish or something. The point is not that he wants to die, but that he doesn't act in a manner consistent with someone who doesn't want to die.I see this behavior in many people I know. They say they believe in an all-powerful God that has told them (through the Bible or whatever other means they personally believe) how to lead their lives, etc. Yet when they don't follow those rules they really don't seem to be too concerned or they attempt to justify their actions. Again, I want to emphasize once more that I don't necessarily think these people are being bad or immoral, just inconsistent. Because sometimes their justifications are valid. But if you take a criminal that knowingly breaks the law, whether they justify their actions or not, they still try to run from the police. They run, hide, and do whatever they can to get away because they know that they did something they shouldn't have done. But I don't see that same tendency in some people when it comes to God. If they believe that someone all-powerful told them to do something and they don't do it, how can they not even be concerned? To me it seems almost as if many people believe in the CONCEPT of God and use it as a guide to try and keep themselves on the right path in life, but don't actually believe in God as real being that will react to what they have just done. Therefore, when circumstances necessitate they do something contrary to what they believe God said to do, they aren't truly as concerned because they are only deviating from conceptual construct they set up for themselves. And all of that is just fine if it helps them in their lives. But I'm curious, why not just admit that it is a different type of belief?

I'm not presuposing that God is a created symbol for everyone, because some people do truly believe - not just symbolicaly. But I think that to SOME people, God is a created symbol yet they don't admit to themselves that it is just a created symbol (for them). What I'm wondering is why people resist admitting that. It seems to be very easy for people to admit that they either believe or don't believe in God, yet it seems quite difficult for them to admit that they believe in God as only conceptual construct. I'm just curious why that is.

Yes, but I'm not talking about miracles. A being you believe exists talking to you isn't exactly miraculous. Even humans can do that. I'm also not talking about being awed. That's to be expected. If I told someone that a chemical plant just blew up, I would expect them to be shocked or awed, but they would most likely believe me as well. But if told that person that God speaks to me, odds are they would think I was crazy or delusional. If I made that claim to an atheist, then their personal belief is consistent with their assesment that I was delusional. But if I made that claim to somone who believes in God, it would seem inconsistent with their personal beliefs to think that I was delusional. Why would I seem crazy? Especially if they believed in the stories in the Bible about how God spoke to many people, Moses for example, without thinking that Moses was crazy and delusional. Now I'm not saying that every single person that believes in God would think I was delusional - but there would be some, and those are the ones I'm talking about.And by the way, this is just an example. I don't really think God speaks to me.

jar, I've read your posts on other threads on this board, and I can definitely say that you are not the kind of person I'm referring to. By that I mean that your beliefs seems to be self-consistent. I have nothing against people that believe in God, even though I myself do not. I'm just completely puzzled by people that seem to half-believe....I can't imagine half-believing in anything! But it is nice to see that I'm not the only person to have noticed the phenomenon. And it isn't just Christians - I have Jewish friends that are the exact same way. So I'm not referring to not living like "a Christian should", but just how you would expect someone to react if they believed such a powerful force really existed, even if they weren't really religious. Yes, that is what I mean. If I believed in something that powerful, I would have to be a complete idiot to not do what I was supposed to do. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Now this is an interesting position that I've never heard from believers, which is what I thought you were based on what you wrote until I read the last line. What you say would explain why the phenomenon I mentioned occurs, but doesn't it still seem a bit odd? What else does ANYONE believe the existance of and yet has to constantly remind themselves that they do or constantly ask themselves why they believe it exists? Who knows, maybe there are other such things and I'm missing them...

That is EXACTLY what I was talking about! Thank you Asgara for getting the topic back on track. My whole question is why do people believe in the "God-idea", as stated by the above quote, instead of believing in God or not believing at all? I did not mean this topic to be a discussion on whether God exists or not, or whether it is rational to believe in God or not. For the sake of argument and simplification, let's just assume that God exists (even if that's a "leap of faith" for some - sorry couldn't resist the pun ). So even with the assumption that God exists, some will believe in God and some will not. I'm not concerned about either of those groups. My intention was to discuss the third group, the ones that only believe in the "God-idea". Now if you change the original assumption to "God does not exist", you still end up with the same three groups of people. So therefore, the question of whether God actually exists or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Good points, and I agree. But do you think this happens only in uneducated religious people? I don't think that's true, because I've met people like this that are very educated. Perhaps you meant "educated" referring only to religion, in which case I agree. I once heard a quote to the effect of "most people's religious education stops when they are teenagers, and they spent the rest of their lives studying religion only at that level. They never learn 'adult religion'". Sorry I can't remember the exact quote nor who said it. I've noticed that most religious people I know have little interest in learning any more than they already know about their own religions. I'm not sure if this is wide-spread or just a localized thing restricted to the people I hang around, though.

True, but in all fairness it's not just the fault of the people doing the criticizing. The truth of the matter is that many religious people DO practice a cartoon-version of religious beliefs, so that's the only thing others see. I would wager that most religious people aren't even aware that there is an "adult version" that they haven't been exposed to. I'm sure they all would think their own version is the adult version, but that's kind of like how everybody thinks of themselves as a good driver and it's just everyone else that can't drive. I think it would make a very interesting new topic as well. But if it's not really about one's own view of God, then does it still relate to what I was asking?

I think you're both right - it is a cartoon-version, but it is also an accurate depiction of religion that way most people practice it.