What would have to be different for you to stop believing in God?

[Chanakya]

What would have to be different for you to stop believing in God?



This question is directed at theists, who do believe in God. I'm looking for first-person answers.

Hardly any theists here, I know. Let's also include one-time theists here, people who at one time did believe in God. If you can think back to that time, then, if you were asked this question at that time, then what would you have answered? For yourself, a first-person answer?

No judgment, just discussion, in order to better understand others' reasons for believing (or for having believed). At least that's my intention.


--------------------
--------------------

Inspired by @AmyStrange 's What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed? thread.

There were two answers put forward there to this question.

@arthwollipot suggested, quite rightly, "Human nature." While that is a great answer, but it's probably not a first-person answer. But should any theist (or now-atheist-or-agnostic channeling their ex-theist self) forward that answer in the first-person, then that might make for an interesting discussion. For instance, one might ask what did actually change in their "nature", for them to have stopped believing --- should that be an ex-theist actually channeling their past theistic self.

And @stanfr suggested that what might have swayed them (that is, their past believing self) is a completely satisfactory explanation of the origin of everything, the whole BB thing, clearly explained by science. Why that particular gap in that God-of-the-Gaps formulation, is what one might ask them (and what I did ask them in that thread).

If they'd like, they could take that discussion forward here.


--------------------
--------------------

Me, while I was brought up theist, and while I'd describe myself as a believer when younger (say 15 years back?): but I guess, although I hadn't then come across (or at any rate thought at all about) the term "agnostic", but I guess I'd always been agnostic. My approach had always been "Let's find out", with the hope that going forward the question might become less nebulous. But my starting point had definitely been theistic, which is how I was brought up. That is what was my default position, belief in God.

What would need to change for then-theistic-me to stop believing?

Channeling then-theistic me, as best I can throw my mind back:
Short answer: Nothing.
Longer answer: My position now is belief in God. But I'm very ignorant, and I know it. I think this is an important question, and I'm trying to find out more. About my own religion, that I was brought up in, as well as other ideas of God out there, that others follow. Should I end up changing my mind when I know more, well then I will.
(Heh, sounds oh-so-very-reasonable, doesn't it! I don't know that I'd have articulated it this clearly and this reasonably, but yes, that reasonable answer would indeed have been my position, if 15-years-earlier-me had been asked this question, and if he'd chosen to take the time to introspect a bit and clearly think his way to his answer. ...And if he did not take the time and effort to introspect clearly, then he wouldn't have been able to answer this at all, he'd then just have shrugged and said "I don't know", or maybe not engaged with the question at all.)

 

[Chanakya]

​

Yes, absolutely! At least past early childhood, once I learned some basic cosmology. I was raised Catholic by a devout Christian, but it was a fairly liberal church and my parents were not preachy at all, so at least it left me room to think for myself. Might have been different if I had been raised by rabid evangelicals, I dunno. I would have approached it from a scientific standpoint, and at least to my mind, the only real scientific 'gap' would be the one where everything came into existence. It's why, even as an atheist, I cannot say I am 100% sure no form of god exists. I'm only 99.999% sure . On the other hand, I *am* 100% sure the God of the Bible does not exist.

That's cool. While one can functionally be an atheist, but absolutely, no one can be 100% sure no god exists. In God Delusion, Dawkins talks of being not so much an atheist as an agnostic, if one is to be scrupulously precise in one's terminology, with a 9 towards atheism on a 10-point scale (or some such, I forget the details of what numbers he used for the scale). Which of course is functionally no different than atheism.

As far as your God of the gaps criterion, about the origins of the universe: Just to explore this a bit more: back during your theist days, did you not realize that God-of-the-Gaps is a fallacy? Is that why that criterion was important to you, back then?

 

[AmyStrange]

Well, the obvious answer would be that when you die and there is nothing, not even you.

That should be enough, but what would be the point anyway since you're dead, and especially since this question (I assume) isn't directed at dead people but live ones.

TBH, I don't know whether god is real or not, but I really can't think of anything (scientific, theoretical, or philosophically) that would definitively answer that question.

As a matter of fact, that question is actually a little similar to another question I've asked just about every one of my psychology teachers in college. I've heard it called the braino theory, but it is basically based on the idea that you or I are just brains in a jar, and our whole lives are merely electrical impulses sent to us by an unknown source that may or not be god.

My question is, how do you know that this isn't true?


-

 

[Chanakya]

Well, the obvious answer would be that when you die and there is nothing, not even you.

But that's kind of the question, isn't it? Those that believe in God, usually believe this to not be the case. They believe they endure (Christians do, Muslims do, Hindus do. Buddhists, hell it is complicated, but some of them kind of do.)

I agree with you, of course. But to think that, as you do (and I as well), is to already not believe in God, or at least the major established religions, functionally at any rate.

That should be enough, but what would be the point anyway since you're dead, and especially since this question (I assume) isn't directed at dead people but live ones.

TBH, I don't know whether god is real or not, but I really can't think of anything (scientific, theoretical, or philosophically) that would definitively answer that question.

As a matter of fact, that question is actually a little similar to another question I've asked just about every one of my psychology teachers in college. I've heard it called the braino theory, but it is basically based on the idea that you or I are just brains in a jar, and our whole lives are merely electrical impulses sent to us by an unknown source that may or not be god.
My question is, how do you know that this isn't true?

-

We don't, not with 100% certitude. But that's like saying we don't know with 100% certitude faeries don't exist. Functionally we can indeed know this isn't true, simply because we have no evidence saying it is true, the burden or proof thing essentially.

But of course, that's me thinking that, and you (probably) nodding your head in agreement. What would a theist say to that? (Theist-me, back 15 or so years ago, would not agree, but probably was reasonable enough not to directly disagree either, should this have been put to him --- he was still in the process of sussing out the basics of critical thinking, all of this burden of proof business, all of that.)

 

[AmyStrange]

We don't, not with 100% certitude. But that's like saying we don't know with 100% certitude faeries don't exist. Functionally we can indeed know this isn't true, simply because we have no evidence saying it is true, the burden or proof thing essentially.

That's true, but then again, using burden of proof as the answer means that since there really is no definitive proof that she does exist, then she must NOT exist.

At least that's what a pretend skeptic would say anyway, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.


-

 

[Chanakya]

That's true, but then again, using burden of proof as the answer means that since there really is no definitive proof that she does exist, then she must NOT exist.

At least that's what a pretend skeptic would say anyway, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.


-

Not sure what you're saying here. The god claim carries the burden of proof. If that burden is not met, then it is reasonable to reject that claim. We're agreed on that much, sure. What I don't get is the "pretend skeptic" part. Why "pretend"?

 

[AmyStrange]

Not sure what you're saying here. The god claim carries the burden of proof. If that burden is not met, then it is reasonable to reject that claim. We're agreed on that much, sure. What I don't get is the "pretend skeptic" part. Why "pretend"?

A pretend skeptic is someone who lowers the standard of proof for what they believe but continues to hold a higher standard for anyone or anything that proves them wrong, but like I said, that's just my opinion.


-

 

[Chanakya]

A pretend skeptic is someone who lowers the standard of proof for what they believe but continues to hold a higher standard for anyone or anything that proves them wrong, but like I said, that's just my opinion.


-

Okay, that much is fair enough. But how does this apply to this question, the God claim?

 

[stanfr]

As a matter of fact, that question is actually a little similar to another question I've asked just about every one of my psychology teachers in college. I've heard it called the braino theory, but it is basically based on the idea that you or I are just brains in a jar, and our whole lives are merely electrical impulses sent to us by an unknown source that may or not be god.

My question is, how do you know that this isn't true?

Agreed, you cannot know. A variation of that scenario is the Simulation hypotheses, that we are all just sims in a big virtual game o' life. There's a whole thread along those lines somewhere in here...
Aside from the fact that we don't have any real evidence that we are sims or displaced brains, just speculation, it just isn't very fruitful to entertain the idea, one has to behave as if we are all real organisms who can make some small difference in the universe. YMMV, of course

 

[stanfr]

What would have to be different for you to stop believing in God?



This question is directed at theists, who do believe in God. I'm looking for first-person answers.

Hardly any theists here, I know. Let's also include one-time theists here, people who at one time did believe in God. If you can think back to that time, then, if you were asked this question at that time, then what would you have answered? For yourself, a first-person answer?

No judgment, just discussion, in order to better understand others' reasons for believing (or for having believed). At least that's my intention.


--------------------
--------------------

Inspired by @AmyStrange 's What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed? thread.

There were two answers put forward there to this question.

@arthwollipot suggested, quite rightly, "Human nature." While that is a great answer, but it's probably not a first-person answer. But should any theist (or now-atheist-or-agnostic channeling their ex-theist self) forward that answer in the first-person, then that might make for an interesting discussion. For instance, one might ask what did actually change in their "nature", for them to have stopped believing --- should that be an ex-theist actually channeling their past theistic self.

And @stanfr suggested that what might have swayed them (that is, their past believing self) is a completely satisfactory explanation of the origin of everything, the whole BB thing, clearly explained by science. Why that particular gap in that God-of-the-Gaps formulation, is what one might ask them (and what I did ask them in that thread).

If they'd like, they could take that discussion forward here.


--------------------
--------------------

Me, while I was brought up theist, and while I'd describe myself as a believer when younger (say 15 years back?): but I guess, although I hadn't then come across (or at any rate thought at all about) the term "agnostic", but I guess I'd always been agnostic. My approach had always been "Let's find out", with the hope that going forward the question might become less nebulous. But my starting point had definitely been theistic, which is how I was brought up. That is what was my default position, belief in God.

What would need to change for then-theistic-me to stop believing?

Channeling then-theistic me, as best I can throw my mind back:
Short answer: Nothing.
Longer answer: My position now is belief in God. But I'm very ignorant, and I know it. I think this is an important question, and I'm trying to find out more. About my own religion, that I was brought up in, as well as other ideas of God out there, that others follow. Should I end up changing my mind when I know more, well then I will.
(Heh, sounds oh-so-very-reasonable, doesn't it! I don't know that I'd have articulated it this clearly and this reasonably, but yes, that reasonable answer would indeed have been my position, if 15-years-earlier-me had been asked this question, and if he'd chosen to take the time to introspect a bit and clearly think his way to his answer. ...And if he did not take the time and effort to introspect clearly, then he wouldn't have been able to answer this at all, he'd then just have shrugged and said "I don't know", or maybe not engaged with the question at all.)

I think your response is reasonable and I can relate to it. The one difficulty I have answering the question as posed (from a personal perspective, as a former believer) is that I did not have any single 'light-bulb' moment that persuaded me I was mistaken in the beliefs I was raised with, it was a gradual process that literally took a couple decades. For a while I called myself a spiritual agnostic, only in the past 5-10 years have I embraced unabashed 'atheism' It took a lot of reading and thinking (and even participation in this forum early on) for me to comfortably change my beliefs. Childhood indoctrination does not disappear overnight--at least it did not for me. I had to learn some history, some psychology, and weigh out arguments and counterarguments. The rational side won out. But it wasn't as single argument, it was cumulative. So in that sense, the 'human nature' change was a change in my thinking. That included psychological change.

 

[AmyStrange]

Okay, that much is fair enough. But how does this apply to this question, the God claim?

Pretend skeptics who believe god is made up will site all the evidence available to prove that it's impossible for a fantasy being such as that to exist, but they never consider the fact that she may not be anything like what religious people think she is. She may be something so unbelievably unorthodox that we wouldn't recognize her.

For example, what we think of as gravity may really be god, but again, that's just my opinion.


-

 

[stanfr]

For example, what we think of as gravity may really be god, but like I keep saying, that's just my opinion.

I'd call it Space-Time, sounds cooler and more sci-fi like to me

 

[Chanakya]

I think your response is reasonable and I can relate to it. The one difficulty I have answering the question as posed (from a personal perspective, as a former believer) is that I did not have any single 'light-bulb' moment that persuaded me I was mistaken in the beliefs I was raised with, it was a gradual process that literally took a couple decades. For a while I called myself a spiritual agnostic, only in the past 5-10 years have I embraced unabashed 'atheism' It took a lot of reading and thinking (and even participation in this forum early on) for me to comfortably change my beliefs. Childhood indoctrination does not disappear overnight--at least it did not for me. I had to learn some history, some psychology, and weigh out arguments and counterarguments. The rational side won out. But it wasn't as single argument, it was cumulative. So in that sense, the 'human nature' change was a change in my thinking. That included psychological change.

And I can relate to that journey of yours. I know that my own position has changed substantially in the last 10+ years. And yes, this forum --- as well as discussions IRL, and reading, but certainly this forum, to no mean extent --- has helped my gather together my ideas on what is reasonable to believe, and also made me comfortable with thinking of myself as atheist, rather than merely agnostic.

 

[Chanakya]

Skeptics who believe god is made up will site all the evidence available to prove that it's impossible for a fantasy being such as that to exist, but they never consider the fact that she may not be anything like what religious people think she is. She may be something so unbelievably unorthodox that we wouldn't recognize her.

For example, what we think of as gravity may really be god, but again, that's just my opinion.


-

Ah, the burden of proof thing?

Gravity may be God, in some way. Hell, I myself may be God, a Berkely's God kind of God (or, as to go back to the source of that idea, an Advaitic kind of God), and everything out there, including every one of you, might be no more than just my thoughts. And all of that, any of that, is fine as speculation. It may even be fine as hypothesis, should we want to take the trouble to think up some way to actually test that. But to actually believe in such, even provisionally, requires evidence. Absent that, it is not reasonable to treat this as anything other than speculation, is it? ...Which is another, more gentle, way of saying that it is reasonable to reject God ideas absent evidence.

 

[AmyStrange]

Ah, the burden of proof thing?

Gravity may be God, in some way. Hell, I myself may be God, a Berkely's God kind of God (or, as to go back to the source of that idea, an Advaitic kind of God), and everything out there, including every one of you, might be no more than just my thoughts. And all of that, any of that, is fine as speculation. It may even be fine as hypothesis, should we want to take the trouble to think up some way to actually test that. But to actually believe in such, even provisionally, requires evidence. Absent that, it is not reasonable to treat this as anything other than speculation, is it? ...Which is another, more gentle, way of saying that it is reasonable to reject God ideas absent evidence

I agree, but that doesn't make it untrue.

I mean, the many different forms of gravity is what keeps the Universe together and consequently keeps us all alive.

Isn't that what god is supposed to do?


-

 

[AmyStrange]

Anyway, this is all I'm going to say, because I don't want to derail this thread.


-

 

[Chanakya]

I agree, but that doesn't make it untrue.


-

Sure, in scrupulously precise language, that is technically true, what you say above. For God, for faeries, and for the claim that Chanakya is God.

But in as much as we functionally reject that claim and functionally take it to be false, and in as much as this is true for practically every claim that we reject, then I don't see why that's relevant.

 

[Chanakya]

Anyway, this is all I'm going to say, because I don't want to derail this thread.


-

Okay, respect that. Cheers

 

[AmyStrange]

Sure, in scrupulously precise language, that is technically true, what you say above. For God, for faeries, and for the claim that Chanakya is God.

But in as much as we functionally reject that claim and functionally take it to be false, and in as much as this is true for practically every claim that we reject, then I don't see why that's relevant.

One more thing, thank you for including the word "practically."


-

 

[Lithrael]

An interesting thing about the 'just a simulation' idea is that, if true, then the next-level-up running the simulation must have access to an amount of energy we'd find unfathomable, to be able to run such a complex simulation.

If I were them I'd just 'simulate' it on the cheap by setting up a universe and kicking it off to hopefully settle into stable physics conditions and become something interesting after a dozen billion years.

Sometimes it's easier to just bake a cake than to model one perfectly.