In your head

If I had to answer why I believe in a supreme being it would be conundrum. We don’t choose to believe in something from a purely rational perspective, nor from a purely emotional perspective. I think it all comes together. Some of it is biological, our hard wired neurological system that demands a cause for all events better known as the principle of sufficient reason, Some of it is sociological, some of it is pure rational reason, some of it is because we fear change unless an equal or greater force pushes us to the other side, some of it is because it gives us emotional support, and I think there are countless other reasons why we believe. Sure in economic form there is a utility factor, what we prize, which the majority of it is comprised by material or emotional advantages. I still think there is a rational factor in it too in that there are questions in one’s head that are difficult to answer. I am not advocating in G-D of the gaps, but nevertheless there are deep riveting philosophical questions that every man faces, and he feels the need to sooth it with religion.

I will be stating famous philosophical reasons as well as quoting from a book I do appreciate called “G-D, rationality and mysticism” by Irving Block.

To preface we need to gather some understanding of what is rational and what is meant by “proof”.

Rational in it simple meaning means;” A justification for something existing or happening” Plainly speaking with have a database of empirically proven causes that cause certain effects; when we see the cause we can/do predict the effect. There are causes that are not empirically proven and/or the effects have many variables. What makes those that accept those cause/effect rational or irrational?

G-D is not a mathematical theorem nor can he be empirically proven. He is like the black hole. So we collect a few arguments, put them together and there seems to be a convincing argument for the belief in G-D. No one argument is sufficient. We humans think with collective proof. How does a pretty girl know she is pretty, because one person told her? She collects over time what a sense of pretty is; and she collects statements from many different walks of life. She then comes to the conclusion she is attractive. Now that might change, and the standards might change, but she assumes it to be true based on inductive reasoning. The value is there until there is information to dispute it.

Which comes to the philosophical question of inductive reasoning; how do we know that the future will be like the past? How do we know tomorrow that the fork is not the food but that the eggs are?

Hume said this cannot be solved. So is it rational or irrational? How about the principle of sufficient reason? Hume replied that we have rational intuition. We have to accept certain a priori arguments, for negating it seems irrational. Now does that apply to the rational of G-D ,Does denying it make one irrational I don’t think so.

I do think that atheism is rational, so is the belief in a supreme being. Why do I choose in one versus the other? Like I said in the beginning it is a very hard question to answer. Maybe the argument for G-D seems more rational. Are certain people more susceptible to “confirmation bias” then others?

On to proof, what I mean by proof is that all I try to prove to myself is that belief In G-D is rational. Denying the rationality is being irrational. One can choose atheism due to it being more rational in their mind, but you cannot deny that a belief in a G-D is rational.

I am not a positivist. I am not a pure empiricist, because I don’t think G-D can be proven as such. I don’t think it rational to deny all metaphysical propositions like the “Vienna circle”. Biology would never have been studied if we accepted only the empirically proven and only universal laws. There are many soft sciences.

Next up; the arguments for and against.