An Agnostic Perspective on the Reasons People Believe in God
“Faith”
is a powerful and dangerous word. To believe in something with
conviction and without any kind of material evidence is an
extraordinary concept. Society supposedly teaches children to think
for themselves, to know the facts before making a decision, and to
separate lies from the truth, yet in matters concerning theistic
religion, the notion of pure faith forbids contemplation. Faith in God
requires confidence, and any hint of doubt is a potential threat. As a
result, people blindly adhere to their beliefs and limit their
perceptions of reality. The general public scoffs at sightings of
UFO’s, ghosts, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster but is perfectly
confident in the existence of an omniscient, all-powerful,
supernatural, and intangible being who supposedly created the universe
and rules over humankind. Clearly, the circumstances for belief in God
must be different, but they are nevertheless unjustifiable and
close-minded. The majority of people believe in the existence of God
for four reasons: it is a learned trait embedded in early childhood, it
provides an explanation for the creation and nature of the universe, it
serves as a source of comfort and security, and it discourages free
thought. These reasons are flawed and insubstantial, and people should
instead assume an agnostic position on divine existence.
Bertrand Russell states that “[m]ost people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason” (14). Religion, like most elements of culture, stems from parental upbringing. Because young children are highly impressionable, language, customs, and values transfer easily from one generation to the next. Since they have had no prior exposure to religion and see no other available options at the time, most children naturally accept the religion of their parents. Eventually, these beliefs become so ingrained in the framework of the mind that questioning their validity seems impossible. To a devout believer, imagining a world without God is as difficult as suddenly forgetting one’s language. Like other behavioral traits, the degree and persistence of this cultural programming depend on the extent of reinforcement. If a believer has religious parents, attends church regularly, and associates with other believers, then he or she will likely hold stronger convictions than a person with less cultivated beliefs. Michael Shermer discovered that other variables affect religiosity as well. Those who are uneducated, female, obedient to their parents, and conservative have higher religious tendencies (24). Theists like to think they believe in God because they choose to, but with so many uncontrollable factors influencing religion and piety, people can attribute very little of faith to freewill. That a person raised as a Christian is more likely to believe in the Christian God than a person raised as a Buddhist is no coincidence. If God is merely an inherited concept and not the product of conscious thought and reason, then such believers cannot be completely confident that their belief is true.
While logic and deduction are rarely the initial causes for belief in God, theists often use such techniques to justify their beliefs after they have already acquired them. The most popular argument is that the origin and design of the universe can only be the work of a supreme being. According to theists, all creations require a creator, and the creator of the universe must be God. Evidence that matter is decaying and everything in the universe is moving away from a central point suggests that a “beginning” did occur and nothing can exist indefinitely. However, Russell points out that “if everything has a cause, then God must have a cause” (6). The notion of a first cause is contradictory; if one assumes that everything has a cause, then a first cause cannot be possible. Theists respond by claiming these rules only apply to matter, while God is a supernatural and spiritual entity that does not need a cause or creator. Combining the material and metaphysical in an argument is a bit contrived. The reasoning sounds quite logical, but even logic has failed in the past. Spontaneous generation was a logical principle accepted for thousands of years before scientific experimentation proved it wrong. Logic is only proof when empirical evidence supports it. Theists mistakenly view the universe as an either-or situation: either the universe always existed, or the universe is the work of a creator. Perhaps a third possibility yet to be conceived is the correct explanation. This flaw in logic occurs in another popular theistic belief about the universe. Marilyn Adamson claims that “the complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today” (Adamson). According to Adamson, the size and position of the Earth, the characteristics of water, and the intricacies of the human brain are all too perfect and elaborate to happen by chance (Adamson). Russell counters with Darwin’s process of natural selection: “It is not that their [living creatures] environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation” (10). Perhaps organisms adjust to meet the components of life and not vice-versa. Even so, the idea of chance is not so improbable. With the multitude of stars and planets in the vast expanse of the universe, the formation of at least one planet capable of sustaining life is not so much a sign of design than it is an inevitability. Theists see nature from one perspective, neglecting to consider all possibilities.
The belief in God also appeals to people psychologically by serving as a coping mechanism. Russell suggests that the desire for God comes from “the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you” (14). This need for comfort and protection is especially apparent during times of disaster, such as the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001 and the recent tsunamis in Asia that abruptly took the lives of thousands of innocent victims. Devout theists instinctively seek the grace of a higher power, praying for the survival of others and for the strength to endure such difficult times. Whether or not God grants these prayers seems irrelevant. Believers regard instances of people surviving against all odds as bona fide miracles while failing to adequately explain the untimely deaths of so many others. Theists often blame all that is good on God and contrive excuses for all that is bad, offering an outlook of infinite optimism. They seldom ask why God bothers creating miracles within disasters if He is capable of preventing disasters from occurring in the first place. A common rationale for unwarranted hardships is that God works in mysterious ways and that His intentions are incomprehensible to the human mind. For some reason, God makes perfect sense when explaining the existence of the universe and the occurrence of miracles, yet when God’s love or power becomes questionable, He suddenly transforms into an enigmatic and unfathomable character. In addition to comfort in life, the belief in God can alleviate one’s fear of the inevitability of death by providing a symbol of immortality in the form of an afterlife. Believers can live their lives happily and confidently with the knowledge that their souls are eternal. While God is an effective tool for solace and security, that is not a valid reason to believe in His existence. The need for comfort is a consequence of fear, and fear can obscure one’s vision of the truth.
Intellectual and emotional appeals may make faith in God attractive, but an additional component must account for its widespread adherence, and that is faith itself. What separates faith from all other kinds of beliefs is that faith by definition does not require proof, only the total and unquestionable acceptance of God’s will. Because the belief system prohibits members from doubting the system, it ensures a sense of self-security. True believers find it difficult to reexamine their beliefs because the very idea of faith forbids it. Calling all theists shallow and intolerant may be a harsh accusation, but such qualities describe the essence of faith. Many actually take pride in their blind devotion, but in this age of science and reason, faith is obsolete. Adamson notes that “throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God” (Adamson). This universal pattern may suggest a higher being does in fact exist, but it could also mean that deities merely originated from the human compulsion to explain seemingly unexplainable phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the sun and the changing of the seasons. These basic observances and conclusions gradually evolved into complex systems of belief. Today, knowledge is based on scientific proof, and these faith-driven beliefs are no longer necessary. However, even if the belief in divine existence is the result of cultural brainwashing, flawed emotional appeals, and indestructible faith, God can still exist. Existence does not depend on evidence, but belief does. Theists and atheists constantly accuse each other of being close-minded, yet the debate is fruitless, since neither side has any real proof against the other. Shermer observes, “We cannot prove or disprove God’s existence through empirical evidence or deductive proof. Therefore, from a scientific or philosophical position, theism and atheism are both indefensible positions as statements about the universe” (qtd. in Dawson 46). The most reasonable and open-minded option is to accept an agnostic view of God in which one does not believe in God but does not deny the possibility of God. If God is not yet provable or disprovable, then one should not feel obligated to make a decision. Reaching a definitive conclusion about anything without a substantial basis is senseless. In this way, “faith” is just another word for “prejudice.”
For most theists, God is an empty concept. It is not the product of freewill, but rather originates in childhood and changes according to certain environmental factors. It employs logic to explain the creation and design of the universe, but its claims are narrow-minded and disregard probability. It appeals to people by providing comfort during misfortune and by relieving the fear of death, but its views are defective and skew reality. It traps people further with the power of faith, an outdated and useless way of thinking that disallows any real doubtfulness. However, as erroneous as these reasons for belief are, they do not discredit the actual existence of God. Instead of choosing between theism and atheism, people should assume agnosticism, taking a neutral stand on divine existence until concrete evidence presents itself. Theists and atheists alike must shed the fear of ignorance and understand that humans do not have all the answers and should not pretend to. People must continually reevaluate their beliefs and view religion the same way people should view everything else—with an open mind.
Spontaneous generation is the idea that living organisms can develop from nonliving objects. This belief was based on observations and not scientific experimentation. Food left outside would later be covered with flies, and people would logically assume that the meat was turning into flies. Later, an experiment in which a piece of meat was placed in a sealed bottle proved that the rotting meat attracted the flies and did not generate them.
T. H. Huxley invented the term “agnosticism.” The following is his description:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. (qtd. in Dawson 46)
Adamson, Marilyn. "Is There a God?" EveryStudent.com. 13 Mar. 2005.
Dawson, Shawn. "Shermer’s Agnosticism." Skeptic 8.2 (2000): 46-49. Academic Search Premiere. 12 Mar. 2005.
Russell, Bertrand. "Why I Am Not a Christian." Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. Ed. Paul Edwards. New York: Simon, 1957. 3-23.
Shermer, Michael. "Why People Believe in God." The Humanist 59.6 (1999): 20-26. Academic Search Premiere. 12 Mar. 2005.
Bertrand Russell states that “[m]ost people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason” (14). Religion, like most elements of culture, stems from parental upbringing. Because young children are highly impressionable, language, customs, and values transfer easily from one generation to the next. Since they have had no prior exposure to religion and see no other available options at the time, most children naturally accept the religion of their parents. Eventually, these beliefs become so ingrained in the framework of the mind that questioning their validity seems impossible. To a devout believer, imagining a world without God is as difficult as suddenly forgetting one’s language. Like other behavioral traits, the degree and persistence of this cultural programming depend on the extent of reinforcement. If a believer has religious parents, attends church regularly, and associates with other believers, then he or she will likely hold stronger convictions than a person with less cultivated beliefs. Michael Shermer discovered that other variables affect religiosity as well. Those who are uneducated, female, obedient to their parents, and conservative have higher religious tendencies (24). Theists like to think they believe in God because they choose to, but with so many uncontrollable factors influencing religion and piety, people can attribute very little of faith to freewill. That a person raised as a Christian is more likely to believe in the Christian God than a person raised as a Buddhist is no coincidence. If God is merely an inherited concept and not the product of conscious thought and reason, then such believers cannot be completely confident that their belief is true.
While logic and deduction are rarely the initial causes for belief in God, theists often use such techniques to justify their beliefs after they have already acquired them. The most popular argument is that the origin and design of the universe can only be the work of a supreme being. According to theists, all creations require a creator, and the creator of the universe must be God. Evidence that matter is decaying and everything in the universe is moving away from a central point suggests that a “beginning” did occur and nothing can exist indefinitely. However, Russell points out that “if everything has a cause, then God must have a cause” (6). The notion of a first cause is contradictory; if one assumes that everything has a cause, then a first cause cannot be possible. Theists respond by claiming these rules only apply to matter, while God is a supernatural and spiritual entity that does not need a cause or creator. Combining the material and metaphysical in an argument is a bit contrived. The reasoning sounds quite logical, but even logic has failed in the past. Spontaneous generation was a logical principle accepted for thousands of years before scientific experimentation proved it wrong. Logic is only proof when empirical evidence supports it. Theists mistakenly view the universe as an either-or situation: either the universe always existed, or the universe is the work of a creator. Perhaps a third possibility yet to be conceived is the correct explanation. This flaw in logic occurs in another popular theistic belief about the universe. Marilyn Adamson claims that “the complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today” (Adamson). According to Adamson, the size and position of the Earth, the characteristics of water, and the intricacies of the human brain are all too perfect and elaborate to happen by chance (Adamson). Russell counters with Darwin’s process of natural selection: “It is not that their [living creatures] environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation” (10). Perhaps organisms adjust to meet the components of life and not vice-versa. Even so, the idea of chance is not so improbable. With the multitude of stars and planets in the vast expanse of the universe, the formation of at least one planet capable of sustaining life is not so much a sign of design than it is an inevitability. Theists see nature from one perspective, neglecting to consider all possibilities.
The belief in God also appeals to people psychologically by serving as a coping mechanism. Russell suggests that the desire for God comes from “the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you” (14). This need for comfort and protection is especially apparent during times of disaster, such as the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001 and the recent tsunamis in Asia that abruptly took the lives of thousands of innocent victims. Devout theists instinctively seek the grace of a higher power, praying for the survival of others and for the strength to endure such difficult times. Whether or not God grants these prayers seems irrelevant. Believers regard instances of people surviving against all odds as bona fide miracles while failing to adequately explain the untimely deaths of so many others. Theists often blame all that is good on God and contrive excuses for all that is bad, offering an outlook of infinite optimism. They seldom ask why God bothers creating miracles within disasters if He is capable of preventing disasters from occurring in the first place. A common rationale for unwarranted hardships is that God works in mysterious ways and that His intentions are incomprehensible to the human mind. For some reason, God makes perfect sense when explaining the existence of the universe and the occurrence of miracles, yet when God’s love or power becomes questionable, He suddenly transforms into an enigmatic and unfathomable character. In addition to comfort in life, the belief in God can alleviate one’s fear of the inevitability of death by providing a symbol of immortality in the form of an afterlife. Believers can live their lives happily and confidently with the knowledge that their souls are eternal. While God is an effective tool for solace and security, that is not a valid reason to believe in His existence. The need for comfort is a consequence of fear, and fear can obscure one’s vision of the truth.
Intellectual and emotional appeals may make faith in God attractive, but an additional component must account for its widespread adherence, and that is faith itself. What separates faith from all other kinds of beliefs is that faith by definition does not require proof, only the total and unquestionable acceptance of God’s will. Because the belief system prohibits members from doubting the system, it ensures a sense of self-security. True believers find it difficult to reexamine their beliefs because the very idea of faith forbids it. Calling all theists shallow and intolerant may be a harsh accusation, but such qualities describe the essence of faith. Many actually take pride in their blind devotion, but in this age of science and reason, faith is obsolete. Adamson notes that “throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God” (Adamson). This universal pattern may suggest a higher being does in fact exist, but it could also mean that deities merely originated from the human compulsion to explain seemingly unexplainable phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the sun and the changing of the seasons. These basic observances and conclusions gradually evolved into complex systems of belief. Today, knowledge is based on scientific proof, and these faith-driven beliefs are no longer necessary. However, even if the belief in divine existence is the result of cultural brainwashing, flawed emotional appeals, and indestructible faith, God can still exist. Existence does not depend on evidence, but belief does. Theists and atheists constantly accuse each other of being close-minded, yet the debate is fruitless, since neither side has any real proof against the other. Shermer observes, “We cannot prove or disprove God’s existence through empirical evidence or deductive proof. Therefore, from a scientific or philosophical position, theism and atheism are both indefensible positions as statements about the universe” (qtd. in Dawson 46). The most reasonable and open-minded option is to accept an agnostic view of God in which one does not believe in God but does not deny the possibility of God. If God is not yet provable or disprovable, then one should not feel obligated to make a decision. Reaching a definitive conclusion about anything without a substantial basis is senseless. In this way, “faith” is just another word for “prejudice.”
For most theists, God is an empty concept. It is not the product of freewill, but rather originates in childhood and changes according to certain environmental factors. It employs logic to explain the creation and design of the universe, but its claims are narrow-minded and disregard probability. It appeals to people by providing comfort during misfortune and by relieving the fear of death, but its views are defective and skew reality. It traps people further with the power of faith, an outdated and useless way of thinking that disallows any real doubtfulness. However, as erroneous as these reasons for belief are, they do not discredit the actual existence of God. Instead of choosing between theism and atheism, people should assume agnosticism, taking a neutral stand on divine existence until concrete evidence presents itself. Theists and atheists alike must shed the fear of ignorance and understand that humans do not have all the answers and should not pretend to. People must continually reevaluate their beliefs and view religion the same way people should view everything else—with an open mind.
Notes
Spontaneous generation is the idea that living organisms can develop from nonliving objects. This belief was based on observations and not scientific experimentation. Food left outside would later be covered with flies, and people would logically assume that the meat was turning into flies. Later, an experiment in which a piece of meat was placed in a sealed bottle proved that the rotting meat attracted the flies and did not generate them.
T. H. Huxley invented the term “agnosticism.” The following is his description:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. (qtd. in Dawson 46)
Works Cited
Adamson, Marilyn. "Is There a God?" EveryStudent.com. 13 Mar. 2005
Dawson, Shawn. "Shermer’s Agnosticism." Skeptic 8.2 (2000): 46-49. Academic Search Premiere. 12 Mar. 2005
Russell, Bertrand. "Why I Am Not a Christian." Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. Ed. Paul Edwards. New York: Simon, 1957. 3-23.
Shermer, Michael. "Why People Believe in God." The Humanist 59.6 (1999): 20-26. Academic Search Premiere. 12 Mar. 2005
