rationalskepticism.org

Agrippina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

zulumoose wrote:It seems to be a common theme among the religious, particularly modern christians, that you only have to open yourself up to god, or Jesus, or seek the truth, and he will "reveal himself" to you, such that you will have a relationship with him, and love him. Proof, or at least evidence for god is "all around you", etc, etc, etc.

Basically if this were true I reckon it would be a one way street, you could not stop believing no matter what happened to you after you had reached that point, unless you suspected that the feelings may not be real.

Yet - christians seem to have no problem at all accepting as fact that their peers can "lose faith" at any time, particularly during something tragic, but usually regain it as circumstances change.

How can this be so, if it is real? Why don't they find it ridiculous that someone can stop believing, if what they insist they experience is actually true? How is someone who they accepted as a peer, who then lost faith, and regained it, accepted as truthful? If the experiences were real the first time they couldn't stop believing, and if they were real the second time, everyone would realise the first time was false, and nobody seems to be talking about this or asking how this can be so?

So we are left with:- either they suspect the experience may not be real all along, and accept that others are the same (which would be dishonest) or they are prepared to completely ignore the obvious dishonesty in everyone who claims to have lost faith and regained the same faith.

What other options are there?

How do theists tackle this?

I think for many, the process is similar to how you fall in love and then out of love with someone.

You brought this into the discussion, so I'm going to ask the question: do actual adults "fall in love". Being "in love" is a highly personal experience, so is religion, so it's not a terrible comparison. Don't you think that being "in love" is really more attraction, when it's a sexual relationship, rather than a cognitive, conscious decision? Isn't the initial attraction to religion, in an adult who has life experience, and can reason what they're feeling, just an emotional response to something that triggers emotional responses. I say this because in my emotional relationships I've never felt "in love". It was different with my children/grandchildren, I felt awe and deep emotion the first time I saw them: a feeling of an overwhelming need to protect them, to want to be with them, to look forward to seeing them, and to want to make the time with them as pleasant as possible. I still feel a deep sense of disappointment when they don't react to me the way I feel about them.

With partners, with whom I'm expected to have felt that, it hasn't been the same, except for when I was very young with the first relationship, and I suspect it had more to do with the undivided attention of someone who wanted to be with me, without telling me off, telling me I was wrong, a disappointment, "stupid" etc., the sort of things family do to you. Over the years, becoming an adult, I found fulfilment in other relationships, in academic and career achievement, so the personal relationship didn't occupy my mind as much. Not until I had the first child. That was my experience of being "in love".

So to relate that to a religious experience. I cannot imagine how people who haven't lived their lives within a tradition of religious social interactions, find the social interactions required to believe in the reasons for the social interactions not only attractive, but willingly will pay over money for the benefits, which I still can't see. But then I have serious problems with regimented social interactions so it would take a lot of belief to make me attend a religious service on a regular basis.

In the beginning there's a lot of projection about who this other person is, you're imagining much of who you think they are and what they are like - over time you see that what you imagined doesn't really reflect who you thought they were, and those initial feelings that kept you in the game wear off - before you know it, you're dusting your broom.

This in adult sexual relationships perhaps, but not with children and grandchildren, personally for me that is. It doesn't matter how many times they reflect that they're not what I imagined them to be, how they disappoint me, there is nothing they can do that will make me leave them.

Is this what you mean? That the believer will continue the "relationship" with their god, no matter what the evidence is for their non-existence, or how disappointed they are by what they learn about them. Thinking about the OT "God" here, a particularly nasty character who thinks nothing of wiping out the entire planet, on a whim, or destroying a follower's family, making them go through horrible experiences, just to prove a point, is it what I feel about my children?

The way that seems to play out for the Christian lover affair a lot of the time is, people, either slowly or in a big jump, buy into a complex paradigm which they literally believe to be true. That is, they believe in the reality of places like heaven and hell. A conscious God giving cryptic messages in a certain book. Rules this God commands them to follow. And this God has the power to control the laws of nature itself. Dead bodies rise from the dead in this alternate reality -and all the rest. How adults can literally believe all of this is a - especially since here are so many contradictions in the system- but human brains can do just that. For these people, their religious belief is a lot like literally believing in the Easter bunny. And if everybody around you believes in the Easter bunny, your belief gets a lot of reinforcement. And there are social consequences for changing those beliefs. Not to mention the cognitive difficulties of changing a whole paradigm of belief - that's not easy to do.

If I use your example of "falling in love" and compare it with the way I feel about my kids, I can understand the adherence. What puzzles me is how powerful the initial experience has to be for someone to be that committed, that, no matter what, they will adhere to the religion.

There are all kinds of ways that cracks can appear in that belief system over time. Maybe you study science and that helps you scrub some of these idea. Maybe God lets you down - someone gets very sick or dies. The best description of an adult falling in and out of a system like this that I've ever heard is the interview Jason Beghe gave about his experience with Scientology. I think much of religious process goes like that - it's long but if you want to understand this kind of process ...:

Relating religious experience to my personal feelings about the kids/grandkids, I can relate to religious beliefs, but as I said above, I'm puzzled by how the attraction first has the effect. I can understand it if you grow up with it from childhood, and in the throes of teenage angst become committed, but not how adults are converted from not having it to becoming deeply committed. The relationship with a child begins from the moment of first becoming aware of the expected event, then the instinct to protect and nurture that develops into deep emotional attachment, so it's not a "falling in love" as it is with a sexual partner, that I think happens on attraction, not over time. What happens over time, is a shared life of overcoming hardships, disappointments, celebrating successes, that is "love" not being "in love".

Of course, real religious experience is nothing like that.

So I understand people leaving religion because they're disappointed, and I can even understand people remaining within a religion they've developed a habitual adherence to as their cultural norm. I can't understand conversion. Especially if the person is leading a fulfilling life otherwise, not in trouble, not ill, not needing a crutch. If they are needing those things, then religion can provide them, but once the initial comfort is no longer needed, wouldn't they possibly walk away? Or if remaining, remain through a feeling of gratitude, or indebtedness? There has to be psychological reason for people becoming committed to religion more than merely "being in love". I'm committed to my family, would absolutely rip my heart out for them, but not for any person I've been in a relationship not connected by my direct bloodline. I've walked away from a few of those. I also walked away from religion without a second thought.

I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.

That the believer will continue the "relationship" with their god, no matter what the evidence is for their non-existence, or how disappointed they are by what they learn about them. Thinking about the OT "God" here, a particularly nasty character who thinks nothing of wiping out the entire planet, on a whim, or destroying a follower's family, making them go through horrible experiences, just to prove a point, is it what I feel about my children?