Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

How can smart educated people believe in faith? And why is faith believing wise?

Please help; I am having a difficult time with this question. Thoughtful answers only please…

“Faith” can be defined as a belief in something for which there is no evidence. So my question is: how can a smart, educated, thoughtful person believe in something for which there is no evidence? Now I know what most theists will say. They will say that there is plenty of evidence but that I just don’t recognize this evidence as legitimate.

I have asked a similar question a few days ago. Here is a summary of the “legitimate evidence” for the existence of God that was provided by people who answered the question:

A. “The Bible is substantiated by archaeological proof.” – Well, that’s only partially true. Archeology proves that a Great Temple once stood in Jerusalem, but there is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, that proves that Jesus drove the money changers out of that Temple. The person making this bold claim, of course, neglected to name even a single archaeological discovery that proves that his God exists. And no, that the Great Temple once stood doesn’t prove that Jesus lived. If this logic worked, then the existence of Manhattan proves that Spiderman exists.

B. “Well science gets things wrong all the time.” – True. There is no discovery, no observation, no scientific theory, and no law in science that is beyond correction. But, when a scientific theory gets tweaked, or tossed, it is because our understanding of what is observed gets better, not because of some divine intervention. It doesn’t follow that if science gets something wrong, then that proves God must exist. When science gets tweaked, this only proves that the scientific method is the best means for understanding how the world works. When we finally accepted Plate Tectonics, it was because of better observation of the natural world, not because God told us. And just because there are some answers that science hasn’t answered yet (or may never answer,) doesn’t mean that it is smart or reasonable to fill in those gaps with “God must have done it.”

C. “Even a scientist has faith in … science.” Wrong. Science is nothing more than a collection of publically verifiable evidence. Earth orbits the sun – publically verifiable. Bacterium, viruses, and other pathogen cause disease – publically verifiable. Objects with mass attract one another (gravity) – publically verifiable. If something is verifiable, then one does not need faith to believe; there’s evidence! Of course, one can not be an expert in all fields. Our current body of knowledge is so large that one person can not know everything. Sometimes we must trust experts, but the point is that science can be verified.

D. “The Bible is proof that God exists.” – This is a horrible argument, and I can’t believe that so many “thoughtful” people make it. Basically this is a circular argument. [There is a God because the Bible says so. I know this because the Bible is the inspired word of God.] How can a thoughtful person not see the fallacy in such circular reasoning? Also, if one is going to assume that the Bible proves their God, then logically they must also assume that the Koran proves Allah, Bhagavad-Gita proves the Hindu Gods, and the Book of the Dead proves that the afterlife occurs in an underworld realm, etc… This argument also ignores our current understanding of who, when, where, and why the various books of the Bible were written.

E. “Pascal’s Wager” [Even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because they will have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.] – I don’t have room to get into Pascal’s Wager, but basically the wager is ripe with reason and logic fallacies.

F. “I have a personal relationship with God.” – Sure. However, how can one not understand that it is possible to feel the presence of God without Him even existing? Our brains are extremely capable of producing simulations for our conscious mind to experience. For example, I work as a nurse in a hospital; almost every night, we have delusional and demented patients that are challenged with experiences that aren’t consistent with reality. People who make the above statement should take an Intro to Psychology class and challenge themselves to learning more about how the mind works.

G. “The Bible describes faith this way: ‘Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ Hebrews 11:1” At least this person was honest -- Faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. But he fails to answer my question: How can a thoughtful, intelligent person believe that wishing hard enough for a God will make Him real.

Update:

I know that some believers lazy, some are scared of God and Hell. Some people don’t care about how illogical and unreasonable their arguments are. I once had a pastor of a mega-church tell me that he couldn’t be bothered with considering the fact that people of other religions had a personal relationship with their own God(s) that was just as deep as his personal relationship was with his God; that is incredibly intellectually lazy. One of my best friends clearly states that she cannot even admit to the possibility of being wrong because she is so afraid of what God will do if she “thinks” the wrong thing.

Again, my question is: How can a smart, educated, thoughtful person believe in something for which there is no evidence (without simply making up their own evidence)? And why is it wise to have faith in something for which there is no evidence?

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    First, the question of evidence. We were social beings perhaps several million years before we were toolmakers, so we readily accept explanations in terms of purpose and agency. So we have people claiming that the existence of the universe, or its structure, is evidence for a Creator. This shows up in the 18th century argument from design, whose pale pathetic shadow is today's "intelligent design" movement.

    I am a little bit surprised that no one has raised the "fine tuning" argument for the existence of God. Perhaps out of sheer ignorance - you actually have someone answering who thinks that the word theory in science denotes uncertainty. There's a great deal to be said about that, coming and going, but what people lose sight of is that even if there was a purposeful Creator of the universe, we know nothing about the nature or purposes of the Creator, and certainly don't need to imagine that the Creator is anything like the savage tyrants described by most religions, or even particularly interested in us.

    Secondly, there are powerful pressures to be a believer if you have grown up among believers. You learn something as a child, and it is difficult to accept that all your authority figures are misguided, and that the social cohesion of your church is based on a shared fantasy.

    Thirdly, terror of what might happen if you question the existence of God. There are places in the world where it is regarded as wickedor even illegal to ask such questions, and we have the horrific example in Pakistan of anyone who questions the blasphemy laws being themselves, in the eyes of the clerics, a supporter of blasphemy and therefore also worthy of death.

    Finally, this leads to what Kurt Vonnegut regarded as the prime function of religion; holding a group together, and giving a way of distinguishing "our lot", trustworthy allies, with "them", wicked unbelievers against whom we should unite.

    The words "under God" were added to the U.S. Pledge of allegiance during the Cold War, to help distinguish virtuous capitalism from what was actually called at the time "godless communism".

  • 1 decade ago

    You gave a really big part of the reason why they do in your question, when you wrote:

    "One of my best friends clearly states that she cannot even admit to the possibility of being wrong because she is so afraid of what God will do if she “thinks” the wrong thing."

    I used to be a believer and I used to think this EXACT way. I thought I would be damned to hell if I so much as THOUGHT the THOUGHT that there might not be a god. I figured he could read my mind.

    The bottom line here is that a lot of smart and well-educated people claim to believe in a god because of fear. They are afraid that their god will read their minds and send them to hell, They are afraid to consider the notion that they will cease to exist after they die, so they cling to their faith.

    I think that if religions in general and Christianity in particular, did not have a threat of hell, nor a promise of heaven, a lot fewer people would stay with their so-called beliefs. How can a belief be considered as genuinely offered, from a place of love, if it is given under such a terrible threat? If the only benefit of believing was to have this personal relationship during your one and only life, who would be motivated to go to church?

    No one.

    Terrific question. Long, but you had a lot to say.

    Lady Morgana

    Atheist

  • Lazlo
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Christians have spent 2000 yrs perfecting their indoctrination techniques

    especially with early childhood coercion & constant adult reinforcement,

    They know how to press a persons buttons

    I've found that faith can take many forms, from the casual to the devout

    You'll never nail down a simple compelling answer, it's different for each

    & you won't find it using reason & logic.

    As to your 2nd question

    the only people who see faith believing as wise, are other believers

  • 1 decade ago

    as an atheist surrounded by christians, i have struggled with this question too. but after watching this documentary about this little schizophrenic girl who had an extremely high IQ, i realized that she is capable of being intelligent while also believing, hearing, and seeing things that just aren't there.

    also.. it's very intense conditioning as a child. it's hard to break. and it's the fear of death. and its the supportive community and good feelings they get from church... for christians, there is positive reinforcement for their conditioning EVERY where... just try to teach your child critical thinking skills.. and hopefully every generation will start to rid of these delusions

  • 5 years ago

    I do consider in birth control. I'm christian as good and sure, I would prefer 4 children, i'm waiting a just right at the same time before having extra. Without birth manipulate, i'd really possiy be pregnant right now and i'm no longer financially steady sufficient to have more. And that i agree, with the entire matters occurring in Michelle Duggars lifestyles, I consider that she traditionally wont be having to any extent further. I think that yes, beginning control is foremost because every body could be having quite a couple of children, and a few of those youngsters don't desserve to go into that style of atmosphere.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    be that as it may, there's no evidence to the big bang theory either, if that's what you are getting at. That's why they still call it a theory.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    "Smart, educated" people often have a problem with the sin of pride, which makes it difficult for them to believe.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.