Dear David,

<<Why believe in any god(s)?>>

For the same reason one would believe in anything:

If a particular belief is good for you, if it helps you, if it makes you a better person, if it brings you closer to achieve your goals, if it makes you happy - then go for it. If it doesn't - then don't.

Even the same belief can be good for some and not for others.

Whether or not a belief corresponds, or even is consistent with objective/empirical material evidence, is not in itself a good reason to adopt or reject it.

Materialists are people who value material outcomes.
Since most human actions are based on beliefs; and since actions that are based on empirical evidence are likely to produce a predictable material outcome, it follows that materialists find it beneficial for them when their beliefs conform as practically as possible to empirical evidence.

On the other hand, religious people want to break their attachments to material outcomes and one method that can help us in this process is to adopt beliefs that do not correspond with, or even contradict empirical evidence. Having such beliefs that thwart our desire to control material outcomes is thus an act of sacrifice. Materialists find sacrifice idiotic - religious people find sacrifice elevating.

I therefore find attempts to rationalise religious beliefs in terms of empirical evidence (which is what the author is trying to do), as defeating the very purpose of religion. This is so regardless whether or not the beliefs in question do in fact match with empirical evidence.

.

Dear Rhian,

.

You ask :

« Have you ever experienced love? »
.

Yes I have, and continue to do so. Either love is or it is not. If it is not then it never has been.

On the other hand, it is impossible for me to experience the suicide of Hitler. But I can believe in the suicide of Hitler.

By the same token, it is impossible for the Church (understood as “a worshipping community”) to experience the resurrection of Jesus. But the Church can believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote, "Whether or not a belief corresponds, or even is consistent with objective/empirical material evidence, is not in itself a good reason to adopt or reject it."

We differ. I think whether or not a belief corresponds, or is consistent with objective/empirical material evidence, is the only reason to adopt or reject it.

Rhian,
We might say Christ is risen. We also often say that Christ was raised. One is a consequence of the other.

When we say Christ was raised, this refers to him being raised on a particular day, an event in time. When we say he is risen, that is ongoing, a state of being. He was raised never to die again.

Dear David,

Say a family had a terrible road accident, the whole family died except one child that is severely wounded in hospital. Would you immediately tell the child that his/her parents are dead? After all, won't this be consistent with objective/empirical material evidence?

I would rather tell the child, so long as they are still recovering from physical danger, that their parents love them and wait for them to recover. I think that this will be better for the child as it would give them more incentive to get well.

Yuyutsu,

There is a difference between temporarily withholding information from someone for good reason, and deliberately deluding oneself for a lifetime in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Your analogy is invalid.

A better analogy in support of david f’s position, to demonstrate why aligning one’s beliefs with reality is important, is to imagine the harm that could come from someone convincing themselves that they had won the lottery when they hadn’t. They may go on a spending spree and blow every cent they have in anticipation of this forthcoming windfall. But eventually, they’re going to owe rent/mortgage payments and require money for food and bills, yet they’ll have no money left.

Now that’s a more accurate analogy.