Ask HN: When and why did you start believing in God? I presume many here are not believers. So, for those who believe—and in the spirit of open and genuine curiosity—I’d love to know what made them change their minds. |
Ask HN: When and why did you start believing in God? I presume many here are not believers. So, for those who believe—and in the spirit of open and genuine curiosity—I’d love to know what made them change their minds. |
The first few chapters of Alan Watts' "The Way of Zen" opened a completely new world to me outside of rationality which I sorely was ignorant about, and I desperately needed. Having a spiritual perspective from which to view the world is probably the most valuable part of the religious experience. The fantasies people have over the centuries built on top, I really can do without.
Why? Thats harder to answer. Because my parents told me about Jesus, and the Holy Spirit opened my heart to receive it. I didn't weigh the evidence. My eyes were opened and I "saw". The "why" is ultimately that I was pursued. My heart was changed and I was given faith. I wasn't smart enough and definitely didn't pursue him on my own. That's the best thing about it.
That's the only honest answer I can give.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-tetragrammaton/
Chalk this up as one more disagreement between believers (that they really should have settled by now, given their interactions with an unbiased, omniscient third-party)
Anyway, I'm a lot older now and am passed all the religious stuff. I don't think it adds anything to my life. I'm still confused that other people believe in this stuff though, it really makes zero sense to me.
I think around age 20-21, I read Descartes' Meditations on Philosophy, which forced me to evaluate all of my beliefs about existence. Digging further into other philosophers (and religions), I realized there's not a whole lot I really know... about anything.
Eventually, I came to the belief of there being a creator, although who or what this creator is, I have no idea.
We got pretty heavily downvoted here, lol. Really, I don't understand why.
if there were two gods, they would have to differ from each other in some way. But a being that is pure act (without any potentiality) and absolutely simple (not composed of parts) cannot have any accidental differences. They could only differ in their very “whatness” (essence). However, if they differ in essence, then one has a perfection the other lacks. The one lacking that perfection would not be absolutely perfect, and therefore would not be God. Thus, you cannot have two beings each claiming to be the maximum of being.
I mean, God, isn't one enough? Honestly, it's too much for me!
(If you had just one, it would look pretty silly calling himself father and praying to himself.)
Had a kind of pivot moment when I moved out from home though, where I immediately realized my parents will not be there forever, and the inner me needs to reach for my ultimate parent. This got me into a much closer relation with the Lord. I had (and have) many somewhat spectacular answers to prayer, and basically learned to have a really trustful relationship with him.
I know many people's faith is challenged when going to the university and learning about biology as I did (studying biotech and bioinformatics).
I had came into contact with some great apologetics material, especially around evolution etc, in Swedish, which I found super interesting.
Still, I must say my faith was even more reinforced when we started to study macro-molecular machines, and I realized that biology is a whole world of extremely advanced nano-machines, working in an extremely intricate network of interlocking interdependencies.
I've been involved in quite a bit of debates regarding evolutionism and creationism over the years, and one thing I have noticed is that scientific creationism is much closer to modern evolutionary theory than most people realize. Recent secular paradigms such as "The third way of evolution" [1] pretty much perfectly recapitulates what many creationists have said for years; Biology is shock-full of pre-programmed ability to adapt, according to pre-existing modules and adjustable parameters, in an extremely dynamic software system, with tons of generative algorithms for how animals and plants are built up through embryogenesis, which allows for powerful adjustments of a lot of parameters with often surprisingly little change in the genomic "source code".
For people interested in an introduction to what secular science has to say here, I often recommend "The Plausability of Life", by Gerhart and Kirschner [2]. Other great titles are "Evolution: A View from the 21st century" by James Shapiro [3], and a few more (the third way website lists a lot of great books).
In my view, the Genesis story in the Bible matches these findings perfectly, disagreeing mainly in the expected age of things. But these biological mechanisms actually mean that "evolution" can happen extremely fast, without even actual genomic changes just by turning on and off or regulating features, via mechanisms like Epigenetics.
Eventually I've became involved in trying to figure out the more detailed view of how the Biblical narrative could explain the bleeding edge of biology, which led me to co-organize a seminar in Sweden in 2024 with European researchers (mostly), which resulted in both a video series and a book, which is available from this web store among others (not affiliated).
This work, especially the chapters on 1) Mendelian genetics 2) Epigenetics and 3) Transposable elements (think Endogenous Retroviruses, Jumping Genes etc), together in my mind creates an extremely interesting explanatory framework for how life was pre-programmed to be extremely efficient - and fast - mind you - at adapting to varying environments.
Whether you want to call that "evolution" or "pre-programmed adaptive creation" is in my mind very much a question of definitions, and TBF, the term evolution hasn't had a very strict definition for as long as I remember.
Anyways, today I'm more fascinated than ever the more I learn about the extremely complex and ingenuous solutions out there in nature to vastly different problem areas like chemistry, metabolism, mechanics, information processing and general cognition. It fills me with awe and respect for the creator that must be there behind all this.
[1] https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
[2] https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300119770/the-plausibili...
[3] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11004717-evolution
[4] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNkVOx7YbWiDABv5nB3Ih...
[5] https://store.answersingenesis.co.uk/product/a-creation-scie...
Ultimately it was that in MatAth the person could not be defined, yet we are persons. Also the concept of specie was broken too, every animal would be its own specie.
Then I realized that atheists have no explaination for quantum probabilities, i thought that for God to not exist everything had to be explainable with mechanisms. But when we measure the spin of a particle, whether is spin up or spin down, there is a 50/50 perfect chance? what mechanism makes the choice? There is none, and atheists have no answer other than "thats just how the universe works, period" I realized that since there is no mechanism the only thing that remains to explain it is Will, and if there is will there is a person behind that will.
So? Better to not be able to explain something, than a glib "god did it".
> atheists have no answer other than "thats just how the universe works, period"
I've never heard an atheist say anything like this. Or a physicist. They're more likely to say "that's how it appears to be. We don't know why. It's a bit of a mystery."
There is some theory that true randomness can be explained by some hidden behavior not yet known to man. Some local hidden variables not existing or something...
So in that case, yes, god did it. Or that is what God is, and by definition can be supernatural...
More realistic than god.
No argument there, but “in nature everything has an opposite” is just as illogical; many things have no opposite, thus it’s not “at least two” it’s zero asshole gods in a nihilistic atheistic universe, one asshole god in a true monotheistic universe, one neutered god and one not-quite god representing the bit that’s been neutered off in a false monotheistic universe, one good god and one bad god in a morally balanced duotheistic universe (looks identical to the zero god(s) option), or a variable number of variably asshole gods in a polytheistic universe.
My motivation to read any of this was downstream of some other internal feeling that I couldn't shake and slowly began to gnaw at me in my 20s -- that what I could sense around me (or sense at all) couldn't be all that "is". I suppose one way to phrase this is that I became increasingly disturbed by my inability to answer fundamental "where?" or "why?" questions (e.g., "why did the Big Bang happen?", "where is the singularity?", etc.). The standard retorts that some things are simply mysteries didn't satisfy me. Instead I started to suspect that much of what I thought was "territory" was actually just various "maps" that people have created in their minds to help navigate the territory. Around this time I stumbled onto Immanuel Kant's antinomies and realized that many people had thought along these lines in the past. Once I was on this trail, I've never strayed.
Also noticing people pursuing their own agenda and manipulating others with “atheism” religion.
A lot of thinking, logical reasoning and a sprinkle of personal unusual experiences eventually made obvious for me that there is much more to all this than meets the eye. And there must be some deity.
Nobody knows for certain what or who he is, but world with him is much more credible model of reality than without. And by definition he can’t be “proved” so I believe in him technically, though it feels like I know.
Also on a personal note (as you see from many comments here) - many so called atheists are arrogant people (in same way as religious radicals), while most true believers I met are more humble about their faith. Though it is definitely a biased perspective. But still Id rather be associated with best religion thinkers (like for example vast majority of mideveal thinkers that shaped our modern civilization) rather than with so called atheists who tend think they are the center of the universe.
Humans have been inventing gods since the beginning of time as a way to control/exploit the masses or soothe the over active mind.
There are thousands of dead religions, but this round of current popular religions has hit the nail on the head... right?
A truly powerful and kind super being would not allow child abuse, cancer, famine, or rape to happen. Even if there is a god, I don't want to worship something that allows those things to happen.
Also, the term god is relative. To an ant, we are gods. Any sufficiently advanced being would appear god like to us. Should ants worship us given how little we care about them?
For every moment of beauty that must prove God's existence, there are an equal number of atrocities that must prove God's absence. We just don't see them as often, because humans hide that sort of stuff from polite society.
It's far more healthy to accept our mortality and short lifespan, packing it with things that make us happy. Masking your fears of death with a religion is a mistake.
Rather than devoting my life to worshipping something which may or may not reward me in the next life, I plan to spend my time doing and feeling positive things (because they feel good).
If I had to pick a religion, I think I'd choose Buddhism. It just seems like a good way to be peaceful.
A: Don’t worry, they’ll tell you.
The god does not need to have a concept of human suffering. Just like gravity does not know how it feels to be crushed under a big rock that just fell on you.
It does if it wants me to devote my life to worshipping it.
1. a universal consciousness,
2. an energy that works through everything, and
3. that we can tap into both.
Been a slow journey from atheism to this, but mainly based on reading countless first-hand descriptions of enlightenment, mostly related to Kundalini experiences and psychedelic-induced. Reported experiences often fall into such similar categories, sometimes with the same symbology it's either something weirdly evolved in us (for no evolutionary advantage I can see), or some people gain access to deeper levels of reality.
Personal experiences for me that tipped it were:
1. My own Kundalini experiences (not the full-blown transcendental kind yet, but energy surges, meditation phenomena)
2. Receiving remote shaktipat, where energy was projected into me. One of the most surprising was when I was just lying down and a woman 10 miles away sent energy to me for half an hour. It was unmistakable, and wasn't possible she had subconsciously influenced me as she barely spoke to me until after the practice apart from telling me to lie down and relax.
Also, I recently worked out how to 'drop my mind' like Zen practioners talk about. Realised that's the core of concentration-style meditation. Good feelings start to arise on their own.
It's a personal journey (and ultimately the only one that counts), and the mind gets in the way, but each to their own.
Regardless of religion, creed, or motto, it is human to seek the truth and understand it.
You can choose to study physics, or sociology, or how the human body works, or the mind, and how to fight diseases etc.
Questions bigger than that seem too big to me, but if trying to find an answer to those questions makes people feel good and/or live good lives, why not?
But also yes, psychotic people too feel like they are really being followed by CIA which an outside observer can recognize as a delusion.
But why should this even be either-or? Why couldn't it be that the brain is tripping and the supernatural is also happening? I think mushrooms probably can trigger the brain into a state that can happen other ways too (fasting, long meditations, experiences of supreme beauty, the overview effect, near-death experiences etc.) These brain states are probably what religions are on about and why they have even appeared in the first place.
My experience was that the brain state I was in was very unusual and made me more humbly appreciate more the mystery of all being and in that state disproving the existence of god through logical arguments seemed like such a silly human endeavour, as if a termite is trying to gnaw on a temple. Like, "Sure, go ahead?" (and I'm not bashing logic, I too rely on it every day)
When did this happen? Probably in college when I studied philosophy and realized that the typical atheist arguments from Dawkins etc. were not taken seriously by actual thinkers.
I haven’t read enough of their work but I think whitehead / the process philosophers are probably on the right track.
At the same time, I took two humanities electives by accident: a philosophy course, which taught me what atheism brought to its conclusion results in (thank you Nietzche), and a Hebrew scriptures course, which taught me that the scriptures are essentially a story about the nature of God's relationship with humans.
My math courses were also very convicting. Kurt Godel and his proof for the existence of God, and his incompleteness theorem. I couldn't shake the experience, upon learning about Bertrand Russell's failed endeavor, that there must be a foundation for the mathematical reality we know deeper than humans can perceive.
I ended up in seminary and studied philosophy and theology, and finally made my way back to software engineering. 12 years later my life is still full of purpose and growth due to the faith I found then.
Also Pascal's Wager. And the fact there exists much more in common between all religions than initially meets the eye, as reinforced by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtlWoqWLm9Q
However, tangentially, and related to this discussion, Peter Girnus (a satire account from Twitter) makes what I believe is a quite strong argument for having time away from instant gratification (especially that from AI), and letting yourself sit with problems, and in that space you might find the spark from God.
Secular non-duality:
Awake: It's Your Turn -- Angelo DiLullo
The Power Of Now -- Eckhart Tolle
Seeing That Frees -- Rob Burbea
Dependent Origination and Emptiness -- Leah Brasington
The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian -- St Isaac around 700AD (one of the best Christian mystics (IMO the best))
The Complete Mystical Works Of Meister Eckhart -- Dominicon preacher around 1300AD
The Philokalia -- various authors but St Maximos and Kallistos Angelikoudos are great
The Mirror of Simple Souls -- Porette around 1300AD as well
The Gospel Of Thomas -- The Apocryphal Gospels
Plato's allegory of the cave (you'll get what he really meant after you have the awakening)
The Enneads -- Plotinus
Christian belief tends to follow by being told about God through colleagues, friends and family. Becoming a follower follows study of the Scriptures and disciplines such as prayer.
Some HNers may see belief as less intelligent. At 54 I can guarantee there are men and woman out there more intelligent than yourself who believe in God. My most intelligent, unbelieving Professor friend, would agree with me on this point.
Those who don’t believe are usually the ones who have changed their minds, not the other way around. It’s not surprising that some number of those change their minds again.
And when I read about the concept of all matter and all consciousness inhabiting each other just as they did prior and during the big bang.
I don't believe in a superior grand designer overlooking it all from "his" cloud castle, but if such a deity did exist, I would be profoundly amazed. I find it interesting to think that one could come to find it anything but consequential.
What could be more reasonable than to worship the source of all heat life and light in this world? Unfortunately I grew up in the wrong era/continent for that.
Once you've climbed a tree or cliff face and fallen free into the embrace of Wagyl's creation you'll not see the world in the same way again.
There were many religions before the Abrahamic ones.
I don't understand how this needs to be connected to the idea of God. Couldn't one believe that there are alien life forms with more power and higher consciousness without believing in God?
In contrast, the Christian followers of God believe he made us (humans) in his image and sent his son explicitly to save us (humans). Isn't that a more self-centered view?
And the idea isn't so much about aliens, more powerful beings in the universe, etc. rather that (I think) we can't understand or know a lot of fundamental things about reality; therefore, it seems logical to me that there is some higher form of intelligence or creative being beyond human understanding. Otherwise it implies that humans are the end-all, which I think is self-centered.
But while we're looking at it,
> The idea that human beings are the end-all to reality, the highest form of consciousness and most powerful being, just seems hopelessly self-centered to me
It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that they were made in God's image.
It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that He made the world just for us, and put us above all animals.
It is hopelessly self-centered to literally centre the Earth, and have the Sun rotate around us.
The atheist position is that there's nothing special about us. We're a growth on a wet rock that's nowhere in particular in space. We lucked out with opposable thumbs and language and have been burning through our resources ever since. No intervening supernatural third party is coming to rescue us.
Much less self centered than assume we’re developed from a mud on our own, without any external intervention.
> It is hopelessly self-centered to claim that He made the world just for us, and put us above all animals.
Not a bit more than think that we’re ultimate authority to judge and decide who is above who
> It is hopelessly self-centered to literally centre the Earth, and have the Sun rotate around us.
Geometrically it is an arbitrary choice of the coordinates system. Cosmologically and historically it was only an intermediate view held by many nations regardless of their religious views. Generally, the Earth is a truly unique planey unless found otherwise.
Atheist don’t think life is special, let alone miraculous is a good reason to reject atheism. A better way to live is to see everything as special, worthy of deeper inspection because the glitter of divinity sparkles everywhere one looks for it. Think of how that orientation drove so much of our scientific discoveries. Is it really bad to think of oneself as a little bit special (yet prone to sin from which we are too animalistic to extricate ourselves from). Perhaps you are the one who is too self aggrandizing in your sense of certainty about what is alas unknowable in the typical sense?
Reminder to self: never discuss religion on HN, you won't get any intelligent answers.
No. "From mud" is strictly less egocentric than "in God's image" for any possible interpretation.
> Not a bit more than think that we’re ultimate authority to judge and decide who is above who
No such thought necessary.
> Geometrically it is an arbitrary choice of the coordinates system.
It is absolutely not. Have a quick peek into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle. If you put Earth in the middle, then all the other planets move along squiggly lines and do not travel on the clean ellipses prescribed by gravity. Atheists joke about 'why not intelligent falling?' in response to 'intelligent design', which I think is a bit much. But yeah, put us back in geocentrism and you do need something like intelligent falling to fill in the gaps.
Maybe it was regional - I wouldn't know which region they were from off the cuff.
My family is mostly C of E and I don't recall any of them ever bringing up religious topics with third parties unprompted, so it did strike me as pretty weird.
Do you think an idea being 'self-centered' has any bearing on whether that idea is true or false?
What are the typical atheist arguments from Dawkins, etc.?
Why are they not actual thinkers?
2 and 3: I’m not going to answer these for you, just google it for 5 minutes or ask an LLM. No one with knowledge of the philosophy of religion takes the New Atheists very seriously. They were pop culture writers with mostly bad or oversimplified arguments.
See? It's a crap argument.