Logic tells me God doesn't exist but my heart says otherwise.

[ShaMan]

Logic tells me God doesn't exist and my heart tells me God does exist.

Do you feel connected to this "God"? Is it separate from you, outside yourself, or is it a part of you/you of it?

[tjakey]

Logic told me to run, run far away because she would trash my life. But my heart said I loved her and all would be well.

I should have gone with logic.

[Meganw]

No no no no.. Do not listen to your heart. Your "heart" is just a conflict with your subconscious.. Logic will take you much further. Do not ignore the facts and what you know. Emotions will mislead you.. Like they do to everyone

[Brian37]

I came to the realization that the problem of evil is most likely unsolvable. I struggle with it a lot. Moreover there is no logical argument or scientific evidence that leads to conclusion of a Creator that stands to reason.

But for some reason I find myself believing in God still. I feel connected to God.

Logic tells me God doesn't exist and my heart tells me God does exist.

First off your heart does not do the thinking, your brain is the organ that does the thinking.

So why is it you cant let go of the idea of a god? Lots of things. Fear of hell, or fear of not fitting in with others, or fear you might be missing out on something. Or an intense feeling of wanting a god to exist.

Could be any of those things or a combo of those things. But there really is no god you are connected to. That is a mere desire you create in your head out of desire only. Much like I pined after a girl when I was a teen and mistook it for love.

Our species is extremely flawed in our perceptions, evolutionary wise. It is the same reason gods like Osirus and Apollo and Thor were invented. It is why Muslims believe in the god they do and Hindus believe in the gods they do. It is a placebo caused by our species false perceptions.

It really literally is all in your head. Can even be caused by chemical and neurological imbalance in your body and brain. NO that does not make you crazy, it just means your body activity can greatly influence how your brain is affected.

Whatever reasons you think you have, the natural explanation, and the simple explanation is "If you want to believe something badly enough, you will" even if it is not true.

[*Deidre*]

I read the thread title, and it captures a bit of how I've been feeling as of late, MysticKnight. I've been working through some of it, but definitely feel your point.

[bennyboy]

First off your heart does not do the thinking, your brain is the organ that does the thinking.

Your brain does all the feeling, too. Just because something isn't accessible at the conscious level, or isn't comprehensible as a logical argument, doesn't mean it isn't of the brain, or that it isn't something important to the human experience.

I'm not so sure what causes religious feelings. I'm not sure I can see the evolutionary value of having them. But certainly, they are a big part of the human experience (though not all would call them "religious"). Maybe if we could better understand what the brain is doing when we have religious feelings, we could figure out the evolutionary value, and turn a counterproductive superstitious impulse into a superpowerful subconscious assistant.

One of the problems with science and atheism is that feelings sometimes get disregarded as unimportant or unsignificant, in place of logic exclusively as a way of processing the world. To me, that's not a good thing.

[Mudhammam]

Your brain does all the feeling, too. Just because something isn't accessible at the conscious level, or isn't comprehensible as a logical argument, doesn't mean it isn't of the brain, or that it isn't something important to the human experience.

I'm not so sure what causes religious feelings. I'm not sure I can see the evolutionary value of having them. But certainly, they are a big part of the human experience (though not all would call them "religious"). Maybe if we could better understand what the brain is doing when we have religious feelings, we could figure out the evolutionary value, and turn a counterproductive superstitious impulse into a superpowerful subconscious assistant.

One of the problems with science and atheism is that feelings sometimes get disregarded as unimportant or unsignificant, in place of logic exclusively as a way of processing the world. To me, that's not a good thing.

While I sympathize and agree with your assessment to some extent, I also think you're not giving "science and atheism" (really? What's atheism have to do with science or understanding the evolutionary or practical role of emotion?) proper credit for approaching the very subject at hand far more appropriately than their unscientific (i.e. religious) counterparts. Research as to the the cause or role of "religious feelings" has undoubtedly received attention in a number of fields, such as psychology and neuroscience. I would suspect the evolutionary value of such shifts in consciousness, if any, is similar to the practical benefits any other emotional high that human beings frequently experience bestows, whether it be the joys of simple aesthetic pleasure that follow from artistic endeavors or the feeling of accomplishment that follows scientific breakthrough, and everything else in between. Even certain animals use "magic mushrooms" to pass the time; my felines love their catnip. Maybe it's just something to do, and (obviously) also proves to be pleasurable, or appears to enhance life, and gives us a sense of meaning or purpose--like anything can--that without which might cause some to grow apathetic towards the future (and such a predisposition might quickly be eliminated from the gene pool, or at least not thrive as much as others). In short, emotions are integral to every thought and action that proceeds from the mind. Why would religious feelings have any special role other than their obvious effects that religious followers regularly report: a sense of unity with the world, peace, security, freedom, etc. These are important emotions but do they depend on any specific creed about the metaphysics of the Universe as it relates to other-worlds? Of course not.

[Mystic]

Logic tells me God doesn't exist and my heart tells me God does exist.

Do you feel connected to this "God"? Is it separate from you, outside yourself, or is it a part of you/you of it?

I feel it's separate in one sense, but in another sense, it's close and part of us and inside us.

---

I read the thread title, and it captures a bit of how I've been feeling as of late, MysticKnight. I've been working through some of it, but definitely feel your point.

I guess the difference is only which one we chose to believe at the end?

[bennyboy]

While I sympathize and agree with your assessment to some extent, I also think you're not giving "science and atheism" (really? What's atheism have to do with science or understanding the evolutionary or practical role of emotion?)

I think atheism is mostly founded on principles of logic-- ideas about gods are discarded because they are inconsistent and lacking evidence. But it seems to me-- and maybe I'm wrong-- that some kinds of powerful emotions and experiences also get discarded as meaningless or even deleterious. We don't necessarily want to throw the baby out with the bath water, I think.

Why would religious feelings have any special role other than their obvious effects that religious followers regularly report: a sense of unity with the world, peace, security, freedom, etc. These are important emotions but do they depend on any specific creed about the metaphysics of the Universe as it relates to other-worlds? Of course not.

That's right. And yet if you ask people who found their world views on science or on the logical disregard of metaphysics if they meditate, or have an interest in lucid dreaming, OBEs, or experience a "communion with God" or any kind of metaphysical experience, you are much more likely to receive scorn than approval.

I've had some experiences that, while I don't want to attribute them to ghosts or gods, were certainly of that category that people usually call religious-- and whatever the true source of those experiences, they are an important part of my life and I feel I learned a lot from them. I think exploring the limits of what the mind can experience should be encouraged, but it's been my experienced that those who place logic at the center of their world view neither have the inclination to seek such experiences themselves, nor tolerance for those who do, nor even a fundamental understanding of what those experiences are like. Due to the limitations of their world view, they have missed out on experiences I have had myself, and cannot really understand what it is that they've missed, and refuse even to believe that they could have missed anything of value. They are wrong.

It's one thing to refuse to make or accept factual assertions about what experiences really mean. But deliberately avoiding entire categories of experience is akin to an ostrich sticking its head in sand.

[Mudhammam]

I think atheism is mostly founded on principles of logic

That would be ideal...

But it seems to me-- and maybe I'm wrong-- that some kinds of powerful emotions and experiences also get discarded as meaningless or even deleterious.

Is that logical? I don't think so. You're right, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water... but being realistic, I don't think emotions are separable from any thought or action, including the exercise of logic; we naturally feel a sense of satisfaction when we are correctly applying logical principles or discovering where a fallacy in an argument lies. I think the division of logic and emotion, while you're probably right that some scientists and atheists have pretended it was possible, is an almost self-refuting fantasy, on par with one who believes that they're the only consciousness to *really* exist.

That's right. And yet if you ask people who found their world views on science or on the logical disregard of metaphysics if they meditate, or have an interest in lucid dreaming, OBEs, or experience a "communion with God" or any kind of metaphysical experience, you are much more likely to receive scorn than approval.

In red I have placed psychological phenomena that we know to exist (OBE not *actually* "being out of body," but clearly the illusion or hallucination of such experiences are as real as anything; I have never seen any convincing evidence that a person *actually* left their body and reported in precise detail events that were simultaneously occurring in some other location where the person was not present).
In blue we have obvious trouble making sense of what "communion with God" even means, not to mention there is zero evidence that God is anything more than projection of the ego or the wider, typically unnoticed, scope of subconscious feeling.

I've had some experiences that, while I don't want to attribute them to ghosts or gods, were certainly of that category that people usually call religious-- and whatever the true source of those experiences, they are an important part of my life and I feel I learned a lot from them. I think exploring the limits of what the mind can experience should be encouraged, but it's been my experienced that those who place logic at the center of their world view neither have the inclination to seek such experiences themselves, nor tolerance for those who do, nor even a fundamental understanding of what those experiences are like. Due to the limitations of their world view, they have missed out on experiences I have had myself, and cannot really understand what it is that they've missed, and refuse even to believe that they could have missed anything of value. They are wrong.

I don't doubt that through your experiences you can gain a much firmer understanding, even scientific knowledge of human nature and psychology; metaphysics, on the other hand? Highly unlikely. That would probably require a great deal of speculation and ad hoc assertions on your part, and wildly inconsistent claims or conclusions with similar reports of those types of experiences that others have. Perhaps we live in a pluralistic Universe where everybody's grandiose metaphysical statements possess an equal claim on reality; my experience, considering the utter failure of self-proclaimed soothsayers, prophets, divinities, etc. to possess any degree of reliable predictability or produce internally consistent reasons that correspond to any empirical data, is that this is not case.

It's one thing to refuse to make or accept factual assertions about what experiences really mean. But deliberately avoiding entire categories of experience is akin to an ostrich sticking its head in sand.

I don't think the situation requires that anyone needs to avoid "entire categories of experience." We simply need to approach these experiences as honestly and objectively as possible.