Richard P. Feynman - The Relation of Science and Religion
calteches.library.caltech.edu
calteches.library.caltech.edu
First, a number of studies have concluded that by any reasonable measure, atheists tend to be more ethical than religious people as a whole. This shows up in under-representation in criminal activity, lower divorce rates, etc. (There are a number of sociological reasons for this, but those are the statistics.)
Secondly surveys that I saw a long time ago suggest that Feynman was wrong about most scientists in his day. At that time most scientists were religious. (Still at lower rates than the general public.) However most elite scientists were atheists. Which supports the thesis that the more seriously you take science, the harder it is to subscribe to traditional religion.
But this has shifted over time. While looking for that old survey I ran across http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?... which says that today about 40% of scientists believe in a personal God that they pray to, etc. But if you look at members of the National Academy of Sciences (an elite group of scientists), about 10% believe in God.
So it seems that, in yet another way, Feynman was a man ahead of his time...
What about if you compare atheists and religious people of similar intelligence? I suspect atheists tend to be more ethical simply because they tend to be more intelligent.
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Mans...
I read this collection of his essays on religion about a decade ago and would recommend it to folks interested in the topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Religion-Selections-Writings/d...
I feel like Feynman (and Russell) are asking a much more interesting question than the typical interwebs atheists and jesus-ists debate that this is already turning into: not, "Is religion right?" But, "What is the future of religious experience, thought and practice in a scientific world?"
Another interesting question is to look at the relationship of atheism and belief. Actually science does not approach real atheism - it never exceeds agnosticism (one of Feynman's points).
Real atheism is very close to deep religious belief. Look at the great mystics - St John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Kabbalists - they reach a point of blackness, emptyness where there is nothing but a completely baseless faith to sustain them.
William Blake in the 4 Zoas discusses 'experience'. I won't quote it here as it is too long - but it is here: http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-four-zoas-excerpt/
a remarkable passage that begins:
What is the price of Experience do men buy it for a song Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No it is bought with the price Of all that a man hath his house his wife his children...
What I personally have always wondered (and I ask this as a half-assed, weak, too lazy to get up on Sundays, lapsed catholic) is if there is really a god, an omnipotent all-knowing, all powerful entity. Then how could we possibly know anyhting about this entity.
Somewhere is the Hebrew scriptures (part of the Moses story) is the phrase "no one who looks upon my face lives". If one really believes in such a god (and I am in no way looking down on this) - how far is that from atheism?
How that is close to deep religious belief?
As an atheist I live without god in my life. That's it. I don't think about god, I don't reason based on any bible, I don't extrapolate my morals or ethics from god or any religious scripture.
How on earth are you by any metrics going to claim that that is deep religious belief?
Atheism makes a definitive statement for things which are outside the realm of the testable world. In that sense, it is like being religious. The term agnosticism, or simply not religious, as I more often use, is indicative of a lack of belief.
Second, morality and ethics are part of the same social evolution that has traditionally produced religions. Almost any citizen of a western country has ethics that are rooted in some vaguely judeo-christian notions, which themselves are rooted in socratic notions, and so on. The social fabric doesn't have clearly demarcated lines for "religious" and "areligious". Trying to imaging what western ethics would have been without the influence of religion is like trying to imagine the United States would have been without the influence of England. You just can't pull the two apart.
We exactly don't know whether there is a god or not, but choosing to believe there is one despite there being no evidence for this is by no metrics the same as saying I don't believe in it cause there is no evidence.
You can't be an agnostic. You either "live with god" in your life or you don't.
You can have an agnostic point of view on whether the question is answerable or not.
You can't both live with a belief in god and without one.
You can't both follow the laws of a religion and not follow them.
With regards to the cultural heritage then again you are simply assuming the conclusion.
The reasons why we have morals and ethics are NOT because we have religion.
Human reality is the fundamental reason why we have rules. Religion sits on top of these rules and pretend to tell us WHY we should believe (gods wrath and vengange being one of them)
But you don't need religion to make rules for peaceful co-existence and that is what people fundamentally want.
Your argument is at best polemic.
The reasons why I don't believe in a good have nothing to do with me living by the doctrine of not believing in god as there is no doctrine for not believing in god.
I might believe in things that are not provable up front (such as making it safe from destination a - b)
But the big difference is that claims made about religion and god can't be tested. And this leaves them in the same pile of fiction as harry potter, lord of the rings and so on.
All very amusing but fundamentally as relevant and testable as whether mice are really running the planet.
If one can't prove that God does not exist, then Being Certain (without proof) therefore requires faith.
By this thinking you are basically saying that by dismissing any superstitious belief you are religious.
So if you dismiss Santa Claus even though we can't know for sure whether he exist then you are being religious.
So those who are told to only have one god and one belief system are daily breaking the very laws they try to uphold.
Not believing in the existence of god have nothing to do with being fundamental religious. It's a weak and sad attempt to divert the argument.
We all believe in something, the difference is what we believe in and why. THAT is the question.
Either way, as far as "God" goes, colour me apathetically agnostic. Nothing meaningful can be said about the existence (or lack thereof) of undetectable entities, so I don't concern myself with them. But unlike many atheists, I don't care enough about the topic to proclaim this view.
One of the interesting points that one of the professors made is that faith is not knowing for certain. So, in this guy's view, even religious people never "know", because if you really knew, really knew without a doubt, then there would be no faith involved. On the other hand, some scientists "know" what the results of their inquiries are going to bring. (I won't name names, but I hope we can agree on this simple point). So religious people can be very uncertain and scientists can be very certain.
This leads me to believe that there isn't necessarily a great gulf between religion and science. Some folks just have to know for sure, and some are comfortable with sliding scales of certainty. This seems to be true in both science and religion, although it may be that there are more of one type in each.
At the end of the day, instead of science and religion, the much more interesting questions might be about the practice of science and religion. Referring to these things as some sort of Platonic ideals that either mesh or compete with each other probably does a great disservice to the actual practices by individuals.
So as much as I hate to critique Feynman, I believe he was off-base a bit in this case.
Except this is not the case, at all. It's a false sense of certainty drawn from the solid roots of empirical science, especially for the existential (or unempirical) topics of disagreement between science and religion.
I am a huge advocate and fan of empirical science and all that has brought us, but when people go clobbering religious believers with the science bat as if they're somehow "more certain" about that which cannot be empirically experienced, nor empirically reproduced, then that's when I call BS.
On existential issues (the only legitimate grounds of disagreement between science and religion), Science and Religion are equal. They are equally uncertain, although many people can't understand that. Both have a mountain of faith-based assumptions about things we cannot EVER determine empirically.
Faith, after all, is being certain of what one cannot see.
I love robg around here not only because he finds great articles, but because he's a damn smart neuroscientist and backs me up entirely on this:
The problem of course is that naturalism has it's own limit or else it too becomes dogmaticism. There's stuff we just can't know from empirical observation. Indeed, I'd argue the question "why" has a genesis just beyond rational thought. Empiricism might help to explain away those urges but I don't see how it will ever address their origin. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=396215
To sum up, both Science and Religion will never answer the question "Why?" with ANY logical degree of certainty greater than the other. It's not empirical and never will be, period. In that case, I choose to embrace only solid, logically grounded empirical science yet address the intuitive questions with a faith in God that never fails me.
As if religious belief is based on years and years and years of research, experimentation and the creation of predicable models.
If religion and science where the same then by definition we would still have large parts of the world believing in copernicus as the one and only true scientist, or Aristotle, or Newton or Einstein. Why?
Because most religious people end up having exactly the same faith as their parents had and never do anything close to investigating their beliefs.
You are assuming that there is a "Why" to answer and that is exactly why your argument is invalid.
Just because there isn't any meaning WITH life does not meant there isn't any meaning IN life.
This is a position which is directly accessible to science, too. For if there were something special about the human experience, or the conscious experience, it must either exist somewhere in the physical laws, or else it must also be true for man-made contraptions and there is nothing particularly special about people (in this respect).
Faith, after all, is being certain of what one cannot see.
By your argument you should personally be equally uncertain about whether gravity works on the surface of Pluto and whether I am a giant octopus. After all you are unable to travel to Pluto, and you are unable to track me down and verify that it was not a giant octopus who wrote these words. In your words, both are claims about things that you "cannot empirically experience nor empirically reproduce."
Yet despite your inability to empirically experience or empirically reproduce either gravity on Pluto or any data pertaining to my octopus-hood, I confidently assert that you do not find your uncertainty on those two issues to be even remotely equivalent.
Why not? Because you have established mental models of how the universe work that make it difficult to believe that gravity doesn't work on Pluto and make it difficult to believe that there are giant octopuses posting on HN. Yet this is exactly the type of certainty that you say you'd call BS on in others. And if you met someone who strongly believed that I am a giant octopus, and expected you to accept it, I'm sure you'd be rather flabbergasted.
Science is nothing less or more than the distillation of the successes of several centuries of work on producing and testing better mental models of how parts of the universe exist. Mental models exactly like the ones you used to tackle the data points I gave you. (In fact every part of the mental model you'd use on the Pluto question, including belief in the existence of Pluto, came out of that scientific process.)
Please think about this example carefully. Then try to apply modern mental models of the universe to questions such as whether people get possessed by demons, water can turn into wine, and people can come back from the dead. You should find that those questions all look far more like the giant octopus claim than gravity on Pluto.
Whether or not this list of dubious factual claims in the Bible changes your belief system any, I think it is sufficient to make concrete why it is not just BS for people with a strong science background to look at a concrete religious tradition (Christianity in this case) and dispute specific claims that religion makes. Even though it involves reasoning about events that you "cannot empirically experience nor empirically reproduce".
And once someone has disputed the basic facts of the central story, what grounds are left to accept the other beliefs of the religion?
All I meant was that I will only accept science that is grounded in empiricism, because that is the only basis for concrete, logical, conclusions from science.
Where science and religion differ (the unempirical), I'm going with my own intuition and convictions, because science is no more correct or certain than religion.
Just in case though, can you get on Skype so I can make sure I'm not arguing with an octopus? =P
Science is the only thing that can be correct if we follow your own interpretation.
To be correct about something it requires empirical evidence to measure up against lack of evidence.
By definition religious claims can't be verified so they can never be true.
Splitting the way of looking at the world into two sides -- religion and science -- is itself a 'perspective', if you will. But establishing that dichotomy is somewhat useful.
I find in coding that I need to be humble and 'doubting' in the scientific sense. But I also find that I need to have faith during e.g. long refactorings. I'm not even joking. It may seem trite to apply it directly to programming, but considering the difference of the world of 2010 and the world of 1956 -- it's nice to see some of his insights are quite relevant.
(The naive part in his understanding, imho, which anything written in the 50's would be a part of -- is that a lot of history, which wasn't exactly in the history books back then, has many examples of people screwing over other people in the name of 'religion'. So it's not all a box of roses this Christian 'ethics' that he's putting forth. Though I suppose he had to respect the YMCA audience where he spoke and the times were quite different then. I'm sure he himself, the son of Jewish immigrants, was quite aware of it. But there's a bit of the typical Feynman arrogance -- like his dismissal of the social sciences in some youtube video. Should've been a little more scientific. But, like always, he is somewhat original and sometimes connects the important dots that we overlook.)
haha, someone posted this just now in another forum.
Yes, it is possible to have both those points of view at the same time.
But that's not the heart of it. Strip away the math and jargon and theories--all the messy details that make the engine of science turn--and it all comes down to answering "What next?".
Making up silly stories about why something happened is perhaps humanity's second-oldest pass-time. Science is the unprecedented art of making up silly stories about what hasn't yet happened, then throwing out stories that didn't come true. The astonishing part is that many times, when people started extending those stories to things they hadn't known of when the story was invented, or that they couldn't easily see happening--the stories kept working!
It may be the case that these flights of fancy, increasingly accurate in their predictions, describe reality, or answer questions like "Why" and "How"--but if they don't, it doesn't really matter.
So when you tell yourself a story about things that happen, and use that to form expectations of what will happen next, and most importantly get rid of stories that led you astray--that's Doing Science. And if you tell your friends about that story, and it helps them form expectations that work--that's where scientific knowledge comes from. It's not about truth, or certainty, or very formal and proper double-blind experiments, or answering Great Questions, or any of that stuff. It's about "What's next?", nothing more, nothing less.
So, what's left? What is it that science isn't? I suppose--stories that aren't expected to predict anything, perhaps; ideas without implication, freed from the burden to inform today your anticipations for tomorrow, to guide your actions with the knowledge of expected consequence. So the question is: What is the purpose of an idea that impacts not at all what one thinks will happen in the future? Answer that, and you have found what science will never touch.
Anyway a model is not really useful either when there's only a finite amount of data. I hear astronomy's starting to hit against this problem.
"For instance, the size of the universe is very impressive, with us on a tiny particle whirling around the sun, among a hundred thousand million suns in this galaxy, itself among a billion galaxies.
Again, there is the close relation of biological man to the animals, and of one form of life to another. Man is a latecomer in a vast evolving drama; can the rest be but a scaffolding for his creation?
Yet again, there are the atoms of which all appears to be constructed, following immutable laws. Nothing can escape it; the stars are made of the same stuff, and the animals are made of the same stuff, but in such complexity as to mysteriously appear alive – like man himself.
It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe beyond man, to think of what it means without man – as it was for the great part of its long history, and as it is in the great majority of places. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to see life as part of the universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is rarely described. It usually ends in laughter, delight in the futility of trying to understand. These scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged simply as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems to be inadequate."
What he doesn't say is the point I attempt to make after explaining my version of Feynman's quoted text: If we are such a small speck in the vastness of the universe, what right do we have as human beings to claim we KNOW what created us and everything else? Why do we assume the universe is merely something for us to look at in the sky?
In my opinion religion and certain belief in deities is simply arrogance and a great crime by humanity as a whole.
I feel that's the core of the conflict. Whatever aspects religion has, they are thoroughly dependent on an unquestioning acceptance of some metaphysical model, whether a minimalist one such as in Deism or one as expansive and involved as in Animism. This is the aspect that is antithetical to science, not just in science's conclusions (it's hard to falsify a deistic model, unlikely that will occur any time soon) but fundamentally in its approach.
I would be careful with such a sweeping statement. My personal experience as a Catholic is that through some pretty intense questioning, I have come to a better understanding of why I believe what I believe. I look at this questioning as a lifelong pursuit that is never finished. I'm constantly checking myself: "Do I believe this still? Why do I believe this to be true. Is that consistent with other things I believe. If not, why?" My personal religious experience would be quite shallow if I wasn't doing that.
I'm also not discounting someone discovering new tenets via that same type of self-investigation.
I'd be quite interested to learn more about such self-questioning, as well as what limitations if any you impose on yourself.
The Trinity is an excellent example of something I have questioned at various points in my life. There isn't the space here to fully detail my whole exploration of the topic, but I have asked questions like, "Assuming there is an all powerful God, how is it possible for this being to be simultaneously in human form? What if this is all just a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally? Given what I know about physics and biology, isn't it possible this Holy Spirit thing is not real?"
Obviously, one can't arrive at conclusive "proof" in the scientific sense for any of the answers to these questions. But as a professional scientist, I find the process of asking them gives me a way to go and look into these specific topics more fully. It satisfies the analytical part of me that is always asking "why?" about everything. For this reason, I don't really put many limits on my line of questioning, since it's important to ferret out the things that are causing me trouble.
Note that I'm also not constantly questioning everything all at once. This is counter-productive since you basically end up at the extreme wondering if everything you observe in the real world is fake and not being able to believe anything, metaphysical or otherwise (it has been a few years since my philosophy courses in college, but I know this is well-traveled ground in philosophy). To put it another way, at several points in my life, I have explored the idea that God may not exist (or that maybe I'm dealing with the "wrong one"). Ultimately, I have made the decision that I believe there is a God. So I don't go back and re-hash that concept every time I want to explore another facet of my faith.
One of the things I have come to appreciate about Catholicism as an adult is that it's internally consistent from a philosophical point of view. There is a rich history of writings by various Catholic philosophers (such as St. Augustine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) on why we believe the things we believe. Furthermore, the Church publishes the Catechism which has extensive citations for the source texts for every facet of the Catholic faith. From the outside, many of the teachings of the Church can seem proscriptive and arbitrary. But when you dig into the details, you find there is a structure to how it all fits together into a coherent and consistent picture. You may have to do a lot of digging and reading to get to all the details, but it's all there.
It is never a disappointment to read Feynman - an interesting piece from the opening claim:
"In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another...When we look at the past great debates on these subjects we feel jealous of those times..."
He then goes on to excuse himself from the debate as he is not an expert on religion but sets up an interesting hypothetical of a young scientist who becomes disenchanted with 'his father's god' - which is a wonderful way to setup the discussion because as it follows he doesnt really pit religion vs science. He discusses a crisis of faith which is really at the heart of any faith based system.
Discomfort with one's father's god - Cronos and Uranus, Abraham and Issac, God-the-Father and Jesus - there is something corrosive, some conflict which moves religion forward in an analogous way to how great discoveries unseat accepted truths in science. In a very elegant way Feynman touches on this and moves to a discusson of how science and religion are on different tracks.
I find it noteworthy here that he does not equate scientists with atheists but says that scientists if they believe in god do so differently. This is Issac coming down from the mountain, Jesus' last words, Buddha's fire sermon - a deep realization that we are alone in the cosmos. The scientist may worship the same god as before - but it is not longer his father's god.
The reason (for Feynman) the Science can never truly supplant religion is that it cannot entertain metaphysical questions - which is consistent with the Kantian tradition of separating reason into realms (pure, instrumental, speculative). Science is pure or instrumental - but not speculative.
(As an aside there are good examples of why science should not attempt to be speculative in recent news - Dr in UK who falsified data to support the mercury-autism link; the recent climate science scandals. And even better examples of the perversion of religion in science: "intellegent design")
This piece is great - it is not meant as a Bertrand Russell type of exegesis but is a luncheon talk intended to spur debate. As such just churns up questions and seeks productive argument.
Most throw up their hands at this debate - pick one side or another and the discussion stops. He sets the problem up beautifully - I wonder if the following discussion was saved.
What a wonderful man, beautiful soul he was.
FYI Feynman was an atheist in his later years. Also his hostility to philosophy and metaphysical questions has become legendary.
I don't know what his status on either trait was in the early 50s.
He is not saying that religion actually answers questions that science can't answer.
He is saying that as long as there are things we can't answer human nature will be to create a deity for the gaps.
That is two very different positions. It's not that science can't answer certain questions it's that science can't fulfill human needs for answers.
Mind the difference.
I can only speak for certain branches of Christianity here, but this "God of the gaps" notion of God's role in the universe can't really even be called "antiquated." It is a fairly recent invention. Early Christian philosophy (the "church fathers") and much of Orthodoxy espouses a constantly unfolding creation.
I really hope that this notion, that theists just use God to explain what they don't understand, can be dispelled in the next few years. Unfortunately we have plenty of Young Earth Creationists in the spotlight here in America and they only seem to be getting louder and getting more attention.
It's true, there are some highly ethical religious people, and some highly dogmatic and unthinking atheists.
Except this isn't true, at all, so you can throw out that invalid assumption. The things a religious believer does (at least, speaking for myself) are done out of love for a God greater than them, not done out of fear.
religion as a deferment of curiosity
Religion, in fact, holds science to a higher degree of authenticity, because it demands logical, empirically validated reproducible processes for someone to believe it. The entire basis of quality science is empiricism.
At least religion calls certainty in the unempirical "faith".
In science, that f-word is a big no-no. It would be heresy to admit that science has no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than religion.
Isn't true at all? Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I was doing many things out fear of a particularly nasty and vengeful super-being. And I know I was not alone in this among my fellow believers.
Anecdotal to be sure, but it's interesting how often the pain and punishment awaiting those who step astray gets mentioned in some religious texts.
Seems pretty clear that the authors themselves did not expect love of the almighty to be sufficient to keep the flocks in line.
'At least religion calls our certainty in the unempirical "faith". In science, that f-word is a big no-no, it would be heresy to admit they have no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than does religion.'
Again, YMMV, but my experience with the Catholic Church is that very few members spoke about god, hell, limbo, miracles, etc. as if they were interesting conjectures, speculations born from an absence of empirical evidence.
No, these things were put forth as being no less factual than the presence of the sun and the rain and the snow; you were to accept them as fact; this was your act of faith.
The most striking difference I've seen between science and religion is the degree to which people readily admit that what they are saying could very well be wrong, and the extent to which doubt and skepticism is actively encouraged.
I can understand where you're coming from. The majority of my friends are Catholic (well, ex-Catholics), and to hear them talk about church almost pains me. I could not believe when they said people would show up at their door demanding tithes/money, some of the requirements for attending church, etc. To be honest, hearing all about how Catholicism operates, I'd probably have been an ex-Catholic myself.
I'm a protestant Christian though, and the root of my belief has always been that we are "justified by faith" in the midst of our depraved, imperfect nature (see Romans 3:23-24 and Galatians 2:16). My faith is not a set of demands that I am obligated to perform to get into Heaven, nor does it operate out of fear of Hell and punishment. It's a faith that is rooted in a love for Christ, knowing that I can never do enough good deeds to justify myself before a perfect God.
When you know that by faith - simply believing - you are justified, clean, and in God's grace, there is no basis for fear.
It's an awesome concept, but if you were to examine the New Testament, you'd conclude that Christ didn't come to instill fear (or condemn) the world, but to save the world (John 3:17).
If you're really curious, check out "Classic Christianity" by Bob George or the latter parts of "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. Both books do away with the needless junk that is the basis for many sects of Christianity and get to the core of what Christianity and the Bible really means.
I mean this in the most non-judgmental, value-neutral way possible: That statement is basis of all religious terrorism.
Here's the thing: That, to me, is about a far from "knowing" as one can get.
And there seems to be a serious matter of self-reference, that one needs to first have faith that faith is worth embracing, and faith that the key documents spousing the value of faith are correct.
My empirical experience with believing in, and acting on, things for which is no evidence tells me otherwise.
Faith is "Being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) Now, how can you be sure of what you hope for if there is not due evidence to have that kind of certainty? Also, you can't be certain of what you do not see without other evidence (e.g we can't see air but we know it exists from a plethora of reasons).
I'm not sure that Christianity is about "simply believing" -- I mean yes that describes the effect of Christ's grace (all you need is belief/acceptance to receive it)... but that's not why I choose to believe in a God.
The rational / irrational (who cares) reason for my belief in God has to do with the things that are historical texts and events, key elements include the existence of Jesus / his effect on the world, as well as the written word recorded close to after his death. Is the old testament just a silly mythology, or a long way to prove a single point (that humans could never achieve the nature of this thing we call God)? Maybe, I don't claim to know. But I feel that the new testament and its claims as well as the testaments of some people who died refusing to renounce what they saw as truth are very compelling in terms of conveying something important that happened. Do I believe that some really crazy, amazing things happened back then? I think I have due reason to believe it. I mean, I just find it so hard to believe that all those people who wrote the letters and books that make up the bible are crazy. They were crazy enough to die gruesomely and still refuse to renounce their belief, and the thing that separates them from suicide bombers is their apparent sanity in the writing as well as their message of love. Personally speaking I think the evidence is enough for me to put my faith in it, to be sure of what I'm hoping for (that there is a loving God out there). Hey, worst case scenario I was wrong and I loved more people and used my life to help others, right?
In addition, it's not like the dude Jesus was preaching "thank god for dead soldiers" or "kill the infidels" or "scare them straight" or anything moronic like that. He preached humility, love, forgiveness and a bunch of things (personally, I feel) the world actually needs. I don't know how anyone can be mad at me for choosing to believe in something like that.
Now, I can similarly understand that what I see as evidence may not be evidence enough for another person, and so they may not believe the same thing as me, and that's fine. But for me to tell them that they are dumb for not seeing it, or for them to tell me that I am dumb because I choose to believe something, iono if that's a good thing. We all get the same data and we draw our own conclusions.
Am I evangelical? Yeah, I have to say yes. If you want to know more about what I believe, I am happy to spend time talking or do a bible study. Do I shove religion down other peoples' throats or get all political about crap? Not really my cup of tea. I think chill is the best demeanor for life ;D and love is all you need.
I completely agree with you.
Belief for the sake of belief is not why I choose to believe in God, either. However, you must at least admit that justification by faith (simply believing) is at the core of the protestant Christian tenets.
If you trace the original conversation though, I was just trying to point out that fear was not a motivator for my belief, and tried to show why. I could have expounded on the core of why I do believe, but that would have resulted in a full dissertation.
As you pointed out, there are hundreds of historical texts and reasons that form the foundation for belief (see also Josh McDowell - Evidence that Demands a Verdict).
We're on the same page, I was just explaining something entirely different.