Δαφνη Ευτυχια Αρθουρος

Yesterday, cellio put into better words than I've managed, an explanation very similar to something I've often tried to say (and, unsurprisingly, takes the insight a couple of steps farther as well):

"I believe in God because I have observed things about the world, and had experiences, for which I have found no explanation that is more satisfying.

"I cannot prove to you that God exists, nor am I inclined to try. When people tried such proofs on me they were ineffective. At some level belief in God isn't rational -- yet I, a rational person, believe. You might argue that what I think I see is all in my head, some complex psychological effect. That's fine; you're free to believe that. If that were true, and I called that effect 'belief in God' instead of whatever you think it is, and it resulted in me having a more satisfying life, does it matter?

"Belief in God has to be personal; it cannot be meaningfully imposed from without. That's a big part of what's wrong with some fundamentalists: they seek to compel. That trick never works; you can compel behavior but not belief.

"Because belief in God has to be personal, I cannot offer a meaningful proof. Even if I share the specific effects I have seen [...] who's to say that what I see as significant will be significant to you?"

-- cellio, 2007-04-08

I choose things to quote for a variety of reasons, not just quotes I agree with. But this quote in particular is a case of "she speaks for me," or near enough.