Paris

[endo]

True dat.

[Howiee]

I'm at work so haven't watched that - though there's another part to this.

Some people prefer to believe (or at least, don't entertain the idea their beliefs might not be true) because they are terrified at the bleakness of the alternative.

For instance, I consider myself atheist, but I was raised a Catholic. I found many aspects of life much easier back when I was. I can't speak for other religions, but for Christians, many life difficulties are smoothed over. Death? Not the end. Things are bad? It's OK, you're going to be around forever so things will improve. Friend is terminally ill? It's OK, you'll see her again etc.

Believing frees you of that existential dread.

Yeah, I can see how people think that about religion. I used to think it myself. And actually, I think it's true in many cases. But nobody ever mentions that the opposite can also be true. The atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has openly stated that he wants atheism to be true because he doesn't like the idea of a cosmic authortiy. Adolous Huxley (Brave New World) claimed that a philosophy of meaninglessness for him was an instrument of liberation, sexually and politically.

So rather than critiquing a person's reasons for believing something, I think it's better to critique the beliefs themselves.

[Brad]

So rather than critiquing a person's reasons for believing something, I think it's better to critique the beliefs themselves.

Ok, I like this (makes you think), but I'm struggling to understand it a bit. I mean I understand that as a Christian you believe there is a God. I'd find it easy to ask you "why do you believe there is a God?" , but how to I critique the belief in God at an abstract level? Am I asking "why do some people believe in God"?

The thing I find strangest about Christians is that, as I understand it, most Christians do not accept everything in the Bible as being true. Am I right here?

[Dogg Thang]

That's the same for most religions, Brad, but I think they would put it differently. Rather than being either true or false, it could be interpretation, relevant to that time, metaphor and so on. It can be holy word and, in a sense, hold a truth without being factually literal, if you know what I mean. Even if the word of god, the books were written for people of a specific time and people with different understanding. I'm not religious but I'm guessing most Christians or Muslims or others would speculate their holy books would read quite differently if written for people today.

It is when people stick to the very literal word of a book written for people more than a thousand years ago that we often end up with the extreme ends, but most religions (from what I can see) don't actually do that.

[EvilBoris]

Science is awesome but it's not flawless either.

Indeed, I recently watched this video that talks about an unexplained phenomenon that exists in quantum physics. It's actually pretty mind blowing that whilst we may think we have a really good grasp on the universe, the truth is more we don't know, than we know.
Ignore the cartoony look and watch it through to the end.



What If we just keep discovering new things that can't be explained and we can't us science so solve. What if there is an omnipresent power that governs the universe and we are just getting closer to finding out what that is?

[Howiee]

Ok, I like this (makes you think), but I'm struggling to understand it a bit. I mean I understand that as a Christian you believe there is a God. I'd find it easy to ask you "why do you believe there is a God?" , but how to I critique the belief in God at an abstract level? Am I asking "why do some people believe in God"?

The thing I find strangest about Christians is that, as I understand it, most Christians do not accept everything in the Bible as being true. Am I right here?

I think every idea should be judged on its own merit. The reason someone is a Christian (or whatever) might well be because they're afraid of hell or for some other emotive reason, but that doesn't tell us anything about the truth of the religion. I think we have to dig deeper. That's all I was really saying there.

On an abstract level, some people (like myself) will argue that something can't come from nothing, or that life can't come from non-life, therefore something transcendent is needed to kick things off. I think that's a reasonable position. I may be wrong, but I think it's reasonable. You might want to critique that belief (and I'm cautious of giving away the trade secrets here ) by perhaps countering with what some scientists have written claiming that something can indeed come from nothing, and that nothing, as it turns out, is not nothing (Lawrence Krauss). Or by asking 'well then, who created God?' I think those are also fair positions (although I strongly disagree).

It is never a good argument to say 'people believe in God, because lack of education'.

Re the bible, that's a huge question. Classical orthodox Christianity makes the claim that the bible is the inspired word of God, and therefore all true. However, it is a collection of books, covering several different literary genres – poetry, prophecy, parables, historical – so they all have to be interpreted with that in mind. For example, when Jesus said "I am the door", it doesn't mean Jesus was literally a door. But of course, as with every other idea in existence, people will disgaree and fight.

I hope some of that makes sense!

[Dogg Thang]

Now you have me wondering if there is indeed some group somewhere who insist that Jesus was, in fact, a door. There's a movie in that...

[Howiee]

Well, he was a carpenter, so yunno...

[dvdx2]

On an abstract level, some people (like myself) will argue that something can't come from nothing, or that life can't come from non-life,

on a biological level all life is made up from compounds/elements, which if taken individually arent actually life. So in effect you have have life being created from the right conditions. Life just isnt human or animal - it could be it plantlife living in the deep ocean.

[QualityChimp]

What answers to serious questions that science can't answer has religion found during this seeking? What methods do religious folk use to find these answers. I mean, I've seen the results of science during my time on earth and how they have helped reduce pain and suffering using the tried and tested hypothesis -> test -> result -> proof system but I've not seen religion produce anything like that. These are genuine questions by the way; I dismissed all religions a long time ago without really having much understanding of them so whilst I'm unlikely to ever be converted I am interested in learning and understanding.

Brad, I think religion is useful in the grey areas in between the facts. The problems start when people are intolerant to hearing other sides.

Even science reaches the end conclusion by discussing different hypotheses and quite often science facts are proven wrong. You just have to watch one episode of QI to have everything you thought was true is wrong!

I guess I'm saying I feel blind faith in science is no better than blind faith in religion.

As you can see, I'm rubbish at answering these kind of things, so I asked a Christian friend her take on this as she's brilliant with things like this and she answered your question like this:
"Right, firstly I would say that there is a huge difference between science and religion and the way they approach questions.

Putting it simply, I would say science asks the 'how?' and 'why?' and Christianity (not speaking for other religions particularly ) tries to answer the 'who?' Where some Christians and others get it wrong is trying to answer science questions with the Bible. The bible is a FAITH book - a mixture of poetry, history, prose, wisdom, letters, story written over a period of a few thousand years.

I think for me as well the question is often more important than the answer. Sometimes there isn't a single answer and that's where a scientist would struggle I guess. But the truth is sometimes there is no concrete answer particularly to the big questions of life and death, but wrestling with and journeying with the questions is just as valid and important.

That's what I love about my faith, it connects me with other people in a way science never can ....."

[Howiee]

I think it's class that you went to the trouble to ask someone to help answer Brad's question! And I think her distinction between science and faith is spot on. They're in two totally different categories.

A quick point about faith. I don't really like the word 'faith'. Not because faith isn't valuable, but because I think it's misunderstood. I see faith as a trust in something rather than an act of wishful thinking. What I mean is, as a Christian I have faith in Christ because there is substantial evidence for the resurrection (others disagree and that's fine). Therefore, I have faith in Christ and his teachings. Likewise, I have faith in Yu Suzuki that Shenmue 3 will be great because his track record gives me a reason to believe that it will be. My faith in Yu Suzuki is not blind.

on a biological level all life is made up from compounds/elements, which if taken individually arent actually life. So in effect you have have life being created from the right conditions. Life just isnt human or animal - it could be it plantlife living in the deep ocean.

Sure. I think what gets me is that everything on the planet is contingent upon something else. There is no thing (that we know of) that is responsible for its own existence. So the further you go back, the more it seems that you need some kind of miracle to get things started.

[Asura]

Classical orthodox Christianity makes the claim that the bible is the inspired word of God, and therefore all true. However, it is a collection of books, covering several different literary genres ? poetry, prophecy, parables, historical ? so they all have to be interpreted with that in mind.

Generally, though, Christians don't believe the Bible is the "word of God" in the same sense that Muslims venerate the Koran. The Koran is meant to be the literal, factual, word of God, with no deviation or inaccuracy.

Christians generally believe the Bible contains the teachings of the divine, but not as a literal work. It's a collection of stories designed to provide guidance for people in a way they could understand.

The main reason for this is that the Bible isn't internally consistent. Different passages can cover the same event but differ in ways that are irreconcilable, so it can't be interpreted as a literal work if you actually read it. I've met fundamentalists who really do insist they believe it word-for-word, who get very angry very quickly if you point this out to them, as they have no real explanation other than "he moves in mysterious ways".

There are other reasons, too - specifically that the chronology of the Bible can be disproved. For instance, the story of Exodus did not happen in the way the Bible describes (like, even if you disregard all the "God" stuff, even the mundane stuff didn't happen). Many of the events described may have happened in some way (plagues, slavery etc.) but not in the manner or order presented. We know that beyond much doubt.

However, that doesn't mean the story is without value. The purpose of the story is to provide an "origin myth" for the Hebrews that suggests they are the property of a God. This was important back when the story was codified as civilisations generally needed some kind of justification for their existence, if the Akkadians knocked on the door and suggested the Hebrews "belonged" to them.

This is why Christians don't venerate the actual text in the same manner that other religions hold theirs so dear - it's accepted that the text is flawed, because the text is the product of man, not God, and man is (in Christian teaching) incapable of perfection.

[Dirty Sanchez]

Substantial evidence of resurrection? Really?

I can see how you want that to be true as it underpins your faith, but doubt (note not discount) the claim of evidence.

[Dogg Thang]

Generally, though, Christians don't believe the Bible is the "word of God" in the same sense that Muslims venerate the Koran. The Koran is meant to be the literal, factual, word of God, with no deviation or inaccuracy.

Hmmmm... not sure about this one. Can we know just what was "meant to be" when they were written? For a long time, I would think the vast majority of Christians did take the Bible as the word of God and I think many still do today. Unless it comes with some implied disclaimer. But given how many Christians will use the Bible to prove the Bible, I think the word of God thing applies as much with the Bible as it does with the Koran.

[Asura]

Hmmmm... not sure about this one. Can we know just what was "meant to be" when they were written? For a long time, I would think the vast majority of Christians did take the Bible as the word of God and I think many still do today. Unless it comes with some implied disclaimer. But given how many Christians will use the Bible to prove the Bible, I think the word of God thing applies as much with the Bible as it does with the Koran.

Put aside the Koran for a moment (as that's pretty explicit in its own text about being absolute verbatim truth).

Christians have always held up and discarded certain parts of the bible. For instance, Christians will harp on about gay marriage being sinful, but they probably don't keep kosher, own slaves or whip their children when unruly. They use the parts they like and forget about the rest. This has been the case since early times.