Raising children - Can explanations for the existence of religions explain away the existence of God?

Oh, never mind! I started to answer but these things never go well. Good luck with that.

1: Yes and no. If it is true that everyone has those psychological needs (community, ritual, myths), one could argue that religion is merely a means to fulfill those needs. However, that doesn’t explain why some people do not believe in a god.
2: No. If religion only serves as a means to fulfill certain needs that all people have, those needs are apparently intrinsically human.
3: Not necessarily. Whether they are open-minded or not depends on how they experience their own beliefs and how they approach other people that do not have the same religion.
4: No. Answers like that portray the same narrow-mindedness a lot of religious people display when they talk about non-believers.

excellent question Matt! Don’t have time to answer the question properly now, but will later.

Yes and until my kids ask that question I will let them enjoy the comfort and security that believing in their God affords them.

1. No. No matter what we say about religions, there is always the possibility of an abstract god that falls between the cracks. Explaining the existence of the idea of a god must come from discussing the concept itself rather than the organisation that supports it.

2. Religions are not a disease, they are just an undesirable feature of prevailing human thought. The needs existed before religion, and religion evolved to fulfil those needs. When religion is gone, chances are the needs will still exist, but they will hopefully be fulfilled by rational secular ideas.

3. No. There are many intelligent, open minded and self-reliant religious people – they are just in the minority. Being religious does not mean you are stupid or closed minded, it just means that you place faith in a myth. That should not necessarily reflect on your attitudes.

4. I can’t really comment since I am not a parent, but an open minded approach leads to a closed minded conclusion. That is, once you have openly considered all options you will reach a conclusion that you will be less likely to reconsider, because it is already a well thought out conclusion (at least in your mind).

@FireMadeFlesh Awesome answer.

1. It would not be proper logic to conclude that irrational motives for belief in gods mean there are no gods, but it would be valid to conclude that it means people’s belief in gods bears no relation whatsoever to the actual existence or non-existence of gods. In other words, it means people would believe in gods whether there are any or not.

2. That’s semantics.

3. Well, there will undoubtedly be self-reliant and open-minded people who were raised with a religion and just never managed to escape from it, or never bothered to try. People who really don’t care about theology can still count as “religious people”, even if that hardly means anything. So no, it wouldn’t be logical to conclude that.
But from experience, I think the more chronically religious people do tend to be of the closed-minded and psychologically dependent type.

4. What a loaded question.
I couldn’t judge whether someone is open-minded from a quote like that. It’s certainly not enough to conclude that they’re bigoted. It depends on what data they have to base that assertion on.
Intolerance is not the same thing as closed-mindedness. You really can’t assume that whoever says nasty things about religious people is closed-minded. It’s an unfounded association.

As always, it depends on what you mean by “God,” and the question becomes much, much easier to answer if you actually narrow it down to a specific god.

Also, I think looking at psychological “explanations” for religion isn’t as effective as looking at historical explanations for religions, and for the nature of their gods. Let’s take Yahweh, for example. If you compare the Bible to Mesopotamian mythology, you’ll see that it’s quite similar. The Bible’s conception of Yahweh is based largely on previous Mesopotamian myths involving the gods Enlil, Marduk, and Sin. (The Bible’s legal and ritualistic code, too, are based largely on Mesopotamian norms.)

In this sense, ancient Judaism—and all the religions that evolved from it—can best be “explained” as a syncretistic Mesopotamian cult. And yes, I do think that “explains away” the existence of the god in question, Yahweh, since it becomes trivially obvious that he is just as made-up as any other Mesopotamian sky-god.

I believe in the interconnectedness of all, call it ‘God’, creative intelligence,quantum physics, whatever works for you. Have I experienced some profound shifts in consciousness when I was open, absoloutly!
Do I believe in a particular personalized diety…no.

One must remember that all ‘religion’ is manmade.

There was no christianity untill there was christ.
Was Jesus a wise & sagey human that promoted the best path to happiness and goodwill, yes.

Was ‘he’ the immaculately conceived ‘son of God’...doubtful.

There was no Buddhism until there was Buddha. lol

However, Buddhism is not a religion persey, and Buddha is not worshiped as anything other than what he was, an awakened and wise human promoting a philosophy for mindful and congruent living.

This is why the eastern ‘philosophies’ work best for me.

They promote right living, mindfulness, compassion and harmlessness, without ascribing to dogma.

Man is responsable for all the misuse of wisdom not the original ‘teachers.’

There is a big. difference between feeling connected to the totality of life, and ‘worshiping’ manmade doctrines that have been convoluted to control large groups of people.

Thanks @Pandora

@Fyrius well said….

@Coloma
“Was Jesus a wise & sagey human that promoted the best path to happiness and goodwill, yes.”
You give the man more credit than I would.
A good path to happiness and goodwill? I guess. The single best one ever? Unlikely.

@Fyrius

There are many good teachers and many good works.
Apples & oranges are still fruit! lol

1) Can explanations for the existence of religions explain away the existence of God?

2) Is it logical to conclude from these psychological needs that religions are in fact a disease (as claimed by Jason Flora)?

3) Is it logical to conclude that – unlike atheists – religious people are neither open-minded nor self-reliant?

4) Would you consider a parent to be open minded when he or she tells kids and adults that laziness breeds religion and religions are the proliferation of lies? If yes, how do you define open mindedness?

1) Religion is a by product of God. That is, if you are a believer, and I’m. God existence is by Faith. You cannot touch Him, see Him, or for that matter, talk with Him. Some say otherwise, but speaking only from my experience. After much prayer, have been compeled to make certain decision in my life based on the feeling that God was leading in this direction, but hearing His voice, no….

2) Psychological needs from religion varies from person to person. Personally, would be happy without the belief in God. But, that is my choice…too believe. It is not a crutch, but a helper.

3) No, not logical to conclude this….I’m a spiritual person, not necessarily a religious person, but I’m a strong person and very open to other ideas and philosophies. Self-reliant is a totally separate issue. Most people would be self-reliant without religion being involved. You have to pay your bills, take care of your family, etc. regardless of religion.

4) No, they would be very closed minded.

I don’t agree with the author or with you. They said “The atheist parent needs to realize that being atheist is about more than just making religious people look stupid; it is about helping one’s child to develop into a moral and well-adjusted adult” which is ridiculous because atheism isn’t about making religious people look stupid – that’s a) a waste of time b) many of them need no help from me (www.larknews.com). You said ”...explain away the existence of god” as if that’s separate from existence of religion – you are implying that god exists which isn’t something everyone believes in so how is this not a biased question to begin with? You know me, @mattbrowne and you know my kids will grow up to be moral and just and responsible – every lesson I teach them is more than some teach about caring for others and taking care of the world. I do not teach my children to hate religion or those who find a need for it – I teach them the bacis about each religion as it comes up and I tell them that their parents don’t believe in god (s) but they can decided for themselves given that they will be on their own journey as it relates to all this. And finally, I do not concern myself with waiting for ‘science to disprove religion’ – I have all that I need to make a decision of my own, as should every person, for themselves. I have never heard any atheist discuss ‘religion rehab’ or what have you – as I’ve mentioned, we have other more important things to worry about.

As per your question 3, I would never teach such a thing – plenty of religious people (and I inform others of this as often as possible) are intelligent, self-reliant and all that good stuff. Stupidity isn’t confined to a religious mindset. As for your last question, if my parenting above isn’t open-minded then I don’t know what is because I never put a tone of negativity into my voice when I talk about religion to my kids.

1. No. Explanations for the existence of religions are explanations of sociological phenomena. Whether or not God or a number of gods exist is a philosophical question essentially independent of whether any one religion has it “right” or not.

2. No. Religion has been part of human life since people were living in caves. Witness ritual burial practices of our remote hunter-gather ancestors. I question any logic which would claim that the majority of the human race throughout history was suffering from a psychological disease. They may well be wrong, but that’s not the same thing as saying they are sick.

3. No. I went to Catholic grade school and high school. In grade school I confess that I don’t remember any open minded nuns. However, in high school we had some very highly educated teachers who appreciated that religious belief was a matter of faith and they respected hones intellectual disagreement with their own beliefs.

4. No. See answer to question 2.

1) Certainly not – but I do see the existence of religion and the existence of god to be separate issues. The existence of religion is a mixed bag, but that bag is full of more nuts than chocolate, if you catch my meaning. God, on the other hand, as I’ve said many times on Fluther, is something I have decided not to spend the time deciding about. God is either absent/non-existent, incompetent, or indifferent to us, and is beyond reasonable debate. We can’t logically discuss what we can’t take in with our senses. But the stuff religions come up with about such a creature if one exists, are clearly man made.

2) That’s unlikely. Religions are a natural outcropping of fear of the unknown and an ability of some to exert control over others. Something I think we’ve outgrown, or should outgrow.

3) No, many are.

4) Of course not.

I appreciate what you’re trying to do here, in that you’re asking very closed questions to make a point, but you’re missing out on the fact that most atheists aren’t like that. I can’t imagine telling my kids that the majority of the world is full of psychologically ill, lazy people. What a terrible world that would be. People are mostly sane and rational, and willing to work and be self-reliant. Religion and god have nothing to do with it either way.

Thanks for your answers so far. I will add more individual responses over the weekend. Gee, what a busy day…

@Qingu, you asked me what I mean by “God,” to be able to answer my question. Fair enough, because there are in fact different meanings. For the sake of this question let’s assume the deist God, i.e. an abstract entity (force, concept) responsible for creating and maintaining the natural laws. Let’s not consider tribal gods or personal gods who literally answer prayers for example by intervening and performing miracles violating the orderly predictable universe.

Nothing could explain away the existence of the Deist god since the Deist god is by definition inexplicable.

In the same way you can’t explain away the existence of unicorns in other dimensions because… by virtue of being in other dimensions, they are inexplicable.

@mattbrowne
I think I’ll have to partially concur with @Qingu.

I probably mentioned before that I’ve been reading the rationalism blog LessWrong lately, and it offers some interesting new perspectives on beliefs. I’d recommend it to anyone. Especially to people like you, who take an active interest in philosophy, science and the human mind.
If you’re interested, I’d recommend you start reading here. It’s a good index of the most important stuff.
And I’m now going to shamelessly import their lessons to Fluther, by asking you the following questions.

What does it really mean to believe in a deist god? What real world predictions does your belief make? Is there any kind of possible evidence that your belief couldn’t explain if it would be found?
In what ways would a world with a deist god be different from an otherwise identical world without one? If you were suddenly moved from one hypothetical world to the other, how could you tell the difference?

These are not rhetorical questions. I’m genuinely interested in your answers.
But if your answers are “none”, “no”, “in no way” and “I couldn’t”, then your belief is so vague and inconsequential that you might as well stop believing it. It would only take up mental hard drive space and be completely meaningless as a description of the world.

Further reading: Making Beliefs Pay Rent

P.S.
Do take your time to reply, though. It’ll probably end us up in a new discussion, and you already mentioned being busy just replying to the given replies on the main subject.
I’m not in a hurry. Feel free to address one thing at a time.

Yes. I need the weekend to catch up. And we might want to start a new discussion. Just a short answer to some of your questions above:

What does it mean etc.? A lot of course. For example God is not a wizard. The cosmos has a deeper meaning and purpose. The combination of laws and constants of our universe favor the development of complexity. Quarks and electrons turn into simple atoms which turn into stars which turn into heavier atoms which turn into molecules which turn into replicating molecules and so forth. Real world prediction? We can rely on the natural laws. We can’t prove this, but they will most likely still work next week. If the deist god doesn’t exist the world as such would be the same. The belief in a self-explanatory universe would still be an act of faith. I’m not so sure about a self-explanatory meaning and purpose or the absence of it. This might surprise you but the belief in a deist god alone only offers limited meaning. This is why I value religions. Healthy modern forms of religions. Open minded religions embracing dignity and humility. Capable of appreciating atheism. Capable of appreciating nonreligious forms of spirituality. Appreciating other valuable codes of conduct like those based on humanism.

If you were suddenly moved from one hypothetical world to the other, how could you tell the difference? One example of a hypothetical world would contain erratic natural laws without any order, not even predictable quantum mechanics.

Okay, for the rest I need more time.

@mattbrowne God is not a wizard – what if my god is?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – I was talking of what I think God is. If your God is different that’s fine as long as nobody is harmed (so please no tribal gods committing genocide). I appreciate all benign beliefs or absence beliefs. I said this before I appreciate atheists.

To me God is not a wizard. God is not a person. We might call it divine wisdom or universal force. We will never know for sure because human intelligence is limited. But why not believe in concepts? I mean I believe in democracy. It’s a concept. Not a person either.

I did not ‘expose’ my daughter to organized religion, however I did teach her a great appriciation of nature, consideration and kindness towards others, and healthy values.

Whats the difference?

My beliefs have morphed many times over but basic goodwill and decency has no criteria.

She is an awesome young woman and is liked and valued for her kindness, does it matter that those traits were not developed under the fundementalist unbrella?

I think not.

@Coloma – No, I agree. It does not matter. It’s an individual choice of the parents in terms of upbringing and the children themselves as they grow up. What matters though is that we should not confuse organized religion with a fundamentalist umbrella. That’s not the same, although some forms of organized religion show fundamentalist tendencies.

@BoBo1946 – You said, religion is a byproduct of God. I agree, but to me the link is indirect: The laws our universe created by God favor the development of complexity. Quarks and electrons turn into simple atoms which turn into stars which turn into heavier atoms which turn into molecules which turn into replicating molecules which eventually leads to mutating molecules and natural selection and human beings and religions created by human beings. A leads to B. And B leads to C. Therefore it’s logical to say that A leads to C. Ergo religion is a byproduct of God.

@mattbrowne Sooo since we will never know for sure, why do we have to ‘explain it away’ to our kids? It is irrelevant to their lives.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – Oh, it’s very relevant to discuss things which we will never know for sure. And in my opinion we should not use explanations for the existence of religions (like psychological needs) trying to explain away the existence of God. If people don’t believe in God, which is fine, other explanations are more suitable I think.

I find it very shocking that there are atheists like Jason who views themselves as being open minded and who equal religious nutcases (which do exist) with religion in general wanting their child to grow up “religion free” proclaiming that stopping religion is like trying to cure a disease. Hey, if we don’t treat every symptom, the disease could come back in our own children. Well, it seems to me that this poor guy Jason needs a vaccine against close mindedness.

In my opinion children should meet people of all major worldviews, philosophies, religions and so forth and get a good understanding. Parents should also tell their kids what they think and why, but allow their kids to make up their own minds and respect whatever decisions they make. As long as it’s benign. I would not respect it if my kids decide to burn books or witches or become suicide bombers. I would even have a problem if they became evolution deniers or start bashing fruit fly research. Because ending progress in medicine also leads to more dead people. You need to embrace evolution to find cures for cancer or deal with influenza.

@mattbrowne, I disagree that a Clockmaker God is relevant to anyone’s lives. In fact, the Deist god is defined as being irrelevant and completely disconnected from all of nature and the universe. You could replace “Deist God” with “Universe just is” and there would be absolutely no functional difference/

Calling yourself a “Deist” seems mostly like a way to live your life as atheist, without having to use that socially-frowned upon term to describe yourself. Or else some kind of syncretism repackaging scientific rationalism in religious terminology. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, mattbrowne, I don’t even think of you as a religious person. :)

@Qingu – I said this before. I’m not a deist. Because I agree with your view. Basic deism is empty. I’m a liberal Christian. Religion is far more than just the belief in God. But when people ask me what I think God is I tell them what I think. And the deist description seems quite plausible to me. I think divine wisdom involves a plan. Yet deists are shallow when it comes to meaning and purpose. I believe in Jesus Christ. He is the son of God. But not the biological son of God. I also believe in angels. But they are mythical beings representing abstract concepts. Or symbols for human insights. You know a lot more about myths than I do.

Many modern theologians share my form of religiosity. If you don’t consider them religious either, it’s your choice. Science evolves. Religions evolve. This is really a great website to find out about modern insights from both believers and atheists http://www.closertotruth.com/god – There are no simple answers. But contemplating the deeper questions is a wonderful experience.

Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Which god is he the son of, and does this god have any other sons (or daughters)? Or do you mean “son” in a… symbolic sense.

I agree that religion evolves… I think your version has evolved to such a point of abstractness that I suspect if we examined it, I’d hesitate to call it a religion at all.

@mattbrowne Well this particular atheist is not the pattern – yet you portray this as normal. You claim to be objective but underhandedly push an agenda. And there is no reason to necessarily separate god from religion – perhaps, to some, god can exist without a religion and to some a religion without god but for most religion centers around god. Because we don’t know for sure, god isn’t any different from aliens and I don’t know how, as a parent, or even why I should expose my children to all things that could possibly be there.

I’m gonna have to bring up the Space Dragons again, aren’t I?

@JeanPaulSartre ya, you may have to

@Coloma
I think it makes a world of difference. I for one approve a lot more of child rearing methods that do not involve the transmission of random unfounded beliefs about the world than I do of a religious upbringing.

I’d like to share with you three quotes before checking out all your unanswered comments above. The first one is from Martin Luther King:

“Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”

And the second one from psychologist David G. Myers:

“Many people have ventured that first step mindful that they might be wrong yet willing to bet their lives on a humble spirituality, on a third alternative to purposeless scientism and dogmatic fundamentalism. Such spirituality, rooted in the developing biblical wisdom and in a faith tradition that crosses the centuries, helps make sense of the universe, gives meaning to life, opens us to the transcendent, connects us in supportive communities, provides a mandate for morality and selflessness, and offers hope in the face of adversity and death.

Surely, in some ways I’m wrong, you’re wrong, we’re all wrong. We glimpse ultimate reality as in a dim mirror, constrained by our cognitive limits. Perhaps, then, we can draw wisdom from both skepticism and spirituality by anchoring our lives in a rationality and humility that restrains spirituality with critical analysis and in a spirituality that nurtures purpose, love, joy, and hope.”

Again, @Qingu, my faith is not simple deism. My beliefs are not random unfounded beliefs about the world, @Fyrius. I think David Myers describes quite well how I feel about faith. I’m a scientist with a strong desire to find answers to the deeper questions as well. I share the goals of the International Society for Science & Religion which was established in 2002 for the purpose of the promotion of education through the support of inter-disciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context. See http://issr.org.uk

My third quote is from one of ISSR’s members Phillip Clayton, California-based philosopher and theologian:

“What we are hoping for is a cross-fertilization between two of the greatest forces of the human spirit – science and religion.”

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – I think you completely misunderstood. I never claimed that Jason Flora represents “normal atheism”. I said that I find it very shocking that there are atheists like Jason who views themselves as being open minded. I repeatedly also said that I find it very shocking that there are believers who think homosexuality is evil or evolution is evil. Come on, there are dozens of kind atheists in the Fluther community who I greatly respect and appreciate. None of them has ever called religions in general a disease. “Normal atheists” are not prone to outgroup homogeneity bias. They can distinguish between religious nutcases and healthy religion. I would claim that I can distinguish between radical close-minded forms of atheism and open-minded atheism. But I see no harm to discuss how some atheists like Jason Flora think about raising his children. I see an opportunity. It’s not my goal to discredit all of atheism. I don’t have a hidden agenda. But I think it’s fair to point out that in all world views there are troublesome tendencies which we should not ignore. My agenda (if you are looking for one) is open mindedness, rationality, fruitful debates, tolerance, understanding, respect and appreciation of diversity.

Okay, now my responses to the other comments, more recent ones first:

@Qingu: Do I think Jesus rose from the dead? Yes. His spirit is among us even today. His spirit helped the East German Protestants bring down the Berlin Wall in a nonviolent manner. Not a single shot was fired. The Monday Prayer sessions (invented in the Netherlands by the way) were so powerful that they literally disarmed the state-run oppression machine. And, yes, Gorbachev was important too.

Did Jesus rise from the dead in a biological way? Of course not. Why would the laws of nature be suspended between around 7 BCE and 30 CE? Scientists have no evidence that the laws get shut down from time to time. So Jesus did not die and physically leave his grave two days later. He also didn’t perform miracles suspending natural laws. In casual usage, miracle may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event or even which regarded as “wonderful” regardless of its likelihood, such as birth. See alternative explanations of Jesus’ reported miracles here

http://www.fluther.com/disc/57681/im-looking-for-scientific-answers-how-did-the-stories-about/

Why do Christians see Jesus as their savior? Many reasons. To me here’s the most important one: because he reminded us that we make ourselves very unhappy when we hate other people. This reminder might save us from living a miserable life. And because his spirit is still among us today, people of the Christian faith can use Jesus as one of their role models in life (which does not exclude having other role models as well). Again, there are other worldviews which help people become kind people. There are no exclusive rights for Christianity in my opinion. It might be the best way for me, but not necessarily for you or others. Therefore I always talk about MY way, not THE way. I respect all other ways as long as they do no harm.

@semblance – Yes, some nuns are more close minded. I went to a public school and our teacher of religious education in 11th and 12rd grade was extremely open minded as well. The curriculum included all major religions of the world as well as atheism and other world philosophies. We had endless debates about Feuerbach, Marx, Nietsche, Freud, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Heidegger and guess who: Jean-Paul Sartre famous twin of our famous Fluther user. One school trip to Munich lasting several days we missed the last subway back to our youth hostel and had to wait till 5 am. The whole night was discussions about the world and his wife. I remember it vividly. One guy claimed that nothing could force him to do anything. He was free to do anything or reject anything. Except death. He even claimed that he could stop breathing if he chose to. Then some other guy claimed that one day scientists would find a way to make humans immortal. The debate went on for hours and we got stuck considering the implication of the second law of thermodynamics when the train finally entered the station. We all knew we owed our teacher an explanation. It wasn’t pretty. Then at some point during the dressing down one of our group claimed that we found all the answers to the deepest questions in the universe.

@FireMadeFlesh – Okay, you need to give me some input why you think that religions are an undesirable feature of prevailing human thought. Why undesirable?

@Cruiser – You answered yes to question #1. Reason?

@Lve – Thanks for your answer.

@Pandora – I think when educated people are having a discussion it must not get ugly. Did it in your opinion?

1) Can explanations for the existence of religions explain away the existence of God?
Let’s put it this way: the only reason one would believe any specific god entity is the religion that came up with it. If the norse mythos were to be completely forgotten nobody would know who Odin supposedly was. So explaining how religion actually has no reason to be believed renders the only reason to believe a particular god moot.

If all the religions were forgotten there’d only be deists, agnostics and atheists.

2) Is it logical to conclude from these psychological needs that religions are in fact a disease (as claimed by Jason Flora)?
Not necessarily. The needs are in fact natural and common between humans. Succumbing to these needs and making up a concept that fills the void we want to fill however is, at the very least, childish and not appropriate for someone with a mature approach to reality. This is most true for people who, like many catholics i know, change, distort and flat out make up the tenets of their faiths as much as they like and still consider themselves members of it.

3) Is it logical to conclude that – unlike atheists – religious people are neither open-minded nor self-reliant?
Depends on many factors: strong atheists are as much as close minded as religious fundamentalists, weak atheists, like myself, are open to the possibility but will not believe it until proven.
As for being self-reliant i’ll quote my mother, catholic, who said several times she culdn’t go on without her faith. That’s not being self-reliant.

4) Would you consider a parent to be open minded when he or she tells kids and adults that laziness breeds religion and religions are the proliferation of lies? If yes, how do you define open mindedness?
I wouldn’t consider a parent open minded based on this, that is an opinion, and an intriguing one at that, but this has nothing to do with open mindedness.

Seems to me that particular parent is instilling a prejudice in his child with that statement, however prejudice isn’t always a bad thing. Prejudice towards rapists seems to me to be very much essential to one’s safety, rather than close minded behaviour. Or, to be precise, it IS close mided but rational as well.
In this case, though, it would be better to teach the child how to assess the truth of a claim, rather than simply telling him which claims to disbelief outright.

As for telling adults, that’s a non-issue, expecially in the US.

@Coloma It makes all the difference. For one she has no beliefs borrowed from the bronze age, like the idea that homosexuality should be punished by death, or the idea that menstruation is impure, or that sex is wrong.

Trust me, i can tell you what difference it makes: my girlfriend was raised in a fundamentalist catholic home. She’s kind and compassionate, sure, also she has pathologically low self exteem, a guilt complex towards anything that makes her feel good and a constant feeling of inadequacy towards me, her parents, her firends anyone. THAT is the difference it makes.

You might not know it, but you spared your daughter a world of problems with that decision.

@mattbrowne “Okay, you need to give me some input why you think that religions are an undesirable feature of prevailing human thought. Why undesirable?”

Although I said in my post that there are many intelligent, open minded, rational thinking religious people, they are in the minority because they are such despite their religion rather than because of it or independently of it. Religions by their nature encourage people to admit defeat. Christianity is based on the idea that humans are inadequate, and can only be fully capable with the assistance of their God. Islam holds that Allah will impose his will despite human activities. On the other hand, secular thinking leads people to push the limits of the human state, to grow as people, to be more self confident and more self reliant.
More than that, religions assert many ideas that are false. I realise that this is debatable, but I disagree with people who do not believe in any religious dogma but wish to preserve religions for their merits. I think it is insulting to tell people that they are incapable of living with the truth, and therefore must stay blinded by an illusion thanks to someone else’s decision.
I guess my biggest problem with religions is their ideas on ethics and morality. Jesus had some good ideas here and there, but the basis of Christianity is that God dictates an absolute moral code, which apparently the breaking of must be punished by death. Ethics should be regarded as plastic – not fluid, but also not set in stone. As our understanding progresses so should our ethical sensibilities.
I have mentioned before that I do not wish to discuss these things with my family, because I don’t want them to experience the trauma I did in letting go of religion. In fact most of my extended family are still unaware of my position. This entrapment is another undesirable feature of religions. If it were proven to me beyond doubt that the mitotic model of cellular division was hopelessly wrong, or if Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was back to front, I would have little difficulty in rethinking my ideas to match this overwhelming evidence. However in the case of religion, there is a subconscious pull that compels people to believe beyond all reason. This inexplicable unquestioning belief that exists in even those who rationally consider the details is frightening.
This adequately explains a few reasons. I will stop here for now, as I run the risk of being overly verbose.

@mattbrowne
I’m getting a bit nauseous of people who insist on science and religion being equally important, beneficial and necessary. It seems to me a lot like the school teacher looking for reasons why the slowest and thickest kid of the class is just as good as all the kids who get straight A’s. It’s a socially motivated quest for egalitarian excuses where no actual equality exists.
And that’s really kind and everything, but we’re all adults here, and even if being realistic is bad for the self-esteem of a social group, I don’t think that justifies ignoring an inconvenient reality and substituting a more politically correct one.

Modern science has been around for about four centuries. In just that time, what has it given us?
A greater understanding of the world. A life expectancy extended by decades. Better medicine. Greater food production. More comfortable homes. More convenient ways to share knowledge and media. More efficient ways of travelling. It has planted human feet on the moon and brought distant galaxies to human eyes.
Science has raised the standard of living in ways no one could have dreamed of, and expanded the scope and reach of humanity by light years. It has turned us from a people struggling to survive into a people able to reach for the stars. None of that would have been possible without science.

Religion has existed for millennia, predating all recorded history. In all this time, what it given us?
You tell me. Is there anything religion has to offer that art and philosophy can’t do better?
I believe I don’t rely on anything religion is responsible for, yet I am in no way worse off or less complete than the religious. That’s much more than you can say about anyone who would live without any of the achievements of science.

And these two, this one invaluable treasure and this one useless pile of mediocrity, you would call two of the greatest forces of humanity? That’s like calling the lion and the ant eater the two most fearsome predators alive. It gives way too much credit to one and the juxtaposition does no justice to the other.

Most people who want everyone to believe science and religion are equal are religious people seeing their domain crumble while science thrives, and trying to get a compromise they don’t deserve because they know damn well it’s the best they can hope for.
The rest are misguided egalitarians like you.

@Thammuz – Thanks for your elaborate answer and many of your arguments make a lot of sense to me. Two issues are unclear, though. Why is the desire to fill spiritual voids childish (at the very least)? Actually, I would argue that the opposite is true. Many atheists for example rediscover their spirituality once they get older. Seeking meaning and purpose, being part of communities, practicing rituals does not require the belief in a deity.

Yes, weak atheists are open to the possibility of a deity. You said that you not believe it until proven. But what about if it can’t be proven at all, which I think is the case? The existence of God will never be proven in my opinion. We cannot apply the scientific method. It will always remain an act of faith. Likewise a universe capable of explaining itself.

@mattbrowne
“The existence of God will never be proven in my opinion. We cannot apply the scientific method. It will always remain an act of faith.”
The scientific method is not that limited.
I’m going to copy-paste something I said to Nullo yesterday.

“Credibility is not absolute, but relative. The absence of absolute certainty does not mean all hypotheses are equally probable. In the absence of definite evidence, you are not allowed to believe whatever you like.
There are definite probabilistic rules to determine how plausible an idea is, and thus even in uncertainty there are formally correct ways to judge whether something should be believed or not. Thus there are almost-certainly-true statements such as “taking an aspirin will help against this headache you’re giving me” and there are almost-certainly-false loads of drivel such as “there is a worldwide conspiracy to keep people from knowing the earth is a disk”. Even if you can’t claim complete certainty about the truth of either.

Understanding of probabilities makes all the difference between a reasonable assumption and blind faith.”

Tl;dr: It’ll only be an act of faith to believe in a god. Not believing in one can be a purely rational decision based on probabilistic assessment of credibility.

@FireMadeFlesh – Thanks for the clarification and sharing this. Given this history and experience I can understand your views. I don’t share your opinion, however, that religions by their nature encourage people to admit defeat. This might be true for static religions trapped by a belief in a god of the gaps or other forms of close-minded religions. Evolving religions are different because both their theologians and their communities do change over time. If you look at the David G. Myers quote above I would argue that only purposeless scientism and dogmatic fundamentalism declare defeat, while mature religions (and perhaps open-minded atheism) do the exact opposite try to help us make sense of the universe, give meaning to life, open us to the transcendent and connect us in supportive communities.

@Fyrius – Who are the people who insist on science and religion being equally important, beneficial and necessary? I’m not sure what you are referring to. The International Society for Science & Religion for example tries to foster interfaith understanding and wishes to draw wisdom from both skepticism and spirituality. It also says that the tenets of the Intelligent Design movement are neither sound science nor good theology.

If you refer to the ‘two of the greatest forces of the human spirit – science and religion’ quote I think it’s the viewpoint of a particular theologian and I don’t think he’s trying to compare or rate the importance in general. If a pandemic breaks out science is clearly more important. If societies want to decide whether we should allow the cloning of humans, natural science alone can’t give us clear-cut answers. Biotechnology might tell us how it could be done and how risky it might be. I’m not saying that religions are the only way to answer ethical questions. They offer viewpoints and there are others which should taken into consideration as well.

@Fyrius – You are right, the scientific method is very powerful. And I also agree that probabilities do matter very much. I reject the notion of blind faith and so do almost all religious scientists. Some of them share their views on http://www.closertotruth.com/god as mentioned earlier.

I’ve given this great thought myself and continue to do so, contemplating the single universe and all the suggested ensemble of pocket universes of eternal inflation or many world universes of quantum mechanics or black hole baby universes. And probabilities associated with 10^500 universes or more out there. We can discuss this as well, but I would use a new Fluther thread. This one was about raising children, psychological needs and close-minded versus open-minded views. Blind faith clearly is a close-minded view. But this applies to blind acceptance of a self-explanatory universe as well.

@mattbrowne Let us imagine an ancient Greek, who I will call Dithenian. He asserts that thunder is caused by the gods’ anger, beating cosmic stones to show their displeasure towards humans. One day Dithenian meets Dr. Fulton, a climatologist, who explains to him electrical discharge, rapid heating of air and the mechanical nature of sound waves.
At this point, Dithenian has a number of choices of what he can come to believe:
1. He can deny Dr. Fulton’s ideas, and dogmatically stick to his original ideas.
2. He can revise his original theory, so that the gods use Dr. Fulton’s indirect mechanism to express their displeasure, since Dr. Fulton cannot satisfactorily explain why differential charges built up in the first place.
3. He can revise his theory further, and say that the gods created thunder to act as a natural mechanism to remind us that we risk their displeasure, but aren’t necessarily at fault at that point in time.
4. He can fully embrace Dr. Fulton’s theory, and discard his now seemingly primitive ideas.
So Dithenian can take the fundamentalist, doggedly unquestioning approach (1), the god of the gaps approach (2 – an imperfect example, but I think you get the point), the progressive approach (3), or the scientific approach (4). Although options 2 and 3 are a step in the right direction, they exhibit that hold of a religious belief that I mentioned earlier that persists beyond all logic. It is not until he asks himself why he believes in the gods in the first place that he can come to the correct conclusion. Until then, he must continually revise his position and the nature of his gods to keep the superfluous notion of gods alive.

You say that mature religion can “help us make sense of the universe, give meaning to life, open us to the transcendent and connect us in supportive communities.” I am yet to be convinced of the existence of the transcendent, let alone a need to connect with it. We don’t need religion to develop supportive communities, or to give meaning to life, or to make sense of the universe. So what exactly is the benefit of belief? Why should religion persist?

@FireMadeFlesh – Questions that belong in the realm of science are best answered by science. To give Dithenian the optimal answer we should give him yet another choice (5) which is something like this: “The best theory we can presently offer is based on the electromagnetic force which is one of the four known elementary forces and also… XYZ”. Almost all scientists support (5) which has not be refuted (XYZ would cover the temporary vacuum, air molecules and sound). Most philosophers of science claim that theories cannot be ultimately proven, only refuted. For example no scientist has been able to refute evolution, so it’s a good idea to use it as the best currently known theory. The same applies to (5).

Now if Dithenian asks why the elementary forces are the way they are scientists might offer a few more theories (like the electoweak force) and hypotheses (M theory, loop quantum gravity or even a ToE), but Dithenian will ask about the meta-law responsible for the laws or the meta-meta-law responsible for the meta-law. Dr. Fulton is faced with the problem of infinite regress. This is what I meant by making sense of the universe. Plus why all this? What’s the purpose? Why am I me? Why should I live? Is everything around us just a cosmic or evolutionary accident? Why is carbon so abundant in the universe and also the most flexible atom chemically?

I never said that we necessarily need religion to develop supportive communities. Of course there are alternatives. Good ones too. But religious communities exist as one option to find support, give meaning to life and make sense of the universe. Having this option is beneficial. Having other options is beneficial too. Why should religions persist? Because some forms really are very good options. I grew up as a nondogmatic liberal Protestant in Germany and my experience was quite different from yours. Our teachers and ministers actually created doubts on purpose to challenge us and make us think twice before we made up our minds. Maybe I was lucky. Maybe a dogmatic fanatic Catholic priest sending his demons and threatening me with hell would have destroyed my faith and I made me loath religions at some point. But those priest are rare in Germany, because they know they couldn’t compete with Protestants like Dietriech Bonhoeffer who openly opposed Hitler or modern Protestant ministers like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fuehrer who played a major role bringing down the Berlin Wall in a nonviolent way, one of the greatest historic events in the 20th century and I quote:

During the first months of 1989 the East German authorities, especially the Stasi, imposed more and more pressure to stop the “Peace Prayers” in Leipzig. They controlled access roads and arrested random “suspects” inside and outside the church. However, they were unsuccessful: the Monday prayers continued with an increasing number of attendees. On 9 October troups of the army, police and Stasi officers arrived in front of the church. About 1,000 members of the SED were ordered into the church. Nearly to the end of the Peace Prayers a manifest was read out, written by Kurt Masur, Bernd-Lutz Lange, Peter Zimmermann and three low-rank leaders of the SED (later called the The Leipzig Six), appealing to all attendees not to use force and to stay peaceful. The demonstration of about 70,000 people right after the prayers was in fact peaceful. The slogan “No Violence!” (Keine Gewalt!) was used by more than 300,000 people during the following demonstrations. The whole East German revolution remained peaceful.

See the benefit?

@mattbrowne
I’ve been arguing against a straw man, then.
Nonetheless I do believe there really exist a lot of people who insist that religion is just as important as science. Religious hypocrites and misguided egalitarians. But perhaps I was wrong to associate your stances with them.

“If a pandemic breaks out science is clearly more important. If societies want to decide whether we should allow the cloning of humans, natural science alone can’t give us clear-cut answers.”
Let alone religion. It’s up to the ethicists, the only ones who have any actual expertise when it comes to ethics.
This is part of my point. Science solves serious problems, gives real results and makes visible progress. You can’t compare religion to that.

“And I also agree that probabilities do matter very much. I reject the notion of blind faith and so do almost all religious scientists.”
All right.
So what sort of faith do you propose, then? Informed faith?

@mattbrowne My agenda is the same yet I see no need to equate open mindedness with necessary education about religion and god to my kids. Just because many people find it important doesn’t mean it’s a truth or anything they should concern themselves with – I will teach them about religion because they need to know how to interact with people but I will not focus on it whatsoever.

@mattbrowne I hadn’t heard those stories, and they are impressive. If a religion was proposed with the sole agenda of distributing obviously positive memes (which I will not dictate here) and doing humanitarian work, it would have a serious case. In fact I think religion can have a very positive role in under-developed countries to teach them the basics of respect, results for work and ethical treatment of others. However such a religion would still have a problem, in that it promotes good ideas via a false premise, and so limits the congregation’s understanding of why they do what they do. So although such a religion could do a lot of good, I believe it would still be no match for an educated secular public capable of making their own decisions from first principles.

@mattbrowne, when you say Jesus’ “spirit” was raised from the dead… okay, do you think anyone else came back from the dead in this manner, or just Jesus?

What I’m trying to get at, is if you think Jesus was metaphysically special in some unique way—rather than simply a historically important moral philosopher. Because that’s certainly one way to read what you wrote.

And it’s no different from what atheists tend to believe about Jesus. That’s really the issue here. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… if you don’t think Jesus physically rose from the dead, if you don’t believe in the god of the Bible, if you don’t think Jesus’ importance was anything fundamentally different from any other (extremely important) human moral philosopher, I frankly don’t see the point in calling yourself a Christian or calling your beliefs on such subjects religious.

Or rather—I can see the point, which is to pin a religious label on a fundamentally secular worldview to make it seem more socially acceptable/win over religious people.

@mattbrowne, a problem with claiming the peaceful east German protests are an example of the “benefit” of religion is that I could just as easily cite examples showing the harm of religion—the from the crusades and the inquisition to modern fundamentalist Christians citing the Bible to drop bombs on Muslims.

If you believe that religion can influence people to be good and peaceful, surely you must also believe that religion can influence people to be xenophobic and violent. And it has, over and over again, and continues to do so today. In fact, I’d say that on the balance, the influence has clearly been negative—and while religions tend to “evolve,” they do so by becoming more secular, as the beliefs of “evolved Christians” such as yourself clearly show.

@Fyrius – You said, it’s up to the ethicists to deal with ethical problems because they are the only ones who have any actual expertise when it comes to ethics. Absolutely. But are you actually suggesting that religious experts and theologians are not qualified to be ethicists as well? Because they have no actual experience? I think we should listen to a diversity of experts.

Informed faith? Interesting term. Sure why not called it that. Test everything; hold fast to what is good.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – How would you react if your kid, say at age 15, wants to be baptized?

@FireMadeFlesh – Yes, living a religious life should be about positive memes only. Same for a nonreligious life of course.

We don’t know whether it’s a false premise. Therefore it’s called faith. Like Martin Luther King said “Faith is taking the first step even when you don’t see the whole staircase.”

@Qingu – Let me quote the definition: “The resurrection of dead humans is a central doctrine of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It may refer to the resurrection of biologically dead corpses by divine power or to a purely spiritual resurrection where the ‘dead’ (human beings who are blind to their spiritual nature and the possibility of salvation) come to Life (in Christianity referred to as eternal Life) by means of spiritual awakening and subsequent transformation to a life of holiness. It is used both with respect to particular individuals or the belief in a general resurrection of humanity.”

Because I also have faith in unsuspended natural laws I prefer the reference to a purely spiritual resurrection. And it’s not limited to Jesus. Of course Jesus was very special but this does not mean there are no other special people as well. The ideas of Darwin are still alive today and our knowledge of evolution saves millions of lives as we make progress in medicine for example.

Jesus was a radical critic of the religion of his day. Jesus promoted an ever-reforming faith to become reasonable, meaningful, hopeful, inspiring, and human, eventually also science-affirming.

Yes, there exist pathologies in religion that are extremely dangerous. But we should not equate religion with its irrational aberrations. Keep in mind, faith-rooted rationality helped give birth to modern science (Galileo, Kepler Newton etc). I’m quoting from David G. Myers book ‘A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists’: To judge faith by vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince is like judging science by eugenics, nuclear warheads, and chemical pollutants.

@mattbrowne Okay, he wants to randomly get baptized? Without any religion attached to it? Or with religion attached?

@mattbrowne Why is the desire to fill spiritual voids childish (at the very least)?
As i said, the desire (aka, the need) is not childish, the reaction of jumping to a favourable conclusion if the desire doesn’t find any satisfacion via rational inquiry is childish. I wish the world was a just place where everyone recieved what he deserved. Doesn’t mean i’m going to start pretending it is to feel good about it.

Seeking meaning and purpose, being part of communities, practicing rituals does not require the belief in a deity.
Yeah, and it doesn’t need religion either. Anton LaVey provided exactly that in the satanic bible (seeing how he was an atheist and he created a pseudoreligion precisely to fill the emotional void left by the lack of a seires of communal rituals, which is LaVeyan satanism)

You said that you not believe it until proven. But what about if it can’t be proven at all, which I think is the case?
I think my reply already states it clearly. I will believe it if it can be proven.

We cannot apply the scientific method. It will always remain an act of faith.
That’s an assumption, and a destructive one at that. Many people along history had this same attitude, and they didn’t help get where we are now. Taking for granted that something will not work and refraining from trying doesn’t make for a good approach to any task, expecially since in this case the scientific method is really ALL we have.

Besides, why shouldn’t it work? It has worked quite well in the past…

The whole point of the scientific method is to study what influences our reality, and only that which influences reaity has any influence into our lives. If god’s existence is relevant in any way to the world around us, then the scientific method will eventually pick up on it.

So yeah, god’s qualities may make him completely out of reach of the scientific method. If that’s the case he’s also completely irrelevant to our lives, so who cares?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – For example baptized by a tolerant Christian minister of his choice.

@Thammuz – Thanks for the clarification. I partially agree and I partially disagree.

I can’t really relate to your question. I was brought up by major atheists. One was a dedicated atheist one was an angry atheist. An angry atheist is worse than a radical Christian . The two basically deserve one another because both of their “beliefs” are based on fear.

I digress. Being brought up in this atheist environment, I knew nothing of God nor religion. But when I was 12 I went to church and all I know is I felt fantastic. I had “experienced” God. My father the angry atheist retaliated by giving me a good hiding, my mom the dedicated atheist just said “Oh leave her be, she will learn”.

My atheist experience in my family was total in its entirety. Not one of my family members believed in God, and he was often the household joke. The best part of the joke were the feverish Christians who I do believe went door to door in those days. They were the most ridiculed people of all in my atheist home. None of my schools said the lords prayer, most said some latin gumph in the morning I cannot recall. All my friends were atheists. Yet I had still experienced God. My subjects I passed the highest at school were biology. When I studied psychology we studied the ritualism of “religion” the order it creates in society. I absorbed all this but I still had experienced God. My degree was in the social sciences.

Now I am a grown up girl !! Most of my friends believe in God, in their own way. Some are religious, and zealous, some are not, some just believe there is a God and there is no one path to reach him.

Most of my friends are educated people. Oddly Melanie who is a chemical engineer with an MBA reads and believes her Bible word for word. I have a friend who is a psychiatrist, very “religious” a doctor, more vague he believes in God, but no religion. Chloe a degree in finance. Marrissa a psychologist align themselves to Christian faith. I have Herusha a Hindu very spiritual. I know a number of Muslims who are about as spiritual as a wet dish cloth and some who are.

We were all brought up in different homes, in different ways, we have different field of expertise. I would not label them stupid, nor gullible

My point is, you can raise a child anyway you want to. But ultimately a spiritual experience is a personal thing. It does not always make you closed mind, stupid and unable to digest scientific concepts. It is often and inexpiable experience that science cannot measure nor calculate, because sometimes science does not know the answers to everything.

I am sure even atheists are of the opinion “Don’t shove that belief on me”. It works both ways.

Interestingly both my atheist parents turned to God shorty before death.

@Just_Justine – Thanks for sharing this wonderful personal experience !

@mattbrowne So my 15 year old is a Christian? Okay, well baptism is just part of the religion so if I am okay with him having a religion, obviously, he can do whatever rituals that go along with it. And what do you mean by tolerant? (Besides if it was my first son, I’d tell him he was baptized when he was 6 mo. old because his mother was pressured into it by the religious factions of the families)

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – It’s just a hypothetical question. I assumed your son was informed but undecided and at some point he discovers a tolerant Christian faith (so nothing fanatical) and tells you he wants to be baptized. And it’s not just about the ritual, but also his newfound belief system leading to this decision. My question was how you’d react and how it would make you feel. You can also ask me how I would react if one of my kids told me he or she became an atheist, rescinding the affiliation with the church.

@mattbrowne Oh, I forgot that means he’s entering into it – I would ask him if he’s happy with his decision and new found faith and if the answer is ‘yes’ I’d tell him that’s all that matters. If he would then have views that I oppose (and he will probably have some anyway) then I’d debate him like I do anyone else.

@mattbrowne, would it be accurate to say you’re a “Christian” in the same way that I’m a “Darwinist”?

i.e. you like the cut of the man’s jib, think he had some very good ideas for his time, and that he changed the world?

I think the second definition of “resurrection” is a bit silly. But as you know, I’m a stickler for clear-cut semantics. :)

@Just_Justine, I don’t understand what you mean when you say an atheist’s beliefs are based on fear. (Speaking here as probably the most “radical” atheist on Fluther). Can you explain?

Also, which god did you experience?

I think I raise my kids to be immune to the pull of religion. The way we did it was to expose them to a range of religions from Catholic, down through fundamentalist christianity to Wicca.

What we got were kids that think for themselves, accepting of others beliefs without the temptation to follow them. They teach their kids the same way. They know what I learned the hard way, religion is not the most important thing in the world and the ultra religious views of some hold people and science back.

@Qingu I said two things, dedicated atheist and angry atheist. Why should an atheist be angry and lash out? Fear. And why would a Christian beat some one to death with their beliefs? Fear.

Fear is defensiveness turned inside out. You would not want to know the God I have experienced. And it is personal to me.

I guess I don’t know if I qualify as an “angry atheist.” I’m pretty confrontational, though. And it does upset me when, for example, people vote based on the fairy tales and ancient Mesopotamian laws that make up their religious texts.

I do want to know the god you experienced; certainly if anyone really experienced a god it would be an earth-shattering event. I don’t believe any gods, as described by human religions, exist, so if you’ve actually communicated with one, I’d have to re-evaluate my entire life and worldview.

@Qingu OK! but it will have to be another day, I am off to bed it is 11pm here in South Africa and work tomorrow. You take care till we chat :)

@Just_Justine I disagree that it necessarily has to be fear. I can tell you how frustration works just as well, in some instances also revulsion. I for once would lash out without hesitation if some son of a bitch tried to justify his sexism with his beliefs (Specific example, it actually happend). Same goes for lots of other good reasons.

And yes, fear, why not? For one I do fear religious nutjobs like those who tore down the twin towers, or the guy who shot and illed Dr. Tiller. And they DO do those things because of their beliefs. I don’t live in fear that one of them might kill me, but i do think they’re a menace and someday should be dealt with.

@Just_Justine and @Qingu I don’t think an angry atheist is an atheist at all. I think if someone feels anger towards religion they often still believe but have been hurt by other believers, and think that by professing disbelief they may become comfortable with not associating with those people any longer. I know of a few people who left their church for many years following disputes and slipped quietly away, but they eventually went back because they still believed.
In my opinion, an atheist should not feel anger towards religion. It is normal to be angered by the effects of some religions, such as the stoning of young girls in Africa for adultery when they have been raped, but anger at the religion itself accomplishes nothing. I regret the unfortunate truth that the majority of the world’s population are trapped by religion, and I try not to miss opportunities to show the problems with religion, but it is a rational attempt to better the lives of other people rather than driven by anger.

That is my opinion at least. @Just_Justine correct me if I am off the mark about your father.

@FireMadeFlesh I completely agree about angry atheists still believing. I am a former Catholic and used to get mad at the church. Now, even though I no longer believe in their teachings I can accept other’s belief in the religion without angry criticism towards them. The only people that make me angry, now, are the fundamentalists (of any religion) that try to force their beliefs or moral system on me. I am currently angry at the Texas school board members that are rewriting history, and social studies books that will possibly end up in my state, Pennsylvania.

I am also angry that I have to pay extra real-estate tax to support the exemptions received by local churches.

@FireMadeFlesh I am having to think because I have never analysed my father. I do know he was brought up in an atheist home as well. It could have been when he was in the Navy he did something wrong, and he was sent below deck for quite a long time. He was allowed no visitors I am not sure what that is called? (In the Navy). He was so bored he read the bible from front to back. I think he thought it was a bunch of fairy tails for children and that God basically sucked and anyone who believed in that tripe, was stupid. He travelled a lot and had exposure to a lot of religions. So I think he hated “religion” more than God. He quite like Buddhism, and found Islam interesting. I have no idea why he was so rude, nasty and hateful toward God. But I can understand why religion got on his nerves.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir – Wonderful. I would do the same.

@Qingu – Of course there’s a difference between myths and fairy tales. Well, when I was in my twenties I experienced God quite intensely, not in church, but while reading cosmology books. It’s just a strong internal feeling of awe and wonder, hard to describe. I told you before that my scientific mind is agnostic. There is no proof or proof of the contrary. Not when applying the scientific method. When I saw all these thousands of people dancing on the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, it was like Jesus reminding all of us, see, I told you so. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Two-way communication with an non-interfering god is not possible. You can call him, but not on his cell phone leaving a message and expect him to call you back. You got to figure out the answers for yourself.

I’m a Darwinist too, by the way.

@FireMadeFlesh – Likewise, in my opinion, a believer should not feel anger towards atheism.

I’m basically a Christian by your definition.

That seems semantically wrong to me.

@Qingu – Semantics is such a challenge sometimes. The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance say that “Who is a Christian?” is “a simple question with many answers and no consensus.” Each group has their own definition of “Christian” which agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, the cultures in which they are implanted, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all. One apparently cannot call on a higher power to resolve the problem, because there seems to be no way to assess the will of God on such matters. If there were such a method, then different definitions would have been harmonized centuries ago.

They found a near consensus within individual faith groups:

Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, and public opinion pollsters define “Christian” very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Using this definition, Christians total about 75% of the North American adult population.

Many Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants define “Christian” more narrowly to include only those persons who have been “born again” or have made a personal commitment to follow Jesus irrespective of their denomination. About 35% of the North American adult population identify themselves in this way.

Some Protestant Christian denominations, para-church groups, and individuals have assembled their own lists of cardinal Christian doctrines. Many would regard anyone who denies even one of their cardinal doctrines to be a non-Christian. Unfortunately, there is a wide diversity of opinion as to which historical Christian beliefs are cardinal doctrines.

Other denominations and sects regard their own members to be the only true Christians in the world. Some are quite small, numbering only a few thousand followers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian#In_the_United_States_and_Canada

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm

@mattbrowne: Most liberal Christian denominations, secularists, and public opinion pollsters define “Christian” very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So basically they believe strongly that they are people who believe strongly to be people who believe strongly to be people who believe strongly etc etc.

I fucking love recursion.

@mattbrowne you must be very fast with the fingers! You should write a book!

@BoBo1946—um, he does have a book.

Thanks @Simone_De_Beauvoir !

Here is my definition by the way: Walk the talk. Going to church is not enough.