Doubt: The Voice of Reason

Freudianism and Marxism are both flawed up to a point, but their grounding is in a combination of metaphysical presuppositions AND real-world evidence. It is the !*interpretation of*! the evidence which is subject to question and debate, but it's not as if they did no investigative work whatsoever.

sdreuqvmc nbegzk qoifmvzse eihwfqbvp oguewjc mbnluaq dckewqris

iaohbv asngiuvyt slrxcizu bweykg geuvloyr seqdumlvh xlzoq

iaohbv asngiuvyt slrxcizu bweykg geuvloyr seqdumlvh xlzoq

If you want to explore the relationship between reason and religion you should investigate modern Deism. Here is a link to a good explanation of the basic philosophy: http://www.positivedeism.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2699

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

Concerned: You base your beliefs about Jesus on the Jesus seminarians and if they have a payroll, I would not be surprised to find you in it. You expect us to make fundamental existential decisions on the basis of polls taken within this group. Your tunnel vision does not permit you to see beyond US politics and US imperialistic interests.

If anything needs to be addressed it's your war mongering and hatred of Christians and Muslims, so I hope there are some out there praying for you, because you truly need it.

Well, good luck, I guess, J. :)

I suppose one thing about America, is you do hear a lot to your face, in one way or another. Being of the 'wrong' religion and sexuality for many, I hear a lot who presume I'm part of their club, ...I certainly hear plenty of straight white Christians trying to impress me with how much they can't stand queers, etc.

One thing about these 'favored' groups is, ...there's in a lot of ways, no such thing: among straight white Christians, well, they just start going at each other over which sect, what political affiliation, what ethnicity, what sports team, Ford or Chevy, etc, etc.

Ok, inserted some trivia there, but the point is, when you have these ideas of a monolithic model of 'perfection and divine favor' ...it gets into *everything* and it *never ends.*

In short, I think there's a psychology to these monolithic, rule-based models which encourage fear and judgement of what's considered to be 'other,' ...a fundamental inability to grasp that there's a diversity in the world which is a *good* thing, not a massive 'failure to abide by divine rules.'

One thing I forgot to mention above is that that 'You're going to Hell' thing is often a prelude to threats of a more mundane nature: the thought process seems to go through this idea that 'Anything I might do to you is 'righteous' cause of this Hell.'

Being unable, apparently to grasp that there's a goodness in people, even if not especially within the same 'tribes' being *different,* there's a certain drive to try and enforce 'sameness' even if it means trying to *obliterate* the different, in one way or another. These 'universal rulebooks,' in fact, seem to rob people of some ability to see the *difference* between *one person,* and "Everyone," thus, themselves. It feeds some kind of functional *inability* to tell the *difference* between onesself and someone else: instead of embracing the diversity, they decide for some reason it would be much easier to try and make everyone else the same as 'them.' Even if it means 'getting rid of' in some unarticulated way, those who don't fit.

(For instance, I don't know how often I hear people justifying homophobia based on the insane notion, "If everyone didn't breed, then the human race would end! Thus every single person must breed!" I mean, *come on.* The existence of queer people won't change the fact that most folks are straight, ...it seems that some, however, only seeing things in terms of 'all or nothing,' can't accept that someone might just be *different from themselves* ...and that this doesn't mean, the world's trying to 'make everyone gay.' If you wonder exactly *in what way straight marriage is so terrifyingly supposed to be 'diminished' by gay couples having equal protection under the law,* well, I think the answer lies in that dynamic: people think they're being 'saved from Hell' by 'obeying these laws that are for everyone.' Functionally-unable to tell themselves from anyone else, they try to enforce the untenable on others, whatever it takes, cause someone taught them to be unable to discern and even value this diversity in the manifest world.)

This doesn't tend to stop when people are the 'right' color and sex and religion and presumptive sexuality, as the endless internecine warfare *within* these categories demonstrates.

If one values the differences in others, among us as a human people, from the neighborhood level to the global, then we can appreciate them in ourselves, instead of perhaps acting in certain ways simply to avoid being, say, 'wimps and losers.' :)

Blessed be. :)

Jihadist and Sympathizers,

Continuing to weave and bob around the issues is not helping. You can make a difference. Address the failings of contemporary religions especially Islam and Christianity. Put reality back into the lives of 2.5 billion members of humankind who are simply born and brainwashed to believe in the tragic errors of their religious foundations. A good start would be the formation of The Global Freedom of Religion Foundation.

Paganplace,

Thank you for your post.

I suppose, over the years, as a female (wrong gender for some), beige (wrong colour for some), Muslim (wrong religion for many), living in the developing world (third world for some as if I'm from another planet), I'm used to reading and hearing quite interesting and colourful remarks on my gender, race, region and religion.

Mind you, I have never heard anyone actually said them to my face. Bigotry is in the closet when face to face, but seems to be in full force in the facelessness and anoynimity of Cyberspace. That is why these On Faith threads are fascinating reading for me on what some people really think and feel.

I am grateful for our all our conversations here. The financial marketplace beckons and needs my full attention in the next few days. No place for wimps and losers.

Best regards as always.

J

"To be honest, I read in On Faith threads how some atheists do get irate responded to some posters' assertions that they will go to hell if they don't believe in God. I am puzzled for if one don't believe in heaven and hell, it should not matter."

This, J, is because with it comes a lot of *real-world* devaluation of people as humans, ...it's calling them bad people, ...implicit there from a lot of the language use is, 'You don't count.'

People are also frequently subjected to serious abuse on that basis, (which probably motivates a lot of the angrier atheists on a lot of psychological levels.)

It has to do with the dark side of these conditional promises of great reward, and frequent threats of horrible punishment. Not to mention how they're expressed in a real world, where we're all subject to a lot of decisions made by people who think only their beliefs count... while doing hideously-irresponsible things based on such beliefs. These things don't happen in a cultural and psychological vacuum, as religious manipulators well know.

I mean, I have my *own* faith, so these existential threats don't *scare* me as such, insulting as it is to have people walking around saying, 'Your soul is a criminal, and I'm imagining horrible things happening to you, cause you're such a lesser being that my opinion about you counts for more than your life...'

But apart from that, look at how 'sinners' and 'nonbelievers' are *treated* in these 'Hell-based' systems.

Are you *really surprised* it cheeses people off?

It's not about heavens or hells, it's about human dignity and what happens when people are treated that way.

The Jihadist is still weaving and bobbing through the commentaries and still not addressing the issues of her faith/questions about Islam.

Once again Jihadist, it is all about the foundations of contemporary religions.

Again, for two of the largest in synopsis form for your review and commentary:

1. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian/Jewish sects.

2. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

E Favorite and Tonio,

Yes you're both right. Anonymous did ask one to read the scriptures and to pray in spite of not believing, and in spite of Anonymous stating "faith is a gift and it cannot be willed".
It was rather confusing, but Anonymous came back with a subsequent clarification.

I see your point about damning others to hell for not believing in God or one's version of God and beliefs. So, the Muslims will go to hell for not accepting Christ as the Lord (according to some Christians). The Christians will go to hell for deification and idolatory of Jesus (according to some Muslims).

The classical Qur'anic commentators and interpretators of the Qur'an certainly let their imagination fly on who goes to heaven and hell too. The Qur'an itself is most specific that hypocrites will go to hell. The hypocrites refered to are those pretending to be believers of God, but are not. So, in the end, atheists will go to heaven. If they cared about it more than hell:)

To be honest, I read in On Faith threads how some atheists do get irate responded to some posters' assertions that they will go to hell if they don't believe in God. I am puzzled for if one don't believe in heaven and hell, it should not matter.

Certainly, as a Muslim, I have my share of "You will go to hell" from some of my more passionately literal fellow Muslims (for not agreeing with them on specific religious issues) and some non-Muslims, especially evangelical Christians, for not accepting Christ as the Lord and Savior.

Even in these On Faith threads, my favourite evangelist, Canyon Shearer, in his sweet and inimitable way, always tells me I will go to hell, am going to hell if I don't repent, accept and seek salvation through Christ in a way that I actually look forward to going to hell.

A Muslim is seldom intimidated by such threats of heaven or hell, as God is deem to be the final judge, not man. No Muslim, no matter how pious, can say for certain that s/he will go to heaven. So, let others damn one to hell. They have no power to do that, they are not God after all, but they can all they want - "Go to hell!" or "You will go to hell!"

I am sorry to hear, but not really surprised about how many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. In college, a Jewish college mate once told me that they are regarded as Christ-killers by some Christians.

I had laugh along with him and said Muslims are regarded as Christ deniers or the Anti-Christ. Fifteen years later, I still hear that, as others have heard for hundreds of years. Not funny, and was cause of persecutions, inquisitions, genocides, conflicts and wars, but I intend to die laughing at the absurdity of it all.

Yes, some believers can be and seem incredibly stupid to those within and outside their respective faiths. They regard what is seen as stupidity by others as singularity of mind for a purpose and mission. Nothing and no one can stop them for God is on their side, and all setbacks they encountered are challenges by God to test and strengthen their faith.

As a believer myself, I never under-estimate that in some passionate believers. While I may hesitate and ponder sometimes, they plunge ahead with absolute certainty and without fear. After all, God is on their side, they said. We can call it blind faith, or sheer stupidity for all we want, but for them, others who don't share their beliefs are in denial of the One Truth and will yet see it, yet believe in it.

Of course, there will be more taunting, harassments and/or quests to evangelize from passionate believers.

Best regards

" I now also count myself amoung..."

He, he. I lost the first spelling bee I was ever in spelling "among" that way.

I try not to insult people for believing. Some people, even brilliant people (see Karen Armstrong, _The Spiral Staircase_, e.g.), need to believe. Some people, says William James, in _The Varieties of the Religious Experience_, actually feel the presence of God all the time. And I sympathize, because science is leaving fewer and fewer gaps for God to hide in.

What bugs me is when people believe stupidly. There's no excuse for holding the Bible inerrant; there's no excuse for still believing in Adam and Eve; there's no excuse to dredge up ancient vileness from the Book of Leviticus and use it to destroy people's lives.

Come on, people. That's not belief. That's not a loving God. That's bone stupidity.

Tonio wrote:

"Just as an example, many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. Do you really expect them to have any sympathy for Christians who complain about being called stupid by a few atheists?"

I grew up a Jew in mostly non-Jewish communities, and the only time I felt harassed was when I had a couple of KKK members after me. The school district and local police put an end to that right away! All these years later, I now also count myself amoung the Christian population.

As for questioning faith, I have always done so. Sometimes I think maybe it's a Jewish way of doing things. We were brought up to question everything, never to simply follow blindly. My whole life has been full of questioning, and I feel I have gotten much farther in life and faith this way.

Perhaps my suggestion to pray, visit the Holy Eucharist, etc, even if one doesn't believe, wasn´t understood as I would have wanted.

I realize there are many who are quite content without following any of my suggestions. I don't expect an all merciful God to condemn them or anyone forever just because they do not follow my suggestions or belong to any particular religion. I don't believe God's ultimate intent is to condemn anyone, not the God that reveals inexplicable joy and peace in the Eucharist.

However, there may be some I felt, who may want to know if there is really something to our faith in Christ and it is those that I address.

If our faith is true, if Jesus has resurrected from the dead, if he is thus present in the Holy Eucharist, then visiting the Eucharist is visiting with him, and he is fully aware of one's visit and of the relationship (or one's negation of one), whether one believes or not. If, as we believe, God, that is, the essence and living fullness of Being and Christ are one, then the visit is an encounter with that one, whether one believes or not, and the visit significant, regardless of sense appearances, or even belief.

Faith results from an encounter with the living God. Belief flows from that.

I like Christmas.

I don't perceive religious people as a threat to me, even though I am atheist.

I just think religion is often a burden to society. Look at the history of China and the history of the West. The West had much more of a burden of religion during much of our history.

Socialization, traditions, mythologies - there is nothing wrong with them, per se. But mythologies should not deny reality or create absolutes.

Regardless, religious people are not currently a threat to me. Christianity is not as powerful as it once was in the West. I don't live in an Islamic country, so I can't comment on Islam.

Jihadist, while I can't speak for E Favorite, I didn't read "activities usually limited to believers" as referring specifically to religious celebrations. Instead, I read it as a reasonable objection to evangelism, the notion that people have to be saved for their own good.

"It would spoil the festivities' celebrations and have someone partaking in our feasts saying we are all delusionals, no?"

Valid point. I have criticized atheists who label all believers as delusional or ignorant.

However, it's much more wrong and noxious for Christian doctrine to damn all atheists and all other non-Christians to hell for not believing in Christ. Or for Islamic doctrine to damn all Christians to hell for believing in Christ. To say that someone is doomed to hell is to say that someone doesn't deserve to exist.

Just as an example, many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. Do you really expect them to have any sympathy for Christians who complain about being called stupid by a few atheists?

I see the Jihadist is back at work.

To the specific topic: Jihadist have you ever questioned Islam? If not, here are some items to consider. The hallucinations of Islam's founder, the illiteracy of said founder/fortune teller, the obvious plagiarism, the militaristic and anti-female passages, the call for world domination, the 72 virgins, the state of heaven (spiritual vs. physical), the chariot rides, the required belief in mythical angels, the many sects, the new "fortune tellers", the no-escape clauses?????????????????????

Lighten up, Jihadist, and don't build straw-men and then tear them down. When I mentioned activities limited to believers, I was referring to the ones Anon named: "Read[ing] scripture, even if you don't believe. Pray[ing], even if you don't believe. Visit[ing] Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, even if you don't believe."

I never said or implied a word about spoiling believers' festivities or not celebrating Christmas. But I will now -- I enjoy Christmas a lot more now that I don't think of it as a religious holiday that's been overtaken by commercialism. Now, I just look forward to the extended vacation time to visit family and friends.

Godfrey

Thanks for that clarification and good to know you love Christmas too. No one goes to hell for loving Christmas, except when one maxed out on the credit cards.

I had thought that Thanksgiving is the one that all Americans celebrate, regardless of their religous or non-religious beliefs.

I suppose you're right about Christmas being a "secular" celebration nowadays. The Japanese celebrate Christmas in a way that would make North Americans and Europeans blush.

Regards

I think it's safe to say that, in America, at least, Christmas is pretty much a secular holiday; a modern version of Saturnalia, if you will. I'm a hardcase atheist, and I love Christmas. I don't pay any attention to Easter, however.

E Favorite:)

"Please consider that they're (non-believers) very content in their non-belief and don't want to spend time engaged in activities usually limited to believers."

Yes, since they gagged throught all the formalities and rites of organized religion when they were forced to be part of organized religion and religious traditions they don't believe in.

But sometimes, they (non-believers) do also like to celebrate the fun side of traditions in organized religion, such as Christmas, and love Christmas office parties, and the giving and receiving of gifts too.

Oh, for heavens sake! Admit that some atheists do like some traditions of organized religion. I have friends who don't fast all through Ramadan but come Aidil Fitr (the Festival celebrating the end of Ramadan) they are the ones who really celebrates the occassion with joyous feasting and visiting and giving.

We believers have no problems inviting and sharing with non-believers our religious festivities. It is up to y'all.

Surely not all believers wants to proselytize y'all or force y'all to believe. It would spoil the festivities' celebrations and have someone partaking in our feasts saying we are all delusionals, no?

Lighten up E Favorite. Believers have their own fun and contentment too. I just don't know what non-believers of God and organized religion celebrate as a family and community activity and/or tradition:)

Anon - you make the assumption that people who don't believe, want to believe. Please consider that they're very content in their non-belief and don't want to spend time engaged in activities usually limited to believers.

...oh...and be merciful, not just just, even if you don't believe.

A jesuit priest once told us in the congregation of a man he knew who really wanted to have faith and though he prayed for it consistently, it did not happen until after many years.

Belief is a dimension of faith, but not faith itself. Faith is a gift and it cannot be willed. It is some sort of revelation that the object of one´s faith is quite real, independent, not contingent upon personal imagination.

When Jesus asked Peter who he thought he was, and Peter responded, "the messiah, the son of the living God", Jesus answered that this had not (could not have) been revealed to him by men, but by the Father.

So what can one do? Be truthful, even if it means being atheistic or agnostic. Be just to the best of your ability, even if you don't believe. Read scripture, even if you don't believe. Pray, even if you don't believe. Visit Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, even if you don't believe.

Faith is something more then just belief.

I am 60. I lost my "faith" at about 14, but the seeds of doubt were cast much earlier - when I found out, much to my shock and disgust - that my parents had lied to me for years about Santa Claus. The event that really got me to thinking about it was my baptism into the Baptist Church. For that solemn occasion, I insisted on wearing my only suit. It shrank. Sign from God? No, I decided it was just physics.

I am 60. I lost my "faith" at about 14, but the seeds of doubt were cast much earlier - when I found out, much to my shock and disgust - that my parents had lied to me for years about Santa Claus. The event that really got me to thinking about it was my baptism into the Baptist Church. For that solemn occasion, I insisted on wearing my only suit. It shrank. Sign from God? No, I decided it was just physics.

to e favorite, again

With regard to God, Jesus, the ressurection, the trinity, and other things like this that are central to Christianity, I admit that I have few words. I do not think it should bother you that I have few words. Read what Spong had to say from this forum's panel entitled, "Question faith? Fear not." (I am sure you have already read it). I liked what he said. I agree with him.

to E Favorite

I think that a big mistake that alot of people make, especially religious people, but also atheists too, is to claim a certainty of knowledge.

I do acknowlege that we, as human beings, experience impressions of order from the world in which we dwell. Observing these impressions of order is science. Science is no more than that. But I do wonder, contemplate, and speculate, on the nature of this order, which impresses itself upon us. That is philosophy and religion.

I also acknowledge that the beliefs that fill us up, (that impress themselves upon us) are contingent upon our interaction and intersection with the world, over which we have almost no control. That is why, when I begin to wonder and speculate about these impressions of order, which for the most part, I have never wondered about until recently, that I use the tools that I know best, that were handed to me by the contingency of my birth and experience upon the earth, which is Christianity. In that sense, I am a Christian.

All people believe as they will. If you could reach into a person's brain and alter their beliefs, you probably would not want to do that. And if you could kill off or imprison all the people with beliefs that you do not like, you probably would not want to do that either. So what is left? Everybody, just believe, each as he or she will. That is the way it has got to be.

TJ, etc.
All I can offer to your view of biblical inerrancy is to repeat that although divinely inspired, the Bible is a human creation. As such, the message from G-d has been filtered through the cultural, linguistic, institutional and personal assumptions of the well-meaning folks who wrote it down and copied it.
The Bible is contradictory, at best, confusing -- if read without a good measure of prayer and conscience. As my mother used to say: "Read the book, pray about it, and make good decisions."

Daniel - thanks - I can see you are trying to be responsive. It seems to me that as much as you are focused on your faith and willing to talk about it, you avoid aspects of it that might prove to be too challenging.

Yes, Jwest - I checked out I ching - but think I saw a bad book - it seemed sort of like tarot.

I'll go to another book store.

Jim J,

I agree that some minor difficulty stems from translation and the evolution of language. What I do know is that the languages that our oldest extant copies are written in are known entities. Hebrew and ancient Greek are what they are. It's not like our oldest copies are written in Linear A.

I think the lion's share of the difficulty stems from the contradictory and ambiguous nature of the work itself.

E-Favorite, Have you checked out I CHING yet??

Of the hundreds of gods spoken of, atheists believe in one less god than christians.

TJ:

Of course, "literal" depends on translation and intended meaning. Words had different meanings when the Bible was written than they do now, and some translations are translations of supposed meaning rather than literal translations. It takes time and knowledgeable teachers to be able to study original translations to get to the truth of the Bible. I've been working at it for some time, and I will never be done...

Reasonable and not hateful,

The Vedas are ancient and report miracles. The Koran is very old and reports miracles. Do you believe in the events they describe as you do in the Christian Bible? I suspect the answer is no.

The fact is, with the except of their own particular faith tradition, religious people behave in exactly the same way you say only atheists behave. They discount claims that lack evidence. They don't believe in miracles just because some person claimed to have witnessed it or some ancient book describes it. Atheists are different in this regard; they're just more consistent.

Gerry:

Only if you believe that God would do absurd things. I think God leaves the absurd to humans; we tend to have that covered on our own just fine. All of the insanity that we call humanity on this planet is true absurdity, if you ask me.

Jim J, we agree on that. The twist, and where we may disagree, is my opinion of the value of a literal reading. When I read the bible, and yes I still do after 20 years of apostasy, I find that I must read it literally for the reasons we both have suggested. However, when I read it literally, I'm left with a horrible, snarled mess of contradiction and gobbledygook like the two conflicting flood stories, young earth creationism, and the like. No matter which I way I choose to read the bible, either liberally or literally, I'm still left with the same thing: nothing in the least bit useful.

Gerry, No, that's not my definition of god and I'm not presenting any philosophy. That's the definition of the word 'omnipotent' which is used to describe god in the bible. If the absurdity of creating the universe is within reason, and it obviously is for Christians, then so is the absurdity of keeping a boat that should sink afloat.

Tj

With your philosophy:

Anything goes! Any ever imaginable absurdity is covered by your definition of god.

Anon
I'm not pointing a finger at you. The "you" I refer to is the you in general, christians. I didn't mean to call you, Anon, smug or looneytune, I was refering to people like tom, the mothership is coming guy. That is smug and looneytoon. And others who I hear on TV and read about. Plus you, anon, use anon for your name and I might be thinking of what another anon said and tie you both, or more, together. I am jwest you as anon could be any one of several. I am only discussing what I feel and have witnessed. I ask people too many questions about their religiousity and get some strange looks and answers. Plus understand that I don't like the current state of hostility coming from the christian community and want to stand as a voice against religious intrusion into my private life. we do not have an inherent right to impose ourselves on one another. I don't hate anyone on this post. I disagree with many though. No offense intended.

Good discussion.

It is interesting how we subjectively generalize, label and categorize individuals by their stated belief systems.

To: E Favorite

For about the past year, I have been corresponding with a blogger, someone whom I do not know and have never met. We go back and forth on these types of questions, and in writing my replies to him, I have worked out alot of the things which I have posted here. I have tried posting some of my ideas here, but my thoughts don't seem to be going over very well.

I don't care. I feel alot clearer in my mind now, than I did 5 years ago.

"Also, religious leaders aren't stupid. They know that nobody is going to share their beliefs without instruction and, quite frankly, indoctrination."

Jerry, I'm uncomfortable with labeling all religious leaders as power-hungry demagogues. I suspect most of them honestly believe they're doing the right thing, even when they push doctrines that many people find repugnant. Some of them almost certainly share the same fears and uncertainties as their flocks.

What is the nature of religious doubt?

Robert Heinlein once wrote that “Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil”. Unfortunately there are many more good people in the World today than there are wise ones.

One of the things that the Bible, which I think is the word of God, tries to teach us is how to be good. But goodness if a far easier subject to teach than wisdom. It is possible to master some proficiency at being good and still fall short when it comes to being wise. That’s what separates good intentions from being good.

How do you know when goodness is best served by running, as God told Joseph to do with Mary and Jesus as Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem? How do you know when goodness is best served by staying and bearing a cross, as God asked Jesus at the Crucifixion? How do you know when God wants you to pick up a rock and a sling, like David, and fight for what is good? And how do you know when God wants you to turn the other cheek?

A wise man might know the answer. Just as likely, a wise man might be wise enough to admit that he didn’t know, because a wise man who doesn’t doubt his own wisdom is not wise at all. So we struggle through life trying to be good in the right ways and at the right times so that our goodness might make a difference. We read the examples of people who were thought wise and look for something we might apply to our own lives.

Because not knowing the right ways, the right times, and to what extremes we should express our goodness is the nature of religious doubt.

TJ:

You are absolutely correct, which is why many Christians believe that you cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. If parts of it are not true, then which parts? Who is the authority on this? And yes, their disbelief diminishes God.

...and the belief in a "better" authority is contingent upon each person's origins, and the beliefs that formed in that person's head, which for the most part, were not chosen, freely.

Jwest:

I never specifically pointed a finger at you, did I? And yet, you seem to point one at me. I do not ignore science at all, and only became a Christian 3 years ago. You sure do seem to be pretty angry at me about something though.

I am very educated in the non-religious "side" of things, and I also spent many years studying a number of religions before becoming a Christian. My post above was meant to point out, as yours did about Christians, that there are many non-Christians who speak out without knowledge to base their words on. Just because someone can be loud or sound like they know what they're talking about, doesn't mean they're educated on the topic.

The reason there are so many different "brands" of Christianity is because people ultimately want things their way. You get arguments within churches because some person or group of people decides they don't like the way something is being done or said, and the decide they can do it better. It's happened this way for hundreds of years. Different "flavors" of Christianity like this is completely different than people leaving their faith in God completely.

And I can honestly say that I have never been accused of acting smug, or being a looneytoon.

Science is a utilitarian and pragmatic assignment of meaning to our impressions of order in the world. There is no philosophy of science, and there are no certain rules of nature nor unvarrying laws of Physics. This is an illusion. There is only the utility of the moment, in interpretting our impressions of order.

Science has such a good reputation because it has produced great utility. People don't believe "in science" because it is a good philosophy to believe in; they believe in it because it has produced such utility. When people believe in the truth of something, it is not because science says it is true; it is merely a coincidence that science tells people many useful things, which they believe.

By this way of thinking of science, you can see that even scientists can have "unscientifc" beliefs about things that are not directly under their area of scientific interest. Appealing to science to prove an argument won't work. The power of science to persude is in its reputation, alone, not in its philosophy; and if someone thinks they have a better authority for truth, then that is how they would make their judgement.

To: E favorite

Religious doubt in my life:

I was raised in a very religous family. But my parents were very intelligent, thoughtful and kind. I also had a Christian grandmother who was benevolent and kind. So, I don't have any particular bitterness against Christianity, that I observe in alot of other people.

When I grew up, I felt religious doubt; I gradually believed less and less. Gradually, I was practically an atheist. But then more lately, I have begun to have realizations which drive me back to being a Christian.

Instead of doubting religion and believing in the certainty of science, I gradully became to doubt also, the scientific characterizations of existence. Of course, I believe that evolution is true, but what does this discovery get us? it just inches us forward, but a tiny bit. The fact that it might conflict with the Bible is not really important to me. It is my experience that most Christians believe that evolution is true.

I started thinking "weird" things, such as "we are manufactured products" and "all that we can truely know of the world is that we get impressions of order from it." Where are these thoughts coming from? I never thought like this before. So, I cannot say.

But, then I move along to the next step, to wonder that we choose our thoughts and beliefs at all, but that they somehow form themselves, or are influenced to be formed by some means that we do not control.

And then I have the idea of "contingency;" that all that we know or believe depends on our tiny interaction with the world and with the culture, people, and families into which we were born, and that we each have our own local setting where we are delivered, to deal with all these questions and wonders.

I suppose there is alot more. It is not something that I can just say in a breath, or even a couple of sentences.

TONIO:

I completely agree, but unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, many of the personal revelations in the Bible compel the "reciever" (and by extesion, those who follow the teachings) to prosthyletize (spelling?).

I wish people would take you up on your proposition, but I'm guessing they won't. Also, religious leaders aren't stupid. They know that nobody is going to share their beliefs without instruction and, quite frakly, indoctrination. On the other hand, identical scientific knowledege was aquired independantly across vast distances, by people who never met or communicated. That SHOULD tell you something about the relative merits of the two approaches!!

Viejita del oeste,

You may maintain that if you like and we'll have to agree to disagree.

More interestingly, you've cast your lot with Daniel regarding biblical inerrancy. I'd like to address you both on this topic. I'm likely one of the few atheists that you'll meet that argues for biblical inerrancy.

Let's do consider the story of Noah. I agree that it is utterly absurd but I don't believe in the omnipotent god described in the bible so it's no skin off my back. For the cherry picking/liberal interpretation Christian though, things get interesting. I'll assume that you both believe that your god created the universe. Maybe he did it with a wave of his hand, maybe evolution is his tool, whatever. The method is of no consequence. What is of consequence is the magnificent result. And what a magnificent result it is! Seriously, wow!

Now, if your god is capable of doing this, why wouldn't he be capable of miraculously keeping some silly boat full of animals afloat??

If your god is capable of doing this, why wouldn't he be capable of miraculously keeping the bible true to his word and, therefore, in need of no cherry picking/liberal interpretation whatsoever??

The cherry picker/liberal interpreter constrains the ability of their own omnipotent god. It speaks volumes about the true nature of both the belief and of the god.

Anon
I was a christian. I read, and continue to, read the bible, listened to the stories and and try to discuss it all with my christian friends. Once again as I have stated before, they will not discuss it with me. ????. I seem to put them in a bit of a spot. If everyone was given a truth serum and asked how much they really believe in all of this you would find the ranks of atheism increase dramatically. Since I've been part of this forum I have found many of you out there to have varying degrees of belief or otherwise understanding of christianity. One might believe in infallablilty whereas the other not. That is why there is so many different brands of christianity, some 6500 as I'vecome to understand. Maybe more. Each brand has broken off from another and it is continuing to grow. Some of us grew out of it entirely. For those of you who continue to look down your nose at us non-believers, well better learn to get over it because in the future you just might be the minority. Ignore science all you want and believe in superstition to your hearts content just don't be so smug about it. After all some people think your the looneytoon.

TJ
The part that I found arrogant was the faith in one's own unmediated judgment. And I maintain that that faith is just as blind as my faith in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
But it is certainly preferable to worshiping the words-on-paper that have come down to us from other humans. Biblical inerrancy is nonsensical, because even if you believe (as I do) that the Bible is "from" G-d, you still have to recognize that fallible human beings had to write it down and preserve it to the best of their ability.

TONIO:

I completely agree, but unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, many of the personal revelations in the Bible compel the "reciever" to prosthyletize (spelling?).

Otherwise I wish pepople would take you up on your proposition!!

TONIO:

I completely agree, but unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, many of the personal revelations in the Bible compel the "reciever" to prosthyletize (spelling?).

Otherwise I wish pepople would take you up on your proposition!!

Daniel, I know that you and many other Christians are not fundamentalists and don't believe the Bible to be inerrant.

I wonder if you're going to address the question I asked earlier: What is the nature of the religious doubt in YOUR life.

If you don't want to, please just say so. It's frustrating for me to see so many posts from you, but none addressing this particular question.

Thanks

Sorry for the post to LEPIDOPTERYX:

Wrong thread!

LEPIDOPTERYX:

I am sorry that you lost your grandfather at an early age. If we can not provide answers to a grieving child with what we know then I have to think there is more we need to learn.

Your post makes me think that there should be something more to say in response to this. I just can not find the words right now.

My hope is that in the time that has passed you have found something more to God and spirituality that has brought you happiness and hope.

Peace.

"Religion tends to explain the natural world through arbitrary and untestable personal revelation. It should take no further explanation as to why we (atheists) prefer the former."

To expand on Jerry's point, personal revelations wouldn't be issues if they didn't claim to be explanations of the natural world in the first place, or claim to represent exclusive truth. I propose that if there is such a thing as personal revelation, it apply only to the individual experiencing the revelation. None of us has any control over other people's beliefs or personal lives, so why should one's personal revelation have anything to do with other people?

Daniel,

I'm glad you touched on plausibality in your last post, as this is a crucial difference between religious and atheistic beliefs.

Unless you are someone (and think you aren't) who insists on an absolutist, dogmatic approach to defining and understanding the natural world, then we are left to consider likelyhood.

Atheists almost universally advocate the scientific method as the best way to explain the natural world. Observation, testing and logical inference, followed by independant repetition and verification. Religion tends to explain the natural world through arbitrary and untestable personal revelation. It should take no further explanation as to why we (atheists) prefer the former.

When it comes to the supernatural world, science does not attempt to explain this as it is not possible to observe it, test it or make any logical inference about it. In the absence of these processes any other attempt to explain the supernatural world will inevitably be arbitrary and personal. In an earlier post I described this rationale as akin to saying - "any answer, regardless of how implausible it is, is better than no answer". Atheists simply disagree with this and believe that it is better to admit you don't know than to accept an implausable answer. Furthermore, given the lack of evidence, the existance of God is, while not impossible, highly implausable.

For this reason, we would not agree with you that atheistic and religious beliefs are equal assessments of the superntural or spiritual.

Plausability is crucial.

All Christians do not believe that the Bible is literally true. First of all, it is not written that way, as a catalog of truths, that you must take or leave. It is, mostly, a long and complex complilation of history, and historical myths.

In my church people who believe every word of the Bible are thought of as fools. All Christians are not fundamentalists; all Christians are not literalists; in fact in the scheme of the entire world, they are a tiny minority; it just so happens that there is big nest of them in the USA.

The most foolish story of all in the Bible, is the story of Noah's Arc. Even as a small child, I knew that Noah could not possibly build an arc large enough to house all of the animal speices on the earth.

It is silly and pointless, going back and forth, arguing over these silly things. I can see that many atheists who post here have had their run-ins with aggressive, petty, and mean-spirited Christians. But all Christians are not like that. There is a very wide range of belief among people who call themselves Christians.

Jwest wrote:

"If you don't know what your faith is all about how can you claim adherence to it. The bible is the basis of christianity. One has to believe in its inerrancy as part of the whole of christianity. How then can one believe it to be their "truth" if they a). don't understand it, b). because they've never read it. Answer: Because they have been to told what to think, believe and how they are supposed to act by someone else. There is an inherant laziness to it all. I call it selective christianity."

And if you don't know what Christianity and the Bible is all about, and you've never read the whole Bible, how can you say it's false? Because you've been told what to think, believe and act by someone else. There is an inherant laziness to it all. I call it generic atheism.

In writing this stuff, I am not defending the political instituions of religon; I am not seeking to prove the validity of the Bible, in general, nor any specific verse, nor am I seeking to lobby anyone to convert to my beliefs, nor impose my beliefs on others. And I have no grudge or problem with atheistic belief, which, is actually more plausable than primitive fundamentalist relgion.

What I am trying to do is characterize the true nature of this world in which we dwell, and our perceptions of it, with special wonder, regarding how all "this stuff" came to be, in the first place.

I believe that we know very little. Even with all that we know by way of science, we know little. We speculate a great deal. In fact, I regard our scientifically derived knowledge as scientific specultation, which we infer, with a high degreee of certainty, to be true.

In our perception of the world, we have IMPRESSIONS OF ORDER. These impressions of order give rise to scientific investigation regarding their nature. We use metaphors to apply some sort of comprehensible meaning to these impressions of order.

We speculate that there are laws of nature and laws of science and laws of physics, that cause these impressions of an order. But even this characterization of the "laws of nature" is just a metaphor, comparing our impressions of order to the imposition of legal order.

Beyond our simplest tasks of everyday experience and living, almost everything that we think and do is a speculative metaphor regarding some impression of order, the ultimate nature of which, remains hidden, and a mystery.

Quinn, you make a very good point. People interpret what they are told and that becomes the basis of their belief(s). BTW I ask christians if they have read the bible. I'm not inventing data.

"just happened to disagree with your implication that true Christians need to have read the entire Bible and understand it in order for them to be taken seriously about their faith;" If you don't know what your faith is all about how can you claim adherence to it. The bible is the basis of christianity. One has to believe in its inerrancy as part of the whole of christianity. How then can one believe it to be their "truth" if they a). don't understand it, b). because they've never read it. Answer: Because they have been to told what to think, believe and how they are supposed to act by someone else. There is an inherant laziness to it all. I call it selective christianity. I'm glad you agree with me though that many don't read the bible. Shows me you are a person of integrity.

tom, tom tom....that space ship is for you, please don't miss it.

Daniel, you wrote "Many atheists have alot of good arguments in support of atheism. However, all of these arguments are speculative in nature. Speculative arguments for atheism have not made atheism more believable for me; it just reinforced my belief that atheism is a speculative belief, just as speculative as any belief."

That's really not true. Atheism is more often based less on speculation and conjecture and more on logic, reason, rationality and demonstrable evidence. The same can't be said for revealed religions.

I think you're a little confused, Tom. Atheists aren't the ones who believe in fantasy worlds and after lives. Remember that the ones who drank the Kool-Aid in Guyana were following their pastor, the *Reverend* Jim Jones.

Again, Daniel, the difference between religious speculations and any secular speculations is that the former involve definitions and proscriptions of humanity. Is it possible to speculate on deity and the soul without defining and proscribing people? If someone believes in God, why should that person find it necessary for everyone to believe in that God, or worse, for everyone to do what the God allegedly requires? I see no reason to believe anyone who claims to be a proxy for such a God. I see no compelling evidence to believe in supreme beings, although I don't flatly reject the possibility of the divine.

To all atheists:

The mothership is coming...the mothership is coming.

Get ready - :D :D :D

Daniel, But yet our 'mere senses' were able to discover the quite strange quantum world via application of the scientific method. How can this be so?

On your other point ...

In the same way that it's useful to consider divisions like 'protestant' and 'catholic' when investigating Christianity, it's helpful to learn about the divisions of atheism. If I make the claim that there is no god, then yeah, that's pretty speculative and, ultimately, unprovable. If I make the claim that I don't believe in any gods because there isn't compelling evidence to do so, that's quite different. Both flavors are still atheism (strong, the former and weak, the latter).

Your statement, "atheism is a speculative belief" is about as true as the statement "christians believe in transubstantiation". It's part true and part false because they both paint with too broad of a brush.

I hope this helps clarify your thinking on the matter.

Many atheists have alot of good arguments in support of atheism. However, all of these arguments are speculative in nature. Speculative arguments for atheism have not made atheism more believable for me; it just reinforced my belief that atheism is a speculative belief, just as speculative as any belief.

The natural law that appeals to atheists also includes quantum physics and relativity, which turns out to be an immensely complex and and seemingly bizarre characterizaiton of the fundamental physical existence of all things. Through quantum physics and relativity, we infer that the physical world extends far beyond the perceptions of our mere senses, and that natural phenomena operate outside of the constraints of mere "common sense." This gives alot of room to speculate on God, and the soul, and makes atheism seem, not a sure and necessary thing, but, also, to me, more speculation.

I sometimes wonder, that maybe we are all confined to a little prison and that our pitiable and feeble senses define its boundaries, and that all of us, each and every one of us, Christian and atheist alike, are confined to dwell there. We can speculate about the true nature of existence; it can be like a puzzle to work through, like a game of scrabble or working a cross-word puzzle. It is a good mental excercise. But it can also be the source of anxiety and fear, even terror. Worrying about this stuff too much can lead to depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, even suicide, and even worse. Maybe that had something to do with flying the planes into the building on 9/11.

Anonymous.

I agree that observation is a necessary part. I think science and religion are/should be the ying and yang of reality. Science fills in gaps that currently exist in science and science helps fill in the current gaps in religion and each pushing the other to evolve. Currently by nature science seems to be an evolutionary process and religion in many cases seems to be stagnant as you suggested.

In terms of science has changed religion in the past few hundred years but not the opposite. I think that is partially due to dogmatic religion and the fact that the scientific exploration of consciousness is still infantile compared to the ‘physical’ sciences.

I believe we are only scratching the surface on consciousness and spirituality. I believe there are so many exciting things yet to learn if we are just willing to explore.

Father shot dead after leaving Honduran gang, building new life

By Paul Jeffrey
Catholic News Service

HONDURAS-AGUILAR Jun-13-2007

SAN PEDRO SULA, Honduras (CNS) -- Henri Aguilar's entire body was marked by the tattoos he had acquired while a member of one of Honduras' notorious street gangs, but inside he was a new man.

He had left the gang that had once claimed his allegiance, come back to the church of his childhood, gotten a steady job, married and had a baby girl whom he named Genesis as a sign of his new beginnings.

On May 7, Aguilar was cleaning up after working all day and planned to walk to a nearby chapel, where he was scheduled as a reader for Mass. He was taking a shower when three masked men burst into his church-built home and shot him dead.

Aguilar's killing illustrates how hard it is for young men to escape the violent gang subculture that has gripped Central America in the last decade. Once in a gang, it's almost impossible to leave.

"It's precarious. If they see that you've really had a change of heart and become a Christian, you might be OK. I walk a narrow line. I don't walk around on the street, I don't smoke or drink, and I don't visit my old friends," Aguilar told Catholic News Service less than a week before his death.

Aguilar, 31, had attempted to remove the tattoos he'd acquired during eight years in the Salvatrucha gang, but the repeated acid and laser treatments were not very successful, so he finally gave up. While riding his bicycle to the construction site where he worked, he wore long sleeves and a hat pulled down low over his face to hide his past.

Aguilar had literally become the poster boy for the work of Maryknoll Father Thomas Goekler, who came to the shantytown of Chamelecon in 1999 and helped families build new homes to replace those ravaged by Hurricane Mitch the previous year. One of those new homes became Aguilar's, and Maryknoll published a poster with him -- long sleeves and hat hiding his tattoos -- talking with Father Goekler in the middle of a construction site.

Father Goekler had fought to keep Aguilar alive. In 2004, the priest was celebrating Mass when several neighborhood youths came running to announce that the police were trying to arrest Aguilar. Father Goekler left the Mass and ran to confront the police.

"I was already inside the police car when the padre got there, and when he tried to open the door and climb in with me, the police started beating him," Aguilar said. "They knocked him down and tried to drive away, but he just hung onto the back of the vehicle. They finally shook him loose, but he just came to the police station and wouldn't leave until they released me."

Like many church and human right workers in Honduras, Father Goekler said the Honduran police regularly torture and kill suspected gang members.

The priest provided Aguilar and other youths with identification cards from the parish "Walk in Peace" program that taught them construction skills as they rebuilt hurricane-damaged housing. Sometimes the cards helped; sometimes they did not.

"The police said the church program was a front for the gangs," Aguilar said.

Most importantly, Aguilar said, Father Goekler taught the young men self-respect and confidence.

"The padre taught us how to talk and defend ourselves with words. I'm not afraid of the police any longer," Aguilar said.

Father Goekler said it may have been the police who killed Aguilar or gang members from a rival gang, or even the gang Aguilar abandoned. No arrests had been made by mid-June.

"Of course not; no one is ever arrested for killing a gang member," Father Goekler told CNS.

The priest said he has buried scores of young people -- some killed by gangs or drugs, some murdered by the police, still others massacred in the country's overcrowded prisons.

Aguilar's death is especially hard, said Father Goekler, who baptized Aguilar's 1-year old daughter May 27.

"We're really upset. He was well liked, a leader, and he had real patience with the younger kids. And he really was rehabilitated; he wasn't fooling around," Father Goekler said.

Asked what impact Aguilar's death has had on his ministry in Honduras, Father Goekler said: "We just keep going. Is there any other choice?"

END

Viejita del oeste wrote: "They still retain faith in observable science and in their own discernment. I find this kind of humanistic atheism attractive but a bit arrogant, if I'm going to be honest about it. But more power to them, as long as they refrain from ridiculing me for my own conclusions in favor of the trinity."

Fun with 'faith'. Wee.

I certainly do have faith that the sun will set in the west tonight. Most people probably do. Note the difference between this usage of 'faith' and the typical religious use of 'faith' which is a completely different beast.

To equate the two is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

I propose two new words to make things easy on the religious folks.

"rfaith" for religious faith and "stheory" for scientific theory.

Most Christians (and also Muslims and religious Jews) seem to think that their holy books are not subject to doubt. I suggest the opposite. One of the most important books ever written concerning Christianity is Robert Eisler's 1929 book, Jesus the Messiah and John the Baptist. In it the Slavonic or Old Russian version of Josephus is used to restore the original and early Josephus which reproduced the view of Jesus held by Jews and Romans in his own day. He is revealed not as the Christian churches have depicted him -- a saviour dying for our sins -- but as an apocalyptic messianic figure who allowed an anti-Roman movement to assemble around him and also an anti-priestly movement. This led the priests to inform Pilate of his treason and Pilate acted accordingly. Jesus may or may not have intended revolution -- or simply an exit of religious Jews from Roman control by their leaving the city for the wilderness -- but his followers certainly included what today we would call revolutionaries and terrorists. The early Christians continued their opposition to Rome and participated in the Jewish War of 66-70AD. It was Paul of Tarsus who began the opposite point of view, making Christianity Roman-safe and pacifistic by making Jesus otherwordly and mysterious. This is the Jesus --clearly not the real one -- who became the foundation of Christianity.

Thus everything Christians think, believe, practice and advocate is arguably in error.

Wow. Madelyn Murray O'Hare. Do you know her ending? What a morality tale. Someone should make a movie of her life..

Posted by Rob Adams:
"Questions are creative, answers are not. An answer is finite, it is the end. From a metaphysical perspective God is infinite thus I don’t believe there is a final answer on God. In this context I would say questions are God like and therefore a good thing."

The quest for any kind of truth is not final unless you let it crystallize. Aristotle believed in aligning one's self with objective, observable reality. There is no end to truths about objective, observable reality in sight.

There are many philosophers, with many questions. They aren't stopping. Christianity, on the other hand, seems to have gotten stale in the last few hundred years. Nietzsche is one of the most oft-cited philosophers in academia.

God is a "good" explanation because, if true, it explains a lot. However, the modern version of god seems to just explain those things we cannot observe. It can't explain technology, it can't explain any sort of detail, and it can't explain anything that actually affects me. It is an incredibly basic idea. For ethical wisdom, I have found Chinese proverbs to be much more useful than what I have seen in the bible.

I think western culture derives more of it's ontology and social structure from ancient Greek philosophy than from Abrahamic religion.

Theism basically ignores the scientific knowledge that we do have. It says nothing about it, and often contradicts it. Science has changed religion significantly in the past few hundred years. The opposite is not true.

I think faith is very often defined in contrast with knowledge. We have very complex scientific, philosophical, and historical knowledge - but instead of thinking about knowledge the faithful look to god.

God is a "good" explanation, but it doesn't explain anything when you ask straight-forward scientific questions about our environment.

For instance: How does gravity fit into our universe? Or: what are the origins of language? Theism doesn't have a reply for the first question. For the second, it is both demonstrably incorrect and manipulative.

I think doubt is grand. Comprehensible truth about reality exists in many forms vastly superior (more powerful, more constructive, more interesting) to theism. Aristotle alone subsumes 1000 times more information and wisdom than all three Abrahamic religions.

Modern Christianity = Doublethink

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

-George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Doubt strengthens faith when there is faith to be strengthened. Many people who are raised with rote teaching and unquestioning dogma logically (and understandably) conclude that faith in a deity is unnecessary for them.
They still retain faith in observable science and in their own discernment. I find this kind of humanistic atheism attractive but a bit arrogant, if I'm going to be honest about it. But more power to them, as long as they refrain from ridiculing me for my own conclusions in favor of the trinity.

If my religion depended on messages from mythical angels, I would have signficant doubts about said religion.

It turns out the angels of Mormonism ("angel" Moroni), Islam ("angel" Gabriel) and Christianity ("angels Gabriel and "no-name" dream talkers) serve as the "foundation"/conduits to God of said religions making faith in these faiths very troubling.

I remember going to Sunday school and learning about the Bible. But one question that always came to mind was, "if these stories are true, why doesn't any of this stuff happen now?" (i.e. burning bushes, serpents that talk, seas that part, etc.). The answer I got was that miracles still happen, you just have to look for them. Well, if a bush or a snake starts talking to me I'll probably check myself into a mental institute.

I've since become agnostic because I don't see anything wrong with simply saying, "I don't know what's going on." Nobody has the answers (at least based on any sort of legitimate evidence) and everybody has equally no clue. Could there be an afterlife? Sure! I hope so. But I've never been there and neither has anybody else on this forum. So you could believe whatever you want to, whether it be in God, Jesus, Muhammad or Zeus. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm not saying you're right. Just don't pretend that you have all the answers.

JWest,
I happen to have many close friends and acquaintances who have read the Bible, which I certainly agree makes them a rarity. I just happened to disagree with your implication that true Christians need to have read the entire Bible and understand it in order for them to be taken seriously about their faith; I think we are capable of having faith and our own beliefs on Jesus without having read through every single genealogy and psalm, and base that faith on our own interpretation s, or on those defined by a church if we so choose.

It is almost funny. The average atheist sounds to my ears strangely like a small child whistling as he passes close by a grave yard.

What then do you think led Madelyn Murray O'Hares son to become not just a Christian but a Pastor. Jwest?

Some of my favorite quotes:

It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of thought.
John Kenneth Galbraith

One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.
Robert A. Heinlein

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.
Robert A. Heinlein

The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine?
Judith Hayes

If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.
Judith Hayes

The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance... logic can be happily tossed out the window.
Stephen King

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
H. L. Mencken

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.
Friedrich Nietzsche

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw

If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.
Robert Green Ingersoll

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.
Richard Burton

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
Napoleon Bonaparte

" Pretty arrogant to assume that you know more about the gospel then trained priests who have studied the gospel for thousands of years who pass there teachings and wisdom for the next generation to reveal more truths of the mysteries of faith."

I really doubt that any priest has studied for thousands of years... that *would* be a miracle!

My question is - trained by whom??? As far as I can see, they're just a bunch of men sitting around speculating.

I remember having this kind of discussion with members of the Scripture Union at my school growing up in Northern Ireland. One thing I used to find infuriating was their habit of quoting scripture to defend their religious beliefs! Am I the only one who can see the logical absurdity of this?

Anyway...if we're going to use quotes to illustrate our views, this is one of my favorites:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

Why do people believe that an answer, any answer, regardless of how implausible it is, is better than just saying - "I don't know".

Some things are knowable and some things probably aren't. The existanced of God almost certainly falls into the latter catagory.

Why can't you just admit that you don't know?

"Faith is not the exclusive providence of scripture based religions, and is not at odds with logic. One can reason that whatever “powers” drive the universe are of such force and complexity that faith in those “powers” is warranted."

The powers that drive the Universe are nothing more nor less than natural laws - no "faith" required.

Anon.

You said
“The purpose of the church is to safeguard and protect the word written and/or orally so that it can be transmitted down to each generation to the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

The problem I have with that is that the church and scholars can not agree on everything.

You also talked about the arrogance of knowing more than ‘experts’. I think in general it is arrogant for humans to think we have captured all there is about God, someone/thing that is infinite and omnipresent.

While we can’t quite apply the same level of diligence as in the physical sciences we can use the principal of observation. It is a partial measure, and perhaps only a small one, but one would observe that our current understandings of God have not taken us as far as one would think. While this is not proof I at least consider it an indication that we haven’t gotten it right yet.

I do not propose that I have the answers, but I propose it serves us best to continue to explore our understanding of God.

My 2 cents.

"One question. If you were never told of a god, or religion, or belief of anything of this sort, what would you come to believe completely on your own."

If I was in that situation, the concept of supreme beings may never have even occurred to me. Especially the idea of a single supreme being controlling everything and everybody in the universe like a celestial version of The Sims.

"I think the theory of evolution from ape-like beings to humans sounds logical the way some have presented it, but the actual physical evidence is not convincing enough for me. I find too much speculation and not enough facts for my liking. "

There's actually a great deal of physical evidence. Starting with the fossils - their relative ages and degree of deviance from chimp and modern human, their locations, and the types of tools found with them. There are also the similarities between us and chimps - not just the physical, but the social as well.

All this was evident before anyone knew anything about DNA, but when that was discovered, it only tended to confirm the other evidence. There are many great books that lay it all out - it's quite compelling.

Anon,

The purpose of the church you say. The purpose of the churches through time have changed according to what or how man of the era define it. Lately it is defind by how much money it can rake in. Can someone say megachurches?

One question. If you were never told of a god, or religion, or belief of anything of this sort, what would you come to believe completely on your own.

Daniel, whatever control we have over our minds, I object to any other person desiring to control me. Much of fundamentalist religion amounts to attempts to control others.

why is Susan the only voice of skepticism left in this forum? Keep it up.

Oh, and I like the doubting Thomas story too:
http://blaneconklin.blogspot.com/2007/04/incredulity.html

Faith is not the exclusive providence of scripture based religions, and is not at odds with logic. One can reason that whatever “powers” drive the universe are of such force and complexity that faith in those “powers” is warranted.

Anon, you say “Something must precede creation and this being I call GOD!”

Fine, but how does this relate to “trained priests who have studied the gospel for thousands of years who pass there teachings and wisdom for the next generation to reveal more truths of the mysteries of faith.”

This seems much more complicated that the being that preceded creation.

Anonymous, while I can't speak for Susan, I read her sentence as saying that Freudianism and Marxism are examples of UNreason, ideologies grounded in metaphysics and not in evidence from the natural world.

Inside of your head, in your cerebrum, in a tiny little corner of your brain, there is a place where logic may operate, and where people may think reasonably. But this place of reason in your brain is just a tiny little box. And you only get to use it, when you are all settled down, and well fed, and feeing calm and at ease.

But all around it, the rest of your brain is humming, and scintillating, and perceiving, and reacting, pecolating, and pulsating; you are actually a boiling cauldron of speculations, and fears, and defenses, and suspicions, and passions. We are NOT, for the most part logical and reasonable, so please everybody, please stop appealing to that tiny aspect of the human being. If this were so, then there would be NO problems.

This is what a human being is:

A human being is a thing in the world.
A human being is a manufactured product.
A human being is a sensual animal.
A human being is an intelligent being.

Each and every human being that walks upon the face of the earth is all of these things. We have no control how we got here. We have no control over the bodies which we operate, and we have no control over the operation of our mental mechanisms.

We have some power of logic and reason, some of us do at least, but not very much.

E Favorite.

Thanks a lot…. Now I have to actually do some work rather than philosophize :)

Question can move your forward though it could be backward depending on your conclusion. There is no straight line conclusion that leads to the right answer. I think of spirituality as more of an essay question than multiple choice.

I think any question could work for any one person. While little questions work “do I really go to hell if I am not baptized?” that is questioning tradition and Tenet. And the answer may determine which branch of Christianity you choose to follow. Personally I like big questions better. Start small and work are way up and I think you can get the idea of the progression a person could make. They of course could stop at any decision point and stop inquiring.

What happens when I die?

Where do the out of body experiences of Robert Monroe and the work of the Monroe institute tie into everything? Particularly there are multiple levels of consciousness between here and Heaven.

What’s all this fuss about meditation?
How do we explain the near death experience, particularly in young children who tend to be or have limited understanding on after life. These three hint that there is something more than just the physical body and depending on the conclusions come to, you perspective changes.

Is there a God?
What about these people who say they have talked to God; Historical people from the Bible to people living today Neil Donald Walsch (Conversations with God series).

Let’s assume you have asked enough questions to now say ok I believe in God, but who’s God do I believe in and/or better yet which religion? Do I need a religion to believe in God? I will answer the last one for you, no you don’t need to a religion to believe in God.

Do I believe the Bible or Koran literally? Do I believe the scholars, the preachers, my peers? Do I rely on my feelings, experiences and intellect?
Is God the creator, the created (ie the universe) or both?
Why would God give us free will and then give us rules that we need to comply with?
Is the Kingdom of God as discussed in Christianity something that is coming in the future, is it Heaven or is it a state of mind that is available now?
Are there connecting themes among religions and if so what are they?

The conclusions to any of these questions definitely change your perspective. I say conclusions because we can not come to a definite answer on these. It is a personal choice as to who/what to believe. This includes going down the wrong path. But listening to others does not necessarily mean you go down the right path either.

Our beliefs determine our actions so our beliefs need to change if our actions are to change. Now we are taking about beliefs both in regards to religion/spirituality and how the world works. I think we separate these two beliefs when how the world works should really be an extension of our spiritual belief. One would observe from the state of our world that our current understanding of God is incomplete at best.

Let’s try this as an exercise. I will list a number of statements answer. Assume that the answer is true and see what that would do to your current beliefs. Then answer false and see what that would do to your beliefs.

See which of your beliefs would need to change and which would stay the same. I am not asking you to change your belief, but in theory how would they change depending on the answer.
The devil is an actual entity.

We live in a relative world without out hot there is no cold and thus God created the concept of evil so that we can not know good.

We are physically made of the same ‘stuff’ as God. We are all literally all one.

We can never truly be separated from God, except in our mind.

God is both the creator and the created.

Our thoughts create our reality both here and in the after life.

God created us so that he could EXPERIENCE something that he is not which is separate from anything else?

I am very interested to hear people’s responses.

Peace

JWEST - Wrong. You were wrong to assume that this was my own personal interpretation. I base my biblical interpretation on the Apostolic Succession. The purpose of the church is to safeguard and protect the word written and/or orally so that it can be transmitted down to each generation to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

What you say is outside the scope of the church and falls trap to error which leads to apostasy or heresy! You read the bible but obviously do not understand what it is meaning. Pretty arrogant to assume that you know more about the gospel then trained priests who have studied the gospel for thousands of years who pass there teachings and wisdom for the next generation to reveal more truths of the mysteries of faith.

On a separate note; I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe in a creator because how can life exist from nothingness. Something must precede creation and this being I call GOD!

I wish I had more time! Got to go.

Daniel, I appreciate that you responded, but your response is so general. I wanted to hear about YOU. What is the nature of the religious doubt in YOUR life.

Perhaps you prefer not to answer on a personal basis. If so, let me know - I won't press you.

jwest:

"I will put my trust in scientist and theories..."

Like Carl Sagan perhaps? I guess it must be easier for some minds to believe in ET than a Creator.

Susan said:
Doubt about supernatural religion, like doubt about any ideology grounded not in evidence from the natural world but in metaphysics (Freudianism and Marxism come to mind), is really the voice of reason inside us.

If Freudianism and Marxism are the voices of reason then may the saints preserve us. The first man smoked 36 cigars a day and died of lung cancer - the second man lived the live of a hermit while his family went hungry.
If you want to talk about reason look at Plato and Aristotle who both believed not in the gods but in a singular God that animated the universe.

well said Tonio

tom you bring nothing to this discussion but the usual hate that has been put into you by your god.

"I will put my trust in scientist and theories before I trust the creation museum people."

JWest, I would add that the scientists don't seem to use their ideas to define people as sinful or worthless. They don't threaten people with eternal suffering after death for not accepting certain hypotheses.

Atheists and non-believers Hale Bop is coming again:

- Wear purple robes.

- Castrate yourselves.

- Drink poison and die.

Shortly thereafter you will be lifted up onto the mothership in Hale Bop's trail.

You will go to your new heaven in another galaxy.

:D :D :D

"His solution - shut that voice out. It's the devil trying to get you off the right path. Give over to god and don't listen to those doubts. They're destructive."

I find that solution potentially destructive, no matter the religious/non-religious beliefs.

But it is intellectually simple, so I'm sure there are lots of buyers.

Here is a better solution for Mr. Olstein to ponder...

"Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know."
Jer. 33:3

No Jim J it wasn't stupid, it was just a theory based on observable evidence. Science is an on going process. I don't think too many of their theories are assumptions. They are up for peer review for every word uttered. I will put my trust in scientist and theories before I trust the creation museum people.

E favorite
When I spoke about doubt, I was talking about religious doubt. The nature of all religion is speculative. So-called "faith" means belief or trust, that ones own relgious speculations are true.

By the contingency of your appearance upon the earth, you are handed a set of beliefs, which you do not have any control over. From these beliefs, doubt chisels them into the beliefs that end up with. Your beliefs are what is left over, after doubt, which you cannot control, has rearranged them and reorganized them.

The Fundamentalist Christians, and indeed, the fundamentalists of all reigions and parties, with whom I have great disagreement, often assert a false certainty, in their denial of doubt. But that is a losing battle, since doubt is ultimately uncontrollable. That is why fundamentalist people are often highly emotional, lurching from one emotional crisis to another, because they have no more certainty in their beliefs, than anyone else; they just pretend.

jwest:

That was stupid. Who says I'm a Christian?

I don't blindly buy every theory that "scientists" come up with just because they're scientists. Have you actually looked into how much of their theories are assumptions and how much are verifiable facts? When it comes to theories they tend to stretch a lot; and so you have to have FAITH in their intelligence to BELIEVE in their theories. And I don't have blind faith in anything.

I think the theory of evolution from ape-like beings to humans sounds logical the way some have presented it, but the actual physical evidence is not convincing enough for me. I find too much speculation and not enough facts for my liking.

Jim J
But what one person says is "observable evidence" of a theory, another might say is not. Since it is only dealing with a theory, it is not really proof-positive of anything.

One is a scientist, the other a christian.

Daniel, Yes, doubt means, “I am not sure about that.” But I think it’s not that simple. There are degrees of doubt, different kinds of doubt about different things, and things you usually doubt vs things you rarely or never doubt.

>Let’s say you’re married and you doubt your wife is unfaithful. You may really doubt it, based on the fact that you’re with her most of the time and she is very loving and committed. Or you may doubt it, but be a little suspicious because she’s out a lot lately and seems nervous when she comes home. In either case, your evidence is slim and because it’s a threatening, emotional issue, you’d rather not think about it.

>You may strongly doubt your favorite team is going to win the championship this year, because they never have and they’ve gotten off to a bad start this season. In this case, the evidence is pretty good and while you’re disappointed, you can’t deny the likelihood of another loss.

>A trusted friend tells you that yesterday, when he let go of an apple he was holding, it went up instead of down. In this case, the evidence goes against everything in your own experience and what you’ve learned in school. I suspect that as much as you trust your friend, you strongly doubt what he says. You may think he’s kidding, or that he was subject to some kind of trick (the apple attached to a string held by someone above?) or that he’s losing his mind.

So, Daniel, given those examples (or others you can think of), what is the role of doubt in your faith?

Susan, you need to get over yourself!

This board software completely sucks.

Sorry I missed the humor Sheen. Some people actually do believe what you suggest though.

Sorry I missed the humor Sheen. Some people actually do believe what you suggest though. Somehow I still suspect that you weren't entirely joking though.

Back to the subject at hand:

I wonder, how can others believe so differently than I do, and why? What does it mean to believe? Where does belief come from? Do we have free will? And if so, how can I impose my belief on someone else, who may find it alien? And even if we are allowed to exercise our true beliefs, still, do we chose our beliefs by our free will, or is their some unknown mechanism that forms them for us? Do they appear randomly or by some ordered influence?

When someone compliments my intelligence, I cannot thank them; I cannot take credit for it; I don't know how being intelligent works. I didn't make this brain which operates my soul, and I didn't set up this grid of thoughts that lights me up from within. I just found myself, all here, ready-made, the way I am.

I am free to let my mind work its way, but I am not really causing it to work as it does. It works as it does by some influence that I cannot imagine or perceive, yet must, somehow, be.

Do we choose our beliefs freely?

I am not sure we do. When you look at yourself in the mirror, you may like what you see, and you may say, "what a handsome guy I am." That may be true, but it is by no choice of your own. The body that you have, and the face that you see in the mirror were handed to you, ready-made.

It is the same with ideas, thoughts, and beliefs. When you think, (pause), you have an illusion that you are choosing your thoughts, but you really are not. The thoughts come into your head, ready-made. What "you" is there, that is freely choosing? And what are you choosing from?

You become what your ideas make you; "your-self" becomes intertwined with your ideas, and your ideas with "your-self." Freedom only comes into the discussion, if you are permitted to be your true self, or are forced to pretend otherwise.

The beliefs that you wind up with are a blend of the beliefs that have been handed to you by other people, moderated by your own observations, which in turn are dependent on the acuity of your senses and the alertness of your mind. And then, this is all analyzed, automatically, autonomically, by the thinking mechanisms inside your brain, which were "created" for you, and handed to you, ready-made, over which you had zero control or influence. And the result is not a set of ideas and beliefs that you have freely chosen; the result is you, and your existence in the world, which you did not choose.

TJ:

I was being a bit humorous, rather than serious. Technically, since no one can measure the universe, it IS possible that the Earth is somewhere around the center of it. Not meaning that everything rotates around it, but that its location is central. Sheesh, you guys!

The more I studied the Bible the less I believed. I now am much more willing to just admit ignorance when I really don't know the answer instead of trying to adopt some magical religious explanation.

It's very liberating, really....

That's the beauty of science Jim J. To lean on Sagan a bit, it has built in error correcting machinery. Also, note my comments on 'theory' above.

Sheen, if the Earth is at the center of the universe, then it follows that our Sun and the planets in our solar system orbit around the Earth. You have 1 of 4 options on this topic:

1. Demonstrate to me that NASA has faked the Cassini mission.

2. Demonstrate to me that NASA used a geocentric model to calculate Cassini's flight path.

3. Show me the mathematics that demonstrates that NASA can plot an insanely complicated flight path for Cassini using a heliocentric model when the Earth is actually at the center of everything and yet STILL arrive at Saturn and fly through a gap in the rings.

4. Pipe down about it. This is probably your best option.

Pick.

What can't we see? That is a beautiful and excellent question.

We can envision a little beyond the local world in which we dwell, the true nature of the ground on which we walk, not as a flat world, as it would seem, but as a spherical world, one, among the many other planets, and stars.
We can evision the reality of many things that are not readily apparent, and infer with a high degree certainty that our scientific speculations on many things are true.

Yet, what can't we see? I am sure there are physical phenomena beyond the extension of any of our senses or imagination, to which access is forbidden. On these things, even speculation, is by definiton, impossible.

Sheen asked:

"I was just wondering if anyone had actually measured out the entire universe to know for sure that the Earth ISN'T the center....? It could be..........."

Art what point as we revolve around the sun? The Earth is constantly moving, along with everything else in the universe. The fact that we're getting farther away from some objects, and closer to others pretty much proves that we're not in the center.

The idea that the Earth is at the center of everything comes from the age before we even knew that the earth was rotating, and therefore humans thought the sun was the object that was moving.

We're not even the center of our own solar system, let alone the universe.

I see the battle over evolution as a battle for the individual's right to observe the natural world and make conclusions, instead of being told by others that it's wrong to question scripture.

I also see this as a battle for the dignity and worth of humans as individuals and as a species. I'm horrified by the Creation Museum, not because it claims that the universe is only 6,000 years old, but because it says that humanity bears the guilt for all pain and suffering.

Mark Eaton said:

""Only in the realm of religion and education" since all we teach about creation is Evolution theory but has it been actually observed by anyone alive?"

Actually, YES! We see it all the time, whether you want to believe it or not. We see it in viruses, when they change to infect new hosts. We see it in bacteria as they become more drug resistant.

And if you want to get into the past several generations where we have drawings and pictures of many, many species, we have seen some of the change and adapt to their environments. We can directly observe 'survival of the fittest' which drives evolution. We have since the industrial revolution.

But some in our society wish to condemn Evolution as 'just a theory, and not proved' that they also forget that in scientific terms, gravity is just a theory as well.

I was just wondering if anyone had actually measured out the entire universe to know for sure that the Earth ISN'T the center....? It could be...........

But what one person says is "observable evidence" of a theory, another might say is not. Since it is only dealing with a theory, it is not really proof-positive of anything.

They sure are Luke.

If someone doesn't even understand simple things like 'hypothesis' and 'theory', then what kind of judges are they of the observable evidence that exists in mass quantities for evolution?

It makes me sad to see people completely marginalize themselves with willful ignorance.

That is true, TJ. Many people are very confused as to the scientific method and the steps to developing a hypothesis.

Well put, Daniel. Although I think that beliefs aren't necessarily autonomic, as they can be changed through observation, I do agree that many who believe even the strangest things probably believe those things just as strongly as those who do not.

Mark Eaton wrote: "I believe in science observation is required to confirm the theory."

No, but observable evidence would be needed to confirm the hypothesis. Thus theories are born. If what was the evolution hypothesis wasn't supported by observable evidence, there would be no theory of evolution.

There is no observable evidence that supports the Creationism hypothesis. There is, therefore, no scientific Creationism theory.

Science isn't so much a religion in disguise as it is a really simple method that you, apparently, can't perceive in anything but simplistic religious terms.

Many Christians have very harsh feelings against atheists and agnostics. I do not, because I understand the doubt that they feel, as I have described it, above.

Oral cultures are very important for the preservation and understanding of history! The Vikings had no written langauge (unless you count rune carvings). However, I think that if one is going to adhere to any written religious or philosophical book, it must be modernized so we can understand it. Many things in the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, etc. may not seem applicable today - but within them lie beliefs perpetuated to this day. It is fine to believe and study the past, but do not live in it.

Many Christians have very feelings views against atheists and agnostics. I do not, because I understand the doubt that they feel, as I have described it, above.

I say all of this as a Christian:

While I seek some sort of logical and consistent belief system, I find that my personal feelings are provisional, and change from time to time, from day to day, even from moment to moment. I know that is true, because I feel it happen to me, on my insides, and I have gotten to the stage where I can acknowledge this provisional quality of feelings, emotions, and attitudes, without feeling that it makes me wrong, or bad, or illogical.

So what about doubt? It really is not such a very big deal; it is a pretty simple deal. Doubt means, "I'm not sure about that." It is a feeling. It is autonomic, meaning a function that is beyond our control.

I cannot control my feelings. I cannot will myself to feel something, that I do not feel. I cannot will myself to believe something that I do not believe.

I do not know why I have doubt when some people do not. I do not know why some people feel certainty for the same thing that I doubt. I just know, that these are all feelings which people have, which cannot be very easily altered.

Do we really need a thousand page tome on doubt, that no one will ever read, to express this simple thought? Doubt means, "I am nor sure about that."

Beliefs and feelings are autonomic, something that comes from inside, that is beyond ones mere will power to control.

The force of your will is like the hull of a ship, and the doubt that you feel is like the water seeping in, to sink the ship. Try as you may to fill all the leaks, more water springs forth at new sources of leakage. What can one do about this doubt that seeps into ones thoughts?

Nothing.

Doubt happens.

My brain seems to work its own way. My thoughts go where they will. My beliefs form independently of my will to form them. Perhaps my beliefs are me, and therefore I cannot make them happen, but instead, they make me happen.

Many people believe many strange things; yet, I cannot go through life, and I do not want to go through life, trying to tear all these strange beliefs down. I think that people do not really chose their beliefs. They have a brain, which becomes filled with beliefs, and these beliefs determine the person that they are, and not the other way around.

Can you say that you have chosen your beliefs? If so, were these choices colored by doubt? But you did not choose the doubts that color your beliefs did you? For the very nature of doubt is that it is uncontrolled, and beyond will power. Doubt is what interupts our will and causes our beliefs to form themselves, and then to make us who we are.

Doubting Thomas is the one who spread the gospel in our place. He would not go to where God told him he discounted the people as idol worshippers and said that he was a hebrew. Jesus still came to him in a vision and compelled him to go. We are thankful to him for spreading the gospel and count us worthy to receive God's grace.

Rob Adams - can you give some examples of questions that move us forward?

Thanks

Wow!!! How insightful. Doubt everything, believe nothing.

Ms. Jacoby your statement "Only in the realm of religion is doubt sanctified by being dismissed even when the doubt is well justified by the laws of nature" should be altered to say "Only in the realm of religion and education" since all we teach about creation is Evolution theory but has it been actually observed by anyone alive? I believe in science observation is required to confirm the theory. However, all scientists has dismissed Creationism as pure fantasy just as your statement is meant to dismiss belief in a Supreme being. Seems like your science is really a religion is disguise.

Quinn
I have and continue to read the bible. But I am not an expert by no means and never have I said I was. Most christains I ask tell me they have not read the bible on their own. It's not my fault they haven't. I'm telling you what they are telling me. They go to church sometimes and listen to the sermon and don't question it. Like TJ said, he got kicked out for questioning. By the way TJ great question. I also read and have learned from other posters. There is so much contradiction on the whole that it is hard to say with certainty what is real and what is made up. One last thing Quinn go ask your friends how many of them have read the bible from genesis to revelations.

Ken,
It is not my ignorance that claims Paul is the christ. It was a sermon I listens to on the radio by christian men talking about it. It was by a couple of christian ministers that believe it. I don't believe any of it. It is christians that are all over the map on interpretations of past events that are so confusing. You obviously disagree with these men's idea of Paul the Christ. As far as Franklin Graham's going astray, just look where he is today. His guilt trip must have been to Mars and back. Have you ever heard his sister, read her post on this forum to see how out there she is. I agree with Mr.Mark on check your brain at the door when Osteen speaks. "The devil is trying to make you poor. You will be rich if you leave your wallet on the way out". Another get rich for the few megachurch folks. People are so blind, it is insulting.

Mr Mark, regarding checking your brains at the church door - the Episcopalian version is to cross your fingers behind your back and say the creed as a show of community spirit, even though few believe the words they're saying.

Jwest,
You make a lot of assumptions, for someone who criticizes the same in others. I think it nonsensical to assume that Billy Graham's children had no chance to develop their own beliefs just because their father is an outspoken religious leader. Also, to say that Christians, majority-wise, do not understand the Bible is to make the unspoken assumption that you do, or that there is a clear, definitive understanding to it. And to keep it short, oral tradition does have value when it is a part of a culture that places an extremely high value on the ability to perfectly memorize a document, as the Jewish culture has done. While this does not mean that there are not "errors in translation," it does mean that you cannot as easily write them off as being due to oral tradition.

"Faith is not opposed to empiricism or reason as Ms. Jacoby and many posters falsely imply."

Ken, I do see a conflict when faith involves a universal, exclusive truth claim. The conflict is not necessarily with the claimant's own empiricism or reason. The conflict is with those things in other people.

Having something you've believed in all your life questioned rightly by an eight year old is one of life's most humbling experiences. What's sad is that many adults will choose to shut it out and punish the child instead of changing their own mindset.

I was channel surfing the other day and ran across a b'cast of Joel Osteen down in Houston. Mr (Rev?) Osteen was preaching his prosperity dogma to the literal thousands of hopefuls sitting in his arena, and he happened upon this very subject: ie - the voice of doubt a believer hears on occasion.

His solution - shut that voice out. It's the devil trying to get you off the right path. Give over to god and don't listen to those doubts. They're destructive.

Why do I get the feeling that such check-your-brain-at-the-door BS is preched in many Xian churches on a regular basis?

My experience was basically the same as RJ's.

12 year old me: But if this god is all powerful, then why does he have to sacrifice himself to himself to save his own creations from himself?

Pastor Oberdeck: That's the last time. I'm calling your parents.

I was kicked out of the Lutheran school that I attended over it for "disruptive behavior".

There are branches to 11 of the 12 most adhered to religions with the exception being Sikhism.

In terms of questioning tenets and traditions I don’t see that really impacting your faith. If you decide to move to another branch of your faith you are not changing your faith, just your opinion/belief about your faith. For instance moving from Catholicism to Anglican does not mean you no longer believe in Christianity it just means you belief about Christianity has changed. To me faith is always a personal decision/belief.

I will fall back to my old arguments that you can not put God in a box. How do you put omnipotence or something infinite in a box? This means there is and endless supply of questions.

Questions are creative, answers are not. An answer is finite, it is the end. From a metaphysical perspective God is infinite thus I don’t believe there is a final answer on God. In this context I would say questions are God like and therefore a good thing.

Questions are what move us forward.

Reasonable but not Hateful, when you say, “It is a pity that people can't see beyond their physical senses and get in touch with their spiritual side” does this mean that you assume people who do not believe in God do not have a spiritual side? Many non-believers do have a “spiritual” or “transcendent” side and have discussed it at length on other parts of this forum (e.g., the Sam Harris essay, “Consciousness without Faith” http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/01/consciousness_without_faith_1.html

I wonder if you think people can not be spiritual unless they accept a particular religious dogma, like Christianity, which involves having faith in supernatural events such as the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension.

When you say “Eyewitnesses don’t count” are you talking about the disciples? If so, how do you know what they saw? If not, what do you mean?

When you say, “There is a lot more to life than this physical universe” Could you give some examples of what you’re referring to?

Thanks, I hope you, or others who share your views, address these questions.

Doubt that spurs a person to further investigation can lead to conclusions that are more firmly fixed. That is what the shorthand phrase means. Absence of doubt defines certainty, not faith. Faith is not opposed to empiricism or reason as Ms. Jacoby and many posters falsely imply. Empiricism and logic are limited by presuppositions and all too human error in perception and application. At a minimum faith in the accuracy of one's observations and ability to reason are requisite to any conclusions.

A few facts might penetrate the dense fog in which some posters dwell.

Someone wondered about the opportunities the Billy Graham's family had to think for themselves. Franklin, for one, lived in open rebellion for years, experimenting with drugs and alcohol.

Paul nowhere claimed to be the Christ. Don't criticize the Biblical literacy of others from such a position of woefull ignorance.

Oral cultures take special pains to preserve important communications in exacting detail. The "telephone" game has no application to the way treasured cultural stories are memorized in oral cultures. The New Testament was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Any oral tradtions preserved in the Gospel narratives were joint memories of eyewitnesses open to mutual correction.

Regarding oral tradition: I was playing a round of "telephone" with some various small family members one Thanksgiving. "I love Grace" turned into "Butt Grapes" by the time it reached my little brother.

Tonio,
I agree with you completely- most scriptures in the world practice the method of "good works take you closer to God"- Jesus himself was all about doing good for the most downtrodden..yet what we see today is people using the punch line that "believe in Jesus and get saved"- do these people reinforce the fact that you need to believe in Jesus- but you also need to do good- I dont think so. The message these days is "believe in Jesus..'cause that is what he wants from you" instead of "do good as Jesus did" whether you believe in him or not is immaterial

Anonymous

You just said that if people don't agree with your interpretation of christianity they are wrong. Did you know that Paul didn't really preach about Jesus, he claimed to be the christ. And he preached from his own viewpoint. Not what Jesus said at all. If you bring this little known piece of information up you would get a dumb look from whoever you're talking to. I will maintain my point that MOST people professing belief in Jesus Christ have A). Not fully read the bible, B). Don't understand what little bit they have read, and C). just go along to get along. As E-Favorite correctly said most people of faith will not discuss it. Anon, you yourself just said that it takes a lot of extraneous reading to comprehend the bible. Reading that most people don't do. I will also maintain one is a product of their environment and believe what their forefathers believe. To say doubt makes my faith stronger is like saying mud on my face makes me cleaner.

One last point Anon, ORAL tradition. People can't pass the exact same message from one person to another in the same room without it getting totally changed by the time it gets to the last person. So ORAL tradition doesn't mean much.

Tonio,

You are correct in saying that people are not allowed to question the inconsistencies in the bible. I can recall a time I was in a bible study class. It was led by the pastor of the church. When I tried to inquire about the inconsistencies. I was told, I had no understanding of the bible and I was to believe what he (the pastor) told and explained and not go any further through the bible than what he had assigned. When I consitantly questioned why it said this here and said that there. I was taken aside and told I was causing a disturbance in the study group and if I continued this line of thought I would be asked to leave the group. Needless to say I left it on my own accord.

I'd be interested in any evidence that actually suggests there is a 'spiritual' realm of any sort whatsoever.

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal floating dragon that spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?" - Sagan

Reasonable, how do you define spirituality? The problem with "things unseen" is that definitions of those things end up defining people and making demands of them, because those definitions claim to be exclusive truth. The issue is not "I believe in God and I believe this is what God wants from me," but "I say you should believe in God and I say this is what God wants from you." Why shouldn't other people be skeptical about the latter claim? I would be interested in a concept of spirituality that doesn't involve any notions of exclusive truth.

Nicely said Mike K. I'll add to it and say that I really don't trust my eyes at all.

As for your eye witnesses Reasonable and not hateful, I suggest you do a little research into the typical veracity of eye witness testimony. Don't forget to study how the brain MANUFACTURES the pieces of any given event that it misses.

Faith is NEVER blind...what is blind is superstition!

Reasonable, you stated "The whole thing about atheism is boiled down to this:

They only believe what they can feel , touch, prove and see with their own eyes. Eye witnesses don't count."

That's simply untrue. Most atheists, me included, also believe that which is rational, reasonable and logical regardless of my ability to feel, touch, prove or see it with my own eyes.

Not all Christians have blind faith and are uneducated of Christian doctrine. Right now I'm studying The Summa Theologica, other writings from St. Thomas Aquinas, Metaphysics, theology, philosophy, writings from Dr. RC Sproul, and ancient writing from the early church fathers, Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

It's all brilliant! The deeper I study the more the bible reveals! You can’t read the bible literally that is the first thing I learned from these master theologians and that’s a key mistake from atheists and Evangelicals trying to interpret the content.

I also wanted to say that I was a skeptic too early on before my studies and I have to say every objection to the Catholic faith is nothing new under the sun it has all been addressed and answered by the church fathers.

The information from the Church is overwhelming regarding Christ and his disciples. It’s amazing! This is my passion and the more I learn the more I understand the church and the faith. To say there is no reason is to say that you have never read from the doctors of the church!

For someone who doesn’t care to learn it's easy to cast false accusations against the church! I’m by no means a trained theologian and I will not speak as an expert but I am aware of the Christian faith and not afraid of any objection or criticism because like I have said before this forum brings up criticisms that have already been answered! The question is, will you listen or be prejudice against Christianity? It has literally taken thousands of years for church men who have dedicated there lives in studying not just the bible but also the ORAL Tradition! To help understand the bible for those who don’t have the zeal that I have for my faith I would suggest reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That should help to clarify a lot of misconceptions…

Have a good day everyone.

Thank you Susan – I’ve noticed that when religious people make statements like, “My doubt only make my faith stronger!” others who are listening, nod solemnly and move on. No further discussion, just tacit agreement or acceptance – or in my case, speechless amazement. I’ve never had the nerve to ask, “What do you mean?” How does that happen?” “Give me some examples.” I’d really like to know how people would react to those inquiries, but think it would be too discomfiting to pursue in a social situation. Unfortunately, this constriction means that the perception that doubt strengthens faith remains unchallenged.

I’m sure there’s a way to approach this problem, but until a lot of consciousness raising has been done, I’m afraid it’s not in face-to-face social discourse.

As a start, I think we may get some pretty interesting dialogue on this forum.

The whole thing about atheism is boiled down to this:

They only believe what they can feel , touch, prove and see with their own eyes. Eye witnesses don't count. Anything older than a couple hundred years old is dismissed if there is any miracle of physical law broken.

It is a pity that people can't see beyond their physical senses and get in touch with their spiritual side.

There is al ot more to life than this physical universe.

This I don't doubt.

What did Paul say? Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.

Faith ,hope, and love are positive forces when they sit together in human's psyche.

"Does questioning tenets or traditions make your faith less valid?"

Why assume that faith is valid in the first place?

Energy can not be created or destroyed.

Do you take this on faith?

Or have you personally observed this phenomenon?

Jihadist, that was a very well written post. I, for one, am glad that I read it. It definitely made me think about a few things I probably wouldn't have at first glance of Ms. Jacoby's post.

Thanks,
A. Thorn.

Jacoby is exactly right when she talks about "ideologies not grounded in evidence from the natural world." I would like to see a way to "satisfy the emotional longings of those who need faith to give meaning to their lives" while adhering to the principle of empiricism, sort of an enhanced version of Gould's NOMA principle. What if we define deities as not affecting natural events at all? Or else go back to the Enlightenment-era idea of God as a cosmic watchmaker, designing the laws of physics when the universe came into being but not interfering in the universe after that?

Oh, never mind. Found it.

Paul Tillich -

"Doubt is not the opposite of faith; it is one element of faith."

JWEST

Perhaps one is a Sikh, or a Buddhist, or a Bahai because one's parents are. But surely, in growing up, in school, in the workplace, one is aware of differences in beliefs if one do socialize with people of other faiths besides one's own?

One is also exposed to the beliefs of others through the media, never mind the media would naturally focus on the beliefs of the majority faith of any given country. And certainly, the media of any given country would not offer extensive reporting, coverage and articles of a faith that is not the majority faith of a given country. It may offer extensive coverage of events and incidences related to faith, but not in-depth coverage on it.

Certainly, growing up, a person's belief is reinforced by formal and informal religious instructions. And yes, certainly those interested in their own faiths for whatever reason, would read up materials related to his/her respective faith.

Certainly too, a person, by his/her choice and lines of thought, may question and/or ignore what is imbued from young on matters of faith. Or, we won't have what is termed variously as nominal Muslims, lapsed Catholics, secular Hindus etc.

As you know, a person, for any reason, may lose his/her faith in spite of how much s/he believe in the tenets of his/her faith. And certainly s/he do react in ways against his/her former faith in ways ranging from mild indifference to vehement opposition.

As you also well know, an irreligious person may also suddenly "get religion" to the sometime costernation and exasperation of family and friends in his/her enthusiasm to save everyone, to save the world, to change the world.

And there is this other group, who even when young, is already either sceptical of, or already believe in faith/God. For convenience sake, let us call them natural sceptics, and the natural believers. Both the natural sceptics and natural believers throughout their life, see and seek everything in life and the world through the prisms of their respective scepticism or beliefs.

And what is life without contradictions in everything. Even the phrase, "Doubt is an element of faith", is a contradiction in terms.

And as for your assertions that "Many Christians have never studied Christianity or have a solid understanding of all the contradictions in it", as many seem to know much about Islam and Muslims, surely they would know Christianity inside out too.

Best regards

The whole idea of religion and belief is to be able to ignore facts. Many christians have never studied christianity or have a solid understanding of all the contradictions in it. They just believe it because someone in authority over them has told them this the way it is. Don't ask stupid unanswerable question. Look at Billy Graham's kids. Do you think they ever had an opportunity to think for themselves about their own individual beliefs. No they have been told since birth what to think and how to act. They will never be able to question and come to their own conclusions. It was settled for them at birth. Faith is a product of one's upbringing.

Pray, someone please tell who actually originated these phrases, "Doubt is an element of faith" or "Doubt strengthen faith".

Fears and hopes do and can strengthen faith, not doubt, which fundamentally is loss of or wavering in faith, or uncertainty, or disbelief in anything or anyone - from God to governments to UFOs to Bigfoot to the earth is flat.