A sound philosophy I'd say.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
I didn't mention a specific religion but yes, the Catholic church has been more progressive in many ways thanks to the power bestowed to Popes. I think it was in 2014 Pope Francis accepted evolution and the big bang?
My family are Orthodox and there is little wiggle-room from what is written in the Bible when it comes to both Evolution and The Big Bang.
Faith doesn't get you any closer to the actual truth though, so the only thing he lacks is evidence.
Always nice to sneak up on people once and a while I guess
Anyways, it is something I can't really explain well in words, but I will give it a go.
There have been many times over the years I have doubted my faith, but no time more so than when I was in graduate school and dealt for the first time with people outside my sheltered Catholic community bubble. When I was the only religious person in my lab and was mocked, when I showed up on Ash Wednesday to journal club and the professor in charge told me my face was dirty, when a potential employer (as a post doc) informed me he expected me to work on Sundays as it was a better alternative to wasting time in church, etc. Each time the criticism was framed as "how can we take you seriously as a scientist if you believe in this shit". So why have I always returned to a position of faith?
First let me address the science side. As someone who devoted a decade to bench science and now another decade to enabling scientists I would say a good deal of my effort, energy, and time has been in the service of the pursuit of answers. I know that if I work hard and smart enough at determining a proteins function I will get there. Work further and I will figure out the MOA. Work further and I can find the active domains of the protein itself. And so on. The point is that questions yield answers but also more questions and I know with 100% certainty there is always an answer to find. I guess you could say I have faith the answer exists.
So how does this mesh with belief in what many on here would argue is unanswerable? The answer is simple. It doesn't. Well, at least not in an objective, rational way. That's the thing though, as humans we are at our core irrational beings trying to find relevance and meaning in the world around us. For me I find that meaning in my faith. I find peace there when everything else is falling apart. During the worst times in my life I have had an anchor that keeps me from making destructive choices and in other times a compass that directs me. Others may scoff and say that all these things can be found outside Christianity or faith in general, and they would be right. They can be found everywhere, but for me I found them in my belief in God and I know with the same certainty I mentioned above that for me I have found the right choice.
We are all people of faith, whether that be in faith in science, faith in God, or faith in the flying spaghetti monster. None of us know everything. I know feck all about aeronautical engineering, but I get on a planes having faith that the engineers at Boeing (usually) know what they are doing. It is why I will never understand those who take glee in mocking people of faith who go about their faith quietly or speak with disdain and use terms like "pity" and "sorrow".
Anyways that is my rambling and likely ineffective attempt at putting feelings down on paper (silicon?).
This is a great post and it's interesting how you separate science and faith, but I don't agree that we are all people of faith. Maybe this is all semantics in the end but I wouldn't say I have faith in anything, I know an airplane is safe because I trust the engineers that build them and I know the science is sound with decades worth of modern aviation trial and error behind it, all of which are backed up by stats showing how safe it is. This goes for everything else as well, I know my family will be there for me if I need them or that a pen will fall if I let it go, I don't have faith in these things or a gut feeling, I know them to be true since they have always been true and I have no good reason to believe they're not anymore.
I actually don't like the concept of faith to begin with since there's literally nothing you couldn't believe based on faith, which should prove that it's not a good guide to base anything on, however I also get that for theists faith is probably something "more" than what my practical understanding of it might be, but maybe that's a discussion for another day.
With that said, I have zero problems with people who use faith to find some inner peace in this world, as long as people are happy and they're not harming or imposing their beliefs on to someone else it's all good.
Faith, trust, or whatever term you use you are still accepting that you do not know with personal certainty every factor that affects your life. I am not trying to argue against your post, only to agree that, in my mind, it is a matter of semantics.
I do like the examples you use because one, the pen, is a physical affect that follows a defined set of rules, while the other is far less tangible. You say you know your family will always be there for you, which is fantastic. The question I would ask is why? The answer could be a variety of things; love, duty, instinct, your endocrine system, your nervous system, etc., but ultimately the answer to why is not provable, it does not follow a set of immutable rules. A pen dropped in gravity will always fall, but a family does not always support its own. For me this is the difference between faith and science. I have no idea if any of this makes sense outside of my brain but in there it kinda does. Maybe.
I always understood (possibly incorrectly) that the only things all Christians agree upon is that Jesus was the result of an immaculate conception and that he was resurrected.
I do find evangelical and biblical literalist Christians very hard work. Largely as there is very little capacity for any discussion.
I do find evangelical and biblical literalist Christians very hard work. Largely as there is very little capacity for any discussion.
“Liberal Christianity” aka “Christian modernism” has decided to throw a wrench into that, much to the confusion of Jesus.
I’m of two minds about them. One - I find it crazy they believe all that. Two - I respect them for adhering to it as their savior did and said to do.
Safe to say her excuse for getting pregnant while cheating on her man, really escalated…
I can't remember the specifics, but I believe there was a Christian sect in the Roman Empire who didn't believe in immaculate conception. The resurrection is probably ubiquitous, though.
Correct yes I am lacking faith. Despite billions of people looking for hundreds of years there is no evidence god exists and therefore I do not have any faith that he/she/it does. If some evidence is found then of course I'll reassess, why wouldn't I?
A thousand years from now people will wonder how so many were brainwashed so effectively.
This sounds like the god of the gaps argument, which is not in the least bit convining.
My history undergrad and the rise of Christianity module I took where a long time ago now, admittedly, but I understood that plenty put the immaculate conception down to a more prosaic mistranslation. I can't remember from what language to what, but maybe Aramaic having the same word for young woman and virgin.
Truly amazing that some “Christians” just go about rejecting all the parts of Jesus story that “proves his divinity” and yet see themselves as somehow different from the non-believers who think the exact same as they do.
I guess people can pick and choose what they want, disregarding chunks they don't believe in or don't agree with and justify it to themselves by the fact it has multiple authors. Don't prots pretty much disregard the old testament for example?
Saying that, a quick google and read of Matthew 1:18-20 suggests the conception was immaculate.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1&version=NIV
Must admit, I find this interesting but have limited old rusty knowledge.
I’ve always heard that called “Cafeteria Christianity”… the technical terms are now “Liberal Christianity”, “Secular Christianity”, and (I think the closest to being accurately titled) “Christian Atheism”… which make me chuckle because essentially it’s people who don’t believe what they’re supposed to but are afraid to admit it.
The Gospel absolutely states that Jesus was born to a virgin. It also absolutely states that he was resurrected from the dead.
Last edited:
As an Atheist myself I find that I have read and sought to understand the Bible (and other religious texts) more than those who believe in and follow the religion themselves (on average) . The idea that you would even question resurrection of jesus simply means you are just not a Christian. You are just some spiritual person that likes some of the things people say he said.
So do bars. In Jamaica we have the most Churches and also the most bars per square mile than any place on earth
. Bars bring people together and make others settle differences over a flask of Jay Wray and his Nephew Exactly this! All of it.
I definitely accept that I don't know for certain about every factor that affects my life, but if we take the example of airplane engineers my trust in them is based on my knowledge about how airplanes are built, the education required for everyone involved, the safety protocols and the rigorous testing that's needed before the plane is allowed to take on passengers and the stats saying that planes very rarely go wrong. So even if I can't know for certain that the engineers did their job correctly I still have a whole list of things that assures me that they did. To me at least that sounds very different to having faith, especially when it comes to a god.
Why I believe my family is going to be there is because of my knowledge of what they're like and the countless examples of them always having been there for me before, which to me at least is proof enough. And even if their behavior towards me doesn't follow a set of rules in the same sense gravity does I would have to completely dismiss my entire life and everything I know about them to get to a point where I needed something like faith to believe they would continue to be there for me.
More like pic'n'mix Christianity. Do people really claim to be secular or atheist Christians, with a straight face?
The resurrection part was always interesting too, the way a couple of people didn't recognise. Made you wonder if he somehow came back with a monstrous appearance.
Well that or the more obvious answer.
Well, according to the story about doubting Thomas, he still had the spear and nail wounds.
Very interesting posts from Zlatan and WI_Red. Although I would be careful quoting Boeing and flight safety.
But seriously, there is a difference between beliefs and faith isn't there.
When you sit down on a chair, you have faith in the chair and that it will be there to support you.
But as an engineer or scientist, you believe that the chair manufacturer has designed and tested the chair.
It is up to the individual to choose.
But it is not up to the individual to try and force their religion on others by words or force.
Hence my
.....Anyways, I guess you can separate belief and faith although I would say that perspective and experience can go a long way to differentiating (which I think is what you were getting at). Ultimately I personally break it down into 3 things: What I know, what I don't know but could learn, and that which I don't know and never can. The first group is knowledge, the second I guess you could classify as a belief, and the third as faith. For me the most liberating thing is to openly accept that I can never prove (to scientific standards) the existence of God to myself, let alone those who pity me. Accepting that frees me from a clash of my two halves.
Ultimately though, your last point is absolutely crucial. Faith, in whatever it is one has faith in, is a personal decision. I also believe that aggressive proselytizing is wrong. One should not be brow beaten into faith. Likewise, to denigrate/mock/oppress someone's faith if (and this is crucial) they are quietly going about their way, posing no danger to anyone else, is equally as wrong.
Hence my
Anyways, I guess you can separate belief and faith although I would say that perspective and experience can go a long way to differentiating (which I think is what you were getting at). Ultimately I personally break it down into 3 things: What I know, what I don't know but could learn, and that which I don't know and never can. The first group is knowledge, the second I guess you could classify as a belief, and the third as faith. For me the most liberating thing is to openly accept that I can never prove (to scientific standards) the existence of God to myself, let alone those who pity me. Accepting that frees me from a clash of my two halves.
Ultimately though, your last point is absolutely crucial. Faith, in whatever it is one has faith in, is a personal decision. I also believe that aggressive proselytizing is wrong. One should not be brow beaten into faith. Likewise, to denigrate/mock/oppress someone's faith if (and this is crucial) they are quietly going about their way, posing no danger to anyone else, is equally as wrong.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, like so many things nowadays, religion has become a very binary subject.
....if you are a Christian, you have to believe it 100%. And if you don't do so, you can not be a Christian....
While I do not believe in God and therefore don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, I do believe that there was a man called Jesus who could have done a few of the things claimed by the gospels, but certainly not all of them including the resurrection.
And I can not accept the the vast bulk of the holy bible as anything more than a collection of fictional stories.
I do strongly believe that the scientific explanation of how our Universe came into being and everything associated with that.
So what does that make me.
My answer would be - someone with an open and enquiring mind who has done a great deal of reading and enjoys physics.
Spirituality/God or whatever term you want to use is what exists outside of mind. Religion/beliefs etc is mind trying to calculate/understand what that is but it is impossible because you have to use mind to try to put meaning on a concept that is absent of itself. Even these words are mind trying to explain what is absent of itself and therefore is nothing but a pointer to an abstraction that it cant fully perceive. Like you can write a thousand songs, make movies and write poems about love and discuss it all you want but that song, that movie, those words are not love. They are an interpretation of mind of what love is. That is why you cannot debate science/religion because that debate lives in the realm of science/matter which is mind. It is not less, it is not more. It is simply different realities/states/mediums. If you want to know love go and experience the birth of a child, find a partner to hold on to. If you want to find what is God then find where there is no mind (and I dont mean death.) Sure religion or a mystic or a guru or a priest can be a pointer but only so much as tinder or the gym can help you find love.
That's how I see it anyway
That's how I see it anyway
You guys know the "immaculate conception" isn't the conception of Jesus, right?
Yeah it’s technically the conception of Mary, but it’s become such a colloquialism that it’s damn near impossible not to say it when talking about the Virgin Birth of Jesus even when you do know.You guys know the "immaculate conception" isn't the conception of Jesus, right?
I wonder how many millions of American women are wondering what the point of religion is today, except a man-made series of rules to keep people, namely women, in line?
Millions of women are now going to be forced in to unsafe, backstreet abortions, or to face destitution by carrying babies to term in the event of them believing they cannot afford to raise a child.
Chalk up another victory for the Jesus squad!
Millions of women are now going to be forced in to unsafe, backstreet abortions, or to face destitution by carrying babies to term in the event of them believing they cannot afford to raise a child.
Chalk up another victory for the Jesus squad!
Hence my
Anyways, I guess you can separate belief and faith although I would say that perspective and experience can go a long way to differentiating (which I think is what you were getting at). Ultimately I personally break it down into 3 things: What I know, what I don't know but could learn, and that which I don't know and never can. The first group is knowledge, the second I guess you could classify as a belief, and the third as faith. For me the most liberating thing is to openly accept that I can never prove (to scientific standards) the existence of God to myself, let alone those who pity me. Accepting that frees me from a clash of my two halves.
Ultimately though, your last point is absolutely crucial. Faith, in whatever it is one has faith in, is a personal decision. I also believe that aggressive proselytizing is wrong. One should not be brow beaten into faith. Likewise, to denigrate/mock/oppress someone's faith if (and this is crucial) they are quietly going about their way, posing no danger to anyone else, is equally as wrong.
This should be a perfectly reasonable request for anyone's beliefs. But would you agree to the caveat that, a bit like who you choose to vote for in elections, by lending weight to a religious organisation those who fund and support those organisations must carry some responsibility for how they act? If one does feel fully seperated from the institution of their religion, do they still feel offence when said institutions are denigrated/mocked?
Too fecking true. The great irony being, in the Old Testament there’s a description of how to get an abortion if your wife has cheated on you. Not to mention tons of babies & fetuses being off’d by god’s command.
Absolutely, it is why I have never referred to institutions, on individuals.
Very interesting conversations going on. I know I said I would bow out with everything else going on in my life currently but I've been reading the discussion and have to say it's been very amicable in the main part.
A couple of points from me. Firstly I think the 'purveyors" of religion, priests, Imams, Rabbis etc have had a big impact on people turning away from religion.
Secondly I think I'm an agreement with those who say that the fundamentals have to be believed in to be of a certain religion. It's not pic n mix (as someone mentioned)
There are "sects" who carry the name of a religion but they are not what they claim. For example the Nation of Islam carry the name Islam and say they are Muslim. Yet the very creed of a Muslim is one God and Muhammad is the final messenger. To say Elijah Muhammad is a messenger/prophet means you have "disbelieved". It's like a someone claiming to be vegetarian whilst biting into a big Mac.
My becoming religious was science based. In that I didn't really believe. I was born in a household that was secular mostly. Buy I was sent to the mosque to learn Arabic etc. I was disruptive and hated it. Asked questions and was given replies that were a bit "okay then". Was very much into the evolution and big bang topics. At 19 met a guy at uni who was a staunch atheist. Agreed with a lot of what he said. Used to go to talks and events to argue my points. Was very easy with Christian Priests and Muslim Imams.
One such venture made me go to a guy who wasn't an imam or priest. He was a doctor but was linked with a Islamic political movement. He answered some of my questions at the time. Made me go back for more and eventually ended up with a middle Eastern scholar. Blew my mind this guy. Had an answer for most of my questions. Through him I met other scholars, of other religions too and realised that the imams, priests and rabbis had basically "lied" and in fact knew very little of what they preached.
Long story short I learnt about scientists I had never heard of before. Scientists who laid down the foundations of what we know today. Scientists who had spoke about multiverses from after the time of Aristotle. Middle Eastern scientists whose names have been changed or we don't hear about.
I was even party to discussions with the likes of R. Dawkins. Stuff you won't see on YouTube. Where he pretty much admitted to the possibility of God. And imo why he started to refuse discussions with certain individuals and stuck to the kind of discussions we do see on YouTube.
I met a lot of people during this time period. Read stuff written by people who have never really been in the public eye. Some since passed. I read manuscripts that were really old and how they differed from current notions and scripts (religious ones).
Now this is just my journey. And I write it just to explain how I got to where I am. I really believe I was "lied" to as a kid by my reverend RE teacher in high school to the mosque imam who taught me. I believe they know virtually nothing of the religion they represent. I still have discussion with them and believe they can't "let go" of their stances. Not all mind but most.
As a Muslim i find the biggest frustration is other Muslims and the concepts they carry and preach. I feel they drive people away with these. It's like the flat earthers, as an example. I don't even think you need science to refute their stance. The Bible itself does that. But they simply refuse to accept it. What I mean by that is the notion of 6 days isn't 6 days as we know them (so 24 hours and Monday to Saturday). It's closer to 6 ages/eras/stages. Again not saying the scientists among us have to accept this that it's right here. Just that it's not what's being represented by flat earthers in the very book they say they believe.
I can say the same for Sufis in Islam. Where the exclusion of one word in some of their early books has lead to this movement. Or those claiming to be hanifi and attributing things to Imam Abu Hanifa when the earliest source says different to books they've written a few years after him.
I'm fascinated with it tbh.
Edit: the manuscript (don't know how to spell it in English but roughly kisatul shakruti format) I referred to is in British library Euston rd London. O do have a reference number and dept etc. Also available in digital format in the national digital library India. They have a translation and say the British library has the original.
A couple of points from me. Firstly I think the 'purveyors" of religion, priests, Imams, Rabbis etc have had a big impact on people turning away from religion.
Secondly I think I'm an agreement with those who say that the fundamentals have to be believed in to be of a certain religion. It's not pic n mix (as someone mentioned)
There are "sects" who carry the name of a religion but they are not what they claim. For example the Nation of Islam carry the name Islam and say they are Muslim. Yet the very creed of a Muslim is one God and Muhammad is the final messenger. To say Elijah Muhammad is a messenger/prophet means you have "disbelieved". It's like a someone claiming to be vegetarian whilst biting into a big Mac.
My becoming religious was science based. In that I didn't really believe. I was born in a household that was secular mostly. Buy I was sent to the mosque to learn Arabic etc. I was disruptive and hated it. Asked questions and was given replies that were a bit "okay then". Was very much into the evolution and big bang topics. At 19 met a guy at uni who was a staunch atheist. Agreed with a lot of what he said. Used to go to talks and events to argue my points. Was very easy with Christian Priests and Muslim Imams.
One such venture made me go to a guy who wasn't an imam or priest. He was a doctor but was linked with a Islamic political movement. He answered some of my questions at the time. Made me go back for more and eventually ended up with a middle Eastern scholar. Blew my mind this guy. Had an answer for most of my questions. Through him I met other scholars, of other religions too and realised that the imams, priests and rabbis had basically "lied" and in fact knew very little of what they preached.
Long story short I learnt about scientists I had never heard of before. Scientists who laid down the foundations of what we know today. Scientists who had spoke about multiverses from after the time of Aristotle. Middle Eastern scientists whose names have been changed or we don't hear about.
I was even party to discussions with the likes of R. Dawkins. Stuff you won't see on YouTube. Where he pretty much admitted to the possibility of God. And imo why he started to refuse discussions with certain individuals and stuck to the kind of discussions we do see on YouTube.
I met a lot of people during this time period. Read stuff written by people who have never really been in the public eye. Some since passed. I read manuscripts that were really old and how they differed from current notions and scripts (religious ones).
Now this is just my journey. And I write it just to explain how I got to where I am. I really believe I was "lied" to as a kid by my reverend RE teacher in high school to the mosque imam who taught me. I believe they know virtually nothing of the religion they represent. I still have discussion with them and believe they can't "let go" of their stances. Not all mind but most.
As a Muslim i find the biggest frustration is other Muslims and the concepts they carry and preach. I feel they drive people away with these. It's like the flat earthers, as an example. I don't even think you need science to refute their stance. The Bible itself does that. But they simply refuse to accept it. What I mean by that is the notion of 6 days isn't 6 days as we know them (so 24 hours and Monday to Saturday). It's closer to 6 ages/eras/stages. Again not saying the scientists among us have to accept this that it's right here. Just that it's not what's being represented by flat earthers in the very book they say they believe.
I can say the same for Sufis in Islam. Where the exclusion of one word in some of their early books has lead to this movement. Or those claiming to be hanifi and attributing things to Imam Abu Hanifa when the earliest source says different to books they've written a few years after him.
I'm fascinated with it tbh.
Edit: the manuscript (don't know how to spell it in English but roughly kisatul shakruti format) I referred to is in British library Euston rd London. O do have a reference number and dept etc. Also available in digital format in the national digital library India. They have a translation and say the British library has the original.
Last edited:
This reads like an olde timey version of going down a conspiracy theory YouTube rabbit hole. You read the secret manuscripts and learned about the scientists whose names have been changed (?) who knew the secret signs and participated in private meetings with Dawkins where his mask slipped.
Are you aware of how this comes across?
Using what's written in the Bible as proof is such a tiresome part of this discussion. The Bible isnt evidence, it's a very old story written by men. Same with the you can't call yourself a Christian if you dont atleast believe X. Shouldnt the beauty of religion be that you can chose to believe whichever part of it resonates with you? The gatekeeping just seems weird and needlesly confrontational to me.
Sometimes it seems that there is an unfortunate equating of Christianity with Southern Baptist evangelicalism, with their Sola Scriptura doctrine. It's as if that's the pervasive Christian interpretation in the world, which of course it isn't.
I think that as a Catholic convert, I would find it very hard to live in a community where the science of evolution is widely-denied.
I think that as a Catholic convert, I would find it very hard to live in a community where the science of evolution is widely-denied.
Up to a point, of course. It's impossible to be a Christian without believing in Jesus as the son of God (and/or an aspect of God himself), though. Everything else is mostly interchangable (and has been treated as such since the beginning).
No, of course, some of the basics should be there, like believing in God, but for instance viewing Mary as a saint makes you a heretic in the eyes of protestants (I think
), which just seems arbitrary.Don't really care how it reads to be honest. I was just adding my journey to a discussion that interested me.
If you want to add your own slant to it you be you.
None of the manuscripts are secret. Never mentioned they were.
Never mentioned the scientists are secret, just that some of what was attributed to scientists today wasn't unknown to scientists from way back. Their work maybe wasn't refined but it was certainly the building foundation. It's not common knowledge but many a scientist from way back is known as something different in modern times. Some of the Arabic names for example are "westernised/Latinised/modernised" as we know them today. So ibn Sina is known as Avicenna.
Charles Darwin is spoken about with regards to evolution Yet the works of Al Tusi arent spoken about and he preceded Darwin by about 600 years. This isn't hidden but how many look into it.
People speak of Hubble with regards to big bang but how many know Georges Lemaitre (sp) a Roman Catholic priest and scientist form Belgian ways (if memory serves me correct). Again no secret.
Maybe some folk do know, and tbf I'm just giving examples of the top of my head here so not looking to get refutations as to their works. The point being it's no secret manuscript or secret names that are not available. And yeah it may just be me I mean I was blown away with history of places and some of what is written around them. Again just making a point but Gibraltar being known as Jabr ul Tariq, literally meaning rock of Tariq was news to me when I heard it. Or Kerala being originally "Khair Allah" in India and the London library/museum (again going off top of my head, has data/manuscript dating it back to a king in India travelling to Saudi to see Muhammad. Indian library has similar "historical documents". I emailed and got responses. Available for the everyone but how many do it? This was in regard to the Muslim belief of splitting of the moon. And before anyone jumps in here I'm not claiming anything here. Just that there are historical documents that are said to be authentic and exist.
These are not YouTube rabbit holes. Don't think YouTube was thing when I was learning about this.
As for Dawkins I met him once and was present when he was asked some questions. I personally know people who have written to him and asked him to discuss/debate but he won't. But his "mask has slipped" when he says things like the possibility you may find a signature of some kind of designer of how life began on our earth.
We all have our own journeys to be where we are at. I find religion fascinating to study and love unpicking issues and exploring concepts and notions that interest me. Doesn't mean I'm right or my conclusions are correct but they are talking point for me in my head. Others may disagree and so be it.
This is just my opinion of course but I agree with you.
The most frustrating thing for me, as a Muslim, when people want to engage in discussion (and even on here see responses to me a few pages back) but come with the "Earth is 6000 years old lol" type of comment as if it's clever and some how ridicules my belief. When in reality it's a fringe group who couldn't be further away from the religion they say they represent, Christianity, never mind Islam. To me it's the equivalent of nursery school playground "ner ner ner ne".
The other is that non religious folk are happy enough to say we don't know Tina certain question but God forbid if a religious person says that to a question.
No, of course, some of the basics should be there, like believing in God, but for instance viewing Mary as a saint makes you a heretic in the eyes of protestants (I think
Oh yeah, definitely. Religious wars and genocides have (literally) been started over less. So many of them.