Over the past couple of years I have become very sceptical of religious faith and in particular those that subscribe to a higher being or place, be it poly or mono theistic faiths. This I feel is mainly due to the fact that for the past three years I have been studying such disciplines as Chritian Theology, World Religions, Philosophy and Early Christian History. What I have concluded from this is that the more I studied and developed a reasoned opinion on certain faiths, the more I began to doubt their doctrine. So basically, because my reason of a certain faith (ie Christianity) developed, the more I began to doubt its validity. So what I would like to know is whether this has happend to anyone else or how do reasoned people still have belief in their faith, even if they do not agree with certain aspects of it? I dont post on this board that often, but I do know that its a good place when asking questions of this nature.
Is this more along the lines of disbelief in doctrines or in Deity emeraldfin? For myself, when I looked into the foundational period of Christianity it became apparent that something caused Faith to be established in early Christians, but I myself did not find the various doctrines to be compelling at all. As for reason imvho the more reason is applied, the more likely Deity exists as reason can never explain the wildly variable outcomes of any given situation.
A bit of both padre, IMO once you start to go against doctrine you start to question the bigger picture also IMO. In what sense or example padre?
Well I would say that depends emeraldfin, an expansive view or a limited one, the Epistles were not written because the early Christian Church was all of one mind, quite the opposite, it was wildly divergent but all save for the Gnostics believed in the Resurrection. Irreducible complexity, just as concept taxes reason to it's limit, add in the variance of choices among people and reason fails further in my view.
Early Church history and the development of Canon/Creeds was my area of concentration in seminary. The doctrine of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the establishment of the NT Canon are all things that my study has caused me to accept even more comfortably than before. I am not sure what doctrines you have trouble with so if you are willing to share a bit more, I would try to answer you from a Christian point of view.
The thing about the early church is that if things had of worked differently at the first major councils (i.e Nicea, Constantinople) then the Christian Church as we know it could be a vastly different beast. You take something like the Arian Controversy for example. There is evidence in scripture for both the arguments of the Nicene Creed and Arian Controversy. Its just that the majority chose to go one route instead of the other. Which brings me onto something I have great problem with and that is scriptural contradictions. If two seperate verses are giving you conflicting accounts or advice then which do you go with? I can honestly admit that I do not know enough about irreducible complexity or even Darwinism to have a proper opinion on them
In my view, a monolithic Christianity was not meant to be, the schism between East and West was going to happen simply because of the underlaying contradictions between Temporal, and Spiritual matters. The earlier differences were come to honestly, if one thinks about it, christians were suppressed no matter their differences in doctrine. Was the account fundamentally different, at least that is the approach I take, for example Saul alternately committed suicide, or was killed by his armour bearer, the way I see it is "Saul died". The idea that the Universe is infintely complex and while appearing to be random is actually highly ordered.
There is a bias in the world, imo, to see God in a Dieist view. That is, that He did something and is now sitting back watching. From my acknowledgely Christian viewpoint, what happened in the early councils was the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit helping the Church "get it right"! Despite the appearantly different forms of Christianity that exist today virtually all would understand God as Trinitarian, Jesus as fully God AND fully human, the 66 books of the Bible as the recognized canon and so on. This happened because the Holy Spirit continued (and still continues) to lead the Church. Sometimes it happens in fits and starts and sometimes it is hard to see but I believe the Spirit is there. The answer about Saul being dead is a good one. Same is true about Judas' death. Many "contradictions' are easily understood in terms of context either historically or in the situation on the ground the "Sitz en laben". If you have a particular question I will try and help.
Being honest Ohio, I dont think this is going in the direction I originally hoped. I didn't really want to get into a theological debate with you guys about my own personal faith or indeed yours. I know if this thread continued in the same way I would end up being dis-respectful to your beliefs, which I really do not want to do. I just wanted to see if anyone else has or had gone through the same experience I did. I used to be a good Christian. I would go to Church every week and not question my reasoning for doing so or the dogma of my faith. However when I began to think about it and actually study what my faith stood for, I then became doubtful that the particular faith I had dedicated my life to was the right one and then questioned the possibility of an after life. I honestly did not wish to get into a theological debate with anyone nor question their beliefs for the sake of an argument. I just wondered if anyone has gone through a similar crisis of faith or rejection of ones previous faith. Apologies for any mis-understanding caused.
yup i have reservations about most pieces of faith that i've studied. which includes many known and some unknown. all i have questions about and none i've picked information up blindly. among those i've studied are christianity, buddhism, taoism, hermeticism, martinism, shinto.. buddhism and taoism the most, followed by hermeticism and martinism and shintoism are last. i've also looked into a bit of gnosticism, but not much. i don't follow any one faith and it's bad of me because i lack direction spiritually. i have more questions than i have answers and a lot of it doesn't make sense in the fact that the big picture still isn't answered; which is what i always thought religion was supposed to help with as i think that's what most things are supposed to help with. i'm the kind of person that needs to know why something is the way it is. if i don't i generally either don't have or won't have an interest in it. this quest for knowledge has lead me all over the place and in many different directions. i feel i'm the better for it, but the worse for an overall spiritual direction. i have a feeling one day things will settle down and i will either believe full heartily or i won't.
The thing to remember anlgp is to never become a member of a religion just because you have a need for spiritual guidance. I know that is not what you are saying or think about...I just want to say you don't have to be a member of a certain religion to have spiritual direction and never feel pressured to be part of a religion to get that direction. I struggled a long time with the same feelings but in the end realized that you have to just go with what your heart feels and run with it. I'm not of a particular religion but I'm at peace with what I believe, feel good for it, and feel I have guidance. Once again I know your not saying you feel you need a religion to feel guided but I'm just sharing my advice. I'm sure you have beliefs of what are right and wrong and what feels right to you...so just go with that.
OK, then I guess I don't know what you are asking for??? If it is just someone to listen to your rejection, I guess you have had that and I have been happy to listen. Best wishes.
Sure Emeraldfin (funny how screen names substitute for actual names isn't it?), Faith is a gift, but life is hard.
Thats pretty much the way it is for me also. None of the religions that I have looked at over the years seem to "click" with me and like you said, when you do look at them, you come out with more questions than answers. I dont know if it is the same case for you dude, but every time I begin to look at a different faith, I try to see if it subscribes to my way of reasoning or belief. Pretty much everything you have said there I can relate to also. Just one question I have is how does the fact that you haven't found a spiritual home (so to speak) affect your belief in a higher being?
I appreciate that Ohio, cheers. Interesting that you say that Padre. I know that somewhere in Ephesians it says something along those lines, but is that actually the belief of certain Christian faiths?
Just my observation emeraldfin, the idea of "believe and do not doubt", but that would not have to be said unless...people would doubt in the first place.. Actually, that is quite funny to consider, a service wherein everyone doubted " "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today, don't know why we are gathered here today, it just seemed like the thing to do, anyway, contribute to the building fund"
I do that as well. The thing I have trouble telling myself is that some things can't be explained. They just can't. The meaning of life? Who knows. Because of this and what I said about needing to know why things are the way they are.. some days it's hard for me to get motivated to get up, but I know the unexplainable parts of life are just as if not more important than things that you can explain. As far as letting it affect my belief in a higher power I consider the two separate issues. I said I have more questions than I have answers, but my research into various religions has provided me with some answers on an ethical level, just not on a spiritual level. That question is a whole 'nother ballgame. It has taken longer and I'm at the point now where I'm having trouble with the thought for various reasons. I used to be a complete believer of force, or of energy, or whatever you want to call it. Taoists call it "chi" so I'll use that but don't let the signpost of the particular faith get in the way of what I'm saying. It doesn't mean I don't believe or that I do, just that I'm completely unsure and I think that's because I was so frustrated with it I haven't thought enough about it since. Just because I don't agree with a certain scriptures point of view on the subject of a higher power doesn't phase me because it's not my own belief as I obviously don't subscribe to a particular system. Finding that has been incredibly difficult, but I want to be sure. The search continues. I'm sure even after I find out what I truly do believe I'll have questions or rejections about the opposite. And that's really okay.
i have a weekly crisis of faith lol. to me, belief in the judeo-christian god actually makes sense. im currently not a member of any church however. dogma and me dont always mix. authority and me dont always mix i guess i sort of cherry pick what i like and leave out what i dont. part of faith is accepting that youre not going to understand everything nor are you necessarily supposed to. im not sure if i really can be of help, but its important to know that reason and faith are not incompatible. some of the greatest thinkers, writers, etc were firm believers
All that matters is that no matter what anyone tells you, it is an inner journey. Reason and Faith are two ideas that only you can do. Someone cannot give you reason and someone cannot give you faith. Many people can try, and you can also try to accept their gifts, however the truth of the matter is it is still your own reason and your own faith you are accepting. It is just your understanding of their version of reason and your understanding of their version of faith. One of the best advice I have ever received from a book is, "The story is not about the person who wrote the book, it is about the person who is reading the book." I know you didn't ask me the question about finding a spiritual home. I am going to answer it anyway. It affects me by not having someone attempt to push their understanding on me or try to convince me of their rightness. Generally I have noticed, even in myself, that it is very important to have a feeling of being right. Hell it shows up perfectly in movies. What does it matter if someone doesn't like the same movie as I do. However my desire to prove someone wrong shows up right when someone says, "300 sucks." To me faith is the same way. Just to the billionth power. There seems to be a huge desire for people of faith to be proven right. Not everyone of course. There are some on this board who are very open minded and are willing to discuss other ideas. Still I do believe that the truth of the matter is if there is an absolute truth, no one can give you a direct faith in it, just like no one can give you a love of the movie 300. They might be able to give you a thought that can shift your paradigm so you realize that 300 is one of the greatest movies of all time. Still the paradigm shift is something that you accomplished. As Captain Planet said, "The power is yours."
When I began studying the various religions of the world what struck my was that there were many similarities in the basics. Just about every major story in the bible can be traced back to an earlier religion with different names (sometimes just slightly different). I felt that it was possible to look at the same events and come up with drastically different interpretations. My reasoning led me to conclude that there were probably basic truths and that the differences were most likely the result of man interpreting things differently or just adding their own rules for personal or even political reasons. I think this is what your original post was asking. If not I apologize for digressing.
I understand your point Maynard and you are quite right that some of the greatest thinkers were indeed Christian/Jewish. You made the point that you do believe in the Judaeo-Christian God |Maynard, but you do not subscibe to the dogma of either faith. If that is the case, then do you still see yourself as a Christian, Jew or indeed something else?
Pretty good post there Dupree. One thing that struck me was that you refer to how we all have our own reason. Just out of curiosity and in your own opinion Dupree, if you take two averge people from different socio-economic backgrounds, who are of the same faith (say Catholic), who have never studied their faith indepthly and get them to read the Bible for the 1st time, will they arrive at the same conclusions to each other or even to that of their own faith?
I honestly believe if you take two people from the same soci-economic backgrounds, who go to the same church and make it to all of the same sermons, and the same bible study class, will come to different conclusions. They might have a lot more similarities than someone in your question, however in this life no two people have the same perspective.
I agree and would go so far as to say if you take 50 different people studying the same faith you will find a variety of different answers as well. Faith is symbolic and symbols are able to be interpreted individually. There are some things that make a religion what it is, but other than that everything else is left up to the individual.
All of this is why Christians are urged to study scripturw in groups. Each perspective adds to the others and some can be found to be textually or historically wrong. It keeps everyone from going off into flights of self delusion.
Or people stop thinking and just adopt the opinion of the dominant person in the group. I don't mean this as a criticism of religion, but it is a fairly common group dynamic. I've seen studies where actors are directed to mislead with obviously wrong and simple answers and the vast majority of the time the rest of the group will follow. One study I remember had people looking at the length of lines and were supposed to state which line was longer. These were obvious differences, not close calls. The actors were directed to pick the wrong answer and 70 - 80 percent of the time they were agreed with by the the test subject. And when it comes to religious people vs. non religious people the most common difference is that religious people tend to place a higher value in belonging to a group while non-religious people tend to place more value on individuality. This has been the conclusion of several studies as well. They found no differences in education, income, etc., but the difference in the value placed on belonging vs. individuality was pronounced. It makes me wonder if that earlier group dynamic would be even more pronounced. Either way it's incredibly high, though.
I understand the dynamic and have seen it work in religious and secular groups. In the middle ages where access to source documents was restricted that did happen. My point is however you have literally thousands of groups doing the work coming to a small group of solutions it has a greater chance at validity.
IMO the expected conclusions are fairly obvious. I think the people that are coming to different conclusions are the ones who are leaving the church. I don't think it's a coincidence that the percentage of people who classify themselves as spiritual but not religious continues to rise. Just like the percentage of Americans who believe there is not just one way (or religion) to get into heaven rises. Here's an article about a survey from last year: Religion in America is changing... A new survey finds many Americans say there is more than one way to find heaven...that includes many evangelical Christians. Pastor David Brown of the Pilgrim Congregational United Church of Christ says, "We believe God loves everyone and includes everyone." That's not a statement historically associated with the Protestant Church...but, according to a new study it is becoming the norm. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life consulted more than 35,000 Americans for its U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Pastor Brown says, "God's family is a lot bigger than, unfortunately, some people seem to feel." The survey finds among evangelical Protestant churches more than half the members believe many religions can lead to eternal life. They're not alone...the vast majority of Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu and more than half of Muslim Americans believe the same way. Here in the Tennessee Valley not everyone agrees. Associate Pastor Dwight Martinof Calvary Baptist Church says, "We love them, and we want them to understand the truth. But, the Bible says there's only one way." Pastor Martin says it's not a question of interpretation. He says the Christian Savior is the only path to eternal life, and while he knows the idea is not popular, heaven is open to all who would believe, "That's what God's word says and I believe that with all my heart. So...people who don't believe that, their argument is not with me, it's with God's word." Brown says it's not about telling people how to find heaven, it's helping them get there, "Americans are changing. I think we're far more conscious of diversity, far more aware there are many different religious paths to God. Each of us has to find and choose and commit to our own religious path." Another interesting finding in the study...one in five American Atheists and more than half of Agnostics believe there is a God or Universal Spirit. http://www.wdef.com/news/americans_say_more_than_one_way_to_heaven/06/2008 I don't see that as people coming to the same conclusion. That seems like more and more people are looking at the various religions and seeing some things they like in many of them.
Of course from your vantage point you will not. And likely from my vantage point I don't see all you do. Of course people will pick and choose. Why take into account anything that makes you uncomfortable or challenges your own desires? Design a god who loves you and never asks anything of you. Thou shalt not? Why limit what I want?! I know self centeredness is strong. Why pick up something that might make me feel guilty or shameful? The Abrahamic faiths call that original sin and I see lots of it.
That could be one reason. For me, I grew up catholic, it was that I found the bible and Catholicism's interpretations to be at best inconsistent and often just ludicrous. That is what made me look elsewhere. Then when I thought about it, I realized that I don't believe God would design a system where goodness or being worthy of heaven is limited to one religion. It struck me as patently unfair that a kid who grew up in a different religion and never even heard of catholicism or christianity (or any other religion) but was by all other measures a good person is denied heaven. I don't think God would do that. That more than anything is what makes me believe that it can't be limited to just one religion. In my experience that is why many people believe there has to be more than one way to heaven.
The detail we would need to go into to continue this is probably beyond what our forums are designed to do. I will resist the urge to go further. I wish you well
It also increases the chances of going off into flights of group delusion. I do believe that no matter what you study it is best to also study it in groups. Especially if it is spiritual. Join some people who are on a the same spiritual path. Unless you are athiest. I still do not understand why athiests meet. How can you get a group and discuss nothing? Other perspectives really do add to other people. I know for myself on my own path my level of understanding and understanding my naivity grew thousands fold when I got into groups and discussions about my path. So my advice to anyone on any path (other than Athiesm) is to join groups and discuss. You will learn from sharing your thoughts as you will hearing other thoughts. Also remember that you are your own guru or at least that you are the one who is responsible for your actions. Never give your power up to anyone who says they are better than you or more advance than you. Someone might know more about you on a subject, however that does not mean they are more advanced or better than you.
This topic has gone silent, and I did not take part in the earlier discussion, however for anyone interested there is a good amount of information on William Lane Craig's website www.reasonablefaith.org (the Q/A section is very helpful). I don't believe you can separate faith from reason, though some have tried to make "faith" in faith the greatest of faiths... whatever that means. Christianity is an evidence based religion- not a blind leap as some say. It is objectively true. You can try, like some, and pick and choose what you like. But, ya know, when you go to a buffet what do you get on your plate? The stuff you like, and what you don't like you don't put on your plate- Some people choose their religion this way. Jesus said that those who seek the truth find him, truth is by nature exclusive.
I also have followed but not participated in this discussion. However, I find many of your claims of "fact' to be quite the opposite. Some context about me before I say more. Unlike most atheists I do not hate religion. I've been a christian and am currently married to one. When I was a christian, I was immersed in it. My parents taught Sunday school even. My "conversion" from faith to atheist, was not reactionary or made without careful thought, discussion and research. It also wasn't made with a foregone conclusion. My objections to what you posted are most specifically about 2 statements you made. I can't see that belief as being more wrong. Not only can they be separated, but its absolutely vital to separate them if either of the words' meaning are to maintain their integrity. You cannot have fact with beliefs, nor can you truly have faith with facts. This doesn't mean someone can't have faith and beliefs at the same time. It just means that if they try to mix the two, then they are doing themselves a disservice. One cannot have faith in a fact. The idea of faith is believing something without knowing it to be true. If that something is true, you, by definition, no longer have faith in it. Its like colors. You can have red or blue. If you mix the two you get purple, which is neither red or blue, but something else entirely. Truth is not exclusive. Truth is relative, because the measuring stick for truth is emotionally fickle. When looking for "truth", the first thing one must do is gather and understand his tools. Its like going on a trip. You must first understand how to drive. So when looking for the truth, you must first understand the definition to certain words. fact: 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: 2. something known to exist or to have happened belief: 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction; 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof Once one understands that these words are more or less opposites, then one can actually begin to find their "truth"/faith.
God help me, but I belive I agree with a lot of what you just said. Faith and reason are separate. That doesn't mean they contradict; rather, I believe them to be complementary.
Uh oh. Next thing you'll know, you'll be voting Obama, drinking lots of Mt. Dew, and become ruggedly handsome....
Holy hell, I agree with you too. I already drink the Dew, my wife thinks I'm ruggedly handsome... Oh well, like Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad!
This statement reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant. Several blind men were walking along and came upon an elephant that allowed them to touch and feel it. "This creature is long and flexible like a snake" said the first blind man, holding the elephant's trunk. "not at all - it is thick and round like a tree trunk," said the second blind man, feeling the elephant's leg. "No, it is large and flat," said the third blind man, touching the elephant's side. Each blind man could feel only part of the elephant - none could envision the entire elephant. In the same way, you are arguing, that "truth" is relative to the person and only part of it can be grasped and no one can see the whole elephant, or claim to have a comprehensive vision of the truth. This is told from the point of view of someone who is not blind. How can you know that no one can claim to have truth, unless you yourself are able to have it? There is an appearance of humility in saying that truth is relative, no one can comprehend truth... but really it is an arrogant claim. How could you know that no religion or person could see the whole elephant (truth) unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of truth which you just claimed is not absolute- that no one can claim to have?
