FRIHOSTFORUMSFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Revelation...

 


laurenrox
I've only recently realized something. I'm not sure how relevant this will be to anyone else, but here it goes.

I've realized that in the past, I've mistaken myself for being in the majority as far as religion goes. In other words, I've basically made the assumption that the majority of free thinking people thought the same way that I do. They questioned their beliefs, and instead of hanging onto something definate, they left some things open for argument. And I actually thought that whatever relgion a particular person was in, that they came to that religion of their own free will and made considerations before joining said religions.

I realize now that for most people, that's not the case. Most are taught from a young age their families' beliefs. Most just accept what they were taught as children and never bother to question the beliefs that were handed down. Some of this can be contributed to the leaders of the religion. They say believe, just for the sake of believing. They tell you to have faith. What they DON'T tell you is to search your own mind and feelings to see if said religion is what you ACTUALLY believe. It's almost as if most religions don't want to be questioned, and without questioning something, how can you come to believe it except through blind faith?

In the past, I've defended religion on the basis that I too believe in God. And I realize now that this was entirely the wrong reason to defend it. We were given freedom of religion, to believe whatever we thought was right. But is that any good if we simply accept something without question? I hardly think so.
GSIS
In many cultures if you question that culture's religious beliefs you'll be ostracised - or dead.

For many who can't fight back that's good reason to bend to the will ...
laurenrox
GSIS wrote:
In many cultures if you question that culture's religious beliefs you'll be ostracised - or dead.

For many who can't fight back that's good reason to bend to the will ...


That's part of the point I was making. And I can understand why people who are forced into a religion wouldn't want to think about it, but honestly, who the hell would know? It's not like they can go into your brain and say, "Oh hey! You don't really believe!"

But I was more or less referring to people who have the ability to choose their own religion openly. Such as people in the US or the UK.
Shewolf
Indeed.. and whatever is the official religion and what people's actual beliefs are, are not always the same thing. It's had to get people to admit it though Wink
GSIS
laurenrox wrote:

But I was more or less referring to people who have the ability to choose their own religion openly. Such as people in the US or the UK.


I wouldn't be so sure that all people in the US or the UK have that ability. The consequences of not conforming are rarely likely to be as serious as they can be in some other countries, but the risk of isolation from family and community does still exist.

'Honour killings' still happen in the UK. Many members of the Indian community still follow the caste system (supposedly non-existent now). Marry outside your community, faith or station at your peril. Even many of the 'true' British communities are effectively closed - especially in small, remote villages and towns. Cross the wrong people for religious or any other reason and you'll find you've very quickly lost most of your friends and even members of your own family will be wary of the damage you can do to them simply by association.

It's relatively easy to become involved in other communities but you'll rarely be fully accepted.

Fundamentally we're still the tribal people we were in the Stone Age. Insiders who follow the rules will be accepted. Insiders who break the rules will often be exiled. Outsiders may be accepted (but rarely completely) if they have something to offer. Once that contribution is spent they'll usually be forced to become outsiders again.

Such is human nature.
laurenrox
GSIS wrote:
laurenrox wrote:

But I was more or less referring to people who have the ability to choose their own religion openly. Such as people in the US or the UK.


I wouldn't be so sure that all people in the US or the UK have that ability. The consequences of not conforming are rarely likely to be as serious as they can be in some other countries, but the risk of isolation from family and community does still exist.

'Honour killings' still happen in the UK. Many members of the Indian community still follow the caste system (supposedly non-existent now). Marry outside your community, faith or station at your peril. Even many of the 'true' British communities are effectively closed - especially in small, remote villages and towns. Cross the wrong people for religious or any other reason and you'll find you've very quickly lost most of your friends and even members of your own family will be wary of the damage you can do to them simply by association.

It's relatively easy to become involved in other communities but you'll rarely be fully accepted.

Fundamentally we're still the tribal people we were in the Stone Age. Insiders who follow the rules will be accepted. Insiders who break the rules will often be exiled. Outsiders may be accepted (but rarely completely) if they have something to offer. Once that contribution is spent they'll usually be forced to become outsiders again.

Such is human nature.


I don't think that's as much the case today (in the USA) as it was some 50 years ago. People are becoming more and more tolerant of other religions (at least as a majority). I can't speak for the UK, seeing as how I've never been there, but I think you're not giving people enough credit. Yes, there are some religious things that we see as "over the line", such as human sacrafices, but preventing that has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with another's right to life.
pampoon
I'm an American. I am 21 years old, so I can make my own choices. My parents never were really religious, so they didn't push me into or from anything. Yet, I am still a very devout and strong believer in Christianity. I always have been, ever since I was a young teenager. So obviously I was not "forced into believing" as you have said. How do you explain my case?

God bless Cool ,
Pampoon
laurenrox
pampoon wrote:
I'm an American. I am 21 years old, so I can make my own choices. My parents never were really religious, so they didn't push me into or from anything. Yet, I am still a very devout and strong believer in Christianity. I always have been, ever since I was a young teenager. So obviously I was not "forced into believing" as you have said. How do you explain my case?

God bless Cool ,
Pampoon


I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD is pushed into religion. What I'm saying is that it happens too often.

Although I do have a question for you. Have you ever really questioned your religion?
coeus
laurenrox wrote:
Have you ever really questioned your religion?


I think everyone has questioned what they believe at some point.
Indi
coeus wrote:
laurenrox wrote:
Have you ever really questioned your religion?


I think everyone has questioned what they believe at some point.

Oh i beg to differ. A 10 second Google proves that theory wrong (* to start).

Maybe you have questioned what you believe, maybe you haven't. Regardless, it is a classic error to assume that, just because you identify a certain pattern of thinking and behaviour as "Christian", everyone else (or even just "most" people) who identifies themselves as Christian does so because of the same pattern of thinking and behaviour. Just because you have allegedly questioned your religion, it doesn't follow that most, or any, other Christians have.

Which, i believe, is part of what laurenrox was saying in the first part of the first post.

In addition, even if people say they've questioned their religion, it doesn't follow that they actually have. Someone might consider looking up a list of stock answers to the most common challenges against their religion to be research into the possible problems with what they believe. i wouldn't. Yet they would claim with absolute sincerity that they've questioned their religion and found answers to every problem it had. In my opinion, if someone has opted to pattern their entire life around the teachings of a single person (or "person", such as the case may be), and the entirety of those teachings can be found in a single book or a small handful of books, then that someone should be at least as familiar with their sources as a Trekkie is with theirs. Seriously, if a Star Trek fan can sketch for me the layout of the ship's computer systems, even though that layout has never been explicitly mentioned in the show, just by piecing together a few stray quotes spread over a hundred shows (and yes, someone actually did this right in front of my eyes... be careful what you ask a Trekkie)... then a Christian should be able to quote the Bible to me chapter and verse without hesitation. That is what i would call well-researched. It's not that much to ask. The fifth Harry Potter book alone is 40% bigger the New Testament (and some Christians say that's the only part of the Bible that matters), and you just know there are geeks out there that can quote the whole series to the letter.

But i do have a problem with this:
laurenrox wrote:
It's almost as if most religions don't want to be questioned, and without questioning something, how can you come to believe it except through blind faith?

First, "blind faith" is redundant. What is the opposite of "blind faith"? "Faith with reason"? There's no such thing, by the definition of the word faith. If you have a reason to believe something, then you do not believe it through faith.

But the real issue i have is that this puts an impossible demand on the believer. There is no religion anywhere that does not require "blind" faith in order to accept it as true. If there were a religion whose beliefs could be arrived at by reason, then it would be taught in secular schools.

To give an example, suppose there were a religion that claimed that humans are special because they were made in a special foundry by God during creation, whereas the rest of the universe was made in the regular foundry. Would that be taught in a secular school? Absolutely not. It requires "blind" faith to believe it. But now suppose we did some subatomic analysis of the materials that made up the human brain, and found that they all showed some special characteristic that no other matter outside of the human brain showed. Well now we have a reason to believe that humans are special for some reason, and now that will be taught in secular schools.

Because of that, a believer that feels obligated to follow your requirements, and to attempt to formulate a reason for believing in their religion other than "blind" faith will be forced to fabricate reasons, and/or delude themselves about the basis for what they believe. You can see both effects out and about in the world today, actually.

Just be honest about it - base your beliefs in the workings of the physical world on reason, and base your beliefs in the nature of the spiritual world on faith (if you really must believe in a spiritual universe at all, and if so, then use faith only up until we can find a way to get real evidence about it, then use that rather than the faith), and don't confuse the two. Don't use standards of belief that apply to the physical universe to the spiritual one, or you will either end up disappointed, or faking it.
coeus
Indi wrote:
Oh i beg to differ. A 10 second Google proves that theory wrong (* to start).

Maybe you have questioned what you believe, maybe you haven't. Regardless, it is a classic error to assume that, just because you identify a certain pattern of thinking and behaviour as "Christian", everyone else (or even just "most" people) who identifies themselves as Christian does so because of the same pattern of thinking and behaviour. Just because you have allegedly questioned your religion, it doesn't follow that most, or any, other Christians have.


Are you Se..*stop-sigh* Really? What th... *stop-sigh* The argument was if people questioned their beliefs, not how rooted in truth their beliefs are. That article hit it right on the head, most Christians are uneducated and get everything wrong. But that doesn't say anything about them questioning their beliefs. Given the way Christianity works, the fact that God doesn't pop out of the clouds to say hey, ok, or no to our questions. And I KNOW people have prayed about something, not seen this action and questioned. Now, of course 99.9% of the time they shake those questions, attributing it to Satan trying to convince us God doesn't exist. I challange you to ask anyone around to answer HONESTLY (and unfortunatly a lot won't) whether or not they questioned their beliefs. EVERYONE I know has done so. And I know you are going to say well I am tainted by the small sample around me, hence why I am saying go ahead and ask everyone you p.s. this doesn't just work for Christians, I am willing to bet that even the great Richard Dawkins has thought "what if God does exist?" Of course he will never admit that, to do so would "rock" his *ahem* "faith" Smile

I love the comparisions of Harry Potter and the Bible. As if the 2 texts had anything in common besides the fact that they are a collection of words. The fact of the matter is KNOWING the bible in and out and hardly comparable to memorizing Harry Potter or Star-Trek. The Bible on a more deep level of understanding is no easy thing. You could spend months on one book, a small book at that. Which would put you at quite a few years just for the new testament. And judging by your article, and common knowledge, you think 99% of the "Christians" that walk this Earth are going to do that? Heck, I would consider myself intrigued by the idea yet can't find enough time in the day to do so. So Indi, it is too much to ask for someone to know the bible inside and out. (Unless you are talking to an older audience who have bunked like a monk for a few years to study Smile
laurenrox
Indi wrote:
Maybe you have questioned what you believe, maybe you haven't. Regardless, it is a classic error to assume that, just because you identify a certain pattern of thinking and behaviour as "Christian", everyone else (or even just "most" people) who identifies themselves as Christian does so because of the same pattern of thinking and behaviour. Just because you have allegedly questioned your religion, it doesn't follow that most, or any, other Christians have.

Which, i believe, is part of what laurenrox was saying in the first part of the first post.


Thanks for helping me to clarify that. Smile ...

Indi wrote:
First, "blind faith" is redundant. What is the opposite of "blind faith"? "Faith with reason"? There's no such thing, by the definition of the word faith. If you have a reason to believe something, then you do not believe it through faith.

But the real issue i have is that this puts an impossible demand on the believer. There is no religion anywhere that does not require "blind" faith in order to accept it as true. If there were a religion whose beliefs could be arrived at by reason, then it would be taught in secular schools.

To give an example, suppose there were a religion that claimed that humans are special because they were made in a special foundry by God during creation, whereas the rest of the universe was made in the regular foundry. Would that be taught in a secular school? Absolutely not. It requires "blind" faith to believe it. But now suppose we did some subatomic analysis of the materials that made up the human brain, and found that they all showed some special characteristic that no other matter outside of the human brain showed. Well now we have a reason to believe that humans are special for some reason, and now that will be taught in secular schools.

Because of that, a believer that feels obligated to follow your requirements, and to attempt to formulate a reason for believing in their religion other than "blind" faith will be forced to fabricate reasons, and/or delude themselves about the basis for what they believe. You can see both effects out and about in the world today, actually.


This seems to be the only thing that I disagree with you on thus far. I believe that there is a such a thing as "guided faith". And I know that may seem like a simple contridiction, but I don't believe that it is.
Indi, I'm sure you remember when I took a misguided direction in attempt to explain something and went off in a tangent attempting to explain how unlikely it was that the universe was infinite (only misguided because it was off topic). Think of it this way. We're not entirely sure whether the universe is infinite or not, although there is evidence to support both, possiblely more evidence for one than the other. Whatever we decide on ultimately has to be taken on faith, because there is no DEFINITE proof, reguardless of the evidence that may LEAD us in one direction of the other.
So essientally what I'm saying is this: "blind faith" is belief without looking for and/or needing ANY evidence to support a belief, while "guided faith" is having SOME evidence to lead you to the conclusion. If you choose to accept the evidence that suggests that the universe had a starting point, then you can ultimately come to the conclusion that there is a god that created it, using theory that the universe isn't eternal.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.