NationStates Jolt Archive

How has your religious stance evolved throughout your lifetime?

I've been thinking about this a fair bit lately as I don't really think I qualify as an agnostic very much any more, I think I've moved more towards ignosticism. I don't really think that, if there is a god, no human will a) ever be able to know it and b) never be able to properly describe it (I mean really, what is god supposed to be anyways?). The question has become meaningless and at this point I don't think I care much.

At any rate, here is a simplified version of the evolution of my religous beliefs...
I started out as christian (well, I was sent to church and then in my teens I eventually decided I believed in it). I had a revelation at an altar call where I came to realize that I felt nothing instead of the love of Jesus, so I began to read the Bible, figuring it was something wrong with me and my faith that caused this lack of Jesus. The more I read the Bible, the emptier Christianity felt to me.
I began to explore other religions, I started with European pagan ones, went on to explore native American religions, then on to Buddhism.
I had the closest thing to a religious experience I've ever had after reading a book on Buddhism, I meditated and felt sort of like I was a part of everything... it was rather neat and I've never recaptured this feeling.
I tried to see if anyone had a satisfactory answer to the question "does god exist?" and realized that no one had. I then began to think that perhaps no one ever could know if god exists or not. I figured that the best I could do is live my life and be good to others because this is quite possibly the only life we'll ever have.
For a number of years I qualified myself as an agnostic with buddhist leanings.
More recently, I came to the conclusion that Buddhism had too negative an outlook on life.
In the past month or so, I've reflected on my position on god. I'm not really sure what triggered it, but I don't really think that the question concerning its existence is really meaningful because any definition we give for god is likely to be wrong.

I think I'll still like to participate in religious discussions, they are enjoyable at times, especially if one does not take them at all seriously.

Religion can evolve? Isn't that the greatest oxymoron of our times? :D

Religion can evolve? Isn't that the greatest oxymoron of our times? :D

I came into this thread purely to say "My religious stance was intelligently designed" and you beat me to it on post 2. Grr! :p

How has your religious stance evolved throughout your lifetime?

It has remained as non-existent as always. Nothing is nothing evermore.

Religion can evolve? Isn't that the greatest oxymoron of our times? :D

Yes, religions have lifespans, undergo mutations, and evolve. Funny, isn't it :p
I think the OP is refering to individual spirituality, however.
Me, I was blissfully ignorant, not paying much attention, going to church because Mom made me. At age 12, I heard Jetho Tull's album, Aqualung, which first exposed me to the idea that people had invented religion. At age 15, I read Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet, which turned me on to the idea that spiritual journeys have many paths. I've yet to find anything as inspirational, yet secular. As for now, I'm still journeying . . .

Religion can evolve? Isn't that the greatest oxymoron of our times? :D

Doesn't the Catholic Church frequently change its doctrine to become more PC in order to maintain its membership?

Raised Christian. Of course there's a God.
Some time around 12-14. But wait, how do I know there's a God? How does anyone? Is there a God?
14-16ish. There's no God, it's all just bullshit.
16ish-Some time later. OMG, Flying Spaghetti Monster! Absolute win! *converts*
Some time later-18ish. Wait, how do I know there's no god? I guess I don't
18ish-now. There's no evidence that I've seen that proves the existence of a god, so I'm gonna go right ahead and believe there isn't one. Also, Discordainism is made of lols

Raised Christian. Of course there's a God.
Some time around 12-14. But wait, how do I know there's a God? How does anyone? Is there a God?
14-16ish. There's no God, it's all just bullshit.
16ish-Some time later. OMG, Flying Spaghetti Monster! Absolute win! *converts*
Some time later-18ish. Wait, how do I know there's no god? I guess I don't
18ish-now. There's no evidence that I've seen that proves the existence of a god, so I'm gonna go right ahead and believe there isn't one. Also, Discordainism is made of lols

You do know that Discordianism is a plot by the vampires to make you think they don't exist, right?

Religion can evolve? Isn't that the greatest oxymoron of our times? :D
Well, if you read the Bible, you can see how judaism went from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one. This is especially true if you read about the polytheistic religions from the region.

But yes, I was referring to individual spirituality/stances on religion.

Well, if you read the Bible, you can see how judaism went from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one. This is especially true if you read about the polytheistic religions from the region.You mean, if you read about the bible.

You do know that Discordianism is a plot by the vampires to make you think they don't exist, right?

Yes. Though the leprechauns say the exact same thing about vampirism.

I was born and raised Catholic, converted to Unitarianism, back to catholicism in the army. The priest thing happened so I went back to identifying as a Unitarian/agnostic, did a small stint as a wiccan (it was working for my friends so why not me). I went back to agnostic before falling into athiesm. Now the spiritual compnent in me is dead. Dead dead. I wish it wasn't. I'd like to believe that there's something else out there, but it just doesn't feel right in my gut or my brain or in my heart.

I wish I could believe in something. At least it makes the passage into death easier. it also makes losing friends/family easier. And it doesn't matter that it is a lie. It's not like I'll know the difference once I'm dead.

I've even tried going back to a Unitarian church. It's gone.

You mean, if you read about the bible.
Well, the only part where you have to read about the Bible is the part where the original god was plural (unless you're familiar with ancient hebrew). There is some subtle transition from polytheism to monotheism that still comes through in the translation though.

Jew 1990-2001
2001-2003 Agnostic Jew/Confused
2003-Atheist Jew

I think I have always been rather ambivilant about it. I suppose I did believe when I was younger and it gradually migrated to I don't know either way and I really don't care one way or the other. That said millitant atheism annoys me about as much as millitant theism, have a bit of a live and le live attitude and only really get annoyed at those on either side who can't just let other people believe what they want, but feel the need to bash the beliefs of others and force their own beliefs on them. Although in all honesty I suppose I kind of do that when it comes to evolution and criticising creationist, although that is normally in response to their trying to force those beliefs in to fields of study where they don't belong so maybe not.

Individual religious evolution....
I was raised in a very Catholic environment, that is a traditionally Catholic family without much factual knowledge about Catholicism or Christianity at all. All the knowledge came from Sunday sermons. I was suspicious of their inability to answer fundamental questions from the beginning. I grew more suspicious when at school the religion teachers also couldn't give proper answers to most fundamental questions. The year that a JW was seated next to me in school, was just hilarious. Ignorance really must be bliss. After school I started seriously reading the bible myself and still found many questions unanswered. And in the last 10 years I've been reading all kinds of ancient texts from those times that the bible tells about. And I came to the conclusion that biblical authors pulled the entire theological aspects of the bible out of their butts as long as the accounts of what people believed in ancient times. In the last 2 years I shared my office with a Rastafarian and I experienced again how little (intelligence) it takes to set up a religion. And now I've returned to NSG and annoy folks adhering to abrahamic religions.

Well, the only part where you have to read about the Bible is the part where the original god was plural (unless you're familiar with ancient hebrew). There is some subtle transition from polytheism to monotheism that still comes through in the translation though.I have the Tanakh in Hebrew as mp3 ;) and I have a very rudimentary understanding of the language structure. I'm reading along while I listen (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm).
I am well aware of the linguistic remnants of polytheism in the bible. However, in most cases "Elohim" is explained by "scholars" as a majestic plural...

I have the Tanakh in Hebrew as mp3 ;) and I have a very rudimentary understanding of the language structure. I'm reading along while I listen (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm).
I am well aware of the linguistic remnants of polytheism in the bible. However, in most cases "Elohim" is explained by "scholars" as a majestic plural...
So it's just a coincidence that Elohim is also a pantheon of gods that include jehovah and baal?

You cant evolve religiously, unless you have your own religion.

You can evolve spiritualy.

So it's just a coincidence that Elohim is also a pantheon of gods that include yah and baal?The Elohim are not a pantheon. They are part of a pantheon.
and what coincidence do you ask for?

Doesn't the Catholic Church frequently change its doctrine to become more PC in order to maintain its membership?

It's funny, all the time I see the Church getting criticized for not changing its doctrine to fit what people want.

As for me:
Raised Catholic and went to church because I had to -> semi-agnosticism -> Catholic because I want to be.

You mean, if you read about the bible.

No - it's there in all guises... in the Hebrew, you can read about plural gods in Genesis, but even in English you can find references to 'god of gods' or Jehovah standing before the gods.

How has your religious stance evolved throughout your lifetime?

I've been thinking about this a fair bit lately as I don't really think I qualify as an agnostic very much any more, I think I've moved more towards ignosticism. I don't really think that, if there is a god, no human will a) ever be able to know it and b) never be able to properly describe it (I mean really, what is god supposed to be anyways?). The question has become meaningless and at this point I don't think I care much.

At any rate, here is a simplified version of the evolution of my religous beliefs...
I started out as christian (well, I was sent to church and then in my teens I eventually decided I believed in it). I had a revelation at an altar call where I came to realize that I felt nothing instead of the love of Jesus, so I began to read the Bible, figuring it was something wrong with me and my faith that caused this lack of Jesus. The more I read the Bible, the emptier Christianity felt to me.
I began to explore other religions, I started with European pagan ones, went on to explore native American religions, then on to Buddhism.
I had the closest thing to a religious experience I've ever had after reading a book on Buddhism, I meditated and felt sort of like I was a part of everything... it was rather neat and I've never recaptured this feeling.
I tried to see if anyone had a satisfactory answer to the question "does god exist?" and realized that no one had. I then began to think that perhaps no one ever could know if god exists or not. I figured that the best I could do is live my life and be good to others because this is quite possibly the only life we'll ever have.
For a number of years I qualified myself as an agnostic with buddhist leanings.
More recently, I came to the conclusion that Buddhism had too negative an outlook on life.
In the past month or so, I've reflected on my position on god. I'm not really sure what triggered it, but I don't really think that the question concerning its existence is really meaningful because any definition we give for god is likely to be wrong.

I think I'll still like to participate in religious discussions, they are enjoyable at times, especially if one does not take them at all seriously.

I started nowhere, but now if I was forced to convert to any religion at all, I'd become a Buddhist. (Relyc, I'm trying to work on the nut-kicking thing)

I went to a catholic school from kindergarten till 8th grade. my family, though, never really went to church so I never was really religious. maybe around 7th or 8th grade I definitely had renounced religion. at least christianity. now I don't really believe in god or any religion.

hey you guys wanna know something that was REALLY annoying about going to catholic school? every freaking year we had to write a letter to our parents thanking them for sending us there. oh god was that a painful forgery: "I like it here cuz we get to say the rosary every day" LOL!

Started out "believing" in as much as a child can believe in something, in the Hindu gods, specifically what I suppose you might call the "patron deity" of my subcaste, Shankar. We venerated the others on their holidays, but mostly we prayed to that fellow when we went to the Mandir (which was blissfully rare.)

I gradually, as I began to get to know the other religions and atheism (my parents are very liberal when it comes to faith, they believe all Gods are the same God worshipped in different forms, and were very hands-off when it came to mine and my sister's spiritual upbringing) I realized that Hinduism, instead of the somewhat ideal religion I had thought it to be was A: frighteningly flawed in many irreconcilable ways (I was then and still am an egalitarian, and the caste system was an affront to that belief that my lingering faith could not withstand) and B: More of a way of life than a religion.

One of the wonderful things about Hinduism is that unlike the Abrahmic religions, morality and the deities are uncoupled. The Good is held to be a fundamental property of the universe alongside Evil, and not something up to the whim of any God. And yet, or perhaps because of this, religious law is subject to quick change with changing times, because the underlying principles of morality are not thought to be wholly codified in a single text, but rather spread out through multiple interpretations that need not all be correct.

Sorry for the aside.

I spent most of Freshman year in high school in a sort of limbo between faiths, until I met a friend of mine and learned about agnosticism. The more I read the more I realized it applied, and somewhere around Junior year I began to self identify as agnostic. My parents still think I'm a Hindu, and I do still pray to the Hindu Gods when they do at festivals and holidays, but more out of respect for their beliefs (as I am under their roof. I have similarly kept silent at Grace when visiting my room mate and his family) than out of faith.

I don't think there's much more to it, and I daresay few of you have probably read this micro-essay, but that's my evolution there for you.

No - it's there in all guises... in the Hebrew, you can read about plural gods in Genesis, but even in English you can find references to 'god of gods' or Jehovah standing before the gods.However, that's not the official interpretation of the text. They interpret gods as angels, or Elohim as majestic plural for one god, and so forth. Or do you want to imply that Judaism and subsequently Christianity and Islam are not monotheistic religions? Or that Judaism admits to being really a polytheistic religion that only pretends to be monotheistic?

However, that's not the official interpretation of the text. They interpret gods as angels, or Elohim as majestic plural for one god, and so forth. Or do you want to imply that Judaism and subsequently Christianity and Islam are not monotheistic religions? Or that Judaism admits to being really a polytheistic religion that only pretends to be monotheistic?

A chorus of voices, lilting and harmonic in measured union drifted down from above us. Looking up we caught sight of the myriad shapely forms and shapeless wonders that spread out in the long procession of creation and danced their dance eternal in the hearts and souls of all mankind. And we knew them, they who were many and one, and they knew us, all of us. And as we looked upon them we came to the wondrous, awesome knowledge deep within us that we stood looking upon the countenance of the Increate.

However, that's not the official interpretation of the text. They interpret gods as angels, or Elohim as majestic plural for one god, and so forth. Or do you want to imply that Judaism and subsequently Christianity and Islam are not monotheistic religions? Or that Judaism admits to being really a polytheistic religion that only pretends to be monotheistic?

Christianity isn't monotheistic. The point at which some adherents of Judaism allowed the theology to include the concept of duality, Judeo-Christian religion became polytheistic again.

But the important distinction is - I'm talking about the text - which is a collection of words written over (literally) millenia, and you are talking about 'received' versions.

Christianity isn't monotheistic. The point at which some adherents of Judaism allowed the theology to include the concept of duality, Judeo-Christian religion became polytheistic again.
Surely, though, their belief is that there is no duality in entity, and only duality in terms of instances of this entity?

I used to be a hardcore atheist, denouncing the faith of others. However, I've softened with time. To be honnest I don't care any more. It's not a vital part of my life whether I believe or not.

Mu understanding is that during hard times people look to others for support. That can be your mother, your father, your siblings, your children, your friends, your partner, your pet (dog), or even your god if you choose to follow a religion.

No one can rely on themselves day in day out without the ocassional support others.

So I don't judge where people get their support from. But as soon as you try to regulate the lives of others because of your own religious viewpoint then I shove my libertarian views down your throat and charge you for the convenience.

Surely, though, their belief is that there is no duality in entity, and only duality in terms of instances of this entity?
:p you're talking like the Renault guys who I had to explain a data model to last week... entities, instances, occurrences, compositions...

Surely, though, their belief is that there is no duality in entity, and only duality in terms of instances of this entity?

Hmmm, I'm not sure what you mean.

If one examines how 'good' and 'evil' are considered in the earliest texts, Jehovah is shown to be the root of both good AND evil... he is the 'all-creator'. It can still be found in the texts, even in the Greek Scriptures.

But, at some point, scholars started deciding that HaSatan was an enemy of Jehovah, rather than a servant of the Throne. They granted him a degree of 'free will' not previously existent in his job description, and made him an actual opponent of the order. This is certainly concretised in the last books of the Greek scripture - suggesting that all aspects of 'evil' have been one entity, and that that one entity is actually capable of 'warring' with the One City. they seem to miss the implications of that assertion. (That 'war' is more than any other entity might manage, that 'war' is an actual conflict, rather than mere free agency).

Latter Judaism, and most Christianity treats 'Satan' as an 'adversary' to 'god'. Though they don't like to admit it, this forms a functional duality.

Is that the same polytheism of ancient Mesopotamia and Syria from which Yah was cut out and merged with El, Asherah, Baal, and a few others to form the biblical god?


Yes. And no. It rather depends on what you think a 'god' means. If you believe we are talking about 'real' entities, then - perhaps. If you think we are talking subjective cultural custom... not really.


Of course. The Bible constantly mentions other gods, but always with the premise that those are not "real" gods but false gods, idols. If you just consider the text as such, then you need to take into account that most of the texts that contain passages with polytheistic wording are not of Jewish or Israelite origin in the first place. They were only incorporated into the Tanakh and edited and streamlined to fit the Jewish theology of the time. And obviously the job wasn't doen too well.

Not strictly true... Psalms 97 does mention idols, but "all gods bow down before you" implies something other than a mere statue...

And, Psalm 82 doesn't even suggest 'idols' - although it does suggest that 'other gods' are either the creations of Jehovah..... or that both Jehovah and the 'other gods' are all children of some higher being...

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods... I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

In my late teenage years, I realized a lot of people actually do give a shit about religion, so I tried to read up on the more popular ones and engage some religious people. That affirmed my belief that religion's basically just a kind of silly narcissism, and that overly religious people are cracked. So I spend a short while trying to make them aware of it. Short, because I soon realized it was so pointless that it could only be considered my own little weird form of narcissism.

After having not given a shit about it for a while, I found myself having numerous religious friends, and a strange sort of pseudo-daddy relationship with an Imam (of all things). And meanwhile, superstition, especially the orthodox kind, seems to have exploded all around me.

So these days, I find myself in the strange situation of loving a bunch of fairly religious people dearly, while religious people are one of the worst things I can think of. Funny how people can handle their superstitions so incredibly differently. But at least it's taught me that there's two kinds of submissive people in the world. The ones that want to submit me (or want to see me submit anyway), and the ones who that notion horrifies (just as it does me). And while the former will always be an enemy of mine, the latter's - at most - none of my damn business.

So quit hoping I'll convert, quit wanting me to observe your self-imposed creed, and quit telling me X loves and/or hates me. You're hoping I'll forsake my God/gods/Star Goat/circumstance given free will you tossers. That's about as nice as hoping I'll suffer massive braindamage.

Christianity isn't monotheistic. The point at which some adherents of Judaism allowed the theology to include the concept of duality, Judeo-Christian religion became polytheistic again.Is that the same polytheism of ancient Mesopotamia and Syria from which Yah was cut out and merged with El, Asherah, Baal, and a few others to form the biblical god?

But the important distinction is - I'm talking about the text - which is a collection of words written over (literally) millenia, and you are talking about 'received' versions.Of course. The Bible constantly mentions other gods, but always with the premise that those are not "real" gods but false gods, idols. If you just consider the text as such, then you need to take into account that most of the texts that contain passages with polytheistic wording are not of Jewish or Israelite origin in the first place. They were only incorporated into the Tanakh and edited and streamlined to fit the Jewish theology of the time. And obviously the job wasn't done too well.

I was an atheist for a brief time; called myself agnostic when I was 11; didn't care until I was 18 when I started going to church again.

Dakini's Hot...







What? She is!

Religion can evolve? Isn't that the greatest oxymoron of our times? :D

Beleive it or not I've read an article in Newsweek about how Fundamentalism "evolved" to fight the evolutionists which were according to the article the first challenge for them to adapt to.

Catholic, then agnostic, then atheist, then agnostic, then pagan, then agnostic, then agnostic theist, then deist, then agnostic, and now...

Scientific humanist.

Honestly, that's the best thing I can think of; I keep an open mind on God, but don't believe in him at present due to a lack of evidence and/or a lack of understanding which precludes affirmative belief until we've reached a higher level of potential as a species. I subject my beliefs to empirical rigor as much as possible, but also keep an open mind on new explanations and new theories that might one day be capable of testing the "God hypothesis". I'm not a fan of the term "atheist" because it really doesn't fit what I believe; my position is too fluid for a definitive stance like that.

That in turn influences my support of transhumanism, which I see as a necessary and vital step in unraveling the mysteries of the universe and discovering our own potential to shape this universe (or ones we create ourselves), which in turn will give us understanding of the possible intelligences that created ours. So, we really do find God in (or more accurately, through) technology.

Protestant, then atheist, then agnostic, then agnostic spiritualist, then agnostic theist. Then last October-November I was introduced to "construct awareness (http://psyc.queensu.ca/~irwinr/psyc250/Cook-Greuter.htm)" and that pushed me over into spiritual agnostic.

Started out Jewish, had the unquestioning faith of a child.

Lost it early on, became an atheist.

A number of events, one of the more crucial being reading Milton Steinberg's As A Driven Leaf, lead to a return to faith in Judaism - this time, more serious and thought out.

The philosophical problems multiplied, however, and ultimatedly I abandoned it again and became an atheist.

I was born and raised Catholic, converted to Unitarianism, back to catholicism in the army. The priest thing happened so I went back to identifying as a Unitarian/agnostic, did a small stint as a wiccan (it was working for my friends so why not me). I went back to agnostic before falling into athiesm. Now the spiritual compnent in me is dead. Dead dead. I wish it wasn't. I'd like to believe that there's something else out there, but it just doesn't feel right in my gut or my brain or in my heart.

I wish I could believe in something. At least it makes the passage into death easier. it also makes losing friends/family easier. And it doesn't matter that it is a lie. It's not like I'll know the difference once I'm dead.

I've even tried going back to a Unitarian church. It's gone.

There is something, the difference between being alive and dead. It is this life force, and my curiousity, that I have faith in :)

You cant evolve religiously, unless you have your own religion.

You can evolve spiritualy.

But isn't everyone's religion neccessarily their own? Isn't it like taking a bath? No one can believe for you ;)

In my late teenage years, I realized a lot of people actually do give a shit about religion, so I tried to read up on the more popular ones and engage some religious people. That affirmed my belief that religion's basically just a kind of silly narcissism, and that overly religious people are cracked. So I spend a short while trying to make them aware of it. Short, because I soon realized it was so pointless that it could only be considered my own little weird form of narcissism.

After having not given a shit about it for a while, I found myself having numerous religious friends, and a strange sort of pseudo-daddy relationship with an Imam (of all things). And meanwhile, superstition, especially the orthodox kind, seems to have exploded all around me.

So these days, I find myself in the strange situation of loving a bunch of fairly religious people dearly, while religious people are one of the worst things I can think of. Funny how people can handle their superstitions so incredibly differently. But at least it's taught me that there's two kinds of submissive people in the world. The ones that want to submit me (or want to see me submit anyway), and the ones who that notion horrifies (just as it does me). And while the former will always be an enemy of mine, the latter's - at most - none of my damn business.

So quit hoping I'll convert, quit wanting me to observe your self-imposed creed, and quit telling me X loves and/or hates me. You're hoping I'll forsake my God/gods/Star Goat/circumstance given free will you tossers. That's about as nice as hoping I'll suffer massive braindamage.

I'm kinda the same way about dogs. I dislike the general idea of dogs, but individually, I like them just fine. Go figure :p

up to my early teen's, agnostic Catholic.
started questioning things, found the bible to be bunk.

spent years as an atheist/agnostic.
Starting questioning again. Things like "where did all the matter in the Universe come from?" and "can complex life simply arise by accident?"

Started learning about Islam, and how miraculous the Qur'an was and how in reality it could only have come from God.

Understood that to say all the matter in the universe came from absolutely nothing or was always there is just as much as a faith position as to say God has always been there.

Became Muslim and haven't looked back.

thats the condensed version.

Catholic, then agnostic, then atheist, then agnostic, then pagan, then agnostic, then agnostic theist, then deist, then agnostic, and now...

Scientific humanist.

Honestly, that's the best thing I can think of; I keep an open mind on God, but don't believe in him at present due to a lack of evidence and/or a lack of understanding which precludes affirmative belief until we've reached a higher level of potential as a species. I subject my beliefs to empirical rigor as much as possible, but also keep an open mind on new explanations and new theories that might one day be capable of testing the "God hypothesis". I'm not a fan of the term "atheist" because it really doesn't fit what I believe; my position is too fluid for a definitive stance like that.

That in turn influences my support of transhumanism, which I see as a necessary and vital step in unraveling the mysteries of the universe and discovering our own potential to shape this universe (or ones we create ourselves), which in turn will give us understanding of the possible intelligences that created ours. So, we really do find God in (or more accurately, through) technology.
Right on, Vet! *begins chanting the Holy Ohm*

I'm kinda the same way about dogs. I dislike the general idea of dogs, but individually, I like them just fine. Go figure :pConsidering I'm marrying one, and value my life, I better not comment :p

Considering I'm marrying one, and value my life, I better not comment :p

:confused:

I started reading about spirituality and religion at a very young age, it has always been an interest to me, even though my parents are traditional Christians. My mom was a sunday school teacher, and my dad was an deacon in the very small Methodist church we went to. She let me explore my own beliefs and philosophy, and I didnt have any other family members who influenced me other than when i found out I was interested in Buddhism I discovered my uncle was Buddhist.

I have sort of combined everything. I have retained my belief in Jesus Christ, as an Avatar of God on Earth, but I have a very interfaith view of everything. My Hindu Guru has recently actually strengthed my belief in Jesus Christ, and admiration. In my household I have pictures of Jesus, of my Guru, and of Mother Mary, Vodoun Haitian gods, among other things.

12 - Inquiring Christian
13-14 Wiccan/Spiritualism
15-16 Mysticism with Buddhist tendencies
17 to 20s - Interfaith Spiritual Mysticism* with Hindu Guru
Today - Interfaith Spiritual Mysticism* with Hindu Guru





*Interfaith Spiritual Mysticism, not sure if its a real phrase but it is how I describe myself here though I generally just say "Spiritual". Interfaith in that I draw from several faiths. I read books and admire Catholic Saints on mysticism, Buddhist Teachers (particularly Zen), Sikhism, Vodoun (Voodoo), Esoteric, etc. Mysticism in that I choose a more inner path of meditation, reflection, and finding the Divine within. Hindu Guru in that I have received a mantra, and met my Guru (Spiritual Teacher) who also teaches a very interfaith message of Universal Love, Service, Respect, Ethics, etc. I am not Hindu however because I do not really know all of the rituals and such of the priests, or practice Puja, etc. I follow more the Vedic side.

:confused:Was a dodgy way of saying I wouldn't like to imply people I care about are dogs ;)

Small naive child Catholic -> Suspicious small naive child Catholic -> Cynical teenage atheist

I was originally raised to "fear God" and goto church, although when i did go, i never could stay awake. Then I became saved as a Christian in 2001. And actually, it was for the wrong reasons, but I attribute that year as the first year I was a "christian". Well, a few years later, i started dabbling in Islam a little bit, and for a few days, about 3 or 4 I considered myself a Muslim. But then, I had an experience that convinced me that I was going down the path to hell. After going around and around with my faith, and trying to figure out where I stand, I was baptised and was ready to go in to the ministry, and then I lost faith for a while. this was right before I came to Uni. When I came here, i went to church, and participated, but I was not really into it. I was really empty inside. Again, I dabbled in Islam once more, but after flirting with christian "heretical" beliefs. Then I went to this retreat not too long ago, and it cemented in my heart that Christ was the only way. It totally changed me inside. I realized i was being selfish in my quest to find truth. I am now going rather strong in the direction of Christianity.

I find it wierd how a lot of people that have become agnostic/ignostic/atheist started out as catholics.

I find it wierd how a lot of people that have become agnostic/ignostic/atheist started out as catholics.Ignostic? Sounds like an insult.

I find it weird how a lot of people that have become agnostic/ignostic/atheist started out as catholics.That may have to do with the way how Catholicism is practiced and how the Catholic church is organized. And Catholicism is much clearer in its teachings and positions than are those of the uncounted Protestant groups, so it is easier to be against those teachings and positions.

I find it wierd how a lot of people that have become agnostic/ignostic/atheist started out as catholics.

I suspect it's mainly becuase Catholicism proudly declares it's adherence to 'traditions', while the Protestant groups have just as many of them, but pass them on as kind of 'unwritten laws'.

It is easy to rebel against the Catholic 'traditions', because they are so omnipresent, yet not scriptural. The Protestant ones (while also being largely extrapolations or leaps-of-faith), are less obvious - and thus, less likely to cause rebellion.

I suspect it's mainly becuase Catholicism proudly declares it's adherence to 'traditions', while the Protestant groups have just as many of them, but pass them on as kind of 'unwritten laws'.

It is easy to rebel against the Catholic 'traditions', because they are so omnipresent, yet not scriptural. The Protestant ones (while also being largely extrapolations or leaps-of-faith), are less obvious - and thus, less likely to cause rebellion.However, many Catholic traditions have been elaborately described in writings issued by the church, such as papal encyclicae or or many other publications of individuals bishops. So for any Catholic tradition you will probably find a text on it that gives a theological explanation and/or justification.

However, many Catholic traditions have been elaborately described in writings issued by the church, such as papal encyclicae or or many other publications of individuals bishops. So for any Catholic tradition you will probably find a text on it that gives a theological explanation and/or justification.

Theological does not equate to scriptural.

Theological does not equate to scriptural.Mostly it does. Those folks are pretty knowledgeable of 'scripture'. And I am told that it is possible to find support in 'scripture' for anything.

Religion can evolve? Isn't that the greatest oxymoron of our times? :D

not particularly. now atheism evolving, that would be amusing.

Doesn't the Catholic Church frequently change its doctrine to become more PC in order to maintain its membership?

frequently? not really, no.

Well, if you read the Bible, you can see how judaism went from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one. This is especially true if you read about the polytheistic religions from the region.

But yes, I was referring to individual spirituality/stances on religion.

technically they went from Henotheism to Monotheism.


Started out "believing" in as much as a child can believe in something, in the Hindu gods, specifically what I suppose you might call the "patron deity" of my subcaste, Shankar. We venerated the others on their holidays, but mostly we prayed to that fellow when we went to the Mandir (which was blissfully rare.)

I gradually, as I began to get to know the other religions and atheism (my parents are very liberal when it comes to faith, they believe all Gods are the same God worshipped in different forms, and were very hands-off when it came to mine and my sister's spiritual upbringing) I realized that Hinduism, instead of the somewhat ideal religion I had thought it to be was A: frighteningly flawed in many irreconcilable ways (I was then and still am an egalitarian, and the caste system was an affront to that belief that my lingering faith could not withstand) and B: More of a way of life than a religion.

One of the wonderful things about Hinduism is that unlike the Abrahmic religions, morality and the deities are uncoupled. The Good is held to be a fundamental property of the universe alongside Evil, and not something up to the whim of any God. And yet, or perhaps because of this, religious law is subject to quick change with changing times, because the underlying principles of morality are not thought to be wholly codified in a single text, but rather spread out through multiple interpretations that need not all be correct.

Sorry for the aside.

I spent most of Freshman year in high school in a sort of limbo between faiths, until I met a friend of mine and learned about agnosticism. The more I read the more I realized it applied, and somewhere around Junior year I began to self identify as agnostic. My parents still think I'm a Hindu, and I do still pray to the Hindu Gods when they do at festivals and holidays, but more out of respect for their beliefs (as I am under their roof. I have similarly kept silent at Grace when visiting my room mate and his family) than out of faith.

I don't think there's much more to it, and I daresay few of you have probably read this micro-essay, but that's my evolution there for you.

what about Sri Basavana? the Lingayat Saivites were anti-caste 900 years ago. he refused to participate in the sacred thread ceremony because women couldn't - he married Dalits to Kshatriyas - they're still one of the largest movements within Hinduism. Caste (which was *not* hereditary origionally) is no more fundamental to Hinduism than the Feudal System is to Christianity.

as far as it being more a way of life than a religion - I'd have to disagree. no one in my family and very very few of my friends are Hindus, I live to a large degree in secular american culture, though I have adopted (independent of my conversion to Hinduism, I might add) a few things like vegetarianism...it's quite possible to be a Hindu and not subscribe 100% to Indian culture.

I started reading about spirituality and religion at a very young age, it has always been an interest to me, even though my parents are traditional Christians. My mom was a sunday school teacher, and my dad was an deacon in the very small Methodist church we went to. She let me explore my own beliefs and philosophy, and I didnt have any other family members who influenced me other than when i found out I was interested in Buddhism I discovered my uncle was Buddhist.

I have sort of combined everything. I have retained my belief in Jesus Christ, as an Avatar of God on Earth, but I have a very interfaith view of everything. My Hindu Guru has recently actually strengthed my belief in Jesus Christ, and admiration. In my household I have pictures of Jesus, of my Guru, and of Mother Mary, Vodoun Haitian gods, among other things.

12 - Inquiring Christian
13-14 Wiccan/Spiritualism
15-16 Mysticism with Buddhist tendencies
17 to 20s - Interfaith Spiritual Mysticism* with Hindu Guru
Today - Interfaith Spiritual Mysticism* with Hindu Guru





*Interfaith Spiritual Mysticism, not sure if its a real phrase but it is how I describe myself here though I generally just say "Spiritual". Interfaith in that I draw from several faiths. I read books and admire Catholic Saints on mysticism, Buddhist Teachers (particularly Zen), Sikhism, Vodoun (Voodoo), Esoteric, etc. Mysticism in that I choose a more inner path of meditation, reflection, and finding the Divine within. Hindu Guru in that I have received a mantra, and met my Guru (Spiritual Teacher) who also teaches a very interfaith message of Universal Love, Service, Respect, Ethics, etc. I am not Hindu however because I do not really know all of the rituals and such of the priests, or practice Puja, etc. I follow more the Vedic side.

we'd most definitely get along, you sound a lot like me.

--

as for myself, my parents are evangelical christian "missionaries", they work for a non-profit "christian" organization, and that's how I was raised. when I was 14 or 15, though, I realized it was full of shit and left, swearing strict atheism. however the philosophy I developed on my own was an atheistic monism that had several metaphysical peculiarities found only in dharmic religions. I had a few rather startling religious experiences...a full blown religious vision when I was still a strict atheist, though it took me several months to accept that I hadn't hallucinated or anything. (I've never used or abused any substances...I don't even like to use headache medicine, and was on nothing at all at the time) - after that I got increasingly interested in the occult, and started to systemically experiment along the lines of Kardecian spiritualism. for a short while I considered myself a wiccan during this period, but as most of the other wiccans were a bit too fluffy for me (they were accepting things they'd read in books rather than testing them, and a large number of them were just teenagers in their rebellious period) I stopped fairly quickly and started at real, ancient, continuously practiced religions...wicca borrows from many, but is essentially less than 100 years old. during this period I got in touch with an initiated priest of Candomblé, a syncretic, pantheistic, afro-brazilian faith, and from him learned much about west african folk religion in the americas. unfortunately Candomblé, being authentic, is not set up in a way you can practice it in isolation. as both Candomblieros and Hindus see all deities as demi-gods, or manifestations of one universal truth, I've taken enthusiastically to Hinduism for the time I'm in college, until I can participate more actively in the highly social, oral tradition of Candomblé. Hinduism is very similar, and has the benefit of a vibrant material culture (I love the clothing, architecture, food, music, and dance), and one I can read about and participate in while I'm stuck in college. when I'm back in the big city I plan on getting involved in Candomblé, as well as attending Hindu, Sufi muslim, and probably Anglo-Catholic religious events as well. none of these represent *conversions*, as my primary philosophy is Monistic Theism, and both Candomblé and the various Hindu sects are quite happily syncretic, and have been for their entire histories. as a monist, the non-dogmatic and highly mystical Sufis will fit in with my beliefs as well...at least, I approve of all of their practices, though I don't expect it to go the same way (though Western Sufis in particular are not prone to being judgmental)...and the Anglo-Catholics I just visit for the music and the style. (the Church of Saint Mary the Virgin in Times Square, NYC is incredible - the choir is mind blowing and they use lots of incense and beautiful ritual...all the flair of old-school Catholicism with all the tolerance, academic integrity, and liberality of the Anglican communion) - right now I introduce myself as a Hindu (I lean Saivite, I love the teachings of Sri Basavana - an early egalitarian Saivite saint), and when I move back to NYC after college I'll probably introduce myself as Candombliero or Hindu, depending on who I'm talking to. I'll probably get involved with the social work of the liberal Quakers, as well, who are also extremely mystical, non-dogmatic, and compassionate people. I don't really see them as mutually exclusive in the least:

"I say that all are calling on the same God...it is not good to feel that my religion is true and the other religions are false. All seek the same object. A mother prepares dishes to suit the stomachs of her children....God has made religions to suit different aspirants, times and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths."

Mostly it does. Those folks are pretty knowledgeable of 'scripture'. And I am told that it is possible to find support in 'scripture' for anything.

Just like the episode of south park about the Catholic Molestation of little boys. :D


http://sjl-static15.sjl.youtube.com/vi/y5JzcT0exZI/2.jpg
"The Catholic Boat's gonna be headin' on out today.
The Catholic Boat. Time to throw all your cares away.
Get some hot Christian action; it'll make you gay".

Might as well, I suppose.

I was born into a fundamentalistic Christian household. My mother's family may have been fundamentalistic, but they were not evangelical, except in the sense that they tried to live their lives in a loving and generous manner. They succeeded on an astoundingly regular basis. They never molested or abused me, never pushed me into religion, were always patient and kind and generous with what little they had. (We lived in poverty, and sometimes my mother did not have enough food to supply me and my siblings with regular meals.)

My biological father, on the other hand, did abuse both me and my mother. He was also a devout fundamentalistic Christian, though of a different local church. My initial upbringing was mostly quite pleasant despite this, and the abuse I received didn't have the kind of debilitating effect on me that it has on some people I've known, perhaps because I had a loving family on my mother's side to mitigate the potential problems of abuse.

I got to see Christians being true to their beliefs, and I got to see one not being true to them up close and personal.

My mother divorced her abusive spouse after a few short years of marriage and remarried perhaps a year and a half later. My stepfather was Catholic, and eventually I was comfortable enough with him to attend a Catholic service. It was weird, but the same scriptures were being read and taught from, so I figured it was alright, though I still preferred my mother's church where there was more of a lively (though still equally reverent) atmosphere. They were also both scientists, which helped unify them in the way they handled things.

I never really did much thinking about my religion during these years, just a lot of reading of the Bible and enjoying the stories. My family was Christian, and they were really good people that I wanted to emulate, and that was enough for me to want to be Christian too.

Then my mother and stepfather moved away to a large city. I found myself dealing with people who weren't loving, patient, and generous. There were a lot of people like this. My pre-teen and early teen years were full of experiences of violence and fear and racism and religious bigotry. There were a wide variety of religions being practiced in the area (Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc.), but believers of all these religions, as well as those who had no religion, seemed just as prone to being drug addicts and criminals and bigots as anyone else. Such glorious equality of iniquity there was.

I learned then that no system of belief guaranteed goodness, that neither religion nor the lack thereof was the ingredient for evil.

As a result of being confronted with the evils of the world, I started doing a lot of questioning during these pre-teen and teen years about the "why" and "how" behind my religion. I read the Bible more intensely, no longer just enjoying the stories, but looking for answers. I found some answers, but they were mostly metaphorical and in many cases simply unsatisfying. Around this time, my faith started shaking rather seriously, though initially I just shrugged it off and didn't worry about it. I kept attending religious services faithfully, I just read more and learned more and started getting into science. I even won a couple science fair competitions, enjoyed the lab work in my science classes. I started seeing concrete answers to my questions about reality.

And that's when I started to feel a need for intellectual justification and scientific explanation for religious beliefs and phenomena. I wanted a more intellectual, rational belief system that was generally compatible with science. I ended up becoming Catholic for those reasons, though I'm sure some of you will snicker at the idea of Catholicism being rational or compatible with science. I enjoyed my revised belief system, and I found my life being deeper, more meaningful, and integrated.

In my teen years, I had several powerful spiritual experiences that I just couldn't explain materially, though I certainly tried repeatedly. I tried so hard to convince myself that I had been fooled or tricked that I ultimately had to admit to myself that it was scaring me because I was afraid of the implications of either such a non-tangible force of love and peace and a non-tangible force of hate and discord actually existing. Previously, the greater powers of good and evil had been quite abstract, rather distant from my reality. But now, they were knocking on my doorstep and asking to come in. So I clung more tightly to Catholicism, partially because the good and evil I had experienced could be made to fit nicely into a Catholic worldview, and partially because I needed to feel secure in at least one area of my life.

When I went off to a university in a much less dangerous urban environment, I took both my faith in science and my faith in God with me. I encountered many new ideas and expanded my mind significantly in many ways. My entire belief system was re-examined thoroughly and at a basic level, and some serious changes were made. I had to admit that I didn't really know anything, including whether or not I really existed in something approximating how I understood myself. I started understanding my own limitations.

I abandoned belief in God my second year of classes, deciding that as much as I had benefitted from my faith, it just was not rational or scientific. I was certainly right about it not being rational or scientific.

My second-to-last year of classes held four major psychological crises for me. As a result, I ended up once again tearing down my belief system and trying to build a new, much sturdier one. I became more interested in logic and science, and the more I studied both, the more I realized that they were no better off than God and religion. So what was I supposed to believe? All my alternatives were ultimately unsatisfactory and highly problematic.

Nihilism seemed to be the clear answer, but I ended up being too much of a pragmatist to hold on to it for long. I had a bit of a "Eureka" moment with the realization that I was too much of a pragmatist, and decided that I would base my belief system on pragmatism. I also decided that while neither religion nor logic nor science was satisfying by itself, they all had elements that were of value, and I would incorporate each of them into my belief system and integrate them all.

But which religion was I to choose? I was of the opinion that all religions had some measure of truth in them, and I had a decent level familiarity with all of them by this point. Buddhism and Catholicism looked like fairly practical options for me (Hinduism and animism were highly appealing for many reasons but less practical). They both had a depth of tradition and intellectualism and basic truth that appealed to me and they could both be integrated with my logic and science. They both offered me the opportunity to do good work in my larger community and would provide me with a support network.

Catholicism was my choice because, at least where I live, it's the religion that needs the most help becoming a healthy religion (in some other areas Catholicism is quite healthy, and in some it is most assuredly not) as well as being the religion that helps me relate best to my family and a fair number of my friends.

So I was back to believing in God and being a devoutly religious person (I stopped ignoring my previous spiritual experiences), but with far more humility and depth than before.

But the journey doesn't end there. More recently, I started to notice science having a lot of the characteristics of a religion. Disturbingly so. Part of me would still very much like to believe that science is not a religion, that it is something different and better. But because I have trained myself to look at the evidence and face it rather than ignoring it, I've had to admit to myself that it is at the very least becoming a religion, albeit a multi-path non-spiritual religion, which is why it is able to cohere so well with so many belief systems.

So in the end, I have two religions that I've grown up with and have great respect for and understand the limitations of. But in both cases, I've ended up with the same general religions as my parents. Typical, really, since most of us end up having the same religion as our parents.

Perhaps individual religious evolution isn't in the end the process of becoming something new, but of becoming even more fully what we are and ought to be.

But the journey doesn't end there. More recently, I started to notice science having a lot of the characteristics of a religion. Disturbingly so. Part of me would still very much like to believe that science is not a religion, that it is something different and better. But because I have trained myself to look at the evidence and face it rather than ignoring it, I've had to admit to myself that it is at the very least becoming a religion, albeit a multi-path non-spiritual religion, which is why it is able to cohere so well with so many belief systems.

Science isn't a religion. There are those who treat it that way, but that is because they want it to be something it is not - to give them something it doesn't have - certainty.

Science is a logical school of thought - a tool for examining observed phenomena, and trying to work out their mechanisms.

It isn't 'becoming' a religion, either... although some religious people have tried to co-opt it. I think you are confusing the lay-belief of some people 'wow! Science can do anything!' with what science is really about, and for.

Science isn't a religion. There are those who treat it that way, but that is because they want it to be something it is not - to give them something it doesn't have - certainty.

Science is a logical school of thought - a tool for examining observed phenomena, and trying to work out their mechanisms.

It isn't 'becoming' a religion, either... although some religious people have tried to co-opt it. I think you are confusing the lay-belief of some people 'wow! Science can do anything!' with what science is really about, and for.

Ah, I see. So even though the lay people may believe in the absolute efficacy of science and believe the writings of scientists, though they may believe that science will ultimately give them all the answers they need, the ones who've really studied it and are deep in it's methods are aware of its problems and simply accept that science, while imperfect, is a great tool to use for a variety of reasons.

Are you seriously not aware that most developed religions experience this same phenomena of the average believer having more faith in their approach, while more educated believers tend to understand its very real limitations and simply accept them?

Ah, I see. So even though the lay people may believe in the absolute efficacy of science and believe the writings of scientists, though they may believe that science will ultimately give them all the answers they need, the ones who've really studied it and are deep in it's methods are aware of its problems and simply accept that science, while imperfect, is a great tool to use for a variety of reasons.

Are you seriously not aware that most developed religions experience this same phenomena of the average believer having more faith in their approach, while more educated believers tend to understand its very real limitations and simply accept them?

But you are comparing apples and oranges.... nay, apples and space-hoppers.

Religions deal in certainty - whether you are the lay-believer, or the priest. Religion doesn't have to explain what is merely observed, whether you are the lay-believer or the priest. Religion doesn't have to accomodate new discovery (although it will, if it wishes to survive), whether you are the lay-believer or the priest.

Religion can be unfalsifiable, whether you are the lay-believer or the priest.

Religion is entirely a matter of faith, whether you are the lay-believer or the priest.


What you are talking about is the superstitious nature of the ignorant - those who 'know no better' believe that science is some arena of magic. One only has to look at pulp scifi to see how far this stretches in the public domain. But, just because the savages think something is magic, doesn't make it magic, now does it?

Do 'cargo cults' make airtravel a religion?

Ah, I see. So even though the lay people may believe in the absolute efficacy of science and believe the writings of scientists, though they may believe that science will ultimately give them all the answers they need, the ones who've really studied it and are deep in it's methods are aware of its problems and simply accept that science, while imperfect, is a great tool to use for a variety of reasons.

Are you seriously not aware that most developed religions experience this same phenomena of the average believer having more faith in their approach, while more educated believers tend to understand its very real limitations and simply accept them?

putting faith in science only works if you are able to accept that the answers are in flux. what is "true" today is bunk tomorrow.

But you are comparing apples and oranges.... nay, apples and space-hoppers.

You're just begging the question here. The validity of the comparison is precisely what's under discussion.

Religions deal in certainty - whether you are the lay-believer, or the priest.

The lesser degree of certainty in the upper echelons of the scientific community is the reason I say it's becoming a religion and not that it is one already.

Religion doesn't have to explain what is merely observed, whether you are the lay-believer or the priest.

Are you shitting me? One of the big functions of religion is that it provides an explanation of what is observed.

The existence of two God-forces explains the existence of good and evil. Vulcan's forge explains volcanic activity. The body of a slain deity explains why we have a fertile Earth to live on. The divinity within us explains our inner dialogue with our higher consciousness. The Worldtree, the spirits in everything, original sin, and so on.

These stories are explanations of observable phenomena.

Religion doesn't have to accomodate new discovery (although it will, if it wishes to survive), whether you are the lay-believer or the priest.

And science has to accomodate new discovery? Not really. Science could stop and say, "Well, our work is done here." But one of its great benefits is that it seeks to accomodate new discovery, rather than holding to eternal orthodoxy like some religions. Of course, as you point out, religions do accomodate new discoveries if they want to survive, but science is in the same boat of having to accomodate new discoveries if it wants to survive, so that doesn't seem to be a difference, let alone a difference that makes science not a religion.

Religion can be unfalsifiable, whether you are the lay-believer or the priest.

And science can't by definition, be unfalsifiable...if you're a Popperian scientist. If you're a Bayesian scientist, falsification is irrelevant. If you're a Positivist scientist (though I'm not sure there are anymore, despite Positivism being very common in the past and some choosing to call themselves Neo-positivists), it's verification that counts.

It's almost as if what counts as Real Science TM depends on which leaders of science you follow, or whether or not you follow one at all. Maybe you're one of those who doesn't adhere to any of the established traditions of science, and just likes to pick and choose the standards that you find to be better.

But all that just makes science look more like a religion, not less so.

Religion is entirely a matter of faith, whether you are the lay-believer or the priest.

Do you seriously think that science is not a matter of faith even for the educated scientists? That they don't believe that their inductive method works and works well? That they don't actually think that atoms exist in some form? That what they're really saying is that chemical bonds are a metaphor that we use for convenience?

Seriously, unless you're an Instrumentalist scientist, how do you not have faith in science even if you believe it's not perfect or certain? It's not as if there aren't plenty of religious people out there who "just have faith" precisely because they have found out that their religion isn't perfect or certain.

Where's the meaningful demarcation between science and religion?

What you are talking about is the superstitious nature of the ignorant - those who 'know no better' believe that science is some arena of magic. One only has to look at pulp scifi to see how far this stretches in the public domain. But, just because the savages think something is magic, doesn't make it magic, now does it?

Nope. What I'm talking about is both the ignorant masses and the educated people who are more sophisticated about their beliefs.

You're just begging the question here. The validity of the comparison is precisely what's under discussion.


No - your original claim was that science IS religion, or is becoming one. That's not a comparison, that's an outright statement.

Is it possible to compare them? Of course - but you aren't comparing two like things, or even two fairly different things. You are comparing a fruit with a rubber toy people bounce on.


The lesser degree of certainty in the upper echelons of the scientific community is the reason I say it's becoming a religion and not that it is one already.


That degree of uncertainty is going anywhere... that's what 'science' is. Those who are doing that 'uncertainty' are the scientists. Your arguments about religion are how some of the non-scientists perceive science.


Are you shitting me? One of the big functions of religion is that it provides an explanation of what is observed.


Re-read what I said. Focus on: 'merely observed'.


The existence of two God-forces explains the existence of good and evil. Vulcan's forge explains volcanic activity. The body of a slain deity explains why we have a fertile Earth to live on. The divinity within us explains our inner dialogue with our higher consciousness. The Worldtree, the spirits in everything, original sin, and so on.

These stories are explanations of observable phenomena.


Original Sin is an observed phenomenon?

You are missing the point, again.

First - a scientific explanation of vulcanism might change tomorrow with new data. On the contrary, Christian Creationism is a classic example of people clinging to religion despite evidence.


And science has to accomodate new discovery? Not really. Science could stop and say, "Well, our work is done here." But one of its great benefits is that it seeks to accomodate new discovery, rather than holding to eternal orthodoxy like some religions. Of course, as you point out, religions do accomodate new discoveries if they want to survive, but science is in the same boat of having to accomodate new discoveries if it wants to survive, so that doesn't seem to be a difference, let alone a difference that makes science not a religion.


If it just decided to stop and say 'our work is done', it wouldn't be science.

Thus, your whole premise is a strawman.

Religion can evolve - it doesn't have to. Science is evolution - if it isn't evolving, it is not science.


And science can't by definition, be unfalsifiable...if you're a Popperian scientist. If you're a Bayesian scientist, falsification is irrelevant. If you're a Positivist scientist (though I'm not sure there are anymore, despite Positivism being very common in the past and some choosing to call themselves Neo-positivists), it's verification that counts.

It's almost as if what counts as Real Science TM depends on which leaders of science you follow, or whether or not you follow one at all. Maybe you're one of those who doesn't adhere to any of the established traditions of science, and just likes to pick and choose the standards that you find to be better.


Popper dabbles in philosphy. His 'science' is not scientific. Amusing though it is, to construct a model which cannot be falsified, and then claim that BECAUSE of the model, it doesn't need to be falsified... it still isn't a scientific approach. (If for no other reason than that it requires an extra, unsupported assumption to be made).

I'm not sure what you mean by Bayesian thought making falsification irrelevent... yes, you can support any number of possibilities, no matter how outlandish - but you still filter them by active experiment and/or observation. Thus - those things that cannot be falsified, are automatically weeded-out by the process. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...?

But, looking at the modern established principles of science, we require certain things - observation, repetition, hypothesis, testing, and refinement of our model. Falsification must be implicit to science, because we can't 'test' something we can't falsify... or rather - we can't be sure that that is what we are testing.


But all that just makes science look more like a religion, not less so.


On the contrary. A flawed understanding of how science works does not equate to making it a religion.


Do you seriously think that science is not a matter of faith even for the educated scientists? That they don't believe that their inductive method works and works well? That they don't actually think that atoms exist in some form? That what they're really saying is that chemical bonds are a metaphor that we use for convenience?


As an 'educated scientist' I think that science shouldn't be a matter of 'faith'. I think my methodology works well - but not because I 'believe' it... simply because it is observed to work well. If - one day - I find my methodology does not 'work well', I will have to refine my model.

Do I think 'atoms' exist in some form? Absolutely - 'in some form' being operative. I have 'seen' atoms, so I know they are 'there'. Or - are you talking about some kind of solid-ball premise? (In which case, why are we discussing a model that's a century or more out of date?).


Seriously, unless you're an Instrumentalist scientist, how do you not have faith in science even if you believe it's not perfect or certain? It's not as if there aren't plenty of religious people out there who "just have faith" precisely because they have found out that their religion isn't perfect or certain.


I don't have 'faith' in science, because science doesn't require my belief. It isn't an answer, it doesn't give answers. It is just a logical tool.


Where's the meaningful demarcation between science and religion?


Largely, in the fact that one seeks to find possible explanations for observed phenomena, and the other tries to find possible phenomena for it's explanation.


Nope. What I'm talking about is both the ignorant masses and the educated people who are more sophisticated about their beliefs.

'Ignorant' is a relative term, not a derogatory one.

putting faith in science only works if you are able to accept that the answers are in flux. what is "true" today is bunk tomorrow.

Sure. That's precisely what we do.

I believe that repeated testing will result in a greater degree of accurate propositions about the world. I don't believe science has all things correct currently, just that it's moving in a good general direction that I want to follow.

But how is that different from a religious belief that says, "God's revelation of truth to us is ongoing, and we will not have the completion of truth until a much later time, but we've got some things right and we're working on being better"? (And yes, there are people with this religious belief.)

Both are suggesting that we should continue to work at things, and require acceptance that what can be called truth will change and develop.

I value the developmental quality of science, but I don't see that it is a quality which makes it not a religion.

Sure. That's precisely what we do.

I believe that repeated testing will result in a greater degree of accurate propositions about the world. I don't believe science has all things correct currently, just that it's moving in a good general direction that I want to follow.

But how is that different from a religious belief that says, "God's revelation of truth to us is ongoing, and we will not have the completion of truth until a much later time, but we've got some things right and we're working on being better"? (And yes, there are people with this religious belief.)

Both are suggesting that we should continue to work at things, and require acceptance that what can be called truth will change and develop.


But only one of them suggests there ARE answers to all questions, and that someone (some-entity?) already knows them, and is just being capricious about releasing the poop.

Only one of them trades in 'truth' with a big 't'.

No - your original claim was that science IS religion, or is becoming one. That's not a comparison, that's an outright statement.

Well, let's take a look at what I said to re-focus the debate. I'm going to combine some of your statements together that seem to all be making the same basic point for efficiency's sake.

But because I have trained myself to look at the evidence and face it rather than ignoring it, I've had to admit to myself that it is at the very least becoming a religion, albeit a multi-path non-spiritual religion, which is why it is able to cohere so well with so many belief systems.

I seem to have said that it was becoming a multi-path non-spiritual religion. Now, I've been reading ahead in your posted response, and it seems that you have two basic distinguishing criteria that you use to demarcate science from religion.

The first is that science is inherently uncertain, that it is a developing organism, if you will, because it is in its nature to revise its beliefs to fit new evidence.

I'm gathering that's your position from these statements:

That degree of uncertainty is going anywhere... that's what 'science' is. Those who are doing that 'uncertainty' are the scientists. Your arguments about religion are how some of the non-scientists perceive science.

First - a scientific explanation of vulcanism might change tomorrow with new data. On the contrary, Christian Creationism is a classic example of people clinging to religion despite evidence.

If it just decided to stop and say 'our work is done', it wouldn't be science.

Thus, your whole premise is a strawman.

Religion can evolve - it doesn't have to. Science is evolution - if it isn't evolving, it is not science.

Largely, in the fact that one seeks to find possible explanations for observed phenomena, and the other tries to find possible phenomena for it's explanation.


There are several difficulties with this line of argument, but the main one is this:

Science is defined as being inherently developmental and uncertain, as being an essentially evolving organism. I think we would both agree that if science stopped evolving, it would cease to be science and become a dead belief system even if people still tried to adhere to it.

What happens when a religion stops evolving? It becomes a dead belief system. It gradually loses all but a few die-hard adherents who are trying to hold onto something that's not changing enough to keep its functionality, and eventually it will no longer be believed in at all.

Religion is just as much inherently developmental and evolving as science. The only real difference seems to be that some religious people don't like to admit that religion is inherently evolving, not that it isn't actually doing so by it's nature just like science.
_____________________

Now on to the second distinguishing criterion, the standard of simplicity, which you make mention of twice.

Re-read what I said. Focus on: 'merely observed'.

Popper dabbles in philosphy. His 'science' is not scientific. Amusing though it is, to construct a model which cannot be falsified, and then claim that BECAUSE of the model, it doesn't need to be falsified... it still isn't a scientific approach. (If for no other reason than that it requires an extra, unsupported assumption to be made).


Because I've already described science as a non-spiritual religion, it seems odd to me that you would suggest that because it posits extra unsupported assumptions (spirits and all that), it's not a religion. I've already admitted that difference and incorporated it into my description of science as a religion.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say the standard of simplicity is certainly 'unscientific' under your view because it (the claim that, ceteris paribus, we should go with the model that requires fewer unsupported assumptions) is an extra unsupported assumption itself.

Original Sin is an observed phenomenon?

No, it's an explanation for observed phenomena (it's cited as the source of evil in the world), just like the other things I was listing. You know, when I was talking about explanation being a common function of religion. Talk about straw men.

I'm not sure what you mean by Bayesian thought making falsification irrelevent... yes, you can support any number of possibilities, no matter how outlandish - but you still filter them by active experiment and/or observation. Thus - those things that cannot be falsified, are automatically weeded-out by the process. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...?

I don't think you're misunderstanding me. You just explained rather nicely why falsification is irrelevant for Bayesianism.

But, looking at the modern established principles of science, we require certain things - observation, repetition, hypothesis, testing, and refinement of our model. Falsification must be implicit to science, because we can't 'test' something we can't falsify... or rather - we can't be sure that that is what we are testing.

Actually, even falsification tests don't necessarily falsify what you intend to falsify. If you want to run a falsification test on your hypothesis in a particular field of study (let's say physics is the field of study and Newtonian mechanics is your hypothesis) and you get falsifying evidence (irregularities in the orbit of Saturn), can Newtonian mechanics be falsified by this test? Well, no. Because you may have just falsified an auxiliary hypothesis (like the hypothesis there are no massive bodies beyond Saturn capable of influencing its orbit).

As an 'educated scientist' I think that science shouldn't be a matter of 'faith'. I think my methodology works well - but not because I 'believe' it... simply because it is observed to work well. If - one day - I find my methodology does not 'work well', I will have to refine my model.

Do I think 'atoms' exist in some form? Absolutely - 'in some form' being operative. I have 'seen' atoms, so I know they are 'there'. Or - are you talking about some kind of solid-ball premise? (In which case, why are we discussing a model that's a century or more out of date?).

I don't have 'faith' in science, because science doesn't require my belief. It isn't an answer, it doesn't give answers. It is just a logical tool.

You do almost sound like an Instrumentalist. At any rate, if science does not give answers (explanations) then why is there so much concern with having scientific explanations for phenomena?

'Ignorant' is a relative term, not a derogatory one.

Indeed it is. My apologies if it was perceived as derogatory.

But only one of them suggests there ARE answers to all questions, and that someone (some-entity?) already knows them, and is just being capricious about releasing the poop.

Only one of them trades in 'truth' with a big 't'.

Is that really what it comes down to for you? That religion is by definition taking its beliefs too seriously (truth with a capital "T") and not recognizing its own problems?

I know plenty of religious people who do not take their beliefs nearly that seriously. Either because they genuinely understand their own religion or are simply practicing it because they always have and don't really care much about it. So how is that a problem of religion rather than a problem of people?

I was raised kind of Christian (though not at all seriously devout). Gradually, I came to see religion within itself as rather superfluous. By now, I am officially agnostic.