Is religion a choice?

[Brianjones]

Aliens.

[Belgian_Pie]

@Xerophytes

While the other says ‘there’s a spirit somewhere with ZERO proof of existence’.

Pure energy! That will actually dissipate back to it’s natural state, unless it’s cremated.

[BiggusDickus]

@FatKaz

My parents are militant atheists, I became drawn to Islam as a teenager, I became obsessed with Buddhism and Daoism in my 20s, and then I found that Christianity makes the most sense to me in my 30s.

Despite being a militant atheist, my mum loves gospel music and sang and churches when I was a child, so I’ve been drawn to the euphoria of Christianity’s message of grace and salvation from nearly the start. My flirtations with Islam, which I saw as cold and dogmatic, and drew me to it more out of a fear of Hell than a love of God, led me to greater appreciate the concept of grace in the New Testament. My experiences with Buddhism and Daoism didn’t fulfil me spiritually, but opened me up to a more mystical understanding of reality, in turn opening me up to Christian mysticism and the acceptance of the concept of universal salvation.

To reply to a point made earlier about how a “believer” specifically answers the question in light of the idea that most religions seem to argue that their religion or denomination is the “One True Faith”… I belong to the Church of England, but I’d never be arrogant enough to suggest that it’s the “One True” interpretation of Christianity, let alone the “One True Faith”. But, being a British man who lived in Taiwan for a few years and dipped my toes in various religions and denominations, I found that the Church of England is just the best fit for me, so I made the choice to join that denomination. I don’t even “know” with certainty that Jesus is God, and the more I’ve delved into Christian mysticism and read about early Christian cults and texts that didn’t make it into the official Canon (some of which had very different ideas about Jesus to became accepted by the Roman Empire), the more I wonder if it even matters at all.

So, I’ve made the choice to be a Christian and a member of the Church of England because Christianity makes the most sense to me as a philosophy and expression of God, although various forces outside of my control to one degree or another (such as my upbringing, culture, and exposure to Eastern religions when I lived in Taiwan) played a role in pushing me towards that decision.

That was an interesting read. Reminds of Philip Larkin’s “I’m agnostic, I suppose. But an Anglican agnostic, of course.”

[Andrew0409]

@Belgian_Pie

‘The work of God’ … How does he work, what does he do? Is he a carpenter, a clerk, an artist?

Some people believe he is the creator. Uniformed laws of nature seem to suggest it for some.

[tempogain]

@Andrew0409

I’ve not done that. I said science requires a certain level of faith.

But you are. Different amounts of belief are required for different things. Some things would take an effort not to believe in due to their repeatable nature, and not believing in them might even result in your rapid demise, whether you believe it or not. Some beliefs will produce no noticeable effect. To suggest that because they both involve belief, there is some significant commonality between them, is an equivocation by definition.

@Andrew0409

To a point. You will never be absolutely sure it will always fall when dropped.

I said that from the very beginning. We all live in a world where we do not have perfect information about reality.

@Andrew0409

And we certainly do not all take reality as real for granted. Some religions and belief systems don’t believe in such prime reality in the material world and it is all an illusion.

One can choose to believe it or not, but I suggest that sincerely not believing it will see you depart from this plane of reality in short order.

@Andrew0409

Is science (the scientific method) a reliable system of understanding the natural world. Yes. But we’ve been dead wrong more than often and are limited with our finite minds. And often we create just as stringent religious beliefs in science that are completely wrong.

Science provides for correction of mistakes as a matter of the first order of importance. This is a feature, not a defect.

[Whatevah]

@Andrew0409

I disagree. Science also has many schools of thought. Science requires a lot faith people take for granted.

A. You exist.
B. This isn’t a simulation
C. You can trust your senses.

A: How can you not exist? “I think. therefore I am”.
B: Inconsequential. The physical models work whether it is a simulation or not.
C: Is true as far as I know.

[Xerophytes]

@Belgian_Pie

‘The work of God’ … How does he work, what does he do? Is he a carpenter, a clerk, an artist?

He is a writer.

@Icon can prove me right.

[OysterOmelet]

@tempogain

This is a massive equivocation between things that we ALL have to take for granted in this world, while relying on the information provided through our senses, and religious beliefs, which can’t be empirically demonstrated in any sense.

Believing in God is something virtually all of us share in common too.

ATHEISTS DON'T EXIST! (ft. Jaclyn Glenn)

Certainly you have to believe them, certainly, but those beliefs are grounded in the demonstrably reliable information provided through our senses. The ball has always fallen before in every instance, and we believe it will continue to fall in the same way for that reason. How is religion similar?

It’s not, but religion works on questions that are much harder.

But the ball falling thing is fallacious too. As Bertrand Rusell has illustrated:

Every morning, the farmer brings the chicken feed, without fail.
Then one morning, he doesn’t bring feed. He brings an axe.

[Andrew0409]

@tempogain

Some things would take an effort not to believe in due to their repeatable nature,

A lot of science suffer from this issue, and it’s become a huge topic of discussion in the scientific community. Many can’t be repeated at all.

@tempogain

But you are. Different amounts of belief are required for different things.

Yes, I agree. I’m just pointing out it’s not as clear cut as science can be proven and religion can not. I actually believe religion can be proven or disproven through empirical means. I’m certainly not the first person from various religions to believe it. Empirical knowledge is knowledge from experiences. Can you not experience religion to be true or untrue?

Would a burning bush talking to you as God saying “I am” be empirical evidence? Does the resurrection count as empirical evidence? Does the prophet performing miracles count? Buddhism when one teach nirvana? A soldier in war seeing signs from god?

It might not be enough to convince you. But it’s possible to experience religion empirically.

[Belgian_Pie]

@Xerophytes

He is a writer.

Did he write the bible? Or Quran? He probably dictated it to a ghost writer.

[Xerophytes]

@OysterOmelet

Every morning, the farmer brings the chicken feed, without fail.
Then one morning, he doesn’t bring feed. He brings an axe.

Well, it’s a proven fact that the chicken is there, the farmer exist. The interaction; however, change because of different action took place by the farmer - which scientifically and empirically can be proven.

Religion works differently. It require no proof of chicken existence, no required knowledge of the feed and denying the possibility of chicken getting axed. Instead, it opens up infinite amount of interpretation, which includes, the farmer is having sex with a cow, the farmer is the chicken, the chicken is a giant axe, the cow is the farmer’s wife with a son called chicken, and that the chicken is the apple in the Garden of Eden which gay farmer eats.

[Xerophytes]

@Belgian_Pie

He is a writer.

Did he write the bible? Or Quran? He probably dictated it to a ghost writer.

Reference: Supernatural Season 11 Episode 20

[Xerophytes]

I can open a church and make my own religion.

Woohoo.

Religion is a fact.

rolleyes

[Andrew0409]

@Whatevah

How can you not exist? “I think. therefore I am

Taoist philosophy dealt with this question in an interesting way. I, Andrew, had a dream where i was a butterfly. How do I know I am not the butterfly dreaming about being Andrew?

@Whatevah

Inconsequential. The physical models work whether it is a simulation or not.

Not necessarily. A simulation can simple fill any gaps in the simulation that doesn’t work.

@Whatevah

: Is true as far as I know.

Can you? I worked at a mental institution where many people believed the same thing. Actually quite frightening if you let the thought of what if they’re right and I’m wrong in.

[Andrew0409]

@Xerophytes

Well, it’s a proven fact that the chicken is there, the farmer exist

Is it?

If you didn’t see the farmer feed the chicken. Did it happen?

[OysterOmelet]

@Xerophytes

Religion works differently. It require no proof of chicken existence, no required knowledge of the feed and denying the possibility of chicken getting axed. Instead, it opens up infinite amount of interpretation, which includes, the farmer is having sex with a cow, the farmer is the chicken, the chicken is a giant axe, the cow is the farmer’s wife with a son called chicken, and that the chicken is the apple in the Garden of Eden which gay farmer eats.

1. You can’t prove anything outside of mathematics.
2. So what? Religion deals with much harder questions than science, things much more complicated than whether an apple drops. That doesn’t mean you throw your arms up in despair and jump into a lake.

You can’t do scientific modelling if you believed the universe is meaningless gibberish.

[Andrew0409]

@Xerophytes

I can open a church and make my own religion.

Woohoo.

Religion is a fact.

rolleyes

It seems you’re basically coming to these conclusions with the premise of all religions being false. Which can very well be true. But it’s not a useful way of concluding it.

[Hanna]

@Andrew0409

A. You exist

I really do be out here doubting the reality of my own existence sometimes…

[Andrew0409]

Interestingly, philosophy and branches of like theology was for a long time the ultimate science. People sought to understand the really real for a long time. Why do you think Newton called his book philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica

[Xerophytes]

@Andrew0409

Well, it’s a proven fact that the chicken is there, the farmer exist

Is it?

If you didn’t see the farmer feed the chicken. Did it happen?

It has been established. ESTABLISHED. It’s like you are asking me if you type the words If you didn’t see the farmer feed the chicken. Did it happen?