Beliefs - To Have Or Not To Have?

[LadyBum]

I personally started out as a Christian, but with all of the scientific theories around the beginning of life and the creation of the world, I have somewhere gotten confused. I now believe in a Christian God, but do not follow any specific laws or teachings. Example, I do not go to church, I do not pray every night, and I rarely read the Bible.

I am curious as to what other people's opinions? Do any of you think that because I am not devout, I will not go to heaven?

[Neo Faeri]

Anayana

I personally started out as a Christian, but with all of the scientific theories around the beginning of life and the creation of the world, I have somewhere gotten confused. I now believe in a Christian God, but do not follow any specific laws or teachings. Example, I do not go to church, I do not pray every night, and I rarely read the Bible.

I am curious as to what other people's opinions? Do any of you think that because I am not devout, I will not go to heaven?

Is there any reasoning for this or are you just being lazy as hell?

[WolfWonderess]

[Shinji-Katawane]

It seems to me that you are taking the easy way of christainity like most modern christians. Its the norm so I cant really say anything about that. If you were worried about getting into heaven I would start a relationship with Jesus so you can reach heaven. You must be saved in his armks in order to reach those golden gates.

Now I myself am not christain. I am pagan. I have problme with christians that call them self christain but dont really know what their religion is. You seem to atleast have an idea so I dont have a problem with that.

As for scinece and faith they can be intertwined as all the scientific theories for creations can not yet be proved and thus are in many ways some what faith related. I am failling to see your issue here, but maybe its just me.

[Yamato Aijou]

Belief is dangerous to a scientist; firm belief in something will make it harder to let go if there is evidence against it. That is why scientists should accept a theory as the most likely eventuality as opposed to having blind faith towards something.

[WolfWonderess]

[Yamato Aijou]

WolfWonderess

Yamato Aijou

Belief is dangerous to a scientist; firm belief in something will make it harder to let go if there is evidence against it. That is why scientists should accept a theory as the most likely eventuality as opposed to having blind faith towards something.

Mm...actually, I'd have to disagree. Many scientists are religious�in fact, according to one of my friends who is pursuing a career in that field, science can often lead someone to religion. There are no issues with following both. I can accept scientific theory and still follow my own faith.

No, religion should not be followed blindly. But neither should science. Scientists are ALWAYS testing and retesting theories and facts, tweaking theories here and there as new discoveries are made and old ones are outdated, and to my own understanding, very little in science is truly written in stone. Scientists are to be objective in their studies, and science can only observe the physical stuff�it can't touch on the religious stuff, and the religious stuff can't touch on the scientific stuff, either. Apples and oranges.

I did not say scientists were not religions. In fact, I didn't say science could not lead someone to religion. You are mistaken.

Religion must be followed blindly, in order to be followed at all. Science is peer-reviewed and objective, constantly evolving and disproving itself in order to make itself better. Religion is the opposite of this. And this I did not present in order to argue against you; Religion and Science are as apples and oranges. Which is precisely why I didn't mention religion at all and cannot fathom why you've decided to talk about it. Regardless, firm belief in scientific theory is wrong and contrary to scientific principles, as is firm belief in religion. However, it's not because it's illogical and against scientific principles that it's wrong. You can do a lot of stuff to make science advance, but you don't have to apply the whole scientific principle to yourself and your life.

[Starlock]

Yamato Aijou

Religion must be followed blindly, in order to be followed at all.

Aaah, what? I know many, many people who would heatedly disagree with that statement. There is nothing that says anywhere that religion cannot also be reformative. Some religions, the ones based upon stagnant dogma, do have some more problems with blind practitioners. But not all religions are based on dogma and laws, and remember that religions are *very* diverse!

Yamato Aijou

Regardless, firm belief in scientific theory is wrong and contrary to scientific principles, as is firm belief in religion. However, it's not because it's illogical and against scientific principles that it's wrong.

Yeah, a lot of people don't quite catch this. The really good scientists aren't the rigid ones that hold to their theories like iron. Of course, if there's a butload of evidence supporting that theory, it should take a butload of evidence to change that theory and sway the opinion of the scientific community. But neither scientist nor spiritualist has to adhere to this, and it really doesn't have much to do with logic. It's simply a choice, a lifestyle choice. It may seem illogical to you, but to them, it's probably perfectly logical. Some people cannot think in the grey areas of life and stick themselves stubbornly onto a polarity.

[WolfWonderess]

Yamato Aijou

WolfWonderess

Yamato Aijou

Belief is dangerous to a scientist; firm belief in something will make it harder to let go if there is evidence against it. That is why scientists should accept a theory as the most likely eventuality as opposed to having blind faith towards something.

Mm...actually, I'd have to disagree. Many scientists are religious�in fact, according to one of my friends who is pursuing a career in that field, science can often lead someone to religion. There are no issues with following both. I can accept scientific theory and still follow my own faith.

No, religion should not be followed blindly. But neither should science. Scientists are ALWAYS testing and retesting theories and facts, tweaking theories here and there as new discoveries are made and old ones are outdated, and to my own understanding, very little in science is truly written in stone. Scientists are to be objective in their studies, and science can only observe the physical stuff�it can't touch on the religious stuff, and the religious stuff can't touch on the scientific stuff, either. Apples and oranges.

I did not say scientists were not religions. In fact, I didn't say science could not lead someone to religion. You are mistaken.

Religion must be followed blindly, in order to be followed at all. Science is peer-reviewed and objective, constantly evolving and disproving itself in order to make itself better. Religion is the opposite of this. And this I did not present in order to argue against you; Religion and Science are as apples and oranges. Which is precisely why I didn't mention religion at all and cannot fathom why you've decided to talk about it. Regardless, firm belief in scientific theory is wrong and contrary to scientific principles, as is firm belief in religion. However, it's not because it's illogical and against scientific principles that it's wrong. You can do a lot of stuff to make science advance, but you don't have to apply the whole scientific principle to yourself and your life.

Um...the first comment of yours that I quoted kinda implied it. You said "belief is dangerous to a scientist" and that "scientists should not have blind faith toward something". That is how I got religion from your post. O.o Faith implies religion, or at least spiritual belief, in that context. At least, that is my understanding. If you meant something else by faith or belief, please clarify.

Furthermore, you say a scientist should not have blind faith toward something, say religion IS blind faith, and yet say you never said a scientist should not be religious. Now I'm just confused...or maybe I'm looking too deeply into things. I have a tendency to do that, especially while half awake as I am now. ^^;;

And no, not all religion requires blind faith. I am a borderline skeptic by heart. In fact, there was a long period in my life that spanned quite a few years in which I was an agnostic bordering on atheist—I fluctuated. Eventually I was lead to paganism and finally Celtic Recon., and never once have I blindly followed something. Subjectively followed something, yes, but not blindly, because blindly implies accepting something "just because".

[Yamato Aijou]

Starlock

Yamato Aijou

Religion must be followed blindly, in order to be followed at all.

Aaah, what? I know many, many people who would heatedly disagree with that statement. There is nothing that says anywhere that religion cannot also be reformative. Some religions, the ones based upon stagnant dogma, do have some more problems with blind practitioners. But not all religions are based on dogma and laws, and remember that religions are *very* diverse!

Yamato Aijou

Regardless, firm belief in scientific theory is wrong and contrary to scientific principles, as is firm belief in religion. However, it's not because it's illogical and against scientific principles that it's wrong.

Yeah, a lot of people don't quite catch this. The really good scientists aren't the rigid ones that hold to their theories like iron. Of course, if there's a butload of evidence supporting that theory, it should take a butload of evidence to change that theory and sway the opinion of the scientific community. But neither scientist nor spiritualist has to adhere to this, and it really doesn't have much to do with logic. It's simply a choice, a lifestyle choice. It may seem illogical to you, but to them, it's probably perfectly logical. Some people cannot think in the grey areas of life and stick themselves stubbornly onto a polarity.

First paragraph:
Belief in a religion, in the sense of following a given set of moral values and principles, is not what I was talking about in this present case. I was more referring to the firm belief in the spiritual, like say gods or souls, or pretty much anything at all. Any firm belief in something is fundamentally blind, as it shall not yield when presented with contradicting evidence.

Second paragraph:
You may choose to apply scientific principles to your life or not. However, a scientist must apply the scientific principles to what s/he does. Of course, your personal religion is your business. Simply put, though, it is ridiculous to apply it to science, as they are apples and oranges.

[Yamato Aijou]

WolfWonderess

Um...the first comment of yours that I quoted kinda implied it. You said "belief is dangerous to a scientist" and that "scientists should not have blind faith toward something". That is how I got religion from your post. O.o Faith implies religion, or at least spiritual belief, in that context. At least, that is my understanding. If you meant something else by faith or belief, please clarify.

Furthermore, you say a scientist should not have blind faith toward something, say religion IS blind faith, and yet say you never said a scientist should not be religious. Now I'm just confused...or maybe I'm looking too deeply into things. I have a tendency to do that, especially while half awake as I am now. ^^;;

And no, not all religion requires blind faith. I am a borderline skeptic by heart. In fact, there was a long period in my life that spanned quite a few years in which I was an agnostic bordering on atheist—I fluctuated. Eventually I was lead to paganism and finally Celtic Recon., and never once have I blindly followed something. Subjectively followed something, yes, but not blindly, because blindly implies accepting something "just because".

A scientist must not believe in what he does, or he will then not yield easily enough when presented with conflicting evidence.

A scientist should not have blind faith towards something because blind faith implies that there is no sufficient reason for believing. Of course, I rather meant towards their work than in general, but it is generally detrimental not to apply fundamental principles of your work in your life, or at least it is detrimental to your work, but of course I can be mistaken in this affirmation.

The fact of the matter is, I have yet to find a religion which does not require blind faith to believe in it. No religion has presented me with sufficient evidence to make me accept the very existence of a spiritual source in human beings. Religion itself is unfalsifiable and thus cannot be followed without blind faith, and unless of course you present me with a counter-example, this affirmation holds for every religion I have seen. (Of course, I'm referring to religion as the set of spiritual beliefs in something as opposed to a set of moral values, which are better represented by the expression "Set of moral values".)

[Starlock]

Yamato Aijou

First paragraph:
Belief in a religion, in the sense of following a given set of moral values and principles, is not what I was talking about in this present case. I was more referring to the firm belief in the spiritual, like say gods or souls, or pretty much anything at all. Any firm belief in something is fundamentally blind, as it shall not yield when presented with contradicting evidence.

(smiles) Okay, but you can believe in something firmly but still be able to let it go. You can believe in something firmly and still understand that your way of thinking is just one of many ways, and accept that all other ways are equally as valid as your own. It's probably true that most people don't think in this respect, and can only beleive firmly AND blindly, but belief doesn't have to be both blind and firm. You can apply scientific principles to religion and act as a religious skeptic, but still be firm in your belief. Just like you can firmly believe in a theory but always be open to evidence that disproves the theory. 3nodding

[Fiddlers Green]

As long as you keep the law of love, it shouldn't be too bad. Love God above all else and love thy neighbor as thyself. 3nodding As far as avoiding religious services, or scholarship of your faith, as long as you don't try to present yourself as a religiously educated person, there is no problem with that. However, keep in mind, your ability to articulately discuss and defend your beliefs will probably be lacking, so it may be a good idea to research the faith you profess a bit more, before comitting to anything...

[Yamato Aijou]

Starlock

Yamato Aijou

First paragraph:
Belief in a religion, in the sense of following a given set of moral values and principles, is not what I was talking about in this present case. I was more referring to the firm belief in the spiritual, like say gods or souls, or pretty much anything at all. Any firm belief in something is fundamentally blind, as it shall not yield when presented with contradicting evidence.

(smiles) Okay, but you can believe in something firmly but still be able to let it go. You can believe in something firmly and still understand that your way of thinking is just one of many ways, and accept that all other ways are equally as valid as your own. It's probably true that most people don't think in this respect, and can only beleive firmly AND blindly, but belief doesn't have to be both blind and firm. You can apply scientific principles to religion and act as a religious skeptic, but still be firm in your belief. Just like you can firmly believe in a theory but always be open to evidence that disproves the theory. 3nodding

Of course. I keep forgetting that evidence only has value relative to the one it is presented to. As such, what is widely accepted in the scientific community as firmly-grounded and established evidence can be to a few people some useless piece of junk. Everyone is free of their own point of view on the world, of course. I don't know how people can reject scientific principles in themselves, but that is my opinion. Your opinion might be that scientific principles are stupid and should never have been ever mentioned, and it would not be more wrong than mine. I however point out that empirical evidence is pretty much as close as true can be in our current universe and unless you believe in Last-Tuesdayism and conspiracy theories such as it, the scientific principles are what have enabled us to advance technologically as we have.

I am unable to fathom how one can reject the logical and empirical evidences of the real world by believing in supernatural and unfalsifiable claims. It might, however, be different for a lot of people, and I won't blame them. I'd like to know your opinion on this.

[Cesque]

Quote:

I personally started out as a Christian, but with all of the scientific theories around the beginning of life and the creation of the world, I have somewhere gotten confused. I now believe in a Christian God, but do not follow any specific laws or teachings. Example, I do not go to church, I do not pray every night, and I rarely read the Bible.

Switch faith wink