Are you religious?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Are you religious?

  • Yes, religion definies my life

    Votes: 21 16.4%
  • Yes, it is a part of my life

    Votes: 26 20.3%
  • Ehh, hope to become more religious

    Votes: 9 7.0%
  • Nope

    Votes: 72 56.3%

  • Total voters
    128
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agnostic.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Practicing Catholic.
 
Humanist. I'm writing a diversity essay on this. Anyone think religion (or rather, the lack thereof) is a bad topic because you don't know what background the reader has?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think I'm going to offer my take on this argument as a Christian.

The way I view beliefs such as "God exists" or "Jesus is the savior" is that they are postulates or axioms in traditional logic. Which is to say that in order to proceed further, these are basic assumptions which must be deemed true and cannot be proven as such at any more fundamental levels. An analogy would be the postulate that a straight line can be drawn between any two points in Euclidean geometry.

These fundamental beliefs, which are assumed to be true, are then the starting points for Christianity and other religions. The assumption of truth, then, would be termed faith in religion.

Thus, while the burden of proof is on those making positive statements as they must demonstrate that no counter-example exists, there is no burden of proof for postulates (because of their nature and definition) used as fundamental truths in any one system.

So, in a nutshell, it seems that JCI religious-logic stems from conclusions deduced from the premises (a.k.a., the stated "facts"); thus, we resort to the logical conclusion that if the premise ("God Exists As Stated In The Bible") is true, then the conclusion is VALID ("Christianity is the bees knees"). This argument, of course, has TRUTH VALUE, as it is either true or it is false. Prove or disprove the premise, and you have determined said T.V.
 
So, in a nutshell, it seems that JCI religious-logic stems from conclusions deduced from the premises (a.k.a., the stated "facts"); thus, we resort to the logical conclusion that if the premise ("God Exists As Stated In The Bible") is true, then the conclusion is VALID ("Christianity is the bees knees"). This argument, of course, has TRUTH VALUE, as it is either true or it is false. Prove or disprove the premise, and you have determined said T.V.
You could have said that in one word: conjecture.
 
haha...but the use of that word implies that the proposition is believed to be correct :smuggrin:
Oh+Snap.jpg
 
I consider myself a Christian and no amount of science will change that. I may not go to church or read the bible or even live my life to the exact standards 'required', but I do believe in God and that Jesus died for our sins.

I follow along the lines of this:
If you cannot prove it, you also cannot disprove it.​

That can go for many things, not just religion.

Saying that, my high school science teacher had some very interesting thoughts on the topic. They weren't meant to force us to agree or disagree, just to get us thinking. Yes, I went to a Christian middle and high school. At that time I also attended church, taught Sunday School to youngsters (4-8 yo) and sang in the choir. It was never forced upon me and something I freely chose to do with my time.

Getting back to my teacher...on the first day of class he outlined two 'stories' that he has used for every single one of his classes. If you graduated from that school, you knew about, "The Fisherman and the Lake" and "The Hundred Dollar Bill in the Hallway".

The basic premise of the fisherman story was this:
A lake is filled with large organisms and small organisms. As a fisherman, you are limited as to which ones you can catch. Not because it isn't possible, but because you lack the necessary tools. You can get the mesh as small as you like on your nets, but you will always miss something. He compared the fisherman to a scientist. Just because we lack the tools to prove the existence of God or an afterlife, does not mean it does not exist.​

The next analogy was a demonstration:
Students were told that there was a $100 in the hallway (a door from his class led to a hall which led to the lab). We were also told that we could have it. He invited a student to attempt to go get it. The door was locked. The premise is this. The door to heaven is also locked and no man can enter before his time. We have to accept on faith that it exists. Just as we accepted on faith that there was a $100 in that locked hallway.​

I only write this to show my personal thoughts on the matter. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you don't believe in God or do, that is your personal choice. I just though I would share my 'a-ha' moment in relation to religion and science. I also believe in keeping the two separated.

My religion doesn't interfere with science and vice versa. Creationism and Evolution are both theories to the scientific community. Far too often I see people claim that evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It isn't. You are going on faith yourself if you believe in it, just as I am when I believe in Creationism.

...and you feel right into the flying spaghetti monster trap. Just because we don't have the tools to prove the he/she doesn't exist, doesn't mean he/she isn't hidden in the core of the moon or Earth. I actually believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists. I also believe it lives inside a teacup and shoots lightning from its nipples. Oh, you say it doesn't exist? That it's not real? Prove it.

Do you see what you sound like to us now?
 
...and you feel right into the flying spaghetti monster trap. Just because we don't have the tools to prove the he/she doesn't exist, doesn't mean he/she isn't hidden in the core of the moon or Earth. I actually believe that the flying spaghetti monster exists. I also believe it lives inside a teacup and shoots lightning from its nipples. Oh, you say it doesn't exist? That it's not real? Prove it.

Do you see what you sound like to us now?

I said (basically) the same thing 20 posts ago. ;)
 
Yes, religion is a part of my life, but it does not define it.
 
Far too often I see people claim that evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It isn't. You are going on faith yourself if you believe in it, just as I am when I believe in Creationism.

1. Really? Evolution is arguably one of the best proven theories in science. Evidence has been collected for over 100 years on vast fronts, ranging from molecular biology to environmental science. Entire computer algorithms have been constructed on the mathematical principles of evolution. Heck, even MRSA is a product of evolution - if not, then the Creator obviously hates people in hospitals (probably cuz they use that thing called science and evidence based medicine). As a person aspiring to enter the field of medicine, this is a fundamental fact you should have understood.

2. There is a difference between faith and and knowledge. Faith is believing that if you flap your hands hard enough, you will fly. Knowledge is knowing that if you jump off a cliff and flap your hands hard enough, you'll end up as a red spatter on the ground.

Knowledge is based on evidence. Faith is not.
Evolution is based on evidence. Creationism is not.
 
Good post. However, this does ignore other types of religious belief which are more compatible with the scientific world view. Obviously, a religious-fundamentalist mindset is not going to be compatible with modern evolutionary theory, but you must realize that there are many scientifically-inclined religious folk - myself included - that embrace both faith and science, with open-minded sincerity.

Additionally, your post fails to show the benefits of religion. I realize that religious extremism is behind many of the world's conflicts and ills; but, religion itself is also directly or indirectly responsible, albeit, if solely as motivation, for much of the great art, music, culture, literature, mathematics, philosophy, and science which has graced our planet and enhanced our civilization. Without religion, I think our species would feel a lot more like our cousin, the ape.

You could be scientifically minded, but then that would mean you don't believe in evolution and you believe in creationism (I'm assuming you're part of the big 3 religions). Does that not leave you even a little bit disconcerted? Or do you just ignore it and hope that there is an afterlife.

I fail to really see much benefit to religion. I think good people will do good and bad will do bad regardless of religion. I do plenty of volunteering and tutoring for free and plan on still doing it. I think religion holds back just as much as it helps. In terms of science people like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings will still exist regardless of religion (they're atheists) just like such a large amount of scientists nowadays (I think it's something like 90% are atheists).

The real issues occur when people just follow the book without really using their head and it starts to seep into other peoples lives. Stem cell research could be saving lives, but unfortunately isn't being tackled head on. Gay people who aren't religious are being prosecuted because of what people from another religion think that they should be doing. Why in the world is there a cross on ground zero and not other religious symbols or nothing at all? It wasn't only christians who died that day and we shouldn't favor certain religions over others.
 
Where's the spiritual option? I consider myself Christian--I believe the basics common to all those denominations--but the spiritual part of my life is much more an active part than adhering to specific policies (the consubstantiation, transubstantiation, representation debates). I meditate and pray, and I read a lot of philosophy and theology to help figure out exactly what I agree with and what I don't out of the ideas floating around. I'm also a staunch supporter of evolution and not ignoring science because of blind faith in literal interpretations. As Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
 
I attend church and 'obey' 'commandments' but have essentially no faith.
 
To all those atheists out there -- do you tell other people you're an atheist? Have you told your parents/siblings?
 
Where's the spiritual option? I consider myself Christian--I believe the basics common to all those denominations--but the spiritual part of my life is much more an active part than adhering to specific policies (the consubstantiation, transubstantiation, representation debates). I meditate and pray, and I read a lot of philosophy and theology to help figure out exactly what I agree with and what I don't out of the ideas floating around. I'm also a staunch supporter of evolution and not ignoring science because of blind faith in literal interpretations. As Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

My thoughts exactly.

I find it incredibly simple to be both spiritual and pragmatic without jeopardizing either standpoint. The wondrous argument unfolding above just confuses me.
 
Closing thread as this has nothing with medical school or applying to medical school. Please consider The Lounge for all of your socializing needs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top