Why is your religion the ‘true’ religion?
For most people religion is a direct result of the society they grew up in. If you are Chinese you are most likely Buddhist if are American you are most likely Christian. The fact that there are so many religions proves that there is no single one that is the ‘true’ religion.
So, how can you know you picked the right one?
“The fact that there are so many religions proves that there is no single one that is the ‘true’ religion. “ is not a logical statement supported by fact. One religion or another could be the true religion; it is possible that many worshipers of the different faiths are wrong. I’m not saying they are. I’m just saying your statement was flawed.
You don’t “know”…you “believe”. There’s a difference.
Ya, I thought about that after I wrote it. Good catch. I guess what I meant to say is that it is by no means evident that there is one that is right. They are all equally viable. There is no way to choose. So, those that have chosen must have done so by some means. It is this means that I am interested.
To Clark – OK then how to you “believe?” How do you know you have chosen the right one to believe in?
I agree with clarkworld, you can believe you’ve chosen the “true” faith but you can’t actually know it while you’re alive.
All debates on the comparative truths of religions are nothing but exercises in circular logic. The truth of any religion cannot be proven by scientific methods or empirical studies.
Jonolan –
So why choose one belief over another then? If there is no proof and it is circular then how did Clark choose his? I don’t understand.
I really want to know how it is that he has chosen this belief. It does me no good to say he just does. Why not belive in Buddha then? What is his reason? To say there is no reason makes no sense not to mention makes Clark look dumb!
Kermit….therein lies faith. If you “know”, it’s not faith…but rather, fact.
One believes in their faith based on a multitude of reasons. Personal experience, geography, exposure, etc. Mine happens to be based on personal experience primarily, and then various other contributing factors.
I am comfortable with the possibility that I may be wrong. Again, therein lies the faith.
OK – I think I understand. Your faith is a complicated thing that even you don’t understand. It is a feeling or emotion something that you feel cannot be quantified or questioned rationally. I can accept that.
I guess for me (not you) I just think that the feelings we have and emotions can be quantified and we are scientifically just beginning to understand why we are emotional and why we have feelings of a God-creator. And why religion is here. I think science has only begun to discover the how and why we are like we are. Therefore, it makes no sense to me to believe something based on unexplainable emotions or feelings. If I have those feelings or emotions (And I have had them) I just say, “hmmm.. this is an interesting feeling. Why do I feel like there is a God behind things?” It is like when I went to Bible camp, as a child, and I experienced great joy and friendship, love. All my friends said, “See? God is working in your life! Jesus is real and you are witnessing it!” I replied, “No, I feel great joy and love with you all but it does not follow that it is in anyway due to some supernatural being.” I prefer to call it what it is; emotion and friendship, love. The leap to some supernatural force I saw as dangerous mainly because it then lead to all the doctrine and teachings of, in this case, the Bible. To me that was a blatant manipulation of my feelings aimed at persuading me to follow teachings that I didn’t necessarily agree with. And indeed it seems many young people are brought into religion in just this way.
You have not accepted all the doctrine that comes from religion but yet you still attribute your emotions and experiences to a God-creator. So, we are very similar all but this one area. When I experience strange feelings or experiences I say they are strange feelings or experiences. When you experience strange feelings or experiences you say they are due to a God-creator.
Is that about the crux of it??
I win!
I think your premise that “all religions claim x therefore they are all equally (in)valid and how do you know” is ridiculously flawed.
Have you studied the religions of the world in depth enough to make such a claim?
“I win!”
TBH I really don’t see any winners here. I see one nice fellow going out on a limb to say he’s comfortable with an element of risk or the “unknown” (showing a correct understanding of faith), and you then marginalizing “all” of his faith as some kind of emotion, then claiming to “win”, because (I’m guessing?) the other comments and 6th grade bible camp didn’t convince you of something.
Ego and a healthy lack of self criticism will probably get you nowhere on this subject. If you’re waiting for someone to roll in off the net and “prove” religion to you in a 100% acceptable-to-you manner, you’ll be waiting a long time. Saying guys like Clark “look dumb” because he doesn’t have the time or desire to hash out every last detail of his faith with you makes *you* look like the ass, not Clark. So I guess you did “win” something in a way, but I’d really have to question the value of it. :/
Anyhow, my honest suggestion is to study some theological greats (one of my favorites to recommend is Dr. Paul Tillich) and get over your silly notion of comparing religion to fairies or dragons or whatever other nonsense. Pick up a copy of Augustine’s Confessions, if you dare!
Damion, thank you for your interesting comments and good points.
I made that statement to beg a question. That is; are all religions truth claims equally viable? Sounds like you are arguing that one religion, if you study it enough, shows itself to be closer to truth than the others. Is this the case? If so then my question becomes which one do I study? If you say all then since you seem to have found the right one I assume you have studied all religions yourself and that is how you came to this conclusion. And, if not, I challenge you to show me how you have made this decision.
I do not claim to have studied all religions myself or know which one is true so readily admit it may be the case that studying them all may bring such a result. But to study them all is a huge task, one I doubt many religious people have completed. And how do you know when you have studied enough of any religion?
So my point is this; even if you study them all there is still no way of determining if you studied enough and, therefore, each has what seems to be an equal chance of being true or untrue. I don’t see how you can ever get to a point where you can say, “yep, I studied enough and now know the correct one is Christianity.” And this is not to say one is not the right religion but rather because of the inability to know when you have studied enough there would seem to be no way to accurately conclude you have found the right religion.
So how, exactly, is this thinking “ridiculously flawed?”
My “I win” comment was a jab at Clark as he has not responded in a while. He and I are good friends and I was hoping it would illicit a response. So far it has no worked. I will have to go tell him someone is defending him! Oh, and he is not very nice rather kind of a liberal punk! LOL! That was a joke!
But to tell you the truth I AM waiting for someone to come in and prove religion to me 100% – Is that not just the percentage you would use in describing your certainty of God’s existence? If no one can do it then does it not beg the whole question of whether you are that certain? And whether it is wise to believe something that is improvable? And shouldn’t Clark or you take the time and have the desire to hash it out when you are claiming 100% knowledge of something?
If it is faith alone then say it is. Don’t say it is faith based on fact or some kind of special truth. Say you don’t know but hope. Call it what it is, namely a belief in something that may indeed not be true.
It is not I whom is claiming knowledge of a God. It is you and Clark. Therefore the burden of proof is on you! So far you are not doing too well.
And it is ironic how easily you call other peoples beliefs “nonsense.” The fact that you do not address the points of my comparison of religion to a dragon displays a common thread for religious people. That is that their beliefs do not hold up at all to tests of logic and so rather than address the points and answer them they run away under the claim that others, smarter than they, can. “You need to study more” they say, “here are some books. I do not have all the answers.” But yet they know 100% they are right?!?!?!?! How is that possible!????
I will read your suggested text if you read mine!
The God Delusion would be mine.
Oh, and I agree with you on one thing… I am an ass!
-Kermit
Damion you said…
“I see one nice fellow going out on a limb to say he’s comfortable with an element of risk or the “unknown” (showing a correct understanding of faith)”
What exactly is the “correct understanding of faith?” That is the whole point of my discussions with Clark. How can anyone be “comfortable with” such risk? A risk that to me is not at all low when you look at my points. Like the point that God may not want believers at all. Or that there are so many religions and he cannot tell me on what grounds to accept Christianity. Etc. I have shown, in my opinion, valid and strong reasons why there is high risk in accepting any one religion. And when neither you nor he answer my specific points it only reinforces my opinion that you have taken high risk be accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. It would appear that you have placed your faith in something that is dangerous. Just as a terrorist believes they are doing Alla’s will or you believe you are doing the Christian God’s will. **Please Note*** This is an extreme comparison and I know it, I do NOT think you view those that don’t believe what you do as evil. But some fundamentalist Christians I am sure do.
Yes, you have made a choice that is OK for you to do. What I am seeking is your reasons for doing so and that includes why you think it is a low risk or a good thing to just believe in something. I can see lots of risk in doing so and I do not see how you get around this. The reason it seems like I am marginalizing his faith is because I am. And this is on purpose but not out of dis-respect. Clark is a wonderful friend of mine and I trust him greatly. I just like to investigate his reasoning so that I may become more reasonable.
Thanks for listening if you still are. I value all ideas.
-Kermit
Oh and the fact that you said “I see one nice fellow going out on a limb” says it all!
I would agree Clark is indeed “out on a limb.” One that appears to be not too strong.
You make my point better than I.
Hmm… here’s what I don’t get… What exactly IS the “high risk” of believing or having faith in God (or accepting Jesus as Savior), whether or not it’s true? What is “dangerous” about it? Why would this be any more of a risk than your lack of belief?
The high risk is this. You could be following a false God without knowing it. You could be accepting the teachings of a false prophet. In fact the Jews today think you are following a false prophet. They may be right. God may not want followers at all. Then were does that leave you?
And not to mention where faith can lead. The terrorists of 911 were true people of faith. Extreme and, no doubt, wrong but is this not what most religions teach? Strong faith? And strong conviction? I am not saying you would ever do what they did but you don’t need to look very far to see just such “acts of faith” in Christianity.
My lack of faith is less risky in that I do not believe anything without there being a high probability of it being true. I am therefore not as susceptible to being lead without reason down a strange path. If it does not make sense I do not act. Period. This is not to say I cannot be wrong just that the fact that I do not believe without seeing allows for less chance to be lead down a false path.
So, now compare my POV with yours. And think about what God, if he exists, would be more sympathetic to or tend to understand better. I would assume he would be highly intelligent and understanding.
Which risk is higher? I say yours.
Kermit,
DOH!!! You and Clark are friends?!? Then it appears that *I* am the real ass here, LOL! You have my apologies, seems I assumed too much.
You’ve brought up some fun points here, and I will get around to responding within the next week or so. I always appreciate the opportunity to reevaluate my beliefs against those of others, and though I cannot guarantee I will prove anything about theism (or Christianity) to you, I think I can offer a good challenge to your arguments and refer you to some other good sources of info. I will check out the book you mentioned.
Take care,
No problem Damion. I know I can sound like an ass sometimes and it is good when people let me know. I look forward to your challenges! It is nice to meet a religious person that does not just eventually give up. Some people just don’t want to look into things too deeply sometimes which astonishes me but, at the same time, I understand.
Here is one more thing to ponder on the risk of believing…
Religion is VERY divisive! While it has become less so in modern days it still pits group against group and because of the fact that each group believes it is 100% right, makes no room for compromise. And since none is provable what divides them can never be resolved and it is perpetuated into future generations. Agnosticism avoids this and is humble by comparison because it does not pretend to know ‘truth.’ It is only through understanding our own inability to know ‘truth’ that we can begin to truly love and respect our brothers and sisters as we love and respect ourselves.
-Kermit
To expand on something…
I would argue that the reason, as I said, “it has become less so in modern days” is because of the more agnostic-like thinking many religious people like yourself are now employing. Many no longer take it as fact that they are right in their belief and realize that there is a small chance they are wrong. They put high value in faith and understand and refrain from judging those that doubt them. They say it is a personal thing. In the past this kind of thinking would not have been allowed. It would be considered blasphemy and in many cases those who proposed it were killed for doing so. The understanding, slow as it has developed, that no one knows 100% anything or agnostic-like thinking has made religion a much more tolerant belief system.
-Kermit
Albert Einstein
“I never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational thinking.” -
Albert Einstein says “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift”
What is your point? You obviously highly regard Albert Einstein and his quotes.
Here are few more for you:
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
— Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever…. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
— Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434