Just to add another lurker's weight to the question, I am also curious. As someone who grew up without religion being thrust upon me, I can remember from a young age being baffled by people around me who believed in big beards in the sky who told them how to run their lives.
Religion has many good things to offer (if you believe in a society where humans co-exist, have their happiness maximized and their suffering minimized) but by it's nature seems to promote behaviour which is harmful to society.
This dichotomy is what prevents me from subscribing to any organised religion or accepting that organised religion should be encouraged. I would certainly be interested to learn more about how those who follow the doctrines of faith address the above dichotomy that I perceive, if they acknowledge it's existence at all.
My apologies if my grammar/spelling is off or my sentence structure is cumbersome. Being used to less formal discussion boards + it being nearly midnight here in the anitpodes + coming off a crushing defeat at social basketball = reduced number of times willing to proofread/rewrite.
Interestingly, tiredness hasn't reduced my tendency to ramble, so I better end this here. Apologies to J-No if this is a hijack, please address her question before bothering to read this waffle
Andrew
Religion has many good things to offer (if you believe in a society where humans co-exist, have their happiness maximized and their suffering minimized) but by it's nature seems to promote behaviour which is harmful to society.
This dichotomy is what prevents me from subscribing to any organised religion or accepting that organised religion should be encouraged. I would certainly be interested to learn more about how those who follow the doctrines of faith address the above dichotomy that I perceive, if they acknowledge it's existence at all.
My apologies if my grammar/spelling is off or my sentence structure is cumbersome. Being used to less formal discussion boards + it being nearly midnight here in the anitpodes + coming off a crushing defeat at social basketball = reduced number of times willing to proofread/rewrite.
Interestingly, tiredness hasn't reduced my tendency to ramble, so I better end this here. Apologies to J-No if this is a hijack, please address her question before bothering to read this waffle
Andrew
I've always held you can be sceptical and religious; I don't think they are, neccessaily, incompatible.
To say "I believe in [a] God" does not have to mean the same as "I know [a] God exists".
To say "I believe in [a] God" does not have to mean the same as "I know [a] God exists".
Darat said:
As an answer to the Big Questions, God is certainly useful, but if you are skeptical it would seem to me that simply saying "God did it" to explain all that is currently unexplained is a huge cop-out.
As seen in another thread we are running into the problem of "What is God?"
For the purposes of this thread, we are talking about the Christian God. In that case, while someone looking for explanations for the origins of the universe/life/chocolate pie might say "I think a conscious entity outside of our understanding is responsible" it is a rather large leap to say "And that concious entity in the Christian God, AKA Jehova."
Hmm. Once again I've rambled off slightly. To more directly address your point Darat, I still do not see the intersection between skepticism and religion. If you say "I'm a Christian and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but am skeptical about many aspects of the bible, especially where it involves the paranormal" then you are only religious if you apply the set of values you live by in a extremely scrupulous or conscientious fashion. However, if you say "I believe that Jesus Christ was the physical embodiment of our lord, God" then you can hardly claim to be skeptical, unless you go through life constantly adding the proviso that you are marked by or given to doubt in relation to your belief.
To simplify what I've no doubt obfuscated: I still do not see how faith and doubt are compatible.
edit: Apologies if my examples seem like strawmen. I would be happy to debate why I think a skeptic would have his doubts about the physical manifestation of a deity, but this would probably be best done in a seperate thread or privately.
I am not a christian myself, but I used to be when I was young. The God I believed in was the kind of God that is called the God of the Gaps - and he was an armchair God. That is, this God is omnipotent and omniscient, but afrter having created the universe, he fell asleep in an armchair and has never been heard of since - except for the brief period with his son who got himself killed. This god regulates everything that science cannot explain - those are "the gaps". If science comes up with an answer to something where God was formerly the arbiter, God graciously retreats further away.
I do not know if christian skeptics believe in a god like this, but it is a god that is completely adapted to skeptic thought.
I do not know if christian skeptics believe in a god like this, but it is a god that is completely adapted to skeptic thought.
One further comment from me about this... I don't generally engage myself in debates about God's existence, since there's no way to satisfy the question. Belief in God (or in invisible pink unicorns, for that matter 
) should be a personal matter, in my opinion. It becomes a problem when it becomes institutionalized.
) should be a personal matter, in my opinion. It becomes a problem when it becomes institutionalized.jmercer said:One further comment from me about this... I don't generally engage myself in debates about God's existence, since there's no way to satisfy the question. Belief in God (or in invisible pink unicorns, for that matter
This I can most definitely agree with. Just because the God that I don't think exists would be an extremely disagreeable, incosistent and nasty entity if he did, doesn't mean that individuals cannot believe in a deity who only enhances their lives. As you say, it is the institutionalisation of belief that causes problems that I guess I don't need to elaborate on as I've already consumed too much of this thread with my banter already.
In an attempt to steer this thread back in the direction that I think J-No intended: As opposed to simply discussin the existence of God, how do skeptical Christians describe the way in which they practice their faith?
ilk said:
Well, I guess it depends what you have faith or doubt in. I have no problem in believing in God, but I doubt that He interferes in the world. From this it follows that I can believe in the historical Jesus and his teachings but remain sceptical that the miracles attributed to him actually occurred or that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
Traveller said:
In that case, you would believe that the teachings of a particular individual had value in regards to how you live your life.
Does finding a particular set of ideas valuable make you religious?
If you distill Christianity into a set of values which you think are Goodâ„¢ while discarding everything that you don't like, are you still a Christian? Are you a religious person if you simply say "I think that my social existence should maximize the happiness of humanity while minimizing it's sufferings" ?
Stitch
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2004
- Messages
- 667
Sceptisim isn't a boolean.
You are sceptical on a case by case basis. No reason why you can't a sceptic in general but also believe in some things.
To say you believe in a god and yet are sceptical about god's existence may be a little hard to reconcile, but no reason you can't believe in god and be sceptical about the paranormal for example.
Stitch said:
This is a little bit of a truism. Everybody believes in some things. For example, I believe that being skeptical is a valid way to live my life. Even that phrase can be exploded/explored ad infinitum with regards to the definitions of the words used. The point of this thread is the reconciliation of skepticism (as the concept is generally accepted) and Christianity (and the reconciliation will probably vary greatly depending on an individuals definition of their own Christianity).
Stitch said:
That is a little paradoxical, unless you have a definition of paranormal which exempts God from being beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.
J-No said:
I was going to say something along those lines in another thread.
I consider myself a Christian and a skeptic as well. Our patron saint Randi considers the two to be incompatible, and indeed so do many of the wise folks who contribute here, and so have many scientists and skeptics through the centuries. Nevertheless, I do not think they actually are incompatible except when you attempt to equate Christianity with the silliness called "creation science". Religion is silent on scientific questions, as science is silent on religious questions.
Do I believe in the teachings of Jesus? In a word, yes.
Re: Re: Christian and Skeptic??
Ok, I promise I'll go to bed and shut up after this:
So, when dealing with certain thoughts, such as "What happens to the "me" that is asking this question when the body that this "me" inhabits ceases to function?" the "God Did It" partition is accessed, but when it comes to more concrete activities such as buying delicious candy, the "Oooh...candy!" partition loads and works out how much candy the operator can afford. The "Oooh...candy!" partition has to obey certain laws, such as Law 472: Candy must be physically obtained to be ingested. Imaginary candy is only imaginarily delicious and will not put real sugar into the operators bloodstream.
What utility does the "God Did It" partition have? Does it have more value than preventing the operator from wasting cycles on difficult problems?
IIRichard said:
Ok, I promise I'll go to bed and shut up after this:
So, when dealing with certain thoughts, such as "What happens to the "me" that is asking this question when the body that this "me" inhabits ceases to function?" the "God Did It" partition is accessed, but when it comes to more concrete activities such as buying delicious candy, the "Oooh...candy!" partition loads and works out how much candy the operator can afford. The "Oooh...candy!" partition has to obey certain laws, such as Law 472: Candy must be physically obtained to be ingested. Imaginary candy is only imaginarily delicious and will not put real sugar into the operators bloodstream.
What utility does the "God Did It" partition have? Does it have more value than preventing the operator from wasting cycles on difficult problems?
THE God, (the one with a capital "G"), if it existed, would be the most utterly alien organism imaginable. HR Giger's aliens would be our near cousins in comparison.
I'm not sure even the word "organism" would be applicable.
An immortal, omnipresent entity, spanning, indeed composing spacetime , superstrings and all the curly-wurly dimensions?
Questions like "Does it have a navel?" quite fail to address the point.
Does it "live" in the sense we do? Does it have "Free Will?"
If it is always right, how can it have free anything?
The logical contradictions implicit in its claimed abilities beggar belief.
And yet, belief is all it would seem to have.
Personally, I think the existence of such a thing is unlikely.
If I were to choose a god to believe in, it would be a smaller, humbler one, with a sense of fun.
But on the whole, gods are like sugar in tea. I can live with or without and without is simpler.
I'm not sure even the word "organism" would be applicable.
An immortal, omnipresent entity, spanning, indeed composing spacetime , superstrings and all the curly-wurly dimensions?
Questions like "Does it have a navel?" quite fail to address the point.
Does it "live" in the sense we do? Does it have "Free Will?"
If it is always right, how can it have free anything?
The logical contradictions implicit in its claimed abilities beggar belief.
And yet, belief is all it would seem to have.
Personally, I think the existence of such a thing is unlikely.
If I were to choose a god to believe in, it would be a smaller, humbler one, with a sense of fun.
But on the whole, gods are like sugar in tea. I can live with or without and without is simpler.
Re: Re: Re: Christian and Skeptic??
Something like that. The scientific method is the most sucessful means found for dealing with physical phenomena. I don't believe it handles ethical and moral questions well alone, although the results of science are useful when considering such things. For me faith, religion, a moral sense are also necessary.
Please do not mistake what I've said as a statement that agnostics and atheists cannot be moral and ethical.
BTW, the Bible is much too important to be taken literally. I believe Azimov had some things to say on that topic.
Sleep well.
ilk said:
Something like that. The scientific method is the most sucessful means found for dealing with physical phenomena. I don't believe it handles ethical and moral questions well alone, although the results of science are useful when considering such things. For me faith, religion, a moral sense are also necessary.
Please do not mistake what I've said as a statement that agnostics and atheists cannot be moral and ethical.
BTW, the Bible is much too important to be taken literally. I believe Azimov had some things to say on that topic.
Sleep well.
There are 3 types of Christian commentator on the paranormal. (I’m not Christian or anything else but I think some psychic phenomena is real - unlike the vast majority in here)
[type 1] The Christian who rejects any paranormal event outside the bible/church as fraud or evil spirits. They don’t like the paranormal because it weakens the church authority and anything that contradicts bible cannot be true - ‘a priori’ belief ... because they have faith the bible is true or trustworthy. Simply put, paranormal inside bible = holy truth ….. paranormal outside bible = devil or fraud
[type 2] The Christian Spiritualist type, also known as the New Age Christian, who believes in paranormal phenomena and wishes to mix it with their Christian belief. This type probably hasn’t read the bible and thinks Spiritualism and Christianity are compatible …. but are not very compatible …. as many people in here don’t seem to understand the difference, I will try to explain ……
- Christianity believes in eternal damnation (or non existence) of non believers …. Spiritualism believes in eternal progress of every soul
- Christianity believes sins are washed away by faith ….. Spiritualism believes retribution for good or evil action/behavior after death, faith makes no difference
- Christianity says only Jesus saves …. Spiritualism says in essence he was just a more evolved man, no one dies, they evolve towards that.
- Many Christians (but not all) say the dead are sleeping and cannot communicate … the Spiritualists say they are alive and can communicate.
- Christianity believes in the devil …. Spiritualism doesn’t believe in a devil …. Both believe in possession and exorcism but in Christianity it’s a devil/demons, in Spiritualism it is mostly viewed as mischievous, earthbound (nearly always human) spirits
- Christianity believes in Genesis creationism… Spiritualism believes in earthly and spiritual evolution
- Christianity follows the bible …. Spiritualism regards it as only a book with some good ideas.
And so on .......
However these contradictions are easily overlooked by this type of New Age Christian. They tend to interprete the bible as Jesus manifest the Christ/God to make it more compatble.
[type 3] The 3rd type calls themselves Christian, doesn’t talk about it .... it’s all very vague but true. Perhaps following family tradition. For others in this group, it is also an insurance policy, keeping faith to avoid eternal damnation theory just in case God did write the holy chain letter.
[Type 4] The angry former Christian, who jumped from being religious found it annoying and restrictive, decided to dismiss everthing paranormal and became a dogmatic super pseudo sKeptic.
To sum up in conclusion
Type 1 attacks type 2 and tries to save type 4
Type 2 tries to reinvent Christianity, annoys type 1 and puts type 3 right off all paranormal claims
Type 3 attacks type 2 but tolerates type 1 (They believe faith is OK)
Type 4 attacks type 1 and type 2 but can tolerate type 3 (because they remain silent)
So the effect of Christian influenced opinion on paranormal investigation is a sort of ...... er ... war .... er, no ... total chaos
There you go, solved
[type 1] The Christian who rejects any paranormal event outside the bible/church as fraud or evil spirits. They don’t like the paranormal because it weakens the church authority and anything that contradicts bible cannot be true - ‘a priori’ belief ... because they have faith the bible is true or trustworthy. Simply put, paranormal inside bible = holy truth ….. paranormal outside bible = devil or fraud
[type 2] The Christian Spiritualist type, also known as the New Age Christian, who believes in paranormal phenomena and wishes to mix it with their Christian belief. This type probably hasn’t read the bible and thinks Spiritualism and Christianity are compatible …. but are not very compatible …. as many people in here don’t seem to understand the difference, I will try to explain ……
- Christianity believes in eternal damnation (or non existence) of non believers …. Spiritualism believes in eternal progress of every soul
- Christianity believes sins are washed away by faith ….. Spiritualism believes retribution for good or evil action/behavior after death, faith makes no difference
- Christianity says only Jesus saves …. Spiritualism says in essence he was just a more evolved man, no one dies, they evolve towards that.
- Many Christians (but not all) say the dead are sleeping and cannot communicate … the Spiritualists say they are alive and can communicate.
- Christianity believes in the devil …. Spiritualism doesn’t believe in a devil …. Both believe in possession and exorcism but in Christianity it’s a devil/demons, in Spiritualism it is mostly viewed as mischievous, earthbound (nearly always human) spirits
- Christianity believes in Genesis creationism… Spiritualism believes in earthly and spiritual evolution
- Christianity follows the bible …. Spiritualism regards it as only a book with some good ideas.
And so on .......
However these contradictions are easily overlooked by this type of New Age Christian. They tend to interprete the bible as Jesus manifest the Christ/God to make it more compatble.
[type 3] The 3rd type calls themselves Christian, doesn’t talk about it .... it’s all very vague but true. Perhaps following family tradition. For others in this group, it is also an insurance policy, keeping faith to avoid eternal damnation theory just in case God did write the holy chain letter.
[Type 4] The angry former Christian, who jumped from being religious found it annoying and restrictive, decided to dismiss everthing paranormal and became a dogmatic super pseudo sKeptic.
To sum up in conclusion
Type 1 attacks type 2 and tries to save type 4
Type 2 tries to reinvent Christianity, annoys type 1 and puts type 3 right off all paranormal claims
Type 3 attacks type 2 but tolerates type 1 (They believe faith is OK)
Type 4 attacks type 1 and type 2 but can tolerate type 3 (because they remain silent)
So the effect of Christian influenced opinion on paranormal investigation is a sort of ...... er ... war .... er, no ... total chaos
There you go, solved
ilk said:
Even on this board you can see there are some (big) differences between Members who proclaim "I'm a sceptic". So considering there does not seem to be a sense of an absolute sceptic or Christian then I'm sure there are many ways the two can be reconciled in one person.
I would say you could call yourself a "Sceptic and Christian" if you have a belief in God (and accept the meaning of a belief), yet are willing to change your mind if evidence is presented that proved your belief was wrong.
As a "for instance". Consider someone who believes that God exists because they had a "spiritual" moment and. A few years pass and a friend said "Hey let me hook you to this machine, whenever I press the red button you'll have a 'spiritual' moment". Suddenly you learn of a new explanation for your experience and one that fits the facts even better so you change your mind.
Yeah sure. Every ex-Christian only left the faith because it was "annoying and restrictive". I guess it didn't give them enough freedom to steal, kill, masturbate and do drugs.Open Mind said:[Type 4] The angry former Christian, who jumped from being religious find it annoying and restrictive, decided to dismiss everthing and became a dogmatic super pseudo sKeptic.
