Well, that’s not technically true. Man sees the sun going across the sky and reasons that the only logical explanation for such a thing is that it is being pulled across the sky by a chariot with a team of horses. Chariots do not steer themselves, so there must logically be some heavenly being behind the reins. Let’s call him “Hyperion” for the sake of argument, although “Sun God” would work as well…
Seriously, though, much of religion was originally an attempt to explain the observed world and not simply a way to trick people into behaving a certain way. As such, it was based on evidence and logic. The problem with logic, however, is that a conclusion can be perfectly valid yet completely false if the premises that led to that conclusion are also false.
In fact, much of what we today call “the scientific method” was developed by devout believers in religion as a way of justifying their religious beliefs.
I love it when Fundamentalists say this, the irony is so delicious.
**
Do yourself and us a favor, Svt4Him, read a book on comparative religion before spouting off again, okay? Try Huston Smith’s The World’s Religions (1991).
godzillatemple made some very good points.
Anyone who thinks religion can’t be logic-based maybe ought to read some Thomas Aquinas.
It’s worth pointing out that logic can’t tell you what’s true; it can only tell you what else is true. You have to start with some unproved axioms. If people have different beliefs, they’re not necessarily illogical; they may just be starting from different initial assumptions.
One could turn the OP’s question around and ask, Why would you follow a religion that you didn’t believe was true (or at least the truest you could find, in the sense of being the closest possible reflection of Reality)?
A bit nitpicky, but since this has come up recently I’ll just note that the above phrasing perpetuates a misapprehension. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, not a separate religion.
i.e. the correct phrasing should be, “I’ve been feeling mounting frustration towards the Christian religion…” Religion, singular. Unless your beef is with the Catholic church in particular, in which case you can substitute “Catholicism” for “Christian religion”.
Nowhere near the right answers? You have to be dealing with speeds over 40,000m/s just to get a difference of 1% between Einstein’s equations and Newton’s. For objects moving at the more human-level speed of 100m/s, Newton differs from Einstein by only 0.00005%. Nowhere near, indeed.
[/hijack]
Quite right. At normal speeds, the differences between the theories are less than our measurement error.
There are subtle and signficant differences in some cases. Without an understanding of Relativity, our satellite systems wouldn’t work properly due to time dilation. Particle accelerators couldn’t function…
At high speeds, though, Newton’s and Einstein’s theories give completely different results. Newton’s are nothing like the universe we see, while Einstein’s match pretty darn well.
Luck, maybe?
I’m desperately trying to find a fab JS Mill quote that would be perfect for this subject, something he said about a man having the good sense to know that what makes him a Rabbi in Israel (and I’m just using examples) would just as easily make him a priest in Italy (I’m totally screwing it up. That’s why I use quotes, I guess).
So what do these other Christian’s believe. They must believe in the core tennets, such as the existence of Jesus christ, right? Or else they wouldn’t be Christians. Even this belief baffles me. What about Vishnu or Mohammed or the countless other historical/religious figures mentioned in other texts? Where do they come in in the Christian faith?
There are probably as many answers for that as their are Christians. Yes, there is a least one core belief – that Jesus Christ walked this earth. AFAIK, all Christians believe that. They may differ on almost everything else and still refer to themselves as Christians. I would think that a great majority of Christians believe that Jesus was a great teacher sent by God.
In my own belief, all paths lead to being One with God. The world’s great religions have much in common. I think that we should draw on that rather than emphasize the differences.
I don’t think that’s true at all. The great majority of Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God who was crucified to shed his blood for the world’s sins and was resurrected. To state the majority of Christians think he was simply a “great teacher” is nonsense.
Some “Christians” believe that the Bible (well, the New Testament at least) is the inerrant word of God and that everything contained therein is literally the “gospel truth.”
Some “Christians” believe that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and that only through him can we be saved. At the same time, however, they reject much that is in the Bible as inapplicable to our day or even the result of mistranslations and/or deliberate alterations.
Some “Christians” know absolutely nothing about what Christ taught, and simply believe that the act of “letting Jesus into your heart” is enough to guaranty eternal salvation.
Some “Christians” believe that Christ was a great teacher who provided some wonderful principals to live by, but that’s all.
Some “Christians” believe the entire Bible is basically an allegory and are not even convinced that there was such a person as Jesus or that, if there was such a person, that he said or did all the things ascribed to him. They do, however, think that the teachings of Christianity are good and worthwhile.
And. of course, some “Christians” don’t believe a word of it and don’t live according to Christian principals, but still identify themselves as “Christians” because that’s how they were raised.
Notice, BTW, that I am not necessarily referring to different denominations of Christian faiths here, simply what individual people who claim to be “Christians” say they believe when asked. And yes, I have asked.
I think the crux of this is that bo989 doesn’t believe in the various religious beliefs. As such, he wishes they would stop. Sounds to me like he is falling into the same behavior he seems to dislike from religious types: believing that his beliefs are true and that others are false.
I am currently reading “Thre Science of Discworld” by Terry Pratchett. It uses his fictional discworld to teach about science in our world. In one chapter it is pointed out that throughout history, logic and observation have lead us wrong. We are constantly finding correction and addendumns to things science holds as “truth”.
As for religious beliefs not being based on observation or logic, for many it is. They have had experiences that they can see no other explanation that God’s hand, and in their own minds, their belief system is perfectly logical. Sure those experiences may not be universal, but few things are.
I doubt anything we say here will sway bo989 much. He didn’t come here to debate, but had an axe to grind. Nothing wrong with that, but perhaps your OP should reflect your true motives.
If only it were that simple - people still have to interpret the evidence, and the conclusions they draw can be vastly different. Consider for a minute, the current debate (in the UK at least) over the possible heath risks associated with the MMR vacine, radio towers and pesticides. There is plenty of research done into all three, and yet the controversy rages on…
you’ve partially got my number. I’m not religious. And I think that point should have been clear to anyone reading my OP. But perhaps I should have stated it more explicitly. Even if I did believe in a higher power, I would likely still wonder how someone could believe in the Bible and not the Koran. (Its now been made clear to me that not all Christian’s believe the bible as anything more than an allegory and I accept that. But many put far more stock in the Bible and its stories).
As for the experiences you refer to, that demonstrate God at work, I acknowledged these in earlier posts. However, I do not see how one can have these experiences and conclude that they are experiencing the Christian God at work or that they feel Christ in their hearts. Why do these experiences not similarily validate the other religions?
Re: Science. Science isn’t perfect, and often doesn’t lead to the same conclusion, because human beings are imperfect and not computers. That being the case, science is always progressing towards the right answers (even though sometimes it might be one step forward and two steps backwards). Religion on the other hand is for the large part static, and instead of reevaluating its basic tennents based on current evidence, it clings to the past. So I really do think we should stop comparing religion and science and stop treating them as they are similar belief structures.
