Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[Rohn Jambo]

A comment in another thread, which is a rehash of a comment we see in all the religion threads, was along the lines of "From my viewpoint, my belief in X is based on faith. It can't be proven or disproven."

Just curious as to whether there is a rational basis for folks deciding to put faith in a particular unprovable over another unprovable. I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X. Does that bother you? Do you ever consider that, had you grown up in a different hemisphere, or been born to parents in a house up the road, you might well have a completely different blind faith (that could neither be proven nor disproven)?

Not trying to throw stones at the believers, just curious to get past the hocus pocus and right down to an honest intellectual discussion. The answer at the end of this may be "yeah, I recognize none of this is rational, but it makes me happy and gives me some good constructs around which I can build my life and my family's lives," and if so, that's cool by me. But if it's something more than that, curious to hear that too.

TIA

Mods please file under "religion threads"

Hi Otis,

I appreciate the question. And it's a good one. You ask, "I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X. Does that bother you?"

I would answer, "Sure". Anytime one believes something it's a good thing to ask yourself why. And one thing to consider are things like you're asking - would it be different if I'd been in different circumstances?

Would I have the same faith I do now if I'd been born in China to Chinese parents? Fair question. Honest answer has to be "I don't know". I have heard though that the number of new Christians in China is growing very quickly. Even in the face of opposition. Would I have been one of them? Who knows? I don't think there's really any way to answer that question. So I'll be honest in that I don't give it a ton of thought. I do know quite a few Christians who have parents who are not.

Another hard thing to think about is what about the people in super remote areas of the world who haven't heard about Christianity? Or any other religion? What about them? That's a hard one to imagine too.

What I do feel like I have to think about is the situation I'm in here. I have heard. I do know about it. That's probably most of us. So then, we have to decide what we do with that information. I know it has detractors, but I always thought Strobels book, The Case for Christ asked the question in a pretty good way - what if hearing about Jesus was sort of like being on a jury? And your job as a juror was to hear the "case" presented by both sides and then make a decision. Any court case has two sides. One side says he did it. The other side says he didn't do it. They present their reasons and the jury makes a decision. I doubt every juror is completely sure. They just feel like given the evidence, they make a call. That's kind of how I see this.

On the hubris of being so certain that your way is the only way - I fall less in line with that than some. It seems to me that my time is better spent being known as what I'm for rather than what I'm against. So I don't spend a lot of time thinking my way of thinking is so superior to any other religion. I have made my "call" and Christianity is my choice. But I think it works better when you don't go around acting so proud about it or that you're somehow superior. Is that theologically correct? I don't know. I just know it's how I feel.

Over the last few years, my thinking has kind of angled toward the idea of what I said above that Christians might be better off if we were known for what we're for. Not what we're against. Carvey's Church Lady with the wagging finger hits way too close for many people. That is funny. But it's not very attractive.

They don't get near as much attention as the guys yelling but writers like Donald Miller, Bob Goff and Anne Lamott are much more in line with how I see things. Relevant Magazine has some good things too.

I know that's maybe not a very good answer to your question. But it's sort of how I see it. And good question. Always good to ask questions.

J

Joe, are you saying that you let your kids choose their own religion?

Hi John,

Yes. You can't "make" your kids choose a religion. You can influence them of course. And I hope they'll choose Christianity. And yes, I'll encourage them to choose Christianity because as a parent, I think that's the right choice. But faith is something personal. There comes a time in every person's life when their faith becomes their own. It's the only way for it to really be real I think.

J

How did you learn about the other religions before you chose Christianity? Do you expose your kids to other religions in a different way?

 

[Steve Tasker]

Absolutely we follow the same religion our parents follow. I would say it's a very serious thing to cast off the religion of one's parents, and shouldn't be done lightly.

Why do you feel this way? Honest question.

 

[timschochet]

I know some good people who are not religious who deserve to go to "heaven" and a bunch of religious people who do not.

In my world view, neither you nor I nor anyone you know deserves to go to heaven.

I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that people who say "I'm a good person" don't know themselves very well.

Would you say that a person who at least tries to live an honest life is a better person than a crook, a murderer, a rapist? Or are they equally sinful in your eyes?

 

[Joe Bryant]

A comment in another thread, which is a rehash of a comment we see in all the religion threads, was along the lines of "From my viewpoint, my belief in X is based on faith. It can't be proven or disproven."

Just curious as to whether there is a rational basis for folks deciding to put faith in a particular unprovable over another unprovable. I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X. Does that bother you? Do you ever consider that, had you grown up in a different hemisphere, or been born to parents in a house up the road, you might well have a completely different blind faith (that could neither be proven nor disproven)?

Not trying to throw stones at the believers, just curious to get past the hocus pocus and right down to an honest intellectual discussion. The answer at the end of this may be "yeah, I recognize none of this is rational, but it makes me happy and gives me some good constructs around which I can build my life and my family's lives," and if so, that's cool by me. But if it's something more than that, curious to hear that too.

TIA

Mods please file under "religion threads"

Hi Otis,

I appreciate the question. And it's a good one. You ask, "I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X. Does that bother you?"

I would answer, "Sure". Anytime one believes something it's a good thing to ask yourself why. And one thing to consider are things like you're asking - would it be different if I'd been in different circumstances?

Would I have the same faith I do now if I'd been born in China to Chinese parents? Fair question. Honest answer has to be "I don't know". I have heard though that the number of new Christians in China is growing very quickly. Even in the face of opposition. Would I have been one of them? Who knows? I don't think there's really any way to answer that question. So I'll be honest in that I don't give it a ton of thought. I do know quite a few Christians who have parents who are not.

Another hard thing to think about is what about the people in super remote areas of the world who haven't heard about Christianity? Or any other religion? What about them? That's a hard one to imagine too.

What I do feel like I have to think about is the situation I'm in here. I have heard. I do know about it. That's probably most of us. So then, we have to decide what we do with that information. I know it has detractors, but I always thought Strobels book, The Case for Christ asked the question in a pretty good way - what if hearing about Jesus was sort of like being on a jury? And your job as a juror was to hear the "case" presented by both sides and then make a decision. Any court case has two sides. One side says he did it. The other side says he didn't do it. They present their reasons and the jury makes a decision. I doubt every juror is completely sure. They just feel like given the evidence, they make a call. That's kind of how I see this.

On the hubris of being so certain that your way is the only way - I fall less in line with that than some. It seems to me that my time is better spent being known as what I'm for rather than what I'm against. So I don't spend a lot of time thinking my way of thinking is so superior to any other religion. I have made my "call" and Christianity is my choice. But I think it works better when you don't go around acting so proud about it or that you're somehow superior. Is that theologically correct? I don't know. I just know it's how I feel.

Over the last few years, my thinking has kind of angled toward the idea of what I said above that Christians might be better off if we were known for what we're for. Not what we're against. Carvey's Church Lady with the wagging finger hits way too close for many people. That is funny. But it's not very attractive.

They don't get near as much attention as the guys yelling but writers like Donald Miller, Bob Goff and Anne Lamott are much more in line with how I see things. Relevant Magazine has some good things too.

I know that's maybe not a very good answer to your question. But it's sort of how I see it. And good question. Always good to ask questions.

J

Joe, are you saying that you let your kids choose their own religion?

Hi John,

Yes. You can't "make" your kids choose a religion. You can influence them of course. And I hope they'll choose Christianity. And yes, I'll encourage them to choose Christianity because as a parent, I think that's the right choice. But faith is something personal. There comes a time in every person's life when their faith becomes their own. It's the only way for it to really be real I think.

J

How did you learn about the other religions before you chose Christianity? Do you expose your kids to other religions in a different way?

I learned mostly in college. I got out of my house after high school (my parents were Christian) and was able to see the different offerings once I was on my own. I personally chose "none" during that time and totally dropped out of any kind of church or religious stuff for about 10 years. My kids are getting pretty much the same experience I had. Will they choose the path I did? I don't know.

J

 

[Steve Tasker]

I learned mostly in college. I got out of my house after high school (my parents were Christian) and was able to see the different offerings once I was on my own. I personally chose "none" during that time and totally dropped out of any kind of church or religious stuff for about 10 years. My kids are getting pretty much the same experience I had. Will they choose the path I did? I don't know.

J

What made you go back to Christianity? Is it the same sect of Christianity you were involved in during your youth?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I learned mostly in college. I got out of my house after high school (my parents were Christian) and was able to see the different offerings once I was on my own. I personally chose "none" during that time and totally dropped out of any kind of church or religious stuff for about 10 years. My kids are getting pretty much the same experience I had. Will they choose the path I did? I don't know.

J

What made you go back to Christianity? Is it the same sect of Christianity you were involved in during your youth?

Good question, Steve. What made me go back was finally coming to grips that there was more I needed than I could fill up with the stuff I was trying to fill it with. All the things we as a society value - money, recognition, success etc.

I would say my "flavor" of Christianity now is similar to what I saw as a kid but different in that it's less the church lady stuff and more Bob Goff expressing my faith with love for a neighbor. (which probably explains why I feel like I do as I said earlier) It's the same basic principles though.

J

 

[Psychopav]

Absolutely we follow the same religion our parents follow. I would say it's a very serious thing to cast off the religion of one's parents, and shouldn't be done lightly.

Why do you feel this way? Honest question.

Well, firstly because of what I said earlier about witnessing. They believe and are testifying to that belief to you. In many cases, they are the last in a long line of belief but when your parents strongly believe something, they should generally get the benefit of the doubt. Just talking generalities here, not specifically about religion.

Also, faith, like many traditions, is passed down from generation to generation. Traditions have value which is why they are passed down. To cast them aside should be done purposely and with careful consideration.

There's also respect. There is a great deal of pride involved in choosing a different worldview from your parents, as you are in effect saying that they are wrong and your view is right. That may in fact be true, but should again only be done after careful consideration imo.

I'm sure I could address this more properly, this is off the top of my head and while distracted by my nutsy family.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

A comment in another thread, which is a rehash of a comment we see in all the religion threads, was along the lines of "From my viewpoint, my belief in X is based on faith. It can't be proven or disproven."

Just curious as to whether there is a rational basis for folks deciding to put faith in a particular unprovable over another unprovable. I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X. Does that bother you? Do you ever consider that, had you grown up in a different hemisphere, or been born to parents in a house up the road, you might well have a completely different blind faith (that could neither be proven nor disproven)?

Not trying to throw stones at the believers, just curious to get past the hocus pocus and right down to an honest intellectual discussion. The answer at the end of this may be "yeah, I recognize none of this is rational, but it makes me happy and gives me some good constructs around which I can build my life and my family's lives," and if so, that's cool by me. But if it's something more than that, curious to hear that too.

TIA

Mods please file under "religion threads"

Hi Otis,

I appreciate the question. And it's a good one. You ask, "I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X. Does that bother you?"

I would answer, "Sure". Anytime one believes something it's a good thing to ask yourself why. And one thing to consider are things like you're asking - would it be different if I'd been in different circumstances?

Would I have the same faith I do now if I'd been born in China to Chinese parents? Fair question. Honest answer has to be "I don't know". I have heard though that the number of new Christians in China is growing very quickly. Even in the face of opposition. Would I have been one of them? Who knows? I don't think there's really any way to answer that question. So I'll be honest in that I don't give it a ton of thought. I do know quite a few Christians who have parents who are not.

Another hard thing to think about is what about the people in super remote areas of the world who haven't heard about Christianity? Or any other religion? What about them? That's a hard one to imagine too.

What I do feel like I have to think about is the situation I'm in here. I have heard. I do know about it. That's probably most of us. So then, we have to decide what we do with that information. I know it has detractors, but I always thought Strobels book, The Case for Christ asked the question in a pretty good way - what if hearing about Jesus was sort of like being on a jury? And your job as a juror was to hear the "case" presented by both sides and then make a decision. Any court case has two sides. One side says he did it. The other side says he didn't do it. They present their reasons and the jury makes a decision. I doubt every juror is completely sure. They just feel like given the evidence, they make a call. That's kind of how I see this.

On the hubris of being so certain that your way is the only way - I fall less in line with that than some. It seems to me that my time is better spent being known as what I'm for rather than what I'm against. So I don't spend a lot of time thinking my way of thinking is so superior to any other religion. I have made my "call" and Christianity is my choice. But I think it works better when you don't go around acting so proud about it or that you're somehow superior. Is that theologically correct? I don't know. I just know it's how I feel.

Over the last few years, my thinking has kind of angled toward the idea of what I said above that Christians might be better off if we were known for what we're for. Not what we're against. Carvey's Church Lady with the wagging finger hits way too close for many people. That is funny. But it's not very attractive.

They don't get near as much attention as the guys yelling but writers like Donald Miller, Bob Goff and Anne Lamott are much more in line with how I see things. Relevant Magazine has some good things too.

I know that's maybe not a very good answer to your question. But it's sort of how I see it. And good question. Always good to ask questions.

J

Joe, are you saying that you let your kids choose their own religion?

Hi John,

Yes. You can't "make" your kids choose a religion. You can influence them of course. And I hope they'll choose Christianity. And yes, I'll encourage them to choose Christianity because as a parent, I think that's the right choice. But faith is something personal. There comes a time in every person's life when their faith becomes their own. It's the only way for it to really be real I think.

J

How did you learn about the other religions before you chose Christianity? Do you expose your kids to other religions in a different way?

I learned mostly in college. I got out of my house after high school (my parents were Christian) and was able to see the different offerings once I was on my own. I personally chose "none" during that time and totally dropped out of any kind of church or religious stuff for about 10 years. My kids are getting pretty much the same experience I had. Will they choose the path I did? I don't know.

J

I am sorry for being nosy but what happened after ten years that made you visit the Methodist Church?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am sorry for being nosy but what happened after ten years that made you visit the Methodist Church?

That's not nosy Rohn,

I think I was answering above about the time you were typing.

What made me go back was finally coming to grips that there was more I needed than I could fill up with the stuff I was trying to fill it with. All the things we as a society value - money, recognition, success etc.

J

 

[Psychopav]

I am sorry for being nosy but what happened after ten years that made you visit the Methodist Church?

That's not nosy Rohn,

I think I was answering above about the time you were typing.

What made me go back was finally coming to grips that there was more I needed than I could fill up with the stuff I was trying to fill it with. All the things we as a society value - money, recognition, success etc.

J

I for one am glad you did not include fantasy football success in your list of corrupt societal values.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am sorry for being nosy but what happened after ten years that made you visit the Methodist Church?

That's not nosy Rohn,

I think I was answering above about the time you were typing.

What made me go back was finally coming to grips that there was more I needed than I could fill up with the stuff I was trying to fill it with. All the things we as a society value - money, recognition, success etc.

J

I for one am glad you did not include fantasy football success in your list of corrupt societal values.

J

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Absolutely we follow the same religion our parents follow. I would say it's a very serious thing to cast off the religion of one's parents, and shouldn't be done lightly.

Why do you feel this way? Honest question.

Well, firstly because of what I said earlier about witnessing. They believe and are testifying to that belief to you. In many cases, they are the last in a long line of belief but when your parents strongly believe something, they should generally get the benefit of the doubt. Just talking generalities here, not specifically about religion.

Also, faith, like many traditions, is passed down from generation to generation. Traditions have value which is why they are passed down. To cast them aside should be done purposely and with careful consideration.

There's also respect. There is a great deal of pride involved in choosing a different worldview from your parents, as you are in effect saying that they are wrong and your view is right. That may in fact be true, but should again only be done after careful consideration imo.

I'm sure I could address this more properly, this is off the top of my head and while distracted by my nutsy family.

Not all of them.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But on the serious side. Those society values aren't neccessarily corrupt. They're often very good things that people try to fill their lives up with. For me though, there was more that couldn't be filled with anything here. There was a void for me that was this feeling that there was a higher power and there was more to it than what I was seeing here.

J

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I am sorry for being nosy but what happened after ten years that made you visit the Methodist Church?

That's not nosy Rohn,

I think I was answering above about the time you were typing.



What made me go back was finally coming to grips that there was more I needed than I could fill up with the stuff I was trying to fill it with. All the things we as a society value - money, recognition, success etc.



J

I for one am glad you did not include fantasy football success in your list of corrupt societal values.

J

Yes, it may be blasphemy to FBGs who spend a lot of time in the diet thread, but we all have to take care of the spiritual part of our lives, in whatever ways we choose.

 

[BassNBrew]

Another question Joe, does your current church believe in a 6000 year old earth and do you? The reason I ask is that a floor installer working at my home yesterday brought up a conversation about faith. He was born in Russia. Basically his beliefs were that he have faith that what his church told him was true and that the scientists that talk about an earth millions of years old are lying. He also told me that rainbows didn't exist until after the Noah event. I know there are people who can merge the two schools of thought, but is that really having faith?

 

[GregR]

My comment is this "thought" experiment I read somewhere. If all religions completely disappeared, it is highly unlikely, well impossible, that the same belief systems would redevelop over the years. New religions might develop, but they would be entirely different from the existing sects we have now. On the other hand, if all science based knowledge also disapperead, over time the EXACT same principles would be rediscovered. This tells me all I need to know about any religion. It is made up!

So you make assumptions and draw conclusions upon those assumptions which match the beliefs you had prior to making those assumptions. Brilliant logic.

PLEASE do not even go there concerning logic. Are you trying to tell me that your belief system is based on logic of any sort? Come on. Religion is man made, intended to comfort those that need comforting. Science IS logic. I made no assumptions. All I said is that your made up system of belief in some sort of god requires stories and myths to make it comforting. Science stares long and hard into the nature of the universe. Tell me Jon, where are there assumptions in that?

Let's assume for a moment (our 2nd version of the thought experiment) that one of the religions is 100% correct, their deity exists, etc. Doesn't matter which one, but for sake of discussion I'll just say Christianity. If there really is a Christian God who was motivated to send a Jesus because God wanted us to know what Jesus taught, then it probably isn't unreasonable to think if all religion disappeared for some reason that said God might do it again and we would get another religion that was for our purposes the same as Christianity. If it was Islam that 100% correct, then it would be reasonable to think Allah might choose a new prophet, etc, who relayed the same things and we get something very much like Islam again.

So when we assumed religion is made up, the thought experiment's outcome was religion was made up. When we assume a religion was correct, then a very possible outcome of the experiment is that said religion reappears.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Let's assume for a moment (our 2nd version of the thought experiment) that one of the religions is 100% correct, their deity exists, etc. Doesn't matter which one, but for sake of discussion I'll just say Christianity. If there really is a Christian God who was motivated to send a Jesus because God wanted us to know what Jesus taught, then it probably isn't unreasonable to think if all religion disappeared for some reason that said God might do it again and we would get another religion that was for our purposes the same as Christianity. If it was Islam that 100% correct, then it would be reasonable to think Allah might choose a new prophet, etc, who relayed the same things and we get something very much like Islam again.

So when we assumed religion is made up, the thought experiment's outcome was religion was made up. When we assume a religion was correct, then a very possible outcome of the experiment is that said religion reappears.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another question Joe, does your current church believe in a 6000 year old earth and do you? The reason I ask is that a floor installer working at my home yesterday brought up a conversation about faith. He was born in Russia. Basically his beliefs were that he have faith that what his church told him was true and that the scientists that talk about an earth millions of years old are lying. He also told me that rainbows didn't exist until after the Noah event. I know there are people who can merge the two schools of thought, but is that really having faith?

Hi Bass,

No, our church doesn't have any position on the age of the earth that I know of. I've honestly never felt like that was a big deal and I've never heard it mentioned at my church. It always has seemed kind of weird to me how political parties seem to align so much for or against Christianity. For instance, I see lots of Christians who take the knee jerk reaction that global warming isn't real. Why does that have to have a position related to God? Couldn't God make the climate change? We think God made the flood with Noah? Yet I see some church folk oppose global warming just because. And I can't see why. Gun control is another. Seems like lots of Christians are portrayed as being against gun control. If that's accurate, it doesn't make sense to me. Jesus wasn't pro gun that I can tell. I'm for gun control and I don't see anything in the bible that would contradict that position. Nor have I ever had anyone in my church contradict that. Sometimes, I think man made organizations (which is what churches are) can get screwed up trying to follow Jesus. But that's just my opinion.

J

 

[TLEF316]

I was raised Roman Catholic. When I was younger, we went to church just about every Sunday, but that changed once my parents got divorced. (I was 12) After that, it was pretty much Christmas and Easter (and when I visited my grandparents) for a while. Now its never. I went to a Catholic college, and that did nothing to bring me back.

Maybe there is a God. Maybe there's some sort of higher power or at least a set of beliefs/teachings that is close to "correct". But I think I've seen enough in my life to know that Roman Catholicism aint it. There's way too much unnecessary/unfair suffering in the world (and corruption within the church) for me to even consider believing the stuff that I was taught in CCD. Other than the general "be a good person" portion of catholic teachings, I don't give any of it any weight anymore.

 

[Mohawk]

In the first thought experiment I proposed, no one said to assume religion was made up. The experiment asked to imagine all systems of belief, including science, disappeared. In the second thought experiment you proposed, you assumed one religion was 100% correct. That is a HUGE assumption and of course you would get your desired outcome. All I asked was to imagine all systems of belief disappeared. Only science would redevelop in exactly the same way. The only assumption being made was yours, that is, that one religion was 100% correct.

Whenever anyone wants to argue that religious belief is more logical than science, it is clearly time to stop the argument. Obviously, true believers are either unwilling or unable to see their set of beliefs are just that; a leap of faith into the unknown. Go for it. If it makes you feel better, so be it. I sincerely hope it makes a better person out of you. Science does not have the tools to prove either God's existence or non-existence. It deals with rationality and logic and proofs that can be repeated. If that is not enough for you, leap on!

 

[Joe Bryant]

Hi Bass,

Another thing on church and thought. I don't want to insult you if you already know all this but reading about Martin Luther and how he broke away from the old (Catholic) church way back in the 1500's is pretty interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

The Church back then was all powerful and basically had all the answers. I'm grossly generalizing, but Luther basically said he didn't think he needed the Church to be his conduit to God. He could read and interpret the bible for himself. He could pray to God without having a priest. It was super crazy in that time for him to think this way when he nailed his 95 Thesis to the door of the church.

For a modern take on it, I like the Avett Brothers when they sing My God and Me Don't Need A Middle Man.

J

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I suspect that in 99% of cases, your decision to have faith in X is based solely on the fact that you grew up in a certain part of the world and had parents who decided to tell you to have faith in X.

The 99% figure must be wrong as a general matter. Christianity, for example, has gone from 0% market-share to capture a substantial percentage of the world's population in just a couple thousand years. That is going to be explained mostly by horizontal rather than vertical belief-transfer. Same goes for the other really popular religions.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You said faith and rational in the same sentence

I think faith can be rational.

I would define faith as a belief that is not supported by the weight of the available evidence, and that cannot be deduced from pure reason.

That means that reason cannot be used to establish the truth of a belief taken on faith, but it can be used to establish the utility of a belief taken on faith. And a faithful belief in that sense can be rational, IMO.

(I say this as someone who doesn't have faith in any particular religion, but does hold a number of other beliefs on faith.)

 

[GregR]

In the first thought experiment I proposed, no one said to assume religion was made up. The experiment asked to imagine all systems of belief, including science, disappeared. In the second thought experiment you proposed, you assumed one religion was 100% correct. That is a HUGE assumption and of course you would get your desired outcome. All I asked was to imagine all systems of belief disappeared. Only science would redevelop in exactly the same way. The only assumption being made was yours, that is, that one religion was 100% correct.

Whenever anyone wants to argue that religious belief is more logical than science, it is clearly time to stop the argument. Obviously, true believers are either unwilling or unable to see their set of beliefs are just that; a leap of faith into the unknown. Go for it. If it makes you feel better, so be it. I sincerely hope it makes a better person out of you. Science does not have the tools to prove either God's existence or non-existence. It deals with rationality and logic and proofs that can be repeated. If that is not enough for you, leap on!

I don't understand terming me a "true believer". I don't think there is a religion that is right and didn't say there is. Agnostic is probably the best term for me as I don't see sufficient proof of a divine being. I said nothing that could make anyone think I'm a "true believer". If I have to be pigeonholed into a true believer camp or the other camp, I'd in your camp. Just because someone points out a flaw in logic doesn't mean they are the enemy.

The thought experiment is flawed.

You are correct that you didn't state to assume that religions are made up. But that assumption is required to come to the conclusion stated that religions will not reappear. If an alternate assumption on that point is made, that religions are based in reality, the thought experiment suggests they may reappear.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether I think religions are real or made up. It means the thought experiment doesn't shed light on whether religions are made up or not.

It can still shed light about science because we don't have to make an assumption about whether some divine being is or is not causing events that bring about science. In science the same observations are there to be made after things disappear, as were made before.

 

[Mohawk]

ok. that makes sense

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

My comment is this "thought" experiment I read somewhere. If all religions completely disappeared, it is highly unlikely, well impossible, that the same belief systems would redevelop over the years. New religions might develop, but they would be entirely different from the existing sects we have now. On the other hand, if all science based knowledge also disapperead, over time the EXACT same principles would be rediscovered. This tells me all I need to know about any religion. It is made up!

Religions differ in their details, and a lot of the details are likely "made up," as you put it.

But many religions share a lot of core values -- charity, forgiveness, love, honoring one's elders, the sense that there's more to life than material riches, etc.

My guess is that if you erased all religions and let them develop again from scratch, the details may still be quite different, but you'd see those common values reappear in all or most of them once again.

 

[GregR]

My comment is this "thought" experiment I read somewhere. If all religions completely disappeared, it is highly unlikely, well impossible, that the same belief systems would redevelop over the years. New religions might develop, but they would be entirely different from the existing sects we have now. On the other hand, if all science based knowledge also disapperead, over time the EXACT same principles would be rediscovered. This tells me all I need to know about any religion. It is made up!

Religions differ in their details, and a lot of the details are likely "made up," as you put it.

But many religions share a lot of core values -- charity, forgiveness, love, honoring one's elders, the sense that there's more to life than material riches, etc.

My guess is that if you erased all religions and let them develop again from scratch, the details may still be quite different, but you'd see those common values reappear in all or most of them once again.

Agree with all of that.

There are a few other things that are often common at heart, if vastly different in form. What happens after death (heaven, reincarnation, etc), something that gives an explanation for why we exist, even just something that provides people with hope (prayers being answered, ability to improve your life through karma, etc) when they need it.

Those uncertainties being given answers seems very common in religion, and I'd expect any new religions to have similar components, and even for many of the same details to recur. Going to a heavenly place that is better than here would probably be as common as it is in current religions, regardless of whether there is any divine being or reality to it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The thought experiment is flawed.

I don't think Mohawk's thought experiment is all that hypothetical, because I don't think watching how religions develop (or would develop) in different times is all that different from watching how they have developed in different places. We don't have to guess about that latter point. So to get the benefit of Mohawk's thought experiment, we don't have to speculate about to what extent future religions would be similar to past religions that have been erased (which speculation would be tainted by our assumptions about whether religions reveal genuine truths or are just made up). Instead, we can observe to what extent eastern religions are similar to western religions, etc., which I think can provide insights similar to what Mohawk's thought experiment was going for.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I know some good people who are not religious who deserve to go to "heaven" and a bunch of religious people who do not.

In my world view, neither you nor I nor anyone you know deserves to go to heaven.

I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that people who say "I'm a good person" don't know themselves very well.

Would you say that a person who at least tries to live an honest life is a better person than a crook, a murderer, a rapist? Or are they equally sinful in your eyes?

"Better?" Sure. "Good?" No.

Basically, if you think you're a good person because you're not going around robbing liquor stores, murdering people, or raping people, your standards are set way too low. Jesus was really explicit about this. Ever have lustful thoughts about somebody other than your spouse? You're an adulterer. Haven't given away all your possessions to the poor? No kingdom of heaven for you. There are lots of takeaways from this, but two of them in particular are that none of use are really all that good, and all of us should be humble and non-judgmental. (Too many Christians fail to grasp the second part IMO).

 

[Bonzai]

In the first thought experiment I proposed, no one said to assume religion was made up. The experiment asked to imagine all systems of belief, including science, disappeared. In the second thought experiment you proposed, you assumed one religion was 100% correct. That is a HUGE assumption and of course you would get your desired outcome. All I asked was to imagine all systems of belief disappeared. Only science would redevelop in exactly the same way. The only assumption being made was yours, that is, that one religion was 100% correct.

Whenever anyone wants to argue that religious belief is more logical than science, it is clearly time to stop the argument. Obviously, true believers are either unwilling or unable to see their set of beliefs are just that; a leap of faith into the unknown. Go for it. If it makes you feel better, so be it. I sincerely hope it makes a better person out of you. Science does not have the tools to prove either God's existence or non-existence. It deals with rationality and logic and proofs that can be repeated. If that is not enough for you, leap on!

I don't think this follows. Geniuses like Einstein and Newton are flukes; science doesn't proceed in a linear fashion. Yes, there is a progression in science, but advances in science aren't necessarily built on one another.

You seem to be implying that the history of science is linear sequence of events, one building on one another, inching us closer toward objective truth. That's not the case at all. Advances come in fits and starts, the big ones often unexpectedly. If we did it all over again theres no telling what our current scientific theories might be.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In the first thought experiment I proposed, no one said to assume religion was made up. The experiment asked to imagine all systems of belief, including science, disappeared. In the second thought experiment you proposed, you assumed one religion was 100% correct. That is a HUGE assumption and of course you would get your desired outcome. All I asked was to imagine all systems of belief disappeared. Only science would redevelop in exactly the same way. The only assumption being made was yours, that is, that one religion was 100% correct.

Whenever anyone wants to argue that religious belief is more logical than science, it is clearly time to stop the argument. Obviously, true believers are either unwilling or unable to see their set of beliefs are just that; a leap of faith into the unknown. Go for it. If it makes you feel better, so be it. I sincerely hope it makes a better person out of you. Science does not have the tools to prove either God's existence or non-existence. It deals with rationality and logic and proofs that can be repeated. If that is not enough for you, leap on!

I don't think this follows. Geniuses like Einstein and Newton are flukes; science doesn't proceed in a linear fashion. Yes, there is a progression in science, but advances in science aren't necessarily built on one another.

You seem to be implying that the history of science is linear sequence of events, one building on one another, inching us closer toward objective truth. That's not the case at all. Advances come in fits and starts, the big ones often unexpectedly. If we did it all over again theres no telling what our current scientific theories might be.

Not to speak for Mohawk, but when he said that science would redevelop in the same way, it took it to mean he thinks that science would ultimately end up with the same answers -- not that the answers would come in the same order.

 

[Mohawk]

MT said it better than I would have! Science would eventually come to the same laws that govern the universe. Maybe in different "fits and starts," but the laws they establish would be the same.

 

[McGarnicle]

It was a good run.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I know it has detractors, but I always thought Strobels book, The Case for Christ asked the question in a pretty good way - what if hearing about Jesus was sort of like being on a jury?

Joe, did you come across this book and find it worthwhile when you were going through your non-religious phase, or only after?

I ask because I've written in another thread that, while attempts to justify Christian beliefs with reason and evidence might make sense to people who are already Christians, to non-believers, such justifications will almost always fail, and anyway seem to miss the point. Nobody has ever kneeled and prayed and asked Jesus into their heart based on a careful weighing of the evidence. They've done so by letting go of such limiting trifles as mere evidence. It follows, in my opinion, that doing apologetics a la Strobel is generally the wrong approach.

In my view, faith is not won by reason or evidence, but by emotion. That's not a bad thing. I'm not anti-faith, and I'm not anti-religion. (I am anti some religions, or some aspects of religions.) On the whole, I think most religious communities do a lot of good for a lot of people. A lot of religions have some wacky beliefs, some of which are harmful (e.g., the anti-gay stuff). But they also motivate people to love and to forgive and to be charitable. If I were trying to convert people to Christianity, that's what I would emphasize. A single good deed done in the name of your religion is worth more than a thousand syllogisms, IMO.

Do you think I'm off base?

 

[Bonzai]

MT said it better than I would have! Science would eventually come to the same laws that govern the universe. Maybe in different "fits and starts," but the laws they establish would be the same.

I see. I just can't imagine a scenario in which scientific progress stops. How do you know when you have all the answers? I guess it's a thought experiment so you get to make up the setting however you like. The I idea that we can have perfect knowledge is a pet peeve of mine I suppose. I think it encourages the worst kind of thinking.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I know it has detractors, but I always thought Strobels book, The Case for Christ asked the question in a pretty good way - what if hearing about Jesus was sort of like being on a jury?

Joe, did you come across this book and find it worthwhile when you were going through your non-religious phase, or only after?

I ask because I've written in another thread that, while attempts to justify Christian beliefs with reason and evidence might make sense to people who are already Christians, to non-believers, such justifications will almost always fail, and anyway seem to miss the point. Nobody has ever kneeled and prayed and asked Jesus into their heart based on a careful weighing of the evidence. They've done so by letting go of such limiting trifles as mere evidence. It follows, in my opinion, that doing apologetics a la Strobel is generally the wrong approach.

In my view, faith is not won by reason or evidence, but by emotion. That's not a bad thing. I'm not anti-faith, and I'm not anti-religion. (I am anti some religions, or some aspects of religions.) On the whole, I think most religious communities do a lot of good for a lot of people. A lot of religions have some wacky beliefs, some of which are harmful (e.g., the anti-gay stuff). But they also motivate people to love and to forgive and to be charitable. If I were trying to convert people to Christianity, that's what I would emphasize. A single good deed done in the name of your religion is worth more than a thousand syllogisms, IMO.

Do you think I'm off base?

Hi Maurile,

No, you're not off base at all. It's a common thing to say in Christian groups (and I think it's correct) that no one's ever become a Christian by losing a debate. Although I personally do think there is a factor of "weighing it out" for many folks. So I don't want to discount that. I'm not sure how much is emotion although that's certainly a big part of it. Much of Christian Talk is talking about your "heart" which translates to feelings / emotion. So it's there for sure.

On that note, Apologetics is probably my least favorite part of Christianity. (For anyone that is about that word, Apologetics is a weird word I think. It's basically the study of "defending" or debating the doctrine. I guess it can be any doctrine or topic but it seems like it's mostly used for religion) It seems to attract the people that are more interested in arguing or being right.

To your question, I used to talk about the Case For Christ book more. I've given copies away here. But in recent years, I'm leaning more toward what you're saying. I love the books like Bob Goff's Love Does. It's what you're saying - encouraging people to live out the faith. Not just talk about it. Way more attractive I think.

J

 

[GregR]

The thought experiment is flawed.

I don't think Mohawk's thought experiment is all that hypothetical, because I don't think watching how religions develop (or would develop) in different times is all that different from watching how they have developed in different places. We don't have to guess about that latter point. So to get the benefit of Mohawk's thought experiment, we don't have to speculate about to what extent future religions would be similar to past religions that have been erased (which speculation would be tainted by our assumptions about whether religions reveal genuine truths or are just made up). Instead, we can observe to what extent eastern religions are similar to western religions, etc., which I think can provide insights similar to what Mohawk's thought experiment was going for.

True, I should have said a conclusion the thought experiment shows all religions are made up isn't correct.

That kind of comparison of existing religions was part of the development of my beliefs on the subject. As a kid my mother got us to a Methodist church until we were older and had the choice of going. I had a lot of problems with what I felt was a disconnect between the practices of the churches I saw vs the core messages I was hearing. I was bothered by the disconnect that one had to choose to give himself to Jesus or be baptized to go to heaven when there were people around the world and throughout history who would never have heard of Jesus. It didn't seem a divine being teaching what Jesus was said to teach would have a world where people had to follow the doctrine of any church I knew of in.

A big turning point for me was the end of the Chronicles of Narnia books by CS Lewis. At one point a character who had been true in his worship to the deity (Tash) that his nation worshiped, found out that his deity was in fact evil. And he told the good deity (Aslan) that he realized he'd spent all of his life in service to the wrong god. Aslan told him that all the time he'd been true in his faith to Tash, had actually been service to Aslan.

As a kid, it went a long way to show me how every religion could be "wrong", yet core beliefs about behavior and leading a good life that so many religions shared could have a truth to them and maybe that was what was important. I still struggled as a youth whether there is a deity or not, and the more I became a critical thinker the more the skepticism grew.

Though perhaps ironically, science has probably given me the most moments in my life where I said, "I don't know if there's a God, but for things to all piece together like this you could believe there was a hand guiding it." Quantum mechanics had quite a few of those moments, things like learning why water molecules have their unusual shape that leads to the characteristic of expanding when freezing instead of contracting, and the implications that might have had on living creatures ever developing.

Though in the long run, I'm still skeptical on the subject of a deity. I can't say whether there is one (or more) or not. But whether there is or not, I do think there are right and wrong ways to live my life. Whether they are instilled by a deity, or resulted from evolution favoring a certain amount of cooperation in our species, or something else, isn't something I worry about much anymore. Staying true to those beliefs is what I think matters.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I love the books like Bob Goff's Love Does. It's what you're saying - encouraging people to live out the faith. Not just talk about it. Way more attractive I think.

Thanks for the link. I read part of the preview on Amazon and then watched this TEDx talk by him. I like this guy. I think he's a great role model not just for Christians, but for everybody.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I love the books like Bob Goff's Love Does. It's what you're saying - encouraging people to live out the faith. Not just talk about it. Way more attractive I think.

Thanks for the link. I read part of the preview on Amazon and then watched this TEDx talk by him. I like this guy. I think he's a great role model not just for Christians, but for everybody.

He spoke at the conference where I saw you not long ago. Was really good.

What I love about Bob Goff is that he lives out what he says he believes. And it's like you say, it's not just a "Christian" thing.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

More on that Bob Goff talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bb7vJINYFc Maurile, Once they convicted the witchdoctor guy, they had a meeting with the other witchdoctors in Uganda. Basically, it was a "there's a new sherrif in town. This child sacrifice business is going to stop. And if it doesn't, we'll go after you like we did Kobi".

And then they told the witchdoctors they loved them and then they washed the witchdoctors feet. For you non churchy guys, washing feet is an old school (like Jesus time old school) practice. Washing feet was a very low ranking job usually done by slaves. But Jesus freaked people out as he "lowered himself" to wash his disciples feet. John 13:1-17.

13 Before the Passover celebration, Jesus knew that his hour had come to leave this world and return to his Father. He had loved his disciples during his ministry on earth, and now he loved them to the very end.[a] 2 It was time for supper, and the devil had already prompted Judas, son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus. 3 Jesus knew that the Father had given him authority over everything and that he had come from God and would return to God. 4 So he got up from the table, took off his robe, wrapped a towel around his waist, 5 and poured water into a basin. Then he began to wash the disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel he had around him.

6 When Jesus came to Simon Peter, Peter said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

7 Jesus replied, “You don’t understand now what I am doing, but someday you will.”

8 “No,” Peter protested, “you will never ever wash my feet!” ...

The new Pope has done this a good bit too and made news.

Bottom line - washing feet is a symbolic gesture of servant leadership. It's the opposite of trying to act superior to someone.

There's more to the story but I was impressed with Bob Goff and his attitude there.

The point of my story is that a few days later, I was reading my facebook feed and someone I knew was posting an angry article accusing a popular pastor of not talking about the "wrath of God" often enough.

They had actually gone through the pastor's sermons and counted up the number of times the pastor had mentioned "the wrath of God" and they had a score that showed how often he spoke about God's wrath. And that allowed them to "measure" this pastor against another pastor who spoke about God's wrath more frequently.

I read that and was just .

I thought to myself, "Bob Goff is washing witchdoctor's feet and this guy is spending his time counting how many times the pastor mentions "the wrath of God"?

Which guy would anyone want to hang out with? Which guy is anyone going to want to listen to? I'm going with Bob Goff.

J

 

[Steve Tasker]

Absolutely we follow the same religion our parents follow. I would say it's a very serious thing to cast off the religion of one's parents, and shouldn't be done lightly.

Why do you feel this way? Honest question.

Well, firstly because of what I said earlier about witnessing. They believe and are testifying to that belief to you. In many cases, they are the last in a long line of belief but when your parents strongly believe something, they should generally get the benefit of the doubt. Just talking generalities here, not specifically about religion.

Also, faith, like many traditions, is passed down from generation to generation. Traditions have value which is why they are passed down. To cast them aside should be done purposely and with careful consideration.

There's also respect. There is a great deal of pride involved in choosing a different worldview from your parents, as you are in effect saying that they are wrong and your view is right. That may in fact be true, but should again only be done after careful consideration imo.

I'm sure I could address this more properly, this is off the top of my head and while distracted by my nutsy family.

I appreciate the response. I would argue, however, that one can reject their parents' religion(s) without rejecting the traditions that go along with them. I am, and always will be, a "cultural Catholic", but I'm not a believer. I've got plans for Easter brunch tomorrow, celebrate Christmas and all that jazz. That's part of my family culture and tradition, but I reject the basic fundamental beliefs of Catholicism.

My mother has particularly struggled with my leaving the church, so to speak, but not for the religious aspect. I think it's a fear of other people looking down on her. My brother is a very open atheist, and I'm much more reserved but no longer afraid to tell people that I'm an agnostic. Over the past 2-3 years, word has gotten out, people in our little suburban corner of the world now know that we're "rebellious" ( ), and I think she's kinda ashamed.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

More on that Bob Goff talk

What? I'm pretty sure these guys did not spend a lot of time discussing foot hygiene.

http://static2.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1736302.1395918774!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/vatican-pope-obama.jpg

http://www.dw.de/image/0,,17254024_303,00.jpg

 

[flapgreen]

It's ok to have questions, Otis. I've been there.

 

[flapgreen]

Another question Joe, does your current church believe in a 6000 year old earth and do you? The reason I ask is that a floor installer working at my home yesterday brought up a conversation about faith. He was born in Russia. Basically his beliefs were that he have faith that what his church told him was true and that the scientists that talk about an earth millions of years old are lying. He also told me that rainbows didn't exist until after the Noah event. I know there are people who can merge the two schools of thought, but is that really having faith?

Hi Bass,

No, our church doesn't have any position on the age of the earth that I know of. I've honestly never felt like that was a big deal and I've never heard it mentioned at my church. It always has seemed kind of weird to me how political parties seem to align so much for or against Christianity. For instance, I see lots of Christians who take the knee jerk reaction that global warming isn't real. Why does that have to have a position related to God? Couldn't God make the climate change? We think God made the flood with Noah? Yet I see some church folk oppose global warming just because. And I can't see why. Gun control is another. Seems like lots of Christians are portrayed as being against gun control. If that's accurate, it doesn't make sense to me. Jesus wasn't pro gun that I can tell. I'm for gun control and I don't see anything in the bible that would contradict that position. Nor have I ever had anyone in my church contradict that. Sometimes, I think man made organizations (which is what churches are) can get screwed up trying to follow Jesus. But that's just my opinion.

J

I'm not sure I would refer to churches as "man made", but I see what you're getting at. They are made up of men or people, which is why things can get screwed up sometimes. Things gets messed up when they don't follow Him and go after their own desires.

 

[KCitons]

Another question Joe, does your current church believe in a 6000 year old earth and do you? The reason I ask is that a floor installer working at my home yesterday brought up a conversation about faith. He was born in Russia. Basically his beliefs were that he have faith that what his church told him was true and that the scientists that talk about an earth millions of years old are lying. He also told me that rainbows didn't exist until after the Noah event. I know there are people who can merge the two schools of thought, but is that really having faith?

Hi Bass,

No, our church doesn't have any position on the age of the earth that I know of. I've honestly never felt like that was a big deal and I've never heard it mentioned at my church. It always has seemed kind of weird to me how political parties seem to align so much for or against Christianity. For instance, I see lots of Christians who take the knee jerk reaction that global warming isn't real. Why does that have to have a position related to God? Couldn't God make the climate change? We think God made the flood with Noah? Yet I see some church folk oppose global warming just because. And I can't see why. Gun control is another. Seems like lots of Christians are portrayed as being against gun control. If that's accurate, it doesn't make sense to me. Jesus wasn't pro gun that I can tell. I'm for gun control and I don't see anything in the bible that would contradict that position. Nor have I ever had anyone in my church contradict that. Sometimes, I think man made organizations (which is what churches are) can get screwed up trying to follow Jesus. But that's just my opinion.

J

I'm not sure I would refer to churches as "man made", but I see what you're getting at. They are made up of men or people, which is why things can get screwed up sometimes.

If they aren't man made, then what are they?

I don't think God wants people to eat fish on fridays. (unless he owned a Long John Silvers franchise)

 

[drummer]

I gave up religion at an early age. It was because they told me I couldn't do something because it was a sin. So I said "#### em".

 

[cstu]

I know a lot of people who have converted, many times due to marriage, or who have stepped away from religion altogether. Not to disagree with your point about parents influencing children, but 99% seems high.

99% may be high but I imagine there's a very small percentage of people who changed religions for reasons other than marriage or non-belief in religion altogether.

 

[Psychopav]

Absolutely we follow the same religion our parents follow. I would say it's a very serious thing to cast off the religion of one's parents, and shouldn't be done lightly.

Why do you feel this way? Honest question.

Well, firstly because of what I said earlier about witnessing. They believe and are testifying to that belief to you. In many cases, they are the last in a long line of belief but when your parents strongly believe something, they should generally get the benefit of the doubt. Just talking generalities here, not specifically about religion.Also, faith, like many traditions, is passed down from generation to generation. Traditions have value which is why they are passed down. To cast them aside should be done purposely and with careful consideration.

There's also respect. There is a great deal of pride involved in choosing a different worldview from your parents, as you are in effect saying that they are wrong and your view is right. That may in fact be true, but should again only be done after careful consideration imo.

I'm sure I could address this more properly, this is off the top of my head and while distracted by my nutsy family.

I appreciate the response. I would argue, however, that one can reject their parents' religion(s) without rejecting the traditions that go along with them. I am, and always will be, a "cultural Catholic", but I'm not a believer. I've got plans for Easter brunch tomorrow, celebrate Christmas and all that jazz. That's part of my family culture and tradition, but I reject the basic fundamental beliefs of Catholicism.My mother has particularly struggled with my leaving the church, so to speak, but not for the religious aspect. I think it's a fear of other people looking down on her. My brother is a very open atheist, and I'm much more reserved but no longer afraid to tell people that I'm an agnostic. Over the past 2-3 years, word has gotten out, people in our little suburban corner of the world now know that we're "rebellious" ( ), and I think she's kinda ashamed.

I mean each person's situation is different, and of course I can't know what's going on in your family, but just wondering whether what you interpret as ashamed might not be just her expression of her own guilt over her kids turning away from the deepest faith of her heart. I am 100% sincere when I say that while of course I will love my kids no matter which faith they choose, if they turn away from God it will easily be the hardest thing I will ever have to face.I don't mean to offend or upset you, but as a serious Catholic with 4 kids, I have no doubt that if she's a pious Catholic, at least a part of her feels like she has failed at her number one job as a parent. Maybe it comes across as shame to you, but it may be more about guilt than being ashamed of you. I know it would be for me.

I'll be praying for you and her.

 

[proninja]

I love the books like Bob Goff's Love Does. It's what you're saying - encouraging people to live out the faith. Not just talk about it. Way more attractive I think.

Thanks for the link. I read part of the preview on Amazon and then watched this TEDx talk by him. I like this guy. I think he's a great role model not just for Christians, but for everybody.

He spoke at the conference where I saw you not long ago. Was really good.

What I love about Bob Goff is that he lives out what he says he believes. And it's like you say, it's not just a "Christian" thing.

J

GB of mine is really involved in Young Life, as is Bob Goff. He's local to my area, and I don't know him personally, but everything I hear is that he's an absolutely standup guy. My GB is a young kid who has his phone number and apparently he'll answer the phone for anyone that has it and deal with whatever they have going on. Haven't read the book, but I'm a fan of Bob Goff.

 

[proninja]

I gave up religion at an early age. It was because they told me I couldn't do something because it was a sin. So I said "#### em".

This is maybe the most honest critique of religion I have read.