Do you still follow the religion you were raised with?

[Goliath]

^I'm ambivalent about this position.

On the one hand, I'm glad to find someone who doesn't just dismiss the works of some of history's greatest thinkers just because they're dead, and white, and male.

But on the other hand, this was exactly the sort of appeal to authority that led to the condemnation of people like Galileo. How, people asked, could the greatest minds of the ancient world, like Aristotle and Ptolemy, be so wrong?

It's also worth noting that some of history's greatest thinkers were also some of the most heterodox. Isaac Newton, for example, was a closet Arian, and reintepreted Biblical prophecy in light of his private opinion that Trinitarianism was a heresy. And John Locke was accused of Socinianism (what we would now call Unitarianism): certainly, his Reasonableness of Christianity could be intepreted that way.

More to the point, even Aquinas's teachings were quite controversial in their day.

 

[Mark de Vries]

But on the other hand, this was exactly the sort of appeal to authority that led to the condemnation of people like Galileo. How, people asked, could the greatest minds of the ancient world, like Aristotle and Ptolemy, be so wrong?

You're right, something like it did lead to condemnations, and I understand people having doubts about it. I did't mean that anything should be accepted just like that. We do have the responsibility to think for ourselves. But no man is an island, and it would be irresponsible to the extreme to disregard what other, more qualified, people have to say.

Related to the above: The Church has taken a long time to get to grips with the apparent conflict between science and religion, but these days teaches that truth and truth can not contradict one another. So, when a Galileo-like mind discovers something which is apparently at odds with a literal interpretation* of the Bible, for example, it is our job to figure out what's going on, what the reason for an apparent discrepancy is. Is it a faulty theory or interpretation of facts, or did the Church explain things incorrectly? We are human, and humans make mistakes. But hopefully we learn from them.

More to the point, even Aquinas's teachings were quite controversial in their day.

Oh, absolutely. It sometimes takes the Church an enormously long time to understand the truth in some teachings. But she gets there in the end.

*something which the Church has never officially taught, by the way, regardless of what some individuals have tried to do.

 

[JustKate]

Thanks, JustKate. A beneficial but unexpected side-effect to all of this was a strengthening of my own personal faith, so it wasn't all bad. Miss the comraderie of the Mormon church once in awhile, but still not sure if I want to open that door.

Gotta lot of redeemin' to do for bad limericks, though...

I'll say! Gosh, but your knees are going to get tired!

 

[Saxman1]

I voted other. I was raised Catholic, still go to church, etc., but I don't believe in a lot of the things the church is for, such as:

- Pergutory: either you go to heaven or the other place when you die IMO, what's with the "waiting station?" That was invented by clergy looking to pocket $ back in the Dark Ages. People would buy indulgences to reduce the time in Pergutory. Oh, come on...

- Abortion: come on, let's be reasonable. I don't think you should automatically have an abortion, but in cases of rape, etc., come on!

- Anti-Birth Control except for the rhythm method. An excuse to make more little Cathilics. What do you call people who use the rhythm method? Parents, LOL!

So....I guess that makes me more of a Christian than a hard-core Catholic....

 

[bbally]

I'm a muslim, raised a sunni and still a sunni.

 

[SicOne]

Mormonism kinda lost it's appeal when they had to stop letting the guys have more than one wife at a time...

Who the hell wants more than one wife? Imagine if they all have their period at the same time. The man'll be doomed!

Heh heh, guys, you kill me.

Mrs. SicOne's enough of a handful; I don't think I could handle more than one wife. I have all daughters, one grown (and her husband's problem!, and two of the three left are in their teens) so that time of the month is the Week of Wrongness (no matter what I say, even if I don't say anything, I'm still wrong). I can't keep enough chocolate or steaks in the house.

Trust me on this, multiple wives would be more trouble than it's worth. Just watch "Big Love" on HBO. Great show.

 

[SicOne]

Thanks, JustKate. A beneficial but unexpected side-effect to all of this was a strengthening of my own personal faith, so it wasn't all bad. Miss the comraderie of the Mormon church once in awhile, but still not sure if I want to open that door.

Gotta lot of redeemin' to do for bad limericks, though...

I'll say! Gosh, but your knees are going to get tired!

Especially after begging Mrs. SicOne's forgiveness for eating the last of the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, since it's that time of the month...

 

[hamudm]

The answer I give my family when I'm asked whether I consider myself Muslim:

"Islam, like many religions has many great and admirable qualities. The good values I was raised with, I still follow today."

I am; however, an agnostic if I must be labeled.

Religion is a big point of contention with my family. My fiance and I offered to have an additional "muslim wedding" involving a "farcical conversion" on behalf of my fiance, for the sake of my parents so that they wouldn't be socially shunned. They still wouldn't hear of it. We can't say we didn't try!

 

[bbally]

You're right, something like it did lead to condemnations, and I understand people having doubts about it. I did't mean that anything should be accepted just like that. We do have the responsibility to think for ourselves. But no man is an island, and it would be irresponsible to the extreme to disregard what other, more qualified, people have to say.

Related to the above: The Church has taken a long time to get to grips with the apparent conflict between science and religion, but these days teaches that truth and truth can not contradict one another. So, when a Galileo-like mind discovers something which is apparently at odds with a literal interpretation* of the Bible, for example, it is our job to figure out what's going on, what the reason for an apparent discrepancy is. Is it a faulty theory or interpretation of facts, or did the Church explain things incorrectly? We are human, and humans make mistakes. But hopefully we learn from them.

There is still some conflict between religion and science unfortunately. I personally believe both religion and science can co-exist, lots of scientists can be religious as well. You know we muslims have a hadith when Mohammed (pbuh) stated that "You must seek knowledge even in China", which means to learn new methods and knowledge even if you have to go to the farthest area in the world.

 

[msbae]

My father has been exploring Buddhism as of late. He's trying to get me to read the literature too. I'm not interested and he won't succeed. Buddhism always sounded more like a philosophy than an actual faith and/or religion to me.

 

[Mark de Vries]

There is still some conflict between religion and science unfortunately.

There is, but my point (and yours as well, I believe) is that there need not be. Truth can't contradict truth.

You know we muslims have a hadith when Mohammed (pbuh) stated that "You must seek knowledge even in China", which means to learn new methods and knowledge even if you have to go to the farthest area in the world.

You're basically never done learning. That's one of the first things my parish priest told me when I said I wanted to be baptised: "Don't expect you'll ever be done and know everything. You'll always grow and learn."

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

You're right, something like it did lead to condemnations, and I understand people having doubts about it. I did't mean that anything should be accepted just like that. We do have the responsibility to think for ourselves. But no man is an island, and it would be irresponsible to the extreme to disregard what other, more qualified, people have to say.

Related to the above: The Church has taken a long time to get to grips with the apparent conflict between science and religion, but these days teaches that truth and truth can not contradict one another. So, when a Galileo-like mind discovers something which is apparently at odds with a literal interpretation* of the Bible, for example, it is our job to figure out what's going on, what the reason for an apparent discrepancy is. Is it a faulty theory or interpretation of facts, or did the Church explain things incorrectly? We are human, and humans make mistakes. But hopefully we learn from them.

There is still some conflict between religion and science unfortunately. I personally believe both religion and science can co-exist, lots of scientists can be religious as well. You know we muslims have a hadith when Mohammed (pbuh) stated that "You must seek knowledge even in China", which means to learn new methods and knowledge even if you have to go to the farthest area in the world.

It's just my opinion and I know a lot of people disagree, but I think there is. One of the dangers of the theory of evolution to religion was it made belief in the concept of the human soul much more difficult. There are problems when you start to view religions as strictly metaphorical, it tends to eliminate important aspects of them. Science did a lot in forcing people to view religions as metaphorical.

 

[JustKate]

^ All I can say is that I've never learned any science that contradicted my faith. Maybe I haven't learned enough science, but I don't think that's the reason.

 

[Mark de Vries]

One of the dangers of the theory of evolution to religion was it made belief in the concept of the human soul much more difficult.

But it doesn't make it impossible. A lot of difficulties, in my opinion, between science and religion come from a misunderstanding of both science and religion. As I said earlier in the thread, I am Catholic and live in western Europe, and I know that a lot of Catholics here don't know much about their faith (I couldn't really say how that is in other parts of the world). That can lead to opinions that are not necessarily in agreement with their faith, and thus to dangers like the one you mention.

Science did a lot in forcing people to view religions as metaphorical.

Well, the opinions of scientists and others did, not necessarily the science itself.

By the way, I agree wholeheartedly with this:

There are problems when you start to view religions as strictly metaphorical, it tends to eliminate important aspects of them.

It's nice to see people realise and vocalise it.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It's just my opinion and I know a lot of people disagree, but I think there is. One of the dangers of the theory of evolution to religion was it made belief in the concept of the human soul much more difficult. There are problems when you start to view religions as strictly metaphorical, it tends to eliminate important aspects of them. Science did a lot in forcing people to view religions as metaphorical.

I honestly don't see why evolution invalidates the idea of God or the human soul, why we could not have been shaped over billions of years. Even the evolutionary "failures," to my view, are not without their usefulness or purpose: we learn from them what does and does not work in the creation we live in.

 

[msbae]

One of the dangers of the theory of evolution to religion was it made belief in the concept of the human soul much more difficult. There are problems when you start to view religions as strictly metaphorical, it tends to eliminate important aspects of them. Science did a lot in forcing people to view religions as metaphorical.

None of my vast scientific knowledge ever made the concept of a soul seem alien to me. Most religious dogma (especially the Old Testament's many crazy stories) are meant to be metaphorical anyway.

 

[hyburn8]

I said "yes" because I do follow the same religion as when I was a child but I don't go to church. I feel you can believe even if you don't practice.

 

[Goliath]

Point of curiosity - aren't Catholics Christians?

According to most people, yes.

According to narrow-minded Protestant zealots, no.

Hence, the following:

Oh, the irony...

I suspect as much myself, but I'd like to hear it from TLS for clarification.

I just noticed that, if you check the poll results, TLS voted:

--"No, I do not [follow the religion I was raised with](i.e. Catholicism)...

--"...but I follow a different one now." (i.e. "Christianity")

Which fits in exactly with the sort of Catholic-bashing I've heard from my mother's family (who have mostly converted to Pentecostalism) and other Born-Again Protestants.

Personally I have no use for the Roman Catholic Church as an institution. Even in my own family's history, you can find the Church doing its little evil deeds. One of my maternal grand-uncles was one of the pedophile priests you've all heard about. He was never punished, or even exposed.

But even though I left the Church more than twenty years ago, I absolutely cannot stand the anti-Catholic bigotry I encounter from Protestants--especially the Born-Again crowd. I never, ever heard Catholics talk about Protestants and their churches that way, when I was growing up.

Plus, Catholic apologists are a good source of anti-Protestant zingers: they've had a lot more practice than atheists. I was arguing once with a Pentecostal, who was giving me the usual line about the Bible being the only infallible and inerrant authority for the Christian faith.

"Really?" I said. "That must be why Jesus was so careful to write everything down."

I thought his head was going to explode. Thank you, Father So-and-So--I wish I could remember your name.

 

[Mark de Vries]

^That reminds me of a friend of mine (a Catholic and a theologian) who loves getting into debates with Jehova's Witnesses. It's an event to watch

 

[Brent]

^ All I can say is that I've never learned any science that contradicted my faith. Maybe I haven't learned enough science, but I don't think that's the reason.

Same