Why Religion, Spirituality, and Theology is important to me.

[Material Defender]

I am an agnostic. I am not so quick to cast aside religion and spirituality as some, but there's definitely something lacking for me to really find something I'm comfortable with. But I find it fascinating and important.

Arguments on The Same Grounds: When you fight a fundie, mocking entrenches. When you discuss with a Christian who is far more moderate, mocking will push them away from you. But being able to discuss and argue things on the same grounds is an important ability to show how certain positions are untenable with their beliefs. I've Convinced religious right fundies that Jesus was a communist and they are voting on secular economic policies, not the bible.

Open Minded To All Things: Science, no, has not disproved spirituality. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's just... a blank wall. I can't stare at string theory really hard and make it any less lacking of evidence. I find spirituality most fun as conjecture and a seeking answers where we currently have none. I suppose that's why I enjoy sci-fi.

Community Outreach: I may not believe such and such group. But if we have the same ideals, even if my source is personal philosophy and another is a communal understanding of the bible, I feel it is better to out reach and offer them acceptance as part of a community of ideals. Interconnections are very important.

Tolerance: Anyone can tolerate something at a distance, but closer it becomes harder. Misunderstandings about beliefs, spirituality, and the like lead to hate or at least an intense dislike. Bridges built and understanding why an atheist is an atheist for whatever reason, or a Christian is a Christian, lead to at least a more tolerant attitude and a way to argue for/against those things that really matter. Afterall, a person is a person. The stupid, generally, only need education.

Faith without Reason is not Faith, but Obedience: I was taught this line, or a variation without the obedience piece, but RELIGIOUS TEACHERS. If we cannot critically think about, without mocking, religion, spirituality, and theology... there cannot be educated atheists or Theists. We just believe whatever is shallow and convenient. America trends towards Christianity, so be that. It's easy to be whatever your parents are. Through this discourse, one can create better theists or atheists.

Three Billion People or so are Monotheists: It is, even denying the other reasons, important to understand religion, spirituality, and theology, because the human race, for whatever reason, is still populated a great deal with believers. To ignore organizing parts of peoples lives all around one on this Earth would be insanity.

[Yaezakura]

1: It is entirely possible to argue without mocking. Without religious influence, debates on social and economic issues would be a lot easier to focus on the merits of the methods being discussed, rather than on how well they mesh with religious dogma.

2: One can be open-minded without entertaining the idea of the impossible. I don't believe in unicorns because I've seen no evidence that unicorns exist. Show me credible evidence that they do, and I will review my stance on that issue. The same holds true for gods, magic, spirits, and good country music. Open-mindedness is a readiness to digest new information and adapt your views to that information.

3: I fail to see how religion or spirituality is intrinsic to community. We crave community because humans are social animals. Other social animals do not believe in gods, yet do not seem to have issues living together. If anything, religion has historically been known to divide communities, destroy family bonds, and lead to wars between nations.

4: I'm not even sure how this figures into things. It's perfectly easy to tolerate the religious, so long as they keep it to themselves and do not try to force it on others, be it by unwanted conversion attempts or via the weight of law. There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. The ignorant can learn. The stupid are generally beyond help.

5: Faith and Reason are mutually exclusive. Faith, by definition, is believing in something without evidence. To do that is not reasonable. No matter how much faith I have in the idea that somewhere there is a planet made entirely of cotton candy, to believe such a planet exists without any evidence that it does is simply not reasonable behavior. The same is true for gods, spirits, etc.

6: Weight of numbers does not somehow make a wrong position more correct. The fact that most people once believed the earth was flat did not make it so. Almost all of daily life in the US is organized around the traditions of Christian religious practices. For instance, most stores are not open before noon on Sundays. Nearly every Christian holiday is a national holiday.

[Material Defender]

1: It is entirely possible to argue without mocking. Without religious influence, debates on social and economic issues would be a lot easier to focus on the merits of the methods being discussed, rather than on how well they mesh with religious dogma.

2: One can be open-minded without entertaining the idea of the impossible. I don't believe in unicorns because I've seen no evidence that unicorns exist. Show me credible evidence that they do, and I will review my stance on that issue. The same holds true for gods, magic, spirits, and good country music. Open-mindedness is a readiness to digest new information and adapt your views to that information.

3: I fail to see how religion or spirituality is intrinsic to community. We crave community because humans are social animals. Other social animals do not believe in gods, yet do not seem to have issues living together. If anything, religion has historically been known to divide communities, destroy family bonds, and lead to wars between nations.

4: I'm not even sure how this figures into things. It's perfectly easy to tolerate the religious, so long as they keep it to themselves and do not try to force it on others, be it by unwanted conversion attempts or via the weight of law. There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. The ignorant can learn. The stupid are generally beyond help.

5: Faith and Reason are mutually exclusive. Faith, by definition, is believing in something without evidence. To do that is not reasonable. No matter how much faith I have in the idea that somewhere there is a planet made entirely of cotton candy, to believe such a planet exists without any evidence that it does is simply not reasonable behavior. The same is true for gods, spirits, etc.

6: Weight of numbers does not somehow make a wrong position more correct. The fact that most people once believed the earth was flat did not make it so. Almost all of daily life in the US is organized around the traditions of Christian religious practices. For instance, most stores are not open before noon on Sundays. Nearly every Christian holiday is a national holiday.

1 And 6: What I'm saying is... there are many, many people out there that believe and consider these things as a motivating factor. Either A: You force them to separate the religious and secular or B: Accept it and have the debate in their battleground, because it is more feasible than they hope.

2: I believe I stated the word speculation. Yes, I did. I stated I like to speculate and conjecture. This is different, than open mindness, but yeah. I think... you misunderstand belief, faith, and conjecture.

3, bit of 4, some of 6: I'm saying you build bridges. I may not believe, but my neighbor does. If I'm entirely ignorant of a driving part of his life... I'm going to look like a rube if I blunder into things he may consider impolite that are not really inherently wrong. I tend to consider most of table manners bunk because it serves no purpose beyond politeness, but I still have to obey them. I saying... building community of ideals. People who agree on the important, end results shouldn't disagree because of the methods of getting there. Intention and result, thing. I never said "Oh, Religion is needed for community" anywhere.

5: A Definition, of Faith!

1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Wow, faith can mean a lot of things. I mean, a lot of reasonable people have faith that String theory will hold out in the long run of scientific trials when science is more equipped to handle the issue. Are you saying it's entirely unreasonable to have faith in anything that is not proven scientifically? How do you approach new questions that have no evidence for any sides? Just pretend the question does not exist? It's like... I dunno. Just... wall bangingly dumb. We established the atom, can see the atom. But what about those who first approached the question of an atom and could not see one? They had faith that their new example, hell Einstein had faith in his new ideas (Hypothesis), would pan out as explanations of scientific laws through experimentation into theory. You need faith to propose a hypothesis, by the definition of faith, number 2, you are using. Just ignoring how the fact you probably have faith in your code of ethics and have faith in others using 1 and 4 definitions.

[Yaezakura]

There's an important difference in the faith of scientists and the faith of the religious.

The religious use "faith" as a shield to deflect scrutiny.

Scientists have faith that their ideas can withstand scrutiny.

There's also the rather major issue of having faith in ideas that are demonstrably wrong such as a young earth or a global flood. It can in no way be reasonable to have faith in an idea that has proven to not be true.

[Material Defender]

That's why they are using the word faith wrong. Faith is something that is demonstrated as wrong basically means you are deluding yourself. That's not faith. That's self delusion. There's a difference between "not based on Proof" and "Denying proof."

You also make the religious all sound like they use faith as a shield to deflect scrutiny, which is not true. There's plenty of faithful that recognize that science is an important thing and some that hold it up as revealing God's creation to us and the major reason god gave us free will and intellect, to use them in a noble purpose... like science. Cause you know, that's what some of the early Natural Philosophers were entirely on about.

[TenfoldMaquette]

That's why they are using the word faith wrong. Faith is something that is demonstrated as wrong basically means you are deluding yourself. That's not faith. That's self delusion. There's a difference between "not based on Proof" and "Denying proof."

Religion is demonstrably wrong.

And the difference between "not based on proof" and "denying proof" is mostly one of semantics.

You also make the religious all sound like they use faith as a shield to deflect scrutiny, which is not true.

Sure it is. Every religion out there operates under the default idea that their approach to understanding life must be given at least some differential preference, and all of them are chock full of followers that get rather disconcerted (if not outright hostile) if you refuse to take their personal "magic wish-granting ghost" theory seriously. They expect to be left alone to do and say whatever they want, because historically they have enjoyed this privilege largely uncontested; that behavior right there is the cornerstone of "deflecting scrutiny" as it relies on the socially accepted (but utterly false) idea that questioning or mocking religion is an inherently unreasonable thing.

There's plenty of faithful that recognize that science is an important thing and some that hold it up as revealing God's creation to us and the major reason god gave us free will and intellect, to use them in a noble purpose... like science. Cause you know, that's what some of the early Natural Philosophers were entirely on about.

They're still viewing the world through the lens of their faith, which makes their approach inherently irrational. No matter how intelligent they might otherwise be, a part of their brain still holds room to entertain the idea that one or more magical intangibles not only exist but are worth anyone's time and attention.

Then again, understanding the workings of the world has encouraged more people to abandon religion in favor of reality than anything else, so I suppose there is something of an upside.

[Material Defender]

Actually, no proof means there's no proof. Denying proof means there is proof and you're saying it's wrong. There's no real way to argue semantics here. That's like saying that people who conjecture on string theory are denying proof. If there's no proof, you need faith. I have faith that the water I drink is not been poisoned by terrorists. I don't have proof because I don't test my water regularly, but I don't have any proof against the idea someone sneaked in and poisoned the water supply (Using a ridiculous example, I know.) But I do have proof that the flouride in my water supply isn't poisonous, and saying it is poison is denying proof. Trying to argue that no proof=Not true is something that would be against science.

Please, demonstrate to me... right now, with provable evidence and truths, that there are no god-like forces, powers, aliens, and there is no realm beyond ours? Yes, there is no proof of them existing... but there's none saying that they're not real either. This is like the whole alien thing. Saying there are no aliens, provably, is like saying there's no whales in the ocean by scooping out a cup full of water. Do I think current world religions have a good grasp on what this is? No, not really.

I don't mind questioning religion, I will poke and probe wherever I want. I was taught to do it by religious teachers, even, so I can do it pretty well. Mocking, I find, is ineffective. Even if we know they are absolutely wrong, mocking someone that what they do is wrong is not a method of teaching. It is shaming. Humans, as a whole, dislike shaming and tend to avoid that. If you want to teach someone, question them and provide better answers. If you want to shame them and deride them, you mock them. Questioning is not mocking, despite the fact you seem to conflate the two in your statement.

And there's plenty who kept or adjusted their religious views to meet the demands of science. If science proves there is no god, no soul, no higher power, no heaven, if they are good scientists they'll adjust their viewpoint accordingly. Just like any good naturalist would adjust their view point if science finds proof for those things above.

Right now, religion is a long-term conjecture. It's a guess at something that the human mind probably couldn't begin to comprehend at this point. Using a conjecture to base one's life around, I'll admit, is a poor idea. Why I tend to rely on personal philosophies and other things. I can't change whether there is a higher power or not.

[Patches]

Please, demonstrate to me... right now, with provable evidence and truths, that there are no god-like forces, powers, aliens, and there is no realm beyond ours? Yes, there is no proof of them existing... but there's none saying that they're not real either. This is like the whole alien thing. Saying there are no aliens, provably, is like saying there's no whales in the ocean by scooping out a cup full of water. Do I think current world religions have a good grasp on what this is? No, not really.

It's logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.  It is, however, possible to prove that something exerts no influence, which in terms of day-to-day life, is functionally equivalent to something not existing.

Take the recent hurricane.  Mathematical models predicted its path and potential for destruction days in advance.  No appeals to the supernatural were necessary for making these predictions.  The storm followed pretty much the path the math suggested, and did pretty much the type of damage it predicted.  However, whenever there's a natural disaster you inevitably having throngs of people saying it's God's punishment for whatever their current personal pet issue happens to be.  But you can prove that divine intervention is not necessary.  The physics involved are sufficient to explain it.  That only leaves two possibilities:

1. There is no divine intervention

2. There is divine intervention, but it has zero influence on the outcome

So while it can't be proven that gods don't exist, it can be proven that, if they do exist, they operate only within the realm of what would have happened without their influence, anyway, thus negating any reason to really call them "gods".

[Old Viking]

If you have the patience to attempt a reasoned argument with a fundy, go for it.  I prefer mocking.  Faith is strong emotional belief despite a complete absence of evidence.  I do not, for example, have faith that 2 X 2 = 4.   And if a spiritual realm exists but is unable to manifest its reality, isn't that the equivalent of non-existence?  Final note: science, by definition, does not consider the supernatural, and gives not a rat's ass about it one way or the other.

[Osama bin Bambi]

I don't really see the point in purposefully getting into arguments with religious people, as long as they are not being obnoxious or trying to force other people to believe in what they do.

[Canadian Mojo]

3: I fail to see how religion or spirituality is intrinsic to community. We crave community because humans are social animals. Other social animals do not believe in gods, yet do not seem to have issues living together. If anything, religion has historically been known to divide communities, destroy family bonds, and lead to wars between nations.

Most social animals form groups based around a family unit. It gives a common cause, a sense of unity and an easily identified focal point. When humans started forming into larger groups well beyond the family unit we needed to maintain those thing in order to hold the group together so we created a parental figure that could unite us all. Very conveniently only a certain select few could speak on dad's behalf.

[Sylvana]

Actually, no proof means there's no proof. Denying proof means there is proof and you're saying it's wrong.

Please, demonstrate to me... right now, with provable evidence and truths, that there are no god-like forces, powers, aliens, and there is no realm beyond ours? Yes, there is no proof of them existing... but there's none saying that they're not real either. This is like the whole alien thing. Saying there are no aliens, provably, is like saying there's no whales in the ocean by scooping out a cup full of water. Do I think current world religions have a good grasp on what this is? No, not really.

There is a slight difference here that needs to be taking into account. While it is true that there is no proof of any deity existing or not existing. There is plenty of evidence to prove that the currently followed mainstream religious deities do not exist. The mainstream religions make specific claims, and these claims are for the most part testable and falsifiable, So while we can not prove that there are absolutely no deities in all existence. We can prove that the Abrahamic god does not in fact exist due to a number of logical inconsistencies regarding the scope of said gods claimed properties.

And example would be that we have proven that Zeus does not exist because there is no god on top of mount Olympus that throws lighting. We know where lightning comes from and hence have proven the claim that lightning is the byproduct of Zeus to be false, and hence for the god Zeus to be false.

Lastly I understand your willingness to empathize and get long with religious people, and for the most part that is reasonably easy to do as long as all involved keep their religious beliefs to themselves. However, to do so stretches the bounds of tolerance when every conversation with such an individual turns into them talking about their religion. Not to try and convert you, but because it is the only aspect of their life, where everything is seen through the lens of god. My mother is an example of this. When we were robbed over the weekend her answer as to why it happened is that she forgot to pray for protection over the house that day. Similarly it is impossible to have even an intellectual discussion with her about religions because any challenge to her beliefs just makes her speak about them even more. I find that when she is talking about religion, which is most of the time, it is simpler to just nod your head and agree with her because any other option will result in her never shutting up.

[RavynousHunter]

Yeah, my dad's kinda the same way, except he tries to bring in things like entropy to explain how we couldn't have simply, for lack of a better term, happened.  Can one prove that gods don't exist?  As one can't prove a negative, no.  However, you must ask the converse...can you, using verified, peer-reviewed scientific evidence prove the existence of any deific force enacting its will over our lives in any meaningful way?  As far as science has been able to find, no, there is not.

The universe is governed by natural laws that require no intelligence to keep in motion, they perpetuate themselves quite fine on their own, like gravity.  What got these laws in motion in the first place?  That's like asking what happened before the universe was, its a question that, for now, we simply can't answer.  We lack the knowledge, technology, and perspective to make a precise judgment on such a thing.

Religion is, to me, a way to fill in the gaps science hasn't filled in yet, it (rather conveniently) explains that which has yet to be explained.  Its not unexplainable, its not unknowable.  People thought the sun was unknowable, and now, we can harness the very force that governs its burning (nuclear fusion) to obliterate entire cities in the blink of an eye.

Really, if you ask me, it comes down to how a person answers a question that they can't give an adequate answer to: the religious man says, "god did it."  The scientist says, "I don't know, but we're working on it."

In the end, we're human.  Its in our nature to seek an explanation behind the workings of ourselves, our world, and the universe at large.  We're incredibly curious, but we've got that matched by a remarkable ability to answer questions no other species on the planet has the capacity to even know to ask.  Some seek out religion, some use science...some use both.  We must explain, we must know.  Mysteries don't last long around a human.

[Witchyjoshy]

What about the scientist who happens to be religious?

[Material Defender]

-Sylvana: To the last paragraph? Yeah, I totally understand not getting those types. Even in most religions, the spiritual ruler tends to be pretty hands off. Even if I was still a believer, as a opposed to a conjecturer, I would find stuff like that inane.

-Rylvanus: You definitely help point out some reasons why I'm still curious of the spiritual and supernatural, because what is supernatural will only remain that way as long as it's not explored.

-Zachski: There's quite a few. I just hope they are good scientists, which most are, as opposed to blind fundies. Then again, blind fundies dispute 200 year old science, so they would be completely incapable of being legitimate scientists.