[NT] NTs and Religion

[Owl]

Do you believe in anything? Is your tendancy to except whatever science adheres to, or does agnosticism rule? Are you as varied as everyone else in the general population? I'm not looking for an argument, nor a debate (i.e. my views in any direction don't come into play).

Early in life, I devoured the scientific worldview. After all, it strives for objectivity and it presents itself as rational--two qualities I think NT's highly value.

I find it easy to believe that many (most) of the NT's alive today are either into scientism or agnosticism. The history of science and philosophy is a history of error, and this will likely cause an NT to suspend judgment. However, the failed Enlightenment rationalist program caused many to believe that the closest one could get to objectivity is through the empirical, scientific method--making it the de facto position for those seeking objective truth, (even if it presents it in a fallibilist form).

 

[TopherRed]

Its hard to believe in something that can't be explain.....yet, and majority of it seems illogical (god made it so is not a reasonable explination on any level). Yet i do leave the door slightly open to possiblities.

I don't leave my life to fate, why should i do it for my belief.

Interesting. I know many Christians that hold the belief that science and nature itself are evidences of God--this is how he chose to do things. Tends to throw the Randomists for a loop as they point out how destructive nature is. Then the Creationists usually strike back and say that everything, including chaos, has reason to it by pointing out different cycles of birth, destruction and rebirth; Chaotic Order.

Either way, it's hard for people to believe in something they can't see--it's like Santa Claus or Sasquatch for those who haven't really attempted to look into It. Those are the people, when they actually pursue God seriously, who tend to witness the supernatural--not the feelers like me who can be sustained on the relational. That's my hypothesis anyway. How can the Questioners of everything be expected to have as much faith in something they haven't even seen as their feeling counterparts?

And even if you seriously wanted to look into the possibility of God, whom do you ask? What scholarly, logical resource can you gleen information from? You've all heard about the crazy, far right wing schools that are nationally known for their extremism--they sound way too stupid to draw from as a resource of valid information. What about the rest, the majority?

If anybody is interested in exploring those possiblities further, maybe a trip to a respected theology department in a university known for it's academics as well as it's spirituallity is in order. It may take some digging, but they are out there, I know of a few in California. If speaking to theology professors doesn't flare your NT curiousity, not much I know of will.

 

[TopherRed]

Early in life, I devoured the scientific worldview. After all, it strives for objectivity and it presents itself as rational--two qualities I think NT's highly value.

I find it easy to believe that many (most) of the NT's alive today are either into scientism or agnosticism. The history of science and philosophy is a history of error, and this will likely cause an NT to suspend judgment. However, the failed Enlightenment rationalist program caused many to believe that the closest one could get to objectivity is through the empirical, scientific method--making it the de facto position for those seeking objective truth, (even if it presents it in a fallibilist form).

I believe I agree.

 

[CJ99]

Atheistic agnostic.

 

[CJ99]

I find it hard to beleive an NT could be religious as theres so many flaws in religion. And so many things it fails to explain.

 

[jenocyde]

I find it hard to beleive an NT could be religious as theres so many flaws in religion. And so many things it fails to explain.

You can replace the word religion with science, if you choose, and still have the same result. I have a lot of dear NT friends that are on an eternal quest to find truth - whether that be through religion or science.

 

[Costrin]

I don't believe in god or religion. I just believe that the universe took a shit and everything just appeared. I call it Big Shit theory.

 

[TopherRed]

Explains all the hot gasses floating around...

 

[SubjectA]

I am a rarity among NT's. I do believe in God. That being said, I'm not a Creationist and I do lend credit to the Big Bang Theory (FYI ironically it was first suggested by a Catholic priest.) I'm not a fatalist. And being a biology major, not once have I ran into a piece of information that made me question my faith and I've never had to rationalize in vain any scientific concept in order to keep my faith. Science has only made me further appreciate the complexities of God's creation.

 

[NoahFence]

I find it hard to beleive an NT could be religious as theres so many flaws in religion. And so many things it fails to explain.

Do you find this as hard to believe as the existance of God?

I always find it amusing when "it does not make sense to me" is used as an argument on such a massive thing as the universe, or a deity. Does nothing beyond your understanding exist in your universe?

Worth noting for me at this point: My faith is not in the existance of God...various experiences have led me to this conclusion. My faith is a matter of trusting that this entity has my best interest at heart and is not simply growing souls like fruits in a garden for later consumption. That gets shaken often, believe me.

 

[TopherRed]

I am a rarity among NT's. I do believe in God. That being said, I'm not a Creationist and I do lend credit to the Big Bang Theory (FYI ironically it was first suggested by a Catholic priest.) I'm not a fatalist. And being a biology major, not once have I ran into a piece of information that made me question my faith and I've never had to rationalize in vain any scientific concept in order to keep my faith. Science has only made me further appreciate the complexities of God's creation.

).

Whenever NTs do find faith, it's very complex, well thought out and individualistic. The best preacher I have ever heard is an ENTJ named Lance Hanh (Bridgeway Christian Church, Roseville, CA). If there are NTs looking to hear one of their own break down Biblical texts from a Christian prespective, I would invite them to join me some Saturday if they're anywhere near Sacramento.

 

[Erudur]

I am a theist - and I believe that the bible provides insight into the nature of the creator.

I find a lot of the secularist dismissal of the bible irrational, and i find a lot of dogmatic interpretation of the bible irrational. I personally believe that the bible was overshadowed by the creator, and is infallible. But the human understanding of its infallibility is fallible.

On ages and dates, i often have the uneasy feeling that there are shaky assumptions that may often be circular when pinned down. So i view many date/age contentions of creationists and scientists as questionable.

Without being an expert in physics, i find the hypothesis that the speed of light is slowing down very compelling.

Speed of light slowing down?

If this is true, you can throw out everything related to the origins of matter in general, and the earth in particular.

My gut tells me that when the truth is known, it will tie everything together. In the meantime the more truth is known, the better things will tie together.

 

[jenocyde]

).

Whenever NTs do find faith, it's very complex, well thought out and individualistic. The best preacher I have ever heard is an ENTJ named Lance Hanh (Bridgeway Christian Church, Roseville, CA). If there are NTs looking to hear one of their own break down Biblical texts from a Christian prespective, I would invite them to join me some Saturday if they're anywhere near Sacramento.

Saturday? Are you SDA?

 

[jenocyde]

I find a lot of the secularist dismissal of the bible irrational, and i find a lot of dogmatic interpretation of the bible irrational. I personally believe that the bible was overshadowed by the creator, and is infallible. But the human understanding of its infallibility is fallible.

Do you find the dismissal of other religious texts irrational, as well, or is this limited to Christianity?

 

[Qre:us]

Every belief of mine is up for falsification.

God is not a belief of mine. Its premise seems dishonest in that it disallows falsification.

 

[NoahFence]

Its premise seems dishonest in that it disallows falsification.

Is something disallowed if you lack the capability to accomplish it?

 

[Erudur]

Do you find the dismissal of other religious texts irrational, as well, or is this limited to Christianity?

Some, yes.

I am pretty critical of the recently "revealed" mormon scriptures. I am also critical of the double standard applied to textual criticism of say the gnostic texts (favorable - with so little corroborative manuscripts) versus the canonical texts (highly skeptical - with, relatively speaking, a great number of corroborative manuscripts).

Here is an example of an irrational type of secular criticism of the BC scriptures: Scholars want to dismiss the biblical record's intrinsic claims regarding the origin of the law of Moses in favor of the theory that it was derived from Hammurabi's code during the Babylonian captivity. In my mind there are, at a minimum, 4 plausible explanations for the similarities (and disparities).

1-the biblical claim is true and the two codes are coincidentally similar
1b-the biblical claim is true and the two codes are similar because of a previously unwritten or a more ancient undiscovered written code that was codified with more detail by Moses and Hammurabi.
2-the biblical claim is partly true and the two codes have a common source
3-the bible dates are off and Hammurabi is the source
4-the babylonian dates are off and Moses is the source for Hammurabi


Why do scholars seem to dismiss all but 3? That irks me. At this point, I personally, must allow for the possibility of all four, though I am inclined to believe 1.

I am interested in all mythology, as well as all ancient texts. I think there are clues to be gleaned from many sources. But because of the scriptural account, I believe some ancient texts are a true reflection of an ancient, competing false cosmology.

 

[jenocyde]

I am pretty critical of the recently "revealed" mormon scriptures. <snip>

I am interested in all mythology, as well as all ancient texts. I think there are clues to be gleaned from many sources. But because of the scriptural account, I believe some ancient texts are a true reflection of an ancient, competing false cosmology.

In 1000 years, many people who would have denied the Book of Mormon in this present day may accept it fully because it happened "so long ago".

I am not challenging you, but I have one question out of curiosity. Is it within the realm of your thinking that these ancient texts, such as the Bible, were taken as lightly as the Book of Mormon in their time but have gained credence simply because there is no way to disprove it, since it happened so long ago?

 

[Qre:us]

Is something disallowed if you lack the capability to accomplish it?

Falsification does not work like that. E.g. in scientific theories, falsification is not implied because it CAN be accomplished, but, the very notion of falsification as a possibility, in the first place, is its validity. That would be an honest premise....however, my contention:

Its premise seems dishonest in that it disallows falsification.

in that, there's 'ways' to get to god, while at the same time, it being out of your reach because of its inherent characterisitics of omni-. I.e. the premise morphs itself to suit a certain 'need' and jumps out of reach to suit another, so it can never be 'wrong'. It's self-fulfilling...and there's a taste of dishonesty to that.

Such that, thinking about accomplishing falsification (allowed or disallowed) isn't even relevant, as much as the way the premise is set up.

 

[TopherRed]

Saturday? Are you SDA?

No, Bridgeway isn't my home church. Many larger Christian churches of all denominations have Saturday night services to accomidate the younger crowd and those who don't like to get up in the morning.

I have a "home" church elsewhere on Sunday mornings though, so I couldn't go to Bridgeway then.