Spillover from "Share Your Spiritual Beliefs" Thread

[Mole]

Truly Unique

Ah yes, I understand now

Interesting, though I don't think it would of made a difference if the Christian religion was given to me as a child. Why?

Well because my mother is Buddhist and I was taught all about it I however chose to respect it but not embrace it as my religion and this was a choice I made as a child

Now the reason I say "brain washing" is because the only way religion would of effected me as a child is by not giving me a choice which essentially is brain washing, the fact that I was not having my hand forced is the reason for my chosen preference

That being said, it would be more like "holding a gun" to my head even in childhood, I've always been a curious person with way too many questions so there is no way I would truly 100% believe in something even if I said so

At an early age I was thinking deeply about the meaning of life and for someone to tell me something "is a certain way" I would always be skeptical of people

I payed little attention in school as a child too as I found most of it irrelevant even being so young, the questions the other children were asking were of no interest to me

I've been this way as long as I can remember, I can remember playing in the sand pit by myself with the gears in my head turning already, going over ideas

There was no "trance of childhood" for me as I was vastly different from other children

Funny you mention language I remember as a child discussing that very concept with my mother I was questioning it already

I disagree that I learn any of the things you stated unconsciously, do you have proof of this?

If what you are saying is true than so is children believing in santa. Most children simply found out santa wasn't real through others I however demanded the truth from my mother and was obviously devastated

Hypothetically if I was born into a highly religious family there is no doubt in my mind that I would be skeptical and unlikely to take what they say as absolute truth even as a child

I was born with a critical mind, it wasn't developed

It's true that most small children do believe in Santa. And all small children do carry out a remarkable feat in learning a spoken language.

And the spoken language is learnt intuitively and naturally. This contrasts with learning to read and write which is counter-intuitively taught in a special State institution called a school by specially trained staff called teachers.

So you might say the spoken language is revealed to a small child at home by their parents, while the written language is learnt by travail outside of the home in a State institution.

So we could say our spoken language is learnt in the paradise of our home in our mother's arms, while to learn to read and write we are expelled from the Garden of Eden of our home and we must learn our letters by the sweat of our brow.

This, as you have probably noticed, is the story of Adam and Eve. And it is our story.

Of course I understand you are saying this is not your story - so this does make you truly unique.

 

[Mole]

The God Equation

Why couldn't God have a causal relationship to the physical universe?

God could have a causal relationship with the physical universe, but so far there is no evidence of such a relationship.

Normally people who believe things without evidence are considered unhinged. For instance, if a Congressman stood up and said Hurricane Katrina was caused by the God of the Sea, Poseidon, because we had offended Him, we would consider the Congressman unhinged.

And those who say God has a causal relationship with the universe without any evidence are equally unhinged - only there are millions upon millions who believe this.

Hancock library is devoted to causal relationships in the universe, and these relationships are expressed in equations. And of the truly vast number of equations in this library, not one equation contains the variable God.

Frankly, if you think God has a causal relationship with the universe, do put it in an equation. And I can assure you that the God equation will be more famous than E = MC squared.

 

[Wonkavision]

Frankly, if you think God has a causal relationship with the universe, do put it in an equation. And I can assure you that the God equation will be more famous than E = MC squared.

Why must it be an equation?

Why not a WORD?

In fact, the Bible says that Christ is "The Word."

John 1

The Eternal Word

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.

John’s Witness: The True Light

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own,[c] and His own[d] did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The Word Becomes Flesh

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

[Mole]

Why must it be an equation?

Why not a WORD?

In fact, the Bible says that Christ is "The Word"(original Greek=Logos="word").

Mathematics describes causal relations in the world. And equations are the expressions of mathematics.

So to understand causal relations it is necessary to be numerate.

For instance, quantum mechanics makes no sense in words but it makes perfect sense in mathematics to ten decimal places.

The Bible is literate but innumerate and so naturally favours the word rather than the equation.

In fact the Bible is so innumerate there is not one equation in the whole book.

And this, we are told, is the word of God.

But the word does not equate.

 

[reason]

Religious hypotheses are falsifiable, in principle. It just depends on what conditions are assumed.

The issue of whether people are willing to hold hypotheses open to falsification is another matter entirely.

 

[Wonkavision]

I Corinthians 1:18-29 ---

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him.

 

[Qre:us]

Religious hypotheses are falsifiable, in principle. It just depends on what conditions are assumed.

The issue of whether people are willing to hold hypotheses open to falsification is another matter entirely.

I agree, but, I'll add that: (1) it's not just in the religious realm [specifically, the 'god debate'], and that, (2) this point may not be valid for discussion of religion, by religion's very nature. Hence, your bolded.

It is not only religious hypotheses, but, any abstract thought "trying" to be tied to the physical [evidence]. The concept of falsifability is moot for such cases/concepts [god]; if we hold that such abstraction affords them to be beyond observable evidence. Just felt/thought. "Metaphysical"?

Concept of god. Common enough, but, no common experience. How do you falsify that? Or, even begin to perscribe such process of thought to these types of critical inquiry of the abstract mind?

****

Existential thought.

The experience of death and dying

The experience of pain.

*********

Granted, these last three (vs. God), one can easier aim to answer the what it is, but, for none, can we define an [universal] how.

Maybe, at the end of the day, "god" is a personal experience.

 

[Heart&Brain]

Sure, if you never look to diversity in spiritual experience as the norm and instead rely on a sense of misguided universalism.

You presuppose what you are trying to examine. There are diverse experiences. And then there are religious interpretations of these experiences. Those interpretations should not be taken to be sound or respectable or legitimate only because some nice people claim to believe in them 'very very very much!'.
Diversity is fine. But religious ideas will exclude other interpretations IF they happen to be true. You can't have both Zeus and Jesus and an impersonal expanding universe. That's not bad in itself to come with strong claims, but it's misleading to say they are not strong claims, just to hide the fact that some of them are very poorly supported strong claims.

...I think you missed my point. Terribly.

Yes, I probably did, since the point of your thread was to make people describe their beliefs without theological censorship. Fine. But I wanted to point out that calling faith 'personal' feeds into an ideological sweet-talking about religious beliefs.

So I 'missed' your point because I wanted to make a point of my own: that of being critical about the word 'personal' when you link it to the most outrageously grandiose, collective, universalist scams in world history.

1. 'Personal' strikes me as misleading with respect to the external condition of religions, since it's evident that it is an inherently social phenomenon. Like a language is more than weird sounds because it's shared, religion differs from insanity by being shared and considered normal in the group. Religious people are not cracy. You know that, no doubt.

2. 'Personal' is also misleading with respect to the internal condition of religion, which is that the relation to a transcendent, primary and moral entity, a God or several, (a relation called "faith"] will determine the relations in this world to life, the universe and everything. Not just the believers', but everybody's universe, life and everything. Mine included. So I feel entitled to protest and demand some reasons to take these strong claims serious. On a scientific level, on an ethical level, on a social level, on an existential level, on an aesthetic level, on a spiritual level. So it doesn't need to be scientific reasons. Just some reasons beyond the usual two: "but the holy X said so" or "but little me believe that very strongly". Just won't do.

You don't "believe" in gravity. Gravity is empirical. Gravity is falsifiable.

But maybe you miss my point a bit too. My point is not that religion is wrong because it is not compatible with scientific methodology. Many true and right and valueable things are not scientific (art and philosophy for instance, if we stick to the realm of the products of the human spirit for now - which is what I hope you mean by the imprecise buzz-word 'spiritual'). My point is that religions are trying to have their cake and eat it too, thus both claiming eternal universal truth and 'personal' taste. The substance of religion contains no principle of procedure or demand for consistency or criteria for when it's successful and when to be aborted. Their ideas have no standards. People believe just because they believe. It's completely circular, and crafted to make the followers accept being blind and deaf to the real world. And they call that insensivity a 'virtue' even. It's narcisistic. With religion everything, every atrocity, ignorance and injustice, can be permitted and justified. And has been during the ages.

I meant 'believe' in the simple meaning 'act as if it's true until further notice'. I think the religious use of the word 'belief' is highly manipulative and designed to dodge the issue once again. Normally you hold ideas to be true or good or sublime for some reasons beyond that you hold them.
But religious people believe only because they believe. Complete selfabsorbtion and disregard for the autonomy and feedback from the inner or outer world. Organised insensivity and disrespect for life, the universe and everything.

Caveat: we are only talking ideas here. Real individual persons are usually wiser than their ideology. Luckily...

 

[Qre:us]

Maybe, at the end of the day, "god" is a personal experience.

How did we perceive this "god" if not, to a [very real] degree, indoctrinated as we grew [up]?

 

[Sniffles]

You presuppose what you are trying to examine. There are diverse experiences. And then there are religious interpretations of these experiences. Those interpretations should not be taken to be sound or respectable or legitimate only because some nice people claim to believe in them 'very very very much!'.
Diversity is fine. But religious ideas will exclude other interpretations IF they happen to be true. You can't have both Zeus and Jesus and an impersonal expanding universe. That's not bad in itself to come with strong claims, but it's misleading to say they are not strong claims, just to hide the fact that some of them are very poorly supported strong claims.
Yes, I probably did, since the point of your thread was to make people describe their beliefs without theological censorship. Fine. But I wanted to point out that calling faith 'personal' feeds into an ideological sweet-talking about religious beliefs.

So I 'missed' your point because I wanted to make a point of my own: that of being critical about the word 'personal' when you link it to the most outrageously grandiose, collective, universalist scams in world history.

1. 'Personal' strikes me as misleading with respect to the external condition of religions, since it's evident that it is an inherently social phenomenon. Like a language is more than weird sounds because it's shared, religion differs from insanity by being shared and considered normal in the group. Religious people are not cracy. You know that, no doubt.

2. 'Personal' is also misleading with respect to the internal condition of religion, which is that the relation to a transcendent, primary and moral entity, a God or several, (a relation called "faith"] will determine the relations in this world to life, the universe and everything. Not just the believers', but everybody's universe, life and everything. Mine included. So I feel entitled to protest and demand some reasons to take these strong claims serious. On a scientific level, on an ethical level, on a social level, on an existential level, on an aesthetic level, on a spiritual level. So it doesn't need to be scientific reasons. Just some reasons beyond the usual two: "but the holy X said so" or "but little me believe that very strongly". Just won't do. But maybe you miss my point a bit too. My point is not that religion is wrong because it is not compatible with scientific methodology. Many true and right and valueable things are not scientific (art and philosophy for instance, if we stick to the realm of the products of the human spirit for now - which is what I hope you mean by the imprecise buzz-word 'spiritual'). My point is that religions are trying to have their cake and eat it too, thus both claiming eternal universal truth and 'personal' taste. The substance of religion contains no principle of procedure or demand for consistency or criteria for when it's successful and when to be aborted. Their ideas have no standards. People believe just because they believe. It's completely circular, and crafted to make the followers accept being blind and deaf to the real world. And they call that insensivity a 'virtue' even. It's narcisistic. With religion everything, every atrocity, ignorance and injustice, can be permitted and justified. And has been during the ages.

I meant 'believe' in the simple meaning 'act as if it's true until further notice'. I think the religious use of the word 'belief' is highly manipulative and designed to dodge the issue once again. Normally you hold ideas to be true or good or sublime for some reasons beyond that you hold them.
But religious people believe only because they believe. Complete selfabsorbtion and disregard for the autonomy and feedback from the inner or outer world. Organised insensivity and disrespect for life, the universe and everything.

Caveat: we are only talking ideas here. Real individual persons are usually wiser than their ideology. Luckily...

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Totenkindly]

...People believe just because they believe. It's completely circular, and crafted to make the followers accept being blind and deaf to the real world. And they call that insensivity a 'virtue' even. It's narcisistic. With religion everything, every atrocity, ignorance and injustice, can be permitted and justified. And has been during the ages.

That might be true, but it doesn't seem even nearly close to the entirety of religious practice. It's much more complicated than that.

For one, maybe it's obvious to you that the reasoning is circular, but it's not clear at all to many of the religiously minded, especially because they just do not organize their thoughts in the same pattern you might, or might not be intuitive. I assure you that they believe they are being entirely reasonable and drawing conclusions in rational ways... and it's "rational enough" that it is very hard to dislodge the thinking that goes on. God knows, I've tried to engage with people I love, and it's just infuriating... partly because they are not TRYING to be obtuse or cruel.

And while religion can be responsible for atrocities, there are many things that can driven human beings to commit atrocities, and there's also usually some level of restraint inherent in the religiously minded... the average person might misapply truth (in your or my opinion) to a certain degree, but at some point it becomes obvious to them that things "aren't right" and then they start to check and balance themselves. They seem to usually have good intentions and use their faith framework to support, justify, and implement those good intentions.

And finally, in a rather tangential viewpoint, I'm sort of feeling like you grabbed a word out of Night's post to run away on your own agenda here... because you happen to have particular issues with religious people, and so you changed the topic so you could vent about it.

I guess it doesn't matter, the discussion can go wherever people want it to; I'm just noting it for the record.

I meant 'believe' in the simple meaning 'act as if it's true until further notice'. I think the religious use of the word 'belief' is highly manipulative and designed to dodge the issue once again. Normally you hold ideas to be true or good or sublime for some reasons beyond that you hold them.

I think you credit too much conscious thought to human beings, and insinuate too much negativity about their intent.

But religious people believe only because they believe. Complete selfabsorbtion and disregard for the autonomy and feedback from the inner or outer world. Organised insensivity and disrespect for life, the universe and everything.

Yeah.
Sure.
Whatever.
You're not extreme in the least, or exaggerating to the extreme. *eyeroll*

Honestly, I'm worried about people who think like you do as much as I worry about 'religious people.' We've all got our flaws. It makes it hard to have any sort of meaningful dialogue.

 

[Mole]

I Corinthians 1:18-29 ---

I wondered why you were so nice to me but refused to join me in a cavalry charge.

You said it was because you were a maverick, but it seems it was because you are a Christian maverick.

So you were displaying Christian charity towards me; and exercising your Protestant individuality by refusing to join all of us on a gallop.

Perfect.

 

[Wonkavision]

I wondered why you were so nice to me but refused to join me in a cavalry charge.

You said it was because you were a maverick, but it seems it was because you are a Christian maverick.

So you were displaying Christian charity towards me; and exercising your Protestant individuality by refusing to join all of us on a gallop.

Perfect.

I don't consider myself a Christian, but yeah--I'm leaning towards it.

And like I told you before, I didn't join your calvary charge because I'm an independent agent.

I rarely join any group or cause--even if its a good one.

And I'm nice to you because I like you.

It's not "Christian charity".

 

[Moiety]

Because the other questions have verifiable answers.

...

Both ways of answering are valid. As there are different methodologies for obtaining "truth", equating a belief in gravity with a belief in god/s is erroneous.

Faith and reason are entirely separate entities.

Yet leaps of faith or intuition are commonplace in theoretical science. Lots of scientists have a belief in something quite before they get to use reason at all. It took Newton years to explain something, using mathematics, which he believed to be true.

I don't like approaching these subjects with a predefined model based on some arbitrary dichotomy. Science VS religion just isn't the point at all for me.

You could say it takes faith to assimilate "truths" discovered by science during the centuries, when learning about it at school. And we are indoctrinated as well. Science isn't devoid of faith and religion isn't devoid of reason.


The way I see it, most people dwell on these subjects in all the wrong ways. The aim of knowledge for me is forming a PERSONAL philosophy (not belief, nor method; or both depending how you look at it) of life which constantly EVOLVES and isn't arrogant or close-minded for the sake of it. A philosophy of life should be about living a better life. People get too hung up on finding the truth without thinking about what that should be about.

 

[Katsuni]

honestly, i think this whole god thing is just one big exercise in confusion. i was raised in a non religious environment, where god was only very rarely talked about, and only in a matter of fact way, and so far i have done just fine without him. finding out about the prevalence of religiosity in other parts of the world in my teenage years i was stunned. how could so many people devote so much time to something no one has ever seen or been able to produce any evidence of? the only explanation i can think of is tradition and group loyalty/pressure. there is no way so many people would be convinced about these things if it weren't for the fact that most people in their vicinity already were.

heres a question for the religious: why do you believe in the god you believe in rather than some other god(s)? why not the norse gods, or those of the ancient greeks?

and for those with a more diffuse, deist sort of god: why bother? if your god doesn't interfere in life or you can't define him, what difference does his existence make to you?

but if all your god is is a blanket for comfort, then by all means go ahead. i dont understand the need for comfort.

sorry if i come off as a jerk

Good questions, I generally try to pose these myself =3

That being said, the norse gods and greeks/roman ones are, these days, viewed as myth rather than religion. Likely because they had very specific details about them, and it assumed rather heavily that they had regular dealings with mortals. If yeu can't find anyone who's personally met them, it has a strong argument against, if that's supposedly the case.

The whole "why christianity? Why not buddism? Or hinduism? Or islam?" thing is pretty much... well... yeu go with whot yeu're raised with and the culture of the area. Cultural values tend to be ingrained into people's heads for a long time, and religion is bent over time to match those values. Honestly, Christianity is very far removed from western values, but people ignore most of the scriptures, and follow only whot they want to hear to make it fit.

Same elsewhere, other countries have a very strong belief in other religions, why? Because it's a different culture, and they've adapted other religions to fit into their little niche of the world.

There was an interesting comedian someone showed me awhile ago that was pretty good on describing the message. I have the file on another drive but I listened to it enough this should be pretty close of a quote =3

"Well, I was 'born christian', well... 'I was born and then told about ONE religion so I picked it... and I wouldn't've done, if as a child, I would've heard just a little about hinduism. C'mon man... BLUE MONKIES!? blue monkeys and a guy with an elephant for a head? OH YEAH!!!" -Glenn Wool"

Fortunately, checking for verification on that quote, I found the youtube video of it ^^

Warning: lots of swearing, and potentially offensive stuff, but quite amusing =3

Odd it's not linking the video into the page... oh well here then.

YouTube - Mintys Comedian Of The Month April 2007 - Glen Wool

As for the "if god doesn't interfere with yeur lives, why bother with him?" well... people like to think he does. Even if they have no proof. There's people I've seen and met that anything that happens that's good, they automatically praise the lord for it, as if it's manually controlled, every single good thing that happens in their life is a direct move on god's chessboard, whereas everything that's bad that happens is the work of satan.

Since when is satan supposed to be more powerful than god? ; Something doesn't really add up there >.>;;

But yeah, I think most people just are scared. Scared of death (afterlife), scared of having no innate 'purpose' (god made us for a purpose), or just scared of having to make decisions about things on their own (morality). Being able to go "god made me do it!" just seems to work better than "I was an asshole, sorry". I'm not sure why but it's more culturally acceptable for the first. Oh well.

That being said, there is some evidence of a godlike being, but not enough to really prove anything. As such, I don't really get the fanatical views myself. The idea of "there might be something there, I want to learn more about that" is good though. I consider that to be a pretty healthy perspective on things =3

Blind faith is never good. Actually, I'm sure there's a case where it is, but I don't know which that is. I suppose I'm blindly faithful in the belief that there's always an exception to every rule then XD

Actually not really, I've seen too many consistent cases of such, so it's based on evidence, and therefore can't be blind faith. Oh well.

 

[bobby]

Good questions, I generally try to pose these myself =3

That being said, the norse gods and greeks/roman ones are, these days, viewed as myth rather than religion. Likely because they had very specific details about them, and it assumed rather heavily that they had regular dealings with mortals. If yeu can't find anyone who's personally met them, it has a strong argument against, if that's supposedly the case.

it seems more likely to me that the reason they're considered myths is that very few people nowadays believe in them. what made people give them up in the first place, i don't rightly know, but i'd guess they were both out-competed by the, at the time rather new, abrahamic religions, for whatever reason.

in any case, the vikings and the old greeks believed in their respective gods as fervently as any religious person you can find today believes in his, i'm sure. and if the vikings and the greeks were fine with never personally meeting their gods, why wouldn't people today?

The whole "why christianity? Why not buddism? Or hinduism? Or islam?" thing is pretty much... well... yeu go with whot yeu're raised with and the culture of the area. Cultural values tend to be ingrained into people's heads for a long time, and religion is bent over time to match those values. Honestly, Christianity is very far removed from western values, but people ignore most of the scriptures, and follow only whot they want to hear to make it fit.

Same elsewhere, other countries have a very strong belief in other religions, why? Because it's a different culture, and they've adapted other religions to fit into their little niche of the world.

but this isn't really a point in religion's favor, is it? if which god is the right god depends on where you're born, it sort of questions the validity of all of them.

As for the "if god doesn't interfere with yeur lives, why bother with him?" well... people like to think he does. Even if they have no proof. There's people I've seen and met that anything that happens that's good, they automatically praise the lord for it, as if it's manually controlled, every single good thing that happens in their life is a direct move on god's chessboard, whereas everything that's bad that happens is the work of satan.

that question was for those who have already acknowledged that their god doesn't interfere in their lives. if they have made that acknowledgment yet still believe that he does interfere then i think they're being dishonest.

But yeah, I think most people just are scared. Scared of death (afterlife), scared of having no innate 'purpose' (god made us for a purpose), or just scared of having to make decisions about things on their own (morality). Being able to go "god made me do it!" just seems to work better than "I was an asshole, sorry". I'm not sure why but it's more culturally acceptable for the first. Oh well.

if that's the case then i must say i really don't understand that fear.

That being said, there is some evidence of a godlike being, but not enough to really prove anything.

would you like to share that evidence?

The idea of "there might be something there, I want to learn more about that" is good though. I consider that to be a pretty healthy perspective on things =3

sure, but how do you go about learning about it when it leaves no physical trace for us to examine? and when you say 'learn more' does that mean you already know something about it? i'd be interested to hear about that.

Blind faith is never good. Actually, I'm sure there's a case where it is, but I don't know which that is. I suppose I'm blindly faithful in the belief that there's always an exception to every rule then XD

i don't understand the difference between blind faith and regular faith. help?


the simple fact that there are a great number of different religions ought to make anyone skeptic. if they contradict each other, which most of them do, one has to conclude that humans have a tendency to invent false religions. and that being the case, isn't it more probably that the last one is also false?

 

[Night]

Yet leaps of faith or intuition are commonplace in theoretical science. Lots of scientists have a belief in something quite before they get to use reason at all. It took Newton years to explain something, using mathematics, which he believed to be true.

I don't like approaching these subjects with a predefined model based on some arbitrary dichotomy. Science VS religion just isn't the point at all for me.

You could say it takes faith to assimilate "truths" discovered by science during the centuries, when learning about it at school. And we are indoctrinated as well. Science isn't devoid of faith and religion isn't devoid of reason.


The way I see it, most people dwell on these subjects in all the wrong ways. The aim of knowledge for me is forming a PERSONAL philosophy (not belief, nor method; or both depending how you look at it) of life which constantly EVOLVES and isn't arrogant or close-minded for the sake of it. A philosophy of life should be about living a better life. People get too hung up on finding the truth without thinking about what that should be about.

Science uses the scientific method of analysis to determine verifiable truth.

Religion depends on faith-based belief.

Each represents fundamentally contrasting means of navigating a similar intellectual space: the quest for knowledge. Their methodologies differ, so we must be careful to avoid conflating terminology and approach.

I don't know what you mean by forming a "personal" philosophy. You either rely on empiricism or you do not. There's no in-between. Using a different approach means you do not require falsifiable facts to make a conclusion.

Labeling something "arrogant" or "close-minded" is neither here nor there, as it applies to empirical data gathering. In this case, value judgments are meaningless, as statements of value are polymorphous and offer bias. I think this is central to your hang-up.

And, the analytical dichotomy between empiricism and faith isn't arbitrary. They are as different as night and day.

I don't have any idea how you might confuse them.