Freud on Religion

[XNemesisX]

I'm in a philosophy of religion class right now and we just got through talking about Freud and his views on religion. I am planning on reading his book "The Future of an Illusion" as I was amazed at how much I agreed with him. I have always thought the same things about religion as Freud did and didn't realize anyone had actually put it into a theory before.

 

Without going too indepth here are the basic views of Freud's view on religion and the future of it:

 

*The forces of nature are out of our control. From the very beginning, religion was created as a means of trying to control what cannot be controlled. We are helpless when it comes to forces of nature and also inevitable death. Religion gives people a sense of control and protection from things that are out of their hands.

 

*Religion was created to promise those who are suffering a better life after they die. To make up for a miserable and unfair earthly life, they look ahead to an afterlife where they will be compensated for their grievances. Religion was also great social control. If not for religion, the poor would rob the rich blind and/or kill them. So, the poor and under privelaged accepted their subordinate role in the world because they thought this would just mean greater rewards for them after they die.

 

*Humans have a need for a father figure. (this part is completely Freudian). As a child, we feel helpless and we look to the father for that protection and guidance yet we also fear that parent because he could punish us if we don't do what we are supposed to do. As adults, we no longer have that father influence in our life because we are no longer children. So, to create this father figure we come up with the concept of God. He protects us and helps us since we are helpless.....yet at the same time he is to be feared. Just like the father we typically think of as children.

 

Freud looked at the future of what he calls an "illusion"

 

In Freud's opinion, the evolution of the human species would mean the deterioration of religion. He believed that in the future people would use more logic when thinking about religion and not subscribe to the writings and beliefs of our "ignorant" ancestors. Freud could not believe that writings of people who lived so long ago and were so ignorant to so many things could still affect people in this day and age.

 

But, he attributes this to the (persistant) worry of helplessness, lack of father figure, and lack of control over life to the reason why people still want to be religious.

 

Freud referred to an illusion as something that is made up almost completely of wishful thinking with no evidence for it nor against it. Therefore, an illusion COULD be true, but like most wishful thinking, it is usually false.

 

Opponets of Freud's view on religion have said that to rid people of religion would be cruel because it is how many people are able to tolerate life. Freud disagreed. He felt that once we rid the world of religion, more people will strive to make the life on earth better not only for themselves but also for others. He thinks the world would be more tolerant and more willing to work together to make the short life on earth better for everyone since there would be no promise of an afterlife. He felt that all forms of life would be more respected without religion.

 

Ok, I will try not to make this too long as I'm trying to restate everything as briefly as I can. I think this is very interesting. I see why people want to be religious and according to some philosophers it is better to wager that there is a God then there isn't. The reason for this is if you believe in God, then ends up he doesn't exist, you lose little to nothing. If you disbelieve in God and you are wrong, you lose a LOT. However, opponents of this view say that there is plenty to lose by believing in a religion - a wasted life that was not lived to the fullest.

 

Also, some wonder if the real "God" if there is one, would actually punish those that believe in him for purely selfish reasons. (Eternal life, plenty of rewards, etc). They say that those who subscribe to a religion are in it for self serving reasons and that if there is a God he will recognize this and may not particularly like gamblers.

 

I could go on and on but I will shut up now before I write a novel

 

So, let's here some thoughts/comments....

[tokyo]

Originally posted by YX32Nemesis

*The forces of nature are out of our control. From the very beginning, religion was created as a means of trying to control what cannot be controlled. We are helpless when it comes to forces of nature and also inevitable death. Religion gives people a sense of control and protection from things that are out of their hands.

Agree.

 

*Religion was created to promise those who are suffering a better life after they die. To make up for a miserable and unfair earthly life, they look ahead to an afterlife where they will be compensated for their grievances. Religion was also great social control. If not for religion, the poor would rob the rich blind and/or kill them. So, the poor and under privelaged accepted their subordinate role in the world because they thought this would just mean greater rewards for them after they die.

Agree.

 

*Humans have a need for a father figure. (this part is completely Freudian). As a child, we feel helpless and we look to the father for that protection and guidance yet we also fear that parent because he could punish us if we don't do what we are supposed to do. As adults, we no longer have that father influence in our life because we are no longer children. So, to create this father figure we come up with the concept of God. He protects us and helps us since we are helpless.....yet at the same time he is to be feared. Just like the father we typically think of as children.

Agree.

 

Opponets of Freud's view on religion have said that to rid people of religion would be cruel because it is how many people are able to tolerate life. Freud disagreed. He felt that once we rid the world of religion, more people will strive to make the life on earth better not only for themselves but also for others. He thinks the world would be more tolerant and more willing to work together to make the short life on earth better for everyone since there would be no promise of an afterlife. He felt that all forms of life would be more respected without religion.

Bertrand Russell answered the question if the key to happiness lies in not being completely stupid or in being so with choosing the first alternative. I'm not honestly sure of this. I've never felt that what I had to offer was as good as the comfort that people find in their religion. If I took it away from them, would they be happy? Most of them seem to be more happy in their ignorant bliss than I am with all my doubts and questions about life.

 

Would there really be more working together in order to make this life a precious one, filled with wonderful experiences or would it not make people desperate? Some people will consider this short time that they spend on earth as the opportunity to make the best out of it, to enjoy it to the fullest and to live to their potential. Others will despair and be paralzed at the prospect that after death there won't be anything. No soothing god and no eternal justice.

 

I think this need for a father figure is too strong and taking it away will deprive people of hope. My prediction is that we would have an increase in drug abuse, more people fleeing reality as they are missing a sense in life. Human beings are afraid of being alone and having too much freedom, they want security, they want rules, because if there were none, you would have to take responsibility for your life and that is scary.

 

Also, some wonder if the real "God" if there is one, would actually punish those that believe in him for purely selfish reasons. (Eternal life, plenty of rewards, etc). They say that those who subscribe to a religion are in it for self serving reasons and that if there is a God he will recognize this and may not particularly like gamblers.

I don't know if there's a god or not, but if he existed, then I think I with my little mind would not be able to grasp a full meaning of what he's wishes are. I highly doubt that an ant, even though it's living in a highly structured society, would be able to understand me. Would I care if those ants worshipped me? Nope. Why should I?

 

There are far too many light years between the ants and me. And there will be even more light years between God and me. How can I a human being understand a divine being and what it wants? We are all looking at God in human terms, because we are humans, but if he existed, he will be beyond our understanding. Like or not like, that's human. We laugh at Greek gods, because they were so human, but the God in many dominating religion nowadays seems to be very human to me.

 

How did we know about his presence? In many religion through his prophets. I always say, if you want me to believe in anything, you will have to convince me first that all those prophets are real prophets who are spreading his messages. I only perceive them as human beings and I do not understand why I should believe anyone who claims to be God's personal messenger. Why should I?

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by kooky

Bertrand Russell answered the question if the key to happiness lies in not being completely stupid or in being so with choosing the first alternative. I'm not honestly sure of this. I've never felt that what I had to offer was as good as the comfort that people find in their religion. If I took it away from them, would they be happy? Most of them seem to be more happy in their ignorant bliss than I am with all my doubts and questions about life.

 

The more precise answer from Flaubert: "To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost."

But the thing is, people fear wisdom, or never come to appreciate it. Especially if they have to apply it to their own lifes. The reason for that are partly to be found in our education system. Partly in popular culture, and partly because blind obedience is often rewarded highly.

 

Of course the banishment of religion is a fantasy. These are words of Marx on religion:

Originally from Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie (translated into English)

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions."

Current social conditions would not allow for the banishment of religion; a lot of people would indeed be worse off. And of course, it is not something that can be banished in the first place. It can only naturally disappear, and repression is totally ineffective against religious sentiments. How to banish it? By doing some serious restructuring on the world and the ways we live.

 

The problem with religions that claim there is justice in the afterlife, or some similar thought, lessens the requirement for a lot of people to fight for justice in this life. It does not.

By taking away the father figure, you make people stand on their own feet. When they walk, they will fall. They rise, and they fall. But eventually they get the hang of it themselves. They will make mistakes, true.

But we all make mistakes, religious or not. Sending people in a guilt trip only makes them more afraid of living their lifes, and combined with the lack of appreciation of wisdom, only makes certain that a lot of people make exactly the same mistakes. But instead of seeing their own responsibilities, and lack of judgement of a situation, they feel some cosmic principle is hurting them, and how to fight back Karma / God?

Again, the making of mistakes is not bad. But a paralysis of life is bad.

[moimeme]

You see, an individual who has not experienced faith is as unqualified to describe faith as is a blind man unqualified to describe a sunset or the sun sparkling on snow. He can try mightily to use his tiny mind to understand what is in the mind of another, but fails - as so many people do - to comprehend that even the most brilliant of all humans is limited by his own skull. He can NEVER truly comprehed how another thinks, and he most especially is unable to comprehend that which he himself has never experienced. He can try to approximate it, but he will never, ever comprehend exactly what it is.

 

And most humans should understand this since we all have learned new things and found ourselves experiencing new feelings in new situations, however most folks, Freud included, have the conceit that all humans think just as they themselves do and therefore, in the case of religion, they speak from the perspective of if they believed. But they haven't a single clue. It's like a man describing the feelings of childbirth. Freud hadn't the slightest idea what he was talking about.

 

The forces of nature are out of our control. From the very beginning, religion was created as a means of trying to control what cannot be controlled. We are helpless when it comes to forces of nature and also inevitable death. Religion gives people a sense of control and protection from things that are out of their hands.

 

No it doesn't. Religious people get cancer, are swept away in tsunamis, and are every bit as subject to the vagaries of life as are the anti-religious.

 

Religion was created to promise those who are suffering a better life after they die. To make up for a miserable and unfair earthly life, they look ahead to an afterlife where they will be compensated for their grievances.

 

Not in the least. Religion wasn't 'created' at all. Again, Freud shows a pitiful failure to even understand the origins of religions.

 

Religion was also great social control. If not for religion, the poor would rob the rich blind and/or kill them.

 

The thieves of the world generally have been the rich themselves, who got so by thieving. This argument has also been put forth in defense of government - without government to rule the masses, chaos would prevail. And government, which is enforced by actual humans, still has not managed to stop crimes. This is all predicated upon the Hobbsean philosophy that humans are animals and that 'life is nasty, brutish, and short'. However, Locke was the proponent of the opposing viewpoint, which is that humans are intrinsically inclined toward law because it is only reasonable for their own survival:

If God's purpose for me on earth is my survival and that of my species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty and property -- then clearly I don't want anyone to violate my rights to these things. Equally, considering other people, who are my natural equals, I should conclude that I should not violate their rights to life, liberty, health and property. This is the law of nature. It is the Golden Rule, interpreted in terms of natural rights. Thus Locke writes: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..." (II, 6)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#3.2

 

So, the poor and under privelaged accepted their subordinate role in the world because they thought this would just mean greater rewards for them after they die.

 

Not really. They did so because they were prevented from rising by the people who had the money.

 

As adults, we no longer have that father influence in our life because we are no longer children. So, to create this father figure we come up with the concept of God. He protects us and helps us since we are helpless.....yet at the same time he is to be feared. Just like the father we typically think of as children.

 

Most of Freud's theories about parents and their relationship to their children have been disproved. He was way off base. This one is no different. Grownups looking for daddy find daddy in other humans.

 

In Freud's opinion, the evolution of the human species would mean the deterioration of religion. He believed that in the future people would use more logic when thinking about religion and not subscribe to the writings and beliefs of our "ignorant" ancestors. Freud could not believe that writings of people who lived so long ago and were so ignorant to so many things could still affect people in this day and age.

 

Freud believes in logical positivism. It's just another paradigm of belief. To me, logical positivists are guilty of lack of logic, because they don't allow for the unknown, which is just foolish. Every single generation learns more than what was known before and most generations learned how wrong the 'absolute knowledge' of earlier generations was and yet still each subsequent generation believes itself to be the ultimate repository of knowledge. Again, experience should have taught otherwise but the logical positivsts continue to make this mistake.

 

Opponets of Freud's view on religion have said that to rid people of religion would be cruel because it is how many people are able to tolerate life. Freud disagreed. He felt that once we rid the world of religion, more people will strive to make the life on earth better not only for themselves but also for others.

 

Some of the strongest atheists have perpetrated some of the worst horrors. Dear old Stalin wasn't exactly a follower of the faith.

 

He thinks the world would be more tolerant and more willing to work together to make the short life on earth better for everyone since there would be no promise of an afterlife. He felt that all forms of life would be more respected without religion.

 

Religions teach respect for life. The anti-religious propound respect for self alone - asserting one's own 'rights' against those of all others.

 

I don't know if there's a god or not, but if he existed, then I think I with my little mind would not be able to grasp a full meaning of what he's wishes are. I highly doubt that an ant, even though it's living in a highly structured society, would be able to understand me. Would I care if those ants worshipped me? Nope. Why should I?

 

Well this is hilarious. On the one hand you are correct in saying that

I with my little mind would not be able to grasp a full meaning of what he's wishes are

and then you spoil it by contradicting it ROTFL

Would I care if those ants worshipped me

Right there you claim to understand God's wishes

 

Most of them seem to be more happy in their ignorant bliss than I am with all my doubts and questions about life.

 

Nothing is more ignorant than to presume to know the minds of other humans. Nothing is more ignorant than to set oneself as superior to others even despite not being able to fully comprehend what others think.

[tokyo]

Originally posted by moimeme

Well this is hilarious. On the one hand you are correct in saying that and then you spoil it by contradicting it ROTFL Right there you claim to understand God's wishes

But you religious folks know what God wants, yeah..... You read your little book, written by human beings, and you tell me you know what God wants. Now, that's what *I* call ignorant. I can admit at least that I don't know his will, while a lot of other folks are running around, knocking each others head, because they *think* they know what He wants.

 

Worshipping is still a human behavior not something that a divine beings needs.

[moimeme]

But you religious folks know what God wants, yeah..... You read your little book, written by human beings, and you tell me you know what God wants. Now, that's what *I* call ignorant. I can admit at least that I don't know his will, while a lot of other folks are running around, knocking each others head, because they *think* they know what He wants

 

Do NOT paint all believers with the same brush. It is unfortunate that the ultra-religious right has become 'Christianity' in people's minds. But then, people with minds understand that that is one sect of a vast number of belief systems and does not represent Christianity, much less religion, as a whole.

[d'Arthez]

Freud believes in logical positivism. It's just another paradigm of belief. To me, logical positivists are guilty of lack of logic, because they don't allow for the unknown, which is just foolish. Every single generation learns more than what was known before and most generations learned how wrong the 'absolute knowledge' of earlier generations was and yet still each subsequent generation believes itself to be the ultimate repository of knowledge. Again, experience should have taught otherwise but the logical positivsts continue to make this mistake.

 

Interestingly enough a lot of logical positivists have attacked Freud.

I would hardly call his views positivistic, as he has to assume a lot of unobservable, and strictly unverifiable things. Primary narcissism for instance. We can't experience that by ourselves AND (logical and) give words to our experience of that, because at the time we simply are too young to understand that ( a few years old ). We can observe primary narcissism, when we have kids ourselves for instance. To call Freud a logical positivist is a bit too extreme.

 

YX32Nemesis wrote "sense of control", which is totally different from "control."

 

Not really. They did so because they were prevented from rising by the people who had the money

Money is a much more recent invention than religion moimeme.

 

Faith is different from religion. I can be in faith without having a religion, and I can have a religion and lack in faith.

[moimeme]

I would hardly call his views positivistic, as he has to assume a lot of unobservable, and strictly unverifiable things.

 

Except, it seems, when it comes to religion LOL.

 

Money is a much more recent invention than religion moimeme.

 

There are societies with no 'downtrodden' which have religions, d'Arthez. The argument that religion exists to comfort the poor and miserable is silly.

 

Faith is different from religion. I can be in faith without having a religion, and I can have a religion and lack in faith.

 

Oh I agree completely.

[tokyo]

Originally posted by moimeme

The argument that religion exists to comfort the poor and miserable is silly.

Explain.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by moimeme

There are societies with no 'downtrodden' which have religions, d'Arthez. The argument that religion exists to comfort the poor and miserable is silly.

But do they have money? If no, that does not prove a thing, only that they have not invented money yet. You can only be prevented to rise to power if there is a lack of power.

 

The argument that "Religion is a neurosis", is not valid, but the argument "Neurosis is a private religion", as Fromm did is fascinating to say the least.

 

And again, we are talking about religion and not spirituality.

If you wrote: "The argument that spirituality exists to comfort the poor and miserable is silly", we would have agreed instantaneously, as it is clearly absurd.

 

In the case of religion that is not so clear cut. The statement: "Religion exists to comfort the poor and miserable", is true. But of course that is not the sole function of religion.

Of course originally religions came into existence for other reasons, than they have now for existing; but that is the case with almost every human "invention."

[Fuzzy Chickens]

Sigmund Freud was a total coke addict and his thoughts on psychology make very little sense. However, I find myself strangely agreeing with much of this. I should read his works.

[faux]

A person who has never experienced faith has every right to comment on it, and be taken seriously. A person who claims to have experienced faith may not have actually experienced it.

 

As for the information presented in the first post, I too wonder why more forward thinking individuals do not find religion to be a backwards way of thinking.

 

To me, there is no sense in religion. I would not want someone to tell me that I am wrong for thinking this way, so I do not feel it is right to say that simply because I do not feel a need for religion, it is wrong for others to feel a different way.

 

I do think it is terribly wrong, however, to proclaim that a non-religious person, or a person without faith, has absolutely no right to argue on the topic of faith or religion.

[ConfusedInOC]

I obviously do not share Freuds opinions.

 

As for "knowing" what God wants, I refer you to the Bible, Kooky. I do not claim to know God's thoughts, only what he has told me through the Holy Bible.

 

And Kooky, I do no mock non-believers, I would hope you would show me the same courtesy.

 

Thanks.

[tokyo]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

As for "knowing" what God wants, I refer you to the Bible, Kooky. I do not claim to know God's thoughts, only what he has told me through the Holy Bible.

 

And Kooky, I do no mock non-believers, I would hope you would show me the same courtesy.

I feel that everyone is entitled to have an opinion about the validity of things. I personally don't think there's anything holy about the Bible as it's a collection of different writings from different human beings and it has gone through many changes in the course of time. Maybe the authors were a little bit more enlightened than you and me, maybe they were not, but that is a question of faith. And yes, I do think there are too many people out there who claim they know what God wants and they claim the Bible is the only book that contains the truth.

[MySugaree]

He felt that once we rid the world of religion, more people will strive to make the life on earth better not only for themselves but also for others. He thinks the world would be more tolerant and more willing to work together to make the short life on earth better for everyone since there would be no promise of an afterlife. He felt that all forms of life would be more respected without religion.

 

Papa Freud was wrong, there: Some of the most genocidal regimes in the 20th Century--Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia--were Atheistic and anti-Christian. Ironically, the expression "The God that Failed" was used by ex-Communists to describe their now broken religious devotion to Communism, which, in its way, was a Religion (much like Psychoanalysis was in its prime) for secular intellectuals.

 

My problem with Freud's not-so-original critique of Judeo-Christian religions (Nietzsche said it first and better) is that it's condescending, patronizing and depersonalizing. It lumps all religions and believers into one category--those weak, poor and insecure enough to warrant God-Daddy--and paints them with one very broad brush. Freud's observations are way overbroad and ignore the rich varieties of the religious experience. In short, Freud's debunking of Religion says much more about Freud than "Religion." It represents the height of secular intellectual arrogance.

 

Ironically, Freud would get his own comeuppance as his ex-psychoanaytical disciples turn on the orthodox Psychoanalytical Church (as built by Daddy Freud) and level the same "criticisms" at Psychoanalysis that Freud aimed at Religion.

 

I reject all mind and soul devouring "isms"--even Atheism. As for God, just a useful fiction for some. But we all need our fictions--even steadfast non-believers like myself.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by MySugaree

Papa Freud was wrong, there: Some of the most genocidal regimes in the 20th Century--Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia--were Atheistic and anti-Christian. Ironically, the expression "The God that Failed" was used by ex-Communists to describe their now broken religious devotion to Communism, which, in its way, was a Religion (much like Psychoanalysis was in its prime) for secular intellectuals.

 

Excellent example. I wonder why Freud ignored this?

 

My problem with Freud's not-so-original critique of Judeo-Christian religions (Nietzsche said it first and better) is that it's condescending, patronizing and depersonalizing. It lumps all religions and believers into one category--those weak, poor and insecure enough to warrant God-Daddy--and paints them with one very broad brush. Freud's observations are way overbroad and ignore the rich varieties of the religious experience. In short, Freud's debunking of Religion says much more about Freud than "Religion." It represents the height of secular intellectual arrogance.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Ironically, Freud would get his own comeuppance as his ex-psychoanaytical disciples turn on the orthodox Psychoanalytical Church (as built by Daddy Freud) and level the same "criticisms" at Psychoanalysis that Freud aimed at Religion.

 

I reject all mind and soul devouring "isms"--even Atheism. As for God, just a useful fiction for some. But we all need our fictions--even steadfast non-believers like myself.

 

Excellent analysis.

 

Kooky, you have a right to your opinion, I am not arguing that. I just ask you don't reduce yourself to insults. Totally unnecessary. If you can't get your point across without insulting, you just don't have a valid point.

[tokyo]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

Kooky, you have a right to your opinion, I am not arguing that. I just ask you don't reduce yourself to insults. Totally unnecessary. If you can't get your point across without insulting, you just don't have a valid point.

Bring your counterarguments before you start accusing people of anything.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by kooky

Bring your counterarguments before you start accusing people of anything.

 

I believe MySugaree's points are all you need. Freud was more interested in making himself sound intelligent than actually being right.

 

As I said before, Einstein - probably the most intelligent guy ever to grace the Earth - was a God fearing man.

 

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. " - Albert Einstein

 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

[tokyo]

Maybe I'm confusing here something, but I thought our quarrel was about the validity of the Bible???

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by kooky

Maybe I'm confusing here something, but I thought our quarrel was about the validity of the Bible???

 

Kooky, do you believe in the big bang theory? If so, where did the material come from to form the big bang. Where was time and space before this?

 

If you believe in the big bang theory then you belive in faith as much as I believe in faith. Yours is based on the faith that everything happened by chance.

 

My faith is based on the Bible.

 

It's simply a matter of choice.

 

I don't know if I would be able to prove anything to you in regards to the validity of the bible. If you want to know for sure, there are plenty of good web sites out there with enough information that you should be able to decide. They are much more educated on the subject than I. I feel unarmed here because I have not been a Christian my entire life.

[d'Arthez]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

As I said before, Einstein - probably the most intelligent guy ever to grace the Earth - was a God fearing man.

 

Einstein God fearing? Far from the truth. Just because you believe in God, does not mean you have to fear God. He certainly did not - at least not in the fashion of everyday man.

 

The problem is of course that XNemesisX clouded the discussion with her interpretation of words, so as to make it only about Judaism and Christianity. It certainly was not. And a lot of his views should be viewed against a secular background, influenced by his own Jewish heritage. As Christians and Jews disagree on what will bring these messianic times, it is only logical to disagree a lot on whatever views Freud subscribed to.

 

I wonder why Freud ignored this?

Because Freud died in 1939.

 

If we are going to make it a quoting match, look at the following.

"He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, needs religion." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[tokyo]

Originally posted by ConfusedInOC

Kooky, do you believe in the big bang theory? If so, where did the material come from to form the big bang. Where was time and space before this?

 

If you believe in the big bang theory then you belive in faith as much as I believe in faith. Yours is based on the faith that everything happened by chance.

 

My faith is based on the Bible.

 

It's simply a matter of choice.

I have no clue what was before and what will be after, I just know that I do not have the information as many Christians claim.

 

a) Nobody said that the big bang theory is the ultimative explanation and the absolute truth.

 

b) How can you compare scientific evidence that people collect with the literal interpretation of stories that human beings wrote?

 

If you compare faith and science you are comparing apples and pears.

 

I don't know if I would be able to prove anything to you in regards to the validity of the bible. If you want to know for sure, there are plenty of good web sites out there with enough information that you should be able to decide. They are much more educated on the subject than I. I feel unarmed here because I have not been a Christian my entire life.

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm talking to you and you started this argument, so I'm certainly not going to look up information on the web to refute my own argument. Don't tell me I'm wrong without being able to tell me why. And I think because of the fact that you have not been raised in this belief you should be even more critical of your faith. You chose it deliberately, so I'd expect you to know what you are doing.

[tokyo]

Originally posted by d'Arthez

If we are going to make it a quoting match, look at the following.

"He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, needs religion." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Yeah, don't mess with the king of quotes.

[ConfusedInOC]

Originally posted by kooky

I have no clue what was before and what will be after, I just know that I do not have the information as many Christians claim.

 

a) Nobody said that the big bang theory is the ultimative explanation and the absolute truth.

 

b) How can you compare scientific evidence that people collect with the literal interpretation of stories that human beings wrote?

 

If you compare faith and science you are comparing apples and pears.

 

Faith is faith. Be it scientific of religious.

 

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm talking to you and you started this argument, so I'm certainly not going to look up information on the web to refute my own argument. Don't tell me I'm wrong without being able to tell me why. And I think because of the fact that you have not been raised in this belief you should be even more critical of your faith. You chose it deliberately, so I'd expect you to know what you are doing.

 

No, Nemesis did

 

However, I can give you links, the same ones I read that convinced me to accepted Christ. If you want them I can PM them to you. I don't think I can post them here.

[alphamale]

hmmm...what's goin' on with all this intellectual banter XY32?

 

maybe one day we can discuss particle physics and the grand unification theory.