<p>
</p>
<p>All advanced concepts and emotions come from belief. Life without belief would be cold and simple.</p>
<p>That’s an interesting statement, sosomenza, but I have no idea what it really means. How are you defining “beliefs”? Care to elaborate? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Um, the United Church of Christ is definitely a Christian denomination. Or did you mean to type UU?</p>
<p>Life with few beliefs and lots of thinking/feeling and experience is warm and complex! Many beliefs only shortcurcuit it, or so is my experience.</p>
<p>Consolation – I definitely meant to type UU! Apologies to all the UCC people out there. I do know the difference.</p>
<p>NJSue – I chose my words very carefully when I posted to avoid this type of rebuttal. There is a lot of difference between claiming that a particular brand (i.e. Orthodox, Methodist, Fundamentalist, Catholic, etc.) of whatever (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, atheism) has a monopoly on the Truth (i.e. all the truth is contained in that particular brand/denomination/branch, etc. and no religion/other religion has any truth in it) and believing that one’s religion is the most true religion. I would expect every single adherent of a religion or no religion to believe that he/she is following the best path. It’s another thing altogether to demean people of any faith, demean the faith of others, or tell people that they are going to Hell.</p>
<p>And, no, I’m not excluding all branches of Christianity. All Christians I know believe that Christ is the Son of God, but most I know do not believe that this means that all other religions are completely false in every way and that those people cannot go to Heaven. To put it simply: As a Christian, my job is to follow Christ in my service to others and in how I live out my faith; God’s job is to take care of the “what happens in the afterlife” part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not in the details.</p>
<p>But perhaps, all faiths can be right in concluding that the lives of communities and individuals can be enhanced by faith and by the social support associated with belonging to an organized religious group. </p>
<p>I’m an atheist, and that’s fine for me. But I can see how belonging to an organized religion has had positive impacts on the lives of some people around me.</p>
<p>"disagree with avoiding Baptists. There are many very liberal Baptist churches. I would prescreen a church of any denomination by looking them up on the Internet. "</p>
<p>Yeah, be very careful, denominations have different “flavors” to them. With the Baptists, the American Baptists are pretty liberal, whereas the Southern Baptist Church and the black baptist church are generally very, very conservative and theologically are generally fundamentalist. The ELCA Lutherans are pretty liberal, the Missouri Synod is very right wing. The Episcopal Church is pretty liberal (more on that in a second), but the “Reformed Episcopal Church” is not. Even within a denomination, it can vary from church to church, there are very conservative Episcopal churches who are very traditional, but most tend to be pretty liberal as a whole, the one I belonged to for a while was very liberal, very inclusive and questions were thought to be more valuable than the answers.</p>
<p>There are liberal Catholic churches, who kind of ignore the bishops and the Vatican and do their own thing, but they can be hard to find. Most Catholics don’t share the rigid ideology and dogma of their leadership (only about 20% of Catholics are orthodox that way), and many Catholic congregations tend to be focused more on family and community and in helping others, social groups and the like, than on ideological purity or the single minded focus of the leadership that fighting abortion and gays is somehow what it means to be Catholic. You might not agree with Catholic theology or teaching but find meaning in the various social ministries they run, it all depends on the church. </p>
<p>There are liberal methodist churches, though the central board of the Methodists is dominated by conservatives, and Presbyterian churches tend to be fairly conservative, with liberal churches mixed in.</p>
<p>The UCC/Congregationalist churches are liberal. There are also non aligned churches that can be liberal, but most non aligned churches, bible churches, ‘free’ churches, reformed churches and the like tend to be very, very conservative, evangelical/fundamentalist in nature, and you may not feel comfortable there.</p>
<p>The UU is not a church per se, it is a fellowship dedicated to exploring the spiritual together while not being about any one path. In some ways the Episcopal church I belonged to was kind of a like a Christian UU, in that they respected people’s individual right to question and find their own path,and didn’t make the claim that only Christianity had answers, they used other religious teachings as well and didn’t think Christianity was the only truth, and there are other Christian churches like that. </p>
<p>As far as going to church, a lot of churches are relaxed in terms of dress code, the old dress up for church is not as common as it once was, and at the liberal churches, well,I think you don’t have to worry, people wore shorts in summer, jeans, no one really cared. I suspect if you see a congregation an everyone is the typical age of a classical music concert, lot more likely they would get upset:). </p>
<p>Most people don’t bring bibles to the church, usually with church services they have a hymnal or often, a booklet with the order of service that often has the music in it and so forth, so it is basically come as you are. Most churches have some sort of ‘coffee’ hour after services where you get to meet people, ask questions, etc, and other then some wacko churches I have seen, most are very eager to greet newcomers and welcome them. </p>
<p>Most protestant churches outside the evangelical churches have traditions of individual belief, it is a core tenet of protestanism, with varying levels, so you don’t have to worry that most churches are dogmatic, believe this or else, outside the RC leadership and orthodox believers, and the evangelicals, most churches respect the individual path to finding truth. To be honest, most of the people I know who go to church don’t just believe what the church tells them, a lot of people these days recognize the value of other faiths and while being ‘Christian’, don’t exclude other ideas, so you shouldn’t have a problem.</p>
<p>As far as science and religion goes, the only people who have trouble with science are the fundamentalists, whose belief pattern is such that they have turned the bible into literal truth and science fact that underlies those beliefs is wrong and evil and such, it is totally devoid of the idea of reason as part of belief. There are plenty of scientists who also are religious, who don’t see evolution as a threat but rather as a sign of a wonderful universe, physicists unraveling the universe see incredible things like entanglement as a sign there is something greater there. The RC is not the RC of Galileo (despite the fact that the church did not drop the Earth centered solar system and universe until 1922, at least formally, and didn’t absolve Galileo until 1992), the RC objected to Darwinism initially, not because of physical evolution, but because they were afraid of it being used to justify ‘social darwinism’ which they weren’t wrong about, but other than that they see science and religion as complimentary. </p>
<p>The best way is the check out the church web site, if they seem to be welcoming, liberal if that is your thing, then check them out, it isn’t like if you go to a church you will be forced to go back:). Give it a couple of weekends, if it doesn’t match what you want, then try someplace else. One thing I would look for as a young person is what kind of groups does the church have, do they have groups for people to discuss their questions and ideas (the church I belonged to for a while had a wonderful discussion group before the main service), there were all kinds of things. Likewise, you may find a church with ministries, helping people, and that that has meaning for you, all worth looking for. If a church looks interesting, then make an appointment with the priest/minister/rector, and see what they are like. One of the things I have learned is that the spiritual leader has a huge influence on the church, and if they turn you off, it is likely you won’t like the church, or if they seem to stress, for example, that you have to believe what they teach, you may not be happy there. There is a lot you can get out of a church, the sprititual sense of belonging comes from a lot more than theological teaching, the worship, it comes from fellowship, and in helping others, too:).</p>
<p>"And that’s one of the problems with religion – we can’t all be right. "</p>
<p>Yes and no. The problem there is the term ‘right’, the problem is when you say “if you don’t believe as the RC teaches you aren’t getting the truth”, “Only Judaism has the truth” (which few Jews I know would ever say), and so forth…it comes down to what is right. The thing about religion is that to me what is right is what works for the person, what connects them to others and helps them live what they used to call ‘the good life’. It is interesting, with pagan religions the truth used to be very individual and local, and from what I can tell there was very little of the idea that ‘my gods are right and yours are wrong’, it was assumed to be local and personal and I think that is not a bad way to look at it. The whole “You experience God only through Me” kind of belief represents the ‘there is only one truth’ kind of thing, but the problem is, who decides what that truth is? After all, Christian churches cannot agree on what it means to be Christian, and the Bible itself is all over the place, what is written in John doesn’t necessarily gybe with what Christ teaches in other places (after all, Christ fought against the idea that God loves only those who are pure enough or believe the right things, that was the modus operandi of the temple Judaism of the time). </p>
<p>I would argue that it is equally likely all faiths are wrong (none of them have the truth) as it is that any single one of them does, and that the most likely thing is all of them have the truth or are right, that their expression of it differently reflects just how special and different human beings are in our diversity. It is what works for someone, and it could be they learn from all faiths and find their truth. Part of the problem is there is no way to know what is ‘right’ or ‘true’, so in the end people find what works for them.
.</p>
<p>One other thought for the OP, there are also neopagan spiritual people out there, who practice modern variants of ancient faiths. Most don’t have a church per se and tend to be small groups or solo practictioners, but you might have fun reading about it and seeing if any of it resonates with you, wouldn’t be surprised if there was a group on campus, depending on where you go, it is known variously as neo pagan spirituality, or commonly lumped under Wicca:). As others have said, there is a lot more than Christianity out there, there are Buddhists (though the group that used to dominate on campus, the NSA (?) buddhists, scared me, it seemed kind of cult like), there are wonderful Jewish denominations, and those are options, too. You might find yourself happy at a Christian church but embrace a variety of beliefs as well, the fastest growing group of the religious out there are those who say they believe in God but find the truth in no one religious group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As someone posted, there are many religions and everyone can’t be right. No need to stick to just the religions that are around today. Neopaganism? Sure, why not. In fact, maybe the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans had it right and everyone today is wrong.</p>
<p>OP, you say you believe in science. Unfortunately, science and religion are incompatible. Science adjusts conclusions based on new information. Religions never adjust their conclusions based on new information, but instead twist or ignore facts to fit their conclusions.</p>
<p>Here’s one vote that you check out various churches and then decide to stick with atheism. We hate to lose you.</p>
<p>“And that’s one of the problems with religion – we can’t all be right.”</p>
<p>Not to get too deep into the metaphysics, but it’s possible that they are all largely right in the sense of helping humans approach the Divine. There could be a Divine presence that accepts all of those beliefs and prayers as valid ways of knowing or addressing a presence too great for humans to understand all at once. It’s like the blind men touching different parts of the elephant; they’re all right about what they’re touching except insofar as they claim their perception is the only valid one. It’s even possible to cling to the trunk or tail or whatever you’re able to touch, and do your best to understand and revere it, while still appreciating that others are touching something genuine, too.</p>
<p>Oddly enough, Mormons – who in other ways are extremely strict and doctrinaire – teach that the transcendent religious experiences of Hindus, Shintos, etc., really may come from God, not from the Devil or misguided delusion. Most other Christian denominations would be skeptical that Jesus is touching the heart of someone who feels exaltation while praying before a molten god.</p>
<p>“OP, you say you believe in science. Unfortunately, science and religion are incompatible. Science adjusts conclusions based on new information. Religions never adjust their conclusions based on new information, but instead twist or ignore facts to fit their conclusions.”</p>
<p>That isn’t true for all religion. What you are describing is doctrinal, dogmatic religion like fundamentalism or the orthodox Catholic view of things and it isn’t true of religion, that is much quite frankly of a lie as the one perpetuated by evangelicals and the like that Atheists cannot be moral or try to claim that ‘atheists’ perpetuated all the horrors in the world, including claiming Hitler was either atheist or pagan (he was neither, he was Catholic, and almost all Germans of that era were Christian).</p>
<p>Religions adjust all the time, the major faiths all have a tradition where reason is a major part of the worship, to anglicans it is the three legged stool of scripture, church teaching and reason. Many religious groups have come to realize that biblical pronouncements about the role of women or the statements on gays are not true, for example, and few Christian churches outside the fundamentalists would tell you that the ‘sun stopped in the sky’ as is written in the Hebrew scripture. Other than the RC, most Christian churches have female priests and bishops in the US and their views on other things evolve. Even the understanding of the bible and Jesus have changed, 200 years ago most believed the bible was an inerrant book written by disciples or people associated with them, today most theologians and clergy know the New Testament especially is complicated, it wasn’t written by the named people and it certainly didn’t develop as a finished book.</p>
<p>Religion ran into trouble when it tried to claim truth in matters that could be verified, and you are correct that that kind of religion tries to modify the truth to fit their beliefs (my favorite one was a footprint in texas from I believe the Cretaceous period, that supposedly shows a human footprint that fundamentalists love to show as proof; only problem is the track is from a well known type of dinosaur, and more importantly, the cast the Fundamentalists show pictures of has toes added to it…as someone else said, Science explains the how, not the why, and religion that tries to explain the how get into trouble, as the church did when it made ptolemaic musings into ‘truth’, or decided the universe was ‘perfect’ and when people like Galileo showed it wasn’t, they were in a power bind and did everything they could to protect it. One of the most major scientific theories of the 20th century, the big bang theory, was devised by a Belgian monk and scientist, Georges Le Maitre, back in the 20’s…</p>
<p>The kind of religion you are talking about I agree, is contrary to science because they take words literally to be true, so take writing that is creation myth or some sort of morality tale or parable and try to turn it into literal fact, but most religion is not like that, and quite honestly it is just as black and white to say that about all religion as it is for fundamentalists to reduce religion to literal words.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not really. They all start with the conclusion “god exists” and then ignore inconvenient evidence that tends to lead to the conclusion “god does not exist.” It does not matter how high the mountain of evidence that is brought to the table, religions will never adjust their conclusion that “god exists.” A scientist, on the other hand, when faced with overwhelming evidence that his conclusion is wrong, will admit he was wrong and change his conclusion. That’s the essence of the scientific method. The essence of religion, on the other hand, is faith, which Mark Twain once defined as “believing what you know isn’t so.”</p>
<p>"They all start with the conclusion “god exists” and then ignore inconvenient evidence that tends to lead to the conclusion “god does not exist.”</p>
<p>Really? There is a ton of evidence God doesn’t exist? There is scientific, logic based fact that says God doesn’t exist? If so, I would love to see it…and the answer is the ‘proof’ you are talking about doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>In science, a hypothesis to become theory or fact has to be testable, and with the notion of God there is no such test, either to prove or disprove God exists. You can’t hypothesize about God then test it, God is not a rational construct that can be built up by measured, measurable steps, not can God be taken down by them.</p>
<p>You can test beliefs about God, of course, it is pretty easy using science to show that the fundamentalist belief about a 6000 year old earth, Noah’s ark or the Garden of Eden being literally true is false, but God existing? You can show how a ‘miracle’ can be explained by scientific reasoning, and that is fine, you can show that the New Testament through logical analysis is not the literal word of God (in the sense that the NT wasn’t dropped out of the sky on stone tablets, written as we read it today, or had a clean origin), and that is fine, but you cannot prove God doesn’t exist any more than a theologian could prove God does. Claims can be verified or disproven, but God as a concept? Nope, no way. BTW, I am no die hard person of faith, my ideas of God and the divine are not standard Christianity nor are they really any one faith per se, so in some ways my position is closer to yours than a fundamentalist Christian, but to say you can prove God doesn’t exist is as meaningless as a fundamentalist saying the Bible proves God exists.</p>
<p>I think it takes as much faith to be an atheist as a deist. I haven’t seen any evidence of a God, but no proof there isn’t one either. Not all religions require a deity - mine doesn’t and the Supreme Court agreed it was a religion in 1965.</p>
<p>""They all start with the conclusion “god exists” and then ignore inconvenient evidence that tends to lead to the conclusion “god does not exist.”</p>
<p>Gosh. Mine doesn’t. (maybe I’m in a cult! ;))</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even as an atheist, I whole heartedly disagree with this. </p>
<p>We’ll just start with the fact that not every religion believes in a deity.</p>