What would cause you to give up your religion?

[m.e.t.a.]

Hi, I'm new here. Before I begin, I apologise if I have posted my question in the wrong section of the site (there are a great many to choose from!) I'd also like to mention that I'm impressed with the high standard of discussion present throughout the forums.

I welcome responses from anyone and everyone on the following question: "What would cause you to give up your religion?" I am open to all interpretations of the question. However, I would be especially grateful if you could answer yes/no/other to the following:

I would almost certainly give up my religion...

1. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

2. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory that the Earth is very old (billions of years).

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt).

4. If life is one day discovered elsewhere in the Solar System, for example within the oceans of Titan or Europa.

5. If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false.

6. Other. (Please specify.)

7. Nothing could cause me to give up my religion. (Please explain.)


Many thanks,

Andrew

 

[Dark_Lite]

The correct forum for this thread is Exploring Christianity. I have moved it there.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

Thanks.

 

[Dark_Lite]

1. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

There is plenty of evidence for it, and there will only be more. There is no incompatibility between science and faith.

2. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory that the Earth is very old (billions of years).

There is plenty of evidence for it, and there will only be more. There is no incompatibility between science and faith.

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt).

If it's "beyond all doubt," then of course.

4. If life is one day discovered elsewhere in the Solar System, for example within the oceans of Titan or Europa.

Nope.

5. If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false.

That's how I arrived at where I am today, so nope.

 

[drich0150]

1. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

2. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory that the Earth is very old (billions of years).

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt).

4. If life is one day discovered elsewhere in the Solar System, for example within the oceans of Titan or Europa.

5. If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false.

6. Other. (Please specify.)

7. Nothing could cause me to give up my religion. (Please explain.)

I think the only incompatibility one might find with science and faith is if one only had an elementary school understanding of a 12th century faith.

So i would choose option 6. In that God would have to tell me that Christianity as we practiced it was not necessary, or somehow we completely misunderstood all of the scriptures.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

I think the only incompatibility one might find with science and faith is if one only had an elementary school understanding of a 12th century faith.

Yes, this is partly true—religion adapts to the times. It is interesting that Christianity should be different today to what it was in the Middle Ages; after all, the holy books themselves, and their teachings, have not changed. It must be our interpretations of them which change.

I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on the precise ways in which the beliefs of Christianity and other religions evolve with time, but the impression I get (at least in the Christian case) is one of reinterpreting God as a loving, compassionate being, rather than as the wrathful, jealous God of the Old Testament. Correct me if my impression is fuzzy.

One example of this reinterpretation which springs to mind is the Pope's decision in 2007 to officially reinterprete the concept of limbo to preclude the banishment of unbaptised babies. There are many other examples, not the least of which is the steadily rising number of Old Earth Christians, and those who believe in Darwinian evolution. Such beliefs represent a truly grand departure from "classic" Young Earth Christianity, in which the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 7 days.

Having said that, the proportion of Americans who say they believe in a young Earth is somewhere between 10% and 45%, depending on the poll (Wikipedia). This is a significant fraction of the population. My Old Earth-related questions (1 & 2) therefore stand.

Dark_Lite: I can agree with your statement, "There is no incompatibility between science and faith", but only if we finish that sentence with, "provided that one is free to interpret the Bible (or other holy book) any way they choose." If selective interpretation is not allowed, then one must take all the Bible's (or other book's) stories literally. However, if one is able to pick and choose which stories/teachings to take literally and which not, then of course science and faith can be made to agree. Indeed, in the minds of millions of people, they do agree.

This raises another question: what do you think the Christianity of the future will be like? But I will save that for another time! Thank you for your answers, Dark_Lite and drich0150.

 

[drich0150]

It must be our interpretations of them which change.

Indeed.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the precise ways in which the beliefs of Christianity and other religions evolve with time, but the impression I get (at least in the Christian case) is one of reinterpreting God as a loving, compassionate being, rather than as the wrathful, jealous God of the Old Testament. Correct me if my impression is fuzzy.

No, same wrathful God, it's just God's wrath has been quenched with the Blood of Christ.

One example of this reinterpretation which springs to mind is the Pope's decision in 2007 to officially reinterpret the concept of limbo to preclude the banishment of unbaptized babies. There are many other examples, not the least of which is the steadily rising number of Old Earth Christians, and those who believe in Darwinian evolution. Such beliefs represent a truly grand departure from "classic" Young Earth Christianity, in which the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and was created in 7 days.

I do not believe the "pope" is a complete representation of Christianity.

Having said that, the proportion of Americans who say they believe in a young Earth is somewhere between 10% and 45%, depending on the poll (Wikipedia). This is a significant fraction of the population. My Old Earth-related questions (1 & 2) therefore stand.

I didn't say your first two questions were not legitimate questions. I simply identified those who would confine their answer to your stated parameters, would have a "limited" view of Christianity. So whether your point stands or falls,the conclusion you are able to construct from your questions will at best be a partial representation of a bigger picture.

If you are only looking to supplement your predetermined understanding of Christianity then know, you are on the right track.

 

[razeontherock]

Hi, and welcome to CF! My answers below, in red

I would almost certainly give up my religion...

1. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Nope. Ev does happen, we just don't know within what bounds, if any.

2. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory that the Earth is very old (billions of years). Nope. Unrelated.

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt). NO! This is Prophesied to happen.

4. If life is one day discovered elsewhere in the Solar System, for example within the oceans of Titan or Europa. No. why would that contradict Christianity? (C)

5. If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false. Attempting to pit these against one another is wrong on it's face.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

I do not believe the "pope" is a complete representation of Christianity.

Granted. I didn't mean to imply that the Catholic church dictates the belief of all Christians. I was merely searching for a concrete example of a modern-day reinterpretation of a religious belief, i.e. evidence of religion changing itself to suit the times. Of course, some other religions, and some other branches of Christianity, are surely more frozen in their beliefs than Catholicism, and as such do not noticeably change their beliefs over time.

I didn't say your first two questions were not legitimate questions. I simply identified those who would confine their answer to your stated parameters, would have a "limited" view of Christianity. So whether your point stands or falls,the conclusion you are able to construct from your questions will at best be a partial representation of a bigger picture.

I happily welcome all responses which fall under category 6, "Other". I included "Other" precisely to avoid constraining people's comments to points 1-5. I am sure there are many, many reasons why people in the past have left their religion, other than the handful of reasons I have included. Points 1-5 just happened to be the best reasons I could come up with at the time of my original post!

If you are only looking to supplement your predetermined understanding of Christianity then know, you are on the right track.

If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out that my reasons 1-5 have a rather biased feeling to them—perhaps towards the atheistic? This is a valid criticism. I'm afraid it just shows the narrowness of my imagination! I therefore doubly welcome all comments re: point no. 6, "Other".

 

[razeontherock]

GI was merely searching for a concrete example of a modern-day reinterpretation of a religious belief, i.e. evidence of religion changing itself to suit the times. Of course, some other religions, and some other branches of Christianity, are surely more frozen in their beliefs than Catholicism, and as such do not noticeably change their beliefs over time.

Completely as an aside, I find this an amusing comment since I find myself engaging Catholics with my observation that they have improved in the past few hundred years. Their stance is always the same, that their teaching has never changed

 

[Megaloskhemos]

I can agree with your statement, "There is no incompatibility between science and faith", but only if we finish that sentence with, "provided that one is free to interpret the Bible (or other holy book) any way they choose." If selective interpretation is not allowed, then one must take all the Bible's (or other book's) stories literally.

I'd question your approach here. Interpretation is by definition selective. The type of fundamentalist historical literalism you seem to be implying here is one way of interpretation. It's not a method which was employed historically within Judaism or traditional Christianity. I ask you to explain why you believe it to be the default position.

Your inclusion of "provided that one is free to interpret the Bible (or other holy book) any way they choose," is quite adverse to the way in which Catholics (such as Dark_Lite), Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants understand the Bible. All of us have traditions in which the Bible belongs, whether that be the Catholic pope and magisterium, the Orthodox consensus of the fathers, or the Protestant Sola Scriptura.

However, if one is able to pick and choose which stories/teachings to take literally and which not, then of course science and faith can be made to agree. Indeed, in the minds of millions of people, they do agree.

Such 'picking and choosing' is dependent on the historical life of the Church, the work of the Holy Spirit. You mustn't imply that the vast majority of us are doing anything like individually picking and choosing. You also mustn't imply that all but a few Scriptural passages can be interpreted correctly one sole way. The implicit assumption behind the Bible being divinely inspired is that the authorial intention of the books is infinite. However, that doesn't mean there are not incorrect interpretations.






As for your original question I find 1, 2 and 4 irrelevant, and I agree with razeontherock's answer to 5. 3 is the only one that gives me pause, and that's only because I'm not sure about what ontological reality is being implied here. As for 'other,' I haven't yet given the question enough thought.

Interesting question!

 

[m.e.t.a.]

razeontherock, do you mean that it is wrong to attempt to assess the veracity of each major religion on a case-by-case basis? If so, then do you believe that it is possible for multiple religions to be correct simultaneously—even if they believe in different gods? (I gather that you might believe this, for you say that the appearance of the deity/deities of a religion other than your own is prophesied to happen).

Also, since you replied in the negative to the "canned" reasons 1-5, can you offer an item of evidence, or some other event, which might cause you to cease believing in your religion? Or is it more true to say that your faith is absolute, and that nothing could cause you to give it up?

 

[solarwave]

"What would cause you to give up your religion?" I am open to all interpretations of the question.
I would almost certainly give up my religion...

1. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

No. I believe the theory of evolution already

2. If more and better evidence were found in support of the theory that the Earth is very old (billions of years).

Same as above.

3. If the deity or deities of a religion other than my own one day appeared before mankind (beyond all doubt).

Well it would be rather hard to not believe in that religion then. Yes I guess.

4. If life is one day discovered elsewhere in the Solar System, for example within the oceans of Titan or Europa.

No. Christianity still makes sense if there are aliens who havn't heard of Jesus.

5. If I were more educated in science and/or theology, and thus better equipped to make informed choices about the probability of each of the various world religions being true or false.

Well I am happy to learn about and from other religions. It is possible I might change religions but its hard to say with only this information.

6. Other. (Please specify.)

Well many new things I could ever learn would be compatible with Christianity so there would have to be a very good reason to change religion. I have no idea how I would differentiate between evidence for the Abrahamic religions. If it could be proven that Jesus didn't rise from the dead then that would be a major blow. I think I am more likely to become an atheism than change religion. Scientific proof that Reality could exist without a mind behind it would also be a problem. Loss of belief would probably also be due to the slow breaking down of old beliefs rather than one big new revelation.

I think I am naturally religious person though and even if I lost belief in the resurrection or even God I think I might find goodness in the idea of Christianity. I guess belief would become more like Buddhism (with no God), but with a commitment to morality and meaning expressed in worship and prayer (even if that prayer isn't heard).

Then again I might just become an atheist and be done with it.

 

[razeontherock]

razeontherock, do you mean that it is wrong to attempt to assess the veracity of each major religion on a case-by-case basis?

No, I don't mean that. Sorry if I implied it. I am pleased to learn the Orthodox (EO) also agree with my own understanding of Scripture on every point, including this one. Together we hold that the One True G-d has spoken to mankind everywhere throughout time. So we can examine other religions, and normally find a lot of the same Truths repeated. Once in a while we find an oddball that is really different; cannibalistic cultures, Incas that practiced human sacrifice and mysteriously disappeared. These cases show clear evidence the Bible terms demonic.

This assessment can be confusing though, because to get to the level of Truth I'm talking about you have to get past all the social customs, as well as the details of their system.

If so, then do you believe that it is possible for multiple religions to be correct simultaneously—even if they believe in different gods?

This really opens up a can of worms! Our term "monotheistic" doesn't really describe the Judeo-Christian Tradition. There are other spiritual forces, but only One G-d. There's a word for that, but it escapes me right now ...

Anyway, while other religions that show Truth may refer to God in a different way, I think it is still the One True God revealing Himself to them. None of us hear 100% correctly So I think overlap between religions is significant!

I think a very significant Biblical concept is to cleave to Truth, wherever you may find it.

(I gather that you might believe this, for you say that the appearance of the deity/deities of a religion other than your own is prophesied to happen).

Allow me to get specific:

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2 Thessalonians 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish"

There is at least one other Scripture pertaining to this, but it's quite clear this will look very convincing. It will bring worldwide Peace and look for all the world like a great thing, perhaps for some time. And will prove itself to be evil incarnate. So you see what i mean, this doesn't jibe with the normal use of the word "monotheism."

can you offer an item of evidence, or some other event, which might cause you to cease believing in your religion? Or is it more true to say that your faith is absolute, and that nothing could cause you to give it up?

G-d forbid I should be so arrogant as to declare myself perfect. I hope not to be put to the test of laying down my life for my Faith; I've been known to be quite adverse to dying I will say though, that I have been given strong evidence of the resurrection, and the rest of Christianity hangs on that. I certainly hope nothing could cause me to denounce Him! I pray to be found worthy to escape the wrath that is to come ...

 

[solarwave]

Yes, this is partly true—religion adapts to the times. It is interesting that Christianity should be different today to what it was in the Middle Ages; after all, the holy books themselves, and their teachings, have not changed. It must be our interpretations of them which change.

I would agree. The Bible was written in a certain culture and so the principles of Christianity were expressed in a certain way according to that culture. As times change the principles stays the same (I could be wrong) but the way they are understood change. For example changes in science mean we change our theology of creation and the place of humans in the universe.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

I'd question your approach here. Interpretation is by definition selective. The type of fundamentalist historical literalism you seem to be implying here is one way of interpretation. It's not a method which was employed historically within Judaism or traditional Christianity. I ask you to explain why you believe it to be the default position.

I said, "If selective interpretation is not allowed, then one must take all the Bible's (or other book's) stories literally". This default position is highly hypothetical. In reality, few people, if any, take 100% of the teachings and stories of the Bible literally. And, as you say, no major Christian denomination ever did. There is some doubt as to whether it would even be logically possible to do so, since the Bible inevitably contains contradictions here and there.

Your inclusion of "provided that one is free to interpret the Bible (or other holy book) any way they choose," is quite adverse to the way in which Catholics (such as Dark_Lite), Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants understand the Bible. All of us have traditions in which the Bible belongs, whether that be the Catholic pope and magisterium, the Orthodox consensus of the fathers, or the Protestant Sola Scriptura.

Such 'picking and choosing' is dependent on the historical life of the Church, the work of the Holy Spirit. You mustn't imply that the vast majority of us are doing anything like individually picking and choosing.

Individual picking and choosing is unimportant when talking of the reconciliation of science and faith. If we assume for the moment that picking and choosing occurs not on the individual level, but on the denominational level, then the conclusion is the same: religion changes to suit the times. One example of religion changing to suit the times is an increase in the number of people who believe that science and faith are compatible with each other.

So I might more fairly say, "There is no incompatibility between science and faith, provided that the beliefs of a religion may change over time."

Many thanks for your detailed reply. I feel your reply deserves more thought, so I will reconsider what you have said, and write back again tomorrow.

 

[Spiritlight]

Atheism and evolution are religions i don't subscribe to those so cant give those up.

I am a spiritual person who likes getting in contact with the holy spirit so I am not sure If I am religious. A really bad spiritual experience from God would be the answer to the question.

 

[andreha]

My answer would be this one:

7. Nothing could cause me to give up my religion. (Please explain.)

There is nothing in this life, or the next, that could ever cause me to stop believing in my God. He has revealed Himself to me in so many ways, over many years, that it is impossible for me to stop believing. I've experienced His supernatural intervention more than a few times, and whenever I need help, and ask Him, He answers.

 

[xfisherman]

My answer would be this one:



There is nothing in this life, or the next, that could ever cause me to stop believing in my God. He has revealed Himself to me in so many ways, over many years, that it is impossible for me to stop believing. I've experienced His supernatural intervention more than a few times, and whenever I need help, and ask Him, He answers.

Amen and amen.

 

[Sketcher]

In the long haul, nothing could. People who were true Christians and give up their faith tend to come back.