[gvg]

I was born into a roman catholic family, though not the most religious ones out there. I sat through catechism from 1st grade until the end, when I got my confirmation. Recently, however, I've realized that my beliefs don't necessarily match with the catholic religion, or Christianity as a whole.I'm going to write out my beliefs below. If anybody knows of a religion that fits, please tell me what it is. Also, anyone else with the same problem is welcome to get help here as well.

I believe in God, therefor, atheism is out of the question. I believe that God set in motion the vents that make the present universe, meaning that he set the Big Bang in motion, and everything from there can be explained by science. Genesis is crud. Evolution created the diversity we have, and the heterotroph hypothesis is responsible for life. I believe in miracles, but mostly scientific ones. Physics explains the universe beautifully. Brains of alternate universes, string theory. All what I believe. I also think people can be spiritual and moral without religion. It seems like I'm deistic, but I don't agree with some of their points either, like complete rejection of books claiming to be the word of God. I think some parts of the bible, mostly the New Testament, are correct, and I believe that Jesus was the son of God.

I know it seems messed up, but that's why I made this, to see if there is a religion that I agree with.

PLEASE ANSWER!!!!!

[gvg]

I think the quote in your signature says it best. I've actually looked at the ideas of Jainism/Buddhism/Hinduism (not the polytheistic part the karma/ reincarnation part), so yeah, I guess I'll find something. I just hate the idea of organized religion. I have my beliefs, and i don't need a certain structure to them.

And I thought Presbyterians were extreme, like Baptists. Am I wrong?

[tiger_lily111]

I think the quote in your signature says it best. I've actually looked at the ideas of Jainism/Buddhism/Hinduism (not the polytheistic part the karma/ reincarnation part), so yeah, I guess I'll find something. I just hate the idea of organized religion. I have my beliefs, and i don't need a certain structure to them.

And I thought Presbyterians were extreme, like Baptists. Am I wrong?

I do rather like that quote. And, it depends on the type of Presbyterian! In general a lot less extreme than Baptist, & some organizational groups are quite liberal. I don't think organized religion in & of itself is bad (as a whole concept), but everyone thinks differently about their religion. (I don't like arguing about religion & beliefs - there isn't a lot of point usually. Discussing, that's different. )

Now, I'm curious as to what you mean by structure - The basic tenets of a belief system? (ie, 10 commandments, Torah, Pillars of Buddhism, etc)

Or more along the lines of "This is what you should believe," or "This is how you should worship"?

[unreality]

Keep searching, and eventually you'll find your religion.

What if in your search you realize, there's nothing to search for - it's the search itself that matters? That's what I think. I think if you truly keep searching you will leave any semblance of modern structured religion behind and enter your own personal realm of spirituality. Possibly entirely atheistic, but nevertheless subtly spiritual in some aspects related to, say, the massiveness of the universe, the beauty of math, or the wonder of existence, biology, the mind, our day to day interactions.

[gvg]

Tiger: Oh, the second one. Things like the ten commandments... they create structure, but they make morals. Saying "This is it, nothing else," that's what I can't stand.

And yeah, arguing has no point. Noone will change their mind because of one argument =)

Unreality: Yes. That's it. The fact that we search for such things... that's what makes us human. You don't see spiritual donkeys, now do you? =)

The search is great, but once you find it, it's a bittersweet moment. Bitter because the search is over, a major chapter of your life is over, but sweet because you have finally found what you're looking for, whatever it is.

"There's nothing to search for - it's the search itself that matters." I'm using that. it's quite epic. =)

Edited December 21, 2010 by gvg

[unreality]

And yeah, arguing has no point. Noone will change their mind because of one argument =)

Agreed, but what I've seen others (such as ADParker) say is that, while the person you are specifically "arguing" with may not be swayed (in fact out of an ingrained defensiveness, might become more polarized) but people on the "fringe"/fence who are watching the debate or only taking a small place in it may be moved by words or made to think about things they hadn't considered. I think I'm jaded for my age but every so often someone presents a philosophical idea, not necessarily directly to me, that I hadn't considered and it rocks my world and I think about it for a while and sometime change my views.

Unreality: Yes. That's it. The fact that we search for such things... that's what makes us human. You don't see spiritual donkeys, now do you? =)

I absolutely absolutely disagree. I cannot stand the human hubris. How do you know what a donkey is thinking? If an advanced alien species were looking at humans from the outside, would they be able to tell that inside our minds we were pondering the meaning of life? I'm not suggesting that a donkey does or does not (I simply don't know and don't know much about the intelligence of donkeys in the first place haha, and accept I cannot know), but don't you think it's rash and/or arrogant to assume that we are the only self-aware "soul-searching" organism/other complex system with neural properties

The search is great, but once you find it, it's a bittersweet moment. Bitter because the search is over, a major chapter of your life is over, but sweet because you have finally found what you're looking for, whatever it is.

Again I disagree because I don't think the search ends or should end for that matter. To quote Socrates, "The wisest man is he who knows that he knows nothing"

"There's nothing to search for - it's the search itself that matters." I'm using that. it's quite epic. =)

Don't attribute it to me though it was a shameless regurgitation of "it's the journey not the destination"

[Guest]

But to play devil's advocate here (or in this case, God's advocate ), could it be that all these religions have a flood story because such an event did happen?

(Though personally I think it's because big floods happen every now and then all over the world and are big devastating events worth writing about).

I think that based on the detailed similarities between many of the flood stories, we can be pretty sure that an original(s) flood story was adapted and modified by different cultures. Last year when I read Gilgamesh right after Genesis I was extremely surprised at the similarities between the stories: The way that god told the ark-building the dimensions of the ark, the dove, etc. I'm sure you can Google it and find a huge list of all the similarities between the stories.

[Guest]

Unreality: Yes. That's it. The fact that we search for such things... that's what makes us human. You don't see spiritual donkeys, now do you? =)

I'm going to reply to this also. I disagree that the fact that we search for things makes us human. One idea that I always seem to apply to every subject possible is an idea that I learned in biology class in 9th grade: that all life on Earth, including humans, share a common ancestor. Whenever I can apply this to any subject in any way, it's almost always the first thing I think of. When you said that you don't see spiritual donkeys, I thought of the fact that donkeys and humans share a common ancestor. This idea is why the phrase "that's what makes us human" bothered me. It seems to me that you were saying that because we search for answers/knowledge about our existence in this "spiritual" journey you guys were talking about then we are humans and not donkeys/animals. In other words, it seems to me that you're saying that humans are fundamentally different than donkeys because of this thing we do. Perhaps it is true that humans are more conscious than any other type of organism on Earth and thus do a lot more of this thinking, but I don't think that "that's what makes us human." I think that our "searches" are a consequence of us being humans. They aren't what make us human. The difference is that what you said is like saying, "We think about this stuff, therefore we are "humans" which are these things that are greater than all other organisms on Earth (i.e. animals) because they do that thinking" and what I'm saying is that "because we humans have these nice brains then we do all of this thinking about our existence, etc". So I'm saying that it's quite possible that there are other things other than humans that also "search", etc. When you say that this "searching" makes us human, you are rejecting that option. (I think this is sort of what unreality was talking about when he said, "How do you know what a donkey is thinking?"). Although, I would go ahead and disagree with unreality slightly in that I'm pretty sure that donkeys aren't nearly as conscious as humans and that donkeys don't have philosophical thoughts about their existence as humans do (at least not at all to the same degree as humans). Having said that, I still think the distinction that I made earlier is important: Humans "search" as a result of being human... us "searching" does not make us human.

The search is great, but once you find it, it's a bittersweet moment. Bitter because the search is over, a major chapter of your life is over, but sweet because you have finally found what you're looking for, whatever it is.

I agree with unreality on this. What are you searching for? I don't know exactly what it is that I am searching for, but I am pretty sure that whatever it is, it's an ongoing search. If I'm searching for knowledge about this world we live in, I'm not going to reach a point where I say, "Okay, I understand enough. I'm going to stop learning now." I'm always going to want to learn more and I'm always going to keep asking questions and I'm always going to have unanswered questions no matter how many I answer. Sure, there are "bittersweet moments" along the journey of this search, but the search as a whole is never over.

[gvg]

EDIT: Before replying, see the post after this.

OK, maybe saying "that's what makes us human" was a bad way to put it. I meant it the way UtF said it: Humans "search" as a result of being human. That's what I meant. Sorry about that =)

But I still think that some people can finally find what their searching for spiritually, find that mix of philosophy and ideas that is really what they were looking for all along. No one knows what this is; no one knows if they will find it. They might not even know when it happens. But it is possible, and that's when the bittersweet thing happens. (It doesn't mean, however, that you should stop learning about everything else, or even abput philosophy and such. Put that brain we we're talking about to use =) There is NEVER an excus to not learn something EVERY DAY, unless you are menatlly or physically unable to do so. And plus, what you think may be the end might not be; you simply gave up too early. But I never meant stop learning; there is simply too much to learn about, too many ideas that challenge yours. Heck, this site alone gives me something new each day =))

Edited December 21, 2010 by gvg

[gvg]

You know what? I don't think you can really ever know. I've never seen anyone finish such a journey, but it might be possible. Raplace what I originally said with an if in there. That's better, no?

[unreality]

UtF: read my disclaimer in there how I didn't know if donkeys did such things or not I was anticipating you!

gvg: I think you nailed it when you said " And plus, what you think may be the end might not be; you simply gave up too early". I'm a big proponent of the idea that we cannot know ANYTHING for sure. There are no absolutes. And part of that is of course, not knowing if you're right. Not knowing for sure for sure that is, although you can still be reasonably confident to base decisions off that 'square' of your 'probability matrix'. But like you said later on in the paragraph, there is never an excuse to stop learning. We can always learn more about the world.

And once you [this is a generalized 'you' by the way. not you specifically] realize that, that you can always learn more about the world, how could you ever possibly say that your set of philosophical ideas is the truth?

You can't.

[Guest]

UtF: read my disclaimer in there how I didn't know if donkeys did such things or not I was anticipating you!

Well that's the thing. You said that you don't know if donkeys have philosophical thoughts like humans or not and left it at that. I agree that I don't know for sure, however, I think that we have enough knowledge about donkeys that we can be quite confident that they don't have philosophical thoughts to the degree that we do. So my disagreement is that you can make an attempt to answer the question based on your knowledge rather than being overly-safe/skeptical/etc and leaving it at "I don't know." When presented with the indirect question of whether or not donkeys "search," all you answered is essentially "I don't know," while I would answer that I don't think they do, at least to the degree that humans do. Sure I could be wrong, but I think we know enough that I can be reasonably confident about this.

I'm a big proponent of the idea that we cannot know ANYTHING for sure. There are no absolutes. And part of that is of course, not knowing if you're right. Not knowing for sure for sure that is, although you can still be reasonably confident to base decisions off that 'square' of your 'probability matrix'.

I like this idea too, but talking about donkeys for example, I think you come across as too uncertain. I suppose it doesn't matter really though because it's not like making up your mind about whether or not donkeys are spiritual is important. And I guess the point you were making when you said that was that gvg shouldn't just accept that donkeys aren't spiritual at first glance because they don't appear to be. You were driving to make him more skeptical. So never mind, I don't have any criticisms for you.

[gvg]

Unreality: Oh, I agree. Agnosticism applies in MANY situations involving the big questions (other instances too, I'm sure, but that's where I mostly see it.)

UtF: Skepticism pwns =) Go socrates

But I, too, am pretty sure that donkeys don't have the type of advanced philosophical thoughts we do. think about it: Every organisms 'thought' process (brain or not) is automatically set to survival mode. Philosophical ideas, religions- these things are not directly geared toward helping your survival, so I doubt that most organisms would have that (Then again, trees may have already figured out the secret too the universe... =)). Humans, and any other advanced life forms in this universe, would most likely have to have conquered their survival needs, as many great thinkers have, before looking at the big questions (just learned about this in health... some guy and a pyramid, right? Of needs?). I'm sure that if you ask an extremely poor african farmer what they thought of big philosophical concepts, you would get many weird looks as an answer. They are focused on survival (don't want to stereotype here, just an example...).

See what I mean? Why should a donkey worry about those things? That's why i assumed donkeys don't have philosophical thoughts.

Then again, you know what they say about assumptions: They make an 'a**' out of 'u' and 'me.'

[Guest]

But I, too, am pretty sure that donkeys don't have the type of advanced philosophical thoughts we do. think about it: Every organisms 'thought' process (brain or not) is automatically set to survival mode. Philosophical ideas, religions- these things are not directly geared toward helping your survival, so I doubt that most organisms would have that (Then again, trees may have already figured out the secret too the universe... =)). Humans, and any other advanced life forms in this universe, would most likely have to have conquered their survival needs, as many great thinkers have, before looking at the big questions (just learned about this in health... some guy and a pyramid, right? Of needs?). I'm sure that if you ask an extremely poor african farmer what they thought of big philosophical concepts, you would get many weird looks as an answer. They are focused on survival (don't want to stereotype here, just an example...).

See what I mean? Why should a donkey worry about those things? That's why i assumed donkeys don't have philosophical thoughts.

Then again, you know what they say about assumptions: They make an 'a**' out of 'u' and 'me.'

Maslow's hierarchy of needs... I first learned about that in 9th grade English class.... interesting.

As for "I'm sure that if you ask an extremely poor african farmer what they thought of big philosophical concepts, you would get many weird looks as an answer.": I'd bet that in general most would have answered the most basic philosophical questions with their religious beliefs, etc, but if you were to ask them something like what causes consciousness, then I bet the vast majority would say that they hadn't considered the question before. You could say this is because of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

And for the donkey, I think that's a good reason to use... I bet if you asked most people if donkeys are spiritual or not and why they would just say something like "No because they're donkeys, not humans," or something to that effect, just assuming that it's obvious that animals that are non-human aren't spiritual without any actual explanation.

[unreality]

Maybe another great ape is a better example to use instead of a donkey.

And about the African farmers, I think it's presumptious to make that kind of blanket statement. Some have probably thought about it in great detail and are great philosophers, others not so much

[gvg]

I know it's presumptious. I was simply basing it on the whole 'heirarchy of needs.' I know that for all we know, there is an extremely poor farmer somewhere who's figured out the meaning of life.

I'm just sayng that more likely, I think you would have to find someone who's already met all of there basic, and not so basic, needs to have a great philosophical discussion.

Think: If you had to choose, as a poor farmer, between getting a harvest of grain or using the same time to find the meaning of life, what would you pick? That's what I mean.

And what do you mean by the great ape would be a better example?

[unreality]

I know it's presumptious. I was simply basing it on the whole 'heirarchy of needs.' I know that for all we know, there is an extremely poor farmer somewhere who's figured out the meaning of life.

I'm just sayng that more likely, I think you would have to find someone who's already met all of there basic, and not so basic, needs to have a great philosophical discussion.

Think: If you had to choose, as a poor farmer, between getting a harvest of grain or using the same time to find the meaning of life, what would you pick? That's what I mean.

I don't really stake all that much in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it has a lot of faults. But for a really simple model it works decently well with a lot of generalizations

And what do you mean by the great ape would be a better example?

We ourselves are a great ape. Other great apes have a lot of similar physiological but also neurological qualities. If we're looking for animal philosophers, that'd be the first place I'd look

[gvg]

Oh absolutely. i agree. Many 'packs' (dunno the official name) of apes are probably king of the hill in there area, and have little to no worries (well, other than us of course =) We seem to ruin everything).

I bet they have at least some sense of philosophical concepts- after all, early man, still in partial ape form, came up with ancestor worship, sympathetic magic, etc. Who knows?

[Guest]

Oh absolutely. i agree. Many 'packs' (dunno the official name) of apes are probably king of the hill in there area, and have little to no worries (well, other than us of course =) We seem to ruin everything).

I bet they have at least some sense of philosophical concepts- after all, early man, still in partial ape form, came up with ancestor worship, sympathetic magic, etc. Who knows?

You are valuing Maslow's hierarchy too much... There are many poor hard-working humans who are much more philosophical people than some of the wealthiest kings with the fewest worries. As unreality said, Maslow's hierarchy is really just a general idea.

[gvg]

You're probably right. I might be. Just seems to fit in many cases, 'tis all.

Anyways, this got WAY off track after I brought up donkeys. We're starting to split hairs, no?