If One Is Wrong, What About The Rest?

[Guest lenbitme]

So, lately astrology has shown to be almost humorously accurate in pointing to things in my life and personality, and my boyfriend's mentor in Wicca has recently done a numerology reading for the both of us. Everything she read was on the spot. So, I asked my boyfriend, "If I decide that one religion is wrong, such as Christianity, based on factual and scientific information, doesn't that mean -all- religions have to be discarded?" And so, I ask the rest of you this same question. How do you reconcile going from one belief to another after having disproved your first religion? All religions have things in common, so it is difficult for me to say, for example, that I don't believe there is evidence for a god and that's why I don't believe in Christianity, but I find that there is something in astrology and tarot cards and numerology readings and tea leaves, so if I get into a different religion or practice am I not giving Christianity the benefit of the doubt, too, by reintroducing the possibility that there might be something out there?

[par4dcourse]

Neither the position of stars light years away nor how some cards fall nor the way soggy tea leaves lay is going to tell anyone's future. The Amazing Randi has spent a lifetime exposing charlatans like this.

There's as many ways to rip people off as there are gullible people. Where were all the fortune tellers on 9/10? Why hasn't anyone hit the lottery multiple times? Who's going to be the next American Idol? Fortune tellers of any kind only answer the questions they already know or can figure out. Watch Sylvia Browne work. She's a master manipulator.

Sorry to say, there is no genuine magic, save a baby's smile.

[Guest lenbitme]

Well, I suppose my question is still, if you travel to another religion doesn't that give Christianity some amount of power again? I am still exploring different areas of astrology, and I mainly think that people who have you pay money to read a fortune are scam artists and the people who know you closely and are into this stuff and give you readings are really just able to read off of intuition. However, for those that do immerse themselves in a different religion... doesn't that make Christianity possibly true, again?

[par4dcourse]

Well, I suppose my question is still, if you travel to another religion doesn't that give Christianity some amount of power again? I am still exploring different areas of astrology, and I mainly think that people who have you pay money to read a fortune are scam artists and the people who know you closely and are into this stuff and give you readings are really just able to read off of intuition. However, for those that do immerse themselves in a different religion... doesn't that make Christianity possibly true, again?

It would depend on your definition of religion. My grand-daughter worships Miley Cyrus, but I wouldn't call it a religion.

Although a good many here are atheistic, not all are, nor is it a requirement. After all, this is ex-christian.net. We have deists, pantheists, buddhists, wiccans, and many other faiths represented (I think one guy worships a goat, but I'm not sure.) We are all united in the belief that the biblical gawd doesn't exist and xtianity makes no logical sense. Past that, whatever floats your boat.

Me, I'm an ornery old goat who needs verifiable proof before I believe anything.

[Antlerman]

So, lately astrology has shown to be almost humorously accurate in pointing to things in my life and personality, and my boyfriend's mentor in Wicca has recently done a numerology reading for the both of us. Everything she read was on the spot. So, I asked my boyfriend, "If I decide that one religion is wrong, such as Christianity, based on factual and scientific information, doesn't that mean -all- religions have to be discarded?" And so, I ask the rest of you this same question. How do you reconcile going from one belief to another after having disproved your first religion? All religions have things in common, so it is difficult for me to say, for example, that I don't believe there is evidence for a god and that's why I don't believe in Christianity, but I find that there is something in astrology and tarot cards and numerology readings and tea leaves, so if I get into a different religion or practice am I not giving Christianity the benefit of the doubt, too, by reintroducing the possibility that there might be something out there?

You've posed a very good question and hopefully what wisdom I've gained in how I see things may be helpful to you. The mistake is this: assuming religion is about being accurate or factual. The question isn't which is accurate, the question is which works for you? No religion is factual, in a scientific sense. But they may be true in another sense.

 

Briefly, let me convey a conversation I had with my son who is an Evangelical Christian. I explained to him the symbolic nature of religions, and that his looking at the story of Genesis as a literal, historical, scientific document is to not only open the door to it being ripped apart in a critical analysis (which is easy to do), but it destroys what meanings were intended to be conveyed. After 45 minutes of talking about some fairly deep things with him he responds, "I understand, I just don't agree." When I asked him if he could explain back to me what I was saying he interpreted it all into hearing this one thing, "You're saying that it's all metaphor, that it didn't really happen."

 

He utterly missed my point.

 

The power of a mythology, or a system of mystical symbols and signs actually transcends scientific language. Think of something more contemporary like Big Foot. The power is in the imagination. But were we to have this be "proven", then he becomes some curious big monkey that we'd soon forget about and move onto the next symbol to hold our imaginations captive. That's what religion is, and why I say it's not a question of "Fact" but of meaning. Does it speak to you? Does it inspire?

 

Christianity may be "true" for some people simply because it works for them. It quit working for me. Finding another system is simply a matter of acknowledging what religious systems do, and finding that they hold value. The worst that you would do would be to have to acknowledge, that Christianity may work as a religious system for some people, that it may be 'valid' as a symbolic system for them. It did for you at one point, as well as for me. My criteria changed, it no longer worked for where I was at. Questions of factuality and accuracy are the questions of those that don't understand what they believe, or why they believe it, or frankly in my opinion, actually benefit from them.

 

Hope that helps, maybe.

[Deva]

"If I decide that one religion is wrong, such as Christianity, based on factual and scientific information, doesn't that mean -all- religions have to be discarded?" And so, I ask the rest of you this same question. How do you reconcile going from one belief to another after having disproved your first religion? All religions have things in common,...

 

They may have some things in common but they are not all the same. Christianity is rooted in being historically factual, based upon definite events in history, the resurrection, for example. It is based on faith and not experiential, direct knowledge. It is about outer events, not inner space. That is simply not the case with some other types of religion.

 

Lets take one example- Buddhism. Christianity has a low view of humanity as being condemned by God. It is the opposite with Buddhism, where there is no judging God and all have the Buddha nature. I could go on at length with the differences. I have never looked at it as having to "reconcile" going from one belief to another. They are simply not the same-- they are not addressing the same ultimate goal. Just the way I look at it.

 

Par4dcourse, I appreciate your point of view.

[upstarter]

Wow AM... you never cease to amaze me. Not that what you said was a new concept, but the way you expressed it was so concise and lovely.

 

Personally, I have rejected all religious belief. Partly because I no longer believe in a higher power and partly because most religion involves external rules for living and I prefer to follow my own conscience. I do not consider Buddism to be a religion but more a way of looking at the world. Not that I follow Buddism either, but I do think there are things in Buddism that are worth looking at. Buddism doesn't require a belief in the supernatural.

 

I guess that's what it comes down to for me. I do not need a belief in anything outside of nature. Humanity and this planet and this universe contain enough wonder for me.

 

Heather

[Vigile]

That's what religion is, and why I say it's not a question of "Fact" but of meaning. Does it speak to you? Does it inspire?

 

This begs a question for me. I'm not trying to get nit picky, but when I've read you explaining this in the past it always seemed to provoke undefinable questions for me. I think, however, that I'm able to somewhat articulate my questions on it now.

 

What is the true value of inspiration? Is it not just emotionalism? Does it not often just quickly fizzle as life takes hold?

 

I guess my questions are a bit jaded but life seems to teach, at least me, that practicalities go much further than fine sounding ideas and notions.

 

I'm still thinking this through, so bear with me.

 

What I can say here is this. I was greatly inspired by religion when I was younger. That inspiration did not lead me on to greater things. It just led me to a lot of non sequeters (sp?) and anti climaxes.

[Vigile]

I guess that's what it comes down to for me. I do not need a belief in anything outside of nature. Humanity and this planet and this universe contain enough wonder for me.

 

Yeah, that fits me as well. Ideas are nice, but realities as they are uncovered are much more profound and multi layered. Symbolism just seems like a distraction, kind of like the way a baby is easily distracted by shiny, flashy things.

[florduh]

I guess I'll throw in with the crass rationalists.

 

In my view, all religions are symbolic; none are true in a literal sense. The rituals and philosophies of the various systems are used by us to convince ourselves that we survive physical death, and that we even have some power to accomplish our desires through prayer, spells, etc. We need to feel some sense of justice in a random universe. We also have a desire to know the future, so the religions provide us the means through prophecy, visions, communication with the dead, and other magical works.

 

Myths and rituals can be very moving and emotional. We want desperately to believe in something, so we do. We have the ability to see what we want and ignore or explain away that which we don't. Jews, Christians, Witches and other Pagans that I personally know sincerely believe that they have the ability to alter events and be immortal through the application of their religious beliefs.

 

In some quarters, it is alright, almost required, to blast Christianity for it's unfounded and unprovable assertions. All other unfounded beliefs (with the exception of Scientology, which everybody hates) are pretty much unassailable. As long as it's not Christianity being discussed, an experience or feeling is enough proof. I see no difference, except maybe in style, in believing Jesus was born of a virgin and died and rose from the dead, that Jehovah answers prayer, Mohammed is the one true prophet of the one true god, mediums can speak with the dead, the position of planets at one's birth determines one's life path, Tarot cards can tell you whom you will marry, or crystals and magnets can cure arthritis or cancer. None of those beliefs have any evidence or logic going for them, but each appeals to a certain type of personality. Don't ignore how our egos figure into the equation - who wouldn't want to know a secret about how the universe works or have special knowledge and power, or even direct communication with the creator. Even the skeptic has a stake in the ego game.

 

Many people fervently believe in and defend irrational beliefs. One man's cult is another man's religion. The need for a supernatural realm to exist is a strong one. So strong that people kill and die for supernatural beliefs.

 

Rational thinkers who demand evidence before they will believe something are accused by the spiritual people of being closed minded and not realizing their full potential, and the rationalist will say the people who believe without proof are only fooling themselves. I can only suggest that you look for evidence. Real evidence, not just the anecdotes of wide eyed believers. Use your critical thinking skills. Realize that a world view that works for one may not satisfy another. It is said that everyone must believe something. Try to have logical reasons for what you believe.

[Spiderwire]

Wow AM... you never cease to amaze me. Not that what you said was a new concept, but the way you expressed it was so concise and lovely.

 

I concur. That was incredible. I also loved what florduh had to say.

 

I feel totally dominated by superior firepower and my thoughts are so small... I have nothing to contribute, but this thread contains some of the best discussion I've seen in my short time here. Fantastic. I'd love to hear more on this subject.

[Antlerman]

That's what religion is, and why I say it's not a question of "Fact" but of meaning. Does it speak to you? Does it inspire?

 

This begs a question for me. I'm not trying to get nit picky, but when I've read you explaining this in the past it always seemed to provoke undefinable questions for me. I think, however, that I'm able to somewhat articulate my questions on it now.

 

What is the true value of inspiration? Is it not just emotionalism? Does it not often just quickly fizzle as life takes hold?

 

I guess my questions are a bit jaded but life seems to teach, at least me, that practicalities go much further than fine sounding ideas and notions.

 

I'm still thinking this through, so bear with me.

 

What I can say here is this. I was greatly inspired by religion when I was younger. That inspiration did not lead me on to greater things. It just led me to a lot of non sequeters (sp?) and anti climaxes.

I appreciate your question. I understand the sentiment you express, and can relate quite well to it. How I choose to see it (operative word being choice), is really much more than emotionalism to me. I was involved in a church that was in fact rooted in emotionalism. This isn't that on any level. Inspiration is a far better word, in how I use it. Inspiration in the sense of elevation, lofty, ideal, or transcendent in the sense of the embrace of aspiration. It's an ideological view, and one that embraces the beautiful, what I would call the aesthetic of life, the song or poetry of living.

 

Though it's easy to see things in a cynical light, if one were to argue the "reality" of perception I could counter that for every pragmatic or "realistic" view, there is an equally realistic view from another perspective. It comes to choice, as well as personality. Each perspective has it's systems of symbols that we frame our thoughts around, whether its the poetic heart that sees reality in inspirational symbols such as elevated signs as lofty saints, gods, spirits, or as Upstarter cited Nature (one which is a "religious" symbol for me as well), or if it's symbols of rationality such as the sciences or technology, or man's advances of philosophy.

 

The point to me though is where do we want to live? That's the choice. For me, I want to live in both the rational, scientific world, and equally in the inspirational world of music, sign, ideals, and poetic expression of humanity. I am convinced it is possible to join the two without violation of either. I don't believe in living in escape of reason for the benefit of spirit, nor the denial of spirit for the benefit of reason. To do either, to me, is irrational. It denies the whole of who I am. To understand the symbolic nature of everything in our experience as humans is the point of being freed from the limits of the language of "truth" to the life beyond it that is in us.

[Thurisaz]

How do you reconcile going from one belief to another after having disproved your first religion?

 

Well strictly speaking I did not really have a "religion" in my christian days. I considered christian teachings a social thing, along the line "Jesus was a good role model, a good person and thus worthy of us trying to be at least a bit like him". I really never seriously contemplated the supernatural claims of the jebus cult.

 

That said, all religions that I know of (and yes that includes my current Asatru faith ) are per definitionem unprovable. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. There's surely no objective evidence supporting any single one of them, we all decide to join one of them solely on the basis of personal impressions.

 

(Which is also why I have no problems with atheists )

 

Thinking about it, methinks my position has actually damn much agnosticism in it...

[hereticzero]

Well, I suppose my question is still, if you travel to another religion doesn't that give Christianity some amount of power again? I am still exploring different areas of astrology, and I mainly think that people who have you pay money to read a fortune are scam artists and the people who know you closely and are into this stuff and give you readings are really just able to read off of intuition. However, for those that do immerse themselves in a different religion... doesn't that make Christianity possibly true, again?

The possibility that christianity is true about anything is always possible when there is so much written about it that includes 'universal truths'. I don't know of anything off hand that is preached as being exclusively christian thought or exclusively 'true' to christianity. Other religions have played a part in the creation of xtianity and its doctrine. I don't see a person going to another religion as justifying or giving truth to christianity again. A person accepts a set of beliefs because they believe them to begin with and there is something in the religion that attracts them to it. If I'm a Buddhist, that does not validate the stories of Jesus Christ nor make me think of xtianity as truth. There are so many arguments in xtianity between denominations to make one question the validity of xtian beliefs and doctrines.

[Neon Genesis]

While I personally don't believe in the supernatural, if you want to believe in it, I don't think believing in another religion means you have to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt, too. I look at it this way that I don't think the supernatural is probable but I think some beliefs are obviously more improbable than others. Another way of looking at it is consider that Christians believe in Yahweh but does that suddenly give validity to Greek mythology? Obviously not since even all Christians recongize that the stories in Greek mythology are obviously not true. Even within Christianity itself, there are some beliefs that are more improbable than others. For example, even though I don't think either one is probable, creationism is obviously more improbable than theistic evolution because 1)we know evolution is a verified scientific fact and 2)even if it wasn't, we know that the book of Genesis was always meant to be read allegorically and not literally, contrary to popular beliefs, yet liberal Christians are obviously not giving creationism the benefit of the doubt because they know it sounds even more absurd than theistic evolution. It's sort of like how just because you believe aliens exist it doesn't mean you're giving people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs the benefit of the doubt because you know it's more improbable that aliens have been to earth than the plausibility of the existence of aliens.

[Vigile]

It comes to choice, as well as personality.

 

Yeah, I suppose it all comes down to how much one is influenced by their right brain.

[Antlerman]

It comes to choice, as well as personality.

 

Yeah, I suppose it all comes down to how much one is influenced by their right brain.

I know why I've struggled so long to work this out for myself. I'm both right and left pretty equally. As someone who expresses himself ideologically/philosophically through writing music, I use both my abstract, creative side along with my rational, analytical side at the same time. I just now found this image below that supposedly reveals which side of the brain you favor:

 

You have to click the above image in order to have it animate (if it's showing it in reduced size here). Which direction do you see the dancer rotating? My bet is you see her rotating counter-clockwise. If you favor the left side of your brain, the fact oriented, math and science side, you see her rotating counter-clockwise. If you favor the right side, the feeling, imaginative, symbolic side, you will see her rotating clockwise.

 

Here was my result. I had just gotten finished listening to a piece of music and my mind was full of mental images, feelings, philosophical thought, etc. I clearly saw her rotating clockwise, and could see no other possible way she could be rotating. I kept coming back to it with the same result. Then I stopped and focused on some technical issue for work. As I came back to it, she was now clearly rotating counter-clockwise, and for the love of me I couldn't get her to turn around! Now as I'm coming back and forth, I see her going one way, then switch directions mid stream!

 

That's my personal thing. I'm both fairly equally, and will favor one or the other slightly depending what vein I am in. As I said it's my been my personal holy grail to find a language to embrace both aspects of my humanity. So far music is what lets both my rational and poetic mind speak and hear with one voice, but the language of art and poetry are likewise bridges of these aspects of our humanity. As the saying goes, "The best poem is where your head is in the clouds, while your feet are firmly planted on the ground".

[Vigile]

You have to click the above image in order to have it animate (if it's showing it in reduced size here). Which direction do you see the dancer rotating? My bet is you see her rotating counter-clockwise. If you favor the left side of your brain, the fact oriented, math and science side, you see her rotating counter-clockwise. If you favor the right side, the feeling, imaginative, symbolic side, you will see her rotating clockwise.

 

Surprise surprise. She moves clockwise for me.

[Antlerman]

You have to click the above image in order to have it animate (if it's showing it in reduced size here). Which direction do you see the dancer rotating? My bet is you see her rotating counter-clockwise. If you favor the left side of your brain, the fact oriented, math and science side, you see her rotating counter-clockwise. If you favor the right side, the feeling, imaginative, symbolic side, you will see her rotating clockwise.

 

Surprise surprise. She moves clockwise for me.

I was wondering if that might not be the case. As I said, it "supposedly" demonstrates right brain/left brain. In looking into it further, I suspect it's just someone's non-scientific belief that this demonstrates that. There are different tests that I found that are more question/answer based that demonstrate certain more rational versus emotional based approaches. I hit that after going through several of those (which showed a slight favoring to the right side pretty consistently. It seem somewhat questionable after the fact that it really pertained, and was more an illusion thing that someone tagged meaning on to.

 

Actually, as I recall the whole right brain/left brain thing tends to be more just a general categorizing scheme of personality types and has a lot less to do with actual brain-function. Anyway, an interesting illusion, but probably nothing to do with rational versus artistic leanings.

[Ouroboros]

Clockwise.

 

You sure this isn't something that's dependent on northern or southern hemisphere instead? Like the water when you flush...

 

...

 

 

Wait a minute... that animation got a shadow, and that shadow clearly hints the clockwise rotation. Right?

[Guest lenbitme]

I actually was just listening to a podcast on the right and left hemispheres of the brain, and the idea of "left brained" or "right brained" was an over simplified explanation for the functions of the two hemispheres. One comment the speaker made was that if you damaged your left brained, your creativity would assuredly go down to zero.

[Vigile]

Clockwise.

 

Maybe you and I are fighting our true nature Hans

[Evolution_beyond]

I tend to see clockwise most of the time.

 

But it's really weird - because I can change it to anti-clockwise if I concentrate very hard on thinking that the foot on the floor is not the left foot but the right foot. It's very difficult but when I manage to look at it that other way - all of a sudden she's moving anti-clockwise.

 

Then I feel utterly perplexed as to how anyone can create an image that can do that.

[Ouroboros]

I tend to see clockwise most of the time.

 

But it's really weird - because I can change it to anti-clockwise if I concentrate very hard on thinking that the foot on the floor is not the left foot but the right foot. It's very difficult but when I manage to look at it that other way - all of a sudden she's moving anti-clockwise.

 

Then I feel utterly perplexed as to how anyone can create an image that can do that.

DAMN! You're right! I managed to make myself see it rotate counter-clockwise for a few rotations, but then it immediately jumped back to clockwise... I had to focus really hard on imagining that one half of the turn was not in the front, but in the back, and then suddenly it rotated opposite way. Weeeeeeeird....

[Ouroboros]

Clockwise.

 

Maybe you and I are fighting our true nature Hans

Yeah, who knows...