I'm with the OP. I know a huge number of physicians, scientists, professors, psychologists, etc. who consider themselves Christians (mostly Episcopalian or something else liberal and mainstream). Though I'm not Christian myself I can't help but notice that these are very smart, very accomplished people so I have trouble dismissing them as idiots, as so many atheists seem to do. I also can't help but notice that the atheists among my friends are entirely respectful of Jews and Muslims but entirely disdainful of Christians. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.

So, OP, I'd like to know this too and I too find it difficult to ask even close friends.

This is the difference between religion and science. If all knowledge of both were to be wiped off the face of the earth, mankind would eventually rediscover science. But religion, if it were reborn, would take a completely different form from its current one. No two civilizations develop the same religion independently - why do you think that is?

OP, in all honesty, it's based on faith. If things could be proven faith would not be necessary.

You either have it or not and it usually develops after a personal experience (and not by pushy parents like some PPs want to imply).

Anonymous wrote:Op, its all based on faith. You either have it or you dont. I for one dont, but I do not doubt those who do.

This misses the source of faith, though.


That "faith" is something that rarely occurs in the absence of parents *explicitly* imposing it on their children. This is why religious parents are so desperate to inculcate their beliefs on their children at a very early age. Every religious leader in history has demanded parents do this as well. And it's a core duty of any religious parent because, without such early training, it would be rare for a child to come to such beliefs on their own. Not a general moral framework, but the actual mythology in great detail. Then they're shocked that their children come to have a fervent belief in the same mythology with which they've been inculcated.

Absent that quite explicit religious instruction, children are just as likely to attach to just about any fantastical story--or no story at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i only know it because i've experienced things that confirm my faith. and it is faith because it's believing in things that can't be proven.

Sure, but the only reason you have this particular faith is because your parents made sure to inoculate you with it. If they'd told you, while young, that Ganesh was divine, you'd experience things that confirmed that faith. If Mohammed, you'd find that confirmed. If Poseidon, Poseidon. Etc, etc...

It's just simple confirmation bias, dressed up in robes with a whiff of incense thrown in.

NP here -- my parents and I don't share the same faith. So now whatcha got?

There are always a small number of folks who are desperate to cling to something. The parents of the followers of the Bagwan Shree Rajneesh weren't likely in an ashram either. But for the vast, vast majority we just follow the religion of our parents, and find the others ridiculous. If your case were the normative one, we wouldn't see a correlation between children and parents' religions. Instead the correlation is almost 1.

Op, its all based on faith. You either have it or you dont. I for one dont, but I do not doubt those who do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i only know it because i've experienced things that confirm my faith. and it is faith because it's believing in things that can't be proven.

Sure, but the only reason you have this particular faith is because your parents made sure to inoculate you with it. If they'd told you, while young, that Ganesh was divine, you'd experience things that confirmed that faith. If Mohammed, you'd find that confirmed. If Poseidon, Poseidon. Etc, etc...

It's just simple confirmation bias, dressed up in robes with a whiff of incense thrown in.

NP here -- my parents and I don't share the same faith. So now whatcha got?

Anonymous wrote:i only know it because i've experienced things that confirm my faith. and it is faith because it's believing in things that can't be proven.

Sure, but the only reason you have this particular faith is because your parents made sure to inoculate you with it. If they'd told you, while young, that Ganesh was divine, you'd experience things that confirmed that faith. If Mohammed, you'd find that confirmed. If Poseidon, Poseidon. Etc, etc...

It's just simple confirmation bias, dressed up in robes with a whiff of incense thrown in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, OP, here is a slightly expanded argument:

I. Jesus claimed divinity
A. He meant it literally
1. It is true......Lord
2. It is false
a. He knew it was false......Liar
b. He didn't know it was false.......Lunatic
B. He meant it nonliterally, mystically.......Guru
II. Jesus never claimed divinity.......Myth

There is nothing "blind" about this faith. "Smart, analytical" people around the world have worked their way through the evidence for centuries and concluded "Jesus is Lord."

You know, the funny thing is, I can't figure out if this is an argument against Christian theism, a parody of an argument in favor, or an argument in favor "on the square". I think this says a lot about the impoverished nature of theocratic argument.

It's just an outline, my friend. Each aspect of it has a full exposition, with centuries of thought behind it. Beyond the scope of this board, but a good summation of the OP's question.

Ever hear of the ad authoritatum fallacy? I'm sure there are centuries of thought behind each, just as there have been centuries of refutation. If what you've posted is a brief synopsis, it looks profoundly unconvincing. In any case, can it even be described as an "argument"? It looks like a menu of possibilities some with a much higher likelihood than others.

i only know it because i've experienced things that confirm my faith. and it is faith because it's believing in things that can't be proven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, OP, here is a slightly expanded argument:

I. Jesus claimed divinity
A. He meant it literally
1. It is true......Lord
2. It is false
a. He knew it was false......Liar
b. He didn't know it was false.......Lunatic
B. He meant it nonliterally, mystically.......Guru
II. Jesus never claimed divinity.......Myth

There is nothing "blind" about this faith. "Smart, analytical" people around the world have worked their way through the evidence for centuries and concluded "Jesus is Lord."

You know, the funny thing is, I can't figure out if this is an argument against Christian theism, a parody of an argument in favor, or an argument in favor "on the square". I think this says a lot about the impoverished nature of theocratic argument.

It's just an outline, my friend. Each aspect of it has a full exposition, with centuries of thought behind it. Beyond the scope of this board, but a good summation of the OP's question.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, OP, here is a slightly expanded argument:

I. Jesus claimed divinity
A. He meant it literally
1. It is true......Lord
2. It is false
a. He knew it was false......Liar
b. He didn't know it was false.......Lunatic
B. He meant it nonliterally, mystically.......Guru
II. Jesus never claimed divinity.......Myth

There is nothing "blind" about this faith. "Smart, analytical" people around the world have worked their way through the evidence for centuries and concluded "Jesus is Lord."

You know, the funny thing is, I can't figure out if this is an argument against Christian theism, a parody of an argument in favor, or an argument in favor "on the square". I think this says a lot about the impoverished nature of theocratic argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread won't end well.

OP here -- I knew that it would likely take an ugly direction as so many do in DCUM... but, as I said, I don't feel like I can ask this question to friends without making them feel like I'm attacking their beliefs as baseless or irrational....yet, I really do wonder if the smart folks who genuinely believe the whole John 3:16 are aware of facts that I'm not aware of.

Yes, I get the concept of "faith" but do those with "faith" have BLIND faith? I'm giving them credit for having "faith" based on something convincing... but I'm not sure what it is that convinces the smart, analytical people who have faith.

Faith == "believing what your parents told you to believe when you were young."

Anonymous wrote:I'm not religious but (a) it's called faith, look it up and (b) historians have looked at the evidence about whether Jesus was a real person and their work isn't hidden. Look it up.

Agree. Only Jesus wasn't the son of God, he was just a prophet. One who, like John the Baptist, taught an incomplete version of the truth until Mohammed came along to set things right. Also, Joseph Smith--who was also a documented real person--was to come along and refine the truth even further.

It IS a crazy story. More accurately, it is an amalgamation of many crazy religious myths that are much older than Christianity, but were incorporated into the Jesus myth.