OT: Milo, well, but therein lies one problem Bill mentioned-- factionalism-- your definition of 'true Christian' is different Camp B's is different from Camp C's. Not surprisingly, since no experiment can be performed to decide if any camp's hypothesis is correct. As for research and evidence, I understand that most of the leading religious scholars are essentially atheists these days precisely because of the historical evidence they study. The existence of multiple, contradictory religions throughout the world, and the strong correlation of sect between parents and children is further circumstantial evidence of what religion is. Besides, on the face it, almost all of the (western, at least) religions strain credibility to the extent that the average 10-year-old notices: "So there's this all-powerful being who loves us, yet lets terrible pain and suffering occur, never shows himself, but insists we believe in him? Huh?" Again, I'm all for good stories, and ethical arguments even... my main concern with 'faith', which I'll define as "X is my hypothesis, and I will not change it, despite a lack of data, or data that refutes it" is that this sort of irrationality is dangerous. Who knows what other unsubstantiated hypotheses adherents might be willing to accept and act upon? 'Group X is evil and should be wiped out', has been a popular choice over the ages.
But this is way OT-- I should have private messaged, so this doesn't turn into the religion thread.
Doug |
