Choosing a Religion...

[logic]

It seems to me that the main reason in which religious individuals practice whatever religion they may practice is because they were brought up by their family and/or immediate social environment to believe that way. In other words, they did not find their faith through any sort of personal experience, etc. They were merely "brainwashed" into believing.

My question is:
First, do you agree that this is the way by which most religious individuals decide which religion to follow.

Second, If a person practices a religion only because they were told to, or because that particular religion was the only way of life that they ever knew, and they never found their faith by their own personal means, is it right to practice that religion as if you knew it to be true? In other words, if you don't know your faith soley by personal experience, can you ever have true faith? If so, how?

Third, and mainly for you strong believers in "God", if you were brought up in an environment in which the religion you would have grown up to "know" would be completely different than that which you "know" today, would you believe as strongly in that other religion and "know" it to be as true as the one you follow today?

[otseng]

First, do you agree that this is the way by which most religious individuals decide which religion to follow.

I agree that the odds are higher of someone believing in a particular faith if the culture is predominantly of that faith.

Second, If a person practices a religion only because they were told to, or because that particular religion was the only way of life that they ever knew, and they never found their faith by their own personal means, is it right to practice that religion as if you knew it to be true? In other words, if you don't know your faith soley by personal experience, can you ever have true faith? If so, how?

Depends on what you mean by "true faith". If you mean true faith in terms of a religious belief system that one sincerely believes in, then yes, it's possible.

But, I do think it's better to come to a personal understanding of faith, rather than blindly accepting a particular faith just because your family and friends follow it.

Third, and mainly for you strong believers in "God", if you were brought up in an environment in which the religion you would have grown up to "know" would be completely different than that which you "know" today, would you believe as strongly in that other religion and "know" it to be as true as the one you follow today?

I grew up in an agnostic home and with no Christians among my relatives. Only when I left home did I come to the realization that God is real. And if I was brought up in a Christian environment, who knows? Perhaps I'd be an atheist?

[perfessor]

Otseng wrote:

logic wrote:

First, do you agree that this is the way by which most religious individuals decide which religion to follow.


I agree that the odds are higher of someone believing in a particular faith if the culture is predominantly of that faith.

I agree that the odds are higher, on the order of 99 to 1.

This is not to say that conversions don't take place. But one's "cultural inheritance" is a heavy anchor. For example, I know of several "mixed marriages" - i.e. Christan and Jewish partners. I have yet to see any of these people convert to the other religion.

I find it very useful to keep in mind, when thinking about problems in Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Northern Ireland, etc.:
"If I had been born among them, and raised with them, I would think and believe as they do." To assert otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

Otseng wrote:

I grew up in an agnostic home and with no Christians among my relatives. Only when I left home did I come to the realization that God is real. And if I was brought up in a Christian environment, who knows? Perhaps I'd be an atheist?

I think more important in your case is that your family did not assert a strong religious influence, but left you to find your own way. I consider you lucky in that regard. Your beliefs are more genuine than those of someone who can only parrot what he was taught.

[mrmufin]

I think that professor's reply echoes many of my sentiments.

My question is:
First, do you agree that this is the way by which most religious individuals decide which religion to follow.

Yes, the evidence suggests that a majority of religious individuals are impacted by the beliefs of their families. Additionally, I suspect that questioning the faith that one was raised in can be a difficult process when the answers don't concur with what was previously learned.

Second, If a person practices a religion only because they were told to, or because that particular religion was the only way of life that they ever knew, and they never found their faith by their own personal means, is it right to practice that religion as if you knew it to be true? In other words, if you don't know your faith soley by personal experience, can you ever have true faith? If so, how?

IMHO, there is a significant difference between seeking truth and accepting doctrine as true. Finding truths starts by asking questions, and honestly seeking answers to those questions. Accepting doctrine starts with answers and results with questions. As for personal experience of god(s), I have none, though I suspect that's what would be required to make me a believer. I've found the arguments from religious messengers entirely unconvincing.

Third, and mainly for you strong believers in "God", if you were brought up in an environment in which the religion you would have grown up to "know" would be completely different than that which you "know" today, would you believe as strongly in that other religion and "know" it to be as true as the one you follow today?

To answer that question honestly, I can only say, "I don't know." I grew up skeptical in a family of non practicing Christians, though I suspect that had I been compelled to go to church every Sunday, I might just have a different perspective.

Regards,
mrmufin

[perfessor]

mrmufin: It's 'perfessor', since I haven't earned the title 'pro'.

[mrmufin]

mrmufin: It's 'perfessor', since I haven't earned the title 'pro'.

D'OH! Your correction to my error has been noted and, hopefully, committed to long-term memory.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Yahweh]

It seems to me that the main reason in which religious individuals practice whatever religion they may practice is because they were brought up by their family and/or immediate social environment to believe that way. In other words, they did not find their faith through any sort of personal experience, etc. They were merely "brainwashed" into believing.

[pedant]

The word "brainwashed" has very specific connotations (typically connected to persuading the psychological intutitions of others using coercive tactics). Pavlov's dogs and Vietnamese POWs are examples of brainwashing. Rarely does a person come to religion through a process of brainwashing, although I can cite a few Christian programs such as "Alpha Course" and insidious coercive tactics of private cults (or the public ones like Scientology) which engage in brainwashing.

I agree with you, but I would use the phrase "people are a product of their environment".

[/pedant]

[logic]

Yahweh,

Pavlov's dogs are examples of classical conditioning not brainwashing.

[Yahweh]

Yahweh,

Pavlov's dogs are examples of classical conditioning not brainwashing.

Slightly off-topic, but correct me if I'm wrong (and, yes, I'm probably wrong), but I remember reading Aldoux Huxley's "Brave New World Revisited". Huxley described the process of conditioning Pavlov's dogs by use of sleep deprivation, exhaustion, starvation, and possibly other common brainwashing techniques (Huxley made his point quite well that the the techniques were indeed brainwashing). The "bell-ringing" story which we are familiar with is an incomplete version of history.

[NuclearTBag]

First question, absolutely not. First I am a skeptic, so that means I don't believe things I can't see. So, seeing that a third of the world's population is christian(2 billion strong). I have huge disagreements with how they choose to follow blindly, my dad said to me, that to be a christian you have to have the faith of a five year old, to me that says to buy in to this wacky garbage, you have to be a total idiot. Now, I am not saying that every christian is an idiot, all I am saying that "faith" is a horrible reason to believe in something. Also I do not agree with the way that most people decide what religion to follow, is that most of them seem to be doing it out of fear, for example some piece of sh*t is now Joe christian, because someone convinced him, that if he doesn't go to church, he'll go to hell. Also that I disagree because, that these people let someone else tell them how to live. Priests, pastors, what ever you call them, I am sick of them. You have the blind leading the blind, it is ludacris, and should come to an end. Also I view religion as a crutch. As in that people only follow, because they are in constant need of reassurance, or simply do not know what to do in certian situations. For example, I have a friend whose crutch is cigarettes. You can tell when something is bugging him, because the guy's smokin two pack a day. So when he starts smoking, that would be the time that religous people start praying. Also when my aunt's husband died, she started praying a lot, because she was lost she needed to fill the void with something she chose prayer. As to something real, such as her family. So than people say well where would she be without religion, well lonely, depressed, sad, which she is all of those things with religion, so I don't see where this "god" character comes in and works miracles.
Second Question, no. I do not believe in "faith", all I think "faith" is, is that you've decided to start lying to your self, to keep you regular. I do not believe in true faith.
Third Question, I am an atheist.