Should have been asking why they believe in them. Had just come off a late shift and my brain was leaking out of my ears. Ha ha. In full, if there is anyone on here who is religious why do you believe what you do? It is a genuine question and not one where I will attempt to shoot down anyone who replies with snarky comments. I was brought up Catholic (I was an alter boy) and the last time I went to church (Apart from weddings and funerals) was my Confirmation. I just stopped believing, if anything my Confirmation classes made me think about religion more and made me think it wasn't real. I think I had been going to church for years without really thinking about why. My mum stopped going when she got cancer and my dad stopped going when she died. Thinking about it we all went together as a family for my youngest brothers Confirmation (12 years younger than me) when my mum was ill. He never went again either.
Well if that's the translation of the 18 words in your previous post, then that's an amazingly efficient language you wrote in. I wanna learn it!
But since you were kind enough to translate, and as it happens I am somewhat religious, I guess it would be churlish of me not to respond.
A full reply would probably occupy several books, so this is extremely abridged and rough (so if you think I'm being imprecise about some things, that's probably why):
We appear to exist in a material World, but also have consciousness: The awareness of that world. Three possible interpretations immediately suggest themselves:
1. In reality, there is only matter (materialism)
2. Matter and consciousness are separate things (dualism)
3. In reality, there is only consciousness. Or perhaps, consciousness, caused matter (Roughly: Subjective idealism)
We can reject materialism because it has no way of accounting for consciousness. Yes I know people keep saying that science will be able to explain it eventually - it's been said on this thread several times - but I'd say that's wishful thinking. Science (very roughly) correlates observable events and material things with other material things, and it's incredibly successful at that. But there's never been anything in science that even remotely suggests that, on a reasonable extrapolation, it might be able to account for the
experience of being aware.
So we are left with dualism and idealism. Which one? Well, Occam's Razor seems to have a very good track record, so let's use it. Subjective idealism is the simplest theory. So that leaves us with the most likely explanation of the physical World being that it was created by consciousness (or perhaps, it is just an aspect of consciousness). One consciousness or many? Occam's Razor again suggests one. That's starting to look very much like 'God created the World' as the most plausible conclusion.
Of course, that says nothing about the nature of God. It certainly gives no reason to believe that some unique Holy book contains explicit infallible instructions on how we must live - and indeed, that's a notion that I find somewhat ridiculous. But broadly, on reflection, and with some dose of what 'feels right' I end up with the conclusion that living within the very liberal end of Christianity is about right. ('liberal end of Christianity' = the end that emphasizes loving everyone and doesn't go for doctrines of infallible scripture or strange bits of theology or condemnation of certain well-known minority groups and so on)
(Yes I know, big gaps in reasoning there. I don't have time to write a book tonight).
I should also say there's gut feeling and life experience as well as semi-rational reasoning mixed up there. Given that consciousness is the fundamental way we experience the World, paying attention to what 'consciousness' tells you: What 'feels right' as well as what cold logic tells you does seem appropriate. And I suspect it's essential to any belief system. There's no way to logically
prove the truth of either atheism or any religion, so I would suggest that therefore even the most hardened atheist/materialist has 'because it feels right' somewhere lurking at the bottom of what they believe - even though I suspect many would be reluctant to admit it.
In that context, as it happens, my interest in Christianity and spirituality first arose when at University, due to various mix-ups, I ended up without accomodation, but people from the Christian Union offered me (then an atheist) a place to stay without any strings or demands, apparently because to them, it was just the right thing to do. That obviously doesn't in any way prove that what those Christian Union people believed was correct, but it certainly gives some reason to ponder what might make them act in that way and whether there are lessons to be drawn from it.
But anyway, based on a hugely expanded version of the above and on lots of history and personal experiences, I've ended up as what I would see as liberal Christian (although I suspect some people at the very 'conservative' end of Christianity - including, ironically, some people of the traditional 'Christian Union' mindset would question the 'Christian' bit of my label, because I pay so little attention to large parts of the traditional 'doctrine'
).
By the way, to get back to the 'religion or culture' title of this thread, I do think most established religions - including Christianity - consist of culture and tradition to a far greater extent than most of their adherents realise. And I don't therefore see Christianity as the one true religion: Rather, I see most religions as imperfect attempts by men to understand, reach out to, and have a relationship with God, with all religions resulting in both good and bad things. I don't think anyone needs to enumerate the bad things, although sadly the good things often seem to get forgotten in these kinds of debates.