[49531]

As someone who was raised in a religious home who no longer attends any church I think it's less to do with not answering questions and more to do with a hostile rejection of religion generally. It wasn't until I had children of my own that I realized I needed to distance myself from religion. I know there is a large variety of what is taught from religion to religion and sect to sect but I'd like to steer clear from any organization that takes a negative view on basic things like homosexuality. I cannot fathom exposing my (or any) kids to that kind of worldview.

[CedarMills]

I think it heavily depends on the church and community. One of the reasons we are staying in our current church is because we're open to a wide community (multi-ethnic) with the same core values. Our kids grow up in this community but at the end of the day, it will be their decision if they decide to no longer attend.

[tenacious_tuna]

I also grew up in a Christian house and am now atheist--I never understood how people could reconcile "church shopping" for a community that aligns with their views (e.g. not homophobic) with the notion that the core religious concepts are supposed to be infallible. If you disagree with various churches on some doctrinal/sociological point, how do you know that your current church is correct on God existing, or knowing what he wants?

Part of my de-conversion was driven by what looked to me like people willfully deceiving themselves that it was possible to "choose" a church who fit their worldview, without treating the cosmology claims the church inherently makes with the same skepticism.

[LargeWu]

I get what you're saying, but there's plenty of disagreement on what those concepts even are.

td;dr: Denominations vary wildly, and it's almost impossible to separate one's personal biases from choosing a congregation.

For example, Catholicism is very heirarchical, stating that one cannot receive salvation except through the Catholic Church. Methodism states that good acts + belief are the gateway to heaven. Lutheranism promises salvation to all that believe in Christ.

Or take the infallibility of the Bible. The Roman Catholic faith places a lot of emphasis on church doctrine, which is based on the Bible to be sure, but also a lot of church constructs. Baptists believe in a very literal interpretation of the Bible. Mainline protestants emphasize historical context and nuance. ELCA does not even claim the Bible is the literal word of God.

Plus, individual congregations within a denomination might have differences in emphasis, sociopolitical leanings, etc. It's important to know that "The Church" is in many cases, and especially for Protestant denominations, made up of congregations from the bottom up, and reflects the aggregate of its membership.

[tenacious_tuna]

I talk about this more in another reply [1], but I'll restate here:

If it's possible for all these varied denominations to come to wildly different conclusions about god, the world, and his desires for us, all based off the same source materials and epistemological tools (e.g., faith)--differences that're important enough to have fought wars and divided nations over--why then do people believe these source materials and tools are still a reliable way to determine how one should live their life?

The fact that these huge disagreements exist is evidence to me that the bible specifically and religious texts generally aren't reliable systems to learn about the world.

What frustrates me is people who "church shop" seem to be aware of this, because they're seeking a church that is similar enough to their existing beliefs yet the indicators of that are difficult to find because even within the same denomination a specific population can hold different beliefs, yet they don't extrapolate to the wider issue of the base beliefs being the issue.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26624502

[agarden]

Have you ever watched a press conference after a sports game and the losing coach is convinced that all the calls went against his team? And then the other coach gets up and starts talking about the calls that went against his team? One could conclude that there is not a reliable way to determine when fouls should be called. And in some sports for some rules that comes into play. But a much larger factor is just self-interest. A man with a great desire to win will be blind to objective reality, all the while fully convinced that he is utterly in the right.

There are very different views on what the United States Constitution means and requires. Arguments about it are had on the internet daily, in congress frequently, in the court system constantly, and there was once even a war over it. One could conclude that the Constitution is such a badly written document that you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean, but I see here the work of self-interest. When the stakes are sufficiently high, men are geniuses at convincing themselves that what they want to be true, is true.

For churches claiming that they believe the bible to be the divinely inspired word of God, the stakes are very, very high. In consequence, the incentives to convince yourself that the bible says what you want it to say are also extremely high. Self-deception thrives under those conditions.

[tenacious_tuna]

I'm not completely certain what you're stating, so I apologize if I assume the wrong meaning. Please do correct me if that's the case.

> One could conclude that there is not a reliable way to determine when fouls should be called.

One certainly could conclude that, but it seems strange to me to give equal weight to the opinions of those who're most invested in the outcome. I would instead turn to a more objective measure--either the calls of the officials, or even a close reading of the rules and reviewing all the available observations of the event.

> One could conclude that the Constitution is such a badly written document that you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean...

I would certainly agree that there are many points on which the Constitution is unclear or poorly written :) The caveat of the constitution is that we don't have to exist alongside its poor meanings for eternity with no recourse--We the People are imbued with the ability to clarify and update the constitution, a power we've used many times to correct its shortcomings.

If I am to take your use of the Constitution as an analogy to the Christian bible, the opposite is true of that bible: we're unable to clarify and update it where flaws are discovered, and must continue to exist with it as the supposed-word-of-God in its current form. Just as with the Constitution, it is possible that new interpretations of the text can develop, but it's impossible to decide if they are truly "correct" with regard to authorial intent--something much more important of the bible than the constitution.

> Self-deception thrives under those conditions.

I absolutely agree. Part of what frustrates me about conversations around religious accuracy is that the stakes are (typically) set so, so much higher for the religious party: the threat of damnation, eternal torment, and not being able to see one's deceased loved ones make a powerful incentive to overlook otherwise obvious shortcomings in one's reasoning.

[LargeWu]

Because on the main point, they're all pretty much aligned: Salvation is achieved through Jesus's death on the cross. And fundamentally, it's the only thing that really matters in Christianity.

In that respect, shopping for churches is mostly irrelevant. What you see as fundamental differences are really more social than theological, in which case the shopping around makes a lot of sense.

"the bible specifically and religious texts generally aren't reliable systems to learn about the world."

I think most mainline Christians would reject the notion that the Old Testament is a factual historical record. (Less so for Evangelical and Pentecostal, however). Religion teaches us "why", not "what".

[wonderwonder]

This is not an attack, just something I have wondered and your comment "Salvation is achieved through Jesus's death on the cross." reminded me of it. Jesus dying essentially allowed God to forgive humanity and allow for salvation. Why worship a God that was willing to destroy humanity and required a blood sacrifice of his own son instead of just saying, you know what, I forgive you. Why is an entity like that worthy of worship for any reason other than fear? Please note, not trying to attack your faith here, just wondering on your opinion.

Edit: Thought about it a little more and I guess fear is a pretty legitimate reason to do so. If one truly believes that if one does not worship then an eternity in hell is on the plate then worshipping does make sense but it cant be anything except a Stockholm syndrome style of worship.

[tenacious_tuna]

My experience in life with self-identified Christians has largely been in the context of those people disagreeing, on moral grounds, with actions I take or people I support--almost always citing religion in their reasoning. It's possible the people I've dealt with just aren't components of this "mainline christianity" you're familiar with, but they use the same tools to believe these things. To me, those tools are egregiously flawed, and I have a vested interest in making sure those tools don't get used to believe false things that bring harm to myself or my neighbors.

> Because on the main point, they're all pretty much aligned...

Historically, wars have been fought over these disagreements--both within only Christianity, and in the wider religious space.

I think it's worth considering other religions personally because it's what led to my de-conversion: I couldn't answer the question of why, other than being raised in it, I should believe Christianity over, say, Buddhism or Islam. As I regarded other religions with skepticism, when I was a Christian, I should also regard Christianity.

While the specific point I've made previously deals with selecting a denomination and a church within that denomination it's also true that people choose religions for similar (flawed?) reasoning.

Further:

> What you see as fundamental differences are really more social than theological...

I'm not sure I'm convinced on this. Take gay marriage, for example: I vividly recall being 12 in our church, sitting in on a conversation between my (single) mother and our pastor, on how to deal with people who chose to sin in our lives, specifically referring to my father who was openly gay at the time. The church we went to was firmly against homosexuality, but was of the love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin cloth. On the upshot, they were relatively kind to those of the LGBT community, but they did still make it clear they did not support their "choices" and largely ostracized them--with reasoning that, in their view, was ensconced in theology.

While LGBT rights have certainly been a social issue throughout the world, I think dismissing this "difference" between my church and the one on my college campus who made a point of welcoming LGBT members is to minimize these actual theological differences. There's part of me that wonders if this is a bad-faith maneuvering (not on your part, but organized religion as a whole) to downplay socially repulsive beliefs without having to sacrifice their supposed moral authority.

> I think most mainline Christians would reject the notion that the Old testament is a factual historical record.

This certainly hasn't been true across history, and even now I harbor doubt. Perhaps I've only dealt with more fundamentalist types than you, but the opposite has been true in my experience, and is definitely not true of the more loudmouthed Creationist/Ken Ham style evangelicals. While they may not be representative of the majority, *they are affecting policy* in many regions of the country. My mother, an elementary teacher, frequently voices her frustrations that she's not allowed to pose creationism as an "alternative" to evolution in her classes science units--something that is allowed in several other states[1, though from 2014].

You see similar flaws in other arenas, too: my grandparents view climate change as an issue outside of human concern, squarely in God's hands, in part because they believe in life-after-death and the eventual rapture, so while they should do reasonably well to steward the planet, they don't think we're going to be here forever so it doesn't matter if Earth becomes an unlivable rock; while some may suffer the effects of an adverse climate, it won't matter when everyone's in heaven.

I also wonder about what motivates these changes in how doctrine is viewed. Supposing your right, what drove the digression that the Old Testament is not factual? I doubt it was the Church deciding on its own, outside of societal pressure. I'm sure it's because of pressure from those who found fault in the Old Testament teachings--those who were condemned by it, or ostracized by the churches of their time, and the Churches granted this concession without wholly usurping their power. But what about the next issue? Maybe folks are believing less in Noah's Ark, but how will they contend with folks who're trans, or polyamourus, or take issue with abstract (i.e., not historical) teachings of the bible like not rebelling against kings, for they have been ordained by God [2]?

[1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... [2]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&ver...

[skissane]

> stating that one cannot receive salvation except through the Catholic Church

The contemporary position of the Catholic Church is that non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians can be saved. What you've said there will be read by many readers as saying that only Catholics will be saved, which is not the Catholic position at all, in fact it is the condemned heresy of Feeneyism.

Now, the Catholic Church also teaches that when non-Catholics and non-Christians are saved, they are saved through the Catholic Church – but in a mystical rather than visible way – so what you've said is literally true, but is prone to misinterpretation.

[jimbokun]

The differences are way over rated, especially between the denominations themselves.

If you look at the core statements of beliefs from various Christian denominations, you will find far more similarities than differences, especially around the core tenets of the faith.

[kongolongo]

How do you choose between a Christian denomination and being Hindu, for example, then?

[jimbokun]

I don’t know, maybe study both religions and try participating in some way, and see if either resonates with you in some profound way?

[tablespoon]

> I also grew up in a Christian house and am now atheist--I never understood how people could reconcile "church shopping" for a community that aligns with their views (e.g. not homophobic) with the notion that the core religious concepts are supposed to be infallible. If you disagree with various churches on some doctrinal/sociological point, how do you know that your current church is correct on God existing, or knowing what he wants?

That doesn't actually seem like a problem specific to religion, but a problem with truth, generally. If anyone believes their beliefs are true, they have to reconcile that with the fact that people disagree, which usually proceeds by believing those people are in error or that the differences aren't significant. I don't think Christians actually believe that the truth is something easy to access, given the emphasis on faith and belief that everyone is flawed, etc.

[tenacious_tuna]

> given the emphasis on faith and belief that everyone is flawed

Forgive my possibly abrasive tone, but "given the emphasis on faith and belief that everyone is flawed" falls apart when the focal point of the church and the religion it purports, the god, is held to be infallible.

The notion that all these disparate groups can cite the same 'source of truth' as their guiding principles, yet come to such significantly different conclusions as to fight wars over them shows those principles aren't as useful or reliable as members of any church make them out to be.

That's where my frustrations come in: churchgoers seem inherently aware of these intense differences, yet don't seem to question the reliability of their text (or view, or belief, or...) despite all these alternative conclusions from the same tools and evidence.

(In Street Epistemology the "Outsider Faith Test" is used to demonstrate this; broadly phrased, "If it is possible for a person of Hinduism to use faith to justify their belief in their god(s), and it's possible for a Christian person to use faith to justify their belief in their god, yet those beliefs are in opposition to one another, is faith a reliable tool to determine what is true?")

[tablespoon]

> Forgive my possibly abrasive tone, but "given the emphasis on faith and belief that everyone is flawed" falls apart when the focal point of the church and the religion it purports, the god, is held to be infallible.

Not really. That only falls apart under particular assumptions (e.g. an assumption that a perfect thing will only create other perfect things, or that perfection will be the particular kind you imagined it must be).

> (In Street Epistemology the "Outsider Faith Test" is used to demonstrate this; broadly phrased, "If it is possible for a person of Hinduism to use faith to justify their belief in their god(s), and it's possible for a Christian person to use faith to justify their belief in their god, yet those beliefs are in opposition to one another, is faith a reliable tool to determine what is true?")

I've got a pretty clear sense that there are regions of truth that our "reliable tools" cannot access. Faith is basically the hope that some of those regions can be accessed in other ways.

[tenacious_tuna]

> there are regions of truth that our "reliable tools" cannot access

This is a contradiction in terms. If you have a set of tools such that some tools reliably determine truth and some don't, inherently that latter set can't be used to "access" other "regions of truth." Put differently, when I examine the universe with my reliable truth-tools (roughly, the scientific method), I see no reason to believe that these other regions of truth that my tools cannot detect exist. If I use tools that are demonstrably flawed, like faith, I can conclude those things are true, but why would I use known-bad tools to reason with?

It almost feels like a weird inverted understanding of object permanence; I can't see into the other room, so I cannot reliably determine what is inside it. It's possible since I left it that a ninja suck in and left a million dollars in my couch cushions, then retrieved it later--I would have no way to detect that from here, so my 'tools' can't determine that. Why would I choose to believe in the ninja?

It is possible that you could come to believe something that is true by faith (as in, "I have faith we live in a heliocentric solar system, although I cannot prove or determine this with my current set of tools"), you cannot use faith to prove that what you believe is true. A practitioner of Street Epistemology, Anthony Magnabosco, has a very good conversation [1] with someone on that very topic.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFyiLICAa8

[yellowapple]

> how do you know that your current church is correct on God existing, or knowing what he wants?

The answer is that you don't, and unfortunately society doesn't look too kindly on taking copious amounts of psychedelics and wandering the desert for a month, so unfortunately it ain't as straightforward to rediscover it from first principles like Jesus did.

[seoaeu]

> I also grew up in a Christian house and am now atheist--I never understood how people could reconcile "church shopping" for a community that aligns with their views (e.g. not homophobic) with the notion that the core religious concepts are supposed to be infallible.

Couldn't you compare that to deciding between colleges? They all presumably will teach you information that is true, yet the academic culture and their perspectives on the more subjective aspects may differ between them. In academia, this sort of disagreement between schools of thought is generally considered a good thing. Not sure folks are as happy about disagreement when it comes to theology, but there certainly isn't a shortage of it there either.

[eloisius]

> Couldn't you compare that to deciding between colleges? They all presumably will teach you information that is true

Not even close. No one expects their college to impart infallible, ultimate, eternal truth. You expect to be trained in useful theories and practices, and for them to become outdated in due time. Academic disagreements are all part of the dynamic, living, changing reality of academic knowledge. Not so for final truths of what’s right and wrong, true and false.

Maybe that’s why fundamentalists make such lousy arguments in defense of creationism: “science is wrong a lot of the time so how can you trust it?” They’re evaluating academic knowledge through the lens of ultimate truth.

[nnf]

I will not presume to know your reasons for staying in your church beyond what you said here, and I respect your position on leaving the choice to your kids on whether they stick with it.

I will say though that in general there are two points I often see missing from this position:

1) At what point in the kids’ lives will it be their decision? Many kids are required to attend church until a certain age or until they are no longer living under their parents’ roof.

2) Why not start by not taking the kids to church until they are old enough to make the decision themselves? Instilling a fear of hell can be difficult to overcome later in life, even after people lose their faith, which isn’t fair to kids who don’t get a say in the matter.

I hope this doesn’t come off as hostile, as I sincerely don’t mean it to be. I do hope more people consider this though when deciding what is best for their kids, both at the beginning of their lives and once they’re grown.

[thrww20210329]

You might enjoy this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vw_X7IkXB0