Right? The question I’d ask him is: “So which denomination would you adhere to, or would you start your own?”
And the crazy part is that I wouldn’t even be asking that mockingly but rather with genuine interest, because, frankly, denominational squabbling is what majorly contributed to my own departure (certainly not the only factor, but it definitely played a heavy role).
Yeah, I mean Wikipedia is a great place to stark looking at biblical criticism/historiography as well, which I guess is kind of ironic.
I’d love to know what his “proofs” are for his belief, and if there’s an element of the Pascal’s wager type thinking at all. I come from a family of scientists who are also Christian so I’m fully aware of the way people are able to hand-wave away the things that don’t mesh with their worldview.
The denomination hopping eased me out of faith too - I went from evangelical to Anglican, to Society of Friends, to being totally unengaged. If I was going to go back I’d still stick the the quakers to be honest - at least they know the value of shutting up!
I’d be curious to learn more about this if you’re willing to share.
What aspects are interesting to you particularly? I’d be happy to give you an insight!
Both my parents are physicists (my dad got his PhD, my mother taught Physics her whole working life) and my grandfathers (also practicing Christians) were both scientists; my paternal grandfather was a research scientist working with radio telescopes who had some pretty hot takes on life.
I’ll start with the easiest one! They’re members of an independent church which is a member of the Evangelical Alliance in the UK. My dad’s background is Anglican, and my mum’s is Baptist. They’re both pretty okay with individual differences (as long as it’s a protestant one!), so they’re open to minor differences in belief - you can basically write these down to different interpretations of the scriptures. They are okay with discussing these differences.They were okay when I was a member of a Quaker congregation, but they don’t really get Catholicism - they see some stuff as idolatrous but they’re not anti catholic.
Their reconciliation of the ‘holes’; this one is trickier. The fact that it’s difficult to pin down a historical Jesus (when we know about other people factually from the same era) is just sort of glossed over. Regarding the possibility of metaphysical stuff they’re actually pretty chill with admitting that there’s things we don’t know, in part because of things like dark matter, or the development of a knowledge of atomic particles etc - for them I think it’s more a case of “we can’t prove it yet” rather than “it can’t be proved”. They love science because for them it’s a proof of the elegance of creation; they believe that evolution, for example, is perfectly in line with a creator God - for them God is the spark at the beginnig of everything.
A good summary of their attitude to the holes is:
Science is full of stuff that seems counterintuitive to “rational thought” (ie. Virtual particles etc) so why is that any weirder than an irrational belief in a God whose existence you can’t prove?
Lastly, I’ve never outright told them I don’t believe. Partially because where I stand fluctuates daily, but mostly because my life is enough of a tell - I have lived out of wedlock with my partner for the best part of 10 years, I drink to excess, don’t attend church, etc., and I have spoken to my sister (who I know will talk to my parents) about not being a Christian in any practical sense. They know I’m a good person and for them I guess it’s not problematic (and they’re not “fire and brimstone” types so I don’t know if they’re worried for my eternal soul or not but they’re content seeing me happy and being true to my conscience I guess!
One of my friends thinks divine beings are aliens, perhaps time-traveling ones given their godlike powers as Scripture sometimes seems to describe when it comes to the unfathomable. I’ve wondered if this whole life and universe is a simulation in a supercomputer, of which God is the developer, who we’d meet at the end of our “lives.” But I don’t know…
I go from “God is a kid with a magnifying glass” to “everything is as it is, and when I die that’s it, nothing happens afterwards”, with varying shades of agnosticism in between.
I still find churches (well, big ones made by people hundreds of years ago, not meeting halls) super chill. I visited a catholic shrine on my holidays last year and I found it really peaceful. I enjoy the “practice” of that aspect of religion in that respect. But I can’t square my experience of the world with anything other than an awful god who wouldn’t warrant any attention anyway.
I’m not the person you asked, but I have chemists in my family who are also Christians, and it comes down to not taking the Bible literally. That’s mostly where Christians get in trouble, anyway, since it’s not even historically accurate much less scientific. Then you insert God into a position of being the architect of life’s mysteries, and science is an endeavor to comprehend the complexities of the universe Yahweh created. To uncover the mysteries is to seek God.
I don’t really find that logic personally compelling as a reason to believe, but that’s how they’ve kind of “squared that circle” so to speak.
Right? The question I’d ask him is: “So which denomination would you adhere to, or would you start your own?”
And the crazy part is that I wouldn’t even be asking that mockingly but rather with genuine interest, because, frankly, denominational squabbling is what majorly contributed to my own departure (certainly not the only factor, but it definitely played a heavy role).
Yeah, I mean Wikipedia is a great place to stark looking at biblical criticism/historiography as well, which I guess is kind of ironic.
I’d love to know what his “proofs” are for his belief, and if there’s an element of the Pascal’s wager type thinking at all. I come from a family of scientists who are also Christian so I’m fully aware of the way people are able to hand-wave away the things that don’t mesh with their worldview.
The denomination hopping eased me out of faith too - I went from evangelical to Anglican, to Society of Friends, to being totally unengaged. If I was going to go back I’d still stick the the quakers to be honest - at least they know the value of shutting up!
Interesting, I’d be curious to learn more about this if you’re willing to share.
Ha! That’s true, I actually did quite like Quakers based on the rare run-ins I had with them in the distant past…
What aspects are interesting to you particularly? I’d be happy to give you an insight!
Both my parents are physicists (my dad got his PhD, my mother taught Physics her whole working life) and my grandfathers (also practicing Christians) were both scientists; my paternal grandfather was a research scientist working with radio telescopes who had some pretty hot takes on life.
How do they reconcile the holes?
Why do they think their denomination is right and not all the other thousands out there (if they do)?
Do they know about your (lack of) beliefs? If so, how has that played out, or if not, will you ever mention them?
I’ll start with the easiest one! They’re members of an independent church which is a member of the Evangelical Alliance in the UK. My dad’s background is Anglican, and my mum’s is Baptist. They’re both pretty okay with individual differences (as long as it’s a protestant one!), so they’re open to minor differences in belief - you can basically write these down to different interpretations of the scriptures. They are okay with discussing these differences.They were okay when I was a member of a Quaker congregation, but they don’t really get Catholicism - they see some stuff as idolatrous but they’re not anti catholic.
Their reconciliation of the ‘holes’; this one is trickier. The fact that it’s difficult to pin down a historical Jesus (when we know about other people factually from the same era) is just sort of glossed over. Regarding the possibility of metaphysical stuff they’re actually pretty chill with admitting that there’s things we don’t know, in part because of things like dark matter, or the development of a knowledge of atomic particles etc - for them I think it’s more a case of “we can’t prove it yet” rather than “it can’t be proved”. They love science because for them it’s a proof of the elegance of creation; they believe that evolution, for example, is perfectly in line with a creator God - for them God is the spark at the beginnig of everything. A good summary of their attitude to the holes is:
Lastly, I’ve never outright told them I don’t believe. Partially because where I stand fluctuates daily, but mostly because my life is enough of a tell - I have lived out of wedlock with my partner for the best part of 10 years, I drink to excess, don’t attend church, etc., and I have spoken to my sister (who I know will talk to my parents) about not being a Christian in any practical sense. They know I’m a good person and for them I guess it’s not problematic (and they’re not “fire and brimstone” types so I don’t know if they’re worried for my eternal soul or not but they’re content seeing me happy and being true to my conscience I guess!
I never knew about virtual particles. Huh… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
🫂
One of my friends thinks divine beings are aliens, perhaps time-traveling ones given their godlike powers as Scripture sometimes seems to describe when it comes to the unfathomable. I’ve wondered if this whole life and universe is a simulation in a supercomputer, of which God is the developer, who we’d meet at the end of our “lives.” But I don’t know…
I go from “God is a kid with a magnifying glass” to “everything is as it is, and when I die that’s it, nothing happens afterwards”, with varying shades of agnosticism in between.
I still find churches (well, big ones made by people hundreds of years ago, not meeting halls) super chill. I visited a catholic shrine on my holidays last year and I found it really peaceful. I enjoy the “practice” of that aspect of religion in that respect. But I can’t square my experience of the world with anything other than an awful god who wouldn’t warrant any attention anyway.
I’m not the person you asked, but I have chemists in my family who are also Christians, and it comes down to not taking the Bible literally. That’s mostly where Christians get in trouble, anyway, since it’s not even historically accurate much less scientific. Then you insert God into a position of being the architect of life’s mysteries, and science is an endeavor to comprehend the complexities of the universe Yahweh created. To uncover the mysteries is to seek God.
I don’t really find that logic personally compelling as a reason to believe, but that’s how they’ve kind of “squared that circle” so to speak.