Out of body religious experiences

[Rhabbi]

One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?

I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

I do not always win converts when I talk to people, but the fact that I am willing to listen to them, and be honest about my struggles, plants a seed so that God is able to work in their hearts and reach out to them. And, if you are right and I am wasting my time doing this, then I am at least enjoying my life and feel that it has a purpose.

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?

I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.

[TomOfSweden]

I think you are Tom. Many people teach that doubt is the opposite of faith, while I tend to think that it affirms it. This is hard to explain but let me give it a shot.

We all have faith that the Sun will rise in the east in the morning. This faith is based on years of observation and a belief that science would be able to tell us if something was seriously wrong with the Sun. Yet, if our understanding of physics is off by a bit, and something unforeseen happens to the sun that upsets the balance between gravity and fission, the Sun could explode during the night. Then the sun would not rise.

My faith that the Sun will rise is not shaken by me asking these questions as I then learn more about the dynamics of the balance between gravity and fission, and exactly what type of event would be necessary to upset that balance. I thus learn exactly how unlikely that will be to occur.

In the same way, when I question the foundations of my faith it grows stronger. I may learn more about God, or I may learn more about what I am questioning and learn that I am wrong there. I occasionally have to reevaluate my faith based on what I learn, but my faith always grows as a result.

I'm not sure what you mean with learn more about god? How is it possible to learn anything about such an elusive creature?

I have come across people that try to tell me I should not read about Muslims, or Catholics, or even other sects of Christianity. What I have always learned about these people is no that they are correct in warning me away from others, but that they are afraid that if I compare their teachings to those of others I will find theirs lacking. Growth cannot occur in a vacuum. Whenever someone wants to keep me from learning something, it is because they want to keep me from growing.

There's a name for people who are against certain knowledges. They are commonly known as "idiots". Especially those who have opinions on what others should learn. I think you'd be doing the world a favour if you'd as soon as you meet anybody like that, to stone them to death in an instant. For the sake of genetic cleanliness. Just my not so serious humble opinion.

Persevering through doubt is about growing, not clinging. There are plenty of close minded people who cling to what they were taught rather than going out and learning the truth. I refuse to join their ranks.

ok, this is going to be interesting.

Yes, Christianity is specific, and as a result I am often seen as intolerant when I tell people that their beliefs are wrong. But I can also tell them why they are wrong, point to the internal conflicts in their teachings, and those of Christianity, and tell them that although I do not have all the answers, I do know who has.

Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.

I never said my faith is not a rational decision, or at least I never intended to. If I gave you that impression I wish to apologize. What I tried to say is that I do not know how to argue my faith using logic. But it is far from whimsical, as you just pointed out to me.

As far as logic being able to prove the existence of God, I am sure it is possible. But, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no deductive argument that would do so. I know of a few inductive ones, and would gladly point you to some if you like, but an inductive argument is flawed because it is not conclusive.

As an example let us look at the most famous literary proponent of inductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes carried inductive argument to a science, but all of his logic was not proof. He just made the alternative seem so far fetched that everyone believed him.

Nevertheless, inductive arguments are not proof. Just because I can make an inductive argument that it will not snow on July 4th 2008 in San Antonio TX does not mean I can prove it by logic. Thus, it is also impossible to prove God exists using logic.

What premises can I use that would be accepted? This is where making an argument about the existence of God fails. If you refuse to believe in anything but what you can touch and/or measure then no premise I propose will work to make a true conclusion, even if the argument is valid.

The problem with logic as a tool of proof is that I can use true premises and reach a false, but valid, conclusion.

I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.

1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.

If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.

We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.

This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.

I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.

[Rhabbi]

I'm not sure what you mean with learn more about god? How is it possible to learn anything about such an elusive creature?

How is it possible to learn more about anyone? You do so by studying His works and listening to the people who know Him. Of course, this takes the leap of faith of believing in Him first, but He is not as ellusive as all that if you search diligently.

There's a name for people who are against certain knowledges. They are commonly known as "idiots". Especially those who have opinions on what others should learn. I think you'd be doing the world a favour if you'd as soon as you meet anybody like that, to stone them to death in an instant. For the sake of genetic cleanliness. Just my not so serious humble opinion.

Amen

Could this by chance be gobeldigook to confuse me? You just said you don't have the answers. How's that not a contradiction. If you don't, then how can you know that god does? How do you know god has any answers at all? How do you corroborate the snippets of information god gives you if you don't have answers? How isn't it 100% pure assumption? Even assuming there is a god, let alone the supernatural is a pretty big assumption for a person claiming not to have any answers.

I do have answers, but waht I do not have is all the answers. I also admit I could be wrong, as any good scientist should. I do not be one of those idiots that should be stoned because I think I know it all.

I think you're making it sound harder than it really is. The goal of formalised logic is only to detect logical flaws but any moron can put together a solid and fully rational case for god.

1) You hear a voice in your head that told you stuff.
2) You make a list of every possible and relevant source of this voice.
3) You make a case for every source on the list.
4) You sort them in probability
5) The leap of faith.

If you're not sure after this then you at least have narrowed it down to a few options.

We always do this instantly whenever anything ever happens to us. Depending on mental agility and laziness we are more or less thorough.

This BTW is deductive reasoning. It's where faith comes in. At stage five we always need to make the leap of faith no matter if we're secular or not. At one point we have to stop thinking and either start believing or sort it into the inconclusive box.

I don't think inductive reasoning can be used when discussing god. It's hard enough when we're talking common stuff we know. It needs a pretty narrow scope to give us any valuable information.

The major problem is that logic still falls short. A lot of people look at logic as more than it is. What it actually does is provide a struicture for argumanets, but I cannot prove anything using logic alone. I could mak a logical argument for the existence of God, and assuming all my premises were true then the conclusion that God exist would be true. The problem would lie in proving the premises. Using logic alone I would have a hard time proving that the universe exists because someone could always make the argument that we live in a Matrix generated inside a computer somewhere.

[TomOfSweden]

How is it possible to learn more about anyone? You do so by studying His works and listening to the people who know Him. Of course, this takes the leap of faith of believing in Him first, but He is not as ellusive as all that if you search diligently.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this circular argumentation?

The major problem is that logic still falls short. A lot of people look at logic as more than it is. What it actually does is provide a struicture for argumanets, but I cannot prove anything using logic alone. I could mak a logical argument for the existence of God, and assuming all my premises were true then the conclusion that God exist would be true. The problem would lie in proving the premises. Using logic alone I would have a hard time proving that the universe exists because someone could always make the argument that we live in a Matrix generated inside a computer somewhere.

Nah, you're making simple things complicated again. Making a case for gods existence isn't so hard. Whenever you witness, measure, feel or what ever Christians do, the presence of God, you can if you judge it so, use it as proof of gods existence. Like my Cambridge friend points out. Logic is just a tool. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. But if you have taken the leap of faith that your evidence you put into the logical formula is irrefutable then it isn't garbage and your logical conclusion for the existence of god is solid.

Here's an example of perfectly valid science using solid logic. In today's scientific climate it doesn't have the critical stance required to be called "good science", but it is real science none the less.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe. (Water Boils when heated to 100 degrees C)
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. (Water boils when heated because God wished it so.)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Water will Boil when I heat it, God will cause it to Boil.)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (I heated water, God Willed it to Boil)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (God made my water Boil Every time except for once, the devil put out my flame)

The big question is: have you witnessed God or a manifestation of god? When you witnessed this god force: how did you go about identifying it as a god? How did you tie that manifestation to the deity as explained in the Vulgate Bible? How did you tie that deity to the moral values explained in the Vulgate Bible? As you no doubt realise, we can go a lot further than this in our scepticism and question if and how the various parts of the Bible is connected to the God you witnessed.

So even if you have enough proof to convince yourself of the existence of, not only the supernatural but also a "God", you still have a long road to travel before you end up at Christianity. And you made such a strong case for agnosticism that I'm wondering how it is possible for a person as open minded as you to pigeon-hole yourself as holding such a spe******ed form of theism? It's not only the Christian god but a very specific form of Christianity.

As my Cambridge friend pointed out. Without the required support, any faith is a massive leap of faith right out into the dark. Others can attack your faith, but as long as you've taken the necessary steps to support your religion rationally you've got no reason to waver in your faith. Me personally, I'm very sceptical if that is even possible to support theism in this way and I'd love it if you'd show me the steps you took to support your faith.

edit: You could admittedly take what figures of authority say as evidence to, (like a friend you trust for example). But that makes you a sucker. Especially considering the case for the existence of anything supernatural isn't particularly solid yet. And you can't take incomplete or unconvincing evidence and judge it by sheer numbers. That is probably the most common error in logic. Each case of evidence has to be separately judged.

[Rhabbi]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this circular argumentation?

Actually, I believe it is an accepted field of study. There are those who specialize in learning about authors and artists by studying their published works and personal papers and propounding theories about why they said things in a certain way, or why they used a certain technique in their art. Not my field of study, but in essence this is what theology is.

Nah, you're making simple things complicated again. Making a case for gods existence isn't so hard. Whenever you witness, measure, feel or what ever Christians do, the presence of God, you can if you judge it so, use it as proof of gods existence. Like my Cambridge friend points out. Logic is just a tool. If you put garbage in you get garbage out. But if you have taken the leap of faith that your evidence you put into the logical formula is irrefutable then it isn't garbage and your logical conclusion for the existence of god is solid.

Here's an example of perfectly valid science using solid logic. In today's scientific climate it doesn't have the critical stance required to be called "good science", but it is real science none the less.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe. (Water Boils when heated to 100 degrees C)
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. (Water boils when heated because God wished it so.)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (Water will Boil when I heat it, God will cause it to Boil.)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. (I heated water, God Willed it to Boil)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (God made my water Boil Every time except for once, the devil put out my flame)

The big question is: have you witnessed God or a manifestation of god? When you witnessed this god force: how did you go about identifying it as a god? How did you tie that manifestation to the deity as explained in the Vulgate Bible? How did you tie that deity to the moral values explained in the Vulgate Bible? As you no doubt realise, we can go a lot further than this in our scepticism and question if and how the various parts of the Bible is connected to the God you witnessed.

So even if you have enough proof to convince yourself of the existence of, not only the supernatural but also a "God", you still have a long road to travel before you end up at Christianity. And you made such a strong case for agnosticism that I'm wondering how it is possible for a person as open minded as you to pigeon-hole yourself as holding such a spe******ed form of theism? It's not only the Christian god but a very specific form of Christianity.

As my Cambridge friend pointed out. Without the required support, any faith is a massive leap of faith right out into the dark. Others can attack your faith, but as long as you've taken the necessary steps to support your religion rationally you've got no reason to waver in your faith. Me personally, I'm very sceptical if that is even possible to support theism in this way and I'd love it if you'd show me the steps you took to support your faith.

edit: You could admittedly take what figures of authority say as evidence to, (like a friend you trust for example). But that makes you a sucker. Especially considering the case for the existence of anything supernatural isn't particularly solid yet. And you can't take incomplete or unconvincing evidence and judge it by sheer numbers. That is probably the most common error in logic. Each case of evidence has to be separately judged.

I could make a logical argument for God's existence. Doing so would leave me with a two part question, is it valid and is it true?

To be valid would be rather simple, if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. Let us use your example of boiling water.

1. God designed the universe so that water would boil at 100 C at sea level.
2. God controls every aspect of the universe continually
3. Water will not boil if God does not actively watch and make sure it happens.
4. Every time water is heated it boils at 100 C at sea level.
   
   Conclusion: God exists.

Tis is a perfectly valid argument. If the 4 premises are true then the conclusion is true. But does that make the argument true? No, it is fallacious.

As I stated earlier, it would be impossible to use logic to prove anything in the real world because we have to use inductive logic, and all inductive arguments are fallacies. Here is an example of a inductive argument that is valid, that everyone would agree with, yet is still a fallacy using the definitions of logic.

1. Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
   Therefore
2. The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.

Every person I know believes this line of logic, in fact I would go so far as to say that every person alive has total faith in this logic. Nonetheless it is still not true, it is a fallacy. this is why logic has the terms strong and weak to also define arguments. the argument above is a strong one, mostly because it has a premise that everyone agrees is true, even though there is no proof of it. How do we know that the Law of Gravity and the Gravitational Constant has always held steady?

To make an argument for the existence of God using logic the best case I could make would be a weak inductive argument. this is because I cannot offer premises that are facts, or even that are generally accepted. You talk about a leap of faith being necessary at the end of the argument, but the truth is it would be necessary throughout the argument. If we cannot agree on observable phenomena that indicates the presence of god, then how can I make an argument for his existence?

Let us engage in a thought experiment.

We are both in a little town of Bethany approximately 2000 years ago. We are in a quantum bubble to research the account of the resurecction of a certain man called Lazurus.

He died approximately four days ago and was buried according to the customs of the time and culture. We witnessed the preparation of his body for burial with special herbs and as it was wrapped in linen. We were unable to use advanced methods to test whether he was dead, or simply in a coma so deep that the people were unable to detect signs of life. this has something to do with the limitations of time travel and the universe protecting itself from paradoxes.

Tis day the man that would one day be known as Jesus Christ arrives, and after a bit of conversation with the family and friends he asks that the stone that closes off the tomb where Lazarus was buried is rolled aside by a few bystanders.

Jesus then offers up a short prayer and calls Lazarus out of the grave. We then watch as Lazarus does indeed walk out of the tomb, and when his friends finish unwrapping the linen that bound him for burial he appears healthy to us.

We both having witnessed this event still have to draw conclusions from it. I look it as an affirmation of my faith and proof of God's existence. You point out that there is no real evidence to support my conclusion.

How do we know he was dead? There are many stories from history that tell of people who were thought to be dead who later awoke. They used to sell coffins based on the fear that people were often mistakenly buried alive.

Even today there are occasional cases of people being so deep in a coma that trained professionals occasionally think they are dead when they are not. This might be unlikely, but it is not impossible.

I hope you can see now why I say it is impossible to make a logical argument to prove that God exists. There have been a few that have tried to do this, but I recognize the limitations of logic to make this argument, as does your Cambridge friend. the difference between him and I is that I do not take the limitations of logic to be proof against the existence of God. If he was being consistent in his beliefs he would also have to deny the existence of everything that logic cannot prove.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, I believe it is an accepted field of study. There are those who specialize in learning about authors and artists by studying their published works and personal papers and propounding theories about why they said things in a certain way, or why they used a certain technique in their art. Not my field of study, but in essence this is what theology is.

Staying on the art comparison; how do you know which is original work by the artist and which are fakes?

We both having witnessed this event still have to draw conclusions from it. I look it as an affirmation of my faith and proof of God's existence. You point out that there is no real evidence to support my conclusion.

How do we know he was dead? There are many stories from history that tell of people who were thought to be dead who later awoke. They used to sell coffins based on the fear that people were often mistakenly buried alive.

Even today there are occasional cases of people being so deep in a coma that trained professionals occasionally think they are dead when they are not. This might be unlikely, but it is not impossible.

I hope you can see now why I say it is impossible to make a logical argument to prove that God exists. There have been a few that have tried to do this, but I recognize the limitations of logic to make this argument, as does your Cambridge friend. the difference between him and I is that I do not take the limitations of logic to be proof against the existence of God. If he was being consistent in his beliefs he would also have to deny the existence of everything that logic cannot prove.

What you're basically saying is that the number of dots you need to connect between you witnessing anything supernatural and the following the morality as taught by the Bible is so staggering that there's no point to even bother? At every leap of faith the nodes that connect the reasoning have an almost infinite number of connections both to and from it? or what? How does that strengthen any case for the supernatural? You're basically saying that because we can't use logic we shouldn't, and just take the leap of faith anyway, right?

What I don't understand is why this seemingly compulsive need to connect the belief in an omnipotent god with the moral rules of the Bible. Why not treat them as two different entities? Why not judge the moral system as one unit on it's own merits and the supernatural claims as a separate unit? Are they in any way connected? Is the only reason to follow the commandments of the Bible really only the fear of punishment in the after-life?

edit: hmm....after some pondering I'll have another go. I think that the logical error you are doing is that you seem to assume that you have to have a faith. It's not like there's insulated areas of faithlessness between theories. There isn't. It's possible to use your approach if Christianity is a cohesive logical system that is connected, and if you remove parts of it the whole theoretical structure collapses. In instances like that finding enough evidence to support part of it can be used to support all of it. But there's nothing cohesive about Christianity. Each and every part is a separate statement only supported by itself. An example is the creation. The Bible said that god created the universe. Ok fine. This can be correct and the rest of the Bible wrong. Or the rest of the Bible can be correct and that could be wrong. Rejecting part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to reject all of it. In the same way. Just because you accept a part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to accept the rest of it. We all know that the Bible is quite a compilation and has been heavily edited through the ages. It's not like the Koran which origins we know.

Why not keep Christianity as one of your favourite theories? You where the one putting all that effort into agnosticism. As you so vigorously defended, picking one specific faith is not only a huge leap of faith but defies logic. Why not have a few favourites? Why not pick the parts that you think make the most sense to you and drop the parts that you find are ify?

[Rhabbi]

Staying on the art comparison; how do you know which is original work by the artist and which are fakes?

Again. not my field, but there is apparently some debate about that. I know there are paintings that were thought to have been done by Rembrandt that are now classed as 'school of' Rembrandt. I would imagine it has something to do with technique and brush strokes, but I would be guessing.

What you're basically saying is that the number of dots you need to connect between you witnessing anything supernatural and the following the morality as taught by the Bible is so staggering that there's no point to even bother? At every leap of faith the nodes that connect the reasoning have an almost infinite number of connections both to and from it? or what? How does that strengthen any case for the supernatural? You're basically saying that because we can't use logic we shouldn't, and just take the leap of faith anyway, right?

What I don't understand is why this seemingly compulsive need to connect the belief in an omnipotent god with the moral rules of the Bible. Why not treat them as two different entities? Why not judge the moral system as one unit on it's own merits and the supernatural claims as a separate unit? Are they in any way connected? Is the only reason to follow the commandments of the Bible really only the fear of punishment in the after-life?

edit: hmm....after some pondering I'll have another go. I think that the logical error you are doing is that you seem to assume that you have to have a faith. It's not like there's insulated areas of faithlessness between theories. There isn't. It's possible to use your approach if Christianity is a cohesive logical system that is connected, and if you remove parts of it the whole theoretical structure collapses. In instances like that finding enough evidence to support part of it can be used to support all of it. But there's nothing cohesive about Christianity. Each and every part is a separate statement only supported by itself. An example is the creation. The Bible said that god created the universe. Ok fine. This can be correct and the rest of the Bible wrong. Or the rest of the Bible can be correct and that could be wrong. Rejecting part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to reject all of it. In the same way. Just because you accept a part of the Bible doesn't mean you have to accept the rest of it. We all know that the Bible is quite a compilation and has been heavily edited through the ages. It's not like the Koran which origins we know.

Why not keep Christianity as one of your favourite theories? You where the one putting all that effort into agnosticism. As you so vigorously defended, picking one specific faith is not only a huge leap of faith but defies logic. Why not have a few favourites? Why not pick the parts that you think make the most sense to you and drop the parts that you find are ify?

I studied many religions, comparative religion has always been a hobby of mine, one I still indulge in.

The basic choices come down to two types of religion, monotheistic and polytheism. (I am including pantheism under polytheism here though there are significant differences.)

Polytheism has numerous Gods, none of whom seem to claim responsibility for creation. Quite often the Earth was a byproduct of something they did, or even waste product. This did not appeal to me for obvious reasons, if I was going to actually believe in a God I wanted one that at least cared about people.

This leaves monotheism. There are three basic monotheistic religions in the world, listed in the order of appearance they are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Doing a comparison of these three we see that they all claim the same roots, Judaism. I studied Judaism and found it quite interesting, perhaps the most intellectual of the three. The average rabbi knows more about the history of religion and the various debates surrounding it than all but the most scholarly of Christian preachers.

Then I looked at Christianity, which center around the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God.

Looking at Islam, it focuses mostly on Mohammad as being the last of the prophets, and trying to bring the teachings back inline with what the earlier prophets taught before the Bible was corrupted by man. According to Islamic scholars, the Bible was rewritten by Christians to support the claims that Jesus was God, and even the Old Testament was rewritten to support this. Interestingly enough, Islam still revers Jesus as a prophet.

Studying the words of Jesus leads you to one of four inescapable conclusions. Either this man was a liar, insane, a demon from the pits of Hell, or he was who he claimed to be, the Son of God. Looking further at his life, a reasonable man would rule out that he was insane or a demon because the impact of his life was spectacularly on the side of good. I suppose he could have been a demon, but that seems unlikely also.

Also, a thorough study of the texts of the Bible that survive, some dating to before Jesus, show that the changes that Islam claim as necessary to their faith are impossible to support. This leads a thinking man to reject Islam as based on a falsehood. It also leads a thinking man to look more closely at Christianity.

In a lot of ways Judaism is more of a set of rules to live by then anything else. You could look at it as the first rules that a parent gives a child. don't touch this, don't go there, etc. These rules do not change when that child reach adulthood, they just become unnecessary. The adult sees that the rules were there to protect the child from unknown dangers.

Christianity is about living those rules as an adult. It does not replace the rules, it fulfills them because we, as adults, now know enough not to do those things. This is why I settled on Christianity as what I believed. It was not a blind leap from going to not believing, then choosing Christianity at random after I had an epiphany and realized God existed. Before I believed in God I knew that Christianity made more sense than any other religion out there.

This does not mean the Christianity that you find today, it means the Christianity of the early church. I guess this does mean that I pick and choose, because I have to try and figure out what that is for myself.