« Last post by albeto on August 24, 2016, 10:52:10 AM »
Isn't religion a way (satisfying to many) to deal with life's biggest questions?
How did we get here/where do we come from?
What is the point of our existence?
Why do we die and what happens when we die?
I think it satisfies only those who are satisfied to stop asking at some point. Keep in mind, faith means to believe a claim is true, whether or not it is, whether or not it has any viable support, whether or not it's even logical. To believe something in faith is to believe the claim is true without satisfying the natural curiosity of confirming the claim.
Some people aren't satisfied with being told to sit down and shut up. Some people aren't satisfied with telling that to themselves, or others saying that to them. For many people, religion isn't a satisfying way to answer questions, big or small, simply because it requires one to accept a claim as true.
So if we want to say no religion adequately helps wrestle with these questions than how do we wrestle with these questions?
Same way theists wrestle with these questions when their faith-claim answers are rejected by the masses. Even theists recognize now the revolves around the earth. Even theists recognize the Earth is not actually flat. Most theists recognize hurricanes are caused by predictable and knowable weather patterns, making angry gods a superfluous variable. How did your religion deal with theses truth-bombs when the religious answer was first called into question? How did it make the transition from believing one claim to accepting the reality?
Questions are always only answered reliably through a systematic method of making observations, hypotheses, experiments, tests, collecting data, analyzing the data, presenting data for review for others who were not involved, lest any cognitive biases skew the conclusions. Repeat as necessary, paying attention to each detail as it can be explored, until a piece of information is so well understood, and has been shown to be reliable, and can be assumed to represent reality accurately. And if that representation is found to be lacking some detail, then that detail is explored until necessary modifications are made.
In essence, theists and atheists go through this process just the same, but we differ on two points. One is the point of stopping the inquiry. Theists are satisfied to stop the inquiry before a natural conclusion in order to preserve the integrity of a particular faith-based claim. From believing in a young earth to believing evolution was divinely inspired, theists will stop their inquiry and be satisfied with a supernatural explanation that can only be accepted as true on faith alone. The other point is recognizing what is evidence. Theists tend to use subjective interpretations of personal experiences qua evidence, rather than recognizing them as merely a hypothesis.
Welcome to the forum.