Do people choose religion based on observable evidence, unobservable evidence, or childhood indoctrination?

Answer 1

I'll take childhood indoctrination for 500 please.

Answer 2

I'd say all of the above, but childhood indoctrination plays a big part. Then again, I do live in the UK, where childhood indoctrination of Christianity is the norm, or at least, was the norm when I was a kid.

And I prefer it. The majority of people who were indoctrinated early don't end up as jerks. Just compare that to the number of born agains. Not that I'm saying all Born Agains are jerks, it's just that the majority I've met aren't nice... except for that one woman, Cherry. She was nice, so I guess that's merely just more to do with character than anything else.

Answer 3

I am a Christian, and as for myself, I chose my religion based upon both observable AND unobservable evidence, and I used to be an atheist for 20 years, so I don't think the few times my parents took me to church as a child had much weight, or I would have become a Christian much sooner.

Answer 4

Yes.

People choose religion because it is the one they were taught as children.

Because of the feelings they experience when engaged in the practice of that religion, or the personal experiences that they have when praying to or engaging with their deity.

And also because of the evidence that they see when observing the positive ways in which the lives that those that practice the religion have been effected by it. Or positive results in their own lives due to their practice of that faith.

Answer 5

Childhood indoctrination unfortunately.

Answer 6

Evidence.

Answer 7

I would guess most childhood indoctrination.

Answer 8

Usually a combination of all three. It is a little condescending to assume that everyone who believes differently than you hasn't had his own doubts or done his own research.

-----------------------------------------------------

...And when it comes to the Gospels, the question must be raised: What actually motivated the evangelists to write what and as they did? A good case can be made that it was their own experience with Jesus.

Now when it comes to actually examining the historicity of the Gospels, we see remarkable indications of accuracy. Take John's Gospel, which often isn't accepted as reliable history because it contains more developed theological reflection than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Yet this Gospel reveals a first-century Palestinian background rooted in the Old Testament--as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed this through, for instance, their reference to "sons of light" and "sons of darkness." It also offers exceptional topographical information that has been repeatedly confirmed archaeologically. John's mention of Jacob's well at Sychar (4:5), the pool of Bethesda (with five porticoes) by the Sheep Gate (5:2), the pool of Siloam (9:7), and Solomon's Colonnade (10:23) have had the strong support of archaeology. In light of the extensive usage of the "witness" theme in this Gospel, the author's emphasis is clear that the incidents included can be relied upon (see 21:24). John is even interested in chronology and specific times (1:29, 35, 43: "the next day"; 4:43: "after the two days"). John is also familiar with particular cultural understandings such as the relationship between Jews and Samaritans (4:27), the general view of women in society (4:27), or the nature of Sabbath regulations (5:10).7

So if the reliability of the Gospels can be shown historically and archaeologically, this can, in part, help defuse skepticism and inspire greater confidence regarding, say, the claims or resurrection of Jesus.8 Our first point is this: When engaging the skeptic, the Christian can offer good reasons for taking the Gospels to be historically reliable. This, then, may provide a platform for speaking about the claims and deeds of Christ. As Craig Blomberg asserts, "Once a historian has proved reliable where verifiable, once apparent errors or contradictions receive plausible solutions, the appropriate approach is to give that writer the benefit of the doubt in areas where verification is not possible."9

Second, the claim that the early Christian communities read back into Jesus' teachings their own concerns and controversies won't withstand scrutiny. If such matters were invented and projected backward to Jesus to substantiate them, then why are issues such as spiritual gifts (e.g., speaking in tongues [1 Cor. 12, 14]); divorcing when deserted by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:15); eating meat offered to idols (1 Cor. 8); or circumcision (Acts 15)--issues that received significant attention in early Christian communities--glaringly absent in Jesus' teaching? These disputes often divided many of the early Christian communities, but we don't find Jesus addressing them. Rather, the epistles and to some extent the book of Acts--not the teachings of Jesus--inform us of these controversies. So to allege that, in the midst of their disputes and concerns, early Christians fabricated sayings and attributed them to Jesus doesn't square with the New Testament evidence.

Third, the Gospels--primarily Mark, Matthew, and Luke--offer a portrait of Jesus within one generation of his death, which tends to ensure the accurate transmission of the Jesus-tradition. It's taken for granted in New Testament scholarship that Mark's gospel was written first and that Matthew and Luke independently follow Mark as their primary source.10 Luke's gospel, then, was obviously written before its companion volume (Acts) was.

Now, a very good case can be made for the completing of Acts before a.d. 62-64,11 when Paul was executed under Nero's order. At the end of Acts, Paul is still under house arrest in Rome. Luke, who was interested in significant events in early Christianity, such as the martyrdom of prominent Christians (e.g., Stephen and James), surely would have included Paul's death had he known about it. The best explanation for Luke's not having mentioned Paul's execution--or, for that matter, the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 or the Neronian persecution--is that this event hadn't yet taken place. So Acts was in all likelihood written before a.d. 62.12 So we can assert on good grounds that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) may well have been written within thirty years of Jesus' death--a period in which the accuracy of these Gospels could be easily checked or challenged by eyewitnesses or inquirers....

Answer 9

Indoctrination and brainwashing from a young age. I call it child abuse but some Christians feel it's acceptable.

Answer 10

All of the above... no matter... all "religion" is man invented and has nothing to do with True Salvation.

Answer 11

Yes, sometimes.