Does your belief system prevent you from exploring possibilities unbiasedly?

Question

Okay, as an ex-christian, I can say with confidence that my belief in the bible and its version of 'God' prevented me from being remotely open to other points of view. I was afraid I might find out I was wrong . . . which I did. Now, I believe in infinite possibilities- such as the origin of life, life forms on other planets, and things we haven't discovered or even thought of yet. This is not to say I accept everything I see and hear but that I'm now able to examine things without fear, and keep an open mind.

Does your belief system prevent you from exploring other possibilites unbiasedly?

Answer 1

Yes I'm agnostic, so yes I'm biased - which means right now I am open to explore any possibility other than blind faith, but blind faith might be the 'answer'? SO my bias is closing that one off for me.

PS I don't believe there is a 'reason' for life, but there is mystery, and there may be many levels of consciousness/realities.

Who really knows? The mystic? The orthodox? The madman? The Shaman? The Medicine Man? The Cleric? The Priest? The autist?


*Update:

To 'hello' who claims that 'white people' divided up China.

How 'white' does ones skin have to be to be held responsible for things one didn't do?

Do you have some kind of gauge that you can hold on my skin?

PS I never went to China, or supported the British Empire back before I was born. But I'm white, so guilty in your eyes, even if I live in Alaska???

Get a grip.

Answer 2

As a Christian I can say that your understanding of your former faith was in error. Christianity does not automatically negate any scenario of the origin of life other than that God is not involved. Some believe in theistic evolution, others a straight-out 6-day creation, some believe in life on other planets, and so on. Now, to your question. Everyone, you included, has a belief system. That belief system will certainly reject propositions which in its confines are false. Example: I reject atheism for the fact that I, after study, have concluded that it is false; it does not deal adequately with certain elements of human nature. I also reject polytheism and its sister, dualism. These systems do not fit my belief in one God. Your belief system does the same. If I tell you that Christ's death as an atoning sacrifice is real, you will toss it aside because in your mind, it doesn't play. However, keep this in mind. Not every religion leads to the same place. Obviously some are wrong. Monotheism, dualism, and polytheism can't all be true. Similarly Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity cannot all be true. Yet something is in fact true. In that sense, religion is like math. Some answers may approximate the correct answer better that others. But only one is the correct one. I believe Christianity is that answer to the theological problem. Now, in fairness, you need to reconsider your former faith. I suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Lewis, an Oxford don and English scholar, was a confirmed and committed atheist, but thorough very hard philosophical thought, came to the conclusion that atheism simply was too simple. Ultimately he concluded that Christianity was the correct faith. Read his book in which he recounts this process.

Answer 3

Catholics have faith holy communion is 'significantly' (that's, in its very essence) the physique and Blood of Christ. They differentiate between the 'species' (outward visual appeal - style, touch, scent) and 'substance' (inner certainty). Upon the altar, whilst consecrated, the 'substance' variations from bread/wine to physique/Blood, even however the 'species' maintains to be an analogous - a doctrine stated as 'transubstantiation'. Protestants at the instant are not unified in this. There are 3 methods: a million. The Lutherans agree that holy communion is 'significantly' the physique and Blood of Christ, yet they deny that 'transubstantiation' happens. they have a tendency to hold (with Luther) that, whilst consecrated, the 'substance' of the physique and Blood seems 'in, with, and alongside' the 'substance' of the bread and wine, so as that the two are latest on an analogous time, a perception they call 'consubstantiation'. 2. Calvinists, following John Calvin and consisting particularly of Presbyterians and Reformed Christians, carry that holy communion is a 'sign and a seal' of the recent Covenant. they're going to many times verify that Jesus is fairly latest in some actual way, yet no longer 'significantly' - they often preserve a 'religious' presence of a few sort, in the style of a demonstration. 3. The 'Zwinglian' interpretation, held by using Ulrich Zwingli and held by using maximum Baptists, Evangelicals, and non-denominational Christians, denies that Christ is uniquely latest in any respect in holy communion, which they regard as a trifling image and not something greater. those positions greater or less correlate with the emphasis those Christians place upon the Eucharist, and how many times that's nicely known.

Answer 4

Not at all... in fact, it encourages me to explore. As a Pagan, it's easy to do, since there are no "rules" that claim one has to believe a certain way or eternal torment awaits me.

I know what you mean by finding out one is wrong. It's why so many have blind faith. They see the reward being offered (Heaven, crowns, etc...) and are told they shouldn't even Doubt (I was actually told that Doubt is of the Devil and if I ever doubt anything, then obviously I'm being possessed). It keeps people in line... though I don't believe it's always being done purposefully to just keep people in line.... but it's been done for so many generations that people today believe that is the Only Way to be.

Answer 5

Uh oh ... I think I'm definitely biased.

My belief system prevents me from exploring possibilities of deity because I'm pretty much fixed on the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, Ezekiel, and Job -- among many others.

I'm quite open to other points of view, mind you ... but I have read with understanding, investigated the evidence for biblical events, read historical accounts outside the scriptures, and I remain convinced that my interpretation of divinity is correct.

Now then when a person of my exceedingly advanced age and experience keeps coming back to the same place in his search for the truth just how unbiased am I supposed to be ?

"God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein

Answer 6

As a mathematician, I have a bias for 2+2 = 4. If you were to tell me that 2+2=5. I would reject it because of my mathematical bias.

A bias is accrued information we use to evaluate new data. The problem is when the accrued information is false. By basing my accrued information in constantly tested science rather than made up god belief which rejects testing, I have a better chance of not letting that happen.

Answer 7

I beleive God would WANT us to look at other ideas..if for no other reason than to prove He is God by our findings.

I would have to questionwho and what you "looked" into and how your search was done for you to have turned your back on God

Remember the prodigal son, He will always accept you back

BTW, I also believe there is other life out there. I believe in science, I just don't agree with all their findings, ( which change from day to day depending on which scientists are doing the research).
God's Word doesn't change though. It is eternal.

Good Luck

Answer 8

Of course. I can believe anything I want, I can even blasphemy 24/7 and there's no problem. Actually, a closer and more open-minded reading of the corrupted Roman bible may reveal that Jesus was a free-thinker, feminist, and liberal. You just have to read it without the popular pre-conceptions, and skipping all the magic and BS that was added will reveal what he was saying. Of course, Jesus was a pagan polytheist open to all possibilities, and that's why they hated him.

Answer 9

Yes. I won't touch anything that has no reasonable supporting evidence.

Furthermore, I've become prejudiced over the years. I tend to reject out of hand any theory whose conclusion is that humans are wonderful, powerful, gifted, immortal, beloved by the universe, etc. Such theories have always turned out to be rubbish in my experience.

CD

Answer 10

As a former atheist and agnostic and now a Christian, I ask can anyone be unbiased?

I'm not talking about the chicken fed academic version of unbiased.

Show me a man who says he's unbiased and I'll show you a man that is just rearranging his prejudices.