I can only speak for certain branches of Christianity here, but this "God of the gaps" notion of God's role in the universe can't really even be called "antiquated." It is a fairly recent invention. Early Christian philosophy (the "church fathers") and much of Orthodoxy espouses a constantly unfolding creation.
I really hope that this notion, that theists just use God to explain what they don't understand, can be dispelled in the next few years. Unfortunately we have plenty of Young Earth Creationists in the spotlight here in America and they only seem to be getting louder and getting more attention.
It's true, there are some highly ethical religious people, and some highly dogmatic and unthinking atheists.
Except this isn't true, at all, so you can throw out that invalid assumption. The things a religious believer does (at least, speaking for myself) are done out of love for a God greater than them, not done out of fear.
religion as a deferment of curiosity
Religion, in fact, holds science to a higher degree of authenticity, because it demands logical, empirically validated reproducible processes for someone to believe it. The entire basis of quality science is empiricism.
At least religion calls certainty in the unempirical "faith".
In science, that f-word is a big no-no. It would be heresy to admit that science has no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than religion.
Isn't true at all? Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I was doing many things out fear of a particularly nasty and vengeful super-being. And I know I was not alone in this among my fellow believers.
Anecdotal to be sure, but it's interesting how often the pain and punishment awaiting those who step astray gets mentioned in some religious texts.
Seems pretty clear that the authors themselves did not expect love of the almighty to be sufficient to keep the flocks in line.
'At least religion calls our certainty in the unempirical "faith". In science, that f-word is a big no-no, it would be heresy to admit they have no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than does religion.'
Again, YMMV, but my experience with the Catholic Church is that very few members spoke about god, hell, limbo, miracles, etc. as if they were interesting conjectures, speculations born from an absence of empirical evidence.
No, these things were put forth as being no less factual than the presence of the sun and the rain and the snow; you were to accept them as fact; this was your act of faith.
The most striking difference I've seen between science and religion is the degree to which people readily admit that what they are saying could very well be wrong, and the extent to which doubt and skepticism is actively encouraged.
I can understand where you're coming from. The majority of my friends are Catholic (well, ex-Catholics), and to hear them talk about church almost pains me. I could not believe when they said people would show up at their door demanding tithes/money, some of the requirements for attending church, etc. To be honest, hearing all about how Catholicism operates, I'd probably have been an ex-Catholic myself.
I'm a protestant Christian though, and the root of my belief has always been that we are "justified by faith" in the midst of our depraved, imperfect nature (see Romans 3:23-24 and Galatians 2:16). My faith is not a set of demands that I am obligated to perform to get into Heaven, nor does it operate out of fear of Hell and punishment. It's a faith that is rooted in a love for Christ, knowing that I can never do enough good deeds to justify myself before a perfect God.
When you know that by faith - simply believing - you are justified, clean, and in God's grace, there is no basis for fear.
It's an awesome concept, but if you were to examine the New Testament, you'd conclude that Christ didn't come to instill fear (or condemn) the world, but to save the world (John 3:17).
If you're really curious, check out "Classic Christianity" by Bob George or the latter parts of "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. Both books do away with the needless junk that is the basis for many sects of Christianity and get to the core of what Christianity and the Bible really means.
Here's the thing: That, to me, is about a far from "knowing" as one can get.
And there seems to be a serious matter of self-reference, that one needs to first have faith that faith is worth embracing, and faith that the key documents spousing the value of faith are correct.
My empirical experience with believing in, and acting on, things for which is no evidence tells me otherwise.
Faith is "Being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) Now, how can you be sure of what you hope for if there is not due evidence to have that kind of certainty? Also, you can't be certain of what you do not see without other evidence (e.g we can't see air but we know it exists from a plethora of reasons).
I'm not sure that Christianity is about "simply believing" -- I mean yes that describes the effect of Christ's grace (all you need is belief/acceptance to receive it)... but that's not why I choose to believe in a God.
The rational / irrational (who cares) reason for my belief in God has to do with the things that are historical texts and events, key elements include the existence of Jesus / his effect on the world, as well as the written word recorded close to after his death. Is the old testament just a silly mythology, or a long way to prove a single point (that humans could never achieve the nature of this thing we call God)? Maybe, I don't claim to know. But I feel that the new testament and its claims as well as the testaments of some people who died refusing to renounce what they saw as truth are very compelling in terms of conveying something important that happened. Do I believe that some really crazy, amazing things happened back then? I think I have due reason to believe it. I mean, I just find it so hard to believe that all those people who wrote the letters and books that make up the bible are crazy. They were crazy enough to die gruesomely and still refuse to renounce their belief, and the thing that separates them from suicide bombers is their apparent sanity in the writing as well as their message of love. Personally speaking I think the evidence is enough for me to put my faith in it, to be sure of what I'm hoping for (that there is a loving God out there). Hey, worst case scenario I was wrong and I loved more people and used my life to help others, right?
In addition, it's not like the dude Jesus was preaching "thank god for dead soldiers" or "kill the infidels" or "scare them straight" or anything moronic like that. He preached humility, love, forgiveness and a bunch of things (personally, I feel) the world actually needs. I don't know how anyone can be mad at me for choosing to believe in something like that.
Now, I can similarly understand that what I see as evidence may not be evidence enough for another person, and so they may not believe the same thing as me, and that's fine. But for me to tell them that they are dumb for not seeing it, or for them to tell me that I am dumb because I choose to believe something, iono if that's a good thing. We all get the same data and we draw our own conclusions.
Am I evangelical? Yeah, I have to say yes. If you want to know more about what I believe, I am happy to spend time talking or do a bible study. Do I shove religion down other peoples' throats or get all political about crap? Not really my cup of tea. I think chill is the best demeanor for life ;D and love is all you need.
I completely agree with you.
Belief for the sake of belief is not why I choose to believe in God, either. However, you must at least admit that justification by faith (simply believing) is at the core of the protestant Christian tenets.
If you trace the original conversation though, I was just trying to point out that fear was not a motivator for my belief, and tried to show why. I could have expounded on the core of why I do believe, but that would have resulted in a full dissertation.
As you pointed out, there are hundreds of historical texts and reasons that form the foundation for belief (see also Josh McDowell - Evidence that Demands a Verdict).
We're on the same page, I was just explaining something entirely different.
I mean this in the most non-judgmental, value-neutral way possible: That statement is basis of all religious terrorism.