to ask how you feel when someone is at the opposite end of the faith spectrum?

[Morphene]

I've recently discovered two separate people I have been getting closer to (professional/friendship wise) are at the other end of the faith scale from me. I have actually felt a little upset and unbalanced by it.

IABU? I mean I know I am, but do other people get this? Does it make a difference if you are the one with or without faith?

I am sure I will still get on just fine with them, but I feel a little sadness that in this important respect we are very far from each others wavelength.

I agree with clarity that no one is actually testing all their assumptions all the time. Everyone believes a bunch of stuff without proof - you simply don't have time to fact check everything!

I'm not sure that is really in the same category as faith though. That is an unfounded belief that you know to be unfounded (as that's the point) and yet persist with.

I think almost all the things I believe without fact checking, I would instantly drop if someone demonstrated them to be unfounded....or at least I like to think I would...probably I wouldn't.

And if I've not a complete understanding of scientific theory and principles, skerry, locating and reading through the research may well still leave me having to have faith in the scientists who conducted it to trust it.

I am believing in things in which I've personally no scientific proof or complete understanding of.

But others have- or you could educate yourself.
Such evidence for god does not exist.

I don't think green meant to be rude. I am happy to be naive...let alone a naive realist....

I will also go happily with 'childlike'.

All good things for a scientist to be.

Depends on whether you include people's personal experiential (informal) evidence, skerry.

Nope.

The pural of anectodal is not evidence.

And I still have to trust others, on science, skerry,until I have a complete understanding myself...by that time the theory will have moved on! Not that I don't try, I do, I find scientific research interesting. It is more that I recognise there will always be stuff that is unknown, to myself and generally.

I think there is a finite chance I am not going to get this without doing a degree in philosophy! Does everything have to be studied, can't it already be known.
That is an unfounded belief that you know to be unfounded (as that's the point) and yet persist with. How do you know it's unfounded, just because it can't be measured or tested in science.

I used the term loosely, skerry. Hence (informal) was used.

Naïve realism and scientific realism are technical philosophical terms. My other computer was playing up and I posted in haste so perhaps I did not make my post clear enough for an audience without philosophical knowledge. Which reinforces my point. If you want to come onto philosophical territory and talk about how we know stuff then there is a branch of academia that has been discussing it since humans could sit under a tree (that is a reference to the ancient Greeks...) and wonder how they could prove the tree exists let alone whether they or that nice looking person over there exists.

Scientific method does what scientific method does. At its heart science aims to answer the 'how' question. Religion tries to answer the 'why' question. Philosophy tries to frame the question as clearly as possible.

"It would be impossible to apply rigorous scientific method to the whole of your life."

Really? Why?

I think that in part people believe that science and religion are at opposite ends of a spectrum because the Catholic Church is famous for having opposed scientific study. But in contrast, the Jews have produced some extremely significant scientists and the Muslims also have a long history of scientific endeavour, having translated the Greeks, invented algebra, etc. etc. As for the sikhs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jantar_Mantar,_New_Delhi

Bertrand, are you telling me you research every one of your decisions using the scientific method? Who to marry, what music to like, how to do your hair, what to eat and drink...? Do you think this is even possible?

Bertrand could you (or would you) apply rigorous scientific methodology for forming relationships? Falling in love? Grieving? Genuine question.

Morphene, I am probably what most people would describe as 'very religious', being a Baptist minister. But I hope most of my friends (whether Christian, atheist, or anything in-between) would agree that I am not stupid, dogmatic, unthinking, bigoted or easily offended.

Give your new friends a chance..... there are so many more important things than having matching views about everything, and you may well find they are as enriched by your friendship as you are by theirs.

Please don't censor what you say to or in front of them - I can't bear it when people apologise for their language or making jokes that they assume I will find offensive. I don't go in for pearl-clutching or tutting disapproval and I don't want people tip-toeing around me. I have an earthy sense of humour and feel much more upset by children starving and human beings dropping bombs on other human beings than by someone saying 'Christ!' when they're expressing themselves.

Some Christian are arseholes, some atheists are arseholes. I am more upset by the former and would rather have a sensible atheist friend than a stupid Christian one!

toffeechops- why are you more upset by christian arseholes than atheist ones?

I suppose it would be about expecting that people who claim to take seriously the teaching of Jesus should live in a way that precludes being obnoxious, hypocritical, boorish, rude etc.

I know I do things sometimes that I regret and that are inconsistent with my beliefs so I'm not saying we can be perfect all the time but I'm really disappointed when people who claim to follow Jesus are complete arseholes. I guess don't feel quite the same way about people who don't subscribe to the same ''code'....if that makes sense.

I don't mean to suggest that Christians behave better than non-Christians, by the way! Sorry if it's sounding like that. But I think I feel more affronted by the hypocrisy of Christians who behave in ways that are crass and offensive than people who claim no faith affiliation.

Yes it does sound that way.

Do you think christians have a higher claim on altruistic behaviour?
You think you have a more finely adjusted moral compass as a christian?

It's ideas like this that pisses off many atheists.

Not a claim, no, but a responsibility. It's about expressly saying you believe in living one way and then not doing it. The issue is hypocrisy.

My OH and I are very different on the faith scale, I'm not an atheist but I've been removed from religion for such a long time. He's a minister, I love how deep his faith runs. He's passionate and fiercely intelligent, I love going to see him preach.

I will add that to my list of reaons to be an atheist (grabs a pencil) 'peope have less expectations of me behaving in an obnoxious, rude, hypercritical, boorish manner'. Lovely, thanks

toffee- and you think that non christians have low standards of behaviour or personal values or expectations that they live up to?

Some people just act crap, it wouldn't occur to me to find out if they're religious or not.

toffee I totally get what you are saying. Not that atheist are less moral than christians, but that when a christian is amoral they are both being amoral and hypocritical, while an amoral atheist is just being amoral.

satis toffee didn't say she thought it happened less with the religious, she said it pissed her off more when it did.