How do you reconcile religion and intellectual freedom at a personal level?

[Sha'irullah]

My life parallels your story in some ways, although college did not change me. I avoided 4-year dorm life college and many other things in order to keep from being influenced. I did complete community college, but I carefully avoided Philosophy classes, since I suspected them of indoctrination. I also avoided anyone who could pull me away from the truth that I knew. It was all for nothing, because I embraced too strongly the (false) teaching that a human being could be completely honest or could be in any way compatible with pure truth or could even receive truth in its purity. Such a belief inevitably draws one into an endless outwardly spiraling search, since truth itself depends upon context. The outwardly spiraling search caused me to question all things, always pursuing a chest of gold I could never find. It overturned my beliefs in the process, however it offered nothing to replace them.

That is because the search for 'Truth' is unending for a human. Only the context will change for the seeker, contexts like layers of an onion of infinite size. Searching for truth you will find that your truth is false until you reach the next layer of context in which it will be truth...then false again outside of that context. This was what Godel found out mathematically and which he did not like, because he was like me. He believed as I once did that a human being could know 'Truth'. I'm not saying that truth doesn't exist. I'm saying that people are not equipped to know it.

The way that I 'Balance' my head and my heart now is that I realize my head is much smaller than it feels. I allow other people to influence me, directly, as if their judgment were equal to mine, like they have a vote in what I think. Actually that makes sense, because it is true. I don't let go of my own judgment, but I try to be reasonable about the reality that my mind is very small (without announcing it). I'm trying to recognize that I'm not the only person with a brain.

Is your faith so weal that mere philosophy classes can shake it? I would embrace this head on to acquire wisdom. The acts you did were essentially actions to maintain a state of ignorance.
If there is knowledge to be learned, learn it. Avoiding it over dogma issues is highly negative. Such things should be embraced to permit one to have a stronger spiritual state

 

[Ridwando]

You will find that there are a lot of us who believe that at least some of our scriptures can be taken totally symbolically. There are some Christians who don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, for instance.

Fair enough. In the same vein, I know lots of Muslims who don't consider homosexuality to be a sin. What seemed most relevant to me when it comes to assessing a religion's position on the issue was the most dominant interpretation that has persisted over centuries and have been advocated by an overwhelming majority of religious leaders.

Incidentally, regarding those Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin - do you believe that their religion inspired them to take that view, or were their opinions influenced by other external cultural developments/trends?

I actually became Muslim from an Christian background, although my mother is a secular atheist. It's funny that a good quantity of Muslims take a literal approach to the teachings of Islam, when the Quran itself states that it teaches by metaphor, allegory, thus sign; the Quran is even called 'The book of signs'.

Indeed. It is widely understood that a number of Qur'anic pronouncements are allegorical, the meaning of which cannot be grasped by the majority.

However, it is also widely understood that the Qur'an lays down explicit injunctions where it deems necessary, injunctions that are supposed to be practically applied by a believer both in his personal and political spheres. The verses pertaining to rights of women and homosexuality have been accepted by scholars to fall in this category. No one can legalize something that has categorically been pronounced illegal by the Qur'an according to the scholars.

How far do you take the esoteric and symbolical approach for interpreting the Qur'an ?If you take it too far, isn't there a danger that the Qur'an would end up losing a lot of its originally intended meaning?

 

[Ingledsva]

Fair enough. In the same vein, I know lots of Muslims who don't consider homosexuality to be a sin. What seemed most relevant to me when it comes to assessing a religion's position on the issue was the most dominant interpretation that has persisted over centuries and have been advocated by an overwhelming majority of religious leaders.

Incidentally, regarding those Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin - do you believe that their religion inspired them to take that view, or were their opinions influenced by other external cultural developments/trends?


Indeed. It is widely understood that a number of Qur'anic pronouncements are allegorical, the meaning of which cannot be grasped by the majority.

However, it is also widely understood that the Qur'an lays down explicit injunctions where it deems necessary, injunctions that are supposed to be practically applied by a believer both in his personal and political spheres. The verses pertaining to rights of women and homosexuality have been accepted by scholars to fall in this category. No one can legalize something that has categorically been pronounced illegal by the Qur'an according to the scholars.

How far do you take the esoteric and symbolical approach for interpreting the Qur'an ?If you take it too far, isn't there a danger that the Qur'an would end up losing a lot of its originally intended meaning?

The Muslim religion is third in the Abrahamic religions, after the Hebrew and Christian, and includes ideas and beliefs from both.

Most of the SO-CALLED anti homosexual verses in the Hebrew texts (and probably all,) are actually condemning Sacred Sex (Sacred Prostitution) which is IDOLATRY. They are not actually condemning normal homosexuality. The idea that it is homosexuality came much later in other writings. Christianity and the Muslims continued this error.

 

[Riverwolf]

I've defined religion as being a combination of mythology, ritual, and philosophy. Some religions add other elements like dogma, but not all religions have that or some other added elements, but all the ones I've seen have the above three to some extent.

When dealing with religion, i.e., the above three elements, what I do is suspend Aristotlean logic, that is, a = a, b = b, a =/= b, etc. As the song Skalds and Shadows puts it: "Is it truth or myth? They're one in my rhymes." Putting it into words is very difficult, but a lot of it is identity and pure experience.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is your faith so weal that mere philosophy classes can shake it?

That is a misunderstanding. My belief was quite strong. We are talking about the child I was twenty years ago. To myself at that time there was no weak faith and no compromise. There was no such thing, and to me there was truth and there were lies with no gray area. I didn't know what philosophy was, didn't listen to secular music etc. I simply stayed away from 'Negative' influences. I had been warned to stay away from people that would try to harm my faith, so I did stay. I did care about people but I didn't let them affect my tastes. The only thing I wished to convey in my post was that it was not my faith that was weak but my assumptions about the nature of humanity and our relation to truth.

I would embrace this head on to acquire wisdom. The acts you did were essentially actions to maintain a state of ignorance.

I simply did not place myself under the influence of others and bucked all attempts to let anyone have control of my mind; and I did seek to confirm facts or to refute them. These are not acts to 'Maintain a state of ignorance' though I can see why my post could have been misunderstood. These were acts to maintain a free and open mind.

If there is knowledge to be learned, learn it. Avoiding it over dogma issues is highly negative. Such things should be embraced to permit one to have a stronger spiritual state

Yes, and I did not avoid 'Knowledge'. I avoided the influences of mind control and temptation to sin. Ironically, the search for ultimate truth outside of anyone else's control -- it is an endless search. Eventually I did come around to reading some philosophy, and doing so earlier might have saved me some time. It simply wasn't my path to do so. I still think the search for ultimate truth cannot be achieved by studying philosophy, since truth depends upon context. I referred to Godel the mathematician and his work with proofs as a point of reference, specifically his famous In-Completeness theorem.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have never felt enclosed by religion.
Perhaps it is the heretic in me, that prevents me form being tied to what i read or am told.

As A result, The Anglican Faith in the form of the Church of England suits me very well, it is full of free thinkers, who hold dogma very lightly.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The Muslim religion is third in the Abrahamic religions, after the Hebrew and Christian, and includes ideas and beliefs from both.

Most of the SO-CALLED anti homosexual verses in the Hebrew texts (and probably all,) are actually condemning Sacred Sex (Sacred Prostitution) which is IDOLATRY. They are not actually condemning normal homosexuality. The idea that it is homosexuality came much later in other writings. Christianity and the Muslims continued this error.

Tell this to a Jew who reads Hebrew

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is a misunderstanding. My belief was quite strong. We are talking about the child I was twenty years ago. To myself at that time there was no weak faith and no compromise. There was no such thing, and to me there was truth and there were lies with no gray area. I didn't know what philosophy was, didn't listen to secular music etc. I simply stayed away from 'Negative' influences. I had been warned to stay away from people that would try to harm my faith, so I did stay. I did care about people but I didn't let them affect my tastes. The only thing I wished to convey in my post was that it was not my faith that was weak but my assumptions about the nature of humanity and our relation to truth.

Truth is not truth until it is contested side by side with other "truths". You did not do this so you have inner guilt that your truth is only true until it is examined closer and compared to evidential proofs.
You never went back and learned philosophy or acquired knowledge outside of your Bible. You just picked what suited you and became more limited in options to the point you heedlessly ratified your believes without proof of substance.

I simply did not place myself under the influence of others and bucked all attempts to let anyone have control of my mind; and I did seek to confirm facts or to refute them. These are not acts to 'Maintain a state of ignorance' though I can see why my post could have been misunderstood. These were acts to maintain a free and open mind.

You "did not seek to confirm facts or refute them". This is essentially admitting to being ignorant. You went to a university to learn and acquire knowledge and avoided it for the same of religion. You are essentially stating your own religion cannot exist in a state of truth backed with evidence. Now that you are out of college you avoided important moments that would push your intellectual barrier further.

Yes, and I did not avoid 'Knowledge'. I avoided the influences of mind control and temptation to sin. Ironically, the search for ultimate truth outside of anyone else's control -- it is an endless search. Eventually I did come around to reading some philosophy, and doing so earlier might have saved me some time. It simply wasn't my path to do so. I still think the search for ultimate truth cannot be achieved by studying philosophy, since truth depends upon context. I referred to Godel the mathematician and his work with proofs as a point of reference, specifically his famous In-Completeness theorem.

You are contradicting yourself here from your previous claims. You did avoid knowledge and admitted to not wanting to know the truth.
The very way you mention philosophy and your later "study" of it seriously makes me doubt you learned anything besides skimming through some pages of a book.
Besides philosophy you most likely missed many more things.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sterling, lets back up. I don't know what you are getting excited about. I have not attacked the pursuit of knowledge, nor have I demeaned universities. You do not know enough about me to make the accusations that you are making. Besides, you are missing bits of what I have said about myself. For example you reversed my statement "I did seek to confirm facts or to refute them" by misquoting it and leaving out the word 'Did'. You quoted it as if I had stated the opposite, and you would do yourself honour by correcting your miss-statement.

Again, I am not against the pursuit of knowledge, and I feel education is important. I have stated my position honestly and have not pretended to know a lot about Philosophy (not ever, nor anywhere), nor have I disrespected Philosophy. You on the other hand are about to show disrespect for my experience, and you are suggesting that you would have done better given my circumstances -- circumstances which you are unfamiliar with and which might have destroyed you. To each his own path.

My comments are about the nature of truth, and I've shared my own experiences about how to reconcile the inner belief with the outer reality. I responded honestly to the question asked "How do you reconcile the absolutist stance of religion (on certain matters) with the urge to remain unbiased and open-minded?"

 

[ChristineES]

Incidentally, regarding those Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin - do you believe that their religion inspired them to take that view, or were their opinions influenced by other external cultural developments/trends?

To be honest, most of the Christians I know believe it to be a sin because they are told it is a sin by a preacher/teacher. When reading the bible, most people tend to ignore the 2nd-5th books in the Bible and if they do read them, they skim through them. It says in those books not to eat pork and shellfish and rabbit. It says many, many things that no one even follows at all.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sterling, lets back up. I don't know what you are getting excited about. I have not attacked the pursuit of knowledge, nor have I demeaned universities.

The topic of this thread is about intellectualism and its relation with religion.
This includes you since you made a very peculiar move to avoid intellectual discussion purely because of religious reasons.

You do not know enough about me to make the accusations that you are making. Besides, you are missing bits of what I have said about myself. For example you reversed my statement "I did seek to confirm facts or to refute them" by misquoting it and leaving out the word 'Did'. You quoted it as if I had stated the opposite, and you would do yourself honour by correcting your miss-statement.

Well that is quite odd. I thought you said "didn't seek". This is irrelevant though as of now since I see the error so we can still focus on issue number one being your avoidance of certain classes you found detrimental in your faith.

Again, I am not against the pursuit of knowledge, and I feel education is important. I have stated my position honestly and have not pretended to know a lot about Philosophy (not ever, nor anywhere), nor have I disrespected Philosophy. You on the other hand are about to show disrespect for my experience, and you are suggesting that you would have done better given my circumstances -- circumstances which you are unfamiliar with and which might have destroyed you. To each his own path.

Disrespect philosophy? I hate acquiring knowledge through the words of others including philosophy. How can I worry about you disrespecting philosophy?
The discussion is why you avoid the philosophy classes not about philosophy itself.
I am also not saying I would have done better because there is no form of improvement in this actions. The meaning of the actions is what is at stake and you are avoiding multiple topics to slip out.
Never has the discussion been about the betterment of actions but about the connotations behind them and why.
You avoided classes because it could possibly weaken your faith despite the wisdom you would have acquired from it while I would have wanted wisdom and I expect to change my opinion given newer understanding. By not wishing to acquire something you are essentially saying you are incompatible with learning since learning anything that clashes with your religion can immediately weaken it.

My comments are about the nature of truth, and I've shared my own experiences about how to reconcile the inner belief with the outer reality. I responded honestly to the question asked "How do you reconcile the absolutist stance of religion (on certain matters) with the urge to remain unbiased and open-minded?"

Yes I know what your answer was and your answer was to avoid the truth. You avoided something which can disprove your "Truth".
You see where people are going to object to this right? Your actions are far from open minded and unbiased.
What are you expecting here, praise for avoiding The Truth.

 

[Ingledsva]

Tell this to a Jew who reads Hebrew

I have read and translated these texts from the Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have read and translated these texts from the Hebrew and Greek.

The Greek is not important to me honestly since it is not canonical but the Hebrew is. Sacred sex is very prevalent in old Hindu societies but I have never come across this in ancient Jewish ones. I am quite confident the Hebrew texts specifically refer to male on male homosexuality as the direct implications of it only apply to males and not females. Gays are sinners but lesbians are not even mentioned. Sounds like a typical male if you ask me.

 

[Ingledsva]

The Greek is not important to me honestly since it is not canonical but the Hebrew is. Sacred sex is very prevalent in old Hindu societies but I have never come across this in ancient Jewish ones. I am quite confident the Hebrew texts specifically refer to male on male homosexuality as the direct implications of it only apply to males and not females. Gays are sinners but lesbians are not even mentioned. Sounds like a typical male if you ask me.

It is actually interesting that you mention the Hindu Sacred Sex, as ancient historians actually tell us the Hebrew people are originally from India. They have other Indian cultural quirks as well - hierarchal clan class, priestly class, etc.

As to the SO-CALLED anti homosexual texts, as I said, they aren't. Here are a couple of for-instances for you...

(KJV) Deu:23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Is actually -

There shall be no Qedeshah of the daughters of Israel, nor Qadesh of the sons of Israel.


Qadesh are Sacred Prostitutes that work in the Temple. And we are told in several places in the Bible that they set up in the Hebrew Temple - resulting in the Hebrew Kings being killed. read Kings for examples.


Eli's sons had sex with these Temple Prostitutes at Shiloh - 1Sa 2:22.


2Ki 23:7 And he brake down the temples of the sodomites (Qadesh – Sacred Prostitute – Strong’s H6945,) that were by/in the Temple of the YHVH, where the women wove hangings in the Temple to Asherah.


How about Sodom and Gomorrah?


Gen 19:5 "yada" is translated as to know (sex.)

However God uses it in Gen 18:21 when he announces he is going down to Sodom! Somehow I don't think he was going down for homosexual sex!

It is actually being used in both verses in its "ascertain/judge and punish" sense. The angels have been sent to "ascertain and punish," and the people want the angels sent out so they can turn this around and judge and punish them.


Also the word "sodomite" did not originally mean a homosexual - it meant a Sacred Prostitute. Look up "sodomite" in the front of a Strong's. It will send you to H6945 - Qadesh - Sacred Prostitute.

How about Lev 18:22? Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


1. - it is an incorrect translation - there is no "as with a" for instance. 2. It starts with "AND," so what does 18:21 say?


Lev 18:21 thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 18:22 AND...

So we are again talking about Sacred Sex Molech worship. Don't give your sperm to Molech through Sacred sex. and 18:23 continues with Molech worship practices - men and women having sex with beasts.

There is actually only one verse in any logical contention and we have been debating the translation.

Same thing with the new testament SO-CALLED Anti homosexual verses - such as Rom 1 - again they are obviously talking about Sacred Sex - they tell WHO these people are -

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Got that? RELIGIOUS HOMAGE by SEX ACT.

How about 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9 translating arsenokoitoi and malakoi as homosexual?

Arsenokoitoi has never been found in any ancient Greek texts dealing with homosexuals! It has been found being used to mean RAPE.

Malakoi is used in a text talking about John the Baptist, and shows us that it means "dandy" someone who likes rich clothes, food, drink, excess, etc. NOT HOMOSEXUALS.

Luke 7:25 ..But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft (MALAKOS) garments? Behold, those who are in splendid clothing and live luxuriously are in the courts of kings. ..

As you can see - they are wrong.


*

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes I know what your answer was and your answer was to avoid the truth. You avoided something which can disprove your "Truth".
You see where people are going to object to this right? Your actions are far from open minded and unbiased.
What are you expecting here, praise for avoiding The Truth.

The nature of fundamentalism is the matter at hand, not whether 'Brickjectivity' is a low-brow. Again, the past is experience and is not the present, and no this thread is not about just whatever you'd like it to be about.

The topic of this thread is about intellectualism and its relation with religion.
This includes you since you made a very peculiar move to avoid intellectual discussion purely because of religious reasons.

It is starting to be about you, if don't want to stay on topic. Since you are changing the subject, however, leave my answer to Ridwana out of your responses, please.

Never has the discussion been about the betterment of actions but about the connotations behind them and why....This includes you since you made a very peculiar move to avoid intellectual discussion

That is what you want to discuss, but it isn't what the question was or has been. Nor is the subject about me and my 'Peculiarity'. I was fundamentalist, and now I'm not. It is enough.

issue number one being your avoidance of certain classes you found detrimental in your faith....you are essentially saying you are incompatible with learning...

Again, that is not the topic at all. It is your wish to move the conversation away from something that will be helpful to the person who started the thread. I do not wish to discuss why I avoided those classes any further. I was a fundamentalist, born into fundamentalism. Don't you get that? Ridwando did not ask his question out of a desire to take my admitted mistakes and chastise me for them. He wanted to know if anyone else had been reared by fundamentalists etc etc. You on the other hand seem to think I'm proud of mistakes or am somehow specially different from other fundamentalists. Its beside the point of the discussion, and besides I'm not really interested in hearing your sharp criticisms. I'm already 39 and don't need to hear it. No more please or I'll ask for a review.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I came across similar feelings concerning Christianity and tried to find common ground concerning emotional reasoning that conflicted with intellectual truisms.

I figured no matter what religion i might engage, theres no substitute in regards to whatever plays out
through direct experience without first undergoing any need for embellishment or fabrication to fit a particular religious mold. To do otherwise only tells me i don't like the way it really is.

It enabled me to recognise the many nuances concerning religious limitations and allowed the ability to overcome them.

 

[Ingledsva]

For Sterling Archer.

The Greek is not important to me honestly since it is not canonical but the Hebrew is. Sacred sex is very prevalent in old Hindu societies but I have never come across this in ancient Jewish ones. I am quite confident the Hebrew texts specifically refer to male on male homosexuality as the direct implications of it only apply to males and not females. Gays are sinners but lesbians are not even mentioned. Sounds like a typical male if you ask me.

It is actually interesting that you mention the Hindu Sacred Sex, as ancient historians actually tell us the Hebrew people are originally from India. They have other Indian cultural quirks as well - hierarchal clan class, priestly class, etc.

As to the SO-CALLED anti homosexual texts, as I said, they aren't. Here are a couple of for-instances for you...

(KJV) Deu:23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Is actually -

There shall be no Qedeshah of the daughters of Israel, nor Qadesh of the sons of Israel.


Qadesh are Sacred Prostitutes that work in the Temple. And we are told in several places in the Bible that they set up in the Hebrew Temple - resulting in the Hebrew Kings being killed. read Kings for examples.


Eli's sons had sex with these Temple Prostitutes at Shiloh - 1Sa 2:22.


2Ki 23:7 And he brake down the temples of the sodomites (Qadesh – Sacred Prostitute – Strong’s H6945,) that were by/in the Temple of the YHVH, where the women wove hangings in the Temple to Asherah.


How about Sodom and Gomorrah?


Gen 19:5 "yada" is translated as to know (sex.)

However God uses it in Gen 18:21 when he announces he is going down to Sodom! Somehow I don't think he was going down for homosexual sex!

It is actually being used in both verses in its "ascertain/judge and punish" sense. The angels have been sent to "ascertain and punish," and the people want the angels sent out so they can turn this around and judge and punish them.


Also the word "sodomite" did not originally mean a homosexual - it meant a Sacred Prostitute. Look up "sodomite" in the front of a Strong's. It will send you to H6945 - Qadesh - Sacred Prostitute.

How about Lev 18:22? Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.


1. - it is an incorrect translation - there is no "as with a" for instance. 2. It starts with "AND," so what does 18:21 say?


Lev 18:21 thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 18:22 AND...

So we are again talking about Sacred Sex Molech worship. Don't give your sperm to Molech through Sacred sex. and 18:23 continues with Molech worship practices - men and women having sex with beasts.

There is actually only one verse in any logical contention and we have been debating the translation.


Same thing with the new testament SO-CALLED Anti homosexual verses - such as Rom 1 - again they are obviously talking about Sacred Sex - they tell WHO these people are -

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of Deity into a lie, and worship and render religious homage to the "Act of Creation" more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.


Got that? RELIGIOUS HOMAGE by SEX ACT.


How about 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9 translating arsenokoitoi and malakoi as homosexual?

Arsenokoitoi has never been found in any ancient Greek texts dealing with homosexuals! It has been found being used to mean RAPE.

Malakoi is used in a text talking about John the Baptist, and shows us that it means "dandy" someone who likes rich clothes, food, drink, excess, etc. NOT HOMOSEXUALS.

Luke 7:25 ..But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft (MALAKOS) garments? Behold, those who are in splendid clothing and live luxuriously are in the courts of kings. ..

As you can see - they are wrong.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sterling Archer?????????

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sterling Archer?????????

Yes Dove?
Sorry my antisociality kicked in and I have been rejecting to answer posts . It happens.
First rule is to never expect sanity from me on any shape or form

 

[paarsurrey]

Here's my situation. I used to be quite religious at a young age, a poster boy for childhood indoctrination, if you will. It was in college that I found myself gradually drifting away from religion. I was beginning to find the entire experience extremely suffocating. Eventually, it became apparent to me that rational/free thinking needs to be relegated to the backseat when it came to certain contentious issues, as the conclusions derived from going down that path would not sit well with what 'God' has to say on those matters.

Of course it took me a long time to finally admit this to myself. You do not overthrow your most cherished beliefs overnight, you try to cling on to them for as long as you can. I found myself obsessively perusing through articles and books desperately trying to find justifications for my religion's stance on a host of controversial issues, including homosexuality, women rights, on the existence of eternal hell etc. etc.

I truly was obsessed. I needed to know that there were good justifications out there, that I can go on believing in my religion without feeling any embarrassment or the need to appear apologetic. It finally dawned on me that my approach to answering these questions was as upside down as can be. I had already decided what the answers are, all that I was looking for were justifications for my predetermined answers (not that I got too many good justifications either). I was putting myself through this futile exercise only because I was born into a particular religion, these issues probably wouldn't have bothered me so much if I was born at a different place in a different time.

The intellectual freedom that I now feel is a wonderful breath of fresh air. Now that I am no longer emotionally invested in my religion, I no longer feel agenda-driven. This in turn allows me to consider any particular issue without feeling afraid that I will stumble across an answer/notion that contradicts the teachings of my religion.

Is there anybody else who has felt this way before? I was also wondering whether the religious people on this forum can clarify how/if they have dealt with this issue in their own lives. How do you reconcile the absolutist stance of religion (on certain matters) with the urge to remain unbiased and open-minded?

I think you mixed two things;revealed religions does not oppose science and leaves it open for the theists and atheists alike;religion is specific for guidance in the ethical, moral and spiritual fields and use the Word Revealed for its right or wrong.