When you decided that your religion offered the truest version of reality what was the reasoning that lead to that conclusion? How much room do you allow for other ideas to compete with your religious affiliation's ideas?<quoted text>
I was so disappointed with your comments. I expected you to make negative comments about my sources of research but what was disappointind was that I thoroughy expected you to suggest a much better source for doing research but you recommended none!
Evidently my sources far exceed yours.
Of course my main source is God's word the Bible and that goes without saying!
For example, let's say I'm a Scientologist. Someone tells me that L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology first as an alternative to psychiatry then changed it to a religion because there was more money in it. Let's say that I've been taught by the church that Hubbard made that change only because of the evil IRS trying to destroy him. Yet every source I can dig up outside the church supports the idea that Hubbard's main goal was always to be rich and powerful, not to speak the truth about reality.
If I am genuinely interested in seeking a good understanding of reality I would consider the evidence against Hubbard to be heavier than the evidence for him. Hard as it might be, I might have to break from my religion rather than sacrifice my reason and self-determination.
If you were in that same situation would you allow your devotion to your church outweigh your sense of reason? I ask this because I know that in the Bible there are passages that tell you to resist the words of non-believers. So what I want to know is would you truly resist your own sense of reason and the sound arguments of non-believers and adhere to something that seems to be false or highly unlikely to be true?
Which is more important, faith or reason?