Archive for Saturday, February 21, 2009

Faith Forum: Does God care if someone switches religions?

February 21, 2009

Advertisement

‘Jesus,’ yes; ‘religion,’ no

The Rev. Paul Gray, senior pastor, Heartland Community Church, 619 Vt.:

God cares immensely about every human being on the earth. He loves us all so much that he gave his only son, Jesus Christ, to come to earth and make it possible for us to be right with God and spend eternity with him (John 3:16). However, God doesn’t care at all about “religion.”

Since the beginning of time, “religion” has been mankind’s attempt to gain a right standing with God by doing certain things and not doing other things. Each “religion” has come up with its own standards. However, no one is ever quite sure if he or she has done enough — or done something so bad that God would reject them. “Religion” is joyless, demanding, stuffy, burdensome and impossible to please.

However, accepting Jesus Christ as God’s substitutionary requirement for us to get right with him (involving no “work” on our part, only faith), pleases God very much. He cares about that choice infinitely!

When one accepts Christ and enters eternity — starting here on earth and continuing forever, the holy spirit of Christ then offers supernatural power to that person. That power is available to change our character and help us be more loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kinder, gentler, faithful and have our lives more and more under control.

There are many great expressions of Christian community, and God wants us to be involved in one — as long as that community embraces his standard that Jesus is the (only) way, the (absolute) truth and (eternal) life, and that no one comes to the Father (gets “right” with God) except through Jesus (John 14:6). Jesus, yes! Religion, no!

— Send e-mail to Paul Gray at paul@hcclawrence.com.

Faith isn’t one-size-fits-all

Judy Roitman, guiding teacher, Kansas Zen Center, 1423 N.Y.:

I don’t know if anyone believes God doesn’t want people to switch religions. But plenty of people believe that God wants everyone to switch to their religion, to their particular precise version, with no add-ons or modifications.

Some folks will even kill others to make this point — it’s happened so many times that the entire space of the Lawrence Journal-World is too small to list all such atrocities. If they don’t kill, they might shun. And if they don’t shun, they still might not want to hear about it. It takes a large heart and a wide mind to accept that someone isn’t fulfilled by your religion.

Religion often functions as a glue that creates communities and helps hold families together. So changing or adding religious practices can have serious family and social consequences. But religion is also personal, and sometimes people have to modify, add on to or even completely change their religious practices in order to keep their spiritual integrity. That’s why Buddhism talks about 84,000 expedient means. This is a recognition that no one way fits everyone. Only you know if your religious practice fits you.

And let’s be clear: “fits” doesn’t mean “feels good.” If your religious practice forces you to look at the hard questions, opens your heart to the suffering of others and grounds you in something far deeper than your so-called self, then stick with it. If it doesn’t, then do whatever it takes to find something that does. I hope the people around you will understand, will honor your integrity and will even find happiness in your finding a spiritual home.

— Send e-mail to Judy Roitman at roitman@ku.edu.

Comments

maetl 6 years, 1 month ago

Ok, here's one for you all to ponder...

There are several religions that are thousands of years older than Christianity of which often share EXACT similarities with the judeo-Christian story.

Everyone believes theirs is the "truth." So who's right?

More importantly, who gives a sh*t?

You don't need religion to be a good person, and in the long run, it will save you a lot of money to just follow the golden rule, and forget the rest.

If you need an explanation for the creation of the universe, why do you believe a man made story? Remember, man made God in his own image.

Then there are those of us who don't believe in science as an explanation of the universe. So to you religious types, you are telling me that you would rather believe the words of a few men written thousands of years ago with an incredibly far fetched story, than the words of thousands of educated scientists today?

Even still, science doesn't provide an explanation of where we come from, it simply outlines what is possible, and what is not possible within the cababilities of our environment.

Some of you are thinking, "it just comes down to faith." It sure does, doesn't it? It comes down to faith for the person willing to believe anything they would hope would be true, as compared to what they know. Do you invest in stocks based on what "feels right?" or based on current market conditions and growing industries? Do you feed your children nothing but kool-aid and cocoa puffs because you "believe" they are the best out there? Or did you take the time to read the nutritional facts on the box to see if you really want that garbage down your kids' throats?

Oh, but I'm comparing apples and oranges, aren't I? You all KNOW Jesus is real.

Ok, prove it.

Jason Bailey 6 years, 1 month ago

@maetl: Seriously, I learned a long time ago that no one is ever going to sway anyone's opinion when it comes to their religious convictions (even atheism is a religion). After many attempts and becoming blue in the face, I wasted my time because an Internet forum is not going to persuade one person.

I believe, based on my experience in wasting time, I can safely say, you've wasted your time.

Ambassador 6 years, 1 month ago

Maetl, First of all, when you say that man made God in his own image, where exactly are you getting that from? Christians believe and practice the exact opposite. God created man in His own image. Second of all, that book that you say was written by men thousands of years ago, you might want to pay careful attention to how you phrase it. You make it sound like you know for sure how the Bible was written when in reality you don't. This Bible yes was written by men here on the earth but it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." God revealed the message to those men and they wrote it down. Also, this Bible does not only support itself as a real source, but it has other sources that are not even Christian sources have proven that this book is reliable. Archeologists have performed digs and have found items that were described in detail from the Bible. Thirdly, you sit here and say "So to you religious types..." It seems like you are aiming at one group of people, Christians. Christianity has not been proven wrong yet there are millions of people who believe in God not because they are forced to, but because they have experienced God in a way that apparently you could never understand or imagine at this point in time. Maybe someday, when the time is right you too could have an experience of your own and be able to talk about it using the freedoms and rights that you have as a citizen of the United States. The freedom of religion.

Kirk Larson 6 years, 1 month ago

I've got to go with man made god in his own image, which is to say we express who we think god ought to be for whatever context we want to use him to influence society. God has changed a lot over the centuries. Pre-Judaism, gods were local, tied to a location or an idol. The innovation the Jews made was a portable god, one you could take anywhere (at first he was kind of bound to the"holy land", but after many Jews were taken to Persia, they carried on his worship and made him truly portable). At this time salvation or damnation was a matter of whole peoples e.g. the Jews as god's chosen people, the city of Ninevah marked for destruction, etc. With Christianity we got something very new, salvation was a matter of the individual not whole peoples. I credit this evolution of god as leading to the democracy we enjoy today where we emphasize the voice and contribution of the individual. But it took centuries of change in how we view god.

Kirk Larson 6 years, 1 month ago

Oh, and may the FSM bless you with his noodly appendage, forever and ever. Ramen.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 1 month ago

@75x55

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

Let me know what you find to be contrived and contextually inaccurate . Not too sure about the denigration bit but I did find it interesting.

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

I don’t have space (or time) to include all the logical fallacies in this article or the posts which follow. But here are a few:

(1) Paul Gray makes the argument that each religion has its own version of beliefs and therefore religion is a burden, joyless, etc. He then immediately goes on to claim that a particular belief (accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the Savior) is important and is an exception to this rule. It is oddly convenient that the only belief which doesn’t lead him to the conclusion that religion is burdensome are the beliefs he wants to emphasize, which leads him to the conclusion that all Christians religions are essentially the same. So, either it is possible other beliefs could also fit into this exception (not all Christian religions are the same and perhaps God does care if you switch), or it is possible there is no exception.

(2) Judy Roitman has several fallacies.

“But plenty of people believe that God wants everyone to switch to their religion, to their particular precise version, with no add-ons or modifications.” - Judy If everyone gets to choose their own particular precise version of what to follow then the add-ons and modifications are by definition their own particular precise version. That is unless she is arguing one should never critically look at one’s beliefs to discern if they should be modified (which would be ridiculous).

“If your religious practice forces you to look at the hard questions, opens your heart to the suffering of others and grounds you in something far deeper than your so-called self, then stick with it.” - Judy First she says it doesn’t matter which religion you practice because God doesn’t care and then makes the same fallacy as Paul Gray by including the previous sentence adding criteria of what God wants, or what is “good.” According to her own criteria if someone switched from a religion teaching the above criteria to one that doesn’t then God would care, thus contradicting her previous argument that God doesn't care.

zettapixel 6 years, 1 month ago

Does God care if I'm an ordained minister through The Church of the Latter-Day Dude AKD Dudeism?

http://www.dudeism.com/

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 1 month ago

I haven't read anything but the title to this article. Maybe it should say something along the lines of: "Does Religion care if someone switches gods?"

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

Maetl…

“Do you invest in stocks based on what ‘feels right?’ or based on current market conditions and growing industries?”

You create the fallacy of assuming if one has faith it must be applied blindly in all context or not at all. Not all faith is blind. I could just as easily ask if you have ever thought something was a certain way based on your empirical devises and later found out you were wrong. If so then you realize that there is a certain amount of “faith” in most actions. Thus leading to a (fallacious) parallel argument that if you use faith in a certain way for most of your actions then you must you faith in all ways (see blind faith) in all actions.

“Everyone believes theirs is the “truth.” So who's right? More importantly, who gives a sh*t?”

A lot people care. If there were an omniscient and omnipotent being that cared about me, knows what is “true”, and how I can be happy, then I would want to know. If you could were given the opportunity to see the future would you take it? Maybe not, but many people would. No one here made the claim one needs religion to be a “good person.”

Also, trying to use facts to prove something of faith is contradictory.

Satirical 6 years, 1 month ago

I think I will offer an alternative analysis to this question (since the two provided where so obviously flawed).

Perhaps God does care if you switch religions. If there is an omnipotent and omniscient Deity, then by definition He knows what and how to make each person happy. It is also logical that if this Deity chose to communicate to mankind these “truths” (or whatever you want to call them) then it would be wise for us to follow them, since if the Deity communicated these truths to mankind it would be logical that he did so for our benefit and wants us to use them and be happy (unless you assume an omnipotent and omniscient Deity is arbitrary).

If these truths are contained in a certain religion then it is logical that God would care if we no longer practiced His “truths” taught by that religion since we would be choosing opposite what he wants (for us to be happy). The same would apply if one switch from a religion which taught more of His “truths” to a religions that taught less of His “truths.”

Therefore unless all religions teach the exact same amount of truth (the argument that Rev. Paul Gray made was the only truth that mattered is accepting Jesus as one’s personal savior, and the argument Judy Roitman made was the only truth that mattered is opening one’s heart to others), then He would care if someone switched religions.

anaughtymouse 6 years, 1 month ago

I think it is important to realize that humanity has several different positions and opinions about god. There is no right or wrong answer to anything regarding god. Religion is a personal relationship you have with god, the community, and nature. If your god cares if you switch religions would you do it? Probably not.

To quote 'Steel Magnolias': Truvy says- "god doesn't care where you go to church just as long as you go"

God probably doesn't care if you switch as long as you still keep the relationship.

topekan7 6 years, 1 month ago

Religions have boundaries and limits. This is necessary for definition and clarification.

Spiritual growth has no boundaries or limits. Becoming a member of a particular religion is fine, so long as it does not hinder one's spiritual growth.

Most religions espouse a parent-child relationship between 'god' and followers. This is a simple formula that is easy to follow and pick up.

However, if you wish to continue a life long path of spiritual development, it becomes necessary to reject the parent-child relationship of most religions.

In my humble opinion.

jonas_opines 6 years ago

4125: "Actually, no, there aren't - the supposed 'similarities' are usually contrived, contextually inaccurate at best, and were primarily constructed to try and denigrate Christianity and it's claims."

Have you ever read the Parable of the White Path, in regards to the vow of the Bodhisattva Amitabha and the time of the Final Degeneration of the Law?

Although, to be fair, I'm pretty sure it doesn't predate Christianity, but it's pretty congruent in low contact situations.

jonas_opines 6 years ago

. . . and I am actually interested, not just picking a fight. I don't feel like fighting about this at this time.

Satirical 6 years ago

Anaughtymouse…. “There is no right or wrong answer to anything regarding god.”

Of course there is a right and wrong regarding God. If God is ‘X’ then God can’t also be ‘not X.’ Just because people can imagine God as anything and everything doesn’t mean God is anything and everything. If a God does exist then it would be a definitive something. Anything outside that definition would be wrong.

Satirical 6 years ago

Beobachter… “When someone can prove there is a ‘GOD’…”

No one can prove to someone else there is a God. It requires faith which is contradictory to “proof.” However, billions of individuals have received proof for themselves after they have exercised a small amount of faith.

Satirical 6 years ago

Topekan7…

I am interested why you think it is “necessary to reject the parent-child relationship?”

Satirical 6 years ago

Beobachter… “What proof?”

Excellent question. I cannot assume I definitively know what was the proof each individual received confirming the existence of a living God, but from my understanding, the proof most people receive is a feeling in their heart. While this is not objective, as arguably using ones empirical devices is (which most people refer to when they claim they want “proof”), does not mean it is less real or significant. (i.e. I know I love my parents, but I can’t prove this exists). In fact I personally think only relying on ones 5 senses and denying the heart will lead to misery.

viewfromahill 6 years ago

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says… "Does God care if someone switches wardrobe?"

Does God care if someone changes attire?

Omegatron 6 years ago

"Since the beginning of time, “religion” has been mankind’s attempt to gain a right standing with God by doing certain things and not doing other things. Each “religion” has come up with its own standards. However, no one is ever quite sure if he or she has done enough — or done something so bad that God would reject them. “Religion” is joyless, demanding, stuffy, burdensome and impossible to please."

This is the same age old tireless argument that every religion on the planet makes over and over again.

My religion is the truth, all others are lies, if you don't worship my religion you are going to hell!

Please. It's a broken record, Write new material. At least try to be original when presenting your argument...

Omegatron 6 years ago

"You make it sound like you know for sure how the Bible was written when in reality you don't. This Bible yes was written by men here on the earth but it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” God revealed the message to those men and they wrote it down. Also, this Bible does not only support itself as a real source, but it has other sources that are not even Christian sources have proven that this book is reliable"

The bible is a church censored text. So many books were left out, for censorship purposes, that it's hard to call it accurate and reliable.

"Archeologists have performed digs and have found items that were described in detail from the Bible."

The old testament bible was written with stories past down through the generations about the creation and history of Israel.

Omegatron 6 years ago

oh, and go with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my child.

Ramen.

jonas_opines 6 years ago

satirical: "I know I love my parents, but I can’t prove this exists."

This isn't a particularly good comparison, because regardless of love you can prove that your parents exist, without relying on a feeling. Basically the proof you show only proves that people love God, not that he exists.

Satirical 6 years ago

Jonas_opines….

My argument was not “I know I love my parents therefore I know my parents exist.” I was responding to the question of, what proof do billions of individuals receive that God exists. The answer was; a feeling in their heart. The example I gave of loving one’s parents was an example of how love can be “proof.” If you love someone, only you know this and cannot “prove” it to anyone else. Even though love is not empirical or objective proof doesn’t necessarily mean it is somehow insignificant. Similar to someone’s feeling in their heart that God exists doesn’t provide objective proof of either the feeling or that God exists, however that feeling is proof or an affirmation to that individual.

jonas_opines 6 years ago

"The answer was; a feeling in their heart. The example I gave of loving one’s parents was an example of how love can be “proof.”"

"Proof" of what? The only thing that love of your parents can prove in this circumstance is itself, IE that you love your parents. In the same vein, the small feeling in their heart only proves for those people that they have a small feeling in their heart that God exists, not that he does.

If the whole point is that people believe what they want, then I agree. But you'd have done a whole lot better to just say that, that people will believe what they want.

Satirical 6 years ago

jonas_opines…. “But you'd have done a whole lot better to just say that, that people will believe what they want.”

Except that wouldn’t answer the question, “what proof.” You are contradicting an argument I am not making. This is the problem when someone jumps into the conversation when they don’t understand the context of the discussion. As I have repeatedly stated, my point was NOT that love proves anything. My point was that love can be a form of proof just like seeing is believing.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"My point was that love can be a form of proof just like seeing is believing."

If it's a form of proof, then it must prove something. What does it prove in this instance?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

I used to be agnostic. Now I'm atheist. Is God pissed at me over that transformation?

anaughtymouse 6 years ago

On all the requests for proof:

I agree proof that god does exist would be nice... on the other hand, proof that god does not exist would be nice too

Satirical 6 years ago

Bozo… “If it's a form of proof, then it must prove something. What does it prove in this instance?”

Separate question from “what proof,” so I will respond with an answer:

(1) It proves that individual did in fact have a feeling or experience love. (2) It subjectively proves to billions of individuals that that when exercising faith, they received confirmation a living God exists. Since it is subjective no one can use their proof to convince someone else. So when someone asks for proof, no individual can convince anyone else that the their subjective proof should be relied upon. I can’t convince (or objectively prove) to you I love my parents, and no one can objectively prove that the feeling and confirmation they received that God exists is the truth. Since the proof is subjective each person much experience this proof for themselves. So the only way anyone can get the "proof" they seek is be exercising faith or a desire to know. One person cannot prove to another person the existence of God.

Satirical 6 years ago

Bozo… “I used to be agnostic. Now I'm atheist. Is God pissed at me over that transformation?”

See my argument on 2/25 at 4:28 p.m.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"One person cannot prove to another person the existence of God."

I completely agree with this statement, but I would say that while a "feeling in one's heart" may reinforce someone's faith in God, or God's existence, it doesn't rise to the level of proof. If I feel in my heart that stepping on a crack will break my mother's back, that doesn't prove that proposition, although it may well lead to an obsession about stepping on cracks (assuming I love my mother and wish her no harm.)

Music_Girl 6 years ago

Religion often gets a negative connotation because so many people use "religion" as an excuse to do whatever they want. Well "god" told me to kill all the infidels so now I'm a suicide bomber...Faith on the other hand is something totally different. Proof that God exists is all around us if we take the time to understand it and open our hearts to it. However "proof" is in the eye of the beholder and it does take a certain amount of faith. Heck we have "faith" in doctors to cure us even though we haven't seen them cure someone else before. This may not be a rock solid argument per say but it is merely an example. As far as whether God cares whether you switch religions or not, I believe He cares more about how one lives their life and how hard one tries to do good than what branch of religion one subscribes to. Just my two cents.

jonas_opines 6 years ago

"You are contradicting an argument I am not making. This is the problem when someone jumps into the conversation when they don’t understand the context of the discussion."

Give me a break. I understand perfectly, you are simply making a flawed analogy with two things that do not connect together in the way you are attempting to do so.

"As I have repeatedly stated, my point was NOT that love proves anything. My point was that love can be a form of proof just like seeing is believing."

My goodness, how could Anybody equate those two things in their heads?

However, if you are now equating love with sight, we have another problem entirely.

/you should take more care with your analogies

Satirical 6 years ago

Logicsound04… “but this doesn't qualify as “proof” in any conventional sense of the word”

As I stated earlier,a feeling is not proof. Not if you define proof as objective measures using ones empirical devises. However, I would enlarge the scope of “proof” to include the feeling of love. I know I love my parents even though I cannot prove it to anyone else. Being unable to objectively prove my love doesn’t make my knowledge of my love any less real. Therefore I would call it subjective proof of my feelings towards my parents.

“…only people who already believe in god are going to have that feeling.” – LS04

In my opinion it doesn’t require faith in order to have faith. It requires a desire to know. However, just like a muscle faith will only grow when it is exercised (acting upon one’s faith).

“…there is no reason to assume that the feeling in one's heart is because of god.” - LS04

The reason to think or assume the feeling in one’s heart is because of God is a based on a belief. The person knows they received a feeling and believes it came from God. It is subjective, but no one can prove them wrong. For example, if someone I knew were lost and I received a feeling in my heart that the person was alive and safe, I have received confirmation or “proof.” While I cannot objective convince anyone of the fact the lost person is alive because I don’t have objective proof doesn’t mean it doesn't prove anything to me. While one could argue as you have, that perhaps they were mistaken in their feeling, that the lost person was alive, or maybe they misinterpreted their feeling. But that is up for the one receiving the feeling to decide its meaning and its message and its deliverer.

“…but that is the exact argument you are using to prove the existence of god: people have proof of god's existence in the feeling they have in their heart.” – LS04

I have never made the argument that God is in fact real because some people believe it to be true. My argument was many people have received subjective proof that God is real, but cannot convince anyone else of what they believe to be true. Knowing something is true and proving to someone else it is true are two different things. Each person much receive their own confirmation. Ex: I cannot prove to you that God exists, but I have received proof that God exists. The proof many seek is from God.

Satirical 6 years ago

zo… “while a “feeling in one's heart” may reinforce someone's faith in God, or God's existence, it doesn't rise to the level of proof.”

I agree with you generally, but disagree semantically. I think it does rise to the level of subjective proof, but not objective proof.

Satirical 6 years ago

Jonas_opines… “I understand perfectly, you are simply making a flawed analogy…”

Obviously you don’t understand because you assume the purpose of my analogy was to prove God’s existence, which it was not, nor did I ever state so. Do I need to keep repeating myself, declaring over and over again what I actually stated vs. your assumption about my statement?

“However, if you are now equating love with sight, we have another problem entirely.” – jonas

My goodness, so many people on the LJWorld message boards have problems making assumption and comprehending the scope and purpose of an analogy. To say X and Y are analogous in certain ways does not mean X and Y are exact in every possible way. My analogy was that love can be a form of proof just like sight can be a form of proof. That is the end and entire scope of my analogy. Just like sight and touch are forms of proof. If you want to claim how sight is different than love or touch you are wasting your time and not contradicting my analogy, because my analogy is only what I stated; they are both forms of proof.

Satirical 6 years ago

Logicsound04… “I must say that the context argument never fails to amuse me, seeing as how anyone can go back and read every single post in the thread, thereby learning the context.”

You are right, rather than saying someone doesn’t understand the context of the argument, I should just call that person illiterate and/or incompetent. Because no literate or competent person would make the ridiculous assumption about a clear statement the way Jonas did unless he didn’t understand the purpose of me stating what I did.

And by all means, continue to be under the delusions that if one thing is analogous to another thing in a one aspect, means if they are not exactly the same in all aspect it is therefore a bad analogy. And I will keep laughing. Or better yet do what jonas does and assume I am making an analogy when I am clearly not.

6 years ago

"even atheism is a religion"

Please stop saying that, you obviously don't know the meaning of atheism.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

Satirical 6 years ago

logicsound04.... "If you make an argument that Satirical can't refute..."

Which argument have I not refuted that Jonas has made?

supertrampofkansas 6 years ago

Satirical,

There is no way that sight is analogous to love in the form of anything. Sight is as you said earlier one of 5 senses, whereas love is simply a feeling. Touch or smell could be analogous to sight but not love. I think you have ended up in left field here (or maybe that is where you started out). Either way, I suggest you either start over or drop it.

Satirical 6 years ago

Supertrampofkansas…

Again, giving an example of how sight and love are different in some respects doesn’t show they are dissimilar in all respects. The only argument you made was a blanket statement; “There is no way that sight is analogous to love in the form of anything.” - supertrampofkansas

This brings us almost full circle to where I started. Empirical devises, like our emotions, are used everyday to understand the world around us. Emotions are just as powerful in gaining knowledge of people and making decisions. Just like knowing whether you love someone is an emotion, and knowing when a situation “feels bad” and you should leave, or feeling that someone else needs your help. Emotions or “feelings” are used just like our empirical devises to guide our judgment and teach us truth. As I stated earlier feelings are a different type of proof, subjective as opposed to objective, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a form of proof in knowing what is in the world around us, and perhaps even beyond.

jonas_opines 6 years ago

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

"Which argument have I not refuted that Jonas has made?"

How about "all of them?"

"Empirical devises, like our emotions, are used everyday to understand the world around us."

Emotions are simply not empirical in any way.

"The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment[1], as opposed to theoretical. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically." "Empirical" as an adjective or adverb is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Empirical data are data that are produced by experiment or observation."

"An emotion is a mental and physiological state associated with a wide variety of feelings, thoughts, and behavior.Emotions are subjective experiences, or experienced from an individual point of view. Emotion is often associated with mood, temperament, personality, and disposition. The English word 'emotion' is derived from the French word émouvoir. This is based on the Latin emovere, where e- (variant of ex-) means 'out' and movere means 'move'.[1] The related term "motivation" is also derived from movere.

No definitive taxonomy of emotions exists, though numerous taxonomies have been proposed."

Both from respective wikis, with references provided.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.