Psychologist wrote:
I do not think that the vast majority of christians really believes in the Gospel!
Because if they were, they hadn´t to worry about sin or hell or anything like that. But instead of feeling release many christians are, in contrary, obsessed with sin and guilt. That is not "true believing" in the Gospel as the New Testament teaches.
And of course you are right where everybody else has it wrong.
If you're a psychologist, you should be able to see the situation a little more objectively.
Different people interpret Christianity differently. There are very few interpretations that can be called more right than others- and yours certainly isn't one of them.
Don't be so arrogant and dismissive of others' beliefs. What if they're right, and you're wrong?
Psychologist wrote:
We know, that in science deterministic relations are rare (even in physics, where scientists operate with variables that are constructs, and not fully defined or even "existing") - second, most relations between variables are correlations and there is nearly always a rest of uncertainty - therefore often experimental (!!) results are published under specification of the confidence intervall.
I feel like you're talking about things you don't understand here. You should do more research on determinism.
Psychologist wrote:
Occams razor means, that you have to choose the most simple explanation whenever you plan an experiment, design a study, build hypotheses and so on. The "most simple" is not "the simplest" explanation - the most simple explanation in a reasonable "range" of simplicity is required!
No, it means simpler explanations with fewer assumptions are preferred, provided they account for the observations. All other things being the same (the model accounting for all observations), the simplest (most elegant) explanation is preferred.
Psychologist wrote:
AND there is evidence, that our "Feelings" do have an impact on our bodily well-being.
That has nothing to do with a soul. That is because our emotions are physical parts of our being, and have consequences throughout our bodies through various effects of hormones.
Psychologist wrote:Perhaps it is not important, if there is anyone outside in space or heaven, if religion can help some people in their lifes.
It is important in some ways, and unimportant in others.
A simple question: Do you want to believe what is actually true, or do you only want to believe whatever you think will make you feel good, no matter if it is a lie, or harms others?
Psychologist wrote:Scientists are people, who work with science-related topics,
No.
Psychologist wrote:who have a scientific education (University)
NO.
Psychologist wrote:and their work is defined by empiric methods.
By the scientific method, YES. By non-scientific empirical methods, no.
To be a scientist, you just need to do work involving the scientific method.
Others may be healthcare practitioners (like yourself), engineers, etc. These are not scientists, because they do not employ the scientific method.
Psychologist wrote:
And in this way, psychology is really a science - I am really wondering that you do not know that?
RESEARCH in psychology is a science. It's a very, very soft science (one of the softest there is), but it's a science.
Practicing psychologists are not scientists, unless they are conducting research on their patients using the scientific method.
Are you doing research? If you are only practicing, and not doing clinical research with proper controls, then you are not a scientist. Sorry.
Psychologist wrote:
first it is important do DEFINE what a "free will" actually is and how it is measurable.
You will find that it is not a coherent concept in theology.
That is, you can not define it or measure it- it's anti-scientific in that regard.
That is, most people will consider it to be supernatural.
Psychologist wrote:
Science has to stay open-minded. Every so-called "Scientific fact" is a temporal fact, not a fact to all eternity. That is science.
There's a saying: "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."
Science is not and should not be open to the supernatural; it has nothing to do with reason, logic, or anything remotely accessible to science. These things should properly and morally be regarded as false.
Until you can acceptably define "free will" in a coherent and naturalistic way, it not only does not exist but can not exist, because it's logically incoherent.
Free from
what, exactly? It's nonsense.
"Free will" is only a useful concept in rhetoric, referring to the retrospective notion of what you might have done (but likely couldn't really have) which exists for the purpose of learning and improvement, and what is in ignorance perceived outwardly as choice due to the unknowns of random and chaotic functions.