NationStates Jolt Archive


Religion and the "Absolute"

Revasser
03-04-2006, 10:24
This topic comes from a debate I was having at another forum.

One poster there was making the assertion that all religion must have some concept of the "Absolute" or "Supreme Truth" and be, in some way, trying to make contact with that "Absolute" or it is not religion.

For example, a polytheist who believes their gods are individual, distinct beings and not aspects or representatives of the "Supreme, Absolute Truth", in this poster's eyes, as not in fact religious at all or, if they can be classed as such, they must be "blind followers." Someone who is religious, yet actually has a firm belief that there is no "Absolute" either really does believe it and just refuses to admit it, or is in a state of complete misunderstanding of the purpose of their own beliefs.

This, to me, smacks of "No True Scotsman..." and an ad hoc definition of religion to support this poster's claims, but perhaps I'm missing something.

So, seeing as there are some pretty agile minds lurking around the place, I thought I'd get your opinions.

What constitutes a religion? Does it require a belief in some kind of "Absolute" or "Supreme Truth", regardless of the number of gods it may or may not have to be a religion? Is someone who rejects the idea of a "Supreme Truth" but a blind follower or a dirty, dirty atheist even if they have gods by the bushel?

And please, no "religion is stupid there is no god lolololol" drive by's. I know you guys find it hard to resist :p but that is intentionally outside the scope of this topic.
Timmikistan
03-04-2006, 10:32
man makes relegion, relgion does not make man. This state, this soceity produces relegion which is the sish of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, the spirit of spirtiless conditions. it is the opium of the people.
karl marx
Damor
03-04-2006, 10:55
It seems like logically there should be some "Absolute" or "Supreme Truth", if only for that truth to be there is none.. I don't really see the link with religion, aside from that they claim to know some part of th Truth. (But then so do most atheists; and agnostics simply claim they can't know it, implying it must exist anyway)
Axinalliah
03-04-2006, 11:16
Religion comes from Latin religare, which meant "to tie back or be bound to", the same source as English rely. Therefore, religion simply means reliability; human beings rely on their faith without absolute proof, so I would say that religion is not restrained to "Absolute" or "Supreme"; it is simply something in which we put our faith, but cannot prove. Proof does not make it religion, it makes it science.
Mariehamn
03-04-2006, 11:31
man makes relegion, relgion does not make man. This state, this soceity produces relegion which is the sish of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless world, the spirit of spirtiless conditions. it is the opium of the people - Karl Marx
Too bad old Marxy ended up founding a religion based on the 'absolute truth' of 'scientific' socialism. :rolleyes:
Kamsaki
03-04-2006, 12:14
One's religion is nothing more or less than the social classification they assign themselves based on their opinions of the supernatural.
Agreeable societies
03-04-2006, 12:49
-snip-

What constitutes a religion? Does it require a belief in some kind of "Absolute" or "Supreme Truth", regardless of the number of gods it may or may not have to be a religion? Is someone who rejects the idea of a "Supreme Truth" but a blind follower or a dirty, dirty atheist even if they have gods by the bushel?
-snip-

Having once answered an exam question on a similar topic, i feel somewhat bound to stick my oar in. The actual question referred to how you would expalin the anthropology of religion to the archbishop of canterbury, or words to that effect.

long story, short (too late!) I answered that i would explain firstly that there is no real difference between religions themselves other than the minutiae (sp?) and that all religions can be seen as an attempt to make "contact" with something that is considered to order the current moment.

The one constant in all religions seems to be the reliance on 'eternity'. i.e. the god/gods/system/whatever has always been in place and always will. As such it trancends the human life, which is short and knowable, by being eternal and unknowable. The anthropology of religion studies the various ways in which humans seek to connect to that which they consider eternal/unknowable in order that the may understand or influence that which is short/knowable.

Now, if you read the eternal/unknowable as a "supreme truth" then yes it is required for a religion. However the concept of "supreme truth" would imo indicate that there is a qualatitive judgement as to what religion is i.e. if you don't follow my "supreme truth" then you are not religious.

To answer the question then (finally!) I do not feel that there is a need for a supreme/absolute truth in order for a religion to exist. There is a need for there to be something which is outside the scope of human understanding (what i refer to as eternal/unknowable) but this is not the same as saying there is a absolute truth. Indeed i would say that the majority of religions, and certainly those that are dealing with many gods (polythetical?), can be seen to be attempts to control/guide that which is impossible to control i.e. weather, accidents etc.

To go further, I would say that the blind followers are more likely to be those that do believe that there is a supreme truth to which they can aspire/hope to learn. Those with real faith would be those that understand that they cannot understand (if you see what i mean) and try to do something about it, succesfully or not.

I hope that this makes sense! I have to do some work now but if you have any follow up questions i'll do my best to answer them, it might not be soon is all :)
Agreeable societies
03-04-2006, 13:42
well that killed that thread then
:sniper:

sorry :(
Bruarong
03-04-2006, 15:13
long story, short (too late!) I answered that i would explain firstly that there is no real difference between religions themselves other than the minutiae (sp?) and that all religions can be seen as an attempt to make "contact" with something that is considered to order the current moment.

No real difference between religions......you have got to be joking! If you think it is simply details that separate something like Islam and Christianity, you are obviously neither a Christian or a Muslim. I'm not so familiar with Islam, but in my comparison between Christianity and Islam, it is only the minor details that are not really different, while some of the major points about the religion could hardly make a stronger contrast.



The one constant in all religions seems to be the reliance on 'eternity'. i.e. the god/gods/system/whatever has always been in place and always will. As such it trancends the human life, which is short and knowable, by being eternal and unknowable. The anthropology of religion studies the various ways in which humans seek to connect to that which they consider eternal/unknowable in order that the may understand or influence that which is short/knowable.


Firstly, the concept of eternity is not restricted to religious views.

Secondly, in the Christian world view, Jesus, the Son of God, came in order that we may KNOW him. Rather than being aloof and unknowable, the Christian God not only wants us to know him, but has provided a way in which we can grow to know Him. It is he that has made contact with us, and set himself the goal to win our hearts by his love and heroism. If true, it would be a religion whereby God was seeking man, not man seeking God (at least initially).



Now, if you read the eternal/unknowable as a "supreme truth" then yes it is required for a religion. However the concept of "supreme truth" would imo indicate that there is a qualatitive judgement as to what religion is i.e. if you don't follow my "supreme truth" then you are not religious.

Which is, perhaps, a reason why people of different religions (or even the same religion with only seemingly minor differences) have killed each other.


To answer the question then (finally!) I do not feel that there is a need for a supreme/absolute truth in order for a religion to exist.


Personally, I would suggest that every religion contains some sort of truth. 'Truths' like 'You reap what you sow' tend to permeate many religions, and form part of the collection of wise sayings that come out of religions like Confucism to Judaism.




There is a need for there to be something which is outside the scope of human understanding (what i refer to as eternal/unknowable) but this is not the same as saying there is a absolute truth. Indeed i would say that the majority of religions, and certainly those that are dealing with many gods (polythetical?), can be seen to be attempts to control/guide that which is impossible to control i.e. weather, accidents etc.

An assumption that is 'outside of human understanding' may be labeled as an absolute truth, but that does not make it true or real, of course. For every religion, I suggest that there does have to be something that is labeled as an absolute truth. I suspect that a good test for truth is to see how logically it fits with ones' perception of reality, but even that is not the final test, because no human is capable of absolute objectivity.


To go further, I would say that the blind followers are more likely to be those that do believe that there is a supreme truth to which they can aspire/hope to learn. Those with real faith would be those that understand that they cannot understand (if you see what i mean) and try to do something about it, succesfully or not.


Yes, but there are plenty of examples of followers in various religions who are not necessarily blind. I think 'committed' would be a more fitting word there.
Revasser
03-04-2006, 15:14
That's the sort of thing I was looking for, Agreeable societies!

I'm not even sure that having a concept that is eternal is required, especially when we look at religions that have an "end times" type deal where everything is destroyed, not just the "human world."
Bruarong
03-04-2006, 15:18
That's the sort of thing I was looking for, Agreeable societies!

I'm not even sure that having a concept that is eternal is required, especially when we look at religions that have an "end times" type deal where everything is destroyed, not just the "human world."

The concept of everything being destroyed would itself be some sort of assumption, wouldn't it? Something like an 'absolute truth' that sort of flies in the face of science (considering that energy cannot be created or destroyed).
Fascist Emirates
03-04-2006, 15:38
Only one thing is absolute, me and my rifle.
Fascist Emirates
03-04-2006, 15:40
Tachyons fly in the face of mass/energy retention.
Revasser
03-04-2006, 15:52
The concept of everything being destroyed would itself be some sort of assumption, wouldn't it? Something like an 'absolute truth' that sort of flies in the face of science (considering that energy cannot be created or destroyed).

Somewhat. It would depend on whether the individual or the religion as a whole assumes that their "end times" are an inevitability, or even takes their "end times" myth literally.
Agreeable societies
03-04-2006, 16:34
That's the sort of thing I was looking for, Agreeable societies!

I'm not even sure that having a concept that is eternal is required, especially when we look at religions that have an "end times" type deal where everything is destroyed, not just the "human world."

Thanks :)

How can i explain this... *thinks* when i used the eternal, I didn't mean necessarily an individual concept or idea... what i was trying to get at was something that surpasses the human condition/understanding i.e. what 'god'/s/whatever does/is (the reason for religion)

You will note that all religions where there are these "apocalyptic" ends also have creation myths etc. that explain why we are here/how the world came about and so on and so forth as such, the idea of "end times" as you call it can simply be seen as the ending of a particular religions cycle rather than a way of defining religions as a whole.
Agreeable societies
03-04-2006, 16:51
No real difference between religions......you have got to be joking! If you think it is simply details that separate something like Islam and Christianity, you are obviously neither a Christian or a Muslim. I'm not so familiar with Islam, but in my comparison between Christianity and Islam, it is only the minor details that are not really different, while some of the major points about the religion could hardly make a stronger contrast.

Why does it matter what particular path i follow? the original thread post asked the question "is an absolute truth required for religion?" The answer imo is no, which ironically i note you have confirmed by the above.

Firstly, the concept of eternity is not restricted to religious views.

True, see my reply to Revasser (above) for clarification

Secondly, in the Christian world view, Jesus, the Son of God, came in order that we may KNOW him. Rather than being aloof and unknowable, the Christian God not only wants us to know him, but has provided a way in which we can grow to know Him. It is he that has made contact with us, and set himself the goal to win our hearts by his love and heroism. If true, it would be a religion whereby God was seeking man, not man seeking God (at least initially).

I don't disagree with your beliefs amd please don't get offended when i say this, but this is entirely off topic. What you have done is confuse 'religion' as a multifaceted concept applied in hugely varying forms worldwide, with "religion" as reflected through your own belief system. To answer your point however, i would ask you this question "without man, who would there be, to believe in god?"

Which is, perhaps, a reason why people of different religions (or even the same religion with only seemingly minor differences) have killed each other.

True

Personally, I would suggest that every religion contains some sort of truth. 'Truths' like 'You reap what you sow' tend to permeate many religions, and form part of the collection of wise sayings that come out of religions like Confucism to Judaism.

Exactly, although i don't really get what the second part of point is trying to say. In my experience/studies i would suggest that a more than adequate definition of religion could be thus; religion = the truth. Now, dependent on what you believe to be the truth you can have as many different religions as you want!


An assumption that is 'outside of human understanding' may be labeled as an absolute truth, but that does not make it true or real, of course. For every religion, I suggest that there does have to be something that is labeled as an absolute truth. I suspect that a good test for truth is to see how logically it fits with ones' perception of reality, but even that is not the final test, because no human is capable of absolute objectivity.

Mmmmm, I think i agree with you here, but i will need to think it through a bit more and get back to you.

Yes, but there are plenty of examples of followers in various religions who are not necessarily blind. I think 'committed' would be a more fitting word there.

instead of blind or committed perhaps 'unquestioning' would perhaps be a happy median?
Willamena
03-04-2006, 17:10
The concept of "Supreme Truth" implies that there are some other kinds of truth.

Truth is truth. It is absolute. Does that mean we all have religion? (IMO, no.)
Ilie
03-04-2006, 17:14
Religious faith helps us feel that life is not completely random. I read someplace (how valid is that) that people don't like the idea of evolution mostly because nobody likes to think that their whole life and everything they know is based on totally random events and coincidences. Religion is one of our ways of coping with that.
Ashmoria
03-04-2006, 17:14
i do think that agreeable societies has said it well

religion is the way we relate to the SUPERnatural. the unknowable unkown. i think it involves the assumption that there are "persons" involved with the supernatural who can act (and know) where we can't. religion is our attempt to form a relationship with these "persons"

maybe its "GOD" maybe its "the universe" maybe its just the spirits in rocks and trees.

religion gives us an understandable view of the unknowable (god) that we can relate to and form some kind of relationship with.
Bruarong
03-04-2006, 17:43
The concept of "Supreme Truth" implies that there are some other kinds of truth.

Truth is truth. It is absolute. Does that mean we all have religion? (IMO, no.)

Of course not everyone has religion, but apparently, there are those who would hold a religion and not believe it to be literally true. Why is that? What then, do they believe to be the literal truth?

However, one doesn't need to be religious to hold to a 'supreme truth', e.g. something like atheism.

But what I don't really understand is the person who says that they have a religion, eg. Christianity, but that they don't believe it is literally true. I know you don't call yourself a Christian, Willamena, but perhaps you would like to defend that view point?
Bruarong
03-04-2006, 17:51
Why does it matter what particular path i follow? the original thread post asked the question "is an absolute truth required for religion?" The answer imo is no, which ironically i note you have confirmed by the above.

It doesn't matter for the sake of the argument, which path you follow, but I was just picking on one of your assertions which I felt was not fair to those religions, e.g., that there is essentially only minor differences between them.




I don't disagree with your beliefs amd please don't get offended when i say this, but this is entirely off topic. What you have done is confuse 'religion' as a multifaceted concept applied in hugely varying forms worldwide, with "religion" as reflected through your own belief system. To answer your point however, i would ask you this question "without man, who would there be, to believe in god?"


You still have got a long way to go before you have offended me. Don't worry :)

I was once again trying to point out that your generalisations were not always true, although. If you were generalising, than fair enough, but if you were asserting that a religion is always this and this and this, then I will remind you that you can only call it a generalisation, not a rule.

As for your question, I'll answer it with another question: does god need to be believed in order to exist? Obviously, without man, there would be no one to believe in god, but that is not the same as saying that god would not exist.



Exactly, although i don't really get what the second part of point is trying to say. In my experience/studies i would suggest that a more than adequate definition of religion could be thus; religion = the truth. Now, dependent on what you believe to be the truth you can have as many different religions as you want!



I agree.



instead of blind or committed perhaps 'unquestioning' would perhaps be a happy median?

There are plenty of religious people who do not question, but in my opinion, I suggest that there are far more who do. Religious people tend to live with their doubts, and these doubts are like constant questions. They may not admit that they have these doubts, but I can't say that I have ever met someone who has never any doubts.
Neo Imperial Japan
03-04-2006, 17:55
One poster there was making the assertion that all religion must have some concept of the "Absolute" or "Supreme Truth" and be, in some way, trying to make contact with that "Absolute" or it is not religion.




Supreme Truth?... You gotta be kidding me.... I mean honestly
do you think storys like Joan and the Whale, and Adam and Eve... actually occurred.... come on now Moses crosing water..... LOL!!

this is as corney as me telling you all... That after watching Godzilla 1954
the creature is real.... LMAO.
Knights Kyre Elaine
03-04-2006, 17:57
One's religion is nothing more or less than the social classification they assign themselves based on their opinions of the supernatural.

One's religion is nothing more or less than the social classification they assign themselves based on their opinions of everything, natural, supernatural, genuine, artifical and sublime.
Tyslan
03-04-2006, 18:24
I wish to begin by congratulating Revasser on an excellent thread that has maintained intelligent discussion on a theological topic. Way to go!

Now then, onto my point. I have a definition of religion that is still in the works: A reason for living a particular lifestyle. This is used in the broadest sense of the word religion, it is the belief in an idea. The collective unity of these individual reasons form the coherent religious idea, such as Judaism or Christianity, yet the details vary imperceptibly for each individual. Any thoughts on this definition? Feel free to critique, but I would prefer critiques, not insults.

The necessity of the absolute raises an interesting question about the religious idea. In quick response to the overriding question of the need of an absolute figure in a religion, I would state it is unnecessary. There are many religions which have no absolute figure within them, rather they follow ideas. The need for absolute ideas, however, in my opinion must be there. A religion must profess something, it seems most common to say one or all of the following:
A. This is what is wrong with the world and why
B. This is how you should live your life and why this way is best
C. This is where you are from
D. This is how to make the world happier
These are some basic questions most religions answer. I think it is necessary for a religion to answer only option B, telling you how to live, and, more importantly, why their way is best. So in short, there is a necessity for an absolute idea, but not a need for an absolute figure or head.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan
Willamena
03-04-2006, 18:59
Originally Posted by Willamena
The concept of "Supreme Truth" implies that there are some other kinds of truth.

Truth is truth. It is absolute. Does that mean we all have religion? (IMO, no.)
Of course not everyone has religion, but apparently, there are those who would hold a religion and not believe it to be literally true. Why is that? What then, do they believe to be the literal truth?

However, one doesn't need to be religious to hold to a 'supreme truth', e.g. something like atheism.

But what I don't really understand is the person who says that they have a religion, eg. Christianity, but that they don't believe it is literally true. I know you don't call yourself a Christian, Willamena, but perhaps you would like to defend that view point?
Let me ask a question in return: What does "literally true" mean to you? If it means taking the words as written as true, then even you must acknowlege that every word read or heard is interpreted by the mind who receives it. The literal is one interpetation of truth.

Those who say they do not believe in the literal truth mean that they believe in a non-literal truth. The literality of the intepretation says nothing about the truth they are talking about. For instance, one person believes Jesus was physically resurrected, and another believes that the resurrection was a metaphor for a spiritual ressurection we are all capable of at the end of our spiritual journey towards God. Both are talking about a resurrection, but the literal truth of ressurection that is so important to the first person is but a symbol to the second person; the significance for the second person is in their own journey. The first person's religion relies on believing resurrection actually happened, that is where he rests his understanding of his relationship with his God. The second person's religion relies on an understanding of resurrection and its symbolic significance on his inner journey towards God. The second person's interpretation does not in any way contradict (or threaten) the first's: the symbol can be literal, but the truth for the believer in the non-literal is what lies beneath.
Kamsaki
03-04-2006, 19:54
One's religion is nothing more or less than the social classification they assign themselves based on their opinions of everything, natural, supernatural, genuine, artifical and sublime.
Well... not really. The opinions of natural things are only factored in as part of a religion when there is an overlap with something that is supernatural. To admire and respect nature and to subscribe to a movement that does so is not religiosity where, on the other hand, to admire and respect the creator of nature or the governing force of nature and to subscribe to a movement that does so would be.
Bruarong
04-04-2006, 11:37
Let me ask a question in return: What does "literally true" mean to you? If it means taking the words as written as true, then even you must acknowlege that every word read or heard is interpreted by the mind who receives it. The literal is one interpetation of truth.

Those who say they do not believe in the literal truth mean that they believe in a non-literal truth. The literality of the intepretation says nothing about the truth they are talking about. For instance, one person believes Jesus was physically resurrected, and another believes that the resurrection was a metaphor for a spiritual ressurection we are all capable of at the end of our spiritual journey towards God. Both are talking about a resurrection, but the literal truth of ressurection that is so important to the first person is but a symbol to the second person; the significance for the second person is in their own journey. The first person's religion relies on believing resurrection actually happened, that is where he rests his understanding of his relationship with his God. The second person's religion relies on an understanding of resurrection and its symbolic significance on his inner journey towards God. The second person's interpretation does not in any way contradict (or threaten) the first's: the symbol can be literal, but the truth for the believer in the non-literal is what lies beneath.

Yes, I acknowledge your point, and it does seem to come down to an interpretation of the word 'literal'.

But what I was referring to was a situation more like the issue of, was Jesus really God. There are people who call themselves 'christians' but who hold that Jesus was no more god than you or I. Thus, the idea of Jesus literally being God incarnate is something that they reject. Of course, it is their right to give themselves the label 'christian', since anyone is entitled to give themself any label they please, no one has any right to stop them (apart from something like copyright laws), but surely someone like you can see that their definition of 'christian' is very different from the more 'classical' type 'christian' who accepts that Jesus is God incarnate. For the 'classical' christian, the 'truth' that Jesus is God is the whole basis of his belief. Take that away, and it would no longer be Christian. It is worse than a Muslim throwing away the Koran, or a Hindu rejecting meditation. It is even more radical than converting from 'christianity' to atheism. Interestingly enough, in his letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul comments that if Jesus is not ressurected from the dead, then he cannot forgive our sins nor is he God and therefore Christians who believe that he is God are more to be pitied than any other people. Possibly because their great hope rest on a falsity.

Do you see my point? You can only get away with picking either a literal or a non-literal interpretation of the scriptures so far, but past a certain point, if you insist on always a non-literal interpretation, the whole thing ends up being ridiculous.

Hence, I still cannot see why anyone would want to believe something so....ridiculous.
Willamena
04-04-2006, 13:07
Yes, I acknowledge your point, and it does seem to come down to an interpretation of the word 'literal'.

But what I was referring to was a situation more like the issue of, was Jesus really God. There are people who call themselves 'christians' but who hold that Jesus was no more god than you or I. Thus, the idea of Jesus literally being God incarnate is something that they reject. Of course, it is their right to give themselves the label 'christian', since anyone is entitled to give themself any label they please, no one has any right to stop them (apart from something like copyright laws), but surely someone like you can see that their definition of 'christian' is very different from the more 'classical' type 'christian' who accepts that Jesus is God incarnate. For the 'classical' christian, the 'truth' that Jesus is God is the whole basis of his belief. Take that away, and it would no longer be Christian. It is worse than a Muslim throwing away the Koran, or a Hindu rejecting meditation. It is even more radical than converting from 'christianity' to atheism. Interestingly enough, in his letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul comments that if Jesus is not ressurected from the dead, then he cannot forgive our sins nor is he God and therefore Christians who believe that he is God are more to be pitied than any other people. Possibly because their great hope rest on a falsity.

Do you see my point? You can only get away with picking either a literal or a non-literal interpretation of the scriptures so far, but past a certain point, if you insist on always a non-literal interpretation, the whole thing ends up being ridiculous.

Hence, I still cannot see why anyone would want to believe something so....ridiculous.
That's interesting, because the person who excludes the literal interpretation does so because to them the literal seems ridiculous (people rising from the dead). The non-literal is the only significant part (as I explained above).

Two ways of looking at the same thing. I suppose you could blame science and its propensity for logic... and that would explain the existence of Christian Science. Thanks; I've been looking for an explanation for that for a while.

With the non-literal interpretation, Jesus does not have to have literally risen to have demonstrated that he is God --in some beliefs, we are all 'children of God' as Jesus was, metaphorically speaking. But I cannot explain those who would come right out and say 'Jesus is not God but still the foundation of my religion'. Perhaps they are confused.
Bruarong
04-04-2006, 15:05
That's interesting, because the person who excludes the literal interpretation does so because to them the literal seems ridiculous (people rising from the dead). The non-literal is the only significant part (as I explained above).

I see. But then to reject something because it SEEMS ridiculous is mere bigotry, in the absence of logical arguments.


Two ways of looking at the same thing. I suppose you could blame science and its propensity for logic... and that would explain the existence of Christian Science. Thanks; I've been looking for an explanation for that for a while.

I don't think we could blame science, because anyone with an understanding of science realises that it doesn't go anywhere near miracles. Thus to assume that science has proven that Jesus did not raise from the dead demonstrates that one has not got a knowledge of science, but a misunderstanding of what science really is. The best that science could do would be to conclude that it is impossible for a person to come back from the dead (after three days) and thus if it really did happen that it was indeed a miracle. But we didn't need science to get to that point, since the writers themselves claim that it was a miracle. Nope. I don't think it fair to blame science for it. Furthermore, there have been people who believed that Christ died but did not raise from the dead a long time before modern science.


With the non-literal interpretation, Jesus does not have to have literally risen to have demonstrated that he is God --in some beliefs, we are all 'children of God' as Jesus was, metaphorically speaking.

Yes, I realize that this is what many say. In such a scenario, they are really trying to have a Christianity without miracles. But my point was that if you take miracles out of Christianity, it can no longer be the same religion, BECAUSE my understanding of Christianity is that it depends on miracles. And if there were not really any miracles, then obviously I have got it all completely wrong. It does seem like the writers were trying to tell us that there really were miracles.


But I cannot explain those who would come right out and say 'Jesus is not God but still the foundation of my religion'. Perhaps they are confused.

Well, I suppose they might say that it all depends on how the Bible is meant to be interpreted. I have heard plenty of people say that it was never meant to be taken literally. But I don't know how they get to that conclusion based on history. Perhaps they assume this because it fits in with their world view (rather than having real evidence for it). But in that case, they are in danger of trying to fit the facts with their world view, rather than fitting their world view with the facts.

Personally, I have no problem with people not believing in Jesus. That doesn't confuse me. But people believing in a Jesus of their own creation......not only is that illogical to me, but is seems downright dangerous.
Kamsaki
04-04-2006, 15:46
Personally, I have no problem with people not believing in Jesus. That doesn't confuse me. But people believing in a Jesus of their own creation......not only is that illogical to me, but is seems downright dangerous.
Brief interjection here.

You say there is a problem with people reinterpreting biblical scripture to recast Jesus. But what possible way of finding out the truth now is there without being twisted by someone else's own ideas about who and what Jesus was? The only sources we have are personal accounts specifically chosen by an organisation to portray a select series of aspects about him. What possible objective path to the "real" Jesus is there?
Bruarong
04-04-2006, 15:54
Brief interjection here.

You say there is a problem with people reinterpreting biblical scripture to recast Jesus. But what possible way of finding out the truth now is there without being twisted by someone else's own ideas about who and what Jesus was? The only sources we have are personal accounts specifically chosen by an organisation to portray a select series of aspects about him. What possible objective path to the "real" Jesus is there?

Good question. For starters, I suggest that one take a good read of the Bible, without any commentaries, without any 'helps', just to get a gist of what the real Jesus would have been like according to the most authentic material that we have--the Gospels. After that, a good study of Jewish culture. And only after that to get hold of some books on all sides of the debate.

In other words, we cannot get an objective idea of who Jesus was. But we should try to be as objective as possible, and not cave in to our own personal desires. My problem is with those who have not bothered to attempt objectivity.
UpwardThrust
04-04-2006, 15:56
snip My problem is with those who have not bothered to attempt objectivity.
Me as well ... too many people just take what their pastor/priest feads them and runs with it
Revasser
04-04-2006, 15:59
I wish to begin by congratulating Revasser on an excellent thread that has maintained intelligent discussion on a theological topic. Way to go!

Why, thank you. :D

I'd hoped it would be an interesting diversion from all the "Prove God exists!" "No, you prove God doesn't exist!" atheist/theist brawl threads on religion that usually abound. Onto your points...


A. This is what is wrong with the world and why
I agree with this for the most part, though for some religions this question seems to be answered with a simple "That's just how it is."


B. This is how you should live your life and why this way is best
To some extent, I agree, though for some it seems that the individual followers are more likely to say "This is how I live my life and why it works for me" rather than making a great deal of judgement about the lives of others.

C. This is where you are from
I agree, though not all will take their creation stories as literal events.

D. This is how to make the world happier
This does, indeed, seem to be, more or less, a constant, though I do not think I would say it is absolutely required for a "religion"

I feel I should also clarify a little about the debate I was having that inspired this thread. The poster who was making the original claims that religion must have a concept of the "Absolute" is a Hindu, and as we all should know, Hinduism (to generalise) is a superficially or "soft" polytheistic religion that sees it's individual gods as faces of the greater, inscrutable, unknowable "God", which is seen as the "Supreme" or the "Absolute", and, I think, as a kind of unity of everything. The claim was that any religion must recognise and be attempting, in it's own way, to reach this "Supreme Truth" or it is not really religion. The claim was that, by definition, all religious thought is based around this idea, which is a claim I disputed.

As I see it, this idea of a "Supreme Truth" or "Absolute" of this kind largely came about with the rise of monism and monotheism and that many of the ancient polytheistic cultures that preceded this way of thinking had no such concept and needed no such concept for us to think of them as "religious" and their beliefs as "religion." The point being made seemed, to me at least, to be that all polytheistic religions must, at some level, in fact be monistic or monotheistic, as Hinduism is, to be classed as religion and that those who have followed or do follow those religions while not recognising or outright rejecting this idea of "Absolute" were simply "blind followers."

Hopefully that cleared things up a bit. If any of that was at all comprehensible. :p
Bruarong
04-04-2006, 16:07
Me as well ... too many people just take what their pastor/priest feads them and runs with it

Not to mention those who read the books by Hawkins and other such atheists and agree with whatever they say, simply because they have a clever way of saying it (and that it happens to suit their personal preferences). That knife cuts both ways.
UpwardThrust
04-04-2006, 16:10
Not to mention those who read the books by Hawkins and other such atheists and agree with whatever they say, simply because they have a clever way of saying it (and that it happens to suit their personal preferences). That knife cuts both ways.
That it does ... I just see the apeal to athority happen far more often on the religious side in this case

Hell I have never met an atheist that believes (or lacks belief) because of something a book says
Bruarong
04-04-2006, 16:11
I feel I should also clarify a little about the debate I was having that inspired this thread. The poster who was making the original claims that religion must have a concept of the "Absolute" is a Hindu, and as we all should know, Hinduism (to generalise) is a superficially or "soft" polytheistic religion that sees it's individual gods as faces of the greater, inscrutable, unknowable "God", which is seen as the "Supreme" or the "Absolute", and, I think, as a kind of unity of everything. The claim was that any religion must recognise and be attempting, in it's own way, to reach this "Supreme Truth" or it is not really religion. The claim was that, by definition, all religious thought is based around this idea, which is a claim I disputed.

As I see it, this idea of a "Supreme Truth" or "Absolute" of this kind largely came about with the rise of monism and monotheism and that many of the ancient polytheistic cultures that preceded this way of thinking had no such concept and needed no such concept for us to think of them as "religious" and their beliefs as "religion." The point being made seemed, to me at least, to be that all polytheistic religions must, at some level, in fact be monistic or monotheistic, as Hinduism is, to be classed as religion and that those who have followed or do follow those religions while not recognising or outright rejecting this idea of "Absolute" were simply "blind followers."

Hopefully that cleared things up a bit. If any of that was at all comprehensible. :p

Is that like an argument over the definition of the word 'religion'?
Or was it like an argument over the superiority of polytheistic or monotheistic religions?

And that is the first time I ever heard something call Hinduism monotheistic.
Bruarong
04-04-2006, 16:14
That it does ... I just see the apeal to athority happen far more often on the religious side in this case

Hell I have never met an atheist that believes (or lacks belief) because of something a book says

Actually, that would be an interesting question. What are the most common factors involved in forming world views? What is your opinion, UT? And what is your world view, BTW?
Revasser
04-04-2006, 16:26
Is that like an argument over the definition of the word 'religion'?
Or was it like an argument over the superiority of polytheistic or monotheistic religions?

And that is the first time I ever heard something call Hinduism monotheistic.

Yes! That's what it begun as, anyway. It ended up as a debate over the legitimacy of religons without a similar concept of the "Absolute" be they polytheistic, atheistic or otherwise.

As for Hinduism.. well, it's not quite monotheism because the Brahman, as I understand it, is not a personal force in itself, but is seen through the "faces" of the various Hindu gods, which are not beings in their own right. It's essentially the unknowable "One." So while it's not exactly monotheistic, it's not polytheistic either.

Or.. at least, that's how I understand it.
The Sutured Psyche
04-04-2006, 16:29
What constitutes a religion? Does it require a belief in some kind of "Absolute" or "Supreme Truth", regardless of the number of gods it may or may not have to be a religion? Is someone who rejects the idea of a "Supreme Truth" but a blind follower or a dirty, dirty atheist even if they have gods by the bushel?

When I was taking my Methods and Practices class for a a Religious Studies major I found the the most compelling(and ultimately most useful) definition of religion to be "the ordered expression or practice of faith." I know that it sounds a bit fuzzy, but it works in all of the situations most people would recognize as religious. Not all faiths have Gods, not all have the kinds of absolute truth you're talking about, not all have rituals, many do not even have authoritative texts, but all religious experiance involves some form of expression and practice of one's faith.

I'd be willing to wager that the person arguing in favor of supreme truth either is or was a monotheist. Likely a Christian or a Muslim.

I think that the desire to make all religion include a supreme truth is largely a symptom of the dualistic thought encouraged by monotheism. Looking at the universe within the cosmology of monotheism demands dualistic judgements: either it is of God or it is not, either it is good or it is evil, either it is right or it is wrong. More to the point, monotheism demands that an individual recognize absolute truth as a prerequistie of faith. You cannot have a universe ruled and created by a single God if that God is not the ultimate authority.

Polytheism lacks this requirement, indeed it lends itself just as well to relativism as monotheism does to dualism. For a polytheist the universe does not boil down to a single concept, but rather a group of competing concepts. A god whose portfolio includes agriculture is going to be valuable when you are planting crops, but less so when you are going to war or looking for a mate. Even if a polytheistic individual favors or worships on one god within a pantheon, there is still a fundamental understanding that there are other choices.
UpwardThrust
04-04-2006, 16:37
Actually, that would be an interesting question. What are the most common factors involved in forming world views? What is your opinion, UT? And what is your world view, BTW?
My world view I guess is general atheist/agnostic if I had to pick a label. I am not highly “spiritual” as well.

Forming it ... I don't know there are a few major factors in my life was the whole priest thing ... That did disillusion me to the idea of the organization. But I did not really loose my faith till years later. I just realized what was being preached and talked about at least in the Christian faith (as well as the supporting book) did not match up with what I found to be worthy of worship.

Studying my fellow man and their responses to religion I just realized both the incredible power that such abstract ideas can and do hold over man but as with government I am wary of any (specially codified) belief that requires actions/thoughts/beliefs

Maybe it is my ideas on liberty's (very social libertarian) and the such that rejects being ruled by an outside source with no proof of its validity and with claims to be always right. Or maybe my views on liberties were shaped by my past and the abuse that religion (the organization) was able to perpetrate on me and my friends.

I can tell people are commanded (I don't want to say controlled ... but some days...) I just have not seen any real evidence that the religion is commanded by a higher power.
The Sutured Psyche
04-04-2006, 16:50
You will note that all religions where there are these "apocalyptic" ends also have creation myths etc. that explain why we are here/how the world came about and so on and so forth as such, the idea of "end times" as you call it can simply be seen as the ending of a particular religions cycle rather than a way of defining religions as a whole.

The Hidnu concept of Yugas(Satya, Treta, Dvapara, Kali) is a very nice illustration of that concept. Basically, the world moves through cycles, being created and destroyed over and over again. Each cycle is characterized by a different form of dominant human expression: first a direction connection to the divine, followed by a time of great mental power, followed by a periond of science and creativity, then finally a period of base materialism and war before the entire cycle starts over again.
Willamena
04-04-2006, 16:50
I see. But then to reject something because it SEEMS ridiculous is mere bigotry, in the absence of logical arguments.
It certainly could be bigotry for some, but I was referring to the acknowledgement of nonsense, i.e. things that do not make sense.

I don't think we could blame science, because anyone with an understanding of science realises that it doesn't go anywhere near miracles. Thus to assume that science has proven that Jesus did not raise from the dead demonstrates that one has not got a knowledge of science, but a misunderstanding of what science really is. The best that science could do would be to conclude that it is impossible for a person to come back from the dead (after three days) and thus if it really did happen that it was indeed a miracle. But we didn't need science to get to that point, since the writers themselves claim that it was a miracle. Nope. I don't think it fair to blame science for it. Furthermore, there have been people who believed that Christ died but did not raise from the dead a long time before modern science.
If you change "impossible" to "improbable", I agree with that. I was blaming "science and its propensity for logic" for at least a partial explanation of the existence Christian Science, using the literalist viewpoint you represented, which is I am guessing is also representative of a mind-set prevalent in Christian Scientists. Without a literal resurrection there is no Christian God; and before scientific thinking polarized the subject-object divide, there was no literal separation from god. I'll have to think on it a while.

Yes, I realize that this is what many say. In such a scenario, they are really trying to have a Christianity without miracles. But my point was that if you take miracles out of Christianity, it can no longer be the same religion, BECAUSE my understanding of Christianity is that it depends on miracles. And if there were not really any miracles, then obviously I have got it all completely wrong. It does seem like the writers were trying to tell us that there really were miracles.
Nonsense; a miracle is a supernatural event, which means that it moves a person, affects you on the inside, i.e. your spirit. Non-literalists can potentially have as many miracles as literalists …unless, of course, you are going to concretize that idea (and take the supernatural out of it) by placing it solely in the material world as actions. (This is how monsters are made, too.)

Well, I suppose they might say that it all depends on how the Bible is meant to be interpreted. I have heard plenty of people say that it was never meant to be taken literally. But I don't know how they get to that conclusion based on history. Perhaps they assume this because it fits in with their world view (rather than having real evidence for it). But in that case, they are in danger of trying to fit the facts with their world view, rather than fitting their world view with the facts.

Personally, I have no problem with people not believing in Jesus. That doesn't confuse me. But people believing in a Jesus of their own creation......not only is that illogical to me, but is seems downright dangerous.
Ah, but remember my saying that the non-literalist's interpretation was no threat to the literalist's? To these people who say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, history is irrelevant. The fact of events is irrelevant. It could be literally true or not; that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, not because they prefer to make up their own Jesus, nor because they dismiss facts, but because there being a physical resurrection does not make the meaning of the resurrection any more or less real, and it is the meaning that matters. They *do* believe there was a resurrection, just not necessarily a literal one.

To say the Bible is not meant to be taken literally suggests that there is much more to it than the narrative story. It's been my experience that some people who claim a "literally true" understanding of the Bible recognize these non-literal meanings but are ignorant that they are non-literal. And most who claim, "the Bible was not meant to be taken literally," recognize that a literal interpretation ignores the non-literal interpretations. It must. The literal interpretation is one interpretation, stand-alone, the strict narrative. The non-literal interpretation, on the other hand, takes the literal, as symbol, a step beyond by recognizing the underlying meaning that is significant to the spiritual journey of the individual.
The Sutured Psyche
04-04-2006, 17:31
No real difference between religions......you have got to be joking! If you think it is simply details that separate something like Islam and Christianity, you are obviously neither a Christian or a Muslim. I'm not so familiar with Islam, but in my comparison between Christianity and Islam, it is only the minor details that are not really different, while some of the major points about the religion could hardly make a stronger contrast.

I think you're having some difficultyly looking at this dispassionately. To an outsider who had never had any contact with Christianity or Islam, they are very similar religions. Both worship a single all-powerful diety, both respect the prhophets of the Jews as having been the mouthpieces of said diety, it is easy to argue that both worship the same God, both are highly paternalistic in their thought, both are generally intollerant of non-believers who do not fall into certain classes. Christianity and Islam have very similar cosmologies and almost identical creation myths. Islam even recognizes the savior of Christianity as a prophet(simply not as a messiah). There are sects of Buddhism which have more fundamental differences than Christianity and Islam.

Granted, the two religions have quite a few theological differences, but these are mostly details stemming from the Christian belief that Jesus was the Messiah. Islam is no more different from Christianity than Christianity was from Judaism. It is simply the most recent evolution of western monotheism.

Of course not everyone has religion, but apparently, there are those who would hold a religion and not believe it to be literally true. Why is that? What then, do they believe to be the literal truth?

...

But what I don't really understand is the person who says that they have a religion, eg. Christianity, but that they don't believe it is literally true.

I think that Agreeable Societies hit the nail on the head when they said that you are confusing the concept of religion with your specific expression of Christianity.

Literal truth is something of a sticky point. A great many people have literal truth at the center of their religious expression, but it is by no means necessary for a religion. Literal truth tends to be used to answer basic human questions regarding cosmology and eschatology(where did I come from, what will happen when I die, why do bad things happen to good people, etc). While that is valuable for individuals who are looking for religion to answer those questions, literal truth is somewhat less valuable for individuals who have different uses for religion. Many non-literalist Christians view the bible as a series of parables which offer them insight into the ways they should act in order to be good people. For these individuals heaven and hell are not actual places, but rather metaphors which are used to describe the state of one's soul.

Literal truth can be an interesting thing. I remember visiting a Buddhist temple/monestary in Chicago when I was in college. Myself and a few others were speaking with a Monk, generally making ourselves look woefully ignorant, and one of the students I was with who was a Christian asked the question "do you really believe that Mara summoned all sorts of devils and temptations to distract Siddhartha during his mediation?" The Monk's response was simple "does it really matter?" For her, literal truth was irrelevant. The story of Siddhartha's life worked as an example and the specifics of that story helped her to more easily understand complex concepts.

Do you see my point? You can only get away with picking either a literal or a non-literal interpretation of the scriptures so far, but past a certain point, if you insist on always a non-literal interpretation, the whole thing ends up being ridiculous.

Hence, I still cannot see why anyone would want to believe something so....ridiculous.

Take a look at the history of any major world religion. How many sects of Christianity are there? You must remember that organized religion is simply a numbers games, and what is rediculous(or even heretical) today could very well be a major religion in a decade or two if enough people start to believe it. Consider how long it took Christians to stop thinking of themselves as jewish.

More to the point, think about that last sentance of yours. How many people have you known for whom sincere religious belief was something they wanted rather than something they had? Faith isn't generally a choice, but rather something that you feel you know. Did you choose to be a Christian rather than a muslim, a jew, a thelemite, or a gnostic because you liked the beliefs? Or are you a Christian because of faith, because you believe?


I see. But then to reject something because it SEEMS ridiculous is mere bigotry, in the absence of logical arguments.

Faith isn't logical. Religious belief is something all together apart from logic. Pure logic would lead someone to agnosticism, at best. It would also make the world a intollerably boring place. ;)

Personally, I have no problem with people not believing in Jesus. That doesn't confuse me. But people believing in a Jesus of their own creation......not only is that illogical to me, but is seems downright dangerous.

The problem here seems to be that you are unable to understand how anyone can come to a different understanding of Jesus than you. You feel that others are believing in a Jesus of their own creation, but thats kind of a universal experiance. You are taking sacred texts(which are not necessarily facts) and constructing a world view from those texts. Anyone's interpretation of those texts is going to strongly influence how they view the figures within. A literalist, a racist, a pacifist, and an anthropologist are likely to come up with four very different Jesus' even if they are all reading from the same bible. That is the nature of working from holy texts, some of which have been translated and coppied hundreds of times over the thousands of years between you and the author.
Willamena
04-04-2006, 17:37
Here is an example of a story in which the literal interpretation is enhanced by non-literal interpretation:

You have identified yourself with the subtle body but you are still in the gross body. And you are trying to become immortal while still on earth.

In the Bible, the third temptation of Christ, after he had rejected the devil.

The devil said: "Look young man, you look hungry and famished, why don't you turn the stones into bread, with the powers of your lord."

Christ replied that man does not live by bread alone, but by the very Word out of the Mouth of God.

Then the devil said: "Come, I'll take you to the yonder mountain top and show you kingdoms of the world, and all you have to do is bow to me and you can rule these."

This is how one can become a diplomat or a politician.

Jesus Said": Get behind my sight now."

Devil Said: "So you are so subtle. Let's go up on the top of Herod's temple and cast down yourself, and God will bear you up."

Jesus Said": No, I'm still alive, still in a body, get behind me, Satan."

This is the Virtue of Temperance.

Jesus rejects Satan three times. He rejects the economics and politics of the devil, the third time, having surpassed economics and politics, the devil tries to impose the idea that you are just the spirit. Not so.

Here Jesus recognized the gross body also.

People who do not know anything about spiritual reference of symbols, interpret them in gross matters and get involved and indulge in pretty gross activities, to realize their spiritual life.

I am not Going into that in Detail, but you can sense what I'm talking about.

If you interpret the spiritual symbols as concrete, you get involved with yourself in concrete action, associated within a concrete body, then you have lost the meaning of the spiritual message.
The Sutured Psyche
04-04-2006, 17:40
Now then, onto my point. I have a definition of religion that is still in the works: A reason for living a particular lifestyle. This is used in the broadest sense of the word religion, it is the belief in an idea. The collective unity of these individual reasons form the coherent religious idea, such as Judaism or Christianity, yet the details vary imperceptibly for each individual. Any thoughts on this definition? Feel free to critique, but I would prefer critiques, not insults.

My only critique would be that your definition seems to remove the supernatural from the equation. I feel that there is a difference between a religion and an ethos. The ethos might be part of nearly all religions, but it can exist apart from any other religious trappings. I find it difficult to call, say, Machiavellianism a religion.

I've always felt that religions needs not only ethos, but spirituality of some sort. Religion implies a qualitative understanding of the universe, an attempt to go beyond that which can be measured and defined. Religion is not simply a belief in an idea but a belief in an idea of forces beyond base perception.
Tyslan
04-04-2006, 17:57
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the help.
Yes, your critique is quite accurate, it does take the supernatural out of religion. This is probably my most unsettling feature of my thesis for me personally. I would say that perhaps religion could be defined as:
A set of beliefs that justifies a specific living style that is justified by a source outside of basic human perception.
How does that sound?
- Rachel Stremp
Willamena
04-04-2006, 22:03
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the help.
Yes, your critique is quite accurate, it does take the supernatural out of religion. This is probably my most unsettling feature of my thesis for me personally. I would say that perhaps religion could be defined as:
A set of beliefs that justifies a specific living style that is justified by a source outside of basic human perception.
How does that sound?
- Rachel Stremp
So both the set of beliefs and and the outside source are in harmony justifying the living style --that is the crux of religion?
Tyslan
05-04-2006, 20:50
It depends on your point of view and the transitive properties, or lack thereof, present. Outside source justifies beliefs, beliefs justify living style. So does Outside source thus justify living style? To me it would seem so, and therefore I respond: Yes.
- Rachel Stremp
The Blizzard Beast
05-04-2006, 21:00
ther are NO absolutes in anything...you nazis
Tyslan
06-04-2006, 17:24
Ignoring the unbsubstantiated obviously flaming comment that was just made, I pose my question again, do you agree with this thesis?
- Rachel
Willamena
06-04-2006, 17:50
ther are NO absolutes in anything...you nazis
Are you sure of that? Absolutely sure?
Willamena
06-04-2006, 17:52
Ignoring the unbsubstantiated obviously flaming comment that was just made, I pose my question again, do you agree with this thesis?
- Rachel
Personally, I don't think religion is about lifestyle, though a lifestyle can certainly be influenced by religion.

I think religion is about relationship with the divine.
Tyslan
07-04-2006, 00:51
See I would have thought so as well, but when I considered Taoism or Zen Buddhism the divine takes a backseat to the lifestyle, does it not?
- Rachel Stremp
Willamena
07-04-2006, 13:40
See I would have thought so as well, but when I considered Taoism or Zen Buddhism the divine takes a backseat to the lifestyle, does it not?
- Rachel Stremp
Depends... Gods are not the only things that are divine: daemons/angels/free spirits are too, as are we with our human spirit. Any being with a supernatural element is divine; and with divinity comes bodhi (enlightenment). I don't know much about Buddhism. If I remember correctly, the path to enlightenment with Zen Buddhism is through the individual sublimating his physical body (mental and physical identity) to see their true spiritual bodhi? Something like that. But that sets up a relationship between physical and spiritual existence within an individual, and so there is still a relationship between mortal and immortal being. That is the religion.
The Sutured Psyche
08-04-2006, 00:21
See I would have thought so as well, but when I considered Taoism or Zen Buddhism the divine takes a backseat to the lifestyle, does it not?
- Rachel Stremp

I believe you are defining "divine" to narrowly. The divine does not "take a back seat" to the lifestyle of buddhism , it is the lifestyle. The way a buddhist lives in not simply an application of religious ideals, but a means to a very definate end. Through proper practice a buddhist hopes to ascend to higher states of being, to greater levels of consciousness. In this way the lifestyle and the divine are directly connected: Sidhartha became Buddha because the lifestyle he lead brought him to divinity, not because some god reached out and made him an avatar.

Religion is not so much the lifestyle that comes from a given set of beliefs, but rather the existance of those beliefs. Sure, organized religion tends to set a specific lifestyle through ritual, but an individual may be religious without any specific trappings. More importantly, the same set of beliefs can lead individuals to radically different life styles, even within their own lives. A good example of this would be dakshinachara and vamachara(more commonly refered to as right and left hand path, especially in the west) styles of tantric practice.