- Al Smith
- Washington, DC
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What do religions all have in common?
Today's internet driven, knowledge seeking person has seen the rapid evolution of religious philosophies from around the world. From a past of rare encounters with foreign thoughts, comes a whirlwind of new ideas and everyone's version of "the ultimate truth." So what do these truths all have in common?
Topics:
common ground philosophy world religions
tishe Hires 10+
Jason Kather 10+
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful"
Some things never change...
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Comment deleted
Jason Kather 10+
" If you understood how to read the language they're written in, you might be surprised by the profound wisdom they contain.
To condemn books you've neither read nor comprehended is rather futile."
(I will be copying every post of yours that I reply to due to you most probably deleting them in the future)
The best possible scenario is that only one of these Holy books is accurate. Koran, Bible (part one and two), Torah, Vedas, etc, etc. If one is true, the rest are all false. They can't all be accurate, but they can all be wrong.
kaka dada
so if i don't find new testament not good enough to get spiritual i rather prefer orgies. if thats is not enough of my needs then i may prefer to have orgies with virgins after my death, i would prefer any holy books which promises me virgins and boys (houris?).
I second Kathy's statement "Just as some people have a liking for poultry over fish, or a talent for history over math, holy doctrine will resonate differently with different people"
Nonsense.
Jason Kather 10+
"It is within my right to delete my comments as I see fit, as I prefer to delete my comments shortly before the conversation ends, while I still have the opportunity to do so.
For you to copy a segment of my conversation for the sake of responding to it is fine; it's when people attempt to keep my comments on the page in order to 'preserve' them on said page, thereby infringing upon my right to delete them, that I find unacceptable (as does TED.) Just so we understand each other"
I agree...It is within your right to delete all of your posts as you see fit. I personally feel it shows a lack of respect to those with whom you have engaged in conversation, but that is your right
"Just so we understand each other"---we don't understand each other. Hopefully a better understanding will develop through a respectful exchange of ideas, however.
"Why do you think "the best possible scenario is that only one of these books is accurate"? Each of these doctrine (save the Qu'ran) were written for an age and a race according to the progression of the zodiac.
I fully disagree with you that " If one is true, the rest are all false. They can't all be accurate, but they can all be wrong."
That is such fundamentalist thinking and I find it patently ridiculous."
If you want to cherry-pick from all of these books to get your bits and pieces of worthwhile information, that is your business. The fact remains that much of what each of these books is predicated on is having a "Divine, all knowing author" and therefore being perfect, yet much of what is included is unique or contradictory to other books.
The problem with "fundamentalist thinking" are the fundamentals in which that thinking is based upon. David Hume said the following a couple hundred years ago:
"A wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence"
"To hate, to love, to think, to feel, to see; all this is nothing but to perceive"
continued...
Jason Kather 10+
Sam Harris asks the question: "How hard would it be to improve any of the Holy Books?" The answer is "Not hard at all". Go to a book store and start looking through the psychology section or the philosophy section, or the medical section, and on and on. The difference between what was known then and what is known now is night and day. To deny this is "fundamentalist thinking".
"Just as some people have a liking for poultry over fish, or a talent for history over math, holy doctrine will resonate differently with different people. If you don't care for fish, try the veal. If you don't care for the Torah, try the Vedas.
Claiming that "They can't all be accurate, but they can all be wrong." shows me that you haven't the slightest comprehension of any of them."
...Sure, there are good parts to holy scripture. The men who wrote them were intelligent for the time in which they lived. I hold to the point that in the thousands of years since these scriptures were written, many thousands of intelligent humans have increased knowledge exponentially. Many of the thoughts of ancient times in which they were written are wrong, dangerous, based on fantasy, and prefer the supernatural over the natural. Those types of thought are "fundamentalist thinking".
Jason Kather 10+
I do have my issues with holy doctrine. These issues include disdain and the belief that much of it is based on fantasy. Answer the following questions for me if the Holy Scriptures deserve so much respect... (I will stick with Christianity, since it is seen as the most gentile by many)
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Cont...
Jason Kather 10+
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I must admit that the questions are not originally my own. Humans have been asking these for thousands of years.
ilanit Davidi
1. My religion holds the ultimate truth.
2. My deity is Divine.
3. My deity is the most trustworthy/true/powerful/beautiful/fearsome/lovely one.
4. My deity will never disappoint me.
5. My religion gives me the only solace I will ever need.
6. My religion gives me the best answers for my questions.
7. My religion gives me the best solutions for my problems.
8. My religion gives me a guideline for handling the best life.
9. My belief will always be the first thing to sustain me.
10. My religion will finally be the ultimate truth to survive.
I humbly think that everybody think that, muslems, jews, Christians…even atheists in their own way :)
I have learned a lot from the al-Qur'an, new testament, veda (samhita),
daodejing (tao te ching), the nibelungenlied, i ching, talmud and tanach (bible).
my religion is, by my heart, is the right for me, my truth, my rock & bed.
we don't have to agree about our Deity's name and scriptures,
but i think it is the same for all people and I respect it.
with love to you all...
ily
~
Benny boy
Sidharth Hariharan
Ana María Pérez 200+
Udit Kumar Sahoo
Religion doesn't particularly divide us rather it creates a variety.... or various means to obtain peace.
Different beliefs created in various religion are actually various paths. These are options given to us.
One cannot force religion on anyone. A persons method of obtaining mental peace can unique to person itself. But when people there is a group of people commited towards following a certain route to mental peace... there lays the foundation of religion. These are those people(Philosophers, Saints, Holy people, etc) now who actually determine their method of peace either in writing or through preaching(Religious Scriptures or Preachings). Now when it comes to another person who feels that he can attain satisfaction by there method becomes the Follower and helps spread the thought (Spread of religion). Here we do see an example to unity among a certain group of people.
Now I can put forward a question that would it be good enough to have hundreds of people with different hundreds of faith and not believing in each other since one feels his method is better or rather having a few religious groups in which atleast hundred people do stand together???
Ana María Pérez 200+
Benny boy
Also they are about what life was like 2000 years ago arn't they.
what about life now?
kaka dada
Hindu religion promotes caste-ism in India. look at the state of dalits now.
Debra Smith 200+
Colleen Steen 500+
"a framework through which their believers see and interpret the world".
I believe religions provide a framework, and believers have a choice as to how they will use their prefered religion within the framework they are offered. Many people use religion as a benificial life guide (as they probably would with or without a religion), and many people use their religion as a reason and justification for violence and abuse of other's rights (as they probably would with or without a religion). People will often use a belief, concept, theory, idea, opinion, etc., to benefit themselves, or to benefit the whole of humankind. It is not the religion, scientific theory, idea or opinion that is in question, but rather, how we use and interpret the "framework" or religion.
Aaron Padwa
Do religious people know more about right and wrong than do non-believers?
No they do not, and this has been repeatedly proven throughout history. So one can conclude that religion is not a necessary or even reliable source of moral principles.
So this raises the question why is it the case that people with divine inspiration do not actually exhibit
any greater aptitude for moral decision making?
This comes down to your point about selective consideration and subjective interpretation. People have proven themselves incapable of interpreting religious work in a consistently beneficial way. This again undermines the usefulness of religion as a moral framework. If people are often led in the opposite direction of morality when try to utilize a religious framework, then the framework isn't serving its purpose and should be discarded for one that is more consistent and more useful (humanist philosophies for instance, which I have mentioned in previous posts in this discussion.
Thoughts?
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not believe "religious people know more about right and wrong than do non-believers".
I had two "religious" people for parents...one was unconditionally loving and kind, and the other violent and abusive.
It is not the religion that is necessarily a reliable source of moral principles, but rather how the source is used?
You've asked a GREAT question!!! "why is it the case that people with divine inspiration do not actually exhibit any greater aptitude for moral decision making"? Well, I have to question that "divine inspiration" reference....LOL:>)
It is a choice. Let's go back to the "framework"...how each individual interprets and uses the framework?
If you look at the original "framework" of most religions, they are beneficial to the whole of humankind. However, with many different interpretations, the original intent becomes skewed along the way...yes?
Personally, I don't care one way or another about religions...I do not practice a religion. However, I see the benefits for many people. I also see the destruction that has been caused by mis-interpreting the "framework". Some people are capable of interpreting religions in a way that benefits humankind, and some people have interpreted religions in a way that threatens the whole.
I don't agree that the "framework isn't serving its' purpose..." It is the believers choice as to how s/he will use the information provided by the framework. One thing I see happening with religions, and various other beliefs, is that people are willing to give up his/her choice, and give the power of decision to another entity.
Thoughts?
Silvia Marinova 20+
Thomas Jones 100+
They are propagated by humans.
Aaron Padwa
Mr. Savage I do not agree with your view of religion and its place in the world, but I would love to be convinced. Religion does not offer a useful moral framework; it is presented in a convoluted, contradictory set of metaphors from many different authors and editors (all human I might add) that are subjectively interpreted and selectively used to extrapolate values from (for an example of the contradictory nature most religions contain passages in their respective holy texts about loving everyone as well as killing and/or ostracizing non-believers...). Humanist principles are much more straightforward, and even better, they come naturally to all non-dysfunctional human beings (and are not subject to misinterpretation....people are instilled by societal values with a natural sense of right and wrong and this process often goes awry when religous idealogies are brought into the picture). There is no need for religious moral guidance; in fact religious ideology is a major source of well-intentioned yet completely atrocious behavior (mistreatment of gays, Jewish people, and women, mass murder, and the list goes on). Read a book by Peter Singer or any of the major moral philosophers and you'll be exposed to a much clearer picture of how to behave morally in the real world.
Also, we have plenty of systems to maintain order without religion. Religion has always been a major source of social and political instability and remains that way even in the current day. Governments maintain social control; religion need not be involved. Faith without question is what causes people to commit wrongdoings, so it is not something to be glorified and touted as a benefit provided by religion.
Harald Jezek 50+
E G 10+
Micheal Savage
Zdenek Smith 100+
"give an answer to questions that can never be answered"
I think we can never say for sure that certain questions can never be answered. So far we continue to increase our scientific knowledge and I don't see any reason why we should ever be not able to answer all questions at some point in distance future? =)
Interestingly philosophy (using rational argument) also includes the study of morals and ethics. It has achieve a great understanding of what ethics is about.
kaka dada
Aaron Padwa
I included that quote in my last post to point out that inquiry into the nature of the world is the source of science, not religion. Religion requires a stance of certainty about the nature of things that science is never arrogant enough to assert. Religions have come and gone based on whatever the current generations view of what the true nature of the world and existence is in a particular area. Science has continually updated its view on the world to reflect the current best estimation of the nature of the world. This is must different from saying, as most religions do, that the nature of the world is due to a divine creator and is too complex for humans to understand. These types of ideologies simplify the existence question because simplicity is appealing to most people. It is more comfortable to 'know' through religious faith than it is to admit ignorance and attempt to come up with the right answer.
Another thing that I object to is forgiving religion when religious figures, who are supposed to be in contact with and under the influence of the divine, have committed serious crimes. From catholic priest molestation of children to islamic suicide bomers, religions can be very dangerous and detrimental to society. I won't list all of the atrocities caused by religion here but a divine figure, if he is truly divine, should act like one and not violated basic humanistic, moral principles (such as do no harm to others). If religion is to be taken seriously, religious people should be moral leaders(since they would clearly have better moral guidance from their one true god....) and this is not always, or even often, the case. When a religious ideology leads to the death and harm of innocents, it needs to be seriously reconsidered as a viable mode of thought.
Zdenek Smith 100+
Aaron Padwa
"If there were no people looking towards the heavens and imagining what could possibly be, there would be no scientists, or theologians, or philosophers in general. You can't have one without the other, because it's all just the quest for knowledge in the metaphysical sense."
Frans Kellner 100+
Helen Hupe 30+
Debra Smith 200+
Frans Kellner 100+
I saw the first half of the movie and was to moved to go on.
Maybe another time. I'll let you know.
Debra Smith 200+
Salim Solaiman 50+
Christophe Cop 500+
I think that the answer to this question would be the same as the answer to your question.
I think that when a sufficient amount of people come together to celebrate what they uphold to be their way of living, you can say it is a religion. (or maybe we can refer to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)
Al Smith
I don't think it is about what we "call" a religion; a sign pointing at the moon is irrelevant if you feel the moon is there, it's about the initial feeling of a single person that drives that motivation to come together with others and say "hey, I think there's something to this!"
and ps, my professors would kill you for using wikipedia as a source lol
Christophe Cop 500+
Al Smith
Sidharth Hariharan
Borrah Campbell
If someone told you something was true every day for your entire life, would you believe it?
Helen Hupe 30+
Shokrullah Amiri 10+
All religions came into being for avoiding wrong doings.
Frans Kellner 100+
Shokrullah Amiri 10+
tishe Hires 10+
Al Smith
The point of naming those few wasn't because they were men or the fact they died, but simply to show that a multitude of different cultural backgrounds and experiences still result in a universal commitment to nonviolence. Too often, we are bewildered by the fact we give people power, and they abuse that power. Power is a natural thing to seek in the animal world, from which we are not entirely separated, and yet we act surprised when politicians are corrupt or religious leaders are going against their own words. Religion is not the cause, but merely one of the latest avenues mankind has made for themselves in order to control. When a person wants to feel safe, they will gather in tribes of people who think like they do, or have the same viewpoints as they do, it's natural. And as we encounter different ideas, we panic as if those ideas are an immediate danger to our own selves.
When religion gets to a point where an ideology needs to fight another ideology over who is more "righteous,"; that's not religion, that's mob mentality. Even those strongly against religion should see the benefit in how it makes us all connected, even though primal tendencies still arise here and there.
If one is really into science over religion, if there is such a distinction really, I would ask what does science look like without religion? If there were no people looking towards the heavens and imagining what could possibly be, there would be no scientists, or theologians, or philosophers in general. You can't have one without the other, because it's all just the quest for knowledge in the metaphysical sense.
Zdenek Smith 100+
The same applies to ethics and morality. People commit crimes whether they are part of a religion or not. I think it is more important to educate people about why they should behave ethically regardless of their religion or culture?
Silvia Marinova 20+
Zdenek Smith 100+
Aaron Padwa
You may be imaginative in other ways, in non-religious matters(even to the point of limitless creative capacity) regardless of your religious beliefs, but your imagination on existence is severely limited by belief in religion.
Silvia Marinova 20+
tishe Hires 10+
Zdenek Smith 100+
Sidharth Hariharan
tishe Hires 10+
Benny boy
Sidharth Hariharan
tishe Hires 10+
Al Smith
In many ways, being a "fence sitter" puts you in the harmonious center of it all, which is juuuuuuuust fine
Al Smith
In a religious studies class, I learned that there are 4 qualities to religious establishment:
Ritual
Text
Prophets
The Divine Unknowable
These combine to make a person aware of some kind of greater self (and even that description is misleading because it is only a basic understanding.) And if we look at the way music has been adapted into our lives, we have the ritual of listening to our favorite songs to feed our desire for art, the text of lyrics that act as a sign pointing at the moon; something that tells the story of the way to the real ideal, prophets in our favorite artists that elevate their understanding of music to the next level, be they famous or not, and of course the great philosophy of the universal "you just can't put it into words, man."
One of my favorite stories is of Buddha and the sitar player. The Buddha came across a man stringing his sitar one string at a time, and this triggered a realization of the middle way, in which the harmonious balance of not too tight and not too loose made the string vibrate beautifully. And maybe that is why we love music so much, because it is harmonic and vibrational perfection.
Phew, long-winded, but I love music, and it's awesome to talk about!
Aaron Padwa
Anyway back to the point. I love the Huxley quotation that you provided on perrenial philosophy. I think that is a great summary of certain religious philosophies, certainly the more prominent ones. There are some religious philosophies that may not fall so neatly into that model of religious ideology, such as buddhism, but overall I think it is a very useful way to think of religion.
One thing I will add is that most religions make unfounded assertions that require logical leaps (what some people call faith) to have validity. In this sense, religious philosophies undermine themselves by being unable to sufficiently support their claims. Empirical evidence, as it has been understood by us (and yes I admit that our ability to understand the universe is hampered by our limited perceptual abilities, and that we could observe something that seemed truly miraculous and inexplicable...but that wouldn't mean that it was supernatural or evidence of the divine), leads us to different conclusions, and I am more inclined to trust constantly updated modern theories and scientific philosophies that consider new scales of existence that we are now able to perceive (objects that are very, very small and very, very large), than a few outdated philosophies based on limited information that are resistant to change.
Philip Tripp
At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.
• First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness--the world of things and animals and men and even gods--is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.
• Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.
• Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.
• Fourth: man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.