What does reality demand of a realistic religion?

[setarcos]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

 

[Orbit]

What do you mean by "realistic"?

 

[Ella S.]

In my opinion: If it is compatible with naturalism and if it avoids violating NOMA by positing fact-claims, including unfalsifiable claims such as the existence of an afterlife or gods, then and only then can a religion be considered realistic.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality.

Religion is broader than belief. You do not have to have any beliefs to have a religion.

What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

Suppose that we did have absolute criteria. I think some problems would come from that. First of all isn't reality an impression we get rather than some guaranteed object? We rely upon our impressions, so there is some hubris in assuming we are masters of reality. The problem, then, is the hubris. Knowing how everything works is a bit like losing your boundaries, particularly if you don't have to work for that knowledge. If knowledge of the universe is handed effortlessly to you, then you don't value it. You cannot feel its weight. You can talk about it, but it is just like a shadow of real knowledge. Therefore, there is a problem with determining (for other people) what is realistic and teaching it as absolute. You have to make people work for knowledge and reach for it. You have to require people to grow into it. They can't value it if they won't find it.

So rather than such criteria I suggest a better strategy is to withhold knowledge and to not tell people exactly what is true.

 

[paarsurrey]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

All creeds* of a religion that cannot provide claims and and its reasonable arguments from its core revealed book of its founder, is a false/unrealistic religion, please, right?
Why didn't, just a suggestion, one post this topic/thread in a debate forum, please, even now one could do it, kindly? Right?

Regards
__________
*Can even one of the Nicene creeds of Hellenist Pauline " Christianity" fulfill this claims/reasons criteria, please, right?

 

[Sand Dancer]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

It has to conform to physical laws, for one.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Religion is broader than belief. You do not have to have any beliefs to have a religion.

Really?

Edit: I consider myself part of Earthseed because I do believe in its tenets, but I believe the religion that will guide us towards that change the best is the Baha'i Faith. So, if I'm not required to believe that Baha'u'llah ushered the latest spiritual age, and that all of humanity is continuously progressing us on and forth, what I understand, is that if I were simply the religion that I think is the best one, rather than the one I actually believe, I would still consider myself a Baha'i.

But my view points are drastically different from a typical Baha'i, even if I think what they are doing is overall helping us more than any other religion, per person at least. Earthseed and the other transhumanist religions are doing a lot of good in the world, but the Baha'i Faith seems to reach humanity on more of a fundamental level.

That quote really confuses me to be honest. Am I the religion I believe or the religion I think does the best for the world? Or both? It's difficult for me to understand how someone can be part of a religion and not value both its contribution to the world and their beliefs at the same time. At least with Earthseed there is some degree of familiarity in their theological framework, as I came to the same type of revelations as the main protagonist of Parable of the Sower did before I even knew or understood what the Baha'i Faith is.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Really?

Edit: I consider myself part of Earthseed because I do believe in its tenets, but I believe the religion that will guide us towards that change the best is the Baha'i Faith. So, if I'm not required to believe that Baha'u'llah ushered the latest spiritual age, and that all of humanity is continuously progressing us on and forth, what I understand, is that if I were simply the religion that I think is the best one, rather than the one I actually believe, I would still consider myself a Baha'i.

But my view points are drastically different from a typical Baha'i, even if I think what they are doing is overall helping us more than any other religion, per person at least. Earthseed and the other transhumanist religions are doing a lot of good in the world, but the Baha'i Faith seems to reach humanity on more of a fundamental level.

That quote really confuses me to be honest. Am I the religion I believe or the religion I think does the best for the world? Or both? It's difficult for me to understand how someone can be part of a religion and not value both its contribution to the world and their beliefs at the same time. At least with Earthseed there is some degree of familiarity in their theological framework, as I came to the same type of revelations as the main protagonist of Parable of the Sower did before I even knew or understood what the Baha'i Faith is.

Sorry for any confusion. Because religion originally referred to Christianity and was then expanded to include *everything else that people might do as an alternative to Christianity*, it includes a lot of things. Not all religions have beliefs. They aren't as common, but they are there. The only reason for bringing it up was that Setarcos in the OP was presuming that religion must be either realistic or not, but if there are no beliefs then this does not apply to the religions without beliefs. If your religion has beliefs then you could try to determine whether they were realistic or not try to determine so; but for the religions without beliefs you would not.

 

[Quintessence]

Truthfully, I've not considered "realistic" as a metric of assessment for world religions before. At first brush, I find myself asking "why would this matter?" Perhaps I ask that because I recognize a great deal of complexity in the question "what is reality?" There is no answer to that question, and certainly addressing it in some way is of importance to one's way of life and anchoring worldview (aka, religion).

But this lack of any answer to "what is reality" does leave this assessment the OP asks for in a bit of a conundrum. When it cannot be determined what reality is beyond making certain philosophical assumptions that are themselves axiomatic, whose reality would we be using as the standard of measure, and why? Would we use the standard espoused by that religion, to assess it in its own merits? Would we follow the path of ethnocentrism and say one culture got it "right" and all others should be judged by it?

I've got no answers to this, but it circles me back to those initial thoughts - why assess how a religion conforms to some particular understanding of reality to begin with? Of what use is that?

 

[Left Coast]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

If its claims comport with the evidence? All evidence I know of that we'd generally accept as indications of what's real would be empirical.

 

[wellwisher]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

First of all we need to first agree what religion is. Many people associate religion with the belief in Deities. However, it can be shown that not all religions have Deities. Buddhism is one such example.

Deities alone is over simplified and is not sufficient for a complete definition of religion. I am trying to be inclusive, so we can include secret religions, who try to hide under the radar. Much of what is called political may well be a type of religion, with or without deities, since beliefs and outcomes are not pre certified by science.

One possible way to fine tune a definition of religion, so it is more complete and modern, is to consider the never ending debate between religion and science on these forums. Those who side with science seem to claim that God and gods are all imaginary, since they cannot be proven by science. Say we work with that. A possible complete definition for religion would be connected to a system of collective beliefs, based on imaginary things or ideas, which are not easy to prove with science. Buddhism is about evolving your mind from within, which requires a high level of imagination to make the command lines push internal buttons. This is not easy to prove with science, other than from the surface, which cannot see the inner man.

When the political Left, made Trump a type of Archetypical Bad Guy; he was Hitler and the Anti-christ at the same time, since this was imaginary; the transmutation of spirit is not provable by science, it should be considered a type of religion. They created an imaginary villain to worship, that could not be proven by science to have all the prescribed imaginary attributes. The Russian collusion scam would have also been considered part of a religion, since it was an imaginary system of beliefs that were collective swallowed like a poison pill. The mob would worship each day and recite the dark prayers.

When the Left was using Twitter to spread misinformation, by deleting data points; shadow banding and censorship, the conclusions all became imaginary, since deleting data violates the rules of science. Science cannot prove a theory from an experiment, when it knows data was taken away. The new curve may touch the remaining data points, but it lacks realty, since reality included the deleted points during experimentation. Lying and deception, by altering reality data, will lead people into their imagination, to fill in the curve. This can cause a form of religion to spawn, due to science data principles being disconnected.

Most mainstreams religions are there to help people, so maybe imaginary systems that violate science due to deception and data deletion, designed to fool and/or harm people, need to be lumped with the Satanic religions. Religions have their own divide; extrapolate realty to the divine, versus alter reality with deception and censorship. The first can lead to innovation, the second to degeneration.

What about belief systems that lead to unnatural behavior? To study nature, is to study natural things, and from the study of these natural things science infers the laws of nature. Unnatural behavior will not be part of natural science. These will not be induced by natural instinct, and therefore will have an imagination component, that is not natural but may be religion based.

What comes to mind is the idea that gender preference can override assigned sex at birth even though assigned sex at birth is controlled by an entire chromosome. If you buy into this, you are claiming an entire chromosome, full of genes, is not that important to the final outcome. How does science justify that and/or why doesn't it speak up and settle this, instead of offer cover? Science appears to have it own religion or is afraid of religious persecution by Satan religions with money, that will fudge data, rendering the conclusions imaginary.

If you look at manmade climate change and how science censored science, that did not agree with its preferred premises and conclusions, this made it semi-imaginary due to data tampering. Science is supposed to be able to look under any rock to cover all the bases. We can learn even from mistakes. Once it censors competing science experiments, it is trying to stack the deck, so the theory can becomes semi- imaginary and pat of a Satanic style religion, that is now based on an archetypical end of the world scenario, to feed their religious mob, for its own pseudo-science confirmation.

Marketing which panders to the imagination of people, would also be a type of religion, since it tries to induce the imagination, so it can pass the collection box around; Coke verse Pepsi. The mainstream religion seek to remain natural; old ways, and not lie and misrepresent reality, like the Satanic ones who are in denial.

 

[setarcos]

What do you mean by "realistic"?

Conforming to What may be allowed by reality.
For instance, a religion whose tenets insist that the only things that can exist in reality are those things which can be proven to exist in reality, while at the same time insisting that we cannot prove everything that exists in reality to exist in reality, would be an unrealistic religion.
By religion I mean an agreed upon process or description of reality. By reality I mean the totality of processes, events, or objects that may directly or indirectly effect religion.

 

[setarcos]

If it is compatible with naturalism

If by compatible you mean to say that naturalism is the only thing that describes the totality of reality then I think this asks too much of reality.
Naturalism hasn't been proven to be the only accurate descriptor of reality has it?

avoids violating NOMA by positing fact-claims

Wouldn't it be unrealistic to assume only those facts which can be verifiable are facts that exist in reality? How does science verify experience? Yet who among us would claim to have never had an experience that can't be independently verified? We already know that humans are limited in their sensory capacity and it has already been shown that science is limited in its ability to discover facts about reality. These things alone should be enough to indicate that reality is more than we know and facts exist beyond independent verification.

including unfalsifiable claims such as the existence of an afterlife or gods

Why does that which is unfalsifiable automatically mean that it doesn't exist in reality? And if it can't be shown not to be able to exist in reality in that it violates no known facts that exist in reality then we cannot use that as a criteria in determining a realistic religion.
Which makes me wonder....how could we know if we "bumped" into God somewhere that it was God?

 

[setarcos]

All creeds* of a religion that cannot provide claims and and its reasonable arguments from its core revealed book of its founder, is a false/unrealistic religion

I would agree if the religions core revealed scriptures or other developed tenets do not violate or contradict what we do know of reality.
Whenever a religion deems to depict, or develop a process of how to exist as human beings within reality then that religion should conform to what is compatible with known reality. That isn't to say that faith in religion cannot go beyond what IS known of reality but that that faith should not contradict known reality as a springboard into and justification for that faith. If your faith begins from a proven false premise then that faith is of little worth in reality.

 

[setarcos]

Why didn't, just a suggestion, one post this topic/thread in a debate forum

I'm sorry I thought this was a debate forum?

 

[setarcos]

It has to conform to physical laws, for one.

I would imagine that in order to avoid total chaos this must generally be true. However, from what I've researched no physical laws have formal proofs. This leaves open the question of whether or not we can prove that any physical "laws" that we know of cannot be violated in some manner? If we can't prove this then violation of a physical law would not be an adequate criterion for determining a realistic religion since the question of whether or not violation of a physical law is a realistic consideration would still be undetermined.

 

[setarcos]

Religion is broader than belief. You do not have to have any beliefs to have a religion.

That is interesting. Could you give me an example of a religion without belief? Belief is an inherent part of existence for humans. It dictates, motivates, and activates our every action. Any human that claims no belief would be no more aware or active than a cabbage in my opinion.

Suppose that we did have absolute criteria.

I'm not sure this is possible. Whenever someone uses the word absolute I get suspicious. I don't think humans are equipped to recognize absolutes.

First of all isn't reality an impression we get rather than some guaranteed object?

I would say the impressions we get are from some guaranteed object of reality.

Knowing how everything works is a bit like losing your boundaries, particularly if you don't have to work for that knowledge.

I don't think our purpose is to know how EVERYTHING works. This wouldn't prevent us from having a working knowledge of what effects us in some manner in order to exist in reality as human beings.

The problem, then, is the hubris.

I agree with you here. I don't think having faith in what might be is hubris. I think assuming that we know reality and how it works by projecting our working knowledge of what effects us in reality now is hubris.

Therefore, there is a problem with determining (for other people) what is realistic and teaching it as absolute.

So your saying there may be no criteria by which we can determine a realistic religion that all people would recognize as realistic since we experience reality differently?
Isn't it correct that while we have different experiences of reality, the tools we have to experience that reality are collectively the same within our own species. Isn't that how we define what being human is. Isn't it true that, all else being equal, any human capable of having an experience, given the same conditions, another human should be capable of having as well.

You have to make people work for knowledge and reach for it. You have to require people to grow into it. They can't value it if they won't find it.

Isn't the work your describing a search for the criteria by which we determine what is realistic?
If a religion claims something that contradicts its own internal logic then that religion would be unrealistic regardless of differing individual experiences of reality. If a religion can be made known to a human it can be made known to other humans and compared to what is determined to be realistic to the extent that we experience reality.
It is an axiomatic presumption that contradiction cannot exist in reality while its description may. For instance an object wholly black AND wholly white cannot exist in reality and an object cannot both exist and not exist at once in reality. Don't we define reality by contradiction?
This begs the question...Are there criteria whereby we can recognize a perceived contradiction in realty as only a perceived contradiction and not a realistic contradiction?

They can't value it if they won't find it.

Yes, and of course valuing reality vs. finding reality are separate issues.

So rather than such criteria I suggest a better strategy is to withhold knowledge and to not tell people exactly what is true.

This would do little to advance the human condition in the long run. If humans were unconditionally immortal this might be prudent and in microcosm is actually productively practiced. Sometimes only seeing is understanding and often the only way to breech the barriers of human psychology is to let one learn the truth on their own without being told what the truth is. But to advance the species collectively in macrocosm individuals shouldn't be expected to have to "reinvent the wheel" again on their own in order to proceed to building a better cart. We simply haven't the lifespan to make much progress that way in any field of endeavor.

 

[syo]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

It's gotta speak the truth.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That is interesting. Could you give me an example of a religion without belief? Belief is an inherent part of existence for humans. It dictates, motivates, and activates our every action. Any human that claims no belief would be no more aware or active than a cabbage in my opinion.

Zen. Another would be Japanese ancestor worship. Actually almost anything religion in Japan is void of belief, because people there mistrust faith yet try to keep the traditions of their faiths alive.

An example of something (like belief but not belief) which all people have but that isn't necessarily in all religions: blood. Blood is part of the human body but doesn't always have a role in religions. Neither blood nor belief can serve as the definition of religion or the absolute center of it. You can have religion that is about blood though, and you can have religion that is about belief, too.

Even in Christ the center is not belief but love. We have explicit scripture stating that faith is second to love and also that love is all that is required. We have other scripture stating things about faith, too; that faith is required. Christians often harmonize these by saying they are connected, which is probably true. Nevertheless, you could have a religion about love and not faith. You could.

I would say the impressions we get are from some guaranteed object of reality.

I would say that is a hopeful statement, but in a similar vein of thought: Your religion is always merely a label that outsiders have for you. It is what they think about you. It is not what you think about yourself. They are like languages. Languages have names, but you still don't know a language just by knowing its name.

So your saying there may be no criteria by which we can determine a realistic religion that all people would recognize as realistic since we experience reality differently?
Isn't it correct that while we have different experiences of reality, the tools we have to experience that reality are collectively the same within our own species. Isn't that how we define what being human is. Isn't it true that, all else being equal, any human capable of having an experience, given the same conditions, another human should be capable of having as well.

When did anyone ever truly understand you as an individual and your point of view? People have their own core, their own eye, their own center towards which all of their thought gravitates. Listening is a valuable skill! It is a rare polish which is easily tarnished. You are lucky to find anyone who can even spare the thought energy to understand your points. I am struggling to maintain my own points and to also keep sight of yours. It is almost beyond my ability, because I have to imagine what you think. It takes energy, time, effort. I have to circle back and check to see if we are at all meeting in some crossroad or if we are talking past one another. Its almost impossible.

People talk and talk and talk, and they often never see each other's point of view. We have threads that are hundreds of posts long that exemplify this problem -- maybe hundreds of pages long.

Isn't the work your describing a search for the criteria by which we determine what is realistic?

The work is first of all a scramble for decent footing on the side of a cliff.

If a religion claims something that contradicts its own internal logic then that religion would be unrealistic regardless of differing individual experiences of reality. If a religion can be made known to a human it can be made known to other humans and compared to what is determined to be realistic to the extent that we experience reality.
It is an axiomatic presumption that contradiction cannot exist in reality while its description may. For instance an object wholly black AND wholly white cannot exist in reality and an object cannot both exist and not exist at once in reality. Don't we define reality by contradiction?
This begs the question...Are there criteria whereby we can recognize a perceived contradiction in realty as only a perceived contradiction and not a realistic contradiction?

Color cannot be both wholly black and wholly white, true; however there can be situations in which something only has a probability of being white or black. You don't know what things will be until they are. You cannot tell the wheat from the tares until full grown. Goats think they are sheep. Sheep think they are goats. Fruit is what matters not words. Our experience of reality is incomplete.

This would do little to advance the human condition in the long run. If humans were unconditionally immortal this might be prudent and in microcosm is actually productively practiced. Sometimes only seeing is understanding and often the only way to breech the barriers of human psychology is to let one learn the truth on their own without being told what the truth is. But to advance the species collectively in macrocosm individuals shouldn't be expected to have to "reinvent the wheel" again on their own in order to proceed to building a better cart. We simply haven't the lifespan to make much progress that way in any field of endeavor.

We always have to have fresh manna. The people must follow the glory and carry the tent. The glory doesn't follow the tent or the people. Overnight perfectly good manna will rot. Every generation has to learn the same lessons.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

What do we know about reality?
Not much actually.