Does religion lack meaning?

[Radio Frequency X]

It seems to me many religions try to figure out the correct morals without giving the basis for the morals to begin with.

Most religions have one of three moral foundations:

1. Do no harm.
2. Submit to God
3. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The basis for these claims is usually an adherence to the will of God and to promote "the good" amongst all Mankind.

 

[Anti-World]

"God is a symbol of something we cannot know, a place-holder for the unknown/unknowable. Can we ever really know what lies at the centre of a conscious subjective perspective?"

The answer to that is simply no. Therefore why adhere to anything?

"Most religions have one of three moral foundations:

1. Do no harm.
2. Submit to God
3. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The basis for these claims is usually an adherence to the will of God and to promote "the good" amongst all Mankind."

Good response but I still wonder why these were put in place to begin with. It seems like the purpose is completely selfish (To make each individual person happier) and the God is put into place to make us feel like we don't have a choice.

 

[MaddLlama]

Is there something wrong with people finding happiness and comfort in something?

 

[roli]

What is the foundation for the morals designed by religions? What's the goal?

Is it to be happy? To be productive? What? What makes a religion consider some things moral and others not?

It seems to me many religions try to figure out the correct morals without giving the basis for the morals to begin with.

Religion did not set morals it was something that has been placed in each of us by God,sin defiled that in man,God through Jesus restores that in man,
You have mankind violating their own conscience because of that defilement,but we can't manifest true morality unless we have God in the center of our life,we may display hints of moral behavior in our lives but only we know the truth of ourselves and how moral we actually are.

 

[Anti-World]

"Is there something wrong with people finding happiness and comfort in something?"

Do you think that is what religions meaning is? If so then I don't see what's wrong with it at all. Even if it's a lie it's worth it, right?

"Religion did not set morals it was something that has been placed in each of us by God,sin defiled that in man,God through Jesus restores that in man,
You have mankind violating their own conscience because of that defilement,but we can't manifest true morality unless we have God in the center of our life,we may display hints of moral behavior in our lives but only we know the truth of ourselves and how moral we actually are."

I'd hate to say it but consciences vary widely and it has very little to do with God (Depending on your definition of him.) Your basis is, if I read you correctly, belief and the goal is to be more moral? I don't understand that. Morality based on belief lacks any real meaning.

 

[Paraprakrti]

What is the foundation for the morals designed by religions?

The Supreme Being's desires pertaining to humanity as a whole, a specific society of people, or an individual person. In other words, moral laws can change or have exceptions, at least for the most part.

What's the goal?

Is it to be happy? To be productive? What?

The goal of morals? Ultimately to develop spontaneous love of God. Morals are meant to maintain a society on the path to God.

What makes a religion consider some things moral and others not?

It seems to me many religions try to figure out the correct morals without giving the basis for the morals to begin with.

This question ultimately boils down to inquiring about God's desires. And when I say "God" I mean simply, "Supreme Being." It is generally taught that God desires a loving relationship with souls, which is our eternal dharma. So moral laws in a society are meant for that end.

 

[pstevenson]

We experience what what we believe, unless you believe you won't, in which case you don't, which means you did. -Harry Palmer from the workbook ReSurfacing

 

[MaddLlama]

Do you think that is what religions meaning is? If so then I don't see what's wrong with it at all. Even if it's a lie it's worth it, right?

That is one thing people get out of thier own personal beliefs, but that isn't the meaning behind every one. Each religion has a different meaning for every person, but I would agrue that comfort and happiness are two of the things that result from having a firm belief in something.
I'll ask you again - do you think there is something wrong with that?

Morality based on belief lacks any real meaning.

Then, what exactly do you base your morality on? And, how do you determine what is meaningful and what isn't? Just because you find no meaning in something means that nobody should, or can?

 

[NoahideHiker]

What is the foundation for the morals designed by religions? What's the goal?

Is it to be happy? To be productive? What? What makes a religion consider some things moral and others not?

It seems to me many religions try to figure out the correct morals without giving the basis for the morals to begin with.

I believe in what is commonly called Universal Law. It is the engrained moral ability to know there are things that are right and wrong. Don't kill. Don't harm each other. Basiclly don't do to anyone else what you would not do to yourself.

Religions don't lack meaning. People lack meaning.

 

[Willamena]

"God is a symbol of something we cannot know, a place-holder for the unknown/unknowable. Can we ever really know what lies at the centre of a conscious subjective perspective?"

The answer to that is simply no. Therefore why adhere to anything?

And yet you exist. Why adhere to nothing? 'Agnosticism' beginning to make sense?

 

[Anti-World]

"Then, what exactly do you base your morality on? And, how do you determine what is meaningful and what isn't? Just because you find no meaning in something means that nobody should, or can?"

Good question. That's what I want to know.

"I believe in what is commonly called Universal Law. It is the engrained moral ability to know there are things that are right and wrong. Don't kill. Don't harm each other. Basiclly don't do to anyone else what you would not do to yourself."

I've heard that before and it makes more sense than most. Could that be rephrased as the purpose of religion is based on engrained ideas about morals?

 

[Anti-World]

"I'll ask you again - do you think there is something wrong with that?"

Why would I?

 

[lilithu]

That doesn't really make any sense. It's like saying, "Surely the basis for food lies in a lack of it."

Michel's statement makes sense to me. Surely the basis for medicine lies in the lack of health.

"Food" is what WE make of things; a meaning that we assign.

Ultimately food is what provides physical nourishment. I can apply additional meanings to it but that primary meaning cannot be violated.

I can eat nothing but plastic and call it food and assign the meaning of food to it but in the end I will still starve.

 

[lilithu]

Does religion lack meaning?

The purpose of religion is meaning.

What is the foundation for the morals designed by religions? What's the goal?

Is it to be happy? To be productive? What? What makes a religion consider some things moral and others not?

It seems to me many religions try to figure out the correct morals without giving the basis for the morals to begin with.

I am unclear as to what these questions have to do with the title of your thread.

 

[Anti-World]

"The purpose of religion is meaning."

I really like that statement. So, in other words, when a religion holds no meaning then it also has lost it's purpose?

"I am unclear as to what these questions have to do with the title of your thread."

The foundation to religion can help me understand the meaning of it. If it has no purpose than where does the meaning come from? They seem to walk hand in hand to me. Point well taken though.

 

[painted wolf]

How about be a good person and a credit to your species?

wa:do

 

[Anti-World]

"How about be a good person and a credit to your species?"

That's really really subjective. "good person" and "credit" are not the basis for religions but rather the question religions are trying to answer.

 

[michel]

"How about be a good person and a credit to your species?"

That's really really subjective. "good person" and "credit" are not the basis for religions but rather the question religions are trying to answer.

You are being pedantic - the terms "Good person and a credit to your species" are perfectably acceptable an answer to your question. The subjectivity is not in dispute, and will vary with each religion.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It seems to me many religions try to figure out the correct morals without giving the basis for the morals to begin with.

Sure, but that's true for humanism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. IMO, morals should be based on their value with respect to the unity of the whole--its oneness. There will still be disagreement as to what is or is not moral, but at least it gives us something to work with.