False Religions

[Quiddity]

Well, if you can't defend that actions of your church, I can't talk to you. I don't care what you believe... only what you do.

No I cannot defend them. I'd object just as much as you. Good Luck with your perfect actions quest.

~Victor

 

[lilithu]

Do you distinguish between religion as "ultimate concern" and faith as "the sate of being ultimatelly concerned"?

Faith, to me, is a state of trust. Faith can be placed in a lot of things: one's friends and family, one's job security, one's country, one's way of life, and of course one's religion (which by Tillich's definition may or may not be the same as any of the aforementioned). Religion requires faith, but I do not see faith as tied only to one's ultimate concern.

I forgot to say this in my response to Fatmop, and it may (or may not) answer your question:
As I said, Tillich was an existentialist (as am I). Existentialism posits that we give ourselves purpose and meaning by what we choose to value. In that respect, if someone chooses to value nothing more than her baseball team, then that is the extent of the meaning that she has given herself. If someone chooses to value nothing more than his new sportscar, then that is the extent of the meaning that he has given himself. Some people define their own worth by their family, some by their country, and these are their ultimate concerns. Otoh, some people choose more abstract levels of meaning. Some people define their own worth by their intellect, and science and logic are their ultimate concerns. Some define their worth by their heart, and compassion for other people is their ultimate concern.

This is what Tillich meant by religion being "ultimate concern." What do you choose to give your life to (not by dying but by living)? How do you choose to define yourself, to give yourself meaning? In this sense, everyone has a "religion," because we all must choose that which we most value. Even when we don't actively make that choice, if we allow ourselves to go along with a default choice, that is a choice. I imagine that some people will dislike "religion" being defined in a way such that everyone has a religion. But Tillich isn't saying that everyone secretly believes in God or that all religions are equally valid. On the contrary, what he was trying to remind us is that we all have to choose, and we had better choose wisely. At the end of one's life, which may come a lot sooner than one is expecting, can one look back and be proud of the meaning that one has given oneself? That is the ultimate concern.

Oh, and just to bring this back to the OT, if you look back and can't be proud of what you've chosen, then what you've chosen is a false religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Faith, to me, is a state of trust. ... Religion requires faith, but I do not see faith as tied only to one's ultimate concern.

I'd like some time to properly consider your comments. At this point let me just point out the it was Tilling who wrote in Dynamics of Faith...

Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned: the dynamics of faith are the dynamics of man's ultimate concern.​

Let me also suggest that your assertion that "religion requires faith" is dependent upon your definition of religion. So, for example, I doubt that this statement is true given Tuan's definition of religion as the impulse for cohesion and meaning. Similarly, Ursula Goodenough wrote in The Sacred Depths of Nature ...

In the end, each of these religions addresses two fundamental human concerns: How Things Are and Which Things Matter.

How Things Are becomes formulated as Cosmology or Cosmos: How the universe came to be, how humans came to be, what happens after we die, the origins of evil and tragedy and natural disaster.

Which Things Matter becomes codified as Morality or Ethos: the Judaic Ten Commandments, the Christian Sermon on the Mount, the Five Pillars of Islam, the Buddhist Vinaya, the Confucian Five Relations.

The role of religion is to integrate the Cosmology and the Morality, to render the cosmological narrative so rich and compelling that it elicits our allegiance and our commitment to its emergent moral understandings. [page xiv]​

... suggesting a definition of Religion not necessarily reliant on faith.

I guess at this point in our discussion I see no particular need to define 'faith' as anything other than unevidenced belief.

 

[lilithu]

I'd like some time to properly consider your comments. At this point let me just point out the it was Tilling who wrote in Dynamics of Faith...

Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned: the dynamics of faith are the dynamics of man's ultimate concern.​

I love Tillich but my own theology doesn't come solely from him. (Altho I'm sure that I would agree with him in context.) 90% of theology is semantics, and I find a broader definition of "faith" than his there to be more useful.

Let me also suggest that your assertion that "religion requires faith" is dependent upon your definition of religion. So, for example, I doubt that this statement is true given Tuan's definition of religion as the impulse for cohesion and meaning. Similarly, Ursula Goodenough wrote in The Sacred Depths of Nature ...

In the end, each of these religions addresses two fundamental human concerns: How Things Are and Which Things Matter.

How Things Are becomes formulateds as Cosmology or Cosmos: How the universe came to be, how humans came to be, what happens after we die, the origins of evil and tragedy and natural disaster.

Which Things Matter becomes codified as Morality or Ethos: the Judaic Ten Commandments, the Christian Sermon on the Mount, the Five Pillars of Islam, the Buddhist Vinaya, the Confucian Five Relations.

The role of religion is to integrate the Cosmology and the Morality, to render the cosmological narrative so rich and compelling that it elicits our allegiance and our commitment to its emergent moral understandings. [page xiv]​

... suggesting a definition of Religion not necessarily reliant on faith.

I guess at this point in our discussion I see no particular need to define 'faith' as anything other than unevidenced belief.

Given my definition of faith, I would say that all the definitions of religion that you give requires faith. As I said, faith is a state of trust. Whatever definition of religion that one accepts, one must trust that it is correct. And in Tillich's definition of religion, one must trust that the ultimate concern that one has chosen to give one's life meaning is worthy of one's life. As Kierkegaard pointed out, where we choose to place our faith (ie - trust) is the biggest risk that we'll ever take in life. The value of our life literally depends on it.

Yes, faith is unevidenced belief. But it is not unevidenced belief in a statement of "fact" like "Santa wears a red suit." Whether or not that statement is true or false or even makes any sense, requires no faith on my part. Faith is unevidenced belief IN something or someone. It requires faith on my part to put out milk and cookies on Christmas Eve in the belief, in the trust that Santa will come visit. Faith requires action. Faith requires risk and investment.

I've chosen an example where most people would say that my faith is misplaced and perhaps shows that faith is silly. But I submit that when you believe that your friend will pick you up from the airport after a long and tiring trip and you haven't made alternative transportation arrangments, you are placing faith in your friend. And obviously there are bigger, more important examples of faith that we undertake everyday.

 

[Malus 12:9]

All religions, to me, are false until proven realistic about the beliefs involved.

 

[michel]

All religions, to me, are false until proven realistic about the beliefs involved.

In which case, Malus, they are all false.

 

[Malus 12:9]

In which case, Malus, they are all false.

My point exactly MICH.

 

[Fatmop]

As I said, Tillich was an existentialist (as am I). Existentialism posits that we give ourselves purpose and meaning by what we choose to value. In that respect, if someone chooses to value nothing more than her baseball team, then that is the extent of the meaning that she has given herself. If someone chooses to value nothing more than his new sportscar, then that is the extent of the meaning that he has given himself. Some people define their own worth by their family, some by their country, and these are their ultimate concerns. Otoh, some people choose more abstract levels of meaning. Some people define their own worth by their intellect, and science and logic are their ultimate concerns. Some define their worth by their heart, and compassion for other people is their ultimate concern.

This is what Tillich meant by religion being "ultimate concern." What do you choose to give your life to (not by dying but by living)? How do you choose to define yourself, to give yourself meaning? In this sense, everyone has a "religion," because we all must choose that which we most value. Even when we don't actively make that choice, if we allow ourselves to go along with a default choice, that is a choice. I imagine that some people will dislike "religion" being defined in a way such that everyone has a religion. But Tillich isn't saying that everyone secretly believes in God or that all religions are equally valid. On the contrary, what he was trying to remind us is that we all have to choose, and we had better choose wisely. At the end of one's life, which may come a lot sooner than one is expecting, can one look back and be proud of the meaning that one has given oneself? That is the ultimate concern.

OK. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree that you could call it religion. Ultimate concern over a sports car, or even over science and reason, still does not compate to ultimate concern over a deity.

 

[Popeyesays]

To avoid judging a religion false, perhaps one could look at a religion that failed to flourish?

The religion of Mani would be such an example. It was faster growing than Christianity of which it was a contemporary. However, with the death of the founder, it spluttered and fizzled and was without followers at all within less than a century, while Christianity flourished.
<[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica](216- 276) Founder of religion, now called Manichaeanism.

He was born in the province of Babylon which was under Persian rule. His family was Persian, but his name is Aramaic. Mani have probably originally belonged to a Christian sect, now called Elkhasitts (a group of heretical Jewish- Christians).

At the age of 12 and 24, Mani had visions where an angel told him that he would be the prophet of a last divine revelation. A the age of 26 Mani started on a long journey, where he stood forward as 'Messenger of Truth', and he travelled through the Persian Empire and reached as far as India, where he became influenced by Buddhism.

Mani practised under the protection of the Persian emperor, Shapur 1, most of his life. As his teaching quickly gained ground, he came in opposition to the Zoroastrian priests, and with the emperor Bahram 1 from 274, Mani lost his protection, and he either died in prison or was executed. The death of Mani, is retold as an incident similar to the crucifixion of Jesus. > Encyclopedia of the Orient[/font]
[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?mani.htm[/font]


[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Regards,[/font]
[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Scott


[/font]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Given my definition of faith, I would say that all the definitions of religion that you give requires faith. As I said, faith is a state of trust. Whatever definition of religion that one accepts, one must trust that it is correct. And in Tillich's definition of religion, ...

Forgive the awkward question, but what is Tillich's definition of religion? You suggest that he defines religion as ultimate concern. I know that he defines faith as the state of being ultimately concerned. If we accept both, it seems that we're left with Tillich defining faith as the state of being religious. Again, I find that less than helpful.

Faith requires action. Faith requires risk and investment.

So the YEC who risks nothing and invests nothing is acting out of what?

 

[lilithu]

Forgive the awkward question, but what is Tillich's definition of religion? You suggest that he defines religion as ultimate concern. I know that he defines faith as the state of being ultimately concerned. If we accept both, it seems that we're left with Tillich defining faith as the state of being religious. Again, I find that less than helpful.

I'm not sure that Tillich made a big distinction between faith and religion. His concern was to emphasize that religion and faith were something that we ALL have, not just those of us who belong to organized traditions. For Tillich religion and faith were the conditions for living - the act of finding meaning in life. And I think he saw faith as the active expression of one's religion. I guess I do too, but I don't limit the word faith only to ultimate concern. I think we have faith in lots of ordinary, mundane things as well.

I'm meeting with my minister later this evening and will ask him if I've misrepresented Tillich.

So the YEC who risks nothing and invests nothing is acting out of what?

What's a YEC? Whatever it is, it isn't faith. I would say that the "YEC" isn't really living. To live is to take a stand. Kierkegaard's biggest complaint about Christendom (as opposed to Christianity) is that most Christians did not fully invest themselves in their Christianity. It was just something that they went along with because they were born into it. He had far more admiration for the "Pagan" who truly invested in his faith than the Sunday "Christians" who did not. Tillich epxresses similar sentiments in his book, "The Courage to Be." For an existentialist, the worst thing that one can do, the "unpardonable sin" if you'll forgive the religious language, is to not think, to not actively choose, to not define oneself. Obviously, one will still "exist" if one doesn't make active choices, but not in fullest way that one could.

Ormiston's other thread on death poems and this discussion here bring to mind a poem by Mary Oliver, a UU poet. The last lines are:

When it's over, I want to say: all my life
I was a bride married to amazement.
I was a bridegroom, taking the world into my arms.

When it's over, I don't want to wonder
if I have made of my life something particular, and real.
I don't want to find myself sighing and frightened
or full of argument.

I don't want to end up simply having visited this world.

Mary Oliver's poetry expresses UU theology. Take a stand. Be committed to this life and this world. Make your life real, worth something. Don't just be a victim of circumstance, or visitor passing through.

To bring this pack to the OT again, in my UU mind, any religion, and I mean religion in the broadest terms here, that doesn't encourage people to be fully engaged with life is a false religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm meeting with my minister later this evening and will ask him if I've misrepresented Tillich.

I'd appreciate hearing her/his response ...

What's a YEC? Whatever it is, it isn't faith. I would say that the "YEC" isn't really living.

I'm sorry: YEC is a TLA (3-letter acronym) for Young Earth Creationist, and I would argue that such literalists are exemplars of faith.

As for the OT, and recalling Goodenough's comments above, E. O. Wilson speaks of homo sapiens as "the mythopoeic species" and suggests that ...

The way to achieve a [religious] epic that unites humanity spiritually, instead of cleaving it, is to compose it from the best empirical knowledge that science and history can provide of the real human story. Spirituality is beneficent to the extent that it is based on verifiable truth.​

A false religion is, in my opinion, that which undermines this effort.

 

[Malus 12:9]

JAM 1:26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless

 

[Sunstone]

As for the OT, and recalling Goodenough's comments above, E. O. Wilson speaks of homo sapiens as "the mythopoeic species" and suggests that ...

The way to achieve a [religious] epic that unites humanity spiritually, instead of cleaving it, is to compose it from the best empirical knowledge that science and history can provide of the real human story. Spirituality is beneficent to the extent that it is based on verifiable truth.​

A false religion is, in my opinion, that which undermines this effort.

I believe that we either take E.O. Wilson's advice, or run the risk that our religions might lead to our destruction.

 

[Quiddity]

Spirituality is beneficent to the extent that it is based on verifiable truth.

How exactly can you have something spiritual and verfiable?

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How exactly can you have something spiritual and verfiable?

I haven't a clue, nor is that what Wilson said.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe that we either take E.O. Wilson's advice, or run the risk that our religions might lead to our destruction.

He's my favorite Deist, but I like him anyway ...

 

[Quiddity]

I haven't a clue, nor is that what Wilson said.

Really..what's this mean?

Spirituality is beneficent to the extent that it is based on verifiable truth.

Am I missing something?

~Victor

 

[Ormiston]

As for the OT, and recalling Goodenough's comments above, E. O. Wilson speaks of homo sapiens as "the mythopoeic species" and suggests that ...

The way to achieve a [religious] epic that unites humanity spiritually, instead of cleaving it, is to compose it from the best empirical knowledge that science and history can provide of the real human story. Spirituality is beneficent to the extent that it is based on verifiable truth.​

A false religion is, in my opinion, that which undermines this effort.

This should be an empirical truth...can we all, AT LEAST, agree on this? (yeah right)

 

[Ormiston]

How exactly can you have something spiritual and verfiable?

~Victor

"...based on verifiable truth."

A verifiable truth: I currently live among other humans. Spiritual effect: I must behave in such a way as to continue to live peacefully among other humans.

An unverifiable truth: I will go to heaven if... Spiritual defect: All those who behave differently will be punished.