False Religions

[Malus 12:9]

Too many confuse belief with truth.

 

[lilithu]

Hey, just got back from UU theology class where the topic was, interestingly enough, acting on/from one's faith and how to distinguish misguided actions from properly guided actions. The theologians we were reading seemed to think they knew how to do this, but the class was unable to come to any consensus.

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

I didn't have much time to talk about this with my minister, but he verifies Tillich's definition of faith, and we think Tillich was using the word faith there in the sense of religion, as in "the Christian faith" being almost interchangeable with "the Christian religion." If that's the case, then I was refering to something different by the word "faith" when I first answered your question and took us on an unnecessary tangent, which we will continue below:

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.

Well I was taking you at your word that these people risk nothing and invest nothing without knowing who we were talking about. I'd say that YECs, if they act on their beliefs, do risk and invest and therefore, yes, do have faith. They take a stand and risk being wrong, and they invest their time and energy in their beliefs. They have staked part of their sense of worth in this belief. Yes, they do have 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.

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

Yes, you are right that we will not all agree on this. I wouldn't trust empirical knowledge of science and history to write a good poem or paint a moving painting, so why would I trust it to produce a good theology?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Am I missing something?

Yes: being something is not the same as being based on something.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'd say that YECs, if they act on their beliefs, do risk and invest and therefore, yes, do have faith. They take a stand and risk being wrong, and they invest their time and energy in their beliefs. They have staked part of their sense of worth in this belief. Yes, they do have faith.

In my opinion, lilithu, this view of 'faith' serves only to obscure the distinction between faith and belief. Faith incurs more risk solely because it is baseless.

I wouldn't trust empirical knowledge of science and history to write a good poem or paint a moving painting, so why would I trust it to produce a good theology?

Using E.O. Wilson's criteria, "good theology" is a contradiction in terms.

 

[lilithu]

In my opinion, lilithu, this view of 'faith' serves only to obscure the distinction between faith and belief. Faith incurs more risk solely because it is baseless.

As I said previously, faith and belief are not the same thing. It's not faith unless and until there is action, commitment, and trust. One can believe that the earth is flat or one can believe that the earth is round. Faith is getting on the boat and sailing into the horizon.

You have faith in science. You have faith in your senses and your intellect. I imagine that you have faith in your friends and family. But you don't use the word "faith" to describe the trust and commitment that you've placed in these things because, for you, that word is something negative.

It isn't for me. I have faith in science, my senses, and intellect. I have faith in my friends and family. I admit that I have very little faith in my government at the moment, but still have faith in the process. I have faith in my church, my religion, and in the ultimate goodness of humanity. And I have faith in God.

Using E.O. Wilson's criteria, "good theology" is a contradiction in terms.

Which is why I wouldn't trust E.O. Wilson to do good theology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As I said previously, faith and belief are not the same thing. It's not faith unless and until there is action, commitment, and trust.

Yes, you have, and I have noted my disagreement with your definition. In my opinion, there is no equvalency between your belief/trust in gravity and the YEC belief/trust in inerrancy.

You have faith in science. You have faith in your senses and your intellect. I imagine that you have faith in your friends and family.

No. My view of science, my senses, my intellect, my friends, and my family, are far from being unevidenced.

But you don't use the word "faith" to describe the trust and commitment that you've placed in these things because, for you, that word is something negative.

No, I don't use the word "faith" to describe that trust and commitment because I define faith as unevidenced belief. Nor, by the way, do I view faith as inherently negative. It is unevidence belief held in the face of countervailing evidence that I find objectionable.

 

[stemann]

I have just come into this thread and not read anything except Deut's last entry, perhaps this will be my downfall in following arguments.

No. My view of science, my senses, my intellect, my friends, and my family, are far from being unevidenced.

Evidence that you accept on grounds of unevidenced assumptions, such as: this whole world is not just an illusion, and other such assumptions.

Science, mathematics, and other logic-based subjects all back themselves up as long as you believe that this world exists. Religion is even more faith based than science, maths, etc., but due to the unknowable nature of everything, everything itself is faith based.

When i use the word faith, i am not exactly sure how to define it. It is obviously similar to, if not the same as, belief, and yet it seems to be undefinable except in terms of what you can do with it. I have to go now but believe me when I say that everything is, in one way or another, faith-based. We can never know for certain what is definitely true- not even that is provable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Evidence that you accept on grounds of unevidenced assumptions, such as: this whole world is not just an illusion, and other such assumptions.

Appeals to solipsism are typically the last refuge of the intellectualy bancrupt. If however, you wish to argue that nothing exists, feel free to start another thread so that the topic can be properly persued by you and your imagined supporters and opponents ...

 

[blueman]

I think most religions have some basic truths to it, but ultimately, the message of Christianity has not been invalidated in anyway. Out of any other religion, it has been backed by the historical record (New Testament), corroabative evidence outside of the Bible (Josephus, Tacitus), bolstered through archaeology and how it has impacted education, music, art, literature and humanitarianism and the like more than any other religion known to mankind. So if you are looking for some truths, you can point to many religious beliefs, if you're looking for total truth, you can logically and objectively point to Christianity and redemption through Jesus Christ.

 

[michel]

I think most religions have some basic truths to it, but ultimately, the message of Christianity has not been invalidated in anyway. Out of any other religion, it has been backed by the historical record (New Testament), corroabative evidence outside of the Bible (Josephus, Tacitus), bolstered through archaeology and how it has impacted education, music, art, literature and humanitarianism and the like more than any other religion known to mankind. So if you are looking for some truths, you can point to many religious beliefs, if you're looking for total truth, you can logically and objectively point to Christianity and redemption through Jesus Christ.

I happen to agree with you (especially that part I highlighted in red), but, you wouldn't be slightly biassed, would you ?

 

[blueman]

I happen to agree with you (especially that part I highlighted in red), but, you wouldn't be slightly biassed, would you ?

Of course I am biased because I am a defender of the faith like Christ wants me to be. You are absolutely right.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes: being something is not the same as being based on something.

I got it now..:bounce
Gracias

~Victor

 

[Fatmop]

I think most religions have some basic truths to it, but ultimately, the message of Christianity has not been invalidated in anyway. Out of any other religion, it has been backed by the historical record (New Testament), corroabative evidence outside of the Bible (Josephus, Tacitus), bolstered through archaeology and how it has impacted education, music, art, literature and humanitarianism and the like more than any other religion known to mankind. So if you are looking for some truths, you can point to many religious beliefs, if you're looking for total truth, you can logically and objectively point to Christianity and redemption through Jesus Christ.

And none of this happened in other religions?
1) Let's see: no religion has ever been 'invalidated,' because they all ultimate rest on faith in the unseen.
2) Backed by historical evidence? You cite Tacitus among your examples. Tacitus surely tells of the cult of Christianity that was spreading through Rome, but all he does is repeat the common ideas about Christianity from the outside. He had no firsthand knowledge of Christianity or of Jesus, seeing as he wrote his histories sometime after 117 AD. Josephus is also a less than reliable source, for reasons we can discuss in another thread. There is absolutely no historical evidence to back up any of the miracle stories - thousands waking from the dead? You'd think that would have caused quite a stir among historians.
3)Bolstered through archaeology? Archaeology can't tell you that Jesus Christ actually existed. It can't show you the bones of the fish he supposedly fed to thousands of people. All it can do is show you, yes, apparently people described as Jewish lived around this area known as Jerusalem, and oh look, here's a pretty urn.
4)Impacted the arts? Sure. More than any other religion known to man? Back that one up, please. You don't think Islamic art, music, architecture, etc. don't have their inspiration in their beliefs? You don't believe that the epic poems of Virgil and Homer were written to pay tribute to the gods they worshipped?

I don't think an objective outsider would point to Christianity as absolute truth - at least not logically. It is logically impossible to prove God's existence, or to prove his non-existence, and to try to validate your belief through science is to tacitly acknowledge that your belief is too weak to hold up on its own.

 

[stemann]

Appeals to solipsism are typically the last refuge of the intellectualy bancrupt.

Forgetting the irony of that sentence, I don't appeal to solipsism because I hae no better arguments against religion (although this may be true). I do it because fallacies propriated by philosophers in the past have often been based on their unfounded assumptions which, at the time, seemed obvious (God exists, the earth is flat, animals/women/ethnic minorities don't have rights, etc.).

Unfounded assumption is an enemy of logic, and since I don't actually know if it is possible to actually know anything (even the logical axioms such "A=A" and the law of the excluded middle {everything either is or isn't}), everything is based on faith/belief or whatever definitions you can come up with.

I currently find it hard to argue with mainstream religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) as their views on solipsism seem not to be the most favourable or credulous; I perfectly understand. But know this: I do not argue that 'nothing exists,' as you claimed; merely that I do not know if it exists or not.

and to try to validate your belief through science is to tacitly acknowledge that your belief is too weak to hold up on its own.

If a first person's strong belief in something persuades a second person, doesn't the second person only have faith in the first person's faith? I can't keep using faith and belief interchangably, I don't know all of your differing definitions of them.

 

[Fatmop]

If a first person's strong belief in something persuades a second person, doesn't the second person only have faith in the first person's faith? I can't keep using faith and belief interchangably, I don't know all of your differing definitions of them.

Interesting.. but why did you quote me? I don't see how it follows.

 

[Joshua]

Brothers and sisters the evidence is found in our personal relationship with the Lord. It has been designed that way from the beginning and shall be until the end and after. Sometimes I think proof is a worldly way around the Truth because as we know the Lord works in mysteries ways. We all want answers friends that our mortal bodys can not comprehend. Its funny, everyone wants to be like Jesus and didn't even realize it. I know that without my need for Him and my understanding from Him I am alone and I would most likely portray that character and would be seen in that way by others.

 

[michel]

Brothers and sisters the evidence is found in our personal relationship with the Lord. It has been designed that way from the beginning and shall be until the end and after. Sometimes I think proof is a worldly way around the Truth because as we know the Lord works in mysteries ways. We all want answers friends that our mortal bodys can not comprehend. Its funny, everyone wants to be like Jesus and didn't even realize it. I know that without my need for Him and my understanding from Him I am alone and I would most likely portray that character and would be seen in that way by others.

Hi Joshua,

I note that you are new to the forum, and wanted to welcome you here.:bounce

You might like to post on:- Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?
in order to introduce yourself to existing members.

I note you say , as your description of your religious afilliation in your profile "Was raised christian" - of course, that begs the question, "Are you still one ?" - which you only need answer if you want to, of course.

I do tend to surmise that you are still a Christian, fom your post.

I would be grateful if you would clarify this bit from your post; I am not sure what you mean by it:

I know that without my need for Him and my understanding from Him I am alone and I would most likely portray that character and would be seen in that way by others.

 

[robtex]

I remember in college a professor trying to explain religious pluralism used a hindi story of an elephant and 5 blindmen. Here is a copy of it
http://www.anekant.org/The 5 Blind Men and the Elephant.htm

In it each man assess what he calls "the elephant" bassed on their perspective of the world. And each using the 5 senses. The professor went on to say that man views on religion can be related as such by the culuture and exposure that they have had in life.

Funny as I went on with life I came to have a new understanding. The use of the 5 men elephant analogy as one flaw. It assumes that the blind men, men who have limited resources to workfrom are actually experienceing an elephant. They came to an agreement it was an elephant based on each of their limited experiences but because they didn't compare notes and all assumed it was an elephant nobody stopped to ponder that maybe it was a rhino or a dragon or something else.

They all just assumed they were touching an elephant while knowing full well they each only had part of the picture.

 

[michel]

I remember in college a professor trying to explain religious pluralism used a hindi story of an elephant and 5 blindmen. Here is a copy of it
http://www.anekant.org/The%205%20Blind%20Men%20and%20the%20Elephant.htm

In it each man assess what he calls "the elephant" bassed on their perspective of the world. And each using the 5 senses. The professor went on to say that man views on religion can be related as such by the culuture and exposure that they have had in life.

Funny as I went on with life I came to have a new understanding. The use of the 5 men elephant analogy as one flaw. It assumes that the blind men, men who have limited resources to workfrom are actually experienceing an elephant. They came to an agreement it was an elephant based on each of their limited experiences but because they didn't compare notes and all assumed it was an elephant nobody stopped to ponder that maybe it was a rhino or a dragon or something else.

They all just assumed they were touching an elephant while knowing full well they each only had part of the picture.

Of course, me being me, (and as a blind person), I would argue that I would have touched the elephant, and have explored it's body as much as possible with my hands (having been assured that there would be no 'dangerous' parts of the 'Elephant').

The moral is an excellent one, and, I suppose reflects the theological (and maybe moral) basis on which many base their ideas.

I still say though, that I would have been the awkward ...... who would have insisted on trying to make as much as I could out of the shape of the elephant.

I would not have known what it looked like, but I think I would have had more of an idea that the other guys..............

 

[Steve]

I remember in college a professor trying to explain religious pluralism used a hindi story of an elephant and 5 blindmen. Here is a copy of it
http://www.anekant.org/The%205%20Blind%20Men%20and%20the%20Elephant.htm

Well i have to say i think the elephant/blindman story is a ridiculous analogy to the many religious views.
Few reasons.
1 - it assumes all the blindman report the truth and are not just making garbage up for some other reason.

2 - many religions flat out deny what another religion specifically teaches. This is very different to not knowing the full picture, it says no we know that you are wrong about this or that. This is not the same as a leg plus a trunk etc
For example some religions claim their is more then one God while others say their is only one, both simple cannot be right. Christianity claims Christ was crucified (which is historical fact if ever there was one, you may disagree why he was crucified though), while islam claims he wasnt. Both cannot be right.


I see this type of analogy and reasoning as weak and a butchering of simple logic and intelligence in the name of political correctness and tolerance. Arnt people allowed to agree to disagree anymore?

Actually i might start a thread on this with the above. - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22983