While Abrahamic beliefs vary considerably, they also show very specific traits that, I want to argue here, put in doubt their ability to qualify either as religions proper or as ethically defensable doctrines.
1. What is an Abrahamic doctrine?
For the purposes of this text, I will define them as creeds or doctrines that adopt some version of Abraham's god - meaning that they specifically declare that god exists; that it is conscious; that it has a will that is in some sense responsible for existence itself; and that it is sufficiently aware of humanity to have communicated with specific people at least once during the history of human existence.
Every single one of those four stipulations is dubious at best. Nonetheless, literal billions of people have been raised to treat them as sacred truths, with varied and significant consequences.
2. What are we calling religions here?
For the purposes of this text, I will define religions as the activities that declare and attempt to discuss, delimitate and cultivate some set of perceptions of desirable virtues, moral values, and conceptions of what should be considered inherently admirable - or, in one word, Sacred.
3. What about God?
I am specifically refusing to use any form of concept of deity, divinity or god in my definition, because I have long concluded that it is very counterproductive to use those concepts even with qualifications or even to challenge them. They have grown meaningless and serve no constructive purpose except perhaps with considerable qualification. The main result of their casual use is deep obfuscation.
4. But...
No, really. I will not use any variation of god-concepts in my discussion of religions. That is final. That is not negotiable. And ultimately, that is removing a very big and very unnecessary hurdle that gets in the way of meaningful discussion and mutual understanding.
More specifically, "god talk" tends to create the superficial appearance that there is some actual, known-to-exist entity - or at least a clearly defined concept - that the word refers to. And that is just not true at all. Worse still, there are huge social taboos in place and constantly reinforced that make it hard to even point out that lack of object.
We all deserve better than just repeating that mistake for generation after generation.
5. If religions are not about god, what are they about instead?
Sometimes they are indeed about god. Or gods. Or Devas, or Kami, or totem spirits. There are all kinds of entities used for religious purposes, but few if any are expected to be one-size-fits-all answers for everything - except in the Abrahamic traditions, that is. Nor are those entities, which are not always expected to be taken as real by adherents, usually expected to be some source of supreme moral authority that somehow extends even to people who never heard of them.
In truth, god-conceptions are tools, useful mainly as shorthand for certain perspectives and values.
6. So what do I (Luis) consider to be a proper religion?
Religions are activities and exercises that aim to help people (sensitive and rational beings) in dealing with the anxieties and challenges that come from the realization of how little options we have in everyday life and how badly we want to achieve some sort of certainty and stability.
Of particular note is that they are aimed at the specific people and should take personal characteristics into account. Also, religion is a human activity that must take social and even technological circunstances into account; a healthy doctrine allows itself to be reconsidered and course-corrected often, and should in fact have mechanisms to pursue that correction.
Doctrines that do no acknowledge that need, including the Abrahamics, end up owing a debt to its own unsconcious herectics, who often end up doing the course-correction without receiving the proper gratitude in return.
7. Where to Abrahamic creeds stand by that perspective.
In short, they are strange and confused about what would a religion be.
I make something of an exception to Judaism, mainly because they accept that their creed isn't to be applicable for everyone.
Later Abrahamisms, however, aim to be true religions while doing arguably the exact opposite; they expect to build whole doctrines and ways-of-living based on the daring yet foolish bet that there is a creator of existence itself who also expects us to be personally in awe of its moral judgement, despite apparently going out of its way to make its very existence doubtful and inconsequential even if true.
But the main flaw of the Abrahamics is in presenting themselves as a Source of Truth that they would somehow have the right to impose on their own children as some sort of duty-of-belief. That is a disrespectful stance that reflects very badly indeed into the very idea of religiosity.
1. What is an Abrahamic doctrine?
For the purposes of this text, I will define them as creeds or doctrines that adopt some version of Abraham's god - meaning that they specifically declare that god exists; that it is conscious; that it has a will that is in some sense responsible for existence itself; and that it is sufficiently aware of humanity to have communicated with specific people at least once during the history of human existence.
Every single one of those four stipulations is dubious at best. Nonetheless, literal billions of people have been raised to treat them as sacred truths, with varied and significant consequences.
2. What are we calling religions here?
For the purposes of this text, I will define religions as the activities that declare and attempt to discuss, delimitate and cultivate some set of perceptions of desirable virtues, moral values, and conceptions of what should be considered inherently admirable - or, in one word, Sacred.
3. What about God?
I am specifically refusing to use any form of concept of deity, divinity or god in my definition, because I have long concluded that it is very counterproductive to use those concepts even with qualifications or even to challenge them. They have grown meaningless and serve no constructive purpose except perhaps with considerable qualification. The main result of their casual use is deep obfuscation.
4. But...
No, really. I will not use any variation of god-concepts in my discussion of religions. That is final. That is not negotiable. And ultimately, that is removing a very big and very unnecessary hurdle that gets in the way of meaningful discussion and mutual understanding.
More specifically, "god talk" tends to create the superficial appearance that there is some actual, known-to-exist entity - or at least a clearly defined concept - that the word refers to. And that is just not true at all. Worse still, there are huge social taboos in place and constantly reinforced that make it hard to even point out that lack of object.
We all deserve better than just repeating that mistake for generation after generation.
5. If religions are not about god, what are they about instead?
Sometimes they are indeed about god. Or gods. Or Devas, or Kami, or totem spirits. There are all kinds of entities used for religious purposes, but few if any are expected to be one-size-fits-all answers for everything - except in the Abrahamic traditions, that is. Nor are those entities, which are not always expected to be taken as real by adherents, usually expected to be some source of supreme moral authority that somehow extends even to people who never heard of them.
In truth, god-conceptions are tools, useful mainly as shorthand for certain perspectives and values.
6. So what do I (Luis) consider to be a proper religion?
Religions are activities and exercises that aim to help people (sensitive and rational beings) in dealing with the anxieties and challenges that come from the realization of how little options we have in everyday life and how badly we want to achieve some sort of certainty and stability.
Of particular note is that they are aimed at the specific people and should take personal characteristics into account. Also, religion is a human activity that must take social and even technological circunstances into account; a healthy doctrine allows itself to be reconsidered and course-corrected often, and should in fact have mechanisms to pursue that correction.
Doctrines that do no acknowledge that need, including the Abrahamics, end up owing a debt to its own unsconcious herectics, who often end up doing the course-correction without receiving the proper gratitude in return.
7. Where to Abrahamic creeds stand by that perspective.
In short, they are strange and confused about what would a religion be.
I make something of an exception to Judaism, mainly because they accept that their creed isn't to be applicable for everyone.
Later Abrahamisms, however, aim to be true religions while doing arguably the exact opposite; they expect to build whole doctrines and ways-of-living based on the daring yet foolish bet that there is a creator of existence itself who also expects us to be personally in awe of its moral judgement, despite apparently going out of its way to make its very existence doubtful and inconsequential even if true.
But the main flaw of the Abrahamics is in presenting themselves as a Source of Truth that they would somehow have the right to impose on their own children as some sort of duty-of-belief. That is a disrespectful stance that reflects very badly indeed into the very idea of religiosity.
