Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?
Why or why not?
Why or why not?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion Without God?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
From an objective perspective, yes a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator/or governing being does have merit. The Unitarian Universalists is a church? that is basically humanist, but yes allows for a diversity of beliefs.
Doesn't theism imply the existence of supreme beings or deities? I'm looking for justification of merit of religions that prescribe neither.
While atheists and humanists are members of the UU organization, also included are Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other theists.
Can UU be described as a legitimate religion if both theists such as those described above and atheists/humanists are members?
The line between what is religion and what is philosophy is not clearly defined.
Pantheism is an example in this gray zone. I believe if our physical existence is the immanent God, therefore there is no God,
Buddhism is a religion where beliefs range widely from the variable belief in deities to atheism as in some Buddhist schools of Zen.
siti
Well-Known Member
Why not?
Even though I am a Baha'i I have visited and at times attended UU churches over the years, and Christians are rare unless they believe in a more humanist version of Christianity. The Jews and Hindus I have met are predominately agnostic, and some Jews even atheist. By the nature of UU and there general endorsement of the Humanist Manifesto there view is very predominately humanist, and negates Revelation by a theistic God. I do find an increasing presence of Pagans, and believers in naturalist philosophies.
Why would it not have merit, if it meets the other criteria of being a religion? Or do you have a definition that specifies that there must be "a supreme creator and/or governing being?"
(n) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
https://www.google.com/search?q=rel...i59j69i60l3.3342j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
My tenure as an adherent to such a faith led me to the discovery of UU.
What defines "legitimate"? Its a subjective term anyway..
Feel free to use the Merriam Webster definition.
a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock
So based on Websters. There does not exist a legitimate religion at all!! Apparently they are all little ********..
How does that imply that any such god or gods MUST BE either a) the supreme creator, and/or b) the supreme governor?
That said, what you provide is not the only, nor even the best (in my opinion), definition of religion. A sociological definition, for example, would note that a religion is those practices, places, artifacts, texts, beliefs, etc., that are oriented toward what is considered sacred by the practicing community/society. It is not a belief, it is a complex web of meaning.
The belief/worship of supernatural beings is rooted 19th Century anthropology that focuses more on the internal psychological states of individuals within a culture--that is, belief, and belief in certain kinds of entities, at that.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yes. Any practice thats defined by its people, customs, history, practices, and beliefs is considered a religion. There are different types of religions some with gods and some without.
The merit is in how that religion and spirituality changes the individual for the better, lets him see clearly, can interact with hiself and environment better, and a general sense of wholesomeness and peace of knowing the truth as truth not as philosophy or opinion.
God is not a prequisite for religion and religious beliefs.
Last edited:
Of course, it would all depend on what you conceived of as the legitimate goal, purpose, or function of religions. If, for instance, you were to take the stance that at least one goal, etc of religions was to promote or further some sort of beneficial personal transformation not involving a deity (that you just happen to call "enlightenment"), then naturally, it would then be consistent of you to say a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator, etc can have merit.
And the same might go if you were to take the stance that at least one goal, etc of religions was to promote or further some sort of beneficial morality or code of ethics.
So those would be two instances in which you could logically argue that a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being has merit.
On the other hand, you could also define the legitimate goal, purpose of function of religions in such a way that you would logically restrict meritorious religions to only those that recognized a supreme creator, etc.
All crucially rests on how you define the legitimate goal, purpose or function of religions. Ultimately, that would necessarily involve making a value judgement, since there is no escaping making a value judgement about what constitutes "merit".
Why, of course it does.
Because it keeps the baby, as well as the bathtub, and nicely recycles the water as needed.
Or to be more direct: because the proper role of deities in a healthy religion is symbolic and/or inspirational. Expectations that people should "believe" in their "existence" or role as "creators" are a sure sign of going off the rails.