The only reasonable non-revealed religions

[ThePainefulTruth]

How can Confucianism and Tao be considered non-revelation philosophies? They both deal heavily with rituals and gods/spirits which influence the world. I think the only reasonable true non-revelation philosophies involving the possibility of God are complete laissez-faire deism and atheism.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I think it's primarily because, while there are religious elements/steams of Confucianism and Taoism, the most widely practiced (at least in the west) are more philosophical. Rather than strictly religious. Also, unlike many other faiths, Lao Tzu and Confucius didn't really claim to receive any messages or prophecies from a deity. Hence "non-revealed".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That's your opinion

 

[crossfire]

revealed religion - definition of revealed religion by The Free Dictionary
re·vealed religion (r

-v

ld

)
n.
A religion founded primarily on the revelations of God to humankind.

revealed religion n
1. (Theology) religion based on the revelation by God to man of ideas that he would not have arrived at by his natural reason alone
2. (Theology) religion in which the existence of God depends on revelation

 

[Salek Atesh]

How can Confucianism and Tao be considered non-revelation philosophies? They both deal heavily with rituals and gods/spirits which influence the world. I think the only reasonable true non-revelation philosophies involving the possibility of God are complete laissez-faire deism and atheism.

You seem to be confusing "Non-Revealed" with "Atheistic".

Confucius speaks of Heaven and Heaven's Will, but we have no recording of him saying "Heaven told me this". You can have supernatural elements in a faith without it being revealed. Lao Tzu and Confucius are, by most people's understanding, people who came up with their ideas on the nature of the universe, including the supernatural elements, without the direct instruction of any deity.

For metaphore, say that in an alternate dimension, an Obvious Deity exists. One that can be seen interacting with the universe on a daily basis. Obvious Deity wanders around, changing things to suit his will, and is generally observable by everyone. There are two Religion Founders in this world. RF #1 observes Obvious Deity and records what OD does, basing his religion on that and the interpretations of what he witnesses. RF #2 is given a set of moral principles by Obvious Deity and bases his religion on what OD tells him. RF #1's religion is non-revealed, as it is based on his observations and interpretations on what OD is doing. RF #2's religion is revealed, as it is based on what OD told him was true.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You seem to be confusing "Non-Revealed" with "Atheistic".

No, there can only be two reasons there are no divine revelations: God is either laissez faire (hands off, in order to protect our free will), or God doesn't exist.

Confucius speaks of Heaven and Heaven's Will, but we have no recording of him saying "Heaven told me this". You can have supernatural elements in a faith without it being revealed. Lao Tzu and Confucius are, by most people's understanding, people who came up with their ideas on the nature of the universe, including the supernatural elements, without the direct instruction of any deity.

Then How did he come up with "heaven's will", or what rituals, sacrifices and worshiping spirits in nature to do and why. He either invented all that or claimed revelation.

For metaphore, say that in an alternate dimension, an Obvious Deity exists. One that can be seen interacting with the universe on a daily basis. Obvious Deity wanders around, changing things to suit his will, and is generally observable by everyone. There are two Religion Founders in this world. RF #1 observes Obvious Deity and records what OD does, basing his religion on that and the interpretations of what he witnesses. RF #2 is given a set of moral principles by Obvious Deity and bases his religion on what OD tells him. RF #1's religion is non-revealed, as it is based on his observations and interpretations on what OD is doing. RF #2's religion is revealed, as it is based on what OD told him was true.

Even knowing the deity exists is a revelation in itself, and again, that would spoil the test, a test that is both for God's and our benefit. Which is why I believe, if God exists, that God created the universe so that we could have no evidence of It's existence. How do we worship such a God? By the pursuit of Truth, being knowledge, justice, love and beauty. All that exists is Truth, only sentients can fabricate or harbor a lie.

 

[Salek Atesh]

No, there can only be two reasons there are no divine revelations: God is either laissez faire (hands off, in order to protect our free will), or God doesn't exist.

Go read Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching. The Tao is the most laissez faire divine entity out there, to the point where anarchists will often quote Taoism in explanation of their stateless beliefs.

Then How did he come up with "heaven's will", or what rituals, sacrifices and worshiping spirits in nature to do and why. He either invented all that or claimed revelation.

Read Confucius' Analects. He gets his knowledge from his observations, the ways of his ancestors, and ancient books, especially the Book of Odes. It might be that these ancients and their books were derived from revelation, but we have no evidence for that. (Well, no evidence for that outside of Baha'i scriptures, which are not relevant unless you are of that Faith.) So it is considered "unrevealed" due to lack of historical record of a "revelation" in Confucian belief.

Even knowing the deity exists is a revelation in itself, and again,

It is not, by the definition and understanding of "revealed' in context of "revealed religion" and "unrevealed religion." With these terms "revealed" necessitates a prophet who is handed his scriptures from a deity.

Think (strange example but bear with it) of the Lovecraftian mythos as an example. It's fiction, but the "gods" in that mythos (with one exception) do not even comprehend humans, the humans being so far beneath them as to be insignificant. The protagonists still discover and experience the effects of these gods, but their beliefs are not predicated on any "revelation" given or revealed by these cosmic horrors, who don't even notice mankind much less care to reveal the secrets of the universe to them. By the definition of "revealed religion", the deity must do the "revealing" intentionally. Since there's no historical evidence that Confucius was acting on revelation of Heaven, nor that Lao Tzu was acting on revelation of the Tao, we say they are "unrevealed."

that would spoil the test, a test that is both for God's and our benefit.

Which is why I believe, if God exists, that God created the universe so that we could have no evidence of It's existence. How do we worship such a God? By the pursuit of Truth, being knowledge, justice, love and beauty. All that exists is Truth, only sentients can fabricate or harbor a lie.

All good, but not relevant to the definition of "revealed religion" and "unrevealed religion" as commonly understood.

 

[Starloop]

That's your opinion

Well he said it, so it must be!

 

[GoodbyeDave]

If you're going to use "revealed" to mean "resulting from human experience of divinity", then all religions are revealed. We don't have an in-built knowledge of the divine dimension of the cosmos — if we did, there'd be no atheists.

Normally one speaks of a revealed religion as one which its adherents claim was delivered as a complete package, so to speak. Islam and Baha'i definitely fit into this category; Christianity and Judaism do in the minds of their believers.

 

[Whateverist]

We don't have an in-built knowledge of the divine dimension of the cosmos — if we did, there'd be no atheists.

What really do we have an in-built knowledge of? I'm quite sure we have an in-built capacity to recognize awe and wonder and these point us to the divine albeit not in any simplistic, can't-miss manner. The capacity for recognizing what is sacred offers access but doesn't guarantee everyone will get there. Conditioning, mind-set, attitude and opportunity must all align to actually gain access.

I just think of revealed religion as one in which adherents and institutions believe what has been written down is sufficient and that no direct access is still possible. It is as though, having sent the memo, God expects you to read it. Seems wrong headed to me.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I think Deism is also quite reasonable. That is, if you do think of it in the laissez-faire sense, in the fact that if there is a God or "Supreme Being," they don't require anything from us.

A definition someone surmised recently of a Deistic concept of God:
"An eternal, transcendent force with divine intelligence, as the first cause; the architect behind the universe and natural laws."
And personally, I would say that's it. Nothing else further required. No need for God to send someone here for our "salvation." No need for prayers, religion, worship, or the belief in a God that controls the universe in any way, so no need to believe that any such higher power would want anything from us that would merit treating others unethically, or technically in any such way.

I think, even if this can't be proven or unproven, it is a somewhat reasonable approach to the God hypothesis, and it is the only "God belief," that I find somewhat believable, or at least somewhat reasonable.