The probability that at least one religion is approximately true

[Sapiens]

If one religion is even part way true then I suspect that most religions will be, at lest part way true.

It is rather more likely that none of them are true in any way, shape or form, since with over 4,200 religions currently struggling with each other for attention and adoration, not a one has come up with even a scintilla of direct evidence to support their position.

 

[serp777]

We can never say a whole religion is true, as everything gets corrupted in this world....

Yet we can establish if the text has prophetic fulfillment; we can establish if the moral code is right in all settings.

We can use probability to assess each prophetic fulfillment...

We couldn't use probability of if the metaphysical realms are as discussed on its own; yet when used in a broader scope of all information available to us, we can then assess the probability of each being right.

You see for probability we have to have something to compare against.

Yet if you want my conclusion on having studied many....

98% Taoism is spot on, in terms of moral code, philosophy, political instruction, etc.

77% Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, and still is being...Yet is totally immoral in lots of places, and has corruption within it, that has all been prophesied, so the religion is a mess.

100% Zen just is.

Hence I said approximately true. I didn't say perfectly true.

You see for probability we have to have something to compare against.

Huh? Its just a probability. What do you mean we have to have something to compare against? I mean you could compare against other religions, or no religion being true, or many other things. For example, what would you compare the probability that a photon strikes an electron with? Comparison isn't relevant.

Also how do you claim that morality can be true or false? Moral code is generally very relative and depends on time, culture, species, etc.

 

[serp777]

Serp, while there is no shortage of people who seem to sincerely think of religion as a god-imposed bet of sorts, I don't find such a conception advisable, and I certainly don't find it useful.


100%. In many of the relevant senses, people make their own religions "true".
That probably does not have anything close to the meaning you imply, though.

You're not using true in the traditional sense of the word, which means accurate and corresponding with reality. Two people's contradictory religious beliefs cannot both be true. One persons religious belief that God intervenes in the world and one persons religious belief that God is uninvolved in the universe are completely mutually exclusive. I'm not using true in the mumbo jumbo sense where everybody's belief is "true". The probability is still entirely legitimate. Its the probability that you think a religion corresponds with the reality that we all share. God either exists or he doesn't and you could try to assign a probability to his existence. I don't have enough information to make a probability claim.

 

[serp777]

In what context does true apply here?

Substance?

Effectiveness ?

Practicality?

true in this case means accurate with respect to the reality we all share. For example there are people who believe God exists and people who believe he doesn't exist. Either its true that God exists or false.

 

[serp777]

If one religion is even part way true then I suspect that most religions will be, at lest part way true.

It is rather more likely that none of them are true in any way, shape or form, since with over 4,200 religions currently struggling with each other for attention and adoration, not a one has come up with even a scintilla of direct evidence to support their position.

Most of them are highly contradictory and have entirely different morals and beliefs. THe reason there are different religions is because they aren't compatible. Even in the abrahamic faiths, either Jesus is the son of God and everybody should be a Christian, or Jesus was just a prophet and Muhammad was the perfect human being and everybody should be a Muslim.

 

[serp777]

I think all religions that focus on brotherly love and compassion and an afterlife are approximately true and the details beyond that are not all that important.

I would give Advaita philosophy a 99% as after much consideration I believe it is the highest understanding of any of mankind's wisdom traditions.

You're entitled to your opinion but I find it important to know about reality. Either God exists or he doesn't and I want to know which is the case. Brotherly love and compassion aren't approximately true either. They're just moral opinions and are neither true nor false.

 

[serp777]

@serp777

You make it seem as if all religions require faith in fantastical realms or beings.

Why don't you quote where I say that? You're making an irrelevant strawman.

 

[serp777]

I have noticed lately there are an awful lot of probability and chance claims being tossed out left and right yet no one wants to actually do any math.

That's actually partially why I made this thread. People make 100% probability claims without using math or any justification and I knew it would happen. THerefore I thought I would point it out eventually. I do think I made the most sensible claim, which is that I can't state a probability because I don't have enough information to formulate a calculation.

 

[serp777]

Some religions don't make truth claims.

Then in what sense is it a religion then? That sounds more like philosophy

 

[serp777]

Certainty by whose (in some people's faith) or what (in other's) criteria?

What criteria in a given religion would make it correct while other not?

Its really not too complicated. For example either God exists or he doesn't. Either Jesus rose from the dead and is the son of God or he is not. The criteria is that it corresponds with reality and what actually happened.

 

[serp777]

How does something qualify as being approximately true?

When it mostly corresponds with reality. Newtonian gravity is approximately true for example. It has some holes but can general describe the way the universe operates on many levels. Relativity is better but newtonian gravity does a decent job.

 

[serp777]

For starters, it would help to recognize that.... you know what? Never mind. Those who can't see that the answer to this is 110% have a poor enough understanding of religions that today, I am just not in the mood to explain it.

Wow 110%? I must have a poor understanding of religions. What would it take to move it to 120%?

 

[LuisDantas]

You're not using true in the traditional sense of the word, which means accurate and corresponding with reality.

I don't know about "traditional", but it sure is not a proper fit to religion.

Attempting to fit religious doctrine into that sense of "truth" is very much an act of arrogance or one of serious lack of understanding of what religious are supposed to be.

Sure, people who swear to being religious themselves do that left and right. That is still wrong as heck.

Two people's contradictory religious beliefs cannot both be true.

Religion is not natural science. Creationists must understand that, and so must us skeptics. Religious beliefs, if they are worth any salt, are very personal in nature.

One persons religious belief that God intervenes in the world and one persons religious belief that God is uninvolved in the universe are completely mutually exclusive.

If the God is one and the same, which is almost impossible to be the case.

I'm not using true in the mumbo jumbo sense where everybody's belief is "true". The probability is still entirely legitimate. Its the probability that you think a religion corresponds with the reality that we all share. God either exists or he doesn't and you could try to assign a probability to his existence. I don't have enough information to make a probability claim.

Oh, that is just abuse of the concepts of God and of religion. Don't pay those claims any mind. They are worthless.

 

[George-ananda]

Either God exists or he doesn't

I don't think it is so black and white. The answer probably needs to consider the definition of the God concept under consideration before the question can be answered.

 

[serp777]

I don't know about "traditional", but it sure is not a proper fit to religion.

Attempting to fit religious doctrine into that sense of "truth" is very much an act of arrogance or one of serious lack of understanding of what religious are supposed to be.

Sure, people who swear to being religious themselves do that left and right. That is still wrong as heck.



Religion is not natural science. Creationists must understand that, and so must us skeptics. Religious beliefs, if they are worth any salt, are very personal in nature.


If the God is one and the same, which is almost impossible to be the case.


Oh, that is just abuse of the concepts of God and of religion. Don't pay those claims any mind. They are worthless.

I don't know about "traditional", but it sure is not a proper fit to religion.

Attempting to fit religious doctrine into that sense of "truth" is very much an act of arrogance or one of serious lack of understanding of what religious are supposed to be.

Sure, people who swear to being religious themselves do that left and right. That is still wrong as heck.

Well an example of a traditional truth would be--jumping off a tall building could easily lead to death. Its a fact based on the universe and reality. I mean it seems to me that either God exists or he doesn't. There is no middle ground really and thus it seems entirely reasonable to associate religion with this kind of truth. Many religions also make claims about the universe, nature, reality, humanity, and science. Another example--either Jesus rose from the dead and is the son of God or he is not. I fail to see why asking this kind of truth question is "wrong as heck." I know you asserted its wrong as heck but can you explain it? If Jesus didn't rise from the dead and isn't the son of God then that truth undermines the entirety of Christianity.

Religion is not natural science. Creationists must understand that, and so must us skeptics. Religious beliefs, if they are worth any salt, are very personal in nature.


If the God is one and the same, which is almost impossible to be the case.

Right, but every part of religion makes claims about reality. Just the existence of God is the biggest claim about reality of them all--or the astral plane or whatever. Once a religion makes claims about reality it is subject to asking if it is true or false. It seems like you're talking more about philosophy--personal opinions on how to live your life and be moral. I agree that those aren't true or false, but that isn't what religion does.

 

[serp777]

I don't think it is so black and white. The answer probably needs to consider the definition of the God concept under consideration before the question can be answered.

God is some vastly or infinitely intelligent entity or consciousness with maximal or infinite power according to most religions. Either this is true, or its not. God can't simulatenously not exist and be an infinitely intelligent entity.

You might posit different types of God or forces or astral planes or whatever but those would be equally subject to a true or false consideration. So whatever definition of God you give will be subject to a true / false consideration in summary.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Its really not too complicated. For example either God exists or he doesn't. Either Jesus rose from the dead and is the son of God or he is not. The criteria is that it corresponds with reality and what actually happened.

The only religion I know that is one hundred percent true is the one I follow. It's spiritually true. It's logically true. It's true by my experience as well as others. It's just, well, true.

That is, since you said one religion, not the "christian" religion.

To put it blunt, any religion that says the supernatural is real whether it's a dragon in the sky or a man floating above the moon is making a claim not a fact. I don't believe in claims. "Jesus existed and he will save you from your sins" is just a claim or statement. It means nothing to me. It's not a fact. There is no certainty. It's false.

Unless someone can point out that Jesus saves people without anyone needing to explain it in religious jargon, I don't see it as a part of reality outside of the believer's experience.

So, does Jesus exist? Yes, in the believers experiences.
Does god exist? Yes, in the believers experiences.

Ask any believer to proof god and Jesus (as god) exist outside of their experiences, they may give you synchronicity and things they put together with the assumption of god being the center of it all.

There is nothing wrong with that. They have absolute 100 percent certainty based on their own criteria, experiences, and claims.

In general, no. I don't agree Jesus exist as god and god exists. There is too much evidence, if you like, to prove they don't that the only thing that holds true to the believers that it they are certain is faith, obedience, tradition, and experience (not limited to).

If you're looking for an answer to an equation, there aren't any. How can you find certainty or the opposite of something that doesn't exist to even question it beyond the believer's claims?

Why would we do so unless we are curious, want to study it, or maybe convert, or find revelation in it? I don't know.

I just know I am certain about my practice. I only believe that people are certain about theirs. I can't know at all not even one percent because there is nothing outside of the believer's experiences and claims that would make me think otherwise.

 

[leibowde84]

Does anyone care to take a guess? Is it impossible to assign such a probability?

My answer would be "I don't know" because it seems extremely difficult to have enough reliable information to make such a claim about the probability.

If you say 100% or 0% there must be significant evidence or justification because these imply certainty.

I think that the fact that more and more religions can be created in the future seemingly infinitely makes the probability impossible to get to.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I know my post is harsh; but, there it is. I should get some sleep. No offense intended.

 

[George-ananda]

God is some vastly or infinitely intelligent entity or consciousness with maximal or infinite power according to most religions. Either this is true, or its not. God can't simulatenously not exist and be an infinitely intelligent entity.

You might posit different types of God or forces or astral planes or whatever but those would be equally subject to a true or false consideration. So whatever definition of God you give will be subject to a true / false consideration in summary.

I think you are restricting things to Abrahamic religions that hold a dualistic God (God and creation are two entities). I was also wishing to include pantheistic God concepts (God and creation are not-two entities). In my view God is pure infinite consciousness and the fundamental basis of everything.

Another point is if the Abrahamic God concept is not accepted, that does not leave a no-God scenario (atheism). I personally think the Abrahamic God concept is not the highest understanding but it is closer to the truth than atheism.