0
   

Not all religions can be correct

 
 
dawoel
 
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 07:52 am
(Sorry about this but it needs saying) - Religion, well, most of it, is actually quite easy to debunk. Forget going on and on about the science and the biblical, tora and Kuranic inconsistencies. Forget arguing the ethics of it and forget quoting scripture. It comes down to one very simple principle. You can't all be right!

I would be far more inclined to be a religious person if there were not quite so many to choose from. There are even varying religions within religions! Most importantly, not a single one has any more evidence to be true either inductive or deductive than any other! Nor do any of them seem to agree with each other on anything! One cannot get away with saying "they are all true in a way", because that is not how truth works in the sense that I am using it.

Religions do not claim to be metaphorical, they claim to be true in fact, and when two alledged facts conflict, at least one of them is wrong! Furthermore, they all claim to tackle aspects of reality that are undemonstraitable, that science cannot proove or disprove. This does not make it true though! When a christian has an argument with a scientist and rightly points out that not all the rules of reality that the scientist obeys, may nessasarily apply to all aspects of reality (such as god for instance), why should I be pursaded to believe in christianity, when the exact same argument could be used to justify Hinduism?

The fact is, if you assume that the laws of physics do not apply to all aspects of reality, then you are left with an infinate amount of possiblities, this does not help! Because there is no positive evidence to make anything more likely than anything else, making all things that are unobserved, infinately unlikely, hence the religious person shoots themself in the foot. In the absence of evidence to back up your assumption the only thing to do is guess, there is no getting around this.

In otherwords, there is nothing wrong with speculating and guessing, but I think it is a bit reckless to devote your entire life, and your children's lives, to something that is just a wild stab in the dark for the sake of mere tradition.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,432 • Replies: 48
No top replies

 
Arya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 11:10 am
@dawoel,
I cannot agree or disagree with you, because you generalize the religion you do not specify, I agree with you that not all religion are correct you know why because people created these religion by them self is it believable to make an idol then worship it? Whose rational person accepts this? Is it believable to worship a cow? Is it believable to worship rats? Is it believable to worship human like you? Where is the science? Where is the logic? From these people who do this


These religions are absolutely uncorrected absolutely, because as I told you people created them by them self



But you cannot categorize the three religion [Judaism, Christian, Islam] is uncorrected because they are rational they are connected to each other same prophets, holy books, believe in one god the one who created the human and created everything



At the end I respect all all religions, because it's a personal belief no one can force someone to belief in this and stop belief in this



By the way just a question, how you know if this religion is correct or not correct, base in what? Personal view? Philosopher view?
RDRDRD1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 11:52 am
@dawoel,
Having gone through the standard Christian indoctrination program, I spent some time digesting the arguments of some prominent Atheists. In the end it was impossible to believe either of them.

Neither of them really answers the Great Questions that have vexed man since we gazed out of our caves into the night sky. Religion posits answers that border on magical thinking and rely on "faith" for acceptance. Atheism with its spiritual nihilism also has no believable answers.

What troubles me is our belief that we're intelligent enough to discern whether there is a god (or gods) and, if so, the mysteries of creation and the will of our chosen diety. Why do we think we're sufficiently advanced to be able to grasp these questions, much less their answers? What if, in the greater scheme of things, we're really not that bright at all?

Quantum physics, for example, has identified the existance of 11-dimensions, seven more than the four (front/back, up/down, left/right, and time) we now recognize. We don't even know what these other dimensions, if they do exist, would be?

How can we possibly assume we have a viable understanding of religion of any stripe when we have such a rudimentary grasp of our own physical world and even less of our universe. Now it's suggested there could be many universes but we believe everything is focused here, on our insignifcant earth, where we're all made in the image of our Creator?

I'm willing to say that I don't believe anybody because no one has shown me that they ought to be believed, that they have any credibility in a subject so vast as whether there is a god.
Exebeche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 04:59 pm
@Arya,
Arya;75394 wrote:

By the way just a question, how you know if this religion is correct or not correct, base in what? Personal view? Philosopher view?

Look, if one religion sais, the name of god is Yehova, and any other believe is to be treated as heretic.
And another religion sais believing that god's name is Yehova is to be considered heretic.
From a locical perspective this can be seen as :
statement 1: X equals A and A excludes any intersection to other variables
statement 2: X does not equal A

One of the two is wrong.
Just from a logical perspective one of the two statements has to be wrong.
No personal, no philosophical view.
Pure logic.
So if one religion sais: The truth is that there is only one god and his name is X .
And the other religion sais: The truth is that there are several gods...
One must be wrong.
What dawoel explained was that there are so many religions which exclude each other, that the chance of believing the right one is minimised.
By pure logic.
Not by personal view.
But, ok, by philosophical view, because logic is a discipline of philosophy.
0 Replies
 
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 05:04 pm
@RDRDRD1,
It is a wonder that no one wonders anymore... (why do we have no *sad* emoticon?) Just decide for yourself what you believe, and let others have their vices. With all the wonder gone out of the world, God knows they need 'em.
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 07:15 pm
@dawoel,
dawoel;75314 wrote:
Not all religions can be correct

Of course they can. Just ask the adherents of any particular religion whether it is 'correct' or not. All are found to be correct, in context.
Everything exists, is real, in context. Existence is (perceived) context.
And your statement is correct, if you think it is, to and for you (you are the context!).
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 10:03 pm
@nameless,
Judging religion as 'correct' or 'incorrect' misses the point.

As nameless says, religion is what it is due to context. There are no correct or incorrect religions, but instead, religious practices that either are or are not useful for any given individual.

Religions do claim to use metaphor. Jesus' parables, for example. The Buddhist story "The Monkey King", for example, and so forth.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 10:13 pm
@dawoel,
dawoel;75314 wrote:
It comes down to one very simple principle. You can't all be right!
Very religious people don't argue that everyone else is also right. They argue that everyone else is wrong.

Your argument is that not all can be correct.

But you leave open the possibility that one is.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 10:19 pm
@Aedes,
But there are also very religious people who argue that others are, not right so to speak but, on the right path. Thich Nhat Hahn did not write Living Buddha, Living Christ for no reason, and the Baha'i faith does not recognize the wisdom of so many earlier traditions for no reason.
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 12:06 am
@dawoel,
dawoel;75314 wrote:
.... but I think it is a bit reckless to devote your entire life, and your children's lives, to something that is just a wild stab in the dark for the sake of mere tradition.


Hi,

As Camus posited, life is absurd. Certainly something to ponder. And while pondering this notion, one can also ask, is there one way to lead a life that is less of a wild stab in the dark than another.

Yes, each social group creates its own hierarchies which change over time. And some ways may seem more heroic than others. But as I peek behind the veils, I think not.

I have chosen not to join a religious group because I do not want my self to become stagnant around any particular static dogma which are necessary in order to keep the group cohesive. Nor do I want to follow the dictates of men who are leading their own lives not mine.

But such can be said of any group. Each has its dogma. Each has its traditions and central tenets that must be adhered to, or else banishment is ordered.

People often seek the comfort, security, companionship of groups and to do so they will embrace ideas including blind faith in the group's central tenets. Relationships is part of the human being.

Each group believes with the exact same certainty that their dogma is the Truth, the Path, and it is this faith the allows them to give up some freedom of individual thought so that they may be part of the group.

Ultimately it is a compromise between maintaining the individual and belonging to a group. All approaches has its pros and cons. Each person chooses his own way. Religion may not be for some - but desiring to be part of some group and faith seems to be there for all.

Rich
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 12:40 am
@dawoel,
Some interesting, good, and fair points laid out above. A good statement to begin with (the OP; and it reminds me very, very much of one quote I had often used in the past...(I'll have to track that down, now...by memory of it is so weak, I'd rather not take a stab at it here and now, and end up misquoting).

But anyway, one point that I feel, and tend more so than not to reason towards, is the application of this emotion of religiousity (being used here to describe the emotion that appears to be hard-wired in us, as opposed to a religious belief-system) towards a more common, productive and positive-in-outcome base for humankind total in-grouping. An idea which I'd very, very much love to inplant, but would never in my wildest dreams see even beginning to take any shape for the next several thousand years or so.

For this base, we will have to overcome the old and ignorant habit of setting our goals (elements of religious belief-system tenet) out beyond what is available to all life forms that are known, in the immediate affective realm of nature. In other words, we do not need theocratic idealisms of law and structure which , and which oppose known-to-be-more-so factual truths of nature.

I would suggest, therefore, that the context within which we should strive to work, is that of nature, as best understood. In that context, YHWH would be an incorrect model, as would many, if not all, deity models (Hinduism alone having some million of them...wow!)
0 Replies
 
dawoel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 01:41 am
@dawoel,
I like how this thread is progressing, a lot of good point made and much juicy controversy thank you guys. Ok, I think I should clarify and add some new points to my position...

I am not saying that all religions are incorrect, nor am I saying any of them are correct, and if any are I don't know which ones. In terms of "correct" vs "incorrect", your right I should specify the context. What I mean by correct, is correct in terms of a fact about the nature of being vs not being, in the same sense that this computer "is" existing. I do not talk of metaphor, but true fact, I do not know what these true facts are, but they are what I am referring to.

Let me also clarify the religious flaw. The problem is that of methadology, one can either justfiy a belief and claim it as knowledge, or believe it as a matter of faith, the latter is not as wise in my opinion. I can have faith about anything I want but it doesn't make it true, the difference between that & science & philosophy is that they find reasons to demonstrait their beliefs, and force themselves to accept things even if they do not want to! What you want to be true does not make it so!

I am not saying that things like scientific facts are certain, they are not, they are known and there is a difference. But knowledge, definately beats belief!

My main point is that, if you think that all the rules of reality that science and philosophy has outlined do indeed apply to all aspects of reality, you have only one thing to believe, but if you assume that they do not, you have an infinate number of possiblities which gets you nowhere, and with all these options being just as likely as each other, aka, infinately unlikely, it is pointless to assume any of them true...Ok, maybe not pointless, for example I assume that my senses are not decieving me. But you see, that is the point, the reason I assume this is because assuming that I am being deceived doesn't get me anywhere, if I am not being deceived I have only one option, that all this is real, but if I am, then there is no end to what could be real, which doesn't help me in the slightest!

I have a lot of respect for a lot of religions, for they are quite usful in terms of advice and wisdom and the like. I just think, assuming that they are not metaphorical, that they are true in fact kind of misses the point, in that they are forgetting that the "message" is more important than the "messeger". Eastern Relgions I think tend to be more on the ball and they tend to have a reputation for not saying everyone else is wrong, and accepting the beliefs of others.

Monotheism does anoy me slightly, (though I am biased due to unpleasant experiances so take or leave this opinion at your leisure) in that as apposed to worshiping ideals and personifications of what nature and humanity is, it dispises the reality of nature and humanity in favour of the idea of "perfection", not to mention enforcing self sacrifice with and iron-fist in a disturbingly sadomasochistic fashion. The idea for example that one is born with the debt of origional sin without any say in this is totally abhorent to me, as is the idea that one must get on your knees and spend your whole life begging for forgivness for the mere crime of "being a normal human being" when my belief is that the most moral person is one who is well balanced in his virtues...

But my personal qualms are irrelevent, they do not determine reality. My point is, all the things I have qualms about are no more likely to be true than that I have an invisible fruit bat on my shoulder, so why people devote their entire lives to it escapes me. I can understand devoting your life to something like Buddism which cos the philosophy of it makes a lot of sense, monotheism just really vexes me, I don't understand the motivation, the justification, the right or the appeal of it. Forgive me if I ranted.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 04:59 am
@dawoel,
dawoel;75535 wrote:

What I mean by correct, is correct in terms of a fact about the nature of being vs not being, in the same sense that this computer "is" existing. I do not talk of metaphor, but true fact, I do not know what these true facts are, but they are what I am referring to.


Then you are talking about ontology, which is metaphysics, which cannot be considered correct or incorrect.

Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Different metaphysical perspectives are simply different ways to put into language that which transcends language. Thus, there cannot be only one correct interpretation, but instead, there must be a variety of interpretations that are relevant and useful to particular people.

dawoel;75535 wrote:

I just think, assuming that they are not metaphorical, that they are true in fact kind of misses the point, in that they are forgetting that the "message" is more important than the "messeger".


While a great many western religious people are fundamentalists, are great many are not fundamentalists: a great many recognize the use of metaphor in scripture.

dawoel;75535 wrote:
Eastern Relgions I think tend to be more on the ball and they tend to have a reputation for not saying everyone else is wrong, and accepting the beliefs of others.


Perhaps, but this is a difficult thing to demonstrate. It is true that religious people, east and west, accept the value of differing and diverse beliefs.

dawoel;75535 wrote:
Monotheism does anoy me slightly, (though I am biased due to unpleasant experiances so take or leave this opinion at your leisure) in that as apposed to worshiping ideals and personifications of what nature and humanity is, it dispises the reality of nature and humanity in favour of the idea of "perfection", not to mention enforcing self sacrifice with and iron-fist in a disturbingly sadomasochistic fashion.


I'm not sure where you get the idea that all monotheism does what you say. Perhaps it is your personal bias, which is brave of you to admit, and this I do appreciate. But let us also try and appreciate the facts of the matter: monotheism does not necessarily despise the reality of nature and humanity.

As for self sacrifice, the notion that self sacrifice is contrary to the nature of mankind is, at the very least, up for debate.

dawoel;75535 wrote:
The idea for example that one is born with the debt of origional sin without any say in this is totally abhorent to me, as is the idea that one must get on your knees and spend your whole life begging for forgivness for the mere crime of "being a normal human being" when my belief is that the most moral person is one who is well balanced in his virtues...


Original sin is a concept that describes the inherently sinful nature of human life: at some point, we are all greedy, at some point we are all hateful, selfish, insert whatever opposite of virtue you like: at some point we all commit sin.

Being sinful is part of human nature: a nasty part of human nature that should be recognized so that we humans can work to be less and less sinful through whatever practice we might take up in our lives.

dawoel;75535 wrote:
I can understand devoting your life to something like Buddism which cos the philosophy of it makes a lot of sense, monotheism just really vexes me, I don't understand the motivation, the justification, the right or the appeal of it. Forgive me if I ranted.


While there is sometimes a vast difference between monotheism and Buddhism, there is also sometimes a great deal of similarity. I highly recommend Thich Nhat Hahn's brilliant book Living Buddha, Living Christ: it is a work of comparative religion in which the Buddhist monk discusses his experience with Christian teachers and compares Christian religion to Buddhism. The conclusion: that Christianity, when properly practiced as is done by a great many Christians, is a beautiful tradition and worthy of respect.

Also, recall, that Jesus is often considered by Buddhists to be a Boddhisattva.
0 Replies
 
Exebeche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 03:33 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;75500 wrote:
Judging religion as 'correct' or 'incorrect' misses the point.


It's nice to see how we can nowadays discuss these things so open minded.

Let's be clear:
Religions are not as open minded and tolerant as you are.
They do not claim an individual truth, of which everyone is allowed to cultivate his own.
Religions claim ultimate truth that contains THE ONE truth which is valid for everyone.

Believe systems which claim ultimate truth have to be confronted with the concepts of truth, and if they are not consistent they are refuted.

The principles of logic are a test any religious system claiming ultimate truth has to stand.

Dawoel pointed to a logical inconsistence of all religious systems based on ultimate truth.
Religions excluding each others is a logical contradiction for all of them holding ultimate truth that proofs the vast majority of religions simply wrong.
Of course it leaves an open door for one true religion.
The number of true religions is one or less. From a logical perspective.
Regarding how many believe systems there are, even within one religion, one must be really foolish to believe he has chosen right, just by intuition or being born into it.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 03:45 pm
@Exebeche,
Exebeche;75732 wrote:

Let's be clear:
Religions are not as open minded and tolerant as you are.
They do not claim an individual truth, of which everyone is allowed to cultivate his own.
Religions claim ultimate truth that contains THE ONE truth which is valid for everyone.


I disagree completely.

We have to make an important distinction between what is sometimes true of any given religion and what is inherently true of any given religion.

It is sometimes true that any given religion is not open minded, but it is not inherently true.

There are a great many examples of religious open mindedness in all major traditions. The ones I know are people who's work I have read. In Christianity, Catholicism, Thomas Merton serves as a great example - one chapter in his book Faith and Violence is titled "Thich Nhat Hahn is My Brother". Thich Nhat Hahn, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, wrote Living Buddha, Living Christ where he address the fact that we should be open minded, tolerant, and appreciative of other traditions. In Thay's book, he tells of taking communion in Christian churches with priests - that's open mindedness and tolerance.

While what you say is sometimes true in every major religion, what you say is also sometimes not true in every major religion. It just depends on who is giving the teaching.

Exebeche;75732 wrote:
The number of true religions is one or less. From a logical perspective.
Regarding how many believe systems there are, even within one religion, one must be really foolish to believe he has chosen right, just by intuition or being born into it.


Again, I have to disagree. As a matter of fact, there is a whole religion that disagrees - the Baha'i faith. They believe that all of the major religions are correct.

Throws a wrench in the "only one can be right" argument, huh?Smile
Exebeche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 05:20 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;75737 wrote:
In Christianity, Catholicism, Thomas Merton serves as a great example - one chapter in his book Faith and Violence is titled "Thich Nhat Hahn is My Brother". Thich Nhat Hahn, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, wrote Living Buddha, Living Christ where he address the fact that we should be open minded, tolerant, and appreciative of other traditions. In Thay's book, he tells of taking communion in Christian churches with priests - that's open mindedness and tolerance.


Ok.
There is a strong movement in the USA who work on removing the Darwinian theory of evolution from schools education - successfully.
How many of those christians might have read the book you mentioned?
0 Replies
 
KaseiJin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 07:01 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;75737 wrote:
. . . As a matter of fact, there is a whole religion that disagrees - the Baha'i faith. They believe that all of the major religions are correct.

Throws a wrench in the "only one can be right" argument, huh?Smile


Only, . . . only if the total sum of the tenets of the individual belief-systems can be shown to not naturally contradict themsleves--as two things held to be truths cannot contradict.

I would argue that we will find contradiction; therefore the Baha'i Faith's tenet that all claims of 'truths' among the several belief-systems are in and of themselves 'truths' is not a truth in and of it self, thus that tenet is incorrect.

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 10:07 AM ----------

Didymos Thomas;75566 wrote:


Original sin is a concept that describes the inherently sinful nature of human life: at some point, we are all greedy, at some point we are all hateful, selfish, insert whatever opposite of virtue you like: at some point we all commit sin.

Being sinful is part of human nature: a nasty part of human nature that should be recognized so that we humans can work to be less and less sinful through whatever practice we might take up in our lives.


Is something (like wording, or presenation) getting in the way here? I'd be interested in seeing a fuller lay out of this, unless I can take the above to be saying that there is this natural fact, a truth, that the H. sapien is of some condition which is naturally (as by nature in whole) incorrect as measured against some natural scale.
0 Replies
 
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 09:41 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;75737 wrote:
Again, I have to disagree. As a matter of fact, there is a whole religion that disagrees - the Baha'i faith. They believe that all of the major religions are correct.
Manifestations of God
0 Replies
 
dawoel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 03:17 am
@dawoel,
I think what is causing such controversy here is that we are getting confused about what "truth" really means. Unfortunately I am not as knowledgable about the concept of truth as I would like, as far as I understand it there are two types of truth, truth that refers to something that "is" in the sense that it "means" or "represents" such as with metaphors; for example "my anger was a raging inferno!", this is a true statement but not in the sense that my emotions i.e. the electrochemical signals in my brain, where literally on fire for I am speaking figuratively. The other kind of truth refers to a fact that means nothing other than itself, as in it literally "is" what it says it is. For example "I am drinking from this cup", this is a true statement, it does not mean something else, I am drinking from this cup literally and physically.

In other words I think that when it comes to truth there is a major difference between a fact, and an idea. Gods and the like are ideas, (i think, naturally i am not certain of this), and it is "true" that the ideas exist, and that they "mean" and "represent" an awful lot of stuff, but I don't think they are true in "fact" in that they literally and physically exist. For example someone says "when you die your soul will go to heaven", what does that statement mean exactly?

Does it mean your consciousness will literally be transported to a new place of being? Well if the manifestation of your consciousness is dead, how can this be? Unless of course minds are not physical entities, but if that is so, do they "lack" a position in time and space? If so how can they be transported to any "place" like heaven? "Where" is heaven? If it is "nowhere" i.e. it has no space/time postition then how can one reach it? Unless of course, that when referring to heaven we do not mean it literally, but that the statement "when you die your soul will go to heaven" actually means then after death you become a memory, existent in the minds of those who remember you with great affection, and when ever they imagine you they imagine you in a state of bliss, because, being dead and thus unable to suffer, you are at peace.

So this is what I am getting at, I have huge trouble getting my head round metaphysics sometimes, the whole idea that it "trancends" so many things bothers me for a start because I'm not convinced it is justified in doing that, and the idea that ontological "facts" cannot be considered correct or incorrect really bothers me, for I am referring here to objective claims, claims that are either true or false. Black cannot simultaenously be white, this is why we survive on Zebra crossings!
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 07:45 am
@dawoel,
dawoel;75868 wrote:
Black cannot simultaenously be white, this is why we survive on Zebra crossings!


Hi,

There are many ways to approach this question. Let me try this way:

Suppose two people are approaching a traffic light, and one person yells out and says, Stop it is red! while the other person keeps walking and says, Why should I, it is green? What color is the stoplight?

Rich
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Not all religions can be correct
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 06:05:31