Why are there so many religions in the world?

This is a very interesting article about religions that I found while looking for a definition of "religion".

JLNobody, thanks for your explanation about the Latin roots. Smile

0 Replies

cello

Was there a link included in that post?

I think the mods remove links posted unless you've been a member for some time, measured by the number of posts you've made. But I'm not sure, just mean to recall reading something about that.

0 Replies

One light though the lamps be many...

0 Replies

Maporsche, your last statement is very interesting:
"Really, ultimately, I hope you see that IF there is a god, it is UNLIKELY that any human religion understands ANYTHING about this god or what this god wants. How could they? How could we?

I've always felt that if there is something deserving of the label, God, it is Ultimate Reality as something above and beyond us. Indeed, we have formed the idea of God, and have even made some crude notions of what this might be. But the theologian, ?, who posited the notion of the "God beyond God", meaning, I presume, that reality which is beyond our neurological capacity to grasp has made a sound step in the right direction. This notion of "neurological incapacity" makes sense to me. It refers to phenomena like the inability of chickens to learn English. But there is another notion of Ultimate Reality that is not beyond us. This is because it IS us. The mystics do not look toward a God that is as far beyond them as is English for a chicken. They take as their object of study their own immediate experience. And THAT, in the purity of its immediacy, they come to see as THEIR portion of Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality, God, is "transcendental" for the religious believer and "immanent" for the mystic. For the believer "God" is unavailable except as a figment of his imagination; for the mystic Ultimate Reality is unavoidable except in his delusional imagination. His religious efforts are to awaken from that delusion.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Maporsche, your last statement is very interesting:
"Really, ultimately, I hope you see that IF there is a god, it is UNLIKELY that any human religion understands ANYTHING about this god or what this god wants. How could they? How could we?

I've always felt that if there is something deserving of the label, God, it is Ultimate Reality as something above and beyond us. Indeed, we have formed the idea of God, and have even made some crude notions of what this might be. But the theologian, ?, who posited the notion of the "God beyond God", meaning, I presume, that reality which is beyond our neurological capacity to grasp has made a sound step in the right direction. This notion of "neurological incapacity" makes sense to me. It refers to phenomena like the inability of chickens to learn English. But there is another notion of Ultimate Reality that is not beyond us. This is because it IS us. The mystics do not look toward a God that is as far beyond them as is English for a chicken. They take as their object of study their own immediate experience. And THAT, in the purity of its immediacy, they come to see as THEIR portion of Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality, God, is "transcendental" for the religious believer and "immanent" for the mystic. For the believer "God" is unavailable except as a figment of his imagination; for the mystic Ultimate Reality is unavoidable except in his delusional imagination. His religious efforts are to awaken from that delusion.

Very interesting.

And thanks for the PM, I should've known that.

0 Replies

Ooops, sorry, I think I just forgot to post the link, I was in a hurry. Here it is then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

0 Replies

A great link. Thanks, Cello.

0 Replies

A great link. Thanks, Cello.

0 Replies

cello, I echo that; good link, thank you.

0 Replies

As an atheist I can endorse JLN's plea for personal spirituality as opposed to "organized religion". The reason for the plethora of the latter is quite clear if we recognize that the "organization" is a facet of our innate tendencies to tribalism. What could be more "comforting" than "God on our side ensuring our place in the afterlife." ?...and under that banner the psychopathological "justification" of warfare in "this life" will continue to hold sway.

0 Replies

cello

That was a good link. Wikipedia sure is one fine well of information.

fresco

I have to say that I agree with you statements about innate tendencies to tribaslism and what follows from them. Individuality and mysticism are somewhat frowned upon in this modern world of ours, and surprisingly few have the ability for it.

Just see what happens if you post an original thought. It gets bombarded with old standing notions, be it religion, philosophy or science. (Most of us take science on faith, not having the education or information to check for ourselves). People study to become philosophers, not realizing that reading other people's thoughts will never teach them to think for themselves.

So it goes way beyond religion, as I see it.

0 Replies

This is a book about the "religious" exchanges between Greece and Turkey and the human sufferings that resulted from those:

http://astore.amazon.com/phantis-20/detail/0674023684/105-3513841-1546824

It seems to me religion on its own is not enough to bind people of different cultures but of the same religion. Could it be that religion has to be taken within the context of a culture, to really have a meaning to people in that culture?

0 Replies

I wonder, Cello, what was the nature of relations between Iraqi and Iranian Shite Muslims during the long war between the Iraq and Iran?
They share the same version of Islam, but they are ethnically different (Arab vs. Persian) and of different nationalities.

A major SOCIAL (as opposed to personal) FUNCTION of religion is its supernatural authorization or legitimization of customs and leadership roles in societies. It's a powerful support for political legitimacy to have a king crowned by a cardinal or bishop* and for the status of a chief or a customary practice to be ordained and enforced by ancestral spirits. Supernatural enforcement usually takes the form of illness.

* This is why Napolean's self-crowning was so powerful a claim of the sui generis and secular nature of his own legitimacy..

0 Replies

JLN, Good question. Shiites and killing Shiites, and attacking each other's mosques to kill the innocent. Something is drastically wrong when the people of the same religion hate each other so much, they are willing to kill. When did this begin, and why?

0 Replies

When spiritual individualism occurs, against the natural tendency for "tribalism", I think we are observing an advancement on the part of that individual.
This is not to minimize the (evolutionary) survival value of collectivism; it has proven to be essential for our clawless species. But beyond (mere:lol:) survival, personal fulfillment is something acknowledged by philosophers and humanistic psychologists but rarely by the more positivistic human sciences.

0 Replies

As I understand positivism, for it to acknowledge personal fulfillment would be a contradiction of it's basic premisses.

This debate reminds me of school when I was a teenager.
Boys will be boys, and whenever "one of the guys" made a crude joke about something on the expense of a girl or an outsider, all the other boys joined in laughing. Not because it was funny, but because they were or wanted to be "one of the guys".
I usually never had a problem with tearing a hole in that bubble, and I was good at it too. That made the primates feel foolish, since I displayed a more mature attitude and gained favor with the girls, which resulted in hostile attitudes towards me. I loved it. Smile

But I learned that being an individual is hard. This was when I was a boy among other boys. I can only imagine how hard it must be when such conflicts arise where the stakes are much higher.

0 Replies

I don't know the answer, JL, as I am not very familiar with the different sects or the reasons for the conflict. I just find it unfortunate for the people living there, especially the children, to have to go through such hardships.

Related to the link I posted, I was thinking that when Buddhism was introduced in China, it was not popular at first until it was remodelled to fit Chinese culture. And if I remember well, Buddhism spread more widely after the Chinese emperor embraced it. When we look at it, Buddhism in India and in China are very different, even the representation of what Buddha looks like. I wonder if Buddhists in China feel akin to Buddhists in India, or let's say, Buddhists in Japan?

0 Replies

Buddhism in Japan was brought over from China. Many Chinese cultural beliefs and the written language was "taken" from China very early on in Japan's history. There are diferent sects of Buddhism in India, south-east Asia, China and Japan. Many comingle Confucianism with religious beliefs, and in Japan, it's difficult to know where Shintoism and Buddhism practices differ.

0 Replies

One reads that the genius of zen derives from the earthy practical orientation of Chinese culture and, in particular, its Taoism. In India Buddhism was fundamentally a rebellion against the caste system of Hinduism. Moreover Buddhism, after the death of the Buddha, took on a very theoretical orientation. This was lost in China and later in Japan. Zen Buddhism is the most anti-theoretical and earthy of worldviews. It has retained, I believe, the essentials of the Buddha's teachings and cleansed away much of the abstract accumulations of the historical career of Buddhism.
A comment from Asherman on this issue would be most welcome.

0 Replies

cello wrote:

Contrary to you, Ricky, although I don't follow any religion, I am very curious to know the different religions. I think that when religions were started, there was a good intention, because the persons who started them were good and kind people who just wanted to teach us "good" things - good is a relative term. It is later on, when religions become more developed, people forgot what was originally taught, and so you see the preachers deviating from the real teachings, applying their own ideas and misconceptions of what their religions are. And getting involved in politics like the present Pope. Frankly, what does whether Turkey can join the European Union have to do with the Pope? The EU doesn't need his blessing, or lack of, to decide it.

And Ricky, I would not worry so much about whether I will go in heaven after death, as long as I live my life in the "best" manner as I can (e.g. not to hurt other people, etc.). We don't even know what happens after, so why worry?

Cello, you've misunderstood me. I asked the question not because I'm worried about where I'll go after death. I am an atheist, and don't believe heaven or hell exists. I'm just curious about the way religious people think. I know many Christians. I admit that they are in general of higher moral standard than non-religious people. But I myself have difficulty accepting any religion before I get satisfactory answers to a few questions. One is why God, if real, only gave revelation to a small group of people. The other people were left taking up totally different views of god and religion. It's easy to explain if we (I, at the moment) believe religion is created by man, not god. But if anyone has to accept God is real, such a question is difficult to answer. So far, I didn't hear a single direct answer from Christians or followers of other religions. I posted the question here because I want to hear some intelligent explanation.

0 Replies

Why are there so many religions in the world?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know