Does a religion have to be ancient in order for it to be true?

[Shiranui117]

There was once a time in every religion's history when it was brand-spanking-new. This applies even to truly ancient and primordial traditions like animism and shamanism.

 

[Augustus]

That said, it cannot be denied that humans attach greater value and worth to things that are old. Perhaps it's worth taking some time to explore why that is? Why do we attach value and worth to something because it is old?

Time is a great filter, so things which lack value tend not to endure. That which has endured for a long time is far more likely to have value than a new phenomenon (on average) as it has been found to offer utility in many different circumstances (or has been revised as problems have been revealed).

From my experience, many people who do not to place a higher value on things which are old tend to be those who overestimate human rationality, and so believe reason can effectively judge utility. In our complex world where we understand far less than we think we do though, circumstance often reveals problems in what our reason told us should work.

 

[Augustus]

If that was the case, then Christianity would have been false when it was young.

It was for some.

That's why the Romans, for a time, saw Christianity as superstitio, yet accepted Judaism as religio. They were naturally suspicious of anything new.

Also why a new creed like (Roman) Mithraism piggybacked on an older tradition to give a veneer of ancientness.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

That's why the Romans, for a time, saw Christianity as superstitio, yet accepted Judaism as religio. They were naturally suspicious of anything new.

No. The Roman argument was that the Jews refused to worship the Roman gods because Yahweh had forbidden them to, and they could accept that: whatever they thought of the Jews' covenant (they didn't seem to have gained much from it!) or Yahweh, a god is a god and if you make a deal with one, you stand by it. But the Christians had no excuse. They claimed to worship the Jewish god, yet abandoned the Jewish commandments. They were insulting the gods of Rome with no good excuse and that's what made their actions a criminal superstition.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

To address the actual question, one needs to distinguish primary and secondary religions separately.

The secondary religions claim to be divine revelations. If Christianity is true, then Islam is not just false, but redundant. The Baha'i claim that God reveals things in stages, but exactly what in the Baha'i scriptures would it have been impossible to reveal to Muhammad, for example? And where one revelation contradicts an earlier one, why was the original one given in the first place? If there is a Supreme Being and they want to make a revelation, once should do: be a Zoroastrian!

To those of us who reject the secondary religions, age is still important. Primary religion, polytheism, is based on experience. Experience can be tested by seeing it repeated. If some-one reports encountering a god whom no-one has ever heard of, we are naturally going to withhold our belief and await confirmation. For various reasons, I worship the gods who revealed themselves initially to the Greeks. I might have chosen those of Egypt, or India, or Japan. But I'm naturally suspicious of cults which only arose in the last century, like Wicca or Druidry!

 

[Augustus]

The Roman argument was that the Jews refused to worship the Roman gods because Yahweh had forbidden them to, and they could accept that: whatever they thought of the Jews' covenant (they didn't seem to have gained much from it!) or Yahweh, a god is a god and if you make a deal with one, you stand by it. But the Christians had no excuse. They claimed to worship the Jewish god, yet abandoned the Jewish commandments.

So they could accept it for an ancient religion but not for a new superstition...

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course age is not indicative of truth (whether we mean truth-as-fact or truth-as-useful).

That said, it cannot be denied that humans attach greater value and worth to things that are old. Perhaps it's worth taking some time to explore why that is? Why do we attach value and worth to something because it is old?

I'll leave my own thoughts about that off the table for now. What do you all think?

Lasting power, generally speaking, is a desirable quality. To feel connected with something that lasts through centuries or millennia and has every chance of repeating that feat for at least a few more brings at least a small measure of tranquility to most people.

Perhaps a part of it is the expectation that an ancient doctrine or group will have learned much and will know how to handle most of the most frequent dangers and criticisms.

I don't think that it is all that often reliable or rational, but the feeling exists. A "tried and true" quality, if you will.

 

[sun rise]

The older a religion is the less likely it is true (?).

To me religions come into existence to commemorate and preserve the teachings of the Avatar, Christ, Prophet. As such, like everything else in material existence, the are born, mature and finally die once their purpose has been served.

While they are alive, religion's practices can be useful for those people who are drawn to observe their rites and rituals.

 

[Vinayaka]

Any concept or theory, be it religious, societal, cultural, scientific, that stands the test of time has to have some value to it, as people agreed about it over an extended period. Some societies have died out, others have lasted.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

So they could accept it for an ancient religion but not for a new superstition...

No. The point was that the Jews were obeying their patron god, and the Romans understood that. But the Christians were claiming the privilege of the Jews without being Jews. If they said "our god forbade us to make offerings to other gods", the reply would be "but he also forbade his followers to eat pork and commanded them to get circumcised: you don't observe these requirements, so how can you claim to be following the Jewish god?" The argument was clearly set out by Celsus in The True Doctrine.

 

[Augustus]

No. The point was that the Jews were obeying their patron god, and the Romans understood that. But the Christians were claiming the privilege of the Jews without being Jews. If they said "our god forbade us to make offerings to other gods", the reply would be "but he also forbade his followers to eat pork and commanded them to get circumcised: you don't observe these requirements, so how can you claim to be following the Jewish god?" The argument was clearly set out by Celsus in The True Doctrine.

Yes, so therefore, if they are not following the Jewish God, then they are following a new god and so don't get the privilege of those following an ancient god. Not the Jewish god = new god = superstition.

Do you think that if they had said 'OK, it's not the Jewish God, but some new one we just discovered who also won't let us sacrifice to your gods' the Romans would have just gone, "Ok, no problem. As long as you aren''t saying it's the Jewish god then everything is spiffing. We were just worried about cultural appropriation of minority religions and want them to have a safe space to preserve their authentic Jewishness"?

 

[shunyadragon]

To me religions come into existence to commemorate and preserve the teachings of the Avatar, Christ, Prophet. As such, like everything else in material existence, the are born, mature and finally die once their purpose has been served.

This is true from the progressive Revelation perspective of the Baha'i Faith, but ancient religions most often die a slow agonizing death, and are often revived in forms that try and compromise with a changing world.

While they are alive, religion's practices can be useful for those people who are drawn to observe their rites and rituals.

Yes, the ancient religions are a traditional and comfortable attraction to the sense of belonging and community can provide, but this belonging can be superficial comfort avoiding the reality of a changing and evolving world around them.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheist argument concerning the existence of any metaphysical deity (or deities) aside to make it clear what I'm asking is whether how "old" a religion is, is a requirement to make a religion true?

The question is very pertinent and relatable to the ongoing debate among theistic religions especially of the Abrahamic family. It appears to me (indirectly) in philosophical dialectical discussions I've been in that one proclaims to be true since it is the oldest, and therefore all others after that even the ones that remotely relate back to the original said religion are heretical. In addition to the question in the OP can't truth reinvent itself in latter generations due to change in time?

Edit: I extend the same question to non-theistic religions

Religions seem pop up often enough, some, for example, the Baha'i Faith, stick around, most don't.

The followers always think their own religion is the true religion

 

[shunyadragon]

A religion being older does not make it more true (or even true at all) in the same manner that a religion being newer does not become falser (or even false at all). Everything must be analyzed independently.

I believe the religions and our individual beliefs cannot be analysed independently, because they are either universally rooted in our fallible human nature and nature and attributes of our physical existence, or the universal Divine nature and attributes of our reality. If you believe in God to be coherent both are true and in harmony and unity.
.
To be otherwise would amonut to incoherence and contradictions of egocentric human makings.

It's absurd to claim your religion is true because it's older or newer. I've seen people making both arguments. Truth is independent from time.

Truth is independent of time and any fallible human belief in Truth. If God(s) nor the spiritual realms claimed by many do not exist than the Truth exists with the Natural Nature of our existence. If God or God(s) or spiritual realms and worlds beyond our physical existence exist that is where Truth lies.

 

[shunyadragon]

Obviously not. If that was the case, then Christianity would have been false when it was young. And things that are false tend to stay like that.

So, jediiists and copyists have more of a chance.

Ciao

- viole

This assumes religions are to an extent either true of false in some absolute sense when they formed and this is unrealistic considering the cultural and temporal nature of any religion including Christianity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Religions seem pop up often enough, some, for example, the Baha'i Faith, stick around, most don't.

The followers always think their own religion is the true religion

The Baha'i Faith does not consider it absolutely true in any sense. Religions are at best temporal in their knowledge in a constantly evolving changing human condition over time.

 

[shunyadragon]

does-a-religion-have-to-be-ancient-in-order-for-it-to-be-true

There is nothing new that can be added to religions. Everything that can be said, has been said repeatedly. New religions are only for people who seek personal importance, money or sex. Moreover, they continue with the old falsehood - son, messenger, prophet, manifestation, mahdi sent by God. So, they are necessarily false. Also, they go against science.

This is a rather narrow egocentric view of other religions from the perspective of your own.

There is nothing in the Baha'i scripture nor its evolving history concerning the seeking personal importance, money or sex.

There is the harmony of science and religion in the Baha'i teachings, and the nature of our physical existence is understood in the evolving nature of scientific knowledge, and scripture concerning the nature of our physical existence must be interpreted in the light of science.

 

[ChristineM]

The Baha'i Faith does not consider it absolutely true in any sense. Religions are at best temporal in their knowledge in a constantly evolving changing human condition over time.

Personally i would agree with you but i have had arguments with Baha'i who absolutely believe their faith is the true faith

 

[Epic Beard Man]

People have become better schooled and arguably more intelligent over the centuries, so certain irrational aspects of old religions have become less acceptable to many people.
This doesn't mean that the older religions have become worthless or totally outdated, but if they refuse to modernize, they will be abandoned for more up-to-date paths.

The more exoteric religions will experience the effects of this transition the most for obvious reasons.

But those that modify their beliefs to fit these old religions are they just reinventing the wheel?

 

[shunyadragon]

Personally i would agree with you but i have had arguments with Baha'i who absolutely believe their faith is the true faith

Yes, we fallible humans remain fallible human regardless of which belief system we choose or inherit.