• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Identifying with Multiple Religions

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
In the past, it was more common for various cultures and religions to share with one another than despise each other. :D The Druids were known to have studied with the Greeks and others, and even the Arabic cultures did the same for a long while. It was also common to honor the local gods over your own when in a foreign land, so this fluidity of spiritual approach has a precedent in history. Religions didn't develop in a vacuum, and as a result they shared with each other greatly. This who divisive tack is actually pretty recent and really doesn't gain any ground until the Thirty Years War where Christians start killing Christians over not being Christian enough, and completely by accident launched a wave of interest in the ancients, pagan religions, and science.
:)

"The Vinegar Tasters"
full
 

Perditus

へびつかい座
Identifying with Multiple Religions
Walking a tightrope here, between Deism, atheism, and UU. My research has brought me to the closest conclusion, which is Cold Deism, belief in a creator who does not engage his creation.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Walking a tightrope here, between Deism, atheism, and UU. My research has brought me to the closest conclusion, which is Cold Deism, belief in a creator who does not engage his creation.

Wouldn't Hot Deism be more traditional Theism, then?
 

Perditus

へびつかい座
Wouldn't Hot Deism be more traditional Theism, then?
"Hot" Deism is the belief that the Creator interferes with his creation.

"Cold" Deism is the belief that the Creator made the universe, but does not interfere in its operation. He merely observes or has left us on our own.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
"Hot" Deism is the belief that the Creator interferes with his creation.

"Cold" Deism is the belief that the Creator made the universe, but does not interfere in its operation. He merely observes or has left us on our own.

So what's Theism?
 

Perditus

へびつかい座
So what's Theism?
the·ism
[ˈTHēˌizəm]
NOUN

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

de·ism
[ˈdēˌizəm, ˈdāˌizəm]
NOUN

belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
Deism has been further broken down as I explained, "Hot" and "Cold".
 

Geoff-Allen

Resident megalomaniac
Interesting thread!

I try and take the essence from all religions - which is trying to become a kinder & more compassionate human being.

I would find it very hard to check one box on such a survey :)

Namaste
 

Callisto

Hellenismos, BTW
It is common in the United States to think of one's religion as a single box one is allowed to check on a survey. I'm not one of the people who agrees with this perspective, ... What do you think about identifying with multiple religions? Do you believe this is possible? Are you someone who identifies with multiple religions, and if so, why do you do so?

It's far more common within Neopaganism to find those who identify with more than one religion than it is among the mainstream. One reason is that the largest segment within Neopaganism is Eclecticism which inherently pertains to not adhering to a pre- established practice, rather the emphasis is to create one's own way, which many do by pulling from many different sources. Then even among those Pagans who do belong to some kind of tradition, those are generally henotheistic and don't have a "one true way" view. They do not invalidate other belief systems or concepts of deity nor prohibit individuals from pursuing them.

I primarily identify as a Hellenic Recon however, I'm also a Trad Wiccan. It's not uncommon to be Recons, or Druidry, Voudon, Unitarian Universalists, and various others. Generally, they're polytheists who have felt the call by deities outside of whatever initial/main form of practice they already engage in. Though they don't always practice another religion, rather they find themselves called by deities and venerate them in personal ways that are less formal than a tradition.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
It is tougher to do depending on the religion. Some religions conflict (or a common belief is that they conflict) or are mutually exclusive. For example, it might be tougher to be a Christian and Muslim because their texts might not agree. I think this is easier to do with Eastern philosophies though.

Yeah, claims of being the "One True Truth" tend to make syncretism or multiple identifications and affiliations a bit more complicated. I have observed that not all traditions of Christianity do this (I know less about Islam, unfortunately), so some particular traditions could be more compatible than others. Plus, the individual thinking being can always choose to discard that "One True Truth" idea and engage in the practices of a given religion anyway. This brings up questions of perceived authenticity - whether or not that person is "really" part of a tradition. Not a simple question to answer.


I think it's all about what you consider the term religion to mean... Many things are like philosophy or ways, and thus infinitely combinable with other paths.

There's much truth to this. There's a tendency to think of religion (at least in America) as some set of rigid doctrines that you must accept in order to be considered "in the club" to speak. This notion is particular Christian traditions that dominate our cultural dialogues and thinking about religion, but in practice things don't tend to work that way. Identification with a group is ever up for negotiation with others who are identifying with that group.

A question is raised here for me, though - how can a person have more than one way of life? Doesn't one's way of life describe the sum totality of how one lives in the current life? Wouldn't having more than one way of life require having multiple lives somehow? :D


In any event, at some point I raised the issue of scientific illiteracy and the extent to which it plagues our society. She graciously agreed, and then noted that, in her opinion, religious illiteracy was a far greater problem. Our oft times stunning lack of knowledge of our neighbor's religion, its nuances and variations, its rituals and principles, robs us of sources of inspiration while creating a fertile environment for xenophobia and prejudice.

Hah... this is a bit off-topic with respect to the question about identifying with multiple religions, but dang do I agree with this. I'd probably expand this to cultural illiteracy more broadly - things that students should pick up from studying history and literature, but often don't (and the part of culture called religion in particular seems to get ignored).

I'm also not sure if you're including cultural identification under whatever you're calling "indentifying" with a religion. It's entirely possible to, say, adhere to the tenets of Buddhism while feeling a cultural affinity for Catholicism or Judaism.

The line between culture and religion is pretty thin as it is, if such a line exists at all. The PEW study doesn't really get into the nuances of that - it could fall under several of the items in the second table in the study linked to in the OP.

But rather than accept people as being in more than one box I regard them as a new box.

This is important to remember. Syncretic religions can be considered their own thing entirely. :D

Without clear distinctions their is no identity. Without identity there is no belonging. Without belonging there is no commitment. That is the difference between a temporary employee and a regular worker with a steady job.

This is another important point that I sometimes see raised about this topic. I can't say I'm convinced of the argument; it assumes that someone with a plural identity doesn't have a clear identity for themselves. What seems to facilitate the lack of belonging is other people demanding that person "pick a team" so to so speak because they cannot reconcile plural identities and have a strongly tribalistic mentality. This sort of tribalism is, for better or worse, strongly ingrained in human cultures.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
In studying theology and history, I came to the conclusion that no single religion can claim God as their own. God is not unique to any one group of people or geographic location.

This is quite true. Are they talking about the same god or gods, though?
(my answer to that is of course going to be a resounding "no")


The major faiths all claim to be the one and only true faith which is what I imagine would be the cause of the belief of monofaith-ism.

Hah! Monofaithism. That's adorable. :D


I think they need a box for 'Do It Yourself' spiritual beliefs. And I believe that percentage would be on the rise.
[/COLOR][/FONT]

They've done studies of the "nones" group in other contexts (which would include the category you are talking about). This particular story happens to not be about that, though. I have some issues with how they go about their demography for their studies of religion in general, but that's probably neither here nor there with respect to our discussion.

My take on religion is that no one is truly religious until and unless he or she accepts the duty to decide when, where and how the precepts apply.

We should all strive to be our own religious authorities and to be at peace with that responsibility.

One would think that in a culture like America - which is infatuated with the notion of individualism and individual authority - that it's default approach to religions would be something like what you describe here. It is an approach that cuts out the middleperson (i.e., clergy) and makes one directly responsible for one's path. Maybe we don't do that as much because it is very hard work, and Americans are so busy working 40+ hours a week on draining day jobs we don't have the energy to invest in that? It's probably lots of things.


So I take most of my Dharma from Buddhist sources, mainly because I am very much a believer in Interdependent Origination.

This is kinda off-topic, but this phrase "interdependent origination" sounds fascinating to me. Could you briefly dig into that a bit more?


However, I don't take the Eucharist, I don't chant Diamoku, and I don't practice paganisms that focus on initiation among other things. I relate this to cultural appropriation, which I completely disagree with.

So, in the values sense, yes. In practice, no.

Ah! That's another important element of this that nobody has raised yet - the "cultural appropriation" one. I didn't participate in that thread much (or at all?) because that topic is something of a minefield, but it's something worth considering. Not sure how much we want to poke that bear with this thread, especially since it's in a non-debate area. :D
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A question is raised here for me, though - how can a person have more than one way of life? Doesn't one's way of life describe the sum totality of how one lives in the current life? Wouldn't having more than one way of life require having multiple lives somehow? :D
Not speaking religiously, but everyone goes through many different "ways of life" throughout their lives.

My way of life now as a married adult professional is nothing like my way of life as a baby... or even as a university student.

I'm not sure why I forgot earlier, but there's a common expression in Japan: "born Shinto, die Buddhist." The idea is that the different rituals and practices of each religion are considered more or less important at different stages of life.

... and that Shinto funeral ceremonies tend to be very expensive, apparently, so it's more affordable to have a Buddhist funeral.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member

They've done studies of the "nones" group in other contexts (which would include the category you are talking about). This particular story happens to not be about that, though. I have some issues with how they go about their demography for their studies of religion in general, but that's probably neither here nor there with respect to our discussion.
I just wanted to say people with spiritual beliefs wouldn't be fond of checking a 'None' box either. 'None' sounds like atheist or no-opinion, which neither is the case.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
This is quite true. Are they talking about the same god or gods, though?
(my answer to that is of course going to be a resounding "no")




Hah! Monofaithism. That's adorable. :D




They've done studies of the "nones" group in other contexts (which would include the category you are talking about). This particular story happens to not be about that, though. I have some issues with how they go about their demography for their studies of religion in general, but that's probably neither here nor there with respect to our discussion.
[/COLOR][/FONT]


One would think that in a culture like America - which is infatuated with the notion of individualism and individual authority - that it's default approach to religions would be something like what you describe here. It is an approach that cuts out the middleperson (i.e., clergy) and makes one directly responsible for one's path. Maybe we don't do that as much because it is very hard work, and Americans are so busy working 40+ hours a week on draining day jobs we don't have the energy to invest in that? It's probably lots of things.




This is kinda off-topic, but this phrase "interdependent origination" sounds fascinating to me. Could you briefly dig into that a bit more?




Ah! That's another important element of this that nobody has raised yet - the "cultural appropriation" one. I didn't participate in that thread much (or at all?) because that topic is something of a minefield, but it's something worth considering. Not sure how much we want to poke that bear with this thread, especially since it's in a non-debate area. :D

True. I actually would find it a good discussion; but, people seemed to have taken offense to it.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
There's much truth to this. There's a tendency to think of religion (at least in America) as some set of rigid doctrines that you must accept in order to be considered "in the club" to speak. This notion is particular Christian traditions that dominate our cultural dialogues and thinking about religion, but in practice things don't tend to work that way. Identification with a group is ever up for negotiation with others who are identifying with that group.

A question is raised here for me, though - how can a person have more than one way of life? Doesn't one's way of life describe the sum totality of how one lives in the current life? Wouldn't having more than one way of life require having multiple lives somehow? :D

I guess to me it's whether you view it inclusive or exclusive "OR" comparison. :D I've always been walking my own way, so it's natural to see value in several things. Strangely enough, I don't consider myself very religious because I only believe what I know, there is no over-arcing dogma which governs my experiences. I often find it difficult to use the word belief personally for this reason. Likewise, I find myself incompatible with many religious ideas because they are exclusive of someones experience. Being a Christian, a Jew, or Muslim means you accept certain notions, for example, and I accept nothing. I could, however, take ideas from Taoist philosophy or Native American spirituality and they'd be congruent enough with my own to warrant meandering down a few of their pathways. It's this type of spirituality that I find the most interesting to explore, as the real spiritual truth is universal because it plays by the same rules for everyone. That's why I also feel that no faith or philosophy has a monopoly on this, and we should never be afraid to experience these ideas even if they contradict our first impressions.

I just wanted to say people with spiritual beliefs wouldn't be fond of checking a 'None' box either. 'None' sounds like atheist or no-opinion, which neither is the case.

I find myself in that weird situation as well and get into the position of having to quantify my place with a comparison of "this" or "not this".
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I worry that it will boil down to a "shopping list" mentality of "pick and mix". Whilst that on the one hand is a celebration of individuals religious freedom, it is also a way which undermines the intellectual rigour and discipline required in holding a set of beliefs.

I'm not sure I follow. How does identifying with multiple religion undermine intellectual rigor and discipline? I'm not seeing the connection there. If anything, it seems to me that identifying with multiple religions would require more rigor and discipline, not less of it because one is working with multiple traditions and there is more stuff to keep track of. Though when it comes down to it, how much work one puts into one's religion is a matter of preference, and can fall across a broad spectrum no matter what one is identifying with.


It's far more common within Neopaganism to find those who identify with more than one religion than it is among the mainstream. One reason is that the largest segment within Neopaganism is Eclecticism which inherently pertains to not adhering to a pre- established practice, rather the emphasis is to create one's own way, which many do by pulling from many different sources. Then even among those Pagans who do belong to some kind of tradition, those are generally henotheistic and don't have a "one true way" view. They do not invalidate other belief systems or concepts of deity nor prohibit individuals from pursuing them.

By my own anecdotal observations, I agree with you, though I wonder if a formal survey would uncover with respect to this. I always like to go with the data when I can, though interpreting that data can be a bit of a challenge too! :D


I just wanted to say people with spiritual beliefs wouldn't be fond of checking a 'None' box either. 'None' sounds like atheist or no-opinion, which neither is the case.

To be clear, with respect to how PEW does their surveys about religion, the "spiritual but not religious" crowd is within that "none" category, because they identify as "no religion." "None" in terms of religion does not mean atheist.
 

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
This is quite true. Are they talking about the same god or gods, though?
(my answer to that is of course going to be a resounding "no")

Yes and no. If people from different cultures, locations and time periods are identifying some type of deity that is forged by an experience, dreams, emotions, etc. then I would say yes. They are connecting with something "out there" beyond their understanding. God, in whatever shape, form or ideology, has touched them.

Once they start describing God as having defining facial features, flowing brown hair, blue eyes, wearing a kilt, having 6 arms, the face of an eagle, etc. then I would say no, as that part would be man made.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member

They've done studies of the "nones" group in other contexts (which would include the category you are talking about). This particular story happens to not be about that, though. I have some issues with how they go about their demography for their studies of religion in general, but that's probably neither here nor there with respect to our discussion.



One would think that in a culture like America - which is infatuated with the notion of individualism and individual authority - that it's default approach to religions would be something like what you describe here. It is an approach that cuts out the middleperson (i.e., clergy) and makes one directly responsible for one's path. Maybe we don't do that as much because it is very hard work, and Americans are so busy working 40+ hours a week on draining day jobs we don't have the energy to invest in that? It's probably lots of things.

I just wanted to say people with spiritual beliefs wouldn't be fond of checking a 'None' box either. 'None' sounds like atheist or no-opinion, which neither is the case.
...and for the dreaded and detested hipster answer: "Spiritual but not religious"
I find myself in that weird situation as well and get into the position of having to quantify my place with a comparison of "this" or "not this".
This: "Spiritual"
Not this: "Religious"
 

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth

Following a specific religion subserviently might make it difficult to explore more than one religion at the same time. Embracing a religion in a way that does not compromise one's freedom to control the evolution of one's own subjective universe and Weltanschuung can make exploring more than one religion simultaneously an adventure.


 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm not sure I follow. How does identifying with multiple religion undermine intellectual rigor and discipline? I'm not seeing the connection there. If anything, it seems to me that identifying with multiple religions would require more rigor and discipline, not less of it because one is working with multiple traditions and there is more stuff to keep track of. Though when it comes down to it, how much work one puts into one's religion is a matter of preference, and can fall across a broad spectrum no matter what one is identifying with.



By my own anecdotal observations, I agree with you, though I wonder if a formal survey would uncover with respect to this. I always like to go with the data when I can, though interpreting that data can be a bit of a challenge too! :D




To be clear, with respect to how PEW does their surveys about religion, the "spiritual but not religious" crowd is within that "none" category, because they identify as "no religion." "None" in terms of religion does not mean atheist.

I'm trying to think of how to explain it, but if you look within one religion-say christianity- you have literalist interpretations of the bible but can also have liberal interpretations as well. The difference is "who" has the authority to decide what the "correct" interpretation is: "god" (or the church and the preisthood) or the individual christian. Ultimately, either one or the other will take precedence and a believer could not cliam both as equal given that the practical implications is it makes conflict of interpretation unresolvable. They overlap, but are mutually exclusive and incompatable. (I think this came up in the protestant reformation and the same battles over who can interpret the Quran are being waged between liberal and orthodox Muslims).

The history of individual religions is full of these conflicts over interpretation over what practice or ideas are accepted and based on whose authority. A religion is a sort of collective memory and body of knowledge which passes down those traditions, practices and interpretations. Knowing one religion passes down this history as lessons for the present day. I think even most fundamentalists agree on the need for some interpretation such as to respond to wholly new situations such as technological changed e.g. Is using internet pornography a sin? Can you wage a "just war" with nuclear weapons? Is abortion immoral? All of the above would not have been directly covered by the bible or the quran as they are recent technological changes, so believers have to infer what they consider to be the "correct" or acceptable interpretation and someone has to have the power to decide if that is the "true" reflection of existing doctorine.

Christianity's struggle to reconcile the book of genesis with scientific discoveries such as the big bang and evolution is an example of how certian beliefs can be mutually irreconcliable. Should we treat genisis as a myth or a fairy story and give priority to the authority of new scientific discoveries, or is genisis god's unalterable word and should we fight the corruption of christianity by atheistic-materialist science?

In the end, its the fact that religions have their own politics. Because of the authorities behind it, these can tend to be closed and self-contained traditions. Adhering to multiple religions may mean accepting many conflicting authorities or claiming to be one yourself to interpret the religion. If someone tries to adhere to both Islam and Christianity, eventually they're going to have to "pick sides" on the debate over Christ's divinity or the reliabilty of the Quran.

Adhering to multiple religions ultimately places the authority to interpret those religions in the hands of the individual believer. They may not know enough about the religions they follow to actually make a coherent choice. I guess I'm saying that they cannot follow "two masters" as my understanding of what religion is more collectivist/conservative than individualist/liberal.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
One would think that in a culture like America - which is infatuated with the notion of individualism and individual authority - that it's default approach to religions would be something like what you describe here. It is an approach that cuts out the middleperson (i.e., clergy) and makes one directly responsible for one's path. Maybe we don't do that as much because it is very hard work, and Americans are so busy working 40+ hours a week on draining day jobs we don't have the energy to invest in that? It's probably lots of things.
If I had to guess, there is probably a measure of compensation at work there. People need to rest from hard work, and maybe for many people that means surrendering their choices and judgement to their priests and scriptures.

This is kinda off-topic, but this phrase "interdependent origination" sounds fascinating to me. Could you briefly dig into that a bit more?

Sure. Pratītyasamutpāda, sometimes called "The Law of Dependent Origination", "Dependent Arising" and other variations, is IMO the core idea of Buddhism, the one from which all other core concepts of the Buddhadharma manifest, such as Anatta (non-soul) and Sunyata (emptiness).

To an extent, it is a call for pragmatism, an acknowledgement that since we can't reasonably insulate our lives from those of others, we may as well accept that fact and run with it without losing track of our greater goals.

On a slightly subtler level, the concept is a sobering call, a reminder that however pure or wise our principles might turn to be we still have a duty to deal with the real world to the best of our abilities, without recourse to appeals that the world "should be" somehow different. We Buddhists may sometimes show gratitude for or take refuge on the Vows of Boddhisatvas or for the promise of the eventual arising og Maytreya, but for the most part ours is a religion of practice as opposed to belief.
 
Top