Religion Without God?

[Frater Sisyphus]

What about me, am I religious?

I'm a Thelemite/hermeticist/Taoist, pantheist but agnostic. The universe and G-d is the same thing but G-d isn't a supernatural force (but it is matter/energy itself manifested in all things), and I don't think it is a deity, but I do have spiritual/philosophical views that sometimes border (I'm a Kabbalist afterall) the line between religious and psychological.
I'm not entirely a materialist but I believe the scientific method

 

[Father Heathen]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Why or why not?

Sure, a religion can have philosophical depth and a comprehensive code of ethics without the need to worship deities. Also, I think spirituality goes well beyond prostration.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It can border very heavily with a philosophy as stated before. Most religions have some form of supernaturalism involved in the element but as a whole not only would it have merit such religions already fit the bill like Buddhism and branches within Hinduism.

Even pagans like me are more influence by Pythagoras and Plato than any other form of theology.

 

[Fool]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Why or why not?

the opposite would be the projection of hatred and self-destruction.

i'm taking the term you you used as "being" as that which is becoming, an action and not necessarily a fixed form.

to be or not to be

i am that i am and i am not

 

[Quintessence]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Why or why not?

I don't know if you intended this, but the way this question is phrased basically translates to "do religions that don't accept classical monotheism have merit?" because terms like "supreme creator" or "governing being" are poor terms to describe other types of theism. Certainly, various factions within classical monotheist religions have been attempting to get people worldwide to believe this for quite some time now. Invalidating all religious traditions other than yours was rubbish then and its rubbish now, for reasons I would hope (probably naively) are self-evident. At the very least, it's incredibly self-evident to all of us who practice a religion that isn't one of the classical monotheist variety. We wouldn't be practicing our religions if they didn't have merit to us. People in general don't do things that they feel are worthless. Again, reasons I'd hope are self-evident.

 

[Valjean]

(n) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

This strikes me as too restrictive. True, the Abrahamic God is a superhuman controlling power, but, historically, Gods like those of the Greeks, or Romans or Scandinavians, while they interacted with humans, had their own lives and concerns. They weren't lawmakers, enforcers and judges. They weren't personal.
Nor is the line between Gods, demigods and incorporeal entities very clear. There may be a whole taxonomy of incorporeal entities within the cultural mythos, just like the local, physical fauna -- with a various degrees of human interaction, or with none.

As Shunyadragon pointed out, Buddhism is sometimes atheistic. While many Buddhist communities have overlain it with various deities, the essential teachings of the Buddha were not concerned with any invisible pantheon.

I see religion more as a belief or set of beliefs manifesting an ethic among its adherents -- deities optional.

The line between what is religion and what is philosophy is not clearly defined.

Pantheism is an example in this gray zone. I believe if our physical existence is the immanent God, therefore there is no God,

Good points.

Primitive societies tend to be much more homogenous, with no clear line between religion, propriety, economics, folklore and technology. It's all a tightly interwoven, cultural tapestry. Do such societies even have "religions?"
It's only in more complex and civilized societies that separate, specialized socio-economic categories like 'religion' emerge.
Boundaries are hazy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Why or why not?

For some forms of Buddhism et al, this is actually what there is.

And certainly, atheists are a religious body who claim they need not recognize a supreme creator to allow for their philosophical, subjective ideas about everything to be perfectly right.

 

[Jainarayan]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Buddhism and Taoism seem to have merit.

 

[Akivah]

Doesn't theism imply the existence of supreme beings or deities? I'm looking for justification of merit of religions that prescribe neither.

Your problem is that the definition of religion includes the worship of a higher power. Without the higher power, you can have a belief system, but not a religion.

 

[metis]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Such is Buddhism since it doesn't posit a creator-god, although many do believe ir accept the possibility of there being deities. The basis of the faith are the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, neither of with states anything about there being a deity.

However, according to dharma, even the FNT and the EF can be challenged, including anything the Buddha may have said. However, I don't know if greg agrees.

 

[Valjean]

Your problem is that the definition of religion includes the worship of a higher power. Without the higher power, you can have a belief system, but not a religion.

But if the belief system, like Buddhism, manifests an ethic, is it not a religion?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This strikes me as too restrictive. True, the Abrahamic God is a superhuman controlling power, but, historically, Gods like those of the Greeks, or Romans or Scandinavians, while they interacted with humans, had their own lives and concerns. They weren't lawmakers, enforcers and judges. They weren't personal.
Nor is the line between Gods, demigods and incorporeal entities very clear. There may be a whole taxonomy of incorporeal entities within the cultural mythos, just like the local, physical fauna -- with a various degrees of human interaction, or with none.

As Shunyadragon pointed out, Buddhism is sometimes atheistic. While many Buddhist communities have overlain it with various deities, the essential teachings of the Buddha were not concerned with any invisible pantheon.

I see religion more as a belief or set of beliefs manifesting an ethic among its adherents -- deities optional.


Good points.

Primitive societies tend to be much more homogenous, with no clear line between religion, propriety, economics, folklore and technology. It's all a tightly interwoven, cultural tapestry. Do such societies even have "religions?"
It's only in more complex and civilized societies that separate, specialized socio-economic categories like 'religion' emerge.
Boundaries are hazy.

The concept of 'religion' originated in Europe, and was imposed on all other cultures that were encountered while creating world-spanning empires, and later, studying the cultures of the peoples taken within those empires. Most cultures don't have an equivalent word.

And that idea of religion was based on Christianity, as the highest and most perfect example of a religion...anything else was evidence of the primitive state of the indigenous cultures. At the same time, anthropologists and missionaries tried to fit everything that the people believed and did into a form that would make sense in relation to Christianity and European ideas about religion.

 

[Ponder This]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Why or why not?

I think the question is a bit strange. Instead of asking if recognizing a supreme creator / governing being has merit, you ask if merit can be found elsewhere.

Well, sure merit can be found elsewhere, but aren't you just dancing around the question of the merit of acknowledging a higher power? And there is merit in acknowledging a higher power, in keeping one's ego in check, and in remaining open to greater possibilities beyond what we are.

Maybe, you mean: Is there merit in rejecting the notion of a higher power? To which I would have to say: no, there isn't any particular generic merit in rejecting that which is greater than oneself, but, perhaps, there is merit in rejecting specific "powers" that others would have you ascribe to. The notion of a higher power can be co-opted by charismatic personalities to influence according to their own agendas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Why or why not?

"Merit" in what sense?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even though I am a Baha'i I have visited and at times attended UU churches over the years, and Christians are rare unless they believe in a more humanist version of Christianity. The Jews and Hindus I have met are predominately agnostic, and some Jews even atheist. By the nature of UU and there general endorsement of the Humanist Manifesto there view is very predominately humanist, and negates Revelation by a theistic God. I do find an increasing presence of Pagans, and believers in naturalist philosophies.

I think the absence of Christians at UU meetings isn't because Christian belief is incompatible with UU positions. I think it comes from the fact that the UUs are a sort of refuge for people who aren't a good fit in the Christian mainstream.

Why would a Christian drive to a UU congregation on the other side of town when he would pass by 10 churches of his preferred denomination on the way there?

On top of that, going to the UU church would usually mean a serious drop in social benefit and influence compared to a Christian church, so that's another point against the UUs.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the absence of Christians at UU meetings isn't because Christian belief is incompatible with UU positions. I think it comes from the fact that the UUs are a sort of refuge for people who aren't a good fit in the Christian mainstream.

Why would a Christian drive to a UU congregation on the other side of town when he would pass by 10 churches of his preferred denomination on the way there?

On top of that, going to the UU church would usually mean a serious drop in social benefit and influence compared to a Christian church, so that's another point against the UUs.

Actually I consider these points positive for UU as I do for the positive points for Baha'is. Both offer a more real perspective of the contemporary world, one theist, and the other dominantly humanist. Both in their own way are outside the social benefit and the sense of community of the establishment.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What about me, am I religious?

I'm a Thelemite/hermeticist/Taoist, pantheist but agnostic. The universe and G-d is the same thing but G-d isn't a supernatural force (but it is matter/energy itself manifested in all things), and I don't think it is a deity, but I do have spiritual/philosophical views that sometimes border (I'm a Kabbalist afterall) the line between religious and psychological.
I'm not entirely a materialist but I believe the scientific method

Are you really a pantheist then? You've already said that you don't think God is a deity, but do you view God a supreme being? The first sentence in the Wikipedia article on Theism states, "Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities."

Theism - Wikipedia

If you don't view God as a supreme being, would it be considered correct then to call what exists as such in your view "God?"

Your view is quite similar to mine. I don't call myself religious. Do you?

 

[atanu]

Does a religion that does not recognize a supreme creator and/or governing being have merit?

Why or why not?

Religion without acknowledging a binding/upholding principle that many term God, imo, will not conform to the basic definition of religion, or even dharma. OTOH, Hinduism (or may be Buddhism) does not accord the Supreme status to creator.

 

[shunyadragon]

What about me, am I religious?

I'm a Thelemite/hermeticist/Taoist, pantheist but agnostic. The universe and G-d is the same thing but G-d isn't a supernatural force (but it is matter/energy itself manifested in all things), and I don't think it is a deity, but I do have spiritual/philosophical views that sometimes border (I'm a Kabbalist afterall) the line between religious and psychological.
I'm not entirely a materialist but I believe the scientific method

Yes, being religious or having a religion does not translate to being theist.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Religion without acknowledging a binding/upholding principle that many term God, imo, will not conform to the basic definition of religion, or even dharma. OTOH, Hinduism (or may Buddhism) does not accord the Supreme status to Being.

There are theist Hindus and atheist Hindus. I have met both.