What Are the Assumptions of Religion

[Deathbydefault]

That's nice. Is it accurate? How is it accurate?

Is this a test? Hm.
Well, religions are completely reliant on the faith and gullibility of people.
So I would say that people invoke faith in religions due to emotions.
A sense of "awe" or "enlightenment" and the like.
Having faith in a religion equates to believing it to be true.

So, very basically, [whichever religion] + [Whichever feeling] = Faith - i.e belief that [Whichever religion] is true.

 

[Desert Snake]

Based upon my surveys of religion & adherents, it appears accurate & universal.
(I can barely read your post in that light greenish hue.)

Ok.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok.

Better!
Edgy too.
It feels all Hello Kitty.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is this a test? Hm.
Well, religions are completely reliant on the faith and gullibility of people.
So I would say that people invoke faith in religions due to emotions.
A sense of "awe" or "enlightenment" and the like.
Having faith in a religion equates to believing it to be true.

So, very basically, [whichever religion] + [Whichever feeling] = Faith - i.e belief that [Whichever religion] is true.

That is likely for a certain percentage of people; doesn't look like a 'rule' to me, though.

 

[Deathbydefault]

That is likely for a certain percentage of people; doesn't look like a 'rule' to me, though.

Rule? It is neither a rule nor requirement.
It's a basic observation of the main population that holds faith within any theistic religion.
I'm not saying that there aren't people who don't hold to their religion in that way.
Just that I have yet to see or hear of any such person, so my belief in what I stated is prioritized.

 

[Laika]

A rule of thumb from Marxism is that all religions, whether they believe in a god or not, believe that consciousness takes precedence over matter (referred to as 'idealism' but its a pecular Marxist definition). What basically that means is that all religion assume that matter/nature cannot be its own cause, and therefore must be "caused" by something beyond,above,behind nature; i.e. a god, spiritual force, etc. so a common denominator could be "world creation" arising from the 'spirit'/'soul'. this isn't limited to creationism (that spirit creates matter) but also includes "free will" (in which mind changes matter). However, this sort of cuts through alot of subtlies in religious belief and is something of a straw man.

We also tend to think of "religion" as one of the abrahamic religions, judaism, christianity and Islam. so there is a cultural bias in the definition of what is a religion arising from when european anthropologists studied "other" religions in the 19th century outside of the abrahamic tradition. This definition, also reflects this because of the emphasis on a 'prime mover' for creation as well as the authoritarian norms of abrahamic religions in which the creator decides the social/moral order.

 

[metis]

Are you looking for things held throughout all religions? That can be quite difficult to do as they vary so widely that to say anything at all would require one to be extremely vague and "generally speaking". One can easily enough say, I guess, that most religions start with the assumption that there is something more to us, something inherently more to life itself, than just the biological factors at play. Something that connects us to each other or something greater than what we physically can know and fully understand.

Since you're one of three that asked for clarification, let me put it this way: in general with religion, any religion, what basic assumptions may be made versus that which can be objectively verifiable? Let me define "assumption" as "a conclusion made whereas there's no objective evidence to support it".

I hope this helps.

 

[metis]

Depends on the religion.

Asking, "What are the assumptions of religion?" is like asking, "What are the rules of sports?"

I'm talking about generalities involving assumptions, not specifics.

 

[metis]

OK, let me throw out one item that may be an assumption:

God (or Gods) exist. Is that or is that not an assumption? If it is not, iyo, what objective evidence can the reader submit that either exists? Also, while we're in that same ballpark, how many deities exist and how does the reader know that this number, whatever it may be, is correct?

 

[Quintessence]

I've found one universal presumption of all religions.....
Feelings yield truth.

This presumption doesn't seem particularly religious. Seems that it's universal human nature to place trust in one's feelings. It's kind of hard to exist and survive without doing that.

Personally, I wouldn't frame things like this at all, though. One, because I don't view truth as singular, and two, because I don't think truth is quite the right word to use there either. I would say "feelings are important." Which again, isn't an assumption of my religion in the least, but something that is simply human.

Rule? It is neither a rule nor requirement.

It's a basic observation of the main population that holds faith within any theistic religion.
I'm not saying that there aren't people who don't hold to their religion in that way.
Just that I have yet to see or hear of any such person, so my belief in what I stated is prioritized.

If you haven't seen or heard of any such person, you've probably not been paying much attention. There's a good number of folks on RF alone that are people who don't conform to this assumption. I'm one of them. Furthermore, the notion that religion is "faith based" is largely Western, and in particular, Protestant. It does not apply in a comparative context.

 

[Revoltingest]

This presumption doesn't seem particularly religious. Seems that it's universal human nature to place trust in one's feelings. It's kind of hard to exist and survive without doing that.

Universal though be, it is the one universal & necessary trait found in religion.
Contrasting religion with science, the latter requires rational thought, while the former does not.

Note:
Do not infer that I say religious folk are necessarily irrational.
I'm only addressing a fundamental aspect of religion in general.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is this a test? Hm.
Well, religions are completely reliant on the faith and gullibility of people.

No they aren't. (necessarily).

So I would say that people invoke faith in religions due to emotions.

hence wrong..

 

[metis]

If you haven't seen or heard of any such person, you've probably not been paying much attention. There's a good number of folks on RF alone that are people who don't conform to this assumption. I'm one of them. Furthermore, the notion that religion is "faith based" is largely Western, and in particular, Protestant. It does not apply in a comparative context.

Even though this wasn't addressed to me, let me just say that almost all religions tend to be faith-based to at least a limited extent, but you obviously are correct that Protestantism definitely tends to push the envelop on that. Buddhism is much less faith-based than most as it doesn't posit a creator-god, plus one does not have to believe in a deity of any type in order to be "Buddhist".

 

[paarsurrey]

metis said: ↑
There's a thread entitled "What Are the Assumptions of Science", so I thought I'd start a counter-thread entitled "What Are the Assumptions of Religion".

Who wants to be first?

Depends on the religion.
Asking, "What are the assumptions of religion?" is like asking, "What are the rules of sports?"

I agree with you. The topic of the thread is incorrect, needs to be corrected.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I've found one universal presumption of all religions.....
Feelings yield truth.

I couldn't get you exactly.Please paraphrase your argument.
Regards

 

[metis]

The topic of the thread is incorrect, needs to be corrected.
Regards

That's not what you were writing on the "What Are the Assumptions of Science" thread? Why is that?

 

[paarsurrey]

Science doesn't know everything.

That is true.
Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

I couldn't get you exactly.Please paraphrase your argument.
Regards

All religions are based upon what the adherents feel to be true about the non-physical world.
This is based upon feeling because the beliefs cannot be deduced from objective premises.

To reiterate & clarify:
This is not to abuse religion or adherents.
It's just an observation about a fundamental trait.
(I'll be critical in other threads when there's greater specificity of belief.)

 

[paarsurrey]

All religions are based upon what the adherents feel to be true about the non-physical world.
This is based upon feeling because the beliefs cannot be deduced from objective premises.
To reiterate & clarify:
This is not to abuse religion or adherents.
It's just an observation about a fundamental trait.
(I'll be critical in other threads when there's greater specificity of belief.)

You are simply wrong.
The truthful religion is based on Word of Revelation from G-d and nothing else.
Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

You are simply wrong.
The truthful religion is based on Word of Revelation from G-d and nothing else.
Regards

That is one view.
But I've never seen any divine revelation, so I go with an alternative explanation.
You might even agree in some cases.
Consider that divine revelation yields many different competing religions, with no single one gaining majority.
This means that most revelations are wrong. What is the common trait for them? Feelings dictating truth.