What Are the Assumptions of Religion

[Desert Snake]

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.)

Your getting personal subjectivity mixed up with ''objectivity''. You have a personal set of ''facts'', which you consider ''objective''. But they are only objective to you, they are your ''objective facts'', that you arrived at subjectively; /by necessity/.
So, basically, you are using the wrong inference , or wrong words, to describe your opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your getting personal subjectivity mixed up with ''objectivity''. You have a personal set of ''facts'', which you consider ''objective''. But they are only objective to you, they are your ''objective facts'', that you arrived at subjectively; /by necessity/.
So, basically, you are using the wrong inference , or wrong words, to describe your opinion.

This is gainsaying with a whole lotta words.
Let's just say we disagree about what traits all religions have in common.

 

[Demonslayer]

Everything about religion is an assumption.

 

[Demonslayer]

Science doesn't know everything.

Science doesn't know anything. A ruler doesn't know anything either, but it's the best tool we have for measuring distances.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is gainsaying with a whole lotta words.
Let's just say we disagree about what traits all religions have in common.

Ah..when is a donut not a donut? When I have type of something that seems donutish, you what to call it a donut. When you have a something that is donutish, it isn't a donut?

If you replace the 'subject', /religion/, with something else, ie another ''topic'', how would anyone not simply be able to state the same thing about your adherence to said topic, as you have applied to religion?

I'm not necessarily just disagreeing with you, my position may be one of 'arrivable'' fact, or logical inference.//as, in, your answer may be wrong /or right, in the wrong way/, regardless of my opinion on it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah..when is a donut not a donut? When I have type of something that seems donutish, you what to call it a donut. When you have a something that is donutish, it isn't a donut?
If you replace the 'subject', /religion/, with something else, ie another ''topic'', how would anyone not simply be able to state the same thing about your adherence to said topic, as you have applied to religion?
I'm not necessarily just disagreeing with you, my position may be one of 'arrivable'' fact, or logical inference.//as, in, your answer may be wrong /or right, in the wrong way/, regardless of my opinion on it.

I'm lost on your meaning.

 

[Desert Snake]

No problem.

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

You stated this.

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

I asked this...

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

You answered thusly...

I'm lost on your meaning.

Thereby making your opinion completely subjective, as opposed to the 'objective' label you put on it.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

This is a subjective ''fact'' ,ie your /personal ''objectivity''/, that is actually subjective.

 

[metis]

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

Which religion is that?

While you are at it, please provide us with some objective evidence to substantiate your certainty on this?

 

[Quintessence]

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?

This may be an assumption of theistic religions, but it is not for non-theistic religions. But ignoring non-theistic religions for a moment...

... depends somewhat on what we understand an "assumption" to be. If we take an assumption to be a premise - something that must be granted as true for a certain course to follow - then we can probably say acceptance of the gods is a requisite assumption for ritual worship of the gods. If we take an assumption to be something which is not questioned, however, I don't think we can say it is an assumption. It's normal, if not routine, for members of theistic religions to question various assumptions about their gods.

Personally, I wouldn't say my acceptance of the gods is an assumption as much as it is a decision based on personal values. It's an "I value X, therefore I deify X." It doesn't feel accurate to frame my values as "assumptions" - they're more like experiences. This is part of why I'm going to have to disagree with you when you responded earlier about all religions tending to be faith-based. Mine is definitely not faith based, and to construe it that way will very much misunderstand it. I think that's the case for many other religions as well, particularly given the connotations "faith" tends to have for some people.

 

[metis]

This may be an assumption of theistic religions, but it is not for non-theistic religions. But ignoring non-theistic religions for a moment...

... depends somewhat on what we understand an "assumption" to be. If we take an assumption to be a premise - something that must be granted as true for a certain course to follow - then we can probably say acceptance of the gods is a requisite assumption for ritual worship of the gods. If we take an assumption to be something which is not questioned, however, I don't think we can say it is an assumption. It's normal, if not routine, for members of theistic religions to question various assumptions about their gods.

Personally, I wouldn't say my acceptance of the gods is an assumption as much as it is a decision based on personal values. It's an "I value X, therefore I deify X." It doesn't feel accurate to frame my values as "assumptions" - they're more like experiences. This is part of why I'm going to have to disagree with you when you responded earlier about all religions tending to be faith-based. Mine is definitely not faith based, and to construe it that way will very much misunderstand it. I think that's the case for many other religions as well, particularly given the connotations "faith" tends to have for some people.

Not to say you are wrong, but I do think you may have assumptions, such as with your use of "gods". Are you sure it's not "god" instead? Or maybe no gods at all?

So, I think you rely much more on faith than you realize, and the issue of "personal values" really isn't the same thing. A secular humanist, for example, can and usually does have "personal values", and yet they have no believe in deities.

However, I do agree with your first sentence as I mentioned in a previous post.

 

[MARCELLO]

Why shouldn't I believe that a butterfly ,the sable,the iron or me are God,too? Then I can visualize God which none of theists could have ever done. If there is a god to be accepted within his failures and/or incapabilities ,why not try to trust Him?

 

[Quintessence]

Not to say you are wrong, but I do think you may have assumptions, such as with your use of "gods". Are you sure it's not "god" instead? Or maybe no gods at all?

So, I think you rely much more on faith than you realize, and the issue of "personal values" really isn't the same thing. A secular humanist, for example, can and usually does have "personal values", and yet they have no believe in deities.

However, I do agree with your first sentence as I mentioned in a previous post.

I think people probably have a hard time understanding theologies such as my own, which fall outside of the more familiar classical monotheist assumptions. Folks need to understand that I broadly define gods as that which a person or culture chooses to deify and consider worthy of worship. The decision to deify something really is grounded in personal (or cultural) values. It's about what you see as sacred, what you see as valued, and worthy. And what you see as worthy is informed by personal experience. There's no "faith" involved in me saying "I value X, therefore I'm going to deify and worship X." Or rather, the only "faith" involved is among the most basic sort that it's rather pointless to apply that term to it - the basic sort of trusting your senses and that the chair you are sitting in is really there.

I wouldn't say I have "faith" that the sun exists, or that I have "faith" that the sun is different from planet earth, or that an oak tree is different from an ash tree. Nor do I have "faith" that the sun is worthy of worship. It's a value judgement.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think people probably have a hard time understanding theologies such as my own, which fall outside of the more familiar classical monotheist assumptions. Folks need to understand that I broadly define gods as that which a person or culture chooses to deify and consider worthy of worship. The decision to deify something really is grounded in personal (or cultural) values. It's about what you see as sacred, what you see as valued, and worthy. And what you see as worthy is informed by personal experience. There's no "faith" involved in me saying "I value X, therefore I'm going to deify and worship X." Or rather, the only "faith" involved is among the most basic sort that it's rather pointless to apply that term to it - the basic sort of trusting your senses and that the chair you are sitting in is really there.

Why is that necessarily any different from other religions? Are you implying that I follow a belief system that I don't like, or don't value, etc...
very confusing..

 

[Quintessence]

Why is that necessarily any different from other religions? Are you implying that I follow a belief system that I don't like, or don't value, etc...
very confusing..

Not at all. I wasn't talking to you, nor about you, nor about religions in a broad sense with that response. This was solely to address the suggestion that my theology is faith-based when it isn't. The same happens to be true of many other theists, but I wasn't speaking for them.

 

[Demonslayer]

I'm lost on your meaning.

He likes donuts.

 

[Revoltingest]

He likes donuts.

Hey, so do I!
But only a few kinds, & not too often.

 

[Desert Snake]

He likes donuts.

Some types, some times.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a subjective ''fact'' ,ie your /personal ''objectivity''/, that is actually subjective.

No, I reject subjectivity (so I'm often told).
My observation is objective because it's verifiable.
I (& others) can examine any religion, & see that beliefs about the non-physical world are non-verifiable.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, I reject subjectivity (so I'm often told).
My observation is objective because it's verifiable.
I (& others) can examine any religion, & see that beliefs about the non-physical world are non-verifiable.

Concepts are getting mixed up, here. Religion has many purposes, and theism is not something that you can ''objectively'' say is not reality./ if anything, theism is the ''best'' option/, concerning certain subjects.

Non-theism for example takes an amount of ''faith'', ie the ''poof'' into existence idea,( something that we do not observe.)