What Are the Assumptions of Religion

[Revoltingest]

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.)

I'm not addressing purposes or non-theism....
....only that religion requires dependence upon feeling.

 

[Demonslayer]

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

Some types, some times.

Now were getting down to the really important issues.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No they aren't. (necessarily).

Do explain further.

 

[Desert Snake]

Do explain further.

I think that Quintessence already explained basic ideas regarding this statement. You are going to have to give specifics or something, though, to your ideas, otherwise the question is too broad.

 

[metis]

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. [/QUOTE
Most theists that I know will never agree that what they accept is based on assumptions, but I agree your approach is probably quite close to mine.

Again, I think there's a difference between personal experience and religion, although there are areas whereas they can intersect. Also, because I'm non-theistic but not atheistic (using the latter term as a belief there are no deities-- iow, I'm more agnostic but closest to the Buddhist end of the continuum), I can appreciate your drift. I am much more concerned about the issues of compassion and justice than having any conventional theological belief. I do not pray in the conventional sense of the word, relying more on meditation, including when I'm at my Jewish services or my wife's Christian services.

But what do I know-- and I mean that? I just know where my priorities are.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I think that Quintessence already explained basic ideas regarding this statement. You are going to have to give specifics or something, though, to your ideas, otherwise the question is too broad.

I want to know how, outside of history books and such, any theistic religion can exist without people following it due to gullibility, faith, or both.

 

[metis]

BTW, just to clear the air a bit here in terms of where I'm coming from:

I am not anti-religion, anti-faith, anti-belief, etc., but what I do feel important is to encourage people to keep an open mind on this matter. I have more respect for the position of "I believe in __ but am not sure I'm correct" than I do "I know God and I can tell you what God wants".

As for me, I can feel at home in pretty much any religious setting, whether it be a synagogue, church, mosque, Hindu or Buddhist temple, and I've been to quite a few of them over the years. I can also feel at home with a secular humanist or one who just throws their hands up in the air and says "I don't know what to believe!".

I have a lot of questions-- but not too many answers.

 

[Demonslayer]

"I believe in __ but am not sure I'm correct" than I do "I know God and I can tell you what God wants".

This is why we use the term atheist and not adeist, IMO. I have very little to say about the general deistic, watchmaker god. What is a deist really claiming? Perhaps some powerful entity created the universe, period. Not much we can really argue about that, it's a vague claim. I don't really believe it but there isn't much for me to refute.

But the "Big Two" Islam and Christianity claim a heck of a lot more. Not only do they know a God exists, they know his name, what he looks like, very specific stories about what he did, how he acted at certain times, precisely how he created human beings, his moods and attitudes, the system of justice he uses to judge humanity, the fact that he listens to us all the time, the fact that he occasionally tinkers with reality based on silent human mind-requests and so on and so forth. It's extremely difficult to swallow claims this numerous and specific, particularly when many of these specific claims are so fantastical.

 

[metis]

This is why we use the term atheist and not adeist, IMO. I have very little to say about the general deistic, watchmaker god. What is a deist really claiming? Perhaps some powerful entity created the universe, period. Not much we can really argue about that, it's a vague claim. I don't really believe it but there isn't much for me to refute.

But the "Big Two" Islam and Christianity claim a heck of a lot more. Not only do they know a God exists, they know his name, what he looks like, very specific stories about what he did, how he acted at certain times, precisely how he created human beings, his moods and attitudes, the system of justice he uses to judge humanity, the fact that he listens to us all the time, the fact that he occasionally tinkers with reality based on silent human mind-requests and so on and so forth. It's extremely difficult to swallow claims this numerous and specific, particularly when many of these specific claims are so fantastical.

Agree, although I'm satisfied with the vive la difference approach to a large extent.

BTW, if you haven't done so already, you might check out the theology of Baruch Spinoza as he might well be right up your alley. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

 

[Demonslayer]

Agree, although I'm satisfied with the vive la difference approach to a large extent.

Probably the more noble approach. I'm more cranky and critical about it for several reasons.

Looking back I hate the way I was raised, and it took me a long time to unlearn what I was forced to learn. I spent a good deal of my childhood terrifed that anything I did would send me to hell...my parents were the sort that used Hell as a parenting tool nearly any time I did something wrong. Also my father drilled into me a bigotry with regards to gay people that it took me too long to shake, and that I'm still ashamed of today, despite that fact that I no longer have any negative feelings towards gay people at all.

Also, I worry about the effect the powerful religious groups have in the political spectrum in America...the Christian lobbiests are very influential and they are anything but vive la difference.

For these reasons and many others I'm a little more critical of religion over all...but primarily the Abrahamics because of what you said about the "I know God and I know what he wants" attitude that exists in Christianity and Islam.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

Well, I would then have to say I start with no assumptions. Everything I believe comes from evidence, reason and best analysis.

 

[Quintessence]

I want to know how, outside of history books and such, any theistic religion can exist without people following it due to gullibility, faith, or both.

Very easily.

I don't feel the need to address the "gullibility" portion, as it's nothing more than a vacuous ad hominem.

As for "faith," addressing that depends on what is meant by the term, but on the whole, it would not be accurate to characterize many theistic religions as faith-based, nor is it accurate to characterize many adherents of these religions as following it because of faith. Religions and human behaviors are complex phenomena, and there simply is no "silver bullet" like "faith" (regardless of what we mean by the term) that explains away the reasons for either of these things. It's like saying one can explain global ecosystems by only looking at soil composition.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I don't feel the need to address the "gullibility" portion, as it's nothing more than a vacuous ad hominem.

I did not intend it as an insult.
There are many people within all religions that were brought in due to pretty words and empty promises.
These same people seem to just believe whatever they hear their preachers say.
For example, those who fall for televangelist schemes and pay out of pocket for their God belief.
Take it as you please.

As for "faith," addressing that depends on what is meant by the term, but on the whole, it would not be accurate to characterize many theistic religions as faith-based,

I use faith in this context as "faith in God(s)", or "believing in God/s without actually knowing it/they exists".

nor is it accurate to characterize many adherents of these religions as following it because of faith.

I understand that not all people connected to a theistic religion have faith in that religions God(s).
That is besides my prior point, however, in that religions would not be held on such a high regard without all those faithful followers.
That is to say, a theistic religion without believers is like a PB&J sandwich without the PB&J.

Religions and human behaviors are complex phenomena, and there simply is no "silver bullet" like "faith" (regardless of what we mean by the term) that explains away the reasons for either of these things. It's like saying one can explain global ecosystems by only looking at soil composition.

I'm not entirely sure as to how I should reply to this.
I'll try to get back to it later when I can think more clearly.

 

[Mackerni]

If you are religious in America, it is assumed you are Christian. If you're not, it's assumed you're atheist. Seems like those two "religions" make up at least 75% of the people here anyway. Christian music is always labelled as that lame *** Christian Soft Rock. There's Christian Hip-Hop, Christian Metal, and others. If you believe in the Bible faithfully atheists will call you retarded. If you're an atheist it's assumed that all Christians will think you're going to Hell. Not all religions are sexually deprived as a lot would assume. Not all Christians think you need to, "pray the gay away." If you are Evangelical Christian it is assumed you are Republican. If you lean towards liberal theology it is assumed it reflects on your politics as well.

If the religion is not Christian, it must be cult. There are not cults within Christianity. Atheism is always nihilistic.If you are a Christian you must have read the entire Bible, or at least gone to church and be baptized. If you're an atheist you must always agree with everything science has to say. That it's what you believe that is more important than how you conduct yourself. Everybody is born an atheist. If you're a Muslim you must be a terrorist. If you are pagan you must believe in magic. If you're Hindu you must be from India. If you're European you must be an atheist. Pantheism is the same thing as atheism. If you're Catholic you must agree with everything the Pope says. If you are part of a New Religious Movement you must be brainwashed. If you believe in a religion it must mean you believe in God. God is that old white man looking down from you in the sky. If you don't have a religion it must mean you're seeking for the truth. All within the same religion must follow the same creed. Revelation is revealed, not natural. You're not important enough to be a prophet. All religions but Christianity are Satanic. There's no such thing as secular religion.

The first paragraph is written normally, the second is tongue-in-cheek. I know a lot of stereotypes.

 

[metis]

Well, I would then have to say I start with no assumptions. Everything I believe comes from evidence, reason and best analysis.

By chance, do you take the "We are That" and/or the "All is That" approach?

 

[Quintessence]

I did not intend it as an insult.
There are many people within all religions that were brought in due to pretty words and empty promises.
These same people seem to just believe whatever they hear their preachers say.
For example, those who fall for televangelist schemes and pay out of pocket for their God belief.

I see this claimed, and then not supported with proper study and survey of religious demographics. Having followed the studies of groups like PEW research for a number of years, allegations like this are just not supported by the data. Which isn't surprising, because characterizing things as "pretty words" and "empty promises" in the first place isn't exactly objectively-grounded language proper to academic study of religions.

I use faith in this context as "faith in God(s)", or "believing in God/s without actually knowing it/they exists".

I think that we have to be very, very careful about presuming that other people have (or do not have) "faith" in this way. There is way too much semantical splitting of hairs that can go on here, along with quite a lot of projection or negation of others' perspectives, plus a healthy dose of peer pressure.

I understand that not all people connected to a theistic religion have faith in that religions God(s).
That is besides my prior point, however, in that religions would not be held on such a high regard without all those faithful followers.
That is to say, a theistic religion without believers is like a PB&J sandwich without the PB&J.

I don't understand. "High regard?" Huh? What are you talking about? "High regard" by what? What does "regard" have to do with anything?

 

[Deathbydefault]

I see this claimed, and then not supported with proper study and survey of religious demographics. Having followed the studies of groups like PEW research for a number of years, allegations like this are just not supported by the data. Which isn't surprising, because characterizing things as "pretty words" and "empty promises" in the first place isn't exactly objectively-grounded language proper to academic study of religions.

I could easily objectify them.
Use "convincing dialogue" and "unsupported data being portrayed as objectively true" for all I care.
Please give me a small sample of data you support, so that I can confirm what I want to say next.

I think that we have to be very, very careful about presuming that other people have (or do not have) "faith" in this way. There is way too much semantical splitting of hairs that can go on here, along with quite a lot of projection or negation of others' perspectives, plus a healthy dose of peer pressure.

It's simple to understand, at least I think so.
Nobody knows for fact that God(s) do/es or do/es not exist, if they do then they aren't telling.
So me defining faith as "believing in God/s without actually knowing it/they exists",
works with everyone who thinks their theistic religion is correct, or believes it to be true.

Perspectives are irrelevant to that definition, it either applies or it doesn't.
You can't, to my knowledge, believe a theistic religion to be true without acceptance of its God(s).
And, by my definition, you cannot believe in God(s) without faith.

But if I end up being incorrect I'll conform to what is correct.

I don't understand. "High regard?" Huh? What are you talking about? "High regard" by what? What does "regard" have to do with anything?

For example:

If we take out every Christian from Christianity whom has faith that the Christian God exists, the religion is basically dead.
The remaining folk still following it will have no weight in politics, people, jobs, finance, or anything else.

Those faithful believers are the reason Christianity is given such power in America.
They are the reason Christianity is held in such high regard, on such a high horse.
Take them away and you take all of that religions power away, its voice you could say.

 

[George-ananda]

By chance, do you take the "We are That" and/or the "All is That" approach?

Yes I do, but I don't see it as an assumption I take. I see it as the teaching of many eastern masters who I have concluded from evidence and analysis are advanced souls. For example, I believe E=MC(squared) not as an assumption, but because I acknowledge the more advanced scientific minds than mine that tell me that. In the same manner I believe 'We are That'.

Neither 'E=MC(squared)' or "We are That" are things I could figure out intuitively and take as assumptions.

 

[metis]

Yes I do, but I don't see it as an assumption I take. I see it as the teaching of many eastern masters who I have concluded from evidence and analysis are advanced souls. For example, I believe E=MC(squared) not as an assumption, but because I acknowledge the more advanced scientific minds than mine that tell me that. In the same manner I believe 'We are That'.

Neither 'E=MC(squared)' or "We are That" are things I could figure out intuitively and take as assumptions.

And that's what I was driving at, btw, so I was not disagreeing with you but I wanted to check and see if that's where you're coming from.

 

[Quintessence]

I could easily objectify them.
Use "convincing dialogue" and "unsupported data being portrayed as objectively true" for all I care.
Please give me a small sample of data you support, so that I can confirm what I want to say next.

To be honest, I don't want to spend the time and effort digging it up for you. Poke around the years of data gathered by PEW research - they have an article or two on the reasons for conversion that are relevant to what's being asked here. Look at the academic literature that studies religions in a comparative context. Better yet, listen to what affiliates of theistic religions have to say about the reasons for their affiliation. I mean really listen to their stories... which means not layering our own narratives over what they are saying in a way that distorts or invalidates theirs. Honestly, it should be enough for me to tell you "I'm sorry, but this does not characterizes the experiences I've had with religions throughout my life," to make one stop and reconsider.

It's simple to understand, at least I think so.
Nobody knows for fact that God(s) do/es or do/es not exist, if they do then they aren't telling.
So me defining faith as "believing in God/s without actually knowing it/they exists",
works with everyone who thinks their theistic religion is correct, or believes it to be true.

This is an example of not really listening to what affiliates are saying, and you layering your own narrative over the top of it (or "negating" their perspective, to use a term I spoke in the last post). Many theists are certain about their god(s) and know their god(s). Regardless of whether or not you or I agree with that, that's how they feel. It's important to recognize that if one wants to do a properly impartial study. Granted, that level of academic impartiality isn't what is relevant in day-to-day life. You're certainly free to tell what stories you like about theistic religions and the reasons for various things. I suppose I just hope that you exercise caution with the brush you paint with and recognize that a bunch of us aren't going to fit on the canvass you're making.

For example:

If we take out every Christian from Christianity whom has faith that the Christian God exists, the religion is basically dead.
The remaining folk still following it will have no weight in politics, people, jobs, finance, or anything else.

Those faithful believers are the reason Christianity is given such power in America.
They are the reason Christianity is held in such high regard, on such a high horse.
Take them away and you take all of that religions power away, its voice you could say.

Oh. You're talking about social dynamics. Sorry, I was just really confused about what was being brought up there. I don't agree with how your characterizing these dynamics, but that's probably neither here nor there with respect to this thread. Should aim to stick relatively close to the topic of the OP.