August 5, 2007
Posted at 1:19 pm by Richard and tagged belief, eclecticism, einstein, god, hippy, jesus, red-dwarf, religion, truth, wwjd. Popularity: 37% [?]
Last week, I mentioned that science could be a way to “religious experience”, and I discussed in one of my earliest posts (Religious Eclecticism) the idea that all religions could be based on some element of truth. Don’t misunderstand me, I believe whatever truth they may be based on has been utterly distorted, but that doesn’t mean there’s no truth to be found.
I think that all the “prophets” and religious leaders believed in the message they preached, but they didn’t expect (or want) their messages to be accepted as divine and unquestionable truth - they wanted people to think for themselves. I believe that Jesus, if he was a real man and if his message hadn’t been distorted by religion, would still be revered today without needing needing to claim that he was “God”.
Christians often ask themselves, “What Would Jesus Do?”, and I think if Jesus lived today, he’d be amazed by the magic all around us, and might even “find God” in a similar way to Einstein:
Sometimes he was really using God as just a sort of convenient metaphor. But he did have, I think, a genuine cosmic religious feeling, a sense of admiration at the intellectual ingenuity of the universe. Not just its majesty, but its extraordinary subtlety and beauty and mathematical elegance.
I think Jesus, today, would be more like a modern Buddhist or perhaps a “hippy” (jokes are often made about Jesus being the first hippy, but I think all jokes aside there’s a lot of truth to that).
If we ask ourselves the question, “What Would Jesus Believe?”, whatever the answer is, I definitely don’t believe he’d be a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim, for that matter. It makes me think of the Cat’s religion in Red Dwarf…
Permalink
Share This
July 8, 2007
Posted at 12:14 am by Richard and tagged 10commandments, atheism, christianity, eclecticism, heaven, hell, morality. Popularity: 13% [?]
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. In the last couple of weeks, I’ve outlined how some people think that religion is the only kind of morality, even though religious teachings aren’t necessarily moral. This week, I’d like to outline some moral structures that can (and do) exist without religion.
Non-Theistic Morality (or, what you do when nobody’s watching)
In line with my theory of religious eclecticism, I think that all religions share the same basic ideas on morality. That said, however, morality based on religion is flawed not because of what is taught (be good to others, don’t kill, etc.) but how it’s enforced.
Athiest’s Wager suggests (as I did in my last post) that Christian morality is flawed because of the opportunity to receive forgiveness through religion. Without being able to fall back on forgiveness from God, how could an Atheist respond when given the opportunity to act immorally? Simple, they’d do the right thing.
I didn’t feel that I had a choice since I answer to myself. I am able to tell right from wrong and I would have to live with the knowledge that I had caused harm to someone else.
A moral Atheist might have no one to answer to but themselves (which seems to be the reason some suggest that an Atheist has no reason to be moral), but does this make them more or less moral than a Christian who answers only to God? Is a Christian who acts “morally” from fear of eternal punishment more or less moral than an Atheist who acts morally because they feel it’s the right thing to do?
We rightly do not consider a well-behaved dog to be acting “morally.” In the same way, the religious person who obeys not out of love and respect for other people, but in response to the promise of Paradise or the specter of Hell, acts not as an independent, moral person. He is merely a trained animal seeking to please an unseen master.
A great real-world example of this is described over at Parenting Beyond Belief:
“If not for the seventh commandment,” I once heard a Veneerist proclaim in a debate, “there would be NOTHING to keep me from walking out the door to cheat on my wife!” Nothing? Not love? I wondered. Or commitment? Or simple human decency? If you say so.
While I’d agree that not cheating on your wife is the moral way to act, I think that the reasons behind one’s actions are just as important (if not more so) than the actions themselves. While it’s certainly possible to have immoral Atheists, it’s just as possible to have immoral Theists. I think that a morality based on a true respect for those around us is far better than one based on the threat of hell and the promise of heaven.
True morality is what you do when no one (even God) is watching. Or in other words - being good, for goodness sake
Permalink
Share This
June 10, 2007
Posted at 1:38 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, belief, conflict, eclecticism, omnipotent, religion. Popularity: 10% [?]
When someone asks me if I’m religious, my standard answer is “no, but…”. The “but” refers to my issues with religion specifically, but not the underlying teachings and spirituality. I like to call myself “eclectic”, as I don’t subscribe to any one religion, but at the same time I think each one of them has some founding in truth. Personally, I’ve found that every religion I’ve looked into (notably: Christianity, Buddhism, … even Pastafarianism!) has some very good ideas, but also has some which I just cannot believe.
I came across a post by Paul Hartigan on Open Source Theology recently which outlined 7 reasons that make it hard to believe in traditional christianity. I think his arguments can be summarised by two very common theological issues, and one I’m not sure I’ve thought of before, but is important none the less:
- The problem of evil - why does God allow bad things to happen? Even worse, why does God allow bad things to happen in his name?
- Conflict between claims made by different religions (and even conflict between branches of Christianity), some of which seem entirely illogical (”how can Christ be both God and man”)
- Problems with the belief that the universe (as large as it is) could somehow “revolve around” one short period in history, or one particular person on earth. In other words, what could possibly make us (the followers of religion “x”) so special? (Jesus in a universe of 125 Billion Galaxies)
I think Paul makes some very valid points, and these can be further generalised to almost all religions (not just Christianity). The problem of evil definitely causes issues with and idea of a God that is both omnipotent and benevolent, which it seems many religions (the Abrahamic ones, at least) claim God is. There are definitely other ideas about what God could be that would render the problem of evil void - but these ideas are not generally labelled “God”. It’s partly for this reason that I take issue with the traditional views of God, and probably why I try (although often fail) to not use the word God when discussing my views of spirituality.
Conflict between religions is definitely an issue that I’ve had problems with myself, as I tried to address in my posts “Religious Eclecticism” and “The Eclectic Agnostic’s Wager“, but it doesn’t cause issue for specific spiritual beliefs, the conflict occurs when you must accept the whole package. Taking the simplest ideas or teachings from any religion, and it’s likely you’ll find the same idea or teaching in another (although, almost certainly from a different perspective). The “golden rule”, or “ethic of reciprocity” is found in many variations by many spiritual leaders, for example.
On the third point - there seems to be an eclectic way of accepting the leaders of all religions without needing to think that the universe revolves around any one teacher or religion. What if every person is inspired by (or, “is”) “God”, and the ones we call spiritual leaders are just more in touch with that connection? Each person would interpret this connection through their own life experiences, and each would therefore describe the same “truth” in different ways.
What do you think would happen if we could get Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius and every other spiritual leader in a room together - would they see mostly eye-to-eye, or would there be massive disagreements? Personally, I’m sure each would have his own (human) views that differ from the others, but I believe they would each agree that every one of them is fighting for the same cause.
Yes, I have a problem with religion - because each one seems to take the word of their prophet, God or leader as the one true interpretation of “God’s message”. I certainly don’t have an issue with the teachings of any of our great spiritual leaders, I think they were all attempting the same thing - to make this (and possibly the next) world a better place. We need to stop fighting about which religion is right or better, and just learn from each of them.
Edit 11 June: Right after posting this I came across another article which expands on the 3rd point perfectly - An Exercise in Perspective.
Permalink
Share This
June 3, 2007
Posted at 10:18 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, belief, eclecticism, pascal, religion. Popularity: 7% [?]
In my last major post, I look at the idea of “religious eclecticism“, and how I think it’s likely that all religions share the same basic ideas. I also said I’d try and use a variation of Pascal’s wager to help justify my position.
Pascal’s wager goes something like this:
Living your life as if God exists will bring infinite benefit (you go to heaven) if, in fact God exists. If it turns out that God does not exist, then you haven’t missed out on much. If, on the other hand, you were to live as if God didn’t exist, but you turned out to be wrong, then you’d suffer infinitely (hell and damnation). Even if you were right about God not existing, the benefit you’d gain while you were alive would be minimal compared to eternal damnation. In a more graphical format, Pascal’s wager looks like this:
| |
God exists (G) |
God does not exist (~G) |
| Living as if God exists (B) |
+∞ (heaven) |
−N (none) |
| Not living as if God exists (~B) |
−∞ (hell) |
+N (none) |
The Wikipedia article on Pascal’s Wager notes a few rebuttals to this wager, most notably that Christianity is not the only religion which claims God will judge you based on your beliefs. Pascal also assumes that God rewards belief, and even if he did one might assume that God wouldn’t be too happy with simply accepting his existence based on the probability of damnation as this is not a “true belief”.
While I don’t claim to have the answers to all these problems, it seems that, given many of the world’s major religions share some fundamental aspects (belief in one ultimate power, be it Allah, God or Brahman, for example) it might be easier to accept a more general belief in a higher power than in the God of a specific religion. Let’s look again at the options discussed in my last post:
- The teachings of all religions are wrong
- The teachings of some religions are wrong
- The teachings of all but one religion are wrong
or
- All religions are right
If all but one religion is “wrong”, then we have such a small chance of choosing the right one, it hardly seems worth it. Similarly, if all religions are “wrong”, then we have even less chance unless we try something radically different. If all religions are right, however, or even if many of them are acceptable to God, then by following the fundamental teachings of as many as possible, you would increase your chances of entering heaven.
Permalink
Share This
May 28, 2007
Posted at 12:20 am by Richard and tagged eclecticism, logic, philosophy. Popularity: 6% [?]
Assume, for a moment, that there is in fact a God. If we follow a “correct” religion, then we will be able to “know god”, “reach nirvana” or otherwise know some ultimate truth. If we follow a “wrong” religion, then, well, we put ourselves at the mercy of the “correct” God. Since every religion has different rules and beliefs about the nature of God and how to reach “heaven”, we immediately have a problem. Either:
- The teachings of all religions are wrong
- The teachings of some religions are wrong
- The teachings of all but one religion are wrong
or
- All religions are right
If “all religions are wrong” (but there still is a God), then we have a serious problem. It could be that there is a correct religion, but we just don’t know what it is yet (or, we’ve long since abandoned it), or that religious teaching is inherently incapable of allowing us to reach God. If these is indeed a God (which we’ve assumed, for now) and God has provided no way of “reaching heaven”, or at least, seems uninterested in educating us. Given the vast number of religious beliefs we have, if God actually played any part in inspiring these beliefs, we’re either incapable of being inspired in this way (which would be God’s fault, if we are his creations), or God’s doing a bad job of inspiring us. A powerless or incompetent God seems worse than no god at all!
If we assume that “some religions are wrong”, and therefore some are “right”, then there must be one or more religions (the “right” ones) which are similar on some fundamental level, and it is only at this level that matters. For example, we have two “correct” religions - Religion A and Religion B.
If both state that “there is only one true God”, but Religion A says God likes to be worshipped on a Friday, but Religion B states that all worshipping should be performed on a Tuesday, then it must not matter if you worship God on a Friday or a Tuesday. If this were the case, then religions are more complicated than they need to be - to reach heaven, we don’t need to follow all the rules, only the ones that matter.
The “all but one” option is, I suppose, an extension of the previous idea. For one religion to be right, and all others wrong - there must be some point at which two religions differ on a fundamental principle. In other words, if my religious views were exactly the same as the “right” religion except for one detail, and I am “wrong”, but the other religion is “right” then that detail must be fundamental to the “correctness” of religion. This seems to be the view that many religions take - every religion but this one is wrong. Of course, given that all religions make this claim, how do we know who’s telling the truth?
Finally, if “all religions are right”, perhaps the fundamental concepts of religion which must exist before a religion can be considered “right” are so broad, that every religion agrees on the points that matter. Eating pork, getting circumcised, abortion & contraception, wearing a hijab, etc. are trivial and God doesn’t care (or, is willing to allow us to make up our own minds on these issues). This could mean that every religion simply looks at the “truth” from a different perspective adding their own “flourishes”, but each is equally correct. Or, as far as God’s concerned, all that matters is that you have religion (whatever that may mean).
This last option is also the one I find most compelling, and in my next post, I’ll attempt to justify this choice using a variation of Pascal’s Wager.
Permalink
Share This
Posts
