What should religion be based on?

[mickthinks]

I never asserted "that perfect knowledge with no outstanding questions is humanly possible".

Okay, then I have misunderstood your disagreement with me when I said this:

And when all of the data make sense immediately, there will be no questions. And when they don't (as I believe is inevitable) questions will arise that are not "irrespective of any questions".

Why do you think the questions that arise from our less than perfect knowledge don't matter?

[ReliStuPhD]

Which brings us back to the theme of this thread. For, in my opinion, this is what religionists do, they only want to foist their delusions upon other people.

Or perhaps, like any person who believes strongly in a particular position, they wish for others to know that truth. You may disagree that it's true (I might as well), but to suggest that what honest religionists are doing is any different from what, say, professors in a college do, is exceedingly uncharitable and may even constitute a strawman. Let's not confuse the motive behind urging someone to take a particular position and the position itself. Good people urge others to follow bad positions all the time (e.g. atheists). I would certainly not say atheists are "foisting" "delusions" on others. Well, not all of them at least.

[Immanuel Can]

I would certainly not say atheists are "foisting" "delusions" on others. Well, not all of them at least.

What else could they be doing, if they are both arguing for their view and doing so by making affirmations for which they themselves admit they cannot produce conclusive evidence?

If there's any "foisting" going on, it's certainly being done by all sides.

[ReliStuPhD]

I would certainly not say atheists are "foisting" "delusions" on others. Well, not all of them at least.

What else could they be doing, if they are both arguing for their view and doing so by making affirmations for which they themselves admit they cannot produce conclusive evidence?

If there's any "foisting" going on, it's certainly being done by all sides.

The key word being "if" in this case. As far as I can tell, the majority of proponents on both sides are not trying to impose belief structures, but are instead arguing (sometimes a bit too strongly) for what they consider to be the most truthful position, and therefore the one most conducive to human flourishing. Personally, I consider the use if "foisting" in this context to be poisoning the well. Even those who are ill-informed or outright mistaken can defend a bad position in good faith.

[Hobbes' Choice]

RUBBISH.
How naive of you!
Religion is a BINDING that enslaves people to the state.

I'm sorry, Hobbes, I didn't invent words.

You'll have to excuse Hobbes. He's under the impression that coherent arguments aren't a prerequisite for meaningful discussion. It's better to just add him to the ignore list as you would a petulant child.

You wouldn't understand a coherent argument if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.
My understanding of 'religion' is bolstered by the etymology - it does NOT rely on it.
ALL religions "bind" people to their cause. Even a fucking ReliSt - idiot like yourself ought to be able to work that out!!!
And this is why, when disagreements occur in religion the disputants are called HERETICS and have been often in treated to a nice fire.

[ReliStuPhD]

You'll have to excuse Hobbes. He's under the impression that coherent arguments aren't a prerequisite for meaningful discussion. It's better to just add him to the ignore list as you would a petulant child.

You wouldn't understand a coherent argument if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

Try presenting one and we'll see.

My understanding of 'religion' is bolstered by the etymology - it does NOT rely on it.

Well now, that's a relief, because your previous posts relied so heavily on etymology, I wasn't sure.

ALL religions "bind" people to their cause. Even a fucking ReliSt - idiot like yourself ought to be able to work that out!!!

Crazy that I can't eh? I mean, what was I thinking when I wrote "Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Hobbes that 'religion' at its core carries with it an element of binding, though I disagree with him as to what is the nature of that binding" at the top of page 4?

Anyway, it's been fun, but it's clear you can't present a coherent argument, and get mad at those who won't accept anything less. But do keep at it. I'm sure one day someone will take you seriously. For me, I have to add you to the refuse pile. I can only deal with so many college freshmen (and the ones I'm paid to teach take precedence over those on this forum).

[Hobbes' Choice]

You'll have to excuse Hobbes. He's under the impression that coherent arguments aren't a prerequisite for meaningful discussion. It's better to just add him to the ignore list as you would a petulant child.

You wouldn't understand a coherent argument if it hit you in the face like a wet fish.

Try presenting one and we'll see.

My understanding of 'religion' is bolstered by the etymology - it does NOT rely on it.

Well now, that's a relief, because your previous posts relied so heavily on etymology, I wasn't sure.

ALL religions "bind" people to their cause. Even a fucking ReliSt - idiot like yourself ought to be able to work that out!!!

Crazy that I can't eh? I mean, what was I thinking when I wrote "Personally, I'm inclined to agree with Hobbes that 'religion' at its core carries with it an element of binding, though I disagree with him as to what is the nature of that binding" at the top of page 4?

Anyway, it's been fun, but it's clear you can't present a coherent argument, and get mad at those who won't accept anything less. But do keep at it. I'm sure one day someone will take you seriously. For me, I have to add you to the refuse pile. I can only deal with so many college freshmen (and the ones I'm paid to teach take precedence over those on this forum).

You are unworthy, as I have said before.

[David Handeye]

Your discussion is a perfect example of the original poster's doubts. When disagreements are reported inside one belief, majority of believers state the ortodoxy, out of it you are heretic.
But, I think, if you state religion, whatever could be, is based upon a relationship between the believer and the believed, whatever could be, nobody could charge whoever with heresy.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Your discussion is a perfect example of the original poster's doubts. When disagreements are reported inside one belief, majority of believers state the ortodoxy, out of it you are heretic.
But, I think, if you state religion, whatever could be, is based upon a relationship between the believer and the believed, whatever could be, nobody could charge whoever with heresy.

The relationship between believed and believer is one thing, but religion cannot be sustained unless there is also a relationship with truth.

If the things 'believed' were TRUE, then there could be no heresy, no disagreements and but one religion. The fact that there are so many religions, sects, deities, demi-gods, etc... does indicate that religions are not built on truth, but on suppositions and fear.

The fact that there is a failure of the relationship between religion and truth, is the reason why all religion has to "BIND" its followers.

[ReliStuPhD]

Your discussion is a perfect example of the original poster's doubts. When disagreements are reported inside one belief, majority of believers state the ortodoxy, out of it you are heretic.
But, I think, if you state religion, whatever could be, is based upon a relationship between the believer and the believed, whatever could be, nobody could charge whoever with heresy.

It may be helpful to think of heresy differently than that commonly associated with burning people at the stake. If we run down the list in Merriam-Webster, we come across "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards." This, I think, is where we start. In Religion X, a 'correct' understanding of the nature of transcendent reality is arrived at (we can debate whether it's actually correct, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is). Similar to the way in which our supposedly 'correct' legal understanding that one cannot deprive another of property without fair compensation leads to the denunciation of those who would steal said property, religious beliefs and actions that run contrary to the what has been determined to be orthodox ("accepted as true or correct by most people") are considered to be "contrary to the truth"--heretical. Granted, the determination may be flawed (perhaps it's Y that's true and X that's false), but it does not change the fact that those who hold X to be true (the Earth is X billion years old and humans are the result of a process of evolution) will brook little dissent from those who hold to Y (that the Earth is 6,000 years old and humans are the result of god smashing some dust together). That is to say, one can (at least linguistically) hold to heretical scientific belief. Or heretical social belief. etc, etc, etc.

So why is it that religion is somehow wrong to say to Believer X, "You are a heretic for holding to the belief that Jesus was not God Incarnate; a belief that stands in direct contradiction of the truth that Jesus is God Incarnate?" There are often robust rationales for the latter if one accepts an initial set of premises, so these aren't beliefs arrived at willy-nilly. And, of course, if one is so deadset on X being untrue (say, Jesus' divinity), why not convert to a system where such a belief is orthodox (say, Islam)?

All of that to say, heresy in and of itself is no big problem. If you choose to believe or practice other that what your particular religion holds to be true, it is wholly fair (though perhaps not nice) for you to be branded a heretic and told there is no place for you. Now, if you're abused, injured, killed... that's entirely inexcusable, and it speaks volumes to the "truth" claimed by those who would do such a thing (I have little doubt as to whether the Grand Inquisitors were operating out of proper Xian belief. They weren't). That said, setting aside such criminal activities, religionists are no more bound to accept all comers than are scientists. Once a particular set of beliefs and practices have been determined to be true, the heretic is making something of a childish argument to insist that his/her beliefs must also be taken to be true. Humans are quite right not to hold contradictories in tension as somehow both being true. The act of declaring one to be false (hopefully on the grounds of some coherent system) is entirely reasonable.

There are rules to the game, and those who don't play by them are asked to leave.

[Immanuel Can]

If the things 'believed' were TRUE, then there could be no heresy, no disagreements and but one religion. The fact that there are so many religions, sects, deities, demi-gods, etc... does indicate that religions are not built on truth, but on suppositions and fear.

Hobbes:

This would be a warranted supposition only if it were impossible for people to be wrong about religion. Then there could indeed only be one. But if, as all religions actually agree, it is quite possible for a person to mis-believe, then your argument does not follow...at all.

Non-sequitur, I'm afraid. It's quite possible that something quite different is true...such as that there are some religions that are true about some thing, and some that are true about others. Or that some are closer to the truth, and others are farther away. Or even that a particular belief is actually right, and the rest are simply wrong.

In fact, this is exactly what you hold, unless I misunderstand you...that your Atheism is right, and that "religions" are wrong. And no doubt, each "religion" would hold you to be wrong as well. But what you agree on is this: there IS a truth, and some people are closer to it than others.

If you want to disprove -- or even put a dent in the phenomenon you call "religion" you'll need a much better line of thought than you've expressed above. What you've given us doesn't begin to warrant the conclusions you want us to draw from it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If the things 'believed' were TRUE, then there could be no heresy, no disagreements and but one religion. The fact that there are so many religions, sects, deities, demi-gods, etc... does indicate that religions are not built on truth, but on suppositions and fear.

Hobbes:

This would be a warranted supposition only if it were impossible for people to be wrong about religion. Then there could indeed only be one. But if, as all religions actually agree, it is quite possible for a person to mis-believe, then your argument does not follow...at all.

Non-sequitur, I'm afraid. It's quite possible that something quite different is true...such as that there are some religions that are true about some thing, and some that are true about others. Or that some are closer to the truth, and others are farther away. Or even that a particular belief is actually right, and the rest are simply wrong.

In fact, this is exactly what you hold, unless I misunderstand you...that your Atheism is right, and that "religions" are wrong.t.

My atheism cannot be "right", as it has no content. Atheism is not a thing that is either right or wrong, but simply a reflection of a position. Atheism requires no proof, or evidence and is not a claim, but the rejection of a claim.

I submit that the core beliefs of all religions can not be "right", as they all claim, as none of them respect the most simple criteria of truth.
Truth is not gained by luck, wishes or faith.
But even should they have hit upon a truth, such a baseless claim would still be worthless.

[Immanuel Can]

Hobbes writes:

My atheism cannot be "right", as it has no content.

Oh. No content? So it doesn't affirm anything? I has no "claim," you say? So you DO believe there's a God?

Atheism is not a thing that is either right or wrong, but simply a reflection of a position. Atheism requires no proof, or evidence and is not a claim, but the rejection of a claim.

That's just silly. Do you really want to say, "I reject position X without proof, evidence or claim?" Ha. What's that amount to? It's like a child having a hissy fit and yelling, "You're not the boss of me."

I submit that the core beliefs of all religions can not be "right", as they all claim, as none of them respect the most simple criteria of truth.

And yet you claim to know this with, as you put it, "no proof, evidence or claim"? Ha. You're hilarious. You think you know what "truth" is, but without any proof or evidence," as you say. Wonderful.

You Atheists are better than stand-up comedy.

Truth is not gained by luck, wishes or faith.

Funny. You think that's what it's about? Well, if you've "no proof, evidence or claim," I think faith is pretty much all you've got left.

But even should they have hit upon a truth, such a baseless claim would still be worthless.

And this is the crowning fit of self-contradiction. So now they have "truth" but are "worthless"? That's very odd.

Well, then, what's "worth" to you, if it has nothing to do with truth?

[David Handeye]

My atheism cannot be "right", as it has no content. Atheism is not a thing that is either right or wrong, but simply a reflection of a position. Atheism requires no proof, or evidence and is not a claim, but the rejection of a claim.

I submit that the core beliefs of all religions can not be "right", as they all claim, as none of them respect the most simple criteria of truth.
Truth is not gained by luck, wishes or faith.
But even should they have hit upon a truth, such a baseless claim would still be worthless.

I think you're confusing agnosticism for atheism. Your position is more agnostic than atheistic. Atheism rejects every claiming of a transcendent entity, so it either requires proofs to invalidate theistic ones. The rejection of a claim is just another claim. What doesn't need any claiming is just agnosticism, only agnosticism is neither right nor wrong.
Truth, what is truth? Quid est veritas? All religions claim to have the only truth. My professor in philosophy always used to tell us, remember, truth does not exist. Truths do.

[Immanuel Can]

David wrote:

My professor in philosophy always used to tell us, remember, truth does not exist. Truths do.

I hope you had the wit to ask him, "Well, is what you're saying TRUE?"

For if you did, then he would instantly be faced with the obvious evidence he was wrong. You see, if Epistemological Relativism (the belief that there are no universally-true facts) is true, there is no truth. But if there is no truth, then Epistemological Relativism is not true either. Which then means that Epistemological Relativism is false.

Which means that there is a truth, but the proponent of Epistemological Relativism doesn't know anything about it.