My own sense is that the religions of the world are mostly in agreement about the following things:
* renunciation of self
* acceptance of the world / reality, including suffering
* love of mankind
* love of the gift of life
Religion as an institution, however, is something different than the "message" contained within the sacred texts or traditions of religions (lower-case r).
Some religion attracts fanatics, those who believe "We are right and everyone else is wrong." Within that statement there is a marked absence of acceptance, love of mankind, love of life.
There is also spiritual pride, which is more subtle. In Christ's parable of the pharisee and the publican, we see the publican, who prays in all humility for God's mercy, and the pharisee, who thanks God that he is better than the publican. And many Christians reading that parable will think, "and thank God I'm not like the pharisee"!
Religion, by definition, is a social construct explicitly built to foster a collective identity that isolates those in the in-group from the out-group. It inherently implies hostility against the non-believer; the only difference is the form this hostility takes. For some, it's just condescension for people who don't perceive the "truth", for others it's literally declaring them infidels who don't deserve to live. All religions in this world fall within the spectrum of these two extremes. No religion in this world is open to having its foundational ideas challenged or debated in any manner.
well, one of the goals of education needs to be to show that there is no other side. we are all humans, in one global society, and thus we should all be on the same side. there should be no opposition. we need to be open to everyone. and the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself.
education means teaching people that it is desirable and beneficial to cooperate, and that it is necessary to put aside our differences in order to achieve that.
you assume that current religious doctrines trump any hope of achieving that. but i beg to differ. every religion in its core is based on love, and therefore any form rejection of non-believers is already a failure of the core beliefs of every religion.
and for every claim that their rejection or hatred is backed by their holy scripture, we can find another member of that same religion who disagrees. i have been participating in interreligious dialogue and i know that peaceful coexistence and cooperation among religions is possible.
The divine teachings are intended to create a bond of unity in the human world and establish the foundations of love and fellowship among mankind. Divine religion is not a cause for discord and disagreement. If religion becomes the source of antagonism and strife, the absence of religion is to be preferred
The establishing of the divine religions is for peace, not for war and the shedding of blood. Inasmuch as all are founded upon one reality which is love and unity, the wars and dissensions which have characterized the history of religion have been due to imitations and superstitions which arise afterward. Religion is reality and reality is one. The fundamentals of the religion of God are therefore one in reality. There is neither difference nor change in the fundamentals. Variance is caused by blind imitations, prejudices and adherence to forms which appear later, and inasmuch as these differ, discord and strife result. If the religions of the world would forsake these causes of difficulty and seek the fundamentals, all would agree, and strife and dissension would pass away
I think you’ll find that for the most part beliefs that are present across religions are pro-adaptive in the economic and technological contexts in which they arise. I also think people fail to appreciate how much their own worldview reflects the religious tradition of their community. Coming from an eastern tradition, western secular humanism seems like an “ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of” Christianity.
Religions don’t cause a uniform level of devotion. It’s easy to fall into the assumption that most religions are similar but that’s because the west is really used to a single family of religions.
Well said. Many philosophies are common in between religions. What amazes me how people focus on differences instead commonality. Indeed empathy is most important character.
Peace: the church pushed for peace between principalities. Islam's notable for stressing nonviolence between fellow believers (at least, outside of fundamentalists, whose hypernarrow interpretation of their holy texts arguably makes them more of a deviant cult than fellow believers). Though even Buddhism isn't without its history of violence, humans being what they are, it is explicitly a religion of pacifism.
Life: The practice of medicine was often spearheaded by the churches. Most religions mandate successful propagation and child-rearing. The Judeochristian religions in particular stresses that to save one life is equivalent to saving all lives.
Acceptance, tolerance and openness: A progressive thing; the idea of trans-societal equality can be said to originate from the idea that all are equal before the eyes of the faith's deity. Buddhism especially, even without a deity, puts emphasis not on material wealth or power but the attainment of personal enlightenment, regardless of background.
Women's rights: Surprisingly true. Islam in earlier centuries actually spearheaded the idea of women having innate rights, even if said rights were often inferior to those of men. Buddhism, again, puts no special emphasis on gender. The Tao considers male and female to be equals of different properties.
Advancement of sciences: The Church outright /funded/ many pioneering scientists and experiments, if they weren't involved outright in its process. Mendel's studies of genetic inheritance was done as a monk. The Vatican was responsible for postulating the Big Bang theory of universal origin. Many scientists see their profession as a way to better understand the mind and intent of their deity.
Art: If you think I'm just talking about the stuff commissioned by the Vatican, you are /sorely/ mistaken. And Eurocentric too, so double-shame on you. The history of art is nearly inseparable from the history of religion - and the first forms of art were often means of religious expression.
Pithy sayings are just pithy sayings. It takes a bad man in good clothing to profess piety and pacifism on one hand and victimize with the other. What your quote describes is "hypocrisy," which is a universal problem in human culture, and not particularly bound by religion. Atheists have no monopoly on ethics and morality - we simply have a more concrete theory of origin on the subject, and better predictive elements on its formulation.
In all cultures. In some cases the religion is secular humanism or socialism. If you don't want to call it religion then call it a world view but it is essentially the same thing.
I think it can be interesting to approach religious teachings from a perennialist mindset: what’s common between all religions.
There is a lot to learn about life and human nature in religion. You don’t have to believe in an afterlife or practice dogma to get something out of it.
I don't consider myself in a position to judge the validity of anybody's religion.
But I'd ask you this - if a religion's values are good, its practitioners are happy and its role in the community is positive, does it really matter whether the religion is true in an absolute sense? Is the concept of absolute truth even relevant or applicable?
We've all met pious assholes. I've also met truly faithful people that renew my hope for humanity. The practice of faith is one of accepting duality, of not knowing the truth and being comfortable with that. Or of accepting that one person's unprovable truth is different than another's, and being OK with it. Why bother debating the unknowable?
Religion is in no way a force for bringing people together. Anti-Semitism is rampant among many Christians. Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of not seeing eye-to-eye. Shia and Sunni Muslims are pretty notorious at this point for their battles.
Your examples are counter to your own point. Jews don't seem to have the same views on abortion that the evangelicals appear to have. The United Methodist church is splitting because of differing views on homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ issues.
Having common values is very important, but predicating it on all the doctrine of a set of religions or a single religion seems shaky at best.
I also noticed you still haven't given a good reason. Your opening line is circular - violating the monoculture is bad because it disrupts the monoculture. Instead of proposing a broad set of morals outside of religion, you intend to (by force?) push a set of morals that YOU dictate based off ancient texts of dubious origin.
Maybe to you as an outside observer. Many devote followers of religions express that it is a fundamental part of their identity. Many around the world are willing to die for it. Does this sound like something that isn't intrinsic?
I'm having a hard time interpreting this; are you saying that because people who believe in religions don't unanimously agree that implies all relgions are false?
Religions are more than their holy books. The Old Testatment preaches a hateful and parochial worldview, but the vast majority of Jews and Christians are perfectly normal human beings.
While its main point is interesting to think about, this article still has a view of "religion" that is (despite token mentions of Buddhism and, via perennial philosophy, Hinduism) very influenced by Abrahamic (monotheistic) conceptions: especially in putting beliefs/faith as central:
> One of the primary attributes of any religion is its creed. Each world religion professes a unique set of metaphysical beliefs, which is central to its identity. Anyone who contradicts or denies these beliefs is condemned or cast out as a heretic.
Consider also other aspects of religion (daily practices, restrictions on diet and behaviour, rituals, ceremonies, striving, seeking, penance, purity, community) — they support the central thesis and in other traditions are more central than creed. (See e.g. https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ and comments thereon.)
For that matter, the "scientism" mentioned in the article itself can be either monotheism-inspired (only believe scientific things, believing anything without proof is "unclean", we're better than the ones who came before), or focus more on other aspects (the attitude of discovery and humility, improvement of self and the world, …).
* renunciation of self
* acceptance of the world / reality, including suffering
* love of mankind
* love of the gift of life
Religion as an institution, however, is something different than the "message" contained within the sacred texts or traditions of religions (lower-case r).
Some religion attracts fanatics, those who believe "We are right and everyone else is wrong." Within that statement there is a marked absence of acceptance, love of mankind, love of life.
There is also spiritual pride, which is more subtle. In Christ's parable of the pharisee and the publican, we see the publican, who prays in all humility for God's mercy, and the pharisee, who thanks God that he is better than the publican. And many Christians reading that parable will think, "and thank God I'm not like the pharisee"!
reply