Is religion fundamentaly arrogant?

Great Debates
1

Can anyone give me their thoughts on the following reasoning?

If the universe was created by a superior being, wouldn’t this being have to exist in a form so radically different from our own that we would not be able to comprehend this being’s acitons or rationalle?

Throughout history, humans have made massive mistakes in their quest to understand the world. A few examples include: the flat Earth, the sun revolving around the Earth, the Holocaust, eugenics, etc. If we have consistently misunderstood the basic principles underlying our planet and our species, how can we possibly have the arrogance to think that we can comprehend God?

Why do people claim that God sets out certain laws that must be followed or that God wants us to do certain things? How can we be even remotely certain that we know what God wants from us?

An example of the arrogance of religion is the idea that “God created man in his own image.” This is perhaps the most absurd statement that I can conceive of. Are we humans really so desperate to believe that we control our world and our destiny that we are willing to claim that we are quasi-descendents of the master of the universe?

Let’s not forget the millions of people who have been executed and mistreated as a result of logic such as: “We’re going to sacrifice you because Ra wants us to” and “I can’t help you because you obviously didn’t do your Dharma in your past life” or “God says that your race is inferior, so we will take your labor and/or lives”

How could we have let our arrogance cause so much destruction? Are we doomed to continue this destruction as long as religion exists on earth?

2

Religious people can be arrogant, and some religious ideas do seem awfully arrogant from the outside. But remember that believers are operating from the stance that God himself told us that certain things are true, moral, and good. There is no arrogance in stating something that one believes has been given directly from God, but there can be arrogance if one believes his own interpretation of such revelations to be infallible.

3

I think there is something arrogant in believing that the master of the Universe has decided to give you or your race/society/etc. advice on how to lead your life. Why do we have the conceit to think that we could understand something told to us by the greatest power in the Universe? Why do we have the conceit to think that the greatest power in the Universe would want to tell us anything at all?

4

Whether or not there is anything to any human idea about god that corresponds to an external reality, there is an inherent fallacy in your basic proposition.

What you are suggesting is that the inherent difference between something supernal enough to create the complex Universe that we are beginning to understand a little about is so intense that there is no possibility that either he or we can bridge the gap between us.

I am quite capable of comprehending the structure and composition of a galena crystal, even though I do not resemble it in the slightest. (Well, in my youth, I was considered a square, but…) :slight_smile: I would suggest that he is quite capable to establishing communication with us if he so chooses.

Further, you appear to posit that something that tremendous would not have any interest in what goes on among the allegedly conscious species on this piffling little planet. What would be even greater than something able to create such a universe would be something able to create it and then pay attention to every detail going on in it, including how you misspelled “action” and “rationale” in your OP. (Sorry, I have a smartalec streak going today! :))

Finally, you suggest that we would not be able to comprehend such an entity. There, we are on common ground. However, any mystic, in or outside the Christian faith, and any competent theologian, would make the obvious distinction between total comprehension of God – impossible – and the apprehension that he does in fact exist – by theistic conceptions quite possible, and the subject of debates on other grounds here in other threads. One is encyclopedic knowledge, the other the awareness of one “fact.”

Finally, you are ascribing to the abstract concept religion the attitude of arrogance. This falls into the same semantic trap as the conservative Christian allegation that “homosexuality is sinful.” Now, some faith structures are in fact arrogant ipso facto. If the Way of the Overwhelming God and Doctrinal Publishing House, Inc., claims to have the only certain knowledge of the way in which humans can escape the trap they are unknowingly caught in, it is certainly arrogant. (Example fictional; parallels to existing faiths are probably inescapable but not wholly intentional.) But the proper attitude for a believer according to most exponents of religions is to humble himself before that which created him and governs his existence – and this is true for not only Christianity but Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and several varieties of paganism with which I am more or less familar. (Buddhism espouses a related attitude that fits better with its world-conception.)

Making these distinctions, and keeping the theme separate from any particular faith, would you care to expand on your point, which I think might prove quite interesting to explore?

5

Outrider:

Yes…except to whatever extent that being chose to reveal himself in terms that we are meant to understand.

Well, from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism, we can be certain because G-d himself told us, as recorded in the Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) and in its associated Oral traditions. Beyond that, you are correct: it would be fundamentally arrogant of us to claim to know anything about G-d which is not contained in these sources.

Religious doctrine is hardly the sole source of such atrocities. As long as human selfishness seeks to rationalize such atrocities, whether through a religious source or through a secular source, such destruction will continue.

6

[quote]
**

Throughout history, humans have made massive mistakes in their quest to understand the world. A few examples include: the flat Earth, the sun revolving around the Earth, the Holocaust, eugenics, etc.

[quote]
**

The Holocaust was not a mistake it was a deliberate act. No organization accidently sets up death camps and systematically murders 10,000,000 + individuals.

**

We learn. Even the most primitive human being relied on his understanding of the surrounding environment for survival. Where food can be found, where’s the good water, and which stone makes the best knife.

**

I might be mistaken but most religious folks call it faith.

**

Why not? I don’t see any other being capable of making such a claim.

**

Or the millions being sacraficed so the vision of Marx will be fulfilled.

You don’t need religion to have mass murder. China, Germany, the USSR, and the United States have all engaged in mass murder without religious cause.

Marc

7

Not to mention that a good number of leaders of those countries were atheists, Maho, Stalin and Hitler. Who all created systems that were dimertricaly opposed to religion.

8

Believing there exists a Superior being is fundamentally an act of humility.

9

so is accepting that humanity is tiny on the scale of the universe (or that the universe does not revolve around humans)

10

Your argument can also be turned over you know. Some have said that we were told all this stuff by God because we are worthless little worms with no hope to do anything right at all without his help. God, some believe, in his infinite compassion cares for even such lowly creatures as human beings not because of any virtue on our part, but because he is so incredibly loving. As to understanding the messages given, see my first post.

11

You must first start with you are tiny on the scale of the universe and that the universe does not revolve around you. However, you can not deny (and this can be proven scientifically) that you are at the center of the universe nor can you deny (within reason) that you are a being that exists. There can be humility on this scale also.

12

I dunno…I think I could go on quite an ego trip comparing myself to a planarian or a paramecium. And those puny bacteria!! :smiley:

13

I never said that religion was the cause of mass murder. I merely proposed that it is one of the major causes. Can anyone honestly argue with that?

I don’t buy the acceptance of God as the ultimate act of humility. God is often used as a tool to justify the subjugation of other people. When Pizarro and the conquistadors stormed through the new world and when Americans used the concept of manifest destiny to take land from the Native Americans, we justified our actions by saying that God had meant for us to take away the property of the non-believers. That is not humility. That is brutality.

14

No, religion is not fundamentally arrogent.

However, fundamental religion sure can be!

Yer pal,
Satan

[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, 12 hours, 33 minutes and 26 seconds.
4900 cigarettes not smoked, saving $612.61.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 20 minutes.[/sub]

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]

15

is the question wrong because it is too focused on western culture and contact with muslim culture?

how arrogant is buddhism?

                                             Dal Timgar
16

As a matter of fact I can.

  1. Show me a religion who’s tennants say to do this first.

  2. Anytime any entity becomes a poltical power it takes on the affiars of state, states cause this mass murder, not the religons.

If you want to discount this, show me a religion with out political authority that has commited mass murder.

And when Hitler stomped through poland he gave Nitezhe’s construct that God is dead and there is no moral source to say he is wrong, as justification. That’s not humility either.

17

but to answer that since atheists are arrogant does not in any way answer or disprove the question “Is religion fundamentally arrogant”?

I say yes, it is. Western religion, at least. The idea that out of all the things in creation, we are the special ones who god has deigned to illuminate and communicate with, smacks of arrogance.

And whether you believe that man is a wretched worm, unworthy of any kind of contact from the ineffible other, as long as your belief system also includes contact from the divine, you are still placing humanity on a special plane.

18

I don’t see how Western mysticism is arrogant.

  1. I exist.
  2. Love is good, but it is hard to love perfectly.
  3. There is one greater than I, who loves perfectly.

Therefore:

  1. I should try to be like the one who is greater than I who loves perfectly because love is good.

I fail to see the arrogance here.

19

j, I never said that western mysticism is arrogant. as a subset of western religion, it could be inferred that mysticism may share in the arrogance, but it’s not like that must logically follow. your bait and switch would be particularly blatant if you didn’t point out how such mysticism differs from that of eastern religions. oh wait.

it’s the equivalent of saying “I don’t see how the canned food drive that my parish runs is arrogant.”

mysticism is something that I believe in thoroughly, even though I am an atheist. I believe that it is possible for any human to have an ecstatic experience (note a definition- such ecstacy can only be experienced by a human). So it only follows that all religions will have some ecstatic tradition.

but IF part of your ecstatic theology is that humans are able to contact god because we are the special chosen beings, then I would say that your ecstacy is fundamentally arrogant.

peace out,

jb

20

OK, I figured you meant at some point to say mysticism isn’t included in your definition of religion; I just thought you were using “religion” as an inclusive term as opposed to, I don’t know, Libertarian’s definition or something.

The only Eastern mysticism I know well is Taoism (er 1.0). I don’t want to compare Western mysticism to Eastern religion as that would be comparing apples and oranges. For comparisons sake, here is my understanding of it:

  1. I exist
  2. Tao [for simplicities sake, a universal pivot around which all meaning revolves and the flow of the universe through which perfect action may be performed – examples, you can’t have hope without despair, you can master tasks like cutting up an ox] exists, and moving with the Tao is a good thing.

therefore:
3) I should attempt to be one with the Tao of the universe.

Thus, Eastern and Western mysticism are very different from what I understand of them. If Chuang Tzu had met Jesus he would have pointed out that the tallest tree is the first one to get cut down, and Jesus would have said love conquers all, and Chuang would have replied with what is wrong with just being happy, etc. Theoretically, of course.

I guess I don’t understand how you mean “contact.” God is Love – a being which loves perfectly. Mystics believe that it is good to attempt to imitate that perfect love. And if uniting with that universal Love gives a mystic certain powers, I still don’t see that fact as arrogant. Is this some sort of vegan thing?