By “correct” I mean the religion that best describes god and what he wants. (God may not necessarily want its followers to be better people.)
Again, assuming that god exists, for the purposes of this debate, non-theistic religions don’t count.
** Joe Random**, barring god appearing, I think that if there were a 7,000 year old document stating that Zogov and his wives Mubak and Luko are the only Real Gods, and that they created the Earth to rotate around the sun, along with 8 other planets*, and that all that they required was that everybody wave to the sun once a year; well then I’d be more inclined to believe that than, say, Mormonism.
and maybe something else thrown in about how to clone sheep
well, definitely Ethical Monotheism-
that there is One God from whom all morality derives and God’s primary moral requirement is that people behave decently towards each other.
what variation of that, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Noachism, classical Unitarianism, Bahai, etc, is truest? I’ll go with Christianity. Why? Because except for Bahai, it’s the only one addresses the Joan Osbourne Q, and it is the only one at all in which the ultimate answer is “Jesus”.
For the purposes of this debate, using the guidelines that I only vaguely defined partly through the debate, only one religion can be MOST correct.
I was really looking for ancient religions.
[not to hijack by own thread, but…] IMHO, Christianity used Judiasm for as long as it needed to, then abandoned it. I’m still not sure why Christians still use the OT [/hijack]
Are there any religions that have demonstrated an uncanny (“before their time”) knowledge of the universe?
Perhaps it will clarify my position a little bit to explain that my disbelief in the divinity of the OT is because I can’t believe that the creator of the universe got so many things wrong, scientifically speaking.
Yeah, but Lewis wrote before either the Raelians or those clowns who believed the saucer was hiding behind the comet. Making the least sense is something religions are fiercely competitive about, I’d say.
I’ll go with the oldest. Fertility goddess worship, that’s for me.
Why? If your initial premise is flawed, then the rest of the argument isn’t likely to make much sense. I could, for example, start an argument off by saying, “first, let’s assume that anybody who believes in God is a child molestor…” Sure, we could have all sorts of interesting discussions based on that premise, but unless I can prove the original premise is true it’s all rather pointless.
Well, some religions teach that the fullness of his plan was revealed in detail to Adam and Eve, and that everything kind of went downhill from there.
So, according to this theory, whatever religion that was practiced by the ancient Sumerians is most likely the “correct” one. Pity nobody follows that particular religion any more.
You also forgot option #3, which is that both religions contain stories to explain a very real, non-miraculous event. The fact that two religions describe a “great flood” can possibly be used as evidence that there was, in fact, such a flood. It doesn’t mean, however, that the cause and/or moral lessons ascribed to the flood are valid.
As I stated before, the older a religion is, the more likely it will be based on ignorant superstitions. According to your logic, only a modern-day religion that purports to agree with what we now “know” to be true could possibly be the “most correct” one. This, however, conflicts with your other premise that the older a religion is, the more likely it is to be the “correct” one.
I don’t think you can find an “old” religion that is also “scientically accurate” (unless you count those religions that have constantly changed their doctrines over the years to adapt to scientific advances). And if such a religion did exist at one time, it has long ago disappeared, which also doesn’t say much for its being correct.
Judaism is more likely than either Christianity or Islam. The idea that there is an omnipresent, omnipotent, infallible God is a nice idea. Maybe it’s true. But the idea that this God later sends his son to change a bunch of what he said before is highly unlikely, considering that he should be unchanging. The idea that even after that, he still allowed huge mistakes, and sent another prophet to fix things, is simply unbelievable.
But actually, I think the most likely religion to be correct is whichever one you personally believe in. This is because if there is a God who wants you to believe in him, and helps you figure out which God to believe in, he can only be the God that you do in fact believe in. Therefore whichever God you believe in is most likely to exist.
It seems to me that the religion with the most plausible and possible god would be the most likely religion. A claim that your god can control the weather would be more plausible than a claim that your god created the Earth, which would be more plausible than a claim that your god created the universe.
And now that I think about it, didn’t Jesus say something about “suffer the children…” or somesuch implying that they had the true wisdonm? So maybe we should go with the religion with most juvenile converts? This is just getting too confusing…
I’ve always looked at choosing a religion as akin to picking a sports team – with factors such as place of birth, players, coaches, prior record, stadiums and even team colors figuring heavily into the choice.
With that in mind, I think the best way to answer the question would be to start some sort of professional Religious League, with the winner of the Championship match holding bragging rights (the coveted title of ‘Most Correct’) for a year.
The possibilities are almost endless, from marketing the tourney to the events themselves – professional Bible Thumping, Koran Indoctrination, Talmud Toss, Gita Lift, Book of Mormon Relays, etc. Heck, I’m betting Adidas and Nike would fall all over themselves to design the different outfits, as would the major networks for exclusive TV rights.
Well, the trivial answer is none. I think Rucksinator’s point is good - if we knew of an ancient religion that got scientific facts correct, obviously correct, that would be a powerful argument that it is right (or else evidence of contacts with ETs.) By obviously correct I do not mean the typical fundamentalist argument of “it rains, the flood story says it rains, so the Bible must be true.”
That there is no such religion is one big reason I’m an atheist. I never bought the argument that god couldn’t tell the truth because it was too complicated. Getting the story right is not much harder than getting it wrong, and anyway some of the procedures in Leviticus are as complicated as any computer instruction manual.
Of course, another way of looking at it would be to say that whichever religion makes the least number of claims that can be falsified is therefore, by default, the one that is “most correct.” Therefore, logically, the religion that makes no claims whatsoever would by necessity be the most correct religion. And, since a religion that makes no claims is not actually a religion, no religion can therefore be “most correct.”
Of course, another way of looking at it would be to say that whichever religion makes the least number of claims that can be falsified is therefore, by default, the one that is “most correct.” Therefore, logically, the religion that makes no claims whatsoever would by necessity be the most correct religion. And, since a religion that makes no claims is not actually a religion, no religion can therefore be “most correct.”
If the oldest religion is the best, then clearly we should all emulate the Cro-Magnons who saw animated spirits in the clouds, or something like that.
The “reality” is, as likely as not, so far beyond our comprehension abilities that it’s silly to consider any human religion as truer than another. Meanwhile, any doctrine that encourages us all to respect each other is “best”.
