In general ‘universal truths’, in this context of personal beliefs, I would define as those aspects of beliefs that tend to head towards agreement among personal beliefs. This is of those who seek answers in general.
Things like ‘do on to others as you would have them do on to you’ and ‘do as you wish but do no harm’ are expressions that approach a universal truth (many atheists have a person version of this universal law that they use as a guide, and some have used that very universal law to challenge and leave a religion - seeing that the religion was obviously harming others and must not be ‘good’ and not something one wants to be a part of in a period of self discovery/realization - which is spiritual awakening). IDK if a universal truth can be directly stated in human language, but aspects of it can be. And those aspects converge on it. Another universal truth would be expressed in the concept of karma, which biblically is expressed as you reap what you sow.
The reason why this is so is because of the universal truth expressed as seek and you will find. They are discoverable, however the person seeking will generally find it the way they need for their life. Discover it and describe it from their point of view. So yes there will be differences but if you look past that you will find agreement and perhaps with some digging the reason for the differences.
I didn’t say that one sect of one religion believes this. I said that the statement I objected to is based on that one sect (evangelical Christianity). There are obviously others that also do, and others that don’t believe any such thing.
My point is that, on this board anyway, the atheists who aggressively deride and ridicule religious belief do so using the most egregious example of all religion’s faults in the US to make blanket statements about all religion, from Jainism to Zoroastrianism.
No, no, no, no. It is true of Protestant sects in the United States. It is true of Roman Catholics in Europe and increasingly in Africa. It is true of Orthodox Cathoics in Eastern Europe. It is true of Jews in Israel. It is true of Hindus in India. It is true of Muslims in a wide swathe from Africa to eastern Asia. Hell, it’s true of the state religions of Communism, which are religions in every conceivable way except to competing religions. I’d be surprised if any government of any country in the world had laws that were not heavily influenced to the point of commandments by the local ruling religion.
I would absolutely hope that every single thread on religion mentions this historic truth and has it accepted by all cognitively aware Dopers because it is the single thing most despised by all the non-members of that sect everywhere in the world. Globally, as no religion in the world has a majority, that means that every religion in the world has a majority resenting its inserting its tendrils into secular law because that global majority becomes subject to those religious laws when they set foot in that country.
It is true of Christianity since the time it became a state religion until it lost worldly power. It is true of Islam. It isn’t true of religions without enough power to enforce their rules, but wait until they get this power.
It isn’t true for the older tribal religions with multiple gods. Alexander the Great was fine with the religions in the places he conquered. I thought it wasn’t true of Hinduism, but Modi is proving me wrong.
How many pagans and heretics have died through history, and not at the hands of one sect of one religion. Unless you consider Catholics a sect. And the Church of England under Henry and Elizabeth.
This is likely true. What is not true is that this is an essential part of religion, or that it’s true of all religions, or even of all sects within the religions most notorious for it.
If this is universal, then it hardly matters that some individual religions may not use their power. It’s the equivalent of saying that systemic racism of some sort is not a driver of the laws in every government because some individuals are not racist. Good for them, but they are irrelevant to the larger conversation.
Which, as I would remind you, is whether the demands to accept their answers are driving people out of organized religions.
My point is that the people claiming that this is just part of religion and that objecting to attempts to force non-adherents to follow others’ religious rules amounts to objecting to religion are acting under an (often genuine) misapprehension. It is not an essential part of religion. And it’s not only a matter of some religions not being able to do anything about it at the minute because they’re too weak. Not all religions want to do this.
Because if we can’t get it through people’s heads that religion doesn’t need to do that, we’re doomed.
Religion’s not going to go away. The existence of multiple different religions isn’t going to go away, either: not unless humans go away. Which, if we keep insisting that it’s an essential part of religion to try to force everybody to be part of the same one, and considering the current state of human armament, is all too likely.
Admittedly, environmental damage might get us first. But the chances of that happening are increased by the issue being tangled up in religious fights.
Uncertainty frightens people. They could make wrong decisions that fuck everything up. Or fail to stop something that is evil and wrong that hurts other people that they care about. I am going to generalize and declare it to be a human trait, a pretty damn universal one, to be uncomfortable with uncertainty. We want to know. We want to be confident that we are correct, that we are right in what we believe. The more important the subject matter, the higher the stakes, the more this is of concern to us.
There is some kind of religious parable or anecdote about some builder who picks up the stone that all the other builders rejected and says “I’m gonna make this the cornerstone of my temple”. It’s probably Judaic or Christian but I can’t be arsed to look it up. Anyway… if I were going to establish a religion, my cornerstone would be human uncertainty. You can’t make it go away, you can’t banish it, it’s fundamental to the human condition, and it’s inevitably always there, your inability to know stuff for certain. So build on it. Assume uncertainty. How do you interact with other humans if you know you cannot be certain and you also know they can’t either? Differently than how you interact when you know “for sure” that you are right and they are wrong. Differently than when you encounter a Holy Figure who says follow me, I promise you I am infallible, and you don’t assume they lack certainty just the same as you do. Scientific method is devoted to respecting uncertainty: it is carefully constructed to create hypotheses and then test them and then limit the conclusions one is allowed to reach; it respects retesting and puts value on a repeatable result, and nothing is a fact in the sense that there’s no room to explore the possibility that it isn’t as assumed. So is a theology anchored in uncertainty. Uncertainty doesn’t say there isn’t a right and a wrong, or that there isn’t a right and a a wrong applicable to every single circumstance, even. But it says you can’t be sure you’ve got your tongs on it. It says you can’t be sure you know that truth. As a holy person, at best you proceed on the assumption that yes you know right from wrong, but with the continued awareness that you might be wrong yourself and need to learn, that you need to seriously consider challenges to your worldview. And in particular in contending with people of other viewpoints that you realize they could be more right than you are. You are required to remain open, if not paralyzed by your uncertainty; you are allowed to be confident, from having constantly tested and retested, questioned and requestioned, what you believe, but not arrogant.
That would in fact be an excellent set-up from a moral and logical POV. Very well said. Thank you.
The problem of course comes earlier in your post where you quite accurately describe that most humans, and especially the less educated, less logical, and less insightful ones want, nay, crave certainty.
So the “product” you’d be “selling” would not fulfill their need. They will shop elsewhere, and human nature also dictates there will be no shortage of con artists willing to sell certainty. Because willing blind followers are so incredibly valuable as a source of wealth and power for the con artist.
The only possible recourse for civilization is to reduce, perhaps over a span of centuries, the number of people who are less educated, less logical, and less insightful.
First let me caveat that I’m not your typical Christian. I believe that in relation to faith there are few absolute commandments from God. Much of the rest is left up to interpretation of the reader/believer.
Love God with all your heart, soul and mind.
Love your neighbor as you would love yourself.
The entirety of the rest is based upon faith, and your interpretation of how you should interact with the rest of humanity based upon the two commandments above.
As I said, I’m not your typical Christian. Many people seek out Church to fill a hole in their lives or because their parents went to church, or because they feel like they should expose their children to religion and they themselves don’t feel equipped to do that themselves.
Who is “we” who are doomed in that sentence? If you mean religion, then it’s a very good thing. If you mean humans, then it’s been the way of the world for thousands of years and is unlikely to doom humanity in any foreseeable future. You also have the problem that it is essential, i.e., part of its very essence, for the vast majority of religions to force and compel others the bulk of the time, even if a few people claim otherwise or don’t deliberately do so themselves. I’m talking about tens of millions, not individuals.
Yet it’s true enough for the Muslims who live there, because of actions taken by governments at all levels. For them, the individual’s opinions are irrelevant.
I have no idea if the Christians in the U.S. who pass laws demonizing and criminalizing those who don’t share their beliefs are typical either, but I don’t care. All that matters are the results.
I’m asking a question about reality, the reality that millions of people are leaving organized religion, and wondering if this actual real all-pervasive essential aspect of religion is a driving factor.
Not sure what you are saying. There are Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhist, Parsees, Jews … lots of religions in India. Granted that the democracy is ruled by a Hindu nationalist for the last 7 years (out of 50+ years of history), however I am not sure what you mean by “actions taken by governments at all levels”.
It is probably the only non Muslim country, where Muslims have their own law based on the Muslim Shariat. So I don’t understand what you are saying.
One aspect of religion is to provide a consistent moral framework for a society. That doesn’t necessarily need any god component. Societies can create a moral framework based on philosophical conclusions about right and wrong. But humans are good at ignoring rules they don’t like or aren’t convenient, so a moral framework without moral police isn’t likely to be very successful. One way to solve that problem is to say that an invisible force is the moral judge. Humans can’t really be sure that the invisible force doesn’t exist, so it provides some encouragement to follow the moral code. The addition of an invisible watchful eye is one way to ensure that a society’s moral code will be followed. A moral code plus an invisible enforcer creates a religion.
I don’t think that the creators of the religion created the god for that purpose. Likely they themselves were confused about the universe and how humans came to be and imagined a “god” who did it all. Then it became convenient to use that god to be the moral enforcer for whatever moral foundation the society decided on.
For the very homogenous small local societies of yore @filmore’s explanation makes complete sense and can be a force for good in those societies.
For the very heterogenous, heavily armed, and very interconnected whole-planet society we all now inhabit, that idea of a consistent moral framework and invisible unimpeachable moral police force is positively dangerous.
Not because we have one of them, but because we have dozens or hundreds of competing versions of them. Each with thousands or billions of adherents happy to commit violence so as to get on the right side of their own personal imaginary police force.
I believe this last was the point that @thorny_locust was making that @Exapno_Mapcase was questioning. That capital R Religion, writ large, is an existential threat to human civilization given our present level of high-tech weaponry and low-tech chimpanzee thinking.