What is a religion? (Is Buddhism a religion? What about atheism?)

[ForEverAfter]

There's been some debate recently about whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion... and I've had a couple of discussions with some Buddhist forum members about whether or not Buddhism is a religion.

So, what is a religion?

Wikipedia says a religion "is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

The Oxford dictionary defines it (religion) as a "particular system of faith and worship". But, I think that definition is limited. Worship is not a prerequisite, is it?

If atheism is a religion, then Buddhism must be.
Is everyone religious, then, excluding agnostics?

Is a Christian who doesn't go to church, or worship Jesus, non-Christian?
What about someone who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a recognized religion?

If disbelief (atheism/non-theism) is a religion, then is belief (theism) also a religion?
Are Christianity and Judaism sub-religions, that exist within the parent religion (theism)?
If so, are there identifiable atheistic denominations / sub-religions?

Can you be atheistic without belonging to the church/religion of atheism?

Bill Maher said, "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position."
He's a left-wing extremist with a lot of anger towards religion and conservatism.
He purposely constructed the analogy to make it seem absurd.

He should have said, "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual preference (or sexual orientation)."
Similarly: if you're disinterested in politics, isn't that a political orientation?

...

As for Buddhism, how is it not a religion?

Buddhists say (rather vaguely) it's a "way of life", rather than a religion.
But don't Christians (and members of every other religion) say that as well?

What religious prerequisite does Buddhism actually lack other than a god?
Is Buddhism a non-theistic sub-religion, under the "atheistic parent religion"?

What other atheistic sub-religions (if any) are there?

 

[Anamo7tram]

Atheism and theism are not religons, they are about the exsistence of god but it stop there.

Religions are a philosophical system based on the axiom of a higher being aka god.

Buddhism is murky business, it is a religion, but it is so weakly dependent on the axiom of god, that it is very suitable to isolate it's philosphy while maintaining a large part of it.

 

[methamaniac]

IMO, Everyone is religious. You don't have to posit a god (s) to be religious. Everyone executes faith in their world view. You can argue you are not putting faith in your beliefs,
you can even try not to put faith in your beliefs, but it is impossible to not have your personal beliefs of questions like :

Who/what am I?
Where did I come from/how did I get here?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?

not shape your worldview and consequently how you live your life.

Atheism is definitely religious.
For example,
no one can remotely prove how life could have came about in a purely naturalistic manner.
To explain our existence in place of something outside the natural (aka the supernatural) an atheist is forced to either
posit:
1. an unknown/unobservable natural mechanism
2. we are not really even here.
Both of which undoubtedly require a good amount of faith to accept.

Buddhism is definitely a religion. It seems odd to me someone would argue it isn't.

 

[Erikmen]

I believe that religion can be fit withing a wide type of definitions.

Searching for a different meaning I found the following "definition" which is basically a simple sum up of all different definitions.

Religion is the set of beliefs, feelings, dogmas and practices that define the relations between human being and sacred or divinity.
A given religion is defined by specific elements of a community of believers: dogmas, sacred books, rites, worship, sacrament, moral prescription, interdicts, organization.

The majority of religions have developed starting from a revelation based on the exemplary history of a nation, of a prophet or a wise man who taught an ideal of life.

_________

I personally agree that Atheism is religious and Buddhism is a religion. I have always though of it as a religion and Atheism as how you relate to your own beliefs.

 

[Anamo7tram]

When did faith imply religion?

Also, I don't have faith in the world, am willing to assume it exists just so my life would be easier, but I am not willing to put faith that it exists. In my view, a person who assumes god exist is more rational than a person who has faith the world.

 

[tantric]

okay, new word:

dharma -

Dharma has the Sanskrit root dhri, which means "that which upholds" or "that without which nothing can stand" or "that which maintains the stability and harmony of the universe." Dharma encompasses the natural, innate behavior of things, duty, law, ethics, virtue, etc. Every entity in the cosmos has its particular dharma -- from the electron, which has the dharma to move in a certain manner, to the clouds, galaxies, plants, insects, and of course, man. Man's understanding of the dharma of inanimate things is what we now call physics.

British colonialists endeavored to map Indian traditions onto their ideas of religion so as to be able to comprehend and govern their subjects; yet the notion of dharma remained elusive. The common translation into religion is misleading since, to most Westerners, a genuine religion must:

1) be based on a single canon of scripture given by God in a precisely defined historical event;
2) involve worship of the divine who is distinct from ourselves and the cosmos;
3) be governed by some human authority such as the church;
4) consist of formal members;
5) be presided over by an ordained clergyman; and
6) use a standard set of rituals.

But dharma is not limited to a particular creed or specific form of worship. To the Westerner, an "atheistic religion" would be a contradiction in terms, but in Buddhism, Jainism and Carvaka dharma, there is no place for God as conventionally defined. In some Hindu systems the exact status of God is debatable. Nor is there only a single standard deity, and one may worship one's own ishta-devata, or chosen deity.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Religions are a philosophical system based on the axiom of a higher being aka god.

I don't see why they have to be based around the existence of God.

What if I adhered to a belief system that revolved around the universe being created by a (man-made) machine called Mr. Potato and I attended meetings to discuss how the machine might operate... The machine is not God, but it is the creator. Is that a religion?

Do religions require creators, rather than Gods?
If religions require Gods, what qualifies as a God (exactly)?
And why do religions need creators at all?

What if I adhered to a specific belief system that revolved around the universe dreaming itself into existence and I attended The Church of Dreams, taking part in various rituals and ceremonial rites and singing praise to the sub-conscious?

Buddhism is murky business, it is a religion, but it is so weakly dependent on the axiom of god, that it is very suitable to isolate it's philosphy while maintaining a large part of it.

I didn't think there was a Buddhist God, really.
How is it (Buddhism) at all "dependent on the axiom of God"?

IMO, Everyone is religious.

What about agnostics?
Surely, they're not religious!

When did faith imply religion?

Agreed. Faith doesn't imply religion.
That's too broad a definition.

The "big questions" (Why are we here? etc.) can be asked philosophically.
But the question of whether or not there is a God can't be asked outside of the context of religion.

Atheism is definitely religious... an atheist is forced to either posit: 1. an unknown/unobservable natural mechanism 2. we are not really even here. Both of which undoubtedly require a good amount of faith to accept.

It's funny, I think, that atheists disbelieve in the existence of God but remain open to other explanations.
Atheists don't disbelieve in creation, generally.
They say, "Yes. Of course. Everything was created at some point."
And I ask, "Created by God?"
To which they laugh, and say, "No. Just created."

If you dissect the atheistic perspective, it falls apart a bit (I find).
A lot of atheists will say they don't believe in "intelligent design".
They do actually believe in the possibility of creation (as procreation).
So, they actually do believe in the possibility of God.
Just not the God(s) of religion.

Again, what is a God?
If the universe was conceived, rather than "planned out", it was still created.
There are countless Gods, throughout various religions, that aren't creators.

In my view, a person who assumes god exist is more rational than a person who has faith the world.

I've never understood how creationism is supposed to be irrational.
Perhaps someone can explain that to me?

Most of the world's religions do not suggest intelligent design.
Many Polynesian creation mythologies imply conception.
The world was born. The universe was born.
Yet, they are religions.

It seems to me that the scientific world and the religious world mistakenly think they disagree with each other, when - really - they are no contradictions... or, at least, only those based on misinterpretation.

Buddhism is definitely a religion. It seems odd to me someone would argue it isn't.

It's very strange, indeed. Numerous Buddhist members on this forum have argued that Buddhism is not a religion. It appears to be the only mainstream religion that doesn't identify as a religion (for some unknown reason)... I suspect that maybe they don't want to associate themselves with other religions by implication?

Any Buddhists want to chime in, here?

 

[swilow]

Good topic Foreverafter. I promise to address only what is written.

The Oxford dictionary defines it (religion) as a "particular system of faith and worship". But, I think that definition is limited. Worship is not a prerequisite, is it?

I feel an important word in that definition is "particular". I feel that it 'particularly' refers to 'faith and worship' of a supernatural being/concept. I'm not sure, I feel there are some holes in my clarification.

Is a Christian who doesn't go to church, or worship Jesus, non-Christian?
What about someone who believes in God but doesn't adhere to a recognized religion?

A Christian who self-desrcribes as a christian is a christian IMO. There's no objective measurement for a persons Christianity. Its an invented -ism (I do not refer to God, just the institutions). There's no rule saying a person MUST follow or worship in a certain way to be a Christian. Of course, worldwide, most christian institutions do believe they have a monopoly on what Christianity actually is. The only requirement would be a belief in the supernatural life of Jesus, a belief that Jesus was a divine deity.

A lot of what creates a religion is the canopy of mutual/collective determination to hold a belief in something extra-sensory. One person holding to an unproven supernatural belief is often maligned as a lunatic. Our perception of their beliefs changes in accordance with a statistical increase in people sharing those beliefs. Jesus was seen as a rebel and criminal and probable madman, yet is now thought to be the son of God. It got to a point where people that did not share that view were seen as the maligners.

If disbelief (atheism/non-theism) is a religion, then is belief (theism) also a religion?
Are Christianity and Judaism sub-religions, that exist within the parent religion (theism)?
If so, are there identifiable atheistic denominations / sub-religions?

Can you be atheistic without belonging to the church/religion of atheism?

I guess theism could be seen as a belief in a consciousness that exists outside/above the consensus reality of the physical universe but is linked to and can control parts of it.

I don't believe that atheism is a relgion TBH, though I do see compelling reasons to relate it to religion. But there are sub-species of atheism. There is at least the type that tries to use reason to make deductions of sorts. 'There is no evidence for god, there there is no reason to belief in such a thing". There's a form of atheism that actually believe that there IS evidence that god does not exist.

As for Buddhism, how is it not a religion?

Buddhists say (rather vaguely) it's a "way of life", rather than a religion.
But don't Christians (and members of every other religion) say that as well?

What religious prerequisite does Buddhism actually lack other than a god?
Is Buddhism a non-theistic sub-religion, under the "atheistic parent religion"?

Buddhism is a religion; it relies on faith because of its untested/unprovable precepts that adherents espouse, and refers explicitly to faith in supernatural functionalities (things like reincarnation, the existence of higher/lesser extradimensional inhabitants). Its a collective of individuals who share a common intangible belief.

Buddha is a figure so obscured by myth that he became an idol. His belief system was kind of about self-evolution for all, yet its called Buddhism. I feel it shares some of the expected aspects of a religion. I think Buddha is treated and revered as a god in everything but name. Given that I believe that humans invented gods, I think buddha may as well just be called a god. Hence, I think that Buddhism is not an atheistic non-religion, but a theistic religion

Herbavore pposted a great topic several months ago about the idea of an emergent godhood, one that comes into 'existence' based upon the micro-beliefs of many, many people. Good read.

When did faith imply religion?

Spot on. There's no reason that the concept of faith must refer to faith in spiritual belief. I have faith that the sun will appear in the sky everyday. I've had the previous several thousand sunrises to prove that, at the very least, its reasonable for me to make that assumptions, that my faith in this phenomenon is borne of reason.

Religious faith is similar, but it does not seem to require proof.

 

[Foreigner]

Yes Buddhism is a religion. A lot of Buddhists, including the ones I used to live with, liked to try and convince modern people that Buddhism is just an advanced form of psychology. Though that's partially true, they also believe in things such as subtle mind, reincarnation, and karma... all of which fall into the category of spirituality and religion, especially where doctrinal lifestyles and practices are required of the more devout.

Religion in general falls along those things. Doctrinal and even dogmatic lifestyle practices which correspond to faith-based epistemologies. But most religious people will say that their views require no proof because the results are self-evident. So... it's hard to really say one way or another.

Seems to me that something tends to become a religion when enough people carbon-copy its edicts into their consciousness. Take Catholics for example, we have about a billion people walking around with more or less the same cognitive programming happening. I'd be to curious to know how many uniquely formed spiritualities are floating around out there, in individual people. Those people never get called religious because they are single actors and their views are generally private or unreplicated.

Religion therefore also has a much greater degree of reproducibility.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I like what you said about Buddha, willow.
If Jesus was once a real man, the same thing happened to him.

There's no rule saying a person MUST follow or worship in a certain way to be a Christian... The only requirement would be a belief in the supernatural life of Jesus, a belief that Jesus was a divine deity.

Why is that a requirement?
I consider myself Christian (sometimes) and I'm not convinced that Jesus existed at all.
If you read the bible, and you don't take it literally, you can't be Christian (even if you live by it)?

Do you have to literally believe everything in the Bible?
Or just the supernatural stuff about Jesus?
Because nobody literally believes everything.

A Christian who self-desrcribes as a christian is a christian IMO.

According to you, I am Christian and I am not.

...

In the early days of Buddhism, before Buddha became a god-like figure (or in the early days of Christianity, before Jesus became a god-like figure) was Buddhism (or Christianity) a theistic religion?

Do all non-theistic religions become theistic, through idolization?

Religious faith is similar, but it does not seem to require proof.

We don't require proof from science, either.
We just take the scientists word for it. Don't we?
We have faith that they know what they're talking about.

To be a successful scientist, you need to be devoted.
You need to spend years dedicated to understanding your field.
The same goes for religion.

Those who demand proof of God often aren't willing to learn how to access it.
We don't demand to understand scientific discoveries.
We (for the most part) just take them for granted.

Back when people thought the Earth was flat (before we had such faith in science), I'm sure they (the layman) demanded proof of the contrary. But, how do you prove something - scientifically - to someone who denies science?

Religion tackles questions that science is incapable of tackling.
They cannot be directly compared by saying "one requires proof and the other doesn't".
Science revolves around proof, because it is the study of things that can be studied.

Religion is a personal journey.
If you want proof, you have to take that journey.
There is nothing tangible to dissect, if that's what proof means to you.
You can't measure God, just as you cannot measure a dream. But dreams exist, don't they?

Does a man who never remembers his dreams require proof that dreams exist?
So many people, throughout history, have encountered God.
We all dream, whether we're aware of it or not.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I'd be to curious to know how many uniquely formed spiritualities are floating around out there, in individual people. Those people never get called religious because they are single actors and their views are generally private or unreplicated.

Interesting. Were Christ's followers Christian?
Are people diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia one man religions?

If I believe that Elvis traveled through time on a donkey, I'm crazy.
If a million people believe it, we're a religion.

'There is no evidence for god, there there is no reason to belief in such a thing". There's a form of atheism that actually believe that there IS evidence that god does not exist.

I need to clarify something.
Atheists believe that there is no God, right?
"In the absence of evidence" is agnosticism, isn't it?

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

What's the difference between agnosticism and this definition of atheism?
If atheism is a "lack of belief in gods", what is agnosticism?

It seems like atheists are back-peddling, having hit a logical dead end, and attempting to re-brand themselves... But - really - they're actually divorcing atheism and adopting agnosticism.

An atheist, on the one hand, believes that there is no God. Etymologically, the word means "not, or no God."... Agnosticism is not a belief system as atheism is; rather, it is a theory of knowledge. Etymologically, it means, "not, or no knowledge."

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-there-a-difference-between-atheists-and-agnostics

 

[GodandLove]

Atheism and theism are not religons, they are about the exsistence of god but it stop there.

Religions are a philosophical system based on the axiom of a higher being aka god.

Buddhism is murky business, it is a religion, but it is so weakly dependent on the axiom of god, that it is very suitable to isolate it's philosphy while maintaining a large part of it.

Atheism IS a religion, and Richard Dawkins is its pope. Period, end of discussion.

 

[tantric]

i have a list of issues that a religion must address:

theology - are there gods?
epistemology - what is the nature of knowledge - where does truth come from
teleology - what is the purpose of life?
cosmology - what is the physical nature of the universe?
eschatology - what happen after you die? is the universe finite?
ontology - what is the nature of reality?
ethics and morality - is there a system of ethics, and what is it based on?

no, atheism isn't a religion. Scientific Atheism certainly is, as is Secular Humanism. hell, people leave offering at mao zedong's tomb - *communism* can be a religion.

but still, dharma is a much better word. everyone has one - its' the structure of your worldview, your answers to those questions. only rocks don't have religion

 

[drug_mentor]

I need to clarify something.
Atheists believe that there is no God, right?
"In the absence of evidence" is agnosticism, isn't it?

What's the difference between agnosticism and this definition of atheism?
If atheism is a "lack of belief in gods", what is agnosticism?

It seems like atheists are back-peddling, having hit a logical dead end, and attempting to re-brand themselves... But - really - they're actually divorcing atheism and adopting agnosticism.

I used to identify as an atheist from an empiricist perspective. If someone believes there is no evidence for god then they could rationally conclude that there is no god, that doesn't mean that they are not open to the possibility of the existence of god, if the evidence was presented. There is a difference between outright denying the existence of something, and believing that there is currently no reason whatsoever to think that thing exists, but I believe both positions can accurately be described as atheism.

I think that atheism and agnosticism are extremely similar positions to take, but not identical. In my mind, an atheist believes there is no empirical evidence for god, and tends to think that rationality supports the position that no such evidence is likely to be found. An agnostic also believes there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god, but they do not see the idea of a god as less rational than any other means of explaining the creation of the universe.

We don't require proof from science, either.
We just take the scientists word for it. Don't we?
We have faith that they know what they're talking about.

I am not sure where you get this idea. I am no scientist, but I was under the impression that for scientists to be taken seriously, they must publish their findings in journals where they outline their methodology in detail. I was also under the impression that scientific results were not taken seriously until other scientists confirm them by conducting similar experiments which get similar results. It is as transparent as things are going to get.

If you mean that we don't put much weight on the scientific opinions of people who are not scientists, this is true. I am not sure why this should be surprising to anybody, generally speaking, we leave professional work to the relevant professionals. You don't call an accountant to fix your pipes, you call a plumber. Anyone is free to pursue an education in science and review the work that scientists are publishing.

 

[swilow]

^Great post. I'll need to respond a bit more when the sleep thing has happened.

Why is that a requirement?
I consider myself Christian (sometimes) and I'm not convinced that Jesus existed at all.

Hmm. I guess my statement was slightly off. I found it a hard question to answer.

Perhaps it is required for a Christian to accept that an entity/deity/idea called "Jesus" issued 'correct' instruction regarding the nature of morality, reality, existence, from a supernatural (outside of nature) perspective, and these teachings and proclomations are objectively, fundamentally true to our universe. More to the point, perhaps a christian is one who follows these edicts BECAUSE they emanated from god/jesus-complex?

If you read the bible, and you don't take it literally, you can't be Christian (even if you live by it)?
Do you have to literally believe everything in the Bible?
Or just the supernatural stuff about Jesus?
Because nobody literally believes everything.

I think you need to have a believe that what Jesus was expressing was wisdom from outside of nature, from the perspective of the creator who built all function into this existence. If you think that Jesus simply had interesting political idea's, thats a different thing...

Its never all or nothing 4EVA.

According to you, I am Christian and I am not.

My opinion of another's Christianity is solely determined by their own statements to that end. If you describe yourself as a christian, then, to me, you are either gaslighting or you're a christian or something entirely new. :D

We don't require proof from science, either.
We just take the scientists word for it. Don't we?
We have faith that they know what they're talking about.

There's truth in that. However, a reasonable person can make a determination on the validity of another persons statements. Of course, Neil Degrasse-Tyson might be talking absolute shit, but I am willing to hedge my bets that, due to the lack of other people claiming his duplicity and my assesment of what I consider to be his credentials, he is not. I cannot do anything like saying that I have this proof myself. There's faith in there, but an equivocation fallacy in relating faith in the supernatural with reasoned faith in a statement/ideas validity. As was pointed out, faith in religion, and faith in science are not the same things.

There's heaps of religions, and likely been thousands of gods in human history. And yet, the sum of 2 and 2 will always equal 4, no matter what. There can exist an objectivity, I have reliable proof of that, and so I feel that it is not illogical to understand that others, too, have relable proof of this objectivity. If an objective viewpoint on the physical universe is what we seek, we use science. To examine existence as an experience, I use my subjective inner-elf.

Comparing science and religion does not make sense. I'm of the opinion that they aren't meant to oppose each other, but be complimentary to a complete view of both the internal and external world.

That the existence of god is not provable I guess is agnosticism.
That the existence of god has been disproven could be atheism. (these were just 2 stand-alone thoughts I wanted to share with your brainmass).

Religion tackles questions that science is incapable of tackling.
They cannot be directly compared by saying "one requires proof and the other doesn't".
Science revolves around proof, because it is the study of things that can be studied.

Agreed. Especially the last sentence, encapsulates a certain viewpoint I've been experimenting with.

All things can be examined, conceptually, at least. Though I would not know if that statement was false. :D

It seems like atheists are back-peddling, having hit a logical dead end, and attempting to re-brand themselves... But - really - they're actually divorcing atheism and adopting agnosticism.

Maybe atheists (though speaking collectively like that is sorta pointless) have matured. Early christian sects were fucking extreme at times, yet mellowed and became less binary. Perhaps that is happening. Of course, logic is the creed, and agnosticism is probably the most bluntly logical theological view.

Sorry if I haven't answered all your questions, but there were a lot and some of them I simply didn't have answers. But I tried to with the questions I could, and enjoyed having these thinks

Ultimately, I find atheism to be INFINITELY more boring then spirituality. I find science and spirituality to be equally compelling. I'm still reeling from an epic MXE extreme state last Thursday. I actually devised what I think 'might' be an original hypothesis for what this 3 dimensional reality is, but I am working on trying to explain it.

All I can say is that "hand-shaped energy-matrix" was a phrase I'm having to use to convey this idea. :D

 

[ForEverAfter]

an atheist believes there is no empirical evidence for god, and tends to think that rationality supports the position that no such evidence is likely to be found. An agnostic also believes there is no empirical evidence for the existence of god, but they do not see the idea of a god as less rational than any other means of explaining the creation of the universe.

Thanks. (And, well said.)
All this time, I thought atheists were people who believed God does not exist.

I find it odd, though, considering that we know nothing about the moment of creation, that one (reasonable) explanation as to what happened might be more (or less) rational than another... I keep hearing that word with atheists, "rational".

I can't wrap my head around what is irrational about God.
Nor can I wrap my head around what the alternative might be.
If God (as an explanation) is irrational, then something else must be more rational.
But, there is no consensus atheistic alternative (that I'm aware of) aside from spontaneous creation...

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but how is it rational for everything to just appear out of nothing? (Surely rational is not the right word.)

I am not sure where you get this idea. I am no scientist, but I was under the impression that for scientists to be taken seriously, they must publish their findings in journals where they outline their methodology in detail. I was also under the impression that scientific results were not taken seriously until other scientists confirm them by conducting similar experiments which get similar results. It is as transparent as things are going to get.

If you mean that we don't put much weight on the scientific opinions of people who are not scientists, this is true. I am not sure why this should be surprising to anybody, generally speaking, we leave professional work to the relevant professionals. You don't call an accountant to fix your pipes, you call a plumber. Anyone is free to pursue an education in science and review the work that scientists are publishing.

You misread what I was saying...
I'm comparing scientists (and the scientifically educated) to prophets (and their devout followers).
The vast majority of the population have not witnessed scientific proofs first-hand, but they believe scientific theories.
Similarly, most religious people do not know God directly; they have faith that the prophets know God.

I'll need to respond a bit more when the sleep thing has happened.

Me, too.

 

[drug_mentor]

Thanks. (And, well said.)
All this time, I thought atheists were people who believed God does not exist.

I find it odd, though, considering that we know nothing about the moment of creation, that one (reasonable) explanation as to what happened might be more (or less) rational than another... I keep hearing that word with atheists, "rational".

I can't wrap my head around what is irrational about God.
Nor can I wrap my head around what the alternative might be.
If God (as an explanation) is irrational, then something else must be more rational.
But, there is no consensus atheistic alternative (that I'm aware of) aside from spontaneous creation...

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but how is it rational for everything to just appear out of nothing? (Surely rational is not the right word.)

There are certainly atheists who believe god absolutely does not exist, but these people do not have a monopoly on atheism any more than organised religion has a monopoly on the concept of god.

One line of thinking that might lead one to conclude that the existence of god was irrational would be the idea that before god created the Universe, something had to create god. Using occams razor, some people might conclude that an explanation which can explain the Universe in its entirety is a simpler explanation than having to explain both god and the universe, and therefore believe the former explanation more valid.

I also think that because we use physics to try and explain the origins of the universe, people look at the idea of natural laws and they automatically associate this with science, which a lot of people consider to be incompatible with god. Aside from that, explaining the origin of the universe in this way makes the idea of god less tangible, because the focus is on the laws and how they govern the physical world, not on the potential author of those laws.

I tend to agree with you that there is nothing inherently irrational about the idea of god or creationism in general. I think that a lot of people take organised religion to have a monopoly on what god means, and they don't really consider broader interpretations of god which they have little exposure to. In my opinion, taking the doctrine of organised religion literally is pretty silly, and since that bullshit has been crammed down peoples throats for hundreds of years, I do have some sympathy for those who just say fuck it and reject all definitions and possibilities in relation to the idea of god.

You misread what I was saying...
I'm comparing scientists (and the scientifically educated) to prophets (and their devout followers).
The vast majority of the population have not witnessed scientific proofs first-hand, but they believe scientific theories.
Similarly, most religious people do not know God directly; they have faith that the prophets know God.

I did misinterpret you there, thanks for clarification.

I understand what you are driving at, but I don't think science and religion are analogous in terms of the type of faith that they demand. Whilst it is certainly true that the majority of people don't understand hard science, and in that respect are forced to take scientists word for things, there is a strong element of verifiability when it comes to science. You might not understand science, but you can make reasonable inferences about the truth based on the persons qualifications, and the general acceptance of their theories in the wider scientific community. Religion comes down to faith, there is no meaningful way to confirm or verify that what you are being told is true.

 

[ForEverAfter]

One line of thinking that might lead one to conclude that the existence of god was irrational would be the idea that if god created everything, something had to create god.

I'm kind of stoned so I apologize if I've misinterpreted this, but I think you're saying that the existence of God (according to some atheists) is irrational because something (God) cannot just appear from nothing... but, isn't that the alternative theory (about the universe) anyway? If atheists don't reject spontaneous creation as irrational, how can they reject the spontaneous creation of God as irrational? I know you do not speak for "them", by the way. I'm just engaging with your response.

The assumption is incorrect, anyway, I think. (And, since you said you don't find creationism irrational, maybe you agree with the following. But, I'm going to say it anyway for argument's sake.)

The universe has an observable beginning, so it's reasonable to assume that there was a moment of "creation" / birth / whatever you want to call it. The Big Bang implies creation (whether it be spontaneous or divine). Whereas God doesn't have an observable beginning (or end), so - without projecting cosmic/human traits - why assume that God is finite and was created by another God?

there is a strong element of verifiability when it comes to science. You might not understand science, but you can make reasonable inferences about the truth based on the persons qualifications, and the general acceptance of their theories in the wider scientific community.

Replace the word "science" with "religion", replace "the truth" with "the existence of God" and replace "the general acceptance of their theories in the wider scientific community" with "their stature among history's holy men and women".

Obviously, science and religion require different amounts and types of faith.
But, they both require a great deal of faith (unless you're a scientist / prophet).

The vast majority of current scientific theories will be disproved within the century. Verifying theories based on how commonly accepted they are is limited to what we know. But, yes, if you are science-minded and you have good math skills and what-not, you can verify shit (to some extent) yourself...

But, the same applies to religion.
If you know God, you can comprehend holy texts.
You can detect false prophecy (and false prophets).

There are many holy men and women / artists / writers / philosophers / etc, that have experienced God in exactly the same way I (and millions of others) have. I see it all the time. It's hard to explain, though. Everything God-related is difficult (maybe impossible) to explain, because we don't share any reference points. New terms need to be invented. This is why holy texts differ so much. One story is as good as another, since they're all utterly inadequate. If you know what they're trying to say, though - if you have experienced the same thing - then, it makes sense. Like if you're dealing with a non-verbal infant. The baby can't ask for milk. It just makes noises. Might as well be any noise. But, you know what it means.

Most religious people who claim they have faith "fill in some of the blanks".

I don't think it's unreasonable to have faith that God exists, having not experienced Him directly, given the enormous number of direct personal accounts written by intelligent and articulate men and women. Is there any other similarly widespread delusion?

Faith in current scientific theory - on the other hand - is questionable, IMO, since we've observed so many historical scientific blunders.

Religion comes down to faith and perhaps rationality to some extent, there is no meaningful way to confirm or verify that what you are being told is true.

There is a way to confirm it, but you cannot achieve what you deem impossible.

 

[drug_mentor]

I tend agree with you, but I can see why some people might tend to think it makes more sense that the entire Universe was created out of nothing, than it does that a single entity was created out of nothing, which then went on to create everything else. I don't subscribe to this view, largely for reasons you have already stated, I was just trying to give some reason that an atheist might have for rejecting the rationality behind belief in god.

In my original definition, I used the word rationality, I think that intuition would be just as appropriate, and that intuition is probably driving the beliefs of as many atheists as rationality. I tend to think that most people who spend much time thinking philosophically about these matters end up identifying as agnostic, or any number of less conservative theological viewpoints.

I also tend to agree that atheism is a less tenable position than agnosticism, logically speaking. However, I do maintain that the difference between agnosticism and atheism is very small, and that it is incorrect to pigeonhole atheism into the narrow definition of being the assertion of absolute certainty that god does not exist.

 

[murphythecat]

There are soccer fans and professional soccer players. Can we say that a soccer fan has the same life has a professional soccer player? there many different type of buddhist. theres fan of buddhist that believes more or less the principles of buddhism but dont practice. that imo doesnt make them practionners. For me, a buddhist is someone who practice very seriously. so we cannot put all buddhist in the same boat. for the buddhist fan, buddhism is indeed more related to a ''religion''.

for practionners, buddhism is a practice and a training. Faith is useless as long as that faith doesnt translate in serious practice. serious practice is basically practicing mindfulness in every moment, guarding the senses and meditation daily.
once this is being done, its obvious for my mind that im able to change my mind and I begin to really believe in a state of mind where unhappiness couldnt arise anymore (nibbana). but again, you dont need faith in order to begin the practice, but for sure, the practice will eventually bring faith as the changes in one's own mind is evident if the practice is being done seriously.

the buddha himself said to not have faith in him, but to try for ourselves and test his methods. he stress this point so often, he says himself that blind faith is totally discouraged by him. blind faith is not part of a practionner. a practionner who doesnt give up his practice is someone who has seen for himself the benefit that some buddhist practice bring to their quality of life. it became, with my practice, evident how much unhappy my mind was, how out of control and out of touch and how unhappy it felt for very stupid reasons. my practice helps me so much nowadays, I can really say that my quality of life has drastically changed.

meditation is science of the mind because its repeatable, explainable and will bring the same result for everyone if the method are applied. meditation is science of the mind. meditation, in pali, means science of the mind.
You really can learn to stop the thinking process, to still the mind, to change the way we perceive things, to find another way to experience relaity and to find peace in situation where it would seem impossible to find peace. I guess it requires faith at first, but practice eliminates doubt. just like I began playing soccer, how many time did I thought I could never do it, but I have trained myself and now am a great player.

The practice is aim in order to gain insight into reality. insights into our mind, to learn our mind, learning how it works and how to protect it. its very weird saying it like that, but I feel that I have teach and learn to my mind very important method in order to protect him from bad tendencies. im far from done though!

we all try to better ourselves and to learn ways to find more hapiness and less incomfort. thats all that matters at the end. how to be more happy, more at ease, more peaceful, more content ect.

I find the word religion should be ban as it contains so much negativity and problem. its such a broad term that brings inevitability negativity. it creates boundaries, duality, problem. most words do. words do not describe reality.
I have went in college in Religion, you should see the amount of definition there is for the word religion.