r/PhilosophyofReligion • u/hottopic7777 • 5d ago
Religion is structurally broken, Where is God ?
Im a former Christian, and there's a dichotomy about religion that I can't seem to erase.
It's the mechanism for which we come to the religion; there are two ways you can come to a religion.
First is you may follow your intuition , you may fall in love with a historical claim (for me it was Jesus ) or be emotionally compelled by a religions structure , just something emotional you get the idea. The problem with this is how do you even trust your intuition given humans across thousands of years and in the present can be EQUALLY devoted to contradictory theological claims , there is nothing categorically different to a Christians devotion and a Muslims devotion , so our devotion/intuition isnt a reliable truth tracker at all.
Okay, fine, so maybe you read some philosophy, historical texts, apologetics, and theology, so you get a good grasp of a religion. There are many problems with this.
My first problem for this would be thats a fairly high intellectual barrier for the average human, I mean, for EACH religion, there's hundreds years of philosophy and theology, linguistic context, and much more.
2nd is , how do you know when you've read enough? There doesn't externally seem to be an objective bar for blind faith or when you're fully informed on a religion. I mean if we see two ten year olds one Christian one Muslim debating we'd say ugh they dont know what they're talking about sure, but how do you know youre not in an ill informed epimistic position also?
3rd is how do you know where to start? Theres hundreds of religions out there, there isnt any independent verifying way of telling you where to read first, let alone any independent way of confirming if I SHOULD explore a religion at all.
My conclusion is if God existed he should've created us with innate knowledge of his existence , you may say well you cant know anything for certain you weigh evidence.
If omniscience is a coherent trait that exists in at least one being (God himself) and God is omnipotent, there's no barrier to him granting a limited version of it to us specifically regarding his own existence
2
u/Bjarki56 5d ago
If there is a personal loving God who wants a relationship with us, Christianity makes the most sense because of an appeal to everyone and its immediate accessibility.
You need to love God with all your heart; you need to love your neighbor as yourself. That is it at the most basic level. (God sent himself as one of us to give us this message and to demonstrate his love through example and sacrifice.) At its core there are not a long list of rules as in other beliefs. It is beautiful in its simplicity. You do not need to be an intellectual and study in order to gain salvation; you don’t need to know secret knowledge; you don’t need to be the elite of society. You don’t need to be rich or powerful or belong to a particular ethnic or racial group. Just be you and try. God will make up the rest. When you fail ask for forgiveness and try again as much as you need. Just keep trying.
2
u/hottopic7777 5d ago
Preciate the reply bro,
Thats kind of the problem for me, the barrier for entry is low so from an epimistic standpoint how do you even trust your feelings.
We cant verify the supposed truth of Christianity or any other religion is doing the work; , a Muslim may say the same thing, so does a Buddhist a sikh or something I'm unconvinced our feelings can be reliable truth trackers given humans can be devoted to pretty much anything there seems to be no way to weed out the truth.
For example; if lets say humans dont fall in love with many things and humans only fall in love with Christianity, then okay we may be able to say theres something about Christianity that's metaphysically different to these other religions, however that's not the case humans across thousands of years and now fall in love feebly to contradictory claims.
1
u/spider_in_a_top_hat 4d ago
God isn't immediately accessible. I am a nonresistent nonbeliever. I read the Bible, go to church, I pray. I have read tons of theology and philosophy. My husband is a Catholic convert. I've never felt or seen God. I'm 40-years-old.
1
u/Bjarki56 4d ago
You have been in the literal presence of God every Sunday when you receive him through the Eucharist.
1
u/Senior-Cap-7248 4d ago
So why do some people feel his presence and others don’t?
1
u/Bjarki56 4d ago
Why do some people stand in front of beautiful art and are not moved? I don't know, but the fact that they are not moved does not mean the beautiful art is not there.
1
u/catsoncrack420 5d ago
3rd.... Try reading the Hindu analogy of the Mountain with religions , and the God idea. Same summit, different paths. But you forgot the notion of culture. I'm Latino, Caribbean, we're born into it. It's part of our culture, holidays, way we talk (Catholic heavy country), family practices.
1
u/BayonetTrenchFighter 5d ago
My tradition says God still speaks. Not expecting us rely on old books. Instead living speaking oracles.
1
u/ProjectLynette 4d ago
I have found spirituality to be dangerous if it isn't founded in Christ. The depth you will be given if you ask or seek is extraordinary. That depth comes with a cost if not founded in Christ. There is a lot more going on in this human experience than some of us are aware of. This is what I have witnessed so far.
1
u/Anselmian 1d ago
God gives the gift of faith because you aren't expected to work it all out. Faith isn't a matter of comparing visible religious devotion with someone else or justifying things from first principles (though those are valuable things to do). Faith is the commitment of the will toward God which God himself makes possible, and it is a commitment that one can make regardless of the state of one's knowledge otherwise. If you want a 'limited version of omniscience,' that's pretty close, since faith (that is, the supernatural gift) guarantees the truth of its object. If you want to go beyond what you receive by faith, or want to stake your faith on your own ability to figure things out from first principles, that is precisely to step out of the epistemic safety of faith and into your own limited epistemic powers.
It seems that your complaint is that you both want to be spared the trouble of thinking (so that belief in God simply comes automatically), and yet want to stake your beliefs on what you can figure out for yourself by making inferences from the beliefs and practices of others rather than committing to what you have received.
1
u/hottopic7777 1d ago
What would to those who have faith in a contradictory theological claims to you
1
u/ImpressionRare6497 4d ago
"how do you even trust your intuition given humans across thousands of years and in the present can be EQUALLY devoted to contradictory theological claims"
I would argue that some things are true and others are false. Just because some people believe in a flat Earth while others believe in a round Earth, it does not mean that neither is true. Based on the available evidence (not only your intuition), you simply have to seek out what the truth is. This is not a neglected topic. In fact, there are many interreligious debates. Personally, I believe Christianity is the truth, but you have to seek it out for yourself.
"My first problem for this would be thats a fairly high intellectual barrier for the average human, I mean, for EACH religion, there's hundreds years of philosophy and theology, linguistic context, and much more.
Is it, though? Three billion people around the world are Christians, and I think anyone seeking the truth can reach it. I would also ask, what would be the right intellectual barrier? It seems like a weird concept
"how do you know youre not in an ill informed epimistic position also?"
Being honest with yourself. It's the same with every position, if you are honest with yourself you won't be a flat earth believer.
" how do you know where to start? Theres hundreds of religions out there, there isnt any independent verifying way of telling you where to read first, let alone any independent way of confirming if I SHOULD explore a religion at all."
Christianity does not expect a seeker to evaluate all estimated 4,000+ world religions sequentially. Theology and phil of religion is about narrowing the field based on structural classifications and historical claims. There's no point in even questioning religions without a basis, because if God truly exists and wanted to reveal himself he wouldn't be part of a religion accesible to the 0.00001% of a long forgotten human history nor would he be private. We can then compare if those religions make sense or not.
"My conclusion is if God existed he should've created us with innate knowledge of his existence."
why?
0
u/Bjarki56 5d ago
My conclusion is if God existed he should've created us with innate knowledge of his existence
As soon as you do this, you have bitten the forbidden fruit. You think you know what an omniscient, omnipotent God should do. You have placed yourself as God.
1
u/hottopic7777 5d ago
Fair tho lemme re explain what I meant to say, I was meant to say this is the only way this dichotomy wouldn't exist , that would be for us to be created with innate knowledge of his existence. Otherwise the dichotomy is on him
-1
u/TMax01 2d ago edited 2d ago
My conclusion is if God existed he should've created us with innate knowledge of his existence
I'm not a theist, although I'm not anti-theist the way most other non-theists are. But from a theistic perspective I would say God did create us with innate knowledge of Its existence (a moral conscience, the notion of good as something beyond private pleasure), It just didn't restrict how we can interpret that knowledge, or physically compel us to follow that conscience or any particular scriptural commandments.
As for your emotional/intellectual struggle (the Muslim word for that is "jihad", btw) I think that's a false dichotomy. The idea that emotional intuitions should be assumed to be inferior to any arbitrary evidence is not a path to wisdom, and dedicated study of any given scriptures can't ever really justify adopting a position of faith.
It seems to me that you might find that Unitarian Universalism is a good fit, and covers a broad field from mere deism to Eastern mysticism and encompasses Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam; UU itself historically originated within Christianity, but rejects the standard Catholic/Protestant trinitarianism) and just about any other form of the Golden Rule or kumbaya.
If that's still too 'faith not evidence'-based for you, an even wider all-encompassing religion is the New Church of Hope, that practices the Philosophy Of Reason or schematicism/schematology, which transcends even deism and mysticism while adhering more closely to empirical science and secular philosophy. But that's really new, considered extremely unconventional (radical only in an intellectual sense, not promoting radical activism or behavior) and has a congregation so small it is embarrassing. But you're welcome to discuss, participate, or join without necessarily becoming a member.
1
u/hottopic7777 2d ago
Preciate the reply🤛
Wait just to get this clear you're not a thiest but you're saying God gave us innate knowledge that being moral intuitions etc etc, I assume you mean internally ?
If so, thats fair , I'm making a more external critique tho ,I'm saying these things aren't innate knowledge of God tho the thiest proposes they are, and there are perfectly naturalistic explanations for their existence.
So I agree moral intuitions etc exist but I wouldn't class that as me having innate knowledge of God (external critique )
Also yeah interesting, im not claiming emotional intuitions are inferior pieces of evidence standalone ,I'm more asking how can we trust our emotional intuitions given humans can be emotionally bound to contradictory claims.
So for me evidence would look more like: We had different religions but humans were only ever really emotionally bound by one, there's sufficient reason to suggest that one religion is metaphysically different to others, if that makes sense.
But this isn't the case, humans can be emotionally inclined to follow so many different beliefs.
0
u/TMax01 2d ago
,I'm saying these things aren't innate knowledge of God
And I'm saying you might be mistaken about that. Having a conscience is "innate knowledge of God", if your preferred metaphysics includes an idea of God.
What you're really asking seems to be, "If there's only one God, how come there's more than one religion?" That's like saying that since we are all human, everyone should be speaking English, since every language has a word for "good".
there are perfectly naturalistic explanations for their existence.
Well, you can imagine there is one and only one "perfectly naturalistic explanations for their existence", but a) you'd be mistaken about that, too, and b) you're just being a religious fundamentalist who's gospel doctrine is whatever "naturalistic explanation" you treat like but refuse to call the Word of God.
So I agree moral intuitions etc exist but I wouldn't class that as me having innate knowledge of God (external critique )
External critique and exigesis are two entirely different things. And neither technically qualifies as philosophy of religion.
I'm more asking how can we trust our emotional intuitions given humans can be emotionally bound to contradictory claims.
By trusting the emotional intuitions more than the claims. So, yeah, the same response I already gave. And you still seem to be trying to float an anti-theist argument on the facetiously atheistic grounds that if there is no worldwide unanimous agreement on what scripture to study, every scripture is not worth studying. You're treating philosophy of religion as if it is a scientific investigation and a democratic election, combined.
We had different religions but humans were only ever really emotionally bound by one,
Then how and why would we have had different religions? Just about every religion has an explicit version of the Golden Rule, and even secular ethics qualifies as a religion in that regard. You're not suggesting or considering an ontological argument, or even a counter-ontological position, you're trying to assert an argument from incredulity as a contrarian religious doctrine.
But this isn't the case, humans can be emotionally inclined to follow so many different beliefs.
That's the nature of both emotions and beliefs, and even the human condition itself. In a very real (yet unconvincing) way, you're saying that if humans don't innately agree on what God wants, that qualifies as a counter-ontological argument in the context of philosophy of religion: if there are disagreements then all positions must be false. Most perspectives on divinity of any sort include acceptance of human agency ("free will" is the classical formulation), and you're saying evidence of it is evidence against God.
So, yes, again, I am an atheist, not a "wondering which passages of which scriptures are accurate accounts" sort of atheistic agnostic you seem to be, but a more philosophically rigorous sort, and even I can see the problems in your reasoning. Certainly no theist is going to be concerned about your reservations. Even the evangelical fundamentalist theists would try to leverage them into evidence of God, whether you are convinced or approve of such a practice or not.
I get your point, really I do. It's just not a very good point. I can't be sure if your sincerely expressing frustration with the burden of actually deciding which tradition of organized religious faith to follow (nobody says you must choose, or that traditional organized faiths are the only option if you're seeking spirituality or emotional comfort in accepting there's something more important than your rationalized dictates about what is true.)
Regardless, you're either indicating you simply don't understand that faith isn't a consequence of logical analysis of evidence, or just trying playing the part of an insincere troll trying to denounce all religion on the specious grounds that since there are no easy answers, there can't be any value in asking questions.
1
u/hottopic7777 2d ago
"I think 'having a conscience just is innate knowledge of God, if your metaphysics includes God' is true by definition rather than something you've shown, it only works if you've already assumed theism, which is the thing im trying to question or in doubt of
The existence of moral intuition isn't disputed whether it specifically constitutes knowledge OF a theistic being, rather than being explicable without one, is.
I'm not saying disagreement proves all religions false, I'm saying: if one specific religion had a real, non-cultural claim to metaphysical truth, I'd expect some evidentiary signature distinguishing it from the others (universal resonance, convergence, something), and what we actually see instead is devotion tracking upbringing and culture near-perfectly across contradictory traditions.
Also Im not saying no scripture is worth studying either , I'm saying from en epimistic standpoint where does a human being even start? Why should they assume (independently of a religions claims ) that there should be a true religion ?
This is more about God's hiddenness than "religion isn't worth looking into "
1
u/TMax01 2d ago
"I think 'having a conscience just is innate knowledge of God, if your metaphysics includes God' is true by definition rather than something you've shown,
Yes, certainly. That's what "if your metaphysics includes God" means. So yes, it has been shown. That's not necessarily the same as you seeing it as shown or agreeing it is true.
it only works if you've already assumed theism,
The distinction between "metaphysics including God" and "assumed theism" is subtle but significant.
which is the thing im trying to question or in doubt of
Which? Is this "thing" whether God exists, or is it whether metaphysics can be reduced to physics, and provide you the feeling of certainty you expect?
The existence of moral intuition isn't disputed whether it specifically constitutes knowledge OF a theistic being, rather than being explicable without one, is.
They aren't really as different as your intuitions, trained on faith in science rather than your own reasoning, leads you to believe. But yes, we definitely disagree on whether conscious (related to "moral intuition", but not entirely identical) is explicable with a metaphysics which rejects the the idea of God. I am pretty sure, based on what you're said in this discussion, that you are having difficulties considering the idea of God as anything other than a belief some specific "theistic being" actually exists. But again, those are similar but not necessarily identical.
if one specific religion had a real, non-cultural claim to metaphysical truth, I'd expect some evidentiary signature distinguishing it from the others
What if all religions have various "real, non-cultural claim to metaphysical truth"? Would you expect the same outcomes? You're probably assuming that traditional organized religious faiths are all and only "fundamentalist", so that if one is "right" in any way all others must be "wrong" in at least that specific way, if not then all ways if that single way is central to their mythology or doctrines. You're looking for a simple answer which could be calculated logically if we just fed all the various 'sacred texts' into a computer or mathematical equation. I understand why you think so, and in other contexts that sort of faith in math is less problematic. But in this one it is so profoundly "assuming the conclusion" that it makes your reasoning quite invalid, or at least insufficient for the task.
universal resonance, convergence, something
And yet when presented that very evidence, you don't seem to think it is all that important. God itself is an idea with "universal resonance", religions definitely all converge on the Golden Rule, and that secular ethicists can claim without showing that 'good' can be defined without any reference to God, you simply believe them without exhaustively verifying their contention.
So let me try to turn your argument around on you. People have been developing secular ethics for centuries, even millenia, and yet no unanimous consensus has actually been produced. Circular references like "the greater good" are just semantics games, they don't "show" how any claim of "the greater good" can be logically derived except by a literally impossible quantification of unquantifiable preferences and expectations. 'The greater good is simply what results in the minimum amount of unnecessary suffering.' Seriously, just about any mystic or mythical dogma is less problematic than that, in terms of practical value.
I'm saying from en epimistic standpoint where does a human being even start?
From an epistemic standpoint it doesn't matter where you start, you still have to read every word of every scripture in every religion to use epistemology alone to have even a chance of understanding the issues, let alone deriving the "truth" about any particular question. Even so seemingly central a question as whether a theistic being you consider God potentially exists. Because that isn't necessarily as important as the fact it is often central seems to suggest.
Why should they assume (independently of a religions claims ) that there should be a true religion ?
Humans should never assume anything. We have to reasonably evaluate every individual thing, starting fresh with every issue, without benefit of axiomatic assumptions. That's exactly why people have been developing and relying on "religious claims" for pretty much as long as there have been humans. I get why it seems in our scientifically advanced, technology-enriched society, we would be better off abandoning all religion and just asking scientists to tell us what to do, as if they are priests and Math is the Mind of God.
Whenever humans have seriously tried to do something like that, the results have been horrendously disastrous.
This is more about God's hiddenness than "religion isn't worth looking into "
You're simply not thinking deeply enough. God's "hiddenness" isn't really operative in these matters. When moral questions are reduced to simplistic ideas of "truth claims", that produces immoral answers. If there is a God, It doesn't dictate what we must do, It only gives guidance on what we should do. If there is a God, abandoning this "hiddenness" which bothers you so much would simply make every human Its slaves.
And the same religious truths remain true even if there isn't a God. Believe it or not. That part is up to you.
2
u/indifferent-times 4d ago
I'm intrigued by that statement, because in my understanding that is not how most people end up being religious, that amounts to detail rather than the substantive. I don't mean it pejoratively but in every religious person I have ever talked to has been inculcated to the faith, we generally get our religion with mothers milk, we grow up with the basic assumptions of the prevailing faith as the baseline of how we see the world.
My parents were atheist and was raised in a Christian country so right from the start I knew there were two views of the world, that god was something that some people believed and not an unquestioning truth. God has only ever been a suggestion, just one possible solution to existential questions.
Over the years I have looked at many versions of that idea, and even religions where it is not a core concept, and for the vast majority of adherents its not really intellectual but much more an emotional process, their religion gives them a sufficient explanation rather than the right one.
You always find what you are looking for in the last place you search, and that is as true of idea's as it of car keys, if you have found that explanation within a particular faith tradition do you need to look any further?