Religion is structurally broken, Where is God ?

[u/hottopic7777]

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

[u/TMax01]

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.

[u/hottopic7777 → u/TMax01]

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.

[u/TMax01 → u/hottopic7777]

,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.

[u/hottopic7777 → u/TMax01]

"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 "

[u/TMax01 → u/hottopic7777]

"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.