Objective Religious Study
November 22nd, 2005 | by Dr. Forbush |Ninety-nine percent of all religions are wrong. How do I know? I know, because all religions contradict each other. And, most religions believe that they are the one true religion. If these religions contradict each and they claim to be the one true religion then only one of them can be right and the rest must be wrong.
However, if a religion is wrong is that bad? Most people would agree that it depends on what the religion is wrong about. If the main issue is whether the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus or a symbol of community one could argue that there is little serious difference between the beliefs and it doesn’t really matter who is wrong and who is right on this issue. Since the entire concept of Christianity pertains to community it makes little sense to even argue about this issue at all and instead concentrate on bringing the Christian community together.
But, who’s to say that any Christian sect is the one true religion, if one exists at all? After all, Paul and Jesus didn’t even agree on several points. In fact, the Bible contradicts itself in many ways and in many places. Add to those 2000 years of theologians creating ways to reconcile different ideas in the Bible. Then stepping back and looking at the Bible we find that it contradicts the observations of the real world. The Earth is round and orbits the sun, which aren’t even the center of the galaxy let alone the center of the universe. There is no water above the firmament. In fact there isn’t any firmament; gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth and is not contained by any material.
At this point we should consider what Religion is anyway. Religion is man’s natural response to the supernatural. Supernatural in this context is anything that is beyond the natural world. Since the supernatural is beyond the natural world science can not measure is by definition. Science is the observation of natural world. Religion is how man responds to the supernatural. And, since religion involves response to something that isn’t part of our natural world it gives us a handle on the supernatural.
For a moment let us assume that the supernatural exists outside the realm of our natural world and man can recognize and observe it through some unknown ways. All religions agree that man has some contact with the supernatural. If they believed that there was no possible contact in either direction there would be no point to the religion. So, for this argument we will not consider atheism.
Let us step back and look at religion as a scientific measurement device. Now, I hear some groaning and doubting going on out there. This is because all religions believe that they are the one and only true religion and they already know everything there is to know about man’s response to the supernatural. Take one moment to imagine that you might be wrong, because we already know that 99% of all religions are wrong about some aspect of their belief. The odds are pretty good that your religion is wrong about something. So, instead of concentrating on where other religions might be wrong we should look at religions in general and discover what things are similar, because similar responses to the supernatural are bound to be important responses.
So, what do religions in general tell us about man’s response to the Supernatural? Religions tell us that there is at least one supernatural being and respecting and honoring that being is a good thing. The majority of religions believe that this supernatural being created the universe and everything in it and this being cares about his creation. We should also consider the possibility of multiple supernatural beings, but these manifestations could be multiple aspects of one being. Abraham realized that one being manifesting multiple aspects was more powerful than multiple beings manifesting one aspect each. So religion concluded the belief in one God was more powerful than the belief in multiple gods.
But, religion tells us more than just the nature of the Supernatural. Religion tells us about behavior chiefly how we should behave. Since Religion is man’s response to the supernatural, man wants to know how he should behave. Through out human history there have been those who have devoted themselves to religious life. In general Religious life is concerned with fixation on the supernatural in an effort to learn what the humans should know about the supernatural. Over thousands of years man has learned quite a bit about the supernatural and what is expected of humans on this planet in this universe. He has divined that some behaviors are pleasing to the supernatural being while other behaviors displease the supernatural being.
Across the board the majority of religions agree that murder, stealing and lying displease the almighty. It is also fairly obvious that disrespecting any being would certainly displease that being, therefore disrespecting the supernatural being is bad behavior. It turns out that all these behaviors also help maintain order in society.
One aspect of religion is that it evolves over time. Primitive religions recognized the supernatural in the power of nature. Each aspect of power became a supernatural being. Lightening, Ocean, Volcano, Wind and Sun evolved into gods. Then these aspects merged into the concept of Mother Nature or a Super God or Titan. Abraham then merged all power into the aspect of one God and monotheism was born. But religion didn’t stagnate, instead it continued to evolve. Other religions also evolved as well. The evolution of religion was concerned with two main issues. First, how should man behave? And, how should man communicate with the supernatural.
Along the lines of behavior man recorded stories, allegories, myths, lessons and real history in order to have examples that describe what people should do in every possible situation. Hypothetical behavior is one thing, but there are always the particular where one needs to decide between two evil choices.
Along the lines of communication man studied prayer, meditation, ritual and contemplation. As the religious continued to study communication by using drugs, alcohol, sleep deprivation, pain, hunger and thirst. Hallucinatory images were revered as a form of communication with the supernatural. Over time these communications were compiled into the wisdom of each individual religion. But, since each religion believed itself to be the one true religion these ideas remained isolated and unpruned.
Unlike the free market place of ideas religions tended to keep its ideas in isolation. Because of this mistakes in understanding the intention of the supernatural being could not be corrected. In a free market of ideas the silly ones would be weeded out, as other religions that had better communications with the almighty on certain issues would prevail. In this way one super religion would evolve for all people on Earth with more of the best aspects of every religious idea in the free market place of ideas.
We can look at how Jesus helped religion evolve into a better form. In his three years of public life Jesus’ main message was: “Use love and understanding in addition to the Law to build a better community.” Jesus is saying that following the law pleases God, but when the law causes harm, use compassion instead. Break the “no work on the Sabbath” law when someone needs your help. Why should we do this? Because we are all sons and daughters of God our Father and therefore all of humanity is family. And, family takes care of each other. Jesus described taking care of the lowest in society because it is the right thing to do. Obviously this is a major step forward in the evolution of religion.
When someone does something amazing they earn respect. Sometimes when someone does something outstanding people repeat and exaggerate the feat. In the case of the amazing Jesus some people even called him God. Of course when Jesus called himself the Son of God some people claimed that he was proclaiming himself God, because a Son of a God must be a God, Right. But these same people ignore the fact that Jesus also called God "Our Father.” That makes us all sons and daughters of God and does not imply that each one of us are gods, right?
The one thing that I am sure about is that no one knows what the one true religion is. In fact, I believe that no religion has everything right. On the other hand, I also believe that every religion has something right so we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The wise person realizes this and knows that there are many paths to God and the free market of ideas is where they are tested.
God has many aspects that humans experience in their response to the Supernatural. I believe that there is one God, but He reveals himself in many ways. Humans interpret this revelation in different ways and create for themselves a personal understanding of God for themselves.
If you see God as nature, as the Goddess, as a man on a cloud, as a spirit that moves deep inside yourself or as a relationship with Jesus you are seeing God in different ways that God has chosen to reveal himself.
Since man is human he can never know the full extent of God, therefore he must accept what he can understand.
18 Responses to “Objective Religious Study”
By MARTIN S FRIEDLANDER on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
Fifty years ago I wrote a college term paper entitled, “God, Man and Religion”. At that time the Korean War had just ended, and I just could not understand why man, throughout history killed his fellow man.
During the course of gathering material for my paper, I interviewed a Catholic Priest, a Protestant Minister, an Orthodox Rabbi, and a Quaker. All of these religious figures were schooled in the Ten Commandments, one of which stated in enscribed stone, “Thou Shall Not kill”. In view of that Commandment, why did religious war exist? Why did Catholics kill Catholics, Jews kill Jews, and Protestants kill Protestants? Of course they all killed members of the other’s religion.
The Priest, Minister and Rabbi all translated the absolute to the uncertain. Kill was different than “murder”. What? Killing was justified. When was killing justified? To save ones own life. To protect one’s country. To protect one’s religion. In other words, killing was not forbidden under certain “justifiable” circumstances. “Justifiable” was not written into the Commandment. If God’s “Original Intent” was to outlaw all killing except “justifiable” killing, the Commandment would have said so.
Quakers, on the other hand, literally followed the Commandment as written. They were “Pacifists”. If Abraham was the “father” of the three major religions, Judiasim, Christian, and Muslim, and the Ten Commandments were to be followed by all three religions, why did “killing” exist?
The last paragraph of my paper concluded that religion was just another force dividing mankind. Tribal members were allowed to kill other tribal members; One country was allowed to kill the inhabitants of another country; and religion was just an excuse to kill a member of another religion. Hindus and Muslims battle it out; Christians kill Muslims, and Jews. Where does it all end? Armageddon, if you are a Christian.
Can anyone out there explain to me the difference between a Christian Crusader and a Fundamentalist Muslim? Who is the “infidel”? Are the Crusades justifiable killing? Is 9/11 justifiable killing? Can anyone tell me the difference?
Morality is in the eyes of the immoral. Religion is just a lot of “crap”. So is atheism. Each competes with the other. “Original” sin is still alive and well if it ever existed. Let us chop down that apple tree to prevent Eve from temptiong Adam with that damm apple.
Save us from apples. An apple a day will keep the doctor away. A killing a day will keep “God” away. Since there is still at least one killing a day, there is no God. How is that for logic?
All of the above is illogical. That is what separates humans from other living things. We humans, all of whom are illogical, rule the earth and kill other living things. Need I say more?
Martin S Friedlander, Esq.
http://www.freedompost.typepad.com
By The Bastard on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
Religion is used to fill in the things that cannot yet be explained away by science. It’s that simple. That’s why we went from multiple Gods to one God.
If there was a God he/she/it could give a rats ass about us.
Belief systems are just a mind fuck way to control the masses.
Look Bush found Jesus and along with finding him he found how many millions of votes?
By Ivan on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
Pax tecum,
Methinks you are wrong, for religion is the expression of faith, not a response to the “supernatural.” We must remember what Saint John said in his Gospel: “You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.” A response to the supernatural does not make you free: it enslaves you to fear.
In peace,
Ivan
By LiberPaul on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
I like to think that religion is evolving into a more natural state. Meaning that what serves man best is slowly becoming dogma. The fact that some churhces have opened their doors to homosexuals gives me hope for the future. Although the fundies will still fight tooth and nail to preserve their fantasy….
By Dr. Forbush on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
Ivan,
To make the argument that St. John has the one true answer you are assuming that the Bible is the one true book without any mistakes.
What I said were that there are many different religions and only one could possibly be the true religion with all the correct answers. All of the other religions have at least one point that they disagree on. You have taken the point of view that YOUR chosen religion is the correct true religion. This is based on what ever lead to the religion - mainly fate. The odds are that your religion is wrong and you don’t know which things in your religion are the ones that are wrong. Maybe the quote that you have quoted me is one of those things that is wrong. No one knows for sure which parts of their chosen religion are wrong, but certainly every religion has pieces that are wrong.
But, if the Bible is the one true book without mistakes, how do you explain the many contradictions, like 2 Timothy 3:12 says that those who live godly will suffer persecution. But, Proverbs 16:7 says godly people will be at peace, even with their enemies. The only difference is being in Jesus Christ. So, shouldn’t we be godly but not in Jesus Christ so that we can live peacefully with our enemies? Funny they don’t mention that in Church…
By pia on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
As a cultural Jew, or one who accepts the culture and the chicken soup without the God part, I find it offensive on the part of Jews who do believe in God when The Bible–always the New Testament is used as the one true book
What am I? Chopped liver? What’s a Buddhist? Hindu? Or dare I say the word Muslim?
It’s dangerous when people use religion as the answer to any question
Very much agree with Dr. Forbush that every part of some religion is wrong.
Look what’s happening in this country now; as Ivan did people sprout proverbs instead of answers
People do so much wrong in the name of religion. Yet if you say that you’re a moral relativist to many people on the Internet, nothing you say can be right
Yet you have put much thought into your choices, much compassion, logic, caring–but it’s wrong, because it’s not a psalm
This whole world is new to me and one that I don’t particularly like. Now let me say that some of the people I have met on this Internet journey are true Christians and people I will always like and respect. Why?
They understand that life is complex and that there are no easy answers. But isn’t that also what makes life so great?
Let me stop before I write an entire philosphical discourse with myself
great post Dr Forbush
By Dr. Forbush on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
Thanks for the comment Pia. You got me thinking. I think that the differences in Religion are not between Christian, Jew, Muslim or even Pagen. The differences are between the Fundamentalist and Progressive Religious ideas.
Fundamentalists religions preach that they have all the answers and they are contained in their holy book, whichever one applies to their particular brand of religion. Progressives tend to believe that there are certain truths, but they do not have all the specific answers. Progressives require the believer to have faith and also think about their relationships to God and to the community and to the Universe as a whole. Fundamentalists would rather not be held responsible for making the responsible decisions and would rather have specific laws that describe every possible action for every situation.
In the extreme ends of the spectrum both approaches are flawed. Humans need to be able to make quick decisions on straightforward problems. But, they also need to be able to use some logic and compassion to come to reasonable conclusions on complex issues.
By divinecalm on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
I think you have won the prize for the longest post that I have seen today.
By BYOC on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
You know Doc I have to hand it to you that was a very thoughtful post. And I agree with much that you have said. But perhaps I do fall into that category commonly referred to as Atheism for the simple reason that I do not believe in scripture any more than a novel with a good idea because both where written by inspired men.
But the universe, now that is like a book written by god its self, the universe is supernatural, why is there? It doesn’t have to be here but it is? Is that natural? And that’s why I prefer science to scripture when searching to explain ultimate reality.
The thing that always cracks me up is the idea that life is spontaneous according to some assertion of evolutionary theory, followed often by the idea that life may be common in the universes if not traded between celestial bodies (made in image?) commonly known as the, “cosmic seed theory,†-lets make some nucleotides like growing crystals- but at the end of the day the original seed for all life on our planet (or any where else) always has to be begotten (rather randomly unless in some mathematical fatalism of the big bang) not made.
Oh and not that any one is asking but I think it was actually a pomegranate (rather un-PC-ly known as a, â€Chinese Apple,†that was the fruit in question found in the fall from grace story. I have been told that the translators of the King James Bible did not yet have a commonly understood translation for pomegranate so they chose another reddish fruit.
By Neo-conned on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you, Thomas Paine - one and all.
The village atheist could write this crap in his sleep.
Here’s a good poem, though:
The Riddle
Shall I love God for causing me to be?
I was mere utterance; shall these words love me?
Yet when I caused His work to jar and stammer,
And one free subject loosened all His grammar,
I love Him that He did not in a rage
Once and forever rule me off the page,
But, thinking I might come to please Him yet,
Crossed out ‘delete’ and wrote His patient ’stet’.
Richard Wilbur
By Neo-conned on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
What does all of this have to do with George Bush?
Well, one thing that all Christians are doctrinally obliged to agree upon is the sanctity of the individual human life.
Sorry, sheeple, but blowing women and children into little bloody bits - because Freedom is on the March or whatever - is 100%, without a doubt, un-Christian. If Operation Blow Up Innocent Iraqis is compatable with Christianity, then Christianity, as such, does not exist.
I think George Galloway has it just about right: for what they’ve done to Iraq, George Bush and Tony Blair “will burn in Hell - in the hell-fires.” That’s my kind of Christian.
By icoman on Nov 22, 2005 | Reply
The new science of cognitiva religion looks at it a little differently. Virtually every culture studied, that has existed over the past 40,000 years, had some type of religion and deities. They realize now that this was simply natural selection. As human communities grew it became important for survival to insure trust and cooperation in order to defend against outside communities that may invade territorial boundaries. Elaborate initiation rites and continuing rituals were divised to build this trust. These rituals slowly evolved into the religious services we see today.
Dieties and the supernatural were already in human mythology before religions developed. It is instinctive for almost all life forms to assign agents to all events. When a deer hears the trees russle it will immediately dart away. It imagines the noise was cause by its most feared preditor. If if was wrong then it didn’t lose anything, however, if it was right then it lived to see another day. Humans also have this instinct.
Our tribal ancesters assigned agents to all events. These were invisible agents that evolved into supernatural characters. Naturally, these agents were Man’s worst enemies. Man’s number one enemy is Man. Therefore, most of the primitive gods or spiritural agents were men or part man and part animal. There were very few female agents.
When humans began developing religions then these supernatural beings were readily available to use as overseaers which helped to maintain trust even when members of the community were off in remote areas. These agents continued to be feared beings just as fear continous to be the primary motivating force in religions today.
I recommend reading “In Gods We Trust” by Scott Atkin. He is a Clinical Psychologist and a Cognitive Anthropologist. This book is like the encyclopedia of the history of religions with nearly a thousand references.
By Neo-conned on Nov 23, 2005 | Reply
ZZZZZZZZZZ.
Clearly, people who do not believe in God have an overwhelming psychological need for proving why there is no God and why they themselves are superior to - but oh so ever tolerant of - those sometimes amiable, completely pitiful, dupes who do believe.
It is obvious that such a need is rooted in the structures of fear - fear of commitment, fear of the idea of certainty, fear of ……
Blah, blah, blah.
Scientistic discussions of God are pointless as the arguments you use can only come back around to be used against your own position.
The matter of God is ultimately beyond reason - or, rather, reason isn’t sufficient for understanding one’s relationship to God.
Either one believes, or one doesn’t.
Reason can settle nothing, here.
By BYOC on Nov 23, 2005 | Reply
But the universe, now that is like a book written by god its self…do we disagree?
Of course it doesn’t answer the question of which author you prefer to read.
By icoman on Nov 23, 2005 | Reply
It makes sense that those with religion find it useless to use reason to explain their gods. Psychologists confirm that some people tend to be spiritual while others are more rational and prone to reason. I’m sure that there are a few who delve in both just like there are some football players who are muscians.
One of the best comparisons of Religion to Science I’ve read is how these two deal with mysteries. Scientists take mysteries as a challenge and work until the mystery is solved. Religions, on the other hand, like to keep them mysterious and point to the only solution to the mystery is their gods.
Yes, reason does require a bit more work but, for one example, we sure wouldn’t have advanced so far in medicine today if it weren’t for those hard working scientists.
By MARTIN FRIEDLANDER on Nov 23, 2005 | Reply
If the truth shall make you free, Bush must be serving life imprisonment in hell. One man’s truth is another man’s lie.
Martin
By Kathy Gornik on Dec 3, 2005 | Reply
I am curious how the religious impulse might be explained in evloutionary terms. I would appreciate it if anyone who knows about research that is being conducted on this subject would forward me the references.
Thank you in advance.
By Kathy Gornik on Dec 3, 2005 | Reply
I am curious how the religious impulse might be explained in evloutionary terms. I would appreciate it if anyone who knows about research that is being conducted on this subject would forward me the references.
Thank you in advance.