philosophical/religious...all paths being equal

[Jack]

Ok.

I have a sort of philosophical or religious question

Is it possible that all religious/spiritual paths, including atheism, agnosticism, nontheism, and those sorts of belief systems be equally true?

I really don't think it is possible. I can understand how a Methodist, an Episcopalian, and a Catholic, for example, share the same shades of truth. Or a Hindu and Buddhist sharing much of the same truth. Or even a Jew and a Christian, for that matter. Some faiths and thought systems are more or less "related".

But I can not understand how a Muslim or an atheist would share the same truth. Some beliefs are directly at odds with others, so how could they all be equally true?

I guess I have never really thought about this before the last few days, but somebody told it to me like this:

"Anybody who believes in any kind of diety is by default implying that atheists are wrong. It can not be possible that both paths are equally true. A God either exists, or does not exist."

And I can't find a way to counter that argument. I'm not sure I want to, but I'm just wondering if it can be done?

[Darwin]

Ok.

I have a sort of philosophical or religious question

Is it possible that all religious/spiritual paths, including atheism, agnosticism, nontheism, and those sorts of belief systems be equally true?

I really don't think it is possible.

I agree. By simple logic, expicitly conflicting claims are unlikely to both be true. (I would say that they absolutely can't both be true, but one o' them philosopher types would probably be able to prove me wrong.)

However, conflicting beliefs can be equally untrue.

Agnosticism isn't really a "belief". It's more of an attitude.

What is "nontheism" as contrasted with "atheism"?

[Jack]

I actually don't know (the difference).

I'm not up to all the terms. I've variously seen people I'd call plain old atheists call themselves nontheist, de-theists, antitheists, all kinds of stuff. I'm not really sure what they all mean. Just that they all seem a like to me.

[BmacD]

Some will be driven to "prove" God exists by quoteing scripture that re-enforces their belief system . Others will use layered levels of logic to reach one conclusion or the other. If you believe God exists anyone elses "proofs" are unlikely to sway you. If you don't believe God exists ,again, another persons arguments are unlikely to change your mind.You seem to have a considered opinion on the subject already. Don't be sidetracked from your studies of the spiritual questions that really interest you.There are more profitable ways to spend your time than debateing the old" How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument.
Best,
Bruce

[BillChin]

Not directly answering the question, but related. For the longest time, I postulated that what happens to a person after he/she dies is based on belief system. If an atheist believes there is nothing, then when that person passes away, there is indeed nothing else. If a Christian believes in a judgement day with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, then that. If a Muslim martyr believes in 72 virgins, then that. Is there anything that prevents this from occuring? Nothing that I can see. The rub is that a Christian that believes the Muslim martyr will go to hell for murder, has no effect on the other person.

The mathematical construct would be that each person's unique plane of reality is intersecting with other living beings on this physical plane of living beings. Each person's belief system can hold 100% true on their plane of existence. A physical model would be many threads of light of different colors intersecting at one point in space. To each person the color of light is the true color, but during the time they spend living, they interact with others. Once free from the interaction, the light again becomes of one color. (There is probably a better metaphor, but this is what I have now.)
+ Bill

[Lorenzo]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument.

Or, are angels right wing, or are they left? Well, which do they favor? (Their feathers must be getting a little worn)

I think someone recently jested that we are all right. More than anything, I think that kind of attitude is good only to try and get along, since no one can prove it one way or the other. I still say, whoever reduced the 'many gods' down to 'one God'...the burdon is on them to demonstrate there is any truth to it. We know history well enough to be a little skeptical of the Judaic/Christian account. I don't build my house on one story.

(Mine is a two story house)

[Doug_Tipple]

Hello Cranberry,
Quaker colleges are expensive, as you have discovered. I couldn't afford to go to Earlham, which is only 20 miles from where I was born, so I went to Indiana University instead. With regard to your questions about God and comparitive religion, I think that you will discover, as I have, that your concept of God will change with time. How I looked at the world when I was 20 is a whole lot different than what I understand now that I am over 60. Enjoy life. Your concept of theology may change with time and experience, but some things remain constant. You can't go wrong with: Love your neighbor as yourself. Best wishes!

[anniemcu]

...
"Anybody who believes in any kind of diety is by default implying that atheists are wrong. It can not be possible that both paths are equally true. A God either exists, or does not exist."

And I can't find a way to counter that argument. I'm not sure I want to, but I'm just wondering if it can be done?

I wonder if there isn't the possibility that both *are* equal in this respect... each is a view to explain the known universe in terms that humankind can understand... G_D, whether you use quotation marks or deep faith, is, IMHO, so much more than we can even conceive of, that I think it *is* possible that both are equally correct, in that both are only a small portion of the whole truth.

I know that isn't going to come out very clearly, but I know that in my heart I have always believed that none of us have all the answers, and that all of us have at least part of the whole, if we think very deeply about it at all.

It is my belief that G_D, whther nature, single entity, or simple truth, is capable of touching and interacting with all people, regardless of language, custom, or any other difference. Even those who do not believe in *a* "god", and those who believe in *one* G_D, are both acknowledging that there is soem power greater than ourselves, and there is far more to the Universe than we currently (or are ever likely to) know, so both acknowledge whatever that higher power is. Some choose to name it, others choose not to. It still *is*.

LOL! Does that make any sense in answer to your question?

[Darwin]

I actually don't know (the difference).

I'm not up to all the terms. I've variously seen people I'd call plain old atheists call themselves nontheist, de-theists, antitheists, all kinds of stuff. I'm not really sure what they all mean. Just that they all seem a like to me.

Perhaps the alternative terms are an attempt to avoid the claim that all atheists think that they can prove that there is no god.

I'm philosophically an agnostic, but for practical purposes, I'm an atheist. To me that just means that I don't believe any of the various claims about the existence of one or more deities. I don't feel the need to actively disprove their existence any more than I need to disprove the existence of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, yetis, Bigfoot, Nessie, tree sprites, angels, vampires, werewolves, demons, poltergeists, goblins, genies, fairies, trolls (except on the 'Net), leprechauns, banshees, fox spirits, or ailens from outer space. I simply don't take all these concepts into account as I live my life from day to day.

From my point of view, there are too many stories and too little concrete evidence to support any of them.

The same goes for deities like Aphrodite, Venus, Ares, Mars, Artemis, Diana, Athene, Minerva, Demeter, Ceres, Erinyes, Furiae, Eris, Discordia, Eros, Cupid, Moiras, Fata, , Graces. Charities, Hades, Pluto, Hephaistos, Vulcan, Hera, Juno, Herakles, Hercules, Hermes, Mercury, Hestia, Vesta, Kronos, Saturn, Odysseus, Ulysses, Pan, Faunus, Persephone, Proserpina, Poseidon, Neptune, Zeus, Jupiter, Yahweh, Allah, Amaterasu, Odin, Frigga, Thor, Balder, Tyr, Frey, Freya, Heimdall, Loki, Hel, Krishna, Shiva, Bramha, Rama, Ahura Mazda, Yu Huang, Bumba, Abassi, Obatala, Elegua, Eshu, Anansi, Olorun, Orisha, Yemaya, Azrail, Ra, Min, Isis, Osiris, Thoth, Anubis, Bast, Set. Horus, Altjira, Wandjina, Asnoartina, Ulur, Eingana, Alchera, Yingarna, Morrigan, Danu, Dagda, Balor, Lugh, Quezalcoatl, Chantico, Huitzilpochtli, Coatlicue, Mictlantecuhtlli, Ometecuhtli, Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca, Mictlan, Vainamoinen, Ilmatar, Akka, Ukko, Lempo, Lemminakainen, Ahti, Tuonela, Loviatar, Mielikki, Cocomama, Ini, Viracocha, Apocaequil, Accla, Manco-Capac, Hutaca, Ilyapa, Bochica, Mama-Quilla, Ba'al, Chac, Ah-Puch, Ixchl, Itzamna, Kinich-Ahau, Acat, Kukulcan, Abeguwo, Tangata-Manu, Tane, Moai, Ahoeitu, etc.

Sorry if I've omitted anyone's personal deity or deities. (And, I do know that there are a number of religions that don't take their deities literally, including some of those listed here.)

How would someone who believes that one (or more) of these deities exists go about proving that none of the others do? Do they even normally try by any means other than simple assertion? If not, then why should I? I just ignore them all equally.

Of course, once a deity is not taken to be a literal entity, the question becomes, "How useful is it as a symbol?" Personally, I'm not a very symbolic kind of guy. I loved listening to Joseph Campbell, but didn't really get the feeling behind it all. An Episcopal priest, a fellow member of SAPS (Smart-Ass Philosophical Society), once asked, "You don't have any sense of the divine, do you?" And I answered, "No."

[Wombat]

Cran, I think you're right in suspecting that any attempt to make all the views you cite 'true' would end in dismal failure. That sort of relativism would be so extreme it would make it impossible for people to have a disagreement. That would be so wimpish and boring. What's more, someone might say that in discussion, but I bet they would be selective when it comes to living their life in ways that suggest they really do believe deep down that it is possible to go wrong.

The closest I can come to making sense of the sentiment behind your proposal is that they could all be, in very different ways, approximations to the truth. This is an abstract possibility but it is really implausible. The views are so unlike eachother in many cases. What kind of higher truth could polythesism and atheism both be approximations to? To make this idea plausible we'd have to know the truth that each of the items on your list approximates to. But if we had that, we wouldn't need the approximations anyway.

In science we can sometimes have good reason to regard a theory as an approximation to the truth, even though we don't yet know what truth it approximates to. That's because science builds on yesterdays theories and new theories only replace old ones when the new ones explain everything the old ones explain, plus a few new things. But religions can't be evaluated this rigorously.

Just to take an example, Moslems might claim that they have built on Christianity which in turn built on Judaism. In a sense this is true. But the resemblance to science is superficial. It's not at all clear how the later theories 'explain' more than the earlier ones. We don't do controlled experiments in religion.

The fact that religion isn't open to the sort of rigorous tests of adequacy that scientific theories face means that it would be sensible to be tolerant of other people's attempts to make sense of it all. I'm not suggesting we should be uncritical but that, having chosen by whatever means seems appropriate, we should respect the fact that equally intelligent and sincere people will arrive at different conclusions.

[Flyingcursor]

Hi Cran.

You called me "friend". I'm touched. Even after all the cracks I've made over the years.

[I.D.10-t]

Different religions could not be beneficial in different cultures, so the “Truth” needs to be changed. I remember hearing of Hell being described to Eskimos and found that most thought that it sounded nice and warm.

Different religions benefit people in different ways . Some religions die out because the times change and the needs that the religion fulfill are gone. The ones that remain may have overlap because of universal needs. Not based on any theology, just my thoughts.

[Jeff Stallard]

There are so many excellent responses, I have nothing to add except a few quotes:

“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts,” -God

"Religion is fundamentally a set of ceremonial actions, assembling the group, heightening its emotions, and focusing its members on symbols of their common belongingness." -Emile Durkheim

Churches are social clubs: being right isn't nearly as important as being seen.

[Cynth]

The statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" can't both be true.

The statement "God does not exist" cannot be logically proven---it is a negative statement.

I do not see how the statement "God exists" can be proven, although I cannot say why in the same logical terms. Abstract ideas are dealt with logically. I guess it is because "God" is not treated as an abstract idea but as a thing, and to prove the existence of a thing it must exist in a physical form. The "idea" of God certainly exists, but that is different from "God exists". I am probably wrong here.

Thus, the question of whether God exists or not cannot be answered and it is a question I do not ask.

For me, all belief systems based on the certainty that God exists are equally "true" in that they are based on an idea which cannot be certain.

People seem to believe what they are taught to believe---I know there are exceptions. But your beliefs seem to have a lot to do with where and when you are born. Societies that share a common ancestor will tend to have related beliefs, at least to a greater extent than those which have been widely separated----but related isn't saying much.

The writings of the belief systems I am familiar with (not many) seem to require a belief that other systems are not true. For example, the writings of Jews say that they are a chosen people---they have a special covenant with God that no other people have. The writings of the Christian belief system state that no one can come to God except through Christ. These two systems seem to me to be mutually exclusive even though they share a great deal of history.

I don't see how a person believing one of these systems could think the other was equally valid. This seems to lead to problems among people who can't leave each other alone to follow whatever beliefs they want. In this case, the Christians often feeling compelled to eradicate the Jews.

Some people may regard the writings in a more historical context as writings coming from the thoughts of men, rather than as dictation taken from God, and may be content to simply follow the teachings as part of their tradition and not feel that others are just plain wrong.

Obviously, I am not too keen on religion precisely because many of these belief systems (along with their cultural and historical accretions) are in conflict with each other and this seems to lead to one violent confrontation after another. Unfortunately, there seems to be a hard-wired need for religious belief in human beings.

[jim stone]

Ok.

I have a sort of philosophical or religious question

Is it possible that all religious/spiritual paths, including atheism, agnosticism, nontheism, and those sorts of belief systems be equally true?

I really don't think it is possible. I can understand how a Methodist, an Episcopalian, and a Catholic, for example, share the same shades of truth. Or a Hindu and Buddhist sharing much of the same truth. Or even a Jew and a Christian, for that matter. Some faiths and thought systems are more or less "related".

But I can not understand how a Muslim or an atheist would share the same truth. Some beliefs are directly at odds with others, so how could they all be equally true?

I guess I have never really thought about this before the last few days, but somebody told it to me like this:

"Anybody who believes in any kind of diety is by default implying that atheists are wrong. It can not be possible that both paths are equally true. A God either exists, or does not exist."

And I can't find a way to counter that argument. I'm not sure I want to, but I'm just wondering if it can be done?

One standard response is to ask what truth is.

One might deny that a proposition is true if it corresponds
to an objective reality (the correspondance theory of truth);
rather truth is a matter of what works
or is useful to believe, what enables us to manipulate
the world and make sense of things. This is a pragmatic
theory of truth (pragmatism)
as in William James. So truth is what makes beliefs
good, and what makes them good is that they
are useful, they enable us to manipulate the world
and make sense of things. True beliefs are useful tools,
therefore, and there can be strikingly different tools
that work equally well--consider that an abacus and
an adding machine are radically different but
equally effective tools that do the same job. So
atheism can be true and theism can be true.
The atheist believes that theism is false, and vice
versa; however both belief systems can be
equally useful, hence equally true--as truth isn't
a matter of correspondance with an objective
reality.

I don't like pragmatism very well, I confess,
but many important philosophers have
endorsed some form of it, especially
in the USA, including C. S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey,
Willard Quine, Hillary Putnam, Richard Rorty.
However one has to pay attention to the particular
philosopher--but all of them reject the
correspondance theory of truth. In a way,
what's real is partly determined by
what we believe.