Hi Everyone!

There are many religions that exist today. Is there a one true religion? Please state your reasons. Would be great to hear suggestions from all.

Thanks

Rus

Maybe we could look at what type of 'truth' we are using as a measure here?

If I understand things correctly, then perhaps our most concrete frameworks of truth are logic and mathematics, but those approaches acknowledge limits of proof in sufficiently rich domains of interest.

Science is pretty hard-edged as well, with the soft backstop of peer review and the harder backstop of empirical evidence. That said, I'm hard pressed to find knowledge claims in science that do not (or should not) carry the fine print of 'true unless evidence later proves otherwise'.

Moving into other domains such as history, ethics, politics and other human endeavours like art or psychology what is true is often displayed through, for example, the lens of the historian as well as the lens of the 'student'.

Going further, we can look at the realm of fiction, which by definition is untrue. Nevertheless at least some fictional work is capable of conveying significant truths to some audiences.

If our test for the truth of a religion is 'Can we find no point within what we assume to be a religion's beliefs, as expressed by every self-professed adherent, which appears inconsistent, irrational or wrong to our current views?' Then for all sorts of reasons I expect the answer is likely to be 'No'.

Many people struggle with religion or religions. Many learn truths from that struggle, it seems to me. Some learn that religion is unnecessary, others learn that it contains are apparently potent truths, some learn that there is, after all, no struggle. If I walk into the Tate Modern with a group of people, it's unlikely that we will quickly resolve which pieces best exemplify art. It seems to me that there are similarities here. I think this sails close to being a relativist outlook, but I don't think that is quite the right label, I don't think 'deluded' is either, but of course, that challenge is hard for many of us to answer when pressed.

I think many religions contain truths. However, I'm not aware of one which at least some sect or denomination would represent in a way which would seem to me to be either inconsistent (as the results which led to the formulations of quantum theory did at the first encounter), unprovable, ethically questionable or which has some sections which sound nutty, especially to an outsider.

Of course, I may be completely wrong.

Thanks for the response DrBobUK. I will be getting back to you as soon as I've read your response properly..at work at the moment

Thanks
Russell

Is there a one true religion?

Since no two religions teach an identical message or expect the same practices from their followers - and since people who pray for an answer only reaffirm their own beliefs, this question is asking us to compare oranges with apples.

However, Von Wright tells us that it is the responsibility of Science to explain, and of Humanities to understand. Thus, since religion, with its lack of peer review and empirical evidence, falls squarely into the domain of Humanities - those of a religious bent should be putting more effort into understanding people around them, instead of stirring up violence and hatred.

As if to illustrate my point, only this weekend, the Mohammedans are out causing trouble again - which I suppose is hardly surprising - since their guidebook instructs them:

- Fighting is prescribed for you. [Qu'ran 2.216]
- You must fight others until they worship Allah or pay tax in submission. [Bukhari:v4b53n386]
- Slay the idolaters. [Qu'ran 9:5]
- Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. [Qu'ran 4:74]
- Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. [Qu'ran 4:76]
- Infidels are those who believe that God is Christ, the Messiah. [Qu'ran 5:72]
- Infidels are those who believe that God is part of the trinity. [Qu'ran 5:73]
- When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter. [Qu'ran 47:4]
- The wrath of Allah will be on those who convert away from Muslim - Theirs will be an awful doom. [Qu'ran 16:106]

Now, this is not to say that Mohammedans are the only culprits. The current Pope has done nothing to ameliorate the situation, and by authoring Dominus Iesus (when he was Panzer Kardinal) he tells us that those religions other than Christianity are considered to be "gravely deficient".

Perhaps, therefore, it's no wonder that Philosophy has been declared dead if the leaders of the world's two main religious factions are incapable of applying a little Philosophical thought to their own organizations.

Hi Jonathan,

Logically it's not necessarily required to compare religions with each other to arrive at some answers to Russell's question. For example, IF one were able to prove that no religion could be 'a one true religion' then surely the answer to Russell's question would be 'No'. No need for apples and oranges comparison in that case.

I don't follow your reasoning when you say "...and since people who pray for an answer only reaffirm their own beliefs, this question is asking us to compare oranges with apples." Regardless of whether your premise about the nature of prayer is true, I don't see how the conclusion follows. Can you clarify your reasoning?

I'm not familiar with von Wright, I find it hard to agree with what I guess is a precis of his position. For someone to have the ability to explain from a foundation of having knowledge, surely they need to be able to justify their explanations. It seems to me, then, that science (or 'a scientist' or ' someone making a scientific explanation') would reasonably be expected to understand what they were explaining as a precursor to being able to legitimately explain it. Explaining something one doesn't understand is of dubious value except for (perhaps) clarifying one's own thoughts. The wiser action when uncertain, is surely to ask for assistance.

I think, personally, that if one does have an understanding of something and is approached by someone seeking to understand, that there is almost a moral pressure to pass on that understanding. For me, then, I think the 'science explains, humanities understands' epithet may lead to a forced dichotomy.

I guess I'd agree with you insofar as I feel we'd probably all benefit if we all tried harder to understand the positions of others.

Bob

Hello again Bob,

To find a 'true' anything requires a prior test of trueness (for want of a better word). Thus, we might easily find the one true car insurance (at whatever point in time) or the one true cheap holiday flight (at whatever point in time). Certainly, I can see that the original question is begging for a Dominus Iesus answer where we pick some arbitrary characteristic of a religion that benefits us, and then we argue to death (possibly liberally) that our chosen religion is the best and everyone else be damned.

Anyway, as a man encouraging logic, you should be fully aware that it's impossible to prove a negative. Thus, I'm not going to fall into your trap of trying to prove that every religious variant that exists, ever existed or will ever exist is deficient in some way.

But, as to:

...and since people who pray for an answer only reaffirm their own beliefs, this question is asking us to compare oranges with apples.

This is pretty simple; in my experience, I've never heard of anyone praying to be enlightened about their faith, and subsequently receiving the answer that they've been following the wrong religion all their life - If this were the case, then people would slowly but surely realise that their faith group was not the 'true' one, and thus we'd see attrition from 'not true' religious groups to whichever one was the 'true' one. Eventually there would only be one religion, and one denomination left within that religion... The only other explanation being that religious sorts are actively rejecting the Will of god, which seems rather less likely.

As to von Wright, he builds on Wittgenstein's later work; a précis of his position being that human action cannot be explained causally by scientific or natural laws, but has to be understood intentionally. So, one understands the meaning of a sign or symbol, the significance of a social institution or a religious rite, etc.

And, utilizing your example, the scientist or someone making a scientific explanation would carry out a scientific procedure (make an observation, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, generate a theory, etc.) In this instance, their would likely be only a limited value in soliciting a number of opinions, since the person already has a hypothesis to test, and it would usually be far simply to just conduct the experiment rather than conduct extensive surveys about what the results of the experiment might be.

On the other hand, a Historian trying to understand why a Commander made a certain decision at a key point in some battle, may benefit from the assistance of those familiar with the terrain in which the battle was fought, someone who knows about military strategy or someone that knows about the culture of the respective Commander, etc.

Hi Jonathan

To find a 'true' anything requires a prior test of trueness (for want of a better word). Thus, we might easily find the one true car insurance (at whatever point in time) or the one true cheap holiday flight (at whatever point in time). Certainly, I can see that the original question is begging for a Dominus Iesus answer where we pick some arbitrary characteristic of a religion that benefits us, and then we argue to death (possibly liberally) that our chosen religion is the best and everyone else be damned.

Anyway, as a man encouraging logic, you should be fully aware that it's impossible to prove a negative. Thus, I'm not going to fall into your trap of trying to prove that every religious variant that exists, ever existed or will ever exist is deficient in some way.

It's certainly possible to prove at least some negatives.

Consider syllogisms

No man is immortal
Sophocles is a man
Therefore Sophocles is not immortal

That's seems to me to be a straightforward proof of a negative through reason and language.

In mathematics

We can prove that 2 does not equal 1

We can prove that there are no numbers which are both odd and even.

We can prove that no square integer greater than 1 is prime.

These kinds of proofs flow directly from definitions and reason, not by checking (for example) all the numbers in the world.

Proof by contradiction work identifying a contradiction implied by 'notP' and thus deducing 'P' must be true.

What I was suggesting was that it might be fruitful to consider whether an approach such as this could be deployed successfully to defeat the proposition that there exists a 'one true religion' by (for example) showing that a logical inconsistency would flow from such a state of affairs. If that was the case (or some more subtle logical approach) then there would be no need to look at any individual religion at all as the 'set of one true religions' would necessarily, then, be empty. Thus, it seems to me that there may be routes to answering Russell's question without comparing one religion with another. Now, I'm not saying that there IS a proof, but I'm not aware of a proof to the contrary.

If I set a trap I did not do so intentionally. I thought this was a philosophical discussion, not a debating competition.

But, as to:

...and since people who pray for an answer only reaffirm their own beliefs, this question is asking us to compare oranges with apples.

This is pretty simple; in my experience, I've never heard of anyone praying to be enlightened about their faith, and subsequently receiving the answer that they've been following the wrong religion all their life - If this were the case, then people would slowly but surely realise that their faith group was not the 'true' one, and thus we'd see attrition from 'not true' religious groups to whichever one was the 'true' one. Eventually there would only be one religion, and one denomination left within that religion... The only other explanation being that religious sorts are actively rejecting the Will of god, which seems rather less likely.

I think I understand what you are saying here but (if I have understood it correctly) you are only providing a justification for your proposition "people who pray for an answer only reaffirm their own beliefs"

The thrust of my query was, rather, even IF that proposition is true, I don't see how it implies "this question is asking us to compare oranges with apples"

I'll set aside for now any criticism of your justification for the proposition "people who pray for an answer only reaffirm their own beliefs"

As to von Wright, he builds on Wittgenstein's later work; a précis of his position being that human action cannot be explained causally by scientific or natural laws, but has to be understood intentionally. So, one understands the meaning of a sign or symbol, the significance of a social institution or a religious rite, etc.

Sounds a bit mystical ... I'll have to read about him.

And, utilizing your example, the scientist or someone making a scientific explanation would carry out a scientific procedure (make an observation, form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, generate a theory, etc.) In this instance, their would likely be only a limited value in soliciting a number of opinions, since the person already has a hypothesis to test, and it would usually be far simply to just conduct the experiment rather than conduct extensive surveys about what the results of the experiment might be.

If you are suggesting that it's either acceptable or more efficient to have a scientific process where the scientist works in isolation and gains understanding through experiments of their own devising, testing their own hypotheses, I think you underestimate the importance of peer review in the scientific method. A solitary scientist, or indeed a team, can inadvertently overlook systemic weaknesses in their methods and fall foul of unconscious desire to 'prove oneself right' or (cynically) to win funding/tenure/business etc.

Scientists also need to be mindful of the 'problem of induction'.

Hi Bob,

Apologies for the late reply, I had the flu and so therefore was unable to respond to your reply any earlier. To begin with, I like the way in which you higlighted the fact that one has to ascertain the meaning of truth in order to answer the question adequately.
According to the Oxford Dictionary the word Truth has different meanings. The following link will highlight this statement.

http://oxforddictiona...

I agree that Science has achieved great heights, however Science has limitations. According to Bertrand Russell Science does not have the answers to distinguishing between right and wrong on issues of morality, i.e. Is lying wrong?

I agree with you Bob that fiction can convey some truths.

In the UK for example, laws can be changed, introduced, extended and so on and so forth to suit the people at that particular moment in time, however if one tries to change or create new definitions to what God actually meant then what one is doing would be changing the word of God to suit ones own whims and desires.I believe that in order for a scripture to be the true word of God, then it must have no errors, no contraditions, inconsistancies. But how may one arrive at such a conclusion? One may need to be educated.

Jonathon,

I don't understand why you have used the example of oranges and apples consistantly in your explanations, because it doesnt answer the question and is an irrelevant example.

At the end of the day there are good and bad people in all walks of life but you seem to portray people with a religious fervour to be as ''stirring up violence and hatred'' The regime under Pol Pot killed over a million people, Under the dicatorship of Stalin millions have been killed, according to statistics hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan mainly innoncent civilians.

You said on the weekend that the 'Mohammedans are out causing trouble again?' What trouble are they causing? Where are causing it? What for? What on earth is a Mohammedan? Im very dissapointed that you havent quoted the Qur'an properly and in its context because I have read the Qur'an and am familiar with its content. You seem to want to portray the Qur'an in a negative light by picking and choosing bits that suit your own ignorance. Let everyone on this website know that Islam is a religion of Peace and submission to God. Although there are some people who have represented the name of the religion in a bad way let us look beyond the few black sheeps and look at the many good examples i.e. Prophet Abraham, Prophet Jesus, Prophet Muhammed and many hard working devout law abiding Muslims in the community. Let us analyse a few verses in which you quoted. I will be quoting from the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

You said:

Fighting is prescribed for you. (Quran 2.216)

Qur'an says:

(214) They ask thee what they should spend (in charity). Say: Whatever ye spend that is good is for parents and kindred and orphans and those in want and for wayfarers. And whatever ye do that is good―Allah knoweth it well. (215) Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth and ye know not. (216) They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members. Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be Companions of the Fire and will abide therein. (217)

1. Why have you put a full stop after the word you when in fact in the Qur'an there shouldnt be a full stop after the word 'you'

2. Also prior to that verse you quoted, God talks about charity and being kind to parents and orphans. Why havnt you mentioned the good things that form part of the whole chapter? Either your looking to make Islam look bad or you've made an error. Which one? I think everyone would agree with the first your trying to make Islam look bad.

3. Also God says that Fighting is a grave offence. Why havent you mentioned that for??? For example if another country tries to occupy London and forces me to accept Communism I am permitted to fight them because they have no right to force me to abandom my way of life. If anything even the state would permit me to fight to uphold my values. Similarly if you forced me to give up my faith through violence I have a right to defend myself and my children from your tyranny!

You said:

Infidels are those that believe that God is part of the trinity (Quran 5:73)

Qur'an says

(72) They disbelieve who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

1. Why have you used the word infidels when the word used is 'disbelieved'? For example if you dont believe that God is one God then you are a disbeliever in that concept of God. Everyone is a disbeliever in something, for example I disbelieve in Communism, I disbelieve in there being more than one God, So therefore im a disbeliever in those mentioned ideas.

I could go on and on with the mischief and deception adopted by you. have you even read all the Qu'ran or have you just copied and pasted from someone off the internet without giving it some proper thought and removing any media bias. Why is some people brainwashed, like zombies believing anything and everything they read in the papers?

Anyone have any questions fire them away?



You say that the pope says that ''other than Christianity are considered to be gravely deficient.'' In order to understand why he said that one needs to apply reason to analyse his claim? By the way Muslims do apply Philosophy, however it seems to appear that because their philosophical beliefs are not alligned with your philosophical beliefs you seem to think that Philosophy is declared dead. Well let me tell you one thing Philosophy is ALIVE in the Islamic Faith, however some people need to stop being spoon fed with fancy meaningless words and feed themselves!

Aurevoir

Hi Bob,

Logically it is better for a person to believe in God as opposed to not. For example if a person dies rejecting the idea of One God and then after dying realises that God exists then he may be chastised in Hell. However if a person does believe in One God then they will be better off because God will hopefully not punish them in Hell. Therefore logically the person who believes is better off. Unfortunately Science hasnt yet conjured up an idea of how to protect oneself from the fire of Hell

Take Care