The Myth of Religious Neutrality

[General_Sax]

"The Myth of Religious Neutrality"

So, I've come across a person who's made this statement: "Every single human is religious. I reject the myth of religious neutrality. The shared commonality of all belief systems are that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven."

I'm having trouble with the "axiomatic assumptions" part. Isn't an axiom something that is self-evident, therefore, an axiom doesn't need to be proven?

So, in general, doesn't the fact that most, if not all, religions have a holy book, show that this belief is non-axiomatic? Because one has been given "proof" for the validity of whatever religion?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I saw God.

Do you believe me or not. It is a choice.

The distinction is that scientific evidence is only one form of evidence. Other forms of evidence cannot be logically excluded a priori, or, for one, we couldn't have a justice system. So to limit one's beliefs to only those supported by science, is a philosophical choice.

 

[Evo]

So, I've come across a person who's made this statement: "Every single human is religious. I reject the myth of religious neutrality. The shared commonality of all belief systems are that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven."

Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean their opinion is right.

So, in the case of Christianity

I'm afraid that citing any specfic religion's beliefs violates our guidelines.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean their opinion is right.

But there is a logically correct answer.

 

[Borek]

"Every single human is religious."

I guess atheism is a religion then?

 

[General_Sax]

Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean their opinion is right.

Yes, I agree. I just don't understand how a belief, that is not self-evident -- I don't believe that the existence of any specific God is self-evident -- can be considered axiomatic.

I've only really had experienced axioms briefly in my intro linear algebra course, and these were always facts that didn't require proof and were clearly obvious. So, maybe I just don't understand what an axiom is.

 

[General_Sax]

I guess atheism is a religion then?

Ironically enough, he's made that exact same point -- that atheism is a religion.

His reasoning, as far as I can remember, was that atheism relies on the axiomatic assumption that there is no God(s).

 

[Evo]

Yes, I agree. I just don't understand how a belief, that is not self-evident -- I don't believe that the existence of any specific God is self-evident -- can be considered axiomatic.

I've only really had experienced axioms briefly in my intro linear algebra course, and these were always facts that didn't require proof and were clearly obvious. So, maybe I just don't understand what an axiom is.

You understand correctly. If he actually said "The shared commonality of all belief systems are that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven.", it's word salad, with "repeated redundancies". :tongue2:

Ironically enough, he's made that exact same point -- that atheism is a religion.

His reasoning, as far as I can remember, was that atheism relies on the axiomatic assumption that there is no God(s).

I believe Borek was pointing out the common misunderstanding that many religious people have about atheists, they can't comprehend that atheists lack belief.

 

[turbo]

I can't even bother to be an atheist. Giving even that level of credence to the notion of a divine being (negative though it may be) is beyond me. Agnosticism would be foreign to religious people, too, but it is different from atheism.

 

[runner]

So, I've come across a person who's made this statement: "Every single human is religious. I reject the myth of religious neutrality. The shared commonality of all belief systems are that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven."

I'm having trouble with the "axiomatic assumptions" part. Isn't an axiom something that is self-evident, therefore, an axiom doesn't need to be proven?

So, in general, doesn't the fact that most, if not all, religions have a holy book, show that this belief is non-axiomatic? Because one has been given "proof" for the validity of whatever religion?

I think you need to tell us what it means to be religious. Is it only someone that belongs to an established religion and believes that its members, scriptures, and their particular interpretation separate them from the rest of humanity and favors them in the eyes of a deity(ies)? Does it include someone who considers themselves spiritual but does not follow any traditional religion and instead views all of nature in a special kind of awe and wonder? I've heard the latter referred to as religious also, even though they don't believe in the deity(ies) mentioned in scriptures..

 

[General_Sax]

I agree that both your former and latter descriptions of a religious person are valid.

I just want to make it clear, this is not my argument, but the argument made by my friend.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Every single human is religious.

It would make more sense to say the opposite. Everyone has the capability of not believing in a god, since even if you believe in a god, there are lots of others that you don't believe in.

 

[lisab]

I can't even bother to be an atheist. Giving even that level of credence to the notion of a divine being (negative though it may be) is beyond me. Agnosticism would be foreign to religious people, too, but it is different from atheism.

Perfect! I, too, am a devoted non-seeker.

Nice .

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So, I've come across a person who's made this statement: "Every single human is religious. I reject the myth of religious neutrality. The shared commonality of all belief systems are that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven."

This is a pretty standard logical fallacy. All religions rely on axiomatic assumptions, therefore all axiomatic assumptions are religion.

 

[runner]

An axiom in traditional logic is not something proven, it is self-evident and its truth is assumed. Traditional religions and their scriptures are full of axioms (the things revealed by God to prophets, etc.). We could start a list of religious axioms here and go on and on for a long time. Traditional religions are passed on orally and learned from man, they are not something that is inherent in our genetics. If there is anything inherent (like with the so-called "God gene"), it would be more about a psychological sense of spirituality (e.g., an awe of nature and existence) than about a specific belief in a deity(ies)

Axiom - In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths. In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: 'logical axioms' and 'non-logical axioms'. In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. http://www.tutorvista.com/bow/axioms-and-postulates"

 

[Gokul43201]

So, I've come across a person who's made this statement: "Every single human is religious. I reject the myth of religious neutrality. The shared commonality of all belief systems are that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven."

I agree that the statement: "The shared commonality of all axiomatic systems is that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven." (slightly modified from your acquaintance's statement)

However, just because two system share one aspect in common, does not make them equivalent. For instance, only one of the two primary systems of discussion here has time-and-time-again demonstrated the ability to predict the outcomes of a wide range of natural and man-made events. This predictive capability is one of the distinguishing differences between science and religion.

Ironically enough, he's made that exact same point -- that atheism is a religion.

His reasoning, as far as I can remember, was that atheism relies on the axiomatic assumption that there is no God(s).

This is a false definition of atheism.

 

[arunma]

So, I've come across a person who's made this statement: "Every single human is religious. I reject the myth of religious neutrality. The shared commonality of all belief systems are that they all rely on axiomatic assumptions that can't be proven."

I'm having trouble with the "axiomatic assumptions" part. Isn't an axiom something that is self-evident, therefore, an axiom doesn't need to be proven?

So, in general, doesn't the fact that most, if not all, religions have a holy book, show that this belief is non-axiomatic? Because one has been given "proof" for the validity of whatever religion?

I'd certainly agree with this person that all people hold to certain axiomatic assumptions. Whether you'd call these assumptions "religions," however, is another matter. In general, for something to be a religious doctrine, it's got to fundamentally affect the way someone lives. If someone doesn't believe in God, I wouldn't necessarily call that a religious belief (I do think that militant atheists can be termed religious, but that's a whole other discussion).

It seems to me that even axioms can be up for debate. Consider Euclid's last axiom, the one about two lines that intersect a third line at non-right angles meeting at some point. For centuries people believed it was true, and then somebody rejected that axiom and wound up with curvelinear geometries. This, however, doesn't invalidate Euclidean geometry. Thus, I wouldn't say that someone can hold to an assumption even if everyone else in the world doesn't share it.

It does get messy when you get into specific religious doctrines. It wouldn't make sense for someone to refer to their religious text as axiomatic. That person would essentially be saying that the text has no correspondence to reality, and that the text must simply be assumed true. I think that most religious people believe that their respective texts are historically and/or philosophically true based on some evidence.

 

[brainstorm]

To truly disbelief something, you need true faith that it doesn't exist. If you accept there's no way to prove something absolutely, such as God's existence, you would be agnostic. If you have true faith that something isn't provable one way or the other, isn't that a form of religious faith? If you didn't truly believe anything you said or thought, even regular everyday things like whether you like ketchup or not, I think you would cease to function as an organism. I think arguments over religion come down to the level of metaphysics people want to engage in. Some people prefer to limit all their beliefs to things that are physically evident and others prefer to explore issues that aren't directly regulated by physical materiality. It always comes back to whether you can believe with absolute faith that something someone else believes in is 100% false. That is more difficult than you would expect; hence more that 50% of the money transfers in the economy.

 

[Evo]

To truly disbelief something, you need true faith that it doesn't exist. If you accept there's no way to prove something absolutely, such as God's existence, you would be agnostic. If you have true faith that something isn't provable one way or the other, isn't that a form of religious faith? If you didn't truly believe anything you said or thought, even regular everyday things like whether you like ketchup or not, I think you would cease to function as an organism. I think arguments over religion come down to the level of metaphysics people want to engage in. Some people prefer to limit all their beliefs to things that are physically evident and others prefer to explore issues that aren't directly regulated by physical materiality. It always comes back to whether you can believe with absolute faith that something someone else believes in is 100% false. That is more difficult than you would expect; hence more that 50% of the money transfers in the economy.

Atheist do not have faith that there is no diety/dieties. They simply do not believe to begin with. Why can't religious people understand this? You can stand in front of me and rattle off names of creatures you make up, that doesn't mean i have to go through some belief process to reject them. I simply reject them as not existing. No beliefs.

 

[drizzle]

So, I've come across a person who's made this statement: "Every single human is religious.."...

I think you need to tell us what it means to be religious...

Exactly [which by the way is wrong to say, going to the extreme doesn't prove/show/assure your favour to your religion], but saying "Every single human is following a certain religion" That I would agree on.

I guess atheism is a religion then?

Yes, IMO. What is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion" after all

Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs...

 

[brainstorm]

Atheist do not have faith that there is no diety/dieties. They simply do not believe to begin with. Why can't religious people understand this? You can stand in front of me and rattle off names of creatures you make up, that doesn't mean i have to go through some belief process to reject them. I simply reject them as not existing. No beliefs.

If someone tells me that they discovered a unicorn while walking in the forest, the first thing I'm going to wonder is what they ate, drank, smoked, or otherwise ingested while in the forest or before. The reason I wonder that is because I faithfully believe that unicorns do not exist, nor have they ever existed, along with dragons and other mythological creatures except as facets of mythology. I have a friend who tells me that it is possible that a large meat-eating bird or lizard could have a gizzard that allows methane to escape through its beak or mouth and that such an animal could develop the ability to spark the emissions to produce flames. This made me wonder if possibly such an animal may have existed at some point for human observation, but outside of that I truly faithfully believe that such a thing doesn't exist.

Maybe you just don't think you believe that God truly doesn't exist because it goes against your self-image to adamantly reject things. If you think about it though, don't you at least adamantly reject the idea that you have to faithfully believe that God doesn't exist to practice atheism? At some level there must be things that you truly faithfully believe in, if not God's absolute non-existence.

 

[Evo]

If you think about it though, don't you at least adamantly reject the idea that you have to faithfully believe that God doesn't exist to practice atheism?

No. I don't think about it.

At some level there must be things that you truly faithfully believe in, if not God's absolute non-existence.

But that has nothing to do with the Op's friend's misconception.

 

[Gokul43201]

If someone tells me that they discovered a unicorn while walking in the forest, the first thing I'm going to wonder is what they ate, drank, smoked, or otherwise ingested while in the forest or before. The reason I wonder that is because I faithfully believe that unicorns do not exist, nor have they ever existed, along with dragons and other mythological creatures except as facets of mythology.

Note that your thought process does not have to be the only way to think about this.

If some random passerby tells me they saw a unicorn while walking in the forest, I will not believe them either. The reason for my lack of belief is that I think the odds would be very small (given the obvious history) and that the odds of the person making up the story or believing they saw something that they really didn't are much greater. No faithfullyness involved.

 

[Cyrus]

Exactly [which by the way is wrong to say, going to the extreme doesn't prove/show/assure your favour to your religion], but saying "Every single human is following a certain religion" That I would agree on. Yes, IMO. What is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion" after all

Unfortunately, you are wrong, and your definition you have cited is a poor one - confusing religion with deism. Atheism, is, by definition, not a religion. It does not make sense to even describe atheism as religion. Religion is an organization of people who follow a set of dogmatic religious beliefs and texts. No such thing exists for atheists.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Religion is an organization of people who follow a set of dogmatic religious beliefs and texts. No such thing exists for atheists.

Another beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact.
http://factschurch.com/"

 

[Gokul43201]

Jimmy, do you have an opinion on the matter of whether or not atheism is a religion (one you could share with us here)?

 

[brainstorm]

The reason for my lack of belief is that I think the odds would be very small (given the obvious history) and that the odds of the person making up the story or believing they saw something that they really didn't are much greater. No faithfullyness involved.

To rational people like us, faith in small odds doesn't seem like faith at all but allow me to relate the story of something my friend does to test people's faith in small odds: If someone goes to the store, he asks them to buy a lottery ticket for him with random numbers. He told me that one person avoided signing the ticket, which is an official statement of it changing possession. The other person bought a duplicate ticket. Both were so convinced that ridiculously small odds of winning were significant enough to take measures. These people do not share the faith I have in bad lottery odds that prevents me from ever even having the urge to buy a lottery ticket.

 

[brainstorm]

No. I don't think about it.

Maybe you don't think about "God" because you were never exposed to religious language to any significant extent. Still, I bet you have some means of externalizing your natural psychological propensity for faith. I think this is relevant to the OP because it has to do with whether some people are totally immune from religious-type beliefs, which I don't think they are just because faith is an inherent psychological propensity, like doubt or social conformity.

 

[Cyrus]

Another beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact.
http://factschurch.com/"

I'm not sure if your being serious here. Whatever this nonsense you linked to is, it's certainly not atheism.

 

[Gokul43201]

To rational people like us, faith in small odds doesn't seem like faith at all but allow me to relate the story of something my friend does to test people's faith in small odds: If someone goes to the store, he asks them to buy a lottery ticket for him with random numbers. He told me that one person avoided signing the ticket, which is an official statement of it changing possession. The other person bought a duplicate ticket. Both were so convinced that ridiculously small odds of winning were significant enough to take measures. These people do not share the faith I have in bad lottery odds that prevents me from ever even having the urge to buy a lottery ticket.

You seem to like to throw the word 'faith' into places where it makes no sense at all (at least to me). In the context of the above anecdote, what you have is not faith - it's math.

 

[brainstorm]

You seem to like to throw the word 'faith' into places where it makes no sense at all (at least to me). In the context of the above anecdote, what you have is not faith - it's math.

You don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying that faith is an essential component of believing in anything, including your own math skills and the notion that your math adequately represents something real. If you ask a six year old what 3 + 3 is, s/he will probably come up with 6. But when you as them if they're sure, they will question themselves because they haven't build up enough faith in their own math abilities yet.

 

[Cyrus]

You don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying that faith is an essential component of believing in anything, including your own math skills and the notion that your math adequately represents something real. If you ask a six year old what 3 + 3 is, s/he will probably come up with 6. But when you as them if they're sure, they will question themselves because they haven't build up enough faith in their own math abilities yet.

No, it's really not. I'll let Gokul correct your false understandings here.

 

[brainstorm]

No, it's really not. I'll let Gokul correct your false understandings here.

I don't think you get the difference between logic and faith in logic. Logic is a standardized algorithm whereas faith is the subjective component that allows you to embrace logic.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think you get the difference between logic and faith in logic. Logic is a standardized algorithm whereas faith is the subjective component that allows you to embrace logic.

There is no 'faith' required to understand mathematics. Your example of asking a 6 year old 'why' 3+3 = 6 is not a proper question. The reason why 3 + 3 = 6 is because of how the rules of mathematics are defined. There is no 'faith' involved anywhere. This is a rather basic point that you have missed.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy, do you have an opinion on the matter of whether or not atheism is a religion (one you could share with us here)?

Atheism is a faith. Faith in non-existence is no less faith than is faith in existence. Agnosticism is the lack of faith. Not all of the faithful join a religion so my opinion is that for some people their atheism is not a religion, and as the FACTS site shows, for other people it is. Does this help?