Universal religion

[Loren Booda]

Is the unification of religion possible, and if so, what tenets might make it so?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why would you want to? I mean, why would we want to obliterate an element that makes us individuals? Would you want to make us all one skin colour too?

 

[Loren Booda]

Perhaps your tenet under this religion would be that all skin colors are created equally beautiful by their maker. "Lesser" religions might ignore or disavow such belief.

 

[Kerrie]

the closest to a unification of religion is to accept one another for who they are and what they believe without passing judgement...

 

[Pengwuino]

Is the unification of religion possible, and if so, what tenets might make it so?

Some, yes
All, no

The major western religions arent very different at all (dispite what some very uninformed people might want you to believe).

Other religions, however... Buddhist and the various religions and beliefs in for example, Africa, are so off-base with each other and western views that its just impossible.

 

[False Prophet]

Even if everyone on the planet believed the same religion, then there must be at least one free-thinker that believes this universal truth is wrong so they have faith in something else instead. If this person didn't exist then the human race would no longer be that which defined us before, rather we're a universal race of brainwashed sheep no longer capable of individuality. Still homo-sapien maybe, but not really people.

 

[neurocomp2003]

the only universal religion is counting.

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps your tenet under this religion would be that all skin colors are created equally beautiful by their maker. "Lesser" religions might ignore or disavow such belief.

I am not sure if you were responding to my comment (about skin colour) or the OP.

I wasn't suggesting a direct link between religion and skin colour, I was merely putting forth skin colour as one other way that humans are diverse. Diversity is not merely acceptable, it is a good thing. Without it we would be (insert anyone of a hundred sci-fi stories about a bleak future where all humans look, act and think alike).

 

[Loren Booda]

Diversity is indeed a good thing, and exists within conventional religions as I suppose it would under under a universal one. Shades of skin color among members is just one indication of variety under commonality. By that standard, a caste system would be discouraged in a comprehensive faith.

 

[learningphysics]

Why would you want to? I mean, why would we want to obliterate an element that makes us individuals?

Eliminate prejudice, wars, discrimination etc...

Would you want to make us all one skin colour too?

Why not? If everyone was of the same color discrimination based on skin color wouldn't exist.

Ideally, I'd want to live in a color-blind society, where people aren't discriminated against because of their skin color.

 

[Tigron-X]

Not necessarily a union of one religion, but maybe an understanding of each idea a religion expresses or focuses on because that would allow people to think for themselves and see what each belief or set of beliefs lead to.

Also, everyone would need an idea of forgiveness to free everyone of his/her mistakes that became present for one having certain beliefs that at some point or another led people to cause problems for others, not necessarily ntentionally. As in not acting with desire to inflict evil on others even though now certain acts can appear evil.

Anyhow, one would have to realize that at times people will reach certain beliefs that do not necessarily fullfill his/her intentions, and if fulfillment is truly desired, then one needs to realize that those intentions cannot be forced into mission. But rather, fulfilled within oneself by expanding his/her beliefs as one explores various perspectives without pre-judgment of an expressed thought different from one's own that may at first appear to challenge one's initial thoughts because one must realize that if everyone thought the same and saw everything the same way, then there would only be need for one of us to exist. So, there are reasons for us to have the ability to think for ourselves and continue expanding such thoughts that may eventually become belief. In the long run, each thought requires and diserves interpretation within it's own right to discover what that belief truly describes.

Eventually people find that all beliefs are just thoughts that describe similar aspects of the big picture but from a different angle whether one is looking at the whole picture or only a part of the picture. In other words, the principal(s) a belief or set of beliefs bring to one's attention tend to describe similar aspects of life's governing rule(s), and the variances are seen once one opens him/her-self to the focus of that particular thought and details expressed within a given belief because in the end one needs to realize that a single thought can be expressed many different ways, but only one way will appeal to a particular perspective.

Basically, each belief is a piece of a puzzle that helps see the picture once they're all put together. That doesn't mean everyone will think the same, but people will be able to relate better by understanding the world we live in. A world of individuals free to express their lives to the fullest because the judgment of righteousness has passed, and all is left is for people to share understanding of one another.

 

[Pengwuino]

Eliminate prejudice, wars, discrimination etc...

Truely religion people are loving and caring and do not believe in discrimination. Most people typically brainwash the ignorant into believing religion is the cause of this or that simply because some madman used it as an excuse to do whatever. Hitler used religion as a helper for war but any true student of theology knows the guy was as christian as jesse jackson is white.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . Buddhist and the various religions and beliefs in for example, Africa, are so off-base with each other and western views that its just impossible.

Interesting. May I recommend one to read "", by Marcus Borg and Jack Kornfeld. Borg is a Christian scholar and Kornfield is a Buddhist scholar. Together they explore parallels between phrases in the Gospels and the Buddhist Sutta Pitaka, including the Dhammapada. In terms of values, Buddhism and Christianity are quite compatible. It is nice to see two scholars with such open minds.

The Christian and Buddhist mysticism and mythologies are however quite different, as are the cultures in which these two religions propagated.

 

[Tigron-X]

Other religions, however... Buddhist and the various religions and beliefs in for example, Africa, are so off-base with each other and western views that its just impossible.

From a principal stand point, Budhism isn't that far off-base to western religions. For example, having a concept of karma is the same thing as reaping what you sow, or tithing in a way. Budhism also teaches that one should seek a higher consciousness by seperating oneself from the material world and coming to union with one's spirit, mind and soul. That would be the same thing as the trio in Christianity. And, there's more.

Truely religion people are loving and caring and do not believe in discrimination. Most people typically brainwash the ignorant into believing religion is the cause of this or that simply because some madman used it as an excuse to do whatever. Hitler used religion as a helper for war but any true student of theology knows the guy was as christian as jesse jackson is white.

I think the consensus is that if a particular said religion didn't exist then certain sufferings experienced thoughout history would have never occured; a typically reference are the many wars and disputes that occur in the Middle East. And, that's not the brainwashing of a single mad man.

Of course those wars, as well as Hitler's campaign in WWII, are linked to religious views, but these wars aren't about religion. They're about land, money, and power. Religion was just a tool abused for one's own purpose because religion just so happens to be the easiest way to unit a group of people and conform them as one loyal faction that has the man power to fight for a single cause, and that's because religion naturally lays grounds for an assembly of individuals of similar beliefs who also share a belief in the same common good. That "good" is usually defined as the prosperity of them and their people of that same congregation. Needless to say, anyone not part of that group is considered an outsider who has the ability to threaten said prosperity because he/she does not share the same interests, therefore they're discriminated against if they don't show the required similarities defined by the social group.

These people are religious, and they do follow a religion. Sadly, some people follow blindly, so they can't tell if they're being lead by another person or a higher being because they're consciousness never extends past oneself. Thus, they're led into suffering by what one can describe as a false prophet.

Religion is also a tool one uses to help individuals or oneself discover a higher form of life that can be reached through awareness of this higher power by willingly applying imagination and discipline to his/her conscience with respect to a higher consciousness. However, religion can also be used to create socialism as I basically pointed out above. It all depends on who or what is the source that influences that consciousness one willingly gives him/her-self to. Essentially, people are at fault here for their suffering because they're the ones with free will. So religion can only be determined as the outlet one plugged into for a source that he/she then allowed to influence his/her decisions. However, when that source becomes the religion, the religion is blamed.

 

[Azimuth]

theoretically i think that it would be possible for all religeons to come to a mutual understanding...i don't really see a dire need to unite them all anyways, the study of any religeon will show parrallels and similarities, they all stemmed from the same ideas, acctually most religen's have the same basic principles of 'salvation' and the rest are arguments over details...you would never be able to truly combine such a wide variety of beliefs, but in truth...they really aren't that different...

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Acceptance!

 

[Dr.Yes]

Is the unification of religion possible, and if so, what tenets might make it so?

Stop at red lights, go on green ones.

Signal before turning in either direction

Have working brake lights.

Slow down through residential areas

Respect individual rights and boundaries.

Make ethics the predominating factor of every decision (where applicable, actually there's no way to remove ethics from your decisions, in any event. Consequences are an inevitable result of any decision.)

Recycle

Reuse

Reclaim

Redeem

Remain blameless

Everyone go naked under their clothes.

 

[Astronuc]

Is the unification of religion possible, and if so, what tenets might make it so?

Well one issue would be whether or not a unified religion would be theistic or not - e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc vs secular humanism, ethical culturism, etc

Beyond that, one can look for common tenets.

Then make sure one of the tenets is "Keep religion out of politics, and politics out of religion" - unless one is planning otherwise.

Consider the definition or religion from Arthur Dobrin, Leader Emeritus of the Long Island Ethical Humanist Society and an instructor at Hofstra University:

DEFINITION: Religion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors and emotions which binds human beings to something beyond their individual selves and fosters in its adherents a sense of humility and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one's world-view and requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which transcends personal interests. In other words, religion connects a person with a larger world and creates a loyalty that extends to the past, the present and the future. This loyalty not only makes demands upon the person but -- and this is the part that makes it distinctively spiritual -- it creates a sense of humility. So religion provides a story about one's place in the larger scheme of things, creates a sense of connection and it makes one feel grateful.

 

[pete worthington]

Is the unification of religion possible, and if so, what tenets might make it so?

It could look like this :

Look up the seven principles of Unitarian-Universalism www.uua.org. These are principles that are derived from all world religions/philosophies; predominately Christianity, Judiasm and Religious Humanism. These principles look/feel similar to the "Humanist Manifesto" 2nd.

UUism learns/grows from all major religions, has no formal creed and considers the world bible to be the compilation of each individuals loose leaf pages. Around 300,000 members, liberal, middle class caucasian mostly (trying to change this). Free-Thinking bunch with approx 50% humanists, 20% theists, 15% Earth centered/pagan and a little of this and that.

 

[the_truth]

I disagree with everyone here completely and I'm right to...

All religions in existence are flawed and have been disproven and we don't know enough to create some sort of universal religion anyway. Maybe the universal religion would have some ideas generated thus far by ordinary religions, but science has solved more of our problems than religion, so it is reasonable to assume that a large bulk of this universal religion would have to be fresh undiscoverred material.

Also it wouldn't involve tolerating other people's beliefs. A universal religion would have to be so correct that anyone who was exposed to it could deny the fact that everything they say is true and the only people left saying it isn't true would be the bat**** ****ing loco. The followers of this religion would stampede through the world crushing everything in debate in it's path and picking up followers as it went along, until eventually it becomes considerred as true as a rock lifted up and let go will fall to the ground.

Can there ever be a universal religion, it does not seem so, but 600 years ago and most people thought that the only government that could exist was a military junta. It may well be possible.

 

[Canute]

I would rephrase the question as - can the doctrines of all or most religions be syncretised. In my opinion the the answer is a resounding yes. It is a trivial matter to show that the doctrines of the 'mystical' religions (Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism, Essenism, Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Christian mysticism and so on) can be syncretised since they all share the same cosmological doctrine and methods of acquiring knowledge. It is not so easy to see how the official institutional doctrines of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism can ever be reconciled, but a little research into the teachings of their founders shows that any differences between them, or between these three as group and the mystical religions as a group, are superficial, later additions to the original doctrine, not based on original teachings but rather on misunderstandings and mistakes, sometimes accidental, sometimes deliberate.

So I would say yes, there can be a universal religion. However it would be crazy to universalise one unless it is the true one, unless it accurately reflects the truth about cosmogenesis, human existence, consciousness, the nature of the Ultimate and so forth. Of course, getting Buddhists, Taoists, Sufis etc. to believe in some Western-style God would be impossible so it would have to non-theistic, and it seems unlikely that your average Christian or Muslim would ever go along with this. But perhaps there is some hope in the fact that the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed are astonishingly similar and entirely consistent with Buddhism, Taoism and so forth. It is not clear, for instance, that Jesus taught theism in anything like its current form, and Sufis argue vociferously that Allah is not God and that this is what Mohammed taught.

In response to comment above by 'the truth' that religions have all been disproved I can only say that this shows how often people form their opinions on these matters before doing any research, and without such research there is no chance of a universal religion evolving, since people will just stick to whatever their opinion happens to be.

 

[Berislav]

I think what we need is more religions rather than just one. IMO, the best option would be if every person had their own personal religion.

 

[Astronuc]

All religions in existence are flawed and have been disproven and we don't know enough to create some sort of universal religion anyway.

How so? One could extend that and say people are flawed. And people do science as well as religion.

Maybe the universal religion would have some ideas generated thus far by ordinary religions, but science has solved more of our problems than religion, so it is reasonable to assume that a large bulk of this universal religion would have to be fresh undiscoverred material.

Science (and technology) has created many problems, like nuclear weapons and other WMD. Or how about air and water pollution?

Also it wouldn't involve tolerating other people's beliefs.

What about dissenters? There's some in every crowd?

 

[Canute]

I remembered this and thought it was relevant. 'The Varieties of Religious Experience' by William James, from which this is taken, is IMHO still one of the best non-mystical discussion of religion in print.

"In all sad sincerity I think we must conclude that the attempt to demonstrate by purely intellectual process the truth of the deliverance of direct religious experiences is absolutely hopeless.

It would be unfair to philosophy, however, to leave her under this negative sentence. Let me close, then, by briefly enumerating what she can do for religion. If she will abandon metaphysics and deduction for criticism and induction, and frankly transform herself from theology into science of religions, she can make herself enormously useful.

The spontaneous intellect of man always defines the divine which it feels in ways that harmonise with its temporary intellectual prepossesssions. Philosophy can by comparison eliminate the local and the accidental from these definitions. Both from dogma and from worship she can remove historic incrustations. By confronting the spontaneous religious constructions with the results of natural science, philosophy can also eliminate doctrines that are now known to be scientifically absurd or incongruous.

Sifting out in this way unworthy formulations, she can leave a residuum of conceptions that at least are possible. With these she can deal as hypotheses, testing them in all the manners, whether negative or positive, by which hypotheses are ever tested. She can reduce their number, as some are found more open to objections. She can perhaps become the champion of one which she picks out as being the most closely verified or verifiable. She can refine upon the definition of this hypothesis, distinguishing between what is innocent over-belief and symbolism in the expression of it, and what is to be literally taken. As a result, she can offer mediation between different believers, and help to bring about consensus of opinion. She can do this the more successfully, the better she discriminates the common and essential from the individual and local elements of the religious beliefs which she compares.

I do not see why a critical Science of Religions of this sort might not eventually command as general a public adhesion as is commanded by a physical science. Even the personally non-religious might accept its conclusions on trust, much as blind persons now accept the fact of optics - it might appear as foolish to refuse them."

William James
The Varieties of Religious Experience
Longmans, Green and Co. 1902 (455)

 

[CaptainQuaser]

I don't think you can have a universal religion until a God floats out of the sky and takes control, and even then you will probably have some unbelievers and rebellions. The human condition is a strange one.
Doing behavioural management the other day for my job and working with you, the stat is 80% will do what you want them to 15% will partially do what you want them too and 5% will do the opposite of what you want them too.
Having the entire world follow a single religion seems to defy statistics and human nature.
Even if you had 80% boasting acceptance, that 5% would tear you down and cause chaos. The 5% (maybe less) of Islams are radical and/or terrorists, which gives a bad name to the entire religion. The 5% or Christians who are ignorant and unaccepting of other view points, that give Christianity a bad name, ect.

Long and the short of it, humans, I believe, will never have a unified religion.
I am minoring in world relgions and have a degree in theology, and I just don't see it happening.

 

[Mr. dude]

I think that it is an impossibility (or pretty darn close to it) to unify all religion into a single church synid. Mutual understanding, maybe but not all together as brothers and sisters. Christianity isn't even unified all the way. You have different twists on this that or the other thing. So you end up with Lutherans,Catholics,baptists and all these other synids. You also have reformed churchs that have reformed for a reason. Thats just Christianity. Add to that Islam, Buddism, and all that other stuff and that = nonunification.

 

[Nusc]

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism." - Albert Einstein

 

[Canute]

Maybe. But I feel that Einstein overstated the case. Buddhism is not inconsistent with the scientific evidence, but it totally inconsistent with science, disagreeing with its methods, its metaphysical assumptions, its goals and most of its activities. I suspect that one day science will be forced to become Buddhism, at least if it is ever to make sense of Nature, but until then their differences will remain far greater than their similarities.

 

[Nusc]

Buddhism is not inconsistent with the scientific evidence, but it totally inconsistent with science, disagreeing with its methods, its metaphysical assumptions, its goals and most of its activities. I suspect that one day science will be forced to become Buddhism, at least if it is ever to make sense of Nature, but until then their differences will remain far greater than their similarities.

Why do you think Buddhism is totally inconsistent with science?

 

[one_raven]

Is the unification of religion possible, and if so, what tenets might make it so?

I don't think it would be very difficult at all to come up with a theoretical "Universal Religion".
A religion that encompasses all the major* religions of the world would require some revisionist interpretation of the ancient texts, but could remain consistent across the religions (East and West) and even remain consistent with the laws of Physics. (*Of course it would be absurd to try and include every theory devised by every crackpot that wants to bow at an altar and worship a head of lettuce named Ralph.)

The "Universal Religion" you are searching for is already there, and simply needs to be distilled from what we already have.
If you go back to the sources, disregarding the latter interpretations, apologists and various attempts at syncretism, many of the classical Abrahamic and Vedic religions actually fall in line quite nicely when you fill in the blanks "correctly".
Also, with a little creative revisionist interpretation of physics, going back about 100 years, the theory can be consistent with the known laws of science and major discoveries made.
A true "Theory of Everything".

I hope I am correct about this, it is something I have actually been working on for the past few years for a series of books (fiction).

This is what the Theosophists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy) tried to do.
In my opinion, however, they failed miserably because rather than distilling all the theories down to the common factors, they tried to incorporate far too much, then imbued their theory with far too much of their own doctrine, dogma and mystical presuppositions, thereby reducing it's viability and probability.
Plus, mine is fiction- theirs is religion.

There are quite a few problems, however, when you try and take a "Universal Religion" out of the theoretical realm and into reality.

First of all, even if you are successful at building a religion that satisfies all the major theories of religion, that doesn't necessarily make it "truth".
It would simply dismissed as blatant syncretism by many and wholly rejected on that basis, regardless of what it had to say, its motive(s) or value.
Religions, for the most part, are based on peoples value judgements and other opinions- not verifiable fact (if they were verifiable facts, we would have no use for religion at all).
If you take a collection of philosophical thought by 100 of history's most prominent philosophers and distill it down to what can be wholly consistent with the major threads and assertions of all of them, do you then have truth or simply surface agreement and consistency?

Furthermore, you don't need to look any further than Christianity to see another problem with universal acceptance of a single religion.
Christianity has more flavors than Jesus had words.
All these different religions that claim to come from the teachings of Jesus are barely recognizable as related, save for their names and quoting the man.
The closer you look at his actual words (or what is accepted as such by his "followers") the more astounding it is that these different religions actually claim to be of his seed.
People (not just Christians, mind you) tend to look at religion not as a seekers of truth, rather seekers of justification of the way of life they have already accepted as truth.
They read their holy texts in the mindset of lawyers, not followers.
They already have a life and lifestyle they have accepted as their own- and search their respective holy books to try and pick and choose what they see as justification to continue their way of life and relieve themselves of guilt or doubt.
They look for loopholes within the teachings of their church, and if they can't find them in their church or another, they form a new faction to justify their "truths".
I am not condemning this behavior, nor condoning it, simply recognizing it.

 

[Canute]

Why do you think Buddhism is totally inconsistent with science?

I didn't say totally inconsistent. In many respects they are consistent. But would a Buddhist build a bomb? I think not. Would Buddhists interfere with the world like science? It is a doctrine of non-interference. Science is predicated on physicalism, whereas Buddhism is precisely non-physicalism. There is a long list of differences.

I suppose the the nost obvious inconsistency is that science only deals with third-person observable or measurable phenomena and thus cannot address metaphysical questions. According to science all questions about reality itself are undecidable and 'metaphysical', meaning meta-scientific. By contrast in Buddhism (and its equivalents) such questions have answers, or perhaps resolutions is a better word.

 

[Canute]

One Raven

I agree with much of what you say. You seem a bit hard on Theosophy, which I would say is founded on mysticism rather than a theoretical attempt to distill a number of theories, but I feel you're bang with other comments. E.g. "All these different religions that claim to come from the teachings of Jesus are barely recognizable as related, save for their names and quoting the man." Ditto Mohammed. Also the bit about Abraham and the Vedas.

The mystics in all religious traditions are in agreement with one another. Even Sufis and Christian mystics, who consider themselves to be respectively the true followers of Mohammed and Jesus, following in their footsteps rather than turning their teachings to barren theoretical formulae and dogma, are in complete harmony. Theosophists take the same approach.

Btw I'd be interested to hear more about your writing sometime.

Canute

 

[one_raven]

I didn't say totally inconsistent.

Well, actually you did...

Buddhism is not inconsistent with the scientific evidence, but it totally inconsistent with science, disagreeing with its methods, its metaphysical assumptions, its goals and most of its activities.

But I guess there's no need to be pedantic since you made you point more clear in your second post.

 

[the_truth]

"How so? One could extend that and say people are flawed. And people do science as well as religion."

Because rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not. Everyone from all religions agrees that under certain conditions F=MA. However they all disagree with each other religiously, this is because all of these religions are wrong and they only believe in them, because they are either insane, evil, pretending to or simply don't care whether it's true or not and just go along with everyone else. Otherwise their religions would be able to withstand deabte and we would have found our universal religion.

Some parts of religion are logical, such as that murder should be illegal and things. However you cannot prove god exists or there is a heaven or that Mohammed cured lepers (which we have now cured due to advances in medicine).


"Science (and technology) has created many problems, like nuclear weapons and other WMD. Or how about air and water pollution?"

sorry for the caps but...
I DID NOT SAY SCIENCE IS THE UNIVERSAL RELIGION

Religion causes and solves many problems aswell. Science has done more good however. There is a slight chance that you will have to face nuclear destruction in your life time, but don't expect to die at the age of 30 after a life of agricultural labour and see 80% of your children die before the age of 5. Science has done more than religion and thus clearly is closer to this theoretical universal religion that will do what can be done perfectly to make the world a better place. For instance if the universal religion was discoverred in 1700, what course of action would this new religion take? 20 years of heated scientific programs and experimentation to cure diseases or 20 years of heated theology and bible study?


"What about dissenters? There's some in every crowd?"

There would be dissenters, but they would all be crushed in debate and if they are malicious, becasue the universal religion would be so correct and madness to oppose, they would probably o better to try and corrupt the universal religion instead of opposing it.

 

[Nusc]

Because rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not. Everyone from all religions agrees that under certain conditions F=MA. However they all disagree with each other religiously, this is because all of these religions are wrong and they only believe in them, because they are either insane, evil, pretending to or simply don't care whether it's true or not and just go along with everyone else. Otherwise their religions would be able to withstand deabte and we would have found our universal religion.
... For instance if the universal religion was discoverred in 1700, what course of action would this new religion take? 20 years of heated scientific programs and experimentation to cure diseases or 20 years of heated theology and bible study?

lol. Good points but watchout, there are some individuals on these forums that are religious. Unfortunate but not unexpected. It's no surprise who they are.