Why are there so many different beliefs/religions/philosophies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IntellectIsStrength
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why there are so many different beliefs, religions, and philosophies in the world, particularly in the context of the idea that there may be one ultimate truth or reality. Participants explore this topic from various philosophical, sociological, and psychological perspectives without aiming to establish a singular conclusion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the diversity of beliefs arises from the inherent diversity of human thought and experience, possibly created by a divine force or the complexity of existence.
  • Others propose that free will plays a role in the formation of different beliefs, allowing individuals to interpret reality in varied ways.
  • One viewpoint argues that there is no single physical reality or truth, leading to differing beliefs among people.
  • A participant notes that early humans formed beliefs to fill gaps in their understanding of the universe, resulting in varied cultural expressions of spirituality.
  • Another perspective suggests that the complexity of the ultimate truth may be beyond human comprehension, leading to different religions focusing on various aspects of this truth.
  • Some argue that the lack of well-defined ideas in these subjects prevents universal conclusions, making beliefs a matter of personal taste rather than objective truth.
  • One participant highlights that religions are deeply intertwined with their respective cultures, which contributes to their diversity.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of religious beliefs, with suggestions that religions should focus on ethical and moral teachings rather than unverifiable claims.
  • A later reply emphasizes the importance of seeking a singular philosophical truth while acknowledging the challenges posed by personal desires and dogma.
  • Some participants note that despite the differences, many religions share similar ethical codes and moral teachings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the reasons for the diversity of beliefs. Some agree on the shared ethical foundations of religions, while others emphasize the importance of individual interpretation and cultural context.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the topic, including the influence of cultural evolution on religions and the subjective nature of belief systems. There are also references to the challenges of applying empirical methods to religious claims.

  • #31
Oh dear, I see that I posted nonsense. Most of what I said about Thomas being a source Gopel is rubbish, as you point out. A thousand pardons. I'm an idiot. Much of what I wrote applied not to Thomas but to the Gospel of the Holy Twelve.

However, thanks for your interesting post. For all I know it's all true so I will assume that it is. Yes, I do see your line of argument. And it successfully demolishes my assertion that the Gospel of Thomas was a source text. I was talking nonsense.

However, my view remains unchanged. I do not base this view on the scholarship of historians, archeologists and the like, or at least only slightly, but rather on the content of the texts. If I give an extreme analogy you'll see what I mean.

If you found a old and undated text with no provenance in which it was stated that f=ma, you would immediately know something about its author, the period in which it was written and so on. You would also know that the author knew what he was talking about. If you later discovered that it had been found in Cambridge and carbon dated to the early eighteenth century you wouldn't have much trouble identifying its author. And even if you were wrong about this f would still equal ma.

By contrast, if you found a text from the same place and period which stated that the sun orbited the Earth and was signed Isaac Newton, you might suspect that something was amiss.

To partly correct my earlier idiocy here is a extract from a site devoted to discussion of the early Gospels. I would not argue that it is authoritative. I wouldn't know, not being an authority myself. It's certainly not disinterested. However in its implications for the New Testament and current Church doctrine I share the author's view entirely, leaving aside the preachy bits.

The Gospel of the Holy Twelve

This "Gospel of the Holy Twelve" (Evangelists) of the Christian Dispensation is one of the most ancient and complete of early Christian fragments, preserved in one of the Monasteries of the Buddhist monks in Tibet, where it was hidden by some of the Essene community for safety from the hands of corrupters and now for the first time translated from the Aramaic. The contents clearly show it to be an early Essenian writing. This ancient community of the Jewish Church called Yessenes, Iessenes, Nazarites, or Nazirs, strongly resembling the Therapeutae, and the Buddhists, who practised community of goods, daily ablutions, daily worship, and renounced flesh eating, and strong drink and the sacrifice of animals, and the doctrine of "atonement" for the sins of some by the vicarious and involuntary suffering of others, as held by the Pharisees and Sadducees, and by the heathen before them; thus preparing the way for those Orders and Communities of men and women which have since arisen throughout the East and West, like cities set on hill, to shew the more perfect way to Christians living. in the world, notably those of S. Basil in the East, and S. Benedict in the West, and, with them, the Carthusians and the Franciscans, and before them all, the Carmelites (who had their headquarters on Mount Carmel) to whom they are similar in their customs, and even their dress, if not altogether identical with them, tracing their origin to Elias, abstaining from all flesh meats and strong drinks, whose symbol was, it is said, an iron cross in a circle, and among the animals, the Lamb and the Dove their special emblems. See Philo (in Loco) or Kitto's Cyclopaedia (art, Essenes), also Arthur Lillie's "Christianity and Buddhism."

That the contents of this most ancient Gospel set forth a higher moral and religious teaching, as the basis of the Christian Church, than any other that has come down to us, requires but the reading of eyes divested of prejudice, and the perception of a regenerate heart, and intelligent mind, to receive and appreciate. The giving of the New Law on the Holy Mount is a scene that, once read, can never be forgotten, though it was not "with blackness and thunder and the sound of the trump."

lnasmuch as this Gospel touches on many questions of vital moment now discussed in this age, and little known in those times, it may well be termed par excellence the prophetic and ethical Gospel, and critics and scholars will remember that the writings of Justin Martyn, Papias and others, distinctly speak of, and quote from, the "Gospel of the Hebrews " known otherwise as "the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles " and the "Gospel of the Nazarites," used then, chiefly in the Church at Jerusalem, and the original of Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew which we have in Greek. This identifies it as the original Gospel from which the others were more or less closely copied, with numerous variations and important omissions by accident, or design, to suit the corrupt taste of the worldly.

As this Gospel was not addressed to the heathen, but chiefly to the true followers of Iesus, in the early days of the Church of Jerusalem, so now it is sent to modern Christians who have fallen into worse than heathen darkness, if perchance it may be received by a few men and women of "Peace and Goodwill" to whom "Peace on Earth" was originally announced. It is quite immaterial to the Editors whether it be or be not received, though to them who reject or ignore it, it may be otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Kerrie said:
let's not get into religious detail, and just stay on topic and answer the question in a general sense.

Well, we have a problem then, since the title of our conversation is: "Why are there so many different beliefs / religions / philosophies?"
 
  • #33
The question is meant to be generally asked, it doesn't not ask specifically about a religious denomination. Please consider this as a forewarning, and if you have further questions, please see our guidelines regarding religious discussions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K