What makes a religion "valid?"

[knapplc]

Interesting question brought up in another thread.

 

American law defines a religion as a "sincerely held belief." It does not put strictures on what that belief is, it only says that a person must place great value in the belief, that it must occupy a fundamental space in their lives.

 

Others have their own definitions. My question - which ones are "valid?" What makes them "valid?" Which ones aren't, and why not? Can a belief go from invalid to valid if a person devotes enough of their life to following it?

 

 

Here's a list of some beliefs - certainly not all of them. Which ones are "valid?"

 

Animal cultism (zoomorphism)

Buddhism

Christianity

Druidism

Egyption Pantheon

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Gnosticism

Greek Pantheon

Hinduism

Islam

Jainism

Judaism

Mithraism

Roman Pantheon

Scientology

Shinto

Taoism

Tengriism

Wicca

Zoroastrianism

 

 

 

 

* Don't tell me "you left X religion off the list." There are thousands. These are the first 20 that I thought of.

[carlfense]

* Don't tell me "you left X religion off the list." There are thousands. These are the first 20 that I thought of.

You left off the religion of "atheism."

 

(Kidding . . . but didn't someone in the P&R forum make that argument?)

 

 

I think that the "sincerely held belief" definition is as good of a starting point as any. If that's the definition you could have infinite valid religions. And under that definition I suppose that atheism might even qualify. I think that I'd personally add some element of the supernatural to the definition.

 

Edit: and back to the point . . . I think that if one religion is accepted as valid that they all have to be accepted as valid.

[HeyBurke]

To piggyback on what carlfense said, it's hard to qualify a "sincerely held belief". I would agree that that's a good starting point for determining if a religion is valid, but how can you tell if someone really believes in something? It wouldn't surprise me if there are folks out there who actually worship the FSM and go to Jedi church, but it's so hard to tell if they really believe in that stuff, or not.

[Landlord]

Your assertion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as any other religion, or more specifically just as valid as any other believed in deity, (claimed in the other thread) is a poor one.

 

 

First, I mean let's just acknowledge that this was an invention by a physics professor as a sarcastic protest against intelligent design laws.

 

Even disregarding that, the argument starts along the lines of, "If the existence of X (FSM, a celestial tea pot, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, etc.) has not been disproven, it does not follow that X exists, or even that it is reasonable that X exists. That part is fine.

 

The problem arises when you try to claim that, "Belief in God is epistemically on par with believing in FSM, because just as we have no reason to believe that FSM exists, we have no reason to believe that God exists."

 

But we have all sorts of reasons to believe that God exists. You might not find them compelling, but so what? It's a matter of whether or not you can reason a case for theism, which you very much can, not necessarily scientifically, but empirically, philosophically and theoretically. There is no such case for FSM.

 

Further, we all ultimately break into two camps as far as universe origins - either that the universe was created from non-existence or that the universe was created by something. Most people fall in the second class, as I think they should, and so you already have most of the work of reasoning for God done by acknowledging that people believe in some kind of entity that resides outside of the laws of our universe non-contingently.

 

Then the only distinction we're left with is intelligent vs. non-intelligent agent.

 

 

 

 

 

None of that is to say that if there are people that zealously practice Pastafarianism that their practices or beliefs are invalid.

[carlfense]

. . . but it's so hard to tell if they really believe in that stuff, or not.

Sounds applicable to most of the Methodists and Lutherans back in my hometown . . .

[knapplc]

Your assertion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as any other religion, or more specifically just as valid as any other believed in deity, (claimed in the other thread) is a poor one.

 

 

First, I mean let's just acknowledge that this was an invention by a physics professor as a sarcastic protest against intelligent design laws.

 

Even disregarding that, the argument starts along the lines of, "If the existence of X (FSM, a celestial tea pot, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, etc.) has not been disproven, it does not follow that X exists, or even that it is reasonable that X exists. That part is fine.

 

The problem arises when you try to claim that, "Belief in God is epistemically on par with believing in FSM, because just as we have no reason to believe that FSM exists, we have no reason to believe that God exists."

 

But we have all sorts of reasons to believe that God exists. You might not find them compelling, but so what? It's a matter of whether or not you can reason a case for theism, which you very much can, not necessarily scientifically, but empirically, philosophically and theoretically. There is no such case for FSM.

 

Further, we all ultimately break into two camps as far as universe origins - either that the universe was created from non-existence or that the universe was created by something. Most people fall in the second class, as I think they should, and so you already have most of the work of reasoning for God done by acknowledging that people believe in some kind of entity that resides outside of the laws of our universe non-contingently.

 

Then the only distinction we're left with is intelligent vs. non-intelligent agent.

 

 

 

 

 

None of that is to say that if there are people that zealously practice Pastafarianism that their practices or beliefs are invalid.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/celestial-teapots-flying-spaghetti-monsters-and-other-silly-atheist-argumen

 

Are you going to plagiarize that whole page if we persist with this conversation?

[NUpolo8]

Don't tell me "you left X religion off the list." There are thousands. These are the first 20 that I thought of.

 

[Landlord]

I'm complete junk when it comes to eloquence and good communication in stating my positions so I often look for other people who have said the same things better maybe I should just start responding to everything with links and stop trying

[HeyBurke]

 

But we have all sorts of reasons to believe that God exists. You might not find them compelling, but so what? It's a matter of whether or not you can reason a case for theism, which you very much can, not necessarily scientifically, but empirically, philosophically and theoretically. There is no such case for FSM.

 

 

Who's to say that there isn't evidence that the FSM exists? What legitimate evidence do you have for saying the Christian God exists? The fact is that there is no evidence for the existence of any deity, whether it be God or the FSM. It's pretty hypocritical to argue that the existence of one religions deity lack evidence of existence when yours is in the same boat. As much as I hate these cliche atheist quotes, I think this one fits pretty well, here:

 

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

[Junior]

I'm complete junk when it comes to eloquence and good communication in stating my positions so I often look for other people who have said the same things better maybe I should just start responding to everything with links and stop trying

 

I often find articles that articulate my feelings/points better than I do. And I'll highlight relevant paragraphs and link to the source. That's just giving credit to people for their ideas.

[Landlord]

 

Who's to say that there isn't evidence that the FSM exists? What legitimate evidence do you have for saying the Christian God exists?

 

 

Well first, the entire point of the flying spaghetti monster is that there ISN'T evidence that it exists or doesn't exist - that's the whole philosophical argument that the creator was making.

 

The ontological argument, the first-cause argument, morality, the teleological argument and human history are a few examples - see more here - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

 

 

As far as the distinction of Christianity over other religions, that rests solely on the resurrection.

[knapplc]

 

 

But we have all sorts of reasons to believe that God exists. You might not find them compelling, but so what? It's a matter of whether or not you can reason a case for theism, which you very much can, not necessarily scientifically, but empirically, philosophically and theoretically. There is no such case for FSM.

 

 

Who's to say that there isn't evidence that the FSM exists? What legitimate evidence do you have for saying the Christian God exists? The fact is that there is no evidence for the existence of any deity, whether it be God or the FSM. It's pretty hypocritical to argue that the existence of one religions deity lack evidence of existence when yours is in the same boat. As much as I hate these cliche atheist quotes, I think this one fits pretty well, here:

 

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

 

 

The primary difference is time. Simple time.

 

We've had 2,000 years since the death of Jesus to build walls of words to fortify the position that he was a god. We've had countless debates to hone those positions, we've had billions of people follow the religion, each adding their own "testament," each putting one more brick on that wall, one more scoop of religious fervor onto the mountain that makes Christianity. That's why it is the edifice it is today.

 

Newer religions simply haven't had that time, that ongoing debate, that defense of generations to craft a wall so high. Islam has had more time than some, and more controversy than many, meaning the defenses have been greater and longer, and the walls are higher. It is considered far more "valid" simply because of this.

 

Who's to say that in 2,000 years the Church of Scientology isn't a comparable edifice to Christianity, or to what Christianity is today? The legends will have had time to seep into the zeitgeist of humanity and may become as firmly believed as Christianity.

 

So, I propose that time is the Great Validifier.

[carlfense]

So, I propose that time is the Great Validifier.

I'm shocked that knapplc thinks that age is the Great Validifier.

[HeyBurke]

I totally agree, knapp. I have no problem with someone who follows a certain religion and is a good person, like Landlord seems to be. It's just a bit ridiculous to try and refute one religion with the same arguments that could easily be used to refute your own.

[HeyBurke]

 

 

Who's to say that there isn't evidence that the FSM exists? What legitimate evidence do you have for saying the Christian God exists?

 

 

Well first, the entire point of the flying spaghetti monster is that there ISN'T evidence that it exists or doesn't exist - that's the whole philosophical argument that the creator was making.

 

The ontological argument, the first-cause argument, morality, the teleological argument and human history are a few examples - see more here - http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

 

 

As far as the distinction of Christianity over other religions, that rests solely on the resurrection.

 

 

Yeah, I'm aware of the reason the whole FSM thing was done. But, like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if there are people out there who truly believe in the FSM and follow the pastafarianism religion. Doesn't really matter why the "religion" was created if people truly believe and follow it.

 

Every argument in your link begs the question. None of those points are based off of any established logical reasoning. You cannot argue that everything in the universe has a cause because that's how God intended it, when the whole point of your argument is to prove God's existence. Your conclusion cannot be part of your reasoning.

 

And what do you mean about the resurrection? There are plenty of religions that have resurrections tales.