Conflicting religions

[Steve Petersen]

Doctor, my brain hurts!

Oh. I see. It will have to come out!

 

[kedaman]

Lol, I'm going contradict all reasonable logic and slip into a bit of a raving mystic persona here, but:

If only one religion is true, that doesn't prevent other religions from being true, or all religions from being true even. Conflicting truths can stand alongside each other and not cancel each other out. "There are trivial truths and great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." Truth is an invention of the human mind and is thus something that things above, below, or beyond humankind need not necessarily concern itself with.

IIRC thats a Bohr quote, or a modifaction of it. He was talking about profound truths. Its not that they can be both true at the same time, but that they can both be held true, independently of each other, but independent of empirical evidence. The existence of free will is one such position. There cannot exist both free will and not exist free will, but each can be true if and only if the other is false. The term "profound truth" rather refers to a hypothesis that cannot be supported by empirically evidence, and equally supported by reason as its opposite, not to be confused with the trivial meaning of truth, or absolute truth.

 

[TrueQ]

Yeah, its a modification, I can't remember who said it before me. 'Great' refers to grand philosophical truths with very little actual supporting evidence, 'trivial' refers to physical facts with lotsa supporting evidence. I just think it makes the god-based slant much more pronounced. Apply religion to the realm of philosophy, as some people do, and it works very well.

 

[rahul_sharma]

 

[Ram]

So, if a person’s religion says it is the only way, the only truth…you believe in the validity of it?



*shakes head miserably*

Of course, I beleive in the validty of Christianity even if it claims to be the only truth. The reason I have made clear, we are just unable to understand the logic of God.

There are certain reasons why prophets have taught certain principles. As far as I know, Jesus knew all paths to God were valid. But he taught he was the only way, because that will give his followers more purpose of acheivment. There is no need to follow two religions to reach God, only one of them followed in tru earnest is sufficient. That is why the insistance of accepting your relgion as the only truth.

 

[Ram]

I've found that people who claim to be tolerant and accepting of all religions are only accepting of religions that are also universalistic.

This is incorrect. You are probably not aware many Hindu schools also say they are the the only truth. I myself belong one of those Hindu schools.

 

[Ram]

If religions A and B are mutually exclusive there are only two possibilities: 1) one of them is correct, or 2) they are both wrong!

That is human logic. God's logic is beyond that, that is the purpose of the OP.

 

[Ram]

I'm tolerant of all religions, even the ones that say theirs is right and mine is wrong. I just disagree, is all.

Here I am not referring to religeous tolerance. I am referring to the religious validity.

 

[Ram]

Ram , nice article but on that last point theres a loophole . yes different religions can be ultimately true but theres no way calvinist christianity and hinduism can be true at the same time . universalist christianity or certain denominations which dont subscribe to the eternal hell belief like SDA's i think could hold certain truth along with conflicting religions

Hmm, that is because we cannot understand God. Do vedas talk of reincarnation? Can you show me one quote that proves it?

Religion is a constant evolution. Christianity, Islam etc are various stages S.D has gone thru in the past. The concept of reincarnation in Hinduism appeared at a later date. It is not that vedic seers did not know it.

True Christians lead a very moral and good life. Because they beelive they have only once chance to prove their worth to God. Jesus was obviously aware of karma theory but he did not teach it because it is unnecessary to reach God.

Hinduism is the electronic circuitry of the TV plus the front panel. Christianity is the TV with the just the screen and panel controls. Christians operate the TV without knowledge of the internal circuity (like Karma theory). It is not needed to operate the TV. ( to reach God) Thus calvinist christianity and hinduism are no different when it comes to the goal - viz viewing the TV.(God)

 

[Ram]

I think it would have been better had you simply posed it this way:

Person A is a person who believes in the validity of all religions.

Person B is a person believes his religion to be the only truth..
.

- Art

I agree, this looks nicer, thank you.

Note that I said Hindu like. The term "fanatic" was used to just give a kick to the discussion. I know there are many "fanatic" schools in Hinduism also.

Very few people are aware of the basics, including some Hindus. I will try to state a few of the here.

1. Some schools in Hinduism have the concept of eternal damnation, like Christianity and Islam.

2. Some Hindu schools dont have the concept of reincarnation.

3. Some offshoots of Hinduism beleive in only seven reincarnations.

4. Some Hindu schools make gross discriminations of souls, like it might Say Christians end up as menials in the heaven, other hindus end up as servants, while followers of its school end up close with God.

5. Some Hindu schools beleive they are the only true path to salvation and even condemns other fellow Hindu schools.

6. Some Hindu schools attach importance only to god's grace and not to human deeds, which is not in sync with general Hinduism. (it is like Christianity)

7. Some Hindu schools beleive the only way to god is thru self surender to God, and not thru devotion , meditation, yoga etc.


To any one who thinks that Hinduism as a single religion with a unified concept, these should be sufficient to prove it is very diverse and encompasses all religions in the world. That is why Hindus say the Vedic religion may be the mother to all religions including the present day Hinduism.

To say that Hinduism is all inclusive is a poor summary of Hinduism. It is stated out of ignorance. These above schools are considered to be mainstream Hinduism too. Sanatana Dharma is all inclusive, and modern Hinduism is to be considered as a subset of it. S.D embraces all of mankind and religions. In the present day concept, S.D and Hinduism are not the same, that is where the confusion lies.

If Hinduism can accept such schools as orthodox Hindu schools, what prevents Hindus from accepting the validity of religions like Christianity. Hindus accept religions that claim to be the only truth too, there should be no difficulty in understanding this concept.

 

[Ram]

Someone who adheres to the belief that all religions are true is as much of a fanatic as person B.
Fanatic usually means someone who, in the name of faith, gives up on reason, his conscience and morality.

If someone thinks that two different religions, which teach different and contradictory things, can be true, he has given up on reason.
Furthermore, he is as stubborn in this belief that all religions are true as the B fanatic is on the belief that only his religion is true.

Either all religions are true or less than all religions are true. Why does someone who believes in the former is often considered "open-minded" (despite his despise for simple logic) while someone who believes in the latter a fanatic? This is prejudice and bigotry.

It is obvious you think of yourself to know better than God. You think you are intelligent and logic to know God thru human logic - that is ur pitfall. That is why you call them contradictions when there arn't any. Christinaity itself has so many denominations and so many beliefs, are they all wrong or mutually contradictory or claim to have the sole truth? Same is the case with Hinduism. So it is with Islam. By your logic there must be exactly one religion and one exactly denomination amongst them that must be the truth, the rest are bogus.

Simple reason in calling the former as open minded is they can never start religeous wars. Only ppl who believe they have the sole truth can get sectarian and involve in religeous tirade.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A: Can God do something that we humans cannot understand or that we find impossible or contradictory?
B: Yes.

A problem with this argument (aside from being based on "merely" human logic ) is that religious "fanatics" don't necessarily take the view that God can do the contradictory. The Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo argued that God can do everything possible, but not anything impossible, such as to create contradictions like a square circle. People who take Augustine's view may easily say that their religion is the only true religion.

 

[rahul_sharma]

God is infinite, work of an infinite may look contradictory to a finite mind.

 

[kedaman]

God is infinite, work of an infinite may look contradictory to a finite mind.

To the finite mind, the infinite isn't contradictory, but rather undecidable.

 

[rahul_sharma]

To the finite mind, the infinite isn't contradictory, but rather undecidable.

Nature of Infinite is undecidable for a finite mind , Play/wish/work of an Infinite may look contradictory to an ignorant/finite mind.

 

[Arthra]

My friend Ram wrote:

Religion is a constant evolution. Christianity, Islam etc are various stages S.D has gone thru in the past. The concept of reincarnation in Hinduism appeared at a later date. It is not that vedic seers did not know it.

My comment:

Ram, I know you identify here with Sanatana Dharma, but it is only your assumption that other religions are "various stages S.D has gone thru in the past." Also, you seem to give a lot of credence to the concept of reincarnation as if it were very advanced in the evolution of religion, this too is your assumption on your part.

Ram:

Hinduism is the electronic circuitry of the TV plus the front panel. Christianity is the TV with the just the screen and panel controls. Christians operate the TV without knowledge of the internal circuity (like Karma theory). It is not needed to operate the TV.

My comment:

This statement: "Hinduism is the electronic circuitry of the TV plus the front panel. Christianity is the TV with the just the screen and panel controls," is to me sounds really rather condescending and I am not even a Christian.

Ram:

I know there are many "fanatic" schools in Hinduism also.

Comment:

OK... I agree. There are some fanatic Moslems and Christians and some Jews as well... What do we think can be done about this?

I'd suggest we support models opposed to prejudice and elitism.

- Art

 

[Ram]

A problem with this argument (aside from being based on "merely" human logic ) is that religious "fanatics" don't necessarily take the view that God can do the contradictory. The Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo argued that God can do everything possible, but not anything impossible, such as to create contradictions like a square circle. People who take Augustine's view may easily say that their religion is the only true religion.

Well, God by definition is beyond human perception. I am giving one example of what might be called apparent contradiction.( I dont understand what is mean by a square circle, if something is a square it is not a circle by its definition, I am assuming you are referring to the problem of squaring a circle thru Euclidean methods)

Let us take what is meant by a geodesic. A simple definiton of a geodesic is it is the shortest distance between two points on a surface.

In an arbitrary surface M, geodesics are well known to be the generalization of the straight line in the Euclidean plane. They are the curves in M that do not turn.

The geodescic for an Euclidean plane is the straight line.
The geodesic for a spherical surface is the great circle.

The geodesics in a space depend on the Riemannian Metric.

Geodesics are important in the relativistic description of gravity. Einstein's Principle of Equivalence, part of the General Theory of Relativity, tells us that geodesics represent the paths of freely-falling particles in a given spacetime.

Even for various 3D dimensional surfaces, you can get different geodesics.

For higher dimensioned surfaces, the scientific problem of geodesics is rather funny or illogical to the human being. It is beyond our senses.

If we take the brahmanda( a mini universe in the Hindu Scripture), is described to be a seven dimesnioned entity. I gave a considerable thought to what it meant. What is the significance of seven dimensions, which is described to the world of Lord Brahma ( not that this is not the supreme God).

My hypothesis works out the seven dimensions to be the three dimensions of x, y and z we are all familiar with. The fourth dimension is time. The fifth and the sixth dimensions are the planes of imaginary axis u and v. The seventh plane is the imaginary plane w. (See Complex Number Theory for reference). A divine being which can visualize these seven dimensions can actually make humans beings ridiculous by performing illogical feats. This is not even unscientific. While an atheist may not accept that there exists a being that has advanced perception than humans, it is not difficult to see that even human beings do not have as much perception as many animals in some respects. So this concept cannot be just dismissed. To all theists, it must be easy to agree on the statement that God can really perform tasks that look absolutely illogical to humans.

So, it is well accepted even in physics rather irrational or illogical problems that surface in mathematics and physics about higher dimensions. There are many scientists even working actively on these problems.

Just because something looks irrational does not mean it is irrational. It just exposes the limitations of human beings conditioned by space and time. If you can transcend these, as accepted by all religions, the apparent contradictions vanish.

 

[Ram]

Hinduism is the electronic circuitry of the TV plus the front panel. Christianity is the TV with the just the screen and panel controls. Christians operate the TV without knowledge of the internal circuity (like Karma theory). It is not needed to operate the TV.

My comment:

This statement: "Hinduism is the electronic circuitry of the TV plus the front panel. Christianity is the TV with the just the screen and panel controls," is to me sounds really rather condescending and I am not even a Christian.

Ram:
- Art

You are misreading into what I said. It is just one explanation for explaining why different religions still point to the same truth. All religions are black boxes, with an input called spiritual disciple and an output called salvation( called god).

Apparently, only the Hindu Philsophy goes a long way in describing this black box in very deep detail, as evident from its 500,000 ancient manuscripts on religion. There is really no reason to beleive the truth otherwise. The main part of this black box is supplied by the Upanishads, where you get a very abstract description of God, the relationship between soul and god and so forth.

To be honest, I have read most of bible and find that it is mainly a lot of stories, history and morals and a way of life. The philosophical depth is clearly lacking when you make an unbiased comparison. Can you show me something in bible which shows its philsophical depth like the hindu scripture, like in upanishads or the brahma sutras, for example the abstraction of God, the detailed relationships between God and Soul etc? The bible just summarises them in a few verses, that is why I mentioned it to be a front panel.

That is why I said S.D supplies the electronic circuitry for the black box. There is no way I am belittling anybody here, when I said that each black box is a valid path to the goal.

I do not understand why you take this as an offense when other religions like Christianity and Islam consider Hinduism to be a trash. On the other hand, Hinduism gives a concrete meaning to every religion in the world with its own scripture.

 

[MachineGod]

I beleive in the validty of Christianity even if it claims to be the only truth.

many Hindu schools also say they are the the only truth. I myself belong one of those Hindu schools.

Yours is the ONLY truth…yet, Christianity is the ONLY truth also.

Your contradicting yourself in back to back posts, my friend.

That is human logic. God's logic is beyond that, that is the purpose of the OP.

Using human logic to prove that god’s logic is beyond human logic is an oxymoron. That is what your OP presents to us.

I dont understand what is mean by a square circle, if something is a square it is not a circle by its definition, I am assuming you are referring to the problem of squaring a circle thru Euclidean methods

We are referring to a square that is also a circle. Not squaring a circle. Hence, God cannot create it.

is not difficult to see that even human beings do not have as much perception as many animals in some respects.

Yet, their perceptions are logical to us. This argument doesn’t hold up.

So, it is well accepted even in physics rather irrational or illogical problems that surface in mathematics and physics about higher dimensions. There are many scientists even working actively on these problems.
Just because something looks irrational does not mean it is irrational.

That is true, but only if it is not proven irrational through logical means. If something is logically impossible, there can be no logical possibility of it being true. In this case, mutually exclusive religions cannot be both 100% true, at the same time, from the same context.

I think your arguments here are nothing more than trying to prove that Hinduism is the 100% truth while others are lesser, which is evident also in rahul_sharma’s visual posts, and your analogy of the television (whether you meant it that way or not). This position does not prove the assertion that all religions are valid, (in fact, contradicts it) nor that God is beyond logic or holds some “higher” logic.

The presupposition that God has some kind of “higher” logic is nonsensical. Logic as we know it, would be the creation of God, through God’s logic. Therefore, logic in and of itself IS God’s logic. (Chaos to cosmos).

What you fail to acknowledge is the possibility of there being DIFFERENT truths from DIFFERENT contexts about the same subject.

Consider,

If you shine a beam of white light (electromagnetic radiation) onto a ball, and you see green, what’s happening? What’s happening is that all colors in the visible spectrum are being absorbed into the surface of the ball, except the pure color blue and the pure color yellow. These two separate colors in the spectrum of light are reflected from the surface of the ball, enters the retina, hits the photoreceptors, converted to electrical signal, goes to the primary visual cortex, to groups of cortical cells, transmitted to the brain, where the image is put back together, and whollaa...you see green.

Further…

Because all colors in the spectrum are absorbed into the ball, and reflecting only the pure color blue and the pure color yellow, then it could be logically debated that the ball is every color “except” blue and yellow.

And…it can logically be debated, since electromagnetic radiation is the only reason you perceive color, that the ball is actually no color at all.

So, the ball in this example, is

1 - green

2 – both totally blue, and totally yellow.
3 - every color except blue and yellow
4 - absolutely no color at all.

All four are true from different context, but mutually exclusive from the same context. Only ONE can be a profound truth, while the others are what I would call trivial truths, and none are essentially the same truth or lead to an “Ultimate” truth.

Even saying that the Ultimate truth they all lead to is “God” is also not valid, since some religions do not. In fact, even “hard” atheism (of which some consider as a faith in itself) is mutually exclusive to the point, and irreconcilable.

Indeed, the faith that “all religions are valid”, is as contradictory as the proposed attributes given to God in the dialogue you present.

 

[Ram]

Yours is the ONLY truth…yet, Christianity is the ONLY truth also.

Your contradicting yourself in back to back posts, my friend.

Mine is the only truth. Christianity is the only truth. Both are individual claims only. Not correct. Nor there is a proof. There is no contradiction. The only clause is incorrect.

Using human logic to prove that god’s logic is beyond human logic is an oxymoron. That is what your OP presents to us.

Tell me, what is God? Do you think God is another human, albeit a superior one, or totally transcends his creation?

We are referring to a square that is also a circle. Not squaring a circle. Hence, God cannot create it.

Your statement requires me to call circle a square, which if I do, it fits perfectly. I hope you know the definitons of a square and a circle. It is man's limitation to see square as a square and circle as a circle, not God's. You have no idea of God. Man cannot see infrared rays, cannot hear ultrasound waves, he has some instruments for detecting them. There are many things beyond man, which are beyond any sophisticated instruments man can build. Those are the divine....

That is true, but only if it is not proven irrational through logical means. If something is logically impossible, there can be no logical possibility of it being true. In this case, mutually exclusive religions cannot be both 100% true, at the same time, from the same context.

I think your arguments here are nothing more than trying to prove that Hinduism is the 100% truth while others are lesser, which is evident also in rahul_sharma’s visual posts, and your analogy of the television (whether you meant it that way or not). This position does not prove the assertion that all religions are valid, (in fact, contradicts it) nor that God is beyond logic or holds some “higher” logic.

The presupposition that God has some kind of “higher” logic is nonsensical. Logic as we know it, would be the creation of God, through God’s logic. Therefore, logic in and of itself IS God’s logic. (Chaos to cosmos).

What you fail to acknowledge is the possibility of there being DIFFERENT truths from DIFFERENT contexts about the same subject.

Consider, can something be totally blue, AND totally yellow at the same time?

Yes.
If you shine a beam of white light (electromagnetic radiation) onto a ball, and you see green, what’s happening? What’s happening is that all colors in the visible spectrum are being absorbed into the surface of the ball, except the pure color blue and the pure color yellow. These two separate colors in the spectrum of light are reflected from the surface of the ball, enters the retina, hits the photoreceptors, converted to electrical signal, goes to the primary visual cortex, to groups of cortical cells, transmitted to the brain, where the image is put back together, and whollaa...you see green.

Further…

Because all colors in the spectrum are absorbed into the ball, and reflecting only the pure color blue and the pure color yellow, then it could be logically debated that the ball is every color “except” blue and yellow.

And…it can logically be debated, since electromagnetic radiation is the only reason you perceive color, that the ball is actually no color at all.

So, the ball in this example, is

1 - green

2 – both totally blue, and totally yellow.
3 - every color except blue and yellow
4 - absolutely no color at all.

All four are true from different context, but mutually exclusive from the same context. Only ONE can be a profound truth, while the others are what I would call trivial truths, and none are essentially the same truth or lead to an “Ultimate” truth.

Even saying that the Ultimate truth they all lead to is “God” is also not valid, since some religions do not. In fact, even “hard” atheism (of which some consider as a faith in itself) is mutually exclusive to the point, and irreconcilable.

Indeed, the faith that “all religions are valid”, is as contradictory as the proposed attributes given to God in the dialogue you present.

You have no idea of god head. Your logic is purely human. Relgion cannot be analysed by logic like yours. You seem to think of God as a man who thinks and acts like a man.

What is the logic for a God itself? Why then consider the validty of any religion? Are you an atheist or a theist? If a theist , why and what reasons prompted ur beleif, except faith. If you are atheist, you have no say in this thread because you dont beleive in God. If you are theist, please clarify how you would arrive at the truth.

Atheism does not lead to God is ur view, not the Hindu view. In Hindu view atheists can also reach God, perhaps might take a few incarnations longer than a theist.

You have not understood one wee bit. This is not a question of which is a superior religion. It is only a question of validty of religions. For example, one religion may be like taking a flight. Another may be a bullock cart(or a car or a ship) path to God. The bullock cart and the flight are indeed different and built on different technolgies, but they will lead to their destinations.