Is one religion better then the other?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Well it all stems from how you define ‘better.’ But it seems to me that they must be better, otherwise there would be only one or no religion. Religion somewhat goes hand and hand with personality. I don’t know anyone who willfully follows a religion that they directly disagree with. People tend to fall into the religions that they believe in. And given that everyone is different, multiple religions are all better than the others based on the people who follow them.

If you’re a firm believer in equal rights Islam probably won’t inspire you. If you don’t like reptiles then snakehandling is likely out.

It doesn’t really have anything to do with being better, it’s more in what people prefer. You can’t say chocolate icecream tastes better than vanilla, you can say you prefer it though.

22

I think the OP’s question is a difficult one to answer.

First of all there’s the issue of having a simple, coherent definition of religion that differentiates it from other collectively shared ultimate (value making and corresponding moral judgment-measuring) “philosophies/purposes of life”.

I understand Xunzian’s logic in including Communism, as it sums up every communicable thing (of “reality”/“life”/whatev) as an expression of an ultimate, all-encompassing abstract (in this case I’ll say “conflict”), when it itself is not material (not a thing that actually has a physical effect on anything), but only has meaning with a circular explanation of at least two things “being in conflict”
–indeed, when read ontologically, “materialism”'s emphasis on matter preceding thought, and declaration that the world
(or the universe or any word referring to any and all subjective experiences of an environment that a group of people would agree “objectively exists”)
is material ,
(when “the world” is not material, but rather an unspecified collection of forms and relationships between them that have never been even really been cognizable, as they’ve never NOT been–“the world” is practically synonymous with the “thought” required to make it “real”),
appears ridiculous…something like:
The abstracted, thought-dependent “Material” that only has meaning–only exists and affects “the material”–in thought is the ultimate reality
–even though reality is also just an abstract in thought that refers to the common backdrops of all thoughts, IE thought, or thinking, itself;
matter precedes thought, and is more real than thought, though the issue or question of anything being (real) at all is dependent on a symbolic thinking mind that only sees (constructs, interprets, makes) “an existing material world” according to metaphysical thought-blocks.

HOWEVER–and I admit I haven’t read the communist manifesto, nor any of Lenin’s writings to an extent I feel confident in his worldviews beyond the sociological applications of the common ideas historically attached to his name–
I think that, even though Dialectic Materialism’s principles are written in such a way they’re (in meeting the standards of a communicable language, necessarily) relating and equating physical objects and metaphysical abstracts with words like “is” (leaving it open to ontological interpretations), it was intended as an epistemological theory, practically based on relating to and manipulating the things one sees in effort to overcome and avoid distasteful subjective experiences that can be pretty quickly described and understood according to the interaction of concrete things.

I mean… ask a communist to explain what conflict is, and how his belief system tries to harmonize with it. If he is intelligent at all he’ll identify the subjective feeling of conflict with certain physical situations/interactions in such a way you’ll agree it’s real in the sense it describes a feeling you’ve experienced, that is attributed to that “conflict” between you and physical things/relationships. You may not become an advocate for communism yourself, but you’ll at least understand them and communicate about the things with an understanding of what they refer to. Now ask a Christian what the holy spirit is, and why you should accept it as true and let it into your life. How likely is it he’ll say something like "It’s a word that refers to a certain feeling of collective oneness, and personal acceptance, that I get when I am in church and my voice, rather than holding the whole world on its shoulders, becomes but one string in a symphony; the holy spirit is an ocean of cathartic release that pulls me in and makes me it’s own–it’s the gentle, invigorating release of any worry about being a lonely, misunderstood wave.

My point is, if we’re going to call that (as I understand it and have described it) religious thinking, what kind of moral-interpreting belief system isn’t religious? I see the OP as being more specific than “What collective value-system philosophy is best?”

23

I think believing generally makes people less rational and more prone to fanatical tendencies.
But I guess we are free to be illogical and fanatic, if we prefer.

Often, people who “believe” in something (especially religion and moreover organized one) have tendency to be pushy and become “missionary”, I think.
In this regard, Christianity and Islam are pretty bad. They are very pushy and invasive.

24

Hm. I was having a conversation with my aunt a few days ago, and she was stating to me her belief that there is only one god, only one right way to follow him, only one way to get to heaven (by accepting Christ as your savior, etc…)

I found myself wondering how she could be so sure. I have a Christian background, and I do believe in god, but I just can’t be sure that what I’ve been taught in church is correct. My hesitance comes in when I take into consideration that one could gather a group of devout followers from eight different religions, put them all in a room together to discuss things for a day or two, then go and ask them all which one is the “true” religion, and every single one of them would probably still say that there’s was right, and the only way to get to heaven (or whatever they equate with heaven).

Then, of course, when I start pondering all of this, that good old christian guilt floats to the surface, and I’m fairly certain I’m going to end up in hell someday. :laughing:

25

Ah, so none of the major 3 Eastern religions, which are actually based on, inspired by, and borrow from each other regularly, are better than the other. That’s a pretty far cry from “I don’t think any religion is better than the other”, especially since you obviously don’t like religions with a hell dogma (which adds up to about half the believers on Earth, btw.)

26

A religion is better than others if and when someone decides that it is. There are many religions, so how does anyone decide which to choose? And in practice, everyone decides- everyone has a worldview because everyone has a morality, because everyone has nerve endings and depends on other humans for the state of those endings.

Views can be categorised in three ways. One can take the view that this life is all there is, and that conscience, where it exists, has no continuation after physical death. This view leads to humanism, which holds that humans can achieve all that is needed (however much or little that may be) without reference to any agent beyond themselves.

Then one can take the view that conscience has continuation after physical death, and needs to be quieted before death. This gives rise to what is known as the religious view, and it has a long history, with ancient folk believing that natural disasters were in some way their own responsibility, and that external agents punished them or warned them by use of these disasters. This led to offerings or sacrifices to deities to placate them. While modern people understand the physical reasons for, say, droughts or volcanic eruptions, rightly or wrongly, they nevertheless do not entirely discount the possibility that natural disasters are in some way of divine cause; even sober insurance policies refer to ‘acts of God’. However, there are those who take the view that one needs to pay attention to a bad conscience, because it may or will ‘catch up’ with one in the next life, irrespective of possible warnings in this one, and they are those who adopt a ‘religious’ view and practice of some sort.

Of those, there are two basic approaches. One is to engage in religious acts of ritual, self-denial, prayer, offering of sacrifice, pilgrimage or other activities in order to placate a deity or deities. There are many variations and permutations of these beliefs, different species often associated with particular world regions.

The other approach is that of Christianity, that holds that these religious acts cannot clear the conscience, and that acceptance that a clear conscience is already achieved on one’s behalf is all that is required, although the concomitant of that is gratitude that leads to leading a life in conformity to that desired by the Christ.

Which of these three views is better is entirely for individuals to decide.

27

I’ll have to agree with you on this subject. No religion is better than another, it would be impossible to measure “greatness” of religions and religious views. Some may seem more reasonable than others(i suppose) but as far as better? No

28

There is no religion better than the other.
It is on the people whose works and believe might be a model for the others.