Religious "Truth" Based on Culture and Location?

[d0rkyd00d]

It is safe to assume that one’s beliefs will most likely be based on where one was raised, what their parents believe, and what their culture believes.

If one is born in America, they will most likely be Christian. If one is born in India, they will most likely be Hindu. If one is born in China, they will most likely be Christian or Buddhist. Of course, it’s not a guarantee, and there will always be a select few who dismiss their belief later on in life, but generally speaking, there is a much higher chance that growing up in the culture, they will be the religion of that culture.

So it is safe to assume that had all of the Christians in American been raised in India, the majority of them would be Hindu. If the majority grew up in Mexico, the majority would be Catholic.

It is also safe to conclude that the strength of one’s faith has nothing to do with the validity of the religion. The majority of those who succumb to their culture and take on the belief system of that culture’s primary religion will believe that religion just as strongly as another raised in a different culture. It can be agreed the strength of one’s belief has less to do with the logic of the religion, and more to do with simply being raised in that specific culture.

So let’s assume for a moment that the entire planet’s main religion was Buddhism. Undoubtedly, the majority of people born would be Buddhist. Yes, there would be a very small, select few who would branch off to other faiths, but simply based on every other nation in the world whose population consistently remains the same religion, it would make sense that the majority of the world would remain Buddhist. Of course, the majority of the world’s faith in this belief system would be unshakeable.

Knowing that one’s belief is much more dependent on where one grows up than any other factor in the majority of cases, would it not also be safe to assume that the belief came first, and the reasons for believing came next? In other words, the means were found to satisfy the end, as opposed to the end being derived from the means? Is it more logical to find means that satisfy the end, or an end to satisfy the means? How can one feel so unshakeable about their belief, knowing the most likely reason that one believes what one does is simply because of where one grows up, and the culture they were raised in? How can one feel so sure that their faith is correct, when it is also easy to see that everybody feels their faith is equally correct (otherwise they wouldn’t believe it), and the only difference in belief is simply where one is raised?

[Xunzian]

Given Durkheim’s theory on religion . . . where is the problem? They are all equally serving the same purpose.

[scythekain]

@Xunzian

Given Durkheim’s theory on religion . . . where is the problem? They are all equally serving the same purpose.

disagree…

but of course you knew that.

It does depend on culture and where you are born… and to a DEGREE, religions serve the same purpose, but (and this is important) they are NOT doing so equally.

[Xunzian]

I’d actually argue that radical islam is doing a much better job of creating a community than, say, New Age spiritualism.

Durkheim doesn’t deal with the type of community, but that is a discussion for another day.

Say what you will about fundamentalism, it can be wonderful social glue!

[Club29]

@d0rkyd00d

It is safe to assume that one’s beliefs will most likely be based on where one was raised, what their parents believe, and what their culture believes.

If one is born in America, they will most likely be Christian. If one is born in India, they will most likely be Hindu. If one is born in China, they will most likely be Christian or Buddhist. Of course, it’s not a guarantee, and there will always be a select few who dismiss their belief later on in life, but generally speaking, there is a much higher chance that growing up in the culture, they will be the religion of that culture.

So it is safe to assume that had all of the Christians in American been raised in India, the majority of them would be Hindu. If the majority grew up in Mexico, the majority would be Catholic.

It is also safe to conclude that the strength of one’s faith has nothing to do with the validity of the religion. The majority of those who succumb to their culture and take on the belief system of that culture’s primary religion will believe that religion just as strongly as another raised in a different culture. It can be agreed the strength of one’s belief has less to do with the logic of the religion, and more to do with simply being raised in that specific culture.

So let’s assume for a moment that the entire planet’s main religion was Buddhism. Undoubtedly, the majority of people born would be Buddhist. Yes, there would be a very small, select few who would branch off to other faiths, but simply based on every other nation in the world whose population consistently remains the same religion, it would make sense that the majority of the world would remain Buddhist. Of course, the majority of the world’s faith in this belief system would be unshakeable.

Knowing that one’s belief is much more dependent on where one grows up than any other factor in the majority of cases, would it not also be safe to assume that the belief came first, and the reasons for believing came next? In other words, the means were found to satisfy the end, as opposed to the end being derived from the means? Is it more logical to find means that satisfy the end, or an end to satisfy the means? How can one feel so unshakeable about their belief, knowing the most likely reason that one believes what one does is simply because of where one grows up, and the culture they were raised in? How can one feel so sure that their faith is correct, when it is also easy to see that everybody feels their faith is equally correct (otherwise they wouldn’t believe it), and the only difference in belief is simply where one is raised?

You can feel secure you’re faith is correct when you open it up for discussion. Which one is discussed the most? What are the leading apologetist believing? I find it crazy they hold the same beliefs as me before I even knew them, but it’s that much more reassurement that my faith is the correct one. Islam discussed, nooo, you’d get killed. Hindu? Now that’s a horrible way to live… But I won’t pass that off as an excuse, my religion has someonen who Gave their life, suffered on a Cross for others, this is how my religion is different.

I guess you could say I got lucky to be born in a place that had the right faith, otherwise it would have taken me longer to get to where I am. I’m just discussing this with you, you don’t have to believe or even try to understand what I’m saying.

[scythekain]

@Xunzian

I’d actually argue that radical islam is doing a much better job of creating a community than, say, New Age spiritualism.

Durkheim doesn’t deal with the type of community, but that is a discussion for another day.

Say what you will about fundamentalism, it can be wonderful social glue!

I agree with that… what I disagree with is the statement of equality of reason or common sense among the beliefs.

The reason more and more white bread people are attracted to Islam, is because of a SOLID base of ethics and morals, things that the western christian culture by and large is losing.

[Mr_Predictable]

@Xunzian

I’d actually argue that radical islam is doing a much better job of creating a community than, say, New Age spiritualism.

Durkheim doesn’t deal with the type of community, but that is a discussion for another day.

Say what you will about fundamentalism, it can be wonderful social glue!

If you study, then you will find that all religions and spiritual philosophies are based on bigotry and self-serving group behavior.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all facets of the same religion. Each one finds its people special and with answers.

Hinduism creates a social stratification that is based on past life worthiness. The practical view is that the system ensures that the high caste will never see any family in a low position.

Eastern religions, are a race to become disconnected. I’m more disconnected than thou, if you will.

These systems serve to create egotism, based on nothing as Nietzsche would say, and when they come in contact with each other, then hell breaks loose.

The North Korean moto is “self-reliance” which is a general Asian concept related to communism and living. It means that we will not expect fictional system and magic to help us out of trouble. Only we can do that.

[Mr_Predictable]

@scythekain

@Xunzian

I’d actually argue that radical islam is doing a much better job of creating a community than, say, New Age spiritualism.

Durkheim doesn’t deal with the type of community, but that is a discussion for another day.

Say what you will about fundamentalism, it can be wonderful social glue!

I agree with that… what I disagree with is the statement of equality of reason or common sense among the beliefs.

The reason more and more white bread people are attracted to Islam, is because of a SOLID base of ethics and morals, things that the western christian culture by and large is losing.

I believe that the answer is because it’s a dangerous novelty.

I would like to see the average western convert whip a rock at some young lady’s head until they kill her. I’d hold his koran for him while he warmed up.

[scythekain]

@Mr. Predictable

@scythekain

@Xunzian

I’d actually argue that radical islam is doing a much better job of creating a community than, say, New Age spiritualism.

Durkheim doesn’t deal with the type of community, but that is a discussion for another day.

Say what you will about fundamentalism, it can be wonderful social glue!

I agree with that… what I disagree with is the statement of equality of reason or common sense among the beliefs.

The reason more and more white bread people are attracted to Islam, is because of a SOLID base of ethics and morals, things that the western christian culture by and large is losing.

I believe that the answer is because it’s a dangerous novelty.

I would like to see the average western convert whip a rock at some young lady’s head until they kill her. I’d hold his koran for him while he warmed up.

I’d like to see what happens when the novelty wears off and they try leaving the religion. I’d open the quran to the passage that tells you what to do with apostates.

[Xunzian]

Scyth,
Are you familiar with Durkheim? You don’t seem to be. Remedy that.

Mr. Predictable,
I’d be careful with those over-generalizations – Eastern religions are every bit as linked (in every bit as petty a fashion) to their ethnicity as Western ones. Some are better at being exported than others, but the same old racist schtick applies. Some cultures just manage to be more civilized than others.

[scythekain]

The mature Durkheim realized that only if all members of a society were anchored to common sets of symbolic representations, to common assumptions about the world around them, could moral unity be assured. Without them, Durkheim argued, any society, whether primitive or modern, was bound to degenerate and decay.

That’s what I said… that’s why republicans won despite Bush’s lackluster policies and debating skills.

There is a natural compulsion (even among god fearing christians) to push against the degeneration and moral decay present in today’s society. The moral backlash is happening, all over… whether it’s a majority christian, or majority muslim country. People choose the moral set that makes the most sense to them… it could be as Mr. Predictable stated, a “fad”, a Phase… It could be a deeper yearning for morality.

[Xunzian]

But fundamentalists do all share a common set of symbolic representations. They even share a common set of assumptions about the world.

It ain’t a pretty one, but it is consistant.

One of the critiques of Durkheim is that he didn’t really explore that whole, “not nice” assumptions about the world aspect of religion.