"Filtering" the Religions, Part 1

"Practically all religions and all philosophies have started ... by promising their adherents some such reward as immortality. No religion has failed hitherto by not promising enough; the present breaking up of all religions is due to the fact that people have asked to see the securities. Men have even renounced the important material advantages which a well-organized religion may confer upon a State, rather than acquiesce in fraud or falsehood, or even in any system which, if not proved guilty, is at least unable to demonstrate its innocence. Being more or less bankrupt, the best thing that we can do is to attack the problem afresh without preconceived ideas. Let us begin by doubting every statement. Let us find a way of subjecting every statement to the test of experiment. Is there any truth at all in the claims of various religions? Let us examine the question." - Aleister Crowley

The late Aleistar Crowley, an infamous occultist and drug addict, may seem an unlikely person to quote in opening a search for a higher authority But his point is sound: if indeed there is a "God" (I use this term generally to refer to any higher authority) who is attempting to get a message to us, is it not imperative that we investigate the matter to see if there is validity in any claims of such?

Religion is the term commonly used to describe the holistic grouping of ideas and institutions involving relations with a higher authority. It seems reasonable to think that if there is a God attempting to communicate with us that the message would be present in one or more of the religious systems. But which one(s)? How do we find the religion(s) with the message that could most reasonably be considered true?

The first step is relatively easy. Given the purpose of this blog to deduce a foundational charter upon which to act, we can develop some simple filtering criteria to whittle down our list to a manageable number of faiths (which can then be investigated in greater detail.)

Criteria #1 - Available

The first criteria is obviously that the message has to be available. If it is unknown, then we as humans could not justifiably be held accountable for acting contrarily. All available religious views can be roughly grouped into the following 18 categories, which represent our initial data set:

Christianity

Islam
Hinduism

Chinese Universalism

Buddhism
Ethnoreligionism

Neoreligionism

Sikhism

Judaism

Spiritism

Baha'ism

Confucianism

Jainism

Shintoism

Taoism

Zoroastrianism

Atheism

Agnosticism

Criteria #2 - Authoritative

Since we are concerning ourselves with the question of whether there is a "higher authority," any so-called "religions" which do not include a concept of a higher authority shall not be considered for the purpose of this search. The following views are eliminated accordingly:

Buddhism - Faith centered on the teaching of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) holding that life is full of suffering caused by desire. The way to end this suffering is through enlightenment that enables one to halt the endless sequence of births and deaths to which one is otherwise subject. Although spirit beings are present in the faith, there is no recognized higher authority to which humans are considered accountable.

Ethnoreligionism - This category is not a religion. Rather, it is a practice within many faiths that involves ethnicity being closely linked with the facets of the religion itself.

Neoreligionism - Also known as "New Age Spirituality." Like ethnoreligionism, neoreligionism is not a specific faith as much as it is a conglomerate of contemporary spiritual ideas. There is no commonly accepted higher authority.

Spiritism - Not considered a religion by adherents, spiritism is a pseudo-science dealing with the relationship between spiritual and physical beings.

Confucianism - A system of ethics, education, and statesmanship taught by Confucius and his disciples, stressing love for humanity, ancestor worship, reverence for parents, and harmony in thought and conduct. For all practical purposes, Confucianism is not a religion.

Jainism - A dualistic religion founded in the 6th century BC as a revolt against current Hinduism and emphasizing the perfectibility of human nature and liberation of the soul, especially through asceticism and nonviolence toward all living creatures. Holds that every soul is capable of divine perfect and infinite power. Accordingly, there is no hierarchical authority structure since all humans can be considered "gods".


-->Shintoism - The native religion of Japan, Shintoism is a faith centered on the worship of kami, which are spirits that are part of every living and non-living thing in the universe. Although some kami are considered greater than others (the sun goddess, Amaterasu, is regarded particularly highly), they are considered to exist inside our physical realm and, like humans, are imperfect and hold no particular authority.

Atheism - The belief that there is no God.

Agnosticism - Non religious.

Criteria #3 - Homogeneous

If a higher authority is indeed attempting to communicate with us, it follows that the message would likely be consistent and internally sound. I mentioned in the primer to this blog that pluralism/universalism (the belief that all faiths are true) is logically impossible. That being the case, then any religions which take an eclectic view of faith cannot be true. Philosopher and Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias says it best:

"Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones."

The faiths that are filtered in this category are:

Hinduism - A diverse body of religion, philosophy, and cultural practice native to and predominant in India, characterized by a belief in reincarnation and a supreme being of many forms and natures, by the view that opposing theories are aspects of one eternal truth, and by a desire for liberation from earthly evils. Belief in an authoritative entity is present in some circles; however, the pluralist views negate any proposed consequences.

Bahaism - a religion founded in Iran in 1863 by Husayn Ali (called Bahaullah) teaching the essential worth of all religions, the unity of all races, and the equality of the sexes. Although Baha'ism believes in an authoritative God, it also takes a syncretic views of religion.

Taoism - a popular Chinese religion/philosophical system advocating a life of simplicity and naturalness in order to attain harmony with the Tao. Originated with the teachings of Lao-tzu but later became highly eclectic and characterized by a patheon of many gods, and by the practice of alchemy, divination, and magic.

Chinese Universalism - a group of Chinese beliefs that is highly varied and primarily based on folklore and mythology.

to be continued...

A Question of Authority

"I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes

This statement by the 17th Century French scientist and mathematician became, and to this day remains, a core element of western philosophy. And for a good reason: it is a primary truth which individuals can establish for themselves that is not based on any chain of logic. That is to say, it is not deduced or induced from other accepted truths. Put simply, it is self-evident.

I think this is a good place to start our search. Our senses can deceive us, after all, but the very nature of thinking proves that a person at least exists.

But we cannot stop there. People generally don't just exist, after all. We also act. We exert effort and resources towards an end we deem worthy of action. The amount of available resources (e.g. time, talent, money) varies greatly by person, but one thing is clear: they are all finite. So, we find ourselves in a position where we exist and we have some limited ability to affect things. But how do we go about choosing what to affect?

I would submit that the most important initial consideration is one of authority. If you look closely, you'll see an assumption nestled snugly amidst the preceding question. Before we decide what actions to take, we must ask whether we have the right to choose in the first place. What gives us the right to allocate resources? Where did we get these resources in the first place? Are we, as humans, our own ultimately authority? Is there a higher authority to which we are obligated?

It's a question of primal importance. Authority is about legitimacy and justification. We can see evidence of its significance all about us. Governments, organizations, and individuals all claim some level of authority, whether original or derivative, whether explicit or implicit. If such a claim is shown to be invalid, then legitimacy of that entity (and all entities which deduce their authority therefrom) can be called into question.

Therefore it is incumbent upon us, as humans, to determine whether our authority is trumped by one higher.

Put simply, it is the "God question." And it is there that we now turn our attention.

Primer: The Search for Foundational Truth

"But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great." - Luke 6:49

This passage from the Bible highlights a profound transcendent truth that permeates every academic discipline. Any construction (whether tangible or immaterial), no matter how sound, can be entirely undermined if the foundation is weak. This is illustrated brilliantly in the field of critical thinking, where perfect logic can result in a completely false conclusion if the premise is flawed in any way.

Despite this fact, it has become increasingly apparent that many people hold beliefs (religious, political, or otherwise) which lack a true underlying philosophy. Positions on important issues are generally superficial and spurious. This does not, unfortunately, necessarily equate to a lack of passionate conviction. Late American humorist Arnold Glasow rightly observed, "the fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion." With the world population approaching 7 billion, there is certainly no shortage of opinion out there. Truth is seemingly regarded as little more than a matter of personal preference. Is truth really that ambiguous? The presence of opposing philosophies which are exclusionary in nature (belief in one requires rejection of all others, e.g. monotheistic faiths) inevitably demonstrates that absolute pluralism is an absolute impossibility.

Is it plausible that a reasonable answer can be found? As I will explain in a later entry, it is incumbent upon us as human beings to at least try. Perhaps there is not an answer that is 100% convincing but, as you will see, data can be useful even if it's incomplete. Consider the field of intelligence analysis. At its core, intelligence analysis involves collating an overwhelming amount of information from various sources and extracting useful tidbits. The data is often fragmented and incomplete, and the analyst must make an assessment (i.e. "best guess") about its meaning. Intelligence analysts are trained to focus on empirical data while minimizing the influence of assumptions, emotion, cognitive bias, group think, or peer pressure to conform to certain conclusions. Would it not be prudent to adopt a similar approach in deciding what it is we believe about this life?

It is not my intention to be vague. Stated simply, I plan to use analytic methods and critical thinking to figure out the most reasonable answer to the infamous question, "what is the meaning of life?" It seems that few people take this question seriously, likely on the presupposition that it's impossible to find the solution . I reject that assumption, and I challenge all skeptics to examine the data with me.

I'm certainly no genius. On the contrary, I'm intellectually average by most available measures. As such, I'm subject to the same tendencies as most everyone out there, and must constantly be alert for biases and logical fallacies. My hope is that any readers of this blog will serve as a check and balance against homogenized thinking and ultimately strengthen my argument. I have no agenda to push, nor do I know what will be the end state of this effort. If you continue to read this blog, you will be taking the journey as I take it.

I leave you with the following thoughts:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Quincy Adams

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thoughts in clear form." - Albert Einstein

"It is impossible to reach good conclusions with bad information ... we're all entitled to our own opinions. But none of us can afford to be wrong in our facts." - Mort Crim

"Many highly intelligent people are poor thinkers. Many people of average intelligence are skilled thinkers. The power of a car is separate from the way the car is driven." - Edward de Bono

"I call that mind free ... which does not content itself with a passive or hereditary faith..." - Woody Allen