Diverse views on life and the world that may derive from a major religion or differ within any given or known religion, as well as those which have a theological significance but may be found in non-religious worldviews, including the atheist and the agnostic. 

Diverse views on life and the world that may derive from a major religion or differ within any given or known religion, as well as those which have a theological significance but may be found in non-religious worldviews, including the atheist and the agnostic. 

Diverse views on life and the world that may derive from a major religion or differ within any given or known religion, as well as those which have a theological significance but may be found in non-religious worldviews, including the atheist and the agnostic. 

George,

Those that will find it too personal will not contribute and we should respect that choice.  But other may feel confortable sharing their pluralistic religous view.  For example, meditation which is a wide spread generalized religious practice in Asia and which take multiple forms is more and more practice by people of all religious creeds and is a  form of religious pluralism.  Even sport like Karate is connected with Zen and those that practice Karate seriously without becoming Zen buddhism convert still practice a form of personal religious pluralism.  Some christian might be confortable to adopt some form of budhism at the same time of practicing their christianity.  I never heard of a person who consider himself/herself both christian and muslim but many Christians probably sympathized with a lot of muslim religious practices or even beliefs and the reverse is probably true.  I hope for a future where a christian bishop could be at the same time Grand Mufti and where all relgions will welcome multi-religiosity.  

Panayiotis,

All major religion are already pluralistic and I agree with you that non-religious worldviews has parallel with religious world views.  All depend as one define the religious dimension.  I personally define it as a social regulative framework mostly subconscious built-in in any enculturation process and so that the non-religious does not exist from an human being; all that exist are religious differences.  It is central to humanity, from its biological creation to all its cultural transformations.

As an agnostic, I regard all religious affiliations as social variations on a spiritual theme and so accept that they are all acceptable in their existence. However, the tendancy of a religion to prosyletise or fail to accept the possible validity of other religions makes me uncomfortable with that religion.

 Mark,

I also feel uncomfortable with people that are too much religiously prosyletizing as I feel unconfortable with the prosyletizing forms of atheism; I am unconfortable with those that have found the truth or want to prosyletize their prefer form of certainty as if  everyone would be better off if they think like me.  

Athiests can be as religious as theists in their beliefs. Uncertainty breeds acceptance of possibility.

Mark,

Yes. We have to appreciate and live in uncertainty, with paradoxes, to enjoy living with incompatible truths.

Dear Harshvardhan,

You are right.  

I like the analogy, God of the gaps, ( I'm happy to interprete God as the unknowable unknowns) the beauty of belief is, it requires no proof what so ever, if there is a Universal consciousness? Then religions are the variations of its interpretation.

I agree with Wikipedia. It is called Secularism or Secular Democracy wherein every has freedom to practise one's religion and none religion gets preference in any manner or walk of life. A few religious bigots get sometime imbalanced this state of affairs.

No matter how much I may dislike the idea, bu we humans are indeed coming from MONKEYS ... :-) :-) :-) 

Indeed, even religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which do claim to believe in the ONE AND ONLY - therefore, THE VERY SAME - GOD, are conflicting with one another. Not to mention, within Christianity itself, various denominations conflict, just as within Islam.

So then, for ALL of them, religion seems to be FAR FAR MORE IMPORTANT than GOD ...

This, I am afraid, can only come from the MONKEY in us, humans ... :-) :-) :-)

So then, let us take it easy, very very very easy with the differences between religions, and in general, with the religious issues, and concentrate FAR FAR MORE on GOD ...  

And it you happen not to agree, then plpease, try NOT to kill me, but try and argue ... :-) :-) :-) 

Thank you ...

And have a nice day ... :-) :-) :-) 

Dear Mohammad,

I  do not think that secular societies are the only one that can adopt a religious pluralism.  Secular societies are not all the same.  For example, France has a secularism which forbid all religious from the public sphere and particularly from the political sphere while the US will all some religious expression.  And I heard that the muslim civilisation in spain was religiously pluralism, at least for Jewist and Christian.  And in India, the muslim empire which was ruling a majority that was not muslim was pluralism.  And we should not confuse atheism or agnostic positions as non-religious positions.  They are overtly non-religious but automatically become covertly assimilated into the mainstream religiosity of the secular society.  The mainstream religiosity of modern secular societies correspond to the regulative forces of such societies: money, entertainment in sport, movies, tv,   ideologies.  The values that are followed are provided by the examplary characters presented in the mainstream fictions, video games, peoples on TV.  All religious societies in the world do participate into the world wide economic system, do receive the same cultural products carrying this covert consumarism money religion and are slowly and smoothly being converted to the invisible religion of the modern world.

I tend to recognize two rather broad approaches to religion.  One is a generally pantheistic type approach and it seems ultimately based on a particular understanding of certain mystical experiences, and I can sympathize with its interpretation of the experience.  The other general approach is that of monotheism, which seems to be a different understanding of the same mystical experience, and this is the understanding that I personally prefer. 

I further recognize that both pantheism and monotheism are potentially correct and will teach remarkably similar things.  Likewise both have a variety of specific understandings within them, but all hold to the same basic principles.  I thus see no problem with a serious follower of either approach.   

Now I also recognize a third, less common approach, that denies many of the general teachings of the other two approaches, although it does so very quietly while publically proclaiming agreement.  I find this approach, and its dedicated followers, to be a vile corruption of true religion.  I am very glad that this approach is so very uncommon.

Dear William,

There are various forms of more mystical practices in all major religion and all religions are founded by mystic/prophet/sage/....There is such a plurality of religious practices within religions and outside religions.  Ancient philosophies both in Asia and in the West was considered as religious practices that were practices in parallel and respect with other religious practices.  Not all religions play the same social role.  Some only exist for sub-group within a larger societal group and some evolved to regulate large societal group. In all case there is a social pole and an individual pole to any religious practice.  

The notion of pantheism is relatively recent western notion that arise in the european enlightment.  It is a philosophical notion about religions and not a philosophical notion that emerged from within a religion tradition.  The intellectual distinction between monotheism and pantheism is philosophically thin.  There is a simple conceptual difference between the two but in the religious practices of pantheistic religion and monotheistic religions it has no real consequences.  Religions are not primarily conceptually based.  Monotheism religions have many more mystical practices which are all close to pantheistic conceptions.  Religion is fundamental exactly for the reason that they are only peripherally supported by conceptual framework and any critics of religion that concentrates on this periphery is not getting it.

The topic of religion is not a proper topic of discussion for all type of persons.  If one feel threaten or feel agressive or totally scandalized by the conceptions of other persons then it is better avoiding the discussion, when one is ready to be empathic with the other.  One might be ready to discuss with someone of another religion but not ready for one that is against all religions. I was not ready to discuss with atheists for a long time but I think that I am not ready for it.  Even my conception of atheism as covert/unconscious adherence to an invisible religion which may appear at first sight antagonistic to atheism is not really.  There are all kind of form of atheism, some of them are strongly humanistic and very close to traditional overt religion practices.  The real danger for the world and society is the most anti-humanistic current into the invisible religion and this one have to be made visible for everyone to see.

Dear Gentlemen, 

Please, WHAT comes FIRST : GOD or merely religion ?

Are you so pompously ego-proud to show off your various erudition as to push GOD simply out of the discussion ??? :-) :-) :-) 

Or you simply do not have a wife or educated girlfriend, and are thus quite desperate to have a discussion even if it is TOTALLY missing the ONE OND ONLY ESSENTIAL point ??? :-) :-) :-) 

Let us get real ...

Can we, please, get real ??? :-) :-) :-) 

Elemer: publish your question about god, I'm sure it will be interesting; this is a social question about religious pluralism.

Louis: what does your 'invisible religion' of the atheists refer to? How is it anti-humanistic? An intriguing idea I ave not come across yet.

I am interested in going beyond the well discussed distictions of pantheism-monotheism; mysticisms/spiritualities- religions/social organisation (or control); pluralism/values-freedoms (practice, expression); 'religiosity' which is of the same order as 'scientism' (environmentalism is another): collective ideologies & subjective individual beliefs without objective/collective/ statistical 'proof' that govern biased behaviours;  ExPERIence(s) of god(esse)(s) and varations of universal consciousness that feel more 'real' than collective reality as well as inTuitions that are apprehended as more true or universal than other cognitions; etc.

I do take exception to attributing more value to (the great) Human than to animals,  the 'monkeys we descend from'... Are we not biologically a plain  great ape? (neither monkey, nor superior to it, actually physiologically degenerating, unable to survive in the wild). Don't confuse wildlife and man's 'animalistic' behaviours (or its 'human social animal' or 'religious animal' behaviours).

The question of preligious pluralism arises because of questions of valuation and consequences on human behaviour toward each other, esp. aggression.

I view pluralism & valuation (in religion just as in other fields such a medicine... same origination) as a matter of "perspective" of both experience and explanation. There has to be logical circularity between the 2 for the perspective to be effective & useful in daily life in society (not 'walking the talk' is often criticised). One requires the other to make sense of what happens. Each perspective has a fundamental bias (just like personality types, body types, societies types...)- an 'orienting'. Because of it, perspectives can never be fully matched, never entirely agree. [This is a matter of representation]. This is also why it is possible & sometimes necessary to 'shift' perspective or paradigm. (The word perspective illustrates better the geometry of mind involved in representation projections). Because of their apparent inevitability, and of their usefulness in surviving in organised societies, they are all equally valid (if logically consistent or complete and not just learned/habitual bigotry or racism). Yet, there is a 'basic' way of existence in without perspectival bias , in which religion and -isms are not relevant. Is that what is so threatening? Or what is it that is a danger to society?

Dear Elemer,

I agree with most of your first post except two parts.  I think the monkey in us is totally fine given that we never heard of monkeys killing each other on religious issues.  What is wrong came later in our development. As you know the question of religion is more vast than the GOD's question given that many religious practices do not even have a God.  And in the case of religions with GOD, usually what is important is the message about how we should behave relating to each other that is important and the message about the attribute of GOD is usually quite thin.  And when there is religious tensions between different communities, usually the emphasis is put on the doctrinal difference but very often the true objectives of such conflicts is political leadership.  The doctrinal reasons hiding the true reasons of the conflicts.  It is true about almost all conflicts.  The true reasons are usually maskerade into high principles and so you can get people ready to dye for it.

What come first: religion because it is a human affair.  I am not holding a atheistic position here in spite of the apparances.

I am totally open to discuss with you about my conception of  GOD. In monotheistic religions (I was born as a catholic) God is the creator and her message is revealed by a number of prophets and in the case of christian, the last one being Jesus (yes I know he is supposed to be the son of God) and for the muslim , the last one being the great prophet Mohammad and for the Jews they do not expect a last one.  So I take God to be the creative dimension of the universe (I am not a creationism!!!), a creative dimension that every creature participate in since we have been created in the process of biological evolution as a thinking/speaking/religious communal animal whose main job is to create a one humanity living and developing harmoniously together with all life.  Is'nt it what many religious messages are about when they are not interpreted by dangerous manipulators because we are ferocious political animals.

I do not see the relevance of most doctrinal issues.  Let take the example of the status of Jesus: a prophet or a divine incarnation of some part of God.  Is it really important?  Is'nt the message of Jesus that should matter.  If you believe in the trueness that we should love each other than does it really matter who said it?  Should we start killing each other about the status of the person that said love each other?

There are perhaps two viewpoints to consider. One is that religion is purely a human creation, and thus religious pluralism can be reasoned about or not from that, but it seems to be a pointless expression. If it is just a human creation, then it truly must be nothing more than a crutch. The other is that there is a god or gods and that religion spawns from them, not humans. In this latter interpretation, we have the "intended" meaning of the religion (a truth beyond human thinking). However, instead of this truth, we hear about the human interpretation of the intended meaning (most often from the extremists who don't really follow the spirit of the religion) rather than what the religion really is. In such a frame of reference, there can't be a religious pluralism, but rather there is the truth, there is the human interpretations (which are wrong), and then there is the other false religions.

I am always amazed at the failure of people to recognize the latter viewpoint. Such discussions focus only on the former, which makes me wonder if people just like to talk about inconsequential (by definition) things or are too lazy to actually learn about religions of the world.

Louis, I fully agree that mystics, from whatever religious tradition they belong to, tend to have more in common with each other than the traditional adherents of their official religion.  I am also aware of how very thin the difference is between pantheism and monotheism in the modern mind, even going back roughly 2000 years.  Christian theology basically took generally pantheistic Platonism, chopped off the more objectionable aspects and called it monotheism.  Until I learned a truly monotheistic approach, by living it under guidance, not reading, I thought I knew what the difference was. 

I now see a much larger difference between a pantheistic view and a monotheistic one, but I am less certain which is ultimately correct.  I actually relate better to Plato or many "Eastern" philosophies than I do the truncated Christian theologies.  And "NO", I have not figured out how to explain the difference I perceive in a way that others would understand.  I have tried but no one seems to understand that I am trying to say something totally different.  Let me think on this some more, 20 years is not enough.

Louis, what do you refer to in speaking of atheist 'hidden religion' and its danger to society?

My Dear and Dearest Marika

Why do you NOT try, and be BETTER than all the boys so far ???

Yes, try and talk FIRST about GOD, and not about all other nonsense ... :-) :-) :-) 

What, is GOD so immensely difficult for your that you cannot even try ???

Or simply, GOD for you, too, is not quite important, when compared to religion ??? :-) :-) :-) 

Religious pluralism should invariably include the freedom of religions or belief systems. Religion is a human construct, and an innovation by humankind, similar to the discovery of farming, domestication, family, other social institutions etc.

The question whether god exists or not need not be of concern in religious pluralism. The concern should be about the freedom for each individual / person to have their god and belief systems and permitting all varieties of god and belief systems to sustain. The belief system should be taken only in the context of freedom to believe whatever one wants to believe. It is essentially a private matter and an individual or an establishment or a power centre should not force any religion / belief system on others. The crux of the religious pluralism should be the freedom to believe and practice (strictly on individual basis in modern societies) what one believes in terms of god and associated beliefs. It also ensures tolerance to other belief systems

Dear Louis,

Please forgive me if my answer may not seem responsive, and may stray too far beyond the intent of your question. I will begin by saying that I believe ALL religion is a mental disease ... well, perhaps "disease" is not the most appropriate word choice ... except insofar as disease does seem to best express the deleterious effects that religion has had (and continues to have) on most modern human societies. However "disease" is perhaps not the best word to convey how religion came into existence; and it acts more like a mental disability than a disease. I believe religion simply came-about in the early evolution of mankind as a psycho-sociological coping-mechanism, to help early-man explain to himself his own sentience. It was then quickly co-opted [organized religion] by the more clever men [priests] as the first means of exercising mind-control [government] over their duller brethren [whilst avoiding risks of having to fight, and the unpleasantness of labor *ack*, and otherwise getting a free-ride [and as many other perks as they could demand "in the name of God" such as sumptuous vestments and housing in palatial temples filled with objects of precious metals ... which, I suppose, were supposed to give God a homey feeling like being in Heaven when he dropped in for a visit ??] in terms of resources ... and unearned windfalls of riches, too ... called offerings or tithes ... ostensibly for their gods but taken for themselves (even after the great decline in the religious seen since the beginning of this current century, churches are still more profitable and less risky financial ventures than the rigged gambling tables of Vegas), ... the secular governments that have spun-off from the organized religions and "horned-in" on this sweet business of milking the sedated populace now call these mandatory tithes ... "taxes"]. 

Religion [spirituality] likely developed co-eval with the development of spoken language, when early-man first started having the experiences of "hearing voices" speaking to him in his head (the brain simply re-processing memories of conversations, as it does in dreams ...which, most naturally, were presumed to be voices of beings speaking from another world, which existed at some other inaccessible place ... inaccessible, that is, until early shaman/priests learned how, through the use of psychedelic drugs, and perhaps hypnotic chants, to induce those states at will ... and it could not have been long until the clever priests learned that along with the ability to summon and control the "spirit world" in the heads of the populace [for the drug experiences, as we well-know, from our present-day scourges, offer plenty of incentive alone, in-and-of-themselves, even without any religious trappings], also came great temporal power ... the ability to control the minds and actions of the populace ... the cults of priests have not relinquished control, ever since ... in fact, they have organized and institutionalized worldwide, and still have a majority of the poor earth's mentally-deficient populace in thrall to their trickery (even though their magical texts that tell outrageous fantasies are wildly out-dated and have been proved largely, if not wholly impossible, by science).

I'm not a Marxist (but I have been wrongly accused of being an accolyte of his many times for deigning to point-out that he was right about at least one thing he commented upon), but I firmly believe that Marx was correct when he avowed that "religion is the opiate of the masses!"

I offer this as something for a truly deep thinker about these matters, such as yourself, to think about.

My best regards,

Bob

Dear Bob,

I think that it is important for all participant in such question do not hide their a priori feeling, and do not pretend they have none as if they are above the whole thing.  I appreciate that you acknowledge your feelings prior to provide facts supporting them.  And the fact you provided are public domain facts.  But facts by themeself do not talk and they have to be weaved into a narrative as you do in your post.  And all narratives are simplification and the question about this narrative as about any narrative is: Is it the central narrative? Does it miss the core of the central narrative about religion?

And the first inquiry into a given narrative is the historical context of its creation because the biais of any narrative is reavealed by this context because a narrative is also used for a purpose,to justify a social state of affairs, not only to explain facts.

 As you know this narrative is not knew and has gradually been elaborated from the middle of the 18th century when european circled the world and met the so-called primitive peoples and their primitive religions and also met the other so-called great civilisations of the easts, the one they could not so easily destroy.   What I am at is part of the narrative on modernity is the notion that modern philosophy,science,technology developed in Europe after the Renaissance is an awakening from a dark age dominated by religion which was simply a crude and primitive way to confort us with illusions given that we had no true knowledge of the world but the more such true knowledge that is provided by modern philosophy,science,technology will develop then we will gradually replace all our superstitions, including all religiosity, with true knowledge and will not need these illusions anymore, illusions that are causing the wars of religions and are supporting all kind feodal political systems.  This is the modernity narrative on religions in general, a conception of religion of the gap, gap of ignorance.  

As soon as this narrative of modernity became more or less well formulated, a counter narrative on the subjective side of humanity began to take shape with some romantic philosophers and theologians. A narrative which presents the narrative on modernity as a new obscurantism: not an obscurantism of knowledge but an obscurantism about the central aspect non-objectifying aspect humanity.  A romantic narrative which do not oppose religion/subjective/subconscious/feeling and science/objective/public domain.  Instead of seeing the subjective side as something to be eliminated gradually as a knowledge gap, was something constitutive and central to humanity and the creation of this knowledge although it cannot be knowledge, it cannot be expressed objectively.

Now after half a millena of modernity, we are less in the promess of modernity and more about its past and accomplishments and failures. Science is not providing moral guidance and is not filling the gap created in the west by the diminution of the religions.  This gap is filled by many other type of activities that I take to be the outer manifestation of an invisible religion controling our mind.  Outside of the west, many land are now modern scientifically and technologically but their religious reaction to it have been different than in the west. 

Part of your narrative is about the negative population controled that have been done through religions.  This is not to be denied. My thesis is that religion is central to sociality and to human mind and so it cannot be removed as the brain cannot be removed from the body.  If it is sick, it has to be cured, but amputation is not possible.  My second thesis is that the sickness is propagated by a invisible religious pathogens to all religion.  The cure will only be design when we put the pathogen under the microscope and make it visible.  This is very crude but this story has already exceeded the acceptable limits of a post.

Regards

Dear Louis, would you please elaborate on this invisible psthogen to religion? I am interested.

Sorry for the unacceptable length of my posts.

Dear Louis,

I echo Marika's plea to please elaborate on your comment/idea about the religion pathogen. Do you mean a real entity like perhaps an infectious microbe ... perhaps something like an an undiscovered prion, or do you mean something more of a metaphysical nature?

Regards,

Bob

Dear Marika

By the way, this is a Hungarian sounding name.

Do you have any Hungarian connections ?

I myself do !

It is indeed remarkable that you have studied many religions.

One of the ... funny ... troubles is that people expect that religion, or rather, being truly religious, MUST mean above all a certain sort of ... EXPERIENCE ...

Well, I am afraid, it is simply NOT so !!!

For instance, you do KNOW that 1 + 1 = 2, although sometime in your life that is not quite convenient to you ... :-) :-) :-)

Well, do you REALLY expect to have some other, more special EXPERIENCE regarding 1 + 1 = 2 ???

I do dearly hope that you do NOT have such expectations ...

Well, quite the same, I am afraid, is about religion, more precisely, about GOD : somehow, you should get there that you DO KNOW that GOD exists and RUNS all the things, and YOU can interact with GOD, just like you are with 1 + 1 = 2 ...

In case the above may make some sense to you, we can discuss that issue further. And we better do so somewhere else, and leave the ... ultra learned intellectual endlessly chattering crowd ... here to keep getting even more LOST in their hopeless blah-blah on religion, and do so while TOTALLY forgetting about GOD ... :-) :-) :-)

My email address is [email protected] 

Glad to see that all of you are rather tolerant ...

And more than on occasion, what I write may sound quite tough ... :-) :-) :-) 

What I claim, and I am far from being the first who does so, is that what all of you call here "religion" is a down to Earth projection of TOTALLY UNIQUE ALL ENCOMPASSING GOD ...

And then, it is simply BLASPHEMOUS to deal with it like with, say, cooking, sex, politics, art, science, or even philosophy ...

In particular, is blasphemous to talks about the "social" aspect of religion ...

And it is even more blasphemous to chase "religious experiences",  as if they were just like "culinary experiences", "sexual experiences", and so on ...

Of course, the issue of "religious experiences" has for long degenerated to the level of "altered states" of consciousness chased by taking drugs ...

The same of course is for "mystical experiences" ...

Well, here, everybody is hopelessly - and blasphemously - involved in "intellectual experiences" about GOD ...

But then, in order to try to be more clear, let me please make an effort and descend a bit into the ... hell of blasphemy ... perpetuated here, and mention the following :

Our most typical human ability is to KNOW. Just as we know that 1 + 1 = 2.

NO emotions, NO revelations, NO mystical experiences, and even less culinary or sexual ones ... :-) :-) :-)

Well, wouldn't for GOD's sake be more appropriate to try to RELATE to GOD by what in us is the most typical human, namely, our ability to KNOW, and do so in the ... cool, calm, most usual common ... manner in which we KNOW, for instance, that 1 + 1 = 2 ??? :-) :-) :-)

And when we do so, you may find out that, indeed, EVERY other way to try to relate to GOD is at best some secondary detour in certain somewhat dubious "experience" ... 

Just try, and see ...

And all of you here, just calm down, and stay even if for a mere moment with your AWARENESS that you are among those BLESSED who KNOW that there is GOD ...

The rest, well, it is but mostly unnecessary blah-blah ... :-) :-) :-)

Try, and see ...

And let us know what did you ... experience ... :-) :-) :-) 

As for the endless intellectual chatter, well, it is but one of the unfortunate addictions one pick up in universities ... :-) :-) :-) 

Psalm 46:10 

"Be still, and know that I am God ..."

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Yes, for GOD's sake :

1 be still, and

2) KNOW that "I AM GOD" ...

And that "I AM" is that one in Exodus 3:14 ...

And ALL you should do is ... KNOW ...

Just like with 1 + 1 = 2 ... :-) :-) :-) 

As for chattering about the "social aspects of religion", well, then perhaps, you should try and be ... still ... for longer ... :-) :-) :-) 

Dear bob and Marika,

I complies but you will be deceived. It is story is not yet compelling at this fetal stage.

We all know that we live in the modern age and through our education and cultural exposition each of us has acquired a modern Mind.  We know the values of modernity as expressed in the enlightment period but also their constant transformation since then, and the forms of democracy and government that were the landmark of modern state. We know the secular spirit of modern society. Objectivity is one of the central philosophical aspect of the new modern mind.  Efficiency is also a central value. Also economically the use of money, the spirit of capitalism, industrialisation, technology are also essential aspects of it.  It is an age which started in the war of religion, with the european trade expansion in the world, the banking system, etc. 

The word : ''enlightment'' symbolize it.  An age of visibility, a coming out of a dark age, an age of knowledge, knowledge is light and visibility.  More tolerance, freedom, human rights , etc.   

My thesis is that there is an invisible religion sustaining modernity.  I am saying that all of us are under the spell of this religion to different degrees of influence but we are all in it.  All that we are conscious off about modernity is actually higing all that is invisible in modernity: its religion and if this religion is made explicit then the spell of modernity will end and another age will begin: another spell.  The only ones not in it are in remote corners of this planet and live in remoted traditional cultural on the land and have very few contact with us.  As soon as a society start to buy and sell and use money with the rest of the world, are gradually infiltrated get under the spell of the invisible religion of modernity,

In Theology of Money, Philip Goodchild uncover a part of this invisible religion related to the way the world wide banking system operated from the time of the creation of the Bank of England: a new system of money creation based on the creation of a dept: a promess to pay with interest.  We all experiencing the control of our mind that money, our debt have on all our choices.  No religion is so powerfull concretely as that.  The all seeing eye of God is not as scary as the lack of money for the modern Mind. 

Another central value is the replacement of religious discourse about the social by objective discourse about the world and the social.  The requirement of objectivity as the only mode of validity is a requirement of visibility,  a narrative is objective only and only if all subjective reference and connection to the world have been eliminated.  It is a requirement of a discourse on object relations or machine relation.  Nothing alife, noting subjective can exist in such discourse. Mathematics is the language of objectivity: a self-referencing machine language and the natural science have to re-build the world in it.  

The principal mode of propagation of the invisible relition of modernity is mostly through the characters in the fictions pervading the popular culture or in the heros of our societies.  At this time of the years just before Christmass, in Canada and the US: ‘’It is a Wounderful Life (1946).  A movie about a banker promoting communal social values in a small town with the villain character of another type of greedy banker.  A 2015 version of this film would portrait the good banker of that movie as a looser and the greedy banker as a tycoon : a winning, a Donald Trump. 

Not the end of this story.

Elemer,

''it is simply BLASPHEMOUS to deal with it like with, say, cooking, sex, politics, art, science, or even philosophy ...

In particular, is blasphemous to talks about the "social" aspect of religion''

I would not talk like that to a young kid or go to a religious orthodox person that do not want to hear this kind of talk about religion.  Yes it would be blasphemous.   I respect those that cannot hear this kind of talk.  But it is not blasphemous for a different type of crowd that freely want to discuss  religious pluralism.  

Dear Louis

I could not agree more with you ...

But then, here, I suppose, we are not exactly in the business of ... saving all those poor and helpless ...   young kids or religious orthodox persons ... :-) :-) :-)

Meanwhile, and if you do not mind :

"Be still, and know that I am God ..."

I think that's the main point

you either have faith or you don't.

the conversation stops there

in any explanation as to Why? A miracle happens

the conversation stops there

no way or need to understand further

a blind or leap of faith

Dear Ralph

Even as far back as the writers of the Psalsm, they DID KNOW perfectly well that it is NOT AT ALL about mere "faith" or "belief", but about TO KNOW :

"Be still, and know that I am God ..."

Indeed, less than four centuries ago, for instance, just about everybody BELIEVED that the Sun moves around the Eart. And Galileo was nearly killed by the Pope for saying that the Earth moves ...

So much for our ... human beliefs ...

And do you REALLY believe that, nowadays, we humans do no longer believe in deadly dangerous ERRORS ??? :-) :-) :-) 

So that, we - and YOU, TOO - should KNOW that mere "belief" or "faith" is FAR FAR FAR from enough when it comes to GOD.

Yes, INSTEAD, we should somehow get ourselves there that - as in the above Psalm - we KNOW that "I am God" ...

So the WHOLE issue is in the above word "SOMEHOW" ... :-) :-) :-) 

Please, try to ponder on that issue ...

After all, ALL YOUR LIFE does depend on it ... :-) :-) :-)

Elemer are you a heretic?

you seemed to interplay faith and science, surely we must not know the mind of God nor question His wisdom. I shouldn't ponder my life and just leave it up to Him?

next you'll be questioning the  very nature of God?

although I appreciate you mentioning a scripture I'm sure won't have to read far to find something that contradicts its self

But of course I am NOT anywhere near a heretic !!! :-) :-) :-) 

The problem is that we do NOT know enough about the VARIOUS more subtle ways of KNOWING !!! :-) :-) :-) 

And on top of that, you, together with so many others, simply do not - and seemingly, cannot afford to - understand the ETERNAL IMPLICATIONS of the Galileo case, regarding the UTTER insufficiency and DEADLY danger of MERELY believing in something ... 

Yes, even today, it is TRIVIALLY obvious that :

1) the Sun rises somewhere in the morning, and sets in another place in the evening,

and

2) in between, we do NOT feel that the Earth under our feet would move at all.

Thus the Sun MUST move around the Earth ...

So then, do YOU believe that, or you KNOW that it is not so ??? :-) :-) :-) 

And if you KNOW, then HOW do you know it ?

It takes a WHOLE LOT of science to KNOW it ...

As for God, but of course, even ALL that science is FAR from enough to KNOW ...

Gotcha ??? :-) :-) :-) 

And please, take it slowly, and let us avoid ... smart instant jerk ... interpretations and reactions ...

Many thanks in this regard ... :-) :-) :-) 

It seems to me that any attempt to find God (religion) is like a a fish swimming all around the ocean looking for the ocean. Or one's heart trying to understand the human body's cardiovascular system without seeing itself as part of that system.

For me, everything that is, is ultimately one thing. Any final and absolute separation of anything that exists from any other thing that exists, contradicts the oneness of God. Therefore, the ultimate religious pluralism, for me, is this: It all just is, and it's all ultimately good, because being is better than non-being.

How do I practice my religious worldview? By simply being who I am - one of an infinite number of evolving life forms, resisting pain and seeking pleasure.

I believe that, as we evolve, our species is slowly learning that "we all do better when we all do better." That belief brings me pleasure. It also helps me believe the Universe (or Multiverse) is ultimately intelligent and loving. That belief also brings me pleasure.

Dear Alan Shope, usually as with just about all humans, I should be very unhappy to see that in this group I am NO longer the ONLY ONE enlightened ... :-) :-) :-) 

And to add insult to injury, you make it more than abundantly clear that you are, in fact, quite a bit MORE enlightened, than I am ... :-) :-) :-) 

But then, sliding over and passing in less than a nano-second such usual human silliness, what remains there as the ONLY thing essential is that I could hardly be more GLAD that YOU do belong to this group !!! :-) :-) :-)

Nice Christmas present indeed, for EVERYBODY who can appreciate it !!!

And I certainly do ... 

And to give something also to all those stuck for ever more in ... endlessly clever chit-chatting ..., let me recall here :

The Tree Laws of Manu

Remember your Creator.

Live according to His Laws.

Find your way back to Him.

Dear Louis, thank you for elaborating on the invisible religion of modernity. I see what you are getting at – we are all ‘in it’. You mention money and hero/winners… Yes, many now recognise this, sometimes calling it power & top-boys, or politics & corporations, economy & governments (many names for basically the same). Often manifesting as outer/objective exploitation- exclusion but also as subjective/personal/inner aspects, these are only a ‘realistic’ tip of a much ‘deeper’, more ‘invisible’ or ‘hidden’ iceberg that threatens not just society but human health, sanity, our planet home and ultimately our ‘human’ existence. It has an auto-reinforcing operational characteristic that is getting out of hand, with no one in particular being fully responsible, yet everyone participating in it.

This ‘invisible/hidden’ is part of what I ran into in my work (in another context), with an ancient, question: ‘where’ is it? (answered only in the pluralistic, incompatible ways), and a modern salient question that raises a growingly undivided voice: how do we stop it? (yet not loose our ‘humanity’)

Yes, finding ways to make it visible is crucial (ways of knowing its aspects or expressions, but also ways to describe how it works, understand its properties,  whence it comes & where it goes). I found that this invisible does not have to be… but as the world goes, as beliefs & practices go, as comfort zones go, so it is and most happilly ignore it. I would submit that ‘knowing’ this ‘hidden’ is currently more urgent than the rest. Unless we face this ‘invisible’ and don’t just ignore it to see just what we want to see (eg ‘what a beautiful world’ that one in comfort sings about while others & animals starve), it will keep plaguing us, without peace. So I thank you for bringing this up by asking your question on religious pluralism.

I’d be interested in Bob’s response to your post.

Jesus talked about dying to self. Buddha claimed there is no self. 

Is there a peace to be found when humans let go of self-centered craving and struggling, and simply trust what is? Would the ultimate act of faith be one in which we stop judging and trying to convert each other, and simply trust evolution to reveal the ultimate goodness of all that is? 

im not even slightly sure what you mean Elemer

are you saying, there is NO conflict between science and religion or/and you see no conflict?

Participating to this thread is a  voluntary participation into religious pluralism.  Even the participation that consist to say how much the concept is unattractive, or how much religion is repulsive, or how much even discussing is repulsive, is contributing to it.  Those that only interact with people thinking like them are not contributing to it.  Modern societies in the modern metropolist can hardly be a social life among poeple thinking the same thing.  It is pluri-cultural and thus pluri-religious.

Religion pluralism is value of both life in this world and in the hereafter. In fact, religion is more toward the hereafter. While giving the value to the hereafter, this world gains value due to hereafter's importance. To reach the hereafter, it goes through this world. 

There are other explanations of course right, this what I try to say is fundamental truth of religion begins with understanding the fact of hereafter. If only consider the matters in this world, religion is not totally to make sense. Hope I said it is clearly enough. All the Best.

"religious pluralism" - Poppycock! My personal opinion only.

Historically, FAITH and FACTS appear to be mutually exclusive :-)

There seems to be a NO need for one in the presence of the other. What say you?

In my opinion, the acute desire of many of the faithful to "convert", is clear evidence of their own insecurity & disbelief. Salvation, by any stretch of the imagination, is neither  a cooperative nor a group activity for any theology. As far as I know :-)

Note some of the thoughtful comments by Louis Brassard on the question below:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Genesis_Fact_fiction_or_faith

"God is above us all" and below and besides! Ubiquitous?

OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT & OMNIPOTENT!

Freedom of religion = Freedom from the intolerance of the religious = Governance minus (religion)the religious  

Dear Ravi,

Your opinions about the relation between science and religion seems to be one of a tension and opposition between the two that see the religious attitude as a vestigial naive attitude akin to one found ancient native cultures and to the infant naive attitude prior to be enlighted by an proper education and adulthood. 

Michael Polanyi  has explored the intimate relation between FAITH and the art of discovery in natural sciences.  He  came to philosophy, philosophy of science in particular, after a carreer in physical chemistry.  He opposed the dominant philosopy of science  that we can called ''scientism'' today and that he called ''positivism''.  Your statements about  Faith/Beliefs versus science as being two very different opposite attitudes, with science being based on Facts alone without the need of faith is typical of  ''scientism''. 

Polanyi argued that science is a system of beliefs and those that really believe in the value of scientific knowledge should acknowledge and defend that faith instead of hiding behing the false claim that such beliefs stand on their own and do not need human judgement and faith. He was not a relativist, or someone that tries to undermine the credibility of science but a fierce defender of the sciences against what he considers its worst ennemy: ''scientism'' because it undermine the necessary ''faith'' that is needed for the scientific discovery quest and he provides many historical examples to that effect.  Polanyi was not only concerned with the undermining of science by ''scientism'' but was linking ''scientism'' with a very general mindset at the base of the European philosophical critical mindset that developed at the beginning of modernity and modern science, a mindset that oppose science with all other human traditions that are based on values and faith and saw this modern mindset, the ''scientism'' mindset as undermining the western civilisation and the primary cause of the fall in the totalitarism that lead to the two world wars, the rise of extremists ideologies such Fashism and Communism.

The Stability Of Beliefs, Michael Polanyi

http://polanyisociety.org/mp-stability.htm

Scientific Beliefs,  Michael Polanyi

http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno%20Polanyi%20Scientific%20Beliefs%20Ethics%201950.htm

Regards

I would add that scientism has a certainty that true science lacks.  I was temporarily shocked when one highly regarded scientist proclaimed that science does not and cannot state that there is no superior race.  However, he went on to state that science has studied the races and had not to date found substantial differences, nor is there any reason to believe that substantial differences will be found in the future, but since science is in the business of asking questions and seeking answers, it is possible that the right question has not yet been asked, just don't bet more than a penny on it.  Scientism however, is certain that all the right questions have been asked and all necessary answers have been found. 

Scientism in the late 1800's was certain that within a few short years the last two problem areas in physics would be resolved and we would know all of physics.  Today those two areas are known as "relativity" and "quantum mechanics".  Would anyone care to state that we understand either one?

"the relation between science and religion". Not quite sure how you arrived at such conclusion unless you are equating historical evidence to science. That certainly wasn't my intent and would be erroneous. As I know now about the "flatness" of the earth which was a scientific certitude only a few centuries ago or the "global warming" of today. There are many like Galileo, Copernicus or Einstein to come to rattle the cage of conventionalistas yet!

Polanyism, seems to have had a deep impact on your philosophical outlook. I plead the 6th in this case, IGNORANCE :-)

"the ''scientism'' mindset as undermining the western civilisation and the primary cause of the fall in the totalitarism that lead to the two world wars, the rise of extremists ideologies such Fashism and Communism."

Historical facts to date contradict this notion unequivocally. It is the religious (not religion) that have superciliously wreaked havoc on earth bringing MAN to HEAVEN for at least the past two millennium. It is neither the PROPHETS nor HOLY TEXTS that are to blame for all the debauchery and inhumanity but the self righteous  brain-numbed FOLLOWERS wearing the cloak of religion as well as anti-religion!

"Stability Of Beliefs" would only last till the next contradictory discovery. Faith on the other hand has the "brain numbing" ingredient which eradicates rationality.

"the infant naive attitude prior to be enlighted by an proper education and adulthood". I appreciate the friendly admonishment and humbly concede as a pentagenarian that I've got a whole lot more to learn.

Question: Is sexuality a SIN unleashed on us by the OMNISCIENT or is it the MIRACLE for procreation endowed to us by the Infinite Intelligence? Is the matter of faith bereft of fact? When you have faith, facts are irrelevant?

Let's have a robust discussion instead of gratuitous psychoanalyses :-)

Dear @ Ravi Ananth,

I second your thought: "Let's have a robust discussion instead of gratuitous psychoanalyses :-)"

Bob

PS - you are making good points, especially if you were intending to point-out in your examples comparing the past scientific certitude of a "flat earth," with the present-day presumed certitude regarding anthropogenic CO2 being the main (or even a significant-part of the driving-force that is responsible for global-warming.

I believe no-better example of "scientism" can be found, nowadays, than the one of these so-called "climate scientists," a society of true-believers that act more like the priests and crusaders for a new religion, than scientists ... even launching pogroms, not just against heretics, but against any un-believers among their own ranks (once afforded the honorable label of skeptic, but now denigrated, and de-humanized, so it will be easier to silence their dissent, by pillorying-in-publication and "burning-at-the-stake," as hated "deniers"). 

Ravi,

"Stability Of Beliefs" would only last till the next contradictory discovery.

This paper's point is to explain that what you said above is naive and wrong.  It is not the way science works in practice.  Kuhn  in ''The structure of the scientific revolution'' made the same point.  A lot more need to happen for a  ''paradigm'' shift to occur .  The point is that they cannot be contradict because they are elastic framework and that we think within them. The Ptolemy system of planetary motion cannot be contradict because it can accomodate any planetary motions.  Polanyi wrote this paper as an argument against Popper's notion of faillibilism.  

'When you have faith, facts are irrelevant?''  This is a false opposition.  Faith is necessary for all of us in all aspect of our life including science given that we cannot in a few years of our life reinvent or test all that we have to rely on.  We belong to multiple traditions and we cannot totally be objective about it.  So were condemn to faith on most of what we think we know and the best we can hope for is to revise it on small aspects.  This is the point of these two papers. 

Yes I am really close to the positions of Michael Polanyi and even of those of his borther Karl Polanyi. He is among the top 10 philosophers who have influenced me the most.

Bob,

Wikipedia: The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859.[12] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[13] However, the term "greenhouse" wasn't used to describe the effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[14][15]

In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote "[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect", and "The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house."[16][17] Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.

"climate scientists," a society of true-believers.  Yes as all scientists should be. 

Did I check their sciences: no as I did not check most of the science I learned..  Why do I choose to believe them instead of the climato skeptic?  Because even a very superficial appraisal of the two positions lead me to beleive the formers. As a very superficial appraisal of biology lead me to  beleive in natural theories instead of believing into supernatural ones.  We cannot dig deeply on all topics but it seems easy to see what groups is more credible.I do not base by judgement on which group dominate the academia because a lot of my own opinions are contraries to the dominant academic positions.  I am not afraid to adopt minority positions when my judgement agree with them.  

In a article: The qualities of Robert Musil,

 Roger Kimball examine the life and ideas of the Austrian novelist Robert Musil (1880– 1942) who was also a great scientist and one that I think capture some of the effect that modern science has on the moral character. He wrote one of the most acclaim novel in the 20th century, '' The Man Without Qualities''

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-qualities-of-Robert-Musil-3658

QUOTE from the article:

''In one pivotal chapter, Musil reflects on the “peculiar predilection of scientific thinking for mechanical, statistical, and physical explanations that have, as it were, the heart cut out of them.” This is the key passage:

The scientific mind sees kindness only as a special form of egotism; brings emotions into line with glandular secretions; notes that eight or nine tenths of a human being consists of water; explains our celebrated moral freedom as an automatic mental by-product of free trade; reduces beauty to good digestion and the proper distribution of fatty tissue; graphs the annual statistical curves of births and suicides to show that our most intimate personal decisions are programmed behavior; sees a connection between ecstasy and mental disease; equates the anus and the mouth as the rectal and the oral openings at either end of the same tube—such ideas, which expose the trick, as it were, behind the magic of human illusions, can always count on a kind of prejudice in their favor as being impeccably scientific.

Scientific rationality in this sense is not merely disillusioning; it is radically dehumanizing. It replaces the living texture of experience with a skeleton of “causes,” “drives,” “impulses,” and the like. The enormous power over nature that science has brought man, Musil suggests, is only part of its attraction. Psychologically just as important is the power it gives one to dispense with the human claims of experience. How liberating to know that kindness is just another form of egotism! That beauty is merely a matter of fatty tissues being arranged properly! That every inflection of our emotional life is nothing but the entirely predictable result of glandular activity! Just another, merely, nothing but … How liberating, how dismissive are these instruments of dispensation—but how untrue, finally, to our experience.

Musil presents scientific rationality as a temptation as well as an accomplishment because he sees that inherent in its view of the world is an invitation to forget one’s humanity. It is this Promethean aspect of science that links it with evil. The feeling that “nothing in life can be relied on unless it is firmly nailed down,” Musil writes, is “a basic feeling embedded in the sobriety of science; and though we are too respectable to call it the Devil, a slight whiff of brimstone still clings to it.”

Global warming and the effects of human effluents as well as bovine flatulence appear empirically  obvious. However, fossil fuel enthusiast seem to be unmoved yet as are the generational "Holly Cow" crowd in India. Nonetheless, if you are ever in Delhi, Beijing, LA, St. Louis, Chennai or other modern metropolises, there will be little doubt about present day "global warming". Do we turn dairy to beef patties or applaud the unstoppable online sale of cow-dung patties in India to avert global warming?

Effective actions to minimize the impact of climate change or theist bigotry will require education at the basic kindergarten level as well as societal open-mindedness.

"This paper's point is to explain that what you said above is naive and wrong". So what? Ignorance to some extent is BLISS, right :-)

Hope these are helpful on your investigation of religious pluralism.

Article Religious Pluralism and Pluralistic Religion: John Hick's Ep...

Article Apartheid, Religious Pluralism, and the Evolution of the Rig...

Dear Mustafa,

Thank your for these references.  I am glad to learn about John Hick. I want to know more about his views.

Regards

Thanks Louis for your kindness. I will let u know If I come across the study of John Hick. Regards.

Mustafa! Are the publications you've cited legal in Malaysia? Wonder if the Sultan of Malaysia is aware of our "open mindedness" and pluralism. He seems to have, by imperial decree, monopolized the word "ALLAH" to only the Muslims in Malaysia in his abundance of wisdom. This, despite the fact that the word "ALLAH" has its origin in Hebrew ("Ellie") and has been used by Arab Christians before the Quran and the genesis of Islam. Does the "International Islamic University Malaysia" offer any form of advice and consent to the genius Autocrat?

Is "pluralism" taught to young impressionable Madrasa Talibs in Malaysia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, DaeshLand or anywhere else in the ISLAMIST world? When do you think such "pluralism" is going to make a difference to the Sunni/Shia "blood feud" since nearly a millennium and a half.

Education and knowledge are worthless unless they are used to benefit MANKIND (believer & Kafir alike :-) in life and not just in DEATH!

I would understand your silence in this matter based on your current responsibilities and obligations. However, the rest of us in the FREE world must have the gall to discuss it. Most of us in the FREE world are teaching such "open-mindedness", pluralism and tolerance to our children in KINDERGARTEN. What do you think the ISLAMISTS or fundamentalist ("Holier than thou", "in God we trust" (not in Man:-) Christians,  etc.) are planning in this regard?

Religious freedom for one religion must not be the "Death Sentence" for other religions as it is in most of ISLAMOLANDS! Tranny of the majority! Only Muslims, with intestinal fortitude, can positively affect this paradigm, none others.

As Egypt's Sisi advises, it will take a "revolution" from within each Muslim to quell the "holy war" brigade. For the "holy cow" brigade, the Hindus need the pluralistic revolution..

Following conversation is an example of pluralism with respect to two fundamentally opposed belief systems concerning the nature of God. It is quoted from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna by M (Mahendranath Gupta).

Master (Sri Ramakrishna): Well, do you believe in God with form or without form?

M, rather surprised, said to himself: How can one believe in God without form when on believes in God with form? And if one believes in God without form, how can one believe that God has a form? Can these two contradictory ideas be true at the same time? Can a white liquid like milk be black?

M: Sir, I like to think of God as formless.

Master: Very good. It is enough to have faith in either aspect. You believe in God without form; that is quite all right. But never for a moment think that this alone is true and all else false. Remember that God with form is just as true as God without form. But hold fast to your own conviction.

The assertion that both are equally true amazed M; he had never learnt this from his books. Thus his ego received a third blow; but since it was not yet completely crushed, he came forward to argue with the Master a little more.

M: Sir, suppose one believes in God with form. Certainly He is not the clay image!

Master (interrupting): But why clay? It is an image of Spirit.

M could not quite understand the meaning of this "image of Spirit." But Sir, he said to the Master, one should explain to those who worship the clay image that it is not God, and that, while worshipping it, they should have God in view and not the clay image. One should not worship clay.

Master (sharply): That's the one hobby of you Calcutta people---giving lectures and bringing others to the light!  Nobody ever stops to consider how to get the light himself. Who are you to teach others? He who is the Lord of the Universe will teach everyone. He alone will teach us, who has created this universe; who has made the sun and the moon, men and beasts, and all other beings, who has provided means for their sustenance; who has given children parents and endowed them with love to bring them up. The Lord has done so many things----will He not show people the way to worship Him? If they need teaching, then He will be the Teacher. He is our Inner Guide. Suppose there is an error in worshipping the clay image; doesn't God know that through it He alone is being invoked? He will be pleased with that very worship. Why should you get a headache over it? You had better try for knowledge and devotion yourself.

This time M felt that his ego was completely crushed. He now said to himself: Yes, he has spoken the truth. What need is there for me to teach others? Have I known God? Do I really love Him? .... I know nothing about God, yet I am trying to teach others. What a shame!.....This is not mathematics or history or literature, that one can teach it to others....

Master: God Himself has provided different forms of worship. ....He has arranged all these forms to suit different men in different stages of knowledge. The mother cooks different dishes to suit the stomachs of her different children. Suppose she has five children. If there is a fish to cook, she prepares various dishes from it----pilau, pickled fish, fried fish, and so on----to suit their different tastes and power of digestion. Do you understand me?

M: Yes sir.

Dear Ravi, I ll try to cite from the writing of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi- I believe you know him well- let me know your idea.

"Sacred laws change according to the ages. Indeed, in one age different prophets may come, and they have come. Since subsequent to the Seal of the Prophets, his Greater Shari'a is sufficient for all peoples in every age, no need has remained for different laws. However, in secondary matters, the need for different schools has persisted to a degree. Just as clothes change with the change of the seasons and medicines change according to dispositions, so sacred laws change according to the ages, and their ordinances change according to the capacities of peoples. Because the secondary matters of the ordinances of the Shari'a look to human circumstances; they come according to them, and are like medicine.

At the time of the early prophets, since social classes were far apart and men's characters were both somewhat coarse and violent, and their minds, primitive and close to nomadism, the laws at that time came all in different forms, appropriate to their conditions. There were even different prophets and laws in the same continent in the same century. Then, since with the coming of the Prophet of the end of time, man as though advanced from the primary to the secondary stage, and through numerous revolutions and upheavals reached a position at which all the human peoples could receive a single lesson and listen to a single teacher and act in accordance with a single law, no need remained for different laws, neither was there necessity for different teachers. But because they were not all at completely the same level and did not proceed in the same sort of social life, the schools of law became numerous. If, like students of a school of higher education, the vast majority of mankind were clothed in the same sort of social life and attained the same level, then all the schools could be united. But just as the state of the world does not permit that, so the schools of law cannot be the same.

The Words - 500

"the writing of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi- I believe you know him well", no clue :-)

Even after reading your translation, I remain clueless as to the motivation for all the "hate" in ISLAMOLANDS everywhere. What do you think? How do you contend we could get some of this over to the ISLAMISTS worldwide including the "Brotherhood"? There does appear to be a humongous fallacy being perpetrated on all Muslims including those supposedly enlightened ones in Malaysia.

Here's the challenge! "Sacred" to you may be meaningless to others. However, some pluralism and coexistence is the doorway to PEACE among us humans, would you think?

I've never heard chess to be a gambling game in recent history. What about you? Could one gamble based on the sex of an unborn baby without the aid of a sonogram? Decreeing words and games into religious objects, precluding others (kefirs) from using or engaging would not contribute to "pluralism" or peace, would it?

Salvation is neither a cooperative nor a communal event, is it? It is between the individual and the perceived "creator", isn't it?

Edith Stein was born in 1891 into observant Jewish family.  She became an atheist by her teenage years; she was a nurse in the first world war and after the war  trained as philosopher with Husserl. She converted to catholism in  1922; enter into a carmelite life into the Cologne monatery in 1933 and  in June 1942 deported to the Auschwitz concentration camp; she was recognized as a catholic saint in 1987. After entering monastic life she wrote that she had no doubt that her mother was as closed to God and neither her mother tried to dissuade or her to convert her mother.

Did Edith Stein survive Auschwitz? Was she the only one in her monastery to be "deported to the Auschwitz concentration camp"? Has anyone yet maligned her by accusing her of hiding from the Nazis in the Monastery?

I guess Mother Theresa was a tougher decision to anoint as "Saint" eh! It has taken them longer for that decision :-) How about elevating the Conquistadors that were principally responsible for the ubiquity of Catholicism in Latin America? Would these rascals deserve such honor of Canonization? Would you expect them to be seated on the right side of God in heaven?

How about all the wayward pedophile Catholic priests? Would these gentle folks be turned away to 72 Virginville Plaza in "Jannat" along with the Jihadis at the "Pearly Gates"? There's pluralism for you :-)

I hope you realize that I'm being deliberately dramatic :-)

Dear Ravi,

Man deported to Auschwitz were put to work until they dye but woman were immediatly directed to the gas chambers upon their arrival.  Only Edith and her sister, both were jews, were deported to Auschwitz from that specific monstery.  The religious authorities of Holland had spoken against the Nazis and it is why the Nazis retaliated on the catholic chuch in this manner.  She was offered one year before the opportunity to go to a swist monastory but the permission by the Swist authority were not granted to her sister and so she decided to stay with her sister.

Canonization is not a process that is necessarily itself saint.  Everyone has to judge for himself or herself in each case.  I do not like official title in general.  The point of my last post was not to get into the saint business but to simply point out a single case where two family members of different religious faith do not try to convert each other but just acknowledge their faith in the other's faith for the other.  Edifying individual case of faith in all form of religiosity is really what allow us to have faith in faith.  We can find so many cases of evil action done in the name of religion. The case do not have to be made that it is the case because I think that everybody will agree with that.  Evil persons know very well that they have to wrap themself into the holy and so that can do evil in the name of the holy.

Most religious organizations see themselves as one of two things, they are right or we are all right/wrong (we just choose what we like best). Even the most flexible and hardly defined churches have this separation.

I want to add, before there is debate thrown on this, that the way people of a group respect another is what actually clouds the difference between I'm right and we are all right (or wrong). 

I come from a religious background and I have been part of the same organization all my life. It often gets rebuttal, like most, for being strict, hypocritical, close minded, etc. The names go on and on and although the claims are justifiably correct, they simply aren't true. There is a difference between the organization and the members themselves.

There will always be tension between groups but that doesn't mean that peace is not possible. Many of my family members have rejected their upbringing and either joined another or none at all. We don't agree with one another's lifestyles and we can choose to be offended or to avoid such topics because there are other things that can still keep us together.

It is those other things that makes religion possible in a society. Whether or not a person is religious, I believe strongly that we have a nature in us that just KNOWS the difference between right or wrong despite cultural backgrounds, traditions, and histories. Eventually desensitization could occur to obscure morals but we know what to do whether or not it is attributed to God (by all names), Jesus Christ (or other influential figures, miracle workers, etc.), and the Holy Ghost (spiritual entities, energies, etc.).

Religion is just one form of creating a community that focuses mostly on moral values, self improvement, service, community outreach, and truth seekers. I see it no different than a genuinely good scientist and atheist who is trying to find a cure to cancer.

I feel that many fights with religion in society may actually deal with the thought of judgment but I also see little difference with this and the law. The law in its totality is fair. The morals and rights of people is fair. The people who carry it out, lawfully or spiritually may not be fair. Whether or not you believe in the afterlife and in judgment, however your organization may preach it, we are expected to follow the laws of the land as well and expect punishment if we break it. Some countries do not have the freedoms to vote or avoid corruption in the law making that infringe on the rights of religious morals, beliefs, and practices. However, we are asked to do what we can and all things would be made fair in the end. If I were to practice my religion in another country, I still have to practice the laws of the land whether or not the government is democratic or not, whether or not my voice matters in the decisions of the country.

Religion and society are in many ways the same.

Chloe,

''Religion is just one form of creating a community that focuses mostly on moral values, self improvement, service, community outreach, and truth seekers.''

I have the same notion of what religion is.  If someone show me a community hold together by values promoting the good of the community and I will recognize what hold this communicty as a good religion.  If the communities is falling apart then I may raise some doubts.  I do not take religion to be what they say they are and I do not see their boundaries where they say they are.  They are depicted by their zeilous and enthusiastic proponents as drastically different but this is marketing.  A ford saleman will never say that his trucks are more or less the same than GM trucks. This kind of sale person is not going to last long. If ask if the Ford truck are the best, a good saleman will convincly say off course.  I am not a predicator and as everybody I was not born on Mars but onto a very specific location and culture which has a past history and off course I am biaised, I am certainly not biased by Indy language but by the French language and of course I like the French language and is a bit indifferent to all language I do not know.  So we should not play the game that we can raise ourself and become extra-terrestrial in the heitht of our view but we can try to appreciate descent people from all over the world and appreciate the type of culture and history they belong and at the same time observe that crooks are all over the place.  

I was also raised in a very religious society and family but my father was an atheist and suddently in the seventies my society totally rejected tradition values and religion and most people and all the family member except me and my mother stayed attached to the old religious but at the same time open to the modern world which reject all forms of religions.  I decided to embrace our modern world but without giving up on the essential of the religious world.  Later on I realized that the same dilemna is going to happen to all societies with the pernetration of this economic system based onto one value system: MONEY through globalisation and that all religious people face the same eroding ennemy and contrary to what their sale people are saying, they should united at the same time of keeping their heritage and differences. This new religion based on money and greed is not able to hold people together.  It just work by fear and greed and devalues all that is human.  It does that by slowly letting the market choose with invisible hand which only see balance sheet with dollar amonts and gradually the machine has to optimize and cut this and cut that , always under imperative necessity and the stranglehold is just going to increased if will let the invisible financial hand do its magic.

Regards

"There will always be tension between groups but that doesn't mean that peace is not possible. Many of my family members have rejected their upbringing and either joined another or none at all. We don't agree with one another's lifestyles and we can choose to be offended or to avoid such topics because there are other things that can still keep us together." Unfortunately this doesn't work in modern ISLAMOLANDS, does it? 

"A ford saleman will never say that his trucks are more or less the same than GM trucks." The challenge today in ISLAMISTANS is that the "peddlers" are following through with the "death for recidivism" clause in the "holy text" wearing the blasphemous cloak of "Prophet & God" targeting mostly other perceived "non-conforming" BELIEVERS. There is no cure for deliberate IGNORANCE, is there?

"Religion and society are in many ways the same." Religion is supposed to be between the practitioner's conscience and the deity, isn't it? 

Salvation is neither a cooperative nor a communal/societal event, is it?  Freedom of practicing religion or freedom from tyranny of religion? Which shall it be for the survival of the human race?

Ravi,

I believe that the peace does work even in Islamic traditions and countries. The roots of Islam are good even if the people choose not to follow their own teaching much like any other religion or groups of people who choose not to follow the laws against the norms of society. Respect is the key. It can be held by all people or just one person but the peace comes from respecting more than just yourself. I spent a year in an Islamic rooted country and most of the contention in the country did not come from the religion, it was in the government. Sure, the people in government were "religious," but just like all people they have the choice to follow or not, to be good or not, they have the agency to choose. Even if they choose different than their upbringing their choices can still be seen as good ones, bad ones, mistakes, etc. Even though they could be making the most horrible of choices in comparison to their upbringing, you can still have respect for other people. I understand that sometimes it does not go hand in hand. After all, if it is a lifestyle to think and only respect your own needs then your choices may not be the best and be affecting the people around them thus the level of respect acted is lower than it could be but it doesn't mean that a choice can't still be made to change that.

As for a cure for deliberate ignorance as you put it, I would say that there is but most likely not done in the way we think it may be done. I could pray to those who do bad under the name of God and it may not effect them the way we would want to see it happen. What I may actually doing would be praying for their salvation because them choosing to do what they do in the name of God, by whatever name, is sure to cause them to be damned. What may or is coming for them in this life may possibly be well deserved. However, and I am not taking this lightly, is it possible that it is not exactly ignorance but desensitization/brainwash/unknowing of what they are doing is truly wrong? To take it to an ancient example, when we learn about ancient cultures sacrificing children and young girls to one or many Gods, I cannot see that the entire culture was ok with it at first but because of the generational teaching and with age and becoming custom to it happened throughout their life, they may not know it any other way. In other words, would the sibling of a sacrificed child or the mother truly be fine with such horrendous acts, especially at first? Probably not. A child morns over their dead pet and we as adults tell them that it is the circle of life. As time goes on its not such a big deal anymore and they then teach it to their children. If someone is deliberately choosing those acts when they know they are wrong, then hope for them is based on opinion and a faint hope that their heart will be changed. As a Christian, the hope will then be in Christ's atonement, as others may put it, God's mercy (by whatever name), in combination with the true sorrow and repentance of the wrong doer. (I don't believe just anyone is saved for only believing. We still make conscious acts and we are accountable for those choices even if we realize it was a mistake. This is why there is the repentance process, or the process of change is possible but all acts will be justified).

Yes, religion is the relationship between the soul of an individual and their deity. However, religion isn't always based on deity. By definition it is an organization with followers who take certain beliefs or ideas and teachings of such moral code as a lifestyle even if they do not truly know why they are doing it (speaking of people who practice out of tradition rather than personal conviction). The commandment to not put any other idols before God means to worship other things or people before the actual being that matters. So, religions around non deity technically exists. This could be a celebrity or yourself not just an object or multiple gods. No matter who is at the head of the organization the way to show devotion has similar patterns to others.

As for your main question, concerning salvation in relationship to the government, it depends on the way you see it I guess. A religious organization with a deity, in this case I am going to speak of Heavenly Father, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, there is an outline of government in the religion itself. It is written in the Bible, it is written in biblical companions, in history, and in cultural traditions. Religion may be the roots of politics. That innate instinct to know right from wrong is a parent of law. We establish communities, neighborhoods, cities, and counties around communal law, to set grounds for people to understand what is expected of them. Whether they choose a prophet, king, or president to dictate or enact the law is what changes it to government. There is a law of salvation and there is a law of right and wrong. Freedom of religion and freedom from tyranny of religion are too different acts. The freedom of religion is in similitude with the freedom of speech. We have the right to choose what to say or do (but this does not free us from the law if it contradicts it). Freedom of tyranny of religion would be someone forcing another to practice against their agency. Even at a micro level, in the family we are given traditions and in some cases, like in my own, they choose to not do it anymore. It is then up to us to decide how to react. Sometimes there is rejection and at extremes that are wrong. Sometimes it is praying for their salvation rather than actually supporting the person in their choice despite it being against what they believe is right. Other times it is full acceptance but feeling alienated because you think differently. The same can go both ways. Just because one person calls another a bigot does not mean that they are, by action it may be the opposite. My family could have chosen to be angry and to try to guilt them into coming back or bringing it up but they don't. There is respect and politeness. They may be invited but we aren't going to be offended. I understand that if I go visit them, there will be things going on I disagree with but I will respect their life choices. They aren't forcing me to do anything. If they come to my place, they will respect my decisions and not practice their choices under my roof out of respect. (i.e. they may drive somewhere else to smoke or drink rather than participate in the act on my property) and I won't be offended and neither are they. Religious tyranny would be more communist like rather than just plain rude and disrespectful people under the name of their God.

Now I may vote based on what I truly believe is right, not by tradition or by what everyone else thinks I should vote. I am going to vote based on my moral not by the future or even what my church may tell me (which they don't). My moral is based on God and what I believe he would do or see things the way he may. In some cases, we change God to fit our desires but in order to truly see what he sees, you have to actually get to know him and I am far from being able to be in line with Him but I still know what is right and what is wrong. I know what the guidelines are and I know from experience what works and what doesn't. I know that being educated in my decisions is important and I must find things out for myself. I will be choosing a leader in my government to enact the laws of the land and to hopefully make a better future for those to come based on the moral that I believe is right but of course, as part of what comes with agency, majority rule wins and the consequences to follow are set at the time of the decision. It may mean I lose freedoms or privileges are abolished such as the freedom of religion. (God forbid that I can't even say what I believe without being called a tyrant or a bigot just because I have a God. Because everyone knows that opinions make you do things you don't want to, like listen or respect.) I'm not above the law but if I have the ability to put forth my vote then I am enacting my freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If someone who is just a good person with no god but good moral puts forth their vote, they are enacting the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If someone who is a criminal (changed or not) votes, they too are enacting the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. As long as the freedom of religion does not infringe on the rights of another individual, it is good. If infringing means being offended by opinion and culture then the problem isn't in the law or the organization if there even is one, its the person themselves and they have the right to say what they want, vote what they want, and do what they want but to take away my right to do what I want is religious tyranny even under the name of no God.

Dear Maria Bettencourt,

Post-Reformation Europe invented Ecumenism and discussed biblical texts. It was meant to reduce conflicts among different Christian denominations. The trend was carried to the rest of the world by European colonialism. However, Asia which faces more than diverse Christian denominations had to learn and practise inter-religious dialogue. I view that as genuine religious pluralism, which the West needs badly, particularly in these times of refugee influx. Inter-religious dialogue is not discussing texts and doctrine, but finding common ground in different religious traditions to fight injustice or for human rights.

Teotonio,

Humans are intrinsically religious and cultural beings.  Like all animals we are biological beings but if we would not enculturate our babies they would not become functioning humans that can interact socially.  In many ways, human being belong to different cultural species and any dialogue among different cultural species is necessarily a cultural and religious dialogue unless we limit our communication to scientific communications.  

''Inter-religious dialogue is not discussing texts and doctrine, but finding common ground in different religious traditions to fight injustice or for human rights.''  The discussion has to include some doctrinal discussions otherwise we will not scratch the surface.  There is ample of room for such discussion given that all doctrines have to be interpreted and interpretations has some flexibility and common ground can be found when one work together towards it.  We will not be able to live together if we do not live in some common cultural ground given that human life is one living in cultural ground and the most important aspects of these cultural ground are considered sacred, and this is religion.

Dear Louis

I have no problem about theoretical input in dialogue, but much of the ecumenism in India, for instance, was sorting out European Reformation in India. Too much of time and energy was wasted in such discussions, instead of finding common ground in the individual / community religious beliefs of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc to join efforts to meet the imminent and critical life issues as citizens.

What els religious pluralism can be, except "Permitted competition" by all means in case when one after one atleast four main religion along messengers and sacred books claimed by same god "send" at planet Earth and told each that you are the last & chosen one and all land and all commands are yours; and never follow that logic which drive you away from your religion either its naked truth, all rewards are in life after death etc etc..............!!??

Here more than a Earth base religious logic, the backend/hidden real logic of "sender" need to be investigate-able to get reality base understanding for mutual harmony among citizens of Earth.....!!

Raja,

 The purpose of the question of this thread is to gather testimonies of personal religious pluralism.

What is your personal religious views and practices?  Are they those of a single religion or do they come from multiple religions? 

Thanks Dear Louis

There is no single religion actually, all the religions have many commonalities in practices, worships, believes, ethics and social system governance etc.........

religion(s) can be a source of information but what so ever was in history and is going on the name on religions then its better to get some peaceful frame of reference e.g., science to differentiate among beneficial and harmful act......and i think this is also claimed as main theme of religions that human get differentiation among good and bad.

So I personally think that with proven frame of reference like science etc we can better judge among good and bad, beneficial and harmful, allowed and prohibited etc etc. Yes, religion based knowledge can be from various religions and can be helpful for it but its not the ultimate authority or absolute truth over human, and its better to learn from various religions/ mythologies rather than to get stick on that what you got by birth due to unchoiceable / uncontrolable factors like parent and society. And also the learning from various religion creates good level of tolerance and understanding of philosophy of those religions`s educations and practices............it also enhance the ability of peaceful living.

As for as practicing or to be marked as a member of some specific religion then i think the key reasons behind such phenomenon are pressure oriented social structure and influential norms based setup, harsh temperature of territorial atmosphere, binding hurdles among society etc etc.

it's wonderful to finally meet you Colin, i've been looking for an all knowing deity on earth, that can show us mortals, the error of our ways. of course the logic error of that is, that's not really a discussion and not comparative.

Stephen,

The ancient Greeks were religious.  They had plenty of myths of the God, sanctuaries, rituals and celebration of their gods and Homer was their fundational poet, the stories of their coming together as Greeks, what it is to be a greek.  All that is religious.  Religion comes from religare ‘to bind. Philosophy was also a religious/spiritual path.  See what is ancient philosophy by Pierre Hadot.  Not exactly a religion of reason but a way of life where rational search of truth and meaning of life was central. Once we realize that imagination is the base of reason and revelation then opposing reason and revelation does not make sense.  

I agree with Louis.  Ancient philosophy was concerned with finding the truth.  Not just the material truth but also spiritual/mystical truth.  I suspect that ancient philosophers would be fascinated with the discoveries we have made regarding the physical realm, but that they would also ask us why we did not pursue more regarding the mystical realm, especially given that they seem extremely relevant to quantum physics.

Just a few thoughts. Human beings are not animals. That needs no defense even though human beings may have an animal side which will persist and find expression in various degrees. This is applicable to this topic e. g. because animals neither have any religion and thus no need to consider religious pluralism. Animals do not even consider things in a similar way as we do.

Religion is arguably a human property even though it is widespread. Various world views start from an agnostic or atheistic position.

Religions might be distinguished from religion in the sense that religion is of any individual whereas religions are organized belief systems.

Religious pluralism is a fact in the most fundamental sense. Many religions do exist. Just try to count how many sects Christianity has these days and how many people have been killed because sects were fighting other sects.

Obviously modern societies have developed and we are at a stage that the United Nations exist. Many societies are built on religious freedom and choice for any belief is a constitutional right as well an important point in the charta of the United Nations.

Still people are being killed in the name of religion. In this sense religious pluralism is still an ideal which needs much support.

This is probably the most important notion of relgious pluralism: every human being has the right to choose his religion or world view and thus it should be established and defended.

"Religious Pluralism in the Academy: Opening the Dialogue" is a wonderful book which throws some decent ideas about the topic. see its review in the link added.

Religious Pluralism and Christian Truth is a recent book for further reading on the subject.

https://ww2.faulkner.edu/admin/websites/jfarrell/Religious%20Pluralism.pdf

The form of religious pluralism in society has devastating effects. It is a psychological link that is difficult to change. Take, for example, the Iraqi situation. How did the state of religious transgression create major problems and even mistrust?

Religious pluralism I think essentially is based on tolerance of other ideas and ideologies. I believe religions developed from the taboos / restrictions in the early development of human beings (while family and other social systems were developing); It was an innovation like discovery of fire, cooking, domestication of animals and plants etc)  for a better life. Of course, they were great discoveries for betterment of human life. Later on as religions emerged as establishments (emerged with power of control over the disciples at first) they gradually turned as a means of suppression, and elimination of differing ideologies.

Religion should remain as a private / personal affair and no more a means of power and control;  then it can help human kind 

I am a practicing religious pluralist in the sense that I am a Hindu who studied in a Muslim university, taught in a university located in a tribal area, went abroad to teach in Muslim countries, left a job in a Hindu university despite getting the plum position. That's about the practice but the theory part is much more ambiguous for many. Do we learn lessons of tolerance or become more belligerent in such a scenario? Obviously, it will vary from person to person and that's where behavioral science might play a role in making people understand what pluralism, religious or otherwise, means for human beings.

I think religious pluralism can only keep humans humane; otherwise the religions will be a means of suppression / oppression, and a means of usurping power over others

Learning a second or third language is tremendously advantangeous.  For someone understanding only one language, that person cannot even imagine the type of differences among language.  And cannot imagine what it is like to learn a language since nobody remember learning his native language.  Also the experience of discovering another cultural world not accessible.  

Religious plurality open cultural windows that it is not even possible to imagine.  THere is aspect of French, I could only appreciate after I saw that English did not have.  By default we tend to imagine all other language as equivalent in all respect but they are not.  Even to deepen our own native religion, I think that getting familiar with other traditions help by providing a basis of comparison.  They are aspects of Induism that really attracted me early on because it did not seem to exist in christianity. For example, I learn meditation.  But it is only by learning a form of meditation that I realize that it has similarities with repetitive prayers and so gave me another perspectives on christian prayers.  I was fascinated by the pluralism of induism, the incredible variety within this tradition.  It is like a vast religious super market.  It helped me understand the ancient egyptian that had a similar pluralism and I stopped seeing paganistic forms of religions from a judaistic and christian deformation.

Religions conflict is one type of human compete. Since Cain and Abel, each man thinks that he is better than the other is. Cain murdered Abel, not because of the religious contrast. The reason was the human compete.

Like the ships, originally the religions were discovered for safety of the society; but in due course of time they stopped to be life boats,  forcing sane persons to jump searching for better life boats.