Religion without eternal life

[revots33]

Just wondering, do you think the major religions would be as prevalent among today's humans if the afterlife wasn't part of their teachings?

Take Christianity... imagine everything is exactly the same, belief in god as the creator of the world, Adam and Eve, Jesus rising from the dead, baptism, the virgin birth, original sin, everything... EXCEPT we don't live forever after we die. Would people still follow this religion? If so, why?

[The.Accountant]

I've thought about this too, and I can't imagine the answer being anything other than no.

[Justin A]

Not a chance. The whole reason that people have these irrational beliefs in the first place is so that they can feel like they will go to a better place after they die. Take that away and there's no motivation for having beliefs that don't require any evidence.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole reason that people have these irrational beliefs in the first place is so that they can feel like they will go to a better place after they die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I know a lot of people who have adopted a spritual way of life which includes belief in a personal god and prayer, whose primary concern and motivation for adopting that way of life was to find a solution to living right now. Their motivation most certainly was not concern about an afterlife although their belief in god allows them to trust he will take care of them when that time comes. Many of these people were atheists or agnostics prior to their adoption of this way of life. Many of them had previously abandoned traditional religion. There is a popular saying among them along the lines of, "Religion is for those who are afraid of going to hell. Our way of life is for those who have already been through it".

It may be true that such motivation to find a spiritual solution to living right now might not be common with the majority of people. But there are significant numbers of those who do have such motivation.

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

PTB,

Do you believe in an afterlife?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The whole reason that people have these irrational beliefs in the first place is so that they can feel like they will go to a better place after they die.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I know a lot of people who have adopted a spritual way of life which includes belief in a personal god and prayer, whose primary concern and motivation for adopting that way of life was to find a solution to living right now. Their motivation most certainly was not concern about an afterlife although their belief in god allows them to trust he will take care of them when that time comes. Many of these people were atheists or agnostics prior to their adoption of this way of life. Many of them had previously abandoned traditional religion. There is a popular saying among them along the lines of, "Religion is for those who are afraid of going to hell. Our way of life is for those who have already been through it".

It may be true that such motivation to find a spiritual solution to living right now might not be common with the majority of people. But there are significant numbers of those who do have such motivation.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't compute.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
PTB,

Do you believe in an afterlife?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I'm going to die. Of course I don't know that. Maybe there are enough parallel universes so that I never die in one of them and that's the one that my multiuniverse existence gets shrunk down into as time goes on.

But assuming I do die, and assuming there is a ground of Love to existence and that the source of my existence is Love, I don't see why I should worry about it. It'll be ok whatever it is. Let the dead bury the dead. For all I know, Eternity is in this moment. As Bob Dylan said, "Get busy living".

PairTheBoard

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]

"Religion is for those who are afraid of going to hell. Our way of life is for those who have already been through it"


[/ QUOTE ]

If only I can come up with something so witty when I start my cult.

[Taraz]

I think it heavily depends on the religion. Since the church has been using images of hell since the beginning, Christianity would probably have few followers.

Judaism doesn't seem to focus on the after life much or if at all, so I think it would probably stick around.

Islam has a Judgment Day similar to Christianity, so I would assume they would have fewer followers.

Buddhism wouldn't go anywhere.

Hinduism has a heaven and a hell, so it would probably die out as well.

[ski]

Does anyone know of any religion w/o eternal life?

It is an interesting concept to me because it shows that people need selfish motivation to be unselfish (eg, Christians turning the other cheek (unselfish) but feeling they will be rewarded (selfish))

It also shows that the inventors of these religions understood that.

This is one of the main points that leads me to beleive man is primarily selfish.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it heavily depends on the religion. Since the church has been using images of hell since the beginning, Christianity would probably have few followers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I guess that's my question. How much of a "hook" is a promise of the afterlife in these religions?

Because when I read arguments for god's existence, they rarely mention the afterlife. They say the universe must have a first cause, or without god there would be no morality, etc. None of these arguments require an afterlife to be valid arguments for god's existence.

Yet in terms of major organized religions like Christianity and Islam, the afterlife seems to be an obsessive concern. So somewhere, people are making a leap from "god exists" to "I am going to live forever". This promise of eternal life makes for quite a sales pitch.

[Schmitty 87]

I imagine there would be a lot fewer Christians, but any religion using eternal life/damnation as a hook is not a true religion anyways.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine there would be a lot fewer Christians, but any religion using eternal life/damnation as a hook is not a true religion anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that any religion that doesn't use eternal life as a hook is not a true religion.
PairTheBoardism seems more like a philosophy than a religion.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I imagine there would be a lot fewer Christians, but any religion using eternal life/damnation as a hook is not a true religion anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that any religion that doesn't use eternal life as a hook is not a true religion.
PairTheBoardism seems more like a philosophy than a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I have an easy answer for you: We have different definitions of religion. That's why it is frustrating when people trash religion as this horrible, cruel, stupid, irrational joke when it is clear that they are referring to something entirely different from what I am. Religion does not (and should not) feel obligated to make claims about history (Biblical stuff) or the ordering of the material universe (evolution stuff). IMO religion is more than that, and the Bible is more than a history book or a list of rules. The type of positivism displayed by Dawkins, Harris, and the like is equally frustrating to me, because it's so obvious that they've just been hammered by idiots and that they're fed up with much of mainstream religion's claims. And since the most vocal part of the religious community is always the crazy people, that's all they bother talking about. It's as if they've never read or even heard of Schleiermacher or Toland or Tillich (among many many others), instead sticking to the hate-spewing coming Falwell and the like.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

there is no eternal life in buddhism, if you consider that a religion. i think its more of a philosophy personally.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have an easy answer for you: We have different definitions of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes that was my point. Sorry I didn't make it clear.

[ QUOTE ]
The type of positivism displayed by Dawkins, Harris, and the like is equally frustrating to me, because it's so obvious that they've just been hammered by idiots and that they're fed up with much of mainstream religion's claims. And since the most vocal part of the religious community is always the crazy people, that's all they bother talking about. It's as if they've never read or even heard of Schleiermacher or Toland or Tillich (among many many others), instead sticking to the hate-spewing coming Falwell and the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is material best saved for another thread, but Harris is of the position that the religious moderates make it possible for the fundamentalists to get away with pretty much anything. So in fact he's attacking the moderates as well.

[revots33]

Schmitty do you believe in an afterlife (heaven and/or hell)?

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
This is material best saved for another thread, but Harris is of the position that the religious moderates make it possible for the fundamentalists to get away with pretty much anything. So in fact he's attacking the moderates as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this would also require a further definition of "moderates", but at face I find this to be a ridiculous claim by Harris. I also think that the type of religion promoted by Schleiermacher (which is quite appealing to me) is anything BUT moderate (moderate in the sense of a middle ground or simply a "ya I guess I'm christian" type belief).


[ QUOTE ]
Schmitty do you believe in an afterlife (heaven and/or hell)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Meh I'm not really sure. I sorta plan to cross that bridge when I come to it. If there is an afterlife, I prefer the view of universal salvation consisting of a simple return to whatever the hell we came from (the characteristics of which I have no idea). But then again, if there is some sort of cosmic judgment and I'm thrown into hell, I don't really think that I'd be in a position to argue/dispute my fate.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think that the type of religion promoted by Schleiermacher (which is quite appealing to me) is anything BUT moderate (moderate in the sense of a middle ground or simply a "ya I guess I'm christian" type belief).


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Schmitty,

Could you briefly explain the main ideas of Schleiermacher's view on religion? How do they relate to Christianity? Also, how widespread do you think his view has more or less been adopted in practice by people? How many of them call themselves Christian? Are there Christian denominations where these views are embraced or at least tolerated? Are there many people outside Christianity who hold to them?

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think I have an easy answer for you: We have different definitions of religion. That's why it is frustrating when people trash religion as this horrible, cruel, stupid, irrational joke when it is clear that they are referring to something entirely different from what I am. Religion does not (and should not) feel obligated to make claims about history (Biblical stuff) or the ordering of the material universe (evolution stuff). IMO religion is more than that, and the Bible is more than a history book or a list of rules. The type of positivism displayed by Dawkins, Harris, and the like is equally frustrating to me, because it's so obvious that they've just been hammered by idiots and that they're fed up with much of mainstream religion's claims. And since the most vocal part of the religious community is always the crazy people, that's all they bother talking about. It's as if they've never read or even heard of Schleiermacher or Toland or Tillich (among many many others), instead sticking to the hate-spewing coming Falwell and the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with a lot of this. They are battling crazy fundamentalism and calling it religion.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Schmitty,

Could you briefly explain the main ideas of Schleiermacher's view on religion? How do they relate to Christianity? Also, how widespread do you think his view has more or less been adopted in practice by people? How many of them call themselves Christian? Are there Christian denominations where these views are embraced or at least tolerated? Are there many people outside Christianity who hold to them?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I can try/images/graemlins/cool.gif. I'm getting this all from <u>On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers </u> in which the first two speeches are particularly applicable for an introduction to Schleiermacher. My knowledge doesn't extend well beyond those two speeches either.

Schleiermacher wrote in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Before and around this time in Germany and elsewhere in Europe there was a surge toward rationalism and the idea that all can be made clear. Accompanying this surge was extreme doubt in Christian doctrine and the idea of religion as a whole. Just to give you an idea of the kind of person Schleiermacher is writing to, here's Goethe's poem "Prometheus" (http://www.freeinquiry.com/prometheus.html).

Whereas most theological work up till that point (and now too) discusses the contents of religion, i.e. specific doctrines, Schleiermacher began with the simple question: What is religion? To get to the answer, Schleiermacher begins with discussing what religion is not. He states that religion is not metaphysics or morals; it is not fear; it is not awe at the beauty of the universe. In speech two he writes: "Religion's essence is neither thinking nor acting, but intuition and feeling." That seems really vague and he does go on to refine "intuition" and "feeling" (for example feeling is very distinct from emotion), but one quote that I found that is particularly applicable to today's religious situation is that "religion does not strive to bring those who believe and feel under a single belief and a single feeling." Schleiermacher really stresses individuality in intuiting the universe. Another key part of Schleiermacher's theology is that it is organic. When we conceptualize the idea of God and the universe, we are often caught between two poles. On one side is the individual and on the other the universe. On one side is an ant and on the other side is a supernova lightyears away. On one side is the finite and on the other side is the infinite. Religion is the constant oscillation between these two outer limits.

So anyways, that's a brief introduction to Schleiermacher. The first few speeches were very well received and highly praised by the "cultured despisers." You may wonder where is Christianity in all this, and Schleiermacher goes into that more in the 3rd-5th speeches, which were not as well received by the rationalists. To answer your questions, Schleiermacher was definitely a Christian. I imagine his views have not been adopted much at all, but as he also writes, "Religion never appears in a pure state." Any religion that stresses the totality of everything would be tending toward his thought though (I'm thinking particularly of Pope John Paul II and his constant calls for solidarity as an example perhaps). I definitely can see people outside of Christianity embracing Schleiermacher's ideas, at least in the first two speeches. People who consider themselves spiritual instead of religious (free from dogma) could be seen to fall in that category.

[PairTheBoard]

Thanks Schmitty. After reading your reply I also read a little about him in Wikipedia. His view of intuition and "feeling" (with his technical definition of the word), sounds very similiar to what I've been talking about here as subjective experience. I was suprised to find out there is a whole theory on "Interpretation" called hermeneutics which his thought evidently had a significant impact on. Once again, his ideas in this area seem to agree with ones I've expressed here. I see that my common sense approach to reading the Bible, for example, is just the standard one described as the Hermeneutic Circle. It's the same general method for interpreting all sorts of things.

Here's a quote of Schleiermacher's on Religion from Wikipedia:


[ QUOTE ]
"Religion is the outcome neither of the fear of death, nor of the fear of God. It answers a deep need in man. It is neither a metaphysic, nor a morality, but above all and essentially an intuition and a feeling. ... Dogmas are not, properly speaking, part of religion: rather it is that they are derived from it. Religion is the miracle of direct relationship with the infinite; and dogmas are the reflection of this miracle. Similarly belief in God, and in personal immortality, are not necessarily a part of religion; one can conceive of a religion without God, and it would be pure contemplation of the universe; the desire for personal immortality seems rather to show a lack of religion, since religion assumes a desire to lose oneself in the infinite, rather than to preserve one's own finite self."


[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine there are those here who will say, "Does Not Compute" and continue on with their regular routine.

PairTheBoard