Belief is not necessarily a central element of religion

Belief is not necessarily a central element of religion. This is true of Protestant Christianity (and, to a much lesser degree, of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Judaism); but for example, the Ancient Romans would not have cared much about what one believed or did not believe about the gods, as long as they performed the rites, and the Confucians would say that belief is essentially irrelevant and that what matters is the cultivation of virtue and righteousness.

Why are Abrahamics different in that regard then? This meme seems to have spread even among Muslims to the point that it's become mainstream, when the Qur'an has clearly a more "classical" posture:

One of the reasons, perhaps, is that Abrahamic religions are all based on a revelation — on God Himself choosing to interact with a specific individual, or with a few of them, in some specific ways. That's a rather unusual feature, I think: non-Abrahamic religions may have local cults and stories about divine messages, of course, but they are not generally the main justification for the religion.

If God did not talk to Abraham, there is no point in being Jewish; and similarly, if Jesus is not, in some sense, a divine being, there is no point in being Christian, and if the angel Gabriel did not reveal the Qur'an to Muhammad there is no point in being Muslim.

Abrahamic religions seem to have this overarching theme of God establishing alliances with humankind; and therefore, doubting the existence of those alliances makes humankind incapable to "do their part" of the pact between Man and God.

Complete and utter disagreement coming from me.

If there's no belief, where lies the faith? If there's no faith, where lies the central element of religion?

You are right when it comes to, say, Islam or Christianity. But what is a Confucian even supposed to believe in?

At most, they are supposed to think that Confucius was a very insightful and intelligent person, and that his writings contain a number of useful principles to lead a virtuous life and to create a harmonious society. You don't have to believe that he was divinely inspired or anything, as he never claimed that to begin with.

How many religions are there based entirely on orthopraxy (practice) and not orthodoxy (dogma)?

I think that most religions involve both things. Abrahamic religions, and Protestantism in particular, seems to place an unusually high amount of value on orthodoxy; and on the other hand, it seems to me that Confucianism places an unusually low amount of value on it. Others... I dunno. Buddhism seems to me to care relatively little about belief, but not as little as Confucianism — but I might be wrong about this.

Hinduism seems to me to place more value on belief than Buddhism does, but not as much as Abrahamic religions generally do; but to be honest, I know very little about Hinduism — but for example, the fact that Hinduism outright denies that the notion of "converting out of Hinduism" even makes any sense seems to match my interpretation.

Modern Paganism, of course, is very eclectic and varied, and generally not particularly hung up on formal dogmatic statements.

Taoism... I dunno. Perhaps you do, judging from your handle?

All organised religion needs is dogma. People often are christian not because they truly believe in the Bible's message, but because it's the only form they have to maintain the status quo.

edited 2nd May '12 7:05:02 AM by Gannetwhale

The distinction is probably the fact that the older religions were much more open ended. Just because Zeus existed did not mean that Thor didn't. Thus it's not so much about belief as disbelief.

I don't think that it is a matter of "newer" or "older" religions. If anything, it seems that many recent forms of religiosity — most forms of modern Paganism, for example, or Unitarian Universalism — are little concerned with dogmatic definitions.

I'm not the most informed on Taoism. My Taoism is a philosophical approach; I don't "believe" in wu-wei so much as try to apply the concept of wu-wei and see how useful it is.

Ancient mystical Taoism involved seeking immortality through alchemical elixirs. lolnothnx

These verses chastise the Bedouin for they claimed to be faithful believers even though faith have not yet entered their heart. To have faith is a higher goal than to merely surrender.

By performing the five pillars of Islam, that person submit to Allah. They are Muslims.

By accepting the Six articles of faith, that person have iman. They are Mukmins.

By worshipping and behaving as if Allah sees them. That is ehsan. They are Muhsins. This is the highest level in faith.

edited 2nd May '12 10:50:41 AM by Blurring

The point of Taoism isn't to seek longevity, but one of finding balance between humans and elements of nature. So you can say that Taoism was the first ever practice that involves environmentalism

Also, philosophies are not religions. Confuscianism is but a series of teachings, and it was national designated education material for a long time, and currently having global scale publication

The distinction between religion and philosophy is very fuzzy.

See also Neoplatonism, for example. I have often thought that if for some reason I lost faith in Christianity, Plotinus' system — and more in general, Neoplatonic Paganism — would provide an excellent religious framework.

Interesting. I did not know of the Muslim/Mukmin/Muhsin distinction.

edited 2nd May '12 4:32:59 PM by Carciofus

Confucianism thinks that the "old way is better". Its morality code and rites are based on the Zhao Li, which was written around 1000 years before Confuscius was born.

Based on my observations, religions in the East are different in the way that rather than "X is divine, and therefore He is right", it is more "X is right, and therefore he must be divine/above us". Confuscius is the same: he is not an Almighty wizard who can turn water into wine, but he is "divine" in the way that he, along with others who followed his thinking, the "Jun zi", is more moral and upright than everybody else.

@Carciofus

To do is easy, to have faith is hard.

No one chooses what to believe in. They are convinced to believe in things.

People can choose what to believe in. Most people are too entrenched to have a true crisis of faith. That moment when it could go either way- that's when you get to choose.

I don't believe people "choose" what to believe in-can you give some evidence of that? I certainly believe that people's beliefs are shaped in ways to match their own personal interests, but that's different from choosing to believe.

You can choose to deem a belief acceptable enough or you can reject it as not meeting that standard.

@OP Some may not treat belief as the central point in a religious idea, but I think that's not prioritizing correctly.

Okay, I think we're getting to the point where we need to define choice.

Also note that, I can reject a premise that I believe, or accept a premise that I don't believe. That may seem odd, but what we're convinced of, and what we think we should be convinced of are two separate (but HIGHLY overlapping) sets.

I "believe" that when I die, I'm reincarnated into the same universe into my own body but with all my existing memories. But I believe that it's stupid to believe that, and as thus, it doesn't meet my test of believability on a conscious level.

What I was referring to was a crisis of faith in which one is forced to choose between two incompatible, but roughly equally appealing beliefs. I agree with your model the vast majority of the time, but there can come a point where it seems that it's essentially the donkey's paradox- neither belief outweighs the other in the "donkey"'s mind, but clearly a choice has to be made.

Right, and I think that people in that choice will choose what to consciously "believe" but what they actually believe is something entirely different.

Though, this situation only arises for cases of people who believe that believing in things rationally is a high priority, rather than just taking what's convenient to believe (which tends to overlap with their instincts on a 1:1 ratio)

edited 3rd May '12 9:46:57 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

x3

Choice is not a right action but an ability. That's why there's such a thing as "right and wrong choices" but that doesn't invalidate their being choices.

So I would disagree. You can be pulled towards being convinced but you're skeptical and insisting that there's a better alternative explanation (which would be what you actually believe). Likewise you can be pulled towards disbelief but you may suspend it and choose to give it a chance.

Example: Someone that's supposed to visit you is hours late and won't answer calls. You get suspicion that something happened, maybe an accident or refusing to come. But one may choose to go with that or stick around and trust that the person will come.

edited 3rd May '12 12:22:34 PM by abstractematics

I think you're misusing the term belief. A choice is a decision. One decides to take a given action of whether to wait around for the late person, but one does not decide to believe that that person is merely late due to this or that.

I cannot simply decide to believe that the sky is green right now, for instance.