Why is one belief better than the other?

Pladio

Guardian of Nonsense
Staff Member
Moderator
Original Sin Donor
Joined
November 13, 2006
Messages
9,191
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
I asked this question in the "What is your Religion?" thread and Corwin suggested I created its very own thread so that's what I'm doing.

Essentially my question is : -Why is one belief better than the other ?

But it's actually a lot more than that for me. I want to know why people think their beliefs are truer than someone else's beliefs. I want to understand why some people regard their beliefs as the only truth and the only path of righteousness. How is one set of beliefs more important?

Many other questions arise from these. Some having to do with religion while others would be more philosophical in nature. Some of my questions are:
-Why is one religion truer than the other ?
-Why is having a religion better than not having one and vice versa ?
-Why is one denomination of a certain religion (Baptist, Roman Catholic, ... , Sunni, Shiite,... and others) truer or better than another ?
-Why is it that people have to try and 'convert' people to their 'true' beliefs ?
-Why is monotheism truer than polytheism or vice versa ?
-Why ... ?

I would like to know what people think about this as I'm really interested and I have seen mostly educated and civil discussions on this board. I am really interested in people's opinions and I hope my question makes sense to people.
Thank you in advance for participating in this thread.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,191
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
in the words (wise i see now) of Prime Junta's avatar
"No, it isn't"

and i'm being serious, though for being unhelpful i am sorry.
 
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
812
Location
standing under everyone
Perhaps he means HE doesn't believe one is better than another, but that isn't really the question you are asking!!
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,823
Location
Australia
Many wars have been fought over that idea "My religion is better than yours." I won't get started on the whole "Worship my god or burn in the afterlife" debate but to me those two ideas are linked.

I've been a born again Christian, dabbled in Wicca and finally came to understand some of the teaching of the Tao Te Ching. From my point of view Tao makes the most sense. I don't believe Tao is better than anybody else’s and it teaches that you should not think that. It's about self-improvement and understanding nature.

So your question is "Why is one belief better than the others?" From my point of view they are not. It's a personal decision to decide what philosophy or religion makes the most sense to you.

*Disclaimer I am not a philosopher or academic. I'm just a guy who is trying to make sense of this crazy thing called life.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
For me, the kind of "belief" you're referring to is a pursuit of truth. In context here, the pursuit of truth about life & creation. For me, in that pursuit, I'm looking for the actual truth. I'm not looking for "how to be a good person." If that's what people are looking for, then many beliefs are valid.

I look at it like as if I am Neo, or a Sim. I am inside of something that is running. The question is, who made it, and who made me? If, as a Sim, I start worshipping Wulcrukx as my god and creator, but it turns out a little girl named Ellie actually fired up the simulation program and created my world, then I have worshiped a false god. Ellie might sit at her computer and laugh and be amused that I worshiped something that doesn't actually exist. Or she might be filled with the wrath of a god for my insolence. I don't know. But what matters to me is the truth: who or what is actually there?

I am willing to consider the notion that all the creator did was program in the physics and such, and then light a match to spark the big bang. I am willing to consider that there is no creator at all. Whatever I decide, though, I'm trying to get to reality. I fully intend to reject many, many things as "not actually involved in the creation of me or this universe." I want to reject those things not because I'm mean or narrow minded, but hopefully because wisdom brings me closer to real possibilities.

The comedian Sam Kinison has an excellent rant about this. God is standing at the pearly gates to Heaven, and everyone is in line. God shouts, "All the people who worshiped Satan, head over to his line." And some do. Then he shouts, "All the Jews, come stand here in my line." And some do. Then he shouts, "All the Christians, you go over to Satan's line too. Jesus was a fake. You guessed wrong. Sorry."

Sam didn't actually believe Jesus was a fake (I don't think). He was a preacher's son, and I think poking fun at your own is the safest route for that kind of shocking humor. But I appreciated his point. And that is, when we die, something really happens, even if it's nothing. That's still an answer. If someone could die, experience it, know it, remember it, and come back to tell us, "It was just black for all eternity." Then we'd know, "OK, there is nothing out there." But if we die and something else happens, well, I'd damn well like to know. If we die and what happens is different for every person, well, that is a freaky, freaky way for existence to... exist. But I'd accept it if it were true.

There is an objective truth out there. We just have to die to know it.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
65
Location
USA
Apologies for the lengthy quote, but I think the content merits it... quoted for truth, as they say:

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing said:
NATHAN.

In days of yore, there dwelt in east a man
Who from a valued hand received a ring
Of endless worth: the stone of it an opal,
That shot an ever-changing tint: moreover,
It had the hidden virtue him to render
Of God and man beloved, who in this view,
And this persuasion, wore it. Was it strange
The eastern man ne'er drew it off his finger,
And studiously provided to secure it
For ever to his house. Thus--He bequeathed it;
First, to the MOST BELOVED of his sons,
Ordained that he again should leave the ring
To the MOST DEAR among his children--and
That without heeding birth, the FAVOURITE son,
In virtue of the ring alone, should always
Remain the lord o' th' house--You hear me, Sultan?

SALADIN.

I understand thee--on.

NATHAN.

From son to son,
At length this ring descended to a father,
Who had three sons, alike obedient to him;
Whom therefore he could not but love alike.
At times seemed this, now that, at times the third,
(Accordingly as each apart received
The overflowings of his heart) most worthy
To heir the ring, which with good-natured weakness
He privately to each in turn had promised.
This went on for a while. But death approached,
And the good father grew embarrassed. So
To disappoint two sons, who trust his promise,
He could not bear. What's to be done. He sends
In secret to a jeweller, of whom,
Upon the model of the real ring,
He might bespeak two others, and commanded
To spare nor cost nor pains to make them like,
Quite like the true one. This the artist managed.
The rings were brought, and e'en the father's eye
Could not distinguish which had been the model.
Quite overjoyed he summons all his sons,
Takes leave of each apart, on each bestows
His blessing and his ring, and dies--Thou hearest me?

SALADIN.

I hear, I hear, come finish with thy tale;
Is it soon ended?

NATHAN.

It is ended, Sultan,
For all that follows may be guessed of course.
Scarce is the father dead, each with his ring
Appears, and claims to be the lord o' th' house.
Comes question, strife, complaint--all to no end;
For the true ring could no more be distinguished
Than now can--the true faith.

SALADIN.

How, how, is that
To be the answer to my query?

NATHAN.

No,
But it may serve as my apology;
If I can't venture to decide between
Rings, which the father got expressly made,
That they might not be known from one another.

SALADIN.

The rings--don't trifle with me; I must think
That the religions which I named can be
Distinguished, e'en to raiment, drink and food,

NATHAN.

And only not as to their grounds of proof.
Are not all built alike on history,
Traditional, or written. History
Must be received on trust--is it not so?
In whom now are we likeliest to put trust?
In our own people surely, in those men
Whose blood we are, in them, who from our childhood
Have given us proofs of love, who ne'er deceived us,
Unless 'twere wholesomer to be deceived.
How can I less believe in my forefathers
Than thou in thine. How can I ask of thee
To own that thy forefathers falsified
In order to yield mine the praise of truth.
The like of Christians.

SALADIN.

By the living God,
The man is in the right, I must be silent.

NATHAN.

Now let us to our rings return once more.
As said, the sons complained. Each to the judge
Swore from his father's hand immediately
To have received the ring, as was the case;
After he had long obtained the father's promise,
One day to have the ring, as also was.
The father, each asserted, could to him
Not have been false, rather than so suspect
Of such a father, willing as he might be
With charity to judge his brethren, he
Of treacherous forgery was bold t' accuse them.

SALADIN.

Well, and the judge, I'm eager now to hear
What thou wilt make him say. Go on, go on.

NATHAN.

The judge said, If ye summon not the father
Before my seat, I cannot give a sentence.
Am I to guess enigmas? Or expect ye
That the true ring should here unseal its lips?
But hold--you tell me that the real ring
Enjoys the hidden power to make the wearer
Of God and man beloved; let that decide.
Which of you do two brothers love the best?
You're silent. Do these love-exciting rings
Act inward only, not without? Does each
Love but himself? Ye're all deceived deceivers,
None of your rings is true. The real ring
Perhaps is gone. To hide or to supply
Its loss, your father ordered three for one.

SALADIN.

O charming, charming!

NATHAN.

And (the judge continued)
If you will take advice in lieu of sentence,
This is my counsel to you, to take up
The matter where it stands. If each of you
Has had a ring presented by his father,
Let each believe his own the real ring.
'Tis possible the father chose no longer
To tolerate the one ring's tyranny;
And certainly, as he much loved you all,
And loved you all alike, it could not please him
By favouring one to be of two the oppressor.
Let each feel honoured by this free affection.
Unwarped of prejudice; let each endeavour
To vie with both his brothers in displaying
The virtue of his ring; assist its might
With gentleness, benevolence, forbearance,
With inward resignation to the godhead,
And if the virtues of the ring continue
To show themselves among your children's children,
After a thousand thousand years, appear
Before this judgment-seat--a greater one
Than I shall sit upon it, and decide.
So spake the modest judge.

(e-text courtesy of gutenberg.net, if anone would like to look the whole thing up)
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
119
Thank you all.

Skavenhorde : Since in your life, you have actually changed religions several times. You might be perfect for my questions. Why was being a born-again Christian the truth for you at that time ? Why was Wicca a better truth for you ? And how did Tao become even truer for you ?

It's a personal decision to decide what philosophy or religion makes the most sense to you.

Yes, I know, that's one of the reasons why I'm asking people's opinions.

Aboyd : Then what is your view and why is that your view ? What is your belief and why do you believe that is the right one ? According to the evidence, in your eyes, you have seen or heard ?

Atrachasis : If I understand your quote correctly is that religions all had a historical message of good to them, but that with time it has changed and people interpreted everything in a bad light. What the father is saying is that if you pass on your message with benevolence then that is enough.
Is this what you meant ?
Is this what you believe in ? In being a good person in general without the belief of a or more supreme being or beings ?

Prime J & Corwin : Can I hear your opinions on the matter?
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,191
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Pladio said:
Atrachasis : If I understand your quote correctly is that religions all had a historical message of good to them, but that with time it has changed and people interpreted everything in a bad light. What the father is saying is that if you pass on your message with benevolence then that is enough.
Is this what you meant ?
Is this what you believe in ? In being a good person in general without the belief of a or more supreme being or beings ?

What Lessing is saying is that, even if the One True Faith exists, all existing religions are but different interpretations of it, and it is impossible to say which is the true one, or which approaches it best. The reason why different people cling to different religions is simply tradition: it is the way of life they learnt from their forebears, and they from theirs, etc.; the only "proof" that exists for each of us is the word of the previous generation. Thus, there is no compelling reason to forsake your faith for another one, nor to believe that it is indeed the true faith.

Have another look at this section; it tells you the answer to your question why some people hold different faiths than others:
And only not as to their grounds of proof.
Are not all built alike on history,
Traditional, or written. History
Must be received on trust--is it not so?
In whom now are we likeliest to put trust?
In our own people surely, in those men
Whose blood we are, in them, who from our childhood
Have given us proofs of love, who ne'er deceived us,
Unless 'twere wholesomer to be deceived.
How can I less believe in my forefathers
Than thou in thine. How can I ask of thee
To own that thy forefathers falsified
In order to yield mine the praise of truth.
The like of Christians.

That doesn't mean that the message has changed for the bad; it simply means that the discussion about which faith is the right one is redundant; none of them can claim objective evidence beyond historical tradition (the rings are indistinguishable), and without objective evidence, you cannot hope to compel others to yield to your subjective beliefs. However, Lessing does point out that arrogantly insisting in the superiority of your own faith over others, instead of concentrating on the core of the veneration of a higher being that is shared by all of them, is going against the spirit of each of the religions in question (in the case of Nathan the Wise and chronological order, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the three rings).

No matter how convinced you are of your faith, you can be sure that there is someone who is just as convinced of their (completely different) faith, and just like you, they also have their holy scriptures to "prove" it. So how do you know you are right and they are wrong? Isn't it better to lay the question to rest and focus on the common grounds?

As for my own opinion, I stopped arguing about that a loooong time ago... ;)
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
119
What about people who say they felt god's presence or had an encounter with god? I'm not talking about people seeing god, but that they felt something so good around them at some points either by being in a synagogue, church or mosque and praying. That feeling made them forget about all of their other worries and made them so happy.
When they used to go to their old religion's place of worship they didn't feel that. Would it mean that their new religion is a better one ? (as they can feel god's presence... )

I agree with you about the common grounds, except that some religions say that you should try and convince non-believers (of that faith) to believe. If not convince then at least make them aware that it exists and show that you firmly believe in it.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,191
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Pladio said:
What about people who say they felt god's presence or had an encounter with god? I'm not talking about people seeing god, but that they felt something so good around them at some points either by being in a synagogue, church or mosque and praying. That feeling made them forget about all of their other worries and made them so happy.
When they used to go to their old religion's place of worship they didn't feel that. Would it mean that their new religion is a better one ? (as they can feel god's presence... )

Then I am happy for them. But if this experience remains a subjective and anecdotal one, i.e., if I, standing next to them, do not feel the same, then it is not objective proof of anything, and therefore cannot be used to establish an absolute superiority of anything over anything else. If a thousand unrelated people simultaneously shared this experience... well, then you might begin to think that there may be some absolute, external influence behind it.

Incidentally, this is a good, related bit of reading:
Greg Egan, Oceanic

But, see, the trouble with faith is that it is an antithesis to certainty. If you see incontrovertible proof (or what you think is such proof), what is the value of faith? It takes no great moral fiber to confess your belief in a religion if there is a column of fire in front of you booming out the name of the one true GOd. On the other hand, a commitment that is aware of the fact that it is not grounded in scientific evidence, and does not attempt to sell itself as absolute truth, is one that I can respect, even though I may not share it. In the absence of doubt, faith is either knowledge or error. Without doubt, faith cannot exist.

If not convince then at least make them aware that it exists and show that you firmly believe in it.

I welcome anyone drawing my attention to a fact or opinion that I had not been aware of before. On the other hand, if they insist that I also submit to this opinion, then they are attempting to sell this opinion as something objective, i.e., as a quasi-scientific fact, which, I think, is a betrayal to the concept of faith.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
119
Thanks for your opinions. What do you think of the Christian belief that it is the 'duty' of believers to spread the word of Jesus and tell everyone about the goodness of god? Also for the 'fact', according to Christians that you would burn in the afterlife if you do not believe ?
I think there are some examples of this in different religions too.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,191
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
is one belief better than the other? yes, the beliefs that doesn't involve killing, hurting, forcing, fooling, eating, or sacrificing others are better than the ones that do.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Then what is your view and why is that your view ? What is your belief and why do you believe that is the right one ? According to the evidence, in your eyes, you have seen or heard ?
Well, I'd currently put myself in the category of, "Christian who is repeatedly kicked out of churches." So I guess I'm not the best Christian.

But there are things that I like about Christianity. For example, it has decent real-world ties that help lend it weight (for me, YMMV). For example, Jesus was an actual historical figure who really existed on Earth. Whether he did miracles or not can be open to debate. But he is one of the most seen and documented figures we have in history. For him to not exist, thousands of people and many many writers would've had to conspire together to create a deception of epic proportions. Then they would have needed to plant all sorts of corroborating evidence all over the area where Jesus lived... because we found that stuff, and the carbon dating certifies much of it.

Carbon dating does present a problem for Biblical literalists, though. For example, the Bible shows lineage from Adam to Jesus, and if humans all aged the same, it would put the Earth at about 10,000 years old. That doesn't sync up with reality. For some Biblical literalists, they believe that it is a flawless document written by a perfect God, so they are forced to believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old. That's not a problem for my faith, as I believe the Bible was written by good old-fashioned human beings who made mistakes. Well, it's kind of a problem for me, as it's one of the things that gets me kicked out of churches. :)

As for why my belief is the correct one, I don't know that it is. This is faith. I have not died, I cannot say for certain what is there. But I do know that Christianity is one of the few faiths that is mutually-exclusive, and that syncs up with my view on life. There is a part of the Bible where Jesus says, "No one gets to God but through me." So if you follow Jesus, you're pretty much on board with the notion that Jews, Hindus, Moonies, and all those others are out of luck. This is one of the reasons why Christians evangelize. They believe that those who pick other religions will not be saved. It isn't enough to live a good life -- you actually have to spiritually align yourself with the one true God.

I like that not because of the dark side of that philosophy (lots and lots of good people are damned), but because it reflects what I think is probably a reality about creation. That is, you cannot fabricate gods, and believing in a god doesn't grant that god power or cause the god to exist. I don't think that when you die something happens to you that is in line with what you believed. Instead, I suspect something objective and universally true and constant happens. For example, nothing. For everyone, including believers. They die and nothingness takes over and they go out of existence. Their god didn't exist and they do not live on. Or, from my previous post, maybe when we all die God really is there at the pearly gates and he says, "Did you spiritually sign the Jesus document? That decides what your fate is." I'll say a little more in response to the other thing I've quoted here.

is one belief better than the other? yes, the beliefs that doesn't involve killing, hurting, forcing, fooling, eating, or sacrificing others are better than the ones that do.
This is the interesting thing about religion or spirituality: we don't all define it the same. Here it's defined as a lifestyle, as a way to live in harmony. For me, I define it not at all that way. Harmony may come of a belief, but it's not at all what I'm pursuing. I'm pursuing truth. If it turns out that the truth is that God existed but Satan killed him and now claims all souls for eternal torture, then that's what I will believe. I won't like it, but if it's the truth, then to me it's the "right" belief because it reveals the reality of the universe. I will call that belief superior to all other beliefs because it is accurate.

I'll also probably be pretty depressed if it turns out to be true. But I'll accept it as the ugly truth if it is reality. And finding reality is my goal. Hopefully the truth is more fair than that.

I'd rather believe God is real, and that there is a good afterlife. Is it true? I wish I knew. But if it turns out that there is no god of ANY faith and that we all cease to exist upon death, then I still think I'm doing okay. I lived a decent life, full of love and family and happiness. I can go to my grave with that, even if one of the tenets of my life (Jesus) was wrong.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
65
Location
USA
Pladio, I try to stay out of these 'discussions' deliberately. Not only am I the mod for this forum, but as an ordained, moderate, Pentecostal minister, I am obviously quite biased. Therefore I want to avoid any conflict of interest, or, if I had to moderate any responses I don't want people accusing me of abusing my position because I was losing the argument. For the sake of the site, I feel it's better to stay out of these discussions as much as possible. I realise this is not always totally satisfactory, but it's how I have chosen to operate!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,823
Location
Australia
This is just my opinion, but I think ppl tend to think their religion is better than the other because if it is not true, then their confidence shakes in everything. I mean I found that ppl tend to rely on religion for something they can't control. By thinking their religion is the *right* choice, ppl tend to get reassurerance/strength whatever they want to call it.

I don't believe in any religion because I do not like the sense of weekness/powerlessness. I have a friend who relies on religion waaaay too much. She thinks everything (literally, EVERYTHING) is god's will. From who she meets, where she ends up to what she studies.. everything is god' will. When she fails uni, she thinks its god's way of opening a new path for her. That's bullshit. Your actions depend your outcomes as well. I really want to say, everyone who thinks like her really should snap out of it.
 
Last edited:
Hi purplebob. That's actually a well-reasoned line of thinking that your friend has. I don't subscribe to that belief, but I do know that there is logic behind it. So I wouldn't be too hard on her. There is a whole subset of Christianity (well, maybe other religions too) that believes that God not only created the universe, but that God is actively controlling it. Most people refer to this as Calvinism. Maybe I might just call it predestination. Whatever word you want for it, there has been huge theological thought put into it.

The good news is, once you realize that the person you're dealing with subscribes to something like Calvinism, you are then able to do a couple of things:
  1. Not feel bullied into following that dogma, knowing that great minds have differed
  2. Research other possibly valid models of thought
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
65
Location
USA
Aboyd, you have over simplified the tenets of Calvinism a trifle there. I subscribe to SOME of his ideas (certainly not all ), but PB's friend is taking an EXTREME position and I don't like any form of extremism. Actually, I think most extremism is escapism!! These people are trying to escape, primarily from any sense of responsibility, for their life, their actions, and their relationships!! The tenet of Free Will is fundamental to Christian thought and belief (and I believe to the most of the Jews and Muslims, but I could be in error there ). The relationship between free will and God's will is not something I have time to explore here, but suffice to say God is not a puppet master directing every aspect of your life. For me, He's more a loving father wanting me to be the best I can be!! PB's friend has a very distorted view of God IMO!! :)
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
12,823
Location
Australia
I subscribe to SOME of his ideas (certainly not all ), but PB's friend is taking an EXTREME position and I don't like any form of extremism. Actually, I think most extremism is escapism!!

I agree that extremism is harmful escapism.

On the disbelieving extreme, we have rabid, flailing atheists. On the opposite believing extreme, we have rabid, flailing theists. Both are 100% certain of their point of view, and they will not modify their views or acknowledge their own ignorance and fallibility. This inevitably leads to conflict, destruction and deaths.

Who is left in the middle ? Those who honestly admit that they are primarily uncertain about issues of cosmology and deity existence : the agnostics.

As humanity is freed more from the destructive dogmas, myths and polarity, it will become more harmonious and peaceful, as a result of staying on the neutral investigative path, rather than being entrenched in staunch ideology and blindly clannish assumptiveness.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
137
Back
Top Bottom