Originally posted by Digi
Again, faith itself can't be refuted on logical grounds, but claims made by religions and those of faith can. Because any commonly-practiced religion isn't just an abstract faith, but one whose God is actively involved in the world, and whose teachings attempt to affect and influence the world. You're only looking at the two worldviews in an abstract sense, not in a functional one.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not entirely true. A lot of Eastern religions don't fall into that mold.
Most of the religion that make no claims about god are functionally atheistic anyway.
Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are essentially philosophies of life. So is Jainism, but perhaps more religious.
Shinto makes testable claims about spirits so its out the window.
Hinduism and Sikhism seem like the only well known eastern faiths with truly untestable gods at their core.
Originally posted by inimalist
the religion of Hinduism makes many, many testable claims about the nature of reality.The caste system itself is one of these.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most of the religion that make no claims about god are functionally atheistic anyway.Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are essentially philosophies of life. So is Jainism, but perhaps more religious.
Shinto makes testable claims about spirits so its out the window.
Hinduism and Sikhism seem like the only well known eastern faiths with truly untestable gods at their core.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Buddhism, at least certain sects of Buddhism, isn't atheistic at all, or at least not in the sense that they claim there are no Gods. There are all kinds of mentions to Gods and Godlike entities in the Pali Canon. They just (according to Buddhist thought) aren't worth worshiping.
Originally posted by King Kandy
But those Gods aren't really gods in the sense of some kind of being "above" man. They're more like super powerful forms of life than anything transcendent. Sort of like worshiping aliens.
He's more of a God than he is a higher form of life.
As far as I can tell from research, that's very much a minority view. Amitabha Buddha would be a better example. In any case, if there is anything that could be considered a god in the transcendent sense in Buddhism, its not the Devas.
Should be worth noting that Taoism has gods by the boatload. But you can also follow it without acknowledging any gods at all. I think that's mainly the thing that separates eastern religions, the fact that their principles and cosmologies are not mutually dependent.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not entirely true. A lot of Eastern religions don't fall into that mold.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I was more referring to the part where Digi categorized religion as having an active God with followers with moral schema emphasizing how things 'ought' to be. At least that's what I got from his post.
I was speaking about Western religions for the most part, and thought that was clear (my reply came after you posited a theory of Christianity, after all), but there are arguable claims made by Eastern religions as well, ones that don't involve sheer faith. So I hope you'll address my central point. Because I dislike the "separate realms" argument when religion freely and often pertains to the physical world. Saying that logic can't impede on religious territory is naive. Cherry-picking religions and/or religious tenets that are based solely on faith does not prove the point, because it's only looking at a portion of the debate.