The Ritual Dilemma for Inclusivist Religions
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 12. 2020
- A dilemma for inclusivists about the afterlife forcing them to choose between a position effectively equivalent to religious exclusivism and one that abolishes religious rituals.
Sponsors: Joshua Furman, Joshua Opell, NBA_Ruby, Eugene SY, Antoinemp1, Antibody, Ismail Fagundes, Adrien Ecoffet, Tom Amedro, Christopher McGevna, Joao Sa, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
One could envision a religion where guarding the rituals is a requirement to earn or maintain a specific status within that religion. It doesn't have to be a requirement to get in 'the good place'.
In one sense, however, it does seem that the existence of necessary conditions to get in that place implies exclusivism. Rituals just might not be part of those conditions.
I like to think there is a secret religion, that is not bound by typical religiosity. What I mean is, there is a space for all humans, to let go of their beliefs and conflicting thoughts, even if it is temporary, and I believe humanity is on the verge of the discovery of this thing that means to be more inclusive than most religion comes off to be. I like to think the beginning of finding out where that might be, is thinking in a way where only an individual can find the answer on their own. I like to say, "Gravitate toward subjective conclusion." Of course, everyone may find a different answer, but in the end, we are using our individuality to our advantage and exploring millions of possibilities. I would like us all to find out the different things that are helping us evolve, and humanity to make a collective decision to where we should go. Which I get, we are trying to do, and hasn't succeeded entirely. But I think that may be the only way, and I see how that may come off as exclusive. But I like to think that there are many ways, not only a couple, or one.
I think, instead of making religious rituals an obligatory condition for getting into "The Good Place", it could instead be a supererogatory condition. That way, performing the religious ritual would still contribute to getting in "The Good Place" without making it a necessary criteria.
The true value of ritual would presumably be the cultivation of the appropriate mental and spiritual states. Ritual assists in a sort of self-manipulation to aide in pursuit of a state of mind which has previously been identified as desirable. But a belief requirement is much more problematic, especially if we assume beliefs are determined by evidence and a process of reasoning; i.e., we assume one's beliefs follow from the totality of life experience. I believe 2 + 2 = 4 because I cannot do otherwise, not because I choose to. I don't see that I choose my beliefs. I hold the belief A presumably because I take A to be true. To believe something is to take it as true. Since, for the most part, you cannot make something true by willing it to be so, you cannot change your beliefs by an act of choosing. You may however engage in ritual in order to - in a strange and somewhat subtle way - have some affect on your attitudes. Religion often seems to be much more about attitudes than belief.
"Since, for the most part, you cannot make something true by willing it to be so, you cannot change your beliefs by an act of choosing." misguided sentence. No one knows the truth so yes you can change your beliefs simply through willing it to be so... all we ever do is perceive the truth so beliefs are built upon what appears to be true not upon what actually is true. This is entirely arbitrary and one can easily shift their beliefs to something nonsensical. Now there are things which place such heavy constraints upon us that it is almost impossible to disbelieve them, e.g. you can't doubt gravity if you are of sane mind and your example of 2 + 2 = 4 is another good one. But things like "it is immoral to be a homosexual", "god exists", etc. are beliefs one can simply choose to have.
One could argue though, that while ritual may not necessarily be necessary for salvation, there may be other compelling reasons. For example, the performance of these rituals may be believed to be what's holding up the natural order or preventing the end of the world. Or they could be a way of giving thanks for the gifts of nature, or a way teaching the religion's beliefs, or of commemorating historical events.
hey Carneades i was wondering who are you favorite Atheist philosophers & theist philosophers?
and what book from them u would recommend
Good question. Bertrand Russell is a great atheist philosopher with a wealth of books from beginner to expert. His "What I Believe" and "Why I am Not a Christian" are particularly apropos (though Hume's Natural History of Religion is also a good choice). For theist philosophers, Descartes is particularly impactful and ever a thorn in the skeptic's side. his "Meditations on First Philosophy" and "Discourse on the Method" are recommended, but my favorite is probably Socrates, who likely was a theist, despite asking some questions of the Gods of his time. Plato's Euthyphro is probably the most relevant here.
Nice video. I think I would reject S3 if because I think it would be possible to have rituals that make it easier to fill the other requirements of religion such as being a good person. E.g. if my religion says each day I should perform a ritual that involves reflecting on the previous day and what I can do to be a better person, this doesn't have to be explicitly "required" but it would make it easier for me to fulfill the other requirements.
On the other hand, I don't think a religion that explicitly requires rituals of its members could be truly inclusivist for the reasons described here.
Mormonism has an interesting sollution to s2 and s3. They believe that everyone must be baptised into the mormon church to be saved. You are only required to follow the laws of God if you have both learned the laws and had God, by speaking to your heart, give you knowledge that the law is true. Those who die without belief will learn God's law and know it is true in the afterlife. They may then choose to undergo the ritual in the afterlife. If you die with belief, but you choose not to be baptized, you don't have the option to do so in heaven. So believers must perform rituals during their life. Everyone will eventually believe in Mormonism and have an opportunity to be baptized, so no one is excluded.
If you are a member of a religion, you have already taken a big step down the path of exclusivism, since you chose one religion to the exclusion of others. A true inclusionist is probably not a member of any religion. Also, it seems doubtful that without religions and their doctrines most people would even have a notion that there is any sort of life as an individual person after the death of the individual body.
Well, the inclusivist can have the following response:
We have those two different kinds of good. One "good" is the ethical good, and the other is a subset of those goods, that grant the good place. Now, as you rightfully ask, how do we distinguish which actions are the second good, and which ones aren't, perhaps they have some particular virtuous quality like self-sacrifice and altruism. As good in itself is very much unspecified here, they can complicate it to their liking.
One could also suggest that "well, you don't have to believe, but if you do, you have to do these things" which avoids the critique of the second response. Although I admit this seems unfair to believers in its own right, I don't think that the idea of having special duties for a certain belief is that weird. Example: if I believe in some principle, it is my duty to demonstrate it to people. Kind of a sloppily chosen example, but hopefully you can see my point.
An inclusivist could believe one does not need to follow the religion’s rituals strictly to get saved immediately because the good afterlife follows the religion’s rituals strictly by definition; e. g. the good afterlife of Judaism, Christianity or Islam is not beyond time so that people have a Sabbath to obey.
I don't personally have a dog in this fight but premise S1 seems like a false dichotomy to me. For example a Christian inclusivist could point out epistemological exceptions. The book of Romans seems to imply this (albeit that's a debatable interpretation). They may even appeal to substitutionary atonement as an example of God covering for ignorance that is ultimately a result of sin.
But one could have a religion with getting heaven points both from rituals and from good deeds. Like by making rituals good deeds too or something
Also rituals may be a thing making people better versions of themselves, increasing they good-deed-productivity..
I had a suni muslim tell me that even non believers can go to heaven of they are moral. I think all religions are shifting towards inclusivism in progressive societys wich i like a lot.
not everything a suni muslim says means that what he said is the real islam
said suni muslim will also tell you that the qu'ran is perfect by which measure non believers will most certainly not be going to heaven... if anything, this is a step away from religion.
interesting, because actually according to their own book (Chapter 14:18) actions without belief aint accepted. ;)
I think that having non-ethical reasons for requiring rituals works so long as you see the purpose of religion as not something to find "salvation" but a means of fostering social cohesion and community involvement.
Irreligion is only inclusivist religion
Hi Guys 😍💋 💝💖