Question191

What do you think about the ecumenist idea that all religions are just different views of the same God? If you are an ex-theist who believed this, what did you think of Hindu polytheism, present day animalists and other forms of worship?
• I find it idiotic, since most theistic perspectives of various deities are mutually exclusive. Quite apart from the lack of evidence for any type of "God", the sheer lack of coherence among theistic points of view ought to raise multiple alarms as to the viability of such positions. (raven1)

• I am In two minds about this idea.

  On the one hand it seems to be saying "everyone has something of value - no culture possesses the whole truth." Which is a humble and admirable sentiment - an antidote to bigotry. So it *can* be a positive idea within religion.

  On the other hand ... It can also be seen as dismissing the very real differences in cultures - in effect its saying you primitive people are just glimpsing MY ONE TRUE GOD and the valuable bits of your religion are the bits that I can contort and warp until it fits MY IDEA of God.

  - which is of course the complete oppossite of humility.

  I take the view that all religions teach us something about what it is to be human.All gods and all religions reflect their makers. (and if you read the Old testament with that in mind, the 6 o'clock news from Palestine and Kosovo makes a lot of sense in that light.) The study of religion is the study of how people view the world and humanity.Gods reflect both what is good and evil in mankind. Which is exactly what you would expect if we created them.

  The ecumenical movement sees the commonality of religions a reflecting the "unity of God".As an atheist I agree that there is commonality in religions and Ithink it's because people are people and any similarity reflects the commonality of human experience.

  You can tell a lot about humans by examining the gods they create/choose to worship.

• In all other religions not of the Muslim and Xtian sects or the Judaic origin, their gods are those of nature and of this Earth of which we are all part, and the monotheists mentioned above consider that their god is apart from Earth and has already demonstrated his destruction of all upon it in a hissy fit so as his recruiters on Earth, they do exactly that. Rape and pillage, loot and burn, it's all there in their 'book'. Hinduism begat Buddhism and I love the closeness to Earth both bring. Their gods are the names for nature, and as there are so many of things beautiful and powerful in nature, so there are many 'names' for both gods of good and not so good fortune. I think monotheism prostitutes nature and bans what it profits most from. Hypocrisy by any other name smells just as rank. (Kerry aa#1773)

• It makes a great deal of sense to me. The concept of a god is so huge that it is completely natural that people will see it from different viewpoints, even widely differing viewpoints. If there was a god which wanted to give revelations to a human society, surely it would tailor those revelations to the society in question, so revelations given to different societies would appear to be quite different from each other.

  Also, from the human side of it, the purpose of religion is oftentimes to bring people together, to form a sense of community. Surely they'd want to include as many people as they can in their community, so they should expand their religion to include other religions.

  It almost makes me wonder why more religionists don't take this approach, since it appears so logical to me. Then I remember that many people use religion to give themselves a sense of superiority, that they know something that very few people know. They desperately want to feel special and powerful; they dimly grasp that knowledge is power and that an elite group is more "special" the fewer people are included. So they claim their small group is the only one that has the True Knowledge, so they can feel special by belonging to an elite and wielding (imaginary) power over the rest of us. (Carl Funk aa #1229)

• Frankly I think it is a load of bollocks. There are obvious differences between Odin and Jesus, Eris and JHVH. The contortions you have to go through to make all that fit together is even worse then what southern baptists goes through to defend their heretical ideas with the bible... (Ichimusai aa#769)

• This one's pretty easy - it's crap. The only people who could believe this are those that really don't know ANYTHING about different religions.

  In my experience, at least, it's usually put forward by people who think Lutheran and Methodist are extremely different, and that Judism is one of those "out there" cults.

  At eight, when I first heard of the animism of some groups, it was already clear to me this wasn't anything remotely like the Methodist folks I knew.

  About the only thing I've seen that seems to unite _nearly_ all organised religions is that the people on the top have more rights and privledges than those they "lead". What a surprise. (Dewey Henize) Lucent

• The problem is that if you believe that Jehovah, Brahman, and Kami (Shintoism) are all 'equally valid' beliefs; then this should lead to the conclusion that: Because these beliefs are fundamentally different (and contradictory), then these beliefs, as to god(s') nature, are also equally invalid

  i.e. untrue.

  So then, Why should we take seriously what anyone has to say about the nature or desires of the god(s)? (pan)

• I have a couple of different thoughts about this.

  (1) The idea is a cop out in that it instead of making the theist do some critical thinking about why so many different people has such radically different concept of god(s), the theist can simply ignore these differences with a nice platitude which not only stop the thought process but lets him/her feel good about themselves because they are so open minded and accepting about other religions -- unlike those "bad" Christians who used to burn people at the stake for simply holding different beliefs.

  (2) Building on #1, the idea may be a good one if it does indeed lead to acceptance and tolerance by theists for those of different religions.

  Somewhat off the question, I think the different views of god are very telling about the people who developed these concepts. IMO, I think the different concepts tell us a great deal about the history of the people involved and their thought processes. It gives us some insight into their psyche so to speak. For example, from what I read, Tibetans were originally a very fierce, war-like people in their distant past and there little cooperation/common ground between the different groups. When Buddhism was introduced, it helped serve as a force to bring peace and harmony to the land at a time when the people were looking for a way to change things.

  Likewise, I read an article once that asked the question as to why, of all the different religions that developed in the Middle East during ancient times, the Judaism (and it's offshoots) are still around while the worship of the other gods faded away. One possible answer was that the original worshippers were nomadic desert dwellers. Since they were nomadic, they needed to travel as light as possible. That made it inconvenient to carry around a lot of idols. By making their god an invisible god, their concept of god was no longer bounded by a physical representation of their god -- rather the absence made them use their imagination and conceive of a god who was also without bounds. (Bud)

• I think it is ignorant of the differences between religions, or at least the *weight* of these differences.

  I think this ignorance well serves a memetic purpose, in an age when the existence of other religions isn't easily overlooked, and exposure to them is common. Since, if the other religion is basically the same, you can just stay with yours, and not bother with dwelling deeper into the other faith.

  I think it is bound to fail where two or more religious communities border each other, and long-held hostilities kept focus on the differences. (Daneel aa #323)

• Well since there's no god, it doesn't make any sense.

  This notwithstanding, the idea does have some value in that it eliminates religious differences - differences that have caused thousands of years of needless suffering. Since we have to live among the religious, I would rather see them believe in the ecumenist idea than the divisive sectarianism we see so often. (Chris Nelson)

• As an atheist, I feel that since all religions are equally unsupported by factual evidence, they are equal.

  Among Christian religions, there seems to be an attempt to reach out to each other but they inevitably bonk heads over one doctrinal point or another. Since the Jewish and Islamic religions reject Jesus as a savior, I don't see the Christians, Jews, and Muslims ever really getting together. Politics alone would also prevent that in the foreseeable future.

  As far as Hindus, Buddhists, and animalists, the monotheists tend to regard them as heathens, idolaters, devil-worshippers, or worse. I'm sure that many of the followers of these religions, especially those who felt xtian or Muslim persecution over the years, more than return the compliment. (John Hachmann aa#1782)

• It makes a great deal of sense, from a theist's perspective.

  As for my own, obviously a lot of religions have been derived from a common source, or one from the other. There also have been exchanges of views amongst them. This makes a lot of god concepts similar. Perhaps we can also say that in order for us to call something a religion it must have a certain recognizable god-concept, so this may simply be due to the way we defined things. There may also be a tendency inherent to religion which leads to a certain god-concept.

  I think the dissimilarities between the god-concepts of the various religions are ultimately too large for this view to hold. What does the Greek goddess Aphrodite, the gnostic's demiurge and the spirits of the animists you mention, have in common which would merit the idea that both are different variations on something which is essentially one concept? Nothing, afaics. (DJ Nozem aa#1465)

• I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I can see it as a positive thing if it leads to a lot less bigotry, hatred and violence amongst the various competing sects. On the other hand, there seems to be a growing awareness that the number one threat to religions today is not other religions, it's secularism. Secularism has weakened the power of the church in politics, society, and popular culture, has weakened church memebership and attendance. It has lessened the abolute control churches have over their members, and their minds. If you look at any one religion, secularism has done more to damage it then the influence of all the other sects combined.

  Even when religous people desert one sect to join another, it is the secular ideals of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of conscience" that enables them to do so. Few religions preach that it is okay to jump ship when the mood strikes, however ecumenical they may be.

  It is unclear whether the movement is genuine, or more of the old, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of stuff.

  So the danger here--and I think you can see this to some extent with Bush's "faith-based" bullshit--is that they will unite to atack the humanistic influence in society and to weaken the influence of democratic government. Certainly, "secular humanism," and not the evil protestants, catholics, muslims, or whatever, has become the great bugaboo of the religious right in the US, and I don't think the focus is accidental. (Sean C)