>recommend philosophy to people, instead of religion

Religion is philosophy, plus ritual and aesthetics. It's the set of philosophies that have survived the ravages of time. It's a set of philosophies that are so useful to live by, that these philosophies have survived through books and rituals for millennia. Or put another way, these philosophies are so incredibly effective, that people are surviving today precisely because they've lived by those philosophies, and the only reason we know of these philosophies is because they are survived by, and helped to survive, the people who've passed and continue to pass them down to others.

There existed philosophies you've never heard of, that are dead, because they died with the people who've followed them. Is it just chance? Is it because the surviving philosophies are better? Who knows. But if you're a betting man, you should bet on those surviving philosophies being actually better, more useful, more conducive to survival.

>the focus on "removing the doubt"

I think this is a focus exclusive to "nu-Christian" Anglosphere denominations, primarily American ones, and their focus is made a spectacle of because: (1) their focus is understandably cringe and the outrage is entertaining (2) the spectacle is used as a tool to de-legitimize religion as a whole, especially Christianity.

> There existed philosophies you've never heard of, that are dead, because they died with the people who've followed them. Is it just chance? Is it because the surviving philosophies are better? Who knows. But if you're a betting man, you should bet on those surviving philosophies being actually better, more useful, more conducive to survival.

I get what you're saying but to offer another perspective, informed by the work of Rober Pirsig as presented in his second book 'Lila': I think those religions/philosophies you mention are an organism of their own, with humans as their hardware. Are they really more useful for any given human? (certainly some are not, if we choose a human who's an outlier, a 'black sheep', so to speak) Or ar they useful and more conductive to the survival of the religion/philosophy itself?

I think it's a struggle between intellect (the individual) and culture (religion, country, a political party, etc.).

> There existed philosophies you've never heard of, that are dead, because they died with the people who've followed them. Is it just chance?

Nope. Religion tends to bring people together, often making them much more powerful as a group. But to me, it's just not worth selling out.

> I think this is a focus exclusive to "nu-Christian" Anglosphere denominations

I don't think that is the case. John 14:6 says:

    “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me”

So basically, if you don't believe in Jesus, you can't go to heaven. If that's not an effort to restrict doubt, then what is?

This is pretty disingenuous don't you think? In the same book a few chapters later we read:

> Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” John 20:24-25

If that's not encouraging engaging with doubt I don't know what is.

> If that's not an effort to restrict doubt, then what is?

I can tell you that 1 + 1 = 2 and you can still doubt me. Just because you doubt me it doesn't make that statement any less true. Also, me stating that fact isn't me restricting doubt, it's just me stating a fact. If Jesus was God, and what He says here is true, He's stating a fact. You can choose to believe or not to believe, or doubt or not to doubt.

But what is ’I’ in this sentence?

Personally I see it a ’truth’ like in scientific truth and personal integrity.

Imagine Jesus as the incarnation of the best possible person. I you where to try to based your actions in a similar way, what would you do?

"No man comes to the Father but by me”:

You won't be the best version of yourself by chasing any other things (fame, money, pleasure, etc)

I too was disgusted by the first degree interpretation (obviously false) but I now discover a second degree reading that explain our human condition and most of our problems.

Look into Peterson Biblical lecture on Youtube if you want to see a psychological way of looking at the bible.

One thing I dislike about Christianity in particular is how malleable to interpretation it is, making any kind of discussion with a Christian tedious. No matter what part of Bible you try to argue with, a Christian will always be able to say: "But that's not the real meaning! The real meaning is [thing I pulled out of thin air]", rendering your words moot, without actually engaging in your argument at all.

I still can't figure out how to deal with it, which is why I usually refrain from arguing with religious people. Afterall, when it comes to the big questions (like, is there a god), neither one of us can bring anything to the table - it's impossible to know by definition. And since all religious teachings are based on the existence of a god, there is no way to convince anyone of anything without first proving the unprovable. It's like two completely different sets of axioms - of course the conclusions are gonna be different, and the concept of axioms being "right" or "wrong" is meaningless by itself.

I see it as a fusion of the campfire stories that humans have told themselves over thousand of years.

The fact that it was written in a book gave it incredible power and have allow our civilisation to exist and science to be developed but also removed much of the evolutions of the stories.

Now that our world change so fast the stories seems very outdated to our modern mind but most of them speak about a deep human conditions and traps we feel into multiple times.

It hard to speak to christians as most see it a first level reading (literally true) but most people are not ready to go into deep analysis of meaning, they need a story to unite them, to show them a way to a good life and so it was for all people 200 years ago.

Without those stories people put other things in its place (false idols) like money, pleasure, diversity and equity, communism, fascism, etc.

To the question is there a God, the God of the bible is a mix of the natural environment (god of wind, god of the sun, etc) and the human civilisation ’thou shall not kill’ if you kill, God will be angry: you are going to have a bad time (at the hands of other humans)

If you have the time, the Peterson lectures gave me a way to understand it that make sense to me (no bearded magician in the sky)

Interesting perspective. I'll check the lectures out - I have listened to Jordan Peterson before and I like the way he thinks and presents things.

Buddhism encourages doubt (in most lineages). There is a sutta where the Buddha said:

> “You have a right to be confused. This is a confusing situation. Do not take anything on trust merely because it has passed down through tradition, or because your teachers say it, or because your elders have taught you, or because it’s written in some famous scripture. When you have seen it and experienced it for yourself to be right and true, then you can accept it.”

I have had some limited exposure to Buddhism, but I very much like what I've read. Buddhism seems to focus more on human-as-is and making peace with existence, instead of human-as-should-be and making war with existence, as, for example, Christianity does - by the cardinal sin, the human is sinful through its very existence.

The cardinal sin represent the awakening of the human mind, we no longer live in the moment, we can imagine the future and that make us powerful but also miserable (we can suffer from problems we imagine in the future)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi5KkXig3s

There is an interpretation that disagrees with what I said, I know. Whatever I say, there will be an interpretation out there that disagrees with what I said.

Even in Buddhism. I find pretty much anytime I say anything about it online I have to add "in most lineages" because there are certainly dogmatic ones.

Random question - what resources would you recommend to someone who is interested in learning more about Buddhism?

I really like the quote you've posted. I dislike bullshit. There are many bullshit Buddhism resources out there. Where can I find the real thing?

That's only true on the folk-religion side of things. I can't speak to other faiths, but serious Christian thought has always engaged with doubt.

Some of my favorite Christian works are all about doubt, but the conclusion tends to be faith is the only way. The Catholic priest in the movie may raise his hands during the thunderstorm and shout angrily at God to show himself, but what saves him is the "leap of faith" where he realizes that God will never give you proof of his existance - it's more sophisticated, but it's still the folksy blind faith.

Many Christians believe that you must believe in Jesus to get into heaven. I prefer what Proust said (paraphrasing - the actual quote I can't find and is far more beautiful): "Who is more likely to get into heaven - someone who believes in god, despises and judges the world and mankind or someone who loves all of gods creations without judgement but doesn't believe in him?" I refuse to think a loving god would make the litmus test such an arbitrary thing.

See ’faith’ as believing in that doing the ’right’ thing, when no one is looking, by your definition is the best way possible (no deceiving, lying and all other sins).

You cannot have faith and despise the world, you are supposed to judges your failings first before judging others.

12 years of growing up in Christian schools. Doubt came up a lot. Depended on the speaker too. Many would talk about their struggles. Times when they got angry at God, or fell away. Or there reasoning on why God exists.

One constant teaching was that Christianity is not a religion. But about forming a relationship with God through Christ.

> One constant teaching was that Christianity is not a religion. But about forming a relationship with God through Christ.

How can one even begin to attempt that task if one truly doubts that God exists? Also, is believing a God of some sort not exactly what a religion is?

> It takes a lot of faith to believe that there is an all powerful God. that loves you for you.

I feel like I kind of get what you're saying. But it seems to even have this perspective that one ought to try to believe in God, to be motivated to struggle, one already has to accept religious teachings of some kind.

I don't struggle to believe that the universe popped out of nothing, I very easily and without any effort on my part maintain the belief that it's pretty much impossible for us to know where the universe came from and that it's probably not worth expending too much effort worrying about it. I'd see having to make an effort to believe something somewhat of a red flag regarding the validity of that belief.

> Worse that happens is people were nicer to each other for awhile. The other is that you spend eternity in Heaven.

I mean, some religious people are nice to each other. Others are downright nasty and make life very difficult for people who don't fit into their worldview (for example because they're gay). And presumably the worst case is that there is in fact a God who happens to take the opposite view on morality to the Christian one and thus Christians end up spending an eternity in Hell. As far as I can that's no less likely than there being a Christian God.

> I don't struggle to believe that the universe popped out of nothing, I very easily and without any effort on my part maintain the belief that it's pretty much impossible for us to know where the universe came from and that it's probably not worth expending too much effort worrying about it. I'd see having to make an effort to believe something somewhat of a red flag regarding the validity of that belief

A Christian can just as easily say:

I don't struggle to believe that God created the universe out of nothing, I very easily and without any effort on my part maintain the belief that it's pretty much impossible for us to know where the universe came from and that it's probably not worth expending too much effort worrying about it. I'd see having to make an effort to believe something somewhat of a red flag regarding the validity of that belief.

Most reasonable Christians (at least 90% of the Christians I know and have met) will readily admit that we don't know with a 100% certainty that God created the universe. We have faith that He did, but we could very well be wrong. If I'm wrong, at least I've lived a full life and felt like my life had meaning.

> Others are downright nasty and make life very difficult for people who don't fit into their worldview (for example because they're gay)

People get all hung up about a Christian saying that it's a sin to be gay. We also say it's a sin to lie, and it's a sin to lust after a woman (or man) that isn't your spouse, and it's a sin to engage in gluttony. Does that mean we look down on people who have sinned and reject them? No, because like Romans says, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The law is like a mirror. It's a lot easier to see your flaws in a perfect reflective mirror then it is to see them in an old foggy one. The law is a perfect mirror that shows us the depravity we _all_ have inside of us, and it exists so we can strive to be better.

No one will ever attain perfection, but that doesn't mean we're free to go on sinning. Romans is an amazing book if you want to read about a devout Christian's struggle with sin.

Anyways, if a person engages in homosexual behavior, do I think that's a sin? Yes. But I also sin every day. It doesn't excuse it, but it's also no better or worse than any sin that I commit, it just happens to be one I don't struggle with. And if you don't want to be a Christian and still want to be gay, go for it! I'm not going to stop you. Because we're adults, and we make our own choices. It's as simple as that.

My opinion on the behavior means nothing, and I'm not going to berate strangers for engaging in an activity they already know I disapprove of because of my worldview. I literally don't need to say anything, and I won't unless they specifically ask me what my thoughts are on the matter.

A relationship with a person you cannot see, touch, feel, hear, or taste.

Who revealed themselves directly only before the enlightenment, and thereafter must be experienced only in ones mind, testimony from those long dead, or by the evidence of supposed creation.

One of the most famous examples being C.S. Lewis himself, his book A Grief Observed (written after his wife passed) being one of the most clear examples of it. On a slightly related note, there's an excellent film adaptation about C.S. Lewis's relationship with his wife called Shadowlands, starring Anthony Hopkins. Amazing that the man who played Hannibal Lecter could also portray the most famous Christian thinker of the 20th century so well.

I'll second that recommendation. Shadowlands is a superb film. It's very much worth watching even if you have little sympathy with Lewis's religious views.

That's kind of a strawman. Serious Catholic thought (John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Pope Benedict, etc) doesn't try to "remove the doubt" at all. I highly recommend Ratzinger / Benedict for modern text, and the great contemplatives for non-modern texts. They grapple with doubt and all other tricky subjects head on, and have a broad (and in my opinion accurate and subtle) view of the journey of life.

I was also going to recommend John of the Cross. There's also a whole tradition of apophatic (negative) theology, and an associated tradition of darkness mysticism (e.g. Pseudo-Dionysius). That your doubts are founded in the reality that God is unknowable-as-such, and even "existence" may be an invalid concept to apply to the divine.

In that vein, but I've been reading a book that synthesizes John and Teresa and the gospels. It had a few gems that stood out to me recently. On the importance of voiding oneself of all: "He is not only beyond all things, but boundlessly beyond them. Created realities are... more unlike God than like Him.... However impressive may be one's knowledge or feeling of God, that knowledge or feeling will have no resemblance to God and amount to very little."

> The problem I have with religion is the focus on "removing the doubt", which I strongly disagree with

This isn't the case as often as you might think. Consider religions like Unitarianism, for example. You can also make a strong case that the doubt is baked foundationally into Christianity itself-- consider Zizek's readings of Chesterton and Hegel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEuY46p5yH4

> And as soon as you remove the doubt ban, you don't really have a religion anymore, but a philosophy

Lots of philosophers were/are extremely religious

>doubting a god's existance is a major no-no in most popular religions

This is certainly not true of the Christianity that I've been witness to all my life. In those circles, doubt is a given - an intrinsic component of the inquisitive human mind - and doubt is basically the core of all faith. If there's no room for doubt, there's no room for faith.

That's why many of us opt for eastern traditions - which are generally pretty good at separating the philosophical aspects from the belief aspects.

I mean a big chunk of Christian teaching is about faith. It’s not like Christianity teaches “you believe in god? Good, let move on to other stuff now”.

How modern is modern? I have sources back to at least the 1490s which clearly use the word 'religion' (and many more, earlier, sources that use the latin 'religionem') ...

The word has been changing for a long time. For lack of a better way to put it, think of it as the difference between an insider's word and an outsiders. Older texts almost always have an implicit reference to a particular faith in it. A 16th writer who says "he is a religious man" means that "he is an observant $SECT". In modern uses, it almost always means "he believes in this class of beliefs and practices". The reason I refer to it as an outsiders term is that it groups together groups that don't generally think of themselves as one.

Modern usages of the word "religion" group Christians and Muslims (for example), groups that would see themselves as distinct.

Interestingly, you can see a bridge period of sorts. If you think back to characters in movies of the 30s and 40s saying "I am not a religious man, but..." or "I am not a praying man, but..." you can kind of see the shift. A little reference to the good standing meaning but also some of the outsider type frame.

But isn't that ingroup/outgroup-dynamic still happening? Very few westerners would consider the followers of Bagwhan 'religious', they'd rather use something like 'cultists'. Aum/Aleph is a 'cult', even though it represents itself as a syncretism between Buddhism and Christianity. Radical forms of Islam are sometimes called a cult, and sometimes a religion, depending on the speaker.

All that shift in meaning seems to do is that it determines which belief systems are considered appropriate by a speaker, and which aren't...

Agreed, I've never heard of any group self-identify as a 'cult' in modern times. The word almost always has a pejorative connotation to it.

As a funny aside, I went to look up the etymology of the word and a quotation is listed at https://www.etymonline.com/word/Cult:

"Cult is a term which, as we value exactness, we can ill do without, seeing how completely religion has lost its original signification. Fitzedward Hall, "Modern English," 1873"

It strikes me as funny because the problem with the word 'religion' is noted as far back as 1873, but I'd argue 'cult' is now even less precise than 'religion'. I don't think it was always that way. References to Roman mystery religions as 'cults' generally lack the pejorative connotation.