Believing in God without religion?

[jcrichton]

I read about a group in the “Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity” that believes there is a God, but they also believe that nothing they do could ever positively or negatively impact that God and thus have no practices to appease or establish a relationship with that God. It almost sounds deistic, but unlike a deist they don’t have the belief that God has no interaction in this world. But they do see that God as having a disposition of indifference to humans. These people have a belief in God but have no religious practices based on that God belief.

Hi!

…it is why I expanded my response…

…believing in God is natural as breathing… but if we do not search out God we may determine that we ourselves are gods (both rejecting a Greater Being than man and making man the absolute power) or we may place God so far from our existence that He becomes a constant source of frustration… some of those philosophies have crossbred with Christianity creating, in the mind of some, the various versions of predestination, conflicted God, and an indifferent portent.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[fisherman_carl]

I find this is kind of amusing thinking. Especially when you consider the definition of religion according to the dictionary. According to that definition their own beliefs can be considered religion. It is like someone philosophizing that you don’t need philosophy. However, under their definition of religion which is usually defined as a bunch of man made rules or man trying to get to get to God on his own efforts, then of course you would not need that to believe in God. But, that is not the standard definition of religion.

 

[Vonsalza]

Man’s attempt at making sense of the world.

…said with the underlying assumption that there is no god or gods.

Religion provides meaning whereas materialism and determinism, by definition, cannot.

Religion also provides a moral template to strive toward (i.e. this is “good”, this is “bad”). A society that fully embraces the subjectivity of morality (regardless if it’s true or not) obligates itself to pragmatic egoism and the “right of might” anarchy it creates. “Law” only reigns-in this chaos to the limit where it can reliably “catch” the law-breaker and then create enough perceived “bad” to discourage other law-breakers - which is done inconsistently and with subjectivity still. “Justice” would be fully subvertable with a sufficient bribe. All perfectly consistent with the morality of “right of might”.

Law also loses much of its luster when viewed as a mere product of contemporary, dynamic populism. If it’s not at least perceived to be under-pinned by a transcendent “good”, adherence becomes tenuous at the very best. This is probably the biggest reason atheism will never become as popular as religious faith. It simply doesn’t replace all the critically important social constructs that it destroys - even if it’s a decent stand-alone idea.

In world that is completely morally subjective, a wealthy atheist is only safe at night if the guard he’s hired is paid more than thieves are willing to pay as a bribe/investment. Luckily for that fellow, most assert that morality is objective and a “divine cop” will get all wrong-doers in the end.

So there’s at least one thing religion does in addition to being “Man’s attempt at making sense of the world”.

---

And to the OP, you’re referring to “theism” and yeah, it’s a thing. Although without a specific religion to practice it through, it loses much of it’s ability to meaningfully connect you to other people through commonly held moral belief. Alone, it doesn’t “do” much more than atheism except provide a “prime mover”.

 

[Rau]

…People can believe in a god or gods without following a religion, as per the question of the OP.

I presume they accept a god(s) exist, but they know nothing of their god(s). Sounds disconcerting.

 

[jackydarapper]

Depends on who you choose to believe. If you choose t believe Christ and follow him you need the Church. If you choose to believe Christ you follow his commands. And one of them says go to Church.

Anyone can believe in God without following him commands. Heck you put the Devil first on the list. He believes in God and rejects the religion of God.

Well said.

 

[jcrichton]

I’m confused about what you think I’m confused about.

People can believe in a god or gods without following a religion, as per the question of the OP. This is a very simple fact and truth of millions of people today and in the past.

I can’t see where I said anything adamantly absolutist. Please, to point that out to me?

I don’t see any concrete proof that a god or gods do exist, or concrete proof that they do *not *exist. That doesn’t sound adamantly absolutist to me.
If I saw proof a god existed, I would then believe a god existed. Very simple.

I didn’t mention anything about how the universe came into existence and certainly, don’t claim to know this answer. This question has been pondered since time began among the wisest of philosophers, scientists, theologians, and more who have tried to tackle it.

But that’s not the question the OP is posing. They asked if someone can believe in god without religion, and if people need religion at all.

Just because a non-religious theist or an atheist might expect something different after physical death–as you say above–than a religious theists, it still doesn’t mean a person needs religion.

I don’t see how you are saying it does? Can you explain more of what you mean?

.

Hi!

…perhaps I misread you…

You began claiming an absolute statement as fact (people do not need religion); then you asserted that people believe in God or gods; then you ended with no need of religion… all absolute statements based on the assumption that man does not need religion.

…if there is a belief in a God or gods it necessitates a religious confine (a place of engagement)–even atheists who claim to not believe in God or gods, by necessity, must create a function of their belief–credo, doctrine, and even practices…

…one can choose to believe in the absence of a religious body… but the experience is short lived as dogma seeps right in…

…claiming that there is no God is an absolute belief; not even science can disprove the existence of God since science needs concrete material for its studies and experiments… by the way, science can be a person’s religion!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Rau]

… so they continue to believe there is a god out there, but that we do not know much about this god…

What do they know about this god(s)? Seemingly…nothing? What led them to believe in god(s)?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What do they know about this god(s)? Seemingly…nothing? What led them to believe in god(s)?

Speaking on deist, sunce they believe there is a supreme being but dont otherwise follow a religion. There are a few deism within these forums that may be able to give their own personal answers. I can’t speak for them, but some deism say that observation of the natural world was all that was taken to convince them. A god-concept may have been a part of one’s upbringing, but skepticism of a religious book or the religious beliefs may also get someone there. There are several pathways to deism; the belief might be constructed from the ground up or the result of chipping away at previously held beliefs.

 

[MT1926]

I’m confused about what you think I’m confused about.

People can believe in a god or gods without following a religion, as per the question of the OP. This is a very simple fact and truth of millions of people today and in the past.

I can’t see where I said anything adamantly absolutist. Please, to point that out to me?

I don’t see any concrete proof that a god or gods do exist, or concrete proof that they do *not *exist. That doesn’t sound adamantly absolutist to me.
If I saw proof a god existed, I would then believe a god existed. Very simple.

I didn’t mention anything about how the universe came into existence and certainly, don’t claim to know this answer. This question has been pondered since time began among the wisest of philosophers, scientists, theologians, and more who have tried to tackle it.

But that’s not the question the OP is posing. They asked if someone can believe in god without religion, and if people need religion at all.

I didn’t pick this quote to take a jab at DaddyGirl, I quoted it because I think this is where we have gotten off track on this thread.

The OP sited a specific link. If we view that link we can easily see that he is speaking of the Christian God. So the real topic of this debate is do Christians need organized religion. I personally say yes.

Just because a non-religious theist or an atheist might expect something different after physical death–as you say above–than a religious theists, it still doesn’t mean a person needs religion.

I don’t see how you are saying it does? Can you explain more of what you mean?

You are not wrong on this point but I don’t think the OP was referring to non believers. As a believer I can not disagree with you because I believe God gave both of us free will. Which would include the free will to not want or need religion.

However, I do disagree in regards to the OP. I think he was speaking of the Christian God and not expanding his inquiry to deists, theists and atheist.

 

[Pulvis]

This issue boils down to misapplication of the term religion. Religion is defined as a belief system . While that can be used to descibe Catholicism, that is not how Catholicism defines itself. The term religion is like Kleenex. A generic label used regardless of the brand name. If someone says they believe in God but not in religion, it tells me they may believe in God, but they do not know God. To know Him is to Understand creation, our history as created beings, Jesus Christ and why He was born, crucified, resurrected and ascended back to the Father. If one knows God one will be drawn to learn of God and what God wants and requires of us. That is why from the earliest times it was taught that there is no Salvation outside the Church. One must be attached to the Church, the Body of Christ. Now it is recognized that all who are Baptized into the Body of Christ are in the Church even if seperated from the totality of the Faith.
To believe in God requires one to learn and know God.

 

[Rau]

Ah, I see.
I was focusing more on the questions the OP was asking in their post.
And then, answering the other poster.

To answer it more specifically as per above, I’d say:

I don’t think all Christians need organized religion.
To be a Christian, you pretty much need to believe the basics of the Jesus story–that he was born of a virgin, was divine and was the son of the Jewish god, was the messiah the Jews were waiting for that fulfills their list of requirements, was crucified and did it to “save” the human race, and then came back to life after his body died, et al.

So I think a person can have those set of beliefs, without “organizing” it into going to church every Sunday, picking a denomination, saying prayers, and following rituals.

They can still call themselves a Christian and feel that they are and beone and believe in him and god, without the organized religion part.
There are many who do this.

So that much of the “Jesus story” is accepted. Including those miraculous elements. Perhaps the Sermon on the Mount is accepted too? But not other elements, such as Jesus having apostles and establishing, through them a Church with teaching authority. Would the indissolubility of marriage taught by Jesus be accepted I wonder?

Certainly there are Christians with selective adherence to the teachings of Jesus. This cannot be denied.

 

[jcrichton]

*Ouch. *Your font is rather…high octane.
Yes, I said those things or something like it. But not out of assumption–out of experience, observation and research.

Hi!

…so through your experience… you’ve determined that there’s no need for religion…

…did you just not cited a tenet of your personal religion? (experience, observation, research) …you are in deed defending your statement with what you hold as definition #4–thus religion is employed even when one does not necessarily explicitly connects/subscribe to it.

Except that…I know thousands of people who believe in a god or gods or are atheists who do not have a “religious confine” or credo, etc.
So again, this is *not *

necessary.

Again, this is not true. I’m going to assume you have never met a non-religious theist or an atheist in which dogma doesn’t seep in, but…I have met many, many, many.
…you know thousands of people? …wow, you must get around!

…here’s the thing… atheists and others hold a belief, they vigorously defend it, they employ methods and practices to not only hold on to the belief but also to persuade others to adopt that belief… then there are the activists within them… they seek others who do not believe as they do in order to convert them to their faith base or to persuade them to stop believing in what they hold as their own faith-base… so, by necessity, a religious confine is created… credo is also formed because they organize an argument for the position they hold and against those that they reject… the second that: “I believe…” is pronounced/texted… a credo is made.

If someone says they don’t see evidence of a God, but will believe in one if they do…I don’t see how you see that as “absolute”. That does not fit with the definition of the word. It is quite the opposite

of “absolute”.

There really isn’t a need for science to disprove a god exists for people not to believe in one. People don’t go around believing in everything presented to them unless they are disproven–that is not the usual default; more often, they believe in things that have a lot of good evidence and are proven.
Stating that there is no God is the absolute statement; stating that one needs evidential proof is not an absolute statement.

To use a weary, cliched example…I don’t believe the modern day, North Pole-dwelling Santa Claus exists, but science has not disproven it.
In fact, there is more evidence that he exists than the many prophets and messiahs in holy scriptures:
I can find him in the flesh in the shopping mall two months out of every year; I wake up and there are presents under the tree with his name as the gift giver; little children leave cookies and milk out on Dec 24th that are eaten when they awake; kids write letters to him; there are books and movies made about him; and my parents and other adults, including teachers, assured me as a child that he existed.

Do you believe that a Santa Claus in a red suit, riding a reindeer-driven sleigh, exists? Even though we have so much evidence that he does, and science has not disproven him?

If you are asking me, do I believe in the myth about Santa Claus? No. If you are asking: do I believe that Santa Claus is based on a historical person? Yes.

…a Catholic Bishop used his wealth to provide the needy… St. Nicholas (before being Canonized as St.) was a generous Bishop who anonymously placed the bounty for three young women by their home… the last one is said to have been dropped through the chimney:

…his legendary habit of secret gift-giving gave rise to the traditional model of Santa Claus through Sinterklaas. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

)
…of course, secularism could not write about a Catholic Bishop… so the legend of St. Nick (Santa Claus) began. Now, if you chose lo elevate to reality the legend that arose from this generous Bishop you are most welcomed!

Science as a religion? Um, no. At least, not in the way that religious faiths are.
Only if you are using the definition of the word that has nothing to do with gods, rituals, et al.
And even if one is using the word as defined by number 4, below, a scientist or one who believes in using science to measure our world is still open to new information and changes, so to use the word “faith” to describe the use of science is just…not right. Not at all.

As per Merriam Webster:

4–a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

…actually, not!

…right on this thread we have at least one example of this… the person defines his religion by his job function… some people (no I have not engaged thousands of people) do believe that science is man’s liberator (their god); some scientists would give the proverbial arm and leg to make the next greatest discovery/creation… conversely, some athletes breath and bleed for their sport and jackasses risk their lives for the next high… all of it in a serious religious fanaticism…

…granted some of this could be the results of OCD (as those ladies that are constantly putting themselves under the knife to be “beautiful”) but religion is a practice that both elevates and confounds–even those who would prefer to believe that there’s no religion/need for religion.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This issue boils down to misapplication of the term religion. Religion is defined as a belief system . While that can be used to descibe Catholicism, that is not how Catholicism defines itself. The term religion is like Kleenex. A generic label used regardless of the brand name. If someone says they believe in God but not in religion, it tells me they may believe in God, but they do not know God. To know Him is to Understand creation, our history as created beings, Jesus Christ and why He was born, crucified, resurrected and ascended back to the Father. If one knows God one will be drawn to learn of God and what God wants and requires of us. That is why from the earliest times it was taught that there is no Salvation outside the Church. One must be attached to the Church, the Body of Christ. Now it is recognized that all who are Baptized into the Body of Christ are in the Church even if seperated from the totality of the Faith.
To believe in God requires one to learn and know God.

Hi!

…religion is part of our ethos–regardless of what is accepted or rejected.

Since we are Created in the image and likeness of God, we, anthropologically, yearn for God’s Union… religion is the medium for our Communication (existing in and with) with God. Those who reject religion reject that union.

…the problem is that removing the religion that links us to God does not diminish the internal need that we have for religion… the great public education (and business ethics) experiment has proven this: remove Yahweh God from the culture and man would engage gods according to his passions and limitations.

‘…prayer bad; immorality, well whose to say what is immoral, right?’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MT1926]

Ah, I see.
I was focusing more on the questions the OP was asking in their post.
And then, answering the other poster.

To answer it more specifically as per above, I’d say:

I don’t think all Christians need organized religion.
To be a Christian, you pretty much need to believe the basics of the Jesus story–that he was born of a virgin, was divine and was the son of the Jewish god, was the messiah the Jews were waiting for that fulfills their list of requirements, was crucified and did it to “save” the human race, and then came back to life after his body died, et al.

So I think a person can have those set of beliefs, without “organizing” it into going to church every Sunday, picking a denomination, saying prayers, and following rituals.

They can still call themselves a Christian and feel that they are and beone and believe in him and god, without the organized religion part.
There are many who do this.

.

I can’t disagree with your arguments. One can “pretty much” follow those beliefs without “organized” religion. However, without “organized” religion that still leaves us wondering is that the correct or complete set of beliefs. If you look up the definition of Christianity you get several different definitions. So how do we know which definition is correct? Personally I like the definition of Christian meaning follower of Christ. The problem here is that doesn’t help unless someone defines the word follower, which means imitator of Christ. But now what does it mean to imitate, I’m sure you see where I’m going with this. No organized religion and everyone gets to define Christianity on their own terms. Which leaves the question did Jesus want us to “pretty much” believe the basics or did he start a Church to guide us to do more than just the basics?