How do I respond to someone who thinks that religion is only the result of someone's opinion?

[AnthonyPadua001]

While it is possible for someone to have an opinion with no foundation in truth, it would be wrong to assume that right off the bat. To give an unrelated example, it is my opinion that if a person is drunk, they should not drive bc people don’t drive as well when they’re drunk. Why would you assume that I did not base that opinion on the truth?

Saying recognize show a bias in the question/statement. There is indeed a right and a wrong answer - but the truth has not been determined with certainty.

Here’s another example to show why recognize cannot be used in fairness to those with a dissenting view: I’m going to argue with myself here— let’s say I said “hey drunk person who insists on driving, do you recognize that alcohol has impaired your ability to drive?” That would imply that I am right (they are impaired) and they (failing to recognize that they are impaired) are wrong. But guess what? I’ve ridden in a car with a tipsy driver more than once and they did perfectly fine. It was only my opinion that alcohol impaired this person’s ability to drive.

Okay, I’m going to attempt to tie this back in with the topic and not go in circles with my comments/points (we’ll see how well that goes ).

True, it is possible for opinions to have a foundation in truth - I misspoke on that part. But when you are talking about something that is universally true, you should not use the word “opinion” because it detracts from the truth. The problem I have with “opinion” is that it can’t adequately express a universal truth - it is a weak term that implies something is relative. Two examples to better explain this:

1.) Vanilla tastes better than chocolate. This is my opinion - it is not true for everyone but it is true for me. It is a relative matter.
2.) Stealing is wrong. This is not an opinion - I may not choose to acknowledge or recognize this timeless and universal truth, but that doesn’t matter. Whether I agree with it or not, stealing is wrong for me and it is wrong for you. This is not a relative matter (stealing can’t be okay for me but wrong for you - let’s leave out the whole “what ifs” and arguments of circumstances).

Would you say that stating the fact that stealing is wrong shows a bias? If so, then it is a bias to the truth. So your examples of how “recognize” is unfair to the opposite side only works with relative matters (vanilla vs. chocolate) and not universal truths (stealing is wrong). Yes, it would be wrong for me to say, “Don’t you recognize that vanilla is better than chocolate” because that is not a truth for everyone everywhere - it is truly an opinion. But saying, “Don’t you recognize that stealing is wrong” would not be an unfair statement because whether or not the other person believes it, it is true. Again, your examples work with relative matters but not universal truths.

Now I’m not sure how much further we can go without getting into the argument as to why the Catholic Church and faith is not a relative matter but a universal truth. The point I’m trying to make here is that “opinion” does not do justice when talking about someone recognizing universal truth.

Hope that makes sense and addresses your points. I feel like I’ve used the words “opinion,” “universal truth,” and “relative” a million times in this one post

 

[samiam1611]

Ok here it is: touché

My example did an adequate job of pointing out the flaws in some of your statements but failed at being applicable to the issue at hand. That’s what I realized as soon as I walked out the door and by the time I was able to get to it again it was too late to edit.

Not being on board with the whole universal truth thing, I will refrain from commenting on it except to point out that that too is not fact, that’s your opinion! It very well may be true. But make no mistake, as convinced as (I presume) you are about it, you must surely recognize that other people are equally convinced that it is not, making it, by default, an opinion. (my example fell short of demonstrating that).
I have a feeling that someone with a firm belief in Universal truth will be hard to convince that their’s is not an opinion - so let’s just be sure to correct the myth that atheists deny that atheism is not an opinion. It is,folks. As convinced as we are that our beliefs are the truth, we would be hypocrites to suggest that ours is fact and call the dissenting view an opinion.
Gotta run. I’ll be back to say what I really meant to say and bring some much better examples demonstrating that religion is a set of opinions.

 

[tonyrey]

Are the books of the bible reliable, or is their reliability just someone’s opinion? Is the oral tradition of the Church reliable, or is its reliability just someone’s opinion? Those are more relevant questions than the existence of some guy named Jesus about 2000 years ago.

If you think the existence of Jesus is irrelevant you need to explain **who **invented the accounts of His life and particularly His teaching which is the basis of the values of modern civilisation…

 

[AnthonyPadua001]

Not being on board with the whole universal truth thing, I will refrain from commenting on it except to point out that that too is not fact, that’s your opinion! It very well may be true. But make no mistake, as convinced as (I presume) you are about it, you must surely recognize that other people are equally convinced that it is not, making it, by default, an opinion.

I look forward to what you have to say, but I have a question regarding this part of your post. For my question I’m going to narrow the topic of “religion” in general to the Catholic faith. Are you saying that you don’t accept Catholicism to be a universal truth (which I know you don’t) or are you saying you don’t believe in any universal truth? I wasn’t sure if from this comment if you accepted the existence of at least some universal truths (such as stealing is wrong) or not. No need for a long explanation (unless you feel it is appropriate), just wanted to quickly clarify this for my sake of understanding.

 

[samiam1611]

I look forward to what you have to say, but I have a question regarding this part of your post. For my question I’m going to narrow the topic of “religion” in general to the Catholic faith. Are you saying that you don’t accept Catholicism to be a universal truth (which I know you don’t) or are you saying you don’t believe in any universal truth? I wasn’t sure if from this comment if you accepted the existence of at least some universal truths (such as stealing is wrong) or not. No need for a long explanation (unless you feel it is appropriate), just wanted to quickly clarify this for my sake of understanding.

Yeah when I said not on board with the universal truth thing, I mean I am not on board with Catholicism being the universal truth.
Universal truth as a concept in religion/Catholicism is new to me, so I speak from ignorance on the subject. I am basically going by what the words literally mean to me (and a quick scan of the Wikipedia article) so forgive me if I misunderstand. Feel free to correct me.
As you assumed, I don’t accept Catholicism as the universal truth. But I do not deny that universal truths exist. For instance, incest. I think incest is wrong no matter what. But not everything can be called universally true. One of my issues with religion, particularly Catholicism, is how it often asserts itself as universally true, and in a way, takes away from the free will/independent thinking of its followers by making relative issues absolute. Free will isn’t really the right phrase bc people often do stray from the teachings of the church. What I mean is, what is a sin to them (for instance, masturbation) is not a sin to some other people; the Catholic Church does not allow for individuals to decide for themselves if they think masturbation is a sin.
Seeing as how Christianity stemmed from Judaism, and borrowed many of the teachings from its sacred texts (i.e. the ten commandments), but then interpreted them differently, shows to me that the many of the beliefs of both Christians and Jews are opinions. Furthermore, the fact that beliefs vary even among the Jews who started the whole thing shows that the many of the teachings of any given religion are opinions on the truth.
To sum up, there are some things that are universally true, but religions [tend to] assert that everything they say is the universal truth, and I consider that arrogant. Self-righteous.
My initial example of is Jesus the messiah has a right and wrong answer bc either he is or he isn’t, only one answer is correct, they can’t both be, was not the best example of why religion consists mainly of opinions. So I’m going to give a better example. I’m not going to use a Catholic teaching, that way you won’t have an automatic disbelief of one of the opinions, but will hopefully demonstrate that religion is composed of opinion.
…and shoot, I started writing an example but am taking so long writing it trying to make it perfect that it is now time for me to go to work and it’s not perfect yet. so yet again, I will leave those thoughts with you, but be back later to really defend and explain my opinion that religion is opinion!!!

 

[AnthonyPadua001]

What I mean is, what is a sin to them (for instance, masturbation) is not a sin to some other people; the Catholic Church does not allow for individuals to decide for themselves if they think masturbation is a sin.

To sum up, there are some things that are universally true, but religions [tend to] assert that everything they say is the universal truth, and I consider that arrogant. Self-righteous.

I’m going to give a better example. I’m not going to use a Catholic teaching, that way you won’t have an automatic disbelief of one of the opinions, but will hopefully demonstrate that religion is composed of opinion.

Okay, this discussion may just swirl into a mass amount of confusion regarding what we’re trying to say and where we stand… but that’s what makes this fun, right?

You are more than welcome to use examples that don’t apply to Catholicism but I have to tell you, I don’t consider all religions to be universally true. Now how to explain this… I stand by the Catholic Church’s teaching when it says that the Catholic faith contains the fullness of truth, yet as Catholics we reject nothing that is true and good from other religions. So for example, we recognize the truth in Islam when it proclaims the existence of one God, not many. That is a universal truth that exists in both religions. However, it would be wrong to say that the religion of Islam (*all *of its teachings) are universally true because, just as one example, it denies the existence of the Trinity. Therefore, while all religions are *able *to contain universal truths within them, only the Catholic Church contains the fullness of universal truth. Now it is **not **my intention to prove this with my post - therefore I’m not giving any arguments as to why this is the case - what I’m trying to do here is simply explain where I’m coming from.

That being said, not everything the Catholic Church says/does is a universal truth (confused yet? ). There are many disciplines within the Catholic Church that would indeed fall into the category of opinion. For example, the Mass (Catholic’s primary form of worship) was once only spoken in Latin - even if you lived in an English speaking country. This practice was a discipline that changed to where now the Mass is spoken in the native tongue of the community. There is no universal truth that says the Mass must be spoken in one language or another, but this a practice that can change due to practical reasons. The universal truth of the Catholic Church extends to matters of faith and morals (One God, Trinity, no murder, etc.) which are not to be confused with disciplines practiced by the Church (language used, priestly celibacy, etc.)

I hope at least some of that makes sense. Kind of hard to explain over posts. Point is, some aspects of Catholicism are matters of what you might call “opinion” (disciplines) but the official teachings on faith and morals express the fullness of universal truth which no other religion contains in its entirety. This may sound “arrogant” and “self-righteous” but logically speaking it’s not. If something is true (Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity), then saying something contrary to that must be false (Jesus is not the Second Person of the Trinity). I’ll wait until I see what you were planning on saying before I dive into that issue any deeper. Let me know if I need to clarify anything here!

 

[samiam1611]

That being said, not everything the Catholic Church says/does is a universal truth (confused yet? ). There are many disciplines within the Catholic Church that would indeed fall into the category of opinion.
The universal truth of the Catholic Church extends to matters of faith and morals (One God, Trinity, no murder, etc.) which are not to be confused with disciplines practiced by the Church (language used, priestly celibacy, etc.)

Point is, some aspects of Catholicism are matters of what you might call “opinion” (disciplines) but the official teachings on faith and morals express the fullness of universal truth which no other religion contains in its entirety.

Ahh, okay, yes I’m a little confused but not totally. I think it is a matter that will require more study, for sure. The thing is though, while we may have strayed from the OP a bit, my thinking has not:

Once I kind of got into a debate with someone over…what value means…Now I’m asking this question to know how to respond to…an atheist [that] says that religion is the result of someone’s opinions

.
Since I agree with the atheist the OP talked to, the question I have been pondering for the past few days is how can I defend my stance that religion is the result of opinion? That is to say, I am not attempting to debate the accuracy of Catholicism vs atheism or any religion vs another religion/belief system. (Nor are you - I may have made some statements hinting that - and I will try to avoid doing it again.)
So since I am not attempting to debate the core beliefs of Catholicism (aka the universal truths, if you insist ) I’d like to demonstrate that organized religion resulted from the opinions of the believers.
I’m going to borrow Wikipedia’s definition with some slight changes: religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing doctrines that relate to beliefs and values.

The universal truth of the Catholic Church extends to matters of faith and morals (One God, Trinity, no murder, etc.) which are not to be confused with disciplines practiced by the Church (language used, priestly celibacy, etc.)

See, while I can’t let go of my stance that what you call truth I call maybe truth (oops there I go), I can try to meet you halfway by directing our focus to the “cultural system” that the Church has established - i.e. the disciplines taught/practiced by the Church. (Wikipedia again: They [religions] tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.) You derive your morality, ethics, and lifestyle from Catholicism, correct? (At least in part) Your morality, ethics, and lifestyle are a [large] part of my knowledge of Catholicism. In fact, I joined this forum for the specific purpose of finding out why y’all do the things you do/don’t do the things you don’t do, bc some of the things you do/don’t do make no sense to me! (or made no sense to me; I have gained some insight into the reasons behind some of your beliefs). Anyway, we agree that “not everything the Catholic Church says/does is a universal truth/there are many disciplines within the Catholic Church that would indeed fall into the category of opinion.” But since religion is a cultural system - as distinct from a belief system - and much of the disciplines of the Catholic Church have contributed, if not defined, a culture, you just [indirectly] made my point for me.
The problem with making the distinction between a religion and a belief system is that beliefs are the foundation of religion, so my argument is not perfect.
At this point, I am going to take us full circle, so that maybe my position as a whole will be less prone to criticism.
So let’s say Jesus really was the messiah. Jews do not believe this…Judaism has continued and evolved as a religion. So even though they are wrong, their religion is based on their opinion that he is not. Well not based, but you know what I mean. And you agree Judaism is a religion right? So see, just because their opinion is wrong does not mean their religion is not the result of opinion! Just because you’re right doesn’t mean it’s not an opinion. Islam resulted from the belief that Jesus was not the messiah either. It literally is the result of people disagreeing with if he was or not. The truth of the matter is irrelevant - if someone won’t accept the truth, and makes a religion out of it, that religion is the result of opinion.

 

[AnthonyPadua001]

See, while I can’t let go of my stance that what you call truth I call maybe truth, I can try to meet you halfway by directing our focus to the “cultural system” that the Church has established - i.e. the disciplines taught/practiced by the Church.

Okay, as I mentioned early, the “cultural system” or disciplines of the Catholic Church are subject to what you might consider opinion. Our disciplines are largely based on practical matters (saying Mass in one’s native tongue instead of Latin so people will understand what’s going on), yet there are still many Catholics who do not agree with this change and prefer the Latin Mass – opinion. We can agree there!

However, one cannot consider the disciplines of the Catholic Church to be “religion” and the beliefs to be something separate or added on (as you yourself recognized as a problem).

I’m going to borrow Wikipedia’s definition with some slight changes: religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing doctrines that relate to beliefs and values.

(Wikipedia again: They [religions] tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from ***their ideas ***about the cosmos and human nature.)

**But since religion is a cultural system - as distinct from a belief system **- and much of the disciplines of the Catholic Church have contributed, if not defined, a culture, you just [indirectly] made my point for me. The problem with making the distinction between a religion and a belief system is that beliefs are the foundation of religion, so my argument is not perfect.

Now the main problem I have with your last post is Wikipedia’s definition of religion. As I mentioned before (and you recognized), there are definite problems with separating the cultural system with the core beliefs of a religion – something both you and Wikipedia do. Not surprisingly Wikipedia is taking a purely secular approach to religion. In other words, this definition excludes the possibility of God revealing Himself to His creation (Divine Revelation) – it is saying people create their morals, ethics, doctrines, and disciplines purely *on their own *and based solely on their cultural systems. Now if all religions stemmed only from human cultural systems, then yes, religions would be merely an opinion. So if the Catholic Church proclaimed its teachings based solely on human authority, it would be an opinion. However, the Catholic Church isn’t based on human authority but on God’s Divine Revelation and His authority as it was Jesus Himself who established the Church and revealed the universal truths to proclaim. Now I know this won’t convince you, but I’m hoping you’ll at least understand why I’m saying the Catholic faith is not an opinion but universal truth – it comes from an authority higher than humanity (God).

Let’s try an analogy: A person walks up to you with a box and you have no idea what’s in it. That person then opens the box and shows you what’s inside: a turtle. The box is closed again and someone else walks up to you and asks what is in the box. You say, “A turtle is in the box.” Would you say your statement is an opinion? It would be if the contents of the box had not been revealed to you. But since you did know what was in the box it is no longer an opinion but fact.

So basically I will agree with you that the disciplines are a matter of opinion. However, religion cannot be reduced merely to its disciplines while ignoring the teachings and beliefs. Now I’m not saying that there isn’t a religion that is a matter of opinion (both in its teachings and disciplines), but I am saying that Catholicism cannot be “merely the result of someone’s opinions.”

I recognize your post was an attempt to meet me halfway and only talk about the cultural aspect of religion in which case we can agree with one another. However, the cultural aspect of Catholicism is not the Catholic religion in its entirety – only a small part.

 

[samiam1611]

Now I’m not saying that there isn’t a religion that is a matter of opinion (both in its teachings and disciplines), but I am saying that Catholicism cannot be “merely the result of someone’s opinions.”

However, the cultural aspect of Catholicism is not the Catholic religion in its entirety – only a small part.

Well yeah…no religion is completely false in every single belief…therefore, no religion is based merely on someone’s opinions.
You feel Catholicism is superior - more truth than opinion - to other religions. But I’m sorry, that’s still your opinion. For instance, keeping in mind the turtle thing, did you see Jesus rise from the dead? Did you hear with your own ears him say the things he did? No…now that is not to say that just because you didn’t witness it yourself doesn’t mean it’s not true. But Catholicism is a religion, no? I want to show you that even though/if you’re right, you merely believe you’re right. (Belief = opinion. "An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts.)
Let’s revisit your analogy. Can I change it to say, A person opens a box, looks in, and sees a turtle. He says to you, there is a turtle in this box. He says to me, there is a turtle in this box.
Fact: there is a box
Fact: the box is a little bigger than a turtle
Fact: a person who has seen inside the box tells us there is a turtle in there.
Opinion #1: a turtle is in the box, and you want it
Opinion #2: a turtle may or may not be in the box.
Result of opinion #1: You go buy an aquarium and some turtle food
Result of opinion #2: I don’t want to waste my money on turtle supplies unless I know for a fact that there’s a turtle in there.
Final result: you get the box with the turtle in it. you now get to spend some time with the turtle, observe the turtle play in his aquarium, perhaps you will tell your friends how awesome turtles are and they will go get one too.
We did not see the turtle. You used faith that what’s in that box is a turtle because someone who did see the inside the box told you there was a turtle in the box. That is the opinion you drew from the facts presented to you. I am of the opinion that until I see the turtle, I am going to assume there is no turtle. I don’t have faith that there is a turtle in the box. That’s just me. I need more proof that a turtle is in there.
My point is that we both drew opposing opinions from the same set of facts (the fact being that there is a box with something in it and a turtle could fit in there).

I don’t consider all religions to be universally true

Me either. I’m holding out hope that you will see that being right has nothing - literally nothing - to do with it. People believe it. That’s their opinion. Their practices are a result of their beliefs. Their beliefs and practices combined make it a religion. Remember that I am strictly limiting myself to the OP, he didn’t say how can I respond to someone who says Catholicism is the result of someone’s opinion.

To avoid the disagreement on our interpretations of the facts, I am going to describe a religion neither of us recognize as having much truth in it at all. But it doesn’t matter. People believe it. That’s their opinion. Their practices are a result of their beliefs. Their beliefs and practices combined make it a religion.
I am not going to do it justice by giving a complete description, and I’m taking things out of context. Just bear with me.
It is my understanding that these first few things are common beliefs among all the denominations:

Value sex as pleasure as the symbol and embodiment of life
Practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the phases of the moon.
Vonceive of the Creative Power in the universe as manifesting through polarity – as masculine and feminine
Believe in the affirmation and fulfillment of life in a continuation of evolution and development of consciousness giving meaning to the Universe
The gods are able to manifest in personal form, either through dreams, as physical manifestations, or through the bodies of Priestesses and Priests

These beliefs differentiate the denominations:

Reincarnation of the human’s soul into the same species over many lives in order to learn lessons and advance spiritually
Reincarnation of the soul through different species
Monotheistic belief in the Goddess as One, excluding the God from their worship
Develop their own relationships with the gods through intense personal work and revelation
Do not believe in the gods as real personalities, yet attempt to have a relationship with them as personifications of universal principlesit
A single creative force exists in the universe
Plants, rivers, rocks are seen as spiritual beings, facets of a single life

Random, I know. I’m not asking or arguing is Catholicism right, Is it superior, Is it more true than others.

 

[samiam1611]

Now I’m not saying that there isn’t a religion that is a matter of opinion (both in its teachings and disciplines), but I am saying that Catholicism cannot be “merely the result of someone’s opinions.”

However, the cultural aspect of Catholicism is not the Catholic religion in its entirety – only a small part.

Well yeah…no religion is completely false in every single belief…therefore, no religion is based merely on someone’s opinions.
You feel Catholicism is superior - more truth than opinion - to other religions. But I’m sorry, that’s still your opinion. For instance, keeping in mind the turtle thing, did you see Jesus rise from the dead? Did you hear with your own ears him say the things he did? No…now that is not to say that just because you didn’t witness it yourself doesn’t mean it’s not true. I want to show you that even though/if you’re right, you merely believe you’re right. (Belief = opinion. "An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts.)
Let’s revisit your analogy. Can I change it to say, A person opens a box, looks in, and sees a turtle. He says to us, there is a turtle in this box.
We did not see the turtle. You use faith that what’s in that box is a turtle because someone who did see inside the box told you there was a turtle in there. That is the opinion you drew from the facts presented to you. I am of the opinion that until I see the turtle, I am going to assume there is no turtle in that box. I don’t have faith that there is a turtle in the box. That’s just me. I need more proof that a turtle is in there.
My point is that we both drew opposing opinions from the same set of facts (the fact being that there is a box with something in it and a turtle could fit in there).
Your analogy perfectly explained revelation to me, and the conversion of opinion to fact. But neither of us saw inside the box for ourselves. So even though there really is a turtle in the box, your belief that there is a turtle in the box is still an opinion.
So say the person gives you the turtle because you believed them. And you decide after watching it swim around for a bit and playing with it that that you really like turtles. You buy a turtle key chain and a turtle stuffed animal and start a save the turtles club. You want everyone to know how awesome turtles are, so you tell all your friends and family and they start loving turtles too. Your opinion that a turtle was in the box led to your love of turtles which resulted in all your friends loving turtles and you all spread the word about how awesome turtles are and got lots of people to join your save the turtles club who now direct their attention and action to turtles. Just replace the word turtle with God and save the turtles club with religion and there you have it: religion resulted from opinion!

 

[ANNE_2]

Ask the Athiest to prove that there is no God.

For Catholics there are several ways to prove there is a God. Look in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” on page 796 in the index under “God”.
Existence of: #31, 33-35, 46, 48, 286, 2127.

Remember that Science is finding that which already exists.

 

[samiam1611]

Ask the Athiest to prove that there is no God.

Have you? And if so, did you really listen and give them a chance? (I am not being sarcastic) Or did you cover your ears and say lalalalala bc you are self-righteous? (ok now I am being sarcastic.) Have you been to an atheism forum to try to understand why they felt the way they do? Have you ever considered that maybe you’re wrong? Maybe the CCC is wrong. You’re not omniscient. Did you read my post saying atheism is an opinion too? Did you know even atheism is not a black and white thing? I am an agnostic atheist.
“Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they **do not claim to know with certainty **whether any deity exists.” That’s just me. Some atheists do claim to know for certain. Did you know there’s such a thing as agnostic theism? They do not claim to know with any certainty that God does exist. Some of us have been graced with humility.
33 “With his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence”

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question His wisdom?

 

[Glennonite]

"

I agree. As an atheist who also believes religion is an opinion (to put it bluntly), I would guess that is what your friend meant. I don’t see how religion cannot be seen as opinion! For instance, it is Jews’ opinion that Jesus was not the messiah. It is Christians’ opinion that he was. Those of you who have converted one way or the other, did you not at first have one opinion on something, than changed your mind, and now believe something else?

"
Yeah Sam, Relative to other humans’ view on anything not "real"or observable, these must be opinions. Religions must be in that category.

BUT, if you remember the story of the 5 blind men who encounter the elephant, (each from a different part) even reality can be deceiving when viewed from different perspectives. Therefore, people can have varied opinions on the same reality

Do you see the mountain as a beautiful, magestic vista, or an insurmountable hardship to climb over? It’s a matter of opinion I’d say.

Glennonite