I was not aware someone else had discovered Truth. /s

Religions fail? Quite the opposite: they have provided solace for people in crisis for millennia. What did you think religion was about, the truth? Nothing so mundane. Religion is the redemptive and consummatory structure of our existence. Everything else is just incidental. And this makes the youtube simply about things incidentally true about a culture's way of dealing with metaethical indeterminacies.

I'm not in the religion or God business, but by what measure does one determine whether a religion has failed? By its gifts or its brutalities? How do you weigh the benefits against the harms? And which religions are we talking about?

It seems to me you can only make a blanket judgement like that if you already hold the view that religion is superstition that gets good people to do bad things, which is certainly a perspective, but not the only one.

... "the truth" about what?

Apparently, not only did the commenters (except Astrophel) fail to watch the 10 minute video they are commenting on, they also failed to read the second sentence of the original post. Here it is again.

In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed. — Art48

I hope that helps.

Astrophel: "Religion is the redemptive and consummatory structure of our existence"
Hm. I'd call that word salad. But if you can give it some meaning, I expect existing religions will disagree about that, too.

Why Religions Fail — Art48

I watched your video, where it repeats for 10 minutes:
1. No one knows what will happen after death, since:
2. Religions contradict each other
3. All religions are based on superhero stories
4. Science does not contradict itself

I propose another question: for what purpose did humanity ask the question "what will happen after death? . "Was the answer to this question important, or did the answer to this question justify ethics?

I think the man of that time did well, because he would be saved after death. In my opinion, the basis of the search for an answer to the question that after death is the justification of ethics. Of course, good and bad actions in different societies are different actions. Hence, in my opinion, such discrepancies. You say that religions are contradictory, but I think not really: do well and you will be saved, that's what they have in common. Another thing is that a different concept is good everywhere.

By the way, Zaroastrianism (the first monotheistic religion) argued 3 postulates: Good thought. Good word. Good deed. Little has changed in religions since then.

By the way, Zaroastrianism (the first monotheistic religion) argued 3 postulates: Good thought. Good word. Good deed. Little has changed in religions since then. — Astorre

There’s a Buddhist anecdote that an elderly questioner once asked the Buddha, what is the core of his teaching? He replied, ‘Cease from evil, learn to do good, and purify the mind.’ Taken aback, the questioner said, ‘but a child knows that!’ ‘Yes’, was the reply, ‘but how many grown adults are able to live up it?’

In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed.
— Art48

I hope that helps. — Art48

Not really. I think "religions disagree" because they seek answers which rationalize or are permissible in accordance with prior conclusions (dogmas). To the degree different religions share prior conclusions, it seems their questions tend to converge on similar (or equivalent) "truths", and vice versa.

‘Cease from evil, learn to do good, and purify the mind.’ — Wayfarer

Cease from - means something was already going on that needs to cease.

Learn. To do. Good. - a life’s work.

Purify the mind.

Love it.

There’s a Buddhist anecdote that an elderly questioner once asked the Buddha, what is the core of his teaching? He replied, ‘Cease from evil, learn to do good, and purify the mind.’ — Wayfarer

What do you take "purify the mind" to mean? A reference to the Noble Eightfold Path?
To me, it could suggest that we don't need to concern ourselves with metaphysics, philosophy, or even whether life has any inherent meaning: we just need to do what's outlined above. It's minimalist, but challenging in its own way.

What do you take "purify the mind" to mean? — Tom Storm

Purification in Theravada Buddhism is to observe the precepts and learn to bring the mind to bear on wholesome states of mind. In addition there are various meditative disciplines such as kasina which is concentration on various shapes and designs and mindfulness training. These are aimed at ‘one-pointedness’ of mind culminating in states of jhana (meditative trance) of which there are eight gradations. But that is in turn predicated on the vinaya or the lay version of the precepts and the Buddhist way of life. It’s very different from and probably at odds with typical modern lifestyles in many ways (mine included.)

(I thought the portrayal of Thai Buddhism in the recent season of White Lotus was quite realistic in many ways. The idealistic young Piper Ratliff who had had her heart set on staying at the Wat for a year changed her mind after staying a week, largely because there was no air-conditioning and the diet was meager.)

In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed. — Art48

Oh, I didn't know that there was the truth. How did you verify that religion (what is a religion?) failed to find the truth?

By the way, Zaroastrianism (the first monotheistic religion) argued 3 postulates: Good thought. Good word. Good deed. Little has changed in religions since then. — Astorre

Obviously a lot has changed in religion since then.

Though I didn't watch the video my interpretation is that Are48 is essentially pointing out that religions fail because they are human inventions–no religion can be all-inclusive because no people can be all-inclusive.

Хотя я не смотрел видео, — практика

Judging by the answer, you not only did not watch the video, but also did not read what I wrote.

The author criticizes religion for the lack of a uniform approach to such concepts as life after death, achieving it, and also for the fact that in all religions there is a certain superhero who gives the truth.

I suggested a new layer: what if the idea of ​​life after death is, first of all, an attempt to justify ethics. you behave well, after death you get a continuation of life in heaven. the concept of behaving well for different times and societies has different content. hence the different ways to get to "heaven" in different religions.

I only said that as a tool for justifying good behavior, religions do not contradict each other.

For example, the Wheel of Samsara in Hinduism served as one of the ideological justifications for the caste system, explaining social inequality through karma and motivating people to follow caste duties for the sake of a better rebirth. the idea of Valhalla for the Vikings justified courage, heroism and risk for warriors. the idea of humility in the name of heaven in Christianity made it easier for the lowest classes to accept their oppression.

The list goes on and on. The main idea is that the justification through the afterlife (or rebirth) has always served for ethic

My point is simply that religions are inherently exclusive and fail the excluded. Your example illustrates this well. In Orthodox Brahmanical Hinduism the untouchables were denied even spiritual mobility—were excluded within their own culture and religious tradition by no fault of their own.

Your example also shows how religions change as untouchability and caste discrimination has been banned for many years.

This is real disappointing, because I was hoping for something far more interesting: The question of, when specific religions fail to be passed on to the next generation, what causes this failure to happen, approached as philosophy of history. And not just religions but institutions, beliefs and practices of all kinds.

Instead, it seems to be just garden variety Reddit atheist stuff from the 2000s.

Speaking of disappointment, Ben, your comment addresses nothing specific in the video.

I went to watch the video and got this message:

Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

Is there a new link?

Questioner,
Yes, I've moved the videos to Vimeo.

Here's a link to the video in question.
109 – Why Religions Fail https://vimeo.com/1135038855

And here's a link to the entire catalog of Natural Theology videos.
https://adamford.com/catalog_naturaltheology/

..Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth.. — Art48

Unlike finding the truth religions typically declare what's true by reference to scripture, priests, traditions, blind belief etc.

Watched your video.

So you come to the conclusion that the superior faith is "faith in truth itself, and in the reasonable and goodness of the universe", better than believing in the ancient stories that traditional religions give us.

First of all. I thin it's naive to think that religions are about truth. They aren't. Sure, they proclaim that they are the truth, yet notice what answer they give: that it's faith, not reason. Religions give us a moral compass on just what is right and what is wrong. They do give us also creation stories and tell us what happens after we die, yet especially the part what happens after we die is still linked to how we live our life (and hence is about doing the good and not bad).

These moral questions are SUBJECTIVE. Now how can one or any religion justify that it's answers on moral questions are correct? Well, as the question are subjective and not objective, their answer is universal: it's a question of faith. You don't deduce from facts that a God or Gods exist, you take him (or them) as an issue of faith. Never does ANY religion say that you will find God, if you just use your brain enough. What religions say is that they have to be taken into ones heart. Hence religions even themselves understand that the questions of what is right or wrong, good or bad, cannot be answered in an objective way using logic.

Also, note that religions when giving answer to moral/ethical question that are inherently subjective attempt to give an objective answer by having the ultimate subjective, God (or Gods). So why is something good or bad? Because God says so. God (or Gods) are all powerful, so that's your "objective" answer.

Furthermore, you are falling into a trap where many atheists fall when you assume that "the universe is good". What science just says is that "the universe exists". Existence isn't good or bad. Questions on just what is good or bad are different form the question what exists in reality and what doesn't. There simply is a reason just why Ethics and Moral Philosophy is a different branch from Logic. You cannot simply combine them! Yet many atheists just assume that "goodness" simply emerges from humanity.

Truth itself is something that needs objectivity, you have to have logical premises to make a model of reality, where you can then in the logical system state if things are true or false. Science is one system like that, it gives models about reality, but note that science doesn't at all answer to what would be good and what bad. That's a question for religion, and faith. This is an error that many atheists do when believing that science can give us answers on ethical questions.

Secondly, where does this assumption of the goodness of the universe come from? It's quite out there as is the "ancient stories" you mock religions give. Well, the dominant religions of the present emerged in the time of Antiquity, so it's obvious that the writings were for an audience for a past time. Yet the message that holds on even today are the answers that religions give to ethical questions.

One cannot determine the success or failure of an entity without a concensus on what that entity's goal is. In my opinion, organized religion's goal is to consolidate power and wealth. From this perspective they have been spectacularly successful. From other perspectives, success (and failure) will vary.

One cannot determine the success or failure of an entity without a concensus on what that entity's goal is. In my opinion, organized religion's goal is to consolidate power and wealth. From this perspective they have been spectacularly successful. From other perspectives, success (and failure) will vary. — LuckyR

I’m sympathetic to this line of thinking, but I don’t think we have good reason to assume that any religion has a single, unified goal. One of my close friends is a priest who regards the Vatican as corrupt and “not the real Church,” and I have met many Catholics who hold similar views, which makes it hard to see how the Vatican and its shifting political perspectives could simply be identified with Catholicism itself. For the same reason, I’m not convinced we can say that the aim of organised religion is the consolidation of power, because it isn’t even clear what “organised religion” consists of: it is mothers and fathers, radicals and reactionaries, good people and bad people, institutions and dissenters, shared traditions and internal conflicts, all pulling in different directions for different reasons, making any claim about a single purpose or intention seems like an oversimplification.

Unlike finding the truth religions typically declare what's true by reference to scripture, priests, traditions, blind belief etc. — jkop

Agree. And that method of determining truth (what I call the "superhero/storybook" method) has failed to find the truth even after thousands of years.

Ssu,

“I think it's naive to think that religions are about truth. They aren't.”
OK, we agree about that. But many religious people think otherwise.

“You are falling into a trap where many atheists fall when you assume that ‘the universe is good’.”
When I say I believe the universe is fundamentally good I am merely the superiority of a FAITH in truth and the ultimate goodness of the universe with the inferior FAITH in some book that has a talking serpent and a talking donkey. They are both types of faith.

In my opinion, organized religion's goal is to consolidate power and wealth.
Agree. Christianity is a product of the Roman Empire, approved and made Rome's official religion by Roman emperors. It make spirituality serve this-world goals.

I don't entirely disagree with the idea that there are numerous goals of something as large and complex as a religion, and in fact I alluded to this in my posting. Though in my mind, the opinion that is the most important is that of the originators of the religion, thus my original conclusion.

Though in my mind, the opinion that is the most important is that of the originators of the religion, thus my original conclusion. — LuckyR

But who are these originators? Can you actually sketch the process because it seems a bit vague? The founders are not generally in this vein: the Buddha, or Jesus (if he was a historical person), were not empire-builders. If we take Christianity, who exactly are the originators to whom this claim is meant to apply; Paul, Constantine, the Roman Empire, the First Vatican Council? Does this apply to Judaism and Sikhism as well, or only to one or two religions?

When I say I believe the universe is fundamentally good I am merely the superiority of a FAITH in truth and the ultimate goodness of the universe with the inferior FAITH in some book that has a talking serpent and a talking donkey. They are both types of faith. — Art48

Sorry, I didn't understand this part.

When I say I believe the universe is fundamentally good I am merely the superiority of a FAITH in truth and the ultimate goodness of the universe with the inferior FAITH in some book that has a talking serpent and a talking donkey. They are both types of faith.
— Art48
Sorry, I didn't understand this part. — ssu

I'm not sure I have faith in truth or ultimate goodness. A talking serpent and donkey wound almost as plausible.

I wonder what ultimate goodness means other than a god surrogate. Maybe the word ultimate is the problem. Maybe it is easier to believe in goodness when it's contrasted with badness?