The One True Religion

[Of the WorldWrestlingFederation?] Also could describe religions (ostensible infliction of physical pain = hell for sinners)

That could only be said by someone with little (or narrow) experience with religions. ... or just a little bit too much experience. "The more I see, the less, the less I believe..."

Let "A" be a statement that identifies the OTR (eg., "The OTR is <list of definitions and beliefs>"). If "A" is part of the OTR, remove it to get a second statement of beliefs. If it is not part of the OTR, add it to get a second. Either way, there's not just one. Therefore, the OTR can't be identified by a statement.

Reply: logical argument is not relevant to the OTR - it is not a matter of logic or semantics.

It is if you want to retain the word "one" or imply uniqueness in any other internal way. It's the classic self-reference fallacy, closely allied to trying to get consistency and completeness at the same time (you can't have both, as proved by Gödel). You have to decide which you prefer. I prefer consistency, but if it's not complete, it's certainly not unique.

The point is not that you can't be both, but that the OTR can't be both.

If the future can bring inconsistency with the present, claiming completeness for the present is futile, and the OTR isn't unique.

If that can't happen, there's no reason to refer to the present and the future.

If you can't even give an unchanging, precise definition of the OTR, you have no grounds to claim that it is unique - at best, it's 'a' TR, not 'the one' TR.

Your statement (let "A" etc.) still makes no sense in the "English" sort of way. Remove it to get a second what? Statement? [Of beliefs, yes.] What does that mean? How can A not be part of the OTR if it "identifies" it? And what does Goedel have to do with anything? Please fix the statement's phrasing. [OK, I amended it slightly.]

If a system of beliefs does not assert its own validity, it's plainly different from the corresponding system that does (but is otherwise the same). Neither is uniquely correct.

In brief, Goedel showed that consistency and completeness are mutually incompatible. See GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.

From http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html: He proved it impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems - elementary arithmetic, for example - unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves ... Second main conclusion is ... Gödel showed that Principia, or any other system within which arithmetic can be developed, is essentially incomplete. In other words, given any consistent set of arithmetical axioms, there are true mathematical statements that cannot be derived from the set... Even if the axioms of arithmetic are augmented by an indefinite number of other true ones, there will always be further mathematical truths that are not formally derivable from the augmented set.

Religion is axiomatic? The relevance of the GIT to this discussion is that any OTR cannot be both complete and consistent, since nothing can. You are free to choose which one of these your OTR is not!

There are as many worldviews (meaning 'systems of beliefs' in this context) as people, and they have nothing non-trivial in common - each is valid only in its own personal context; hence such views can neither support nor contradict each other; but a non-charitable worldview doesn't merit being called a religion.

Contradiction and support - Are you saying that two or more people cannot agree in what they believe? They cannot contradict?

Yes. To agree or contradict, they must first refer to the same thing - something which doesn't happen non-trivially in practice for religions. Not all beliefs are of a nature that allows them to be 'carried out' - 'validity' is not the right word for that. That charity is essential was the original view, which I summarized.

If two people disagree on a significant point, such as whether charity is essential, they don't have the same religious beliefs (OTR). An OTR that is continually revised is by definition not the OTR as the words 'the one true' are not applicable - you would need to use the wording 'the one true for the time being'. No, it is the OTR as understood and practiced, just as the scientist has an understanding and practice of "Science". Because the scientist finds it necessary to "continually revise" his definitions, that does not lead to an invalidation of "Science". He remains true to what he understands as "Science".

The OT description is not used of science. No-one is saying that religion is logic, but you need logic in order to know if you hold mutually incompatible beliefs, and to justify the idea that the OTR exists and can be described. It doesn't need to be logic (or science) to be the subject of logical analysis, discussion , or clarification. Rejecting clarification seems pointless. If clarification is useful, one would certainly not want it done in an illogical fashion; it's unrealistic (and absurd) to assume that clarification can never be achieved through logical discussion without giving any reason, but if you have a reason, you are trying to apply logic.

The point is that the OTR is different for each person who claims to 'have', 'know' or 'practice' it, ie., its uniqueness is purely subjective. In practice, most people would make minor changes to their beliefs as they learn more, so the word 'one', implying uniqueness, is initially redundant, and later inappropriate. The word 'true' is also subjective, since what's true for you might seem clearly false to someone else. Of course, even a minor change of a current belief makes the word 'true' inappropriate by definition.

TheOneTrueReligion is the one that is true. The rest are false, regardless of how emotionally attached to it. As religions can't be objectively proved in this life. Live your life the way you wish to live it.

Page Summary: Goedel's result means an absolute, objective OTR is unachievable, death or no death. If beliefs become factual, absolute knowledge, by definition they cease to be a religion. (Except for BigOmega)

This all depends of course on which truth is dependent. In all of the above cases, truth has always been in the eye of the beholder, and from that perspective, there cannot ever be OTR. However, if the definition of truth is set by an outside observer (outside of everything) then that observer's OTR is also the OTR of those within inside. What is truth?

Note, naturally, that BigOmega, the deity who is able to build a fence so high he and/or/other than she can't jump over it, is not affected by any such trivia as Goedel. BigOmega proves things by contradiction every day.

CategoryReligion?