OPPAI ORACLE

Let's discuss any forms of religions and mythologies.

When it comes to religion, a question that intrigues me is this:

"What makes religions differ from any other belief systems?"

A belief system here means basically, "The world is structured like this!". What makes religions more than that? Why are religions special?

"What makes religions differ from any other belief systems?"

I guess that the definition of a religion became so watered down in the last century that the only way to classify religion right now is as a "belief in a transcendent order of things, which precedes the world and may include transcendent entity/-ies, who are able to influence and interact with said world". Of course, the term "transcendent" should be taken widely, because - as far as I understand - kami from Shinto are not transcendent in the same way as a Christian God is. Still, even this definition is fairly flawed, because it does not account for secular religions, like "Religion of Humanity", where - while having a priesthood and liturgy - Humanity, or Le Grand Être, is not a transcendent entity, despite being quasi-godlike.

It also should be noted that nowadays a lot of tropes that are usually associated with religion (for example, structure of organisation, quasi-eschatology, giving a person a reason to live and die, etc.) can be found in many modern political ideologies (namely, fascism and communism) and communities (hell, it can be argued that tulpamancy can be called a quasi-religious practice). Thus, there is not much difference between political and religious beliefs when we are judging them by their attributes, not the essence (if there is any).

Moreover, the term "belief" is pretty weird for characterisation of religion, because it can be treated in two ways: either "the belief" is a conscious agreement with the dogmas, or it is a self-identification. I am saying that because (at least in Russia) there are plenty of non-religious people who classify themselves as Christian. For example, they may not believe in God (I am not even talking about Trinity, the nature of Christ and so on), but at the same time they baptise their children and attend church at Christmas. The religious belief (at its most mundane) becomes little more than a substitute for an affiliation to tradition and self-identification. Thus, the individual's belief in religion can be contrary to the dogmas of this religion, which in turn create the basis for said belief. The definition kinda breaks itself, to be honest.

GukkanPaukkan wrote: Sun Jul 26, 2026 2:41 pm

"What makes religions differ from any other belief systems?"

Moreover, the term "belief" is pretty weird for characterisation of religion, because it can be treated in two ways: either "the belief" is a conscious agreement with the dogmas, or it is a self-identification. I am saying that because (at least in Russia) there are plenty of non-religious people who classify themselves as Christian. For example, they may not believe in God (I am not even talking about Trinity, the nature of Christ and so on), but at the same time they baptise their children and attend church at Christmas. The religious belief (at its most mundane) becomes little more than a substitute for an affiliation to tradition and self-identification. Thus, the individual's belief in religion can be contrary to the dogmas of this religion, which in turn create the basis for said belief. The definition kinda breaks itself, to be honest.

I've talked about this before: The idea of religion being primarily based around "belief" seems to me to be a very recent idea and kind of an aberration from the historical reality of religion. It's a Christian thing to prioritize "belief," but most traditional religion is about RITUAL and PRACTICE. The "belief" develops out of that, not the other way around. Shintou in Japan is the best example.

I also always thought that Orthodox Christianity seems like the best representation of this in the Christian sphere. And no surprise I suppose, since it's the oldest form and thus the one that most directly evolved out of the practices of the pagan Greek world. As an Americunt though, I have very little direct experience with the Orthodox, so it's nice to see someone actually with some connection to the religion repeat my ideas. I imagine this is all the more powerful in a post-communist state of course, where the "belief" portion was probably more cleanly and forcefully severed than a lot of other modern secular societies. And yet, everything ritualistic and symbolic persists, because that is the core of what is most important. Same with Confucianism and Daoism in China.

I found a great representation of this in one of my all-time favorite films, Bells From the Deep: Faith and Superstition in Russia by Werner Herzog. It was made in 1993, so right after the collapse when perhaps religion became suddenly "on the menu" again for most of Russia and thus is an amazing time capsule:

Just be warned that it's a Herzog documentary and sometimes he will prioritize a good story over a strictly direct description or translation of events. Though I think it's still pretty accurate. And of course remember one of my favorite quotes from Herzog: “If you’re purely after facts, please buy yourself the phone directory of Manhattan. It has four million times correct facts. But it doesn’t illuminate.”

I've talked about this before: The idea of religion being primarily based around "belief" seems to me to be a very recent idea and kind of an aberration from the historical reality of religion. It's a Christian thing to prioritize "belief," but most traditional religion is about RITUAL and PRACTICE. The "belief" develops out of that, not the other way around. Shintou in Japan is the best example.

Although I agree that the idea of "belief that arises strictly from religious feeling" is a fairly recent concept (from XVIII-XIX century, if I am not making a mistake) and has difficulties in explaining the above-listed phenomena, I cannot shake the feeling that the ritual still presupposes belief in some kind of order or entities.

In my opinion, the ritual is not done for the sole purpose of doing it. Its symbols must bear meaning and should serve some sort of purpose (for example, pleasing the gods/spirits, so they would help you or someone else in endeavours); otherwise, why should a person take part in them? On the other hand, meanings like this are grounded in the religious framework, in which the person has to (or wants to) believe in order for them to be real to him. In short, the gods/spirits (or religion as the whole) that the ritual seeks to please are acknowledged before it takes place. Maybe that is also why there are specific rituals that are limited to certain religions (but I am not saying that there is no ritualistic connection between cults and religion or that there is no room for syncretism; it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and feed domovoy (a Slavic household spirit) once in a while).

To sum up, the origins of religion -- at least for me -- are stuck in a vicious cycle. Your beliefs may contradict the core dogmas of your religion, but you can still be classified as its member, because you either self-identify as one, or participate in rituals; however, in order for a ritual to have a meaning, you must believe in its magical and symbolic power. I guess that there is a third thing, aside from "belief" and "ritual", that would help to conceptualise the origins of religion, but I don't have an answer to what it is.

I am no anthropologist or a religious scholar, so don't take my word for an accurate representation of how ritual is formed, but I have a friend that is into this stuff and his opinion (that religion is primarily defined by sociality; I consider Deism as a religion, so I am not really convinced) is closer to yours rather than mine.

I found a great representation of this in one of my all-time favorite films, Bells From the Deep: Faith and Superstition in Russia by Werner Herzog

Thanks! I'll check it out.

What I've been thinking a lot about recently is how religion would adapt to fit the continous technological advancement and biological evolution of humanity. Despite being one of earth's younger species, modern man is viewed by many religious scholars to be an evolutionary dead end, perfected by God himself in all aspects. And to attempt to improve upon God's design, whether through biological or technological interference is considered a most blasphemous offence. However we can see that even today humans are still actively evolving, notably the disapperance of wisdom teeth and lactose intolerance. And if humanity continues to exist there will come many more small changes in our physical characteristics that, although they are almost unnoticable to us, will eventually lead to large changes that may render our descendants unrecognizable to us. So let's say in a few ten thousand or hundred thousand years humans develop a third reproductive organ which means the "reproductive process" requires a man, a woman and a person of the third sex (God, Buddha or anyone out there please forgive me forgive me for writing this accursed sentence ), to explain why God chose to alter the reproductive biology of a being he supposedly perfected millennia ago would require a radical reinterpretation of the scripture (If we even manage to preserve it that long) and probably a few new revelations. I'm curious if any religions could stand the test of time and even if they manage to, would they still be able to hold on to the core doctrines which they were founded upon?

Steelbehemoth wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2026 8:51 pm

What I've been thinking a lot about recently is how religion would adapt to fit the continous technological advancement and biological evolution of humanity. Despite being one of earth's younger species, modern man is viewed by many religious scholars to be an evolutionary dead end, perfected by God himself in all aspects. And to attempt to improve upon God's design, whether through biological or technological interference is considered a most blasphemous offence. However we can see that even today humans are still actively evolving, notably the disapperance of wisdom teeth and lactose intolerance. And if humanity continues to exist there will come many more small changes in our physical characteristics that, although they are almost unnoticable to us, will eventually lead to large changes that may render our descendants unrecognizable to us. So let's say in a few ten thousand or hundred thousand years humans develop a third reproductive organ which means the "reproductive process" requires a man, a woman and a person of the third sex (God, Buddha or anyone out there please forgive me forgive me for writing this accursed sentence ), to explain why God chose to alter the reproductive biology of a being he supposedly perfected millennia ago would require a radical reinterpretation of the scripture (If we even manage to preserve it that long) and probably a few new revelations. I'm curious if any religions could stand the test of time and even if they manage to, would they still be able to hold on to the core doctrines which they were founded upon?

I think there's a big difference between "natural" evolutions and "artificial" evolutions (transhumanists trying to change their genes and whatnot). Of course, the distinction between these two is somewhat conventional and hard to really establish (Where does "nature" end and "technology" begin? Isn't "technology" just part of nature?).

I would think that Buddhism would be most able to withstand this. Because there would still be suffering in a world like this, one thinks. Unless we were somehow able to extinguish all suffering from our biology (and that of all other sentient beings). Or some natural religions might continue to exist precisely because they would define themselves in conflict to the technological process.

Interestingly though, I remember reading about a group called the Christian Transhumanist Association which sees the technological supercharging of evolution as a fulfillment of the vision of heaven on earth. It thus ascribes to the idea that the "city of God" at the end of the book of Revelation is a literal, physical city on Earth and that immortality and freedom from disease and violence and suffering will all be accomplished in our material universe. Jehovah's witnesses believe this too. It's a minority opinion, but I think it's one that can be justified when you read the text.

As a nature worshiper of some variety, I find it rather off-putting.

Why are Buddhists scared of hell if getting respawned in there is just as bad as anywhere else? (since you are in the cycle)

Wouldn't living as you please without worry be better since it shows you see all realms of existence as equally bad.

I think I would be a good Buddhist since im already pretty enlightened without even trying. Any and all tortures pale in comparison with the suffering of having to exist.

Hans Sepp wrote: Fri Aug 14, 2026 3:19 pm

Why are Buddhists scared of hell if getting respawned in there is just as bad as anywhere else? (since you are in the cycle)

Where does this idea come from? I don't think any Buddhists say that all realms are equally bad, just like not all lives are equally bad. All of them are just characterized by dukkha. But I don't think there's anything in contradiction with saying that all lives are characterized by dukkha but that some of them are markedly worse than others. Of course, most of the suffering is a state of mind. But it can be harder to achieve peaceful states of mind if you're being impaled on a mountain of spikes for quintillions of years.

Amlux wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2026 1:38 am

Where does this idea come from? I don't think any Buddhists say that all realms are equally bad, just like not all lives are equally bad. All of them are just characterized by dukkha. But I don't think there's anything in contradiction with saying that all lives are characterized by dukkha but that some of them are markedly worse than others. Of course, most of the suffering is a state of mind. But it can be harder to achieve peaceful states of mind if you're being impaled on a mountain of spikes for quintillions of years.

Its just what I inferred myself. Of course one is less bad but going for the lesser evil is sort of pointless in my view, you also wont be enlightened in heaven right? So isn't being spawned in this realm the best option possible? I don't see the point of trying to get to heaven.