Define "Religion"...

[maverickstruth]

There have been a lot of threads popping up lately about the nature of religion (where did it come from, why does it start, what is it about religion that causes people to believe it, etc.).

But one thing I haven't seen is a discussion of "what is religion?" (Those of you who have taken a world religions course in college or wherever may now roll your eyes... you know what's coming).

Now, religious studies scholars have pretty much given up on finding a definition of religion that "works". Once upon a time, someone actually even compiled a list of more than fifty definitions of religion (Psychological Study of Religion by Leuba). This prompted Jonathan Z. Smith to say that "The moral of Leuba is not that religion cannot be defined, but that it can be defined, with greater or lesser success, more than fifty ways."

Well, I'm sure we can come up with at least fifty more of our own good definitions... with greater or lesser success to boot.

I'll start things off with kind of a cop-out response. Quoting again from the brilliant Jonathan Z. Smith (seriously... go read some of his stuff. It'll make your brain hurt!):

Originally Posted by Jonathan Z. Smith

“Religion” is not a native term; it is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes and therefore is theirs to define. It is a second-order generic concept that plays the same role in establishing a disciplinary horizon that a concept such as “language” plays in linguistics or “culture” plays in anthropology.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to define religion.

Ready?

Set?

On your marks.... get set.... go!

[Mnemosyne]

I think religion is a set of beliefs and rituals.

[Mnemosyne]

My initial post contained a very broad definition of what I think religion is.

I gave it a little more thought and then remembered an article I read yesterday.

I work in IT, as a Business Intelligence (BI) consultant. Basically a fancy word for turning data into information. Anyway, in BI there is a practice called Master Data Management (MDM), in which you try to manage metadata (which is data about data). The advantage of MDM is that, if done correctly, a company can maintain a "single version of the truth". This is a big advantage because different departments within a company often store the same data, albeit a little bit differently, and usually attach their own meaning behind the data thereby creating multiple versions of the "truth".

So the article I was reading was about MDM and it was entitled, "There is No Single Version of the Truth". It cited an example of a trying to come up with a company-wide definition of a Customer. Marketing will probably always want to include prospects as customers while accounts receivable will only recognize customers as individuals or organizations that have been sent a bill for goods or services. In order for each department to agree on what a customer is, the definition has to be very general. For example, "an individual or organization we potentially do business with". This overgeneralized definition is difficult to characterize as incorrect, but it is hard to see what is excluded from the term when you need to think about specific instances in real-world situations. By accepting overgeneralized definitions, the definition becomes irrelevant and cannot be used for anything practical.

Sorry for going off topic like that but I really do think it applies to the definition of religion. I think it even applies to the purpose of religion. Since each religion has a built-in meaning of its faith, that may or may not match the meaning of another faith, then the only way to define religion is to overgeneralize it, such as I did in my previous post. But the overgeneralization doesn't really tell you anything meaningful.

Now that I think about it, I think it applies to a lot of things, not just religion. Maybe there really is no single version of the truth? I'm not sure though, just something that popped into my head...

[maverickstruth]

The idea that there is no one single truth is something that I find really valuable, especially when it comes to dealing with religion. It allows me to see things so much more objectively, and to understand where other people are coming from so much more easily.

In Religious Studies, we have a saying "Truth is true so long as it's true to someone." (Try saying that five times fast!) I think that's very much what you were saying, unless I misunderstood. :-)

Back on topic, another definition of religions is closely related to this...

"The myths to which one ascribes, and the actions dictated by them" -- here I'm using the technical definition of "myth" which is "any true story". Or, using the definition of truth given above... any story which is true to someone.

So... could we describe religion as being comprised of "the stories which one believes to be true and the actions that follow from that belief"?

Then again, that include things like belief in Santa Claus (and leaving out milk and cookies) as religion, which doesn't seem quite right ... oh the problems of definition.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Spirituality is knowing, religion is believing. Religion is doing all these external things, like going to church or becoming a monk. Spirituality is allowing yourself to be, to exist. Religion is not eating meat on a Friday, while spirituality is watching nature exist in its glorious beauty. Zen is what it is, religion is the structure, the limitations, the guided beliefs that other people thought of, that are imposed on your belief system. In other words, religion is a confined branch of spirituality.

[Michael Chui]

Not sure how I missed seeing this thread for a whole week... :P

I made a response over here that I'll repeat.

I have a theory.

Religion, near as I can tell, is about social control. Not necessarily by some Pope over the laymen, but control by a society of the society. Remember that, in the beginning, it was extremely different. You didn't have government in the usual sense; you didn't have laws or such. But these things grew quickly.

In a human society, you need two things: you need rules, like "when the leaves start to fall, it's harvest time" or "no one crosses that bridge" (that way lies dragons!); and you need explanations (because human beings are curious by nature).

Rules, over time, become laws. What might once have been, "it's hard for people to work every single day", becomes "this day is reserved for not working".

Explanations evolve into stories of culture heroes, where persons of mythical to godlike status go on a journey and do some amazing feat, which explains why such is so. An example is Noah and the Ark, which is also seen in Iroquois mythology as The Great Flood, and in Babylonian as Gilgamesh. (link)

When these are balanced, you achieve what I would call a Mythology, a belief system in which stories are as important as laws. Based on what little I know of Catholicism, this is one. A belief system that favors stories over laws I would call Folk Tales, whereas one that favors laws over stories I would call a Religion. Protestantism is, essentially, a religion.

If you'll notice, most people who interpret the Bible will disregard all literal depictions. Everything is merely fodder to derive laws from; people love stories, so it's unsurprising that some of it survived, but I think the Christian stories survive more because of a persistent Catholic influence. Apologists have been taking cues from them.

[jpfieber]

Religion (Religious)
A person or group of people with an unwavering belief in something. These people have come to realize that they know better than you and must therefor either convince you to join them, or belittle you for your non-belief.

See also:
Christian vs. Muslim
Democrat vs. Republican
Mac vs. PC
IE vs. Firefox
Ford vs. Chevy

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by jpfieber

Religion (Religious)
A person or group of people with an unwavering belief in something. These people have come to realize that they know better than you and must therefor either convince you to join them, or belittle you for your non-belief.

See also:
Christian vs. Muslim
Democrat vs. Republican
Mac vs. PC
IE vs. Firefox
Ford vs. Chevy

Hehe.

Seriously, though, I think you've hit on something that is really problematic when it comes to defining religion. Are political views religious? What about the Yankees or the Red Sox? A lot of definitions given of religion would include things like these. But if we try to get too narrow, we end up excluding things that are generally considered religion. Even descriptive definitions are tricky, because you either include too much or leave out something vital. That's why I thought it would be an interesting question to pose... and I haven't been disappointed... anyone else?

[jpfieber]

I think maybe 'Religion' and 'Religious' need to be seen separately. Religion is probably best kept to those beliefs that people have more of a tendency to organize their lives around (though many a man's life revolves around a Chevy truck or our much loved Green Bay Packers). Religious to me conveys an attitude usually associated with those that have religion (an unwavering belief and a desperate need to spread it), and is more easily conveyed to inanimate objects and sports teams.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by jpfieber

Religion is probably best kept to those beliefs that people have more of a tendency to organize their lives around

What about something like democracy or communism, then? A strong belief that communism is the best organization of society, and one's life can certainly be organized around communism. Is it then also a religion? Can we really talk about religion (the noun) as separate from religous (the adjective)? I don't know... interesting concept though.

[Mnemosyne]

Last night I started to read a pretty heated discussion about Terrorism and Islam

I always that that religion is (or at least should be) something positive. But with all the conflict over which religion has got the "right" answers, it seems to be something much less than positive. And I find that really dissapointing.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Last night I started to read a pretty heated discussion about Terrorism and Islam

I always that that religion is (or at least should be) something positive. But with all the conflict over which religion has got the "right" answers, it seems to be something much less than positive. And I find that really dissapointing.

If you haven't found them already, there are a number of fairly good responses to the leveled accusations from people on the other side of the fence. It doesn't last out until the end, perhaps unfortunately, since it degenerated again. I imagine the discussion is over by now.

If I recall correctly, Mnemosyne, no one in that thread claimed any religion had the right answers: the primary claim was, interestly, that a religion had the wrong answers. As that thread seems to imply, that can be just as bad... unless it's true?

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

If you haven't found them already, there are a number of fairly good responses to the leveled accusations from people on the other side of the fence. It doesn't last out until the end, perhaps unfortunately, since it degenerated again. I imagine the discussion is over by now.

If I recall correctly, Mnemosyne, no one in that thread claimed any religion had the right answers: the primary claim was, interestly, that a religion had the wrong answers. As that thread seems to imply, that can be just as bad... unless it's true?

Michael,

I only ready read the first page or two of the thread, but yeah, I did see a few really good responses. Nevertheless, it didn't sit well with me.

I just don't really understand why there is so much conflict surrounding religion.

I'm going off topic a little, so I apologize.

My main questions are...
1. What is religion?
2. What is the purpose of religion?
3. Why is there so much conflict surrounding religion? (Assumes that the answer to question 2 is something positive)
4. What is the difference between religion, spirituality, and philosophy?

But I suppose there is conflict with pretty much everything, as jpfieber pointed out...

Christian vs. Muslim
Democrat vs. Republican
Mac vs. PC
IE vs. Firefox
Ford vs. Chevy

... So it might be a little unfair to single out religion.

In addition, people have mentioned that religion is a way to explain phenomena such as floods and earthquakes, and to control society. These are aspects of religion that I hadn't really thought about (and I'm sure there are several other aspects I haven't thought about either).

I think part of my problem is that I had some misconceptions about what religion is and what it stands for.

If religion represents someone's belief system, maybe it doesn't matter what religion is or what it stands for. People in general don't like to be wrong, especially when it comes to their beliefs. So maybe they'll do whatever it takes to preserve their beliefs, and maybe that's why there's conflict. And maybe power. I think power is a big motivation for people, and that's somehow linked with religion.

I don't know, though. My head is starting to spin. I don't have the capacity to think of really big concepts.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

My main questions are...
1. What is religion?
2. What is the purpose of religion?
3. Why is there so much conflict surrounding religion? (Assumes that the answer to question 2 is something positive)
4. What is the difference between religion, spirituality, and philosophy?

In addition, people have mentioned that religion is a way to explain phenomena such as floods and earthquakes, and to control society. These are aspects of religion that I hadn't really thought about (and I'm sure there are several other aspects I haven't thought about either).

I think part of my problem is that I had some misconceptions about what religion is and what it stands for.

If religion represents someone's belief system, maybe it doesn't matter what religion is or what it stands for. People in general don't like to be wrong, especially when it comes to their beliefs. So maybe they'll do whatever it takes to preserve their beliefs, and maybe that's why there's conflict. And maybe power. I think power is a big motivation for people, and that's somehow linked with religion.

You might take a look at the response I made in the thread you created. You also might look at this:

Sententia // Perspective » About Sententia.net

When you get down to it, religion isn't actually responsible for anything Bad and Evil. But it doesn't help, either. It generally acts as a justification to make bad things worse and to make good things difficult. In other cases, such as my own, it facilitates a good thing: I got a lot of PD mileage out of Christianity, but it could only give me so much.

My personal belief is that it needs to be abolished, but not as a war. Religion has a place, yet that place can be filled by a solid system of government, or by Keith's Anarchy of Enlightened Individuals.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You might take a look at the response I made in the thread you created. You also might look at this:

Sententia // Perspective » About Sententia.net

Wow... thanks for the endorsement, Michael!


Some really interesting questions, Mnemosyne. I don't know if it makes you feel any better, but religious studies scholars have been wrestling with those same issues for decades, and I haven't met one yet who claims to have the answers to any of them!

What is religion? For all I've read, all I've studied, and everyone I've talked to, I've never once met anyone who can give a definition that works. In a lot of contexts, it usually boils down to "I know it when I see it" whatever that means. It's a tricky one, for sure. Without knowing what religion is, it's almost impossible to say what it's purpose is -- depending on what you consider religion, it's purpose will vary. I know some people say that political ideologies are forms of religion, and if you agree, then the purpose of religion will be very different than if you think (to take an extreme example) that Christianity is the only real form of religion. I've met people who argue both ways.

As for why there is so much conflict surrounding religion, there are whole threads about this one, but whether you want to chalk it up to stubborness, indoctrination, human nature, the nature of religion, the nature of conflict, the nature of the weather (oh, wait...) I think strong arguments can be made. Equally strong arguments can be made that conflict does not derive from religion, but that they just often occur in proximity. Basically, the argument is that correlation does not imply causation.

And finally... who's to say there is a difference between religion, spirituality, and philosophy? The first too, for sure, are often viewed of by scholars as being two sides of the same coin (if not the same side of the same coin!) Actually, many scholars hate the word spirituality, because it seems to mean "everything that religion is, except for the institutionalized side of it"... which, for religious studies scholars, is just religion in a different form. It comes back (as always) to definitions. As for philosophy, there is certainly a strong link between the two. Some argue that they are identical twins. Some say that they are closely related cousins. And others say that they're the same child, just with a different haircut and in different clothes. Depends on who you ask.

[Eternal Wayfarer]

Well if one thinks that one needs security, religions are there to support them. If one choose to bask in the brilliance of the Great Spirit...

Religions are stepping stones to divinity since all path leads back to the same source, just keep a safe distance from fundamentalist. Nothing wrong with fundamentalist, they are a part of life, individuals choose what they want to experience in life and expose themselves to it, but removing an attachment is not always that easy.

More ideas in the mind, more chaos; more chaos, more confuse, and the state of confusion allows the ego to step in and identify the self as an intellect... Simple people always have the answer to all the questions in life. For in all whether admitting or denying, all is a part of the same source, from the same source is where all the answers are. Who makes a better teacher, ego or the force that all is a part of which has no distinction of separation?

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Eternal Wayfarer

Well if one thinks that one needs security, religions are there to support them. If one choose to bask in the brilliance of the Great Spirit...

See, this is where (as a scholar of religion), I have trouble with a lot of definitions (or non-definitions ) of religion. People seem to want to treat spirituality as different from religion, or to think that religion is a social organization, and that without the organization, it is no longer religion. Speaking purely from an academic standpoint, is not one's choice to "bask in the brilliance of the Great Spirit" just an expression of their religious worldview?

I guess what I mean by this is... if someone wants to study religion, should they not include this as something worth studying as a religion? As they say, "if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck..." It's all well and good to say "well, it's not religion because it's more primal and related to the source than religions, which are constructs on top -- just different paths to the Ultimate" (which is what I think you're trying to get at, Wayfarer)... but isn't it still "religion by any other name"?

[Michael Chui]

Hm... also worth noting is the fact that, near as I can tell, people don't describe systems like the Egyptian, Bablyonian, or Greek as "religions": they're called "mythologies". Is there a specific reason for this? (Besides mine. :P)

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Hm... also worth noting is the fact that, near as I can tell, people don't describe systems like the Egyptian, Bablyonian, or Greek as "religions": they're called "mythologies". Is there a specific reason for this? (Besides mine. :P)

I was just about to head out the door to go to work, so I will give a more full response to this later today. In the 30 seconds that I do have, I will say this... Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, even Judaism used to be similary called mythologies (or similar terms), rathe than religions. When the study of religion was starting out (academically speaking), it came out of religious schools, seminaries and monasteries, so the only "religion" was Christianity -- everything else was primitive mythology. Now, even Egyptian, Babylonian, etc. "mythologies" are referred to in academic studies as religion. For example, at my home university, there is a course in Greek and Roman Religion. So it's a trend that's developing, but isn't quite there yet. I'll write more when I get home from work this evening.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

I will give a more full response to this later today.

Alright, so I started writing a response, only to realize that a) it was really, really long; and b) it was kind of going off on a tangent. So... if you want my short answer, see my post above and if you want the long answer, I'll direct you to my blog (link in sig; the post itself here). The ideas are the same, but I go into a lot more detail on the blog posting. I don't mean to shameless plug, but I also don't want to post a novel here -- hopefully y'all understand.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

I'll direct you to my blog (link in sig). The ideas are the same, but I go into a lot more detail on the blog posting. I don't mean to shameless plug, but I also don't want to post a novel here -- hopefully y'all understand.

You ought to drop the link in your post itself. Some people have sigs turned off. Hm... replying here or replying on your blog...

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You ought to drop the link in your post itself. Some people have sigs turned off. Hm... replying here or replying on your blog...

Hehe, alright, alright. And here I thought I was being so generous by leaving it only in the sig. I've edited my previous response

And I don't mean to stop the conversation here in its tracks, so if anyone wants to ask questions / respond to my blog post here rather than on my site, I'm perfectly alright with that

[Joshiepoo3000]

If you can define a religion, then you can define a civilization.

[Perseus]

In my opinion, religion is a way for people to explain life and the universe and it is a coping mechanism for them to deal with it.

I disagree that there is 'no single version of the truth' I think there can only be one single version of the truth, but many different interpretations of it.

I think that thoughts not based on fact can be dangerous, so science is the only real religion in my opinion. I also think anything that divides people is a bad thing(including Countries), and religion divides people even though most religions are dressed up as ‘good’ and appear good from the inside, this is why there is always conflict, different interpretations of a single truth.

Even though I think religion is a bad thing for society, if someone says they have a belief system, I think you have to respect it because it’s just their way of coping with life. Plus your never gona change their mind anyway, that’s the problem with blind faith.

[Trina]

To me, religion is a set of beliefs or principles that requires a person to have faith in something unseeable or unproveable in order to live their lives by it.

Really though, religion is a pretty undefineable thing.

[Joshiepoo3000]

I agree with Perseus in a lot of points, especially that science is a religion. Religion itself is the human interpretation of the object they worship. THat is any object; an idol, being, etc. Religion, like civilization, also needs a certain unknown number of people. Religion does not make the deity they worship. The deity makes the religion. People wouldn't worship trees if trees never existed. To say otherwise is pure nonsense, especially from a subjective realists point of view. THey say things exist depending on what one knows. 'Well if you never knew a tree to exist then it would never exist let alone be an object of worship.' Likewise if you never saw God then God never existed let alone God being worshiped. However if one believes there are no trees because one never encountered a tree on earth, their subjective reality is proven incorrect when other people see trees. If they hear about trees existing, then it is up to them to seek them out. Jupiter was there before we saw it. The trees were there before we saw them. God was there before we saw Him. The interpretations vary of God, but there is God because people worship Him. It is up for people to decide in which one to believe and whether to believe or not at all.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

I agree with Perseus in a lot of points, especially that science is a religion.

That's an interesting point, and one that certainly has its merits. At the same time, there are lots of people who would argue fervently that religion is nothing like science, and science is nothing like religion.

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Religion, like civilization, also needs a certain unknown number of people.

So can we have a religion of one? Or does religion need more than one?

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Religion does not make the deity they worship. The deity makes the religion. People wouldn't worship trees if trees never existed. To say otherwise is pure nonsense, especially from a subjective realists point of view. THey say things exist depending on what one knows...

God was there before we saw Him. The interpretations vary of God, but there is God because people worship Him. It is up for people to decide in which one to believe and whether to believe or not at all.

What about atheism? A lot of people would consider atheism as much a religion as any other. How can the idea that people only believe based on what exists function when there are religions which espouse theism, and religions which espouse atheism? According to your definition, this shouldn't happen. And to just say that "well atheists just choose not to believe in God" is, for me, a weak argument. Atheists don't just choose not to believe in God, rather, they believe that there is no God. If you actively believe that there the universe, in its nature and existence, is purely non-divine, then by your argument, the universe (because it exists in without divinity) causes people to believe in atheism. I don't know if that makes sense, because it's a subtle difference, but a difference just the same.

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Jupiter was there before we saw it.

And therein lies another question... was it the existence of Jupiter the planet that caused people to believe in Jupiter the God, or was it Jupiter the God that existed, and just happened to be associated with the planet.

What this argument boils down to, for me, is just another way of phrasing Schroedinger's cat -- the cat is both dead and alive until you open the box. God both exists and does not exist until proven otherwise. Religion expresses both sides of the paradox.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

Religion does not make the deity they worship. The deity makes the religion. People wouldn't worship trees if trees never existed.

I'm sorry... Golden Calf?

[dorothy hanna]

Religion is the product of a system that was originallt designed to aid a people to know who they are, where they came from, where they are heading, as a people. It was meant to pass onto future generations, history, basic customs, and skills. Certain knowledge of the world, universe, seasons, survival etc, and so forth. Much of the actual knowledge was handed down and taught very hands on, but so much of the history was originally passed on by oral tradition. Much of what was written down was merely markers that were a cue to a lesson of certain stories that were memorized, and could be recited with the hand following down these marks/carvings on a staff, or a tablet etc...

Like, A=Alpha=the beginning of a whole series of a story of The Mother Land, Lemuria, where mankind originated. It goes onto B=Beta, and the story continues to the next phase of the history of this land, and it follows another , and another telling it's a very good discription of it's distruction, and swift sinking into the ocean. Sounds much like the history of Atlantis, but is believed to have occurred some 15-26 thousand years earlier than the Atlantis event. I think Hawaii is supposed to be the very tip of the tallest mountain of the continent of Lemuria, or Mu, for short, which is supposed to stand for Mother.

Anyway, what has traveled down through our more recent recorded history of mankind is in the form of this very corrupted tradition/s we now experience as religion. It's simply a highly corrupted curroded version of something that was once very useful to people in pre-historic times. It once was very useful, and very effective as a tool, and what we see today, religion as it is today is not even a shadow of what was, and so it is easy to see why religion today has little value and is so ineffective in our lives.

Today, religion, in it's present form, is many people coming together in a superstitious social/political event, to bolster each other up against the Big Bad Boogey-man Satan. They hold the Bible up or a cross, and claim the sacrificial blood from long ago, as if that will ward off evil spirits (they may as well bring their wooden stakes, silver bullets, and hang garlic around their necks) so they can take care of dracula, and the werewolf at the same time.
Religion today is a FEAR FACTORY, although they claim to be unafraid, they are actually terrified.
I'm really not meaning to put people down, by downing on religion, but I've experienced aand studied a lot of religions, and I used to be one of these religeous people.
So May of these people are so sweet, yet so terrified as to be completely stifled at living. Sorry, I got off topic some.

[Joshiepoo3000]

If you look in any history book you will see that civilization is a hazy word. Everyone has their own take on it. Religion is the same way. Science is a religion to me because no one can give a definite definition of religion. I put mine out there just like the rest of us on this forum thread. I see it as each religion needs a certain number of people just as each civilization needs a certain number of people. I say civilization is a hazy word, because I don't know if the whole world is a part of one big civilization or if all these third world countries have/had their own civilization. The same applies for religion. The many sects of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all believe in the same God, but the different interpretaions have divided into sects. I don't know if all religions,or at least the founders of those religions worship the same God. Siddhartha Gautama, the "first" Buddha, didn't teach people to worship him, but they worship him now that he's dead. Besides he should have never been reborn if he reached nirvana the first time. Who's to say he didn't believe in the same God as the Jews, he just didn't recognize him in the same way. Maybe God didn't physically speak out of heaven to Him like he didn't boom out of heaven to me. A lot of what he said coincides with what Jesus did, and they were alive in completely distant time periods.

As far as religion being a fear factory....ha,ha,ha. Who isn't scared when death greets them in their face? The whole world is a "fear factory." I love that band by the way. And yes, I know they are anti-Jesus. If you want to call religion a fear factory, you might as well call the news a religion, lol. I get what people are saying about religion spreading fear, but every one is afraid when they think they are going to die. It's human nature. Just because someone is religious doesn't make them fearless robots. Religion is comfort, and it is comfortable to feel like you are fearless. If you have religion then you aren't afraid of where you go when you die. It's not death that I fear, it is how I die. I don't want to suffer as I die or after I die. No one does. That's how religion can be a good thing.

I see atheism as a religion. Maybe the dictionary needs to be updated. If a true belief has no doubts, then anything that someone truly believes is a part of or can be tied to their religion.

As far as Jupiter is concerned, I can honestly say that I look at paradoxes as an infinite loop of truth. Definition of Paradox I found online- 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. The way I look at it Jupiter was there before we saw it, but the interpretation of it being a god wasn't there until we arrived. The tree was there before we saw it, but it wasn't worshiped until we came and worshiped it. God was there before we worshiped Him, but He wasn't worshiped by us until we arrived to worship Him. This is what I call common sense, but since people don't believe in God they will agree with everything except the part about God being there before we worshiped Him. I find that ironic.