Philosophical Ramblings #04: The Problem of Religion
June 17, 2025
The fundamental problem of religion is that all religions presuppose certain metaphysical claims that we have no way of verifying. If that’s the case, then how do we evaluate their truth?
One way to approach this is by adopting a universalist position—suggesting that all religions contain some form of truth and are, in some way, all valid. However, the problem with this view is that religions often contradict one another, sometimes making completely opposing claims. How do we reconcile these contradictions?
For example, Protestant Christianity advocates for salvation through faith alone, which stands in stark contrast to Buddhist traditions, where personal experience and direct validation are central. Another example is that the Christian end goal is to live in heaven with God and praise Him, while the Buddhist goal is the cessation of desire—a state that seems incompatible with the Christian goal, which explicitly involves wanting (e.g., desiring God or heaven).
But Buddhism itself encounters a paradox: desiring the cessation of desire is itself a form of desire. So a Buddhist should stop wanting the cessation of desire—but if they do that, they have nothing left to strive for or advocate.
One Potential Solution:
“Suppose there was a person travelling along the road. They’d see a large deluge, whose near shore was dubious and perilous, while the far shore was a sanctuary free of peril. But there was no ferryboat or bridge for crossing over. They’d think:
‘Why don’t I gather grass, sticks, branches, and leaves and make a raft? Riding on the raft, and paddling with my hands and feet, I can safely reach the far shore.’
And so they’d do exactly that. And when they’d crossed over to the far shore, they’d think:
‘This raft was very helpful to me. Riding on the raft, and paddling with my hands and feet, I have safely crossed over to the far shore. Why don’t I hoist it on my head or pick it up on my shoulder and go wherever I want?’
What do you think, mendicants? Would that person be doing what should be done with that raft?”
“No, sir.”
“And what, mendicants, should that person do with the raft? When they’d crossed over they should think:
‘This raft was very helpful to me. … Why don’t I beach it on dry land or set it adrift on the water and go wherever I want?’
That’s what that person should do with the raft.
In the same way, I have taught how the teaching is similar to a raft: it’s for crossing over, not for holding on.
By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the teachings, let alone what is against the teachings.
~ Middle Discourses 22
I want to offer two ways to address this issue:
First, we can ask: What does “living in heaven with God” actually mean? Following thinkers like Meister Eckhart or Paul Tillich, if we understand God not as a being among other beings but as the “ground of being”—that which makes existence possible—then “heaven” should not be imagined as a literal place where hymns are sung forever. Instead, it could be understood as the fulfillment of our deepest potential, a kind of merging with the Abgrund (ground or abyss), not becoming Being itself but becoming our truest selves.
This notion is very similar to the Buddhist concept of nirvana: the cessation of suffering through the cessation of desire, resulting in a mode of pure being. Both could be interpreted as forms of “becoming” or “self-realization” (a better term may be needed here). In this way, the two traditions become compatible on a deeper metaphysical level.
However, the problem with this approach is that it flattens the uniqueness of each religion. They become too similar, losing their distinctiveness in terms of ritual, language, and tradition.
Second, we might investigate the nature of God from a different angle. Suppose God transcends not only the physical world but even logic itself. That would mean God comes before anything, including the categories of contradiction and coherence. If God transcends logic, then contradictory things could be true about Him at the same time. Thus, the apparent contradictions between religions would cease to be problematic—they could all be true in different ways.
But this solution, too, is problematic. If anything goes, then concepts like nirvana, God, or heaven lose their specific meaning. If they can mean anything, then they mean nothing.
We can also consider the problem through a phenomenological lens, following thinkers like Husserl, but applied to religion. Phenomenology studies how things appear subjectively to us. Through this lens, even if all religions point toward some shared transcendent reality, their rituals and practices differ because of cultural and subjective differences. Religion becomes the culturally inflected response to a shared, though ineffable, transcendent reality.