Does it matter if any of the legendary founding fathers of religion actually existed?

I'm talking about people like Lao Tzu, the Jewish patriarchs (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.), Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad.

I can see it both ways. The reason that it is important if the founder existed is that founders of religions are portrayed as embodiments of everything that the religion has to offer. If the one person who everyone can agree followed the proposed path actually did not, then why would there be any reason to believe that what they supposedly advised is true? Perhaps nobody can follow that path, or if they do, the results will not be as advertised.

This leads to the conclusion that religions whose founders can be verified to exist would have an advantage over ones where they cannot be verified. Religions whose founders can be verified would be mostly the newer ones, like Mormonism, Ba'hai, Christian Science, Scientology, Wicca, and the Unification Church (Moonies). Yet these are not the religions which receive the most respect in society today.

The reason is that it is not important is that the actual expression of a religion is not in the founder, but in the community that upholds what the founder supposedly taught. The underlying principle is that the most important expression of a religion is not in its intentions or doctrine, but how it is actually lived. Then there is an objective experience of a religion with fewer questions as to its authenticity (obviously people still fight about interpretation, but most can agree that the community they disagree with actually exists).

So, does it matter if any of the legendary founding fathers of religions actually existed? I encourage everyone who takes the poll to expand on their answer in the comments if they want to.

the Bible becomes the equivalent of Greek Mythology; Both being fiction.

whether it's Greek, or Hebrew or Native American - all religious scriptures feature a creation myth, an escathology, founder(s) and patriarchal figures. It's mythos, not logos.

In one sense, neither their existence nor the evidence for it matters. People will continue to believe anyway.

Whether it matters to the truth of the religion is a different issue. For some religions, it likely doesn't. Many Buddhists would shrug their shoulders at the thought that the Buddha is a myth. The ideas are important to them, not their alleged originator. In other religions, not just the founder's existence, but his miracles, are vital to the religion's meaning. Christianity and Islam are the obvious examples.

per se.

it is A-theistic, without a diety.

It is said that it was a deity who convinced the Buddha to teach the dharma, and deities who helped him escape from the pleasure palace his father imprisoned him in.

The difference is that deities are seen to be as conditioned as humans, still subject to rebirth, because they are unenlightened.

If the ideas are bogus, the people don't matter. I really don't care who tells me about the invisible cloud being. I won't believe them without some evidence.

Christianity has the incarnation of God as a man at its centre. All it's claims are based on that. Without the claimed historical people in other religions, they appear as (a) untrustworthy, because they lie about some things (b) philosophical systems, rather than religions making claims about a supernatural reality (assuming we're talking about stories that involve miracles). Lao Tzu, from what little I know about Taoism (or do people prefer Daoism now?) doesn't seem particularly necessary for its correctness.

The verified existence of Joseph Smith, etc. doesn't confirm the correctness of those religions any more than the verified existence of a 19th century Pope confirms Roman Catholicism.

"The underlying principle is that the most important expression of a religion is not in its intentions or doctrine, but how it is actually lived."

I'd say that we live in cultures, not religions.

For example, Marcionism, which was the first major challenger to catholicism, and gnosticism didn't require a historic, earthbound Jesus and were comfortable with a mythic one. Which is why they were considered such grave heresies by the Roman church.

Isn't it odd that there was controversy over this question even in the very ealriest days of Christianity?

The most important thing about a religion - to its followers, at any rate - is not its moral teachings or its culture, but the factual claims it makes about How The World Is.

The claim "Christ was the son of God" is the single most important claim of Christianity; if Christ didn't exist then there's nothing left of Christianity. Mohammed is somewhat less central to Islam, but still vital. Some of the Eastern religions, on the other hand, make all sorts of claims that aren't dependent on the existence of their founders, as I understand it.

"Which is more important about your faith: it's moral teachings, its culture, or it's factual claims about the state of existence?" would be a great poll question.

Even those DUers who are religious are often very wishy-washy about their religions, and factual claims about the nature of the universe are widely regarded as infra dig, because they imply that you think that some people are actually wrong about some things and we can't all just get along and all have our own truths.

Taoism for example does not require Lao Tzu to have been the actual founder. It is the ideas that are critical to the philosophy. But Christianity relies greatly on authority for many of its claims and thus the existance and divinity of Jesus are required by the belief.

The existence or non-existence of biblical Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rachel, Leah, Rebecca, Moses, Miriam, Aaron, etc. does not change anything. In fact, I don't believe any of those people existed. There is a possibility their stories are based on some real stories or other ancient folk tales but I don't think they are real. Most of these tales were told in different ways at different times and were added to the torah based on political reasons, geographical reasons, and personal beliefs from its authors. I am a believer of the documentary hypothesis mixed with some other hypothesis as far as the origin of the Bible and the origin of my religion.

We can all believe in God or not, however we please, change our minds, question ourselves, do as we please, its our choice. We can also choose to be x or y religion, or both, or neither, or think about it, as we please, its our choice. BUT...

IF you choose to be religion X, then to practice that religion generally requires you (or at least expects you) to do it in a uniform, agreed, and normally communcal manner. So, if you call yourself a Jew, and want to pray to God, you can do that at home and at work and in your bed, but you are expected to also do other things (you know them so i wont bore you) as part of the PRACTICE of Judaism.

Now, as to the belief of the Torah, I too am not of the literal flavour. I have read too many books telling me about the various writing styles and pre-biblical overlaps from pre-existing religions and histories to know that the contents weren't all our own, and the concepts were taked from other local thought systems, but I still take the meaning behind the words literally enough.

The ONLY instance I need to feel a connection to, and this IS IMPORTANT Mr.W, so listen good, is this:

God himself came down and gave the written and oral laws to Moses HIMSELF. With every Jew within ear and eyeshot of the occurence, and everyone a witness to the event, the people recieved the law from God. No other religion claims to have God personally deliver the goods on a platter to the people, they ALL work via prophets or other means. So this is OUR niche, our edge, and is fundamental to my requirements of Judaism, that GOD HIMSELF GAVE THE COMMANDMENTS TO MOSES.

The rest of the forefathers I can take or leave, but Moses, and Aaron (since I am Cohen) I feel connected to and require to have existed.

For those that dont know, Aaron became the first priest, or Cohen, and therefore he is my great-great-blah-blah-blah-great-grandfather, and Moses my g-g-g-b-b-b-g-uncle.

Did I mention circumsion, kashrut and the sabbath? They're big too :-)

TYRYPHO

...having the system of mitzvot to follow and I accept that as part of being a Jew (Torah is an essencial part of being a Jew) but I don't have to believe that God came down and literally gave the law to Moses in order for me to be a Jew or follow Judaism. I, just like you, also digest the meaning behind the text in the Torah and study Torah. But to me the story of God giving the Torah to Moses at Sinai is a metaphor. It's our story but it's not our history. :-)

But that does not stop me from accepting the Torah (when I mean torah I mean the written and the oral torah) and the system of mitzvot.

I don't know what denomination your synagogue is but in the confirmation cerimonies here in the US for the Reform and Conservative movements they usually take place on Shavuot (day that celebrates God giving the Torah to the Jews) and that is the chance for a Jew (being confirmed) to accept the torah and be part of the "covenant at Sinai".

To me the torah was a "revelation" from God the same way that the Talmud was a "revelation" from God the same way that the contemporary responsa literature is an ongoing "revelation" from God.

I feel connection to Judaism in three instances: ethics (torah), spirituality (god), and peoplehood. I have met Jews who are atheists and only feel the connection with the peoplehood and/or ethics and I feel they are good Jews in my opinion even when they choose to enter one or both of those components. I feel a connection with them even when they dislike the part about spirituality.

Being a Jew to me is more than believing in something to be fact or fiction. Being a Jew is a way of life. :-)

Probably worthy of an airing on the Jewish forum, but for here i'll talk about:

Being a Jew to me is more than believing in something to be fact or fiction. Being a Jew is a way of life
--
I've written a long reply and deleted it all when I realised it came down to one initial factor for me - whether they have a mother who has a ketuba. If they've got that their kids can marry my kids, and anything they do after that is about the practice of Judaism, or as you say, their way of life; which I hope was instilled to them by their parents.

But I need kosher Jews before I care whether they eat kosher food :-)

TRYPHO

"But I need kosher Jews before I care whether they eat kosher food"

Same here! :-)