The Most Logical Religious Path
I have a lot of ideas on this, and I have seen it mentioned but rarely become the main topic in many religious discussions.
My thoughts are:
Religion has a strong basis in human experiences (i.e. most evidence for religion relates to experiences), so it follows that a good way to find a "correct" religion would be to try them out, given the following assumptions:
1) Religion matters. Since we cannot know for sure, we assume it matters for this post.
2) Some truth can be obtained by practicing religion. This could be information about the truth (or lack thereof) of religious concepts or institutions, or even direct information about specific circumstances not related to religion.
3) The person experimenting is not at any risk physically, or mentally (mostly by risk of indoctrination, which can be avoided to an extent by being skeptical).
If there is a God, then it follows that many religions likely contain some truth, since religions with a basis in the truth are more likely to last long/be prevalent.
I reason that if so, God likely doesn't care if you follow a particular religion, but only if you act according to the correct concepts. We must assume this, because if this is not true, then the chances of a person finding the only correct religion are low anyway, and while this is possible, the probability of this shouldn't change the most optimal path.
Given this, it would make sense to pick popular religions and try them out, learning as much as you can, and giving each a chance to display their truth to you. When you find a religion you think contains truth, you practice it but remain skeptical, still searching other religions for more/more relevant truths.
What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are:
Religion has a strong basis in human experiences (i.e. most evidence for religion relates to experiences), so it follows that a good way to find a "correct" religion would be to try them out, given the following assumptions:
1) Religion matters. Since we cannot know for sure, we assume it matters for this post.
2) Some truth can be obtained by practicing religion. This could be information about the truth (or lack thereof) of religious concepts or institutions, or even direct information about specific circumstances not related to religion.
3) The person experimenting is not at any risk physically, or mentally (mostly by risk of indoctrination, which can be avoided to an extent by being skeptical).
If there is a God, then it follows that many religions likely contain some truth, since religions with a basis in the truth are more likely to last long/be prevalent.
I reason that if so, God likely doesn't care if you follow a particular religion, but only if you act according to the correct concepts. We must assume this, because if this is not true, then the chances of a person finding the only correct religion are low anyway, and while this is possible, the probability of this shouldn't change the most optimal path.
Given this, it would make sense to pick popular religions and try them out, learning as much as you can, and giving each a chance to display their truth to you. When you find a religion you think contains truth, you practice it but remain skeptical, still searching other religions for more/more relevant truths.
What are your thoughts?
Comments (55)
When it comes to religion, and religiosity in general, altered states of consciousness are the mainstay of the most basic rituals and ceremonies (institutionalised or otherwise).
Instead of a religion, ask if God matters. If we assume God matters, and/or assume we matter to God, then instead of seeking a religion, you seek a saint, or a wise, mystic sage, one who lives a religion. If you find God in that saint, then you might look to the religion that saint practices, and see if you see for yourself why that religion can be lived by that saint, and why that religion might help you become a saint yourself.
That basically excludes Buddhism, which is not predicated on there being a God. It might be better phrased if there is a higher truth or something along those lines. What youre expressing is quite a well-trodden path for the last few centuries, what with the growth of globalisation and new religious movements. (But then Im writing as a long-time habitué of the now long-gone Adyar Bookshop).
Quoting Igitur
Have a read of Karl Rahners rather controversial concept of the anonymous Christian, which
NB: raised and educated in Roman Catholicism, I became a freethinker, then a naturalist (i.e. anti-supernaturalist inspired by e.g. Epicurus, Spinoza) and also a pandeist some decades ago: almost five decades later, I'm still fascinated, amused and horrified by historical 'religion' both in theory & practice.
I see no reason to accept the idea of any gods. I do believe that humans fear the reality they see before them, especially death, and find themselves doing any number of things to manage their fears - rituals, prayers, gods - all seem to emerge from such anxieties.
Quoting Igitur
You seem to hold to a fairly conventional idea of a god. A single god? Why not 2 or 16? A god who is anthropomorphic and pays attention to us and has 'correct concepts'? Why not an indifferent god such as the one of deism? Why not a cosmic consciousness version of theism, such as held by William James?
What reason do you have for believing in your particular account of god?
I'm puzzled about what you mean by trying religions out. You must mean more than going through some motions - something closer to taking them seriously. But the only ideas even close to religious that I've been able to take seriously (since I abandoned the church I was brought up in) don't require taking seriously the idea of a God or gods. Pascal seems to think that it is possible to do something like trying Christianity out, but he believes that I will end up believing it. I think he may be right; at least, it is a possible outcome. So even "acting as if" Christianity is true requires at least accepting that adopting it would be a good thing.
Then there's the issue of which variety of each religion one is to try out. It's simply not practical to think of trying out all the sects of Christianity or any of the others.
Religions do seem to think that certain altered states of consciousness. Granting their almost irresistible appeal, it seem to me obvious that they need to prove their worth in the mundane world, in which all religions need to exist. And I'm not convinced that their worth goes beyond that of a holiday - which is not negligible, but is far from the scope of anything I would consider a worth-while religion.
Trying things out is entirely reasonable. But surely, there needs to be some preliminary investigation and assessment of what is worth trying out.
Quoting Ludwig V
Im picturing Woody Allen trying out Christianity by eating Wonder bread with mayo in Hannah and her Sisters.
I guess I can get this gist of the joke from the general context. I don't remember much about the movie. Was that an actual scene, or something that you imagined?
But it makes a point, doesn't it?
Doesn't Woody find meaning through watching a Marx brothers movie? Perhaps we should wait and see what happens to us by accident.
Quoting Ludwig V
Also, it would be inefficient to see multiple people for each (and you might have to do that, as otherwise you would get the wrong impression from someone).
Quoting Wayfarer
Thank you so much. This is what I meant, as this is applicable to Buddhism and religions like it as well. Actually, it might be even more applicable to these as they arent so burdened by specific stories and rules, and therefore are more likely to have visible truth behind the theological nonsense that plagues every popular religion.
This is likely true to a large extent. I assume for the purposes of this post that there is truth to be found and that the person is willing to find it.
I figure that religion is valuable even if its all nonsense because of the values it teaches and the communities of people that follow the values. Surely this must have some value.Quoting Tom StormForgive me for my specific interpretation. I dont think my view on this (or, if there is a God, the truth of it) actually matters to the post, but Im willing to share my justification.
Honestly, I just defaulted to a monotheistic human-like God concept because that is the God I believe in, but I agree that an open mind is important when discussing this.Quoting Ludwig V
This seems like the most important thing to respond to, the idea that it is unreasonable to try out so many sects of religions. I completely agree, and thats why a main idea of the post is that you would try out the most popular variations, and only dig deeper if you find truth. I assume it doesnt matter which particular sect, only about particular values or teachings, which is why I suggest a diverse set of religions likely to contain truths.Quoting Vera Mont
Maybe. I guess I would respond to this by saying that this would just be another experiment. Assuming you care about religious truth, values, or community, you would probably also attempt to practice religions (which likely brings to you back to nature anyways).
Thank you guys for your thoughts. Its a lot to think about.
Terror management (re: mortality) via reality-denial (i.e. fact-free, consoling myths & fairytales) seems the primary function of religious magical thinking (i.e. woo-woo), not "to find truth".
Just trying to understand your reasoning, Which gods you think are the real gods probably does matter when you are trying to please these gods. It seems you are concerned with doing the right thing by a particular god. How would you even begin such a process? Wouldn't it be important to establish which god is true before working to try to please that god - or those gods? How have you determined that the god you believe in cares how you conduct your life? Do you have a generic Judaeo-Christian deity in mind?
Of course. But it would be your own experiment - a conversation between you and the deity or whatever - no middleman to confuse the issue. Think of it as a spirit quest, along the lines that native North American and other peoples used to do before the European priesthood took over. Quoting Igitur
I have no idea how religious truth differs from common garden variety truth or personal truth, so I can't possibly care about it. Values and community do not require religious faith or adherence. I certainly would not attempt to practice one just for appearances - unless there was a threat of persecution, which there often is, and in which case deception is perfectly acceptable.
Yes, and afaik it's this ...
Quoting 180 Proof
ergo
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/919316
2) Some truth can be obtained by practicing religion. Agreed. A claim in morality should correspond to unadulterated human nature.
3) The person experimenting is not at any risk physically, or mentally (mostly by risk of indoctrination, which can be avoided to an extent by being skeptical). Agreed.
I use the standard Islamic method to raise the bar and fend off mere indoctrination:
a) The moral advice or ruling must necessarily follow from scripture through reason.
b) The moral advice or ruling must enjoy consensus amongst independently judging scholars. These scholars must not be on someone's "payroll".
I have never had to reject moral advice that satisfies these requirements.
Thanks for the clip. There's a lot in it that doesn't easily come out in prose.
Quoting Igitur
It depends what you mean by primary, and the point of view.
Quoting Igitur
I think you understate this. Religion is not merely about truth, but about how to live. The practice is the point, really. The truth is just there to give a basis for the practice. That's why Bhuddhism, Stoicism, etc. all figure in this discussion.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes, also for all of that. If religion is primarily how I am to live, others will use it for their purposes. So will I. If religion is primarily about social control (manipulation), I will demand of it that it tells me how to live.
It's curious to me that in Ancient Greece, one can discern two different social roles for religion. One is to justify the power structure. The other is to give a resource - an ally - to those who don't have power. One can see how both would be useful even though they seem contradictory. We can see both tendencies in the churches to-day.
I suspect that the primary overall social role of religion is to enable some unity in communities much larger that the "natural" one, which appears to be about 150 people. The major religions all arose at about the same time as big cities. I don't think that's an accident.
Quoting Igitur
Yes. That's why it is perfectly reasonable to go for satisficing rather than maximizing. In other words, something that is good enough, rather than something that is perfect. (Your suggestion of looking at popular brands is close to this.) In addition, I am bound to start from where I am, that is, by evaluating the religions available in the community I happen to be born in. There's no reason to look further afield if I can manage with what is nearest to me. I don't know that objective absolute truth is the most important criterion. Something that's near enough will do.
Quoting Tarskian
That's perfectly reasonable. Except that the ideal is impractical. Everyone has to make their living somehow. Independence is a mirage. We have to settle for an independent mind, which is not impossible, though difficult - and requires courage.
Anonymous moral advice is the best, actually.
It is a question of establishing an almost "cryptographic" protocol.
When moral advice is justified, I'd rather take it on an anonymous internet forum than from someone who would thereby expose himself to dangerous reprisals.
Hence, it does not matter as much "who" exactly says it than "how" he says it (with justification or not).
Credentialism is dangerous in more than one way.
It is the same for other types of advice, such as investment advice or relationship advice. They won't tell you the truth if they simply can't.
I can see that. The confessional is a possible example - except, of course, are priests independent? It depends on how you rate their religion.
My preference would be for someone I trust and not too close for a discussion.
Quoting Tarskian
There's no escape from the responsibility of deciding who to ask and, in the end, what to do.
I think it would be interesting to throw yourself into these religions -- suspend your doubt (if required) for just a minute and see what type of person you become if you attempt to internalize that religion's teachings. I suspect you'll come to find, e.g., that the ideal Christian is quite different from the ideal Jew and that different religions contain different visions for humanity.
That's very likely true. A comparative - and dispassionate - study would be very interesting.
But it also seems to me that we might also find that certain traits of human character might find recognizably similar expression in each religion - or at least those that are big enough to have internal divisions or sects. The most obvious example is fundamentalism, which seems to me to be instantly recognizable in all the major religions.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is likely true. Maybe the best path is to merge the most valuable ideals. Dont confine yourself to one set of concepts.Quoting Ludwig V
Exactly.
Thank you all for your thoughts.
That's a good recommendation. One should be sensitive to differences as well as similarities.
I think you'll find common elements, but also incommensurable ones and incompatible ones. Ideally such ideals should be tailored to one's practical and social environment?
There is much in common across the Abrahamic religions, for example, but also quite serious differences. The Tao Te Ching, however, seems to me to be almost completely incommensurable with Christianity, though I'm sure that others will disagree with me.
Modern affairs and lived experience are telling me that people are broadly still sheep that need herding.
Ok
That's odd. Many people think that trying to organize people is like trying to organize ferrets - very difficult and any organization you do achieve rapidly disintegrates. That fits better with my lived experience. But maybe you live in a different world from me.
That may well be true. Most people choose the news that suits them.
Not only everything you suggested, but why not select bits and pieces in one's pursuit of truth.
I say this because,
Truth is ultimately what fits--whether it be what fits within reason or experience or expedience etc.
The claim that there's something inherently wrong with so called buffet style religion is rooted in exclusivity, authoritarianism, xenophobia etc. Most if not all religions are in fact a bricolage of other religions,
Etc.
Having said that, I think the same holds true for philosophy and it's branches. I have found it odd, and personally disappointing, that lovers of philosophy, like adherents to religion, are willing to trap themselves in dogma.
Science too, generally.
And politics.
And Social theory.
I wonder why open mindedness is encouraged, but rarely practiced to its ultimate end.
Religion is like opium. People take it to keep from curling up in a ball on the floor in the face of adversity like the death of a child. The main threat to religion is good healthcare. So if you look out and find people living with little to no safety net, more religion is on the way.
Yes. Given how quickly the Aufklärer recognized this, it surprises me how few see it today.
That seems reasonable and uncontroversial.
Long-lived religious traditions are perhaps the most pronounced form of collective wisdom available to humans. I would not recommend ignoring such a potential storehouse of wisdom, and I think you are eminently reasonable in your desire to investigate further.
Good point.
This is an excellent point. I guess the idea here would be to find truths that fit you, not a particular religion?
Quoting frank
While I agree that this is largely true, stating this is also largely irrelevant to the post because, obviously, if you are convinced religion is just a coping mechanism, the most logical path would be to ignore it, and find other ways to get truth.
However, there are exceptions to this. I believe that even if most religions are baseless and untrue, they have truths in them, if only useful social constructs, or general wisdom. Even the value of a religious community could be an incentive. You could even use it as a lesson in psychology.
Quoting Leontiskos
Very well stated. This seems to align well with most of the points stated in this discussion.
With the caveat, that the pursuer be genuine in their pursuit (not as a Law, but if it is to function according to purpose). Hence "what is good for you," means, for e.g., in my "religious" opinion, what gets you to a truth which transcends conventionally existential truth, the latter which maintains the primacy of ego. Thus, it cannot be what is "easy" etc. But rather what functions.
Again, not by way of confession, but for example. I might find Jesus' radical love to work well with Buddhism's no self.
ADDENDUM: problem is Mind craves convention as a mechanism for belief. But that's the point. Religion seeks a truth beyond mind.
Incentive for what?
I see. :up:
Aufklärer - "Enlighteners"
They realized that the call to "sapere aude" was premature, and required a more educated populus before it would be able to be implemented.
It is probably the other way around. The main threat to good healthcare is the lack of religion. If you are not motivated, if you are depressed, if you are in fact in your own mind already a lost case, the best healthcare in the world won't make a difference. The doctor will simply say, "The patient is not fighting. He has given up already." You need motivation to succeed. You need it even when trying to get better. Good healthcare is simply wasted on people who actually don't want to live.
Some religions foster resignation and acceptance, though.
I believe that religion gives hope, but I also believe that it only works for people who believe that it works.
It gives hope to people who may otherwise be completely hopeless.
Hope is what you need when you are very sick and even fighting for your life, because otherwise you may not even really fight.
People find meaning in religion and therefore meaning in life itself, and hence, a reason for living. Spirituality [I]diverts our thinking in a direction that is more reasonable.[/I] You may not believe it. It may not work for you, but it works for lots of other people.
You said "The main threat to good healthcare is the lack of religion.". That is false. Depression and suicide attempts have no strong global correlation with religiosity.
I agree you need people trained the right way before encouraging them to heed the motto. But given the number of academics who seem remarkably unenlightened, perhaps it is not normal academic education that is required.
Quoting Tarskian
Can you back that up, with a proper study. I simply don't believe it. The main threat to good healthcare is lack of money and education.
Quoting Tarskian
It is true that there are powerful psychological effects that can help medical treatment. But the idea that it is all a matter of grit and determination and will-power is bunkum. It's more complicated than that, and not well understood. Some doctors may make that remark to the punters, but they know better. it is just an excuse to avoid getting sued. If your doctor tries it on with you, I recommend you find another doctor - fast.
Quoting Tarskian
Well, then, why not just offer them a merciful end instead of forcing them to endure the disease pointlessly?
Quoting Igitur
It may be, of course, that the point of religion is not whether it is true or false, but whether it enables a good (eudaimon) life, or at least a life as good as it can be in the circumstances.
You should come up with a "Healthiness Religion", (implicitly) targeted for such special benefits, perhaps even revisable depending on evidence.
Could take some lessons from, say, Yoga and Hubbard, and perhaps be inviting to (otherwise dehumanized) minority groups.
:up: :wink:
Mental health impacts physical health and the ability to recover from physical problems:
But then again, I did not say that it works for everybody. In my opinion, you need to be sufficiently deeply invested in spirituality for it to work. I just assume that if people don't believe that it will work, that it indeed will not.
I also don't think that it is possible to objectively measure faith, hope, or the will to survive. So, I do not trust any figures on the subject.
True, but what I would ultimately say is that sapere aude is a dead end. It is premised on the false idea that individuals have wisdom/knowledge independent of and even in opposition to traditions. On my view human progress will happen through traditions or not at all. Individuals thinking for themselves will not achieve collective progress.* Collective progress will only occur when individuals act and think cooperatively, and this is not a bad definition of tradition. (I.e. we could think of tradition as cooperative engagement with those who came before us, and thereby with those around us.)
* This is the old question of the private good vs. the common good.
[quote=webmed.com]Spirituality can help you deal with stress by giving you a sense of peace, purpose, and forgiveness. It often becomes more important in times of emotional stress or illness.
You may feel a higher sense of purpose, peace, hope, and meaning.
Mental health disorders may be treated with the help of spirituality ...
Mental issues like depression and substance abuse can be a sign of a spiritual void in your life.
Your mental health plays a huge role in your general well-being. Being in a good mental state can keep you healthy and help prevent serious health conditions. A study found that positive psychological l well-being can reduce the risks of heart attacks and strokes.
Mental health conditions can also make dealing with a chronic illness more difficult. The mortality rate from cancer and heart disease is higher among people with depression or other mental health conditions.[/quote]
That's better. It does not blame the patient and makes more modest claims. However, I would distinguish sharply between "spirituality" and mental health. They are far from synonymous and both are distinct from religious belief. Can the doctor sensibly advise patients to believe in a religion or some form of spirituality in order to get better faster? I don't think so. So this advice is a bit like advice to make sure one has inherited a good set of genes in order to get better.
Quoting Tarskian
That's something we can agree on.
Quoting Leontiskos
I agree with almost all of that. The mythic image of the hero in solitary confrontation with the oppressive dead hand of the past is seriously damaging.
Good point. Though academic education is not enough, it is definitely necessary. There are too many academics, especially in the biological sciences, who don't even know how to write properly. I wouldn't call them scientists however, merely researchers or heuretics.
Well, I agree that people who intend to write stuff for publishing should learn how to write - and I don't mean just inscribing letters on paper. That's should be expected in addition to academic expertise. I don't know about the Aufklarer, specifically whether they thought that Enlightenment was for everyone. But if they did - and I hope they did - then there is a question how much academic education they expected the person in the street to acquire.