A question for all religious believers -- why is your religion more true than any other?

[MikeF]

I would bet many religious folks would say they employ much the same reasoning to form their own conclusions about the world.

I would push back on this somewhat. I often get the sense that religious folks form conclusions that meet their personal needs. As a hypothetical example, if the evidence seemed to indicate that there was no purpose to existence, yet such a conclusion was unacceptable or intolerable to them personally, the idea of a purposeless universe would be rejected out of hand and a personally acceptable purpose cobbled together with a select set of curated facts and unevidenced premises. Ignoring or rejecting inconvenient truths such as Evolution or a universe billions of years old would be some concrete examples readily found on RF.

Religious folks can say they employ the same reasoning, but it doesn't mean that they actually do so. It's not really reasoning if you only accept answers and conclusions that you like.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the idea of 'I'm right and you're wrong,' exists in certain people in many aspects of life: politics, and religion being the main two. Others like nutrition, use of drugs, sexuality, etc. also have self appointed experts. But for this thread, just as some theists are guilty of what's stated in the OP, others do similar things. Some hard atheists makes the same claim of 'I'm right and you're wrong" but with the opposite viewpoint. Same attitude.

I would offer that religion is (or at least can be) somewhat like art or languages in this regard.

Chauvinism and arrogance can certainly be found, but many or even most people either acknowledge that there is a lot of circunstance and personal expression shaping the activity and soon realize that it does not make a whole lot of sense to claim that other configurations are "false" without a very convincing argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

So it appears that I am not the only one who thought to ask as much....

I may be mistaken, but I think that the mismatch here comes from you expecting religions to be either "true" or "false" while @Quintessence just doesn't use that conception.

Religion, for many people, is just not a good fit for those judgement calls. It is far more about personal quests and personal expression than about any claims of epistemological truth.

Sure, that can be hard to understand when we are constantly meeting claims that this or that religion is "true". There are some real oddballs out there.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, we didn't hold Quaker assemblies per se at Pickering, although I did visit a couple of Quaker meeting houses during meetings, especially the very beautiful Sharon Temple close to the school.

A Quaker meeting can seem odd to outsiders, I think because generally very little happens. There is nobody "leading a service;" no ministers or creeds. The members gather and greet one another, spend time in quiet contemplation to quiet their minds, and in that stillness, open their hearts and lives to new insights and guidance. Occasionally, someone will feel moved to speak on one topic or another, completely their choice. A meeting for worship usually lasts about an hour. And that really is about it!View attachment 87542

If you are not yet aware of Sikh Langar practice, I strongly advise you to become aware of it. It is a beautiful concept.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, it is my (erroneous?) assumption that the percentage of Anthropologist in any given culture is small. So when you say that there is the confused notion of what religion even is in those cultures, are you specifically referring to the Anthropologists in the affected cultures?

No. The confusion is largely voluntary, even enthusiastic. It happens not nearly as much out of ignorance proper as of of powerful social and political pressures towards conformity with various forms of authority.

If you are not referring to Anthropologists but to believers in general, what criteria determines which religious beliefs constitute a clearer notion of religion, and clearer to whom?

Honest and careful observation of what is practiced, what is said, what is accepted as valid from some sort of authority, how those pieces information relate to each other and how various circunstances affect that scenario is plenty enough to achieve a functional understanding of religion.

It just happens that many people don't want to or perhaps never had enough opportunity and encouragement to. That is somewhat understandable; in some situations that can lead to awkwardness or worse, even much worse.

 

[Left Coast]

I suppose that they might say that -- but then, that seems to be profoundly contradicted the moment a congregation recites their "creed."

A creed is a statement of beliefs shared by a group. There's nothing inherently unthoughtful about creeds - on the contrary, creeds are usually hotly debated before they're codified.

 

[Left Coast]

I would push back on this somewhat. I often get the sense that religious folks form conclusions that meet their personal needs.

I get that sense from lots of people. Religious people are people, so they tend to follow suit, no doubt.

As a hypothetical example, if the evidence seemed to indicate that there was no purpose to existence, yet such a conclusion was unacceptable or intolerable to them personally, the idea of a purposeless universe would be rejected out of hand and a personally acceptable purpose cobbled together with a select set of curated facts and unevidenced premises. Ignoring or rejecting inconvenient truths such as Evolution or a universe billions of years old would be some concrete examples readily found on RF.

And of course, many religious people would say (and routinely do) that atheists reject or ignore the evidence that would falsify their views about the world. Thus all the debates on these topics.

Religious folks can say they employ the same reasoning, but it doesn't mean that they actually do so. It's not really reasoning if you only accept answers and conclusions that you like.

And of course, that's just as true for irreligious people and their views of things.

 

[McBell]

I may be mistaken, but I think that the mismatch here comes from you expecting religions to be either "true" or "false" while @Quintessence just doesn't use that conception.

Except I have no such expectation...
Nor had I any knowledge of @Quintessence position on the matter until AFTER she answered the question I posed.

Religion, for many people, is just not a good fit for those judgement calls. It is far more about personal quests and personal expression than about any claims of epistemological truth.

Same for a lot of non-religious persons.

Sure, that can be hard to understand when we are constantly meeting claims that this or that religion is "true". There are some real oddballs out there.

Personally, I find those who think that religion is all that makes up a worldview are rather short sighted.

I also do not know of anyone who thinks their worldview is wrong.
I know some who question the amount of right and wrong in their world view, but that is not quite the same thing.

 

[JustGeorge]

Except I have no such expectation...
Nor had I any knowledge of @Quintessence position on the matter until AFTER she answered the question I posed.


Same for a lot of non-religious persons.


Personally, I find those who think that religion is all that makes up a worldview are rather short sighted.

I also do not know of anyone who thinks their worldview is wrong.
I know some who question the amount of right and wrong in their world view, but that is not quite the same thing.

I would agree, religion(or lack of) is only one part of a worldview.

I can't really see a worldview(total, not just the person's religion) as being right or wrong, though... so much opinion in them. Perhaps aspects, but few believe their preferences are 'right' or 'wrong'.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except I have no such expectation...
Nor had I any knowledge of @Quintessence position on the matter until AFTER she answered the question I posed.


Same for a lot of non-religious persons.


Personally, I find those who think that religion is all that makes up a worldview are rather short sighted.

I also do not know of anyone who thinks their worldview is wrong.
I know some who question the amount of right and wrong in their world view, but that is not quite the same thing.

Clearly I was mistaken about you in some way that I am just not understanding.

 

[McBell]

Clearly I was mistaken about you in some way that I am just not understanding.

No worries.
It happens

 

[MikeF]

I get that sense from lots of people. Religious people are people, so they tend to follow suit, no doubt.

Absolutely. I agree.

And of course, many religious people would say (and routinely do) that atheists reject or ignore the evidence that would falsify their views about the world. Thus all the debates on these topics.

<chuckles> Well I wonder if there is a way to mitigate personal bias and inserting ones personal preferences into the reasoning process? Might a scientific approach help in that regard?

And of course, that's just as true for irreligious people and their views of things.

Indeed, we are all just human after all. Still, if there was only a way to separate the wheat from the chaff ..... I wonder .....

 

[McBell]

I would agree, religion(or lack of) is only one part of a worldview.

I can't really see a worldview(total, not just the person's religion) as being right or wrong, though... so much opinion in them. Perhaps aspects, but few believe their preferences are 'right' or 'wrong'.

If someone has a problem with their own world view, they tend to adjust it until they no longer have a problem with it.

The problem here as I see it, is that some people think their worldview is the only "correct" worldview.
Just like there are those who think their religious beliefs are the only correct religious beliefs.
And think those who do not share their particular worldview are wrong.

Just like those who believe their religious beliefs are the only correct ones think that those who do not share it are wrong.

now here is the big difference (at least in my mind)
I agree with @Quintessence that everyone has a worldview.

Not everyone has a religious belief.

 

[Kenny]

It does seem to me that all of the religious people I know accept that their creed, their religion's essential beliefs, are correct, while all others -- because they obviously don't agree with the central tenets of their sect, must be somehow lacking.

As a non-believer in any religion, I am curious how it is, what evidence, what logic, leads you to suppose that your particular religion/denomination/sect got it right, while the others did not.

This thread is meant to be a great opportunity for believers of all kinds to engage -- to write apologetics in defense of their beliefs. I'm hoping to see significant essays!

That is a very good question...

Perhaps the thought crosses my mind in “What makes atheist true over every religion?”.

But not to derail the OP - everyone will have their personal viewpoints and be full convinced. Probably we all hold the same positions as to “why”. At least that is what I have found.

 

[McBell]

That is a very good question...

Cant wait to hear your answer..

Perhaps the thought crosses my mind in “What makes atheist true over every religion?”.

Good question.
For another thread.

 

[Left Coast]

Absolutely. I agree.



<chuckles> Well I wonder if there is a way to mitigate personal bias and inserting ones personal preferences into the reasoning process? Might a scientific approach help in that regard?



Indeed, we are all just human after all. Still, if there was only a way to separate the wheat from the chaff ..... I wonder .....

Science is one useful tool. Of course, we veer into scientism if we argue it's the only useful tool. But that's a topic for another thread. Point being, religious people aren't uniquely irrational or averse to critical thinking. We are all prone to the cognitive biases that cloud our thinking and protect our paradigms of the world.

 

[sun rise]

Notwithstanding the fact that Jesus said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world, how would anyone know it was Jesus if Jesus returned?
...
How many people recognized Jesus when He appeared the first time?

A question related to the OP is how many would recognize a saint/sadguru,/qutub if they happened to meet one and thus know that their perception was correct? There are many cases of people being hoodwinked by frauds.

 

[Quintessence]

Interesting hostility over such a simple question.

You know, had you provided the above information in the post I replied to, I would have had no need to ask.

Hopefully your above response has helped alleviate some of the built up... whatever it is.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Why... what... why would you interpret me acknowledging that you are in charge of how you see things as... hostility? That... that's just weird, man.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is a very good question...

Perhaps the thought crosses my mind in “What makes atheist true over every religion?”.

Why "every"?

Many a religion is compatible with atheism.

 

[sun rise]

Why "every"?

Many a religion is compatible with atheism.

Many? Hinduism and Buddhism, yes. But what others do you find compatible with atheism?