• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"It's right for me"

Wannabe Yogi

Well-Known Member
Really? Don't you think that more damage has been made by failing to judge beliefs?

I see absolutely no danger in not judging beliefs of others. History is full of the injustices do to judging the beliefs of others. I do not mean that we should stay quiet about superstitions that discrimunate or limit social progress.
How much suffering has been caused by violent people who believed that they were right.
 
Last edited:

Levite

Higher and Higher
Why do some people arrive at religions on the basis that it's "right for them?" This strikes me oddly as trying to make the universe fit a preconceived notion of what someone wants to be true rather than discovering the universe as it is (regardless of whether it fits the "bill" of what we want it to be).

For instance, I'm not an atheist because I "don't want" god(s) to exist. I think it would actually be pretty great to have that divine safety net and the ability to survive bodily death. Are you kidding me -- I can't think of many people who wouldn't want that. No, I'm an atheist because there simply isn't any justification to believe this or that religion that I've seen.

So what drives people to peruse religions like I would at a clothing store, picking out something that "fits" them? That's hardly anything that resembles a persuit of truth or deeper meaning in the universe in my opinion; it's a type of behavior that really baffles me.

Why is it also considered a virtue in many societies? We say things like "I'm glad you've found something that works for you." What does that phrase even mean? Is it virtuous to pretend something about reality to feel better (this is a gross oversimplification but you get what I'm saying)?

What about hard, honest, open-ended searches for the truth -- keeping an open mind, but not so open that it falls out of your head? What about asking the tough questions like "What justification do I have for believing this to be true; even if I want it to be true, is there sufficient justification for me to believe it rationally?"

That's the sort of thing that I did when I slowly made my departure with Christianity in my early life. It isn't easy asking tough questions and especially to abandon beliefs that you really want to be true. But isn't it better to try to understand the universe as it really is than to just get lost in wishful thinking?

P.S. -- I'm of course not asserting that all religious beliefs are wishful thinking and that many proponents of many beliefs feel as though their beliefs are justified, though I myself have never seen real rational justifications for them. I'm more commenting on comments I've seen from people in the form of "It's right for me" and in polite responses such as "I'm glad you've found something that works for you." What are the implications of those phrases? I don't think it's a pretty picture, epistemically...

I would presume that when a person says their religion is "right for them," it's not merely a matter of aesthetics, like picking out the right pair of jeans. I would think that it means that the way in which this religion provides models and support for relating to God and to other people are compelling to them, and they are deeply compelled by the truths that religion has to offer, and how those truths are presented; that they either find the theologies of the religion compelling, or the flexibility in the religion to construct theology.

Religion is not merely a search for truths. All religions contain truths. All religions offer ways to relate to God and other people. But also nearly all represent strong communities, traditions, philosophies, and cultural elements. Therefore, it stands to reason that some ways will resonate more strongly with some people. It's about not only how you feel best able to relate to God and seek deeper meaning, but how you feel best supported in your daily life.

In that sense, the search for a religion that suits one is not analogous to going shopping, but to dating. One can approach shopping from a scientific perspective: rigorously compare prices, nutritional values, ignore brand names, and simply come up with the best, cheapest set of groceries to fit one's budget and time. But the same really can't be done with dating: it's too subjective, and too much a product of the emotions and not the head. Lots of people could be, on paper, apparently right for you; most have apparently the same positive qualities sought. Sometimes a person one dates can be apparently an ideal relationship candidate, and yet there is simply no chemistry. That's not a matter for intellectual reconsideration, it's just how one feels. Much the same is true for religion. Any of them have the potential to get you where you need to go, to seek deeper meaning, to relate to God, to be supported in your daily interactions with the rest of the world; but if there's no chemistry, there's no chemistry. If you're practicing a religion you don't love practicing, you're practicing the wrong religion for you.

We tell people who have settled on a religion that we're happy for them for the same kinds of reasons we congratulate people who get married. In theory, at least, they have made a choice that will not only aid them in relating to God and being moral people, but will also make them happier people.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Why? (just curious about your last line)

The obvious implication to me is that they have no need to justify themselves to others.

I'm not saying people have a requirement to justify themselves to others, I just don't understand picking a religion just because it "feels" right.

Religions often make statements about the way the universe works or about what exists. It doesn't make sense to say "Ah, that one resonates with me -- I'll believe this (god, angel, demon, being, mechanism, whatever) exists then."

That doesn't make any sense at all to me -- one doesn't come to believe that things exist because it's "in tune" with their personality; at least one can't be rational while doing so!

As for some religions, though -- some are more like life philosophies and don't really make ontological statements about what exist. That I can understand choosing because it's "right" for a person. It's the first category that I don't get when people choose them because they "feel right."
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Ok, in fact so many of the responses are roughly about the same thing that I can respond to people with a blanket statement/clarification of what I mean:

As I said to Willamena above, some religions make ontological statements about what exists -- such as gods, hells, heavens, ethical mechanisms like karma, magic, etc.

Other religions can be more like guidelines on how to live, how to think, how to treat people, etc.

The first type of religion is the one that I don't understand how someone can say "It just feels right" and then start believing it. It isn't rational to believe something exists just because you want it to.

That's why I'm saying "it just feels right" isn't a rational reason to believe a religion that makes ontological statements. I don't understand why anyone would do that. Are some people just okay with being irrational?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So what drives people to peruse religions like I would at a clothing store, picking out something that "fits" them? That's hardly anything that resembles a persuit of truth or deeper meaning in the universe in my opinion; it's a type of behavior that really baffles me.
Maybe it would help to see it more like the way that people choose their professions.

Engineering is "right for me", but I acknowledge that probably isn't "right for" many other people. Conversely, I see no appeal in many occupations that are "right for" other people.

I guess the question is whether religion is necessarily a matter of epistemology of some specific set of tenets of faith, or if it can be a matter of choosing an approach that the person thinks will be fruitful.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying people have a requirement to justify themselves to others, I just don't understand picking a religion just because it "feels" right.

Religions often make statements about the way the universe works or about what exists. It doesn't make sense to say "Ah, that one resonates with me -- I'll believe this (god, angel, demon, being, mechanism, whatever) exists then."

Naturally I can't speak for everybody but I doubt the majority of people choose a religion in this manner. Rather than choosing what they believe in, people choose a religion that suits what they already believe.

For example, when I was an atheist, I found that Satanism made a lot of sense to me. It valued the same things I do and regarded Satan as a useful symbol rather than an actual being. Since becoming a theist, this form of Satanism is no longer compatible with me and so I began looking for something that fit better.
I didn't spot a religion and think to myself, "I like that, I'll believe in this." instead I saw a religion and thought, "I agree with their perception of the world, this is worth looking into."

In regards to pursuit of truth, I personally see religion as being a way to learn more about yourself rather than about the universe. You may learn the odd universal truth in the process, but the emphasis is on the subjective.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
The first type of religion is the one that I don't understand how someone can say "It just feels right" and then start believing it. It isn't rational to believe something exists just because you want it to.

Which is good, then, that the vast majority of people who come to follow a religion don't do that.

Nobody has said that we believe it because we want it to be true--but that we believe it to be true, because it makes sense to us. We don't just go around going 'oh, I want to believe in reincarnation, so I'm going to believe it' or 'Oh, I want to become a Mormon, so I'm going to'. We don't risk isolation from peers, friends and possibly even family because we want to believe something like it's some buffet or some game, but because we DO believe in we will stand by our choices, even if others don't like them.

To say we're saying we want to believe something as true, as opposed to because we believe it is true is gross misrepresentation of what we are saying.
:rolleyes:
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
I didn't spot a religion and think to myself, "I like that, I'll believe in this." instead I saw a religion and thought, "I agree with their perception of the world, this is worth looking into."

Yes, this seems right to me. I think that this is what people are getting at with "It's right for me." I am simply unconvinced that any major percentage of people are going around and deciding to choose their religion on a whim, if they spot something shiny in it.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Are you telling me that each time someone chooses a religion that makes ontological statements they are able to justify their existence?

I haven't spoken to a single religious person that was able to make a solid case for the existence of their religion's ontology.

That speaks volumes to me.

Now, I'm not trying to rap on anyone's religion or judge anyone, I'm just trying to understand the process by which people start doing the religion thing.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Are you telling me that each time someone chooses a religion that makes ontological statements they are able to justify their existence?

I haven't spoken to a single religious person that was able to make a solid case for the existence of their religion's ontology.

That speaks volumes to me.

Now, I'm not trying to rap on anyone's religion or judge anyone, I'm just trying to understand the process by which people start doing the religion thing.

I don't know if this was addressed to me or not, but I'll answer anyway ;)

I don't think that being able to make a solid case for the existence of something is all that important to a lot of religious people (the main exception being those who were indoctrinated from a young age). People will have decided for themselves what they do and don't believe in before choosing a religion, whether they are right or wrong is another matter entirely. How they arrive at these beliefs could be down to a limitless number of things from strange experiences to over-active imaginations.

Furthermore, very few people agree entirely with every single thing their religion states, it is simply a "label of best fit" in many ways. For example, plenty of Christians do not believe in a literal Hell, yet they still call themselves Christian because for the most part that title is an apt description of their worldview.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I don't know if this was addressed to me or not, but I'll answer anyway ;)

I don't think that being able to make a solid case for the existence of something is all that important to a lot of religious people (the main exception being those who were indoctrinated from a young age). People will have decided for themselves what they do and don't believe in before choosing a religion, whether they are right or wrong is another matter entirely. How they arrive at these beliefs could be down to a limitless number of things from strange experiences to over-active imaginations.

Furthermore, very few people agree entirely with every single thing their religion states, it is simply a "label of best fit" in many ways. For example, plenty of Christians do not believe in a literal Hell, yet they still call themselves Christian because for the most part that title is an apt description of their worldview.

From the underlined part: how is that different from believing something exists because it "just feels right," as described in my original post that so many people have disagreed with?

After all, many religions make ontological claims. If people aren't verifying those ontological claims and they're just believing the religion because it "resonates" with them; then they are essentially believing that things exist simply because they want to believe those things exist.

So, believing a religion: which is it? Trying to make the world what you want it to be (at least ontologically) or having evidence and drawing a conclusion based on that evidence?

The first is not rational. I guess I would be less confused if people who hold their beliefs irrationally would just say "I believe irrational things, so don't worry about trying to understand it."
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
From the underlined part: how is that different from believing something exists because it "just feels right," as described in my original post that so many people have disagreed with?

After all, many religions make ontological claims. If people aren't verifying those ontological claims and they're just believing the religion because it "resonates" with them; then they are essentially believing that things exist simply because they want to believe those things exist.

So, believing a religion: which is it? Trying to make the world what you want it to be (at least ontologically) or having evidence and drawing a conclusion based on that evidence?

The first is not rational.

This bit: "How they arrive at these beliefs could be down to a limitless number of things from strange experiences to over-active imaginations."

Why a person believes something depends entirely on the individual, I'm not looking to argue whether they are right or wrong, instead I'm trying to explain why people might choose a particular religion. Again I can't speak for everybody, but in my experience people who are seeking a religion tend to have enough evidence to decide for themselves what they do or do not believe. Remember that while scientifically established fact is an excellent basis for establishing what is real, personal experience is also useful, seeing is believing as they say.

If a person was to adopt the ontological beliefs of a religion simply because they would like it to be real, then I agree with you that this individual is being dishonest at best.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Well, I wasn't looking for anything. I was introduced to Buddhist practice through my roommate's coworker. It was interesting; I went just to see what went on. I was intrigued, and decided to try the practice, just as an experiment. Oddly enough, the experiment produced results; I was intrigued still further, and kept up with the experiment in order to see how much repeatability was available. The results were repeatable enough, and predictable enough, that I am still practicing today, almost 30 years later.

I'm not sure what others mean, but that is what I mean when I say "it's right for me".
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
This bit: "How they arrive at these beliefs could be down to a limitless number of things from strange experiences to over-active imaginations."

Why a person believes something depends entirely on the individual, I'm not looking to argue whether they are right or wrong, instead I'm trying to explain why people might choose a particular religion. Again I can't speak for everybody, but in my experience people who are seeking a religion tend to have enough evidence to decide for themselves what they do or do not believe. Remember that while scientifically established fact is an excellent basis for establishing what is real, personal experience is also useful, seeing is believing as they say.

If a person was to adopt the ontological beliefs of a religion simply because they would like it to be real, then I agree with you that this individual is being dishonest at best.

Alright, that makes sense enough. However I can't help but continue to note that I've never seen a good justification for the ontologies of any religions I've bumped into; nor have I ever seen a good reason why the believers themselves should consider their ontologies justified. That's more a statement on why I'm an atheist, though.

Theists/religion holders, are your religion's ontologies justified rationally? How?
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Alright, that makes sense enough. However I can't help but continue to note that I've never seen a good justification for the ontologies of any religions I've bumped into; nor have I ever seen a good reason why the believers themselves should consider their ontologies justified. That's more a statement on why I'm an atheist, though.

I mentioned in another thread that without personal experience of a deity, a person has no reason to be anything other than an Atheist IMO. This is also part of the reason that proselytizing irritates the hell out of me :cool:

Theists/religion holders, are your religion's ontologies justified rationally? How?

Rationally... maybe not, pragmatically... certainly. I have seen and heard the deities I believe in personally, my first reaction to which was to seek psychiatric help. Years of psychiatric evaluation, various medications and psychological exercises did nothing to stop my "visions". Now from a rational viewpoint I should probably imagine I have some form of psychosis which cannot yet be treated (and don't get me wrong, being inclined towards skepticism this has always been at the back of my mind).
However I've always believed that you should make the most of what life gives you and believing that I'm ill without any possible cure is not useful to me at all. So I decided to try and give my new "friends" the benefit of the doubt and ask them to help me. Since I began invoking these deities my life has constantly improved in every area.
I've now reached a point where it would be almost foolish to take the skeptical route and look for any other explanations available to me. At best, my deities are the result of an illness and explaining them away as such will neither benefit nor harm me. At worst I have been given a glimpse of something more and who knows what could happen if I look to abandon it?
Religion and ritual for me is mostly about psychodrama. I don't really need a religion to try and justify and explain my experiences, but I find that archetypes, rituals and the like help to translate something alien into a more human-centric format.

Take what you will from that, I'm not looking to prove anything.
 

blackout

Violet.
I never discuss my "religious stuff" with people in real life.
But come to think of it,
"I do what works for me" is actually a precicely diffining statement
of what my "religion" is all about.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Theists/religion holders, are your religion's ontologies justified rationally? How?
That would depend on which Buddhist you ask. Like most major religious traditions, Buddhism has many different traditions, schools and subschools. Many of them utilize different ontologies, and justify those ontologies differently.

My own understanding is that the different "realms" and their inhabitants are metaphorical for things that happen to us mentally; but that is my own understanding, and not necessarily that of any other Buddhist.
 

battar

New Member
Religion gives people a warm fuzzy feeling. If the lifestyle make you happy, thats reason enough. And thats something you can't argue with. If someone merely says "it makes me feel good", like a hobby, and doesn't pretend to look for rational argument, you can't really contradict them.
 

blackout

Violet.
I never discuss my "religious stuff" with people in real life.
But come to think of it,
"I do what works for me" is actually a precicely diffining statement
of what my "religion" is all about.

Also though I should add,
I really don't "believe" in anything. :shrug:

It's far more about an approach to life.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Why do some people arrive at religions on the basis that it's "right for them?" This strikes me oddly as trying to make the universe fit a preconceived notion of what someone wants to be true rather than discovering the universe as it is (regardless of whether it fits the "bill" of what we want it to be).

Because understanding how things actually work, or how the universe is, isn't a primary motivating factor or consideration for many people. Like most things, people "choose" their religion, essentially, because it fits well aesthetically with their perception of self-identity.

Not only is knowledge an unimportant aspect of religion for many, but, belief as well. By saying they "believe" x, they mean x makes them feel comfortable and emotionally safe, as x seems to correspond with, and support, their perspective. It's not even a comment on their opinion on the likelihood of the aspects of their "beliefs" corresponding with reality. Determing the actual truth value of something which appeals to them emotionally, is simply not important enough to put thought into.
 
Top