Many different religious opinions

[PureX]

We humans can't handle the truth ... literally. We are not equipped to perceive nor cognate the truth. As the truth is the whole truth. It is the sum total of all that is.

The best we can do is determine isolated relative truthfulness. Like "X" functions as true relative to observations "Y" and "Z". It's why we value consensus on truthfulness. We reason that the more ways we determine something to be relatively true, the more likely it will prove to be true for us if/when we act on it.

Unfortunately, we humans don't like this predicament. We want to know what is and will prove true all the time, about everything. So we develop intellectual schemes to help convince ourselves that we can know the truth. And that we do know the truth. And then we fight with everyone else's truth so as to protect and maintain our own.

 

[Soandso]

I think religious philosophy can be pretty useful depending on how flexible it is. If it becomes rigid and dogmatic, though, it risks becoming outdated in light of better information - and that can lead to some bad stuff

Science has the most consistent results if someone wants to get closer to the truth. "Truth" isn't the only element required for a happy life, though. Spirituality fills a void many people have in their lives, and as long as they aint hurting anyone, people should be free to pursue what makes them happy imo

 

[PureX]

I think religious philosophy can be pretty useful depending on how flexible it is. If it becomes rigid and dogmatic, though, it risks becoming outdated in light of better information - and that can lead to some bad stuff

The same is true of any theory of existence we develop. They're helpful, but we have to remember that they remain theories.

Science has the most consistent results if someone wants to get closer to the truth. "Truth" isn't the only element required for a happy life, though. Spirituality fills a void many people have in their lives, and as long as they aint hurting anyone, people should be free to pursue what makes them happy imo

Science does not pursue 'truth'. It investigates physical functionality. Physical function is a part of truth, but so is fictional literature. They both have their value, but neither can claim to be 'truth'.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes, depending on how broadly you're casting the net on what counts as one religion or another being true.

One can, for instance, simultaneously believe in fairy, jinn, and kami at the same time. Those who practice ancestral veneration can quite easily believe that others' ancestors prefer to be honored in different ways, too.

That covers the majority of religions that have ever existed and will ever exist, since most of them are tied to forms of animism, ancestral worship, or both.

Polytheism grew out of animism and monotheism grew out of polytheism, so you could easily include the god of Abraham as existing, thus making Abrahamic religions "true," even if you interpret that god as an animistic sky spirit rather than a monotheistic deity.

This stretches the idea of all religions being true a little bit, but this was a common perspective in the pagan world and even between various indigenous cultures. You still see much of that pluralism in Asia with Hinduism, Shenism, and Shinto.

The idea that religions are mutually contradictory mostly comes from sectarian in-fighting within Abrahamic religions in particular, but you can find plenty of Christo-Pagans that break even that rule.

So omnitheism and omnism are not incoherent concepts, necessarily. There is a plausibility to them.

ETA: Also, I should add that Judaism was originally henotheist, accepting the existence of the gods of other nations. And Christianity would adopt pagan deities as Saints and angels through syncreticism. So even under Abrahamic religion, there's a general opening for all religions to be true.

 

[Muffled]

Hmmm

I believe people tend to misinterpret things. The missionary said that meant Mormonism was formed by a demon. I do not think so. Supposedly the demon led Smith to gold tablets that were never translated. The origin of the book of Mormon is shrouded in mystery. Was it the result of autowriting (scribing) as Smith says or a work of fiction stolen from a Congregationalist author. If the scribing was done by a spirit then it could have been the demon at work again.

 

[Muffled]

In that they all disagree with one another in some way (or else why would they be different religions?), then the best we can say that AT MOST, ONE OF THEM COULD BE RIGHT. In my view, none of them is.

How would a person who is wrong about things judge what is right?

 

[Muffled]

Despite great traditional and terminological differences, many do share core values - they just motivate them differently. I see sound “truths” in many religions. That said; I also see many destructive bits in most.

Humbly,
Hermit

How do you know what is true? I believe at least the Declaration of Independence (USA) stated that the truths were self evident (that all men were created equal).

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

How do you know what is true? I believe at least the Declaration of Independence (USA) stated that the truths were self evident (that all men were created equal).

Hmm… I mean, without any direct moral judgement now, but: how is it “self-evident” that all are ‘created’ equal? If anything; are we not all ‘created’ slightly differently?

To me, the beauty about it lay in each person’s unique composition of all that they share with others - one is never precisely the same as another.

If instead, it is a question of equal value; there can be nothing “self-evident” about that, because value is a post-construction and equal value is something which requires some sort of collective to agree upon. I’m not really finding the correct words for what I’m trying to say on that. Sorry.

Also, I realise I’ve not addressed the question you posed to me.

How does one know what’s true…?
I think that varies depending on context, time and individual, but I personally was never good at simply reflecting my way to sound conclusions. The “truths” which I consider myself to know are more often based on first-hand experienced mistakes.

For instance; how do I know that X goal does not fulfil me? Because I chased it, got it, lived in it and remained entirely empty.
And, how do I know that Y goal fulfils me? Because I chased it, got it and did not need to chase anything else.

Much simplified obviously, but you know what I mean.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How would a person who is wrong about things judge what is right?

There has always only been one way to truly judge for ourselves what is right, and that is through an honest examination of our own conscience on the question of "what would I think if what I'm doing was being done to me." And if I think I'd hate it, then I know it's wrong for me to do to others.