(Religion) Which is more important: to be factually correct or to be content?

[an anarchist]

When it comes to your personal religious/ spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), how important is it to you that your beliefs are factually and literally correct?

When I was raised as a Bible literalist Christian, there was always a strong emphasis that our beliefs as a Christian were factually correct. Jesus is literally God and the Bible is literal history. The pastor would have sermons where he would deride the idea that the Bible was to be taken symbolically.

I am not a Christian anymore. I am a seeker who is unsure what to believe. I am unsure if I even want to seek. However, if religion were to give me peace, I wonder if I can overlook the fact that I cannot factually prove any religion. Many have tried.

However, it may still be more important for me to be factually correct in my personal beliefs. If I surmise that atheism is the more likely truth, then even if being religious would bring me personal peace, would I want to be religious? I think I would feel unfulfilled, like I was lying and playing charades.

Anyways, how important is it to you that your spiritual beliefs be grounded in literal factual reality?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'd rather live in actual truth then live my existence based entirely on made up stories.

Better off that way, albiet not as fun as a grand and epic fantasy adventure caught between the powers of good and evil , might and magic , and butt naked people running through gardens eating magical fruit.

 

[Jimmy]

Very important. That’s why I know mine are 100% fact.

 

[Quintessence]

Being "factually correct" is not and was never the point of religion, just as it is not and was never the point of art. Religion, the arts, the humanities? They're MYTHOS, not logos. And treating mythos as logos (or vice versa) is stupid. Forgivable in a culture that doesn't bother to teach the difference between the two, but still stupid.

See:

Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong: Should we believe in belief?: Confusion by Christians between belief and reason has created bad science and inept religion

www.theguardian.com

 

[LuisDantas]

When it comes to your personal religious/ spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), how important is it to you that your beliefs are factually and literally correct?

Holding incorrect beliefs is fine... as long as the believer is willing and able to allow for that possibility instead of insisting on the mistake.

That is particularly important when the well-being of other people is under risk. Which, unfortunately, is a very frequent situation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

For me? Not important at all.

 

[Eddi]

Anyways, how important is it to you that your spiritual beliefs be grounded in literal factual reality?

My religion doesn't make specific detailed factual claims about either the past, present, or future

So this isn't much of a problem for me

I think it's basic claims about God and The Universe are correct though, and that it is these that are important

 

[MikeF]

Being "factually correct" is not and was never the point of religion,

I would say that this would be an expression of mythos, not fact.

 

[MikeF]

When it comes to your personal religious/ spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), how important is it to you that your beliefs are factually and literally correct?

When I was raised as a Bible literalist Christian, there was always a strong emphasis that our beliefs as a Christian were factually correct. Jesus is literally God and the Bible is literal history. The pastor would have sermons where he would deride the idea that the Bible was to be taken symbolically.

I am not a Christian anymore. I am a seeker who is unsure what to believe. I am unsure if I even want to seek. However, if religion were to give me peace, I wonder if I can overlook the fact that I cannot factually prove any religion. Many have tried.

However, it may still be more important for me to be factually correct in my personal beliefs. If I surmise that atheism is the more likely truth, then even if being religious would bring me personal peace, would I want to be religious? I think I would feel unfulfilled, like I was lying and playing charades.

Anyways, how important is it to you that your spiritual beliefs be grounded in literal factual reality?

My preference is to establish the facts and then figure out how to be content within that established objective reality.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm the type that couldn't be content while knowing I was not factually correct. I'm more the philosophical than the practical type.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I never assume my views are factually or literally correct. There's no way of establishing any such thing with certainty. Humans should have learned by now, that almost nothing is this world is quite what it appears to be.

 

[MikeF]

I never assume my views are factually or literally correct. There's no way of establishing any such thing with certainty. Humans should have learned by now, that almost nothing is this world is quite what it appears to be.

And certainly not what we imagine it to be.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And certainly not what we imagine it to be.

Which, presumably, is not to negate imagination? After all, wouldn’t it be foolish in the extreme to dismiss one of the many marvellous tools with which God or nature has equipped us humans?

 

[MikeF]

Which, presumably, is not to negate imagination? After all, wouldn’t it be foolish in the extreme to dismiss one of the many marvellous tools with which God or nature has equipped us humans?

To continue the metaphor, any tool can be used incorrectly or in a manner that may incur harm in some way.

 

[RestlessSoul]

To continue the metaphor, any tool can be used incorrectly or in a manner that may incur harm in some way.

Yes, it can. It can take years of practice to learn how to use any tool to best effect.

 

[Koldo]

Being "factually correct" is not and was never the point of religion, just as it is not and was never the point of art. Religion, the arts, the humanities? They're MYTHOS, not logos. And treating mythos as logos (or vice versa) is stupid. Forgivable in a culture that doesn't bother to teach the difference between the two, but still stupid.

See:

Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong: Should we believe in belief?: Confusion by Christians between belief and reason has created bad science and inept religion

www.theguardian.com

Being factually correct indeed isn't the point of religion. It is rather the baseline assumption of every single major religion.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, it can. It can take years of practice to learn how to use any tool to best effect.

Or whether the tool is even appropriate for the job at hand.

 

[osgart]

My religion is about dealing in truth and likelihoods about the nature of reality. It's philosophy mixed with faith. I make inferences from facts so those facts are vital to my religion. Life is a grande mystery is my conclusion. Cosmic purposes is my determination about existence. At times life seems that it has no overarching goal, and that pointlessness is the condition of life. However the facts I infer from to form my religion compel me to the place of seeking to uncover the mystery. I really do not consider humanity to have it all figured out, or to have all things ruled out. Humans are fallible, science is no guarantee that all the facts will be uncovered. Religion is always in pencil.

 

[mangalavara]

When it comes to your personal religious/ spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), how important is it to you that your beliefs are factually and literally correct?

I’m not sure what ‘factually and literally correct’ means. In my experience, something such as an answer on a test is either correct or incorrect. There is no need to qualify the correctness or incorrectness of anything.

Is it important to me that my beliefs are correct? No, it is not important to me. Further, when it comes to religion and spirituality, I don’t think in such categories. My religious worldview, to me, wonderfully makes sense of life, the world, and everything, but I’m not concerned with correctness.

Being "factually correct" is not and was never the point of religion, just as it is not and was never the point of art.

I completely agree. For me, the point of religion is mystic experience.

 

[bobhikes]

When it comes to your personal religious/ spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), how important is it to you that your beliefs are factually and literally correct?

When I was raised as a Bible literalist Christian, there was always a strong emphasis that our beliefs as a Christian were factually correct. Jesus is literally God and the Bible is literal history. The pastor would have sermons where he would deride the idea that the Bible was to be taken symbolically.

I am not a Christian anymore. I am a seeker who is unsure what to believe. I am unsure if I even want to seek. However, if religion were to give me peace, I wonder if I can overlook the fact that I cannot factually prove any religion. Many have tried.

However, it may still be more important for me to be factually correct in my personal beliefs. If I surmise that atheism is the more likely truth, then even if being religious would bring me personal peace, would I want to be religious? I think I would feel unfulfilled, like I was lying and playing charades.

Anyways, how important is it to you that your spiritual beliefs be grounded in literal factual reality?

For most humans being content is the only answer. Being factually accurate takes a lot of work and may not always be provable or worthwhile Take politics, love, humanitarian needs or food needs ...etc. Are eggs good or bad for you? Are vaccinations good or bad? Should the Republicans or democrats be in charge. Best way to live is decide what's important to you and live contently.