Why is it that religious people from same faith can tell you so differently what truth is?

[Segev Moran]

I am sure many in RF have thought about, why spiritual/religious people even from the same spiritual teaching can explain the same topic so very different when they are asked. Or that even all religions/spiritual paths trying to obtain same form of truth, they are very unlikely to tell it the same way.

In your understanding what is the reason this happens?

Each one have a different way of describing things.
Science is the only method that is very strict about the language.
This is why we can accept it as true.

An example might be the concept of unity.
many religions speak of the concept of everything.
Everything is one thing.
Each person will try to explain this concept differently.

Ask ten people to describe benefits of the sun.
Each will tell a different story, but they will all probably mean the same.
Some might describe some parts of it that others didn't know.
Some might claim they know more than they know.
Science comes to play greatly in those cases
But eventually... they will all describe the same sun.
As there are so many religions, Science can easily make it clear what is logic and what is not.
As science progresses, we find other words to describe the same things. that is the basis for the claim that "religion is adaptive", that is oddly enough seem weird to atheists.

 

[Heyo]

I am sure many in RF have thought about, why spiritual/religious people even from the same spiritual teaching can explain the same topic so very different when they are asked. Or that even all religions/spiritual paths trying to obtain same form of truth, they are very unlikely to tell it the same way.

In your understanding what is the reason this happens?

As several posters already pointed out, it doesn't happen in science because science is based in reality.
But it also doesn't happen in mathematics. Mathematics is perhaps the most ideal (= not real) thing out there but it has stringent sets of axioms, defined sets of operations and, like scientists, a sceptical community with an openness to discuss and a thirst for truth.
It happens, but to a lesser degree, in jurisprudence. Laws are social constructs, open to interpretation but at least there is a method to find the correct one, with some kind of supreme court as a final decider in every country.
That leaves two planes of existence (I keep coming back to this) open as the basis of religion: the fiction and the illusion.
In fiction it is easy to settle a question as long as the author lives and nearly impossible after that. (Ask anyone who dabbles in interpretation of literature.
And if you go deeper, what was the basis for the fiction in the first place? That's right, an illusion. Almost all religion and spirituality is based in illusions, intangible, without logic rules and often without a social construct.

(There are nuances and exceptions, one has already been mentioned one other is the Catholic church with the pope as supreme court for all religious matter regarding Catholics. But, like laws, they are only local and not universal.)

 

[Jedster]

How would I know?
I just don't see any.
And remember.....
Everything I say is a shameless untruth.

Is that so?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that so?

Would I lie?

 

[Jedster]

Would I lie?

Absolutely not...however you just may.

 

[Deidre]

Pride, indoctrination/childhood upbringing, cultural allegiances, all can create cognitive dissonance when it comes to being on the same page with those of your same faith.

 

[Deidre]

To those who don't think there are disagreements and differences of opinion in science, there is. Math, to a lesser degree. But, I can say 3+3=6 and not every mathematician will agree. Religion is the proverbial punching bag for everyone to strike at though, we don't like admitting that when it comes to human behavior, we live to disagree, debate and quibble over almost anything.

 

[Heyo]

To those who don't think there are disagreements and differences of opinion in science, there is.

Yes, scientists debate over interpretations and hypothesis but they debate with the goal to come to the truth. And they usually come to a consensus even it takes some time, sometimes decades.
Believers don't behave as if they are interested in the truth and instead of converging to a consensus they divert and split.