Religious people and due diligence

[an anarchist]

I have been developing a thought for a while now and can't get to grips with how people come to accept this idea:

If something is important in your life (Christianity for example), that affects decisions you make, it is reasonable to want and maybe need it to be true.

Many other people claim other religions to be true.

Therefore it is reasonable to study these other religions to discount them as false and support your own.

A religious person who has not understood other religions through study etc, cannot know that are false, or cannot discount them. Cannot even say Christianity is more likely than another religion without studying it.

Therefore, all religious people who have not studied all religions are disingenuous when claiming they follow the correct one, as they do not know if another is true without some understanding of it.

Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated. I'm getting to grips with critical thinking and trying to parse information, so any corrections or mistakes in my thought process would be welcomed.

I agree with you.

I joined this site while my goal was to discover the "truth" about God. Study many religions I did.

I made a recent thread, and the peeps of this site seemed not to care too much about being correct.

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

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...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[an anarchist]

It is perhaps the most important question we can ask, (is there / what is god?).

So perhaps it is important to do your due diligence and see what is the truth.

The answer I came up on is that none of the religions were fully the truth. I know the truth after all my study and experiences but I'll keep it to myself.

 

[Snowman]

It is perhaps the most important question we can ask, (is there / what is god?).

So perhaps it is important to do your due diligence and see what is the truth.

The answer I came up on is that none of the religions were fully the truth. I know the truth after all my study and experiences but I'll keep it to myself.

I'm doing my best! I'm trying to learn, but I come from a line of unreligious people, I grew up in a house where religion was irrelevant and as a consequence never spoken about. I only really learned about the main religions as I got older through the news etc and then self study.

My lived experience makes it important to me to find truth in any religion before I could ever start to devote myself to it.

But on reflection, obviously not everybody is me, so i can understand now why some people don't care for "truth".

 

[MikeF]

I have been developing a thought for a while now and can't get to grips with how people come to accept this idea:

If something is important in your life (Christianity for example), that affects decisions you make, it is reasonable to want and maybe need it to be true.

Many other people claim other religions to be true.

Therefore it is reasonable to study these other religions to discount them as false and support your own.

A religious person who has not understood other religions through study etc, cannot know that are false, or cannot discount them. Cannot even say Christianity is more likely than another religion without studying it.

Therefore, all religious people who have not studied all religions are disingenuous when claiming they follow the correct one, as they do not know if another is true without some understanding of it.

Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated. I'm getting to grips with critical thinking and trying to parse information, so any corrections or mistakes in my thought process would be welcomed.

If the objective is to understand reality, what it is and how it works, religions nor philosophy in general are adequate to the task. We human beings are imperfect and fallible creatures and any methodology you employ to find objective answers to questions you may have requires acknowledging those fallibilities and taking active steps to mitigate those inherent fallibilities the the greatest extent possible.

 

[an anarchist]

I'm doing my best! I'm trying to learn, but I come from a line of unreligious people, I grew up in a house where religion was irrelevant and as a consequence never spoken about. I only really learned about the main religions as I got older through the news etc and then self study.

My lived experience makes it important to me to find truth in any religion before I could ever start to devote myself to it.

But on reflection, obviously not everybody is me, so i can understand now why some people don't care for "truth".

Ahh, but you may remain unsatisfied in your religious search, with such high standards. Maybe not, but I assume so.

The faculties we have to perceive reality is faulty. So logic is neccesary. Know that

 

[mangalavara]

My religion is who I am and what I do. It's not about it being "true" or not and that's a silly way to be thinking about it for me.

This resonates with me. Dharma within a Hindu context is ‘who I am and what I do.’ As a human being who lives in a home and works for a living, it is right of me to give offerings or do selfless actions for the ṛṣis (ancient seers/sages whose teachings are in Hindu scriptures), my forefathers, the deities, human beings, and the natural environment and animals every day of the week. This is about right relations rather than being right about some doctrine.

No, you study other religions to learn about others ways of life as part of developing relationships with those peoples. Or maybe for inspiration, as one's way of life can often be enriched by learning the ways of others. All things draw inspiration from that which has come before and that which is around us, after all. Why would I want to discount anyone else's way of being?

This is well said and I agree. In my experience, learning about Buddhism, for instance, enriches my perspective and practice as a Hindu.

 

[Rival]

Given that this is a forum for religious debate and discussion, I'd say many folks on here are at least trying to do that in some form.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A religious person who has not understood other religions through study etc, cannot know that are false, or cannot discount them. Cannot even say Christianity is more likely than another religion without studying it.

In my experience, that's not how people who believe in gods and adopt a particular religion choose it. One doesn't need to be right, just comfortable. It's more like picking a mattress. You don't need to "research" them all to discover one that you feel comfortable with.

I made a recent thread, and the peeps of this site seemed not to care too much about being correct.

That was a good and illuminating thread, and, yes, like this one, it revealed that being correct about one's beliefs isn't very important to most when it comes to their religion. Once they find one they like, they can (and often will) start calling it truth.

 

[Secret Chief]

For many, the idea of their religion being 'the correct one' is irrelevant. The 'check this box' idea of approaching religion only seems to fit certain faiths(mostly those for whom getting it 'wrong' has dire consequences). For some, their religion is an expression of who they are on a deeper level.

I'm going to have to agree with that.

 

[Quintessence]

The first point is fascinating to me, ill be honest, i struggle with that concept. Without some truth to grab on to i would be flailing in the dark i think.

It's not enough for you to be true to yourself and who and what you are? Do you not know who you are and whose you are? What your values are, what your sacred things are, what your relationships are, who you are bound to, what your duties and responsibilities are? Maybe you're young and haven't figured out your way of life yet, but I'm well past the teen and tween phase of all that. I know who I am and whose I am; I've been Pagan for two decades and have had no desire to look anywhere else. It's who and what I am.

The second point being, if you studied another religion, is there a chance you could align yourself more deeply with that one and come to believe this new religion to be one to follow. Would that not discount your current beliefs?

No. I know who I am, which should be surprising to no one given I've been around for several decades. There's simply nothing to discount. I am who I am and I accept myself for precisely who I am. How exactly would I go about discounting myself? By being so self-critical that I give myself mental health problems? Sounds pretty silly to do that. Besides, I, like everything else in reality, changes over time anyway. It's not like anything is ever stuck time. I'm always further developing my traditions. Religion is a way of life (done right anyway), it's not some fixed, unchanging thing that doesn't adapt as your life changes. Paganism and Druidry are very wide and deep pools. I could live for hundreds of lifetimes and not exhaust all there is to explore within those two traditions alone. Why would I bother changing to something that is inauthentic to who and what I am?

 

[PureX]

I have been developing a thought for a while now and can't get to grips with how people come to accept this idea:

If something is important in your life (Christianity for example), that affects decisions you make, it is reasonable to want and maybe need it to be true.

Many other people claim other religions to be true.

Therefore it is reasonable to study these other religions to discount them as false and support your own.

A religious person who has not understood other religions through study etc, cannot know that are false, or cannot discount them. Cannot even say Christianity is more likely than another religion without studying it.

Therefore, all religious people who have not studied all religions are disingenuous when claiming they follow the correct one, as they do not know if another is true without some understanding of it.

Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated. I'm getting to grips with critical thinking and trying to parse information, so any corrections or mistakes in my thought process would be welcomed.

"True" means different things to different people, but most of us define it as that which 'works' for us according to our experience of reality. If I pray for rain, and it rains, why wouldn't I accept the validity of prayer's effectiveness as being "true"? At lest until it doesn't work, anymore.

Very few humans are of the mindset that looks for problems that are not immediately in front of them. If I prayed for rain, and it rained, I move onto the next problem to be addressed. I don't sit around wondering why the prayer worked and if it will work the next time. And I suspect that very few people would.

So as a result, we humans tend to learn what is "true" for us as we go, each according to our own needs and our own experiences. Which is why we sometimes agree, and sometimes do not agree on what is true and what isn't. And is why we seldom spend a lot of time pondering the truthfulness of what we presume, at the moment, to be true.

 

[mangalavara]

Therefore, all religious people who have not studied all religions are disingenuous when claiming they follow the correct one, as they do not know if another is true without some understanding of it.

I thought about this many times back in the day when I had a more Western view of truth and religion. It prompted me to study a variety of religions, wondering which is one correct. Later, my view of truth and religion became more Eastern, particularly Indian. Thanks to the shift, I have a pluralistic view and relaxed attitude when it comes to other religions. What’s important to me is not subscribing to the true faith but having the mystical experience of that which is the Real (with an uppercase r).

 

[Heyo]

I have been developing a thought for a while now and can't get to grips with how people come to accept this idea:

If something is important in your life (Christianity for example), that affects decisions you make, it is reasonable to want and maybe need it to be true.

Many other people claim other religions to be true.

Therefore it is reasonable to study these other religions to discount them as false and support your own.

A religious person who has not understood other religions through study etc, cannot know that are false, or cannot discount them. Cannot even say Christianity is more likely than another religion without studying it.

Therefore, all religious people who have not studied all religions are disingenuous when claiming they follow the correct one, as they do not know if another is true without some understanding of it.

Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated. I'm getting to grips with critical thinking and trying to parse information, so any corrections or mistakes in my thought process would be welcomed.

If you have a question, say "what is 2 + 2?" and you came up with "4", by guessing, someone told you or you used a calculator and you verified that that is indeed the answer, do you need to look at other numbers?

That was a oversimplified example, just to show that, in principle, there is no need to check other religions when you know that yours is true.
But it isn't that simple with religions. Most are wrong, at least in some aspect. You will only ever get to "true enough" if that.
So, does that mean you have to look at all religions to find the best fit? No. If there was one religion that is head and shoulders above the others someone would have found it already and convinced enough people to form a decent majority. Since there is no such thing, you should choose a religion as you buy a new car. The more specific your needs are, the longer the search. But at a point it is not reasonable to look any further as the search is more costly than the value you get from having a better solution.

 

[dybmh]

Therefore, all religious people who have not studied all religions are disingenuous when claiming they follow the correct one, as they do not know if another is true without some understanding of it.

Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated.

Sure. It's not a matter of true/false. It's a matter of acting in harmony with the will of the deity.

If a deity has revealed itself to me in a specific way, then this deity is expressing its desire (will) to be considered by me in that specific way. Further, because it did not reveal itself to me in the other ways, that is expressing, via negation, its desire (will) that I do not consider it in those other ways.

If an individual, a fallible finite being, comes to me and asserts "a deity revealed itself to me and said look at this other revelation ... " Then I can reply, "this is the revelation that was given to me". It is inappropriate for me to divert my attention and become distracted with other things.

ויהי אחרי מות משה עבד יהוה ויאמר יהוה אל־יהושע בן־נון משרת משה לאמר׃​

And it was after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord that the Lord spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying,​

​

לא־ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך והגית בו יומם ולילה למען תשמר לעשות ככל־הכתוב בו כי־אז תצליח את־דרכך ואז תשכיל׃​

This Book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth; but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written on it; for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success.​

The revelation that is given to me asserts I should not become involved in the other revelations. If the individual pushes further, that too is included in the revelation given to me. It is described as a test. It's not "false". It is a "true" test.

That's how I approach the issue of plurality and avoiding other religious, spiritual practices. It's not true/false, unless there is a misquoting of what is written. That can be true/false. Instead, for me, it's about operating in congruence with the will of the deity for me and my family.

 

[Audie]

It is perhaps the most important question we can ask, (is there / what is god?).

So perhaps it is important to do your due diligence and see what is the truth.

The answer I came up on is that none of the religions were fully the truth. I know the truth after all my study and experiences but I'll keep it to myself.

Of what importance is an unanswerable question?

 

[Bthoth]

Sure. It's not a matter of true/false. It's a matter of acting in harmony with the will of the deity.

For example: follow the rules or else

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Therefore it is reasonable to study these other religions to discount them as false and support your own.

Shortcut available.

By embracing the Baha'i Faith (Message of the Bab and Baha'u'llah) that enables one to embrace all the God given Faiths.

We can concentrate on all the good that all Faiths can produce.

Bonus. The essence of all past Holy Books is found in the Baha'i Writings.

Regards Tony

 

[Eddi]

Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated

I think you're on the right track

 

[The Hammer]

Shortcut available.

By embracing the Baha'i Faith (Message of the Bab and Baha'u'llah) that enables one to embrace all the God given Faiths.

We can concentrate on all the good that all Faiths can produce.

Bonus. The essence of all past Holy Books is found in the Baha'i Writings.

Regards Tony

BS.

Because in the end it relies so heavily on the Bab and Monotheism. It becomes just another softer evangelical Christian organization.

Edit: every Baha'i I have interacted with forum and real world, uses any excuse to shoehorn Bahai ideology into a conversation.

 

[The Hammer]

This is well said and I agree. In my experience, learning about Buddhism, for instance, enriches my perspective and practice as a Hindu.

Studying Hinduism and Vedic culture gave me a better understanding of Modern Paganism