The chances of being right when it comes to religion.

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Lets pretend all religions are equally possibly correct. If one goes by nothing but the numbers the chance of you being correct are 1 in 19 if you count the large religions of the world . From there if you add in religious sects and dead religions the chance goes down even lower.

So how do you figure which religion is the correct one if there is indeed a correct one?

I've seen people approach this issue in two different ways, one is simply that you feel a connection to a certain belief therefore you follow said belief. You seek out the gods you feel a connection to and go from there. Of course there is one big problem with this being that you relied on feelings to get you here.

You can feel a lot of things but that doesn't make them valid. You may feel it is for instance racist to criticize Judaism or Israel but that doesn't mean it is actually racist to do so. You may feel something is a religious experience but is in fact perfectly mundane. Mental gymnastics can only take you so far with your feelings.

Then you have reason. Some people try to reason out their beliefs and make sure they make sense. They'll argue and defend their beliefs to the very bitter end in some cases. Over the years they may even get very good at this.

Of course a problem arises here as well. You can not demonstrate that a god and even more painfully your own god/gods exist. You can not prove it and I know you can't because people have been trying for centuries now, millennia even and have as of yet come up with nothing.

"Ah ha!" they may say "But I can give you reasons it seems plausible that God exists!" There is usually a note of excitement among the younger apologists when they say this. The older ones may or may not even bother.

The issue here seems obvious to me. Any reason you could give still has to be taken with a certain measure of faith. The reason sometimes given is that life Is too complex to come from nothing. This of course ignores evolution but even then it's not really an argument for anything but a deistic god now is it?

I've heard just about every reason in the book now I think or at least a good portion of them. If you have another feel free to apply it here if you wish. I can't say I don't listen for good reasons even today.

In the end when I stop and think about it, the lack of evidence and the sheer number of religions makes it neigh unto impossible to determine what religion could be right. Of course many don't claim the exclusivity to the truth that others do but this is of little consequence.

So tell me , why would you think your particular interpretation of the spiritual is correct?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Someone could have special access to information or experience that cements their belief. But it won't do them any good trying to demonstrate it to others. That's why so few religions, overall, are into converting. Most answers coming from Pagan or Heathen beliefs that I've heard is "I can't convince you of my experience, but my experience puts me on this path."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You 'pretend' that all religions are equally 'correct' and then presume that for one to be correct all others must be wrong.

And then, informed by such brilliant analysis, you launch another one of your incessant questions. You must be fun at parties.​

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Someone could have special access to information or experience that cements their belief. But it won't do them any good trying to demonstrate it to others. That's why so few religions, overall, are into converting. Most answers coming from Pagan or Heathen beliefs that I've heard is "I can't convince you of my experience, but my experience puts me on this path."

I can't really say I can agree with that line of thinking. Someone has an experience and that is all well and good but it doesn't mean it was valid. People experience animals talking to them and in some cases telling them to kill people we don't exactly call those valid experiences simply because someone had them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I can't really say I can agree with that line of thinking. Someone has an experience and that is all well and good but it doesn't mean it was valid. People experience animals talking to them and in some cases telling them to kill people we don't exactly call those valid experiences simply because someone had them.

If you're looking to convince them their experience wasn't valid, I hope you have something more to show them than comparing them to people with mental illness. That tends to not go over well.
Even if they don't take offense at what would probably be interpreted as a false equivalency (they are of sound mind), the result would most likely descend into the realm of first year philosophy solipsism.
I don't bother trying to argue the validity of experiences unless I have direct evidence the thing they experienced is different than what they're saying they did. Instead, I just point out that their experience can only be accessed by them, not by me. So I can't say their experience is valid or invalid. Most religious people outside the hard-core Christian and Muslim paradigm understand this, in my experience.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

If you're looking to convince them their experience wasn't valid, I hope you have something more to show them than comparing them to people with mental illness. That tends to not go over well.
Even if they don't take offense at what would probably be interpreted as a false equivalency (they are of sound mind), the result would most likely descend into the realm of first year philosophy solipsism.
I don't bother trying to argue the validity of experiences unless I have direct evidence someone experienced something different than what they're saying they did. Instead, I just point out that their experience can only be accessed by them, not by me. So I can't say their experience is valid or invalid. Most religious people outside the hard-core Christian and Muslim paradigm understand this, in my experience.

I'm just saying it's no reason to actually believe in the gods or god.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm just saying it's no reason to actually believe in the gods or god.

If they are not of sound mind or have concerns over first year solipsistic arguments than yeah, it wouldn't be. Otherwise, there's no reason for me to consider their experience invalid, just not applicable toward convincing me since I have not experienced it.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

If they are not of sound mind or have concerns over first year solipsistic arguments than yeah, it wouldn't be. Otherwise, there's no reason for me to consider their experience invalid, just not applicable toward convincing me since I have not experienced it.

I would consider their experience invalid because reality contradicts the idea of their gods even being a thing.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I would consider their experience invalid because reality contradicts the idea of their gods even being a thing.

Then they'd probably roll their eyes, say "Okay, arbiter of reality, whatever you say." And move on. xD

 

[sun rise]

When questions like this come up, I become tempted to repeat once again a link to the "Blind Men and the Elephant" metaphor story

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion, by my understanding, is not supposed to be "right" or "wrong" just like that - not if it is to be any good, that is.

It is supposed instead to be practiced and made relevant and useful to the best of our abilities.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What are the chances any of the bacteria in my gut understand who I am, or why they are there?

 

[Stevicus]

So how do you figure which religion is the correct one if there is indeed a correct one?

I don't know. I suppose it all comes down to a wild guess. I'm not going to claim to know something to be "correct" if I'm not certain about it. "I don't know" is the only real honest answer I can give, and if there is a God and I'm called to account on Judgment Day, at least I can say that I was honest about it.

Beyond that, I suppose one can look at the common themes among all religions. I can't say I've studied them all, but I think that most religions have rules against stealing, lying, cheating, and murder - at the very least. Certain rules of conduct regarding how people should act towards one another in a community. If all religions agree on something, then it's more likely to be "correct" than in areas where they disagree.

If religions disagree on something, then I would tend to disregard it. Like when some religions talk about what foods are forbidden to eat, I totally ignore all that. I can't regard that as being "correct," since religions don't agree completely on it.

 

[Quintessence]

I've seen people approach this issue in two different ways, one is simply that you feel a connection to a certain belief therefore you follow said belief. You seek out the gods you feel a connection to and go from there. Of course there is one big problem with this being that you relied on feelings to get you here.

You're going to have to explain to me why this is a "big problem." I'm just not seeing it. You speak as if being human and having feelings is some gods awful thing. We rely on feelings on a daily basis. It's routine, and essential to our nature. If there is a "big problem" with us relying on something so fundamental to our nature, it seems to me like you are basically saying there is something fundamentally wrong with human beings. True, there are some major religions traditions that teach this is the case, but I have never been a fan of that kind of rhetoric. You're going to have to explain to me how this works as if I'm an ignorant, five year old child.

It'd also be nice to see a response to this post as it relates directly to this topic as well: You ever thought about how difficult the spiritual can be to demonstrate or provide evidence for?

Of course a problem arises here as well. You can not demonstrate that a god and even more painfully your own god/gods exist. You can not prove it and I know you can't because people have been trying for centuries now, millennia even and have as of yet come up with nothing.

It seems to me that one would have to have rather selective exposure to theism and theological arguments - as well as limit oneself to particular interpretations of said arguments - in order to come to this conclusion. Either that or hold to such an extreme of philosophical skepticism that all human experience/knowledge is suspect. Personally, I find that approach intellectually bankrupt and non-functional.

The issue here seems obvious to me. Any reason you could give still has to be taken with a certain measure of faith.

Do you intend to suggest that I have "faith" that reality exists? Because that's how this reads for me. Again, I get some love extremes of philosophical skepticism, but I just find that dumb. No offense.

In the end when I stop and think about it, the lack of evidence and the sheer number of religions makes it neigh unto impossible to determine what religion could be right.

As @LuisDantas said earlier, "rightness" really isn't the point. Heed closely his words. Or don't. Up to you, I guess.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

You're going to have to explain to me why this is a "big problem." I'm just not seeing it. You speak as if being human and having feelings is some gods awful thing. We rely on feelings on a daily basis. It's routine, and essential to our nature. If there is a "big problem" with us relying on something so fundamental to our nature, it seems to me like you are basically saying there is something fundamentally wrong with human beings. True, there are some major religions traditions that teach this is the case, but I have never been a fan of that kind of rhetoric. You're going to have to explain to me how this works as if I'm an ignorant, five year old child.

It'd also be nice to see a response to this post as it relates directly to this topic as well: You ever thought about how difficult the spiritual can be to demonstrate or provide evidence for?



It seems to me that one would have to have rather selective exposure to theism and theological arguments - as well as limit oneself to particular interpretations of said arguments - in order to come to this conclusion. Either that or hold to such an extreme of philosophical skepticism that all human experience/knowledge is suspect. Personally, I find that approach intellectually bankrupt and non-functional.



Do you intend to suggest that I have "faith" that reality exists? Because that's how this reads for me. Again, I get some love extremes of philosophical skepticism, but I just find that dumb. No offense.



As @LuisDantas said earlier, "rightness" really isn't the point. Heed closely his words. Or don't. Up to you, I guess.

All I am saying is just because you feel something doesn't make it valid to feel said thing or that said thing is justification to believe in gods.

 

[LuisDantas]

All I am saying is just because you feel something doesn't make it valid to feel said thing or that said thing is justification to believe in gods.

Do you think that belief in gods needs justification?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Lets pretend all religions are equally possibly correct. If one goes by nothing but the numbers the chance of you being correct are 1 in 19 if you count the large religions of the world . From there if you add in religious sects and dead religions the chance goes down even lower.

So how do you figure which religion is the correct one if there is indeed a correct one?

I've seen people approach this issue in two different ways, one is simply that you feel a connection to a certain belief therefore you follow said belief. You seek out the gods you feel a connection to and go from there. Of course there is one big problem with this being that you relied on feelings to get you here.

You can feel a lot of things but that doesn't make them valid. You may feel it is for instance racist to criticize Judaism or Israel but that doesn't mean it is actually racist to do so. You may feel something is a religious experience but is in fact perfectly mundane. Mental gymnastics can only take you so far with your feelings.

Then you have reason. Some people try to reason out their beliefs and make sure they make sense. They'll argue and defend their beliefs to the very bitter end in some cases. Over the years they may even get very good at this.

Of course a problem arises here as well. You can not demonstrate that a god and even more painfully your own god/gods exist. You can not prove it and I know you can't because people have been trying for centuries now, millennia even and have as of yet come up with nothing.

"Ah ha!" they may say "But I can give you reasons it seems plausible that God exists!" There is usually a note of excitement among the younger apologists when they say this. The older ones may or may not even bother.

The issue here seems obvious to me. Any reason you could give still has to be taken with a certain measure of faith. The reason sometimes given is that life Is too complex to come from nothing. This of course ignores evolution but even then it's not really an argument for anything but a deistic god now is it?

I've heard just about every reason in the book now I think or at least a good portion of them. If you have another feel free to apply it here if you wish. I can't say I don't listen for good reasons even today.

In the end when I stop and think about it, the lack of evidence and the sheer number of religions makes it neigh unto impossible to determine what religion could be right. Of course many don't claim the exclusivity to the truth that others do but this is of little consequence.

So tell me , why would you think your particular interpretation of the spiritual is correct?

I think it is more likely that the universe follows natural mechanisms than supernatural ones.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Do you think that belief in gods needs justification?

It should have some at least.

 

[Nakosis]

Lets pretend all religions are equally possibly correct. If one goes by nothing but the numbers the chance of you being correct are 1 in 19 if you count the large religions of the world . From there if you add in religious sects and dead religions the chance goes down even lower.

So how do you figure which religion is the correct one if there is indeed a correct one?

I think your best bet is to start with the idea that all religions are wrong, until proven otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

It should have some at least.

Should it? I am not seeing any need, personally.

Maybe you are assuming that belief in gods entitles people to hold some form of expectation about others?

I don't think it does - nor do I think that it should. It is a very personal matter.