The spectrum of religiosity/spirituality

[Mock Turtle]

How many here actually look at all the various belief systems, ranging from monotheism (of different kinds), multiple gods, and every other variation that might be considered, as being a test of their particular beliefs? For me this just exudes human thinking (filling out the spectrum for such) and a determination to project meaning in such directions that might make sense to one, but also is damning evidence against any one being 'the truth'.

What do others think, and how do you resolve such an issue - apart from just ignoring all the rest and fixating on one's own beliefs?

 

[Spirit of Light]

How many here actually look at all the various belief systems, ranging from monotheism (of different kinds), multiple gods, and every other variation that might be considered, as being a test of their particular beliefs? For me this just exudes human thinking (filling out the spectrum for such) and a determination to project meaning in such directions that might make sense to one, but also is damning evidence against any one being 'the truth'.

What do others think, and how do you resolve such an issue - apart from just ignoring all the rest and fixating on one's own beliefs?

Great OP

In my understanding one should only study/follow/cultivate one religious/spiritual path at the time. That said, i see especially in this forum that it is a challenge to speak to some people because of the framing of their questions, but in the same time it forces me to think of how i have to do it within my own cultivation, and not focus on their path.

I have begun to realize that to discuss religious topics from one path to an other path example Abrahamic to Dharmic paths create a lot of tention, and it will be more and more difficult to keep an open discussion since some seem to "attack" the rules/guidelines within a spiritual path they do not follow them self. So it seems they put their own "needs/understanding" above the teachings of paths they do not follow.

Better to stick to once own teaching and let others do their own understanding of the path they follow

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How many here actually look at all the various belief systems, ranging from monotheism (of different kinds), multiple gods, and every other variation that might be considered, as being a test of their particular beliefs? For me this just exudes human thinking (filling out the spectrum for such) and a determination to project meaning in such directions that might make sense to one, but also is damning evidence against any one being 'the truth'.

What do others think, and how do you resolve such an issue - apart from just ignoring all the rest and fixating on one's own beliefs?

There is apparently no the truth in any system regardless of it being done with science, religion and/or philosophy. So the moment I stopped looking for the truth, I could concentrate on what matters and how it matters.

And since there is no the truth on what matters and how it matters, I do it differently. I figure how the world works for humans and note cases of same, similar and different and learn from that. In the end I don't speak with the truth, I speak as me, because that is what I have.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[amorphous_constellation]

How many here actually look at all the various belief systems, ranging from monotheism (of different kinds), multiple gods, and every other variation that might be considered, as being a test of their particular beliefs?

I don't. If anything, I tend to believe they are in an ecology with each other, or should be, if the spiritual health the metaphysical layer is in good order. I think the planet was probably the most spiritually interesting at the height of religious diffusion some several thousands of year ago, before top end dogmatisms ate whatever spiritual pluralities that surely must have existed across the land, like a dozen species of exotic moss sharing the same rock. It seems that the quickest way to dull out the world would be to cover it in one truth, and maybe the truth doesn't actually want that, because I think the truth actually doesn't wan to be dull. If the whole world became Protestants of a certain brand, or Hindus, or Jews, or whatever, what would happen is that there would no reason to travel anywhere, nothing to reflect one's ideas against. The truth wants to interact more than that. It is a ball that is made to be dribbled and passed into different courts from hand to hand , it is the birdie in the game of badminton, flying into different lands back and forth

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How many here actually look at all the various belief systems, ranging from monotheism (of different kinds), multiple gods, and every other variation that might be considered, as being a test of their particular beliefs? For me this just exudes human thinking (filling out the spectrum for such) and a determination to project meaning in such directions that might make sense to one, but also is damning evidence against any one being 'the truth'.

What do others think, and how do you resolve such an issue - apart from just ignoring all the rest and fixating on one's own beliefs?

Throughout the course of my lifetime from kid to now I looked at witchcraft (given my mother was in it), paganism (the Greek kind), Wicca, then shifted to Bahai briefly, Christianity, Buddhism, Christianity, and back to witchcraft (with a different more mature perspective of it).

As for the religious aspect such as prayers, meditations, set rituals, and things of that nature (through the course of the above time period), I realized I'm not a religious person (not bad, just not my personality).

Witchcraft I learned more from what my mother gave me than anything else. I told her, now she is even older, to go into it more on a serious level using her experiences etc to help her to life rather than passive. We talk about it back and forth. I don't know if there's much one can go into the subject especially given the mix between that, wiccan, and paganism. Bahai I remember I was using the first computer we got in the house. I was looking at the different abrahamic religions and fell upon that one. My immediate reaction after reading the religions was I didn't like eclecticism and the other, after going through christianity, how the beliefs that bahai taught didn't mix. So, I switched sites.

That's pretty much as far as I got into other religions. I did read a lot of philosophy in my younger years as well. Now, I'm indifferent to everything that spirituality in the sense of religions don't cross my mind anymore.

 

[George-ananda]

What do others think, and how do you resolve such an issue - apart from just ignoring all the rest and fixating on one's own beliefs?

I understand that reality is complex and each major belief system as well as materialist-atheism is a best attempt. I just consider all and hold the belief system that seems most reasonable to believe and for me my belief system has become something I take very seriously.

 

[Quintessence]

How many here actually look at all the various belief systems, ranging from monotheism (of different kinds), multiple gods, and every other variation that might be considered, as being a test of their particular beliefs?

The idea of cultural diversity (religious or otherwise) being a "test" is very strange to me. If it is a "test," the administrator of this "test" is fundamental to the nature of the world itself. And while there are those who abide the notion of "life is a test," I'm certainly not one of them. A test of what, exactly? What is it I'm supposed to be tested by? Any answer to that question makes assumptions about someone's values or cultural norms.

The long and the short of it is I don't feel "tested" by cultural diversity in the least. Diversity is something I celebrate and am fascinated by. It isn't a "test" of anything to me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thanks all for the replies. I was wondering more about how all the other religious/spiritual beliefs impact one's own belief if the others could all be conceived as being inventions of the human mind - surely all can't be true and many might be seen as just filling out the possible spectrum for such beliefs. Wherever we started with such (in the far distant past), and we will possibly never know, it seems that almost every conceivable aspect has been explored and often framed into some religious/spiritual practice and/or belief.

Does this not cast doubt on all such beliefs - as being human constructs? That is, this is what humans tend to do.

I know there are plenty on this forum who have unwavering beliefs but surely the nature of human behaviour might make one question how such beliefs form, or is it just a step too far to even question the origins of one's own belief system?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does this not cast doubt on all such beliefs - as being human constructs? That is, this is what humans tend to do.

I know there are plenty on this forum who have unwavering beliefs but surely the nature of human behaviour might make one question how such beliefs form, or is it just a step too far to even question the origins of one's own belief system?

You could say the same of politics. Or if you look closer at truth, what humans claim truth is. The same with knowledge.
Religion is not that special. In fact truth is a human construct. So is democracy.

So how come you single out religion? Indeed in some sense even science is a human construct.

The problem is not religion as such. Strip away that it is religion and strip away the other humans behaviors as politics, truth, knowledge and science as being special and look at it in general. Humans like to claim objective morality, truth, authority and what not, when there apparently is none. That is not unique to religion.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[1213]

How many here actually look at all the various belief systems...
...What do others think, and how do you resolve such an issue - apart from just ignoring all the rest and fixating on one's own beliefs?

I have drawn the first line between gods who have said something and gods who have not said anything. I think that basically limits the choices to one good choice, Bible God. Why Bible God, you may ask and my answer is: He has good teachings, knows the future and past well.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You could say the same of politics. Or if you look closer at truth, what humans claim truth is. The same with knowledge.
Religion is not that special. In fact truth is a human construct. So is democracy.

So how come you single out religion? Indeed in some sense even science is a human construct.

The problem is not religion as such. Strip away that it is religion and strip away the other humans behaviors as politics, truth, knowledge and science as being special and look at it in general. Humans like to claim objective morality, truth, authority and what not, when there apparently is none. That is not unique to religion.

Regards
Mikkel

Well I single religion out because many do claim it is special - to them - as being 'the truth'. Mostly we do recognise that different points of view on virtually every other subject won't be argued dogmatically as being 'the truth' since there isn't generally any way of assessing such as being any more likely than another viewpoint. My point is more about how others might take into account how humans seem to produce ideas to fill the available space - the spectrum of beliefs - and the impact that this might have on their faith or trust in any particular belief. Granted that to many it doesn't matter, in that if it serves them then why question such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I single religion out because many do claim it is special - to them - as being 'the truth'. Mostly we do recognise that different points of view on virtually every other subject won't be argued dogmatically as being 'the truth' since there isn't generally any way of assessing such as being any more likely than another viewpoint. My point is more about how others might take into account how humans seem to produce ideas to fill the available space - the spectrum of beliefs - and the impact that this might have on their faith or trust in any particular belief. Granted that to many it doesn't matter, in that if it serves them then why question such.

Yes, and some claim, communism is the truth. Others that science is the truth. And so on. Religion is not that special, there are just more humans that use religion.
Don't yourself view religion or any other world view as special. Look at what they can have in common.
I have been told be the moderators that I should clarify my claims. To the best of our knowledge cognitive relativism is, how truth works.
E.g. metaphysics in all privileged positive versions have in common that none of them are true. That includes not just but also naturalism, psychicalism and materialism. To claim with truth that the universe is natural is no different than to claim with truth that the universe is created by God.

So again, how come you single out religion? Apparently philosophical naturalism is also just a belief system.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Quintessence]

I was wondering more about how all the other religious/spiritual beliefs impact one's own belief if the others could all be conceived as being inventions of the human mind - surely all can't be true and many might be seen as just filling out the possible spectrum for such beliefs.

....

Does this not cast doubt on all such beliefs - as being human constructs?

Here's the thing:

Absolutely everything humans experience about the world is understood through the limitations of being human. Put another way, everything we experience is colored by a filter. Everything. The way in which we understand the world is always a construct. It is a map of the territory, not the territory. No exceptions. So religion (among other things, including science) is already a human construct. It can't be anything else. It's a map that interprets the territory in a particular way, but is not itself the territory.

Once you start understanding the distinction between maps and the territory, questions about "but surely it can't all be true" become largely irrelevant. It's not about being true or not. It's about what map of the territory you want to use for some particular purpose. All maps have strengths and suitabilities, and they all have defects and problems. If your map is doing what you need it to do good enough for you to live a good life, not much else matters, IMHO.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, and some claim, communism is the truth. Others that science is the truth. And so on. Religion is not that special, there are just more humans that use religion.
Don't yourself view religion or any other world view as special. Look at what they can have in common.
I have been told be the moderators that I should clarify my claims. To the best of our knowledge cognitive relativism is, how truth works.
E.g. metaphysics in all privileged positive versions have in common that none of them are true. That includes not just but also naturalism, psychicalism and materialism. To claim with truth that the universe is natural is no different than to claim with truth that the universe is created by God.

So again, how come you single out religion? Apparently philosophical naturalism is also just a belief system.

Regards
Mikkel

Well I have to single religious beliefs out because so many who believe tend to do so. Anyway, my point is more about the way we go about such beliefs and how we tend to explore all parts of the spectrum - which might then tend to give away their validity or not. I am open to any one of them perhaps being correct, but not all, and the existence of all the rest for myself tends to confirm their origins - in human thinking. And it's not about their value either, since I grant that they might have value independent of any truths. It's more about the process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I have to single religious beliefs out because so many who believe tend to do so. Anyway, my point is more about the way we go about such beliefs and how we tend to explore all parts of the spectrum - which might then tend to give away their validity or not. I am open to any one of them perhaps being correct, but not all, and the existence of all the rest for myself tends to confirm their origins - in human thinking. And it's not about their value either, since I grant that they might have value independent of any truths. It's more about the process.

Okay, now here is one way to do it. Don't wonder if they, religions, are true. Ask what they say about the human condition, what they have in common and so on.
Then notice something, it is about how the world works(creation and forces sometimes) and morality.
Then shift to a modern context and look at claims and truth.

The rose is light pink.
Gravity is a physical process.
2 plus 2 is 11 in base 3.
Human rights are universal.
Drunk driving is illegal past a certain alcohol level
It is wrong to kill another human.
The meaning of life is what matters to the individual.
The understanding of how another human thinks is subjective.
Superman is a superhero.
The universe is natural.

Here is the "joke", none of these are strictly objective in a strong sense and the status of the web "to be" functions differently, because what makes these sentences true are not one kind of truth. If you want it in as objectively descriptive terms possible, then the world is objective and subjective in a combination and human cognitive constructs and subjectivity are everywhere in these sentences. So religion is a human construct of how to deal with the world as humans. But that hasn't changed. The modern world is a human construct in part just as earlier times.

So how do you function as modern human with different metaphysics, ontology, epistemologies and truths; different political ideologies; different lifestyles and choices of how to life your life in regards to truth. What truth do you use?
Now look here:
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ...
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

That is what is going on. Is what matters, how reality works as such or how reality works for humans and what kind of truths are involved in that? Further can we do it only in the strict sense of rational, abstract, and methodical consideration? The modern western "religion" is that - the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of truth. But as I have shown you, there is no singular truth. All the different truths are in part human constructs and that include your use of truth. You are in effect using a human construct, truth, in trying to avoid human constructs.

But the final "joke" is this: "It's more about the process." That sentence and what makes it true, is a human construct in you. The process is in you as subjective for how you evaluate as a human the human existence and experience.
Now that also applies to me. I know what process I have been using in the end, namely limited social constructivism. But I know that and I don't claim it is true. I only claim it works for me.
So you evaluate with truth what works. I have cut out "truth" and evaluate what works for humans. Now which one is the truth? Well, it depends on how you evaluate truth and that is no different than religion. Both are human constructs.

You want to avoid cognitive relativism and how you do that, is a result of cognitive relativism. That is also so of me, I just know that.
The end result of "the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole" is that there is no one whole, because we can't avoid limited cognitive relativism. That is the end of 2000+ years of western ""the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole". We can't do the whole as the whole. We as parts of the whole use stories about the whole and they all work, but in different ways and how to evaluate that is always based on one story of what the whole is.
You do that and I do that. Is that true? Well, it depends on what you believe truth is. In short and somewhat overdone, your "religion" is truth. Mine is humans.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[syo]

How many here actually look at all the various belief systems, ranging from monotheism (of different kinds), multiple gods, and every other variation that might be considered, as being a test of their particular beliefs? For me this just exudes human thinking (filling out the spectrum for such) and a determination to project meaning in such directions that might make sense to one, but also is damning evidence against any one being 'the truth'.

What do others think, and how do you resolve such an issue - apart from just ignoring all the rest and fixating on one's own beliefs?

I am panreligious, I don't have dilemmas.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I am panreligious, I don't have dilemmas.

Well all or none might be preferable to one fixed belief, so as not bumping against some other religion all the time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Okay, now here is one way to do it. Don't wonder if they, religions, are true. Ask what they say about the human condition, what they have in common and so on.
Then notice something, it is about how the world works(creation and forces sometimes) and morality.
Then shift to a modern context and look at claims and truth.

The rose is light pink.
Gravity is a physical process.
2 plus 2 is 11 in base 3.
Human rights are universal.
Drunk driving is illegal past a certain alcohol level
It is wrong to kill another human.
The meaning of life is what matters to the individual.
The understanding of how another human thinks is subjective.
Superman is a superhero.
The universe is natural.

Here is the "joke", none of these are strictly objective in a strong sense and the status of the web "to be" functions differently, because what makes these sentences true are not one kind of truth. If you want it in as objectively descriptive terms possible, then the world is objective and subjective in a combination and human cognitive constructs and subjectivity are everywhere in these sentences. So religion is a human construct of how to deal with the world as humans. But that hasn't changed. The modern world is a human construct in part just as earlier times.

So how do you function as modern human with different metaphysics, ontology, epistemologies and truths; different political ideologies; different lifestyles and choices of how to life your life in regards to truth. What truth do you use?
Now look here:
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ...
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

That is what is going on. Is what matters, how reality works as such or how reality works for humans and what kind of truths are involved in that? Further can we do it only in the strict sense of rational, abstract, and methodical consideration? The modern western "religion" is that - the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of truth. But as I have shown you, there is no singular truth. All the different truths are in part human constructs and that include your use of truth. You are in effect using a human construct, truth, in trying to avoid human constructs.

But the final "joke" is this: "It's more about the process." That sentence and what makes it true, is a human construct in you. The process is in you as subjective for how you evaluate as a human the human existence and experience.
Now that also applies to me. I know what process I have been using in the end, namely limited social constructivism. But I know that and I don't claim it is true. I only claim it works for me.
So you evaluate with truth what works. I have cut out "truth" and evaluate what works for humans. Now which one is the truth? Well, it depends on how you evaluate truth and that is no different than religion. Both are human constructs.

You want to avoid cognitive relativism and how you do that, is a result of cognitive relativism. That is also so of me, I just know that.
The end result of "the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole" is that there is no one whole, because we can't avoid limited cognitive relativism. That is the end of 2000+ years of western ""the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole". We can't do the whole as the whole. We as parts of the whole use stories about the whole and they all work, but in different ways and how to evaluate that is always based on one story of what the whole is.
You do that and I do that. Is that true? Well, it depends on what you believe truth is. In short and somewhat overdone, your "religion" is truth. Mine is humans.

Regards
Mikkel

All very good but unfortunately many religions do have consequences for so many, either within such or those outside, and which are often detrimental. So I think we do have to go beyond them just being similar to all other belief systems. And truth might be relative for many but we can't escape the fact that many contradict each other and hence cannot all be true. Our choice as to what we might choose but we should be aware of the dangers of doing so. For many, they seem to not bother with such and just accept their beliefs as being true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All very good but unfortunately many religions do have consequences for so many, either within such or those outside, and which are often detrimental. So I think we do have to go beyond them just being similar to all other belief systems. And truth might be relative for many but we can't escape the fact that many contradict each other and hence cannot all be true. Our choice as to what we might choose but we should be aware of the dangers of doing so. For many, they seem to not bother with such and just accept their beliefs as being true.

Take what logic is. Human hold contradictory claims about. The same with truth and knowledge. Also what reality really is. How to use objectivity and what that is. What rights, politics and morality are. That religion results in contradictions is not unique to religion. All of these words above have consequences in a secular society like Denmark. It is not the case that the relativism disappeared just because it stopped being about religion.

All of the contradictions would still be there if you removed religion. I know, because I live in Denmark. That is the point. You focus on religion as being a special case. It is not.

What you don't get, is that, there is no truth to use on different world views, because apparently there is no universally true world view. That has nothing to do with religion in particular. Am I getting through to you? Religion is not a special, unique human behavior, which is so special, that it is not a result of general human behavior.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

Take what logic is. Human hold contradictory claims about. The same with truth and knowledge. Also what reality really is. How to use objectivity and what that is. What rights, politics and morality are. That religion results in contradictions is not unique to religion. All of these words above have consequences in a secular society like Denmark. It is not the case that the relativism disappeared just because it stopped being about religion.

All of the contradictions would still be there if you removed religion. I know, because I live in Denmark. That is the point. You focus on religion as being a special case. It is not.

What you don't get, is that, there is no truth to use on different world views, because apparently there is no universally true world view. That has nothing to do with religion in particular. Am I getting through to you? Religion is not a special, unique human behavior, which is so special, that it is not a result of general human behavior.

Regards
Mikkel

Well my point is mainly about the process of 'filling in the spectrum' of such beliefs and how this might affect someone who considers this, when this seems to me a rather human process and not, as often claimed, originating via some divine occurrence. I'm not bothered as to any truths involved, since as you have pointed out, it is sorely lacking in most other areas too.