The absurdity of religious choice

[wynn]

I contend that it is absurd to think that one could rationally choose a particular religion.

I contend that it is absurd to think that, for example, one rationally chose to become a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, etc.

This (at least) for the following reason:

The idea that one can "choose a religion" implies, firstly:
A: that there is an objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions which one can apply in a situation when one is attempting to decide which particular religion (whether Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.) to follow,
B: that all religions are approving of this objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions and that this system does not conflict with any of the religions.

We know from experience that B is not the case, and A annulls the relevance of individual religions, as - secondly, the idea that one can "choose a religion" implies that said objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions is above any and all religions - more important, more relevant, "more true" than any religion.

Thus if one claims one chose one's religion by applying that presumably objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions, this means that one isn't really committed to said religion, but to one's presumably objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions.


Thus proselytizers of various religions who appeal to us to choose a religion, and more or less directly hint toward a presumably objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions which we should apply in order to make that choice
are suggesting that we do something that is in conflict with the religion they suggest that we choose. (!)

 

[SciWriter]

One needn't even take a survey, as all are based on wishes' imagination.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I contend that it is absurd to think that one could rationally choose a particular religion.

my choice of religion is based on what i believe, what i think God has taught me, and how that religion lines up with what i think God has taught me.

when i search for a church i do not pay attention to the denomination, i go in and find out what they are teaching, how they act towards me, do they just talk the talk? or do they walk the walk? how do they show that they care? or are they more interested in just recruiting more ppl? or do they show an interest in me personally? do they devalue me cause of my opinions? or do they believe i have a right to believe what i believe?

IOW i think you got it backwards..find out what God is to you first, then seek a like minded church to learn more about God.

in the beginning it was a group of like minded believers that came together and formed the church because they were like minded. then human nature got in the way and said the more ppl that join our church, the more valid our beliefs are,the more money we can make,the more influence we will have on society, etc,etc.

it is not find religion,find God, this is setting you up for disappointment and frustration..it is supposed to be find God first.

so your statement is correct, it is irrational to seek a religion. you are setting yourself up for 'do as your told'. and that is not rational when it comes to God.

 

[wynn]

IOW i think you got it backwards..find out what God is to you first, then seek a like minded church to learn more about God.
/.../
it is not find religion,find God, this is setting you up for disappointment and frustration..it is supposed to be find God first.

Such an approach actively denies that what we think we know about God, we learn from people, in one way or another.

Left to oneself, one wouldn't even know the word "God", let alone what God might be like.


Of course, if you had a personal revelation, in which you were also taught the terminology about God, then I cannot contend against you.
I didn't have such a revelation, nor seem most other people.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Such an approach actively denies that what we think we know about God, we learn from people, in one way or another.

true enough, but that does not mean religion.

Left to oneself, one wouldn't even know the word "God", let alone what God might be like.

i don't think so. God/Religion is so ingrained into our society you cannot get away from it.

side note:
before i believed as solidly as i do today, i would get believers asking me "have you heard about Jesus?" my first thoughts have always been "who hasn't?" (hearing about jesus, does not assume believing in jesus)

Of course, if you had a personal revelation, in which you were also taught the terminology about God, then I cannot contend against you.
I didn't have such a revelation, nor seem most other people.

i dunno..i think certain things make sense to me when it comes to God..maybe there was some revelation once upon a time,or maybe it is just the rebel in me,to think of something in a way different than those around me..:shrug:

 

[SciWriter]

i dunno..i think certain things make sense to me when it comes to God..maybe there was some revelation once upon a time,or maybe it is just the rebel in me,to think of something in a way different than those around me..:shrug:

Doesn't sound like much of a basis but we appreciate your honesty.

 

[kx000]

Yes. Religion is unnecessary.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Yes. Religion is unnecessary.

i agree..

 

[Yazata]

I contend that it is absurd to think that one could rationally choose a particular religion.

I'm still somewhat undecided on this issue, but I'm inclined to disagree with you.

The idea that one can "choose a religion" implies, firstly:
A: that there is an objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions which one can apply in a situation when one is attempting to decide which particular religion (whether Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.) to follow,

We have our basic ethical intuitions. It seems to me that a suitable religion needs to be good, to at least (and perhaps far beyond) the extent that we apply the word to human beings and their behavior.

We have our common-sensical epistemological principles. A religion needs to be true in some way that doesn't do too much violence to how we use that word in the rest of our lives.

And we (arguably) have some kind of spiritual sensibility as well. That's debatable I guess, but it's certainly possible. I think that feel it on occasion, take it seriously and think that a religion needs to speak to me in that way.

B: that all religions are approving of this objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions and that this system does not conflict with any of the religions.

That doesn't bother me very much and I'm not particularly concerned. If a religion has something against me making use of my head and my heart, then it probably isn't a path that I'd be interested in following.

We know from experience that B is not the case

Do we?

and A annulls the relevance of individual religions, as - secondly, the idea that one can "choose a religion" implies that said objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions is above any and all religions - more important, more relevant, "more true" than any religion.

I prefer to think of that as minimum standards. We have conditions that we employ when we use words like 'good' and 'true' in normal daily life. Presumably a deity or a transcendental truth is going to need to be better than that, not worse.

Thus if one claims one chose one's religion by applying that presumably objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions, this means that one isn't really committed to said religion, but to one's presumably objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions.

It means that we aren't just making a blind leap-of-faith, if that's what you mean.

 

[phlogistician]

Signal, you are of course perfectly correct. People choose religion out of convenience. Either there is societal pressure to join in, so doing so is the least path of resistance, or people choose a religion that reinforces their biases, while not preventing them from acting how they want to. Not that a religious dictum stating an action is wrong stops people anyway.

 

[wynn]

I'm still somewhat undecided on this issue, but I'm inclined to disagree with you.

You are not a member of a religion, are you?

And if you aren't, why not?

That doesn't bother me very much and I'm not particularly concerned. If a religion has something against me making use of my head and my heart, then it probably isn't a path that I'd be interested in following.

Given that all religions contextualize who and what a person thinks they are, "making use of one's head and one's heart" is problematic to say the least.

If one chooses a religion based on "making use of one's head and one's heart", then one holds "making use of one's head and one's heart" above said religion.

Whereas the whole point of joining a religion is to acknowledge that "making use of one's head and one's heart" is not sufficient for a truer, better life or one that is in accord with God's desires or other aims of said religion.

B: that all religions are approving of this objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions and that this system does not conflict with any of the religions.

We know from experience that B is not the case

Do we?

Yes. Because if B were the case, then there would be no tension among religions and there would be no proselytizing either, as every religion would be happy that people are whatever way they are.
Obviously, religions are known for tension and strife amongst themselves and the non-religions and they are known for proselytizing.

It means that we aren't just making a blind leap-of-faith, if that's what you mean.

I contend that religion is not merely an addition to one's life or a cloak one dons on occasion, but that instead, it is a person's central, all-encompassing, all-overarching system of values, beliefs and practices. It is something that a person considers to be apriori.

That which is apriori cannot be subject to choice, and it is absurd to think it could be.

So if a person who is not religious were to try to choose a religion, they would try to choose something that would have the status of being apriori.
Which is absurd.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I contend that religion is not merely an addition to one's life or a cloak one dons on occasion, but that instead, it is a person's central, all-encompassing, all-overarching system of values, beliefs and practices. It is something that a person considers to be apriori.

ok..now i see your point, and it kinda makes sense..but it does not include any belief in God..it sounds more like a social club..which there are churches that are social clubs..

That which is apriori cannot be subject to choice, and it is absurd to think it could be.

but you still have the choice of which church to join..

 

[wynn]

but you still have the choice of which church to join..

Given that one learns about God in a church, the "choice of church" is as absurd as the "choice of religion".

 

[NMSquirrel]

Given that one learns about God in a church, the "choice of church" is as absurd as the "choice of religion".

one learns MORE about God through church..

 

[Yazata]

Given that all religions contextualize who and what a person thinks they are, "making use of one's head and one's heart" is problematic to say the least.

If one chooses a religion based on "making use of one's head and one's heart", then one holds "making use of one's head and one's heart" above said religion.

Whereas the whole point of joining a religion is to acknowledge that "making use of one's head and one's heart" is not sufficient for a truer, better life or one that is in accord with God's desires or other aims of said religion.

"Truer"? How can we still use the word "true", while simultaneously arguing that religious usage of the word has nothing remotely to do with any other usage of the same word in the rest of our lives?

Religious language and religious ideas don't just exist in a hermetically-sealed vacuum. They are part of and continuous with the rest of our human existence.

So my thinking is that the kind of 'truth' and 'goodness' that we encounter in real life represents a minimum condition for the kind of 'truth' and 'goodness' that we should expect religions to offer. A religious doctrine has to be at least as true as everyday propositions about the tables and the chairs. Transcendental principles and personalities have to be at least as good as our neighbors next door.

If purported religious truths and goodness are supposed to be suitable goals of our religious quest, then they need to be a lot better than that. But our own here-and-now human concepts and word-usages represent our starting point, the zero-point 'origin' in our religious quests. We begin wherever we are at.

Yes. Because if B were the case, then there would be no tension among religions and there would be no proselytizing either, as every religion would be happy that people are whatever way they are.
Obviously, religions are known for tension and strife amongst themselves and the non-religions and they are known for proselytizing.

Your 'B' was stated this way, "that all religions are approving of this objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions and that this system does not conflict with any of the religions."

I don't think that all religious individuals are opposed to people applying normal epistemological and ethical standards to their tradition's doctrines and claims. They aren't. Religious individuals often insist that we do precisely that. They are confident that their own tradition will pass every test, far better than any other tradition possibly could.

And historically, I don't think that religions are always in death-struggles with one another. In China, people are/were commonly Confucians, Daoists and Buddhists simultaneously. Confucianism provided their social ethic, Buddhism their doctrines of salvation, and Daoism catered to the supernatural aspects of daily life. It was all more or less harmonious and consistent.

In the ancient Hellenistic world and in the Roman Empire, people were typically syncretists to a greater or lesser degree. They happily identified the deities of different religions with their own and accepted the different and often inconsistent mythologies as being the various things traditionally said about the inherently mysterious gods in different localities.

The cold and dismissive religious exclusivism that so many people (including atheists) simply assume is an inherent quality of all religiosity is more likely derived from an unpleasant ancient Semitic cultural characteristic.

It's one of the tragedies of history, in my opinion, that this kind of religiosity has swept across the world in proselytizing waves of Christianity and Islam, doing its very utmost to exterminate every other way of seeing things.

I contend that religion is not merely an addition to one's life or a cloak one dons on occasion, but that instead, it is a person's central, all-encompassing, all-overarching system of values, beliefs and practices.

I won't argue with that. The thing is, when it comes to religious choice, people do have to begin someplace. I don't see that they have any choice but to start their journey from wherever they happen to be at.

Then following a religious path is probably going to be a matter of an individual deepening their incipient religiosity so that it touches more and more of their existence. People begin by learning some of the basic doctrines of whatever religion that they are interested in and attracted to. Then they publicly identify with it and start to 'talk the talk'. That gradually grows into 'walking the walk', behaving in appropriate ways in more and more of life's situations. And as time goes on, that outward behavior becomes habitual and internalized, as the ethical aspect starts to be come an inner-transformative aspect. It changes basic motivation. And yes, eventually it does (at least ideally) grow into deep transformation in all areas of a person's outer and inner life.

It is something that a person considers to be apriori.

It might only be recognized as 'a priori' after the fact, so to speak. People grow into that realization by expanding the scope of their religiosity so that it embraces and becomes the foundation for the totality of their lives.

That which is apriori cannot be subject to choice, and it is absurd to think it could be.

Religious change obviously occurs. If that can't possibly be a matter of choice, then how would you describe it?

So if a person who is not religious were to try to choose a religion, they would try to choose something that would have the status of being apriori.
Which is absurd.

I'm not sure that a non-religious person would have any interest in choosing a religion, would they? Secular people are usually quite happy in their secularity.

Being a religious seeker presupposes that some kind of religious sensibility is already at work. It implies that a person has some sense of what's being sought, however unconceptualized and inchaoate that feeling is.

So it's pretty clear that there's something already there. The question then is whether particular religious traditions are able to speak to it.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Values , ethics and other types of behaviors can be substituted for religion. Laws as well can be made to insure that people keep good morals to a certain degree. While laws aren't ever going to be perfect they can be changed as the society changes unlike religions which stand fast to their dogma and diatribe.

 

[wynn]

"Truer"? How can we still use the word "true", while simultaneously arguing that religious usage of the word has nothing remotely to do with any other usage of the same word in the rest of our lives?

Religious people do it all the time.

Religious language and religious ideas don't just exist in a hermetically-sealed vacuum. They are part of and continuous with the rest of our human existence.

In my experience, one of the first areas that one will be expected to see differently upon approaching a religion are matters of "what is true" and "what is real". This going to the point of completely dismissing all one's understanding of truth and reality so far.

So my thinking is that the kind of 'truth' and 'goodness' that we encounter in real life represents a minimum condition for the kind of 'truth' and 'goodness' that we should expect religions to offer. A religious doctrine has to be at least as true as everyday propositions about the tables and the chairs. Transcendental principles and personalities have to be at least as good as our neighbors next door.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no religion that would agree with those conditions.

If purported religious truths and goodness are supposed to be suitable goals of our religious quest, then they need to be a lot better than that. But our own here-and-now human concepts and word-usages represent our starting point, the zero-point 'origin' in our religious quests.

I used to think so too ... until I was rudely awakened to religious reality.

We begin wherever we are at.

In my experience, this is the first thing one has to forget about when approaching religion.
To both religious doctrine as well as religious people, where one is at is completely irrelevant.

I don't think that all religious individuals are opposed to people applying normal epistemological and ethical standards to their tradition's doctrines and claims. They aren't. Religious individuals often insist that we do precisely that. They are confident that their own tradition will pass every test, far better than any other tradition possibly could.

Perhaps the more academically-minded religious people are like that.
Others - not at all.

The cold and dismissive religious exclusivism that so many people (including atheists) simply assume is an inherent quality of all religiosity is more likely derived from an unpleasant ancient Semitic cultural characteristic.

It's one of the tragedies of history, in my opinion, that this kind of religiosity has swept across the world in proselytizing waves of Christianity and Islam, doing its very utmost to exterminate every other way of seeing things.

The Hindus are no better.

I won't argue with that. The thing is, when it comes to religious choice, people do have to begin someplace. I don't see that they have any choice but to start their journey from wherever they happen to be at.

Sure. This seems common-sense. But I have yet to see a religion (other than perhaps Buddhism) that would acknowledge that.

Then following a religious path is probably going to be a matter of an individual deepening their incipient religiosity so that it touches more and more of their existence. People begin by learning some of the basic doctrines of whatever religion that they are interested in and attracted to. Then they publicly identify with it and start to 'talk the talk'. That gradually grows into 'walking the walk', behaving in appropriate ways in more and more of life's situations. And as time goes on, that outward behavior becomes habitual and internalized, as the ethical aspect starts to be come an inner-transformative aspect. It changes basic motivation. And yes, eventually it does (at least ideally) grow into deep transformation in all areas of a person's outer and inner life.

I think this is a valid anthropological/sociological/psychological view, but not a religious one.
And if one were to become religious, it is not viable to hold an anthropological/sociological/psychological view as superior.

Because from the religious perspective, a person isn't "internalizing" religious principles or "identifying" with particular views, but is merely "shedding their false identifications" and thus arriving at "who they really are" (and "who they really have been all along").


Moreover, I doubt many people experience their own religiosity in such an anthropological/sociological/psychological manner, as this manner is an externalist one, a view from the outside, not from the inside - ie. the way a person experiences the changes they go through.

It might only be recognized as 'a priori' after the fact, so to speak.

Granted.

Religious change obviously occurs. If that can't possibly be a matter of choice, then how would you describe it?

For one, if we look at the statistics of membership turnover rates, cases of scrupulosity, religious and spiritual abuse and addiction, then it appears that many people who first turn to religion as adults do so in a state of personal turmoil.
Taking to something in a state of personal turmoil can hardly be considered a matter of a free, unencumbered choice.

Secondly, if choosing a religion would really be all up to oneself, then this is in conflict with the doctrine of the major theisms - according to which God plays an important part in the choices a person makes.
Trying to choose a religion all by oneself means that one actively excludes God from the choosing process - that same God with whom one is supposed to develop some kind of personal relationship or dependance upon. Surely this is problematic.

So it's pretty clear that there's something already there. The question then is whether particular religious traditions are able to speak to it.

My experience is that they don't, and that in fact, they resent to be expected to do so.

 

[wynn]

The notion of religious choice is often absurd because:

1. Preachers who address the problem of religious choice do so in reference to some common-sense decision-making strategy.

2. Those same preachers actually hold to a doctrine of decision-making that clearly is in some contradiction, but also can be mutually exclusive, to that common-sense decision-making strategy.


So those preachers are implicitly suggesting that one should use a common-sense decision-making strategy
in order to adopt a decision-making strategy that is not common-sensical.

 

[lightgigantic]

I contend that it is absurd to think that one could rationally choose a particular religion.

I contend that it is absurd to think that, for example, one rationally chose to become a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, etc.

This (at least) for the following reason:

The idea that one can "choose a religion" implies, firstly:
A: that there is an objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions which one can apply in a situation when one is attempting to decide which particular religion (whether Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.) to follow,
B: that all religions are approving of this objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions and that this system does not conflict with any of the religions.

We know from experience that B is not the case, and A annulls the relevance of individual religions, as - secondly, the idea that one can "choose a religion" implies that said objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions is above any and all religions - more important, more relevant, "more true" than any religion.

Thus if one claims one chose one's religion by applying that presumably objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions, this means that one isn't really committed to said religion, but to one's presumably objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions.


Thus proselytizers of various religions who appeal to us to choose a religion, and more or less directly hint toward a presumably objective, neutral and valid system of values and actions which we should apply in order to make that choice
are suggesting that we do something that is in conflict with the religion they suggest that we choose. (!)

Basically you are saying that there is no way to distinguish between material attachment/engagement of the senses and transcendental/spiritual use of the senses (or alternatively you are saying that all engagements are born out of material attachment) ...
:shrug:

 

[Grumpy]

Does anyone else think it is strange that children raised in Muslim societies grow up to be Muslim? Same for those raised in Hindu societies, or Christian societies...

The point is religion is a meme taken in with mother's milk, indoctrination being the number one "reason" for a person's religosity. It has nothing to do with the "logic" contained in the religion.

Grumpy