The implications of considering religious choice to be subjective

W

wynn

˙
Valued Senior Member
From elsewhere:


Signal said:
Cifo said:
Signal said:
So it is your own personal likes and dislikes that have decided whether you will be a Christian or not, and what kind of Christian.

So your decision for Christianity has nothing to do with whether Christianity is objectively the one true religion or not.
Click to expand...
Cutting to the chase, I suppose the short answer is that an objective search for a religion can only result in atheism because an afterlife cannot be proven.
Click to expand...

If objectivity is taken out of the picture, then how can you rightfully believe that people should be punished (and eternally, permanently) for their subjective choices?
Click to expand...


If a person believes that religious choice is subjective,
how can such a person rightfully believe that anyone who doesn't believe like them deserves permanent and eternal punishment?



More questions and elaboration of the topic to come, depending on the responses.
 
My beliefs are based on what god has presented to me and taught me personally. I also believe that in terms of "punishments", people get what they ask for.
 
Signal said:
If a person believes that religious choice is subjective, how can such a person rightfully believe that anyone who doesn't believe like them deserves permanent and eternal punishment?
Click to expand...
If a person believes that everybody's choice in buying a car is subjective, how can such a person rightfully believe that anyone who doesn't buy a fuel-efficient car like them deserves permanent and eternal bad gas mileage?
 
Cifo said:
If a person believes that everybody's choice in buying a car is subjective, how can such a person rightfully believe that anyone who doesn't buy a fuel-efficient car like them deserves permanent and eternal bad gas mileage?
Click to expand...

It's not clear how that analogy applies.
 
Cifo said:
Why should someone's method of choosing their religion correlate with the tenets of that religion?
Click to expand...

If one's meta-religion (ie. the principles by which one chose one's religion) is in conflict with one's religion, then to that person, their meta-religion is superior to their religion.
Which, aside from creating a massive cognitive dissonance, also amounts to blasphemy and trivializes their religion.
 
Signal said:
If one's meta-religion (ie. the principles by which one chose one's religion) is in conflict with one's religion, then to that person, their meta-religion is superior to their religion. Which, aside from creating a massive cognitive dissonance, also amounts to blasphemy and trivializes their religion.
Click to expand...
Regarding Christianity, there's consonance between how people choose their religion and God holding them responsible for their decisions. Whether someone chooses subjectively, objectively or randomly, God holds them responsible for their decisions.
 
Signal said:
...If a person believes that religious choice is subjective,
how can such a person rightfully believe that anyone who doesn't believe like them deserves permanent and eternal punishment?...
Click to expand...

People can believe anything they want. They can look up at the sky and believe it's purple with green elephants floating around. Most of the time all that really matters is that the belief makes them feel good.

Humans get pleasure from judging each other, so believing other people deserve permanent and eternal punishment makes them feel good (and the subjective / objective roots of that belief don't matter).

One thing to keep in mind is that the only time that this kind of belief takes a back seat is when someone values truth over how they feel.
 
I don't think it matters big how one performs ones religious duties. What matters most is if he is twisting rules to suit his personal wants regardless of it is wrong or right morally...

Regarding punishment thing it is not that easy to decide in every case that one deserves a punishment for certain acts, for they can be OK in the eyes of god just like the person looking at things in religion are subjective is not that big crime. Except when he starts dictating/declaring sins of other people with his own set of mentality.
 
Cifo said:
Regarding Christianity, there's consonance between how people choose their religion and God holding them responsible for their decisions. Whether someone chooses subjectively, objectively or randomly, God holds them responsible for their decisions.
Click to expand...

It's not clear how a human can choose objectively.

And you still haven't answered the OP question.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
People can believe anything they want. They can look up at the sky and believe it's purple with green elephants floating around. Most of the time all that really matters is that the belief makes them feel good.

Humans get pleasure from judging each other, so believing other people deserve permanent and eternal punishment makes them feel good (and the subjective / objective roots of that belief don't matter).

One thing to keep in mind is that the only time that this kind of belief takes a back seat is when someone values truth over how they feel.
Click to expand...

If we posit that it is possible that truth and feeling good can be mutually exclusive, then we are also positing that we are living in a chaotic, hostile Universe, or at least that our feelings are ultimately irrelevant.

I don't think anyone can seriously hold to such a stance for a considerable time.
 
Cifo said:
If a person believes that everybody's choice in buying a car is subjective, how can such a person rightfully believe that anyone who doesn't buy a fuel-efficient car like them deserves permanent and eternal bad gas mileage?
Click to expand...

I completely understand that Cifo. The state of mind comes into play . If you can't come to the state of mind then you won't be in the state mind . If your mind lives in heaven that is your reward . If your mind lives in hell well need I say ? Can you choose your state of mind ? Climb the ladder of time and you might
 
Signal said:
If we posit that it is possible that truth and feeling good can be mutually exclusive,...
Click to expand...

It's not a possibility, it simply is a reality that truth and feeling good can be mutually exlusive. For example, a cancer patient deals with the truth that they have cancer... and that does not make them feel good.

Signal said:
... then we are also positing that we are living in a chaotic, hostile Universe, or at least that our feelings are ultimately irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That leap from jumping from truth and feeling good to a chaotic hostile universe makes no sense; however, the assertion of our feelings being irrelevant is absolutely true. Nothing is important... in fact important doesn't objectively exist.

Signal said:
I don't think anyone can seriously hold to such a stance for a considerable time.
Click to expand...

People who can accurately distinguish between objective and subjective usually do.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
If something exists independently of what anyone thinks or feels then it's objective. The rest is subjective.
Click to expand...

In that case, how can you know anything objective?
How do you know something exists independently of what you think or feel?
 
Look at your mouse. Now think and feel many different things. Observe how the mouse is utterly unaffected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top