The setbacks of a verificationist approach to spirituality/religion

[wynn]

the analogy is for training ones brain,
when one starts to focus on God, our brains get retrained on how to think,(this is Gods job,not mans..um..and yours) they start to see God more and more as our thinking gets trained,<insert ego mantra here>(brain failed)..

so its not a matter of 'treating in the same manner as sports training'
its more of a 'hey this is what i learned from sports training, and it works outside sports training as well'

I suppose it comes down to whether you see believing in God as something that is (every)one's true nature to begin with, but which is currently covered by a layer of ignorance and needs to be re-discovered.

Or whether you see believing in God as something that is to be acquired, like any other skill (such as sports).

 

[wynn]

are you saying that a person would have to study each and every religion to make a 'right' choice?

Yes, if we are to go with the notion of exclusivism as commonly suggested by Christians (ie. only one religion is the right one, adhering to any other will land the believer in eternal damnation).

does accepting a religion mean you HAVE to follow their rules?

Yes, this is what "accepting" entails.

does accepting a religion mean you automatically believe as they do?

I don't know about "automatically", but if you accept a religion, you certainly have to believe as they do.

does accepting a religion mean you may no longer scrutinize your own beliefs?

That will possibly depend on the religion you accept and the kind of introspection they practice there.

its alot simpler than we make it out to be..

Perhaps.

But when "making it simple" means "making oneself stupid" so that one ends up despising oneself, then such simplification is counterproductive.

 

[Yazata]

I'm trying to think outside of the box here, trying to come up with a new model (new to me, at least) of religiousness and of becoming religious.

Religious epistemology is a topic I find extremely interesting, and important.

I find it extremely interesting too. I'm less sure about whether it's important. Given the amount of time that I devote to thinking about it, I must believe that it is. But if your line of argument is right, then it might not be.

My idea so far is that a person doesn't actually choose to become religious, but that their religiousness is simply something in their nature, something they ease into without much conscious effort, something that is too complex to be subject to the person's control.

I think that there's a tendency to religiosity in everyone's nature. (Probably some more than others.) By that I mean a psychological tendency to think and to conceptualize in ways that often tend to produce religious ideas.

But that still leaves us with the problem of deciding which (if any) of these religious ideas have any truth to them. In other words, I'm saying that the fact that humans seem to have an innate tendency towards religiosity doesn't eliminate the epistemological problem of choosing among different inconsistent religious ideas.

It might obscure it though, if people tend to become acculturated into a particular religious view simply by accidents of birth. For most religious people, the religious tradition in which they were raised seems true and obvious, while the others don't. To these individuals, it might seem like there isn't any epistemological problem, even when there really is.

And that as such, many of the usual arguments for and against religiousness are actually misleading.

I agree that most of the atheist/theist arguments that we see on Sciforums and elsewhere don't seem to lead anywhere.

Personally, I kind of like the pragmatic praxis approach to religion. This is the idea that religion is less about having proper faith or the correct beliefs, than it is about doing the right thing. That's doubly true if the faith and beliefs are ostensibly about transcendental matters that may well be unknowable by humans.

What defines 'true' and 'proper' in this instance is basically whether or not the things done actually work here in our own experience. If a person finds him or herself behaving more ethically, enjoying inner peace and growing in fundamental wisdom, then their path is likely working in their lives. For now, at least. A long journey to a distant and unknown place is composed of many small and individually doable steps.

 

[wynn]

Personally, I kind of like the pragmatic praxis approach to religion. This is the idea that religion is less about having proper faith or the correct beliefs, than it is about doing the right thing. That's doubly true if the faith and beliefs are ostensibly about transcendental matters that may well be unknowable by humans.

Also, actions are also something tangible, something measurable, something that comes with instructions and results within a foreseeable time.
With actions, I don't feel nearly as helpless as with beliefs. Actions are something I know how to go about (at least to some degree).

What defines 'true' and 'proper' in this instance is basically whether or not the things done actually work here in our own experience. If a person finds him or herself behaving more ethically, enjoying inner peace and growing in fundamental wisdom, then their path is likely working in their lives. For now, at least. A long journey to a distant and unknown place is composed of many small and individually doable steps.

Yes, I think it comes down to "being in the present moment" and "doing what is in front of you to do".

In relation to religiousness, this means that if one was not born into a religious tradition or doesn't feel an irresitible and unquestionable drive toward it, then one better not pay too much attention to it.

Of course, religiousness is in some way ubiquitous and we are exposed to proselytizing in one form or another.
In this regard, we have to have some kind of argument to contextualize our own lack of religious involvement.
When someone asks me "Why don't you believe in God?" or when for work purposes I have to deal with religiousness, I do need to take some kind of stance on these matters, I have to have some narrative that will not compromise my intellectual integrity nor endanger me or my reputation in some way.

We live in a multicultural, multireligious society, and apparently, we have to take responsibility for that and prepare for conflicts and confrontations.
We can't just go on, hoping that controversial issues will never come up.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I suppose it comes down to whether you see believing in God as something that is (every)one's true nature to begin with, but which is currently covered by a layer of ignorance and needs to be re-discovered.

that is in essence true,it is our nature to believe in God, unfortunately Man has corrupted God with religion so much, that now it is something to scrutinize, and not to be taken at face value.

Or whether you see believing in God as something that is to be acquired, like any other skill (such as sports).

i like the word discovered rather than acquired,acquired intones that you don't have it to begin with. I believe God is in everyones life whether one believes in him or not,

are you saying that a person would have to study each and every religion to make a 'right' choice?

Yes, if we are to go with the notion of exclusivism as commonly suggested by Christians (ie. only one religion is the right one, adhering to any other will land the believer in eternal damnation).

I believe that attitude is made by Man (specifically religious leaders to establish their authority), I know('know' is how much i believe this) God doesn't have a religion, and he does not like the religious,they are so busy conforming to the religions rules that God cannot work with them,
IE
God; i would like you to do this.
Religico; but my religion says i cannot do that.

does accepting a religion mean you HAVE to follow their rules?

Yes, this is what "accepting" entails.

fair enough..
(i am always the rebel,if i think a rule is stupid, i will have something to say about it)

does accepting a religion mean you automatically believe as they do?

I don't know about "automatically", but if you accept a religion, you certainly have to believe as they do.

why would you 'have to'?
If the religion church that is the right fit for you, it is the one which believes as you do, there will always be some differences but some things we shouldn't make into problems.

does accepting a religion mean you may no longer scrutinize your own beliefs?

That will possibly depend on the religion you accept and the kind of introspection they practice there.

another way i could ask the same question,
would one use religion as an excuse to not examine one's faults?

its alot simpler than we make it out to be..

But when "making it simple" means "making oneself stupid" so that one ends up despising oneself, then such simplification is counterproductive.

simplification is not always simple..
IE;what is love?