What responsibility do relig./spirit. organizations have toward failed aspirants?

[wynn]

Many people who in their later youth or in adulthood approach or join religious/spiritual organizations, fail in their religious/spiritual efforts, and leave said organizations.

Afterward, they often face great economical, psychological, social, philosophical and other challenges as they try to build a new life for themselves.
For some of them, it is too late, and they end up shunned by society, homeless, or commit suicide.


The question is:

What responsibility do religious/spiritual organizations have toward failed members or failed aspirants?

Should religious/spiritual organizations provide facilities, counseling, and other forms of support for those who have failed to reach the goals that said organizations promise?


Some possible stances:

S1: "Religious/spiritual organizations have no responsibility toward failed members and aspirants. Religious/spiritual matters are entirely on the basis of caveat emptor, and religious/spiritual organizations bear no responsibility for anyone's religious/spiritual advancement or lack thereof."

S2: "Religious/spiritual organizations bear responsibility for the wellbeing of anyone who comes in any kind of contact with said religious/spiritual organizations. Therefore, they must provide means for failed members and failed aspirants to start a new life apart from the religious/spiritual organization."



Please discuss.

 

[Syne]

What responsibility do religious/spiritual organizations have toward failed members or failed aspirants?

Absolutely none. Any spirituality is a completely subjective matter and thus can have no expectation of external recourse regardless of outcome.

 

[Balerion]

We should all learn from our mistakes and stop responding seriously to her threads. We all know what she is, and since the administration here won't do anything about her, it's up to us to simply ignore her.

 

[Syne]

We should all learn from our mistakes and stop responding seriously to her threads. We all know what she is, and since the administration here won't do anything about her, it's up to us to simply ignore her.

Context?

 

[lightgigantic]

Context?

JDawg is under the impression that if he fulfills his vow to consecutively troll Wynns posts on 3000 occasions Richard Dawkins will appear before him out of a black hole and genetically engineer him the body he has always dreamed of

 

[wynn]

Absolutely none. Any spirituality is a completely subjective matter and thus can have no expectation of external recourse regardless of outcome.

But this seems to imply that epistemic autonomy is possible / required.

It has been discussed before that epistemic autonomy is a highly problematic concept.

 

[Adstar]

Many people who in their later youth or in adulthood approach or join religious/spiritual organizations, fail in their religious/spiritual efforts, and leave said organizations.

Afterward, they often face great economical, psychological, social, philosophical and other challenges as they try to build a new life for themselves.
For some of them, it is too late, and they end up shunned by society, homeless, or commit suicide.


The question is:

What responsibility do religious/spiritual organizations have toward failed members or failed aspirants?

Should religious/spiritual organizations provide facilities, counseling, and other forms of support for those who have failed to reach the goals that said organizations promise?


Some possible stances:

S1: "Religious/spiritual organizations have no responsibility toward failed members and aspirants. Religious/spiritual matters are entirely on the basis of caveat emptor, and religious/spiritual organizations bear no responsibility for anyone's religious/spiritual advancement or lack thereof."

S2: "Religious/spiritual organizations bear responsibility for the wellbeing of anyone who comes in any kind of contact with said religious/spiritual organizations. Therefore, they must provide means for failed members and failed aspirants to start a new life apart from the religious/spiritual organization."



Please discuss.

I am confused. Can you give me a few examples of these religious "Goals" that people are told to reach but fail?



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[wynn]

I am confused. Can you give me a few examples of these religious "Goals" that people are told to reach but fail?

The goals that the individual religious/spiritual organizations have - they vary from one organization to the next.

The question for this thread is whether people who have tried and failed have any rights to claim from the religious/spiritual organizations which they aspired to be part of.



There are websites and other self-help avenues for people who have left religious/spiritual organizations.

For example, for ex-Mormons, ex-Hare-Krishnas, ex-Catholics etc.

But to my knowledge, none of these websites and other self-help avenues are supported or endorsed by the respective religious/spiritual organizations.
Ie., the Mormon Church does not support the ex-Mormon website, nor does the Catholic Chuuch have a ministry for failed Catholics etc. etc.

 

[Yazata]

Many people who in their later youth or in adulthood approach or join religious/spiritual organizations, fail in their religious/spiritual efforts, and leave said organizations.

Or they loose their interest, or drift into a different religious organization or something. Sometimes we see adolescents kind of experimenting.

Afterward, they often face great economical, psychological, social, philosophical and other challenges as they try to build a new life for themselves.

I've rarely seen anything like that. People drift away, but they aren't typically any worse for the experience.

For some of them, it is too late, and they end up shunned by society, homeless, or commit suicide.

One thing that we do occasionally see, and religious organizations obviously need to be alert to it, is people with pre-existing psychiatric problems joining religious groups as a way of straightening themselves out and transcending their suffering somehow. That doesn't typically work and these people can be in a bad way when they leave.

The question is:

What responsibility do religious/spiritual organizations have toward failed members or failed aspirants?

Should religious/spiritual organizations provide facilities, counseling, and other forms of support for those who have failed to reach the goals that said organizations promise?

I think that religious organizations probably need to manage new members' expectations so that they aren't unrealistic. People (especially young people) sometimes join religious organizations in expectation of enjoying some kind of glorious transcendental epiphany. And what they encounter might not live up to that. We see that a lot here in California with the 'Eastern' religions, meditation and whatnot. Pentescostal Christians might expect the 'Holy Spirit' to descend on them.

And religious organizations probably do need to provide spiritual counseling to their members who need or desire it. They might have to think about helping a few people get into psychiatric treatment if necessary.

But bottom line, I don't really accept your premise that people who leave religious organizations are often broken people. I've rarely seen anything like that.

 

[Syne]

But this seems to imply that epistemic autonomy is possible / required.

It has been discussed before that epistemic autonomy is a highly problematic concept.

Has nothing to do with that. Would you expect a university to guarantee your ability to assimilate the knowledge offered? No organization can be expected to account for personal aptitude.

 

[wynn]

Has nothing to do with that. Would you expect a university to guarantee your ability to assimilate the knowledge offered? No organization can be expected to account for personal aptitude.

I think that religious/spiritual organizations are not the same as mundane organizations.

I think it is perfectly in place to have very moderate expectations from mundane organizations - be they academic, medical, legal etc. These organizations generally do not announce to have The Answers.

But religious/spiritual organizations do announce to have The Answers. And I think that with this, comes greater responsibility.
For religious/spiritual organizations to act with a "caveat emptor" attitude is to effectively deny what the religious/spiritual organization is actually teaching. If they claim to know and share The Truth, they can't just wiggle out with a mundane caveat emptor.

 

[wynn]

But bottom line, I don't really accept your premise that people who leave religious organizations are often broken people. I've rarely seen anything like that.

I've read several accounts of people who have left religious/spiritual organizations, and they were definitely broken people.
Many such accounts are available.

I've only seen some internal inofficial membership turnover statistics, and in some groups, they are as high as 80% in five years.

I agree, we can't really speak of the exact frequency of people leaving religious/spiritual organizations.
And we can only speculate about how intensely people experience their own parting with a religious/spiritual organization.


But the point of this thread is not to figure out the statistics, but to discuss the responsibility that religious/spiritual organizations have toward failed members or failed aspirants.
I think that on principle, we can look into this even if we don't have the exact statistics.

 

[Yazata]

The goals that the individual religious/spiritual organizations have - they vary from one organization to the next.

The question for this thread is whether people who have tried and failed have any rights to claim from the religious/spiritual organizations which they aspired to be part of.

That's a thought. It suggests the seemingly outlandish possibility that people who join Pentecostal churches might have a right to sue the churches if they don't feel the Holy Spirit. Here in the US, the courts wouldn't want to get within a million miles of that.

There are websites and other self-help avenues for people who have left religious/spiritual organizations.

For example, for ex-Mormons, ex-Hare-Krishnas, ex-Catholics etc.

But to my knowledge, none of these websites and other self-help avenues are supported or endorsed by the respective religious/spiritual organizations.
Ie., the Mormon Church does not support the ex-Mormon website, nor does the Catholic Chuuch have a ministry for failed Catholics etc. etc.

The problem in these cases might often be the fact that a person's friends, family and associates are members of whatever religious group it is. So breaking with the religious group can sometimes mean estrangement from one's family and community as well.

I think that we see less of that here in California, because we are far more diverse. Conditions are a lot more fluid than they might be in an Islamic vllage in Afghanistan.

Conceivably, if somebody has thrown themselves into their religious life single-mindedly for years, leaving might kind of sunder them from a big part of themselves.

But most religious individuals aren't monastics and aren't nearly that single minded. They typically have many associations, activities and interests outside their religious practice that they can meld seamlessly into.

 

[wynn]

That's a thought. It suggests the seemingly outlandish possibility that people who join Pentecostal churches might have a right to sue the churches if they don't feel the Holy Spirit. Here in the US, the courts wouldn't want to get within a million miles of that.

To me, the really pertinent issue here is that the religious/spiritual legitimacy of the religious/spiritual organization is tested in how it treats those that have failed in said organization.

I would think that a religious/spiritual organization that truly has The Answers, The Truth would be able to
- provide a smooth and quick departure for those who are unable to attain the goals it proposes, without any hard feelings on either side;
- reform everyone and set them on a course of happiness, whether the person formally stays a member or not.

Instead, I see that most religious/spiritual organizations behave like narcissists, expecting to be loved and considered worthy because they have rejected people - as if those religious/spiritual organizations expect the failed members/aspirants to spend the rest of their lives in shame and guilt, thinking "They rejected me. It must be that what they teach is The Absolute Truth. They rejected me, therefore, they are worthy, and I am a nothing and a nobody."


I simply think that a person or a religious/spiritual organization cannot rightfully claim to know The Absolute Truth and then treat people like shit.

 

[Rhaedas]

If an organization is losing people, then maybe they aren't providing good enough answers. Do they have the responsibility to help people who decide to leave them, no. But they should ask themselves why people chose to leave, and maybe change the organization or its beliefs/role to give a reason to stay.

I don't think a religious organization can do this, at least not quickly or easily. Most religion beliefs are pretty fixed, so if people are leaving because they disagree, there's not much that can be done about that.

If people are leaving for reasons outside the belief system, such as bad leadership, then yes, that can be fixed.

 

[Trooper]

The Clergy Project

Welcome to the Clergy Project. It is hard to think of any other profession which it is so near to impossible to leave. If a farmer tires of the outdoor life and wants to become an accountant or a teacher or a shopkeeper, he faces difficulties, to be sure. He must learn new skills, raise money, move to another area perhaps. But he doesn't risk losing all his friends, being cast out by his family, being ostracized by his whole community. Clergy who lose their faith suffer double jeopardy. It's as though they lose their job and their marriage and their children on the same day. It is an aspect of the vicious intolerance of religion that a mere change of mind can redound so cruelly on those honest enough to acknowledge it.

The Clergy Project exists to provide a safe haven, a forum where clergy who have lost their faith can meet each other, exchange views, swap problems, counsel each other – for, whatever they may have lost, clergy know how to counsel and comfort. Here you will find confidentiality, sympathy, and a friendly place where you can take your time before deciding how to extricate yourself and when you will feel yourself ready to stand up and face the cool, refreshing wind of truth.

-Richard Dawkins

 

[Syne]

I think that religious/spiritual organizations are not the same as mundane organizations.

I think it is perfectly in place to have very moderate expectations from mundane organizations - be they academic, medical, legal etc. These organizations generally do not announce to have The Answers.

But religious/spiritual organizations do announce to have The Answers. And I think that with this, comes greater responsibility.
For religious/spiritual organizations to act with a "caveat emptor" attitude is to effectively deny what the religious/spiritual organization is actually teaching. If they claim to know and share The Truth, they can't just wiggle out with a mundane caveat emptor.

So you think religious organizations should offer guarantees even when secular ones, which should be more capable of having a solid basis for such, do not? Unjustifiable double standard. Spiritual "truths" cannot be objectively verified like secular ones can. So it is only reasonable that we expect more responsibility from the sector that can be held to known fact.

 

[wynn]

So you think religious organizations should offer guarantees

Yes.

Unjustifiable double standard. Spiritual "truths" cannot be objectively verified like secular ones can. So it is only reasonable that we expect more responsibility from the sector that can be held to known fact.

Not at all, since religious/spiritual organizations hold religious/spiritual truths as the highest, most relevant, factual truths.

I don't know of any religious/spiritual organization that would state in its doctrine that what it teaches is merely "subjective," "speculation" or "entirely relative." Instead, they claim to have The Absolute Truth itself.

 

[spidergoat]

What responsibility do religious/spiritual organizations have toward failed members or failed aspirants?

To leave them alone.

 

[Syne]

Not at all, since religious/spiritual organizations hold religious/spiritual truths as the highest, most relevant, factual truths.

I don't know of any religious/spiritual organization that would state in its doctrine that what it teaches is merely "subjective," "speculation" or "entirely relative." Instead, they claim to have The Absolute Truth itself.

There is a difference between "truth" and "factual truth". The latter implies something that is verifiably objective, and I don't know of any reasonable religion that makes any such claim. All religion openly claims a need for faith, belief, enlightenment, etc.. Regardless of the usual verbiage, how are any of these to be considered objective? The Absolute is necessarily an idealist abstraction, which cannot be verified in a finite, relative world.

So how do you expect to adjudicate something which cannot be objectively examined? Should these religio-spiritual organizations just assume any claim of failure is de facto valid? And why should such failure, relying solely upon widely asserted personal subjectivity (faith, etc.), be any responsibly of any other group or persons?

Seems the possibility for fraud would quickly leave any such organization committing more time and resources to this than its original purpose. Perhaps that's your intent.