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

[wynn]

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.

They all do, at least the major ones.

All religion openly claims a need for faith, belief, enlightenment, etc..

Sure, but they don't do so out of a sense of some fundamental doctrinal insecurity or doubt.


For example, Catholics don't call for faith in the divinity of Jesus because they would have doctrinal doubts about whether Jesus was divine or not.
Doctrianlly, the matter is settled, and Jesus is considered divine.
Faith (in the cognitive sense of acting positively despite feelings of uncertainty) is only called for when a particular person has doubts about the divinity of Jesus.

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.

I didn't get the impression that the major religions have a verificationist or experimental approach to what they teach. Ie., they don't make statements to the effect of "Let's test the doctrinal claims to see whether they are true or not."
IOW, religion doesn't seem to be about verification.

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?

If a person attended church services, prayed and performed the prescribed practices, but continues to feel unsure about the doctrine and practices, then we can say they have failed.
For example, as another poster mentioned above, if a person attends Pentecostal services but doesn't feel the Holy Spirit, then such a person has failed.
These failures are evident: a person either begins or continues to feel unsure about the doctrine and practices; and/or the person does not display changes of thinking, feeling, speaking and acting that are otherwise the norm in said religious/spiritual organization.

And why should such failure, relying solely upon widely asserted personal subjectivity (faith, etc.), be any responsibly of any other group or persons?

Because asserting to know the Absolute Truth comes with absolute responsibility.

Of course, if we reduce religious/spiritual pursuits and conceive of them as merely subjective or culture-specific, then there is no point in talking about the Absolute Truth and the responsibility that would come with proclaiming to know it.

But suppose we take at face value religious/spiritual organizations and their claims to know the Absolute Truth - suppose we take them seriously.
What implications does that have? Like I said, on principle, someone proclaiming to know the Absolute Truth would also have absolute responsibility for anyone who hears said person.

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.

If they really know the Absolute Truth, then there would be no danger of fraud or misuse of resources.

 

[wynn]

My basic intent is to explore what a sane approach to spirituality/religion would be.


On principle, a religious/spiritual organization needs to function in the precarious space between
being a mere cultural phenomenon (relative to time and place) with no absolute substance
and
having an absolute substance while embedded in a relative culture.


And a religious/spiritual aspirant needs to likewise wisely navigate this precarious space.
This becomes especially pressing in modern multicultural, multireligious society.

 

[Yazata]

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.

What does "failed in said organization" mean?

Failure to experience some blissful emotional epiphany? Failure to achieve gnosis? Failure to stop suffering?

That's why I wrote in my first post that religious organzations probably need to give some thought to managing new converts' expectations.

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

What religious groups are throwing out "failed" members? Why are they doing that? Christian churches don't typically eject parishoners whose faith wavers or because they fail to be blissfully happy at all times. Buddhists aren't ejected from Buddhism because they weren't already enlightened when they first appear.

I'm still unclear about the nature of the problem that you are writng about.

- 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 think that most people who leave religious organizations do so because they lose interest or because their doubts have built up to a critical mass.

So in both cases, I don't think that the individual who leaves will expect much from the religious group.

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.

Of course, definitely. I'd expect a certain level of compassion, certainly.

I don't know... maybe somebody might invest a tremendous amount of hope in a religious path. So if he or she later comes to doubt the truth or effectiveness of the path, that might constitute the dashing of those hopes.

Religious organizations probably do need to tamp down the sometimes unrealistic expectations that new converts might bring. And religious organizations obviously need to provide ongoing teaching and spiritual counseling, serving as "spiritual friends" we might say.

But a continuing relationship after a person voluntarily breaks with the organization? That sounds slightly self-contradictory to me. Religious groups obviously need to be willing to talk to former members who want to talk to them, and I expect that most clergypeople routinely do that. They talk to pretty much anyone who wants to talk to them. It's not unusual for people to drift away from participation in religious groups, sometimes for many years, only to drift back again later.

 

[Syne]

They all do, at least the major ones.

Really? Which religions can consistently demonstrate some objective verification? What are the specific claims you thing fit this description? Perhaps you miss the point that a subjective belief in a truth will be asserted as a truth without qualification. That doesn't make it an objective claim.

Sure, but they don't do so out of a sense of some fundamental doctrinal insecurity or doubt.

For example, Catholics don't call for faith in the divinity of Jesus because they would have doctrinal doubts about whether Jesus was divine or not.
Doctrianlly, the matter is settled, and Jesus is considered divine.
Faith (in the cognitive sense of acting positively despite feelings of uncertainty) is only called for when a particular person has doubts about the divinity of Jesus.

I didn't get the impression that the major religions have a verificationist or experimental approach to what they teach. Ie., they don't make statements to the effect of "Let's test the doctrinal claims to see whether they are true or not."
IOW, religion doesn't seem to be about verification.

"Doubt" is an antonym of "faith". IOW, faith is what is meant to overcome doubts, not compensate for them. Faith in a particular doctrine is just a wholesale belief in all of its tenets. So if someone holds a doctrine to be "settled" this means that they simply believe it to be true.

You need to look up the word "faith", as you seem to have some erroneous ideas about what it means. Just because someone believes something without proof does not mean that they have any doubts. Can you rigorously prove gravity yourself? Do you believe that it will hold you to the ground?

If a person attended church services, prayed and performed the prescribed practices, but continues to feel unsure about the doctrine and practices, then we can say they have failed.
For example, as another poster mentioned above, if a person attends Pentecostal services but doesn't feel the Holy Spirit, then such a person has failed.
These failures are evident: a person either begins or continues to feel unsure about the doctrine and practices; and/or the person does not display changes of thinking, feeling, speaking and acting that are otherwise the norm in said religious/spiritual organization.

And how is that failure the responsibility of the organization? Such success or failure is solely dependent upon the individual. Like I said before, can you expect to learn anything if you never put in the work yourself? If anything, the fault lies with the individual for having failed to find the right fit for their personality.

Because asserting to know the Absolute Truth comes with absolute responsibility.

Of course, if we reduce religious/spiritual pursuits and conceive of them as merely subjective or culture-specific, then there is no point in talking about the Absolute Truth and the responsibility that would come with proclaiming to know it.

But suppose we take at face value religious/spiritual organizations and their claims to know the Absolute Truth - suppose we take them seriously.
What implications does that have? Like I said, on principle, someone proclaiming to know the Absolute Truth would also have absolute responsibility for anyone who hears said person.

Yeah, what if we take these claims seriously? Any reasonable person would realize that there are many such claims in competition, and like any competition for business, adherents, etc. that these need to be examined prior to "buying in". Like I said above, faith pretty much precludes any inclination to qualify truth claims. But the information about each is freely available, so the individual is responsible for doing their own research.

The asserter of any "Absolute Truth" is only asserting their own absolute belief. You've yet to show that any make objective claims of any sort.

If they really know the Absolute Truth, then there would be no danger of fraud or misuse of resources.

So you think that everyone has an equal capacity for comprehending? Do you naturally understand quantum physics? It has an objectively verifiable truth value, so should physicists "counsel" you for any failure in your comprehension regardless of how much effort you may have put into learning?

 

[spidergoat]

What their failure really means is that their basic premises are wrong. If there was a God that came to every sincere supplicant, then no one would seek him and not be fulfilled. Therefore, the responsibility of an organization to a failed member should be to disband, burn all their holy books, and make a public declaration that they were mistaken all along.

 

[Syne]

What their failure really means is that their basic premises are wrong. If there was a God that came to every sincere supplicant, then no one would seek him and not be fulfilled. Therefore, the responsibility of an organization to a failed member should be to disband, burn all their holy books, and make a public declaration that they were mistaken all along.

And what of the vast majority who do actually seem to find fulfillment? Shoot the horse for want of a shoe, huh?

 

[spidergoat]

They are only as true as their weakest link. Bye bye.

 

[Syne]

They are only as true as their weakest link. Bye bye.

You're the one who cast success in terms of fulfillment. That is a decidedly qualitative criteria, where a quantitative "weakest" then does not apply to its truth value.

 

[spidergoat]

From the point of view of Buddhism, all applicants are inherent failures. If you weren't, you wouldn't be seeking anything. For Christianity, there is a definite goal of connecting with God.

 

[Syne]

That's a dodge, as many adherents find fulfillment in the journey.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

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?




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."

Don't really understand the concept, is it a moral obligation for their aforementioned “souls” and destination in their “afterlives" that the religions hold, or is it finacial loss to the organization( god loves you and he needs your money)Perhaps it’s the damaging effects of the dichotomous religion itself on his life.
I completely left behind my religion and it gave me the opposite outcome, I’m performing better, I far more open to other ideas without religious dogma holding me down and life has been very courteous to me for the past 5 years. Without a concern for any form of any “afterlife” I can put all my attention and efforts on my only life that existece on this 4.6 billion year old rock .

 

[wynn]

What does "failed in said organization" mean?

Failure to experience some blissful emotional epiphany? Failure to achieve gnosis? Failure to stop suffering?

Yes, as I said earlier -

If a person attended church services, prayed and performed the prescribed practices, but continues to feel unsure about the doctrine and practices, then we can say they have failed.
For example, as another poster mentioned above, if a person attends Pentecostal services but doesn't feel the Holy Spirit, then such a person has failed.
These failures are evident: a person either begins or continues to feel unsure about the doctrine and practices; and/or the person does not display changes of thinking, feeling, speaking and acting that are otherwise the norm in said religious/spiritual organization.

That's why I wrote in my first post that religious organzations probably need to give some thought to managing new converts' expectations.

Certainly new converts have expectations. But the members and the organizations themselves have expectations from new converts as well.

What religious groups are throwing out "failed" members? Why are they doing that? Christian churches don't typically eject parishoners whose faith wavers or because they fail to be blissfully happy at all times. Buddhists aren't ejected from Buddhism because they weren't already enlightened when they first appear.

Relatively few people are formally expelled from religious/spiritual organizations.
The more common scenario of departing seems to be that members simply ignore a person to the point that the person finds it unbearable to continue to visit the religious/spiritual organization or to seriously practice what it teaches.

I'm still unclear about the nature of the problem that you are writng about.

For an overview, read a few stories here, for example: http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm, or here: http://surrealist.org/betrayalofthespirit/gelbergbrusselspaper.html , http://xkrishnax.blogspot.com/

Leaving a religious/spiritual organization isn't always a walk in the park.

I think that most people who leave religious organizations do so because they lose interest or because their doubts have built up to a critical mass.

Sure, but this is hardly nice to experience.

So in both cases, I don't think that the individual who leaves will expect much from the religious group.

I suppose that will depend on the stage they were in when they formally left.

See here, for example: http://www.spiritualabuse.org/articles/recovery.html - scroll down to the withdrawal stages.

I'm not sure how much accurate statistics and descriptions of the leaving process are even possible, given the personal nature of the issue.
It does seem to tend to be a traumatic process.

Of course, definitely. I'd expect a certain level of compassion, certainly.

I don't know... maybe somebody might invest a tremendous amount of hope in a religious path. So if he or she later comes to doubt the truth or effectiveness of the path, that might constitute the dashing of those hopes.

Religious organizations probably do need to tamp down the sometimes unrealistic expectations that new converts might bring. And religious organizations obviously need to provide ongoing teaching and spiritual counseling, serving as "spiritual friends" we might say.

As I am also discussing with Syne, there is the danger of relativizing religion/spirituality into a mere cultural phenomenon.

And this can show in how religious/spiritual organizations treat those who were once aspirant and who now distance themselves from them.

But a continuing relationship after a person voluntarily breaks with the organization? That sounds slightly self-contradictory to me.

Such is sometimes considered part of the withdrawal symptoms. The leaver has a love-hate relationship with the members or organization and practices he is leaving.

And it is not exactly a voluntary break either. The person was probably directly or indirectly pushed out by the members - even though the members will likely claim that the person has "left of their own sweet will."

 

[wynn]

What their failure really means is that their basic premises are wrong. If there was a God that came to every sincere supplicant, then no one would seek him and not be fulfilled. Therefore, the responsibility of an organization to a failed member should be to disband, burn all their holy books, and make a public declaration that they were mistaken all along.

/.../

That's a dodge, as many adherents find fulfillment in the journey.

I think Syne and Spidergoat are presenting the two extremes - one places no responsibility on the organization, and another full.
I don't think either extreme is viable.

 

[aaqucnaona]

s2 is the best course of action, IMO.

 

[aaqucnaona]

And what of the vast majority who do actually seem to find fulfillment? Shoot the horse for want of a shoe, huh?

Placebos are wonderful, except when they dont work.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I think Syne and Spidergoat are presenting the two extremes - one places no responsibility on the organization, and another full.
I don't think either extreme is viable.

Seconded.

 

[wynn]

Really? Which religions can consistently demonstrate some objective verification? What are the specific claims you thing fit this description? Perhaps you miss the point that a subjective belief in a truth will be asserted as a truth without qualification. That doesn't make it an objective claim.

/.../

Yeah, what if we take these claims seriously? Any reasonable person would realize that there are many such claims in competition, and like any competition for business, adherents, etc. that these need to be examined prior to "buying in". Like I said above, faith pretty much precludes any inclination to qualify truth claims. But the information about each is freely available, so the individual is responsible for doing their own research.

Again, you are implying the possibility and need for epistemic autonomy.

The thing is that religious/spiritual doctrines deal with topics that purport to contextualize everything, including the seeker's search, his identity, his way of searching.
It is logically impossible to take up a path that contextualizes the very act of taking up that path.

"Doubt" is an antonym of "faith". IOW, faith is what is meant to overcome doubts, not compensate for them. Faith in a particular doctrine is just a wholesale belief in all of its tenets. So if someone holds a doctrine to be "settled" this means that they simply believe it to be true.

You need to look up the word "faith", as you seem to have some erroneous ideas about what it means. Just because someone believes something without proof does not mean that they have any doubts. Can you rigorously prove gravity yourself? Do you believe that it will hold you to the ground?

In religious/spiritual contexts, "faith" often means 'faithfulness, loyalty',
and not 'to believe without evidence.'

And how is that failure the responsibility of the organization? Such success or failure is solely dependent upon the individual. Like I said before, can you expect to learn anything if you never put in the work yourself? If anything, the fault lies with the individual for having failed to find the right fit for their personality.

This is a rather relativistic approach to religion/spirituality.

All religious/spiritual organizations that I know of claim that what they teach is for everyone .

The asserter of any "Absolute Truth" is only asserting their own absolute belief.

That is an absolute assertion as well.

You've yet to show that any make objective claims of any sort.

Who could test them?

If they really know the Absolute Truth, then there would be no danger of fraud or misuse of resources.

So you think that everyone has an equal capacity for comprehending?

It's not clear how you came to this question.

Do you naturally understand quantum physics? It has an objectively verifiable truth value, so should physicists "counsel" you for any failure in your comprehension regardless of how much effort you may have put into learning?

I see you continue to compare mundane areas of knowledge with religious/spiritual areas of knowledge.
I've already noted ealrier why I think that the two cannot be meaningfully compared.


Further, you are presenting what is basically the "you just haven't tried hard enough" argument that is sometimes employed by religious/spiritual people when someone complains of not having made any religious/spiritual progress on a particular religious/spiritual path.

Obviously, a lack of attainment can be simply due to a lack of adequate effort.
But for this thread, we assume that the person has made an effort, a lot of effort even, but still remains without attainment.

 

[Syne]

Placebos are wonderful, except when they dont work.

Huh, since when does the efficacy of a placebo rely on any inherent property of the placebo itself? Placebos are ineffectual ("don't work"), by definition, and rely solely upon the beliefs of the individual.

In religious/spiritual contexts, "faith" often means 'faithfulness, loyalty',
and not 'to believe without evidence.'

There's you problem right there. If a person merely assumes following some superficial rituals to be sufficient, as you imply by assuming faith to only mean faithfulness to tenets, they are not likely to "succeed". When success is a completely subjective experience, faith must include more than outward action.

This illustrates what I've said about the aptitude of the individual.

So you think that everyone has an equal capacity for comprehending?

It's not clear how you came to this question.

Is that just dodging the question, or do you really not see how responsibility leveled at any such organization assumes equal capacity and aptitude of everyone for that particular doctrine?

All religious/spiritual organizations that I know of claim that what they teach is for everyone .

Once again, believers are not likely to qualify their claims. Humans have a very high tendency to judge others by their own standards, which makes it a given that people will express a cognitive bias with regard to their own beliefs.

It is the responsibility of the individual to discern for themselves whether any claim is valid for their own subjective success.

Further, you are presenting what is basically the "you just haven't tried hard enough" argument that is sometimes employed by religious/spiritual people when someone complains of not having made any religious/spiritual progress on a particular religious/spiritual path.

Obviously, a lack of attainment can be simply due to a lack of adequate effort.
But for this thread, we assume that the person has made an effort, a lot of effort even, but still remains without attainment.

No, my argument is that the individual is ultimately responsible for finding what works for them. It is a strictly pragmatic view. No group or persons can be held responsible for what just doesn't happen to work for you.

 

[spidergoat]

In religious/spiritual contexts, "faith" often means 'faithfulness, loyalty',
and not 'to believe without evidence.'

Although I can imagine that the common definition is sometimes used in casual conversation in a church setting, that is not what faith really means religiously. It does mean believing without any reliable evidence.

 

[wynn]

It is the responsibility of the individual to discern for themselves whether any claim is valid for their own subjective success.

No, my argument is that the individual is ultimately responsible for finding what works for them. It is a strictly pragmatic view. No group or persons can be held responsible for what just doesn't happen to work for you.

I think I see where you're coming from.

My contention is that your approach to religion/spirituality
1. rules out the possibility of there being a "one true religion" (and thus opens up a number of other problems),
2. rules out personalist forms of theism (although it would work for deism),
3. treats religion/spirituality as merely an example of subjective and collective culture, and not of a higher truth that is above the particularities of culture,
4. places more responsibility on the individual person than a person can possibly take.


I don't know you or your particular history with religion. I have seen a view like yours proposed by people who were burnt by religion/spirituality and who afterwards took on an extremely defensive stance, placing the whole burden of responsibility upon themselves. I myself held that view once, and it seemed perfectly reasonable at the time.


One can't say
Everything that happens happens by God's will.
and then say
My choice of religion is mine alone.
and then still think one is being consistent.