I would argue that one does not need to justify their belief in a religion. There are a few type of people in general that believe in religions. There is the person that was born into a religion and continues to practice it due to faith. There is the religious person who has had an experience that allows them to fully believe in their God/gods. There is also the person who realizes that their beliefs match the beliefs of a certain religion and decide to follow that religion. None of these people are doing something that needs justifying.
I would also say that religions are just as argued over as science is. There are things in science that are dogmatic as well. If you are a scientist you cannot say that climate change isn't real because that is just something they are told to accept as a fact. It is the same in certain religions. There are some people who will tell you you have to believe something, but there will be just as many people that disagree.

If one non religious person were given information on all of the religions in the world and told that they must choose one, I believe they would simply choose one that most closely reflects their personal values.

If we have a hypothetical situation with a person who's entirely non-religious, and have that person gain knowledge about all the religions there are in this world. How can that person justifiably pick one over the myriad of religions to choose from? — InfiniteZero

I'm not at all sure that's how it happens. :chin: Please don't misunderstand me. I offer my thoughts, the thoughts that your words evoked in me, but they have no authority, divine or otherwise. :smile: I don't think people start off looking for religion. I think it finds them. Or, as you have already observed, they were brought up in a faith, and stayed with it.

For myself, I was raised Roman Catholic, although I turned my back on it as soon as I became old enough to make that decision for myself. For some years, I acknowledged no religious belief. But gradually, I found belief in myself, still there, but not in the RC God. Now, if a form requires that I fill in a box marked "religion", I put "Gaian Daoist". It's just something I made up to describe my spiritual beliefs. I might just as well said "hippy" or "tree-hugger", I suppose. :smile: Nevertheless, I believe. I'm not aware of seeking out the things I believe in; it just sort of happened. :wink:

Any help? :chin:

P.S. Not all religions claim to know the One and Only Truth. Those that do, require their followers to accept their Truth, and to reject all others. There, there is a contradiction. But not all religions are like this. The Sikhs are instructed by their gurus to respect the religious beliefs of others. The Eastern religions look more like moral philosophies to Western eyes, but it is common in the East for (say) a Buddhist to quote (say) a Taoist text. Any contradiction or incompatibility between religions seems less important there. :chin:

I would argue that one does not need to justify their belief in a religion. There are a few type of people in general that believe in religions. There is the person that was born into a religion and continues to practice it due to faith. There is the religious person who has had an experience that allows them to fully believe in their God/gods. There is also the person who realizes that their beliefs match the beliefs of a certain religion and decide to follow that religion. None of these people are doing something that needs justifying. — Questionall

But that's is my point to begin with, all these people have arbitrary reasons to choose the religion they choose. They may choose to stay in the religion they were brought up in, or they may have an arbitrary experience that makes them pick a religion that aligns with that experience. If these people are merely choosing a religion for its cosmological, metaphysical and moral truth on the basis of arbitrary choice, then wouldn't it render these religions pointless? Why not simply seek those truths from areas of philsophy and science that offer reflection, reason and evidence to justify ones views in cosmology, metaphysics and ethics/morality?

I would also say that religions are just as argued over as science is. There are things in science that are dogmatic as well. If you are a scientist you cannot say that climate change isn't real because that is just something they are told to accept as a fact. It is the same in certain religions. There are some people who will tell you you have to believe something, but there will be just as many people that disagree. — Questionall

Science isn't dogmatic, it is the opposite. The whole point of science is to observe, experiment, revise and progress. And the more or less "universal" acceptance of a scientific truth isn't because it is a dogma in the first place, it is because of its truth value and explanative power that makes it widely accepted in the scientific field. Also, scientists do not believe that climate change is real because they are told by certain meteorologists, they accept it based on its evidence, historical data, and predicted future based on mathematical calculations. If global warming was false, then mathematics would be false as well, because the conclusion of global warming can only come from the mathematical calculations being correct. There is no comparative between "science" and religion. The two are mutually exclusive of each other, and are incompatible as well for the most part, at the very least in the actual lab where one does scientific research.

If one non religious person were given information on all of the religions in the world and told that they must choose one, I believe they would simply choose one that most closely reflects their personal values. — Questionall

But why would they need to choose a religion in the first place, If they already have personal values? if the choice makes one simply try to align one's own values to a dogmatic religious explanation to cosmology, metaphysics and morality, then why make such an arbitrary choice when you can simply choose philosophy and science to explain those same things? And explain those things through non-arbitrary reasoning unlike the dogmatic views of religion would force us to do.

But do you think you might as well have been a Zoroastrian, Wickan, or Shinto for instance if influences from these religions came into your life and affected your way of thinking about the knowledge regarding metaphysical, cosmological and ethical truths?

Because my question is to point to the problem regarding the epistemological credibility the religions have to offer, if in the thought experiment, the choice one makes is arbitrary, then the truth one has about cosmology, metaphysics and ethics is arbitrary. However, I think we all agree that truth and knowledge is non-arbitrary. So, it must be that choosing a religion i.e. having a religion is pointless regarding the questions of metaphysics, cosmology and ethics. By having I mean sticking with the one religion you were brought up in, or to convert to some other religion or really any type of spiritual view that may claim to explain "God's being" and cosmology, metaphysics and ethics.

what are your thoughts on the matter? Can one justify choosing a religion?

It is as easy to justify choosing a religion as it is to justify choosing a spouse, a football team, a place to live, a political philosophy or a job.

Choosing a religion is only problematic if that religion claims that all other religions are wrong. Some branches of Christianity and Islam make that claim, so those branches have that problem. But most religions don't make that claim, so they have no such problem.

I think polytheism might be superior to monotheism. Monotheists tend to be rigid about being right: Jews, Christians Moslems... Supposedly (according to Yuval Harari) polytheists tend to be more flexible in the their approach. Christians could just go ahead and start worshipping the saints and the separate persons of the Trinity. Instead of praying to the BVM to intercede with God the Father (or God the Son -- her kid) she could be redefined as a deity. Ditto for St. George, St. Matthew, St. Paul, St. Henry (aka St. Hank), St. Peter, St. Dick, St. Fallus, Saints Huey, Dewey, and Louie, and so on.

Fertility and phallic worship should be reinstituted. They were such revered traditional practices. Some of the fancier marble cathedrals would make great gay bath houses. Under the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers, every believer would be obligated to serve as a temple prostitute one day a year. If one were good at it, one could skip purgatory. If not, purgatory would last longer. A little incentive there.

But do you think you might as well have been a Zoroastrian, Wickan, or Shinto for instance if influences from these religions came into your life and affected your way of thinking about the knowledge regarding metaphysical, cosmological and ethical truths? — InfiniteZero

If the religions you mention had a specific influence on me - one that I found helpful - then I might have gravitated in their direction, if that's what you're asking? :chin: For myself, I do not equate religion with "knowledge" about anything. I look at religion, and God, differently from that.

I won't get in too deep, but I will offer this: I assert that God exists, but I also assert, in much the same way, that Harry Potter exists, and that Theresa May exists. Of course, each of those assertions exercises a different shade of meaning of "exists", but that's OK. Religion is about feelings, emotion and wisdom, but not much about intelligence or knowledge. That's how it works for me. Your approach might be quite different, and I would not call you 'wrong'. :wink:

...if in the thought experiment, the choice one makes is arbitrary, then the truth one has about cosmology, metaphysics and ethics is arbitrary. However, I think we all agree that truth and knowledge is non-arbitrary. — InfiniteZero

Truth and knowledge are problematic. No, they aren't arbitrary, but they can - how can I say this? :chin: - take on different guises in different circumstances/contexts, or for different people. Scientific knowledge is far from arbitrary. In other areas of human thought and understanding, knowledge is less well defined, and less rigidly confined, perhaps? :chin:

...some other religion or really any type of spiritual view that may claim to explain "God's being" and cosmology, metaphysics and ethics. — InfiniteZero

Religions offer some of these things to some people, but I'm not sure they are universally recognised features of religion, are they? :chin: For me, at least, God says little of cosmology, and maybe not that much metaphysics...? :confused:

I think polytheism might be superior to monotheism. Monotheists tend to be rigid about being right... — Bitter Crank

I would take it farther, and recommend pan-theism. I think the Hindus claim that all 'Gods' recognised by humans reflect one or more aspects of God, who is so far above us that we cannot understand Her directly. So we use these avatars to make it easier for ourselves. If the Hindus don't say that, I apologise, but *I* believe it, so I respect Thor, and Jesus too. And all the others, of course. God is God; it's our human way of understanding that limits things. Hail Eris! :wink:

Just my view, of course. YMMV. :up:

For myself, I do not equate religion with "knowledge" about anything. I look at religion, and God, differently from that. — Pattern-chaser

I can sympathize with that of course, but most people would propagate a religious view that has epistemological value regarding the three fields I mentioned. And I think at least regarding those three areas, religion in its plurality cannot offer objective epistemic content the way philosophy and science in general may. Of course on an individual level, religion may offer something else to people who do not seek cosmological, metaphysical or ethical knowledge from it, but rather the spiritual, traditional and cultural aspects of it.

Truth and knowledge are problematic. No, they aren't arbitrary, but they can - how can I say this? :chin: - take on different guises in different circumstances/contexts, or for different people. Scientific knowledge is far from arbitrary. In other areas of human thought and understanding, knowledge is less well defined, and less rigidly confined, perhaps? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I agree that in non-a priori and non-normative systems knowledge can be less rigid and to some extent contextual, especially in everyday life. However, certain "ultimate" truths or "objective" truths that we consider science to offer cannot be arbitrary, at the very least, the data cannot be arbitrary, only our interpretation of that data is. However, in regards to understanding the true nature of the universe, and also an ethics that may be applicable to every human being, we would need certain non-arbitrary truths or axioms as a foundation to build on I think. Otherwise, moral relativism reigns true, and I don't think that's desirable.

I think the Hindus claim that all 'Gods' recognised by humans reflect one or more aspects of God, who is so far above us that we cannot understand Her directly. So we use these avatars to make it easier for ourselves. — Pattern-chaser

There is a part of Hinduism that does make that claim yes, and coming from an Indian family myself, I have some minimal knowledge on this to verify that claim. And the statement really is this: "only a fool thinks there is only one God" or something like it. This seems to me to imply the plurality of interpretations regarding the one "true" being that no one epistemically has access to, only our constructed image and understanding of that being, whatever it may be. However, to me, being an agnostic, I would go even further and say that "only a fool would try to make claims about God". I mean no disrespect of course, but it would seem pointless to make epistemic claims or create different images of the "one true God" when we as humans are in principle never going to be in an epistemic position to have access to "It".

And I think at least regarding those three areas, religion in its plurality cannot offer objective epistemic content the way philosophy and science in general may. Of course on an individual level, religion may offer something else to people who do not seek cosmological, metaphysical or ethical knowledge from it, but rather the spiritual, traditional and cultural aspects of it. — InfiniteZero

Yes, religion does not (IMO) offer "objective epistemic content". It isn't that type of thing. :smile: I find that religion confirms and supports some fairly basic (as in fundamental) beliefs that I hold. I had always assumed that was the same for everybody, but that's probably a misunderstanding on my part. :wink:

However, certain "ultimate" truths or "objective" truths that we consider science to offer cannot be arbitrary, at the very least, the data cannot be arbitrary, only our interpretation of that data is. — InfiniteZero

Here, you must mean by "objective" something more than merely unbiased. If this is so, then science does not offer objective truth, it offers pragmatic truth. It does not and cannot consider Objective Reality, whatever that might be. It concerns itself, sensibly and pragmatically, with the world our senses and perception show to our minds. If that world should happen to be Objective Reality, all well and good. If not, it doesn't matter, since the reality we 'see' is the only one we have. Science (IMO) quite reasonably and rationally confines its work to that consistent and testable world, whatever its absolute nature.

So yes, in the sense that I describe, science offers pragmatic and testable knowledge of 'the world'. Objective? Maybe; maybe not. :smile: But not the same as what religion offers, as you suggest. :up:

However, in regards to understanding the true nature of the universe, and also an ethics that may be applicable to every human being, we would need certain non-arbitrary truths or axioms as a foundation to build on I think. Otherwise, moral relativism reigns true, and I don't think that's desirable. — InfiniteZero

Interesting. :up: You subscribe, then, to an Objectivist viewpoint (in general), and also to objective ethics/morality too. My own view is more open to uncertainty, as I believe Objectivity to be unattainable (for humans). But how to relate this to religion, and the topic here? If you seek universally-applicable truths, as you seem to be, I can't see how religion could benefit you at all. :chin: Not because it can't provide - or claim to provide :smile: - universal truths. There are a few religions that claim to provide exactly this, I think, but the foundation of these truths does not meet your standards or needs, I suspect?

As for moral relativism, I'm not sure it can be avoided, in practice. There is no universally-accepted morality. People think/believe all kinds of things, so many kinds that it is difficult even to imagine how we could agree on one morality. That's not that there is no morality, or that all moralities must be considered equal. I can't abide silliness like that. But judging one morality superior to another is problematic, maybe impossible. How to compare such things as morality? :smile: It would be more convenient if you were right, and morality is objective, but I don't think that's so, despite the convenience. :smile: The same goes for "understanding the true nature of the universe". :wink:

There is a part of Hinduism that does make that claim yes, and coming from an Indian family myself, I have some minimal knowledge on this to verify that claim. And the statement really is this: "only a fool thinks there is only one God" or something like it. — InfiniteZero

Thank you. :up:

However, to me, being an agnostic, I would go even further and say that "only a fool would try to make claims about God". — InfiniteZero

Religious people regularly make claims about God, some of them quite harmless and uncontentious, but only the unwise make specific claims about the nature or intentions of the unknowable. :up: Oops: IMO. :wink:

...it would seem pointless to make epistemic claims or create different images of the "one true God" when we as humans are in principle never going to be in an epistemic position to have access to "It". — InfiniteZero

Hee-hee. :smile: This is one of my main arguments as to why hard-Objectivity is merely an intellectual distraction. We "are in principle never going to be in an epistemic position to have access to" 'it'. :up: :wink:

what are your thoughts on the matter? Can one justify choosing a religion? — InfiniteZero

At the present stage in human evolution, NO!

I have great respect for religion (not just because it played a part in my upbringing, but it also has value to impart). However, the methods religions use are outdated and whatever values are present in religions are more readily extracted in the study of sciences and philosophy.

In ancient times, what we now call religion, was their main public means of communication of knowledge. It was fundamentally conceptual and its primary utility was to introduce ideas (through repeated practice to beat the lesson into their instinctive minds) which could be incorporated into human society to aid in further development. So, having people clinging to those old religious edicts as they were taught thousands of years ago is very counter-productive to the progress of our current human society.

At the best, one can justify studying the various religions without adhering to any. It is possible to express devotion and appreciation in life without illogical dogma. Also, every aspect of religion can be found in greater detail in our modern sciences and philosophy, and, unlike the commonly ill-expressed modes of religious practice, they call for personal commitment with the added value of autonomy and self-responsibility. Study of law, ethics, cultures, social interactions, etc., allows us, not just to understand morality, but, also, to practice it appropriately in the different possible situations we may happen to be in.

In this age of information, it baffles the mind that a person could remain tethered to religion. I do understand, however, maintaining a certain guise out of respect to cultural and family ties. Those who do so, tend to be open-minded enough to rise above the insensate dogma, and they represent a growing trend in the society at large. It may be that, in the unconscious collective of human awareness, the gong has tolled on religion and that what we see is a headless chicken whose body is in the last throws of residual vitality.

It seems to me that you are making an error in assuming that acts of will, such as the choice of religion, are based solely on the perception of truth. The very idea of faith is that of making a commitment when the data are inconclusive. Let me suggest that the criterion of faith commitments is not knowledge, but worthiness. I believe what I believe, not because I know it is true, but because I have decided that it is worthy of my commitment.

with tongue firmly in cheek - I hope this helps.

The pick a religion decision tree:

1. Do you believe there is a God ? ( Title for most perfect being, the three o’s, etc)
Yes – go to question 2
No - Find a list of non – God based religions and pick one – but really why bother. Or if you are not Asian or Indian - pick one of the eastern ones and act real cool and all

2. Do you believe in Jesus as God ?
Yes – go to question 3
No - Pick Judaism or Islam depending on you athletic ability.

3. You want this choice to be a full time thing, or just a kind of nice to have thing ?
Full time – go to question 4
Nice to have - Find a list of major protestant churches - find the one in your area
With a really good choir - or just watch Joel Osteen on TV

4. Are you a complete idiot ?
Yes - Grab a snake you’re a fundamentalist
No - You’re a Catholic

It seems to me that you are making an error in assuming that acts of will, such as the choice of religion, are based solely on the perception of truth. The very idea of faith is that of making a commitment when the data are inconclusive. Let me suggest that the criterion of faith commitments is not knowledge, but worthiness. I believe what I believe, not because I know it is true, but because I have decided that it is worthy of my commitment. — Dfpolis

But why make a commitment when something is inconclusive? and how do we then justify that commitment to the particular faith in the second instance anyway? If the criterion to choose is worthiness of the religion, how do I justify the worthiness of one over the other? The problem doesn't have to necessarily apply to the epistemic relation to the three categories of metaphysics, cosmology and ethics. The problem still stands on how one can say, I choose this religion because it is worthy to me. Then it begs the question: "well why is this religion worthy to you and not some other religion?".

I have great respect for religion (not just because it played a part in my upbringing, but it also has value to impart). However, the methods religions use are outdated and whatever values are present in religions are more readily extracted in the study of sciences and philosophy. — BrianW

I agree completely, I do not claim there aren't other aspects of religion that may be in some way fruitful perhaps, but to enforce it to hold any epistemological value regarding metaphysics, cosmology or ethics or any other scientific field for that matter is quite baffling.

1. Do you believe there is a God ? ( Title for most perfect being, the three o’s, etc)
Yes – go to question 2
No - Find a list of non – God based religions and pick one – but really why bother. Or if you are not Asian or Indian - pick one of the eastern ones and act real cool and all — Rank Amateur

I do not see why one has to go to question 2 at all if one simply believes in a God though? Why assume believing in a God or a being like that with the possibility of the "three O's" necessitates following a particular religion? One could believe in a silent God, a God that we may know nothing about, yet a God we may believe in being the first cause of everything and the keeper of the harmony in the universe.

Interesting. :up: You subscribe, then, to an Objectivist viewpoint (in general), and also to objective ethics/morality too. My own view is more open to uncertainty, as I believe Objectivity to be unattainable (for humans). But how to relate this to religion, and the topic here? If you seek universally-applicable truths, as you seem to be, I can't see how religion could benefit you at all. :chin: Not because it can't provide - or claim to provide :smile: - universal truths. There are a few religions that claim to provide exactly this, I think, but the foundation of these truths does not meet your standards or needs, I suspect? — Pattern-chaser

Well in some way, there are certain a priori truths that are clearly objective truths, truths that exist independently of our being. However, these truths aren't truths that may be part of ultimate reality as such "out there". Mathematical truths for instance are normative truths within the formal system, but they are of course objective, there is no relativity or contextual value to its truth, there is a rigid truth value to 1+1=2 being true. However, an objective truth in for instance the actual world would perhaps be some type of truth à la Descartes "cogito, ergo sum" or perhaps the more logical correct "I think, therefore something necessarily is".

As for moral relativism, I'm not sure it can be avoided, in practice. There is no universally-accepted morality. People think/believe all kinds of things, so many kinds that it is difficult even to imagine how we could agree on one morality. That's not that there is no morality, or that all moralities must be considered equal. I can't abide silliness like that. But judging one morality superior to another is problematic, maybe impossible. How to compare such things as morality? :smile: It would be more convenient if you were right, and morality is objective, but I don't think that's so, despite the convenience. :smile: The same goes for "understanding the true nature of the universe". :wink: — Pattern-chaser

But regarding morality I do think there are certain common properties that apply to every human agent, if not rational agent. I mean, how else would we all agree that murdering innocents is wrong? despite some people who are emotionally unable to comprehend why it is wrong, they know it is wrong, or they to some degree understand the abnormality of their action I would suppose. If we consider the viewpoint from any religion more or less, or especially the judeo-christian religions, their claim against an atheistic morality is the attack against the lack of "universality" or "absolutism" in their ethical framework. "How can we be moral when there is no universal guideline?" is often their question and argument against atheists regarding morality. I do sympathize and think that morality itself doesn't necessarily have to be universal at all. And I personally doubt there being any single axiom, property or sentence that may apply to every single human being. Even rationality as a common feature to apply to all agents of the moral society fails when we have certain agents lacking the capicity of rational thinking, especially underdeveloped rational thinking i.e. children and other mentally handicapped people.

Nonetheless, subscribing to moral relativism as such seems like a loss, and it is a losing battle itself, given the paradoxes it may create through conventionalism. If one subscribes to conventionalism, then one is tolerant to the conventions of other societies. One follows the rules and moral code of the society you are a part of. However, if one society's convention is to be intolerant, one comes in the dilemma of following the convention of the society of being intolerant, meaning you no longer subscribe to a moral relativism. This is one of several other problems relativism may face, such as being part of more than one societies and having to follow conflicting conventions and such.

However, I do not think morality itself is objective, but we may bend our personal morality to the framework of an ethical system that may prove to be the best system to follow for a society of autonomous moral actors. But, the problem lies in determining which ethical framework is the best, which essentially boils down to the old arguments between the deontologists, utilitarians and social contract theorists and so on.

But why make a commitment when something is inconclusive? — InfiniteZero

There is no need to make a commitment when the data are conclusive. Then the only need is for honest acceptance.

The commitment is made because framework for living provided is judged to be worthy. To be worthy, it can't be contradicted by what we know for a fact, It's teachings must resonates with one's nature (what Maritain calls knowledge by connaturality), and it must lead to a way of life that is fully human. Hopefully the commitment will result in both self-realization and the realization of others' unique natures.

Obviously all decisions are complex and involve a number of factors that cannot be treated algorithmically. Still, one may reject candidates that make us look down on others ("infidels," "the unsaved," "the unenlightened," etc.), that denigrate one's self as intrinsically evil or one's nature as corrupt, that reduce moral action to following a set of invariant rules or "being saved" to holding certain dogmas, that elevate selfishness over love, etc.

The commitment is made because framework for living provided is judged to be worthy. To be worthy, it can't be contradicted by what we know for a fact, It's teachings must resonates with one's nature (what Maritain calls knowledge by connaturality), and it must lead to a way of life that is fully human. Hopefully the commitment will result in both self-realization and the realization of others' unique natures. — Dfpolis

If the commitment is made because the framework for living that is provided is judged to be worthy, then how does on justifiably judge one framework for living over the other from the vast array of options at our disposal? Even if we exclude candidates that as you say "make us look down on others". I still fail to see why one necessarily needs to pick a religion to resonate with some presupposed notions one already has about certain aspects of life in general? when all these questions can be answered through philosophy and science alone?

I think we first need to understand what the concept of a religion actually entails. There are clearly several dimensions to a religion for something to be called a religion to begin with. my critique is on the dogmatic scriptural dimension i.e. its teachings from some holy text. And the main proponent for the criticism is in the arbitrariness of choosing to follow a religion's dogmatic teachings for arbitrary reasons, since these teachings make epistemological claims regarding metaphysics, cosmology, ethics and other fields as such ( e.g. how some muslims claim the Quran implied the existence of the embryo and such before anyone even knew what it was apparently, or the Vedic texts' claim of the seven centers of energy in our body, in a sense explaining physiology through some theory of energy of some sort)

Regarding connatural knowledge, I do not think knowledge by connaturality would provide any better reason to decide which religion one can justifiably pick over another. Given that the epistemic problem one has here lies directly in the truth of the teachings of the various religions themselves. How can I justifiably follow the teachings of religion A over religion B, and claim to have knowledge, be it connatural or any other type of knowledge, when the truth in the teachings of religion A must either be correct and false in religion B, or vice versa. Because, keep in mind here, I do not know whether the teachings in religion A are true, or whether the teachings in religion B are true. How can I justify my choice and pick one and follow its teaching as if it granted me knowledge about something, if I cannot know whether it is true or not? (I expect we all assume that having knowledge entails truth, otherwise we have no knowledge if what we have knowledge of is not true)

I am aware this is a crude way of showing the epistemic dilemma, and religions are more complex as such, but all 5 major religions are quite incompatible with each other regarding their metaphysics, cosmology and ethics to varirous degrees. The Judeo-Christian religions are perhaps closer to each other, yet still miles apart in their ethical framework and metaphysics, even if their cosmological view with the Genesis and Adam and Eve story may be similar all across.

But why make a commitment when something is inconclusive? — InfiniteZero

Ah, yes - the mantra of commitment-phobes around the world, and fodder for countless movies about indecisive singles driving their would-be-spouse spare with their inability to commit.

Fortunately for those that wish the human species to continue (pax, anti-natalists, I'm not committing either way on that question) people do make commitments when things are inconclusive. They do it al the time.

I still fail to see why one necessarily needs to pick a religion to resonate with some presupposed notions one already has about certain aspects of life in general? when all these questions can be answered through philosophy and science alone? — InfiniteZero

Really? Surely you jest! Science is going to tell me if I should be a Moron, a Jew, a Moselim, a Catholic or a Buddhist? Philosophy is?? Science does not even consider most matters of faith. Sure, science tells us that the Fundamentalist take on the age of the earth and the origin of species is, shall we say, "peculiar," but it is logically possible, and more so than as the equally peculiar belief, popular with some philosophers, that we are simulants.

So, how would science and/or philosophy deal with the claim that God, though one being, is a trinity of persons? Or the claim that after death we merge into the Transcendent as a drop into the sea?

my critique is on the dogmatic scriptural dimension i.e. its teachings from some holy text. — InfiniteZero

When you look at what religions actually teach, it is not usually the literal word of some text. More often, it is an interpretative tradition (and usually one in competition with other interpretative traditions). These traditions usually reflect a history of controverted interpretation, resolution and perhaps division. Some of these traditions are open to the findings of science, others not. Further, within any one tradition there is often a range of opinion (from conservative to liberal, and along other axes), open to an adherent of the tradition.

So, your characterization of religious traditions as "dogmatic" at least distorts the reality of living and responsive traditions.

Regarding connatural knowledge, I do not think knowledge by connaturality would provide any better reason to decide which religion one can justifiably pick over another. — InfiniteZero

I do not see why not. If God has created our nature (by whatever means), then it would not surprising that our being would "resonate" with authentic spiritual teaching, and that, if we are attentive, we would be aware of such resonance. By "resonance" here, as in physics, I mean a response that is much stronger than typical.

Given that the epistemic problem one has here lies directly in the truth of the teachings of the various religions themselves. — InfiniteZero

I'm suggesting that the choice of religion or spiritual path is not an epistemic problem, but results from a judgement of which is most worthy of our commitment, which is a judgement of value, not of truth. In other words, it is an act of will, which can only be distorted by casting it as an act of intellect.

How can I justifiably follow the teachings of religion A over religion B, and claim to have knowledge — InfiniteZero

I don't know the position of non-Western religions on faith, but most Western religions explicitly teach that matters of faith are not subject to rational proof -- that they are not "known" in any sense generally accepted in philosophy. So, I think you're once again mischaracterizing the nature of religious commitment.

How can I justify my choice and pick one and follow its teaching as if it granted me knowledge about something — InfiniteZero

But, it is not being sold as "knowledge." Perhaps you are misreading this because you have accepted the peculiar doctrine that knowledge is a species of belief. It is not. Knowledge is awareness of present intelligibility and so an act of intellect. Belief is commitment to the truth of some proposition and so an act of will. Thus, Descartes tells us he was in his chamber (showing he knew he was) while he was methodically doubting that fact. His doubt was not an act of intellect. (It did not make him unaware that he was in his room.) It was an act of will: the willing suspension of belief. If knowledge were a species of belief, one could not know something without believing it -- yet that is exactly what Descartes did with his methodological doubt.

But regarding morality I do think there are certain common properties that apply to every human agent, if not rational agent. I mean, how else would we all agree that murdering innocents is wrong? — InfiniteZero

There is always some extreme circumstance that breaks every rule such as this one. Consider a tribe whose membership has outgrown the locally-available food supply. Killing the children - or the old people, or some other portion of the tribe's population - could become necessary for the remainder not to starve. In this, admittedly extreme, case, it is right to kill innocents, so that the rest might survive. I do not argue this case strongly, I only observe that even the most obvious moral rules do not always apply, and I offer this somewhat unpalatable fiction as an example.

Nonetheless, subscribing to moral relativism as such seems like a loss, and it is a losing battle itself, given the paradoxes it may create through conventionalism. If one subscribes to conventionalism, then one is tolerant to the conventions of other societies. One follows the rules and moral code of the society you are a part of. However, if one society's convention is to be intolerant, one comes in the dilemma of following the convention of the society of being intolerant, meaning you no longer subscribe to a moral relativism. This is one of several other problems relativism may face, such as being part of more than one societies and having to follow conflicting conventions and such. — InfiniteZero

I don't think we subscribe to moral relativism, do we? Isn't it closer to the truth to say that we observe moral relativism in our populations? Couldn't further observations see that this doesn't always work, as your exemplary intolerant society doesn't. Here it is societies that you are using as an example, so let's stick with them.

No society that I can think of would ever declare subscription to moral relativism. They would act at a much more detailed level, I think. For example, rather than declare loyalty to moral relativism, a society might pass a law making murder punishable by imprisonment. And that society would soon discover that the law mainly worked, but that the occasional murder still took place. It might subsequently recognise that there are circumstances where society requires its members to murder other humans, probably members of some other society. And so on.

I see no paradoxes, and no problems. What I see are rules that do not always apply in the real world. So we recognise these 'rules' as approximate guides to what happens in the real world, and we carry on carrying on. We don't bemoan the inability of the world to follow our rules, we formulate better rules, or (more likely and more practically) accept that the rules are followed some, but not all, of the time. Could we call this 'real world relativism'? :chin: :wink:

Really? Surely you jest! Science is going to tell me if I should be a Moron, a Jew, a Moselim, a Catholic or a Buddhist? Philosophy is?? Science does not even consider most matters of faith. Sure, science tells us that the Fundamentalist take on the age of the earth and the origin of species is, shall we say, "peculiar," but it is logically possible, and more so than as the equally peculiar belief, popular with some philosophers, that we are simulants.

So, how would science and/or philosophy deal with the claim that God, though one being, is a trinity of persons? Or the claim that after death we merge into the Transcendent as a drop into the sea? — Dfpolis

I assure you I do not jest, why must one assume there is a necessity in having to pick any one of these religions? If science tells us the physical world has no intrinsic value, there is no evidence for God and meaning is merely projected by moral agents, does that seem so unpalatable if it were true? The type of escapism is all too common, trying to "create" or "construct" meaning out of natural incidents has been a part of human nature clearly, and we surely have not gotten out of our habit of doing so to this date.

The question regarding the age of the earth, the universe and the origin of our species and others in general is not for a man-made logical system to determine. It is just as logically possible for the earth to be flat or have a geo-centric view on the solar system. However, these questions are regarding physical objects, and only physics gives us credible knowledge regarding the physical universe, not dogmas from holy scriptures providing "a priori" knowledge.

Science and philosophy will be the tools from which you may rationalize and determine through argumentation which view should be accepted regarding metaphysics, cosmology and ethics. I do not claim there are blueprint answers in any of these fields. However, arbitrarily choosing between pre-existing dogmas is surely epistemically incredible.

How would science deal with the claim of God? The same way it would deal with any other claim regarding the physical world. If the claim is that God is part of the physical world, then it would demand evidence for such a being to exist in the physical world. Any claim of transcendence after death would require the same from science, however, it is an impossibility to gain any evidence from a dead person, it is not like we can ask their ghosts. If there are no evidence supporting the claim or "hypothesis" of the Judeo-Christain God, then the conclusion follows that there is no reason to be holding that claim. I do not see what necessitates the idea of having to believe in a definition of God from a particular religion, given all the different religions one could choose to believe from.

I'm suggesting that the choice of religion or spiritual path is not an epistemic problem, but results from a judgement of which is most worthy of our commitment, which is a judgement of value, not of truth. In other words, it is an act of will, which can only be distorted by casting it as an act of intellect. — Dfpolis

If the commitment to a religion is choosing by judging its value, we only change it from being an epistemic problem to it being a problem of value judgment. The abritrariness of value judgment in the decision regarding which religion one resonates to becomes to an extent random. When the criteriea of worthiness and its value has its basis on an arbitrary presupposed notion. If we ignore the teachings of the religion as the basis for determining its "value of worthiness", what reason do we have to pick a religion in the first instance? When all the other dimensions it has to offer can be had by cultural traditions and social groups in general? If it is solely the spiritual dimension one seeks, then that's clearly going to be an arbitrary choice as that's solely dependent on subjective needs and aspects. However, religion is institutional, and has more than a spiritual dimension to it to be classified and regarded as a religion in the first place, so if one seeks only a spiritual connection, religion is no necessary choice, much less a good choice if that was one's sole criteria and reason to choose a religion.

But, it is not being sold as "knowledge." Perhaps you are misreading this because you have accepted the peculiar doctrine that knowledge is a species of belief. It is not. Knowledge is awareness of present intelligibility and so an act of intellect. Belief is commitment to the truth of some proposition and so an act of will. Thus, Descartes tells us he was in his chamber (showing he knew he was) while he was methodically doubting that fact. His doubt was not an act of intellect. (It did not make him unaware that he was in his room.) It was an act of will: the willing suspension of belief. If knowledge were a species of belief, one could not know something without believing it -- yet that is exactly what Descartes did with his methodological doubt. — Dfpolis

It may not be sold as knowledge, however, it is being sold as "truth". And having a belief in a truth that one cannot determine whether the truth-claim is false or not seems like an unecessary belief to hold. I agree knowledge doesn't necessarily entail belief and I not subscribe to the view of justified true belief as knowledge. However, let me try and clarify on the term belief. I doubt most people in the sense of "knowing" actually know that the earth is round. Though, almost everyone hold the belief that the earth is round of course, and the belief they hold is based on the fact provided by science, or more so by mathematics from the middle ages and prior. I do not know in the sense of perceptual knowledge, but I do know the proposition "the earth is round" is a true proposition. However, we know the truth value in this proposition to be true because we have countless empirical data and evidence to back the truth value of this claim through science. We may have seen images of earth from space, and that may strenghten our belief in the earth being round for instance.

But what is there to back up the truth in the claims that Jesus walked on water, or Moses split the sea in half to lead his people through, or that Hanuman threw boulders from the tip of India to create a bridge across to Sri Lanka? The holy texts themselves are no evidence, they are simply the claimholders, so what would then justify someone to believe in the truth of one religious text over another? We come back to the same problem, just with different terminology instead.

However, if you say that faith is distinct from belief again, then what would faith essentially be? A type of blind belief perhaps? I subscribe to the idea that just as rationality is a human faculty, so is the faculty of belief or non-rational belief. They are both human faculties, and faculties that only we have. Yet, the posed problem is how one can justifiably believe in one religion over another. And I do not see how any justification can be made on part of the person deciding on the religion they follow. If there can be no justification, the consequences seem quite uncanny given the vast majority of religious devouts are strongly entrenched to their unjustified blind beliefs then.

I don't think we subscribe to moral relativism, do we? Isn't it closer to the truth to say that we observe moral relativism in our populations? Couldn't further observations see that this doesn't always work, as your exemplary intolerant society doesn't. Here it is societies that you are using as an example, so let's stick with them.

No society that I can think of would ever declare subscription to moral relativism. They would act at a much more detailed level, I think. For example, rather than declare loyalty to moral relativism, a society might pass a law making murder punishable by imprisonment. And that society would soon discover that the law mainly worked, but that the occasional murder still took place. It might subsequently recognise that there are circumstances where society requires its members to murder other humans, probably members of some other society. And so on. — Pattern-chaser

Well, I think it is more individuals of a society that subscribe to the conventions of that society. For instance, if one goes to Japan, their conventions and traditions are subscribed to by their citizens, otherwise, breaking those norms and conventions may get them excluded from being part of the society. And these conventions do not have any relations to the laws of the country either of course, these are more personal social norms that are played out by the members as a habit more than anything. And so, if the habit of a society was to be intolerant, then when a member of that society travelled to another country and met their society, they would not be subscribing to moral relativism or conventionalism, given that they would be intolerant of the society they were visiting. The predicament would be that they would in essence have a morality that may be seen as "objective or universal" since they are intolerant of conventions of all other countries, yet they are still subscribed to their own conventions, and therein lies the problem of moral relativism.

Besides, even though legal matters may be somewhat guided by ethical frameworks, the two are mutually exclusive of each other and bear no necessities towards one another. And the problem I find is only with the ethical framework of moral relativism, not the legal. Clearly any person who travels to another country has to abide by that country's laws, however, no one is inclined to abide by their conventions or social norms.

If there are no evidence supporting the claim or "hypothesis" of the Judeo-Christain God, then the conclusion follows that there is no reason to be holding that claim. — InfiniteZero

No! If there is no evidence, "then the conclusion follows that" no conclusion can be drawn, and we must await further evidence. [Or, in this case, any evidence at all.] You are espousing the scientific and logical viewpoint, so stick to your chosen tools. There is no logical justification whatever for dismissing such a claim, nor for accepting the claim either, of course.

why must one assume there is a necessity in having to pick any one of these religions? — InfiniteZero

I am not assuming necessity. I'm asking about relevance.

If science tells us the physical world has no intrinsic value, there is no evidence for God and meaning is merely projected by moral agents, does that seem so unpalatable if it were true? — InfiniteZero

As science tells us none of these things, this is a hypothesis contrary to fact. As one trained in physics, I know what science is and is not capable of telling us, and the degree of certitude one should have with respect to what science does tell us.

While every act of knowing has both a knowing subject and a known object, we begin natural science with a Fundamental Abstraction in which we fix our attention on known physical objects to the exclusion of the knowing subject. We care about what Ptolemy, Galileo, Newton and Hubble saw, not their subjective experience (their experience as knowing subjects) in seeing it. This is a rational methodology if our interest is physical objects, but it separates in thought what is inseparable in reality (the known object and the knowing subject). It also leaves the natural sciences bereft of the data and concepts required to address the knowing subject and correlative issues. Lacking these data and concepts, natural science can make no connections between what it knows of the physical world and concepts revolving around the subject (such as subjective awareness, intentionality and meaning).

So, the physical world is not convertible with reality and nor does "intrinsic" mean "objective." Many properties are relational., and are only realized when the object is actually related to a subject. The physical world is intelligible because it is capable of informing an observer -- it can stand as a actually known object to a knowing subject. In the same way, physical objects are valuable because they can stand as actually valued objects to a valuing subject. So, objects have an intrinsic potential to be valued (are intrinsically valuable), for nothing can be actual unless it is possible. In other words, an object is valuable if it is capable of being valued.

As for the supposed nonexistence of evidence for God, there is only one way of substantiating such a claim, and that is to know that there is no God. Why? Because evidence is not self-evident. We have no a priori way of knowing what is and is not evidence. In 1800 an investigator encountering bloody fingerprints would not know that he had evidence of identity. In 1950 a detective examining a crime scene would be unable to recognize DNA evidence, no matter how abundant, and a cosmologist would not know that a rock she found on the beach provided evidence of nucleogenesis in the early universe. Evidence is only intelligible until it is actually understood. So, it is utterly irrational to say we have no evidence of p unless one already knows p is false.

"Meaning" is intelligibility, and so is prior to being understood. Thus it is not necessarily "projected" by human agents. The "meaning" of a fossil in this stratum is that a certain species lived in the Cretaceous period, and the fossil had that meaning long before humans evolved to understand it. If you are thinking of "meaning" as value, I have discussed above how nothing can be valued unless it is first valuable.

The question regarding the age of the earth, the universe and the origin of our species and others in general is not for a man-made logical system to determine — InfiniteZero

Of course it is! The relevant man-made logical system is called "science."

It is just as logically possible for the earth to be flat or have a geo-centric view on the solar system. — InfiniteZero

You are confused about the epistemological status of your examples. It is not logically possible for the earth to be flat because were have definitive evidence to the contrary and have had since the time of the Greeks. What is the center of the universe is a matter of representational convention. There is no observable consequence to placing the origin of our coordinate system anywhere we choose as long as we make the appropriate transformations to our dynamic equations. The only difference is the complexity of the equations.

only physics gives us credible knowledge regarding the physical universe, not dogmas from holy scriptures providing "a priori" knowledge. — InfiniteZero

I'm not questioning the competence of physics to deal with the physical, but its competence to deal with aspects of reality it has excluded from consideration a priori. Further, there is no general reason to assume that ancient authors (of whatever tradition) were trying to explain the nature of the physical world as opposed to using contemporaneous cultural assumptions to convey their spiritual insights.

However, arbitrarily choosing between pre-existing dogmas is surely epistemically incredible. — InfiniteZero

It would be, if that were what I suggested. I made no mention of anything "arbitrary." Subjective considerations are just as real as objective considerations -- especially when the question is how one will relate as a subject.

How would science deal with the claim of God? — InfiniteZero

It should not, as it is utterly incompetent to do so.

If the claim is that God is part of the physical world, then it would demand evidence for such a being to exist in the physical world. — InfiniteZero

You're positing straw men. There are very few pantheists. Certainly no mainline Western religion makes such a claim.

Any claim of transcendence after death would require the same from science — InfiniteZero

Why? On what evidentiary basis could science form any conclusion (pro or con) about an afterlife? You seem to be suffering from the misapprehension that science is competent to deal with all reality. I showed above, in my discussion of the Fundamental Abstraction, that science begins by denying itself such competence.

If there are no evidence supporting the claim or "hypothesis" of the Judeo-Christain God, then the conclusion follows that there is no reason to be holding that claim. — InfiniteZero

I'm ceaselessly amazed at how epistemologically challenged physicalists are. You seem to think that the only rational approach to reality is the hypothetico-deductive method. Anyone who has studied mathematics knows that it can proceed quite well without every positing or testing a hypothesis. Instead, it abstracts concepts from our experience of nature, forms judgements relating these concepts (axioms or postulates), and deduces conclusions. Natural theology proceeds in the same fashion to attain equal certainty.

The abritrariness of value judgment in the decision regarding which religion one resonates to becomes to an extent random. — InfiniteZero

Random? So, you are not a determinist with respect to will? How can you not be,and be a physicalist?

Value judgements can certainly be made with insufficient thought. That does not imply that they are necessarily made with insufficient thought. In making important decisions people weigh many factors and give each what they consider to be an appropriate weight. The weights are given for considered reasons (with a view to what needs are met and left unmet), and not "arbitrarily" or "randomly."

If we ignore the teachings of the religion as the basis for determining its "value of worthiness" — InfiniteZero

I have no suggested that. Just the opposite.

If it is solely the spiritual dimension one seeks, then that's clearly going to be an arbitrary choice as that's solely dependent on subjective needs and aspects. — InfiniteZero

This is an utterly ridiculous claim! Subjective needs are as real as electrons. Being the need of a subject does not make anything less actual or intelligible. It does not make it less a cause of observable acts. So, on what rational basis do you dismiss "subjective needs and aspects"?

However, religion is institutional, and has more than a spiritual dimension to it to be classified and regarded as a religion in the first place, so if one seeks only a spiritual connection, religion is no necessary choice, much less a good choice if that was one's sole criteria and reason to choose a religion. — InfiniteZero

As social beings, we often use institutions (with all their faults) as necessary means to ends. It is hard for a lone spiritual practitioner to found a school or hospital. It is considerably easier for a practitioners acting together in an institutional framework.

But what is there to back up the truth in the claims that Jesus walked on water, or Moses split the sea in half to lead his people through, or that Hanuman threw boulders from the tip of India to create a bridge across to Sri Lanka? — InfiniteZero

Nothing. That is exactly my point. Western religions, at least, do not claim that their doctrines are known by reason, as is your example of the earth is round. They are quite explicit that they require a leap of faith. So, criticizing them because of inadequate evidence controverts no actual claim.

So, we have to take it as an agreed upon given that matters of faith are inadequately supported by evidence. Therefore, whatever reason there is for having faith, it is not epistemic. Demanding that it be epistemic is beating a dead horse. Still, it is an on controverted fact that people do believe in religious dogmas inadequately supported by evidence. The empirical approach to this, which I am suggesting, is that one accept the fact and then investigate the reasons for it. As these reasons are not epistemic, they must be non-epistemic. I do not see how you can argue otherwise.

You are not investigating the reality of faith commitments, but imposing your notion of what "ought" to be in the face of the facts. My approach is the opposite. I accept the reality, as any good scientist should, and then seek to explain it. I am suggesting that what people actually do is judge on the basis of perceived worthiness. Then I'm asking what can justify this perception.

The reasons may be many of course, for instance: being born into a religion, or cultural reasons, national, or other incentives. No matter the reasons, how does one justify one over the other? — InfiniteZero

It always amazes me when I hear this line peddled, as though no philosophic or scientific tests can be applied to falsify a religion. But to hear this on a philosophy forum is especially disheartening.

There are numerous publications which deal with precisely the question of truth in religion. Starting with Mortimer Adler's book, 'Truth in Religion'! After evaluating over eight of the largest world religions, he argues that the three monotheistic faiths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) are the closest to truth in their orthodoxy and orthopraxy. He gives thorough reasoning for this conclusion, which you can look up for yourself.

Speaking autobiographically, I was an agnostic for some years and chose to practice Islam precisely because I found it to be the least rationally problematic and most sound of the faiths I surveyed. Of course my ascension to Islam was not absolute certainty, but pretty strong certainty.