I have met all kinds of unusual ideas about aliens, fallen angels, devils and God, because my own work background has been working in psychiatric hospitals. I have also known people outside of hospital who have psychotic experiences, so I am definitely not in the position whereby I would suggest that I believe everyone's experiences as completely objectively true. I think that each person's suggestions have to be listened to but not with a view to believing them to be true.

I think that it is far harder to think about the ideas from the past in the exact same way as we think about the ones people describe to us. I think part of the problem is the reliability of the source material. Texts are written in various ways and I do think that if one tries to read them like they were newspaper texts it gets rather messy. I do know some people who try to do that and it doesn't really work because the overall world picture of the time they were written was so different. The biggest difference in the interpretation of the Bible is those who try to take it all so literally and those who see certain aspects as more symbolic truths. But, because there is so much which may be more symbolic it makes it hard to work out the basic facts. There is so little historical evidence apart from the texts, including those which were rejected from the mainstream, especially the Gnostic gospels.

Not sure you really answered my question there, but I understand what you are getting at.
What about modern religions? Scientology is newer than Christianity, let’s compare those then. Do you take Scientology more or less seriously than Christianity?

Maybe 'religiosity' is an atavistic, neurotic, reaction to the fear of contagion, particularly psychosis and (maybe) bad dreams, which parallels, or mutually reinforces, the fear of other existential (unknown) unknowns like mortality? (Epicurus) Terror management via ritualized magical thinking (E. Becker) – from shamanism, gnosticism & astrology down to Qabalism, theosophical angelology & UFOlogy and on to fundamentalism & millenarianism. :pray: A-effin-men. Philosophy from the beginning, however, (mostly) debunks and demystifies our 'night sweats', and thereby midwifes nascent arts & sciences as alternatives ways of perceiving-affirming our lives and more likely flourishing on that account than most of our haunted & blinkered ancestors.

I think that the psychology of why some people choose to adopt religious beliefs and others don't is extremely complex. Freud spoke of neurosis, and I do think that fear does play a big part. I think that some people think about the religious questions more when confronted by death or deaths of others. I know that stress in life has made me think more about it, even though I don't get to the point of clear answers. I remember how when I used to be on night shifts, which used to seem so long at about 3 or 4 am I used to really dwell on questions.

Now, if I am awake, unable to sleep in the night like last night, I am not just worrying about the actual issues themselves, but how I am going to write about them properly in the various threads which I have started.

Well, 'religiosity' is also highly hereditary, certainly in a sociological sense. The atavism I've mentioned is, I suspect, the quintessential driver – very much a simian trait of dominance-control (i.e. a 'S/M alpha-beta complex' demonstrated by the Milgram Obedience Experiment studies). All the "metaphysics, mysticism & theological-theodicy" doctrines ("justifying" rites & orthopraxies) seem nothing more than ex post facto rationalizations and preemptive (marketing-PR) apologetics aka "fuckin' adhockery". Fake news begins (& ends?) with "The Good News", etc.

Of all the various groups and movements, Scientology is one which I am less familiar with. However, I am familiar with various new age kinds of ideas such as those of David Icke, or the ideas of the artist Benjamin Creme, who founded transmission meditation.

I went to the last ever talk Creme gave before he died in his 90s, and did go to some transmission meditation workshops. I did embrace some of his ideas, such as the idea of a divine hierarchy of masters, and the idea of channeling. However, the part at which I, and I think that many others too could not accept, was his suggestion that Christ, or Maitreya, was living in East London, waiting to emerge to the world. This would have been about 6 years ago, and, apparently Creme had been saying this for years. So, when I think religious ideas, I do with awareness of how I had some involvement with this particular set of ideas, and when I really decided that Maitreya was not about to appear to the world I felt rather let down.

Well I can respect that your on a spiritual journey of some kind, but I’ve never found any such beliefs to be convincing of their truth. Ups seem to be searching for meaning, most of us have been there.

Yes, I am a bit of a seeker.

One either (A) believes X no matter what is actually the case or (B) knows X is actually the case no matter what is believed about X; or is a compartmentalized (schizoid-like) "thinker" who (C) simultaneously accepts both (AB).

Which describes you most accurately (or most often)?

If none, then explain.

I think that your question is to me, and I would argue that my answer would be neither a,b, or c, and probably more like:
Believing that x, y, z are possible explanations, with fluctuating per cent emphasises on any one of each from time to time, and probably no time when any of the three variables is ruled out completely. I don't see this as absolute, because it is even possible to bring in a v, and u occasionally

Hmmm ... just because X is "possible" and can't be "ruled out completely", doesn't make X plausible or probable. Many Xs are "possible", so what? That says nothing but I refuse to think anything through. The place to start thinking, it seems to me, is always with the plausible and probable, then through a critical process of elimination approach the best X. You don't reason that way though, Jack, which is why you can't answer the question as posed. My only read on what you wrote is "none"; but you "explain" that with a non-explanation though. :confused:

I think part of my own mind is such that when I read a book, from many perspectives, ranging from atheistic nihilism, to Christian, Greek or many kinds of writers is such that for a certain amount of time, I really feel able to become absorbed into that worldview. So, what we was trying to say is that I can usually see a variety of possible views and I juxtapose them differently. I don't know why but I probably have too much of an open mind. I always see things from various angles, almost at the same time. I think it was partly an approach which I cultivated but also the one which seems to come most naturally. I am just surprised by the way in which so many people do seem to keep fairly fixed approaches, religious or non religious.

Me too; however, I find it more productive – probative – to be selective in gathering "possible" viewpoints to juxtapose, thereby shrinking the scale or scope of any haystack to make it more likely than not I'll find its needle.

In a way, I see such a process of selection as connected to the philosophical approach, because it is meant to be about really exploring ideas to their fullest, and going into deep and analytical engagements with them.

Well, to answer my own question, (B) describes my stance. For me, it's not a question of being "fixed" or not, but of which stance has, so to speak, the highest fidelity to reality, or what can be experienced publicly.

One either (A) believes X no matter what is actually the case or (B) knows X is actually the case no matter what is believed about X; or is a compartmentalized (schizoid-like) "thinker" who (C) simultaneously accepts both (AB).

Which describes you most accurately (or most often)?

I had not thought about it as schizoid, but on some level it involves splitting. It is interesting though how people who become psychotic really go into the concrete interpretation of religious experience. I came across so many people with religious psychosis in mental health, and I have friends who have had breakdowns involving religious delusions. It is possible to lose all rationality really.

Anyway, I am about to log off for now, as it is about midnight...