Risk is essential in any endeavor.

When it comes to religion, and religiosity in general, altered states of consciousness are the mainstay of the most basic rituals and ceremonies (institutionalised or otherwise).

Instead of a religion, ask if God matters. If we assume God matters, and/or assume we matter to God, then instead of seeking a religion, you seek a saint, or a wise, mystic sage, one who lives a religion. If you find God in that saint, then you might look to the religion that saint practices, and see if you see for yourself why that religion can be lived by that saint, and why that religion might help you become a saint yourself.

If there is a God….. — Igitur

That basically excludes Buddhism, which is not predicated on there being a God. It might be better phrased ‘if there is a higher truth’ or something along those lines. What you’re expressing is quite a well-trodden path for the last few centuries, what with the growth of globalisation and new religious movements. (But then I’m writing as a long-time habitué of the now long-gone Adyar Bookshop).

God likely doesn't care if you follow a particular religion, but only if you act according to the correct concepts — Igitur

Have a read of Karl Rahner’s rather controversial concept of the ‘anonymous Christian’, which

declares that all individuals, who sincerely seek truth and goodness, and strive to follow the moral truths they know, can respond positively to God's grace, albeit unknowingly or indirectly, even if they do so through other religious traditions and/or are not explicitly aware of Jesus Christ. In other words, God's grace, including the benefits of Christ's sacrifice, are not confined to the boundaries of any particular religious tradition or by our awareness or acceptance of Christian doctrine. Instead, anyone who lives a life of love and goodness, guided by the moral teachings found in Christianity, even if they don't consciously identify with it, is implicitly united with Christ and can be saved through him, implying that non-Christians can still be recipients of God's grace and attain salvation.

For a hundred or so millennia many thoughtful persons have lived, thrived & died without 'being religious'. Given that eusocial living sustainably with nature alone suffices for being human, history amply shows, imo, that 'religion' is required only (or at least mostly) for herding sheep, prophets making profits and sanguinary propitiating/martyring/scapegoating.

NB: raised and educated in Roman Catholicism, I became a freethinker, then a naturalist (i.e. anti-supernaturalist inspired by e.g. Epicurus, Spinoza) and also a pandeist some decades ago: almost five decades later, I'm still fascinated, amused and horrified by historical 'religion' both in theory & practice.

What are your thoughts? — Igitur

I see no reason to accept the idea of any gods. I do believe that humans fear the reality they see before them, especially death, and find themselves doing any number of things to manage their fears - rituals, prayers, gods - all seem to emerge from such anxieties.

I reason that if so, God likely doesn't care if you follow a particular religion, but only if you act according to the correct concepts — Igitur

You seem to hold to a fairly conventional idea of a god. A single god? Why not 2 or 16? A god who is anthropomorphic and pays attention to us and has 'correct concepts'? Why not an indifferent god such as the one of deism? Why not a cosmic consciousness version of theism, such as held by William James?

What reason do you have for believing in your particular account of god?

Given this, it would make sense to pick popular religions and try them out, learning as much as you can, and giving each a chance to display their truth to you. When you find a religion you think contains truth, you practice it but remain skeptical, still searching other religions for more/more relevant truths. — Igitur

I'm puzzled about what you mean by trying religions out. You must mean more than going through some motions - something closer to taking them seriously. But the only ideas even close to religious that I've been able to take seriously (since I abandoned the church I was brought up in) don't require taking seriously the idea of a God or gods. Pascal seems to think that it is possible to do something like trying Christianity out, but he believes that I will end up believing it. I think he may be right; at least, it is a possible outcome. So even "acting as if" Christianity is true requires at least accepting that adopting it would be a good thing.
Then there's the issue of which variety of each religion one is to try out. It's simply not practical to think of trying out all the sects of Christianity or any of the others.
Religions do seem to think that certain altered states of consciousness. Granting their almost irresistible appeal, it seem to me obvious that they need to prove their worth in the mundane world, in which all religions need to exist. And I'm not convinced that their worth goes beyond that of a holiday - which is not negligible, but is far from the scope of anything I would consider a worth-while religion.
Trying things out is entirely reasonable. But surely, there needs to be some preliminary investigation and assessment of what is worth trying out.

Given this, it would make sense to pick popular religions and try them out, learning as much as you can, and giving each a chance to display their truth to you. When you find a religion you think contains truth, you practice it but remain skeptical, still searching other religions for more/more relevant truths.
— Igitur
I'm puzzled about what you mean by trying religions out — Ludwig V

I’m picturing Woody Allen trying out Christianity by eating Wonder bread with mayo in Hannah and her Sisters.

I’m picturing Woody Allen trying out Christianity by eating Wonder bread with mayo in Hannah and her Sisters. — Joshs

I guess I can get this gist of the joke from the general context. I don't remember much about the movie. Was that an actual scene, or something that you imagined?
But it makes a point, doesn't it?
Doesn't Woody find meaning through watching a Marx brothers movie? Perhaps we should wait and see what happens to us by accident.

The most logical path to religion, or God, or the spirits, or whatever mystical thing you're seeking, is a wide berth around churches. Those vast piles of wasted stone, timber and human effort do not contain a deity or a soul. Walk in the woods on a May morning or an orchard in September twilight or across a meadow on a hot, still July afternoon, then rest in the shade of a viburnum. If you're ever going to have a spiritual experience and find some kind of truth, that's where you'll find it.

I guess I can get this gist of the joke from the general context. I don't remember much about the movie. Was that an actual scene, or something that you imagined? — Ludwig V

Instead of a religion, ask if God matters. If we assume God matters, and/or assume we matter to God, then instead of seeking a religion, you seek a saint, or a wise, mystic sage, one who lives a religion. If you find God in that saint, then you might look to the religion that saint practices, and see if you see for yourself why that religion can be lived by that saint, and why that religion might help you become a saint yourself. — Fire Ologist

This is a good idea, I think. It does have a few issues, though. One is that a lot of belief in religions comes from personal experiences, and it might be too easy to write off someone’s religion as ridiculous if you don’t try it first.
Also, it would be inefficient to see multiple people for each (and you might have to do that, as otherwise you would get the wrong impression from someone).

That basically excludes Buddhism, which is not predicated on there being a God. It might be better phrased ‘if there is a higher truth’ or something along those lines — Wayfarer

Thank you so much. This is what I meant, as this is applicable to Buddhism and religions like it as well. Actually, it might be even more applicable to these as they aren’t so burdened by specific stories and rules, and therefore are more likely to have visible truth behind the theological nonsense that plagues every popular religion.

This is likely true to a large extent. I assume for the purposes of this post that there is truth to be found and that the person is willing to find it.

I figure that religion is valuable even if it’s all nonsense because of the values it teaches and the communities of people that follow the values. Surely this must have some value.

You seem to hold to a fairly conventional idea of a god. A single god? Why not 2 or 16? A god who is anthropomorphic and pays attention to us and has 'correct concepts'? Why not an indifferent god such as the one of deism? Why not a cosmic consciousness version of theism, such as held by William James?

What reason do you have for believing in your particular account of god? — Tom Storm

Forgive me for my specific interpretation. I don’t think my view on this (or, if there is a God, the truth of it) actually matters to the post, but I’m willing to share my justification.
Honestly, I just defaulted to a monotheistic human-like God concept because that is the God I believe in, but I agree that an open mind is important when discussing this.

It's simply not practical to think of trying out all the sects of Christianity or any of the others — Ludwig V

This seems like the most important thing to respond to, the idea that it is unreasonable to try out so many sects of religions. I completely agree, and that’s why a main idea of the post is that you would try out the most popular variations, and only dig deeper if you find truth. I assume it doesn’t matter which particular sect, only about particular values or teachings, which is why I suggest a diverse set of religions likely to contain truths.

The most logical path to religion, or God, or the spirits, or whatever mystical thing you're seeking, is a wide berth around churches. Those vast piles of wasted stone, timber and human effort do not contain a deity or a soul. Walk in the woods on a May morning or an orchard in September twilight or across a meadow on a hot, still July afternoon, then rest in the shade of a viburnum. If you're ever going to have a spiritual experience and find some kind of truth, that's where you'll find it. — Vera Mont

Maybe. I guess I would respond to this by saying that this would just be another experiment. Assuming you care about religious truth, values, or community, you would probably also attempt to practice religions (which likely brings to you back to nature anyways).

Thank you guys for your thoughts. It’s a lot to think about.

[T]here is truth to be found and that the person is willing to find it. — Igitur

Terror management (re: mortality) via reality-denial (i.e. fact-free, consoling myths & fairytales) seems the primary function of religious magical thinking (i.e. woo-woo), not "to find truth".

Does it matter what the primary function of religious thinking is? For this thought experiment we assume that the subject is intelligent and not subject to such things, (to keep it simple).

orgive me for my specific interpretation. I don’t think my view on this (or, if there is a God, the truth of it) actually matters to the post, but I’m willing to share my justification.
Honestly, I just defaulted to a monotheistic human-like God concept because that is the God I believe in, but I agree that an open mind is important when discussing this. — Igitur

Just trying to understand your reasoning, Which gods you think are the real gods probably does matter when you are trying to please these gods. It seems you are concerned with doing the right thing by a particular god. How would you even begin such a process? Wouldn't it be important to establish which god is true before working to try to please that god - or those gods? How have you determined that the god you believe in cares how you conduct your life? Do you have a generic Judaeo-Christian deity in mind?

Maybe. I guess I would respond to this by saying that this would just be another experiment. — Igitur

Of course. But it would be your own experiment - a conversation between you and the deity or whatever - no middleman to confuse the issue. Think of it as a spirit quest, along the lines that native North American and other peoples used to do before the European priesthood took over.

Assuming you care about religious truth, values, or community, you would probably also attempt to practice religions — Igitur

I have no idea how religious truth differs from common garden variety truth or personal truth, so I can't possibly care about it. Values and community do not require religious faith or adherence. I certainly would not attempt to practice one just for appearances - unless there was a threat of persecution, which there often is, and in which case deception is perfectly acceptable.

Does it matter what the primary function of religious thinking is? — Igitur

Yes, and afaik it's this ...

[H]istory amply shows, imo, that 'religion' is required only (or at least mostly) for herding sheep, prophets making profits and sanguinary propitiating/martyring/scapegoating. — 180 Proof

ergo
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/919316

1) Religion matters. Agreed. Humans seem to need spirituality as well as a definition for morality.
2) Some truth can be obtained by practicing religion. Agreed. A claim in morality should correspond to unadulterated human nature.
3) The person experimenting is not at any risk physically, or mentally (mostly by risk of indoctrination, which can be avoided to an extent by being skeptical). Agreed.

I use the standard Islamic method to raise the bar and fend off mere indoctrination:

a) The moral advice or ruling must necessarily follow from scripture through reason.

b) The moral advice or ruling must enjoy consensus amongst independently judging scholars. These scholars must not be on someone's "payroll".

I have never had to reject moral advice that satisfies these requirements.

Thanks for the clip. There's a lot in it that doesn't easily come out in prose.

Does it matter what the primary function of religious thinking is? — Igitur

It depends what you mean by primary, and the point of view.

Assuming you care about religious truth, values, or community, you would probably also attempt to practice religions — Igitur

I think you understate this. Religion is not merely about truth, but about how to live. The practice is the point, really. The truth is just there to give a basis for the practice. That's why Bhuddhism, Stoicism, etc. all figure in this discussion.

[H]istory amply shows, imo, that 'religion' is required only (or at least mostly) for herding sheep, prophets making profits and sanguinary propitiating/martyring/scapegoating. — 180 Proof

Yes, also for all of that. If religion is primarily how I am to live, others will use it for their purposes. So will I. If religion is primarily about social control (manipulation), I will demand of it that it tells me how to live.

It's curious to me that in Ancient Greece, one can discern two different social roles for religion. One is to justify the power structure. The other is to give a resource - an ally - to those who don't have power. One can see how both would be useful even though they seem contradictory. We can see both tendencies in the churches to-day.

I suspect that the primary overall social role of religion is to enable some unity in communities much larger that the "natural" one, which appears to be about 150 people. The major religions all arose at about the same time as big cities. I don't think that's an accident.

This seems like the most important thing to respond to, the idea that it is unreasonable to try out so many sects of religions. — Igitur

Yes. That's why it is perfectly reasonable to go for satisficing rather than maximizing. In other words, something that is good enough, rather than something that is perfect. (Your suggestion of looking at popular brands is close to this.) In addition, I am bound to start from where I am, that is, by evaluating the religions available in the community I happen to be born in. There's no reason to look further afield if I can manage with what is nearest to me. I don't know that objective absolute truth is the most important criterion. Something that's near enough will do.

b) The moral advice or ruling must enjoy consensus amongst independently judging scholars. These scholars must not be on someone's "payroll". — Tarskian

That's perfectly reasonable. Except that the ideal is impractical. Everyone has to make their living somehow. Independence is a mirage. We have to settle for an independent mind, which is not impossible, though difficult - and requires courage.

That's perfectly reasonable. Except that the ideal is impractical. Everyone has to make their living somehow. Independence is a mirage. We have to settle for an independent mind, which is not impossible, though difficult - and requires courage. — Ludwig V

Anonymous moral advice is the best, actually.

It is a question of establishing an almost "cryptographic" protocol.

When moral advice is justified, I'd rather take it on an anonymous internet forum than from someone who would thereby expose himself to dangerous reprisals.

Hence, it does not matter as much "who" exactly says it than "how" he says it (with justification or not).

Credentialism is dangerous in more than one way.

It is the same for other types of advice, such as investment advice or relationship advice. They won't tell you the truth if they simply can't.

Anonymous moral advice is the best, actually. — Tarskian

I can see that. The confessional is a possible example - except, of course, are priests independent? It depends on how you rate their religion.

My preference would be for someone I trust and not too close for a discussion.

It is the same for other types of advice, such as investment advice or relationship advice. They won't tell you the truth if they simply can't. — Tarskian

There's no escape from the responsibility of deciding who to ask and, in the end, what to do.

This is, at the very least, consistent with reality. If Jesus is real, his love transcends the sum of habits that we call Christianity.

Given this, it would make sense to pick popular religions and try them out, learning as much as you can, and giving each a chance to display their truth to you. When you find a religion you think contains truth, you practice it but remain skeptical, still searching other religions for more/more relevant truths. — Igitur

I think it would be interesting to throw yourself into these religions -- suspend your doubt (if required) for just a minute and see what type of person you become if you attempt to internalize that religion's teachings. I suspect you'll come to find, e.g., that the ideal Christian is quite different from the ideal Jew and that different religions contain different visions for humanity.

I suspect you'll come to find, e.g., that the ideal Christian is quite different from the ideal Jew and that different religions contain different visions for humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

That's very likely true. A comparative - and dispassionate - study would be very interesting.
But it also seems to me that we might also find that certain traits of human character might find recognizably similar expression in each religion - or at least those that are big enough to have internal divisions or sects. The most obvious example is fundamentalism, which seems to me to be instantly recognizable in all the major religions.

I like these standards.

The practice is the point, really. The truth is just there to give a basis for the practice. That's why Bhuddhism, Stoicism, etc. all figure in this discussion. — Ludwig V

I agree. This is definitely a lot of the purpose of religion. Most of the “truth” you get is about how to act anyways. The concepts lead to actions, which supposedly lead to some result. Thank you for the clarifications.

. I suspect you'll come to find, e.g., that the ideal Christian is quite different from the ideal Jew and that different religions contain different visions for humanity. — BitconnectCarlos

This is likely true. Maybe the best path is to merge the most valuable ideals. Don’t confine yourself to one set of concepts.

But it also seems to me that we might also find that certain traits of human character might find recognizably similar expression in each religion - or at least those that are big enough to have internal divisions or sects. The most obvious example is fundamentalism, which seems to me to be instantly recognizable in all the major religions — Ludwig V

Exactly.
Thank you all for your thoughts.

This is likely true. Maybe the best path is to merge the most valuable ideals. Don’t confine yourself to one set of concepts. — Igitur

That's a good recommendation. One should be sensitive to differences as well as similarities.
I think you'll find common elements, but also incommensurable ones and incompatible ones. Ideally such ideals should be tailored to one's practical and social environment?
There is much in common across the Abrahamic religions, for example, but also quite serious differences. The Tao Te Ching, however, seems to me to be almost completely incommensurable with Christianity, though I'm sure that others will disagree with me.

history amply shows, imo, that 'religion' is required only (or at least mostly) for herding sheep — 180 Proof

Modern affairs and lived experience are telling me that people are broadly still sheep that need herding.

:smirk:

Modern affairs and lived experience are telling me that people are broadly still sheep that need herding. — Lionino

Ok

Modern affairs and lived experience are telling me that people are broadly still sheep that need herding. — Lionino

That's odd. Many people think that trying to organize people is like trying to organize ferrets - very difficult and any organization you do achieve rapidly disintegrates. That fits better with my lived experience. But maybe you live in a different world from me.

Or we read different news.