5 ms·

You have faith that your choice is the right one!

dangus 1y ago
There are approximately 10,000 religions in the world. What brain damage do I have to receive in order to believe that I have any realistic statistical chance of picking the right one?
- em-bee 1y ago
  you don't pick one at random. you pick one that makes sense. what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good? that alone will narrow down the selection to a few dozen if that many. besides the good it does, another question could be: what makes sense to you? which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today? take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek.
  - freedomben 1y ago
    This is the "by their fruits you shall know them" argument (which I think is among the stronger arguments for the record), but I've personally used this to try and find a "correct" religion and what I discovered (personally of course) is that there is good and bad in essentially every religion. Using this as a standard is basically impossible. But if you took it at a high macro level and did narrow down to a few dozen, those are still terrible odds. If I have a 1 in 36 chance of picking the wrong religion and being damned, I think we need a better standard of evidence to narrow this field a bit. Unless of course you believe that a loving (some would say omni-benevolent) God would think it's reasonable to torture 97% of his children who are actively searching him out, just because they picked the wrong church. (that's not even considering all the others of course).
    - em-bee 1y ago
      once you have narrowed it down, it is reasonably realistic to deeply investigate the remaining ones. there is good and bad in essentially every religion have you looked all the major ones listed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups for me the standard of evidence is the search for the truth. that means, keep searching until i am satisfied. it could take a lifetime, and maybe that's the point. don't just make a choice and then blindly accept everything from then on.
  - Tijdreiziger 1y ago
    Your arguments are a bit unsatisfying to me, though. > what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good? I try to have a positive impact on the world by being vegan and donating to (secular) humanitarian organizations. I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this (although I’m open to a good rebuttal!). > which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today? I think that the secular scientific tradition does better here than religion (even if it isn’t perfect, of course). > take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek. I did that, and it doesn’t look good for religion, as explained above. And yet, here we are with one of the parent commenters telling us that we should believe in the Bible, lest we burn in hell. Hence my comment above: what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it (or any other religious scripture) over my current ideals?
    - em-bee 1y ago
      I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this that's not what i am asking. if you believe that religions are "wrong", then it's on you to verify that. what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it i can't tell you that. you need to look at each religion yourself and decide. as i asked in another comment, have you looked at all the major religions (as listed on eg wikipedia), and can you say with confidence that none of them do better than secular scientific tradition?
      - Tijdreiziger 1y ago
        The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you want to convince me to change my beliefs, you should provide a compelling argument. If you believe that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers than the scientific tradition, it should be trivial to defend your claims. (Your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369] is more agreeable.)
        1y ago
  - dangus 1y ago
    Your comment is a manifestation of this weird double standard that gets applied to atheists/agnostics where they’re supposed to be burdened to “find answers” and it’s a problem that they don’t have that religious burden. It also manifests in this sort of insulted vibe that religious people get when their faith is questioned. Basically, it’s socially not okay to question the faith of someone in a particular religion because it’s their culture, it’s their belief system, but the atheist/agnostic “belief” system isn’t respected in the same way. The person who has not found any evidence of god as described in various religions is told to seek enlightenment as if they are the ones who are incomplete. People who use the scientific method don’t “pick at random” when there is no available answer. They test for answers and wait until they observe the answers and have the ability to reproduce those observations. In short, the religious expect the non-religious to be afraid of dying and to be looking for a solution, when it’s completely valid and logical to have determined that there is no solution and therefore it is not worth spending time dwelling upon.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      i expects everyone who questions any religion to do that search. whether they believe in god or not. if you question something, then it is on you to go find answers. even if you found your belief system that works for you. maybe especially if you found one you should always keep your eyes open and investigate your own beliefs, and not just blindly accept it.
      - dangus 1y ago
        This is still kind of backwards. The person who doesn’t accept something blindly has no obligation to question anything. There is no obligation to obtain a belief system. Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything.
        em-bee 1y ago
        The person who doesn’t accept something blindly has no obligation to question anything not accepting something blindly IS the same as questioning something. or reverse, if you do not question your beliefs then you are accepting them blindly. There is no obligation to obtain a belief system i didn't say there is, except maybe that rejecting all belief systems is also a kind of belief. Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything. again, i didn't intend to make that claim. if anything that was more targeted at those who do follow a particular religion and stopped asking questions.

There are approximately 10,000 religions in the world. What brain damage do I have to receive in order to believe that I have any realistic statistical chance of picking the right one?

em-bee 1y ago
you don't pick one at random. you pick one that makes sense. what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good? that alone will narrow down the selection to a few dozen if that many. besides the good it does, another question could be: what makes sense to you? which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today? take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek.
- freedomben 1y ago
  This is the "by their fruits you shall know them" argument (which I think is among the stronger arguments for the record), but I've personally used this to try and find a "correct" religion and what I discovered (personally of course) is that there is good and bad in essentially every religion. Using this as a standard is basically impossible. But if you took it at a high macro level and did narrow down to a few dozen, those are still terrible odds. If I have a 1 in 36 chance of picking the wrong religion and being damned, I think we need a better standard of evidence to narrow this field a bit. Unless of course you believe that a loving (some would say omni-benevolent) God would think it's reasonable to torture 97% of his children who are actively searching him out, just because they picked the wrong church. (that's not even considering all the others of course).
  - em-bee 1y ago
    once you have narrowed it down, it is reasonably realistic to deeply investigate the remaining ones. there is good and bad in essentially every religion have you looked all the major ones listed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups for me the standard of evidence is the search for the truth. that means, keep searching until i am satisfied. it could take a lifetime, and maybe that's the point. don't just make a choice and then blindly accept everything from then on.
- Tijdreiziger 1y ago
  Your arguments are a bit unsatisfying to me, though. > what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good? I try to have a positive impact on the world by being vegan and donating to (secular) humanitarian organizations. I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this (although I’m open to a good rebuttal!). > which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today? I think that the secular scientific tradition does better here than religion (even if it isn’t perfect, of course). > take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek. I did that, and it doesn’t look good for religion, as explained above. And yet, here we are with one of the parent commenters telling us that we should believe in the Bible, lest we burn in hell. Hence my comment above: what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it (or any other religious scripture) over my current ideals?
  - em-bee 1y ago
    I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this that's not what i am asking. if you believe that religions are "wrong", then it's on you to verify that. what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it i can't tell you that. you need to look at each religion yourself and decide. as i asked in another comment, have you looked at all the major religions (as listed on eg wikipedia), and can you say with confidence that none of them do better than secular scientific tradition?
    - Tijdreiziger 1y ago
      The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you want to convince me to change my beliefs, you should provide a compelling argument. If you believe that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers than the scientific tradition, it should be trivial to defend your claims. (Your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369] is more agreeable.)
      - 1y ago
- dangus 1y ago
  Your comment is a manifestation of this weird double standard that gets applied to atheists/agnostics where they’re supposed to be burdened to “find answers” and it’s a problem that they don’t have that religious burden. It also manifests in this sort of insulted vibe that religious people get when their faith is questioned. Basically, it’s socially not okay to question the faith of someone in a particular religion because it’s their culture, it’s their belief system, but the atheist/agnostic “belief” system isn’t respected in the same way. The person who has not found any evidence of god as described in various religions is told to seek enlightenment as if they are the ones who are incomplete. People who use the scientific method don’t “pick at random” when there is no available answer. They test for answers and wait until they observe the answers and have the ability to reproduce those observations. In short, the religious expect the non-religious to be afraid of dying and to be looking for a solution, when it’s completely valid and logical to have determined that there is no solution and therefore it is not worth spending time dwelling upon.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    i expects everyone who questions any religion to do that search. whether they believe in god or not. if you question something, then it is on you to go find answers. even if you found your belief system that works for you. maybe especially if you found one you should always keep your eyes open and investigate your own beliefs, and not just blindly accept it.
    - dangus 1y ago
      This is still kind of backwards. The person who doesn’t accept something blindly has no obligation to question anything. There is no obligation to obtain a belief system. Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything.
      - em-bee 1y ago
        The person who doesn’t accept something blindly has no obligation to question anything not accepting something blindly IS the same as questioning something. or reverse, if you do not question your beliefs then you are accepting them blindly. There is no obligation to obtain a belief system i didn't say there is, except maybe that rejecting all belief systems is also a kind of belief. Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything. again, i didn't intend to make that claim. if anything that was more targeted at those who do follow a particular religion and stopped asking questions.