General commentary re: religion
Various religions claim a certain existential model as the definitive truth. If we were presented with 200 existential models each claiming to represent the truth - how would we discern which ones are more likely to be accurate and more representative of the nature of reality, and how would we discern which ones are more likely to be inaccurate and therefore not representative of reality?
I would offer the perspective that if one was sincerely trying to parse through various existential models and discern which are likely to be a more accurate representation - there would be a natural conscious tendency to gravitate towards an existential model or understanding that is universally applicable (can be applied to everyone's situation/perspective), trends towards being just/fair (rather than unjust/unfair), trends towards being rational and making sense (rather than being irrational and nonsensical), etc. In other words, it wouldn't make sense to reason that someone sincerely trying to sort/prase through various existential models would naturally gravitate towards models that trend towards irrational, nonsensical, unfair, and non-universally applicable. I'm suggesting this mindset from the perspective of a person taking an objective look at many different existential options, trying to sort through them, and without any preexisting psychological relationship with what's being considered. Just an objective look at many different existential options - how do you sort through what's what, and what would you naturally gravitate to as more likely to be accurate?
I was raised in a family that made me attend Catholic church up until my teens - however I genuinely didn't connect with what I experienced there, and church felt a lot like being in school to me. The reason why I personally can't get behind any particular religious/theological model is because there will never be a context where every individual having a human experience has had access and exposure to the religion/theology that is being claimed as the truth. Even today there will be billions of individuals all over the world who will never have personal exposure or cultural access to various existential models that are claimed to represent the truth of the matter. And when you move back through the history of human experiences eventually you reach a point where a particular theology ceases to be present socially/culturally - so how can any particular theological-based existential model claim to be universally applicable when there will be billions of examples of human experiences where no one had knowledge of or access to what it claims? If something is perceived to both lack universal application and trend towards unfair/unjust - then I can't bring myself to identify with it on those broad grounds alone (doesn't matter which model is being referenced). This is also why I personally do not feel compelled to have to prove or disprove the claims or characters referenced in various theological texts. I don't feel anyone should have to adopt any specific theology or existential model that cannot be universally applied to everyone's position and perspective.
Anecdotally, when I was in the 9th grade I was reading a world history book for class and I believe on the topic of Lutheranism - but I had a 'light bulb' (epiphany) realization that religious communities (as a whole) were best explained as a psychological relationship or dynamic, because they all shared the belief that their particular theology represents the truth. The understanding that the psychological relationship/dynamic would have to be similar across various religions, broadly speaking. So that realization at that age loosened my bond with religions in the sense of not feeling like I had to adopt one or the other. It influenced me to see theologies across the board in a similar light.
From a sociological perspective, it would interesting to imagine a hypothetical scenario where all the threats of punishment for disbelief/non-adherence were removed or became non-existent. How many individuals would feel free to explore outside of the existential models they formerly identified with if psychologically, there was no longer any burden of perceiving they would be punished or experience a negative outcome when they 'died' if they strayed? I bet there would be a heck of a lot more dialogue and discussion (outside of a theological framework) about existential matters taking place because you would have a lot more players out there in the game. I suspect more individuals would gravitate towards existential models that seem more fair/just, more applicable to everyone's reference point, more sensical/rational, etc.(IMHO)
New to the forum recently but I just want to say I respect mature discussion and individuals having different perspectives involving these matters - the above is my experience and perspective. Cheers.
