It's a great thing to have one's own spiritual path, including in that religions (which have much to offer for morality, ethics, purpose, meaning, etc.), but when they go to, "And my specific religion is the truth and the rest are evil" ... we have violated the quote below:

"The most dangerous habits in the world ... are ideological habits that refuse to actually examine reality." ~ Alan Watts

And that covers all of the dogmatic religions.

Rational: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic"

I like to believe things that make me happy, I want to be happy, I have no way to believe in god other than faith but believing in god makes me happy, ergo, I should employ faith.

There you go, a logical justification for faith.

That may be unsatisfactory to you, you may require what you think to be evidence and don't want to employ faith, but the use of faith isn't always irrational.

True but faith is nothing more than a guess. I'll take the system that at the very least helps you avoid making errors in your reasoning, even if the conclusion is not always sound, than one that could only deliver a sound conclusion entirely by accident.

Ironic when theists try to undermine science or logic by using words like 'god' or 'religious'. You're actually using what you do to make something else look weaker because in your paradigm your religion is the right one and nothing else is imaginable, so you can paint science as a 'false religion'. It's not though. Neither is 'Rationality'.

Equating faith with mythos is an error. We are at the point in human development that we need to get beyond being pacified by the meaning found in mythos, whether its Christianity or an evolutionary based, scientific narrative.

Faith is the desire for sustained fulfillment with the belief that the desire can be fulfilled in this reality. It is what takes us beyond the meanings that help us cope but keep us stagnant.

One major reason why we find meaning in myths is because they reveal aspects of the Grand Narrative. There are two different ways they do this: they describe the details of the GN from a third person perspective and they attempt to reveal how to navigate through the GN from a first person perspective. That meaning is all good. However, when that meaning is used for the purpose of temporarily satiating our desire for more, then it is problematic.

In that way, the theist and the secularist are no different. They privilege rational truth because they both are trying to temporarily satiate their deepest desire (faith) solely through unsustainable meaning, including the meaning derived from their preferred myth.

Science isn't a 'narrative', it's a method. I don't think you understand what science is, and if that's the case, then your entire outlook on this is deeply flawed. You seem to think that you're comparing like with like, that they're just two equal but different viewpoints, but that's not the case at all.

Even for the strict determinist, who sees the world as meaningless, they still find meaning in that worldview. They will still think about their purpose within a meaningless world and get meaning from that. They may not consciously realize that is what they are doing but it makes no difference.

The quest for meaning through mythos, even the mythos that includes determinism, the meaning found in purpose, and the meaning found in the escapes from daily life applies to all of us. The details of the various mythos, the individual purposes, and the escapes are largely irrelevant when those things can no longer provide enough meaning. That is when meaning crisis occurs, and that is where we need to start meeting each other.

How do we know when we are in a meaning crisis? We can just watch ourselves and look for excess irritability, cynicism, frustration, etc.

When people say life is meaningless without a purpose handed to you by a supernatural invisible god, what they really mean is there is no authoritarian, prescribed religious purpose. There are still millions of purposes under the sun.

Alright so the anti-faith-based-truth argument is clear: there is the danger of detachment from our shared reality with too much reliance on faith. Acknowledged.

I’ve tried to describe the limitations of too much reliance on rationality: that it can only cope with, rather than provide a cure to, meaning crisis.

The way to synthesize those two points is to
1) Recognize that we are experiencing meaning crisis
2) Access “faith” (intuitive truth) that allows us to progress beyond failure points
3) Direct and ground that desire into reality through the ascension of the status hierarchy

"Just keep coming home to Yourself. You are the one you've been waiting for." - Byron Katie

I believe this to be the actual Jesus message. He was his own savior, as is everyone. Formal religion hijacked "This (way of mine) is the way" into "I am the way." This is the Third Jesus of Chopra book. Jesus 1: a living man with a message. Jesus 2: the mythologized god. Jesus 3: you/every person in the exact position of Jesus the Man.

Or: You are going to hell for being human. You need supernatural salvation from this.

Which?

We are not going to hell for being human. Once you get outside of that paradigm you see it for what it is: a giant made up myth. It's made up just like cows are gods, Thor has a magic hammer, Zeus is throwing lighting bolts. Life and the universe is not a function of ANY pre-medieval origin myths. Get outside of it. Life is something different totally ... that can be complemented by examined religious thought and belief, but is only corrupted by toxic dogma and close-mindedness. Shalom.

What do you think science is?

The alternative to rational, is irrational, are you arguing that we should be more irrational?

Theists often argue that if we would just open our hearts and believe, then we could see that god is real.

That's what you're doing here.

Nope. It claims no answer to everything. It just appeals to some tentacle of the mind reaching outside of blanket indoctrination to where you get to use reality testing for the religion like you do for everything else, instead of granting it a giant exemption, and being unable to place yourself outside of it even for a thought experiment.

Our individuation is being tested. Can we break free from something foisted on us by society that was simply made up by the ancient superstitious mind, like all the other religions? Or is that level of examining reality, i.e. forfeiting mind to belief in superstition, our dubious virtue card?

Look, if you could just stand back from what you're saying, try to be outside it, you would see that it's just not true.

"We place no reliance
On virgin or pigeon
Our method is science
Our aim is religion" ~ Crowley


Meaning, yes, we care about origins, meaning, the sacred ... but no, we don't resort to unsubstantiated supernatural claims from superstitious times to claim we have the answers ... with those "answers" turning out very much like fables and wives tales of magic and talking snakes. Those just so stories are not our go-to source for the nature of things.

Doesn't apply to me. I like to think I am intelligent, well adjusted, and successful, and I don't spend one microwatt of energy trying to determine life's "meaning". Indeed, I think the entire concept is completely empty and meaningless, except as a subject of the History of Philosophy studied by some academics.

The people that perceive themselves as well adjusted are not going to simultaneously be aware of meaning since being well adjusted is the opposite of meaning crisis and we initially become aware of the ‘real-ness’ of meaning through experiencing meaning deficiencies.

You have no purpose for living, or have adopted none, or see no value in it??

Should we look in any of the following for purpose: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, People's Temple, Scientology, etc.???

Or is the fact that all these and thousands more exist a good reason not to look in any of them for meaning ... and to take the need for meaning out of the occult/supernatural realm and put it into natural realms?

Not "which of a list of batshyt crazy doctrines should I choose?" ... but to superstitious dogma in toto as a path to the nature of things, what about "No thanks?"

Indeed! Hitler, Stalin and Pol-pot certainly led full, purpose-driven lives.

Yeah, apologetics are irrational and even evil like that. Hey, god wanted those men in charge of those countries according to the Bible. Care to apologize further? I think we're done. Your reply not only is completely off the wall and insincere, it has backfired on you, as your religion supports those men being in power. The Bible always had a thing for murder and genocide ... so why would it be any different now?

If you are coming from a Calvinist, or Calvinist adjacent, perspective elsewhere, this probably isn't a place you'd want to go. It's a pretty lazy idea that I'd have hoped for better.

Ya know, a couple of us (probably) are still wondering what your response is going to be from your reply to a criticism:

God can and does bring evil men into power as a judgement against a people.

God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick any time He so chooses.

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk

Okay that's another 50 million or so killings you just chalked up to your religion. God struck a straight blow with these 50 million innocents killed by the leaders he put in place. You know, in the other thread you said you saw nothing immoral in the killing of witches even today, if they exist. That puts you right there with the Salem witch killings mentality, believing it is okay, supporting it, praising god for it.