"All truth is relative" = an absolute truth: Why?

[Lucy107]

Perhaps “getting outside your head” is precisely what “the Church” or the Christ is - beyond any possibility of self-deception because it isn’t dependent upon you but on what is definitively “outside” of you - leaving no possibility of letting what is “inside your head” play you.

Here’s the thing: Why get out of your head and into Catholicism? Why not get out of your head and into Mormonism, or Bahai, or Advaita Vedanta, or whichever?

It is, after all, inside one’s head that one decides to choose a particular religion. Or isn’t it?

 

[Bahman]

…It is the nature of conscience as such that if one sticks to it, it allows for progressive changes, progressive improvement, in ways that one cannot foresee or predict…

It is the nature of the right judgment from subject matter, conscience, which guarantee a progressive change and movement. A fixed conscience get you nowhere as the reality is not linear.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Here’s the thing: Why get out of your head and into Catholicism? Why not get out of your head and into Mormonism, or Bahai, or Advaita Vedanta, or whichever?

It is, after all, inside one’s head that one decides to choose a particular religion. Or isn’t it?

That would be why classical theism – which is the metaphysics that grounds Catholicism –provides the strongest basis for both what is the truth inside one’s head and the reality outside of it. God is both immanent and transcendent - the ground of our subjective identity as well as the ground of all reality proper.

The thing is, we can be as confused about the internal world as we are about the external world – while both could have their own proper reality/objectivity.

Catholicism is well grounded in history/objective reality, unlike the suggested other religions you offered; it is also well-represented and self-consistent with regard to the internal spiritual/intellectual/moral realities. Neither have its teachings failed to account for anything we know about with regard to either of the two “worlds” in question.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here’s the thing: Why get out of your head and into Catholicism? Why not get out of your head and into Mormonism, or Bahai, or Advaita Vedanta, or whichever?

It is, after all, inside one’s head that one decides to choose a particular religion. Or isn’t it?

The religions you mention are late comers, some even founded by philosophers rather than claiming their founders to be the recipients of divine revelation. Catholicism traces its origins back through Moses to Abraham, from Abraham back to Adam and Eve. Its claims therefore are from the beginning of creation. Moreover, it is the only religion that has evidence and is still producing evidence of miracles and prophecy at work in the world. Add to that its comprehensive system of theology that addresses all the key issues of human existence, and that it has weathered storms both internal and external threatening its very survival, and you have a choice that is more reasonable than any other.

Yes, one does choose from inside one’s own head, but the head needs to choose reasonably, and the choice of the head must be confirmed by the choice of the heart.

 

[Bahman]

The religions you mention are late comers, some even founded by philosophers rather than claiming their founders to be the recipients of divine revelation. Catholicism traces its origins back through Moses to Abraham, from Abraham back to Adam and Eve. It’s claims therefore are from the beginning of creation. Moreover, it is the only religion that has evidence and is still producing evidence of miracles and prophecy at work in the world. Add to that its comprehensive system of theology that addresses all the key issues of human existence, and that it has weathered storms both internal and external threatening its very survival, and you have a choice that is more reasonable than any other.

Yes, one does choose from inside one’s own head, but the head needs to choose reasonably, and the choice of the head must be confirmed by the choice of the heart.

Such a wrong claim. There was no need for Abraham if we are/were all children of Adam and Eve!

 

[Lucy107]

That would be why classical theism – which is the metaphysics that grounds Catholicism –provides the strongest basis for both what is the truth inside one’s head and the reality outside of it. God is both immanent and transcendent - the ground of our subjective identity as well as the ground of all reality proper.

The thing is, we can be as confused about the internal world as we are about the external world – while both could have their own proper reality/objectivity.

I’m getting at another problem.

Can you choose your parents? Can you choose the country you were born in? Do you have power to single-handedly change the political order of things in your country? Can you choose the weather under which you live?
Of course not. These things precede you, contextualize you, or are otherwise beyond your control.

Most major religions propose a cosmogony, including an explanation of where you have come from, along with an explanation of your life right at this point (ie. the principles of why and how you do what you’re doing right now, like why and how you breathe, think etc.).
In that sense, these religions propose a context for you.

We can reasonably choose about things that are lesser than us (such as which suit to wear or what color to paint the room), but not about things that precede us or are bigger than us or beyond our control (such as who are our parents or the weather).

Given this, one can choose a religion as much as one can choose one’s parents: one can’t.

Catholicism is well grounded in history/objective reality, unlike the suggested other religions you offered; it is also well-represented and self-consistent with regard to the internal spiritual/intellectual/moral realities. Neither have its teachings failed to account for anything we know about with regard to either of the two “worlds” in question.

Hare Krishnas, for example, say the same things about their religion.

 

[Lucy107]

Its claims therefore are from the beginning of creation.

The Hare Krishnas and some other Hindu religions also claim to stem from the beginning of creation.

For example, the Hare Krishnas have a list of the disciplic succession, starting with God Himself, down to their founder Srila Prabhupada who passed away in 1977.

The Mormons claim their prophets have direct contact to God.

Moreover, it is the only religion that has evidence and is still producing evidence of miracles and prophecy at work in the world.

It’s not clear how this is relevant.

Add to that its comprehensive system of theology that addresses all the key issues of human existence, and that it has weathered storms both internal and external threatening its very survival,

Catholicism is not the only religion like that.

Yes, one does choose from inside one’s own head, but the head needs to choose reasonably, and the choice of the head must be confirmed by the choice of the heart.

It’s not clear what you mean here by this head-heart dichotomy.

Secondly, see my post above about a religion contextualizing one.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Hare Krishnas and some other Hindu religions also claim to stem from the beginning of creation.

For example, the Hare Krishnas have a list of the disciplic succession, starting with God Himself, down to their founder Srila Prabhupada who passed away in 1977.

The Mormons claim their prophets have direct contact to God.

The Mormons are a heretical sect of Christianity founded in the 19th century. My heart does not go out to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young as a choice.

Why did the “disciplic succession” (whatever that is) cease to exist in 1977 with the death of Srila Prabhupada? My heart does not go out to Hare Krishna.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Given this, one can choose a religion as much as one can choose one’s parents: one can’t.

This is patently false. On can not only choose one’s religion, one can unchoose it.

 

[Lucy107]

Why did the “disciplic succession” (whatever that is)

apostolic = disciplic

cease to exist in 1977 with the death of Srila Prabhupada?

It didn’t cease to exist; they currently just don’t have an individual as a successor, but a committee of them.
Here’s the list up to and including Srila Prabhupada (scroll down).

My heart does not go out to Hare Krishna.

How much do you know about them?

This is patently false. On can not only choose one’s religion, one can unchoose it.

Then you didn’t read my above post, or didn’t understand the point about contextualizing.

 

[rossum]

Except the dogma that everything changes?

No. Buddhism disappears after a time, so all the elements of Buddhism also disappear. The religion will be refounded later by the next Buddha.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No. Buddhism disappears after a time, so all the elements of Buddhism also disappear. The religion will be refounded later by the next Buddha.

rossum

Whatever!

Buddhism is a philosophy and largely atheistic, so it does not appeal to me at all.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Then you didn’t read my above post, or didn’t understand the point about contextualizing.

Or you didn’t make the point about contextualizing intelligible?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No. Buddhism disappears after a time, so all the elements of Buddhism also disappear. The religion will be refounded later by the next Buddha.

rossum

But apparently it will be refounded somewhat changed?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m getting at another problem.

Can you choose your parents? Can you choose the country you were born in? Do you have power to single-handedly change the political order of things in your country? Can you choose the weather under which you live?
Of course not. These things precede you, contextualize you, or are otherwise beyond your control.

Most major religions propose a cosmogony, including an explanation of where you have come from, along with an explanation of your life right at this point (ie. the principles of why and how you do what you’re doing right now, like why and how you breathe, think etc.).
In that sense, these religions propose a context for you.

We can reasonably choose about things that are lesser than us (such as which suit to wear or what color to paint the room), but not about things that precede us or are bigger than us or beyond our control (such as who are our parents or the weather).

Given this, one can choose a religion as much as one can choose one’s parents: one can’t.

Hare Krishnas, for example, say the same things about their religion.

I understand the bigger problem. What resolves the problem, however, is, simply put, which religion is true.

Your ground for determining that by merely relying on the claim of the religion, itself, seems somewhat incomplete. By merely making a claim to being true, does that automatically put a religion on equal footing as any other? For one thing, such a weak standard doesn’t begin to resolve conflicting truth claims. Nor does it resolve internal inconsistencies.

As an historically founded religion with reliable artifacts, places, names, correspondence to events we know happened, certainly Mormonism doesn’t hold up and no other religion even comes close to Christianity/Judaism.

As to not being able to choose a religion, your claim also just doesn’t hold up. People walk away from their ancestral religion and make decisions about joining a new one all the time. The question comes down to why and the warrant individuals have for doing so.

Once again, classical theism and its development in Catholicism/Orthodoxy makes the strongest logical case. That case, along with the historical provenance, the integrity of the ethical system, the strength of scriptural writings and the overall comprehensiveness of the world view makes Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Judaism very difficult to match. The claims of other religious traditions do not come close when all these are taken together.

 

[Lucy107]

Or you didn’t make the point about contextualizing intelligible?

I think I did.

From a legal, sociological, culturological, or religiological perspective, one can indeed choose one’s religion.

But if, as Catholics believe, one’s choice of religion is due to the workings of the Holy Spirit, then one’s choice of religion clearly isn’t an indepedent choice.

 

[Lucy107]

I understand the bigger problem. What resolves the problem, however, is, simply put, which religion is true.

That would require omniscience!
Nothing short of omniscience.

Unless, of course, one thinks that a legal, sociological, culturological, psychological, or religiological perspective is sufficient to make the correct religious choice.

I contend that those perspectives are insufficient; or are sufficient only for religions that do not contain any cosmogony (and its implications); or are sufficient only if one dismisses the cosmogony proposed by a particular religion (an example of this are Christians who believe in Darwinian evolution and dismiss Genesis, and embrace modern science and psychology).

Your ground for determining that by merely relying on the claim of the religion, itself, seems somewhat incomplete.

I didn’t suggest that as a ground; I pointed it out as a problem that someone who is trying to choose a religion faces.

By merely making a claim to being true, does that automatically put a religion on equal footing as any other? For one thing, such a weak standard doesn’t begin to resolve conflicting truth claims. Nor does it resolve internal inconsistencies.

I don’t know! But it’s what many religious doctrines tend to claim.

As an historically founded religion with reliable artifacts, places, names, correspondence to events we know happened, certainly Mormonism doesn’t hold up and no other religion even comes close to Christianity/Judaism.

I think historiographic data about Bibilical events are a poor grounds for the conviction that Jesus died for our sins.

As to not being able to choose a religion, your claim also just doesn’t hold up. People walk away from their ancestral religion and make decisions about joining a new one all the time.

Indeed, and they do so from a legal, sociological, culturological, psychological, or religiological perspective.

The question comes down to why and the warrant individuals have for doing so.

And those warrants probably have to do with legal, sociological, culturological, psychological, or religiological issues.

Once again, classical theism and its development in Catholicism/Orthodoxy makes the strongest logical case. That case, along with the historical provenance, the integrity of the ethical system, the strength of scriptural writings and the overall comprehensiveness of the world view makes Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Judaism very difficult to match. The claims of other religious traditions do not come close when all these are taken together.

The faith of a person who reasons like this is then only as good as her conviction
that her assessment of legal, sociological, culturological, psychological,religiological, historiographic, and other worldly fields of knowledge and application,
is adequate, and thus sufficient to make the right choice about something
that has nothing to do with said worldly fields of knowledge and application.

I contend that proper religious choice, as far as classical monotheism goes, is, in its essence, a mystery and not within an individual’s power.

 

[rossum]

I understand the bigger problem. What resolves the problem, however, is, simply put, which religion is true.

Indian religions tend to use the simile of climbing a mountain. The object is to reach the summit, however there can be more than one way to reach the summit. A description of the path up the east face of the mountain is very different to the description of the path up the west face of the mountain. The only point where the two paths coincide is at the summit itself, where description in mere words becomes very difficult: “nada, nada, nada. Y en el monte nada.”

As long as a religion provides a valid path, or paths, to the summit, then it is true. There can be more than one path to the summit, so there can be more than one true religion.

rossum

 

[Lucy107]

As long as a religion provides a valid path, or paths, to the summit, then it is true.

But whether a religion does provide such a path to the summit can be ascertained only _after _ one has walked that path oneself!
IOW, one cannot know in advance whether a path will lead to the summit or not, so by this reasoning, one cannot know in advance which religion is true.

There can be more than one path to the summit, so there can be more than one true religion.

Not all paths lead to the summit, though.

 

[rossum]

But whether a religion does provide such a path to the summit can be ascertained only _after _ one has walked that path oneself!
IOW, one cannot know in advance whether a path will lead to the summit or not, so by this reasoning, one cannot know in advance which religion is true.

Correct. However, if the map provided has intermediate landmarks, you can check the intermediate landmarks as you walk the path. They will give you a level of confidence that the map is correct. Not certainty, and definitely not “absolute” certainty, but enough confidence to continue to follow that path.

Not all paths lead to the summit, though.

Also correct. Which is why we need to be prepared to change paths if necessary.

rossum