Opinion piece makes me wonder, why choose a religion at all?

Today I came across a New York Times opinion piece by Ross Douthat, "Looking for Faith? Here's a Guide to Choosing a Religion." (That link should open for everybody, being a gift article from my online subscription; if not, here's a PDF file.)
Download Opinion | Looking for Faith? Here’s a Guide to Choosing a Religion. - The New York Times

Douthat, a regular NYT columnist, based his piece on a book he's written that has a release date later this month: Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious.

While I obviously don't share this assumption, being an atheist, I just put in an advance order with Amazon, because I want to learn more about the arguments Douthat makes, which, based on his opinion piece, supposedly include new scientific evidence pointing to our universe being designed and the existence of a supernatural realm.

I can guess what this evidence is. If I'm right, Douthat is on shaky ground. But I could be wrong, so I'll read this book to see how persuasive he is.

My take on the opinion piece is that Douthat doesn't make a compelling case for either (1) the desirability of becoming religious, or (2) following his advice about how to choose a religion. If he had simply said, choose a religion that appeals to you, if you have a desire to be religious, I'd have no problem with that.

After all, how we choose what to eat or what music to listen to, assuming those options are open to us (prisoners and castaways on a desert island aren't able to make those choices) is based on personal preferences. Likes and dislikes are subjective. They're hard to argue with, given that we all have them and they differ from person to person.

But Douthat goes further in a fashion I found confusing. Here's an excerpt from his opinion piece:

So the religious seeker, looking out across a diverse religious landscape, should assume that there exist less-true and more-true schools of thought, not one truth and a million fictions. And this suggests, crucially, that even if you start in what turns out to be a wronger-than-average place, you can still draw closer to ultimate reality by conforming yourself to whatever that tradition still gets right.

Let’s call this the Emeth principle, after a character in one of C.S. Lewis’s Narnia novels. Emeth is a devout adherent of the religion of Tash, a vulture-demon, who ends up being welcomed into heaven on the grounds that in performing works of virtue, he has served the true god of Narnia, the lion Aslan, without knowing it.

This principle does not presume that all religions are identical, that there is no scenario in which any soul is ever lost. (Certainly it was not a matter of indifference to Lewis whether people worshiped Aslan or Tash.) The idea, rather, is that if God ordered the universe for human beings, then even a flawed religion will probably contain intimations of that reality — such that a sincere desire to find and know the truth will find some kind of reward.

Well, that's a really big "if" in the last sentence: ...if God ordered the universe for human beings... . This indicates that Douthat believes in just that, because elsewhere in his piece he also strongly implies, if not stating this directly, that a religious seeker will be guided to correct the errors in their seeking by a higher power.

Douthat also throws in some language for those who don't believe in a supernatural being who created the universe and helps people realize the nature of God.

Alternatively, does too much supernaturalism place an obstacle in the way of belief? Then it makes more sense to initially embrace the religious traditions that emphasize human ethical action or obedience to God’s law over and above miracle and mysticism.

It's clear by that "initially" that Douthat views Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions as the most true and real. Elsewhere in his piece he describes how someone was attracted to Zen Buddhism, practiced it for years, then realized that Christianity was their thing. He doesn't have any stories about people who start out Christian, then realize that Zen Buddhism is their thing.

What perplexes me is how Douthat can claim that the rightness or wrongness of a religion will become clear over time. I'd agree with this if he entertained the possibility that all religions are wrong that assume the existence of a supernatural God, since there is no objective evidence of this. 

This is why religiosity actually is akin to food or music preferences. It's a matter of taste. People can argue about their favorite types of food or music, but it comes down to a simple notion: I like it. Similarly, people belong to various religions because they like them. If they stop liking them, they either choose a different religion or give up believing in religiosity.

I reject Douthat's contention that it makes sense to choose a religion.

His opinion piece is incorrect when he claims that religiosity is making comeback. I haven't seen any evidence of this, just evidence to the contrary -- that the percentage of "none's" in the United States, at least, is steadily increasing. More and more people are choosing to be spiritual but not religious, or to just live life as it is without any form of spirituality. 

Likewise, the largest political group in the United States is nonaffiliated people, those who don't want to be Republican, Democrat, or a member of any other party. This doesn't mean they don't care about politics or improving our country. They just don't want to be confined in the box of a political party.

Douthat argues for the primacy of established large religions, somehow believing that having hundreds of millions or billions of members shows that a religion offers truths in accord with ultimate reality. No, it just shows that a religion is popular with lots of people. 

Falsehoods often are wildly popular, while the truth is shunned by many or most, being attractive to only a few. 

Comments

[Ron E.]

It's pertinent that Ross Douthat’s writing is termed an opinion piece. Not that there should be too much problems with people having opinions, after all, we all have them and display them readily in these blogs. Its’ simply that opinions are just that, views and opinions, ways that effectively try to freeze the world. Handy perhaps for technical issues where for example opinions are put forward as to where to site and build a bridge. Such projects can be planned and worked upon.

When it comes to why everyone should be religious based on Douthat’s opinion that ‘scientific evidence pointing to our universe being designed and the existence of a supernatural realm’, that is a shallow reason as to why everyone should be religious – or have a religion.

Religion, being built on belief and/or faith, (perhaps with some sort of cultural moral code thrown in) must always rely primarily on choice, and choice is dependent on the conditioned contents of one’s mind. Again, okay for practical issue but a poor foundation for dedicating one’s life to 2000–3000-year-old belief systems.

Maybe Douthat’s book will attempt to show some benefits for the human race in taking up one of the religions (he seems to favour one of the Abrahamic religions), but history (and the present day) shows that religious and many other belief systems often contribute to wars, conflicts and suffering.

My ‘opinion’ is that religions are ineffective. I’d favour spirituality, a spirituality that is based on reality along with the realisation that recognises our interdependence on the natural world and each other – perhaps a bit of a ‘pipe-dream’ in light of mankind’s history and on-going self-promotion, greed and unawareness of who/what he is.

[Appreciative Reader]

Haha, Respect! I’ve said this before already, and I’ll say it again, I’m completely in awe of your sheer capacity for reading, Brian! Heh, I myself read a great deal, and most of my own friends and family look on my “library” of books --- a large hall lined with bookcases, and two rooms upstairs with one standalone bookcase each for my more intimate and immediate reading --- with similar disbelief. But how much I read is nothing, nothing at all, compared to your facility with and capacity for reading. Respect, absolutely!

...Enjoyed reading this post. Some comments:

----------

“new scientific evidence pointing to our universe being designed and the existence of a supernatural realm”

Sounds fascinating. Should make for interesting reading, do share fully! …Like you, I’m like 99% sure it’ll be nonsense, and provide no more than amusement. But, like you, I’m happy to take it onboard if this “evidence” does prove to be compelling after all.

----------

“And this suggests, crucially, that even if you start in what turns out to be a wronger-than-average place, you can still draw closer to ultimate reality by conforming yourself to whatever that tradition still gets right.”

That’s nonsense. If there’s one tradition, like the Judeo-Christian, that is actually oafish; and another, like Advaita, that is in comparison actually luminous, but still wrong: then it is absurd to suggest that, while kicking aside the oafish, one must “conform” with the less-wrong tradition, in this case Advaita, in order to “draw closer to …reality”. Nah, how to draw closer to reality is by rejecting *everything* that is wrong.

----------

“that's a really big "if" in the last sentence: ...if God ordered the universe for human beings...”

Haha, yes indeed. Any reasoning predicated on a nonsensical premise will yield a conclusion that is nonsensical, no matter how elaborate or how rigorous the argument and the thesis. Garbage in, garbage out.

I mean, IF the world is a dream that I, Appreciative Reader, am dreaming: then all of you, every one of you, are figments of my imagination, mine; and people probably would be well advised to keep me propitiated!

There’s so *much* nonsense packed into that there short part-sentence of his!
(1) IF there is a God.
(2) IF God created the universe.
(3) IF, having created the universe, God ordered it.
(4) And finally, if God ordered all this massive everything, for the benefit of us puny humans crawling over this small planet in this solar system in this galaxy, one among billions of galaxies in the universe.

Yeah, no. Allow me to revise my revise my estimate, up from 99% to 99.99999% sure that this guy’s “evidence” will be as nonsensical as his general thinking seems to be.

----------

“does too much supernaturalism place an obstacle in the way of belief? Then it makes more sense to initially embrace the religious traditions that emphasize human ethical action or obedience to God’s law over and above miracle and mysticism”

This guy’s a weirdo. He hasn’t a clue how to even approach reality. His thinks strategically, like a proselytizer, and not like how a rational honest person would, not like how a sincere seeker-after-truth would.

----------

“I reject Douthat's contention that it makes sense to choose a religion.”

Hear, hear. Amen to that.

----------

“His opinion piece is incorrect when he claims that religiosity is making comeback.”

Agreed. His grasp of facts is as wrong as are his opinions.

----------

“Douthat argues for the primacy of established large religions, somehow believing that having hundreds of millions or billions of members shows that a religion offers truths in accord with ultimate reality.”

Elementary logical fallacy right there, a textbook argumentum ad populum. Man’s a moron.

----------

“Opinion piece makes me wonder, why choose a religion at all?”

Haha, yes, absolutely! Sums it up, completely pithily.

[Kranvir]

In this world of pain and suffering, people are desperate and looking for a saviour figure to take them out of this hell hole. Then along comes someone called gurinder Singh Dhillon, a fraudster, who traps souls in a web of beliefs and lies and false promises of going to heaven in 4 life times. You become convinced that your pain is because of your past lives and in your destiny - this is utter nonsense and evil. Once you get trapped, there is literally no chance of getting out, you become blinded and its game over for your freedom. Is selling your mind, your body and soul really worth the sacrifice for lifetimes of pain and suffering? Gurinder Dhillon is being exposed as the hand of kaal. Its game over

[spence Tepper]

It's a good idea to believe in something, some positive objective. But what?
What you believe in inevitably comes from your own psychology, your own conditioning. If there is something great within you, buried within you, that will keep coming up in one form or another to you.

To take a hard look at anything human beings have come up with, including their interpretations of God, is to find a very tainted world where everyone has feet of clay, and no one is qualified to comment on such lofty things as truth, or God.

We live in a world filled with falsehood and delusion. Sometimes faith in a higher power that is pure, above this corruption of thinking and spirit that is the mixed human condition, is inspiring.

But attempt to define that beyond a simple love for the divine, and one pulls what was a lofty and inspiring internal reality down into a very limited and corrupted objective picture that has been so corrupted by self interests the result is purely destructive.

We are not fit to say the word "God" let alone define who or what that is. But we are all fit to pursue that, because if there is a God, they are somewhere within us, and will already be taking the main responsibility to pull us from our ignorance.

I M H O ...:)

[sant64]

I'm told atheists are less violent than religious folk. I sure hope that's true. But given today's DNC rally where one democrat leader after another urged violence, I have to wonder.

Quite a lot of Democrat vows for insurrection of late. Tell us more about hypocrisy in Trumpland.