> I posit almost all intelligent monastics and religious people are smart enough to tell the difference between objective truth and religious truth- but it is taboo to explain this to lay people as they will be confused and think it means the religion is "fake" or a "trick", however I don't feel the need to respect said taboo.

That is positing a conspiracy theory level of deception.

At least as far as Christianity goes, the "intelligent monastics and religious people" write down their beliefs, and have done so for millennia, and they read each others writings. What you suggest might be possible with an oral tradition, but not with a written one. Christianity is very much concerned with objective truth, and one of the distinguishing characters of it (and some other religions too) is a belief that there is an objective truth.

It's no great conspiracy for a religion to have tiers of understanding and nuance reserved for people more intelligent and dedicated in practice- that is one key purpose of having a distinction between lay people and monastics. The mystique of this is openly part of the draw for people to sign up for it.

There's no deception- it's something that (as this discussion shows) is very subtle and dangerous to the religions when misunderstood- but not dangerous when understood correctly. It is written down repeatedly in religious texts, in a subtle way with plausible deniability, but clear to those that can read between the lines. Writing in that way was the essential basic art of any intellectual until very recently, it is only now (sort of) safe to plainly state nuanced philosophical and religious concepts without facing persecution. Nietzsche argued you still should not do so even if you can.

It's also both quite obvious and relatively unimportant on its own to people that would be capable of understanding nuance, and could be quite harmful to the faith and the stability of the religion of those not able to understand.

> It is written down repeatedly in religious texts, in a subtle way with plausible deniability, but clear to those that can read between the lines.

Can you give me an example of what you mean? From Christianity, as its the religion I know most about.

I'm not a scholar of Christian literature (or a Christian), and I don't speak Latin, so it would hardly be appropriate for me to pull out a specific quote and insist "this is what they really meant." In truth, my original source for this was my own understanding being raised in a Christian church- and voicing this perspective out loud in church as a young kid didn't go over well, as you might imagine. To me as a young kid, it was immediately obvious that there were deeper ethical principles being explained in these stories, and one had to be an idiot to be worried about if they were objective factual details or not, when the point was clearly to understand and embody the message- to practice and live it. One was called to have faith that living these principles wholeheartedly was the right thing to do and would lead to real spiritual growth, not to have faith that some particular guy built a particular boat- such things are irrelevant.

However St. Augustine is someone that I am particularly certain had a clear understanding of this, and I can see it in how he frames most of his ideas.

Another example, would be that ancient religious texts are not careful at all to avoid making numerous objectively factual contradictions- as the anti-christian crowd loves to point out over and over while also completely missing the point. If the people writing them thought that was important, they would have avoided doing so- contrary to modern opinion, ancient theologians and philosophers like St. Augustine were not idiots.

William Blake is a more modern person that, while just about the furthest thing from a monastic, clearly had a deep understanding of what I am talking about. Carl Jung also extensively understood and discussed a lot of esoteric things in Christianity including this, and wrote about them in a relatively clear modern way.

> However St. Augustine is someone that I am particularly certain had a clear understanding of this, and I can see it in how he frames most of his ideas.

Can you give me an example of one?

> To me as a young kid, it was immediately obvious that there were deeper ethical principles being explained in these stories, and one had to be an idiot to be worried about if they were objective factual details or not

Again, an example? You are suggesting for example that there is no redemption or afterlife but they convey some point?

> If the people writing them thought that was important, they would have avoided doing so- contrary to modern opinion, ancient theologians and philosophers like St. Augustine were not idiots.

Does Augustine contradict himself? In a single work (different views in different works could be a change of mind)?

Look at Wikiquote for some of St Augustines most well known quotes with what I am saying in mind- if you can’t see a dozen examples you’re not going to agree with a specific one I point out either. I am refusing to give a specific example for a reason- you will almost certainly disagree immediately with the specific example - because they are written with an alternate interpretation possible on purpose - and then think my whole premise must be wrong as a result without looking at the bigger picture, and seeing how often this plausibly deniable concept keeps coming up.

> You are suggesting for example that there is no redemption or afterlife

I am suggesting no such thing, only that dwelling on this issue is to miss the point, and even worrying about it would be an obstacle. One must deeply feel these ideas and practice accordingly to follow this spiritual path- even getting stuck on arguing that they are true would be an obstacle to that.

I am curious where you are coming from- are you a religious person that feels like my distinction between religious and objective truth undermines your beliefs, or are you a non-religious person that dislikes the idea that religion may still have value, even if the beliefs are not based on objective physical truth?

Myself, I would say I am non-religious, but have a lot of respect for the purpose and value religions offers people, and that one benefits greatly by understanding and filling those roles and needs in other ways even if not practicing a religion. I very much dislike the Richard Dawkins follower crowd that hate religion with a passion, but have no understanding of it, and have no connection to or understanding of their own emotions, unconscious, or spirituality to their own detriment.

You might enjoy this comic:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-06-05

It makes a humourous and compelling argument that a big part of Christianity is encouraging its adherents to follow the game-theoretic optimum in a way that will convince someone even if they are a bit credulous.

If you approach the bible with a good knowledge of negotiation and game theory, a lot of it can be interpreted in that light. There is a lot of good advice to get people to move to the global optimums that can be reached if everyone cooperates. It isn't subtle about it. There is no conspiracy to hide that it is good advice even to someone who doesn't particularly believe in afterlives, miracles or god-given ethics. There is a very neat division between the common read and the read of someone with a good grasp of social dynamics, negotiation and game theory. No conspiracies. Just a lot of people who can't handle complex social negotiation.

Its hardly a new idea. One problem is that there is a lot more to religion than ethics. It also assumes that religious rules of behaviour are global optimums. It fails to explain why religions spread too - why would people believe in the religion that promotes cooperation, rather than one that lets you do what you want?

It might work with a religion once established (religious societies do better because of that cooperation) but it does not explain how religions spread in the first place. very its actually a lot more likely to apply to a religion that has been long established in a relatively stable setting so it is credible as an explanation of much of ancient Jewish law that seems strange to us now (e.g. what to eat, not plucking fruit from young trees etc) that often seems off from a modern perspective.

" big part of Christianity is encouraging its adherents to follow the game-theoretic optimum in a way that will convince someone even if they are a bit credulous"

That would only work if Christians were particularly credulous. Not my experience.

> so it is credible as an explanation of much of ancient Jewish law that seems strange to us now (e.g. what to eat, not plucking fruit from young trees etc) that often seems off from a modern perspective.

One example theory I remember reading at some point was the prohibition against eating shellfish: In the area the religion arose, it would have most likely gone bad by the time it was brought that far inland.

That seems like a very forced theory. By the time shellfish is bad enough to present a health risk, it smells, looks, and feels repugnant, one doesn't need a religious system to know not to eat it.

Shellfish are susceptible to harmful algal blooms like red tide, that can make them very dangerous.

Coastal foraging cultures that don't have bans on eating shellfish, instead have complex knowledge about when, where, and how to prepare and eat them. It's the same with mushrooms- cultures either universally ban them, or deeply educate everyone about them. All cultures globally with access to these foods have a system here- it's not unique to Judaism.

The comic isn't saying this is the main point of religions, it's only saying it's one thing that happens within religions. For example, religious communities have their own social norms that are fundamental to the religion, and allow for coordinated actions you don't see elsewhere, like an Amish barn raising.

I take a Jungian view that a major useful thing religions offer is a framework for relating to the unconscious. One key part of that is to have a clear sense of ethics, and to align ones actions with it, which is generally good for your mental health.

There would definitely need to be many people who are are deliberately deceitful. Those who both know how to "read between the lines" and who clearly seek to persuade others in the objective facts of Christianity.

Take CS Lewis as an example. He write strong and clear defences of the incarnation, miracles etc. as objective facts. He was either trying to deliberately deceive or he did not actually understand older writing, and the latter is not really credible given he was the professor of mediaeval and renaissance literature at Oxford.

> The mystique of this is openly part of the draw for people to sign up for it.

Not in my experience of priests, monks and nuns and people who consider becoming clergy.

I haven't read any of CS Lewis's writing for adults, but unfortunately, it is not at all unusual for academic liberal arts scholars to have only a very shallow surface understanding of the ideas in literature they formally study.

Another possibility is that if you get what I'm saying here, you might re-read CS Lewis and have a very different perspective on what he was actually saying- because those Christian "truths" are extremely important, and exist for a good reason - and one can write a strong clear defense of them from the perspective I am coming from.

I read a lot of old philosophy and religious texts translated and commented on by "well respected" scholars, and it is not uncommon at all that I can tell they are seeing only the surface of the ideas... which can make it frustrating and difficult to read when the translator wasn't 'getting it.' The level one needs to be at to be a well respected philosopher, and just to succeed as an academic are not close at all, and there is no guarantee that the latter will be capable of fully grasping the ideas of the former - it is probably the norm that they cannot. If they could they would not be just a translator or scholar, but a powerful philosopher in their own right.

An intelligent person whose mind is fundamentally oriented towards communicating deeper meaning, does not operate on the level of obsessing over banal binary verification of facts- and they need to be able to assume their reader is already capable of thinking abstractly in this way as well. To put it simply one must assume intelligence in the reader to communicate deep ideas and meaning, and neglecting to "explain how to be intelligent" is not deception- when it is not even something that can be explained.