Jump to content

disarray

Senior Members
  • Posts

    464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by disarray

  1. It's funny to me how people who broadly agree still manage to find ways to engage in conflict.

    Religion is self-evidently problematic. Would be better in my mind if it were discarded with all of the countless others in the graveyard of human mythology where it rightly belongs.

    To suggest, though, that religion is THE problem as opposed to A problem, or that some utopia free of strife and full of harmony would be immediately realized were religion to sunset is just stupid.

    This thread alone provides ample evidence of that assertion given how clearly it demonstrates the way people who broadly agree still manage to find ways to engage in conflict.

     

    As you provided no quote, I can only say (since I have posted frequently lately) that I for one have never claimed that religion was THE (only or major) problem, nor that there would be some sort of utopia free of strife and full of harmony.

     

    However, I think that there is room, for example, to discourage the sort of fundamentalism that seems to be most strongly associated with displays of power and violence.

     

    I would agree though that under pessimism or over optimism with respect to mollifying the negative effects of religion in the future is, of course, not very realistic.

     

     

  2.  

    I don't know why we have to sit here and debate over the possible core causes of these problems. Religion is THE problem. Religion is what informs people's worldviews to begin with. It is the lens they view the world through from the moment they are indoctrinated as a child (or later). There is a reason there are absolutely ZERO atheist groups whose mission is to persecute minorities, or to bring on the end times, or commit terrorism, etc.(National Socialism and Stalinism are not atheist groups so don't even try that one). There is a reason for the variance in values among the different religions. There is a reason why muslims are, for instance, okay with stem cell research, as their doctrine says the soul is not injected into the fetus until like the 40th day or something. There is a reason why Christians oppose stem cell research. These are doctrinal beliefs. Religion is the ultimate informer of most people's perceptions of right and wrong, and people's perceptions of right and wrong are the ultimate informers of their actions.

     

    So religion gives you peace and purpose in life? Big freakin' deal. Go watch football, get a hobby, study philosophy and science, etc. Find something else that gives your life meaning. You don't need religion to do that, and ultimate purpose is nonsense and overrated anyway. Ultimate purpose means that you lose control over your own life. You don't need to believe that a first century carpenter with magical powers is going to drop out of the clouds one day and destroy the earth in order to have a purpose in life. Hell, the lack of "ultimate purpose" is actually a good thing because it means no one is determining things for you. You can steer your own ship, and create your own unique sense of meaning. Religion crushes your individuality and makes you a slave in just about every sense of the word. I have absolutely ZERO concerns if this offends or upsets people. You need to be upset. The religious should be ashamed of themselves for being grown ups who still engage in this childish nonsense. Grow up, and drop the religious nonsense. If that sounds a little too Hitchens-like, it was meant to. I already have a crappy reputation on this forum so I might as well bask in it.

    The very fact that you feel that you need to be somewhat apologetic for expressing your opinion suggests, I think, that religion, or rather some religious people feel that they have the right to pressure people not to speak out against religion. In the "old days" one could be ostracized or even tortured for expressing such thoughts openly, but that cultural pressure is still in the air. I agree with what you have said, but even if I didn't, I would applaud you for having the courage to say what you think, rather than mincing words as I tend to do.

  3. My position throughout this thread (and others) is, religion isn't a reason for violence, it's just, one amongst many, excuses.

    My opinion is that, although people sometimes do use religion as excuse, the role of religion is far more complex than just that. Religion can act both as a causal agent as well as an explosive catalyst. As examples of it being a causal agent, I would list such things as ethnocentric hatred, related xenophobia, fear of rival eschatologies, religious jealousy, scriptural incitement and enticement towards violence, and megalomania.

     

    Indeed, no one remembers Dave Wood because he helped a nieghbour (other than the nieghbour); so I ask again, since religion brings peace and happiness to so many people, against the apparent death toll, "what's the score"?

    The score is that religion has been a primary or secondary factor in hundreds if not thousands of wars/battles/scrimmages. And yes, religion has encouraged people to do good. On the other hand, many writers have pointed out that doing good in order to escape hell or go to heaven is disingenuous. A humanist stance is that people can and should do good without being prompted by religious doctrine. Indeed, in the U.S., I suspect that community groups such as Elks, Legions, Rotary club, etc. have done as much if not more good on average than churches, and have done so with little or no religious "baggage." Indeed, hours spent in (supplicative/adorational) prayer or listening to sermons that explicate archaic and arcane scriptures might be better spent in actual community service.

     

    disarray, on 16 Aug 2016 - 1:35 PM, said:snapback.png

     

    It's exactly the same, Nirvana isn't an endgame, it's what you have right now, if you decide it is.

    Well, different people define Nirvana in different ways. Of course, one can experience an enlightened state of mind through mediation or by just adopting a positive attitude on a daily basis in everyday life. However, my understanding of the literature is that the ultimate state of Nirvana as generally used in Eastern religions refers to some final, post death state (often when one has escaped from cycles of reincarnation associated with Karma) in which the earthy ego/self is extinguished and/or transcended/replaced/fulfilled by a higher Self. So semantics/matter of opinion as to whether it is appropriate to describe Nirvana as an endgame.

  4. Guess no one is "biting," but I do think Jefferson is an interesting figure with regards to the question of whether one can be spiritual, but not religious. In practice, religion implies such things as ritual, creeds, images, etc. Indeed, the degree to which one has visible representations of ones beliefs was arguably a bone of contention between Moses and those who worshiped idols, as well as between the more ritualistic Catholics and Protestants (esp., for example, the Puritans).

     

    Jefferson et al seemed to have had the idea that if one shears away all those elements that give the various religions and sects their unique identity, then there would be less conflict between them. (Samson's loss of strength at having his hair cut by Delilah and the head shaving of army recruits comes to mind in this regard). Indeed, he went so far as to deny Jesus's divinity and the general notion of a personal God.

     

    In practice, this led to his hand in the construction of the principle of the Separation of Church and State (although there is some controversy as to the specifics).

     

    So what's left that we might call "spiritual?" Well, he seemed to glean a handful of moral principles directly from Nature and/or the rather metaphorical God of Nature. Jefferson's thought was similar to Kant's belief that morality was hard wired into Nature (categorical moral imperative). The idea that one could be "inspired" directly by Nature was also a current notion of the times.

     

    We read about these morals in the Declaration of Independence, which speaks of the Freedom and Equality of all "men," regardless of religious affiliation. (Though he perhaps did not fully take the principle to the logical conclusion that we do today to include people of all incomes, gender, and race).

     

    This seems to me to be a good way to go: For a society (or world) to agree upon a few basic principles that seem fundamental (on perhaps a humanistic level) in their universal respect for human life and happiness. As with Eastern Religions, Jefferson's notion that all are equal seems to parallel the notion that all living things in Nature are valuable in their own right.

     

    In a nutshell, the genius of Jefferson in this respect was that he wanted to cut out the "middleman" that dogma, miracles, ritual, creed, and orthodoxy provided, and cut to the chase by communing directly with (the spiritual dimension) of Nature.


    I'm sorry for the offensive language. I made an ass out of myself again.

    Didn't notice.

  5. Yup it's called peace...

     

    I'm thinking of this/my world, a world that could, without fear or hate, provide for everyone...

     

    History says many things and, like our media, is sensationally biased.

     

    The rational thing to do, when faced with hatred and fear, is forgive; just ask Nelson Mandela...

     

     

    I think that trying to unravel the centuries of misunderstanding and animosity that have been knotting up countries in Europe and the Middle East to this day, for example, is going to take a degree of social, military, and religious analysis and diplomacy that is far beyond just saying, as John Lennon and millions of others have futilely suggested, to "give peace (and forgiveness or whatever) a chance."

     

    I was under the impression that this thread was, at least in part, an attempt to determine the specific aspects and dynamics of religion (in some depth) that led to power struggles and violence. We all know, for example, that people from different religions often fear and hate those from others. But the causes for such hatred and fear are complex and often unapparent. We can't, much as we would like, just raise our hands in a peace gesture and make it all go away.

     

    But no, history, as the great historian, WIll Durant, once observed, is a seemingly endless series of bloody and generally senseless wars following one after another.....blood, blood, blood, ad nauseum.

  6. .


    Even within the same church, issues of "my version of god is better than yours" are rampant. That's even farther away from the OPs inquiry regarding atheism and spirituality, though. Did anyone ever satisfactorily define spirituality, btw? Seems rather fundamental we find consensus there before engaging in further exchange.

    I believe the original post was as follows:

    "Since I understand atheism to be mostly the rejection of claims that assert the existence of god(s), rather than the positive view that there is no supernatural realm or god(s). By this definition, I would consider myself an atheist. There are some popular atheists who claim to be highly spiritual (or at least interested in spiritual experience). Sam Harris comes to mind. I just wanted to start up a conversation to see what the members here think. If you wouldn't mind, if you answer, please state where you stand as far as whether or not you are an atheist/theist/religious/non-religious/deist/etc."

     

    I just pointed out what I think are the positive and negative aspects of being or promulgating atheism...How is that far away from the OPs original inquiry?

     

    To be more specific, I referenced Jefferson, who rewrote disseminated the New Testament shorn of its miracles because he felt that Jesus was a great thinker. I think it reasonable, given what I know about Jefferson's thinking, to suggest that he himself thinks that it is possible to have a spiritual outlook on life (e.g., encouraging community spirit and communing with the spiritual dimensions of Nature) without subscribing to 'supernatural realms and (orthodox) gods' per se. As for the OPs inquiries about my own feelings and leanings on the issue, I think that my posts in general indicate that I have a like-minded attitude as Jefferson.

  7. As Jung (et al) pointed out, if science eradicates religion, people's religious 'instincts' to believe and worship something greater than themselves (Freud referred to gods as projections of our parents), then people's need for religious/spiritual sustenance will cause them to seek elsewhere, like water temporarily dammed when flowing downhill. Hence, one might point out the rather unorthodox spiritual seeking of the sixties' hippies, or more to the point, the quasi scientific beliefs of New Agers, and the general interest in Eastern religions that has steadily grown in the West.

     

    I am not so sure, for example, that I want to visit a dying grandmother, for example, and then try to intellectually browbeat her into rejecting her belief that Jesus has forgiven her sins and that she will soon go to heaven to rejoin her deceased husband for all eternity. As I recall, Ben Franklin and Matthew Arnold, for example, thought that traditional Christianity was superstitious nonsense, but that it was a good thing because it comforted the masses and encouraged them to behave well.

     

    I certainly agree with the the comforting aspect, and suspect that believing that a god personally loves one, that he rewards good and punishes evil at some point, and that he offers eternal life, helps millions get through the agony of their daily lives.

     

    As I have mentioned somewhere before, whether one is a Buddhist or a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew, etc., there are typically and traditionally certain steps that one must take to get from A to B; that is, from not being saved and to being saved (and gaining eternal life or perhaps respite from seemingly pointless reincarnations).

     

    Problems seem to occur, even within sects of the same religion, when one groups recipe for getting into heaven is not quite the same as someone elses. The deal is that both groups can't, from their point of view, be right. One has to be wrong...This seems to me to be a key factor in conflicts between, for example, Catholics and Protestants, or even among early Christian sects, and hence we see people such as Jefferson warning that we don't want to have a repeat of the sort of religious conflict over religious creeds (etc.) that occurred (for centuries) in Europe. And indeed, Jefferson was much maligned by many 'ordinary' people on the streets as he traveled around town minding his own business by people who had heard that he was not a proper Christian, who did not believe that Jesus performed miracles, and who was some sort of deist (which, they presumed, means one might as well be an atheist).

     

    So yes, it would be nice if people could accept that there are many roads all leading to Rome, so to speak, but in practice, history has taught us that people tend not to be very open to this idea. Call it a spinoff of ethnocentrism if you like, but my church is always better than yours.

  8. No worries. I'm really not.

    Again, no. Really not.

    Once more, you seem to be misreading me, brother.

    Perhaps by this point you've picked up on a pattern, but if for any reason you haven't, I didn't assume this either.

    Instead of guessing at my meaning or assuming I've said things I haven't, I'm happy to clarify. Please just explain what part of my point about it being entirely possible to be atheist and culturally christian (or jewish or other) is confusing.

     

    No I did not say it was impossible...that was never the issue. I said that, in general, those who adopt the culture but don't really subscribe to the precepts may, in many cases, be living a sort of contradiction, which may involve hypocrisy, role playing, cognitive dissonance, etc. It was then you seemed to take things personally, saying, "I've been accused of being many things. Inarticulate, intentionally obtuse, and hypocritical are not included in that set." Then I pointed out that I was not referring to you personally, and explained that I myself, as per Xmas, participated in the culture without accepting the beliefs. So I merely clarified that I did not accuse you personally of being hypocritical, and certainly did not even use words such as inarticulate or obtuse.

     

    Obviously, it is not impossible. I merely pointed out in more than one post just why it can be undesirable in a society: unnecessariy perpetuates archaic beliefs, makes it difficult to know what beliefs a person really espouses, leads people to say and even support issues out of political correctness, justifies violence (mafia, national attacks on foreign countries, even when they have different cultures despite essentially having the same religion), gang violence, tends to unnecessarily marginalize minority religions, etc.

     

     

     

     

  9.  

     

    But that's my point, there's never any reason to dehumanise an enemy, even if they attack, one defends oneself and then ask why (if one wasn't to vigorous)

    Are you thinking of some ideal world where people never initiate warfare, only defend themselves, or maybe you are thinking of a world where people don't bond together by describing those with whom they are competing for resources as being less than human?

     

    Are you suggesting that people can behave so rationally? History says otherwise.

  10.  

     

    I think the award for 'the most balanced approach' would go to the Buddhists, prepare for war but hope for peace.

     

    I was looking more for something along the lines that all countries (states, tribes, whatever) have a tendency to dehumanize their perceived or real enemies.

     

    One way to do this is to put the enemy's motives in question (even when, ironically, they are much like ones own motives, e.g, desire for land, money, resources). And yes, inciting fear is a major tactic that goes hand in hand with questioning an enemy's motives.

     

    Ones own religion (and sometimes ones enemy's) allows one to cut to the chase by portraying them as having motives that are negative on a grand (e.g., supernatural/religious) scale. Thus, ones enemies are described as being evil, possessed, perverse, wicked, pagan, degenerative, etc,

     

    It then follows that one has to "save" said enemies by colonizing, "civilizin," and converting them. This often entails taking over and/or taking control of their land, women, "manpower" (via slavery), and resources.

     

    Or a country can just cut to the chase, and kill as many people as possible (again, in the name of religion and religious values) and then take over land, women, and resources.

     

    And I am not singling out any one country: The conquest of Africa and the ensuing culling of slaves being a case in point:

    European missionaries especially from Portugal, France, Britain, and Germany went to Africa under the premise of going to convert the locals to Christianity. Some of them stuck to their mission.... others however, aided in the colonization of Africans by Europeans. In many cases Christian conversion looked more like European Capitalist conversion and the plunder of African resources.

    http://www.globalblackhistory.com/2012/10/role-of-missionaries-in-colonization-of-africans.html

    It is revealing to look at what happens in specific countries in Africa:

     

    Nigeria, evenly distributed between Christians and Muslims, is a country where people identify themselves by their religion first and as Nigerians second. Around 20,000 have been killed in God's name since 1990. [...] This is one of many religious battlefields in this part of Africa. Evangelical Christians, backed by American collection-plate money, are surging northwards, clashing with Islamic fundamentalists, backed by Saudi petrodollars, surging southwards.The Economist

    (2007)

    In general, people are not so much different, and, given half a chance, will use the technique of justifying aggression by dehumanizing the enemy by inciting religious animosity where possible. In the case of Nigeria, I suspect that both Muslims and Christians accuse each other of economic and religious imperialism.

  11.  

     

    Look at the reaction of America post 9/11, the fear of further such attacks inspired both torture and war and just look at the excuses; religion wasn't required as an excuse to commit torture, but damn useful to inspire a hatred of Muslims.

     

    Certainly the role of religion in violence is multifarious. I would suggest that a balanced/objective approach would be to examine the role(s) that religion (in combination with other factors) plays for all countries most directly involved in a violent conflict of this nature.

  12. Surely some sociologists have started to do this? I couldn't find anything at a quick glance.

     

    There is certainly quite a lot of biased material available online, though, as you say, it seems that surprisingly little scholarly research has been done in this area. A relevant article is a Penn State U. one entitled Wars and Rumors of Wars: Explaining Religiously Motivated Violence, which looks at the data and concludes that religion acts as both key agent and volatile catalyst:

     

    “When religious groups are targets of restrictions, discrimination and isolation, their capacity for social action is enhanced by providing both shared grievances and an increased unity. This capacity is enhanced even more when religion serves to mobilize social and political movements. Together, the clear group boundaries, shared grievances, common religious beliefs, dense social networks, and organizational vehicles for social action result in a high capacity for collective social action.”

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi82ZifnsbOAhVN12MKHSW2Cy4QFgh0MA8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thearda.com%2Fworkingpapers%2Fdownload%2FWar%2520and%2520Rumors%2520of%2520War.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFeyWlczNmZwd72XcRT3UdSBttrEQ&sig2=vaBndqOXABAbBAeRObNt6w

     

    As for Mao, as he was mentioned, he was seen by many, particularly pre-1950s as a hero with a vision. Indeed, we can see that political card being played in American politics today re the Presidential campaign, so we need not think of the formula (hero + savior + national vision) as being the main tool of only dictators. Indeed, such a formula could well describe many a religion.

  13.  

    For sure if you define something too broadly then it becomes meaningless, and i also agree that definitions are not immutable in their meaning. Therefore the context in which we discuss these ideas becomes important.

     

    A key point, in light of the OP, is that some religions encourage massacres and others do not. Christianity and Islam have big problems with their scripture being used to massacre people: Jainism does not. So what is the difference? To start to investigate the difference we need to look at the nuances: they have become pertinent to the discussion at hand, and are not simply a matter of semantics.

     

    Well, I don't know if one can say the same about Hinduism, so I suspect that one is cherry picking from the Eastern religions a bit.

    I can't help pointing out that transcendence seems to be a definite if not integral part of their belief system even though they don’t believe in a god, per se, as they do believe in what Western scientists would describe as supernatural (aka transcendental) events, e.g., people who break the cycle of reincarnation.

     

    Indeed, I am reluctant to accept the idea that the notion of karma, reincarnation, and nirvana is all that much different from the Christian concepts of sin, hell, and heaven....all based on the behavioral concepts of positive and negative reinforcement of behavior.

     

    A key issue, I think, is whether one claims that ones own religion has the right recipe for getting to a "good place" and others don't, so that it is necessary to show that other religions are wrong and your religion is right, even if it means killing off (if not converting) that religion's worshipers.

     

    Jainism works for peace because it is so insistent that nonviolence and tolerance are essential ingredients for attaining liberation of the soul. Hence, Jainists are not fundamentalistic, as a rule, because they are tolerant.

     

    A cynic might point out, as many have, that one is ultimately being selfish if one is good to others just to get into a "good place" oneself (or at least out of a bad place). But I guess one might retort that the idea is that one becomes a better person if one goes through the motions for a while.

     

    I realize that not all Eastern religions embrace the notion of reincarnation, and if they do, not necessarily in the same way. But one finds there that, like the Abrahamic religions, they have to a some degree a common (historical/cultural) origin.

     

    For comparison's sake, I think it more profitable to examine the etiology of power struggles and violence in Buddhism and Hinduism.

     

    (To me Confucianism and early Judaism are not 'true' religions in the sense of that they basically/historically attempted to bind people together as a community with rigorous codes of righteous conduct, rather than focusing on the attainment an afterlife of some sort.)

  14. As i said before:

     

     

    I simply think you paint with too broad a brush and miss out on some interesting nuances in the process.

     

    This mysticism isn't an integral part of Buddhism, or Confucianism and maybe other religions (or philosophies if you prefer), for many people. Why can't you accept that? I'd recommend reading some Stephen Batchelor books, he explains it well.

     

    The reason i feel this pertinent is that many people find there are parts of religion they like and parts they dislike, even abhor. Many of the parts they dislike are mystical in nature - we can simply do away with these parts. But by being so insistent that religion must have mystical elements, i think we lose many people who might be culturally inclined towards a given religion, but otherwise ready to embrace essentially humanist ideals.

     

    Referring me to some author's books is not really addressing the issue...perhaps you could proffer a quote to which I might respond.

     

    I did not claim that all Eastern religions are essentially mystical, however, I see no point in overlooking those aspects that are clearly mystical or transcendent or supernatural or otherworldly or what have you (whether deemed integral or not) from what I consider to be a Westerner's point of view.

     

    And yes, I am suggesting that if you are going to call any set of beliefs religious, irregardless of whether you label them as Eastern or Western, then there is a general understanding in the everyday world that such beliefs are in some way more than just the equivalent of the Boy Scout code of conduct. In short, from a Westerners point of view, I think it is questionable as to whether one would label Confucianism as being a religion, and ditto for Buddhism, though for somewhat different reasons. No broad paint brushing as you suggest, just tweaking definitions.

     

    Now if you are suggesting that many Easterners define religion in a different way then Westerners do, then that is fine....but again, I think that it is just boiling down to how individuals or groups of people choose to define words such as mystical or religion.

     

    Bottom line is that "words" and there meanings are not set in stone, and vary (in different degrees) from culture to culture, language to language, person to person, group to group, etc. There is often no ultimate right or wrong about such things, but rather just a matter of reaching an agreement as to how such terms are used by the majority of people in the majority of contexts in a particular society.

     

    In any case, the real issue, in terms of this forum thread, has perhaps more to do with whether Easterners appeal to their religion in order to validate their controlling tendencies and their violence and with others of different "religious" beliefs....and my guess is that they do, though perhaps in a different way than is common to Western religions.

  15. As I read through various people's experiences, I read about their sense of oneness with the universe. I am not suggesting that the world necessarily turns into a glittering array of gems. Nevertheless, the experiences people describe are typically mystical, e.g., feeling at one with the universe. Indeed, Suzuki himself suggests that a sense of something beyond (aka, imo,transcendental) is an essential component of satori.

     

    Mysticism as defined by D.T. Suzuki:
    something which is of quite a different order from what I am accustomed to. The feeling that follows is that of complete release or a complete rest---the feeling that one has arrived finally at the destination...As far as the psychology of satori is considered, a sense of the Beyond is all we can say about it;

    http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_experiences/learn/experts_define/suzuki.shtml

     

    My first Satori Experience:

    There was the undeniable sense that I was actually a part of the infinite universe, I was not separate from it. I could feel that connection, or rather, the lack of separation from it. There was still the sense of me but it was not separate from everything else. The borders of separation were gone.

    http://www.globalone.tv/profiles/blogs/my-first-satori-temporary-experience-of-enlightenment

    My awakening experience: Satori

    At first, after my first satori had ended, I felt quite alone. Nobody could understand what I went through. I failed to reproduce this ultimate high I had reached, and I couldn’t communicate what I felt.

    https://medium.com/@ripper234/my-awakening-experiences-aka-satori-96f9b82e7a60#.wnif8cm9g

    Again, there is not much point of speaking of mystical/religious experiences if one means nothing different than everyday life as experienced by most people most of the time. Saying that mystical experiences make one aware of transcendental realms or states of consciousness makes sense to me, though, again, I don't see much point in being too adamant about how one is using the word transcendental; however, satori is often regarded as being a mystical experience and, mystical experiences tend to imply transcendence, though again, this is a controversial point: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399069?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

     

    Certainly some endgame state of Nirvana to which many people seem to aspire (however one might speculate as to the degree of consciousness in such a state) is not the same as the state (of mind) I have right now.

  16.  

    So in Buddhism we are taught that thinking there is anything to transcend, or there is some transcendental realm, is a trap. It's the same idea that eating chocolate (i.e. hedonism) will bring you eternal happiness - thinking there is something transcendental to attain or realise just leads to 'spiritual' pride and one-up-manship and you chasing your tail. Nothing wrong with chasing your tail if you enjoy it, but many people don't.

     

    Well, yes. D.T. Suzuki would be the first to point out that there is no where to go and that Reality (as perceived by an Enlightened person) is right before ones eyes. Nevertheless, most people are not, as I think most Buddhists would agree, not at a very high level of satori or Enlightenment, so that what one experiences when enlightened is seen as a state of consciousness transcending the way most people experience the world. So semantics really.

     

    So i disagree that religion necessarily requires a belief in anything transcendental (although i admit it usually does, i just want to labour the point that it doesn't always). Unless you want to strictly define religion in that way, but that excludes a lot of what we normally think of as religion (Buddhism, Confucianism, parts of Hinduism).

     

    Well, I take your point to some extent, though as I mentioned, many people suggest that Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions, strictly speaking, though again, they may presume some higher (transcendental) realms such as Nirvana. As for Confucianism:

    "Confucianism is often characterized as a system of social and ethical philosophy rather than a religion. In fact, Confucianism built on an ancient religious foundation to establish the social values, institutions, and transcendent ideals of traditional Chinese society."

    In any case, as per my last post, I modified my definition of "religion" as used in practice to focus on hero worship of some sort, instead of the more vague term of "transcendental," as being a more all encompassing definition. In this sense, we find that people such as Hitler provided the Volk with a hero (himself) in mythic/religious proportions.

     

    We've been here before - it's not just semantic squibbling: there is a fundamental difference between eastern religions and western religions. My in-laws are Confucian, very active in their local temple, but by any of your standards they are not at all religious, because they don't buy into anything transcendental or super-natural required. Going to their temples is more like going to a graveyard - its a place of gravity and reflection, surrounded by some symbols to get into that frame of mind.

     

    Well yes, if you are reducing all Western religions to the Abrahamic tradition or similar. But again, I don't think that it is realistic to scour Eastern religions of any beliefs in transcendence, as Confucius did refer to the Tao:

    Indeed, worshipping ancestors involves a belief in some sort of transcendental realm in itself, since one can communicate with them:

    The oldest and most enduring Confucian ritual practice is ancestor worship -- the ritualized commemoration of, communication with, and sacrifice to one's deceased relations. http://www.patheos.com/Library/Confucianism/Ritual-Worship-Devotion-Symbolism/Rites-and-Ceremonies

    "In early texts, the living communicate with their ancestors through diviniation, reports, prayers, and offerings of wine and food.

    (Encyclopedia of Confucianism, Yao, p. 289)

    For the sake of my sanity i might just have to agree [re whether religion must entail theism], but i think this is a very Western perspective and demonstrably false. The other option is that we expand what we mean by religion to include what other parts of the world think too.

     

    Well, as I read through various texts and websites on Eastern and Western beliefs, I see that such terms vary from author to author and site to site, so again, despite obvious general differences between East and West, I think that being too adamant about what we label as religious or theistic is pointless.

     

    A zen Buddhist saying: If you see the Buddha by the side of the road kill him. [presumably with respect to hero worship]

     

    Well, yes, that could mean anything. It could be an affirmation about the insignificance of death, or, in some forms of Buddhism, an affirmation of reincarnation, or it could be, as with many zen koans a caution not to think about things too much, but to experience them. One story I recall is that a student seeks a master in the woods and when he finally finds him chopping wood, the student asks him how he might achieve Enlightenment. Upon hearing this, the master raises his axe as if to kill the student, and the student runs away, only to experience satori moments later.

    But generally speaking, Buddha, (or to be more specific, Gautama Buddha), as I mentioned before, fits the bill, as far as I can tell, of being a sort of (worshiped) hero figure, regardless of what he might have reputedly said about all things being equal in nature or whatever.

     

  17. I am hesitant to poke my nose into the above discussion, but it may be prudent to just cut to the chase and agree that, generally speaking:

     

    Religion implies some form of theism.

    Polytheism = many gods; monotheism = one god.

    There is merit in the opinion that people could be regarded (or see themselves) as religious by (cultural) association even though they are not religiously active or staunch believers (in fact some of them may be of very questionable integrity...think along the lines of various Mafia movies...as illustrated by this actual news article: Italian Catholic Church scrambles to explain its role in lavish Mafia boss funeral).

     

    And my own opinion: religion = organised superstition.

     

    I agree. In everyday use of the term, when we think of religion, we generally think in terms of some sort of role model on a super/transcendental scale. Indeed, in practice, it seems that there is always some sort of hero worship involved, whether or not the hero takes the form of a deity, or just an ordinary human (Confucius), or someone whose status seems to be somewhere in between, depending upon whom you ask, e.g., Jesus, Buddha, or Hercules for that matter.

     

    But yes, just superficially adopting the culture (e.g., symbols, aura, ritual) without actually partaking of the general notion of compassion that is at the core of most major religions (that I know of) can not only be a ridiculous token gesture (as in a vicious, sadistic biker who wears a cross around his neck), it can also be a dangerous way of bonding with like-minded criminals and validating their actions, as in the mafia example you give.

  18. It's important to separate the optical effect from the physical effect. Yes, if you travel away from something, the increasing distance will cause a delay in the light you receive, and yes, the reverse occurs as you travel toward something.

    You can, however, calculate how much of an effect your relative motion is having on the light you receive, and if you factor that difference out, you'll discover that the other clock is still running slow, in both cases. It's not simply an optical effect caused by light taking longer to reach you, and if the documentary you watched explained it that way then they did a poor job.

     

    Ah, that's what I was hoping someone would clarify....In many explanations there is no attempt to make any distinction between optical and physical, or there is the presumption that they are always the exact same thing.


    Technically time dilation disparity only means that a given volume of space contains more energy from a relative FoR.

    That's what I had been trying to say in another thread, but it seems some people balk at this notion because it seems to imply some sort of physical explanation for time dilation. It seems that the word "physical" is anathema in some contexts when talking about time dilation, which is fine with me, as I don't think of space as being a physical object per se anyway. Please elaborate on this statement of yours, as I don't think that saying that time slows down is the only possible explanation that one can give when explaining time dilation.

  19.  

    But theism isn't a requisite for religion: that's a very Western perspective. Maybe we could say theism is a sufficient condition for religion (though Jimmy may disagree) but not a necessary condition.

    Some (most?) people just don'y worry about it that much and are happy to take whatever ideology society is handing out.

     

     

    Ok, well I checked out the link "isn't a requisite" and got taken directly to the statement that "Atheism is acceptable within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Syntheism, Raëlism,[72] and Neopagan movements[73] such as Wicca."

     

    So yes, some of these are religious (having transcendental gods, e.g., Hinduism) and some are spiritual beliefs systems (having a belief in some sort of transcendental realm but not well-defined gods, e.g., generally speaking, modern day Buddhism. Personally, I don't know how one can be an atheist in a religion such as Hinduism with its numerous gods, given that the origin of the word "theism" is "god" (from Gk. theos)

     

    Speaking of Wiki, it defines religion as

     

    a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".[1] Different religions may or may not contain various elements, ranging from the "divine",[2] "sacred things",[3] "faith",[4] a "supernatural being or supernatural beings"[5] or "[…] some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life.

    Personally speaking, the students in the Comparative Religions class I was in came up with a definition of "religion" that required the element of "transcendence." Indeed, we agreed that it was debatable whether or not one could say that Buddhism or Confucianism were religions. Buddhism certainly has an element of transcendence, but the transcendental object is not some God, but rather the worshiper him/herself.

     

    Merriam-Webster defines "theism" as the "belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world."

     

    So, as far as I can tell, the difference between theism and religion is a quantitative one in which the latter has a somewhat less insistence that the transcendent being that one is believing in and/or worshiping has a fairly clearly defined personhood. In short, theism seems more anthropomorphic.

     

    So I concede that there is a difference, but I don't think that it matters all that much whether one says that one is a theist who worships Jesus or Allah or a religious/spiritual New Ager who claims to worship and believe in a "higher power," whatever that might mean. To me, this is just semantic quibbling. In my mind, the important thing, as far as making a difference, is whether the object of transcendence makes a difference to the way one lives, e.g., proscribes a life path and moral values. If it don't make no difference to your life, I don't see how it matters if someone believes that there are fairies dancing at the bottom of ones garden in the middle of the night.

  20.  

    Feeling there is no afterlife inspires us to maximize our time, actions, and deeds in this one.

     

    Well yes and no. I have met people who say they felt quite liberated once they became atheists. It is hard to say whether they were happy to dispense with the hope of an afterlife, or just glad not to have to accept the intellectually insulting beliefs of the religion that their parents had foisted upon them.

     

    But, as T.S. Eliot noted, in general, "human beings cannot stand too much reality." One of the things that discourages and worries people is that life is short and the absence of the hope that heaven provides for many is a comfort."

     

    Though I am in favor of honesty, life seems to run more smoothly if we pretend to be in a better mood then we really are when dealing with peers and customers at work, that we always love are children (equally) despite their getting in our hair on a daily basis, etc. It's all part of being civil and polite.

     

    I personally don't think that it is impossible that consciousness survives physical death, and I could, if pressed, put together a defense of this belief based upon the scientific remarks of various physicists. But that is another issue. My point is that the belief in eternal life is a great comfort to people, so much so that we talk about the fear of death, a revulsion at nature's cycle of birth and decay, the hope that one will meet up with ones loved ones after death, etc.

     

    I am not fussed if some people choose to believe in eternal life...as long as they don't attempt to get me to believe in a bunch of religious "baggage" that goes with such a belief....that is, as long as they don't then tell me I must believe in the same god and follow the exact same moral codes and accept the same superstitious nonsense and participate in the same inane rituals as they do.

  21. There is nothing superficial about identifying with a culture that is itself religiously based. I'm an atheist, yet I celebrate Christmas with my family. I'm not a military man, yet I honor the veterans. I'm not a cattle rancher, yet I enjoy a delicious steak.

    If you'd like me to clarify a post I've made, then ask, but don't tell me I'm being cryptic and then read into my posts meanings I had zero intention of conveying.
    .
    I've been accused of being many things. Inarticulate, intentionally obtuse, and hypocritical are not included in that set.

    By cryptic, I just meant that, as I said, I am doing the best I can to address your remark based on the number of words you have said, so I am not sure why you continue to be offended.

     

    I am sure a lot of people celebrate Christmas with their family, but are either agnostic, atheistic, or indifferent. Indeed, Christmas is so ingrained into our society that people who don't celebrate it are often seen as un-American or as subscribing to an odd or pagan religion. I celebrate Christmas myself but have not been religious since the age of 12, so I think that your assumption that you are being personally attacked is misplaced. And no, I don't think that I am being hypocritical because I make no secret of not being religious. Indeed, I have gone to midnight Christmas services, though I don't normally go to church, to accompany my religious relatives. However, it is my personal preference not to sing songs with words that talk about needing Jesus to forgive me for my sins through his sacrifice on the cross and resurrection into heaven, nor do I recite the Lord's prayer, nor take communion (the body and blood of Christ) nor do I recite any religious creeds, etc. as I personally feel that to do so is hypocritical and/or dishonest. I simply go and participate as much as possible otherwise for the sake of the fellowship, and, to some extent, because I soak up the aesthetic sense of the ritual, much as Santayana said that he did.

     

    If your Christmas goes a little bit different, more power to you. But again, I think your tendency to feel personally insulted is detracting from the original point which was whether or not a religion's rituals/culture has sufficient positive characteristics to justify its existence, particularly when so many people either do not, deep down, believe in many of the beliefs of said religion, or else don't believe in them sufficiently to be at all worried when they don't, for example, adhere to the ridiculous 'laws' in Leviticus. They aren't worried because they think they will be forgiven, I would suggest, as that they just think that they are ridiculous. (Again, at least Muslims are less hypocritical in this regard, even if they are adhering to archaic practices such as stoning adulteresses.)

     

    You seen to be annoyed by the word "hypocritical." Well, again, I did not claim that you in particular were being hypocritical, I was talking about the society in general. Indeed, I am not focused on character assassination but rather on pointing out the conflict between the beliefs and values of a 2000 or so year old religion (esp. Abrahamic) and our own modern beliefs and values. The gap is so substantial that a certain amount of pretense, cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, and/or role playing is almost inevitable. Just as importantly, hanging on to the transcendentalist religious values of an archaic, superstitious religion no doubt (in my mind) hinders social and scientific progress, as I explained above.

     

    So again, if I use a word like "hypocritical," I am making a general social comment. Just how you might juggle or might not juggle roles as an atheist at Christmas need come under the umbrella social descriptive phrase that I might use. Let's not obfuscate things by assuming that my comments are directed at you. I am just making general social comments, not claiming, for goodness sake, that every atheist, for example, who attends a religious function is a hypocrite.

  22. Hard for me to agree with your last point. Christianity is often cultural more than theistic. Same with Judaism, and likely a number of others.

    That's why there are cultural Christians and cultural Jews who are in parallel atheistic. They're not mutually exclusive. Just depends on context and the actual circumstances under discussion.

    Wow. Where to start.

     

    You are really underscoring my point that it is a rather empty, gratuitous, and, in practice, downright hypocritical, token gesture to labeling oneself a Christian if it is just a "cultural" undertaking and little or nothing more. You do not go into detail (and that is part of the problem with short, cryptic posts), but I gather that you are referring to the nice feelings and perhaps health benefits that one gets from congregating and socializing, what with pot lucks, and Bible group discussions, and Sunday dress up, and Easter egg hunts, and opening Christmas presents, etc.

     

    But religion or ones deepest philosophy of life should, I suggest, be the last thing to be superficial.

     

    What is the point of making a huge holiday out of the birth of Christ if one does not believe the creed that one recites in church that he is the savior who died for our sins so that we may have everlasting life? If fellowship and an excuse for relatives to get together and have a cultural feast is the goal, why not celebrate the birth of Elvis or Madonna (who did a pretty good job of capitalizing on her religious background)? At least these two are contemporary and don't come from a passe' culture that is essentially 3000 or so years old. At least that way we are not dragging along the baggage of an archaic and superstitious culture into the 21st century, complete with its stoning of women for adultery (or even being raped), and other bizarre practices/beliefs.

     

    (Judaism is a more complicated issue in terms of its eschatology, so focus on Christianity and Islam in this regard. But I do notice that many if not most Christians do not make religion and religious ethics as much a part of their daily lives as many other religious people do, e.g., Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, which is what happens when ones religion is just a cultural facade.)

     

    No, I don't particularly want to be hanging out with a bunch of people at a church picnic who talk about God and sin and religious ethics while all the time wondering whether they are just spouting off what they think is politically correct....or wondering whether the congressmen/women I voted into office are going to vote against abortion or other measures because they think that it is the religiously correct thing to do, or what they think their constituents might (or might not really) think is the religiously correct thing to do.

     

    For "godsake" there is enough two-facedness, schmoozing, patronizing, insincerity, double-speak, etc. in this world already without encouraging people to label themselves as Christians or whatever when in their hearts they just want to hang out with a bunch of people who share a few rituals.

  23. For clarity, recommend it may be best to advocate for secular humanism (as opposed to secularism or humanism as independent).

    When I clicked the link on the word "humanism" from the wiki site you mention, it states that "today humanism typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world" so that the term secular is implied when one describes oneself as a humanist.

     

    Even religious humanism, which wiki describes as a "non-theistic life stance centered on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world" does not sound all that religious.

     

    Secular religion is defines as "a term that has been used to characterize capitalism, communism, and other nontheistic communal belief systems," a concept that underscores Tampitrump's comment that

     

    "Secularism alone does not have the tenets of pursuasive power to lead nations into genocide or corruption. It takes a dogmatism or tyranny to do that. Whatever Stalinism, National Socialism, and all the other so-called "secular forces" that led to this type destruction were, they weren't secular. They carried very religion-like tenets"

    "Secular theism/theistic secularism: includes a belief in deity or deities but without any ritual practice."

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/allergicpagan/2015/10/29/atheist-pagan-does-not-equal-secular-pagan/

     

    Wiki defines Christian atheism as "a theological position in which the belief in the transcendent or interventionist God is rejected or absent in favor of finding God totally in the world...."

     

    Ultimately, I would suggest that one can't have ones cake and eat it too. It is nice to apotheosize and transcendentalize ones heritage, existence, purpose, morality, and dignity, but it is probably a rather superfluous gesture do do so if one is just going to give the deity the role of cheerleader or mere figurehead, permanently relegating him/her/them to the bench.

  24. what I would do if the existence of the Christian God could be proven, to whether or not I wanted it to be true. I provided my honest answers. I don't think my attitude would change much if this God were proven to exist, I really don't wish for it to be true, and I'm not really troubled by the fact that this could be my only life. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather it not be, but I'm not depressed knowing that it is.

     

    But that is the point of the scientific attitude as opposed to many other approaches...that whether or not one wants something to be true is irrelevant to the pursuit of knowledge.

  25.  

    Capitalism has given the masses comforts previously only enjoyed by the rich. Having lots wrong with a system doesn't mean it is all wrong.

     

    Theism isn't necessary for a religion. Again, i agree there is plenty wrong with religion, but that isn't the same as it all being bad.

     

     

    America and China.

    So moderation: I don't know if there are or have been any purely capitalistic or socialistic (or whatever) socieites...The question is a matter of proportion. That's largely the reason that countries hold elections, typically between left and right leaning political candidates.

     

    Saying that theism isn't necessary for religion seems like a oxymoron.

     

    Again, what is needed is moderation. Ecumenical movements that encourage religions to accept other religions is a major step in the right direction. Secondly, progressive movements that acknowledge scientific advancements is another. I am not Catholic, but even that dogmatic institution has been moving, albeit slowly, in these two ways.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.