So this is going to be the first of (I hope many) discussions/essays/bullshit posts with ThatFanficGuy. I'm making them public for a few reasons. One, because CardboardLamp probably doesn't want me shitting up his nice thread. Two, because Hubski is a great platform for discussion and personally, I find religion is something very worthwhile to discuss, when done respectfully. Thirdly, I hope by making this public, other people can contribute and help to keep bullshit in check.
I'd also like to say that I intend to keep these as more casual conversations that are academically (I use the term rather loosely of course, as I can't profess to having any academic qualifications) focused than spiritually focused, because there are many diverse religions out there and not all of them are in agreement, especially when it comes to metaphysics. Plus, when discussions on religion focus on metaphysics, sometimes they take weird turns. At the same time, I'm more speaking in general concepts than specifics, mostly because it's easier for me to talk about these things without having to come up with a bunch of hard details. However, if anyone at any time would like some specific examples, ask away. I'll be more than happy to dig some up for you. Please also, forgive my inability to write. I can only dread the kind of grade I'd expect from lil if I turned this in as a paper. In my defense though, these are more meant as starting off points for discussion than anything. So, luckily, there's no grade involved.
So with that, I'd like to reference this statement by ThatFanficGuy . . .
- Don't forget that most of religions are escapist fantasies at its base. Like science nowadays, it was used to understand the world around people. What we can now explain with lightning formation in the clouds, they understood as god's (or gods') wrath.
Gods - as opposed to mere spirits of things - exist in religion because human beings are flock animals, however unwilling we might be to admit both of those qualities. We like to be told what to do, to relinquish ourselves of responsibility, and god/gods is a perfect excuse for that - right alongside fate, destiny and other determenistic/oppressive concepts. Gods may start as spirits of things - spirit of the lake (or, later, of all lakes and, even later, of all visible outside water), for example - but grow in power with time if left unchecked (and most are).
Before we get into the brass and tacks of why religion was important for older civilizations, I think it's very important to point out that the idea that older civilizations were ignorant and superstitious is both misguided and unfair. With some exceptions due to changes in overall health and development, people in older civilizations were just as intellectually capable as we are today. The reason they're not as advanced as us is actually pretty straightforward. When you're building off of the accomplishments of the people that came before you, you have more to work with and you're able to progress further.
I'll make a brief list as a time line here. I wish I could take the time to graph things out to make a better visual impact, but let's be honest here. I'm a bit lazy.
The Development of Handtools – Around 3,500,000 BCE
The Development of Numbers – Arguably around 40-50,000 BCE
The Development of Agriculture – Around 11,000 BCE
The Development of Modern Math – Around 3,000 BCE
The Development of the Written Language – Around 3,000 BCE
I could list more examples such as the erection of ancient structures, the development of various types of tools such as the lever or the wheel and so on and so forth. The fact is though, these concepts that we take for granted today were absolutely revolutionary back then. Each one literally changed civilizations as we know it and after the development of each one, civilizations grew in leaps and bounds almost overnight. In the time line I've given, you can see how the gaps between major developments get smaller and smaller. After the development of writing and modern math, we really started to take off as a species. It's not that people in older civilizations were stupid, it's that they literally didn't have the tools because no one had invented them yet. So why do I think this concept is important? Because I think to truly appreciate where these people were coming from, we have to give them credit for being the best they could be with what they had.
Now, with that bullshit out of the way, onto religion.
So what is religion? Read the Wikipedia Article. See how long that is? See how involved that is? Damn. I'm not getting into all that shit in this single post. We'd be here forever. Without getting into the hows and whys of how religions are formed (because that's a specific area where I do not know much about) I would like to touch on a few points though about religion and what it has to offer and why it was vital for the survival of older civilizations.
For the most part, it all boils down to one main element, social cohesion. The world back then, especially pre-written record, isn't like the world we have today. Death was literally lurking around every corner in the form of predators, the natural elements, starvation, and other people. If people wanted to survive, they'd have to work together. Many elements of religions, no matter how or why they were formed, benefited older civilizations when it came to survival.
Myths - Let's get the big one out of the way. People point to religious myths and say that they're silly and superstitious. Stories about gods and demons, the supernatural and superstitious, are hard to take seriously today. Myths served many purposes actually. They were indeed often used to explain a lot of things about the world, though how many of them were held up as believed to be “true” and how many were just there as bedtime stories is hard to tell. Speaking of bedtime stories, like folktales and fables, they were also there to entertain, to allow communities to congregate and bond around an aspect of shared culture, developing and reinforcing relationships that were essential for cooperation and survival. Lastly, mythical stories were often used to pass along morals and virtues, to teach and reinforce the idea that good behavior can lead to great things and that mischievous behavior could lead to disaster. They were often used to embody the values that various cultures saw as important, values that when embraced, could aid in their survival.
The thing is though while myths themselves have died, they have been replaced by other things that still serve the same purpose. We have fictional stories about superheros and daring people to not only entertain us, but to motivate and inspire us to be bigger than we are. We have news articles that not only tell us about what is going on in the world, but also show us examples of human beings both at their very best and also at their very worse. Still today, with or without myths, we embrace forms of storytelling that both keeps us entertained while also reinforcing societal ideals.
Laws - It is pretty much a given that laws are absolutely essential for the survival of any civilization. Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot (or an anarchist, which is a special kind of idiocy on its own). So I'll keep this one brief. Most religions, both ancient and modern, have at least a few laws. Some of these laws are very obvious and very specific. Don't kill. Don't steal. In general, don't be a dick. Various other laws though, the more obscure and weird ones, tended to be more specific to a certain time, location, and set of circumstances. They would cover everything from what kind of livestock you could raise to how your family was structured. Then there were concepts that weren't necessarily laws, but traditions that fall under the categories of mores, folkways, and taboos. The point of all of these laws and traditions, back then just like today, was to maintain order and control. The better people got along, the better the chances of everyone living another year.
Group Identity - Religion was so much a part of people's lives that it was a part of their identity, both as individuals as well as communities. When people feel they are part of a group, that they have someplace they belong, they come to feel that it is in their best interest to behave in a manner that benefits the group as a whole. They do it for many reasons, because they love and care about the people in said groups, because social acceptance has a direct impact on their physical and emotional well being, and because they often feel pressured to behave in a way that prevents them from being ostracized. When people work together as a group, more often than not both the individuals of the group and the group as a whole benefits. At the same time, this group identity dictates how they behave towards other groups as a whole as well as individuals outside their group. More often than not, this behavior and this sense of “belonging” vs. “otherness” creates a layer of social protection. Once again, today we have the same concept being fulfilled by things other than religion. Nation States, unions and professional organizations, social fraternities, enthusiast clubs, on and on. Today, like thousands of years ago, the desire for the security that social acceptance brings is something we all desire.
Okay. Yeah. So, I'm done here, now. I'm never good at writing these things out, let alone wrapping things up. Thoughts and comments are welcome. I'm off to play Forza. I hope I didn't bore you.
Super interesting stuff. I second OftenBen and recommend making a tag.
I'd like to comment a bit on religion as an identity. Especially in the modern practice of religion, this is immensely important. I have no idea what factor it played waaaaay back in the day but today it is probably the main reason people join or continue to practice religion these days.
I just listened to a podcast about Jonestown and it's fresh in my mind so here's one example. Jonestown is often portrayed as a nutty group of mindless followers who went off to Guyana to follow a nutty dude to "drink the Kool Aid". In reality, the earliest followers of Jim Jones were people who felt connected to him and the message he was spreading. He started attracting followers in early 1950s - you had major issues with race and integration happening across the country. You also had the McCarthy Hearings going on. There was a massive amount of ostracism towards a whole number of different groups of people. Poverty, neglect, hatred, social uprising, etc. Every one of his followers were attracted to belonging to a group of people - and following a man - who they could relate to in those regards. They stuck around and almost 1000 people followed him to Guyana because of that and his promises of a better life.
The desire to belong and share your life with likeminded people is simply human nature. It comes in many forms - family, friends, religion, cults, internet forums, gangs, meetups, etc.
Religion is more than just belonging to a group and sharing with likeminded people but it is one thing that all religions have in common - from today to waaaay back in the earliest of religions.
One of the most interesting things about Jonestown was that the beliefs of this religion/cult weren't anything new or awe-inspiring. They literally just believed that socialism and traditional Christianity would solve their social problems. In terms of religion or believing in a higher power, it's barely there.
Even in the tapes of the congregants final moments, they don't speak of a God or gods. They speak about life and death and the turmoils of life and how death is easier than life. The only person they thank for their life, etc. is Jim Jones ("father") who has made himself out to be a prophet at this point.
Anyways, this is what makes religion so interesting to me. You know what religion is when you see it - when you hear about it - but there seem to be exceptions to every definition of religion that I've ever heard. Even the hardcore atheists - the ones who preach atheism and go to atheism meetups - seem to be more and more like a religion these days.
- I'd like to comment a bit on religion as an identity. Especially in the modern practice of religion, this is immensely important. I have no idea what factor it played waaaaay back in the day but today it is probably the main reason people join or continue to practice religion these days.
Well back in the day, religion and national identity were often one and the same. The tribes of Israel are a great example of this. For example here, the concept of a cosmic duality (a good diety such as God and an evil element such as the devil) is something that is quite recent in human history. From what I can remember, and I'll double check this in the morning when I'm thinking with a more clear head, Zoroastrianism was the religion that got that whole ball rolling. It was when the Jewish tribes came into contact with Zoroastrians that the idea of a cosmic duality was introduced into the Abrahamic Faiths.
Before then, the belief that there were many gods was very common. In the Ten Commandments for example, God (capital "G" as in the one main God as far as Jews, Christians, and Muslims are concerned) said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." What he's saying is, you can worship other gods if you want, but you need to understand that I am the TOPS. In the Middle East, there were many tribes and many of them worshipped their own gods. The gods they worshipped tied into their national identity. If you want a peek into how the religious beliefs of these tribes affected their concept of national identity, check out this article on The Moabite Stone.
- Even the hardcore atheists - the ones who preach atheism and go to atheism meetups - seem to be more and more like a religion these days.
What's really interesting about people who choose to congregate over shared interests, whether they be something philosophical like religion or the lack there of, hobbies such as gaming or ham radio, or professional such as medicine or engineering, is that they all eventually develop codification in everything from jargon to accepted beliefs. It creates a shared culture that becomes so strong that to go against what is considered group norms brings about the risk of being ostracized. When I was in college, one of my religious history teachers was talking about how both atheist and non-denominational Christians groups (two more recently developed religious subgroups in America)have largely homogenized over the course of a few decades.
I'm going to do everything I can not to crush these but I will add this:
- From what I can remember, and I'll double check this in the morning when I'm thinking with a more clear head, Zoroastrianism was the religion that got that whole ball rolling. It was when the Jewish tribes came into contact with Zoroastrians that the idea of a cosmic duality was introduced into the Abrahamic Faiths.
Indeterminism was the principle contribution of Zoroastrianism to world faith. It wasn't entirely monotheistic - Ahura Mazda created the world, and on it the twins Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu. Spenta Mainyu was light, Angra Mainyu was dark, and Ahura Mazda was creation. The important concept was human involvement in the battle between Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu - "Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds" and Spenta Mainyu will win out in the end. It wasn't just animistic spirits and all-powerful deities determining history and the way of things, people actually had the ability to shape their own cosmos.
Parsees are the shit.
- I'm going to do everything I can not to crush these.
Bro, you can add as much or as little as you want. Your input is valued and like I said, part of the reason I think it's a good idea to have these threads public is to keep concepts and facts in check. :)
- It wasn't just animistic spirits and all-powerful deities determining history and the way of things, people actually had the ability to shape their own cosmos.
I just feel like quoting this, to add emphasis on it. In my opinion it's a very empowering concept when you think about it.
Thing is, when those with certainty debate those without, certainty tends to overwhelm uncertainty even when it's wrong.
I'm in a much stronger place when it comes to religion and religious history than a lot of the people here, and this is the sort of debate that occurs best between matched debate partners.
I'm guessing you know that you just paraphrased Bertrand Russell -
- The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
Bertrand Russell
(It's not my intention to call anyone stupid, though)
- ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge
Charles Darwin, in 'Descent of Man', 1871
This is the OP, highly encouraged to read so you guys get the full context
I don't believe ThatFanficGuy meant that people were ignorant and misguided. I believe he means that we are more efficient if organized (like cattle). It is easier to control a group of people so that they can survive than to let them all do their own thing.
From what I understand, religion started around 10,000 BCE, right after the development of Agriculture. As villages formed, people needed a leader to guide them so that they can organize efficiently to survive and harvest crops, while fending off danger. Law (through religion) was created to keep order, and myths were created to explain how the world around the people worked. As ThatFanficGuy said,
|Some people also enjoy abusing the power a religion often grants. Thus, come priests (who, let's face it, aren't always the benevolent wisemen we see in fiction); thus, come bishops; thus, comes Pope and other such figures - the "representatives of God on Earth", those who can "hear God's will" and so forth. If a lightning strikes a tree and everyone's terrified, it's the easiest of opportunities to seize their attention and wield their minds: come forth and declare "Lo! The All-Capable One spoke to me! He declared us wrong-doers! We must now repent! Chastize, brothers and sisters!". Case solved; flock organized.
Lastly, keep in mind how religion often circumvents attempts at logical explanation. I'm now going to overly simplify human nature for the sake of an example. Those affected deeply by the religious outlook (God made things, God takes things, I am a servant of His, I shall earn for good and be punished for bad etc.) will hardly if ever admit that there's often a more logical, reasonable explanation to whatever happened.
This abuse of religion to gain power ensured the leaders who were keeping the villages organized a luxurious life. It may have also been used to convince people they invaded and captured in other villages, as kingdoms and empires formed. Religious significance = Power back in the day, as seen in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Half of the Religion wiki page is Modern issues, Reference section, and a very brief explanation of the very major religions. The main part of what Religion is and how it works can be summarized in say, the 1/3 of the article. It is true that religion benefited older civilzations when it came to survival, however I have say I believe it was the power of controlling people that religion brought together people under one ruler (the village/kingdom/empire leader). Divine Right of Kings.
I believe your point on group identity also falls under the above, like nationalism, even though they are being controlled by a leader, they get the feeling that they are special and are an important part of their society as they are taught so.
- From what I understand, religion started around 10,000 BCE, right after the development of Agriculture. As villages formed, people needed a leader to guide them so that they can organize efficiently to survive and harvest crops, while fending off danger. Law (through religion) was created to keep order, and myths were created to explain how the world around the people worked.
Yeah. That's about when organized religion started to come about. Archaeologists have found evidence of religious behavior in pre-historic societies as well though in cave paintings, burial sites, totems, etc. A really interesting discussion can be had about the whole bit, partly because we don't know exactly what pre-historic man was up to and partly because it's easy to argue about how many items of religious elements and concepts you would need to have before something can be considered a "religion." Personally, I tend to think pre-historic practices count because I think that if we say that they don't, then we're saying that folk religions don't count as legitimate religions.
- This abuse of religion to gain power ensured the leaders who were keeping the villages organized a luxurious life. It may have also been used to convince people they invaded and captured in other villages, as kingdoms and empires formed. Religious significance = Power back in the day, as seen in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Did you see the link I provided insomniasexx about The Moabite Stone? I love that little piece of rock. It really is a great piece of history that provides some insight into how the beliefs of older civilizations often tied in with their interpretation of current and political events. The Moabite Stone isn't the only artifact that illustrates this, but for some reason it's the easiest one for me to remember.
- I believe your point on group identity also falls under the above, like nationalism, even though they are being controlled by a leader, they get the feeling that they are special and are an important part of their society as they are taught so.
Absolutely. For better or worse, religion really was a potent form of early propaganda.
I'd be interested in following this under a tag as well. If I wasn't fighting off a stomach bug, then I'd make some cogent addition to the "Laws" area about how religion has also been a brilliant political tool over millennium. Perhaps for when I have the energy...
- If I wasn't fighting off a stomach bug, then I'd make some cogent addition to the "Laws" area about how religion has also been a brilliant political tool over millennium.
Actually I was eventually going to start a thread with ThatFanficGuy about religious institutions and how they mirror secular institutions in concepts such as corruption, manipulation, etc. I'll be more than happy to give a shout out to you when I do and I'd love to hear some of your thoughts here so I can ponder them over. In the mean time, have you ever heard about the legend of the Pope allowing the eating of fish on lent to prop up the fish markets? The fact that it's so believable really points to how distrustful religious institutions can be sometimes.
- Actually I was eventually going to start a thread with ThatFanficGuy about religious institutions and how they mirror secular institutions in concepts such as corruption, manipulation, etc.
I don't know if this was made or not in the time since. I may have easily missed it in my time away from Hubski before the name change. BUT, I am so 100% more equipped and excited to have meaningful discussion on the topic specifically with my African history class coming to an end. Very glad I took the course, in relation to this thread, the sheer amount of assimilation on colonialism and immigrant people's into Africa provide an abundance of case studies. :)
You divide institutions into religious and secular as if there ought to be a difference. The fact is, human beings run both in a rather similar fashion, and we are prone to corruption without a good-way system of values and ideals, not to say anything of other stuff.
- You divide institutions into religious and secular as if there ought to be a difference.
Eh. I'm more of the opinion that institutions are institutions, be they government, religious, financial, educational, etc. There's various types and they all have their strengths and weaknesses and areas where they're prone to corruption. I just happen to single religion out cause you know, we're talking religion.
- The fact is, human beings run both in a rather similar fashion, and we are prone to corruption without a good-way system of values and ideals, not to say anything of other stuff.
I agree 100%. I think even religious institutions should have systems of checks and balances to prevent corruption and protect their members. As to what those would be and what they'd look like, I wouldn't be a good person to ask on that. I honestly wouldn't even know where to begin.
- I think even religious institutions should have systems of checks and balances to prevent corruption and protect their members. As to what those would be and what they'd look like, I wouldn't be a good person to ask on that. I honestly wouldn't even know where to begin.
I have a few thoughts on that.
While I do think that external measures can make some good, I believe that most important are internal means for any goal. Want to prevent corruption? Have in your organization those who believe that corruption - that is, any kind of abuse of power - is unacceptable and that they can really do better, for better reasons than just not to get caught after a crime. The same goes for everything else: it's not like external corruption - power or money affecting one's mind, for one example - is the only factor in abuses of any sort; it also takes internal agreement to commit to it.
I think people should be taught to strive for ideals, either to help themselves or others do better and whether by parents, schools or other educational institutions. I don't have much qualms but one against Church/Mosque/Sinagogue/any else teaching it - that it teaches to follow good guidelines for an entity that doesn't exist (an intangible concept that rests solely on faith without any sort of reasonable proof), rather than for a person's own well-being and others' improvement by that person (tangible beings that can clearly be experienced in many ways and whose life quality could be vaguely assessed and improved by applying the right actions). As soon as they change the point of following the rules they're often so eager to enforce, I'll be glad to accept religion in general and religions specifically as just another point of view on life.
I'm not sure I 100% agree that human beings could always reason the same way we do now. I mean our ideals on principles of justice, morality, and some of the more abstract stuff were really hazy for a long time. I mean things like the Hammurabi Code wouldn't fly now, but then it probably made sense. Steal bread? Well we will cut your hands off, so you can't steal anymore bread. Of course from that standpoint we could argue that they had nothing at their disposal to stop said person from stealing bread besides cutting off their hands. Would they have ever been concerned with why the person stole bread? I'm not sure, so it's a bit tough for me to think that thinking hasn't evolved over time.
I think for religion I would love to add morality to the list. I think that religions aren't inherently bad its the institutionalizing of them when things get murky. At their base though religion begins by teaching you to care for your fellow human being because a higher power tells you, but as time goes on you see this evolution of the understanding of those ideals. It moves from 'a higher power told you to' to 'all life is made by a higher power and thus all of it is precious in it's own right' I can even attest to it in my own life. I was raised catholic, and while I don't tend to consider myself catholic anymore it is thanks to a lot of those moral teachings that I learn to care for people the way I try to.
Interesting discussion though I will be keeping my eye on this one.
- I'm not sure I 100% agree that human beings could always reason the same way we do now. I mean our ideals on principles of justice, morality, and some of the more abstract stuff were really hazy for a long time. I mean things like the Hammurabi Code wouldn't fly now, but then it probably made sense. Steal bread? Well we will cut your hands off, so you can't steal anymore bread. Of course from that standpoint we could argue that they had nothing at their disposal to stop said person from stealing bread besides cutting off their hands. Would they have ever been concerned with why the person stole bread? I'm not sure, so it's a bit tough for me to think that thinking hasn't evolved over time.
Our concepts of morality have evolved over time. Partly because philosophy, law, and general morality evolved over time. It goes back to the whole building off of the ideas of previous generations. The other reason our concepts of morality evolved though, was because as society becomes more complex, so do our moral and legal dilemmas. We would often try our best to lay down the groundwork for solid morals to support us not only today, but also in the unforseen future. For a crude example, America's founding fathers would probably have never even thought about something as grand and far reaching as the internet. However their concepts of protected speech is something that can be applied to our modern technology.
- I think for religion I would love to add morality to the list. I think that religions aren't inherently bad its the institutionalizing of them when things get murky.
As I said to Ay-Nawn, I really hope to have a thread on religious institutions. The subject alone makes for great discussions.
I'd definitely be interested in the religious establishment discussion. Took a few history course based on the European institution of the Holy Roman Catholic church, and I'm taking a course next semester based on the propagandizing of religious belief in the Middle Ages. Some of the stuff that went on was crazy.
Also I'm with everyone else about making this a new tag.
- I'm taking a course next semester based on the propagandizing of religious belief in the Middle Ages.
That sounds interesting as fuck. If your teacher points you in the direction of any good, free articles, link them here. I'd love to read them.
maybe something like #rd95vsTFG ? or #talkreligion?
I'm not really sure.
- It ain't a fight and neither it is between the two of us, so I don't support this one. #talkreligion seems to fit nicely. rd95, what do you think?
I like #talkreligion. It's simple and inclusive. I'll swap out one of the tags now.
I find it interesting that you jumped straight to prudential arguments for religion. I suppose it largely stems from this statement:
- I'd also like to say that I intend to keep these as more casual conversations that are academically (I use the term rather loosely of course, as I can't profess to having any academic qualifications) focused than spiritually focused, because there are many diverse religions out there and not all of them are in agreement, especially when it comes to metaphysics.
I'm not sure if you intended this, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that metaphysics or spirituality isn't necessarily an academic subject. I think that in popular culture, that can definitely be the case. Pointing to a passage in the Bible/Torah/Koran/Tao Te Ching/ Tripakta/(insert scripture here) and saying that's why __________ isn't academic.
Arguments still take place in academic settings over evidential arguments for religion though. They can be utter nonsense, weak, or surprisingly compelling. While this thread certainty isn't the place for them, I urge you to consider having a thread in this series to look at some of them. Even without answering "Does God exist," analyzing the arguments can provide insight into the form and function of religions.
Yeah. I guess I should have been more clear when I said I didn't want to focus on spirituality or metaphysics. I have no problem discussing them as concepts, for example comparing and contrasting various religions' ideas on death, the human condition, etc. There's no denying that your absolutely right that there can be some very compelling discussions that can come about when talking about those ideas and I wouldn't shy away from those conversations at all.
What I more meant to come across as saying is that I'm uncomfortable about talking about spirituality and metaphysics as if they are tangible and verifiable. I am uncomfortable discussing the immeasurable as if it were measurable because I find that it is hard to keep the conversations credible and realistic.
Re-reading both what you quoted and what I just wrote, I wonder if I'm making sense in trying to convey how I feel about both types of conversations and how and why I view them differently.
I never meant to say that people in general - or a particular group of people - are misguided and/or ignorant. If it came out that way, I apologize. Some people can be, and often enough, people with similar misguidance and/or ignorance gather together to form a group. What I meant to say is that I believe that religion, as a concept and as an activity, has outlived its superiority in society, with things going without it pretty fine. It's no longer a matter of belief for me that people can live without religion, and I'm impetted to say that one has to given how good secular institutions provide or are capable of providing the same benefits, but this one is not up to me to decide.
Now, let me jump to something that appalled me:
- It is pretty much a given that laws are absolutely essential for the survival of any civilization. Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot (or an anarchist, which is a special kind of idiocy on its own)
rd95, dude... what the hell? Haven't you been the one to tell me abour respect and love towards others? And now you're saying that those who believe in anarchy are idiots. I don't get it. Anarchy can work pretty fine for smaller communities; one might argue that, with the right set of values instilled (which is clearly possible given that parents are capable of raising mentally-healthy and otherwise positively-adjusted children), it could work for things on a bigger scale. Yet you give it an off-hand slap to the face without a good enough reason in a topic devoted to religion which you oppose me bashing. Can you explain this one to me?
Before I go into replying to what's been stated as good reasons to practice religion by rd95, I must state that I find it unreasonable to discuss older-days usage of something in context of how it matters in the present. One might derive usages from history and see how they transformed in the modern world, but I see no point in argument about what it was good for. Therefore, I ask you: what is it good for? If you stand by the same points for this question as well, let me know and I'll reply to that with all of my arguments.
- Now, let me jump to something that appalled me:
I am appalled that you are appalled. In fact, I'm shocked, appalled, insulted, and righteously indignant. Where do you get off good sir? WHERE?
Nah. I kid. ;) It was more a light jab than anything. Although I do have to say that I do find the concept of Anarchy in the sense of government uncompelling. While the concept might work fine in smaller groups, the more you scale things up and the more complex things become, it becomes readily apparent that a form of social structure is needed to get things done.
- I must state that I find it unreasonable to discuss older-days usage of something in context of how it matters in the present.
Well there's a few reasons to discuss early man and religion. Reasons one and two, because we can and because it's fun. Reason number three though is a big one, and that's because sometimes to understand where things are now, it helps to look at how things started.
- Therefore, I ask you: what is it good for?
That's a doozy of a question and a fair question all around. That question alone could start a whole thread and then some. If it's okay with you, I'd actually prefer to table the topic at the moment and make it the subject of the next post. In fact, you could start the thread when you're ready and make a shout out to me. I would love that.
- It was more a light jab than anything.
The "special kind of idiocy", you mean?
Not that I'm willing to discuss anarchy right now; it's something we can go on to with something like #talkpolitics or #talkanarchy afterwards, if you wish to.
- Well there's a few reasons to discuss early man and religion.
Well, I guess too quick to throw it off the cliff in my head. Indeed, history is interesting, whatever it can tell us about, and I shouldn't have kicked it so hard. That being said, I expected that we'd start with modern-day religion, which affected my response in a big way.
- In fact, you could start the thread when you're ready and make a shout out to me. I would love that.
I don't think this will go on well because I feel like I'm lacking proper strong arguments for that on my own. Besides, I'm curious about what others might think on the matter, whether I like it or not. If you don't mind, I'd rather have you start the post with arguments that you think are strong enough, and I'll reply to those.
- I expected that we'd start with modern-day religion, which affected my response in a big way.
Well shit, let's start right there. Let me ask a question. In your mind, what kind of differences do you think there are between religions as they were expressed thousands of years ago and religions as they are expressed today?
- I don't think this will go on well because I feel like I'm lacking proper strong arguments for that on my own. Besides, I'm curious about what others might think on the matter, whether I like it or not. If you don't mind, I'd rather have you start the post with arguments that you think are strong enough, and I'll reply to those.
You don't really have to start with arguments at all. I'm not really looking at these things as debates, more as just a dialog. You can just share your thoughts and feelings about religious institutions, maybe share why you think you feel that way, and we can easily go from there. If it makes you feel more comfortable though, I'll be happy to start the next thread as well. You'll probably find that you and I are in agreement on quite a bit. :)
- In your mind, what kind of differences do you think there are between religions as they were expressed thousands of years ago and religions as they are expressed today?
I don't know much about religion from way back, so I'm going on a hunch here.
I presume that religion in ancient times were not very different from what we have today. The difference between life back then and today, however, is that we know a huge amount about human beings, humanity in general and our surroundings. If religion would have been born to explain the world around, it would become obsolete save for very abstract and metaphysical matters for which philosophy and metaphysics would become proper bases when their development comes to a level.
Today, we have what all generations before XX century never had: insight into how our mind works, which is very important in understanding others and ourselves. Religion was often used to make people feel like they understand why others commit crime: "possessed by an evil spirit" is a common explanation for what we now know to be either a psychological disorder (sociopathy, for one thing) or a moment of foggy mind (unstoppable anger). Hell, we have developed quite a bit of philosophy on the matter - for a long time, too! - to help figure out what the world is, who people are, what life is and what its meaning is. Have you read Albert Camus' or Jean-Paul Sartre's works? It's astonishing how they resonate with the experiences I've had. I'm sure there are plenty those whose thoughts will resonate with others.
Yet, people today seem reluctant to go away from religion and enter the world of scientific, rational explanation of things. I feel like this happens because those who went (or were conducted) early on into religious mindset were taught as if any sort of critical look is not required, that one has to just accept the given statements as universal truths and stop thinking about it (otherwise, many, if not most, of religious ideas crumble easily). So, when they confront something explained reasonably and rationally, their minds go into defensive because their truths are attacked (and "think not hard about anything" is often one of the truth, so maybe many perceive rational argument as an offense - but that's just an uneducated guess), thus refusing to acknowledge when something actually makes sense since it makes them accept the fact that their whole identity is at least somewhat incorrect or even outright wrong (which is a whole another issue I have with religion, for it allows people to hide behind the doctrines when the world "attacks" them, but that's another discussion altogether).
Today, of all times, we have all the necessary knowledge and resources (the Internet is a major one, as it allows instantaneous connection for over a billion people from all over the world) to start building a society that's beneficial to the human-being [not a mistake]. We have psychology, we have philosophies, we have major sciences (both natural and humanities), we have the transnational connection, we have the energy sources and the knowledge of maintaining and developing them, we have the industrial base to produce and distribute massive amounts of cheap food - hell, we have the knowledge to develop "green" cheap food, as well!.. and that's me missing a whole bunch of important things. We can start educating people about themselves, about each other, about the world in ways no previous generation might have envisioned. We can bloody start by stopping telling people they're inferior just because a moneybag somewhere is lacking internal measures of self-esteem and some sort of ideals. We can start by telling them that they matter, no matter their thoughts, tastes or preferances of sexual behavior; that it's their actions that define how others see them, that it's not normal to prejudge or assume oneself to be superior to others. Seeing the France's terror acts (was it the second major one for the year? that's horrendous) makes me think that religion in general is a major obstacle for that. I don't give a shit whether it's Valhalla, the 72 virgins, karma or the omnipotent male God: if it hinders personal and/or group development for some oddjob sense of security which doesn't fucking exist anyway, it's to be disposed of. As far as the human mind is concerned, the world is essentially random, but just because you can't comprehend it you aren't allowed to trap others - let alone yourself - in a cage of mind or treat everyone as if they're innately faulty and sinful as if it's better for someone, especially if it's for a being no one but the indoctrinated can sense in any way.
So that's what I think the difference is. We finally have major potential to make the world - our world, common world - a better place for everyone, and religion of most kinds is a hinderance for that with their fear-ridden doctrines and scaremongering of the masses. You yourself said in response to someone else in the thread that human morality has developed over time for religion to disallow slavery along with the "secular world" (as if they're so separate). Maybe human mind will soon enough develop to understand just how powerful humans are, and how powerful fears can be if we feed them. Right now, we can start by raising the right questions. "How can we reign in the anxiety we all experience from birth?" is a good one, don't you think?
- Religion was often used to make people feel like they understand why others commit crime: "possessed by an evil spirit" is a common explanation for what we now know to be either a psychological disorder (sociopathy, for one thing) or a moment of foggy mind (unstoppable anger). Hell, we have developed quite a bit of philosophy on the matter - for a long time, too! - to help figure out what the world is, who people are, what life is and what its meaning is.
People then, today, and still tomorrow will seek simple answers to big questions that leave us confused and scared. Why do you think politicians use sound bites? Why do you think the circle jerk of the month on Reddit can be so strong at times? We as individuals have a hard time tackling big issues and religion offering simple answers, for right or for wrong, for better or for worse, is just one way this very large part of our humanity is expressed.
- Have you read Albert Camus' or Jean-Paul Sartre's works? It's astonishing how they resonate with the experiences I've had. I'm sure there are plenty those whose thoughts will resonate with others.
No. Though I'm sure if I asked you the same for Tich Nhat Hanh, Desmond Tutu, or Rumi, you'd probably say the same thing. Here's what's both amazing and wonderful though. I bet you that if I read Camus or Sartre, I would find things that resonate with me and I'd find agreeable. The same could be said if I put the writings of Hafiz under your nose and said “Please, read.” We have an innate talent for taking what we read and finding ways where it applies to us as individuals, where it applies to the moments we find ourselves in our lives. Sometimes some things resonate with us at certain periods of our lives more strongly than others. I'm not saying that to invalidate what you've read or how you feel about it. I am saying though that the same mechanism that draws you to those philosophers draws other people to religious writings. Hell, the same mechanism is what draws us to literature, music, and art. We desire to feel connected to the world around us.
- Yet, people today seem reluctant to go away from religion and enter the world of scientific, rational explanation of things. I feel like this happens because those who went (or were conducted) early on into religious mindset were taught as if any sort of critical look is not required, that one has to just accept the given statements as universal truths and stop thinking about it (otherwise, many, if not most, of religious ideas crumble easily). So, when they confront something explained reasonably and rationally, their minds go into defensive because their truths are attacked (and "think not hard about anything" is often one of the truth, so maybe many perceive rational argument as an offense - but that's just an uneducated guess), thus refusing to acknowledge when something actually makes sense since it makes them accept the fact that their whole identity is at least somewhat incorrect or even outright wrong (which is a whole another issue I have with religion, for it allows people to hide behind the doctrines when the world "attacks" them, but that's another discussion altogether).
::Whistles:: That's a mouth full and a hard bit to tackle all at once. You're making some very broad generalizations that really don't have as much to do with religion as you think. They're actually more issues of scientific illiteracy and a poor education in general than religion as a boogy man. To throw some general examples your way, in the Bible (mostly in the books of Proverbs) are passages extolling the virtues of knowledge and wisdom over worldly goods. During the Dark Ages of Europe, much of the advancement in the world of math, science, philosophy and law was the result of Muslim Scholars in the Middle East (click every keyword there and you'll be introduced to a long list of influential Middle Easterners in each field). Religion was a central part of the European Renaissance both in the development of theology as well as in the patronization of the arts. Baha'is, a relatively modern religion, not only emphasize heavily the importance of education but also have the philosophy that science and religion can be harmonious. Similar trends can also be found if we look towards Eastern Religions as well, but at this point I'm sure you get the point. What I'm trying to say is that to say that religion is a hindrance knowledge is inaccurate. We are our own hindrance through neglect and carelessness.
- Today, of all times, we have all the necessary knowledge and resources (the Internet is a major one, as it allows instantaneous connection for over a billion people from all over the world) to start building a society that's beneficial to the human-being [not a mistake]. We have psychology, we have philosophies, we have major sciences (both natural and humanities), we have the transnational connection, we have the energy sources and the knowledge of maintaining and developing them, we have the industrial base to produce and distribute massive amounts of cheap food - hell, we have the knowledge to develop "green" cheap food, as well!.. and that's me missing a whole bunch of important things. We can start educating people about themselves, about each other, about the world in ways no previous generation might have envisioned.
Almost every generation, we get better. Progress on the scale that you're hoping for isn't attainable in the span of a few generations, let alone overnight. Look back up to my original post. Look at that timeline. The more we progress, the better we become. The better we become, the faster we progress. We are on a cycle of continuous growth, continuous progress. It's happening and it's happening right before our eyes and it's wonderful to see when you see it. You have to keep something in mind though. It's easy for an individual to change quickly. Institutions though, whatever form they may take, often change at a painfully slow rate.
- We can bloody start by stopping telling people they're inferior just because a moneybag somewhere is lacking internal measures of self-esteem and some sort of ideals. We can start by telling them that they matter, no matter their thoughts, tastes or preferances of sexual behavior; that it's their actions that define how others see them, that it's not normal to prejudge or assume oneself to be superior to others. Seeing the France's terror acts (was it the second major one for the year? that's horrendous) makes me think that religion in general is a major obstacle for that. I don't give a shit whether it's Valhalla, the 72 virgins, karma or the omnipotent male God: if it hinders personal and/or group development for some oddjob sense of security which doesn't fucking exist anyway, it's to be disposed of. As far as the human mind is concerned, the world is essentially random, but just because you can't comprehend it you aren't allowed to trap others - let alone yourself - in a cage of mind or treat everyone as if they're innately faulty and sinful as if it's better for someone, especially if it's for a being no one but the indoctrinated can sense in any way.
People who are susceptible and vulnerable to being manipulated and taken advantage of are at the mercy of the entire world around them. They can be taken advantage of from everything from religious extremists and cults to gangs to abusive spouses to their own government. The reasons are many, from poverty to mental health to just plain bad luck. You're looking at a nasty aspect of religion and want to blame religion as a whole because of it. Here's the thing though. That nastiness, it's found everywhere, not just religion. It's part of being human. It's part of being flawed. If this is something you're concerned about, which it seems like it is, take comfort in the fact that there are social programs abound, local, national, and international that exist to find people who are either currently being victimized or at risk of being victimized and trying to help them as best as possible. They can't help everyone and they can't always succeed, but they're doing what they can to make the world a better place.
- So that's what I think the difference is. We finally have major potential to make the world - our world, common world - a better place for everyone, and religion of most kinds is a hinderance for that with their fear-ridden doctrines and scaremongering of the masses.
Philipians 4:8 is a great passage of the Bible. It reads . . .
- Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
Does that sound like scaremongering or does that sound like encouragement? What would you say if I could find similar passages or concepts from almost any major religion?
- You yourself said in response to someone else in the thread that human morality has developed over time for religion to disallow slavery along with the "secular world" (as if they're so separate). Maybe human mind will soon enough develop to understand just how powerful humans are, and how powerful fears can be if we feed them. Right now, we can start by raising the right questions. "How can we reign in the anxiety we all experience from birth?" is a good one, don't you think?
We're making progress. It's not always visible. It's not always easy. It's not always clean. But it's there. Like every other aspect of humanity, religion can help us or it can hurt us. It all depends on the choices we make.
I'm finally able to deliver a proper response. I hope the data limit per comment is high enough.
* * *
- People then, today, and still tomorrow will seek simple answers to big questions that leave us confused and scared. <..> We as individuals have a hard time tackling big issues and religion offering simple answers, for right or for wrong, for better or for worse, is just one way this very large part of our humanity is expressed.
You're saying "it is as it is", I'm saying "we can do better". I don't see why should we let religion propagate ideas of conformity and false sense of security when human beings, both alone and in groups, have such a massive potential to change the world (hopefully, for the better). Humans believe they want security and comfort the most, when the reality is we want achievement, we want to leave a mark on the world, we want ourselves and others to prosper, not merely be content with shitty occupations and shitty relationships. How often religion propagates honesty and openness of one's feelings? How often does it say "be yourself and give no mind to what strangers think of you unless it resonates with you"?
What I see is pushing for conformity, for simple mind, because such a crowd is easier to control and reign in under a single banner. Simple answers give simple minds, and simple minds abstain from taking a good hard look at reality because it promises, without hesitation or chance of a miss, to break the bubble, and it's painful. Any parent will tell you: egos are hard to break, - but the process is necessary for the child to grow up into a mature, reasonable and emotionally healthy adult. Let me show you just one claim Western religion makes so often it's offensive to humanity.
"Homosexual behavior is to be punished because it's bad". Is that a good answer to "How should we deal with gays?"? No, it isn't, and it will never be. Because sexual orientation isn't a mark of God or of Devil: it's a trait of our mind and our body; we're born with it without a choice, like eye color or tastes for food. Because giving in to fears, especially as far as to be afraid to admit that it's scary because it's alien, not because some abstract man-made ideas oppose it, is not productive or helpful to anyone. Because gathering a crowd to punish homosexuals in whatever capacity - verbally, physically, sexually - is screaming "I'M AFRAID BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM". In animal fear people run away or run towards what they don't understand because, much like the half-human animals our ancestors were a long time ago, they believe that what they don't understand might kill them, or hurt them, or steal their babies, or something else people are afraid of.
I don't care if it's human behavior that makes us like that. Any institution that promotes punishing the alien for its alienness alone is not a good one. I'll blame people for following the doctrine of destruction towards what is considered "not us", but first of all I'll blame the institution that promotes and encourages such skewed, low, animalistic and crazy ideas. As animalistic as we all are, we have the higher brain functions, and there's no excuse not to use them in day-to-day life unless your day-to-day life is constant running away from sabertooth tigers or venomous snakes - and for most of the world, it isn't true.
- We have an innate talent for taking what we read and finding ways where it applies to us as individuals, where it applies to the moments we find ourselves in our lives.
That, and the paragraph as a whole, is a very good point. I may have overestimated Camus' and Sartre's importance for humanity as whole solely because they are important to me.
However, I find that several ideas expressed by existentialists have repercussions for us all, not just those whose ideas align. Think of the concept of meaning of life. Human beings spend their whole lives trying to get what life's about, often dying without getting it. Whole books have been written about it by people so different you'll be astonished to even grasp that such a difference between human beings might exist. Yet, existentialism gives a simple and true answer - and people run away from it.
Of those who don't, oh so many don't take the next step in grasping the subject. Many stop at the idea that life has no inherent meaning, and it stuns them, as if that's the point of the idea. "Oh, life is meaningless. Well, shit. I'm just going to sit on my ass after this great realization, because there's no point anyway" - from someone who continues to moan about life's meaningless for the rest of their staying on Earth.
I don't mean to mock such people: I, too, have gone through this phase of disenchantment and existential depression. I know how it feels to lose ground beneath one's whole worldview. What makes this different is that it's not ground we've lost: after we recover, we discover that it was merely a layer of mirror over the world's true face. World is not what we see around: it's everything, the good and the bad, the ugly and the beautiful, the love and the hatred, the deepest rage and the brightest euphoria. It is our choice to select which parts to observe; therefore, it is our responsibility before ourselves to make the choice according to our beliefs of what's best.
In other words, our life's what we make of it, and every single person in their right mind has means to achieve some sort of improvement in theirs.
Why no religions talk about it? Why are no preaches held to address this very important - critically important, for every heart out there - issue? Why is Pope not talking about choice and its importance in every single person's life? Why is no head of the Islam (if there is such a person - I'm ignorant on the matter) talking about how it's our responsibility to wield awesome power within each of us for benefit of the world, not for blood of the innocents?
This is why philosophy is so much more important for me than any religion will ever be: it addresses issues religious temples omit or outright run away from: it tells us that we're capable, and all the means to change the world - or, more importantly, ourselves - are within us from the very beginning. People capable of taking control of their own lives can't be controlled from the outside; they will no longer pray and idly hope when they can do something; they will no longer kiss Pope's hand or do other, similarly demeaning things in the name of non-existent entity, and that hurts Pope's ego: they're supposed to be an important person on Earth - when suddenly, the ground goes from beneath their worldview. Welcome to the club, asshole. Find your own land to stay upon now.
What I read might not resonate with everybody. That's fine by me. As long as they get the idea, I'll go with it. Just, by all means, don't do it for God or for Pope's blessing or something similarly nonsensical: do it for other people, because it's their well-being that you care for when you wish to help. About time we admit it to ourselves, as well.
As for the last sentence of the paragraph:
- We desire to feel connected to the world around us.
There's something that bothers me about this statement existing in context of our discussion of uses of modern religion. Whether I'll be able to conclude what it is down the line, I'd like to discuss the statement in this context further with whomever's interested.
I'll be honest: I don't understand how can one feel connected with the world through religion. I've never experienced in, and I don't believe one can reliably convert feelings of connection through, say, music into those through religion to get an estimation. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you mean to say the following: the same feeling that I get when I understand (see, perceive) the world through the philosophy of existentialism, people of religion get when they understand (see, perceive) the world through their religion, whichever that is.
This really ought to deepen our conversation (at least from my point of view), because I'd love such people to come up and tell me why religion makes sense to them. As much as I stay opposed to religion (or maybe it's "organized religion" - see below), I'm looking forward to understanding religious people, their worldviews and the thought process that led them down that path (as opposed to mine leading me down to the path I'm at).
There's been an issue about escapism that we've touched upon very briefly, and I'd like to elaborate on that. I'm not opposed to escapism and relaxing away from the world from time to time - I'm a writer, after all. I think it's healthy and responsible to get away from the crazy routine and look at one's life as close to its objective reality as one can get in order to do one's best of sorting it out and making it a better life overall. "Well, shit, look at that. And I thought I had it bad...", or "How peculiar. It's something I can learn from", or "I do this because it will make me better in the long run".
That being said, I don't understand religious escapism (if there even is such a thing; if, if there is, it's different from spiritual escapism and spiritual rest as I understand it). That's something I never got to understanding, either, because I was most often blinded by the sheer resonance of misunderstanding and the internal rage, intellectual and emotional, that it caused. I see now how truly blind I am regarding religion and religious experience in general: I was actively seeing it as a thing inheritently bad because I only saw the bad. It's not to say I don't see bad sides of it - there are plenty of those, as I'm going to point out below - but I now understand just how much more there is to it. I must thank you, rd95, for stirring my mind away from the echo chamber it's been in for a long time and making me actually think about things I find peculiar.
- You're making some very broad generalizations that really don't have as much to do with religion as you think. They're actually more issues of scientific illiteracy and a poor education in general than religion as a boogy man.
This makes it sound like you're completely displacing religion from where it belongs - from discouraging studying evolution (I'm looking at you, Christianity) and from discouraging tolerance (I'm looking at you, Islam), among other things; I assume good faith and presume that you didn't mean to do anything as extreme. It's not to say that I didn't make generalizations previously: I bloody well did and I will continue to, because this seems to be so damn common to religions that I can't but generalize. It would be fine and, indeed, more appropriate to discuss each religion or sect or other sorts of separate teachings individually, but it will take so long we'd die before even leaving Christianity behind. However, I don't believe it to be necessary as long as there are things so common we can't skip them and turn to individual details.
Now. I don't mean to say that religions in general are utterly flawed or solely harmful: just as with being completely flawless or singularly helpful, extremes exist in the mind. Yet, whenever I hear about a Christian nutcase making children study only divine origin of the human kind (as seems to be the case in the US) or making children study religion and related matters at school as if it's a proper secular subject (as is the case in Russia - thankfully, I graduated just in time to miss it, but I do feel sorry for the young folks out there struggling through it), I want to smash something. It's ridiculous how much some of the religious heads assume of themselves and how much they believe others ought to follow their sole true path in life or risk being damned and sent to Hell (and/or subjected the other kinds of divine torture). Such issues cloud the minds of people like myself, but they do exist and do cause trouble for generations for some one asshole's benefit. Naturally, I'm not saying that religion alone is guilty of it (Godwin's law be damned, look at Hitler's actions), but for some reason, acting in the name of a non-existent being while making someone suffer makes me madly angry.
I haven't encountered a single religious teaching that actively encourages people to strive for knowledge and/or discourages them from ignorance. You speak of Baha'i, and your pointing out of their pursuit for knowledge made me curious of them, but I haven't seen the results of their work yet. Besides: there's Baha'i, that's one; how many more such teachings there are?
Moreover, you keep referencing past events and cause-effect relationships while starting off the discussion on modern religion. Indeed, various religions happened to house or support various steps of human progress, be it cultural or scientific (or both - see theory of color, which, in and of itself is fantastic). How does it matter now, in today's world (let's assume that I'm already grateful for whatever advances religion brought and am willing to leave it behind for the sake of this discussion)? Do they make what's today any different?
I sincerely wish to hop off the topic of how helpful religion have been, but there's a nitpick I can't resist, so logically-appalling to my mind it is. Did Muslim scholars you mentioned advance sciences because they were Muslim, or because they were scholars? Was Islam in any way more science-encouraging than European Christianity? Moreover, did they advance science, or did the Christian Europe hold back a long while due to the Dark Age encouraged by the Church? Given just how many scientific breakthroughs were made in Europe afterwards, I think it's safe to assume that, given no oppression of knowledge, European scientists would have made no worse a job in that department.
- We are our own hindrance through neglect and carelessness.
As we always were: fears and complacency make us give away achievements for feelings of comfort and security. It doesn't mean religion doesn't encourage this complacency. I've been talking about it in length before in this post, so - see above.
At least areligious communities (which include, but aren't limited to, atheists, agnostics, humanists and others of similar views) encourages rational understanding of the world around us. They often forego spiritual development that religion accents on, but they don't hinder it either, do they?
- Progress on the scale that you're hoping for isn't attainable in the span of a few generations, let alone overnight.
Not a reason not to start or not to discourage others from stepping in the way. Like I said plenty of times during this discussion: my main problem with religion is encouragement of closed-mindedness. Believing in invisible entities of magnificent power over reality is silly, but it's not what makes me angry; I may laugh at it from time to time, but I won't hold the believer accountable for it as if it's a crime, since personal beliefs aren't. I'm not saying "Let's change the world overnight": I recognize how silly this sounds. I am, however, saying: "Let's start teaching people things that are critically important to their personal development, and let's get those who oppose personal development because it threatens their worldview out of the way".
- People who are susceptible and vulnerable to being manipulated and taken advantage of are at the mercy of the entire world around them. They can be taken advantage of from everything from religious extremists and cults to gangs to abusive spouses to their own government.
Once again, you're saying "That's how it is", I'm saying "Let's do better". This time, however, it sounds like you're saying "There's not much we can do about it beyond what we already do", which I don't agree with. I realize that destructive manipulation is a world-spanning issue. I didn't realize that there are measures against it when I wrote what you quoted, though it makes sense now that you talk about it; those measures, however, are reactive, which is good, but we can do better.
I have a plan for a set of lectures to deliver the importance of the critically important self-development skills I've mentioned, as well as at least give the fertile ground for starting or continuing self-growth for the listeners. The lectures are meant for school children, for they're most susceptible and most in need of such knowledge if they have no other source (if my generation is any indication, there are no other sources: mentors are afew, parents are always busy trying to sustain the family and grandparents are former Soviet citizens with very rigid and unforgiving mentality). I'm struggling with the name for it, though: "social studies" is already taken, and "human-being" might very well confuse the whole lot of those who'd rather hear it.
The plan, in short, is to deliver information of what mental qualities constitute a human being, what are good practices to control our destructive urges (and how to manage constructive ones) and how to achieve a higher level of understanding of the world, oneself and others as well as develop skills to act on one's agenda in the complex and, at times, seemingly random world. It means, for example, to tell children about confidence: what it is, what it isn't (arrogance isn't a certain kind of confidence, but not the confidence we speak of), how to develop it (act despite the fear, which assumes previous lessons covered fears already) and what to look out for (arrogant remarks are not marks of spiritual or mental strength). So on for various other important points of living: issues of fear, control, knowledge and whatever stems from those.
I think it's possible to deliver, at least at one point at the time. I think it's important, given how lost I was - along with many of my peers - in a world on my own given the opportunity out of the emotional cage I was held in by my possessive parents. There are heaps, tons of useful knowledge on how to act and to live that's been around for millenia, sometimes (Marcus Aurelius' Meditiations and Greek philisophers' teachings are just two Western-world examples), that's going to waste simply because people who carry it die without transferring most of it. I believe personal development to be of more importance to one and to humanity in general than feeding one's craving for satisfaction and comfort, especially in the light of the fact that people who went through emotional traumas enjoy what's ordinary for us much more.
Given all that, I oppose everything that opposes personal development; if that includes religion in general or a particular religion, so be it. If it doesn't, however, I'm not just ready but eager to listen to what they have to say, both on the matter and in general.
On Philipians 4:8 and the following:
- Does that sound like scaremongering or does that sound like encouragement? What would you say if I could find similar passages or concepts from almost any major religion?
You quote a line in a book that most of those behind the religion have never read, fully or at all. The cynic inside me even screams for me to point out that you may have went out of your way to find it, but I won't yield to the screams and remain in good faith of your actions and arguments. That's one.
Another is that, while one passage in one of the religious books in Christianity might be supportive and encouraging (which I always extol), their view of sin as I understand it (from my own little experience with Christianity and Christopher Hitchens' arguments) is scaremongering at its plainest. "You're all sinners from birth because your supposed progenitors became sinners (we'll omit how they were capable of it in the first place, being perfect humans and all) [sorry, couldn't resist - TFG], and therefore you shall repent for the sins you haven't committed because you surely will".
Really? Punishing yourself for non-existent crimes? Hell: punishing yourself, period? Nothing good ever comes from it; like therapies go, "Accept what happened and move on", implying that one's best course of action is to also remember what went wrong and never go down that path again. And that's not even diving into Christianity's hipocrisy, when Pope, the highest figure of the religion on Earth, proclaims aloud Crusades - that is, killing infidels - in the name of God (right, you asshole, in his name, sure), right after citing "Thou shalt not kill"...
But, like I said, historical evidence means nothing. What matters is the course of action religions take nowadays. From what I'm seeing, Christianity speaks up against scientific education and no Christian speaks up against it (or are we not hearing them?), Muslim bombing human gathering in order to sew chaos and fear and no Muslim speaks up against it (or are we not hearing them?), fucking Buddhists, of all religions, killing ethnic minorities in the Tibet region (do we even hear about the atrocities at all?)... Is it just that the assholes pick up the mic when the rest are talking constructively and quietly with those who're willing to listen? I hope so - but is it what's happening?
This conversation, I must admit, brings the cynic in me back again, which is not something I enjoy but also not something I can easily reign in. I enjoy the reasonable conversation on the matter we're having, but I hope to include an open-minded deeply-religious person in for me to gain proper perspective on the matter: otherwise, we're merely moving the air around.
- You're saying "it is as it is", I'm saying "we can do better". I don't see why should we let religion propagate ideas of conformity and false sense of security when human beings, both alone and in groups, have such a massive potential to change the world (hopefully, for the better). Humans believe they want security and comfort the most, when the reality is we want achievement, we want to leave a mark on the world, we want ourselves and others to prosper, not merely be content with shitty occupations and shitty relationships. How often religion propagates honesty and openness of one's feelings? How often does it say "be yourself and give no mind to what strangers think of you unless it resonates with you"?
We are looking at two different faces of the same cube of dice. You're thinking of terms in either or. Religion, like everything else, is one and both. Can religion offer simple mindedness and conformity? Yes. Tt can and sometimes it does and it's aggravating to see. Can it offer support, liberation, and encouragement? Yes. Yes. Yes. It does all of the time. Almost every religion that takes on a philosophical angle teaches us one way or another to not only get along with each other, but to get along with ourselves. If you want, give me a day and I can overwhelm you with so many religious quotes teaching us to be good people that I could fill up a page and then some.
- What I see is pushing for conformity, for simple mind, because such a crowd is easier to control and reign in under a single banner. Simple answers give simple minds, and simple minds abstain from taking a good hard look at reality because it promises, without hesitation or chance of a miss, to break the bubble, and it's painful. Any parent will tell you: egos are hard to break, - but the process is necessary for the child to grow up into a mature, reasonable and emotionally healthy adult. Let me show you just one claim Western religion makes so often it's offensive to humanity.
"Homosexual behavior is to be punished because it's bad". Is that a good answer to "How should we deal with gays?"? No, it isn't, and it will never be. Because sexual orientation isn't a mark of God or of Devil: it's a trait of our mind and our body; we're born with it without a choice, like eye color or tastes for food. Because giving in to fears, especially as far as to be afraid to admit that it's scary because it's alien, not because some abstract man-made ideas oppose it, is not productive or helpful to anyone. Because gathering a crowd to punish homosexuals in whatever capacity - verbally, physically, sexually - is screaming "I'M AFRAID BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM". In animal fear people run away or run towards what they don't understand because, much like the half-human animals our ancestors were a long time ago, they believe that what they don't understand might kill them, or hurt them, or steal their babies, or something else people are afraid of.
I don't care if it's human behavior that makes us like that. Any institution that promotes punishing the alien for its alienness alone is not a good one. I'll blame people for following the doctrine of destruction towards what is considered "not us", but first of all I'll blame the institution that promotes and encourages such skewed, low, animalistic and crazy ideas. As animalistic as we all are, we have the higher brain functions, and there's no excuse not to use them in day-to-day life unless your day-to-day life is constant running away from sabertooth tigers or venomous snakes - and for most of the world, it isn't true.
Alright. So I'm going to be blunt here and I'm going to get this out of the way. Sometimes humanity sucks. British colonists treated Australian aborigines like shit. Nazis treated the Jews, Gypsies, and various other groups like shit. The American Government treated Native Americans like shit. There's the Rwandand Genocides. There's the Cambodian Killing Fields. There are the Soviet Gulags. You think religious organizations are the only ones who treat homosexuals wrongly? Look at Communist China. I'm just scratching the very surface of how ugly we can get, and trust me, when you want to look at it in depth, we get very, very ugly. In all honesty, I recommend you don't click on any of those links. I regret even searching for them.
You keep wanting to point to religion and say “Look! There's the boogeyman!” Religion isn't the boogeyman though. We are. We do awful, awful things to each other for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes religion gets involved because for a large part of humanity, religion is a part of our identity. Just like nationality (Nazis), race (American Slavery), and economic structures (European Colonialism) are all parts of our humanity. Using your logic, I can easily say we need to get rid of government, financial institutions, or what have you if we're to live in a truly just world.
Here's the deal though. People, as individuals, are quick to change. The way you and I view the world is different than the way our parents and grand parents view the world. Just look at us, you're Russian and I'm a white American from a low income bracket. We're talking to each other and having a conversation that is civil, entertaining, and enriching. Do you think, during the height of the Red Scare that I could say the same about my grandpa? No. Probably not. The problem is, institutions are a lot slower to change. It's the nature of the beast. They are changing though. Bringing back western religion and the treatment of homosexuals, here's a look at a handful of Gay Friendly Churches. Since we're talking about institutions and the treatment of the gay community, just last year the American Supreme Court made gay marriage a right. Just fifteen years ago the idea was almost unthinkable. Change happens. It's slow. It's painfully slow. But it's happening, faster, and faster, and faster.
So, I've been thinking a lot about religion since seeing the later replies of yours. What I realized was:
- I know that much about religion personally;
- I'm not ready to present quality points against religion without knowing it well enough;
- I'm not going to present silly points just to present something.
I'm willing to continue the conversation, for I find it both important and interesting. However, I'm not willing to continue it right, or, as a matter of fact, in this thread: just look at the title and how far from it we've went. You've opened my eyes on a lot of things about both religion and how to view it, and I appreaciate that a lot, because religion and religious belief have been important points of my understanding of the world.
Let's make a deal. I'm going to research religion - maybe talk to religious figures that I'd encounter (there are Orthodox Christians and Muslims in Tomsk, and Catholic Christians in Kemerovo, as far as I know), read the books or about the books - and then make a #talkreligion post with points on religion that I find important, critical or praising as "Part <whichever>". Does that sound good?
It's cool bro. It's just a discussion. That said, I'd love for you to reach out to me and share what you find.
If and when you do start exploring, Wikipedia is a great jumping off point. Since you're in college, if you have some room for filler credits, maybe take a class or two on Religious History. I'd actually think that's the best way to start exploring, because you'll get things from a more secular, academic perspective.
If you do go out into the world, visiting churches, mosques, what have you, just be prepared that you might come across some elements that seem a bit weird to you and you might be a bit uncomfortable. That's totally normal. Hell, it still happens to me. The thing is, you're gonna find some things that resonate you and some things that don't. Just remember to be polite and appreciative. These people are letting you into their world.
If for some reason, you want to discuss religions with practitioners but are a little uncomfortable talking to people in person, This Place is a great place to talk to people from all sorts of faiths. To let you know though, you'll find people on there not only from a variety of faiths, but also on both extremes of the spectrum from grounded intellectuals to people who are (in my opinion) a bit too open minded. The Moderators there are actually a very helpful lot and some of them have been at it for over a decade.
Religious Forums seems like a fantastic place to go for religions that I can't reach physically. Thank you for letting me know of it, and thank you for prepping me up for the conversations!
It is a discussion, but not just a discussion for me. Like I said, it's important for me to understand it, and the discussion we've made so far has been extremely potent in opening my eyes. If that's a trend, I'm willing to dive deep.
- Since you're in college
I study in Russia, which, of course, has a different system of higher education from the US one. We don't have free classes to attend, barring optional non-free specialization and secondary education courses. I wonder if MOOCs have classes on religion, though. They must have something, must they not?
Woo boy. This seems like an even larger chunk of text to handle now that I'm sober. I think I'll take this a bit at a time, a few days at a time. This is a casual talk after all.
- I'm finally able to deliver a proper response.
Pfft. Bro. Any response, as long as it's respectful of course, is a proper response. :)
So, I'm going to skip down to the bottom a little bit here, because you touched on some points I'd like to focus on . . .
- You quote a line in a book that most of those behind the religion have never read, fully or at all. The cynic inside me even screams for me to point out that you may have went out of your way to find it, but I won't yield to the screams and remain in good faith of your actions and arguments. That's one.
To be honest, I didn't have to search for that quote. It's on the back of a homemade bookmark given to me by a friend. I keep it around because it reminds me a lot of the Buddhist concept of Mindfulness. If you click the link, just give it a brief glance. While the concept is worth a deep perusal, it can get kind of confusing pretty quick. There are tons of Christians out there who know their Bible well and they love to quote it. Me personally, not being a Christian, have to resort to using a “Where to Find it in the Bible Guide,” which is actually very useful as a jumping off point sometimes. I then often use a combination online study sites and Wikipedia for cultural and historical insight into various passages. I really need to gather similar tools for other faiths, but seeing as how America is very Christian dominant, Christianity is for obvious reasons one of the easiest religions for me to work with, even when you account for the seemingly countless denominations. But I'm wandering here now . . .
As for Christians and studying the Bible, there's a whole spectrum of Christians. On one end, you have the people who profess to be Christians but never step foot in a church except on rare occasions. On the other end you have the Christians that not only go to church on Sundays, but also attend church events throughout the week, host bible studies on the regular, and so on and so forth. Personally speaking, I've seen a fair mix of everyone on the spectrum and it seems to me to be an even spread.
I actually have a friend now who I've started going to church with from time to time. While the church he goes to is vastly different from the churches I've been to in the past, they seem like a decent bunch of people and he's very happy there, which is great. One of the things I like about him is that he has a decent grasp on his Bible. Is he a theological scholar? No. Could he teach me a thing or two? He absolutely can and I look forward to learning from him. That said, if you want to talk to people who really know their Bible, devout Catholics seem to have their shit down tight. I think it might be a cultural thing for them.
- Another is that, while one passage in one of the religious books in Christianity might be supportive and encouraging (which I always extol), their view of sin as I understand it (from my own little experience with Christianity and Christopher Hitchens' arguments) is scaremongering at its plainest. "You're all sinners from birth because your supposed progenitors became sinners (we'll omit how they were capable of it in the first place, being perfect humans and all) [sorry, couldn't resist - TFG], and therefore you shall repent for the sins you haven't committed because you surely will".
Really? Punishing yourself for non-existent crimes? Hell: punishing yourself, period? Nothing good ever comes from it; like therapies go, "Accept what happened and move on", implying that one's best course of action is to also remember what went wrong and never go down that path again.
Once again, I'm not Christian so take this with a grain of salt, but the concept of Original Sin is a bit of a mixed bag. It's used to explain why we live in a world of pain and suffering. It's used to explain why we are imperfect and sometimes driven to do things that aren't in our best interest or the best interest of others. Christianity isn't alone in trying to address this concept. Hindus have Karma. Buddhists have Dukkha. Other religions address suffering more or less in depth in other ways. For each religion though, while there is a cause for suffering, there is also a solution. In Christianity, it is through accepting Christ and his teachings, through redemption and through repentance. It gets kind of complex, but for the most part, the very idea of redemption and repentance is in a way, “Accept[ing] what happened and mov[ing] on.” It's a system of relief. If we really want to get into the brass and tacks of all of this, there is actually a debate among various Christian doctrines as to whether or not accepting Christ alone is enough for salvation or if deeds play a crucial role.
- And that's not even diving into Christianity's hipocrisy, when Pope, the highest figure of the religion on Earth, proclaims aloud Crusades - that is, killing infidels - in the name of God (right, you asshole, in his name, sure), right after citing "Thou shalt not kill"...
Eh. That all ties into politics, religion, national identity, etc. A great example would be The Troubles in Ireland. It wasn't just about Catholic and Protestant identity. Religion just happened to be one facet of a much bigger issue. It's important to remember that we're all human and everything in our lives is very intertwined almost to the point of being a jumbled up mess. Religion isn't some static concept. It's something that's integrated into people's lives in such a dynamic way that not only does it change us, but collectively and over time, we change it. That said, the whole “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is more like “Thou Shalt Not Kill But Read the Footnotes for Exceptions.” There are many ways, theologically speaking, where killing is seen as permissible. Warfare is one of them.
- But, like I said, historical evidence means nothing. What matters is the course of action religions take nowadays. From what I'm seeing, Christianity speaks up against scientific education and no Christian speaks up against it (or are we not hearing them?), Muslim bombing human gathering in order to sew chaos and fear and no Muslim speaks up against it (or are we not hearing them?), fucking Buddhists, of all religions, killing ethnic minorities in the Tibet region (do we even hear about the atrocities at all?)... Is it just that the assholes pick up the mic when the rest are talking constructively and quietly with those who're willing to listen? I hope so - but is it what's happening?
So, before I address this, let's get one thing out of the way here and I'm going to address something you said that I bolded out. We are all human here, trying to navigate very difficult lives in a very difficult world. Nobody has all of the answers. No concept, be they religious, philosophical, psychological, or what have you, applies perfectly to every thing every time. Buddhists aren't special just because they see the world a bit differently than us. The same goes for Hindus, Native American religions, or whatever other concept or culture the western world wants to romanticize and mystify. No matter who we are or where we come from, as a collective whole we know better. For the most part we know what is blatantly right, what is blatantly wrong, and we have developed the tools needed to navigate through the gray areas. That said, we're all flawed and it's very easy to get caught up in the world around us and do wrong things. Any one at any time can slip. It's our job as human beings to help each other from falling, and when we do fall, to help each other get back up. That's why it's important to be loving, to be neighborly, to be vigilant, and to always encourage those in our lives to do the right thing.
Now. What you're talking about is the effect that bad news travels farther and faster than good news. We find it exciting. We sensationalize it. It gets us talking. The fact of the matter is, Muslims speak out against terrorism frequently. There are many successful and influential scientific figures throughout history who happen to be Christian. There are interfaith organizations around the world focused on helping people reconcile their differences and get along. On and on. I know you're cynical. You confess to being so quite often. I encourage you to think about it this way. There is so, so, so much good in this world, everywhere you look. You just don't notice it because of how you focus on things. Think of it this way, if you were in a room with the whitest of walls and you notice a single smudge of dirt, what are you suddenly going to start thinking about? All the whiteness or the one smudge that stands out?
- We're merely moving the air around.
Moving the air around us is still changing the world around us, even if it's imperceptible. :)
You posted a novel. Give me a few days to read over this, parse it out, and respond adequately (at least I hope my responses are adequate). God knows I can't do it right now. I'm rocking a new years buzz already.
I appreciate you man. I hope you have a good New Year.