Does religion have a monopoly on teaching humility as a tenet and virtue of life?

[Mind Over Matter]

I would say the answer is yes it does. But it is an "open monopoly". Religion does not prevent other institutions from such teaching, rather other institutions choose not to.

Certainly Secular institutions such as public education can embrace humility through the teaching of good citizenship, kindness to others, neighborliness, honesty etc...all of which are signs of humility.

But again, it must be stressed that this does not effect any individual's right or ability to be humble in themselves, or to reject humility in favor of prideful selfishness.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[lightgigantic]

I would argue that religion(ie service to god) is the forum for the highest expression of humility ... which of course doesn't mean its a monopoly ... btw I expect that sooner this discussion will lead to a precise definition of what one is meaning to by humility

 

[Pineal]

I would say the answer is yes it does. But it is an "open monopoly". Religion does not prevent other institutions from such teaching, rather other institutions choose not to.

Certainly Secular institutions such as public education can embrace humility through the teaching of good citizenship, kindness to others, neighborliness, honesty etc...all of which are signs of humility.

These two paragraphs seem to contradict eachother.

But again, it must be stressed that this does not effect any individual's right or ability to be humble in themselves, or to reject humility in favor of prideful selfishness.

ARe those the only choices? I don't think so, but of course, it depends on the definition of humility. Notice also that many religions teach people to be humble while being incredibly hierarchical, with priviledges, powers, rights being diviied up unevenly.

 

[lightgigantic]

These two paragraphs seem to contradict eachother.

ARe those the only choices? I don't think so, but of course, it depends on the definition of humility. Notice also that many religions teach people to be humble while being incredibly hierarchical, with priviledges, powers, rights being diviied up unevenly.

What is the requirement for humility to demand a society bereft of variety in terms of power, wealth, position, influence, etc?

Or to ask it another way, is a person who is highly regarded, powerful, wealthy, etc automatically not humble?

 

[GeoffP]

Stoicism.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

What is the requirement for humility to demand a society bereft of variety in terms of power, wealth, position, influence, etc?

Or to ask it another way, is a person who is highly regarded, powerful, wealthy, etc automatically not humble?

Well, St Thomas More was well respected, influential, wealthy (at least whilst in favour with Henry VIII), and still retained a high degree of humility, being equally able to be cheerful and happy when stripped of his power and wealth and imprisoned.

 

[wynn]

Does religion have a monopoly on teaching humility as a tenet and virtue of life?

I would say the answer is yes it does.

Surely you would also like to specify which religion has the monopoly on teaching humility, would you not?

Or do you think that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, native Aboriginal religions, Bahai, Buddhism etc. etc.
are all equally good sources for teachings on humility and that they all bring about the same results in people, as far as humility goes?

 

[wynn]

Further: DEFINE "HUMILITY."



Also: DEFINE "PRIDEFUL SELFISHNESS."

 

[Mind Over Matter]

High regard, power, wealth etc are all external things. Things accorded to a person by others. Now granted, power and wealth can be things earned or taken depending on the character of the individual but they remain largely external factors - Signs, if you will, of the interior life.
Humility is something internal. A humble person may be highly regarded, may wield great power (authority) and may even be "wealthy" by certain measures. Likewise a Prideful person may be lowly regarded, have no power at all except as gained by bullying, and be dirt poor.


Humility demands that those of power derive and execute that power for the general good and for the glory of God. That such power as granted be seen not so much as Lording but as service to others. The Servant of the Servant.
Humility demands that esteem and high regard accorded to others be for the right reasons - that it be based on the good life and actions of the other and not on account of trite, worldly or infamous reasons.
Humility demands that wealth not be sought for it's own sake but for the glory of God in heaven. That it be attained by actions that are wholly in accord God's commands for us and that it be seen as a gift and responsibility to be used for the greatest benefit to the most people.

 

[wynn]

MoM -
I ask you to answer my question from post no. 7.

 

[Pineal]

What is the requirement for humility to demand a society bereft of variety in terms of power, wealth, position, influence, etc?

Or to ask it another way, is a person who is highly regarded, powerful, wealthy, etc automatically not humble?

I can't figure out the first question and the second one seems like a rhetorical question which I cannot place well in the context of what I wrote. It may fit well, but I can't see it.

 

[Pineal]

Humility demands that those of power derive and execute that power for the general good and for the glory of God.

How can a humble person be certain that this power their are weilding in the name of God is really being guided by God. Mustn't this hypothetical humble person have tremendous faith in their own skill of discering what God wants to have happen? How does one distinguish this sense of one's own incredible skill from pride?

History is littered with people wielding power in the name of God and I suspect many of the worst really believed they were doing this humbly.

That such power as granted be seen not so much as Lording but as service to others. The Servant of the Servant.
Humility demands that esteem and high regard accorded to others be for the right reasons - that it be based on the good life and actions of the other and not on account of trite, worldly or infamous reasons.
Humility demands that wealth not be sought for it's own sake but for the glory of God in heaven. That it be attained by actions that are wholly in accord God's commands for us and that it be seen as a gift and responsibility to be used for the greatest benefit to the most people.

And again, how can one be humble while trusting that one can choose the right religion and interpret scriptures correctly and apply these guidelines to practice.

The humble person says:
I know which religion is right.
I understand what the scriptures mean.
I can apply the scriptures in daily life.
I can wield power in the name of God.
I am humble.

I can't put the first ones together with the last one.

 

[wynn]

I'm afraid neither MindOverMatter nor Lightgigantic are going to join this discussion again.

I suppose they are too humble for that! :bugeye:



(And I've had enough of having to invite them by PM.)

 

[wellwisher]

The human personality is grounded on personality firmware, which have been referred to as the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Based on brain hierarchy, we have the inner self, the firmware and then the ego, which was the last to evolve. What humility does is make one more receptive to the inner self and personality firmware. The arrogance of the ego or lack of humility adds noise to this connection. Religion is often better at teaching the proper relationship of the ego to higher powers thereby making that internal connection easier.

As an analogy say we had a child. The arrogant child knows it all and will not be receptive to the wisdom of the parents. The humble child is more receptive and can learn the results of long term data analysis in less time.

I am a good example of this. When I am humble and receptive I do my best writing, since the unconscious will process the data. I don't even need to proof read since it comes off the press as is. But if I get too egocentric the writing will suffer from noise, since I lose a clear connection to the main frame of the brain.

It is not the humble person who starts wars since the inner voice is more in tune with nature and natural. President Obama, who has lost his center and arrogantly plays the blame game, has lost that natural connection he once had that gave him his unifying charisma. The ancients would say his god has left him. Religion would say he must humble himself to gain favor again. The main frame of the brain, when tapped into, brings with it all of evolution so our path to the future is straight. That is what resonates inside each person.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

How can a humble person be certain that this power their are weilding in the name of God is really being guided by God. Mustn't this hypothetical humble person have tremendous faith in their own skill of discering what God wants to have happen? How does one distinguish this sense of one's own incredible skill from pride?

History is littered with people wielding power in the name of God and I suspect many of the worst really believed they were doing this humbly.

Very insightful and thoughtful observations my friend. Indeed there are many dangers in this and indeed many/most probably fail the test of true humility.
I believe that these were some of the factors that Jesus was referring to when He said, "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." There are indeed many traps and pitfalls in these things that one must guard against and avoid.

And again, how can one be humble while trusting that one can choose the right religion and interpret scriptures correctly and apply these guidelines to practice.

The humble person says:
I know which religion is right.
I understand what the scriptures mean.
I can apply the scriptures in daily life.
I can wield power in the name of God.
I am humble.

I can't put the first ones together with the last one.

In the above, you summarize nicely one of the primary pitfalls. Each of your sentences begins with the word "I". The truly humble person does not think in these terms but rather places the credit outside himself.
The truly humble words your comments differently because in true humility the goal is never about him/her.
If I may rephrase.....
I know which religion is right.
Dear God thank you for showing me the path by which to serve you in Love.
I understand what the scriptures mean.
Father guide me in the proper understanding of your Holy Word and send me good confessors and councilors.
I can apply the scriptures in daily life.
O Lord, help me to apply your word, your will and your love in all of my actions daily.
I can wield power in the name of God.
Father, whatever influence I have is yours, guide me to use it solely in love and for your Glory
I am humble.
Oh Lord keep me humble.

The humble recognizes that "The Lord Gives and the Lord takes away - Blessed be the name of the Lord. (Job 1:21)
The humble seeks the council of good and holy priests and people committed to God, in Love and to all things good.
The humble recognizes that his true wealth and/or power lies, not in his bank balance, but in the number of people helped, the number employed, the good that is returned to the community and that, just as God's Love flows through him as a mere agent, any accolades that come to him need to flow through him to God in thanksgiving.

 

[spidergoat]

Most religions have no concept of humility because they claim to be the purveyors of truth. It takes a scientist to have humility because science emphasizes doubt. Theism in particular not only has no monopoly, because it teaches arrogance and self-righteousness.

 

[wynn]

In the above, you summarize nicely one of the primary pitfalls. Each of your sentences begins with the word "I". The truly humble person does not think in these terms but rather places the credit outside himself.
The truly humble words your comments differently because in true humility the goal is never about him/her.
If I may rephrase.....
I know which religion is right.
Dear God thank you for showing me the path by which to serve you in Love.
I understand what the scriptures mean.
Father guide me in the proper understanding of your Holy Word and send me good confessors and councilors.
I can apply the scriptures in daily life.
O Lord, help me to apply your word, your will and your love in all of my actions daily.
I can wield power in the name of God.
Father, whatever influence I have is yours, guide me to use it solely in love and for your Glory
I am humble.
Oh Lord keep me humble.

You have not really changed anything!!

The speaker of your sentences is still presuming himself to know which path is The Right One:

Dear God thank you for showing me the path by which to serve you in Love.

How does the speaker know that he is on the "path by which he can serve God in love"?

He is simply sure of his own judgment that he is on the right path!
Thus, no different than saying "I know which religion is right."

I understand what the scriptures mean.
Father guide me in the proper understanding of your Holy Word and send me good confessors and councilors.

And yet it is your supposedly humble speaker who will decide whether he understands His Holy Word or not.

I can apply the scriptures in daily life.
O Lord, help me to apply your word, your will and your love in all of my actions daily.

Says your supposedly humble speaker - but then nevertheless abides by his own discernment of what is God's word and what is not.

I can wield power in the name of God.
Father, whatever influence I have is yours, guide me to use it solely in love and for your Glory

Big words, that just try to hide that he is acting by his own discernment anyway.

I am humble.
Oh Lord keep me humble.

What does that matter, if eventually, it is your supposedly humble speaker who decides whether he is humble or not?!

The humble recognizes that "The Lord Gives and the Lord takes away - Blessed be the name of the Lord. (Job 1:21)

And yet, your supposedly humble speaker here still presumes himself to know which is which.


Wrapping it all up in nice, modest-sounding words does not do away with the epistemological problems of discerning between what is from God and what is one's own or other people's stance.

The humble seeks the council of good and holy priests and people committed to God, in Love and to all things good.

And yet this supposedly humble person is the one who decides - and then abides by this decision - who the "the council of good and holy priests and people committed to God, in Love and to all things good" is, and who is not such a council.

The humble recognizes that his true wealth and/or power lies, not in his bank balance, but in the number of people helped, the number employed, the good that is returned to the community and that, just as God's Love flows through him as a mere agent, any accolades that come to him need to flow through him to God in thanksgiving.

Again, it is still your supposedly humble speaker who decides - and then abides by his decision - whether he actually helped someone or not. Disregarding whether those people whom he claims to have helped, actually were helped.

It is still your supposedly humble speaker who decides - and then abides by his decision - whether good was returned to the community.
Etc.


Bottomline: Your seemingly modest formulations do not actually change anything.

The person clearly making I-statements is at least being straightforward about it all.

Your supposedly humble speaker wraps himself in big words, professing modesty, but is in actually the same epistemic egotist as the one making I-statements.

 

[wynn]

MoM still hasn't answered - asking him for the third time:

Surely you would also like to specify which religion has the monopoly on teaching humility, would you not?

Or do you think that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, native Aboriginal religions, Bahai, Buddhism etc. etc.
are all equally good sources for teachings on humility and that they all bring about the same results in people, as far as humility goes?

 

[wynn]

And again, how can one be humble while trusting that one can choose the right religion and interpret scriptures correctly and apply these guidelines to practice.

Most religions have no concept of humility because they claim to be the purveyors of truth. It takes a scientist to have humility because science emphasizes doubt. Theism in particular not only has no monopoly, because it teaches arrogance and self-righteousness.

I wonder what we would have to do to get through to theists on this issue.

It is as if (some? all?) theists simply lack the ability to reflect and introspect on their own epistemology of religion.

 

[Pineal]

I wonder what we would have to do to get through to theists on this issue.

It is as if (some? all?) theists simply lack the ability to reflect and introspect on their own epistemology of religion.

I think it is some theists - though many of the ones who are not like this, do not engage in public or even private debate, their religion is private to them. Even some religious leaders will speak of their times of doubt or how it is not always easy to apply things or to understand why this or that would happen and feel OK with it - read: what God did or did not do. But, yes, there are a lot of mindless followers who seem not to want to look at what is actually happening.

Often, it seems, they have absolutely submitted themselves to an authority - a charismatic leader - alive or dead - a scripture. Once they have done this, they then feel entitled to act as if they have the same authority, since they are (supposedely) following the orders of the authority.

This happens in secular contexts also. Police, soldiers, party followers, police informers. The dictatory, the fascist or communist party or the free world or whatever stands behind them. They are simply doing what is right. No hubris, since this was determined by the great leader or document.

It's a very nice cake and eat it too situation.