Religion
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Random two cents
So we ask the question, "What, if not religion?" Or, perhaps, "What, if not these religions?"
Nonetheless, progress within any culture, regardless of the rate, is determined in part by the conscious and subconscious priorities (e.g. desires) of the individuals composing the collective.
If Thinker A is distracted by the religious paradigm, and therefore fails to meet an abstract value of potential, we must also consider the abstract question of whether or not Thinker A would have the opportunities put before him were it not for the Christian paradigm.
Certain cultures, for instance, put gunpowder to "better use" (by their own definition), which allowed for empires, periods of relative security, &c. Now, I might argue as I will against the "savagery" and "brutality" of Christian history, but some of the technological advances in the West only came about because they could develop within the relative security offered by operating within the paradigm and its associated territories. Could Michelangelo have painted the Sistine Chapel roof if he while marching down a muddy track to war? Could Pasteur have done his work while hunkering down with a rifle? Einstein may have been essential to the A-bomb itself, but what if he spent all that time out in the woods chasing his dinner and fending off brigands instead of doing research?
We might ask at what cost this culture, but that we can afford to ask at all in this uncertain Universe should say much about the culture.
And yes, progress would come more quickly in relation to an abstraction were we not encumbered by such things as Abramic superstitions, but given the strides humanity has taken in the Christian and post-Christian era toward attaining the capabilities of feeding the masses and protecting against nature, I'm puzzled as to how the people in history, were they free of Christianity and other religions, might have organized in such a manner as to warrant what "progress" we enjoyed.
I even go so far as to assert that what sets the Christian and post-Christian West apart from the rest of the world is that we are, culturally speaking, more efficient killers and more responsive to our material lusts. But were such an organizational system and arrangement of value priorities to result in a different, in this case, non-theistic manifestation ... it's hard to figure what, exactly that would look like.
Famine, disease, earthquakes, fires, plagues, locusts ... even before we get to wars, Nature is a sufficient taskmistress. Religious ideals may have "justified" the wars of history, but even those purely religious wars (which are considerably fewer) have nothing on wars about economy.
An excellent issue to examine, though of late I've come to see a certain instability in it.
So we ask the question, "What, if not religion?" Or, perhaps, "What, if not these religions?"
Nonetheless, progress within any culture, regardless of the rate, is determined in part by the conscious and subconscious priorities (e.g. desires) of the individuals composing the collective.
If Thinker A is distracted by the religious paradigm, and therefore fails to meet an abstract value of potential, we must also consider the abstract question of whether or not Thinker A would have the opportunities put before him were it not for the Christian paradigm.
Certain cultures, for instance, put gunpowder to "better use" (by their own definition), which allowed for empires, periods of relative security, &c. Now, I might argue as I will against the "savagery" and "brutality" of Christian history, but some of the technological advances in the West only came about because they could develop within the relative security offered by operating within the paradigm and its associated territories. Could Michelangelo have painted the Sistine Chapel roof if he while marching down a muddy track to war? Could Pasteur have done his work while hunkering down with a rifle? Einstein may have been essential to the A-bomb itself, but what if he spent all that time out in the woods chasing his dinner and fending off brigands instead of doing research?
We might ask at what cost this culture, but that we can afford to ask at all in this uncertain Universe should say much about the culture.
And yes, progress would come more quickly in relation to an abstraction were we not encumbered by such things as Abramic superstitions, but given the strides humanity has taken in the Christian and post-Christian era toward attaining the capabilities of feeding the masses and protecting against nature, I'm puzzled as to how the people in history, were they free of Christianity and other religions, might have organized in such a manner as to warrant what "progress" we enjoyed.
I even go so far as to assert that what sets the Christian and post-Christian West apart from the rest of the world is that we are, culturally speaking, more efficient killers and more responsive to our material lusts. But were such an organizational system and arrangement of value priorities to result in a different, in this case, non-theistic manifestation ... it's hard to figure what, exactly that would look like.
Famine, disease, earthquakes, fires, plagues, locusts ... even before we get to wars, Nature is a sufficient taskmistress. Religious ideals may have "justified" the wars of history, but even those purely religious wars (which are considerably fewer) have nothing on wars about economy.
Tiassa,
What ideals do we have that will effectively replace the concept of God? What will happen if we do not have any such replacement?
Indeed, and something that has struck me while thinking on this thread. While I’ve proposed the idea I find I don’t have a satisfactory answer. But I’ll take this further since I have discussed the matter elsewhere, although some time ago, as to what is or will replace religion in modern society as religion inevitably declines as knowledge and education replace the ignorance. This is more serious than any speculation of what our predecessors might have been able to do.
What ideals do we have that will effectively replace the concept of God? What will happen if we do not have any such replacement?
Some speculation
There will be more than a few of these sorts of movements springing up in the near future as modern generations are afforded the sorts of spiritual questions that test the motives of religious faith. The process will be simple at first: Start with an idea or collection of ideas that bear certain effects, weave or meld those effects toward the desired effect, exploit the new symbology toward the preferred end. Very few movements following this process will endure, and it may be that, in the tradition of religious ideas, the more successful movements will find their sucess by accident of combining enough relevant factors as to warrant endurance. I can say on behalf of this particular movement, though, that while these are still human beings, they are at least striving to reach past the ideological sense of greed that tends toward ill-constructed paradigms. Insofar as humans are humans, though ... I admit there's a certain overconfidence I've noted in my exposure to the development of these ideas that will necessarily require accounting for in the future.
And all of this is a handy coincidence. There are signs among pagans of a newer paganism rising that I would probably enjoy greatly; I'm surprised at the ratio of tie-dye to gothic pagans I'm seeing these days. Any other day I would have pointed to that and tried to pull an exemplary genie out of my ass. Or perhaps I would have ridiculed the cyberworld post-Matrix Cave revival. Or maybe Alien Seed theories. I think Communism of the Cold War demonstrated that people can be compelled toward other all-encompassing ideas; Party and State definitely carried prestige in that system that was larger than life, and demonstrably so. Which brings me back to nations, patriotism, and other myths of convenience that have served us well in the past. I hope never to extinguish the irrational zeal of a breath caught on the two and two in the bottom of the ninth. I hope never to threaten the catharsis of a well-written novel or other well-made art. But these are as irrational as God, and barely of any greater functional value. And yet we get something in return from all this. Who am I to pick on The Matrix? After all, there's now thousands, if not millions of (ill-equipped) people now dwelling on a fundamental philosophical riddle who may never have stopped to think about it before. Why not pick on Farenheit 451?
Oh ... as to the twinge of a well-played love song .... no. There are no good love songs. Love songs are a waste of time, and cannot qualify as well-made art. Like drugs, love songs are extraneous and false excuses in lieu of something genuine. The twinge of a well-played love song is simply a sign that one needs to stop feeling sorry for themselves.
When I lived in Oregon, I knew people who gathered to play a ridiculous vampire game. It was, by almost any modern context, religious in its most visible aspect.
Perhaps people will make happiness a religion. Declare Happiness the Ultimate Cause of human existence. Of course, imagine the conflicts and unhappiness that will result from arguments over the weight of the maximized individual happiness and the sacrifice against that maximum made on behalf of a "collective" happiness? After all, some people's happiness seems to depend on other people's unhappiness.
I also came across an article, "Slot Machine God".
How many times, hung over in college, could I be found lying on my back in the middle of the floor whispering, "Make it stop"? Who the hell was I talking to? Yet the process of appealing to something has a specific effect in the mind. I'd recommend Franny and Zooey in support of that effect, but it's been long enough since I've read the book that I'm not prepared to defend such a connection.
Sometimes it seems to have something to do with fundamental humanity. We are inquisitive. We do recognize the ideas of perfection, of flawlessness, of unity, of totality, and so forth. It may be that the problem lies with attempting to anthropomorphize those ideas, to draw them closer to us in order to imagine that we are that much closer to what they represent.
Which returns to the push for knowledge, and also to the question of "Knowledge in which context and toward what end?"
How about an infamous closing:
... er ... something approximately like that.
An interesting question. A post-Buddhist associate of mine has transcended (transgressed?) to what seems an interesting exploration to say the least. I'll go ahead and plug them here, though I haven't done all my reading yet. But this latest idea is called The Global Meditation Project. (Note: There is some issue about the name, as I'm positive there is another, pre-existing GMP.)
I've had the pleasure of watching a small portion of this idea in gestation. It's not entirely random, and certain parts of what it has drawn together idealistically and through what sometimes seems a goofy array of sources (there's a bit of an anti-Westernism unfamiliar to the common political arguments) are supported--perhaps accidentally--by certain scientific trends. Unfortunately, for your purposes, I can imagine that some of what is stapled onto those reasonable trends is symbolic enough as to seem utter feldergarb.
There will be more than a few of these sorts of movements springing up in the near future as modern generations are afforded the sorts of spiritual questions that test the motives of religious faith. The process will be simple at first: Start with an idea or collection of ideas that bear certain effects, weave or meld those effects toward the desired effect, exploit the new symbology toward the preferred end. Very few movements following this process will endure, and it may be that, in the tradition of religious ideas, the more successful movements will find their sucess by accident of combining enough relevant factors as to warrant endurance. I can say on behalf of this particular movement, though, that while these are still human beings, they are at least striving to reach past the ideological sense of greed that tends toward ill-constructed paradigms. Insofar as humans are humans, though ... I admit there's a certain overconfidence I've noted in my exposure to the development of these ideas that will necessarily require accounting for in the future.
And all of this is a handy coincidence. There are signs among pagans of a newer paganism rising that I would probably enjoy greatly; I'm surprised at the ratio of tie-dye to gothic pagans I'm seeing these days. Any other day I would have pointed to that and tried to pull an exemplary genie out of my ass. Or perhaps I would have ridiculed the cyberworld post-Matrix Cave revival. Or maybe Alien Seed theories. I think Communism of the Cold War demonstrated that people can be compelled toward other all-encompassing ideas; Party and State definitely carried prestige in that system that was larger than life, and demonstrably so. Which brings me back to nations, patriotism, and other myths of convenience that have served us well in the past. I hope never to extinguish the irrational zeal of a breath caught on the two and two in the bottom of the ninth. I hope never to threaten the catharsis of a well-written novel or other well-made art. But these are as irrational as God, and barely of any greater functional value. And yet we get something in return from all this. Who am I to pick on The Matrix? After all, there's now thousands, if not millions of (ill-equipped) people now dwelling on a fundamental philosophical riddle who may never have stopped to think about it before. Why not pick on Farenheit 451?
Oh ... as to the twinge of a well-played love song .... no. There are no good love songs. Love songs are a waste of time, and cannot qualify as well-made art. Like drugs, love songs are extraneous and false excuses in lieu of something genuine. The twinge of a well-played love song is simply a sign that one needs to stop feeling sorry for themselves.
When I lived in Oregon, I knew people who gathered to play a ridiculous vampire game. It was, by almost any modern context, religious in its most visible aspect.
Perhaps people will make happiness a religion. Declare Happiness the Ultimate Cause of human existence. Of course, imagine the conflicts and unhappiness that will result from arguments over the weight of the maximized individual happiness and the sacrifice against that maximum made on behalf of a "collective" happiness? After all, some people's happiness seems to depend on other people's unhappiness.
I also came across an article, "Slot Machine God".
Such are the things thirteen year-olds put themselves through. It's an excerpt adapted from Blue Like Jazz: Non-Religious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality, by Donald Miller. I like it because as long as people can screw themselves so badly in their own hearts and minds that they will invent somebody to beg absolution of, they'll need something approximately like God.
How many times, hung over in college, could I be found lying on my back in the middle of the floor whispering, "Make it stop"? Who the hell was I talking to? Yet the process of appealing to something has a specific effect in the mind. I'd recommend Franny and Zooey in support of that effect, but it's been long enough since I've read the book that I'm not prepared to defend such a connection.
Sometimes it seems to have something to do with fundamental humanity. We are inquisitive. We do recognize the ideas of perfection, of flawlessness, of unity, of totality, and so forth. It may be that the problem lies with attempting to anthropomorphize those ideas, to draw them closer to us in order to imagine that we are that much closer to what they represent.
Which returns to the push for knowledge, and also to the question of "Knowledge in which context and toward what end?"
How about an infamous closing:
... er ... something approximately like that.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Try again, Chris.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Buddhism
1. Just so you know, Buddhism is not really a religion. Buddha never wanted anyone to "believe" in him, he was sort of the first psychotherapist, using self-awareness techiques to enlighten one to what is.
2. The suffering and bad effects of religion are not the fault of the religion, but of those who misunderstood it and pervert it because of human faults.
3. Life does not have to consist of suffering and death, there is a way to transcend these things. You should keep an open mind about it.
1. Just so you know, Buddhism is not really a religion. Buddha never wanted anyone to "believe" in him, he was sort of the first psychotherapist, using self-awareness techiques to enlighten one to what is.
2. The suffering and bad effects of religion are not the fault of the religion, but of those who misunderstood it and pervert it because of human faults.
3. Life does not have to consist of suffering and death, there is a way to transcend these things. You should keep an open mind about it.
Re: Buddhism
Originally posted by spidergoat
----------
1. Just so you know, Buddhism is not really a religion. Buddha never wanted anyone to "believe" in him, he was sort of the first psychotherapist, using self-awareness techiques to enlighten one to what is.
----------
(I tend to believe in Buddhist thought. I've attended Buddhist meditation (and then I was amazed when I got exactly what I meditated for! Those self-awareness techniques really, really work!)
----------
2. The suffering and bad effects of religion are not the fault of the religion, but of those who misunderstood it and pervert it because of human faults.
----------
(You are so right! Those human frailties (pride, greed, envy, etc.) are what perverted man-made religions. Why would anyone want to believe something perverted? It's mind-boggling.)
----------
3. Life does not have to consist of suffering and death, there is a way to transcend these things. You should keep an open mind about it.
----------
(Could you elaborate more on transcending suffering and death?)
Originally posted by spidergoat
----------
1. Just so you know, Buddhism is not really a religion. Buddha never wanted anyone to "believe" in him, he was sort of the first psychotherapist, using self-awareness techiques to enlighten one to what is.
----------
(I tend to believe in Buddhist thought. I've attended Buddhist meditation (and then I was amazed when I got exactly what I meditated for! Those self-awareness techniques really, really work!)
----------
2. The suffering and bad effects of religion are not the fault of the religion, but of those who misunderstood it and pervert it because of human faults.
----------
(You are so right! Those human frailties (pride, greed, envy, etc.) are what perverted man-made religions. Why would anyone want to believe something perverted? It's mind-boggling.)
----------
3. Life does not have to consist of suffering and death, there is a way to transcend these things. You should keep an open mind about it.
----------
(Could you elaborate more on transcending suffering and death?)
coolsoldier
Registered Senior Member
It seems that the VAST majority (I avoid saying "all" 
) of the posters in this thread are making the mistake that is made all too often on sciforums of begrudging the concept of religion it's bad implementation. Just because people have, through the years, messed up in it's implementation does not make it a bad thing. We could just as easily say that life has been bad for society because people have used their lives to kill, hurt, etc. Anybody want to go on a mission to end all life?
What?
Didn't think so.
) of the posters in this thread are making the mistake that is made all too often on sciforums of begrudging the concept of religion it's bad implementation. Just because people have, through the years, messed up in it's implementation does not make it a bad thing. We could just as easily say that life has been bad for society because people have used their lives to kill, hurt, etc. Anybody want to go on a mission to end all life? What?
Didn't think so.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Idealist bullbuckie - Religion is "just a concept" much like feudalism is "just a concept".
CA,
So how would you contrast the difference between the involuntary reality of life and any particular voluntary mindset used to perceive it?
I don’t see that either religion or feudalism have anything to do with idealism. Or are you saying that idealism is bullbuckie. What is bullbuckie, BTW?
So how would you contrast the difference between the involuntary reality of life and any particular voluntary mindset used to perceive it?
coolsoldier
Registered Senior Member
The same is true of religion. As long as it's around, everybody has to deal with its existence. Religion is prevalent enough you can't really just ignore it.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
The idealism refers to your philosophically approach to history. Do you view feudalism as "just a concept" and, if not why not?
(1) Yes. (2) A pathetic mispelling of bullpuckie. (Mine, not yours.)
I suspect that one would be an involuntary reality while the other would be no more than a particular voluntary mindset used to perceive it.