I'm not sure what is meant by terminally skeptical
My mother calls herself a "happy agnostic." By this she means she doesn't know if there is a god or not (thus, agnostic) and she doesn't care one way or the other (thus, happy).
By 'terminally' skeptical, in the context of this discussion ("Why religion?"), I mean that a person doubts there is a god (thus, skeptical) and no amount of proof will sway him from that doubt (thus, terminally).
As an illustration, if the terminally skeptical person was put in the place of doubting Thomas, he would be confident that the holes in Jesus' hands and feet were either the result of a surgical alteration in order to fool the naive (or something along those lines).
Caveat: please understand that I have nothing against a person who embraces that degree of skepticism, as long as that person does not try to evangelize through degredation of others.
Having said that, I am not disagreeing the thrust of your post. Skepticism is a good thing in general, particularly when dealing with other people. For example, terminal skepticism with politicians is probably a the wisest move: All politicians are crooks (skepticism), and no quantity of their words will convince me otherwise (terminal).
'Ya ever wonder why the most important thing to the gods is that you BELIEVE in them? One might think that they wanted you to do good works, help the poor, fight oppressors even build altars to all the gods. Heck SOMETHING like that but no.. Jehova, Isis and Osiris that I can think of right off demanded belief in their existance as being paramount in importance. You doubted their existance?? You got sent to the nether regions. Didn't matter diddly squat what good stuff you did. Or for that matter... how much BAD stuff you did as long as you said you were good and sorry about it. Just believe and all was forgiven.
It's almost like the gods' priests were setting the rules just to keep the adherents in lock step, huh? As long as the suckers believed, they could be controlled, no? But naw... that's just cynicism talking. Men of the gods wouldn't do anything like that.
Yeah, it would seem that The Almighty has some serious self-esteem issues. I mean, I'm all for demanding a little well -deserved respect, but the "Love me or burn in Hell" tactic is a might heavyhanded, no?
I'm also concerned with God's apparent spendthrift ways. Geeze, He's ALWAYS short of cash, and man, this time it's desperate. If He doesn't get some serious dough real soon - no questions asked - there'll be no telling how many cute kids He'll have to kill off.
Remind me again, just what is the appeal of all this stuff?
Yeah, it would seem that The Almighty has some serious self-esteem issues. I mean, I'm all for demanding a little well -deserved respect, but the "Love me or burn in Hell" tactic is a might heavyhanded, no?
I'm also concerned with God's apparent spendthrift ways. Geeze, He's ALWAYS short of cash, and man, this time it's desperate. If He doesn't get some serious dough real soon - no questions asked - there'll be no telling how many cute kids He'll have to kill off.
Remind me again, just what is the appeal of all this stuff?
I keep thinking I should have some words of wisdom to offer here but in truth how do I proceed to prove the apparent improvable? Sometimes things we gain personally from by means contrary to others just isn't sufficient to persuade others. Nor is anything you hold that opposes my understanding if it be contrary to what I know to be truth for me.
Could be there are some areas of life where we remain in disagreement.
I did have some other thoughts a bit outside of this though.
We would agree a standard should be set on things right? And if you do then are we basing that solely on what is touchable (all inclusive)?
Oak, if I adjusted that statement slightly to say that you won't believe something
only because everyone around you says it is true, would that be a fair change, or not?
In any event, that could apply to a lot of subjects besides religion.
As a corollary, I suppose there are people who will disbelieve something only because someone says it is tru, at least in certain cases.
Well, your change would be true, but no more representaive of my opinion than my original. The "everyone around me" addition would accurately apply to resistance to peer pressure.
Okay, Oak. The reason I asked was that I was wondering if some believed what was taught in TWI, it wasn't only because VPW or LCM or someone else said it was true, but because everyone around us was accepting what was said as well. That is, if everyone says it is true, it must be. Kind of like the per pressure you mentioned, but when you used that term Iguess I thought it more as not necessarily believing it, but not speaking up for fear of being ostracized (sp?). Not a lot of difference probably. But if we were taught rightly in TWI, it' still the wrong reason to believe something IMO.
And it (most people believing something because everyone else talks about it as if it were established fact) can happen in other realms, such as GS, or American public opinion, etc.
When it comes to bulls***, big-time, major league bulls***, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bulls*** story ever told.
Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man
living in the sky
who watches everything you do, every minute of every day.
And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.
And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you!
He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls*** story. Holy S***!
But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is f***** up.
Sounds like the person saying this should have really, really , really tried believing that there is also a supreme being referred to as Satan, Devil, Destroyer, Waster etc...!!
Thank you Raf. And now I understand why I didn't quite know it. I've had a hate/love opinion of George Carlin. His funny way of making you go hmmm was long before some of the young ones today realize. And his logic in humor certainly can't be denied. But he goes places I don't care for and the thing you brought was I reckon one of those places of his that I shut down on into the intro so didn't recognize it. Funny but without the name of the author I read it all. I don't even know if I should ask what that means. :blink:
The topic question(s) are simple - but the answers to those questions - OY VEY!!
So, Why Religion?
It would seem that the last few thousand years, virtually all cultures of mankind have had some kind of religion. So why does it exist? - (... and it obviously does exist)....
Let me take a shot
Kinda like water - it exists, too. Hard to imagine life without it - ya know?
Water: You can drown in it, fish in it, it has a drastic impact on our atmosphere, it comprises most of what we "are".
I can't imagine "human life" without it. So, can we create this wonderful stuff called water? Sure, get some H and O - and ignite - make more!
Eternity (in my analogy) is like Hydrogen. Finite life is like Oxygen.
As long as humans have a sense of "eternity" - and a seperate sense of their own finite existance: they will find a way to link these two. When you ignite these with the flame of the faith of possibility - you create religion!!
And then everybody gets all wet !! Actually, some will get water to quench their thirst to explain these two concepts of existance... some will use it to drown others...
Leo Tolstoy wrote about this topic in considerable depth. In my new religion, I am allowed to read a lot more!! :)
Well, now that the thread has had it's run, I guess I'll give my opinion.
Personally I think the "why" of religion is all about control. Life can be a scary place at times. And there's so much unknown, and, especially in our ancestors times, lots of dark and forboding places and even more frightening and heartbreaking events. Disease (entirely misunderstood until modern times), pestilence, starvation, predation, storms, earthquakes, calamities of all sorts were - and are - commonplace. Wouldn't it be nice if we had an invisible force that could fight for us? Help us out when things go wrong?
Well, sure. That would be wonderful. So, we made one. Well, not one, but many thousands of these superfriends. Yeah, they're entirely ineffective at doing much of anything, but are you going to be the one to question that when you're heading out of the cave for the mastodon hunt? I think not.
So that's all we have to do. Cook up an invisible, unknowable, unpercievable super ally who must be placated quite regularly. Make the consequences for NOT playing the game absolutely horrendous and the supposed benefits literally heavenly. Now who would dare NOT believe?
Then add to that mix the element of a special class of people who become the mediators for this invisible friend, who garner great acclaim and status - and material abundance - for doing this mediating. Now you have a portion of the civilization with power and control who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and will do most anything to keep the rest of us in compliance. And there you have it, religion.
You're welcome to play if you like. You'll pardon me if I choose not to...
once again, Geo (and Sudo), you seem to have reduced your definition of "religion" to your least favorite simple exclusive mythic theism (which, btw, only covers only a small fraction of what we call "religion", and...for some reason (unless i missed it) you've never really responded to this observation)
of course, there are countless obvious gifts of conventional rational thinking (gifts that keep on coming, too), but the new problems come in when things like skepticism get pathologically reductionist and exclusive and bitterly cynical, and somehow thinks this is the new pinnacle of thought that addresses all levels of human experience...when it simply cannot (though without healthy skepticism and rational science, we are also sorely lacking...have i said this enough?)
NOT all religious practice and behavior is "the opiate of the masses," although, when and if this kind of dissociative "storyline" is promoted (again, i am talking about the pathologically exclusive kind) and spreads to any sort of dominant status in a culture...we will see a new kind of dark age of supposed rationality, perhaps even one where physical death is not the main problem (though some might even prefer and pray for a plague to come)
Typical reasons for adherence to religion include the following:
"Experience or emotion": For many, the practice of a religion causes an emotional high that gives pleasure to them. Such emotional highs can come from the singing of traditional hymns to the trance-like states found in the practices of the Whirling Dervishes and Yoga, among others. People continue to associate with those practices that give pleasure and, in so far as it is connected with religion, join in religious organizations that provide those practices. Also, some people simply feel that their faith is true, and may not be able to explain their feelings.
"Supernatural connection": Most religions postulate a reality which includes both the natural and the supernatural. Most adherents of religion consider this to be of critical importance, since it permits belief in unseen and otherwise potentially unknowable aspects of life, including hope of eternal life.
"Rational analysis": For some, adherence is based on intellectual evaluation that has led them to the conclusion that the teachings of that religion most closely describe reality. Among Christians this basis for belief is often given by those influenced by C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, as well as some who teach young earth Creationism.
"Moderation": Many religions have approaches that produce practices that place limitations on the behaviour of their adherents. This is seen by many as a positive influence, potentially protecting adherents from the destructive or even fatal excesses to which they might otherwise be susceptible. Many people from many faiths contend that their faith brings them fulfillment, peace, and joy, apart from worldly interests.
"Authority": Most religions are authoritarian in nature, and thus provide their adherents with spiritual and moral role models, who they believe can bring highly positive influences both to adherents and society in general.
"Moral framework": Most religions see early childhood education in religion and spirituality as essential moral and spiritual formation, whereby individuals are given a proper grounding in ethics, instilling and internalizing moral discipline.
"Majesty and tradition": People can form positive views of religion based on the visible manifestations of religion, e.g., ceremonies which appear majestic and reassuringly constant, and ornate cloth.
"Community and culture": Organized religions promote a sense of community. The combination of moral and cultural common ground often results in a variety of social and support networks. Some ostensibly "religious" individuals may even have a substantially secular viewpoint, but retain adherence to religious customs and viewpoints for cultural reasons, such as continuation of traditions and family unity. Judaism, for example, has a particularly strong tradition of "secular" adherents.
"Fulfillment": Most traditional religions require sacrifice of their followers, but, in turn, the followers may gain much from their membership therein. Thus, they come away from experiences with these religions with the feeling that their needs have been filled. In fact, studies have shown that religious adherents tend to be happier and less prone to stress than non-religious people.
"Spiritual and psychological benefits": Each religion asserts that it is a means by which its adherents may come into closer contact with God, Truth, and Spiritual Power. They all promise to free adherents from spiritual bondage, and bring them into spiritual freedom. It naturally follows that a religion which frees its adherents from deception, sin, and spiritual death will have significant mental health benefits. Abraham Maslow's research after World War II showed that Holocaust survivors tended to be those who held strong religious beliefs (not necessarily temple attendance, etc), suggesting it helped people cope in extreme circumstances. Humanistic psychology went on to investigate how religious or spiritual identity may have correlations with longer lifespan and better health. The study found that humans may particularly need religious ideas to serve various emotional needs such as the need to feel loved, the need to belong to homogeneous groups, the need for understandable explanations and the need for a guarantee of ultimate justice. Other factors may involve sense of purpose, sense of identity, sense of contact with the divine. See also Man's Search for Meaning, by Victor Frankl, detailing his experience with the importance of religion in surviving the Holocaust. Critics assert that the very fact that religion was the primary selector for research subjects may have introduced a bias, and that the fact that all subjects were holocaust survivors may also have had an effect. According to [7], "more longitudinal research with better multidimensional measures will help further clarify the roles of these [religious] factors and whether they are beneficial or harmful".
"Practical benefits": Religions may sometimes provide breadth and scale for visionary inspirations in compassion, practical charity, and moral restraint. Christianity is noted for the founding of many major universities, the creation of early hospitals, the provision of food and medical supplies to the needy, and the creation of orphanages and schools, amongst other charitable acts. Many other religions (and non-religious organisations and individuals, eg: humanistic Oxfam) have also performed equivalent or similar work.
Modern reasons for rejecting religion
Typical reasons for rejection of religion include the following:
"Logical Contradiction": Many major world religions make the claim that they are the one true religion, and that all other religions are wrong (see Exclusivism). Logically, either one exclusive religion is right and all the others wrong, or else all exclusive religions are wrong. Since the vast majority of people believe in a religion they were taught before they were old enough to make a rational choice, it is more rational to reject all exclusive religions rather than to accept one for no better reason than an arbitrary birth.
"Logical Irrelevancy": Many people use logic to render religion pointless, regardless of their belief in the existence of God. God, by definition, cannot fail—ergo—God is successful. Therefore we can say and do anything we want without ever being a failure, because we are a reflection of a perfect universe created by God.
"Guilt and Fear": Many atheists, agnostics, and others see religion as a promoter of fear and conformity, causing people to adhere to it to shake the guilt and fear of either being looked down upon by others, or some form of punishment as outlined in the religious doctrines. In this way, religion can be seen as promotional of people pushing guilt onto others, or becoming fanatical (doing things they otherwise wouldn't if they were 'free' of religion), in order to shed their own guilt and fear ultimately generated by the religion itself. The "others" in this case being non-adherents to said religion. According to people who share this view, this can take forms such as: people looking down on others based on their non-adherence, to people preaching that others need something the religion can provide, all the way to global war.
"Irrational and unbelievable creeds": Some religions postulate a reality which may be seen as stretching credulity and logic, and even some believers may have difficulty accepting particular religious assertions about nature, the supernatural and the afterlife. Some people believe the body of evidence available to humans to be insufficient to justify certain religious beliefs. They may thus disagree with religious interpretations of ethics and human purpose, and theistic views of creation. This reason has perhaps been aggravated by the protestations of some fundamentalist Christians.
"Restrictiveness": Many religions have (or have had in the past) an approach that produces, or produced, practices that are considered by some people to be too restrictive, e.g., regulation of dress, and proscriptions on diet and activities on certain days of the week. Some feel that religion is the antithesis of prosperity, fun, enjoyment and pleasure. This causes them to reject it entirely, or to see it as only to be turned to in times of trouble.
"Self-promotion": Some individuals place themselves in positions of power and privilege through promotion of specific religious views, e.g., the Bhagwan/Osho interlude, Reverend Moon of the Unification Church (sometimes called Moonie movement), and other controversial new religious movements pejoratively called cults. Such self-promotion has tended to reduce public confidence in many things that are called "religion." Similarly, highly publicized cases of abuse by the clergy of several religions have tended to reduce public confidence in the underlying message.
"Promotion of ignorance": Many atheists, agnostics, and others see early childhood education in religion and spirituality as a form of brainwashing or social conditioning, essentially concurring with the Marxian view that "religion is the opiate of the masses", with addiction to it fostered when people are too young to choose.
"Dulling of the mind against reality": Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx developed atheist views that reality is sometimes painful, there is no God to assist people in dealing with it, and people must learn to deal with problems themselves in order to survive. Per this view, religion in modern times, while it may decrease pain in the short run by providing hope and optimism, in the long run hinders the ability of people to deal with their problems by providing false hope. Hence in 1844, in Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right', Marx said of religion, "It is the opiate [most likely in the traditional sense of an opium-like drug] of the masses." [8]
"Unsuitable moral systems in mainstream religions": Some argue that simplistic absolutism taught by some religions impairs a child's moral capacity to deal with a world of complex and varied temptations in which, in reality, is different than they have been brought up to think by religion.
"Unappealing forms of practice": People can form a negative view, based upon the manifestations of religion, e.g., ceremonies which appear boring, pointless and repetitive, arcane clothing, and exclusiveness in membership requirements.
"Detrimental effect on government": Many atheists, agnostics, and others believe that religion, because it insists that people believe certain claims "on faith" without sufficient evidence, hinders the rational/logical thought processes necessary for effective government. For example, a leader who believes that God will intervene to save humans from environmental disasters may be less likely to attempt to reduce the risk of such disasters through human action. Also, in many countries, religious organizations have tremendous political power, and in some countries can even control government almost completely. Disillusionment with forms of theocratic government, such as practiced in Iran, can lead people to question the legitimacy of any religious beliefs used to justify non-secular government.
"Detrimental effect on personal responsibility": Many atheists, agnostics, and others believe that many religions, because they state that God will intervene to help individuals who are in trouble, cause people to be less responsible for themselves. For example, a person who believes that God will intervene to save him if he gets into financial difficulties may conclude that it is unnecessary to be financially responsible himself. (Some believers, however, would consider this a misrepresentation of religion: they would say that God only helps people who take initiative themselves first.) This attitude can be taken to extremes: there are instances of believers refusing life-saving medical treatment (or even denying it to their children) because they believe that God will cure them. Many atheists, agnostics, and others also find the assertion that 'circumstances are overpowering because they are the will of God' to be a negation of personal responsibility.
"Tensions between proselytizing and secularizing": Increasingly secular beliefs have been steadily on the rise in many nations. An increasing acceptance of a secular worldview, combined with efforts to prevent "religious" beliefs from influencing society and government policy, may have led to a corresponding decline in religious belief, especially of more traditional forms.
"Cause of division and hatred": Some religions state that certain groups (particularly those that do not belong to the religion in question) are "inferior" or "sinful" and deserve contempt, persecution, and even death. For example, some Muslims believe that women are inferior to men. Some Christians share this belief. At the time of the American Civil War, many Southerners used passages from the Bible to justify slavery. The Christian religion has been used as a reason to persecute and to deny the rights of homosexuals, on the basis that God disapproves of homosexuality, and by implication homosexuals 1. Many people believe that those who do not share their religion will be punished for their unbelief in an afterlife. There are countless examples of people of one religion or sect using religion as an excuse to murder people with different religious beliefs. To mention just a few, there was the slaughter of the Huguenots by French Catholics in the Sixteenth Century; Hindus and Muslims killing each other when Pakistan separated from India in 1947; the persecution and killing of Shiite Muslims by Sunni Muslims in Iraq and the murder of Protestants by Catholics and vice versa in Ireland, (both of these examples in the late Twentieth Century); and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that continues today. According to some critics of religion, these beliefs can encourage completely unnecessary conflicts and in some cases even wars. Many atheists believe that, because of this, religion is incompatible with world peace, freedom, civil rights, equality, and good government.
there was a pre-modern era in human evolution, it seems, when art, morals and science were not seperate, but unified and developed together...the problem is that they more or less limited each other's growth by being so fully intertwined
then came modernity, when these basic 3 perspectives (1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person) were able to develop independently of each other...which allowed each to flourish greatly without the limits of the others...the problem is that they were now also often at war with one another (a war in which we hope no one actually wins).
with post-modern thought, the best of both previous eras are recognized and integrated, recognizing the true importance of the I, the WE and the IT, without marginalizing any one of them, or ranking any as superior to the other.
of course, with all new things come newer problems, and the mystery never ends...thank whatever...
rather than being inclusive with continued rational evaluations...post-modernity (bless its heart) can also take this all-inclusive non-superiority stance to a level of flat non-evaluating, non-judgemental extremes.
B)
btw - i wonder what post-post-modern might look like (and what else it can be called...for fashion's sake alone, we cant just keep adding more "posts"... :blink: ).
Another of the common problems with the rational arm of modernity when it sees itself as superior, is when it cannot tell the difference between pre and post-rational. Strict linear logic might see non-linear logic (such as higher forms of "vision-logic") as mere "religion" (which is a form of travesty, because it was this post-rational "gravity" (such as Einstien's) that lifts/lifted awareness up from pre-modern to modern in the first place...and continues to do so)
Also, when/if the strictly rational voice decides to somehow silence the pre-rational voices (and often simply for not being rational "like moi"), it may draw some to modernity, but the most pre-rational will simply dig in and try to get better at being more pre-rational (which illustrates quite a non-rational act on the part of the rational, to which problem they might simply respond with some sort of violence or force or immoral suppression as a last resort).
is the often growing degree of many elbows and disconnects between what fundamentalists claim their sacred texts mean, and the actual historical/philosophical/psychological significance of the characters and events and wisdom within (and it seems that in this earth:2005, not a sacred text or tradition has been spared from this, to one degree or another)
and this only seems to fuel some skeptics' misplaced antipathy towards all such texts and traditions
particularly when they will only cite the worst case examples for their arguments
and refuse to further examine the subject of religion/spirituallity from most any angle
(a subject so broad and complex i would call too wildly exotic to be so quickly reduced)
quite a circular mess, it seems
not to mention the ongoing problems of fragmentations and infighting and more recent hyper-fragmentations within each tradition
and how most all of human language itself is taking some abuse and going through some major metamorphs in forms of dialogue
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
14
31
16
Popular Days
Nov 5
28
Nov 2
14
Nov 12
10
Nov 3
9
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 9 posts
George Aar 14 posts
ChattyKathy 31 posts
Oakspear 16 posts
Popular Days
Nov 5 2005
28 posts
Nov 2 2005
14 posts
Nov 12 2005
10 posts
Nov 3 2005
9 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
I found this study (recently published in the L.A. Times) to be rather enlightening: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf (Don't be intimidated by the apparent length of it, the last half
markomalley
My mother calls herself a "happy agnostic." By this she means she doesn't know if there is a god or not (thus, agnostic) and she doesn't care one way or the other (thus, happy).
By 'terminally' skeptical, in the context of this discussion ("Why religion?"), I mean that a person doubts there is a god (thus, skeptical) and no amount of proof will sway him from that doubt (thus, terminally).
As an illustration, if the terminally skeptical person was put in the place of doubting Thomas, he would be confident that the holes in Jesus' hands and feet were either the result of a surgical alteration in order to fool the naive (or something along those lines).
Caveat: please understand that I have nothing against a person who embraces that degree of skepticism, as long as that person does not try to evangelize through degredation of others.
Having said that, I am not disagreeing the thrust of your post. Skepticism is a good thing in general, particularly when dealing with other people. For example, terminal skepticism with politicians is probably a the wisest move: All politicians are crooks (skepticism), and no quantity of their words will convince me otherwise (terminal).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Geo,
'Ya ever wonder why the most important thing to the gods is that you BELIEVE in them? One might think that they wanted you to do good works, help the poor, fight oppressors even build altars to all the gods. Heck SOMETHING like that but no.. Jehova, Isis and Osiris that I can think of right off demanded belief in their existance as being paramount in importance. You doubted their existance?? You got sent to the nether regions. Didn't matter diddly squat what good stuff you did. Or for that matter... how much BAD stuff you did as long as you said you were good and sorry about it. Just believe and all was forgiven.
It's almost like the gods' priests were setting the rules just to keep the adherents in lock step, huh? As long as the suckers believed, they could be controlled, no? But naw... that's just cynicism talking. Men of the gods wouldn't do anything like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
This thread has been very rewarding to read y'all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Sudo,
Yeah, it would seem that The Almighty has some serious self-esteem issues. I mean, I'm all for demanding a little well -deserved respect, but the "Love me or burn in Hell" tactic is a might heavyhanded, no?
I'm also concerned with God's apparent spendthrift ways. Geeze, He's ALWAYS short of cash, and man, this time it's desperate. If He doesn't get some serious dough real soon - no questions asked - there'll be no telling how many cute kids He'll have to kill off.
Remind me again, just what is the appeal of all this stuff?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Ugh Geo, I wouldn't like that God at all dude!
But I suspect I understand how you think that.
Just not what I hold onto myself but then you know this too well I reckon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Oak, if I adjusted that statement slightly to say that you won't believe something
only because everyone around you says it is true, would that be a fair change, or not?
In any event, that could apply to a lot of subjects besides religion.
As a corollary, I suppose there are people who will disbelieve something only because someone says it is tru, at least in certain cases.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I keep thinking I should have some words of wisdom to offer here but in truth how do I proceed to prove the apparent improvable? Sometimes things we gain personally from by means contrary to others just isn't sufficient to persuade others. Nor is anything you hold that opposes my understanding if it be contrary to what I know to be truth for me.
Could be there are some areas of life where we remain in disagreement.
I did have some other thoughts a bit outside of this though.
We would agree a standard should be set on things right? And if you do then are we basing that solely on what is touchable (all inclusive)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Okay, Oak. The reason I asked was that I was wondering if some believed what was taught in TWI, it wasn't only because VPW or LCM or someone else said it was true, but because everyone around us was accepting what was said as well. That is, if everyone says it is true, it must be. Kind of like the per pressure you mentioned, but when you used that term Iguess I thought it more as not necessarily believing it, but not speaking up for fear of being ostracized (sp?). Not a lot of difference probably. But if we were taught rightly in TWI, it' still the wrong reason to believe something IMO.
And it (most people believing something because everyone else talks about it as if it were established fact) can happen in other realms, such as GS, or American public opinion, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hmmm...you do have a point. Oftentimes in TWI I didn't necessarily believe something, but kept my mouth shut
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Every now and then, I'm reminded of this...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Sounds like the person saying this should have really, really , really tried believing that there is also a supreme being referred to as Satan, Devil, Destroyer, Waster etc...!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Raf,
Who wrote it please?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Why religion? I guess because many people have some type of unexplainable, transcendant/spiritual type experience.
Not all religions are authoritarian and fear motivated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I apologize for not including the name. It's a rather famous skit, but obviously not that famous. I have posted it before, though.
George Carlin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Thank you Raf. And now I understand why I didn't quite know it. I've had a hate/love opinion of George Carlin. His funny way of making you go hmmm was long before some of the young ones today realize. And his logic in humor certainly can't be denied. But he goes places I don't care for and the thing you brought was I reckon one of those places of his that I shut down on into the intro so didn't recognize it. Funny but without the name of the author I read it all. I don't even know if I should ask what that means. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Geo:
Interesting topic!!! - :D
The topic question(s) are simple - but the answers to those questions - OY VEY!!
So, Why Religion?
It would seem that the last few thousand years, virtually all cultures of mankind have had some kind of religion. So why does it exist? - (... and it obviously does exist)....
Let me take a shot
Kinda like water - it exists, too. Hard to imagine life without it - ya know?
Water: You can drown in it, fish in it, it has a drastic impact on our atmosphere, it comprises most of what we "are".
I can't imagine "human life" without it. So, can we create this wonderful stuff called water? Sure, get some H and O - and ignite - make more!
Eternity (in my analogy) is like Hydrogen. Finite life is like Oxygen.
As long as humans have a sense of "eternity" - and a seperate sense of their own finite existance: they will find a way to link these two. When you ignite these with the flame of the faith of possibility - you create religion!!
And then everybody gets all wet !! Actually, some will get water to quench their thirst to explain these two concepts of existance... some will use it to drown others...
Leo Tolstoy wrote about this topic in considerable depth. In my new religion, I am allowed to read a lot more!! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, now that the thread has had it's run, I guess I'll give my opinion.
Personally I think the "why" of religion is all about control. Life can be a scary place at times. And there's so much unknown, and, especially in our ancestors times, lots of dark and forboding places and even more frightening and heartbreaking events. Disease (entirely misunderstood until modern times), pestilence, starvation, predation, storms, earthquakes, calamities of all sorts were - and are - commonplace. Wouldn't it be nice if we had an invisible force that could fight for us? Help us out when things go wrong?
Well, sure. That would be wonderful. So, we made one. Well, not one, but many thousands of these superfriends. Yeah, they're entirely ineffective at doing much of anything, but are you going to be the one to question that when you're heading out of the cave for the mastodon hunt? I think not.
So that's all we have to do. Cook up an invisible, unknowable, unpercievable super ally who must be placated quite regularly. Make the consequences for NOT playing the game absolutely horrendous and the supposed benefits literally heavenly. Now who would dare NOT believe?
Then add to that mix the element of a special class of people who become the mediators for this invisible friend, who garner great acclaim and status - and material abundance - for doing this mediating. Now you have a portion of the civilization with power and control who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and will do most anything to keep the rest of us in compliance. And there you have it, religion.
You're welcome to play if you like. You'll pardon me if I choose not to...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... kinda similar to what George Carlin said.
Bravo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
once again, Geo (and Sudo), you seem to have reduced your definition of "religion" to your least favorite simple exclusive mythic theism (which, btw, only covers only a small fraction of what we call "religion", and...for some reason (unless i missed it) you've never really responded to this observation)
perhaps this might be worth reading: Wikipedia: Religion
of course, there are countless obvious gifts of conventional rational thinking (gifts that keep on coming, too), but the new problems come in when things like skepticism get pathologically reductionist and exclusive and bitterly cynical, and somehow thinks this is the new pinnacle of thought that addresses all levels of human experience...when it simply cannot (though without healthy skepticism and rational science, we are also sorely lacking...have i said this enough?)
NOT all religious practice and behavior is "the opiate of the masses," although, when and if this kind of dissociative "storyline" is promoted (again, i am talking about the pathologically exclusive kind) and spreads to any sort of dominant status in a culture...we will see a new kind of dark age of supposed rationality, perhaps even one where physical death is not the main problem (though some might even prefer and pray for a plague to come)
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Heerz a paste that might help...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
there was a pre-modern era in human evolution, it seems, when art, morals and science were not seperate, but unified and developed together...the problem is that they more or less limited each other's growth by being so fully intertwined
then came modernity, when these basic 3 perspectives (1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person) were able to develop independently of each other...which allowed each to flourish greatly without the limits of the others...the problem is that they were now also often at war with one another (a war in which we hope no one actually wins).
with post-modern thought, the best of both previous eras are recognized and integrated, recognizing the true importance of the I, the WE and the IT, without marginalizing any one of them, or ranking any as superior to the other.
of course, with all new things come newer problems, and the mystery never ends...thank whatever...
rather than being inclusive with continued rational evaluations...post-modernity (bless its heart) can also take this all-inclusive non-superiority stance to a level of flat non-evaluating, non-judgemental extremes.
B)
btw - i wonder what post-post-modern might look like (and what else it can be called...for fashion's sake alone, we cant just keep adding more "posts"... :blink: ).
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Another of the common problems with the rational arm of modernity when it sees itself as superior, is when it cannot tell the difference between pre and post-rational. Strict linear logic might see non-linear logic (such as higher forms of "vision-logic") as mere "religion" (which is a form of travesty, because it was this post-rational "gravity" (such as Einstien's) that lifts/lifted awareness up from pre-modern to modern in the first place...and continues to do so)
Also, when/if the strictly rational voice decides to somehow silence the pre-rational voices (and often simply for not being rational "like moi"), it may draw some to modernity, but the most pre-rational will simply dig in and try to get better at being more pre-rational (which illustrates quite a non-rational act on the part of the rational, to which problem they might simply respond with some sort of violence or force or immoral suppression as a last resort).
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
yet another blah blah blah from me on this...
another common travesty i observe...
is the often growing degree of many elbows and disconnects between what fundamentalists claim their sacred texts mean, and the actual historical/philosophical/psychological significance of the characters and events and wisdom within (and it seems that in this earth:2005, not a sacred text or tradition has been spared from this, to one degree or another)
and this only seems to fuel some skeptics' misplaced antipathy towards all such texts and traditions
particularly when they will only cite the worst case examples for their arguments
and refuse to further examine the subject of religion/spirituallity from most any angle
(a subject so broad and complex i would call too wildly exotic to be so quickly reduced)
quite a circular mess, it seems
not to mention the ongoing problems of fragmentations and infighting and more recent hyper-fragmentations within each tradition
and how most all of human language itself is taking some abuse and going through some major metamorphs in forms of dialogue
...
peace all
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.