It also can lead to intense spiritual developement; just look at an order like the Jesuits, who were founded with around the concept of meditation and prayer; or the Franciscans, or Domincans; or Cistercians, or Buddhists, or any religion where there is a focus on the human's relation to something outside of their selves. There are millions of books out there about from organized religions stressing the importance of spiritual developement.
Rhester; Thoughtful questions as always and I'm going to tack on my answers to Rhadmanthus'. I think Rhad is somewhat paraphrasing what I wrote but I don't believe religion has decayed away or is irrelevant in its cultural function and still serves as a communal guide and structure. That we live in a pluralistic society there are many societies and many religions but considering how many people still go to Church or temple on holy days or just look at how many Muslims even here in America are following Ramadan and Hindus Diwali I think its obvious that the cultural and organizing function of religion is still strong. The whole nature of the "Culture War" is an example of the ongoing strength of religion where the culture that is being advocated by particular religious views is in conflict with the modern secular culture. Politics is the organization and governing of people and the larger the group the greater the politics. Whether its a religious or any other group that's going to be the case. I don't think its inevitable that it leads to persecution but that is an inherent risk in any ideologically defined group. As the group gets larger and more diverse differing opinions and interpretations will arise and sooner or later factions will develop with some defending an orthodoxy in regard to the ideology and those arguing for counter interpretations. Whichever group ends up with less political power will end up claiming persecution. While religion as I said fulfills a social structuring function I think it was Wizkid or Hotballa who mentioned that its important also as a support system for one's individual beliefs by practicing it in a structured environment with a fellowship of other believers. I agree with that and which is why in the Buddhism the Sangha is so important as providing a mutual support system for those seeking enlightenment. Even those who meditate on their own are still with the Sangha but have broadened there view of the Sangha beyond a group of human Buddhists but to the whole of existence. Limited rational merit I would agree with because faith by nature asks one to go beyond the rational but I wouldn't claim it has no merit and I believe as humans we need faith. The way I think about it is this way. Cows don't have much of a sense of the passage of time or of meaning. To a cow you are there chewing your cud and there isn't much beyond that. If one cow in the pasture were to suddenly drop dead it wouldn't affect the other cows and they would continue to chew their cud unaware that one of their brethren is dead. To humans though we percieve the passage of time and if one of us were to suddenly drop dead we would perceive it and recognize that at one point they were there and then now they're not. Further we perceive that we ourselves grow older and that our time isn't finite. We are aware of death and imbue it with a meaning since its inevitable. There is no rational answer to what happens after we die or even why we are here in the first place only the awareness that we exist now and the knowledge that at somepoint we won't. As thinking beings we need to give some meaning to those two questions and faith is the way we do that.
There is no purpose in life. There are no answers. Be in the here and now. There is no past and there is no future. For the future and the past is in the now. Embrace it; for that is the purpose and the answer.
Let me suggest two kinds of faith and two kinds of religion. Faith- 1. Based upon personal trust (knowing a person) 2. Based upon perceived truth (believing an idea is true) The first could result in believing in a parent or teacher; listening to them and learning from them for example. The second could result in trusting an idea or knowledge resulting in making a particular choice; depending on a pilot flying a commercial jet for example. If there is no supernatural then the first faith is meaningless as far as religion goes (unless we want to worship trees because they are trees or people because they are people) The second faith doesnot require trust in another entity so it can be called faith in ones own perception of truth. Religion- 1. The belief in the supernatural. 2. The beliefs that are causative of man's choices. The first could result in deity worship or deity interaction. The second requires no deity but does require a system of belief. If there is no supernatural then the first definition is delusional. The second definition just replaces 'god' with man. What is the point? Good question, I am not sure. I think I am saying that what looks like pure secular human reason, logic and truth to you- may look like a religious belief system to me when it comes to moral and mortal issues. Bob Dylan said we all 'gotta serve somebody'
Why can't I choose to not be in the here and now. The purpose of life is simply to be alive? What does it mean to be in the here and now? What does the cryptic statement, the future and the past is in the now mean? What are we to embrace again? Vague answers? (Sorry just playing devil's advocate)
I have time this morning for a good debate. Typical. Yes, I am borrowing from your previous comments. In particular, I agree that religion in the past was a focal point for cultural development. That being said, I think you misinterpreted the point of the "decay" comment. One could quite successfully argue that religion and culture are intrinsic. I would not say that to achieve one requires the other, but I think it fair to state that both feed off each other naturally. However, religion should be distinct from cultural activity enough that the underlying tenets of said religion are not lost or misconstrued. That is the decay I was referring to. Not that the cultural development associated with religion has laxed, but that the culture side of the equation has turned religion into a socially regulating body, i.e., a political institution. I don't disagree. "Man, by nature, is a political animal." That being said, politics pollutes the purpose of religion. I would argue that many church's have turned their sole purpose from "saving" people to maintaining the status quo. This is counterintuitive to me. As I previously said, I don't view faith or religion as immalleable. Regardless, it disengenious for religions to tout such noble motivation, when in reality they are simply trying to make everyone be like them. When your motivation ceases to be religious conversion and enlightenment, and becomes religious persecution and restriction, the true motivation for the whole operation becomes clear: Fear. "Terror of the unknown" as Russell calls it. You mention this later in your post, so I'll hold off discussing it until then. One last point though - you state that "I think its obvious that the cultural and organizing function of religion is still strong." Using the above argument, the persecution and restrictions I mention are counterpoint to your claim. We see this over and over in science. The fear that drives people to rationally choose the irrational has driven them to fear and restrict anything that infringes on their traditional faith-based views, regardless of the proven scientific merit. More importantly, these developments in science are ambivalent to faith - no scientific paper is forcing people to abandon a religion, but we see people constantly attempting the opposite. This is detrimental to society and culture - and it is not strictly with regard to science. We see age-old interpretations of religious doctrine being forced upon entire nations, regardless of whether "modern secular culture" is the intention. That is not a "conflict", that is tyranny. I don't believe people capable of simply worshipping together. It always degenerates to persecution of those who don't believe similarly. Rationally, after death nothing happens - our bodies decay and we cease to exist physically or otherwise. It is perfectly understandable that this is an uncomfortable inevitability. But it is wholly unacceptable to use one's personal faith on the matter as a reason to impart such misery on those who disagree. Furthermore, dogma and cultural philosophy have usurped the focal point of religion. Do I think people trying to restrict gay marriage are really concerned for those people at death? Not really. I think it primarily motivated by aversion to the unfamaliar and traditionally restricted. It's an "I'm better than you" mentality and it's reprehensible; especially when touted by christian groups, whose faith centers on everyone being a sinner before god. Meh - I'll stop before I get sidetracked... It's really strange. I consider myself spiritual, I believe in a higher power, yet I don't see the point of organized religion. It's simply a gathering of like minded people finding solace in their bigotry via people who think the same. I don't need someone to think the same as me, or act the same as me to prove themselves spiritually worthy. Frankly, following some man-made or man-interpreted dogma is so far removed from faith it's completely illogical to assume organized religion is any more than a social institution, much like a government, and similarly corrupt and cruel.
Rhadmanthus; Some good points but unfortunately I don't have a lot of time this morning for a good debate and will try to get back to you later.
I would like to comment- for your consideration. 1. "Rationally, after death nothing happens - our bodies decay and we cease to exist physically or otherwise. It is perfectly understandable that this is an uncomfortable inevitability." In a physical sense this reasoning is rational. We can observe physical decay. It is not irrational to think that consciousness goes beyond a physical life. In a moral sense it is irrational to think otherwise. You possess a conscience, knowledge and judgment. You cannot deny you are a moral being. You make choices based upon your own perception of what is right or wrong. That makes the choice moral instead of instinctive or causative. Only humans make moral choice. The moral nature of man places conscience, knowledge and judgment (choice) in a separate category from all other beings or objects. People do not think of life after death because they have physical bodies but because they have moral consciousness. 2. " But it is wholly unacceptable to use one's personal faith on the matter as a reason to impart such misery on those who disagree. Furthermore, dogma and cultural philosophy have usurped the focal point of religion. Do I think people trying to restrict gay marriage are really concerned for those people at death? Not really. I think it primarily motivated by aversion to the unfamaliar and traditionally restricted. It's an "I'm better than you" mentality and it's reprehensible; especially when touted by christian groups, whose faith centers on everyone being a sinner before god. Meh - I'll stop before I get sidetracked..." You are right there is no reason to impart misery on others especially when in disagreement. But let's say that you ate a poisonous plant while out hiking and I knew you were going to die a horrible painful death within hours; I would not impart this knowledge to you just because I was aware of your future misery, but I might impart that knowledge to you if I knew where the anticdote was and I needed to convince you to immediately get some.- That might be an act of kindness. Suppose my son stepped on a thorn and ran away from me with it imbedded in his foot (where it will likely become infected) should I respect his right to lose his foot if he wants or do I have some duty to hold him tightly while he cries and cut out the thorn, and then apply medicines. The motives and reasons of imparting messages and information can be out of duty, love, kindness and humility. You can usually tell if a messanger has these qualities. 3. "It's really strange. I consider myself spiritual, I believe in a higher power, yet I don't see the point of organized religion. It's simply a gathering of like minded people finding solace in their bigotry via people who think the same. I don't need someone to think the same as me, or act the same as me to prove themselves spiritually worthy. Frankly, following some man-made or man-interpreted dogma is so far removed from faith it's completely illogical to assume organized religion is any more than a social institution, much like a government, and similarly corrupt and cruel" - I think you listed most every wrong reason a Christian should gather together. But there is a right reason. Jesus Christ told us to love one another in the same way we love ourselves. By seeing the value in another person, by giving and sharing life, by loving and respecting and valuing one another we find that our differences are not given to us to divide us, but they are given to complete us. We become whole. But those kind of human 'organizations' require special qualities- sincerity, humility, unselfishness and upright moral character. Those ingredients are hard to find in groups. I think I could trace every problem in the world today to a relationship conflict. Someone could not love someone else, or forgive, or share, respect and value. If broken relationships could be healed to acheive the 'love' I've described then there would be a very good purpose for gathering together. Instead of gathering for agendas we would gather for relationships. My wife believes I think she is the most valuable human being on earth. That is love's job. I have lots of faults but I focus my efforts on loving her. I think there are qualities for you to discover that might change your view of some of those who are parts of religious groups. IMHO But I do understand your disdain for organized religion generally. The track record is horrendous. Look for the rainbow in this storm.
Strictly speaking, our conscience, knowledge and judgment are contained within the neural network of our brain. As it decays, so do the neurons that collectively define our memory and morals. That literalist interpretation aside, I do not wholly disagree with you. It is one thing to attempt to spread one's faith. This is no different than trying to change one's political viewpoint. If you feel you are correct, the natural inclination is to try to get others to see the same way. But it's different when you cease to try to change one's behavior out of benevolence and instead force the conversion via legislation/restrictions/persecution. Not only is it wrong, in my opinion, from the standpoint of free will - it is so easily corrupted. Well, yes but... You speak my complaint already. In groups, the pleasent qualities you describe are unachievable. Especially when the subject is as personal and fervent as religious redemption. Well said and understood. If you only look for the negative, that's all you'll find.
Thanks for your response. Now I have two questions if you get time. If you found a group of people expressing just a portion of those qualities and experiencing a measure of the relationship you said was 'unacheivable' would it make an impression on you? What characteristics in a religious group would you have to observe (understanding human nature) to allow you to make an exception to your view of organized religion? Thanks
Not a fair question really. Yes it would, I guess. Good question - here are a few off the top of my head: 1) Acceptance that not everyone has the same beliefs. 2) Ambivalence towards society. I.e., society should decide things that are best (fair) for the group as a whole and refrain from being a battleground for moral superiority. 3) The understanding that dogma and ritual are man-made, and as such are inappropriate to view as beliefs. One's faith should be constantly changing and altering as you grow, not stagnant after you learn the basics in sunday school.
Rhadamanthus; I don't have time to give you a more indepth response but wanted to get back to some of your points. Rhester's already answered as well as I could the issue of how the awareness of death leads to faith but I wanted to get back to you on your political comments As I said before though any ideologically based organization is liable to become a persecuting organization that through force, political and otherwise, will attempt to force its beliefs on the rest of society. Religion as we all agree is a political institution because it deals with the organizing of a group of people. Further in a pluralistic society where there are many other political institutions and organizations religion will inevitably play a role as an influencing factor just as much as say one's hometown will influence someone to vote for the person from that hometown. Religion as a repository and maintainer of certain cultural values will also influence people in how they act and what they advocate politically in the wider society but just because they play a role doesn't mean that they will inevitably become the ogre you're making religion out to be. The main issue for you I believe is that you're seeing it as a bad thing and that this will automatically lead to persecution. I would disagree there because while yes on the surface it is difficult to reconcile spiritual views with scientific and secular views and that traditional social values in many religions may also clash with more permissive views many people are able to be deal with those seemingly conflicting viewpoints. I believe that as thinking beings most of us are able to hold sometimes contradictory thoughts, for instance be both a believer in the Biblical account of Genesis while also accepting Darwinian Evolution or being a devout Christian who supports Gay Marriage. It comes down to be able to compartmentalize our views to fit into the larger complex society that we live in. Another aspect of this is that the major religions aren't monolithic in their views and that many of their world views differ along with how they relate to the pluralistic society. I don't think there is anything inevitable about that any organized religion will lead to persecution and impositions of their beliefs on a pluralistic society anymore than its inevitable that a secular based ideology would do the same. People and society are more complicated and more adaptable than that.
This is a good thread. I appreciate rhester's openness concerning discussion of his faith. I also like p*rnography. The dichotomy produced between these two options confuses and sometimes enrages me. I take it back.....this thread sucks. I'm going to go look at some internet porno. Probably something with a nun and a llama in it.
