The rejection of organized religion

[Rodya]

i've noticed alot of people who think themselves to be very intelligent because they reject all forms of organized religio in favor of their own specific brand of spirituality, which usually involves poorly thought out ideas and no real philosohpical value whatsoever.

I mena, this i pretty much like saying "No, no, no, 2,000 years of theologians and catholic doctrine are all wrong. I, who happen ot have no background in any sort of theology or philosophy, know better."
Like, do people actually think that they are as intelligent on the matter of the existence of God as the theologians and philoshers of major religions? If this is the case, than they have a serious problem with their hubris.


Because I know about the Catholic Church most, I'll use it as an example. The only two systems that use the idea of accepting and working off of previous ideas to create new concepts and to thus progress knowledge are the scientific community (with the scientific method) and the Roman Catholic Church (with it's history of doctrine and tradition). Scientists are able to develope new ideas because they have old ideas to work off of, For example Einstein couldn't have developed his theory of relativity if it hadn't been for Copernicus, Gallileo, and Newton, developing their own theories centureis earlier. The same is true about the Chruch, theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas progress offthe work of earlier theologians. Now imaine if there as a scientist, and he said "Nope, the scientific method is all wrong, I have a better idea" and he started from scratch to create his own version of science. That would be absolutely ludicrous and he would be seen as a pseudoscientist or worse. "Free thinkers" who reject millenia of theological and philosophical thought in favor of their own personal religion are committing the same logical fallacy.

I know that sciene and religion are not the same, bt the system that the church and the scientific community are using are defiently simmilar in certain very important aspects.

What do you guys think? Are there those among you who are free thinkers and reject religion?

 

[Nibiru]

I reject religion for the most part, but I read a lot of religious books. I follow religion a lot and speak to open members of different religions. After reading more than a hundred different religious texts you start to realize it's all good and it's all bad and between the lines it all is getting at the same thing. I've definitely developed my own personal spiritual system, but I certainly didn't do it while disregarding theological tradition.

 

[The_Idler]

Now imaine if there as a scientist, and he said "Nope, the scientific method is all wrong, I have a better idea" and he started from scratch to create his own version of science. That would be absolutely ludicrous and he would be seen as a pseudoscientist or worse. "Free thinkers" who reject millenia of theological and philosophical thought in favor of their own personal religion are committing the same logical fallacy.

Apart from the fact that the scientist would be rejecting a system, designed purely to interpret and understand the phenomena of the universe,
whilst the "Free Thinker" would be rejecting a system, designed purely to control and exploit the human race.

 

[Rodya]

hello idler,
i see your one of those zeitgeist zealots, good for you, i personally believe in a few conspiracy theories myself, for example JFK wasactually killed by the aliens who crash landed at roswell who in turn crashed because they tried to simultaneously kill Martin Luther King and Lincoln at the same time (for irony) by time travelling.

I am a Roman Catholic, how exactly am I being exploited?


And Nibiru, you seem to be a rarity, someone who is actually knowledgeable about the subject, an exception. But I have to ask you, what do you find so disagreeable in the vrious world religions that you substitute your own?

 

[The_Idler]

hello rodya,
i see you like to make over-generalized conclusions about someone, based upon a single written sentence of theirs, good for you, you'd probably enjoy the mind-numbing oversimplification of that intellectual blasphemy and cognitive abhorrence that is subscription to organized religion.

The church is not such an effective tool of control nowadays, because so many people in positions of (political and academic) power realised the church's agenda, so the believers today are a remnant, because the ideas of organized religion are still appealing to some people.

And Rodya, you seem to be altogether too common, someone who assumes that I am not "actually knowledgeable about the subject", and also some kind of conspiracy zealot, based upon one statement about the historically exploitative nature of the Church. But I have to ask yo- in fact no, I've nothing to ask you. You are not only a fool, but also a little dick.

Your behaviour fits wonderfully into the international stereotype of Americans.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I reject religion for the most part, but I read a lot of religious books. I follow religion a lot and speak to open members of different religions. After reading more than a hundred different religious texts you start to realize it's all good and it's all bad and between the lines it all is getting at the same thing. I've definitely developed my own personal spiritual system, but I certainly didn't do it while disregarding theological tradition.

This is pretty much where I'm at. Except that I haven't rejected organized religion actively per se, but just quit it and haven't found another one I've felt called to join. I won't discount the possibility of being some kind of adherent again at some point in my life. But until then, I'm just fine forging my own path.

I think the appeal of personal spirituality over organized religion to many these days, especially many present and former psychedelic drug users, is that it cuts out the middleman, and is tailor made to YOU. You are not forced to re-form [sic] what you know and feel to be the true nature of reality under anyone else's paradigm, or in anyone else's terms.

Think of it this way: if God is all-loving, how could God love somebody who conforms to a group more than one who doesn't? You don't keep the rules of organized religion for God's sake. It's the tradition, the collective sense of solidarity and connectedness to your present day community, as well as your deceased ancestors upon whose shoulders you stand, which commits you to your particular organized religion of choice, if you choose one at all. It's for their sake, and your own, that you commit. This connectedness to other people becomes a model, a training exercise, a stepping stone, and many other shitty analogies, for the ultimate goal of all spirituality: the realization of your inherent oneness with the big everything.

I mention psychedelic drug use because it's a form of mysticism, really. One that has drawbacks to be sure, but a rough and ancient form of firsthand spiritual education, that no authority figure has ever succeeded in stamping out. Did you know that witches on broomsticks originated as young female mystics who would fly through astral planes on an intervaginal quid containing, among other psychotropic herbs, Scottish broom? Did you know that their secret drug fueled fire dances in forest clearings evolved into today's raves?

In any case, always try to be compassionate toward those who reject organize religion. It's certainly not for everyone, and there are many reasons, including ones outside of the rejecter's control, which can lead someone to having bad associations with it.

 

[Rodya]

The Idler-


can you prove that the goal and intent of the Church is to exploit people?
right now all you've said is that the Church is an effective tool for control; this proves nothing. You cant accuse someone of a crime just because they would be very good at committing it, or because they seem to be able to do the crime easily.

And I don't know if organized religion leads to oversimplification, I would think that if there were hundreds of thousands (or some very big number) of people developing a theory, it would be alot more complex than one man's personal subjective theory. Unless you can claim to do the same amount of work and to go as in depth as the thousands of Catholic theologians (or any other religion's theologians) did, I really think that the only reason you think that your personal religion is better is because your filled with hubris.

The fact that you see organized religion as overly simple, and your own personal theories as infinitely more complex and superior is proof enough that you are, so to speak, full of yourself.


(Just for the sake of clarifying, I don;t personally have anything against you and i'm sure our a wonderful person, any attacks I make are for the sake of argument)

 

[Rodya]

This is pretty much where I'm at. Except that I haven't rejected organized religion actively per se, but just quit it and haven't found another one I've felt called to join. I won't discount the possibility of being some kind of adherent again at some point in my life. But until then, I'm just fine forging my own path.

I think the appeal of personal spirituality over organized religion to many these days, especially many present and former psychedelic drug users, is that it cuts out the middleman, and is tailor made to YOU. You are not forced to re-form [sic] what you know and feel to be the true nature of reality under anyone else's paradigm, or in anyone else's terms.

Think of it this way: if God is all-loving, how could God love somebody who conforms to a group more than one who doesn't? You don't keep the rules of organized religion for God's sake. It's the tradition, the collective sense of solidarity and connectedness to your present day community, as well as your deceased ancestors upon whose shoulders you stand, which commits you to your particular organized religion of choice, if you choose one at all. It's for their sake, and your own, that you commit. This connectedness to other people becomes a model, a training exercise, a stepping stone, and many other shitty analogies, for the ultimate goal of all spirituality: the realization of your inherent oneness with the big everything.

I mention psychedelic drug use because it's a form of mysticism, really. One that has drawbacks to be sure, but a rough and ancient form of firsthand spiritual education, that no authority figure has ever succeeded in stamping out. Did you know that witches on broomsticks originated as young female mystics who would fly through astral planes on an intervaginal quid containing, among other psychotropic herbs, Scottish broom? Did you know that their secret drug fueled fire dances in forest clearings evolved into today's raves?

In any case, always try to be compassionate toward those who reject organize religion. It's certainly not for everyone, and there are many reasons, including ones outside of the rejecter's control, which can lead someone to having bad associations with it.

I really use organized religion for one purpose, and that is to provide moral guidelines to help me live a worthwhile life, I like Catholic morality, especially what they say about the importance of humility, helping the weak, and hope, so i've latched on to Catholicism. However, theres a whole bunch of things i don't agree with, for example the Church's views on homosexuality, etc. So I'm a Catholic by a very loose definition of what a Catholic is.

You have a very valid point with the idea that psychedelic drug use is a form of mysticism. (I especially liked the anecdote about witch's and their broomsticks).

The main people I'm concerned about are those who feel that their personal religious beliefs are superoir to organized religions (The Idler, for instance). I'm only engaging him in a friendly debate in order to gain more insight into where he's coming from and to hopefully get him to change his mind or to at least change his mind about organized religion being a "mind-numbing oversimplfication".

 

[The_Idler]

Think of it this way: if God is all-loving, how could God love somebody who conforms to a group more than one who doesn't?

This is my main problem with the Abrahamic religions, at least.

The fact that the texts and religious authorities demand that people adhere to their word, in order to be saved, while most of the most beneficent and altruistic human beings on the planet did not, and so were not saved.

The fact that God is simultaneously portrayed as perfectly, universally loving, and also supremely jealous.
The most probable explanation for THAT being in the Book, is to convince people to join and do what the God man says.

and rodya, you really need to STOP jumping to conclusions.
Why do you think that i consider "my personal theories" infinitely more complex than those of organized religion?
Why do you even suppose that i follow my own personal religion?

I'm siding with you on this argument, my only problem was with your comparison to a scientist.

I agree with you, though, WRT the modern-day explosion of these "My Little God™" theories.
If people are going to believe in God, I think they should be accepting most or all of the combined works of thousands of years of theological thinking.
I feel that, if people are going to have faith, they shouldn't be only committing to the tiny proportion of an idea that makes them feel comfortable. That defeats the object of FAITH and is an insult to the history of the religion.

Also, here's a little cheap answer for you...
I have this problem with all faith. The more complicated and yet vague a theory becomes (like all powerful beings, etc.), the more improbable it is.
I couldn't have faith (act as if it is certainly true) in something, because I must acknowledge that anything is possible.
I don't believe anything, because the deeper your explanation of what happened, the less likely it is to be true.

I do, however, consider the teachings of organized religion to be perfectly reasonable theories. More reasonable, than anything someone just came up with, because they couldn't be bothered to go to church.

I find "My Little God™" theories to be EXTREMELY annoying. When I try to discuss a particular aspect of the rituals or a particular passage of the Bible with a believer, only to find that my point doesn't apply, because they decided (probably there and then) that they don't include that bit in their idea of God.

I've heard definitions of the word God, so completely different to His supposed nature, that I've had to inform those believers that, whatever it is they believe in, it isn't God, because I got the general consensus of millions of people, over thousands of years about what God is, so I think it's about time they just admitted that they weren't comfortable about it all and snap out of their denial about the state of their relationship with the Creator.

 

[The_Idler]

The main people I'm concerned about are those who feel that their personal religious beliefs are superoir to organized religions .

WELL shit, so am I!




yaknow,
like people who...

don't agree with, for example the Church's views on homosexuality, etc. So I'm a Catholic by a very loose definition of what a Catholic is.
....

 

[New]

Rodya, did you know that the entire body of Jewish law as it is today is made of constant interpretation? 4 years ago, a council of Rabbis determined that marijuana was a legume and therefore not kosher for passover. Not WRONG or IMMORAL, but you just can't partake of it for 8 days to commemorate an inspirational story.

Watch what you say. Other religions evolve beyond arrogantly exonerating other religions and deciding whether unbaptized babies go to hell or just hang around in nowhere land.

 

[The_Idler]

yeah these Jewish theologians really do seem to be taking the piss sometimes.

Yaknow, even more than the Catholics!

 

[New]

Yeah. I know. It's great! A religion based on constant argument!

 

[Vismund Taxt]

I reject all religions. I could sit here and type out some large list of reasons or whatever, but none of them would be the real reason. I just don't believe in god at all. I don't feel it and I think the idea of it is ridiculous. That's all it comes down to. It doesn't make me smarter than anyone and I haven't figured out some big secret. I just don't believe.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Yeah. I know. It's great! A religion based on constant argument!

I think that's awesome! I have a lot of respect for any religion that's open to different interpretations of the core tenets, texts, and lore, and debate over these interpretations. Like the OP, I was raised Roman Catholic too, and my parents were (and still are) fighting hard to keep this more intellectual, philosophical, exegesis-loving side of the Catholic community active. They've always had fruitful dialogues with Jewish and Tibetan Buddhist leaders too, regarding this matter.

I really think any major religion that's entirely given up reinterpretation and lively intellectual debate has lost its most powerful dynamo, and will soon face a day when it finds itself too stagnant and stuck in its ways to cope with the changing needs of a changing community in a changing world.

 

[medical_meccanica]

can you prove that the goal and intent of the Church is to exploit people? right now all you've said is that the Church is an effective tool for control; this proves nothing. You cant accuse someone of a crime just because they would be very good at committing it, or because they seem to be able to do the crime easily.

I find the structure of a church service quite horrible in that sense. The sermon in particular is extremely scary. My father is an anglican priest, and while I respect most of his views about the world as being kind and just, it is not a collective group of theologians over 2000 years sharing their religious insight with the congregation, it is ONE man or woman preaching their interpretations. How is this any different than someone thinking it for themselves and enjoying spiritual ideas that fit THEIR life and mind?

The fact that one organized religion would say another is definitely completely wrong is proof, to me, that priorities are not directed at the spiritual and mental well-being of the human race.

 

[Rodya]

The Idler-

In this case i apologize, for I completely misinterpreted what you were trying to get at

in your "cheap little answer", your pretty much using the idea of occam's razor, meaning that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. However, you have to understand that most abstract questions (like the nature of God, the nature of truth, etc.) are very complicated in and of themselves and thus deserve lengthy and complicated (though vague) answers. Most philosophical questions can't even be answerd, they just end in paradox.

This Why do you think that i consider "my personal theories" infinitely more complex than those of organized religion?.

-->because you said that organized religion is mind numbingly simple, so I inferred that you must have come up with something more complex in order to make such a claim.

This Why do you even suppose that i follow my own personal religion?.

-->Whats the point of thinking up a personal religion and worldview if you're not going to follow it? If you don't beleive it then that means you see a flaw in it or just don't like it; in tht case you should just discard it completely.

This The fact that the texts and religious authorities demand that people adhere to their word, in order to be saved, while most of the most beneficent and altruistic human beings on the planet did not, and so were not saved..

I'm not too into the whole "join us or be damned to eternal hellfire" thing, and official Church doctrine teaches that if someone leads a respectable life (altruism, etc.) they will go to heaven regardless of their faith. On another note, I'm a bit iffy on the whole afterlife thing, and I'm looking into church texts that talk bout it as being like a metaphor or symbol, but at the same time more than a metaphor or symbol, but not necessarily being real. It's pretty cool.

This I'm siding with you on this argument, my only problem was with your comparison to a scientist..

What's wrong witht he comparison to a scientist? You never explained how and only said that science tells us about the nature of the world while organized religion works to control people.

I find "My Little God™" theories to be EXTREMELY annoying. When I try to discuss a particular aspect of the rituals or a particular passage of the Bible with a believer, only to find that my point doesn't apply, because they decided (probably there and then) that they don't include that bit in their idea of God.

I've heard definitions of the word God, so completely different to His supposed nature, that I've had to inform those believers that, whatever it is they believe in, it isn't God, because I got the general consensus of millions of people, over thousands of years about what God is, so I think it's about time they just admitted that they weren't comfortable about it all and snap out of their denial about the state of their relationship with the Creator.

Totally agree with you here, well put, I have nothing to add.

 

[Rodya]

The fact that one organized religion would say another is definitely completely wrong is proof, to me, that priorities are not directed at the spiritual and mental well-being of the human race.

So you're saying that if I believe that my religion is right, and i also believe that Zoroastrianism is completely and utterly wrong, then I'm somehow doing something bad?

Whats the point of believing in a religion if you think that all religions are equally right? Even though it sounds palatable, relativism really doesn't work when you try to explain religion with it.

 

[Rodya]

WELL shit, so am I!




yaknow,
like people who...
"don't agree with, for example the Church's views on homosexuality, etc. So I'm a Catholic by a very loose definition of what a Catholic is."

Though I don't agree with the church, I also don't openly protest their decisions. I still submit to the Church's authority, because I acknowledge that its not my place to openly challenge the views of the church.
So I quietly disagree, pretty much.

 

[Rodya]

I think that's awesome! I have a lot of respect for any religion that's open to different interpretations of the core tenets, texts, and lore, and debate over these interpretations. Like the OP, I was raised Roman Catholic too, and my parents were (and still are) fighting hard to keep this more intellectual, philosophical, exegesis-loving side of the Catholic community active. They've always had fruitful dialogues with Jewish and Tibetan Buddhist leaders too, regarding this matter.

I really think any major religion that's entirely given up reinterpretation and lively intellectual debate has lost its most powerful dynamo, and will soon face a day when it finds itself too stagnant and stuck in its ways to cope with the changing needs of a changing community in a changing world.

I totally agree, religions need to be able to evolve in order to fit into the ever changing world. That's why for example Christianity, which went through the reformation and counter reformation, is more suited for the modern world than Islam, which has not had any sort of great reinterpretation of it's religious texts.
Things like Vatican II (and it's equivalent in other religions)should really happen more often, they help everyone and keep the Church (or any other religion) relevant in the contemporary world.