All the Good in Religion

[boogersugar]

oh, a movie recommendation for everyone in this forum - "The Man From Earth".

very interesting hypothetical situation which answers a lot of questions in refreshingly simple ways, while being purely science fiction.

 

[BurnOneDown]

boogersugar: I really didn't like the movie. I found the sci-fi situation very realistic, but there wasn't anything useful I could pull from the plot. I enjoyed its rational religious argument, but it didn't shed any new light on religion. The plot I thought was extremely dull; however, it was logical and makes a few good points.

But don't take my word for it, see it for yourselves. I can't attest to what anyone else will appreciate.

 

[boogersugar]

boogersugar: I really didn't like the movie. I found the sci-fi situation very realistic, but there wasn't anything useful I could pull from the plot. I enjoyed its rational religious argument, but it didn't shed any new light on religion. The plot I thought was extremely dull; however, it was logical and makes a few good points.

But don't take my word for it, see it for yourselves. I can't attest to what anyone else will appreciate.

you're absolutely right... it isn't challenging for the viewer at all, nor useful but that's not really what it's about. Just interesting to see what i thought was a very realistic reaction to a common realization by a few different 'kinds' of people.

so, interesting is all ... for some of the more dedicated philosophical minds in this thread, we'll call it junk food viewing.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I can't agree more strongly. Spiritual abuse in children is nearly as damaging as physical abuse but more frequent. Richard Dawkins uses the example of an adult that refers to a child as "a christian boy" or any other mainstream religion. Before a child even has the ability to contemplate such spiritual questions there is a religious branding, and it is often accompanied by the instilling of a horrifying reward/punishment system to keep them scarred for life. All of this for the benefit of the institution. Why not give a child the basis for a spiritual understanding and let them find their own truth? Child indoctrination is a huge problem. It's far too abusive to exist in society today.

Sure doesn't sound like you agree with me. Did you mean to say 'DISagree more strongly'?

Child indoctrination? Cry me a river.
Children get everything they know from the adult authority figures in the community around them. I reject that any clear line can be drawn between acculturation and indoctrination, at least when it comes to naive children. Kids adopt all the prejudices, unfounded assumptions, taboos, discomforts, aversions, preferences, unspoken agreements, attitudes, and even senses of humor from the adults who raise them. They don't have much of a choice in any of this, and nor do the parents, teachers, coaches, and other adult authorities who do the value passing. It just happens.

Having spent a good amount of time in non-Western cultures, one common Western cultural assumption I have found patently false is that religion is a discrete entity that can be easily separated from all the other facets of human life and culture, much like a piece of serial hardware can be lifted out of a computer's motherboard. Instead, I've found that all the things we think of as being part and parcel to religion -- the community bonding, the shared sense of heritage, the shared sense of cosmic purpose, the moral codes, the lore and legend, the spiritual practices, the various thought patterns, etc. -- are an extension of, and deeply interwoven with, the secular aspects of what make a person, and a community, who they are. This is easier to see in a culture like China or India, where all the components of what Westerners call 'religion' are there, but they are not clustered together either spatially or temporally.

In this sense, I don't see a real difference between teaching a kid, 'You don't talk back to your grandma.' and teaching him, 'You don't disrespect Jesus.' I see little difference between, 'After lunch, we close shop and take siesta.' and 'Before lunch, we roll out our carpets and pray towards Mecca.' If you can teach a child, 'the Medicine Man is your ally,' then why not, 'The trees of this forest are our friends.'?

I guess I could sum it up this way: a community's religion is just an extension of how the people relate to each other and the world around them, extrapolated into realms unseen, such as the past, the future, and the metaphysical.

I DO believe that all children should have access to an education that encourages critical thinking. I also am against state-sponsored censorship, and believe in all information being freely available, should anyone want it. With these two tools, any kid should have more than enough to help them, should they decide it's in their best interest to step outside, or even jettison, the collective set of beliefs and attitudes their community raised them with.

You bring up a strong point. Some people aren't born into a situation where they pursue spirituality. But I don't think that it is better than nothing at all. Most learn nothing from institutionalized religion or become involved for social reasons. Still others put their heart into the practice and are taken advantage of and used. They end up spiritually frustrated and blame themselves for not finding 'god'. I think all would be better off without institutionalized religion.

You are 100% right though. There are those without the ability to think for themselves or those that are too poorly financially/environmentally predisposed to spend time finding truth. That is why I love Buddhism. I think it is the only widely followed belief with good intention. There is even a point in the Buddhist belief in which the follower must give up the teachings and find truth for oneself. It stresses the importance of knowledge. Believers are told that teachers are not to be trusted (do no trust the illusion of competence/social position). And of course, one of the most important Buddhist beliefs is that their is no self or the self is an illusion. It is a very intelligent philosophy. However, I do believe there is a lot of bunk involved, but it is not in bad intention. All-in-all, it offers a great alternative to institutionalized religion.

I think most human institutions ARE founded on good intentions. Where they deviate from the realization of those intentions depends on two things, that I can see:
1) The presence or absence of checks and balances in place that prevent corruption and usurping of power, and
2) Their willingness to exploit or dump on out-group members to further in-group ends.

As I've said before, all human institutions ultimately fail and fall apart. But new ones are always their to take their place. So long as we live in large, complicated societies that practice division of labor for efficiency, this cycle will continue. So long as there are people who are not in a position to do something well for themselves, arguing against all institutions that provide that service in a cookie-cutter fashion is spitting in the wind.

 

[IGNVS]

edit: reading this from the bottom up might help some of you, i sugest it.

lagomorpha you are talking about the actual folowing of christ. christ folowing, or christianity, though not the 'christianity' you are firmiliar with. real christianity isnt a religon like the ones that controle the masses, it is a religon that was founded on the purity of a man being a leader, the example, for all people to folow. with his life he showed the world the truth about reality and what life is like void of sin. a man that stood up to human authority of all kind knowing that the only true authority over him was the laws of nature, and with a deep understanding of the laws of reality he did many things that people corrupted by contradictions incongruence power hunger hate and many things that dont die with the change of seasons, falling or rising of empires, or technologic advances. it is a religon that people follow because they understand what the real reason behind christs life and the message his actions were. it is not a religon that will fall from the face of the earth because the message trancends time or situation. it is a religon that was writen so people searching for it could understand it. if you are not in need there is a good chance you are practicing christianity without even knowing it, with the concepts being trancendent of culture and time the understanding it brings can be found in many ways, but all ways can be called christ because he is the one that lived those ways, took the wisdom and applied it to his life. being the living example people decided to record it, then the same type people the teachings of christ would lead you to overcome twisted the recording to do exactly what he lived against. modern christianity was born slowly over the twotousand some odd years since christs death. the parables and metaphor are poetic and are writen (if the writers knew this or not) in a way that people that have already started the process of shedding the ego, making realizations, searching for something they know the world cannot provide. there is something in their minds somewhere that they will connect with and understand. all people are able to understand it, though few choose to try because they feel like holding on to the lie contradictios present. it is a rligion of choice. it was writen with parables for the people that will choose to accept understanding in a way i cant explain, but just like people may choose to understand there are people who will choose to pervet it to accomplish abomination. that is the beauty of this religon, it helps people realize their free will, you always have the option to turn from abomination no matter your situation, it offers a way out of the desprate deprived mindstate we may come to find ourselves in one day. it teaches things that truly lead to satisfaction, that rub alot of egotistical people the wrong way. it shows how things that work one way work also in the oposite way. just as i was saying if free will enables someone to choose abomination it also alows them to disable it. christ was able to show people things that people havnt seen before on the earth because of choices they make, because of fear, because they didnt believe there was a way out, because what happens at some point in time in our existance leads us to believe that we dont have the free will to do amazing things, to stand up to pointless authority, to stand up to hate, contradition, evil, miscnception, hopelessness, and anything eles life will ever throw at any human being that will ever exist.

the religion your searching for is this.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

it is not a religon that will fall from the face of the earth because the message trancends time or situation.

Likely so, if only because there are so many diverse Christian communities. Some Christian churches are long extinct. Others today are moribund. But because Christian communities are so diverse and numerous, it's unlikely that they'll all die out before any new ones are created to cope with the changing times. That's one advantage to Christianity not being monolithic.

Even if all Christian communities were to disappear, there would doubtless be other christs (literally 'anointed ones') who preached a very similar message to Jesus, and would attract veneration for it. After all, we all have the potential within us to be christs.

 

[IGNVS]

we are the church,

even if no self claimed organization is around, so long as there are people lving the idea the church lives

 

[BurnOneDown]

Sure doesn't sound like you agree with me. Did you mean to say 'DISagree more strongly'?

Child indoctrination? Cry me a river.
Children get everything they know from the adult authority figures in the community around them. I reject that any clear line can be drawn between acculturation and indoctrination, at least when it comes to naive children. Kids adopt all the prejudices, unfounded assumptions, taboos, discomforts, aversions, preferences, unspoken agreements, attitudes, and even senses of humor from the adults who raise them. They don't have much of a choice in any of this, and nor do the parents, teachers, coaches, and other adult authorities who do the value passing. It just happens.

Having spent a good amount of time in non-Western cultures, one common Western cultural assumption I have found patently false is that religion is a discrete entity that can be easily separated from all the other facets of human life and culture, much like a piece of serial hardware can be lifted out of a computer's motherboard. Instead, I've found that all the things we think of as being part and parcel to religion -- the community bonding, the shared sense of heritage, the shared sense of cosmic purpose, the moral codes, the lore and legend, the spiritual practices, the various thought patterns, etc. -- are an extension of, and deeply interwoven with, the secular aspects of what make a person, and a community, who they are. This is easier to see in a culture like China or India, where all the components of what Westerners call 'religion' are there, but they are not clustered together either spatially or temporally.

In this sense, I don't see a real difference between teaching a kid, 'You don't talk back to your grandma.' and teaching him, 'You don't disrespect Jesus.' I see little difference between, 'After lunch, we close shop and take siesta.' and 'Before lunch, we roll out our carpets and pray towards Mecca.' If you can teach a child, 'the Medicine Man is your ally,' then why not, 'The trees of this forest are our friends.'?

I guess I could sum it up this way: a community's religion is just an extension of how the people relate to each other and the world around them, extrapolated into realms unseen, such as the past, the future, and the metaphysical.

I DO believe that all children should have access to an education that encourages critical thinking. I also am against state-sponsored censorship, and believe in all information being freely available, should anyone want it. With these two tools, any kid should have more than enough to help them, should they decide it's in their best interest to step outside, or even jettison, the collective set of beliefs and attitudes their community raised them with.

Haha, I guess we won't see eye-to-eye on anything. But please, we could do without 'the cry me a river' bullshit. I don't need you to imply that I am whiny. Users can make up their own minds on that.

I think you are missing the main problem: Religions are specifically adapted to abuse the innocence of children for their own benefits. You don't like child indoctrination? Well I will use Catholic tactic to illustrate it: If religion were a fire, its fuel would be children.

I mean, honestly... A figure of authority should be ashamed to tell a child, "If you disobey these beliefs or leave the religion you will BURN in Hell FOREVER." And of course any good, obedient, God-fearing child will take that to heart. What can be scarier to a child? What can be scarier to disagree with? What can be more manipulative? THESE ARE LITTLE KIDS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY ARE IMPRESSIONABLE.

I haven't read the bible lately, but I highly doubt that Jesus ever said anything about an eternity of torture. I think he preached about an eternal absence of God being hell.

I don't think the specific alteration in the teaching of hell was a mistake by modern religion. They tailor their threats to children to ensure conformity and a consistently large following.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Haha, I guess we won't see eye-to-eye on anything. But please, we could do without 'the cry me a river' bullshit. I don't need you to imply that I am whiny. Users can make up their own minds on that.

I didn't mean to come off that way. My apologies.

I think you are missing the main problem: Religions are specifically adapted to abuse the innocence of children for their own benefits. You don't like child indoctrination? Well I will use Catholic tactic to illustrate it: If religion were a fire, its fuel would be children.

I mean, honestly... A figure of authority should be ashamed to tell a child, "If you disobey these beliefs or leave the religion you will BURN in Hell FOREVER." And of course any good, obedient, God-fearing child will take that to heart. What can be scarier to a child? What can be scarier to disagree with? What can be more manipulative? THESE ARE LITTLE KIDS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY ARE IMPRESSIONABLE.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from.

What I'm essentially hearing you say is that it's authoritarianism that you find morally questionable, rather than religion. All authoritarian leaders and systems, no matter what form they take, use fear, threats, and intimidation to condition the rank and file into unquestioning obedience. Such systems typically have limited, if any, tolerance for dissent or criticism. You toe the party line or GTFO. Turn pirate or walk the plank.

Whether authoritarianism or democracy can be called inherently better across the whole gamut of human social circles is an interesting philosophical and sociological question worthy of its own thread, really. Feel free to start one if you wish. But regardless of the grand scheme of things, I don't doubt that some groups and types of people find that authoritarianism serves their needs much better, and do what they can to perpetuate it within their groups.

For example, I read a book for a class in college that dealt with the differences between the middle class and working class in America. A working class man observing the social dynamic of several middle class families found it remarkable that the boys were never shamed and called pussies if they cried or showed strong emotion. He was astounded to hear children argue with their parents freely on any point just like equals, and for the parents to actually entertain them with well thought out responses, rather than rebuking them sharply for talking back. The working class propensities he expected represent a sort of authoritarianism. The book went on to describe how it makes good survival sense for each of the two classes to rear their children as they do. Middle class children will likely grow up being paid to think critically. Working class children will likely earn their livelihoods simply taking orders and performing repetetive tasks exactly as trained.

Should it come as any surprise that working class Americans are much more likely to attend a religious congregation that preaches divine punishment for deviants? Of course not, because this dovetails perfectly with all the other realities of life, and consequent values, for this socioeconomic class. If a kid learns that God -- conceived as an authority figure, natch -- will damn him to hell for eternity if he swears too much, this lays the groundwork for easy comprehension of the fact that if he mouths off to his boss or a customer, he'll be damned to unemployment and poverty, quite possibly for some time. See the parallel? This is what I meant in my last post about religion and what it teaches being inseparable from the worldly realities facing the people who practice it.

The average middle class family would not likely attend a very fire n' brimstone congregation very long, because the parents would feel uncomfortable with the attitudes and values being taught to their children there.

Many religious congregations are not authoritarian at all in the way they operate and the values they instill in worshippers. They interpret their holy scriptures and conduct their services in ways that get congregants accustomed to more egalitarian forms of social interaction. I've attended plenty of services involving a talking stick that gets passed around to all, for example. These types of congregations are BY AND FOR people who find this sort of interaction normal and helpful in other areas of their lives.

If it's possible to have religion without authoritarianism, it's just as possible to have the reverse. As I've alluded to in a recent thread in CE&P, Japan is a very secular society that uses entirely secular memes to scare its population into conformity and blind obedience. The Japanese teach their children from an early age that they must never be in the least way burdensome to others, and to give others exactly what they expect, or they will surely be ostracised. Closer to home, I'm sure any successful military has its ways of getting new recruits to believe that they're far better off falling into line with them than drifting back into the chaotic civilian world. I don't think an effective military that's not strongly authoritatian is even possible -- a front line full of dudes who philosophically ponder the deeper implications of pulling that trigger won't even live on in history books.

I digress.

I haven't read the bible lately, but I highly doubt that Jesus ever said anything about an eternity of torture. I think he preached about an eternal absence of God being hell.

Quite right. Christian theologians typically find no textual evidence for eternal damnation for sinners. The famous 'separating the sheep from the goats' passage contains God's deep disappointment with, and even condemnation of, those who chose to act selfishly rather than compassionately. But nowhere does it talk about them spending an eternity burning in hell -- a place that's not even a part of Jewish cosmology.

I don't think the specific alteration in the teaching of hell was a mistake by modern religion. They tailor their threats to children to ensure conformity and a consistently large following.

As it must be abundantly clear from my examples, of course I see that the rise of this folk belief is not a mistake. But I disagree with your assessment of the motivation for it. I've heard of many small congregations, as well as sects and cults, which employ heavy handed mind manipulation and fearmongering, but are quite happy to remain small and smug. It seems to me being part of a small 'chosen few' could hold just as much appeal as being part of 'the enormous rising tide of truth and light', depending, again, on the person and their place in the world, and what their psychological needs are.

In conclusion, I don't think it's anything close to fair to tar all religion with the same ugly brush, as a bastion of authoritarian tyrrany. The groups that DO operate in this fashion can be high-profile and sensationalized in the media, which is why we hear about them. (Rev. Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?) The humbler ones you don't see, because there isn't much newsworthy about a quiet community hub.

Edit: P.S. BurnOneDown, if you're interested in the ethics of authoritarianism vs. egalitarianism, you'd probably find much of interest in the seemingly neverending debates in educational policy.

 

[lagomorpha]

Many religious congregations are not authoritarian at all in the way they operate and the values they instill in worshippers. They interpret their holy scriptures and conduct their services in ways that get congregants accustomed to more egalitarian forms of social interaction. I've attended plenty of services involving a talking stick that gets passed around to all, for example. These types of congregations are BY AND FOR people who find this sort of interaction normal and helpful in other areas of their lives.

I would very much like to know where these egalitarian services are offered. When I was young my mother sampled every church in the area looking for the right one. I've been to every type of service from Baptist to Unitarian and they were all almost identical: Preacher tells everyone what do to, congregation thoughtlessly obeys, instructions, obedience, instructions, obedience, stand up, sit down, kneel, sing, repeat until end. It has always seemed to me as if the entire purpose of organized religion was to subconsciously prime everyone to unquestioningly obey authority. And me, half asleep in my pew in the back using all my will power to not stand up and shout, "Can't you people see what is happening?! Can't you see the system is destroying your will, your imaginations, and your souls?!?!"

The way you describe the differences in thought between the working and middle class makes a lot of sense. I can see why many people would attempt to teach their children to not be able to think and why the system would work for so long, but in modern times it seems problematic. For one even most menial jobs require a certain level of critical thinking skills. Secondly, democratic government works much better with an intelligent, educated populace. Also I wonder if many of the problems with police brutality stem from officers being recruited from a section of the population that is taught to respect authority and expects the same from others.

It seems as though if we wish to avoid an Orwellian future our best solution is to encourage others to think critically while rejecting authoritarian cultures.

 

[lagomorpha]

I see little difference between, 'After lunch, we close shop and take siesta.' and 'Before lunch, we roll out our carpets and pray towards Mecca.'

One of these things carries with it the penalty of missing a siesta (well and arguably limits economic development) the other is enforced by the threat that believers will murder you, and Allah will make you drink boiling water for eternity. IMO that's a fairly substantial difference.

 

[mulberryman]

Religions that don't actively focus on the after-life are usually ok in my book.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I would very much like to know where these egalitarian services are offered. When I was young my mother sampled every church in the area looking for the right one. I've been to every type of service from Baptist to Unitarian and they were all almost identical: Preacher tells everyone what do to, congregation thoughtlessly obeys, instructions, obedience, instructions, obedience, stand up, sit down, kneel, sing, repeat until end. It has always seemed to me as if the entire purpose of organized religion was to subconsciously prime everyone to unquestioningly obey authority. And me, half asleep in my pew in the back using all my will power to not stand up and shout, "Can't you people see what is happening?! Can't you see the system is destroying your will, your imaginations, and your souls?!?!"

If you're asking seriously, not just rhetorically, I'd be happy to give you some links to places, all of them in the northeastern US, where I've attended highly egalitarian forms of worship. Many Christian, Jewish, and Neopagan communities that were founded through the counterculture movements of the 50s, 60s, and 70s are still active, and might be very much to your liking. There are even religious congregations still active (though generally small and on their last legs) that have their roots in the counterculture movements of a century prior: the New Thought and Transcendentalist movements.

That said...
The American Northeast is something of a fertile cradle for new and non-mainstream religious movements, and has been a rich stew of religious diversity, both homegrown and immigrant, for centuries. Massachusetts is arguably the utter core of this phenomenon, though New York and New Jersey are impressive in this regard as well -- I pass Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and two Evangelical Baptist houses of worship, plus an all-Black Masonic temple taboot, on my to work. The Northeast is the only part of the US, and indeed the entire West, I have ever called home. If you told me that your corner of the world was considerably more homogenous in its approach to religion, I'd have no basis for doubting it.

If you don't have a taste for ANY sort of group-oriented behavior or ritual, if no bandwagon could ever be worth jumping on in your opinion, then yeah, organized religion probably isn't your cup of joe. But I don't see anything inherently bad or soul destroying about voluntarily taking part in a group activity, where your part is scripted rather than determined creatively by you and you alone. I've done this in school plays, graduation ceremonies, sporting events, Masonic lodges, first aid training at a hospital, and even at concerts in diverse musical scenes, where there was at least some expectation of how I ought to dress, dance, and react to the performer(s). And here I am today, far from a mindless drone who only knows how to take orders and follow the herd. The secret, I find, is realizing that the only real point to any ritual is bonding with other people. That it's all just a game where the prize is being an integral part of something larger than yourself.

Your mileage may vary considerably. Maybe you're just more of a lone wolf. Maybe you have a distaste for even the mildest forms of groupthink because of bad associations, I don't know. All I'm saying is, what you find is good for you may not be what others find good for them.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

One of these things carries with it the penalty of missing a siesta (well and arguably limits economic development) the other is enforced by the threat that believers will murder you, and Allah will make you drink boiling water for eternity. IMO that's a fairly substantial difference.

Heh ya got me there, that was not a good example.

However, in all seriousness, the latter threat is specific to Wahhabism, which is covertly packaged as a cultural export along with cheap oil from Saudi Arabia to fellow Muslim countries, for clear geopolitical reasons. Such a harsh interpretation of Islam is hardly the only one found in the world today, and could just as easily lose its 'gold standard' status and its popularity when Saudi Arabia exhausts its oil reserves and sees its sphere of influence crumble away.

It never ceases to amaze me how good intelligent people will go on and on about how stereotypes are unhelpful and untrue, but when it comes to religions and nationalities, all bets are off.

 

[lagomorpha]

I am genuinely curious about the egalitarian services, I think it would be a good opportunity for learning. Unfortunately I might be out of luck here in the Midwest.

 

[lagomorpha]

Heh ya got me there, that was not a good example.

However, in all seriousness, the latter threat is specific to Wahhabism, which is covertly packaged as a cultural export along with cheap oil from Saudi Arabia to fellow Muslim countries, for clear geopolitical reasons. Such a harsh interpretation of Islam is hardly the only one found in the world today, and could just as easily lose its 'gold standard' status and its popularity when Saudi Arabia exhausts its oil reserves and sees its sphere of influence crumble away.

It never ceases to amaze me how good intelligent people will go on and on about how stereotypes are unhelpful and untrue, but when it comes to religions and nationalities, all bets are off.

As much as the low rate of Mosque attendance among American Muslims gives me hope, birthrates of Wahhabists in secular nations suggest that Saudi Arabia has already given off its spores and they have found a suitable substrate to thrive. Anyone know what a suitable dose of Turbanafine would be for the memetic fungus that is Wahhabism? The level of desperation at the Secular Islam Summit doesn't feel to good but at least they're trying:
http://www.secularislam.org
They seem to be vastly in the minority when most Muslims are saying things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOfU7wskFdg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKUoxbR9mwA&NR=1
It's my personal belief that Sharia is so detestable that any level of violence is justified in preventing its spread, Vlad Tepes style included but that's not really the topic of this thread. Unfortunately many Muslim clerics preach that Sharia cannot be separated from Islam.