Religion as an Invention by AnthonyT

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If we look at religion as an invention, what can we say about its continued usefulness in modern society?

I don't know that I can say much about its continued usefulness in modern society. If it was an invention (which it was) then it was an invention along the same lines as any other written work. Which it was. So, working from that, it was invented to explain the universe, because the universe is so awesome. And by that I mean that it is awe-inspiring. It is a place full of awe. Anyway, so the universe is awesome, so how do we explain it? Well, various stories, ideas, and philosophies sprang up around trying to explain it. Some of these stories and ideas were hammered in so solidly that they were taken as the Absolute Truth and the letter was followed, rather than just the idea. The problem, I think, is that new discoveries have made that Letter a bit... well, wrong. But there are some who cannot accept it as wrong, or can't accept it as a story like anything written by Shakespeare or Dickens. The invention has gotten a bit out of control in its "success" at explaining the universe. Fact is that there are better ways to explain the universe, better ways to find inspiration... but there are few better ways to control the thinking of so many people. The Greek philosophers, in their quest to understand the universe, insisted that everyone think for themselves. Their ideas evolved into things like physics and the scientific method and the study of this awe-inspiring universe.

Quote:
If we analyze religion the same way we might a Transistor, an Incadescent Lightbulb, or a Steam Engine, what can we say about it?

It, unlike transistors, engines, and lightbulbs, has not really evolved or been updated, even though it's been around longer. These devices have all been altered to serve better; we didn't just ignore the bits that didn't quite work for us, we changed them. This is an inherent difference between religion and devices, and indeed all of the sciences, as well as the arts, social structures, really most things you could name.

Quote:
Does it have utility?

Technically, yes. Some people utilize it in very benign ways, drawing motivation or inspiration from it. Some people utilize it in ways that are deeply offensive; control, justification for violence, aggressive evangelism, condescension, denial, repression, fleecing, hatred, abuse, etc. etc. etc. and many flavors of all these things. Not to say that people wouldn't find other ways to mess up the world and be annoying, but religion can be very convenient for them. I've heard more than one person say, "Oh, but he's a good Christian man who goes to church..." when someone is clearly a thief and a liar, or worse things. It can be used as a shield against just consequences, often very effectively, and that is wrong.

Quote:
Was it important at one point in History?

Clearly. It has shaped countless events.

Quote:
Is it still important today?

Clearly. It is still shaping countless events.

Quote:
Is it a boon for mankind?

Ah, that type of importance. No, I don't think it is. I think there are more boonful things.

Quote:
Does it have a useful place in the future? Or is it a mere artifact of the past?

Hm. I would be hard-pressed to say that religion/dogma has a useful place. Having a philosophy, something that can change and shift with new information, that's one thing. And it can lead people to the same places of goodness that religion can, without the restriction of never accepting a new idea, which is where it gets dodgy.

Quote:
What do you all think? How does religion rate amongst the other inventions of history?

Honestly, I think it ranks pretty near the bottom. I can name things that have done more harm, several of them in fact, but in comparison to an invention like clockwork, the computer chip, the light bulb, or discoveries in chemistry... I just can't rank it highly. Some of it might be a good idea, but some of it is a bad idea on par with handing methamphetamines to teenagers and setting them loose with an armored car or something. That might sound overly dramatic... I was going to go with something that sounded milder, like putting children on a steady diet of candy, but I'm not sure how many people appreciate the extent of damage that can do, since there are people who come distressingly close to doing just that. Which is all off the subject, but my point was that a flawed idea in a book can't be considered in the same realm as something like the light bulb, they're really not even in the same category. To put religion in a comparable category, I'd have to consider how it ranks amongst the writings of Plato and other influential philosophers. Not very high there, either, as it turns out.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 8:43 PM

KANEMAN

Who cares? Our money is being shit on. We argue about 30 billion, entitlements, money spent on war.......really? We can have all the entitlements we want...low taxes, etc... when we stop the FED from printing TRILLIONS and giving it to war and foreign governments.....get me? Have your welfare, foodstamps, war machines. Whatever. Our money is being handed out all over the world..making our prices(gas, food, welfare) more expensive.....and our reps(senate, house, prez) have nothing to say about it....think browncoats...Think

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2011 9:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I regret that due to current circumstances I cannot give a coherent answer to that question - normally you'd get a flamestorm with the acknowledgement that individualised religion is often a positive force...

But right now I got a real life situation making me deeply question my inherent hostility towards religion in general even when I think it's complete bunk - some people *need* to believe something to get through the day, particularly in a crisis, and to take that from them seems an act of malice no matter what I, personally, think of it.

I don't know, I just... don't know, ok ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 12:18 AM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Interesting thread, and I'll try and come back to answer in more detail later (very busy now, a good thing

) but my short answer is I think Religion was like Music. A phenomenon was 'discovered' rather than 'invented' and various cultures studied it and, like with music, the various cultures collected their beliefs and rules concerning this phenomenon into 'theory's' (much like 'Music Theory'). Music around the world is written differently under different rule sets (though now most use the 7 note western style) yet their are certain things, like the minor third interval, that are common around the entire world amongst children of any language or culture, like it comes naturally. In religion the parallel is the general attitude of good will towards others that is found (though now always practiced) in most all religions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 1:35 AM

Anthony

I think religion is a useful invention. It sets out a social order of mutual support which can teach people the end conclusions of the logic that is being used in that society before they are capable of reaching those conclusions themselves, and thus they are able to use that wisdom to avoid some of life's more serious mistakes, and will be able to function as members of that society more effectively and much earlier.

That said, if a religion does not then allow its followers to reach their own conclusions once they are ready to do so, it has become dogmatic and fundamentalist.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:56 AM

Anthony,

I think Jaynestown summarizes religion best for me. To me, religion is not an invention. It is a need.

Or I can put it this way. Religion is not the various foods we eat, which changes with personal preferences, cultures, and time. It is our hunger itself, satisfied by different kinds of foods. The hunger is universal and constant.

Just like in Jaynestown, people believe what they NEED to believe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 4:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But, do people "need" to believe?

To me, religion is about control. In explained and propitiated disease, rain, game, fertility, lightening, luck, and other natural forces. It still does in primitive societies, and even in some modern ones. As society grew, it was used to control another force which came into being: the thoughts of many people living together. And in a personal sense it is sometimes used to control the uncontrollable forces within: addiction, and hopelessness. At times it offers hope, but often uses fear.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But, do people "need" to believe?

Yes.

Religion, to me, is a worldview, not necessarily a particular belief in a deity. Buddhism and Paganism, or even Star Wars Jedi-ism, are examples of religious belief systems surrounding some universal connection and not a specific deity.

I believe atheists, despite their protests, also have a similar non-specific "religion." I believe this need to feel "connected" and contemplate metaphysical questions is universal amongst humans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 6:04 AM

"You don't need to believe what I believe, just believe in something" - Shepherd Book.

Our beliefs teach us the wisdom we don't yet have, and this protects us against manipulation and predations by others who know more than we do. If not for this, I would have fallen victim as others have to countless mechanisms of death and slavery. I would make bad decisions about how to solve problems, and how to deal with other people. I make choices and have made in the past that I would not have made if I didn't take a leap of faith to believe in something that knew better than I.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 6:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
If you ask me this question once a year from now on, you'll prolly get a different answer each time. Right now, I'm seeing religion as an extremely powerful psychological weapon that has a crippling design flaw in that it disables the wielder as well as his target. At the same time, the weapon is sophisticated enough to exploit this design flaw in bringing the fearful and disabled victims of its power together in large, defensive groups. Its medium of control is fear. When humans find another way to process our deepest fears, religion will no longer be of any use to anyone. Bear in mind: I'm talking only about religion itself, not the phenomena it purports to explain.

Eloquent as always, Cav, and right on, as I see it.

While I don’t believe “love, enginuity, charity and other human traits that span the ages” are on a par with religion...”faith” maybe, but religion is a created context to hold faith. I don’t think it’ll ever really go out of style; look at how many “new” religions pop up even now. I think mankind needs something to look to beyond himself in order to live with his fears of the unknown; science provides that for some, religion for others, and there will always be those unable or unwilling to face life without a higher power looking over them. I’m not saying it doesn’t do a whole lot of good in some ways, it definitely does.

I have a dream that, if we could ever get rid of our tendency to be hateful, start wars, persecute others who are “different”, and stop looking to someone else to take care of us, we’d actually evolve. Don’t expect it to happen, at least any time in the foreseeable future, just a dream.

I agree with all Rose said, too, especially “there are few better ways to control the thinking of so many people.” Unfortunately, whatever faith is, I believe religion is utilized for just that purpose more than for any other. When a human being has the power to control faith, it’s pretty hefty, and they have, throughout the ages. And tho’ it hadn’t occurred to me in exactly those terms, I find “It can be used as a shield against just consequences, often very effectively” a very articulate explanation of that aspect of RELIGION (again, not “faith”, which to me is different)

Damn, Rose, you’re on a roll!

Quote:
Having a philosophy, something that can change and shift with new information, that's one thing. And it can lead people to the same places of goodness that religion can

. Okay, I’m prejudiced, since buddhism IS a philosophy, not a religion, and it DOES adapt to each culture. Religions do to, but the tenants, as I see it and you said, have not changed much with time. I don’t think the corollary to meth is that far off; look at the damage the perversion of Islam has done...talk about your armored tank!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 6:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem, I agree wholeheartedly with “some people *need* to believe something to get through the day, particularly in a crisis, and to take that from them seems an act of malice no matter what I, personally, think of it”, and others have mentioned the same. I hope whatever’s happening in your life isn’t too awful and passes soon, I hate to think of you having something serious happening...you’ve had QUITE enough to carry thus far in your life, gawd knows!

Excellent point on the other side, DT:

Quote:
teach people the end conclusions of the logic that is being used in that society before they are capable of reaching those conclusions themselves

I’m afraid I see more of those supposedly “interpreting” the word of some god as a negative rather than a positive, but what you said definitely has merit for some...perhaps many. We usually only hear the BAD about religion, and forget all the good it does. I’m not sure whether I’d rather have people follow some teaching than learn for themselves, but it certainly does help many in that respect, I admit.

CTS, put “Just like in Jaynestown, people believe what they NEED to believe”, which I believe is totally valid, together with what some others have said, and the concept is one which I agree with. And yes, sig, I DO think there will always be those who “need” to believe. Man’s greatest fear has always been death; religion provides something to believe in beyond death. Man’s next greatest fear is that which he doesn’t understand; religion provides answers he can accept for those things. It’s a shame that religion (or man) can’t move and change as some of those things are explained, but some need to go with the simpler explanation, and I think always will.

Mmm, CTS, you just gave me the third “need”...the need to feel connected. Mankind doesn’t survive alone, and one of the biggest things we all feel is aloneness. Again, religion fills the gap, creates a commonality with which people can lessen that feeling.

So for me, religion fills some of mankind’s needs which have existed within us since we began. Fear of death, fear of what we don’t understand, assuagement of the feeling of being alone...and I would add DT’s concept of guiding people through the vagarities of society and life.

Lastly, yes, buddhism incorporates a faith, a belief if you will, in the connectedness too. On a huge scale, in that ALL things are connected, not just people. For many it also provides a sop to the fear of death. But it doesn’t provide “teaching” of moral imperatives or societal requirements, nor does it provide explanations for the unknown. Nor guidance per se; there are stories, usually with insight or morals contained within them, but the stories are just told/written; it’s up to each individual to accept or reject them. And it leaves off some specific higher power which judges or takes personal interest in each person’s life. We are left to do that for ourselves, and it requires self-awareness to recognize what’s right and wrong. The whole base of buddhism is self-awareness and compassion; if one can become completely self-aware (nirvana...never attained, but the effort teaches us what we need to grow), one cannot condemn others and one knows innately what is right and wrong. Whether we act on that knowledge or not is up to us, but the more self-aware we become, the more compassionate our choices.

Ahh, DT, but the flaw in your argument is that religion

Quote:
teach us the wisdom we don't yet have, and this protects us against manipulation and predations by others who know more than we do.

How much of that applies to organized religion, as opposed to the manipulation and predation that COMES from religion? I agree with “believe in something”, but looking to humans to determine what that something IS and how it should be followed, believed, acted upon has, to me, caused more harm than good.

What a truly marvelous discussion! You’ve restored my faith in the concept of debate being possible here (somewhat)!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 7:28 AM

JONGSSTRAW

I've always felt that religion is important for children. It gives them morality lessons, and a structure for behavior to meet the challenges in this world. Adults don't need religion, except those that really need spiritual help to cope with tragedy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 8:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Does it have utility? Was it important at one point in History? Is it still important today? Is it a boon for mankind? Does it have a useful place in the future? Or is it a mere artifact of the past?

The answer to your all your questions comes down to one fundamental issue...does God exist?

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Excellent point on the other side, DT:
Quote:
teach people the end conclusions of the logic that is being used in that society before they are capable of reaching those conclusions themselves
I’m afraid I see more of those supposedly “interpreting” the word of some god as a negative rather than a positive, but what you said definitely has merit for some...perhaps many. We usually only hear the BAD about religion, and forget all the good it does. I’m not sure whether I’d rather have people follow some teaching than learn for themselves, but it certainly does help many in that respect, I admit.

Well said. Usually I would say that it was some particular church that went wrong, rather than a religion itself, but churches also do a lot of positive things. As long as you can leave, I don't see a problem with it.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Ahh, DT, but the flaw in your argument is that religion
Quote:
teach us the wisdom we don't yet have, and this protects us against manipulation and predations by others who know more than we do.
How much of that applies to organized religion, as opposed to the manipulation and predation that COMES from religion? I agree with “believe in something”, but looking to humans to determine what that something IS and how it should be followed, believed, acted upon has, to me, caused more harm than good.

I think that having rules based on wisdom of the past is a good defense against threats of the present and future.

It is not the religious nature of our leadership which leads us astray, but perhaps, our atheistic nature of leadership.

"We will be judged not by how we treat our friends, but rather by how we treat our enemies" is just a good rule for leadership. If our so-called Christian presidents spent any time listening to the words of Christ, they might not have done some of the things they did and are still doing.

"Neither borrower nor lender be" is a pretty good one, for a nation, or on a personal level. I'm glad that my grandfather sat me down and taught me theses rules as a child, rather than letting me find them out with a student loan and a mortgage and finding myself a quarter million in debt and then saying "Oh, I see, this is a bad idea, because now I have to work forever just to pay the interest on this infinite debt." Instead, I said "I'm sorry, I can't do that see, because I can't sign any contracts or take out any loans, and so now I'm not in that situation. And I'm glad.

There's a lot of wisdom in the words of prophets, which is why people follow them. If you sat kids down with Jesus, Mohammed, Gautama, Lao Tzu, et al collectively, they'd probably do even better. Certainly it's not going to hurt if your child knows a person versed in the ways of each faith.

I think our typical messages in our society are:

Stay in your seat. Go to the principle's office.
No you cannot have permission
Hey, dude, bong hits
Admitted! Keg Stand!
Okay, you're hired
Mortgage Accepted!

You learned early that adults were evil and abusive, and not to be listened to, and okay, now you're a slave in debt with some bad habits.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 12:32 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Does it have utility? Was it important at one point in History? Is it still important today? Is it a boon for mankind? Does it have a useful place in the future? Or is it a mere artifact of the past?

The answer to your all your questions comes down to one fundamental issue...does God exist?

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

I pretty much agree with this. As an atheist I believe religion to be a falsehood (though not something sinisterly devised or anything like that), and thus it's hard to view it as a boon to mankind. Perhaps it served a purpose in the past - for most of human history we didn't have a scientific explanation for the universe. Perhaps it acted as a useful 'truth-substitute' for society to build around, and that might explain why it seems to be so ingrained in us. Now I think there has to be a better way though.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The answer to your all your questions comes down to one fundamental issue...does God exist?

How do you define "God" for the purposes of the question? Does the Force count as God? What about the "Spirit of the Earth and Nature" or "Collective Consciousness"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 2:28 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
How do you define "God" for the purposes of the question? Does the Force count as God? What about the "Spirit of the Earth and Nature" or "Collective Consciousness"?

The original question is essentially 'is religeon necessary'?

He did not ask about a particular one, but the answer is the same.

Simply put, without God religeon is meaningless.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I would rather not ignore your contributions." Niki2, 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 4:15 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Thank you all for commenting.

I'm not sure religion requires God, and I've never been able to figure out why God requires religion.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Thank you all for commenting.

I'm not sure religion requires God, and I've never been able to figure out why God requires religion.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

Anthony,

Well said. Taoism does not require a God.

KPO,

I think that it is possible for members of a religion to *believe* a falsehood, but not for religion itself to be a falsehood. It appears to exist.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 5:23 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
There's a lot of wisdom in the words of prophets, which is why people follow them. If you sat kids down with Jesus, Mohammed, Gautama, Lao Tzu, et al collectively, they'd probably do even better.

I would define such things as philosophies.

Quote:
Taoism does not require a God.

Taoism, like other branches on the Buddhist tree, is a philosophy.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 6:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Simply put, without God religeon is meaningless.

Perhaps, but then, define God - the word "Kami", for example, encompasses far more than our western word for Diesms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 7:29 PM

Frem,

Agreed, completely.

PR,

Philosophies are things followed by those who understand them. No leap of faith is ever required. You could bend the rules to extend philosophy into religion by calling all religion existential philosophy, but to cull the field of religion down to a narrow judeo-christian tradition is to do a disservice to both disciplines.

Also, Taoism is not a branch of Buddhism. It's not just that Lao Tzu was older than Siddhartha Gautama, though they were contemporaries, but Buddhism didn't take off as a religion until centuries later, and Taoism had already been a religion for centuries when Lao wrote the Tao te Ching. Huangdi references the Tao in the 27th c. BC, including Fi Xi's 29th c. BC texts, and the texts which later join the I Ching appear as sacred Taoist texts in the 22nd c. BC, but it doesn't become the major religion of China until the 12th c. BC.

What Lao did, when asked specifically for his thoughts on the Tao, was to set forth a path for people seeking enlightment. It was a curious manner to take, because more religious texts give you answers, and the Tao te Ching is much more ponderous. It's intended to start you thinking in the right direction, which does have something in common with some hindu ideas.

Pre-Lao Taoism is much more mystical. The forces exist and a path exists but there's really now a well defined way to reach this enlightment, and a lot of superstition and mysticism is involved in trying to understand these things, which is not uncommon in other religions. If as a religion it seems more scientific and less superstitious, that might be because it's 5 millennia old, and has evolved over time. Early Christianity and Judaism were also intensely mystical and superstitious. Today's christians, (some of them) are able to much more clearly define the ideas and will of Jesus and rely often on first and second hand accounts of his life, and the origins of his ideas, as well as his own words, the connections with El-hebrew faiths and zoroastrianism, and the origins of biblical texts in the assyrian, egyptian and babylonian. Compare that 21st century take with christianity of the 16th, 11th, 6th and 1st century, which were heavily superstitious. In the middle ages they were still burning heretics and going on crusades (okay, maybe some of them still are) and in the early centuries they were relying on people who claimed that they were channeling Jesus in seance-like trances as the literal will of God.

As for divinity, the concept is similar to the Japanese, as a balance of natural forces rather than controlled will of deities that would imply a God.

In a western mindset, the Taoist "God" if it were to be so transferred would be one somewhat indifferent towards the stuggles of humans, but such an application would show a pretty weak understanding of the underlying concepts.

I'm not all that familiar with Buddhism. I wouldn't be astounded if some similar concepts show up, as both Taoism and Hinduism had been around is the 3rd millennium BC and so were bound to have influence all the regional cultures.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 8:02 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Philosophies are things followed by those who understand them.

I disagree entirely. Philosophy is simply the pursuit of truth. Much as the Tao is the Way to becoming awakened, so too are all philosophies the Way of pondering existence to gain understanding. Conclusions may be drawn, but to say that a philosophy can only be followed by one who already understands it is to lock down the entire field of thinking. The inherent difference is that philosophies encourage growth and personal thinking, while the majority of organized religion does no such thing. Religions preach and lay down laws where philosophies ask questions and invite contemplation. Philosophies may be mistaken for organized religion, but they are not. For example, anyone who says that the Buddha was a god or should be an object of worship has no idea what they're talking about. The Awakened One was a teacher, leading by example. That's the whole bloody point; anyone can achieve what he did. Praying to Buddha to deliver you to Enlightened Paradise, for example, goes against everything he ever stood for, which was that we should find our own way. "Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, or who said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." It's a philosophy. More, it's a practice. It might have some wiggle room in the definition of 'belief system,' but it was never meant to be a religion. Anyone who treats it as such is entirely ignorant of it.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:20 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

"Richard Dawkins suggests in The Selfish Gene that cultural memes function like genes in that they are subject to natural selection. In The God Delusion Dawkins further argues that because religious truths cannot be questioned, their very nature encourages religions to spread like "mind viruses".

This model holds that religion is the byproduct of the cognitive modules in the human brain that arose in our evolutionary past to deal with problems of survival and reproduction. Initial concepts of supernatural agents may arise in the tendency of humans to "overdetect" the presence of other humans or predators (momentarily mistaking a vine for a snake). For instance, a man might report that he felt something sneaking up on him, but it vanished when he looked around.[11]

Stories of these experiences are especially likely to be retold, passed on and embellished due to their descriptions of standard ontological categories (human, artifact, animal, plant, natural object) with counterintuitive properties (humans that are invisible, houses that remember what happened in them, etc.). These stories become even more salient when they are accompanied by activation of non-violated expectations for the ontological category (houses that "remember" activates our intuitive psychology of mind; i.e. we automatically attribute thought processes to them).[12]

One of the attributes of our intuitive psychology of mind is that humans are interested in the affairs of other humans. This may result in the tendency for concepts of supernatural agents to inevitably cross connect with human intuitive moral feelings (evolutionary behavioral guidelines). In addition, the presence of dead bodies creates an uncomfortable cognitive state in which dreams and other mental modules (person identification and behavior prediction) continue to run decoupled from reality producing incompatible intuitions that the dead are somehow still around. When this is coupled with the human predisposition to see misfortune as a social event (as someone's responsibility rather than the outcome of mechanical processes) it may activate the intuitive "willingness to make exchanges" module of the human theory of minds resulting in the tendency of humans to try to interact and bargain with their supernatural agents (ritual).[13]

In a large enough group, some individuals will seem better skilled at these rituals than others and will become specialists. As the societies grow and encounter others, competition will ensue and a "survival of the fittest" effect may cause the practitioners to modify their concepts to provide a more abstract, more widely acceptable version. Eventually the specialist practitioners form a cohesive group or guild with its attendant political goals (religion)."

A rather interesting explaination, I thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 2:04 AM

PR,

You are essentially attacking one religion here, and its splinter religions. Collectively those religions count 1/3 of the planet or so as adherents, but a much smaller portion of that as strict adherents that would fall into the nature people have described here as controlling, etc. That said, most of the world belongs to a religion.

Yes, sure, you can philosophically understand the Tao, but that doesn't mean half a billion followers do, and it doesn't mean you can't do the exact same thing with the words of Jesus Christ.

I agree that there are difference, and that they trend in the direction you're talking about, but I think that those who are member of a religion trust in the underlying truth in a way that those who read a philosophy do not, and are perhaps more skeptical of.

One exception that comes to mind is Ayn Rand. Most of those who read it seem to either reject it or accept it, and if they accept it, trust the conclusion in a religious manner.

On the other side, you could say the exact same thing about Scientology, myself and those like me excepted, which is to say, I read and took the parts I wanted, but many people become adherents to a religion.

Now, you could have scientologists who were outside of the CoS, heretics as it were, or whatever you call those christians and wicca who don't belong to an organization, self-practitioners, phooey, the word escapes me.

Another way of putting it is "Religion is a whole life philosophy, to be accepted in its entirety by its followers"

In the way that someone like Nietzsche isn't.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 3:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But, do people "need" to believe?

To me, religion is about control. In explained and propitiated disease, rain, game, fertility, lightening, luck, and other natural forces. It still does in primitive societies, and even in some modern ones. As society grew, it was used to control another force which came into being: the thoughts of many people living together.

Pretty much the way I see it.

I also figure that religion has been used to give individuals and groups power or benefits they wouldn't ordinarily have. I suspect that early on, some clever hunter/gatherer told his tribe, "I can make the game appear and the fruit easy to find by performing this secret rite to the gods. Of course that means I can't be out hunting and gathering, so if you'll just keep me fed...". And when the game didn't appear, it'd be easy to blame someone else's actions for angering the gods.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 3:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
One exception that comes to mind is Ayn Rand. Most of those who read it seem to either reject it or accept it, and if they accept it, trust the conclusion in a religious manner...

...Another way of putting it is "Religion is a whole life philosophy, to be accepted in its entirety by its followers"

In the way that someone like Nietzsche isn't.

Well said.

Though I think, ultimately, it is impossible to say when a philosophy begins and when a religion ends. Both involve worldviews, metaphysical questions and pursuits, and lifestyle changes.

I see them sharing a continuum, with narrowly defined rituals for pleasing deity personalities on one end, and broadly defined suggestions for "way of life" to bring balance and goodness to the universe on the other end.

I think any line drawn on the continuum to separate religion from philosophy is arbitrary and subjective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 3:47 AM

Ah, well, the Chinese have a slightly different take on Buddhism, where some bodhisvattas and/or manifestations of Buddha are prayed to as interventionary gods and goddesses such as Guan Yin... It really depends on the school. Plus, Buddhism can be paired up with other schools to create fusion religions, such as Hindu-Buddhists (which then leads to Vajrayana Buddhists practicing tantric rituals), and Zen-Shintoism, even sometimes Christiano-Buddhism. Though in most of those cases I'll agree that Buddhism is more of a moral guideline code, and it's the Gods and such coming from the other religion.

I think the difference between a religion and philosophy is not the presence of a god in the idea, but rather ritual. Meditation in this life to achieve enlightenment after death strikes me as religious, whereas Nietzche and Thoreau do not. Though I admit there are definitely some followers of those philosophies who can act rather religiously at times.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 4:06 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I think any line drawn on the continuum to separate religion from philosophy is arbitrary and subjective.

Well you can have secular philosohpies (secular of course meaning divorced from religion), like Secular Humanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Perhaps you could talk about a continuum of religion and spirituality - and reword the OP question: 'Is spirituality important?'

Simple spirituality (minus organised religion) seems quite benign to me. I would still like to see humanity move beyond it though.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 4:46 AM

I also agree spirituality is relatively benign, though it does have pros and cons to it. A person may be uplifted by spirituality, but some people who may be prone to delusions can sometimes try to act out their spirituality in a manner which harms themselves or others.

I have no particular problem with followers of a religion so long as they do not commit or are not willfully complicit in atrocity.

But as to philosophy and religion in general, I have some major anti-authority issues with all of them, including towards other atheists. Patriotism with all it's spiritualism and ritual has obvious problems. Even science has it's dangers. I try to remain as ignorant as possible, just so ideas can't creep up on me and influence my ideas and actions without me recognizing where the ideas were engendered. So, I'm not the best person to talk about this, which is why I haven't commented yet here, and probably won't comment much beyond this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 4:49 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You are essentially attacking one religion here, and its splinter religions.

Actually, I am not. If you must use the word, I'm 'attacking' an offensive and destructive way of thinking. You're attributing that to "one" religion, which I find odd. I've been saying in every single post I've made on this thread that a philosophy is a fine and dandy thing, because it is mutable. Gospel/dogma is not mutable, and not a fine or dandy thing. The words of the "prophets" are, by and large, philosophy. Suggestion. Invitations to explore and contemplate. I said that in the same post where I said Taoism was a philosophy, so perhaps you should read a little less selectively.
Do I think contemplative "religions" that actively encourage introspection and don't have a deity are less prone to dogma? Yes, yes I do. Because they are. That's a fact. Are all non-Abrahamic religions necessarily contemplative and non-theistic? No, I never said that, mostly because it isn't the case. Are Abrahamic religions especially prone to dogma? Yes, because they are wildly theistic. So were ancient Egyptians, long before the time of Abraham. Organized and stringent religion is, by its nature, not a philosophy. It might use philosophy in part, but the majority is dogma. Do not mistake one for the other.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 5:58 AM

Geezer,

I don't think so. Tribe with religion was just more organized than tribe without religion, so it defeated it.

CTS,

well said, basically. I think there is philosophy which isn't taken on faith, but it is a continuum.

Byte,

I think it is religion when you are willing to accept B before you have gotten from A to B in a logical step by step manner.

For the record, I support the concept of organized religion. I think that it helps the collective protection of the people. One just has to be wary of giving it any centralized power, just like with govt.

If you really had no governing structure at all, your biggest threat would not be chaos, but predation by other govts. and powers. So, a shell state can protect against this, as can a religion.

A philosophy really cannot, because no eight year old is going to have reached all of the end wisdom that can be derived from it, and so he will fall prey to manipulations.

PR,

Even within the confines of western religion, Christian muslim and jewish doctrine has changed radically over the years. That's why you have monestaries, etc. so people can study and come up with do ideas.

I agree there is a problem when anything becomes rigidly dogmatic, but this is not confined to religion. A govt. or philosophy or culture which cannot evolve or accept change is going have the same issues. And when the values don't change, it seems that the elite in power also stop changing.

That said, sometimes change isn't good.

Also, I think we're splitting hairs at this point

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 8:49 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Ah, well, the Chinese have a slightly different take on Buddhism, where some bodhisvattas and/or manifestations of Buddha are prayed to...

Some there do treat it in that way, but that's why I said that praying to Buddha went against everything he stood for. I know there are those that do it, but that doesn't mean they're correct in doing so. Repression in communist China runs so deep that it's likely they don't know much about the way it's supposed to work, with contemplation and your own awakening delivering you to Paradise, not an Awakened One delivering you to Paradise. Enlightenment happens in the lifetime, though, not after death. If you are Awakened in life, you will move to a higher plane of existence, which can be interpreted as living in joy on this Earth, or actually going somewhere else for your next life. Or both.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 9:02 AM

Hmm. I'd probably say it's more of a different cultural interpretation of the same teachings than it's a "they're wrong" thing. I mean, they had to translate between languages, and the Chinese have had natural forces and ancestral spirits they've paid homage to for like forever, so when Buddhism came into the region they merged the natural spirits with figures from Buddhism. It's a variation on the religion, or dogma if you prefer, and so long as they're not hurting anyone who's to say that what they're doing is "wrong?"

Communist China is pretty oppressive, but Buddhism is actually the largest organized faith in China. The real friction there is that the Chinese have their own Dalai Lama that they want acknowledged instead of the Tibetan one (you can guess why).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:18 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
who's to say that what they're doing is "wrong?"

Gautama Siddhartha. See above; he did not preach gospel or dogma. Quite the opposite.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:23 PM

Jesus preached a number of things that were "right," but that many Christians feel Christianity has moved away from, and Leviticus preached things that are now considered "wrong" that religion has moved away from. Literary references or depictions of the prophet Mohammad have also changed drastically over the ages.

Religions, like all man made artifacts, change and evolve. The original concept of a religion is likely not what any modern variants are actually practicing. So long as no damage is done, there is no harm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:29 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Interesting point about philosophy and religeon being on a continuam, makes sense to me. I do see some people who treat a philosophy as a religeon or visa versa, in certain situations it can be hard to see the line.

Not going to argue with Meghan's on this, even though I totally didn't understand what she was saying.

Ultimately people will decide for themselves what they will believe, a person can't force another to believe a certain way, sure they can force rules, but they can't force belief.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:45 PM

Not to nitpick, but seems dogmatic, no? I mean Christianity is often mixed with traditional beliefs.

Anyway, I'm on hiatus from the board as sister cancer duty calls. See you guys in a week or so.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:51 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Agreed.

Also, it's hard to find a large group of anything that is not considered by someone(s) somewhere to be oppressive/offensive, whether it's Catholics, Vegetarians, Union members, or Doctors. There's bound to be a bad apple(s) somewhere and if it was ever in a position of leadership...

It's my opinion that the ''problems' with religion would be more accurately described as 'user error.'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2011 3:44 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Garbage in, Garbage out.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:24 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Happy I think you're right.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Not going to argue with Meghan's on this, ...

Just out of curiosity, why do you keep calling Magonsdaughter "Meghan's"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 2:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
...but that's why I said that praying to Buddha went against everything he stood for. I know there are those that do it, but that doesn't mean they're correct in doing so.

The same can be said about Jesus, Muhammad, Confucius, Lao Tse, Moses, etc.

In every religion, there is something the masses are practicing that goes against everything the originator stood for.

Do you think Jesus would approve of the ornate churches built in his name? He was an unemployed hobo who preached giving away all riches to the poor, wherever he stood.

As Byte said, it is the nature of religion/philosophy to evolve. I like to call it mutation. None of those religions/philosophies are static and immutable. In a way, that is good. Unfortunately, the mutations tend to end up harmful, reflecting the baser intentions in human populations.

But I don't think that is the fault of religions/philosophies themselves. I think it is a function of human selfishness, to warp whatever we come in contact with to rationalize what we want.

Religion/philosophy is often offered as a solution to this mutagenic, warping, diseased selfishness. I see R/P as a mirror, not a solution. It helps us control the appearance of our nature, dress it up, prettify it. But mirrors in the end, leaves this selfishness untouched.

The way we treat each other...that is the only thing that can change who we are, our intentions, our selfishness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 4:00 AM