elusiveat ([info]elusiveat) wrote,
@ 2008-04-21 14:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: frustrated

A brief rant about religion.
I don't understand religion. What is there, is there. Sun, water, earth, life, fire, music, emotions, ideas. Real, undeniable, precious.

You don't need to be Pagan to know that these things are holy.
You don't need to be Christian to know that compassion is better than cruelty.
You don't need to be Muslim to know that the universe one thing, vast and unknowable.
You don't need to be Animist to know that small things have value.
You don't need to be Hindu to know that existence is cyclic.
You don't need to be Jewish to remember where you came from.
You don't need to be Atheist to know that common drives unite all life.
You don't need to be Buddhist to acknowledge mortality.

Why do we argue?


(Post a new comment)


[info]marmota
2008-04-21 07:28 pm UTC (link)
Amen to that.

(Reply to this)

[info]neuromancerzss
2008-04-21 07:33 pm UTC (link)
Because they're WRONG!

Seriously though, everyone believes they are Right and their outlooks influence how they think we as a society should function. So someone just believing something doesn't affect you, but no one just believes things without those beliefs affecting their actions.

(Reply to this)

[info]jadia
2008-04-21 07:42 pm UTC (link)
I've been wondering about religion recently too. I think you're phrasing it wrong - you don't *need* these things, but life is more than what you need. I think religion can add a lot to someone's life. I have definitely seen that happen.

How do you get from "this is how the world is" to "this is why the world is"? That's the bit I'm still wrestling with too. :-)

Also, I agree with previous poster - we all believe that we are right and since we all believe different things we naturally argue. In my mind, why we argue is completely orthogonal to religion. Religion just lets you say, "...look at how many people agree with me and have agreed with me over the years!"

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]elusiveat
2008-04-21 08:00 pm UTC (link)
What I'm really getting at here is that I think that the really core values are pretty universal, regardless of what model of the supernatural (or lack thereof) you might subscribe to.

Sometimes I hear Pagans talking about their connection with the natural world as deeply integrated with their religious beliefs. This sort of bothers me because I think that that type of connection is something that we *all* experience. Where a Pagan sees gods or an Animist sees spirits, a Christian sees one loving God and an Atheist sees a mindboggling natural marvel. If a person is at all aware, I can't understand how they could fail to see the big things and the small things as precious, regardless of what they might see behind, beneith, within, around, or above them.

So let religion be that which it is, but I think it's a mistake to let our religious disagreements distract us from the things that we share.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]mikecap
2008-04-21 08:24 pm UTC (link)
People don't focus on shared traits, only on differences. I think it may even be an evolved thing - identify the differences in things so that you can protect yourself and your tribe from the abnormal; especially true for people of other "alien" tribes. You may as well ask "why racism?" when all people are obviously human and share the exact same experiences.

The world will improve greatly when we discover extraterrestrial intelligence; religions will reform, and people will unite more in shared humanity when a new "other" is discovered.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]catamorphism
2008-04-21 08:44 pm UTC (link)
I don't think the core values are universal. Consider the difference between observant Jews' and fundamentalist Christians' approaches to obedience to authority vs. continual debate, for example.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]mikecap
2008-04-21 08:19 pm UTC (link)
Because you don't need the Internet to tell people that you're right.

(Reply to this)

[info]catamorphism
2008-04-21 08:43 pm UTC (link)
Religion is often a codification of culture.

(Reply to this)

[info]katkt
2008-04-21 09:33 pm UTC (link)
Why do we argue?

Because common drives unite all life. ;-)

Seriously, though, I have two thoughts, one easy to explain and one not:

- Religion is a major tribal identifier. Humans need to make tribes and have conflicts along tribal lines.
- Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen. (Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent) Language is simultaneously very fuzzy and extremely specific. You can use very different words to describe very similar experiences (or states of being). Out of context, different words sound like they mean different things. People get attached to their religion's words and interpret different words as an attack or denial, and no one likes being told they're wrong.

In other words, it's partially a linguistic dispute disguised as a substantive one, and partially a cultural thing.

I'm sure there are other parts. And the questions of why we break up into tribes and argue and why we argue and fight when someone tells us we're wrong are still open.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]smoketheworld
2008-04-21 09:40 pm UTC (link)
I'd suggest that we break into tribes because society as it stands right now is very big, and very impersonal. People are numbers unless they have the power/money/status to earn a name identity with the whole of society. It's comfortable to make your world smaller by identifying with a specific, 'concrete' element in the face of that, becasue we are social animals and we need intimacy, not mass produced emotional lip service. We like feeling like we know and identify with those around us, and if they dont prescribe to the same intimate circle of thought, or rather contradict it, they are aggressors.

There are several counter arguments or different theories that I can think of, but it's my impulse response.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]elusiveat
2008-04-21 09:41 pm UTC (link)
I like your response a lot : )

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]katkt
2008-04-21 09:47 pm UTC (link)
Of course you do! I'm a godlike super-being and all must worship me. My humility is my best feature.

You might say something different, but that's really just a linguistic dispute. ;-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]elusiveat
2008-04-22 03:03 pm UTC (link)
I knew some day I'd find you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]mikecap
2008-04-21 10:27 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure whether or not the tribal drive is a fundamental biological/evolutionary need, though I am leaning towards that idea lately. I think that today's Western society (specifically here in the U.S.) has been running away from tribalism as fast as it can - or was trying to redefine "tribe" as "immediate family that lives in my burbclave". The post WWII era really changed all the rules; the establishment of highways and the affluence of being able to own one's own home and car meant that people could spread out more and isolate themselves in their own "estate". Yet people invariably want to see the same things no matter where they go, so they can always end up somewhere familiar - thus establishing the pattern of the chain store and strip mall. In any case, the xenophobia and general fear of cities and interaction with other people is, I think, highly socially destructive.

I also think we are now in the midst of a huge backlash to this trend (or at least the younger generations are), and that's one of the things that is spawning the megachurch phenomenon, and also perhaps why there is such an upsurge in Internet tribalism and non-familial "chosen" tribes. People are searching for community again, and are finding it in mental spaces rather than geographic ones.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]noneuklid
2008-04-22 02:11 pm UTC (link)
Home ownership has been on the fall since shortly after WWII, and megachurches lost a lot of their impetus after the 80's. Population density has also been on the rise, making it not only harder to live in isolation, but harder to choose one's neighbors.

It's very easy to choose one's neighbors on the Web, and to live in communities that are extremely hostile to nonconforming members without facing any sort of legal trouble. This may be one of the primary elements of tribalism, but it's an ugly one.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]elusiveat
2008-04-22 03:09 pm UTC (link)
Increased population density doesn't make it harder to choose your neighbors. It makes it easier. That's one of the reasons that nonconformists tend to be happier in big cities: it's easier to find kindred spirits.

As for the Web, I think it brings out the best and the worst.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]noneuklid
2008-04-22 03:16 pm UTC (link)
I think he was talking about suburbia, which grows even faster than the cities do. And while you're right, one also is often less able to choose where one lives in many cities with respect to one's physical neighbors; I certainly don't know who lives near me, and I probably wouldn't like them in any case (at least one of the two townhouses near my apartment loves throwing large noisy booze-ridden parties thursday, friday, and saturday nights).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]mdyesowitch
2008-04-23 06:48 pm UTC (link)
I was about to post that I don't believe some of the above stated premise when I read your comment and realized that my differences do actually stem from linguistic interperation.

For instance, if I substituted "beautiful" for "holy" in:
You don't need to be Pagan to know that these things are holy.
I wouldn't have a problem with the statement. Holy means something different to me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]smoketheworld
2008-04-21 09:44 pm UTC (link)
It's awesome that you posted this. Two days ago, actually, I was having a conversation with someone who talked about 'my religion' constantly...which happened to be Wicca...and kept saying 'my religion really places importance on listening to your natural intuition...' etc etc. Nothing about what HE felt, just this 'My god says this' or 'my religion leads by this example/practice'. It drove me crazy, because I felt that if I didnt speak on the same level, as in 'Have you heard of (for instance...)Osho? I studied at his ashram in India and they played recordings of his old speeches, which state blah blah blah blah blah.....' or he wouldnt really understand the 'profundity' of what my experience or thoughts or deep feelings of connectedness that I have. As someone who doesnt really identify with a spiritual leader/religion/practice, it's often really, really frustrating to me to have conversations with people who only have that context.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]mikecap
2008-04-21 10:29 pm UTC (link)
This is an interesting point too... I wonder how much correlation may exist between people who are iconoclasts/outsiders and are not practicing a religion, versus people seeking community/belonging/identity who are?

Religion really does seem very, very intertwined with identity.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]elusiveat
2008-04-22 03:06 pm UTC (link)
I'm seeking and not practicing nor planning to practice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]noneuklid
2008-04-21 09:45 pm UTC (link)
It isn't undeniable. I've often complemented Mary Baker Eddy's book, "Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures", the fundamental text of Christian Science (snake-handlers), for its philosophical sophistication. It calls the world an illusion; much like Plato did, and plenty of others before and since. Things -- things we can touch, taste, feel; the senses themselves; are what is evil, what holds us back.

Who was it in philosophy of science who said, essentially, that you can preserve any particular element of belief as long as you are willing to alter other aspects of your structure? Ultimately, of course, you get to pure egoism or solipsism that way, but there's lots of stopovers on the way.

I think you do need to be Pagan to recognize the holiness of the world of the senses.
I think you do need to be Christian to understand that the Greater-Than-Human is cruel, to human eyes.
And you need to be Muslim to recognize that it demands obedience, and offers no reward greater than a righteous death.
Only an Animist will realize that the world is made up of fragmented minds.
Hindus exclusively recognize the six million gods.
And the Jewish alone know the power of a shared story.
Atheists recognize, unlike all others, the Greater-Than-Human does not speak to us in our language.
And only the Buddhists see that all of this is in us, as we are in it.

It is not that you do not need to be any of these things; it is that you must be all of them.

Those who wish to be nothing become nothing; and in being nothing, are part of a great and terrible void. This is the secret of predatory religion, of all predatory exclusions -- Nothing.

(Reply to this)

[info]_omega_man
2008-04-22 07:32 am UTC (link)
What all this comes down to is; one doesn't have to be religious in order to be a good person or have a moral conscience or live a meaningful, virtuous life.

This cuts to one of the fundamental (no pun intended) problems I have with religions (the occasional Jihads and Inquisitions aside)namely; Religion's effective monopoly on moral teachings and thought.

For many millions religion, morality and ethics are inseparable. They simply cannot imagine them as different and often contradictory concepts (For Lennon and us imaging no religion may be easy, but it is impossible for them and they dont want to even try:).
This is why wherever there is a move to try and purge secular education of religious prejudice, propaganda and superstition, there is a huge shitstorm in which one of the most frequently heard arguments is But how will the children learn right from wrong?.

I'd argue (and I have:) that people who need to be told the difference, or explained the golden rule, by some theocratic authority figure are unable to discover the difference for themselves. Or that they need the carrot and stick of heaven and hell to compel them to do good or not unduly harm their fellow beings.

We NonTheists, on the otherhand, believe that ethical laws, as with nature's laws, are discoverable and knowable without all the superstitious underpinnings. And that most all beliefs have some kernal of truth within them, buried somewhere within piles of dogmatic bullshit:).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]elusiveat
2008-04-22 03:34 pm UTC (link)
You and I are the product of a long tradition of rationalism, with roots running back beyond the Rennaissance to ancient Greece. I'm not sure how reasonable it is for us to claim immunity to dogma.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]_omega_man
2008-04-23 01:55 am UTC (link)
Indeed, it is perhaps better to say less susceptible to dogma rather than immune to it, courtesy of our long tradition of healthy skepticism; one of rationalism's key components.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]katkt
2008-04-23 09:47 pm UTC (link)
What distinction are you drawing between "morality" and "ethics"? I've heard other people draw a distinction between them, but never one that's actually been explained to me. My dictionary of choice is unhelpful.

I am reminded (by your comment about dogam) discussions on the topic of mathematics as the underpinning of our system of thought and how occasionally fuzzy is our understanding of what mathematics is and how and why it works. The phrase "mathematics is the dogma of the rationalist" comes to mind. I think it's a fascinating topic - but, of course, I was a Math/Phil major, so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…