The why and origins of Religion
I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human.
Comments (180)
I think, originally, it started with paranormal experiences such as visions, apparitions, premonitions, telepathy, out-of-body and near-death experiences, and the like, that led people to believe, and in some cases to be convinced, that there is a metaphysical world out there that is inhabited by spiritual entities in much the same way the material world is populated with material things or beings.
I think we need to distinguish between private and public religion. Private religion is a way by which the individual attempts to explain the world and connect with what he or she believes to be a higher power.
Public religion is a different story. It may be used by the ruling class to enforce law and order and inculcate certain moral values. But there is nothing wrong with law and order or morality. On the contrary, it helps keep society together and enables it to function in ways that are beneficial to itself and its citizens. From this perspective, there is nothing wrong with belief in spiritual entities, "extraordinary" or otherwise.
Religion is mankind’s first attempt to explain the world around them, born of fear of the unknown. Fear of death is at the foundation of religion and from that fear comes a need for comfort.
So, fear and comfort.
Ask yourselves rather why you refrain from such ideas. I rather ask if you do refrain? Who has not given their car a damn good thrashing when it refuses to start?
:sweat: Guilty!
For one, I doubt that many who profess to believe in such an external powerful entity actually believe in it. I know many monotheists, but there isn't a single one for which I could confidently say that they actually believe in God.
It seems that monotheistic religions were developed for the purpose of justifying the exploitation of humans, animals, and the planet at large. Not to explain physical phenomena or the "mystery of life". You can see this by the function of religion: it's there to justify demanding from others, to justify taking from others.
From what I can gather Hinduism is one of the oldest religions but in the beginning started as a belief system but was later codified by the religious texts. It appears to be Zoroastrianism the ancient Persian religion that was the first to propose a monotheism concept. This was influential for the development of Judaism and the abrahamic religions.
It does not really explain the why of the idea other than the assumption there must be one.
I have often thought this too, but for different reasons. Religions are social clubs and come with a set of 'off the rack' beliefs, so you don't need to work at independent thought. God 'belief' is the price you pay for admittance and because the idea is ineffable, you need not engage with it.
Probably just using "god" as a justification to a philosophy/way of living using "appeal to authority" fallacy to people who are not a bright and use exagerations or lies to get more followers. (Much like politics)
I think the reasons depend on whether it is a true belief or not. If it's false, then perhaps humans are a bit crazy and have a tendency to believe any old nonsense. On the other hand, if it is true, then it could be because humans have considered the evidence and happily arrived at the correct conclusion. So to answer the question we have to first work out whether it's true or not. Then the fun begins.
But there are entire universities devoted to theological study and millions of pages of analysis have been provided by thousands of individuals over the millennia attempting to answer all sorts of questions. How is that far easier than mixing a few chemicals in a lab and charting your results? Seems like sometimes the theological system is more complex and sometimes the scientific study is more complex, but I don't know that one per se requires greater intelligence or work than the other.
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” ? Albert Einstein
Hey angry atheist!
Are you trolling people's threads again?
Quoting 3017amen
No, troll, why are you trolling me? Rub a raw nerve, have I? Troll is as troll does, I suppose. Must be Monday ...
Don't take this the wrong way, but are you resentful about something? Just an observation, you use a lot of ad hominem and other derogatory language when it comes to defending your Atheism.
Pattern seeking brains allows us to see design in nature (recognition of paw of a lion saves life by avoiding a path in Savanah, so does recognition of a fruit by providing food). Theory of mind allows sees intent in nature. It explains away causal relationship between events and things. It creates that other entity who designed the nature and has an intent for our survival. It warns us through floods or thunderstorms etc. Since our brain uses short cuts to survive, believing there is a higher entity with agency monitoring our every move was useful evolutionary byproduct.
In post agriculture revolution era, more organized religious beliefs were born out of it to help governing the exploding population that now had to live closer together and engage in trade etc.
There's another example of your trolling threads, just to seemingly disparage people, and otherwise add more ad hominem.
We can't help but wonder why you keep doing this. Why are you so emotionally distraught or defensive about your Atheism? (Was Einstein right?)
This isn't responsive though to our discussion. You may be correct that the mountain of theological literature doesn't amount to a hill of beans and that a single middle school experiment might trump all that was thought to be the case by religion, but that doesn't address your comment that making shit up is easier than scientific study. The tangled web the theologians may have weaved might be horseshit, but that doesn't mean it's simple.
I do like that you called me sir though. Such respect is well overdue.
As if that was all my first post stated or concluded. Take sentences out of context to make them inexplicable, or indefensible, to what end? Well, you've already conceded enough, sir, so I'm good.
Thanks! What method then would better capture your personal attack on people?
Then after you answer that question, can you logically defend your belief system?
I think it's caused by a combination of fear and self-love, if left unmastered.
You will get an answer (one of many answers of course) to your question very shortly. Be patient. I'll give you a hint: the limbic system :grin:
We won't let 180 troll your thread much longer. Just watch how he'll eventually fade away...
There's another example of your trolling threads, just to seemingly disparage people, and otherwise add more ad hominem.
We can't help but wonder why you keep doing this. Why are you so emotionally distraught or defensive about your Atheism? (Was Einstein right?)
Nice explanation Sir and I think along the lines that I think might have been the case. It’s tricky too as for a lot of pre history it almost certainly would not have come from one person but a collective thing. It would have started with the idea and developed into a more concrete idea. It may also be true that early humans were more receptive to the idea of some higher power.
"God" is an expression of human immortality,justice and creativity,an expression of the human self.
God in short,is a humans practical awareness.
Egyptian pharaohs were considered living gods, i.e. they were gods when alive. That generally wasn't so with Roman emperors, who usually were deified (and worshiped) after death, at least in the Western or Latin Empire. In some cases, an emperor would allow himself to be worshipped as a god before death, generally at the request of the prominent citizens of a particular city or region, but in most instances the emperor himself wasn't worshipped while alive though his genius and numen might be. The cult of the emperors was different in the West than in the East, as deification during life was more a feature of the Eastern Empire, the provinces of which had more of a history of ruler-worship. So, for example, Diocletian required divine honors while alive. With the coming of the Christian Empire, emperors were no longer deified but were, of course, considered emperors by grant of God.
It's not clear that this is the case; or that "making shit up is easier than study"; "or that "people want to be told what to think," and such are the case.
People are cunning, and this needs to be accounted for somehow.
Cunning implies deceitful, doesn't it? Could they not just be smart and complex?
When I wrote that 'Religions are social clubs...' etc - I was taking a particular line that seems to apply to many, but not all folk. I have friends who are sincere believers (with strong mystical tendencies) who are unusually helpful to others and not materialistic.
But personal religion is sometimes an expression or symbol of something powerful or just,something karmic. Like believing in the future positively. An expression of hope. Mystics go a step further and believe in a union with God or even becoming a God.
Quoting Tom Storm
This is laughable. Do you know any religious people? I spent some time in the southern USA a few years ago. Down there, they wear their religion on their sleeves more than people in the north. I was always moved by how big a influence religion and God had in their lives. You can see they look to them for guidance on a daily basis. It is unpremeditated and sincere.
It's a tricky word, and I used it for that purpose.
But I think we can all agree they should be.
Despite his genius I guess Albert didn’t know that sound can’t travel in a vacuum. And if it’s a choice between fanatics, I’ll take the reason/science based fanatic over the ‘I believe whatever sky father (ordinary guy wearing robes and funny hat) tells me’ fanatic, because history shows that the latter is capable of any atrocity.
Despite him not being a philosopher, probably much like you, he did not know consciousness itself transcends logic. However, his common sense observations speaks volumes to the cognitive dysfunction/dissonance, as we've seen on this site with the many trolling atheists... :razz:
I’m not an atheist. Please exercise better common sense observations.
Quoting 3017amen
You contend that only a religion could inform him of that? And please exercise better grammar. I couldn’t interpret your double negative.
Quoting praxis
Because you said the forgoing, in that you would ' take reason/science based fanatic'; was it unreasonable to conclude you were an atheist?
Quoting praxis
The short answer to that short question is, I would contend that both science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
I don’t want to derail my own post by putting another ‘obvious’ question (better for another discussion) but in the way I set it out, without influence or pre conceived notions or influences, and with the sort of time we rarely have (the mountain mystic) can you say you would ‘feel’ the existence of this supernatural entity? Your own guardian angel (but this is different anyway as it is your own self). Independently I would think not. But as ever look forward to hearing your own views, in particular if you have had your own experience that is not influenced by others.
I’m not going to even dignify that with an answer, and in any case it doesn’t matter.
Quoting 3017amen
It feels like you’re being evasive. There’s no need for that, I’m totally harmless. Anyway, you mentioned consciousness transcending logic. Perhaps you could rephrase that because your meaning is unclear. Obviously consciousness doesn’t require logic, but I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say.
Planetary bodies emitting sound that we can hear isn’t a good example of a shared truth between science and religion.
Ahhem. You are the one who brought it up sir. Are you saying it is unreasonable to conclude you are arguing for atheism? I don't get it. Here's the quote: "The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” ? Albert Einstein
And you said, in paraphrase, you would rather take the side of the fanatical atheist. So which is it my friend? Sorry but I'm calling you out on that :razz:
Quoting praxis
I answered a short question with a short answer. What more do you want? Alternatively, you said consciousness doesn't require logic, what does that mean? In other words, are you referring to explaining the nature of consciousness itself, or in the description of its function(s)? Once we identify exactly what we're referring to there, only then can we have meaningful discussion.
Sure, what’s the worst they’ve done? I’m really asking because nothing terrible comes to mind.
Quoting 3017amen
Meaning there can be consciousness without logic. Critters, for example, are conscious and without logic. One might even argue that you’re conscious and without logic.
Depends on the context. Generally speaking, extremism is usually not good. Otherwise, would you say a fanatical atheist is similar to a religious extremist or a fanatical fundamentalist?
Quoting praxis
Oh, I see. How does that happen, I wonder?
Daniel Dennett alone in a drawing room holding a candelabra.
Quoting 3017amen
Animals don’t have the capability to reason or assess according to strict rules of validity. In your case, who knows.
Someone said he looks good in a speedo, but that's not my thing :joke:
Quoting praxis
Sorry, I don't know what that means. You seem to be saying you and Daniel have a logical explanation for consciousness... .
Oh well, I hope at least you don't share in his so-called logical choice of sunbathing attire :razz:
Not laughable - geography. I live in Australia and know well many religious people. A close friend is a Catholic priest. It describes the scenario here for many, but I never said 'all'.
Nevertheless Southern fundamentalism aside, I suspect my description of religion as primarily a social group is largely accurate elsewhere. I have certainly heard Matt Dillahunty argue this - he's a former Southern Baptist and now atheist educator in Texas.
Religion isn't the only belief based crutch we have, but it's the one that gets most heat Almost everything in our society is in some way or form belief based. All belief based structures, material, psychological, or societal are built around the idea of comfort and the comforting.
You and @Baker have agreed that not many religious followers actually believe in God. I think my criticism is reasonable.
Maybe I should backup a bit and go back to what initially caught my interest, the claim that atheists cannot hear the music of the spheres. I don’t know the nature of reality or if god exists and in that way I’m not an atheist. I do hope the story in the Bible, and every other religious story I’ve heard, is not true because... it’s some messed up shit, to be perfectly honest. Rather than the "opium of the masses" I’d rather say something like ‘religion is the glue that binds the masses and helps to control them’.
So given the above, am I deaf to the music of the spheres? If so, does that mean the spheres only play Bible hymns?
OK. I suspect it just like, politics, really. So many people identify with a political party, without having any knowledge about policies or a true belief.
As you may know, that was a metaphor from Einstein's appreciation of the harmony found in the universe. Much like those who believe abstract mathematics (a metaphysical language) has an independent existence of it's own, Einstein believed that music also had an independent existence that was discovered from time to time buy those who were seeking its truth.
Since music may be considered a universally understood, subjective-truth, it also seems sadly apparent that the fanatical atheist might consider that so-called harmony in the universe as sonic dissonance.
I'm sure that Einstein was smart enough to distinguish between deafness and dissonance, and that he knew how to say what he meant. In any event, still no clearer as to why the believer may hear sonance and the disbeliever dissonance.
He was smart enough to appreciate the Harmony in the universe. On the other hand, he believed the fanatical atheist, using your interpretation, would be considered a deaf mute :razz:
You're not explaining why. What you're saying only kind of makes sense if we assume that the "music of the spheres" is theism (whatever that entails), since theism is what the atheist objects to, finds dissonant or cannot hear. "appreciate the Harmony in the universe", as you say, appears to mean appreciating God. Note how you capitalize Harmony. We don't need any religious narrative to appreciate the harmony of the universe, do we? Because if we do that seems to mean that we're appreciating the story rather than the actual universe.
I'm a New Yorker (by way of Cali, DC, Minnesota & Arizona) who has lived in the "dirty south" from 1997-2002 and 2015-present. "Hotlanta" is the epitome of sinning like hell for six days and (occasionally) getting right with Jeezus on Sunday. Praise the Lawd! The religious hypocrisy is as thick as smoked molasses down here in the Bible Belt. More adultery, fatherless children, unwed mothers, porn gambling & opiod addicts, junky baptist strippers, titty bars & jack shacks, shameless obesity, gas-guzzling Trump-festooned pick-up trucks, liquor stores & chicken shacks, maskless morons in a pandemic, gun racks & MAGA-QAnon-Confederate flags, more hate crimes & police lynchings, private (plantation) prisons & endemic voter suppression, etc – you name the social pathology, son, and we've got it in spades down here in Dixie – Gawd's own country! Wtf are you talking about, T Clark? :lol: Yeah, these folks wear their knee-jerk 'White Jeezus-ism' on their sleeve-less sleeves like cheap, truck stop tattoos but that's because these "Gawd-fearing folks" belong to the least educated, least healthy, demographic in the US.
. Religion ... which is not Religion ... I call it Pseudo-Religion ... as metaphysics ... is born out of fear ... because ... one is ignorant about his own nature ... hence ... the ideological conflicts ... and so-called religious wars ... whose ultimate end ... is fighting for peace ... although ... no fight can lead to peace ... Fight as such ... inevitably leads to violence ... because ... fight ... as such ... is violent ...
. True religion ... which is ... Love ... is born out of ... being ... out of understanding ... out of consciousness ...
. And Love can lead to Compassion ... to the ultimate experience of oneself ... Samadhi ...
@Tom Storm and @baker said not many religious followers actually believe in God. I said that is not true. I don't see how anything you've written has any relevance to that.
@Baden and his social justice posse would shut down a post like yours for any ethnic or racial group other than white people. The kind of contempt you show goes a long way toward explaining the political problems we have in the US these days and the popularity of Donald Trump.
Shamanism was a universal feature of pre-modern cultures - shamans were said to be healers, visionaries, seers, with powers to discern the movements of the herds, to communicate with the spirit world and to effect healing.
Yogic practices are more associated with Eastern religions but were probably also prevalent in the pre-modern West. These are associated with religious asceticism, attaining trance states and developing supernormal powers ('siddhis').
Due to the way religion was construed in Western culture, under the general oversight of a strong priestly/ecclesiastical religion (namely, Roman Christianity) many of the vestiges of these cultural forms were driven underground, stamped out or repressed, although they linger on in some alternative cultural forms. But this is why there has been such a strong response to the emissaries of Eastern religion in Western cultures during the 19th-20th centuries.
There is some cross-over visible in the 'contemplative spirituality' aspect of Christianity, such as Meister Eckhardt and the medieval mystics. Note that many of them skirted heresy or were declared heretical, which says something. Mysticism is liminal, it's always on the border of ecclesiastical respectability.
You won't find much discussion of these ideas in 'religion' as such, so much as cultural studies, anthropology, and comparative religion. Mircea Eliade is a respected academic in this field. On a popular level, Karen Armstrong is considerably more relevant than many religious apologists. Also a huge collection of books on alternative spirituality, eastern religions, gnosticism and so on.
I’m thinking that you may not have hung out with the folks that 180 was describing on your visit South. Btw, I’m always suspicious of people who “wear their religion on their sleeves” because it feels more like branding than spirituality.
I was wondering if mysticism has anything to do with the Einstein quote about ‘hearing the music of the spheres’ (musica universalis). @3017amen has been no help and he’s the one who posted the quote.
:up: Mircea Eliade and Karen Armstrong are definitely worth reading (even rereading). Also, even more so I'd found, the "shamanic" studies of Hans Peter Duerr, David Abram and Terence McKenna.
Einstein was a Spinozist and pantheist. His remarks about "God" "music of the spheres" and other "mysteries" are metaphorical or mere figures of speech, unless one believes (without warrant) he intended to repeatedly express himself inconsistently vis-a-vis his avowed Spinozism. I see no reason to do so.
I'm not well-read on the expression 'music of the spheres' but I think it has to do with the idea that the movements of the planets generate a kind of harmony. It's associated with Kepler.
One general observation I would make is that we lack the ability to distinguish religion from philosophical spirituality. Because of the dogmatic attitude of Christianity, everything 'religious' gets tarred with the same brush.
I think that I know what you mean but disagree. If we sapiens are good at anything it’s making distinctions.
Interesting in that philosophy can develop into a science, it can also develop into a religion.
Excellent and much much needed post Wayfarer!!
This is a major aspect of religion which atheists and even theists need to refer to and grapple with. Rather than taking the worst excesses of literalist fundamentalist religion,listen to the experiences and presentations of eloquent mystics,shamans and meditators.
An acute and lucid point.
Quoting Zenny
As per Wayfarer's point; but we all share fundamentalism as a common problem. These guys often view philosophical spirituality as atheism. The doctrinaire literalist Christians seek to change legislation and turn back the clock, with an eye towards establishing a theocracy that would threaten freedoms. There's a reason atheists have to keep coming back to this - they may be low hanging fruit when it comes to sophisticated reasoning, but they can have disproportionate power over education and social policy.
I have no fear of any theocracy being established in the Western world and even elsewhere its very very rare. Iran being the only real example.
Big government is the problem,not really religion. Most religious people I know just want to practice in private and live relatively normal lives. I feel the government, media and scientism is far more intrusive than religion. Maybe in the US people might feel differently.
The religious are not an ethnic group. And if you think their ideas should be protected then the same principle applies to the ideas of those who reject religion. If you have any other complaints, you can start a feedback thread or send a PM but your comparison is invalid.
Ok, didn't notice, but I don't think racist white southern Jesus freaks need protecting.
Whining about potential racism (which I don't see anyway) against the socially and politically dominant group that runs, controls, and owns the vast majority of the resources while imposing actual systemic racism against the dominated group. Sorry, no sympathy from me. Take it to another mod.
And in black majority countries can powerless minority whites call black people pejorative?
My interpretation is the phrase "white-jesusism" refers to religious believers that think Jesus was white. So, no racism there anyway except in that belief.
So white minorities,can they use pejoratives based on color?
Yes, really.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Zenny
https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/06/25/how-an-iconic-painting-jesus-white-man-was-distributed-around-world/
“Every time you see white Jesus, you see white supremacy,”
There's your racism.
The Washington Post is now an authority and your justification for your own racism.
Zero self awareness. Just a hypocrite.
Criticizing the belief that Jesus is white is racism? No, it's the belief that Jesus is white is racist or at least, ignorant and deserving of criticism.
So don't play the innocent. Man up and own your words and post.
So your posts was about blacks who are maga and worship black jesus?!
What a liar!
There you go weasel.
Lying sophist.
Get over yourself.
It's not clear to me. Are you threatening to stop my posts on this subject?
For the record - @baker wrote that few Christians actually believe in God. I responded describing my experience in the southern US. @180 Proof responded describing the characteristics of white southerners in his usual extravagant way - with lots of bolded words and insults. Then I responded saying that you and your co-ideologs would not allow that to be said about any group other than whites, which is true. I never mentioned religious prejudice, as you incorrectly stated.
I'll ask again, are you threatening to shut down my voice because I don't toe your party line.
No, it's not true. That's been established as far as I'm concerned. Nothing racist was said. The accusations were false. As for the rest, read what I wrote and stop being a drama queen. Or if you must, take it to the other thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11047/racism-or-prejudice-is-there-a-real-difference
So then, the answer is "yes." If I don't say the things you want, you will stop me from writing in this thread.
Dude, this is supposed to be about religion. You can discuss racism in the racism thread. That's the way it works re keeping things on topic.
I'm not.
Quoting David S
will be deleted.
I'm not sure what that means.
The reason is to try and filter out that of course a firm religious belief may come from family or upbringing or cultural background. This has been referred to as Public religion here and a good distinction. Of course for adults in particular who have found wether from birth or upbringing or maybe in later life their own private religion of whatever denomination it is why you believe that this omniscient and omnipresent being {if that is what it is to you} exists. It’s not questioning your belief or faith but what your spirit (or soul if you will) let’s you emphatically believe that is true. I mentioned I am Taoist myself where the origins and where we come from and where we go is explained in the 3 main Taoist texts and to an extent the I Ching too {not a religious text but an important classic of Confucian and Taoist teaching}.
There are many replies that focus on religion versus atheism but that was not what I was asking from the original post. [mea culpa as I tied the supra natural entity or God if you like to religion because I guess that is how most people think about it.
So I guess for your private religion and if you have that belief for whatever denomination I would appreciate you sharing and do hope your replies are not countered by others strongly opposed for whatever reason to this idea.
Your participation would be incontrovertible proof that such argument is invalid.
Another one bits the dust I see. Oh well, when you get the courage to make your case, I'll be waiting.
BTW, I can't resist, are you ashamed that you got Einstein wrong? Or was that another attempt at a red herring...or, wait, maybe you understand blowing smoke, lying, pretending, and Dennett's speedo's better :razz:
I’ll just wait for the street cleaner to do their work.
Hahahahahaha! Be well!
I reference the premier authority in the matter...
I would express regret for bursting your little bubble, Amen, if I felt any regret.
Coolio!! I'll do a search to see if this subject matter has been covered and if not, I'll open up a thread on Albert!!
Although he certainly was not perfect, obviously he's widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest physicists of all time. Just about every physics article/book I read has his name dropped...
The reference to 'species' is significant, because it implies an essentially biological perspective. Which in turn suggest that you're wanting a naturalistic explanation for religion, one that is compatible with naturalism generally. And I am guessing that it's because supernatural is a taboo word in today's culture.
But I think the supernatural origin of religion must be considered. Of course the question then arises, why are there so many, and why do they conflict with each other?
[quote=John Hick, Who or What is God?; http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article1.html]What does this mean for the different, and often conflicting, belief-systems of the religions?
It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages.
But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. This process of elaboration is one of philosophical or theological construction. Christian experience of the presence of God, for example, at least in the early days and again since the 13th-14th century rediscovery of the centrality of the divine love, is the sense of a greater, much more momentously important, much more profoundly loving, personal presence than that of one’s fellow humans.
But that this higher presence is eternal, is omnipotent, is omniscient, is the creator of the universe, is infinite in goodness and love is not, because it cannot be, given in the experience itself. In sense perception we can see as far as our horizon but cannot see how much further the world stretches beyond it, and so likewise we can experience a high degree of goodness or of love but cannot experience that it reaches beyond this to infinity. That God has these infinite qualities, and likewise that God is a divine Trinity, can only be an inference, or a theory, or a supposedly revealed truth, but not an experienced fact.
And so Jesus himself will have understood that experienced loving and demanding presence to be the God of his Jewish tradition, and specifically of that aspect of the tradition that emphasized the divine goodness and love, as well as justice and power. But as his teaching about the heavenly Father was further elaborated, and indeed transformed, within the expanding gentile church, it grew into the philosophical conception of God as an infinite co-equal trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
And so what we inherit today is a complex totality in which religious experience and philosophical speculation embodied in theological doctrine have interacted over the centuries and have to a certain degree fused. In the other great traditions the same process has taken place, in each case taking its own distinctive forms. For religious experience always has to take some specific form, and the forms developed within a given tradition ‘work’, so to speak, for people within that tradition but not, in many cases, for people formed by a different tradition.[/quote]
I had to go though the motions of posting a snippet from wikipedia about something that should have been apparent to you from your own postings for you to be cool?
The worst kind of troll is the one who doesn't realize they're trolling.
This is very much in tune with how I think these all come from the same source you term the Ultimate and the Taoist in me considers the Tao.
I just think it is sad (understated word) that these different interpretations and for some in particular have been ‘at war’ with each other even within the same basic beliefs, so the divisions in Islam, the many divisions in Christianity. So much lives lost over the different views of this one Universal ultimate.
The deification or more correctly this supranatural dimension is still the interesting one. In literature there are many examples but my favourite is the works of Tolkien. As much as he hated allegory in all its forms his own creation myth with Eru Iluvitar.
Eru was the supreme deity of Arda. He was the single creator, above the Valar, but delegated almost all direct action within Eä to the Ainur. The music of the Ainur and the discord in the music creating the division, the Yin to the Yang. There is a parallel in the concept of Archangels and angels with the Ainur. This is similar to the Greek and Norse pantheons with different powers attributed to different gods.
The one god concept seems to be a way of competing with this multi faceted view, another oddity so not worshiping ‘false gods’ - how is this reconciled with the idea of Archangels and such, messengers of the gods but still supranatural.
The Taoist of course have the Yellow Emperor who is considered I guess ‘God Like’ and also the 8 Taoist Immortals. These are not competing with each other but just examples of enlightened beings similar to Buddha.
Spirituality therefore rather than religion is a positive for everyone in terms of finding an ‘inner peace’,that is very close perhaps I suggest to what the original idea behind the origins of gods, the deep understanding of what life is.
Hmmm... but what is 'spirituality'? It's not a word that resonates with me at all and can mean anything you want. And I am not sure that the notion of 'a deep understanding of what life is' is anything more than a phrase.
I learned from reading about The Inklings (the group of friends including Tolkien, C S Lewis and others) that Tolkien attended Mass every day. And that his lecture schedule as a younger academic was absolutely exhausting, including Old Icelandic, Norse Poetry, and other such subjects, across a number of classes he gave in parallel. He was a great prodigy. Later in life he became an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, and had a reputation for thorough scholarship but at the cost of always being behind in his work; he would deliberate endlessly. Part of his aim with Lord of the Rings was to create an imaginary history for traditional Europe.
I think he would have hated the way Europe has become.
On the broader theme of your question - John Hick addresses it from an ‘insider’ perspective, as a philosopher of religion and theologian. There are many other approaches - the anthropological (Emile Durkheim), the sociological (Max Weber), the mythological (Joseph Campbell, the Golden Bough). It’s a truly vast topic, actually ‘bigger than history’ in some ways.
I get your point about ‘spiritual but not religious’, although in time I think you will identify one particular such tradition that really is the one for you, and when you do, I think you will find it has some ineluctably religious elements to it. But, that’s OK! No need to be phobic about religion.
Tom, I guess that is the problem with language. Understanding. I try and keep it simple. “Spirituality’ for me is reaching a place where you know your own ‘true self`’. I think in particular in the modern world we can be so removed from our true nature. I also like the stoic view and the expression there are only two things an individual can control. “How you think”, and “how you act.” It may take a lifetime but finding your ‘true self’ and ways of thinking and acting can lead you there. I believe that this ‘true self’ everyone has and the search for finding it within yourself is spiritual. Many of course find religion is their path.
I have a good friend from early school days. He became a PhD doctor in Mathematics and teaches in Australia. He is a catholic. I remember when we were around 18 years old on a return from University we had a long discussion about our respective beliefs at the time. After many hours he concluded that we had a lot we could agree on and were like minded on. The Taoist and The Catholic.
David S You can afford to be more ambitious. I have worked in the field of addiction and mental illness for decades, with a focus on suicide risk assessment and prevention. So I know the significance of language and understand many people's fractured sense of self and need to find meaning. A pet hate of mine is inadequate words like 'spirituality' and 'true nature'. I don't want to be unnecessarily quarrelsome but they are not all that helpful except as bookstore categories. Unless you can put some substantial flesh on their bones...
Also what evidence do you have that in the modern world we are more removed from our true natures than in the past? It could be argued, with good reason, that people are much more likely in this current comparatively wealthy time of education and free time (and bookshops and on line) to find themselves. This kind of searching has certainly been a hallmark of the middle class West for the past 50 years.
I said that I don't know anyone who does. I suppose there could be religious people who really, genuinely believe what they say. I just haven't met any.
No. You misunderstood. I said it was cool because you did some research and it still proved I was right, and you were wrong.
:razz:
Thanks!
You’ve never heard of religious martyrs? Suicide bombers? You think these people don’t really believe in god and rewards of gods afterlife?
Why do you think they do it then? What is the reason why they are sacrificing their lives and claiming they do it because god wants them to?
Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Note that the word "religious martyr" tends to be applied to anyone who died "for religion", regardless of how they lived prior to that; regardless of the specific of their death (whether it's a bus full of schoolchildren dying in a bomb attack, or whether it's someone who prior to their public execution said some notable religious words); and regardless of who declared their death to be "for religion" (Romans might have killed a lot of Christians, but should we therefore surmise that they were all martyrs for Christianity?).
Some of them are egomaniacs. It's taboo to name names in this category, but surely you can think of some people who are publicly regarded as "saints", but it is also known they had a "dark side", replete with sex and drug scandals, financial shenaningans, and so on.
Some just have nothing left to live for, nothing to lose, so in a last desperate attempt to make sense of their lives, they do something extreme and pin a religious label to it.
Some are pathological altruists.
Some are blackmailed into extreme actions ("We'll kill your family if you don't blow yourself up with this bomb in the middle of a busy public square").
Some are just mentally ill.
These options seem more likely to be the explanations for the cause of religious martyrdom than religiosity. Of course, we can't empirically test this, and the available anecdotal data is limited.
Given this, it behooves that one take notions of sainthood and martyrdom with the proviso that they are characteristically temporally limited.
And you'd probably say that this is to our loss?
Correction, the worst kind of troll is a childish troll.
This.
As well as philosophy and reason, I'm not willing to dismiss felt intuitions. Introspection is often an unreliable guide to they way things are, but sometime sit may be perfectly reliable. It might simply be that some people do have genuine insight. Philosophers can't do much conclusively with the testimony of others, or even their own, of course. And I don't think that all claims of God's existence are extraordinary, although some are. The existence of Zeus on Mt Olympus is of course an extraordinary claim. But there are other God concepts which assert agency and consciousness at the beginning of things, and that seems entirely plausible. Indeed, echoing Un, it's not clear to me that the easy 'default' theoretical position is that there is no such agency. I don't think it's an extraordinary claim.
My point is that it would take a true belief in god in order to sacrifice your life for god. Let’s not get lost in the weeds it should be clear the exact kind of martyr I was talking about.
Quoting baker
Sure, those are all reasons people might have for blowing themselves up. They don’t seem any more plausible than an actual belief they have that not only justifies but demands that behaviour.
Why are you so sure religiosity isn’t the reason even though that is the reason given AND we can see from the religious texts/religious leaders that they are instructed to do so?
Would you be equally dismissive of the reasons that I gave for any given action? If I told you I post on this forum because I want to practice debating would you suspect I actually was doing it for some other possible reason you can come up with?
I have met many. Just because someone isn't as self-aware of their beliefs as you think they should be, I don't hold that against them. @Tom Storm wrote previously, most people don't really examine their beliefs and the consequences of them.
No hard evidence. It is not that I would go looking for some. Maybe the mindfulness movement that has been around for some time now. But again I would not necessarily think there has been a rush either to things like meditation classes. Of course there are more subtle things like days away in the country, or a stroll along the beach, or lying on the grass in a low light pollution area on a clear, dark, cloudless night.
I think it is true to that the younger generation are more likely to be distracted by technology with social media being a blessing and a curse in equal measure. Again if you are after hard based facts and evidence I am sorry to disappoint. I can ‘feel’ this might be true and be sad for it.
Astrology which many debunk argues that mankind is now in the Age of Aquarius.
Astrologers believe that an astrological age affects humanity, possibly by influencing the rise and fall of civilizations or cultural tendencies.
Traditionally, Aquarius is associated with electricity, computers, flight, democracy, freedom, humanitarianism, idealism, modernization, astrology, nervous disorders, rebellion, nonconformity, philanthropy, veracity, perseverance, humanity, and irresolution.
A common position expressed by many astrologers sees the Age of Aquarius as that time when humanity takes control of the Earth and its own destiny as its rightful heritage, with the destiny of humanity being the revelation of truth and the expansion of consciousness, and that some people will experience mental enlightenment in advance of others and therefore be recognized as the new leaders in the world.
Another view suggests that the rise of scientific rationalism, combined with the fall of religious influence, the increasing focus on human rights since the 1780s, the exponential growth of technology, plus the advent of flight and space travel, are evidence of the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
These are not necessarily my views though Astrology has been a feature of mankind’s thinking along with scientific discovery as a way to understand the world and themselves.
For sure humanity does take some significant leaps forward. The age of information and data has been with us for years.
For sure the next 5 to 10 years should be interesting but most likely the division of the wealth and it’s unequal distribution will continue to widen.
Maybe for some seeking a way to find their own peace will remain as it always has done a very private endeavour.
Some well-known atheists like Lawrence Krauss and the late Christopher Hitchens have made remarks to the effect that it's the heights of implausibility that God, the personification of wisdom, would reveal faer teachings to a group of bronze-age, illiterate, farmers, goat-herders. They would scarcely be able to understand the words let alone the divine message.
What Krauss and Hitchens said made a whole lot of sense until about 5 minutes ago. Ask yourself this question, "if you were god where would you send a message of love? I'm fairly confident that you would dispatch your messenger/prophet to a place where people had little to no idea of what love means, places where all kinds of immorality was not just condoned but even promoted as either acceptable or even compulsory. This is exactly what god did - his prophet/messenger was sent to the right place viz. the middle east which was at that time in a near moral vacuum. God had, in a sense, performed triage on humanity and dispatched an EMT to the middle-east.
The origins of Christianity lies in the ethical privation of the times. My hunch is other religions too had similar beginnings.
Sadly almost certainly true. Even pre Christian pagans had sacrifices. The aztecs too. Warfare and debauchery and slavery too off the back of conquests. I made the comment earlier that the expression Man made God in his own image is probably true. The problem is that the image was clearly not the right one. At least as far as the common man and woman goes.
I think there's nothing with the concept odf god we have - god can be taken as the living embodiment of all that's good in humans and dialling them up to infinity I suppose.
It interferes with the understanding. Much of what was best in ancient philosophy was absorbed into Christian theology, and then became rejected along with it. So there are philosophical ways of thinking and ideas that are rejected purely because of their association with religious dogma, even though that isn't an accurate depiction.
And I doubt such is necessarily always the case.
Because I've seen religion and religiosity from the inside. Like I said, I know many religious people, but I yet have to meet one who would actually believe what they say.
I've seen Catholics go to church, there chant "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", then go home and get drunk and curse God, Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Roman Church, and continue in that vein until next Sunday, when it is again "I'm so sorry I offended thee, God", and so on.
I've seen similar patterns in other religions where people make a point of vowing to do something, and then don't do it, and it just goes on and on. At some point, one has to wonder whether this is really just simply failure, a human flaw, or whether it is deliberate duplicity. I see no reason to think that religious people are as naive as some atheists and anti-religionists like to portray them. Too much killing, raping, and pillaging has taken place in the name of religion to still allow us to think that it was all some massive mistake, a genuine failure or flaw, or the acts of the deranged few.
Probably not, and it's not relevant for the most part anyway.
I agree with that. :up:
Quoting baker
Ah, I see what you are saying now. They contradict what they purport to believe with their actions. To me that’s a lack of conviction rather than lack of belief. I suspect our disagreement is how we are defining belief. Am I right in guessing you would say there is no belief without conviction? That if you really believe something you obligate yourself to act in accordance with it?
Quoting baker
Well I thought it was relevant because I misunderstood your reasoning. My mistake.
What else??
It goes the other way around too: For example, the way Catholic monotheism and the motivation to proselytize were conveniently omitted from Descartes' philosophy (probably in an effort to make Descartes look palatable to secularists?) which was then raised to a secular standard for philosophizing. What a Trojan horse!
But for whom is this really a problem? Perhaps for the professional philosophers. Other people who also have some interest in philosophy can and do skirt this bias.
Cognitive dissonance, humans can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. It doesn’t mean they don’t believe in one or the other, it means they are holding an irrational contradiction. Most of the time it’s because the person doesn’t see the contradiction.
That makes more sense to me than saying they don’t really believe it considering the kinds of things they do in the name of their beliefs.
I don’t see “belief” as binary like you do, I think as long as there are differences in how strongly people can believe things you have to accept that conviction and belief are distinct from each other.
Well said. This lack of conviction is all around me here in the self-professed "Bible Belt" of the US where "belief", no doubt, is waved like a bloody flag. Few, it seems, 'believe with conviction'; I refer to them simply as believers (and "fundies" on relevant occasions). The rest who 'believe without conviction', as pointed out, I refer to as make-believers (and, deservedly quite often, "hypocrites" too).
There is plenty lack of conviction in humanity to go around. People have grown used to compromising themselves and they support each other’s lack conviction by a mutual, unspoken agreement to maintain an illusion of accountability when in fact there is almost none, at any level.
Well it's quite simple young David. Not so far from the fact we appear to have our own resident god here. One who claims to know that which is not currently known. This is what you imply is it not? You pose the question "why could anything I do not know possibly exist?" .. well there are two answers. One is offensive. And the other is as written.
No. They threaten with eternal damnation anyone who doesn't believe like they do. Because of this, they do not deserve the kind of lenience that you describe above and which would apply in other situations, for other beliefs (inlcuding flatearthing and antivaxxing).
Quoting DingoJones
It's the religious who primarily see belief in such binary terms!
It’s not lenience, it is just understanding what’s going on re cognitive dissonance. You asked for an alternative...though it appears your “what else?” was rhetorical in light of that response.
Quoting baker
Sure, I will concede binary terms is a common malady of the religious but the comment directed at you was very specific to your view of “belief”. I have no idea if you think in binary terms on anything else or in general the way a religious person might.
Maybe binary isn’t the right term...I meant to describe how on your view your belief is either backed up by action or it isn’t really a belief. That seems like a binary metric to me.
Anyway, not meant as derogatory, it’s not like I think anything binary is bad. You just define belief differently that I do on which lead to my misunderstanding but I got it now.
This is a poor distinction. Rather, the pair should be belief -- relevance of said belief to a particular person's life.
For example, you probably believe that radium-226 has a half-life of 1600 years. But unless you work with radioactive elements or in some relation to them, said belief has little or no relevance for you. It's also inactionable for you. (It's relevant and actionable for those who plan to build nuclear waste storage facilities, for example.)
It's similar with religious beliefs: for the most part, they bear little relevance to a person's life and are inactionable. The belief in, say, the immaculate conception of Jesus is inactionable for the vast majority of Christians, except indirectly (!) for, say, translators of holy texts or inquisitors (given that wrong beliefs about Jesus are cause for accusations of heresy and according actions).
How would one act on the belief "God exist"?
How can one act confidently on the commandments supposedly given by this God?
Except for formal religious actions (such as praying, venerating), there is nothing to do as far as the belief "God exist" goes. Given this, the commandments supposedly given by this God also can't bear much weight to a person's life.
This approach has more explanatory power than the dichotomy belief -- conviction. The fact is that you can have all the conviction you want in a belief like, for instance, the immaculate conception of Jesus, but you still can't act on it.
It's not clear that in the case of the religious not living up to what they profess this is really due to cognitive dissonance. You'd need to rule out deliberate duplicity. Religion's bloody history warrants such scrutiny.
You asked:
Quoting DingoJones
To which I replied affirmatively. But see my above post: Some beliefs are inactionable, at least for some people. So one has to wonder why would anyone profess those beliefs? Because of their metavalue? (Ie. because professing such beliefs spares one from being prosecuted by other people?)
Compare: You and I believe that radium-226 has a half-life of 1600 years; I assume neither of us works in the nuclear industry, so we can't act on this belief. We also don't make a point of telling anyone that we believe that radium-226 has a half-life of 1600 years. So what gives?
I wouldn’t rule out either as an explanation. There are many reasons. Also Cognitive dissonance is observable, primarily through the contrast between a persons thought expression and their behaviour.
That’s a lot clearer than the basis of your view which is based on your own rigid definition of belief. You entitled to that rigid definition but I see no compelling reason to adopt it myself.
Quoting baker
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Sometimes your beliefs are not relevant, your example of immaculate conception doesn’t show that they can’t be acted upon it’s an example of when a person wouldn’t act upon it because they have no reason, it’s irrelevant.
We would make a point to tell people about radium if we were talking about radium.
These things that you are talking about are not mutually exclusive with my own explanations. Both are reasons for the divide between thought and action.
So you think that a conman "has" cognitive dissonance?
No, the religious conman is real. I’m not disagreeing that there are religious conmen, no question. I just don’t agree that the average religious person is a conman. Who are they conning, themselves?
The average religious person has a cognitive dissonance though, I might even go so far as to say that belief in a religion is impossible without one. After all if you follow any one edict in the bible and not follow some other edict then you aren’t really making sense and since the contradictions of the bible make it impossible to follow them all you can’t really religious without making one or more breaches of logic and rationality.
well." — Hitchslap 101
Quoting DingoJones
:100: :fire:
“ Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”
-Hitchens.
One of my favourite quotes of his.
In homo sapiens evolution has delegated part of the species survival functions to culture because we have the capability for language.... we need an education to become fully functional.
Before written language myth and stories were for the longest time the vehicles to transfer knowledge from generation to generation. Religion as a subset of myth, was the veneration of the highest values in a given society. Deification and personification of said values enabled turning them into narratives which could serve as mnemonic devices.
Also, one shouldn't confuse contemporary monotheistic religions with earlier religions, they are mere echoes of something that once served a vital function, pale and impoverished in comparison with the original.
So the question is really, why do tend we to think in narratives? What is it about stories that makes us remember them easier? Because we evolved to be good at the social stuff, presumably because that was important for our survival...
I asked:
Quoting baker
This is a philosophy discussion forum. Read with precision.
I asked you about the conman, not about the religious conman, as the issue was the contrast between a person's thought expression and their behavior. I said nothing about the religious conman.
This would apply only if religious people would typically be well familiar with the doctrine they profess to support.
They are generally not thusly familiar. Even by their own accounts and by the accounts of critics from their own groups. For example, you can read on Catholics blogs written by Catholics that Catholics generally have a poor knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Among cradle religionists, there are also folk versions of the religious doctrine that they profess to be part of; folk versions that are not in line with the actual doctrine (e.g. some Catholics have the folk belief that people who weren't baptized as babies are bound for hell and that baptism later on doesn't really count -- this contradicts actual RCC doctrine; or in Buddhism, there are folk beliefs about karma that have no grounding in the Buddhist holy texts).
Moreover, many religions don't even have a catechism-type of doctrinal text (the way the RCC does), so to begin with, it's not clear what said religion's doctrine actually is about. And if even that is not clear, how can we even begin to talk of cognitive dissonance? We can't.
Further, in religions, there tend to exist meta-level teachings that order the importance of teachings. To an outsider who doesn't know those meta-level teachings, all edicts in, for example, the Bible might seem as being on the same level, having the same importance (thus creating opportunities for contradictions). But to an insider, the biblical edicts are hierachically ordered, so that some are more important than others, some contextualize others, and so on. This order minimizes or annulls the possibility of contradiction, as contradiction proper can exist only between statements of the same order in the hierarchy or in the same context. For example, for Catholics, the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament, so the edicts between the two are not in conflict. For a Vajrayana Buddhist, the instructions of one's teacher supersede everything and everyone else. And so on.
Well we had been discussing this in a religious context. You were using it in examples and referencing. Then You said this:
“It's not clear that in the case of the religious not living up to what they profess this is really due to cognitive dissonance. You'd need to rule out deliberate duplicity. Religion's bloody history warrants such scrutiny.“
So then I posted a direct response:
Quoting DingoJones
To which you responded with:
Quoting baker
Which is is either in the context of religion as the rest of our discussion or a non-sequitur.
Also, this response doesn’t address any point I raised. You ignored those and instead raised a new question of questionable relevance and then acted as though I was being imprecise in my reading. This has a stink of dishonesty to it, you don’t seem to be arguing in good faith here.
I’m not going to wander around aimlessly with you, answer my comments properly or we’re done here.
That's why.
End of story.
I like Nietzsche's short concise explanations:
"Misunderstanding of the dream. - The man of the ages of barbarous primordial culture believed that in the dream he was getting to know a second real world: here is the origin of all metaphysics. Without the dream one would have had no occasion to divide the world into two. The dissection into soul and body is also connected with the oldest idea of the dream, likewise the postulation of a life of the soul, thus the origin of all belief in spirits, and probably also of the belief in gods. 'The dead live on, for they appear to the living in dreams': that was the conclusion one formerly drew, throughout many millennia." (Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Human, All Too Human A Book for Free Spirits §5)
"On the origin of religion. – The metaphysical need is not the origin of religion, as Schopenhauer has it, but only a late offshoot of it. Under the rule of religious ideas, one has got used to the idea of ‘another world (behind, below, above)’ and feels an unpleasant emptiness and deprivation at the annihilation of religious delusions – and from this feeling grows now ‘another world’, but this time only a metaphysical and not a religious one. But what led to the belief in ‘another world’ in primordial times was not a drive or need, but an error in the interpretation of certain natural events, an embarrassing lapse of the intellect." (The Gay Science §151)
"On the origin of religions. – The true invention of the religion-founders is first to establish a certain way of life and everyday customs that work as a disciplina voluntatis while at the same time removing boredom; and then to give just this life an interpretation that makes it appear illuminated by the highest worth, so that henceforth it becomes a good for which one fights and under certain circumstances even gives one’s life. Actually, the second invention is the more important: the first, the way of life, was usually already in place, though alongside other ways of life and without any consciousness of its special worth. The significance, the originality of the religion-founder usually lies in his seeing and selecting this way of life, in his guessing for the first time what it can be used for and how it can be interpreted. Jesus (or Paul), for example, discovered the life of the small people in the Roman province, a humble, virtuous, depressed life: he explained it, he put the highest meaning and value into it – and thereby also the courage to despise every other way of life, the silent Moravian brotherhood fanaticism, the clandestine subterranean self-confidence that grows and grows and is finally ready to ‘overcome the world’ (i.e. Rome and the upper classes throughout the empire). Buddha likewise discovered, scattered indeed among all classes and social strata of his people, that type of person who is good and gracious (above all, inoffensive) out of laziness and who, also from laziness, lives abstinently and with nearly no needs at all: he understood how such a type of person would inevitably, with all of his vis inertiae, have to roll into a faith that promises to prevent the return of earthly toil (i.e. of work and action in general), – this ‘understanding’ was his genius. The religion-founder must be psychologically infallible in his knowledge of a certain average breed of souls who have not yet recognized one another as allies. He is the one who brings them together; and to that extent, the establishment of a religion always turns into a long festival of recognition. –" (The Gay Science §354)
I was trying to make the discussion shorter and more concise. My point has been to show that it is questionabale whether religious people indeed necessarily operate under cognitive dissonance. Hence I wanted to illustrate a point about cognitive dissonance with the example of the conman, and then take things from there.
That is your perception.
In short, a case can be made that religious people do not necessarily operate under cognitive dissonance, because:
1. they have a poor knowledge of the doctrine they profess to uphold;
2. outsiders do not understand religious doctrines in the hierarchical and contextualized way as insiders do, so outsiders perceive cognitive dissonance where for insiders there is none;
3. the bloody history of religion warrants skepticism and the possibility of religious people in fact being duplicitious.
This is not the end of the story. The question is: what does it fill it with?
In my opinion, religion is at its best when it leaves the gaps open. But most seek religion because they want answers. The answers they accept do not replace ignorance with knowledge but with ignorance of their ignorance. Faith is mistaken for knowledge.
Villain (very proudly addressing the hero): Look around you, you piece of shit. All that you can see, as far as the eye can see, all of it is mine. [Human]
Hero (very calmly); Indeed but the thing is, what lies beyond, beyond all that you can see, all of that is mine! [God]
A very astute quote from the hero.
Sorry, can't access those files. Corrupted sectors as per self-diagnostic reports. Will get back to you if I can recover those files. Until then, you'll have to live with not knowing, something everyone should be acquainted with. Adios amigo!
Knowledge is overrated anyway. Doing is king.
Thanks for being so understanding! G'day.
Animals and primitive humans have/had a primal bond with reality. I literally live in a wildlife hospital, and spend about a billion hours a year in the woods, so this isn't just a theory to me.
As thought emerged and developed in human beings that primal bond with reality was diluted and broken. As thought developed, our attention was increasingly shifted from reality, to thoughts about reality. That is, from the real to the symbolic, from outward to inward. We can't have a primal bond with something we're not actually paying much attention to.
Religion is an attempt to restore this primal bond. This effort is referenced in phrases like "get back to God".
The primary problem with religion is that it typically (not always) attempts to restore the primal relationship with reality through the use of concepts and ideas, that is, thought, the very thing which distracts us from the primal bond.
Imagine that you experience this primal bond with reality, and you see the value in the experience and want to share it with others. What to do? You try to explain it in language, in thought, because what else can you use to communicate? And then, most people, given how mediocre and unserious most of us are, focus on the words instead of the experience they point to.
In my interpretation, one of about a billion available, Jesus was referring to this with the phrase "die to be reborn", and his various teachings about love. To the degree we can die to "me" (made of thought) our attention is liberated to focus on reality again, and for a time at least, the primal bond with nature is restored to some degree. In the East the same goal is often approached in a more direct manner, by various methods of turning down the volume of thought.
The cool thing is, nobody has to believe anything in this post or by any religion. Anyone who wants to can do the experiment for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
But, because philosophers tend to be as lazy and mediocre as anyone in any religion, we probably won't do the experiment, but will instead argue over the words. That's the way of the world, alway has been and always will be, little can be done about it.
I used to think this laziness was a problem, but now I'm not so sure. My current theory is that a certain degree of illusion is necessary for the continuation of life. If we were to achieve a true bonding with reality and thus lost the fear of death, well, why bother putting up with the burdens of the world?
Religion at its best is an experience. And refocusing on reality is prayer and meditation.
I'm sure many are living in a matrix of concepts purely out of fear.
And, thought is pretty appealing. In the real world, I am small beyond measure. But in thought, in my own mind, I am the ruler of a kingdom of concepts. Ok, sure, it's a tiny tiny tiny kingdom. But it's MY kingdom.
I do disagree on your point about us being small in the real world. I say sometimes it's the opposite. We are beyond measure,but overthinking constrains us by reducing us to a measure only.
I like that, thanks. Never thought of it that way.