Does an Understanding of Comparative Religion Have any Important Contribution to Philosophy?
My own understanding of the philosophy of religion, is based on comparative perspectives about religion, including mythical dimensions and esoteric viewpoints. In speaking of the esoteric, I am referring to what is considered to be related to 'hidden' or 'inner' aspects of 'truth', as themes behind philosophies, relating to human awareness, or even 'enlightenment', including Eastern as well as Western traditions of thinking.
These ideas vary from traditions, and Western and Eastern metaphysics vary so much. The whole spectrum of possibilities encompasses anthropology of belief, including Frazer 's spectrum of magic, religion and science. But, there are so many varying viewpoints, and some scientific points of view, such as that of Dennett may point to science as the ultimate point of view. However, I am left wondering where other points of view fit in at all, including the 'perennial philosophy', as advocated by Aldous Huxley.
We come from such varied viewpoints, and even Rudolf Otto's view of the numinous is not dependent on a literal view of religious truth. My own view is that religious and mythical perspectives have an important contribution to make to philosophy. I am asking, beyond any one specific view or interpretation of religion, whether the symbolic ideas in various religions traditions have any relevance for consideration in the widest scheme of philosophy. There are underlying issues about the existence of God, and I am casting this aside, and am merely looking at the anthropological aspects of philosophical ideas
about religious ideas and worldviews in general .I would add that even the idea of 'religion' may be a construct in itself, and we may ask whether certain perspectives of thinking outside of Western thought, including Buddhism and Taoism, have important insights.
These ideas vary from traditions, and Western and Eastern metaphysics vary so much. The whole spectrum of possibilities encompasses anthropology of belief, including Frazer 's spectrum of magic, religion and science. But, there are so many varying viewpoints, and some scientific points of view, such as that of Dennett may point to science as the ultimate point of view. However, I am left wondering where other points of view fit in at all, including the 'perennial philosophy', as advocated by Aldous Huxley.
We come from such varied viewpoints, and even Rudolf Otto's view of the numinous is not dependent on a literal view of religious truth. My own view is that religious and mythical perspectives have an important contribution to make to philosophy. I am asking, beyond any one specific view or interpretation of religion, whether the symbolic ideas in various religions traditions have any relevance for consideration in the widest scheme of philosophy. There are underlying issues about the existence of God, and I am casting this aside, and am merely looking at the anthropological aspects of philosophical ideas
about religious ideas and worldviews in general .I would add that even the idea of 'religion' may be a construct in itself, and we may ask whether certain perspectives of thinking outside of Western thought, including Buddhism and Taoism, have important insights.
Comments (117)
"An important contribution" such as?
I am not wishing to dismiss the views of thinkers who have developed critical analytical perspectives on religion. I am simply wishing to open up horizons beyond Western thought. I am not trying to simply look to philosophy which supports theism, but look at the widest horizons, ranging from many ideas within Western thinking, and many other traditions.
Except, inexplicably, once in a while a head will roll (in p-p-Parliament.) Not here. It's easier to withstand critical mass here than in front of tv cameras.
I believe that looking to perspectives outside of the frame of Western philosophy may enlarge our thinking. I am not simply wishing to point us back to a 'religious' point of view. Many of us may have struggled with traditional ways of seeing life in terms of a 'divine' plan, with all kinds of experiences of guilt. But, on the other hand, once we go beyond all 'spiritual' philosophies completely, we can go into a wasteland. But, I am not really trying to say what we ought to believe at all, but, merely look at the many possible perspectives, and, ultimately, I am not sure that there any definite, conclusive answers. But, I do believe that it useful to think about comparative aspects of religion, with a view to whether there are any ideas which seem to stand out beyond the confines of specific cultural conditioning and conventions.
Humans are meaning seeking creatures, religion has been with man as long as recorded history.
Religion stills plays a large role in the lives of many people and is a major influence in their lives.
It is true that the more educated a person is in the scientific method and the findings of science perhaps the less likely they are to believe in traditional or supernatural theism.
Many people have turned away from traditional Western religious thought and towards Eastern religions and mystical practices. The religious inclination is still strong worldwide.
I don't see any problem with religious notions like panentheism or even outright pantheism. Regarding the universe with a certain amount of awe and consideration of it in holy, numinous or scared terms seems within the realm of rational behavior. It is even for those not entirely conceptually committed to an entirely mechanistic, deterministic and reductionist view of nature to see some self organizing inherent capability resulting in creatures capable of such considerations.
We don't all have to ascribe to Christopher Hitchens views:
[i]As Hitchens put it so eloquently, if also partially, during his debate with Blair:
“I come before you as a materialist. If we give up religion, we discover
what actually we know already, whether we're religious or not, which is
that we are somewhat imperfectly evolved primates, on a very small planet
in a very unimportant suburb of a solar system that is itself a negligible
part of a very rapidly expanding and blowing apart cosmic phenomenon.”
Hitchens here emphasizes the absurdity of our purely empirico-physical understanding
of the larger cosmos. Based only on sensory observation of primary qualities like mass
and motion, and mathematical analysis of them in terms of measurable quantities, the
universe reveals no apparent purpose. It is only the poetic indulgence of the human
imagination that fools us into believing otherwise.[/i]
Some of us can ascribe to the views of Whitehead and other religious philosophers
[i]Philosophy attains its chief importance,” according to Whitehead, “by fusing the two, namely, religion and science, into one rational scheme of thought” (p. 15). The revelations of modern science concerning the regularities of nature have made belief in miracles seem antiquated and superstitious, but the religious impulse itself seems to run deeper than the need for magic tricks offering proof of the divine.1 As Hitchens admits, humanity’s sense of the numinous and transcendent—of “something beyond the material, or not quite consistent with it”—is what distinguishes us from other primates. We are not only the wise, but also the uncanny species. To be human is to participate in both time and eternity, to be embedded in history with an intuition of infinity, our birthright an experience of what Thomas Berry called incendence.
The vast majority of human beings feel compelled to respond to this feeling of incendence religiously, either as evidence of a personal deity (as in the Abrahamic and some Vedic traditions) or as evidence of an impersonal creative plenum or ground of being (as in Buddhism, Taoism, and many indigenous traditions). Whitehead's dual conception of the ultimate in terms of God and Creativity, respectively, helps us understand these cultural differences.[/i]
Not all religious conceptions lead to bad behavior or to rejection of the utility of science in understanding our world.
Isn't what a large part of this site is already about? There are numerous threads on Eastern faiths and philosophies, Jung, etc.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I am still waiting for evidence that this is the case. People seem to cite Stalinism or the Nazi's but the connection is far from clear.
Quoting Jack Cummins
It seems to me you are asking - "What ideas from world religions are useful to human beings?"
Is it not a commonplace view that useful ideas are located in many (often unlikely) sources? No doubt there are profound lessons in many novels. Some writers think we only tell the truth in fiction.
What ideas stand out for you in any religion? Maybe you could start by giving a couple of examples so that we can get into the flow of this.
Quoting Deus
Low rent Hegelian? I don't think every argument needs a counter argument, it's there whether you want it or not. The question is why do you think this is important and what has it to do with Jack's OP?
I definitely believe in looking at all points of view critically, and believe that the fullest analysis of many perspectives enhances our thinking.
Or pandeism.
In other words, "religious and mythical perspectives" contribute to philosophers "thinking outside the box" and contrary to their "comfort zones" and perhaps even challenging, or overcoming, their "cultural conditioning", is that it?
There are many threads on this site which do look at varying viewpoints, ranging from the Taoist to Buddhism, but, often, these are separate from the scope of philosophical analysis. So, in this particular thread, I am probably looking for analysis of how these ideas can be compared critically, in the overall formulation of a way of seeing life and philosophy.
We are not talking about the existence of the moon here but God. In certain such matters that are open for debate and especially where there is no proof and facts are wanting then arguments and counter arguments are necessary.
Aquinas, Pascal and other religious philosophers contributions are important in understanding various god-related philosophies
I read threads on various viewpoints and do have a strong interest in Jung, who looked at the mythic dimensions. But, I think that we probably formulate our own views out of a mixture of need for understanding, and many other aspects of our thinking. Some people find the answers which seem to satisfy them without looking outside of what they are taught in religious or other systems of thought which they receive in education. It is so variable, and some struggle so much more to find the ways of thinking. Personally, I am someone who has looked widely within science and religion, and I do believe that comparative religion, as well as other philosophy perspectives, are useful.
It is not clear to me what you wish to discuss?
Things like: What are more common or useful notions?
Immanence vs Transcendence
Supernatural Theism (miracles and interventions) vs. the Laws of Nature
Revealed Religion vs. Meditation and Rational Inquiry
Personal vs Impersonal Notions of the Divine
Certainly, familiarity with religious conceptions from around the world and history are useful to philosophers of religion. Also certainly the advances in our understanding of science and nature gives us cause to review our religious conceptions and try to avoid the cognitive dissonance that occurs from separating our notions about how the world works from our religious inclinations.
No problem this can sometimes happen. You can’t have a philosophical position without an opposition. Consider aesthetics and beauty for example or the question what is art. In defining those terms there’s a chance that contradictory positions and explanations will emerge … it is these contradictions that constitute and are the bread and butter of philosophy. So it’s not so much to do with religion itself but rather the nature of these types of arguments…
Perhaps I am an upside down thinker, but, really, I don't have many 'comfort zones' at all in thinking. I certainly don't accept the views which I was taught within 'religious' education, especially Catholicism. On the other hand, I question all the philosophy perspectives, so enter into pluralism in the widest possible way. I read and draw upon ideas ranging from science, Hinduism, Buddhism and so many divergent perspectives and philosophy. So, I am likely to have a busy reading life, because I try to keep an open mind.
Yes - that's where I was heading. Where does this take us?
Yes, it may be that my thread discussion is a bit confusing. Really, I am interested in what we can learn from the comparative analysis of religion. This probably includes the themes and ideas which arise, and it is likely that certain themes resonate with each of us slightly differently. This is probably the mythic dimension, or esoteric aspect, in the sense of being about the 'inner' aspect of religious perspectives. It is more of a symbolic viewpoint, whereas in many traditional perspectives of religion, the main emphasis can often be far more about concrete, or literal answers about 'God, life after death and many other questions. Of course, that is a way of philosophy, but I come with a view to far more scrutiny and deeper analysis of beliefs, metaphysics, and all the assumptions underlying how we approach these areas.
What is the purpose of religion as you see it?
What is the purpose of studying the philosophy of religion?
Religious philosophy is speculative philosophy and as such analytic philosophers or logical positivists will have none of it.
Whiteheads definition
Speculative Philosophy is the endeavour to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted. By this notion of ‘interpretation’ I mean that everything of which we are conscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed, or thought, shall have the character of a particular instance of the general scheme. Thus the philosophical scheme should be coherent, logical, and, in respect to its interpretation, applicable and adequate. Here ‘applicable’ means that some items of experience are thus interpretable, and ‘adequate’ means that there are no items incapable of such interpretation.
Thus an adequate speculative philosophy should include religion or at least values, purposes and goals.
You could also start out with a particular theme like life after death in comparative religions.
The OP, it seems to me, suggests a retrograde anti-philosophical (or pseudo-philosophical) approach to philosophy which, while eclectic and interesting, is much more "about ideas & mysteries" than actually thinking through them. Perhaps thinking against "ideas & mysteries" is "the wasteland" the OP mentions with trepidation? And yet isn't thinking against oneself (against one's own "religious & mythical perspective") the meaning of 'an examined life' – living philosophically (living dangerously via 'spiritual exercises')?
With all due respect, Jack, your mind seems more distracted than open. Your criterion for considering "possibilities" seems so elastic it's unfocused without direction to the point of being useless and shallow. Your provocations only tease. Yes, you're a voracious reader, Jack, but you don't really study or research, do you? No discipline just cerebral gluttony, going in widening circles without, it seems, ever diving deep. An open mind is also closed just as walking a path is also taking leave or leaving departures behind.
I am replying to you together, because I think that you are both raising the question of underlying themes. I suppose that one major theme is the idea of God, and views about God vary so much according to our backgrounds. If one is a Christian one is usually accustomed to think of Christ as the Son of God. If one is a Muslim, Mohammed is seen as the main prophet. Or, if one is an raised as an atheist, the view is that there is no God.
However, some writers have tried to step outside of this, beyond relativism, and try to look beyond, including Huston Smith and Aldous Huxley. This can be about the idea of a 'perennial wisdom' or the underlying truth beyond religion. Huston Smith goes as far as seeing both atheism and theism as limited.
There are many themes within religious traditions and various traditions of thought, so it is extremely complex, but some thinkers do believe that knowledge of the ultimate is beyond any one particular tradition.
And that "perennialist" sentiment is shallow. Whatever is "ultimate" necessarily is beyond all traditions made up of non-ultimate, or proximate, minds, no?
Well, you know, you get quotes:
"God is too big to be put in a box", "God is too big for one religion"
that is all fine.
One can state why one ascribes to a particular religious viewpoint and respond to queries, questions and challenges.
We can exchange viewpoints and try better to understand each others point of view but there is no definitive authority for religion.
Some religious conceptions are clearly at odds with reason and science and as such probably cannot be entertained or discussed on a philosophy forum.
It seems to me supernatural theism and special revelation fall into this category. Many literal interpretations of scripture (created in six days, 6000 year old earth, etc) are also beyond rational discourse.
I think much traditional Christian orthodox theology and doctrine is beyond rational discussion. Some more esoteric or mystical version or interpretations of Christianity might be accepted.
Eastern traditions especially those which emphasize divine immanence and the impersonal nature of the divine probably are more easily accommodated into a world view which includes both reason and science. What do you believe and why? or which particular religious concept do you wish to explore?
It may be that my own mind is a bit too 'elastic', but it is probably because I have not found one perspective which I believe sums up the 'truth'. I read philosophy critiques as well as ideas within Christianity, Eastern philosophy and other viewpoints and, as far as I see, they all contribute partial pictures.
I am inclined to thinking about mysteries, as evident in a couple of threads which I have started. The tradition of mysteries goes back to the Greeks, including Plato. I am not saying that I think that we should stop at the point of the mysterious, but, really, after centuries of thinking Wittgenstein still points to uncertainty. I am all in favour of science, critical thinking, but, in many ways, philosophy goes round in circles. But, I take the point of an open mind can become a closed one is closed' and I don't wish to rule out any possible definitive answers.
As far as the idea of the shallow and the deep of the Perennial, I think that it is hard to know. I had a tutor who thought that I viewed depths of the mind which were not there at all. Some people believe in depths which are 'hidden' while others regard this as absurd. In such matters, so much is speculation.
You could learn about the various ways that people in different cultures have imagined deity and deities. You could learn about how the ways deities have been imagined has related to proscriptions on behavior and prescriptive practices designed to appeal to, or gain a vision of deities. You could identify commonalities and differences between these various cultural phenomena. Can you think of anything else?
Unless you accept the Hermetic principle of "as above, so below"; the idea that the microcosm inevitably reflects the macrocosm, in which case you would think it is deep not shallow.
Throughout its history, Hermeticism was closely associated with the idea of a primeval, divine wisdom, revealed only to the most ancient of sages, such as Hermes Trismegistus.[10] In the Renaissance, this developed into the notion of a prisca theologia or "ancient theology", which asserted that there is a single, true theology which was given by God to some of the first humans, and traces of which may still be found in various ancient systems of thought. Thinkers like Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) supposed that this 'ancient theology' could be reconstructed by studying (what were then considered to be) the most ancient writings still in existence, such as those attributed to Hermes, but also those attributed to, e.g., Zoroaster, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, the 'Chaldeans', or the Kaballah.[11] This soon evolved into the idea, first proposed by Agostino Steuco (1497–1548), that one and the same divine truth may be found in the religious and philosophical traditions of different periods and places, all considered as different manifestations of the same universal perennial philosophy.[12] In this perennialist context, the term 'Hermetic' tended to lose even more of its specificity, eventually becoming a mere byword for the purported divine knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, especially as related to alchemy and magic. Despite their occasional use of authentic Hermetic texts and concepts, this generic and pseudo-historical use of the term was greatly popularized by nineteenth- and twentieth-century occultists.[13]
From this initial reading, I am not interested in Hermeticism as it seems to be a form of special revelation, have supernatural aspects and predate our modern scientific worldview but perhaps you can somehow make it interesting?
Quoting Jack Cummins
And if "the truth" is a mirage, merely imaginary, then what? Go on perpetually chasing your own tail (ouroboros-like) ...
You miss my point completely, Jack. Without discipline or criteria, your mind is so "open" and "possibilities" are so arbitrary that by considering everything, IMO, such an approach indefinitely postpones you (deeply) understanding anything.
The point was only that what might seem shallow to you could seem, and obviously has seemed across time and cultures, deep to many others. The idea is that the Higher Truth is embodied in the Lower Manifestation and may be apprehended through intuition or the seeing of a "seer", gnosis, or through meditative practice and so on. The idea is common to both the Eastern and Western traditions and also the shamanistic practices of hunter/ gatherer cultures.
Quoting prothero
I can't "make it interesting" to anyone; it;s either interesting to you or not. It has been interesting to me at times over the years, but less so of late. I never had real faith in the idea, as should be obvious from my arguments with @Wayfarer. On the other hand I don't dismiss others' interest as being delusional or without value.
What I'm getting at is that something can seem deep if it feels mysterious and remains ungraspable, but no, not determinably deep like a complex analysis or subject matter might be thought of as being.
Definitely. Alduous Huxley, whom you mentioned, made the case quite well in his book, The Perennial Philosophy. Some of the others who deserve a mention are Huston Smith, Ninian Smart, Karen Armstrong, Mark Vernon, Jules Evans, to name a few. It's worth reading some of Mircea Eliade, and becoming at least a little familiar with the 20th century representatives of the perennial philosophy such as Ananda Coomaraswamy and Rene Guenon. Have I mentioned https://www.temenosacademy.org/ before?
I referred to an essay yesterday, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960’s . It's quite long but worth a read. It concludes:
[quote=Camille Paglia] The religious impulse of the sixties must be rescued from he wreckage and redeemed. The exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism that my generation had to get haphazardly from contemporary literature and music should be formalized and standardized for basic education. What students need to negotiate their way through the New Age fog is scholarly knowledge of ancient and medieval history, from early pagan nature cults through the embattled consolidation of Christian theology. Teaching religion as culture rather than as morality also gives students the intellectual freedom to find the ethical principles at the heart of every religion.[/quote]
Which is pretty well what I'm engaged in.
Shallow and muddy instead of clear and deep waters. In both cases "...the bottom can't be perceived (or conceived of)..."
But then...
However, as you will have noticed, these explanations seem a bit too contrived, as if those who founded these religions were really struggling with the issue of evil vis-à-vis goodness. This dissonance manifests in the many ways people jump through hoops, bend over backwards to accommodate evil in a system declared to be through and through benevolent, sometimes even going so far as to deny the existence of evil, that god works in mysterious ways, that everything happens for a reason, and so on.
The difficulty is most acutely felt in the Abrahamic triad because they have a God which they believe is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing? Whence this evil?
In Buddhism and Hinduism, the evil one experiences is just your own Karmic reflection. A better explanation in my opinion. After all, there's no good God that we must adjust for.
There maybe more interesting stuff we can unearth in the way religions, each in its own way, tackles the necessity for good and also the existence of evil.
Actually, I do read some of the various writers, referred to by @Wayfarerincluding Ninian Smart, Eliade, Karen Armstrong and Huston Smith. I was also extremely impressed by Huxley's ' The Perennial Philosophy' which I read about 4 months ago, and that was partly what influenced me in thinking that there are underlying themes underlying the various religious traditions. My basic belief is that it is about achieving a sense of the transcendent or numinous, although it don't think it is necessary to believe in God to achieve such states of consciousness.
I try to have a certain amount of discipline to reading whether or not I consider it 'research ' as such. I probably try to use this site as a way of trying to guide me in reading about specific themes, including some of my own and other people's threads. It may be that my posts don't reflect this because often by the time I have done all the reading the thread is fading out. But, I definitely feel that this site helps my reading. I also wish that libraries were open again because it is difficult to find quiet reading spaces.
As far as being open minded it is not that I wish to remain that way always, but simply that there don't appear to be clear answers, but definitely some writers seem more useful than others. I have already said that I see Jung as my main mentor. But, I do find that I do often go round in circles at times, but, really, we have a lifetime to work out overall philosophies. Even when people come to specific conclusions, it doesn't mean that they will not revise and modify their thinking. I also think that the ideal is to have an entirely independent view, but I think that it is becoming harder to do this, because so many ideas have been thought out in detail and depth by so many people previously.
It agree that people often seem to 'jump through hoops' and 'bend over backwards' to fit ideas such as the problem of evil into their conceptions of religious truths. That is probably why I don't come to a clear perspective although I do think that I probably can relate to Eastern traditions and metaphysics more than Abrahamic religions points of view. But, my own Catholic background does affect me. But, I probably would not gravitate to atheism because I am not sure that life is mere chance and coincidence.
But, that may be because I find that my own life is full of 'Jungian synchronicities', although I am aware that it is about acausal principles and our own interpretation of meaning. But, if nothing else, it shows underlying patterns in life. Also, I am open to the idea of karma, but of course, this is about the subjective interpretations of events and how they appear related to our actions. But, this applies to causal factors in this life and karma is usually considered to be something related to past lives in Hinduism especially.
Anyway, I liked the video of puddles because I feel that I am often jumping from puddle to puddle, and it is sometimes hard to tell how deep or shallow the puddles are, especially those of our own questing for knowledge.
I am sure that various religions and spiritualities have plenty to contribute to Philosophy. For my own relationship to spirituality, however, I honestly feel like I've gained more from J.D. Salinger than anyone else, including some of the actual religious texts that I've read.
I'm not sure that academic formalism, despite that I like this idea of teaching religion as culture, is really all that great of an approach to spirituality. I'd bet that there are practicing Buddhists who are plenty more wise than those engaged in academic research. Sure, it'd go the other way as well, but there's something to the individual pursuit that gets lost in a more formal inquiry.
I agree. Experiencing a sense of the numinous may also happen with the arts; for my taste painting, music and poetry in particular. My view is that it is best (for myself at least) to enjoy the experience while forming no conclusions about its possible implications.
Yes. Me too except it was George Elliot.
Quoting 180 Proof
That sounds like breakthrough moment. I think the questions people find interesting are very revealing about them and often they seem to be the wrong questions. With an inadequate set of questions, the answers can be like premature ejaculation. :gasp:
Can you see what's happening Jack?
The Abrahamic triad attempts to explain evil by chalking it up to free will (necessary for the idea of the good) and divine retribution (punishment for evil acts we're culpable of because we have free will) - the bottom line is according to these religions, let's not mince words here, evil is good in disguise.
Now, Buddhism. In this religion too, evil, as I mentioned in my previous post, is karmic retribution i.e. again, evil is good in disguise.
This is what I meant by jumping through hoops and bending over backwards. The problem of evil? Huh? You mean good (free will, repercussions for evil done in accord with your own free will)? In other words, there's no evil - it's either a minor and yet generally detested accompaniment to the melodic splendor of the good (free will) or simply the echo of your deeds bouncing back at you i.e. either evil has something good in it or is good itself in a form that one can't recognize. Geez!
I second that but I have a sneaking suspicion that people might take that in a way identical to Richard Dawkins' views on the matter - study religion (theology) but, he says, don't practice religion. @Wayfarer would disagree most forcefully and I too because praxis is the cornerstone of religions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!
And this argument undoubtedly has merit. As I just posted on my thread on "motivated belief":
"It may well be, for example, that there is some kind of spiritual or noumenal dimension whose information is only manifest to those who actually believe in it. Then people who deny and criticize those who claim to enjoy access to such information are really only confirming their own inability to achieve the requisite belief."
Are religious folk renown for practicing what they preach? :lol:
So the question becomes, what is the cornerstone of religion?
I have just looked at my phone, having come home, and I would say that even though I started a thread on comparative religion, I am not suggesting that I think religious philosophies are the ultimate answers. I read widely and I am sure that many may see my own thinking as inadequate because I don't come across as having a particular overriding viewpoint. I am in the position of thinking that various traditions of philosophy and comparative religion are extremely interesting, and I am sure that many may object to me for such lack of one particular view. I am not trying to say that it is a matter of relativism entirely. However, I do come from the view that I do not believe that there is one ultimate viewpoint, within religious or secular thinking, and that pluralism has some relevance for thinking about varying perspectives about truth.
I would have though the cornerstones of religion are hypocrisy and materialism. I agree with @Pantagruel that if you wish to understand human behavior in all its maddening ambiguity and contradiction, religion is a good place to start.
"Though all religions assert that they worship God and say that we must love one another, they instill fear through their doctrines of reward and punishment, and through their competitive dogmas they perpetuate suspicion and antagonism.”
Krishnamurti
As I suggested previously here, looking for "ultimate answers", IMO, is not doing philosophy or what philosophy is about. Instead that's seeking – needing to live by – some religious dogma. Nothing's wrong with that per se, but let's not confuse that with philosophy.
Nobody ever said it was going to be easy. Religion is like boot camp. Extreme training, recruits physically and mentally stressed to breaking point - many apply, few qualify. True, most fail but what about the success stories? To focus only on those who fail to match words with deeds is like thinking the army is a myth because of a large number of those who don't make the cut in a manner of speaking. Yet, the army exists and has proven its worth on more than one occasion.
Quoting 180 Proof
Read my reply to praxis above. To reiterate, being good is tough, both physically and mentally taxing because it goes against the grain - we're selfish, we've evolved to be so, nothing pays dividends as much as being self-serving. Given this obvious fact, expect many/most to drop out of religious training programs. Too, many self-proclaimed religious people turn out to be hypocrites.
However, there are a few who do manage to make the grade and that's what I feel authentic practice does - makes us better people.
Truth is I'm one of those who don't practice religion in the way it's prescribed. Why? Plain and simple - it's just too damn hard. Naturally, since as I said, it goes against our nature (we're not good) or if that's not to your taste, it seeks to tap into a part of our nature (the good in us) that's not so easy to get to, overshadowed as it is by self-concern, let alone cultivate in any meaningful way.
As for hypocrisy,
[quote=Joe Wong (comedian)]Hypocrisy is the best we can hope for. In hypocrisy people acknowledge something is nice and pretend to be that.[/quote]
I know this Buddhist monk who's broken his vow of chastity and now has a partner :lol: . He told me something very interesting around a decade or so ago. According to him, all good begins as hypocrisy - it's an uphill task to practice what one preaches and many end up as janus-faced double-dealers - BUT, as he put it, the outward show of goodwill though dissonant with one's own selfishness will, in good time, be internalized i.e. there will come a point when one can/will be truly good; the image of goodness one habitually projects will finally match one's real self. Hypocrisy then a stepping stone and not a stumbling block as regards becoming a good person à la Jesus/Buddha.
Coming from a hypocrite, I don't know what to make of this piece of Buddhist advice? What sayest thou?
It's odd that when people are bad, we immediately conclude they're really bad but when someone is being good, we're on guard, highly suspicious of their (hidden) intentions, the possibility that we're dealing with two-faced sons/daughters of jackals taken seriously, very seriously in fact.
I suppose we all know, deep down in our hearts, how people really are - bad - but at the same time we hope that there are exceptions - good folks. Thus, knowledge & hope come together to weave a rather incoherent tale of hard facts (people generally care only about themselves) and cautious expectations (we keep our eyes peeled for the good Samaritan). Most of the time people fall short of the mark but on rare occasions we're treated to a pleasant surprise and might I add, this is one of only a handful of situations where we're more than happy to be proven wrong.
I'm rambling. Just ignore me!
What this means is religions (the Abrahamic big 3) rely almost exclusively on truths handed down from, literally dictated by, a higher power - God - through a chosen person - the prophet/messenger. In most cases, criticism of revealed truths is forbidden on pain of torture and death.
Philosophy's lifeblood is reason, rational criticism of truth-claims, in fact philosophers are trained, to use a martial analogy, to attack rather than defend, the latter being either a skill less worthy of a genuine thinker or a skill that's pointless given how rare it is to find a belief system immune to a full frontal assault, cunning flanking maneuvers and taking out the rearguard. The bottom line is fault-finding to philosophers is as annoying as it is to religious establishments but, the difference is, in philosophy it's a valuable asset to be cultivated and mastered to the point where you can pick out imperfections in perfection itself.
Buddhism, it appears, took a philosophical path and attempts to, as best as it can, eschew revelatory modes of truth-seeking and truth-finding. The Four Noble Truths - the axioms as it were of Gautama's system of beliefs - are clearly discernible to anyone willing to analyze them in the reality everyone shares. 0f course, there'll be disagreements but the point is not whether Siddhartha's right/wrong but Buddhism's epistemic approach to truths which sets it apart from other religions.
Another point worth noting is the Buddha was reluctant to discuss metaphysical issues and avoided discussing such matters, instead adopting a noncommital stance on all such questions - Noble Silence.
Just because most people are hypocrites doesn't mean this doesn't hold true for those whose practices are authentic.
If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him.
One good argument I suppose that God exists is the existence of the Devil. It's the same thing with hypocrisy - bad people can get some idea of what good is and even if they don't practice, they at least preach. The point here is not to compare those who don't practice what they preach with those who practice what they preach but with those who don't even preach.
Quoting Pantagruel
Today we might look at China and some concerns. It is using cell phone technology to monitor citizens' thoughts and behaviors. In the US millions of dollars are spent on learning how to manipulate people and influence their behavior and this information is used mostly for commercials, but it is also used for political purposes.
I am sure others can think of examples of science being evil and this is very much behind the argument that we must have Jesus and concern about being saved. So, Jack, we might want to ensure religion and philosophy have a place in our society. But we have serious reasons for opposing religion and that leaves philosophy as the most important source of knowledge to moderate both science and the religious folk.
We might want to pay more attention to culture and education because Christianity without liberal education is not the same thing as Christianity with liberal education was. We can not live on truths alone, but must also have morals, ethics, and principles.
Which one of the Greek philosophers spoke of our higher selves? I think here we need to follow the line of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. None of us is functioning on the level of our higher selves all the time. What is important is to constantly educate ourselves and surround ourselves with people who have liberal educations because our social nature brings out the best or worse in us depending on the people we associate with. That is where religious people have a distinct advantage- they congregate regularly and intentionally focus their minds above their bases instincts. They intentionally develop themselves and support each other in this endeavor.
You are probably right that I do tend to approach philosophy as a quest for 'ultimate answers' in the way that people approach religion. It probably goes back to how I used to see it as a unified quest when I was a student. I often make the assumption that other people come from this angle. So, I will try to bear in mind that philosophy is probably best not approached in that way, but I do find it hard to step out of the tendency to look for the 'ultimate' answers and truth.
I was reading one of your posts here about Abrahamic religions and it is true that these do involve the idea of evil being necessary in the overall scheme of things. If Satan did not exist there would be nothing to battle against. Also, if Lucifer had not been a fallen angel and not encouraged human beings to fall too, there would have been no history at all within the drama portrayed in the Bible.
Similarly, I used to wonder how paradise as envisioned after the resurrection at the end of the world would work. If evil had been cast into the abyss forever, it would be a static condition, and I am sure sure that the idea of bliss for eternity makes sense really.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds." Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities. So your advice here is rather contradictory, to pursue a liberal education which tends to erode 'traditional' views, yet you praise traditional views and conformity to 'higher authorities'.
Incidentally, studies from the Pew Research Center indicate that Liberals are about half as religious as Conservatives (those who uphold traditional values and norms).
Quoting Athena
They are strongly bonded, sharing traditional values, norms, rituals, etc., and that bond is the essential purpose, to be a unified tribe. Self-development is entirely beside the point, or intentionally suppressed, because self-development leads to self-determination.
I believe that it was Plato who spoke of the higher self, as the daimon. I think philosophy, including the Greek ideas is extremely important, and it is a way of making sense of both religion and science. Definitely, religious views are focused on being saved and, of course, haunted with the threat of eternal damnation. This the reason why I really wanted to think my way out of a religious point of view, and, on top of the idea of hell, it is frequently suggested that people should not question. Ideas are meant to be accepted through blind faith.
But, I do think that the social support in congregations does help people, and I think that this may be one of the real reasons that many people go to church. As a teenager, most of my life outside of studies was church based. I would say that I had a liberal education within Christianity. I went to a Catholic school and I studied at S. Martin's College in Lancaster after leaving school. I think that it was only really when I moved on to study in London that I began to explore other perspectives outside of religious ones, although I was interested in Hinduism while I was still going to so many church events.
But, it is definitely true that once we step outside of religious views that morals are still important. In a way, morality can be seen as more important outside of religion because the focus is on life in the present, rather than about happiness in an afterlife.
I really appreciate what said and especially that definition of Liberal Education. However, I see your interpretation of it is not the meaning of my words that I intended. I do not know how you came to the conclusion that I said we should rely on a "higher authority" other than our own inner higher authority? :gasp: I think in general all civilized people rely on traditional values and norms to some degree. That is the meaning of being civilized. I would say not everyone among us is civilized and they are controlled by laws and fear of punishment to some degree. That is not the same as doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, civilized people and educated and do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
Quoting praxis
What you said may be true of members of religious groups, but religion is not the only core model of life. This is perhaps the most important point to me. The other core model for life in a democracy is a culture built on liberal education. When this was the primary purpose of education in the US we had a strong and united Republic. That education ended in 1958 with the National Defense Education Act. We stopped transmitting our culture and left moral training to the church. That is a complete disaster! Thomas Jefferson devoted his life to universal education when education meant a liberal education because he understood that is the only way to have a strong and united Republic and to protect our liberty. There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. We dropped the culture, leaving us with only authority over the people, and this is destroying our democracy.
I need to clarify, if our schools were transmitting the necessary culture for democracy and liberty, we would be as united as religious groups. We would be forming organizations to resolve our problems as people did when fraterities, unions, and granges were popular because schools would prepare everyone for resolving problems in this democratic way. The dependency would be on ourselves, not the government over us. Not only would we be empowered as Tocqueville said the citizens of the US were but we would be meeting our human needs in a way no government can do. Without a united effort to transmit a culture, we are no longer united by a culture. Leaving only churches to meet the human needs, and perhaps forums like this one. We are not sharing a culture here, but at least we can talk about that. Where else can we meet and discuss what is so and what should be, and our part in all this?
I think there's a lurking and very deep issue at back of this, which you in particular might be able appreciate.
There has always been a tension in Christian doctrine between Greek philosophy and the Hebrew tradition of prophecy. This is expressed in sayings such as 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?' On the one side, the Greek philosophical tradition is rationalist, although with religious aspects, while the Hebrew prophetic tradition is held to be based on the revealed word of God.
In the early formation of Christian doctrine, the Greek-speaking theologians assimilated many elements of Platonic thought and tried to integrate them with Hebrew religious conceptions. Platonism and neo-Platonism provided the philosophical framework within which Christian doctrine was developed and interpreted. But this was not itself a particularly deliberate process, it took place through conflicts, political agitation, conquests, and campaigns, borrowing and mixing of ideas and doctrines. It was a total ferment in the first few centuries of Christian history. To even begin to summarise that history would take an enormous amount of reading, and I acknowledge I have barely scratched the surface myself (although Henry Chadwick seems the go-to for that subject).
But there's a couple of themes to explore. When I started on the quest, much as you're doing now, I assumed that what was fundamental was the kind of experiences that would arise from entheogens. Of course, such agents have a stigma, and I'm certainly not wanting to encourage their use. But the point was, for brief moments, at least, the curtains were parted, and a clear vista could be seen which was transformative in its meaning. It goes without saying that this can't be explained or communicated, and so it is very easy to dismiss. But the thing that stayed with me was the noetic element, the idea that there was a 'seeing' that put everything into perspective.
It seemed to me that there was a crossover between these kinds of experiences and Eastern or counter-cultural spirituality - the various roshis, gurus, yogis, and seers whose ideas were circulating at that time. Certainly as it turned out, some were charlatans - but not all. In any case, the message seemed to be that one had to train oneself to look within for the real source of these kinds of experiences that we had had glimpses of. (I don't know if you've read Alduous Huxley's Doors of Perception, but that is one of the key texts of that time.)
Hence began the quest for enlightenment, for me and many others. That's why I studied comparative religion (fat lot of good that'll do you, said most, with some justification). Also got trained in a meditation technique and went to a couple of retreats. Not that I have progressed far, or made a career out of it.
At that point, when I was doing comparative religion, I formed the view that the experiential element of philosophical spirituality had been overall suppressed in the mainstream Christian tradition. I had the view that the early gnostics were most like the Indian yogis and sages who had appeared and taught in the West, but that they had been suppressed by the mainstream Church. And this was for the political reason, that belief is a much easier thing to control than knowledge. So whereas Buddhism, for instance, tends to be much less centralised - more like a 'passing of the torch' - the impulse in the Catholic church was always centralised power, with the Pope as the representative of God on earth and the wielder of absolute power.
I think that has had a massively distorting effect on what religion means in the Western world. I learned the interesting fact that in the very early days of the Roman church, a very influential Gnostic bishop, Valentinus, had come within a couple of votes of being elected Pontiff. But, it was not to be, and history was written by the victors.
I have since come to understand that there are still some gnostic or experiential aspects remaining in the Christian tradition - mainly they show up in the medieval mystics, like Eckhart, which is why he always skirted, and was charged with, heresy. And also there were underground movements, like the Cathars, Hermetics, Rosicrucians, and many others, that kept alive some of those elements of gnostic spirituality.
But that is some background as to why the emphasis on 'blind faith', which, I think, was exacerbated by Protestantism - I don't think, for instance, that you'll find the same emphasis on it in Aquinas or in the Church Fathers. But again, a lot of the dynamics are driven by the politics of supression and control, and it has left a deep shadow on the collective psyche.
:pray:
Your entry is extremely interesting from my own point of view, because I am interested in the whole history of esoteric traditions. I have read a certain amount on Gnosticism, mainly in connection with Jung's interest in the area. But, apart from Gnostic ideas having been suppressed, it does seem that Hermeticism, and movements like the Rosucrucians have been an underground hidden aspect behind the surface of religious philosophies. There are also particular individual thinkers like Emmanuel Swedenborg, who influenced Blake. One writer who I also believe is an extremely important one is Rudolf Steiner. I think that these thinkers are often suppressed and hidden from mainstream religion, but from philosophy too.
I think you should concentrate on trying to get something published in this subject area. You're an interesting writer and thinker in your own right. Enough with noodling around on public forums, find some way to make it count!
I would love to at some point, and I definitely think you should write a book too. But, it also depends on life circumstances and having a specific audience. For example, over the time I have been on the forum, I have got to the stage where I know who may respond to my threads, and who will probably not. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any surprises and it is all completely predictable. But, I do see writing on the forum as useful practice. Perhaps, many of us here will write a book, including @TheMadFool, @180 Proof, and many others.
They are "suppressed and hidden" by whom and why?
I agree with your description. I would qualify it with two observations:
The Gnostics saw themselves in relation to "non-believers" in ways that do not conform to an idea of a group only practicing for themselves.
The form of life in early "Pauline" groups is an experience that the formation of dogma also hides from our view. The complaint of some early Church Fathers was that the Gnostics were too "intellectual."
1. Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism)
2. Mahavira (Jainism)
3. Moses (Judaism)
4. Jesus (Christianity)
5. Mohammed (Islam)
6. Zarathustra (Zoroastrainism)
Speaking for myself, not Jack, the common denominator (besides them all being more or less patriarchal males) seems to be that they each promise in his own way that 'personal salvation from self-immiseration is possible' (in effect) after death. Holy Hustle, Batman! :yikes:
Yup, that's one way to look at it. There were, back then and as is true in the here and now, the Siamese twins of suffering & evil. Given the diversity of religions, it's obvious that there's more than one way to skin a cat but the catch is they're all mutually inconsistent; so it's not the case that there's some commonality among the faiths that we could isolate, work on, and perfect.
They all have the same destination - salvation - but the methodologies (paths) proposed are as different from each other as the passengers on a ship (merchants, scientists, priests, colonizers, slave traders, etc.) in the age of exploration/colonization. You already knew that of course.
One major theme uniting the various figures, although I don't know anything about the one you describe in Jainism, is the specific role attributed to them as leaders. Of course, within the framework of the particular religions they are seen as much more, but looked at more from an anthropological perspective, they could be seen as having a shamanic journey and role. They went further in their exploration of reality than those around them and brought knowledge and wisdom for other people.
However, I'm looking for a deeper, more satisfying, connection that can become the basis for clubbing them all together under one banner - religion. 180 Proof came close but, in my humble opinion, failed to hit the bullseye.
Try going into their lives - one was a slave (Moses), one was a priest (Jesus), one was a merchant (Mohammed), last but not the least, one was a prince (Gautama). What made them turn to religion?
[quote=“From Wikipedia on Religious Membership”]
Christianity 2.382 billion 31.11%
Islam 1.907 billion 24.9%
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.193 billion 15.58%
Hinduism 1.161 billion 15.16%
Buddhism 506 million 5.06%
Chinese traditional religion[c] 394 million 5%
Ethnic religions excluding some in separate categories 300 million 3%
African traditional religions 100 million 1.2%
…
[/quote]
So like 1% of the world doesn’t fit into one of those buckets. Only 3 of the religions on Agent Smith’s list of major religions are in the 7 “religions” that make up virtually the entirety of religious adherence in the modern world.
Moses wasn’t Jewish (if he existed at all). He did not promise anything about the afterlife and certainly nothing about salvation from self-immeseration. Judaism is not Christianity without Jesus and it isn’t interested in the same themes as Christianity is. The majority of Jews do not believe in revealed truths that come from authority.
I really fail to understand what the value is of doing “comparative religion” when all that seems to be discussed is Christianity, Christianity adjacent tokens, and some theorizing about the Buddha. How about start with a religion of about 1.2 billion people and see what it says as compared to modern science and some of the thoughts of philosophy - you know, Hinduism. Maybe we could do a bit of discussion on Pramana, Brahman, Purusartha, and Naya (epistemology, metaphysics, axiology, and logic). Although we manage to abstract “philosophy” (I know, it isn’t about wisdom anymore, it is all about methods of proper thinking) from context (which was religious until fairly recently as a predominant orientation) in the West and so pretend like there is philosophy outside of religion, when looking at other cultures, the philosophy is still unabashedly maintained in its religious context.
Religious malcontents trolling the philosophy of religion section with no real interest in philosophy of religion (philosophy that comes from religion) or philosophy of religion (philosophy about religion) leads to nothing but impoverished conversations. I often feel tempted to refer to SEP on the philosophy of religion just for the introduction - a rather earnest and sympathetic exploration of why philosophy of religion.
[quote=“Excerpt from SEP on Philosophy of Religion”]
Today, philosophy of religion is one of the most vibrant areas of philosophy. . . .What accounts for this vibrancy? Consider four possible reasons.
First: The religious nature of the world population. Most social research on religion supports the view that the majority of the world’s population is either part of a religion or influenced by religion (see the Pew Research Center online). To engage in philosophy of religion is therefore to engage in a subject that affects actual people, rather than only tangentially touching on matters of present social concern. Perhaps one of the reasons why philosophy of religion is often the first topic in textbook introductions to philosophy is that this is one way to propose to readers that philosophical study can impact what large numbers of people actually think about life and value. . .
Second: Philosophy of religion as a field may be popular because of the overlapping interests found in both religious and philosophical traditions. Both religious and philosophical thinking raise many of the same, fascinating questions and possibilities about the nature of reality, the limits of reason, the meaning of life, and so on. . . .
Third, studying the history of philosophy provides ample reasons to have some expertise in philosophy of religion. In the West, the majority of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers philosophically reflected on matters of religious significance. . . .
In Chinese and Indian philosophy there is an even greater challenge than in the West to distinguish important philosophical and religious sources of philosophy of religion. It would be difficult to classify Nagarjuna (150–250 CE) or Adi Shankara (788–820 CE) as exclusively philosophical or religious thinkers. Their work seems as equally important philosophically as it is religiously (see Ranganathan 2018).
Fourth, a comprehensive study of theology or religious studies also provides good reasons to have expertise in philosophy of religion. As just observed, Asian philosophy and religious thought are intertwined and so the questions engaged in philosophy of religion seem relevant: what is space and time? . . .
[/quote]
Moses wasn’t a slave. Jesus was not a Cohen, i.e. not a priest.
What were they then?
Jesus is alleged to be of the house of Judah (which makes no sense, but whatever). Moses was adopted by the Pharaoh's daughter shortly after birth and raised as an Egyptian prince.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
:hearts:
What do you think that these people had in common? It also may be important to think about their differences too. In particular, the Buddha did not necessarily believe in God while Jesus saw his own role and mission in relation to God, his father in heaven.
One viewpoint which I am also familiar with is that of Benjamin Creme, an esoteric artist in England, is that both Jesus and the Buddha were spiritual brothers and Masters. Creme had some very unusual ideas, especially a belief that Maitreya was living in East London, which he had been saying since the late seventies. He founded a group, Share International, and a specific form of meditation, transmission meditation, which he and his followers believed was about channeling the energies of the Masters. One really unusual idea which he had was that Jesus was only Christ during the few years of his ministry.
Differences are, for sure, critical to get the full picture but they wouldn't explain why all of these people turned to religion. When people do the same thing, it's (usually) because they have something in common unless...all of them hit upon the same idea by fluke.
Suffering & Evil, all religions seem to be more or less about these two banes of humanity in particular and life in general. The difference (vide supra Jack, you're on point) is their approach to these issues (existing philosophies, zeitgeist, culture, and so on). Different perspectives on a problem yield different solutions.
:vomit: :grin:
It is true that all religions are about suffering and evil as a starting point but there are many other aspects as well, including a whole basis for social ethics, often focusing on the importance of compassion. Of course, some philosophy points of view are based on ideas about the problem of suffering and evil too, but without the emphasis on the 'supernatural'. It is debatable whether Buddhism has any conception of the supernatural in the way most religions have.
Explain.
:sweat:
You're on the mark in saying it's about salvation but salvation is a concept applicable even to those who are, let's just say, not exactly suffering or facing evil. I could be wrong of course but that's how I understand it (as of now).
[quote=Wikipedia]Pains (evil & suffering) occupy a distinct and vital place in the philosophy of mind for several reasons. One is that pains seem to collapse the appearance/reality distinction. If an object appears to you to be red it might not be so in reality, but if you seem to yourself to be in pain you must be so: there can be no case here of seeming at all.[/quote]
Pain is as real as it gets. The supernatural, then, is an illusion for, by definition, it's pain-free (heaven, nirvana, moksha, etc.)
The question about pain and suffering in connection with religious ways of thinking is whether it is about physical or emotional pain. In some ways, people may regard physical pain as more real, but it may be that mental and emotional pain can be as harsh. Emotional pain and physical pain could be seen as hell and ecstatic experience can be seen as heaven in this life. It may be that people mystify the concepts of both heaven and hell as being in a supernatural realm. As far as nirvana and moksha, it is hard to know if they are more goals rather than something which people can attain fully. They are seen mostly as future possibilities.
I suppose that this does apply to heaven as well because even if someone is having a wonderful life of joy it is likely that they will experience pain at some point simply because this comes with the experience of sentience. That may be why heaven and nirvana are seen as more likely in a life beyond the body. Of course, many Christians do believe in a resurrection at the end of the world. This is often viewed as a form of paradise on earth, rather like utopia.
I don't find this helpful. Pain is pain, emotional/physical. Are you trying to say that heaven is a [s]place[/s] state of zero emotional pain but some physical pain? Maybe vice versa.
Emotional pain, to tell you the truth, is, according to John Stuart Mill of utilitarianism fame (unadulterated hedonism mind you), better than living in a fool's paradise.
[quote=J. S. Mill]It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.[/quote]
Sorry if my answer wasn't helpful, but I don't know if heaven or hell could ever be permanent because it is questionable whether they could be without any aspects of the other. When I used to hear of people in heaven for eternity as told in the Bible, I used to think how can they be happy if people who were close to them had gone to hell.
I am not sure that I wouldn't rather be a fool satisfied rather than Socrates in many ways. Some people seem to have such a lot more enjoyment and good fortune in life than others. It may be partly due to attitude and underlying temperament, but life often seems so unfair. Most of the time I am probably somewhere in between being satisfied and disgruntled, but I don't like it I am as miserable and lying on my bed listening to The Doors, The Smith's and The Manic Street Preachers, although they do help. But, getting back to religion, I don't want to go to the other extreme and be singing and dancing to hymns. I would prefer to be reading some existential angst of Kierkergaard and some wallowing in Sartre...
Different strokes for different folks. Hedonism isn't the only game in town, see. Of course that'll sound like I've lost my marbles, but the question is, is there anyone sane left in this world? Life is too tough or it's too easy, the sweet spot in the middle few have ever had the privilege of living. Given that, I'm entitled to an opinion just as you are and everyone else.
As for wanting to live in fool's paradise, remember the quote's origins - John Stuart Mill who put, get this, hedonism on the map! Dogfooding!
None of the people you are discussing hit upon the same idea. It is only by ignoring all of the substance of the various traditions around the mentioned individuals that you can claim similarity. Also, the enduring traditions of the religions are not equally as invested in the various figures you mentioned.
Trying to force commonality between religions serves little purpose besides advancing notions of universalism despite the evidence to the contrary.
[i]placebo or nocebo
boredom or pain
junk or withdrawal
coma (dreamless sleep) or quadriplegia (buried alive)
lobotomy or torture[/i] ...
You've missed the point of , Smith: what (those) religious figures have in common, IMO, is they make promises to their followers which can only be fulfilled after their followers die – false promise (means), not "salvation" (ends), is my point.
Do you mind finding a single quote of Moses where he talks about the afterlife? Or where he says, "You all must be dead before god will give you the land"? Moses is neither Jesus nor Buddha. He was an outgroup prophet that did what god said within earshot/miracleshot of the people around him. He is even alleged to have had someone else do the public talking for him. He and his brother die in the wilderness within site of the promised land as an act of public cruelty by god. The Israelites, within their lifetimes, conquer/vanquish/eradicate countless peoples/nations as their god among gods gives them the land god promised their forebearers. They get the promised land. No waiting necessary.
:roll: I responded to this
Quoting Agent Smith
where "Moses" is indicated as representative of "Judaism", or the Covenant of Abraham and YHWH which is the promise to Abraham to provide for his descendents aka "the Israelites" as stated in scripture Bereishit 17:5-11 (Tanakh). Every observant Jew keeps the Covenant and (many of) the 613 mitzvahs for the providential favor (blessings) of all Jews who will ever live after her and says Kaddish prayers (Rabbi Akiva) for those who have died, particularly their parents, siblings and children.
If my goyish understanding of Judaism is lacking or mistaken, someone please correct what I've written here. The religion, it seems to me, is founded on the (reciprocal) promise of saving the Jewish people from oblivion re: Kohelet 3:20 (Tanakh).
I see. What's of great interest to me is the explanation for this behavior: going against the wisdom of one bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. People are ever ready to gamble away what's an actual thought unsatisfactory life for an only possible but better afterlife. To put this into perspective, it's like refusing a $100 payment for a 50/50 chance of winning $1,000,000. Come to think of it, it actually makes sense! :chin: It seems people aren't fools (re Pascal's wager).
Quoting 180 Proof
I'll need some time to process this.
Re: wishful thinking (i.e. optimism bias).
Two choices:
1. $100 payment, no questions asked (life)
OR
2. A p% chance of $1,000,000 (afterlife), $100 entry fee to play the game.
Expected value for option 1 is simply [math]$100.[/math]
Expected value for option 2 is
[math]\frac{100-p}{100}\times -$100 + \frac{p}{100} \times $1,000,000 = 10,001p-100[/math]
If the afterlife is more profitable then
10,001p - 100 [math]>[/math] 100
[math]p > \frac{200}{10,001} \approx \frac{200}{10,000} = 0.02[/math]
The probabiity of an afterlife > 0.02% if religion is to make sense. 0.02% is a very low value; I'm sure the odds of life after death are much, much higher i.e. it makes sense to play the game (theism is a better deal than atheism).
Quoting Agent Smith
He asked what these personalities had in common, not what these religions had in common. Taking Moses as a symbol for Judaism (which didn’t exist and which he isn’t) in the midst of the major reinvention of the Israelites (a disposed people) as they emerged from Egypt and returned to the promised land is not what the question was or why I said what I said. Moses (the figure in the story) is not a Jesus or Buddha analog. And his message sure wasn’t about salvation in another life.
And yes, your goyish understanding sucks, but it is some good PR for a bad retelling. If you actually want to talk about what Judaism is, it would be swell if you didn’t resort to the political messaging of a group interested in self legitimization.
————-
To add a touch of clarity/context for the muddle that is about to come: if god doesn’t exist and all of the Jewish claims about a relationship to god are false, you can’t look to Jewish mythology (even Jewish origin mythology) to explain what Judaism is or is not or how/why it came to be. You have to study Judaism historical Judaism the same you do any other historical subject. With that said, what we know about people like Moses is what is contained in the story book, not some secret trove of complete historical evidence.
The story of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews is long with many different periods of thought. As they encountered various cultures, were conquered, dispossessed, reestablished, reconquered, redispossed, etc. the way that Jews thought about themselves and the significance of their religious heritage changed. When you see things like “salvation” what you are seeing is a type of Helenization of the Jews that occured during the latter half of the 2nd temple period through its destruction and co-evolution with early Christianity. That some group of people within a Jewish community tried to incorporate foreign ideas into Jewish thought and that group of people came to have significant influence in how later Judaism discussed things is not an indication that these ideas are either pervasive in the minds of Jews throughout time and/or related to the foundations of Jewish thought.
Looking to contemporary “orthodoxy” as a guide to what historic Judaism was is a fool’s errand. It is what people do that wish to be a part of a particular Jewish community, not what people interested in the historic development of Judaism do. Creation myths (and the ways that are modified/emphasized by particular groups) are about legitimizing the status quo (or subverting it establish a new power). They are not actual studies of the historical record.
In the context of a philosophy forum, the assumption should be that religious myth is ahistorical, i.e. that the mere fact that a myth is told does not indicate that it is true. We cannot, therefore, simply accept what contemporary practitioners of a religion represent to be the truth of their existence.
Now back to the muddle.
——-
You can start with historic question of a) when Judaism came to be and b) whether it is even sensible to say it was founded. Mythic history doesn’t dictate the “facts” of what Judaism is - especially since there is scant historical evidence of either the Exodus or the existence of Moses (and especially not any of the associated miracles or covenants with god).
The biggest issue with what you are missing is that Judaism is theoretically the cultural heritage of people exiled from the land and their historic encounter with what it was to be in exile while maintaining an enduring myth of group identity revolving around a long gone promised land. Your 613 mitzvot didn’t exist when the 2nd temple was destroyed and sure as hell didn’t exist when Moses is alleged to have been around or when Israel first got his name.
In any event, the typical schtick around the 613 mitzvot is that some are explicable and some are not, but they are kept because god said so and not in expectation of some reward. There are but a handful where the tradition says, “Do this in order to obtain that.” While the late 2nd temple period saw talk of the after-life, there was never a time where normative Judaism would have claimed that adherence to the mitzvot was to bring about some better circumstance in the after-life. I commend to you the high-holiday liturgy (traditional or otherwise) and what are considered to be the most important of Jewish prayers - prayers for life and present safekeeping. You do not find people praying for their eternal souls.
Also, your telling of Abraham is off. He was actually rewarded by god during his life and was promised that his blessings would continue. He wasn’t some schlub that toiled in hopes that future generations would benefit, he was rewarded by god in his lifetime and not promised salvation in some here after.
To the extent Judaism might have a salvation myth, it is centered around the coming of the Messiah that will result in the ingathering of the Jews, the return of the Temple, and the Davidic line being reestablished. What is amusing about this is that Judaism is not a temple based religion and no one actually wants it to go back to that (or to have a king). These are symbolic positions within the context of a religion expressly concerned with living. As the saying goes, “You shall live..”
You might consider some of the oldest prayers in Judaism for a sense of what Jews have thought was important from the “beginning”. The Amidah is one such collection of prayers (as is the Kaddish, but the Kaddish is used for more purposes than you might realize). The mourner’s Kaddish, which is what you referred to, says the following:
[quote=“Random Kaddish Translation”]
Glorified and sanctified be God’s great name throughout the world
which He has created according to His will.
May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days,
and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon;
and say, Amen.
May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.
Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored,
adored and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He,
beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that
are ever spoken in the world; and say, Amen.
May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us
and for all Israel; and say, Amen.
He who creates peace in His celestial heights,
may He create peace for us and for all Israel;
and say, Amen.
[/quote]
You’ll notice a distinct lack of prayers for the souls of the dead in the after-life. The prayer is for life and to bless the living.
Says the man who cites Ecclesiastes in support of salvation in the afterlife…
5For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for their remembrance is forgotten.
6Also their love, as well as their hate, as well as their provocation has already been lost, and they have no more share forever in all that is done under the sun.
7Go, eat your bread joyfully and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already accepted your deeds.
8At all times, let your garments be white, and let oil not be wanting on your head.
9Enjoy life with the wife whom you love all the days of the life of your vanity, whom He has given you under the sun, all the days of your vanity, for that is your portion in life and in your toil that you toil under the sun.
10Whatever your hand attains to do [as long as you are] with your strength, do; for there is neither deed nor reckoning, neither knowledge nor wisdom in the grave, where you are going.