Shouldn't religion be 'left'?
Correct me if I'm wrong but atheism is largely connected to left-wing politics and religiousness to the 'right'. I believe it should be the opposite and here is why.
The concept of the soul is one of the most fundamental parts of most religious beliefs and it states that every human being has unquestionable value that cannot be measured. Therefore you cannot compare people using it and, as it is the only meaningful value, makes every person equal. The words "every" and "equal" sound pretty left leaning to me and the whole concept unites humanity in one group.
Without religion you cannot have any objective values because you can always find a viewpoint from which anything can be unimportant. Only religion can create unquestionable meaning. Therefore values are purely subjective which makes every individual the center of its own universe. You can't go more right than making an individual equal to its own god.
I know that everyone has their own combination of opinions but I am interested in this particular connection and why is it so popular.
The concept of the soul is one of the most fundamental parts of most religious beliefs and it states that every human being has unquestionable value that cannot be measured. Therefore you cannot compare people using it and, as it is the only meaningful value, makes every person equal. The words "every" and "equal" sound pretty left leaning to me and the whole concept unites humanity in one group.
Without religion you cannot have any objective values because you can always find a viewpoint from which anything can be unimportant. Only religion can create unquestionable meaning. Therefore values are purely subjective which makes every individual the center of its own universe. You can't go more right than making an individual equal to its own god.
I know that everyone has their own combination of opinions but I am interested in this particular connection and why is it so popular.
Comments (52)
Quoting Jacykow
Scholars of religion often see things like Marxism as a religion (despite the whiney yells of protest by these Marxists). But the religious attitude need not have a capital-letter label. In fact, the idea of organized religion with an either/or mentality is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm willing to argue that the concept of a religious organization, with a set of doctrines and heresies and that either/or mentality is a result of the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. Religious people began to feel compelled to transform religion from a personal, communal tradition to a sectarian, dogmatic structure that models the scientific disciplines. Dogmatic naturalism has forced religion to transform into something unnatural, where its truths are banal propositions (illegitimately interpreted literally) rather than a surging, artistic, inner force.
That being said, Marx also pointed out how religion works against progressive causes:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself." (Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right")
In other words: religion stops people from caring about changing the status quo or the conditions of this world, because they rely on the promise of the next one.
The religious right does believe in personal responsibility as well as charity in terms of helping one's fellow man. They are in fact more charitable by all measure than their liberal counterpart, from the amount they contribute to charity, the amount they volunteer in their communities, and the extent to which they reach out to those in need. Their disagreement lies in what they see as the role of government. The duty to help others derives as an inherent duty and it is not fulfilled through forced taxation and forced redistribution of wealth. Interpreting the right as uncaring is a leftist opinion not accepted by the right.
I do think the left has an underlying philosophical problem with trying to deny the sacred yet to declare that humans are sacred.
The next world to Christians is either heaven or hell, which would mean there would be an overwhelming reason to do right in this world. It's not like a reincarnation based system where they can just worry about getting it right next time. Their rewards or punishments would be eternal, so I don't follow where it would work out very well if they just threw their hands up at all the suffering around them and said they couldn't wait to get to heaven to get away from all this.
I can only speak from a Christian's perspective and not other religions to answer your questions.
Many Christians are opposed to a stricter government because it defies equality. The authorities are human also, and hence must be considered equals. Upon establishing them as a near absolute authority, this creates friction between following the human authority and God. Humans are prone to error and selfish ambitions, which is human nature.
There are many Christians that do not believe in nationalism, of which I am one. I believe in universal unalienable rights given by God to protect fellow humans from each other and themselves. I do not believe that nationalism is admirable, but rather a hindrance towards establishing a system of true equality found in Scripture. The system of the moral law extends beyond one's self and country, but rather must be seen for all humanity.
Christianity focuses mostly on the next world in practice--it's about accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Believing in God is the ticket to heaven, not necessarily what you do.
How so? Don't conservatives, at least stereotypically, value hierarchies?
Rather, research (Washington Post Article) shows that liberals are charitable towards the secular and conservatives are charitable towards religious-based organizations, etc.
Quoting Hanover
Then why don't they refuse entitlements?
Quoting Hanover
Not uncaring, hoodwinked.
If it's necessary then it must be of value.
I just don't understand the notion that "You can't go more right than making an individual equal to its own god." Can you explain?
Quoting praxis
To the extent someone is hypocritical, I suppose it's for the same reason anyone is.Quoting praxis
I think both sides hold similar opinions of the others. Some think there opponents are malicious, others think they're too dumb to know better.
Pretty meaningless in the age of alternative facts. I'd be interested to see studies. You got links?
I may have overdone it a bit but since materialism doesnt really elevate the individual to a god but that is exactly what the individual becomes: the only source of value. It is right leaning because the right puts the individual above all else.
No, I'm not saying we should ignore the atrocities committed by organized religion. My point was that organized religion is at least in part a reaction to the scientific revolution. But it's been around since someone like Mani who was arguably the very first person to knowingly write scripture, organize a corporate religious structure and call themselves a prophet (he was later put to death by imitators of his vision).
The point must have been missed, I wasn't arguing for a return to this dogmatic structure. I am well-aware of the risks and the history to substantiate these risks. Organized, corporate, "messianist" religion is mostly bad. But there are good parts of "religion". Just the same with science, much good, and some bad. Over the course of centuries, Western culture has differentiated science from religion, and philosophy from religion. But that's just not an accurate description of how these things operate, even in the West itself. Try applying those dichotomies to places like India or China and you'll never understand the culture, because it's inappropriate to project Western concepts like Religion onto other cultures. Same goes with Science, and Philosophy.
People can live cooperatively for mutual benefit. I’m not sure if a hierarchical structure is nessisary for this to take place. In any case, we can freely choose which groups to join, unless prevented by the prevailing hierarchy.
Quoting Jacykow
This doesn’t make sense to me, to think of myself as the only source of meaning.
I’m liberal but not materialist, incidentally.
Yes, left to history and to the indulgence of those who find thinking and Philosophy to be painful, and time consuming.
It (religion) is both interesting and relatively easy.
M
How so?
I don't want to derail this discussion, and I was going to make a separate thread related to this later anyway. But a major idea here is that the portrayal of ancient and even medieval religion as "Religion" in the same way we see, say, Baptists as a "Religion" and the accompanied either/or mentality is a gross misinterpretation, bad hermeneutics. There were hints and patterns of this happening before, with Mani and later Muhammad, but people like Jesus, Buddha or Zarathustra did not see themselves as founding a "religion", nor did the traditions they spawned (at least not initially). Islam here is an exception and that's an interesting case study - the birth of Islam came with a specific title for the religion that was not applied externally nor adopted later on down the road.
This is a radical idea from a stringently modern, Western perspective, but it's this perspective that distorts the history and development of "religion". With the development of science came a new cosmopolitanism and imperialism. Christianity began to be compared to other religious traditions. It was no longer about following Christ, it was about belonging to the right set of doctrines. The "threat" of Islam and the crusades in the middle ages also accelerated this process, and helped introduce the idea of an organized, corporate religion to Europe (which Islam itself inherited from Mani). It was now about "Christendom", which slowly morphed into Christianity (as a Religion, and the Religion ... fast forward a few centuries and we have imperialists masking as priests).
I know what you thought I was arguing for, a return to "traditionalist" religious perspectives and a conservative, cranky disapproval of Science as ruining everything. That's not what I'm saying. "Science" did nothing wrong here, it's not to be "blamed". Though a stringent form of naturalism ought to be put in check, I think.
But to return to the OP, my general point was that leftist politics tends to lean on science as a crutch, often to the point of scientism. Of course "religion" will not be found here, especially when scientistic folks use "Religion" as a derogatory straw man. Though I also pointed out how Marxism is essentially a religion as well - there's the quip: "There is no God, and Karl Marx is his prophet." Religion is there, it's just not recognized as religion. Marxists, for example, proselytize about the coming eventuality of communism. People are free to join and leave, but fundamentally those outside of Marxist thought are very, very wrong, at least according to Marxism. Marxism shares many similarities to the other contemporary religions. The difference, for Marxists, between Marxism and other organized religions is that Marxism is right (and therefore not a religion... :chin: ).
Yes.
Quoting darthbarracuda
And yes.
But I don’t think you addressed why organized religion is more perverse post-enlightenment. What’s the fundamental difference?
I will concede that this is not an accurate portrayal of 100% of Christians, and that Christianity does not say they will let you do whatever you want in so many words.
However, it's historically been a part of Christianity--Martin Luther's beef was in part about indulgences! You can get out of hell for a price cards.
And now? The right wing theists say they can vote for Trump precisely because he has accepted Jesus and has therefore changed--not that there has been any evidence for this.
But that's exactly my point about interpretation, hermeneutics. You can't simply assume that what Paul meant by religion is what modern westerners mean. Looking at the textual evidence, you can actually see statistical patterns of word use. You can see how the meaning of a word develops. Assuming words have static meaning is a huge problem if you want to be historical. Based on what I have read in the field of "religious studies", the term "religion" by no means has a universal definition. Just like how "atheism" as the explicit rejection of any and all "divinity" has no textual references until around the French Revolution with Denis Diderot's temporary atheism.
Yes, there are almost as many definitions as there are scholars of religion. It's certainly the largest, most protracted dispute in the field. Finding the sweet spot, between the Scylla of a definition that is so broad that it includes too much, including that which is not normally considered religion, and the Charybdis of a definition that is so narrow that it leaves out much that seems intrinsically religious, is difficult indeed. Some scholars advocate abandoning the term "religion" altogether, but this just kicks the can down the road a bit further, as the proposed replacement terms are often even more vague than the word they are meant to replace.
I think it can be recognized to have meaning with respect to pre-modern and non-Western societies, but not in the sense of a Hegelian reification of the term, which would be ahistorical.
The concept of the soul is not found in all religions. And it's likely that what you're thinking of by "the concept of the soul" is not what religions that accept a concept of the soul mean by it.
Quoting Jacykow
Just as the vegetative soul unites all plants. The equality here is metaphysical, not political. Besides, the right does acknowledge equality as a value, but it values a different type of it than the left does. The right values equality of opportunity while the left values equality of outcome, which are by no means the same thing. So your intuition is both vague and wrong.
I agree with you that it was. In fact, the opposite of what he suggested is true, I would argue. The Enlightenment was the birth of liberal Christianity and liberalizing tendencies in traditional Christianity. Doctrinal laxity is a new phenomenon while doctrinal rigidity is more traditional.
It does not follow that I will be in favour of making all or any of these virtues compulsory. That I think we ought to do X does not mean that I think the government ought to do X or mandate X. Thus sincere Christians can agree on morality but disagree on politics. They can be liberal about sexual conduct, and prescriptive about economic conduct, or vice versa.
Jesus healed the sick, therefore the government should provide disability benefits and a free health service. There is something missing from this argument.
If you take a materialists point of view there are no values apart from the ones you create. If you don't then this generalization is not about you since the stereotypical leftist is an atheist.
If there are any other values than the metaphysical, how are they justified? The left does value equality of outcome and it might seem unjust to more productive people but why would you put them above any other being if their soul is the only objective value equal to any other? The whole point of the soul is to elevate people above any materialistic hierarchy.
The dinner-table talk taboo, part one: Politics. Opinions and fertilizer, ahoy!
Firstly, the Left confuses mere conservatives with neo-conservatives (including their corporate enablers). Conservatives tend to be traditionalist, mostly religious ie Bible-based Christian, supportive of smaller government, want to take care of USA’s problems before tending to others’, etc. Neo-conservatives tend to want to take over the entire world, or support doing such. Only they would say that they are not “taking over” the entire world, they are “taking care of” most of the world... all while helping the homeland. And doing it ever so dutifully, efficiently, and wisely. (As they themselves might add).
Secondly, the Right confuses liberals (those in favor of progressive policies and larger government) with the so-called dregs of society: the stupid, the godless / the damned / devil-worshippers, the weak and wimpy, the fiscally incompetent, the enemy sympathizer, the... (the list kind of goes on and on) ... the pinko commie, the druggie, and the career felon.
But the unsurprising fact is that there are would-be world dominators AND criminal dregs... ON BOTH SIDES! Both white-collar criminals and common street criminals on both ends of the political spectrum, and in between. Shocking, I know.
But these criminals and potential criminals really are a small percentage of the population. The greater majority of adults who have any kind of political knowledge fall roughly into two categories: the unrelenting warriors; and those that are sick and bone-tired of this long and incipient civil war.
Quoting Jacykow
The dinner-table talk taboo, part two: Religion. (More opinions, personal experiences, and attempted humor incoming.)
Well, I would not necessarily say it “should” be the opposite. But I can imagine it possibly being very different, given different circumstances. Opposite sides in a struggle tend to do just that by default: take the opposite position from the opposition. If the Right declared hot dogs to be the absolute best picnic food, some on the Left could be certain to back hamburgers. Possibly meatless patties or even all varieties of burgers. If the Left backed coffee as the beverage of choice, the Right would back tea as their party’s fav... oh wait... maybe that’s a bad example. :blush:
More seriously, though... I think that there WAS a burgeoning religious movement on the Left / liberal side. Many of its roots were in the counterculture 1960s, though it reached further back in its influences. It was multi-cultural and drew much on the Far Eastern and Aboriginal traditions, while still retaining some European and Middle Eastern spiritual and religious traditions. Especially the mystical Abrahamic practices and ideas, as well as classical philosophical ones. This movement peaked in the early 2000s, but lost much momentum and direction in the wake the tragedies of September 11, 2001.
At that time, I was in several spiritual groups that were open to the possibly of (at least discussing) comparative religion. We had public book discussions, metaphysics studies, alternative healing classes, and participated in drum circles dedicated to soothing at least some of the psychological trauma of the terror attacks.
But within a short time, it felt like a cold fog had descended upon this somewhat new-age spiritual scene, and not just locally. The possibility of conversing about comparative religion, let alone some kind of perennial philosophy, seemed a distant memory. For example, after 9/11 how on earth could a bookstore discussion group talk about Sufi poets or something, and not feel conflicted or hesitant. Or even spied upon. The fear and unease was both palpable and unnameable.
And years later, to the detriment of all, the splintered feeling remains. All one can do in such situations is pick up whatever pieces that can be found. One by one. And keep looking for a higher ground that is also a middle ground. This place on earth exists, it just needs to be discovered.
I am reading Wilfred Cantwell Smith's The Meaning and End of Religion, for reference. The central thesis is that religion in its "corporate", either/or exclusivist form didn't "fully" manifest in the Western mind until after the Enlightenment. This is especially true for Oriental religions. These have been attempted to be classified by Westerns as "Hinduism" or "Confucianism", etc, when in reality this simplifies things and leaves out the reality of the situation; that nowhere in India was there a unified religious sect that can be seen as "Hinduism" - there are Hindus, but there is no Hinduism.
What happened, according to Cantwell Smith, is that some Muslims invaded India and introduced the idea of an either/or religious mentality. This was also done during the Crusades, and later Western Christians in their atrocious colonial efforts steam-rolled over traditional religious belief and attempted to classify them in the way they classify religions back home in Europe.
Quoting ?????????????
I already told you, I didn't want to derail the thread and that I would make a specific post about this topic later when I finish more readings. At any rate, in the early Christian texts never mention the term "religion" - the term "faith" is used primarily and is akin to the personal, inner faith of someone. Later, by the 16th century, "religion" was being used more, and then by around Kant we have the term "Christianity". Similarly, the trend went from Christian -> Christendom -> Christianity. Of course, the Roman persecution of the Christians helped with this progression, as did the Crusades.
You can read ancient texts, but most are interpretations, translations. The word "religion" has no counterpart in China, or India, for example. Up until the ~16th century, Europe had no word for it either.
However, these figures are all still socially conservative, as far as I know, which to me is a primary line of demarcation between a leftist and a non-leftist.
I don't understand the grammar of the question. Are you asking for a worldview that accepts the existence of the soul but does not think the soul has any value? None exist, so far as I am aware. Otherwise, I don't know what you're asking.
Yes, he's right about this.
Not very Christ-like.
I think you'll agree that we don't create all of our values. We may contrive and develop some, but many are ingrained into us from birth and the culture in which we are raised.
Some believe that a major benefit that the enlightenment brought is the capacity to categorize our values, like 'religious' and 'secular', for example.
Quoting Jacykow
In a sense, Buddhism holds that the 'concept' of a soul has negative value, in that there are no essences, and ignorance, or a lack of realization of this, leads to suffering.
Interesting theory.
A curious phenomenon with conservatives is that they're predominantly pro-life AND pro-death penalty. How does that make any sense at all? Because they hold to 'traditional' values. Who determines those values? Not the individual.
:up: Yes, amen. At least in the USA, there seems to be collusion between the two main parties, who shall remain nameless (if not blameless). I have long admired countries that have numerous political parties with a relative equilibrium of power. England and Germany, for example. However, my view from the nosebleed section of the peanut gallery may be mistaken.
Also mistaken may be my opinion that the best thing to happen to Christianity was becoming Rome’s official religion. Which gave it protection and helped it spread. And I feel that the worst thing to happen in the history of Christianity was becoming Rome’s official religion, for it then answered to a new and worldly master.
With that in mind, there are plenty of religions, not officially called religions, based on the erroneous or limiting assumption that a religion has to have deities. This definition is too narrow and self serving. Buddhism shows the definition of religion is much broader than just deities. The narrow definition is used because with no deities involved, many hidden religions are exempt from separation of church and state laws; money and political value.
If you go back to the original point of left versus right and religion, Conservatives tend to conserve the past, so their religions will tend to be traditional instead of improvised. The left is more liberal and likes to be try new things. Their religions will tend to be more faddish, novel, or hidden behind the looser deity definition of religion. The left still has religion, but not as obvious. This is easier to see with the broader definition.
For example, if you look at Socialism, people who favor this, view the possibility of a cooperative utopian paradise on earth. It seems humanly possible so it does not need deities. Although inspiring to think about, this is not a reality image in terms of previous social tests of this political orientation. There is a mythological element, overlay, beyond applied reality; alternate reality. This alternate reality does not involve deities, which is the loophole. Although the type of leader needed to make this happen and make it sustainable, would become mythological. Again, to avoid separation of church and state laws, this paradise religion has to avoid deities. The rest of the mythology is allowed.
We need to broaden the definition to include all forms of group worship, designed to distort reality, for better or worse, using metaphysical, archetypical and other idealized elements. The anti-Trump movement would be form of religion, by the broader definition, since it is a type of mythology where the archetypical evil leader takes on the traits of all things bad. It is a type of fairy tale. This is not reality but is a religion without deities.
There is a spiritual need in all of us. If one does not use the traditional approaches, one will find another avenue that does the same thing; gives the same buzz. If one is not aware they are worshiping in a hidden religion, the impact can be loss of soul, where you lose yourself in a fantasy. If you are aware this a religion and you still choose, your soul remains with you. Hidden versus open religion is why the left is more besides itself, and the right is able to maintain; conserve.
I've always thought that. I must admit I come at it from the opposite direction: it has always seemed to me that the right-wing approach to capitalism, money (and acquiring it), and how to behave toward others, is diametrically opposed to traditional Christian values. [N.B. I am not a Christian.] Jesus preached charity, not hatred toward a government that tried to help the poor using taxes paid by the (relatively) rich. For everyone who becomes rich, others become poor in proportion. [The cake is of finite size.] And so on. Christianity, as Jesus preached it, is left-wing. The corollary to this is that right-wingers cannot be Christians.... :scream:
But I see no obvious reason to place atheism onto the political spectrum. :chin:
I’m “anti-Trump” and I know with certainty that he’s not the embodiment of all things bad. That is indeed a silly fairy tale. Do you actually believe this narrative?
Quoting wellwisher
What does this mean?
Quoting well-wisher
Religion is a natural part of human experience, since it exercises parts of the brain. It works the frontal lobe; imagination, as well as various spatial or 3-D aspects of the brain. The concept of God merges opposites; left versus right is 2-D, into a neutral third, which is 3-D. Jesus on the cross in the center between two thieves is a 3-D concept. One attempts to merge opposites into a new center that is different from the two.
If you practice a religion, but are not aware you are doing so, due to denial it is a religion, the exercise still has the same unconscious affects. If you practice a religion, with open eyes, without denial, there is less unconsciousness.
The definition of religion that is now in use; religion defined by deities, allows plausible denial, by the left, based on a human tradition. This tradition and the denial does not negate how the brain reacts to the religious exercise. It will still react the same way, whether our eyes are open or closed. However, closed eyes get a different brain output due to different conscious potential.
For health's sake, we are all better off if we have everyone doing their religion, do so with open eyes, by retooling the definition of religion, to reflect brain impact, and not social politics.
Manmade global warming is a religion. It is not coincidence that the right is less impacted, since they already have a core religion. They don't need another one. The left is still looking for a core replacement, that is not called a religion, based on the current definition, but which gives the same brain buzz.
Trump spoiled the worship service of manmade global warming when it messed up the money exchange rituals. The left was left scrambling for a new religion. It found it in Trump mythology, where Trump is the archetypical bad guy. Even many atheists have become irrational, no longer using science to weigh the claims of their religion, against hard evidence.
The atheist religion; based on the broader definition, is similar to a mirror image of Buddhism; opposites. Buddhism is introspective that denies the illusions of the world; cultural and materialism, in favor of developing the inner man and higher human potential. There is science in this; meditation, without the need of deities. The atheists seek a similar goal; human progress, but do so in an extroverted way, connected to materialism, technology, and cultural norms.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
Quoting wellwisher
The subconscious effect you're talking about essentially amounts to bonding. Indeed some etymological interpretations of the word 'religion' connect it with religare "to bind fast." Many sociological phenomenon function in this way, such as ideologies, political affiliations, sports enthusiasm, or in a very deliberate fashion, commercial branding.
Either we're aware of the binding or we're not, the particular type of meaning system is irrelevant. If anything, someone adhering to a religious system of meaning would tend to be less conscious of its effects on them, as evidenced by the way a religious believer will often irrationally deny obvious facts.
Quoting wellwisher
I can't make much sense of this as stated. Only someone who doesn't know much about religion would define it by deities. What human tradition are you referring to?
Quoting wellwisher
Unfortunately, global warming became politically associated with the left, most notably because of Al Gore's championing the issue. He may have unintentionally done more harm than good in this respect.
Quoting wellwisher
Archetypally, Trump is a trickster. The tricksters' function is basically to restore meaning in a stagnant system. In the bigger picture, Trump could end up being a good thing.
Quoting wellwisher
Buddhism has no interest in "developing the inner man and higher human potential." It's interested in transcending samsara (everything). And there are deities in Buddhism.
Western enlightenment values, which the left predominantly subscribes to, puts its faith in reason, science, humanism, and progress. This could be seen as a religion, as you seem to define it. But when it gets too religious it starts to become anti-enlightenment.