This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
“What view of religion might advance humankind’s psychological maturity?”
Through understanding, humankind continuously increases its psychological maturity. Yet there remain lifestyle concerns and unknowns; e.g., is evolution controlled?
Religion is each person’s acquisition and implementation of preferences for how to experience the unknown and variously integrate the resulting understanding or privation into their life.
Religion tends to respond to progress yet preserve plausible ethics and thus is an evolving art form; e.g., ancients regarded the sun a supernatural power but moderns understand it’s a natural nuclear reactor. Yet the supernatural ethic survives--perhaps as one object of humility.
Religion is expressed in stories, music, symbols, and other art. Institutional religion inculcates art into its young, preserving both understanding and misunderstanding. Each newborn has the duty to itself to achieve understanding in its lifespan, often overcoming natural or cultural limitations. Thus, people have widely differing psychological maturities; humankind must accommodate peace and limit harm.
In humankind’s collective consciousness the people share secular goals: justice, tranquility, defense, prosperity, the privilege of liberty, continuity for posterity, and in-it-togetherness. These goals accommodate beliefs yet authorize limitation of harm. For example, people who advocate taking poison to worship a deity must be limited.
Just governance obtains its authority from the governed--the people. The people must maintain the monopoly on force and coercion through written law that can be modified when injustice is discovered. Just force and coercion apply to behavior and not to thought, such how to express humility, a private matter.
Unfortunately, throughout history, politicians and clergymen have co-operated to use religion as a tool with which to usurp the people’s power. Only the governed can stop usurpation of their power.
Institutions that interfere with the people’s secular goals must suffer the rule of law.
Celebrate
Phillip Beaver 10+
Phil
Juliette Zahn 50+
Phillip Beaver 10+
It's a good idea. Religion is a path.
For mankind, the end may be as distant as the cooling of the sun or beyond.
For institutions the end may be as distant as all deities or philosophies.
For each person, the end may be supernatural heaven or accomplishments during life.
On each level, no one knows.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
Through understanding, humankind continuously increases its psychological maturity. Yet there remain lifestyle concerns and unknowns; e.g., is evolution controlled?
Religion is the acquisition and implementation of preferences for how to experience the unknown and variously integrate the resulting understanding or privation into life.
Religion tends to respond to progress yet preserve plausible ethics and thus is an evolving art form. For example, ancients regarded the sun a supernatural power but we now understands it’s a natural nuclear reactor. Yet the supernatural ethic survives--perhaps as one object of humility.
Religion is expressed in stories, music, symbols, and other art. Religion inculcates art into its young, preserving both understanding and misunderstanding. Each newborn has the duty to itself to achieve understanding in its short lifetime, often overcoming natural or cultural limitations. Thus, people have widely differing psychological maturities; humankind must accommodate peace and limit harm.
In humankind’s collective consciousness the people share secular goals, such as, unity, justice, tranquility, defense, prosperity, the privilege of liberty, and continuity for posterity. These goals accommodate beliefs yet authorize limitation of harm. For example, people who advocate taking poison to worship a deity must be limited.
Just governance obtains its authority from the governed--the people. The people must maintain the monopoly on force and coercion through written law that can be modified when injustice is discovered. Just force and coercion apply to behavior and not to thought, such as the object of humility, a private matter.
Unfortunately, throughout history, politicians and clergymen have co-operated to use religion as a tool with which to usurp the people’s power. Only the governed can stop usurpation of their power.
Institutions that interfere with the people’s secular goals must suffer the rule of law.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Religion is an individual’s acquisition and implementation of preferences for how to experience the unknown and variously integrate the resulting understanding or privation into his/her life.
A couple more word changes would be needed in the current request.
Treating religion as the path of humankind’s psychological maturing recycles a basic disagreement we encountered before: I think religious practice requires belief in assumptions, whereas understanding does not brook assumptions. Understanding is founded on evidence.
Government is the understanding that some people behave only if they are forced to; there must be a monopoly on force; just governance is authorized by the governed. No assumptions are involved, but there are deviations.
Communication is not a religion; it involves trust and commitment to integrity, but when one party honestly has no integrity, it is detected and communications stop; the trust and commitment are not continued as they would be in religion. The party without integrity may.
I avoid the word “science,” as I think it prevents people from understanding the role of religion.
Understanding is a process to address a perceived observation. In early stages the process requires assumptions for explanation. With progress, the most plausible assumption is chosen for study. A well directed study may lead to discovery based on evidence. If not, the process may recycle to the next most plausible assumption. When all resources are exhausted, if there is no evidence of discovery, the conclusion is this: Our research is complete and we do not have an explanation. Perhaps the explanation did not occur to us or perhaps the perceived phenomenon is unreal. However, our conclusion is, “We do not know.” The product of the process understands. If, on the other hand, one of the assumptions is presented as an explanation for the perceived phenomenon, it is a religious result.
Phil
Jim Moonan 30+
I have no god of my own! If people choose to think they have their own personal god fine, but in my opinion it will only be because they need a reason to live that they can't find elsewhere. Life itself is enough for me. And no, "life" is not my "god".... And no, "god" is not me....
Your question asks, "What view of religion might advance humankind’s psychological maturity?”
My answer is "none".
Engage in the world without looking for a fairytale ending.
Phillip Beaver 10+
But, I think this TED conversation arrived at a view of religion that accommodates your view: "Religion is the acquisition and implementation of preferences for how to experience the unknown and variously integrate the resulting understanding or privation into life."
Maybe you did not acquire your view. It came from your family life or was in your genes. Tell me, if you like.
Humankind would like justice, tranquility, defense, prosperity, the privilege of liberty, continuity for posterity, and recognition that we are in it together (revising from “unity”).
Humankind's psychological maturity is far from such peace. I erroneously thought a common definition of “religion” would help. With input from a few TEDsters, my mind is totally changed: "view" of religion in the geopolitical world is the real point.
I am deeply grateful to the participants (you).
I think your view and mine are similar. I focus on understanding. For example, to the question, “Does a god exist?” my understanding is I doubt it but don’t know and no one else knows. If the conversation goes deeper, my responses stay in the same mind set. There’s no God worthy of my worship and praise; I just want to stay focused on reality. Does anything control evolution? Beyond the environment, I do not know. What controls the environment? I don’t know.
So, you will not find me justifying any of theism, atheism, non-theism or any other idea that requires the advocate to justify assumptions. I understand that I do not know, and feel comfortable not knowing what I don’t know and thereby keeping my mind open to reality.
Thank you for your comment.
Phil
Jim Moonan 30+
This is one of the great things about TED conversations. I, too, have gained new insight into issues I thought I had a good grasp of and changed my thinking. It's tremendously satisfying to know that an honest, rigorous exchange of ideas can lead to that. I think it is that kind of thinking that represents "humankind's phychological maturity".
Phillip Beaver 10+
But a couple weeks ago, when I discovered TED---wow. It is like a new world, thanks to the TEDsters.
My only regret is that the elite do not participate in the conversations. I would love to ask Sweeney what she meant by the conclusion of her wonderful talk. It takes me nowhere because she can't penetrate the "mystery."
And I am disappointed that none of the prior contributors to the question "What is We the People?" contributed to my recent question. So, TED is not perfect, but it is better than anything else I have discovered, especially my tunnel.
Speaking of "honest." I have a very interesting conversation that could be called "The insufficiency of honesty," after an essay by Stephen L. Carter, wherein he blew it, in my opinon.
Your brevity is effective. I need to learn.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
Introducing me
I’m a human being and member of living species, primarily humankind. I don’t want to reduce my association again in my lifetime. Also, I am a citizen of the United States and want to fulfill the Preamble to the US Constitution. The Preamble states seven secular goals.
The revised draft usage
Religion is how humankind divides across civic borders according to group members’ preferences for specific assumptions about something no one knows, especially humanity’s origins and/or maintenance and/or destiny. In consequential division, some people prefer to accept that they do not know what no one knows. Religion or no religion is harmless if people exercise collective consciousness: living species are all part of the whole.
Supporting arguments
Each newborn is equally uninformed and needs freedom to pursue its path to maturity. The fulfilled human is psychologically mature. Today, people live in a world filled with injustice.
People who separate state from church want to live in peace according to personal preference and allow others the same opportunity.
In governance, justice must prevail over religion. Any religion that encourages the civic separation of human beings because of thought should be stripped of civic privileges granted by the governed.
I mean no disrespect toward anyone, including myself. I do not write truth, only my preferences. This draft is not mine. It is the product of this conversation.
Bill Hutchinson
It is because each individual already has a set of beliefs, implanted and shaped by forces beyond our conscious control, and we go through life finding support for those beliefs. If your belief system is one of logic and reason and you are raised in a religious setting then chances are that you will be unhappy with the church and stray into science, and vice-versa. Anybody who thinks that we choose what to believe, I propose you try this experiment: if you currently do not believe in god, stop. Believe in Him, now for about one minute. Are you capable of changing your belief? This is not to say our beliefs do not change, merely that we cannot consciously control how, when or what.
Anyway to return to my original definition, we've all seen people frothing at the mouth over politics, religion, Mac vs. PC, science and atheism as well as countless others. If one takes a step back and looks at the whole picture, is the behavior of these individuals that different? Every one of those groups contain extremists, moderates and fair-weather folk, every group believes it is ultimately advancing a cause, every group sees itself as necessary and right and just. Would alien visitors find people arguing over books to be more important than those arguing soft drinks? Would God?
Phillip Beaver 10+
I do not speak for all yet feel we appreciate your contribution and look forward to more.
Moonan suggested religion is art that addresses the unknowns. Would your broader usage accelerate humankind’s progress toward psychological maturity?
It seems, people have faith in their activities, but some do not believe—in fact I believe that humans should not believe anything--should build defenses against natural gullibility.
“Science” versus “religion” distracts humankind from understanding, which is both a process and a product (recognized by friend Hugh Finklea).
In the brief process, there are, in succession: perception, consideration, assumptions, evaluations, selection, designs, research, evaluations, and conclusions (perhaps to study more). Finally, there are two possible products: understanding or belief. Belief is religion. One understanding is “After this study, we don’t know.” Please scan the conversation for Albert Einstein’s unfortunate illustration of religion’s ruin. Ideas, like “love overcomes all but religion,” can be researched with the power of statistics.
Fortunate are the people who were reared without beliefs. My parents indoctrinated me thoroughly, and I continued until age 50. When it became clear that my indoctrination conflicted with my androgynous other half, precious doubt discovered in my youth empowered change. I am a very fortunate person, having fallen in love with someone of a differing indoctrination.
Believers are different. People who understand that it is best to say, first to self, “I don’t know,” when they don’t know, are not aggressive, abusive, or violent toward people who assert they know yet are intolerant of “knower’s” claims.
Some of us feel We the People, as defined in the Preamble to the US Constitution, must accommodate the people’s differences and abdicating this responsibility to God, as America does, retards mankind’s march to psychological maturity.
Please keep helping direct and resolve this quest.
Phil
Bill Hutchinson
When I use the word believe I mean to say that everybody has beliefs, even if they are not religious ones. For instance I believe in the colour orange with minimal evidence, basically my own subjective perception of the colour and anecdotes of other people's experiences with it. Now I BELIEVE that is sufficient evidence to support my claim that orange exists, yet I can not see the world through anybody elses eyes to verify my own observations. Therefore I believe in the colour orange without being able to prove that it exists. How would I prove it's existence to somebody who is colour-blind? Perhaps the colour-blind individual is correct and my perception is flawed. No matter what line of reasoning you excersise you will eventually reach a point where you must accept your evidence on faith.
To return to the original question, I believe ( ;) ) that the definition I provided earlier is important to the advancement of humanity because I think we need to do away with "religion" (by my definition) but that spirituality is an important aspect of the human condition. If we did away with every spiritual belief system we would still be subjected to the damaging effects of people elevating politicians, or offices or countries above the interests of their fellow human beings. This is the behavior of "religion" by my new definition and as you can see that is the destructive aspect of the phenomenon, not necessarily the spiritual side of things. I hold one thing sacred: our duty to our fellow humans, from the past through the present and for those yet to come. That is the step that we collectively must take.
Phillip Beaver 10+
And I agree everyone can be a victim of belief. In 1905, Einstein believed the universe is static. When his brilliant mathematics for the general theory of relativity gave him the evidence the universe is dynamic, he strengthened his belief by adding a fudge factor, which he called “Cosmological Constant.” In 1930, after Edwin Hubble proved the universe is dynamic, Einstein called his belief the greatest blunder of his life. That’s what I’m talking about when I say Phil Beaver has a policy against believing. Now, I do believe in love, most of the time.
It seems to me you did not understand what I wrote about the process for understanding. Nevertheless, if we did away with “religion” in favor of “spirituality,” how would humankind’s psychological maturity advance?
What is our duty to our fellow humans? To learn from those who went before? To take responsibility and accountability for ourselves—be independent and grow psychological maturity? Help those who cannot without help become independent? Honor the privacy of all others? Obey the written law and lobby against unjust laws? Trust and commit to the goals in the Preamble to the US Constitution?
Please keep clarifying.
Phil
Bill Hutchinson
I shall attempt to explain my reasoing concisly: everybody everywhere accepts everything on faith. Not only this but we as conscious beings are unable to alter these beliefs directly.
The standard comparison is between "science" and "religion" (for now let's just assume we mean the religions of Abraham) so let us begin there. To start with both religion and science have their dogmas. In a religion their dogma is easy to spot because it comes at the end (x = god, x + y = god, xy^2 = god) so basically any formula that does not reach the conclusion of god is thrown out, dismissed as "not a string producible within our theorem.
The dogma of science is a bit trickier to spot (and much harder to think of an algebraic metaphor for) but basically it is the scientific process itself. Any conclusion that cannot be reached via the METHOD is deemed invalid. Now we get to the tricky part of belief.
A person of the scientific world view believes in reason, logic and repeatable results.
A person with a more religious persuasion may believe in their feelings "what the heart tells them".
The first person will make all sorts of logical rational answers as to why logic and reason are better, while the religious individual will try to express their emotional experiences. This leads to a situation where it is necessary (con't)
Mr Kebabsoup
It's funny because just yesterday, I discussed with an American girl (I'm living in switzerland), I forgot how, but we ended up talking about religions, and she told me about a church where the pastor explicitly said to the gathering that they would go to hell if they voted for the democratic party. I was really shocked, I felt like it was a story out of the Middle-Age!
Maybe in Europe people are less sensitive to this issue, simply because religions don't have that much political power. But on the other hand, some politicians try to stigmatize foreigners, an part of this discrimination is against their religions.
As a Christian, I hope that one day, the U.S. will elect a Muslim President. But not because he's a Muslim, just because of who he is, and how much he's willing to sacrifice for his country.
Phillip Beaver 10+
I look forward to your comments.
Now you may be able to imagine our Baptist married couples class telling my wife "Catholics go to hell."
I have no idea what is real. We may now have a Muslim President who sacrificed integrity for a different cause.
Louisiana has a Christian Governor, Bobby Jindal, who the Hindu community shuns, thinking he is insincere. I have never voted for him, because I do not think he has integrity.
I am the editor, so to speak, for my community yahoogroup, with 235 subscribers from 840 homes.
On September 17, 2011, I think I was the only news man in Louisiana to call attention to US Constitution Day, a day when We the People should be celebrated with a double national holiday. One neighbor wrote me an email, "Well stated, sir," with comments, then dialogue bringing him to the hot button: ATHEIST ! He ended the dialogue with the following, sad dismissal:
To: "Phil Beaver"
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [KenilworthSubdivisionNews] Celebrating We the People
"Phil, I have attempted to share some truth with you to the best of my ability. The original disciples were a pretty run of the mill lot of individuals that were all uneducated and illiterate. Despite that, they were able to grasp what Jesus was saying. They had the benefit of actually physically walking with the Lord, but all that we have to go by is God's Word and guidance of the Holy Ghost. God speaks to us through his Word Phil. There is simply no way around that. This is really getting nowhere and your focal point is on worldly matters. To do so is certainly a choice you can make. I am making the choice to do what Jesus instructed his disciples to do when they were rebuffed saying "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them." I do truly wish things worked out where I could have shared more. Good luck."
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Wow, that's really funny. So, did you shake off a little dust toward him too, or are you still hopeful that he can be brought into the fold?
Phillip Beaver 10+
There’s no dust for my neighbor. There but for integrity (and the discovery that the indoctrination of my birth rejects the indoctrination of my wife’s birth) go I. I must be patient with the unfortunate “I”. (With “unfortunate,” I write what I think, not what I know.)
The rest of the story is that I answered his email, “Are we still good neighbors?” His response was condescendingly affirmative. I have pushed his religious side out of my consciousness and will keep it there if possible.
Let me explain my good fortune:
I was instilled with precious doubt when I was perhaps in the fifth grade. When the neighbor kids were playing sandlot baseball, I was reading one of the sky-blue bound biographies checked out from Staub School, Knoxville, Tennessee. I started reading Volume 1, then 2 and so on. After a few, I realized some did not appeal to me, so I read the first page and the last page and skipped if not interested. One day, I decided to treat the “word of God,” the same way. The first page was too much for my youth. But the last page, specifically Revelation 22:18, invoked this thought: the real God would not feel so weak as to threaten people.
Unfortunately I did not possess the confidence to trust my own mind and heart, so remained in the indoctrination my mom and dad suffered, then continued into self-indoctrination (with precious doubt) until I was 54 and my Baptist peers misbehaved toward my androgynous other half. I resigned from the Baptist brotherhood in a letter to the Baptist Message in Alexandria, LA, with a copy to my pastor in Baton Rouge. Thereafter, I have trusted my natural goodness and my brain and my family and my friends and all people (tentatively of course), regardless of their religious beliefs.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Soul and spirit are different ideas. The spirit is the casual identity. When the spirit generates a consistent, but varied influence, a soul develops in the thing influenced as well as in the manner of influence.
However, take a look at my revision of the draft:
Religion is how humankind uses preferences for specific assumptions about something no one knows. The manner in which one includes or excludes such preferences influences understanding. Therefore religion becomes extremely dangerous or beneficial.
In ordinary life, much of what is considered religious pertains only to humanity’s origins, maintenance, destiny or other areas provided that the understanding is harmless. In consequence, religion has divided between harmless and effective.
Dangerous, effective methods are no longer considered religious by many people. Yet, understanding how to approach the unknown remains a key component in both areas of human endeavor.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Thanks for the distinction between spirit and soul. Hence, in a discussion, a person can treat other ideas with either respect or appreciation. By expressing appreciation in his responses, a formerly respectful person can become appreciative. Did my metaphor follow your distinction?
Your revision of the draft is wonderful, because it has the softness needed for acceptance.
May I modify it so that it addresses my concern, which is unity and justice authorized by the governed (the people as opposed to those in power)? My thought follow:
Religion is how people and groups establish their preferences about something no one knows, dividing human kind across geopolitical borders.
Religious preferences may be helpful or harmful, depending upon understanding. Humankind evolves toward reality, and thus has no preferences. With each discovery, some harmful religious ideas become evident, yet many remain defended by people and their religious institutions. However, behaviors based on harmful ideas must suffer the rule of law, justly authorized by the governed. Since humankind is the collection of all individuals and groups, for unity and justice, religions that advocate the civic division of humankind must lose the privileges granted by the governed.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Your metaphor is an example of transformation; the identity changed the effect it produced. The soul pertains to the permanence of the influence. The influence that remains or would remain after communication is broken is the soul. If the causal identity produces a different kind of effect, that's the causal identity all on it's own. It might make claims of being caused by an other, but that's just it producing the effect of making claims. Cause immediately develops soul. The only way to stop is to stop causing. One can advance soul development by causing effects similar to other souls. The cause is not also the effect.
How about this rewrite – not perfect, but better:
Religion is the implementation of preference for how to experience the unknown and integrate the resulting understanding or lack of it into individual and communal norms.
Because there can be many preferences regarding how the unknown is encountered, religion divides humankind across geopolitical borders.
Religious preferences may be helpful or harmful, depending upon understanding. Humankind uses understanding to structure itself, and therefore it is possible to structure society upon un-renewed, prior understandings even in while others of the same society enjoy the benefits of new and renewed understanding.
If new or renewed understanding is not made communal by governance, it becomes possible for harmful ideas to remain implemented and defended by people and institutions who have not developed a way to obtain new understanding. Because of this risk, where humankind is understood as an aggregate of individuals and groups, the onus of creating and establishing government falls on the aggregate, not on the factions or individuals.
In this way, harmful behaviors are subject to penalties imposed by government regardless of their origins. And, the resulting new and renewed experience of understanding for any member is preserved for all members.
Onecae
Phillip Beaver 10+
The rewrite is great, as it is. For some readers, it needs brevity, and here’s my suggestion:
Religion is the implementation of preference for how to experience the unknown and integrate the resulting understanding or misunderstanding into individual and group norms.
Preferences naturally differ, so popular religion divides humankind across geopolitical borders.
Humankind continually advances understanding. religions either lead or follow.
Just government addresses only behavior, so harmless preferences are not involved. However, when preferences cause harm to or from any person, the religion must suffer the rule of law.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
There's more to say. Take a look at this rewrite:
Religion is an individuals' preference for how to relate to the unknown and integrate the result into individual and group norms. Preferences in religion differ and insofar as they are shared they become institutionalized. The new institutions become related in new and varied ways and renamed as their functions are changed with development of understanding.
Several import institutions relate directly to the progress of religion and are given new names that also affect the meaning of the word "religion." These important new institutions are: religion, government, communication and science. Each are systems of advanced, institutionalized preferences pertaining to the experience and relationship of the unknown and how the result is integrated into individual and group norms. The basic primal experience of individual preference has special value, in varied ways, in each of the institutions.
Onecae Onecae
The definition above seeks to include all cases of religion by demonstrating how the fundamental notion becomes institutionalized and therefore deserving a new name or meaning. The idea is for the institutions of varied names to be built upon the primary "religious experience" which is our contact with reality. The word "our" will mean two or more people. The word "reality" was not included because it's problematic, whereas the notions of known and unknown don't create as many problems.
Do not consider it to be an error to include the word "religion" among the institutions that develop from religion. It's merely a case of one word with two meanings, and not a case of a class including itself. Much like saying our house has a room in it that we call "our house."
I hope I can post again before the time runs out on this conversation. Thank you for hosting it, I know it is a lot of work. The definition allows for the spiritual meaning of the word, and the secular, institutionalized meaning. It is fitting that there would be an institution of religion that protects any belief you care to have as long as it doesn't harm known others.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Introducing me:
I am a human being and member of the community of living species, primarily human kind, and do not want to reduce my association again in my lifetime. Also, I am a citizen of the United States and want to fulfill the Preamble to the US Constitution.
The draft usage I propose after one week of TED conversation:
Religion is a means of dividing humankind into groups according to members’ willingness to accept specific assumptions about something not known, especially humanity’s origins and/or maintenance and/or destiny.
Some people prefer to accept that they do not know what they do not know.
Axioms:
The fulfilled human is psychologically mature.
People who separate church from state are fighting to live in peace according to personal preference and allow others the same opportunity.
Justice must prevail over religion. Any religion that encourages the civic separation of human beings because of thought should be stripped of privileges granted by the people.
Representative responses to the request for a definition rather than usage:
Religion is maintenance of cultural beliefs, rituals, and ethics connecting humans to what they can't properly explain.
Religion is a body of believers that maintains a comprehensive set of ethical and practical rules derived from mystery and unverifiable claims to obtain living that improves the group.
Religion is any immeasurable claim that exerts influence on a group or society.
Religion is particular system of faith and worship, for example, a personal relationship with a higher power.
“Religion” is the abuse of popular belief for political power.
Religion maintains the relationship between self and other—everything else.
Parallel ideas and additional ones are in the existing conversation. I encourage anyone who wants to reiterate their contribution as proposed usage to do so. I do not want to slight any ideas. I will post the original request in a minute.
Onecae Onecae
Hi. I'm trying to find where I was in the thread a few days ago. I had to comment on the first sentence of the above list:
"Properly explain" carries the conclusion in the assumption. If you don't know, then you also don't know if you've properly explained it. "Religion is maintenance of cultural beliefs, rituals, and ethics."
Phillip Beaver 10+
I have a copy of the thread on Microsoft Word and scanned for "properly explain." I only found it in my list attempting to give representative ideas from the original request. So, apparently it was my word choice, not someone else's. (I would not have thought so.)
Anyway, I agree with you that it is circular to the premise. It is similar to the statement, "The Bible is the word of God." It presumes first that God exists, second that the Gods represented in the Bible boil down to God, Constantine was an agent of God when he supported the clergy who assembled the Bible, etc., etc., etc.
May we turn to the revised statement?
I revised the objective from definition, to usage, and now to view. The defintion comes early: "Religion is the acquisition and implementation of preferences for how to experience the unknown and variously integrate the resulting understanding or privation into life." Thank you.
The rest of the statment presents a view of where religion fits in the geopolitical struggle humankind conducts. It claims that religion must submit to the rule of just law as authorized by the people and explains why. It can be wordsmithed and clarified by brevity.
I am satisfied and rewarded by the conversation that has happened and am ready to let it end.
Yet I feel there is more rich input among TEDsters and am willing to extend another week.
What's your thought? Let it end after today, or extend another week?
Phil
Onecae Onecae
For continued contact use charles at yescharles.com
Christopher Chalfant
Phillip Beaver 10+
Thanks for sharing in your profile.
Twice I tried barbershop quarteting. Those guys are wonderful; their perfection drives mediocre singers to the bowling alleys. I use my small talents singing to my wife (and our daughters enjoy my sentiments, so I guess I sing for them, too).
On my 68th birthday, June, 2011, with permission, I entered my wife’s seniors’ aerobics class at their 5 minute break. The instructor said, “Mr. Phil wants your attention.” I said, this is my birthday, and no one (implying Cynthia) can stop me. I want to announce something to the world and you are my witnesses.” I sensed my wife hurry around behind me and grab a chair. I walked over to her and began singing, “I’ve got a crush on you, Sweetiepie . . .” The class did not hear “Sweetiepie,” because of their applause. It was not me they were applauding; it was Cynthia and the independence and love she expresses everywhere she goes. I oppose anyone who questions her religion and feel the same way about my peaceful neighbors including TEDsters and myself.
Are you focused on the Preamble to the US Constitution? Do you agree America has denied the world Abraham Lincoln’s dream (governance of the people by the people and for the people), by Christianizing America starting in 1789 when the nation began operating?
Your way, help me draw attention to the Preamble’s goals for TEDsters. So far, no one has caught the importance of separation of state and church. If they did, they would realize what I am advocating protects each citizen’s opportunity to think. “Freedom of religion” obscures freedom to think. Freedom of religion is institutional; freedom to think is individual. Yet, freedom to think protects religion.
I assumed TEDsters could help me out of my cave. We are well on our way.
Thank you,
Phil
Mr Kebabsoup
It's really funny because I have many religious friends in my entourage. Buddhist friends, Christian relatives, Muslim collegues, even a rastafari! And when I look at their lives, when I talk with them, the image of religions I get is nothing like what you describe.
Religion is something that is lived out at a personal level. Each person's experience and relationship with religion is different. If the religious people you met on the path of your life deceived you, or showed themselves weak and naive, I'm truly sorry for you, but they are in no way representative of the whole.
If you think about it, all the bad aspects of religions you mention here don't stem from the religion itself. They all come from the hearts of the human beings. Even if you somehow managed to abolish all religions, don't you see that people will just find another reason to be divided, people will just find another way to hate each other, and try to manipulate and profit from each other?
In my opinion, and it's only my own subjective opinion, but I don't think you're qualified to give an objective definition of religion. If I use religious terms just for the goosebumps, you already nailed it on a cross before even entering the discussion. Your definition is totally biased.
Phillip Beaver 10+
You’ve got it upside down. Religions are bullying the world, including the nice folks you associate with. Unlike Thomas Jefferson, it makes no difference to me what my neighbor believes; what We the People require is for him to behave according to the Preamble to the US Constitution. Yet many do not.
I have overlapping circles of friends that include people of many religious and ethnic backgrounds. Some of them send me their bulletins, because they think I belong in their church, even though I have told them I do not want to reduce my association. Apparently, you read selectively, or you would know I worked with chemists and engineers from over 40 ethnic backgrounds. Many of them are my writing fans.
I discussed today with my friend Kish Seth, PhD, ChE, the unexpected, rude treatment I received from a TEDster, apparently a Hindu. Kish told me there are militant Hindus. I had never encountered one. Kish believes in souls and I do not, yet we happily discuss it, because we appreciate each other. Each day we remind each other that our prime duty is to stay out of hospitals. I went to the fitness center this afternoon after Kish’s reminder, having skipped my wife’s schedule this morning!
The Baptists in the church I resigned love me, read my letters to the editor, and tell me so. That includes the pastor, Rev. George Haile, who asks how my (Catholic) wife is, each time we meet. I like to think I positively influenced that body of believers.
Like others in this conversation, you are in no position to judge me.
I’d like to share a policy. When I encounter an idea I don’t like, I point out my concern and offer an improvement or total substitute. I think I have demonstrated that policy on TED. Please consider it.
Regardless, I am grateful you wrote.
Phil
Mr Kebabsoup
My other point that you didn't mention was that the "bad side" of religion doesn't come from the religion itself, it comes from the wrong motivations of the believers. If I take a frying pan and I use it as a blunt weapon to kill somebody, you can't blame the frying pan. Its shape and weight can be easily exploited and bad people can use it as a weapon.
So when you say religions are bullying the world, it's totally wrong. A minority of people are trying to use religion to bully and control the others. The majority of people choose religion because it encourages them to improve themselves, because you gather with people willing to go forward and you create valuable friendships. There are people who are willing to help, to listen to you.
To me, it's like TED! TED is actually some kind of religion too! You believe TED is a tool that can improve the world and your life, so you invest a lot of time posting on these forums, and you're addicted, you just love it. It became very precious in your eyes. That's my definition of religion!
And although we "Ted'sters" all pursue more or less the same goal (a better world), we are all different, we come from different backgrounds, and conflicts can arise, some people will try to impose their way of thinking. I tell you, TED is no different than Christianity or Islam.
Phillip Beaver 10+
TED is not a religion. Here’s how: A contributor makes an assumption (so far not religious) about TEDsters. He contributes honestly according to integrity. If he observes that TED does not fulfill the assumption, he withdraws. There is nothing to hold him. In religion, the contributor would persuade himself to stay, regardless. If he stays, he is religious.
Please focus on solving the puzzle, a puzzle the US Supreme court refuses to address; I think their decision is “let the believer define “religion” and we’ll see how the law impacts it”. I think they are impeding humankind’s path to psychological maturity.
In my home, we have a Catholic, someone neutral regarding the existence of God, and two people who have not said, but are happy with each of their inspirational and motivational pursuits. The four seem an amazing, vulnerable team.
All four are familiar with the Preamble to the US Constitution and more or less are committed to its seven goals. Their friends and acquaintances cover a wide range of lifestyles, from devout Catholic and Hindu etc. to non-churched, from monogamous couples to swingers and homosexuals, from young to old. That’s the picture. Over forty years this unit has been showered with the love of people who might say, “I don’t understand; all I know is that I love them.”
What they don’t understand is that we treasure our good neighbors without concern for their religious preferences—don’t even want to know, unless they want to share. Sometimes, they seek our council; for example, a young Catholic couple trying to cope with Protestant neighbors in Mississippi.
What makes us different from many others is this: We studied the details of the founding of this country and are committed to the Preamble. Please take interest.
Phil
Mr Kebabsoup
Phillip Beaver 10+
I know this is important to you, so just hang in there. Progress is coming, and I want to bring it into play in time for you and I to enjoy it; I'm 68.
Till your next comments.
Phil
Mr Kebabsoup
Sorry for my lousy English understanding, and sorry about my way too hasty response.
Maybe one day people will be able to look at religion like music. You gather with people who like the same style of music, at home you reach an agreement with people you live with, and in public and you keep it in your headphones, you don't force the others to listen to it. If somebody is interested in what you're listening, you're also free to share.
Phillip Beaver 10+
We agree on separation of church and state: no one should suffer civic interference with his/her religious thought.
I agree with you that religion is an art form and like your metaphor that concludes on privacy.
No problem with your understanding: I write too much. And trying to write literally is in my chemical engineering report training by Bob Agee (rest in peace).
May we explore further agreements on the political aspects of the question?
Have you considered the Preamble to the US Constitution, online at http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html ? Do you find it useful in its brevity, sufficient in its seven goals, and worthy as a basis for governance? Do you find that the detailed UN Declaration of Human Rights goes too far? ( http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ .) What other national statements should be considered?
I do not want to stir opposition by drawing attention to the US. I think America, so far, has failed the Preamble. I would like to see the world adopt or improve the seven goals in the Preamble and thereby excite Americans to focus on it for the first time since 1789, when the Christianization of America began.
Americans ignored and ignore James Madison’s 1785 “TED debate ”, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” (http://www.constitution.org/jm/17850620_remon.htm )For me, the trial is over: I want neither Christianity nor God imposed on me. (Does not mean I am an atheist.)
Tragically, Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 vision, “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” has never existed. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp )
Phil
Allan Macdougall 30+
If religion could embrace the advances that have been made in modern science (such as evolution rather than creationism), then would it be more broadly acceptable? If it did, then could religion then still be able to legitimately call itself 'religion' if it were also to jettison the idea of an all-powerful creator?
I don't know what the answer is. However, (although it is debateable), my gut feel is this: From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, there is a definite need within the human psyche for reverence, love, and to be in awe of things that will forever be bigger than us. Some call that need 'religion' and ascribe it to a God. Others ascribe the same thing to scientific processes - but it is still reverence, love and awe.
Is this just semantics? I've had a similar coversation elsewhere on TED, and I strongly suspect that using religious type words to describe something (such as worship, reverence etc) induces a defensive reaction from the scientists/atheists among us - yet those same people were happy to use non-religious words to describe the same thing. (Just to add I mean no disrespect at all to the persons involved in that conversation). Would there be a similar defensive reaction in religious people if I were to use scientific words to describe the same thing?
Just a thought...
Phillip Beaver 10+
The “human condition” presents uncertainty: inspiration and motivation; threats to well being. Perhaps the psychologically mature humankind overcomes uncertainty, either through understanding or discovery. I doubt it. Hence, I think there will always be people who understand, “I don’t know and it alright that I don’t know,” yet confidently say, “I want religion, because it comforts me in this uncertain world.”
I have tried to avoid the two words “religion” and s-, do avoid the s- word. To fundamentalists, it is like a red flag to a bull. Quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson, “The understanding caught this high chant from the poet's lips, and said, in the next age, ‘This was Jehovah come down out of heaven. I will kill you, if you say he was a man.’”
I avoid s- by using “understanding” for the process and “understanding”, “technology” or “discovery” as its products. “Science” and derivatives appear in my footnotes. My writing can be perturbing for researchers. But I think the semantic struggle is worthy.
I wrote in this conversation that atheists exacerbate the problem by fearing the word “faith”. Atheists exhibit faith in understanding, reality, the obvious, or something quite noble, yet do not admit it. They allow believers to equivocate “faith” to “religion”.
Please review “Tolerance is insufficient; I suggest “respect”. That conversation astounded me with an array of words pivoted at “empathy”. “Tolerance” in the negative space, “intolerance” in the positive, “Appreciation” and “understanding” are beyond “respect”.
I think psychological maturity obtains when most people are intolerant of statements that are obsolete to humankind (not the person), letting the obsolete party deal with it. Hence, my suggestion that written law disfavor religion that encourages division of humankind based on what no one knows.
“(Just to add I mean no disrespect at all to the persons involved in that conversation).” Me, too.
Phil
Peter Law 30+
"If religion could embrace the advances that have been made in modern science (such as evolution rather than creationism), then would it be more broadly acceptable? If it did, then could religion then still be able to legitimately call itself 'religion' if it were also to jettison the idea of an all-powerful creator?"
Maybe religious folk do embrace modern science & come to the conclusion that there must be an all-powerful creator !
:-)
Allan Macdougall 30+
"Maybe religious folk do embrace modern science & come to the conclusion that there must be an all-powerful creator !"
Your implication is that religious folk are willing to embrace the idea that all life on earth has followed an evolutionary trajectory, as suggested by Darwin, as well as being put on earth as complete entities by an all-powerful creator. I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that a creator may have intervened at some advanced point along that trajectory?
As a confirmed fence-sitting agnostic, I just need to understand where you are coming from.
Allan
Peter Law 30+
I think the evolution hypothesis has hijacked the term "science". From my perspective there is no empirical scientific data that would confirm that evolution in a molecules to man sense has taken place. There are many scientists who reject the whole idea &, reading both sides, I would (as a layman) agree with them.
There is variation within a kind of animal driven by 'natural selection'. This is made possible by the enormous variability which each creature has in it's dna. The theory seems to be that 'given enough time' this variability will produce a totally new creature. However examples of this are pretty thin on the ground, & always require a leap of faith to accept.
If my faith is going to leap I'd much rather go for the option that nature was designed & built by a greater intelligence. Even Dawkins admits it looks designed; it's obvious; just maybe it is. Our dislike of the God idea should have no effect on the science.
This sort of reasoning eventually led to Christianity. That's where I'm coming from.
:-)
Frans Kellner 100+
These, your words: "This sort of reasoning eventually led to Christianity." follows the idea you represent that what led to Christianity didn't imply evolution as a process for creation.
Tell me, where did that come from? Do you know any original text or statement that says so?
Peter Law 30+
Not quite sure what you're after here. I'll try & explain what I think.
I have always been on a quest to understand our presence here on this planet. I never considered religion to be a worthwhile avenue to explore. Looking back, I am not sure why. So I had settled in my mind that evolution was the most probable answer, but was disappointed it wasn't more certain.
Long story short : I was forced by domestic pressures to look at the bible. I couldn't really fault it & was intrigued, but not convinced scientifically. I was given a couple of early creationist books & they seemed to answer a lot of my questions. So here we are.
My take is that the bible is accurate, & genesis is to be taken literally. If that is the case then evolution cannot be responsible for creation. I know there are many different ideas on this, & am especially interested in why folks believe evolution to be true. I have never been able to understand this, even before my acceptance of Christianity.
From your contributions, I take it that you accept evolution. What then is your reasoning?
:-)
Jim Moonan 30+
I think it's time to put religion in it's place - time to take it off it's pedestal and treat it as we do good art.
Phillip Beaver 10+
From a political view, I agree with your second statement: treat religion like art.
However, even bad art has its place and I oppose censorship.
But, as soon as I learn that a parent is encouraging a child to become a martyr or exposing the child to poisonous snakes or denying the child health care to prove worship and praise, I want to take the child from the parent’s custody.
Written law must trump religion.
Revolutions start with one idea. Please help improve the introduction of this conversation and encourage people to contribute. I can increase the duration another three weeks or so and can revise the introduction anytime.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
There are many TED talks touching religion, but none I’ve heard define it. What definition of “religion” might TED members approve?
The draft I suggest: In religion, the believer perceives or adopts a heartfelt concern, makes an assumption that seems to satisfy the concern, develops and maintains dogma to support the assumption, and lives accordingly, perhaps until he encounters reality.
For example, Einstein’s mathematics denied his assumption that the universe is static. So he introduced a “cosmological factor,” rejecting the evidence that his work offered. Later, he referred to that decision as the biggest blunder of his life and thanked Edwin Hubble for rescuing him.
In a more widespread example, many people want to secure their “afterdeath.” They employ a doctrine of “soul”. They focus life on fulfilling the doctrine.
I wanted to include Julia Sweeney’s idea, “Not exactly sure I believed what I so clearly felt: God’s love,” but am unsure, especially considering the title “on letting go of God.” Does my draft accommodate her heartfelt story?
I think the US Supreme Court leaves it to the believer to define “religion,” then decides whether or not past decisions accommodate the practice, but I am not a lawyer, so feel free to try.
How does the draft need to be modified to accommodate your preferences?
Should I scrap the draft, or even the effort?
Would the struggle for a definition help humankind?
Michael Clancy
We discuss psychological development but I was referring to it on the macro level (millions of years). Societies behavior shapes itself around the behavior of those who are successful. Only time will tell whether or not non believers can be successful. The thing is... we aren't having enough kids. This means we will be leaving our children in a world run by delusion.
My maturity didn't start until I looked at the clutter I filled my head with and started cleaning house.
Bottom line... Delusion is a winning evolutionary strategy. You can't deny it. If you do then... That proves my point. hehe I crack me up.
Phillip Beaver 10+
The odds are astounding and the readiness of people to cast good neighbors out over what no one knows is unconstitutional, to say the least, in the US. The Preamble IS the Constitution and all the rest is mechanism to fulfill it, but Americans shun it with a passion, because they want a "Christianized" America. I think Christianization of America is in its last years, though.
I actually had a neighbor this week quote some scripture stating, in effect, if you discover your neighbor does not prefer your interpretation of the Bible, walk away and shake the dust off your boots. I had the serious humor to ask him if we are still good neighbors. He was condescending.
Another neighbor claims to be an atheist, and when I tried to discuss the possibility that atheists are people of faith in understanding or the truth or reality, the eyes glazed over with reason and exit. But no words were uttered. As long as that goes on, they cannot help; they add to the problem.
If you did not read my conversation about "Tolerance is insufficient," scan it and notice that no one favored the use of "tolerance," and several people made the case that in this world there is insufficient intolerance. I think practicing intolerance for divisive thinking is a start.
One of the reasons I cannot write is that I spend most of my time reading. But dealing with a TED conversation that I start is the hardest work I have ever undertaken. I work hard to respect every contributor. Sometimes, people enter to push an agendum then look for their trigger to exit.
I am working now to restate this conversation—sort of an interim report.
I just love "hehe I crack me up." People who can crack up are my kind of people.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Phillip Beaver 10+
Did I understand you and what are my omissions?
Another perspective :-) : you could be addressing the personal quest for psychological maturity, which can be impeded by religion.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Whatever that is not self is other.
Your list of first choices for what the other might be is right on. I suspect, however, it can even be developed further and whatever you eventually include will be the things you are now omitting.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Michael Clancy
As long as we have laugh tracks on TV shows while people are being hurt or humiliated, empathy will be limited in our society. There are many other reasons but this one is foremost in my mind.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Merely defining empathy is a task. I agree. There are some TED talks on the subject, both current and old.
To me, we are human beings and members of the community of living species. Thus, we humans are equal. We each have the right, within the rule of written law, to make our mistakes and learn according to our own preferences. Therefore, the first obligation of empathy is to observe each other's privacy.
Compassion--observation of another person and evaluation that they need help may be an unjust action, depending upon their situation and how they feel about scrutiny.
Invading another country to help the people who are opprssed there does not seem just to me. The United Nations is not working in this regard. I like very much Nazanin Afshin-Jum's talk "Voice for the voiceless, which proposes that the "United People" perhaps replaces "The United Nations. See at http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxVancouver-Nazanin-Afshin-Ja .
"However, I do not think the arts and humor should be discouraged. It would ruin all of society.
Phil
Michael Clancy
Any immeasurable claim that exerts influence on a group or society.
I oversimplify this but sometimes a thing this complcated needs a simple definition.
Phillip Beaver 10+
it seems you started with general appeal but after my input moved to a vague statement. Also, I perceive a deficiency: we need an object. Let me review the statements, starting with your original one.
Religion is “anything that requires the phrase "I believe" and has no definition in the physical world that we measure and observe.”
Wishing to include intellectual as well as physical domains, I suggested religion is “anything that compels people to believe.” This is attractive, because it seems better for humans to consciously avoid believing, so they maintain focus on reality.
You revised to religion is “any immeasurable claim that exerts influence on a group or society.” Somehow, this statement helped me recognize there must be some action, such as believing a doctrine.
For example, as an elementary school student I believed that mastering Bible interpretation would position me to be the finest person I could possibly be, because the Bible was the word of God. The doctrine, the Bible is the word of God, dominated my focus through the prime of my life—college, courtship, marriage, child rearing, most of my 35-year career. Only as a maturing adult did I begin to discover my preferences for my life instead of trying to fulfill my parents’ vision for me.
Another point: commonly, definitions of “religion” that address the unknowable employ the word “un-provable” where you used “immeasurable.”
Please consider: Religion is “any un-provable claim that influences people to believe a doctrine instead of reality.”
This statement still contains subtlety. I would not mind adding the ending phrase, “much of which is unknown,” but prefer your brevity.
If I have made sense to you, please suggest another statement.
I extended this conversation for one week.
Phil
Michael Clancy
From the perspective of evolution, psychological development is no different than how your lip formed over millenia. Evolution only cares that it works.
My viewpoint may be correct to me but its not a very efficient method of survival. Which is why we lose so many great minds to religion.
To address the requirement of doctrine in your search. This seems to be a search through the prism of Abrahamic religions. I put superstition under the umbrella of religion and it has little to no doctrine, in fact it has only a memelike existance, but is familiar enough with those who engage in it to assist in the formation of human bonding.
We need to be careful as non-believers not to use words like unprovable as the definition will be rejected by enough of the population to render it useless and may appear disengenuous to others.
To address any deficiency, religion is simple enough to describe in one sentence. We must not fall into the trap of trying to include all the different flavors of religions and just define the word without trying to make a point.
Another itteration...
A formed group or identity based around immeasurable claims.
This gives it the needed object.
Phillip Beaver 10+
One point I'd like to share: In other conversations (e.g., see Juliette Zahn or Onecae Onecae) I cite "psychological maturity," which pertains to each individual. I think each person has duty to self, recognized or not, to strive for psychological maturity within the 80 or so years he/she lives. The information an individual may consider is staggering in scope. The ideal is to contribute to mankind’s “psychological development,” quoting you.
During each lifetime, humankind is also maturing, or each individual lives during a segment of humankind’s development toward psychological maturity. I want a revolutionary change in humankind’s psychological maturity. It seems to me you and some others in this conversation are working on it.
Please comment.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
What's in my intro now is: "Religion is any immeasurable claim that exerts influence on a group or society."
I want to change it to your latest statement, "A formed group or identity based around immeasurable claims."
Do you want me to, or is there somthing else?
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Frans Kellner's rowing metaphor has something going for it. He's trying to address our serious problem with the concept of existence and the strange requirements we impose with our current notions of time, space and substance. I've yet to find a word that means what Frans is trying to impart. I believe Frans would agree with the idea that a disturbance in wave frequency produces a different sphere of reality. The notion would require 1) something that can be disturbed 2) something that disturbs.
Sidharth Hairgaran and I would be at odds. We don't all have the same religion. Analysis indicates that we only briefly know each other. It we apply different religious techniques we will most certainly arrive at different 'places.' His words carry an implicitly advance morality and claims knowledge he surely cannot have. The concept of 'arrival' and 'path' seem to impart the philosophy of determinism, as if the world we make has already been made, elsewhere, by another identity, who has given us tickets, etc.
For example, an expansive and gracious consciousness is different from one that is narrow and focused. One can have one both, neither, or alternate between them. If one is on two paths at once, then one is not on one path at once. Insofar as something is different, then it is not the same.
Religion is now. Who are you?
"I do not think all method is religious"
Anything one does or thinks transforms existence to some degree. Therefore, if religion is defined (in part) as a means to transform self or other, then all method is religious. Some religions can be better or worse depending on the transformations desired and methods applied. Using Frans' rowing metaphor: An island begins to obtain in the experience of a certain kind of rower: For others, an island becomes a pineapple farm or something else.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Anyway, let’s try an intellectual metaphor—get away from physics (yet not so far as it may appear). John 8:58 claims Jesus said, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” During my indoctrination, I took that to mean that even though he was born, Jesus existed beforehand, perhaps indefinitely. When I started reading older literature, I found evidence for Jesus’s claim. For example, Agathon’s argument in Plato’s “Symposium,” described the Jesus I admired (not the one reported in the Bible). It’s a quick read: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html . Scroll down until you see Agathon start talking. Perhaps substitute “empathy” for love; of course the Greek was Eros, the god.
By then, I had climbed out of my indoctrination enough that I could perceive that the Bible writer had plagiarized Plato. It hastened my exit from Christianity (still took years), which accelerated my flight from religion itself. (Don’t forget, I am writing about neither truth nor my opinion, but rather my preferences.)
Now, Agathon lived before Jesus did, which is physics. But Agathon’s witness about the character of empathy is now: was true, is true, and will remain true.
Did you see Michael Clancy’s contribution?
Phil
Michael Clancy
I enjoy the etymology of the word -
The word can be traced back to an old Latin word religio meaning "taboo, restraint." A deeper study discovers the word comes from the two words re and ligare. Re is a prefix meaning "return," and ligare means "to bind;" in other words, "return to bondage." ~ Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
Phillip Beaver 10+
Why restrict it?
Consider: Anything that compels people to believe.
Since reading a few books on the brain’s development, I have been unsatisfied with restriction to the physical. For example, consider this thought as an axiom: History shows that empathy defeats hate. I speculate that a statistical study would demonstrate a basis for the statement.
I look forward to your comments.
Phil
Sidharth Hariharan
Phillip Beaver 10+
I see four elements in your simile:
- “The vehicle you like” is an assumption you trust and commit to. For example, your inherited culture.
- “The destination is the same,” asserts that each human has the identical destiny. I wish you’d tell me what that is, but in case you don’t, I’ll offer: termination at death of the body, such that personal influences on the timelessness of existence is all that remains.
- “The path might be different.” Does the difference come from “the vehicle you like,” the environment you are in, or the personal decisions you make, or something I did not think of?
- There are “thorns in the path.” Despite the vehicle, you must make some choices and take action as you encounter problems.
I’ll try to restate this in secular terms. A person cannot control life, since every person has the same destiny. However, to conduct life, he must trust and commit to a philosophy. Despite the philosophy, his influences will depend on his reaction to the problems.
Please correct me where necessary and comment.
Phil
Sidharth Hariharan
its just like you interpretted me the way u liked or understood that doesn't mean you are wrong and I am right or the other way around..
Phillip Beaver 10+
However, with partial understanding (I still don’t know what you mean by “same destiny”), I do not agree with your premise: “Every religion leads to the same place or destiny.”
For example, Christians claim that the Bible is the word of God. However, some Christians do not take their claim literally. When “the word of God,” does not make sense to them, they reject “the word of God.” There are countless examples, but I will take one that is barely controversial.
Mark 16:17-18. “And these signs will accompany those who believe . . . they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all . . .” (Some Christian TEDsters will attack me for questioning “their ‘scripture’,” but I reject their possessiveness and cite my preferences regarding what I studied—my response to literature that is available to every person.)
All Christians believe, but only some handle snakes; only some drink poison. Habitual snake handlers die of snake bites. A sect that drinks poison together dies together. Their religions terminated their lives before their contributions to humankind could run their natural course.
Perhaps your point is that everyone’s destiny is death. If so, I agree, but contend death is not a product of religion, except in cases like snake handlers and poison drinkers.
Please comment.
Phil
Sidharth Hariharan
I am not pointing anything at you but pardon me, perspective about anything or any belief should be widened but not blind due to widening.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Thoughts I share apply to no one but me. They are neither truth nor opinion: they are my preferences. Your responses to my preferences are neither an issue for me nor a threat to your preferences for you.
Please comment.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
For the record, I totally disagree. Threats to health and life caused by religious practices should be limited law. Thus, it should be illegal to handle poisonous snakes as a religious practice, and parents who expose their children to poisonous snakes should lose custody of the children. And that is just one example of the importance of written law trumping religious practices.
Sidharth Hariharan
Phillip Beaver 10+
I do not tolerate a dialogue wherein the other party puts words into my statements. I have neither used the word “god” nor “he” in reference to a god in my dialogue with you. Below is the only sentence of mine containing “he,” and there are none with “god.”
“A person cannot control life, since every person has the same destiny. However, to conduct life, he must trust and commit to a philosophy.”
You are forgiven, yet I await your recognition of what you are doing and an apology.
Phil
Jim Moonan 30+
Sidharth Hariharan
E G 10+
Phillip Beaver 10+
Onecae Onecae
“Control how others ‘suffer.’" The implication is that one understands, but the other doesn't. One can partially control what the other will experience by communicating certain ideas. The objective is to induce a feeling of motivation that will be satisfied by shared understanding. The feeling of anticipation is accompanied by a feeling of frustration (or some other kind of suffering) until the understanding is gained. There are many variations of this technique from schools to war.
You said, "people have the opportunity to place their faith in reality most of which is unknown." I enjoy that comment. Most everyone will agree with it, even though it cannot be proven that most of reality is unknown.
All who think have a philosophy, whether they know it or not. All experience is religious; it's a question of what kind of religion. You shape it and you allow (or prevent) the other from shaping it - that is at points where you know how to allow or prevent.
Phillip Beaver 10+
I did not understand “sorties argument,” but Google directed me to: http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-language-forum/the-scope-of-sorites-arguments/ . Again, am I on the right track?
The premise that learning something new is “suffering” is strange to me. The other day I wanted to understand why Abraham Lincoln assigned responsibility for the US Civil War to God. I found his letter containing the claim and saw that it was a voluntary addendum to his report of a conversation. I studied other key documents wherein he addressed “God,” plus the South Carolina Declaration of Secession and formed an opinion as to what Lincoln meant. Neither my appreciation for Lincoln (that inspired my study) nor the work to carry out the study was suffering--it was a delight.
Here, I merely want to understand your idea, and so far, the work seems excessive.
I am glad you enjoy “faith in reality” and agree “most” is controversial. I’d be comfortable with “much.”
I agree everybody who thinks has a method or philosophy.
However, I doubt all experience is “religion”. When a person decides to understand, he employs integrity to find the evidences that lead to discovery. If he exhausts hi s resources without reaching discovery, his position is, “I do not know.” He may state the assumption he favors and propose a plausible theory. However, if, with no discovery, he claims to know, he has destroyed his opportunity to understand and has fallen into religion. Without reproducible evidence, no one should believe him.
Please clarify and share more.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Sorties: Remove one straw from a hay stack; it is still a stack. Therefore, removing one straw doesn't change that it is a stack. You obey the rules, one straw at a time but, soon notice you no longer have a stack. I apply the sorties paradox to suffering.
Learning suffering. Wanting knowledge is suffering. Learning alleviates it. I suspect you've had special training in such transformations. It is Christian. Many fear new ideas, yet their life depends upon them and they are unavoidable. Communication is religious.
Excessive: I gave a useful definition for religion in a few sentences – should I reduce it to bullet-points?
We cannot prove reality beyond what we know. The words 'most, much' don't affect this. Transformation of self (or not) is religious.
'Experience, religious, and religion' are like 'dimension, space and shape.' Space is dimensional, but not all space is the same shape. Experience is religious, but not all experience is the same religion.
Your story: A person has decided to understand (he isn't screaming or inert.)
Defines attitude toward the unknown (integrity, regardless if deserved.)
Defines what to seek for finding the unknown (now there's a paradox.)
Affirms possibility of a satisfying discovery, no proof. Carries implicit risk that discovery can destroy self.
Suggests attitude to have if disappointed: Belief endures even if current belief fails.
Warns: Claiming false knowledge can ruin access to understanding.
Provides moral injunction for sharing reality; personal experience valid only if it can become communal.
Is it deliberate that yours parallels Christianity? A few key concepts were not included. E.g. you might have started prior to the decision to understand.
I hope this provides clarity. Thank you for the opportunity.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Sorties: You have an old ship, tear it apart, then rebuild--same parts, same way. You have a new ship with old parts.
I question, “It is Christian.” If you are saying I am still suffering indoctrination, I agree.
“Communication is religious.” Religion requires assumption. Two people decide to talk; each assumes opportunity. P does not understand integrity--can only be honest, while T delivers integrity. T freely shares, trusting P will understand. However, P does not sense approval of his idea, so he terminates the conversation, convinced that T should be shunned. T, in integrity does not object to P’s decision to terminate. That was religion—false assumption.
However, when two parties employ integrity, their assumption is justifiable, and they are able to reach agreement, perhaps that they have opposing preferences. With continued dialogue, their agreement increases until they no longer need to talk—they are aware of each other’s preferences. This is covered in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay, “Circles.” If you read it or have already, please let me know if you agree it is pertinent.
When it comes to religion, I neither follow nor want one. I am a human being and member of the community of living beings. I do not plan to confine my association to a religion again for the rest of my life. I am prepared for my afterdeath. Since your bulleted explanation begins with a false premise and is detailed, I am reluctant to study it. Maybe you can reassure me I should for some reason, for example, the point above about indoctrination.
After much effort to understand, I think it is fair to say the statement, “Religion is what you do when you do not know what to do,” does not connect for me. What I do when I don’t know what to do is list my options, consider my resources, consider what’s at stake, then chose the best option as I perceive the options.
Your generosity is abundant.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
I'm offering these ideas:
Religion pertains to: What one does when one doesn't know what to do.
What one includes/excludes from experience (transformation):
The possibility and actuality of transformation for self.
Communication with other than self (transformation shaped by other.)
By natural extension, these concepts can be used to effect transformation of other, but by necessity this will also effect transformation of self.
You cannot escape involvement in these ideas, that is one of the reasons they are religious. You can say you don't communicate or change, but to who and why and how? The manner in which you are involved is your religion. That's not by discovery, it's merely by definition (which is the requested assignment.) Since no one can escape involvement in these ideas, they are useful for analyzing anyone's position in relation to the ideas. Everyone has a religion, what is it? Every thinking person has a philosophy, what is it? Every person creates something all the time, what are they creating? That someone claims they don't communicate with something other than themselves, or they don't change, or they don't use ideas to live by, or they don't create anything indicates that they don't understand the ideas, not that the ideas are false. It's like saying architecture doesn't use space; it's not if it uses space, buy how it uses space. Or, I don't really agree with physics, those are nice ideas, but not for me. It's a perplexing kind of statement. I see from your post that you too realize we live with some really impoverished religions. Once we know the subject, we can effect a change. I am a fan of Emerson, but I've not read any of his work for quite some time.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Only in my fifth reading over more years did I perceive RWE's "Divinity School Address," 1787, to contain his statement in effect, "You'll want to kill me when I say I think Jesus was only a man." Unfortunately, I cannot talk to my friend (says I) RWE and ask him if that was what he meant. The fact that Harvard Divinity School banished him for thirty years after that speech suggests I am correct.
It was not RWE’s writing that changed in those five readings. It was my path of recovery from indoctrination into Christianity and overcoming the fear of admitting to myself that because he would compete with my family members for my attention Jesus cannot be my lord.
RWE is a friend of mine, but I can only guess what he is thinking. I have the advantage that you are alive. I trust that both of us will continue trying to understand.
Thank you for the opportunity to express this idea of continuity in empathetic dialogue.
Phil
Adriaan Braam 20+
Onecae Onecae
Phillip Beaver 10+
I cannot start a conversation about a topic for which I have no passion or years of reading and thought and personal struggle. However, if you start a conversation, I will happily try to contribute.
Please check the new dialogue with Sidharth Hariharan and see if his thoughts helped me understand (not necessarily agree with) yours, as I do not think all method is religious.
Phil
Frans Kellner 100+
"Pseudo Religion"
I'm reading an extensive study on "Gnosis".
Your dialogue brings to my mind that this time has many similarities with the first 3 centuries. Myths and practices from cultures from the East and Egypt came together in Greece and Palestine since Alexander the Great. They mixed and evolved a few centuries until around the time of Jesus it reached some consensus with deviations.
The Gospels were part of it and hijacked to establish Christianity. This was a political act.
In the meanwhile many different schools went on as before but were demonized by the church fathers, the protectors of the true faith.
Faith was born on that moment because Gnosis means "knowledge". The church fathers wrote many books in their attempt to refute all that deviated from the Gospel.
This went on till Constantine the Great used the Christian faith for his own political gain and made it into the official religion of Rome.
If you want to know what religion is then read the last sentence once more.
In analogy we Westerners later on named everything they saw as a faith, religion.
In our time the reverse is happening. The church is crumbling and the situation of the Gnostic era is restored. It is the natural consequence of the release from the pressure that the church exercised on society for over 17 centuries.
Phillip Beaver 10+
It will be interesting to see if your “Gnosis” study touches the other two major Abrahamic religions. I am uneasy that this conversation has neither Muslim nor Jewish reasoning that I can discern, other than the TED talks I mentioned as references.
The only conversations I have had about Islam where years ago with PhD workers, one a chemical engineer, the other a chemist. I learned, “Phil, sooner or later you will submit to Allah, and that’s about all I [they] want to say.”
It seems a historical timeline to your definition would be instructive. Thus, Alexander the Great (reign 336-323 BCE) references “pagan Gnosticism,” Jesus died about 33 CE, Gospels Mark and Matthew written about 50 – 70 CE and thus distant hearsay, Constantine the Great died 337 CE, and I might add “The Prince” by Machiavelli who used irony to explain the use of religion in politics yet not suffer execution.
Noting the recent victories by animal rights activists (dog eating festival in Jiinhua City cancelled see online at http://theweek.com/article/index/219626/the-end-of-chinas-600-year-old-dog-eating-carnival and bull fighting in Barcelona ending see online at http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1718569 ) why don’t people who want to live in peace, with justice according to written law that nevertheless accommodates individual personal preferences exercise their majority vote or make their wishes known? Why must people who care enough to understand suffer the wars between peoples over what they do not know?
But, back to the topic, please comment on the definition I gleaned from your message.
(Onecae, please notice that I am responding to Frans' message addressed to you and me.)
Phil
Frans Kellner 100+
With the covenant Moses gave the people an identity and afterwards it was the Torah as the law that united them. Before that they were different nomadic tribes with a common tradition.
Christians united local people with the Gospels to oppose the Jews that confederated with the Roman occupation. This caused their severe persecution. Again it is the written word that gives them their identity.
With Islam it was the same story all over. Medina embraced the opportunity to unit local tribes under the law of Qur’an. With that force they could occupy Mecca and the same process spread all over the region to subject tribes to the guardians of the Qur’an. Two versions of Islam that gave later rise to the Sunnis and Shiites.
In Europe after the migration of German peoples it was Charles the Great that used his version of the church to unite Western Europe and again later The Normand’s turned the church to their aims which caused the division from the church in the East. (Catholics/Orthodox).
The Reformation wasn’t much better. It gave the nobility freedom from the church and a free pass for trade and commerce. Even in our time in N. Ireland it was a political cause as Protestants dominated the Catholics economically. It wasn’t religion but social division and discrimination that had to be settled.
It was knowledge from the Gnostic period that entered Europe that gave rise to the renaissance which was the beginning of the end of the church. At first with the Moors and Jews in southern Spain and somewhat later in Italy as a result of the crusades. With loot of gold and jewelry they also found intellectual value to bring home. The fight between Faith and Knowledge started there and then and isn’t over yet.
So, the definition of religion seems to be historically to put your faith into words and make into the law. Force it upon everyone and divide the believers and unbelievers in friend and the enemy.
“Divide and rule.”
Phillip Beaver 10+
That summary would have taken me weeks to learn.
In America, most colonists were Christians. Some preserved the Christianity they imported and others effected changes. Most colonial charters stated they had come to spread Christianity. Many atrocities occurred, notably the Salem "witch" executions of 1692: 20 executions and up to 13 deaths in prisons.
By the time twelve colonies organized under the First Continental Congress, in 1774, the Enlightenment was flourishing. A deistic core of 1776 Founders wrote a Declaration of Independence featuring “Nature’s God” that would defeat King George’s God! They probably needed the claim to excite Christian soldiers to war with Christian Great Britain. Victory brought America’s obsession with liberty despite justice.
Eleven years later, with the war behind them, another deistic core created a new nation, predicated on the idea that God does not govern nations. Following 1776 words, “[just] governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the 1787 Founders, in the Preamble, assigned responsibility for governance to We the People.
The Preamble to the US Constitution is probably the most powerful and just political statements on Earth. It far surpasses the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it lies fallow. When the nation began operating in 1789, the Christianization of America began, and the far right continues the fight for a Christian theocracy.
For example, Muslim-Americans in Tennessee can’t find a contractor to build their worship center!
The founders wrote a Constitution that guarantees the States a republican form of government. But the ruin of democracy is evident in America if nowhere else. As long as the people leave it to God, none of the seven goals of the Preamble, especially unity and justice, can happen.
I’d like to see the Preamble’s seven goals or better in use by all people.
Phil
Phillip Beaver 10+
"When a person decides to understand, he employs integrity to find the evidences that lead to discovery. If he exhausts his resources without reaching discovery, his position is, “I do not know.” He may state the assumption he favors and propose a plausible theory. However, if, with no discovery, he claims to know, he has destroyed his opportunity to understand and has fallen into religion. Without reproducible evidence, no one should believe him."
I feel the paleontologist is a researcher and is not religious, because he refuses to advance the assumption that he has found a dinosaur bone. He reports: I think I found a dinosaur bone, but my work is inconclusive. I do not know.
Agreed?
On the other hand, he trusts and is committed to his knowledge and his tools, and confidently stores the bone, expecting new methods to be developed that will solve his problem or associated fossils to be uncovered. Thus, he has faith in paleontology and in that way could be regarded as religious.
Does that reflect your meaning when you write "all experience is religion".
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Here's a metaphor: Shape is to space as religion is to experience.
You do know your story is very close to an outline of the gospels?
How about this: To define "gblygk," find several to examine.
Compared to: To define "religion," find several to examine.
E.g. You have to know what it is in order to find it – therefore, you've assumed your conclusion.
Compare: I'm going to look for other "things" and see how they relate to what I have already experienced.
In regards to your story: A person who believes more understanding is possible and has faith in a way to obtain it has already developed an advanced religion. There are, of course, more 'crude' religions, e.g. ones that don't deliver understanding.
Phillip Beaver 10+
I disagree with you, and have written so before. This person of faith is not religious if, after exhausting his resources and talent he concludes that he has not advanced understanding and reports that conclusion.
Only if he (falsely) reports that he has increased understanding has he fallen into the pit of religion. In that case, sooner or later, reality will catch up and his religion will be corrected, whether he is living or not.
The person who intends to falsify his work is not a person of faith. He is simply a liar.
Anyone who follows him has been duped, often, because they too lack integrity.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Reports? What?
Who do you believe people are reporting to? Their little unicorn friend?
A Professor? The snoopy neighbor?
Do you know someone or thing willing and capable of judging life based of whether or not it articulates conclusions and reports them? Jesus, you really were indoctrinated.
In what way would your hypothetical, admittedly ignorant character judge the validity of his own experience? What if he didn't even know enough to report it to your authorities?
Your sentence,
"...he concludes that he has not advanced understanding and reports that conclusion," reads just as well this way,
"...he believes that he has not advanced understanding."
I'm wondering; since, you already have defined religion as something discovered rather than invented, why do you go through all of this rigmarole? I think you should just nail it down here and now. That you say "pit of religion," indicates your conclusions are part of your assumptions. You might just start, "Assuming religion is a pit which traps the free spirit of man, which ones are the most dreadful?"
Phillip Beaver 10+
The only authority in my story is reality. The reporting I’m referring to extends from self to posterity.
The researcher must have faith in his methods and resources; otherwise he would not spend a moment in the endeavor. His own curiosity drives him. His faith is so strong, if, after all his work, perhaps a lifetime, he still does not know, he admits to himself he does not know. Mother Teresa admitted she did not know.
In contrast, the religious man, committed to what he believes, fools himself by constructing support for the idea he was researching. He distorts his view of reality.
If we go back to my original request for discussion and re-examine the Einstein story, we have a perfect illustration. Einstein had the idea that the universe is static. When he completed his mathematical model in 1905, his report was the world’s first evidence that the universe is dynamic as well as expanding. The evidence did not fit his idea, so he added a “cosmological constant.” See online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant . Einstein used a fudge factor which he regretted in 1930.
It seems Einstein never overcame his religious tendency, speaking seemingly contradictory ideas in 1941. See online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm . Maybe apparent contradiction can be resolved with his definition of “religion” !!
Like so many great people, when faced with the question, “What controls evolution?” Einstein never seemed to admit to himself, “I do not know.” One might add, “. . . but haven’t stopped thinking.”
In a word, what I advocate is this: never close your mind by believing. But you don’t waste your 80 years disputing facts, such as the earth is more like a globe than a disk.
Onecae Onecae, I hope this helps our dialogue, because I can’t think of a happier one in my past (some as happy). I want your happiness just as earnestly as I want my family members happinesses.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
I think we share the same happiness. Even though you didn't say it, I'm thankful you saw my comments as a little humorous – which they were.
Religion doesn't cause people to be vain, ignorant, prideful. Just because some religions name the conditions doesn't mean they invented them. These conditions exist for people with or without an institutionalized religion.
I don't mind a bit allowing reality to be an authority – but you know, I have to ask – does reality include everything? Does it include me?
The end or your story is also the beginning. What do you do when you don't know what to do? Regardless of the level of smug, arrogant vanity – no matter how one tries to establish an unchanging, all-inclusive kingdom, no matter how many new little ideas are prevented from developing for the sake of remaining all powerful – something new will come into your experience. (Does that paraphrase ring any bells for Herod?)
In some cases, if you know you don't understand, admit it. In Einstein's case, make some hopeful guesses. However, if you appease vanity, you might get into trouble.
In whatever case, people have experienced the eternally recurring position of not knowing what to do, especially when face with something new. They invent various ways. In that Einstein chose to appease vanity, he was shut off from the related understanding. Lesser people are greater because they choose to endure their ignorance, not for the sake of suffering, but in the hope of attaining understanding. There are religions that address both positions.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Yes, I thought I sensed humor. Thank you for patience, too.
Your thoughts have been on my mind during a busy morning, pondering, “All experience is religious; it's a question of what kind of religion.”
Can that statement be reversed: All religion is experience; it’s a question of what kind of experience?
Please consider one of my unusual opinions. I do not know, but think that souls cannot be experienced, because they are merely intellectual constructs--phantasms.
Creating or contributing to an intellectual construct is an experience, and the product is an entity but a phantasm--unreal. For example, the gods in ancient imaginings to explain the earth’s sun were phantasms and could not be experienced. Certainly, we cannot find a person who can demonstrate the presence of a soul, and no one can match a deceased body with a soul. It seems the soul cannot be experienced.
Yet soul is a fundamental object of many religions. For souls, the statement: “All religion is experience; it’s a question of what kind of experience,” holds for the intellectual construct but not for the resulting phantasm. Whatu think?
Don’t forget, I am not writing the truth—only my thoughts—and do not wish to rile anyone who has expectations for their soul.
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Soul and spirit are different ideas. The spirit is the casual identity. When the spirit generates a consistent, but varied influence, a soul develops in the thing influenced as well as in the manner of influence. The influence remains a part of each even in the case of separation.
However, take a look at my revision of the draft:
Religion is how humankind uses preferences for specific assumptions about something no one knows. The manner in which one includes or excludes such preferences influences understanding. Therefore, religion becomes extremely dangerous or beneficial.
In ordinary life, much of what is considered religious pertains only to humanity’s origins, maintenance, destiny or other areas provided that the understanding is harmless. In consequence, religion has divided between harmless and effective.
Dangerous, effective methods are no longer considered religious by many people. Yet, understanding how to approach the unknown remains a key component in both areas of human endeavor.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Phillip Beaver 10+
But what are the two areas referred to in "both areas of human endeavor"?
Phil
Onecae Onecae
Yeah, that's a problem. The word "religion" is politically and emotionally charged, fragmented and broad. The case of the "believer" and "clergyman" is a classic literary position:the believer outpaces the clergy, resulting in a reversal of positions, or the believer becomes thankful and we all learn a moral lesson of some sort.
Phillip Beaver 10+
For the guru:
Your students are with you yet they belong not to you.
You give them your empathy but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For psycholgical maturity goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
Seem on track?
Phil
Onecae Onecae
When one doesn't know what to do, there follows a kind of suffering.
The resolution of the suffering obtains through:
1) Transformation of self, akin to developing new understanding, (transcendence) and/or
2) Transformation of self through the inclusion or exclusion of something that is other than self into ones understanding (communication).
There are definite steps one can take to obtain the experience of suffering and resolve it through increased understanding. The manner in which one does this shapes the reality of ones experience. Of course, it is also possible to somewhat control how others "suffer" and the transformations they will/can undergo.
Phillip Beaver 10+
I can’t relate to “religion” herein but relate to suffering and resolution. I don’t understand “obtain the experience of suffering.” “Control how others ‘suffer’” eludes me. Can you give an example to help us understand?
I relate through this experience. I explained elsewhere in this conversation that Baptist peers did not accommodate my Catholic wife’s contributions to our married couples class; they picked on Catholic doctrine and claimed Catholics go to hell. Consequently, I wrote a letter of withdrawal. I was a driver in the widow’s van pool, Chairman of the Family Enrichment Committee advocating studies of Plato and other classics, choir member, serious Sunday school participant, and long-time contributor. My pastor received his copy of my letter and said, “Phil, for 20 years, you have prompted this church to examine itself. Don’t quit.” I responded, “It is time for me to do something else.”
For a few months I was perhaps the loneliest person in Baton Rouge. Then, I became motivated to write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. I wrote about social issues, specializing in protection of religious thought yet separation of church and state. Eventually, I thought I found an association I would not leave: We the People. But as I focused on the foundation of America, I realized that America is not only a nation of Christians, but the Christian majority had “Christianized” America and were driving for a theocracy.
Long before my quest to bring attention to the Preamble to the US Constitution, I reiterated in nearly 100 published letters that people have the opportunity to place their faith in reality most of which is unknown. Often I wrote about the truth (with no capitals to avoid deification) and even attempted to coin a word, like thetruth.
I think my experience has suffering, transformation, and getting outside myself. However, other than the assumption that reality exists, I do not understand mine to be a religious experience. Do you?
Phil
Mike Euverman
I disagree with one of your definitions of religion. The "until he encounters reality" part. I do not believe that religion, by definition, is a self imposed delusion. While I agree that the majority of religious people are delusional, I do not see it as a defining attribute.
I feel that most people would be happy if you defined it as: "A set of beliefs which includes a code of conduct to live by, and covers that which can not be explained or understood, spanning from creation, to death, and beyond"
The only benefit that I see in todays common religions, is that it gives people answers to questions that they do not understand. That it causes people to believe that there is order in nature, rather then chaos. That illnesses and car accidents are not random, but planned events, to test and strengthen them.
Phillip Beaver 10+
Thank you for sharing.
I understand that “encounters reality” is not comforting. However, religion in general is not comforting for humankind. It may be comforting for like-minded believers, but even within major religions people kill people of different beliefs: Protestants kill Catholics, for example. Both pray for peace, yet both encounter the reality of a gun aimed at them.
Also, there’s the question of the afterdeath. Someone asked Benjamin Franklin, 85, if Jesus was God, and he responded, in effect, “I never seriously considered it and don’t need to speculate. I’ll know soon,” expecting an encounter with reality. Did you see the movie, “Before the Rain?” A religious grandfather shoots his granddaughter in the back. He encountered reality.
If these examples are meaningful to you, maybe you can suggest a phrase that is better than “encounters reality.” I’ll try.
I wonder if many people think life goes better if a person believes it is best not to believe. When you don’t know something, it is better to admit it first to yourself, and then represent yourself accurately by proclaiming, “I don’t know.” Take an easy example: Is there extraterrestrial life? I don’t know. A little different, but still easy for me: Will Phil’s afterdeath involve everlasting life? I don’t know but think not. Thus, I don’t “believe.” I may know, have a preference, or not know. I trust and am committed to reality.
Regardless, your second definition contains elements that humankind would require, and I will keep it in a collection of contributions from this talk for the next revision(s). Did you see my three revisions, which I entered yesterday? And I offered a revolutionary one in the dialogue with Matthieu Mossec.
Most car accidents are caused by risky behavior. Contrary ideas are mere speculation. However, problems do present opportunity for solutions and some illnesses prompt behavioral change.
Phil
Mike Euverman
Many people fear death. Religion and the prospect of an afterlife help those people to overcome their fear. Without it, then the fear could easily control them. People like you and I are ok with "I don't know" being the answer. We do not lose sleep over it. While others are not ok with it, and it consumes them if they are unable to find an answer.
Religion at its core, serves to give people an answer when they can not find one, or are unhappy with the one that they have. When we did not know about gravity and how it controlled the orbit of planets, it was easy for people to believe that the sun was held in the sky by god. As science gives us answers to questions that were previously unanswered, religion is required to adapt in order to not be in conflict. If a religion fails to adapt, it fails, and is taken over by another religion or set of beliefs.
Phillip Beaver 10+
- Where did the laws of physics come from?
- Why does the universe seem so strange?
People who would discover the answers to these questions respond, “I do not know.” Clergymen and their followers have answers.