Reasons to be Religious or Spiritual
Offline Let's assume we're skeptical or certainly against an imaginary friend in the sky who judges us the day we die.
Why does that still mean we should partake in religion or spirituality?
Two arguments I know of that still support religion despite skepticism are Russell Kirk's and Immanuel Kant's:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=06-01-005-f
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#3.7
The gist of these arguments is that civilization depends on dogmatic language arts in order to unite people in common. That is literally, communication is the foundation of community, and religion provides domains such as ceremonies, mysteries, scriptures, and edifices where people can dogmatically correspond semantics with aesthetics. That is people have purposes for matching ideas to forms such that people can agree on the definitions of words.
In turn, this correspondence allows for civilization to flourish because people can understand and agree with one another over appropriate definitions of the rule of law. No longer are people stuck in what Ludwig Wittgenstein called "language-games" over "family semblance". The dogmatism of language inhibits people from being forced to assume the risk of impractically misinterpreting what people intend to say.
Similarly, spirituality can be supported for the sake of morale. People are psychological creatures who need to be inspired to work. A spiritual outlet gives people a sublime purpose worth practicing: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/#3.6 Without this, people get stuck in living Puritan lifestyles where they either don't enjoy themselves because they hate nature, or their enjoyment is unsustainable because it becomes reckless without purpose. That is either the ends don't satisfy the means, or the means don't justify the ends.
Thoughts?
- Login to post comments
I don't see why we'd need religion to find a way to build communities. It seems like the benefit of being able to cooperate with others without fear that I'm going to get stabbed in the face is benefit enough. People accomplish more when the work together rather than when they each do their own thing separately. People can work together more efficiently if they have a level of trust. I don't see where religion is a prerequisite for any of this.
While religion can provide morale, other things are also capable of providing moral, and religion can also be a serious detriment to morale (see the recent thread that believing in a hateful god correlates to being less sane). This is basically a case of you counting your hits and ignoring your misses.
How are communities cooperatively fearless without dogmatically corresponded communication? Without religion, communities are assuming the risk of misunderstandings where people can't communicate what they're cooperating.
You have a number of problems here:
1) Whether other things exist or not, I'm saying it's rational to choose one out of the bunch. If you need fruit in your diet, an apple, banana, kiwi, or any other fruit will do. It's rational to pick any fruit.
2) What other things are capable of providing morale? Note that I'm focusing on the sublime here, not the agreeable. This is not merely a matter of discovering emotional satisfaction. It's a matter of discovering intuitive identity. We are seeking psychological sustainability, not just pleasure.
3) The hating parts (of religion) do not unjustify the caring when the caring is not dependent on the hating.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. They aren't fearless, which is why we have things like law enforcement. If you're getting at something else, I'm missing it.
What if your choices are apple, banana, or rotten kiwi? If the choices aren't equal, then why choose a worse one?
Improved standards of living or other progress brought about through cooperation. People accomplish more when they work together than if they work alone. This is observable and measureable. That increased productivity is its own reward.
we have the same problem with religion. and i believe you're ignoring the later, post-tractatus wittgenstein, when he moved beyond logical positivism to ordinary language philosophy. philosophers don't have to distort ordinary usage, but that doesn't mean we have to resort to religion either, since theology is just as much the enemy of ordinary language as logical positivism.
social rituals needn't be anything as elaborate as catholic mass or brahmanic sacrifice. they can be as commonplace as waving our hands and saying good morning.
part of humanism is the idea that there is no cure-all for each person's existential malaise. this malaise (if we take marx and freud at their words, anyhow) is alienation, and this alienation lies at the root of miscommunication. if a person, seeking relief from alienation, finds therapeutic value in religious ritual, theology, and/or genuine theistic devotion, i as a humanist respect that person's individual choice--indeed, i applaud it, because seeking therapy is a positive act, as long as we genuinely seek therapy that works. it's when the other tries to push his or her subjective experiences, be they ever so positive, into an imaginary objectivity that we have a problem.
in other words, religion works for some, not for all.
for me, it does not...anymore. christianity worked for me for a time, then it became unhealthy, so i rejected it. who knows? it may work for me again one day (religion, that is; christianity most assuredly not). i find the idea of devoting myself to serious study and practice in one of the indian darshanas when i retire to be increasingly attractive as the years go on, particularly bauddha or sankhya-yoga, both of which are atheistic systems. of course, becoming a sannyasin is a thoroughly individualistic act, and has nothing to do with community.
as a postscript, i have a big problem with the prophetic religions, because a prophet is nothing more than a mystic who gives objective validity to his subjective experiences. that is the main reason why i reject the abrahamic religions, as well as zoroastrianism, sikhism, baha'i, etc.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
You might as well title this "Reasons To Cheer At A Super Man Movie" or "Reasons To Cheer When Dirty Harry Kills The Bad Guy".
What exactly bothers you about all this being nothing magic? I have a "sense of awe" as well. I see great things in humans and awesome things in nature. But I don't use comic book words to describe those things. Nor do I allow my sense of awe lead me to some superstitious conclusion that this is all magic or grand.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
religion does not of necessity entail any of these things.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Then it should not be called religion because the root meaning means "to bind".
If people have things that get their rocks off, fine, but none of it should be worshiped, religion is as dogmatic as ideology and politics and can be just as divisive and superstitious.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
i've already discussed in another thread how current meanings of words are not primarily conditioned by their etymologies. i've also discussed numerous times what most religion scholars agree constitutes a religion. "adore" comes from a latin word meaning to worship or have a worshipful fear of. if i call my toddler "adorable," does that mean i'm implying he inspires worshipful fear? etymology can be helpful in discussing semantics, but it is not the standard of current usage. we in the field of religious studies don't change the word because there's no need to. if most people got a mental picture of being tied up when they heard the word "religion," we most assuredly would use a different term. but they don't, so we don't.
religion can be as dogmatic. so can anything else, including atheism. ideologies, philosophical positions, etc., become dogmatic because most people think dogmatically. most people desperately want a clear standard of right and wrong, and that leads to dogmatic thinking.
since you have assured me in the past that you are sufficiently grounded in comparative religion and need seek no further study in the area, i am surprised i have to explain these things to you.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
The problem there is you're expecting people to conform to authority. Ordinary language only works in ordinary context. When you lack ordinary context because of customized nuances, you're left in a jam. The relations of production are not universally functional, so you can't come to an objective understanding without assuming the risk of literally being alienated as out of the ordinary.
Religion overcomes this by providing nuanced language that accommodates for the diversity of lifestyles. Semantics are fixed to aesthetics. That way, regardless of when or where a semantic is encountered, a corresponding aesthetic can be used to represent it.
Regarding what you said about mystics, you can be a religious atheist. Religion is an art form, not a scientific method. It doesn't exist to explain the world. It exists to describe it.
this still doesn't change the fact that religious people are as wrapped up in the conflicts, violent or otherwise, of existence as irreligious people, if not more-so. religion is only useful for communication in as far as people follow the same religion, and not even that, but the same sect and sub-sect, etc., of that religion.
a catholic and a protestant both use the term "grace" and get two completely different mental pictures. a vaishnava and a shaiva read the bhagavad gita and come away with two entirely different interpretations. the only answer is for all of humanity to hold the same beliefs, and to assume that will ever be possible is patently absurd.
my argument still stands: religion is helpful for some, not all.
no shit. i'm pretty sure i just got through saying the same thing. buddhists, jains, and quite a few "hindus" are religious atheists.
hogwash. religion is a method, though not a scientific one because it is not empirically falsifiable. it may indeed explain and/or describe the world, but the same thing is accomplished by science and philosophy, and anyway it is not religion's primary aim. why bother differentiating religion from science and philosophy? what does it offer that these do not? that must be its primary aim, and that is a way out. religion exists to provide a soteriological method. it may inspire art, or we may in a fot of emotion call this method "an art," but it exists as a method nonetheless. kant doesn't offer us a way out, nor does niels bohr. christianity does. buddhism does. islam does.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Imagine what could happen if everyone trying to escape reality confronted it instead.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The problem is we all have or POV "Point of view" of what "reality" is. I don't want more theists "imagining" the rest of us "confronting" or being confronted.
It is nice that you say that. But the reality is that human perceptions are notoriously flawed and when you get into utopian thought, you don't face that reality yourself.
All our species can do is foster a more pragmatic approach, a priority shift. Seek common ground and common law while accepting that we will do what we have always done, meaning disagree and even say really absurd shit.
All you are really saying in that quote is, "Imagine no religion". Lennon beat you to that. But I think in a pragmatic view it is more likely the best that we can do minimize the harm religion and dogmatism do. But the seeds have always been there and will, because humans have flawed perceptions and will always have flawed perceptions.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Ridiculous. Straw men and mischaracterisations abound.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Why are you getting off topic? We were talking about language arts and then you go off about conflict and science.
no, i'm discussing religion, which i thought was the overarching topic of this thread. religion per se has no place under the rubric of language arts, because it is at base a methodology, not an aesthetic. admittedly, it is a methodology with an aesthetic (but then again, pretty much everything possesses an aesthetic), but aesthetics is not its raison d'etre.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Religion is no longer a definition. It's still in dictionaries and used forever, i even use it loosely, but it's lost all meaning. It's a rubber band word to be stretched any direction you want.
Regarding the psychology of "religion." how shall one discern truth? Do you subscribe as Schleiermacher and Kirkangaard that passion is superior to reason? And thus the subjective "feelings" of a person is the only way one can "truly" be spiritual?
Aristotle once said that the law is free from pasion which is a contradiction to your understanding. Meaning that there are passive universals outside ourselves making objectivity possible.
If morale is a means towards your argument, then basically "religion" is a self esteem issue. It makes people feel better regardless if their wrong or not.
With this, I have a few questions.
1) Is it possible to feel good in a religion and be hurt by that religion via your ignorance and/or deception? (e.g. Jim Jones).
2) How would the aesthetics or art be demonstrated through this philosophy? These are old ideas and artists that shared these thoughts did express this through paint.
3) how would truth be understood and would anything really be wrong, bad or evil spiritually speaking?
Your arguments are basically Existential. Nietzche carried Existentialism to its logical conclusion to utter meaningless and absurdity. Thus if we are to be consistent in your thinking, absurdity and irrationality can be a good thing if the person feels good about it.
I believe Timothy Leary is calling. BRB
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
As for "spirituality", just wtf is the term really supposed to mean? Why can't "spiritual" just mean "mental/emotional"? When a theistic/spiritual person is asked this, the only answer I've ever received is, "It goes beyond that..." again, wtf is that supposed to mean?I don't see where people need the mythos of "spirituality" to be inspired to work. Genetics makes work an inborn natural instinct as people are born with certain talents for certain jobs as well as an attraction to certain professions. I've seen many instances where people are happy to work and the work they do IS their "sublime" purpose. Again, I say Kant is outdated and much of his philosophy is obsolete as science has pretty much replaced much of the need for "spirituality" and these philosophies or even philosophy in general. Much of this "puritanical depression" you speak of can today be treated with therapy and medication in many people.
I swear, every time I read a particular philosopher the first thing that comes to my mind is, "Did this guy not have a job?" I've found that the more I learn about the "how" question of life, the "why" that bugs philosophers and other "spiritual" types looks like a form of OCD. Conversation may go something like this: Scientist "Water boils at 212 degrees F, 100 degrees C" Philosopher" "But what's it all mean?" Engineer:" You can boil water to cook, clean and operate a steam engine", Philosopher:" But what's it all mean, really?" Scientist and Engineer in unison:" Get a job , asshole."
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Rofl. It's so true. Funny how philosophy can be credited for, at least in part, the birth of science in the west. And yet it has become a meaningless pursuit of meaning, as science has shown meaning has nothing to do with the universe.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
this is precisely why modern philosophy, since the days of wittgenstein and popper, has narrowed its focus to intellectual clarification--basically, what we can do with language and what we can't. any philosophy that does not confine itself to questions of logic is not worthy of the name, in the opinion of a great many philosophers today. there are still hold-outs, of course, who keep wanting to dredge up the ghosts of platonism, thomism, or hegalianism, but these people should be relegated to the fringe.
in short, philosophy also asks how. religion and bad philosophy ask why. science owes a huge debt to karl popper, for example, for clearly formulating the principle of falsifiability.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Yes, science owes a debt to the philosophers from the Age of Enlightenment. Back then science was relegated to the back shelves like pornography and scientists and mathematicians were paid about a third of what philosophers were paid. No wonder Galileo had an attitude. Never mind the guy who could tell you how to balance your kingdom's budget,build better weapons or increase productivity, the "cool" philosophers were there to tell you what the meaning of life was.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
where on earth did you get that info? i'd like to see it. i didn't even think there was a science/philosophy dichotomy in galileo's time.
anyway, let me emphasize i'm not talking about the enlightenment. i'm talking about 20th century philosophy here. the problem with having a conversation about philosophy in general, be it with philosophy fans or detractors, is that their knowledge of philosophy usually goes about up to hegel and then stops, as if nothing significant had happened in the field since then. this makes dialogue very difficult, as the very notion of what philosophy is has narrowed its focus.
since about the 1920s or so, the main currents of philosophy have concerned themselves almost exclusively with problems of logic and linguistics. the logical errors and categorical errors that we on this site love to point out so frequently were formulated by philosophers. biologists get pissed off (and rightly so) when theists rail against evolution and concentrate almost solely on darwin, as if there had been no significant developments in evolutionary theory since that time. i say, if someone wants to scoff at philosophy, let him tell me what his problems are with dewey, wittgenstein, russel, popper, buber, k.c. bhattacharya, or sarvepalli radhakrishnan--not plato, kant, and hegel.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
At that time, wasn't science referred to as natural philosophy? I actually read that in a work of fiction that was heavily researched by the author. I'll have to dig it out and check his references. Thanks for calling me on that. That said, the fight for funding for any cause, philosophical or scientific hasn't changed since the beginning of civilization. In order to get funded for pure science projects, many scientists had to go the route of military and business applications first. Philosophy and religion can play a major part in the PR selling process in any age.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
i've heard of that before. i'm sure it depended on where you were.
it is very intentional. too many posters come on here with the intention of "tricking" people, rather than actually engaging in dialogue and learning something. it's happening to me right now, actually, on another thread. when someone either doesn't have a logical leg to stand on or just doesn't want to admit their ignorance of the topic (usually the latter, in my experience), then their last retreat is to semantic quibbling with a healthy dose of non sequiturs and changing the focus of the argument.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
problem with your logic here is God is not hateful. We serve a loving God.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
- You assume God exists.
- You assume that if God exists, he is loving.
There's no evidence for either of those claims.Also, I never said God was hateful. I said that belief in a hateful god correlates to being less sane. Lots of people believe in a hateful god, regardless of what you personally believe.