Do religions share the same concern?

ForumLet's Talk Religion

Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.

Do religions share the same concern?

Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.

1richardbsmith
Jul. 27, 2014, 4:36 pm

The focus in Christianity is salvation from sin.
The focus in Judaism is ethics and covenant.
The focus in Buddhism is detachment from suffering.
The focus is Hinduism is release from this world of evil.
The focus in Islam is submission.

Are these concerns the same, related, or different?

2timspalding
Bearbeitet: Jul. 27, 2014, 4:44 pm

They're all approximations, so you get some slack, but I think they're mostly wrong. Your description of Islam in particular is seriously misleading.

Besides, what does "focus" mean? Their most salient characteristic? What they think life is all about?

3richardbsmith
Jul. 27, 2014, 4:46 pm

Correction is requested.

I wish we had representation of each, and of others.

And I am not attempting a description of these faiths, only an understanding of the aspect of the human condition that is their focus.

4timspalding
Bearbeitet: Jul. 27, 2014, 6:42 pm

I think it would be more accurate to say that Islam is about right-action. But I won't cede ground to anyone who can speak "from the inside."

The part about sin is definitely central to Christianity, but I think it would be more central to say that Christianity is fundamentally about love—as the thing which saved us from sin, as the essential nature of the godhead, and the central commandment of faith. Think "for God so loved the world," "God is love," love as the Great Commandment(1), 1 Corinthians 13, etc. One can never sum up everything. But Christianity has spent an inordinate amount of time developing, brooding and noodling on the concept of love.


1. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself."

5richardbsmith
Jul. 27, 2014, 7:01 pm

I am asking a different question though.

My question is the aspect of the human condition on which the faith focuses and attempts to remedy, the problem. Some are easier to identify than others.

Christianity has identified sin and offers a savior.

Buddhism has identified dukkha and offers a path to detachment.

Taoism perhaps has identified imbalance and offers balance with self and nature, the eternal way.

Judaism has identified a need for an ethic and offers a covenantal relationship.

My question is whether there is a commonality of the human predicament that each religion has identified and seeks to remedy?

Not the essence of the religion so much as the problem it has identified.

6timspalding
Jul. 27, 2014, 7:13 pm

Judaism has identified a need for an ethic and offers a covenantal relationship.

I'm not sure this is accurate. Jews think that they are under a covenant. This has ethical implications, but the covenant is not the solution to ethical problems. But here we get into Christian non-comprehension of how Judaism could be both true and not universal.

7richardbsmith
Jul. 27, 2014, 7:21 pm

Without getting too far from my question, I would suggest that Israel thought of itself as a priesthood, making it true and universal. The priesthood to administer the covenant to the world.

Not sure how well that worked out, even from the beginning as they supposedly pushed out the native people from Canaan.

8John5918
Jul. 28, 2014, 12:56 am

I'm no expert on Islam but I think most Islamic authorities would agree with Richard that "submission" (as in voluntary submission to God) is its focus. Of course right action follows from that, as it does with most other faiths.

9richardbsmith
Jul. 28, 2014, 6:56 am

Of course my question is the human predicament or problem that the religion identifies. Submission might be the Islamic solution, but is there a particular problem that is the primary focus for Islam.

Judaism and Islam seemed the most difficult to associate with a human concern. Perhaps both see a need for and ethic, a set of objective laws to guide and ethical life.

10richardbsmith
Bearbeitet: Jul. 28, 2014, 8:00 am

Perhaps my question is wrong.

Perhaps there is a western idea of an objective ethic - Judaism and Islam. The Christian concept of sin came from the realization that no one could perfectly keep such a code, although the code does exist and is binding.

And perhaps the eastern idea is of balance and cycles. With Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism finding different approaches to restoring balance and living in phase with the cycles.

11nathanielcampbell
Bearbeitet: Jul. 28, 2014, 2:25 pm

>9 richardbsmith: "Of course my question is the human predicament or problem that the religion identifies."

I think the "predicament or problem" that Islam tackles is the misperception of the divine, i.e. idolatry. Fundamentally, the message that every prophet brought to "the People of the Book" was to turn their attention away from mistaken views of the divine and back towards God. Then, as Tim points out, that message takes on ethical implications about a right path vs. a wrong path. As the opening Sura of the Qur'an puts it:
In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy! Praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy, Master of the Day of Judgement. It is You we worship; it is You we ask for help. Guide us to the straight path: the path of those You have blessed, those who incur no anger and who have not gone astray.
ETA: I think you're on the right track (no pun intended) with the admittedly overly-simplified schematic in >10 richardbsmith:.

12richardbsmith
Jul. 28, 2014, 2:39 pm

Nathaniel,

The distinction made in 10 may promise an answer to one of my lesser questions, lesser but very old.

As I studied a bit about Judaism, it became apparent to me some years ago that Judaism did not have the same concern over sin and salvation that does Christianity. I could not see how Christianity could develop from Judaism. Reading the Hebrew Bible and some in the Apocrypha, then skipping to the NT.

Salvation, eternal life, just was not a concern that seemed to have roots in Judaism.

But this idea has possibility for me to bridge the different focuses. And to answer an old question of mine.

Perhaps it was recognized that the law could not be kept, an impossibility. That realization could produce, given the texts of the Hebrew Bible, the hope and realization of a savior, especially if combined with a new idea of eternal life.

This idea makes for me a connection with Judaism that I have not before understood - the deep sense of failure of the law.

13timspalding
Jul. 28, 2014, 2:53 pm

>12 richardbsmith:

One must distinguish Judaism from some more ancient and often hypothetical Bible-ism. Belief in the afterlife grew in Judaism, leaving many traces in the Bible. Certainly the afterlife was a hot topic in the Judaism of Jesus' day, and was near universally believed in the Rabbinic Judaism of later Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Most religious Jews today believe in one, although, indeed, there is less of a focus on it.

14paradoxosalpha
Bearbeitet: Jul. 28, 2014, 3:02 pm

I'm no muslim, but my impression of the Islamic ideal is one of unity (tawhid): both the actual unity of a creating and governing God, and the aspirational unity of the human community.

The contrast between Christianity and Islam seems to be an expression of different ways to deal with a central paradox of Abrahamic monotheism, which posits both the omnipotence and the omnibenevolence of God. In practice, Christianity seems to allow for a limit to God's omnipotence in order to accommodate his omnibenevolence, while Islam will permit God's omnibenevolence to be eclipsed by his omnipotence.

Hebrew religion, the source of the conundrum, seems to embrace it more straightforwardly as insoluble.

As Archibald MacLeish has his tempter say:
I heard upon this dry dung heap
That man cry out who cannot sleep:
"If God is God He is not good,
If God is good He is not God;
Take the even, take the odd,
I would not sleep here if I could
Except for the little green leaves in the wood
And the wind on the water,"

15richardbsmith
Bearbeitet: Jul. 28, 2014, 3:33 pm

The Judaism I am referring to includes what is described in the Hebrew Bible, in the Apocrypha, and also what is practiced in Reformed Judaism. I was somewhat active in the local synagogue for a little over 3 years and studied a bit with some of the Rabbi lead courses there.

Generally worshiped with them on Erev Shabbat.

I have done very little reading in the Talmud. I have found concerns over the afterlife and eternal salvation to be much less a focus than in Christianity. Much more a focus on ethical living today, than bliss tomorrow.

16IreneF
Jul. 28, 2014, 4:51 pm

>12 richardbsmith:
I think you are right. Judaism and Christianity are quite different. I don't think there really is a "Judeo-Christian" anything; it's just a word people (usually Christians) use to expand whatever argument they're making.

However, the 1st century was a period of dozens of "new religions" that combined traditions from all over the ancient world.

17richardbsmith
Jul. 28, 2014, 5:02 pm

The use of the word mysterion by Paul has always intrigued me, as well as the body and blood in the Eucharist.

It is very difficult for me not to jump to a comparison with the Mysteries, as perhaps a competing religious movement, as perhaps a model religious movement.

It is hard to find Jewish precedents for Baptism and the Eucharist. Perhaps someone will quickly correct me and supply those precedents. I will be grateful.

18timspalding
Jul. 28, 2014, 5:02 pm

>15 richardbsmith:

Sure. Although reform Jews are perhaps not the most representative group to take your soundings from.

19richardbsmith
Jul. 28, 2014, 5:08 pm

It is the biggest Jewish community in Chattanooga. And of course I did not participate to obtain soundings. I went to worship and to connect. I really need to start back up with them, and try to learn Judaism a little deeper.

20timspalding
Bearbeitet: Jul. 28, 2014, 5:12 pm

It is hard to find Jewish precedents for Baptism

Really? The Old Testament is chock-full of ritual washings that remove impurity and sin. And Jews then and now have the mikveh, use of which is required, among other things, by anyone seeking to convert. Apart from these analogies, I would have you look at the Jewish Encyclopeida s.v. "Baptism" http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism

There can be no question that Christians gave baptism a new significance. But hard to find precedents? Hardly.

21timspalding
Jul. 28, 2014, 5:11 pm

Oh, are you in Chattanooga? Say hi to my friend Justin. He's the teen librarian there, and a steely-eyed missile man if ever there was.

22jburlinson
Jul. 28, 2014, 6:25 pm

>5 richardbsmith: My question is the aspect of the human condition on which the faith focuses and attempts to remedy, the problem. Some are easier to identify than others.

If I understand your repeated emphasis on the "aspect of the human condition", I'd have to say that all religions are an attempt to resolve the essential problem that is at the core of human life -- and that is fear. As infants, we are totally dependent on aspects of our environment to survive. Slowly, we start to recognize our individuality and the curious fact that, although we're each obviously part of a big totality, we're also strangely alone, one-of-a-kind. This is a terrifying state of affairs. How do we stay safe? Especially once it dawns on us that we're going to die.

Who can help us? Who can save us? Our parents may do a great job, but then they die. Our society can't be counted on; in fact most societies can be counted on to trample us underfoot if it suits their purposes. Friends, neighbors -- all are inherently unreliable.

Maybe there are the mysterious forces that run the universe. How can we get in good with them? We try, and that's where religion starts coming in. Now we're in the mindset that if, or more likely when, we understand how the universe works, then we'll be OK and won't have to fear any longer. But when it comes right down to staring at the dark and contemplating the end, here comes the fear again, no matter how much we think we know.

So, how well your religion helps you cope with that fear, that's the whole thing in a nutshell. "Fear not", says Jesus. Does that work for you?

23IreneF
Jul. 28, 2014, 7:18 pm

>17 richardbsmith:
I couldn't quite finish my thought about the origin of Christianity--that although it developed out of Judaism, the Jewish world was in a ferment of various cults and charismatic leaders, and ditto for the Roman world. Some of them were mystery religions, some ecstatic, some more conventional. Some took bits and pieces from elsewhere and created something new.

I've always wondered about theEucharist. I think it is incredibly odd from a Jewish standpoint, since the consumption of blood is expressly forbidden, to the point that meat must be drained of blood and then salted.

24richardbsmith
Jul. 28, 2014, 8:36 pm

Tim,

I would love to say high to Justin. Is he at the down town library?

25richardbsmith
Bearbeitet: Jul. 28, 2014, 9:08 pm

As for baptism, it is the one time initiation, the sacramental ritual. More like circumcision than a frequent ablution.

The Jewish washings, even the Essene washings, seem far removed from the Christian baptism. It seems to me that washings were common in many ANE religions, but the ritual of baptism is distinct from most, and I think distinct from the practices of Judaism.

What I had always settled on was the possibility that an individual as John the Baptist could have brought about such an innovation. Settling on that possibility though never satisfied the idea that there might be another, more clear precedent.

26richardbsmith
Jul. 28, 2014, 8:42 pm

JB,

Fear is an interesting thought. And it could reach far back to connect perhaps with the earliest religions.

27IreneF
Jul. 28, 2014, 9:06 pm

>25 richardbsmith:
Washing for purification was quite common in ancient Judaism. If you consider sin to be something that attaches itself to you, and that can be removed thru some action, it makes sense, and is tied up with concepts of atonement and sacrifice. One must be purified (=ritually clean) in order than one's sacrifice (=atonement) be acceptable to God.

(See Leviticus.)

John the Baptist seems to have been a figure highly regarded by the Jews, but I am not sure why.

28IreneF
Jul. 28, 2014, 9:09 pm

From what I know about so-called primitive religions, sacrifice is a kind of negotiation with divine powers. "I'll give you a cow, and you give me a son."

29jburlinson
Jul. 28, 2014, 9:36 pm

>26 richardbsmith: it could reach far back to connect perhaps with the earliest religions.

I'm convinced of it. And it still applies with equal force to the human condition today. Each religion has its own way to get around fear. Hindus focus on the illusion of the self: if you can come to the realization that the self is an illusion, loss of self is not only not to be feared but something to desire. Buddhists may think, in very broad terms, along similar lines. Other religions focus more on compliance with laws or commandments of a deity; all will be well, despite incidental setbacks, if the individual and her society stay on the right side of the law. Other religions focus on love and mercy, with a sense that there is ultimate bliss on the other side of the grave, so there's no need to fear dying; although the specifics might be unpleasant, they will pass.

In all cases, something is offered to the terror-stricken soul to give reassurance. I would suspect that even atheists can come to find solace in assuring themselves that, bad as the immediate future might be (pain, sickness, madness, death), it will all be over soon.

So -- have no fear. Simply choose the path that seems most promising to you. You can always switch, if and when something better comes along.

30richardbsmith
Bearbeitet: Dez. 22, 2015, 6:51 am

I am reviving an old topic, and an even older question for me. Stephen Prothero God Is Not One has provided some perspectives relevant to the question in the OP.

Do different faiths have different focuses, different understandings of the human condition, the human problem.

He offers that to understand religious differences that distinction is the first step.

"Each religion articulates:
a problem, a solution, a technique, and an exemplar"

Here is a summary of some of the problems/solutions that are the focuses of various religions, according to Prothero:

Islam - pride/submission
Christianity - sin/salvation
Confucianism - chaos/order
Buddhism - suffering/awakening
Judaism - exile/return
Hinduism - bondage/release

http://interfaithradio.org/religion101?page=2

I think I have started other threads asking basically the same questions. Are these approaches similar in that they are concerned with different aspects of the same problem, or do they recognize completely different problems in the human condition.

Are all problems equally important, exclusive? Do the solutions work? Does the solution for one religion affect the problem found by another religion?

31librorumamans
Dez. 23, 2015, 12:32 pm

>30 richardbsmith:

My first reaction is that even to wonder in the first place whether there can be problems in the human condition that are completely different from one another is immediately to go off the rails.

Another reaction is that these distinctions are simplistic distortions and so neither useful nor interesting. The issue of pride is central to Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity; I don't know enough about Confucianism and Hinduism to extend that statement to them as well. How can it be meaningful to isolate pride in Islam?

32JGL53
Bearbeitet: Dez. 26, 2015, 5:57 pm

> 1

It is not that complicated.

All religions exist ultimately to bolster or substantiate to the nth degree the egos of some if not many if not most if not all within each tribe. Thus all religions exist for the same exact reason.

Your welcome.

33timspalding
Dez. 29, 2015, 12:44 am

>32 JGL53:

Your post is an ouroboros.

>30 richardbsmith:

I like to think of stresses and obsessions. For Christianity it's love. For Islam and Judaism, right action. I won't presume to speak on others.

34JGL53
Bearbeitet: Dez. 29, 2015, 12:47 pm

> 33

That is one interpretation.

Mine is that my logic is complete and infinite, like a circle. - And, as mentioned, the default position. Though I admit that demonstrating a disembodied mind, especially an omniscient one, does not appear to be easy - as in, it hasn't been done yet.

Good luck on your dream journey. To paraphrase the Buddha, if you find your ego on the road, kill it.

35margd
Mai 5, 2017, 8:57 am

The Golden Rule

...In 1993, the Parliament of the World’s Religions was convened in Chicago, with 8,000 people from all over the world coming together to see if they could find a common ethic in their religious traditions that they could use to address the issue of violence. And they came up with the Golden Rule. Not the new materialistic version of the Golden Rule – ‘that those with the gold rule,’ but the old spiritual version of the Golden Rule – ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. It’s a call for all people – regardless of religion – ‘to be the change we want to see in the world’- the ‘people-that-be’ over against ‘the-powers-that-be’.

The great value of the Golden Rule is that it is acceptable not only to religious, but also to secular people. General reciprocity seems to be ‘common to ethical systems everywhere.’...

Hinduism
‘Never do to others what would pain you’
Panchatantra 3.104

Buddhism
‘Hurt not others with that which hurts yourself.’
Udana 5.18

Zoroastrianism
‘Do not to others what is not well for oneself.’
Shayast-na-shayast 13.29

Jainism
‘One who neglects existence disregards their own existence’
Mahavira

Confucianism
‘Do not impose on others what you do not yourself desire.’
Analects 12.2

Taoism
‘Regard your neighbour’s loss or gain as your own loss or gain.’
Tai Shang Kan Ying Pien

Baha’I
‘Desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.’
Baha’Ullah 66

Judaism
‘What is hateful to you do not do to your neighbour.’
Talmud, Shabbat, 31a

Christianity
‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.
Matthew 7.12

Islam
‘Do unto all people as you would they should do to you.’
Mishkat-el-Masabih

Sikhism
‘Treat others as you would be treated yourself.’
Adi Granth

http://wecan.be/

36JGL53
Bearbeitet: Mai 5, 2017, 1:39 pm

> 35

A strong commitment to a quite simple methodology that seems intuitively the best for all humans to follow as much as humanly possible - called the Golden Rule - I must endorse that.

To the degree that any particular organized religion promotes the G.R. and its followers show real commitment to the GR. - that is a good thing. I suppose the reason or reasons anyone commits to following the G.R. is kind of irrelevant - the doing is the important thing.

Any time any organization - religious or secular- promotes actions that are clearly in violation of the G.R. - others would certainly be justified in severely criticizing such actions.

The promulgating or promoting of ontological ideas that are clearly without scientific, empirical, or objective logical foundation is anathema to atheists. This judgement is outside the consideration of the G.R. but is clearly a moral stance. To state the obvious to the oblivious, IF belief in ontological claims without any evidence is acceptable to a person THEN in theory ANY similar claim could be acceptable, including those advocating violation of the G.R.

To atheists the taking of this chance is not worth the risk. Also, the attachment of certain moral judgements, arguably in violation of common human values (the basis of the G.R.) occurs so frequently in organized religions as to give grave concern regarding the very concept of belief in ontological claims without any evidence.

Evidence = scientific and empirical evidence. Epiphanies or individual claims of supernormal events, i.e., unsupported naked testimony, is not evidence.

I think that covers it all. If I missed anything then someone can certainly point that out.

- - Addendum: Just an afterthought - I would be utterly in favor of any religion that preached the following doctrine: "Whether there is a god or not, whether there is a life after death or not, we are committed solely to the Golden Rule. We believe that if a person commits to the Golden Rule then the rest, if there is a rest, will take care of itself. And have a nice day."

Do you know of such a religion, margd? If so, I will sign up tomorrow - if their dues are not excessively high, lol.

37smallself
Jul. 25, 2017, 10:01 pm

>1 richardbsmith:

In brief: Yes, all religions share the same concern. There is one religion, though it has many forms. There is one human race, and ultimately we all want the same things, and participate in the same excellence, which is divine.

Slightly more complicated: I read "The Perennial Philosophy" by Aldous Huxley, and basically he says that there is something he calls the Perennial Philosophy, which basically means mature spirituality, which is found at the root of all of the major religions, East and West. But although it is possible for any religious group to hold to the mature form of human spirituality, it is also possible (e.g. "My revelation is better than your revelation"; "This revelation is the only possible source of true knowledge") for a religious group to degenerate into immature pseudo-spirituality, and to leave behind the one truth which has many forms, for something that only exists for them, and isn't true.

38margd
Jul. 26, 2017, 9:39 am

> 36 Nonzero might be interesting summer read for you if not already under your belt. An atheist/lawyer/ military friend was inspired by Robert Wright's book Nonzero: the Logic of Human Destiny to pursue a PhD. Halfway through his first book The Moral Animal on evolutionary psychology, Wright apparently began to fret on how to curb our selfish ways without religion.

Wikipedia: The principal argument of Nonzero is to demonstrate that natural selection results in increasing complexity within the world and greater rewards for cooperation. Since, as Wright puts it, the realization of such prospects is dependent upon increased levels of globalization, communication, cooperation, and trust, what is thought of as human intelligence is really just a long step in an evolutionary process of organisms (as well as their networks and individual parts) getting better at processing information.

39LolaWalser
Jul. 26, 2017, 12:10 pm

>38 margd:

how to curb our selfish ways without religion.

Seriously? Is all of history for nothing? When and where did religion "curb selfish ways"? How does this purported property of religion to curb selfishness jibe with the positive correlation of religiosity and conservatism? Religiosity and tribalism, religiosity and fundamentalism, wholesale oppression and aggression on anyone who does not belong or toe the line?

And, for the umpteenth time, it's shameless blanket slandering of atheists, who manage to lead moral lives just fine without religion--and manage to do so in higher numbers than the religious hypocrites.

Nonreligious children are more generous

Atheists are no less moral: The sad delusion of the Christian Evangelical movement

Religion Doesn't Make People More Moral, Study Finds

It wasn't 66 million atheists voting for Trump, it wasn't atheists who supported slavery and Jim Crow, invented "for God and country", colonialism, witch hunts and the inquisition, capitalism. And it's not atheists who are messaging McCain now that his cancer is divine punishment.

40margd
Jul. 26, 2017, 1:00 pm

When and where did religion "curb selfish ways"?

A function of religion has been to facilitate our working together in ever-larger groups, e.g. building irrigation canals for the community in Darwin's Cathedral, which also described Christians better surviving plague than did their Roman neighbors. (With eye on eternity, they took better care of the sick.) That said, "working together" is a function that can and has been tragically misused (The True Believer).

We trust people more whom we see regularly exercising common ritual, e.g. wearing prayer shawl in synagogue, and we are more likely to "cheat" when anonymous, e.g., merge lane. Game theorists have shown that practitioners of modern religions are less likely to cheat a stranger at the market than practitioners of traditional religion. Muslims are most honest.

Don't wish to reopen this debate as it's a serial one on LT, and I suspect no minds have ever changed.

41LolaWalser
Jul. 26, 2017, 2:12 pm

>40 margd:

It's hard to change minds chained to scripture at the peril to their immortal souls. But any rational person should at least acknowledge the argument, which is not that it's impossible to do good in the name of religion, but that religion does not prevent and in fact often facilitates doing evil. It's not even an argument, it's a blindingly obvious, everyday, trivial fact.

Muslims are most honest.

And Muslim children, according to the Chicago U. study, the most judgmental and least likely to share with others. And atheists time and again come off better in these morality-comparison studies than the devout in general.

But I'm not proposing a futile philosophical debate--I'm just pointing out that history and current affairs don't in the least bear out the contention that religion "curbs selfishness" and certainly not in comparison to secular ethics.

42JGL53
Bearbeitet: Jul. 26, 2017, 4:55 pm

> margd -

Atheists aren't stupid (low I.Q.) and atheists are not fools (regarding religion at least).

Therein lies your proselytizing problem, especially in terms of pure logic - regarding ethics, morality, ontology, science or anything else of a "serious" nature.

Religion appeals only to a sense of guilt or shame, or to ego and self-interest, or to reward vs. punishment (stick vs. carrot) as regards attempts to modify human behavior in a positive way.

This is the morality of three year-old children. I think we adult humans can do better than that. Can you even imagine - on your own -how this can be achieved, or do you need prompting by me or some other atheist?

Even the very pretty and fancy talk of "sophisticated" religionists is at the three year old level. E.g., the appeal to the proper "relationship" with god - that god is our father in heaven and he loves us and wants us to do good - and we should love him in return as good children do and thus seek to please him, thus behaving in accordance with his wishes - and aiming at establishing the most wonderful parent/child relationship, at its presumably highest level. IOW, do bad and you make baby jesus cry - do good and the trinity is/are all smiles (assuming the holy ghost can smile, lol).

Three-year-old child morality ...... good god indeed! .......blah.

Come up with something actually more sophisticated - or you may bow out gracefully on the entire subject.

43paradoxosalpha
Bearbeitet: Jul. 26, 2017, 5:08 pm

>42 JGL53: Religion appeals only to a sense of guilt or shame, or to ego and self-interest, or to reward vs. punishment (stick vs. carrot) as regards attempts to modify human behavior in a positive way.

I often enjoy your cranky polemics, but here your generalizations fall painfully flat. You may not have experienced it these ways yourself, but societies and practices fairly categorized as "religion" can appeal to other very different senses than the ones you itemize, such as:
- familiarity and affection
- honor and conscience
- creativity and beauty
- curiosity and truth

While I would never exempt religion from Sturgeon's Law, categorical claims must take into account minority and marginal cases. (And thus I register my dissent with the idea that "religions share the same concern.")

44JGL53
Jul. 26, 2017, 10:17 pm

> 43

Surely you jest.

I.e., religion (beliefs, organizations, practice, liturgy, music, etc.) may have the elements you list. In organized religion all the elements you list will be present because wherever humans are present so will those individual and societal positive elements.

Here's your problem: Such positive elements exist without religion, i.e., there is no evidence that religion is necessary for such elements to exist. Your second problem: There is no good evidence - on balance - that religion increases such elements or makes them more likely to exist. There is no positive correlation - much less proof of causation - between religion and positive moral elements such as you describe.

Such elements are based in natural human empathy and exist in various areas of human life outside of and independent of religious belief. Art comes to mind, as does sport, military service, charitable service, the nuclear family, science and scientific curiosity, natural existing love attachment and feelings - familial, brotherly and eros/amour. And Mother Nature in her beauty, awe and mystery needs no added extranatural elements based in faith or naked belief (wish-thinking) as some needed icing on the cake.

I state redundantly - all of the elements you cite can and do exist outside of and unconnected to religious belief and convictions. Do you deny this? If you think religion and religious belief adds to or increases such elements where is the proof of that?

I stand by my statement with some clarifying language - religion is - in its basic stance or in its essence - nothing more than an appeal to a sense of guilt or shame, or to ego and self-interest, or to reward vs. punishment (stick vs. carrot) - or to never grow up and remain forever the child who exist as the under-card in a cosmic father/child relationship.

Religious belief is a wish-fulfillment fantasy created by humans for humans.

45paradoxosalpha
Jul. 26, 2017, 11:57 pm

>44 JGL53:

Here's your problem: Your pejorative elements exist without religion too, i.e., there is no evidence that religion is necessary for a sense of guilt or shame, or ... ego and self-interest, or ... reward vs. punishment (stick vs. carrot) as regards attempts to modify human behavior in a positive way, or ethical infantilism. When you isolate these as the "basic stance or essence" of religion, you are simply making a perspectival choice, and one which I expect you have had little effect in making persuasive to other people who have thought about this subject, although I've seen you repeatedly make the attempt.

I noticed your insertion of the phrase "religious belief," implying (from where I sit) that your definition of "religion" as a whole is of the Protestant sort prioritizing creed and theology, the sort of thing justly called "the excrement of human thought" by the chief founder of the religion to which I subscribe.

46JGL53
Jul. 27, 2017, 1:27 am

> 45

If you want to think of Protestant religion as "excrement of human thought" then I will endorse that. You may add Catholicism and Judaism and Islam in to that also. I will not sink to your jingoistic level and play favorites. lol.

I did not mean to seem as if I were saying that guilt and shame and ego and self-interest, etc. were unique to religion, or created by it. Of course these things do exist outside of religion and would exist if religion did not. They are the methods or tools or ways of exploitation utilized by religion. It is religion that would not exist in the absence these negative traits. Religion focuses in on and exacerbates these human failings - and exploits them to the fullest.

I am sure that if religion did not exist then televangelists and such would be secular exploiters of the psychological susceptible in some way or another - god knows, so to speak, they would continue to eschew any honest job. Without any religion scam preachers and priests and such would have to become three-card Monte artists or astrologers or Tarot readers or dishonest used-car salesmen, or some such. They are parasites who right now live off the hopes and fears and dreams and desires of their childish flocks of sheep.

I think the ultimate basis of religious "thought" is appeal to ego - the rest is peripheral to that. Religion feeds directly into the intuition of the human psyche that the universe is all about us. We are the center of it all and the apple of god's eye. The earth was created as a home for humans, otherwise it would have no purpose or use. We humans are the immortal species. We are a "special creation" of the creator of everything. God is the Big Cheese, we humans his greatest created beings, with angels below us. So says the bible.

Religion is how humans express their ultimate cosmic-level narcissism - species narcissism as it were.



47paradoxosalpha
Jul. 27, 2017, 11:11 am

>46 JGL53:

So it is evident that you and I disagree on the answer to the original question of the thread. You would answer "yes" (and that it is a reprehensible "concern"), and I would answer "no." You seem to have as great an investment in religion as a sui generis phenomenon as those who champion it do.

For a solid argument against sui generis religion, I would recommend Feuerbach: Lectures on the Essence of Religion, Lecture 25. You might find Feuerbach likeable on the "religion as cosmic-level narcissism" front. “In religion man does not satisfy other beings; he satisfies his own nature.”

48JGL53
Bearbeitet: Jul. 31, 2017, 7:06 pm

> 47

I never indicated I thought religion was unique in its exploitation of the unwashed masses. I think I made it clear I consider it the most dangerous because it is ubiquitous and the most politically powerful example of the worst humans can be. So, in short, don't put words in my mouth. (And, I hope to make clear below that by "religion" as a bad thing I am speaking of western monotheism, i.e., what IS religion to the unwashed masses in much of the world.)

The OP lists the top five organized religions in terms of numbers of adherents. Of course there are major differences, as has long been obvious to students of comparative religion.

The differences among the three western monotheistic religions are thought to be many and varied but I see them as boiling down to the same. Salvation from sin, submission, ethics and covenant - all thoroughly about (god this has become boring) appeals to a sense of guilt or shame, to ego and self-interest, and to reward vs. punishment - or, more to the precise point, as I summed up in paragraph four in post #46.

Buddhism (detachment from suffering) and Hinduism (release from this world of evil), along with Taoism, are, in their effect, the antithesis of western monotheism - which probably, in essence, makes them true, lol.

The eastern thought religions are strangely based in thought rather than ego-desires. They discern that ego-desires are best dissolved rather than catered to and fed. Monotheists think this is insane as they can only interpret such as denial of self-importance and denial of the importance of having the ultimate ego-desires one day fulfilled. Monotheists can only interpret eastern thought religion as escapism - essentially reality-denial, i.e., denial of the existence of the ego-self and, of course, denial of the Great Ego-Self - the personal creator god.

The folk or popular religions of Buddhism and Hinduism are as crazed as those of western monotheism. The unadulterated basis of eastern thought - monism, or pantheism - is utterly harmless. But, humans being human, we get add-on bells and whistles, such as reincarnation and the law of karma, so it is one step forward, one hundred steps backwards with the unwashed masses.

But I am a monist and thus agree with the essential idea of eastern thought. I am more of a materialist monist, or a neutral monist, but Brahman Nirguna - what is that really other than neutral monism? I do not get pissy over flavors of ice cream. Ice cream itself = good. lol.

But the real sociological upshot of all this is: grasping after the fulfillment of the desires of the (separate) ego-self = bad whilst identity with (and empathy with) ALL = good. Monism seems perfectly harmless - i.e., no harmful side effects - and makes one feel all warm and toasty all over.

How to "know" all this? The proof is in the pudding or try it, you'll not only like it but utterly prefer it. Something like that.

So - if someone feels the need of religion then fine - so what is wrong with that of the late and famous Albert Einstein? It seems perfectly harmless - i.e., no harmful side effects - and makes one feel all warm and toasty all over.