Religion What's your religion ?

[Elizabeth]

=> Elizabeth

Religion

Definitions are always dangerous because they are subjective and will never satisfy everybody.

My Oxford dictionary says : 1b) particular system of faith and worship

I could say that atheism is a particular system of faith, though there is obviously no worship - but Theravada Buddhist also don't worship, since they have no deities and consider that Buddha was just a man. If Buddhism is a religion (lots of people think of it as a philosophy rather than religion, just to show confusing definitions are), atheism is just the same : a system of faith or beliefs. Actually "faith" is a bit strong for Buddhism (or even Shinto), since its followers are not asked to believe in anything. People are free to practise it if they want, but there is no obligation or rules.

Anyway why is it so important for you to argue about this ? This poll is about religions AND belief systems. (I'll change the title to make this clear)

You can change the subject line of the poll, but it doesn't make atheism and agnosticism any more 'systematic' in any meaningful sense of the word, even against the weak comparison of other traditional eastern religions or philosophies, if all they share is a single belief in the non-existence of god based on logical reasoning or are skeptical but not ready to come down either way. It's still the 'irreligious' equivilent of belief in a certain vision of civil society of politics or social ideology.

 

[Maciamo]

You can change the subject line of the poll, but it doesn't make atheism and agnosticism any more 'systematic' in any meaningful sense of the word, even against the weak comparison of other traditional eastern religions or philosophies, if all they share is a single belief in the non-existence of god based on logical reasoning or are skeptical but not ready to come down either way. It's still the 'irreligious' equivilent of belief in a certain vision of civil society of politics or social ideology.

So what ? I still don't see your point. They are not institutionalised, but everybody knows what is "atheism", probably better than what some religions are.

The problem is that you expect a religion to have clearly defined rules, institutions, "temples", etc. Atheism rejects the idea of god, so that's only natural there shouldn't be any of these. What's more "atheism" has existed for longer than most well-established religions, eventhough before the rise of civilization humans were probably either animists or without any beliefs/religion. Monotheistic religions were created by humans to control society using humans deepest fears and the most unverifiable concepts ; polytheistic religions were made to explain Nature and give a feeling of "security" through worshiping a particular god. Animistic religions sprang out of human natural irrational fear and non understanding of Nature.
So, you could put them in order of evolution : animism => polytheism => monotheism - including deism, which is the non-religious version of the belief, and came later historically( especially since the 18th century enlighenment).
Atheism is the latest phase of evolution, and came as a reaction
to poly- and monotheism, which is why I can't think of it as entirely separate of religion. If a human being were to be isolated from society from birth, chances are that he/she would become animist or have no spiritual beliefs/religion whatsoever. Atheists can only exist is theist societies, as their antithesis.

Does that make sense for you ?

 

[Haivart]

Maciamo, why do you equate all monotheistic religions with fear?

 

[Faira]

I guess i'm a christian, I have mixed feelings about it, and i beleive in a lot of other stuff...

 

[Maciamo]

Maciamo, why do you equate all monotheistic religions with fear?

That depends on each person feelings. Nowadays lots of Christians aren't "afraid" of God. That's a sign things are changing. People are becoming more reasonable. However, historically "fear" has been one of the foundation of the 3 big monotheist religion nowadays (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). If you read the old Testament, it's all about divine anger and punishment. I am not sure about the Egyptian cult of Amon-Ra, Zoroastrianism or Sikhism though. Can you think of other monotheisms ?

There usually is a "fear factor" in every religion that imposes (moral) rules or aim at controlling the populace. Similarily, a country's legal system needs people to fear some kind of punishment if they want it to be abided. Religions like Shinto or Buddhism are kind of free of fear of god(s) because there are no compulsory rules.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Here in the "Bible Belt" a lot of it is based on fear. All of those sayings I grew up hearing, such as "if you drive a nail in on Sunday, you'll be pulling it out with your teeth on Judgement Day". Things like that. To this day, I still feel somewhat ashamed(although I know I shouldn't) for mowing my grass on Sunday, because I know some of the older people around here are thinking I'm going to burn in hell for doing it.

Is that a nice, peaceful way to think about something? The hypocrisy is neverending...

 

[Elizabeth]

So what ? I still don't see your point. They are not institutionalised, but everybody knows what is "atheism", probably better than what some religions are.

The problem is that you expect a religion to have clearly defined rules, institutions, "temples", etc. Atheism rejects the idea of god, so that's only natural there shouldn't be any of these. What's more "atheism" has existed for longer than most well-established religions, eventhough before the rise of civilization humans were probably either animists or without any beliefs/religion. Monotheistic religions were created by humans to control society using humans deepest fears and the most unverifiable concepts ; polytheistic religions were made to explain Nature and give a feeling of "security" through worshiping a particular god. Animistic religions sprang out of human natural irrational fear and non understanding of Nature.
So, you could put them in order of evolution : animism => polytheism => monotheism - including deism, which is the non-religious version of the belief, and came later historically( especially since the 18th century enlighenment).
Atheism is the latest phase of evolution, and came as a reaction
to poly- and monotheism, which is why I can't think of it as entirely separate of religion. If a human being were to be isolated from society from birth, chances are that he/she would become animist or have no spiritual beliefs/religion whatsoever. Atheists can only exist is theist societies, as their antithesis.

Does that make sense for you ?

Yes, and there's no need to get defensive about it. . It's just because I am interested in the psychology of religion (or was at one point), I thought it was important to emphasize the distinction which you had stretched a bit earlier in speaking of atheism as a religion between more heavily insitutionalized religions that have spawned these modern antitheses with those on the 'belief systems' side of the spectrum, such as Shinto and some forms of Buddhism that allow for atheism and agnosticism (or have it built in as the case may be).

And I think religion absolutely serves a myriad of purposes, other than giving people a sense of control over their destiny through fear. For sure there is going to be a certain level of malevolence and deception simply due to the size and power organized religions have traditionally enjoyed. It would be the same if scientists had had such an ability to control the masses. There would be even greater and more horrific abuses of power I have no doubt.

But churches can of course provide all kinds of positive benefits as well or more "reasonable," liberal denominations that don't preach fear and damnation would have been wiped out entirely in the last 30 or 40 years. Such as a natural framework for a sense of community with like-minded others (even with Shintoism, that is traditionally one of the main functions of festivals and holidays). They also have the leverage to set up extremely powerful charitable institutions -- certainly than anything secularists have devised --(hospitals, schools, humanitarian aid, etc) as well as the ability to instill in their members a passion for social welfare and activism (living a godly or Christ-like life) that in many cases lasts even after the individual has become disillusioned with religion for other reasons.

Well, I'll try to think of more later. :note:

 

[Maciamo]

Here in the "Bible Belt" a lot of it is based on fear. All of those sayings I grew up hearing, such as "if you drive a nail in on Sunday, you'll be pulling it out with your teeth on Judgement Day". Things like that. To this day, I still feel somewhat ashamed(although I know I shouldn't) for mowing my grass on Sunday, because I know some of the older people around here are thinking I'm going to burn in hell for doing it.

Hehe, that's exactly what priests and teachers used to say in Catholic parts of Europe till not so long ago. My parents were actually taught this at school (and at home) and even when I was a child that's what we would be inculcated during religion classes in primary school and in catechism when I was 6. But already at that time I had a rebelious approach of religion and would ask the teacher unanswerable questions.

 

[Maciamo]

Pantheism, Atheism and Hinduism

I've forgotten to include "pantheism" in the poll. There aren't any major pantheistic religion (Buddhism is sometimes viewed as pantheistic) outside polytheistic Hinduism, which already has a category of its own, so it could be assimilated with Atheism, which is basically the same - just a matter of denomination. Here is the main difference. Pantheist identify the Universe with God, and God with the Universe. In this conception, the Universe is one great infinite and eternal reality.

Incidentally, that fits almost exactly with my personnal view of Atheism. Everything that exist is the reality or the universe. It's all the same thing. If something is real, it exist and is part of the universe. If something isn't in the uinverse (god for example) it is not real and thus doesn't exist. So the only way to accept a Supreme Being (God)'s existence is to equal it with the infinite and eternal universe. Some people call it Nature (during the Romantic movement of the early 19th century in Europe), other the Universe or Reality or God. That's only a matter of denomination (but it's important to some people, so I've made another category).

Hindus consider Brahman, one of their 3 main Gods with Vishnu and Shiva, among million others, has the creator of the Universe and represent the supreme unity of reality. I other words, everything is part of Brahman or the Universe. Vishnu (the protector) symbolises "stability", while Shiva (the destructor) symbolises "change" in this Universe. The other gods are typical polytheist gods of luck, money, music, arts, fertility, death, etc.

Hinduism being such a particular religion, mixing elements of polytheism, monotheism and pantheism, that it deserves its own category.

Sikhism is also very interesting as it combines elements of Hinduism and Islam, taking a monotheistic view of God, but keeping the Hindu caste system.

 

[Mandylion]

Religions like Shinto or Buddhism are kind of free of fear of god(s) because there are no compulsory rules.

Shinto may not, I really don't know. Buddhism, both Therevadan and Mahayanan are full of rule. The big fear is if you don't follow them, you cannot be freed from the cycle of rebirth. Continued suffering into eternity doesn't sound like fun to me. Even Therevadans and Mahayanan's have huge numbers of rules for their monks and nuns (something like 300 and 315, I don' have the numbers at hand), less for the laypeople, of course.

Free from fear, perhaps less than Judeo-Christians, but fear their can be. There is a hell in both sects of Buddhism with some very graphic descriptions. Karma is a tricky thing. Free from compulsory rules? Hardly.

In the world of religions, no sect of Buddhism should be painted as the hippies of the devotional world. The forceful expressions of relgious belief may not be as in-your-face like Western religions, but Buddhist will step to the plate when need be.

Soldiers who demanded quartering at a Buddhist temple thought they were not getting the treatment due their station. They ate the same food as the lowly monks, slept in the same rooms, and endured the same harsh conditions. ?gWhy do you think we are??h they demanded ?gWe are soldiers, giving our lives for our country!?h The monks replied, ?gWho do you think we are! We are soldiers giving our lives to save all sentient beings!?h -- Zen Flesh, Zen Bones.

Let's all watch our generalizations.

 

[Maciamo]

=> Elizabeth

I agree with everything you said in your last message. I think we have found a common ground there. Indeed, if religions like Christianity hadn't evolved to more positive and open-minded forms, they would have been wiped out (at least in developed countries) in the late 20th century. I've nothing against people who want to lead a "Christ-like" life. That's actually good. But lots of these people don't believe in most of the non historical old testament anymore (especially the genesis). That's why I argued eariler that they had changed the meaning of Christianity and should be called otherwise ("modern Christian" ?) as their beliefs are radically different of that of Christians throughout history.

 

[Maciamo]

Shinto may not, I really don't know. Buddhism, both Therevadan and Mahayanan are full of rule. The big fear is if you don't follow them, you cannot be freed from the cycle of rebirth. Continued suffering into eternity doesn't sound like fun to me. Even Therevadans and Mahayanan's have huge numbers of rules for their monks and nuns (something like 300 and 315, I don' have the numbers at hand), less for the laypeople, of course.

Free from fear, perhaps less than Judeo-Christians, but fear their can be. There is a hell in both sects of Buddhism with some very graphic descriptions. Karma is a tricky thing. Free from compulsory rules? Hardly.

@rules
Buddhist rules are chiefly for monks and nuns, not the populace. That's why I said compulsory rules. Monastic rules are like those you would find in a school, not immuable moral rules like in Monotheistic religions. What do you think ?

@Buddhist hell
The only Buddhist fear is that of being reincarnated in a lower level of existence. Buddhist hell is just the 6th and lowest level, but it's still the reality, not another dimension outside the material universe. Hinduism shares the same concept of Karma and reincarnations. That's only natural as Siddhartha Gautama was Hindu, before becoming the Buddha.
But there is no vengeful God, Judgement or eternal burning in hell. For Buddhists and Hindus, life is only temporary and so is hell. One can improve its condition by behaving well and will have a better reincarnated life next time. Hindo-Buddhist and Judeo-Christian fears are not comparable. The latter is much scarier.

 

[Elizabeth]

But lots of these people don't believe in most of the non historical old testament anymore (especially the genesis). That's why I argued eariler that they had changed the meaning of Christianity and should be called otherwise ("modern Christian" ?) as their beliefs are radically different of that of Christians throughout history.

It's really hard to say anymore with the astounding rate at which Christianity is speading in developing countries and particularly in the Southern hemisphere, which tend to stress a more rigidly conservative and communal theology than in Europe and America. The last I read something like 40% of Africans now consider themselves Christian (as opposed to 9-10% in the early 1900s) and according to some estimates by 2025 half of all Christians in the world will live in Africa and Latin America with another 17% living in Asia.

The traditional relationship between modern science and Christianity is a fascinating one, though. That predominately Christian and, since the Reformation, largely Protestant countries have provided the most fertile breeding ground (and probably worldview as well) for the development of modern science and technology. Maybe there is something in inherant in Protestant values that spawned capitalism in the 16th-18th centuries reaching its zenith with Puritan diligence, industry, and hard work, etc that would stressed glorifying God through practical scientific developments as opposed to monastic or contemplative life.

 

[Maciamo]

It's really hard to say anymore with the astounding rate at which Christianity is speading in developing countries and particularly in the Southern hemisphere...

Is it really spreading now ? In South American all the convertion took place in the 16th, 17th and 18th century and it's a long time all these countries are 99% Christians. In Africa, that's the period from the late 19th century to the independence of most countries in the 1960's. But even after the independence lots of Europeans stayed in Africa, especially teachers and missionaries. My point is that most of the convertion took place between 1900 and maybe the 1960's or 70's, not recently.

As Christianity loses influence in Europe (and also in North America, but nothing as dramatic), it's normal that a majority of Christians should be found in Africa, Latin America or Asia already nowadays.

The traditional relationship between modern science and Christianity is a fascinating one, though. That predominately Christian and, since the Reformation, largely Protestant countries have provided the most fertile breeding ground (and probably worldview as well) for the development of modern science and technology. Maybe there is something in inherant in Protestant values that spawned capitalism in the 16th-18th centuries reaching its zenith with Puritan diligence, industry, and hard work, etc that would stressed glorifying God through practical scientific developments as opposed to monastic or contemplative life.

I don't know what make you link science and Protestantism (except that you are probably Protestant yourself, aren't you ?). I couldn't disagree more with this. Western style science was born in non Christian Ancient Greece, then knew its darkest age of repression and near oblivion during the all too Christian Middle Ages, reappeared with the religious liberalism of the Renaissance in Italy - you know, that period where Pope Jules II was seen more often at war on his horse than in a Church, or Pope Alexander VI Borgia had sex with his daughter and supported his son's wars - what religiosity ! but that's when science and arts flourished.

After that, till the 19th century, science was dominated by Catholic France (though lots of the brightest minds were rather anti-clerical, especially during th e18th century Enlightment, which led to the French revolution, which was a movement against the aristocracy AND thr Church, and Christianity was first banned before being reintroduced by Napoleon).

Protestant Scandinavia, the Netherlands or North Germany were not very prominent at that time. England has always been divided between Catholics, Protestants and Anglicans. It's probably for economic or cultural reasons (Germanic languages, as the tendency isn't the same in non Germanic Finland or Baltic countries ?) that Northern Europe sprouted more scientists in the late 19th and 20th century.

Anyway, France and Italy are still 2 of the most proficient countries in science, especially in maths (France) and medicine. Nowadays, There are lots of great Indian or Japanese scientists, so I really don't see the connection between Protestantism - or even Christianity and science.

 

[KoranRi]

Not sure whther to click other or other form of Christianity. I'm a Jehovah;s Witness, so I dun know what u would consider that. Because although I *am* Christian, I don;t fit your definition of Christian exactly becasue well for one I don't believe in the trinity.

 

[Mandylion]

@rules
Buddhist rules are chiefly for monks and nuns, not the populace. That's why I said compulsory rules. Monastic rules are like those you would find in a school, not immuable moral rules like in Monotheistic religions. What do you think ?

I think there are some quite clear and compulsory rules. First one that springs to mind is the Five Precepts.


These are for Buddhist laymen, common to both traditions. Taken from http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/beg/005-practice.htm

"To help to guard against bad conducts and deed, Buddhists are required to observe the Five Precepts of Buddhism. They comprise of a basic moral discipline applicable to any person in a civilized society. These are the basic rules that Buddhists must follow:

1. No killing: not to destroy or harm human or animal lives.

2. No stealing: not to steal, or rob other people's money or property.

3. No adultery: not to carry on improper or immoral relationship or sexual activities.

4. No lies: to speak only the truth, not to lie, deceive, use abusive languages, or engage in idle talk.

5. No intoxicants: Not to drink alcoholic beverages or take drugs as they will cause man to lose control of their minds, and harm their bodies."

I agree with you on the concept of hell in Buddhism not being exactly the same as Judeo-Christian, but I would not say hell is something people look forward to. You can be in hell for a very long time, true, not eternity, and it is not fun. The prospect of going to hell is not approached with an "aw, shucks"
attitude. A large portion of Buddhist ceremonies are dedicated to getting people out of hell (obon is coming up soon in Japa. obon is not completly tied to spirits in hell, but there are connections in some ceremonies).

 

[Elizabeth]

Is it really spreading now ? In South American all the convertion took place in the 16th, 17th and 18th century and it's a long time all these countries are 99% Christians. In Africa, that's the period from the late 19th century to the independence of most countries in the 1960's. But even after the independence lots of Europeans stayed in Africa, especially teachers and missionaries. My point is that most of the convertion took place between 1900 and maybe the 1960's or 70's, not recently.

As Christianity loses influence in Europe (and also in North America, but nothing as dramatic), it's normal that a majority of Christians should be found in Africa, Latin America or Asia already nowadays.

Here is an article outlining these demographic trends from one of its foremost scholars (or popularizers), if you're interested.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm

 

[Maciamo]

I've haven't finished to read the article, but I've found the mention of the "global South" (Africa, Asia and South America) and it makes me think that the author doesn't know what he is talking about. It's so gross to mix all these regions up. There are both Catholics and Protestants in Asia. Let's take South Korea for instance, they are roughly 50-50 and the differences are the same as in Europe or in the States. I don't know where that guy finds a "Third Church, a form of Christianity as distinct as Protestantism or Orthodoxy". In the Philippines, 95% of the Christians are Catholic and for having been there, I don't know what's so different of the European version. In South America, people are all traditional Catholic, very much like in Latin European countries 50 years ago. I guess Africa is the exception were people are mixing elements of their native animist religion to Christianity, which has already resulted in such things as Voodoo (but that one has actually grown up in America). Some so-called "scholars" ought to travel a bit before writing such abominations.

 

[Elizabeth]

I don't know what make you link science and Protestantism (except that you are probably Protestant yourself, aren't you ?). I couldn't disagree more with this. Western style science was born in non Christian Ancient Greece, then knew its darkest age of repression and near oblivion during the all too Christian Middle Ages, reappeared with the religious liberalism of the Renaissance in Italy - you know, that period where Pope Jules II was seen more often at war on his horse than in a Church, or Pope Alexander VI Borgia had sex with his daughter and supported his son's wars - what religiosity ! but that's when science and arts flourished.

After that, till the 19th century, science was dominated by Catholic France (though lots of the brightest minds were rather anti-clerical, especially during th e18th century Enlightment, which led to the French revolution, which was a movement against the aristocracy AND thr Church, and Christianity was first banned before being reintroduced by Napoleon).

Protestant Scandinavia, the Netherlands or North Germany were not very prominent at that time. England has always been divided between Catholics, Protestants and Anglicans. It's probably for economic or cultural reasons (Germanic languages, as the tendency isn't the same in non Germanic Finland or Baltic countries ?) that Northern Europe sprouted more scientists in the late 19th and 20th century.

Anyway, France and Italy are still 2 of the most proficient countries in science, especially in maths (France) and medicine. Nowadays, There are lots of great Indian or Japanese scientists, so I really don't see the connection between Protestantism - or even Christianity and science. [/B]

OK--just sticking with Christianity and Europe (I did neglect moderate Anglicanism in England) as the birthplace of empiricism and the experimental method in the 17th Century roughly beginning with Galileo and based on Francis Bacon's utilitarianism. (Which called for advancements in science that would benefit human life and follow the empirical method of observation/data collection as the basis for induction.)

Among the myriad reasons for the revolution taking place here, one of them almost certainly being Christianity. Science and paganism are obviously incompatible, but it is also a priori incompatible with religious or belief systems that don't conceive of time as linear or think in terms of cause-effect relationships in nature. That have an organismic view of nature which says that everything is alive. That believe the heavens to be alive or divine. That don't see man as fundamentally and qualitatively different from other species on and on. There has to be a balance between faith and reason or all explanations inevitably turn to an all-powerful, absolutist conception of God or the divine (perhaps one reason the scientific method wasn't conceived in Islamic countries before Europe). Which to my understanding some or all of these notions can be found in aspect of Hinduism, Buddhism and even Islam.

Anyway, so much for gross generalizations , just maybe something worth considering.

 

[Malice Mices]

Roman Catholic! weee

....

EEk!!!

*dives under her computer to avoid the rocks, discount bricks and other foriegn objects thrown at her*