Religion as an Invention

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, August 23, 2026 16:07
VIEWED: 9267
PAGE 4 of 12

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Thursday, April 7, 2011 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But, do people "need" to believe?

To me, religion is about control. In explained and propitiated disease, rain, game, fertility, lightening, luck, and other natural forces. It still does in primitive societies, and even in some modern ones. As society grew, it was used to control another force which came into being: the thoughts of many people living together.

Pretty much the way I see it.

I also figure that religion has been used to give individuals and groups power or benefits they wouldn't ordinarily have. I suspect that early on, some clever hunter/gatherer told his tribe, "I can make the game appear and the fruit easy to find by performing this secret rite to the gods. Of course that means I can't be out hunting and gathering, so if you'll just keep me fed...". And when the game didn't appear, it'd be easy to blame someone else's actions for angering the gods.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, April 7, 2011 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
One exception that comes to mind is Ayn Rand. Most of those who read it seem to either reject it or accept it, and if they accept it, trust the conclusion in a religious manner...

...Another way of putting it is "Religion is a whole life philosophy, to be accepted in its entirety by its followers"

In the way that someone like Nietzsche isn't.

Well said.

Though I think, ultimately, it is impossible to say when a philosophy begins and when a religion ends. Both involve worldviews, metaphysical questions and pursuits, and lifestyle changes.

I see them sharing a continuum, with narrowly defined rituals for pleasing deity personalities on one end, and broadly defined suggestions for "way of life" to bring balance and goodness to the universe on the other end.

I think any line drawn on the continuum to separate religion from philosophy is arbitrary and subjective.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 7, 2011 1:47 PM

Ah, well, the Chinese have a slightly different take on Buddhism, where some bodhisvattas and/or manifestations of Buddha are prayed to as interventionary gods and goddesses such as Guan Yin... It really depends on the school. Plus, Buddhism can be paired up with other schools to create fusion religions, such as Hindu-Buddhists (which then leads to Vajrayana Buddhists practicing tantric rituals), and Zen-Shintoism, even sometimes Christiano-Buddhism. Though in most of those cases I'll agree that Buddhism is more of a moral guideline code, and it's the Gods and such coming from the other religion.

I think the difference between a religion and philosophy is not the presence of a god in the idea, but rather ritual. Meditation in this life to achieve enlightenment after death strikes me as religious, whereas Nietzche and Thoreau do not. Though I admit there are definitely some followers of those philosophies who can act rather religiously at times.

KPO

Thursday, April 7, 2011 2:06 PM

Quote:
I think any line drawn on the continuum to separate religion from philosophy is arbitrary and subjective.

Well you can have secular philosohpies (secular of course meaning divorced from religion), like Secular Humanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Perhaps you could talk about a continuum of religion and spirituality - and reword the OP question: 'Is spirituality important?'

Simple spirituality (minus organised religion) seems quite benign to me. I would still like to see humanity move beyond it though.

It's not personal. It's just war.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 7, 2011 2:46 PM

I also agree spirituality is relatively benign, though it does have pros and cons to it. A person may be uplifted by spirituality, but some people who may be prone to delusions can sometimes try to act out their spirituality in a manner which harms themselves or others.

I have no particular problem with followers of a religion so long as they do not commit or are not willfully complicit in atrocity.

But as to philosophy and religion in general, I have some major anti-authority issues with all of them, including towards other atheists. Patriotism with all it's spiritualism and ritual has obvious problems. Even science has it's dangers. I try to remain as ignorant as possible, just so ideas can't creep up on me and influence my ideas and actions without me recognizing where the ideas were engendered. So, I'm not the best person to talk about this, which is why I haven't commented yet here, and probably won't comment much beyond this.

PHOENIXROSE

Thursday, April 7, 2011 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
You are essentially attacking one religion here, and its splinter religions.

Actually, I am not. If you must use the word, I'm 'attacking' an offensive and destructive way of thinking. You're attributing that to "one" religion, which I find odd. I've been saying in every single post I've made on this thread that a philosophy is a fine and dandy thing, because it is mutable. Gospel/dogma is not mutable, and not a fine or dandy thing. The words of the "prophets" are, by and large, philosophy. Suggestion. Invitations to explore and contemplate. I said that in the same post where I said Taoism was a philosophy, so perhaps you should read a little less selectively.
Do I think contemplative "religions" that actively encourage introspection and don't have a deity are less prone to dogma? Yes, yes I do. Because they are. That's a fact. Are all non-Abrahamic religions necessarily contemplative and non-theistic? No, I never said that, mostly because it isn't the case. Are Abrahamic religions especially prone to dogma? Yes, because they are wildly theistic. So were ancient Egyptians, long before the time of Abraham. Organized and stringent religion is, by its nature, not a philosophy. It might use philosophy in part, but the majority is dogma. Do not mistake one for the other.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, April 7, 2011 3:58 PM

Geezer,

I don't think so. Tribe with religion was just more organized than tribe without religion, so it defeated it.

CTS,

well said, basically. I think there is philosophy which isn't taken on faith, but it is a continuum.

Byte,

I think it is religion when you are willing to accept B before you have gotten from A to B in a logical step by step manner.

For the record, I support the concept of organized religion. I think that it helps the collective protection of the people. One just has to be wary of giving it any centralized power, just like with govt.

If you really had no governing structure at all, your biggest threat would not be chaos, but predation by other govts. and powers. So, a shell state can protect against this, as can a religion.

A philosophy really cannot, because no eight year old is going to have reached all of the end wisdom that can be derived from it, and so he will fall prey to manipulations.

PR,

Even within the confines of western religion, Christian muslim and jewish doctrine has changed radically over the years. That's why you have monestaries, etc. so people can study and come up with do ideas.

I agree there is a problem when anything becomes rigidly dogmatic, but this is not confined to religion. A govt. or philosophy or culture which cannot evolve or accept change is going have the same issues. And when the values don't change, it seems that the elite in power also stop changing.

That said, sometimes change isn't good.

Also, I think we're splitting hairs at this point

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

PHOENIXROSE

Thursday, April 7, 2011 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Ah, well, the Chinese have a slightly different take on Buddhism, where some bodhisvattas and/or manifestations of Buddha are prayed to...

Some there do treat it in that way, but that's why I said that praying to Buddha went against everything he stood for. I know there are those that do it, but that doesn't mean they're correct in doing so. Repression in communist China runs so deep that it's likely they don't know much about the way it's supposed to work, with contemplation and your own awakening delivering you to Paradise, not an Awakened One delivering you to Paradise. Enlightenment happens in the lifetime, though, not after death. If you are Awakened in life, you will move to a higher plane of existence, which can be interpreted as living in joy on this Earth, or actually going somewhere else for your next life. Or both.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 7, 2011 7:02 PM

Hmm. I'd probably say it's more of a different cultural interpretation of the same teachings than it's a "they're wrong" thing. I mean, they had to translate between languages, and the Chinese have had natural forces and ancestral spirits they've paid homage to for like forever, so when Buddhism came into the region they merged the natural spirits with figures from Buddhism. It's a variation on the religion, or dogma if you prefer, and so long as they're not hurting anyone who's to say that what they're doing is "wrong?"

Communist China is pretty oppressive, but Buddhism is actually the largest organized faith in China. The real friction there is that the Chinese have their own Dalai Lama that they want acknowledged instead of the Tibetan one (you can guess why).

PHOENIXROSE

Thursday, April 7, 2011 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
who's to say that what they're doing is "wrong?"

Gautama Siddhartha. See above; he did not preach gospel or dogma. Quite the opposite.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE