Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[chewybrian]

1 I chuckled with the “wish in one hand.....” remark. My Father introduced me to that philosophy when I was a kid.

This is the cornerstone of stoic philosophy and the most important thing I ever learned. It has often been restated in different forms, such as the serenity prayer, or "wish in one hand...". It is the foundation of anger management, 12 step programs and cognitive behavioral therapy. It is this:

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed. --"The Enchiridion", Epictetus

He's telling you there is no percentage in not facing up to reality in any way. You are a fool to shake your fist at the sky because it is raining, and equally foolish to wish you would not get old and die, or that your football team would not lose. All the harsh realities of life are eventually coming for you. You can take them as a given, like the rain, or as a shock, beyond belief, as many take illness or death, or even a loss in a football game. Events simply come to pass. It is up to you to attach sadness, anger or anxiety to them, or to accept them and remove their power.

There is no need to understand reality fully to accept it, nor to decide if this is the best things could be, or if we are somehow getting shortchanged. It is enough to face reality squarely and move forward as best you are able. This is no small thing, and many of us never manage it.

2 Upon building on what has been discussed: how is it a what if? Assuming that we both believe in continual existence Beyond the human form; we do not know how we got here, where we came from, or where we are going. There is no free will in this logic.

What if I lived forever, what if I never got sick, what if I could choose all my surroundings...? Aren't these the questions you are asking?

I don't know about eternal souls, but I do believe in free will, which in a sense is a small bit of 'God' within you. You can not control time and space, but you can control yourself, and that is better than nothing.

You are missing some other thing for which you are wishing, and I'm not sure what to call it. But, you are not missing free will, which is only the ability to form opinions and make choices. You could put me in jail, but I would retain my free will.

3 Are our attitudes, judgments, opinions, and actions all that free? Consider these realities: we are forced to be born in an environment where notions, understandings, perceptions, and values have been pre-established before our arrival. Thus, are not our choices and motives and judgments based on our exposure to the environment in which we were forced to be born and exist in? Yes, I know there are variables and categories. But for the most part we do not sway too far from the environment in which we were developed from.

We are not born with these freedoms, but we develop them as we grow. An infant responds to physical needs and things in its immediate environment. But, an adult can decide how to interpret his surroundings, and try to change them if he wishes, or to move to other surroundings. Most important, though, is the ability to decide how you wish to interpret external impressions of the world. You probably won't change the world much, but you can change your opinion of it at will. Decide it is not so scary, so unfair, so unpleasant, and it need not be, for the most part.

4 And personally, I feel better off and more in control when I considered the realities of my existence within the human condition. And I would add that my free will may have grown from realizing my limitations within existence.

You seem to be validating the wisdom of the stoic principle I quoted above. Realize what you can and can not control, and the task of controlling what is in your reach will seem less daunting. Once you accept this, the only thing holding you back in most cases is your own bad habits, which you can work to change.

5 And with an even deeper look into our control of our lives, consider this: our parents, their parents, and their parents, and their parents, were all forced to be born in a pre-conceived environment that formed the kind of persons or people they were. We are products of all of them. How much control does the human race really have?

We control what matters: our attitudes, opinions and actions. We can wish to control other things, but you know which hand will fill up first...

[Felix]

Conodfam4: The mystic that sais “it’s a parenthesis in eternity”; is he suggesting that we are in eternity?

I think he is saying, as you did, that the soul/Self is eternal and its earthly incarnation is just one brief excursion in its immense journey, so this earthly life is like a parenthetic statement within a long discourse. His statement was founded on a direct experience of "eternity." Of course empiricists would consider it a hallucination but that is only a testament to their inexperience.

[Conodfam4]

Chewybrain
That was a hell of a response and I appreciate it.

Felix
I am in agreement with the mystic and it is also from an experience. What do you think?
Your quote from Anais Nin says it all. Perseptions and understandings change when one’s reality is changed.

[Felix]

Well, William Blake speaks of seeing the world though celestial eyes....

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

[Wmhoerr]

John the new guy here. I think it is simpler than it appears. People want to belong to something bigger than themselves and with others who are like minded. And people are insecure, as stated previously. They are insecure because they do not trust themselves wholey and want guidance for a proper way to live. So, belief systems are formed with fear, pride, and hope. And when belief systems are challenged by opposing belief systems, wars are started because not every belief can be true.

I agree. People have a strong social desire and so want to be part of whatever is going. Joining in with the current system is more important than whether the current system has logical flaws or not. Once they have joined they have made a commitment and so if two opposing religious groups fall out, they are obliged to fight.

[Mans]

Basically the content of a real and original religion should be able to prove itself with intellectual and logical signs and evidences that are sensible and understandable for man and are according to his nature and creation.

[LuckyR]

Basically the content of a real and original religion should be able to prove itself with intellectual and logical signs and evidences that are sensible and understandable for man and are according to his nature and creation.

Why? Most religions exist in the realm of faith not logic and proof.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Basically the content of a real and original religion should be able to prove itself with intellectual and logical signs and evidences that are sensible and understandable for man and are according to his nature and creation.

Why? Most religions exist in the realm of faith not logic and proof.

I would say that most religions exist in the realm of experience - both social and private. In Christianity faith is very emphasized, at least in a lot of talk. But in many other religions, even the private aspects are empirical and developmental. (note, I am not saying th einterpretations of these experiences are correct or not, in fact I want to black box it). You engage in certain practices and these lead to experiences. Often master or religious leaders or shamans then suggest tweaks in current practices or other practices, troubleshooting the obstacles. Experience change over time. There are stages in the progession. One can notice what is at least interpreted as progess and there is change in experience. Not just in the experience rituals and practices, but in every day life, where changes in attitude -relation to other, relation to one's own emotions, or to nature or to what one interprets as holy presence or spirits, etc.). IOW changes in one's experience. Some religions are really quite precise in the order of these changes.

Faith is a kind of believing for no particular reason. That is a very Abrahamic idea and perhaps especially Christina, though there are even within Christianity relations to practices - contemplatoin, prayer - and rituals that also is described in stages of experiential changes. And the focus is on getting to sexperiential stages that one wants to or that are good. Chrisitianity is very odd. It is so focused on belief and faith. As if a person wiht the right mental, verbal official thoughts is spiritual or religious. Islam can have this also. One can have this attitude in any religion and any idealogy, but many religions - many of them severely dminished or even eliminated - certainly many of the shamanic more animist/pantheistic even destroyed - by the monotheisms.

In online debates, the very odd ideas pouring out of Medieval theology come to stand for theism. All the omnicient omni this orthat stuff. The utter transcendence and distaste for the 'material world' and then faith. And they also got into the business of proofs and logic in relation to God. A real poor choice, however much it may have contributed to modern rationality (not big R rationalism).

[jonathan]

Basically the content of a real and original religion should be able to prove itself with intellectual and logical signs and evidences that are sensible and understandable for man and are according to his nature and creation.

I would add that this kind of statement in itself is not able to prove itself with intellectual and logical signs and evidences that are sensible and understandable for man and are according to his nature and creation. Therefore it is more or less an article of faith. I think this is what is meant when people say that science is also a religion. I think it is religious, in a weak sense. Depending on what you mean by "science," science does not (yet?) provide a system for guiding ethical behavior, conducting rites, etc., but it does itself rest on unprovable, untestable metaphysics that do require a certain amount of faith in order for science to function as it does. (Assumptions about the regularity of the universe, how to apply theory in the designing of experiments, theory of experimentation itself, etc.)

[Mans]

I did mean the religion that is sent down by the superior of the universe. Surely such the religion should be able to convince man by logic and science that it is from God. Also the word of God should create this feeling in human that it is higher than an ordinary word which mankind expresses.

[Semtek]

Thus the Jewish religion (and so later Christianity) has as its origin both Egyptian and Arab components.

The argument seems to suggest that religion(s) have an entirely natural origin or are an entirely natural phenomenon. Actually the title of the original post asks "What is the Read origin of Relgions" and then proceeds to construct an argument that applies only to the Judeo-Christian tradition or the origin of that tradition. However subsequent posts by other members have extended the question to other religions and religion in general.

I have an issue with the OP's conclusion (cited above) especially the conjunction "(and so later Christianity)". I want to suggest that locating the origin of religion entirely in natural history is incomplete. The origin of Christianity, and other theisms is, within each tradition, located in the activity of a supernatural being or beings. For example in Islam, the prophet Muhammad was addressed by the angel Gabriel. In the case of Christianity, the incarnate word of God inspired scripture and walked among humans speaking what he "heard from the Father" where his words are spirit (non-natural). So religions are traditionally thought of as having a supernatural origin. And, depending on the construal of that supernatural being, it may be very difficult to definitively say or isolate a origin capable of being known. Religion may be based on the acts of a being that is self-existent (having the reasons for its existence within itself and existing in every possible world) and therefore there is no infinite regress of events that is involved explaining the origin of religion... Because before Abraham and Pharaoh is a chain of cause and effect that is, on naturalism, infinite.. What part of the chain do we isolate and call the origin?

[LuckyR]

I did mean the religion that is sent down by the superior of the universe. Surely such the religion should be able to convince man by logic and science that it is from God. Also the word of God should create this feeling in human that it is higher than an ordinary word which mankind expresses.

"Surely" is a bridge too far. It would be nice if religions could pass the logic test, but such a requirement would lead to no religions. That is why I advise the religious to spar on their own turf (faith) rather than lose on the logic battlefield.

[Semtek]

Hi LuckyR

I am curious: what is the "logic test" you are referring to that religion cannot pass.

The logical problem of evil is thought to be a major challenge to Christian monotheism.

Are you saying that there is something internally inconsistent in the idea of God?

[Mans]

"Surely" is a bridge too far. It would be nice if religions could pass the logic test, but such a requirement would lead to no religions. That is why I advise the religious to spar on their own turf (faith) rather than lose on the logic battlefield.

First of all and before we speak about the divinely religion this question comes up; do you believe that this world has a creator, owner and superior?

If you say yes, then our discussion will find it way to this manner that divinely region talk based on logic and nature of man. And if you say, no, so we first should talk about the existence of God.

I would find out from your word that you probably are ready to deny the unseen superior of the world, right?

Well, When you don't believe in him, how we can discuss about a religion?!

So we first should discuss in another topic about evidence of existence of God.

[LuckyR]

Hi LuckyR

I am curious: what is the "logic test" you are referring to that religion cannot pass.

The logical problem of evil is thought to be a major challenge to Christian monotheism.

Are you saying that there is something internally inconsistent in the idea of God?

I am speaking of the "test" that I specifically quoted (but that I didn't originate, since it was from Mans) "religion should be able to convince man by logic and science that it is from God (sic)."