So consider: "Authentic" religious understanding can only be achieved in solitude.
Log In   or  Sign Up for Free
A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.
Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑October 27th, 2019, 10:13 am To put the matter plainly, to understand religion, one has to be free of presuppositions about religion; discover it fresh and new, as it presents itself in the world, rather than as we receive it through ideas and institutions. One does this in solitude.I don't disagree, but many would call "religion" without the institution, philosophy.
So consider: "Authentic" religious understanding can only be achieved in solitude.
h_k_s wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 3:55 am It takes a lifetime to see through the propaganda of organized religion.I agree with you on this one. I'd say the best religions are those that are organized at the grassroots levels, without a central authority such as Shintoism.
Clearly it is an opiate for the masses just as the political philosopher Marx said.
The best thing to do is to gather your own data about religion following philosophical principles of logic, and then simply come up with your own religious practices, steering clear of all the organized sects.
LuckyRIn solitude we bring our "institutions" with us. But the point is taken: the dogmatic inquirer will learn nothing new regardless of where s/he is. The trick would be to put such things aside and let the world speak, so to speak. The putting aside is easier said than done. I think that we live in a pseudo-clarity from which we can be liberated. Solitude is essential because the presence of others inevitably brings in contexts of shared identity. If they are shared, they belong to a consensus, which abstracts from actuality, and there is only one actuality: the self.
I don't disagree, but many would call "religion" without the institution, philosophy.
h_k_sYes, of course. But the matter of solitude; it suggests that there is something to be gotten that is essential for genuine religious understanding. Coming up with one's own religious practices puts things back in that precarious position of ungrounded and capricious thinking. Is there nothing, I would argue, that grounds religion? Nothing in-the-world that takes religious thinking to its own essence? Once the propaganda is suspended, what is left that is not propaganda. Is there anything close to religious actuality that cannot be dismissed?
It takes a lifetime to see through the propaganda of organized religion.
Clearly it is an opiate for the masses just as the political philosopher Marx said.
The best thing to do is to gather your own data about religion following philosophical principles of logic, and then simply come up with your own religious practices, steering clear of all the organized sects.
SpyrithThe first thing that springs to mind is the home spun evangelical thinking that rose precisely out of a disdain for central authority. These people the most dogmatic of all.
h_k_s wrote:
It takes a lifetime to see through the propaganda of organized religion.
Clearly it is an opiate for the masses just as the political philosopher Marx said.
The best thing to do is to gather your own data about religion following philosophical principles of logic, and then simply come up with your own religious practices, steering clear of all the organized sects.
I agree with you on this one. I'd say the best religions are those that are organized at the grassroots levels, without a central authority such as Shintoism.
PantagruelI look at religion and spirituality as the popular and dogmatic against authenticity. In the former, I see a way made available to those in desperation to find solace and redemption, and herein lies its validation, not in the clarification that comes from a desire for truth. For truth is what is sought in solitude: that questions tht press on one for understanding which receive from popular religions a rigid and programmatic response, questions like, why are we born to suffer and die? and, is there any genuine and unqualified basis for our being-in-the-world?; these are laid bare, free of presuppositions. Here, I am arguing, is where religion gets its existential foundation, as one comes to realize that at once, such questions demand satisfaction, but that there are no answers that are not qualified by dogma.
I wish clearer distinctions could be drawn between "spirituality" and "religion". Spirituality has always an inner relation of the individual with the transcendent. Historically, spirituality has been at the core of most religions. The more we come to learn the more we realize that science leaves unanswered a great many important questions. Hence the gateway to spirituality, far from being closed by advances in scientific knowledge, is actually flung wide open.
Insofar as religion promotes and contributes to the sense of spirituality, I think religion is as beneficial. Insofar as it tends to become an ossified bureaucratic shell pursuing its own agenda, not so much. But then that tends to happen to most institutions.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 10:26 am I look at religion and spirituality as the popular and dogmatic against authenticity.Not sure how on board I am with all of that. Religion is definitely something objective, an artefact or an institution. As such, susceptible of all kinds of qualifications, misrepresentation, misconception, etc. Spirituality, however, is a subjective tendency, no different from what makes one person passionate about science or what inspires another to paint or write music. As such I don't think it is legitimate to question the possibility of an authentic spiritual experience, any more than any other type of experience. Yes, in general, it may be a challenge to live in good-faith, but that's the project. Certainly acknowledging the challenge of good-faith (bad-faith) important, on that I would agree.
PantagruelThere is something about being a painter or musician, one could say, that makes the discipline what it is, notwithstanding the different ways it is approached. Painting and composing are certainly not without their unqualified examples. The question would be, what makes them so? Religion possesses the same question. What makes religion "religious"? What is its essence? I trace this to its existential source: It springs from the idea of the presence of holiness, and from human suffering. All else gathers around these, that is, the plethora of thought and doctrine constitute entanglements of what emerges from this existential core. So as to what is authentic, one first has to ask, what is there in the religion in question that is non essential, just as one would ask about politics or art or knowledge. The attempt would be to take off the table things incidental, like personal motivations or the liturgical details and hymns,the dogma regarding God, the narratives around which faith might gather, the demands, the history, the religious culture--all off the table.
Not sure how on board I am with all of that. Religion is definitely something objective, an artefact or an institution. As such, susceptible of all kinds of qualifications, misrepresentation, misconception, etc. Spirituality, however, is a subjective tendency, no different from what makes one person passionate about science or what inspires another to paint or write music. As such I don't think it is legitimate to question the possibility of an authentic spiritual experience, any more than any other type of experience.
I think the argument that people fall back on spirituality as a kind of escape or consolation begs the question. It certainly seems to me that espousing spirituality ought to mean one would be more likely to enact espoused values rather than not. i.e. if people are in bad-faith spiritually, it should be very evident, so not a really effective ploy, psychologically speaking.Of course, people fall back like this. But it's not like falling back to asking a neighbor for sugar when the shelf is empty. Religion, to be religion, has to engage deeper themes than this. When we are desperate and terrible tragedy strikes, one has to take careful measures to understand. The terms of our suffering are not spelled out in the world at all. I imagine the actuality of the a woman condemned to be burned alive the next day. The madness of knowing should not be trivialized in our understanding. All of Christendom and its rituals bows low to this single event. By my lights, just looking clearly at the how it is for the accused, taking that walk to the pyre, then the lighting of the match; this presents most clearly what religion is. (Do forget the details of the example. I could have easily presented another.)
Hereandnow wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 9:18 am In solitude we bring our "institutions" with us. But the point is taken: the dogmatic inquirer will learn nothing new regardless of where s/he is. The trick would be to put such things aside and let the world speak, so to speak. The putting aside is easier said than done. I think that we live in a pseudo-clarity from which we can be liberated. Solitude is essential because the presence of others inevitably brings in contexts of shared identity. If they are shared, they belong to a consensus, which abstracts from actuality, and there is only one actuality: the self.I think you have to be a little careful here. I do agree that solitude and self-reflection is an important part of religious or spiritual development and growth. But taken too far, it can become escapism. One can't abandon one's connections with other people and expect to have meaningful spiritual growth, in my opinion. Religion and spirituality are also heavily rooted in our relationships with others, and any monk (at least in the Christian tradition, but probably others as well) will tell you that their purpose in following a religious path is not development or exploration of the self, but rather to offer their lives for others. Mother Teresa, for example, stressed the importance of giving, of service and living one's life based on love of others as the fundamental principle of her religious life. Thomas Merton has also discussed this extensively in his writings about the monastic life - I highly recommend his work for insights into how even the ascetic life is still a life lived in connection with and service to the rest of the world.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 10:05 am The first thing that springs to mind is the home spun evangelical thinking that rose precisely out of a disdain for central authority. These people the most dogmatic of all.Ironic that you almost contradict yourself here, that the people who turn away from a central authority would be the ones to become dogmatic. I think there's truth in that. Too much authority is a bad thing, but so is too little. Too many rules and restrictions can stifle our growth, but we do need guidance on our spiritual paths, or we can wander off. The correct balance creates the middle path, so to speak. So I think this is another reason why it is important to remain in community with others and not disappear into the self.
Spyrith wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 5:00 amGenerally I prefer the teachings of Buddhism, but without the monk burden.h_k_s wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 3:55 am It takes a lifetime to see through the propaganda of organized religion.I agree with you on this one. I'd say the best religions are those that are organized at the grassroots levels, without a central authority such as Shintoism.
Clearly it is an opiate for the masses just as the political philosopher Marx said.
The best thing to do is to gather your own data about religion following philosophical principles of logic, and then simply come up with your own religious practices, steering clear of all the organized sects.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑October 27th, 2019, 10:13 am To put the matter plainly, to understand religion, one has to be free of presuppositions about religion; discover it fresh and new, as it presents itself in the world, rather than as we receive it through ideas and institutions. One does this in solitude.I don't disagree with your presupposition that 'one has to be free' but how does religion present itself in the world other than through ideas, institutions and interaction with others.
So consider: "Authentic" religious understanding can only be achieved in solitude.
Thomyum2Being careful takes writing. The trouble with writing is that the business here takes far too much. It's not enough to say that others present a body of interconnectedness, a whole culture of thought, that runs along interpretative lines that are inherently counter what it takes to understand human religion. For to even approach the core of religious meaning, one has to look at the world within a suspension of what people talk about and value in plain terms. In other words, it is as it is with all other disciplines: to get to the most significant ideas of physics, biology, chemistry and so on, one has to adopt a completely new perspective which is not available in mainstream thinking. Serious thought becomes specialized. So it is with religion. One has to turn away from the everydayness of interpreting the world to discover and work with religious themes in a productive way.
I think you have to be a little careful here. I do agree that solitude and self-reflection is an important part of religious or spiritual development and growth. But taken too far, it can become escapism. One can't abandon one's connections with other people and expect to have meaningful spiritual growth, in my opinion. Religion and spirituality are also heavily rooted in our relationships with others, and any monk (at least in the Christian tradition, but probably others as well) will tell you that their purpose in following a religious path is not development or exploration of the self, but rather to offer their lives for others. Mother Teresa, for example, stressed the importance of giving, of service and living one's life based on love of others as the fundamental principle of her religious life. Thomas Merton has also discussed this extensively in his writings about the monastic life - I highly recommend his work for insights into how even the ascetic life is still a life lived in connection with and service to the rest of the world.
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023