Philosophy Discussion Forums

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.

So consider: "Authentic" religious understanding can only be achieved in solitude.

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.

So consider: "Authentic" religious understanding can only be achieved in solitude.

I don't disagree, but many would call "religion" without the institution, philosophy.

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.

h_k_s wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 3:55 am 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.

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.

LuckyR
I don't disagree, but many would call "religion" without the institution, philosophy.

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.

Emerson has always stood out for me:

To go into solitude, a man (that is, a person) needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society. I am not solitary whilst I read and write, though nobody is with me. But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and what he touches. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent with this design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime. Seen in the streets of cities, how great they are! If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile.

h_k_s
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.

Yes, 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?

Spyrith
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.

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.

No, I don't think any organized affairs like this can bring a person to understand human religiosity. Truth, in the unqualified sense, and disregarding the propositional nature of logical truths, is subjectivity; for the only authentically intimated actuality is the self.

Pantagruel

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.

I 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.
It is the place where questioning is therefore put aside, though they wait. The empirical, institutionally (to borrow Lucky's term)-entangled self, is put out if sight, for this has been, all along, a deception, and the world speaks, I hold. What is "says" is not so varied and contingent.

Solitude, I also argue, can only be approached freely if one has released herself from the presumptions of knowing. Philosophy can this.

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.

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.

Pantagruel
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.

There 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.

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.)

And then there is the idea of the holy.....

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 am

h_k_s wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 3:55 am 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.

Generally I prefer the teachings of Buddhism, but without the monk burden.

Monks should work for a living and earn their own keep rather than live off the backs of the public depending on donations. I think that's how the Quakers do it -- no paid ministry.

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.

So consider: "Authentic" religious understanding can only be achieved 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.
If it is in solitude is it some form of a priori knowledge we are seeking?

Thomyum2
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.

Being 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.

Doing good deeds like Mother Teresa did is certainly to the point, but such actions do not reveal the grounding of religiousness. For this one has to analyze the doing of the deed. But what is human agency? Why is it that good deeds need doing at all? What is it to think, feel, experience, be in-the-world? What is the ethical/aesthetic dimension of our existence about? Questions like these are philosophical. They become, I contend, religious when ethics takes the stage. Or more precisely, metaethics and metavalue.

I see your favorite philosopher is Wittgenstein. I haven't read the Investigations, but I have read the Tractatus and his Lecture on Ethics and others more than once. I disagree with him on the idea that ethics cannot be conceived as factual. He was a very religious person, but refused to allow this to enter into meaningful thought. I never understood this. For me, the transcendence of ethical good and bad is part of the immanence of value in the world, and value is at the very core of religion.

Wittgenstein did run off to a Norwegian solitude, did he not? There, one encounters God, not to put too fine a point on it. It is the Kierkegaarian long nights of inwardness that allow for one's spirit to show itself, which it cannot do when conversation make the world so familiar. At root, there is absolutely nothing familiar about being here.

All of this is open for discussion.