Philosophy Discussion Forums

This topic is about the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

Thus, in practice, it is true to say that true conscious love requires a bit of faith. That is, at least, if it is to be manifested and implemented in matters of human practice. That dependency on a bit of faith is presumably why this deep seemingly magical thing of true conscious love—what some would call divine love—is frequently tied to religion, even though it doesn't strictly require a person to be religious or require a person to follow any specific spiritual tradition. There is nothing you need to think or say to love in this way, or in other words to free your ever-satiated all-loving spirit.

(Page 94)


Even though the above quote is discussing about consciousness, it could not have avoided religious references and religion-related terminology. Are we that much bound to religious teachings and beliefs? Can we ever discuss spiritual stuff without mentioning religions or religious stuff?

The fact is that many people have ties to religion today. Many people reading the book are religious or have religious family members. I think it is our innate urge for tribalism to want to associate ourselves with one group or another.
It makes sense to create familiarity between those who are not religious and those who are.

We are all going to have to let go of religion some day, because religions do not embrace change. If someone has an experience that is different from what is specified in the religious writings, it is frowned upon because it threatens the sustenance of the religion. This does not mean that the person's realization is wrong; just different. Religions are therefore spiritually rigid. Religious people will not perceive this if they are not included in philosophical discussion.

CalebB wrote: ↑November 14th, 2022, 4:49 am The fact is that many people have ties to religion today. Many people reading the book are religious or have religious family members. I think it is our innate urge for tribalism to want to associate ourselves with one group or another.
It makes sense to create familiarity between those who are not religious and those who are.

We are all going to have to let go of religion some day, because religions do not embrace change. If someone has an experience that is different from what is specified in the religious writings, it is frowned upon because it threatens the sustenance of the religion. This does not mean that the person's realization is wrong; just different. Religions are therefore spiritually rigid. Religious people will not perceive this if they are not included in philosophical discussion.

I think many people are loosing ties with religions these days. Some are officially having a religion but do not practice that. And some do not have a religion at all. I think of myself as belonging to the former.

Yes, I agree with the rest of your comment. People with a religious background or with an exposure to some religious teachings are possessed with predeterminations and presumptions. So anything that is related to those ideas are taken by the brain of such people as religious stuff. It is quite difficult to shun that right away, and that is common to myself as well.

Religion has homage that is superior and constant, that is why there is so much aggression against it. Religious leaders thrive, but what makes them good at it is that they chose to do it. It won't be about control! You see, what makes a man do what they do?

Jennifer Benitez 1 wrote: ↑December 15th, 2022, 9:54 pm Religion has homage that is superior and constant, that is why there is so much aggression against it. Religious leaders thrive, but what makes them good at it is that they chose to do it. It won't be about control! You see, what makes a man do what they do?

Religions have been the vehicle and the media to convey the ideas of great philosophers (I see all religious leaders as philosophers) who lived in the past. But these so called religious leaders have corrupted the religions throughout the history for various reasons. And many people understand that as a fact these days and I see that as the reason for this aggression against religions that you have mentioned, rather than them being superior and constant.

Religion is the base of civilization, regardless of where one stands religiously, it will always be a struggle to separate the natural inclination to associate religion with spirituality and life in general. The religion will simply evolve to fit the narrative. Maybe that is how all the various religions have come to be, people, trying to evolve them to fit the world. At the base, they are the same (for the most part). I agree that religions as an individual are rigid and resistant to change...but religion in general has seen quite an evolution.

ArielJMartin wrote: ↑January 5th, 2023, 9:24 pm Religion is the base of civilization, regardless of where one stands religiously, it will always be a struggle to separate the natural inclination to associate religion with spirituality and life in general. The religion will simply evolve to fit the narrative. Maybe that is how all the various religions have come to be, people, trying to evolve them to fit the world. At the base, they are the same (for the most part). I agree that religions as an individual are rigid and resistant to change...but religion in general has seen quite an evolution.

I do not think the core of the religions cannot evolve since religions are philosophies, but not sciences. So even the world is changed we cannot change the core of the religions. What actually has happened is adaptation of the outer coating of the religions (the literature, rituals, etc.) to the present world. But I much agree that the religions have bonded strongly with the human souls and it is quite hard to cleave that bond seperately.

It is difficult for someone who is very religious to completely put aside any religious feelings while reading this book. One’s religious beliefs influence their values, which in turn influences their thoughts while reading. However, I don’t see this as a negative thing because everyone is going to have a different experience reading.

Everyone believes something with regard to religion, whether for or against, and when discussing topics regarding human existence it can't really be avoided. I do think it's possible to use more inclusive language and invite everyone to the conversation regardless of belief.

Given that humans are spiritual beings, I do think it would be challenging to keep religious references out of discussions about consciousness. Humans are conscious of their surroundings thanks to their mental faculties. As spiritual creatures, we are in sync with the God within us and the God within others. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about consciousness without also talking about our awareness of God.

I struggled to conceptualize consciousness without incorporating religion while reading the book. Religion and faith are a large part of my life and shape how I view the world and existence. I appreciated how Hughes allowed space for readers to interpret his theories through their unique worldviews. For some readers, it may have been impossible to consider religion a part of consciousness. That is the beauty of individuality.

Kelsey Roy wrote: ↑January 25th, 2023, 3:59 pm I struggled to conceptualize consciousness without incorporating religion while reading the book. Religion and faith are a large part of my life and shape how I view the world and existence. I appreciated how Hughes allowed space for readers to interpret his theories through their unique worldviews. For some readers, it may have been impossible to consider religion a part of consciousness. That is the beauty of individuality.

I love your response! I am the opposite - I do not have religion or faith - so I read the book from a non-religious POV. This IS the beauty of individuality, and me loving you and you loving me is what this book is about. It's what we can strive to be/do - especially with our world as polarized as it is right now. Unity feels impossible but SO WELCOMED.

I believe that for the many people that are religious that they may view many of these concepts, such as consciousness, through their beliefs. I believe that Hughes did a good job explaining how it doesn't have to be from a religious standpoint, it can simply be the true self.

Joannasbookshelf wrote: ↑January 25th, 2023, 1:08 pm It is difficult for someone who is very religious to completely put aside any religious feelings while reading this book. One’s religious beliefs influence their values, which in turn influences their thoughts while reading. However, I don’t see this as a negative thing because everyone is going to have a different experience reading.

I agree. Previous knowledge and beliefs definitely have an effect on accepting or rejecting newly acquired knowledge. But that affect can be negative and even harmful if the newly acquired knowledge was misinterpreted and used to strengthen the falsely held old beliefs. And I think that is what has happened to most of the religions, the religious leaders, and the followers of various religions these days.

Lydia Matson wrote: ↑January 25th, 2023, 1:29 pm Everyone believes something with regard to religion, whether for or against, and when discussing topics regarding human existence it can't really be avoided. I do think it's possible to use more inclusive language and invite everyone to the conversation regardless of belief.

I disagree. Everyone do not believe something with regard to something. There is a group called atheists who do not possess any religious beliefs. They may have their own beliefs which are clearly not religious. So such people can be included in discussions about consciousness avoiding any inclusion of religious ideas.