Damned Religion

[tushantin]

ZeaLity never ceases to amaze me. Even his negative views inspire and enlighten me. Today, I've been lead to redefine religion completely but in brief and simple (I'm only verbose when it comes to friendly arguments for some reason).

We've all been arguing about religion ever since the birth of civilization. It ain't new. Be it the Jews and Christians, the Christians and Satanists, the barber and the tea-maker, etc. Today we know so much about religion. Some are Christians, some Hindus, some with varied Chinese cultures, some Islamic,... but has anybody stopped to think what a religion ACTUALLY is? Today some people would say that it's about the belief of "God created mankind". Tomorrow someone might emphasize that. However, if what I've researched for so long is true then divine interruptions had initially nothing to do with religion. Even most ancient sub-cultures/religions described "Gods" as nothing more than higher Kings or Priests/Healers. So if religion doesn't necessarily NEED the divine in it, what is religion anyway?

A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

Simply stating, go back a million years and see what you can. People with spears for hunting and searching for caves for their peoples shelters. The groups are divided in two and each go to the different side of the planet.

1) One group goes hunting, and the leader falls off a cliff. Death is inevitable. People see it that way. But a miracle happens; he doesn't die. To us today, it would seem like a scientific coincidence, but to them then, it was a miracle. They may consider this impossible, but something must have saved them. Perhaps a greater benign entity of some kind. Then from that day, the people bow to their supposed entity that saved them and tell their kids and grandkids about it. A new religion is born, and people follow it.

2) Another group's leader is the famous hunter that can hunt down any beast. One day, he saved the whole tribe like a cliche hero and died. People say that such a powerful hunter only comes about once a thousand years, but the day the hunter died another child is born. And that child grows to be just as great as the hunter who died that day. They say it's a miracle, that the spirit of the hunter still lives on to encourage the tribes to survive. They consider the successor as the Messiah reincarnated. A new religion is born.

And then one day the two tribes meet. Each consider the latter's religion as flawed, because their own is true. And this brings an all out war which never goes pretty.

Several hundreds of years ago, those religions are emphasized and misinterpreted. False prophets write scriptures, hoping to convert the rest of humanity to their beliefs, by telling them that fiction was actual fact. They said that the not one but TEN leaders reincarnated; a lie. They wrote that an angel descended in plain sight and saved the tribe; another lie. Where do we draw the boundary between truth and false?

-----------------------

Once again, we'll take a journey to the past.

1) The false prophets wrote in their scriptures, "No need to work; so long as you're religious Gods shall save you". But what the saved religious leader ACTUALLY said was, "Today I have been saved by the mercy of God, only to give me a chance to live a second life. Forge ahead and seek the light on your own, but don't be blinded by bias, for the lord might not be there the next time. Save thyself and your fellows."

2) The false prophets wrote, "The Messiah was born again and again to remind that no power is greater than the higher power". But the courageous leader's ACTUAL religion stated, "Our leaders died fighting for our belief of strength. So long as we passionately seek our dreams, we will emerge victorious! And to the end, I shall die for this belief."

-------------------------------------

A few thousand years later, thanks to some people, the ages old religion has been given a bad name. Why shouldn't it be? Well no need to lecture on this one, coz you guys already know.

But the truth is the truth. Ignorant minds will have narrow minded ideas and will always enforce their flawed beliefs on someone else. Beliefs are not always evil. Religion is not always evil. People are. The mere definition has been warped entirely. So what exactly is religion?

1) Today, there are many groups of atheists that ACCEPT to practice their daily scientific studies and to find the truth beyond truth. THAT is a religion.

2) Many detectives today, whether blindly or openmindedly, follow the methods of deduction and analysis from Sherlock Holmes books, and they accept those practices. THAT is a religion.

3) The Springtime of Youth encourages people to passionately follow their dreams and to change the world. That's a belief that binds together many people as brothers. THAT is a religion.

4) Kamina, in Gurren Laggan, dreamed to pierce the heavens after going to the surface. To achieve a height no one else has ever been. His comrades accepted his belief, enthusiasm and his point of view, and they formed the Gurren Brigade. They all fight for the same way of life that Kamina has showed them. THAT is a religion!

5) Most modern Hindus today don't even READ the Bhagwat Gita, and yet consider themselves as Hindus based on what modern values teach them; fraternity, love, respect, chivalry, loyalty, etc. They all share this with not only themselves but with the rest of the world as whole. THAT is a religion.

Of course, after posting this you guys might call me a simpleton. My views might even be challenged. But true, I might be flawed in some way. There is always a room for corrections. Yet, I'm merely stating my mind.

Conclusion? Religion is what binds the whole damn society, no matter what the people call it. Way of Life is religion, but a religion is not always a way of life (thanks to ZeaLity for pointing that out to me). Blame the narrow-minded fools and false prophets, not people's beliefs of paradise. Blame the corruption, not the true form of religion. Do note that most of every religion earlier had a purer form, but was morphed thereafter. People still commit crimes in the names of religion and they do it with a smile on their face. But times will change, take my word for it. If not, then I'll MAKE it change.

[Lord J Esq]

As a matter of fact, yes: I have "stopped to think what a religion ACTUALLY is," as you put it. Religion is the organized system of customs and morals surrounding a central divine premise. "A" religion is a specific instance of the general case.

Don't let my brevity belie the amount of thought that it took me to get there. It's good for you to write out your thinking like this. I have always found it a help. But, to get back to your writing, I would disagree with you that "religion doesn't necessarily NEED the divine." Yes it does. If it doesn't center upon a divine premise--i.e., an expression of faith in a divine entity (and it must be faith, not observation), by which an individual derives information about the nature of existence--then it isn't a religion. It's a member of the larger set in which religion is one form: culture. That doesn't mean that people won't confuse the terms. Sometimes a "religion" is not a religion after all. The "religion of money" is a good example, because rarely do its practitioners express any deeper motivation than comfort, status, or power. The reverse is also true: Some cultures are properly religions, but are not recognized as such. To get back to our exchange in the other thread, Nazism would be an example of this.

[Thought]

But, to get back to your writing, I would disagree with you that "religion doesn't necessarily NEED the divine." Yes it does.

So ancestor worship doesn't count as a religion but just a cultural practice, then?

[Lord J Esq]

The earliest concepts of divinity were nature-driven. A divine premise does not preclude worldly objects. Indeed, even some modern religions are built around this idea. But surely you knew that, which makes me think I have misunderstood your question. Elaborate, please.

[Thought]

The spirits of one's ancestors need not be divine. They might be otherworldly, powerful beings, but they are usually not actually gods (unless you happen to be a Pharoh). Ancestor worship seems to be religious. But since ancestor worship need not include the divine, by your criterion it would seem to be excluded from the classification of "religion."

[Lord J Esq]

Perhaps in some instances that would be correct, Thought. That is, perhaps ancestor worship is not always a religion. "Ancestor worship" is not specific enough that we are obliged to say all instances of it were either religious or non-religious. "Religion" itself is a pretty sophisticated concept; not all of its predecessors and spin-offs would fit the bill. To the extent that people ever proposed divine assertions (i.e., engaged divine premises) via their ancestors, we'd be talking about a religion. Where people fell short of that, we'd be talking about some other cultural institution or element. As for the terminology, "the divine" is a faith-based premise which asserts the reality of a supernatural power--an entity or a phenomenon--which specifically embodies or administers that which I might describe as--not without room for disagreement--the significance of existence and sometimes (but not always) the very functionality of existence. If a group of people greatly values the passed-down wisdom of their ancestors, and treats it with conspicuous reverence, even to the extent that reason and criticism are subdued, this itself is not sufficient for religious status. The group of people would have to go the extra step and assert the divine. The word "worship" is inconvenient to you here, because of its divine connotations, but I'll let you off the hook since I happen to agree with you that those connotations aren't inherently applicable and the word can be used in a non-divine context.

Rereading your post, really it seems as though we have no substantial disagreement. There is simply your usual skepticism toward an overarching theory, in this case my conception of religion, which is both legitimate and welcome. Perhaps this will be a fruitful thread.

[Thought]

Rereading your post, really it seems as though we have no substantial disagreement. There is simply your usual skepticism toward an overarching theory, in this case my conception of religion, which is both legitimate and welcome. Perhaps this will be a fruitful thread.

Usual skepticism? Oh Josh, you card! I was being curious, not skeptical. You said that this thing had boundaries, so I of course was curious as to where those boundaries were. It isn't that I didn't believe you, I just wanted to know more.

As to if I accept your general definition of religion, I do not yet know. Religion is a much abused word these days. You say that if it includes god, its religion. Certainly you have heard individuals make the claim that they are "spiritual" but not "religious," which does not preclude the possibility that they believe in a deity but rather that they reject the exoskeleton of ritual and cannon that tends to come with religions. Some use it as an expletive, others as a panacea. To pin it down is no small feat.

I suppose to sum up my thoughts as they thus far are, I would suppose that both you and tush are taking a simplistic approach to the matter.

[Lord J Esq]

"Spirituality" is naught but a fluid instance of religion, typically individual or small in membership.

It's been a while since anyone called me a card!

I didn't ask you your take. What is your take?

[GenesisOne]

I liked the "religion of money" bit, tushantin.

Here's a religion we take too seriously here in the U.S.:

The religion of football.

[Thought]

I didn't ask you your take. What is your take?

Currently don't have one. I was just trying to understand yours better.

[Lord J Esq]

Have I given you the information you need to better your understanding?

[tushantin]

It's been a while since anyone called me a card!

Hiya, card!  Although I'm not sure what a "card" is supposed to mean, other than playing cards.

Whoao! That's quite some replies! And awesome ones too.

@J: Religion need not include higher supernatural entities, but higher forces may just as well suffice. For instance, I think a lot of Babylonian religions worshiped nature rather than deities, and the Chinese worshiped their kings or avatars of nature (but then again, the "avatars" of nature might be considered as fictional Gods). Also, the LaVeyan Satanism is also sort of a religion for atheists who regard their deities as symbolical rather than worshiping them. The word "divinity" may also vary among various sorts, but it's true that it mostly refers to supernatural powers or entities.

But no matter what you call it, a religion is still religion, yet as said sometimes a religion may not be a religion after all. To make things simpler, it may be divided into forms of Thiestic Religion and Non-Divine Religion (the latter being where Gods do not play a role in). And mere faith may also not have just one category. From what I believe, there were many times a religious person was asked to not only have Faith in God, but also Faith in Books, Faith in the Sword, Faith in the Kingdom, Faith in Nature, Faith in Comrade, etc. And the list goes on, of course. The mere Faith has some ties with Hope. Something like how a soccer star has his "faith" in the ball he's playing with, and a Knight has faith in his divine swordsmanship to win a battle. And this faith intervenes with a man's consciousness, boosting his morale and confidence.

@GenesisOne: Dang! Can I worship Football too?

[Lord J Esq]

There can't be a "non-divine" religion. If it doesn't center upon a divine premise, then it's not a religion. It can be many other things, but not religious. Perhaps this exclusion wouldn't be so with a different conception of what "the divine" is, but the two are inseparable when going by the conception that I supplied upthread. Regarding some of your specific points, allow me to deconstruct the definition that I gave for "divine premise":

a faith-based premise which asserts the reality of a supernatural power--an entity or a phenomenon--which specifically embodies or administers that which I might describe as--not without room for disagreement--the significance of existence and sometimes (but not always) the very functionality of existence

a faith-based premise:
The distinction between faith-based reasoning and reasoning in general is that faith introduces a spectacular shortcut into the reasoning process. With faith, a person is no longer obliged to justify declarative statements regarding the nature of objective reality with scientific methods alone. Essentially, faith enables a person to justify any premise they wish. That's a crucial distinction, since the validity of reasoning depends in large part on its ability to encapsulate patterns and consistencies. I put this qualifier (faith-based) in the definition I gave you because there is simply no factual indication of...

the reality of a supernatural power:
Notice that "supernatural power" sidesteps the concern you raised as to whether the divinity in question is a being or a force. Divinity can be either. The important quantity is that this divinity...

embodies or administers:
This addresses the distinction between divinity and other, lesser presumed supernatural powers. This particular supernatural power--divinity--is given special status by being said to "embody" or "administer." In lay terms, "embody" captures that aspect of faith which declares "we are one with god" while "administer" captures that aspect of faith which declares "we are beneath god." Thus, divinity embodies or administers...

the significance of existence and sometimes...the very functionality of existence:
Divinity, which does not observably exist, does not observably supply any actual external power to individuals. The only real power of the divine is that, by believing in it, people can shape their own mindset. In other words, people don't adopt religion to gain the power to shoot lightning bolts--because that power is not forthcoming. Instead they adopt it to provide themselves with a more orderly and meaningful attitude toward existence. Religion often claims, one way or another, that life without its gods is devoid of significance or "true" significance. Religion also often claims that existence itself, as we know it, wouldn't function without its gods.

I think you would be hard-pressed to name an instance of a "non-divine religion." Anything you might come up with would almost certainly be either not a religion or not non-divine. I specifically created the concept of a "divine premise" in order to encapsulate the unifying element which connects all religion and spiritualism.

Lastly, a note of clarity which didn't get the opportunity to appear naturally in this post: There are other forms of faith than just religious faith. Indeed, the relationship is hierarchical: "Religious faith" is an instance of "faith" in general. It is a very important instance, however, because religious faith almost always (although not inherently) sets itself up as a vehicle for irrefutable (i.e., "divine") authority. As such religious faith is far more dangerous and poisonous than faith in general, which itself is dangerous and poisonous most of the time.

[tushantin]

Actually that does make sense. Thanks for pointing that out. But the reason I'm still NOT convinced that religion and divinity are inseparable because I've seen many instances where their worship either goes completely wrong or doesn't exist.

For instance, obviously the worshiping of the Hindu Deities is pretty well known. However, similar to most Chinese legends, those Deities seem to have ascended to Godhead status were actual historical figures. Most concepts of "divinity" here is clearly a misunderstanding in this case, just the same as the "Isaac Newton and the apple" misunderstanding. Example being, historically Hanuman was actually a human warrior from Vanar Clan. Vanar means Monkey. He and his younger brother were very swift, because of which they were considered to be "Sons of the Wind". This mere figure of speech was emphasized and taken literally by the outer tribes who thought that Hanuman was actually "Son of God of Winds" and the reason he couldn't fly was because he tried to devour the sun as a child, which was completely untrue. Hanuman also raced against time from getting herbs from a land far away to heal Rama's dying brother, because of which he's well respected even today. The only problem is that his feats are memorable as a "Great Warrior", but people have mistook him as a "God" or "One who BECAME God".

And the same thing goes with other warriors and sages, such as Pandavas, Krishna, Shiva, etc. See what I mean?

Let me also give you an example of Ra, Sun God of the Egyptian culture.

You obviously know that religion has always been a common factor at the birth of civilization, and all for the sense of binding a certain tribe because if they spread out as individuals they'll end up dead in the wilderness alone. "Unity has always been strength", and for that superstitions rose just to stick together, and those superstitions brought religion (obviously, what else could one expect when Sentience is still in an infant stage?). Eventually the priests and scholars decided to educate people in various aspects of life, and the Sun was still in question. Ra was born, an unreal personification of the Sun, the life giver of all worlds. And I really MEAN it was a personification, similar to how Nanami personifies Windows 7, how Dust Bunnies personifies Dust, etc. And the Scholars had no reason to BELIEVE that Ra was a real individual; just a personification for the commoners to understand the Sun's significance in life. The personalities would demonstrate the behavior of the sun itself, and religion was still intact.

However, all hell broke loose when the commoners actually BELIEVED that the Sun was actually some divine deity looking at them and waiting to judge them all. You wouldn't believe how many people rushed out of their homes just to kneel before the sun and asking him to forgive them. Of course, some of the politicians then decided to keep the misconception of Ra just to use them as en excuse to scare the commoners. And with this, even more Gods were born.