This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Arctic-Stranger
It seems that whenever a comparison is made between Religion and X, X is always science. That is perhaps understandable, since both are perceived as attempts to find truth and sometimes even Truth. But it seems an inapt comparison in many ways. Religion, for example is broader as a category than science. It has totally different parameters and totally different ways of understanding the world. It can even mean radically different things when it speaks of truth.
If religion tries to usurp science (or vice versa), that is a different thing. And there are people who pit them against one another, on both sides of the aisle, and the results are pretty pathetic. When it comes to creation, I think it is fair to say science wins, hands down. When it comes to personal meaning in life, faith tends to take the upper hand.
But if you pit those two against one another, which often happens here, you just get partisan bickering. (Not that it’s going to stop anytime soon.)
All that led to wonder what other types of competing narratives for reality we may be missing here. For example, what about Politics vs. Religion. I don’t mean religion in politics, I mean politics as an ultimate end vs. religion as an ultimate end.
Or Art? Or Psychology?
Can we start pitting religion against other things that tend to offer some kind of explanation of society, and broaden out from the old, tired, Science vs. Religion debate?
If religion tries to usurp science (or vice versa), that is a different thing. And there are people who pit them against one another, on both sides of the aisle, and the results are pretty pathetic. When it comes to creation, I think it is fair to say science wins, hands down. When it comes to personal meaning in life, faith tends to take the upper hand.
But if you pit those two against one another, which often happens here, you just get partisan bickering. (Not that it’s going to stop anytime soon.)
All that led to wonder what other types of competing narratives for reality we may be missing here. For example, what about Politics vs. Religion. I don’t mean religion in politics, I mean politics as an ultimate end vs. religion as an ultimate end.
Or Art? Or Psychology?
Can we start pitting religion against other things that tend to offer some kind of explanation of society, and broaden out from the old, tired, Science vs. Religion debate?
2paradoxosalpha
Religion vs. Magic is always good for a laugh.
3AsYouKnow_Bob
Religion, for example is broader as a category than science.
Maybe for some.
Less, snarkily, yeah, I get what you're driving at - - and the only competing frame I can think of is "Simple Living": existence without the need for overarching philosophical frames: growing crops, builds houses, raising babies, just getting on with living....
(...There's probably an established name for this, a name that is currently escaping me....)
Maybe for some.
Less, snarkily, yeah, I get what you're driving at - - and the only competing frame I can think of is "Simple Living": existence without the need for overarching philosophical frames: growing crops, builds houses, raising babies, just getting on with living....
(...There's probably an established name for this, a name that is currently escaping me....)
4Jesse_wiedinmyer
It can even mean radically different things when it speaks of truth.
So what would you argue that religion means when it speaks of truth?
So what would you argue that religion means when it speaks of truth?
5John5918
>1 Arctic-Stranger: Can we start pitting religion against other things that tend to offer some kind of explanation of society
I understand what you're getting at, but I often wonder why religion has to be pitted against anything. Why either/or? Why not both/and? Why not complementarity?
>3 AsYouKnow_Bob: "Simple Living" looks like a good enough name to me. The Amish seem to have some ideas about it (I happened to visit Amish country a few weeks ago so it's fresh in my memory). Within some circles in Christianity it would probably come under "Creation Spirituality" (which has nothing to do with Creationism and indeed is probably pretty much the polar opposite).
I understand what you're getting at, but I often wonder why religion has to be pitted against anything. Why either/or? Why not both/and? Why not complementarity?
>3 AsYouKnow_Bob: "Simple Living" looks like a good enough name to me. The Amish seem to have some ideas about it (I happened to visit Amish country a few weeks ago so it's fresh in my memory). Within some circles in Christianity it would probably come under "Creation Spirituality" (which has nothing to do with Creationism and indeed is probably pretty much the polar opposite).
6John5918
I wonder whether working together on humanitarian aid is another area where religion and X are complementary and not adversarial? From my personal experience I believe they are, although there has been much armchair criticism on LT based on the scourge of random googling. I think the following article from NCR gives a fairly balanced view of faith-based humanitarian aid:
The landscape of faith-based humanitarian aid reflects a world in flux
The landscape of faith-based humanitarian aid reflects a world in flux
8erlantostes
I think philosophy is religion's main opponent.
Phl's paradoxes and dilemmas go against Rlg's dogmas, once they are assumed as absolute truths by the believers.
Actually, every line that questions things and is opened to more than one possible explanation, must be a natural opponent to religion.
Phl's paradoxes and dilemmas go against Rlg's dogmas, once they are assumed as absolute truths by the believers.
Actually, every line that questions things and is opened to more than one possible explanation, must be a natural opponent to religion.
9John5918
>8 erlantostes: every line that questions things and is opened to more than one possible explanation
Why?
Do you really mean every line, or some lines? And do you really mean religion, or some manifestations of religion?
Why?
Do you really mean every line, or some lines? And do you really mean religion, or some manifestations of religion?
10paradoxosalpha
> 8
If we put a finer point on it, I think the philosophy vs. theology opposition has been an important engine of Western culture. What we typically call "science" is, however, a mature form of "natural philosophy," so we may not have gotten very far from the contrast Arctic-Stranger was trying to leave behind.
If we put a finer point on it, I think the philosophy vs. theology opposition has been an important engine of Western culture. What we typically call "science" is, however, a mature form of "natural philosophy," so we may not have gotten very far from the contrast Arctic-Stranger was trying to leave behind.
11erlantostes
> 9
My fault.
I didn't considered the whole scope about religion.
When I wrote religion, consider christian theology.
Put this way and the sentence makes more sense.
My fault.
I didn't considered the whole scope about religion.
When I wrote religion, consider christian theology.
Put this way and the sentence makes more sense.
12John5918
>11 erlantostes: Thanks. But again, do you really mean Christian theology, or do you mean some manifestations of Christian theology?
13erlantostes
> 12, I got your point.
There are many types of interpretation on what they declare as sacred sriptures, what causes the existence of many manifestations of Christian theology.
So, even on the Christian theology itself, I couldn't say that there are absolute truths.
I could quote Nietzsche on "There are no facts, only interpretations".
But I cannot agree with that, cause even if there are lots of interpretations, they present themselves as excludent, and that was my point on the my first sentence.
There are many types of interpretation on what they declare as sacred sriptures, what causes the existence of many manifestations of Christian theology.
So, even on the Christian theology itself, I couldn't say that there are absolute truths.
I could quote Nietzsche on "There are no facts, only interpretations".
But I cannot agree with that, cause even if there are lots of interpretations, they present themselves as excludent, and that was my point on the my first sentence.
14Daithioc
>8 erlantostes:......"Actually, every line that questions things and is opened to more than one possible explanation, must be a natural opponent to religion.....".
Not an entirely unfair observation.
Other aspects of human culture such as art,food,conveyance etc.. etc.. and discussion regarding them can be
interesting, but if we were to adopt a kind of monotheistic missive it would be tragi-comedy.
Picture the scene with 2 people.(Mr. A and Mr. B)
ART.....
A- There are so many different forms of art that I cannot quite decide what is the best.
B- Eh, Fresco is the best.There may be others, but Fresco is the only one for me. I respect all the others
but am just letting you know before we start discussions that Fresco is the way forward.
A- But if we look at the instances of the different forms of..... and we see in the 16th Century how......
it's...... etc. etc.
B- Fresco is the emblem of perfection and is pre-eminent. That's it.
FOOD....
A- I used to like my steak well-done but have changed my preference in recent years. It's interesting how
my tastes have changed and it's difficult to know who is right.
B- It's well-done or nothing.
A- Well, maybe, but there are those who feel well-done means you lose the authentic flavour and
..........etc.. Maybe a medium is a good compromise....etc.....
A- I will talk about gastronomy all night and will be unfailingly polite, but before we kickstart a good chat
just letting you know that well-done is the way to go. It is the correct way. Anyone who doesn't like
well-done just means they haven't been enlightened yet on the right way to eat steak.
CONVEYANCE-(on dry land)
A- I sometimes prefer to fly than to drive as it.......etc....
B- Driving is the best way forward.Forget motorbikes,trains and all other forms.
A- Yes, but I mean in some circumstances.....etc..Trains can have tables and be quite relaxing.. etc..
A- All well and good,(said with a modest unassuming smile into which butter would melt) but
if you are not driving a car you just have not found the best means of transport yet. Not only that
but Mercedes Benz is the best car.Not BMW or Chevrolet, or Honda etc... Mercedez Benz cars are the
only true way to travel.(A Teutonic god came to me last night in a vision and revealed it to me).
B- Yes, but not only do you narrow the best mode of transport down to one type, you narrow it
further to one particular type of car. How can we say without question that Mercedez Benz is the best.
A- Well, prove to me this car is "not" the best !!!
AS FOR gods and religion.
Well, I quite like the Greek/Roman inventions. I mean, I think it's exciting(invigorating even) to have
compartmentalized gods for water,war,agriculture etc... I quite like Aphrodite but am not so sure about
Hades(King of the underworld). Mono is ever so boring. I'm not so captivated by the Islamic vision of
Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse, unfortunately, but I do quite like the goddess Juno
dressed in goatskin. very fetching. Not so sure either about a Jew born from a Palestinian virgin, all seems
a bit puritan and not much fun...although the water into wine was quite a good trick.
Thor was a real macho god, a good one for a bit of reassurance but not so sure about this god bloke
who had his only son tortured and nailed to death on a piece of wood.Done out of love to display a
shining example of mercy, hmmmmmm. Think I'll take Hades before that one.
Then the Aborigines and animism, that's cool and at least seems fairer. A piece of rock or a
flower can have a soul just like a human being. That's great.
wow...so many religions and gods. I'll have to have a think first on which one I like most and
floats my Boat. Could be Poseidon, hmmmm...
Hard to pick just one though, eh. I have heard a rumour(not sure if true or not) that they are ALL true,lol.
Not an entirely unfair observation.
Other aspects of human culture such as art,food,conveyance etc.. etc.. and discussion regarding them can be
interesting, but if we were to adopt a kind of monotheistic missive it would be tragi-comedy.
Picture the scene with 2 people.(Mr. A and Mr. B)
ART.....
A- There are so many different forms of art that I cannot quite decide what is the best.
B- Eh, Fresco is the best.There may be others, but Fresco is the only one for me. I respect all the others
but am just letting you know before we start discussions that Fresco is the way forward.
A- But if we look at the instances of the different forms of..... and we see in the 16th Century how......
it's...... etc. etc.
B- Fresco is the emblem of perfection and is pre-eminent. That's it.
FOOD....
A- I used to like my steak well-done but have changed my preference in recent years. It's interesting how
my tastes have changed and it's difficult to know who is right.
B- It's well-done or nothing.
A- Well, maybe, but there are those who feel well-done means you lose the authentic flavour and
..........etc.. Maybe a medium is a good compromise....etc.....
A- I will talk about gastronomy all night and will be unfailingly polite, but before we kickstart a good chat
just letting you know that well-done is the way to go. It is the correct way. Anyone who doesn't like
well-done just means they haven't been enlightened yet on the right way to eat steak.
CONVEYANCE-(on dry land)
A- I sometimes prefer to fly than to drive as it.......etc....
B- Driving is the best way forward.Forget motorbikes,trains and all other forms.
A- Yes, but I mean in some circumstances.....etc..Trains can have tables and be quite relaxing.. etc..
A- All well and good,(said with a modest unassuming smile into which butter would melt) but
if you are not driving a car you just have not found the best means of transport yet. Not only that
but Mercedes Benz is the best car.Not BMW or Chevrolet, or Honda etc... Mercedez Benz cars are the
only true way to travel.(A Teutonic god came to me last night in a vision and revealed it to me).
B- Yes, but not only do you narrow the best mode of transport down to one type, you narrow it
further to one particular type of car. How can we say without question that Mercedez Benz is the best.
A- Well, prove to me this car is "not" the best !!!
AS FOR gods and religion.
Well, I quite like the Greek/Roman inventions. I mean, I think it's exciting(invigorating even) to have
compartmentalized gods for water,war,agriculture etc... I quite like Aphrodite but am not so sure about
Hades(King of the underworld). Mono is ever so boring. I'm not so captivated by the Islamic vision of
Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse, unfortunately, but I do quite like the goddess Juno
dressed in goatskin. very fetching. Not so sure either about a Jew born from a Palestinian virgin, all seems
a bit puritan and not much fun...although the water into wine was quite a good trick.
Thor was a real macho god, a good one for a bit of reassurance but not so sure about this god bloke
who had his only son tortured and nailed to death on a piece of wood.Done out of love to display a
shining example of mercy, hmmmmmm. Think I'll take Hades before that one.
Then the Aborigines and animism, that's cool and at least seems fairer. A piece of rock or a
flower can have a soul just like a human being. That's great.
wow...so many religions and gods. I'll have to have a think first on which one I like most and
floats my Boat. Could be Poseidon, hmmmm...
Hard to pick just one though, eh. I have heard a rumour(not sure if true or not) that they are ALL true,lol.
15John5918
>13 erlantostes: I don't think that all interpretations present themselves as exclusive of others. And there are many areas where there can be agreement regardless of whether one is an atheist or a religious person.
162wonderY
>3 AsYouKnow_Bob:
Simple living
Existentialism?
I don't know if I use the term historicaly correctly (sp.) but it's the word that comes to mind at the end of Candide.
Simple living
Existentialism?
I don't know if I use the term historicaly correctly (sp.) but it's the word that comes to mind at the end of Candide.
17erlantostes
> 15
"And there are many areas where there can be agreement regardless of whether one is an atheist or a religious person."
Yes, I totally agree, but you're not understanding that I'm talking about truth, not agreement,
Once one claims itself as true, it excludes the others, even if there is agreement in some ideas.
Take catholics and protestants, on their basic beliefs.
Despite their many agreement points, both cannot be considered true at the same time, because of their few disagreements.
IMHO
"And there are many areas where there can be agreement regardless of whether one is an atheist or a religious person."
Yes, I totally agree, but you're not understanding that I'm talking about truth, not agreement,
Once one claims itself as true, it excludes the others, even if there is agreement in some ideas.
Take catholics and protestants, on their basic beliefs.
Despite their many agreement points, both cannot be considered true at the same time, because of their few disagreements.
IMHO
18nathanielcampbell
>17 erlantostes:: You are making the not-entirely-valid assumption that religious claims to truth must operate according to the principle of non-contradiction, i.e. that if there is a religious claim A and a religious claim -A, the two must be exclusive.
The problem with this is that many religions, including both major traditions within Christianity and many eastern religious/philosophical traditions, hold that the principle of non-contradiction does NOT obtain in describing ultimate reality. For example, the essence of the apophatic theology of Pseudo Dionysius is that God is that reality where positive and negative, light and dark meet and collapse: the "coincidence of opposites".
Thus, though two competing religious claims might seem contradictory and thus exclusive to our way of thinking; from the divine perspective, the contradiction or paradox resolves itself. Thus, both Catholics and Protestants could be considered "true" Christians at the same time, despite their few disagreements. (As an aside: many Christians would argue that, despite doctrinal differences between Catholic and Protestant, the key factor--salvation--is independent of doctrinal difference, because it is effected, not by the human apprehension of doctrine, but by the divine offer of grace.)
Eastern religions might go even farther: there are many Buddhists (and even some of the more philosophical Hindus) who see no contradiction in being simultaneously a Buddhist and a Christian or a Buddhist and a Muslim or a Buddhist and a Jew. The very concept of the yogas is that, though each path might appear contradictory when viewed from the base of the mountain--for example, one is tree-lined while the other is unshaded and dusty--all lead to the same summit.
The problem with this is that many religions, including both major traditions within Christianity and many eastern religious/philosophical traditions, hold that the principle of non-contradiction does NOT obtain in describing ultimate reality. For example, the essence of the apophatic theology of Pseudo Dionysius is that God is that reality where positive and negative, light and dark meet and collapse: the "coincidence of opposites".
Thus, though two competing religious claims might seem contradictory and thus exclusive to our way of thinking; from the divine perspective, the contradiction or paradox resolves itself. Thus, both Catholics and Protestants could be considered "true" Christians at the same time, despite their few disagreements. (As an aside: many Christians would argue that, despite doctrinal differences between Catholic and Protestant, the key factor--salvation--is independent of doctrinal difference, because it is effected, not by the human apprehension of doctrine, but by the divine offer of grace.)
Eastern religions might go even farther: there are many Buddhists (and even some of the more philosophical Hindus) who see no contradiction in being simultaneously a Buddhist and a Christian or a Buddhist and a Muslim or a Buddhist and a Jew. The very concept of the yogas is that, though each path might appear contradictory when viewed from the base of the mountain--for example, one is tree-lined while the other is unshaded and dusty--all lead to the same summit.
19Daithioc
.>18 nathanielcampbell:..."Eastern religions might go even farther: there are many Buddhists (and even some of the more philosophical Hindus) who see no contradiction in being simultaneously a Buddhist and a Christian or a Buddhist and a Muslim or a Buddhist and a Jew. The very concept of the yogas is that, though each path might appear contradictory when viewed from the base of the mountain--for example, one is tree-lined while the other is unshaded and dusty--all lead to the same summit..."
Your pliability of 'confirmation bias' never ceases to amaze me.
I live in Thailand, where of course Buddhism is predominant. I personally know one of the
Monks who makes regular contributions to this website. http://www.dmc.tv/
(the most popular Buddhist TV station in Thailand).
We can talk about tree-lined avenues all we like, but when push (as it occasionally does) comes to shove,
the year is 2556 and not 2013 and a jew born of a virgin is not the creator of the Universe.Full stop.
You will not meet(for the large part) a nicer, more peace-loving person than your average Thai monk but when
opened up in conversation,make no mistake they will tell you their way is the right and "only" way.
The Thai monk's answer is simply to keep seeking and you will find the "truth", as, if you only believe in your
current religion the truth has not been revealed to you yet.
I just thought I would give you on-the-ground-feedback. I won't go into the technicalities of yoga and
tree-lined avenues, rather, just telling you that if you go to any major Wat in any of the 70+ provinces in
Thailand what a monk will really think of his religion versus others!!! There are no grey areas or tree-lined
avenues for them.
Your pliability of 'confirmation bias' never ceases to amaze me.
I live in Thailand, where of course Buddhism is predominant. I personally know one of the
Monks who makes regular contributions to this website. http://www.dmc.tv/
(the most popular Buddhist TV station in Thailand).
We can talk about tree-lined avenues all we like, but when push (as it occasionally does) comes to shove,
the year is 2556 and not 2013 and a jew born of a virgin is not the creator of the Universe.Full stop.
You will not meet(for the large part) a nicer, more peace-loving person than your average Thai monk but when
opened up in conversation,make no mistake they will tell you their way is the right and "only" way.
The Thai monk's answer is simply to keep seeking and you will find the "truth", as, if you only believe in your
current religion the truth has not been revealed to you yet.
I just thought I would give you on-the-ground-feedback. I won't go into the technicalities of yoga and
tree-lined avenues, rather, just telling you that if you go to any major Wat in any of the 70+ provinces in
Thailand what a monk will really think of his religion versus others!!! There are no grey areas or tree-lined
avenues for them.
20erlantostes
>18 nathanielcampbell: and others
I'm really really sorry in not being able to exteriorize my argument.
Let's assume there is a divine truth about every aspect of life.
And let's imagine that there are only three groups who try to reach this truth.
Every group create doctrines to sistematize its beliefs.
Let's say that group#1's doctrine resumes itself to 5 postulates.
In group#2 there are 5 postulates as well, having 2 different from group #1.
In group #3, there are 5 postulates. 2 agrees only to group#1 and 2 only to group#2. The fifth postulate is commom to both.
Now, let's say that group#1 is totally true on its postulates, according to that divine truth on the beggining of the post.
Can we say that groups #2 and #3 are true?
IMHO, no. Despite they HAVE thuths, they aren't completely trues.
See, my argument is completely based on the premise:
"Let's assume there is a divine truth about every aspect of life."
Look, I'm not talking about consequences of the lack of truth in certain aspects. I'm talking about absolute truth.
I'm really really sorry in not being able to exteriorize my argument.
Let's assume there is a divine truth about every aspect of life.
And let's imagine that there are only three groups who try to reach this truth.
Every group create doctrines to sistematize its beliefs.
Let's say that group#1's doctrine resumes itself to 5 postulates.
In group#2 there are 5 postulates as well, having 2 different from group #1.
In group #3, there are 5 postulates. 2 agrees only to group#1 and 2 only to group#2. The fifth postulate is commom to both.
Now, let's say that group#1 is totally true on its postulates, according to that divine truth on the beggining of the post.
Can we say that groups #2 and #3 are true?
IMHO, no. Despite they HAVE thuths, they aren't completely trues.
See, my argument is completely based on the premise:
"Let's assume there is a divine truth about every aspect of life."
Look, I'm not talking about consequences of the lack of truth in certain aspects. I'm talking about absolute truth.
21nathanielcampbell
>20 erlantostes:: But again, you are assuming that, given two contradictory postulates, only one can can correspond to the absolute truth. Many religious thinkers would dispute that assumption, on the basis that what seems contradictory to the limited and finite human perspective may NOT be contradictory to the infinite divine perspective.
That is, the disagreement between those postulates that differ between your three hypothetical groups may only appear to be disagreement because of distortions of a finite human perspective. In your hypothetical groups, there are a total of somewhere around 7 or 8 postulates, only 5 of which may appear to us to correspond to the absolute truth, but all of which may actually correspond to it, given the divine perspective.
That is, the disagreement between those postulates that differ between your three hypothetical groups may only appear to be disagreement because of distortions of a finite human perspective. In your hypothetical groups, there are a total of somewhere around 7 or 8 postulates, only 5 of which may appear to us to correspond to the absolute truth, but all of which may actually correspond to it, given the divine perspective.
22John5918
>20 erlantostes: Let's assume
And therein lies the problem, I think, because the assumption might not be valid. Basically I think Nathaniel has answered well, if a little more intellectually than I could manage. Religion does not necessarily assume that if I am right you are wrong. We might both be right, or we might both be partially right but incomplete, or we might be like the blind men trying to describe the elephant from the bits each one can touch.
And therein lies the problem, I think, because the assumption might not be valid. Basically I think Nathaniel has answered well, if a little more intellectually than I could manage. Religion does not necessarily assume that if I am right you are wrong. We might both be right, or we might both be partially right but incomplete, or we might be like the blind men trying to describe the elephant from the bits each one can touch.
24paradoxosalpha
> 23
How about it? (See #8 and #10.)
How about it? (See #8 and #10.)
25southernbooklady
>1 Arctic-Stranger: All that led to wonder what other types of competing narratives for reality we may be missing here
Arctic cited this slightly tongue in cheek I think, but politics and religion do seem to be natural competitors. Especially in the United States, where debates over what constitutes a moral society frequently run into questions about the importance of the separation of church and state.
It is a debate between secular vs. religious ethics, or perhaps a debate between relativistic moral systems (determined by public opinion) vs universal moral systems (presumably divinely ordained)
Given the right stage or set of issues, this can often turn out be competition between a religious and a secular or political set of priorities.
Arctic cited this slightly tongue in cheek I think, but politics and religion do seem to be natural competitors. Especially in the United States, where debates over what constitutes a moral society frequently run into questions about the importance of the separation of church and state.
It is a debate between secular vs. religious ethics, or perhaps a debate between relativistic moral systems (determined by public opinion) vs universal moral systems (presumably divinely ordained)
Given the right stage or set of issues, this can often turn out be competition between a religious and a secular or political set of priorities.
26John5918
>25 southernbooklady: And yet on almost any political issue you will find religious people on all sides of the debate (even though, as I have said before, it is completely beyond me how any Christian can vote for a right wing conservative party; mind you, there are just as many Christians who apparently cannot fathom how a Christian can vote for a socialist party!)
27aleng
>24 paradoxosalpha: Well, Philosophy and Religion are much closer than science and religion. Both of them cover things that can't be observed in the natural world. If you want to pit them against each other though, you can't just say "Philosophy" or "Religion", since there are overlapping cases.
28southernbooklady
>26 John5918: And yet on almost any political issue you will find religious people on all sides of the debate
Well, yes. But the justifications we use for our political positions take on a different tone when we think they are founded on things like "inalienable rights" or "divine will." It's why politics in America can get so charged--each side believing that they have a foundational justification for their position that no only makes them "right" and thus the other guys "wrong" but prevents them from seeking any kind of compromise or middle ground.
Well, yes. But the justifications we use for our political positions take on a different tone when we think they are founded on things like "inalienable rights" or "divine will." It's why politics in America can get so charged--each side believing that they have a foundational justification for their position that no only makes them "right" and thus the other guys "wrong" but prevents them from seeking any kind of compromise or middle ground.
29Arctic-Stranger
Actually I was not thinking about religion in politics or politics in religion. I was thinking of politics as the answer to life's issues. I guess that comes from working around it as much as I do. My Dem friends are political in almost the same way my religious friends do church, except the meetings are more boring and there is no singing. When I was at the Democratic National Convention last August it felt almost exactly like the large pastor's conferences I used to attend, except the speakers were a little better and there was no singing.
In other words, for many people politics IS their religion. Just as there are people who are nominally involved in church there are people who are nominally involved in politics, and just like in church people do always buy into the party line, they certainly do not in politics (at least I can say from experience that Democrats do not!)
And as my Christian friends have hope that religion (meditation, Jesus, or whatever form it takes) has the ability to "save" or enlighten people, so many of my political friends think that of politics and live and die by who is in office and what legislation they propose and pass.
In other words, for many people politics IS their religion. Just as there are people who are nominally involved in church there are people who are nominally involved in politics, and just like in church people do always buy into the party line, they certainly do not in politics (at least I can say from experience that Democrats do not!)
And as my Christian friends have hope that religion (meditation, Jesus, or whatever form it takes) has the ability to "save" or enlighten people, so many of my political friends think that of politics and live and die by who is in office and what legislation they propose and pass.
30Arctic-Stranger
Actually I was not thinking about religion in politics or politics in religion. I was thinking of politics as the answer to life's issues. I guess that comes from working around it as much as I do. My Dem friends are political in almost the same way my religious friends do church, except the meetings are more boring and there is no singing. When I was at the Democratic National Convention last August it felt almost exactly like the large pastor's conferences I used to attend, except the speakers were a little better and there was no singing.
In other words, for many people politics IS their religion. Just as there are people who are nominally involved in church there are people who are nominally involved in politics, and just like in church people do always buy into the party line, they certainly do not in politics (at least I can say from experience that Democrats do not!)
And as my Christian friends have hope that religion (meditation, Jesus, or whatever form it takes) has the ability to "save" or enlighten people, so many of my political friends think that of politics and live and die by who is in office and what legislation they propose and pass.
In other words, for many people politics IS their religion. Just as there are people who are nominally involved in church there are people who are nominally involved in politics, and just like in church people do always buy into the party line, they certainly do not in politics (at least I can say from experience that Democrats do not!)
And as my Christian friends have hope that religion (meditation, Jesus, or whatever form it takes) has the ability to "save" or enlighten people, so many of my political friends think that of politics and live and die by who is in office and what legislation they propose and pass.
31southernbooklady
>29 Arctic-Stranger: Actually I was not thinking about religion in politics or politics in religion. I was thinking of politics as the answer to life's issues.
Ah. As in, what gets you out of bed in the morning? What gives your life meaning?
But that seems like a very personal path, not one that automatically translates into a kind of evangelical response.
Ah. As in, what gets you out of bed in the morning? What gives your life meaning?
But that seems like a very personal path, not one that automatically translates into a kind of evangelical response.
32Arctic-Stranger
It can be personal...but every election my friends are on the telephone and out there knocking on doors to get people to vote for their candidate. They knock on more doors and make more phone calls than Jehovah Witnesses.
But you are right, it does not automatically transfer into a evangelical response. I myself am not much of a door knocker for either religion or candidates.
I do remember hearing Tom Peters in a seminar once say that every good manager should be a "raging inexorable thunder-lizard evangelist."
But you are right, it does not automatically transfer into a evangelical response. I myself am not much of a door knocker for either religion or candidates.
I do remember hearing Tom Peters in a seminar once say that every good manager should be a "raging inexorable thunder-lizard evangelist."
33Jesse_wiedinmyer
How about religion vs. professional sports. You've got the singing. The homoeroticism. The evangelism. The exhortations to believe.
34Arctic-Stranger
In North Carolina college basketball is a religion.
35southernbooklady
I think it is safer to talk politics than college basketball here. Less contentious.
36Arctic-Stranger
The question I have of these activities is whether they can sustain a life, or sustain a culture.
37Jesse_wiedinmyer
Sustain a life?
38John5918
>33 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Try telling Celtic and Rangers fans that football (aka soccer) and religion are not the same thing!
40Daithioc
>27 aleng:.
Good post. There are indeed closely related issues in religion and philosophy. So closely related are they that I
tend to agree in a broad sense on what the Hitch once said......"Religion ends and philosophy begins,just as
alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends, and astronomy begins..."
Real tangential links with Science and religion, eh, no.Not on planet-reality. But some linkage to philosophy
and religion, sure.
Philosophers musing over whether or not there is anything outside the noumenal is perfectly natural.
Even before a time of Aristotle or Plato I would hazard to guess that as far back as we had a cerebral
cortex and a set of eyes, our species has looked upwards and around us and wondered just what we are
doing here and what part we play(if any) in the larger scheme of things.
Our innate curiosity as a species and our musings are what kickstarted all philosophy, whether it be
natural,moral or metaphysical etc... philosophy.
To deconstruct this hugely wide field to the 'mono' and have a central tenet of this branch of thought
as being, say, about mohammed who flew to Heaven on a winged horse...or a jew born of a Palestinian
virgin and nailed to a piece of wood.........etc.. is the tragedy.
The wonder, awe and potential for discussion of the realities around us are, for me, so much more
inspiring and invigorating that a cobbled together set of bronze-age books.
I feel, that to think about what might be out there in a metaphysical context a person needs to come out of a
mono-mindset and become a bit broader in thought. That will simply never happen for some though.
C'est la vie.
Good post. There are indeed closely related issues in religion and philosophy. So closely related are they that I
tend to agree in a broad sense on what the Hitch once said......"Religion ends and philosophy begins,just as
alchemy ends and chemistry begins and astrology ends, and astronomy begins..."
Real tangential links with Science and religion, eh, no.Not on planet-reality. But some linkage to philosophy
and religion, sure.
Philosophers musing over whether or not there is anything outside the noumenal is perfectly natural.
Even before a time of Aristotle or Plato I would hazard to guess that as far back as we had a cerebral
cortex and a set of eyes, our species has looked upwards and around us and wondered just what we are
doing here and what part we play(if any) in the larger scheme of things.
Our innate curiosity as a species and our musings are what kickstarted all philosophy, whether it be
natural,moral or metaphysical etc... philosophy.
To deconstruct this hugely wide field to the 'mono' and have a central tenet of this branch of thought
as being, say, about mohammed who flew to Heaven on a winged horse...or a jew born of a Palestinian
virgin and nailed to a piece of wood.........etc.. is the tragedy.
The wonder, awe and potential for discussion of the realities around us are, for me, so much more
inspiring and invigorating that a cobbled together set of bronze-age books.
I feel, that to think about what might be out there in a metaphysical context a person needs to come out of a
mono-mindset and become a bit broader in thought. That will simply never happen for some though.
C'est la vie.
41librorumamans
>1 Arctic-Stranger: I'm short of time just now, so I can't develop any thoughts. However a scan of the conversation doesn't turn up the word "environment". So I propose religion and environmentalism as not-necessarily-competing narratives of reality.
42John5918
>41 librorumamans: And indeed there's a large body of literature and praxis within Christianity on what is often known as Creation Spirituality, which is very much in tune with environmentalism.
43nathanielcampbell
>41 librorumamans:: "So I propose religion and environmentalism as not-necessarily-competing narratives of reality."
Fortuitously, the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article this week exploring exactly this point, through the lens of "environmental apocalypticism": http://chronicle.com/article/Against-Environmental-Panic/139733/
Fortuitously, the Chronicle of Higher Education has an article this week exploring exactly this point, through the lens of "environmental apocalypticism": http://chronicle.com/article/Against-Environmental-Panic/139733/
Rejecting both capitalism and socialism, ecologism has come to power almost nowhere. But it has won the battle of ideas. The environment is the new secular religion that is rising, in Europe especially, from the ruins of a disbelieving world. We have to subject it to critical evaluation in turn and unmask the infantile disease that is eroding and discrediting it: catastrophism.
44librorumamans
>43 nathanielcampbell: Thank you, nathanielcampell. That's an interesting look at parallels between an established and an emerging theology.
I am, though, left still dubious about the Alberta tar sands.
I am, though, left still dubious about the Alberta tar sands.
