Why Talk Religion?

As interesting a subject as religion is, of even more interest, to me at least, is why people talk about it. In particular, why do the people who participate in this LT forum "talk religion"?

Having been a fairly faithful participant in this group, and its parent group "Pro and Con Religion", I've come to know a number of people who regularly contribute to these threads. Some are old standbuys, who can be counted on to pipe up on just about every topic. Others chime in on a more occasional basis. Still others become intensely involved for a period of time and then abruptly depart, often slamming the metaphorical door behind them. (One even went so far as to systematically delete all of his/her posts, which amounted to well over a hundred deletions -- that's a lot of effort!) Even the person who created this forum no longer participates, although he didn't make a big deal of discontinuing his involvement.

I wonder why we continue on, those of us who do continue on -- particularly when many of the same points get repeated over and over again. Are we trying to convince somebody of something? If so, who and what?

It's baffling.

I find it helpful in clarifying issues for myself: as the apocryphal old lady said, "How can I know what I think till I see what I say?"

Experience suggests that many people talk religion because they are trying to convince themselves. Human beings generally need a sense of purpose, and those of an intellectual bent like to argue about what the purpose is.

I participate for two reasons.

1. as @MyopicBookworm stated, to help clarify issues for myself. Being challenged on my ideas about morality, truth and the nature of existence has forced me to examine casually-held ideas to see if they hold up under scrutiny. I enjoy that.

2. There are a couple of topics that are hot button issues for me, and thus I chime in when they appear. When these topics show up on religious forums, I chime in there. Creationism as science being the most immediate example. I can't stand to leave a creationist proposal unanswered.

It is true people come and go on these forums. I have not been on here very long in the general scheme of things. But I've enjoyed "sparring" with the people I've met.

> 2, 3. to help clarify issues for myself

Are there any issues that have become better clarified for you as a result of these discussions?

Me personally? I've had what was a casual disbelief in god evolve into a conviction that a concept of god is not necessary to explain existence. I've made some inroads into the possibilities and limits of a position of moral relativism. And I've gained a little bit of sense of how far a fruitful discussion on the nature of belief and morality can go before it runs up against the wall of incompatible foundational principles.

I'm a religious official and so I spend a lot of time talking about religious matters with my co-religionists. I find it useful to come to venues like this one to get a wider-angle view of what people think the purpose, value, and hazards of religion might be.

I also find that my viewpoint as an active member of a newer, non-Christian religious movement is pretty underrepresented in these forums, and I don't mind contributing remarks in the hopes that they might broaden discussion.

5. I've had what was a casual disbelief in god evolve into a conviction that a concept of god is not necessary to explain existence.

That's interesting. And you've found that these various LT threads have been useful to you in this evolution?

For myself, I don't really know if I'd characterize my concept of God as being necessary to explain existence. I guess I see God as more of a signpost, for lack of a better word, to a kind of existence that is beyond my ability to understand or articulate, and yet that somehow I intuit, again for lack of a better word.

6. I find it useful to come to venues like this one to get a wider-angle view of what people think the purpose, value, and hazards of religion might be.

Have you found this LT group to have been helpful to you in getting that wider-angle view? Are you exposed to any perspectives that you hadn't encountered before?

my viewpoint as an active member of a newer, non-Christian religious movement

I wish I understood your movement better. Is it possible to distill down to basic principles?

> 8 Have you found this LT group to have been helpful to you in getting that wider-angle view? Are you exposed to any perspectives that you hadn't encountered before?

Not so much perspectives I hadn't encountered, but perhaps an assortment of rhetorical gambits that exhibit and attempt to communicate those perspectives. I've certainly learned a few things.

I wish I understood your movement better. Is it possible to distill down to basic principles?

Sure. Here's a thumbnail sketch.

>8 jburlinson: Have you found this LT group to have been helpful to you in getting that wider-angle view? Are you exposed to any perspectives that you hadn't encountered before?


One thing that has been useful is to learn how different terms mean different and even unexpected things when placed in a theological or philosophical context. I've picked up quite a bit about how modern Christians understand the nature of sin or the "fallen" state of the universe, for example. And because I am not a trained philosopher, I was surprised to discover that the term "moral realism" did not mean a kind of here-and-now pragmatism, (as I initially thought) but instead was the position that things like "good" and "evil" had their own objective existence, or reality. (which, by the way, I don't think at all)

I think those sorts of misunderstandings are likely to happen often and people on both sides of a debate can learn quite a lot about the other's position just by taking care to understand how they are using the language.

> 9. Very interesting. It's hard not to be struck by the statement: "we should each live according to our own True Will."

I'm assuming that any individual person's True Will would be different from other people's. Is that correct? If so, is one's True Will clearly discernable to a person, or does a person need to be educated or trained in order to distinguish the "true Will" from, say, impulses of the moment? Or are those impusles expressions of the true Will?

> 11

Here's a short canonical instruction that addresses those questions.

> 12. OK. Thanks. Although I'm going to have to delve a little deeper to get a better sense of what my true will is. I'm having a bit of trouble finding my way to Liber Thisarb (see Equinox I(7), p. 105), I'm afraid.

>12 paradoxosalpha: Just as a matter of interest, why does a modern religion use KJV language? Thou, wilt, nay...

Interesting question. Having read the two references provided by paradoxosalpha I wonder why the practitioners call what they do a 'religion'? All quite fascinating (though much too introspective for my tastes) but very far from any definition of 'religion' I can find. For example Oxford says religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". M-W encyclopaedia explanation opens with "Relation of human beings to God or the gods or to whatever they consider sacred or, in some cases, merely supernatural".

Christianity does of course regard God as 'inside me' as well as 'out there' within and without history, but certainly supernatural and not focused on 'self'. Buddhism (usually considered a religion) certainly has a strong focus on 'self', but in the context of karma being impersonal and universal - something one can aspire (wrong word I know) to improve but only as a path to deva, the nearest translation of which is godship.

It seems to me that paradoxosalpha's movement has followed and built on what most would regard as Crowley's tendency to self-aggrandisement by dressing up relatively simplistic matters in quaint and archaic language and (deliberate?) obfuscation, inventing or re-inventing arcane rites and practices and seeking to differentiate himself from the common herd by calling all this a new and better 'religion'. Question is perhaps, is something a religion because its devotees say so?

Thelema has been recognised as a religion in the British legal system on the basis that it has a holy book and a deity. But then famously 'the law is a ass' :-)

14 I'm guessing it's because many of the key texts were either compiled or translated in the late 19th century, when archaic "literary" language was more or less expected of any religious text, or indeed any text with pretensions to either antiquity or wisdom. This literary language was more or less ubiquitous in poetry and only gradually displaced during the late 19th and early 20th century; it is seen across a range of religious texts from Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine" to the "Book of Mormon".

There are still some people who think it necessary to use archaic forms in religious contexts, including those who seem to think that, since the KJV is inspired, God must speak in 17th century English. I once knew someone who would always attempt to use "thee and thou" language in extempore prayer, but usually came a cropper somewhere along the line, being quite unable to use "wert", wast", "hast", and "hath" correctly on the spur of the moment.

>16 MyopicBookworm:: I grew up high-church Anglican, so even though I have a tendency to mock the KJV-only crowd, and use the RSV or NRSV for most of my scholarly work (the former for retaining the beauty of the language, the latter for its scholarship and ease of use with college students -- though when I'm working with the Vulgate, I usually reference the Douay-Rheims, as well), I still often pray with thou's and thee's, because it's what I'm used to.

(Of course, I also have a tendency to throw in random passages of Latin and German picked up over the course of time, as well. If people could hear my inner prayers, they'd likely think me one of those crazy people found mumbling on the streets.)

Good job Burly, you found an interesting topic. And you drew out pAlpha.

>15 NaggedMan: Because - and this won't be accurate - religion as you and I define it, depends very strongly on our emotional lives. People have emotional experiences in association with talk about supernatural beings. When someone like Crowley (whom I know vanishingly little about) encounters religion, all he of course sees (because the beings aren't actually there) is the emotional side to it. He / they try to distil the emotional ...[things](?)... and reproduce it without the supernatural meaninglessnesses.

What word to use for it though? 'Spiritual'? Too much baggage for my liking. 'Spiritual' has got to be a synonym for 'emotional', or possibly "emotional responses". Though there is a structure of "philosophy"/"psychology" there supporting the emotional. Maybe what we're talking about is "emotional management". Which may just be a synonym for "morality"...

_______________

I detect traces of Nietzsche in this use of 'will'?

'Will' isn't "a thought process", eg "I have decided to climb Mt Everest, and I'm going to hold myself to that purpose." It's more of a "feeling", and in fact, "true will" could very well be in strong opposition to "made-up-mind will". "True will" lives very much "in the moment", rather than "at the goal".

A question: which sense of the word 'true' is intended here? "True love" doesn't mean "real, actual love"; it means - I believe - "love that shows itself to be true by lasting". 'True' in the sense of an arrow that runs true, ie stays on course. Or in this case, maybe "true will" means "will that lasts/persists".

I'm making this up as I go, so I'll quit now.

__________________________________

I'm sure I've expounded* on my reasons elsewhere, so I'm not going to repeat myself, but
- a question: Some of you speak of attempts at convincing others as if such would be a Bad Thing™. Would it?
- and a comment: I have found the experience educational. I have learnt a lot about abilities I didn't know I had, and about Words That Get Bandied About™.

____________

* Oh. And I do enjoy fiddling with the English language. (While "Rome" "burns".)

#14: One of the problems on projects like Wikipedia is that there's not a single Bible translation of repute pre-1923 (i.e. US public domain) that doesn't use KJV language to a large extent. The American Standard Version of 1901 is the big reputable translation of the early 20th century, and it uses KJV language, as does the Revised Version of 1881 it was an Americanization of. Other religious works of that era are the same way; James Darmester's 1880 translation of the Zend Avesta starts out "Ahura Mazda spake unto Spitama Zarathustra, saying:".

> 13

Liber Thisharb

I'm personally dissatisfied with that as the primary method of coming to understand one's own True Will. De Lege Libellum gives a short but more comprehensive accounting of various approaches and methods for Thelemic self-realization.

> 15

I'm not interested in arguing over the value Crowley's diction or how "archaic" it was when he wrote it. I don't find it "obfuscating" in my own study, but I realize it is far from today's vernacular. He was the sort of reader who read with a dictionary at his elbow, and--however naively--expected that of his own addressees, considering precision of expression to be more important than accessibility to casual perusal. Did you find the language of my own essay to be obscure? I was at pains to achieve lucidity there.

As to whether Thelema is a religion, the acknowledged fact that it has practitioners inclines in that direction. It possesses regular rites and scriptures, distinctive metaphysical attitudes, ethical teachings, and organized bodies conducting worship. To require anything else "religious" of it would be to demand that it ape some other particular religion, as far as I'm concerned.

> 18

I'm not sure why you think I needed "drawing out." My profile page has a link to my sprawling website with content defining my religious positions. I do like "pAlpha" as an abbreviation of my handle, though.

ETA: Traces of +Saint Friedrich Nietzsche, yes.

> 20. De Lege Libellum gives a short but more comprehensive accounting

I appreciate your providing this link; it is indeed more accessible. There is much to ponder here. I'm struck by many of the statements, for example:

"Seek ye all therefore constantly to unite yourselves in rapture with each and every thing that is, and that by utmost passion and lust of Union. To this end take chiefly all such things as are naturally repulsive. For what is pleasant is assimilated easily and without ecstacy: it is in the transfiguration of the loathsome and abhorred into The Beloved that the Self is shaken to the root in Love."

This puts me in mind of St. Francis, who was said to have been particularly revolted by lepers. Only until he was able to embrace one and overcome his disgust was he in a position to move forward on his spiritual journey.

As to the OP question...

People talk about religion (their and other peoples') because religion remains a fundamental part of our society. Like or not (and many clearly do not) religion influences a lot of things in our lives.

So, talking to others helps understand, if not their beliefs, your beliefs. And why you think and act in certain ways about certain subjects. Particularly subjects that others take radically different and/or opposed stands about.

>1 jburlinson: I agree with Bruce in >22 BruceCoulson: that the main general reason for talking about religion is that it is important in our world, whether one loves it or hates it, whether one thinks it ought to be important or not. Mind you, those of us who are Britons of a certain generation were brought up not to talk about religion or politics in polite society; the weather is generally considered to be a safe topic of conversation (and at this very moment, so is cricket, unless there are any Australians within earshot).

why do the people who participate in this LT forum "talk religion"?

I had hoped that this group (and its predecessor) would be a forum where we could discuss religion in a mature and respectful way, disagreeing, certainly, but nevertheless trying to understand each other's different ways of interpreting reality, sharing our experiences, and ultimately all learning something new which could enrich our lives and deepen our own understanding. How naive of me! Too often it is just insults and ridicule, closed-mindedness, intolerance, trying to prove the other person wrong, criticising extremes which are often unrepresentative of the people actually taking part in the conversation... I don't need to go on.

Nevertheless I have learned a lot. I have had to refine and sharpen my own thinking and feeling on religion. I have been moved to go back and check a lot of facts, doctrines, scripture passages, books, etc which I studied long ago and had become a bit foggy about. I have obtained a greater understanding of things like fundamentalism (which I had very little experience of it in its Christian forms, although I was more familiar with the Islamic variety) and atheism. I have also, I think, begun to learn that there is a difference between atheism (which I encounter all the time amongst my family, friends and colleagues) and anti-theism, or anti-religionism, which I have encountered here on LT.

So yes, it is all part of the journey, but I just wish it could be done without the vitriol. Is it so difficult to be courteous to each other while disagreeing? A few regular posters manage it.

>23 John5918: Too often it is just insults and ridicule, close-mindedness, intolerance, trying to prove the other person wrong, criticising extremes which are often unrepresentative of the people actually taking part in the conversation... I don't need to go on.

Nevertheless I have learned a lot.

So...just like life, then. :)

>24 southernbooklady: Pretty much!

Edited to add: And thanks, southernbooklady, for being one of those posters who disagrees courteously.

>21 jburlinson: As told so remarkably and unforgettably by Nikos Kazantsakis in his book "St. Francis". That account has stayed in my memory for years - it truly is unforgettable.

>Opening question:

I monitor semi-regularly the topics that the group is discussing. I participate, when I do, for some of the same reasons as MyopicBookworm and southernbooklady.

Religion has become such a pressing, urgent, and pervasive issue in public life that I think it's necessary for there to be as much public discussion of it as people can individually stomach.

My own circle of real, live, face-to-face contacts comprise

• a very few who are willing to discuss these matters and broadly think as I do; or
• a majority who couldn't care less or whom it would be inappropriate to raise the subject with; or
• another large group whose opinions are matters of perfect indifference to me.

(This is not, by the way, a comprehensive categorization of my acquaintances.)

There are some eight or ten participants in this group whose contributions I find thoughtful and informative of their particular positions. And so, this is at times a useful forum that I otherwise lack.

I rarely post, but I do lurk and this is by far the most intelligent, respectful forum on this topic I've found. This might say more about my own experience, but I can learn things by reading these posts. You guys fall into the same old traps of false analogies and semantic quibbling, but generally it's interesting false analogies and interesting semantic quibbling. I haven't seen many posts here I would call rude by internet standards.

To answer the question, I'm sure there are a lot more people who choose to read rather than talk. You guys should continue on because you do have an audience. Even if it's not the people responding to you, you are convincing people.

why do the people who participate in this LT forum "talk religion"

One important reason I participate is to learn about and get recommendations of interesting books to read.

A second important reason is for enjoyment; as an example the exchange here by southernbooklady which started with some very interesting, insightful and sensible posts and ending with some jokes about goats.

A particular interest is the interface of reason and religion. I am convinced that those, like the New Atheists, who reject religion because it is, they claim, irrational are themselves using irrational arguments, and that chewing on the reasons why is sometimes enlightening. The angry reaction of those who object to the challenge to their worldview is also enlightening but sometimes gets way out of hand, which is a shame. We should be able to talk about these things politely and dispassionately.

We have been told that it is not possible to understand religion in a rational way, which is something I haven't completely given up on yet. But I am beginning to believe that some people either can't or haven't formed the necessary patterns and make the necessary connections in their brains to understand religion. I don't agree with those who dismiss religion and claim there is nothing to understand because there seem to be many very intelligent people who do understand it. It seems to me that the distinction between "can't", "haven't" and "won't" is important and I am hoping someone can tell us which it is any why (maybe hoping too far -- in a rational way).

18

"'Spiritual' has got to be a synonym for 'emotional', or possibly "emotional responses". "

Not my understanding, nor of most people I've met who've used the term in a way that's either self-explanatory, or within a context where its meaning is understood as xxxxx (defined within the context - one example of that would be the Alternatives To Violence Project which I'm a trained facilitator in).

To me, a response to something awe-inspiring (which could be as commonplace as a beautiful sunset) could indeed be emotional, and I'm sure for many, it stays as that. But for some, that response runs deeper, and may be reflected in poetry or art or philosophy (or religion, but my own 'life's work', at least within LT, is to unshackle the word from its religious baggage!)

I think we have a whole ragbag of daily responses, that are cerebral, emotional, gut-level (intuitive?) or a mix of all of these. I reserve the 'spiritual' for those experiences where there is a deeper connection, but with what I cannot exactly define. I just know it's there in me, but unsure exactly what or where or for what purpose. I don't even know if it's an evolutionary trait, or something else.

>30 Tid: "deeper"

If you'd be so good as to show it to me, I can consider it. Failing that, "emotional response" it is. For me.

But thanks for your comments.

31

"If you'd be so good as to show it to me, I can consider it."

That's a very Zen response! 'Deeper' of course, is wholly subjective and therefore I cannot show it to you. But I suspect you knew that...

> 32. 'Deeper' of course, is wholly subjective and therefore I cannot show it to you.

But you have shown it to us, in the only way you can in such a forum as an internet group. Perhaps not so much on this thread, but on others, surely. I'd say you've done a good job of showing us "deeper", given the constraints of the medium. Whether or not we see "deeper" is something else again.

>31 zangasta: No, I don't know Zen. And I meant that in a pretty straight-forward way.

And I wouldn't be too sure of the inability of homo spas to one day develop the technology required to show one homo sap the subjective experiences of another homo sap the same way that I can be shown a virus or distant star through a micro/telescope.

Sort of on this sub-topic, btw, I watched another TED talk earlier today:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_to_self_transcendenc...
I do wish he would've stripped off even more of the religious language, and yet he doesn't do a terribly bad job. (It is another stepping stone in my education.) I love how he emphasises the efficacy of war as a path to 'spirituality'.

I do wish he would've stripped off even more of the religious language, and yet he doesn't do a terribly bad job.

Because it is not about what he says or thinks....

34

I'm open to the notion that subjective experience may some day be removed from the novelist, poet, artist, musician, and laid open to view scientifically. Though one might argue that the subjective would then become objective.

I'm not sure that that would dispense with the 'spiritual' though. Please do bear in mind, though, that I reject all notions that spirituality is necessarily connected with religion. That assumption is my personal bête-noir.

>35 Arctic-Stranger: I have no idea what you're trying to say there Arctic.

I enjoy talking with others about religion because religious belief is the absolute ultimate in camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_(style)

Go to "style".

E.g., in the theatre of the absurd this one would be hard to beat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Company_Fire

http://www.nytimes.com/1864/01/18/news/terrific-tragedy-chili-two-thousand-five-...

38

A bit too tragic to be absurd! My own nomination would be the First Presleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine:

http://www.geocities.ws/presleyterian_church/home.html

Now that's GOT to be the ultimate in camp, surely?

> 36. I reject all notions that spirituality is necessarily connected with religion. That assumption is my personal bête-noir.

So you're saying that Advaita system is not a religion, is that right?

40

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Of course, it is the parent of all strands of Hinduism, but then Confucianism is often classed as a religion too, which would have horrified Confucius himself.

37

Once again you make my point.

42

Yeah, zangasta hasn't figured out yet that with you form IS substance - and that's pretty much the whole ball of wax.

>43 JGL53: I really should quit trying to get him to speak grammatically coherently, shouldn't I?

>18 zangasta:
'Will' isn't "a thought process", eg "I have decided to climb Mt Everest, and I'm going to hold myself to that purpose." It's more of a "feeling", and in fact, "true will" could very well be in strong opposition to "made-up-mind will". "True will" lives very much "in the moment", rather than "at the goal".

In 1902, the Eckenstein-Crowley Expedition, led by mountaineer Oscar Eckenstein and author and occultist Aleister Crowley, was the first to attempt to scale Chogo Ri (now known as K2 in the west). They reached 22,000 feet (6,700 m) before turning back due to weather and other mishaps.
In 1905, Aleister Crowley led the first expedition to Kangchenjunga, the third highest mountain in the world. Four members of that party were killed in an avalanche. They probably turned back at around 6,500 metres (21,300 ft), though in his autobiography Crowley claimed they reached a world-record height of 25,000 feet (7,600 m).

You might read The Eye in the Triangle by Israel Regardie for a life of Crowley.

>45 quicksiva: Interesting. Do you think they were pursuing more of a "thought decision" or possibly more of a feeling? Whether a strong feeling, or a persistent feeling, or maybe a pleasurable feeling, I dunno...

The rational thought processes, eg "shall we bring extra clothing?", "shall we stop frequently to eat?" (I'm sure you can tell I'm no mountaineer...) would - in my book - be an expression of the will, just as much as the actual climb, and would not be the thing I'm calling 'will'. I'm not claiming that we suddenly get a will to do something, and off we go no matter how impractical our idea is, but use our reasoning to help make our will possible.

Another thing is that I'm not saying that Crowley's will here necessarily is about climbing mountains. It might be about overcoming difficulties, and Crowley - and others - express that through going on walks going nowhere.

Sorry, I'm probably not expressing myself clearly. Partly through not knowing what I'm talking about.

Oh. About "drawing out". That really applied more to myself than to you pAlpha; I was kinda wanting to ask, just for a general idea, but I didn't get round to it.

I hope, Arctic, that you don't go around ejaculating incomplete sentences like "Because it is not about what he says or thinks...." and get responses like "Yes, dear", "That's nice dear", "You sound so blessed*", because I think it would be tragic if people are giving up on you so easily.

The word 'it' there for instance, what do you intend for it to be referring to? Surely you...

If you used an incomplete sentence like that at school, you'd surely get marked down, but when you use it toward me, suddenly I am the one being marked down... Go figure...

_______________________

* That's probably coming across more curtly than I intend.

Also, I learnt something in my search for a way of expressing myself: The term "blessed" connotes both feeblemindedness and innocence in the eyes of God. lol

>48 zangasta:: Since you won't let this go, perhaps one of us just needs to explain it to you.

You linked to a TED talk in 34 that you seemed to find interesting, but you objected to the speaker's use of religious language. That is, you judged the talk inferior, not because of its ideas, but because of its language. Thus, Arctic responded sarcastically, "Because it is not about what he says or thinks...."

it help you find your hidden treasure

> 49

Actually, as a disinterested observer, it is obvious to me that it certainly WAS about what the guy said. It was only that, in the z-man's estimation, that the TED speaker could have gotten his points across BETTER without the religious language usage.

So, once again, Arctic distorts others' points, either through prejudice or poor reading skills, and then nat offers up his usual lame apologetics, distorting the facts another order of magnitude.

IOW, just another day in paradise. lol.