Doesn't all religion form (except etheism) seek the same thing?....
ConversazioniLet's Talk Religion
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1Jennipher23
Could it be that all religions seek one thing?...Faith in a higher being...Looks like as human beings, we've been on an endless quest...even scientists continue exploring the stars, planets, aliens, etc...
Looks like all religions seek something of a higher and more powerful life form to look up to. Christianity calls it a natural desire to seek God and only able to be filled by God. Others try to fill it with different addictions; music, human idols, drugs etc
Looks like all religions seek something of a higher and more powerful life form to look up to. Christianity calls it a natural desire to seek God and only able to be filled by God. Others try to fill it with different addictions; music, human idols, drugs etc
2cjbanning
All religions presumably share, if not a single defining characteristic, at least a set of family resemblances. That's why we lump them all in the same category: "religion."
That said, "faith in a higher being" is so broad as to be practically meaningless, covering anything from a superhuman extraterrestrial to a deistic impersonal First Cause to a pantheistic understanding of the universe itself. Not to mention the monotheistic God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, the polythetistic gods of Greece and Rome, the many-in-one setup of Hinduism, the Tao of Taoism, and so on. . . .
That said, "faith in a higher being" is so broad as to be practically meaningless, covering anything from a superhuman extraterrestrial to a deistic impersonal First Cause to a pantheistic understanding of the universe itself. Not to mention the monotheistic God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, the polythetistic gods of Greece and Rome, the many-in-one setup of Hinduism, the Tao of Taoism, and so on. . . .
3margd
A comparative religion class I took claimed that the major religions at least all try to reconcile:
1. God is good.
2. God is all-powerful.
3. Bad things happen to (apparently) innocent people.
Book of Job, karma, larger plan, etc.
1. God is good.
2. God is all-powerful.
3. Bad things happen to (apparently) innocent people.
Book of Job, karma, larger plan, etc.
4MarthaJeanne
What about Buddhism?
What about the ancient Greek and Roman gods? Neither particularly good nor all powerful.
What about the ancient Greek and Roman gods? Neither particularly good nor all powerful.
5paradoxosalpha
>3 margd:
I think restricting "major religions" to the sort of monotheism you're implying with these criteria pretty much defeats any interesting work one might attempt in "comparative religion."
I think restricting "major religions" to the sort of monotheism you're implying with these criteria pretty much defeats any interesting work one might attempt in "comparative religion."
6timspalding
As in most such conversations, things get both more complex and also more boring and pointless when we start by insisting on definitions. "Religion" can be drawn so widely that you can barely have an interesting conversation about it all, the commonalities are so tenuous.
Word aren't interesting but stuff is. But there is obvious something "there"—something huge and vital to human culture, history, psychology and so forth. Call it what you like. Maybe we could talk about that.
Word aren't interesting but stuff is. But there is obvious something "there"—something huge and vital to human culture, history, psychology and so forth. Call it what you like. Maybe we could talk about that.
7Jesse_wiedinmyer
"Religion" can be drawn so widely that you can barely have an interesting conversation about it all, the commonalities are so tenuous.
I dunno. Most of the major ones seem to have some variant of the golden rule, no? I mean, as someone else once said while standing on one leg, "Don't be a dick. The rest is commentary."
I dunno. Most of the major ones seem to have some variant of the golden rule, no? I mean, as someone else once said while standing on one leg, "Don't be a dick. The rest is commentary."
8timspalding
>7 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Agreed, mostly. But if we said "religion is all about the Golden Rule," someone would say that religion X isn't about it and by the logic of conversation-by-definition, we'd have to stop and recompute.
That said, I believe Hillel didn't say "don't be a dick." :)
Agreed, mostly. But if we said "religion is all about the Golden Rule," someone would say that religion X isn't about it and by the logic of conversation-by-definition, we'd have to stop and recompute.
That said, I believe Hillel didn't say "don't be a dick." :)
9timspalding
Okay, I'll bite.
While I'm not going to deny that religions have many common themes, the Golden Rule included, the notion that religions all have a variety of the Golden Rule is one that is often brandished by those for whom the Golden Rule is close to the center of their faith, having been expressed (or re-expressed) by the person they think is the Son of God.
So too other commonalities Christians and those from Christian cultures often cite—that God is about love and forgiveness, for example. Of course, they are commonalities. But Christianity lays relatively more stress on them.
I suspect that a Muslim, pressed to give a similar answer, might start with "religion is about justice and right action." That's true for Christianity too, of course. But it Islam, with Judaism, lays relatively more stress on that.
My point is that, when looking for commonalities, its too easy to pick what you like about yourself, and then find it in others. As M. I. Finley once remarked about the Phoenicians, we primarily know them as great sea-farers, not because that was their signal achievement but because that's what Greeks admired in them, because they admired it in themselves.
It's very hard to avoid this. But it must be tried.
While I'm not going to deny that religions have many common themes, the Golden Rule included, the notion that religions all have a variety of the Golden Rule is one that is often brandished by those for whom the Golden Rule is close to the center of their faith, having been expressed (or re-expressed) by the person they think is the Son of God.
So too other commonalities Christians and those from Christian cultures often cite—that God is about love and forgiveness, for example. Of course, they are commonalities. But Christianity lays relatively more stress on them.
I suspect that a Muslim, pressed to give a similar answer, might start with "religion is about justice and right action." That's true for Christianity too, of course. But it Islam, with Judaism, lays relatively more stress on that.
My point is that, when looking for commonalities, its too easy to pick what you like about yourself, and then find it in others. As M. I. Finley once remarked about the Phoenicians, we primarily know them as great sea-farers, not because that was their signal achievement but because that's what Greeks admired in them, because they admired it in themselves.
It's very hard to avoid this. But it must be tried.
10John5918
It did not escape my notice that this was posted by someone who joined LT that very same day and who has catalogued only six books, five of which are written by her, and indeed three of which appear to be the same book wrtten by her, with a religious theme. The uncharitable part of me wondered whether this is just self-promotion, but anyway it has sparked a lively conversation so let me try to view it more charitably.
11timspalding
>9 timspalding:
I notice, by the way, that atheism doesn't do this. Religions look at each other and see the thing they love about themselves, even if it's not the stress. Atheists do not look at Christianity and say "Well, isn't it really all about reason?" ;)
I notice, by the way, that atheism doesn't do this. Religions look at each other and see the thing they love about themselves, even if it's not the stress. Atheists do not look at Christianity and say "Well, isn't it really all about reason?" ;)
12Jesse_wiedinmyer
"Well, isn't really all about reason?"
I'm not sure that question is a question.
I'm not sure that question is a question.
13Jesse_wiedinmyer
As such, (and as an apathetic agnostic), I will pat myself on the back for not running around saying such things.
14MarthaJeanne
>10 John5918: I noticed that as well. I also noticed that she can't spell atheism, that the subject line of this topic doesn't really make sense, and that she hasn't come back to join in the discussion. If it was meant as self promotion, it hasn't been very successful.
15timspalding
>13 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Actually, I think some of the new new atheists (e.g., Alain de Botton) are capable of saying that. As I've said before, the foundational dispute, today, isn't between religion and atheism, but between those who who think important questions are important, and have a clear idea of the good, and those who don't. Anyway, an engaged Christian on fire with justice and an engaged atheist on fire with justice can swap places with each other, and work together. The person who doesn't care about it can be a theist or atheist, but that's as far as it goes.
Actually, I think some of the new new atheists (e.g., Alain de Botton) are capable of saying that. As I've said before, the foundational dispute, today, isn't between religion and atheism, but between those who who think important questions are important, and have a clear idea of the good, and those who don't. Anyway, an engaged Christian on fire with justice and an engaged atheist on fire with justice can swap places with each other, and work together. The person who doesn't care about it can be a theist or atheist, but that's as far as it goes.
16John5918
>15 timspalding: an engaged Christian on fire with justice and an engaged atheist on fire with justice can swap places with each other, and work together
Well said. And I would add Muslims and people of other faiths. I recall on more than one occasion the South African progressive Muslim Farid Esack saying words to the effect of, "Let's not talk about religion because we will disagree; let's work together for human rights".
Well said. And I would add Muslims and people of other faiths. I recall on more than one occasion the South African progressive Muslim Farid Esack saying words to the effect of, "Let's not talk about religion because we will disagree; let's work together for human rights".
18margd
>4 MarthaJeanne: Re Buddhism, to simplify things, the teacher grouped it with other Indian religions with failures in a previous life accounting for bad things happening to APPARENTLY good people. (Islam was similarly grouped with Judaism, with much time spent on Job.) Re Greek & Roman gods, the course was looking at the "great religions" of today, which allow huge numbers of us to welcome non-relatives and foreigners into our group.
Great NOVA program the other night BTW in which biologist EO Wilson looks at humans as one of few "eu-social" species, subject to group as well as individual selection. It touches on religion and sports as two cultural activities that meet that eu-social urge, and can be used for good and evil ends: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/lord-ants.html
Two books that also look at us acting as social beings: The True Believer and Darwin's Cathedral. Inspired by WW2, True Believer considers bad outcomes. I only remember good outcomes, such as building irrigation systems and caring for plague victims, in Darwin's Cathedral, but it may include bad behaviour as well.
Great NOVA program the other night BTW in which biologist EO Wilson looks at humans as one of few "eu-social" species, subject to group as well as individual selection. It touches on religion and sports as two cultural activities that meet that eu-social urge, and can be used for good and evil ends: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/lord-ants.html
Two books that also look at us acting as social beings: The True Believer and Darwin's Cathedral. Inspired by WW2, True Believer considers bad outcomes. I only remember good outcomes, such as building irrigation systems and caring for plague victims, in Darwin's Cathedral, but it may include bad behaviour as well.
19MarthaJeanne
>18 margd:, So leave out or change anything that doesn't agree with your ideas. That works if you are only interested in your own ideas.
20margd
18 contd.
Religious practices (and other social activities) signal that one shares values and loyalty to group, e.g. seeing someone in prayer shawl in synagogue. The more extreme actions are thought to demonstrate sincerity.
With regard to golden rule, scientists have used game theory to quantify honest behavior with strangers in a market, with "great religions" doing better than tribal religions, and Muslims (as a group) displaying the most honesty of all.
We are such interesting creatures! :-)
Religious practices (and other social activities) signal that one shares values and loyalty to group, e.g. seeing someone in prayer shawl in synagogue. The more extreme actions are thought to demonstrate sincerity.
With regard to golden rule, scientists have used game theory to quantify honest behavior with strangers in a market, with "great religions" doing better than tribal religions, and Muslims (as a group) displaying the most honesty of all.
We are such interesting creatures! :-)
21jburlinson
>11 timspalding: I notice, by the way, that atheism doesn't do this. Religions look at each other and see the thing they love about themselves, even if it's not the stress. Atheists do not look at Christianity and say "Well, isn't it really all about reason?" ;)
At least some do. Or at least there's a sense that religion is an instance of primitive (and faulty) reasoning. In The God Delusion, for instance, Dawkins proposes that early peoples were disposed to adopt an "intentional stance" that enabled them to attribute purpose to external entities: sometimes correctly, as in the case of the tiger who is approaching and licking its chops, sometimes incorrectly, as in the case of the weather.
At least some do. Or at least there's a sense that religion is an instance of primitive (and faulty) reasoning. In The God Delusion, for instance, Dawkins proposes that early peoples were disposed to adopt an "intentional stance" that enabled them to attribute purpose to external entities: sometimes correctly, as in the case of the tiger who is approaching and licking its chops, sometimes incorrectly, as in the case of the weather.
22southernbooklady
>21 jburlinson: . In The God Delusion, for instance, Dawkins proposes that early peoples were disposed to adopt an "intentional stance" that enabled them to attribute purpose to external entities
Dawkins is many things, but I think he has a poor grasp of the religious impulse.
Dawkins is many things, but I think he has a poor grasp of the religious impulse.
23Jesse_wiedinmyer
That'd actually be Dennnett, and it's a propensity that's been well documented outside of "study of religion."
24margd
Holbrook, C., Izuma, K., Deblieck, C., Fessler, D. M.T., & Iacoboni, M. (in press). Neuromodulation of group prejudice and religious belief. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. http://colinholbrook.com/
Holbrook_Neuromodulating_Ideology_SCAN_2015.pdf
Abstract
People cleave to ideological convictions with greater intensity in the aftermath of threat. The posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) plays a key role in both detecting discrepancies between desired and current conditions and adjusting subsequent behavior to resolve such conflicts. Building on prior literature examining the role of the pMFC in shifts in relatively low-level decision processes, we demonstrate that the pMFC mediates adjustments in adherence to political and religious ideologies. We presented participants with a reminder of death and a critique of their in-group ostensibly written by a member of an out-group, then experimentally decreased both avowed belief in God and out-group derogation by downregulating pMFC activity via trans-cranial magnetic stimulation. The results provide the first evidence that group prejudice and religious belief are susceptible to targeted neuromodulation, and point to a shared cognitive mechanism underlying concrete and abstract decision processes. We discuss the implications of these findings for further research characterizing the cognitive and affective mechanisms at play.
Holbrook_Neuromodulating_Ideology_SCAN_2015.pdf
Abstract
People cleave to ideological convictions with greater intensity in the aftermath of threat. The posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) plays a key role in both detecting discrepancies between desired and current conditions and adjusting subsequent behavior to resolve such conflicts. Building on prior literature examining the role of the pMFC in shifts in relatively low-level decision processes, we demonstrate that the pMFC mediates adjustments in adherence to political and religious ideologies. We presented participants with a reminder of death and a critique of their in-group ostensibly written by a member of an out-group, then experimentally decreased both avowed belief in God and out-group derogation by downregulating pMFC activity via trans-cranial magnetic stimulation. The results provide the first evidence that group prejudice and religious belief are susceptible to targeted neuromodulation, and point to a shared cognitive mechanism underlying concrete and abstract decision processes. We discuss the implications of these findings for further research characterizing the cognitive and affective mechanisms at play.
25jburlinson
>24 margd:
This is an interesting study, but I wonder about some of its assumptions. For example, as to the religious belief component of the study, there seems to be the assumption that thoughts of death trigger religious responses. After receiving a significant blast of TMS, respondents tended to articulate lower "endorsement" of religious belief than recipients of a sham blast, indicating to the researchers that suppression of the pMFC was responsible. This would seem to be valid only if religious belief were tied in a meaningful way to fear of death. (It also presupposes that acceptance of statements lauding the goodness of God and/or the badness of devils is a reliable measure of religious fervor.) These, among other aspects of their methodology, make it hard for me to affirm the authors' finding that: "the diminished expressions of group prejudice and religious belief observed here may stem from a mechanism sensitive to affirming consensus attitudes, insofar as out-group derogation and belief in God are considered normative." Of course, they did say "may", so I may have to agree with them on that. (Not to mention that there are many who do not consider belief in God normative.)
This is an interesting study, but I wonder about some of its assumptions. For example, as to the religious belief component of the study, there seems to be the assumption that thoughts of death trigger religious responses. After receiving a significant blast of TMS, respondents tended to articulate lower "endorsement" of religious belief than recipients of a sham blast, indicating to the researchers that suppression of the pMFC was responsible. This would seem to be valid only if religious belief were tied in a meaningful way to fear of death. (It also presupposes that acceptance of statements lauding the goodness of God and/or the badness of devils is a reliable measure of religious fervor.) These, among other aspects of their methodology, make it hard for me to affirm the authors' finding that: "the diminished expressions of group prejudice and religious belief observed here may stem from a mechanism sensitive to affirming consensus attitudes, insofar as out-group derogation and belief in God are considered normative." Of course, they did say "may", so I may have to agree with them on that. (Not to mention that there are many who do not consider belief in God normative.)
26southernbooklady
>25 jburlinson: This would seem to be valid only if religious belief were tied in a meaningful way to fear of death.
Are there any religions that ignore death?
Are there any religions that ignore death?
27jburlinson
>26 southernbooklady: Are there any religions that ignore death?
Some make more of it than others.
But fear of death can afflict the irreligious person as well, I would suppose.
And very few human communities ignore death, except maybe BASE jumpers.
Some make more of it than others.
But fear of death can afflict the irreligious person as well, I would suppose.
And very few human communities ignore death, except maybe BASE jumpers.