3 ms·

I wish there was a practical way to keep these parts of religion without having to believe in the supernatural or the truth of one specific ancient book.

gxon 7y ago
I think you can, but I wonder if it's possible to separate the positive role of religion with what makes it toxic, even in secular form. In particular, I think one of most toxic aspects is exclusion. If a person doesn't conform to a certain set of ideas or lifestyles, then you're not welcome to participate in the community. In extreme cases, exclusion could even mean execution. Our history (and present) are full of examples of this, which is why secularism and separation of church and state are such important ideas. But at the same time, this known conformity to a shared set of ideas is what creates such a strong community. Even if a person is a stranger, you generally know how to interact with them if you have a shared religion. This eases social interaction and helps create a foundation of trust in larger groups where you can't intimately know every person. In fact, the tighter you constrict what people are allowed to believe or how they're allowed to live, the less unknowns and the greater the benefit. Of course, this creates some horrifying situations for people can't or won't conform to the rules of the community around them. An obvious example is homosexuals born into religions that don't see that as an acceptable lifestyle. At best, they spend their lives in a state of constant shame and self-disgust, maybe suffering under clumsy attempts to "pray the gay away". This is the first time I've tried to put words to this idea, so I may not be expressing it well or hitting the truth quite right.
- kharak 7y ago
  I like your thoughts on this. Have to disagree about exclusion being the problem. If community is a product, exclusion is it means of production. The problem with religion isn't exclusion, it's a partially outdated set of rules by which the filter is applied. (And a missing update functionality for the source code, respectively an inherit problem with the rate of change, as too much change in too short of a time defeats the purpose of rules, exclusivity and therefore community).
rocqua 7y ago
One reason this works better with religion is that membership of a religion means being subjected to the same prescribed morality. It means a lot more uniformity, which makes it easier to connect. After all, there is less chance you'll hit upon a subject you massively disagree on.
- celeritascelery 7y ago
  While that is no doubt true, I feel like that is only part of the story. Many (most?) religions teach to love all people, even if you don’t agree with them. It’s easy to get along with those who agree with you. It’s much harder to get along with those who don’t. The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people. - GKC
Frondo 7y ago
The impression I got from the Unitarians is that that's what they're trying to go for. I was never a "member" of a UU congregation but I got hauled to their services a couple of times and there was just a whiff of supernatural in what they were doing, certainly nothing like all the kneeling and praying and lamentations of my catholic upbringing :-) The people I knew who were into it described it as the "social club aspects of church without all that other stuff." I don't know, it might work for you? The Quakers do something like this too, but with a much heavier lean on the meditative aspects of a religious practice. The few times I've gone to their services it was much more my (someone who is fascinated by spirituality and religious practice but without that bit of their brain that tells them God(s) is/are talking to them) speed.
turc1656 7y ago
I get what you're saying. But I've adapted my thinking over the years. I'll try to put it as succinctly as I can get it since this sort of topic can obviously take up far more than a comment on a forum. I view religion as a tool. And as with any tool it can be used for good or bad. Also, whether or not we decide to keep the tool in our toolbox depends on one general question - "does it serve a purpose?" If the answer to that is yes, then it is a valuable tool. That is how I choose to view religion. I also think many of the "supernatural" elements you mention are not to be taken literally. However, I do think it is important for human beings to believe in something other/greater than themselves. I think it keeps us grounded and more connected to reality rather than just viewing our existence as some sort of meaningless accident. Most of the other supernatural elements have to do with a fundamental structure of the world and the way we view it. Meaning that they are stories that have been condensed down over time to explain some base value - i.e. the tower of Babel, the flood / Noah's ark, the story of Job. These are effectively parables meant to illustrate a key facet of life. They are equivalent to short story fiction designed to explain a component of a larger value system. That being said, I think religion in general is usually taught very poorly to young children. I know it's hard to explain some of the deeper meanings to children but at the same time, if you talk to a lot of the openly religious adults they also don't seem to understand a lot of this. I saw some psychology professor talking about this problem, and he said that his guess to explain this would be that these stories have been so boiled down to their core components after thousands of years that they have become extremely condensed such that it becomes almost like a form of subliminal messaging. Not in the literal sense, but rather that these stories are so foundational that they are simply accepted as core truths. And because of that they haven't been challenged for hundreds or thousands of years. And because of that, people haven't had to put forth a proper explanation for them. I'm not saying they are wrong to challenge them. Or that the teachings are wrong. I'm saying instead that because they've had this sort of untouchable truth to them, people are just told "this is how it is" more or less, and no one has really been properly explaining why those stories are the way they are. For example, there are many atheists that claim we can finally just dispense with the absurdity of religion now that society has basically become enlightened with all these fundamental human rights, lower crime rates, mass education, etc. They claim that society finally "gets it" for most of the critical stuff and human beings are hard-wired as more or less "good" and religion has only stood in the way over the millennia. But that's only half true. Religion has been misused, sure. But the problem is that even though human beings are somewhat a blank slate but also somewhat hard-wired for basic good (babies have been tested and shown indications of not liking violence, injustice, etc.), this doesn't mean there aren't other forces that aren't religious that may slip in and do the evil work of "bad" religion when it is missing. It's also not counting the fact many of the things those atheists take as givens are not, in fact, givens in much of the world. Take freedom of speech. They say this is obvious and would be granted for all if not for oppressive things like religion. But freedom of speech isn't the state of being for many, many parts of the world. They discount just how much the very fabric of western society is linked to the judeo/christian religions. The entirely of society is founded upon those beliefs. So if you think you can easily just separate the two by getting rid of religion, I think it is a way oversimplifying things. Hopefully this rant made some sort of sense.

gxon 7y ago

I think you can, but I wonder if it's possible to separate the positive role of religion with what makes it toxic, even in secular form. In particular, I think one of most toxic aspects is exclusion. If a person doesn't conform to a certain set of ideas or lifestyles, then you're not welcome to participate in the community. In extreme cases, exclusion could even mean execution. Our history (and present) are full of examples of this, which is why secularism and separation of church and state are such important ideas. But at the same time, this known conformity to a shared set of ideas is what creates such a strong community. Even if a person is a stranger, you generally know how to interact with them if you have a shared religion. This eases social interaction and helps create a foundation of trust in larger groups where you can't intimately know every person. In fact, the tighter you constrict what people are allowed to believe or how they're allowed to live, the less unknowns and the greater the benefit. Of course, this creates some horrifying situations for people can't or won't conform to the rules of the community around them. An obvious example is homosexuals born into religions that don't see that as an acceptable lifestyle. At best, they spend their lives in a state of constant shame and self-disgust, maybe suffering under clumsy attempts to "pray the gay away". This is the first time I've tried to put words to this idea, so I may not be expressing it well or hitting the truth quite right.

kharak 7y ago
I like your thoughts on this. Have to disagree about exclusion being the problem. If community is a product, exclusion is it means of production. The problem with religion isn't exclusion, it's a partially outdated set of rules by which the filter is applied. (And a missing update functionality for the source code, respectively an inherit problem with the rate of change, as too much change in too short of a time defeats the purpose of rules, exclusivity and therefore community).

rocqua 7y ago

One reason this works better with religion is that membership of a religion means being subjected to the same prescribed morality. It means a lot more uniformity, which makes it easier to connect. After all, there is less chance you'll hit upon a subject you massively disagree on.

celeritascelery 7y ago
While that is no doubt true, I feel like that is only part of the story. Many (most?) religions teach to love all people, even if you don’t agree with them. It’s easy to get along with those who agree with you. It’s much harder to get along with those who don’t. The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people. - GKC

Frondo 7y ago

The impression I got from the Unitarians is that that's what they're trying to go for. I was never a "member" of a UU congregation but I got hauled to their services a couple of times and there was just a whiff of supernatural in what they were doing, certainly nothing like all the kneeling and praying and lamentations of my catholic upbringing :-) The people I knew who were into it described it as the "social club aspects of church without all that other stuff." I don't know, it might work for you? The Quakers do something like this too, but with a much heavier lean on the meditative aspects of a religious practice. The few times I've gone to their services it was much more my (someone who is fascinated by spirituality and religious practice but without that bit of their brain that tells them God(s) is/are talking to them) speed.

turc1656 7y ago

I get what you're saying. But I've adapted my thinking over the years. I'll try to put it as succinctly as I can get it since this sort of topic can obviously take up far more than a comment on a forum. I view religion as a tool. And as with any tool it can be used for good or bad. Also, whether or not we decide to keep the tool in our toolbox depends on one general question - "does it serve a purpose?" If the answer to that is yes, then it is a valuable tool. That is how I choose to view religion. I also think many of the "supernatural" elements you mention are not to be taken literally. However, I do think it is important for human beings to believe in something other/greater than themselves. I think it keeps us grounded and more connected to reality rather than just viewing our existence as some sort of meaningless accident. Most of the other supernatural elements have to do with a fundamental structure of the world and the way we view it. Meaning that they are stories that have been condensed down over time to explain some base value - i.e. the tower of Babel, the flood / Noah's ark, the story of Job. These are effectively parables meant to illustrate a key facet of life. They are equivalent to short story fiction designed to explain a component of a larger value system. That being said, I think religion in general is usually taught very poorly to young children. I know it's hard to explain some of the deeper meanings to children but at the same time, if you talk to a lot of the openly religious adults they also don't seem to understand a lot of this. I saw some psychology professor talking about this problem, and he said that his guess to explain this would be that these stories have been so boiled down to their core components after thousands of years that they have become extremely condensed such that it becomes almost like a form of subliminal messaging. Not in the literal sense, but rather that these stories are so foundational that they are simply accepted as core truths. And because of that they haven't been challenged for hundreds or thousands of years. And because of that, people haven't had to put forth a proper explanation for them. I'm not saying they are wrong to challenge them. Or that the teachings are wrong. I'm saying instead that because they've had this sort of untouchable truth to them, people are just told "this is how it is" more or less, and no one has really been properly explaining why those stories are the way they are. For example, there are many atheists that claim we can finally just dispense with the absurdity of religion now that society has basically become enlightened with all these fundamental human rights, lower crime rates, mass education, etc. They claim that society finally "gets it" for most of the critical stuff and human beings are hard-wired as more or less "good" and religion has only stood in the way over the millennia. But that's only half true. Religion has been misused, sure. But the problem is that even though human beings are somewhat a blank slate but also somewhat hard-wired for basic good (babies have been tested and shown indications of not liking violence, injustice, etc.), this doesn't mean there aren't other forces that aren't religious that may slip in and do the evil work of "bad" religion when it is missing. It's also not counting the fact many of the things those atheists take as givens are not, in fact, givens in much of the world. Take freedom of speech. They say this is obvious and would be granted for all if not for oppressive things like religion. But freedom of speech isn't the state of being for many, many parts of the world. They discount just how much the very fabric of western society is linked to the judeo/christian religions. The entirely of society is founded upon those beliefs. So if you think you can easily just separate the two by getting rid of religion, I think it is a way oversimplifying things. Hopefully this rant made some sort of sense.