4 ms·

> In other words, the hallmark of a religious mind is a smaller ego. Is it? In Jesus's teachings, the ones who were most egotistical were the scribes and phar

> In other words, the hallmark of a religious mind is a smaller ego. Is it? In Jesus's teachings, the ones who were most egotistical were the scribes and pharisees. While the one with arguably the smallest ego was the good Samaritan. There's no real evidence that religious people (even by religious teachings) are immune to the issues of selfish, self-centered thinking. ------- I say ego is independent. Religion doesn't affect it really. An ego-centric individual could be drawn into Religion for selfish reasons (ex: purely for the hope to get into Heaven without thinking about others), for example. There are certainly teachings within the religion about society and working together, etc. etc. But I don't think people necessarily follow those unless they were already predisposed into thinking about other people. I would argue that any religious scholar (at least, of Christianity), would point out that the Bible has numerous examples and stories to remind us that "Religionism isn't good by itself". There are plenty of priests and holy people throughout the ages who have failed to live up to the ideals of the religion. Ex: Moses's brother Aaron worshiped the golden calf with the rest of the Isrealites. Jesus was betrayed by an Apostle named Judas. The scribes / pharisees were some of the hardest set against Jesus, forcing Jesus to preach to non-believers (ie: Gentiles)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
comfypotato 4y ago
I interpret this line such that this instance of “religious mind” is associated with the directly aforementioned “saintly character”. That is to say that your examples of Aaron, the scribes, Pharisees, etc. were definitely not “saintly characters”. Humility (this is a smaller Ego, yes?) is praised throughout the Bible. Its “saintly characters”, primarily Jesus, exhibit this trait. Similarly, Krishna humbles Arjuna in the Gita (Arjuna being the “saintly character” here).
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Aaron was literally God's hand chosen spokesman for Moses, the #2 Priest after Moses. Humility is expected, but time and time again, humans fail to live up to the task, even hand selected priests of God like Aaron was. ------ I can't speak for other Religions, but in Catholicism at least, the moral failings of high priests and their mistakes are well known. ------- King David is perhaps a more saintly figure who grows powerful, then egotistical and fails. Arguably Samson as well. The ideal exists, but it is accepted that humans fail.
  - comfypotato 4y ago
    I’m saying that people reach that “existing ideal” to the extent that their ego is shrunk, and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego, yes? I guess my theory fundamentally disagrees with yours. I’m basing what I’m saying on the article author’s line “the saints of all religions” implying that their “religious mindset” is limited to those considered saintly. Aaron perfectly represents Israel’s lack of fidelity; I think it’s safe to keep him, even Moses (it was his ego that kept him from the promised land), separate from sainthood. Ultimately, the author’s intended point in making the single statement you and I are talking about hinges on their idea of sainthood (and perhaps Jesus is Christianity’s only true saint). Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out).
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego I'm saying that in the Christian faith, there are numerous examples of holy people who have fallen prey to hubris. This doesn't detract from their holiness. > Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out). First off, Moses, Aaron, David, etc. etc. are considered Saints in Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we can dispel that myth immediately. The Catholic definition of sainthood is simply someone who has been accepted into heaven. If a miracle has been performed in someone's name, then it is proof that God has accepted them (and for good measure, we wait for two miracles. The first miracle could have been a fluke after all). Since such a person has proof from God that they are holy, they are someone to emulate. They are roughly, the metric under which God deems worthy to accept into heaven. "Sainthood" is a technical term, meaning we've received proof on earth that someone is in heaven. The metric God uses is likely a lower bar. IE: there are probably "unknown saints", humble people who never became popular enough for people to later pray under their name and thereby get a miracle assigned to them. That's okay, because they're in heaven regardless. The sainthood system is itself an imperfect system by us Catholics. Ex: If you think your grandma is in heaven, she's probably a saint, but don't expect the Catholic Church to officially canonize her unless she was popular. Sainthood includes such storied figures as say, Saint Olga, who was well known for executing an entire village in her wrath. Not just once, but three times. She's not even the most "hubris" saint I can think of, she's just one that I've been studying recently due to this whole Ukrainian conflict thing. I understand that the Buddhist idea of "sainthood" (perhaps more accurately, Nirvanna in that religion) is quite different and incompatible with the Catholic / Christian idea. --------- In the Catholic / Christian viewpoint, people are full of sins and errors. It is the pursuit of holiness that is the goal, but even that pursuit itself can become corrupted by ego. Be it from Biblical stories (ie: Aaron from Exodus, or the Pharisees in Jesus's time), to even more modern saints and holy figures. Humility is a goal and is certainly a virtue. But unlike Buddhism, Catholicism doesn't necessarily expect saints to have the trait. You can enter into heaven despite imperfections. Exactly how many imperfections is up for debate, even within a major top/down scholarly religion like Catholicism. But nobody is perfect, not even the leaders of a religion or some of the holiest people we've studied in biblical or modern times. Some Christians even believe that "faith alone" can save you, even if you're grossly sinful. That's not the viewpoint of Catholics, but you can get the gist of the debate from how other Christians have written down their understanding of the faith. In all cases, there's the idea of God selecting those who are "better" than others, and humility is clearly one metric. But its not the only metric and not the only metric God will judge us by ----- In any case, Aaron is likely a saint, as he was a high-priest with Moses. His imperfection and weakness, causing him to worship the Golden Calf despite being saved from Egypt, is kind of the old / ancient trope of holy men falling and failing the challenges posed to them. But that's okay, God doesn't expect perfection from us. If Aaron is too much of a cornercase, then I can shift my argument to King David and/or Moses, who have plenty of well documented imperfections in their lives and are certainly considered to be in heaven (and therefore a saint).
superb-owl 4y ago
>> In other words, the hallmark of a religious mind is a smaller ego. > Is it? This quote is a bit out of context--it's a summary of William James' position. Later on I refute and expand on that position, saying that religion also leads to extreme egotism. Which I think coheres with your other points.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  I've finished reading to the end. I'm not sure if you've got the beginning and end of the blogpost very cohesive, but I can admit that I didn't read the whole post before typing a bit earlier. In any case, I think its an interesting point you bring up, because I think it brings up what I feel are misunderstandings of the Catholic faith and our understanding of holiness. Especially because the Buddhist interpretation of Nirvana seems more popular in pop culture today. I would argue that Jesus's warning against self-centered, egotistical holy men was one of his greatest messages. That holy men will tend to become egotistical like the pharisees. In contrast, Jesus's first Apostles were tax collectors and fishermen, and he preached to the Gentiles (ie: non-Hewbrew / non-holy people). That is to say: the contradiction is a cornerstone of Catholicism. Jesus wants us to become more holy and religious, but also warns us that the pursuit of religion has a corrupting effect upon our soul that we need to watch out for.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> I say ego is independent. I agree. but I find the concept of "ego" problematic. The concept arises from Freud, and I think the author's explanation of ego as a boundary is a fair presentation of Freud's conception. And Freud's model is fairly convincing. It has a lot of explanatory power, but it doesn't make many testable predictions; it might be so, but it might not. The word "ego" is used a lot by Buddhists, and I think the way they use it is unhelpful; they use it mainly to mean the belief in a permanent, abiding self. But they also use it to mean selfishness, the desire for power and so on. I take it to refer to the psychological structures we build to protect us from psychological threats. In that sense, I think it's useful to think of the ego as a boundary. So I accept the idea of ego as a protection mechanism. But I think it's a natural and unavoidable response to interacting with a world full of psychological threats; I don't think your metaphysical beliefs are going to have much effect on such fundamental self-protection instincts. On the contrary, my view is that your metaphysical beliefs will be a reflection of your psychological attitude to the world around you. I don't think that faith makes you a better person.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

comfypotato 4y ago

I interpret this line such that this instance of “religious mind” is associated with the directly aforementioned “saintly character”. That is to say that your examples of Aaron, the scribes, Pharisees, etc. were definitely not “saintly characters”. Humility (this is a smaller Ego, yes?) is praised throughout the Bible. Its “saintly characters”, primarily Jesus, exhibit this trait. Similarly, Krishna humbles Arjuna in the Gita (Arjuna being the “saintly character” here).

dragontamer 4y ago
Aaron was literally God's hand chosen spokesman for Moses, the #2 Priest after Moses. Humility is expected, but time and time again, humans fail to live up to the task, even hand selected priests of God like Aaron was. ------ I can't speak for other Religions, but in Catholicism at least, the moral failings of high priests and their mistakes are well known. ------- King David is perhaps a more saintly figure who grows powerful, then egotistical and fails. Arguably Samson as well. The ideal exists, but it is accepted that humans fail.
- comfypotato 4y ago
  I’m saying that people reach that “existing ideal” to the extent that their ego is shrunk, and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego, yes? I guess my theory fundamentally disagrees with yours. I’m basing what I’m saying on the article author’s line “the saints of all religions” implying that their “religious mindset” is limited to those considered saintly. Aaron perfectly represents Israel’s lack of fidelity; I think it’s safe to keep him, even Moses (it was his ego that kept him from the promised land), separate from sainthood. Ultimately, the author’s intended point in making the single statement you and I are talking about hinges on their idea of sainthood (and perhaps Jesus is Christianity’s only true saint). Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out).
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego I'm saying that in the Christian faith, there are numerous examples of holy people who have fallen prey to hubris. This doesn't detract from their holiness. > Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out). First off, Moses, Aaron, David, etc. etc. are considered Saints in Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we can dispel that myth immediately. The Catholic definition of sainthood is simply someone who has been accepted into heaven. If a miracle has been performed in someone's name, then it is proof that God has accepted them (and for good measure, we wait for two miracles. The first miracle could have been a fluke after all). Since such a person has proof from God that they are holy, they are someone to emulate. They are roughly, the metric under which God deems worthy to accept into heaven. "Sainthood" is a technical term, meaning we've received proof on earth that someone is in heaven. The metric God uses is likely a lower bar. IE: there are probably "unknown saints", humble people who never became popular enough for people to later pray under their name and thereby get a miracle assigned to them. That's okay, because they're in heaven regardless. The sainthood system is itself an imperfect system by us Catholics. Ex: If you think your grandma is in heaven, she's probably a saint, but don't expect the Catholic Church to officially canonize her unless she was popular. Sainthood includes such storied figures as say, Saint Olga, who was well known for executing an entire village in her wrath. Not just once, but three times. She's not even the most "hubris" saint I can think of, she's just one that I've been studying recently due to this whole Ukrainian conflict thing. I understand that the Buddhist idea of "sainthood" (perhaps more accurately, Nirvanna in that religion) is quite different and incompatible with the Catholic / Christian idea. --------- In the Catholic / Christian viewpoint, people are full of sins and errors. It is the pursuit of holiness that is the goal, but even that pursuit itself can become corrupted by ego. Be it from Biblical stories (ie: Aaron from Exodus, or the Pharisees in Jesus's time), to even more modern saints and holy figures. Humility is a goal and is certainly a virtue. But unlike Buddhism, Catholicism doesn't necessarily expect saints to have the trait. You can enter into heaven despite imperfections. Exactly how many imperfections is up for debate, even within a major top/down scholarly religion like Catholicism. But nobody is perfect, not even the leaders of a religion or some of the holiest people we've studied in biblical or modern times. Some Christians even believe that "faith alone" can save you, even if you're grossly sinful. That's not the viewpoint of Catholics, but you can get the gist of the debate from how other Christians have written down their understanding of the faith. In all cases, there's the idea of God selecting those who are "better" than others, and humility is clearly one metric. But its not the only metric and not the only metric God will judge us by ----- In any case, Aaron is likely a saint, as he was a high-priest with Moses. His imperfection and weakness, causing him to worship the Golden Calf despite being saved from Egypt, is kind of the old / ancient trope of holy men falling and failing the challenges posed to them. But that's okay, God doesn't expect perfection from us. If Aaron is too much of a cornercase, then I can shift my argument to King David and/or Moses, who have plenty of well documented imperfections in their lives and are certainly considered to be in heaven (and therefore a saint).

superb-owl 4y ago

>> In other words, the hallmark of a religious mind is a smaller ego. > Is it? This quote is a bit out of context--it's a summary of William James' position. Later on I refute and expand on that position, saying that religion also leads to extreme egotism. Which I think coheres with your other points.

dragontamer 4y ago
I've finished reading to the end. I'm not sure if you've got the beginning and end of the blogpost very cohesive, but I can admit that I didn't read the whole post before typing a bit earlier. In any case, I think its an interesting point you bring up, because I think it brings up what I feel are misunderstandings of the Catholic faith and our understanding of holiness. Especially because the Buddhist interpretation of Nirvana seems more popular in pop culture today. I would argue that Jesus's warning against self-centered, egotistical holy men was one of his greatest messages. That holy men will tend to become egotistical like the pharisees. In contrast, Jesus's first Apostles were tax collectors and fishermen, and he preached to the Gentiles (ie: non-Hewbrew / non-holy people). That is to say: the contradiction is a cornerstone of Catholicism. Jesus wants us to become more holy and religious, but also warns us that the pursuit of religion has a corrupting effect upon our soul that we need to watch out for.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> I say ego is independent. I agree. but I find the concept of "ego" problematic. The concept arises from Freud, and I think the author's explanation of ego as a boundary is a fair presentation of Freud's conception. And Freud's model is fairly convincing. It has a lot of explanatory power, but it doesn't make many testable predictions; it might be so, but it might not. The word "ego" is used a lot by Buddhists, and I think the way they use it is unhelpful; they use it mainly to mean the belief in a permanent, abiding self. But they also use it to mean selfishness, the desire for power and so on. I take it to refer to the psychological structures we build to protect us from psychological threats. In that sense, I think it's useful to think of the ego as a boundary. So I accept the idea of ego as a protection mechanism. But I think it's a natural and unavoidable response to interacting with a world full of psychological threats; I don't think your metaphysical beliefs are going to have much effect on such fundamental self-protection instincts. On the contrary, my view is that your metaphysical beliefs will be a reflection of your psychological attitude to the world around you. I don't think that faith makes you a better person.