4 ms·
It seems you have a fairly narrow view of what constitutes a religion. Christian fundamentalism is particularly dogmatic and is one negative manifestation of re
by waterheater 3y ago
It seems you have a fairly narrow view of what constitutes a religion. Christian fundamentalism is particularly dogmatic and is one negative manifestation of religion which happens to be present in the West.
From the book "God is Not One" by Stephen Prothero:
"Philosopher of religion Ninian Smart has referred to these [shared religious] tendencies as the seven “dimensions” of religion: the ritual, narrative, experiential, institutional, ethical, doctrinal, and material dimensions.
These family resemblances are just tendencies, however. Just as there are tall people in short families (none of the men in Michael Jordan’s family was over six feet tall), there are religions that deny the existence of God and religions that get along just fine without creeds. Something is a religion when it shares enough of this DNA to belong to the family of religions. What makes the members of this family different (and themselves) is how they mix and match these dimensions. Experience is central in Daoism and Buddhism. Hinduism and Judaism emphasize the narrative dimension. The ethical dimension is crucial in Confucianism. The Islamic and Yoruba traditions are to a great extent about ritual. And doctrine is particularly important to Christians.
The world’s religious rivals are clearly related, but they are more like second cousins than identical twins. They do not teach the same doctrines. They do not perform the same rituals. And they do not share the same goals."
- haswell 3y ago> It seems you have a fairly narrow view of what constitutes a religion. Christian fundamentalism is particularly dogmatic and is one negative manifestation of religion which happens to be present in the West. The Christian dogmatic variety and its offshoots also happens to be quite popular. I understand the broader religious context after investing significant time and effort into trying to understand the phenomena of religion more generally. “The Evolution of God” is another interesting text in this category. The narrow view I’m representing here is the view that I spent most of my life holding, and the view that most people I know still hold. It’s also the view that kept me from exploring Buddhism and meditation for many years. Religion had been a very destructive force in my life, and I’m not alone in this experience. My point in this thread is that associating meditation with religion is unnecessary, and can be a problem for people who hold this narrow view. My attempts to expand my own understanding seems pretty rare in my social circles, and when I added a meditation practice as something very central to my life, it was clear that people around me hold all sorts of assumptions and misconceptions about it (as I did), and those associations don’t need to exist. “Real Christianity” - following the things that Jesus actually taught - is actually a pretty decent way to go about life. But this isn’t what most people experience, and it colors their views of the whole endeavor accordingly.
- waterheater 3y agoFair enough. Meditation and even prayer certainly don't need to be associated with religion. Funnily enough, meditation is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, so it's confusing why more Christians choose to solely focus on prayer. If meditation is about understanding yourself, and prayer is about causing effect in the world, meditation seems the best way to operationalize Jesus' words about removing the plank from your own eye before the speck in your neighbor's. It seems to me that both prayer and meditation are related to the notion of a Higher Power. Whether that power ranges from rebalancing the autonomic nervous system to letting God take charge, meditation and prayer are fundamentally about a conscious connection to the Unseen.