What is your religion?

submitted by Ponderer from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Alan_Crowe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Ideally I'd like to discover or create a new form of spirituality.

Really? The five marks of a Holy Book could be an interesting starting point for creating your own humble and provisional spirituality.

[–]Ponderer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

That's an interesting site.

It seems a bit contradictory in that it says men should never write a holy book, since that is God's job, but the page has presumably been written by a man(?)

But I agree with the general point that any true religion should consist of observations of nature and natural law, rather than proclamations made up by a human mind.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But I agree with the general point that any true religion should consist of observations of nature and natural law, rather than proclamations made up by a human mind.

Religion deals with the supernatural, not with the natural or the purely rational. What you are describing would not be a religion at all.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I feel like religions take natural things and make them supernatural, so that they do not have to face the hard scientific facts about these natural things.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That would be pantheism or something related to it, although worship of nature typically goes hand in hand with scientism, rather than fighting against it.

As far as I am concerned, there is basically zero overlap between the area of interest of religion and that of modern materialistic science. I do not think a genuine religion should be engaging with scientific matters too much.

[–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure I agree. Many deeply religious people might dispute there is a natural/supernatural distinction at all.

I agree that a system that's purely descriptive would probably not be a religion. But something that deals with subjective beliefs, and informs the believer about what they should do with their lives and what is truly meaningful, would have at least some similarities with religion.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Many deeply religious people might dispute there is a natural/supernatural distinction at all.

This can be a valid perspective, but this is also an entirely different thing from reducing everything to nature alone.

I agree that a system that's purely descriptive would probably not be a religion. But something that deals with subjective beliefs, and informs the believer about what they should do with their lives and what is truly meaningful, would have at least some similarities with religion.

I think what you are referring to here is much closer to myth in the secular sense, rather than religion. Religion does deal with the things you mentioned, but its approach to those things is informed by a metaphysical position. If we take some types of Buddhism as an example, there are indeed rules for personal conduct, a value system and spiritual practices, but all of this is justified on a supernatural basis, specifically attaining enlightenment.

[–]Alan_Crowe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that it is a little bit contradictory. It proclaims a mystical insight: if God had really given us a Holy Book, it would be awesome. There would be none of those arguments: "This is the Holy Book!", "No, you are wrong. That is the Holy Book."

But then what? What would humility in the face of God's Silence look like. Society needs a rule book, so there is clearly a problem. One way is to make the rule book explicitly the unaided work of man, and to embrace the implication that it will fail the test of time and need updating in the light of experience.

We might anticipate this and invent the conservatism of the archive. Write down your rules. Write down why you have chosen them. Write down what your critics say will go wrong. Write down what your critics say we should do instead. Keep it all safe in the archive for 100 years.

When things don't go according to plan, dig through the archive. Did you stick to your rules? Really? In a way that is faithful to the reasons why they were supposed to work? What about the critics? Did things go wrong in the way that they predicted, or in some other way?

If the critics predicted the exact way that things would go wrong, they win. Dig out their suggestions and give them a try. If the critics predicted different screw-ups than actually happened, cry. Nobody knows anything. But at least you have an archive. What it was like. What people thought. How it actually turned out. That is a basis for working out what to do next.