The intrinsic value of religious institutions and the belief in religious dogmas

[Freudian Monkey]

This thread is dedicated to discussion about religious institutions and the inherent social value of the belief in religious dogmas. This thread is not about whether God exists or not. Instead, we will start with the presumption that God does not exist and then venture on to find whether the religious belief itself or the religious institutions have any value for an individual or a society. Religion's transcendental value is based on the presumption that a religious belief is based on the true state of affairs, which this thread denies. So if you want to discuss about your personal religious belief, please start another thread. This thread is primarily about philosophy, not theology.

Do people live better lives because they have a religious belief? Is the society itself better because it has been founded on (supposedly) christian or other religious values? Is a society destined to collapse without objective moral values that religions offer?

I will begin the discussion with two thesis that ought to spark discussion.

Thesis I

Question: Does religion provide a sense of identity?

It certainly does, but why does one need religion if it is just a social construction that integrates social groups and enables other forms of social cohesion? Why can't these social constructs be upheld by humane values and principles instead? If one's sense of purpose and meaning derives primarily from family, friends and other loved ones anyway, then why does one need religion? Personally I don't like to see people receive their meanings and values directly from religious dogmas since they almost always offer just a very narrow and limiting perspective. General humane values on the other hand do not create artificial boundaries between ethnic groups and they give us sense of identity as sensible and tolerant people that have certain guiding principles.

Thesis II

Question: I often hear people argue that all religions hold at their core a similar set of humane values and by indoctrinating these values into peoples minds religions have a positive effect on the society. Is this true?

It is highly debatable whether in every religion's core there's a message of tolerance and mutual respect. My personal view is that this is most certainly not the case, but I know that from every holy book scholars have been able to find this message by making clever interpretations.

Religious dogmas are primarily based on interpretations of various written sources. These religious texts never produce a coherent picture - theologies are always scholars attempts to make sense, a cohesive story from multiple different authors writings about the same topic. From the history of theology one can clearly see that different interpretations have been popular at different time periods. Much like history, religion is always the religion of the winners. So I'd rather say that there is nothing at the core of any religion - what a society decides to take out of it is their collective interpretation. In modern literary theory the author is not seen as the source behind the meaning of a text - the meaning is been brought into the text by the reader. In other words, people of every race and every color share the same basic humane values and they read these values into their holy books - that's why these values have been found in each and every one of them. People often see meaning in places where there is no meaning and structure in places where the is no structure to be seen. I bet that if James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake would somehow become a religious holy book, scholars would find those same themes of mutual respect and tolerance from that book as well.

I welcome everyone to join the discussion.

[Tim Aeus]

This went unnoticed. It's a shame, because I think this is quite interesting. I've actually spent quite a bit of time over the last few years thinking these things over in my head as well.

I'd rather skip over the first of your theses, it seems trivial, of course all things help provide us with our identity. The second interests me though. I think to begin, we should determine whether or not religion improves the individual. Because society is a a sum of individuals working together, it makes sense that the efficiency of a society will be determined by the efficiency of its parts and their ability to work cooperatively.

Now that we've established that, the question is does religion create an individual that is intrinsically driven to be part of a functional society? I think that to answer this question fully, it must be asked of each religion separately. So, what religion would you like to look at first?

[Volya]

It is my opinion that although most religions, originally start of as being useful things. They teach us values, morality, etc. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, any religion you care to think of, they are all inherently good.

However it's when you organize the religion, and have human figureheads to direct it(e.g the catholic church, or, islamic extremists), that the religion turns sour.

[Tim Aeus]

Please stay on topic, we're discussing society here. It would be easy for this thread to deteriorate into bantering about religion and its inherent nature.

[Volya]

Please stay on topic, we're discussing society here. It would be easy for this thread to deteriorate into bantering about religion and its inherent nature.

I thought I was on-topic (effects of religious institutions on society), sorry.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You were on topic. For ****s sake, the TITLE of this thread designates religious institution as the topic. If Tim wants to discuss society and the individual, he can make his own thread, or at the least discuss it here but not complain when someone goes in a direction he doesn't want to.

As to my thoughts on religious institutions, Thomas Paine said it best: "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

[Tim Aeus]

It wasn't on topic. To clarify, the intent of this thread is to discuss how religion affects the individual, and consequentially the society. It is not to determine when and why a certain religion turns sour. I'd like to see you prove me wrong, though. Relate to me the 'sourness' of a specific religion with the societal impact of the institution of religion.

[Volya]

It wasn't on topic. To clarify, the intent of this thread is to discuss how religion affects the individual, and consequentially the society. It is not to determine when and why a certain religion turns sour. I'd like to see you prove me wrong, though. Relate to me the 'sourness' of a specific religion with the societal impact of the institution of religion.

Ok, time to see if I can prove you wrong...

Religion, as itself, is a fine organization. It benefits the society by bringing the community together, and instilling good moral values.

However, religions can be corrupted when they are under the control of one person (e.g, the catholic church). This would mean that they no longer benefit the society as this one leader can subtly change the religion to suit his or her own purposes.

One could also argue that religious organizations on the whole do not benefit society, as although they can instill moral values, these could simply be taught by the parents, or the rest of the society. Religious organizations can also lead to people blindly following their leaders/scriptures without really considering the implication of what they are doing.

[cacian]

Firstly I would like to try and ask what a religious dogma is.
Is one saying religious dogma means that causes problems rather then offer solutions.
I always understood dogma to mean unclear or that comes with issues.

And to answer the first question I do not believe religion gives a sense of identity to the individual but what it deos however is load the person with rules and laws about a higher being that he or she never met.
Religion limits the mind to explore other venues of life and makes the world revolve around it in a way that is restrictive punishing self conflicting.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Dogmas are like the theses of religions. It's what religions want people to believe.

It wasn't on topic. To clarify, the intent of this thread is to discuss how religion affects the individual, and consequentially the society. It is not to determine when and why a certain religion turns sour. I'd like to see you prove me wrong, though. Relate to me the 'sourness' of a specific religion with the societal impact of the institution of religion.

It's quite easy to prove you wrong . . . by quoting the first sentence of the OP (and you're not even the OP, so I don't really see how you think you have the right to dictate who says what):

"This thread is dedicated to discussion about religious institutions and the inherent social value of the belief in religious dogmas."

That's exactly what Volya was discussing.

You were wrong, get over it, move on. To move on, you could ask him to explain what he means by the word "sour" rather than just *****ing about it.

[Volya]

Dogmas are like the theses of religions. It's what religions want people to believe.


It's quite easy to prove you wrong . . . by quoting the first sentence of the OP (and you're not even the OP, so I don't really see how you think you have the right to dictate who says what):

"This thread is dedicated to discussion about religious institutions and the inherent social value of the belief in religious dogmas."

That's exactly what Volya was discussing.

You were wrong, get over it, move on. To move on, you could ask him to explain what he means by the word "sour" rather than just *****ing about it.

It's cool man, i wasn't offended or anything. Tim just didn't get what I was saying, that's all.

[Paulclem]

These religious texts never produce a coherent picture - theologies are always scholars attempts to make sense, a cohesive story from multiple different authors writings about the same topic. From the history of theology one can clearly see that different interpretations have been popular at different time periods. Much like history, religion is always the religion of the winners. So I'd rather say that there is nothing at the core of any religion - what a society decides to take out of it is their collective interpretation.

I can see this in relation to the bible. I took comparative religion at uni, and in the ethics lectures, the vicar/ Lecturer was always at pains to explain the meaning of verses and apply the Christian interpretation to the ethical problem. It clearly works for some people, but I felt that it was often contrived. Interestingly, a friend of mine suggested that such difficulties arise becaus Jesus' ministry was so short that he was unable to fully lay forth his theology.

In contrast The Buddha was teaching for 40 years or so, and had time to teach the monks and pass on the Dharma.

Hinduism isn't focused around one founder, but the writings in the Upanishads stretch back over a few thousand years. It may be why there is such variety in Hinduism.

[Tim Aeus]

And to answer the first question I do not believe religion gives a sense of identity to the individual but what it deos however is load the person with rules and laws about a higher being that he or she never met.
Religion limits the mind to explore other venues of life and makes the world revolve around it in a way that is restrictive punishing self conflicting.

This is a problem. Does a person "loaded with rules and laws about a higher being" not have a sense of identity?

"Religion limits the mind." What is the mind? In what respect is it limited by religion? What impact on society does this limitation have?

[Freudian Monkey]

Nice to see this thread coming to life. I'd also like to hear your opinions on the question about objective moral authority that religions often claim for themselves. So, to repeat my earlier question, is a society destined to collapse without objective moral values that religions offer? Many theologians see this point as one of the strongest arguments that support the value of religious belief (William Lane Craig for instance).

Do we need objective moral values anyway?

[Freudian Monkey]

Sorry for double posting, but these two replies deal with completely different subjects, so maybe it's easier for the readers when they're presented as two clearly distinct posts.



I'd rather skip over the first of your theses, it seems trivial, of course all things help provide us with our identity. The second interests me though. I think to begin, we should determine whether or not religion improves the individual. Because society is a a sum of individuals working together, it makes sense that the efficiency of a society will be determined by the efficiency of its parts and their ability to work cooperatively.

Now that we've established that, the question is does religion create an individual that is intrinsically driven to be part of a functional society? I think that to answer this question fully, it must be asked of each religion separately. So, what religion would you like to look at first?

You bring up an interesting point here. Does religion improve an individual? This question is a tough one, since we have to determine so many confusing variables to make sense of it. First of all we have to determine the primary function of a state - is it to function as efficiently as possible or is it first and foremost to serve it's citizens? A theocratic state could ideally work more efficiently than a state built on secular principles, but I think it's safe to say that theocracies don't aim to serve their citizens, but rather to control them and dictate their behavior. Then again, can this state control be justified as a means for creating a better environment for all citizens?

Another variable that we have to determine the nature of the supposed improvement that a religious upbringing or a other forms of religious practice might give. One improvement might be that working class might be more obedient and maybe their work morals might improve since they would also work to please their deity. These are admittedly very crude and simplistic examples, but they give at least the idea of which kind of improvements we are dealing with.

However, most of these improvements are in my opinion improvements that could be achieved by any form of successful process of social integration. I believe that the essential power of religious belief has to do with individuals sense of identity - religious belief essentially offers him a new family. It doesn't matter what kind of theological dogmas the religion endorses as long as the individual feels like he's part of something greater than himself. This is why my I aimed my first thesis to inspect the nature of this sense of identity.


These religious texts never produce a coherent picture - theologies are always scholars attempts to make sense, a cohesive story from multiple different authors writings about the same topic. From the history of theology one can clearly see that different interpretations have been popular at different time periods. Much like history, religion is always the religion of the winners. So I'd rather say that there is nothing at the core of any religion - what a society decides to take out of it is their collective interpretation.

I can see this in relation to the bible. I took comparative religion at uni, and in the ethics lectures, the vicar/ Lecturer was always at pains to explain the meaning of verses and apply the Christian interpretation to the ethical problem. It clearly works for some people, but I felt that it was often contrived. Interestingly, a friend of mine suggested that such difficulties arise becaus Jesus' ministry was so short that he was unable to fully lay forth his theology.

In contrast The Buddha was teaching for 40 years or so, and had time to teach the monks and pass on the Dharma.

Hinduism isn't focused around one founder, but the writings in the Upanishads stretch back over a few thousand years. It may be why there is such variety in Hinduism.

Do you mean that the Buddhist teachings form a more coherent picture and that it can't be interpreted in a multitude of ways? I don't know much about Buddhism but I believe there exists multiple theological branches. How would you differentiate the Buddhist theology from Christian theology here?

[Paulclem]

Do you mean that the Buddhist teachings form a more coherent picture and that it can't be interpreted in a multitude of ways? I don't know much about Buddhism but I believe there exists multiple theological branches. How would you differentiate the Buddhist theology from Christian theology here?

No, rather the intentions of The Buddha are clear within the teachings. There are multiple schools - Tibetan, Zen, Southern etc - but they are surprisingly consistent in the presentation of the Dharma. The interpretation - or rather the practice adopted by individuals and different schools have a different focus, such as different types of meditation used in different schools. I think the books differ from theological books as they describe the perception of reality, but also provide tools with which to work with it - such as meditation techniques.

Buddhist works are like instruction manuals for achieving Enlightenment. Terms such as holy and blessed etc are used, but there is no sense that they were provided by a divine being rather the emphasis is upon The Buddha as a historical man achieving through his own efforts and leaving instructions for others.

[Freudian Monkey]

No, rather the intentions of The Buddha are clear within the teachings. There are multiple schools - Tibetan, Zen, Southern etc - but they are surprisingly consistent in the presentation of the Dharma. The interpretation - or rather the practice adopted by individuals and different schools have a different focus, such as different types of meditation used in different schools. I think the books differ from theological books as they describe the perception of reality, but also provide tools with which to work with it - such as meditation techniques.

Buddhist works are like instruction manuals for achieving Enlightenment. Terms such as holy and blessed etc are used, but there is no sense that they were provided by a divine being rather the emphasis is upon The Buddha as a historical man achieving through his own efforts and leaving instructions for others.

Does Buddhism have a lesser emphasis on the institutional aspect of religion? Is it safe to say that the religious institution of Buddhism itself doesn't actually offer anything to the society? That it's mainly the practice itself that an individual adopts that may or may not have an impact on his life?

Since Buddhism is more a philosophical viewpoint than a religious dedication, does it actually offer anything that any philosophy wouldn't be able to offer? Plato wrote a lot about "The Well-Ordered Soul" and how people should live to reach their full potential. Is there something that Buddhism offers that Platonic philosophy isn't able to offer? In other words, is there any intrinsic value to the religion or belief in Buddhism in contrast to the Buddhist practice?

[YesNo]

A theocratic state could ideally work more efficiently than a state built on secular principles, but I think it's safe to say that theocracies don't aim to serve their citizens, but rather to control them and dictate their behavior.

Have you heard of the Khmer Rouge? Is this an example of the kind of ideal state you are promoting?



It doesn't matter what kind of theological dogmas the religion endorses as long as the individual feels like he's part of something greater than himself. This is why my I aimed my first thesis to inspect the nature of this sense of identity.


One can create a sense of identity by becoming part of a community of believers or practitioners. I see nothing wrong with this. We are social creatures.

One can also create a sense of identity by claiming individual superiority to those who choose to become part of such a community. I have more trouble with this position.

[Freudian Monkey]

Have you heard of the Khmer Rouge? Is this an example of the kind of ideal state you are promoting?


You completely misinterpreted my post. I was making a point about the primary function of a society, and I implied that if the primary function of a society is merely to operate as efficiently as possible, then theocracy might be a viable option since it might operate more efficiently than a secular society. I personally don't believe that this is society's primary function. I didn't promote anything. Please read my post more carefully next time.



One can create a sense of identity by becoming part of a community of believers or practitioners. I see nothing wrong with this. We are social creatures.

I never said that becoming a part of social groups or institutionalized organizations that provide individuals with identities would be somehow undesirable. My question is whether religious institutions have any intrinsic value if a well-designed social service/institution of some kind could provide that same sense of identity. I don't know if religions could be replaced by such institutions. That's the reason why I started this thread in the first place.



One can also create a sense of identity by claiming individual superiority to those who choose to become part of such a community. I have more trouble with this position.

I agree, yet this still happens all the time in most social communities. Especially religious communities.

[YesNo]

You completely misinterpreted my post. I was making a point about the primary function of a society, and I implied that if the primary function of a society is merely to operate as efficiently as possible, then theocracy might be a viable option since it might operate more efficiently than a secular society. I personally don't believe that this is society's primary function. I didn't promote anything. Please read my post more carefully next time.

I sense that you are taking a hostile view toward religion or people who practice some religion. Have I interpreted that correctly?

Regarding theocracies or atheocracies, like the Khmer Rouge, I have no problem saying that I promote a society that tolerates different cultures and religions.



I never said that becoming a part of social groups or institutionalized organizations that provide individuals with identities would be somehow undesirable. My question is whether religious institutions have any intrinsic value if a well-designed social service/institution of some kind could provide that same sense of identity. I don't know if religions could be replaced by such institutions. That's the reason why I started this thread in the first place.

One of the reasons a "well-designed social service/institution" will not work as well as a religious institution is that we have a natural bias from childbirth toward religious belief, no matter what the indoctrination. The specific research summary I am thinking of that justifies this is Justin L. Barrett's Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Beliefs.

So, supposing an alternate institution were designed and everyone were required to participate, in time, and probably very quickly, people would re-create religious institutions, underground, if necessary.



I agree, yet this still happens all the time in most social communities. Especially religious communities.

What is important to realize is that all of the negative issues one can come up with regarding religious communities can be found in atheistic communities as well. I don't think you understand this based on the word "especially".

All of these communities of people have dogmas, including the atheists. They all try to indoctrinate. They all create an "us vs them" identity. What makes most religious communities better than the atheistic communities is that they also take a positive view toward their Gods or practices which has an intrinsic social value in ameliorating hostility toward the outsiders.

[Freudian Monkey]

I sense that you are taking a hostile view toward religion or people who practice some religion. Have I interpreted that correctly?


I don't intend to be hostile toward anyone, we are all here to learn.



Regarding theocracies or atheocracies, like the Khmer Rouge, I have no problem saying that I promote a society that tolerates different cultures and religions.

Unfortunately this goes off-topic. We are discussion whether religion or religious belief have intrinsic value for a society or an individual, not whether we personally support them or not.



One of the reasons a "well-designed social service/institution" will not work as well as a religious institution is that we have a natural bias from childbirth toward religious belief, no matter what the indoctrination. The specific research summary I am thinking of that justifies this is Justin L. Barrett's Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Beliefs.

So, supposing an alternate institution were designed and everyone were required to participate, in time, and probably very quickly, people would re-create religious institutions, underground, if necessary.


This is an interesting question. I haven't read the book you mentioned so I cannot give a thorough answer on it. Maybe you can summarize it's methodology and findings for us briefly? I read through a review of the book and some basic info about the author. My first impression is that he's research is quite controversial. He's results seem to point to the fact that young children often have an understanding of something transcendental, that could also be interpreted as God or other supernatural force. However to me this is only one interpretation. This experience of transcendental can as well be a result of immature psyche that inserts this transcendental quality to numerous external entities and phenomena, such as his parents, dreams, a thunder storm etc - at least this is how Piaget saw this phenomenon. Also the fact that human beings have a heightened sense of agency might have multiple explanations. But maybe you can specify what part of his argumentation impressed you the most. Maybe you can also list some of the other reasons why well-designed social services/institutions wouldn't be able to replace religious institutions.




All of these communities of people have dogmas, including the atheists. They all try to indoctrinate. They all create an "us vs them" identity. What makes most religious communities better than the atheistic communities is that they also take a positive view toward their Gods or practices which has an intrinsic social value in ameliorating hostility toward the outsiders.

Religious institutions have a pretty terrible track record for suppressing minorities and for invoking conflicts based on ethnicity or belief. Not all institutions have such horrendous records. Religious institutions are rarely based on democratic principles but rather on authoritarian control.

Does religious practice have an intrinsic social value that some irreligious practice wouldn't be able to duplicate?

It's true that one primary function of most all cultural structures is to separate one group of individuals from others, thus giving them a sense of identity. However these cultural structures can be based on a wide variety of principles and not all of these principles are equally valuable for the society. As I mentioned in the OP, a social structure based on common humane values would be rationally more preferable than a religious institution that has been founded on a collection of ancient scriptures that can be interpreted in infinite different (also harmful) ways.

I'm not certain whether a cultural structure that doesn't separate one group from another could actually offer a sense of identity as effectively as a one that does do this separation. It's a tough question since there really hasn't been any global effort for creating this kind of collective, all encompassing identity (or at least I can't think of any). It would be nice to hear your opinion on this as well.

[Tim Aeus]

One of the reasons a "well-designed social service/institution" will not work as well as a religious institution is that we have a natural bias from childbirth toward religious belief, no matter what the indoctrination. The specific research summary I am thinking of that justifies this is Justin L. Barrett's Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Beliefs.

So, supposing an alternate institution were designed and everyone were required to participate, in time, and probably very quickly, people would re-create religious institutions, underground, if necessary.


The results would invariably differ if the information was pulled from a sample group comprised of individuals not born into a society where god was the answer to all the difficult questions.

To say unequivocally that religion will always find a way to exist is a stretch.

[YesNo]

Maybe you can also list some of the other reasons why well-designed social services/institutions wouldn't be able to replace religious institutions.

Outside of the developmental psychology research on children's religious beliefs that I mentioned earlier, I think one could find today further evidence in neuroscience. That spiritual experiences can be linked to the structures in the human brain imply that they are actual experiences that humans have. They are not the result of cultural conditioning. All that an atheist could now try to claim is that these experiences are delusions, but those who have them would likely disagree.

The crucial idea is that if one really wanted, for whatever absurd reason, to eliminate religion from our cultural environment, one would have to eliminate the human species itself. It is not enough to set up some alternate institution expecting a cultural fix to work for long. If this research is correct, it is a waste of energy to even try.

[YesNo]

The results would invariably differ if the information was pulled from a sample group comprised of individuals not born into a society where god was the answer to all the difficult questions.

To say unequivocally that religion will always find a way to exist is a stretch.
How do you know they would invariably differ?

I realize that the research Barrett describes undermines the idea that religion is purely a cultural invention that can be removed by replacing it with adequate training or indoctrination. However, forget about this science for the moment and ask yourself: Why do we find religion everywhere? Now go back to Barrett. All he does is provide part of the answer to that question by looking at a young child's conception of superhuman intentional agents.

[Freudian Monkey]

Outside of the developmental psychology research on children's religious beliefs that I mentioned earlier, I think one could find today further evidence in neuroscience. That spiritual experiences can be linked to the structures in the human brain imply that they are actual experiences that humans have. They are not the result of cultural conditioning. All that an atheist could now try to claim is that these experiences are delusions, but those who have them would likely disagree.


Neuroscience can certainly tell us that people have these transcendental experiences, but this in no way means that these experiences have a direct correlation with any religious concepts. Antonio Damasio wrote in Self Comes to Mind that transcendental experiences are often a cause of a person losing a sense of self-control or a sense of individual identity. As we all well know, human beings construct their self-image on both mental and physiological (body image) reality - people rely highly on their bodies for their self-image since it the only stable and reliable means for a person to see himself as an individual entity, separate of all other objects that surround him. This is one reason why often after an accident people experience unusual mental states, since his body does not function the way it has always functioned before.



The crucial idea is that if one really wanted, for whatever absurd reason, to eliminate religion from our cultural environment, one would have to eliminate the human species itself.


I don't see why.



It is not enough to set up some alternate institution expecting a cultural fix to work for long. If this research is correct, it is a waste of energy to even try.

Our educational institutions use vast amounts of resources all the time to indoctrinate future citizens with desirable social models. The indoctrination of this identity of common humane values instead of various religious ones wouldn't be anything different.

[YesNo]

Neuroscience can certainly tell us that people have these transcendental experiences, but this in no way means that these experiences have a direct correlation with any religious concepts.


I think you are misunderstanding the significance of the statement you wrote. What neuroscience is showing is that religious cultural concepts and institutions arise not from transcendental ideas, but transcendental experiences.

Those who want to eliminate religion from our culture, need to deal with religion on a physical level, not a cultural level. That raises the question whether it should be done at all. They are ultimately up against changing the human species, not just the culture or the educational system. It might help to see the problem better to rename homo sapiens as homo spiritualis which I think the research is implying would not be inappropriate.



Our educational institutions use vast amounts of resources all the time to indoctrinate future citizens with desirable social models. The indoctrination of this identity of common humane values instead of various religious ones wouldn't be anything different.

Let me suggest something: religious values are humane values.

[Volya]

Let me suggest something: religious values are humane values.

Not all of them. Definitely not all of them.

[Freudian Monkey]

I think you are misunderstanding the significance of the statement you wrote. What neuroscience is showing is that religious cultural concepts and institutions arise not from transcendental ideas, but transcendental experiences.


Yea, maybe I shouldn't have called these experiences transcendental but rather ecstatic or hallucinatory experiences. The point was that they're not religious by nature. Excuse my bad English.



Those who want to eliminate religion from our culture, need to deal with religion on a physical level, not a cultural level. That raises the question whether it should be done at all. They are ultimately up against changing the human species, not just the culture or the educational system. It might help to see the problem better to rename homo sapiens as homo spiritualis which I think the research is implying would not be inappropriate.


I don't see why religion would have to be dealt with on a physical level. If people accept the fact that religious institutions are unnecessary, they will wither away without any kind of physical conflict. I don't see any reason to accept your argument that people are inherently religious beings if it's only based on the fact that people are self-aware. People will always keep asking the same questions about the meaning of life, the origin of the universe et cetera but these question don't require religious institutions to explain them. And again, these are not religious question, they're ontological ones.



Let me suggest something: religious values are humane values.

If religious values would be only based on humane principles, I wouldn't have any problem with them. In some secular religious communities this is actually the case. However as I said before, religious dogmas also endorse unnecessary and even harmful practices and values that are by no means humane or even rational - infant circumcision, discrimination based on sexual orientations or ideological convictions etc.

[YesNo]

Yea, maybe I shouldn't have called these experiences transcendental but rather ecstatic or hallucinatory experiences. The point was that they're not religious by nature.
What I am referring to is neuroscience being able to stimulate the brain in some way and generate experiences such as out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences or shared-death experiences. What this does it validates these as "experiences" and not mere "ideas". My claim is that religions are built upon these sorts of experiences.



I don't see why religion would have to be dealt with on a physical level. If people accept the fact that religious institutions are unnecessary, they will wither away without any kind of physical conflict.

It seems as if you are now assuming what you are trying to show in this thread.

My claim is that some sort of religious institutions are necessary. This is based on Barrett's summary of the science of children's religious belief as well as neuroscience finding a location in the human brain where near-death experiences occur.

But let's forget this science for a moment. Consider that in the west we have had a tradition of a scientific method that is grounded in atheism for over two centuries. If religious institutions could wither away, they would have done so by now.



I don't see any reason to accept your argument that people are inherently religious beings if it's only based on the fact that people are self-aware. People will always keep asking the same questions about the meaning of life, the origin of the universe et cetera but these question don't require religious institutions to explain them. And again, these are not religious question, they're ontological ones.

My argument is not based on the fact that people are self-aware. It is based on two types of evidence:

1) Barrett's science of children's religious belief.
2) Neuroscience finding a physical way to stimulate a religious experience.



If religious values would be only based on humane principles, I wouldn't have any problem with them. In some secular religious communities this is actually the case. However as I said before, religious dogmas also endorse unnecessary and even harmful practices and values that are by no means humane or even rational - infant circumcision, discrimination based on sexual orientations or ideological convictions etc.
I do not favor infant circumcision nor discrimination. However, you focus on the problems of some religious groups. In fairness you need to consider the problems of atheistic communities that have gone bad. I have mentioned the Khmer Rouge as one of those communities. The Khmer Rouge atrocities were far worse than circumcision.

[Freudian Monkey]

What I am referring to is neuroscience being able to stimulate the brain in some way and generate experiences such as out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences or shared-death experiences. What this does it validates these as "experiences" and not mere "ideas". My claim is that religions are built upon these sorts of experiences.


As I already explained, there experiences are not religious by nature. The mere fact that people feel ecstatic or hallucinated experiences does not suggest that people have to have a belief in any god or godlike entity.



But let's forget this science for a moment. Consider that in the west we have had a tradition of a scientific method that is grounded in atheism for over two centuries. If religious institutions could wither away, they would have done so by now.

There is no consensus in the West that religious institutions are unnecessary. There have never been this sort of consensus. Do you follow American politics at all? It's practically impossible to get elected to Congress if you don't claim to believe in god. Only 28 of the 525 members of Congress have openly admitted that they don't believe in any god. Do you expect this Congress to do anything to decrease the influence of religious institutions?



My argument is not based on the fact that people are self-aware. It is based on two types of evidence:

1) Barrett's science of children's religious belief.
2) Neuroscience finding a physical way to stimulate a religious experience.


1) This is based on the fact that people are self-aware. Children ask ontological question because that's what being self-aware means. You still haven't described Berrett's methods or findings to us, therefore it's hard to judge whether his findings even support you point of view.

2) The most well-known neoroscientific research about this was done by Michael Persinger. Test subjects brains were exposed to weak magnetic fields in order to stimulate their temporal lobes. During the tests some test subjects experienced "unexplained feelings of presence". Some of them described this presence as the presence of god.

I don't see how you could possibly use a research of this kind to justify that people are inherently religious beings. It's similar to suggesting that since people can feel ecstatic after seeing a majestic waterfall, that waterfall must be a God. This mode of belief is also known as animism, which was a belief system held by most archaic tribes. Animism is generally referred to as a religion of immature psyche since it's typical for children to see intention and design in objects that are not intentionally designed. The fact that children believe in this sort of fairy tales doesn't mean that they couldn't be educated and made into rationally thinking adults.

If you don't refer to Michael Persinger's research then specify what research you are referring to.



I do not favor infant circumcision nor discrimination. However, you focus on the problems of some religious groups. In fairness you need to consider the problems of atheistic communities that have gone bad. I have mentioned the Khmer Rouge as one of those communities. The Khmer Rouge atrocities were far worse than circumcision.

Hitler didn't commit genocide because he was (according to religious fundamentalists) an atheist. Nor did Stalin. Nor did Mao. Or any other dictator or regime. I'm so sick of hearing people use this argument. There is no book of atheism that endorses you to kill your fellow men in order for atheism to prevail. Harmful religious practices are often directly inspired and justified by religious holy book and religious dogmas that are being upheld by religious institutions.

[YesNo]

There is no consensus in the West that religious institutions are unnecessary. There have never been this sort of consensus. Do you follow American politics at all? It's practically impossible to get elected to Congress if you don't claim to believe in god. Only 28 of the 525 members of Congress have openly admitted that they don't believe in any god. Do you expect this Congress to do anything to decrease the influence of religious institutions?


What you are saying is that you will not be able to replace religious institutions with atheistic institutions on a voluntary basis. If that is what you are saying here, I would agree.

So, the only way to implement this plan is to force compliance.

The conclusion that I am drawing from this is you favor removing the civil liberties of religious people, no doubt for their own good as you define that. You think it is OK in a pluralistic society to restrict the freedom of speech and the right to assemble of the people you do not agree with. Am I reading your intent correctly?

[Freudian Monkey]

What you are saying is that you will not be able to replace religious institutions with atheistic institutions on a voluntary basis. If that is what you are saying here, I would agree.

So, the only way to implement this plan is to force compliance.

The conclusion that I am drawing from this is you favor removing the civil liberties of religious people, no doubt for their own good as you define that. You think it is OK in a pluralistic society to restrict the freedom of speech and the right to assemble of the people you do not agree with. Am I reading your intent correctly?

I let people use their own judgment to decide whether this is my intention based on my previous posts. It's unfortunate that you aim you criticism toward such irrelevant subject as my personal intentions. What matters are my arguments and whether they're valid or not. You don't discuss my argumentation but rather try to make me look like a racist to discredit my arguments.

I would have a lot to say about why in American politics religion plays such a major role, but that would be discussion about current politics and thus off-topic and against the forum rules.

I would also like other people to join in and comment on anything that the two of us have been discussing. It's not like we have a monopoly in this discussion and no one else can't join in. :)

[Paulclem]

Does Buddhism have a lesser emphasis on the institutional aspect of religion? Is it safe to say that the religious institution of Buddhism itself doesn't actually offer anything to the society? That it's mainly the practice itself that an individual adopts that may or may not have an impact on his life?



Sorry Freudian - I missed your earlier question.

It offers different things in different countries due to the status of the religion there. In "Buddhist" countries there is a well established monastic tradtion that acts similarly to dominant religions in other countries. So they conduct rites of passage etc. In this way Buddhism is fully part of those societies. In Burma, as another example, with the military junta being in power for the last few decades, it has been the focus of protest, much like catholocism did in the former Soviet Bloc - particularly in places like Poland. Here in the West, there are small monasteries, but usually practice is conducted by informal groups of laypeople who are perhaps led by a Monk or Nun, or someone with more extensive experience.

[Paulclem]

Since Buddhism is more a philosophical viewpoint than a religious dedication, does it actually offer anything that any philosophy wouldn't be able to offer? Plato wrote a lot about "The Well-Ordered Soul" and how people should live to reach their full potential. Is there something that Buddhism offers that Platonic philosophy isn't able to offer? In other words, is there any intrinsic value to the religion or belief in Buddhism in contrast to the Buddhist practice?

The goal of Buddhism - to become Enlightened - is a goal that is saying anyone can become superhuman. The Buddha's message is that any person can do what he did - given time and practice. To buy into this requires belief. Of course you get this from the simpler practice that demonstrates the veracity of the teachings, and so it is not blind belief, but qualified. This is ok as The Buddha's words were to question what he said, and find out whether it is true.

Alongside this is a toolbox of spiritual practice that, far from being abstract, asks you to deal with your own problematic self, and the problematic situation we, as humans, find ourselves in; the inevitable fact of our suffering through birth, aging, sickness and death. These exercises are designed to help you function better as a person within society by developing undrstanding and appreciation for others. Some of the meditations include: this precious human life, developing compassion, dealing with negative emotions etc etc.

[Freudian Monkey]

Sorry Freudian - I missed your earlier question.

It offers different things in different countries due to the status of the religion there. In "Buddhist" countries there is a well established monastic tradtion that acts similarly to dominant religions in other countries. So they conduct rites of passage etc. In this way Buddhism is fully part of those societies. In Burma, as another example, with the military junta being in power for the last few decades, it has been the focus of protest, much like catholocism did in the former Soviet Bloc - particularly in places like Poland. Here in the West, there are small monasteries, but usually practice is conducted by informal groups of laypeople who are perhaps led by a Monk or Nun, or someone with more extensive experience.


The goal of Buddhism - to become Enlightened - is a goal that is saying anyone can become superhuman. The Buddha's message is that any person can do what he did - given time and practice. To buy into this requires belief. Of course you get this from the simpler practice that demonstrates the veracity of the teachings, and so it is not blind belief, but qualified. This is ok as The Buddha's words were to question what he said, and find out whether it is true.

Alongside this is a toolbox of spiritual practice that, far from being abstract, asks you to deal with your own problematic self, and the problematic situation we, as humans, find ourselves in; the inevitable fact of our suffering through birth, aging, sickness and death. These exercises are designed to help you function better as a person within society by developing undrstanding and appreciation for others. Some of the meditations include: this precious human life, developing compassion, dealing with negative emotions etc etc.

Thanks for your answers Paul. Since we are discussing the value of belief and religious institutions here, I will again make some critical arguments to question your position, if you don't mind?

I agree that religious institutions often serve the purposes that you mentioned - offering rites of passage, being the rallying point for civil rights movements etc. However my point has consistently through the thread been that these functions could be done by any irreligious institution that would be based on common humane values. Religious underground movements have often done democracy a service in many oppressive societies, but I believe that these movements could have equally well been based on irreligious movements. One thing that institutionalized religions do extremely well is that they establish effective social networks that are tremendously powerful tools at a time of danger. I have to agree that irreligious institutions would have hard time trying to create as effective social networks as religious ones do, but I believe it could still be done.

Since Buddhism seems to have a lesser emphasis on the institutional aspect of religion, would it be alright with you if the institutional side of Buddhism would be replaced entirely with secular institutions such as the educational system? Of course people always need to learn philosophy and as a part of syllabus students could be taught Buddhist ethics and maybe even meditation as well. I don't see meditation as truly religious practice since it can be practiced just to calm and clear one's mind, which is a thoroughly healthy practice. This kind of secularization of religious practice would be valuable in my opinion because that way there would be one less separate institution that could be hijacked by extremists to cause havoc - this is what usually happens when people start killing each other in the name of God. In a secular institution these extremists would have to operate inside the entire educational system, which would make their operation a lot harder. Also inside the educational system the quality of Buddhist teaching would be regulated and controlled, with would benefit the practitioners greatly.

[cafolini]

FM. What do you think about Frank Sulloway. Could he have been the one who first thought of the name Freudian Monkey?

[Freudian Monkey]

FM. What do you think about Frank Sulloway. Could he have been the one who first thought of the name Freudian Monkey?

He certainly plays a part in the nature/nurture debate. I haven't read any of his works though. An interesting character.

Have you been following this thread closely? Would you like to share your thoughts on the value of religious institutions and religious belief?

[cafolini]

He certainly plays a part in the nature/nurture debate. I haven't read any of his works though. An interesting character.

Have you been following this thread closely? Would you like to share your thoughts on the value of religious institutions and religious belief?


On those premises I would have to agree with your first statement.

Regarding religious thoughts y share here and there. Love to you and all. All interesting without exception.:hat:

[Paulclem]

Since Buddhism seems to have a lesser emphasis on the institutional aspect of religion, would it be alright with you if the institutional side of Buddhism would be replaced entirely with secular institutions such as the educational system? Of course people always need to learn philosophy and as a part of syllabus students could be taught Buddhist ethics and maybe even meditation as well. I don't see meditation as truly religious practice since it can be practiced just to calm and clear one's mind, which is a thoroughly healthy practice. This kind of secularization of religious practice would be valuable in my opinion because that way there would be one less separate institution that could be hijacked by extremists to cause havoc - this is what usually happens when people start killing each other in the name of God. In a secular institution these extremists would have to operate inside the entire educational system, which would make their operation a lot harder. Also inside the educational system the quality of Buddhist teaching would be regulated and controlled, with would benefit the practitioners greatly.

It's really about what's fit for purpose. Institutions are useful focus points for celebration and community. We don't have a temple in Coventry, but in Birmingham nearby, there is a Burmese Pagoda which serves the Burmese community and serves other Buddhist groups too. Classes are held there and anyone is welcome. It does have a central role in local Buddhist communities, particularly at celebratory times of year. It is so bound up in Burmese tradition - in the best possible sense, that a secular version would not work in that instance for the reasons I've given.

The suggestion that secual version of Buddhist practice is quite reasonable. Anyone can meditate or learn to from books. In fact I understand - though I haven't studied it - that lots of psychological techniques have been derived from Buddhist practice. That's fine too, and for me, just demonstrates the veracity of the methods.

I don't see meditation as truly religious practice since it can be practiced just to calm and clear one's mind, which is a thoroughly healthy practice.

This kind of meditation isn't religious in the sense that it is specifically Buddhist. It is regarded as a preparatory practice, and therefore valuable.

The religious meditations concern the contemplation of an object of meditation. This might be a visualisation of the Buddha, an analysis of anger and its destructive qualities, or it might be the contemplation of human life as precious. Of course a secular humanist version of this could be developed, and will have been by psychologists about anger for example. What would be missing, particularly from certain Buddhist Schools, would be the relationship of Teacher and student. Also some of the practices are transmitted to practitioners, and this is a religious practice.

Extremism isn't such a problem in Buddhism, though there are disputes. There have been demonstrations against HH The Dalai Lama for example by another Buddhist group, but nothing very extreme gets done. The central ideas of Buddhism - personal reponsibility, Karma etc mitigate against extremity certainly by organised schools and most individuals.

As a further thought, the aim of Buddhism is not to just to achieve calm and balance, though these are positive, but to escape from the cycle of rebirth by becoming a Buddha. Anyone who doesn't have that ultimate aim is not a Buddhist - which is not a criticism. The Buddha's example is that he was a man who became a superman and was able to defy rebirth. I don't think that aim is consistent with a secularisation of practice. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with anyone using the methods taught by The Buddha and othe teachers for the benefit of themselves and others. This could be n an organisation or as an individual.

[Freudian Monkey]

It's really about what's fit for purpose. Institutions are useful focus points for celebration and community. We don't have a temple in Coventry, but in Birmingham nearby, there is a Burmese Pagoda which serves the Burmese community and serves other Buddhist groups too. Classes are held there and anyone is welcome. It does have a central role in local Buddhist communities, particularly at celebratory times of year. It is so bound up in Burmese tradition - in the best possible sense, that a secular version would not work in that instance for the reasons I've given.


I don't see why the roots of Buddhism couldn't be respected and upheld even if the Buddhist practice would primarily be practiced as a part of the educational system. Children learn the roots of psychology, geography and chemistry at school, even though some of the old theories are dated and thus not relevant to current scientific knowledge. It's important to know the roots of different ideologies and practices.



The religious meditations concern the contemplation of an object of meditation. This might be a visualisation of the Buddha, an analysis of anger and its destructive qualities, or it might be the contemplation of human life as precious. Of course a secular humanist version of this could be developed, and will have been by psychologists about anger for example. What would be missing, particularly from certain Buddhist Schools, would be the relationship of Teacher and student. Also some of the practices are transmitted to practitioners, and this is a religious practice.




As a further thought, the aim of Buddhism is not to just to achieve calm and balance, though these are positive, but to escape from the cycle of rebirth by becoming a Buddha. Anyone who doesn't have that ultimate aim is not a Buddhist - which is not a criticism. The Buddha's example is that he was a man who became a superman and was able to defy rebirth. I don't think that aim is consistent with a secularisation of practice. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with anyone using the methods taught by The Buddha and othe teachers for the benefit of themselves and others. This could be n an organisation or as an individual.

The relationship between students and the teacher could be improved gradually. This is a problem universally in public schools and it's obviously solvable if enough resources are allocated to the educational system.

The indoctrination of religious dogmas as a part of Buddhist practice is something that I see to be unnecessary since people can strife toward self-control and inner harmony without any religious dogmas. The concept of nirvana is of course based on religious belief, but I'm not sure whether the idea of reaching this state of oneness or release from the cycle of rebirth is crucial to most practitioners of Buddhism in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me the concrete search of inner balance seems like a much more valuable part of Buddhist practice even for the practitioners themselves than the metaphysical idea of a persons possible place in the afterlife? Religions change in the course of history and therefore I don't see secularisation of religious practice as a serious conceptual problem.



Extremism isn't such a problem in Buddhism, though there are disputes. There have been demonstrations against HH The Dalai Lama for example by another Buddhist group, but nothing very extreme gets done. The central ideas of Buddhism - personal reponsibility, Karma etc mitigate against extremity certainly by organised schools and most individuals.


It's true that one would have to twist the Buddhist doctrine quite a bit to use it as a tool for racial violence or genocide. There has been some conflicts where Buddhists have taken up arms (for instance in Sri Lanka), but it's true that Buddhism has been used as a tool of violence far less than Islam or Christianity. But if there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists and used as a tool for massive scale discrimination or violence, I see it to be more harmful than valuable.

[YesNo]

It's true that one would have to twist the Buddhist doctrine quite a bit to use it as a tool for racial violence or genocide. There has been some conflicts where Buddhists have taken up arms (for instance in Sri Lanka), but it's true that Buddhism has been used as a tool of violence far less than Islam or Christianity. But if there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists and used as a tool for massive scale discrimination or violence, I see it to be more harmful than valuable.

What you seem to be promoting by refusing to tolerate the idea of religious people gathering together on their own is "state atheism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Just looking at the article should give you historical evidence that atheism is no better than any of these religions when it comes to racial violence or genocide. I would trust any of these religions over atheism. However, the best solution is to have neither a theocracy nor state atheism, but a society in which people are allowed civil liberties to congregate on their own without state supervision.

[Freudian Monkey]

What you seem to be promoting by refusing to tolerate the idea of religious people gathering together on their own is "state atheism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Just looking at the article should give you historical evidence that atheism is no better than any of these religions when it comes to racial violence or genocide. I would trust any of these religions over atheism. However, the best solution is to have neither a theocracy nor state atheism, but a society in which people are allowed civil liberties to congregate on their own without state supervision.

I agree completely. I don't support state atheism either, but rather a secular society that's based on common moral values. But as I said before, atheism cannot endorse violence since there are no holy books or scriptures of atheism that could be interpreted in a harmful way. Can we agree on this premise?

I also believe that people should never be forced to believe or not to believe in anything. The fact that I presented the possibility some religious practice could just as well be taught inside the educational system didn't mean that this should be forced by the state. However religious institutions have a natural tendency to dissolve when a society becomes more secular and when people receive science-based education. In the future societies might adopt some good practices from religious institutions, but if the institutions themselves don't have any intrinsic value, they will probably disappear over time. The whole point of my statement about the secularisation of religious practice was to show that religious institutions do not have any intrinsic value. If you don't agree, please give us examples of religious institutions intrinsic values.

[cafolini]

I agree completely. I don't support state atheism either, but rather a secular society that's based on common moral values. But as I said before, atheism cannot endorse violence since there are no holy books or scriptures of atheism that could be interpreted in a harmful way. Can we agree on this premise?

I also believe that people should never be forced to believe or not to believe in anything. The fact that I presented the possibility some religious practice could just as well be taught inside the educational system didn't mean that this should be forced by the state. However religious institutions have a natural tendency to dissolve when a society becomes more secular and when people receive science-based education. In the future societies might adopt some good practices from religious institutions, but if the institutions themselves don't have any intrinsic value, they will probably disappear over time. The whole point of my statement about the secularisation of religious practice was to show that religious institutions do not have any intrinsic value. If you don't agree, please give us examples of religious institutions intrinsic values.

Atheism cannot endorse violence? Ask the Russians before we got them out of the way. I'm closing this case.

[Freudian Monkey]

Atheism cannot endorse violence? Ask the Russians before we got them out of the way. I'm closing this case.

I'm surprised by your comment since I already stated that no dictator or regime has never done acts of violence in the name of atheism. If you disagree then maybe you can provide me some evidence that there has been acts of violence specifically inspired by atheism? In the case of USSR the acts of violence were directed toward groups and individuals that were seen as a treat toward the unquestioned power of the ruling oligarchy. Believers were unquestionably harassed, imprisoned and killed, but there actions were inspired by a dictatorial pursuit for unquestioned power rather than an atheistic conviction. Marx saw religious institutions as yet another tool for oppression in class warfare and that's why it had to be obliterated for the working class to be free - again, the reason was not atheism. I might agree that Marxism - or rather the Marxism-Leninism, which was one interpretation of Marxism - inspired the killing of countless people, but Marxism is not a synonym for atheism. Another motivating factor for the state terror against religions was the fact that the Orthodox Church was one of the richest institutions in Russia and the state was eager to steal all it's wealth.

In cases of religious violence the aggressors themselves often admit and even stress that they were inspired by their religious beliefs.

[YesNo]

I don't support state atheism either

We agree on that.


But as I said before, atheism cannot endorse violence since there are no holy books or scriptures of atheism that could be interpreted in a harmful way. Can we agree on this premise?

We do not agree on the use of literature by State atheists.

One of the scriptures that Mao insisted everyone be exposed to was "The Little Red Book", or Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse Tung: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao

A quick search brought me this collection of posters from the cultural revolution with the little red book on display along with rifles: http://kdgeorge.com/propaganda/chinese-propaganda-art/




I also believe that people should never be forced to believe or not to believe in anything. The fact that I presented the possibility some religious practice could just as well be taught inside the educational system didn't mean that this should be forced by the state.

We agree on that.



However religious institutions have a natural tendency to dissolve when a society becomes more secular and when people receive science-based education.

In the Wikipedia article on State atheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism, there is the following comment:


Author Niels Christian Nielsen has written that the post-Soviet population in areas which were formerly predominantly Orthodox are now "nearly illiterate regarding religion", almost completely lacking the intellectual or philosophical aspects of their faith and having almost no knowledge of other faiths.[76] Nonetheless, their knowledge of their faith and the faith of others notwithstanding, many post-Soviet populations have a large presence of religious followers. In Russia, the 2007 International Religious Freedom Report published by the US Department of State said that approximately 100 million citizens consider themselves Russian Orthodox Christians.

Based on Russian history, it does not look like there is a natural tendency for religion to dissolve. What evidence do you have that there is such a natural tendency?



In the future societies might adopt some good practices from religious institutions, but if the institutions themselves don't have any intrinsic value, they will probably disappear over time. The whole point of my statement about the secularisation of religious practice was to show that religious institutions do not have any intrinsic value. If you don't agree, please give us examples of religious institutions intrinsic values.

I think there is evidence to claim that religious experiences are part of our biology. I've mentioned some of this before, but here they are again:

1) Developmental psychology: Justin L Barrett, Born Believers
2) Neuroscience: Kevin Nelson, The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain

The above texts are summaries themselves of research. They provide enough evidence for me to feel confident that religion is intrinsic to us as a species and therefore religious institutions have intrinsic value.

[Paulclem]

I don't see why the roots of Buddhism couldn't be respected and upheld even if the Buddhist practice would primarily be practiced as a part of the educational system. Children learn the roots of psychology, geography and chemistry at school, even though some of the old theories are dated and thus not relevant to current scientific knowledge. It's important to know the roots of different ideologies and practices.

.

There would be no problem using Buddhist techniques - there is no problem using Buddhist techniques - in any walk of life or instiution. What you seem to suggest with "old and dated theories" is that a modern equivalent would be more relevant to Buddhists. I don't think they would see it that way, though, as I said, using techniques in a secular way is not a problem.

[Paulclem]

The relationship between students and the teacher could be improved gradually. This is a problem universally in public schools and it's obviously solvable if enough resources are allocated to the educational system.



The Student / Teacher relationship operates at different levels. There are of course ordinary teachers who will pass on teachings about Buddhism. There is another and much rarer teacher - rare as in perhaps not in this or the next lifetime - who introduces the practitioner to their own mind. This is said to be a karmic relationship and very precious.

Asian attitudes to teachers are very different to western views, and this stems from the cultures. Our often negative views of teachers stems from the all too negative attitudes of the teachers themselves. I think the answer to that one is not to try to inculcate a false sense of respect, but for the right kinds of teachers to be selected and rewarded fo dealing with certain students. Anyone can teach a willing class, but it takes a teacher who can earn respect to be able to effectively teah certain groups. How they get that respect is very difficult to say.

[Paulclem]

The indoctrination of religious dogmas as a part of Buddhist practice is something that I see to be unnecessary since people can strife toward self-control and inner harmony without any religious dogmas. The concept of nirvana is of course based on religious belief, but I'm not sure whether the idea of reaching this state of oneness or release from the cycle of rebirth is crucial to most practitioners of Buddhism in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me the concrete search of inner balance seems like a much more valuable part of Buddhist practice even for the practitioners themselves than the metaphysical idea of a persons possible place in the afterlife? Religions change in the course of history and therefore I don't see secularisation of religious practice as a serious conceptual problem.


people can strife toward self-control and inner harmony without any religious dogmas

They can - anyone can - but that's not what Buddhism is about.

The concept of nirvana is of course based on religious belief, but I'm not sure whether the idea of reaching this state of oneness or release from the cycle of rebirth is crucial to most practitioners of Buddhism in the first place.

It is - otherwise they would not be, or call themselves, Buddhists. It might be that you are thinking in terms of one life, and that it seems impossible to achieve. Buddhism is a long game. A Stream Enterer in the Therevadan tradition, describes someone who has realised Renunciation - seen Samsara, this life, as the source of their and other's suffering. A Stream Enterer has seven more lives to go before reaching Enlightenment. A Stream Enterer is not a beginner, but an advanced practiioner.

the concrete search of inner balance seems like a much more valuable part of Buddhist practice even for the practitioners themselves than the metaphysical idea of a persons possible place in the afterlife? Religions change in the course of history and therefore I don't see secularisation of religious practice as a serious conceptual problem.

I see the secularisation of society as a positive thing. Then people can really be free to practice, in every society, the religion, or phiosophy, or worldview they want without prejudice.

If by "inner balance" you mean psychological and emotional stability - then yes this is one of the aims of Buddhists in the short term. If the methods which exist achieve this, then this indicates that there may be more to The Buddha's teaching, all The Buddha's teaching, and that his deeper insights become more plausible. In fact this is how Buddhism works. The Buddha's instructions were to not take his word for it but to investigate. If they prove to be correct, then you can begin to trust the teachings.

Afterlife is not really the concept of Nirvana, which is a state The Buddha achieved whilst still alive. It is a state of mind rather than a concept like a heaven.

It is true that religions change, and Buddhism is no different. Hence you have various schools ith different focus of practice. What changes is the cultural context, so for example alms rounds were normal in India, but were culturally unacceptable in Japan and China. The texts that are used though are still very similar, and the core beliefs and practices are the same.

I see attempts to secularise religious practice as another form of oppression. I see attempts to take effective practices and use them in a secular context as sensible.

[Paulclem]

It's true that one would have to twist the Buddhist doctrine quite a bit to use it as a tool for racial violence or genocide. There has been some conflicts where Buddhists have taken up arms (for instance in Sri Lanka), but it's true that Buddhism has been used as a tool of violence far less than Islam or Christianity. But if there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists and used as a tool for massive scale discrimination or violence, I see it to be more harmful than valuable.

I have often said that religion is often used as an excuse, or a shield for the motives of power. Situations become complex when religious intolerance is used to fire up populations. Religions become the primary motive for the people and this makes it easy for the power wielders to mask their true intentions. Genocides and atrocities committed have other motives, and the question "who gains" should be kept to the forefront. There's no doubt that religions lose in these situations. Yes, Buddhist countries have used violence - as you said Sri Lanka. Thailand too. Who knows what motives drove the events - but the people who won in those struggles were the governments.

there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists

I don't see this. What extremists? In Christianity and Islam, there are concpts of the Just War and Jihad. Both could be used to intellectually call populations to arms - and are. There isn't a similar idea in Buddhism, but you could and should have an army strong enough to defend yourself. Not to do this would be remiss as the situation would be capitalised upon by others. The great example in this case was KIng Ashoka, who fought a war to expand his Empire, but who then, after seeing the suffering and destruction, halted a war he was winning. I don't know of any instance when this has happened.

The other point about extremists is that what would they hijack? Monks and Monasteries? Buddhist goverments might be hijacked, but that could happen to any political structure. The great brake on extremism being inculcated by charismatic leaders is the instruction not to follow any instruction from your teachers that contravenes your conception of right. Given the focus of the teachings and the central tenets of Karma and reincarnation, it would be very difficult to justify extremist acts.

[Freudian Monkey]

We do not agree on the use of literature by State atheists.

One of the scriptures that Mao insisted everyone be exposed to was "The Little Red Book", or Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse Tung: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao

A quick search brought me this collection of posters from the cultural revolution with the little red book on display along with rifles: http://kdgeorge.com/propaganda/chinese-propaganda-art/


Mao's Red Book is not a scripture of atheism. I haven't read it, but as far as I know, it doesn't deal with religious or atheistic themes. None of it's 33 chapters is dedicated to religious or atheistic issues. It is purely a propaganda tool for promoting state communism and has nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao



Based on Russian history, it does not look like there is a natural tendency for religion to dissolve. What evidence do you have that there is such a natural tendency?


Well, according to Wikipedia the definition of secularization is "the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious (or irreligious) values and secular institutions". It has been proven time and again that there is a direct correlation between the secularization process and the decline of religious institutions. It is undeniable that western nations are going through a process of secularization. It's also a part for the secularization process that services previously provided by religious institutions will become run by the government or other secular institutions:

"When discussing activities, secularization refers to the transfer of activities from religious to secular institutions, such as a shift in provision of social services from churches to the government."

One example is current state of European religious institutions. Wealthy Western European nations are arguably the most secular societies on the planet. In all these nations religious institutions have lost members dramatically. For instance in Sweden the amount of people belonging to the Church of Sweden dropped from 82,9% to 72,9% in the course of 8 years (2000-2008).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe



I think there is evidence to claim that religious experiences are part of our biology. I've mentioned some of this before, but here they are again:

1) Developmental psychology: Justin L Barrett, Born Believers
2) Neuroscience: Kevin Nelson, The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain

The above texts are summaries themselves of research. They provide enough evidence for me to feel confident that religion is intrinsic to us as a species and therefore religious institutions have intrinsic value.

You don't specify why religious belief requires religious institution to be functional.

Since you didn't want to discuss the specifics of Berrett's books earlier, I consider that case closed. I read some reviews about the The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain and it seems to be an interesting book. From what I can gather he suggests that there is a close neurological correlation between religious experiences and REM sleep and he is particularly interested in the mental state between sleeping and waking state. The main relevance of this arguments seems to be the fact that psychologists have not traditionally associated religious experiences with REM sleep. The book does not seem to offer any new evidence regarding near-death experiences, rather it recycles old cases like that of Pam Reynolds', which invoked wide criticism in the field of neurosciences.

[Freudian Monkey]

I have often said that religion is often used as an excuse, or a shield for the motives of power. Situations become complex when religious intolerance is used to fire up populations. Religions become the primary motive for the people and this makes it easy for the power wielders to mask their true intentions. Genocides and atrocities committed have other motives, and the question "who gains" should be kept to the forefront. There's no doubt that religions lose in these situations. Yes, Buddhist countries have used violence - as you said Sri Lanka. Thailand too. Who knows what motives drove the events - but the people who won in those struggles were the governments.

there is even a possibility that this social structure could be hijacked by extremists

I don't see this. What extremists? In Christianity and Islam, there are concpts of the Just War and Jihad. Both could be used to intellectually call populations to arms - and are. There isn't a similar idea in Buddhism, but you could and should have an army strong enough to defend yourself. Not to do this would be remiss as the situation would be capitalised upon by others. The great example in this case was KIng Ashoka, who fought a war to expand his Empire, but who then, after seeing the suffering and destruction, halted a war he was winning. I don't know of any instance when this has happened.

The other point about extremists is that what would they hijack? Monks and Monasteries? Buddhist goverments might be hijacked, but that could happen to any political structure. The great brake on extremism being inculcated by charismatic leaders is the instruction not to follow any instruction from your teachers that contravenes your conception of right. Given the focus of the teachings and the central tenets of Karma and reincarnation, it would be very difficult to justify extremist acts.

Thank you for all the insightful knowledge on the Buddhist worldview. I guess my point about extremists hijacking religious practice was mainly based on the presumption that if a group of people share a set of beliefs, they will be more likely to turn toward radicalism if a leading authority encourages them to do so. Religious authorities can also be motivated by monetary or political interests, and their position as a religious authority figure gives them the option to misuse that power. If the religious practice would be regulated by the state's educational system, the entire educational system would have to be corrupted before such misuse of power could occur.

I had not heard of King Ashoka before, thanks for mentioning him.

As I mentioned earlier, religions tend to change and adapt to the cultural environment. In many Western churches the priests don't believe in the virgin birth or the concepts of heaven and hell - they serve merely an allegorical role, even though they're central parts of the religious ideology. I don't see why the Buddhist theology/philosophy might not change over time like all other religions do. Maybe one day the concept of nirvana could be see as an allegory instead of a concrete state of being (or nonbeing).



I see attempts to secularise religious practice as another form of oppression. I see attempts to take effective practices and use them in a secular context as sensible.

I agree that there is a difference between these practices and that forcing any change in religious practice would not lead to desirable results.

[YesNo]

Mao's Red Book is not a scripture of atheism. I haven't read it, but as far as I know, it doesn't deal with religious or atheistic themes. None of it's 33 chapters is dedicated to religious or atheistic issues. It is purely a propaganda tool for promoting state communism and has nothing to do with atheism whatsoever.

I doubt that there is one set of dogmas that atheists adhere to any more than there is one religion that encompasses all the others. They are human cultural creations.

That atheists adhere to dogmas I have no doubt, but to claim that atheists have no scriptures is to say that they do not read.



Well, according to Wikipedia the definition of secularization is "the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious (or irreligious) values and secular institutions". It has been proven time and again that there is a direct correlation between the secularization process and the decline of religious institutions. It is undeniable that western nations are going through a process of secularization. It's also a part for the secularization process that services previously provided by religious institutions will become run by the government or other secular institutions:

"When discussing activities, secularization refers to the transfer of activities from religious to secular institutions, such as a shift in provision of social services from churches to the government."

One example is current state of European religious institutions. Wealthy Western European nations are arguably the most secular societies on the planet. In all these nations religious institutions have lost members dramatically. For instance in Sweden the amount of people belonging to the Church of Sweden dropped from 82,9% to 72,9% in the course of 8 years (2000-2008).

What I see you presenting is that religious institutions change, not that they naturally dissolve. My main wonder is why after a couple of centuries of secularization, both in Europe and in the US, religions are around at all. It is another bit of evidence that there is more going on here than cultural indoctrination.



You don't specify why religious belief requires religious institution to be functional.

A religious institution, whether that is a gathering of people in a home or in a temple, is a formalized cultural expression of human experiences. Now the specific institutions will change, but the underlying human experiences that provide them with validity will not change unless the species dies out.

That is why I consider religious institutions, of whatever kinds, to have intrinsic value. They are a cultural expression of our biology.



Since you didn't want to discuss the specifics of Berrett's books earlier, I consider that case closed. I read some reviews about the The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain and it seems to be an interesting book. From what I can gather he suggests that there is a close neurological correlation between religious experiences and REM sleep and he is particularly interested in the mental state between sleeping and waking state. The main relevance of this arguments seems to be the fact that psychologists have not traditionally associated religious experiences with REM sleep. The book does not seem to offer any new evidence regarding near-death experiences, rather it recycles old cases like that of Pam Reynolds', which invoked wide criticism in the field of neurosciences.

It is not that I don't want to discuss Barrett or Nelson. I don't have anything further at the moment to say about them. I understand that you need to dismiss them. I'm not expecting you to do otherwise.

What both of these summaries provide is evidence that religious expressions are not purely the result of cultural indoctrination. That means that an atheistic program of re-indoctrination will not get rid of religion. It is a waste of time.

It gets worse.

Having a biological basis for religion raises the possibility that the human religious experience, and let's emphasize the word "experience", may have an objective reality behind it.

[cafolini]

I doubt that there is one set of dogmas that atheists adhere to any more than there is one religion that encompasses all the others. They are human cultural creations.

That atheists adhere to dogmas I have no doubt, but to claim that atheists have no scriptures is to say that they do not read.



What I see you presenting is that religious institutions change, not that they naturally dissolve. My main wonder is why after a couple of centuries of secularization, both in Europe and in the US, religions are around at all. It is another bit of evidence that there is more going on here than cultural indoctrination.



A religious institution, whether that is a gathering of people in a home or in a temple, is a formalized cultural expression of human experiences. Now the specific institutions will change, but the underlying human experiences that provide them with validity will not change unless the species dies out.

That is why I consider religious institutions, of whatever kinds, to have intrinsic value. They are a cultural expression of our biology.



It is not that I don't want to discuss Barrett or Nelson. I don't have anything further at the moment to say about them. I understand that you need to dismiss them. I'm not expecting you to do otherwise.

What both of these summaries provide is evidence that religious expressions are not purely the result of cultural indoctrination. That means that an atheistic program of re-indoctrination will not get rid of religion. It is a waste of time.

It gets worse.

Having a biological basis for religion raises the possibility that the human religious experience, and let's emphasize the word "experience", may have an objective reality behind it.

My dear fellows. All of these subjects could elicit a historical interest. As a matter of contemporary interest leading anywhere beyond where they took in the last century, they are obsolete.
One more thing: what you call cultural creations are transformations. Humans are incapable of creativity. They have always been playing with what's given and rearranging it. That's science. In science, it is inportant to know the difference between the hole men carry and one in the ground. But in no case can either hole be created. Have fun.

[YesNo]

One more thing: what you call cultural creations are transformations. Humans are incapable of creativity. They have always been playing with what's given and rearranging it.

Yes, I can see these cultural changes being better described as "transformations" rather than "creations".

[Paulclem]

Thank you for all the insightful knowledge on the Buddhist worldview. I guess my point about extremists hijacking religious practice was mainly based on the presumption that if a group of people share a set of beliefs, they will be more likely to turn toward radicalism if a leading authority encourages them to do so. Religious authorities can also be motivated by monetary or political interests, and their position as a religious authority figure gives them the option to misuse that power. If the religious practice would be regulated by the state's educational system, the entire educational system would have to be corrupted before such misuse of power could occur.
.

There is always the possibility that leaders could be corrupt in any field. I think you consider that religions are more susceptible, but I disagree. The three most corrupt leaders in history - Hitler, Mao and Stalin were not religious but anti-religious. They used their own personal charisma, and the cold logic of apparent necessity, and the chaos they caused when they negated viable opposition to them to generate cults of personality.

Having said that, an institution - religious or otherwise - should have checks and balances in place. The teachings stress the need for this, and not slavish adherence to what anyone says. If things go against sense, or morality, then the instructionas are to disregard and oppose instructions and teachings. That didn't stop the Japanese sect using a chemical weapon in the subway, and illustrates human susceptibility. Unfortunately, it is not possible for an ordinary mind to know the true motives of others, but, as history shows, they tend to be egotists and reveal themselves.

[Paulclem]

As I mentioned earlier, religions tend to change and adapt to the cultural environment. In many Western churches the priests don't believe in the virgin birth or the concepts of heaven and hell - they serve merely an allegorical role, even though they're central parts of the religious ideology. I don't see why the Buddhist theology/philosophy might not change over time like all other religions do. Maybe one day the concept of nirvana could be see as an allegory instead of a concrete state of being (or nonbeing).


I agree that religions adapt to cultural environments. Buddhism is no different in this, and there has been a scientific input into the benefits of meditation.

the priests don't believe in...the concepts of heaven and hell - they serve merely an allegorical role,

Oddly enough, Buddhists would concur with quite a few Christian beliefs - such as miracles. These are not ascribed to a divine being, but are recognised as a by-product of advanced meditation practice. Why aren't they displayed? Because it is unwise to do so, and these days would prove nothing to anyone, but cause controversy. Knowing others' minds - which I referred to earlier - is recognised as one. I have seen this demonstrated in a very low key, but no less startling way by a Venerable Teacher during a meditation session he was conducting. He was able to tell the practitioners - including my wife - what they had seen during their session, and give them advice accordingly. There was no big show, he didnt refer to it except in the context of advice, and if you hadn't considered what he was doing, it could even have been missed for what it actually was.

I don't see why the Buddhist theology/philosophy might not change over time like all other religions do. Maybe one day the concept of nirvana could be see as an allegory instead of a concrete state of being (or nonbeing).

It has already changed since The Buddha's time with the developments in Mahayana Buddhism which is practiced by Northern Buddhism - Tibet, China, Japan.

I think the view that as we go through time a common attitude is that things are improving. it would be difficult to deny this with the developments of science, medicine etc. But then that depends upon where you are. These developments will not have touched remote farmers in poor countries. I think we very fortunate westerners forget that we are fortunate, and that our state is not reflected in the lives of millions. Of course we all hope that the earth's wealth will begin to be extended to all, but is this possible with scarce resources and the possibility that economies could fail and plunge good many of us into poverty and possibly starvation. I sincerely hope not, but it isn't difficult to envisage a scenario where it could happen.

Anyway, my point is that it is not necessarily a correct attitude that we are naturally developing into a better world. We have had a relatively short period of calm, but 60 years ago we were in the midst of a deadly world war. What would Nirvana be an allegory for? Peace of mind falls far short of the meaning of Enlightenment, and it has no meaning without Karma and reincarnation. The phrase "concrete state" really has no relation to ideas about Nirvana. Not self/ or the Emptiness of Self is a radical idea which runs counter to what we all come to expect in life and people. It says that everything that makes up "me" is really a misapprehension based upon our impure view. It means there will be no more Paulclem when I die, but that this Paulclem's energy will cause another life. It is neither the idea of eternalism - an immortal soul - nor is it annihilation. It is The Middle way. So I don't think it will become an allegory for anything.

[Freudian Monkey]

That atheists adhere to dogmas I have no doubt, but to claim that atheists have no scriptures is to say that they do not read.


The term atheism doesn't include any other connotations than the mere notification that there is no god. There is no other dogma to be found in the core of atheism, it's just a general term for all nonbelievers. Some atheists read Nietzsche, others have never even heard of him. Many atheists don't know anything about the complicated philosophical debates and theories surrounding atheism, they just don't see any reason to believe in something which isn't supported by any evidence. The term itself is a very politically colored term and many ignorant people associate it with concepts like nihilism and racism. In my opinion it would be more constructive to use a less colored term like 'nonbelievers'.



What I see you presenting is that religious institutions change, not that they naturally dissolve. My main wonder is why after a couple of centuries of secularization, both in Europe and in the US, religions are around at all. It is another bit of evidence that there is more going on here than cultural indoctrination.


It has mainly to do with politics as I mentioned earlier. Especially in America political language is saturated with religious rhetoric because it serves a political function. Religious belief goes well together with "family values" and conservative values in general. Nationalism relies heavily on people's religious identity.

Also the invention of internet has exponentially accelerated the socialization process. Internet has been available for public use for some 20 years.



A religious institution, whether that is a gathering of people in a home or in a temple, is a formalized cultural expression of human experiences. Now the specific institutions will change, but the underlying human experiences that provide them with validity will not change unless the species dies out.


It's true that religions often require some manner of institutions for organizational reasons. So the only value that religious institutions have is inseparable connected with the value of religious belief? Every cultural institution is based on socialization, so this aspect of religious institutions does not have intrinsic value. This actually means that religious institutions do not have any intrinsic value since it's only value derives from the (supposed) intrinsic value of religious practice.



That is why I consider religious institutions, of whatever kinds, to have intrinsic value. They are a cultural expression of our biology.


Since you don't want to explain your sources further we can agree to disagree on this question.



It is not that I don't want to discuss Barrett or Nelson. I don't have anything further at the moment to say about them. I understand that you need to dismiss them. I'm not expecting you to do otherwise.

What both of these summaries provide is evidence that religious expressions are not purely the result of cultural indoctrination. That means that an atheistic program of re-indoctrination will not get rid of religion. It is a waste of time.

It gets worse.

Having a biological basis for religion raises the possibility that the human religious experience, and let's emphasize the word "experience", may have an objective reality behind it.

I guess I don't have anything to add to this subject either since we cannot discuss the validity of your sources. I already questioned both researches and you didn't try to defend their findings.


I agree that religions adapt to cultural environments. Buddhism is no different in this, and there has been a scientific input into the benefits of meditation.

the priests don't believe in...the concepts of heaven and hell - they serve merely an allegorical role,

Oddly enough, Buddhists would concur with quite a few Christian beliefs - such as miracles. These are not ascribed to a divine being, but are recognised as a by-product of advanced meditation practice. Why aren't they displayed? Because it is unwise to do so, and these days would prove nothing to anyone, but cause controversy. Knowing others' minds - which I referred to earlier - is recognised as one. I have seen this demonstrated in a very low key, but no less startling way by a Venerable Teacher during a meditation session he was conducting. He was able to tell the practitioners - including my wife - what they had seen during their session, and give them advice accordingly. There was no big show, he didnt refer to it except in the context of advice, and if you hadn't considered what he was doing, it could even have been missed for what it actually was.

I don't see why the Buddhist theology/philosophy might not change over time like all other religions do. Maybe one day the concept of nirvana could be see as an allegory instead of a concrete state of being (or nonbeing).

It has already changed since The Buddha's time with the developments in Mahayana Buddhism which is practiced by Northern Buddhism - Tibet, China, Japan.

I think the view that as we go through time a common attitude is that things are improving. it would be difficult to deny this with the developments of science, medicine etc. But then that depends upon where you are. These developments will not have touched remote farmers in poor countries. I think we very fortunate westerners forget that we are fortunate, and that our state is not reflected in the lives of millions. Of course we all hope that the earth's wealth will begin to be extended to all, but is this possible with scarce resources and the possibility that economies could fail and plunge good many of us into poverty and possibly starvation. I sincerely hope not, but it isn't difficult to envisage a scenario where it could happen.

Anyway, my point is that it is not necessarily a correct attitude that we are naturally developing into a better world. We have had a relatively short period of calm, but 60 years ago we were in the midst of a deadly world war. What would Nirvana be an allegory for? Peace of mind falls far short of the meaning of Enlightenment, and it has no meaning without Karma and reincarnation. The phrase "concrete state" really has no relation to ideas about Nirvana. Not self/ or the Emptiness of Self is a radical idea which runs counter to what we all come to expect in life and people. It says that everything that makes up "me" is really a misapprehension based upon our impure view. It means there will be no more Paulclem when I die, but that this Paulclem's energy will cause another life. It is neither the idea of eternalism - an immortal soul - nor is it annihilation. It is The Middle way. So I don't think it will become an allegory for anything.

I don't claim to know enough about Buddhism to be able to determine whether a concept like nirvana could become to have only allegorical meaning. Thanks for the nice discussion Paul.