Exactly HOW is religion supposed to give meaning to life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I agree, but I can't say I'll ever support theism being taught to secular kids in public elementary schools, or religion in general becoming too much a part of government. That being said, it comes into question why I can't or won't just abandon my education and philosophies and embrace Christianity as the ONE true answer to life's problems. My answers are not well received.

I think at this point I know where you stand, and you know where I stand, so we can reach a peaceful accord. For that reason, I am glad we have had this discussion. Unfortunately, my family and friends will never feel the empathy that you and I have managed to feel. Baby steps to progress, as they say.

---

I would actually agree with NOT teaching theism in the school. The problem would quickly become, Which form of theism to teach? I don't see a problem with a class that presents the world religions, and while Christianity should be a part of that, I would not want it to have any more weight. However, I don't think that we should be teaching that evolution is a fact either. Just because there are some who believe it is a fact, there are some of us that believe that creation is a fact. I also agree that we should not implement religion into the government, but to what degree would you take that? Should prayer be generally banned even though there is a local group where 98% of the individuals are Christian and want a prayer? There are Christians who wish to worship in a manner that is different than how I prefer to worship, but when it occurs in a public setting, I respectfully tolerate their ways. But it seems that by banning any aspect of religion, mention of God, or considerations as such, that the atheist individuals get their preference.

Concerning legislation however, one should consider that there can't be a complete absolution against religion. When does atheism become a religion of it's own? Most atheist strongly deny that it can be, but I disagree. There aren't any easy answers, but if we work together there can be workable compromises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

G L, at some point the argument becomes a waste of energy. If atheists ever start their own country, I'll be right there. America doesn't work for me. I need to surround myself with like-minded people. At this point, I have nothing more to contribute to the conversation here. I still appreciate the poetry and creative works of the opponents of my philosophies, so in the interest of continuing to enjoy these forums, I'm exiting on a happy nice note. Peace is not the same as complacency, do not imagine my principles have changed. :)

---

Peace be with you, Varenne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

...........
But more than this, the path offers a way to live a good - even skillful life that will carry a being on into a positive future rebirth as a human rather than an animal or worse. This is the aspect of Buddhism that posits Karma and reincarnation at its core. It teaches that actually feathering your own nest at the expense of others - due to karma - leads to more suffering. it teaches that compassion and empathy actually pay, and that our more positive aspects are not only good for us as an individual, but for society.

I hope you don't think I'm preaching, but this is the rather inadequate explanation of the Buddhist view. A way of coping with inevitable suffering and ultimately escaping it.

---

Don't worry, you're not preaching. I think some aspects of Buddhism are compatible with Stoicism, which I have been following for a while. Stoics don't believe in reincarnation or life after death, but they basically say that good and evil only refer to your own moral character and not to things outside yourself. So things like poverty, ill health, enslavement etc, which are generally considered as bad by most people, are actually not evil, because they don't change who you are (unless you let them). Stoicism teaches us not to fret about things that are beyond our control anyway and only try to change things inside ourselves. Because they don't believe in life after death, you should live everyday in such a way that if you were to die suddenly, you're soul would be pure. As for misfortunes and death, they teach us to abstract from ourselves and not be unduly surprised or feel hard done by when things happen to us that can happen to anyone. E.g. everybody dies eventually, so why should you or I be an exception. Also, Marcus Aurelius says that human history is just a serious of repetitions and even if we were to live for thousands of years, we wouldn't miss anything new. Epictetus says that everyone has to die and it won't get any better by bawling about it. Basically, if you see death as an evil and you then wail about it you're adding another evil to it by making yourself miserable.
That's what I don't like about the Christian and similar religions: they tell us that certain things are evil just so that they can provide comfort for a problem that we wouldn't even have without them. If we stopped judging these things as evil, we wouldn't need comforting and might actually get down to more practical things and make a difference in this life rather than waiting for God to sort everything out for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

Don't worry, you're not preaching. I think some aspects of Buddhism are compatible with Stoicism, which I have been following for a while. Stoics don't believe in reincarnation or life after death, but they basically say that good and evil only refer to your own moral character and not to things outside yourself. So things like poverty, ill health, enslavement etc, which are generally considered as bad by most people, are actually not evil, because they don't change who you are (unless you let them). Stoicism teaches us not to fret about things that are beyond our control anyway and only try to change things inside ourselves. Because they don't believe in life after death, you should live everyday in such a way that if you were to die suddenly, you're soul would be pure. As for misfortunes and death, they teach us to abstract from ourselves and not be unduly surprised or feel hard done by when things happen to us that can happen to anyone. E.g. everybody dies eventually, so why should you or I be an exception. Also, Marcus Aurelius says that human history is just a serious of repetitions and even if we were to live for thousands of years, we wouldn't miss anything new. Epictetus says that everyone has to die and it won't get any better by bawling about it. Basically, if you see death as an evil and you then wail about it you're adding another evil to it by making yourself miserable.
That's what I don't like about the Christian and similar religions: they tell us that certain things are evil just so that they can provide comfort for a problem that we wouldn't even have without them. If we stopped judging these things as evil, we wouldn't need comforting and might actually get down to more practical things and make a difference in this life rather than waiting for God to sort everything out for us.

---

Yes there are some similarities, though there are many differences reincarnation and its partner Karma being 2 very important ones.

There is also an extensive system of training the mind in order to increase virtuous thoughts and train youself out of negative thoughts and therefore actions. the reason for this is due to Karma - creating positive rather than negative karma. It also demonstrates that Buddhisma is not deterministic - as stoicism is- people can change themelves for the better - there's no excuse in genetics or some solid state psychology or some pre-determined divine wish. It's all down to the individual. For me, that makes Buddhism a very social religion - it encourages community spirit, charity and taking responsibility.

Oh no - I'm on the soapbox again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Yes there are some similarities, though there are many differences reincarnation and its partner Karma being 2 very important ones.

There is also an extensive system of training the mind in order to increase virtuous thoughts and train youself out of negative thoughts and therefore actions. the reason for this is due to Karma - creating positive rather than negative karma. It also demonstrates that Buddhisma is not deterministic - as stoicism is- people can change themelves for the better - there's no excuse in genetics or some solid state psychology or some pre-determined divine wish. It's all down to the individual. For me, that makes Buddhism a very social religion - it encourages community spirit, charity and taking responsibility.

Oh no - I'm on the soapbox again.

---

In Stoicism only things that happen to you are predetermined, your moral development isn't. Also there is no excuse in genetics, because everyone is endowed by Nature with reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

Believers often say that you need religion because life would be pointless otherwise. But how exactly does religion give meaning to life? Looking at the 'great' monotheistic religions (I don't know enough about the others) it seems that they mainly tell people how to live their lives, i.e. they give them rules about family life, how to worship God etc. But that's not really what I would call 'meaning' or 'purpose'. E.g. the purpose of a pair of scissors is to cut things, i.e. an action outside the scissors themselves. We wouldn't normally say that the purpose of scissors is to have two blades and a handle with two holes for stickin your finers in and a screw in the middle for the blades to open etc (= rules for a good pair of scissors). Whereas rules for a 'religious' life do not refer to any purpose outside life itself... unless maybe you assume that sticking to those rules will make people happy, thus turning their life from a mere life into a happy one. But I don't remember the Bible etc. promising anyone happiness.
So is it supposed to be the promise of a life after death that gives 'meaning' to this life?
Other arguments seem kind of circular to me, e.g. 'The purpose of life is to please God.' So what?
Anyway, I'd like to know why religious people think that religion gives meaning to their life and I'd like to hear some non-circular arguments.

---

you said bible etc. but if you read quran you will find a lot of arguments and promised not for after death but here in this world. bible is not like quran. Quran says like at many places there would be no fear and frustration who become the friend of Allah and not freind of devil. here in this world its the biggest present of Lord to give u a state of mind where there is no greif no fear and no frustration.
for me as i found Allah through religion islam gives meaning here and hereafter. but unfortunately, hardly i can see a true follower of islam, they have been divided in groups. and in quran allah dont accept them as muslims. i can say for sure i m not in any party or group within islam. if i followed my parents or my forefathers i couldnt get that sate of mind, i directly connected with allah and His prophet inside and get help from both from outside (qaran and sunnah). i m enjoying that state of mind ( well not fully as there are uncountable grades and i m beginner but i can compare my early life with this one which i adopt since hardly few years and there is an amazing difference).
this state of mind is not only for individuall if a society apply the true essence of islam then it can enjoy as a whole. as there was back to 14 centuries. i cant explain everything here due to shortage of time. but again this state of mind is the greatest gift of God in this world, in which there is no greif no frustration no fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

In Stoicism only things that happen to you are predetermined, your moral development isn't. Also there is no excuse in genetics, because everyone is endowed by Nature with reason.

---

Interesting. Who predetermines the things that happen to a person in Stoicism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Interesting. Who predetermines the things that happen to a person in Stoicism?

---

Fate/ the cosmos/ some pantheistic deity. The Stoics did believe in some sort of god(s) but it's not really a person/ superhuman being like in the Bible but something that is part of all of us and we are all part of. I suppose one can still be a Stoic and atheist at the same time if one decides to attribute the bad things that happen to one to chance or Nature or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usman.khawar

you said bible etc. but if you read quran you will find a lot of arguments and promised not for after death but here in this world. bible is not like quran. Quran says like at many places there would be no fear and frustration who become the friend of Allah and not freind of devil. here in this world its the biggest present of Lord to give u a state of mind where there is no greif no fear and no frustration.

---

That's very interesting. Thanks for the explanation, usman.

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such remarks will be removed without further notice.

Meaning is a reading, it registers or it does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I would actually agree with NOT teaching theism in the school. The problem would quickly become, Which form of theism to teach? I don't see a problem with a class that presents the world religions, and while Christianity should be a part of that, I would not want it to have any more weight. However, I don't think that we should be teaching that evolution is a fact either. Just because there are some who believe it is a fact, there are some of us that believe that creation is a fact. I also agree that we should not implement religion into the government, but to what degree would you take that? Should prayer be generally banned even though there is a local group where 98% of the individuals are Christian and want a prayer? There are Christians who wish to worship in a manner that is different than how I prefer to worship, but when it occurs in a public setting, I respectfully tolerate their ways. But it seems that by banning any aspect of religion, mention of God, or considerations as such, that the atheist individuals get their preference.

Concerning legislation however, one should consider that there can't be a complete absolution against religion. When does atheism become a religion of it's own? Most atheist strongly deny that it can be, but I disagree. There aren't any easy answers, but if we work together there can be workable compromises.

---

God has spoken, and we must listen?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

In Stoicism only things that happen to you are predetermined, your moral development isn't. Also there is no excuse in genetics, because everyone is endowed by Nature with reason.

---

I see. The system in Budhism is that having had countless lives - as animals, humans, Gods etc, then a vast store of positive and negative karma has developed for each being. The thinking is that we suffer because we make the conditions for suffering for ourselves by commiting selfish acts in the ignorent view that it will bestow happiness, whereas it actually promises the results of negative actions - more suffering.

Although we have this store, what actually arises depends upon what we nurture for ourselves in the long run - it's not an instant thing happening in this life, but over the next few lives. That's why death is seen as important - the nurturing of a positive mind at death in order to create the conditions for a positive future life. But to do that you must have trained yourself to be positive, to nurture compassion etc. It's not something that can be turned on and off. Leading a good life is good for you, as well as everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

But to do that you must have trained yourself to be positive, to nurture compassion etc. It's not something that can be turned on and off. Leading a good life is good for you, as well as everyone else.

---

It makes sense that enlightened people not only benefit themselves but also those around them. I'd rather be around compassionate (enlightened) people than non-compassionate ones.

You mentioned that "you must have trained yourself to be positive". What sort of training do you go through? What comes to mind as possible training is what Eknath Easwaran mentions in his books (http://www.easwaran.org/), but that is more Hinduism than Buddhism. Essentially it is mantra recitation, meditation on memorized passages, spiritual reading, moving slowly, being part of a community, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

It makes sense that enlightened people not only benefit themselves but also those around them. I'd rather be around compassionate (enlightened) people than non-compassionate ones.

You mentioned that "you must have trained yourself to be positive". What sort of training do you go through? What comes to mind as possible training is what Eknath Easwaran mentions in his books (http://www.easwaran.org/), but that is more Hinduism than Buddhism. Essentially it is mantra recitation, meditation on memorized passages, spiritual reading, moving slowly, being part of a community, etc.

---

It's meditation and practising the things learned in meditation. First it's getting to know how the mind works, and observing our motivations. You would focus on somthing that needs improving like anger, as an obvious one. It's not easy, but by meditating upon the harm anger causes and then the antidote - patience - you gradually become more aware of what happening to you when you become angry, and the idea is to snuff it out before it takes a hold. As we all know, anger is very difficult to control, but meditation gives you a little bit of reflective space to try to control it.

This is just the beginning though. Once you've improved your self control, then you begin to try to improve you kindness and compassion. It seems a little artificial at first, but with practice, it becomes a more genuine experience. It's based upon the idea that the mind is not a static, unmoving thing, otherwise there would be no possibility of improving one's mind, but is constantly changing. My friend has been a longstanding practitioner, and I have noticed the change in him.

This is merely the tip of the iceberg though. The way I've put it is very matter of fact, but there is a spiritual element to it as well - offerings, prayers and mantras as you said. I'm not very familiar with Hindu methods though. :D

“When*ever I talk about using the mantram to trans*form fear and anger, peo*ple nod approv*ingly as long as I am talk*ing about fear. After all, no one wants to be fear*ful; no one wants to worry. But the nods of approval often stop when I ask peo*ple to repeat the mantram in moments of anger. ‘You’re not ask*ing us to repress anger?’ they ask. ‘Isn’t it bet*ter to express anger than to repress it?’ This is a legit*i*mate ques*tion, but it is based on the assump*tion that we have only two choices where anger is con*cerned: expres*sion or repres*sion. Either way, anger even*tu*ally works against us, under*min*ing our rela*tion*ships, our secu*rity, and even our health. But there is a third alter*na*tive: we can trans*form anger, through the rep*e*ti*tion of the mantram. Anger is power, and the mantram can trans*form this neg*a*tive power into its pos*i*tive coun*ter*part, which is compassion.”

The site is interesting YesNo. I copied this paragraph. Our approach is initially different, as I put above, but eventually you get to Tantra - (absolutely nothing to do with the common conception of Tantric sex) - where a negative emotion like anger is transformed into positive enrgy. This is taught in Mahayana Buddhism, but is an advanced practice which needs the close guidance of a qualified teacher. Mantras are part of it, but also other advanced practices.

I don't know what the asterisks are, but it still seems readable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

It's meditation and practising the things learned in meditation. First it's getting to know how the mind works, and observing our motivations. You would focus on somthing that needs improving like anger, as an obvious one. It's not easy, but by meditating upon the harm anger causes and then the antidote - patience - you gradually become more aware of what happening to you when you become angry, and the idea is to snuff it out before it takes a hold. As we all know, anger is very difficult to control, but meditation gives you a little bit of reflective space to try to control it.

This is just the beginning though. Once you've improved your self control, then you begin to try to improve you kindness and compassion. It seems a little artificial at first, but with practice, it becomes a more genuine experience. It's based upon the idea that the mind is not a static, unmoving thing, otherwise there would be no possibility of improving one's mind, but is constantly changing. My friend has been a longstanding practitioner, and I have noticed the change in him.

This is merely the tip of the iceberg though. The way I've put it is very matter of fact, but there is a spiritual element to it as well - offerings, prayers and mantras as you said. I'm not very familiar with Hindu methods though. :D

---

Dull your brain if you wish, it's not for me.