Philip Roth on religion

From his lovely little novel Everyman:

"Religion was a lie that he had recognized early in life, and he found all religions offensive, considered their superstitious folderol meaningless, childish, couldn't stand the complete unadultness — the baby talk and the righteousness and the sheep, the avid believers. No hocus-pocus about death and God or obsolete fantasies of heaven for him. There was only our bodies, born to live and die on terms decided by the bodies that had lived and died before us. If he could be said to have located a philosophical niche for himself that was it - he'd come upon it early and intuitively, and however elemental, that was the whole of it."

A part of me very much appreciates the Roth quote. When I think I've been wronged by someone an angry response seems natural and satisfying.

And I feel very wronged by the religious people in my past.

I sometimes wonder though if acid is always necessary, or if it needs to be full strength.

Perhaps I'm just weak.

I'm reminded of Pythagoras: "That which is good is limited and finite"

Revelation is a process. Now, was that cliche? Baby talk, sheep talk, or hocus-pocus? The opposite of this statement is true as well. There are writers whose words instantly expand our mind, open it up, give us knowledge of the deepest matters. None of it has to be the way it has been thought of in the past. The spectrum is so broad, the spectrum is so broad. Religion has many different aspects, and for me its been a road to knowledge, to peace, spirituality, and interconnectedness. It's been a road to transcendentalism. This statement by the narrator in Roth's novel is just filled with limiting and limited observations. For every observation there is a broader perspective. The one thing that has been true for me throughout my life is that there is more-- spiritually, in relation to the material-- the unknowable, its existence, if I look in its direction, I cannot fail to miss. I believe life is a dream, I can explain this if anyone is interested, anyway, if you think that it is, consider my second belief, does it seem like an implication that there's something then sleeping, resting? This is the soul, or perhaps buddha-nature. These are just some ideas. Consciousness and realization are things we have to make for ourselves. It's important-- the urgency, someone spoke of here, they said they had always felt, is perhaps because if we do not tend to our spiritual growth toward sustained awareness and consciousness, there is every chance that we will simply slip into deeper ignorance and bad habits. The main idea, in fact, is always one of only accepting what is true, or what works, etc., however you wish to put it. This is one side of religion I wish to put forward. There are very, very deeply intelligent religious persons, as well as ideas, and very conscious ones too. In fact in the Hindu religion, intelligence is described as one part of the process-- the material body and ego mind-- it is not exactly the same as "mind;" I am not sure now which is higher, mind or intelligence. What I described, or attempted to, is something similar to Ariadne's thread. It's logic, and it takes intelligence to be able to incorporate all of our knowledge together in our consciousness, although it isn't that hard. If we can integrate knowledge, information, and ideas in our consciousness, it can be a beautiful thing, however. Okay, I apologize for the rant.

The opening sentiment from Roth was hardly new, shocking or convincing. It has all been heard before and is hardly worth discussing. Worse yet, it is very weak literary tea for someone of Roth's writing ability -- unless perhaps he was intending to portray a rather stupid narrator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

The opening sentiment from Roth was hardly new, shocking or convincing. It has all been heard before and is hardly worth discussing. Worse yet, it is very weak literary tea for someone of Roth's writing ability -- unless perhaps he was intending to portray a rather stupid narrator.

---

1. I didn't say it was either "new" or "shocking", I simply like the quote. He phrases it welll

2. Surely, it is worth discussing.

3. No, on the contrary the narrator was an intresting and complex character. Why should he be stupid? Because he is an atheist? I happen to agree very much with that quote, on some level, and I don't consider myself very stupid.

Stupid? Well, choose your own word for a person who forms an opinion before any significant exposure to the world or life, and then is never again even willing to entertain any further thought about as he gorws older, much less to consider to changing it in any fashion, whether to a stronger or weaker assertion, by elaboration or modification, not to mention an unwilligness to see any possible merit in the topic from any point of view.
Or not even willing to give it as much discussion as this group will be giving it.
Stupid? Ignorant? Closed-minded? Narrow? Anti-Intellectual? Uninformed? Unaware?
There must be other possibilities. Please choose any you might think of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter

Stupid? Well, choose your own word for a person who forms an opinion before any significant exposure to the world or life, and then is never again even willing to entertain any further thought about as he gorws older, much less to consider to changing it in any fashion, whether to a stronger or weaker assertion, by elaboration or modification, not to mention an unwilligness to see any possible merit in the topic from any point of view.
Or not even willing to give it as much discussion as this group will be giving it.
Stupid? Ignorant? Closed-minded? Narrow? Anti-Intellectual? Uninformed? Unaware?
There must be other possibilities. Please choose any you might think of.

---

So a person is close-minded if he or she doesn't reassess their religious stance every three or four years? If I decide now that I am an atheist, you will consider me close-minded if I don't, in a couple of years time, reconsider my position? How can it possibly be considered anti-intellectual to not believe in something for which there are no rational or scientific grounds to believe in?

Walter, I believe in an underground syndicate of large purple bunnies. If you disregard said belief as nonsensical, then I deem you to be "stupid...ignorant...closed-minded, the works".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

"stupid...ignorant...closed-minded, the works".

---

As you wish.

Revelation is a process. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Revelation is a process. :)

---

Haha, if you say so.

At the very least it is narrow minded not to consider and study new information as we mature. If we do not grow, and exercise our common sense we atrophy. So Walter I would have to agree with your analysis of

Quote:

---

....person who forms an opinion before any significant exposure to the world or life, and then is never again even willing to entertain any further thought about as he gorws older, much less to consider to changing it in any fashion, whether to a stronger or weaker assertion, by elaboration or modification, not to mention an unwilligness to see any possible merit in the topic from any point of view.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

At the very least it is narrow minded not to consider and study new information as we mature. If we do not grow, and exercise our common sense we atrophy.

---

But we are talking about religion. Is it common sense to believe? What "new information" are you referring to? Has religion become more "believable" scientifically or rationally in the past centuries?

It is religious people more than it is non-believers who are "narrow minded" and who do not "study new information as [they] mature", thank you very much. Why else is evolution not taught in so many high school? Why else is homosexuality so often considered a "sin"? Who are the people advocating abstinence and fighting abortion rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morten

But we are talking about religion. Is it common sense to believe? What "new information" are you referring to? Has religion become more "believable" scientifically or rationally in the past centuries?

It is religious people more than it is non-believers who are "narrow minded" and who do not "study new information as [they] mature", thank you very much. Why else is evolution not taught in so many high school? Why else is homosexuality so often considered a "sin"? Who are the people advocating abstinence and fighting abortion rights?

---

New to a person that has not studied any religion, or had any real exposure to the Bible, it is only common sense to explore every avenue of knowledge. I started life as an agnostic, and didn't much care one way or the other what was out there. But being someone always searching, I read a great deal of history and found one incontrovertible truth. Humans keep making the same mistakes over and over again, now either we are not terribly bright and cannot learn from our mistakes, or we were not meant to rule ourselves. I choose, note the use of the word choose, meaning I [as does every human] have the right of free will. I choose to believe after study of the Bible that we were not made to rule ourselves and do not have the...wherewithal...for want of a better word to do so.
We cannot learn to do what we are not capable of.

It is a shame that a great many people consider someone religious to be narrow minded, I am someone that believes in the Bible and I am not a narrow minded person. Exploration and study of the Bible is a fascinating thing to engage in and actually someone that flatly refuses to consider it is more narrow minded IMO, because they are refusing knowledge.

Another mistake many make is that they equate "religion" with the Bible, and frankly some of the most widely practiced religions do not follow Bible principles. Which is a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

New to a person that has not studied any religion, or had any real exposure to the Bible, it is only common sense to explore every avenue of knowledge. I started life as an agnostic, and didn't much care one way or the other what was out there. But being someone always searching, I read a great deal of history and found one incontrovertible truth. Humans keep making the same mistakes over and over again, now either we are not terribly bright and cannot learn from our mistakes, or we were not meant to rule ourselves. I choose, note the use of the word choose, meaning I [as does every human] have the right of free will. I choose to believe after study of the Bible that we were not made to rule ourselves and do not have the...wherewithal...for want of a better word to do so.
We cannot learn to do what we are not capable of.

It is a shame that a great many people consider someone religious to be narrow minded, I am someone that believes in the Bible and I am not a narrow minded person. Exploration and study of the Bible is a fascinating thing to engage in and actually someone that flatly refuses to consider it is more narrow minded IMO, because they are refusing knowledge.

Another mistake many make is that they equate "religion" with the Bible, and frankly some of the most widely practiced religions do not follow Bible principles. Which is a shame.

---

Perhaps, in your dilligent studies of history, you have noted the correlation between human "mistakes" and religion. The death, suffering and violence caused by religious people, or committed in the name of "god", is staggering.

You equate knowledge with the word of the Bible. There is no doubt the Bible holds great value, but no more than does The Odyssey, The Iliad or Hamlet. I know; I've read it. But the historical fact remains that knowledge has always been a natural enemy to organized, institutionalized religion. The case of Galileo comes to mind, as do the cases of countless other scientists and thinkers burned on the stake because of their attempts to advance human knowledge.

I don't consider a religious person to be narrow minded, but the amount of religious people who, in the name of their god/s, even in the 21st century, fight knowledge and enlightenment with such zeal, is disturbing. Considering this, and the facts of history, one cannot rule out that closed-mindedness has often gone hand-in-hand with religion.