Why Spirituality?

[YesNo]

I think spirituality will change over the next couple centuries, we're already starting to become more nature-based; there's all this modern hippy-ish "green" stuff in which people practically worship the earth without doing so directly, there's the explosion in neo-paganism, ect. That's what religion was like before the Big Three, it seems that's what it's returning to.

I agree, but I am unclear about what that is.

However, there's an exchange between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow, War of the Worldviews, that seems to draw the lines more clearly on what is at stake and what a modern spirituality might look like.

[Paulclem]

Me too, but it's a telling trend, eh? Like, people might dislike the very idea of the "Big Three," but they still need something spiritual. I think spirituality will change over the next couple centuries, we're already starting to become more nature-based; there's all this modern hippy-ish "green" stuff in which people practically worship the earth without doing so directly, there's the explosion in neo-paganism, ect. That's what religion was like before the Big Three, it seems that's what it's returning to.

Also, nature-based religions doesn't automatically exist at-odds with science because there's no set-in-stone mythology (although some of the "green" movements don't actually have much to do with improving the environment, but it's really hard to convince hippies of that, so in that aspect they sometimes contradict science).

I think you'll be correct about religions changing, as they have most certainly changed in the last 200 and the 200 before.

I'm not sure about the nature based aspect though. I don't see mny hippies now, and they certainly weren't in my late forties generation. I think green issues are sensible, without any religious aspect.

It looks as though there will be a split in the Anglican church, over homosexuality and women's ordination due to the influence of African churches.

[JuniperWoolf]

I agree, but I am unclear about what that is.

A nature-based religion? Doesn't the title explain it? It's a religion which worships nature. It's usually either nature worship in a pantheistic context (the idea that nature is god) which doesn't actually require a belief in any sort of "God" as we think of it, but that god is a process of the natural world, that which most obviously sustains us. People who worship nature might also appoint various natural aspects to various dieties who hold sway over those aspects (you have a god(ess) of agriculture, a god(ess) of reproduction, a god(ess) of conflict, ect.). This latter can be simply symbolic, and indeed is often openly referred to as such.

I think you'll be correct about religions changing, as they have most certainly changed in the last 200 and the 200 before.

I'm not sure about the nature based aspect though. I don't see mny hippies now, and they certainly weren't in my late forties generation. I think green issues are sensible, without any religious aspect.

It looks as though there will be a split in the Anglican church, over homosexuality and women's ordination due to the influence of African churches.

I think there'll be a split in the church too, you can already see it. I watched something a few months ago in which a gay priest was criticising the pope, I doubt he'd get much press in the villiage square 200 years ago (or whatever).

re. Nature based religions: really? I see more neo-pagans every year, it's the fastest growing religion in North America apparently (you can pick up "Wiccan" books at any local chain bookstore), and a general reverence for nature is the basis of the green movement. I don't know, I'm obviously no religion expert, I've just heard a few specials on CBC radio in the last couple years exploring the trend.

[Paulclem]

re. Nature based religions: really? I see more neo-pagans every year, it's the fastest growing religion in North America apparently (you can pick up "Wiccan" books at any local chain bookstore), and a general reverence for nature is the basis of the green movement. I don't know, I'm obviously no religion expert, I've just heard a few specials on CBC radio in the last couple years exploring the trend.

I may well be out of touch, I'm merely speculating, but I did see a rise in New Age theories and methods in the 80s and 90s. You see and hear little about them now, though there are still things like crystal healing etc around. I think there may well be a relationship with Wiccan ideas, but the problem with it is that there are no, and haven't been any leaders/ founders etc or a consistent doctrine developed. This probably appeals to modern people, but without a defining set of ideas it's difficult to define the religion beyond a loose category.

Then again technology may help bring different and thinly spread religions together. Wicca is at least a bottom up religion being defined by individuals. I can see the appeal. It may be true that there is a thriving online Wiccan community that i haven't heard of, or groups developing. It'll be interesting.

[cafolini]

A nature-based religion? Doesn't the title explain it? It's a religion which worships nature. It's usually either nature worship in a pantheistic context (the idea that nature is god) which doesn't actually require a belief in any sort of "God" as we think of it, but that god is a process of the natural world, that which most obviously sustains us. People who worship nature might also appoint various natural aspects to various dieties who hold sway over those aspects (you have a god(ess) of agriculture, a god(ess) of reproduction, a god(ess) of conflict, ect.). This latter can be simply symbolic, and indeed is often openly referred to as such.



I think there'll be a split in the church too, you can already see it. I watched something a few months ago in which a gay priest was criticising the pope, I doubt he'd get much press in the villiage square 200 years ago (or whatever).

re. Nature based religions: really? I see more neo-pagans every year, it's the fastest growing religion in North America apparently (you can pick up "Wiccan" books at any local chain bookstore), and a general reverence for nature is the basis of the green movement. I don't know, I'm obviously no religion expert, I've just heard a few specials on CBC radio in the last couple years exploring the trend.

Religion will linger, with more and more sects, and then will go away to strict history. Where the actions that actually move the world are, religion already is limited to historical studies. We already have thousands of sects. There will be tens of thousands before the frenzy of the ignorant is stopped by that realization, that is, stop from thinking that his sect is THE CHURCH.

[Paulclem]

Religion will linger, with more and more sects, and then will go away to strict history. Where the actions that actually move the world are, religion already is limited to historical studies. We already have thousands of sects. There will be tens of thousands before the frenzy of the ignorant is stopped by that realization, that is, stop from thinking that his sect is THE CHURCH.

What about spirituality?

[JuniperWoolf]

I may well be out of touch.

Maybe not, they are hard to spot if you don't know what you're looking for. On litnet, I've noticed three pagans for certain.

I think there may well be a relationship with Wiccan ideas, but the problem with it is that there are no, and haven't been any leaders/ founders etc or a consistent doctrine developed.

There was a founder of the modern branch of paganism that is "wicca," in the fifties or so, but he died. The thing with these sort of semi-esoteric religions is they're supposed to be non-invasive, they don't go to you, you go to them. Most of them seem to share a general "don't hurt others, nature is good" philosophy but beyond that, it's freedom to practice as you choose. The only requirement to be a pagan is to identify yourself as such, and there's usually a lot of reading and autodidactism. Then you can connect to others who identify themselves similarly if you want to, clusters of people who share similar ideals and styles of practice formulate, and that's all there is to it "structure" wise. It's a very free sort of spirituality, there are countless variations. Some worship nature in a pantheistic capacity, some worship ancient gods as "symbols" of natural aspects, some genuinely worship ancient African or Greek or Roman ect. ect. ect. gods, some don't worship any sort of deity but consider paganism as a sort beneficial intro-spection that is reflected in the external universe (and this is where it gets complicated, you'd have to do a lot of study to understand). You don't even have to believe in anything, I think it was Charles who said that agnosticism is compatable with paganism and that's true - actually, it's entirely common to find "agnostic pagans." Ideas and concepts are shared via books, essays and online writing, and they just sort of spread until everyone's read about the new concept and then they choose for themselves to either embrace it or reject it.

Then again technology may help bring different and thinly spread religions together. Wicca is at least a bottom up religion being defined by individuals. I can see the appeal. It may be true that there is a thriving online Wiccan community that i haven't heard of, or groups developing. It'll be interesting.

That's so, there are online pagan communities with hundreds of thousands of members.

[Alexander III]

Religion will linger, with more and more sects, and then will go away to strict history. Where the actions that actually move the world are, religion already is limited to historical studies. We already have thousands of sects. There will be tens of thousands before the frenzy of the ignorant is stopped by that realization, that is, stop from thinking that his sect is THE CHURCH.

This brings up a point, personal to think of a future world devoid of relligon sadens me, how do you guys feel, do you wish religion to disappear or to contonioue to exist.

[JuniperWoolf]

I want religion to stay, I think it benefits individuals greatly and we seem to have a need for it, but it must change. No more gay bashing, no more "hey guys, it's cool to beat/rape/kill your wife," no more telling AIDs riddled Africa not to use condoms, no more suicide bombing and killing in the name religion. Can religion be seperated from these things?

It's worth a try. Maybe heavily structured, organized religion is the problem. If religion loosened up a bit and everyone started thinking for themselves rather than following the leader, I doubt this hatered and violence would continue.

[YesNo]

This brings up a point, personal to think of a future world devoid of relligon sadens me, how do you guys feel, do you wish religion to disappear or to contonioue to exist.

Specific religions could disappear if people stop practicing the religion. These religions could also change to a point that the original members don't recognize them.

I think the experiences that form the basis of spirituality which turn into religions can be traced to a part of our brains and so spirituality of some sort will always be re-appearing even if it gets suppressed. That means, that our species has a physical "eye" or "ear" for spiritual experiences. Some people will call these delusions because they doubt there is any objective reality to these spiritual experiences, but the fact that they are experiences and not ideas means that to completely eliminate them would require eliminating our species.

[Paulclem]

Spirituality and religion have a lot to offer. They can provide an ethical measure which can be your own, or a shared view which can oppose negative political or scientific views. It's no co-incidence that the great despotic governments such as Mao's China, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia - let alone North Korea - suppress religion and tried and replace it with leader cults. Religious thought can be very challenging to oppressive regimes that seek to justify the humanly indefensible. A simple ethic like Do not harm anyone subverts a whole political system with its ethical simplicity and shows corrupt and oppressive governments for what they are - murderous, exploitative, uncaring, inhumane, vicious, indifferent.

I'm so lucky to live in a society, for all its faults, that doesn't tolerate or advocate such inhumanity. If things changed, then, by having ethical standards, i would be able to evaluate how things are going. (Hopefully)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Spirituality and religion have a lot to offer. They can provide an ethical measure which can be your own, or a shared view which can oppose negative political or scientific views. It's no co-incidence that the great despotic governments such as Mao's China, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia - let alone North Korea - suppress religion and tried and replace it with leader cults. Religious thought can be very challenging to oppressive regimes that seek to justify the humanly indefensible. A simple ethic like Do not harm anyone subverts a whole political system with its ethical simplicity and shows corrupt and oppressive governments for what they are - murderous, exploitative, uncaring, inhumane, vicious, indifferent.

I'm so lucky to live in a society, for all its faults, that doesn't tolerate or advocate such inhumanity. If things changed, then, by having ethical standards, i would be able to evaluate how things are going. (Hopefully)

Not to mention the enormous amount of wonderful art inspired directly from religion.

[OrphanPip]

Religious groups can also be very accommodating to despotic regimes. The heads of the Eastern Orthodox church were very closely tied with the government of the Byzantine Empire, and the Russian Orthodox church had the same sort of relationship with the tsars, and then subsequently with the soviets. The Puritans under Cromwell banned everything from dancing to Christmas. The theocratic authority of the Ayatollah in Iran today.

We shouldn't forget that theocracies have been at least as common as any other form of despotism.

Religion certainly offers a kind of appeal to a grander authority which can be marshalled for any sort of political goal. That goal could be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

[Paulclem]

Religious groups can also be very accommodating to despotic regimes. The heads of the Eastern Orthodox church were very closely tied with the government of the Byzantine Empire, and the Russian Orthodox church had the same sort of relationship with the tsars, and then subsequently with the soviets. The Puritans under Cromwell banned everything from dancing to Christmas. The theocratic authority of the Ayatollah in Iran today.

We shouldn't forget that theocracies have been at least as common as any other form of despotism.

Religion certainly offers a kind of appeal to a grander authority which can be marshalled for any sort of political goal. That goal could be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

I agree. By the same token your own religion, or religious structure/organisation can also be measured. Ethics are often compromised in large organisations such as the just war idea, which is a justification of defence and killing. The question is, was that taken too far and used by govts backed by religious organisations to justify going well beyond the remit?

Also, a personal ethical stance might be based on humanism, for example.

[YesNo]

I suppose even non-religious groups can be very accommodating to despotic regimes as well.

When I think of examples of atheistic regimes behaving badly, the Killing Fields movie comes to mind which described the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. I can still see that young female placing the plastic bag in cold blood over her victim's head as a form of execution.

This is probably wrong, but I wonder if spirituality is perversely related to the experience of righteousness that justifies murder. Is it a form of distorted or damaged spirituality?