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

[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.

[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/Quotati...m_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.