(no subject)

[winterbadger]

I had an interesting conversation with NJS the other day about religion, that allowed me to talk out some of the things that had been percolating in my head.

I understand why people want some of the things they do from religion, like a sense of community or an acknowledgment that there is more to reality than the things we can describe and define with science and reason. I just keep stalling out when I look at any *specific* religion, because all of them seem to require acceptance of several things that seem not just improbable to me (that I could deal with) but seem downright *wrong* or totally unfounded and unbelievable (like assertions that there's an all-powerful god who is also just and loving, in any sense that those words can mean to humans, or that after we die at some point we get our bodies back again, or that when people die they go someplace really, really nice, and we get to see them again later). But I can understand the longing.

Hence, I'm becoming a great deal less prone to scoff as much as I used to when I was younger, less forgiving, and more callow, at people who effectively invent their own religion by picking and choosing elements they like from past beliefs and melding them with new 'traditions' to create some sort of elemental recognition of nature and the forces that work on all of us, for good or ill. I might even find, some day, that I'm inclined to do the same.

I'm still a bit impatient with those who insist that such things are 'rediscovered' historic truths, but even that I may stop grumping at, in time.

Comments

[rachel-anne.livejournal.com]

Having grown up with a religion, I find the whole picking and choosing thing easier to deal with. For me, it's like a relationship - or like a family, even. There are bits that you don't like, or that change or need work. It's not perfect, but I think a dynamic relationship with your faith is better than a stagnant one.

That said, I too hate it when people will take one thing from Buddhism, another from Judaism, etc etc and meld them together to form a do-it-yourself spirituality. So I see where you're coming from.

[winterbadger]

Having grown up with a religion, I find the whole picking and choosing thing easier to deal with.

Yes, that's what I figure--it's easier for people to accept things that they have been taught from when they were very young that they would have issues with if they met them for the first time as an adult (hence, I think, many peoples' reactions to religions they learn about as adults--"How odd that people would think that!" while having no problem believing six of their own impossible things before breakfast, if you know what I mean. :-)

There are bits that you don't like, or that change or need work.

And, see, I'm astonished at the number of people who do that. I feel consistency is a virtue, and to me the idea of calling oneself a follower of religion A while rejecting many of its major tenets (and I mean simply rejecting them, not even interpreting them a different way) is totally nonsensical to me, a "does not compute" moment. But it clearly proves quite satisfactory and comfortable to others.

That said, I too hate it when people will take one thing from Buddhism, another from Judaism, etc etc and meld them together to form a do-it-yourself spirituality. So I see where you're coming from.

Actually, that's what I find myself more and more sympathetic to, though I think it works better with one religion and a spiritual practice, like Buddhism, or several earth-based religions that don't really have a modern doctrine and dogma, than from several different living religions.

I guess my feeling is that religion is (for me) most useful for encapsulating and carrying forward moral and ethical teaching, for acknowledging the power of nature, and for creating community. But I find that there are major elements of most established religions, either in doctrine or in practice, that I find *un*ethical and that I can't simply decide to ignore. And I can't feel much community with people who fiercely believe at least some number of things that I not only do not believe but feel to be wrong. So I'm left feeling that three isn't really a place for me in organised religion, and whatever needs I feel I will have to find a way to pursue on my own.

traditions

[mikecosgrave.livejournal.com]

I guess if you are rejecting a religion which claims to represent eternal truths, people feel more comfortable with the idea that they are re-discovering the "old ways" rather than coming out and saying "here's one I cooked up last Monday in my garage" (obviously, Hubbard had no problem with that!)

Many religions push the idea that humanity is imperfect, a collection of worthless sinners; and if you have been indoctrinated in that idea since childhood, it may also be hard to stand up and assert that your new concept of religion is yours, is original, and is good. Hence people use "the old ways" as a cover

Many religions begin with fundamental contradictions and as their followers bodge on more ad hoc house rules to deal with local issues, they get worse.

A few years back, I think in the New York Times, Mario Cuomo suggested that, religion aside, there were some basic commonsense ethical rules that were simply necessary for people to get along. He made sense but many religious leaders jumped on him like a bunch of IP lawyers to assert the superiority of their brand of basic morality.

Of course religion is about more than morality and community - it is about explaining how you stand in relation to the universe, particularly the bits of it we don't understand.

Re: traditions

[winterbadger]

Many religions push the idea that humanity is imperfect, a collection of worthless sinners; and if you have been indoctrinated in that idea since childhood, it may also be hard to stand up and assert that your new concept of religion is yours, is original, and is good. Hence people use "the old ways" as a cover

One of my university lecturers, a dear old chap of whom I was very fond*, pointed out that, throughout a good deal of history, any time an Englishman (he was lecturing on Tudor and Stuart history) wished to put forward an innovation in political or social practice, he buried it in assertions of antiquity, so as to make it defensible. :-) I think Bahlman's First Law** (as I like to call it) can be applied fairly widely. :-)



* And who pointed me towards William Laud (the chap in the icon) when I wanted to write my undergraduate thesis on the English Civil War.

** Not to be confused with what I like to call Bahlman's Second Law, that one can draw a fairly strong conclusion about the amount of public adherence to a law or regulation by the number of times it has to be reissued, re-promulgated, or reinforced. For example, I've always taken the constant reiteration in 18th century army orderly books that "camp followers are not to be allowed to use the army's wagons for transport" as an indication that the women of the camp pretty regularly ignored it. :-)

I find that,

[john-arundel.livejournal.com]

, especially in Christianity and in Islam, the more loudly and more often the practitioner talks about his faith – the less likely they are to act in accordance with that faith. There are, in fact, whole segments of the faithful that believe their only duty is to spout the ‘truth’ and do not bother to actually internalize it.

Of course, some things are taken on faith – I mean, I know math is ‘good’ and I know my kids need to do well in it (algebra, say) – but I’ve never actually used it myself (much less understood it) :>

Re: I find that,

[winterbadger]

Of course, some things are taken on faith – I mean, I know math is ‘good’ and I know my kids need to do well in it (algebra, say) – but I’ve never actually used it myself (much less understood it) :>


Edmund Blackadder, butler: He has patented a machine called "The Ravelling Nancy".

George, Prince Regent: Mmm, what does it do?

E: It ravels cotton, sir.

PR: What for?

E: That I cannot say, sir. I am one of these people who are quite happy to wear cotton, but have no idea how it works.