|
The problem of many religions. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
Huhu Dr Turner. |
I got a really nice email from my Mom the other day after I told her that I think I'd rather stick with graduate work as opposed to just getting a job to pay the bills where she just signed it with:
| quote: | | I've always had a feeling I'd be calling you Dr. Turner one day. |
Needless to say, it was pretty awesome feeling. She's also pushed me hard and hasn't been quick to hand out praise (I wasn't raised a "gold star for pooping today" kid), so it meant a ton.
/sappy-family-emo-moment-w/-RJT :clown: |
|
|
| Ek0nomik |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Initially I just wanted to teach religious history in the Catholic high school system (I know - it doesn't make sense, but my justification for it is another story entirely), but recently on the advice of a few professors encouraging me to pursue grad school, I began entertaining the notion of just taking philosophy all the way to a doctorate and writing/teaching at the university level.
I'm probably most interested in theories of identity and their metaphysical implications (it's actually what my capstone research is on this semester - brain states and self). |
Very cool. Philosophy wasn't my thing. I took a class my freshman year and I took one last year. I enjoyed them, but the tech classes are just more up my alley. I have two friends who are graduating in philosophy next year though. Again, hope you get into the Uni you want.
I am a bit curious about your reasoning to want to teach religious history given you're an Atheist.
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
(I wasn't raised a "gold star for pooping today" kid), so it meant a ton. |
Fun fact, my parents potty trained my older sister and I by giving us an M&M when we did the right ordeal. Now I hate M&M's. Coincidence?! |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ek0nomik
I am a bit curious about your reasoning to want to teach religious history given you're an Atheist. |
Atheist might be a bit of a misnomer insofar as using it to refer to my own faith. I'm a materialist who basically believes that my reward at the end of my life will be when I can be either buried (directly in the ground) or be cremated and then have my body return to its most simple form (the smallest pieces of "matter' that exist - for the sake of the discussion you might as well call them atoms), and becomes something else - a tree, a bike, a bong, a cat, a star, a TV stand, laptop, sandal, flower, fish, floorboard, etc. So while I don't really believe in a "god" per se, I do believe that there is something greater than us as individuals, and that acknowledging our part/taking part in it is the highest good to which we can strive.
I know. ed up, crazy hippie . Anyone who juest read that drivel probably lost any shred of respect they might have had left for me.
In any event (and more to the point), I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, and was fortunate to have two full years of religious history - and not Catholic, or even Christian religious history - world religious history. It was objective, relatively unbiased, and really left me with a better grasp on world religion good enough to get me to the pont I'm at now (how counterproductive, right?).
I'd like to do that for other kids being raised within Catholocism. ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Ek0nomik
Fun fact, my parents potty trained my older sister and I by giving us an M&M when we did the right ordeal. Now I hate M&M's. Coincidence?! |
Oh man, I wish Freud was still alive. He'd have a field day with that one. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I totally agree.
The more interesting question is, why did (and maybe does) religion pop up almost everywhere like an itchy rash. Why did so many cultures develop some sort of religion? What does your anthropology class about that? |
- we 'sanctify' things that we find mysterious, beautiful, vast, etc. by 'sanctify', i mean to give special ritual significance, fetishize, etc.
- we are social
- we confirm our beliefs with the support of others, ie everything seems more real when you have a lot of other people telling you it's real as well.
i admit i'm far from an expert on these things, but I do a lot of reading on early religion/shamanism/animism as well as the cultic and astrological origins of Mediterranean belief systems and christianity-
essentially religion has its roots in natural observation the same way scientific method does today. much of the mythology of christianity and its ancestors are based on explanations, metaphors, and parables connected to astrological occurences and observations.
i think it's a basic human need to come to terms with the mystery of the world in which he exists and to imprint upon it his own humanity.
I think that nearly all religions are mere permutations of the same cosmic re-occurrence, the same basic human quest for understanding, the need to create order out of chaos.
this is also the root of many other highly ritualized aspects of civilization such as architecture and language.
because i believe that all belief systems are more or less different expressions of the same inexpressible desire, i also include what we refer to as the scientific method into this same system...
you might call me a 'monistic idealist'.
i have the same attitude towards atheism that atheists have towards theists. I have to deny that there is no God as much as I would have to deny that there is one.
In the end though, my personal beliefs go back to the basic human need I talked about : all I think about is the fact that I am living, that I am living in a complex, mysterious, beautiful, unknowable, wild, chaotic, manifold yet unified world, and I believe nothing we can do will ever solve the mystery of creation, the timeless question of who created the creator. Because of that I can't accept anything except that the world is what the religious would call a miracle unto itself, connected at every level, from the subatomic level to the macrophase levels of memes, culture, urban development, dialectical language, etc...
i think essentially religion, belief, even science exists as a sort of shelter from the terrifying, abysmal, unbearable nothingness that is existence.
There are some people who need this shelter, who will raise a family under its eaves, maybe an entire culture, where the only questions that matter to them are simple matters of economics, personal relationships, procreation, etc. they will accept this reduction of freedom and consciousness because it makes them comfortable, or able to bear/explain their meaningless lives. it is a more or less animalistic way of life.
then there are those of us who don't feel the need to settle down within this shelter, who will face the unbearable emptiness that is before and in front of them because of an unquenchable need for truth.
we all have our own shelters, crutches, systems which we use to stop us from melding into this formless, infinite abyss. some people base their shelters on logic, some on dutiful, conscious observation, some on the good word of others, etc.
in the end i think the only 'truthful' way is to constantly question everything, including questioning questioning. :p
edit: oh, and rob - THIS^ is hippie drivel! ;) |
|
|
| d-miurge |
FAO Lucid: don't believe Rob, he just wants to teach philosophy in order to impress young women while lecturing Plato in a tree with inspired manners.
| quote: | Atheist might be a bit of a misnomer insofar as using it to refer to my own faith. I'm a materialist who basically believes that my reward at the end of my life will be when I can be either buried (directly in the ground) or be cremated and then have my body return to its most simple form (the smallest pieces of "matter' that exist - for the sake of the discussion you might as well call them atoms), and becomes something else - a tree, a bike, a bong, a cat, a star, a TV stand, laptop, sandal, flower, fish, floorboard, etc. So while I don't really believe in a "god" per se, I do believe that there is something greater than us as individuals, and that acknowledging our part/taking part in it is the highest good to which we can strive.
I know. ed up, crazy hippie . Anyone who juest read that drivel probably lost any shred of respect they might have had left for me.
|
Burn pagan, burn!
:gsmile: |
|
|
| Ek0nomik |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Atheist might be a bit of a misnomer insofar as using it to refer to my own faith. I'm a materialist who basically believes that my reward at the end of my life will be when I can be either buried (directly in the ground) or be cremated and then have my body return to its most simple form (the smallest pieces of "matter' that exist - for the sake of the discussion you might as well call them atoms), and becomes something else - a tree, a bike, a bong, a cat, a star, a TV stand, laptop, sandal, flower, fish, floorboard, etc. So while I don't really believe in a "god" per se, I do believe that there is something greater than us as individuals, and that acknowledging our part/taking part in it is the highest good to which we can strive. |
I think you're actually the first person I know to share my beliefs... (Although I believe burial to be selfish, cremation is how all bodies should be dealt with imo)
There is something greater than us, it's the Universe. :) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
No need of apologies I get your point and agree with you on that, I just tried to bring a nuance.
It's not really nonsensical, sorry to bore you with etymology but religere in Latin means 'to link people'. Religion helps to build the cohesion of the American society. In a context of a newly-born America, religion was one of the things that allow to unite people. For instance in France we had and still have human rights and the Revolution (Libert� Egalit� Fraternit�. We have a religion of secularism.
|
How French of you :D
(I'm saying that because Comte and Durkheim had a great impact in Brazilian thought, so I'm acquainted with these social theories of religion :))
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I got a really nice email from my Mom the other day after I told her that I think I'd rather stick with graduate work as opposed to just getting a job to pay the bills where she just signed it with:
Needless to say, it was pretty awesome feeling. She's also pushed me hard and hasn't been quick to hand out praise (I wasn't raised a "gold star for pooping today" kid), so it meant a ton.
/sappy-family-emo-moment-w/-RJT :clown: |
[off-topic]
Sometimes, I wish my parents were nearly as supportive as your mother :(
Every praise from them comes with a criticism... mainly because I'm not doing what they want.
*sighs*
Oh, well, this is not grouphug.us
[/off-topic]
edit: I somehow forgot to write the comment I wanted to d-miurge :p |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Every praise from them comes with a criticism... mainly because I'm not doing what they want.
|
It's often been the same with my mom - she's wonderful, but she had to work very, very hard to get where she is, and so she expected a lot of hard work from us as well.
As long as you do well at whatever you do, I'm sure your folks will both be proud. :) |
|
|
| RJT |
| Bumped for the sake of ABCRaisin, who I'm sure hasn't seen this yet :p |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
I don't find the notion of multiple religions to be problematic, and I feel that a particular approach to religious Pluralism provides a very meaningful sense of illumination upon the existence of different religions and their relationship with each other.
I'm not sure if you covered this within your Philosophy of Religions Course, but within the context of religious Pluralism exists the concept of the "Traditionalist School", which bases itself upon the the Perennial Philosophy.
This school of thought was formalized by the writings of thinkers like Frithjof Schuon and Rene Guenon, and has been championed by a number of major intellectual figures in the philosophical community, hailing from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Seyyed Hossein Nasr, John Hick, Titus Burkhardt, and Huston Smith only to name a few.
Essentially, these thinkers advance the notion (and forgive me if I'm explaining this incorrectly in any way) that each authentic Religious Tradition is an expression of the same Divine Source, and are thus each equally Divine in nature, which were revealed at different points throughout human history. I believe an analogy I've come across before likens different religions to the different streams that each spring forth from the same fountainhead. I believe this concept is known as the "Transcendent Unity of Religions", though I'm not entirely sure if that's the official title of this central principle.
Although there exists distinctions between these various Religious Traditions (radically so, in some cases), these simply reflect different expressions of the same essential Truths, which are the result of Divine Will (and there are disagreements as to the particulars of the nature of these differences).
As I said, those who subscribe to this philosophy are by no means contained to one Tradition or another, and you find this same essential thinking prevalent among some of the adherents to various mystical traditions, particularly Sufism. It's quite convenient to leverage the criticism against advocates of religious pluralism that they're merely attempting to construct some hollow, fluffy bridge (however well intentioned) that reaches out across religious differences by simply acknowledging each of them as valid for the sake of peaceful co-existence (and this may very well be a legitimate criticism on some takes of religious Pluralism), but I feel the Perennial Philosophy is far more substantive by virtue of it speaking towards the mystical heart that pervades all authentic religions. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
So I put it to you - what do you all think of the problem of many religions? Is there a satisfactory way to deal with it, or do you all (like me) find it inevitably leading to Atheism (or at least agnosticism)? |
This is probably going to appear as an overly simplistic answer to you, Rob; however, I believe that is more because you've made the problem unnecessarally complicated. I think the problem of many religions is a human problem, not a divine problem.
It makes a great deal of sense that any divine entity driven/controlled by/adhearing to reason would have chosen to reveal himself to groupings of people at a time when it was possible for those peoples to properly consider that which God intended to reveal to them. This would explain why most the the great religions developed when the cultures in which they developed had reached a similar level in their development (of course you could also argue that this level of developement was necessary for people to have the free time to make up a religion... for the athiests, it's a good argument - feel free to use it). The unfortunate consequence of allowing societies to develope before revealation is that god/gods must now reveal him/itself to an established people with an established civilization. This means that if God wants to reveal himself in such a way that the people can understand (at least partially) he must do so in a manner that fits their experience... therefore to a society like the Hebrews with a tribal cheif as the ultimate power a monothiestic system fits their already established social structure; for the vedic peoples with a less defined social structure a pantheon of gods makes more sense0. Ultimately, different religions are the product of God being required to reveal himself to different peoples in different ways in order to fit with their frame of reference. Since the initial revealation had to be different the evolution of the belief system would necessarally be different, resulting in different religions. If you take the time to study the "great faiths" you'll quickly see that they are more similar then different.
The above is the argument of a thiest... I could also argue the other side; however, it seems everyone else has done so already. |
|
|
| Sykonee |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ek0nomik
I think you're actually the first person I know to share my beliefs... (Although I believe burial to be selfish, cremation is how all bodies should be dealt with imo) |
Really, cremation is even MORE selfish than burial. You're reducing your body to base ash, such that little of the organic material that makes you human remains. Thus, there isn't much left that is returned to the carbon cycle compared to a regularly decomposed body buried in the ground (or dumped at sea). |
|
|
|
|
