Religion... why?

[Sniffles]

I do think Nietzsche was onto something with his "God is dead" thing.

Nietzsche's analysis certainly gets more attention, but in all honesty it falls rather short of addressing the real issue at hand. Nietzsche mistook the shallow bourgeoise sense of "Christianity" as somehow the actual essence of the faith. And his solution to the problem is nothing but absurd.

Kierkegaard's analysis is far better, and gives more insight into the real situation. Kierkegaard attacked the shallow corruption of contemporary Christianity and denounced it as "Christendom".

Taking this view; it's quite clear that what's truely dying is "Christendom" not Christianity. If anything, Christianity is seeing a considerable resurrection in the Western world.

[phoenix13]

Nietzsche's analysis certainly gets more attention, but in all honesty it falls rather short of addressing the real issue at hand. Nietzsche mistook the shallow bourgeoise sense of "Christianity" as somehow the actual essence of the faith. And his solution to the problem is nothing but absurd.

Kierkegaard's analysis is far better, and gives more insight into the real situation. Kierkegaard attacked the shallow corruption of contemporary Christianity and denounced it as "Christendom".

Taking this view; it's quite clear that what's truely dying is "Christendom" not Christianity. If anything, Christianity is seeing a considerable resurrection in the Western world.

I agree. You did read the rest of the paragraph, right?

[Sniffles]

I agree. You did read the rest of the paragraph, right?

Yes, although can't say I agree with everything you said. Yes religion evolve, but that doesn't necessarily mean in terms of doctrine and certainly not in dogmas(dogmas by nature cannot change).

The problem is that often when churches try desperately to remain "relevant" they end up being irrelevant. A church needs to speak to a particular age, not get caught up in the spirit of that age per se(especially if it's one that goes against Christian teachings).

[SolitaryWalker]

Religion provides the worldview for those who cannot concoct one on their own endeavor. It is the philosophy of the savages.

Nietzsche's analysis certainly gets more attention, but in all honesty it falls rather short of addressing the real issue at hand. Nietzsche mistook the shallow bourgeoise sense of "Christianity" as somehow the actual essence of the faith. And his solution to the problem is nothing but absurd.

Kierkegaard's analysis is far better, and gives more insight into the real situation. Kierkegaard attacked the shallow corruption of contemporary Christianity and denounced it as "Christendom".

Taking this view; it's quite clear that what's truely dying is "Christendom" not Christianity. If anything, Christianity is seeing a considerable resurrection in the Western world.

What is the essence of faith? What is the difference between Nietzsche's Christianity and the aforementioned essence of Christian faith?

Atheism was the official state belief in the former Soviet Union. That is a society that did not work out so well.

Atheism was only one aspect of the Marxist society in the Soviet Union. It was a very small aspect because there is nothing in Marxism that is fundamentally atheistic. Most likely Marx propounded an atheistic view to drive the point home with respect to his materialism. With equal success a Marxist society could be Buddhist, Christian or Islamic. In this case, take the same equation and replace the Communist party with Jesus, Muhammad or the Lama.

Both ideologies are radically collectivist and this manifests itself in the fact that their chief goal is achievement of societal well being at the expense of individual. That is what is truly fundamental to the two creeds, not theism or atheism. In the case of Christianity it is laying down your individual interests in favor of the glory of God in the kindgdom of whom we shall meet eternal bliss. In Marxism it is sacrificing your individual interests for the communist welfare where we shall all be extolled under the great Stalin or Mao who will not steer us wrong!

The chief purport of both Marxism and Christianity is that the individual in himself is inadequate and must surrender himself entirely to the will of the power presiding him. This is the fundamental principle of the ethic of these two creeds, the entire content of both is aimed strictly at the affirmation of this aforementioned proposition.

There is something else that is even more fundamental to these two ideologies, namely that they are profoundly religious.

Religion is to be defined as a worldview that answers the basic questions of metaphysics. (How the world is). Attempts to answer the spiritual questions and probes into eschatology. (Life after death and matters directly relevant to this). Propounds a system of ethics. And most importantly, establishes at least certain axioms as incontrovertible.

Marxism is without a doubt a religion. Just like Christianity it insists on complete obeisance to the laws of the creed. These laws and teachings are not simple and relevant only to a few aspects of our lives, but as the above definition evinces, they wish to instruct us on every last question our mind may conjure. For this reason certain religious sects, much like many modern Muslims are even instructed by the book of dogma with regard to how they should eat a meal, or how they should fall asleep.

Religion is incompatible with the open society and the entailments thereof, independent thought as well as the intellectual and cultural growth of civilization. For this reason it is being slowly expunged in the advanced nations of the Western Europe. Many religious sects in the United States have surrendered their loyalty to the true, original Christian creed because they were forced to conform to the values of the open society. For this reason, religious fanaticism is slowly being forced into the closet in the United States. Fundamentalism is declining and it has been a very long time since a political decision has been made in the United States based explicitly on a religious law.

[Mole]

Well at least you're honest...

I think you should find out why you need the attention and then determine whether or not it's a problem.

If the need for attention stems from primal urges to connect with others, your cost/benefit analysis is obsolete.

It may stem from insecurity. Perhaps you feel you're not worth paying attention to and use psychology to manipulate others into giving you attention instead of letting it come naturally (I'm throwing that out there as a possibility, not a judgement).

The best/healthiest way to get attention is to persistently pay attention to others. Interact with them as they are.

What do you think?

You are right particularly when you say the way to get attention is to pay attention to others.

I think this is completely true but it seems to elude me.

I don't know why I seek attention but it is deeply rooted.

It is though in seeking attention, I am scratching an itch. And when I scratch my itch, it is pleasurable.

The downside is that I am inclined to rub people the wrong way - and they become irritated with me.

And although I do irritate people, I find I am almost compelled to seek attention. This of course is neurotic.

However I try to put it in perspective and I see that others have their compulsions and blind spots as well. So I am by no means unique.

And also I see that my neurosis in not something to be avoided as it is the path into the mystery of myself. So if I gently follow the path, understanding as I go, I will come to understand myself and perhaps others as well.

I can see my neurosis is not attractive and so I am tempted to hide it.

But it would mean hiding what is most alive in myself.

And if I am prepared to follow what is most alive in myself, you might have more confidence that I will follow what is most alive in you.

[Sniffles]

Religion provides the worldview for those who cannot concoct one on their own endeavor. It is the philosophy of the savages.

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
--Francis Bacon

Let's take into account that many of the greatest and most comprehensive thinkers of all time were religious in some form or another. If Im not mistaken, the person in your own avatar(Spinoza) was an observant Jew and wrote much about the nature of God.

Let's also take into effect that arguably one of the greatest philosophers alive, Alasdair MacIntyre, is a Catholic.

Moving on.

What is the essence of faith?

Trust. Trust in another person or another entity. Faith is about connecting with the divine on the I-Thou level, as Martin Buber famously articulated.

What is the difference between Nietzsche's Christianity and the aforementioned essence of Christian faith?

As Jennifer put it: Some people reject faith because they are cowards. Some people cling to faith because they are cowards. Nietzsche at best told only half the story. By contrast, Kierkegaard and others told the whole story.

Of course, this is not to mean that I'm not aware of the influence Nietzsche had on Christian theology - especially Christian Existentialism and "Deaht of God" theology.

Atheism was only one aspect of the Marxist society in the Soviet Union. It was a very small aspect because there is nothing in Marxism that is fundamentally atheistic. Most likely Marx propounded an atheistic view to drive the point home with respect to his materialism.

Materialism and atheism are closely related. If one rejects the existence of God and the metaphysical, then by default your concentration falls strictly upon the physical. One's view of the heavenly often effects ones views of everything else.

With equal success a Marxist society could be Buddhist, Christian or Islamic. In this case, take the same equation and replace the Communist party with Jesus, Muhammad or the Lama.

No not really, as I'll explain below.

Both ideologies are radically collectivist and this manifests itself in the fact that their chief goal is achievement of societal well being at the expense of individual.

Several problems with this thesis. First, You're wrongly grouping a political ideology together with a religion. Religions are not ideologies, they're a completely different kind of belief system. Just like there's a distinction between philosophy and religion, and philosophy and ideology.

Ideologies are largely concerned with concrete actions within a socio-political context. Philosophy deals with thereotical concepts on various topics. Religion(in the Judeo-Christian sense) is defined by revealation.

Certainly there are religious ideologies, but thats still different than religion itself. To explain it another way: there's a difference between Christianity and Christian Socialism.

Second, Christianity is collectivist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it's long been established that Christianity helped bring the individual greater attention than previously was so within the pagan mindset. It'd be more accurate to say that Christianity is Personalist by nature, rather than collectivist.

At the moment, I'm not in the mood to go about explaining the differences at great length. So for now, I'll link you to Nikolai Berdyaev's commentary on the relationship between Christian Personalism and Marxist Collectivism:
Personalism and Marxism

That is what is truly fundamental to the two creeds, not theism or atheism.

This doesn't make any sense. Theism is of course the fundamental aspect of any religion, especially Christianity. Atheism is a fundamental aspect of Marxism, since it's upon atheistic premises its materialist philosophy is based upon.

In the case of Christianity it is laying down your individual interests in favor of the glory of God in the kindgdom of whom we shall meet eternal bliss. In Marxism it is sacrificing your individual interests for the communist welfare where we shall all be extolled under the great Stalin or Mao who will not steer us wrong!

So they both have the element of self-sacrifice, so what? Are you against the concept of self-sacrifice?

The chief purport of both Marxism and Christianity is that the individual in himself is inadequate and must surrender himself entirely to the will of the power presiding him.

Except that Marxism orders total subordination to an earthly authority, while Christianity calls for such to a heavenly and eternal one. Big difference. I've already meditated here about the difference between the two mentalities, and how the Christian perspective allows one to resist an unjust earthly authority in the name of a heavenly one. There are numerous other implications of this mentality.

There is something else that is even more fundamental to these two ideologies, namely that they are profoundly religious.

Once again you're confusing religions ans ideologies, although granted ideologies rely heavily upon religious-like impulses. Michael Burleigh's Earthly Powers is a good source on this played out throughout the 19th century and beyond.

Marxism is without a doubt a religion. Just like Christianity it insists on complete obeisance to the laws of the creed. These laws and teachings are not simple and relevant only to a few aspects of our lives, but as the above definition evinces, they wish to instruct us on every last question our mind may conjure.

That maybe true of ideology, but certainly not philosophy and religion.

For this reason certain religious sects, much like many modern Muslims are even instructed by the book of dogma with regard to how they should eat a meal, or how they should fall asleep.

And you begg the question as to your point here. If there is a God, and he commands mankind on how to eat and fall asleep, then it makes sense that's the thing to do.

Religion is incompatible with the open society and the entailments thereof, independent thought as well as the intellectual and cultural growth of civilization.

This is an absurd assertion, even if we go by the Spenglerian ditchomy of culture vs civilization; since the heart of culture is religion, even if civilization's is irreligion.

In fact there's so much information out there that contradicts this argument, I honestly don't know where to begin. Perhaps I could begin by noting that Christian monks helped preserved much of the knowledge and wisdom of the Classical period during the Dark Ages. Not only that, they even devised a new method of recording such wisdom in something we today call the book. They invented the simple concept of putting spaces between words!

Church construction helped immeasurably in the further developments of measurements and mathematics. The clock was invented so that monks could regularly schedule prayer sessions throughout the day. Monks also contributed to the invention and development of wind-mills. The calendar we
use today was devised upon the orders of Pope Gregory XIII so as to better calculate when the feast days of particular saints occured, not to mention Easter - hence why it's still referred to as the Gregorian calendar. Nicholas Copernicus was an ordained priest, and even sent an early copy of his writings to the Pope - which were recieved with considerable interest.

The intellectual renaisance of the 13the century was by no means a small achievement. It helped pave the way for the development of all the intellectual achievements we in the West take for granted. Scientific historian Edward Grant notes that the thereotical roots of modern science lay within the philosophical and theological concepts devised during the Medieval period.

And Grant isn't alone. Scholars have been writing about this for the past 50 years at least. I could cite David Lindberg's study of the early developments of science, where he notes that the Christian church was the leading patron of scientific research during that time. Then J. L. Heilbron's study, which concludes that the Catholic gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy than anyother institution in history.

As far as culture: again I don't know where to begin. Gothic cathedrals, Gregorian chants, Dante's Inferno, Giotto, Byzantine icons, Crime and Punishment, Handel's Messiah, Bach, Praetorious, and shitloads more than I could possibly remember off-hand.

For this reason it is being slowly expunged in the advanced nations of the Western Europe.

Wrong. As I just noted, religion is seeing a slow resurrgence among Western Europeans. Even in intellectual discourse, many are already talking about a "postsecular" age.

I think that's enough for tonight.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Atheism was only one aspect of the Marxist society in the Soviet Union.

It doesn't matter, because my point wasn't really about Marxism. It was about athiesm and the Soviet Union in practice. My point was not about theory. The Soviet society did not turn out well, and one aspect of that society was atheism.

Now to be fair, the Dark Ages were a period of forced Christianity and that did not turn out well either. Overall the societies that lead to the greatest prosperity and satisfaction for its citizens are ones where the people are allowed to choose their religion (including the choice of atheism). It's the freedom to choose that matters more than the specific beliefs that any religion holds (or lack thereof).

[SolitaryWalker]

"Let's take into account that many of the greatest and most comprehensive thinkers of all time were religious in some form or another. If Im not mistaken, the person in your own avatar(Spinoza) was an observant Jew and wrote much about the nature of God. .

You are mistaken my good sir. Spinoza was an observer of Jewish religion until the age of 23. At that age his public criticism of the religion orthodoxy led to excommunication.

The excommunication and anathema of Baruch Spinoza

Spinoza's view of God is different from the Judeo-Christian God. Spinoza's God is not a person, it is his term for the whole universe. He merely used this term to avoid incurring the hostility of theologians.

Secondly, the fact that many great thinkers were Christians is not relevant to the argument of whether or not it is desirable for a thinker to be a Christian.

"Trust. Trust in another person or another entity. Faith is about connecting with the divine on the I-Thou level, as Martin Buber famously articulated. .

Where in scripture do you see the support for such a definition of faith?

"Materialism and atheism are closely related. If one rejects the existence of God and the metaphysical, then by default your concentration falls strictly upon the physical. One's view of the heavenly often effects ones views of everything else..

What is the relationship between rejecting God and rejecting metaphysics?

Moreover, what is the relationship between a materialist ontology and rejection of metaphysics? Metaphysics is the study of all non-physical. Materialists maintain that what is material is more fundamental to the essence of reality than what is immaterial, yet they do not reject the existence of the immaterial as by virtue of the immaterial they have the opportunity to express their thoughts in the first place.

"Several problems with this thesis. First, You're wrongly grouping a political ideology together with a religion. Religions are not ideologies, they're a completely different kind of belief system. Just like there's a distinction between philosophy and religion, and philosophy and ideology. .

Religions are ideologies almost by definition. Because an ethical system is fundamental to their creed. Such an ethical system exhorts man to political action almost always. I doubt I need to even allude to scriptural writings to support this claim as the veracity of this one is nearly indubitable.

"Ideologies are largely concerned with concrete actions within a socio-political context. Philosophy deals with thereotical concepts on various topics. Religion(in the Judeo-Christian sense) is defined by revealation. .

Religious writings are much more concerned with instructing man how to live rather than inspiring him to think about the complex philosophical questions. Rarely in the scripture do we see writings like 'here is one way to think about the problem what do you think of it? Or other kinds of open-ended questions that are notable in the writings of philosophers. It merely states, this is how it is, believe it or else!'

"Certainly there are religious ideologies, but thats still different than religion itself. To explain it another way: there's a difference between Christianity and Christian Socialism. .

The essence of Christianity is--forget what you want from life. Do only what your heavenly father wants you to. Dont question this command, just do as it tells you like a child would. Make sure all others do so as well. This is indeed radical collectivism.

"Second, Christianity is collectivist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it's long been established that Christianity helped bring the individual greater attention than previously was so within the pagan mindset. It'd be more accurate to say that Christianity is Personalist by nature, rather than collectivist. .

It is collectivist because it insists first of all on the welfare of God, secondly on the welfare of others. 'Love thy God and Love thy neighbor as yourself'. Never does it tell you that being a good or a strong person is a virtue in itself.

One may say that it is individualistic in the regard that salvation is a personal journey, or only you will stand before the white throne at the final judgment. Yes, but you individually will be assessed in terms of how well you have fulfilled the radically collectivistic agenda described above.

"This doesn't make any sense. Theism is of course the fundamental aspect of any religion, especially Christianity. Atheism is a fundamental aspect of Marxism, since it's upon atheistic premises its materialist philosophy is based upon. .

I ask again, what is the relationship between atheism and materialism? What is the relationship between theism and spirituality? Or pursuit of a higher purpose such as virtue in its own right irrespectively of the worldly goals.

"So they both have the element of self-sacrifice, so what? Are you against the concept of self-sacrifice?
.

Yes. In order to truly be benevolent towards others, you must be content with yourself. Insecure people can feign benevolence towards others in order to alleviate their own internal insecurities. When people are internally insecure as a result of having devalued their inner being, they are bound to behave in a fashion problematic to society sooner or later. In summary, self-sacrifice is undesirable because it leads to self-depreciatory thought which is inseparable from pernicious action towards others. This is an inevitable outcome of an insecure individual seeking self-affirmation from others. For this reason we observe many political power struggles within religious organizations and between such organizations.

"Except that Marxism orders total subordination to an earthly authority, while Christianity calls for such to a heavenly and eternal one. Big difference. .

Explain such a difference in futher detail. In Marxism we do what Mao says. In Christianity we do what the church says under the justification of such actions representing God's will. Yet noone knows what God is or dares to find out.

"I've already meditated here about the difference between the two mentalities, and how the Christian perspective allows one to resist an unjust earthly authority in the name of a heavenly one. There are numerous other implications of this mentality. .

??????????

"Once again you're confusing religions ans ideologies, although granted ideologies rely heavily upon religious-like impulses. Michael Burleigh's Earthly Powers is a good source on this played out throughout the 19th century and beyond. .

Explain the connection between organized religion and spirituality.

That maybe true of ideology, but certainly not philosophy and religion. .

Explain the relationship between philosophy and religion? The two are irreconcilable because the former insists on constructing a worldview based only on one's independent critical thinking and the latter on as scrupulous adherence to an authority as possible. Morever, religion and spirituality are incompatible because in order to truly be spiritual one needs to have an ethic that one's internal mindset is compatible with. Something that one truly believes in. Relgion merely insists on conformity to dictates.

The definition of religion is as follows.

A worldview which provides a metaphysical system or an overview of how the world works.

Answers the basic questions of ethics.

Inquires into eschatology or problems concerning life after death.

Establishes at least the most fundamental axioms as incontrovertible.

The last of the 4 is what distinguishes religion from philosophy, and is the hallmark of religion--insistence of blind obedience to arbitrary authority.

And you begg the question as to your point here. If there is a God, and he commands mankind on how to eat and fall asleep, then it makes sense that's the thing to do. .

Is it the thing to do because he said it, or because it makes sense? If he said murder is the thing to do, is it now virtuous?

This is an absurd assertion, even if we go by the Spenglerian ditchomy of culture vs civilization; since the heart of culture is religion, even if civilization's is irreligion. .

The heart of culture consists in obedience to a set of dictates?

In fact there's so much information out there that contradicts this argument, I honestly don't know where to begin. Perhaps I could begin by noting that Christian monks helped preserved much of the knowledge and wisdom of the Classical period during the Dark Ages. Not only that, they even devised a new method of recording such wisdom in something we today call the book. They invented the simple concept of putting spaces between words!.

What does this have to do with Christianity? If a mailman invents a new kind of a bicycle, do we praise the mail delivering department for such ingenuity?

Religion is totalitarian by definition because it states this is how it is, and don't you dare question it. Some intellectuals may be discussing religious ideas, as for example, many secular scholars are fascinated with the sheer philosophical genius of St.Thomas Aquinas and as a result take interest in religious ideas. Yet they are not interested in observing the religious creed as this puts a strain on their inquiry because the religious creed insists on them ceasing to be inquisitive. Some scholars may falsely claim to be religious, yet their Christianity, Marxism or Islam is incompatible with the scriptural writings. This is because in their attempt to make sense of their creed, they significantly have altered its content. One has only to examine the 'religious' writings of Paul Tillich or Karl Jasper who has embraced Spinoza's doctrine of intellectual love of God.

The bottom line is, religion is incompatible with critical thinking because it insists on acceptance of instructions by default. Growth of civilization is impossible because of this as such a regime precludes new ideas from being propounded. Religious thinkers who have propounded ideas behaved in a decidedly irreligious fashion.

[Owl]

Explain the relationship between philosophy and religion? The two are irreconcilable because the former insists on constructing a worldview based only on one's independent critical thinking and the latter on as scrupulous adherence to an authority as possible. Morever, religion and spirituality are incompatible because in order to truly be spiritual one needs to have an ethic that one's internal mindset is compatible with. Something that one truly believes in. Religion merely insists on conformity to dictates.

The definition of religion is as follows.

A worldview which provides a metaphysical system or an overview of how the world works.

Answers the basic questions of ethics.

Inquires into eschatology or problems concerning life after death.

Establishes at least the most fundamental axioms as incontrovertible.

The last of the 4 is what distinguishes religion from philosophy, and is the hallmark of religion--insistence of blind obedience to arbitrary authority

As a religious philosopher, I would amend your definition of religion. I understand your definition and why you give it, but, again, I think your definition is too narrow. I think a more general definition can be given: Religion is an ordered set of beliefs that is used to interpret experience.

Why?

Because... all people give meaning to their experience; theism and atheism are formally paired concepts in that both are used in the same way to interpret experience. Furthermore, religion is concerned with beliefs, and beliefs are either true or false; therefore, religion is fundamentally cognitive. Both theists and the atheists use reason in order to interpret their experience in light of their basic beliefs. And, "as truth cannot be separated from meaning, faith cannot be separated from reason. It is by reason that meaning is grasped. Reason is the test for meaning. Faith grows as understanding grows. Faith is tested as understanding is tested. Faith is contrasted with sight; it is not contrasted with reason, proof, or understanding" Surrendra Gangadean.

You might accuse me of collapsing the definition of religion into the definition of philosophy. If you should, then I'd plead guilty as charged. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and all persons ought to love wisdom, and, in the pursuit of wisdom, one ought to use reason to critically examine his beliefs, and he should use reason to construct a coherent world and life view.

Happy is the man who finds wisdom,
And the man who gains understanding;
For her proceeds are better than the profits of silver,
And her gain than fine gold.
She is more precious than rubies,
And all the things you may desire cannot compare with her.
Length of days is in her right hand,
In her left hand riches and honor.
Her ways are ways of pleasantness,
And all her paths are peace.
She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her,
And happy are all who retain her.
(Proverbs 3:13-18 NKJV)

[IlyaK1986]

You're a rational and you're religious? WHich one is it?!