What is Religion?

Prompt

Topic originated by Kyle Hartman

This is more along the lines of what faith is, rather than a critique of the modern state of religions. In the last topic, Chris and I were discussing what the similarities in religions meant and whether their differences disproved them. I was saying something along the lines that the common features in all religions represent a universal truth while Chris said they represent more of a universal want. Correct me if I'm wrong Chris.

Discussion

Chris Orser: Yeah, that seems like a pretty fair estimation.

The idea that all religions have some sort of a universal truth certainly never stopped people from killing each other. Maybe...truth is killing each other?

Sean Tou: I assume by religion you're talking specifically about organized religion. It's an interesting topic actually, because some sociologists have been looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint, to show that it was beneficial to human existence. You have a strong fellowship, a way to bind a group cohesively into a single unit which is obviously beneficial.

In terms of what I think religion is, I've said it before: I consider religion to be the opposite of science in terms of purpose: religion is there to explain matters of spirituality, science exists to understand nature.

Kyle Hartman: Another way of putting the topic would be to ask what is spirituality then, I didn't mean the organized religion. Spirituality is kinda a vague concept and you could ask what it really is. I'm trying to stay away from the actual institutions in this topic, but if you want to discuss evolution and spirituality or fatih there are still a lot of possibilities that apply to socialogy. For instance, I think the changing of specific aspects in faith over time shows an evolutionary trend of religion by which I mean any faith in general. Even the catholic church has made changes.

Kevin Olcese: Religion usually has a deity/deities attached to it. Religion is kinda like a science; It's just a tool used to explain this crazy world of ours and how it came about. Most popular religions maintain that there was a single entity that created the world in order to provide for humans (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.). Other religions instead divest this single entity of his power and instead spread it among many other deities, whom rule over specific parts of the world, or particular elements and the like (greeks/romans, Hinduism).

However, what I believe to be starkly different from religion is faith. Faith is hope, a belief one holds dearly and doesn't wish to let go of. Sure, religion and faith are often intertwined; it can certainly be a very comforting thought to know we have a protector watching over us at all times. Yet still, I believe that the two can also be separate. Faith can be put into an ideal, like honor for example, as much as it can be put into a religion. It's something someone believes in (faith, that is) for himself, and no other. I suppose that's why there are so many different religions in the world.

So, bottomline: Religion is something used to explain why the world is the way it is, which is why it is in such opposition to science. And like Orser said before, they're basically giant cults of people who maintain the same beliefs, even if they may be misguided.

Kyle Hartman: Well clarified in my opinion, and what I at least wanted to discuss was ideas on faith in a spirituality standpoint. Even if the your own extent of that is that there is nothing, and we're alone, thats still a form or at least a lack of spirituality. I hope this clarifies this broad and aparantly poorly named topic.

Kevin Olcese: Hmm...well, I guess I can't really add much to this thread. I am pretty much completely devoid of the spirituality that a "higher" being exists. There's just no evidence supporting "His" existence. On the other hand, no one person can really disprove such an abstract thing either. Anyway, I believe in one thing, if not a god. And that is the deeds of good men.

Kyle Hartman: You don't necessarily have to believe in a "higher being" necessarily as an entity. I'm trying to get people to think about why people are spiritual, not to discuss whether God exists. Another way of putting it is i'm trying to ask what you think other people are believing in. I think there are a lot of people who don't understand their own religions, and a lot of misconceptions about what spirituality is in this sense. I doubt we'll that kind of theological discussion to that level, but if people at least thought about it then thats good enough. Basically, I don't think those with faith and those without understand each other well enough.

Kevin Olcese: I see that we just have conflicting notions on what spirituality is then. But in your case, I'd say people are spiritual then as a source of comfort, as a guide on where to set their sights. And of course it's naturally a whole lot harder for people with conflicting ideas to ever fully understand one another. Debates eventually erode that schism, though.

Sean Tou: There's a very fine interview in Salon with Karen Armstrong a "freelance monotheist". I actually got something out of it. From the prelude:

"As an ex-nun, she resonates with people who've fallen out with organized religion. Armstrong has little patience for literal readings of the Bible, but argues that sacred texts yield profound insights if we read them as myth and poetry. She's especially drawn to the mystical tradition, which -- in her view -- has often been distorted by institutionalized religion. While her books have made her enormously popular, it isn't surprising that she's also managed to raise the ire of both Christian fundamentalists and atheists." 

Brian Robinson: I'll keep this short,

Institutionalized religion is an attempt by man to both rationalize our lives and overcome the fear of death. In other words, to give us a meaning and a fate.

Obviously, the idea of an afterlife, especially one that is guaranteed so long as you have 'faith,' is ridiculous. Nevertheless, I am not purely an atheist. Though man shares some lilnkage to apes there is no other living creature on the face of the earth with the same capabilities. Man alone has the ability of creativity, imagination, and engineering - as well as some additional less respectable qualities. Thus I do believe in the soul as something seperate from mind and body.

Perhaps the soul never dies and is simply incapable of thought and physical senses? Not sure, just a guess, just a speculation, just another attempt to question the world, something exclusively unique to man.

Kyle Hartman: While we do have unique characteristics, we all evolved from one form of life. A sudden development of the soul doesn't make sense to me at least. However, due to the level and complexity of our thought, maybe it's simply a matter of self-awareness. The soul is really just a vague term to me though, it seems to mean, whatever about you isn't physical, mental, or emotional. I just prefer not to use the term because of how people relate it to religion immediately. I think it's good that you think and analyze for yourself without having to see things in black or white. Unfortunately, not enough people have the ability to analyze and take part of a whole.

Chris Orser: Yeah, what's with the whole concept of a soul? I feel like I'm missing it completely. I mean, I get the idea that in most religions it's kind of like our consciousness descending into heaven, but when people start going into specifics, from a purely logical standpoint, I don't really understand just what the soul is.

I agree with some of what Brian said; institutionalized religion does often seem to provide us with a best-case scenario for our after-life, which is, of course, a great recruiting method. To be fair, it also gives many people peace of mind.

Since religious talk is purely speculation, anyway, I thought I'd mention that there's no conclusive proof that non-humans don't have a "soul". So maybe it was there since the beginning in humans, as well as all other animals.

Kyle Hartman: Chris Orser wrote:

Since religious talk is purely speculation, anyway, I thought I'd mention that there's no conclusive proof that non-humans don't have a "soul". So maybe it was there since the beginning in humans, as well as all other animals.

Thats actually what I was trying to say with self-awareness. Since we are more complex organisms, perhaps it just shows in us more. The concept of soul changes depending on who you talk to. Same thing with God. Most people don't think about it, so they can't define it when it comes up. I would just like to mention, that doesn't mean something doesn't exist, just because somewhat can't express what something is. I think that some see the soul as the definition of the individual. So in your case, Chris Orser. The soul is supposed to be who you really are so to speak. Note: This isn't what I think, but i think it's a fair assessment on what a majority of people think.

There's more to it too. I guess scientifically you could describe the body and brain as a machine that allows you to function, but isn't really you. Thats why some could say the spirit (once again the real you) is what goes to heaven. It doesn't need a body there. Once again, I don't really believe this.

Mike Baney: I think that it's kind of impossible to define what is really "you". I think it's only really possible to describe different facets that comprise you. In this respect, the concept of a soul is kind of irrelevant because it's undefinable and in the end counter-productive. Being defined sucks. I'd rather be undefined which allows room for change. I'm just kind of spouting ideas in a non-organized fashion. Sorry. But not sorry enough to go back and edit.

Kyle Hartman: I think the reason we can't define a person is because we define things by purpose. A clock is somthing that tells time, a house is something you live in, but living things.....? I think a soul represents the definition of the purpose of a human being, I think thats why people don't like the idea that it could die. I don't like the idea of a soul representing people's individuality for that reason, it implies to me that each person has their own purpose, to me thats what it means at least. Really though in religion, the holy spirit is one, the Hindu's become one with Brahman, and the church is described as one, rather than a collection of souls. Most religions involve total unity in one way or another.

Chris Orser: Kyle Hartman wrote:

I think a soul represents the definition of the purpose of a human being, I think thats why people don't like the idea that it could die

I respectfully disagree, at least in part. You make a good point about how we often define things by their purpose (tho not always, for instance, we define a triangle as a 3-sided regular polygon, not for what it does), but I think that the reason the idea of a soul is around is to circumvent the idea of purpose. Yes, most religions that believe in souls also believe that the purpose of the human is to live life to allow their soul to ascend to "heaven" (/nirvana/unification with a deity/etc). But a soul seems to me to be the ultimate definition of a person, not what purpose they serve, but who they are. In heaven, or whatever, a person will (supposedly) no longer have to serve any purpose, but rather, that person will just "live" in peace and happiness. You won't need to serve a purpose, because everything will be perfect. I just always felt that the soul was supposed to be the ultimate definition of a person, their "natural" personality, and immortal existence. But I'm not exactly a theologian.

Kyle Hartman: I agree, I think those things are one in the same. Who you are is your purpose. A triangles purpose is to be a three sided polygon. It's a mathematical tool, so it's purpose is a physical description of it. I also disagree with religions circumventing the idea of purpose, religions always tell you how to live in accordance with God's plan. If you don't it's bad for your soul. Living according to God's plan, in religion, is our purpose and our soul is affected by how well we live in accordance with the plan. Maybe most people don't make that connection or see it that way, but if you ask a churchgoer, they could probably repeat back a lot of what I said.

Brian Robinson: Regarding the soul...  

Perhaps I wasn't clear, or maybe I'm misinterpreting the responses. If I'm reiterating stuff then I apologize in advance.

I don't link the soul to the religious idea of the soul. I consider the soul something separate from mind and body and something incapable of thought and the physical senses. Clearly, both animals and man have physical senses as well as enough brain function to regulate those senses. When it comes to philosophical questioning, I think it is the soul that is responsible. When contemplating or questioning, what we say to each other or write down on paper is the mind attempting to relay a subconscious 'feeling' in the soul. I make the assumption that animals are incapable of this because of the nature of their lives, i.e eat, sleep, mate, stay alive, traits that stem from physical senses and simple mental commands.

My primary argument for the existence of the soul is an explanation of man's unique abilites of creativity, imagination, engineering, etc. From my own experiences I've noticed that there are far too many emotions, love for one, that extend beyond the scope of thought and physical senses. (Perhaps that's an idea for a new thread)

What does that make religion? Well, simply put it makes religion an attempt by man to answer the other questions proposed in this thread. Those whom devote their lives to some religion gain a sense of belonging and purpose that can dictate them, tell them how to live and the rewards they will reap by doing so. It's a win win situation.

Again, I apologize for repeating some things.

Kyle Hartman: How do you see individualism with respect to the soul though? I think a lot of people see thier souls as an aspect of themselves, an aspect other than the mental or physical. I see the soul (I still use the term loosely) as a soul for humanity. We each are just a unique perspective of the same entity so to speak.

Brian Robinson: Kyle Hartman wrote:

How do you see individualism with respect to the soul though?

The same way that I can look at a painting and see one thing, whereas you might see another.

The idea of all people's 'souls' belonging to a larger humanity is a common one, especially in the religious notion that 'all are one.' Finally, I can simply say here that I disagree with that, but since I can't prove against it - and no one can prove for it - that's as far as we can delve into this topic.

Kyle Hartman: Yeah, I guess it's more about how you see the world and the people around you. I don't think anyone would deny the fact that there is some unity of humanity, but to what degree is hard to discuss. If I think of a way to delve further as you said, I'll bring it up again. Of course if anyone has thoughts on the subject, it will keep it going a little.

Chris Orser: Kyle Hartman wrote:

I agree, I think those things are one in the same. Who you are is your purpose. A triangles purpose is to be a three sided polygon.

By that logic it's my purpose to be brown-eyed, 6 feet tall, and have furry eyebrows. I can see where you're coming from as far as many religious people go, however. Fundamentalists especially see their purpose (serving god) as part of who they are. But I think (geez it's been a while) I was talking about the soul, not about religion in general.

I could keep talking about it, but I don't have anything to add. Anyway, I don't think that there is such a thing as a soul, though I don't think it's inconceivable either (my general premise is that I don't know how or why I'm here, and it's not particularly less likely that higher powers or intangible things evolved or were created in the course of the history of the universe)

Kyle Hartman: You said earlier that religion was the easy answer to questions of purpose, you also admit not to know "how and why you are here". God is such a loose definition anyway. People may have strong beliefs, but when you ask "what is God?", they have no idea usually. I think most people's ideas about what God is stem from what they have been told to think by religious leaders or just society in general. To me this shows that most people don't really know for sure, but still have general agreements about certain core traits. I think it is these universalalities that should be concentrated on if trying to find out the "how and why". I think it's possible just to accept God by defining it as the purpose that guides us all. Think of it as gravity, it's a force that acts on all of us outside of our control. We don't really know why it works, but see how it controls our lives (we are pulled to the ground). I think you can be spiritual without being religious. I don't think it's neccessary to think of God as a higher "being". You could think of it more as a definition of our purpose. You just wrap questions about "how and why you are here" into the concept of God. Then suddenly you ask "what is God and what does he want me to do" instead of "what is my purpose and how do I fulfill it". That's at least how I see everyone asking the same questions. Just a matter of perspective of choice, but it's something to keep in mind. I wouldn't say religion is an easy answer, just an easier way to ask the question. So in that way maybe people who aren't religious can try to understand religion.

Brian Robinson: ^ well said, well said.

That's exactly what I consider the 'God' figure to be, something to give people a purpose. Institutionalized religions give people answers to why they exist, what they should do with their lives, and what happens after life. On a very broad note, the core of each religion boils down to answering those questions - one of the reasons I am not entirely an atheist.

I also think that religion is easier to accept at a very young age or very old age. At a very young age you're really introduced to it by parents or whoever, and, knowing nothing else, except it literally as the truth. At a very old age people want to believe that their lives aren't going to end, that they 'served their time' in life and will be rewarded in the 'end.' The in-between time consists of realizing that what you were brought up with is not necessarily true and essentially a journey that inevitably asks those unanswerable questions. Using the gravity metaphor, there are plenty of people who say, "Gravity holds us and keeps us in order," yet some people will still argue against it, despite how widely it has been proven/accepted. Most of it is a matter of how much exposure to the sheer enormity of life a person has. The more they know of the world, the more they will question it.