Thread: What's religion for?

To take the question of this thread further, why don't we discuss whether or not the founders of religion actually intended for religion to exist - for a specific purpose? Or was the formation of religion just a consequence of the power of the information that was initially presented?

Originally Posted by really

To take the question of this thread further, why don't we discuss whether or not the founders of religion actually intended for religion to exist - for a specific purpose? Or was the formation of religion just a consequence of the power of the information that was initially presented?

When you talk about a group of founding members and the power of information, you are only talking about the big monotheistic religions that exist today. The history of religion extends much further than the beginnings of those religions. I have no reason to believe that the foundings of these religions was any more deliberate than the ones that came before it. A lot of the same symbology and mythology is being used in modern religions as it has appeared numerous times throughout the history of religion. Throughout the years there has been a lot of fine tuning and manipulation of people using these religions, but there is no evidence that a master mind group sat at a round table and plotted the future of humanity through religion. So no, I don't think it was deliberately invented to meet a specific purpose, but it does meet certain human needs. It just naturally came about, by the force of human instinct, to meet the needs of the human mind. A healthy mind enables a healthy life.

Really the foundation of religion is someone in distress over fundamental aspects of reality (often reducible to the deep unknowability of reality, which is not so much reduced from ancient times as we like to think) seeing someone at peace and asking, "What do you know that I don't?" Of course, if the seeker were in a position to understand what the petitioned knew, he or she would not be asking in the first place. Much of the wild variety of religion owes to this tenuous thread by which one attempts to convey, and the other attempts to understand, what is all but impossible to communicate.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

When you talk about a group of founding members and the power of information, you are only talking about the big monotheistic religions that exist today. The history of religion extends much further than the beginnings of those religions.

Perhaps I should've been more specific, but yes I am talking about the great religions, i.e. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. I know that there are many more that preceded them (like I said, i.e. the Greek), but obviously they are not as powerful and transformative, and I don't think they existed for that purpose. Not to mention that they're ancient to begin with.

Are you saying that they are all the same, and that they are all are founded by instinctual drives? If this was the case, I wouldn't expect to be finding such a vast dimension of wisdom and spiritual integrity, for that is why the great religions have marked an imprint in humankind to this day. The fact that these religion's weren't deliberately planned is actually an indication of their value and momentum. I say there is more to it than meets the eye.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Much of the wild variety of religion owes to this tenuous thread by which one attempts to convey, and the other attempts to understand, what is all but impossible to communicate.

I think this is the single greatest line of the thread. It reminds me of something I read in which the author likened consciousness to humanity's greatest blessing and at the same time it's greatest curse. Consciousness made all kinds of great things possible for the species, but it brought with it a litany of pit falls. With every pro there is a corresponding con. When you look at the rest of the animal kingdom, no other animals have the problems that we have. They can't dwell on the past and they can't worry about the future. They don't kill indiscriminantely and they don't have war on a massive scale (in general.) But at the same time they can't enjoy the positive aspects of consciousness. So I guess with greater pleasure comes greater pain. To me this means that religion is an unconscious compensation for the conscious effort to explain the universe, but clearly neither is capable of doing so.

Originally Posted by really

Are you saying that they are all the same, and that they are all are founded by instinctual drives? If this was the case, I wouldn't expect to be finding such a vast dimension of wisdom and spiritual integrity, for that is why the great religions have marked an imprint in humankind to this day. The fact that these religion's weren't deliberately planned is actually an indication of their value and momentum. I say there is more to it than meets the eye.

I'm not saying they are all exactly the same, I'm saying that they all have certain traits in common. All modern religions have trace elements of their ancient heritage (the cross, Jesus, virgin birth, certain bible stories etc. are not as original as most people believe.) They all originate in the same way, yes. They would never gain a foothold if they didn't have any significance to the unconscious mind. Religions that are practiced on such a large scale (such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism which have spread to a scale unprecedented in history) are commonly modified to fit the philosophy of different groups or different regions. In that way these large religions have been somewhat tainted by conscious activity. Stories of kings rewriting the bible to better suit their financial situation or different sects splitting off are examples of this. These modifications don't always stay true to the needs of the human psyche. They turn into political tools. I think it is the deliberate modification of these religions that has allowed them to spread to such a massive scale, since many of their tenents are geared towards manipulating large masses of people.

@ Taosaur - That's cool I see what you mean. Interesting point.

@ Caprisun - Ok that may be well, but does any of it actually affect anything I've said? What's your take on the issue of literally understanding God and life, in this case?

'lly, I think you're missing the extent to which your "great religions" are built upon and have incorporated the ancient faiths. Christianity, as in the New Testament, owes as much to the Greco-Roman tradition, with roots stretching into Egypt, as to Judaism and its Sumerian antecedents. Moreover, Acts-era Christianity has since mated with the "barbarian" traditions of Europe, and the resulting faith had a rather violent affair with its cousin, old Islam, resulting in two unruly children: pre-modern Islam and pre-modern Christianity. Our current religions didn't just supplant the old ways, but grew out of them.

In addition to this 'evolutionary' progression, religions also operate cyclically. As several people--certainly Dannon and Caprisun--have said already, passion for clear vision and abiding in the Mystery will subside, a shell of dogma calcifying around the core teachings, and blooms of corruption spotting the surface. Religion in this stage can become an obstruction to the Mystery, disjointed from present reality, requiring that it be broken and re-formed, literally, so that the faith can once more serve as an active conduit between the eternal/divine and temporal/mundane aspects of existence. These stages of stagnation and reformation unfold simultaneously on different timescales with a fractal-like symmetry, such that they may be observed over the courses of millennia, centuries, a single lifetime, or even a single episode of spiritual practice. As long as any religion--be it tribal, pantheistic, monotheistic, or contemplative--is able to accomplish this renewal, it's alive and working, whatever errors may also emerge from its particular construction.

Very nicely said. Sorry for being slow, it didn't hit me at first. I guess now I can be more on track with the thread. It seems you're more concerned about the inner historic and cultural workings of religions, in all their vast expressions and forms. About how they grow and change.

Do you think man will continue renewing religion beyond the mark of today?

I think that there will always be people with new beliefs, ready to share with the world. These new thinkers may be attacked by the domiant religion, or some people there- like Jesus. However, some religions are reluctant to change their beliefs in certain ways.

Originally Posted by really

It seems you're more concerned about the inner historic and cultural workings of religions, in all their vast expressions and forms. About how they grow and change.

I'm interested in all of that stuff, but it's nearly the opposite of where I was going with this thread. I just brought it up to illustrate what I saw as error in your responses to Caprisun. My main point was that the particulars of any given religion almost don't matter in relation to whether and how well it works for its adherents. I went off in the direction of grandiose idealism myself in discussing "the Mystery," but again my thrust was that certain things are universal to religions and many not-entirely-religious philosophies: including the tendency to stiffen up and grow baroque, thus requiring maintenance.

Originally Posted by really

Do you think man will continue renewing religion beyond the mark of today?

I don't think we have a "mark" today; religions, both personal and institutional, are emerging, combining, and refiguring themselves more rapidly than probably any other point in history. Will it continue? Almost certainly. Will it plateau at some point? No clue.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Much of the wild variety of religion owes to this tenuous thread by which one attempts to convey, and the other attempts to understand, what is all but impossible to communicate.

I believe that there is not such wild variety as there appears to be on the surface. In any religion, there are the common people, who follow the basic golden rule of "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" (even though Jesus is credited with saying it) and being kind to people in need in order to live a righteous humble life. They are often superstitious, etc. In any religion there will be the orthodox and fundamental where educated people debate the finer nuances and interpret the law. They often take things to literally and wish to establish a dogma. They see the differences of religions. And then there are the initiates who explore the hidden side (occult or metaphysical) pf the teachings, which are often metaphors, etc.

Another reason for all the variety of different religions is that people did not live in a global society, and each religion grew out of its own culture organically. Different cultures developed their own stories and and myths to express the one mystery. A mystic in Persia would become a Sufi because that was the only expression available and known, while a mystic in China would become a Taoist, and a mystic in Greece or Egypt or Ethiopia would become a Gnostic or a Kabalist.

The interesting thing is where these cultures intermingled, maybe due to the Silk Road and the spice trade, for example Northern Afghanistan where you had Hindu/Sufi/Buddhist mystery schools (where Gurdjieff studied) or ancient Alexandria where you had Pre-Christian Gnostics, Hermetics, Greek Pagan Philosophers, and Egyptians all sharing ideas. Alexandria is the very root of our modern world-view. You can trace most of our philosophies, including rational science, to the Greeks, who all studied in Alexandria Egypt.. People of different cultures lived together and shared ideas, free of dogma, because they saw the truth in common between all views, and they were open-minded and curious. To use a Zen term, they had "beginner's mind."

What is religion for?

Deceiving people, money *COUGH* best selling book of all time *COUGH*

Originally Posted by Mike02

What is religion for?

Deceiving people, money *COUGH* best selling book of all time *COUGH*

Okay...looks like your reflexes check out. It's unfortunate your reflexive response to the word "religion" reveals that you haven't read a word of the thread.

I think it's quite important to emphasize the fact that religion and spirituality are not the same thing.One may be religious but not at all spiritual.

The term 'religion' is used rather to mean practices and some specific rituals, forms of worship. Most people in contemporary world, however, forget that religion is only a means to something, and that words of a prayer are not a prayer itself, they ony point to something much greater beyond themsleves. The only thing that remained from God in their lives is the word 'God'. Lot of people live their lives totally unaware, or unconsciously ignoring the fact, that something beyond material world, something infinitely greater and deeper than it, really exists.

And asking what is spirituality for would be quite absurd, since spirituality is our purpose, they reason why we are here, why we are pilgrims on this world. Knowing God, not intellectually, of course, but through direct contact with the divine reality. Look at the tree. At it's leaves rustling in the wind. Look at the stars, at the sun. Look at an animal. Look at a human being. See the beauty and the involvement of some infinite, mysterious force behind it.

What is religion for? In its core, it is intended to help an individual achieve that spiritual level, through specific practices that they can choose from - for one Christianity works better, for another Buddhism, for that matter; that's how I see it. Nothing either wrong or extraordinary about it, this is how it should be.

But what purpose does religion serve in most cases today, if it doesn't make people more and more spiritual? Most people focus on the surface. On the words, on the concepts. Buddhist say that ultimately nothing exists. Christians say that each human is a child of God. But what the hell does it matter?

It matters, because it gives you the opportunity to 'be right' and a follower of another religion to 'be wrong'. You say that God's name is Jahweh? You're wrong. I say it's Jehovah. - No, you both are wrong. His name is Siva. And yet none of them really knows (and deep inside they know that they don't know! they only persistently try to pretend that they know to appear 'more knowledgeable', 'more spiritual' or whatever, to themselves), nor has ever seen Him (or It). A lunatic asylum.

You see what happens? Religion, originally intended to help you become more spiritual and love every other being, eventually does exactly the opposite.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

When we contemplate the diversity of spiritual traditions on this planet we can understand that each addresses the specific needs of different human beings, because there is so much diversity in human mentality and spiritual inclination. Yet, fundamentally, all spiritual traditions perform the same function, which is to help us tame our mental state, overcome our negativities and perfect our inner potential.

-Dalai Lama

I think this is the best explanation of what religion is for and why it exists...

http://www.amazon.com/God-Part-Brain...7253903&sr=8-1

Perhaps this is just a tautology of the above Dalai Lama quote, but here it goes.

. Religion provides answers to the fundamental questions (and other psychological benefits such as belonging), which quiet our minds (Stop thinking critically/negatively), which provides comfort.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

Perhaps this is just a tautology of the above Dalai Lama quote, but here it goes.

. Religion provides answers to the fundamental questions (and other psychological benefits such as belonging), which quiet our minds (Stop thinking critically/negatively), which provides comfort.

...And that's a good thing?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

...And that's a good thing?

I didn't say it was good or bad. That's just the way i think it is.
I'm not in a position to say whether it's good or bad because I haven't really figured out my existential questions yet.
But I know that good and bad are methods of comparison so you must say it's good or bad in comparison to something else.
The only alternative I see is thinking that life is meaningless and being miserable. What other alternatives to religion do you see?
Of course we must also distinguish between dogmatic religion and personal religion when we think about what's good or bad.

I meant the part which states religion quiets your mind so it doesn't think critically.

Well, I think I'm being forced to make a value judgement which is is tough for me. Here it goes.
Thinking critically/skeptically/realistically is not inherently good or bad. It can be good if it's used to talk someone out of doing something stupid/bad/evil. It can be bad if it gets you into an existential depression where you think everything is pointless and meaningless.

Thing is, you can't really think realistically because nobody is entirely certain as to what's real and what's not. Other than cogito ergo sum, It's all conjecture. You can only think skeptically/critically/cynically which will probably get you into an existential depression. The only way out of that is to stop thinking so much and to pick a conjecture about reality that you like the best.

Please criticize this argument because I feel it's a little bit shaky.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

Well, I think I'm being forced to make a value judgement which is is tough for me. Here it goes.
Thinking critically/skeptically/realistically is not inherently good or bad. It can be good if it's used to talk someone out of doing something stupid/bad/evil. It can be bad if it gets you into an existential depression where you think everything is pointless and meaningless.

hopefully they would be able to think critically some more, and realize what's good and bad. then they can think critically some more, and think about what that means.

Please criticize this argument because I feel it's a little bit shaky.

it's very shaky.

Originally Posted by no-Name

hopefully they would be able to think critically some more, and realize what's good and bad. then they can think critically some more, and think about what that means.

it's very shaky.

Aren't questions about what's good and bad inherently arbitrary? If you're trying to build an argument on an arbitrary assumption, it's probably going to be shaky.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

Aren't questions about what's good and bad inherently arbitrary? If you're trying to build an argument on an arbitrary assumption, it's probably going to be shaky.

Correct.

Originally Posted by kidjordan

Well, I think I'm being forced to make a value judgement which is is tough for me. Here it goes.
Thinking critically/skeptically/realistically is not inherently good or bad. It can be good if it's used to talk someone out of doing something stupid/bad/evil. It can be bad if it gets you into an existential depression where you think everything is pointless and meaningless.

Thing is, you can't really think realistically because nobody is entirely certain as to what's real and what's not. Other than cogito ergo sum, It's all conjecture. You can only think skeptically/critically/cynically which will probably get you into an existential depression. The only way out of that is to stop thinking so much and to pick a conjecture about reality that you like the best.

Please criticize this argument because I feel it's a little bit shaky.

I think this is spot on, and many people who disagree may fall into the category of people who have picked a conjecture that they like best, but have since forgotten that decision and now believe their choice to be what is actually real.