Guest Longfellow Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 Does anyone reading or posting to this newsgroup know what religion is? Does anyone know how it came to be? Does anyone care? Or is it that this matter is tacitly understood to be 1) irrelevant? 2) heretical? 3) stupid; f) a matter of common knowledge? I'd like to discover what you folk think you know in this regard. Thanks, Longfellow Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:58:56 -0000, Longfellow <not@this.address> wrote: >Does anyone reading or posting to this newsgroup know what religion is? It is a composite of several different things (therefore, there is no simple answer along the lines of "religion is XYZ"). At its core is the spiritual search -- whether this search is for God, some numinous greater Power or simply the ulimate Truth. It's a human trait to seek beyond the mundane and religion is where it traditionally happens. There is also a sacro-magical ritual aspect. Rituals abound in all aspects of life (even the strictly rational ones). Religion also has rituals, but these are bound up in ancient culture heroes and gods and mythical events and are elevated to a much more respectful level than rituals like how you brush your teeth. There is also a political or power aspect to it. Etymologically, religion is that which "securely binds" us mortals to the godly realm. Such a ritual binding has been accomplished through the priests who have some kind of power over the gods and also over the devotees of the religion. >Does anyone know how it came to be? At best, I think we can only hazard blind stabs in the dark. We know that (seemingly) ritual behaviours are in evidence among our early ancestors (burials, cave paintings, "ritual" objects and the like). We know that existing religions are very ancient. Certainly Judaism goes way back; Hinduism way back even further; and it's _probably_ safe to assume that these religions did not develop spontaneously one Wednesday evening -- they developped over a period of time. The actual means by which religions (or even _religion_) came about is, I think, not knowable. >Does anyone care? Only ignoramuses don't care. Intelligent people should cultivate a wide range of interest in themselves as a species and as a cultural animal. And certainly, historians of religion, paleoanthropologists, linguists and many other folks care very much. > >Or is it that this matter is tacitly understood to be 1) irrelevant? It clearly is not. The overwhelmingly vast majority of humans are religious to some extent. Those who disavow formal religion probably practice some sort of quasi-religious ritual and may hold to some kind of religious beliefs. >2) heretical? Heresy is departure from orthodox teaching -- if a religion teaches that it is "heretical" to ask questions about the nature of religion in general, then I think that's pretty odd. >3) stupid; Only antitheistic or antireligious folks think it's stupid. They are most likely jealous or angry. And they remind the whole world of their ideas with regularity. >f) a matter of common knowledge? By in large, it's probably something like "I can't pinpoint it, but I know it when I see it". > >I'd like to discover what you folk think you know in this regard. > >Thanks, > >Longfellow Cheers, Padraic -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Longfellow Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 On 2007-07-18, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:58:56 -0000, Longfellow <not@this.address> > wrote: > >>Does anyone reading or posting to this newsgroup know what religion is? > > It is a composite of several different things (therefore, there is no > simple answer along the lines of "religion is XYZ"). At its core is > the spiritual search -- whether this search is for God, some numinous > greater Power or simply the ulimate Truth. It's a human trait to seek > beyond the mundane and religion is where it traditionally happens. > There is also a sacro-magical ritual aspect. Rituals abound in all > aspects of life (even the strictly rational ones). Religion also has > rituals, but these are bound up in ancient culture heroes and gods and > mythical events and are elevated to a much more respectful level than > rituals like how you brush your teeth. There is also a political or > power aspect to it. Etymologically, religion is that which "securely > binds" us mortals to the godly realm. Such a ritual binding has been > accomplished through the priests who have some kind of power over the > gods and also over the devotees of the religion. Start by consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, arguably the lexical authority of the English language. Note that the first two definitions deal with the institution(s) of religion. The third definition addresses the nature of religion itself. To paraphrase: "Belief in, or sensing of, some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitled to obedience, reverence, worship..." The essential ingredient of religion is the existence of a deity that is entitled to human domination. Without such a deity, whatever the endeavor is, it is not religion. There are all kinds of spiritual practices, rituals, philosophies, etc, some of which involve deities, but are not religions as the OED defines same. We commonly regard them thus, and with the express authorization of the institutions of religion, because it implies that religion is a fundamental human need; said institutions get to hide the fact of their intent: dominion over mankind. I suggest that all the so-called positive attributes of religion do not depend, nor are they engendered by, any religious institution. Adherence to religion without affiliation to a religious institution is commonly regarded as a manifestation of insanity: hearing voices, wearing hats of aluminum foil, etc. >>Does anyone know how it came to be? > > At best, I think we can only hazard blind stabs in the dark. We know > that (seemingly) ritual behaviours are in evidence among our early > ancestors (burials, cave paintings, "ritual" objects and the like). We > know that existing religions are very ancient. Certainly Judaism goes > way back; Hinduism way back even further; and it's _probably_ safe to > assume that these religions did not develop spontaneously one > Wednesday evening -- they developped over a period of time. It turns out that "how it came to be" is now well known and understood. Cave paintings and ritual behavior do not indicate the presence of religion: They do, however, suggest the awareness of a spiritual reality, which is not the same thing at all. The origins of Judaism, as well as Christianity and Islam, are now well understood. Hinduism probably has the same source as the Hebrew religions, apparently about the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. > The actual means by which religions (or even _religion_) came about > is, I think, not knowable. As I said, this is no longer the case. >>Does anyone care? > > Only ignoramuses don't care. Intelligent people should cultivate a > wide range of interest in themselves as a species and as a cultural > animal. And certainly, historians of religion, paleoanthropologists, > linguists and many other folks care very much. There are, arguably, a lot of ignoramuses, especially in positions of power. Predictably enough, religious power is a tragic example. >> >>Or is it that this matter is tacitly understood to be 1) irrelevant? > > It clearly is not. The overwhelmingly vast majority of humans are > religious to some extent. Those who disavow formal religion probably > practice some sort of quasi-religious ritual and may hold to some kind > of religious beliefs. The existence of religion itself can hardly be avoided. Its origins and purposes, are another matter. >>2) heretical? > > Heresy is departure from orthodox teaching -- if a religion teaches > that it is "heretical" to ask questions about the nature of religion > in general, then I think that's pretty odd. Exactly so. Yet religion asserts that such questions threaten the authority of religion itself. Deviation from orthodoxy is heresy. >>3) stupid; > > Only antitheistic or antireligious folks think it's stupid. They are > most likely jealous or angry. And they remind the whole world of their > ideas with regularity. Not so. Most antireligious and antitheistic folk are very conscious of the fact that they are ignorant of these matters. Atheists tend to be another story; they simply reject the entire business out of hand. Religious folk, however, do tend to think it's stupid because the answers are "obvious"; no questions need to be asked. >>f) a matter of common knowledge? > > By in large, it's probably something like "I can't pinpoint it, but I > know it when I see it". Yep. I think you nailed this one. Admission of ignorance is seen as an admission of weakness and vulnerability, especially for men. Women may argue differently, I've found. An honest response! Longfellow Quote
Guest Padraic Brown Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:06:22 -0000, Longfellow <not@this.address> wrote: >On 2007-07-18, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:58:56 -0000, Longfellow <not@this.address> >> wrote: >> >>>Does anyone reading or posting to this newsgroup know what religion is? >> >> It is a composite of several different things (therefore, there is no >> simple answer along the lines of "religion is XYZ"). At its core is >> the spiritual search -- whether this search is for God, some numinous >> greater Power or simply the ulimate Truth. It's a human trait to seek >> beyond the mundane and religion is where it traditionally happens. >> There is also a sacro-magical ritual aspect. Rituals abound in all >> aspects of life (even the strictly rational ones). Religion also has >> rituals, but these are bound up in ancient culture heroes and gods and >> mythical events and are elevated to a much more respectful level than >> rituals like how you brush your teeth. There is also a political or >> power aspect to it. Etymologically, religion is that which "securely >> binds" us mortals to the godly realm. Such a ritual binding has been >> accomplished through the priests who have some kind of power over the >> gods and also over the devotees of the religion. > >Start by consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionaries are a good start. If you really want a dictionary definition, it might be best for you to stick with the dictionary rather than seek opinions here. >arguably the lexical >authority of the English language. Note that the first two definitions >deal with the institution(s) of religion. The third definition >addresses the nature of religion itself. To paraphrase: "Belief in, or >sensing of, some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitled to >obedience, reverence, worship..." All of which I mentioned, thank you. >The essential ingredient of religion is the existence of a deity that is >entitled to human domination. Without such a deity, whatever the >endeavor is, it is not religion. Not true at all. There are religions that don't have gods involved. Buddhism is a good example. Many tribal religions also lack gods as we understand them. >>>Does anyone know how it came to be? >> >> At best, I think we can only hazard blind stabs in the dark. We know >> that (seemingly) ritual behaviours are in evidence among our early >> ancestors (burials, cave paintings, "ritual" objects and the like). We >> know that existing religions are very ancient. Certainly Judaism goes >> way back; Hinduism way back even further; and it's _probably_ safe to >> assume that these religions did not develop spontaneously one >> Wednesday evening -- they developped over a period of time. > >It turns out that "how it came to be" is now well known and understood. Then please elucidate! May I ask what brand of time machine you used to go back and actually study the phenomenon at first hand? >Cave paintings and ritual behavior do not indicate the presence of >religion: They do, however, suggest the awareness of a spiritual >reality, which is not the same thing at all. It is intimately involved. Awareness of a spiritual reality is central to religion -- even more than mere gods. >The origins of Judaism, as well as Christianity and Islam, are now well >understood. Sure. Christianity and Islam came to be within known historical contexts. The origins of _religion_ (as opposed to "a religion") is not so well known. Sorry if I didn't understand that you were actually after the origins of a particular religion! >Hinduism probably has the same source as the Hebrew >religions, apparently about the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. > >> The actual means by which religions (or even _religion_) came about >> is, I think, not knowable. > >As I said, this is no longer the case. Again: what is your source for this statement? You have some kind of anthropological knowledge that comes out of the depths of the past? >>>Or is it that this matter is tacitly understood to be 1) irrelevant? >> >> It clearly is not. The overwhelmingly vast majority of humans are >> religious to some extent. Those who disavow formal religion probably >> practice some sort of quasi-religious ritual and may hold to some kind >> of religious beliefs. > >The existence of religion itself can hardly be avoided. Its origins and >purposes, are another matter. You seem to know its origins and perhaps its purposes. Why ask here if you know? >>>2) heretical? >> >> Heresy is departure from orthodox teaching -- if a religion teaches >> that it is "heretical" to ask questions about the nature of religion >> in general, then I think that's pretty odd. > >Exactly so. Yet religion asserts that such questions threaten the >authority of religion itself. Deviation from orthodoxy is heresy. Like I said, pretty odd! >>>f) a matter of common knowledge? >> >> By in large, it's probably something like "I can't pinpoint it, but I >> know it when I see it". > >Yep. I think you nailed this one. Admission of ignorance is seen as an >admission of weakness and vulnerability, especially for men. Women may >argue differently, I've found. > >An honest response! I'm still interested in hearing what you have to say on the origin of religion (not any specific one). I don't think the origins are recoverable -- but if you have better information, then spill it! Padraic > >Longfellow -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Longfellow Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 On 2007-07-19, Padraic Brown <elemtilas@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> >>Start by consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, > > Dictionaries are a good start. If you really want a dictionary > definition, it might be best for you to stick with the dictionary > rather than seek opinions here. Note that I did not, and do not, seek to learn here. I want to discover what the contributors here think they know. >>arguably the lexical >>authority of the English language. Note that the first two definitions >>deal with the institution(s) of religion. The third definition >>addresses the nature of religion itself. To paraphrase: "Belief in, or >>sensing of, some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitled to >>obedience, reverence, worship..." > > All of which I mentioned, thank you. Not quite. >>The essential ingredient of religion is the existence of a deity that is >>entitled to human domination. Without such a deity, whatever the >>endeavor is, it is not religion. > > Not true at all. There are religions that don't have gods involved. > Buddhism is a good example. Many tribal religions also lack gods as we > understand them. And that is exactly the problem. Religion, as defined above (OED), requires the involvement of (a) god(s). All else is cultural tradition, albeit almost all involving some "spiritual" attribute(s). For an excellent example, ancestor worship is not a religion because the ancestors were known to be solely human. We now call them religions because we use the term loosely, and for very good reason: The institutions of religion are very pleased to have themselves classified with other, known to be much more benevolent, cultural traditions. So-called "comparative religion" is quite well accepted by religious institutions, because they can embed themselves, all the while quietly asserting their own supremacy. The dicta is understood by all: Of course mankind has all these other "religions", but in the end all these people will a) reach the same God their own way; b) discover the "One True Way"; c) be eternally damned to Hell for their errant ways; d) etc, etc, etc. And of course no one knows about this game because they are all directly involved: That is all they can see, and so that is all they know. >>>>Does anyone know how it came to be? >>> >>> At best, I think we can only hazard blind stabs in the dark. We know >>> that (seemingly) ritual behaviours are in evidence among our early >>> ancestors (burials, cave paintings, "ritual" objects and the like). We >>> know that existing religions are very ancient. Certainly Judaism goes >>> way back; Hinduism way back even further; and it's _probably_ safe to >>> assume that these religions did not develop spontaneously one >>> Wednesday evening -- they developped over a period of time. >> >>It turns out that "how it came to be" is now well known and understood. > > Then please elucidate! May I ask what brand of time machine you used > to go back and actually study the phenomenon at first hand? No time machine needed. We have the evidence. The problem is that the scholars involved cannot manage to separate themselves from the "matter of religion". The necessary polarity is stark: There are "minimalists" and there are "maximalists". The former deny the historicity of the Biblical accounts, and the latter seek to demonstrate the historicity of the Biblical accounts. No middle ground, although most scholars do hold one or another position there; they don't talk about it, though. >>Cave paintings and ritual behavior do not indicate the presence of >>religion: They do, however, suggest the awareness of a spiritual >>reality, which is not the same thing at all. > > It is intimately involved. Awareness of a spiritual reality is central > to religion -- even more than mere gods. Well, sort of... actually, the spiritual aspect of the deity of choice is arguably a more modern (last couple of millennia) concept. The notion of spirituality arises at the end of Judea, before which it was not at all clear to the people involved exactly what was going on. But that requires more background to understand than I can give here. >>The origins of Judaism, as well as Christianity and Islam, are now well >>understood. > > Sure. Christianity and Islam came to be within known historical > contexts. The origins of _religion_ (as opposed to "a religion") is > not so well known. Sorry if I didn't understand that you were actually > after the origins of a particular religion! It is specifically the origins of Judaism that is the issue, and according to the definition I've taken from the OED, it is Judaism that was/is the first full-blown religion. The origins of Judaism are now well understood, albeit vigorously repudiated by some religionists and just as vigorously touted by others. >>Hinduism probably has the same source as the Hebrew >>religions, apparently about the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE. >> >>> The actual means by which religions (or even _religion_) came about >>> is, I think, not knowable. >> >>As I said, this is no longer the case. > > Again: what is your source for this statement? You have some kind of > anthropological knowledge that comes out of the depths of the past? No anthropological knowledge. Historical knowledge, archaeologically based. >>>>Or is it that this matter is tacitly understood to be 1) irrelevant? >>> >>> It clearly is not. The overwhelmingly vast majority of humans are >>> religious to some extent. Those who disavow formal religion probably >>> practice some sort of quasi-religious ritual and may hold to some kind >>> of religious beliefs. >> >>The existence of religion itself can hardly be avoided. Its origins and >>purposes, are another matter. > > You seem to know its origins and perhaps its purposes. Why ask here if > you know? As I said, I want to discover what others think they know, and asking here seems a good initial choice. >>>>2) heretical? >>> >>> Heresy is departure from orthodox teaching -- if a religion teaches >>> that it is "heretical" to ask questions about the nature of religion >>> in general, then I think that's pretty odd. >> >>Exactly so. Yet religion asserts that such questions threaten the >>authority of religion itself. Deviation from orthodoxy is heresy. > > Like I said, pretty odd! Odd indeed! Except that it makes all kinds of sense when the reality is understood. >>>>f) a matter of common knowledge? >>> >>> By in large, it's probably something like "I can't pinpoint it, but I >>> know it when I see it". >> >>Yep. I think you nailed this one. Admission of ignorance is seen as an >>admission of weakness and vulnerability, especially for men. Women may >>argue differently, I've found. >> >>An honest response! > > I'm still interested in hearing what you have to say on the origin of > religion (not any specific one). I don't think the origins are > recoverable -- but if you have better information, then spill it! According to the common "definition" of religion, the origins are not recoverable because they do not exist. According to a more specific and well founded definition, the origins are well known albeit the details are controversial. The problem here is that you would like these answers in twenty words or less, and that ain't gonna happen! When Einstein became known for Special Relativity, the concept was thunderously catastrophic. Many said it would turn all human knowledge on its head! But there was that persistent doubt that the public didn't really understand Special Relativity. It was a New York newspaper, IIRC, that started a contest to see if SR could be explained in twenty words or less, with The Man Himself as the arbitor. The winner of the contest said, "The universe has no hitching post." Einstein thought about it and (is said to have) said, "Yesss..." The tradition persisted periodically. Feymann was asked if he could explain Quantum Chromodynamics (for which he won the Nobel) in twenty words or less, to which he responded (paraphrase), "If it could be explained in twenty words or less, how the hell would it be worth a Nobel Prize?!?" Both Einstein and Feynmann were right. Breakthroughs like SR are extremely rare, and most advances are like Feynmann's: In order to understand them, one has to have a large foundation of knowledge. Of course that begs your question. All I can say is that if you want the answers here, you will have to read a good bit more than a posted response here. That said, if you are really interested, I will arrange to provide the gist of these matters. Longfellow Quote
Guest Longfellow Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 On 2007-07-18, John Smith <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote: > A George Romero "B" movie? Would that it were so benign! Longfellow Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.