religion, the original opiod crisis

As a religious studies major, it seemed to me that when religion became institutionalized, that is to say left the realm of personal experience or an experience led by a shaman, it became more about control and lost it's true nature, that is to help an individual to understand themselves and to help them become one with everything. Maybe we need to put less faith in the dogma of religions and focus more on becoming one with the universe or what ever someone wants to connect to. Comments?​

 

We are the universe made conscious, trying to understand itself

 

I agree with both of you

 

"Religion is the opium of the people" is one of the most frequently paraphrased statements of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx. I'm not, nor ever have been, religious but I sure know folks that I'm glad are. For some it's only the fear of a bad after-life that keeps them from bad deeds.

 

My problem with "religion is the opium of the people" is that it's a mono-causal, reductionist ("nothing but") explanation of a complex, multi-causal phenomenon. Marx said it's the opium of the people, Freud said it's a collective neurosis, Jung said it's a reflection of the collective unconscious, Tylor said it's a primitive attempt to explain the universe, Eliade said it's an expression of the sense of the sacred, Shermer said it's a result of pattern seeking and "agenticity", Durkheim said it's a social bonding experience, etc. I say they're all partly right and mostly wrong--like the proverbial blind men trying to describe an elephant (one saying it's like a rope, another like a tree, etc., depending on what part they happen to grasp). For individuals, religion may provide a sense of comfort and security, a source of more anxiety, a means of dealing with life's existential anxieties, a projection of Dad, a sense of meaning and direction, a feeling of oneness with the universe, etc. For societies, it can serve as a means of social control and bonding through shared beliefs and values. For governments, it can be source of legitimacy. For politicians and priests, it's an instrument of power. And what it is varies from one individual and society to another. Religion consists of several components, not all of which need be present in any one religion: Creed (belief systems), code (moral rules), cultus (ritual), and community (social ties).

I agree with Huston Smith that the world's religions contain the distilled wisdom of humanity. I'd add, probably also a distillation of human folly. For me, it's mainly a source of meaning, as well as social life. Atheists I know find substitutes in humanism, naturalism, scientism, objectivism, or existentialism--and for some, Marxism, which ironically might be described as a secular religion (or opiate). Many people may not have beliefs and values that are systematized enough to qualify as "isms", but hold rudimentary feelings, values and beliefs that give them a sense of meaning and morality beyond self. These folks are, in my opinion, religious too--or maybe "spiritual but not religious."

 

Dogma is indeed a large part of the problem--which comes from taking myths and metaphors too literally. Christianity places more importance on the particulars of belief than most religions, and Islamic, Hindu, and even Buddhist fundamentalism can be pretty dogmatic as well. But dogma isn't essential to all religion. I also agree that none of the components of religion are the sole property of religion--which is not surprising, considering that religion is an application of more general human attitudes and behaviors. Religion, however, brings them together and organizes them into systems of meaning and value. Atheists like Dawkins can wax spiritual when they talk about science, Sam Harris is into Vipassana meditation which he struggles to keep separate from Buddhist metaphysics, and as I said, Marxism in a very real sense has characteristics of a secular religion. Which is another reason why I'm skeptical that religion will one day disappear. Something like it is likely to fill the void, as happened with Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being during the French Reign of Terror, and the cults of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Dear Leader Kim Jong un more recently. Himmler's revival of Teutonic mysticism is another case in point.

As to religion summing up wisdom, you're responding to the earlier version of my post, since revised to "I agree with Huston Smith that the world's religions contain the distilled wisdom of humanity. I'd add, probably also a distillation of human folly." I was going by memory. The exact quotation is "If we take the world’s enduring religions at their best, we discover the distilled wisdom of the human race." I still would add "and folly" after the word "wisdom". The principal rivals, especially in the western intellectual tradition, would be secular philosophy and science. With those in mind, my statement would have to be qualified, but the point seems peripheral to my general argument that religion is too complex and multifaceted to be adequately explained by reductionist, mono-causal theories. That may illustrate why I think materialistic/reductionist approaches sometimes fall short of wisdom: i.e.,"The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wisdom
Wisdom | Psychology Today
Secular philosophy has always been the province of relatively small intellectual elites, and science is the province of specialists who may have trouble seeing the big picture. Of course, all of the theories I mentioned were developed by secular thinkers. Religious folks also often have trouble getting perspective on the phenomenon of religion, especially that outside their own traditions, and get too bogged down in familiar rituals and routinized thought patterns to understand the "wisdom" (and folly) they embody. Perspective is essential for true wisdom.

 

We believe or some of us do - that we live in a 'universe' - we can see other "planets" out there and wisps of smokes and shiny things but we are as far as we know still alone. Unique or oblique ? or obsolete? who knows? the human body when minutely explored by microscopes etc etc is still quite remarkable - we do need explanations for who we think we are and where we might have came from apart from a birth canal - some of us believe in 'kindness' even towards strangers. Some of us can sum all of this us in God - Yaweh ; Allah ; Buddha etc etc - we see it bigger than who we are?

 

I lack self-interest , and there is no void . I don't think who I am . Sometimes religious people
present themselves in front of my nose . This I will attend to , and if not well enough , then I
helplessly cry one tear for some childish thing and shall remember who we are together .

 

I think this statement contains some questionable assumptions. First, that the "true nature" of religion is self-understanding and "becoming one with everything". From what I've read about primordial religion, there was more of a group emphasis in which tribal elders played a key role in imparting shared traditions. In hunter-gatherer bands, of fifty or so people, groupthink and conformity are inevitable, and individualism and self-actualization are virtually unknown as personal goals. Furthermore, I see no need to identify the "true nature of religion" as self-insight and connection to "everything". In Post #5, I identified several other purposes that religion serves, and I see no basis for saying one is more basic than the others or that we are somehow obligated to carry out the original purpose. In hunter-gatherer bands, choice in religion was limited. I, for one, value the choices modern society gives me: a virtual Smorgasbord of options ranging from Pentecostals to Eastern Orthodox to Catholic to Episcopalians, to Calvinists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, etc. We can never return to the primal outlook of primordial humans, and I frankly wouldn't want to. Whether or not religion is about control depends on what church you go to. I participate in several different religious fellowship groups, and am ready to find another home if these don't work out. So the control function is minimal in my case. Religions that preach they are the only true faith and that those who don't submit to their dictates will suffer dire consequences are control freaks, but I feel no compunction to pay attention to them. As for being one with the universe or anything else, that isn't a particular goal for me. I feel it would be an illusion anyway.

 

For over a decade I informally surveyed people online only to discover over half of them make up their own definitions for words without ever knowing or caring that the dictionary merely contains popular definitions. Hence, the explanation for why Americans today seem to have difficulty distinguishing reality TV from their politics, spirituality, and professional wrestling and don't appear to have noticed they have all been voting for whoever advertises the most for over twenty years. I would say you first have to find someone who agrees on the definition of religion, which is somewhat different for Fundamentalists. Academics are no help in such matters, because they tend to claim they are not religious, yet they are the source of all the lawyers encouraging everyone to debate the definition of stupid.

The original opiod crisis can be dated back to Socrates, who the academics killed for merely cracking a handful of the lamest jokes imaginable. Religious people tend to hate anyone poking fun at them enough to commit genocide. Talking to them in general is not recommended by the AMA unless you have only good things to say, while lawyers across the country tend to agree. Our academic and religious leaders are who have led us to the present state of the world and are who everybody counts upon to save them from themselves.

 

agreed!

 

I did not find this after joining a buddhist group some years back. They welcomed me kindly ; never pre-judged me and simple encourage me to explore. I remained with them for several years - never advancing in status but used their library abundantly - made a few friends but did not come across any forms of proselytizing within that time. In fact I think they viewed criticism of their practices kindly and were always available to explain and explore with any of the 'congregation' at anytime. this may be true also of other eastern religions as opposed to western ones who seem to want to 'save' us?

 

LOL, Buddhist love everyone so much, the only Buddhist nation left in the world threw everybody else out. Chant and be happy! As you throw the Muslims over the border and threaten to shoot them if they ever return. Asians are collectivists and either you comprehend collectivism or you are out of their depths when it comes to religion. Japanese are called "funeral Buddhists" because they think its great for funerals, but not a damned thing else. They are Japanese first, and calling them Buddhists or Shinto is just being polite. Westerners also want brand name products, and Asians specialize in rioting by the millions, or in the case of Japan, preventing them from rioting by the millions. Tokyo alone has 33 million people, and almost a zero crime rate, if you don't count white collar crime.

 

I suppose I was trying to refer to "pure buddhism" - I belonged to a Theravadian group with monks trained in Thailand - understanding the origins of buddhism is a works in itself - it's local understandings and daily functions then become other entities with local coloring added. The poor uneducated thai locals within rural areas I travelled through never really grasped the true nature of the religion of buddhism [which in fact does not identify itself as a religion at all] the monks that I associated with were ozzies who had gone to thailand to study under a 'master' buddhist leader and then after suitable time came back to OZ to propagate new 'chapters'

The understandings and practices in Thailand had over time been woven into 'local magical mystics' that had nothing to do with buddhism. One local lad who was captured for army duty wanted a monk to give him an amulet and bless it to prevent him getting harmed. No amount of persuasion from the monk that this would not work would convince him.

the early beginnings of christianity started by the disciples of christ in small home circles [that's where the local name for church came from - ecclesia - the concept of a enormous catholic empire and it's deviated teachings never entered anyones mind then.

many of the worlds 'religions' appear to have started from a kernel of small beginnings and then enlarged and enlarged and in the process gets changed to 'fit in' or be 'manipulated' to suit the clime!

nb: I am not attempting to defend any religion including buddhism just debating!

 

After a lifetime of private research spanning 50 years, studying physics, philosophy, linguistics, sociology, and neurology and mastering the Tao Te Ching contextually by studying six versions for decades, I discovered all of Asian collectivist thinking and religions, all of modern physics and philosophy, and a theory of everything can be described by 12,000 year old potty humor. You could say Asian thinking is closer to the singularity, but all roads lead to Rome. Classical western dualism describes the conscious mind, while Asian collectivism describes the collective unconscious. The mathematics and science are now converging on finally proving everything is actually magical and metaphorical, because our technology is becoming indistinguishable from magic.

Think Star Wars and Star Trek, but much wilder with magical technology that expresses how time can be manipulated in about 430 ways. I have one chapter of 31 pages that describes how to prove 42 is as good as it gets in a variety of different quantifiable ways, while every academic I've spoken to hates my guts.

 

I think the 'hating your guts' is not perhaps what you know but how you present it - goodbye - you've never learnt the skill of sensible debating! - that's why these threads close down!

 

I have a thousand pages of academic lowbrow slapstick that proves they are all idiots and, of course, they claim I am an idiot and boot me off their websites. Despite the fact my book meets academic standards for being self-consistent, nontrivial, and demonstrable even providing empirical evidence. They are not paid to listen to even themselves, and I'm designing bots they will love to argue with all day long, complete with the latest lie detectors and fact checkers for all the wannabe lawyers among them.

 

Religous teaching could be a step in the direction of personal spiritual experience for some. For many though, it is just an acceptance of dogmas and seeking to conform to the rules of the particular religion with very little experiential content. On the other hand, religion may in some cases inspire people to try to do good things.
In London recently we had the big protest by Extinction Rebellion - many Christians took part and some were arrested for civil disobediance. When people feel their religion is pushing them to take that kind of action, all well and good. Of course, that has to be contrasted with the bad that it can lead to as well.

Probably it all depends to a large extent on the individual. Some people are more self-actuating and interested in discovering truth for themselves, others seem to gravitate towards some external set of ideas or values to which they are happy to conform without very much questioning. That can be religious or secular.

 

Religions organize according to the governments they must oppose. Communist governments destroyed all religions, making it impossible for them to form any opposition. In China today, record numbers of lifelong atheists are converting to Christianity, often quite blatantly insisting they can no longer trust their government to instill values in their children and promote their interests. In ancient times, religions such as Christianity and Islam, ensured that the wealthy would prevent the peasants from starving during times of drought, or see the rise of a new religion. Asians just tend to be more collectivist about these things and will sometimes attend a different church on every day of the week.

In the developed world, the growing majority of thriving democracies with extensive social safety networks tend to have minority religions and atheists, with the overwhelming majority eventually declaring themselves either spiritual or agnostic.