Marcel

No, it is not to me to show the truth to anybody. But I take desirable stories like personal revelations and constructed tales for the prupose of creating a new religion to be more unlikely than that which is perceivable or which has proven to not be falsifiable.

Why bother making up such things? Why believing in the universal truth of someone else's personal revelations when you can a acquire a pretty good image of the world by sticking to logical or scientific things? Why should nature have divine significance? Why can't nature just be the way organisms and lifeless things behave and exist?

Calzaer

I dunno. Why bother going to the National Museum of Art when you can aquire a pretty good image of the world by sticking to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum?

Infidelettante

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JTVrocher
And are you the one who is to show us what is truth Marcel? Please reveal it to us. We will contain our excitement.

JT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: Marcel

But why can't I create my own religion? All of them were created by someone. The wonderful thing about the modern pagan religions is that you have to make it up as you go along at least somewhat. There are traditions which hold members to certain actions and understandings. Never the less there is great latitude to create. The power of the new pagan movement is its' ability to create new and exciting religious forms.

The trouble here is thinking only those forms which meet the test of logic are valid. By that test religion is not valid. But, religion is an emotional activity not a logical one. The emotional spectrum is wide and dense. Its' depths are dark and forboding. Those who wish to avoid those depths by an appeal to logic are free to do so. Some of us prefer to explore the depths as do whales while others only skim the surface like insects.

Reason and religion do not mix well. If I make a claim for my religion which can be refuted logicaly then have at it. I welcome the attention. I will stop making that claim. But only if you prove it logical. If you prove it illogical I will continue to hold to it. I seldom make such claims but you are free to call me to task if you think I stray into the realm of logic and reason.

JT

Marcel

To me, this sounds like fooling yourself.
Maybe the core of the discussion focuses on whether you ascribe value to fiction because it satisfies you emotionally, or whether you prefer non-fiction because it does not mix facts with fantasies.
I usually don't find it worthwile to read fiction in literature because it has been made up. When a work of fiction contains elements of the real world, then I still wonder why bother reading it instead of a non-fiction book, which contains only elements of the real world. My first reason for fact-finding is merely the need to gain information and knowledge, not the need to find that which is convenient or which satisfies my (vain) hopes.

Creating my own religion to me seems like an enormous waste of time. I'd rather finish a six-pack of Heineken to get a rush (actually, Grolsch is better). It saves me a lot of time! The rush is self-inflicted and does not reflect reality either. The least I can expect a religion to have is its being revealed to people outside their own fantasies and wishes. Intuitively I take a self-made religion to be less valuable than one which has been passed on from generation to generation. I have never liked eclecticism in religion. Well, actually, I have never liked any religion. It all comes down to fooling yourself.

A religion could be useful, like soccer and baseball are; it keeps the masses quiet and it diverts their attention from fields where they could cause bad things. If mass energy stays inside walls of houses, churches and stadiums, society is a lot less unstable than when people don't have an easy purpose in life. Unfortunately, the energy sometimes 'reaches out' to the outside world.
Moreover, an old religion reflects the character of a nation and it could serve as a reservoir for gradually acquired norms and values; norms and values which have shaped a society and which have kept it stable. But that has nothing to do with whether a religion reflects reality or not, or whether it is correct; it only shapes people's perception of reality.

It might sound strange from an atheist like me, but I'd almost intuitively take the Judaic religion to be less false than the Christian religion, whereas I also realise that they both are completely made up. Still, they have slowly but surely been made up by generations and traditions, and therefore I find them less useless and insignificant than eclectic one-day flies.

Originally posted by JTVrocher:
The trouble here is thinking only those forms which meet the test of logic are valid. By that test religion is not valid. But, religion is an emotional activity not a logical one. The emotional spectrum is wide and dense. Its' depths are dark and forboding. Those who wish to avoid those depths by an appeal to logic are free to do so. Some of us prefer to explore the depths as do whales while others only skim the surface like insects.

Religion as a theory for existence is invalid, because it allows emotions to mix with the way we perceive facts. People who do this, might also project mental human concepts of communication with nature. For example, they allow concepts such as reasons and intentions to mix with nature's chains of cause and consequence. Thus, depending on your personal character, a hurricane that kills families will be pictured as something evil, or even as something with a special meaning (it could harden those who should be hardened). And all we are dealing with is a normal natural phenomenon!

I think emotions and things like reasons and meanings are fine in interhuman relationships, but not outside that.

Calzaer

Does creating your own artwork seem like a waste of time, too?

Infidelettante

quote:Marcel
I was fooling myself when I was a devout Fundamentalist Christian which, according to you is the more valid religion. I have worked very hard to create (all by my little lonesome) an exquisitely detailed spirituality which provides meaning and purpose to my life.

Is it the only source of meaning and purpose for me? Of cource not. My family, my work, even this forum, all add meaning and purpose to my life. If I were to reject my religious path tonight I would still have a meaningful and purposeful life.

Is my religion fiction? Some of it is. Some not. But, I fail to see what your problem is here. I read mostly nonfiction. Now and then I read fiction. I think fiction call reveal the human condition perhaps as well as fiction and in many ways even better.

You can't create you own religion without spending a lot of time on your inner journey. You look very deep into your person, into your soul (for want of a better word) and see what lives there. What are you like deep inside. Are you comfortable with that person. What can you teach yourself about you. What can you learn from you.

It takes a lot of time to answer these question. But, time spent discovering yourself is never time wasted. When you do it right it is very hard to fool yourself. You would have me give up my religion, which fits me perfectly, in favor of another religion whose only value is that it has been around a while and lots of people believe in it. I suggest you re-read you post and think about what you are saying.



What can I say?

So you prefer we keep the dominate religion (Christianity) because it has done so well instiling norms and values in our nation. And just how should religion reflect reality? And, would you please tell us which religion is the correct one.

It certainly sounds strange to me. Old makes right is the rallying cry? As an atheist you would prefer being Jewish to being a Pagan? Strange indeed.

Originally posted by JTVrocher:
The trouble here is thinking only those forms which meet the test of logic are valid. By that test religion is not valid. But, religion is an emotional activity not a logical one. The emotional spectrum is wide and dense. Its' depths are dark and forboding. Those who wish to avoid those depths by an appeal to logic are free to do so. Some of us prefer to explore the depths as do whales while others only skim the surface like insects.

Marcel, religion is and emotional endeavor. Facts have nothing to do with it.

Last edited by Marcel on May 27, 2003 at 05:49 AM

Marcel

No, but religion just happens to be a complete waste of time, regardless whether it is self-concocted or not. Rather stick to reality.

Aquila ka Hecate

I know this is your opinion, Marcel, but millions of others don't share it.

Why, they get endless hours of fun looting raping and pillaging in the name of their invisible freind, when they're not just plain murdering.

I happen to share your opinion, but JTVrocher seems to be getting a hell of a lot of pleasure out
of his-and who knows, he may even be passing that pleasure along? His religion doesn't seem harmful to anyone else, from where I'm sitting.
But I could be wrong.

Marcel

Not valid at all, but more valuable because it happens to be a part of Western culture. It is completely invalid and I'm sure the world would be a much better place without any religion at all, because people would stop fooling themselves for a change.



But why at all spirituality? Why not the evident here and now? Why this need for transcendential things? Would it matter if you were to find out that your religion is probably a purely cerebral activity and that is has nothing to do with transcendental things of divine influences? Why demanding so much from existence as to make this leap of faith? Isn't the here and now enough? Don't you think that your losing your christian faith has left a gap, and that that is the reason for you to start 'looking' (read: 'hoping') for something? Is it hard to realise that there might not be anything to worship?



This really surprises me, and I cannot deny that this fascinates me. Of course, I don't have any problem with this, but to me it would feel so useless. The question to me is; how can you believe in something which has been made up? Do you find it important whether something is true or not, or is it just the feeling of religious experience that counts?




Of course it can, it tells us something about the hopes and fantasies of people. Those fantasies are real; they are fantasies. But shouldn't these fantasies be regarded as fantasies only, and not as purposes or eternal truths?



Those are all psychological processes; purely physical, circular, individual things. It does not lead to religion. But should that have consequences for whether gods exist or not? Maybe it was a good thing to start by asking what you exactly believe in; do you believe in a Creator? do you believe in a meaning of life, and if so, what is that meaning? Do you hold this meaning to be true for everyone, or is it merely your personal meaning? Some religious people claim that all humans have the same meaning in life; they are there to worship a god, or whatever, whereas other people say that a universal purpose in life does not exist; there are only purposes that you, yourself hold to be worthwhile. This latter understanding of purpose is what I would be prepared to believe in. What you live for, is entirely pesonal and not universal. Probably you share this view, but it is the transcendental part which I cannot understand.




That is right, but that doesn't mean that I should drag metaphysyics into this 'private investigation'. I will probably stick to which is relevant; my own physical person and my relation to other persons and ideas.



The reason why I prefer culturally embedded religions more than self-made up religions is for these reasons:

- Religions are distortions of perceptions of existence and distortions are ugly
- Therefore, I hope that ugliness will be limited to as little religions as possible, without people adding new religions to it
- The Christian faith has had influence on cultural communities in the Western world.
- As a result, many cultural and moral characteristics of a society can be traced back into the humanistic and judeo-christian sets of rules. As a member of Western civilisation I prefer Western culture to other cultures.
- Any religion is one too many, so a new religion with no basis in western culture is even more useless than the older, culturally embedded religion.
- New religions have not been passed on from generation to generation, so, rationally, creating a new religion should take up as much energy as dismissing religions all together. You have lost your religion; why simulating a new one?
- Alternative: either stick to your old religion, or, rather, avoid religions.



No, but I would like to add some nuance here: I am aware that in there was a Pagan religion in Europe before christians invaded the country and chopped down Odin's Oak. This religion was an intrinsic system of gods, rituals, views on nature, etcetera. It kept societies coherent and it was part of their unique culture. Your 'paganism' has nothing to do with this; I don't even regard your paganism as paganism. It has no links with cultures or other religions that are considered pagan. Only a christian would call it 'pagan' because all non-christian religions seem pagan to him. Your personal 'paganism' is self-concocted and un-cultural. If European civilisation had a more substantive, still philosophically relevant pagan substrate than occasional folkloristic festivities such as decorating Christmas Trees and burning Easter Trees in Friesland (Netherlands), then I'd at least find it understandable that people feel attracted to this oppressed natural religion of their fathers, which has been passed on to them as it were a legacy.

And about being Jewish: the Jewish faith is not as far-fetched as the Christian faith; whether Jesus was a saviour or not depended on Paul, some two thousand years ago, who constructed the faith in Jesus as a Messiah. All of a sudden, after Jesus's 'glorious' execution, the new Jews told the old ones that they had killed God. So the Jewish faith has fewer fantasies than the christian faith. But they are both useless in themselves.




Then religion shouldn't state new facts, let alone distort facts. It should be acknowledged that it is incompatible with reason, and, hence, it should not be reasoned for. It should stay outside any discussion, for which one requires reason.

Marcel

I know, I am just trying to understand it. I just don't seem to be able to imagine someone's need for transcendental experiences.

Ek kan dit net nie verstaan nie

Regards, Marcel