Religion as an Ego-modulator(superbowl.substack.com)
superbowl.substack.com
Religion as an Ego-modulator
https://superbowl.substack.com/p/religion-as-an-ego-modulator
172 comments
It’s more a matter of finding a church that’s a good fit for you than “organized religion” as a whole. There’s a lot that comes from people who claim to be Christian that’s not supported by the Bible at all. It’s just something they were told and repeated.
There’s also a lot that non-Christians claim about Christians which also has no basis. The internet amplifies the controversial falsehood without requiring that retractions be published (and circulated) at the same level. This leads to a lot of crazy talk.
The only filter anyone has for this stuff is to actually read the Bible to know what is in there. Otherwise you’ll have no basis for questioning the weird things that people tell you.
I even started a blog of interesting things I’ve come across when reading just to try to encourage people to read it themselves. As somebody who grew up in church, became agnostic, then atheist and am now a devout Christian again I think there’s a lot of people like yourself who may be able to relate. My most recent post was creating an “is it Christian?” litmus test.
https://www.readnotmisled.org/p/the-is-it-christian-litmus-t...
There’s also a lot that non-Christians claim about Christians which also has no basis. The internet amplifies the controversial falsehood without requiring that retractions be published (and circulated) at the same level. This leads to a lot of crazy talk.
The only filter anyone has for this stuff is to actually read the Bible to know what is in there. Otherwise you’ll have no basis for questioning the weird things that people tell you.
I even started a blog of interesting things I’ve come across when reading just to try to encourage people to read it themselves. As somebody who grew up in church, became agnostic, then atheist and am now a devout Christian again I think there’s a lot of people like yourself who may be able to relate. My most recent post was creating an “is it Christian?” litmus test.
https://www.readnotmisled.org/p/the-is-it-christian-litmus-t...
Meh. As someone who's read the Bible in its entirety, it's so full of contradictions and unclear complexities that you can make a good case for any number of incompatible interpretations.
The Bible is interesting for historical context, and has many useful stories and lessons that I still get value from, but so does the Tao Te Ching and the Quran.
It's a good piece of work for a person's spirituality practice, but it is far from sufficient on its own. And on its own, it can be (and many times has been) used to justify some absolutely appalling shit.
The Bible is interesting for historical context, and has many useful stories and lessons that I still get value from, but so does the Tao Te Ching and the Quran.
It's a good piece of work for a person's spirituality practice, but it is far from sufficient on its own. And on its own, it can be (and many times has been) used to justify some absolutely appalling shit.
> it's so full of contradictions and unclear complexities that you can make a good case for any number of incompatible interpretations
I think this is exactly what makes the Bible such a powerful and popular book!
Intelligent, charismatic people can easily use the Bible (which has implicit authority as the "Word of God" in many people's minds) to convince people to move in a particular direction. This makes it a very powerful tool.
I think this is exactly what makes the Bible such a powerful and popular book!
Intelligent, charismatic people can easily use the Bible (which has implicit authority as the "Word of God" in many people's minds) to convince people to move in a particular direction. This makes it a very powerful tool.
I completely agree.
The lack of clear and objective messaging means it's easy to reinterpret as the civilization changes to suit the rulers' needs, not the other way around. If it had unambiguous messaging, it probably would have been abandoned to the historical archives long ago since the rules no longer make sense.
Which is exactly why it's a garbage foundation for ethical reasoning. Fine accessory. Garbage foundation.
This is important to understand, because the truth of ethics is that it is not objective. It's subjective. It's a constant conversation we have with each about how we want to interact. And as soon as you elevate a holy book to be unquestionably followed by faith, you've killed the conversation. And once you've killed the conversation, the only way to resolve disagreements thereafter is violence.
The lack of clear and objective messaging means it's easy to reinterpret as the civilization changes to suit the rulers' needs, not the other way around. If it had unambiguous messaging, it probably would have been abandoned to the historical archives long ago since the rules no longer make sense.
Which is exactly why it's a garbage foundation for ethical reasoning. Fine accessory. Garbage foundation.
This is important to understand, because the truth of ethics is that it is not objective. It's subjective. It's a constant conversation we have with each about how we want to interact. And as soon as you elevate a holy book to be unquestionably followed by faith, you've killed the conversation. And once you've killed the conversation, the only way to resolve disagreements thereafter is violence.
Well, we all know what power does…
> As someone who's read the Bible in its entirety, it's so full of contradictions and unclear complexities that you can make a good case for any number of incompatible interpretations.
As a Christian, I too have been recently thinking about the issue of multiple interpretations. Having said that, there are as many, if not more, verses that are clear enough and leaves little room for multiple contradicting interpretations. For example, these two popular (and probably the most important!) verses have very clear meanings:
> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16 (NIV)
> “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” — Matthew 22:36–40 (NIV)
As a Christian, I too have been recently thinking about the issue of multiple interpretations. Having said that, there are as many, if not more, verses that are clear enough and leaves little room for multiple contradicting interpretations. For example, these two popular (and probably the most important!) verses have very clear meanings:
> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16 (NIV)
> “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” — Matthew 22:36–40 (NIV)
> “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Define love and define god.
Some Christians have defined loving their neighbor as forcing gay people into barbaric gay conversion therapy. Some have defined it as taking young indigenous children from their families and raising them as good, civilized westerns to get the Indian out of them.
God doesn't exist, so loving god with all your heart doesn't mean anything objectively. What "loving god" looks like is entirely subjective and there have been many opinions throughout history about what that means. Some interpretations have included sacrificing children. If there actually is a god, they doesn't seem to be very good about consistently telling us what they want and how they feel loved by us.
The Bible has plenty of good passages, but also tons of bad ones. It's a fine piece of literature to study and get insight for your spiritual practice. But never forget, the Bible got the question of slavery wrong. Not even the new testament condemns slavery. This is not a good book.
Define love and define god.
Some Christians have defined loving their neighbor as forcing gay people into barbaric gay conversion therapy. Some have defined it as taking young indigenous children from their families and raising them as good, civilized westerns to get the Indian out of them.
God doesn't exist, so loving god with all your heart doesn't mean anything objectively. What "loving god" looks like is entirely subjective and there have been many opinions throughout history about what that means. Some interpretations have included sacrificing children. If there actually is a god, they doesn't seem to be very good about consistently telling us what they want and how they feel loved by us.
The Bible has plenty of good passages, but also tons of bad ones. It's a fine piece of literature to study and get insight for your spiritual practice. But never forget, the Bible got the question of slavery wrong. Not even the new testament condemns slavery. This is not a good book.
You use slavery as an example of what makes the Bible a bad book. My understanding is that the Bible generally condemns the modern notion of slavery (one in which the slaves have a viable alternative). The Jews’ slavery in Egypt, for example, is condemned. Slavery in first century Rome, for an opposing example, was often the result of the slaves having no other option (the society having no way to support them). It was effectively better than the alternative for the slaves, and there were routes to freedom. I’m curious about your thoughts. You say “it is not a good book” while I feel that the New Testament in particular is considered to promote good things. Obviously the classic atheist liberal’s “bad guys” in the uneducated rural conservative Christians have done sad things in the name of Jesus (like your aforementioned conversion therapy), but that’s people and not the book.
That's good defense of Bible but really there is only one problem with it (and with other holy books) - the nature of the term "holy book" prevents it from being made better. There are some good things in it (especially in New Testament), but this only means that it should be reedited and rewritten into something more modern and useful - but it can't because God apparently do not believe in second editions.
The "holy book" being infallible is mostly a problem with the religions whose gods are so pathetically weak they can't make mistakes, or learn new things.
The old Greek gods were very fallible yet people still submitted to them. Power dictates, with or without holy books.
> Define love and define god.
The first definition is easier to find.
> 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
The first definition is easier to find.
> 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Each time I here this thing (this fragment from Corinthians) I cringe a little bit because many people uses this as a definition of love (hence its read at weddings here where I live) but at the same time this being part of holy book sounds like love is so fuzzy term that no one really knows what it means so it needs pseudo definition that is all over the place (and no, I do not have better definition for it - but I have good reason - I do not believe that it exists).
This is not what love is. It is merely a list of words for qualities that are sometimes recognized while experiencing love.
This is a list of behaviors one might expect to observe in the presence of “love”. The fact that it is commonly cited as the best definition of the word kind of proves gp’s point.
> For example, these two popular (and probably the most important!) verses have very clear meanings:
> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16 (NIV)
That is your choice of a "very clear meaning"?! Ok, then do you believe man goes to heaven through faith alone, or by faith and actions that prove their faith?
Because a billion Protestants would say that the verse tells you it is by faith alone, and a billion Catholics will quote James 2 20:24 in saying that faith without works is useless:
"You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16 (NIV)
That is your choice of a "very clear meaning"?! Ok, then do you believe man goes to heaven through faith alone, or by faith and actions that prove their faith?
Because a billion Protestants would say that the verse tells you it is by faith alone, and a billion Catholics will quote James 2 20:24 in saying that faith without works is useless:
"You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
> Because a billion Protestants would say that the verse tells you it is by faith alone, and a billion Catholics will quote James 2 20:24 in saying that faith without works is useless:
In 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a joint statement on justification which admitted they had agreed but had never sat down and done the difficult work of making the fine distinctions and assuming good faith until then! In my experience faith and works is like that with the two groups making different emphases but when one makes the fine distinctions there is essential agreement. There are genuine disagreements but fewer than even the faithful realize. Why the vehement opposition and recriminations? The proximate causes are legion but the efficient cause IMHO involves liberal portions of late medieval to Renaissance European politics that still curses us today.
In 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a joint statement on justification which admitted they had agreed but had never sat down and done the difficult work of making the fine distinctions and assuming good faith until then! In my experience faith and works is like that with the two groups making different emphases but when one makes the fine distinctions there is essential agreement. There are genuine disagreements but fewer than even the faithful realize. Why the vehement opposition and recriminations? The proximate causes are legion but the efficient cause IMHO involves liberal portions of late medieval to Renaissance European politics that still curses us today.
Lutherans are 70-90 million of the 1 billion Protestants. You've barely nudged the numbers of disagreement even if Lutherans and Catholics agree entirely. All the disagreements on the most core aspect of Christianity are found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Supporting_confessio...
There’s a long road to Christian unity but the first Protestant group and Catholics agreeing on one of the key justifications (pun not intended) of the reformation is a massive and far reaching development that will reverberate for centuries. Healing these kinds of wounds is not simple or quick but unexpectedly there are great signs of hope springing up like this and many other developments in recent decades.
> do you believe man goes to heaven through faith alone, or by faith and works that prove their faith?
To clarify, Protestants believe Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), but they also believe faith implies good works. The difference is that Catholics consider faith and works more independent entities. They believe works are another requirement to be saved, in addition to faith.
From Protestants' point of view, faith in Jesus Christ is the only requirement to be saved. At the same time, works are a great way to display someone's faith, as Jesus says:
> By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. — John 13:35 (NIV)
You might say "So, we can just believe in God and do any despicable things we want, then?" Not really. You couldn't say you love your spouse and at the same time keep hurting them, could you? Your actions would contradict your words, and no one would believe your words that you love your spouse.
Similarly, Christians who realized how great the love and sacrifice that God gave to pay their sins are will (or at least try to) live accordingly. They do good things, not to be saved, but because they have already been saved and they want to show their gratitude through their works and glorify God. Jesus says:
> In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. — Matthew 5:16 (NIV)
This is the unique distinction between Christianity and other religions. If human beings could by their own effort save themselves from the wages of sins, Jesus wouldn't have needed to come into this world and die to pay for our sins.
"Can God just simply forgive humans?" If God did so, He was neither just nor consistent with his words. The penalty of humans' sins must be paid if humans are to be saved. Note that humans don't need to be saved—God could just leave humans condemned and He is still just. Only because God so loved us that He himself paid for our sins.
To clarify, Protestants believe Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), but they also believe faith implies good works. The difference is that Catholics consider faith and works more independent entities. They believe works are another requirement to be saved, in addition to faith.
From Protestants' point of view, faith in Jesus Christ is the only requirement to be saved. At the same time, works are a great way to display someone's faith, as Jesus says:
> By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. — John 13:35 (NIV)
You might say "So, we can just believe in God and do any despicable things we want, then?" Not really. You couldn't say you love your spouse and at the same time keep hurting them, could you? Your actions would contradict your words, and no one would believe your words that you love your spouse.
Similarly, Christians who realized how great the love and sacrifice that God gave to pay their sins are will (or at least try to) live accordingly. They do good things, not to be saved, but because they have already been saved and they want to show their gratitude through their works and glorify God. Jesus says:
> In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. — Matthew 5:16 (NIV)
This is the unique distinction between Christianity and other religions. If human beings could by their own effort save themselves from the wages of sins, Jesus wouldn't have needed to come into this world and die to pay for our sins.
"Can God just simply forgive humans?" If God did so, He was neither just nor consistent with his words. The penalty of humans' sins must be paid if humans are to be saved. Note that humans don't need to be saved—God could just leave humans condemned and He is still just. Only because God so loved us that He himself paid for our sins.
I find Dallas Willard’s quote on this to be very simple and encouraging.
“Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning. Earning is an attitude. Effort is an action.” - Dallas Willard The Great Omission
“Grace is not opposed to effort, it is opposed to earning. Earning is an attitude. Effort is an action.” - Dallas Willard The Great Omission
Yet, even you quote man himself rather than the perfect Word of God. Should not something as perfect as the Word of God be the most simple, encouraging, and enlightening on such a crucial matter of Christianity itself? The evidence before us doesn't indicate so.
That is when a Protestant might say, "Well it is clear and perfect in it's [Protestant / sola fide] meaning. And that the billions of other Christians, try as extremely hard as they may, with millions spending immense portions of their live trying to ascertain what God meant for them, have been led astray for all of time."
That is when a Protestant might say, "Well it is clear and perfect in it's [Protestant / sola fide] meaning. And that the billions of other Christians, try as extremely hard as they may, with millions spending immense portions of their live trying to ascertain what God meant for them, have been led astray for all of time."
>> eternal life
Define that, and with details please, because in my mind it "does not compute".
Short sentences as this have clear meaning for You only because You spent hundreds of hours (probably in Your youth) listening to people (probably in black dresses) explaining them to You. If You would somehow lost this context it would be as unclear for You as "Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare" is for me (I never bothered to learn the context for what it actually means).
Define that, and with details please, because in my mind it "does not compute".
Short sentences as this have clear meaning for You only because You spent hundreds of hours (probably in Your youth) listening to people (probably in black dresses) explaining them to You. If You would somehow lost this context it would be as unclear for You as "Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare" is for me (I never bothered to learn the context for what it actually means).
I understand a sentence "Merge sort has a time complexity of O(N log(N)) in the worst case" because I learned it from other people (my lecturer, book authors), too. So, I don't see the point here.
Most English-speaking people—even for those who don't believe life after this material world—likely have some guess of a definition of "eternal life", which might or might not be similar to the definition in the biblical context. Some who consider "eternal life" as cryptic as "bhng lw" don't know the word either "eternal" or "life".
The meaning of any word in any sentence of any book can be disputed, of course.. until we realize that a definition of a word also consists of words any of which can be argued all over again. (Aside: I had wondered since I was first introduced a dictionary: How can we understand any word if its definition consists of words too? It would be an infinite recursion. Only recently I knew that the problem has a name: "The Grounding Problem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem )
To answer your question, in this context, having an eternal life means going to heaven. The follow up questions would be "What's heaven? Where is it?". I or someone else can explain it to you, but if you, in your words, "never bothered to learn the context", no one can help you to understand. However great your lecturer explained some materials in the class, you wouldn't fully understand the materials if you didn't self-study in your time, would you?
Most English-speaking people—even for those who don't believe life after this material world—likely have some guess of a definition of "eternal life", which might or might not be similar to the definition in the biblical context. Some who consider "eternal life" as cryptic as "bhng lw" don't know the word either "eternal" or "life".
The meaning of any word in any sentence of any book can be disputed, of course.. until we realize that a definition of a word also consists of words any of which can be argued all over again. (Aside: I had wondered since I was first introduced a dictionary: How can we understand any word if its definition consists of words too? It would be an infinite recursion. Only recently I knew that the problem has a name: "The Grounding Problem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem )
To answer your question, in this context, having an eternal life means going to heaven. The follow up questions would be "What's heaven? Where is it?". I or someone else can explain it to you, but if you, in your words, "never bothered to learn the context", no one can help you to understand. However great your lecturer explained some materials in the class, you wouldn't fully understand the materials if you didn't self-study in your time, would you?
Yes, you are right - if You apply enough deconstruction and reductionism all communication between humans breaks down. But I still believe that there is a profound difference between Your example and the "eternal life" bit.
I'm not sure if I can get my point clearly (because its still intuition and not nicely expressed thought), but still, I will try my best.
"Merge sort has a time complexity of O(N log(N)) in the worst case" at this point and time has exactly one meaning because it addresses exactly one simple (but not simplistic) abstract problem of comparative assessment of algorithms for ordering symbols that have enough relations defined to be comparable. And the logic that stands behind it can be quite easily followed straight to the roots (or rather axioms) without anyone being burned on metaphorical cross along the way. There is no schism here, no cults, event not too many people with different opinions (there are surly some with different axioms and some with different opinions about reducing sorting worthiness to one scalar value).
Meanwhile if You get out of Your bubble and start asking what does it exactly mean "eternal life" or event better, as You mentioned, "what's heaven?" You will get as many answers as You will find people (home exercise - go ask a modern Jew about heaven, or Yehova witness, or Mormon :)).
"Merge sort has a time complexity of O(N log(N)) in the worst case" at this point and time has exactly one meaning because it addresses exactly one simple (but not simplistic) abstract problem of comparative assessment of algorithms for ordering symbols that have enough relations defined to be comparable. And the logic that stands behind it can be quite easily followed straight to the roots (or rather axioms) without anyone being burned on metaphorical cross along the way. There is no schism here, no cults, event not too many people with different opinions (there are surly some with different axioms and some with different opinions about reducing sorting worthiness to one scalar value).
Meanwhile if You get out of Your bubble and start asking what does it exactly mean "eternal life" or event better, as You mentioned, "what's heaven?" You will get as many answers as You will find people (home exercise - go ask a modern Jew about heaven, or Yehova witness, or Mormon :)).
Fwiw, the blog post that I wrote (referenced above) goes specifically into these.
The Bible is a witness to The Truth, who is Jesus.
People outside (or inside) the church who read it without Christ are bound to misunderstand.
People outside (or inside) the church who read it without Christ are bound to misunderstand.
[deleted]
jononomo(1)
> There’s a lot that comes from people who claim to be Christian that’s not supported by the Bible at all.
I think this may be too reductionist. The Bible contradicts itself on a lot of topics (ie, the age-old dichotomy between the fire-and-brimstone Old Testament God vs the turn-the-other-cheek New Testament teachings). It's hard to reconcile God telling the Israelites to murder the women and children of Canaan with "love thy neighbor as thyself" unless you adopt a pretty cold-hearted standard for who your neighbors are.
That's the problem with religious fundamentalism: there's text available to support all sorts of terrible stuff.
I think this may be too reductionist. The Bible contradicts itself on a lot of topics (ie, the age-old dichotomy between the fire-and-brimstone Old Testament God vs the turn-the-other-cheek New Testament teachings). It's hard to reconcile God telling the Israelites to murder the women and children of Canaan with "love thy neighbor as thyself" unless you adopt a pretty cold-hearted standard for who your neighbors are.
That's the problem with religious fundamentalism: there's text available to support all sorts of terrible stuff.
There's a pop culture narrative of this Old/New testament divide regarding "Fire and Brimstone"... but you don't see "Fire and Brimstone" sermons coming out of the Jewish history of teaching. The old testament is also not particularly concerned with the impact our actions have on an after life (again, Jewish religious groups are almost never concerned with "heaven" or an after life). If anything the most important theme of the old testament is the struggle to do what is right. After all Jacob becomes Israel (meaning "wrestles with God") by literally wrestling with a divine being, against impossible odds, in order to receive a blessing. In many ways all of the complexity and contradictions of the old testament can be summed up by that one act.
The real divide is all in the New Testament, it boils down to Paul vs. pretty much everything else. The strong sexual purity and aggressive condemnation of moral transgressions pretty much all comes from Paul. This is also where you get the strong imperative to proselytize.
Of course Paul himself is full of interesting "contradictions" (I use quotes because it's theologically a bit more interesting). Especially considering the wildly different tones between Corinthians and the "faith to eat all things" aspects of Romans. Contemporary American Christian extremism can be pretty easily found by just reading Corinthians.
The real divide is all in the New Testament, it boils down to Paul vs. pretty much everything else. The strong sexual purity and aggressive condemnation of moral transgressions pretty much all comes from Paul. This is also where you get the strong imperative to proselytize.
Of course Paul himself is full of interesting "contradictions" (I use quotes because it's theologically a bit more interesting). Especially considering the wildly different tones between Corinthians and the "faith to eat all things" aspects of Romans. Contemporary American Christian extremism can be pretty easily found by just reading Corinthians.
The thing about Paul is that there are a lot of supposed Paulisms that are actually him quoting some other viewpoint and responding to it; ancient Greek didn't really have good syntax for quoting, so nearly all translations lost that. 1 Corinthians is full of these, including the context surrounding the oft-quoted 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; the whole chapter (really, the whole letter) consists of him calling out the Corinthian church for judging others for ostensible sins despite themselves being sinners by their own standards - a classic invocation of Matthew 7:5.
> the age-old dichotomy between the fire-and-brimstone Old Testament God vs the turn-the-other-cheek New Testament teachings
There are heterodox Christian sects who believe the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are two completely different entities. In some cases, with the Old Testament God having polar opposite morality. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Beliefs
There are heterodox Christian sects who believe the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are two completely different entities. In some cases, with the Old Testament God having polar opposite morality. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Beliefs
See also Marcionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
That's why reading in its entirety is pretty important.
Context matters.
There's a lot of violence in the Bible, just as there in in the world today.
Context matters.
There's a lot of violence in the Bible, just as there in in the world today.
> There's a lot of violence in the Bible, just as there in in the world today.
You make it sound like there's no causal link here. But a lot of the violence and bigotry in the world today is being explicitly propped up by religious texts. Many people crave certainty and a black-and-white moral fundamentalism, and there are sizable passages of the Bible that cater directly to that.
My point is that there's a difference between "the Bible doesn't support it" and saying, "Hey, if you take it in its entirety, and throw out the problematic bits, and apply a Gaussian filter, and average it all out, well... then it no longer supports it in spirit..."
So, again, going back to your original post:
> There’s a lot that comes from people who claim to be Christian that’s not supported by the Bible at all. It’s just something they were told and repeated.
That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of it IS literally supported by the Bible, if one doesn't do that complicated Gaussian blur beforehand to paper over the problematic parts.
You make it sound like there's no causal link here. But a lot of the violence and bigotry in the world today is being explicitly propped up by religious texts. Many people crave certainty and a black-and-white moral fundamentalism, and there are sizable passages of the Bible that cater directly to that.
My point is that there's a difference between "the Bible doesn't support it" and saying, "Hey, if you take it in its entirety, and throw out the problematic bits, and apply a Gaussian filter, and average it all out, well... then it no longer supports it in spirit..."
So, again, going back to your original post:
> There’s a lot that comes from people who claim to be Christian that’s not supported by the Bible at all. It’s just something they were told and repeated.
That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of it IS literally supported by the Bible, if one doesn't do that complicated Gaussian blur beforehand to paper over the problematic parts.
It's not though.
Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible". Correct me if I'm wrong in that of course, but that is how what you wrote reads to me.
As causal links go, what causes are you suggesting? I don't want to attempt to put words in your mouth here, but your references are too abstract to discuss so far.
I will touch on this though:
> You make it sound like there's no causal link here. But a lot of the violence and bigotry in the world today is being explicitly propped up by religious texts. Many people crave certainty and a black-and-white moral fundamentalism, and there are sizable passages of the Bible that cater directly to that.
Violence and bigotry is a part of human nature. There's plenty of it that isn't propped up by religious texts at all that's most based in raw tribalism.
Sure, there are people who attempt to claim that their views are Biblically based...but they simply aren't. It makes people feel like they have something to hide behind. At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.
Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible". Correct me if I'm wrong in that of course, but that is how what you wrote reads to me.
As causal links go, what causes are you suggesting? I don't want to attempt to put words in your mouth here, but your references are too abstract to discuss so far.
I will touch on this though:
> You make it sound like there's no causal link here. But a lot of the violence and bigotry in the world today is being explicitly propped up by religious texts. Many people crave certainty and a black-and-white moral fundamentalism, and there are sizable passages of the Bible that cater directly to that.
Violence and bigotry is a part of human nature. There's plenty of it that isn't propped up by religious texts at all that's most based in raw tribalism.
Sure, there are people who attempt to claim that their views are Biblically based...but they simply aren't. It makes people feel like they have something to hide behind. At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.
> Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess we're arguing semantics in this case. If something exists as a literal passage in the Bible, then someone can use that to support their views on the matter.
> At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.
I think this hits the nail on the head: the Bible, taken literally, is logically inconsistent, and requires subjective synthesis in order to draw the useful moral messages from the allegorical stone.
But why not just denounce the problematic parts as problematic?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess we're arguing semantics in this case. If something exists as a literal passage in the Bible, then someone can use that to support their views on the matter.
> At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.
I think this hits the nail on the head: the Bible, taken literally, is logically inconsistent, and requires subjective synthesis in order to draw the useful moral messages from the allegorical stone.
But why not just denounce the problematic parts as problematic?
I did read the Bible myself, which was one of the things that led to my final break with organized Christianity. It was a very useful exercise, and one that led me to see a huge contradiction between the ministry of Jesus--which was very critical of power and legalism over humanitarianism--and the reality of hundreds of years and dozens of variations of organized Christianity.
That caused me to question why I should consider the Bible as any more special than anyone else's religious book. From my perspective, it hasn't led to the creation of an exemplary Christian community at global scale. Rather, it has created a bunch of bickering, expansionist sects that are self-assured in their own righteousness of thought. My Christian upbringing gave me a humanitarian foundation, but it's largely secular influences that have pushed me beyond the points in which peoples' biblical interpretations come into conflict with humanitarian goals.
But the thing is, as the Catholics recognize, the Bible didn't come to us as an monolithic whole. Its composition has changed over the centuries as books have fallen in and out of favor. Much of this is part of Catholic history, which is a big part of why they don't prioritize it over the leadership of the episcopate. They see the apostolic succession as the place where spiritual authority and orthodox practice derive from.
And then I became really interested in the origins of the Abrahamic religions. The podcast History In The Bible (https://www.historyinthebible.com/) and the book In The Shadow of the Sword (https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0...) have been really fascinating in understanding secular theories of how these religions arose from their historical contexts. Secular historians argue that the core of these religions existed in largely orally transmitted forms, until they were adopted as state ideology in multiethnic polities (first the Kingdom of Judah, then the Roman Empire, then the Caliphate). Or in the case of Rabbinical Judaism, a way to knit together a people dispersed between empires, who had had their old religion decapitated with the destruction of the Second Temple. (I hope I have represented these theories in a way that is not offensive to adherents of these religions.)
Today, I'm intrigued by Christian history and, to some extent, Christian thought, but I don't feel any particular need to believe in Christian theology. I'm not exactly an atheist. More like an agnostic theist.
That caused me to question why I should consider the Bible as any more special than anyone else's religious book. From my perspective, it hasn't led to the creation of an exemplary Christian community at global scale. Rather, it has created a bunch of bickering, expansionist sects that are self-assured in their own righteousness of thought. My Christian upbringing gave me a humanitarian foundation, but it's largely secular influences that have pushed me beyond the points in which peoples' biblical interpretations come into conflict with humanitarian goals.
But the thing is, as the Catholics recognize, the Bible didn't come to us as an monolithic whole. Its composition has changed over the centuries as books have fallen in and out of favor. Much of this is part of Catholic history, which is a big part of why they don't prioritize it over the leadership of the episcopate. They see the apostolic succession as the place where spiritual authority and orthodox practice derive from.
And then I became really interested in the origins of the Abrahamic religions. The podcast History In The Bible (https://www.historyinthebible.com/) and the book In The Shadow of the Sword (https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0...) have been really fascinating in understanding secular theories of how these religions arose from their historical contexts. Secular historians argue that the core of these religions existed in largely orally transmitted forms, until they were adopted as state ideology in multiethnic polities (first the Kingdom of Judah, then the Roman Empire, then the Caliphate). Or in the case of Rabbinical Judaism, a way to knit together a people dispersed between empires, who had had their old religion decapitated with the destruction of the Second Temple. (I hope I have represented these theories in a way that is not offensive to adherents of these religions.)
Today, I'm intrigued by Christian history and, to some extent, Christian thought, but I don't feel any particular need to believe in Christian theology. I'm not exactly an atheist. More like an agnostic theist.
> But the thing is, as the Catholics recognize, the Bible didn't come to us as an monolithic whole. Its composition has changed over the centuries as books have fallen in and out of favor.
Can you give examples of books added and removed from the Bible that Catholics would recognize, after it was formalized? This is a very strange claim to me.
Can you give examples of books added and removed from the Bible that Catholics would recognize, after it was formalized? This is a very strange claim to me.
The agreed upon Bible wasn't formalized for centuries after the books themselves were finalized. And denominations, to this day, disagree about which books are canonical.
Also, almost every Bible is a translation of source material in Greek or Aramaic into the reader's language. Over time, the manuscripts used for translations has changed, as manuscripts have been discovered and compared, which has meaningfully changed the content of editions over time. The best contemporary editions have copious footnotes on how the source material was reconciled.
If you want to dig into this, the Wikipedia article has a lot to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canon...
The podcast History in the Bible is also a very interesting secularist exploration of the origins of the Biblical books and the process by which the canon (or really canons) emerged: https://www.historyinthebible.com/
Also, almost every Bible is a translation of source material in Greek or Aramaic into the reader's language. Over time, the manuscripts used for translations has changed, as manuscripts have been discovered and compared, which has meaningfully changed the content of editions over time. The best contemporary editions have copious footnotes on how the source material was reconciled.
If you want to dig into this, the Wikipedia article has a lot to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canon...
The podcast History in the Bible is also a very interesting secularist exploration of the origins of the Biblical books and the process by which the canon (or really canons) emerged: https://www.historyinthebible.com/
Maybe I misread what you were saying. I was asking specifically about the Catholic Bible. Naturally many denominations post-Reformation are going to disagree, and even the Eastern Orthodox don't agree.
But you seem to be lumping them all into the same group, when they are in fact very different. Is there any specific group/denomination you know of that has added or removed a book after declaring what they deem to be the "true" Bible?
But you seem to be lumping them all into the same group, when they are in fact very different. Is there any specific group/denomination you know of that has added or removed a book after declaring what they deem to be the "true" Bible?
The biggest example would be the Apocrypha, which is accepted as canon by Catholics (and most Orthodox churches?) while it's usually (but not always) rejected by a lot of Protestants.
Jesus was the leader of a somewhat obscure regional Jewish sect.
Things had to be... modified to get the Roman elite on board and for Christianity to become the state religion.
Things had to be... modified to get the Roman elite on board and for Christianity to become the state religion.
Many academics believe Judaism was originally polygamist, according to r/academicbiblical. Interesting stuff.
>The only filter anyone has for this stuff is to actually read the Bible to know what is in there. Otherwise you’ll have no basis for questioning the weird things that people tell you.
True, but this is also how fundamentalism/evangelacism/etc came about. You have to choose what to believe regardless of how you read it.
Many Americans believe the earth is 6000 years old, which they derived from the bible.
True, but this is also how fundamentalism/evangelacism/etc came about. You have to choose what to believe regardless of how you read it.
Many Americans believe the earth is 6000 years old, which they derived from the bible.
Maybe cross reference religious claims with the scientific method
Ex: https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...
Ex: https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...
Cross references like that article are sort of the basis for a lot of what I'm talking about.
You're citing it as an examination of using the scientific method on religious, but it's making religious claims that don't exist with metrics that it's made up. To but it mildly, nothing in this article holds water.
Simple points: The article discusses belief in free will while using the basis of it to cite societal outcomes from hard work creating wealth or success. This is a regular topic, but it has no basis at all in Christianity. I certainly can't speak for all religions.
Free will: You are responsible for making your own choices and decisions.
Reality: Your circumstances will sometimes force you to make choices that you don't want to make to survive.
If you read the Bible, you will find pretty quickly that it repeatedly reinforces contentment, humility, charity, love and above all else: faith. It does not equate any of these with material wealth aside from the prosperity of Israel itself.
Every person has the free will to be thankful for what they have. They have the free will to have faith in God. They have the free will to love their neighbors and to be kind. They have the free will to give of themselves, whether it be their time and skills or their money.
Reading the Bible is eye opening specifically because you get beaten over the head with themes that are discussed over and over, through centuries while your eyes are also opened to topics that are barely mentioned at all yet amplified in culture to attempt to make a point.
Free will is ultimately a big part of the discussion of what people often call God's plan. It's where questions like "why do bad things happen to good people?" come from...because the Bible never says bad things aren't going to happen. There's also never a point where it describes God as some type of puppet master who is in constant control of every detail that happens in the world.
What you do see, is God periodically intervening. If you read, you'll eventually notice a pattern to the circumstances where God intervenes.
That revelation is best left for people to discover themselves.
You're citing it as an examination of using the scientific method on religious, but it's making religious claims that don't exist with metrics that it's made up. To but it mildly, nothing in this article holds water.
Simple points: The article discusses belief in free will while using the basis of it to cite societal outcomes from hard work creating wealth or success. This is a regular topic, but it has no basis at all in Christianity. I certainly can't speak for all religions.
Free will: You are responsible for making your own choices and decisions.
Reality: Your circumstances will sometimes force you to make choices that you don't want to make to survive.
If you read the Bible, you will find pretty quickly that it repeatedly reinforces contentment, humility, charity, love and above all else: faith. It does not equate any of these with material wealth aside from the prosperity of Israel itself.
Every person has the free will to be thankful for what they have. They have the free will to have faith in God. They have the free will to love their neighbors and to be kind. They have the free will to give of themselves, whether it be their time and skills or their money.
Reading the Bible is eye opening specifically because you get beaten over the head with themes that are discussed over and over, through centuries while your eyes are also opened to topics that are barely mentioned at all yet amplified in culture to attempt to make a point.
Free will is ultimately a big part of the discussion of what people often call God's plan. It's where questions like "why do bad things happen to good people?" come from...because the Bible never says bad things aren't going to happen. There's also never a point where it describes God as some type of puppet master who is in constant control of every detail that happens in the world.
What you do see, is God periodically intervening. If you read, you'll eventually notice a pattern to the circumstances where God intervenes.
That revelation is best left for people to discover themselves.
> Yet copious studies from science, economics, mathematics, and theology seem to point by consilience, to the impossibility of free will.
I am not sure you went through all the references (links), the evidence collected is substantial - the article itself is too short to explain them all.
I am not sure you went through all the references (links), the evidence collected is substantial - the article itself is too short to explain them all.
Over the last few years I have begun to describe myself as "religious but not spiritual" because it seems that religion actually offers a path forward and some principles to live by along with community, whereas spirituality is just a wishy-washy term that means basically nothing.
Obviously some religious people are very bad, but, the religious people who are good do far more for the world than really anyone else. There was a period of a couple hundred years (1750 - 1950?) in which almost every hospital in the world was founded and run by Christian missionaries.
Obviously some religious people are very bad, but, the religious people who are good do far more for the world than really anyone else. There was a period of a couple hundred years (1750 - 1950?) in which almost every hospital in the world was founded and run by Christian missionaries.
Billions of people are spiritual, but not religious. It's not like a "fake" thing. In fact, the Abrahamic religions have been fairly unique in their claim to universal dogma (i.e. orthodoxy) since at least Second Temple Judaism. The Jews of the Hellenistic and Roman periods were seen as peculiar for their rigid monotheism, practices demanded of the entire community, and hostile internal sectarianism.
Many of us in Western societies, dominated by Abrahamic monotheistic thought, don't see that there are other paradigms of being religious or spiritual that have served other cultures for millenia.
Many of us in Western societies, dominated by Abrahamic monotheistic thought, don't see that there are other paradigms of being religious or spiritual that have served other cultures for millenia.
I'm not disagreeing with anything in your comment, but I did want to stress that @jononomo's comment was about being "religious but not spiritual" and yours was largely about being "spiritual but not religious".
As you point out, being "spiritual but not religious" is a pretty common thing and has been for thousands of years.
But I think this is the first time I've heard someone flip that phrase around to pithily describe an approach/perspective/whatever that I've noticed being mentioned more and more over the past ~5 years: that some structures, community, moral frameworks, practices, etc. frequently associated with organized religion have intrinsic value even when separated from the spiritual justifications/motivations that usually underpin them in those organized religions.
Taking things a step further: To use an example from your comment, @jononomo could be (I'm not claiming they are) saying that the concept of "practices demanded of the entire community" (something you named as something the "religious" Jews did that was peculiar to the "spiritual but not religious" Romans) is something that could benefit modern communities - maybe by bringing them together, helping coordinate collective action problems, whatever. And the justification for this would NOT be a spiritual reason, but rather for the very corporeal reason of improving human communities (ergo, "religious but not spiritual", if you like).
As you point out, being "spiritual but not religious" is a pretty common thing and has been for thousands of years.
But I think this is the first time I've heard someone flip that phrase around to pithily describe an approach/perspective/whatever that I've noticed being mentioned more and more over the past ~5 years: that some structures, community, moral frameworks, practices, etc. frequently associated with organized religion have intrinsic value even when separated from the spiritual justifications/motivations that usually underpin them in those organized religions.
Taking things a step further: To use an example from your comment, @jononomo could be (I'm not claiming they are) saying that the concept of "practices demanded of the entire community" (something you named as something the "religious" Jews did that was peculiar to the "spiritual but not religious" Romans) is something that could benefit modern communities - maybe by bringing them together, helping coordinate collective action problems, whatever. And the justification for this would NOT be a spiritual reason, but rather for the very corporeal reason of improving human communities (ergo, "religious but not spiritual", if you like).
I think that us-vs-them mindset you're describing is not a distinctive feature of religion, but really of a human nature. Anywhere people are organizing in groups us-vs-them mindset can form. It doesn't matter, if it's a football team, a chees club, a business, a nation or just a group of music fans... It can literally appear anywhere. Organized religion is no exception.
As someone who was also raised deeply religious but has since abandoned the belief, I echo your feeling that there are very valuable ego disillusion and ethics lessons that need to be extracted from the dogma of religion.
It's to the point where I'm sometimes shocked by the extreme ego and lack of moral framework in some of my friends and peers who were raised purely secular.
It's to the point where I'm sometimes shocked by the extreme ego and lack of moral framework in some of my friends and peers who were raised purely secular.
Most people with religious beliefs and churches themselves don't reevaluate the things you mentioned.
Otherwise the world would be a totally different place.
Just because you can see ego min and max things in theory it doesn't mean it has a real influence in people.
Religios people lifing a 'good' life and as soon as someone needs help all is gone.
Plenty of sexual abuse have happened and is probably still happening.
You yourself brought it up.
And then we have the other extreme devoted religious people not question anything.
I think we need real thinking education which is independent of religion. Learning mental biases, learning how group dynamics work etc.
The social fragmentation was always here. Nothing changed. There were plenty of very racist people in a time were religion were much stronger.
Right now thanks to education we gain a global more social get-together than ever before.
People are less racist, woman have more rights and are more independent, homosexual people are less in danger than before.
Otherwise the world would be a totally different place.
Just because you can see ego min and max things in theory it doesn't mean it has a real influence in people.
Religios people lifing a 'good' life and as soon as someone needs help all is gone.
Plenty of sexual abuse have happened and is probably still happening.
You yourself brought it up.
And then we have the other extreme devoted religious people not question anything.
I think we need real thinking education which is independent of religion. Learning mental biases, learning how group dynamics work etc.
The social fragmentation was always here. Nothing changed. There were plenty of very racist people in a time were religion were much stronger.
Right now thanks to education we gain a global more social get-together than ever before.
People are less racist, woman have more rights and are more independent, homosexual people are less in danger than before.
I also grew up in a very strict Muslim household and this is very close to where I see religion’s place in the future of my (potential) family. A couple of questions that have been in my mind, that id like to ask.
How do you choose which parts to share with your kids and which ones to omit?
Have you found a community that your family can use to replace the church? For me I’d think they would be people from my back home, as a visible minority that’s quite easy but I do feel that if you don’t follow the religion entirely, you’d get judged and ostracized.
How do you choose which parts to share with your kids and which ones to omit?
Have you found a community that your family can use to replace the church? For me I’d think they would be people from my back home, as a visible minority that’s quite easy but I do feel that if you don’t follow the religion entirely, you’d get judged and ostracized.
My wife's family is also Christian (but Catholic, in comparison to my Baptist family) and so my kids get incidental exposure to Christian ideas. But I don't tell them that the ideas are true. I kind of hope they see them like all of the other stories they know: as stories, with useful ideas.
I try to as much as possible demonstrate humanitarianism in how I treat them and others. I try to teach them self-reflection and gratitude, which I think are some of the most important aspects of prayer. I also try to give them perspective on differentials in privilege. But this is all a lot to try to create and teach independently.
We have a lot of friends and relatives we see often, but I wouldn't say we have anything quite like what you get with a church. I've considered trying out a Unitarian Universalist church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism). But there's not one that's close enough to me to motivate me to make it part of my routine.
I try to as much as possible demonstrate humanitarianism in how I treat them and others. I try to teach them self-reflection and gratitude, which I think are some of the most important aspects of prayer. I also try to give them perspective on differentials in privilege. But this is all a lot to try to create and teach independently.
We have a lot of friends and relatives we see often, but I wouldn't say we have anything quite like what you get with a church. I've considered trying out a Unitarian Universalist church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism). But there's not one that's close enough to me to motivate me to make it part of my routine.
In theory, I like the mindset of unitarian universalism and would like to be part of a community based on the their principles, however, but these basically do not exist in Europe in the wild.
> pro secular society
In a secular society, all those functions must be already provided by the state in the form of social and welfare services.
In a secular society, all those functions must be already provided by the state in the form of social and welfare services.
You can have us vs them mentality without religion…
That's a false dichotomy, because nonreligious people find some other ways to create an "us vs them" mindset. We see it all the time.
It's also a fallacy to group all religions under one banner and claim that they all say the same. Even among what you call "organized religion", while there is some overlap between say Islam and Judaism/Christianity, once you start looking at things deeper, you'll see how Islam comes out different, and as a Muslim, I'd say on top.
It's also a fallacy to group all religions under one banner and claim that they all say the same. Even among what you call "organized religion", while there is some overlap between say Islam and Judaism/Christianity, once you start looking at things deeper, you'll see how Islam comes out different, and as a Muslim, I'd say on top.
Totally agree that nonreligious people can be just as factional. But I see organized religion as a catalyst of sorts for factionalism and objectification of outsiders. It's not the only such catalyst.
I'm always interested in learning more about the history and spirituality of different religions, but I believe I'm permanently over thinking that anyone has the best or most correct religion.
I'm always interested in learning more about the history and spirituality of different religions, but I believe I'm permanently over thinking that anyone has the best or most correct religion.
This felt really on point until the end:
> I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions)
I nearly laughed out loud. Academia is notorious for having toxic, hierarchical dynamics. I'm not sure if the author is really unaware, or if they're blinded by wanting to form a science > religion narrative, but this last part seriously undercut what was otherwise a great article.
But yes- growing up southern baptist in Dallas, the thesis strongly resonates with my experience. You'd see powerful business-men who should have had outsized egos being genuinely humbled by their beliefs. Those beliefs had a lot of flaws - I left them behind for a reason - but there was something unique and valuable about the way they cut through egos.
> I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions)
I nearly laughed out loud. Academia is notorious for having toxic, hierarchical dynamics. I'm not sure if the author is really unaware, or if they're blinded by wanting to form a science > religion narrative, but this last part seriously undercut what was otherwise a great article.
But yes- growing up southern baptist in Dallas, the thesis strongly resonates with my experience. You'd see powerful business-men who should have had outsized egos being genuinely humbled by their beliefs. Those beliefs had a lot of flaws - I left them behind for a reason - but there was something unique and valuable about the way they cut through egos.
I actually started down the path of saying "Scientism has the same ego-maximizing problem as religion," but couldn't really find demonstrable patterns. Some isolated cases for sure, but nothing you wouldn't find in business or high school cliques or anywhere else with a power gradient.
I really do think there's something special about religion which allows things to go radically, international-child-abuse-scandal-level wrong.
I really do think there's something special about religion which allows things to go radically, international-child-abuse-scandal-level wrong.
Academia doesn't have the same sort of centralized orthodoxy as the world religions, so I don't think an international coverup from academia is the right analogy to look for. But if you drill down to the level where rigid hierarchy exists--the individual institution--there are many examples.
See the way in which Penn State covered up the years of abuse by Jerry Sandusky in order to try to protect the reputation of their football program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_sca...).
Or the way in which Michigan State was negligent in their handling of Larry Nassar, a serial abuser of athletes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scand...).
University of Michigan has a similar scandal of its own (https://www.npr.org/2022/01/19/1074071024/university-michiga...).
Unfortunately, I think there's little reason to believe this dynamic is limited to Big Ten universities.
See the way in which Penn State covered up the years of abuse by Jerry Sandusky in order to try to protect the reputation of their football program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_sca...).
Or the way in which Michigan State was negligent in their handling of Larry Nassar, a serial abuser of athletes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Gymnastics_sex_abuse_scand...).
University of Michigan has a similar scandal of its own (https://www.npr.org/2022/01/19/1074071024/university-michiga...).
Unfortunately, I think there's little reason to believe this dynamic is limited to Big Ten universities.
It's seems notable that all three of those examples are sports related. At least in American society (the only one I'm familiar enough to speak about), I think that sports culture is a way better example of breeding egoism and "us versus them" orthodoxy than academia. I agree that the dynamic isn't exclusive to Big Ten universities, but I think it's reasonable to argue that the esteem placed on sports in the Big Ten (and other high-performing D1 universities) is what enabled these abuses to happen. Any time an institution is revered enough, whether it's a sports team or a religion or something else entirely, there's a chance that someone involved will take advantage of the status to try to get away with something due to the lower amount of scrutiny.
It's interesting that in all three cases, it's sports-related. I'm not sure what to make of that trend.
We find all this and more in the arts. See #MeToo and Hollywood.
> radically, international-child-abuse-scandal-level wrong
You don't get child abuse in academia because academics are rarely entrusted with other people's children. The large-scale systemic abuse and hazing of graduate students easily qualifies as an ego-driven power trip created by academia. It's not as big a scandal because it doesn't involve minors and sex.
You don't get child abuse in academia because academics are rarely entrusted with other people's children. The large-scale systemic abuse and hazing of graduate students easily qualifies as an ego-driven power trip created by academia. It's not as big a scandal because it doesn't involve minors and sex.
Yeah, maybe. I'm having trouble deciding whether I think this is a difference in degree or kind.
You look at things like the career/clout-driven sexual abuse that happens in Hollywood, and you think- maybe it's not all that different. But then, maybe the difference is that in Hollywood it comes from purely material pressures (?), nothing masquerading as divine authority.
But then- given the subject matter, it's not hard for me to imagine some people in science seeing some prominent figures as having something like a divine-inspiration, assuming they themselves take the pseudo-spiritual view of science, even if they'd never put it that way. Even just "this person has some special insight into the biggest, most important questions" starts to sound like clergy.
Maybe it's just that science is a less-religious religion? It has less of both the good and the bad ego dynamics that come with spiritual belief
You look at things like the career/clout-driven sexual abuse that happens in Hollywood, and you think- maybe it's not all that different. But then, maybe the difference is that in Hollywood it comes from purely material pressures (?), nothing masquerading as divine authority.
But then- given the subject matter, it's not hard for me to imagine some people in science seeing some prominent figures as having something like a divine-inspiration, assuming they themselves take the pseudo-spiritual view of science, even if they'd never put it that way. Even just "this person has some special insight into the biggest, most important questions" starts to sound like clergy.
Maybe it's just that science is a less-religious religion? It has less of both the good and the bad ego dynamics that come with spiritual belief
You didn't look very hard. Eugenics was a form of "scientism" that justified and spread scientific racism. The scientists involved were keen on destroying races they deemed "inferior" to themselves.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/
This scientism became the basis of the Nuremberg Laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Eugenics_in_the_Unite...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/
This scientism became the basis of the Nuremberg Laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Eugenics_in_the_Unite...
Yes totally. I'm not ruling out the idea that Scientism has the same horrible group dynamics as religion. I think it's very likely it does, and possibly worse.
What I'm not convinced of is that Scientism has the same level of effect on individuals--scientists don't seem to become as wildly inflated as priests or cult leaders.
What I'm not convinced of is that Scientism has the same level of effect on individuals--scientists don't seem to become as wildly inflated as priests or cult leaders.
> scientists don't seem to become as wildly inflated as priests or cult leaders
Isn't that simply because they don't have anywhere near the amount of power or followers? For power to corrupt, you must first have power.
Isn't that simply because they don't have anywhere near the amount of power or followers? For power to corrupt, you must first have power.
Having largely unquestioning followers certainly does bestow a certain level of power.
Is that unique to scientific academia though or a problem with academia itself?
I don't think it's unique to scientific academia, but it felt like they were suggesting the scientific community is immune to these kinds of problems
Not immune. The author is saying the scientific community doesn't have outsized problems vs other professions or compared with religion (i.e. at most as bad as).
> I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions)
"at least no more than in other professions" is the key.
> Maybe Scientism is simply better at ego-maintenance than its religious analogs
> Of course, Scientism still has some of the common failure modes of religion. There is plenty of hatred for the outgroup (looking at you, r/skeptic). And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk.
> But all that aside, I’m beginning to think of Scientism less as a perversion of science, and more as an evolutionary leap in religious culture
So the basic thrust is because scientism has the go modulating aspect of religion but not as much of the ego maximizing, scientism is better than releigion.
That being said, I think the author doesn't really dive into all the ego maximization that does happen (awards, success in industry, credentialism, chasing monetary rewards, etc). However, all of that happens in a religious context too (in Catholicism for example, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, etc). "And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk." comes up even worse in a religious context ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them", "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."). Funny how human-generated philosophies always privilege our own space in the universe. It's almost as if game theory would accurately predict such an outcome.
> I don’t think there’s a demonstrable pattern of high-profile scientists or science advocates getting away with destructive, narcissistic behavior (at least no more than in other professions)
"at least no more than in other professions" is the key.
> Maybe Scientism is simply better at ego-maintenance than its religious analogs
> Of course, Scientism still has some of the common failure modes of religion. There is plenty of hatred for the outgroup (looking at you, r/skeptic). And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk.
> But all that aside, I’m beginning to think of Scientism less as a perversion of science, and more as an evolutionary leap in religious culture
So the basic thrust is because scientism has the go modulating aspect of religion but not as much of the ego maximizing, scientism is better than releigion.
That being said, I think the author doesn't really dive into all the ego maximization that does happen (awards, success in industry, credentialism, chasing monetary rewards, etc). However, all of that happens in a religious context too (in Catholicism for example, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, etc). "And its image of man as the “apex intelligence” of the universe has arguably led to some existential risk." comes up even worse in a religious context ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them", "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."). Funny how human-generated philosophies always privilege our own space in the universe. It's almost as if game theory would accurately predict such an outcome.
While its main point is interesting to think about, this article still has a view of "religion" that is (despite token mentions of Buddhism and, via perennial philosophy, Hinduism) very influenced by Abrahamic (monotheistic) conceptions: especially in putting beliefs/faith as central:
> One of the primary attributes of any religion is its creed. Each world religion professes a unique set of metaphysical beliefs, which is central to its identity. Anyone who contradicts or denies these beliefs is condemned or cast out as a heretic.
Consider also other aspects of religion (daily practices, restrictions on diet and behaviour, rituals, ceremonies, striving, seeking, penance, purity, community) — they support the central thesis and in other traditions are more central than creed. (See e.g. https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ and comments thereon.)
For that matter, the "scientism" mentioned in the article itself can be either monotheism-inspired (only believe scientific things, believing anything without proof is "unclean", we're better than the ones who came before), or focus more on other aspects (the attitude of discovery and humility, improvement of self and the world, …).
> One of the primary attributes of any religion is its creed. Each world religion professes a unique set of metaphysical beliefs, which is central to its identity. Anyone who contradicts or denies these beliefs is condemned or cast out as a heretic.
Consider also other aspects of religion (daily practices, restrictions on diet and behaviour, rituals, ceremonies, striving, seeking, penance, purity, community) — they support the central thesis and in other traditions are more central than creed. (See e.g. https://blog.gaijinpot.com/japan-religious-atheist-country/ and comments thereon.)
For that matter, the "scientism" mentioned in the article itself can be either monotheism-inspired (only believe scientific things, believing anything without proof is "unclean", we're better than the ones who came before), or focus more on other aspects (the attitude of discovery and humility, improvement of self and the world, …).
Some great points on the other aspects of religion! I specifically focused on metaphysical belief here, because that's one of the few things that separates religious communities from other communities. E.g. (as another poster pointed out) the military has many of the religious aspects you mentioned above.
I also think the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't belief-oriented is itself a Western misconception. Both have intricate pantheons and a wealth of mythology. Zen Buddhism is probably the only exception here.
I also think the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't belief-oriented is itself a Western misconception. Both have intricate pantheons and a wealth of mythology. Zen Buddhism is probably the only exception here.
As someone who grew up with the intricate pantheons and mythology (and is continuing to learn and pass them on), I am familiar with them. :-) The distinction I'm making is not about whether belief is an aspect or not (it is), but about how central it is.
We may just have to disagree about what the Western misconception is :) and it's not central (ha) to your thesis anyway, but let me put it another way. With monotheism came the distinction between "true" and "false" doctrine/religion, and as a result, these religions (and especially Christianity, probably because of its early history against the backdrop of Roman religion) is uniquely concerned with what is "true": putting belief/faith as central. This strongly influences the Western idea of religion (and also the idea of separating religious from non-religious) as a whole. As contrast, consider the examples from Japan above, and this conversation: https://web.archive.org/web/20160810043644/https://musingsof... (from https://books.google.com/books?id=T0kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 )
We may just have to disagree about what the Western misconception is :) and it's not central (ha) to your thesis anyway, but let me put it another way. With monotheism came the distinction between "true" and "false" doctrine/religion, and as a result, these religions (and especially Christianity, probably because of its early history against the backdrop of Roman religion) is uniquely concerned with what is "true": putting belief/faith as central. This strongly influences the Western idea of religion (and also the idea of separating religious from non-religious) as a whole. As contrast, consider the examples from Japan above, and this conversation: https://web.archive.org/web/20160810043644/https://musingsof... (from https://books.google.com/books?id=T0kqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA39 )
> I also think the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't belief-oriented is itself a Western misconception.
I can't speak for Hinduism, but the "pantheons" you find in some kinds of Buddhism aren't really like a "band of angels, following me". They're more like the author's blue diagrams of the ego; they're a teaching mechanism. There really are very few metaphysical beliefs in most kinds of Buddhism. The only core metaphysical belief shared by Buddhists is that there is no permanent, abiding self. Which is a non-belief.
As far as mythology is concerned, yes, Buddhists tell stories. Mostly these are stories of the Buddha's life and the lives of "the saints". But these are generally treated as mythology, not creed. It's not a spiritual failing to disbelieve.
It's in the context of Buddhism that I came across the word "hypostasy". A follower of a belief-based religion who falls away from faith is called an "apostate". Followers of forms of Buddhism that are radically unbelief-oriented[0] that then fall into faith are called "hypostates". The charming phrase that sticks in my mind is "hypostasizing an absolute".
[0] Specifically, I'm referring to systems based on Prasanghika Madhyamaka.
I can't speak for Hinduism, but the "pantheons" you find in some kinds of Buddhism aren't really like a "band of angels, following me". They're more like the author's blue diagrams of the ego; they're a teaching mechanism. There really are very few metaphysical beliefs in most kinds of Buddhism. The only core metaphysical belief shared by Buddhists is that there is no permanent, abiding self. Which is a non-belief.
As far as mythology is concerned, yes, Buddhists tell stories. Mostly these are stories of the Buddha's life and the lives of "the saints". But these are generally treated as mythology, not creed. It's not a spiritual failing to disbelieve.
It's in the context of Buddhism that I came across the word "hypostasy". A follower of a belief-based religion who falls away from faith is called an "apostate". Followers of forms of Buddhism that are radically unbelief-oriented[0] that then fall into faith are called "hypostates". The charming phrase that sticks in my mind is "hypostasizing an absolute".
[0] Specifically, I'm referring to systems based on Prasanghika Madhyamaka.
I recommend you dig deeper into Buddhism to grasp how flexible & responsive the religious leaders are to scientific advancements.
A book from Matthieu Ricard, an ex western scientist who later became a Buddhist monk and Dalai Lama's interpreter, wrote a book with a western quantum scientist [Quantum and the Lotus](https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Lotus-Journey-Frontiers-Buddh...). What is notable is how the exemplary practitioners are highly knowledgeable in scientific and philosophical subjects.
Moreover, you can see that both Dalai lama and the other top leaders of Tibetan Buddhism proactively collaborate with scientists on experiments and discussions to learn more.
A book from Matthieu Ricard, an ex western scientist who later became a Buddhist monk and Dalai Lama's interpreter, wrote a book with a western quantum scientist [Quantum and the Lotus](https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Lotus-Journey-Frontiers-Buddh...). What is notable is how the exemplary practitioners are highly knowledgeable in scientific and philosophical subjects.
Moreover, you can see that both Dalai lama and the other top leaders of Tibetan Buddhism proactively collaborate with scientists on experiments and discussions to learn more.
I think this may partially be a case of mis-diagnosis.
As someone who was raised in Christianity, and who later participated in the US Army and social dance, I think that a big part of ego modulation is:
* Synchronized activities - especially physical movement
* Shared suffering
* Shared effort towards a common goal
It just so happens[1] that most religions use both techniques heavily. Christian services typically involve the congregation speaking and singing in unison for an hour at a time. There is also a notion of universal suffering that is built into Christianity, that is typically emphasized through cultural activities and sermons.
A big thing within Christianity is practical expressions. We used to host a men's shelter, did a variety of charity work, and supported missionaries.
I've also done a buddhist meditation retreat. Everyone sat and meditated for an hour+ at a time, several times per day. I'm on the fence if that meets the criterion of "synchronized activities", since all of the action is entirely mental, but it definitely qualifies as "shared suffering". Same with not being able to speak for a week. And there was pretty strong encouragement to donate at the end, as well as participate in weekly "sits".
Social dance is almost entirely "synchronized activity". And it leads to a very intimate, trusting community. Sort of. Depending on the dance, dancing through the night and being part of the "breakfast club" is also a right of passage for some, which, along with beat up feet, is a sort of "shared suffering".
The military is pretty big on this stuff as well. Everyone thinks of basic training, but the experience is constantly repeated (although to a lesser level of discomfort) through training exercises. And marching is heavily emphasized during basic - not for any combat effectiveness reason - but because of its ability to engender trust and cohesion.
I'm sure there's probably some mystery sauce in religion that I'm missing, but I think a lot of it is down to those 3 factors.
---
1. Maybe it's on purpose. Maybe it's convergent evolution. Heck - maybe it's divine will. I don't really care about the cause here.
As someone who was raised in Christianity, and who later participated in the US Army and social dance, I think that a big part of ego modulation is:
* Synchronized activities - especially physical movement
* Shared suffering
* Shared effort towards a common goal
It just so happens[1] that most religions use both techniques heavily. Christian services typically involve the congregation speaking and singing in unison for an hour at a time. There is also a notion of universal suffering that is built into Christianity, that is typically emphasized through cultural activities and sermons.
A big thing within Christianity is practical expressions. We used to host a men's shelter, did a variety of charity work, and supported missionaries.
I've also done a buddhist meditation retreat. Everyone sat and meditated for an hour+ at a time, several times per day. I'm on the fence if that meets the criterion of "synchronized activities", since all of the action is entirely mental, but it definitely qualifies as "shared suffering". Same with not being able to speak for a week. And there was pretty strong encouragement to donate at the end, as well as participate in weekly "sits".
Social dance is almost entirely "synchronized activity". And it leads to a very intimate, trusting community. Sort of. Depending on the dance, dancing through the night and being part of the "breakfast club" is also a right of passage for some, which, along with beat up feet, is a sort of "shared suffering".
The military is pretty big on this stuff as well. Everyone thinks of basic training, but the experience is constantly repeated (although to a lesser level of discomfort) through training exercises. And marching is heavily emphasized during basic - not for any combat effectiveness reason - but because of its ability to engender trust and cohesion.
I'm sure there's probably some mystery sauce in religion that I'm missing, but I think a lot of it is down to those 3 factors.
---
1. Maybe it's on purpose. Maybe it's convergent evolution. Heck - maybe it's divine will. I don't really care about the cause here.
Yes, you make some great points here. Synchronized physical movement is much more important than most people realize. There are cults that rely on it heavily. I hope to write some more on this in the future.
My degree is in Religious Studies (which I actually think has been more useful to me in my software career than CS). I don't know who the author of the article is, or what the overall theme of the website is, all I can see is that it's an email newsletter?
On the one hand I like that William James is mentioned, he's one of the fathers, some even consider him the father, of Religious Studies. The Varieties Of Religious Experience was the first serious academic attempt to _describe_ this extraordinary human aspect that we call, not for want of a better term, Religion. What had tended to happen up till then, and indeed what continues to happen, is that academia tries to _explain_ Religion. Religious Studies isn't fundamentally opposed to explaining its subject matter per se. But rather it is more fundamentally concerned with, well, _studying_ Religion. Which of course does mean at least being open to theories, such as the ego one in the article, but ultimately it's primary concern is more to create a dedicated space in which Religion can _present its case on its own terms_. Humanity _needs_ Religious Studies, just because Religion is Seriously Fucked Up™, doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve serious academic attention, quite the opposite.
So, on the other hand I'm a little hesitant about this article, because it is both invoking Religious Studies and trying to explain Religion in the same breath. I actually like the ego-control theory, I have no bones with that. And we were certainly not discouraged from coming up with our own theories at university. But what I took the most inspiration and value from during those undergraduate years was the sheer power of dedicating the entire weight of an academic discipline to the uncompromising _study_ of a subject matter _without_ the explicit agenda of trying to explain it away. Like I said, that does not at all mean that Religious Studios wouldn't welcome an overarching Grand Unified Theory of Religion, it's just to say that, if you learn anything about Religious Studies today, it's that a GUT is way, way down the list of Religious Studies' priorities.
On the one hand I like that William James is mentioned, he's one of the fathers, some even consider him the father, of Religious Studies. The Varieties Of Religious Experience was the first serious academic attempt to _describe_ this extraordinary human aspect that we call, not for want of a better term, Religion. What had tended to happen up till then, and indeed what continues to happen, is that academia tries to _explain_ Religion. Religious Studies isn't fundamentally opposed to explaining its subject matter per se. But rather it is more fundamentally concerned with, well, _studying_ Religion. Which of course does mean at least being open to theories, such as the ego one in the article, but ultimately it's primary concern is more to create a dedicated space in which Religion can _present its case on its own terms_. Humanity _needs_ Religious Studies, just because Religion is Seriously Fucked Up™, doesn't mean that it doesn't deserve serious academic attention, quite the opposite.
So, on the other hand I'm a little hesitant about this article, because it is both invoking Religious Studies and trying to explain Religion in the same breath. I actually like the ego-control theory, I have no bones with that. And we were certainly not discouraged from coming up with our own theories at university. But what I took the most inspiration and value from during those undergraduate years was the sheer power of dedicating the entire weight of an academic discipline to the uncompromising _study_ of a subject matter _without_ the explicit agenda of trying to explain it away. Like I said, that does not at all mean that Religious Studios wouldn't welcome an overarching Grand Unified Theory of Religion, it's just to say that, if you learn anything about Religious Studies today, it's that a GUT is way, way down the list of Religious Studies' priorities.
> But what I took the most inspiration and value from during those undergraduate years was the sheer power of dedicating the entire weight of an academic discipline to the uncompromising _study_ of a subject matter _without_ the explicit agenda of trying to explain it away.
And that's the religion of academia (I don't mean that pejoratively).
And that's the religion of academia (I don't mean that pejoratively).
Glad you found some aspects of the article useful!
I'm definitely not trying to "explain away" religion, or provide a GUT. Just trying to show one potential lens on the subject.
I'm definitely not trying to "explain away" religion, or provide a GUT. Just trying to show one potential lens on the subject.
>> My degree is in Religious Studies (which I actually think has been more useful to me in my software career than CS).
That's interesting. Care to elaborate?
That's interesting. Care to elaborate?
It's basically the ability to deal with the strongly held thoughts, feelings and beliefs of other people (other people could be our colleagues, but also, the open source community and even just documentation in general). Now, the most interesting part of this is that I very much consider myself one of those "other people", whether that's my past self or the ulterior motives of my subconscious.
Having the tools to effectively understand other people, without diminishing either their value or human warmth, has been a fundamental factor in my productivity in professional settings.
Thanks for asking.
Having the tools to effectively understand other people, without diminishing either their value or human warmth, has been a fundamental factor in my productivity in professional settings.
Thanks for asking.
I like to think of a helpful ego and an unhelpful ego. My helpful ego allows me to function in society with others to get my needs met and help the community I am part of be successful. My ego in this case is my interface to the world and this "personality" is how people know me. I know I am more than this and there is a mysterious self behind this mask that I'm trying to understand.
I think the unhelpful ego is thinking I know things without evidence through faith and belief. Then judging others on how closely they align with my beliefs. My unhelpful ego sets me apart from others and sometimes causes me to circle the wagons with like minded people in opposition to others. Life is a competition for survival, so even this ego is helpful in some circumstances, but is often problematic and starts wars, murders, lawsuits and other hostilities.
I don't know what happens after I die. I don't know where loved ones who passed went. I don't know why I was born or what I'm supposed to do here. I don't know that if I wire up enough transistors that my machine will become spontaneously conscious. I don't know that God exists or has a plan for me. I don't know if I am an individual with free will who acts independently from others. I don't know if I am living in a simulation. The list of things I don't know is immense.
When I start pretending I know things is when I start getting in trouble.
I think the unhelpful ego is thinking I know things without evidence through faith and belief. Then judging others on how closely they align with my beliefs. My unhelpful ego sets me apart from others and sometimes causes me to circle the wagons with like minded people in opposition to others. Life is a competition for survival, so even this ego is helpful in some circumstances, but is often problematic and starts wars, murders, lawsuits and other hostilities.
I don't know what happens after I die. I don't know where loved ones who passed went. I don't know why I was born or what I'm supposed to do here. I don't know that if I wire up enough transistors that my machine will become spontaneously conscious. I don't know that God exists or has a plan for me. I don't know if I am an individual with free will who acts independently from others. I don't know if I am living in a simulation. The list of things I don't know is immense.
When I start pretending I know things is when I start getting in trouble.
As summarized by Jesus of Nazareth: the greatest commandment is Love your God with all your heart, Love your neighbor as yourself.
I've always consider this less as a command and more the code that is already running on every human operating system. After all the summarizer is claiming to be close with the creator. Something worth considering.
So if our code is we will be consumed whatever we choose to be our god (science, religion, ourselves...) we will also love or harm others the way we love and harm ourselves. The most consistently kind, life giving people I have ever encountered are treating others the way they treat themselves. The people who I've been abused by, with hindsight can see they were harming me the way the harm themselves.
This is critical for our own self diagnostics, alignment, and ultimately how we build healthy civilization. I would invite anyone reading this to use science to rigorously form, and reform questions. Science is a lousy religion in my opinion, however I have found rediscovering my own heritage through the Spanish Mystics, science applied to religion or perhaps better referred to as ones on personal faith has unlocked a peace within my own inner development and facing universe spanning unknowns.
I hope this note finds you well.
I've always consider this less as a command and more the code that is already running on every human operating system. After all the summarizer is claiming to be close with the creator. Something worth considering.
So if our code is we will be consumed whatever we choose to be our god (science, religion, ourselves...) we will also love or harm others the way we love and harm ourselves. The most consistently kind, life giving people I have ever encountered are treating others the way they treat themselves. The people who I've been abused by, with hindsight can see they were harming me the way the harm themselves.
This is critical for our own self diagnostics, alignment, and ultimately how we build healthy civilization. I would invite anyone reading this to use science to rigorously form, and reform questions. Science is a lousy religion in my opinion, however I have found rediscovering my own heritage through the Spanish Mystics, science applied to religion or perhaps better referred to as ones on personal faith has unlocked a peace within my own inner development and facing universe spanning unknowns.
I hope this note finds you well.
Some really interesting ideas in here.
> I've always consider this less as a command and more the code that is already running on every human operating system
I like to think of the "golden rule" as an incredibly elegant and powerful piece of software for decentralized systems. It's been described by a huge number of human civilizations [1]. I suspect if we ever come across alien civilizations, they'll also have their own version.
> we will also love or harm others the way we love and harm ourselves
This is very similar to Alan Watts' conception of karma, another topic I'd like to write about.
> Spanish Mystics
Anyone in particular?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
> I've always consider this less as a command and more the code that is already running on every human operating system
I like to think of the "golden rule" as an incredibly elegant and powerful piece of software for decentralized systems. It's been described by a huge number of human civilizations [1]. I suspect if we ever come across alien civilizations, they'll also have their own version.
> we will also love or harm others the way we love and harm ourselves
This is very similar to Alan Watts' conception of karma, another topic I'd like to write about.
> Spanish Mystics
Anyone in particular?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
I try to live by these two codes:
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Lead by example.
The first was drilled into me by my mother that was raised as a church going midwesterner. The second came from Boy Scouts but has been reaffirmed throughout my life through observation of others and seeing the results of doing what I feel is right. These are the two lessons I try to instill in my children and the children I coach. If I had to choose a third it would be "only you are responsible for you happiness and success" but that lesson takes some shit experiences to really internalize.
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Lead by example.
The first was drilled into me by my mother that was raised as a church going midwesterner. The second came from Boy Scouts but has been reaffirmed throughout my life through observation of others and seeing the results of doing what I feel is right. These are the two lessons I try to instill in my children and the children I coach. If I had to choose a third it would be "only you are responsible for you happiness and success" but that lesson takes some shit experiences to really internalize.
> Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Wouldn't it be better to treat others the way they want to be treated?
Wouldn't it be better to treat others the way they want to be treated?
I agree that this is both more effective and has the benefit of encouraging people to understand others in a deeper level. Taking the time to understand someone else handles stress differently (and has different strengths and weaknesses, preferences, ways of communication, etc.) is a level above just treating people the way oneself wants to be treated.
Anecdotally- I've had many experiences with my mother who adamantly insists she treats others the way she wants to be treated when, in fact, she has a very unique life experience that has generated some specific ideas of how she thinks people should behave, and in treating others the way she wants to be treated she tends to unintentionally generate miscommunication and awkward situations at best, if not sometimes conflicts and harm.
Anecdotally- I've had many experiences with my mother who adamantly insists she treats others the way she wants to be treated when, in fact, she has a very unique life experience that has generated some specific ideas of how she thinks people should behave, and in treating others the way she wants to be treated she tends to unintentionally generate miscommunication and awkward situations at best, if not sometimes conflicts and harm.
Would you not want to be listen to? Cared for? Considered? Is this not then the healthy expression of loving one as yourself.
Also, there are many who may harbor destructive habits and may need to be treated not for what they want in the moment but rather what best heals them and returns them to the best version of themselves. Understandably difficult to discern in most situations but difficulty is not a disqualification for pursuit of loving others as ourselves.
Also, there are many who may harbor destructive habits and may need to be treated not for what they want in the moment but rather what best heals them and returns them to the best version of themselves. Understandably difficult to discern in most situations but difficulty is not a disqualification for pursuit of loving others as ourselves.
There is also a book called "Predictably Irrational" that talks about a fun experiment where people could choose to cheat without being caught when reciting the ten commandments. They found that recalling the ten commandments or even an "honesty policy" before a test would reduce cheating/lying significantly.
So why does recalling the Ten Commandments reduce our tendency to lie, even when we couldn't possibly be caught?
So why does recalling the Ten Commandments reduce our tendency to lie, even when we couldn't possibly be caught?
> Love your neighbor as yourself.
Sometimes I wonder about the original intention and meaning of this expression
I’ve come to believe that maybe Jesus meant it as: “Love yourself as your neighbor”
Meaning: unless you love and accept yourself, it’s going to be hard to love others as well.
Sometimes I wonder about the original intention and meaning of this expression
I’ve come to believe that maybe Jesus meant it as: “Love yourself as your neighbor”
Meaning: unless you love and accept yourself, it’s going to be hard to love others as well.
I always thought it was a lead in to expanding your tribe. If you love your neighbor as yourself they become friends and maybe family. Group animosity and violence is much less likely if we are in the same tribe. With globalization we are all neighbors in some sense.
The amount of seemingly pro-religious chatter in here is really surprising to me.
I grew up in essentially a cultish variation of southern Baptist and have extensive experience with other denominations of “Christianity” and there is no way in fucking hell I would ever say a damn positive thing about the social clubs that are 99% of churches. Religion is almost entirely about control.
The current state of this country is due to the evangelical movement and all the bullshit that has come with it.
American “religion” and its followers can rot.
I grew up in essentially a cultish variation of southern Baptist and have extensive experience with other denominations of “Christianity” and there is no way in fucking hell I would ever say a damn positive thing about the social clubs that are 99% of churches. Religion is almost entirely about control.
The current state of this country is due to the evangelical movement and all the bullshit that has come with it.
American “religion” and its followers can rot.
> In other words, the hallmark of a religious mind is a smaller ego.
Is it?
In Jesus's teachings, the ones who were most egotistical were the scribes and pharisees. While the one with arguably the smallest ego was the good Samaritan. There's no real evidence that religious people (even by religious teachings) are immune to the issues of selfish, self-centered thinking.
-------
I say ego is independent. Religion doesn't affect it really. An ego-centric individual could be drawn into Religion for selfish reasons (ex: purely for the hope to get into Heaven without thinking about others), for example. There are certainly teachings within the religion about society and working together, etc. etc. But I don't think people necessarily follow those unless they were already predisposed into thinking about other people.
I would argue that any religious scholar (at least, of Christianity), would point out that the Bible has numerous examples and stories to remind us that "Religionism isn't good by itself". There are plenty of priests and holy people throughout the ages who have failed to live up to the ideals of the religion.
Ex: Moses's brother Aaron worshiped the golden calf with the rest of the Isrealites. Jesus was betrayed by an Apostle named Judas. The scribes / pharisees were some of the hardest set against Jesus, forcing Jesus to preach to non-believers (ie: Gentiles)
Is it?
In Jesus's teachings, the ones who were most egotistical were the scribes and pharisees. While the one with arguably the smallest ego was the good Samaritan. There's no real evidence that religious people (even by religious teachings) are immune to the issues of selfish, self-centered thinking.
-------
I say ego is independent. Religion doesn't affect it really. An ego-centric individual could be drawn into Religion for selfish reasons (ex: purely for the hope to get into Heaven without thinking about others), for example. There are certainly teachings within the religion about society and working together, etc. etc. But I don't think people necessarily follow those unless they were already predisposed into thinking about other people.
I would argue that any religious scholar (at least, of Christianity), would point out that the Bible has numerous examples and stories to remind us that "Religionism isn't good by itself". There are plenty of priests and holy people throughout the ages who have failed to live up to the ideals of the religion.
Ex: Moses's brother Aaron worshiped the golden calf with the rest of the Isrealites. Jesus was betrayed by an Apostle named Judas. The scribes / pharisees were some of the hardest set against Jesus, forcing Jesus to preach to non-believers (ie: Gentiles)
> I say ego is independent.
I agree. but I find the concept of "ego" problematic.
The concept arises from Freud, and I think the author's explanation of ego as a boundary is a fair presentation of Freud's conception. And Freud's model is fairly convincing. It has a lot of explanatory power, but it doesn't make many testable predictions; it might be so, but it might not.
The word "ego" is used a lot by Buddhists, and I think the way they use it is unhelpful; they use it mainly to mean the belief in a permanent, abiding self. But they also use it to mean selfishness, the desire for power and so on. I take it to refer to the psychological structures we build to protect us from psychological threats. In that sense, I think it's useful to think of the ego as a boundary.
So I accept the idea of ego as a protection mechanism. But I think it's a natural and unavoidable response to interacting with a world full of psychological threats; I don't think your metaphysical beliefs are going to have much effect on such fundamental self-protection instincts. On the contrary, my view is that your metaphysical beliefs will be a reflection of your psychological attitude to the world around you.
I don't think that faith makes you a better person.
I agree. but I find the concept of "ego" problematic.
The concept arises from Freud, and I think the author's explanation of ego as a boundary is a fair presentation of Freud's conception. And Freud's model is fairly convincing. It has a lot of explanatory power, but it doesn't make many testable predictions; it might be so, but it might not.
The word "ego" is used a lot by Buddhists, and I think the way they use it is unhelpful; they use it mainly to mean the belief in a permanent, abiding self. But they also use it to mean selfishness, the desire for power and so on. I take it to refer to the psychological structures we build to protect us from psychological threats. In that sense, I think it's useful to think of the ego as a boundary.
So I accept the idea of ego as a protection mechanism. But I think it's a natural and unavoidable response to interacting with a world full of psychological threats; I don't think your metaphysical beliefs are going to have much effect on such fundamental self-protection instincts. On the contrary, my view is that your metaphysical beliefs will be a reflection of your psychological attitude to the world around you.
I don't think that faith makes you a better person.
I interpret this line such that this instance of “religious mind” is associated with the directly aforementioned “saintly character”. That is to say that your examples of Aaron, the scribes, Pharisees, etc. were definitely not “saintly characters”.
Humility (this is a smaller Ego, yes?) is praised throughout the Bible. Its “saintly characters”, primarily Jesus, exhibit this trait.
Similarly, Krishna humbles Arjuna in the Gita (Arjuna being the “saintly character” here).
Humility (this is a smaller Ego, yes?) is praised throughout the Bible. Its “saintly characters”, primarily Jesus, exhibit this trait.
Similarly, Krishna humbles Arjuna in the Gita (Arjuna being the “saintly character” here).
Aaron was literally God's hand chosen spokesman for Moses, the #2 Priest after Moses.
Humility is expected, but time and time again, humans fail to live up to the task, even hand selected priests of God like Aaron was.
------
I can't speak for other Religions, but in Catholicism at least, the moral failings of high priests and their mistakes are well known.
-------
King David is perhaps a more saintly figure who grows powerful, then egotistical and fails. Arguably Samson as well.
The ideal exists, but it is accepted that humans fail.
Humility is expected, but time and time again, humans fail to live up to the task, even hand selected priests of God like Aaron was.
------
I can't speak for other Religions, but in Catholicism at least, the moral failings of high priests and their mistakes are well known.
-------
King David is perhaps a more saintly figure who grows powerful, then egotistical and fails. Arguably Samson as well.
The ideal exists, but it is accepted that humans fail.
I’m saying that people reach that “existing ideal” to the extent that their ego is shrunk, and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego, yes? I guess my theory fundamentally disagrees with yours.
I’m basing what I’m saying on the article author’s line “the saints of all religions” implying that their “religious mindset” is limited to those considered saintly. Aaron perfectly represents Israel’s lack of fidelity; I think it’s safe to keep him, even Moses (it was his ego that kept him from the promised land), separate from sainthood. Ultimately, the author’s intended point in making the single statement you and I are talking about hinges on their idea of sainthood (and perhaps Jesus is Christianity’s only true saint). Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out).
I’m basing what I’m saying on the article author’s line “the saints of all religions” implying that their “religious mindset” is limited to those considered saintly. Aaron perfectly represents Israel’s lack of fidelity; I think it’s safe to keep him, even Moses (it was his ego that kept him from the promised land), separate from sainthood. Ultimately, the author’s intended point in making the single statement you and I are talking about hinges on their idea of sainthood (and perhaps Jesus is Christianity’s only true saint). Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out).
> and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego
I'm saying that in the Christian faith, there are numerous examples of holy people who have fallen prey to hubris. This doesn't detract from their holiness.
> Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out).
First off, Moses, Aaron, David, etc. etc. are considered Saints in Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we can dispel that myth immediately.
The Catholic definition of sainthood is simply someone who has been accepted into heaven. If a miracle has been performed in someone's name, then it is proof that God has accepted them (and for good measure, we wait for two miracles. The first miracle could have been a fluke after all).
Since such a person has proof from God that they are holy, they are someone to emulate. They are roughly, the metric under which God deems worthy to accept into heaven.
"Sainthood" is a technical term, meaning we've received proof on earth that someone is in heaven. The metric God uses is likely a lower bar. IE: there are probably "unknown saints", humble people who never became popular enough for people to later pray under their name and thereby get a miracle assigned to them. That's okay, because they're in heaven regardless. The sainthood system is itself an imperfect system by us Catholics. Ex: If you think your grandma is in heaven, she's probably a saint, but don't expect the Catholic Church to officially canonize her unless she was popular.
Sainthood includes such storied figures as say, Saint Olga, who was well known for executing an entire village in her wrath. Not just once, but three times. She's not even the most "hubris" saint I can think of, she's just one that I've been studying recently due to this whole Ukrainian conflict thing.
I understand that the Buddhist idea of "sainthood" (perhaps more accurately, Nirvanna in that religion) is quite different and incompatible with the Catholic / Christian idea.
---------
In the Catholic / Christian viewpoint, people are full of sins and errors. It is the pursuit of holiness that is the goal, but even that pursuit itself can become corrupted by ego. Be it from Biblical stories (ie: Aaron from Exodus, or the Pharisees in Jesus's time), to even more modern saints and holy figures.
Humility is a goal and is certainly a virtue. But unlike Buddhism, Catholicism doesn't necessarily expect saints to have the trait. You can enter into heaven despite imperfections.
Exactly how many imperfections is up for debate, even within a major top/down scholarly religion like Catholicism. But nobody is perfect, not even the leaders of a religion or some of the holiest people we've studied in biblical or modern times.
Some Christians even believe that "faith alone" can save you, even if you're grossly sinful. That's not the viewpoint of Catholics, but you can get the gist of the debate from how other Christians have written down their understanding of the faith. In all cases, there's the idea of God selecting those who are "better" than others, and humility is clearly one metric. But its not the only metric and not the only metric God will judge us by
-----
In any case, Aaron is likely a saint, as he was a high-priest with Moses. His imperfection and weakness, causing him to worship the Golden Calf despite being saved from Egypt, is kind of the old / ancient trope of holy men falling and failing the challenges posed to them. But that's okay, God doesn't expect perfection from us.
If Aaron is too much of a cornercase, then I can shift my argument to King David and/or Moses, who have plenty of well documented imperfections in their lives and are certainly considered to be in heaven (and therefore a saint).
I'm saying that in the Christian faith, there are numerous examples of holy people who have fallen prey to hubris. This doesn't detract from their holiness.
> Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out).
First off, Moses, Aaron, David, etc. etc. are considered Saints in Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we can dispel that myth immediately.
The Catholic definition of sainthood is simply someone who has been accepted into heaven. If a miracle has been performed in someone's name, then it is proof that God has accepted them (and for good measure, we wait for two miracles. The first miracle could have been a fluke after all).
Since such a person has proof from God that they are holy, they are someone to emulate. They are roughly, the metric under which God deems worthy to accept into heaven.
"Sainthood" is a technical term, meaning we've received proof on earth that someone is in heaven. The metric God uses is likely a lower bar. IE: there are probably "unknown saints", humble people who never became popular enough for people to later pray under their name and thereby get a miracle assigned to them. That's okay, because they're in heaven regardless. The sainthood system is itself an imperfect system by us Catholics. Ex: If you think your grandma is in heaven, she's probably a saint, but don't expect the Catholic Church to officially canonize her unless she was popular.
Sainthood includes such storied figures as say, Saint Olga, who was well known for executing an entire village in her wrath. Not just once, but three times. She's not even the most "hubris" saint I can think of, she's just one that I've been studying recently due to this whole Ukrainian conflict thing.
I understand that the Buddhist idea of "sainthood" (perhaps more accurately, Nirvanna in that religion) is quite different and incompatible with the Catholic / Christian idea.
---------
In the Catholic / Christian viewpoint, people are full of sins and errors. It is the pursuit of holiness that is the goal, but even that pursuit itself can become corrupted by ego. Be it from Biblical stories (ie: Aaron from Exodus, or the Pharisees in Jesus's time), to even more modern saints and holy figures.
Humility is a goal and is certainly a virtue. But unlike Buddhism, Catholicism doesn't necessarily expect saints to have the trait. You can enter into heaven despite imperfections.
Exactly how many imperfections is up for debate, even within a major top/down scholarly religion like Catholicism. But nobody is perfect, not even the leaders of a religion or some of the holiest people we've studied in biblical or modern times.
Some Christians even believe that "faith alone" can save you, even if you're grossly sinful. That's not the viewpoint of Catholics, but you can get the gist of the debate from how other Christians have written down their understanding of the faith. In all cases, there's the idea of God selecting those who are "better" than others, and humility is clearly one metric. But its not the only metric and not the only metric God will judge us by
-----
In any case, Aaron is likely a saint, as he was a high-priest with Moses. His imperfection and weakness, causing him to worship the Golden Calf despite being saved from Egypt, is kind of the old / ancient trope of holy men falling and failing the challenges posed to them. But that's okay, God doesn't expect perfection from us.
If Aaron is too much of a cornercase, then I can shift my argument to King David and/or Moses, who have plenty of well documented imperfections in their lives and are certainly considered to be in heaven (and therefore a saint).
>> In other words, the hallmark of a religious mind is a smaller ego.
> Is it?
This quote is a bit out of context--it's a summary of William James' position. Later on I refute and expand on that position, saying that religion also leads to extreme egotism. Which I think coheres with your other points.
> Is it?
This quote is a bit out of context--it's a summary of William James' position. Later on I refute and expand on that position, saying that religion also leads to extreme egotism. Which I think coheres with your other points.
I've finished reading to the end. I'm not sure if you've got the beginning and end of the blogpost very cohesive, but I can admit that I didn't read the whole post before typing a bit earlier.
In any case, I think its an interesting point you bring up, because I think it brings up what I feel are misunderstandings of the Catholic faith and our understanding of holiness. Especially because the Buddhist interpretation of Nirvana seems more popular in pop culture today.
I would argue that Jesus's warning against self-centered, egotistical holy men was one of his greatest messages. That holy men will tend to become egotistical like the pharisees. In contrast, Jesus's first Apostles were tax collectors and fishermen, and he preached to the Gentiles (ie: non-Hewbrew / non-holy people).
That is to say: the contradiction is a cornerstone of Catholicism. Jesus wants us to become more holy and religious, but also warns us that the pursuit of religion has a corrupting effect upon our soul that we need to watch out for.
In any case, I think its an interesting point you bring up, because I think it brings up what I feel are misunderstandings of the Catholic faith and our understanding of holiness. Especially because the Buddhist interpretation of Nirvana seems more popular in pop culture today.
I would argue that Jesus's warning against self-centered, egotistical holy men was one of his greatest messages. That holy men will tend to become egotistical like the pharisees. In contrast, Jesus's first Apostles were tax collectors and fishermen, and he preached to the Gentiles (ie: non-Hewbrew / non-holy people).
That is to say: the contradiction is a cornerstone of Catholicism. Jesus wants us to become more holy and religious, but also warns us that the pursuit of religion has a corrupting effect upon our soul that we need to watch out for.
[deleted]
This theory is only half true. Any power structure allows abuse to happen. Business, politics, universities, kingdoms, celebrities... there's nothing about religion distinct in this regard, other than religion is more widespread. Any social structure known to man will be susceptible to abuse.
What does make religion unique, as the article also states, is that it prescribes conquering the ego as one of its primary goals. The more of this we can get in the world, the better.
What does make religion unique, as the article also states, is that it prescribes conquering the ego as one of its primary goals. The more of this we can get in the world, the better.
One difference with religion is it requires some level of suspension of critical thinking and you have to take many things on "faith". This seems like a great way to dodge accountability and hand wave away things without being questioned too much.
I think every discipline requires some suspension of critical thinking. When I’m writing software I might start with a “faith” I can solve a problem I may not fully understand. I will come to understand the things I don’t currently understand when the time comes to implement them. I trust google or stack overflow will have my back!
Theology and Philosophy are full of critical thinking. And I’m not sure you can find any success in religious practice without it.
Theology and Philosophy are full of critical thinking. And I’m not sure you can find any success in religious practice without it.
But with say software, you can verify yourself if you wanted to whether something is true or not. And if you can find sufficient evidence that something isn't true it'll get corrected.
With religion you're expected to believe many things without evidence. And often times in the face of evidence against the thing.
With religion you're expected to believe many things without evidence. And often times in the face of evidence against the thing.
The anti-religious love to harp on the whole evidence thing, but in real life you almost never make decisions based on evidence. Instead, you base them on experiences – whether based your own or other people's.
Here's a basic example: What's the evidence that Donald Trump was (or spicier, isn't) president? How do you verify this fact? Is it not simply faith in our system and word of mouth?
Here's a basic example: What's the evidence that Donald Trump was (or spicier, isn't) president? How do you verify this fact? Is it not simply faith in our system and word of mouth?
No, religion does not require suspension of critical thinking. This is only pushed by those who want to keep or abuse their power.
I think this applies to spirituality as a whole and not just religion. I have also heard experiences with ayahuasca and DMT also result in a reduction of ego and a realization that you're one piece of a vast connected consciousness.
Absolutely! Not surprising that Huxley also wrote one of the great psychedelic classics.
Collective Consciousness is a New Age idea however, and that line of thinking is rejected by many religions ironically.
There's a few common practices across religions, spirituality, and philosophies.
Surrendering/forgiveness, constant reflection on death, and separation of the self tend to come to mind.
Most religions instill these ideas/virtues which may "modulate" the ego. For devout practitioners, they tend to live by these virtues and actually "reduce" the ego to near extinction.
The question is, do people naturally come across these ideas without religion/spirituality/etc? I was raised non-religious and didn't come across many of these ideas until my late 20s when I started to read again. Most of that came from reading religious/spiritual types of texts.
Surrendering/forgiveness, constant reflection on death, and separation of the self tend to come to mind.
Most religions instill these ideas/virtues which may "modulate" the ego. For devout practitioners, they tend to live by these virtues and actually "reduce" the ego to near extinction.
The question is, do people naturally come across these ideas without religion/spirituality/etc? I was raised non-religious and didn't come across many of these ideas until my late 20s when I started to read again. Most of that came from reading religious/spiritual types of texts.
The "Perennial Philosophy" school of thought [1] says that people rediscover these ideas over and over again. It takes a particularly prophetic individual to stumble over them de novo, but once the idea takes root it spreads quickly.
There's a great quote from William James on the cycle of religious discovery, diaspora, corruption, and rediscovery, but I can't find it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
There's a great quote from William James on the cycle of religious discovery, diaspora, corruption, and rediscovery, but I can't find it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
Not sure if this is the one you're talking about, but it rang a bell. I saw it in a Tony Robbins book most recently and then repeated in a book about TV addiction.
“First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.”
- William James
"First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
“First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.”
- William James
"First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
No but this one is even better!
The problem is that dominant religions need an ego check as well. No, you are not going to explain the universe or define the entirety of life habits of your practioners. Just stick to the matters on the inside, please.
My own tastes might very well agree with yours, but if other people want their religion to dictate what food they can eat and what clothes they can wear etc, why should that bother me?
The problem comes when they try to impose those things on other people.
All law comes from belief in some underlying value to be pursued. For every issue, there is coupled with it the issue of individual choice on that issue. Some issues have higher value than individual choice on that issue.
What you’re annoyed with is how others prioritize which issues outweigh their coupled choice issue. But would you take away their choice to prioritize value in that way?
There are two modes of operation: for society to strive for objective truth together to reach a consensus congruent with reality, or to arbitrarily reach consensus and occasionally face the consequences of our idiosyncrasies.
The objective truth we must strive for is fundamental moral law. It is to that one must appeal, lest their opinion lead us to bear the consequences of their ineptitude.
We can give this fundamental moral law any name we want, but I’ll call it “God’s opinion” because it would take God to know all the ins and outs of it.
Now, are you expressing annoyance because others contradict your opinion or God’s? How would you or others know the right opinion to have, which aligns with fundamental moral law?
What you’re annoyed with is how others prioritize which issues outweigh their coupled choice issue. But would you take away their choice to prioritize value in that way?
There are two modes of operation: for society to strive for objective truth together to reach a consensus congruent with reality, or to arbitrarily reach consensus and occasionally face the consequences of our idiosyncrasies.
The objective truth we must strive for is fundamental moral law. It is to that one must appeal, lest their opinion lead us to bear the consequences of their ineptitude.
We can give this fundamental moral law any name we want, but I’ll call it “God’s opinion” because it would take God to know all the ins and outs of it.
Now, are you expressing annoyance because others contradict your opinion or God’s? How would you or others know the right opinion to have, which aligns with fundamental moral law?
I would push back on the ideas that there exists an objective moral law at all. I also don’t necessarily believe all laws come from a desire to align society with some moral ideal. But assuming the above two things are true I don’t think it’s possible to know “God’s opinion” at all. Therefore the only thing we can really go on is the real tangible benefits a law will give to society. My problem comes in when people justify enshrining harmful acts in law with the justification that it will save an immortal soul of some kind.
morality is fundamentally based on opinion. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem, Hume writes: "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."
Morality can also be based on game theory.
Yes, but that's a different thing to complain about than 'explain the universe or define the entirety of life habits of your practioners.'
It shouldn't bother you at first, but what they can eat and what they can wear quickly turns into what you're allowed to eat and wear in certain religions.
I can see a lot of that stuff recently, people just deny the obvious religious nature of such practices.
However, such religion can no longer be universal, since for most people habits are not defined through religion anymore.
However, such religion can no longer be universal, since for most people habits are not defined through religion anymore.
>”No, you are not going to explain the universe or define the entirety of life habits of your practitioners.”
Counterintuitively, the religions/sects that do exactly what you’re describing happen to be the most successful. Not only do they seem to hold on to adherents at a much higher rate than their more lenient peers, their adherents tend to be far more fecund.
I suppose from a pseudo Darwinian standpoint, this strategy is more successful. I don’t recall what study this was from, but based on current trends in the year 2100, 50% of Christians in the United States with either be Amish or Mormon. Over 50% of Jews will be Orthodox/Ultra Orthodox rather than Reform. All because these religions/sects do precisely what we think they shouldn’t be doing.
Counterintuitively, the religions/sects that do exactly what you’re describing happen to be the most successful. Not only do they seem to hold on to adherents at a much higher rate than their more lenient peers, their adherents tend to be far more fecund.
I suppose from a pseudo Darwinian standpoint, this strategy is more successful. I don’t recall what study this was from, but based on current trends in the year 2100, 50% of Christians in the United States with either be Amish or Mormon. Over 50% of Jews will be Orthodox/Ultra Orthodox rather than Reform. All because these religions/sects do precisely what we think they shouldn’t be doing.
We don't know how many people are going to defect from these movements as time goes by. Most likely it would be a secular society comprised of children or grandchildren of deeply religious folks, who themselses do not adhere that much.
Defections certainly happen, but not at a rate that would be significant enough to overcome the fertility inside of the group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa
Interestingly these communities have a mechanism for selecting out those who do not wish to comply or conform.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa
Interestingly these communities have a mechanism for selecting out those who do not wish to comply or conform.
Given that ego minimization comes from viewing oneself with respect to a broader group/context, what is the effect of isolating one’s identity from the group/context? Wouldn’t it have the opposite effect?
If someone is constantly being told how different they are from people in a group, they are less likely to closely identify with the group. Or with any single group. The end effect is that everyone becomes isolated, purposeless, and egotistical.
Obsessing over intersectionality achieves this purpose flawlessly. One can slice a loaf of bread only so many times before all that’s left are crumbs.
If someone is constantly being told how different they are from people in a group, they are less likely to closely identify with the group. Or with any single group. The end effect is that everyone becomes isolated, purposeless, and egotistical.
Obsessing over intersectionality achieves this purpose flawlessly. One can slice a loaf of bread only so many times before all that’s left are crumbs.
It depends. It can also be a ego foundation, similar to virtue signaling. Anecdotally, I’ve seen plenty of people establish themselves as morally superior to others. It’s no different than militant vegans, ultra left progressives, ultra right conservatives, the list is endless.
It’s a mixed bag with religion. The non-red flags to look for is acceptance and a surrender to providence and nature. Everything else is fertilizer for the ego industrial complex.
It’s a mixed bag with religion. The non-red flags to look for is acceptance and a surrender to providence and nature. Everything else is fertilizer for the ego industrial complex.
> the ego industrial complex
Did you come up with this term? I might have to steal it ;)
Did you come up with this term? I might have to steal it ;)
[deleted]
Society too. Without people nothing stops me from dwindling in my own paranoia or mania. Being with others brings alternative point of views (too much these days) and help me breaks the DFS aspect of thinking.
I think this post is a example of "That it makes sense in your head doesn't mean the universe works like that". I mean, yeah, you can frame/conceptualize it like that, but i have doubt its useful or falsifiable.
Even then, a phrase like this "people take their metaphysical beliefs seriously, and use them to guide their behavior" is so terribly unempirical, and completely undefined, starting with the weird description of "ego".
That said, in the most trivial sense, religion does alter your behavior. The rest is the kind of reasoning that gives philosophy a bad name.
That said, in the most trivial sense, religion does alter your behavior. The rest is the kind of reasoning that gives philosophy a bad name.
Having a strong ego is not necessarily a wholly bad characteristic, as long as people are (1) capable of turning it off and (2) know when to turn it off.
One likely advantage throughout human history is that those with strong egos are more likely to survive extremely difficult challenges - they might keep going when others lay down to die. If this concept of ego is expanded to an entire society, then a shared sense of identity is also a kind of 'community ego' which leads to social cohesiveness, the willingness to help other members of the group with their problems, leading to overall group success. This is often called the utilitarian argument for religious faith (but not for multicultural mixed religion, which is said to cause schisms in the group).
In evolutionary terms, this might be called 'group selection'- although many religious people don't like to talk about evolution. For some reason, common heredity with 'the lower animals' upsets them deeply - a concept I've never been able to understand myself. This is't true of all religions of course, it seems more a hallmark of the Abrahamic traditions (Judeo-Christian-Islamic). I guess it's really about replacement of religious authority with scientific authority when it comes to origin stories, genesis, etc.?
Where the inability to turn off the ego causes problems is in social interactions. Every academic department, for example, tends to have at least a few narcissitic Napoleon types who view every interaction with others as a winner/loser competition, in which one party is dominant and the other submissive (rather like chimpanzees really). If they don't come out on top, they show 'wounded ego' syndrome, which requires future retaliation of some sort against the other party to restore their dominant position. Generally such people are described as 'a real piece of work' and everyone dreads interacting with them. Typically they try to control and abuse their staff and students as well (look up UC Berkeley professor abuse scandal for about half a dozen recent examples).
Incidentally, this academic phenomenon shows that 'Scientism' isn't any better than 'Religionism' at moderating the negative aspects of ego. It seems to be something some people learn how to do, and others don't. There don't seem to be any guaranteed routes to learning this either - some people say prayer and meditation, some people say psychedelic drugs, some people say extreme physical exercise. I often wonder if it's actually somewhat genetic in nature, a sort of narcissistic gene issue, perhaps an inability to feel empathy for others? Go figure.
One likely advantage throughout human history is that those with strong egos are more likely to survive extremely difficult challenges - they might keep going when others lay down to die. If this concept of ego is expanded to an entire society, then a shared sense of identity is also a kind of 'community ego' which leads to social cohesiveness, the willingness to help other members of the group with their problems, leading to overall group success. This is often called the utilitarian argument for religious faith (but not for multicultural mixed religion, which is said to cause schisms in the group).
In evolutionary terms, this might be called 'group selection'- although many religious people don't like to talk about evolution. For some reason, common heredity with 'the lower animals' upsets them deeply - a concept I've never been able to understand myself. This is't true of all religions of course, it seems more a hallmark of the Abrahamic traditions (Judeo-Christian-Islamic). I guess it's really about replacement of religious authority with scientific authority when it comes to origin stories, genesis, etc.?
Where the inability to turn off the ego causes problems is in social interactions. Every academic department, for example, tends to have at least a few narcissitic Napoleon types who view every interaction with others as a winner/loser competition, in which one party is dominant and the other submissive (rather like chimpanzees really). If they don't come out on top, they show 'wounded ego' syndrome, which requires future retaliation of some sort against the other party to restore their dominant position. Generally such people are described as 'a real piece of work' and everyone dreads interacting with them. Typically they try to control and abuse their staff and students as well (look up UC Berkeley professor abuse scandal for about half a dozen recent examples).
Incidentally, this academic phenomenon shows that 'Scientism' isn't any better than 'Religionism' at moderating the negative aspects of ego. It seems to be something some people learn how to do, and others don't. There don't seem to be any guaranteed routes to learning this either - some people say prayer and meditation, some people say psychedelic drugs, some people say extreme physical exercise. I often wonder if it's actually somewhat genetic in nature, a sort of narcissistic gene issue, perhaps an inability to feel empathy for others? Go figure.
How does this explain the existence of televangelists, megachurch pastors, church ladies, gurus, generally abusive people in religion?
What is religion anyway?
Could you say that any system of thought, where belief is active rather than knowledge, is a religion? I think so.
If so, aren't many systems arguably capable of being called religious? What exactly is the difference between religion and science?
I think that science can be considered as a religion to most, as, in general, people don't verify information or what they are told. Instead they just believe it is true and trust that it has been verified. I really don't see much difference.
Could you say that any system of thought, where belief is active rather than knowledge, is a religion? I think so.
If so, aren't many systems arguably capable of being called religious? What exactly is the difference between religion and science?
I think that science can be considered as a religion to most, as, in general, people don't verify information or what they are told. Instead they just believe it is true and trust that it has been verified. I really don't see much difference.
> What is religion anyway?
I have my own take on this. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
A religion is: an organization with a set of ethics, and with practices that help to encourage those ethics as well as inculcate those ethics into new adherents. It also has a positive evolutionary affect on its members[1].
> What exactly is the difference between religion and science?
I think that, if you're going to talk about science, you need to be very specific. People use the word "science" to mean a great many things. You risk combatting a motte-and-bailey[2].
---
1. IMO, this bit is what distinguishes religions from cults. It's very possibly for sub-groups of religions to be cults (as well as the reverse). It's not important what the documents say - what is important is how it's practiced: the "lived experience".
2. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-baile...
I have my own take on this. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
A religion is: an organization with a set of ethics, and with practices that help to encourage those ethics as well as inculcate those ethics into new adherents. It also has a positive evolutionary affect on its members[1].
> What exactly is the difference between religion and science?
I think that, if you're going to talk about science, you need to be very specific. People use the word "science" to mean a great many things. You risk combatting a motte-and-bailey[2].
---
1. IMO, this bit is what distinguishes religions from cults. It's very possibly for sub-groups of religions to be cults (as well as the reverse). It's not important what the documents say - what is important is how it's practiced: the "lived experience".
2. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-baile...
Right, I think I agree with you.
Re science - I am using it in a generic sense. In the sense that I think most people use it, where they will often contrast it to religion.
But!!!
Do you not think this applies to people who hold that science is not like religion. Another comment mentions 'falsifiability and testability' which I think this is key.
The key point I would add is that no one (NO ONE) is testing or falsifying the 'science' information they receive! When they look at science papers online, they may as well be sitting on a pew! Especially when you consider the Replication crisis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)
Knowledge and knowing is NOT a group activity. It occurs in an individual's brain. You can know if you have personally verified, or you can assume/believe/hypothesise. Most people who would argue for the primacy of science over religion, are actually in a state of belief - their knowledge is theoretical, hypothetical.
The scientific method only has any meaning when it is applied personally, rather than assumed.
Re science - I am using it in a generic sense. In the sense that I think most people use it, where they will often contrast it to religion.
But!!!
Do you not think this applies to people who hold that science is not like religion. Another comment mentions 'falsifiability and testability' which I think this is key.
The key point I would add is that no one (NO ONE) is testing or falsifying the 'science' information they receive! When they look at science papers online, they may as well be sitting on a pew! Especially when you consider the Replication crisis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis)
Knowledge and knowing is NOT a group activity. It occurs in an individual's brain. You can know if you have personally verified, or you can assume/believe/hypothesise. Most people who would argue for the primacy of science over religion, are actually in a state of belief - their knowledge is theoretical, hypothetical.
The scientific method only has any meaning when it is applied personally, rather than assumed.
> What exactly is the difference between religion and science?
I'd say the falsifiability and testability of their beliefs, and how encouraged "believers" are to do so.
Is the belief system's goal to get everyone to believe in the same set of divine truths and live accordingly, or to try and figure out what the truths are in the first place?
I'd say the falsifiability and testability of their beliefs, and how encouraged "believers" are to do so.
Is the belief system's goal to get everyone to believe in the same set of divine truths and live accordingly, or to try and figure out what the truths are in the first place?
Religion is the only thing devoid of objective evidence.
While it is quite tasteless for Scientists to see themselves as better than most of society, an objective case can be made that they truly are better for society.
That as why most god-based religions try their best to fashion a mimicry of this type of objective evidence. They will always say ‘and you see, this is why there is less crime, this is why men and women are more faithful to each other, this is why there is charity’. Truthfully, there isn’t real evidence for their case - just parlor tricks.
The dark side of cults, religions, castes, social class is that a notable percentage of people will use it to validate their weakness via building a wall of ego protection.
We are better than you is a potent drug.
While it is quite tasteless for Scientists to see themselves as better than most of society, an objective case can be made that they truly are better for society.
That as why most god-based religions try their best to fashion a mimicry of this type of objective evidence. They will always say ‘and you see, this is why there is less crime, this is why men and women are more faithful to each other, this is why there is charity’. Truthfully, there isn’t real evidence for their case - just parlor tricks.
The dark side of cults, religions, castes, social class is that a notable percentage of people will use it to validate their weakness via building a wall of ego protection.
We are better than you is a potent drug.
> We are better than you is a potent drug.
You don't think this applies to science?
Do you see that even your (carefully worded) comment, would be seen as an example of ego, from the other side of the pew?
You don't think this applies to science?
Do you see that even your (carefully worded) comment, would be seen as an example of ego, from the other side of the pew?
Of course I do, it takes one to know one. Humanity is often a desperation. Couldn’t the fog just be lifted? Anyways, I know what everyone else, and I, are up to, and I’m sick of it.
Right, ok.
I'm not sure I know what we are all up to. Feel free to tell me.
I am most interested in how to discern knowledge (truth) from belief (lies) - how to stand on solid ground for myself. Being clear on what is presented has been of benefit to me. Try to lift one's own fog, as it were.
I'm not sure I know what we are all up to. Feel free to tell me.
I am most interested in how to discern knowledge (truth) from belief (lies) - how to stand on solid ground for myself. Being clear on what is presented has been of benefit to me. Try to lift one's own fog, as it were.
You seek answers in semantics. A human operates on emotion. The drug, ‘we are better than you’, there’s no knowledge in that. It’s a despair. We are unable to think through it. I don’t want to drive this home too far, but I hope you can feel it.
Yes, 'we are better than you' is despair. The call of the unformed.
Whenever I hear use of the pronoun 'we' it puts me on edge.
"It is enough for me to hear someone talk sincerely about ideals, about the future, about philosophy, to hear him say “we” with a certain inflection of assurance, to hear him invoke “others” and regard himself as their interpreter—-for me to consider him my enemy." Emil Cioran
There is no 'we', there is only I. But, no, being clear on that point, I'm not in despair.
Whenever I hear use of the pronoun 'we' it puts me on edge.
"It is enough for me to hear someone talk sincerely about ideals, about the future, about philosophy, to hear him say “we” with a certain inflection of assurance, to hear him invoke “others” and regard himself as their interpreter—-for me to consider him my enemy." Emil Cioran
There is no 'we', there is only I. But, no, being clear on that point, I'm not in despair.
Nice quote. I’m happy we can get close to the heart, however dangerous.
> Could you say that any system of thought, where believe rather than know, is a religion? I think so.
This is a common misconception that conflates world view with religion, when these two concepts are not really that synonymous[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
This is a common misconception that conflates world view with religion, when these two concepts are not really that synonymous[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview
Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible and mutually exclusive belief systems: religion requires belief in the absence of evidence while science requires the opposite of this.
The Soviet Union was an extremist sect of scientism: they killed millions of people for not converting.
Religion is more of an attention modulator
[deleted]
I stopped reading when I read Stoics listed next to Christians.
I have a different idea. For me religion looks like ego detachment device that lets you detach your ego from actual social reality of moral interactions with real people and redirect it inward.
While living in physical reality we must interact with other people. But since there's a huge variety of people that may have varying moralities and concepts of what's good and bad, what's a favor and what's an offence and what's both it can be really hard to think about dealing with people.
Religion makes things easier by substituting all the real people with all their specific peculiarities with virtual entity and excuses you from real moral interactions if you interact with that entity instead. Offence is no longer offence against your neighbor. Now it's offence against God (or karma or whatever) first and it becomes less relevant if your neighbor really perceives your action to be offensive or not or what kind of amendment he requires. When you are religious you need only to concern yourself with how you offended this virtual entity and what amendments are required for that entity which information religion helpfully provides on demand through priests and writings.
This vastly simplifies things and was probably necessary step in development of human race as we switched away from small villages where you could remember what's offensive to whom and who appreciates what and started to live in larger settlements where caring about actual morality towards unique people would be too much work. Religions usually provide also ready made fake communities based not on interpersonal moral interactions, like natural communities, but on sharing interactions with this virtual entity. It also provides you with substitute devices so you can still feel the same feelings that were in smaller populations provided by real moral interactions. For example instead of actually helping someone, you might just pray for him and still feel a lot of the same feelings that come from successfully helping which would require putting in work in getting to know that person, their actual needs and what they consider a favor.
This virtualization of morality wasn't a great solution though because it robbed people of authenticity of large part of their moral interactions and of their accuracy and adequacy. Now when we move to highly connected societies where we can survive in very large and dense population centers completely anonymously choosing our own small circle of other humans to interact with, to depend on, with our emotional, financial and physical security, we can finally get back to more authentic and varied moral interactions that we as a species have evolved the capacity for. It's one of the reasons, I think, why religion looses ground in recent decades. One of its key functions is no longer needed by most people.
While living in physical reality we must interact with other people. But since there's a huge variety of people that may have varying moralities and concepts of what's good and bad, what's a favor and what's an offence and what's both it can be really hard to think about dealing with people.
Religion makes things easier by substituting all the real people with all their specific peculiarities with virtual entity and excuses you from real moral interactions if you interact with that entity instead. Offence is no longer offence against your neighbor. Now it's offence against God (or karma or whatever) first and it becomes less relevant if your neighbor really perceives your action to be offensive or not or what kind of amendment he requires. When you are religious you need only to concern yourself with how you offended this virtual entity and what amendments are required for that entity which information religion helpfully provides on demand through priests and writings.
This vastly simplifies things and was probably necessary step in development of human race as we switched away from small villages where you could remember what's offensive to whom and who appreciates what and started to live in larger settlements where caring about actual morality towards unique people would be too much work. Religions usually provide also ready made fake communities based not on interpersonal moral interactions, like natural communities, but on sharing interactions with this virtual entity. It also provides you with substitute devices so you can still feel the same feelings that were in smaller populations provided by real moral interactions. For example instead of actually helping someone, you might just pray for him and still feel a lot of the same feelings that come from successfully helping which would require putting in work in getting to know that person, their actual needs and what they consider a favor.
This virtualization of morality wasn't a great solution though because it robbed people of authenticity of large part of their moral interactions and of their accuracy and adequacy. Now when we move to highly connected societies where we can survive in very large and dense population centers completely anonymously choosing our own small circle of other humans to interact with, to depend on, with our emotional, financial and physical security, we can finally get back to more authentic and varied moral interactions that we as a species have evolved the capacity for. It's one of the reasons, I think, why religion looses ground in recent decades. One of its key functions is no longer needed by most people.
The problem with this argumentation is that everyone has actually a different purpose for religion.
In fact, the most common use of religion is fraud and manipulation, from tele-evangelism and Brazilian IURD to the American religious right, Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro and Tecep Erdogan.
In fact, the most common use of religion is fraud and manipulation, from tele-evangelism and Brazilian IURD to the American religious right, Narendra Modi, Jair Bolsonaro and Tecep Erdogan.
Wouldn't it be less effort to list all the cases where religion is not used for manipulation and gain?
That said. Strictly speaking, isn't everything we do, including all communication, an attempt to manipulate the world? Malice or not.
That said. Strictly speaking, isn't everything we do, including all communication, an attempt to manipulate the world? Malice or not.
Mass-scale modulation of egos is super-duper helpful for making sure lots of people serve and worship your non-modulated ego IME.
Like many people, I draw a distinction between religion (read: organized religion) and spirituality. From what I can see, religion can have the effect of hardening the ego, by creating an us-vs-them mindset. As an American, I see this as perhaps the fundamental dynamic driving our country at a national level, both in domestic politics and foreign policy.
On a personal level, I was raised in a very religious household. In our particular fundamentalist Baptist church, there were strains of ego minimization, in the sense of subordinating the individual to the identity and outlook of the group. But within that identity, I saw ego maximization, in the sense of the feelings of superiority of our creed.
As I became alienated from organized Christianity and its dogma, I've found that I am thankful for many of the ego minimizing aspects. And now, as a parent, I'm interested in the ways in which I can raise my children to have these benefits, without all the harms I experienced and see from organized religion.
Incidentally, I just read all of the books from Arbinger Institute: Leadership and Self-Deception, The Anatomy of Peace, and The Outward Mindset. The Arbinger Institute was founded by Latter-Day Saints folks, and while I definitely register the vibes of Christian thought, they are fundamentally secular books, devoid of dogma. I do think it's very possible to draw from the more positive, ego-dissolving parts of religious spirituality and teaching, while rejecting the divisive parts.
Completely aside from the ego conversation, another thing I have noticed about raising kids outside of a church is that my family lacks the same community that the Baptist church my household growing up attended. I think this is one of the major functions of organized religion. Provided you can remain in good standing with the church, you get a community, which serves all sorts of useful functions. Outside of a church, you have to manually find this, through friendships and other organizations. But there's big replacement cost to everything a church community gives you "batteries included". I'm very pro secular society, but I don't think we've come up with great answers to this problem, leading to potentially catastrophic levels of social fragmentation and susceptibility to cult-like online movements.