Ship of Fools: Religion stunts your personal growth

Thread: Religion stunts your personal growth Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020175

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

In general, I think this is true of all religions. In specific, I'd like to address Christianity.
Mainly because Christianity focuses on the divine more than its adherents.

PLEASE READ:

I am not saying this was Jesus' goal. As I read his words, personal growth is part of his message.
I am not saying all Christians. There definitely individual Christians to whom this does not apply.
I am not seeking to denigrate Christianity, nor truly single it out. But we are here.*

So, what am I saying? If you do not experience tangible personal growth, i.e. become a better person, you are doing it wrong.
Not saying a perfect person, perhaps not even a good person. But better.

*WARNING: Generally worksafe content, but that does vary. And, really, what are you doing surfing at work anyway.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'm struggling to understand how something that asks you to live well and with regard to others could stunt your personal growth? Unless you mean me to take it from an entirely individualistic point of view?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

But are you saying that there would be more personal growth if there wasn't any religion? I'm doubtful.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm struggling to understand how something that asks you to live well and with regard to others could stunt your personal growth? Unless you mean me to take it from an entirely individualistic point of view?

Once again, I am not targeting the message, but the implementation.

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
But are you saying that there would be more personal growth if there wasn't any religion? I'm doubtful.

As am I.
No religion is the default. Religion should improve, but I don't think it does.
I think it can and I think it should. But I also think it difficult.

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

I think the vicissitudes of living offer us many opportunities to avoid dealing with our true selves. We are offered roles to play -- good child/student/boy/girl, faithful spouse, hard working employee, and so on. We can spend many, many years playing the role without truly coming into ourselves -- seeing our self honestly, flaws , failures, goodness and holiness.

Luke’s gospel tells us that the prodigal son “came to himself.” I hear that as the moment of truth for him, the moment he could look at himself, flaws and gifts, and accept himself. (Just as I am without one plea…..). I think this moment comes to Mary Magdalene only when Jesus says her name in the garden by the empty tomb. Only then, seeing herself, could she see him.

Can one come to this moment without faith? Certainly! -- I suspect we all know such people. Can faith help some people avoid this moment, by defining a role (sinner/saint/priest/pastor/monk/nun, etc.)? Certainly! But I think that faith lived out honestly, accepting the challenge to love others as we love ourselves (and many times to love ourselves as we love others!), supports us to bravely face that moment of saying “Here I am Lord, warts and all.”

We can use any number of disguises to hide from our self. Faith can be one of them, but, I think, no more sinister or inhibiting than any other hiding place we create.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Lilbuddha:

quote:

Once again, I am not targeting the message, but the implementation.

Well yes; there's no reasoning with the stupid, but that fact stands for almost anything, not just Christianity.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Lilbuddha:

quote:

Once again, I am not targeting the message, but the implementation.

Well yes; there's no reasoning with the stupid, but that fact stands for almost anything, not just Christianity.

Most things. I did say that. But why are a random sample of Christians no better than a random sample of atheists?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Because they all have stupidity in common?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Some people use religion as an excuse to be dicks.

Some people use religion as a driver towards not being dicks.

Personally, I think my faith means I'm much less of a dick than I would be otherwise, but apparently some of my co-religionists think that being dickish is actually part of their personal growth (I think they call it 'holiness', rather than being a dick, but the result is the same).

So, all in all, it depends on a lot of factors, the chief of which is probably the culture of the religious community you're most influenced by. If that community emphasises dickishness, then to fit in, then you're more likely than not to grow into a dick. If it emphasises not being a dick, you'll be less dickish as time goes on.

It's all personal growth, really, but I know which I value more.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Because they all have stupidity in common?

We are all human and regardless of religious affiliation/participation, are subject to the same traits.
We are not bound to them completely, however. The structures we build should be stronger than the constituent materials. It is a challenge to do so, but not an impossible task.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

´Personal growth´ also strikes me as a somewhat culture-bound concept. Depending on our environment we´re all likely to mean different things by it, if we even understand it as a concept at all.

My mother was a Christian all her life. She had a growing sense of what she was meant to do, which was to care for people. But she never talked about anything that reminded me of ´personal growth´. It´s possible she was stunted by her brand of faith, but it´s hard to know what atheism would have given her instead. As an atheist she wouldn´t have been the mother I knew, but a different person.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It can certainly hinder the personal growth of LGBT people because it often tells them to hate themselves.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We are all human and regardless of religious affiliation/participation, are subject to the same traits.
We are not bound to them completely, however. The structures we build should be stronger than the constituent materials. It is a challenge to do so, but not an impossible task.

So what we are saying is we all want a better world with better people in it and if religion can play a part in that, on an individual basis, then all well and good.
Problem is Christianity has a poor record. So forgetting the whole Institution thing for a minute seeking ways to improve it's impact on personal development, rather than abandoning it entirely would appear to make sense.

As a footnote I can relate to DT's post. There was a definite point of realisation, before seriously pursuing the Christian Faith, that I was turning into a person I didn't much like nor wish to become.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
So forgetting the whole Institution thing for a minute seeking ways to improve it's impact on personal development, rather than abandoning it entirely would appear to make sense.

I think the institutionalisation is part of the problem. We could argue that the importance of religious institutions as sources of employment, status, funding, state or monarchical patronage, etc., can often crowd out the importance of nurturing spiritual and moral growth in individuals.

(This is to assume that ´personal growth´ is indeed a reference to spiritual and moral growth.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm tempted to be an academic pain and ask you to define your terms, but meh.

First of all, I'm making a difference between Christ and religion. Christ tends to kick my ass as far as personal growth goes, though he doesn't call it that--more like "justice" and "obedience" and "faith" and "stop being a jackass now." There are of course plenty of Christians who appear never to have met him.

Leaving that aside, then--

I don't see how religion can stunt your personal growth anymore than any other pursuit might. Golf, for instance. Properly used, it's a good thing and will not harm personal growth and might possibly help it (I suppose by teaching sociability, discipline and the like). Improperly used, you get golf clubs up trees and pains-in-the-ass disporting themselves below, to the frustration of their fellows.

I would expect that to be the case with almost any religion, viewed from a human point of view. Some will use the thing for good. Some will do the opposite. A great many will do neither, and just let time flow away.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I'm not sure about 'stunt'. I haven't noticed that religion improves people, but does it impede them?

I suppose I gave up religion as I opened up more, but that's just me.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I have come across three variants of religion doing precisely this. The first is "well, these ideas/practices/etc. (which were necessarily learned during childhood) were good enough for mum, so they're good enough for me". It has a variant, which is "this is what I learned from Fr Soandso: things were so alive then". The third version, which is more institutional is the idea of passing on, intact and unexamined, an immemorial faith.

In all of these cases, the invitation to be accepted or rejected is to put aside personal growth (which is then held to be a fundamentally egotistical obsession) in favour of preserving a supposed treasure.

"'Taint holy, just old" - a phrase, sometimes, to live by.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

I kind of see where you're coming from.
If you think your brand of religion defines you, it may stunt your personal growth because It is easiest to settle at the level of the lowest common denominator of belief and practice within your group.
Christianity influences what I believe and do, but it doesn't determine either of those.
I'm not sure exactly how to go about ensuring you continue with personal growth, but I think it involves being aware of what influences you, positively and negatively, and perhaps thinking what would happen if you step outside those particular boxes.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I'm not sure about 'stunt'. I haven't noticed that religion improves people, but does it impede them? .

There are many testimonies from people who have found religion, and by doing so have found freedom from things that were impeding them, alcohol or drug addiction for example.
I do though also wonder if religion itself can't itself become an impediment. Maybe if Church is to be regarded as a hospital to the broken hearted then a person, when cured, should be offered a discharge as it were. Needless to say this idea would not find favour with those whose livelihoods depend on a life long, (financial), commitment to their particular church.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I think it was Ghandi who said he could accept Christ if it were not for all those "Christians."

I do have problems with the title of this thread.

"Religion stunts your personal growth...especially Christianity"

Then the Original poster admits not all are stunted by Christianity.

I would dare say many individuals who are stunted in their growth will use religion as an excuse be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, even (gasp) Buddhist. Should I also include atheists?

However, I do not blame that on any religion. It has to do with the way the mind is ordered. There are some minds who look at things positively. They seem to use their religion to help expand their approach to life. There are other minds that are closed down. They use their faith to protect their world view.

Christianity, for me, has helped me come to terms with some very critical life questions. I have moved quite a ways from growing up in a very conservative denomination believing everything is white and black, to a very liberal person who can see that there are many colors to the rainbow of life. Christianity has helped inform me of this new approach.

But I also have a more positive mindset. I have used Christianity to enrich my life.

Can't speak for others, though.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

I do have problems with the title of this thread.

"Religion stunts your personal growth...especially Christianity"

Didn't say especially Christianity.

quote:

I would dare say many individuals who are stunted in their growth will use religion as an excuse be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, even (gasp) Buddhist. Should I also include atheists?

However, I do not blame that on any religion.

I do not blame it on religion. I am saying that some religions,* Christianity included, should help us rise to our best.
I think they generally do not.

*There are those that do not claim this in their remit.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

There is your problem. You are making generalizations.

If you accept the fiction that religions stunt growth, you will find facts that prove that assumption.

If I accept the fiction that religions can foster growth, I can find examples that prove my assumption.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

"Religion stunts your personal growth"
- only if you do it wrong.

Having just come from a long day of sorting out a dead person, I have some recent evidence,

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I suspect Facebook and Infotainment stunts human intellectual and spiritual (whatever that is) growth far more. Sadly religion participates in those opiates too.

So does irreligion.

Nah. Just don't buy that religious practitioners are more stunted that atheists, agnostics, couldn't give a shitters and lapsed calathumpians.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Look, I didn't come here for an argument.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

The word 'religion' or 'religions' is one of the trickiest words to define or limit, a great ambiguous generalisation in itself.

My own corrective when thinking of how religion operates and what we expect from participating in a religion, is to remind myself what the writer Flannery O'Connor said, similar to how the Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued against what he called 'cheap grace':

'What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is the cross. It is much harder to believe than not to believe. If you feel you can't believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God.'

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

At the time several observers were prepared to say the emotional outpouring in the week following the death of Princess Diana came close to a religion.
Last evening I was YouTube-ing a popular and well-loved 60s folk singer. It was intriguing to read some of the comments which were no less than expressions of love, adoration and, in some cases outpourings of personal remorse. Much of this also encapsulates the essence religion, hard to say if it stunts personal growth.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Thinking about guilt recently, as I do a lot, both personally and professionally, and I do wonder if religion did impede discoveries about this.

Of course, religion has provided ways of dealing with guilt and shame, e.g. confession, absolution, PSA, and so on. But I think that depth psychology, beginning in the 19th century, actually began to penetrate into the depths of the psyche, and showed how guilt operates there.

Thus, one can become more conscious of one's guilt, and how it operates, as self-punishment and so on, and hence, reduce it.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Guilt does need to find an outlet. How it gets to enter a person's psyche to begin with still seems as much a mystery as ever it was, leading some to conclude it must serve us some kind of purpose.

I have heard some life long proponents of Christianity admit that Christian practice could produce guilt rather than alleviate it. The whole thing is problematic and often not as simple as just discarding the bath water.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The notion of Catholic guilt is apparently more of a myth than reality these days, although guilt in general is important in many religious groups.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9897912/Catholic-guilt-is-a-myth-but-puritanism-is-alive-and-well-says-study.html

I´m not sure that this is a bad thing. If doing something wrong doesn´t make us feel guilty, aren´t we more likely to continue doing it?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The notion of Catholic guilt is apparently more of a myth than reality these days, although guilt in general is important in many religious groups.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9897912/Catholic-guilt-is-a-myth-but-puritanism-is-alive-and-well-says-study.html

I´m not sure that this is a bad thing. If doing something wrong doesn´t make us feel guilty, aren´t we more likely to continue doing it?

Yes, I think a certain amount of guilt and shame are useful as correctives. But some people have an over the top guilt, which can paralyze them, or make them depressed, or leads to self-destructive behaviour.

I think religious practices can relieve some of the symptoms, but then it can get stuck in a cycle. Whereas, it is possible to begin to reduce guilt, via psychological methods.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There is your problem. You are making generalizations.

And not supporting the claim. Evidence, specific examples of people whose personal growth was demonstrably stunted by religion - you know, the usual things expected when making a claim of fact.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There is your problem. You are making generalizations.

Kinda part of the point, actually. Individuals may find value in nearly anything, so that is pointless in evaluating a system. The evaluation is how said system affects people generally.

Religion, as a concept, needn't impede people becoming better versions of themselves. It can, theoretically, be a great boon.
However, like any other human institution, tends towards membership more than purpose.

quote:

If you accept the fiction that religions stunt growth, you will find facts that prove that assumption.

If I accept the fiction that religions can foster growth, I can find examples that prove my assumption.

You appear to be operating from the fiction that I argue without evidence.

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

Nah. Just don't buy that religious practitioners are more stunted that atheists, agnostics, couldn't give a shitters and lapsed calathumpians.

I don't see anyone selling this. I am certainly not.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Whereas, it is possible to begin to reduce guilt, via psychological methods.

Possible, but not as profitable. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Look, I didn't come here for an argument.

Yes, you did.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think a certain amount of guilt and shame are useful as correctives. But some people have an over the top guilt, which can paralyze them, or make them depressed, or leads to self-destructive behaviour.

I think religious practices can relieve some of the symptoms, but then it can get stuck in a cycle. Whereas, it is possible to begin to reduce guilt, via psychological methods.

Presumably psychological methods´ also exist to increase guilt! I imagine that there are few dictatorships (religious or otherwise) that make use of those....

Christianity´s major selling point, ISTM, is that you have a central character who takes the sins of the world upon himself; all you have to do is turn and follow him. So excessive guilt that stunts one´s existence and prevents effective Christian discipleship should theoretically be undesirable. This unfortunate outcome must be a result of Christians focusing on their own guilt rather than on Jesus, who is supposed to have paid the price for it all.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think a certain amount of guilt and shame are useful as correctives. But some people have an over the top guilt, which can paralyze them, or make them depressed, or leads to self-destructive behaviour.

I think religious practices can relieve some of the symptoms, but then it can get stuck in a cycle. Whereas, it is possible to begin to reduce guilt, via psychological methods.
Presumably psychological methods´ also exist to increase guilt! I imagine that there are few dictatorships (religious or otherwise) that make use of those....

Christianity´s major selling point, ISTM, is that you have a central character who takes the sins of the world upon himself; all you have to do is turn and follow him. So excessive guilt that stunts one´s existence and prevents effective Christian discipleship should theoretically be undesirable. This unfortunate outcome must be a result of Christians focusing on their own guilt rather than on Jesus, who is supposed to have paid the price for it all.

That's a very interesting point. There is an old joke in therapy that my guilt and depression are all about me. There is some truth in this, as guilty people make themselves too important in a sense.

However, these are deep waters, as this in itself may conceal a desperate need, desperate loneliness, intense anger, and so on. Working with someone who is like this is very challenging, as their darkness tends to be contagious.

Well, excessive guilt is both a fascinating and an alarming phenomenon, as it wrecks lives.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is too much of an emphasis on one's own personal growth all that wholesome? There have been people I've met who give the impression they see their own personalities as works of art. It can be terribly 'me, me, me, it's all about me'.

For all that, I would say that if there has been any personal growth at all in my life, that has been entirely attributable to my attempt to live a faithful Christian life. I don't think I would have even thought of such a thing, yet alone bothered or tried otherwise.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is too much of an emphasis on one's own personal growth all that wholesome? There have been people I've met who give the impression they see their own personalities as works of art. It can be terribly 'me, me, me, it's all about me'.

Doesn't that just mean that there is both positive and negative personal growth? 'It's all about me' isn't an inevitable result - it could very well go the other way.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is too much of an emphasis on one's own personal growth all that wholesome? There have been people I've met who give the impression they see their own personalities as works of art. It can be terribly 'me, me, me, it's all about me'.
Doesn't that just mean that there is both positive and negative personal growth?

Well, yes, just as there is positive and negative just about anything. Including religion.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Without a religious sense, how do you make sense of unconscious motivations, the patterns across generations? Personal growth without something to pin it to, to explain more than information processing, authentic brandname experiences, individualism etc is pretty empty. And excessive focus on personal growth is also more or less a form of consumerism. God's chosen people flipped to the people being lonely individuals who, being lonely, need to he sold something, which is their individual choice. God not a saleable product.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Oh, I am sure you can find evidence that will prove your narrative--to you.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Oh, I am sure you can find evidence that will prove your narrative--to you.

If that us directed to me, your words prove the point. What is the "evidence" that music or an art object is beautiful? And that it enhances personal growth?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Religion gave me racism, homophobia, sexism and worse. Heaven knows how bad I'd have been without it ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is too much of an emphasis on one's own personal growth all that wholesome? There have been people I've met who give the impression they see their own personalities as works of art. It can be terribly 'me, me, me, it's all about me'.
Doesn't that just mean that there is both positive and negative personal growth? 'It's all about me' isn't an inevitable result - it could very well go the other way.

I think it often does. People arrive in therapy self-obsessed often, and why not? They are obsessed, because something is wrong. But if the process is working, and sometimes it does, there is a movement from this narcissism to an other-related state of openness and connection. Of course, it doesn't always work.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Doesn't that just mean that there is both positive and negative personal growth?

If a tree begins to wither, it isn't negative growth.

quote:

'It's all about me' isn't an inevitable result - it could very well go the other way.

Selfish is the opposite of personal growth by most metrics.
Personal growth is not antithetical to Jesus' message, rather it compliments it.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Without a religious sense, how do you make sense of unconscious motivations, the patterns across generations? Personal growth without something to pin it to, to explain more than information processing, authentic brandname experiences, individualism etc is pretty empty.

Pretty big insult to all the good agnostics and atheists.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I hadn't seen that. Without religion, how does one make sense of stuff? Well, I am writing this post without religion - how is that possible?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

You will note I said "religious sense". Atheists have religious sense. They hold that it is something else is all. "Flow" is an awkward term to describe what the religious may call mystical. I have heard terms from aesthetics also used in ways that don't convey the meaning. I think there is pretty good data that we are either given structure to contain our innate tendency (probably evolutionarily positive given its ubiquity) for religion or we invent a new structure. though I don't think self-actualization is a very good one.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You will note I said "religious sense". Atheists have religious sense. They hold that it is something else is all.

This is the same dismissal.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We could easily argue that the topic as originally posted is dismissive of the religious. But let's set that aside.

There are a few points worth making. First, religion is part of all human societies. Second, there is a literature which discusses the evolutionary significance of religion, both as probably adaptive and as a epiphenomenon (meaningless outgrowth of other processes). Third, it is evident that we disagree whether atheists (or agnostics) have a religious sense. I think they'd prefer to call it something else or extinguish it. But this hardly denies the human capacity and inevitability of a religious sense. Like the need for others and the capacity for language and problem solving, there are some inevitable characteristics of human beings.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We could easily argue that the topic as originally posted is dismissive of the religious. But let's set that aside.

Let's do, because it isn't. If anything, it is a challenge to religion to become what it can be.

quote:

There are a few points worth making. First, religion is part of all human societies. Second, there is a literature which discusses the evolutionary significance of religion, both as probably adaptive and as a epiphenomenon (meaningless outgrowth of other processes).

Evolutionary significance? I think you have this backwards. Evolution is significant to religion, not the reverse.
Few would argue against religion having been significant in our history. However, unless you accept the premise that at lest one of them is true and real; inevitability is less, well, inevitable.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We may not be understanding each other. There is a literature which discusses primate and human evolution with religion being part of the evolutionary processes. I accept evolution, and also accept that human religious behaviour is inevitable because of our evolution.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[qb] We could easily argue that the topic as originally posted is dismissive of the religious. But let's set that aside.
Let's do, because it isn't. If anything, it is a challenge to religion to become what it can be.

But if religion is unnecessary for morality, as you've said, that why does it need to 'be' anything?

You may mean that it ought to stop making good people do bad things, to coin a phrase, and restrict itself to providing pleasant spiritual thoughts for people who seem to need religion for that sort of thing.

However, it could be argued that more and more people have other outlets for those needs: art, music, sport, physical endeavour, etc.

The kinds of people who are increasingly likely to indulge in religion are perhaps the least likely to keep it strictly in its place, while the market for aesthetic, low key, spiritual but not dogmatic or obtrusive religiosity appears to be fairly limited. Although there will always be a few sophisticated people who'll find it interesting.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We may not be understanding each other. There is a literature which discusses primate and human evolution with religion being part of the evolutionary processes. I accept evolution, and also accept that human religious behaviour is inevitable because of our evolution.

What I have read suggests religion is possible because our brains evolved enough for it to happen.* Which is the reverse of what you seem to be saying.

*Or, if you prefer, evolved enough to understand

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But if religion is unnecessary for morality, as you've said, that why does it need to 'be' anything?

Because it is the guide many people use.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Sorry, no prophet, my last comment was not directed at you. I actually think we are on the same page.

To the comment that religion gives us racism, sexism, homophobia and the like To be sure people have used religion to justify their prejudices, but I look at the Bible, in particular, I see very little reference to race. Jesus was very much a feminist in his day (we have just carried it further). Other than just seven "killer verses" (as I call them), there is practically no reference to same-sex relationships.

The one issue that does stick is the issue of slavery It was a part of the economic system when the Bible was written.

But, over time, Christianity has evolved and changed its views on many social issues.

The American Civil Rights Movement has long used religion in its progress. Religion still speaks to social issues of today.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

lilBuddha

The problem, as I've implied, is that kinds of religious people of whom you most disapprove wouldn't be interested in a reformed religiosity of the kind you'd like.

You remind me of non-religious folk who admire Quakerism and wish all Christians were Quakers. Unfortunately, people who are already Christians in other churches have their own reasons for not being Quakers. The best people to become Quakers are obviously the ones who say how much they admire the movement!

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Sorry, no prophet, my last comment was not directed at you. I actually think we are on the same page.

To the comment that religion gives us racism, sexism, homophobia and the like To be sure people have used religion to justify their prejudices, but I look at the Bible, in particular, I see very little reference to race. Jesus was very much a feminist in his day (we have just carried it further). Other than just seven "killer verses" (as I call them), there is practically no reference to same-sex relationships.

The one issue that does stick is the issue of slavery It was a part of the economic system when the Bible was written.

But, over time, Christianity has evolved and changed its views on many social issues.

The American Civil Rights Movement has long used religion in its progress. Religion still speaks to social issues of today.

Yes, I think we are reading from the same page. I am reminded of the following also, which is a quote, from memory, and I don't know from whom:

"Someone said to me that religion causes war and violence, so we should do away with religion. That sounds like false news. I thought war and violence were caused by people wanting power over others so as to take their resources and money, to enrich themselves: something most religions specifically preach against."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Not certain you read me correctly.
For Christianity, following Jesus' words would lead to personal growth. I'd go as far as to say that without it, there is no spiritual growth.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

spiritual growth ≠ personal growth

There are no such promises.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
spiritual growth ≠ personal growth

There are no such promises.

If you are not becoming a better person, you are not growing spiritually.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

You name the problem. The de-centring of self as the pivot point of all existence is much more important to my understanding. Living life for others. Being kind. Are you trying to shoehorn religion to some form of human potentialism?

God, as you may (or may not) conceive of a god, doesn't care nearly as much about individuals, their growth as we would like to suppose. We're not so important. But by trying to align ourselves with the totality of things, really take part in life within the world of people and things, and not just regard ourselves as a kind of miraculous creation in ourselves, worthy of growth (or as I've noted of epiphanies in my current sig). Not regarding the rest of the world as a sort of stage and background scenery against which we actualize ourselves.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

So God isn't immanent?

Posted by AndyHB (# 18580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

No religion is the default. Religion should improve, but I don't think it does.
I think it can and I think it should. But I also think it difficult.

I'd have to disagree lilBuddha. I do not see religion doing anything, which is why neither Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, nor any of the other religions 'do anything'. Rather, it is the relationship with the deity (and that is the Christian God for me) that does everything. As a Christian, I believe that I should be becoming more Christ-like every day - I accept that on many days I fail, but I'm working on that, with his help.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You name the problem. The de-centring of self as the pivot point of all existence is much more important to my understanding. Living life for others. Being kind. Are you trying to shoehorn religion to some form of human potentialism?

God, as you may (or may not) conceive of a god, doesn't care nearly as much about individuals, their growth as we would like to suppose. We're not so important. But by trying to align ourselves with the totality of things, really take part in life within the world of people and things, and not just regard ourselves as a kind of miraculous creation in ourselves, worthy of growth (or as I've noted of epiphanies in my current sig). Not regarding the rest of the world as a sort of stage and background scenery against which we actualize ourselves.

There is some good stuff here. I would say that there is a further development, where aligning myself with the 'totality of things' begins to blur, and there is no distinction. Most religions seem to encode this, and I wonder if it is just a natural process, partly to do with getting older. The foreground and the background begin to blend, and 'actualizing myself' seems laughable, since this already happens in everything.

But I think you are right about overcoming that early narcissism, which most forms of spirituality fall foul of, and why wouldn't they? No egg, no chicken.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

There is of course a great deal of empirical evidence that religion does lead to personal growth including:

health benefits

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3512217?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Lower crime rates

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886996000232

and more secure attachment styles (notably this is particularly the case for people who experienced insecure attachment as a child suggesting 'growth')

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167292183002

[ 20. May 2017, 15:28: Message edited by: Makepiece ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Religion leads to more altrusim.

Canadian Survey: 67 per cent of the religiously committed favoured helping others. For non-believers, 65 per cent chose the pursuit of happiness.

So religion creates less self-centredness.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Religion leads to more altrusim.

Canadian Survey: 67 per cent of the religiously committed favoured helping others. For non-believers, 65 per cent chose the pursuit of happiness.

So religion creates less self-centredness.

Self-reported. Which might vary a bit in practice.
Religion is often cited as being more charitable, but when you factor out giving to one's own church, the numbers tell a different story.
The religious are also less likely to be supportive of LGBT+, not exactly altruistic.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Religion leads to more altrusim.

Canadian Survey: 67 per cent of the religiously committed favoured helping others. For non-believers, 65 per cent chose the pursuit of happiness.

So religion creates less self-centredness.

Or maybe just more pious self-aggrandizement.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

When I used to answer the phones for the Samaritans suicide hot line, almost all my fellow Samaritans were active in their churches.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Religion leads to more altrusim.

Canadian Survey: 67 per cent of the religiously committed favoured helping others. For non-believers, 65 per cent chose the pursuit of happiness.

So religion creates less self-centredness.
Self-reported. Which might vary a bit in practice.
Religion is often cited as being more charitable, but when you factor out giving to one's own church, the numbers tell a different story.
The religious are also less likely to be supportive of LGBT+, not exactly altruistic.

You need to define "giving to one's own church." Because it's a very common thing for churches to gather money (giving to one's own church?) that is then handed on to an outside need (famine, malaria initiative, local food pantry, etc. etc. etc.) The money does not stay with the local congregation, nor do any of the congregants benefit from it, unless by chance. The reason for handing it in to a collection at church is that there's less kerfuffle in processing one large donation than a bunch of little ones--plus the church can handle the publicity chores that raise awareness and funnel those individual donations in, rather than leaving the charity to (not) do it themselves.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You need to define "giving to one's own church." Because it's a very common thing for churches to gather money (giving to one's own church?)

Specific collections designated for charity qualify as just for charity. But general collections in which some funds might pay the utilities, fix the roof, etc are self-giving.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
When I used to answer the phones for the Samaritans suicide hot line, almost all my fellow Samaritans were active in their churches.

Moo

I am by no means saying religion does no good. This thread isn't about doing good, per se.
It is about not seeing improvements in the general membership which should be apparent if they are following their founders' messages.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This thread isn't about doing good, per se.
It is about not seeing improvements in the general membership.

The notion of 'improvements' is interesting. I've heard it said that some religions caught on precisely because they helped converts to live lives that they felt were better. (I don't mean material benefits. Sometimes these were present, but not always. After all, conversion could be very costly in some environments.)

I think the problem you're highlighting in this thread is simply that our secular culture has outgrown religion. The culture has already extracted whatever desirable teachings religion could provide, but no longer has any need for divisive doctrines about the supernatural. Spectators no longer see how the supernatural 'improves' on our personal morality because the starting point is that we can all live decently without the troublesome interference of gods. There's no need to take on a pile of questionable RC or Pentecostal baggage if all you want to be is a nice person.

So the only way that religion can now acceptably 'improve' anyone is by cutting down on the supernatural and developing the social. But denominations that lean in this direction have little popular appeal, since they offer nothing distinctive.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the problem you're highlighting in this thread is simply that our secular culture has outgrown religion. The culture has already extracted whatever desirable teachings religion could provide, but no longer has any need for divisive doctrines about the supernatural.

I think it much simpler. The idea of the teachings appeals, but we are very much creatures of belonging. The membership is the important bit. The only action from there is maintaining that membership.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This thread isn't about doing good, per se.
It is about not seeing improvements in the general membership.
The notion of 'improvements' is interesting. I've heard it said that some religions caught on precisely because they helped converts to live lives that they felt were better. (I don't mean material benefits. Sometimes these were present, but not always. After all, conversion could be very costly in some environments.)

I think the problem you're highlighting in this thread is simply that our secular culture has outgrown religion. The culture has already extracted whatever desirable teachings religion could provide, but no longer has any need for divisive doctrines about the supernatural. Spectators no longer see how the supernatural 'improves' on our personal morality because the starting point is that we can all live decently without the troublesome interference of gods. There's no need to take on a pile of questionable RC or Pentecostal baggage if all you want to be is a nice person.

So the only way that religion can now acceptably 'improve' anyone is by cutting down on the supernatural and developing the social. But denominations that lean in this direction have little popular appeal, since they offer nothing distinctive.

I'm not sure about the supernatural. I was just reading a very moving piece about pop concerts, where young girls go, and the author said that he was surprised at how transcendent it seemed to him.

I suppose the New Age bubble has burst, but I wonder if there are not all kinds of supernatural references in our culture, esp. popular culture. But I guess they are not turned into a canon at all, well, I'm not sure.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/manchester-heartbreak-never-grasped-what-big-pop-gigs-for-daughters-eyes

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think it's more the case that things like music and sport can provide euphoric feelings, and they can be accessed without the benefit of religion. I once came across a survey in which some clergymen hoped to show that the experience of clubbing was connected to the spiritual in some way. But the young people they interviewed had no truck with that. They said it was just about having fun.

With regard to our being 'creatures of belonging', that's debatable. The postmodern condition suggests that we might like the idea of belonging, but we mostly choose to live very private, individualistic lives. Religion is most acceptable in our culture as something private; it's when it becomes communal and visible that it seems most undesirable - and perhaps most likely to undermine personal growth and autonomy.

[ 24. May 2017, 18:10: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

The idea of personal growth is tainted by modern Christian views that are overly centric on the individual. This alters the discussion of faith and expression away from community way of life and toward measures of "success" of an individual versus those around them.

In other words, thanks to Western thought and science, which seeks to bowl down everything into its constituent particles, we tend to over analyze ourselves and default into narcissism.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I can see that the popular, the successful and the beautiful now see little need for religion, because they are too busy being popular, successful and beautiful, and are having a high old time. But what about those who are never going to be those things - those to whom life has dealt a crap hand. Is there still evidence that the sick and the maimed and the plain unlucky are more likely to find religion incredibly helpful in giving them a fulfilled life in its wider sense?

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

Jesus did not warn us about the end times were to be apocalyptic BEFORE he returns, he warned us that things would be dark as pertaining to faith and hope, and that the cares of the world would carry us away. In other words - yeah a plague of success will be killing the vast majority of people.

He didn't say the meek shall inherit the earth for nothing!

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

To my mind, Christianity is like most other human activities. We get out of it what we bring into it.

If I approach Christianity as a way of winning favor from God so that I can be "saved" from the fiery pits of Hell I become a smaller, judgmental, fear based person. That is just my experience. Fear of God makes me want to judge other people as lesser - sinners - not good like me. Thankfully, I have left much of that behind. I don't need to follow the right formula, or ascribe to the right beliefs, to be "saved."

When I approach Christianity as a command to follow Jesus I believe I grow closer to God and grow as a person. How do I know if and when I am following Jesus? When my life is governed by compassion and the lack of need to insert my judgment into God's creation. How often do I achieve that? Not often. Such is my human condition.

Paul (at least the original Paul) understood that Christianity is not about rules, but about something else. He understood, as I can begin to glimmer, that my "sins" imperfections and what I call my dark side, are only a barrier to God if I let them be a barrier.

When I was at my lowest point, and I hated myself for my dark side, God was there. God loved me not because I was good, but because God is good. That, to me, is where Christianity can be.

Trying to follow Jesus to me is a lifetime work of loving not just those who are lovable, but doing my best to love those who I consider unlovable. Is there some exact formula for that that can be found in the Bible, or a prayer? I dunno.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Tortuf, welcome back!

Moo

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Thank you Moo. I have missed your wisdom.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0