My take on organized religion....

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

There is the contrast in this situation between your dependence on social cohesion and the will of the individuals. Not that I disagree with a social conduit based on common principles or behavior; though I think the notion of provocative behavior is relevant to the individual's perception, and can be avoided or modified without cause to homogenize a social grouping - in fact a social grouping could be as irrelevant to itself or co-exist in unity without any necessity for legal/linguistic conditioning, solely based on a principle of social dependence.

Yes, I make my point not to suggest that all acts of provocative individuality are worthless or obnoxious, but just to point out that individuality for individuality's sake isn't necessarily an admirable thing.

I think our society would be entirely dull without individuality, but I feel that some people's drive to assert their own individuality leads to some misconceptions. Seeing as we are all staggeringly unlikely forms of life and 100% individual why is there any need for an individual to asset his individuality?

I imagine the answer is in order to distinguish oneself from the mass of humanity. One does not want to go through life without being noticed.

As a personal example: as a teenager (some time ago now) I used to follow goth fashions. At the time I felt that I was expressing my individuality because I was distinguishing myself from most other young people in my area. Looking back though I was probably pigeon holing myself, I was only listening to music associated with the scene, my wardrobe was largely black, I read gothic literature, grew my hair long and dyed it black, developed an interest in the occult (even though I was highly sceptical of it), tended to veiw going to clubs as the only worthy social activity and even regarded the fact that other people were or were not goths as a significant factor when making friends with them. In other words I was acting just like other goths seemed largely to act.

I now regard it all as youthful folly really - but even though it was my own choice to act this way I can't think of many religions who would demand so many strictures from their followers. (Though I would concur with anyone who does point out that certain religions do make demands, whereas youth cults are just peer group pressure writ large really).

So would those who suggest religion suppresses individuality have a similar view of youth cults?

I also think that religion can be (and often is) one of the choices people make in order to distinguish themselves. If I announce tomorrow that I am going to become a Zoroastrian and that I wish my body to be disposed of by vultures when I die - does that not seem a more singular position (for someone in Nottingham - not someone in Bombay) on the matter of religion that admitting to being a bog standard atheist.

With respect to Riverdale's well written arguement, it seems to me to be less of an attack on religion per se, and more of an acknowledgement of the phenomenon that people tend to adopt the religion of their parents and/or host community.

I agree that this indicates a sad lack of the spirit of adventure and inquiry in many people, but I don't think it's an assault on individuality unless the religion of the community is one with a great many strictures. In England were the vast majority of religious people are a sort of vague Anglican religion seems far less of a barrier to individuality than, say, my earlier example of being a member of a youth cult.

[Solace]

The vast majority of people that I know are spending or have spent a significant portion of their youth years "straying from the faith" so to speak. A certain degree of rebellion is common among the youth, most people here can admit to such, I do not doubt. During those years of establishing our own identity, we come to the realization for ourselves whether or not our religious roots hold any value for us. Many do return to their roots, many do not. Undoubtedly some who return do so because they found no other satisfactory answers out there, so they conform to the standards of their family and community. But if none of us conform, wouldn't non-conforming become conforming?

[paulhanke]

... what in modern life is culturally driven and what is genetically driven? ... has there ever been a period during the evolution of humankind where individual spirituality was valued over communal spirituality? ... while I am sympathetic to many of your ideas, I think these are the kinds of questions that your ideas (as expressed) tend to beg ... for example, low-population-density societies tend toward egalitarianism - but is this individuality? ... no - in these kinds of societies, if you don't put community first, you will suffer the worst imaginable fate: expulsion from the community ... organized religion, on the other hand, seems to be a cultural survival response to high population densities - that is, human society has evolved organized religion as a way of keeping large groups from tearing themselves apart ... unfortunately, large groups also breed anonymity - whereas in human societies of the past you knew everybody in the group and everybody in the group knew you, that is no longer the case ... the (evolutionarily) recent emergence of the concept of "the individual" may be a biological survival response to anonymity - something the human psyche may perceive as an imbalance with respect to the egalitarian impulse (instinct?) ... anyhoo, now that we're living with ultra-high population densities as well as the amplifying effect of a connected world, we're breaking new ground ... human culture needs to evolve yet again in order to keep humankind from tearing itself apart ... the roles in this new society will affect the amount of instinctual dissonance felt by individuals in the society - if the roles are more or less egalitarian, the instinctual dissonance will be lessened and there will be less of an impulse to assert one's individuality; if the roles are an even more extreme form of bureaucracy, the instinctual dissonance will be heightened and there will be more of an impulse ot assert one's individuality ... which brings us to the $64K questions: is an egalitarian global society even imaginable? (or is it completely beyond fantasy?) ... is "ultra-bureaucratic individualism" any more imaginable? (or is that a combination that could only bring out the worst in both?) ...

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by OctoberMist

No offense to you, but like Riverdale, you really have no idea what you are talking about. You might want to do some research on these things before you make assertations about religion.

Also, exactly what is a "semi-occult musing"? I must confess that in all my years of researching religion I have never come across this term.

If you don't know what I mean, how can you accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about.

In reference to the Apocrypha, the following definition given by wikipedia may be helpful:

Apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα, meaning "those having been hidden away"[1]) are texts of uncertain authenticity, or writings where the authorship is questioned.

When used in the specific context of Judeo-Christiantheology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. Given that different denominations have different ideas about what constitutes canonical scripture, there are several different versions of the apocrypha. During sixteenth-century controversies over the biblical canon the word "apocrypha" acquired a negative connotation, and it has become a synonym for "spurious" or "false". This usage usually involves fictitious or legendary accounts that are plausible enough to commonly be considered as truth.

You claim the Apocrypha is part of the Catholic Bible. That is not true. The Apocrypha, (as Christians understand it - many other religions have their own apocrypha), is a collection of writings written around the same time as the canonical texts that some theologans find relevant. Certain churches, especially eastern orthodox churches or gnostic sects, find certain parts of the apocrypha worthy of inclusion in their canon.

Hence my, admittedly irreverent, reference to semi-occult musings.

Your mileage may vary, but I would tend not to view a religion as organised unless it pointed to a canonical set of written or orally transmitted lore (ie: the bible), and an institution in place to disemminate that lore (ie: the church).

I would agree with you that Hinduism is an organised religion, I find it debateable that Shintoism is. Chinese Folklore is certainly not an organised religion - the state religion is that of enforced atheism and those that still believe (in secrecy) are either buddhist or christian. Folklore is a set of cultural traditions and stories rather than beliefs. To insist otherwise would be to say that Leprechauns are taken as seriously by the irish as catholicism - which is ingenuous.

I remain of the position that it's OK to make a general (or bold, if you like) statement, without requiring a comprehensive knowledge of everything in order to back it up. In a debate such as the ones this forum seems to foster I would say the burden of proof is then foisted onto those who seek to disabuse you of your notion.

For example:

"All organised religions refer to texts that contain inconsistencies (by this I mean that they suggest a particular set of values at one point [ie: an eye for an eye] and then give a different set of values at another [ie: turn the other cheek])."

"What about the Koran? I don't see any inconsistency there."

"I disagree, in early suras moslems are told to be hostile to infidels, which seems to jar with the later suras that require you to 'love the stranger'."

That would seem a more helpful (not to mention civil) model of debate than "you can't comment until you've read everything there is to read on the subject on which you are commenting".

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

You claim the Apocrypha is part of the Catholic Bible. That is not true. The Apocrypha, (as Christians understand it - many other religions have their own apocrypha), is a collection of writings written around the same time as the canonical texts that some theologans find relevant. Certain churches, especially eastern orthodox churches or gnostic sects, find certain parts of the apocrypha worthy of inclusion in their canon.

Let's be careful about this. The Catholic Bible does contain apocrypha - it's just that those texts are not apocryphal to the Catholic Bible. I say the Catholic Bible contains apocrypha because it contains texts that other churches exclude, texts which are apocrypha in other Christian traditions. In this way every Bible, or at least every Bible I'm aware of, contains some apocrypha.

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I would agree with you that Hinduism is an organised religion, I find it debateable that Shintoism is. Chinese Folklore is certainly not an organised religion - the state religion is that of enforced atheism and those that still believe (in secrecy) are either buddhist or christian. Folklore is a set of cultural traditions and stories rather than beliefs. To insist otherwise would be to say that Leprechauns are taken as seriously by the irish as catholicism - which is ingenuous.

Sure Shintoism is an organized religion - with their own lore, their own places of worship and their own clergy. No less organized than any other faith tradition.
And Chinese folklore is also an organized religion. The people of China are not either Christian or Buddhism. Chinese are also Taoist and Confucian. But China is more complicated than this. Most Chinese are Buddhism and Taoist or some other mix, almost all including Chinese folklore in their mix. Walking into a Chinese temple you will find statues of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Jesus and heroes from folklore like the Monkey King.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Let's be careful about this. The Catholic Bible does contain apocrypha - it's just that those texts are not apocryphal to the Catholic Bible.

As does the Tanakh (the Hebrew bible).

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Most Chinese are Buddhism and Taoist or some other mix, almost all including Chinese folklore in their mix. Walking into a Chinese temple you will find statues of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Jesus and heroes from folklore like the Monkey King.

Yes I accept that - though is that necessarily a valid criteria for an organised religion.

For example I would say the green men, sheela-Na-gigs and other trapping of celtic paganism found in some old churches in England are part of folklore, rather than the teachings of the church.

'Folklore' seems by it's very definition to differ from 'organised' religion. Folklore is a body of various stories and traditions. They may influence religion (as christmas, hallowe'en and easter almost certainly have done) but I don't think they are taken with the same degree of seriousness or relevation as religious stories.

One is a fan of folklore, as opposed to a follower of religion, I feel.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

Yes I accept that - though is that necessarily a valid criteria for an organised religion.

Depends upon the definition of "organized religion". If we use a definition that actually fits so called 'organized' religions, then yes I think we can say that Chinese folklore is part of organized religion.

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

For example I would say the green men, sheela-Na-gigs and other trapping of celtic paganism found in some old churches in England are part of folklore, rather than the teachings of the church.

Why must the pagan elements be either folkloric or aspects of the church? That's kinda my point - they are not mutually exclusive. Those pagan aspects are both folklore and part of the church.

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

'Folklore' seems by it's very definition to differ from 'organised' religion. Folklore is a body of various stories and traditions. They may influence religion (as christmas, hallowe'en and easter almost certainly have done) but I don't think they are taken with the same degree of seriousness or relevation as religious stories.

One is a fan of folklore, as opposed to a follower of religion, I feel.

What's the differences? Folklore and organized religion tend to be set around certain stories and traditions, particular rites and ceremonies. You say that this folklore is not taken as seriously as religious stories - but this suggests already that the folkloric tales are not religious. Most of them happen to have significant spiritual content. Again, The Monkey King - a folkloric figure who travels to India to bring Buddhist scripture to China. It's folklore - and the book is a Buddhist allegory.

[Dave Allen]

I think Journey to the West was an "honest fiction" if you will, though some confusion may arise because of a very similar character in Hindu religion, the monkey Hanuman, is considered a very real hero in the story of Sati and Rama.

Whilst the monk who inspired the character of tripitaka really did bring the buddhist scriptures to China, I don't think anyone really seriously believes he did so in the company of an immortal monkey-magician, an Ogre, a pig-demon and a dragon disguised as a horse - I think that's taken as a very entertaining and instructive tale based loosely on a real event.

To be honest I wouldn't even class Journey to the West as Folklore - it's a novel by a known author - it has spiritual influences and may well have influenced certain spiritual thinkers - but so has the Lord of the Rings or the books of CS Lewis.

Folklore to me suggests a more oral tradition (which is of course often collected as books) and would contain things as varied as hedge medecine, ghost stories, recipies, spells, fairytales, etc.

I fully acceot that defining lines drawn between religious texts, collections of folklore and even fictions such as Journey to the West do overlap and blur into one another. It may be nothing more than the drawing of a personal boundary - but I would say an organised religion is most fully embodied when it has a recognisable canon and an institution devoted to learning that canon and disemanating that knowledge throughout it's followers, maybe even persuading it's followers to evangelise the canon to non-believers.

That's not to say that there aren't exceptions to this (Zoroastrianism, for example, seems opposed to evangelising - it is solely for born Zoroastrians).

Whereas even a very enthusiastic folklorist would likely be highly sceptical about the veracity of the stories - and wouldn't much mind what weight other people applied to them (asides from issues of taste of course).

All my own opinion I fully admit - but seeing as Riverdale didn't define what he meant by organised religion I jumped to the assumption that he or she was referring to religions with distict and recognisable institutions (he or she refers to "their texts" - which hardly includes folklores as they have no sort of "set" body of writing.

The reason I claimed that I found shintoism a debateable case is that, for all I know, it is folklore-like in having no real "set" writings or beliefs - rather a body of optional works of no real widely agreed rating.

This would then be opposed to say a religion like Christianity with a set of books clearly rated as varying in import. There is the stuff to contextualise Jesus' background and give a "story so far" (old testament) which is important, but then Jesus comes along and his story and that of his early followers is a work that supercedes the earlier (literally, a new testament) - plus other optional bits and bobs for real fans (apocrypha).

Another intersting example would be Islam. There is the stuff Mohammad recited under divine instruction (Koran), the things he said when not under divine guidance (Hadif) and an arabic folk tradition (Sufism).

I really appreciate your input here Didymos - this sort of line of inquiry is a very challenging and interesting area for me. To summarise, I view the organisation of religion from folklore to highly organised as one big blur - with many exceptions, but I do percieve a difference in the two.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I think Journey to the West was an "honest fiction" if you will, though some confusion may arise because of a very similar character in Hindu religion, the monkey Hanuman, is considered a very real hero in the story of Sati and Rama.

Whilst the monk who inspired the character of tripitaka really did bring the buddhist scriptures to China, I don't think anyone really seriously believes he did so in the company of an immortal monkey-magician, an Ogre, a pig-demon and a dragon disguised as a horse - I think that's taken as a very entertaining and instructive tale based loosely on a real event.

To be honest I wouldn't even class Journey to the West as Folklore - it's a novel by a known author - it has spiritual influences and may well have influenced certain spiritual thinkers - but so has the Lord of the Rings or the books of CS Lewis.

Well of course no one believes the story literally - on the surface, it's a children's book. As for authorship, the text may be attributed to Wu Cheng'en, but the actual author or authors is unknown. Wesley's translation is an abridged version; I've not read the entire book, but it is a large work.

Folklore to me suggests a more oral tradition (which is of course often collected as books) and would contain things as varied as hedge medecine, ghost stories, recipies, spells, fairytales, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "honest fiction". Yes, the book is honest, as any good book must be, and sure the book is fiction as the events did not actually take place. But the book is also an allegory. Dante's Comedy is honest and fiction, but still an allegory, part of the period's folklore. Dante still influences our folklore.

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I fully acceot that defining lines drawn between religious texts, collections of folklore and even fictions such as Journey to the West do overlap and blur into one another. It may be nothing more than the drawing of a personal boundary - but I would say an organised religion is most fully embodied when it has a recognisable canon and an institution devoted to learning that canon and disemanating that knowledge throughout it's followers, maybe even persuading it's followers to evangelise the canon to non-believers.

I can buy into that definition. With that definition, Chinese folklore, and a great deal more folklore, is at the very least part of organized religion. Pagan folklore managed to move into organized Christianity. And Chinese folklore has remained from time immemorial a significant part of Chinese religion and spirituality.

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

Whereas even a very enthusiastic folklorist would likely be highly sceptical about the veracity of the stories - and wouldn't much mind what weight other people applied to them (asides from issues of taste of course).

All my own opinion I fully admit - but seeing as Riverdale didn't define what he meant by organised religion I jumped to the assumption that he or she was referring to religions with distict and recognisable institutions (he or she refers to "their texts" - which hardly includes folklores as they have no sort of "set" body of writing.

That's the thing, though. Chinese folklore has moved into recognizable institutions. The idea that these institutions must be distinct, one for the folklore, one for Buddhism, one for Taoism, ect does not apply to Chinese religion given the way most Chinese tend to worship.

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

The reason I claimed that I found shintoism a debateable case is that, for all I know, it is folklore-like in having no real "set" writings or beliefs - rather a body of optional works of no real widely agreed rating.

Yet there are distinctly Shinto temples in Japan. Shinto was once the state religion of Japan; how can the state religion not be an organized religion? Why must an organized religion have scripture? Was organized religious practice impossible prior to writing?

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

This would then be opposed to say a religion like Christianity with a set of books clearly rated as varying in import. There is the stuff to contextualise Jesus' background and give a "story so far" (old testament) which is important, but then Jesus comes along and his story and that of his early followers is a work that supercedes the earlier (literally, a new testament) - plus other optional bits and bobs for real fans (apocrypha).

Another intersting example would be Islam. There is the stuff Mohammad recited under divine instruction (Koran), the things he said when not under divine guidance (Hadif) and an arabic folk tradition (Sufism).

It's interesting, though, that you cite two western religions as an example in order to help argue that two eastern religions are not organized forms of worship. Is this really so convincing, or are we just highlighting certain cultural differences between east and west?

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I really appreciate your input here Didymos - this sort of line of inquiry is a very challenging and interesting area for me. To summarise, I view the organisation of religion from folklore to highly organised as one big blur - with many exceptions, but I do percieve a difference in the two.

I also have been enjoying the conversation. I do think that there is non-religious folklore. As far as I can tell, Paul Bunyan has little or no religious significance.