My take on organized religion....

Riverdale · #1 (**permalink**) 11-14-2008, 12:32 PM

From a blog I wrote in May....

Utopia? Thoughts on a Spiritual Revolution
Category: Religion and Philosophy

We define ourselves and others by our nationalities, ethnicities, hair colors, genders, sexual orientations, psychological aberrations, ages, professions; we're members and followers of traditions, trends, cults, philosophies, political parties.

Somehow we've robbed ourselves of the ultimate freedom- the innate gift of independent thinking.

But in no other area of self- definition and personal progression have we allowed ourselves to be so devastatingly cheated as with what SHOULD be belief, but is RELIGION.

So we're pack animals, creatures of comfort and habit. Most of us are more content to be led than to lead or explore alternatives. We have a learned, irrational tendency to unthinkingly conform, to be attracted by novelty on a base level and yet be immobilized by a strange neophobia where the spiritual is concerned. We've become used to repressing, avoiding, and ultimately denying ourselves the frightening- but imperative to spiritual growth- exploration of our own souls and their unknown destiny and fate, but also tragically their infinite potential.

We cling to tradition, almost unquestioningly accepting what's served to us in terms of stale spiritual fare. We imitate rather than innovate, not daring to stray from the beaten paths where it would be, ironically, most important. We timorously go with the flow and are swallowed in the masses of collective non- thinking and brainwashing. Most of us have been indoctrinated from birth, ostensibly for our own good, with the idea that organized religion is the only way to save ourselves. Even in the most common case of religion by "default", adoption of the religion of our families, we have an inertia- like tendency to accept the default and very rarely give a serious thought, "practicing" or not, to opt completely out.

WHY, in our supposedly otherwise so advanced era are we still so dark- age backward in spiritual progression?

Of course there are the obvious benefits of community and comfort, guidance and a certain peace of mind. But we have to weigh them against the negatives. We can't deny that we're fully aware of the almost unfathomably detrimental, oppressive influence that organized religion has always had on the political- economical, social/ moral/ ideological evolution of man. The books and scriptures are filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and destructive teachings. Religious fundamentalism with its deliberate misinterpretations and the resulting horrors of terrorism, prejudice and discrimination are spreading again at a sickening rate, and brutal wars are still being fought, as ever, because of these teachings. Extreme misogynistic practices, physical mutilation, unwanted pregnancies and barbaric lynchings are (to mention just a few) daily occurences in the name of various religions. There can be no realistic secularization on a global scale.

Why can't we let go?

Isn't it painfully obvious that it's highest time for a real SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION?

Can't we begin to think for ourselves? To take the initiative, make a gesture, a sensible sacrifice and find the courage- as opposed to passively distancing ourselves even as nonpracticers- to officially

RENOUNCE OUR RELIGIONS

and seek our spiritual identities on our own? It's ludicrous that intelligent beings seem to be ignoring the fact that it is a logical impossibility to embrace and adhere to an entire doctrine, a set of beliefs with all it's intricacies, implications, ambiguities and blatant contradictions and to rationally, honestly say: "Yes, this is what I believe."

Is it so hard to recognize the massive discrepancy between "religion" and "belief"? The obvious paradox? The joke that's been played on us as an ancient means of subjugation and control under the guise of spirituality?

A belief- a true faith- is a conviction.

The term "religious conviction" in conjunction with organized religion is an oxymoron.

A SPIRITUAL conviction is the most personal, individual belief there can be and the result of a perhaps lifelong journey of difficult, frightening, painful and rewarding introspection, reflection, and intense soul- searching. It can ONLY come from the deepest self and not from opaque historical accounts and myths or elitist, undemocratic doctrines DICTATED by others.

At this point I feel the need to clarify: this is by no means an attempt to inculcate in anyone a "new" belief or faith- on the contrary!

This is a plea to shed the familiar, the dangerous and obsolete, to inspire the will to finally correct where we've gone wrong since the beginning of civilization; to reclaim, relearn and exalt individual freedom of thinking (discluding theological eclecticism and personal forms of mysticism) and the natural human propensity toward

INDEPENDENT SPIRITUAL EXPLORATION-

to dissolve the borders of which we have an overabundance of, to go into OURSELVES to find our truths and back to each other. We MUST liberate ourselves from the labels, the ready- made definitions, the false safety of mass psychology and dumbing- down of dangerous superstition and untenable sentimental traditional patterns and become AWARE of the emotional, cognitive, political and social forces that have always dictated our thinking in often deceptively subliminal ways and address the ROOT of the most critical issues facing our world if we're to change it and ourselves for the better.

We are not helpless, it is not hopeless. Revolutionary ideologies on a grand scale are always threatening and potentially dangerous, but when we consider the cataclysmic events that usually precede great socio- political progressions, we have to answer the question:

What is ultimately more dangerous- change or standstill? Pacifistic upheaval or passive complacency?

Is it overly idealistic to attempt to begin the singlemost overdue, admittedly ambitious change in the history of humanity-

or is it our moral responsibility?

L.L.

Note: Written in the spirit of '68!

(I've left the Catholic church- oi!)

jgweed · #2 (**permalink**) 11-14-2008, 01:37 PM

Allowing Others to define you, or accepting their definitions as definitive is a form of bad faith. Because only YOU can choose in freedom what you want to become, outside definitions that attempt to objectivefy the Self deprive it of its freedom, responsibility, and choices.

Dave Allen · #3 (**permalink**) 11-14-2008, 02:01 PM

I am not so sure myself that, in the affluent western world at least, we have robbed ourself of individuality. I would go so far as to suggest that members of my society regularly adopt an almost provocative individuality - some of the more difficult people I find myself dealing with are at least partly so because they simply refuse to compromise what they see as their individuality.

Individuality can in itself become a cult (of personality) and seems to me to render certain practitioners highly antisocial (I recall a number of times were the defence of "I was just being myself" or "I was calling it as I see it" was used to justify provocative behaviour).

You are right to point out that we tend to define ourselves according to a number of attributes, from hair colour to preffered diet to political opinions to religious convictions.

Rather than seeing the adoption of these attributes as a barrier to individuality I tend to view the combinations of attributes people choose for themselves as what makes them individual. People are in essence 100% individual in a state of nature, the adoption of attributes is what defines an individual from a morass of pure individuality. (This doesn't seem to make much sense I suppose - what I am perhaps saying is that if we were all as individual as possible individuality would cease to be anything precious or even discernable).

So Clare is the metalhead with red hair who eats vegan votes labour and goes to bible study classes once a month or so, Frank is shy and into preppy fashions and likes to read books and learn to make music, Vivian is brashly eccentric and lives on a boat and keeps reptiles, I am an overwieght and rapidly crumbling indie kid who likes to be sceptical.

These pigeon holes might compromise individuality to a certain degree, but they also define us as individuals. I know a few people who are genuine hard to categorise - I would have to say I find them deeply difficult to relate to and get along with (not for want of trying, I count some of them amongst my best friends, etc).

So I am not sure we innately and unthinkingly conform any more than we wilfully individualise. I think we try on a variety of hats until we discover or develop a persona that suits us.

One of these personas might be the persona of the zealot or evangelist, and I find (as I imagine you find) such people rather intimidating and annoying. At the same time I can't escape from the fact that people seem to possess a poweful drive to espouse their worldviews (otherwise why I am bothering to write this post).

I would prefer, in a perfect world, for people to believe in whatever individual ideas they come up with for mysteries such as first cause of creation, life after death and so on.

The sticking point seems to come with morality, as I suspect communities require some moral guidelines in order to develop a shared value system - a rough guide to what is and what isn't socially acceptable to a given group. I think religions play an important part in this role, but it might also explain why periods of insecurity result when one religion encroaches into the territory of another - which I suspect is why religion is a principle ingredient in so many wars.

On the plus side religion is also the source of many arguements for increased toleration: anti-slavery movements, charities, Moorish Spain and spinoza are just a few of the undoubtably "progressive" (for their time) ideologies that have roots in religion.

It ought to mentioned as well that secular or athiestic ideologies are just as good at spreading intolerance and suffering as religious ones, the political projects of the twentieth century, such as the third reich or the khymer rouge, Maoist China and Stalinist Russia were responsible for some of the greatest acts of human cruelty in history - all in the service of irreligious ideologies.

Resha Caner · #4 (**permalink**) 11-14-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I am not so sure myself that, in the affluent western world at least, we have robbed ourself of individuality. I would go so far as to suggest that members of my society regularly adopt an almost provocative individuality - some of the more difficult people I find myself dealing with are at least partly so because they simply refuse to compromise what they see as their individuality.

Individuality can in itself become a cult (of personality) and seems to me to render certain practitioners highly antisocial (I recall a number of times were the defence of "I was just being myself" or "I was calling it as I see it" was used to justify provocative behaviour)

...

This one's a keeper.

William · #5 (**permalink**) 11-14-2008, 05:26 PM

Nice post Riverdale. Just some thoughts of mine.

We define ourselves and others by our nationalities, ethnicities, hair colors, genders, sexual orientations, psychological aberrations, ages, professions; we're members and followers of traditions, trends, cults, philosophies, political parties.
Somehow we've robbed ourselves of the ultimate freedom- the innate gift of independent thinking.

I think "independent thinking" is a good thing if it is a shared thing with at the core the enhancement of those who are sharing. It has to be the initiated from the top down in a giving manner in such a way that will allow he of lesser thought to willingly "hear" without string attached as it is a "hand up" rather than a "hand out". We are so conditioned to think "what’s in it for me" to the point that makes that "sharing" so circumspect, other’s effort not to hear. So many have been disillusioned, hurt, conned, manipulated and oppressed by those who find self gratification in their guile, wit and intelligence that allows them to take advantage of those of lesser knowledge.. Most have no idea of the "inner reward" that such a "giving" incurs. In that giving we establish neutral playing field that will allow all to "independently think" regardless of what level that thought is at allowing them to ‘progress" at their own rate in such a way, considering what the world has to offer, that will not "shock" their sensibilities.

But in no other area of self- definition and personal progression have we allowed ourselves to be so devastatingly cheated as with what SHOULD be belief, but is RELIGION.

We are all "linked" to the universe and religion is that feeble, innate desire to understand that link. It predates time and we refer to that from which we are a part and are extremely subject to those of greater knowledge as to what they have "defined" that link to be. As we grovel around in the dark trying to figure out where we fit in we understandably associated our "being" to that inexplicable mechanism that drives that universe. What we call "God" as we associated that "God" as being a more "powerful" one of us. All knowing and omnipotent yet subject to what we egotistically think we can understand as to how truly omnipotent that "God" is. In doing so we effort to imitate that definition we have "bestowed" on God giving us license to "rule" as we have determined God does. Here is were religion gets it awesome power and has made it’s greatest false assumption. God doesn’t have any rules. Man does; and he does to appease himself. Not God. Hence the enormous amount of blood shed in the name of religion.

So we're pack animals, creatures of comfort and habit. Most of us are more content to be led than to lead or explore alternatives. We have a learned, irrational tendency to unthinkingly conform, to be attracted by novelty on a base level and yet be immobilized by a strange neophobia where the spiritual is concerned. We've become used to repressing, avoiding, and ultimately denying ourselves the frightening- but imperative to spiritual growth- exploration of our own souls and their unknown destiny and fate, but also tragically their infinite potential.

Pack animals governed by fear. That’s how this reality we have created functions as the strong overpower the weak in all scenarios as we abide by the axiom "to the victor go the spoils in all imaginable scenarios". And the misuse of knowledge is the root of all our short comings as we are also conditioned to "look out for number one". One is force to conform for his very existence is at stake if he doesn’t. The laws in place protect the gross inequity that exists in the world as the "haves" conveniently label the "have nots" as "non-human" animals undeserving of those "blessings" the haves so richly deserve as they flaunt their status and hierarchy .Free thought is a detriment to power and it must be controlled and the best way to do that is hold man’s very existence in the balance. Damn!

We cling to tradition, almost unquestioningly accepting what's served to us in terms of stale spiritual fare. We imitate rather than innovate, not daring to stray from the beaten paths where it would be, ironically, most important. We timorously go with the flow and are swallowed in the masses of collective non- thinking and brainwashing. Most of us have been indoctrinated from birth, ostensibly for our own good, with the idea that organized religion is the only way to save ourselves. Even in the most common case of religion by "default", adoption of the religion of our families, we have an inertia- like tendency to accept the default and very rarely give a serious thought, "practicing" or not, to opt completely out.

We cling to tradition because it is "easy". We are comfortable there to the point "new, out of the box" thought draws "strange looks" , Ha. Especially if one efforts to bring a higher understanding to the "primitive" interpretations religion has used to deter that beautiful mind we were all endowed with to think for "itself", which it is more that capable of doing if we just "un-encumber " with "traditional thinking". Much easier said than done. I have so often notice most people survive in a limited sphere of influence of which they have all they need to "feel safe" in all that goes on in that sphere and to venture from it scares the living hell out of them. IMO. All they know of the world is what that sphere offers as it will be absolutely in line with what they think. Bird’s of a feather mentality with absolutely no desire to venture form it. How so very isolating. These sphere’s exist in all size’s and religion is but one of them.

WHY, in our supposedly otherwise so advanced era are we still so dark- age backward in spiritual progression?

Simply, IMO even though what we know of this "core" of our being is primitive, it works. To the point to where we think we know enough to "get along", so to speak. When, again IMO, we are but on the tip of the ice berg as to how powerful this core is as it relates to us. It is man’s mis-interpretations that have cause all the problems. As in all "power" whether it be political, wealth or religious, power is corrupting and all consuming and not easily relinquished. Once we learn more can be learned from cooperation rather than intimidation, will we be free to take advantage of that "spiritual progression" as you put it and become the "divine creations" we were meant to be, whatever that is.

Of course there are the obvious benefits of community and comfort, guidance and a certain peace of mind. But we have to weigh them against the negatives. We can't deny that we're fully aware of the almost unfathomably detrimental, oppressive influence that organized religion has always had on the political- economical, social/ moral/ ideological evolution of man. The books and scriptures are filled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and destructive teachings. Religious fundamentalism with its deliberate misinterpretations and the resulting horrors of terrorism, prejudice and discrimination are spreading again at a sickening rate, and brutal wars are still being fought, as ever, because of these teachings. Extreme misogynistic practices, physical mutilation, unwanted pregnancies and barbaric lynchings are (to mention just a few) daily occurences in the name of various religions. There can be no realistic secularization on a global scale.

The giving of one’s "self" for spiritual awakening IMO is the key. It just so happens that happens in a sphere that all to often is within a religious setting and precludes one to believe that awakening to be associated with that surrounding or that particular belief. When in fact it could happen to anyone anywhere but not at anytime. That will be left up to the individual and their own time. Unfortunately there is entirely too much "outer inertia" forcing one to cling to self as a defense mechanism for that to happen. What is so misunderstood is many think if God is so powerful, why doesn’t he just "make it happen"? And it just doesn’t happen that way, IMO. Only the individual can turn loose of the ego. What I mean here is when we begin apply the knowledge we have acquired as it relates to the welfare of all, is when God enters the arena. Prosperity is a "gift" bequeathed by those who are allowed to grow as a result of those who share their knowledge. Not saying we should not have a healthy sense of self, but to depend on self exclusively builds barrier’s that prevent this spiritual awakening. You must want it, it cannot be forced. Just like man. He can’t be forced to do anything unless you threaten his life or his soul and that is the exact reality we have created and know of no other on which we can compare it to. It’s always been this way and precisely why the world is in the shape it is.

Why can't we let go?
See above. Ha.

Isn't it painfully obvious that it's highest time for a real SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION?
Yep! That’s why we are having this conversation. I think we are at a major turning point.

Can't we begin to think for ourselves? To take the initiative, make a gesture, a sensible sacrifice and find the courage- as opposed to passively distancing ourselves even as nonpracticers- to officially
RENOUNCE OUR RELIGIONS
and seek our spiritual identities on our own? It's ludicrous that intelligent beings seem to be ignoring the fact that it is a logical impossibility to embrace and adhere to an entire doctrine, a set of beliefs with all it's intricacies, implications, ambiguities and blatant contradictions and to rationally, honestly say: "Yes, this is what I believe."

For this to happen we need to eliminate the "need for religion". And that can only come through trust, respect, understanding, communication and cooperation as we determine we all in this together. As I have said this world is not for sale. It is the home to all of us and as long as we maintain those boundaries that separate us our house will fall. If we don’t do something and fast, Einstein concluded the war we fight after the next one will be with "stones". Life is an entitlement to all who live here and the quality of that life should not be determined by how much worthless gold you possess. The human being is what has value and what he can offer.

Nice post. I hope I helped a little as to what it meant to me. What ever that may be.
William

Khethil · #6 (**permalink**) 11-15-2008, 10:21 AM

Nicely stated Riverdale. I don't think I'd disagree with any sentiment you expressed in the opening post. But there's an aspect to this I'd like to address. Its a bit difficult to properly enunciate, so I hope you and others will bear with me. I'm going to state this as plainly as possible, and I'll beg forgiveness, in advance, for any terms I use here (for the sake of illustration) that end up enflaming anyone's emotions:

Allow me to put it this way: If I had a nickel for every person whom, these days, professes belief in something - though they know not what - I'd be a very rich man. "There is a higher power!", "Embrace your true individual spiritualism!" and the like are just fine. But what this equates to is people who all run around defining their own fantasy; and in so doing, consciously fall prey to their fears and whims. Now, again, this may be just fine for each individual, who am I to judge? But....

... there's a yellow-flag of caution run up in my head as this seems to be the latest wide-spread fad. We end up with so many consciously putting their hearts and hopes into something they've voluntarily created. What of keeping ourselves grounded? What motive might their be, when it's so fashionable to construct our own opiate, to embrace our existences as we all collectively are and as we all collectively see them? Why need I, as I've created my own dream-world, take care of, embrace or support others?

A couple of clarifications are in order here I think (since it seems I am, once again, trying to "swim upstream" from popular opinion):

Agree completely that Religion and Honest Belief are nearly diametrically opposed.

I agree wholeheartedly that, with regards to an individual's spirituality (in however one chooses to define this), it is encumbent upon them - and them alone - to define this.

If I had big Magic Wand; and, for the benefit of humankind I could choose for all people either individually-formulated spirituality or from a menu of Organized Religion, I'd choose the former.

I don't believe in any higher power because; well, there's simply no reason to (as my mind is). If I had a reason, or sufficient need, then I would - happily.

So what happens when everyone constructs their own "higher power"? I realize that in the philosophical sense we construct our realities anyway, but as we traverse that border to consciously doing so, are we not wantonly allowing our fears and needs to deceive and divert us from each other and that "world" we all experientially share? Is this healthy? Is it a "good idea" with regards to human-interaction?

I hope this has made sense; and I hope its taken well. Words often fail me...

Thanks for the thread, very nice.

sarek · #7 (**permalink**) 11-15-2008, 03:51 PM

Essentially I agree with what William has already pointed out.
Yet, I think I should add a few short remarks of my own.

I am not a religiously inclined person myself. And in particular the 'organized' bit has little appeal for me. I dislike following pre-set rulebooks and official dogmas with a vengeance. I question everything.
I enjoy thinking independently and it is entirely possible that where today I might agree with someone else, tomorrow may be entirely different.

Yet, in thinking about my own personal answers to all life's great questions I have noticed a most peculiar recurring phenomenon.
Completely independently of any official religious influence I have identified many passages in religious writings and in particular in the Bible which can be directly translated to carry meaning within the context of my own philosophies.

Time and time again I am in the position that the best way to illustrate a metaphysical concept or thought of mine which I wish to explain can appropriately be illustrated by using a religious quote.
I have the tendency to do that so often people might start thinking I am actually a highly religious person. I am puzzled as to the cause of this apparent contradiction.
Off course being raised in a part of the world dominated by the Judeo-Christian tradition the above may not be such a surprise.

But the bottom line really is that I am not so sure the writers of these ancient texts where nothing but a bunch of misguided superstitious fools. I tend to believe some measure of higher understanding must have passed through their minds and ended up in the manuscripts. We must always take into account the objective reference frames of each of these individuals when reading the old texts though.

Doobah47 · #8 (**permalink**) 11-15-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave allen

Individuality can in itself become a cult (of personality) and seems to me to render certain practitioners highly antisocial (I recall a number of times were the defence of "I was just being myself" or "I was calling it as I see it" was used to justify provocative behaviour).

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.

Solace · #9 (**permalink**) 11-15-2008, 07:35 PM

Although religion, and moreover, pack-mentality, is as potent a force today as it has ever been, I think that those of us who cry, "open your eyes and see the state you're in," need to open our eyes and see the state we're in. If someone here has the spiritual clarity to question religious dogma, and many of us do, then are we really so alone in our spiritual awareness? We condemn the religious for being naive enough to follow dogma, but isn't it naive of us to assume that all or even most of the religious have not thought about these spiritual questions for themselves and come to the conclusion that, for them at least, their particular religion offers satisfactory answers?

Let me point out, they're not the ones who are making an issue of this, we are. For the most part they just shrug their shoulders at us and say, "think so little of my self-awareness, if that is your wish, meanwhile I'll go and pray for your immortal soul." They usually have no desire to be at odds with us, why then are we at odds with them?

Yes, to us many of their beliefs are silly and backward, but we can't change that it makes sense to them. And yes, for the majority of them it does makes sense, cause the ones to whom it doesn't make sense usually end up leaving their religious roots. And we all know plenty of those.

It's one thing to tell them that their beliefs make no sense, or are contradictory. (Most of them don't care about that anyway.) But telling them that they haven't taken the time and effort to decide for themselves what to believe is not only presumptive, but it's also proselytizing. Cause let's face it, we're never going to be content with their degree of spritual awareness until it matches our own.

Didymos Thomas · #10 (**permalink**) 11-15-2008, 09:38 PM

Interesting post Riverdale.

Quote: