Yeah, of course-- there's tons of other ways in my life that I engage with both care and with political action. But why would I want to disengage from one of the most enjoyable and effective ways I've found of being in community?
It is easy for me to understand why people enjoy the community aspect of religion, which I refer to as the "cultural" aspects in the piece above. Much of that is obviously very worthwhile. But it doesn't follow to me that you need to believe that the religion itself is true.
You might want to do a bit more research on religions other than popular expressions of American Christianity before pontificating on religion as a whole; "religious" is in fact a word that means something different and more specific than "someone who literally believes in all of a specific list of unverifiable claims", and it makes you look kind of silly to pretend it means only what you're saying it does, while also saying that therefore it's a silly concept that no one should adhere to.
Agreed--it's very evangelical-Christian centric to say religion = belief. Religion is culture and rituals and things people can find very sustaining without any kind of literal belief. In Judaism religion is about culture, actions and rituals and belief doesn't have to come into it at all.
There's an excellent book called Tech Agnostic about tech becoming a religion as we make obeisance to the rectangles of light in our pockets. The more dogmatic believe an AI got is coming to save us, but all of us who carry out the rituals of tech are participating in it.
To say taking the "religious" aspect out of Quakerism, or Judaism doesn't mean take out belief, it means take out everything.
Yeah in my community of seeking Jews the idea you have to belief in a whole set of whatever to be religious or pray is just laughable. It's just not the case!
I am in fact not the one here who wrote an essay claiming to state definitively what religion is and why it sucks! And in fact, I recommend folks who assume the matter is easy and obvious donтАЩt try to do that, either.
HereтАЩs Merriam Webster though; тАЬa personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practicesтАЭ.
There have been several responses to this essay trying to point out the тАШculturalтАЩ aspects of the Jewish тАШfaith/religionтАЩ, so as to differentiate from NolanтАЩs critique. The genocide in Gaza should put that to rest; the тАШbut they arenтАЩt real practitioners of JudaismтАЩ sounds just like Christian hypocrites.
Anyone has the right to define the manner in which they deflect from the reality of human mortality.
I would argue most religious practitioners, those whose religions include textural teachings at any rate, would largely agree with NolanтАЩs definition; but just disagree that it sucks. ItтАЩs the non-literal тАШbelieversтАЩ who seem most offended here. That amuses me.
The thing that's confusing me about this take from you is that many religions serve a very similar social and cultural function to the idea of a union! Ideally, religious communities (and I'm speaking specifically about Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious communities, which are the religions I'm most familiar with) build solidarity between people from different backgrounds and different beliefs because members have a strong sense of responsibility to one another and the group and a shared set of values, even if they may argue about what those values mean or how they are best put in practice. They have regular meetings that place people in physical proximity for rituals that give them a sense of purpose, belonging, and transcendence. Neoliberal expressions of "spirituality" (and as a subscriber to multiple astrology apps, I absolutely implicate myself here) are in no sense effective substitutes.
Yes, hence the forever recurring thing of non-religious people saying "I wish we had something like church on Sundays." I buy the social/ solidarity value of (some) religions, but I don't think that should have to be accompanied by a set of mythologies you're supposed to buy into as well.
Yeah, and I think there are useful conversations about why efforts to make secular church haven't really taken--is faith or something like it a necessary component of that kind of community (and does "another world is possible" qualify?) Or are there other barriers (lack of physical infrastructure, history, shared references/songs/cultural elements, etc.) that have nothing to do with faith?
My basic problem with Christianity, as someone who would under some circumstances identify as a Christian atheist, is that faith is so baked into the idea of what it means to be a good Christian (or at least a good Protestant) that doing the religious stuff without believing it feels fake and wrong. I do think Christianity is unique(ly bad) in this way, though! Most of my observant Jewish friends also identify as atheist without any real angst.
I know nice Christians, Jews, Muslims and Atheists.
There are many bad as well.
Their beliefs arent what makes them nice people.
Some are told that. So they pretend a false belief makes them moral. It is actually one reason religions are very harmful.
Jewish is also cultural btw.
I have a Xmas tree. It has pagan origins. I am not pagan nor Christian. Raised Catholic. I don't Santa is real.
It is cultural. Not about Christianity.
Won't find anything Christian about my decorations.
Snowmen, Santa, etc.
All just for fun.
Even most so called believing Christians spend more time, effort, and money on the Pagan aspects. One hour in church then the rest of the day watching sports, opening presents and other non religious activities.
Which brings up an interesting question. I wonder if there is a strong correlation between atheism and introversion. We just don't have the need for superficial community build around some random "belief " system. Or more to the point the regularity of weekly get-togethers. Like all red blooded Americans I love me a good cookout. Three or even four times a year. Or family reunions. maybe people who are drawn to religious thinking are also people who need that kind of regular connection. Honestly I kind of wish that I needed it. Like, I wish that I wanted to get together with people once a week for community.
This was as satisfying to read as eating the whole bowl of whipped cream.
Yet, ignoring the validity of needing a frame for the essential human experience of wonder - of awe or the evanescent sensation of glory - is an incomplete description of my experience of consciousness.
These moments - like our most miserable moments of despair - are writ so large in our emotional lives our desire for a mythology or schema to help us digest them is an insoluble opportunity and vulnerability.
Different christian denominations getting along with each other is a very new thing. The only reason they find common cause now is because they are on the ropes and losing members. They are effectively circling their wagons. There was a time that Baptist and Catholics wouldn't be caught dead in each other's company. And that wasn't that long ago
Of course he would, he's a How Things Work reader. We are not a very representative slice of the American horde. The question is whether *most people* would still embrace caring for others absent the threat of eternal punishment. I almost never disagree with you, but it's hard for me to see the decline of religion, which kept the Protestant work ethic dads in line for decades, as good when it has not been replaced by a secular ethics or some other force that either incentivizes or shames rich white people into not slashing and burning everything around them. People, at least Western people, simply will not do that on their own; most will not think about it at all, and those who do will turn into so many Ayns Rand.
Empathy is very much learned and unlearned. I think even the most well-meaning people tend to think women are more empathetic than men, when itтАЩs society that drives that divide.
I think empathy is a human trait that we are born with, that can be lost when we are hurt early on- and bullied out so you can learn to be part of the oppressor class
Do you think that you could or would still embrace caring for others absent the religious aspect?
Yeah, of course-- there's tons of other ways in my life that I engage with both care and with political action. But why would I want to disengage from one of the most enjoyable and effective ways I've found of being in community?
It is easy for me to understand why people enjoy the community aspect of religion, which I refer to as the "cultural" aspects in the piece above. Much of that is obviously very worthwhile. But it doesn't follow to me that you need to believe that the religion itself is true.
You might want to do a bit more research on religions other than popular expressions of American Christianity before pontificating on religion as a whole; "religious" is in fact a word that means something different and more specific than "someone who literally believes in all of a specific list of unverifiable claims", and it makes you look kind of silly to pretend it means only what you're saying it does, while also saying that therefore it's a silly concept that no one should adhere to.
Agreed--it's very evangelical-Christian centric to say religion = belief. Religion is culture and rituals and things people can find very sustaining without any kind of literal belief. In Judaism religion is about culture, actions and rituals and belief doesn't have to come into it at all.
There's an excellent book called Tech Agnostic about tech becoming a religion as we make obeisance to the rectangles of light in our pockets. The more dogmatic believe an AI got is coming to save us, but all of us who carry out the rituals of tech are participating in it.
To say taking the "religious" aspect out of Quakerism, or Judaism doesn't mean take out belief, it means take out everything.
Yeah in my community of seeking Jews the idea you have to belief in a whole set of whatever to be religious or pray is just laughable. It's just not the case!
Your response feels very Clintonian is is.
It тАШmeans something different and more specificтАЩ.
Name it; and be specific.
I am in fact not the one here who wrote an essay claiming to state definitively what religion is and why it sucks! And in fact, I recommend folks who assume the matter is easy and obvious donтАЩt try to do that, either.
HereтАЩs Merriam Webster though; тАЬa personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practicesтАЭ.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Religion means the same as cult. The only difference is the amount of cultural or popular approval.
There are reasons humans are superstitious, join cults or religions, follow group think, practice rituals and worship symbols.
Semantics is just a way to deflect from the fact such beliefs are false.
Excellent cherry-pick.
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b: the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
4archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
There have been several responses to this essay trying to point out the тАШculturalтАЩ aspects of the Jewish тАШfaith/religionтАЩ, so as to differentiate from NolanтАЩs critique. The genocide in Gaza should put that to rest; the тАШbut they arenтАЩt real practitioners of JudaismтАЩ sounds just like Christian hypocrites.
Anyone has the right to define the manner in which they deflect from the reality of human mortality.
I would argue most religious practitioners, those whose religions include textural teachings at any rate, would largely agree with NolanтАЩs definition; but just disagree that it sucks. ItтАЩs the non-literal тАШbelieversтАЩ who seem most offended here. That amuses me.
"Anyone has the right to define the manner in which they deflect from the reality of human mortality."
Ouch and touche!ЁЯШЙ
You lose me when you start playing games with definitions.
The thing that's confusing me about this take from you is that many religions serve a very similar social and cultural function to the idea of a union! Ideally, religious communities (and I'm speaking specifically about Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious communities, which are the religions I'm most familiar with) build solidarity between people from different backgrounds and different beliefs because members have a strong sense of responsibility to one another and the group and a shared set of values, even if they may argue about what those values mean or how they are best put in practice. They have regular meetings that place people in physical proximity for rituals that give them a sense of purpose, belonging, and transcendence. Neoliberal expressions of "spirituality" (and as a subscriber to multiple astrology apps, I absolutely implicate myself here) are in no sense effective substitutes.
Yes, hence the forever recurring thing of non-religious people saying "I wish we had something like church on Sundays." I buy the social/ solidarity value of (some) religions, but I don't think that should have to be accompanied by a set of mythologies you're supposed to buy into as well.
There are plenty of deeply religious people who donтАЩt think that either. With all due respect, your take on this is way, way too reductive
Sport is similar. A possible effective replacement.
Social.
Has team or club based loyalties.
A church near me doesn't meet on Sunday.
Kids are out playing soccer or other sports.
It is hard for non theists because non theists do not have a reason to meet up.
I suspect a significant percentage at churches are only there to fit in socially. Peer pressure certainly. Many for economic networking reasons.
Yeah, and I think there are useful conversations about why efforts to make secular church haven't really taken--is faith or something like it a necessary component of that kind of community (and does "another world is possible" qualify?) Or are there other barriers (lack of physical infrastructure, history, shared references/songs/cultural elements, etc.) that have nothing to do with faith?
My basic problem with Christianity, as someone who would under some circumstances identify as a Christian atheist, is that faith is so baked into the idea of what it means to be a good Christian (or at least a good Protestant) that doing the religious stuff without believing it feels fake and wrong. I do think Christianity is unique(ly bad) in this way, though! Most of my observant Jewish friends also identify as atheist without any real angst.
I know nice Christians, Jews, Muslims and Atheists.
There are many bad as well.
Their beliefs arent what makes them nice people.
Some are told that. So they pretend a false belief makes them moral. It is actually one reason religions are very harmful.
Jewish is also cultural btw.
I have a Xmas tree. It has pagan origins. I am not pagan nor Christian. Raised Catholic. I don't Santa is real.
It is cultural. Not about Christianity.
Won't find anything Christian about my decorations.
Snowmen, Santa, etc.
All just for fun.
Even most so called believing Christians spend more time, effort, and money on the Pagan aspects. One hour in church then the rest of the day watching sports, opening presents and other non religious activities.
.
Which brings up an interesting question. I wonder if there is a strong correlation between atheism and introversion. We just don't have the need for superficial community build around some random "belief " system. Or more to the point the regularity of weekly get-togethers. Like all red blooded Americans I love me a good cookout. Three or even four times a year. Or family reunions. maybe people who are drawn to religious thinking are also people who need that kind of regular connection. Honestly I kind of wish that I needed it. Like, I wish that I wanted to get together with people once a week for community.
This was as satisfying to read as eating the whole bowl of whipped cream.
Yet, ignoring the validity of needing a frame for the essential human experience of wonder - of awe or the evanescent sensation of glory - is an incomplete description of my experience of consciousness.
These moments - like our most miserable moments of despair - are writ so large in our emotional lives our desire for a mythology or schema to help us digest them is an insoluble opportunity and vulnerability.
"Yet, ignoring the validity of needing a frame for the essential human experience of wonder"
How did Hamilton do that? In fact he did the opposite.
Different christian denominations getting along with each other is a very new thing. The only reason they find common cause now is because they are on the ropes and losing members. They are effectively circling their wagons. There was a time that Baptist and Catholics wouldn't be caught dead in each other's company. And that wasn't that long ago
Hamilton comes off as a know- it- all here. Even scientists see that there are different ways of knowing beyond science beyond secularism.
Of course he would, he's a How Things Work reader. We are not a very representative slice of the American horde. The question is whether *most people* would still embrace caring for others absent the threat of eternal punishment. I almost never disagree with you, but it's hard for me to see the decline of religion, which kept the Protestant work ethic dads in line for decades, as good when it has not been replaced by a secular ethics or some other force that either incentivizes or shames rich white people into not slashing and burning everything around them. People, at least Western people, simply will not do that on their own; most will not think about it at all, and those who do will turn into so many Ayns Rand.
That's a super fair question. I for one think empathy is the driver. I think it's another thing that is genetic and/or learned.
I agree that 'empathy is the driver' but I don't think it is genetic.
Its both. Don't get caught in the nature v nurture trap
Empathy is very much learned and unlearned. I think even the most well-meaning people tend to think women are more empathetic than men, when itтАЩs society that drives that divide.
I think empathy is a human trait that we are born with, that can be lost when we are hurt early on- and bullied out so you can learn to be part of the oppressor class
Agree that empathy need not be learned - other primates have shown it very clearly, as seen in the work of Frans De Waal and others.