That thread scratched the surface of a much larger discussion:

Is religious and/or spiritual belief important to help people deal with the challenges of the 21st century?

Edited to add "spirituality" to thread title.

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

If I say:

"Study of Giordano Bruno's works is important to Canadians in the 21st century."

Then surely the onus would be on me to provide some evidence for my proposition - not on you to prove the contrary.

I believe religion and "spiritual belief" have been largely negative forces in European civilization since approximately the 17th century.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
cuz?

---

The major conflicts of the 20th century weren't fought over religion, but ideology, imperialist rivalries, and the struggle for national liberation. Even sectarian conflicts were sparked by broader political and economic factors, as opposed to religious identification alone.

Moreover, to even think that the conflict in the middle east and even 911 or Sudan are solely the work of religious fanaticism is also missing the point! The primary reasons are still the same - political and economic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
...I believe religion and "spiritual belief" have been largely negative forces in European civilization since approximately the 17th century.

But if you think religion is important for dealing with 21st century issues, perhaps you have some point that I've overlooked?

---

Set the date on negative force by religion back to the 15th century, please.

According to dude on the other thread, religion, and no religion, are because we fear death.

So, I guess neither matter in any way shape or form.

When Nelson Mandela was released from jail in Apartheid South Africa, after 28 years of imprisonment, he made a public statement in which he thanked all those who made his release possible and who contributed to the unstoppable anti-Apartheid movement. It was quite a list - an encyclopedia of the struggle. Mandela pointed out that, in the repressive conditions of the Apartheid regime, there were times when all other organizations of civil society that spoke about the repressive regime were criminalized. Mandela thanked the churches of South Africa, specifically, for having raised their voices against Apartheid when all other voices had been silenced. [note] Apparently, religion can be "useful". It's not hard to find other examples.

[note] Canada's Globe and Mail "edited" the published version of Mandela's speech, censoring all references to the SACP and cleverly changing the wording of Mandela's speech to downplay the horrors of Apartheid; organizations that had been silenced became, in the Globe, silent. But that is another story.

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

roughly the time between us today and , say, the first sea voyages of Vasco da Gama in the 1400s ....

[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

No, religion is not useful for the 21st century nor any century. Religion is not even useful for spirituality.

For humans to evolve and come to grips with our place in the eco-system, religion, particularly religions that preach "dominion-ism" must be tossed into the trash bin of history.

and no, on another issue, I certainly would not prefer the teachings of Mohammed over those of Jesus...

your dismissal or religion recalls the old joke.

God is dead: Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead: God

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Which is why nature will eventually toss humans into the trash bin of the universe.

---

I can argue that one both ways.

We are evolutionary dead end, our development a cancerous growth on the earth, and climate change a fever to put us back in our place!

I do find that ORGANIZED and specifically FUNDAMENTALIST Organized religions are absolutely a problem, however as already pointed out, there are many 'good' churches, and church communities.

In addition, sirituality and the search for a connection with God isn't something trivial to many people and to say it's pointless or valueless is discounting the personal improvements people make due to religion and God.

So back to the point at hand, is it useful? Definitely, for some people.

Should it be forced on anyone? Hell no, in fact, I find it dishonest to bring up a child in one church simply because YOU chose it, or you were brought up in that Church. The quest for spirituality is a solity one, and your views should be your own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
Or we are a bit of starstuff pondering the stars, a bit of cosmic dust that has become aware of the cosmos, and so we speak for earth and we owe survival not only to our planetary cradle, but the universe from we have sprung (paraphrasing Carl Sagan here).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
...discounting God entirely is as fundamentally flawed as believing in Creationism.

---

Thank you, this is my perception as well.

quote:

---

In addition, sirituality and the search for a connection with God isn't something trivial to many people and to say it's pointless or valueless is discounting the personal improvements people make due to religion and God.

---

Actually, I strongly disagree with this. As, this attitude, of believing something outside of one's self is where credit is due is wrong and dangerous. It divorces one's self from taking responsibility for one's own actions, be they good or bad.

It is the people who have made the changes themselves, if they do not acknowledge this truth, then they can never take responsibility for their actions. Why? Because they believe control of their actions, somehow exists outside of themselves, and is controlled by some mysterious force. This belief at its extreme degree is dangerous. Also,IMV, that is the main reason why 12 Step programs have such a high failure rate.

quote:

---

So back to the point at hand, is it useful? Definitely, for some people.

---

quote:

---

...I find it dishonest to bring up a child in one church simply because YOU chose it, or you were brought up in that Church. The quest for spirituality is a solity one, and your views should be your own.

---

This is the way my family raises(d)their children. The Path to spirituality, is equal to the point of eventual self-realization acheived, and the journey for the most part is solitary, but with many shared cross roads, with others who are upon their own Path.

quote:

---

Should churches be tax exempt? Hell no.

---

quote:

---

The major conflicts of the 20th century weren't fought over religion, but ideology, imperialist rivalries, and the struggle for national liberation. Even sectarian conflicts were sparked by broader political and economic factors, as opposed to religious identification alone.

---

Sure that is true but religion has brought massive inequality for women, segregation, slavery and a host of other evils, many of which we are still trying to make up for today. Look what organized religion has done to the First nations people. Look what it has done to people of colour. You can argue that man has done that, but without religion would man have gotten not only the justification for such evils, but widespread social acceptance of same? Not likely.

quote:

---

For humans to evolve and come to grips with our place in the eco-system, religion, particularly religions that preach "dominion-ism" must be tossed into the trash bin of history.

---

Absolutely agree, and I'll go even further. People must come to grips with the fact that we need to treat nature itself better. Humans need to understand that nature is doing us a favour and we are killing it. If respect for nature were drilled into our collective conscience as much as respect for some white dude in the sky is, we'd be much better off.

quote:

---

discounting God entirely is as fundamentally flawed as believing in Creationism

---

How so? That is quite the weird statement. I discount God. I see zero correlation between discounting God and the belief in Creationism. You can't prove God exists. Creationism is based upon belief systems, not facts. What am I missing here?

I find it closed minded that those who are religious can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that many of us do not and will not believe in 'their' god.

quote:

---

I certainly would not prefer the teachings of Mohammed over those of Jesus...

---

Why not? Have you studied both, er, religiously? Or is their just a bit of old time religious bigotry in that response? A "my prophet is better than your prophet" response? Not that I'd want to start a religious war or anything. Those fervent believers are quite bloody.

quote:

---

your dismissal or religion recalls the old joke.

God is dead: Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead: God

we will see who has the last word -- maybe

---

So some people are inspired to do good things by their faith. Good for them. Does the good outweigh the evil done in the name of religion? Depends who you ask; I'm inclined to think not.

I just wish it was understood that every single wonderful, charitable, good and kind thing you can do in the name of any religion you can also do without mentioning or believing in any deity(s) at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Actually, I strongly disagree with this. As, this attitude, of believing something outside of one's self is where credit is due is wrong and dangerous. It divorces one's self from taking responsibility for one's own actions, be they good or bad.

---

Not in my view. Although God is the impetus behind some improvements, it does not take away from the fact that you are trying to be a 'better' person. I guess this is the difference I have with many religious folks about the difference between an active (playing his hand) and the inactive God I see (the watchmaker in the sky). I see your point though, and this one would come down to a matter of how you see God's involvement (in the case of fundamentalists, God tends to be VERY involved, which is an issue with me)

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

IMV, there is no way you can definitely say this.

---

Ok, I can DEFINITELY say that people BELIEVE that. Whether it's true or not is up to.. ah..the heavens??

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

but with many shared cross roads, with others who are upon their own Path.

---

And this is the case where I see religion as a part of society as being useful. When paths cross and discussions are open (still very rare unfortunately) then these crossings can be useful to all involved. Too bad religious discussions tend to be about either God existance or not or My book is more true than your book.

quote:

---

Absolutely agree, and I'll go even further. People must come to grips with the fact that we need to treat nature itself better. Humans need to understand that nature is doing us a favour and we are killing it. If respect for nature were drilled into our collective conscience as much as respect for some white dude in the sky is, we'd be much better off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
Not in my view. Although God is the impetus behind some improvements, it does not take away from the fact that you are trying to be a 'better' person.

---

No, when you put the mythos aside, it is the individual who is seeking to be different, because they are sick and tired of their actions and want to change them. It is not for "God" is for self. And it is still putting the locus of control outside of one's self. And people really are not trying to be "better" people, per se, they are to to realize SELF.

quote:

---

And this is the case where I see religion as a part of society as being useful. When paths cross and discussions are open (still very rare unfortunately) then these crossings can be useful to all involved.

---

When religion is used as a tool, on the Path to find one's self, it contains nuggets, for the person to pick up and move along with.

quote:

---

True debate is hard to come by

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

No, when you put the mythos aside, it is the individual who is seeking to be different, because they are sick and tired of their actions and want to change them. It is not for "God" is for self. And it is still putting the locus of control outside of one's self. And people really are not trying to be "better" people, per se, they are to to realize SELF.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
[In my best Deepak Chopra voice] But is to realize the SELF not to realize the implications of God and Spirituality all around you? You cannot disassociate yourself from the power of the universe, so what is the purpose of trying to disassociate the Universe from the power of the SELF?{[/In my best Deepak Chopra voice]

---

It does not matter the potential result, it is the intent to change, is what was discussed, and that it is motivated for reasons of SELF.

The state of self-realization brings further understanding of the interconnectedness of all, and of the infinite, or eternal, that can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
When religion is used as a tool, on the Path to find one's self, it contains nuggets, for the person to pick up and move along with…The state of self-realization brings further understanding of the interconnectedness of all...

---

I agree.

Religion can inform us how to be better towards each other. But it can obviously be perverted to motivate and excuse atrocities.

I define spirituality as one's own private belief in a greater "something". It can draw much from what religions have to teach.

The thread title also asks about the 21st century. I think most people on this board can see what's on the horizon.

The future is not pretty, I think we can imagine ourselves on a big passenger ship with lifeboats for only a few. The water is entering the cargo hold at an accelerating rate, but the orchestra continues to play anyways.

As human population increases, and environmental degradation gets worse, stresses are going to mount. How are people going to behave towards each other?

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

Look, I am not religious. I do not believe in a God. That does not mean that I cannot have the same (and often better, morals). Please change it back. Also your dependence on tying religion and spirituality negates certain belief systems, like mine and others who follow earth based spirituality. Tying my beliefs to a religion is not cool.

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

To quote Marcus Borg: Could you tell me about this God you don't believe in?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Okay that is unfair Gram. You've changed the thread title in the middle of a question. A question in which at least one person said religion and spirituality are not linked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Tying my beliefs to a religion is not cool.

---

I never said spiritual beliefs were necessarily tied to a religion. (Hence the conjunction "and/or" in the opening post.)

On the other hand...I don't belong to one, but I find organized religion can be a source of spiritual guidance.

quote:

---

We would probably have a much better understanding of our our place in the universe and the effects of our actions on our environment if we had shed the notion that it was all put here for us by our loving and mysterious invisible sky dude a few centuries ago.

---

Loving? You've never read your bible.

quote:

---

I never said spiritual beliefs were necessarily tied to a religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Okay that is unfair Gram. You've changed the thread title in the middle of a question. A question in which at least one person said religion and spirituality are not linked.

Look, I am not religious. I do not believe in a God. That does not mean that I cannot have the same (and often better, morals). Please change it back. Also your dependence on tying religion and spirituality negates certain belief systems, like mine and others who follow earth based spirituality. Tying my beliefs to a religion is not cool.

---

quote:

---

Loving? You've never read your bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
IMV, spirituality cannot be tied to religion. And it is definitely not appropriate to tie my belief structure to religion and it makes me very uncomfortable.

---

I would not feel comfortable equating the FN spiritual practises I am familiar with as a religion.

ETA: I spent a day inside the National Cathedral in Washington - probably the largest cathedral I've ever visited. It's huge. There was an Ordination the evening of the day I was there, and the cathedral was more than 3/4 full - must have been 3,000+ people inside.

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Gregorian Chanting do you mean, Makwa?

---

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]

And no, I am not denigrating, as part of my spiritual belief system is of the forces of energy, and in which one of them is chaotic energy.

From this perspective, I believe that symbolic ritualism, as contained in religion, is part of another force of creation, and is equally as needed, as it's opposite.

If the mods ask me to take it out, I will. But that would lead to me starting up at least one more thread that asks a very similar question.

Why not everyone clarify their own personal distinctions between religion and spirituality - and the usefulness of each for the 21st century - on one thread?

Some people think religion isn't useful, but that spirituality is. Others might think vice versa. Still others might think neither are useful.

So mods and all, I think we should keep this discussion within one thread.

ETA: And then others might have different definitions of spirituality, which is also open to discussion.

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
No, but you you did say "In my view religion and spirituality are closely linked" and to most people "linked" equals "tied". Is a dog tied to a tree not also linked to it? And then you added "I define spirituality as one's own private belief in a greater "something"," which is fine for you. But can't I have a spiritual experience by communing only with nature while refuting any belief in a "greater something"? If not, why not?

---

Sure you can.

I meant the slash between "religion" and "spirituality" to mean "and/or", as I wrote in my unedited original opening post. I'm not the only one who sees there might be a connection between these two words. It is up to individual posters to articulate the distinctions they draw between these two words. For me they are not identical, but yeah, they are closely linked - for me. If you want to uncouple them, you are free to do so, and say
"organized religion: absolutely useless; spirituality: indispensable", or whatever.

When I say they are not necessarily linked, it's because I do not want to speak for everyone nor about all situations. The thread title modification was not meant to speak for other babblers, it was done to clarify the larger bounds of the discussion, as I did in the ORIGINAL OPENING POST.

[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
And it is definitely not appropriate to tie my belief structure to religion and it makes me very uncomfortable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I would not feel comfortable equating the FN spiritual practises I am familiar with as a religion. And Cathedrals really fucking piss me off!

---

Although Makwa, himself of FN descent, does make a connection between spiritual practice and religion.

I agree with Boom Boom, cathedrals are nice architecturally.

I would guess you, remind, have roots in Christianity, which might explain your adverse reaction to the word "religion."

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
Although Makwa, himself of FN descent, does make a connection between spiritual practice and religion.

---

I perceive FN spiritual practises, that I have experienced, with little or no conformity, and no monotheristic diety, or dieties. How Makwa experiences them is up to his own perceptions.

quote:

---

I agree with Boom Boom, cathedrals are nice architecturally.

---

I see them as expressions of avarice, unmitigated hubris, and a false exploitation of peoples, that was in fact criminal in action. Their abouts as good as an example of IDOLS, that you can get.

quote:

---

I would guess you, remind, have roots in Christianity, which might explain your adverse reaction to the word "religion."

---

In actual fact, my family were agnostic, and religion was never discussed because of blended Protestant and Jewish realities.

quote:

---

Actually, I've never really encountered strong secularist/atheist views until a couple days ago on babble. Do most ardent secularists come from families with Christian backgrounds?

---

Canada is Canada, because of its hard separation of church and state stance, and ideology. Or rather, perhaps the intent of acheiving that.

So strong, Turkey enjoys a secular government, since about 1921 or so, when the Ottomans were overthrown by Ataturk.

Gad, I should have been a teacher. An insufferably snooty teacher. That can't spell.

I don't think immigrants to Canada ever came here to flee the turmoil of the reformation etc. In fact, I'm not even sure immigrants to the American Colonies were fleeing the bloodshed of religious wars. Some were fleeing religious persecution, but that doesn't mean that they weren't champing at the bit themselves to persecute some smaller group.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
...I don't think immigrants to Canada ever came here to flee the turmoil of the reformation etc. In fact, I'm not even sure immigrants to the American Colonies were fleeing the bloodshed of religious wars. Some were fleeing religious persecution, but that doesn't mean that they weren't champing at the bit themselves to persecute some smaller group.

I think the idea of a secular state to stop the strife between religious cults was an idea of the Founding Fathers of America. And at that, it may have just been Thomas Jefferson who championed that cause, with a little help from a pamphleteer of the time.

---

Granted, I to realize, that they were fleeing oppression only to oppress.

Perhaps, I am being family friend and acquaintence centric, and forgetting historical data on immigrant waves coming here, but I believe otherwise.

Both sides of my family certainly did come here to escape persecution. One side from the Jacobite Rebellion fallout, and the other from pogroms.

One of my good friends family were Huguenots, who came on mass to escape persecution. While another's family came from Ireland, because of the Irish famine, which really was a persecution motivated occurance.

Then we have the Mennonites, Hutterites, and other Germans, the Doukhobors, Russians, Polish, Austrians, Hungarian, Latvians, Estonians, etc, who were either fleeing/seeking freedoms because of religious, monarchial, or governmental behaviours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
I agree with Boom Boom, cathedrals are nice architecturally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
People of faith built these buildings, and although architectural merit undoubtedly is high on their priority, in the end cathedrals serve as the bishop's church

---

I take exception to this premise, and ask that you rpove it so, as it you are romanticizing something that is not there, in particular in history.

quote:

---

Early Immigrants to Canada, were sick of religious strife, sick of monarchy's and their whims and the constant warfare religion and monarchy created. Here they also had the ability to become landowners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I take exception to this premise, and ask that you rpove it so, as it you are romanticizing something that is not there, in particular in history.

---

Just pick any very old Cathedral and research it.

That is me saying, either take my word for, use some rational thought, look for evidence yourself, or just continue on as you were, in erroneous bliss about how the "faithful" built cathedrals. It matters not to me.

Having said that, one need only look at equivalent buildings of our time, huge edifices are built for ego, not for faith. There isn't anything new under the sun.

Kings, Emperor's, Pope's and Bishops, built Cathedrals to make permanent markers of themselves, far into the future.

Hagia Sophia, a cathedral dating back to 537CE, is still considered today to be one of the most beautiful buildings in the world -though it is now a museum - was commissioned by Emperor Justinian I.

And when finished:

quote:

---

Justinian proclaimed "Solomon, I have surpassed thee!"

---

It had nothing to do with faith.

Hmmm, trying to think of a novel that discribed how most Cathedrals were not made for reasons of faith. Oh, I know "Sarum" by Edward Rutherford.

Just as the murals on the ceiling of the Sistine
Chapel, were not requested because of, nor undertaken for, reasons of faith.

"One of my good friends family were Huguenots, who came on mass to escape persecution."

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
remind, one should not write contradictory statements within the same post. Jesus doesn't like that.

"One of my good friends family were Huguenots, who came on mass to escape persecution."

"I am excluding the French Immigrant quotient, as I cannot speak to it."

---

Well, seeing as how there is no proof that a person named Jesus ever existed, I am sure not to worried.

And in actual fact her family consider themselves Scottish Huguenots, as opposed to French ones.

quote:

---

Until its revocation in 1685, the Edict of Nantes had granted French Protestants a degree of religious freedom. After Louis XIV rescinded the Edict, Huguenots, fearing reprisals, fled to whichever of the Protestant countries would receive them. While most Huguenots took their skills and remaining capital to The Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, England, and America, some of them or their descendants made their way to Scotland, which officially had become a Protestant country in 1560. While a small number of refugees and emigrants from France settled in Scotland in the immediate aftermath of the revocation, the main influx occurred in the last quarter of the 17th century. Most of these emigrants (craftsmen, artisans, and merchants) settled in the Canongate, then a separate burgh but now a part of Edinburgh. The second largest occupational group of French Protestants joined Scottish regiments and fought against the armies of France or its Jacobite allies in Scotland and Ireland.

Researchers will discover the identities of many of these Huguenot emigres or their descendants in a groundbreaking new work from David Dobson entitled, Huguenot and Scots Links, 1575-1775. Working from baptismal registers, burgess rolls, tax lists, marriage registers, and other primary sources, Mr. Dobson has unearthed information concerning over 1,000 Scottish Huguenots

---

Huguenot and Scots Links, 1575-1775

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I grew up in a family that tried to get to their United Church every Sunday morning, and my summers were spent at a camp co-sponsored by the Ottawa Boy's Club and the United Church of Canada. I loved that camp, my brothers and I spent probably five summers there, each, and this was in the 1950s. We all dropped out of church during our teenaged years. At university I felt there was something lacking in my life and I drifted back to church, but now to the Anglicans, mostly because I loved their liturgy, and the singing, but mostly because my girlfriend was Anglican and active in her church. I've been Anglican now for 31 years, and can't imagine my life without the church - it's so much a part of me. In university I studied christian social movements, and I identify strongly with the social activist gospel - a line stretching back to William Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade; to social activist priest F. D. Maurice; all the way up to Anglican priest and former Toronto NDP MP Dan Heap. Some may say their spirituality is expressed in their social outreach and activism.

---

ditto for me !! mostly ....

BTW,
I attended a talk on Science and Religion given by a British cleric of some sort at the World Ecumenical Centre in Switzerland a while back

did not expect much, but was very good;

the guy ( will find bio & info) had been a high-level physicist for 30 years at CERN particle physics lab near Geneva, and had developed very marked religious beliefs that he set out in detail, esp about simplicity of universe, largely hydrogen and helium, while the stuff of life, esp. carbon in fact very rare, and produced only in the core of stars

like me, completely at ease with evolution, a non-issue, and to boot a regular, friendly sparring partnner of Dawkins back in the UK

more later ...

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

plus he did mention a top Cambridge physicist, Nobel level, with whom he was very tight,
and who incidentally was an avowed atheist but gradually inched toward "founding intelligence" notions of the universe's origins ...

anyways, worth a look :
www.starcourse.org/jcp/

and his Q&A page:
http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/qanda.html

** and he may be completely wrong, but on stage he was one of the best and most natural speakers I have ever heard

more later ...

[ 16 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

excerpt:

4 But in the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying, 5 “Go and say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD, “Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? 6 “For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle. 7 “Wherever I have gone with all the sons of Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel, which I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?””

And if you want to get all biblical about it, have a look at Jesus's thoughts and feelings on forming a church/place of worship.

Okay, I do appreciate the architecture of Cathedrals, as creations of very skilled people, who obviously loved their craft. And that is where my appreciation ends. There is nothing faithful, nor romantic about their creation.

It is like holding romantic sentiments in regards to how one views the Crusades and Holy Wars.

The money to build them still came in the form of; enforced tithes/payment for dispensations, or rental payments, to the Church, and/or to the aristocrisy, who sucked the life out serfs, to build Cathedrals/Chapels, to have a structure stand in testiment of their greatness into the future, and a show of wealth/power to others at the time.

this writer highlights something I have commented on repeatedly, from the viewpoint of living in France:
religion is enjoying a rebound in public visibility and intellectual interest in Europe, while a new secularism is resurgent in the US -- the opposite of some gross schematic views:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707/religion

... demography may be pushing religion back into European politics. The Muslim birthrate in Europe is far higher than the birthrate among non-Muslims, and immigration from the Islamic world continues apace. Meanwhile, immigrants from Africa and Latin America have injected a new vitality into European Christianity, creating thriving Evangelical and Pentecostal communities in urban areas where many of the established churches stand empty.

It was Christians’ demographic advantage in the ancient world, the sociologist Rodney Stark has suggested, that helped their faith take over Europe in the first place, and high fertility rates help explain the growth of evangelical Christianity and Mormonism in the United States over the last century. Now similar demographic forces, the political scientist Eric Kaufmann argued last year in the British magazine Prospect, may be “carrying Europe towards a more American model of modernity,” in which the wall of separation between church and state looks more like a picket fence, easily scaled or shimmied through.

[ 27 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dogbert:
Religion IS one of the challenges of the 21st century.

---

I agree

I would like to see human beings reject superstition and fanciful stories about gods.

e.g. Christian pedophiles and murderers get a free pass to heaven, because they have faith and read the bible. Their victims however, go to hell, because they dress "provocatively" or they were asking for a smiting becasue they had a tattoo or a piercing.

How does that un P.C. punchline go ? ... "it's not the molestors that are the problem, it's the sexy children"

superstitious people need to stop projecting their hangups onto their fellow citizens and stop demanding everyone subscribe to their fanciful doctrine

[ 27 June 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
Is religious and/or spiritual belief important to help people deal with the challenges of the 21st century?

---

This is a long thread, but I feel like jumping in anyway.

Instead of trying to counter or respond to any opinions, I'll just give you some personal history.

I've come to a recent crossroads in regards to my own spirituality. I went to church with my mom until I was 13, when I informed her that I didn't want to go anymore because I didn't feel that set of beliefs applied to me in a way that I could really identify with. The idea of an old man in the clouds who would judge me or smite me or whatever just didn't make sense, because I didn't feel that sort of thing happening in my day to day life.

From that point forward, I began to define myself as an atheist, because the concept of god that had been introduced to me was not something I could believe in, but it was all that I really knew.

More recently, after discovering the subject of quantum physics and listening to lectures by Robert Anton Wilson, as well as joking about with Discordianism, I decided to take things a step further and re-include spirituality into my thoughts about science. I do not think that sprituality or religion have to include superstition or impossibly miraculous happenings. So I've defined myself as a pantheist. This is the result of a combination of Discordian musings and Einsteinian revelations and, in fact, Einstein himself was a pantheist. I don't actually hold any beliefs in anything because, as Robert Anton Wilson succinctly pointed out, declaring that you believe in something is to declare that you've stopped thinking about that aspect of existence. Rather, what I consider to be my spritiuality is something that is meant to be constantly evolving toward enlightenment. Given the nature of our universe and all things in it, I think that all things are true, even when they aren't, in the sense that everything that exists, exists, and cannot therefore unexist. If someone thinks that angels are playing trumpets in front of them, whether I can see that or not, I have no choice but to believe them. Some part of their nervous system told them that was happening, and that is a part of this universe. In this sense, I think that all religions are valid, because they too exist.

This does not absolve anyone from responsbility, though. Karma is also very real. Karma is nothing more than the action required for cause and effect, which is what keeps everything in motion. If you send out negative karma, negative karma can return to you as well. Everything you do affects everything else, and that is something of which everyone must always be mindful. The saying "Be the change you want to see in the world" never made more sense until recently, because of this realisation. Magic is also very real, because in order to affect change, you need to project your own holographic energy into the future and imagine and realise what must happen before it can take place.

You don't deserve credit for tossing out a religion made up by an Iron Age priest class if you just go right ahead and stick your god in the last place modern science allows it to exist - as a nebulous, meaningless un-thing.

And you actually deserve discredit for that very awkward description of karma as a cause-and-effect force. If a suicide bomber blows up a market, his cause (the bomb exploding) has an effect (people being perforated) in the real world. He doesn't have a negative 'karma effect' on the 'spirit plane' demanding that 'karma reactive forces' go into effect result in order to balance out some kind of 'total karma equals zero' equation.

And no, you didn't actually say any of those softquoted things, but that's essentially the bulk of your argument.

Then you say magic is real, because... actually, I don't know what you just said. Hopefully you say it in a broken english Indian accent so you will have some new age lackeys fall prey to it, though. At least then you might sap some money out of them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

It does not matter the potential result, it is the intent to change, is what was discussed, and that it is motivated for reasons of SELF.

[. . .]

The first key is taking ownership of one's actions, and not farming responsibility out to another.

---

I understand this portion of your discussion to mean that you are an advocate of personal responsibility, and that you want it to be clear that any positive changes that come about as a result of the practice of religion are REALLY due to the "self" of the person practicing.

Say that it is a fundamental tenant of my religion to NOT see anything at all as coming from the "self." In my religion, any notions of self are mere delusion, and the main goal of my religion is to practice non-attachment to all things, including that which is most dear to me, my very self. It would seem then, that in order for me to adhere to what you require, I would have to cease practising my religion (although this is my initial conclusion only). That is very interesting! (And since this is my first post and tone does not transfer well, know that I genuinely just find it interesting -no sarcasm.)

More generally (not longer directing my comment at remind but just musing):

IMV to say "many religions have done bad things, and therefore all religion is bad" (this being a summary of an argument structure I have seen many times, in this thread and elsewhere) is a logical error, equivalent to saying something like "because socialist states have committed human rights atrocities, socialism is bad." But in the latter case we know better, we say, "we will not conflate the idea with its implementation." Why should it not be so for the former?

Another question is, if not faith/religion/spirituality or whatever you prefer, then what? Science and reason? A system of thought also not immune to being co-opted by other aims. I am not saying that science and reason can or should not replace the function of f/r/s, I am just saying, it has been as tainted by hegemonic discourses as any system of thought, and I would say it is imperative to see that so that one can endeavour to free one's self from it just as much as one must see it in one's practice of faith, regligion or spirituality.

And I would agree, that karma is much much more than "the action required for cause and effect." This is a common misunderstanding of karma as practiced by Buddhist and other religious/spiritual traditions. It is also utilized in the "grace v. karma" sermons popular with some Christians sects, where they promote grace over an incomplete and inaccurate definition of karma. If they took the time to fully understand karma, they would see that it has more in common with their grace than they think! But I digress!

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonsuch:
It must be of some use to somebody, or they wouldn't do it.

---

Like racism, homophobia, and xenophobia? What a thoughtful analysis!

quote:

---

Telling people what they shouldn't need is a lot like pissing against the wind.

---

quote:

---

What a thoughtful analysis!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Why you have suddenly chosen this moment to become the digital equivilent of a spider monkey, merrily hurling virtual excriment at a woman who would not otherwise be your enemy is beyond me.

---

I think you're reading the wrong post. I thought nonsuch's analysis was specious to the point of being vapid. I thought such an analysis ("ideologies exist, therefore people want them") could be used to justify any of the evil world views that exist today - so I gave three examples. I also thought nonsuch was promoting an unwarranted feeling of impotence in the face of attempts to dispel those antiquated and/or evil ideologies. I responded using the same imagery, saying that I thought it was worth fighting an uphill battle to rid the world of such plagues, and that we should not give up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by noisymonkey:
Well, I am new,

---

I just bet ya, are, too!

quote:

---

and I am jumping in with some random thoughts.

---

Well, you were right about that, at least.

quote:

---

...you are an advocate of personal responsibility, and that you want it to be clear that any positive changes that come about as a result of the practice of religion are REALLY due to the "self" of the person practicing.

---

That is correct.

quote:

---

Say that it is a fundamental tenant of my religion to NOT see anything at all as coming from the "self."

---

Well, that would be silly no? Cause then that means that nothing negative comes from self either. So given that, I guess you would be up for letting out all the prisoners from the jails, and we need not worry about genocide or other such things happening and nor punishing the people who did it either, after all it is not they who are doing the actions.

quote:

---

In my religion, any notions of self are mere delusion, and the main goal of my religion is to practice non-attachment to all things, including that which is most dear to me, my very self.

---

How sad.

quote:

---

It would seem then, that in order for me to adhere to what you require, I would have to cease practising my religion (although this is my initial conclusion only).

---

quote:

---

IMV to say "many religions have done bad things, and therefore all religion is bad" (this being a summary of an argument structure I have seen many times, in this thread and elsewhere) is a logical error, equivalent to saying something like "because socialist states have committed human rights atrocities, socialism is bad." But in the latter case we know better, we say, "we will not conflate the idea with its implementation." Why should it not be so for the former? [quote][qb]

Because the former actually exists and has be doing atrocities for eons in its name.

Unlike the latter, and really what socialist states are speaking of?

Another question is, if not

[quote][qb]I suppose that depends on whether you think it is possible to live morally without an external system of some sort guiding you, or whether you think it is necessary to live morally at all.

---

quote:

---

think you're reading the wrong post. I thought nonsuch's analysis was specious to the point of being vapid. I thought such an analysis ("ideologies exist, therefore people want them") could be used to justify any of the evil world views that exist today - so I gave three examples. I also thought nonsuch was promoting an unwarranted feeling of impotence in the face of attempts to dispel those antiquated and/or evil ideologies. I responded using the same imagery, saying that I thought it was worth fighting an uphill battle to rid the world of such plagues, and that we should not give up.

---

Ok, why didn't you write the above in your last post instead of being incredibly reactionary?

quote:

---

I really don't understand your point at all. What did you see in my post that I didn't? Better yet, what did you see in nonsuch's "analysis" that I didn't?

---

I'm a bit more militant then that, but I also believe there is something to be said for tolerating opinions you don't agree with.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
I also believe there is something to be said for tolerating opinions you don't agree with.

---

quote:

---

(racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

Those are aspects of ideologies not ideologies themselves.

---

Anyway, whatever, they were just examples. To say religion exists because people want it does not rate as science in my humble opinion. I'm sure people once said the same about the divine right of kings.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Is religion/spirituality useful for the 21st century?

---

nonsuch's post:

quote:

---

It must be of some use to somebody, or they wouldn't do it.
It's that simple.

---

Seems like a pretty clear answer to me. It doesn't look to me like religion's going anywhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
Human societies are invariably religious. What do people think is going to happen to change that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Religious adults(almost 100% of the human population mind) are all three year olds in disguise?

---

In 2001, 16% of Canadians told the Census that they had "no religion". That figure was 12% ten years before. We're growing.

Even among my many acquaintances who would describe themselves (if asked) as Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Buddhist, very few of them actually would say "YES" if I asked them, "Do you believe God exists?", and very few of them engage in any religious activities, other than those of a social or traditional nature that many people participate in.

So no, I'm not comparing people to 3-year-olds, but try an experiment: Ask your friends why they are Catholic or Muslim or whatever. If they think about it, the vast majority should tell you: "Because my parents are/were." Because religious affiliations are very hereditary, aren't they?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
So what do you think will happen once everyone grows up and gets rid of religion?

---

1. More scope for science.

+

2. Fewer irrational grounds to get people fearing and fighting each other.

=

I mean, I have xenophobic thoughts. Secularism certainly hasn't allowed me to purge myself of bigotry.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Ask your friends why they are Catholic or Muslim or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Secular people don't fight or fear each other?

---

Could you please look up the difference between "converse" and "contrapositive" sometime when you have a minute?

I said, without religion, there would be one less way of dividing people, making them hate each other. I didn't say the world would be saved. Sort of like, if we don't leave loaded guns around the house, there's one less road to accidental death or injury. It doesn't make you immortal.

quote:

---

You know, this is kind of tiresome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
Just don't ask the born-agains, unless of course you have oodles of time to spare.

---