I read BBC news regularly and came across this article and found it interesting and thought it may be a good discussion.
Article link:
http://ift.tt/1iirrM8
When I read this article, it struck me as someone just taking the opposite view just to do so; perhaps I'm wrong.
I disagree with the author quite a bit and think their argument for religion without spirituality is one which begs people to include themselves in a poor way of communing with others.
Basically, for those that do not wish to read the article in full, this argument is a twist on a very common stance: that religion offers a sense of community.
To quote the summary at the end of the article:
This author takes the argument to the extreme end and suggests that the sense of community and tradition is the main point of religion; the primary function.
They see the inverse of Religious But Not Spiritual, Spiritual But Not Religious, as a "problem [of] western societies", arising from individualist "self-centered...People [who] want a reassuring set of beliefs that makes them feel better about their own life, rather than being challenged to help others or make the world a better place."
I think this is a rather simplified view and probably not very balanced in critique.
Firstly, it has been heavily argued repeatedly by the like of Sam Harris et. al. that no one needs religion for a sense of community and tradition; these are things which can and have been accomplished plentifully without religion.
Indeed, if, as the author craves, the motive for community is that what "we need today is more connection with each other", then sectarian religion is probably the antonym of global, or even local, community.
Further beyond this, at least in the United States, it doesn't appear to me that there is a growing interest in a unified culture, but instead an interest in unified diversity.
Almost every month brings about another demographic plea for social independence and recognition; to be as they are without negligence of their distinction, nor forced inclusion into some wider cultural ideal.
Secondly, I don't think their notion that Spiritual But Not Religious is a social movement of "self-centered" people who are a problem of western societies is entirely valid.
This strikes me like stating that Mixed Martial Arts is a self-centered approach to combat training that is a detriment to society and that one should stick to traditional Martial Art school forms even if one doesn't believe in fighting - just for the community, because we need community now more than ever.
I don't think that it follows that because an individual rejects organized religion, but in some way follows their own set of rituals and practices or just beliefs (supernatural or reverential philosophy), that such an individual is anti-communal.
For example, the author cites (in their view) popular movements, practices and ritual types among Spiritual But Not Religious and in so doing lists activities such as Yoga and Transcendental Meditation.
Neither of those activities are commonly anti-communal, and usually rely quite regularly upon doing the activities with a community and someone who acts as a guide to those who have not learned as much on the subject as they have.
At the end of the article, the author requests that we "Take a moment to reflect on your place in the universe and your obligations towards others."
That is a rather regular part of Transcendental Meditation, and in many iterations can be found included into various Yoga practice groups.
At least in these two methods, the reflection would be coupled with mental or physical training, whereas the author's offer of just showing up and not being an earnest believer in a religion one attends leaves us with nothing more than sitting still, unguided, and hopefully reflecting upon humanity instead of thinking about the game that will be on when we get home (or whatever else floats through the mind instead of some focused meditative point).
This article reads more like someone who is comfortable in their way of interacting with and rationalizing their religious adherence when faced with something which challenged their mind. In a phrase, an excuse.
But in concept outside of the author, I also find little value in this idea.
Why would we ever want people to attend school but not value the information therein; just for community?
Why would we want soldiers who are soldiers just to belong, but do not believe in their cause?
Why would we want a car without an engine, just so we can sit together?
In fact, that really does suffice as a comparison.
This does rather strike me as someone how sits in a car without an engine, liking the idea of community from people sitting in cars, looking at environmentalist's on bicycles and declaring that their means is self-interested and non-communal and that they should return to sitting in cars; that cars are good because you don't have to have an engine that pollutes the air - you can just sit in a car for communion.
In the end, I fail to see how this argument salvages religion more than it highlights a husk of religion.
I think I would rather encourage people to personally tailor their beliefs, practices and rituals to better suit their gains than encourage people to abandon all and sit as shells who don't believe anything they are experiencing or hearing, just for the experience of community.
And, this brings the last point up.
What community is this?
If those around believe in some religious theology for which you do not agree or share, then what is the community based upon in the case of religion?
A baseball team gets together to play baseball, but if you are a member of that team who only shows up to sit in the dugout, what community are you a part of on that team?
Even if you do play the game; if you are just going through the motions and don't actually care if you win...again, what community are you a part of on that team?
In the end, I don't think this notion is actually healthy at all.
It sounds more like a slowly rotting self than a fruiting from community.
I suppose this comes down to a question: is community a good thing when you fundamentally disagree with everyone in the community?
To me, that answer is no; that is not healthy, and humans over history in such environment tend to speak out or rise up in attempt to change the community - or they leave (or are pushed out or killed by the community).
None of these indicate a healthy life, however, so I don't think I can agree with the author much at all; despite their attempts to make religion sound inciting, they end up accomplishing the opposite for me.
Article link:
http://ift.tt/1iirrM8
First, I'd like to take a moment to state that this thread will not be for belittling religions, nor will it be a discussion about the inaccuracy of religious theologies.
This is a social reflection discussion, and not a debate over the accuracy or validity of religious theologies.
When I read this article, it struck me as someone just taking the opposite view just to do so; perhaps I'm wrong.
I disagree with the author quite a bit and think their argument for religion without spirituality is one which begs people to include themselves in a poor way of communing with others.
Basically, for those that do not wish to read the article in full, this argument is a twist on a very common stance: that religion offers a sense of community.
To quote the summary at the end of the article:
"If you're an atheist, I can heartily recommend involvement in religion. It offers a sense of belonging and it offers tradition, which can be reassuring and comforting. It offers discipline, teaching us that there is something outside ourselves to which we should bend our personal will. If we do it right, religion helps us lead better lives, with a commitment to justice and social action. Sociological research shows that involvement in organised religion is good for our health and well being."
This author takes the argument to the extreme end and suggests that the sense of community and tradition is the main point of religion; the primary function.
They see the inverse of Religious But Not Spiritual, Spiritual But Not Religious, as a "problem [of] western societies", arising from individualist "self-centered...People [who] want a reassuring set of beliefs that makes them feel better about their own life, rather than being challenged to help others or make the world a better place."
I think this is a rather simplified view and probably not very balanced in critique.
Firstly, it has been heavily argued repeatedly by the like of Sam Harris et. al. that no one needs religion for a sense of community and tradition; these are things which can and have been accomplished plentifully without religion.
Indeed, if, as the author craves, the motive for community is that what "we need today is more connection with each other", then sectarian religion is probably the antonym of global, or even local, community.
Further beyond this, at least in the United States, it doesn't appear to me that there is a growing interest in a unified culture, but instead an interest in unified diversity.
Almost every month brings about another demographic plea for social independence and recognition; to be as they are without negligence of their distinction, nor forced inclusion into some wider cultural ideal.
Secondly, I don't think their notion that Spiritual But Not Religious is a social movement of "self-centered" people who are a problem of western societies is entirely valid.
This strikes me like stating that Mixed Martial Arts is a self-centered approach to combat training that is a detriment to society and that one should stick to traditional Martial Art school forms even if one doesn't believe in fighting - just for the community, because we need community now more than ever.
I don't think that it follows that because an individual rejects organized religion, but in some way follows their own set of rituals and practices or just beliefs (supernatural or reverential philosophy), that such an individual is anti-communal.
For example, the author cites (in their view) popular movements, practices and ritual types among Spiritual But Not Religious and in so doing lists activities such as Yoga and Transcendental Meditation.
Neither of those activities are commonly anti-communal, and usually rely quite regularly upon doing the activities with a community and someone who acts as a guide to those who have not learned as much on the subject as they have.
At the end of the article, the author requests that we "Take a moment to reflect on your place in the universe and your obligations towards others."
That is a rather regular part of Transcendental Meditation, and in many iterations can be found included into various Yoga practice groups.
At least in these two methods, the reflection would be coupled with mental or physical training, whereas the author's offer of just showing up and not being an earnest believer in a religion one attends leaves us with nothing more than sitting still, unguided, and hopefully reflecting upon humanity instead of thinking about the game that will be on when we get home (or whatever else floats through the mind instead of some focused meditative point).
This article reads more like someone who is comfortable in their way of interacting with and rationalizing their religious adherence when faced with something which challenged their mind. In a phrase, an excuse.
But in concept outside of the author, I also find little value in this idea.
Why would we ever want people to attend school but not value the information therein; just for community?
Why would we want soldiers who are soldiers just to belong, but do not believe in their cause?
Why would we want a car without an engine, just so we can sit together?
In fact, that really does suffice as a comparison.
This does rather strike me as someone how sits in a car without an engine, liking the idea of community from people sitting in cars, looking at environmentalist's on bicycles and declaring that their means is self-interested and non-communal and that they should return to sitting in cars; that cars are good because you don't have to have an engine that pollutes the air - you can just sit in a car for communion.
In the end, I fail to see how this argument salvages religion more than it highlights a husk of religion.
I think I would rather encourage people to personally tailor their beliefs, practices and rituals to better suit their gains than encourage people to abandon all and sit as shells who don't believe anything they are experiencing or hearing, just for the experience of community.
And, this brings the last point up.
What community is this?
If those around believe in some religious theology for which you do not agree or share, then what is the community based upon in the case of religion?
A baseball team gets together to play baseball, but if you are a member of that team who only shows up to sit in the dugout, what community are you a part of on that team?
Even if you do play the game; if you are just going through the motions and don't actually care if you win...again, what community are you a part of on that team?
In the end, I don't think this notion is actually healthy at all.
It sounds more like a slowly rotting self than a fruiting from community.
I suppose this comes down to a question: is community a good thing when you fundamentally disagree with everyone in the community?
To me, that answer is no; that is not healthy, and humans over history in such environment tend to speak out or rise up in attempt to change the community - or they leave (or are pushed out or killed by the community).
None of these indicate a healthy life, however, so I don't think I can agree with the author much at all; despite their attempts to make religion sound inciting, they end up accomplishing the opposite for me.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1kDaeRN
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire