Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply Philosophers Anonymous
Has the philosophy behind religion changed?

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Makalius

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:27 am


People say things like "Religion is whatever I want it to be as long as I believe in the god of my choice" Does this strike anyone as a bit off? "The god of my choice" As far as I know, every philosopher I have known of that was religious has thought of religion as not God being there for you, but you being there for him. Nowadays people see their god as some kind of councillor to only be approached when they need him but isn't the whole point of religion that one expresses a sence of awe at the vastness of creation and the smallness of your part in it? Faith commonly requires some form of humility on the part of the worshipper but now it seems that today's culture treats their gods as a servant rather than a kind master.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:01 am


Makalius
Nowadays people see their god as some kind of councillor to only be approached when they need him but isn't the whole point of religion that one expresses a sence of awe at the vastness of creation and the smallness of your part in it?


I actually haven't seen many people which believe this.

If this does occur, though, it probably arises from the observation that;
-There are many religions.
-There is no obviously 'right' religion; they seem equal in validity.
Or even: -Religion is a human invention but is useful for feeling comforted and loved.

Mechanism


MightyHikaru

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:19 am


I see this a lot: people that claim to be religious, but don't do anything their doctrine require. (i.e. pray, go to church, etc) But when the going gets tough, they can always rely on their god. Hell, I even did that when was a kid.

People these days are using religion as an excuse. Isntead of couting on their own they rely more and more on this or that god to get things done. If people are to choose to be religious, it shouldn't be such a great part in their lives, at least not like that.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:04 am


I think also more and more, people are just using their religion as something to belong to, more than any sort of faith. So, they say that they are part of a certain religion, but like other people here have said, they don't actually do anything pertaining to their faith.

RawMaterial


Cougar Draven

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:50 am


Religion is what we have. Faith is what we need.

Faith is the penitent, humble belief in the power of an Almighty, whoever It may be. I'll not choose for anyone. And yes, that was redundant.

Religion, on the other hand, is the creation of man that essentially tells us how to practice faith.

And that, to be perfectly blunt, is a load of bulls**t.

I believe in God myself. The fine-tuned details of my specific faith are mine alone, and that's part of the reason that I haven't attended a church in over two months.

I don't believe in organised religion. I think it's a waste of time and faith, and is completely screwing with the masses.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:35 pm


I Have to disagree with how you're defining religion, Cougar. Religion includes faith and spirituality. Or at least it SHOULD. IN the end it's up to the individual practitioner to take religion to those levels. And if they don't, part of it is the fault of the religion itself (especially if it is organized and very dogmatic) but it also lies on the practitioner themselves.

Starlock


Cougar Draven

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:42 pm


Starlock
I Have to disagree with how you're defining religion, Cougar. Religion includes faith and spirituality. Or at least it SHOULD. IN the end it's up to the individual practitioner to take religion to those levels. And if they don't, part of it is the fault of the religion itself (especially if it is organized and very dogmatic) but it also lies on the practitioner themselves.


That's cool. I just don't much care for religion.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:52 pm


It's been my experience that those who don't care for religion usually haven't explored it enough. Most people define it too narrowly, to only organized religion + monotheism and forget about eastern religions, polytheism, pantheism, and animism. Not to assume that's the case with you, but it's something to think about. You don't have to say anything about how much you've searched or thought. whee

Starlock


Cougar Draven

PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:22 pm


Starlock
It's been my experience that those who don't care for religion usually haven't explored it enough. Most people define it too narrowly, to only organized religion + monotheism and forget about eastern religions, polytheism, pantheism, and animism. Not to assume that's the case with you, but it's something to think about. You don't have to say anything about how much you've searched or thought. whee


Meh...a better phrase I could have used would be "I don't care for organized religion". I'm a pragmatic existentialist, and occasionally take nihilistic stances, as impossible as that seems. I studied Buddhism for three years, and began a short-lived study of Hinduism last year. Didn't find it too entertaining, although the idea of Gan is something I'm interested in.
PostPosted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:28 pm


Well, the problem is that you think that religion has changed. Think about it, the gods were prayed to for help, for crops, better battles, and weather. Religion isn't a noble practice. Never has been.

Faith on the other hand is. Now religion is supposed to be based on faith, and most of the ancients actually were. But we, in our modern times have run into a problem. We 'know' that acts of nature and occurances in the wild are acts of science, not gods. Thus we have little to base our faith on. Nothing happens that we can attribute to any greater power, so we dwindle in our faith of the greater power. So we ask for more and more minor things that could easily be contributed to a power beyond our controle. We need a way to recreate the faith of the peoples past. And the only ways to do that are either forget what we know about the world, or some how get a greater power to do something great that can only be attributed to it.

On the most recent discussion, religion has always been corrupt. Humans want power and religion is a great way to get it. And so those who have power do everything in their power to keep it. It's recorded in history, and I've seen at least two examples in the last year and a half. And so much of the faith is placed in the rituals and the leaders, not in what the focus of the religion itself.

terranproby42


Mechanism

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:27 am


Cougar Draven
Faith
("the penitent, humble belief in the power of an Almighty") is what we need.

Necessary for what?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:01 am


Makalius
People say things like "Religion is whatever I want it to be as long as I believe in the god of my choice" Does this strike anyone as a bit off? "The god of my choice" As far as I know, every philosopher I have known of that was religious has thought of religion as not God being there for you, but you being there for him. Nowadays people see their god as some kind of councillor to only be approached when they need him but isn't the whole point of religion that one expresses a sence of awe at the vastness of creation and the smallness of your part in it? Faith commonly requires some form of humility on the part of the worshipper but now it seems that today's culture treats their gods as a servant rather than a kind master.


I agree! Soren Kierkegaard went through three stages throughout his life, the second being an aesthetic stage (think of the 14 yearold 'goths' with spikes and what-not), the last stage being a religious spirtiuality (Christianity). He believed that God's way of life was one of piety and righteousness. He was so fanatic about this new-found spirituality that he gave up the relationship with his fiancee to be more 'pure'.

A religious philosopher I'd like to learn about is Maimonides.

breaking of dawn


breaking of dawn

PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:18 am


Mechanism
Cougar Draven
Faith
("the penitent, humble belief in the power of an Almighty") is what we need.

Necessary for what?


I think what Cougar meant by our lack of Faith is that we lack wonder and awe about the world (destroyed by science) and the comfort of forgetting ourselves through worship of something greater ("God").

I agree, though am uneasy about the modern world become more faithful. As Kierkegaard explains, Faith is a leap from certainty and comfort into the illogical realm of Absolute.

When I think of people of faith, I think of the extreme Islamic fascists who terrorize the rest of the world and the battle over the sacred land of Israel. While Faith may be necessary, society must be cautious when accepting it.

Faith is allowing yourself to be blindfolded, trusting something without reason and accepting the consequences. Surrounded by the darkness of death, natural disaster, and other horrendous situations, you have nothing to lose in accepting Faith.

How comfortable are you when taking Kierkegaard's "leap of Faith" into the Absolute?
Reply
Philosophers Anonymous

 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum