Cheeze_Pavilion wrote:what I'm asking is how does religion stay relevant when so much of its relevance comes from religion's dominance of storytelling?
Through the benefits of in-group/out-group identification for the members of the religion, of course. And I kind of doubt that sort of thinking is going away... Even many atheists, today, are strongly invested in that paradigm of thought. I suspect that's one of the *last* elements of a religion to go away. One contemporary example is the rise of "secular Judaism", where the culture and rituals and holidays are preserved even in the explicit absence of belief in the religion itself. It maintains the group identity while pushing required beliefs to the side.
I'd agree with that. I'd just point out that maintaining the culture and ritual and holidays without the religion means it's not religion anymore, it's an ethnicity (I mean, for a long time being Irish basically meant being Catholic--I don't think things will change that fast for Judiasm, but then again, most people aren't Jewish). Obviously even if atheists are invested in the same paradigm of thought that religion was historically emeshed with, it's still a paradigm of thought that (edit) can exist apart from religion if the conditions are right, and that's what I'm saying: today, the conditions are right for that to happen.
No, I can see the in-group/out-group identification sticking around, but that doesn't mean *religion* is going to stick around. That paradigm of thought just might move on to culturally Jewish/Irish/Italian etc. Americans, or atheists, or Sad Puppies or emo kids or whatever. To go back to the original idea: there's so many more ways to get your identity today that have nothing to do with religion, or even are what used to be a religion but is now an ethnicity. That variety of choice didn't exist historically the way it does today.
I agree, Robear. An example: Though some modern American Christian congregations are turning toward there being no in-group or out-group and really embracing that part of the Jesus story, the vast majority are stuck in a small-minded orbit around fundamentals which ironically renders those fundamentals meaningless. They literally idolize things like the ten commandments instead of growing past that despite a tremendous example in the book/person they profess to follow and, as silly as it is, a commandment which says not to do this. This reinforces old controlling concepts such as "I'm going to heaven, you're going to hell." and that "belief" (in what? oh, it depends on the church!) is the dividing factor between the saved and the damned. It's frustrating that people who profess to believe that love one another is their greatest command can't see their own hypocrisy.
I agree, Robear. An example: Though some modern American Christian congregations are turning toward there being no in-group or out-group and really embracing that part of the Jesus story, the vast majority are stuck in a small-minded orbit around fundamentals which ironically renders those fundamentals meaningless.
That's what's on my mind: it's the religious groups that play up the in-group/out-group identity that are losing less adherents. Our first thought is that the more open the church, the more people it will attract. That's doesn't seem to be the case, though. The open churches get a lot more positive opinions, but maybe positive opinions don't translate into people actually joining the religion. You ask someone which church they prefer and they'll tell you the open one, but you ask them if they'll join and they say no. The closed religion spending time talking about the saved and the damned pisses off a lot more people, but it seems like it *also* gets more people to make that step from "positive opinion" to "church member."
Like, here's the original post, and as I look through the linked survey, what keeps jumping out at me (as much as it can from that level of breakdown of the data) is that it's the big, centralist denominations that are dropping the most adherents, while the denominations who have some kind of strong identity (like saved vs. damned) are doing better adherent wise.
tl;dr: again, when it comes to those stuck in a small-minded orbit, are they doing better in the opinion of the public? No--doing worse. In getting people in the door and actually joining? Doing better. Those are two distinct questions.
Ran into this today. Seems related to the most recent conversation here.
That's a really interesting video, but it strikes me that the narrator is confused and meant to be talking about Buddhism. Christianity, for many, many years after Christ maintained the same 'holy of holy' and 'sacred are kept apart and set aside' mentality as Judaism. It maintains that to this day not just in the Catholic church but even in most Protestant faiths.
I understand that he is espousing his own view of Christianity that clearly doesn't jive with the belief of most, but it seems to be a big hole in his premise that this true goal of Christianity really wasn't even possible or visible in lay Christian belief for nearly 2 millennium after Christ. (Side note: millenia is not a word?) If anything it would seem to claim that Luther was a bigger prophet / messiah than Christ.
(Side note: millenia is not a word?)
I always forget the extra "n" as well. It's millennia.
That's a really interesting video, but it strikes me that the narrator is confused and meant to be talking about Buddhism. Christianity, for many, many years after Christ maintained the same 'holy of holy' and 'sacred are kept apart and set aside' mentality as Judaism. It maintains that to this day not just in the Catholic church but even in most Protestant faiths.
I understand that he is espousing his own view of Christianity that clearly doesn't jive with the belief of most, but it seems to be a big hole in his premise that this true goal of Christianity really wasn't even possible or visible in lay Christian belief for nearly 2 millennium after Christ. (Side note: millenia is not a word?) If anything it would seem to claim that Luther was a bigger prophet / messiah than Christ.
Maybe he's actually a gnostic, which means he would think the last two millennia of Christianity is bunk.
Peter Rollins is literally what happens when you create a Post-Structuralist interpretation of Christianity.
Figured this was worth posting, as people who enjoyed this thread might enjoy this article: (LINK)
How did Hume come up with these ideas, so profoundly at odds with the Western philosophy and religion of his day? What turned the neurotic Presbyterian teenager into the great founder of the European Enlightenment?In my shabby room, as I read Buddhist philosophy, I began to notice something that others had noticed before me. Some of the ideas in Buddhist philosophy sounded a lot like what I had read in Hume’s Treatise. But this was crazy. Surely in the 1730s, few people in Europe knew about Buddhist philosophy.
Still, as I read, I kept finding parallels. The Buddha doubted the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God. In his doctrine of “emptiness,” he suggested that we have no real evidence for the existence of the outside world. He said that our sense of self is an illusion, too. The Buddhist sage Nagasena elaborated on this idea. The self, he said, is like a chariot. A chariot has no transcendent essence; it’s just a collection of wheels and frame and handle. Similarly, the self has no transcendent essence; it’s just a collection of perceptions and emotions.
“I never can catch myself at any time without a perception.”
That sure sounded like Buddhist philosophy to me—except, of course, that Hume couldn’t have known anything about Buddhist philosophy.
Or could he have?
That is quite interesting. My philosophy professor turned later in his career from specializing in Hume, Kant and Wittgenstein (and later philosophers like Quine who further developed their ideas) to Buddhist philosophy. I always wondered how he made that transition, and this gives me a good idea of the links.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Pages