Hi,every memeber

It has been very much perplexing to me if relegion is the product of human interactions or human interactions are modified in accordance with the dictates of relegion.

A good but lively discussions. 

Views: 121

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I know there is a tendency in the sciences to be reductive - and reductive logic does have it's place - but since there is plenty of evidence for both arguments, maybe it's both are true or both are partially true rather than just and either/or proposition. Both posits of yours could be false, both could be true, one could be true and the other false - but frankly these are not mutually exclusive posits. There are also other ideas having to do with the operations and physical structure of the human brain and how religion effects and creates brain processes that have effects (good and bad) on a person or group of people. You have Clifford Geertz definition "A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" as well as Durkheim's "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life" (1912), which gives even more discourse on the topic.

Since I know what I think on the subject - but don't care to share in more detail in such a public forum and don't care when people pro or anti a particular religion or anti-religion shove their views down my throat - even when I agree with them - I submit to you instead a thought exercise instead. What do you think it is that drives religion? Is it a product of human reactions or a way to codify morality or modify human interactions by other humans perhaps? How can it be the way you think it is - example? How can it be the opposite of what you think it is - example? How can both be true - example? How can both be false - example? Research yourself other models of thought about why it exists - pros cons many examples for each as true and as false. Don't copout and go 'I couldn't think of one' if you can't research to find one or whatever or as a last case scenario make one up if you don't know (you'll be surprized how many times you think of something then find a real world equivalent after you make a 'fake' reason for something).

Did any other more logical reason or combination of reasons occur to you while trying this out? Feel free to share or not share how your viewpoint changed or didn't change? In any case share what you think, remember you can always change your mind later...
Yes of course. I do beleive in that reductionism is just a cliche. And more specifically religious reductionaism has been unable to explain the complexity of religious system. For instance, the comprehention of religion by religious reductionists like E.B Tylor, James Frazer, Sigmund Fraud and Karl Marx,to say few, is throughly narrow and seems to be merely in the support of their lareger philosophical systems.

since i can't reduce religion simply to a parameter for bad or good , right or wrong, I would like to know much of your views regarding the the definition and scope of religion. Do you think that non-religious have a religion? and if yes what are the essentials of that relegion? Should their be a nomenclature of every religion?
I agree with Izabel that human brains are wired to "believe". In our evolutionary past, and even today, people needed something (belief?) to make sense of the world they observed around. However, it is not clear to what extent those beliefs were religious in nature. Are all the beliefs religious? I don't think so.

Religion is such a complex bio-cultural phenomena which defies any biological and/or anthropological definition. It is still debatable whether religion has 'directly' affected the evolution of culture or it is merely a 'by-product' of human evolution.

Even if we put biological reductionism aside, cultural aspects of religion are very diverse and the way religion is 'used' by the people around the world is a complex matter. Perhaps there never will be a simple answer to what religion is. In some societies, religion seems to be an all-encompassing culture, whereas in others it looks like just a part of a culture. All the past great civilizations reached their peak of glory under one or other form of religion. Religion has given us great art and architecture, poetry, dance etc. But could human beings have not made those civilizations without religion? Could human beings not come up with Ethics, Morals and Values without religion? These and other so many questions remain yet to be answered.

M Izabel said:
I'm leaning towards the biology of religion, belief, or spirituality. I think we have that impulse to believe that there's someone up there more powerful than us. I observe that in many cultures where the name of god becomes an instant expression when something bad or good happens. Here in the US, they use "Jesus!" or "Oh! My God" for grief or joy and dismay or disbelief. In my culture, we use susmaryosep! for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph when there's an accident, bad news, or unbelievable incident. I think our minds are wired to find reasons to explain our misery or comfort and success or failure. If we can't find one, we make one.
Perhaps religion is an inner impulse toward restoration of a more perfect state, with our Creator in Paradise.
Hi, I am new to this site - very interesting indeed. I was just wondering whether, given my background I do have a place here - then I cama across this discussion, so maybe i do:
I am a senior social worker and contemporary theologian. More importantly, in my diss. for theology, I dealt with what I named an aspect of the anthropology of spirituality: the effect of insight, specifically what I name the insight of being,

See http://lonergan.concordia.ca/reprints/lonergan04paper.pdf

Relevant here is: I argue belief (and prayer) is an anthropological given (potential) - the mythological expressions are culturally shaped and only ever on a secondary level. (Institutionalised religion provides thrid and forth levels). Mystics of different religions understand eachother on the first level (if they are genuine and authentic).
Teresa of Avila, a 16th century reformer in the RC Chruch and her order (The Carmelites), in Spain, wrote a book 'The Interior Castle'. She describes 7 mansions. They seem to me 7 levels of consciousness as accessed through meditation.(Independent of Teresa's particular religious concepts.) these levels are described elsewhere, in contemporary exploration of meditation.

Reply to Discussion



OAC Press



© 2020   Created by Keith Hart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service