The Nature And Purpose Of Religion

I wrote a piece on this topic, which I mentioned in a different thread. http://www.livejournal.com/users/majesticfrog/2485.html I am interested in what you think about what I say in the essay, as well as what you think religion is about.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

It's funny, because in a way, I hold very similar beliefs about religion. I'll discuss the parts though where we differ a little. First, I believe that the nature of religion isn't necessarily to show us how to live our lives. Religion is created to give meaning to our lives (of course, religion isn't necessary to give meaning, but most people tend to go that route one way or another). It's from that sense of meaning do we begin to set protocols on how we should act. Secondly, about the misinterpretations, you really can't prevent people from misinterpreting a piece of writing. Sure, you say that a good religion would lay out everything in very specific points as to completely prevent (or likely avoid) any misinterpretations. However, people see things differently, and as such, you can't word everything so that everyone views it the same. Take for example a writing that states that men should not kill. Sounds like a pretty basic rule of ethics, right? Well, if you write it plainly, "Good men do not kill," then does that include everything alive, or just fellow men? If it's just men, then people can misinterpret it as everything alive. If you state "Good men do not kill other men" then you've created a specific, which leaves out everything else (and I know someone will say "hey, but women weren't listed"). It becomes a question on how specific the doctrines have to be, and then of course, there's always the problem of if the religion is too specific, people won't follow it. Honestly now, how many Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays anymore?

I don't want you to think that your essay is flawed. Far from it. Your overall points are great, and I could agree with you more on the creation of fear and that horrific sense of self-righteousness that spawns xenophobia.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Actually, about the misinterpret thing, you are proving my point. Simplistic maxims like: "don't kill" are bad. Also, Its not misinterpretation per-say thats the problem. Its misinterpretations that lead to problems that are bad. Scripture also isn't read line by line in a vacuum, the overall scripture has to be clear. So, "don't kill" is hard to interpret, but the overall maxim is pretty clear: terminal violence is bad. When exactly and to whom, hard to tell, but the idea stays clear. That is, until your scripture describes a victorious war against unbelievers. So, clearly don't kill doesn't apply to them, or scripture wouldn't be so happy about mass carnage against them.....

This is why I said answering certain types of questions is dangerous, and talking about certain things is dangerous: it leads to these types of ****ups.

On another note, I didn't mean to come off saying that religion only tells us how to live our lives, in fact I agree with you. But giving your life meaning, and figuring out what thaht meaning is or would look like, is hard. Thus, religion should give us tools, practical how to live/do/see tools that allow us to create meaning. Otherwise it is just so much dogma.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

That's a very good essay.

I haven't read the whole essay(I've skimed thorugh it though), because I really don't have the time, but I do have have to agree with you on the point where religon should not be misinterpreted.

Unforunately, all religons with have its hertics, its misinterpreted, its problem. This is because many people will see things in different light. For example, the 'is a glass half-full or half-empty?' question is a very good example. People will have different perspectives on different matter. And that's unavoidable, unfortunely. Sometimes the different perspective is a good thing, for example inter-faith diagologe. However, different perspectives can lead to trouble, for example, Islamic Extrermism, which has unfortunately lead to horrific terrorist attacks such as 9/11.

I was born in Australia. My mum is a devout Catholic, my dad, a bit more liberal. However, one of the major things about Australia is its multicutural society (offending a person based on race, colour, national or ethnic background could land you in jail), so I have been exposed to many cultures, religons etc. I beieve that religon's purpose is to help comfort people in times of grief. That should be it's first priorty. Because, we don't know whos god is the right one. Or if there is one at all. So preaching should be placed after it.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Well, if you read my article (I admit its long), I go over what should count as a misinterpretation, or, more precisely, what specific types of misinterpretations and viewpoints should be guarded against (the extremist ones).

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Unfortunely, what's stopping someone misinterpretating the misinterpretation? That's part of the problem, the words are so subjective, it's not funny.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

i read your "The Nature and purpose of religion" word for word... very nice piece of work... written well also, i agree with about 90 percent of it.. much of it was similar to my own thots on the matter... but in much greater detail... i have been thinking about the topic of religion quite a bit recently.. mainly because i was one who was brought up with quite strick religous ideals, and rules..and 3 years ago i finaly deicide that i had enough of this... religion isnt suposed to disturb you... its purpose is to help you live a better life...and give you peace if your is not doing that for you leave it.. really.. just take a break... or make your own.. not something for you to spread to others or to debate with them...
just for you..whatever works

me..im taking time off...

just my thots on the matter.... very nice work MajesticTreeFrog

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I sympathize with you about the environment in which you have been raised. The south is the only part of the united states which I have never visited and cannot say that I understand it. I find the expressions of christianity which come from that region (not to mention the cult known as Bob Jones University) to fill me with no little discomfort.


If you think it is bad with religion. You cannot imagine how bad it would be without it. No matter how intolerant a religious group may seem, the religion is not the source of the intolerance. Intolerance is natural state of man without religion which views all human beings outside its own tribe as prey. The primary role of religion in human history has been to extend the idea of brotherhood to much larger groups. One of the most extreme examples is Islam. It may seem very intolerant to us today but its essential teaching was a whole new kind of tolerance and unity that did not exist before, and it united in brotherhood some of the most warlike areas of the world.

The crusades may seem like a blot on the history of christianity. But if you blame it on christianity you are missing the real context. The crusades took place in the dark ages, which means that they were composed of people derived from the barbaric tribes who invaded from the north and who adopted christianity after feasting upon the wealth of the western part of the Roman empire. The only real criticism that you can make of christianity is its failure to completely modify the aggressive and xenophobic nature of its believers. It really had very little to do with religious difference since they plundered and slaughtered chritians and muslim alike. It is the same story with the imperialistic behavior of the Roman empire itself which began its campaign of world conquest long before it adopted christianity.


I guess I just don't believe in the kind of truth you are talking about. I am a pragmatist and so for me the only real truth is that which helps us live our lives in a better way and so it is not about whether you have it or not, but about how well the product does its job. The christianity you are talking about really isn't about a pretense to truth (although I am sure the people themselves are ripe with all kinds of pretense) but about conservative reactionism. It is about preserving the life transforming gem of truth they have against an assault of ideas which threaten to destroy it.


The real question is whether religion, considering the conflicts in the world that seem to be related to religious difference, has any positive role in future history. And I am afraid that the answer is that it must. It is the nature of developing organism. You cannot rebuild from scratch. Revolutons do not work. The American revolution is misnomer because it wasn't fighting for change but against interference.


Religion is a part of the process that is bringing mankind into common undertanding, and so it must be a part of the completion of that process. Besides, we are looking at the role of religion in conflict from the wrong end of the stick anyway. The question is why people continue to fight inspite of tremendous commonality that their religions give them. For example Judaism and Islam are practically branches of the same religion. Islamic tradition calls Judaism and Christianity "religions of the book" acknowleging their validity.


Hmmm... Yes. I do believe that the ultimate search for answers lie in finding the right questions. I don't know whether you can change the questions that these religions ask. But I hope I have pointed out how important it is to be asking the right questions about religion in order to understand it.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

@Mitchellmckain

Actually, I don't know if it was how I wrote the article, but much of your commentary was actually what I was trying to get across. Your comment about why fighting keeps happening in the face of so much commonality was part of what I was attempting to address. The answer being that views that are extreme or exclusive (ONLY our god, and our view of god, is correct), are the core. These views but artificial and arbitrary divides between people.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Good qoute from this article:
A good religion will therefore only answer the following types of questions: "how can I better understand the world around me?", "how can I be more compassionate?", "how may I ease the suffering of myself and others?", and, "how can I lead a life that does not lead to pain and sorrow, and what can I do about it when I sometimes fail?

I really enjoyed reafing this article. Iy was well spaken and easy to follow. The author has very strong points about the purpose of religion and what it's true untent should really be.
I was asking myself recently why it seemed to be that Christianity is supposed to be about loving one another and doing unto others as you would have done to yourself and yet when you listen to the services on Christian radio stations most of the pastors are for the war not against it. Did they just forget there own values?

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)