Why do you believe in YOUR religion

[China Cat Sunflower]

So, let's see...arguing for religion we have Path and SG, both non-joiners who have eschewed organized religion, Wil who is UU (the closest thing to an organized non-religion, and Netti and Cyberpi who won't say what their religious affiliation is. Interesting.

Chris

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

So, let's see...arguing for religion we have Path and SG, both non-joiners who have eschewed organized religion, Wil who is UU (the closest thing to an organized non-religion, and Netti and Cyberpi who won't say what their religious affiliation is. Interesting.

Chris

Go figure. LOL

Actually, I am not arguing "for" religion, as in "we all need religion." What I am arguing for is seeing religion for what it is- advantages, disadvantages, stuff that is an awful lot like other aspects of culture. Religion is, like government and science and all other sorts of social organizations, an imperfect way to get some folks together in a community of some sort of practice. I suppose I see it as potentially (and in reality) sometimes useful and sometimes not. Like any social organization, it depends on the intent of the people participating.

ETA: I'm not a non-joiner because I'm against organized spiritual practice. I'm a non-joiner (at the moment) because I can't seem to find a community of practice that is authentic enough not to cause me dissonance. I'd *love* to find a church or any sort of community that did the basic work of Christ- that followed the teachings and from which I could be refreshed and learn and grow with a community. I do think communal spirituality is ideal. I just can't find one. I give it a go, but in the end, if a community is not practicing the teachings of Christ, then what is the point of my being there? Perfection isn't needed, but genuine intent in some sort of critical mass seems to me to be necessary. It's not all about me- I'd be happy to serve, but if my service is incongruent and not wanted, then what?

*** Back to the regular programming... ***

What I am arguing for is God. Why? Because I experience God. So, I find it logical to argue that my experience is as valid as anyone else's.

Atheism is not just anti-religious, it is anti-theist and frequently anti-spirit. There's the issue for me- it is not rallying against just a social organization, but against individuals' experiences. Atheists claim that others' experiences are invalid, and their own are not. Which seems narrow-minded and short-sighted to me.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Atheism is not just anti-religious, it is anti-theist and frequently anti-spirit. There's the issue for me- it is not rallying against just a social organization, but against individuals' experiences. Atheists claim that others' experiences are invalid, and their own are not. Which seems narrow-minded and short-sighted to me.

That's why I'm not an atheist. At least not with a big A. I just think that the language of religion about God is so tainted with emotional neediness, social control structures, idolatry and outright superstition, and anthropomorphic constructs that it's unusable as a vehicle. I believe in what you would call God. But what I believe in is an impersonal force which resides beyond the limits of our imaginings, beyond the Ain Soph. I experience it. I participate with it. I don't think it works out well with the mechanics of religion as it doesn't require devotion or promise an after life. It may be a state of being, but it is not a being in the sense of residing in a particular locale. It doesn't punish evil. It doesn't desire. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't reward good. It is not a Thing. It is a metaphysical mega-concept.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

I need to qualify what I mean by "language of religion." I'll have to think about that.

Chris

[wil]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

... language of religion about God is so tainted with emotional neediness, social control structures, idolatry and outright superstition, and anthropomorphic constructs that it's unusable as a vehicle. I believe in what you would call God. But what I believe in is an impersonal force which resides beyond the limits of our imaginings, beyond the Ain Soph. I experience it. I participate with it. I don't think it works out well with the mechanics of religion as it doesn't require devotion or promise an after life. It may be a state of being, but it is not a being in the sense of residing in a particular locale. It doesn't punish evil. It doesn't desire. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't reward good. It is not a Thing. It is a metaphysical mega-concept.

Chris

You know I can agree just about completely with all of that except for what I've put at the beginning. I feel I was right there, but have found that that understanding and I can fit within the bounds of religion, just not within the bounds of what many have as their version of Christianity...fortunately I am not alone and their are millions who agree just took me forty years to find them.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Thanks for that Wil!

For me there isn't any conflict between my conception of what others call God and science. I see "belief" as an active process of exploration beyond the safety net. I recognize that the same things that I dislike about religion also exist in other intellectual and emotional arenas. I don't invest blind belief in science any more than I would in religion. I have to say, though, that I don't see science, as a whole, demonizing religion. What I see is religion, Christianity specifically, trying to diminish science in order to equate it with "bible based" pseudo science as if the two shared equal intellectual footing. In that sense "belief" becomes a process of swallowing what one is told rather than a willingness to step off into the unknown. It's not just a matter of logical versus illogical thinking. It's a matter of intellectual honesty versus intellectual laziness.

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Thanks for that Wil!

For me there isn't any conflict between my conception of what others call God and science. I see "belief" as an active process of exploration beyond the safety net. I recognize that the same things that I dislike about religion also exist in other intellectual and emotional arenas. I don't invest blind belief in science any more than I would in religion. I have to say, though, that I don't see science, as a whole, demonizing religion. What I see is religion, Christianity specifically, trying to diminish science in order to equate it with "bible based" pseudo science as if the two shared equal intellectual footing. In that sense "belief" becomes a process of swallowing what one is told rather than a willingness to step off into the unknown. It's not just a matter of logical versus illogical thinking. It's a matter of intellectual honesty versus intellectual laziness.

Chris

The questions would then be: can science study the universe as a possible work of art? If it is possible, does science have the guts to do so?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

The questions would then be: can science study the universe as a possible work of art? If it is possible, does science have the guts to do so?

Well, beyond science there are all of the arts, liberal and otherwise, which are secular endeavors. I'm sure you've seen some of the spectacular photos from the Hubbel telescope.

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, beyond science there are all of the arts, liberal and otherwise, which are secular endeavors.

Not necessarily all. (See below.)

I'm sure you've seen some of the spectacular photos from the Hubbel telescope.

Chris

Of course.
How can you discern between the 'inkblot effect' from what we see in nature, and what might actually be there by design. We would have to examine our mind, which is not only within the realm of psychology, but has been within the realm of relgion for a much longer time.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

That's why I'm not an atheist. At least not with a big A. I just think that the language of religion about God is so tainted with emotional neediness, social control structures, idolatry and outright superstition, and anthropomorphic constructs that it's unusable as a vehicle.

Yet somehow it still serves as a vehicle for some of the most loving, compassionate, and effective people we have on earth-- Mother Theresa, MLK Jr., etc.

I think its useable, but flawed. Pretty much like everything else humans come up with.

But I do believe that those that seek, find. Those that knock, are answered. It is our intent that leads us to spiritual growth, no matter what our religious limitations may be.

I believe in what you would call God. But what I believe in is an impersonal force which resides beyond the limits of our imaginings, beyond the Ain Soph. I experience it. I participate with it. I don't think it works out well with the mechanics of religion as it doesn't require devotion or promise an after life. It may be a state of being, but it is not a being in the sense of residing in a particular locale. It doesn't punish evil. It doesn't desire. It doesn't have a personality. It doesn't reward good. It is not a Thing. It is a metaphysical mega-concept.

Chris

I would say I don't see God as a Thing either. More like a Process and a Force. But I don't see God quite as... sterile (?) as you seem to. I would say that God has, perhaps, not Person-hood, but rather Being-ness. Eh, it's hard to describe what I'm getting at.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

How can you discern between the 'inkblot effect' from what we see in nature, and what might actually be there by design. We would have to examine our mind, which is not only within the realm of psychology, but has been within the realm of relgion for a much longer time.

Well, the arts and sciences resided under the purview of religion for a long time. The politics of patronage played a large role in what kind of art and architecture was undertaken. I don't have an answer for the design question. It's something I'm exploring.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

But I do believe that those that seek, find. Those that knock, are answered. It is our intent that leads us to spiritual growth, no matter what our religious limitations may be.

I would say I don't see God as a Thing either. More like a Process and a Force. But I don't see God quite as... sterile (?) as you seem to. I would say that God has, perhaps, not Person-hood, but rather Being-ness. Eh, it's hard to describe what I'm getting at.

I do think that it's an interactive force or process. I agree that focused intention actually changes things, as if the universe rearranges itself to accommodate the intention. It seems that way, anyway. It's hard to put a finger on the actual mechanics of Providence. If my language sounds sterile it's because I'm trying extra hard not to slip into cliches. Instead of just saying "God", which can mean a bazzillion things, I'm trying to say exactly what I mean. It's hard!

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

If my language sounds sterile it's because I'm trying extra hard not to slip into cliches. Instead of just saying "God", which can mean a bazzillion things, I'm trying to say exactly what I mean. It's hard!

Chris

Now you can understand why I'm so into quotes.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Now you can understand why I'm so into quotes.

Yeah, I'm hip. It's a good exercise to try to name, as exactly as possible, the function of things without resorting to pre-made analogies or well worn cliches. It's really, really difficult. Well, it is for me. Language has become really sloppy. We have to try to do something about that.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

My own "spiritual" orientation most closely resembles the kabbalistic concept of Tikkun olam, that is, the repair of the world through ethical action and enlightened contemplation. Informing that sense of ethics is a combination of the Buddhist eightfold path and the philosophy Christ along with a form of a sort of neo Taoist oriented non specific, anti systematic cosmology.

I wanted to say this because I know that I very often come of as atheistic or anti-belief.

Chris