Elok & C0ckney's religion and society thread.

[C0ckney]

Think of it like a vestigial organ. There are certain functions religion used to fulfill. "Spiritual" is quite simply not up to those functions. Either it will wither away entirely as the function is abandoned (or taken over by the state, etc.), or it will grow back so it can function again. Only the deeply silly will retain it in its stunted form for long, unless their lives remain so placid that the useless vestigial organ is no burden.

what do you consider these functions to be?

[C0ckney]

Think of it like a vestigial organ. There are certain functions religion used to fulfill. "Spiritual" is quite simply not up to those functions. Either it will wither away entirely as the function is abandoned (or taken over by the state, etc.), or it will grow back so it can function again. Only the deeply silly will retain it in its stunted form for long, unless their lives remain so placid that the useless vestigial organ is no burden.

what do you consider these functions to be?

[Elok]

I notice that you started double-posting shortly after arguing with JM. I think the Nietzsche quote about gazing into the abyss is highly relevant here. As for the functions of religion, there are oodles. The most prominent and important ones involve providing an existential ground for human existence--why are we here, what is a good life, how may the flaws in human nature be mended, etc. SBNR can provide a sort of weak answer to this, in that the believer may pick and choose from whatever spiritual tradition he thinks is coolest to make up his own answers.

But having provided the answer, he is prevented, or at least somewhat hindered, from acting effectively on it because of his isolation. All the austerities of traditional faith--fasts, confessions, and the like--exist for a very good reason. They are all exercises to strengthen you for the effort of self-improvement, however your religion defines that. Very, very few people are strong enough to make themselves go through that without help, and if they did it would not be as effective without fellow-believers cheering them on and authorities to help them and call them on their bull**** every now and then (that's one reason why the priest is there during confession--to catch you when you lie to yourself and/or God). Somebody who's intimidated by the mere prospect of hard church affiliation is very unlikely to impose a discipline on himself. He answers only to his own conscience, and since we generally prefer to think well of ourselves, that doesn't go too far.

Note that I said "isolation." There's a certain irony in that; SBNR appeals to American notions to self-reliance and independence, but I've never met or heard of an SBNR whose beliefs were not essentially the prevailing secular values with a side of Jesus sauce. In effect, they all worship much the same thing, and it requires far more initiative these days to actually attach oneself to a creed and wrestle with it. But even purely nominal independence prevents them from supporting each other even on the most purely spiritual level. Actually organizing to collectively resist the more toxic trends within the prevailing culture is out of the question.

One proviso: it is technically possible to be successfully SBNR. Gandhi did it quite effectively, albeit his beliefs were primarily Hindu. But most people have nowhere near his level of strength.

[Bereta_Eder]

I tried to read seriously. I liked elok's last post made an impression. Brought to mind the word Ecclessia (church) which basically I think means the gathering.
The strenth to follow one's believes through a collective entity. I never really thought of it like that before. Thanks.
(a small request, when you are writing in acronymes, for example, SBNR, could you the first time write the complete sentence so those of us who are not familiar with said acronym could be sure of what you mean. in that case, after googlesearch, I'm sure it means spiritual but not religious)

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Science didn't exist 100 AD.

Whut? Yes it did. See Archimedes, Ptolemy, Thales etc.

[Elok]

I think you have a point re: industrialization. Have you read William Cavanaugh? I think that's how you spell his name, not sure. He wrote a firebrand essay entitled "Killing for the telephone company" where he argued that the nation-state gradually took over many of the traditional functions of religion and other "intermediate organizations," such as guilds and civic groups, to essentially replace God as our central loyalty. I don't know that I agree with all of his conclusions (I don't know enough early modern history to refute or confirm his statements), but you might find him interesting. At the very least, he's more thought-provoking than what usually passes for American conservatism these days.

Anyway, religion does appeal most strongly to the bourgeois/middle class; contrary to the opiate-of-the-masses rhetoric, modern poor people are more likely to pray in the form of lotto tickets than go to church. And the middle class in America is not doing so hot.

Now, to explain myself on the miracles thing: it's very common for atheists to claim that people back then were simply ignorant, and that nobody today could possibly be fool enough to believe that, say, a virgin got pregnant. But that's the whole point of miracles, that they're cases of the impossible happening. People back then knew that nature followed a consistent order, and part of that order was that no woman got pregnant without some sperm getting involved. Which is why Mary specifically asks, iirc, "how is this possible, since I have known no man?" and Joseph initially "resolved to put her away quietly," assuming she'd been sleeping around. Indeed, if they thought virgin conception was routine, there'd be no point in mentioning it, any more than Gabriel would say "And lo, it shall exit through thy birth canal, and there shall be a placenta also, and much gushing of blood and repugnant fluids." See also Zachariah and Abraham's doubts about having children in their old age, etc, etc. And the same for other miracles. A man walking on water is only astonishing if you're quite certain he ought to sink.

The ancients had a less detailed, and frequently inaccurate, knowledge of nature, but it was there. It was also, I might add, quite secular. The great scientists of the ancient world were philosophers, not priests and oracles, and when Galileo was "persecuted," it was for contradicting the teachings of ancient pagans like Aristotle (and insulting his biggest patron in print), not Church doctrine which had little to say on the subject of astronomy or any other scientific matter. What changed was not the concept of a natural order, but the idea that God could intervene in it.

[Elok]

I tried to read seriously. I liked elok's last post made an impression. Brought to mind the word Ecclessia (church) which basically I think means the gathering.
The strenth to follow one's believes through a collective entity. I never really thought of it like that before. Thanks.
(a small request, when you are writing in acronymes, for example, SBNR, could you the first time write the complete sentence so those of us who are not familiar with said acronym could be sure of what you mean. in that case, after googlesearch, I'm sure it means spiritual but not religious)

Sorry, I was writing for an Englishman, and Spiritual-but-not-religious is a pretty standard phrase in America, at least. Are you Orthodox too? I know you're Greek; I thought Sava was the only other one on here who identified as Orthodox, though, and he's mostly in it for the Pope-bashing.

[Bereta_Eder]

Hm... I don't know if you can characterize me as real practising orthodox. I am baptized but I wasn't raised in a family in which religion played any big part, apart from the cultural extensions religion has.
Orthodoxy for me is more of the scent and peace I feel inside a church, the ceremonies in very big events, the lighting of candles and placing them on the sand stand and love.
God exists or doesn't exist depending on the day...
Well, I'll put it this way, I am a product of a non religious but "culturally orthodox" family.
You surely know a bazillion things more than me in a theological sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whut? Yes it did. See Archimedes, Ptolemy, Thales etc.

I'm shocked that a physicist wouldn't be familiar with Eratosthenes. Also, Euclid and Euclidean space, and spherical astronomy.

[Ben Kenobi]

The decline of compulsory religious observance certainly trimmed some deadwood--and I welcome that, because of the boom-and-bust cycle I mentioned way back when. Probably they got much the same benefit from organized and folk religion as spiritual people do from their mush today; the point is the avoidance of strenuous thought or inconvenience, and minimal participation in religious life would give the same effect as a set of beliefs that mostly accord with secular-liberal ideals today. But I would imagine they were somewhat fewer purely on the grounds that back then, religion was something one was expected to take seriously. Today, in the popular imagination, it's just an exotic sort of hobby.

It's a curious sort that argues for voluntary religious attendance but mandatory education.

[Elok]

Ah. Culturally Orthodox. Honestly, I'd be glad if we just had more of those. "Philokalia" means "the love of beauty," no? Orthodoxy has been called a revolt of beauty against the ugliness of the modern world. We're much more of a minority here in the U.S., and perhaps more lively because of it, but the strong sense of community is missing, and that's important too. At present, the Antiochian church (for historical reasons, we're divided into overlapping ethnic churches, and it'll be a while before we can unite) is absorbing a large number of Evangelical converts, or raising the kids of Evangelical converts who came over en masse in the Eighties. It's giving us vigor, for sure; my particular church is twenty years old and has already spun off two missions. We're now so crowded that there's talk of a third. It's also modifying the culture somewhat, though, as we absorb some Protestant notions with the converts. Hard to see how it will play out.

[Ben Kenobi]

as we absorb some Protestant notions with the converts. Hard to see how it will play out.

[Bereta_Eder]

Yep Philokalia means exactly that, the love of beauty.

"Orthodoxy has been called a revolt of beauty against the ugliness of the modern world".
wow... this is quite poetic.
God in the bible is refered to as ποιητής which means creator and poet. "Poio" means I create and that's where the word poet comes.

So "poet of the sky and earth"
"creator of the sky and earth"
Anyway, silly ramblings, but that's what your phrase brought to my mind.

You seem to be a dynamic and united church and not have any of the ugliness that is sometimes associated with religion.

[Jon Miller]

Whut? Yes it did. See Archimedes, Ptolemy, Thales etc.

Those were philosophers and not scientists.
JM

[Elok]

Those were philosophers and not scientists.
JM

Spurious distinction; IIRC Isaac Newton was from the time period where they still called themselves Natural Philosophers. All the useful sciences grew out of philosophy then jettisoned it, leaving the largely worthless core we know today. Hell, Gregor Mendel wasn't even a philosopher, just a monk--and yet he fathered an entire branch of science.