The "Proper Use" of Religion

[ydoaPs]

The misuse of religion and misinterpretation of religious texts...

 

 

 

 

Who gets to decide what the "proper use" of religion is? Who gets to determine what the "proper interpretation" of religious texts is?

[Moontanman]

Who gets to decide what the "proper use" of religion is? Who gets to determine what the "proper interpretation" of religious texts is?

 

 

People like Immortal do... He has counterparts in every religion in the world...

[iNow]

Who gets to decide what the "proper use" of religion is? Who gets to determine what the "proper interpretation" of religious texts is?

 

Each individual decides for themselves. Both religion and god are almost entirely anthropomorphic and vary from person to person. IMO, it's not so much "who gets to determine what is proper." Instead it's about being a mature, rational, and reasonable individual and determining that "it's proper" to acknowledge and recognize that there is no single objective truth when it comes to the interpretation of god(s) and religions.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God. Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.

 

<...>

 

The results suggest that similar parts of the brain are involved when we consider our own beliefs and those of God – Epley thinks this is why we end up inferring a deity’s attitudes based on those we hold ourselves.

 

<...>

 

Things are altogether harder when it comes to predicting the will of a deity. Religious people could try to consult with their deity through prayer, interpret sacred texts like the Bible or Koran, or consult with experts like priests of imams. But the fact that different denominations have such diverse views of God’s attitudes shows that these sources of information are inconsistent at best. As Epley says, “Religious agents don’t lend themselves to public polling”.

 

He thinks that these uncertainties make it more likely that people will increasingly look to their own beliefs when inferring those of their God.

 

<...>

 

Epley’s results are sure to spark controversy, but their most important lesson is that relying on a deity to guide one’s decisions and judgments is little more than spiritual sockpuppetry. To quote Epley himself:

“People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want. The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God’s beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing.”

[imatfaal]

Who gets to decide what the "proper use" of religion is? Who gets to determine what the "proper interpretation" of religious texts is?

 

groups of old men who seem to have no joy in their lives

[proximity1]

 

groups of old men who seem to have no joy in their lives

 

You may be underestimating the varietal potential in ways in which people can derive "joy", satisfaction, from their behavior.

 

For a commanding general officer, a new war can be seen as so many new opportunities opening up. For an infantry soldier at the front, if there is one, it's more the converse--so many new opportunities closing down, right? And, while we're at it, there are "groups of old men" in every field of science and about some of them we could as well speculate on where they find their "joys".

[imatfaal]

 

You may be underestimating the varietal potential in ways in which people can derive "joy", satisfaction, from their behavior.

 

For a commanding general officer, a new war can be seen as so many new opportunities opening up. For an infantry soldier at the front, if there is one, it's more the converse--so many new opportunities closing down, right? And, while we're at it, there are "groups of old men" in every field of science and about some of them we could as well speculate on where they find their "joys".

The fact that you link joy with mere satisfaction shows that we use different dictionaries. A general who finds joy at opening a new front needs to be replaced as soon as humanly possible. And yes there are groups of dour old men in science - but in science we have learnt (to a very large extent) that it is the facts and experimental results that matter and not the opinions of old men

[PeterJ]

 

Each individual decides for themselves. Both religion and god are almost entirely anthropomorphic and vary from person to person. IMO, it's not so much "who gets to determine what is proper." Instead it's about being a mature, rational, and reasonable individual and determining that "it's proper" to acknowledge and recognize that there is no single objective truth when it comes to the interpretation of god(s) and religions.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/

I am baffed as to how someone can hold this view. Of course there is objective truth. Of course there are better and worse interpretations of the scriptures. Yes, we must make our own interpretations, but it is not an arbitrary choice. The idea is interpret the words to mean what the person who said them meant them to mean. I can agree that all our concepts of god are anthropomorphic, but this would not be enough to refute theism. Perhaps we cannot conceive of God as He is and are forced, if we must try to conceive of Him, to create Him in our own image. I happen to believe that the unreality of God is an absolute truth, but saying our concepts ot Him are anthropmorphic is not an argument for or against.

 

At any rate, religion is not post-modernism. It is just difficult to understand, and even people who have no understanding will insist on promoting their views. So outsiders see a mass of contradiction, being unable to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

The way to tell how good an interpretation we have is to test it against the literature. When almost all the sages can be seen to agree, leaving aside the details, and if our interpretation helps make sense of the world, then we can know we are on the right track. Another way is to check whether our intepretation gives rise to any logically refutable ideas. or theories. If it does then it is not correct. .

[Moontanman]

I am baffed as to how someone can hold this view. Of course there is objective truth.

 

Please clue us in on this "objective" truth...

 

Of course there are better and worse interpretations of the scriptures. Yes, we must make our own interpretations, but it is not an arbitrary choice. The idea is interpret the words to mean what the person who said them meant them to mean. I can agree that all our concepts of god are anthropomorphic, but this would not be enough to refute theism. Perhaps we cannot conceive of God as He is and are forced, if we must try to conceive of Him, to create Him in our own image. I happen to believe that the unreality of God is an absolute truth, but saying our concepts ot Him are anthropmorphic is not an argument for or against.

 

Seriously?

 

 

 

At any rate, religion is not post-modernism. It is just difficult to understand, and even people who have no understanding will insist on promoting their views. So outsiders see a mass of contradiction, being unable to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

Are you suggesting someone can separate the wheat from the chaff? Assuming there is any wheat or chaff to begin with...

 

 

The way to tell how good an interpretation we have is to test it against the literature. When almost all the sages can be seen to agree, leaving aside the details, and if our interpretation helps make sense of the world, then we can know we are on the right track. Another way is to check whether our intepretation gives rise to any logically refutable ideas. or theories. If it does then it is not correct. .

 

this would indicate none of them are correct...

[iNow]

I am baffed as to how someone can hold this view.

It's based on evidence and a decent understanding of human psychology and how the mind works.

I can agree that all our concepts of god are anthropomorphic, but this would not be enough to refute theism.

Please don't move the goal posts. The post I submitted above was not an attempt to refute theism.

I happen to believe that the unreality of God is an absolute truth, but saying our concepts ot Him are anthropmorphic is not an argument for or against.

See above. My post was not submitted in an attempt to argue for or against god(s).

The way to tell how good an interpretation we have is to test it against the literature.

This is a flawed test, IMO. Distilled down you are saying, "the best way to judge interpretations is to compare it against another interpretation." In essence, you are arguing in favor of the position I put forth above, not against it.

When almost all the sages can be seen to agree...

But they don't, and that's one of the points of this thread.

[Moontanman]

I happen to believe that the unreality of God is an absolute truth,

 

 

What does this mean?

[ydoaPs]

 

Each individual decides for themselves.

So how do we know when they're being misused or misinterpreted?

[Moontanman]

So how do we know when they're being misused or misinterpreted?

 

 

When they result in harm to another human?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

When they result in harm to another human?

So, for example, when they are used to get money from people to pay for self promoting clergy?

What about when religion is used to, for example, rep-lace rational thought or mislead people?

[Moontanman]

So, for example, when they are used to get money from people to pay for self promoting clergy?

What about when religion is used to, for example, rep-lace rational thought or mislead people?

 

 

yes, i would define those things as harmful...

[ydoaPs]

 

 

When they result in harm to another human?

 

But is it really "misuse" if the scriptures explicitly say that it's a good thing to rape and pillage?

[iNow]

So how do we know when they're being misused or misinterpreted?

They don't.

[PeterJ]

The interpretation problem is not as difficult as some here think it is. But it requires a sympathetic approach and a belief that the problem can actually be solved. It seems some are tempted to assume that it is all a matter of opinion, and there's no way to counter this view that doesn't involve work, which we won't do if we believe it's all a matter of opinion. It's a self-fulfilling objection to religion.

 

.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

yes, i would define those things as harmful...

I would also define things like preaching as harmful, yet they are the mainstay of religion.

It seems that the normal use of religion is improper.

[Moontanman]

I would also define things like preaching as harmful, yet they are the mainstay of religion.

It seems that the normal use of religion is improper.

 

 

I would have no problem asserting that as true, any lie asserted as the truth and used to manipulate people is improper...

 

The interpretation problem is not as difficult as some here think it is. But it requires a sympathetic approach and a belief that the problem can actually be solved. It seems some are tempted to assume that it is all a matter of opinion, and there's no way to counter this view that doesn't involve work, which we won't do if we believe it's all a matter of opinion. It's a self-fulfilling objection to religion.

 

.

 

 

So what we really need is "Biblical Glasses" ?

 

But is it really "misuse" if the scriptures explicitly say that it's a good thing to rape and pillage?

 

 

That is a good point, it suggests the entire idea of religion is misuse...

[Phi for All]

The interpretation problem is not as difficult as some here think it is. But it requires a sympathetic approach and a belief that the problem can actually be solved. It seems some are tempted to assume that it is all a matter of opinion, and there's no way to counter this view that doesn't involve work, which we won't do if we believe it's all a matter of opinion. It's a self-fulfilling objection to religion.

 

.

I can't think of any religious writings that don't have multiple interpretations that are inconsistent with each other. How does a "sympathetic approach" or "a belief that the problem can actually be solved" overcome the natural inclination of humans to interpret even fairly concrete media in their own way?

 

It seems like most religious texts are purposely written to allow for such broad interpretations. Similarly, in music, some composers choose to put every slur and dynamic marking down while others, like Bach, purposely leave much of this to the interpretation of the players or conductors. Many musicians seem to prefer a less structured manuscript, and such can be said for religion followers as well. The thousands of sects of Christianity alone seem to bear witness to the fact that it is difficult to interpret these texts.

 

When you say it isn't difficult if we just take a sympathetic approach and believe it's possible, aren't you really just saying that you seem to have interpreted them just fine and you don't see what the fuss is all about? And isn't that really just a No True Scotsman fallacy?

 

True Scotsman: "The Bible is unequivocally saying that you have to believe everything it says or you'll go to Hell because God loves you."

 

Scotsman: "Really?! That's not how I interpret it, and no one I know sees it that way either."

 

True Scotsman: "None of you are looking at it with the sympathetic approach that I use."

[MonDie]

So how do we know when they're being misused or misinterpreted?

 

Whenever a person or group of people would judge this to be so. That's all properness is.

If I want to use religion to bonk people on the heads, that is the proper use with respect to myself.

 

proper:

adjective

1. adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; fit; suitable: the proper time to plant strawberries.

2. conforming to established standards of behavior or manners; correct or decorous: a very proper young man.

3. fitting; right: It was only proper to bring a gift.

4. strictly belonging or applicable: the proper place for a stove.

5. belonging or pertaining exclusively or distinctly to a person, thing, or group.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proper

 

 

 

This post explains my thoughts in more detail.

 

A means is something that is useful for the production of some end [as in the phrase "means to an end"]. More simply put, a means can cause a certain result. For example, an axe can cause chopping under the right circumstances. Because we can cause chopping more easily with an axe, we say that the axe is useful for chopping. From an objective perspective, we would say that a person is more likely to chop things if they have an axe, just as a bacteri[um] is more like to swim if it has a flagellum.

 

[Purpose is a matter of what is proper.] We often refer to an end as "the purpose" although purpose is always culturally defined or subjective. For example, we say a mouse trap's purpose is killing mice because that particular use is common knowledge. If someone told us a mouse trap's purpose is clipping ties, we would probably disagree because we have been taught that the proper purpose is killing mice.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71880-why-do-people-disbelieve-in-god/?p=721788

Edited January 9, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[ydoaPs]

I'd like to see immortal's thoughts on the subject.

[immortal]

I'd like to see immortal's thoughts on the subject.

 

Take a simple example, "In Christ dwells all the Pleroma of Deity in bodily form" - Colossians 2:9

 

"Pleroma is also used in the general Greek language and is used by the Greek Orthodox church in this general form since the word appears under the book of Colossians. Proponents of the view that Paul was actually a gnostic, such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University, view the reference in Colossians as something that was to be interpreted in the gnostic sense."

The orthodox Christian community don't know the things which exists in their own religion, they interpret that word Pleroma as fullness, to fill because they cannot accept the fact that the Christ's body represents the totality of divine powers or aeons instead they think Christ's body represents flesh and believe in a different means of salvation and believe in the end times, they don't know that they can be one with Christ in this present life time. One who is well versed in tradition knows which interpretation is right and which is wrong, which was seriously taught by our ancients and which interpretation was ridiculed.

 

As one teacher says, "The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition." (Irenaeus Against Heresies3:2:1). Only those who had received these secret apostolic teachings could correctly interpret scriptures.

 

The problem is not specific to Christianity, the problem persists in the Vedas and the Upanishads as well.

 

 

THE SECRET OF THE ISHA

 

It is now several thousands of years since men ceased to study Veda and Upanishad for the sake of Veda or Upanishad. Ever since the human mind in India, more and more intellectualised, always increasingly addicted to the secondary process of knowledge by logic and intellectual ratiocination, increasingly drawn away from the true and primary processes of knowledge by experience and direct perception, began to dislocate and dismember the manysided harmony of ancient Vedic truth and parcel it out into schools of thought and systems of metaphysics, its preoccupation has been rather with the later opinions of Sutras and Bhashyas than with the early truth of Scripture.

 

Veda and Vedanta ceased to be guides to knowledge and became merely mines and quarries from which convenient texts might be extracted, regardless of context, to serve as weapons in the polemic disputes of metaphysicians. The inconvenient texts were ignored or explained away by distortion of their sense or by depreciation of their value. Those that neither helped nor hindered the polemical purpose of the exegete were briefly paraphrased or often left in a twilit obscurity. For the language of the Vedantic writers ceased to be understood; their figures, symbols of thought, shades of expression became antique and unintelligible. Hence passages which, when once fathomed, reveal a depth of knowledge and delicacy of subtle thought almost miraculous in its wealth and quality, strike the casual reader today as a mass of childish, obscure and ignorant fancies characteristic of an unformed and immature thinking. Rubbish and babblings of humanity's nonage an eminent Western scholar has termed them not knowing that it was not the text but his understanding of it that was rubbish and the babblings of ignorance. Worst of all, the spiritual and psychological experiences of the Vedic seekers were largely lost to India as the obscurations of the Iron Age grew upon her, as her knowledge contracted, her virtue dwindled and her old spiritual valiancy lost its daring and its nerve.

 

Not altogether lost indeed for its sides of knowledge and practice still lived in cave and hermitage, its sides of feeling and emotion, narrowed by a more exclusive and self-abandoned fervour, remained, quickened even in the throbbing intensity of the Bhakti Marga and the violent inner joys of countless devotees. But even here it remained dim and obscure, shorn of its fullness, dimmed in its ancient and radiant purity. Yet we think, however it may be with the Vedas we have understood and possess the Upanishads! We have understood a few principal texts and even those imperfectly; but of the mass of the Upanishads we understand less than we do of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and of the knowledge these great writings hold enshrined we possess less than we do of the wisdom of the ancient Egyptians. Dabhram evapi twam vettha Brahmano rupam!

 

I have said that the increasing intellectualisation of the Indian mind has been responsible for this great national loss. Our forefathers who discovered or received Vedic truth, did not arrive at it either by intellectual speculation or by logical reasoning. They attained it by actual and tangible experience in the spirit, — by spiritual and psychological observation, as we may say, and what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason. But a time came when men felt an imperative need to give an account to themselves and to others of this supreme and immemorial Vedic truth in the terms of logic, in the language of intellectual ratiocination. For the maintenance of the intuitive reason as the ordinary instrument of knowledge demands as its basis an iron moral and intellectual discipline, a colossal disinterestedness of thinking, — otherwise the imagination and the wishes pollute the purity of its action, replace, dethrone it and wear flamboyantly its name and mask; Vedic knowledge begins to be lost and the practice of life and symbol based upon it are soon replaced by formalised action and unintelligent rite and ceremony. Without tapasya there can be no Veda. This was the course that the stream of thought followed among us, according to the sense of our Indian tradition.

 

- Aurobindo, Isha Upanishad

 

I can unify all the Hindus, I can unify all the Christians, I can unify all the Buddhists. Can you do that?

[Moontanman]

 

I can unify all the Hindus, I can unify all the Christians, I can unify all the Buddhists. Can you do that?

 

 

you might think you can but in reality you cannot and if you just stop for a few seconds and realize how full of hubris you really are you might realize it...

[immortal]

you might think you can but in reality you cannot and if you just stop for a few seconds and realize how full of hubris you really are you might realize it...

 

Yes, yes you guys are standing on the shoulders of dwarfs.

 

 

"It must also be conceded that Asia has always had its fair share of false prophets and charlatan saints, while the West has not been entirely bereft of wisdom. Nevertheless, when the great philosopher mystics of the East are weighed against the patriarchs of the Western philosophical and theological traditions, the difference is unmistakable: Buddha, Shankara, Padmasambhava, Nagarjuna, Longchenpa, and countless others down to the present have no equivalents in the West. In spiritual terms, we appear to have been standing on the shoulders of dwarfs. It is little wonder, therefore, that many Western scholars have found the view within rather unremarkable."

- Sam Harris, End of Faith