Religions endure because people love their traditions. Not sure which part of the earth you're from that you didn't know this. :grin: — frank

I didn't say anything about people loving their traditions, troll.

Dorothy Day represented the Catholic Church. She worked to liberate minorities. Minorities are human beings. So she wasn't trying to make human beings as dependent as possible. She was trying to help them become independent. — frank

I see your misunderstanding and how I wasn't clear enough. I meant dependent on the tradition and that would mean within the tradition. I don't know how anyone could be considered dependent on something that they may have never even heard of.

I was just curious. — frank

You thought it was important enough to ask. Just trolling?

She's the representative of religion here. She worked to help emancipate minorities. — frank

How does that demonstrate independent thought or action from within that tradition?

Real question: where did you first learn about Dorothy Day? — frank

Planet Earth. Why is that significant?

PS: if you're just trolling for fun, please stop.

Generally speaking, a good exemplar would think and/or act in a way that demonstrates independence within a religious tradition. If you're suggesting that fighting for women's suffrage somehow defied the church, then you appear to be wrong.

That doesn't make sense.

I don't follow.

In an address before the United States Congress, Pope Francis included her in a list of four exemplary Americans who "buil[t] a better future".

The Catholic Church has opened the cause for Day's possible canonization, which was accepted by the Holy See for investigation. For that reason, the Church refers to her with the title of Servant of God. — Wikipedia

Hardly seems at odds with the church in any way. Can you explain?

That's not always true. — frank

Example?

Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. — Adorno & Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment

And religion is hellbent on making human beings as dependent as possible, necessarily limiting their moral development and any other sort of development that would result in more independent thought and action.

I've attended Zen groups here in Australia where there was virtually none of that. You commit the fallacy of over-generalizing. — Janus

There are all sorts of zen groups, and even some teachers who are less orthodox, such as Brad Warner, though they’re not well respected within the tradition. Indeed, Warner describes himself as an entertainer.

I was not talking about the mindful ritualization of ordinary activities like eating, drinking and so on, which I don't count as "pomp and ceremony". — Janus

Never heard of the tea ‘ceremony’ or oryoki?

I’ve attended zen pomp and ceremony, just like in the picture that I posted. It’s actually far stricter and elaborate than a typical church service. Your characterization of that tradition is quite wrong. That’s my point.

That you’re very hard to impress when it comes to ceremony, I guess. It’s Vatican level or your puny “ceremony” is meaningless and don’t count.

Does this count?

when attracted to religious ideas it has been to teachings like Daoism and Zen, which are mostly without pomp and ceremony. — Janus

:chin:

The materialistic consumer neoliberalist hell that we have is a result of this nihilism. — Christoffer

Some seem to think that the development of the state, capitalism, etc., lead to this nihilism. Not the other way around.

I don’t think there’s any deficiency of non-religious traditions and rituals, btw. Social dance at a neighborhood nightclub, with a group of people dancing to the same beat in coordinated patterns, can be as zen as sitting still with a group at a temple. It’s all there, we’re saturated in meaning, purpose, community… anything a church could offer. To think that we need to be spoon fed like children is ridiculous, and actually impairs growth by design, because religion is designed to make followers dependent.

Some even question whether Daoism or Buddhism qualify as religions. — Janus

Many don’t realize the nature of religion.

I wonder too what counts as transcendence? — Tom Storm

Well, for instance, and to put it as simply as possible, I think that we're like fish in a fishbowl, limited and unable to see reality beyond the fishbowl. I also think (and have experienced to some degree) that we can alter our mental state and perceive... I'll say differently.

Thus I am a religious person? :brow:

The belief in something transcendent is the essence of religion as I would define it. (Note, I draw a distinction between thinking the transcendental and believing in some form of transcendence). — Janus

Obviously, people can believe in something transcendent without belonging to a religion, without knowing anything about any religion. I suppose you would call that a personal religion?

Religious thinking is always hierarchical thinking.

Which indicates that its essence is about order and control.

I think the need to believe in something transcendant can only be satisfied by religion, and I think that need is inexplicably there in some people and absent in others. I think if you could somehow wipe out all existing religions and knowledge of them, religion would be reinvented. — Janus

You need to explain why religion is needed to believe in something transcendent.

Some people are simply attracted to that way of life, and others not. — Janus

I used drug as an analogy but it could have been anything. If we’ve never known something then we can’t miss it.

The point being that religion is not the only way to fulfill human needs of any kind. We seem to agree about that.

As long as the need for religion is felt, humanity will not be better off without it. I doubt that need is going to disappear. — Janus

That’s like saying that if the need for a drug is felt humanity will not be better off without it. If the drug was never know it would not be missed.

If you mean something else I think you may need to elaborate on the nature of the need that you mention, and why only a religion can fulfill it.

Let the world get rid of all of them - the requirement would remain. — Wayfarer

No loss then. :up:

You can't kill a religion. As beliefs are not killable. They resurface from natural thought, exploration and desire for fundamental answers. — Benj96

Of course you can, simply eliminate every trace of it, and that would include its adherents. Not that that would be easy, especially if it were a popular religion. As Janus pointed out though, you'd essentially be replacing one ideology for another, which is beside the point.

By claiming that a religion is fundamental, natural, and discoverable with exploration, you're basically saying that it's true or that you're a believer.

If everyone was a scientist, some of them would move away from science in a quest for an alternative. If everyone was religious, many of them would move away towards something alternative (science). Neither subjective nor objective views of reality can ever be fully eliminated (killed). — Benj96

You seem to be saying that religion and science merely fulfill a desire for an alternative view of the world. I think there's more to it than that.

Yep, I don't believe religion is going away any time soon. And I also don't hold the view that humanity would be better off without it. — Janus

I’m curious about your reasoning that humanity wouldn’t be better off without religion. Can you explain why?

:up:

Well, you could make it illegal I suppose, or brainwash people against religion from childhood. Might not be totally effective, but would no doubt vastly reduce the ranks of the faithful. — Janus

I honestly don't see the point of that, other than control, and control is the basic point of religion. It would essentially be replacing religion. I say let it die and DON'T TRY TO REPLACE IT.

I wasn't talking about killing people. — Janus

How else would one go about killing a religion?

What if it won't die? Kill it? — Janus

Killing people because of their beliefs is what religious folks do.

So science will not replace religion. But it would be an excellent development if ethics did. — Banno

You think it would be a good thing if ethics were based on faith and a social hierarchy?

I say let religion die.

It’s like God, where people claim to know God but if you ask them about it they’ll eventually say that God is incomprehensible.

Midjourney

You got to stop posting pictures of Jordan Peterson, Prax. People will talk. — Tom Storm

They have an intimate relationship but are not one and the same, I think.

Some folk will also highlight the importance of ritual and spiritual practice which further serves to intensify what appears to be a form of aestheticism. They seem to be saying that their experience of the world, transfigured through the veneration of the divine is deeper, richer and more beautiful than yours (atheist). They see, or hope for, transcendent beauty. You see, or live in, ghastly nihilism. — Tom Storm

Oddly, transcendent beauty transcends faith or any particular value system. Even “ghastly nihilism” can be seen aesthetically.

What do conservatives conserve or wish to conserve? — Vera Mont

Traditions.

Feels a bit like Christmas Eve.

Thanks praxis. Obelix had it rough from the get-go, but even he managed to eat his fill in the unlikeliest of situations, so no worries, I'll fill my belly here as well. — Caerulea-Lawrence

There’s abundant food for the ego in places like this. Meaning, on the other hand, is found in purpose and losing oneself in places and peoples larger than oneself. But don’t take my word for it, you’ll see for yourself soon enough.

Nice.

On a swing...

Same for Midjourney