"Religion" is a term of abuse, more often than not applied externally by other people who wish to have a ready-made strawman to win a silly debate.

Only religion can create unquestionable meaning. — Jacykow

Scholars of religion often see things like Marxism as a religion (despite the whiney yells of protest by these Marxists). But the religious attitude need not have a capital-letter label. In fact, the idea of organized religion with an either/or mentality is a relatively recent phenomenon. I'm willing to argue that the concept of a religious organization, with a set of doctrines and heresies and that either/or mentality is a result of the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. Religious people began to feel compelled to transform religion from a personal, communal tradition to a sectarian, dogmatic structure that models the scientific disciplines. Dogmatic naturalism has forced religion to transform into something unnatural, where its truths are banal propositions (illegitimately interpreted literally) rather than a surging, artistic, inner force.

It seems that You misunderstood my question as a critique on religious beliefs but I wanted it to be far from that. By religion I mean any dualistic or spiritual belief system that introduces the soul as one of or the only core value. Only such a system can create values because there is nothing sacred about matter and therefore it cannot generate objective (unquestionable) value. Your defence is very convincing but slightly off topic.

Well, I've always said that conservative so-called Christians nowadays would hate Jesus if he were around today--the ultimate dirty, long-haired, sandal-wearing, bleeding-heart liberal.

That being said, Marx also pointed out how religion works against progressive causes:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself." (Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right")

In other words: religion stops people from caring about changing the status quo or the conditions of this world, because they rely on the promise of the next one.

I know that everyone has their own combination of opinions but I am interested in this particular connection and why is it so popular. — Jacykow

The religious right does believe in personal responsibility as well as charity in terms of helping one's fellow man. They are in fact more charitable by all measure than their liberal counterpart, from the amount they contribute to charity, the amount they volunteer in their communities, and the extent to which they reach out to those in need. Their disagreement lies in what they see as the role of government. The duty to help others derives as an inherent duty and it is not fulfilled through forced taxation and forced redistribution of wealth. Interpreting the right as uncaring is a leftist opinion not accepted by the right.

I do think the left has an underlying philosophical problem with trying to deny the sacred yet to declare that humans are sacred.

In other words: religion stops people from caring about changing the status quo or the conditions of this world, because they rely on the promise of the next one. — NKBJ

The next world to Christians is either heaven or hell, which would mean there would be an overwhelming reason to do right in this world. It's not like a reincarnation based system where they can just worry about getting it right next time. Their rewards or punishments would be eternal, so I don't follow where it would work out very well if they just threw their hands up at all the suffering around them and said they couldn't wait to get to heaven to get away from all this.

Religions tend to adhere to a more or less strict structure of regulations in the moral law and conduct towards other people. In Christianity, equality also establishes a form of regulation that we are all mere humans and ought not to arrogantly treat others as inferiors, as all are created, judged, and offered the same gift of redemption. There does not exist a free forming structure that anything goes, but rather that there are laws to be followed.

I think you just pointed out another paradox because if religion is all about the rules then why wouldn't people willing to accept them not be willing to accept a more strict goverment? The problem cannot lie in the weak connection to the country because nationalism is also considered to be on the right.

Many religions seem to be mainly about the rules, but this does not hold true for all, nor does it consider individual perspectives.

I can only speak from a Christian's perspective and not other religions to answer your questions.

Many Christians are opposed to a stricter government because it defies equality. The authorities are human also, and hence must be considered equals. Upon establishing them as a near absolute authority, this creates friction between following the human authority and God. Humans are prone to error and selfish ambitions, which is human nature.

There are many Christians that do not believe in nationalism, of which I am one. I believe in universal unalienable rights given by God to protect fellow humans from each other and themselves. I do not believe that nationalism is admirable, but rather a hindrance towards establishing a system of true equality found in Scripture. The system of the moral law extends beyond one's self and country, but rather must be seen for all humanity.

Christianity focuses mostly on the next world in practice--it's about accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Believing in God is the ticket to heaven, not necessarily what you do.

You can't go more right than making an individual equal to its own god. — Jacykow

How so? Don't conservatives, at least stereotypically, value hierarchies?

Yes, they do but hierarchy is not considered a value but a necessity. I don't really understand your point since both having ultimate control of ones fate and sorting groups by some factor is all about the individual.

Disregarding critique of this point of view it seems like a good answer to one half of my original question.

The religious right does believe in personal responsibility as well as charity in terms of helping one's fellow man. They are in fact more charitable by all measure than their liberal counterpart, from the amount they contribute to charity, the amount they volunteer in their communities, and the extent to which they reach out to those in need. — Hanover

Rather, research (Washington Post Article) shows that liberals are charitable towards the secular and conservatives are charitable towards religious-based organizations, etc.

The duty to help others derives as an inherent duty and it is not fulfilled through forced taxation and forced redistribution of wealth. — Hanover

Then why don't they refuse entitlements?

Interpreting the right as uncaring is a leftist opinion not accepted by the right. — Hanover

Not uncaring, hoodwinked.

Yes, they do but hierarchy is not considered a value but a necessity. — Jacykow

If it's necessary then it must be of value.

I just don't understand the notion that "You can't go more right than making an individual equal to its own god." Can you explain?

That's a recitation specifically of the Protestant position (grace through faith alone), although not true of Christianity generally.. At any rate, I don't think there's a trend in modern Protestant thought that entirely disregards good works and permits adherents to flaunt selfishness because all they have to do is repent on their death bed.

A The empirical data is overwhelming in support of conservative giving versus liberal, with books having been written on it. We could get into a real breakdown in the data I suppose if we wanted to.

Then why don't they refuse entitlements? — praxis

To the extent someone is hypocritical, I suppose it's for the same reason anyone is.

Not uncaring, hoodwinked. — praxis

I think both sides hold similar opinions of the others. Some think there opponents are malicious, others think they're too dumb to know better.

A The empirical data is overwhelming in support of conservative giving versus liberal, with books having been written on it. — Hanover

Pretty meaningless in the age of alternative facts. I'd be interested to see studies. You got links?

You cannot value what you cannot choose - the right values rising in hierarchies and not needlessly resisting the inevitable collapse of any group to a hierarchy.

I may have overdone it a bit but since materialism doesnt really elevate the individual to a god but that is exactly what the individual becomes: the only source of value. It is right leaning because the right puts the individual above all else.

And like that, all the institutional structure, all the literature and the persecutions against the heretics are erased; until the dogmatic scientist comes to infect and force (!) the undogmatic and tolerant priest to change to his mirror image. Wow! — Πετροκότσυφας

No, I'm not saying we should ignore the atrocities committed by organized religion. My point was that organized religion is at least in part a reaction to the scientific revolution. But it's been around since someone like Mani who was arguably the very first person to knowingly write scripture, organize a corporate religious structure and call themselves a prophet (he was later put to death by imitators of his vision).

The point must have been missed, I wasn't arguing for a return to this dogmatic structure. I am well-aware of the risks and the history to substantiate these risks. Organized, corporate, "messianist" religion is mostly bad. But there are good parts of "religion". Just the same with science, much good, and some bad. Over the course of centuries, Western culture has differentiated science from religion, and philosophy from religion. But that's just not an accurate description of how these things operate, even in the West itself. Try applying those dichotomies to places like India or China and you'll never understand the culture, because it's inappropriate to project Western concepts like Religion onto other cultures. Same goes with Science, and Philosophy.

You cannot value what you cannot choose - the right values rising in hierarchies and not needlessly resisting the inevitable collapse of any group to a hierarchy. — Jacykow

People can live cooperatively for mutual benefit. I’m not sure if a hierarchical structure is nessisary for this to take place. In any case, we can freely choose which groups to join, unless prevented by the prevailing hierarchy.

I may have overdone it a bit but since materialism doesnt really elevate the individual to a god but that is exactly what the individual becomes: the only source of value. — Jacykow

This doesn’t make sense to me, to think of myself as the only source of meaning.

I’m liberal but not materialist, incidentally.

True, I should have said that it was at least partially a result, or was influenced dramatically by the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution. As I said, Mani was the first recorded person to make an "organized religion". This happened long before Descartes and Newton lived. A better way to say it would be that the Enlightenment accelerated and consolidated religion into the organized, corporate form the West is familiar with.

Shouldn't Religion be 'left'?

Yes, left to history and to the indulgence of those who find thinking and Philosophy to be painful, and time consuming.

It (religion) is both interesting and relatively easy.

M

These things don't just appear out of nowhere. They take time to develop, but as you are probably aware, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution accelerated many things. That's why they're called "revolutions". Organized religion existed before but developed into something truly perverse during and after the Enlightenment.

Organized religion existed before but developed into something truly perverse during and after the Enlightenment. — darthbarracuda

How so?

I don't want to derail this discussion, and I was going to make a separate thread related to this later anyway. But a major idea here is that the portrayal of ancient and even medieval religion as "Religion" in the same way we see, say, Baptists as a "Religion" and the accompanied either/or mentality is a gross misinterpretation, bad hermeneutics. There were hints and patterns of this happening before, with Mani and later Muhammad, but people like Jesus, Buddha or Zarathustra did not see themselves as founding a "religion", nor did the traditions they spawned (at least not initially). Islam here is an exception and that's an interesting case study - the birth of Islam came with a specific title for the religion that was not applied externally nor adopted later on down the road.

This is a radical idea from a stringently modern, Western perspective, but it's this perspective that distorts the history and development of "religion". With the development of science came a new cosmopolitanism and imperialism. Christianity began to be compared to other religious traditions. It was no longer about following Christ, it was about belonging to the right set of doctrines. The "threat" of Islam and the crusades in the middle ages also accelerated this process, and helped introduce the idea of an organized, corporate religion to Europe (which Islam itself inherited from Mani). It was now about "Christendom", which slowly morphed into Christianity (as a Religion, and the Religion ... fast forward a few centuries and we have imperialists masking as priests).

I know what you thought I was arguing for, a return to "traditionalist" religious perspectives and a conservative, cranky disapproval of Science as ruining everything. That's not what I'm saying. "Science" did nothing wrong here, it's not to be "blamed". Though a stringent form of naturalism ought to be put in check, I think.

Well, both of us are just asserting things. I don't think Christianity as a determinant "thing" existed for as long as you do. This is partly an empirical question and partly a hermeneutical/philosophical question. How the term "religion" is interpreted (or projected) will of course wildly determine what the history of religion looks like.

But to return to the OP, my general point was that leftist politics tends to lean on science as a crutch, often to the point of scientism. Of course "religion" will not be found here, especially when scientistic folks use "Religion" as a derogatory straw man. Though I also pointed out how Marxism is essentially a religion as well - there's the quip: "There is no God, and Karl Marx is his prophet." Religion is there, it's just not recognized as religion. Marxists, for example, proselytize about the coming eventuality of communism. People are free to join and leave, but fundamentally those outside of Marxist thought are very, very wrong, at least according to Marxism. Marxism shares many similarities to the other contemporary religions. The difference, for Marxists, between Marxism and other organized religions is that Marxism is right (and therefore not a religion... :chin: ).

Yes.

Religion is there, it's just not recognized as religion. — darthbarracuda

And yes.

But I don’t think you addressed why organized religion is more perverse post-enlightenment. What’s the fundamental difference?

I will concede that this is not an accurate portrayal of 100% of Christians, and that Christianity does not say they will let you do whatever you want in so many words.
However, it's historically been a part of Christianity--Martin Luther's beef was in part about indulgences! You can get out of hell for a price cards.
And now? The right wing theists say they can vote for Trump precisely because he has accepted Jesus and has therefore changed--not that there has been any evidence for this.

I've always seen the stances taken by the left and the right on religion as more of a pandering to the people they require votes from. I assume you are referring to the American political system with this question, so I guess I will go a bit further with my reasoning. The fact that religion is even associated with politics is due to a flaw in democracy itself. A democracy can't function properly if its people are ignorant. Ignorance of the public leads to political strong men who make promises that they don't plan to fulfill. (or can't, in this context) There is a separation of church and state, but people tend to forget about that when electing a new president or criticizing the current. The truth is, the left and the right shouldn't have any religious opinions, but they do which is a problem.

If "determinant "thing"" means having an either/or mentality, doctrines, being against heretics etc, then it was a "determinant thing" since Paul's time. If you don't trust my assertions, you can read Paul's Epistles, The Acts of the Apostles, Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" and the rest of the Church Fathers. — Πετροκότσυφας

But that's exactly my point about interpretation, hermeneutics. You can't simply assume that what Paul meant by religion is what modern westerners mean. Looking at the textual evidence, you can actually see statistical patterns of word use. You can see how the meaning of a word develops. Assuming words have static meaning is a huge problem if you want to be historical. Based on what I have read in the field of "religious studies", the term "religion" by no means has a universal definition. Just like how "atheism" as the explicit rejection of any and all "divinity" has no textual references until around the French Revolution with Denis Diderot's temporary atheism.