Like Camus put it, we want answers in a silent universe.
So of course we seek to find those, often in religion, because like you pointed out it is accessible to everyone in a way that science/philosophical theory may not be (though the Internet has certainly changed the reality and prevalence of scientific understanding, Nagel names this renowned new faith in science scientism).
Religion is resultant of something in the human conciseness, seeking understanding. Those who created religion/theory wanted to answer some of these empty questions (that likely, will never have a definitive objective answer) and those who follow seek not only answers, but comfort, community, and a sense of purpose.

I personally abhor organized religion, I really have strong anti-religious sentiments and can't help but lose some respect for people who blindly follow or preach Christianity or Islam. To me, it is ridiculous and has no place in the twenty-first century, but what I have learned is that I wish I could blindly believe, it would have brought me great comfort and great peace...instead I have to struggle, quite often, in finding my own meaning to my life. When my grandmother died last year I wasn't quite sure what to do, or how to think or feel, I reached an existential crisis where suddenly I felt like everything was much more finite than I had been lead to believe.. It was a very dark time in my life, one where I wish I could have appealed to religion to help me. So of course I understand the function of religion, it's not only great for keeping people disciplined and working collaboratively, but it also provides the psychic crutch needed for many to survive terrible circumstances and situations, look at the people in the Middle Ages-all the violence and war and disease, life was short, most people died and lived in abysmal conditions, of course they wanted to appeal to a God. That is not to say that today life is 'easy' in comparison, far from it, but there are newer religions that people appeal to, like the capitalist idea of success; money = highest good, or scientism ect. Religion at is fundamental, ideological basis, is still there, just in different, obscure forms than say Christianity and Islam, which again, as someone who feels very anti-religious/anti-ideology meets roadblocks regarding deconstructing it.

Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. — schopenhauer1

One could as easily level the accusation that mastery - real or imagined - of science, tech, construction, math etc give people a sense of control and mastery.

One could as easily level the accusation that mastery - real or imagined - of science, tech, construction, math etc give people a sense of control and mastery. — EnPassant

Yes, but that would be true in a material sense that it is actually creating functions by harnessing natural processes and materials that are useful for survival, comfort, or entertainment and can be measured as to its development and effectiveness in solving the need or want.

It still matters for the same reason that most things matters; the undigested Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - which is to say 'decisions'.

It matters in the same way that food and eating matter.
There is the edible mushroom and there is the poisonous mushroom.
One shall lead to one consequence and the other to another.
Man picks the consequence of his preference.

As to:

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. — schopenhauer1

This applies:

This understanding is not accessible to all. Even if you understand it "conceptually", not everyone can actually participate in each or sometimes any of these aspects. — schopenhauer1

Yes, but that would be true in a material sense that it is actually creating functions by harnessing natural processes and materials that are useful for survival, comfort, or entertainment and can be measured as to its development and effectiveness in solving the need or want. — schopenhauer1

True but that does not tell us anything about the veracity of belief. Personally I am very cautious about psychoanalytic views on religion. They are too vague and too easy to make up. It seems to me that humans are deeply attached to the language of myth. Myth may be older even than written language. You only have to look at tribes in far away places to see how mythological they are. Humans need to mythologize consciousness and that is why religion is so heavily mythologized. It is pointless to talk in terms of whether myth is 'true' or 'false'. Myth is only the 'packaging' for our spiritual reality (whatever you take that to mean). We build myth around these things because we are deeply mythological.

You can see myth evolving today in Hollywood movies. We have superheroes, fiends, angels and all manner of beings coming through our screens. These myths are 'archetypes' of realities deep in our psyche...

Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. — schopenhauer1

Religion is hierarchical and only the top dog can be the master dog.

Religion is hierarchical and only the top dog can be the master dog. — praxis

That would only apply to an evil religion. Hierarchies on the secular world also create great possibilities for evil.

Dog spelled backward is God, FYI.

It does, indeed, require "exacting minute understanding of complex processes" to master complex technology. A minority of people possess that understanding to create and service the technology. The rest of us have varying degrees of comprehension about STEM fields, and that's good. STEM is one part of the broad culture which requires expertise and mastery in other fields.

Your thread title includes the word "still" which makes me think that you suppose religion and spirituality "should" have withered away by now. Yes? To the extent that one thinks of religion as obscurantist manipulative superstition, that makes sense. And, truth be told, there is a certain amount of obscurantist manipulative superstition (aka 'bullshit') in various presentations of religion. But...

Religion also serves useful social functions. It is a low cost opiate, for instance. It provides cultural continuity (both over time and space). It is a spring and reservoir of important cultural output -- music, architecture, painting, sculpture, stained glass work, etc. It provides a framework of meaning. Granted, it's not the only such frame, but it has a proven track record; it works reasonably well; it is cost effective; it's on the ground, in place, and functioning.

STEM doesn't offer much in the way of meaning. Minutia mongering just keeps people busy.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the technology we have is for the benefit of its corporate owners, not us the people. From the corporate point of view, people are poor substitutes for robots.

Generally speaking, philosophy forums are rarely qualified to comment on religion, imho. As example, the overwhelming majority of religion threads typically address the God claims question, as if that was all that religion is.

To use the best known example in our Western culture, consider Christianity. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself". This is a radical suggestion, which is never discussed on philosophy forums. The whole topic of love, generally completely ignored. Jesus said, "Die to be reborn", no interest at all in what that might mean.

With a few notable exceptions, the commentary on religion on philosophy forums (not just this forum) is pseudo intellectually clever, and quite shallow.

As I see it, the primary problem is not any particular member, mod, or forum but the "almost anybody can say almost anything" publishing model which dominates all forms of social media. That's a fine model on Facebook, a platform which focuses on water cooler chit chat. And it's a model which is very democratic and inclusive, but democratic and inclusive is not really the path to quality content on any publication focused on thoughtful intellectual type topics.

But, I must admit this complaint is largely pointless for social media (including forums) is now so thoroughly dominated by people who don't understand any of the above that there's no hope of meaningful change really.

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

Ah, but is it? The point about mainstream Christianity, in particular, was that it promised universal salvation, with the only requirement being that you had to believe in it. ('Believe and be saved'). But there's actually another thread or theme in the NT itself - 'many are called but few are chosen'; 'camel through the eye of a needle', and 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free', among others. And I think there's a tension between those two perspectives.

In many mystical traditions, and even in mystical Christianity, it is assumed that gaining salvific knowledge requires commitment and devotion, and that very few will want to pursue it, considering the difficulty of the task. I mean, consider the monastic vocation, which demands 'poverty, chastity and obedience' and a lifetime of ascetic devotion. That seems like heavy lifting to most people, I would imagine!

At the time of the formation of Christian orthodoxy, there was a strong tension between these tendencies, expressed mainly in the conflict between 'pistis' (faith, belief, devotion) and 'gnosis' (higher knowledge, salvific insight). I think that, historically, the pistic orientation won the day - and, as the saying has it, 'history is written by the victors.' (Interesting fact: a Gnostic bishop, Valentinus, came within a whisker of being elected Pope very early in the piece.) But the resulting orthodoxy (='right belief') puts total emphasis on the idea that salvation is open to all who believe - and on pain of totally believing! Cynically, you can see how much easier this is as a management model than the gnostic attitude, with its emphasis on gaining insight and higher knowledge. The pistics accused the gnostics of elitism, of being indifferent to the needs of suffering humanity (which is not entirely without merit.) But the gnostics could fairly accuse their orthodox oppressors of propogating groupthink - or they would have so accussed, had their churches not been brutally oppressed and their scriptures burned.

And what got lost in all of this, is the necessity of inner change, the psychological meaning of 'conversion' (metanoia, in the Greek). The overwhelming emphasis on 'right belief', and the threat of damnation to anyone who didn't believe, had huge repercussions on the intellectual development of religion in the West, whereby it is simply assumed that religion equates with or means 'belief' (which you see echoed on this forum in almost every discussion of it). Whereas in reality, mysticism has dimensions or aspects which are not captured under that umbrella at all.

(I have many times referred to an article by religious studies scholar, Karen Armstrong, called Metaphysical Mistake, which describes this issue. Her book of around the same time, A Case for God, goes into the issue in greater depth, for which see Alain De Botton's review.)

Also, a comment on the title of the thread, on why religion 'still matters'. The implicit assumption is that the matter is resolved, that religion and spirituality are known to be archaic, to belong to an earlier phase of development, and that we now know this. It reminds me of this well-known passage in a review by Richard Lewontin, biologist, of Carl Sagan's anti-religious polemic, Science as Candle in the Dark:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment - a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

He speaks for a lot of people, here.

Again, the theory comes from the fact that its accessible. Why is it accessible? It isn't something that can see tangible results. The goals can't even be quantified. This is accessibility for the masses. Meanwhile the minutia mongerers will be hard at work mongering production and outputs that make a difference in material culture for survival, comfort, and entertainment.

You can see myth evolving today in Hollywood movies. We have superheroes, fiends, angels and all manner of beings coming through our screens. These myths are 'archetypes' of realities deep in our psyche... — EnPassant

I'm not discounting other explanations, but one main theory is that it gives an easy to tap into access to something that is presented as foundational. One can meditate, pray, and expound on ancient exegesis and one is participating in what is perceived to be underlying reality.

Religion also serves useful social functions. It is a low cost opiate, for instance. It provides cultural continuity (both over time and space). It is a spring and reservoir of important cultural output -- music, architecture, painting, sculpture, stained glass work, etc. It provides a framework of meaning. Granted, it's not the only such frame, but it has a proven track record; it works reasonably well; it is cost effective; it's on the ground, in place, and functioning. — Bitter Crank

Music, architecture, art, etc. are all material culture. That isn't mysticism par excellence. The material culture, the production involved, is what mattered here, you notice. However, not everyone can be a Michelangelo or a Brunelleschi, but everyone can try to access the divine.

STEM doesn't offer much in the way of meaning. Minutia mongering just keeps people busy.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the technology we have is for the benefit of its corporate owners, not us the people. From the corporate point of view, people are poor substitutes for robots. — Bitter Crank

That I agree.

Okay, so what refined debate about religion would you like to have? They are just rehashed Platonic and Aristotlean arguments ala apologetics. What amazes me more in religious debate, is not the lack of philosophical sophistication but the lack of the development of history. For example, understanding the complexities of Second Temple Judaism and the historical Jesus vs. the Jesus of what becomes the mythologized version of orthodox Christianity is quite lacking in most conversations. Same goes for the development of any religion really. None of them came out as perfectly christaline specimens but were developed over years of dogmatic preferences that were first won in argument/vote, and then propagated by force over the course of the Dark/Middle Ages- at least in terms of Western history.

Both are accessible to everyone - in the sense that they're free to enter.

Not everyone knows how to open the door to enter.

As to whether it produces tangible results - I would say a code of conduct is something of the sort.

Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

There are various understandings of mysticism of course.

As you are using the word here you seem to be assuming mysticism is another method of developing knowledge. I would agree that this is a not uncommon way of looking at it, and that many mystics offer many different explanations of reality.

Another way of looking at mysticism is as being the opposite of knowledge. That is, as experience of reality rather than explanations of reality. Put another way, a focus on the real instead of the symbolic. Or perhaps as "aphilosophy", that is, "not of philosophy", just as atheism is "not of theism".

From this perspective it is the experiences themselves which matter, not our explanations of them. As example, if you eat an apple you get the nutrition the apple contains, whether or not you know the name of this fruit, how it was grown, how it is digested, what vitamins it contains, what category of food the apple belongs to etc. The explanations may be interesting to some, but they contain no nutrition, for they are not real food but only a pile of symbols.

What amazes me more in religious debate, is not the lack of philosophical sophistication but the lack of the development of history. — schopenhauer1

History is one dimension that could be enhanced, agreed. Wayfarer seems to know a good deal about this, as do some other members, Bitter Crank comes to mind.

I'm not against history discussion, but would argue that this is history, not religion. Religion concerns itself with addressing the fundamental human condition.

As example (again, just using an example most members will be familiar with) when Jesus said (I am not a follower of Jesus) "Love thy neighbor as thyself" he was offering a way out of the tiny prison cell of "me" which all human beings find themselves in.

Although for Jesus this advice was indeed part of a larger claim about the nature of all reality, that claim is not a necessary part of the advice. Anybody, whatever their ideological beliefs, can experiment with "Love thy neighbor as thyself" in their own personal life and come to their own conclusions regarding it's effectiveness. No belief is necessary. No faith is necessary. No God is necessary. No church is necessary. No clergy are needed. Holy books not required.

Posters like Wayfarer would be able to expand such examples in to other religious traditions beyond Christianity. I'm referencing Christianity only because it's the religion most familiar to most of us.

Okay, so what refined debate about religion would you like to have? — schopenhauer1

The short answer is that religion is really more about emotion than analytic thought, thus if one wishes to explore religion in a meaningful way considerable focus on our emotional experience of life would seem to be required.

As just one example selected at random, why are we here on this forum spending considerable time yelling at anonymous strangers? Whatever the reason, it would seem to have a lot to do with emotion.

Although for Jesus this advice was indeed part of a larger claim about the nature of all reality, that claim is not a necessary part of the advice. Anybody, whatever their ideological beliefs, can experiment with "Love thy neighbor as thyself" in their own personal life and come to their own conclusions regarding it's effectiveness. No belief is necessary. No faith is necessary. No God is necessary. No church is necessary. No clergy are needed. Holy books not required. — Jake

Completely agree. The only observation I would make is that, left to their own devices, people won’t generally do this. It doesn’t come naturally. So while you might say that no belief is necessary - where do you find the rationale to motivate this attitude, if not in religion (or philosophy)?

Completely agree. The only observation I would make is that, left to their own devices, people won’t generally do this. It doesn’t come naturally. So while you might say that no belief is necessary - where do you find the rationale to motivate this attitude, if not in religion (or philosophy)? — Wayfarer

Excellent point, thank you. I do agree that religion has been a powerful platform for bringing such perspectives to many billions of people. My post didn't give that reality adequate weight, perhaps because I was assuming the audience here is primarily not religious.

Whether one is religious or not, the primary motivator for exploring suggestions such as "love thy neighbor as thyself" is pain.

To tack back towards the opening post....

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. — schopenhauer1

Regrettably, this appears not to be true. As example, on this forum simply mentioning the words "God" or "mystical" is often enough to trigger allergies in some members which prevent them from exploring such subjects in any depth, as all their energy goes in to resistance.

Part of what interests me as the greatest writer in my imagination :smile: is to try to translate such concepts out of religious language so that they might become more accessible to those with the religion allergy.

This is not some kind of sneaky evangelicalism, because I am perfectly happy that a person who is allergic to religion simply discard religion and proceed to address their fundamental human needs by other methods. If one must, discard religion, but get the discarding over with as quickly as possible and keep moving. Don't get stuck in the discarding.

No sooner do I whine about the quality of religion threads than you guys create a great religion thread. I'm on to you now though, a bunch of tricksters, that's what you are! :smile:

To me, it (organized religion) is ridiculous and has no place in the twenty-first century, but what I have learned is that I wish I could blindly believe, it would have brought me great comfort and great peace...instead I have to struggle, quite often, in finding my own meaning to my life. — Grre

Many people feel this way. They seek the peace that religion promises, but find themselves allergic to organized religion, often for some quite good reasons.

While ideally we would remain open minded enough to be able to selectively draw insight from some aspects of religion while discarding the nonsense, this is not always possible. In those cases it seems wise to simply toss religion entirely out the window and then proceed towards the goal of peace by other means.

As I see it, religion is just a means to an end. If religious means work for someone, great. If religious means don't work for another person, ok, so let's find some other means. If I'm trying to repair my car and one wrench isn't working, I shouldn't waste time yelling at the wrench, but should put it down and pick up another one. Ok, but like what....?

How about philosophy? How about analyzing what is obstructing our peace, and then addressing that obstacle?

No, sorry, wait, going too fast, let's back up. How about analyzing whether we actually want peace, and how much we want it? What often happens is that we tell ourselves we want peace, but then can never accept any path towards peace, which suggests we may not actually want peace after all. You know, if I say I want a new guitar but never find one I'm willing to pay for, then I probably don't actually want a new guitar. It would be good to know that before I invest a lot of energy in looking for something I don't really want.

Imho, faith and reason can lead to the same place. The apparent huge difference between faith and reason arises when we travel only a little way down our chosen path, and then stop to build a fort.

@Jake @Wayfarer@Shamshir,

To be fair, many of my arguments are a (sometimes not-so) veiled defense of Philosophical Pessimism. This thread/argument is actually more a dig at technology/STEM more than religion (though it is actually a dig at both). There is a concept I am playing around with I call "minutia mongering". Much of modern society, and its economy, relies on minutia mongerers. These are technicians who need to understand and employ exacting forms of scientific and technological concepts and processes and apply them to material conditions to create various outputs of functionalities realized in various goods/services. Our computers, for example, are the culmination of many of these concepts and processes.

Our material lives are not sustained by religious tradition or mystical knowledge, but by electrical systems, construction principles, engineering principles, manufacturing principles, scientific principles, and the maintenance principles that maintain them. This is an immense undertaking, requiring millions of people with specialized, complex, and difficult-to-obtain knowledge. Many people are alienated from these processes, and even those who are highly engaged with them (let's say a measily computer programmer), they are but a small part.

However, religion is a system that offers less technical knowledge. It may have to be experiential in its "gnosis" as @Jake implies, but in the way that it is not technical/conceptual/discursive. I liken it to reading a book or playing a game. You get to master something without needing to know the technicalities. Sure, maybe enlightenment, understanding parables and mystical gnosis, and union with the godhead are "hard to reach" but they are hard to reach in a different way. It is part of the mystical experience itself, that the ultimate answer is veiled.. it's part of the charm. But accessing this mystery of the religious (or perhaps just its dogmas) are open to all.. and give all a sense of autonomy over ones abilities. Compare this with the material world of STEM that we live in. Not everyone can be an expert in the exacting minutia that is required to maintain the industrial/electronic/engineering behemoth systems that go into what actually sustains and maintains our daily living.

And what got lost in all of this, is the necessity of inner change... — Wayfarer

If I'm going to live a very short time, as we all are, and then I'm inevitably without question going to melt back in to unity with [god/nature/reality/whatever] how much of a necessity is inner change?

I'm driving cross country from Florida to California. My car is belching smoke, the air conditioner is broken, the radio doesn't work, and the seats are uncomfortable. But I'm going to make it to California, absolutely for sure 100% guaranteed with no chance at all of failure.

Yes, the trip across country can be bumpy. But the trip is temporary, and I'm going to get where I'm going no matter what. How much should I worry about my lame car?

But accessing this mystery of the religious (or perhaps just its dogmas) are open to all.. and give all a sense of autonomy over ones abilities. — schopenhauer1

I hear your argument, but would counter argue that mysticism and even dogma based religion is not open to all. Just as with STEM some folks are born with a knack for it and some are not. This can edited to some degree with effort, but only to some degree.

As one example, the disciplined methodology of science has proven itself utterly incapable of providing an alternative to religion which can compete successfully in the religious marketplace. This is obviously not because scientists are stupid, but only that they are smart at other things.

Sadly, life can be very unfair.

As you've seen, I'm a pretty self centered honking blowhard prone to pointless conflict, and concerned primarily with my own projects. Although I'm wise enough to treat my wife as the queen that she it, as for the rest of you, well, who cares really.

On the other hand, my wife is a saint. No shit, a saint. And what's interesting about it is that her sainthood is thoroughly non-ideological.

She's currently working (for free) as power of attorney for TWO old and sick people, which requires a seemingly endless list of very boring and annoying jobs, while at the same time rehabbing every other orphaned creature on Earth, and attending very patiently to the personal needs of her massage client ladies. A saint. But I jokingly call her a "karma hog" when discussing her activities with her. :smile:

Anyway, the point here is..

I have faith.

And my wife does not.

I can only talk the talk, while my wife can walk the walk. And I get faith and she doesn't. Makes no fucking sense....

I hear your argument, but would counter argue that mysticism and even dogma based religion is not open to all. Just as with STEM some folks are born with a knack for it and some are not. This can edited to some degree with effort, but only to some degree. — Jake

I don't know- someone praying, meditating, or doing some act/deed that is deemed holy, seem pretty accessible. Even the "minutia" of religious laws and dogmas, are not that complex compared with STEM and the enormous amount of information needed to keep the modern economy running.

Again, mysticism may be "inexhaustible" in its veiled mystery, but it is also something people can pick up and do. The charm itself might be the "hiddenness" or the difficulties of religious life, but it can be immediately started upon, and thought about, and sought. Knowing how microchips are made, and work with the millions of principles of computer science, electronics, and engineering are not so accessible to people. Because of the elusive nature of mysticism. Because of its inexactness and its experiential "gnosis" qualities, it is hard, but in a way that people can strive for. Full understanding and participation in the minutia mongering of the modern economy, not so much. Mysticism then can be attuned to people's need to want to be a part of the bigger picture, or understand it more fully without having the exhausting work of understanding the principles of STEM and the minutia mongering of the modern economy which actually keeps daily life going.

I don't know- someone praying, meditating, or doing some act/deed that is deemed holy, seem pretty accessible. — schopenhauer1

They may seem holy to themselves, which doesn't automatically being holy.

Even the "minutia" of religious laws and dogmas, are not that complex compared with STEM and the enormous amount of information needed to keep the modern economy running. — schopenhauer1

Well, it's true that a great many people would be able to memorize religious laws and dogmas, but that does not automatically equal them being able to understand or live by those teachings.

Again, mysticism may be "inexhaustible" in its veiled mystery, but it is also something people can pick up and do. — schopenhauer1

Ok, so go try and do it then and report back what you accomplish. If anybody can do it, that would seem to include you as well, right? That said, I would agree that anybody can claim to be doing mysticism, except of course for all those billions of people who don't really have any idea what that word refers to. :smile:

Not meaning to be overly argumentative, but I think you may be exploring an apples to oranges comparison.

Our material lives are not sustained by religious tradition or mystical knowledge, but by electrical systems, construction principles, engineering principles, manufacturing principles, scientific principles, and the maintenance principles that maintain them. — schopenhauer1

Hmm.

I would say, they may be in some way, but we are simply oblivious to this way - as we are of our own breathing, most of the time.

Consider that religious tradition may have formed societal norms such as 'appropriate attire'.
A very clear impact of mysticism is mathematics. For instance the Maya Numerals.
It might seem like a silly notion, but the inspiration for mathematics according to ancient testimonies is 'divine'.

Not everyone can be an expert in the exacting minutia that is required to maintain the industrial/electronic/engineering behemoth systems that go into what actually sustains and maintains our daily living. — schopenhauer1

I would phrase it as, not everyone 'is' an expert. But sure.
In the same way, not everyone is an expert at cooking and not everyone understands the 'mystical'.

Consider the difference between the eyes of a human and the eyes of a mantis shrimp and try to form an analogy with the understanding of the 'physical' and the 'mystical'.