Brings back memories - I spent much of the 1980's with the theosophists and lived in their Melbourne (Russell Street) bookshop and library. I blame Alan Watts and Krishnamurti who ignited my curiosity.

Interesting. I think I agree. Can you say some more? — Tom Storm

I say that religion consists in believing in some kind of transcendent reality, because I can't see how a religion could exist which accepted only the empirical. Accepting only the empirical could perhaps be thought of as ideology, but not religion, insofar as religion always seems to incorporate a hierarchy of authority and a soteriology of some kind.

Nice. There are forms of Communism - eg Stalinism - that seem to believe in transcendence - the inevitability of historical forces and the leader as a numinous figure of infallibility. Any thoughts on this?

Right, South Korea seems to be an example of a political leader being treated as a kind of god and savior. Also, the notion of dialectical inevitably in Marx, which he adopted (and inverted) from Hegel, being a kind of teleological notion, seems to smack of transcendence, but both Marx and Hegel would have declared the teleological principle to be immanent, rather than transcendent, that is not prior to the dialectic but inherent within it. But then it is still a move beyond the merely empirical, so it's not a black and white issue.

Just to complicate matters further, this reminds me of Deleuze, too, with his idea of a plane of immanence; he styled himself as a transcendental empiricist, and was a great admirer of Spinoza, referring to the latter as "the prince of philosophers". Spinoza notably rejected the idea of a transcendent deity, and Deleuze followed Duns Scotus (as did Heidegger) who argued against Aquinas in declaring the univocity of being, and thus rejecting the idea of a heirarchy of being and the ideas of "ontotheology" (Heidegger's term) and transcendence.

That they're parasitic on religion?

Auguste Comte, founder of sociology and inventor of 'positivism', also tried to found a replacement for religion. Comte's religion, which he called the "Religion of Humanity" or the "Religion of Man," was intended to provide a moral framework for a scientific society. It was based on the idea that human beings could achieve happiness and fulfillment by working for the betterment of humanity as a whole, rather than pursuing individual goals or selfish desires. Comte believed that this new religion should be centered around a "cult of humanity," in which the great thinkers, scientists, and social reformers of history would be venerated as saints. He proposed a system of rituals and ceremonies to celebrate the achievements of humanity, including a "Festival of Humanity" to be held on August 20th of each year. It never really took off, although there is still a 'Church of Positivism' in Brazil.

That they're parasitic on religion? — Wayfarer

Or is the 'parasite' the human urge to make and hold foundational metanarratives, from religion to aesthetics, literature to science - which is where I tend to go with this. There's safety and predictability in putative certainty.

That's nice - thanks for taking the trouble.

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.

Or is the 'parasite' the human urge to make and hold foundational metanarratives — Tom Storm

Yeah Richard Dawkins would say that. Although he would make an exception for evolutionary biology of course.

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? — praxis

I wonder too what counts as transcendence? Is intelligibility itself transcendent? Are the logical axioms? Maths? Morality? Do we go by Kant, Aristotle or Wittgenstein on this one?

Yeah Richard Dawkins would say that. — Wayfarer

Well, no - you may have misunderstood me. Dawkins believes staunchly in science and progress - surely cases of metanarratives in action?

Although he would make an exception for evolutionary biology of course. — Wayfarer

Yes. And science in general. And aesthetics - he is big on Bach. And the notion of truth. The intelligibility of a natural world. He is riddled with old school metanarrative thinking.

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. — praxis

I would not say that the essence of religion is about establishing order and control, although of course religion has been used politically to try to maintain order and control. For example, the teachings of the Gospels were distorted by the Church in order to hold onto and extend its powers.

As I see it, the hierarchical nature of religion is more to do with the idea of powers and intelligences higher than the earthly. So, yes, there can be personal religion. where the faithful seek for higher wisdom through discipline and meditation or prayer, or other practices without attaching themselves to any particular organized religion.

I wonder too what counts as transcendence? Is intelligibility itself transcendent? Are the logical axioms? Maths? Morality? Do we go by Kant, Aristotle or Wittgenstein on this one? — Tom Storm

I'd say intelligibility, logic and maths and morality are, if not empirical, then transcendental, not transcendent unless you impute a higher realm where they find their genesis.

No worries, mate. :smile:

Dawkins would denigrate religion as being something like a mind-parasite. It is what he invented the terminology of 'memes' for (which is one of the ideas I actually use, it's a helpful meme.)

One point that is at the back of my mind is the exclusive emphasis on 'belief' in respect of religion. It can be contrasted with the attitude associated with Hindu and Buddhist culture which place more emphasis on the attaining of insight, that being the ostensible aim of meditative practices. But if you go into it, you discover it's really a very difficult path to actually follow. Not that people can't follow it, but there's a lot of room for error and endless scope for self-delusion (traditionally this is why a spiritual master is required, although that requirement is another fertile ground for charlatans and scams)

The founding teacher of Pure Land Buddhism, Shinran, said that the path of meditation and insight was 'the path of sages' - which is, of course, intrinsic to Buddhism, as Buddha and the patriarchs of Buddhism are regarded as sages. But at the same time, Shinran said that very few could actualise that path of insight in reality as it requires exceptional dedication and skill. (You'd never pick that up reading Alan Watts.) The rest of us - 'bombu', in their terms, meaning 'foolish ordinary people' - have to rely wholly and solely on the salvific power of faith in Amida Buddha (one of the legendary Buddhas) who made a vow to bring all beings to Nirvāṇa (it is a school of Mahāyāna Buddhism). Pure Land is, for this reason, often compared with Christianity, which is superficially true although it's vastly different in terms of actual doctrine, which is Buddhist through and through.

There's another level of similarity, though, between the two traditions, which is that the philosophical schools that early Christianity absorbed, such as neoplatonism, and also some of the gnostic sects adjacent to Christianity, likewise taught austere philosophical and contemplative practices with a view to acheiving divine union. In this they were similar to the Buddhist and Hindu schools, as they were all 'axial age' religions (per Karl Jaspers). But the success of Christianity was in rejecting such 'elitism' and its onerous disciplines by offering salvation to all (although on condition of faith in the Doctrine). For this reason, and since the ascendancy of Luther in particular, with his emphasis on salvation by faith alone and sola scriptura, there's almost a complete disconnect between the sapiential or (broadly speaking) gnostic dimension of Christian and Greek philosophy, and how religion is nowadays conceived, as 'belief without evidence'.

The point being, the realisation of higher planes of being, which permeates all of those forms of culture, is 'evidential', in the sense that for those who practice within those cultures, there is said to be the attainment of insight (jñāna or gnosis). Whereas in our technocratic age (and here on this forum) all of that is stereotyped under the umbrella of mere belief. (See Karen Armstrong Metaphysical Mistake)

Is intelligibility itself transcendent? — Tom Storm

The expression "to be, is to be intelligible" is a fundamental concept in Platonism. The phrase refers to the idea that the ultimate reality of the world is not the physical objects that we experience through our senses, but rather the intelligible forms or ideas that objects instantiate.

According to Plato, the material world is constantly changing and imperfect, while Forms are not subject to decay. As such they are the only real objects of knowledge and are what make things in the physical world intelligible or understandable. In other words, the physical objects we see and touch are only shadows or imitations of the perfect Forms, which exist in a realm beyond the physical.

Therefore, when we say that something "is," we mean that it participates in the intelligible Form or idea of that thing. In Platonism, knowledge is the process of understanding the Forms, and the highest form of knowledge is knowledge of the Form of the Good.

The doctrine of forms, modified by Aristotle, became absorbed into theology through Pseudo-Dionysius, Eriugena, Thomas Aquinas and scholastic philosophy, before being generally rejected since the Enlightenment (although neo-thomism and Aristotelianism are making something of a comeback.)

Dawkins would denigrate religion as being something like a mind-parasite. — Wayfarer

Don't remember now if I have read any of his stuff (apart from the odd essay and paper) but I have seen some interviews.

But if you go into it, you discover it's really a very difficult path to actually follow. Not that people can't follow it, but there's a lot of room for error and endless scope for self-delusion — Wayfarer

Good point.

There's another level of similarity, though, between the two traditions, which is that the philosophical schools that early Christianity absorbed, such as neoplatonism, and also some of the gnostic sects adjacent to Christianity, likewise taught austere philosophical and contemplative practices with a view to acheiving divine union — Wayfarer

I am familiar with this and spent some time with Gnositcs.

I've also watched some lectures by John Vervaeke on Neoplatonism and the Western tradition. I have a rudimentary grasp of its centrality.

The point being, the realisation of higher planes of being, which permeates all of those forms of culture, is 'evidential', in the sense that for those who practice within those cultures, there is said to be the attainment of insight (jñāna or gnosis). Whereas in our technocratic age (and here on this forum) all of that is stereotyped under the umbrella of mere belief. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think this is a key insight. I obviously sit on the technocratic end of this, but I am interested in the 'other side' as it were. Although these days I might be less likely to use inflammatory language like 'mere belief' although it might depend upon my mood.

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:

I don't think we get to Truth and at best we create responses that allow us to intervene in the world to greater or lesser extents. Our relationship with what we call reality seems to be a constructionistic one. Humans are fixated with metanarratives (truth, purpose, transcendence) perhaps to keep us psychologically safe. Can we meddle with consciousness and tap into something above and beyond ourselves? I doubt it and how would it be demonstrated? If Plato's Cave is a salient allegory, what are we to make of the shadows cast upon the wall of our minds by 'spiritual' experiences?

Thus I am a religious person? — praxis

Like you I don't think we can see beyond what our experiences allows, and I also acknowledge altered states of consciousness. But I don't believe in a transcendent higher power, and don't see the possibility of ultimate salvation, although I do see the possibility of liberation from attachment to dualistic thinking. Am I a religious person? I don't think of myself as such, because I don't think any of this is ordained by a higher transcendent power, rather it's just in the nature of the human condition. Some even question whether Daoism or Buddhism qualify as religions.

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

Many don’t realize the nature of religion.

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

Dharma and religion have overlaps but they’re not exactly the same.

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

If removing any supernatural and spiritual elements then they are closer to what I described about the essential need for rituals, traditions, and awe in a non-religious way of life. How the importance of traditions and rituals exist in the psychology of humans and that trying to rid yourself of every such form has a tremendous negative impact on our well-being.

I am as much of an atheist as they come. I think religion is pure delusion and fantasy. But I also think the pendulum from religion to atheism has been swung too heavily and with such power that we've lost some essential aspects of human psychology in relation to religious practice.

I think that one part of avoiding Nietzsche's nihilistic hell is to find a way to have rituals and traditions in a non-religious world. Like the tradition of Midsommar in Sweden, having no real religious ties anymore, and is more of a social tradition. Likewise Thanksgiving not needing any religious ties, but functions as a social tradition. And how basic meditation has been shown to clinically lower stress levels.

Many religions feature practices that on the surface are just praying and worship, but underneath it all have psychological impacts on our well-being. And there's too little study on the actual practices and how they could be utilized for better health and well-being, both psychologically and physically.

Especially in a world where there's an overload of information and sensory inputs. People are constantly becoming increasingly overworked and burnt out, and stress levels have increased so much that researchers have found it to damage the brain physically. But we have no strategy for handling it other than disconnecting and losing connection with the rest of society in doing so.

I also think that if society were to adapt into a place with more emphasis on methods of contemplation, meditation, social traditions, and other aspects of religion that don't require religion, we can more easily rid society of the negative religious parts but keep the good practical parts.

Interesting. What you say may be true although I can't say I personally want to be involved in community type rituals, contemplation, traditions or meditation. Sounds awful. But it takes all sorts. :wink:

Your response - and others have proffered similar ideas to yours - notably the prominent atheists, Sam Harris and Alain de Botton - leads me to some questions:

Do we have evidence that people were less stressed or happier, or more connected to what matters a hundred, two hundred years ago, when religion still had power in the west? I knew three of my grandparents pretty well. They were born in the late 1800s. They did not seem to think so.

Is there any compelling demonstration that people's lives are better with ritual and contemplation? How would we demonstrate this?

Would lives not be generally enhanced if people just slowed down the pace and stopped social media and eating shit? (Such dreams are possibly only a middle class option.) Is it perhaps the case that meditation's benefits are down to the person not being at McDonald's, swiping away on their phone, or similar?

I think that one part of avoiding Nietzsche's nihilistic hell is to find a way to have rituals and traditions in a non-religious world. — Christoffer

I'd be interested to learn who is actually experiencing Nietzsche's nihilistic hell. I work in the area of mental ill health and drug and alcohol services and even though I meet a lot of people experiencing suicidal ideation, generally they are not nihilists. Ususally they are people dealing with psychological impact of trauma or a significant situational difficulty.

Nihilism seems moderately rare, although it seems to pop up frequently in overwrought internet conversations. On the whole, connection to people seems a better guarantee of enhanced mental health and happiness from what I've seen. This could be found though sport, a book group, at church or at an atheist symposium.

I can't say I personally want to be involved in community type rituals, contemplation, traditions or meditation. — Tom Storm

Compared to many religious practices, it would of course be voluntary. You don't have to, but it's there as part of a culture that balances against the current Western culture that is slowly killing us with stress.
And you're already somewhat part of this, wherever you live I'd guess there are traditions that happen that aren't linked to religion, but function as celebrations of some sort, a social event. People opt out of those all the time and compared to religion, no one is really judgemental of those people.

Do we have evidence that people were less stressed or happier, or more connected to what matters a hundred, two hundred years ago, when religion still had power in the west? I knew three of my grandparents pretty well. They were born in the late 1800s. They did not seem to think so. — Tom Storm

No, we weren't happier before, but we have another type of stress today. And we have a society that has removed many of the dangers of living that existed back then. This has led to another type of stress. The modern world does not distinguish stress that can be correlated to a certain danger, like the need for food or shelter/home. Today, stress is vague, exists all the time, and never rests. This is because of things like social media, smartphones, internet in general, and a change to what "work" means in people's lives. The constant connection, availability, the constant work creates a system where we never really rest, think and contemplate. People even make it a business with self-help books and other bullshit that stress out people more because they need to "book rest" into their calender.

What I'm talking about is a society where we structure these things into everyday life. A culture that incorporates rest, meditation, and contemplation as part of everyday practices. Creating rituals that can be followed without having the burden of spirituality and religion attached to it.

Is there any compelling demonstration that people's lives are better with ritual and contemplation? How would we demonstrate this? — Tom Storm

There's been many studies on the positive effects of meditation and boredom (specifically contemplative). Studies conducted used one group living with these day-to-day practices and the control group without. Sleep became better, mental stability and health improved, and stress levels lowered.

Would lives not be generally enhanced if people just slowed down the pace and stopped social media and eating shit? (Such dreams are possibly only a middle class option.) Is it perhaps the case that meditation's benefits are down to the person not being at McDonald's, swiping away on their phone, or similar? — Tom Storm

Of course, but isn't it better to find a balance between technology and life rather than trying to say "stop it". Why not have practices normalized like brushing our teeth for our dental health? Instead of forcing people to abandon something, we can add practices that mitigate the negatives. When people feel the health benefits, they will do it just as they do exercise. It's just that mental health and stress issues haven't been worked into the culture as much as how we, for example, exercise more as a way of life nowadays than before.

I'd be interested to learn who is actually experiencing Nietzsche's nihilistic hell. — Tom Storm

We all are to one degree or not. The materialistic consumer neoliberalist hell that we have is a result of this nihilism. People live in it more or less. Gods are replaced by corporations and things, we look up to authorities that provide us with tech and stuff. Church is a stuffed mall. We're already in it and it has even become a Baudrillardian hell in which we are blind to what is real and what is a constructed simulacra of life. This happens when people never stop and contemplate anything.

They are swooped away by a tide of commercialism, brainwashed by commercials forming the ideal lifestyle that they can never reach. Life is not real anymore, it is a never-ending journey to reach the lifestyle that commercials show. The American dream has been replaced by a fictional pseudo-heaven shown in commercials for products. The coastline drive in the luxury car, the influencer billionaire life having a mega party, the morning brew on the porch of a house no one can afford. And the more people live in these dreams, the less they realize they are losing their lives in a stressful fight to reach these heavens.

On the whole, connection to people seems a better guarantee of enhanced mental health and happiness from what I've seen. — Tom Storm

Hence why I suggest society focus more on non-religious social traditions. Let's have more things that bring people together physically around things that people love, good food, contemplative discussions (note debates), experiences, games parties, live events etc.

While rituals are things done as an individual, social traditions act as collective acts. Both with the intent of focusing life towards something other than nihilism and the Baudriallardian desert of the real.

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

I think that you must first abandon a power structure like the church-state in order to replace it with a capitalist state. We replaced high authority with market authority and individualism in which you are your own god.

I see free market capitalism and our extreme individualism as emergent aspects of leaving a religious church-state system. If you place the individual at the center and remove Gods and pantheons, you are left with a being that self-governs itself as the highest authority, which is what free market capitalism, neoliberalism, and individualism focus on.

Attempts at having other authorities than Gods and priests have been made and it's just created hell on earth in another form. So we have removed actual human authorities and surrendered to a system of capitalism that's so integrated into our lives that it functions more like a Lovecraftian eldritch horror that has absolute authority over us. We are unable to see the beginning and end, unable to know where this being exists. It hides in the stock market, in materialism, in individualistic dreams of more more more.

Maybe it is irrelevant how nihilism, individualistic egoism, and capitalism came to be what it is today, only that when "God died" we were so desperate to get on with this new life of ours that we abandoned aspects that didn't require religion, but were essential to psychological well-being.

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. — praxis

Absolutely agree, but not all do that on a regular basis. Most lose this part of them when they get older, which means they need something else. And we don't need temples, we don't need archetypes of religion, we need a new framework.

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. — praxis

I'm absolutely against any kind of spoon-feeding of anything. I'm arguing for just what you talk about. We need more community events, more places for people to meet. We especially need a better rework of our work habits, we need less time working and more time contemplating and meditating, which doesn't mean the same as sitting in front of a sunset getting all spiritual, it means creating a foundation of calm in our daily lives that balance against the hellish nature of neoliberal capitalism that we've been caught in.

What I mean is that society, on a larger scale, may need to advocate for a more healthy balance and a better perspective on materialism than what marketing is feeding to everyone. We're stuck in the desert of the real, believing that everything is fine.

You argue well and write engagingly, but I am unconvinced. No need to take this much further. Thanks for your response.

Let's have more things that bring people together physically around things that people love, good food, contemplative discussions (note debates), experiences, games parties, live events etc. — Christoffer

I don't entirely disagree, but where I live this fills people's time already. There's a veritable cornucopia of lifestyle shit in the west available to fill people's time - writer's festivals, philosophy groups, food festivals, recreation opportunities, etc. Most of it very middle class and aspirational.

I tend to think this is more apropos -

All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.
- Blaise Pascal.

As true now as it was generations ago. :wink:

Many don’t realize the nature of religion. — praxis

Right, and...?

Dharma and religion have overlaps but they’re not exactly the same. — Wayfarer

:up: I agree.

If removing any supernatural and spiritual elements then they are closer to what I described about the essential need for rituals, traditions, and awe in a non-religious way of life. — Christoffer

I'm not convinced the rituals and traditions can survive without the "supernatural and spiritual elements" that motivated them in the first place and without which they lose their meaning. I personally dislike ritual and tradition, and when attracted to religious ideas it has been to teachings like Daoism and Zen, which are mostly without pomp and ceremony.

That said, celebrations of, for example, the solstices and equinoxes, in the form of festivals with costumery, dance, music and food, is another matter. I live in a small hippie village, and such things are celebrated in entirely new, creative ways. The quality's not always great, but the vitality and enthusiasm is there, and no reliance on long-standing traditions.

Is there any compelling demonstration that people's lives are better with ritual and contemplation? How would we demonstrate this? — Tom Storm

I don't think we need to demonstrate the seemingly obvious point that, for those who desire ritual and contemplation, their lives will be better off if those are a part of their experience than if not.

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

:chin:

Communal prayer and meditation don't count as pomp and ceremony in my book. Of course, there will always be minimal observances. If you have an actual argument, please present it.