Ah, I understand what you are saying. The problem is that, I truly don't believe in gods or spirits anymore. Without gods and spirits, what is the point of religion? I consider myself to be a secular humanist.
How Religion Poisons Everything is "slanted" in a way to be sure, but I actually agree with the arguments presented in the book. What do I stand to gain from studying other religions closely?
> The problem is that, I truly don't believe in gods or spirits anymore.
Neither do I. I don't see how that's relevant to learning the subject matter that you're claiming to learn. You don't read a book about Java and say that you now understand Haskell. You don't read a book about real-time embedded systems and come away with an understanding of CSS. You don't read a book by Dawkins and claim to have increased your understanding of Sikhism.
> What do I stand to gain from studying other religions closely?
I don't know. What do you want to gain? Why are you studying religion at all, if you have no intention of studying religion?
If you want to study atheism, that's fine. Study atheism. But unless you think that atheism is a kind of religion (which, last I checked, it is not), then you are not studying religion.
God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and the God Delusion are books about religion. I mentioned a few authors that I have read whose books cover either science, religion or a mixture of the two. I will grant you that I am not making a hard study into comparative religion and certainly did not mean to imply otherwise.
Incidentally, despite being somewhat sympathetic to the viewpoint, I felt The God Delusion paled in comparison to Dawkins' other works. He's far more compelling in the mode of "Isn't all this stuff amazing?" than the mode of "Isn't that stuff awful?"
Currently reading The Greatest Show on Earth and I have to agree, but I do agree with many of the points that were made in The God Delusion. I will say he should have spent less time on his memeology ideas.
Indeed – or more to the point: I wasn't clear in my original statement. I am learning about certain aspects of religion – not learning comparative religion.
I am not however "learning atheism" as others have decided to claim in this thread. I stopped believing in god years ago, at that point by definition I was an atheist.
I am interested in the origins of religion, the scientific reasons that it exists, and the negative impact it has on people.
No, he's deliberately misreading me in order to feel that his self-identification is infringed upon.
According to him, if a Christian believes in God, and then reads about Christianity to learn about Christianity, said Christian is not a Christian because they're "learning about Christianity". The sheer quantity of stupid required to believe this has disinterested me in continuing any conversation.
Not all religion is about 'believing' in gods and spirits. They are often used metaphorically to convey deeper ideas, e.g. In Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and Sufism.
The idea that all religion requires uncritical belief in gods and spirits is itself a false belief.
What you stand to gain is to learn ideas about the experience of being human and the nature of the psyche. You do not have to start believing that mystical beings are real in order to benefit from the metaphor.
Whereas I do believe much can be learned about the human psyche from religion, and that having a strong understanding of why religion exists is important, I don't feel it is necessary to make a deep study of each religion's core beliefs. I do feel I have a strong grasp on the metaphors contained within religious practices.
In my opinion religion exists for both good and evil. It helps certain humans who are unable to cope with the reality of permanent death and loss. It helps people who have become unfocused or destitute to dedicate their lives to something they feel is larger than their own issues.
The evil it serves is obvious. People are robbed of time, money, creativity and hope. Wars are started over it and scientific progress is halted due to it.
Not all religions / religious practices / beliefs are good or evil of course. That would be too broad a statement, but even some seemingly harmless religions such as buddhism lead to violence and oppression.
I personally stand to gain nothing from committing to a religion or conforming to a belief system, but there are others who need to be told what to do by men who claim a higher authority. Far be it for me to try and discredit their belief system, but I do believe that the world would be better off without religion – I just don't think the current populace is ready for that change.
Religion is the prefect template for corruption. Anywhere from hundreds to millions of devout worshipers who believe the unfounded teachings of a human (either in book form or spoken word) and are typically willing to die for those beliefs has all the makings of disaster.
And I agree, this applies to governments and corporations as well. Pretty much anything that exploits an ideal.
As I stated above, I recently read How Religion Poisons Everything as well. No idea if you've read this book yourself, but it has some very compelling arguments as to the evil nature contained within religion.
Putting faith and believing in the creative works of human beings, using those beliefs to start wars, shun homosexuals, commit acts of horror and atrocity.
And this doesn't just come from "large hierarchies". Have you considered the religious suicide cults of the world? Even on a small scale, group think through the template of religion can be very deadly.
I like Terence McKenna's take on spirituality. It's a personal endeavor. All institutions infringe on freedom and autonomy.
The leaders of the institutions are the beneficiaries of controlling the "channel" to communing with Existence or "God".
Now that we have the internet & relative democratization of information, it is more obvious that we can easily live a spiritual life without institutions or having to follow a prescribed path. We can (and most benefit from) follow our own individual path, uncontrolled by others.
I'm also a devoted Humanist. To me, most of religious doctrines are noble lies. The aim is to make us good humans to each other. The teachings have value. The power of Churches adulterates the messages.
I was raised a Jew, but now most resonant with Jesus. The Old Testament God is a bitchy megalomanic. Jesus was a human being and I'd argue a Humanist searching for a new theological basis.
I'm glad you said this – I recently had the same thought. Jesus seems more like a humanist than a religious zealot. I would not be shocked to learn some day that the claims of being god, or god's son were later additions to his teachings.
You seem to have a specific view of what it means to be 'god', or the 'son of god', and are judging all religion through this lens.
The Quakers, for example hold that 'there is that of god in everyone'
Many forms of tantric Hinduism hold that the ultimate state of being is realizing one's unity with god.
The Sufi's (and some parts of non fundamentalist Islam) claim that one's experience of god is personal and cannot come through an intermediary.
What these ideas have in common is that god is not placed outside the human, but is an inner experience of the human, or a stage of development that can be reached.
What could be more humanist than the idea that humans are or can be in direct contact with the ultimate reality?
Sorry I misread your comment earlier in the tone that you were attempting to get an atheist to consider other religions.
I believe there is a difference in the aspects of religion I am interested in from what you are describing. I simply am not interested in making a study of the worlds various minor religions, and I know a great deal about the major ones already. I am more interested in the psychological damage that is done to people by fundamentalist religion and the negative impact it has on their lives.
I'm not sure why you are pushing other Eastern religions though – I'm aware of many of these teachings, it's just not my primary focus.
As for personal beliefs and what not – I don't care to learn how "god is in me" or "around me". The esoteric nature of religion is bothersome as are the delusional lies of the people who founded them.
You: "I am more interested in the psychological damage that is done to people by fundamentalist religion and the negative impact it has on their lives."
I think your definition of religion (spirit beings) is limiting. The study of religion and philosophy can lead to a lot of interesting thoughts about purpose, meaning and morality. Those topics are usually interesting to everyone. Maybe add Ravi Zacharias to your list and CS Lewis has a lot of interesting stuff on this topic as well.
My definition of religion isn't "spirit beings". My definition of religion is more along the lines of: A crutch for the weak, a tool for manipulation, an excuse for the lazy, and a template of evil for the manipulators.
Edit: I don't believe for one second that morality springs from religion. We have morality in spite of religion.
Perspectives give insight into the "whys". You may not agree with the perscription, but understanding the diagnosis can be very enlightening. (For the record, I'm non-committal in either direction, atheism or otherwise).
And the "whys" will be answered by religion? I find that science does a better job of that. I'm infinitely more interested in physics and cosmology. As I have stated in other replies, I'm more interested in the negative aspects of religion.
An understanding of the planet's various cultures and particularly their art. The history of human self-expression is bound up with religion, for various interesting reasons.
I think there is a misconception in this thread that I am arguing against the study of religion, but I'm not.
I understand the value in comparative religion classes in terms of enriching one's understanding of history and human culture.
I personally have no use for this in my current course. I am interested in the harmful aspects of religion.
Once again, I have to point out I am an atheist, I'm not learning about atheism. Science != atheism. Reading about the evils of religion != learning atheism.
Anti-religionists do not believe in god, and wish to attack ideas connected with religion whether they have anything to do with believing in god or not. Anti-religionists are therefore willing to dismiss ideas simply because of who presents them rather than on their merits, and are thus subject to a pervasive ad-hominem bias.
That if you had said that you are learning about "atheism" at the start of this subthread you could have avoided a lot of confusion and suggestions from people offering advice about books to read about religion.
Then you deal with the baggage that comes from such a label, and clarifying that you're a 'secular humanist' doesn't give you the right to expect to avoid that baggage.
1. 'baggage' is not a synonym for 'rights' (legal? social?)
2. While an Atheist is necessarily a non-believer, a non-believer is not necessarily an Atheist.
Furthermore, you tell people you're an Atheist specifically because it conveys a lot with a little. Some of what it conveys is definitely not secular humanism, if that's how you prefer being viewed, you should start with that.
Not only is that not an offensive observation, it should be common sense.
How Religion Poisons Everything is "slanted" in a way to be sure, but I actually agree with the arguments presented in the book. What do I stand to gain from studying other religions closely?