Do we still need organized religion?

[Draka]

No morals are not dependent on religion. Morals are innate, however not all innate things are accessible. We need help to find some things.

If we count on a single human being to reason for themselves then invariably they will err. First of all, morals cannot be reached through reason alone, morals have to be realised. No matter how much one reasons they cannot prove any moral, because reason cannot touch it. They will end up in a dead-end called moral relativism. This is a dangerous philosophy which basically means there are no morals, it's all subjective and relative.

Err according to whom? See, that's the thing. Morals are indeed relative. What may be right to do in one society may be taboo in another and vice versa. There is no worldwide rule book that covers all people and takes into account all cultures and societies. There are, however, certain morals that do pervade throughout cultures and that reason does cover. Things like murder, infanticide, thievery,...these things can be shown to be detrimental to all societies and are therefore immoral...regardless of religion.

There is a saying in my religion. It goes: There is no knowledge without a Guru. I have in the past refuted this saying when a Yoga teacher told me this, but now a tad wiser I realise its truth. Having no Guru in your spiritual journey is like being left alone in a vast labyrinth to work out the journey yourself. You might succeed eventually, but you will most certainly try out many wrong paths before you get out. Perhaps you will say that we should be allowed to try out wrong paths. But I say no we should not be allowed to try wrong paths, because life is short, and we haven't got the time to try wrong paths. Just as there is no need to reinvent the wheel, there is no need to reinvent religion.

We indeed have the time to try different paths (I won't say "wrong") and that is the purpose of our being here. I find it strange to hear this from you. I have always thought Hinduism commonly held reincarnation as a belief. That being the case, the whole purpose of reincarnation is to keep coming back to learn as much as possible. If one is not expected to go down different paths then are they really learning anything by staying on only one?

We need organized religion to assist not only the individual but society and keep us on the right path. In my religion society was so intertwined with religion, that you can hardly tell them apart. In Vedic times society was guided by the wise seers and sages, who had directly seen the truth and knew how to guide society, because they knew the goal of life.

In a sense it not too different from our modern society which has been organized on scientific principles. But we need to realise that scientific principles do not a spiritual society make. As we progress in our evolution we need spiritual principles. Thus we need an organized religion for the 21st century(Read my thread: A Case for Hinduism, to see why I think that is my religion) Also see 'Future Studies' which is based on visualising a spiritual future society.

You say we need organized religion to "keep us on the right track", but you still fail to address the "why". Why does it have to be organized religion? Why cannot a free-standing religion do the same thing for people? Why do you find it impossible for someone to find morals and guidance through personal revelation and study? Why must man hear from other men what they must do in life when one can hear for themselves directly from deity through private worship?

 

[Surya Deva]

Err according to whom? See, that's the thing. Morals are indeed relative. What may be right to do in one society may be taboo in another and vice versa. There is no worldwide rule book that covers all people and takes into account all cultures and societies. There are, however, certain morals that do pervade throughout cultures and that reason does cover. Things like murder, infanticide, thievery,...these things can be shown to be detrimental to all societies and are therefore immoral...regardless of religion.

Input ----- REALISER ------ Output

Every thought that occurs to us emanates from within our mind, the thought then passes through the unconscious, then subconscious mills of our mind, before it appears to us. Once that thought occurs we process it again using our conscious mind. We can never quite catch that thought before it undergoes all that processing, and then when we do get it we process it again.

This is why morals differ from individual to individual, group to group. Everybody processes that thought differently. But certain morals are recurrent and almost universal - like Jung's archetypes. No, I am not going to say that they unanimously universal, but they are frequent enough to give them some objective value.

Now, before we proceed I would like you to correctly identify the origin of morals. The thoughts that we have come in three categories, enumerated by Descartes

1. Thoughts of experience
2. Chimeras(combinations of thoughts
3. A prioris

A blind person cannot dream in colour, because they have no experience of colour. One cannot think of something that they have not experienced, but their subconscious mind can combine thoughts(chimeras) to create imaginary objects: a unicorn, a dragon, an elf. But there are some thoughts that we do not experience at all that we have. They are pure concepts

Pefection
Unity
Beauty
Compassion
Righteousness
Knowledge
Substance/Self

They are a prioris(before experience) they are not experienced, they are not imagined, they are present even before we can experience. Refer back to the model:

Input ---- Realiser --- Output

Let me show you an example of how we process these thoughts using only one stage of processing:

PURE CONCEPT BEAUTY(INPUT) ---- PREJUDICE THAT ALL GOTHIC THINGS ARE BEAUTIFUL(REALISER) ---- ALL GOTHICS THINGS ARE BEAUTIFUL(OUTPUT)

The pure concept of beauty becomes misidentified with the objects of our experience, gothic objects, and we begin to think gothic things are beautiful. We do not catch the pure concept in itself, before we can it is processed.

This is why there so many different opinions on what is beautiful. We all process things differently. However, it is not completely subjective, because the pure concept is objective. Thus beauty itself has an objectivity to it. It can be studied like any object and objective truths can be propounded on it. A displine called stylistics does this, examining poems and literature that are considered beautiful, to see what makes them beautiful.

The subjective sciences are not exact sciences as of yet, but they are sciences in development, and getting more "objective" by the day. The subject universe can be studied just as precisely as the objective universe.

Now moving onto Morals. They are also not objects we experience, they are not objects we imagine, they are a prioris(they are a combination of the pure concepts I listed above) The pure concept of righteousness gives us morals of justice and being fair; the pure concept of compassuion gives us morals of being chariable and kind to others; the pure concept of knowledge gives us science and spirituality; the pure concept of unity gives us society, family, oneness.

Disagree with this is just like disagreeing with 2+2 = 4. Anybody can disagree with another, it does not mean they are right.

In my religion morals are something that can be studied and scientifically told. In a manner similar to what I have shown above CORRECT morals can be arrived at.

We indeed have the time to try different paths (I won't say "wrong") and that is the purpose of our being here. I find it strange to hear this from you. I have always thought Hinduism commonly held reincarnation as a belief. That being the case, the whole purpose of reincarnation is to keep coming back to learn as much as possible. If one is not expected to go down different paths then are they really learning anything by staying on only one?

You are right that Hindus believe in reincarnation, but I think you have misunderstood its significance in Hinduism. Reincarnation is not desirable. Hinduism says we CAN and MUST attain salvation in this life alone. It tells us just how precious this human form is and how we toiled for 840 million births though various life forms to attain it. This plane is seen as a plane of suffering, it is not desirable.

Your purpose is to find the right path and stick to it. There is no point trying out hundreds of different paths and getting nowhere in life. It is like solving a problem in maths: you can go through trial and error, try every possible combination of numbers, or you can use your brain and devise a formula to solve it in one go.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Many enlightened men and women have gone before you who have reached spiritual excellence. Learn from them.

You say we need organized religion to "keep us on the right track", but you still fail to address the "why". Why does it have to be organized religion? Why cannot a free-standing religion do the same thing for people? Why do you find it impossible for someone to find morals and guidance through personal revelation and study? Why must man hear from other men what they must do in life when one can hear for themselves directly from deity through private worship?

Because organized religion treats of society, and a free-standing religion only treats of an individual. One cannot practice spirituality in a society that has no spirituality. Can people in Africa caught up in poverty and civil war live a spiritual life? No, when there is bloodshed going on around you, when you don't have enough food to eat, spirituality is the last thing on your mind.

I am often surprised by just how selfish people are in this society. It's all about what an individual wants, but barely anybody pays a thought to what society needs.

 

[Draka]

wow, you overthink things entirely too much. Some things can be very basic you know? Murder is detrimental because it decreases the amount of people in a society that can contribute to the welfare of that society. It is detrimental to the family of the murdered person because it takes away the support and contribution that family member made. Theivery can be reasoned as well. A lot of basic "universal" morals can be reasoned out without any talk of "purity" of anything. Disagreeing with what you say isn't like disagreeing that 2+2=4, it's more like disagreeing that 2+2=.2638859.

Perhaps I HAVE found the "right path" and you are the one on the wrong one. Ever thought of that? There are so many paths when it comes to religion and spirituality in this world that to be so absolutely certain is a bit wonky in the head. Personally, I believe that all paths lead to the same destination...you just take different routes for the differences in the scenery and the lessons you learn along the way. I don't see this as a "plane of suffering" and I think that to go through life viewing it that way would be a disheartening life to say the least.

Why can't a single person have spirituality without the people around them having it? I certainly do. Many people do. And I prefer to think that I, along with many others not a part of an organized religion, are good, moral, upstanding people and contributers to their society. We do not need our spirituality directed by anyone but ourselves. I am an adult and can think for myself without needing anyone else to tell me what to believe and how to behave. I think you underestimate humankind. Left to our own devices we seem to get on very well.

Think of that quote from MiB. "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it." Left alone a person can reason and study. Get a majority of people that want to be told what to think, believe and do and stick a few people in charge of them to tell them all that and there is where you get the possiblity of dangerous outcomes. You get prejudices, terrorism, evangelism, stomping on others' rights and lives because they don't believe the same ("right") way and so much more.

 

[Surya Deva]

wow, you overthink things entirely too much.

I am a Philosopher, I have too

Actually what I just demonstrated was not complex, it is actually very simple. As soon as you begin to categorise phenomena rationally, it becomes very clear what is correct and what is incorrect.

Some things can be very basic you know? Murder is detrimental because it decreases the amount of people in a society that can contribute to the welfare of that society. It

This is the output of the processes in your own mind of the pure concept such as unity which gives us family, society, groups. Again, this concept known as 'murder' is an abstract. There is nothing known as murder in the outside world, what we see is one thing attacking another, but it hits us as WRONG immediately. It is an instant reaction. Why should we react like that? It is simple it is an innate reaction.

All we can see in the outside world are things, but we impose onto that things like hate, love, like, dislike, again a prioris. They are not things that we experience they are before experience.

A child becomes traumatized when it sees somebody attacked. Why? It's not the child that's been attacked, why is it the child is traumatized?

I think it is counterproductive that you are arguing with me that we don't have innate morality. It is important to recognise our morality to be more human. They are what make us human. Animals in the jungle kill each other with impunity, but humans cannot without feeling guilty, remorse, regret.

We have to recognise and then agree upon those fundamental characteristics of what make us human and build society based on that. The suggestions I gave earlier on what noble values are and the ideals for society should not be disagreeable to anyone. If I say to someone, "be compassionate to one another" and somebody has a problem with that, then rest assured, one knows what level of the spiritual development they are at. Noble people do not disagree with compassion

Perhaps I HAVE found the "right path" and you are the one on the wrong one. Ever thought of that? There are so many paths when it comes to religion and spirituality in this world that to be so absolutely certain is a bit wonky in the head. Personally, I believe that all paths lead to the same destination...you just take different routes for the differences in the scenery and the lessons you learn along the way. I don't see this as a "plane of suffering" and I think that to go through life viewing it that way would be a disheartening life to say the least.

Or perhaps you haven't? If we argue with this kind of logic we get nowhere. The door is both half open and half closed. Rather, we need to know what is right. This means thinking using reason. It means stepping out of our subjective thinking and thinking objectively.

When you think objectively there is such thing as a right and wrong. An orange is not a vegetable, it's a positive and true statement. Likewise the various paths of religion you see should be subject to reason and then you begin to eliminate every religion that is false. No subjectivity. No political correctness. I am not going to name any religions, but some religions preach violence against innocent people, this goes against our human value of compassion, it is wrong, reject it and move on. There are some religions that preach known false scientific facts, it is wrong, reject it and move on.

Left alone a person can reason and study.

If a child is left alone without an education it grows up to be uneducated. I am sorry but I am not buying this humans can learn by themselves stuff.

 

[Surya Deva]

Regarding the comment of the material plane being a plane of suffering. This plane is indeed a plane of suffering, ask anybody, everybody suffers here. There is pain, there is frustration, there is war, disease and there is death. But Hinduism does not say be cynical and depressive, much the opposite, it tells us to recognise we are divine and can transcend this plane of suffering. It tells us to realise our potentials and become noble and enlightened

 

[Surya Deva]

Now when I talk about organized religion for modern society. I am talking about letting noble and enlightened people guide our society. They can organize our society, keep us on the right path, the path that leads to progress for society and for all individuals. There is no need for beliefs, simply acceptance of noble values like compassion, knowledge, beauty etc and cultivating them in oneself and in society.
In some ways this is not even a religion, it's simply a spiritual society, one that is in complete harmony with science, nature and progress.

If you think of religion as blind worship of some god/s, or some personality, then that is NOT what I am proposing. Rather I am proposing worship of noble values, those real and eternal principles. This is true religion

 

[Katzpur]

Do we still need organized religion? What does it do for us that we still need it?

I think we need it now as much as we ever have. If there was a need for organized religion anciently, I don't know what about human nature has changed to such an extent that we wouldn't need it now. I don't see us as having become so sophisticated in our approach to the divine that we wouldn't need what human beings have always needed. To me, the question would make more sense had you omitted the word "still." To me, in either case, the answer is "yes," but I know I'm in the minority of RFers who feel that way.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
The one line answer to this is:
Each individual JUST needs to live a CONSCIOUS life.
Rest will follow on its own accord.
The aura that a conscious person spreads affects all the other beings around including nature and that generates the necessary condition for others to raise their consciousness and this is what will take mankind to the next level of evolution.
Love & rgds

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Friends,
The one line answer to this is:
Each individual JUST needs to live a CONSCIOUS life.
Rest will follow on its own accord.
The aura that a conscious person spreads affects all the other beings around including nature and that generates the necessary condition for others to raise their consciousness and this is what will take mankind to the next level of evolution.
Love & rgds

Amen!

 

[aanchi]

i dont think so. we dont need:no:

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes, God has set up an organization...

 

[rojse]

Perhaps people that feel that we need a community structure that organized religion provides need to join a community group instead.

 

[Sunstone]

We have never really needed organized religion, in my opinion.

 

[zenzero]

Friend aanchi,

i dont think so. we dont need:no:

Don't know what you are talking about; if it is regards to the above post then would like to state that the matter is not about *THINKING*.
It is about where thinking 8STOPS*.
Love & rgds

 

[darkendless]

We have never really needed organized religion, in my opinion.

Only for the fact that an organized congregation is easier for the church to control. MAybe that was the point all along, for the various churches to be able to twist people to their will?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Only for the fact that an organized congregation is easier for the church to control. MAybe that was the point all along, for the various churches to be able to twist people to their will?

If it's not a church, it will be politicians or the one carrying the biggest stick.

 

[rojse]

If it's not a church, it will be politicians or the one carrying the biggest stick.

That's an argument in favour of organised religion?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

That's an argument in favour of organised religion?

Did I say it was? Pick your poison.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Perhaps people that feel that we need a community structure that organized religion provides need to join a community group instead.

Did you see my answer to a question you posed a while back? (post #10)

 

[rojse]

Did you see my answer to a question you posed a while back? (post #10)

When I go to my wife's church (Catholic), there's real sense of the sacred that I never got from the church I grew up in (LDS). This contrast in experience very dramatic. While most people in both churches probably go there for other reasons, because it's something they were taught, or for the social interaction, or whatever, there is for others this sense of connection with something greater than themselves--and this connection may not even be conscious--but it is very real and very powerful.

I had a look at this previously, and perhaps should have responded. Here is my response now, for what it may be worth:

Firstly, why is the sacredness of a religious belief amplified by being inside a building? If you believe in God, should this belief be identical regardless of the dwelling you are in?

As for using Church to connect to something of greater significance, what differs between the Catholic church, and, say, a non-profit organisation that helps the homeless? Or even a business you work for?

I am not being dismissive of your comment, but I am actually interested in the answer. All three make the individual a component of a larger entity. All three ask for the members to make sacrifices to the greater good, whatever that may mean. All three give benefits to those that join the organisation. All three require members to cooperate with other individuals to achieve goals, and have a structural heirachy.