I have a (religious) challenge for you lot!

[Koldo]

Not possible

It's like asking me to stop having brown eyes for a day

Or to stop being 6 foot 2

Nobody could do your challenge it is not possible

You cannot switch your religion or lack of religion on and off like a light

Whether that is or is not a problem, it does not address the problem of contradiction in saying human rights exist as social constructs.


How do you approach the law itself saying that is not the case?

Beliefs can't be turned on and off at will; it's like asking someone to disbelieve in cars for a day.
It's probably difficult for rational people to be sincerely irrational, as well.

I don't understand the exercise.

That's a bit of an impossibility.

After I deconverted from Catholicism, I considered myself as, and tried to be Atheist.

Silly me, trying to be something I'm absolutely not. Physically felt like I was split in two, between what I was acting as and who I truly was.

As I see it, the point is not to switch off your beliefs suddenly, since that is indeed impossible, but rather to engage into pretending. But I may be wrong...

 

[Dao Hao Now]

No, excommunication does not nullify baptism; this is stated in the Code of Canon Law.

Sounds like Hotel California……
"Relax, " said the night man
"We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave!"

 

[Betho_br]

In another sense, you're asking us to stop being human.

Religion is an evolutionary adaptation that we can even find traces of in other animals who seem to partake in what we would understand as religious rituals. Humans are religious whether one identifies as such or not. If you mean 'belief in God' you'd have to define God, and that would go nowhere.

Daniel Everett: seven years among the Pirarrãs​

Among the things that separate men from other animals are the subtleties of language. Animals are capable of transmitting simple messages – generally related to food, sex or territorial disputes –, but they are unable to fit one message into another.

For example, a trained dolphin can transmit the message “The ball is in the pool” or “Take the ball”, but is not able to combine the two expressions by saying “take the ball from the pool”. This is an exclusively human attribute that linguists call recursion – which, except in cases of mental disability, is considered a common denominator for all individuals of our species.

What would happen if a human group did not master this? Are these people less human than others?

American researcher Daniel Everett came to the tribe in the 1970s as a Christian missionary with a mission to convert the Indians. He never made it. Everett was part of an international organization that spreads the word of God by translating the Bible into unwritten languages. But it was the lack of such recursivity that he identified in indigenous people that put him in conflict with his fellow linguists.

He says that Indians are not recursive due to what he called the “Principle of Immediate Experience”. The name is more complicated than the thing itself: pirarrãs only live and talk about the here-and-now. They only make sentences related to the moment they are speaking, to the facts they see. “Pirarrã sentences contain only situations experienced by the speaker or witnessed by someone alive during the speaker's lifetime”, defines Everett in one of his articles. That's why they have a problem with abstractions and everything that results from them: colors, numbers, myths, fiction and blessed recursion. This is also what means that the Pirarrãs, unlike all other linguistic communities ever studied, do not learn to count in another language. “They don’t want to know anything that’s outside their world,” says Everett.

Other linguists counter: “The count '1, 2, enough', for example, is typical of several other indigenous people”, says Maria Filomena Sândalo, a linguist at UNICAMP (Campinas, Brazil) who wrote her master's thesis on the tribe. “That doesn’t mean they don’t recognize quantities. They simply make different cuts of reality, like any other language.”

The teacher argues that, while she was with the pirarrãs, she encountered a language as complex and recursive as any other. She became interested in the pirarrã issue and, together with two other researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) and Harvard University (USA), analyzed the data collected by Everett. In 2007, the group published an article concluding that the language is normal. “She is not inexplicable or special. It's as interesting as a language from anywhere else in the world. There is no history of immediate experience or lack of recursion”, says the teacher.

The American linguist and philosopher Avram Noam Chomsky, one of the greatest icons of this science, argues that pirarrãs are not a “counterexample” to universal grammar (a term used in the last century for the theory of the genetic component that enables humans to communicate ). As Pirarras are no different genetically from the rest of humanity, there is nothing extraordinary there.

Culture and belief​

Pirarrãs conceive of time as an alternation between two well-marked seasons, defined by the amount of water each one has: piaiisi (dry season) and piaisai (rainy season). The way of life is simple, based on hunting, gathering and fishing, with no traces of agricultural practice.

Another curious issue with the Pirarrãs is the absence of a creationist idea, something literally unique among people of primitive culture. They do not believe in anything that cannot be proven, seen or felt. Therefore, they do not have any deities or creation myths, and for them heaven and earth have always existed. However, they believe in smaller spirits in the form of things in the environment, according to the personal experience of some, and have an idea of cosmology based on existential layers, with them being bodies in one of them (hiaitsiihi).

While living among them, missionary Daniel Everett attempted to evangelize the tribe. According to him, the indigenous people lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett never actually saw him. His constant contact with this type of thinking ended up transforming him. “The pirarrãs changed me profoundly. I was a missionary who evangelized and today I am an atheist,” he said.

They don't know how to count, they don't differentiate colors, they don't know art or myths, they don't understand fiction, they don't believe in any god. They live in the now, without future, without past. These are the Pirarrãs: 150 to 350 Indians who live in the Amazon jungle and defy our understanding of modern linguistics. The Pirarrãs or Piraãs, also called Pirahãs or Mura-Piraãs, are an indigenous Brazilian people of hunter-gatherers, monolingual and semi-nomadic, who stand out from other tribes due to cultural and linguistic differences. They inhabit the banks of the Maici River, a tributary of the Marmelos or Maici River, which in turn is a tributary of the Madeira River, a tributary of the Amazon River. They call themselves hiaitsiihi, a category of human beings or bodies that differ from white people and other Indians. Even before being born, even in the mother's womb, pirarrãs receive a first name, which they believe is responsible for the creation of their bodies. During their lives, they receive names from beings that inhabit the upper and lower layers of the cosmos, responsible for the creation of their souls and destinies, and also from war enemies. The Pirarrã language is a language from the Mura language family. It is the only language of the Mura group that is not yet extinct, with all the others having disappeared in recent centuries. This language has no relationship with any other existing language. There were around three hundred and fifty speakers in 2004, distributed across eight villages along the Maici River. It presents peculiar characteristics, not found in other forms of oral expression. It was identified and had its grammar elaborated in 1986 by the American linguist Daniel Everett in around twelve articles. Everett lived among the Pirarrã for seven years, from the 1970s to the 1980s.

 

[an anarchist]

As I see it, the point is not to switch off your beliefs suddenly, since that is indeed impossible, but rather to engage into pretending. But I may be wrong...

You're not wrong.
I was thinking for example, a Christian can give up prayer for a day. Sounds like a lot to do for an internet challenge from a stranger, but I do think just pretending your not religious with your actions for a day can provide insight if you let it. For that hypothetical Christian, it can be reaffirming. Suppose they prayed every day for the last so many years. They can reaffirm or reassess at the very least the value of the prayer on their mood for example.

I do disagree with everyone who thinks it's impossible to do this challenge. Is it perhaps subconscious unwillingness to partake in such a challenge that paints it as a literal impossibility in their mind?

 

[Betho_br]

Sounds like Hotel California……
"Relax, " said the night man
"We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave!"

The inaugural Catholic assembly, emerging from Judea, comprised converted circumcised Jews and was marked by a robust culture of proselytism. Following the destruction of Jerusalem around 70 AD, Rome assimilated many of these concepts. Unfortunately, the musical analogy provided resonates with coherence.

 

[JustGeorge]

You're not wrong.
I was thinking for example, a Christian can give up prayer for a day. Sounds like a lot to do for an internet challenge from a stranger, but I do think just pretending your not religious with your actions for a day can provide insight if you let it. For that hypothetical Christian, it can be reaffirming. Suppose they prayed every day for the last so many years. They can reaffirm or reassess at the very least the value of the prayer on their mood for example.

I do disagree with everyone who thinks it's impossible to do this challenge. Is it perhaps subconscious unwillingness to partake in such a challenge that paints it as a literal impossibility in their mind?

I don't have any time or energy for religious activities currently. Some days its all I can do to find the time and energy to get to the bathroom.

I still consider myself religious, though. How do you turn your worldview 'off'? I could pretend to be someone else, but that's all it would be, was pretending.

 

[Betho_br]

I do disagree with everyone who thinks it's impossible to do this challenge. Is it perhaps subconscious unwillingness to partake in such a challenge that paints it as a literal impossibility in their mind?

Well, that's a bold claim! Are you suggesting there's a secret switch hidden in women's purses that toggles between religious mode and dating mode?

 

[Quintessence]

Understanding religion this way is part and parcel of your religion. Meaning that if you were to accept this challenge you would have to cease treating regular activities as religious.

That wouldn't stop them from being religious, though. Like @Rival said, ritual behavior and connection to things greater than ourselves is more or less baked in to the human experience whether or not we slap a label like "religious" on it. If we look the substance of what religiousness is, it's just part of being human.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have thought of a challenge that is religious in theme! Oh how fun. Let me explain.

The challenge is this. If you are religious, be not religious for a day. If you are not religious, be religious for a day.

How you go about it is up to you. The challenge is up for interpretation.

At first this may be seem silly, but think on it a little longer. To remove/immerse yourself for a solid day when you usually are doing the opposite can provide some nice perspective, especially if you’ve believed what you have believed for so long.

I cannot partake, as I am already partaking. Finding my path I am doing. Sometimes I am religious, sometimes I am not.

Again, I challenge you to be irreligious for a day if you are religious, or vice versa!

Any takers?

I already do that everyday.

I just keep religious in the mind where it belongs.

 

[Soandso]

I've already spent a considerable amount on both sides of the fence, so I don't know what I'd hope to learn going back. I'm good

 

[The Hammer]

Are you still Catholic? Baptism in the Catholic Church is considered a sacrament that, according to Catholic doctrine, leaves an indelible mark on the person's soul. This means that, from the Church's perspective, baptism cannot be annulled or revoked. Therefore, a person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church is considered Catholic for the rest of their life, regardless of subsequent choices or personal beliefs. Thus, even if someone chooses to deviate from the practice or faith of Catholicism, from the Church's point of view, they are still considered Catholic. Additionally, excommunication is a formal process, and not every Catholic who ceases to practice the faith is excommunicated; this is only applied in rare and extremely serious cases.

No I am not.

Nor have I ever cared about the church's opinion of me, regardless of what their doctrines say.

 

[Koldo]

That wouldn't stop them from being religious, though. Like @Rival said, ritual behavior and connection to things greater than ourselves is more or less baked in to the human experience whether or not we slap a label like "religious" on it. If we look the substance of what religiousness is, it's just part of being human.

Ritual behavior and connection to things greater than ourselves are not religious practices per se. They only become religious practices once you define religiosity this way. And adopting a distinct definition is exactly what the OP's challenge would lead to.

 

[mangalavara]

That's not how I understand religion - religion proper is one's way of life (whether or not one calls it one's religion).

This is very well said and really resonates with me. In my case, I understand Sanātana Dharma (better known as Hinduism) as my way of life. It’s not something that I compartmentalize and confine to a building that I visit one day a week or to the side of my bed at bedtime. Sanātana Dharma is how I approach things, my attitudes toward things, and why I do certain things. It is also my worldview: my understanding of life, the world, and everything. Somehow ‘switching it off’ for a day would be inauthentic.

How do you turn your worldview 'off'? I could pretend to be someone else, but that's all it would be, was pretending.

Exactly. It would just be pretending because one’s worldview cannot be switched from one kind to another kind like switching the lights on or off. It can certainly change from one kind to another, but that requires either a genuine conversion experience or a lot of thinking and contemplation.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The inaugural Catholic assembly, emerging from Judea, comprised converted circumcised Jews and was marked by a robust culture of proselytism. Following the destruction of Jerusalem around 70 AD, Rome assimilated many of these concepts. Unfortunately, the musical analogy provided resonates with coherence.

OK, if you say so.

 

[Betho_br]

OK, if you say so.

My statement is broad. In the religious aspect, doctrines such as purgatory, the presentation of newborns to the temple, priestly attire, among others, were indeed inherited from Judaism

Often, I find that this transition may not concern many, but personally, I enjoy musing about it.

 

[Secret Chief]

And then tomorrow I will spend a day not consisting of cells.

I think you must have a different notion of this, @an anarchist

I love the music of Scriabin. How can I demonstrate that I do not, for one day? Put his music on and scowl through it?

 

[Betho_br]

Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples. (João 11:54 KJV).

Neither did Ephraim drive out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them. (Jdg. 1:29 KJV)

Ephraim, the 'half-step' in the Egyptian ethnicity, was the son of Joseph and lost the scepter of power to Judah. They even absorbed the ways of the Canaanites, with Baal as the chief god, though he's not exactly a fan favorite in the Old Testament. Jesus, as a kid, took a little escape to Egypt. After all this biblical drama, maybe he decided to switch off the religious mode for a while and take a laid-back vacation in Ephraim. I mean, who wouldn't need a break, right?

 

[fantome profane]

to engage into pretending

You're not wrong.

Do you guys understand that this is actually a brainwashing technique. a form of thought control.

For a day there is little problem, but if you require a person to "pretend" to believe something for an extended time, they may come to actually believe it.

 

[Valjean]

Wait, I didn't get it... Is the church a social club that sponsors the religious leader in high social circles?

For many, if not most, the church is a social club. and religion a "team" identity.

 

[Audie]

As I see it, the point is not to switch off your beliefs suddenly, since that is indeed impossible, but rather to engage into pretending. But I may be wrong...

I've had things I believed switched off real fast.