Non-Belief and the Inner Self

[Escéptico]

I wonder if I'm the only nonreligious person who has a problem with the way religion has attempted to monopolize the individual's search for meaning. It seems that society sees people who don't believe in gods, mysticism, or life after death as emotionally stunted and amoral.

Believers would have us think of the world as divided between outer and inner reality. The outside is the domain of scientific models and empirical testing. According to religious people, the inside is the soul, the domain of religious mysteries and spiritual truth. Is this realistic? If people want to occupy their time seeking the 'divine truth within,' that's their business. But for believers to suggest that that's the only responsible way to become a fulfilled person is like a hammer-maker denying the existence of other tools.

In my opinion, religion or belief in the supernatural is unnecessary for human fulfillment and meaning. A loving family, engagement with art and science, and an open imagination are also important facets of the development of the individual's inner self.

 

[sandandfoam]

I wonder if I'm the only nonreligious person who has a problem with the way religion has attempted to monopolize the individual's search for meaning. It seems that society sees people who don't believe in gods, mysticism, or life after death as emotionally stunted and amoral.

Believers would have us think of the world as divided between outer and inner reality. The outside is the domain of scientific models and empirical testing. According to religious people, the inside is the soul, the domain of religious mysteries and spiritual truth. Is this realistic? If people want to occupy their time seeking the 'divine truth within,' that's their business. But for believers to suggest that that's the only responsible way to become a fulfilled person is like a hammer-maker denying the existence of other tools.

In my opinion, religion or belief in the supernatural is unnecessary for human fulfillment and meaning. A loving family, engagement with art and science, and an open imagination are also important facets of the development of the individual's inner self.

I agree with you, meaning is what we decide it is and it is our responsibility to make it for ourselves. Art, family, sport are all sources of fulfillment and meaning.
Wherever we find meaning we find it, no source is superior to another.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I wonder if I'm the only nonreligious person who has a problem with the way religion has attempted to monopolize the individual's search for meaning.

Why address only the nonreligious,.. many religious people are aware of this problem,..it's just that they do not 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.

Please try to be understanding of aspirations of religious people and refrain from applying a stereotype view of them. I am sure if you ask them, there will be few who would disagree with your statement,.."A loving family, engagement with art and science, and an open imagination are also important facets of the development of the individual's inner self."

It's an awesome cosmos!

 

[logician]

Why address only the nonreligious,.. many religious people are aware of this problem,..it's just that they do not 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.

Please try to be understanding of aspirations of religious people and refrain from applying a stereotype view of them. I am sure if you ask them, there will be few who would disagree with your statement,.."A loving family, engagement with art and science, and an open imagination are also important facets of the development of the individual's inner self."

It's an awesome cosmos!

I would say over 90 percent of religious people fit in the "stereotypical" category.

 

[Storm]

I'd say you're wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would say over 90 percent of religious people fit in the "stereotypical" category.

So,..truth is not a numbers game,..as if a mere matter of majority influence in this world could have any real meaning in a cosmic sense!

Of the 10 percent of religious people that do not fit into the "stereotypical" category you infer exists, I would guess that they would say that over 90 percent of non-religious people fit into the stereotypical archetype of being anti-religion.

The question is,..is there a common denominator that is the common source of the 10 percent of the religious and non-religious factions of the one cosmos?

 

[Willamena]

I wonder if I'm the only nonreligious person who has a problem with the way religion has attempted to monopolize the individual's search for meaning. It seems that society sees people who don't believe in gods, mysticism, or life after death as emotionally stunted and amoral.

Just the emotionally stunted and immoral parts see that, and I tend to think that a very small and vocal percentage. If you see nothing wrong, there is nothing to voice about.

Believers would have us think of the world as divided between outer and inner reality. The outside is the domain of scientific models and empirical testing. According to religious people, the inside is the soul, the domain of religious mysteries and spiritual truth. Is this realistic?

It is, and it isn't. In my opinion it's a not-well represented picture of reality, a vision blurred "through a glass darkly."

If people want to occupy their time seeking the 'divine truth within,' that's their business. But for believers to suggest that that's the only responsible way to become a fulfilled person is like a hammer-maker denying the existence of other tools.

Or like asking people to draw their fate with invisible straws.

In my opinion, religion or belief in the supernatural is unnecessary for human fulfillment and meaning. A loving family, engagement with art and science, and an open imagination are also important facets of the development of the individual's inner self.

Those things (i.e. being human) are what ultimately matter.

 

[Sunstone]

I would say over 90 percent of religious people fit in the "stereotypical" category.

Are those your warm and fuzzy inner feelings speaking or do you have some hard evidence for your claim?

 

[Magic Man]

I think we should try to experience as much as we can in this life. I've been part of an organized religion before, and that didn't do it for me. I consider myself an atheist now, but I'm not going to rule out any possibilities. I don't think you need to be religious to lead a fulfilling life, but I do think you need to be open to all possibilities to do so. I might never be religious in my life, and always be an atheist, but I think that studying and trying to understand religious things is just as important to living a fulfilled life as loving family and friends and art and science. I guess that goes along with your "open imagination".

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Believers would have us think of the world as divided between outer and inner reality. The outside is the domain of scientific models and empirical testing. According to religious people, the inside is the soul, the domain of religious mysteries and spiritual truth. Is this realistic? If people want to occupy their time seeking the 'divine truth within,' that's their business. But for believers to suggest that that's the only responsible way to become a fulfilled person is like a hammer-maker denying the existence of other tools.

In a way, both views are right. The tools of logic (science) and spirituality (metaphor, emotion) appear to work best when allied.

 

[Escéptico]

Please try to be understanding of aspirations of religious people and refrain from applying a stereotype view of them. I am sure if you ask them, there will be few who would disagree with your statement,.."A loving family, engagement with art and science, and an open imagination are also important facets of the development of the individual's inner self."

But would they agree so emphatically with my statement, "religion or belief in the supernatural is unnecessary for human fulfillment and meaning"?

Religion has a vested interest in setting itself up as the only game in town. Are you claiming that the religious are never known to warn of the unfortunate consequences of nonbelief?

 

[Storm]

But would they agree so emphatically with my statement, "religion or belief in the supernatural is unnecessary for human fulfillment and meaning"?

Religion has a vested interest in setting itself up as the only game in town. Are you claiming that the religious are never known to warn of the unfortunate consequences of nonbelief?

Religion, in the sense that I think you are using it, has degenerated into nothing more than an expression of tribalism.

 

[Sunstone]

But would they agree so emphatically with my statement, "religion or belief in the supernatural is unnecessary for human fulfillment and meaning"?

There are at least several religious people on this forum alone who would agree with your statement.

Are you claiming that the religious are never known to warn of the unfortunate consequences of nonbelief?

Your use of words like "never" and "always" reminds me of a study I read of some years ago. The study found that scientists and artists tend to make conditional statements when talking about their work, while theologians and philosophers tend to make absolute statements when talking about their work. I've noticed you prefer to make absolute statements about religions and religious people, and I've been wondering if you have any training in theology or philosophy?

 

[Escéptico]

I've noticed you prefer to make absolute statements about religions and religious people, and I've been wondering if you have any training in theology or philosophy?

I try to be as diplomatic as possible. But I admit I have a background in philosophy. And prior to the amputation, I was a complete jerk.

 

[Sunstone]

I try to be as diplomatic as possible. But I admit I have a background in philosophy. And prior to the amputation, I was a complete jerk.

LOL! Yeah, I have a background in philosophy too. And while I very much value the excellent tools it gave me, those didn't come entirely free. It seems to have taken me ages think less in absolutes and more probabilistically.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Well... I clearly do not believe in anything, any meaning at all in life, as I've said before... And I am a perfectly reasonable person, I think... And just because my life is completely worthless does not mean that I cannot enjoy life... I like walking outside in nice weather, and telling all of my secrets to my older sister, and playing with Baggins, my wiener dog... and swimming with my younger sister, and buying birthday presents... My life is worthless, and has no greater meaning, but I am still here, and I like being alive... I don't need religion to enjoy life.

 

[logician]

"Are you claiming that the religious are never known to warn of the unfortunate consequences of nonbelief?


"I've noticed you prefer to make absolute statements about religions and religious people"

The top statement is not an absolute statement, it merely says there could be "some" religious people that warn of the consequences of nonbelief.

 

[Sunstone]

"Are you claiming that the religious are never known to warn of the unfortunate consequences of nonbelief?


"I've noticed you prefer to make absolute statements about religions and religious people"

The top statement is not an absolute statement, it merely says there could be "some" religious people that warn of the consequences of nonbelief.

True, but irrelevant.

 

[Escéptico]

It's relevant if there is a reason that religion coerces people into professing and behaving certain ways. That is, the defense is usually that "not every believer" does things we dislike, and thus religion is not to blame for the behavior. But if the dynamic of religion benefits from the actions of even a minority of believers, we need to question whether this minority is merely an aberration.

From the meme's-eye view, religion benefits by having believers profess religious belief, defend the relevance of faith in society, and behave in certain ways that don't need to directly benefit the individual believer. Thus, believers avoid proscribed food, pray several times a day, engage in primitive rituals like circumcision, and enact other free-floating rationales that perpetuate religion in our society. These are analogous to the extravagant displays in the animal world, like bowerbirds constructing unwieldy structures to impress mates: religious behavior attracts potential converts and intimidates the competition. But the inflationary spiral of these displays can get out of hand, causing believers to do reprehensible things in the cause of demonstrating their devotion to their beliefs. Thus, we get our suicide bombers and fundamentalist ideologues.

The ingenuity of this dynamic is that religion doesn't have to coerce reprehensible behavior from every believer to be effective. It cultivates a group of enforcers, who operate with the tacit approval of the religious community. That is, while moderate believers claim to disapprove of violent behavior, they still support the concept that religious faith is not subject to secular morality. This reinforces the basis of the religious behavior, regardless of whether it explicitly condemns the behavior itself.

 

[sandandfoam]

You make very broad generalisations which I cannot imagine would be acceptable to you in any other sphere, specifics seem to be replaced with generalisations and preconceived notions with regard to religion ?
If I'm correct, why so ?
Ditto if it I'm incorrect