Jump to content

What Is Religion Good For?


ritch81

Recommended Posts

Fear is a comforting motivation to ascribe to the extreme conservative movement today and I have been among the first to accuse.

It makes them less than us and implies that there is a fix. If fear is the cause psychologists and neuro-physiologists tell us there is a fix. But if other factors are in play an easy fix is not obvious and the problem requires more work for a judgment and a solution.

 

I am pushing back against the notion that there is single cause for religion and that single the single cause leads to what is wrong with religion. I am reading a book recommended by George, Religion Explained, in which Pascal Boyer argues that the single explanations are insufficient causes for religion. Since there is not one single cause of religion then it isn't fair to black-wash religion with one factor that is not sufficient to explain religion.

 

Expressions of religion in the south were not out of fear. The first sermons were triumphant in content and tone. Then they were to strengthen resolve. Then they were to comfort. Sherman's March to the Sea was motivated in part because of the resolve of the civilians, especially the women, to hold out until the end.

 

According to Fukuyama China was first to have a government that closely fit a definition for a modern government because they were able to achieve a strong state but because the society, which includes a religious culture, was weak the government struggle to achieve sustainability. Weakness in this case meant that there was a lack of reference for rule of law and so legislation of law had no controlling criteria. Whatever the rulers wanted. (Whatever advantage the philosophic views gave they did not foster technological advances after a fast start.) India's road to modern government and unification was indeed hindered by the Brahmins, and especially, the varnas, which limited the pool of available warriors. Because of a strong society and religion, a society with too many restrictions, India was unable to establish a strong government. In Europe a strong society and religion seemed to work hand in hand to achieve an effective state with rule of law.

 

If it can be shown that other non-religious factors are in play and non-religionists were also on the "good" side then religion is dismissed. The same can be said for the "bad" side but religion's role is not also dismissed.

 

The wheel was an effective tool in military conquest. Should we get rid of it? No. In sum the best use of the wheel gives us an adaptive advantage.

 

Religion is a tool used in military conquest, sometimes to aid and abet, sometimes its effect is to hinder. Should we get rid of it? No. In sum religion at its best gives us an adaptive advantage.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the "relationship" of religion and any particular religous component or involvment in such matters as slavery and abolition, treatment really of any otherethnic/racial/socio-economic group (Native American, Chinese/Asian, Hispanic) different from a prevailing social power class, that has suffered in this country, as well as women's suffrage, and any other such, is simply in as we've often observed here, anyone's religion being an expression of positions they already hold, and would hold even apart form their religion, and that people do tailor their religion to fit personal beliefs and ways of being, more so than the other way around. Religion is a 'tool' through which their ways of thinking and being are expressed, explained,and justified, even if only to themselves.

Thus I feel those on either side of the slavery/abolitionist issue included both religious and non-religious, and the religious on either side would have been on the side they were whether they had been religous or not.

 

In the principles of elemental factors underlying religion, that of responding to challenge of survival in the environment, must be seen for what it is, a positive development toward human survival, yes, making religion a postive tool toward survival, but rather than see that as if somehow the 'roots of evil' fails to consider that in any 'evil' or 'abuse' we might think of, there is as the root of it a very positive drive to meet real needs, that becomes what we might call 'evil' only when it exceeds some thresh hold we've decided is unacceptable, or that is in practice dysfunctional in sustaining civil society.

Such as, the drive to secure basic needs of food, shelter, other elements of safety and security, once met in the immediate moment, phases into recognizing "what if" possiblities for later, and securing enough to be prepared for less abundant times in the future, accumulating and storing in excess of present needs, which at some point can become what we might consider dysfuntional, toward hoarding and greed.

It wasn't the oringinating need, or human response to that challenge that was 'bad' or dysfunctional, but an excessive response.

 

For those here suggesting religion as orignating within or a response to needs of personal growth, spiritual growth, or whatever, I'd point to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs...those things are higher up the heirarcgy...we can't give effort to considering those higher needs until our lower are met...the starving people in a drought and war stricken African country just trying to survive one more day have little time, energy, or thought to spare, to devote to pursuit of personal psycholigcal and spiritual growth.

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And countries like China are responsible for lots of development in the human race - is there a Confucian work ethic?

Fukuyama says a stable balance of the state (where the power is), rule of law (how the actions and the legislation of the state are judged), and accountability (the state's power derives from the people) is required for a modern democracy. According to Fukuyama China to this day has not developed institutions for rule of law or accountability.

 

In India, the Middle East and Europe religion contributed to development of law, an understanding of what is right, that can be applied to ruler and ruled alike; law which critiques any legislation. This did not happen in China.

 

Fukuyama again

"At different times in Chinese history,... religious orders[such as Buddhism and Daoism,] acted to oppose the state, from the Red Turbans to the Taipeng rebels. But religion continued to be a sectarian phenomenon that was viewed with suspicion by the orthodox Confucian authorities and never represented a powerful social consensus that could limit the state's power through the custodianship of law."

 

Fukuyama also offers a couple examples for his belief that there was "An enormous complacency pervaded Ming China (1368 to 1644,) in all walks of life."

 

So, no, there probably was not a Confucian work ethic.

 

Between 1405 and 1433, the Ming government sponsored seven naval expeditions. The Yongle emperor designed them to establish a Chinese presence, impose imperial control over trade, impress foreign peoples in the Indian Ocean basin and extend the empire's tributary system.

 

While Zheng He's fleet was unprecedented (compared to previous voyages from China to the east Indian Ocean), the routes were not. [There had been on-going sea trade for 1400 hundred years.]

...

 

In 1424, the Yongle Emperor died. His successor, the Hongxi Emperor (reigned 1424–1425), decided to stop the voyages during his short reign. Zheng He made one more voyage during the reign of Hongxi's son Xuande Emperor (reigned 1426–1435), but after that the voyages of the Chinese treasure ship fleets were ended. Xuande believed his father's decision to halt the voyages meritorious.

That seems to have been the end of China's Age of Discovery.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not much studied on China, its history, culture...but...what I have encountered about it...it seems China has always been much under the rule of very brutal, militaristicly formidable system of aristocracy, that lives in relatively sheltered luxury and ease, even if plagued by often murderous intrigues from within. The mass of the common classes I think adopted a survival mode of keeping quiet, being unobstruvisve, go about your duties and dont get noticed. Do that, and life might be peaceful, even if not luxurious or with much ambition for rasing one's social state. It seems the ruling classes may have seen more traditional devotion and alliegance to a religion and religious heirarchy as threatening to their own power base. and those things fostered the Eastern religious traditions that are more about turning inward rather than to outward activity, change one's self rather than trying to change their condtions around them, toward seeking peace, contentment, and happiness through gracious acceptance of what is.

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having spend a bit going back over some of these posts and links shared, as well as some rabbit trails from those links, some of the difficulties of the abolition/slavery issues and relgion, church involvments offer a few things new, but mostly what I've read before. But an area my attention is particularly drawn to, and has been before in my life experiences and observations, is something that troubles me about the legacy that still lingers today. That is, the 're-unifications' that took place in church communities, denominations, seemed relatively small, and I've had to wonder a lot about why we even still have thse denominational divisions involving the name "Southern" in their identity. I began to ask that years ago when I began to attend a Southern Baptist church, which interestingly, was something in my mother's fervent mostly Baptist attnedance, she never did....I remember back then, the "Southern" Baptists largely crticized for being too 'modernistic', or too 'moderate,' 'watered-down,' I don't remember hearing anyhting that questioned the 'Southern' part, or how and why they came to be called that, even came into existance as separate denominations, In later years, as I learned the history, and yes, honestly, that is still VERY evident in the Southern Baptists I've been around, and as such divisions of that "Southern" distinction in some other denominations as well. Perhaps I may be more aware of this because of where I am, rural/small town SE Texas, in the heart of once slave country. WHY has this, does this, distinction even still exist? Why has there even yet not been re-unification?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That seems to have been the end of China's Age of Discovery.

 

Dutch

 

The fact that China even had an age of discovery that wasn't really religously linked (such as the Protestant Work Ethic) was more my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that China even had an age of discovery that wasn't really religiously linked (such as the Protestant Work Ethic) was more my point.

Zheng He was probably Muslim but that doesn't counter your argument. That there was an aborted age of discovery in the absence of religion seems to side with my argument.

 

Fukuyama feels "rule of law" is missing in China in the formula of effective government. In other cultures it was religion that influenced a common sense of law that applied to all including the ruler. For whatever reason Chinese religions were not effective in being prophetic and challenging the rulers. He seems to be saying that somehow the failure to add a rule of law and accountability to state government is somehow related to the complacency he observes in China about the 15th century. Effective religious contributions were missing. Are they essential? Maybe not. But other states, with the influence of religion, did develop successful sustainable government, guided by rule of law and accountability to the people.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zheng He was probably Muslim but that doesn't counter your argument. That there was an aborted age of discovery in the absence of religion seems to side with my argument.

 

Fukuyama feels "rule of law" is missing in China in the formula of effective government. In other cultures it was religion that influenced a common sense of law that applied to all including the ruler. For whatever reason Chinese religions were not effective in being prophetic and challenging the rulers. He seems to be saying that somehow the failure to add a rule of law and accountability to state government is somehow related to the complacency he observes in China about the 15th century. Effective religious contributions were missing. Are they essential? Maybe not. But other states, with the influence of religion, did develop successful sustainable government, guided by rule of law and accountability to the people.

 

Dutch

 

I don't think there was an 'aborted' age of discovery. I imagine that Chinese society probably headed in a different direction for a number of reasons other than for a lack of religion. From reading the below I would argue that China achieved a tremendous amount with a lack of religion. So to me it doesn't stand that all of a sudden that lack orf religion brought its development to a standstill.

 

The earliest recorded human settlements in what is today called China were discovered in the Huang He basin and date from about 5000 B.C. During the Shang dynasty (1500–1000 B.C.), the precursor of modern China's ideographic writing system developed, allowing the emerging feudal states of the era to achieve an advanced stage of civilization, rivaling in sophistication any society found at the time in Europe, the Middle East, or the Americas.

 

It was following this initial flourishing of civilization, in a period known as the Chou dynasty (1122–249 B.C.), that Lao-tse, Confucius, Mo Ti, and Mencius laid the foundation of Chinese philosophical thought.

 

The feudal states, often at war with one another, were first united under Emperor Ch'in Shih Huang Ti, during whose reign (246–210 B.C.) work was begun on the Great Wall of China, a monumental bulwark against invasion from the West. Although the Great Wall symbolized China's desire to protect itself from the outside world, under the Han dynasty (206 B.C.–A.D. 220), the civilization conducted extensive commercial trading with the West.

 

In the T'ang dynasty (618–907)—often called the golden age of Chinese history—painting, sculpture, and poetry flourished, and woodblock printing, which enabled the mass production of books, made its earliest known appearance.

 

I'm not so sure about Fukuyama's conclusions you outline here. Does he provide eveidence as to why he sees a correlation between the lack of religion and the lack of rule of law? Could there be other factors at play? I think you agree there could be but then mention how others did develop successful sustainable government with religion. But I wonder if the system you experience in America today could be regarded as successful and sustainable? How does one measure it's success as a system of government?

 

Is it really accountable to the people? All people? Or just accountable to the majority - and is the majority neccessarily the right way to go? Are you really getting the governance you want, or just the better of the two parties? This is probably a digression into the arguments for and against democracy so I won't go there, other than to question by what measure we regard this style of government as so good? I see pros and cons, and perhaps without religious influence we could develop an even better kind of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

Karen Armstrong, in her book, The Great Transformation, would not agree with Fukuyama's feeling that Confucianism was a conservative road block. She sees the spiritual developments in China as responses to the continuous warring that plagued China and valuable to the world.

 

"There was almost a palpable longing for peace. The Chinese were not interested in the scientific, metaphysical and logical questions that fascinated the Greeks. The political situation was so grave that such issues seemed trivial. Their priority was to bring back law and order, and to that end Chinese philosophers, moralists and mystics concentrated on solving the problems of government."

For a millennium Chinese philosophers and mystics would seek a more contemplative spiritual path in a violent world. There are many factors and China is unique.

 

I see pros and cons, and perhaps without religious influence we could develop an even better kind of government.

Fukuyama is not saying that religion is always a positive influence. In India he sees it as much a hindrance as a benefit. He also sees that "law" which came in part from religion now rests in our constitution. Nothing is fixed; religion will not always have the same influence. It is all evolving.

 

Keane, who doesn't believe that we achieved a full democracy until the beginning of the 20th century, says that

democracy is the first human government. It owes nothing to natural or supernatural forces or deities.

(He also said "If not for Jesus ...)

Paul, it is about evolution. Where did we come from and where are we going. I am only arguing for a clear view of the past.

 

Is it really accountable to the people? All people? Or just accountable to the majority - and is the majority necessarily the right way to go?

Many of our politicians have forgotten their civics lessons but the constitution and the Supreme Court are the safe guards against the "tyranny of the majority" (James Madison's phrase I think.)

 

dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am only arguing for a clear view of the past.

dutch

 

Likewise, Dutch. I apreciate your contribution of some factual data in this context.

 

Many of our politicians have forgotten their civics lessons but the constitution and the Supreme Court are the safe guards against the "tyranny of the majority" (James Madison's phrase I think.)

dutch

 

They may be at that, but I'm sure you would agree that they don't always get it 'right' according to everybody's opinion.

 

I am currently reading Karen Armstrong's 'The Case For God' - I wonder if China will get a mnention there too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zheng He was probably Muslim but that doesn't counter your argument. That there was an aborted age of discovery in the absence of religion seems to side with my argument.

 

Fukuyama feels "rule of law" is missing in China in the formula of effective government. In other cultures it was religion that influenced a common sense of law that applied to all including the ruler.

 

FWIW, in Islam, a judiciary of religious scholars that ruled on the legality of royal edicts developed early before this existed in the West. This institution acted as a independent constraint on otherwise autocratic rulers.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may be at that, but I'm sure you would agree that they don't always get it 'right' according to everybody's opinion.

Compromise never makes every body happy but is effective in moving forward. But polarized stand-offs are destructive. Fukuyama sees this as a re-tribalization;his word is repatrimonialization. It is one aspect of political decay.

 

John Keane believes that we have passed from assembly democracy to representative democracy to monitory democracy where para-government monitoring groups provide an extra layer of checks and balances. Truth and reconciliation efforts in South Africa is one positive example.

 

George,

Fukuyama credits Islam with that positive contribution. Mohammed got the Muslim world off to a good start. Later governments tended to use a non-citizen military which weakens the building of a successful government.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are universal and intuitive principles of right and wrong that would not theoretically necessitate religion as a mechanism for developing rule of law. However, through history, it has been an institution with specialists who are dedicated to thinking about and codifying such things.

 

It is also a way of giving divine authority to law. A transgression involves not merely disobeying the ruler, but disobeying God with eternal consequences.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also a way of giving divine authority to law. A transgression involves not merely disobeying the ruler, but disobeying God with eternal consequences.

George

 

This is exactly the weight rule of law needs - it has to apply to monarchs and tyrants as well. The citizenry have an authority backing them up when they want to overthrow the government. In the West rule of law now rests in constitutions. Any further development in that commonly held "law" must find an anchor in the American constitution to be effective.

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 21st century I think we can use something like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights to evaluate whether or not a religion's practices rise to its standards. That's a fair critique. (I haven't read it recently. I hope I haven't condemned myself.)

 

The post-post-modern response to the post-modern's "everything is relative" is "Yes, but some things are better than others."

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the weight rule of law needs - it has to apply to monarchs and tyrants as well. The citizenry have an authority backing them up when they want to overthrow the government. In the West rule of law now rests in constitutions. Any further development in that commonly held "law" must find an anchor in the American constitution to be effective.

 

Yes, it often occurs to me that the Constitution takes on a near-divine status. No one challenges it authority, only how it should be interpreted (not unlike religious texts).

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George

 

This is exactly the weight rule of law needs - it has to apply to monarchs and tyrants as well. The citizenry have an authority backing them up when they want to overthrow the government. In the West rule of law now rests in constitutions. Any further development in that commonly held "law" must find an anchor in the American constitution to be effective.

 

Dutch

 

Exactly. And this is the crux of not only "what is religion good for?" but something very critical underlying much of the diffiuclty in the emerging crisis in human conciousness worldwide.

 

The reliance upon beleif in a 'higher authority' to which humans must answer, that has power to know, judge, and punish what any do, apart from any power of other ordinary humans, has functioned as a powerful restraint on behavior, of everbody, from the highest in worldly power and authority, to the lowest. It has acted to restrain the naturally clever human mind that might easily find ways to do things socially unacceptable by accomplishing them by means and in ways others are not aware of, do not detect. Ie, it acts upon the natural 'choice' in decision making that without it, easily becomes 'do whatever, just don't get caught.'

 

Bring in the "Thomas Teorum' here...what we believe is real will be real in it's consequences. As long as humans beleive there is a 'higher power' that has this authority over us, to observe and judgeand puunish us,whether other people know what we do or not. we will think and act accordingly. Losing that belief is bound to have a disinhibiting consequence on human thought and behavior. Some of us might argue we wouldn't do "those wrong things" even without that restraint, but also I think we cannot beleive everybody is so affected andwould react so. There really are people ready and willing to do anything they think they can get away with.

 

And with the breaking down of religion as a force of authority, that inhibiting function and effect is breaking down accordingly. There is a NT scripture, a prophetic statement, I'm thinking might be possibly quite applicable to this idea, but I'm not finding it just now...will add to post here if i do.

 

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service