Religion vs Belief

[eight bits]

Howdy, Leo

Sheri

I am struggling too, ... This difference I am inferring is, if I am a practicing Buddhist I am automatically being dictated to and not thinking for myself, if I am not a Buddhist and choose Ahimsa then I am choosing to believe and think for myself.

I am struggling here, too.

Somebody tells me something I hadn't thought of before, or hadn't thought of that way before, and I think "Well, yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. I think I'll try to put that into practice." How is that not "thinking for myself?"

If I then find out that there is a community who think the same way as I do about that sort of thing, so we socialize, compare notes, maybe even sit in meditation together, how does that change whether or not I was thinking for myself when I first considered the thinking we share?

I am confused about the distinction the thread is trying to tease out. I am OK with the idea that religion usually involves shared beliefs, practices, literary references, etc. (allowing that people do sometimes talk about "their" religion, as differences from what they share with others). But I just don't see how agreeing with somebody discloses whether I'm thinking independently.

I also don't see how I would become subject to a dead person (Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed...) just because I admire some or many of their thoughts. Their thinking is done. I can look at it, take what I think has merit, and pass on the rest. In fact, that's what I do, and from a longer list of thinkers than that, not all of them "religious" (Socrates, for example.)

OMG, I'm a cafeteria everythingist .

[Leonardo]

I also don't see how I would become subject to a dead person (Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed...) just because I admire some or many of their thoughts. Their thinking is done. I can look at it, take what I think has merit, and pass on the rest. In fact, that's what I do, and from a longer list of thinkers than that, not all of them "religious" (Socrates, for example.)

OMG, I'm a cafeteria everythingist .

Howdy to you, too, EB.

Well, that's kind of the point I am making when attempting to distinguish between belief and religion. I, too, modify my beliefs if I find something in another's thoughts appealing, or has resonance - but I, too, cannot see how that would make me subject to that thinker's authority.

Yet this is exactly what happens in religion.

Perhaps, as I alluded to, religion is a special case of belief in that it involves a wholesale social/cultural commitment from the adherent, and because the authority it is claimed to devolve from is absolute. But this hits on another point I was attempting to make, that the new adherent has to subsume themselves almost totally into the belief of the one who set down that religion. And being a religion, and so having to assume the new 'rules' one has to follow are absolute in the authority they devolve from, the new adherent has no choice to "discard the rest" - as you or I have the privilege of doing.

If they did opt to "discard the rest", then they could not claim to be adherents of that religion.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Is the distinguishment here different to a Christian who says "Christianity is not a religion but rather a way of life", in an attempt to separate dogma from deeds? According to the dictionary, the first definition of "religion" is a belief in a supernatural creator. Dogma has no place in this. I guess it depends on what part of religion you want to focus on when determining a definition.

What this does show, is that whether Christian or not, in the modern landscape it appears that no one wants to be labelled "religious". It's almost a dirty word, an insult of the most insidious of kinds.

Reminds me of the questionnaire option, "describe your belief in god/s: a- religious, b- more spiritual than religious, c- atheist/agnostic". To be honest, I've no idea what b even means, except that it covers everyone who believes in god but doesn't want to associate with dogma.

[Leonardo]

Is the distinguishment here different to a Christian who says "Christianity is not a religion but rather a way of life", in an attempt to separate dogma from deeds? According to the dictionary, the first definition of "religion" is a belief in a supernatural creator. Dogma has no place in this. I guess it depends on what part of religion you want to focus on when determining a definition.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily accept that belief in a supernatural creator is a necessary part of religion, as there are variants of many religions, and some religions in their entirety, in which there is no belief in a supernatural creator. That very definition sounds to me like it is naturally biased towards the Abrahamic, and other creator-centric, religions.

However, you have hit close to the mark with the allusion to dogma. For a religion to assert it's [divine] authority over an adherent, dogma is necessary. The adherent becomes dogmatic - believing in the incontrovertible truthfulness of the principles and tenet of that religion as set forth by an absolute [divine] authority.

Believing there is a deity is not dogma, but believing that deity has set out rules and codes of behaviour that we must follow or face serious consequences, is.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Leonardo

[+Liquid Gardens]

What this does show, is that whether Christian or not, in the modern landscape it appears that no one wants to be labelled "religious". It's almost a dirty word, an insult of the most insidious of kinds.

I'm not sure where that is really shown; to me this statement, although I don't think you intended it that way, fits right in with a very old pattern or meme where religious people, or maybe it's just Christians, like to think that their beliefs are radical in some way and/or that they are somehow outside mainstream thinking for lack of a better phrase. To me what makes that point of view absurd is that in the US and from what I can tell Australia also, the majority of people are self-identifying as religious, which seems odd if it is really an insult.

[+Sherapy]

Howdy, Leo

Sheri

I am struggling here, too.

Somebody tells me something I hadn't thought of before, or hadn't thought of that way before, and I think "Well, yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. I think I'll try to put that into practice." How is that not "thinking for myself?"

If I then find out that there is a community who think the same way as I do about that sort of thing, so we socialize, compare notes, maybe even sit in meditation together, how does that change whether or not I was thinking for myself when I first considered the thinking we share?

I am confused about the distinction the thread is trying to tease out. I am OK with the idea that religion usually involves shared beliefs, practices, literary references, etc. (allowing that people do sometimes talk about "their" religion, as differences from what they share with others). But I just don't see how agreeing with somebody discloses whether I'm thinking independently.

I also don't see how I would become subject to a dead person (Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed...) just because I admire some or many of their thoughts. Their thinking is done. I can look at it, take what I think has merit, and pass on the rest. In fact, that's what I do, and from a longer list of thinkers than that, not all of them "religious" (Socrates, for example.)

OMG, I'm a cafeteria everythingist .

LOL, Cafeteria everythingist !!! I love it. Heck, I recently loved an idea from an ex anorexic(not eating paper)and thought that is a good idea when one is tempted by pop tart ice cream sandwiches. I took what had merit and passed on the rest.

[+Liquid Gardens]

However, you have hit close to the mark with the allusion to dogma. For a religion to assert it's [divine] authority over an adherent, dogma is necessary. The adherent becomes dogmatic - believing in the incontrovertible truthfulness of the principles and tenet of that religion as set forth by an absolute [divine] authority.

Perhaps, but you can rephrase the way you have said this: 'religions asserting its authority' can also be rephrased as 'adherent accepting/believing the authority'. In the latter phrasing, I don't see any necessary subsuming of beliefs.

Let's use an example, and take the concept of incontrovertible dogma. If I'm understanding what you are saying, if a believer believes in God but does not believe in dogma, but then alters his belief so that he does believe in the absolute truth of dogma, then that believer's beliefs have been subsumed and they are not really their beliefs. However, if we flip the scenario and have a believer who believes in incontrovertible dogma who then alters his belief so that he does not accept all dogma as true, this is his belief and is independent. I would say that in both scenarios the beliefs are his, not someone else's, and they are both independent beliefs; the fact that they coincide with dogma does not make the belief any less theirs.

[Leonardo]

I would say that in both scenarios the beliefs are his, not someone else's, and they are both independent beliefs; the fact that they coincide with dogma does not make the belief any less theirs.

While it is a fine distinction I make, and perhaps there is confusion in my own mind regarding the status of 'ownership' of the specific beliefs, the precedence of whoever first espoused those beliefs would - to my mind - indicate ownership. And thus, the one who takes up that belief (or beliefs), while not stripping away their 'personness', cannot be said to be holding those beliefs as their own.

It is similar to how I would describe intellectual property, but obviously much more emotive and personal than that subject.

[+Liquid Gardens]

And thus, the one who takes up that belief (or beliefs), while not stripping away their 'personness', cannot be said to be holding those beliefs as their own.

But then it seems a corollary of this is that the believer who cannot be said to be holding those beliefs as their own must either be holding another 'true' independent belief on the same subject or be entirely agnostic. If people believes that Jesus is the son of God, then it would seem that no one alive can be said to be holding that belief as their own, which to me just doesn't sound correct. Does this mean this same believer has a different true belief of 'their own' that perhaps Jesus was just a man? I don't know to what extent it makes sense to say that someone believes two contradictory things simultaneously, I realize it can happen, but it would be incredibly prevalent given your definition here, as the majority of things that I and I'd guess everyone think are true are not entirely original nor purely of our own independent making.

Regardless, it seems at some point you are stuck having to assert then what a person 'really' believes. If someone says that they believe that Jesus is the son of God, you would respond that no, they aren't really holding that belief as their own? Can't they then respond, well what do I really believe then since this isn't my 'own belief', and most importantly how does Leo know that? What is the specific criteria or process by which a belief can be rightly called your own then?

[Leonardo]

That is the difference between taking on something as your own, and originating a belief. The first is not true ownership, but only a replacement of what already existed. The second may (almost certainly would, as none of us are a 'blank slate' indefinitely) involve replacement, but does imply ownership.

And if you don't own the belief, can you claim it to be 'yours'. You can claim to believe it, but are allowing someone else's belief to replace your own (unless you were a 'blank slate'), not 'taking ownership' of it. There may be a difference in the quality of replacement between types of belief, and in my argument I isolate religious belief from others due to the encompassing nature of the personal change required to accept that replacement.

Just as you can hold something in your hand, but it not be 'yours', so can you hold something in your mind and it also not be 'yours'.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Leonardo

[+Liquid Gardens]

That is the difference between taking on something as your own, and originating a belief. The first is not true ownership, but only a replacement of what already existed. The second may (almost certainly would, as none of us are a 'blank slate' indefinitely) involve replacement, but does imply ownership.

Then I think you've made clear where you and I differ: I don't agree that beliefs are in any meaningful way 'owned' by their originators, the way you are using the word 'owned'. Some do have originators or authors, but that's not the same as an owner.

You can claim to believe it, but are allowing someone else's belief to replace your own (unless you were a 'blank slate'), not 'taking ownership' of it.

I'd say that at the exact point at which you replace a previous belief with a new belief, regardless of how you arrived at that new belief, that new belief is your own. I don't think it makes any sense to say you truly believe something but that its not your own belief, of course it is; I don't know how it could not be without also stating that the person, despite what they say, doesn't actually believe what they say they do. The scenario you've set up seems to essentially make it so no one has a belief of their own about who Jesus was; the options that he is the son of God, that he is just a human, and that he never existed have all been stated by others centuries/millenia ago. I'd argue under your methodology here that people have very few beliefs that are actually their own, as someone has probably had the belief before you.

[Leonardo]

I'd argue under your methodology here that people have very few beliefs that are actually their own, as someone has probably had the belief before you.

That's probably very true, and why I made the critical distinction between belief, and religious belief. For reasons I have explained a couple of times.

[Frank Merton]

It seems that hidden deed down none of us want to die, that even reductionist atheists who insist there is nothing after life generally qualify it with something of the sort of, "But I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised."

Well it may not be so pleasant. The universe doesn't care about us and so as a result the afterlife may be extremely unpleasant. If mind goes on after the death of the brain and their is no rebirth, then you populate the world with disembodied spirits -- not the "ghosts" of western fantasy but the "hungry ghosts" of Asian legend -- filled with human desire but not able to gratify anything. Just stuck as mind without physicality, without sensation, without even movement, forever.

[Frank Merton]

Beliefs are not good things, as I see it. We generally are not consciously aware we have them; they are chairs we sit on and move about without being consciously aware of "chair."

[+Sherapy]

Then I think you've made clear where you and I differ: I don't agree that beliefs are in any meaningful way 'owned' by their originators, the way you are using the word 'owned'. Some do have originators or authors, but that's not the same as an owner.

I'd say that at the exact point at which you replace a previous belief with a new belief, regardless of how you arrived at that new belief, that new belief is your own. I don't think it makes any sense to say you truly believe something but that its not your own belief, of course it is; I don't know how it could not be without also stating that the person, despite what they say, doesn't actually believe what they say they do. The scenario you've set up seems to essentially make it so no one has a belief of their own about who Jesus was; the options that he is the son of God, that he is just a human, and that he never existed have all been stated by others centuries/millenia ago. I'd argue under your methodology here that people have very few beliefs that are actually their own, as someone has probably had the belief before you.

I completely agree that there are very few ideas /beliefs that are unique to any of us. Speaking for myself there is nothing original at all in anything that I think or believe.

As 8ty pointed out, we borrow from all kinds of sources, in my case-- I have quite a bit of flexibility in the idea shopping department ( I do think there is a way to find value in almost any idea, even if its not what to do or be.)

I even doubt that we think outside the box or think for ourselves, "really." I think our claim to fame is some are good at discerning/weeding out ideas, (seeing around corners a bit easier) then the next guy,( or allow for more options), but even then that is a only matter of my opinion.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

I am a human being, alike in more ways than different to any other human being on the planet. I experience the world around me as a human being does - as does everyone else. All of us have the same quality of experiencing what is real and actual. While our personal experiences may differ, they differ in composition - not in quality.

It is essential, in my view, to think this way if one is to think of others as people and not objectify them.

This is a much more succint explanation for my main line of argument, thank you. That a person can choose to believe something, or modify their own belief with another's, without becoming subject to the one who held the belief originally. Religion does not accommodate this, but the 'new' believer is expected to become subject to the authority of that original.

Fair enough, Leo.

To address the second part of your post, For me, I say/add there should be rules, but there doesn't need to be rules for every little thing and perhaps the wisdom is knowing the difference.I have found that often by the time one has been a part of life for a while and are exposed to other ideas and have had some time to experience things for themselves-- this becomes apparent.

I'll add, I have seen many situations that people who struggled with boundaries in their life find religion gives them the structure/discipline they were lacking. I have a friend that was horribly abused/neglected as a child and it was religion(Christianity) that gave her hope-- that there is love in this world. For me, it is not so much the fact-- that one adheres to a religion as much as how one uses it, and I wonder if you would be surprised to learn that in some cases people use/apply religion in productive, positive ways too.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Sherapy

[Arpee]

A religion is based on rituals and most likely a book.

Beliefs are based on assumptions about what is actually happening that cannot be proven so far;

and Philosophy is just a perspective - a way of looking at things.

[Frank Merton]

I think philosophy is the best way to go to be happy, with music and sport and family and employment all being relevant; religion is to my mind optional although sometimes ritual and generally practices like meditation help. Of course religions generally are a good way to focus giving, so long as one is sure it is not just so the leaders can live like kings..

[+Sherapy]

I think philosophy is the best way to go to be happy, with music and sport and family and employment all being relevant; religion is to my mind optional although sometimes ritual and generally practices like meditation help. Of course religions generally are a good way to focus giving, so long as one is sure it is not just so the leaders can live like kings..

I do think Philosophy taken as a whole could contribute to many things that could be of benefit to a persons quality of life.I think that there are quality ideas in the many religions too and i am not opposed to taking from them what has merit and value and leaving what doesn't. In truth-- for me this applies to most ideas. There is great value in what things are not and not what to do also, For ex: Geometry is taught in this manner, to understand what parallel lines are can be achieved in part by understanding what parallel lines are not.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Sherapy

[Frank Merton]

Oh yes, there is geometry; one is never fully happy without geometry.

[Frank Merton]

A religion is based on rituals and most likely a book.

Beliefs are based on assumptions about what is actually happening that cannot be proven so far;

and Philosophy is just a perspective - a way of looking at things.

Philosophy is many perspectives, and one is best not settling too strongly on any one of them.

[Frank Merton]

It takes a great deal of ingenuity and "Jesuitic manipulation" to make the Bible fit with evolution, and I think the whole exercise, while anything of this sort can be done, is misleading and maybe even intellectually dishonest.

I once saw a list of several thousand resemblances between Finnish and Iroquois, some of them startling, but it proved nothing.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Frank Merton

[White Crane Feather]

It takes a great deal of ingenuity and "Jesuitic manipulation" to make the Bible fit with evolution, and I think the whole exercise, while anything of this sort can be done, is misleading and maybe even intellectually dishonest.

I once saw a list of several thousand resemblances between Finnish and Iroquois, some of them startling, but it proved nothing.

Not if you consider the bible pretty much metaphorical and a piece of literature rather than literal.

[+Link of Hyrule]

It takes a great deal of ingenuity and "Jesuitic manipulation" to make the Bible fit with evolution, and I think the whole exercise, while anything of this sort can be done, is misleading and maybe even intellectually dishonest.

I once saw a list of several thousand resemblances between Finnish and Iroquois, some of them startling, but it proved nothing.

Perhaps it takes much manipulation to expressly see "evolution" in the Bible, but it is not that hard to use the Bible to show that the Bible God is not incompatible with the modern view of evolution. This link outlines some research I did about a year ago or so, and shows why the creation account can be understood in terms of theology rather than science.

Just a thought to consider

~ Regards, PA

[Likely Guy]

These two terms are so very often confused, and many people who believe in some form of 'higher consciousness/power' by default fall into a religion.

Here's my take on what these are:

Religion - this is when you accept what another believes, sometimes overriding your own belief, and you therefore allow that other to dictate much of your life pov, from morality to prejudices.

Belief - this is your personal pov on the topic of spirituality. It is not a pov you force upon others, or let dictate how you behave to others with respect their own, personal belief.

I can fully understand why a person holds to a belief, and respect that about them. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why someone would surrender themselves as a person to a religion - and simply become the tool of another. Don't get me wrong, intellectually I know there are various reasons - such as the comfort of being a part of a community, etc - but to give up yourself for that?

Perhaps I am merely selfish and a bit sociopathic in comparison to those who elect to join a religion, but it seems to me that if there was a 'creator', that creator would want us to be who we are - not become a reflection of another.

I have no religion/anti-religion, my 'belief' extends as far as the tip of my nose. I don't care to know what to believe, or to believe in anything/or in nothing.

I'm an indifferent agnostic.

Don't get me wrong. I research the world's religions to understand where they come from, but I really don't care what they say, and that goes for the atheists too.

Edit: People are the same, the only thing different is their address.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Likely Guy