Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Educated versus Popular Religion
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 43 (174453)
01-06-2005 1:55 PM


My claim is that for all religions which have been around for a long time, there are two levels of belief, which I will call
"educated religion" (ER) and "popular religion" (PR).
ER is the accurate version, but this is not saying that someone who embraces PR is not authentically religious, and it is also not to say that someone who purportedly embraces ER IS authentically religious. It depends on the individual.
Religion is not just for the educated but for anyone, and it is for this reason that religion is suspectible to vulgarization, to all sorts of add-ons and traditions that are not important in a religious sense, and often ridiculous. This is the very nature of the "popular."
What I set forth here is an explanation of a few concepts of ER, as I understand it (I did not make this up--it comes from reading ER texts in the Western tradition).
Belief: Belief in this or that doctrine is not as important as it might seem in PR. What really matters is integrity of belief. The enemy of religion is not sincere atheism, and certainly not hard science, but thoughtless worldliness. Sincere atheism, in fact, is a kind of religion, so to speak, in that the non-believer is engaged with ultimate issues (this is a definition, if you will, of religion).
Now there is a type of "smart-ass" atheism which is mere posturing, and means nothing from a religious point of view.
Faith: This does not mean believing something with no evidence. What it means is maintaining one's open-mindedness about one's religious belief in the face of what appears to be contrary evidence.
A mother loses her wonderful, promising child in a freak accident that is nobody's fault. She says to herself, quite reasonably, how could God do this? Either there is no God or he is a cruel being.
When something traumatic happens, we tend to define the entire universe based on that traumatic event. Faith tells us not to do this--or at least to try not to. Look at the big picture. Do not define the universe by one incident, or one thought, or one feeling.
However, other activities, not just trauma, can also have a distorting influence (an obsessive pleasure, for example).
Evidence: Evidence for a religious belief is not scientific. It's the sort of evidence that we use in daily life to make decisions.
Example of ER evidence: Conscience
I'm not a believer, but leaving that fact aside for the moment, the most compelling evidence for me is "conscience."
For the believer, conscience is something real, not a Freudian construct (which, after all, is also a non-scientific opinion).
How do we know for sure that conscience is real? Obviously, we don't know for sure--ER belief is not about certainty--but what we do know is that you don't have to be religious to have a conscience--indeed, often a very sensitive conscience. We can talk all we like (sometimes very glibly) about how our moral views are merely subjective or merely culture-driven, or whatever other tag of relativity you choose to use, but if someone examines their feelings in an unbiased way, I think we will find that our ideas of justice seem pretty damned real. This to me is a very telling point (if somebody doesn't feel this, of course, it would mean nothing to them. I'm assuming that most people do).
{the "argument from conscience" is elaborated very completely in the ER text, John Henry Newman's "The Grammar of Assent," which is not fresh in my mind and which I did not fully grasp anyway).
Sometimes people tend to talk about our sense of right and wrong (or, figuratively, heaven and hell) in a very one-sided fashion. "It's a way of assigning our enemies to hell," they say sarcastically. They seem not to realize that it is also a way of assigning OURSELVES to hell. ER literature is full of accounts of feelings of guilt to the point of deep despair ("the dark night of the soul"). Conscience is not just about judging others; more importantly, it's about judging ourselves.
So if we take conscience seriously, we realize that we live in a world that is thoroughly moral (by this, of course, I don't mean that the world is good). Now, the more I think of this, the more I find this idea rather unpleasant. I would prefer the world to be thoroughly aesthetic or something.
But what I like will not do away with these strong feelings about justice and injustice. I can't explain these feelings away with the latest fad in pop psychology.
I'll stop here.
I'll just add that "sincere atheism"--though it is to be treated with respect--is considered by ER an undeveloped or immature religious view.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-06-2005 15:51 AM
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-09-2005 02:49 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 01-07-2005 2:24 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-07-2005 3:52 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 35 by Clark, posted 01-22-2005 2:33 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 43 (174751)
01-07-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-06-2005 1:55 PM


And so the point is, there's no point in criticizing PR from a theoretical standpoint. It's like confusing a sci-fi novel with science (the sci-fi novel might have a core of accurate science in it but it will also have a lot of imaginary ideas).
If you want to criticize religious theory, you have to address ER.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-07-2005 14:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-06-2005 1:55 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 01-08-2005 11:49 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 43 (174801)
01-07-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hangdawg13
01-07-2005 3:52 PM


Thank you, Hangdawg. I'm glad you verified that ER is not something I just made up. I made up the label but not the tradition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-07-2005 3:52 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 43 (175031)
01-08-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
01-07-2005 2:24 PM


The Bible according to ER
This is according to my unexpert knowledge.
There are two qualities of the Bible that make it rather confusing:
1. It was not written in chronological order as presented to us in the Old Testament (or Torah).
2. It consists of different genres of writing: historical narrative, religious poetry, and MYTHOS (to borrow a term of a commentator). Mythos is a story written to illustrate a general idea, the details of which are not meant to be taken literally (the story of Jonah and the whale is an obvious example).
These qualities of the Bible are very important when we consider the book of Genesis.
The oldest parts of the Bible are those that depict Yahweh as a tribal god, in competition with other gods (such as Baal). These parts were written before the rise of monotheism.
However, the first chapter of Genesis describes a monotheistic God. It is a later addition.
The first chapter is also mythos. The idea is that this monotheistic God is also God the creator of the universe. The details of how he did that are not meant literally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 01-07-2005 2:24 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 01-08-2005 6:53 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2005 3:18 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 43 (175085)
01-08-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
01-08-2005 11:49 AM


Re: The Bible according to ER
And so the religious development in the Old Testament does not match the chronology. We have a monotheistic Creator of the Universe being degraded into a tribal god.
This is not the way religious development works.
What happened was that a later writer, a monotheist, added the part about the creation of the world onto a historical account of a tribe (or tribes) which included accounts of the tribal god.
So the idea in PR about the world being 6000 years old, computed by adding up generations, actually refers to a computation about the history of Hebrew tribes, not the history of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 01-08-2005 11:49 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by GreyOwl, posted 01-08-2005 10:26 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 01-09-2005 4:55 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 43 (175230)
01-09-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
01-09-2005 4:55 AM


Re: The Bible according to ER
Yes, you're right, Phatboy. I was not very clear. The idea of the topic came from my reaction to people who were criticizing religion. The way they criticized it gave me the idea that they didn't know much about it (not that I do, really!).
By ER I was referring to an intellectual tradition. My label makes it sound like it is something official, but it's not. You will probably not hear some of the ideas of ER in a church (possible but not likely).
PR is the popular version of Western religion held by uneducated believers. That sounds a little snooty but I did not mean it to be.
Somebody does not have to be educated to be sincerely religious, of course, and of course just because you are educated in religion, this doesn't necessarily mean anything as regards your spiritual condition.
We can't judge what anybody else's spiritual condition is. Somebody might have vague and fuzzy notions about the doctrines they believe, and they might hold some beliefs that ER would claim is absurd, but this says nothing about their spiritual condition which has to do with integrity, not clarity of thought or knowledge. My point was not to criticize PR, but to criticize those who would attack PR on an intellectual basis. They should criticize ER instead (of course, there are no cut and dried divisions between these two categories I made up).
It seemed to me that the criticizers were using PR as a strawman--I don't mean they did this intentionally but that's what it amounted to.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-09-2005 13:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 01-09-2005 4:55 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by robinrohan, posted 01-10-2005 1:30 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 43 (175231)
01-09-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by GreyOwl
01-08-2005 10:26 PM


Re: The Bible according to ER
GreyOwl writes:
it seems that many people agree with what you're saying, even if they don't consciously realize it at first.
Not quite clear to me. You mean the believers agree with what I said?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by GreyOwl, posted 01-08-2005 10:26 PM GreyOwl has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 43 (175367)
01-10-2005 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by robinrohan
01-09-2005 1:22 PM


Specifics about PR
The part of PR that would deviate from ER:
1. the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired, that it is literally true in all parts, or that it is inerrant.
2. the belief in miracles, either in the past or the present.
3. In Roman Catholicism, the belief in the infallibility of the Pope when making doctrinal decisions.
4. In Judaism, the belief in the rules for daily living being something other than symbolic and arbitrary (the rules about eating are not 100% arbitrary; part of these rules have to do with causing animals minimal pain).
5. the belief in petitionary prayer.
6. the belief that an attempt to describe the nature of God, such as the doctrine of the trinity, is anything other than a symbol for what cannot be described.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-10-2005 01:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by robinrohan, posted 01-09-2005 1:22 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Swift, posted 01-18-2005 9:34 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 43 (176542)
01-13-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by GreyOwl
01-13-2005 11:32 AM


Re: The Bible according to ER
Greyowl, I don't know what "daoism" is, but if it's like Eastern-style religions in general, I believe it very much fits the ER/PR categories. Polytheistic Hinduism corresponds to PR and "intellectual"--or whatever we call it-- Hinduism corresponds to ER. I really don't think there is a need for a 3rd category, because Western ER is not that different, I feel, from Eastern ER. However, I am very tentative about this because I don't know much about Eastern religions. That's why I limited the idea initially to the Western religions.
In other words, I think you are exactly right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GreyOwl, posted 01-13-2005 11:32 AM GreyOwl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by GreyOwl, posted 01-13-2005 2:10 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 19 by lfen, posted 01-15-2005 4:44 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 43 (176928)
01-14-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by GreyOwl
01-13-2005 2:10 PM


Re: The Bible according to ER
I never heard of Taoism being called Daoism before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by GreyOwl, posted 01-13-2005 2:10 PM GreyOwl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by GreyOwl, posted 01-14-2005 9:26 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 20 by lfen, posted 01-15-2005 4:52 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 43 (177885)
01-17-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by GreyOwl
01-17-2005 12:30 PM


Re: The Bible according to ER
Both Ifen's and Greyowl's remarks help me to understand the attitude of PR to ER in the East ("veneration"). I'm wondering what the attitude of ER is to PR in the East.
I think the attitude of ER to PR in the West is that PR has elements in it that are not healthy--such as the Creationist movement in education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by GreyOwl, posted 01-17-2005 12:30 PM GreyOwl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by lfen, posted 01-17-2005 6:09 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 43 (177901)
01-17-2005 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by pink sasquatch
01-17-2005 4:09 PM


Re: Western Mysticism
Pink Sasquatch writes:
Does deity-worship ever qualify as ER?
Good point. Even Paul Tillich (Protestant ER theologian) said that God does not "exist" (a notorious phrase). What he meant was that the predicate "exist" could not be applied to Him. He didn't mean God was not real--He is the "ground of all being"--that sort of thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-17-2005 4:09 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 43 (178413)
01-19-2005 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Swift
01-18-2005 9:34 PM


Re: Specifics about PR
Swift writes:
It sounds to me that you are making an attack on Christianity
The purpose of this topic was not to attack Christianity or any other religion. Its purpose was to tell people, if they did not know, that there is such a thing as ER in the Western tradition. Most of my examples come from Christianity because I know more about it than the other two religions, although the belief in PR which takes all the Bible literally would also apply to Judaism as regards what Christians call the Old Testament.
I'm saying that ER is more "accurate" than PR, by which I mean that the doctrines are "truer" in the sense that such doctrines as ER has is more in keeping with the sort of evidence that religion is based on.
Western ER is based on the evidence of private experience--not somebody's unique private experience, but the private experiences that we all share, the experience of mind, conscience, and free will.
In my opinion, that is the evidence of religion.
If you want facts you go to science. If you want meaning, you go to religion. You can also go to the local bar, of course, which can be religious in its own way. (The meaning at the local bar is that there is no meaning. But when two or three come together at the local bar in the name of Nothing, then Nothing is with them. So saith their patron saint, Ernest Hemingway).
PR at its sincere core is the same as ER, but also has all sorts of absurdities attached to it which are the result of a lack of religious education. But as I said before, religion is not just for the educated but for everyone, so PR is a natural phenomenon.
To be frank, to ER the Christ story is MYTHOS, not LOGOS, which means that it is a story meant to illustrate an idea but which is not meant to be taken literally. But of course, the "Christ story" is not to be confused with the historical life of Jesus. The same can be said for the story of Mohammed or Moses.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-19-2005 00:20 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-19-2005 00:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Swift, posted 01-18-2005 9:34 PM Swift has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2005 5:44 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 01-22-2005 7:22 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 43 (179415)
01-21-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by robinrohan
01-19-2005 12:14 AM


Re: Specifics about PR
I'm wondering if someone can tell me (Ifen, GreyOwl) how the idea of reincarnation is viewed by Eastern ER.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by robinrohan, posted 01-19-2005 12:14 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by lfen, posted 01-21-2005 11:22 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 43 (180260)
01-24-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Clark
01-22-2005 2:33 AM


Re: Educated Religion and Science Discussion
Thanks, Jamska. I'll study it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Clark, posted 01-22-2005 2:33 AM Clark has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024