Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

It sounds like you agree with Dhammapada 1, Tao, and this post seems to highlight verses 11 & 12

11. Those who mistake the unessential to be essential and the essential to be unessential, dwelling in wrong thoughts, never arrive at the essential.

12. Those who know the essential to be essential and the unessential to be unessential, dwelling in right thoughts, do arrive at the essential.

Thank you. The 'essence' of anything can be exceedingly difficult to pin down. And the temptation to be drawn into contextualisations can be hard to resist. But like Chris I am not searching to be any Guru or teacher nor set myself up as having some sublime insight. What I see and what I say here is highly reductionist, it is an endeavour for essence. Many people of faith are quick to point out that all faiths are essentially the same, in that I am no different. But I do not attempt to remove what is the most essential ingredient of any faith worth having, a sense of common humanity. Quite the reverse I would love all people to reclaim that from the religions that have hijacked and abused it. The religions that narrow it down to only be common amongst their own kind.

The reason I care at all about this subject is because I have travelled widely. I know in the profoundest sense that the child in Morocco has exactly the same feelings as the child in Thailand and that if put together then without even a common language they would be playing and laughing and having fun. But we adults burden them with superstitions and ill logic and within a few short years they are fully prepared and self-justified to pick each other out in the cross hairs of their rifles. The cost of religion is too great. It is far too easily manipulated and abused. Our technology has reduced our world to an intellectual village, yet our religions still carve up the map with unsafe regions that proclaim 'here be monsters'. But there are no monsters that are not made so. There are only children, and people that were once children.

Most of us here sit nice and comfortable and we can afford the luxury of time to think, ponder, contemplate, reason or whatever. And we live in societies where the vast bulk of our neighbours idea of a good read is some glossy gossip magazine or a mail order catalogue. We live in a bubble of our own making which is not truly reflective of the experience of reality most people choose or, as is globally more common, have thrust upon them. It is easy for us to only focus on what can be described as the selfish search for enlightenment. But what good is self enlightenment in a world where a child dies every 4 seconds of hunger. What good soapboxing when your taxes are used to fund the private armies of murderous dictators. Or to spread radioactive waste across large swathes of distant lands, polluting them for the next 9 billion years.

Our talk is cheap. No prayer, no meditation is going to help put an end to the huge volume of suffering that is a daily reality for billions of people. No appeal to a deity is going to put bread on the table or remove the bullets from the breech. Religion may help the individual cope with all the hardships but it most definitely does nothing to help the masses. And they are not designed to. They do not even bother trying, they do not even bother saying you will benefit in this life but promise you will reap the rewards when you are dead. And so the masses abdicate their responsibility for the living except as a hedge bet on the ever after. Religion is damaging on every level and will destroy us if we do not destroy it. Only by caring for the present and admitting that our only path to immortality is in the future of our children, and by truly recognising we are solely responsible for the stewardship of this beautiful planet can we hope to survive as a species. Religion and politics work hand in hand and always have done and religion works as a fog to keep people from thinking that they personally have the power to do anything. It teaches deference to authority and to accept the corruption. I do not expect it to change any time soon but if this does not change, well then the clock is already ticking on that day when the fog of ideological madness ends it all.

tao

[cyberpi]

Tao,
Are religious beliefs chosen, or socially programmed?

You appear to have decided that they are socially programmed and that they must be eradicated in order to save children from themselves.

Does a child choose between good and bad deeds, or does a child duplicate whatever is given and taught to them whether it is good or whether it is bad?

Same question with emphasis on the mind of a child.

[seattlegal]

Tao, we have seen human rights violations under atheist regimes such as Stalin and Mao, (who between the two of them, were responsible for the deaths of 60 million people) so religion is not to blame there. Consider this instead:

(click on thumbnail for larger image)

[Netti-Netti]

Tao, I would say that we have several testable hypothesis that arise from your theoretical views about the cultural means of transmission for religious ideology.

I think we agree that religious ideology we were talking about before has had ample chance of being distributed via cultural inheritance (within family systems) and via cultural acquisition (religious institutions including church-operated schools, pamphleteers, and various other religionist media). Yet as we've observed, contrary to Biblical injunctions, people raised in Western societies have drifted toward astrology and other occult ideology. This tells us that people don't take the normative Biblically based ideology very seriously. This is especially noteworthy considering the number of people put to death by the Church for witchcraft. Even if the relevant Biblical passages were mistranslated (which they apparently were), the Church's stance on the occult is evident.

You write: "as the cuisine of a country is inherited by successive generations so are its beliefs." The above example raises questions about the long-term stability of the ideology and also about the immediacy of the effects of a traditional mindset on behavior.

One would expect widespread acceptance for a common set of beliefs and values that have legitimacy simply by virtue of their normativeness. The transfer of the values and beliefs would be largely self-perpetuating as long as the cultural means of transmission are operative. In this connection, I would agree with you that someone is less likely to become religious in an nonreligious culture. It is from this perspective that I view some interesting research findings. In particular, the available data show very clearly that the UK has a secular majority. That is, the vast majority -- 60% -- do not believe in G-d. As one might surmise given the aforementioned finding, two thirds (="66% or 32 million") people in the UK have no religious affiliation or church membership (2006 data).

Other findings for your interest: "In 2000, 60 per cent of the population claimed to belong to a specific religion with 55 per cent being Christian. However, half of all adults aged 18 and over who belonged to a religion have never attended a religious service." Further, 59% of those surveyed report that they "practically never" attend church!

Pray tell, Tao, how can there be a process of cultural reinforcement for ideology and behavior when people do not avail themselves of opportunities to learn these things from church services?


A truly effective mechanism of indoctrination and enforcement would be largely self-perpetuating, Clearly, no such mechanism is effective in the UK. Have a look:

In the twenty years between 1980 and 2000 the Church of England suffered a 27 per cent decline in church membership. The Roman Catholic Church suffered a similar decline in the same period in mass attendance. Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday. Religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s, and all indicators show a continued secularization of British society in line with other European countries such as France.

Source: Religion in the United Kingdom: Diversity, Trends and Decline

If the social programming was actually effective, one would expect a "well developed acceptance" for normative religious beliefs and values. Based on the foregoing findings, the empirical support for it is lacking, at least in the UK and other European countries. I would go so far as to say that the Religious Factor actually is quite weak in Western society in general.

The picture you have pained about the role of ideology does not seem to have the best fit to reality. Clearly, traditional religion has little appeal and probably exerts little influence on public and private ritual behavior and social behavior in general. The data indicate massive declines in church memberships. I don't see how a religious community of any size is possible under these circumstances. This is an issue because a community of believers is the "sales force" for the ideology.

Recent history has been marked by a large-scale erosion of institutionalized religion. But even now church memberships continue to decline. Traditional religion is on its way out and may soon be become extinct on its own. I would therefore say that the cultural means of indoctrination or "social programming" (cyberpi's term) has been a dismal failure.

I think you have overestimated the importance of these processes with respect to their ability to keep the masses in a state of religious delusion. You might argue that the "New Age" drift toward the occult indicates the development of a new religion. My comeback would be that people dabbling in these things may not qualify as "Religion." But of course that's an empirical question.

My position is diametrically opposite yours. The trend we should be concerned about is the widespread secularization of all world cultures by means of a pervasive post-industrial ambience of barren utilitarianism, self-interest, and consumerism. For one thing, the disappearance of traditional religious ideology has the potential to undermine the social and moral code that once had a religious basis. The trend could mean big blows to human ecology in terms of losing a sense of unity, community, and continuity that are part of the meaning of life.

[wil]

I got a lump of coal one year. Still love Santa. Won't be long my hair will be white enough I won't have to wear the wig..

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Tao,
Are religious beliefs chosen, or socially programmed?

You appear to have decided that they are socially programmed and that they must be eradicated in order to save children from themselves.

Does a child choose between good and bad deeds, or does a child duplicate whatever is given and taught to them whether it is good or whether it is bad?

Same question with emphasis on the mind of a child.

The emphasis on my previous post is on children as a whole and works on the assumption that children are naturally happy and sociable. But the mental state of a child is highly dependent on its environment and the behaviour of those around it. The old nature/nurture debate. I do not want to save them from themselves. Rather I want their 'selves' to be allowed to grow and mature free from the ideologies currently force fed to them. It is what they are given that is damaging, not what they innately are.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Tao, we have seen human rights violations under atheist regimes such as Stalin and Mao, (who between the two of them, were responsible for the deaths of 60 million people) so religion is not to blame there. Consider this instead:

(click on thumbnail for larger image)

I always expect that to crop up sooner or later in a discussion like this. It is not the fault of the average atheist that history threw up and gave power to such monsters. Supplanting a religious ideology with a radical political one is not what I am saying here at all. If what I am saying was carried through to conclusion it would be as difficult for dictatorships of politics to arise as religions.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Netti,

nice, 'clever' post. You raise some very good points. But you are going to have to wait for my response to them

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

I got a lump of coal one year. Still love Santa. Won't be long my hair will be white enough I won't have to wear the wig..

you and me both.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The emphasis on my previous post is on children as a whole and works on the assumption that children are naturally happy and sociable. But the mental state of a child is highly dependent on its environment and the behavior of those around it. The old nature/nurture debate. I do not want to save them from themselves. Rather I want their 'selves' to be allowed to grow and mature free from the ideologies currently force fed to them. It is what they are given that is damaging, not what they innately are.

Tao, what percent of children in the UK receive ANY religious upbringing at all?

Since the UK probably observes separation of church and state, how likely is it that they are receiving religious education in public schools?

So where is the "forced feeding" occurring exactly?

And which segment of the adult population is doing it? Recall that the UK has a secular majority. Most don't believe in G-d. So are you saying there is some conspiracy run by a minority that is prevailing on society as a whole via a surreptitious indoctrination that's happening outside the purview of normal intitutional processes?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Tao, what percent of children in the UK receive ANY religious upbringing at all?

Since the UK probably observes separation of church and state, how likely is it that they are receiving religious education in public schools?

So where is the "forced feeding" occurring exactly?

And which segment of the adult population is doing it? Recall that the UK has a secular majority. Most don't believe in G-d. So are you saying there is some conspiracy run by a minority that is prevailing on society as a whole via a surreptitious indoctrination that's happening outside the purview of normal intitutional processes?

The UK is not like the US. Religious education in school is mandatory up till 16 years of age. The schools are denomenational. Catholics go to Catholic schools and everybody else goes to so called mixed schools. Though there are an increasing number of Muslim schools too. I think all the Jewish schools are private.

But please be patient, I will address all your questions in due course.

tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The trend we should be concerned about is the widespread secularization of all world cultures by means of a pervasive post-industrial ambience of barren utilitarianism, self-interest, and consumerism. For one thing, the disappearance of traditional religious ideology has the potential to undermine the social and moral code that once had a religious basis. The trend could mean big blows to human ecology in terms of losing a sense of unity, community, and continuity that are part of the meaning of life.

Yeah, what he said.

Maybe religion and its institutions is all a pile of pants but the essentailly secular UK that I live in appears to me to be Sodom and Gomorrah.

s.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Tao, what percent of children in the UK receive ANY religious upbringing at all?

Since the UK probably observes separation of church and state, how likely is it that they are receiving religious education in public schools?

So where is the "forced feeding" occurring exactly?

Namaste Netti. One of the main complaints the colonists had was the Church of England. Everyone within some radius/district whatever was required to attend services at least once a month. So those that weren't in town would make that the day to come into town, get some salt, sugar, nails, you know shopping, take care of whatever legal business and take the family (pawns) to church to meet the obligation to the King and his knights and bishops.

So we rebels included in our declaration the freedom of religion (no separation of church and state) as one of our G!d given inalienable rights. So we were force fed from the beginning over here in the colonies and eventually rejected the notion of requiring a religion, but we did not reject the notion of G!d. Freedom OF religion as it were, what Tao is requesting is freedom FROM religion I believe.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have put forward my case as far as I care to go with it. I think I will retire now to the politics threads where I am more naturally at home.

Yeah, right.

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

You write: "as the cuisine of a country is inherited by successive generations so are its beliefs." The above example raises questions about the long-term stability of the ideology and also about the immediacy of the effects of a traditional mindset on behavior.

Nothing remains static in its entirety. What I have been talking about are principles that have remained essentially the same, not structures.

One would expect widespread acceptance for a common set of beliefs and values that have legitimacy simply by virtue of their normativeness. The transfer of the values and beliefs would be largely self-perpetuating as long as the cultural means of transmission are operative. In this connection, I would agree with you that someone is less likely to become religious in an nonreligious culture. It is from this perspective that I view some interesting research findings. In particular, the available data show very clearly that the UK has a secular majority. That is, the vast majority -- 60% -- do not believe in G-d. As one might surmise given the aforementioned finding, two thirds (="66% or 32 million") people in the UK have no religious affiliation or church membership (2006 data).

I was going to give you a big detailed analysis of religion in the UK since the reformation but I do not have either time nor inclination to go there. I do not dispute the figures you give but to think that the disintegration of the old power holders over here has not been replaced is wrong. The new temples are edge of town malls, their bibles are mail order catalogues and their sacrament is the credit card.

Other findings for your interest: "In 2000, 60 per cent of the population claimed to belong to a specific religion with 55 per cent being Christian. However, half of all adults aged 18 and over who belonged to a religion have never attended a religious service." Further, 59% of those surveyed report that they "practically never" attend church!

Pray tell, Tao, how can there be a process of cultural reinforcement for ideology and behavior when people do not avail themselves of opportunities to learn these things from church services?

These figures represent a statistical analysis that that does not take all other factors into account. Especially those of nationalism and ingrained and deliberately cultured apathy. The UK is nothing like the US. Here to use the word God so often as you do in the US is unheard of and would get you some very funny looks if you were to use it. For this reason you would get a negative result in any poll but even if the polls are fairly representative, which I think they are, the authority of religious teaching still holds much power. All people are taught the basic messages in school whether their parents wish it or not. The undercurrent of nationalism also has to be factored. "God save the Queen". The association of power with divine power lives on.

A truly effective mechanism of indoctrination and enforcement would be largely self-perpetuating, Clearly, no such mechanism is effective in the UK. Have a look:

In the twenty years between 1980 and 2000 the Church of England suffered a 27 per cent decline in church membership. The Roman Catholic Church suffered a similar decline in the same period in mass attendance. Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday. Religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s, and all indicators show a continued secularization of British society in line with other European countries such as France.

Source: Religion in the United Kingdom: Diversity, Trends and Decline

If the social programming was actually effective, one would expect a "well developed acceptance" for normative religious beliefs and values. Based on the foregoing findings, the empirical support for it is lacking, at least in the UK and other European countries. I would go so far as to say that the Religious Factor actually is quite weak in Western society in general.

Here we get into quite complicated territory. The post war decline in church attendance in Europe is not matched by that in the US and is especially pronounced in the UK. In Europe in the post war era we had an explosion of Socialism that fought for the rights of the common man, and won many battles. Now over the pond there you would call Socialism Communism and equate it with the Stalinist USSR. But its effect over here in the UK was to make the common man question authority and fight, politically, for his freedom against the traditional Conservative Party that represented the age old landowners, Industrialists and the Clergy. It is true as of yet no new religion has yet supplanted the old but people have been far too busy being obedient consumers to even care about who holds the reigns of power. But here comes one of the reasons I post all this with such apparent personal concern. Religion in politics is resurgent. We recently had Blair openly convert to Catholicism in his quest to become European president, (most of Europe is Catholic). Brown, the son of a Presbyterian Minister has been pushing for more religious instruction. The BBC has dramatically increased its religious programming including the use of celebrity and nationalistic appeal. There is a growth in American style evangelic type churches that are marketed at the young as social clubs where you can meet a 'nice' boyfriend or girlfriend. The spiritualist church that appeals directly to women is huge and growing all the time. So to think these statistics represent the facts is sadly not true. I wish they were.

The picture you have pained about the role of ideology does not seem to have the best fit to reality. Clearly, traditional religion has little appeal and probably exerts little influence on public and private ritual behavior and social behavior in general. The data indicate massive declines in church memberships. I don't see how a religious community of any size is possible under these circumstances. This is an issue because a community of believers is the "sales force" for the ideology.

Historically maybe. These days people do not have to go to church to be monitored and indoctrinated. It is done with loyalty cards, credit card receipts and multi-media.

Recent history has been marked by a large-scale erosion of institutionalized religion. But even now church memberships continue to decline. Traditional religion is on its way out and may soon be become extinct on its own. I would therefore say that the cultural means of indoctrination or "social programming" (cyberpi's term) has been a dismal failure.

Failure!! It has been successful for untold generations!! True that today the average faithful does not have to leave their armchair to buy the latest ministry CD but the control is still there.

I think you have overestimated the importance of these processes with respect to their ability to keep the masses in a state of religious delusion. You might argue that the "New Age" drift toward the occult indicates the development of a new religion. My comeback would be that people dabbling in these things may not qualify as "Religion."

. A book like the Celestine Prophecy or an English translation of the Tao te ching still sells millions of copies. It may not have a formalised structure of yet but "New Age" is fast becoming as normal as any of the traditional ones. These things do not happen overnight, you see them evolve and fall by reading decades or even centuries of history. So I think you are being a little premature.

My position is diametrically opposite yours. The trend we should be concerned about is the widespread secularization of all world cultures by means of a pervasive post-industrial ambience of barren utilitarianism, self-interest, and consumerism. For one thing, the disappearance of traditional religious ideology has the potential to undermine the social and moral code that once had a religious basis. The trend could mean big blows to human ecology in terms of losing a sense of unity, community, and continuity that are part of the meaning of life.

No the world is not becoming more secular. It is becoming more polarised with a resurgence in extreme doctrines. These things you fear we are losing were (a) not religious but normal social needs of mankind, and (b) they are already lost and supplanted with a tailor-fitted consumerist paradigm of your choice. You want "new age"? Well buy your dream catcher lovingly hand crafted by a genuine Cherokee mystic here for only $9.99 (made in China). Or the Zen way to happiness and enlightenment by Ivor U Cash for only $19.99 + p&p. This "New Age" movement is as gullible as they come and there are plenty cashing in on it.


tao