Posted by:
Tevai
(
)
Date: February 18, 2019 08:44PM
Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai,
>
> Can you suggest a distinction between religious
> and secular "belief?" I don't think it is
> possible.
What I was trying to say is that actual "belief" in certain "facts," "biographies," ostensibly past "events," "commandments," "prohibitions," ways of living, etc. is not necessarily an essential part of certain (cultural?) systems which we commonly term "religions"....
....and that this reality is in distinction with those systems we commonly term "religions" in which "belief" IS (ostensibly) an essential component.
I remember growing up, reading my friends' Catholic catechism instructional books, and sitting in Baptist, Congregational, and Lutheran churches during services and learning events of various kinds such as Sunday School, and thinking: "C'mon, you [adults] don't REALLY believe that, do you?" of the adults around me, because what I was hearing was plainly not factual, or truth, to me. I did learn to keep my mouth shut, while my eyes and ears were fully open, because I was hearing things that didn't appear to me to be factual (but nevertheless, I was aware that the adults around me knew facts I didn't, so I was willing to accept that maybe my instincts were wrong).
At the same time, in the other parts of my life, I could hear stories of Ganesha (the little boy with the elephant's head), who ran around the world by balancing on the back of his pet mouse/rat, doing all kinds of good things for those who requested them, and accept (today: with an adult's ability to understand) that this was "true" in a metaphorical sense.
Jews do this all the time, with the Passover story (slavery in Egypt, followed by the parting of the Red Sea, followed by the forty years in the desert wandering around) probably being the best example. Passover is incredibly important in Judaism, but it is a metaphor, possibly based on some wispy and miscellaneous events that MIGHT have (in some small part) happened, but as the founding myth of the Jewish people, most Jews either actively don't believe it ever really happened (as the story is told in the Bible), or they choose to not think about it all that much (even if they attend Passover dinners every year where the story is retold, virtually bite-by-bite of various, special to Passover, foods).
In indigenous religions, "belief" is often [at minimum] not a necessary part of the cultural process, but observing that group's "religious services" ARE necessary (probably about half-and-half for the benefit of the overall tribe involved, and the benefit of the individual doing the "worshipping"). You do the ceremonies (whether group, or by family, or individually) your tribe observes, and you do them with honest commitment, but that doesn't necessarily mean you "believe" in them, even as you sincerely observe the rituals.
Think of Native American religions: There is a space between "believing in" [let's say] Spider Grandmother, or [Native American] Spider Woman, and BELIEVING in Spider Grandmother (etc.). In other words: BELIEF is not necessary to "belief"--so a Native American (or a South African) academic in science can sincerely observe the religious rituals of their respective tribes, without actually BELIEVING in the [scientifically factual] existence of the deity they are respectfully, ritually, devotedly, worshipping.
> In fact, I don't think one can define religion in
> a way that includes the full range of
> religions--from theistic ones to atheistic ones
> like Buddhism--without simultaneously bringing
> political ideologies into the tent.
I don't understand the general introduction of politics here. In contemporary Hinduism, the current problem with right-wing Hindu nationalism is certainly a gigantic problem, as are (for most of the world's religions, at this point in history) issues related to female subordination both culturally and legally, slavery in many areas (Islam is certainly involved here), and so on--but although these would be categorized as "political" problems, I think they all go considerably beyond "politics" in their seriousness, both domestically and internationally. Within Judaism, Israel has become a difficult "political" problem for all Jews, but this has nothing to do with, for example, believing (religiously) that the critical issues in the Old Testament are based on factual events.
> The way forward, I think, is to recognize religion
> as an epistemology rather than a body of doctrine.
Exactly (I think). Many religions (Judaism, Hinduism, and indigenous religions around the world) are NOT a "body of doctrine," but are, instead, bodies of "knowledge" (which can involve metaphor, including metaphor at an extremely high level--where physics and "religious" thought meet).
> Does an ideology require belief in propositions
> that are not proved? If so, then that element of
> the ideology is religious--even though advocates
> may style themselves materialistic and empirical.
I think I agree with this statement. ;)
My statement would be: Not all "religions" are "religious" in this sense. Outside of Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism, there are "religious groups" where, explicitly or implicitly, belief is N-O-T "required" (nor does "belief" exist for a significant percentage of those IN those "groups," probably most especially those who are the most learned). I invite input from anyone here who is aware of "religions" OUTSIDE OF Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism, where "belief" is required, because I (personally) don't know of any.
> There are two advantage to the epistemological
> approach: it encompasses all religions; and it
> coincidentally enables us to understand why people
> in various totalitarian movements evince religious
> fervor and destructiveness. Otherwise one ends up
> in an egocentric world in which "my" family of
> faiths is religion but everyone else's is
> something else, and "my" political philosophy is
> rational but everyone else's is logically invalid.
I am not in disagreement with you here (unless I am not understanding something well enough to realize what I don't know what I am talking about).
[EDITED TO ADD: Zoroastrianism, to the sentence which includes Christianity and Islam.]
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2019 10:50PM by Tevai.