Do those who give up religion gain anything greater than religion?
(…But I see ahead of time that this argument can at best lead to a Jung-like respect for religion, and not necessarily to belief.)
very broad statement to answer.
I think I would more likely attribute all mankind as having some sort of religion.
Harris’ Religion is a reaction to the extreme fundamentalists and is in itself extreme.
those who say they’ve “gained” something from giving up religion don’t understand the big picture.
More time alone.
scythekain,
Ok. I’ll bite. You did this on purpose, didn’t you? So ‘splain Harris’ religion to me. I must have missed something.
JT
well harris’ base religion is one of science. one of facts. Then secondly his religion is denouncing other religions by stating their problems. Then thirdly he tells you what should replace these religions.
mostly though harris’ religion is one of intolerance of all other religions but his own. While he states some good points I feel the liberal religions are not the problem.
but I thought I’d also quote some more from peck.
Peck words it far more succintly then I could’ve, and the above is not just meant for you tentative, I believe you believe in god, but not the god of “religions” as you see them right?
more sin, less guilt
Assuming that one might give up religion because one finds religion to be false, I submit that what one gains (or think they gain) would be the Truth (supposing that is what said religion offered to begin with).
scythekain,
I’m not sure that Harris is establishing or even promoting a ‘religion’, unless of course, any position taken is a religion.
I think that no small part of getting past the religion gate is that the term ‘religion’ now carries so many negative connotations that I’d be embarrassed to claim any part of being religious.
I’m still the perennial agnostic. I find the is/isn’t arguments to be specious if not downright silly. Understanding that is/isn’t sit at the same table clear’s the vision. I have trouble understanding what is so difficult in accepting the proposition that that which is creation is beyond is/isn’t concepts, and even beyond language. Our sentience is seen as both a blessing and a curse, but it doesn’t have to be that way. At some point, sentience transcend’s mind if we don’t panic and start grabbing at passing concepts. But now I’m sounding like a mystic, so I’ll leave it alone.
Perhaps it is best if, in the pragmatic world, we promote a healthy ‘religion’. But let it be rational. Let it be humane. Reject the destructive exclusiveness of what we currently call ‘religion’. That which is creation will survive even us.
JT
very good point, maybe we need a new word for one’s belief systems?
How about…
hmm can’t think of anything at the moment.
I agree with this also, if you’ve been following the faith debate betwixt me, PoR and Pfloyd.
rational + religion + humane = the new word we need to create.
We become better christians…
Iroel,
I’d really like for you to explain this statement, particularly how you arrived at this conclusion.
JT
The best christian is the atheist.
It is a thesis exposed by E.Bloch in his “atheism in christianity”.
He thought that the atheist throwing away the historic dimension of religion, made of magnificient acts and charismatic personalities, held for himself the most sincere part of religion which is the feeling of being human in front of death.
It is an idea that is also shared by other continental philosopher as Maritain in his “La signification de l’atheisme contemporain” (meaning of contemporary atheism) in which he describes atheists as saints which truly respect the otherness of the other without the cohertion of a Deity.
This sense of emancipation from a Father-like figure is also present in Ricoeur which states in “Religion, atheism and faith” that - atheism does not exhaust its meaning in the negation and destruction of religion, but frees the horizon for something else, a faith that can e called a post-religious faith." (Aproximate translation from italian)
And again the theme of a maturity of humanhood that comes with the lost of hope, the abbandonment of God is seen in the words of Bonhoeffer when he states “The God that abbandons is the God which is close to us.”(Aproximate translation)
Now I don’t necessarily agree with all this, I don’t really believe that I’m a better christian than all christian.
Iroel,
OK, I have no problem with giving up ‘knowing’ God and finding the mystery, but this also means giving up ‘Christos’. To be a Christian one must believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate and that none will come to the “father” save through Him. “I am the way, the truth, and the light”.
We might become ‘better’ spiritually, but not as christians, muslims, …
JT
Especially in europe, heavily influenced by catholicism and its emphasis on works rather than faith, the name christian is not so much bound to the aspect of a personal relationship with God as much to one’s capability to accept/respect the other in his otherness.
Also most of the previous arguments (Gadamer, Maritain) come from a post WW2 contest. A period influenced by Existentialist/Atheist like sartre and camus. Man of great moral fiber that have abbandoned their faith in God because of the huge and senseless pain present in the world . Using a metaphor that always comes up in these arguments, they are seen as the Christ screaming “father have you forsaken me?”.