I’m not telling you that Ethno-centricism doesn’t play a role in the EU. I am advancing that religion is used more by politicians (those who are poltically minded) in relationship to amass the people than by priests (who are spiritually minded). And… by the way, I see the Pope as a politician rather than a priest. In this context, I can agree religion is form of nationalism at a lower resolution.
Xunzian,
What you comment on is, in part, societies’ having religious identity. It seems to me within the needs of man to come together socially to share the goods of life, like religion.
Didn’t you post on Aesthetic Virtue? It seems to me we could all learn more about the beauty of religion, despite what some people do with it.
Well, I guess at this point we are arguing semantics. However, I would argue that if we use Islam as a model religion, I’ll show you how religion is a wider brush than nationalism.
First, you have Iraqis, a national group. Then you have Arabs, a linguistic group. Next, you have Muslims, a religious group.
Catholics work that way, Buddhists work that way . . . it’s all the same, just a different form of dividing the subject into us vs. them.
And I never argued that religion wasn’t just another part in the game of politics.
Xunzian, languages are culturally distinct as well, do you hate them too? Let’s compare the actions of all Arabic speakers, or German speakers, or English speakers. (All of whom have committed atrocities.) I don’t think your way of thinking is proper to the subject to which you attach it.
We are at a time in history where religious are starting to act amicably with each other. But I think a period of religious discussion will happen before we have a universal language, or culture.
Speaking a specific language, or eating falafel, or enjoying Bach, or any other random cultural quirks aren’t essential to the motive of the hatred like religion is.
People don’t learn in their grammar classes that because they have a priveledged language, they are destined to enslave and humiliate their neighbors, that their neighbor’s language is backwards and makes them the enemies of God, that God will torture them endlessly for their backwards modes of speech, and that any crime against them is justified because of this. To state this about language would be ridiculous, but if you sub in religion for language, you have a decent approximation of the intercultural motive forces of the ancient world.
I suppose that you can make the case that religion can be civilized and refined, just as other cultural forces that naturally tend to tribalism can also be civilized and refined. But tribal and sectarian religions enforce tribal and sectarian hatreds. If we are up against a religion that is inspiring hatred, it makes sense to view the religion as the problem, does it not?
My Real Name,
When did I say that I hate religions? Anything can be used to divide groups. When abused for political purposes, nationality, religion, linguistic group, phenotype, ect. can be used to create distinctions between people. Clearly eliminating them doesn’t make a great deal of sense, nor am I advocating that. Nor am I advocating the validity of one set over the other.
I guess I don’t see where the hostility is coming from and what the crux of your disagreement is?
A fine argument, except that the ancient world was polytheistic – they had other reasons to conquer. As for religious wars, today, only the ones with property dissentions (including the Marxists) are not in political detente.
Okay, so much for language; let’s use race/color instead. You think the British would just turn anyone into a colony?
The British tried to turn us back into a colony in 1812. So yeah, probably if they thought they could get away with it.
But I see your point about race. My paragraph does work with race subbed in. It is another psychological force for irrational tribalism.
These passages sounded pretty hostile of religion…and unappreciative of it.
I don’t think religion is about a personal relationship with the Divine. I think the communal aspects of it is where religion really shines. I don’t understand this world well enough to comment on the next, but I see building communities in this one as a positive thing. However, in creating communities, you create an exclusive organization. These exclusive organizations lead quite naturally into an us vs. them mentality.
That said, Religions do claim to have a monopoly on morality the same way that the State claims a monopoly on the right to commit violence. It’s one of the ways that they accumulate the necessary power and momentum to create said community and regulate the activity of its members. Homogeny is a vital part of creating a community, so the regulation of activity through morals creates this.
As to tribalism, my religion avoids that in the only way possible. Writing as a Papist (and “catholic” actually means “universal”) we have one central authority for all religious around the world, in many cultures, some having their own rites – no tribalism. “In all essentials, unity; in all non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity.” I’m not here to advertise, but just wanted to point out that if being under one culture is an almost universal problem with religion, it is avoided in one.
mrn
Okay, I gotcha. You’re not hostile to religion, you’re just unappreciative of it.
Too bad those social morals aren’t pleasing anyone up there.
Not at all, I appreciate religion as a wonderful social glue and as a means for curbing natural desires.
If the desires are natural, why would you want to curb them?
– asked the classical philosopher.
Is it because you don’t believe in supernatural desires as well, he opined?
I believe that Xunzi said it best:
Human nature is bad. Good is a human product. Human nature is such that people are born with a love of profit If they follow these inclinations, they will struggle and snatch from each other, and inclinations to defer or yield will die. They are born with fears and hatreds. If they follow them, they will become violent and tendencies toward good faith will dies. They are born with sensory desires for pleasing sounds and sights. If they indulge them, the disorder of sexual license will result and ritual and moral principles will be lost. In other words, if people accord with human nature and follow their desires, they inevitably end up struggling, snatching, violating norms, and acting with violent abandon. Consequently, only after men are transformed by teachers and by ritual and moral principles do they defer, conform to culture, and abide in good order. Viewed this way, it is obvious that human nature is bad and good is a human product.
A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles. When people lack teachers, their tendencies are not corrected; when they do not have ritual and moral principles, then their lawlessness is not controlled. In antiquity the sage kings recognized that men’s nature is bad and that their tendencies were not being corrected and their lawlessness controlled. Consequently, they created rituals and moral principles and instituted laws and limitations to give shape to people’s feelings while correcting them, to transform people’s emotional nature while guiding it. Thus all became orderly and conformed to the Way. Those people today who are transformed by teachers, accumulate learning, and follow ritual and moral principles are gentlemen. Those who indulge their instincts, act impulsively, and violate ritual and moral principles are inferior people. Seen from this perspective, it is obvious that human nature is bad, and good is a human product.
Mencius said that people’s capacity to learn is evidence that their nature is good. I disagree. His statement shows he does not know what human nature is and has not pondered the distinction between what is human nature and what is created by man. Human nature is what Heaven supplies. It cannot be learned or worked at. Ritual and moral principles were produced by the sages; they are things people can master by study and effort. Human nature refers to what is in people but which they cannot study or work at achieving. Human products refers to what people acquire through study and effort
Now it is human nature to want to eat to ones fill when hungry, to want to warm up when cold, to want to rest when tired. These all are a part of people’s emotional nature. When a man is hungry and yet on seeing an elder lets him eat firsts it is be cause he knows he should yield. When he is tired but does not dare rest, it is because he knows it is his turn. When a son yields to his father, or a younger brother yields to his elder brother, or when a son takes on the work for his father or a younger brother for his elder brother, their actions go against their natures and run counter to their feelings And yet these are the way of the filial son and the principles of ritual and morality. Thus, if people followed their feelings and nature, they would not defer or yield, for deferring and yielding run counter to their emotional nature. Viewed from this perspective. it is obvious that man’s nature is bad and good is a human product.
Fanruo and Jushu were great bows of ancient times, but they could not on their own have become accurate without being pressed and straightened. The great swords of ancient times – Duke Huan’s Cong, King Wen’s Lu, Lord Zhuang’s Hu, and King Helii’s Ganjiang, Moyeh, Juque,:and Bilüi – would never have become sharp without being put to the grindstone. Nor could they have cut without men using their strength. The great horses of ancient times – Hualiu, Qiji, Xianli, and Luer – could never have run a thousand li in a day if they had not first been restrained by the bit and bridle, taught to respond to the whip, and driven by someone like Zaofu. Similarly, a man may have a fine temperament and a discriminating mind, but he must first seek a wise teacher to study under and good friends to associate with. If he studies with a wise teacher, what he hears will concern the way of Yao, Shun, Yii, and Tang. If he finds good friends to associate with, what observes will be loyalty, good faith, respect, and deference. Each day he will come closer to humanity and morality without realizing it, all because of their influence. But if he lives with bad people, what he will hear will be deceit and 1ies and what he will observe will be wild, undiscplined, greedy behavior Without knowing it, hewill end up a criminal, all because of their indifference. It has been said, “If you do not know the man, observe his friends. If you do not know lord, look at his attendants.” Influence affects everyone.
A very good quote, but problematic. If human nature is bad, where does man get the good to make himself a good product. Nothing comes from nothing. If from his friends, where do they get it? If from the wise, where do they get it? I see two resolutions of this problem – which are not totally at odds. One is that man has goodness in his nature – as much goodness as he is capable of attaining. The other is that he is taught by one greater who is perfect, which we can call God. I suppose there is another option, that of occasional savants being born who are good enough to instruct and legislate.
Well, Xunzi argues in favour of the savants, claiming that the Sage kings are said savants.
I, in this instance, favour an exanded version of the Mencian metaphor of human nature as a garden. It is not merely a matter of cultivating those plants that are desirable to us, but also of weeding out the undesirable traits. We are naturally a wild mix of both positive and negative traits, so it becomes a matter of cultivating those we deem desirable and eliminating those we find problematic.
I would propose a 3rd alternative: That human nature, as in the instincts that we are born with coupled with an uncivilized, or lack of good upbringing do not tend to us acting good. (Human nature is bad) However, we are capable of figuring out what is good through self awareness and awareness of others and modifying our behavior accordingly. (If you seperate products of our higher reasoning and awareness from our instincual ‘natures’) In this sense, good behavior is the product of self discipline and taught discipline, and morality is objectively reasoned out from basic principles such as the golden rule.
LOL, it probably has always been so. Ben Franklin split from home, and after landing in Pennsylvania, he looked around and picked the church that appeared to have the wealthiest patrons. Jefferson was not big on religion either.
Could not agree more regarding the Pope. Popes die in poverty my ass. Look at how they live during their reigns. Several were major instigators of war and often fought in battle. Pope Julius comes to mind at the moment.
However, most mainstream religious leaders are very political as well. I have seen this time and again, but what comes to mind is when my brother died in a hiking accident. His funeral did not occur for 10 fucking days as Father David had to attend a vestry retreat with other local priests and that was more important.
Xunzian,
You make an apriori assumption that human nature is bad. You know this how?
That humanity is capable of ‘bad’ as well as ‘good’ is accepted. You say that good is a human product. But if I should say that human nature is good, and that bad is a human product, then where are we?
JT