Why I think that they are misunderstood? Or why I think they are “spiritual exercise”?
They both seem pretty obvious to me.
To exercise means to expel the weakness/dissonance/division/demon, or to strengthen and purify to be more whole and solid. Religious practices concerning both rituals and attitudes/ethics condition one’s spirit into a more instinctive response. The intent is that the particular conditioned responses makes for a stronger society. Different conditioning is required by different races and genders.
Does this mean that if a believer thinks a religion or his or her religion is actually a set of beliefs and some moral precepts they are wrong?
Anyway, in the West there has been a strong move away, in the Abrahamic religions from religion as a set of practices to develop the self to something more based on morals and beliefs. Beliefs as ends.
That said I don’t think one can separate beliefs and practices from each other, even if some religions seem to suggest one can or should or will after some stage is reached.
…that is, I know what I mean by it. I was once in an anti-religious religious group. As a religious person, it was a bit disconcerting. Now I’m spiritual. That cleared everything up.
The concern is that the people are also. And that is why those religions work so well with those people. You can send people to “higher education” schools in order to attempt to learn a different religion (such as physics). But you cannot cause them to be more than they are. And they are not physicists, educated or not.
However, the relevant point is those limited religions [which are VERY efficient at present] are rigid and fixed based on immutable doctrines. Note infallible humans cannot edit or change the words of God, that would be blasphemous.
In addition, the thousands of evil laden verses fixed and immutable will be a net-liability to humanity in the future.
The above refer to the Abrahamic religions [AR], i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The other point, fact is humans are dynamic, evolving and progressing with time.
Therefore when the ARs become a net-liability to humanity, they should be replaced with generic foolproof spiritual methods to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential dilemma.
The current religions will evolve [adapt] and morph into further divisions. Bloodshed is very likely to occur within Islam.
IMO, the only path forward for religions is they and the majority will all eventually evolve towards a generic positive spirituality. This is leveraged on the glaring trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge [neurosciences, genomes, and others] and technology with inputs from philosophy. However as with human nature and the principle of the Bell Curve, there will be pockets [very small percentile] of people who has to rely on religions.
However, I see a problem with the Abrahamic religions which rely on an infallible God whose delivered holy texts cannot be edited, revised nor changed by fallible humans. Since it is impossible for God to exists and reappear to change his holy texts, it would be impossible for the Abrahamic holy texts [which originally is very primal and primitive based] to be changed and thus that limit their evolution.
Thus the solution in the future [not practical now] 75-100 years from now, it would be wise to wean off the Abrahamic religions gradually.
I agree to a certain extent there is no significant expansion of science and technology in Buddhist dominant countries but not intellectually in the spiritual perspective. Buddhism [besides the practical] has the highest level of intellectual philosophy and logic which is higher than any Western Philosophy [except Kant]. These sources came from India, China, probably [Kashmir, Afghanistan, Nepal, Tibet, etc.] and even Indonesia (Sumatra)
Btw, it is not Buddhism’s main purpose to promote Science and Technology. The plus point is, Buddhism whilst do not promote, it also do not hinder Science and technology. On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions do specifically limit/hinder Science and Technology. This is why we have Creationism to counter Evolution, the counter against cloning, stem cell research, etc.
Whilst there are advancements in Science and Technology in the Christian and Islamic communities in some eras of history, this is not directly due to the religions themselves, but rather due to the inherent progressive elements of human nature and being human. This is why there is no consistency in the progress of Science and Technologies within Christian and Islamic communities around the world.
Buddhism [and others Eastern religions] meanwhile has great potential in their dynamism to complete spirituality with modern Scientific knowledge and technology. Here is how one famous Scientist see Buddhism,
Eventually I see Buddhism evolving to be a type of generic spirituality and combining with other positive spirituality to be a universal spirituality without being a specific religion. I don’t agree with any of the Eastern Religions as organized religions. There are full of scandals and evils committed religious monks and those in authorities who abused their position. At most they should merely maintain an organization to maintain and sustain their teachings for a relevant period of time.
I note you like throw in counters merely for countering sake, but they all lack the necessary depth. I think you get a greater payoff if you take my points optimistically and research into them in details, in greater depth and verify them yourself.
Islam is your best example of a religion hindering science. Contrary to the standard bleating of atheists, the RC church preserved knowledge and dispersed it. It created the educational system in Europe and founded the first universities. Judaism places a high value on knowledge, learning and achievement. The RC church was never against evolution. The Muslims had a sophisticated theory of evolution in the middle ages. Creationism is a product of the American south and really it is a molehill which has been made into a mountain.
Not everything that science does is moral and ethical. That has to be brought out in the open and discussed. Religions would not be fulfilling their function if they did not act as a moral compass.
There is good reason to believe that the external emphasis of Abrahamic religions and the concept of an intelligent creator God are more conducive to scientific advancement than the internal emphasis of Buddhism. From the article on the history of science in China :
If it was ‘due to the inherent progressive elements of human nature and being human’ then one would expect Buddhist societies to advance at a pace which is similar to Judeo-Christian societies. In fact, one could expect faster advancement in Asian societies since Asians score high on IQ tests.
Admittedly, the interactions of geography, culture, economics and religion are very complex.
I see people posting long, well-researched, arguments which you largely ignore. You seem to be completely enamored with your own little theory. I don’t want to waste too much of my time. For example, I did not even bother with these posts:
If you had though about it , then you would realize that both Christianity and Islam are a rewriting of older ‘immutable’ doctrines.
If God exists and if He is responsible for the holy texts then He can reappear and change the texts.
If God does not exist then humans wrote the holy texts and humans can change the holy texts. The mechanism of change would be exactly the same as the mechanism which produced the original text.
Seriously, try to think it through BEFORE posting.
Because of the proliferation of bullshit on this site, I research quite a few of the posts which are in the areas of my interest. I usually don’t bother to post my findings.
That is one reason that I continue to come to this site - it keeps me from getting complacent.
With respect to your posts … your understanding of religions and human psychology is superficial. I have researched it for many years and I know more about it than you do.
There you go again with your narrow and shallow perspectives.
I said the Abrahamic religions are inherently partly evil and also hinder progressive scientific knowledge. Why? … because the words of God is supreme while the knowledge [Science, especially those that challenges the holy texts, etc.] brought forth by man is fallible.
I was stating Buddhism all the way, but you introduced Confucius. In any case, both Buddhism and Confucianism do not hinder Science in general. The advancement of Science [despite the many inventions by the Chinese in China then] was stagnant because they did not focus in the direction of the Scientific Method and it framework, and thus did not have an efficient structure to expand Scientific knowledge.
In contrast, the Abrahamic Religions [AR] has the fundamentals in their holy texts to resist Science especially when Science and philosophy discover truths that contradict their [AR] holy texts and interpretations.
The AR has been restricting any form of knowledge other than those that conform to their holy texts. Anyone who introduced or practiced knowledge contra to the holy texts were persecuted and killed in the most horrific manner. Note the inquisitions, etc.
This culminated to the events of Copernicus.
The Church only relented where they are cornered with the truths and thus letting go their resistance to Science where the truth is so obvious. This is where the Jesuits came in later [long after Bacon, the enlightenment and other Scientific progress] with the receptiveness to some aspects of Science and technology.
Btw, I did NOT link Science with Ethics at all. Religions (Abrahamic and others) are critical for ethical issues, but they are at best transitory and relative to certain human conditions and phases. The Abrahamic Religions with their VERY rigid Ethical System are relevant for then and now but their expiry date and net effectiveness [pros over cons] is coming to an end in the advent of the trend of the exponential expansion of human knowledge.
My point, the Abrahamic Religions in general will ALWAYS resist Science in one form or another, e.g. Creationism, and others, because the Abrahamic religions are grounded on a necessary lie while Science is seeking for truths.
The fact is all the points you throw out are easily dismissed as irrelevant counters.
I have to admit, in a forum like this and as my time is limited, there is no good reasons and obligations for me to present my ‘well-researched’ views in detail. What I have presented is merely the very small tips-of-icebergs of what I know and the arguments I have on hand. The point is these tips has valid room for anyone to dive deep into the other 9/10 of the icebergs.
In any case, I am presenting (at my own pace and discretion) the details, .e.g. note I raise the thread on ‘The Complex Human Being.’ One has to clear this internal hurdle before attempting to understanding the complexity of the external.
In anycase, note the critical value of philosophy is questioning [Russell] and what you are doing is trying to kill ‘questioning’ with dead-end counter views.
First, it is your discretion whether to bother or not. I understand, this is a pot-luck sort of philosophy forum where members contribute their views and others has the discretion to pick and choose what they like to participate in within the rules of this forum.
In any case, there is a lot of truth below the 1/10 of what I presented above if only you care to dive in deep.
That is what happened to Christ, Muhammad, Bahá’u’lláh [Bahai], Mirza Ghulam Ahmad [Ahmadiyya] and many other lesser known so-called prophet or messenger of God who claimed they are the personal agent of God.
If God is to reappear and change the texts, then he has to appear objectively as real. But none of the messengers and prophets has been able to proof the existence of their so-claimed God.
On the other hand I had given many possible reasons why and how God was a necessary illusion to deal with the existential dilemma.
Actually, you are the one who is not doing any serious thinking but rather blinded by deep emotional cognitive biasness and blindness.
If it is humans who wrote the ‘holy’ texts, there is no issue at all.
How did you conclude my presentation is superficial when I have only presented 1% of what I have researched and reflected on for many years. This show your impulsiveness.
Personally, I do not give a damn about whatever opinions others has on my views. What is important is I keep questioning [that’s philosophy] and ensure responsibility of intellectual integrity in the knowledge I seek [which I has no obligation to present the details to others unless I am presenting a paper to a recognized intellectual institution].
To maintain my personal intellectual integrity, I ensured I had covered at least many books and articles [e.g. in my Kant Folder, there are 1850 files in 31 sub-folders] on the subject and terms before I speak about it (otherwise I will qualify if I am not too sure). This is why I am very confident you will not likely to catch me [if any, will be rare] off guarded as I have many ace cards on hand.
Same for me joining a philosophical forum, i.e. to refresh and keep the knowledge I gathered in tune, besides the necessary practices.
