Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darkmere]

One time at the Unitarian church I go to, I had a Muslim preacher/speaker/pastor (I don't remember what they're called but I think it wasn't one of those) educate us all about Islam. The best part was he wasn't trying to convert anyone or anything -- just educate. After hearing the whole thing, I felt guilty. I felt guilty for myself buying into all the newsmedia hype for the last 10 or so years, and guilty for every single person who genuinely believes that a simple religion is all it takes to make someone truly evil.

This. And believe me I'm in no way pointing finger or blaming you at all. But this is an example of why the primary religions thrive. It's part of a cultural indoctrination that gets foisted on us (by us, Americans). There are two groups in play, "us" and "them". People who believe what we do are "us" and are right. People who are different -- "them" are wrong. No discussion.

Put another way, there's a section on Lewis Black's Rules of Enragement album about the September 11, 2001 attacks. His words, paraphrased are that on September 12th:

We needed: An immediate source of information about Islam, the splinter religions, the politics of the region that claimed responsibility for the attacks, and a brief explanation of why those groups would find fault with American culture.

We got: A surge of empty, jingoistic "patriotism". 24-hour newsfeeds about national terror. A national cry for revenge on... anyone. So we went to Iraq.

Now the social tension is ridiculous and violence is on the rise, because instead of a drive for understanding, we were fed blood, death, and fear.

I'm trying to form a better response specifically re: religion, but it's hard for me to be impartial and inoffensive. I'll keep trying.

[freeformschooler]

I'm trying to form a better response specifically re: religion, but it's hard for me to be impartial and inoffensive. I'll keep trying.

The underlying message is pretty true though. It's pretty mind boggling to believe one thing or another for so long just because of not really knowing about a seperate belief on the thing that isn't looked down on itself, and then have that all stripped away right under your feet. I'm just glad there are some people who do their best to stay impartial towards most beliefs, if not all.

(if that makes any sense. My vocabulary shrinks as it gets later into the night)

[counting]

I suppose I don't believe in eastern religions for the same reasons I don't believe in western religions - I haven't seen any evidence that any of them are true.  Since to believe something I have to think that it's likely to be true... well, I can't really get off square one there.

There could be some interesting ideas in it though, I guess.  I'll try looking at some of them.

As for why apparently monolithic religions exist... I think it's a form of evolution.  The beliefs that are around today are the successful beliefs that were passed on.  Beliefs which contain clauses that keep them similar and have ways of avoiding influence from other beliefs ("Thou shalt not have any other god but me" being a prime example) are maintained more easily, and don't gradually turn into lots of unrecognizable splinter religions.  Historically, they've also been easier to enforce either legally ("you must follow this religion") or socially (society expects you to follow this religion).

So you believe giving enough time to evolve, even Buddhism will be one day as monotheism? Isn't it diversity is the common phenomena of evolution process? Or we human just too much alike?

[Darkmere]

Oh I get what you're saying, don't worry. I was raised Baptist, even got "saved" at a revival quite a few years ago. Then the longer I went on the more I noticed that the people didn't care about ME as much as they cared that I was like them.

As time went on I started reading other things, realizing that other ideas weren't that different from what Christianity likes to claim. I started bringing these things up for discussion, and was basically cast out, with the only response from my "friends" being that god still loved me and someday I'd do the right thing and be like them again.

That, to me, is the essence of religion, as opposed to spirituality or philosophy. I fully support everyone's right to believe what they want, as long as it's acceptable for EVERYone and doesn't harm ANYone. Anyything else is perverse.

[darkflagrance]

I suppose I don't believe in eastern religions for the same reasons I don't believe in western religions - I haven't seen any evidence that any of them are true.  Since to believe something I have to think that it's likely to be true... well, I can't really get off square one there.

There could be some interesting ideas in it though, I guess.  I'll try looking at some of them.

As for why apparently monolithic religions exist... I think it's a form of evolution.  The beliefs that are around today are the successful beliefs that were passed on.  Beliefs which contain clauses that keep them similar and have ways of avoiding influence from other beliefs ("Thou shalt not have any other god but me" being a prime example) are maintained more easily, and don't gradually turn into lots of unrecognizable splinter religions.  Historically, they've also been easier to enforce either legally ("you must follow this religion") or socially (society expects you to follow this religion).

So you believe giving enough time to evolve, even Buddhism will be one day as monotheism? Isn't it diversity is the common phenomena of evolution process? Or we human just too much alike?

I think he's really saying that evolutionarily speaking, monotheistic, intolerant, aggressive religions tend to be more evolutionarily fit than polytheistic religions because they drive out or engulf neighbor religions while continuously striving to increase their number of adherents. Therefore, in the future, monotheistic religions might be likely to overwhelm a non-monotheistic religion like Buddhism unless Buddhism itself becomes similarly monotheistic.

I think that Buddhism represents an equally evolutionarily viable but distinct strategy: syncretism and adaptation. Because Buddhism has been able to easily adapt its doctrine to local beliefs and needs while absorbing them, it has been able to gain as much influence as it has today. Because religiously warfare is less acceptable today than it was one hundred years ago, perhaps Buddhism won't be wiped out after all

[counting]

An Imam, you mean?

Yeah, I studied Arabic for two years.  I don't remember much of the language, because I didn't get very far--but what I do remember was the kindness of the people who taught me.

I think Islamic point of view is the most neglected here. 1/4 in Christianity, 1/4 in Buddhism/Taoism/etc, 14 in Hinduism/etc, (they are the less understood by me), and mention Islamic so few, but become a sub-religion after Abrahamic Religions. Where is all the muslin? They don't like debate?

[freeformschooler]

Where is all the muslin? They don't like debate?

I don't know of any GD regulars of the Islam faith. It would be interesting to also learn more about that.

[Leafsnail]

Well, just because monotheism has proved effective in propagating and maintaining itself doesn't mean it's the only or even the best strategy.  It could be that a less aggressive religion can also take hold if it's good at passing itself on through the generations.

Bear in mind I'm only looking at whether a belief is good at passing itself on intact, rather than whether it benefits the person who has it.  It's is kindof like the selfish gene idea but with beliefs instead of genes.  Since I don't really know anything about the subject, bear in mind it's pure conjecture.

[counting]

I think he's really saying that evolutionarily speaking, monotheistic, intolerant, aggressive religions tend to be more evolutionarily fit than polytheistic religions because they drive out or engulf neighbor religions while continuously striving to increase their number of adherents. Therefore, in the future, monotheistic religions might be likely to overwhelm a non-monotheistic religion like Buddhism unless Buddhism itself becomes similarly monotheistic.

I think that Buddhism represents an equally evolutionarily viable but distinct strategy: syncretism and adaptation. Because Buddhism has been able to easily adapt its doctrine to local beliefs and needs while absorbing them, it has been able to gain as much influence as it has today. Because religiously warfare is less acceptable today than it was one hundred years ago, perhaps Buddhism won't be wiped out after all

It's an interesting thoughts, and so it's the idea of monotheism god as a meme creature will be inserted into different religions/cultures, because it's like a virus, and can be survived as minimum functional entities?

And the Buddhism entities will divided into many offshoot, like grass eating giants, that slowing growing, but at some point split and create more offshoots, and only those got food (human brain / perhaps machine process in the future) survives?

[counting]

Well, just because monotheism has proved effective in propagating and maintaining itself doesn't mean it's the only or even the best strategy.  It could be that a less aggressive religion can also take hold if it's good at passing itself on through the generations.

Bear in mind I'm only looking at whether a belief is good at passing itself on intact, rather than whether it benefits the person who has it.  It's is kindof like the selfish gene idea but with beliefs instead of genes.  Since I don't really know anything about the subject, bear in mind it's pure conjecture.

I wonder is there better strategy out there? Evolution means mutation and copying different gene (meme) to best fit the environment. Can anyone picturing some strategy in religion that's new in social functional and fit for spreading offspring with current religions construct?

[darkflagrance]

I think he's really saying that evolutionarily speaking, monotheistic, intolerant, aggressive religions tend to be more evolutionarily fit than polytheistic religions because they drive out or engulf neighbor religions while continuously striving to increase their number of adherents. Therefore, in the future, monotheistic religions might be likely to overwhelm a non-monotheistic religion like Buddhism unless Buddhism itself becomes similarly monotheistic.

I think that Buddhism represents an equally evolutionarily viable but distinct strategy: syncretism and adaptation. Because Buddhism has been able to easily adapt its doctrine to local beliefs and needs while absorbing them, it has been able to gain as much influence as it has today. Because religiously warfare is less acceptable today than it was one hundred years ago, perhaps Buddhism won't be wiped out after all

It's an interesting thoughts, and so it's the idea of monotheism god as a meme creature will be inserted into different religions/cultures, because it's like a virus, and can be survived as minimum functional entities?

And the Buddhism entities will divided into many offshoot, like grass eating giants, that slowing growing, but at some point split and create more offshoots, and only those got food (human brain / perhaps machine process in the future) survives?

I think that to the extent that Buddhism has fractured, it has been because it penetrated new cultures. But now the only cultures that really remain to be penetrated as Western ones, and in general cultural homogeneity is increasing and cultures are disappearing, thanks to modernization. So I think that eventually there will be one large sect of Buddhism with greater global acceptance than other sects, and the rest of the Buddhist traditions will endure as well as they can.

And yes: in the metaphor of religions as living creatures, human minds are the food that sustains them...or, to be more accurate, a religion exists as the collective understanding of a group of humans. It reproduces by increasing or adding to the amount of humans that believe in it. It mutates and speciates through schism and corruption/adaptation of older traditions. Those that survive are merely those that are good at acquiring converts and preventing their followers from becoming converted.

[counting]

I think that to the extent that Buddhism has fractured, it has been because it penetrated new cultures. But now the only cultures that really remain to be penetrated as Western ones, and in general cultural homogeneity is increasing and cultures are disappearing, thanks to modernization. So I think that eventually there will be one large sect of Buddhism with greater global acceptance than other sects, and the rest of the Buddhist traditions will endure as well as they can.

And yes: in the metaphor of religions as living creatures, human minds are the food that sustains them...or, to be more accurate, a religion exists as the collective understanding of a group of humans. It reproduces by increasing or adding to the amount of humans that believe in it. It mutates and speciates through schism and corruption/adaptation of older traditions. Those that survive are merely those that are good at acquiring converts and preventing their followers from becoming converted.

So religions DO bit you . You are eaten till you are spit out and been eaten again. And those running away, seek shelter in DF , and find oneself been eaten by the monster called FUN.