Why we need religion

[Carl-Richard]

This guy is very enjoyable to listen to, and he makes a very thorough case for why religions (or "grand narratives") exist and why we need them.

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

40 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

This guy is very enjoyable to listen to, and he makes a very thorough case for why religions (or "grand narratives") exist and why we need them.

 

   I agree it's a good video to watch. However I have to point out that you may have watched an edited version instead of the original because I noticed these jumpy parts to the video, so it's not the original version you're watching.

   What are your thoughts about the video?

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

What are your thoughts about the video?

I've heard the same ideas expressed before by many people I respect, and it resonates with my own understanding as well. There is definitely a human need or impulse towards the sacred; for transcendence, for connectedness, for meaning; and that impulse will always manifest itself in some way or another. As with all human needs, you want an optimal outlet for it which is supported in the appropriate context, and the list of seven things he presented was straight in the bullseye.

The sort of hyper-individualistic New Age spirituality we see today; the one without traditions, institutions, large-scale communities or agreed-upon ethical frameworks, where you can't go anywhere for proper guidance and where everybody is a man for himself; is toxic and dangerous, and oldschool religion had most of that sorted out, but it's of course generally sort of corrupted and dated, so it needs a revitalization.

But this is just the problems with alternative spirituality. The caller also mentioned problems such as ideological radicalization (e.g. ethnonationalism). If you don't have a strong grand narrative that speaks to particularly the youth, they'll easily be picked up by some radical alternative that speaks to that need.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I've heard the same ideas expressed before by many people I respect, and it resonates with my own understanding as well. There is definitely a human need or impulse towards the sacred; for transcendence, for connectedness, for meaning; and that impulse will always manifest itself in some way or another. As with all human needs, you want an optimal outlet for it which is supported in the appropriate context, and the list of seven things he presented was straight in the bullseye.

The sort of hyper-individualistic New Age spirituality we see today; the one without traditions, institutions, large-scale communities or agreed-upon ethical frameworks, where you can't go anywhere for proper guidance and where everybody is a man for himself; is toxic and dangerous, and oldschool religion had most of that sorted out, but it's of course generally sort of corrupted and dated, so it needs a revitalization.

   That's basically @Leo Gura's latest video of what is happiness, along with all the other videos he did about metaphysics, epistemology, spirituality and non-duality, never mind videos about god realization and infinity. Even these contents are way more advanced than any from mainstream or from the online debate bro stuff, cool conversation but it's just conversation, talk talk, lack luster compared to Leo's work. Nice video though.

   Yep, that's basically excess stage green, and excess stage orange individualism, post modernism and predatory capitalism if it can profit from that confusion created.

   It's tricky to communicate when the other person has little to no knowledge/experience(Destiny) talking to this guy who I assume has the knowledge/experience. It's like me for example, when and if I do talk to someone about my paranormal experiences with my friend that has little to no knowledge of such things, it's too radical for normal talking, and most normies judge me as crazy to preserve whatever materialism/scientific paradigm they have, even if sometimes they question they already decided they don't agree and like you, so they subconsciously construct justifications for why they should not like you or agree. but this is  a tangent.

[Gesundheit2]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I've heard the same ideas expressed before by many people I respect, and it resonates with my own understanding as well. There is definitely a human need or impulse towards the sacred; for transcendence, for connectedness, for meaning; and that impulse will always manifest itself in some way or another. As with all human needs, you want an optimal outlet for it which is supported in the appropriate context, and the list of seven things he presented was straight in the bullseye.

The sort of hyper-individualistic New Age spirituality we see today; the one without traditions, institutions, large-scale communities or agreed-upon ethical frameworks, where you can't go anywhere for proper guidance and where everybody is a man for himself; is toxic and dangerous, and oldschool religion had most of that sorted out, but it's of course generally sort of corrupted and dated, so it needs a revitalization.

But this is just the problems with alternative spirituality. The caller also mentioned problems such as ideological radicalization (e.g. ethnonationalism). If you don't have a strong grand narrative that speaks to particularly the youth, they'll easily be picked up by some radical alternative that speaks to that need.

Interesting. Maybe I should watch the video.

But I'll just say that Marx or whoever said that religion is the opium of the masses was right. Most of the people I know don't take religion seriously. So as a result, all these ideals of transcendence and connectedness and meaning are suppressed by religion rather than expressed through it. People are so stuck in the material world, they lost their innocent curiosity. So whether you give them religion or spirituality or something else, they will use that to suppress the innocence and curiosity. They will just turn it into another drug in order to bypass looking at the truth. It costs a lot to be innocent and curious in a material world.

[mr_engineer]

@Carl-Richard You can, actually, go to people for proper guidance. It's just that choosing the right people becomes your responsibility. 

If you are willing to take on this responsibility, you will gravitate towards the New-Age spirituality. 

If not, you will be religious. No matter what your religion says. 

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

@Carl-Richard You can, actually, go to people for proper guidance. It's just that choosing the right people becomes your responsibility.

I would actually say that most New Age spiritual teachers do not provide proper guidance, as they're not grounded in a tradition with an ecology of practices or a holistic understanding of the human organism (e.g. the Eightfold path). Besides, the accessibility problem is a real problem. No people I know in real life know anything about spirituality. It drastically reduces the chances of getting help. How would they help me with things like working through spontaneous ego deaths or kundalini symptoms? What do they know about the dangers of misapplying spiritual concepts or techniques?

If I had always been under the supervision of a teacher in my local community who draws upon a well-established tradition, maybe I wouldn't have spent 2 years spiritually bypassing or another 2 years in absolute terror and rapture from overdoing meditation. It's interesting how we praise our institutions and traditions when it comes to politics and democracy, while pointing out how the alternative would be pure chaos and anarchy, but when it comes to something like spirituality, we're in the dark ages.

Edited March 24, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Boost]

If somebody use only one exercise and doing it all the time. For example, observing what is and not what isn't, which exercise release escapes. Then he will be good in spirituality? If there is no tradition then compared to what somebody can evaluate himself?

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Interesting. Maybe I should watch the video.

But I'll just say that Marx or whoever said that religion is the opium of the masses was right. Most of the people I know don't take religion seriously. So as a result, all these ideals of transcendence and connectedness and meaning are suppressed by religion rather than expressed through it. People are so stuck in the material world, they lost their innocent curiosity. So whether you give them religion or spirituality or something else, they will use that to suppress the innocence and curiosity. They will just turn it into another drug in order to bypass looking at the truth. It costs a lot to be innocent and curious in a material world.

The guy in the call gives a theory for why he thinks that happened historically (why people sort of fell away from religion in the way that it used to be practiced). It's basically just sociocultural development and a staleness of the old institutions.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I've heard the same ideas expressed before by many people I respect, and it resonates with my own understanding as well. There is definitely a human need or impulse towards the sacred; for transcendence, for connectedness, for meaning; and that impulse will always manifest itself in some way or another. As with all human needs, you want an optimal outlet for it which is supported in the appropriate context, and the list of seven things he presented was straight in the bullseye.

The sort of hyper-individualistic New Age spirituality we see today; the one without traditions, institutions, large-scale communities or agreed-upon ethical frameworks, where you can't go anywhere for proper guidance and where everybody is a man for himself; is toxic and dangerous, and oldschool religion had most of that sorted out, but it's of course generally sort of corrupted and dated, so it needs a revitalization.

But this is just the problems with alternative spirituality. The caller also mentioned problems such as ideological radicalization (e.g. ethnonationalism). If you don't have a strong grand narrative that speaks to particularly the youth, they'll easily be picked up by some radical alternative that speaks to that need.

   So, one of the key question is how do we square alternative spirituality such that we still maintain that 'I don't know' state, whilst doing practices?

[Danioover9000]

@Gesundheit2

8 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Interesting. Maybe I should watch the video.

But I'll just say that Marx or whoever said that religion is the opium of the masses was right. Most of the people I know don't take religion seriously. So as a result, all these ideals of transcendence and connectedness and meaning are suppressed by religion rather than expressed through it. People are so stuck in the material world, they lost their innocent curiosity. So whether you give them religion or spirituality or something else, they will use that to suppress the innocence and curiosity. They will just turn it into another drug in order to bypass looking at the truth. It costs a lot to be innocent and curious in a material world.

   Religion is still useful, especially back in history. Nowadays religion may not be as powerful, but they provide a set of morals and ethics to follow that are communal to their own culture and community.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

47 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I would actually say that most New Age spiritual teachers do not provide proper guidance, as they're not grounded in a tradition with an ecology of practices or a holistic understanding of the human organism (e.g. the Eightfold path, developmental psychology, depth psychology, trauma theory). Besides, the accessibility problem is a real problem. No people I know in real life know anything about spirituality. It drastically reduces the chances of getting help. How would they help me with things like working through spontaneous ego deaths or kundalini symptoms? What do they know about the dangers of misapplying spiritual concepts or techniques? If I had always been under the supervision of a teacher in my local community who draws upon a well-established tradition, maybe I wouldn't have spent 2 years spiritually bypassing or another 2 years in absolute terror and rapture from overdoing meditation. It's interesting how we praise our institutions and traditions when it comes to politics and democracy while pointing out how the alternative would be pure chaos and anarchy, but when it comes to something like spirituality, we're in the dark ages.

   Case in point: Neo Advaita, Zen devils, and other neo forms and movements that branch away from traditional spirituality.

[Danioover9000]

  What are your thoughts about @Carl-Richard's video @Leo Gura?

[Nilsi]

Who is "we?"

Take Judaism for example: it emerged in ancient Israel as a reaction to their enslavement and devastation - a "grand narrative" to give the "chosen people" a justification for their suffering.

Same with Christianity in ancient Rome.

 

If your story doesn't address all sentient beings (and by extension all of Reality), it's nothing more than an ideology (in the Marxist sense of justifying the power of the ruling class;

- e.g. of the "good" slaves ruling over the "evil" masters, in the case of Christianity; of the "superior" capitalists ruling over the "inferior" working class etc.) 

 

The whole notion of a "grand narrative" is absolutely preposterous. 

If anything, there has to be a conglomerate of grand narratives to draw from - which is more akin to a postmodern individualism, than it is to some fundamentalist one size fits all ruling ideology.

 

What we get when we take this issue seriously is something akin to Ken Wilber's or Daniel Schmachtenberger's work - which is more a framework for thinking through complex social issues, than it is a "grand narrative."

Edited March 24, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

51 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

The whole notion of a "grand narrative" is absolutely preposterous.

Isn't that the aim of the Tier 2 or Game B guys?

[Nilsi]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Isn't that the aim of the Tier 2 or Game B guys?

No.

There is actually a good talk by Bret Weinstein and Jim Rutt (two members of the original Game B team), where they mention that the major reason why the Game B project got abandoned was, because one half of the group was demanding a "grand cosmic narrative" and the other half wanted to create a rational framework to tackle complex systemic issues.

The latter of which is what people like Schmachtenberger and Hall work on.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with grand narratives, of course.

In fact, I'm all for them - but I wouldn't pretend that they are anything more than utopian fantasies, that privilege some part of reality over another.

[Nilsi]

16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Isn't that the aim of the Tier 2 or Game B guys?

Why do you think Schmachtenberger always avoids direct questions about his values and principles and instead rambles on about externalities and interconnectedness?

He understands that any linear narrative will inevitably turn into ideology and create injustice.

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

47 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Why do you think Schmachtenberger always avoids direct questions about his values and principles and instead rambles on about externalities and interconnectedness?

He understands that any linear narrative will inevitably turn into ideology and create injustice.

   Because Daniel Schmachtenberger is being a weasel and mostly goal post changing?

   Any linear narrative will inevitably turn into ideology? But what about non-linear narratives?, For example non-duality? Neo Advaita? And other Neo versions of traditional spirituality? Don't they too turn into an ideology, that followers believe into, proselytize, and propagate to other areas?

Edited March 24, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

52 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

No.

There is actually a good talk by Bret Weinstein and Jim Rutt (two members of the original Game B team), where they mention that the major reason why the Game B project got abandoned was, because one half of the group was demanding a "grand cosmic narrative" and the other half wanted to create a rational framework to tackle complex systemic issues.

The latter of which is what people like Schmachtenberger and Hall work on.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with grand narratives, of course.

In fact, I'm all for them - but I wouldn't pretend that they are anything more than utopian fantasies, that privilege some part of reality over another.

   Nothing wrong with grand narratives intrinsically, what do you mean here? If there's no intrinsic wrong, then when it becomes extrinsic it's a problem?

[DocWatts]

For it to play a constructive role in the world we live in today religion would more or less need to be completely reconstructed, which would involve a painful process of killing (outdated mythic understandings of) God.

Which is to say moving beyond magical beliefs and the absolutization of their claims to Truth.

Communities built around shared existential values can be a healthy and constructive thing, it's the how of it which makes the crucial difference.

Edited March 24, 2023 by DocWatts