Why we need religion

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Nilsi said:

In what world is dialectics a zero sum game? When I challenge your views and by extension subvert your grand narrative, we both grow - so what I'm talking about is already antirivalrous in nature.

I'm not advocating kinetic warfare. I precisely want to battle this out in the realm of ideas, instead of the trenches.

"Our ideas die, so we don't have to" - Alfred North Whitehead

I'm worried about the rivalrous games. This is my red herring: ? His name is Hegel.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I'm sorry I wasn't able to watch it. The sound is low quality and he was gaming?

Anyway, I don't believe that notion. It's basically based in a reiteration of the Abrahamic religion's explanation of duality when Adam and Eve fell from heaven. It's literally the same idea, so the dude is likely a religious nut trying to pass religion as a some sort of absolute truth.

Like I said in my first comment, I think people naturally run away from genuine curious inquiry because it's too costly in this material/relative/human world. So they just take the closest and most easiest answer and use it as an crutch/opium/psychedelic to bypass the inquiry and suppress the curiosity. Most people prefer the comfort in false knowledge over the discomfort of not-knowing.

Would you be against Leo's ideas and practices being consolidated into a tradition with codified practices and agreed-upon ethical frameworks, with proper institutions and large-scale communities, where you can easily go to other people for proper guidance and where you can be understood and encouraged by your friends and family?

Edited March 25, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Why do you think you need religion in the first place? If you're honest with yourself, you'll come to realize that you don't need more crap for becoming conscious. In fact, religion is antithetical to this pursuit as it is faith-based. What you need is not-knowing and you.

God has no religion.  

You're not getting at the core of religion. It's not about "faith". It's about doing spirituality in a functional context.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

On 3/25/2023 at 1:20 PM, Carl-Richard said:

You don't understand the core of religion. It's not about "faith". It's about doing spirituality in a functional context.

Would individuals follow and concoct religions, worldviews and rituals if they experienced what's true? When does religion originate in one's experience? After our failure to experientially grasp whatever's true. We make up stuff to believe in due to our inability to stand not knowing. Rather than personal contemplation, social activities like religion inevitably turn into collective issues, which is the wrong focus in this context.

Why is it so easy for the masses to adopt religion? Among other things, it's packaged for mass consumption. It's easy to believe in a doctrine whereas contemplating for yourself is tricky. With time, religion always degrades into dogma in the end.

What is a belief?

Edited April 2, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

22 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Take a look. Go to a forest for a year and contemplate what you and life are. Religion emerges after our failure to grasp what's true. It fundamentally is about belief. New conceptual inventions and add-ons are created due to the fact that we've been unable to grasp whatever's true for ourselves. It turns into a social issue instead of an individual, open contemplation.

Why is it so easy for the masses to adopt religions? Because it's packaged for easy consumption and eventually degrades into belief, cosmology, rituals. And it is crap when it comes to becoming conscious. It isn't about pursuing truth.

What's the nature of belief?

It's odd to think that what New Age spirituality has been in just the last 50 years is what spirituality is supposed to be. That is very short-sighted.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

You're not going to force it on anyone. You just need to have the right goal in mind and sow the seeds for it.

What if it directly conflicts with some group's interests?

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

What if it directly conflicts with some group's interests?

I'm just saying the need for a grand narrative is there, and an united world would in some way or another be united on the level of narrative.

[zurew]

37 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

It fundamentally is about belief.

Everything is about beliefs and you can't and won't ever escape that. 

Everything will eventually be grounded in subjective beliefs and whatever will be your core belief, you will label that as "truth".

It all depends on what kind epistemic process you will hold true and your choosing of that process will be completely subjective , so we might as well agree upon some kind of process or set of processes then.

Spiritual traditions are dogmatic, and Leo is dogmatic as well. 

 

[zurew]

48 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

It isn't about pursuing truth.

from their perspective it is.

[Gesundheit2]

56 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Would you be against Leo's ideas and practices being consolidated into a tradition with codified practices and agreed-upon ethical frameworks, with proper institutions and large-scale communities, where you can easily go to other people for proper guidance and where you can be understood and encouraged by your friends and family?

So religion 2.0? I think Leo himself would be against that.

Even if we consider this forum an alpha version of that vision, it's still nowhere near what you're describing, and that's despite the original leader being on top of it. Even he himself is still not (and possibly never will be) living up to the standards he suggests, let alone the moderators, let alone the rest of the community.

Historically, religion arose from a tribal setting and solved many tribal problems, but it also introduced another set of problems. Then comes ideology in the form of secularism which also did the same thing, only at a larger scale. We've developed a lot, but we still have problems. They're probably the same problems at the core (ego problems).

What you seem to be longing for is the sense of community that comes from being within a tribe. I think this is one of the biggest drawbacks of the modern secular world. There are many benefits to it, but everything has pros and cons.

[mr_engineer]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

They tend to only pick the juicy parts, like meditation, and reduce all of spirituality down to that, which is dangerous.

What else is there to spirituality, though?! Isn't meditation/self-enquiry it?! Isn't spirituality something that boils down to a simple question, like 'Who am I?' or 'What is God?'? 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Spiritual people are not wise either. They reduce spirituality down to almost nothing, they dogmatically hold on to their "tradition", etc. They have the same problems.

What tradition? 

I agree that some problems are similar, like dogmatically holding onto beliefs about God. And this can hold them back from actual God-realization. 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Besides, you're strawmanning religion by pointing at the fundamentalists. There are highly developed people who are pro-religion.

I think they're the exceptions. Not the norm. The norm, are the fundamentalists. 

The reason for that is that religion, fundamentally, is fundamentalist. It's pure dogma about 'This is what God is and this is what God said'. It's conditioning around metaphysics. And without science, it leads to superstitious thinking too. It's materialistic as well, precisely because only unconscious people need these dogmatic beliefs to civilize them using 'God's morality'. For example, the belief that 'heaven is equivalent to you banging 72 virgins'. 

I do agree that highly developed people will have legitimate reasons to be pro-religion. They will have these big-brain reasons, that 'human beings are animals that fundamentally care only about themselves and to get everyone to agree on one morality, you have to believe in an entity that's greater than all of humanity that enforces these laws that help us be civilized as a society. And religion does that for us.' But, that's not the reality for most pro-religion people. Most pro-religion people will engage in culture-wars, if not outright wars and riots for their religion. 

Edited March 25, 2023 by mr_engineer

[UnbornTao]

@Carl-Richard

What do you specifically mean by spirituality and new age?

We don't know what's true, and contemplation is the direct way for becoming aware. Anything less than that in this context is fundamentally not needed, I'd say. Religion, by its nature, discourages open inquiry.

Edited April 2, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

14 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

So religion 2.0?

Yes.

 

21 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

I think Leo himself would be against that.

True. He has said he wouldn't like working with institutions. He likes to keep it close and cultish ?

 

22 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Historically, religion arose from a tribal setting and solved many tribal problems, but it also introduced another set of problems. Then comes ideology in the form of secularism which also did the same thing, only at a larger scale. We've developed a lot, but we still have problems. They're probably the same problems at the core (ego problems).

Same with government. Government 2000 years ago was garbage, and we had to make modifications along the way to get to something resembling functional government. Religion has been lagging behind in that process.

[hyruga]

Without religion, there won't be enough schools to go around teaching people due to lack of donations and unity. There won't be internet. Everyone would still be living in the 15th century fighting one another for land. Most of the people you see today will be barbarians.

[UnbornTao]

On 3/25/2023 at 2:21 PM, Carl-Richard said:

the need for a grand narrative is there, and an united world would in some way or another be united on the level of narrative.

That's fantasy.

On 3/25/2023 at 2:24 PM, zurew said:

Everything is about beliefs and you can't and won't ever escape that. 

Everything will eventually be grounded in subjective beliefs and whatever will be your core belief, you will label that as "truth".

It all depends on what kind epistemic process you will hold true and your choosing of that process will be completely subjective , so we might as well agree upon some kind of process or set of processes then.

Spiritual traditions are dogmatic, and Leo is dogmatic as well. 

Setting out to experience what's true is not about beliefs. Additionally, not everything is purely dogmatic. Certainly there're degrees of it. Religion is founded on belief systems, as opposed to say, science, which is based on objective observations. It's meant to be grounded on what's real and factual, relatively speaking.

Certain practices emphasize personal investigation more than others, such as Zen, whose original intention is a direct personal consciousness of the absolute.

On 3/25/2023 at 2:28 PM, zurew said:

from their perspective it is.

After all is said and done: What are they doing?

Notice how questioning is not encouraged at all and may even be actively suppressed by religion. It's not up to profound inquiry. Unfortunately for religion, the way towards insight and breakthrough is through questioning, not dogma.

Edited April 2, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Nemra]

Anyone who is for religion should have gone or send their child to Christian Sunday school. 

You wouldn't be this chill talking about why we need it.

[zurew]

16 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Experiencing what's true is not about beliefs.

Some religion came from experiecing certain things, then building a framework for it and then teaching about it. (the very same way how Leo has his awakenings, then try to give a set of practices and a framework for it and then teach about it). 

You can experience a bunch of things, but an experience's truth value will be totally determined by you. You can experience infinite love, and then say, that it was just chemicals in my brain that made me feel that way. You can always doubt or blindly accept any experience, and how much truth value you will place on them will be grounded in subjectivity.

16 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

There are other practices as well which encourage looking into matters for yourself and not just believe in their "rightness" and premises.

You can say, that some religion provides dogmas that you can't really test, or falsify, however being able to test something or to experience something, doesn't necessarily makes it more true than other things either.  I could create a framework where I almost perfectly describe how to achieve psychosis (but put a label "ultimate truth" on it), give you a set of practices how to achieve it, and then and the end of all that say - don't believe me , try it for yourself. Just because you can achieve or experience it , that alone doesn't mean that it will be more true than any other thing or that it will be the ultimate truth.

You can find certain dogmas in any spiritual community or religion . 

The very notion, that ultimate truth can be experienced, in and of itself is a dogma here, that no one is allowed to question or contemplate.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

What else is there to spirituality, though?! Isn't meditation/self-enquiry it?! Isn't spirituality something that boils down to a simple question, like 'Who am I?' or 'What is God?'? 

Nope, that is New Age spirituality — spirituality separated from its traditional backdrop. Spirituality is the search for the highest value (God, Truth, Consciousness, Goodness, etc.), and there are many other practices than meditation that are required for getting there safely. What Leo is providing on the side (personal development, psychology, philosophy) are a few examples. Meditation doesn't address all human needs, and without a grand narrative that addresses all human needs, you have to construct your own on your free time, and that is a process filled with traps.

 

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

What tradition? 

Whatever they stripped from Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever.

 

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

I agree that some problems are similar, like dogmatically holding onto beliefs about God. And this can hold them back from actual God-realization. 

They're virtually identical, just smaller scale.

 

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

I think they're the exceptions. Not the norm. The norm, are the fundamentalists. 

The reason for that is that religion, fundamentally, is fundamentalist. It's pure dogma about 'This is what God is and this is what God said'. It's conditioning around metaphysics. And without science, it leads to superstitious thinking too. It's materialistic as well, precisely because only unconscious people need these dogmatic beliefs to civilize them using 'God's morality'. For example, the belief that 'heaven is equivalent to you banging 72 virgins'. 

I do agree that highly developed people will have legitimate reasons to be pro-religion. They will have these big-brain reasons, that 'human beings are animals that fundamentally care only about themselves and to get everyone to agree on one morality, you have to believe in an entity that's greater than all of humanity that enforces these laws that help us be civilized as a society. And religion does that for us.' But, that's not the reality for most pro-religion people. Most pro-religion people will engage in culture-wars, if not outright wars and riots for their religion. 

This applies to anything: politics, personal development, science, etc. Don't let yourself be discouraged by the lowest common denominator.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Gesundheit2]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm just saying the need for a grand narrative is there,

I don't have this need. Used to, but not anymore. I'm comfortable with not-knowing and with loneliness. If this need is bothering you so much, you can try to transcend it like I did.

Or if you don't want to transcend it, you can satisfy it directly by joining groups, clubs, communities, charities, monasteries, etc.

Or you can do mix and match by following a personal mission/life purpose. Find what you're good at and is most authentic to you, and build upon it.

Many people on the journey of self-discovery face the desire to change the world in one way or another. You just gotta face it, man. Then you can decide what you want to do with it.

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Same with government. Government 2000 years ago was garbage, and we had to make modifications along the way to get to something resembling functional government. Religion has been lagging behind in that process.

You might be thinking that government was garbage back then, but consider that modern government might be the main reason behind this problem:

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

you have to construct your own on your free time, and that is a process is filled with traps.

See, 2000 years ago, you weren't a cog in a machine chasing material achievements one after another. So this was not a problem. 2000 years ago, you had all the time and all the freedom in the world to reflect, travel, and construct whatever narrative you want, and there were no traps because there was not an objective standard for life. You just were who you were. Life was simple.

I can't stress this enough, but everything has pros and cons. I live in a third world country, and even though I'm probably more compatible with developed countries, I'm still quite happy, because I know I'm not missing out on much. It is all an illusion of the mind.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Gesundheit2