RE: The Rise of Religious Conservatism ?

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: The Rise of Religious Conservatism ?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The Rise of Religious Conservatism ?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Rise of Religious Conservatism ? - 3/9/2011 4:42:58 PM

jack8007

Posts: 392
Joined: 8/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

don't see why both explanations can't work

I think it depends on what you're talking about.   People who get their knickers in a twist about attacks on religion obviously regard religion as a social not personal matter that can be threatened by talk - so as far as that goes I'd suspect that it's not about anything they may believe personally - I doubt they think enough about theology to have faith - it's about people suggesting that perhaps there may be another better way than whatever hocus-pocus they adhere to.   And that of course suggests that maybe they've been sucking the wrong dicks.

I think the vast majority of people "believe" in a religion as a social affiliation.   That is, they claim to believe in all the magic shit because it identifies them with others - and when somebody asks a question, it gives them an excuse to hyperventilate.   Most of that stuff doesn't affect their life, and of course they do not - and especially the leaders - do not adhere to any of their rules that really involves any serious economic commitment. The Pope could liquidate half his holdings, and save the kids of the Congo.   Of course he will point out that's useless, since it just makes more kids, and so all his decorations are as significant as his flatulence.   He's just another powerful hypocrite, and of course I would be the 1st to point out the fundamental irrationality of life.

Religion is pure bullshit, except as far as it's social functions go.    What I find completely amazing is that an asshole like Elron Hubbard can just (consciously) invent a religion from his recycled science fiction rejects, complete with phony machines and crazy ass Thetans and Xenu, and in a matter of a few years, he has thousands of people worldwide doing his bidding, in every detail and making him fucking millions of $$$$.

Now take a look at the history of the Mormons, and given the differences of technology and social context, tell me how different that is?   And if you're conscious of history, you realize that there are a lot of little churches and cults that come and go all the time, and you have to ask, is this the usual pattern of religious formation?   Some schizophrenic asshole claims to talk to God so that he can buttfuck his neighbors, and then passes it down to others who recognize the advantage of the business model?

There is a scene in The Godfather where some priest makes the comment to Michael that none of them believe the doctrine they sell, and I think that is pretty true - no seriously conscious or thoughtful person could be more than 6 years old, and compare what is sold in a religion to what they see with their eyes, and believe a word of it.   The key thing here is to recognize that people love bullshit, and they love to be led around by the nose.   Clergy can never be serious without alluding to the will of a Hairy Thunderer.

None of which suggests I doubt that many people are committed to these rituals and bullshit fantasies, only that the commitment is purely a social identification.     That way, you get to pick fights with people who might say the obvious, that it's laughable.

Now if religions were along the line of Hello Kitty harmless shit, that would be one thing.   But generally they are rationalizations for all sorts of cruelty and thievery, to say nothing of wastes of perfectly good virgins that wind up in volcanoes, and perfectly serviceable women whom some ayatollah wants to stone just to make his point - the point being that he's a flaming asshole who needs a dose of his own medicine, in slow motion.

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: The Rise of Religious Conservatism ? - 3/10/2011 11:37:44 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

Part of the problem here, it seems to me is that 'religion' operates on multiple levels. For some, religion is a spiritual development system, others a theology, others a moral code, others a behavioural code, others a truth production system, others an explanation of the Meaning of Life the Universe and Everything. That little list is far from exhaustive.

Individual believers can combine one or more of these individual elements in ways that follows institutional advice, or often in eclectic personal ways. For non-believers it's all mumbo-jumbo of course.

So a critique of religion as irrational may affect some believers differently to others, and have zero effect on yet other believers. And a critique of religion as say, a theology, may have no impact on someone who uses religion as a behavioural code. Everyone is talking about different things, communication is limited and no agreement is possible. A one size fits all approach won't generate the desired results.

IMHO, you are entirely correct to point out that all religions operate at social levels and have social effects. Religions can be understood, on one level, as power systems that function socially as part of the regulatory system within a culture.

But they also operate at other levels - eg. as emotional supports for believers, as moral codes that inform behaviours - that demand different models of understanding and critiques. Pointing out the lack of logical structure in religious belief/theology may have little effect on a person whose primary commitment to religion derives from say, its moral code or its utility as an emotional support

In such instances, insisting on the intellectual superiority of logical approaches may be interpreted by believers as intellectual arrogance. Equally it could be interpreted as an attack on their world view. Many people will react to attacks that threaten their world view negatively by denial. Floundering in category crisis is not a fun place to find yourself. Either way, such approaches turn out, in the end, to be counter productive.

That something is logically correct doesn't necessarily make it effective or compelling with humans, who are far from wholly logical creatures. Cognitive dissonance makes the world go round. To knowingly continue to use counter-productive approaches doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 3/10/2011 11:55:31 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to jack8007)

Profile

Post #: 62