There is so much evil that we associate with religion. But I think religion is also (or, can be) a positive thing. I think many people don’t really understand this side of religion, because they have little or no experience of it in its healthy form. I, for one, grew up in a Protestant church and was never really instructed in the usefulness of ritual for instance. In fact, I was specifically taught that ritual is dangerous as it leads away from a direct relationship with God – thus rendering the most effective means I know of for effecting self-transformation impotent.
I found a website with a variety of definitions of religion on it – here are my own picks from it, relating to what I think religion is, when I discuss religion in a neutral or positive light. I don’t know anything at all about the website itself. I found it, raided it, and now I’m here to discuss. I also don’t know anything about most of the people whose words are quoted here.
Paul Connelly also defines religion in terms of the sacred and the spiritual:
He defines the sacred as:
He further defines the spiritual as:
Also…
As a Buddhist I believe that religion has its function, but that when it is no longer useful, it should be abandoned. This is true in a long-term sense (i.e. an enlightened person has no use for its aid), and I think also in a momentary sense (i.e. if the purpose of ritual is to help draw a person out of his head and into the world as it is, when the practitioner is directly experiencing the world as it is, he shouldn’t return to engaging in ritual).
Let’s say I’ve been feeling down in the dumps, for many years. A friend invites me to church, I hear a sermon, participate in the singing. I feel transformed, in a positive way. I say to myself, this is for me! So I do the things the church recommends I do. I read the bible a couple times a week. I pray before going to bed at night. I keep up with the program, and I feel transformed.
So… what’s up with all this humanism stuff? Self-transformation is self-transformation. It’s when you feel transformed. That’s a big part of what religion is - it can explain why some people believe in God for instance.
In particular? I’m not sure exactly. It might be different for different people. In general though, I believe that lessening the grip of self-fixation is the most trustworthy way to effect transformation. Thus, some aspects of what we call “religion” are effective aids to self transformation, and some are obstructions.
Do you realize you talk in riddles? I know, if somewhat superficially, what humanism is. My question for you is what your point is. I have no idea what you’re saying. I’ve repeated this a number of times. Please try a new way of stating your point, or give up. I’m fine with either approach.
Ochaye; you aren’t actually making sense, and your posts make it seem as though you would rather keep it that way than help clarify.
You seem to assume that there are humanist and non-humanist religious stances, whereas anon clearly sees all religion as being under a degree of humanist classification.
Therefore, your continued interest in having anon suddenly realize what you are referring to without understanding anon yourself is a quickly failing approach.
Then you know that self-transformation is a pretty good approximation of that. Religion, otoh, is the view that deity, or deities, have a significant hand in transformation, instead of self. Indeed, obtaining that assistance is the central purpose of religion. So a complaint against religion that it makes self-transformation ‘impotent’ is to complain about precisely what other people expect of it. One might as well buy a kettle and complain that it makes water hot.
It is also inconsistent to hold religion as ‘a positive thing’ while opposing its central purpose.
Self-transformation is transformation of one’s outlook and behavior. That could be done on one’s own, with community help, or perhaps God caused it if that’s your belief.
