well we get old suffer and then die and none of that is much fun, old people stay in their homes and look out the window at the world waiting to die for 20yrs.
Its not as good as two or even one good life followed by um, anything else bar oblivion.
So what if one suffers, gets old and dies? There is more to life than that.
Why not be grateful for what one has?
For starters, one has a life.
First we need to define what is a religion.
‘Religion’ is a very loose term, so it is a matter of a sound and justified consensus on what is a religion.
Ninian Smart did a very extensive research on all the major religions in the world and noted they all share the following 7 dimension, he called the Seven Dimension of Religion.
www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/F … evendi.htm
To get a better of idea of his dimensions can read his books.
What is ‘natural?’
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature
I can agree with your;
“A religion can be called natural if it can show how to derive universal codes for human behavior from observations of physical phenomena.”
but what is religion above must confine to some sound definition like those of Ninian Smart’s or others.
As for “eugenics” with direct intervention, that is a no.
That depends on who one sees as doing the genetic tampering and why. I’m not speaking here of the type of genetic tampering as described in “Brave New World”, but of the scientific possibility of freeing humans from birth defects and inherited diseases.
Possible religious concepts from the phenomenon of evolutionary eugenics–God is creative energy; man is in God’s image-- a creative being.
Correct, except for the mandatory assumption.
How do you see eugenics?
Thanks for the above definitions. I have a 1967 article that explains what Huxley meant by religion in his book.
“According to Huxley’s conception, religion stems from two basic sources. One is man’s concern with his destiny–his position and role in the universe and their implications for his activity; the other is the sense of sacredness. Following Rudolph Otto, Huxley thinks of the sense of sacredness as a unique kind of experience which is an intimate blend of awe, wonder, and fascination; this mode of feeling arises spontaneously in reaction to a wide variety of objects and situations. Religion, then, is a social organ for dealing with problems of human destiny. As such it involves a conception of the world within which this destiny exists, some mobilization of emotional forces in man vis-a vis the world thus conceived some sort of ritual for expressing and maintaining the feelings and attitudes developed with respect to the practical problems connected with our destiny. The sense of sacredness enters into the second and third of these aspects. As Huxley would see it, a way of dealing with problems of human destiny would not be distinctively religious if it did not stem from and encourage a sense of sacredness of the major elements in view of the world, man, and human life.”–W. P. Alston
It’s only a matter of time before ‘red hair’ or ‘short stature’ or ‘muscle structure which does not produce a noticeable six-pack’ are declared defects and inherited diseases.
There is no such thing as “evolutionary eugenics”. Evolution is pure adaption to environment. If a ‘birth defect’ is useful for survival then that ‘birth defect’ will propagate and become the ‘norm’.
Evolution cannot work without change and variety.
Science is entirely descriptive. It does not say what one ought to do. It says how one could do something that one wants to do.
No … the educators, employers, and politicians do that.
… and whether it is allowed.
As from this;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
which entails some degree of human deliberations and efforts.
I have read Huxley’s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doors_of_Perception
and his other views.
‘Religion’ is a very loose term.
Huxley’s definition of religion is still very loose [not tight] is not much different from William James’ and many of the likes.
Personally Ninian Smart’s definition is very extensive and it is very easy to agree with, thus arrive at a consensus for most.
However one critical element that Smart’s missed in the element of the existential desperation or existential DOOM inherent in all humans that drive the majority [like heat seeking missiles] to cling to a religion.
Aldous Huxley wrote “The Doors of Perception”; his brother Julian wrote “Religion Without Revelation.” The sense of sacredness as addressed in the above quote does not indicate that a majority of humans turn to religion because of “Doom”.
A Parallel Example
Note in the case of romantic love and its infinite expressions by humans since self-awareness emerged.
When a person is in love with another, that person also enters into a state of “sacredness” that drives an impulse of attraction, worshiping, devotion, full attentions, glowing admiration, and the likes directed at the opposite sex.
In such a state of “sacredness” each [of the couple] are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure both are together till eternity and will even risk their lives for that togetherness.
Tons of books, letters, articles, stories, poetry, arts has been written and expressed about being in-love.
The very good and the worst evils had manifested from humans beings in-love and the impulse to maintain such a state.
All the above fancy stuffs [“sacredness”, etc.] about being in-love are merely ‘scams’ by Nature to seduce the opposite sex to get their genitals to fit together with the ultimate purpose of producing the next generation and therefrom the preservation of the species.
From the above example, it is a parallel with the ultimate drive within religion, i.e. dealing with the inevitable DOOM. While being in-love is a short-term state, the DOOM state is constant within the self till the inevitable.
The sense of ‘sacredness’ and whatever that arise, is associated and thrown at religion is nothing more than secondary manifestations of the primary existential drive to address the real state DOOM.
This sense of “sacredness” from religion is equivalent to the “sacredness” of the devotion to the opposite sex during ‘courtship’ and foreplay process of the primary sex drive towards copulation to produce the next generation.
So, ALL humans who turned to religion [as defined] is because of the root cause from that state of existential DOOM either explicitly, implicitly or subliminally.
I think that religion must address the pre-rational, the concept forming cauldron of our soul to catch on to the fire in our heart.
Otherwise it is merely a form of medicine… which is by all accounts healthier, but also less effective…
?
What does that even mean, that dichotomy?
Pre-rational, at least preSocratic!
Religion needs not be based on fear of one’s inevitable demise.
Here’s two quotes from Havelock Ellis (1924)–
Religion, like love, develops and harmonizes our rarest and most extravagant emotions. It exalts us above the commonplace routine of or daily life. But, like love also, it is a little ridiculous to those who are unable to experience it. And, since they can survive without experiencing it, let them be thankful as we are thankful.
Religion, if anything al all, must be a natural organic function, like walking, like eating, better still, like loving.
Why does anyone need religion if he has a natural personal connection with the sacred/divine?
Religion is the social side of spirituality. It involves set dogma, practices and rituals.
Religion can be a reminder of who and what we are–a being who forgets his divinity because of set dogma, practices and rituals.
.
The above by Ellis is merely beating around the bushes.
What is most natural than the fact of inevitable DOOM?
If you have read and have a reasonable understanding of all the main religions you will note the concept of DOOM is the pivot cause for the natural emergence, rise and acceptance of religions.
The central motivation of all the Abrahamic religions is about the DOOM, the fear of an eternal death thus the hope of salvation for an eternal life in Heaven and avoiding Hell.
The main drive of the whole Buddhism is centered on the mother of all sufferings, i.e. the fear of Death, i.e. the Buddha Story of the sick-man, the old man as potential to be a corpse.
The same central theme of the fear of death is represented in Hinduism, Jainism and other religion. Taoism is not very explicitly about death but upon deeper research it is reduced to the fear of death.
The rest of the features in all religions are merely window dressings to the main issue and concern of that DOOM.
I find Buddhism very effective where it identify the problem very specifically and introduced solutions to deal with it directly, effectively and efficiently. Buddhism has its share of the ‘window dressing’ stuffs but the learned Buddhists will understand the central point and leverage of Buddhism is pivoted on the DOOM. Once the DOOM is managed effectively the rest of human life will flow effectively without its major hindrance and constraints.
The fact is the 7 billion or the 100% of humans on Earth are represented by a range of mental inclinations and proclivities, spiritual intelligence, etc. of various degrees from low 1/100 to 99/100 high.
Theistic related dogmas, practices and rituals as in religions are necessary for the majority of humans who only has low levels of spiritual intelligence, say 30% or less.
If fear of death is the current mother of all religions, why could there not be a religion based of Life, on human events in the here and now. Does death define everything we think and feel?
I just thought it would be pleasant to consider a religion not based on rewards and punishments in some afterlife, a religion based instead on what it means to be alive at this very moment.
Is there no religion or idea of a religion that does not owe to imagining the extremes of Doom or pie in the sky?