RoR: Forum

Post 0

Monday, March 24 - 4:47am

Link

Edit

In a recent issue of US News & World Report, an article author beseeches US citizens to come to respect -- if not, admire -- Islam. I and others felt that that was just too tall of an order. Islam is not "respectable" per se (and neither is Christianity, for that matter). This lead me to the burning question:

Are any religions actually deserving of respect?

I found the following 7 potential candidates ...

Chinese Universalist
Sikh
Baha`i
Confuscianist
Jain
Tao
Zoroastrian

What do you think about these religions?

Ed

Post 1

Monday, March 24 - 5:05am

Link

Edit

It would help if you would outline the major virtues and vices of each.

I never took a class on world religions so I confess profound ignorance of all of the ones you listed.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/24, 5:06am)

Post 2

Monday, March 24 - 10:14am

Link

Edit

I'd honestly say Mormonism is a leap above traditional Christianity as far as ethics is concerned. In fact, it is rather common for BYU students to get into Ayn Rand during their college years. Glenn Beck, CNN's equivalent of Hannity I suppose, is Mormon and on a recent Rand kick (at least on his radio program). Anyway, there are some ethical and esthetic similarities that make the transition rather smooth. A rather common artistic theme is quite robust and able men, including the Christ figure.

Ed, please correct me if I'm off.

Tao? The fullest expression of mental suicide (or would that be Zen?). Contradictions abound (and don't). I'd prefer certain schools of Buddhism. I suppose it's free of dogma.

The Jains are an interesting group. I've heard one of the oldest around. Extreme pacifism. Don't they avoid walking much for fear of stepping on bugs. Apparently, Gandhi was influenced by them, and MLK Jr. as well.

Baha`i. A new and rapidly growing church of cultural relativism, as far as I know.

Post 3

Monday, March 24 - 1:52pm

Link

Edit

"Are any religions actually deserving of respect? "

I personally don't regard Zen as a "religion" in the traditional sense because it has no concept of a "god" or afterlife, no supernatural intervention, no idolatry (although there is profound respect for Buddha and the venerable transmitters of the dharma).There is an unrelenting search for reality, albeit from the point of view of introspection and meditation. Zen is concerned with simplicity and functionality in the everyday life of its practitioners. It is not evangelical. The two principle sects of Zen, Soto and Rinzai, merely emphasize different approaches to enlightenment and have no elemental conflict between them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen

Sam

Post 4

Monday, March 24 - 2:38pm

Link

Edit

Thanks Sam. I'll agree that Budhist schools fit the belief system mold better than the religious. Would you say the same for Tao?

Post 5

Monday, March 24 - 3:53pm

Link

Edit

I don't have an in-depth understanding of Taoism but I have read a bit about it. It would seem to me to be a very passive philosophy as its emphasis is on non-action and thus innocuous to all those who don't believe in the tenets.

Post 6

Monday, March 24 - 8:45pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

I have always thought that you were confused. :)

Michael

Post 7

Monday, March 24 - 9:41pm

Link

Edit

Michael,

I'll take that as a compliment. After all, there's a fine line to walk between genius and earned confusion.

;-)

Ed

Post 8

Tuesday, March 25 - 9:07am

Link

Edit

Ed: Please read my post 14 to "The Grinning Face of Evil", as it connects directly to the thread "Religions I can actually respect (not merely tolerate)".

Post 9

Tuesday, March 25 - 5:49pm

Link

Edit

Manfred,

Please read my preliminary response to your post 14 warning in the Grinning Face of Evil thread.

;-)

Ed

Post 10

Tuesday, March 25 - 10:05pm

Link

Edit

Yes, fine respectable religion, Mormonism.

Cartoon on Mormonism

Enjoy.

Post 11

Wednesday, March 26 - 9:20am

Link

Edit

Ed,
I wonder exactly what is your definition of religion? Confucius is really akin to a Chinese version of Socrates. He was almost a contemporary of Socrates, born about 100 years before Socrates. Another interesting parallel is that Confucius' Analects is also in the form of dialogues between the master and his students, which was compiled by his disciples many years after he died. Confucius' system of philosophy (Confucianism), mostly dealing with ethics and politics, can never be considered a religion by any standard.

And "Chinese Universalist"??? What's that?

Post 12

Wednesday, March 26 - 3:38pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for your concerned responses, RoR-ians.

Here are some blurbs about these 7 �religions.� I will first introduce their essential characteristics** (which provides a base for discussion), then I will proceed to judge them (either unilaterally or after some debate here on RoR) �

Baha`i (Wikipedia)
(1) According to Bah�'� teachings, religious history has unfolded through a series of God's messengers who brought teachings suited for the capacity of the people at their time, and whose fundamental purpose is the same.

(2) Bah�'u'll�h is regarded as the most recent, but not final, in a line of messengers that includes Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad and others.

(3) Bah�'u'll�h's claim to fulfill the eschatological promises of previous scriptures coincides with his mission to establish a firm basis for unity throughout the world, and inaugurate an age of peace and justice, which Bah�'�s expect will inevitably arise.

Chinese Folk Religion (Wikipedia)
(1) Both in China and outside, adherents often describe themselves, or are described by others, as followers of: Buddhism,

(2) Taoism,

(3) Confucianism [or a mix among these].

Confuscianism (Wikipedia)
(1) The Master said, "I have been the whole day without eating, and the whole night without sleeping � occupied with thinking. It was of no use. The better plan is to learn." (Analects XV. 30. tr. Legge)

(2) Zilu (an impetuous disciple of Confucius) asked how one should serve ghosts and spirits. The Master said, "Till you have learnt to serve men, how can you serve ghosts?" Zilu then ventured upon a question about the dead. The Master said, "Till you know about the living, how are you to know about the dead?" (Analects XI. 11. tr. Waley)

(3) "Show respect to the spirits and deities, then keep away from them." (Confucius is said to have refused to discuss the subject of magic, devils, hell, and Heaven).

Jainism (Wikipedia)
(1) One of the main characteristics of Jain belief is the emphasis on the immediate consequences of one's physical and mental behavior.

(2) Non-violence (Ahimsa) is the basis of right faith, the condition of right knowledge and the kernel of right conduct.

(3) It is important not to waste human life in evil ways. Instead, we should strive to rise up on the ladder of spiritual evolution.

Sikhism (Wikipedia)
(1) A key distinctive feature of Sikhism is a non-anthropomorphic concept of God, to the extent that one can interpret God as the Universe itself.

(2) The essence of Sikh teaching is summed up by Nanak in these words: "Realisation of Truth is higher than all else. Higher still is truthful living".

(3) The living of life while carrying on the responsibilities of worldly life, and not withdrawing from it, is encouraged.

Taoism (Wikipedia)
(1) Taoism theology emphasizes various themes found in the Tao Te Ching (道德經) and Zhuangzi 《庄子》, such as naturalness, vitality, peace, "non-action" (wu wei), emptiness (refinement), detachment, the strength of softness (or flexibility), receptiveness, spontaneity, the relativism of human ways of life, ways of speaking and guiding behavior.

(2) Tao can be roughly stated to be the flow of the universe, or the force behind the natural order.[6] Tao is believed to be the influence that keeps the universe balanced and ordered. Tao is associated with nature, due to a belief that nature demonstrates the Tao.

(3) Tao is also associated with the complex concept of De (德) "power; virtue", which is the active expression of Tao.[11] De is the active living, or cultivation, of that "way".

Zoroastrian (Wikipedia)
(1) � truth and order � is the antithesis of chaos, � falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict.

(2) Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.

(3) In Zoroastrian tradition the malevolent is represented by Angra Mainyu, the "Destructive Principle", while the benevolent is represented through Ahura Mazda's Spenta Mainyu, the instrument or "Bounteous Principle" of the act of creation.

**an essential characteristic of something is that which effectively epistemologically differentiates its specific kind (of a thing) from similar kinds of (already known) things

Ed

Post 13

Wednesday, March 26 - 4:50pm

Link

Edit

Hmm. I'm more curious how you're using "respect" than how you're using "religion."

Jordan

Post 14

Wednesday, March 26 - 7:18pm

Link

Edit

Jordan, from m-w.com

=======================
respect [transitive verb]

b: to refrain from interfering with [please RESPECT their privacy]
=======================

The difference between this kind of respect and "tolerance" is that tolerance requires some alternative value (to "trade" for tolerating something you normally wouldn't), whereas this kind of respect is simply respect based on the merit (or non-demerit) of the particular "religion" in question.

Ed

Post 15

Thursday, March 27 - 9:52am

Link

Edit

Hi Ed,

If we're asking whether/which religions have merit, I'd say in one sense they all do, much like an ancient work of art or artifact does, even if we think it's no good. Religions are amazing at funding projects in arts, science, and technology. They are amazing at organizing lots of people over very long periods of time.

What about the merit of *ideas* in some religion? I'd say that to the extent the ideas are arrived at through a process of honest reasoning -- even if that reasoning is flawed -- then the idea deserves respect. Then again, maybe it's the consequences of the ideas rather than, or in addition to, the honest process deriving them that matters.

In any case, I think it's a bit problematic to respect or disrespect a religion. That's really just a floating abstraction. It's sort of like disrespecting a "society" or "race." So...Better to evaluate individuals.

Jordan

Post 16

Thursday, March 27 - 10:26am

Link

Edit

Jordan,

You make a good case for the predominant focus on individuals, rather than on the ideas in their heads, when we attempt to respect something or someone (or to not respect it or them, which here means to interfere with it or them).

One good reason that I will not agree to respect (i.e., to refrain from interfering with) the idea of Islam, for instance, is that it literally calls for my eventual destruction (as an infidel) -- and that is something more than I am willing to abide. You could say that I shouldn't interfere with (when respecting or disrespecting anything) the ideas themselves, but that I should interfere with the persons tauting them, and in a sense this is the most accurate way to look at it.

Ideas don't exist on their own. They are always and only originated and propagated in the heads of mankind. In a sense then, it is the heads of Islamofascists that I must have, or effect in some way -- in order to effect positive change in the world and the people with which I must deal for the rest of my life.

But I still think that the "attack" on ideas is good. Yes, it's awfully impersonal (compared to a physical attack on Islamofascists), but in being relatively impersonal there's special battle ground to be gained by advancing into that territory. I'm planning to continue to disrespect certain ideas, perhaps for my whole life. If it becomes necessary in the living of my life, I will not hesitate to disrespect individuals as well.

In this sense, I'm ready to interfere with anyone who has convinced me that she is advancing an operation to take away my freedom.

Ed

Post 17

Thursday, March 27 - 10:37am

Link

Edit

Ed: To post 9 here and your post in reply to mine in "The Grinning Face of Evil": Thanks for your positive comments. I'm sorry I had to say what I said, but in view of your high intellect - which I admire and respect deeply - I considered that this small and friendly tug at your sleeve was necessary. As Objectivists we can't, by any means, respect any religion and, of course, also not tolerate it, since religions are the main cause of mankind's problems.

Post 18

Thursday, March 27 - 10:51am

Link

Edit

Claude Shannon said:
"Yes, fine respectable religion, Mormonism.
Cartoon on Mormonism
Enjoy."

I've seen that cartoon a dozen times, it's hilarious! Very well done propaganda. There are a few claims that are mistaken, but for the most part it is accurate and it seems all of it is based on some amount of documentation (even if that documented source is rather dubious). I don't wish to defend the religion's metaphysics or historical claims in the least. Daffy as usual. But I should restate my point more clearly.

I hold that Mormonism is an improvement on typical Christian ethics and esthetics. Why?

1. There is a touch of egoism (even explicitly) and an emphasis on guilt-free happiness in this life.

2. There are formal denouncements of unconditional love and original sin.

3. Loosely, the purpose of this life is to become a god (and god was apparently a man). Far less of the merely-human mentality.

4. Heaven is about creation and self perfection, not stagnating bliss.

5. Sex, while prudishly taboo, is seen as glorious.

6. Popular Mormon art is often romantic and even mythological (see romantic realism)

Yes, it has sexist, racist, and otherwise paltry elements (see christianity).

I wouldn't include it in Ed's list, especially now that he's made his definition of "respect" clear. However, I think of all western religions, I think it provides the smoothest transition into Objectivism (especially Rand-era, for better or worse). On that criteria, I hold it to some regard.

I don't wish to hijack this thread. If there are any questions or comments, I'd rather handle them personally.

Post 19

Thursday, March 27 - 10:54am

Link

Edit

Thanks, Manfred.

I have yet to perform the task (of evaluating these "religions" against a standard of perfection) which I have claimed that I would do. I'm hoping to solicit the kind of attention to detail that offers finality on a broad scale. I'm hoping to achieve a level of evaluation of these "religions" which cannot be undermined in any way by associating it with what Herbert Spencer called "contempt prior to investigation."

If I -- with the help of RoR-ians -- can do this, if I can arrive at an evaluation that cannot be dismissed by otherwise-rational thinkers (in the Spencerian way of dismissing someone's evaluation of something), then I think that I will have created some value to myself and to the active-minded others reading my words.

I agree that religions are "the main cause of mankind's problems." When I say that, though, I'm taking all collectivisms (Communism, etc) to be of an over-arching kind of religious view. The kind of religious view that Rand appealed to by correctly categorizing the proponents and adherents of such disastrous human evils as: Mystics of Muscle.

Manfred, I would like to see your intellectual reaction to what it was that I said to Jordan in post 16. Would you care to personally comment on that?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/27, 11:00am)