Reflections on \"Defining Religion\", by R Kirkland
-
Topic Author
- Visitor
-
22 Apr 2009 16:59 #23000
by
BrJohn posted this document under the heading of \"2009 New Study Materials\" within the Training and Library section of the forum. For immediate reference, this is the document which I am musing upon:
http://templeofthejediorder.org/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/Defining_Religion-a4527a025bbc336e09990f07d572e7cd.pdf
. These below reflections are simply my musings, not any sort of definitive anything. Read it for your entertainment or inspiration.
================
I like the author's clear thinking. He's very methodical and mind numbinginly thorough. Most all of my initial 'concerns' or thoughts were addressed specifically and very completely. The approach that he took is one that I can apply in any number of logical situtations and from there derive a reasonable, well-thought-out answer. No answer, however carefully considered though, it without its flaws.
Throughout this entire document, there is no workable mention of the role of religion in answering people's questions about death. When I look at religion, usually DEATH is pretty darn significant. In fact, religion answers the question \"what happens next?\", more specifically it addresses the grief of the living who want to know \"what happened to my loved one who has died?\" Religion provides a picture of what we can expect AFTER this life, not merely as our activities relate TO this life.
I wish to high heaven I could remember where I've read this before, but the study on religious tolerance I was reading some time ago talked about the observation that people tend to be remarkably accepting of different religions, until you touch on the different views of what happens after death. When people's concept of what happens then are too different, or incompatable with each other, the ability to accept the other religion crumbles.
And yet, it would seem Russell and all the many many other people he has cited have completely overlooked this (death as a major component or driving factor of religion). It speaks rather loudly, like \"bullhorn loudly\", to our own cultural fear of death. \"Don't talk about it! It's MORBID.\" We fear it so much it's omitted from a working definition of RELIGION?? Are you SERIOUS?! That utterly stupified me. And \"religion makes life meaningful\" is not a euphamism for \"religion provides of a roadmap of what we can expect after we die\".
In my view, religion is an expression of humanity's need to know that we are not alone. In fact, let me replace \"need to know\" with something a bit stronger: \"need to remember\". This need expresses itself in any number of ways! From animism to monotheism, from Gods-On-High to Gods-Within, from personal manifestations with human characterists to utterly impersonal characteristics which have no use for us. Those religions which fail to connect its followers to this feeling of \"not alone\", loose their power. I think that is a large problem with organized religion today. So many feel a sense that the \"spark\" has left their religion and they now are simply reciting prayers. This feeling of loss is prompting a mass exploration to find a new means of reconnecting to that sense that we are not alone.
Is this a human delusion? If so, it's pervasive to all of humanity. Is this need or perception some sort of fundamental flaw in the \"human template\"? Or is it something more? It is an expression of a higher truth, however cloaked, which is so inherent to our nature we can't really even see it anymore? It's buried so deeply in the core of us we don't recognize it for what it is?
I think everything else in Kirkland's rather lengthy definition, with the glaring exception I've previously trumpeted, is good but all of those, as I see it, are expressions of the underlying reason why human nature feels pulled to answer the question, in whatever creative or absurb or rational or symbolic or literal fashion. I believe the reason for the almost compulsive human need for spirituality is that we know we are not alone, and we seek to define and understand this feeling in whatever capacity we are able, given the constraints of \"living\". Religion, I believe, is the expression of this need.
================
I like the author's clear thinking. He's very methodical and mind numbinginly thorough. Most all of my initial 'concerns' or thoughts were addressed specifically and very completely. The approach that he took is one that I can apply in any number of logical situtations and from there derive a reasonable, well-thought-out answer. No answer, however carefully considered though, it without its flaws.
Throughout this entire document, there is no workable mention of the role of religion in answering people's questions about death. When I look at religion, usually DEATH is pretty darn significant. In fact, religion answers the question \"what happens next?\", more specifically it addresses the grief of the living who want to know \"what happened to my loved one who has died?\" Religion provides a picture of what we can expect AFTER this life, not merely as our activities relate TO this life.
I wish to high heaven I could remember where I've read this before, but the study on religious tolerance I was reading some time ago talked about the observation that people tend to be remarkably accepting of different religions, until you touch on the different views of what happens after death. When people's concept of what happens then are too different, or incompatable with each other, the ability to accept the other religion crumbles.
And yet, it would seem Russell and all the many many other people he has cited have completely overlooked this (death as a major component or driving factor of religion). It speaks rather loudly, like \"bullhorn loudly\", to our own cultural fear of death. \"Don't talk about it! It's MORBID.\" We fear it so much it's omitted from a working definition of RELIGION?? Are you SERIOUS?! That utterly stupified me. And \"religion makes life meaningful\" is not a euphamism for \"religion provides of a roadmap of what we can expect after we die\".
In my view, religion is an expression of humanity's need to know that we are not alone. In fact, let me replace \"need to know\" with something a bit stronger: \"need to remember\". This need expresses itself in any number of ways! From animism to monotheism, from Gods-On-High to Gods-Within, from personal manifestations with human characterists to utterly impersonal characteristics which have no use for us. Those religions which fail to connect its followers to this feeling of \"not alone\", loose their power. I think that is a large problem with organized religion today. So many feel a sense that the \"spark\" has left their religion and they now are simply reciting prayers. This feeling of loss is prompting a mass exploration to find a new means of reconnecting to that sense that we are not alone.
Is this a human delusion? If so, it's pervasive to all of humanity. Is this need or perception some sort of fundamental flaw in the \"human template\"? Or is it something more? It is an expression of a higher truth, however cloaked, which is so inherent to our nature we can't really even see it anymore? It's buried so deeply in the core of us we don't recognize it for what it is?
I think everything else in Kirkland's rather lengthy definition, with the glaring exception I've previously trumpeted, is good but all of those, as I see it, are expressions of the underlying reason why human nature feels pulled to answer the question, in whatever creative or absurb or rational or symbolic or literal fashion. I believe the reason for the almost compulsive human need for spirituality is that we know we are not alone, and we seek to define and understand this feeling in whatever capacity we are able, given the constraints of \"living\". Religion, I believe, is the expression of this need.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
