"What good is religion, anyway?" (by Domyo Burk, a Zen priest)

[Htom Sirveaux]

Zen is my worldview. Everything I experience or do takes place within this overarching, stabilizing, ennobling, sanity-making context. I imagine the same is true for sincere devotees of all authentic religions.

What good does this do the rest of the world? Well, frankly, you all benefit a great deal from the fact that I’m not crazy. We all benefit when someone is relatively stable and happy, and has a sense of dignity, meaning, connection, purpose, and support. As opposed to when someone is desperate, angry, isolated, afraid, or numb. It’s not rocket science. Those who are desperate, angry, isolated, afraid, or numb tend to hurt themselves or others. Sometimes they want context for their lives so badly they find it organizations that breed hatred and violence instead of finding that context in religion. True, sometimes the line between these two types of groups gets blurry – but that only highlights the importance of stable, time-tested, respectable religions with strong moral foundations.

At the Zen temple where I was trained it was considered very important to provide a spiritual education to children and young adults. We went about this activity passionately, and have one of the largest Zen children’s programs in the U.S. We measured the success of the program not in the number of Buddhists we churned out (which, honestly, was not that many) but in the number of young adults who graduated from our program with an appreciation for the potential value of religion in their lives. Any religion. If one of our graduates decided to embrace Wicca or Judaism or Christianity we would celebrate because we knew they had found the refuge and support elsewhere that we had found in Zen.

Not everyone needs religion, but many of us do. Our religion offers us a tradition – in many cases the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of sincere practitioners or believers. It offers us structure and context for our lives. It gives a sense of deeper meaning and purpose. It challenges us to become wiser, more compassionate, and more generous. It connects us to community.

Religion is simply the most powerful, organic, stable and persistent social security system in the world.

What good is religion, anyway?

[blkmusclmachine]

1. http://oldcatman-xxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/article-2434992-1851854800000578-948_634x436.jpg

[gcomeau]

2. Entire argument rests on the (incorrect) premise...

"We all benefit when someone is relatively stable and happy, and has a sense of dignity, meaning, connection, purpose, and support."

That there are not other means of achieving this that do not also come with the negative tradeoff of the rationality-corroding effect religion has on people.

[cbayer]

3. Except he never says that there aren't other means of achieving this.

Not everyone needs religion, but many of us do. Our religion offers us a tradition – in many cases the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of sincere practitioners or believers. It offers us structure and context for our lives. It gives a sense of deeper meaning and purpose. It challenges us to become wiser, more compassionate, and more generous. It connects us to community.

For you the tradeoff my be your rationality, but for others it may be that that is exactly what they gain. You experience can not be accurately extrapolated to that of others. To do so would not really be rational.

[trotsky]

5. You should really direct your criticism at the author.

Who says: "Religion is simply the most powerful, organic, stable and persistent social security system in the world."

If you were consistent, you'd bristle at this universal statement offered up without a hint of proof.

[gcomeau]

6. Sigh.

You say he never said there aren't other means of achieving this then directly quote where he said exactly that.

Not everyone needs religion, but many of us do

If there are other means (which there are), then those many he's talking about DON'T need religion. Because they can just use those other options instead. Since he just claimed they do need it, he is relying on the premise that religion is the only option for getting the effect he's talking about.

For you the tradeoff my be your rationality, but for others it may be that that is exactly what they gain

You cannot achieve rationality through embracing irrationality. That is a contradiction in terms.

[cbayer]

7. Exactly. He said some people need it and some people don't.

He never said it's the only way to get what he feels he has achieved.

I completely disagree with your analysis, but that's ok. It's not the first time and it won't be the last.

This guy sounds entirely rational to me.

[gcomeau]

9. And if he wasn't relying on the premise...

...that religion uniquely achieved this end then NOBODY would need it.

If you have option A and B that both do what you want, then you don't need option A, because you have option B. The only possible way option A is necessary is if there is no option B.

It's that simple.

So yes, his argument relies on the incorrect premise that religion uniquely serves the function he is claiming it serves.

[cbayer]

10. See, that's not the way I read it at all.

He is relating his personal experience. He is say that religion was/is important, possibly essential, to his being who he is.

He then says that others do not need that to achieve the same thing, and that's ok.

He is saying that option A doesn't do it for him, though it may do it for others. He is saying that option b does do it for him, though is may not do it for others.

It's that simple. People have different needs. What works for you may not work for anyone else.

It's only fundamentalist who think there is one way.

Religion uniquely serves the purpose for him that he is claiming it serves. He never says it will do the same for you.

The fact that we read this so differently is merely a reflection of our different perspectives.

[gcomeau]

11. It's a basic logical truth.

It does not rely on you "reading it a certain way". If you have multiple options to achieve a result then you cannot claim any one of them is necessary to achieve said result. Period. Full stop.

"He is relating his personal experience. He is say that religion was/is important, possibly essential, to his being who he is. "

When he says it's needed that's not saying it's "possibly" essential, it's saying it is essential.

And, as I've already pointed out multiple times, unless you maintain the position that nothing else does what religion does on that front, it is NOT essential, and that statement is therefore wrong.

Sheesh.

[cbayer]

12. What is the basic logical truth?

There are multiple paths that go to the same place.

I don't like heights and am inspired by being by the water.

The water holds no appeal to you and your inspiration comes from the mountains.

I can say that path a is required for me to get there. You can say that path b is required for you to get there.

Let's look at it this way. Let's say I am gay and you are straight. We both can be sexually satisfied. That is only going to happen for me if I am with a same sex partner. It is necessary. Quite the opposite is true for you.

There are multiple options and one of them is necessary for each of us to achieve said result. Period. Full Stop.

For some people nothing else can do for them what religion does.

The statement is not wrong, we just disagree.

[gcomeau]

13. That. Thing. I. Said.

And in every single example you just cited you laid out situations in which only ONE option was available to the person in question. You do understand that right? That you are doing the exact same thing the author did while claiming not to do it? Invoking the premise that ONLY religion can do for you what you claim it does for you?

[cbayer]

14. And that is exactly my point.

The author said there was one option available to him that would work for him. He recognized that there were other options that worked for others.

The point at which you seem stuck is the fact that for some individuals, religion is their path and it is the only thing that can do for them what they claim it does for them. I am going to suggest that is because you think that you, in fact, have embraced the only reasonable or rational option and those that embrace something else just don't get it.

[gcomeau]

16. And it was exactly my point first.

The author said there was one option available to him that would work for him

..the point being that that claim he was basing his argument on was bull.

[cbayer]

17. So are you making the claim that there are other options available to him that would work for him?

Really? How in the world could you know that?

Would a religious option work for you?

[gcomeau]

18. It's fairly easy to know that.

Since the things he is talking about it doing for him are basically just matters of mindset, none of which are inherently tied to a need for religious faith to be attached to them.

And no, religion wouldn't work for me. I'm not credulous enough to accept whacky unfounded premises about the world in which I live and how it operates. Of course I have no need to either.. nor does anyone else.

[cbayer]

19. So the only path you think is reasonable is the one that works for you?

You think that religion is just whacky unfounded premises about the world, and appear to conclude that your opinion on it is the ultimate truth about the matter.

Since you don't need it, you then conclude that no one does.

You have found the way and those who follow a different path could get where they need to go if they would only follow you.

Wow, that's beginning to sound a lot like religion.

[gcomeau]

20. I said nothing of the kind.

I said religion wouldn't work for me. There is nothing in that that says there is only one alternative to religion and that alternative is mine.

You think that religion is just whacky unfounded premises about the world

No, it's considerably more. But it's built on such premises. You need to accept them to engage in the rest. I can't turn enough of my brain off to do that.

[cbayer]

21. And atheism wouldn't work for him.

I hope that no one ever tries to force you to accept or engage in anything that requires you to turn your brain off.

Despite the ongoing social prejudice (which I hope we will see disappear before I die), you are fortunate to live in a country where your right not to believe is protected.

People like the author who do believe are also protected.

[gcomeau]

22. Of course it wouldn't.

Atheism doesn't "work" for anyone because atheism isn't a system, or a practice, or a method TO "work". It is simply the state of not possessing a belief in the existence of a deity.

Atheism doesn't *do* anything to "work" at. You do understand that right? Or do we have to have the "not stamp collecting is not a hobby" discussion?


(I'm just going to ignore the completely off topic content of your post since nobody was even touching on the idea of forcing anyone to believe or not believe anything whatsoever and restrict my response to the title, so I'll stop there).

[cbayer]

23. Let me know when DU has a group devoted to not stamp collecting and when there are numerous

organizations, blogs, books, symbols, avatars and even sunday services devoted to not stamp collecting.

In the meantime, I will let you have the last word if you want it.

I know that we strongly disagree on things when it comes to religion and I honestly appreciate the civility that has marked this conversation.

[gcomeau]

24. Let me know...

...when the all important criticality of stamp collecting is absurdly touted by vast percentages of the population such that not stamp collecting becomes noteworthy and actually requires defending to such a degree that those groups and books and such become necessary to counter the wider insanity of the stamp collecting crowd.

It would be great if we could just drop them all and go about our business, but unfortunately large segments of society aren't on board with us doing that. (except in the "shut up and don't disagree with us and we'll leave you alone as long as we don't find out you don't collect stamps... err, sorry, believe in God..." sense of things, which a lot of us aren't so willing to go along with)

[rug]

25. Oh, but there is. They seem to enjoy complaining about stamps.

[cbayer]

26. Ah, my eyes!!! Make it stop.

Is there a law requiring that I use those stamps or can I use these?

[rug]

27. I had heard about these but I didn't believe it until I just saw it.

Thanks!

[cbayer]

28. The stamp collecting meme lost it's luster quite a bit ago.

[rug]

29. It doesn't stick anymore.

Off to the land of unicorns, tea pots, and superannuated clichés.

[trotsky]

4. It also ignores the data points of those who...

"are desperate, angry, isolated, afraid, or numb" and who become MORE of some or all of those things when immersed in religion.

Oh wait, that's when the discussion about "TRUE" religion kicks in, right?

[rug]

8. Oh, wait, except that's not what he said.

What follows the quotation marks is all you, right?

[Htom Sirveaux]

30. And you've responded with a false dichotomy.

That religion and rationality are necessarily opposed to one another. Perhaps you see them as opposed. I do not.

[gcomeau]

36. I have yet to encounter a religion that isn't.

But perhaps you'll show me the first.

[hrmjustin]

15. Religion has been good for me.

Ymmv.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. This is one of those arguments that frightens me, are religious people this...deranged?

Do they honestly think their sanity or morality is predicated on their superstitions?

I got into an argument with someone about 6 months ago, a religious person, who argued just that. I refuse to believe most of this planet's population are sociopaths, that wouldn't make sense evolutionary, and scares the crap out of me. This is one of the reasons I find many religious people dangerous, they actually believe this bullshit.

[Htom Sirveaux]

32. Were you involved with religion at one point?

I'm trying to understand your perspective, and background would be helpful.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. I was raised Catholic, and I will give them credit where its due...

within limits, they think many people's conscience is formed through reason rather than revelation, though some call it "right reason" and still attribute it to their God.

I was Baptized, went through First Communion, and was even Confirmed, I was, especially as a teenager, a rather staunch Catholic, to my shame. Actually, funnily enough, this disturbed my mother, apparently, I went through PSR, our local, unique version of CCD. I did attend a Catholic School for few years in middle school, all the rest was in public schools with PSR until Confirmation.

Throughout that time, I was, as I said, a staunch Catholic, pro-life, anti-contraceptive, I don't believe same sex marriage even registered to me until I was much older, I was 14 when DADT was debated, and I do remember thinking that was unfair, and I didn't understand the big deal, but our Parish wasn't outspoken about LGBT issues. I was seriously considering joining seminary, but my mom nixed that idea, she wanted me to have kids.

The first real crack in my armor of faith was meeting my best friend in high school, an Indian exchange student, Amar. He was a staunch Hindu, even always brought in lunch because our school apparently puts beef in everything, which, in fairness, it does. Still feel bad about enjoying a pepperoni pizza while he munched on a ham and cheese sandwich.

I didn't try to convert him nor him me, but what I did observe was someone who believed in his incorrect religion just as much as I believed in my correct religion. That really made me doubt why my religion is the correct one in the first place. Things developed from there.

[Htom Sirveaux]

34. Thank you for sharing that.

Your previous statements are more understandable in the light of your experience of having gone through the transition out of religion. Your natural conclusion might be that if you could do it, so can anyone else, even those who may think they can't at the moment.

What do you think of the idea that you and your Indian friend were each speaking a religious language that made sense internally, and the fact that your friend's language worked for him (meaning it resonated with him, like a great poem read at just the right time in a person's life), didn't have to be a judgment on the value of yours to you?

[Humanist_Activist]

35. You have to understand that a lot of things occured concurrently that caused my doubt, and...

eventually my loss of faith. Notice, not loss of religion, but loss of faith.

For example, at the same time I was an Uber-Catholic, I was also a science fanatic, in Catholicism, there was no conflict, of course. The Big Bang, modern Cosmology, Evolution, these weren't issues to be wrestled with in religion. Genesis is metaphorical at best. I grew up on Cosmos, In Search of... and other shows and programs. We got cable, I got Discovery channel(when it was good), it was heaven. I read books by astronomers, astronauts, biologists, etc. I was the geeky kid with the space shuttle alarm clock. In high school I read "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, I must have been a Junior, because that was around the time it was published.

But I was good at compartmentalizing, my parents taught me critical thinking, even PSR taught me some of that, along with the shows, books, and a couple of really good science teachers in school. But I never applied it to my religion, but I did apply it to others, the issue is whose view of reality is accurate, not necessarily judgement on values.

I was known as the writer and thinker in my family, and I remember my grandmother asked me to debunk a small book she got from some Jehovah's Witnesses, forgot the name of the book, it was a small reader book. So I delved in it, and poked holes in all the claims within it, supposedly in defense of Catholicism, but honestly it was critique of many of the claims of Christianity in general. By this time, I was almost ready to graduate High School.

By the time I entered college, I would label my faith as shaky at best, and I was confused at worse. Not much happened in college to really trigger anything, what I was majoring in was computer science, and when I got out, I entered the workforce ready to make money. Meeting a lot more people, including the person who would be my best friend, who is a lesbian, expanded my horizons.

There was never a conscious choice here, I just stopped going to Church, and realized I simply didn't believe anymore. But I still thought perhaps a deity was still out there, so I dabbled in a lot of religions, Buddhism, Wicca, etc. but I had a persistent problem, I couldn't believe in any of their extraordinary claims either. Imagine trying to draw down a circle in Wicca without believing in the power of the ritual, it felt false, so I stopped. I realized that, while I love the aesthetics of religion, rituals, symbols, art, etc. my critical thinking just can't be turned off, and the beliefs behind it all just seemed false.

The interesting thing is what occurred later, in what I call my integration, my mind had conflicts for so many years, mostly incongruities with beliefs I held as a Catholic, cognitive dissonance was the norm, but after I was able to apply my critical thinking to all my beliefs, both religious and secular, it seems a type of clarity has occurred. I feel whole, and more than that, honest, with myself and others.

I will freely admit though that I'm most likely an example of a poorly Catechized Catholic from the 1980s and 90s.

I don't understand what you mean by "religious language", nor differences in them. I will say that I generally don't care about people's beliefs about deity or metaphysics as long as they do nothing to impose those beliefs on secular society. I will sometimes point out the absurdities, but that's about as far as it goes. However, beliefs that arise out of religion about how society should be structured, or how people are to be treated, they should be particularly scrutinized, and if abhorrent, voraciously criticized.