You know what, looking over this, I just noticed something. at one point I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan
You can have ALL of Jesus's teachings WITHOUT Jesus, and they will be better for it. They be better teachings because instead of being based on Divine Command they are based on honest reason, compassion, and social consensus. They will be good teachings because they are the socially responsible, human thing to do...not because his his dad is going to come along and kick your ass if you don't follow them.
You can have all that hippy-dippy-turn-the-other-cheek-brotherhood-kumbiah bullshit and you can throw out the barbaric, ludicrous stories because you don't need the divine mandate to back them up.
|
To which Saya responded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya
I'd argue that many people need philosophies as a guidance. If it comes from Jesus, Confucius or Plato, what do I care, as long as they are being good? How can I say its wrong, if it inspires them to be better people? I think I'd still be a good person if I wasn't a Buddhist, but I would not be the person I am now, and I'm not sure if I'd be as good as a person or nearly as open minded as I am. Its not a crutch, but the lives, wisdom and teachings of other Buddhists certainly inspire me, as do other people in other religions. But its a hard thing to explain because its so extremely personal, I can't describe what religious experience feels like. And I suspect that other practitioner would argue the same thing. You can study all you want about other religions, but a practitioner of that religion is going to have a far more intimate knowledge of what they follow than you ever can. You can point out inconsistencies in a text, but when faith isn't reliant on a book, is beyond words, you can't break that kind of faith. And if they're not bothering anyone, there's absolutely no point in trying to.
|
Notice anything? I basically said that the worthier philosophies found in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) were fine. It was the idea of Jesus being a deity, and his teachings being divine was the problem.
Saya responded with a straw-man that "People need philosophies" (I never argued against this, in fact I argued FOR it).
Then surprisingly enough, instead of a discussion on merits of said philosophy, she went off on a tangent about the "religious experience" the "inspiration" she draws from "the lives, wisdom, and teaching" and how a practitioner is going to have more "intimate knowledge" of their faith than an outsider can ever hope to, and they can never be persuaded otherwise regardless of the factual inconsistencies found in their texts (ie: their own philosophy) because "You can't break that kind of faith".
You guys following me?
Saya seems more interested in defending the idea of a perfect, charismatic, inspirational teacher, than in defending logic and consistency of the teachings of said Charismatic.*
In a nutshell, she's not arguing that people need philosophies because they're good philosophies that will enrich their lives, she's saying that people NEED inspirational
teachers. That we need our teachers, and texts to be super-human in order to appeal to us,
emotionally and thus make us better people.
HP also touches on this idea here:
Quote:
An alcoholic or drug addict really, really needs help, but may not have the money for expensive, non-religious rehabilitation. As mentioned before, because of their natural endowment or because of damage caused by their affliction, the easiest, quickest, most powerful counter agent to their addiction is to believe in a higher, divine power, since their own human frailty could not break the bonds of addiction.
Now, if they realized that they are going to try and break their own addiction through sheer will power, they are back where they started from, because their ego is battered into believing they have failed again and again to wield self control. A divine, universally powerful strength from outside however can help them break their bonds.
|
ie: an alcoholic needs a magic feather, in order to break his addiction. He needs the emotional reaction which results from the idea of supernatural power to break his addiction.
However, like Dumbo, Jesus doesn't really cure the Alcoholic of his craving. He just allows him to believe in himself. Most likely, there is no God, and therefore, most likely, all the people who AA helped to defeat their addiction did it on their own (regardless of what they may believe).
At it's core, the religious argument is an appeal to emotion. We see evidence of this every day, in the ritual and pageantry that goes on during a religious service. The experience, the euphoria, which results, is the same type which comes from seeing a really good play, or watching a totally awesome movie, or going to a badassed concert where everyone is "really feeling it". It is an exercise in communal thinking, and indeed it's power is awesome.
However, one cannot rely on emotions to dictate philosophical or judicial principals, specifically BECAUSE these emotional experiences rob us of our reason. Many people feel emotional revulsion when they see two men kissing, does that then make it right to forbid such an act from taking place?
Following a teachers example or creed because you are "inspired" by his charisma, to the point where you place that teacher far above yourself and the rest of humanity, is a dangerous proposal at best, because the emotion which results blinds you to whatever inconsistencies may be found in that particular philosophy.
All in all, Marx was right when he said religion is the opiate of the masses, and some of you people are dosing,
HARD.
Stop it. I know it feels good, but it's dangerous.
*Interestingly enough, in normative Buddhist philosophy, practitioners are specifically warned against this mode of thinking.
