(no subject)
Mar. 22nd, 2012 10:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stormdogI'm analyzing my own thoughts here rather than attempting to apply value judgements to other people. I hope I've been successful at that.
There were a couple people sitting outside of the language lab where I'm working on Spanish homework talking about God. I realize I have a significant negative reaction to that.
The parts of conversation I heard were about how God tests you. That the real tests are the grinding routines of everyday life. Also about how you're either saved or not; that there isn't a middle ground.
My irrational and emotional responses to these sorts of conversations are several. I'm annoyed that people who have these kinds of conversations seem to just keep keep saying things that they know the other person will agree with in expectation of mutual assurance; that nothing really useful is being said. I feel annoyance at the exclusivity of religious conversation; that a class of 'unsaved' people has been defined, and that they are lacking something or inferior to those who are 'saved'. I feel annoyance that some agency external to the self is presented as having as great a role in this process of 'saving' than one's self. Perhaps there's a little annoyance, too, at the thought of some intelligent and active force behind shaping the course of one's life.
Rationally, speaking of life's major tests taking the form of dealing with grinding routine is a good one. It's dangerous to make any kind of universal statement like that of course, but there's some validity there. I find myself less annoyed by the sort of discussion I was overhearing if I reframe it in my mind as a sort of general philosophical discussion that uses concepts like the divinity "God" to stand in for some sort of universally applicable normalcies of human existence. I have similar thoughts myself, though my preferred solution is not to let those sorts of grinding routines continue for too long without interruption. (Sometimes easier said than done.) It's a matter of deciding what you can do in your life that creates the greatest progress toward your goals, or the most good in general. If that creates some kind of grinding routine (working at a terrible job to support a family or pay for school, for instance), you have to decide if it's worth the greater good and, if it is, get through it.
But the binary of saved vs unsaved is one that I don't feel can be rationalized. We, as people, seem to be all too ready to cling to binaries. Us vs them. Self vs the other. I was talking to my friend Michelle who dropped in yesterday about binaries. Specifically it was about the sort of binary conception of gender that exists in Western societies and does not exist in the same way in many others. But these binaries appear in every aspect of society. They seem to serve to divide people. To unify them against an outside enemy. It happens in patriotism, in the assimilation of minority groups into the dominant culture, in politics, and lots of other places. It's counterproductive.
But I don't know how to change that in religion. Can something like the Catholic/christian faith even exist without the concept of being saved from damnation? And if hell exists and people can be sent there, and religion is presented as the way to avoid it, is it at all possible for the religion and its officials to not be judgmental? How can you tell people with any self-consistency that if they don't behave in accordance with your religious ideals that they're going to be eternally damned, yet also accept them as they are without pity or superiority or a desire to change them? I think some people manage this. They must be large, for they contain multitudes.
I appreciate some religion as philosophy. I think philosophy and dedication to the greater good of mankind is a vital and wonderful thing. I think the highest goal of human life is probably to be kind to your fellow people and improve their situation. To not cause suffering or pain. Figuring out the best way to do that is horribly complex, and, in my opinion, does not benefit from attempts to shape it to the will of some divine force. I've read some of the Dalai Lama's writings and I think he's pretty spot on from a philosophical point of view. He writes about secular ethics: human values without ties to religion. That is what we need more of. Religion so often introduces values, judgements, binaries, otherness, alienation, and negative irrational belief that I really feel like when someone comes to a belief in love for all other human beings and concern for their well-being that it's less the culmination of a path of devotion to humanity than a fluke.
I'm still not identifying as an atheist. But organized religion keeps pushing me further in that direction. It's a failing on my part to be annoyed by people who discuss religion. I should accept that it's what seems to be working for them and hope that its positive potential is fulfilled more fully than its negative potential. I should not judge or impose my own value on others, and I certainly shouldn't feel superior to anyone else, because that's the beginning of another binary. We can only know ourselves.
Where is a good balance between wanting to make other people's lives better, and avoiding a belief that you know what's better in other people's lives?
There were a couple people sitting outside of the language lab where I'm working on Spanish homework talking about God. I realize I have a significant negative reaction to that.
The parts of conversation I heard were about how God tests you. That the real tests are the grinding routines of everyday life. Also about how you're either saved or not; that there isn't a middle ground.
My irrational and emotional responses to these sorts of conversations are several. I'm annoyed that people who have these kinds of conversations seem to just keep keep saying things that they know the other person will agree with in expectation of mutual assurance; that nothing really useful is being said. I feel annoyance at the exclusivity of religious conversation; that a class of 'unsaved' people has been defined, and that they are lacking something or inferior to those who are 'saved'. I feel annoyance that some agency external to the self is presented as having as great a role in this process of 'saving' than one's self. Perhaps there's a little annoyance, too, at the thought of some intelligent and active force behind shaping the course of one's life.
Rationally, speaking of life's major tests taking the form of dealing with grinding routine is a good one. It's dangerous to make any kind of universal statement like that of course, but there's some validity there. I find myself less annoyed by the sort of discussion I was overhearing if I reframe it in my mind as a sort of general philosophical discussion that uses concepts like the divinity "God" to stand in for some sort of universally applicable normalcies of human existence. I have similar thoughts myself, though my preferred solution is not to let those sorts of grinding routines continue for too long without interruption. (Sometimes easier said than done.) It's a matter of deciding what you can do in your life that creates the greatest progress toward your goals, or the most good in general. If that creates some kind of grinding routine (working at a terrible job to support a family or pay for school, for instance), you have to decide if it's worth the greater good and, if it is, get through it.
But the binary of saved vs unsaved is one that I don't feel can be rationalized. We, as people, seem to be all too ready to cling to binaries. Us vs them. Self vs the other. I was talking to my friend Michelle who dropped in yesterday about binaries. Specifically it was about the sort of binary conception of gender that exists in Western societies and does not exist in the same way in many others. But these binaries appear in every aspect of society. They seem to serve to divide people. To unify them against an outside enemy. It happens in patriotism, in the assimilation of minority groups into the dominant culture, in politics, and lots of other places. It's counterproductive.
But I don't know how to change that in religion. Can something like the Catholic/christian faith even exist without the concept of being saved from damnation? And if hell exists and people can be sent there, and religion is presented as the way to avoid it, is it at all possible for the religion and its officials to not be judgmental? How can you tell people with any self-consistency that if they don't behave in accordance with your religious ideals that they're going to be eternally damned, yet also accept them as they are without pity or superiority or a desire to change them? I think some people manage this. They must be large, for they contain multitudes.
I appreciate some religion as philosophy. I think philosophy and dedication to the greater good of mankind is a vital and wonderful thing. I think the highest goal of human life is probably to be kind to your fellow people and improve their situation. To not cause suffering or pain. Figuring out the best way to do that is horribly complex, and, in my opinion, does not benefit from attempts to shape it to the will of some divine force. I've read some of the Dalai Lama's writings and I think he's pretty spot on from a philosophical point of view. He writes about secular ethics: human values without ties to religion. That is what we need more of. Religion so often introduces values, judgements, binaries, otherness, alienation, and negative irrational belief that I really feel like when someone comes to a belief in love for all other human beings and concern for their well-being that it's less the culmination of a path of devotion to humanity than a fluke.
I'm still not identifying as an atheist. But organized religion keeps pushing me further in that direction. It's a failing on my part to be annoyed by people who discuss religion. I should accept that it's what seems to be working for them and hope that its positive potential is fulfilled more fully than its negative potential. I should not judge or impose my own value on others, and I certainly shouldn't feel superior to anyone else, because that's the beginning of another binary. We can only know ourselves.
Where is a good balance between wanting to make other people's lives better, and avoiding a belief that you know what's better in other people's lives?
