Three games about religion
Alfryd:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 18, 2011, 11:45:54 AM
'm going to single this out for some possibly-unpleasant dissection. What you describe is as far from "basically nonexistant" as one can get. What you did was real. It's part of your history as a person and part of your social identity as conceived by your family at that time. And sure enough, you went on to deflect into the irrelevant issue of the intensity of belief, as if the observance were canceled or made into a quaint detail due to the strength of that entirely different variable.
I dunno, Ron. On the sliding scale of observance, I would have considered 'only for special occasions' to be a pretty tepid degree of involvement, as opposed to, say, weekly attendance for services, an insistence on daily prayer, owning rosary beads, and so on and so forth. I reckon it's possible to get a lot farther from 'basically nonexistent', when it comes to intensity of observance. (In any case, yeah, it's Morgan.) FWIW, the local church was basically bog-standard Irish Catholicism.
I wouldn't worry about whether the discussion is unpleasant- in my experience, any genuinely interesting discussion is at least mildly uncomfortable for one or both parties. As Graham puts it, there's no point in telling people things they already believe, and they're often upset to be told things they don't.
I'm just still a little skeptical of the idea that religious belief, observance, and institutions can be considered entirely separate variables. I agree they're not synonymous, certainly, but aside from parody religions like the pastafarians or discordianism, why observe when neither you or the folks you know actually believe or make any pretence to that effect? And if there isn't a sufficient critical mass of observers, how does an institution for organising such activities justify it's existence? Even in Sweden, church attendance has been dropping like a rock since the state church ceased to the state church in 2000, and there have been similar trends throughout most of Europe. I don't think there's no causal correlation there.
Alfryd:
Quote from: Callan S. on July 18, 2011, 09:18:45 PM
Well, when is something just a quaint detail, then? Never? Is there a grand halo of significant light on these things, or do you happen to have a halogen torch in your hand as you walk up to them?
I'd have to agree with this. Getting dragged along to church ceremonies 1 day out of 365 was a pretty minor facet of the larger pressures to partake in social rituals and activities for which I had no particular interest or aptitude. Is it probable that had an impact on my development? Sure. But religion wasn't a big culprit there.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 18, 2011, 09:08:37 AM
Granted, my phrasing was strong, and I do think the issue is so radically overblown that it obscures the most important features of religion as a human phenomenon.
It obscures the most directly active features, but that's a little like saying a focus on the concept of government obscures the study of nations. It's true, in a sense, in that the government only represents a small fraction of the physical and intellectual activity and history of the nation, and that many aspects of nations- such as language, culture, literature, ethnicity, etc. can persist or extend well beyond it's boundaries- but when you strip away government entirely from a nation, it either dissolves pretty quickly, or erects a new government to replace the old one. It's part of the definition- and not just in a purely arbitrary way, but because there are causal factors at work there.
contracycle:
Well, yes, but... I mostly agree with you, as someone who was not brought up "in the church" as such and recognises (and is grateful for) the significant difference. But I'm still a child of christendom, as it were. Even if I didnt go to church a whole lot, all the stuff I've ever been taught about charity or mercy or pity was taught in the framework of jesus-said-this-or-that, of the lessons delivered in the bible. There was no other source of moral authority or tuition. And therefore, I do not deny that it is "part of my history as a person" and it's definitely "a part of my social identity". Now I would say - would perhaps like to say - that I've gone a lot further than merely the doctrine-of-habit that was imposed upon me as a child, but even if I have, that means I've had to think may way out of the implicit moral maze that was created for me. What I'm definitely NOT is someone brought up in, say, Confucian ideals of morality and right behaviour.
It doesn't necessarily matter if you went to church if Big Bird is disseminating much the same ideas that the church propagates. And maybe thats not totally unreasonable either; maybe the the church, as the locus in which discussion and analysis of right thought and behaviour was conducted did indeed hit upon some valid insight, regardless of whether they are justified by appeals to the supernatural. But the very fact that you were exposed to the Western Big Bird as opposed to its Chinese equivalent is significant in itself.
Callan S.:
Quote
There was no other source of moral authority or tuition.
I dunno, this seems the same denial of history charged, but going the other way - ie, that any other source of moral suggestion is cancelled or made into quaint detail.
Quote
maybe the the church, as the locus in which discussion and analysis of right thought and behaviour was conducted
Or maybe it's an effect of a supposed monopoly being hammered in? The locus? 'Right' thought?
Granted, a world full of moral confusion and a roiling, boiling sea of moral suggestion is a fairly unpleasant alternative.
contracycle:
Quote from: Callan S. on July 19, 2011, 07:02:15 PM
I dunno, this seems the same denial of history charged, but going the other way - ie, that any other source of moral suggestion is cancelled or made into quaint detail.
I'm telling you what it was, not what I would wish it to be. And certainly, when I became critical, I looked beyond what was offered. But realistically, there are no European states or colonies which are not thoroughly infused with christian doctrine.
Quote
Or maybe it's an effect of a supposed monopoly being hammered in? The locus? 'Right' thought?
The point being here that I agree that what discussion there was on what right thought and right behavior should be was, or happened, to be conducted in a local christian framework. I would certainly agree there is no reason to privilige that framework, but just because I don't priviliege it doesn't mean I automatically reject everything anyone who happens to be a christian has to say either.
Quote
Granted, a world full of moral confusion and a roiling, boiling sea of moral suggestion is a fairly unpleasant alternative.
Not so sure about that, myself.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page