{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
5/4/2013 4:44:51 AM
5
The 'secularisation' theory is self-evident. Look at the assorted wealthy Sheikhs of the Arab World or the shakers and movers in the Chinese politburo. Do they give a rat's ass about religion compared to the impoverished masses they govern?
Religion was a bastion for the downtrodden folk to cling to, given the harshness and brutality of life in centuries past. Now with increased standards of living and civil freedom, we have replaced religion with the pursuit of self-gratification and fulfilment, and, dare I say it, materialism - whether this is for the better or for the worse is entirely dependent on your point of view.
T.S. Eliot certainly thought that the destruction of the 'organic lifestyle' would make modern civilisation analogous to his famous 'Wasteland.' And that's the point of view I'm inclined to agree with.
English
-
Edited by Aporia: 5/4/2013 5:18:44 AMReligion *is* self-gratification and fulfillment. It's just mildly warped around an arbitrary book or organization. Secularism cuts the middleman and makes us more honest and objective. Whether or not you think that "lessens" us depends on how much you value ignorance and its effects. Perhaps we're supposed to be bigoted and petty, because being very knowledgeable and self-aware is boring . However, I'll take the road less traveled by, and see what difference it makes.
-
Perhaps I failed to emphasise the 'self' part of self-fulfilment. Nearly all forms of religion are a communal practice - the increasing secularization of society means that more and more individuals are depriving themselves of an outlet for meaningful human communication - there are others in society to be sure, just not as prominent as religion - and becoming increasingly isolated from one another as we pursue other means of gratification. Also, being 'knowledgable and self-aware' and tolerant of religion are not mutually exclusive - many theoretical physicists, including those who introduced the theory of the 'big bang', ironically were religious.
-
Edited by Aporia: 5/4/2013 6:00:42 AM[quote]being 'knowledgable and self-aware' and tolerant of religion are not mutually exclusive[/quote]Never said anything about tolerating the religious. *Following* a religion is a different matter, and does require ignorance. The issue is that the human communication is only valuable to a truth-seeker if the communication isn't just a bunch of bigoted circle-jerking. Philosophical discussions and gatherings are perhaps vital to a human community's ability to think optimally; religious ones are not.
-
[quote] Philosophical discussions and gatherings are perhaps vital to a human community's ability to think optimally; religious ones are not.[/quote] But how many people have been exposed to the necessary literature to participate in these? High literature, as Eliot eventually found out, was too elitist and constrained for it to ever make an impact on secular, pleasure loving man. So much so that he changed his own approach to poetry (his later poems are much more accessible compared to Prufrock and the like) - championed religion as the ideal alternative to the barren wasteland that he thought Western Civilisation was becoming. [quote]*Following* a religion is a different matter, and does require ignorance.[/quote] That still remains a very broad generalisation.
-
Edited by Aporia: 5/4/2013 10:44:00 PM[quote]But how many people have been exposed to the necessary literature to participate in these (philosophical discussions)?[/quote]Exposed to? Don't know. Have access to and are perfectly capable of understanding? Many. Just because religion's currently more popular than rationalism, history, art, and logic in fueling public gatherings doesn't mean it's a facet of an ideal community and they aren't. [quote][quote]*Following* a religion is a different matter, and does require ignorance.[/quote] That still remains a very broad generalisation.[/quote]But an utterly true one.
