Post by stein on Apr 6, 2014 7:23:47 GMT
Many religions are what I'd term "fake", since they end up pretty quickly abandoning whatever high-minded principles some original founder may introduce. On the one hand, it's very clear that, for instance, the Buddhas and the Confuciuses are perfectly caring people, whose orientation is primarily toward the alleviation of suffering. That becomes apparent if one applies the strictest secular scholarship to extant texts preserving their thoughts. Such a modern analysis, philological etc., always seems to show that the few texts that emerge as possibly the earliest, in otherwise voluminous and often useless canons of "doctrine", are those few texts directly addressing the welfare of the vulnerable. On the other hand, those texts that emerge as being of relatively late vintage often reflect obsessions with ceremony, magic, etc. -- YAWN!
It is unlikely, in my view, that the consistent concern in these earliest texts with the vulnerable, the least popular, the most abused, the least respected, etc., throughout the founding documents of religions spanning continents and millennia, is just a coincidence. Some universal impulse clearly takes over in all these figures. What is the nature of that impulse?
When we look at modern scholarship's secular choice of the earliest texts in these polyglot canons, we see that these founders who actually experience this impulse for themselves always reference it as sourced in some sort of deity or other. They may be all over the map as to the full nature of that deity, but they seem unanimous in viewing what has inspired them as ultimately divine, in some form. Can each and every single one of them be wrong, without exception? Really?
Ultimately, in my view, humanity cannot flourish long-term without each and every individual human being flourishing as well. Basic adaptation of any socialized species -- such as humanity -- demands that a habit of looking out for the least of us be ingrained -- or we all perish. Caring for the most vulnerable is really, then, a survival mechanism. It becomes ingrained out of the sheer necessity for a socialized species just to survive. If we don't live for others, we won't ourselves survive. That's what it boils down to.
Then, since we can readily trace all known notions of caring for the vulnerable back to these theistic founders and these theistic founders only, and since caring for the vulnerable is a socializing necessity for our very survival, then maybe some sort of an awareness of some deity or other is just as much a survival necessity for our species as a whole, however well certain individuals may sometimes cope without it.
What does all this ultimately mean, then? Well, it might mean that while the practice of any religion often becomes corrupted and perverted, the original impetus for its founding may derive from something sincerely felt tangibly by its original pioneer: felt as a real deity whose sole urge is caring for others, not creating any cosmos -- not all the original founders cite creation -- which may have indeed arisen through something spontaneous instead, not presiding over any afterlife -- not all the original founders cite an afterlife -- not having any power over daily events -- not all the original founders cite omnipotence -- but concerned solely with alleviating suffering. That's what the most well documented founders most stress, and it's probably what most relates to deity, whoever it/she/he is.
Religions often become corrupted bunk, but deity may well be real -- and be far more concerned with our caring for each other properly than with any of our mumbo-jumbo for worshiping her/him.
Stein
It is unlikely, in my view, that the consistent concern in these earliest texts with the vulnerable, the least popular, the most abused, the least respected, etc., throughout the founding documents of religions spanning continents and millennia, is just a coincidence. Some universal impulse clearly takes over in all these figures. What is the nature of that impulse?
When we look at modern scholarship's secular choice of the earliest texts in these polyglot canons, we see that these founders who actually experience this impulse for themselves always reference it as sourced in some sort of deity or other. They may be all over the map as to the full nature of that deity, but they seem unanimous in viewing what has inspired them as ultimately divine, in some form. Can each and every single one of them be wrong, without exception? Really?
Ultimately, in my view, humanity cannot flourish long-term without each and every individual human being flourishing as well. Basic adaptation of any socialized species -- such as humanity -- demands that a habit of looking out for the least of us be ingrained -- or we all perish. Caring for the most vulnerable is really, then, a survival mechanism. It becomes ingrained out of the sheer necessity for a socialized species just to survive. If we don't live for others, we won't ourselves survive. That's what it boils down to.
Then, since we can readily trace all known notions of caring for the vulnerable back to these theistic founders and these theistic founders only, and since caring for the vulnerable is a socializing necessity for our very survival, then maybe some sort of an awareness of some deity or other is just as much a survival necessity for our species as a whole, however well certain individuals may sometimes cope without it.
What does all this ultimately mean, then? Well, it might mean that while the practice of any religion often becomes corrupted and perverted, the original impetus for its founding may derive from something sincerely felt tangibly by its original pioneer: felt as a real deity whose sole urge is caring for others, not creating any cosmos -- not all the original founders cite creation -- which may have indeed arisen through something spontaneous instead, not presiding over any afterlife -- not all the original founders cite an afterlife -- not having any power over daily events -- not all the original founders cite omnipotence -- but concerned solely with alleviating suffering. That's what the most well documented founders most stress, and it's probably what most relates to deity, whoever it/she/he is.
Religions often become corrupted bunk, but deity may well be real -- and be far more concerned with our caring for each other properly than with any of our mumbo-jumbo for worshiping her/him.
Stein