/lit/ - Literature

>>14261230
2/5

Such a release of religion from the bonds of imperfect science is all to the good. It stresses its own genuine message. The great point to be kept in mind is that normally an advance in science will show that statements of various religious beliefs require some sort of modification. It may be that they have to be expanded or explained, or indeed entirely restated. If the religion is a sound expression of truth, this modification will only exhibit more adequately the exact point which is of importance. This process is a gain. In so far, therefore, as any religion has any contact with physical facts, it is to be expected that the point of view of those facts must be continually modified as scientific knowledge advances. In this way, the exact relevance of these facts for religious thought will grow more and more clear. The progress of science must result in the unceasing codification of religious thought, to the great advantage of religion. The religious controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries put theologians into a most unfortunate state of mind. They were always attacking and defending. They pictured themselves as the garrison of a fort surrounded by hostile forces. All such pictures express half-truths. That is why they are so popular. But they are dangerous. This particular picture fostered a pugnacious party spirit which really expresses an ultimate lack of faith. They dared not modify, because they shirked the task of disengaging their spiritual message from the associations of a particular imagery. Let me explain myself by an example. In the early medieval times, Heaven was in the sky, and Hell was underground; volcanoes were the jaws of Hell. I do not assert that these beliefs entered into the official formulations: but they did enter into the popular understanding of the general doctrines of Heaven and Hell. These notions were what everyone thought to be implied by the doctrine of the future state. They entered into the explanations of the influential exponents of Christian belief. For example, they occur in the Dialogues of Pope Gregory? the Great, a. man whose high official position is surpassed only by the magnitude of his services to humanity. I am not saying what we ought to believe about the future state. But whatever be the right doctrine, in this instance the clash between religion and sci<,:nce, which has relegated the earth to the position of a second-rate planet attached to a second-rate sun, has been greatly to the benefit of the spirituality of religion by dispersing these medieval fancies.

>>14261235
3/5

Another way of looking at this question of the evolution of religious thought is to note that any verbal form of statement which has been before the world for some time discloses ambiguities; and that often such ambiguities strike at the very heart of the meaning. The effective sense in which a doctrine has been held in the past cannot be determined by the mere logical analysis of verbal statements, made in ignorance of the logical trap . religion rent Christianity in the days of Pelagius and Augustine-that is to say, at the beginning of the fifth century. Echoes of that controversy still linger in theology. . So far, my point has been this: that religion is the expression of one type of fundamental experiences of mankind: that religious thought develops into an increasing accuracy of expression, disengaged from adventitious imagery: that the interaction between religion and science is one great factor in promoting this development. - I now come to /my second reason for the modern fading of interest in religion. This involves the ultimate question which I stated in my opening sentences. We have to know what we mean by religion. The churches, in their presentation of their answers to this query, have put forward aspects of religion which are expressed in terms either suited to the emotional reactions of bygone times or directed to exCite modern emotional i:p.terests of nonreligious character. What I mean under the first heading is that religious appeal is directed partly to excite that instinctive fear of the wrath of a tyrant which was inbred in the unhappy populations of the arbitrary empires of the ancient world, and in particular to excite that fear of an all-powerful arbitrary tyrant behind the unknown forces of nature. This appeal to the ready instinct of brute fear is losing its force. It lacks any directness of response, because modern science and modern conditions of life have taught us to meet occasions of apprehension by a critical analysis of their causes and conditions. Religion is the reaction of human nature to its search for God. The presentation of God under the aspect of power awakens every modern instinct of critical reaction. This is fatal; for religion collapses unless its main positions command immediacy of assent. In this respect the old phraseology is at variance with the psy· chology of modern civilisations. This change in psychology is largely due to science, and is one of the chief ways in which the advance of science has weakened the hold of the old religious forms of expression. The nonreligious motive which has entered into modern religious thought is the desire for a comfortable organIsation of modern society. Religion has been presented as valuable for the ordering of life.

>>14261243
4/5

Its claims have been rested upon its function as a sanction to right conduct. Also the purpose of right conduct quickly degenerates into the formation of pleasing social relations. We have here a subtle degradation of religious ideas, following upon their gradual purification under the influence of keener ethical intuitions. Conduct is a by-product of religion-an inevitable by-product, but not the main point. Every great religious teacher has revolted against the presentation of religion as a mere sanction of rules of conduct.Saint Paul denounced the Law, and Puritan divines spoke of the filthy rags of righteousness. The insistence upon rules of conduct marks the ebb of religious fervour. Above and beyond all things, the religious life is not a research after comfort. I must now state, in all diffidence, what I conceive to be the essential character of the religious spirit. haracter of the religious spirit. Religion is the vision of something which stands be· yond, behind, and within, the passing flux of immediate things; sometlJ,ing which is real, and yet waiting to be realised; something which is a remote possibility, and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest. The immediate reaction of human nature to the reo ligious vision is worship. Religion has emerged into human experience mixed with the crudest fancies of barbaric imagination. Gradually, ' slowly, steadily the vision recurs in history under nobler form and with clearer expression. It is the one element in human ex- . perience which persistently shows an upward trend. It fades and then recurs. But when it renews its force, .it recurs with an added richness and purity of content. The fact of the religious vision, and its history ol persistent expansion, is our one ground for optimism. Apart . from it, human life is a flash of occasional enjoyments lighting up a mass of pain and misery, a bagatelle of transient experience. The vision claims nothing but worship; and worship is a surrender to the claim for assimilation, urged with the motive force of mutual love. The vision never overrules. It is always there, and it has the power of love presenting the one purpose whose fulfilment is eternal harmony. Such order as we find in nature is never force-it presents itself as the one harmonious adjustment of complex detail. Evil is the brute motive force of fragmentary purpose, disregarding the eternal vision. Evil is overruling, retarding, hurting. The power of God is the worship He inspires. That religion is strong which in its ritual and its modes of thought evokes an apprehension of the commanding vision.

>>14261247
5/5

The worship of God is not a rule of safety-it is an adventure of the spirit, a flight after the unattainable. The death of religion comes with the repression of the high hope of adventure

>>14261230
This sounds really retarded

>>14261275
Why

>>14261230
>>14261235
>>14261243
>>14261247
>>14261252
Religion, in the sense that he elucidates it, doesn't seem to be returning in any form apart from "spiritual but not religious." He says that when it ebbs it comes back more refined: are New Age faith systems a more refined vision of the cosmic love of God?

>>14261327
Not sure how you got that from that

>>14261359
Well he starts by saying European religion has faded away, says that's because of its tactic of defense/attack with regards to scientific advancement coupled with an outmoded form of expression that is an artifact of the epistemic world of earlier men. Yet he goes on to say that religion will reexpress itself stronger after each fading. He wrote this a while ago, traditional religion in Europe has declined to a critical degree and there is now a rise in "spirituality" derived from New Age beliefs. So I am wondering if this is the new divine vision which is expressed less in material analogies and more in abstract emotion. It also does not prescribe a code of conduct

>>14261327
your reading of this just seems like your dogma coming out and going on the defensive, as he criticizes

>>14261383
>Yet he goes on to say that religion will reexpress itself stronger after each fading.
Wait what he doesnt say this. What he says is with each of its attempts at resurgence, each peak goes lower

>>14261387
I don't have dogma. I am just trying to discover what is meant by that or whether it is at all a legitimate analysis

>>14261393
>Gradually, ' slowly, steadily the vision recurs in history under nobler form and with clearer expression. It is the one element in human ex- . perience which persistently shows an upward trend. It fades and then recurs. But when it renews its force, .it recurs with an added richness and purity of content.

>>14261398
He is referring to its history. Before he went on for its reason in decay in the modern landscape.

>>14261230
In a sense, he was correct, but now as a Christian, I find that any time anyone speaks about the idea that religion is primarily fear-driven, and has something to do with arbitrary rulers in bygone ages, is just a liberal meme. God cannot be religiously feared in the same way that an earthly potentate is feared.

When he talks about how science has helped religion shed controversies, that is mostly true. Often I find paradoxically as a modern Christian that faith in God oddly means a roundabout faith in materialism. This is because nature is God's handiwork, therefore if nature is described best by reductionist materialism, you can't morally ignore the insight of such a view, even though it doesn't seem possible to be a Christian and concede that matter is all there is.

Furthermore, one of the things that Christianity teaches, indeed demands, is the toleration of disagreement. This follows from the "judge not" of Matthew. The church's wavering commitment to this particular principle should be taken as a warning to the wise, that not judging is not easy. Same goes for many other moral advancements, this is in fact the great lie of progressivism; that significant shifts in moral understanding are easy because it's 2019! But we all knew that.

Oh and lastly, I would like to point out that the rumors of the death of religion have been greatly exaggerated. I don't mean in the pews of church, but on your living-room couch. Science itself, mass media and large corporations have enough power to re-imagine the worst elements of political religion for their gain. The Marxists already tried, and only failed because they ran out of money. Whitehead is totally wrong to suggest, but quite typical in suggesting, that science is a cure to superstition. The real situation is a lot less black and white, and by the grace of God things do ok in spite of it.

>>14261406
It's only 150 short years versus a much longer trend of religion just getting more refined though.

>>14261417
>I would like to point out that the rumors of the death of religion have been greatly exaggerated.
Dude, today religion is nothing but a label people give themselves barely think about, a code of conduct, or it is an excuse for terrorism. Religion contributed to many great things and innovations in the past, it is basically just a shadow today.

>>14261417
Oh and Whitehead's interpretation is more of a secular but romantic interpretation. He was influenced largely by the Romantic poets.

>>14261433
All you have described here is most beleif systems and ideologies. They are mostly badges now instead of a state of being. This isnt exclusive to religion

>>14261230
I enjoyed this very much, anon. Thanks for sharing. I come from a non-religious background and have gradually been drawn to it. I lack the words to describe the draw (and I tend for fall back on the Tao Te Ching when I want to talk about that which does not bear talking about), but this is very similar to what I think and feel. I will definitely read Whitehead in the near future.

(why is Whitehead always represented on here? is there a devoted following just here? is he usually included in philosophy syllabi in the Anglo world?)

>>14261768
>why is Whitehead always represented on here?
me, girardfag, and that space taoist guy aminom memed him

>>14261230
I like it because you like it because you’re beautiful and because I love you

>>14261790

>>14261230
Nope. He was retroactively refuted by Guenon. Keep seething whiteheadian

>>14261802
>Guenon
Not a philosopher. He was a pseudointellectial rhetoritician with a bad reading in comparative religion. He was the Jordan Peterson of his time. There is nothing of value in his work and you should probably just read theory.

>>14261768
>is he usually included in philosophy syllabi in the Anglo world?
He’s included in most philosophy courses world wide. Heck the Chinese have made a dozen institutions based on his thought alone.

>>14261812
Retroactively refuted by parmenides retard.
Can't believe Guenon makes you materialfags seethe so hard LOL

>>14261230
Whitehead doesn't recognize the material regression of the church, which would correlate with a decrease in religiosity among the public.

aesthetics as first philosophy is based

>>14261812
Inclined to agree with this poster. pic related, /ourguy/ the supreme seer of authentic monistic metaphysics thinks that Guenon was an absolute clown. I dare not disagree.

>>14261881
this is a pluralist board, anon.

>>14261891
>this is a pluralist board
Say that again if you dare

>>14261825
Thank you brother, I will have a look

>>14261433
In order to make that post you had to have totally ignored the point of that paragraph, namely that religion is going to re-emerge as some form of Orwellian-ism, with an entirely new creed which does nothing but support the establishment.

>>14261433
Guenon would agree with this though.
Kali Yuga

>>14263384
>>14263410
that's not what he is talking about

>>14261881
can I get a qr on wheeler?

>>14263737
Autistic trad LARPer who overestimates himself, lies about his credentials and gives 1 star reviews to books that dont agree with him. His so called claim to fame is being the 'foremost authority in original buddhism and the idea that the buddha actually taught a self/soul'.

So he is basically guenonfag in person (if guenonfag wasnt a shitskin)

>>14264052
>soul denialism
XYZ is Anatta = XYZ isn't Atta

Buddhists disregard basic grammar due to sectarian Sarvastivada commentary, but Guenonfag disregards the core points of Original Buddhism. Ardent E. Hollingsworth/Zenmar/Zennist isn't Kenneth Wheeler, mind you. Go complain in your Reddit and Discord servers about that for me, kthx.