/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18079199]

non-religious arguments in favor of religion?

maybe I'm not wording it the right way, but I wanted to see if any works address the community building aspects of religions and why they are important, regardless of their beliefs. Take Mormonism for example, weird religion but the people create close knit elaborate communities that follow them around the world. Religion is an important ingredient for kinship it seems. I don't see it at that level outside of religious circles

[Anonymous No.18079321]

>>18079199
>non-religious arguments in favor of religion?
shit makes no sense, B.

[Anonymous No.18079349]

>>18079321
I mean like people arguing in favor of religion who don't actually believe in religious shit (ie secular)

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18079386]

It also makes sheep of people. It’s indefensible as far as I can see. Try Christopher Lasch though

[Anonymous No.18079408]

>>18079386
everything else makes people sheep. Television, media, politics, you name it. Religion definitely isn't the sole cause of sheepishness. Plenty of athiest or non-religious people are sheep

[Anonymous No.18079443]

>>18079349
So seculars arguing for religion as a force for social cohesion, a positive mass opiate?

[Anonymous No.18079454]

>>18079443
Precisely

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18079463]

>>18079408
Develop a little willpower, kid

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18079496]

>>18079408

*So how about getting behind a nice stable community without interchangeable corruptable leaders and institutions?

[Anonymous No.18079501]

>>18079463
I've read Stirner lol definitely not what I'm looking for

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18079552]

>>18079501
You advocate sheeple?

[Anonymous No.18079570]

>>18079199
The problem is that secular church doesn't work. So basically you have to argue people should meme themselves into believing. It's fine but a lot of people won't be convinced.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18079574]

>>18079570
Meet >>18079408

[Anonymous No.18079594]

>>18079199
Nietzsche actually argued for the importance of religion, at least in ancient greece.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.18079613]

>>18079594

[Anonymous No.18079670]

>>18079570
I wouldn't advocate secular church, I agree it wouldn't work. And I'm not sure I agree that people's couldn't meme themselves into believing. Religion in numerous places around the world is more of a cultural phenomenon and many people would say that don't really believe in Chinese folk religion, for example, even though they actively participate in it

[Anonymous No.18079692]

>>18079199
It drives people to do things that are individually harmful (from an exclusively materialistic self-interested point of view) but socially constructive.

[Anonymous No.18079871]

>>18079496
>a bottom up revolution
>in a country dominated by Christianity and capitalism, both of which are universalist and completely at odds with any kind of bottom up approach

[Anonymous No.18079880]

>>18079670
That’s impossible in a monotheistic context. What you’re thinking about is essentially a European version of polytheism, both most of the tradcath larpers on here don’t want that

[Anonymous No.18079894]

>>18079880
*but

[Anonymous No.18079972]

>>18079880
how do we appeal to the larpers?

[Anonymous No.18080027]

>>18079670
>many people would say that don't really believe in Chinese folk religion
This, alongside the Japanese "not believing" in Shinto, is sort of a meme. Rather, when Asians say they "aren't religious", what they actually mean is they are not doctrinally exclusive. That is to say, they aren't Abrahamics, and they know that when an Abrahamic talks about religion, they really mean "Abrahamism". You see this on here when people say that the Japanese don't actually "believe" in Shinto, and that they really do know that post-1970s Southern Baptism is the one true religion, they're just immature LARPers who hate God. They aren't Abrahamics, so they actually CAN'T believe.

So the Asian just sidesteps this, and rather than trying to explain how real religions work, just say "I'm an atheist" or "spiritual" (and, in truth, this is actually accurate within the Abrahamic framework). The Chinese very much do believe in Guanyin, and the Japanese very much do believe in Amaterasu. They just practice an actual religion instead of worshiping books and buildings. Part of this (an actual religion) is that it cannot be constrained by simple man-made systems, which naturally results in things like Shinto and Chinese Folk Religion being wildly incoherent: because they are an actual expression of religious activity, not a man made doctrine. "Chinese Folk Religion" is just a bucket that "everything that isn't Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, or Hui-Islam" is tossed into. These people really do believe in their Gods and spirits, which, again, is precisely why Chinese Folk Religion is weird and incoherent and doesn't make sense: it's based on actual human experience of how things ARE rather than scholars and academics deciding how things SHOULD be.

[Anonymous No.18080245]

>>18079199
Sounds completely backwards. I dislike it when atheists argue that religion is necessary to keep people in line or to keep people sane or whatever. It's so cynical. People are perfectly capable of being sheep with or without theology.

[Anonymous No.18080338]

>>18079199
I went to school for anthropology and humans seem to thrive and have a more complete experience with the ritual, mythology, sacred spaces, and community that religion brings, even if its all false.
If people are deprived of these things organically, they will create them
>urban legends=mythology
>science!!!1 cults= surrogate religion
I dont believe in anything, but i think I'd have a fuller, more authentic human experience if i did.
I think shamanism/animism/ancestor worship would be best. No conflict like monotheism.