Angra I have to thank for pushing me to post this discussion. As always the opposite to move it and give us the opportunity to evolve and strengthen.
I talked about my religion and esotericism without specifying what is religion. I take the definition from wikipedia, which I explained exactly what I'm about to say
The word religion comes from the Latin religio, whose etymology is not entirely clear: according to Cicero, the word derives from the verb relegated, or "read , "meaning a careful reconsideration of what concerns the worship of the gods.
Instead Tertullian and Lactantius, the latter taken from St. Augustine, argued that the word is derived from a verb: religious, meaning "bind, tie", meaning to tie the man to the gods. Religare may also indicate the idea of \u200b\u200blinking people in the community, under the same laws and the same cult.
Other possible etymologies trace the word to relegate verbs ("remove, divide," which emphasizes the separation between things sacred and profane), religion ("consider carefully" the gods), and re-eligible (choose again, make another choice).
I leave aside the differences between dogma and precepts and other things, to go for the first distinction. We can identify two trends in religion: a personal deity immanent or transcendent and immanent impersonal divine-spiritual principles. The first group includes all the pagan religions and those disclosed, although there are exceptions, the second head are religions such as Buddhism and the ancient mystical philosophies like Stoicism, the neopitagorimo, Neoplatonism and Eastern philosophies. Then you notice how every culture religious feeling has been experienced in different ways. This has led some philosophers of the nineteenth century, including Feuerbach, to develop the teaching of religion as alienation from reality and projection in the divinity of his desires. This assessment is not wrong in itself, but can not be applied to all religions. All right, within certain limits, for those pagan religions where the gods reflected the vices and virtues of men. Yet even here there is a clarification to make. That myth and religious worship itself. For the pagans were not two quite separate things and this has also decreed the rapid disintegration of their religions in the face of advancing religion more "organized" like Christianity and all religions of the second century AD The myth can be defined as the theory and soggettivizazione the religion serves as a base and can be changed when you want to reflect on various aspects of the sacred and the divine. The religion itself is something well designed, says the explanation from Wikipedia. Between myth and religious worship, there are large differences. Religious worship does not change much and the deity seems static, not changing, while the opposite occurs in the myth. So much so that in all civilizations cults presented with well-defined patterns of a myth as there were a lot of different interpretations. One thing is certain: it extrapolates from the myth of religion. Heterogeneous beliefs and subjective born a form of relationship with the divine with precise rules, which even in cases of flexibility remains basically the same for the entire people. Religion then can be seen as an attempt to create a stable and orderly approach to the divine for a group of people who have created myths and beliefs similar. As Cicero says, religion is a diligent consideration. Or a place the emotional and fantasy in the myth to the test of reason to avoid superstitions. I have already mentioned in an old post what is superstition and as Cicero had given a comprehensive definition. This indicates that religion goes far beyond a simple system of alienation mentioned by Feuerbach.
Now, it is undeniable that early myth and superstition were confused and that the religious sentiment was mainly attached to material things. And this is where my thinking really begins. From Where does this religious sentiment? This need to give life meaning and purpose to their actions? I believe that this belief is innate in man and it was initially developed with the approach to the natural world. In Greek myths Robert Graves reports the cosmological greek myth where appointment of nature as the principle of all things. Is to say that something is imminent, and then based on the identification, even superstitious, between man and the natural elements. But for the Greeks Nature was much more than this, as well as the primal religions who are venerated as the mother of all. Nature was understood in its totality and it was a cosmic principle of life, independent of man and the gods themselves. Immanent, but also transcendent. This illustrates that all people have assumed that there is a universal law or principle that gives life to the world. For some, this principle has become the one God, for others the Mother Goddess, then you get to those logos and mystical philosophy based on truth transcendent man. I also remember the theory of religion as a primordial ancestor of all other cults. This religion, as I said in the post proper, is both immanent and transcendent.
The striking thing is that these cults, based on the nature and matter, process, principles that are taken by science and converted in a "materialistic." Consider for example the idea of \u200b\u200blife in a cyclical alternation of death and resurrection, then in a continuous evolution and transformation. He does not remember the theory of Lavoiser? Take the cults that see the complementarity of a principle that one who creates and destroys, who see life as an alternation of opposites that balance each other. Perfectly reflect the relationship between matter and anti-matter and principles of attraction and repulsion. Remember that the chemistry and physics come from a magical approach, to the esoteric nature. The bases were true, were a real application in the material sphere. An application by the limited knowledge of the time, but always based on true principles. Rational principles of order and harmony. The Stoics, the Neoplatonists, Eastern philosophies and religions have this in common primordial: conceive an orderly universe that stems from a primordial chaos, but that is opposed to dominating it.
Then at some point because they were born sacrifices, superstitious rituals and violence waged in the name of religion? The modern theology responds that, as the religion born from man's heart always has been subject to its emotional disorder and then to its desire to dominate. Religious feeling, in fact, if not helped now by reason degenerates into superstition and fundamentalism. An excess of will but also leads to the contrary effect, namely the manipulation of religion for purposes of convenience and oppressive. So you get to distort the original cult. But surely this is not prerogative of religion. The man can turn any instrument in half to subdue the weaker. The religion was founded in the early community and, although still steeped in myth and superstition, it becomes a means of control of conscience only when creating structured society. At first the religious sentiment is disinterested, is a natural impulse. Kant also recognizes that human reason always tends to develop with the thought of spiritual realities, responding to the needs engraved in the soul of every man. He, agnostic, does not condemn this aspect, but it relegates to the realm of noumena, then coming to postulate the existence of God and then analyzing the human need for spirituality in terms of logical and rational it is clear that it is natural, which is produced by thought and that relates to the field of emotions and feelings. But reason and feeling are truly unconnected spheres? If so, religion would never be born, and no one could ever conceive of the divine and relate to it. Why the religious sentiment is starting to search for spiritual reality, but this reality is developed and built with reason.
The point however is: what is meant by spiritual reality? Usually it is conceived as something opposed to matter. Yet the primal religions and mystical philosophies, including the esoteric doctrines, they say the opposite. They say that the reality material is obtained the spiritual. How? Precisely through the religious sentiment, which is a deep feeling, mystical experience. The conception of the Universe living, breathing soul is something you feel, you feel that meeting with all the senses together. I also speak from personal experience. Do you identify with that reality and living, breathing, but you're also aware that it is bigger than you. You know that feeling you transcends and yet is generated by the encounter of mind with matter. From this approach we can obtain the concept of spiritual and divine energy that gives life and that is eternal and inexhaustible. Just as the subject. It follows that the spirit is the union of the internal senses, as Kant says, but that depends strictly on the matter. The desire to separate the two things is wrong.
The main objections are that the atheists to religious sentiment environment, as devoid of rationality, are these:
- The believer does waiting for a punishment or reward, and lives only in view of the afterlife;
-Spirit does not you can neither see nor calculated so there. There is nothing above the reality
In the first case it is partly true objection to the misuse of religion did in the past. In reality, both the pagans as the Christians had with the guide values \u200b\u200bto better enjoy in this life and, even if they believed in a life after death, exerted themselves to have more success and glory. With Christianity is a bit 'different, some Church Fathers insist on the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven, however, remember the words of Jesus: "Verily I say unto the Kingdom of God is among you." And in the parable of the rich and well-being of that lineage that eventually goes to hell and the poor dying of hunger and is rewarded, there is much more than an eschatological solution. The warning is clear: live your life in a virtuous because you will not have another chance and you reap what you sow. This applies first of all in factual reality.
the second assertion we may appeal to the principle doctrines immanent, for example, stoicism, and philosophies of life as Buddhism. In astronomy teaches that there was a single superforce the basis of everything. Not conceive how the personal deity, but certainly transcends man and nature as we know it. The similarities are there. I call again because the high cost of Kant and his moral law, but also Fichte, an atheist and advocate of a religion "humanist" where the divine is expressed in the moral world. Still there are theists rationalists, those who support the physico-theological proof of God for them because there is beauty and order in the world, must necessarily exist a God or force ordering guarantees the functioning of this large "clock". Kant himself, while refusing the term God, admits that such a principle can be called an architect. But there is another interesting option to consider. The idea of \u200b\u200bGod in conceptual terms, as pure thought and pure abstraction. I speak of Descartes as well as the famous mathematical proof of the existence of God by Kurt Godel.
A test I want to add a rational and spiritual being. The matter is immortal, why should not we be too? The problem is life after death, not being able to hear, but is it really? I remember a fascinating conversation with my professor of Greek and Latin, Michael Porcaro (prof, I miss you ^ _ ^) that of these things is crazy. He said, "Think Mariateresa, the image of Dionysus and the vine symbol of rebirth. Your body teeming with worms and insects, which dissolves into the ground. Continues to exist and feel in another form. Some of you still in this human microcosm and the universe dissolves another. And the punishment or the reward is in having attained inner peace and being in harmony with the world to which it belongs and will be returned. Again and again. " I shudder when I think of these words. Because, as it happens with Kant and philosophers who objected to my thoughts or different, I feel too many of the concepts that express the deepest, to be completely false. A truth must while there, to shake the soul that way. Concluded
so, this post seems a eulogy of religion at the expense of atheism. Not so. Atheism is an important point in religion. I know it sounds unbelievable but it is. Think of a supposed non-existence of God have a series of questions about his alleged existence or identity, and try and have a little 'how to find. Moreover, it is far easier to keep alive the religious sentiments and is equally harmful to rely blindly on faith. I would note two theologies based on atheism. The first is the theology of God's death and the second that of Bonhöffer. Show that the man, before you can truly love God, to experience atheism.
Religious feeling, being written in us, can not be deleted. This can be addressed on ideals and values \u200b\u200bwith spiritual function, that is. In any case, recall, especially if we start from an ideological rejection of religion and the sacred in general, of hitting into the trap of ideology the same way as believers. Before concluding I must specify a religion as good and right can degenerate to expire by the spontaneity of the cult of religious sentiment all'artificiosità imposed. Usually happens for a loss of balance between the various components of religion, which are:
- Dogma (principle is not questionable basis of the cult, or at least highlight)
-Ritual (set of practices to worship the deity or techniques to practice the discipline of philosophy-mysticism)
-Social Ethics (set of behaviors that ensure the respect of all men, of every race and culture)
Dogma in fact constitutes a problem only when it is used by certain hierarchies to bend to his will the believers. Often dogmas are general rules that are manipulated or in some cases created a mail for personal purposes. If it is the dogmatic aspect of religion to the religious sentiments prevail in conflict with reason, critical and indispensable for a true faith, and worship degenerates into fundamentalism. In fact, the dogma that contradicts the rules stigmatized rituals and even social ethics.
The ritual does not involve major complications because editable, but if it is privileged over the other parties threatens to transform religion into superstizione.Insomma, you end up giving priority to form over substance, emptying the gesture of their true meaning.
The social ethics of a religion is a very important point and acts as glue for the other two. In fact, if for any reason the look and the dogmatic ritual breaking the rules of social ethics, distorting it until it takes on an aspect of a threat to the lives of others, then it means that the Religion is to review and reinterpretation. Religions may not want to practice violence on another man, is against logic. The men are all from the same "descendant" homo sapiens sapiens, have a common way of feeling, even if different modes of expression. About this I feel I want to clarify the answer to my comment in Angra. None of the existing religions
expected violence on those who are different or any other form of discrimination. To quote those named in the commentary, the holy books of Christianity and Islam have often been misinterpreted and manipulated into believing things that are not true or true only for the narrow-minded of the time. The modern theology has shown that the alleged inferiority of women with men in the Bible is a colossal hoax and that the Koran is not written anywhere that the woman must go to their heads covered and that the man should rule. Indeed, it was stated with certainty that a Muslim woman has always had the time of Muhammad's great decision-making power, which is also the owner of the tents used by men and therefore free to exclude males from the family.
0 comments:
Post a Comment