Inspiration in Religion

By Reading up, sharing and debating on religious topics I've come to the conclusion that a lot of what people look for in Faith is inspiration.

Debates within a single Faith often devolves into the dominion of certain Ideas, two sides will pick a passage of the scripture and adopt a specific interpretation. Passage X has meaning X. With this closed frame of work we build a rigid structure for thought that is used to assert authority but can be conforting (as previous knowledge isn't challenged, we are convinced "truth" is achieved). The obvious downside is that as time passes and other ideas develop the original meanings can become murked.

I think that as a general rule non-believers think rigidity in religious thinking is dangerous and believers will accept it and even all it necessary. It's important to have at least a bit of structure in what makes religious sense, otherwise we could make a scripture say anything. But after identifying the core ideas of a belief the rigidity of thought becomes more of a commodity and carries more risk.

But there is another kind of value that religious thoughts carry and that have always been problematic with authorities: inspiration. Pretty much all religions have their mystics, those who step aside the conventional scripture and look beyond in the realm of spirituality. This flexibility is specific to Faiths of all kinds and it strays from truth-seeking methodologies such as science. It's not as much about finding meaning as it is to give meaning.

I think this element that grows within one's Faith is often underplayed compared to the speech that makes religion more of a Tool for Truth. I'm a bit interested in hearing what you guys make of this curiosity within the parameters of spirituality that pushes people towards personal development and it's not mostly sustained by the religious institutions.

I'll be honest, Bent. The way you write is often a little bloated and convoluted. But you do often have some interesting points to ponder, so it's sometimes worth the extra effort. But making points clearer and more concise is a good thing.

That being said, I think you do have some good points here. Dogma (rigid, unquestionable 'truth'😉 is comforting. It's easier. Honestly grappling with truths and learning, thinking, growing intellectually is often uncomfortable and difficult. That's one thing I can't stand, though, is intellectual dishonesty. And you encounter it a lot from dogmatic religious types because that's the only way they can make reality fit their dogma (instead of the other way around, making truths reflect reality). They just dance around facts with confirmation bias and mental gymnastics and ignore actual reality that we all have to agree on in order to collaborate as human beings. It's the most frustrating thing.

And as far as "inspiration" being a key component of religion, if you mean "hope" I tend to agree. People who cling to comforting dogmas do so often for the reason of "hope" because being honest and saying, "I don't know what happens when we die" can be uncomfortable and scary. Uncertainty can be scary. But it's the only intellectually honest position. "I don't know" is a very respectable and even erudite thing to say. Intellectual humility is key and religion is generally not in the business of being humble. It's in the business of wishful thinking and self-deception (among other things) and that is the very antithesis of science.

This all brings to mind a famous quote from Carl Sagan...

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Carl Sagan

I almost made a statement about how I was aware my post was going convoluted at a certain point, but thanks for trying to make sense of it.

Regarding inspiration I certainly think hope is a part of it. For example, when you have commited a great crime there is a huge burden on you and religion only magnifies your suffering. Not only you deserve punishment but you might even be eternally damned. But why would we read Religion to damn ourselves? I've heard many religious people spout about how most people they know are going to be damned and they seem perfectly okay with that. It's baffling. Inspiration is the breathing room where you are allowed to make this unlikely choice of forgiving yourself and imagine yourself to be more than the crimes you commited. You are suddenly not reading religious teachings "as they told you" but as they are needed for you. Which can push you towards making the superior life choice of becoming a better person.

For me there is this tension in Belief that is clearly explained with horoscopes. If you take life choices because of what your horoscope says, that's dubious. If you take something you need out of an horoscope and it makes you act towards your benefit, then you got rightfully inspired. I think Religion has this potential of motivating people by NOT trying to be an objective truth.

Originally posted by Bentley
Regarding inspiration I certainly think hope is a part of it. For example, when you have commited a great crime there is a huge burden on you and religion only magnifies your suffering. Not only you deserve punishment but you might even be eternally damned. But why would we read Religion to damn ourselves?

Because you can find eternal forgiveness in the loving arms of Jesus Christ and his Heavenly Father, Yahweh. 👆 👆

Originally posted by Bentley
I've heard many religious people spout about how most people they know are going to be damned and they seem perfectly okay with that. It's baffling.

Yeah, it's fu#ked up. But I guess it goes along with our need to condemn others, outsiders. You know, tribal in-group/out-group tendancies.

Originally posted by Bentley
Inspiration is the breathing room where you are allowed to make this unlikely choice of forgiving yourself and imagine yourself to be more than the crimes you commited. You are suddenly not reading religious teachings "as they told you" but as they are needed for you. Which can push you towards making the superior life choice of becoming a better person.

For me there is this tension in Belief that is clearly explained with horoscopes. If you take life choices because of what your horoscope says, that's dubious. If you take something you need out of an horoscope and it makes you act towards your benefit, then you got rightfully inspired. I think Religion has this potential of motivating people by NOT trying to be an objective truth.

Hm.. so do you mean sort of just using religious inspiration not necessarily as ultimate truth, but as a means of growing and learning? A sort of "liberal" approach to religion? So in that case it wouldn't matter whether you're Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc... the distinctions wouldn't matter. So my question would then be: why pick a religion in the first place anyway? It's just unnecessarily divisive.

I'm not acquainted to every existing religion but I wouldn't say that the idea of Inspiration is much liberal, I'd argue that it's found at the very core of most Faiths simply because images and examples are superior teaching tools at their very core and that statements are not enough to clarify good behaviours, let alone ultimate truths.

The question about choosing a religion is interesting because I'm not sure how that's supposed to work. I agree it's divisive but I also think we cannot get a single framework of Faith with every culture and every sensibility, if anything the abondance of religions suggests it's nearly impossible to pinpoint what gets people invested into faith. Actively having a religion would make the tales and the ethical lessons more persuasive (like when you get advice from a close friend instead of a random website), but it's to a "must" to progress in your personal growth in any way.

But as you said, we seek division and conflict in a tribal way. For me religion could be built upon as a positive fondaiton without looking at atheism and other religions as negative things, but memetics suggest such tolerance has little staying power in most societies.

Originally posted by Bentley
The question about choosing a religion is interesting because I'm not sure how that's supposed to work. I agree it's divisive but I also think we cannot get a single framework of Faith with every culture and every sensibility, if anything the abondance of religions suggests it's nearly impossible to pinpoint what gets people invested into faith. Actively having a religion would make the tales and the ethical lessons more persuasive (like when you get advice from a close friend instead of a random website), but it's to a "must" to progress in your personal growth in any way.

So there's nothing wrong with stories and archetypes, etc. They can point to truths about the world, universe, human beings, etc. And there's not even really anything wrong necessarily with choosing a particular religion as a spiritual guidance (ie inspiration). But if we really want to adopt real, deep truths shouldn't they apply to all human beings regardless of cultural or upbringing biases?

That is of course why I think meditation is a great secular approach to "spiritual" practice, because it purges the dogma, divisive and unfalsifiable theology, and leaves you with a scientifically bolstered practice for improving one's mind, the very thing through which we experience and interpret the world. It genuinely harnesses the potential to cure so many of the world's ills. It can calm tempers and strengthen compassion. It's an actual verifiable method for doing so, not just a doctrinal edict.

I also thought a bit about meditation when writting the paragraphs above, I kind of wonder if there are people who find difficulty in accepting methods like meditation because of cultural bias.

One of the reasons I put Inspiration aside from Religious truths is that I find it to be highly contextual. Yes, I think that we can get the big guidelines about how to respect and care for others in a rather universal fashion, but at some points distinctions will appear. People who misunderstand or did not learn moral teachings properly or had bias or are faced with very niche situations (like mental illness or dealing with ignorance on a situation) will still not get around their days with just the Most Important Cues. Also there are things that are hard to teach directly by their nature (like social anxiety, sexual impulses or fetishes) so down the line you want to really own your archtypes to a personal level. Religion can give you a better day to day like focus if used correctly. The problem for me is that people expect unrealistic gains from religious behaviours at times.

Originally posted by Bentley
I also thought a bit about meditation when writting the paragraphs above, I kind of wonder if there are people who find difficulty in accepting methods like meditation because of cultural bias.

Undoubtedly. I can almost guarantee that certain fundamentalist Christians would find it to be offensive because it might resemble a false religion like Hinduism or Buddhism or something. But then you could just as easily call it "Prayer," and then it's okay!

My middle school art teacher (private Christian school) confiscated a ceramic pot I made one time because it vaguely resembled Buddha. I haven't seen it to this day. I joke that she uses it for virgin blood sacrifices at her house.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Hm.. so do you mean sort of just using religious inspiration not necessarily as ultimate truth, but as a means of growing and learning? A sort of "liberal" approach to religion? So in that case it wouldn't matter whether you're Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc... the distinctions wouldn't matter. So my question would then be: why pick a religion in the first place anyway? It's just unnecessarily divisive.

There's an elephant in the room anytime you're writing on religion for someone who's read your posts, PL. Bentley alluded to it, though I'm not sure he meant to. I wonder how you can think yourself objective given what you've experienced, and I wish you'd address it at least once.

In the meantime, I'll address what you seem to be suggesting here, that religious distinctions make no real-world observable differences.

They do, and I'll start with the following as partial proof because it's relatively short and to-the-point and politically incorrect ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSuF-ygmUEs

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There's an elephant in the room anytime you're writing on religion for someone who's read your posts, PL. Bentley alluded to it, though I'm not sure he meant to. I wonder how you can think yourself objective given what you've experienced, and I wish you'd address it at least once.

I don't think I ever claimed to be perfectly objective, but I think it counts for something that I was indoctrinated from childhood and into young adulthood and then escaped that indoctrination.

I think that does allow for a balanced perspective. Similar to people like Matt Dillahunty (Christianity) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sarah Haider (Islam) who escaped their respective indoctrinations.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
In the meantime, I'll address what you seem to be suggesting here, that religious distinctions make no real-world observable differences.

^ This is perhaps a slight misrepresentation of what I was alluding to. You left out a key element and it was my main point. My main point is that real-world observable differences are diminished with a more liberal or moderate approach to religion, rendering various religious differences less important. It's the fundamentalists who cause obvious real-world observable differences.

Now, having said that I still do think there are still some important consequences to even moderate religious influences and we could talk about that, but I think it's less direct.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
They do, and I'll start with the following as partial proof because it's relatively short and to-the-point and politically incorrect ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSuF-ygmUEs

Thanks for posting something short. Will watch when I get a chance.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
My main point is that real-world observable differences are diminished with a more liberal or moderate approach to religion, rendering various religious differences less important.

I agree with the statement for big things, but small differences Will make you relate with different small details on how you observe. Which is the sentiment that changes your small personal developments.

Obviously these can be built without religion. I suppose I'm emphasizing the importance of religion for the individual as opposed to its social positioning.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Now, having said that I still do think there are still some important consequences to even moderate religious influences and we could talk about that, but I think it's less direct.

Well, I think religious people would be more shocked if there were no consequences at all. Religion is meant to affect how you deal with day to day choices, so it's expected.

Generally speaking, doesn't the initial or direct source of religious inspiration come from *revelation*? Eg, Moses by the Burning Bush; Buddha under the Bodhi Tree.

Someone has a profound experience, a glimpse of the mystical/divine foundation of the world. This experience is then put into words and practices for (indirectly) inspiring others, such that, by adhering to these words and practices, a follower may also have that direct experience, a revelation.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
They do, and I'll start with the following as partial proof because it's relatively short and to-the-point and politically incorrect ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dSuF-ygmUEs

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Thanks for posting something short. Will watch when I get a chance.

Watched video. Not sure if satire or not. Don't feel the need to respond to such idiocy.

Originally posted by Mindship
Generally speaking, doesn't the initial or direct source of religious inspiration come from *revelation*? Eg, Moses by the Burning Bush; Buddha under the Bodhi Tree.

Someone has a profound experience, a glimpse of the mystical/divine foundation of the world. This experience is then put into words and practices for (indirectly) inspiring others, such that, by adhering to these words and practices, a follower may also have that direct experience, a revelation.

Yeah, I guess in theory that's the idea. But with the increasing need for verifying claims (i.e. skepticism) supposed 'revelation' is holding less and less credibility.

Originally posted by Bentley
I agree with the statement for big things, but small differences Will make you relate with different small details on how you observe. Which is the sentiment that changes your small personal developments.

Obviously these can be built without religion. I suppose I'm emphasizing the importance of religion for the individual as opposed to its social positioning.

Well, I think religious people would be more shocked if there were no consequences at all. Religion is meant to affect how you deal with day to day choices, so it's expected.

So I guess my point is that moderate Christians typically aren't trying to influence public policy and law as much as fundamentalists. Moderate Christians here in America are pretty well-known for being lukewarm and slack, not really knowing squat about the Bible. Just "culturally Christian." But in the case of Islam even moderates will express a desire for certain religious laws to be enacted.

I agree that moderates do not try to impose their religious ideas but in my mind that blends together with judeochristianity. You can be an expert in the Bible and the Torah and find many justifications as of how one must not try to impose religious values into the Government.

I'd assume this is different in Islam since their founder because a Monarch.

Originally posted by Mindship
Generally speaking, doesn't the initial or direct source of religious inspiration come from *revelation*? Eg, Moses by the Burning Bush; Buddha under the Bodhi Tree.

Someone has a profound experience, a glimpse of the mystical/divine foundation of the world. This experience is then put into words and practices for (indirectly) inspiring others, such that, by adhering to these words and practices, a follower may also have that direct experience, a revelation.

It is a similar process in different ways, but I'd argue that vertical knowledge (revelation coming from a Higher being) is not something that enhances personal responsability in the same way and it cannot be seeked. Mysticism practices if anything puy too much of the burden of well being in higher spheres.

Originally posted by Bentley
Mysticism practices if anything puy too much of the burden of well being in higher spheres.

IOW, the real point of meditation (and the mystical perspective) is *not* to get better at meditating and access radiant visions; it's to get better at living in the here and now.

Originally posted by Mindship
IOW, the real point of meditation (and the mystical perspective) is *not* to get better at meditating and access radiant visions; it's to get better at living in the here and now.

👆 #truth

That's fair, since I'm pretty much advocating to some degree of mysticism I am here talking about a extreme take on it (something we might go as far as to consider it a betrayal on the goal of mysticism). Some practices did take it to said extremes.

At least in Christianity mysticism has always been a force that moves religion forward but also a direction often decried by religious authorities.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, I guess in theory that's the idea. But with the increasing need for verifying claims (i.e. skepticism) supposed 'revelation' is holding less and less credibility.

Originally posted by Bentley
I am here talking about a extreme take on it (something we might go as far as to consider it a betrayal on the goal of mysticism). Some practices did take it to said extremes.

Originally posted by Bentley
At least in Christianity mysticism has always been a force that moves religion forward but also a direction often decried by religious authorities.

A little element I'd like to add to the discussion is that some of the mystical elements I'm interested in discussing are very difficult to teach precisely because they serve a very personal purpose. As I said, ethics get muddier when we stray off the path of universal respect and reciprocity of treatment.

One example is how sexuality as far as fantasies go is not something you want to normalize, if you think that someone who likes to have rough sex is a deviant because of whichever reasoning (control fantasies, cultural sexist representations, etc.) then you are going to ostracize this people and build frustration into them for no reason, you aren't going to be imposing such desires into anyone either. Patient Leech will surely agree that religious authorities have no business wanting to normalize fantasies by claiming which fictions should be published or whether videogames are "sinful" activities.

But for me this doesn't mean this cannot have meaning at a spiritual level it just mean this has to be selftaught responsibly to fit a coherent worldview that goes hand to hand with your existing ethical framework.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Watched video.
Not sure if satire or not.
Don't feel the need to respond to such idiocy.

Profoundly saddening and disturbing.
Literally typing the guy's name in and scanning the 1st paragraph that comes up for him would tell you he's a satirist ...

... yet instead of taking literally 60 seconds to research him or think about his point, you dismiss the presentation entire, give an insult, and proceed with your talking points.

But I suppose you did more than the typical anti-religion responder here.
Thank you for watching the 2 minute video clip at least.