Modernity, Religion, Progress

[Oexmelin]

Perhaps it would be suitable to move that discussion here / stop hijacking the UK Conservative leadership thread?

[mongers]

Perhaps it would be suitable to move that discussion here / stop hijacking the UK Conservative leadership thread?

Yes.


Perhaps the mind is similar to a 3 or 4 ft length of wood, if used as a yard stick to measure the world at large and oneself, then it's a philosophical tool.

If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.

[Oexmelin]

Perhaps the mind is similar to a 3 or 4 ft length of wood, if used as a yard stick to measure the world at large and oneself, then it's a philosophical tool.

If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.

It's a little unsettling that I wasn't sure for a moment if you were discussing religion, or Brexit...

[Eddie Teach]

If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.

Who are you talking about? Don't be coy.

[mongers]

Perhaps the mind is similar to a 3 or 4 ft length of wood, if used as a yard stick to measure the world at large and oneself, then it's a philosophical tool.

If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.

It's a little unsettling that I wasn't sure for a moment if you were discussing religion, or Brexit...

Well it now has some of the elements of one, including the ritual enunciation* of 'The Democratic Will Of The British People' etc. 


* it's rather late here, so can't put my finger on a word meaning a religious refrain / sacrament.

[Valmy]

Liturgy?

[dps]

Doctrine?  Dogma?

[Duque de Bragança]

Perhaps it would be suitable to move that discussion here / stop hijacking the UK Conservative leadership thread?

Yes.


Perhaps the mind is similar to a 3 or 4 ft length of wood, if used as a yard stick to measure the world at large and oneself, then it's a philosophical tool.

If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.

Metric please, if we are to talk about modernity and progress. 

[Malthus]

From the other thread:

My argument that "Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion" is not, obviously, an argument that it was literally, a religion, any more that my argument that Marxism was one, even though many of its followers acted pretty much exactly like it was one.

Neo-Confucianism took a lot of the mystical elements of Taoism, in particular the concept of a separate "heaven" that acted, not in accordance with the will of some 'gods' or other, but, rather, as a force in the universe much like gravity - pervasive, but not completely understood.  The tenets of Neo-Confucianism were not subject to change through observation and correction; they were based on universal truths (including the truth that ritual had an impact on the environment, and not just the person engaging in the ritual).  The key to understanding the burden the Confucianism to some extent, and Neo-Confucianism to a greater extent, placed on modernization was that the Chinese were sure they had the answer to the problems of society, and so were dismissive of any knowledge or progress that didn't bring them closer to that answer.  That's what religions effectively do to retard progress.

I have no problem with the argument that Neo-Confucianism retarded progress.

The problem I have with this is that it distorts the meaning of the term "religion". Agreed that ideology that is unchallenged can be a roadblock to progress - any ideology - but I do not agree that "religion" is, for all intents and purposes, 'an ideology that is unchallenged'. Some things are religions yet are subject to challenge - such as mysticism (in its true meaning); some are non-religious ideologies, not subject to challenge. In many cases, such as that of England in the decades after the English Civil War, religions were subject to challenge - simply by circumstances (a great deal of competition that could not be completely silenced).

To take an example - Neo-Confucianism, as described in the previous links, used the doctrine of the five elements to categorize the universe. This isn't all that different from, say, the doctrine of the four humours in medicine. Yet it would be odd to say the least to categorize the doctrine of the four humours as a "religion", rather than a pseudo-science.

In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.

In contrast, a 'religion' that is subject to constant challenge and competition is no bar to progress, even if it has the most wacky beliefs.

[mongers]

From the other thread:

My argument that "Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion" is not, obviously, an argument that it was literally, a religion, any more that my argument that Marxism was one, even though many of its followers acted pretty much exactly like it was one.

Neo-Confucianism took a lot of the mystical elements of Taoism, in particular the concept of a separate "heaven" that acted, not in accordance with the will of some 'gods' or other, but, rather, as a force in the universe much like gravity - pervasive, but not completely understood.  The tenets of Neo-Confucianism were not subject to change through observation and correction; they were based on universal truths (including the truth that ritual had an impact on the environment, and not just the person engaging in the ritual).  The key to understanding the burden the Confucianism to some extent, and Neo-Confucianism to a greater extent, placed on modernization was that the Chinese were sure they had the answer to the problems of society, and so were dismissive of any knowledge or progress that didn't bring them closer to that answer.  That's what religions effectively do to retard progress.

I have no problem with the argument that Neo-Confucianism retarded progress.

The problem I have with this is that it distorts the meaning of the term "religion". Agreed that ideology that is unchallenged can be a roadblock to progress - any ideology - but I do not agree that "religion" is, for all intents and purposes, 'an ideology that is unchallenged'. Some things are religions yet are subject to challenge - such as mysticism (in its true meaning); some are non-religious ideologies, not subject to challenge. In many cases, such as that of England in the decades after the English Civil War, religions were subject to challenge - simply by circumstances (a great deal of competition that could not be completely silenced).

To take an example - Neo-Confucianism, as described in the previous links, used the doctrine of the five elements to categorize the universe. This isn't all that different from, say, the doctrine of the four humours in medicine. Yet it would be odd to say the least to categorize the doctrine of the four humours as a "religion", rather than a pseudo-science.

In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.

In contrast, a 'religion' that is subject to constant challenge and competition is no bar to progress, even if it has the most wacky beliefs.

Indeed.

At issue is the something that actively* suppress other people's reasoning, be that evangelical Islam, the inquisition/mediaeval Catholic church, communism or capitalist orthodoxy .


* or in effect does, such that the costs of challenging received 'wisdom' are personally or economically costly.

[Valmy]

In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.

Absolutely right.

[grumbler]

In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.

Exactly my point.  Something "impervious to challenge" is, effectively, a religion.  It is believed because it is the received wisdom, and cannot  be challenged because it was devised by something "far wiser than us."

[Razgovory]

"Religion" is a fairly hard term to pin-down.  It encompasses the complex theology of the Catholic Church as well as the Animist who thanks the trees for giving up their fruit.

[Valmy]

"Religion" is a fairly hard term to pin-down.  It encompasses the complex theology of the Catholic Church as well as the Animist who thanks the trees for giving up their fruit.

Yeah the line between religion and superstition and philosophy and all gets rather blurry. But do we really need to get bogged down in semantics?

[The Brain]

Define semantics.