Modernity, Religion, Progress

[mongers]

Define semantics.

What do you mean by define?

[Eddie Teach]

Define semantics.

Jews and Arabs.

[viper37]

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.
[/quote]

Can ideologies truly compete with one another?  It seems that p, just like religion, once a certain thresholdmof acceptance has been reached for an ideology, the natural tendancy is to squash the others.

The same with religion.  Islam and Judaism do not compete with one another, they seek to eviscerate the other from their respective society.  As much as Canadian Jews can be liberal, I can not imagine a Bronfman converting to islam and still be part of the family empire.  No more than a Clinton could wear a MAGA hat.

It can and it does happen everywhere, but it's not exactly free and fair competition everywhere.

[Monoriu]

When I was a kid, different teachers of different levels always repeated the same story.  That Chinese culture was the greatest in the world.  See, Chinese invented the printing press, the compass, gunpowder, paper and whatnot.  Chinese were much more virtuous than westerners.  They respected teachers, parents and the elderly, unlike the westerners.  Chinese saved money, worked hard and invested in the future.  Westerners only knew how to borrow, go bankrupt, slack off and western civilization was on borrowed time.  China was the greatest nation on earth throughout most of humanity's history.  Etc. 

Even they knew all that talk was kind of at odds with the reality that China (especially in the 80s) was poor, backward, while the west was strong and prosperous.  The excuses they used included that the west's strength was temporary, and China would win in the long haul, the Mongols and Manchus messed up everything and it would take some time to fix everything, the Japanese robbed China of everything in WWII, etc.

I always found their arguments to be a bit...lacking. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm far from an expert on neo-Confucianism, but my understanding is that it includes a variety of rites, ceremonies and ritual practices, including rituals surrounding ancestor worship.  On that basis, I would say it could qualify as religio in the classical sense.

[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.

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?

Probably.

[crazy canuck]

"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?

We don't, if we don't care about the meaning of words. 

Define semantics.

[Syt]

I feel Brain might be anti-semantic

[The Brain]

[Valmy]

We don't, if we don't care about the meaning of words. 

If the cost of caring about the meaning of words is to get really pedantic about how to classify all ideas as religious or not then I guess my sanity demands that I don't care

[crazy canuck]

We don't, if we don't care about the meaning of words. 

If the cost of caring about the meaning of words is to get really pedantic about how to classify all ideas as religious or not then I guess my sanity demands that I don't care

Ah, that is something else.   It is difficult to avoid semantics when when uses words.  We use words to convey meaning after all.  I am not sure anyone in this thread has reached the point of being pedantic.  It is an interesting discussion. 


If you are conflating semantics with being pedantic then shame on you.  In your years here you have had good demonstrations of the difference 

[Oexmelin]

To a large extent, all human institutions must both resist challenges (otherwise they would not be distinctive from other endeavors) and channel criticism (otherwise the only option would be revolt). An institution must be robust enough to dispense you from re-inventing the wheel every time, for that is their advantage, i.e., they think for you. I don't have to rediscover gravity myself to build upon all the physics that have been done since then. And institutions must be able to accommodate critique, which they usually do by distinguishing legitimate critique (e.g., a trial, an experiment, an exegesis of sacred text), from illegitimate challenges. The whole notion of it being distinct areas of human understandings, "categories of knowledge" relies on identifying, artificially isolating if you will, the specific ways in which these channels of critique are created and maintained.

You can thus have very stultified sciences, and very dynamic religions; religions with little coercive powers, and technocracies. So, rather than determine that religions are defined by the absence of challenge, or by blind following (because you can find blind followers and zealous enforcers in all institutions), it may be more productive to identify what specific challenges are welcomed by science, by philosophy, by religion. And it seems that a big dividing line must be transcendence/materialism.

If we identify progress with materialism, then obviously, a bunch of philosophical, religious, and scientific ideas that created it, promoted it, accommodated it, thrived on it, have fared, and will fare better. That is, in essence, what Max Weber identified as the disenchantment of the world. If we identify progress with salvation, or spiritual enlightenment, then the idea that the material world needs to be utterly transformed and mastered loses quite a bit of urgency.

[Malthus]

I'm far from an expert on neo-Confucianism, but my understanding is that it includes a variety of rites, ceremonies and ritual practices, including rituals surrounding ancestor worship.  On that basis, I would say it could qualify as religio in the classical sense.

I would say Chinese tradition contained rituals surrounding ancestor worship, but the way the leading Neo-Confucian thinkers regarded the topic isn't very "religious". Like nearly every pre-modern philosophy aside from pure materialism, it took pre-existing supernatural concepts for granted and tried to fit them into the theory they were attempting to create. Ancestor worship is very ancient in China.

The significant concept here is "qi", by which they meant basically 'the inherent pattern of a thing'. Example: a leaf of a rose has a pattern, or 'qi', which is what makes it different from everything else; if I draw a rose-leaf, if someone else can recognize it, it is because we both share the same mental pattern, or qi, of a rose leaf.

The spirits of the ancestors were not thought of as literal ghosts, but rather as the embodiment of the "qi" of those ancestors.

Similarly with rituals and ceremonies. Every society has rituals and ceremonies, and certainly Confucianism put a lot of emphasis on them - most importantly, that they be performed correctly. This is because correctly performing rituals was supposed to be good and civilizing in and of itself, regardless of the content and meaning of the rituals. The word used in Chinese is "li", by which is meant much more than "rituals":

The rites of li are not rites in the Western conception of religious custom. Rather, li embodies the entire spectrum of interaction with humans, nature, and even material objects. Confucius includes in his discussions of li such diverse topics as learning, tea drinking, titles, mourning, and governance. Xunzi cites "songs and laughter, weeping and lamentation...rice and millet, fish and meat...the wearing of ceremonial caps, embroidered robes, and patterned silks, or of fasting clothes and mourning clothes...unspacious rooms and very nonsecluded halls, hard mats, seats and flooring"[3] as vital parts of the fabric of li.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_(Confucianism)

Basically, like "qi", "li" references the essential pattern - in this case, the pattern of human behaviour - the right way of doing things, which could include how to wear your clothes or how to worship the local civic gods - assuming such worship is necessary:

Li consists of the norms of proper social behavior as taught to others by fathers, village elders and government officials. The teachings of li promoted ideals such as filial piety, brotherliness, righteousness, good faith and loyalty.[4] The influence of li guided public expectations, such as the loyalty to superiors and respect for elders in the community.

Continuous with the emphasis on community, following li included the internalization of action, which both yields the comforting feeling of tradition and allows one to become "more open to the panoply of sensations of the experience" (Rosemont 2005). But it should also maintain a healthy practice of selflessness, both in the actions themselves and in the proper example which is set for one's brothers. Approaches in the community, as well as personal approaches together demonstrate how li pervades in all things, the broad and the detailed, the good and the bad, the form and the formlessness. This is the complete realization of li.

The rituals and practices of li are dynamic in nature. Li practices have been revised and evaluated throughout time to reflect the emerging views and beliefs found in society.[5] Although these practices may change, which happens very slowly over time, the fundamental ideals remain at the core of li, which largely relate to social order.

Because China was a society in which, historically, civic gods and ancestors were worshipped, of course such rituals must be undertaken. But I think it is a mistake to think that, because the philosophy required rituals (including religious rituals), it is itself religious; a Neo-Confucian would see no contradiction in applying that philosophy in a culture lacking civic gods. In such a culture, proper "li" would not include rituals worshipping civic gods.

The focus of "li" is not on the gods, but on man: that partaking in rituals (which may, or may not, include ritual worship of gods) preserve social order and propriety, quite regardless of whether anyone believes in said gods; and by the same token, if the gods become a source of social instability - why, they ought to be discarded.

See for example: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Asia/AsiaWong.htm

A Neo-Confucian would grasp exactly what is at stake, for example, in putting "In God We Trust" on the US coinage. Does putting it there enhance social stability and otherwise improve society? Then keep it on (even if you are an atheist) - it's part of the society's "li". On the other hand - is it a completely outmoded expression of a religion that no longer commands universal respect? An argument can be made that the "li" ought to evolve ... though as natural conservatives, the Neo-Confucian would rather err on the side of keeping it on (though a counter-argument could be that the practice is itself relatively new!).

[Razgovory]

Is there widely accepted definition for "Religion"?

[Malthus]

Can ideologies truly compete with one another?  It seems that p, just like religion, once a certain thresholdmof acceptance has been reached for an ideology, the natural tendancy is to squash the others.

The same with religion.  Islam and Judaism do not compete with one another, they seek to eviscerate the other from their respective society.  As much as Canadian Jews can be liberal, I can not imagine a Bronfman converting to islam and still be part of the family empire.  No more than a Clinton could wear a MAGA hat.

It can and it does happen everywhere, but it's not exactly free and fair competition everywhere.

Whether members of the religion (or philosophy or whatever) are okay with change isn't the only factor. Of greater significance is the ability of members of that ideology to create conformity.

For example - Orthodox Jews are notorious for their dislike of change. While I am myself Jewish, I have essentially nothing whatsoever in common with most Orthodox Jews, and do not follow their ideology. No doubt they strongly disapprove. However, they have essentially no power to do anything about it, and their disapproval is therefore ineffective.

Similarly, supporters of Communist orthodoxy mean one thing if you happen to be living in Ukraine in 1932, and quite another thing if you happen to be attending university in Toronto in 1992. In the one case they are a deadly threat, and in te other case an annoying nuisance, in certain humanities courses.

Point is that if Orthodox Jews (or Communists, or anything) are given total power, they could become a severe impediment to progress; but here in the West at least they lack that power.