Like many people, I draw a distinction between religion (read: organized religion) and spirituality. From what I can see, religion can have the effect of hardening the ego, by creating an us-vs-them mindset. As an American, I see this as perhaps the fundamental dynamic driving our country at a national level, both in domestic politics and foreign policy.
On a personal level, I was raised in a very religious household. In our particular fundamentalist Baptist church, there were strains of ego minimization, in the sense of subordinating the individual to the identity and outlook of the group. But within that identity, I saw ego maximization, in the sense of the feelings of superiority of our creed.
As I became alienated from organized Christianity and its dogma, I've found that I am thankful for many of the ego minimizing aspects. And now, as a parent, I'm interested in the ways in which I can raise my children to have these benefits, without all the harms I experienced and see from organized religion.
Incidentally, I just read all of the books from Arbinger Institute: Leadership and Self-Deception, The Anatomy of Peace, and The Outward Mindset. The Arbinger Institute was founded by Latter-Day Saints folks, and while I definitely register the vibes of Christian thought, they are fundamentally secular books, devoid of dogma. I do think it's very possible to draw from the more positive, ego-dissolving parts of religious spirituality and teaching, while rejecting the divisive parts.
Completely aside from the ego conversation, another thing I have noticed about raising kids outside of a church is that my family lacks the same community that the Baptist church my household growing up attended. I think this is one of the major functions of organized religion. Provided you can remain in good standing with the church, you get a community, which serves all sorts of useful functions. Outside of a church, you have to manually find this, through friendships and other organizations. But there's big replacement cost to everything a church community gives you "batteries included". I'm very pro secular society, but I don't think we've come up with great answers to this problem, leading to potentially catastrophic levels of social fragmentation and susceptibility to cult-like online movements.
It’s more a matter of finding a church that’s a good fit for you than “organized religion” as a whole. There’s a lot that comes from people who claim to be Christian that’s not supported by the Bible at all. It’s just something they were told and repeated.
There’s also a lot that non-Christians claim about Christians which also has no basis. The internet amplifies the controversial falsehood without requiring that retractions be published (and circulated) at the same level. This leads to a lot of crazy talk.
The only filter anyone has for this stuff is to actually read the Bible to know what is in there. Otherwise you’ll have no basis for questioning the weird things that people tell you.
I even started a blog of interesting things I’ve come across when reading just to try to encourage people to read it themselves. As somebody who grew up in church, became agnostic, then atheist and am now a devout Christian again I think there’s a lot of people like yourself who may be able to relate. My most recent post was creating an “is it Christian?” litmus test.
Meh. As someone who's read the Bible in its entirety, it's so full of contradictions and unclear complexities that you can make a good case for any number of incompatible interpretations.
The Bible is interesting for historical context, and has many useful stories and lessons that I still get value from, but so does the Tao Te Ching and the Quran.
It's a good piece of work for a person's spirituality practice, but it is far from sufficient on its own. And on its own, it can be (and many times has been) used to justify some absolutely appalling shit.
> it's so full of contradictions and unclear complexities that you can make a good case for any number of incompatible interpretations
I think this is exactly what makes the Bible such a powerful and popular book!
Intelligent, charismatic people can easily use the Bible (which has implicit authority as the "Word of God" in many people's minds) to convince people to move in a particular direction. This makes it a very powerful tool.
The lack of clear and objective messaging means it's easy to reinterpret as the civilization changes to suit the rulers' needs, not the other way around. If it had unambiguous messaging, it probably would have been abandoned to the historical archives long ago since the rules no longer make sense.
Which is exactly why it's a garbage foundation for ethical reasoning. Fine accessory. Garbage foundation.
This is important to understand, because the truth of ethics is that it is not objective. It's subjective. It's a constant conversation we have with each about how we want to interact. And as soon as you elevate a holy book to be unquestionably followed by faith, you've killed the conversation. And once you've killed the conversation, the only way to resolve disagreements thereafter is violence.
> As someone who's read the Bible in its entirety, it's so full of contradictions and unclear complexities that you can make a good case for any number of incompatible interpretations.
As a Christian, I too have been recently thinking about the issue of multiple interpretations. Having said that, there are as many, if not more, verses that are clear enough and leaves little room for multiple contradicting interpretations. For example, these two popular (and probably the most important!) verses have very clear meanings:
> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16 (NIV)
> “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” — Matthew 22:36–40 (NIV)
> “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Define love and define god.
Some Christians have defined loving their neighbor as forcing gay people into barbaric gay conversion therapy. Some have defined it as taking young indigenous children from their families and raising them as good, civilized westerns to get the Indian out of them.
God doesn't exist, so loving god with all your heart doesn't mean anything objectively. What "loving god" looks like is entirely subjective and there have been many opinions throughout history about what that means. Some interpretations have included sacrificing children. If there actually is a god, they doesn't seem to be very good about consistently telling us what they want and how they feel loved by us.
The Bible has plenty of good passages, but also tons of bad ones. It's a fine piece of literature to study and get insight for your spiritual practice. But never forget, the Bible got the question of slavery wrong. Not even the new testament condemns slavery. This is not a good book.
You use slavery as an example of what makes the Bible a bad book. My understanding is that the Bible generally condemns the modern notion of slavery (one in which the slaves have a viable alternative). The Jews’ slavery in Egypt, for example, is condemned. Slavery in first century Rome, for an opposing example, was often the result of the slaves having no other option (the society having no way to support them). It was effectively better than the alternative for the slaves, and there were routes to freedom. I’m curious about your thoughts. You say “it is not a good book” while I feel that the New Testament in particular is considered to promote good things. Obviously the classic atheist liberal’s “bad guys” in the uneducated rural conservative Christians have done sad things in the name of Jesus (like your aforementioned conversion therapy), but that’s people and not the book.
That's good defense of Bible but really there is only one problem with it (and with other holy books) - the nature of the term "holy book" prevents it from being made better. There are some good things in it (especially in New Testament), but this only means that it should be reedited and rewritten into something more modern and useful - but it can't because God apparently do not believe in second editions.
The "holy book" being infallible is mostly a problem with the religions whose gods are so pathetically weak they can't make mistakes, or learn new things.
> 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Each time I here this thing (this fragment from Corinthians) I cringe a little bit because many people uses this as a definition of love (hence its read at weddings here where I live) but at the same time this being part of holy book sounds like love is so fuzzy term that no one really knows what it means so it needs pseudo definition that is all over the place (and no, I do not have better definition for it - but I have good reason - I do not believe that it exists).
This is a list of behaviors one might expect to observe in the presence of “love”. The fact that it is commonly cited as the best definition of the word kind of proves gp’s point.
> For example, these two popular (and probably the most important!) verses have very clear meanings:
> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16 (NIV)
That is your choice of a "very clear meaning"?! Ok, then do you believe man goes to heaven through faith alone, or by faith and actions that prove their faith?
Because a billion Protestants would say that the verse tells you it is by faith alone, and a billion Catholics will quote James 2 20:24 in saying that faith without works is useless:
"You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."
> Because a billion Protestants would say that the verse tells you it is by faith alone, and a billion Catholics will quote James 2 20:24 in saying that faith without works is useless:
In 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a joint statement on justification which admitted they had agreed but had never sat down and done the difficult work of making the fine distinctions and assuming good faith until then! In my experience faith and works is like that with the two groups making different emphases but when one makes the fine distinctions there is essential agreement. There are genuine disagreements but fewer than even the faithful realize. Why the vehement opposition and recriminations? The proximate causes are legion but the efficient cause IMHO involves liberal portions of late medieval to Renaissance European politics that still curses us today.
Lutherans are 70-90 million of the 1 billion Protestants. You've barely nudged the numbers of disagreement even if Lutherans and Catholics agree entirely. All the disagreements on the most core aspect of Christianity are found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Supporting_confessio...
There’s a long road to Christian unity but the first Protestant group and Catholics agreeing on one of the key justifications (pun not intended) of the reformation is a massive and far reaching development that will reverberate for centuries. Healing these kinds of wounds is not simple or quick but unexpectedly there are great signs of hope springing up like this and many other developments in recent decades.
> do you believe man goes to heaven through faith alone, or by faith and works that prove their faith?
To clarify, Protestants believe Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), but they also believe faith implies good works. The difference is that Catholics consider faith and works more independent entities. They believe works are another requirement to be saved, in addition to faith.
From Protestants' point of view, faith in Jesus Christ is the only requirement to be saved. At the same time, works are a great way to display someone's faith, as Jesus says:
> By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. — John 13:35 (NIV)
You might say "So, we can just believe in God and do any despicable things we want, then?" Not really. You couldn't say you love your spouse and at the same time keep hurting them, could you? Your actions would contradict your words, and no one would believe your words that you love your spouse.
Similarly, Christians who realized how great the love and sacrifice that God gave to pay their sins are will (or at least try to) live accordingly. They do good things, not to be saved, but because they have already been saved and they want to show their gratitude through their works and glorify God. Jesus says:
> In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. — Matthew 5:16 (NIV)
This is the unique distinction between Christianity and other religions. If human beings could by their own effort save themselves from the wages of sins, Jesus wouldn't have needed to come into this world and die to pay for our sins.
"Can God just simply forgive humans?" If God did so, He was neither just nor consistent with his words. The penalty of humans' sins must be paid if humans are to be saved. Note that humans don't need to be saved—God could just leave humans condemned and He is still just. Only because God so loved us that He himself paid for our sins.
Yet, even you quote man himself rather than the perfect Word of God. Should not something as perfect as the Word of God be the most simple, encouraging, and enlightening on such a crucial matter of Christianity itself? The evidence before us doesn't indicate so.
That is when a Protestant might say, "Well it is clear and perfect in it's [Protestant / sola fide] meaning. And that the billions of other Christians, try as extremely hard as they may, with millions spending immense portions of their live trying to ascertain what God meant for them, have been led astray for all of time."
Define that, and with details please, because in my mind it "does not compute".
Short sentences as this have clear meaning for You only because You spent hundreds of hours (probably in Your youth) listening to people (probably in black dresses) explaining them to You.
If You would somehow lost this context it would be as unclear for You as "Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare" is for me (I never bothered to learn the context for what it actually means).
I understand a sentence "Merge sort has a time complexity of O(N log(N)) in the worst case" because I learned it from other people (my lecturer, book authors), too. So, I don't see the point here.
Most English-speaking people—even for those who don't believe life after this material world—likely have some guess of a definition of "eternal life", which might or might not be similar to the definition in the biblical context. Some who consider "eternal life" as cryptic as "bhng lw" don't know the word either "eternal" or "life".
The meaning of any word in any sentence of any book can be disputed, of course.. until we realize that a definition of a word also consists of words any of which can be argued all over again. (Aside: I had wondered since I was first introduced a dictionary: How can we understand any word if its definition consists of words too? It would be an infinite recursion. Only recently I knew that the problem has a name: "The Grounding Problem" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem )
To answer your question, in this context, having an eternal life means going to heaven. The follow up questions would be "What's heaven? Where is it?". I or someone else can explain it to you, but if you, in your words, "never bothered to learn the context", no one can help you to understand. However great your lecturer explained some materials in the class, you wouldn't fully understand the materials if you didn't self-study in your time, would you?
Yes, you are right - if You apply enough deconstruction and reductionism all communication between humans breaks down. But I still believe that there is a profound difference between Your example and the "eternal life" bit.
I'm not sure if I can get my point clearly (because its still intuition and not nicely expressed thought), but still, I will try my best.
"Merge sort has a time complexity of O(N log(N)) in the worst case" at this point and time has exactly one meaning because it addresses exactly one simple (but not simplistic) abstract problem of comparative assessment of algorithms for ordering symbols that have enough relations defined to be comparable. And the logic that stands behind it can be quite easily followed straight to the roots (or rather axioms) without anyone being burned on metaphorical cross along the way. There is no schism here, no cults, event not too many people with different opinions (there are surly some with different axioms and some with different opinions about reducing sorting worthiness to one scalar value).
Meanwhile if You get out of Your bubble and start asking what does it exactly mean "eternal life" or event better, as You mentioned, "what's heaven?" You will get as many answers as You will find people (home exercise - go ask a modern Jew about heaven, or Yehova witness, or Mormon :)).
They're not the same thing. The Quran purports to be the direct revelation of God's word, as spoken by Muhammed. It's one work. The Bible is certainly more complex, as the compilation of a bunch of documents of different types and times, and it's 10x as long. I haven't read the full Quran yet, but I'm told it's much less self-contradictory. Even in just the 4 Gospels, people have debated for centuries now to reconcile them into a coherent timeline of Jesus's life. Both religions are built on a whole bunch more material, written and traditional.
The contradictions in the Bible are over-stated and the simplicity of the Quran is a major weakness given how distasteful its ideas are. The fact that there is nothing to "contradict" the command to kill the infidels.... is not a good thing.
> There’s a lot that comes from people who claim to be Christian that’s not supported by the Bible at all.
I think this may be too reductionist. The Bible contradicts itself on a lot of topics (ie, the age-old dichotomy between the fire-and-brimstone Old Testament God vs the turn-the-other-cheek New Testament teachings). It's hard to reconcile God telling the Israelites to murder the women and children of Canaan with "love thy neighbor as thyself" unless you adopt a pretty cold-hearted standard for who your neighbors are.
That's the problem with religious fundamentalism: there's text available to support all sorts of terrible stuff.
There's a pop culture narrative of this Old/New testament divide regarding "Fire and Brimstone"... but you don't see "Fire and Brimstone" sermons coming out of the Jewish history of teaching. The old testament is also not particularly concerned with the impact our actions have on an after life (again, Jewish religious groups are almost never concerned with "heaven" or an after life). If anything the most important theme of the old testament is the struggle to do what is right. After all Jacob becomes Israel (meaning "wrestles with God") by literally wrestling with a divine being, against impossible odds, in order to receive a blessing. In many ways all of the complexity and contradictions of the old testament can be summed up by that one act.
The real divide is all in the New Testament, it boils down to Paul vs. pretty much everything else. The strong sexual purity and aggressive condemnation of moral transgressions pretty much all comes from Paul. This is also where you get the strong imperative to proselytize.
Of course Paul himself is full of interesting "contradictions" (I use quotes because it's theologically a bit more interesting). Especially considering the wildly different tones between Corinthians and the "faith to eat all things" aspects of Romans. Contemporary American Christian extremism can be pretty easily found by just reading Corinthians.
The thing about Paul is that there are a lot of supposed Paulisms that are actually him quoting some other viewpoint and responding to it; ancient Greek didn't really have good syntax for quoting, so nearly all translations lost that. 1 Corinthians is full of these, including the context surrounding the oft-quoted 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; the whole chapter (really, the whole letter) consists of him calling out the Corinthian church for judging others for ostensible sins despite themselves being sinners by their own standards - a classic invocation of Matthew 7:5.
> the age-old dichotomy between the fire-and-brimstone Old Testament God vs the turn-the-other-cheek New Testament teachings
There are heterodox Christian sects who believe the Old Testament God and the New Testament God are two completely different entities. In some cases, with the Old Testament God having polar opposite morality. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Beliefs
> There's a lot of violence in the Bible, just as there in in the world today.
You make it sound like there's no causal link here. But a lot of the violence and bigotry in the world today is being explicitly propped up by religious texts. Many people crave certainty and a black-and-white moral fundamentalism, and there are sizable passages of the Bible that cater directly to that.
My point is that there's a difference between "the Bible doesn't support it" and saying, "Hey, if you take it in its entirety, and throw out the problematic bits, and apply a Gaussian filter, and average it all out, well... then it no longer supports it in spirit..."
So, again, going back to your original post:
> There’s a lot that comes from people who claim to be Christian that’s not supported by the Bible at all. It’s just something they were told and repeated.
That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of it IS literally supported by the Bible, if one doesn't do that complicated Gaussian blur beforehand to paper over the problematic parts.
Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible". Correct me if I'm wrong in that of course, but that is how what you wrote reads to me.
As causal links go, what causes are you suggesting? I don't want to attempt to put words in your mouth here, but your references are too abstract to discuss so far.
I will touch on this though:
> You make it sound like there's no causal link here. But a lot of the violence and bigotry in the world today is being explicitly propped up by religious texts. Many people crave certainty and a black-and-white moral fundamentalism, and there are sizable passages of the Bible that cater directly to that.
Violence and bigotry is a part of human nature. There's plenty of it that isn't propped up by religious texts at all that's most based in raw tribalism.
Sure, there are people who attempt to claim that their views are Biblically based...but they simply aren't. It makes people feel like they have something to hide behind. At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.
> Your explanation seems to be that if something "exists in the Bible" it is "supported by the Bible"
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I guess we're arguing semantics in this case. If something exists as a literal passage in the Bible, then someone can use that to support their views on the matter.
> At least not if a person is going to attempt any level of logical consistency. Most likely a single verse or passage was selected and then used as some sort of justification.
I think this hits the nail on the head: the Bible, taken literally, is logically inconsistent, and requires subjective synthesis in order to draw the useful moral messages from the allegorical stone.
But why not just denounce the problematic parts as problematic?
I did read the Bible myself, which was one of the things that led to my final break with organized Christianity. It was a very useful exercise, and one that led me to see a huge contradiction between the ministry of Jesus--which was very critical of power and legalism over humanitarianism--and the reality of hundreds of years and dozens of variations of organized Christianity.
That caused me to question why I should consider the Bible as any more special than anyone else's religious book. From my perspective, it hasn't led to the creation of an exemplary Christian community at global scale. Rather, it has created a bunch of bickering, expansionist sects that are self-assured in their own righteousness of thought. My Christian upbringing gave me a humanitarian foundation, but it's largely secular influences that have pushed me beyond the points in which peoples' biblical interpretations come into conflict with humanitarian goals.
But the thing is, as the Catholics recognize, the Bible didn't come to us as an monolithic whole. Its composition has changed over the centuries as books have fallen in and out of favor. Much of this is part of Catholic history, which is a big part of why they don't prioritize it over the leadership of the episcopate. They see the apostolic succession as the place where spiritual authority and orthodox practice derive from.
And then I became really interested in the origins of the Abrahamic religions. The podcast History In The Bible (https://www.historyinthebible.com/) and the book In The Shadow of the Sword (https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0...) have been really fascinating in understanding secular theories of how these religions arose from their historical contexts. Secular historians argue that the core of these religions existed in largely orally transmitted forms, until they were adopted as state ideology in multiethnic polities (first the Kingdom of Judah, then the Roman Empire, then the Caliphate). Or in the case of Rabbinical Judaism, a way to knit together a people dispersed between empires, who had had their old religion decapitated with the destruction of the Second Temple. (I hope I have represented these theories in a way that is not offensive to adherents of these religions.)
Today, I'm intrigued by Christian history and, to some extent, Christian thought, but I don't feel any particular need to believe in Christian theology. I'm not exactly an atheist. More like an agnostic theist.
> But the thing is, as the Catholics recognize, the Bible didn't come to us as an monolithic whole. Its composition has changed over the centuries as books have fallen in and out of favor.
Can you give examples of books added and removed from the Bible that Catholics would recognize, after it was formalized? This is a very strange claim to me.
The agreed upon Bible wasn't formalized for centuries after the books themselves were finalized. And denominations, to this day, disagree about which books are canonical.
Also, almost every Bible is a translation of source material in Greek or Aramaic into the reader's language. Over time, the manuscripts used for translations has changed, as manuscripts have been discovered and compared, which has meaningfully changed the content of editions over time. The best contemporary editions have copious footnotes on how the source material was reconciled.
The podcast History in the Bible is also a very interesting secularist exploration of the origins of the Biblical books and the process by which the canon (or really canons) emerged: https://www.historyinthebible.com/
Maybe I misread what you were saying. I was asking specifically about the Catholic Bible. Naturally many denominations post-Reformation are going to disagree, and even the Eastern Orthodox don't agree.
But you seem to be lumping them all into the same group, when they are in fact very different. Is there any specific group/denomination you know of that has added or removed a book after declaring what they deem to be the "true" Bible?
The biggest example would be the Apocrypha, which is accepted as canon by Catholics (and most Orthodox churches?) while it's usually (but not always) rejected by a lot of Protestants.
>The only filter anyone has for this stuff is to actually read the Bible to know what is in there. Otherwise you’ll have no basis for questioning the weird things that people tell you.
True, but this is also how fundamentalism/evangelacism/etc came about. You have to choose what to believe regardless of how you read it.
Many Americans believe the earth is 6000 years old, which they derived from the bible.
Cross references like that article are sort of the basis for a lot of what I'm talking about.
You're citing it as an examination of using the scientific method on religious, but it's making religious claims that don't exist with metrics that it's made up. To but it mildly, nothing in this article holds water.
Simple points: The article discusses belief in free will while using the basis of it to cite societal outcomes from hard work creating wealth or success. This is a regular topic, but it has no basis at all in Christianity. I certainly can't speak for all religions.
Free will: You are responsible for making your own choices and decisions.
Reality: Your circumstances will sometimes force you to make choices that you don't want to make to survive.
If you read the Bible, you will find pretty quickly that it repeatedly reinforces contentment, humility, charity, love and above all else: faith. It does not equate any of these with material wealth aside from the prosperity of Israel itself.
Every person has the free will to be thankful for what they have. They have the free will to have faith in God. They have the free will to love their neighbors and to be kind. They have the free will to give of themselves, whether it be their time and skills or their money.
Reading the Bible is eye opening specifically because you get beaten over the head with themes that are discussed over and over, through centuries while your eyes are also opened to topics that are barely mentioned at all yet amplified in culture to attempt to make a point.
Free will is ultimately a big part of the discussion of what people often call God's plan. It's where questions like "why do bad things happen to good people?" come from...because the Bible never says bad things aren't going to happen. There's also never a point where it describes God as some type of puppet master who is in constant control of every detail that happens in the world.
What you do see, is God periodically intervening. If you read, you'll eventually notice a pattern to the circumstances where God intervenes.
That revelation is best left for people to discover themselves.
> Yet copious studies from science, economics, mathematics, and theology seem to point by consilience, to the impossibility of free will.
I am not sure you went through all the references (links), the evidence collected is substantial - the article itself is too short to explain them all.
Over the last few years I have begun to describe myself as "religious but not spiritual" because it seems that religion actually offers a path forward and some principles to live by along with community, whereas spirituality is just a wishy-washy term that means basically nothing.
Obviously some religious people are very bad, but, the religious people who are good do far more for the world than really anyone else. There was a period of a couple hundred years (1750 - 1950?) in which almost every hospital in the world was founded and run by Christian missionaries.
Billions of people are spiritual, but not religious. It's not like a "fake" thing. In fact, the Abrahamic religions have been fairly unique in their claim to universal dogma (i.e. orthodoxy) since at least Second Temple Judaism. The Jews of the Hellenistic and Roman periods were seen as peculiar for their rigid monotheism, practices demanded of the entire community, and hostile internal sectarianism.
Many of us in Western societies, dominated by Abrahamic monotheistic thought, don't see that there are other paradigms of being religious or spiritual that have served other cultures for millenia.
I'm not disagreeing with anything in your comment, but I did want to stress that @jononomo's comment was about being "religious but not spiritual" and yours was largely about being "spiritual but not religious".
As you point out, being "spiritual but not religious" is a pretty common thing and has been for thousands of years.
But I think this is the first time I've heard someone flip that phrase around to pithily describe an approach/perspective/whatever that I've noticed being mentioned more and more over the past ~5 years: that some structures, community, moral frameworks, practices, etc. frequently associated with organized religion have intrinsic value even when separated from the spiritual justifications/motivations that usually underpin them in those organized religions.
Taking things a step further: To use an example from your comment, @jononomo could be (I'm not claiming they are) saying that the concept of "practices demanded of the entire community" (something you named as something the "religious" Jews did that was peculiar to the "spiritual but not religious" Romans) is something that could benefit modern communities - maybe by bringing them together, helping coordinate collective action problems, whatever. And the justification for this would NOT be a spiritual reason, but rather for the very corporeal reason of improving human communities (ergo, "religious but not spiritual", if you like).
I think that us-vs-them mindset you're describing is not a distinctive feature of religion, but really of a human nature. Anywhere people are organizing in groups us-vs-them mindset can form. It doesn't matter, if it's a football team, a chees club, a business, a nation or just a group of music fans... It can literally appear anywhere. Organized religion is no exception.
As someone who was also raised deeply religious but has since abandoned the belief, I echo your feeling that there are very valuable ego disillusion and ethics lessons that need to be extracted from the dogma of religion.
It's to the point where I'm sometimes shocked by the extreme ego and lack of moral framework in some of my friends and peers who were raised purely secular.
I also grew up in a very strict Muslim household and this is very close to where I see religion’s place in the future of my (potential) family. A couple of questions that have been in my mind, that id like to ask.
How do you choose which parts to share with your kids and which ones to omit?
Have you found a community that your family can use to replace the church? For me I’d think they would be people from my back home, as a visible minority that’s quite easy but I do feel that if you don’t follow the religion entirely, you’d get judged and ostracized.
My wife's family is also Christian (but Catholic, in comparison to my Baptist family) and so my kids get incidental exposure to Christian ideas. But I don't tell them that the ideas are true. I kind of hope they see them like all of the other stories they know: as stories, with useful ideas.
I try to as much as possible demonstrate humanitarianism in how I treat them and others. I try to teach them self-reflection and gratitude, which I think are some of the most important aspects of prayer. I also try to give them perspective on differentials in privilege. But this is all a lot to try to create and teach independently.
We have a lot of friends and relatives we see often, but I wouldn't say we have anything quite like what you get with a church. I've considered trying out a Unitarian Universalist church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism). But there's not one that's close enough to me to motivate me to make it part of my routine.
In theory, I like the mindset of unitarian universalism and would like to be part of a community based on the their principles, however, but these basically do not exist in Europe in the wild.
That's a false dichotomy, because nonreligious people find some other ways to create an "us vs them" mindset. We see it all the time.
It's also a fallacy to group all religions under one banner and claim that they all say the same. Even among what you call "organized religion", while there is some overlap between say Islam and Judaism/Christianity, once you start looking at things deeper, you'll see how Islam comes out different, and as a Muslim, I'd say on top.
Totally agree that nonreligious people can be just as factional. But I see organized religion as a catalyst of sorts for factionalism and objectification of outsiders. It's not the only such catalyst.
I'm always interested in learning more about the history and spirituality of different religions, but I believe I'm permanently over thinking that anyone has the best or most correct religion.
Like many people, I draw a distinction between religion (read: organized religion) and spirituality. From what I can see, religion can have the effect of hardening the ego, by creating an us-vs-them mindset. As an American, I see this as perhaps the fundamental dynamic driving our country at a national level, both in domestic politics and foreign policy.
On a personal level, I was raised in a very religious household. In our particular fundamentalist Baptist church, there were strains of ego minimization, in the sense of subordinating the individual to the identity and outlook of the group. But within that identity, I saw ego maximization, in the sense of the feelings of superiority of our creed.
As I became alienated from organized Christianity and its dogma, I've found that I am thankful for many of the ego minimizing aspects. And now, as a parent, I'm interested in the ways in which I can raise my children to have these benefits, without all the harms I experienced and see from organized religion.
Incidentally, I just read all of the books from Arbinger Institute: Leadership and Self-Deception, The Anatomy of Peace, and The Outward Mindset. The Arbinger Institute was founded by Latter-Day Saints folks, and while I definitely register the vibes of Christian thought, they are fundamentally secular books, devoid of dogma. I do think it's very possible to draw from the more positive, ego-dissolving parts of religious spirituality and teaching, while rejecting the divisive parts.
Completely aside from the ego conversation, another thing I have noticed about raising kids outside of a church is that my family lacks the same community that the Baptist church my household growing up attended. I think this is one of the major functions of organized religion. Provided you can remain in good standing with the church, you get a community, which serves all sorts of useful functions. Outside of a church, you have to manually find this, through friendships and other organizations. But there's big replacement cost to everything a church community gives you "batteries included". I'm very pro secular society, but I don't think we've come up with great answers to this problem, leading to potentially catastrophic levels of social fragmentation and susceptibility to cult-like online movements.