In my previous post entitled “Spiritual Anti-Religionism” I drew a distinction between being religion and spirituality. This was something that until now I had never though of as separate things. This recent realization has sparked a large amount of interest in me to explore the concept of spirituality, as it is no longer what I thought it to be. The main question I have is related to the first reading we did for class, “Why do we Believe.” This article attempts to give a scientific explanation for why religion exists today. The primary arguments were that religion promoted group selection, and was therefore an evolutionarily stable strategy. This makes sense, but when we try to apply the same reason to why humans are spiritual it doesn’t work.
The problem is that spirituality alone does not imply group identity, or promote coherent society. As a person who thinks very scientifically, I think that fact that humans are intrinsically spiritual beings can be explained through natural selection. The following paragraphs are some theories that could explain why we are the way we are.
One possible reason is sort of implied, but not explicitly stated in “Why do we Believe.” This would be that spirituality is an emotional experience. I have discussed in a few previous posts the power of human emotion. Perhaps then spirituality developed to provide the emotional backing that makes religion so effective at being the big umbrella. This is the only real scientific explanation I can come up with.
There is, however, another non-scientific explanation. I have not written much in my blog posts about religious alternatives, but they must be taken in to account to achieve a thorough analysis. The other explanation is that the existence of spirituality in humans is divinely inspired. One cannot disprove the possibility that God exists and that either by instantaneous creation or by inspired evolution humans are intrinsically spiritual.
Overall, spirituality is one of the most important components of religion. Until recently I did not even distinguish the two as being different. I now realize they are different in that spirituality does not accomplish identity or cohesion by itself. Spirituality is merely a component of religion.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Response to Tammi
I just read Tammi's post on abstract art. In this post she expressed a frustration in not being able to find religion in a particular piece of art, continuing on to look at the physical properties of the painting and trying to connect them to religion. Looking for religion in the art itself is very interesting, but in after reading the articles I have approached the abstract art in a totally different way. For me it is not the physical painting where I see religion, but the context in which it was painted. Most of the people who are viewing this work have probably not read up before hand, but In a way the historical context behind the painting is a huge part of the art itself.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Spiritual Anti-Religionism
In the secular world, many are quick to point out the negative effects religion has had in human history, and in fact there have been quite a few. As one might expect secular literature has for the majority focused on the problems of a non-spiritual nature. Religion has been blamed for wars and poverty and hunger, but these are all things that do not actually have anything to do with the individual religious experience. As we discussed in class, Wallace Stevens was a secular writer who points out negative effects of religion, but he does not focus on what I would call secular issues. Wallace Steven’s writing objects to religion from a spiritual perspective.
We can see this clearly in two of Stevens’ poems, “Sunday Morning” and “On the Road Home.” My interpretation of these poems leads me to believe that Stevens is a transcendentalist. He implies that true spirituality is only achieved through embracing the natural world, and appreciating its beauty and symmetry.
“Shall she not find comforts in the sun,
In pungent fruit and bright, green wings, or else
In and balm or beauty of the earth,
Things to be cherished like the thought of heaven?”
Wallace Stevens, “Sunday Morning”, (Stanza 2 lines 5 - 8)
This passage is an excellent summary of what I find to be Stevens’ main point. He is suggesting that the natural world is just as praise worthy as any ideological concept of paradise or heaven (a concept normally associated with organized religion). I think that in the rest of his poem he implies that spending time thinking about heaven is a waste because it detracts from ones time to connect with nature.
We see a similar objection to religion in “On the Road Home.” In this poem Stevens focuses on the concept of ‘truth’ from a very philosophical perspective. The speakers in the poem are questioning the existence of truth. Many world religions make claims about truth, and Stevens addresses this issue.
“’The idols have seen lots of poverty,
Snakes and gold and lice,
But not the truth’;”
Wallace Stevens, “On the Road Home”, (Stanza 5 lines 2 – 4)
The placement of the comma after the word poverty leads me to believe that Stevens is labeling snakes and gold and lice all as forms of poverty. Gold is poverty? I’m not sure, but I think this might be a shot at the role materialism has played in religion. While a clever trick, this is not what I find most interesting in this passage. The real statement is Stevens’ proclamation that religion has not achieved truth—a statement that in my opinion is attacking the spiritual component of organized religion. Steven follows this with a passage about nature, and implies spirituality with contrasting tone.
“It was at that time, that the silence was largest
And longest, the night was roundest,
The fragrance of autumn was warmest,
Closest and strongest.”
(Stanza 6 lines 1 – 4)
I would label the poetry of Wallace Stevens as secular because it lacks a cohesive element that brings people together. Like a lot of other secular literature, Stevens’ poetry raises objections to religion, but it is unique in that his complaints are with spiritual issues. It is a refreshing change from other religious critics such as Sam Harris who just complain without acknowledging the existence of individual spirituality.
We can see this clearly in two of Stevens’ poems, “Sunday Morning” and “On the Road Home.” My interpretation of these poems leads me to believe that Stevens is a transcendentalist. He implies that true spirituality is only achieved through embracing the natural world, and appreciating its beauty and symmetry.
“Shall she not find comforts in the sun,
In pungent fruit and bright, green wings, or else
In and balm or beauty of the earth,
Things to be cherished like the thought of heaven?”
Wallace Stevens, “Sunday Morning”, (Stanza 2 lines 5 - 8)
This passage is an excellent summary of what I find to be Stevens’ main point. He is suggesting that the natural world is just as praise worthy as any ideological concept of paradise or heaven (a concept normally associated with organized religion). I think that in the rest of his poem he implies that spending time thinking about heaven is a waste because it detracts from ones time to connect with nature.
We see a similar objection to religion in “On the Road Home.” In this poem Stevens focuses on the concept of ‘truth’ from a very philosophical perspective. The speakers in the poem are questioning the existence of truth. Many world religions make claims about truth, and Stevens addresses this issue.
“’The idols have seen lots of poverty,
Snakes and gold and lice,
But not the truth’;”
Wallace Stevens, “On the Road Home”, (Stanza 5 lines 2 – 4)
The placement of the comma after the word poverty leads me to believe that Stevens is labeling snakes and gold and lice all as forms of poverty. Gold is poverty? I’m not sure, but I think this might be a shot at the role materialism has played in religion. While a clever trick, this is not what I find most interesting in this passage. The real statement is Stevens’ proclamation that religion has not achieved truth—a statement that in my opinion is attacking the spiritual component of organized religion. Steven follows this with a passage about nature, and implies spirituality with contrasting tone.
“It was at that time, that the silence was largest
And longest, the night was roundest,
The fragrance of autumn was warmest,
Closest and strongest.”
(Stanza 6 lines 1 – 4)
I would label the poetry of Wallace Stevens as secular because it lacks a cohesive element that brings people together. Like a lot of other secular literature, Stevens’ poetry raises objections to religion, but it is unique in that his complaints are with spiritual issues. It is a refreshing change from other religious critics such as Sam Harris who just complain without acknowledging the existence of individual spirituality.
Red and God
I have seen a lot of posts by other classmates that suggest that the old man in the movie Red represents God. While this is definitly an interesting idea, I disagree. I think a lot of people may be mislead by the fact that we watched the movie for religious studies. I admit that there are a lot of strange coincidences that occur in the movie that suggest that he is in some way supernatural, but I do not think this is grounds for assuming he is God.
When Valentine and the old man meet for the first time there is huge contrast in their personalities. The old man does his spooky prediction thing, and Valentine is thouroghly disgusted, confused, and intrigued. If this were the only scene that involved the old man, I might agree with the idea that he is in fact God--a strange old man that predicts the future and seems to provide philosophical insight into Valentine's life. However, as the movie progresses we see the old man more, and begin to see his character develope. He changes from being a mysterious hermit to a complex and influential character who reveals his emotions, regrets, and hopes.
The change in the character of the old man is also almost mirrored by Valentine. She starts out as this naive model, obsessed with her lover, but morphs to become more like the old man was in the beginning of the movie. I think this is shown in the scene at the model runway when Valentine predicts what happened to the old man in his previous life as a judge. This is what made the play come full circle for me becuase in a way the roles of Valentine and the old man had been reversed. If one is to make the argument that the old man represents God, based on his predictive powers in the beginning of the film, then Valentine must also be accepted as representing God. I don't, however, think this was the point of the movie.
When Valentine and the old man meet for the first time there is huge contrast in their personalities. The old man does his spooky prediction thing, and Valentine is thouroghly disgusted, confused, and intrigued. If this were the only scene that involved the old man, I might agree with the idea that he is in fact God--a strange old man that predicts the future and seems to provide philosophical insight into Valentine's life. However, as the movie progresses we see the old man more, and begin to see his character develope. He changes from being a mysterious hermit to a complex and influential character who reveals his emotions, regrets, and hopes.
The change in the character of the old man is also almost mirrored by Valentine. She starts out as this naive model, obsessed with her lover, but morphs to become more like the old man was in the beginning of the movie. I think this is shown in the scene at the model runway when Valentine predicts what happened to the old man in his previous life as a judge. This is what made the play come full circle for me becuase in a way the roles of Valentine and the old man had been reversed. If one is to make the argument that the old man represents God, based on his predictive powers in the beginning of the film, then Valentine must also be accepted as representing God. I don't, however, think this was the point of the movie.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Response to Imtiaz
I read Imtiaz's post The Ultimate Framework of Religion. In this post he says "The most fundamental difference between religion and science is the capacity for allegorical interpretation. It is very difficult to interpret scientific texts allegorically whereas most of the literature in religious texts has an allegorical meaning attached to it." For the most part I agree with this. However, I would like to point out that there is still allegory in Science, and especially in modern physics.
We understand the world as it is in terms of classical principles, but when we move into the world of the very small these fundamental laws break down. We can see this through experinment. We are thus forced to use allegory to explain theories for how things exist in the quantum world because we cannot observe them directly. Science does not use allegory often, but many times it is a useful tool in understanding those things that are beyond our direct human observation.
We understand the world as it is in terms of classical principles, but when we move into the world of the very small these fundamental laws break down. We can see this through experinment. We are thus forced to use allegory to explain theories for how things exist in the quantum world because we cannot observe them directly. Science does not use allegory often, but many times it is a useful tool in understanding those things that are beyond our direct human observation.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Quakers and Ferromagnetism
On Friday we talked a little about quaker quarter meetings. The effect that these meetings have on their participants reminded me of concept we just covered in Physics 230, Electricity and Magnetism--Ferromagnetism.
There are a few different types of magnetism, but ferromagnetism is the one most people are familiar with. Refrigerator magnets or magnets on executive toy things are almost always ferromagnets. Ferromagnets are actually just elements such as iron or compounds that exhibit the property of retaining their magnetic history. This means that when a magnetic field is applied to the object, the inividual molecules will all allign to produce a net magnet field in a common direction. When the external magnetic field is removed the molecules in the material remain alligned and continue to produce a magnetic field. You might have a piece of iron whose molecules are all alligned differently with respect to each other, but when an external magnetic field is turned on, they will all line up together. Over time the molecules will become unaligned due to other external phenomenon, but as soon as that magnetic field is reapplied they will fall right back into line.
One can make a connection between ferromagnetism and quaker quarter meetings by equating individuals in a meeting to individual molecules in a material. As individuals quakers will think independantly of their religious community, but in quarter meetings, individuals move towards having similar trains of thought. It is like a bunch of arrows pointing in different directions, but when the meeting starts they all slowly begin to point in the same direction, similar to molecules alligning in a magnetic field. Also, immediately after the meeting one can expect individual quakers to continue to think similarly just as a ferromagnet will mainain its properties a while after it has been alligned. And just as quakers need consistand and frequent meetings to maintain a similar direction, so do ferromagnets. Although I will add that the time scales for quakers and ferromagnets are much different.
There are a few different types of magnetism, but ferromagnetism is the one most people are familiar with. Refrigerator magnets or magnets on executive toy things are almost always ferromagnets. Ferromagnets are actually just elements such as iron or compounds that exhibit the property of retaining their magnetic history. This means that when a magnetic field is applied to the object, the inividual molecules will all allign to produce a net magnet field in a common direction. When the external magnetic field is removed the molecules in the material remain alligned and continue to produce a magnetic field. You might have a piece of iron whose molecules are all alligned differently with respect to each other, but when an external magnetic field is turned on, they will all line up together. Over time the molecules will become unaligned due to other external phenomenon, but as soon as that magnetic field is reapplied they will fall right back into line.
One can make a connection between ferromagnetism and quaker quarter meetings by equating individuals in a meeting to individual molecules in a material. As individuals quakers will think independantly of their religious community, but in quarter meetings, individuals move towards having similar trains of thought. It is like a bunch of arrows pointing in different directions, but when the meeting starts they all slowly begin to point in the same direction, similar to molecules alligning in a magnetic field. Also, immediately after the meeting one can expect individual quakers to continue to think similarly just as a ferromagnet will mainain its properties a while after it has been alligned. And just as quakers need consistand and frequent meetings to maintain a similar direction, so do ferromagnets. Although I will add that the time scales for quakers and ferromagnets are much different.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Social Growth along with Religion and Propaganda -- A response to Christopher Villa
I recently read Christopher’s post entitled “Does Religion Retard or Promote Social Growth?” It is a well-written post that begins to address the very beginnings of the issue and explains that religion in fact does both. I would like to focus in this blog on how religion promotes social growth by expanding upon Christopher’s argument and drawing parallels to another large force in social change—propaganda.
In his blog Christopher states that “religion contributes to the formation of social groups by providing common guidelines/norms the members can unite under. These norms, which in many cases have underlying moral premises, contribute to the formation of common ways of life.” This is a good summary, and it explains how a group of people can have similar mental framework allowing them to agree on the need for change. I think it is important to highlight the fact that social change is promoted as a result of similar ideals and beliefs. When people generally believe the same things, they are more likely to agree with each other on societal change, because they can relate it to their beliefs.
A very interesting parallel to this concept is that of propaganda. Many times propaganda is used with negative connotation, as its power has been exploited to do evil in the past, but propaganda is most often used to maintain peace and order in society. The best personal example I have of this is the teaching of democratic ideals at a very young age. I was a student in the public school system of Appleton, and remember learning in elementary school about democracy and the freedom it provides for American citizens. In retrospect I realize that it was completely subjective education. Very little was ever taught about other governmental systems which instilled in me a strong belief in the fundamental principles of democracy. I can only imagine it had the same effect on my classmates as well. I have realized that this propaganda for democracy is essential to maintain a stable government. It aligns Americans’ beliefs in a way which promotes the stability of the government.
One can then see that effects of propaganda are similar to those of religion in that they align the beliefs of their audience. As Christopher suggested this is what inevitably leads to social change. I discussed in my previous blog “Evolution (both biological and religious) leads to Stronger Identity,” the power of mixing secular and religious mediums to control large masses of people. Parallels between religion and propaganda lead me to suggest that the same might be true for social change. Perhaps using secular propaganda techniques in combination with religion is the most powerful way to affect change in a society.
In his blog Christopher states that “religion contributes to the formation of social groups by providing common guidelines/norms the members can unite under. These norms, which in many cases have underlying moral premises, contribute to the formation of common ways of life.” This is a good summary, and it explains how a group of people can have similar mental framework allowing them to agree on the need for change. I think it is important to highlight the fact that social change is promoted as a result of similar ideals and beliefs. When people generally believe the same things, they are more likely to agree with each other on societal change, because they can relate it to their beliefs.
A very interesting parallel to this concept is that of propaganda. Many times propaganda is used with negative connotation, as its power has been exploited to do evil in the past, but propaganda is most often used to maintain peace and order in society. The best personal example I have of this is the teaching of democratic ideals at a very young age. I was a student in the public school system of Appleton, and remember learning in elementary school about democracy and the freedom it provides for American citizens. In retrospect I realize that it was completely subjective education. Very little was ever taught about other governmental systems which instilled in me a strong belief in the fundamental principles of democracy. I can only imagine it had the same effect on my classmates as well. I have realized that this propaganda for democracy is essential to maintain a stable government. It aligns Americans’ beliefs in a way which promotes the stability of the government.
One can then see that effects of propaganda are similar to those of religion in that they align the beliefs of their audience. As Christopher suggested this is what inevitably leads to social change. I discussed in my previous blog “Evolution (both biological and religious) leads to Stronger Identity,” the power of mixing secular and religious mediums to control large masses of people. Parallels between religion and propaganda lead me to suggest that the same might be true for social change. Perhaps using secular propaganda techniques in combination with religion is the most powerful way to affect change in a society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)