Yes, it might be nice if we lived in the counterfactual world where religion wasn’t the only way to get access to some beneficial life experiences. Perhaps in the future we will; people are always trying to start new religion-like things all the time, and maybe one of them will eventually stick and be appealing to people who have good reason not to be part of existing religions. Unfortunately today I don’t see other options. I don’t mean to blackmail anyone into religion, but if I am, it’s reality doing the blackmailing, not me. We simply lack systems other than religions that provide religions same benefits, and so the world simply won’t give you some of the good things religions offer if you don’t engage with one.
the only organizations in existence with the required heft to really pull this off are ones that inextricably require you to buy into both ethical and ontological and metaphysical beliefs to be considered a member of the community
Arguably, though, requiring members to buy in to some ethical, ontological, and metaphysical claims is load bearing, in that you can’t have a thing that offers the benefits of religion without these. For what it’s worth, rationality asks you to do roughly the same to be part of the rationalist community. The question is generally whether you agree or not with the common beliefs a group asks you to adopt to be a member.
We simply lack systems other than religions that provide religions same benefits
I am empathetic to this point, and I was thinking of this recently too. However, I’ve reached a conclusion that the benefit of having values relatively independent of religion (or even similar communities) is to be able to change and develop your values as you experience more things in life. It feels to me that values in religion may be relatively fixed (I could be wrong).
The sad/hard thing is that the process of changing values or beliefs might be a painful experience, while fixed values could bring more stability. But embracing changes in values could be much more rewarding and beneficial in the long run. It does require a person to be very “strong” though, to challenge themselves on some fundamental levels.
requiring members to buy in to some ethical, ontological, and metaphysical claims is load bearing
This is sad, and I wonder what we can do to make it better.
The sad/hard thing is that the process of changing values or beliefs might be a painful experience, while fixed values could bring more piece. But embracing changes in values could be much more rewarding and beneficial in the long run. It does require a person to be very “strong” though, to challenge themselves on some fundamental levels.
Totally!
Some religions make this really hard. They have a large, firm set of beliefs they want you to explicitly believe.
Other religions make this easier. In them, you can basically believe whatever you want so long as you, say, still perform required rituals, or continue to commit to a small set of shared values that allow a lot of variation within them.
I think the latter kind offers some big advantages over the former, especially given that the world is changing quickly and some values need to shift to adapt to that changing world.
It’s the ontological part that bothers me; it’s one thing to have shared subjective beliefs of some kind, but “if you don’t believe this potentially falsifiable thing you’re not one of us” is just epistemological blackmail.
Yes, I agree, it’s usually bad when religions require that you believe specific, falsifiable claims to be part of them. Not all religions do, but many do, and the two most popular ones (Christianity and Islam) very much do. Sadly, requiring people to believe specific claims is probably why these religions spread so well: it makes it painful to leave the religion because everyone thinks you are doing something extremely dumb and possibly evil from their shared point of view.
For what it’s worth, this is one of the things I like about many forms of Buddhism, not just Zen. Aside form the Four Noble Truths there’s no creed or specific beliefs you’re expected to believe, and even then no one is actually checking that you really believe the Four Noble Truths (though if you don’t at least kind of believe them you’ll probably select yourself out). At many places all you have to do is show up and do it: sit meditation, participate in rituals, etc. As long as you believe you want to be part of a sangha (i.e. you want to select yourself into Buddhism) and you aren’t being a jerk, you can be part of a sangha.
I wonder if this is generally true or just the way Buddhism ends up manifesting in the west, where it’s mostly for the sake of educated people pursuing meditation and alternative spirituality.
Historically, Buddhism could well be very playing a similar role for social cohesion and political legitimacy as Christianity or Islam. Mahayana Buddhism has plenty of “saints” and their cults in the Bodhisattvas, Tibet was a theocratic monarchy, etc.
Very true. We’re in the process of creating Western Buddhism, and probably have another couple hundred years (if we didn’t have to think about AI) before it’s fully formed. You’re right that Eastern Buddhisms contain a lot more traditional religious expression that’s missing form the West, although I think part of why Zen in particular became popular is because it’s a strain of Buddhism that is especially amenable to post-Enlightenment European values (I occasionally make the analogy that Zen is roughly the Reformed sect of Buddhism (it feels in particular very Presbyterian to me), and it was arguably the Reform movement that laid last pieces of the necessary memetic groundwork for the European Enlightenment to happen).
Yes, it might be nice if we lived in the counterfactual world where religion wasn’t the only way to get access to some beneficial life experiences. Perhaps in the future we will; people are always trying to start new religion-like things all the time, and maybe one of them will eventually stick and be appealing to people who have good reason not to be part of existing religions. Unfortunately today I don’t see other options. I don’t mean to blackmail anyone into religion, but if I am, it’s reality doing the blackmailing, not me. We simply lack systems other than religions that provide religions same benefits, and so the world simply won’t give you some of the good things religions offer if you don’t engage with one.
Arguably, though, requiring members to buy in to some ethical, ontological, and metaphysical claims is load bearing, in that you can’t have a thing that offers the benefits of religion without these. For what it’s worth, rationality asks you to do roughly the same to be part of the rationalist community. The question is generally whether you agree or not with the common beliefs a group asks you to adopt to be a member.
I am empathetic to this point, and I was thinking of this recently too. However, I’ve reached a conclusion that the benefit of having values relatively independent of religion (or even similar communities) is to be able to change and develop your values as you experience more things in life. It feels to me that values in religion may be relatively fixed (I could be wrong).
The sad/hard thing is that the process of changing values or beliefs might be a painful experience, while fixed values could bring more stability. But embracing changes in values could be much more rewarding and beneficial in the long run. It does require a person to be very “strong” though, to challenge themselves on some fundamental levels.
This is sad, and I wonder what we can do to make it better.
Totally!
Some religions make this really hard. They have a large, firm set of beliefs they want you to explicitly believe.
Other religions make this easier. In them, you can basically believe whatever you want so long as you, say, still perform required rituals, or continue to commit to a small set of shared values that allow a lot of variation within them.
I think the latter kind offers some big advantages over the former, especially given that the world is changing quickly and some values need to shift to adapt to that changing world.
It’s the ontological part that bothers me; it’s one thing to have shared subjective beliefs of some kind, but “if you don’t believe this potentially falsifiable thing you’re not one of us” is just epistemological blackmail.
Yes, I agree, it’s usually bad when religions require that you believe specific, falsifiable claims to be part of them. Not all religions do, but many do, and the two most popular ones (Christianity and Islam) very much do. Sadly, requiring people to believe specific claims is probably why these religions spread so well: it makes it painful to leave the religion because everyone thinks you are doing something extremely dumb and possibly evil from their shared point of view.
For what it’s worth, this is one of the things I like about many forms of Buddhism, not just Zen. Aside form the Four Noble Truths there’s no creed or specific beliefs you’re expected to believe, and even then no one is actually checking that you really believe the Four Noble Truths (though if you don’t at least kind of believe them you’ll probably select yourself out). At many places all you have to do is show up and do it: sit meditation, participate in rituals, etc. As long as you believe you want to be part of a sangha (i.e. you want to select yourself into Buddhism) and you aren’t being a jerk, you can be part of a sangha.
I wonder if this is generally true or just the way Buddhism ends up manifesting in the west, where it’s mostly for the sake of educated people pursuing meditation and alternative spirituality.
Historically, Buddhism could well be very playing a similar role for social cohesion and political legitimacy as Christianity or Islam. Mahayana Buddhism has plenty of “saints” and their cults in the Bodhisattvas, Tibet was a theocratic monarchy, etc.
Very true. We’re in the process of creating Western Buddhism, and probably have another couple hundred years (if we didn’t have to think about AI) before it’s fully formed. You’re right that Eastern Buddhisms contain a lot more traditional religious expression that’s missing form the West, although I think part of why Zen in particular became popular is because it’s a strain of Buddhism that is especially amenable to post-Enlightenment European values (I occasionally make the analogy that Zen is roughly the Reformed sect of Buddhism (it feels in particular very Presbyterian to me), and it was arguably the Reform movement that laid last pieces of the necessary memetic groundwork for the European Enlightenment to happen).