Habitual Religion (aka The Habit of Religion)

[cleve]

How would you define a habit? What elements constitute a habit?
How would you define religion?
What causes religion to occur habitually - how does this happen, both negatively and positively?
What makes religion important to you? Is it merely something to be curious about? Is it more than curiosity?
Do you consider yourself to think honestly? Is it possible to think about God - negatively or positively - all the time, in group settings, without getting labeled "religious"? Is it possible to have a religion in a negative sense as well as a positive sense? If you never think about there being a God - in either a negative or a positive sense - ever, let alone in group settings, do you consider yourself as just not having a religion/religious spirit, or do you think of this as merely being your habit? If nothing in the field of religion is important to you, do you consider yourself as not being religious?
How do you consider yourself as having "escaped" religion or "worked through" religion? Or do you just think of yourself as having "escaped" religion?
If you say, "Thinking negatively about God is not really negative, but rather something different," what do you mean by this? How would you compare it to: having or weighing tangible evidence? Operating on the premise of the above quoted statement, would you consider positive thinking about God not to be really positve, but rather something different? Do you think spiritual evidence should be measured tangibly, or can it be measured by comparing Scripture with Scripture and righty dividing it? As a result of our small-mindedness, can the weighing of spiritual relationships be better determined by making our spiritual world small or our physical world large? Would you categorize such thinking as evidence, or a wilful distortion of possibilities, or maybe a mere attempt to turn blindness into reality? Or would you just consider it to be a simple choice, like showing preference between chocolate and vanilla ice cream?

[mitchellmckain]

How would you define a habit? What elements constitute a habit?

A habit is a pattern of behavior that we do repeatedly and they include not only physical actions but ways of thinking. There are good habits which expand our awareness and choices and there are bad habits which diminish our awareness and choices.

How would you define religion?

It is well known that "religion" is difficult to define because its types vary so greatly. Furthermore there is a personal definition by the role it plays in an individual's life and a social defintion by the role it plays in society. Also the meaning of the word varies by context of what you are contrasting it with because without such a contrast it can be rather all-encompassing. For example, what the word means when contrasted with "science" is quite different than when we talk about the religion of a person (or society) that is particularly devoted to science.

A person's religion encompasses his world view and values. It describes what he is devoted to and how he interacts with the world, to derive meaning from his experiences and give meaning to his own actions. In society, religion describes social structures that are founded on particular ways in which some people view the world and value things.

What causes religion to occur habitually - how does this happen, both negatively and positively?

It is a natural and inevitable part of human functionality that we program ourselves by making choices how to live and think and thus establish the patterns of thought and action which we call habit. The question is whether these choices and habits make us more responsive to new information and thus more effective in living our lives or less so. So although religion is in some sense necessarily habitual, we would usually describe religion as habitual with the negative connotation that it has made people less responsive to new information and that it is getting in the way of living ones life effectively.

What makes religion important to you? Is it merely something to be curious about? Is it more than curiosity?

Unlike the above this question is assuming a definition of religion rather than asking it, because it seems to be contrasting religion to alternatives. In general and according to my definition religion is defined by everything that is important to you. With regards to curiousity I would say this is a measure that suggests a distinction between good versus bad religion and habits. Does the way in which you view the world and value things lead to the asking of more questions or does it silence questions by dismissing them as unimportant. Good religion and good habits of thought that expands ones awareness of the world would inspire the asking of more questions and attribute greater meaning and importance to questions rather than less. But good religion and good habits would also not limit their questions to mere idle curiosity but see them as things to act upon and make a part of the living of our lives for that is the ultimate measure of whether it has given them any meaning.

Do you consider yourself to think honestly?

How can one even measure this except to see where in ones hierarchy of values, honesty is found? In my case, it is right at the top, where from my upbringing as a child of two psychology graduates, honesty to oneself defines sanity. For when one starts lying to oneself one has started down the road of cutting the function of ones own mind off from reality.


Let me stop there for a response from cleve and ask him to reiterate other questions he has asked that he still thinks is relevant given the answers I have already given.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

As a soft atheist, religion keeps me thinking about what is right and wrong. Ironically, one of the reasons I am atheist is because I do that and cannot reconcile hell with my conscience. I've stopped worrying about being on the fence and just make myself at home there. After all, somebody could loudly say that they are a Christian and Christ could reply on the day that he 'did not know you.' Likewise, somebody could loudly say that they are atheist and Christ could reply 'you are one of mine.'

[cleve]

Do you consider yourself to think honestly?

How can one even measure this except to see where in ones hierarchy of values, honesty is found? In my case, it is right at the top, where from my upbringing as a child of two psychology graduates, honesty to oneself defines sanity. For when one starts lying to oneself one has started down the road of cutting the function of ones own mind off from reality.


Let me stop there for a response from cleve and ask him to reiterate other questions he has asked that he still thinks is relevant given the answers I have already given.

Mitch,
Your responses caused me to feel like I need a bunch of "selahs" - similar to the multiple parts of Psalms 119.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=AMP

Thanks for taking the time to sort out and respond to some of the questions. Your responses were very interesting and thought-provoking. Of all of the questions that you responded to, the one that intrigued me the most was your comments about honest thinking. Honesty does not seem to be something that we are automatically born with - instead, it's something to learn about throughout life and is given to us in similar measure to the extent that we desire it. If you wish to elaborate further, I would be especially interested in hearing from you as to how you learned to discern when people are lying to themselves. Having parents who are atheistic psychologists must have offered many learning experiences to you in this area. At the same time, did either - or both - of these parental preferences provide the motivation for your opting for teaching instead of psychology as a profession? What caused you to turn away from atheism and toward Christianity? How have you found education to help you in thinking more honestly? Or has it? Did you find your parents' education to help them to think more honestly? When it comes to learning to think and/or communicate more honestly, do you think higher education provided an adequate substitute for the Bible for them?

[cleve]

As a soft atheist, religion keeps me thinking about what is right and wrong. Ironically, one of the reasons I am atheist is because I do that and cannot reconcile hell with my conscience. '

Can anyone reconcile the unknown aspects about hell - completely? In my own opinion, because a lot has already been said in the Bible about hell, God can do whatever He wishes. So, If He wants to save the world, He will do so, one individual at the specific time determined by God. Or something like that.

[Keep The Reason]

As a soft atheist, religion keeps me thinking about what is right and wrong. Ironically, one of the reasons I am atheist is because I do that and cannot reconcile hell with my conscience. '

Can anyone reconcile the unknown aspects about hell - completely? In my own opinion, because a lot has already been said in the Bible about hell, God can do whatever He wishes. So, If He wants to save the world, He will do so, one individual at the specific time determined by God. Or something like that.

Sure. It's a fictional place, and doesn't actually exist.

How hard is that?

[mitchellmckain]

Honesty does not seem to be something that we are automatically born with - instead, it's something to learn about throughout life and is given to us in similar measure to the extent that we desire it.

I am not so sure about that. When it comes to morality in general this is true, for particularly when it comes to empathy and valuing the well being of others that is so essential to ethical behavior, this is something that does indeed have to be learned. But it seems to be that the far more widespread thought is that it is lying and deception which is learned rather than honesty, however much these may be things we learn very quickly and early in life.

I would be especially interested in hearing from you as to how you learned to discern when people are lying to themselves.

I would not say that is something that I have learned to any greater degree than the average person, if even that much. The comment I made was regarding ones own thinking and guarding against lying to oneself rather than knowing when other people are doing so.

Having parents who are atheistic psychologists must have offered many learning experiences to you in this area. At the same time, did either - or both - of these parental preferences provide the motivation for your opting for teaching instead of psychology as a profession?

Both of my parents were psychology majors at the university of Utah, but they became teachers after they graduated. My mother was a special ed teacher and then a resource teacher. My father taught history until he was blacklisted as a communist and then he went to work for the government in community action programs in Baltimore MD.

What caused you to turn away from atheism and toward Christianity?

I wouldn't exactly say that I "turned away from atheism". Rather Christianity is the end of a long path from the extreme liberalism in in which I was raised -- a path that included science (particularly physics, which is what I studied at university), philosophy (particularly existentialism and pragmatism), studies of far eastern religion, and the books of Scott Peck.

How have you found education to help you in thinking more honestly? Or has it? Did you find your parents' education to help them to think more honestly?

I can only say that my parents instilled in me this as extremely important and as far as I can tell this has been a fundamental part of the way that I think. But I don't know that anyone (except God) can really know how honest ones thinking is, except for the extremes that are found in mental illness, where self deception has reached the point where it noticeably affects ones ability to live ones life in an appropriate (socially acceptable) manner.

When it comes to learning to think and/or communicate more honestly, do you think higher education provided an adequate substitute for the Bible for them?

I am not sure that either higher education or the Bible play a significant role in this -- at least not automatically. I think it is a lesson that one can learn in the serious study and application of either and then pursue as a matter of self-discipline. But I think it is clear that neither a higher education nor a study of the Bible, in themselves alone, will guarantee that one obtains any great degree of self-honesty. I think it is something that counseling with a good psychiatrist will work on, which is not something that I have done. I also know all too well that there are many in that profession which are not good at all.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

I have a vague memory of a TV programme showing a Christian group visiting a Nazi death camp. They were saying things like ‘how can a human being do this to another human being?’ A thought occurred to me (and has stuck in my head since) – why does the act become moral when it is a god doing it to a human being? I don’t know; I don't think it does.

[mitchellmckain]

As a soft atheist, religion keeps me thinking about what is right and wrong. Ironically, one of the reasons I am atheist is because I do that and cannot reconcile hell with my conscience. '

That is a rather black and white reaction. There is certainly a use of "hell" as a sort of intellectual blackmail that is rather apalling, and one can easily reject that without deciding that God does not exist. To be sure the kind of big bad mafia boss "god" that goes with that kind of tactic is one that I no more believe in than you do. Whether such an entity exist or not, will not change my complete refusal to serve such an despicable being. But that does not address the question of whether there is a God that is worth believing in.

Can anyone reconcile the unknown aspects about hell - completely? In my own opinion, because a lot has already been said in the Bible about hell, God can do whatever He wishes. So, If He wants to save the world, He will do so, one individual at the specific time determined by God. Or something like that.

I believe in hell because I see it in the world, but that is a hell that is created by people as a result of their own bad habits and desires and not by God.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Mitch, you say your mother worked as a 'special ed teacher.' Is that similar to this side of the pond, teaching disabled kids/students?

Back to topic - It's ironic that you talk of a black and white reaction because I think that is true of Heaven/Hell! Most people seem to have of mixture of good and bad in them. What I think is really culpable is not so much bad habits, but deliberately, willingly and knowingly harming other people.

[Keep The Reason]

I have a vague memory of a TV programme showing a Christian group visiting a Nazi death camp. They were saying things like ‘how can a human being do this to another human being?’ A thought occurred to me (and has stuck in my head since) – why does the act become moral when it is a god doing it to a human being? I don’t know; I don't think it does.

It's done by defining others as "subhuman" or in some manner "lesser".

Simply put, there are ideologies that foster this belief that some are valuable, and others are not. There is no place for it in a Reasonist ideology-- I can make no rational or reasoned case to indicate one extant human being is worth more or less than any other (I can make a case that a blastocyst or zygote that is not yet a human being does not trump the needs of a fully born human being). Therefore, any such ideology is irrational and unsupportable by definition.

Christianity, on the other hand, does indicate that at some point, there are the "haves" (the saved) and the "have nots" (the condemned). This is not controversial at all; it is clearly stated.

Then comes the blame-- why are there haves and have nots? Well, because some people are "for god" and others are "not for god". And that means they make a choice due to something inherent about them. I've seen Christians argue that we non-believers don't believe because we are in rebellion-- many of them argue that here in this forum.

How difficult is it for humans to make the leap that "people god does not cherish are not to be cherished"? Sam Harris rightly pointed out that if you believe that someone is going to burn for eternity, what's the big deal burning them at the stake? One more day added to infinity is nothing at all.

I think it's demonstrable when you actively hold an ideology that someone's value is less than yours, you will find yourself acting in ways that puts such class-ism into effect. I see it across all ideologies that make the value argument, be they political, racial, social, financial, or religious. I think religion however makes the case based upon the scantyest of support (i.e., none), that such value is determined by unsupported things and creatures like gods, prophets, messiahs, sins, heavens and hells. Yes, other ideologies do it, but the theistic ones can't support their grounding for it at all.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Excellently argued, KTR! I should have been able to guess about 'lesser person'/dehumanisation.

[cleve]

KTR and Tim the Hermit,
Falsehoods that can be learned through religious habits are part of the phases/levels of duality and immaturity that we can experience during our lifetime here on earth. I think the human race needs to experience many dimensions of help, no matter how an individual might label and/or value that help. The scope of helpfulness can cover the whole gamut - from supportive to non-supportive and extremely critical, which merely reflects the duality that our lives go through.
So sure, KTR, keep up the good work at giving us practice sessions at discerning between good and evil.

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch, you say your mother worked as a 'special ed teacher.' Is that similar to this side of the pond, teaching disabled kids/students?

Yes. She taught in one school where the majority had downs syndrome. But later she taught as a resource teacher which is working in a regular school to help children that need a little extra help.

Back to topic - It's ironic that you talk of a black and white reaction because I think that is true of Heaven/Hell! Most people seem to have of mixture of good and bad in them.

That is true and so if heaven and hell really was about judging the worth of people at the time of death then such an either-or result would not make much sense. However that is directly contrary to what traditional Christianity teaches, which is not to say that you don't find such distortions. It is frankly that distortion which we see Isaiha, Jesus and Paul condemning it in the Bible and thus it well known by the name of "legalism". I think it is exactly what cleve is hinting at when he suggests that the phrase "habitual religion" can have a negative connotation.

Futhermore, when we are talking habits then there does tend to be a polarization with regards to how people change. Those with bad habits that diminish awareness and choices will strongly tend make more bad choices and adopt more bad habits, while those with good habits that expand their awareness and choices have much more opportunity to develop more good habits and make better choices. But ultimately what traditional Christianity teaches is that all the difference we see in people really don't amount to much and that in the end our bad habits will eventually drag us down and destroy us. Thus if we were really judged on our merits then all of us would be doomed. So the difference between heaven and hell is NOT about merit at all. It is about choice. The choice between life and death. To choose life is to be willing to do whatever it takes to shed the bad habits that destroy awareness and free will and I think that God is offering to help with that for those who want it. The other choice is resentment, indulgence, avoiding confrontation with ones bad habits and looking for the easy and comfortable way of getting by instead -- and thus to run from the challenge of life is to choose death.

If you say that this has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or an atheist -- WELL I couldn't agree with you more. It DOESN'T! I frankly think that is the whole point! If it is all about whether you believe some set of dogmas or not then that frankly isn't Christianity at all but legalism -- a salvation by works of the mind and mouth.

Frankly the vision of hell as the mafia god's torture chamber where he will punish those who refuse to lobotomize themselves to accept the absurd dogmas of legalized "christianity" just sounds silly to me. What I find far more apalling and worthy of fear is the degradation of character that I see implied by my own bad habits. You see while the legalists are preaching salvation from their own mafia boss God, I think that the Christianity of Jesus and the apostle Paul is preaching salvation from our real worst enemy which is not God but ourselves.

It seems that a lot of atheists hostile to Christianity only know the legalized distortions thinking that this is what Christianity is, largely because that is what the legalists have told them, and they are ironically selective in believng that while rejecting everything else.

What I think is really culpable is not so much bad habits, but deliberately, willingly and knowingly harming other people.

Yes. I define evil as the pursuit of ones desires at the expense of the well being of others. But the reasons that people do this are legion. It is a frequent conclusion of many psychiatrists that those they treat are not the end result of mental illness but the borderline case -- those who actually try to maintain a grasp on their humanity and either act out in a cry for help or have employed the only means they could find for coping. They use the term "designated patient" because too often they find the that real insanity can be found in those around them and their patient is in many ways the sanest of the lot.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

A very thought-provoking post, thanks Mitch. Cleve, I think I can better understand what you are getting at.