What role has religion played in shaping society?

[vimothy]

I wouldn't call myself a marxist, but I'd basically agree with that. The centre-left in America has taken on social issues because they know there is no prospect of any real change economically. Didn't the real earnings of the average American worker (adjusted for inflation) peak at around 1970? And they've been declining ever since.

Intersting: why is this, swears, could you expand a little? Do you think that the American left lacks ideas or is it simply the case that no economic change is possible or desired?

 

[ari]

Bollocks. People have been worshiping the sun and fire and trees and the Great Mother since long before 'social and economic factors' existed. Economies didn't exist in the Palaeolithic: religion did. Of course, it's a long way from that sort of primitive nature-worship to the great church institutions of the Middle Ages, but it was stil fulfilling the same basic need in people (a need I think many people in developed societies no longer feel).

Economic concepts may not have always played a role but social dynamics have always been a factor in one form or another.

 

[vimothy]

Economic concepts may not have always played a role but social dynamics have always been a factor in one form or another.

Economics (in the sense of managing scarce resources) has obviously been going on for a long time.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Economic concepts may not have always played a role but social dynamics have always been a factor in one form or another.

Sure, the social has influenced the religious and vice-versa: the basic monogamous family unit as the prototype for the Holy Family, and then the Holy Family used used as prototype for the ideal family (with authoritative Father, nurturing, subservient Mother etc.).

 

[Guybrush]

Intersting: why is this, swears, could you expand a little? Do you think that the American left lacks ideas or is it simply the case that no economic change is possible or desired?

The U.S. left should have its own thread really, but I agree with those who claim that the left should move their focus from social issues and start hammering economic ones: less gun control and more class. However, I do think many of them are trapped in the neoliberal mindset, too.

 

[vimothy]

The U.S. left should have its own thread really, but I agree with those who claim that the left should move their focus from social issues and start hammering economic ones: less gun control and more class. However, I do think many of them are trapped in the neoliberal mindset, too.

Yeah, but you don't really mean the neoliberal mindset, do you? Surely you mean the "neoliberal" mindset. I don't see any convergence between the Dems and the Mont Pelerin Society. I don't even see it between the Republicans and the Mont Pelerin Society. But then neo liberalism should partake of both left and right, whilst ultimately neither. Or something. [Sorry, rambling post - I've had some interesting discussions with academics recently who basically only ever use "neoliberal" as a bit of euphamistic rhetoric, unless they're using it as a straight up insult.]

 

[vimothy]

I wouldn't call myself a marxist, but I'd basically agree with that. The centre-left in America has taken on social issues because they know there is no prospect of any real change economically. Didn't the real earnings of the average American worker (adjusted for inflation) peak at around 1970? And they've been declining ever since.

They peaked in the 1970s. They pretty much stopped declining in '96 and are currenly rising (1.2 percent in the last year). Obviously though, a lot of bad things were happening to the American economy in the 1970s.

 

[ari]

Sure, the social has influenced the religious and vice-versa:

I think the social dynamic determines the religious not influences it.

You yourself said it; religion fulfills some basic need in people but it’s the environmental and social dynamics that create the need to begin with.

Hence my view that religion is a by-product rather than a driving force.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

A lot of things are wrong with this thread

You're post being the latest, depressing instance.

It would help considerably if you could state some examples to back up your above claim, rather than making banal, empty announcements.

'an imagined inner self' - lol...who are you to say that?

There's nothing funny about it; on the contrary, it is disturbingly shattering and painfully tragic in its implications: we don't have an "inner self" (there's a "self" all right, but it doesn't belong to us) - and stating this does not depend upon one's social identity nor upon pompous appeals to authority. Go read the literature.

when you say 'pre-Christian pagan cosmos' - where exactly and at what period of time are you basing this on?

Planet Earth. The Pre-Christian time ... [no, I'm not being facetious].

 

[IdleRich]

"You're post being the latest, depressing instance."

If you're going to talk down to someone you should probably get the basic spelling right.

 

[IdleRich]

"You yourself said it; religion fulfills some basic need in people but it’s the environmental and social dynamics that create the need to begin with."

Hang on a minute, you've added environmental factors instead of economics now - I don't think that's the same is it?
Anyway, even if there is some basic human need for a god which has been answered by inventing one it's still a worthwhile question to ask what have been the consequences of that invention isn't it?

 

[Mr. Tea]

...nor upon pompous appeals to authority. Go read the literature.

Ahahahaha!

Please tell me that was intentional! No-one can be this funny by accident, surely?

 

[Tactics]

well the down talking didn't take long lol

You're post being the latest, depressing instance.

It would help considerably if you could state some examples to back up your above claim, rather than making banal, empty announcements.



There's nothing funny about it; on the contrary, it is disturbingly shattering and painfully tragic in its implications: we don't have an "inner self" (there's a "self" all right, but it doesn't belong to us) - and stating this does not depend upon one's social identity nor upon pompous appeals to authority. Go read the literature.



Planet Earth. The Pre-Christian time ... [no, I'm not being facetious].

it was the like of linkin park right lets be honest...lol

to be barry I couldn't be bothered to quote and that...sorry it just didn't seem that important

*shrugs*

to be basic the reason I said who are you is...you can't make a statement like that. that's YOUR belief - that's definitely not an absolute fact and it's a joke to type like it is - sorry mate

*begins to apply pin gently*

referring back to one of your original posts...it's not really the acceptance of the way it is (btw i don't agree with fundamentalism). ppl who have an active faith play their role or fight their own way by "spreading the good news", praying and preaching. you may not like these approaches but you have to accept that others have a different way of 'combat' - this is related to the original post if you think about it...

and john doe...despite what you typed doesn't that still show that religion took precedence in shaping society BEFORE the emergence of capital power and going on what you typed, works with it to continue moulding current events?

and this planet earth s***. so before 'christianity' there were only pagan beliefs? I think YOU need to read some literature man...

*BANG*

 

[Mr. Tea]

and this planet earth s***. so before 'christianity' there were only pagan beliefs? I think YOU need to read some literature man...

A good point, if by 'pagan beliefs' you mean some kind of primitve nature-worship - but remember that to many Christians, especially historically, any non-Christian belief (Judaism, Islam etc.) is 'pagan'. Hell, even the wrong sort of Christian can be a 'pagan'!
Having said that, I doubt many Christians these days beyond certifiably mental mid-Western baptists and dyed-in-the-wool Jesuits would seriously call a Jew or a Muslim 'pagan'.

 

[Tactics]

hmmmm true...oh

A good point, if by 'pagan beliefs' you mean some kind of primitve nature-worship - but remember that to many Christians, especially historically, any non-Christian belief (Judaism, Islam etc.) is 'pagan'. Hell, even the wrong sort of Christian can be a 'pagan'!
Having said that, I doubt many Christians these days beyond certifiably mental mid-Western baptists and dyed-in-the-wool Jesuits would seriously call a Jew or a Muslim 'pagan'.

so pagan was meant IN opposition to christianity? ok...but that's still not a correct way of stating it imo

I think I need a definition of pagan from this guy to continue but...that would sidetrack the thread soooo...forget it

I think some focus has to be made in this thread to other religions that have contributed to shaping society...but that also sounds like it would sidetrack this thread aswell...ok I'm off

*poof*

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think some focus has to be made in this thread to other religions that have contributed to shaping society...but that also sounds like it would sidetrack this thread aswell...ok I'm off

Fair enough, but I think most people here live in/come from Britain (or elsewhere in Europe) or North America, where Christianity has obviously been the most important religious influence in historical times.
It'd be pretty stupid to suggest that Islam no longer has much shaping influence on the cultures of the Middle East, or that Hinduism is no longer a major force in Indian culture.

 

[John Doe]

it was the like of linkin park right lets be honest...lol

and john doe...despite what you typed doesn't that still show that religion took precedence in shaping society BEFORE the emergence of capital power and going on what you typed, works with it to continue moulding current events?

Dunno - I would have thought that the production/distribution and consumption of food took precedence in 'shaping society' before the arrival of capitalism, personally. Witness the fundamental shift in social organisation pre-and post-agriculture, for example.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

well the down talking didn't take long lol

You introduced it here, still continuing.

to be barry I couldn't be bothered to quote ...

Of course you couldn't be bothered, because you've nothing to contribute here other than sniggering, adolescent inanities.

to be basic the reason I said who are you is...you can't make a statement like that. that's YOUR belief ...

No, let's be really basic here: you are cluelessly arguing here that we are not permitted to state that which we believe, that beliefs are illegitimate, that we are only "permitted" to state that which we do not believe ... that we can only believe that which we are permitted to believe [by the Big Other, of course!]. Charming. Yes, we do indeed know what you believe.

- that's definitely not an absolute fact and it's a joke to type like it is - sorry mate

No need to apologise - what is particularly quaint here is your invocation of "absolute fact" as if there was such a thing, and that you still believe, for someone who is supposedly opposed to all belief, in such a - theistic - notion ...

and this planet earth s***. so before 'christianity' there were only pagan beliefs? I think YOU need to read some literature man...

Interesting that you should qualify pagan beliefs with the diminitive "only": given that the term "pagan beliefs" refers to those religious beliefs that preceded Christianity, I'd be intrigued by how you might begin to argue or reason that there were religious beliefs other than pagan ones in pre-Christian times.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Fair enough, but I think most people here live in/come from Britain (or elsewhere in Europe) or North America ...

But surely, and speaking as someone who is neither British nor American, that is an insular - and frankly, destructively nationalistic - weakness of this idiotically London-myopic forum in the context of frontierless cyberspace? And why most of its more insightful posters have long since left [not that I necessarily agree with their perfectly understandable but misguided, passivistic escapism in the face of the onslaught - everywhere on internet forums - of abusive, consumer-zombie irrationalism]? Why your unexamined appeal to Anglo-American anthropocentrism? Shouldn't a forum such as this, allowing for obvious language-translation limitations, be appealing to cultural affects and influences beyond that tired and bankrupt paradigm? [On the contrary, just like during the early years of USENET, when everyone posting to its newsgroups was generally assumed to be American with all its hegemonic, hubristic assumptions, this - unreflective - forum is similarly and conservatively continuing that narcissistic tradition. Just look at all the parochial posts here about some pathetically juvenile and irrelevant London-based trivia - best place to eat restaurant, best dub club, best ugly building, best fucking this-best fucking that, best fucking litter-bin, etc - (which is why I totally avoid all the music threads here) ... I intimately know another side of London that you lot would rather not even begin to acknowledge, but indulging in that would be insular, all too insular!! ...

where Christianity has obviously been the most important religious influence in historical times. It'd be pretty stupid to suggest that Islam no longer has much shaping influence on the cultures of the Middle East, or that Hinduism is no longer a major force in Indian culture.

Yeah, but Christianity has actually much more in common with Islam and other post-pagan religions than either could ever have with Hinduism, which is a pagan religion ...

Brahmanism: This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.: Mahabharata 5:1517

Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.: Matthew 7:12

Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother what which he desires for himself. Sunnah

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.: Udana Varga 5:18

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.: Talmud, Shabbat 31:a

Confucianism: Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.: Analects 15:23

Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.: T'ai Shag Kan Ying P'ien

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good: for itself. : Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5​

So the very core of the pagan wisdom resides in the insight into this cosmic balance of hierarchically ordered principles, more precisely, the insight into the eternal circuit of the cosmic catastrophe, derailment, and the restoration of order through just punishment. Perhaps the most elaborated case of such a cosmic order is the ancient Hindu cosmology first copied onto the social order in the guise of the system of castes, and then onto the individual organism itself in the guise of the harmonious hierarchy of its organs: head, hands, abdomen, and so on. Today such an attitude is artificially resuscitated in the multitude of New Age approaches to nature, society, and so on and so on. So that's the standard, traditional, pagan order. Again, being good means that you fully assume your proper place within some global order. But Christianity, and in its own way already — maybe, I'm not sure, I don't know enough about it — Buddhism, introduce into this global balance, cosmic order, a principle totally foreign to it, a principle that, measured by the standards of the pagan cosmology, cannot but appear as a monstrous distortion, the principle according to which each individual has an immediate access to the universality of nirvana, or the Holy Spirit, or today, of human rights and freedoms. The idea is that I can participate in this universal dimension directly, irrespective of my specific particular place within the global order. For that reason, Buddha's followers form a community of people who in one way or another have broken with the hierarchy of the social order, who started to treat this order as something fundamentally irrelevant. In his choice of disciples, Buddha pointedly ignored castes and, after some hesitation, true, even sexual difference. And do Christ's scandalous words from Luke [14:26] look, not point, in the same direction? "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and his mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." Here, of course, I claim we are not dealing with a simple brutal hatred demanded by a cruel and jealous god. Family relations stand here metaphorically for the entire social network, for any particular ethnic substance that determines my place in the global order of things. The hatred enjoined by Christ is therefore not any kind of dialectical opposite of love, but the direct expression of love. It is love itself that enjoins me to unplug, as it were, from my organic community into which I was born, or, as St. Paul put it, "There are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks."​

 

[Mr. Tea]

But surely, and speaking as someone who is neither British nor American, that is an insular - and frankly, destructively nationalistic - weakness of this idiotically London-myopic forum in the context of frontierless cyberspace? ........

Let me ask you a simple question - what language are you typing in? What language am I typing in? Yep, that's right, hubristic, bankrupted, imperialist ol' English.
Are you seriously claiming that most people on here aren't from an English-speaking culture? Because most of them do a damn good job of impersonating native English speakers (the occasional 'lol' - and barrages of impenetrable post-meta-trans-Other-speak - aside).

So before you get on your high fucking horse and start spouting all this incredibly tired and frankly juvenile rhetoric about imperialist this and Anglocentric that (which we've all heard a hundredmillion times before and are heartily sick of) and consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason I'm talking about the Christian influence on Euro/American culture is that a) it's the one I know most about, in that it is the culture I've grown up in, and b) it's the culture that pertains to the majority of other posters on here. Unless there's a Tanzanian chapter of Dissensians I'm somehow unaware of, or something? In fact, given that I'm apparently guilty not just of "Anglo-American" bias but full-on "Anglo-American anthropocentrism", perhaps I should ask some Tanzanian impala what impact they think religion has had in shaping their society?

Yeah, but Christianity has actually much more in common with Islam and other post-pagan religions than either could ever have with Hinduism, which is a pagan religion ...

Oh really? You think? Thanks for telling me that, o Wise One, I had no idea!
This is almost as good as that time you dropped the bombshell that - gasp! - the US had supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. Jeez, I mean, I bet no-one else on here had any idea about that! Good job you're here to save us from our stupidity, in fact just the other day I was about take a nice nap in the middle of the road before I stopped and thought "Hang on - what would hundredmillionlifetimes do?" and thought better of it.

And why most of its more insightful posters have long since left

Yes, it must be hard for you that your darling bum-boy k-punk doesn't post much any more.