In my mid Life I was an actively engaged Christian

[TarSpiel]

Spoken just like a person who has never been a regular at a neighborhood bar.

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that going to the bar is the same thing as going to a religious service.

 

[breepf]

Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that going to the bar is the same thing as going to a religious service.

Maybe if the bar is Cheers but that still doesn't account for Vera's perpetual absenteeism.

 

[TarSpiel]

Maybe if the bar is Cheers but that still doesn't account for Vera's perpetual absenteeism.

The bars in my small town are filled with alcoholics trying to get away from their families & responsibilities. A lot of it is just pretty sad, all in all.

Maybe Vera is at one of those ones.

 

[breepf]

This argument puts me in the mind of "Sonny's Blues," a James Baldwin short story that I already mentioned about 38 pages back.

The short story includes this beautiful passage, which gets at how ritual (in this case, playing church music) would give persons the opportunity to transcend the empirical realities of their own beleaguered lives and, in so doing, imagine some "as if" world with more to offer. In this passage, the narrator describes some gospel singers on a Harlem street corner:

It was strange, suddenly, to watch, though I had been seeing these meetings all my life. So, of course, had everybody else down there. Yet, they paused and watched and listened and I stood still at the window. "'Tis the old ship of Zion," they sang, and the sister with the tambourine kept a steady, jangling beat, "it has rescued many a thousand!" Not a soul under the sound of their voices was hearing this song for the first time, not one of them had been rescued. Nor had they seen much in the way of rescue work being done around them. Neither did they especially believe in the holiness of the three sisters and the brother, they knew too much about them, knew where they lived, and how. The woman with the tambourine, whose voice dominated the air, whose face was bright with joy, was divided by very little from the woman who stood watching her, a cigarette between her heavy, chapped lips, her hair a cuckoo's nest, her face scarred and swollen from many beatings, and her black eyes glittering like coal. Perhaps they both knew this, which was why, when, as rarely, they addressed each other, they addressed each other as Sister. As the singing filled the air the watching, listening faces underwent a change, the eyes focusing on something within; the music seemed to soothe a poison out of them; and time seemed, nearly, to fall away from the sullen, belligerent, battered faces, as though they were fleeing back to their first condition, while dreaming of their last. The barbecue cook half shook his head and smiled, and dropped his cigarette and disappeared into his joint. A man fumbled in his pockets for change and stood holding it in his hand impatiently, as though he had just remembered a pressing appointment further up the avenue. He looked furious.​

 

[Milk and Cookies]

You're projecting your own opinions and experiences on both going to church and visiting a bar and that's leading you astray.

We all get that you think going to church is some special ritual. And comparing it with going to a lowly bar is blasphemy. Of course you do - because you love your religion and carry prejudices against people that go to bars. But you're missing that the specialness you feel with church is the extrinsic value you are imbuing that ritual with. Intrinsically, meeting with friends and family at a bar and performing the specific rituals you listed can be no different than going to a church and doing them. I showed you side by side that the different steps of that ritual can be the same -- yes the same even with going to a bar. Literally. The fact that you might feel differently about those two gatherings is subjective, special pleading and irrelevant.

I'm not reducing religion to fairy tales and hate. Again, you're missing my point. I know religion is filled with all kinds of community and philanthropy and moral teachings. My point is that its possible to find those same aspects in secular activities without the need for the superfluous fairy tales and hate. Those aspects of religion don't add anything useful.

Regarding fairy tales: If you ever want to demonstrate that your favorite religion is not imaginary I'm all ears
Regarding hate: Christianity indoctrinates its followers that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is deserving of eternal torture. Sounds hateful to me. I don't automatically think anyone who doesn't think like me deserves torture, but what do I know I'm only an atheist.

 

[mpaer]

The bars in my small town are filled with alcoholics trying to get away from their families & responsibilities. A lot of it is just pretty sad, all in all.

Maybe Vera is at one of those ones.

I suppose this Board is full of folks that want to get away from their responsibilities-some of us a few hours a day

 

[finesse]

I do pretty good with staying in touch with my responsibilities but some extra insulation is never wrong.

 

[TarSpiel]

You're projecting your own opinions and experiences on both going to church and visiting a bar and that's leading you astray.

No, what I was trying to do was explain what Durkheim - and many sociologists in the century after he wrote "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life" - thought about the origins of religion, which he founded on the practices and social organization of Australian Aborigines.

These guys did not get together to hang out or drink beer. Their totems and rituals were deeply interwoven with their clan social organization, and religion functioned to allow for larger groups of people to be in the "us" group. Though Durkheim doesn't emphasize this, it all took place against the backdrop of the Australian idea of the Dreamtime, an "everywhen" that is the source of all beauty, goodness and wholeness not only in human life, but suffusing all of creation. The Spirit Beings associated with the Dreaming give rise to social and material stability and prosperity, not when we worship them, but when they live again through us.

So that was the sort of thing I was talking about, that in Durkheim's analysis he emphasized the role of ritual practically to the exclusion of beliefs (what you call "fairy tales"). But even though he didn't focus on their cosmology, they certainly had one, they just didn't ever seem to argue about it with one another.

There are real, substantive differences between religion as it's been observed throughout human history and "going to a bar." I've listed some of those reasons out for you, but it really does need to be emphasized that religious participation has been a family affair that involves parents, children, grandparents, cousins, and extended members of the clan. I don't remember ever being in a bar that had whole families gathering together like that...religion traditionally brought families together, in my experience bars more often than not tear them apart.

You asked me about my favorite religion...I like all of them, and believe that taken at their best they represent the accumulated wisdom of humanity. But the one I practice the most is Zen Buddhism. So stop thinking, put it all down, and tell me, from that place of mental stillness and silence, the consciousness you experience in that moment, is it a fairy tale?

 

[breepf]

No, what I was trying to do was explain what Durkheim - and many sociologists in the century after he wrote "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life" - thought about the origins of religion, which he founded on the practices and social organization of Australian Aborigines.

These guys did not get together to hang out or drink beer. Their totems and rituals were deeply interwoven with their clan social organization, and religion functioned to allow for larger groups of people to be in the "us" group. Though Durkheim doesn't emphasize this, it all took place against the backdrop of the Australian idea of the Dreamtime, an "everywhen" that is the source of all beauty, goodness and wholeness not only in human life, but suffusing all of creation. The Spirit Beings associated with the Dreaming give rise to social and material stability and prosperity, not when we worship them, but when they live again through us.

So that was the sort of thing I was talking about, that in Durkheim's analysis he emphasized the role of ritual practically to the exclusion of beliefs (what you call "fairy tales"). But even though he didn't focus on their cosmology, they certainly had one, they just didn't ever seem to argue about it with one another.

There are real, substantive differences between religion as it's been observed throughout human history and "going to a bar." I've listed some of those reasons out for you, but it really does need to be emphasized that religious participation has been a family affair that involves parents, children, grandparents, cousins, and extended members of the clan. I don't remember ever being in a bar that had whole families gathering together like that...religion traditionally brought families together, in my experience bars more often than not tear them apart.

You asked me about my favorite religion...I like all of them, and believe that taken at their best they represent the accumulated wisdom of humanity. But the one I practice the most is Zen Buddhism. So stop thinking, put it all down, and tell me, from that place of mental stillness and silence, the consciousness you experience in that moment, is it a fairy tale?

Whether or not people agree with it, I'm thankful for this instructive reply.

Since you brought up Zen Buddhism and, it would seem, the prospect of some transhistorical experience of deep-down "root" consciousness, I do have a stingy, unrelated follow-up question: to what extent do you think that Schleiermacher moves to ground Christian religious experience in ideas about "God consciousness" in reaction against developments in the historical criticism of the Bible? If the historicity of the Bible was becoming more evident to religious thinkers, and that historicity posed a problem, then wouldn't God consciousness be a potential solution? I wonder too if God consciousness was a way for 19th c. German Protestants to sidestep another troubling fact that academic study had made clear: the New Testament was infused with Jewish ideas.

 

[Bobfripp]

Here's my two cents, FWIW ...

Animism and other forms of pre-civilization spiritual beliefs were the 'science' of their time. These 'primitive religions' were not cults but ways for pre-modern people to make sense of reality given their lack of access to what we think of today as verifiable and falsifiable 'science.' All the information that we are lucky enough to have available today, such as knowledge about quantum mechanics, the earth going around the sun, general relativity, planets, stars, molecular biology, genetics, economic theory, etc., weren't available to these people. So, what did they do? Well, they did what they had to do to make sense of the world, and religion was the only real available answer.

Today, however, we DO have much better (hopefully) information available about things that are observable, which can be investigated and documented. Existence of a god or gods, life after death, and other such numinous concerns, however, remain both simultaneously unfalsifiable and unverifiable. This is the "non-overlapping magisteria" that Stephen Jay Gould proposed, but my concern is that when dealing with ideas that are both unfalsifiable and unverifiable, you can, in fact, come up with ANY spiritual belief your heart desires, even if it's entirely made-up nonsense. If it can't be falsified, the belief remains in play.

At that point, believing in the unfalsifiable and unverifiable, i.e., having 'faith' (which I think is a euphemistic word for 'credulity') in these made-up ideas, when modern science is available as it is today, then you're in cult territory. I'm what might be called a materialist or maybe a physicalist, but I have 100% evidence on my side. Meanwhile, folks that have 'faith' in the numinous have all their work ahead of them.

 

[TarSpiel]

Whether or not people agree with it, I'm thankful for this instructive reply.

Since you brought up Zen Buddhism and, it would seem, the prospect of some transhistorical experience of deep-down "root" consciousness, I do have a stingy, unrelated follow-up question: to what extent do you think that Schleiermacher moves to ground Christian religious experience in ideas about "God consciousness" in reaction against developments in the historical criticism of the Bible? If the historicity of the Bible was becoming more evident to religious thinkers, and that historicity posed a problem, then wouldn't God consciousness be a potential solution? I wonder too if God consciousness was a way for 19th c. German Protestants to sidestep another troubling fact that academic study had made clear: the New Testament was infused with Jewish ideas.

Well, I really don't know much about philosophy in general, and next to nothing about Schleiermacher, so I don't think I have anything helpful to add on that score. I could probably count on one hand western philosophers who I find interesting.

I do think the mystical, what you referred to as "transhistorical" aspect has always been there, though. "For the kingdom of heaven is within you." Meister Eckhart and the Beguines and other mystics of the middle ages, Brother Lawrence, and then the Quakers and a bunch of others, as far as I understand them, always understood their spirituality more as a matter of ego-divestment than as adherence to creedal statements. But it makes sense to me that this sort of emphasis would be heightened in some circles in the 19th century as western science gained steam.

 

[TarSpiel]

This is the "non-overlapping magisteria" that Stephen Jay Gould proposed, but my concern is that when dealing with ideas that are both unfalsifiable and unverifiable, you can, in fact, come up with ANY spiritual belief your heart desires, even if it's entirely made-up nonsense. If it can't be falsified, the belief remains in play.

Aren't you in effect saying that the non-overlapping magesteria are in fact overlapping, and that the rules designed to gain knowledge in one sphere (the material) should also apply to the other (what you referred to a couple of times as "numinous")?

And I think you put a bit too much faith in science. Science Magazine, to celebrate their 125th anniversary, put out a list of exciting questions that science has yet to answer. The first question - and at the top of their list - is “What is the universe made of?” Recent investigations have shown that visible, tangible matter - the stuff you can weigh and count and that makes up stars and galaxies and planets and everything on them - accounts for less than 5% of everything that is. This is astonishing, it means that everything we can see, touch, taste, smell and hear amounts to a thin membrane on the surface of material reality. So what is the universe ultimately made of? This is a question that both science and religion/mythology attempt to resolve, and yet the final answer seems as remote to us today as it was to our ancestors who first asked the question in the trees or caves or on the savannas of Africa.

The second question - and number 2 on their list - is “What is the biological basis for consciousness?” This question is slightly disingenuous. One could equally ask “What is the basis for consciousness,” but the editors of Science magazine thought it appropriate to stick in the word “biological,” assuming that the answer must be found in the realm of biology. In this understanding, consciousness is a property of the brain inside individual humans. But if you think that consciousness is a property of the brain inside individual humans, then you will be confronted with some vexing questions: do gorillas have consciousness? Why or why not? Do dogs? At what age in the womb (or out of it) do human babies acquire consciousness? You'll end up saying something inane like "Well, geckos have consciousness, but I draw the line at skinks."

I like the idea of non-overlapping magisteria...it makes sense to me. I've also found that it makes a lot of materialists and/or physicalists pretty uncomfortable.

 

[donbosco]

A neighborhood pub which is frequented by a bunch of regulars fills most of those social needs.

As a Pastor, now retired, in several such spaces for close to 25 years, I concur. The Third Place of a neighborhood tavern can be one of the most uplifting experiences known to mankind. I have no such place in my life at present and that absence is acutely felt. I was a loyal churchgoing boy all the way through high school...even did a bit of teen-age preaching, backed away then for about a decade only to be drawn back into religion by Leftist political action. I fell away but once again as a teacher at a Quaker school I learned about that particular religious worldview and feel enriched by it. At present I have neither of those two sacred third places, church or pub, in my life. I'd dearly love to have the tavern/coffeehouse once again. I also ponder the church experience but have yet to make that move.

I get a sacred space feeling in a mainly empty gym as well but nowhere on earth can I feel as much potential for human interaction, community, and commiseration as I do in a small pub, even when I am an outsider there.

 

[Milk and Cookies]

As a Pastor, now retired, in several such spaces for close to 25 years, I concur. The Third Place of a neighborhood tavern can be one of the most uplifting experiences known to mankind. I have no such place in my life at present and that absence is acutely felt. I was a loyal churchgoing boy all the way through high school...even did a bit of teen-age preaching, backed away then for about a decade only to be drawn back into religion by Leftist political action. I fell away but once again as a teacher at a Quaker school I learned about that particular religious worldview and feel enriched by it. At present I have neither of those two sacred third places, church or pub, in my life. I'd dearly love to have the tavern/coffeehouse once again. I also ponder the church experience but have yet to make that move.

I get a sacred space feeling in a mainly empty gym as well but nowhere on earth can I feel as much potential for human interaction, community, and commiseration as I do in a small pub, even when I am an outsider there.

Well said

 

[Milk and Cookies]

No, what I was trying to do was explain what Durkheim - and many sociologists in the century after he wrote "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life"

That's all well and good but I've been responding to your quick dismissal to the suggestion that a neighborhood pub provides similar sacred rituals and social connection. Even if you don't agree with my points perhaps you'll acknowledge the summary view from other posters here who have shared similar agreement.
I'm from New Orleans. In that community, the neighborhood bar is an essential part of the social fabric. Its not just the place to unwind after work or meet to watch a football game. In times of extreme stress like after a hurricane it is the first place open to the public after a storm providing life-critical resources and supplies, like places to charge electronics, distribute water/ice, provide fresh food, learn of news, gather supplies for others in need. In times of celebration like the night before a holiday, it is the place where friends and family across generations who may live elsewhere come back to meet and celebrate together before sitting down with their immediate family the next day. After a wedding or the announcement of a child, the neighborhood bar is where you rejoice. It is where you network with new acquaintances. It is where you meet with friends before going out for a night of adventure. It is so much more than just escaping real life responsibilities, although some find refuge for that when life feels too much too.
If your life has not exposed you to similar experiences at a neighborhood bar that's quite alright and understandable. I've just tried to share with you examples of how it can and does for other people. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Bobfripp]

And I think you put a bit too much faith in science.

I think you clearly don't put enough 'faith' in science. Unanswered questions like the ones proposed by Science magazine don't need answering with unverifiable New Age bullshit, but with continued application of science. You can fill in the cracks with god if you want, but I'll keep plugging away with science, thank you very much.

 

[Zoo_View]

Aren't you in effect saying that the non-overlapping magesteria are in fact overlapping, and that the rules designed to gain knowledge in one sphere (the material) should also apply to the other (what you referred to a couple of times as "numinous")?

And I think you put a bit too much faith in science. Science Magazine, to celebrate their 125th anniversary, put out a list of exciting questions that science has yet to answer. The first question - and at the top of their list - is “What is the universe made of?” Recent investigations have shown that visible, tangible matter - the stuff you can weigh and count and that makes up stars and galaxies and planets and everything on them - accounts for less than 5% of everything that is. This is astonishing, it means that everything we can see, touch, taste, smell and hear amounts to a thin membrane on the surface of material reality. So what is the universe ultimately made of? This is a question that both science and religion/mythology attempt to resolve, and yet the final answer seems as remote to us today as it was to our ancestors who first asked the question in the trees or caves or on the savannas of Africa.

The second question - and number 2 on their list - is “What is the biological basis for consciousness?” This question is slightly disingenuous. One could equally ask “What is the basis for consciousness,” but the editors of Science magazine thought it appropriate to stick in the word “biological,” assuming that the answer must be found in the realm of biology. In this understanding, consciousness is a property of the brain inside individual humans. But if you think that consciousness is a property of the brain inside individual humans, then you will be confronted with some vexing questions: do gorillas have consciousness? Why or why not? Do dogs? At what age in the womb (or out of it) do human babies acquire consciousness? You'll end up saying something inane like "Well, geckos have consciousness, but I draw the line at skinks."

I like the idea of non-overlapping magisteria...it makes sense to me. I've also found that it makes a lot of materialists and/or physicalists pretty uncomfortable.

I read the advancement in scientific knowledge over the last one year-to-500 years as impressive accomplishments.

I don’t see religion moving that advancement in knowledge forward.

I’m good with people who believe in religion believing what they want. I’m not good with them equating religious belief with scientific fact……or using their myths to challenge reality or create law.

 

[donbosco]

That's all well and good but I've been responding to your quick dismissal to the suggestion that a neighborhood pub provides similar sacred rituals and social connection. Even if you don't agree with my points perhaps you'll acknowledge the summary view from other posters here who have shared similar agreement.
I'm from New Orleans. In that community, the neighborhood bar is an essential part of the social fabric. Its not just the place to unwind after work or meet to watch a football game. In times of extreme stress like after a hurricane it is the first place open to the public after a storm providing life-critical resources and supplies, like places to charge electronics, distribute water/ice, provide fresh food, learn of news, gather supplies for others in need. In times of celebration like the night before a holiday, it is the place where friends and family across generations who may live elsewhere come back to meet and celebrate together before sitting down with their immediate family the next day. After a wedding or the announcement of a child, the neighborhood bar is where you rejoice. It is where you network with new acquaintances. It is where you meet with friends before going out for a night of adventure. It is so much more than just escaping real life responsibilities, although some find refuge for that when life feels too much too.
If your life has not exposed you to similar experiences at a neighborhood bar that's quite alright and understandable. I've just tried to share with you examples of how it can and does for other people. I'll leave it at that.

You remind me of the numerous times that when beset by a weather emergency -- especially a winter one -- of the many times that I made it to the bar where I worked and opened up the place for the "folks" so they could "be with one another" in a time of stress. For many years I also always opened up bars where I worked late on Christmas Eve so "folks" could gather for a bit of cheer. I greatly enjoyed being the Presider over such meetings. In Chapel Hill days of past The Cave has often been at the center of such things as once was Tijuana Fats. These days I know the Orange County Social Club in Carrboro to work hard to "be there" for their people.

For years The Cave has held a Thanksgiving gathering for people who were from places too faraway to return to family and those events in the back room, using the pool tables in the mode of The Clampetts of Beverly Hills, are great memories even though being from nearby Chatham County I wasn't among those with family faraway. I always tried to figure a way to stop by just the same.

 

[Zoo_View]

Aren't you in effect saying that the non-overlapping magesteria are in fact overlapping, and that the rules designed to gain knowledge in one sphere (the material) should also apply to the other (what you referred to a couple of times as "numinous")?

And I think you put a bit too much faith in science. Science Magazine, to celebrate their 125th anniversary, put out a list of exciting questions that science has yet to answer. The first question - and at the top of their list - is “What is the universe made of?” Recent investigations have shown that visible, tangible matter - the stuff you can weigh and count and that makes up stars and galaxies and planets and everything on them - accounts for less than 5% of everything that is. This is astonishing, it means that everything we can see, touch, taste, smell and hear amounts to a thin membrane on the surface of material reality. So what is the universe ultimately made of? This is a question that both science and religion/mythology attempt to resolve, and yet the final answer seems as remote to us today as it was to our ancestors who first asked the question in the trees or caves or on the savannas of Africa.

The second question - and number 2 on their list - is “What is the biological basis for consciousness?” This question is slightly disingenuous. One could equally ask “What is the basis for consciousness,” but the editors of Science magazine thought it appropriate to stick in the word “biological,” assuming that the answer must be found in the realm of biology. In this understanding, consciousness is a property of the brain inside individual humans. But if you think that consciousness is a property of the brain inside individual humans, then you will be confronted with some vexing questions: do gorillas have consciousness? Why or why not? Do dogs? At what age in the womb (or out of it) do human babies acquire consciousness? You'll end up saying something inane like "Well, geckos have consciousness, but I draw the line at skinks."

I like the idea of non-overlapping magisteria...it makes sense to me. I've also found that it makes a lot of materialists and/or physicalists pretty uncomfortable.

TarSpiel,

I recognize that your religious belief is hugely important to you and that you are well-read about religion.

I appreciate your posts and links about religion.

I know so little about religious writings.

I’m still trying to get a clue about what Western or Eastern or SE Asian religions have to do with Australian Aboriginal religious beliefs or practices.

 

[finesse]

You remind me of the numerous times that when beset by a weather emergency -- especially a winter one -- of the many times that I made it to the bar where I worked and opened up the place for the "folks" so they could "be with one another" in a time of stress. For many years I also always opened up bars where I worked late on Christmas Eve so "folks" could gather for a bit of cheer. I greatly enjoyed being the Presider over such meetings. In Chapel Hill days of past The Cave has often been at the center of such things as once was Tijuana Fats. These days I know the Orange County Social Club in Carrboro to work hard to "be there" for their people.

For years The Cave has held a Thanksgiving gathering for people who were from places too faraway to return to family and those events in the back room, using the pool tables in the mode of The Clampetts of Beverly Hills, are great memories even though being from nearby Chatham County I wasn't among those with family faraway. I always tried to figure a way to stop by just the same.

One of the first holidays at the Cave Bo Porter cooked a turkey that turned out quite good but you should have seen his embarrassment when he carved it and found he hadn't removed the giblets wrapped inside first. Didn't hurt anything but it was a topic of conversation at a few holiday dinners there later.

People at the Cave partied together, vacationed together, played sports together and generally acted as that community you mentioned. During a huge snowstorm, we had a friend from the Cave get out as soon as the roads barely cleared drop by with milk, bread, beer and cigarettes because she knew we had two kids under three at home and would have trouble getting out. To this day, my closest friends are people I met there.