sarge@thirdi.UUCP (09/02/87)
In article <160200023@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >I seem to remember that Jim Jones's cult was actually quite secu- >lar: a political movement and a utopian commune posing as reli- >gion to get some breaks; they did not believe in any deity. As far as I know, they were quite Christian. Other cults have done that, however, so your point is well taken. >Does the movement's unreasonableness qualify it as a religion? >Is any blind faith, however secular, religious? And is theology >(often logical and rational in its methods) just a branch of >philosophy? No, I think both philosophy and religion are systems that attempt to answer fundamental questions or address fundamental issues in life, as you point out. So not any form of irrationality would suffice (like the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" cult). Perhaps Nazism could be considered a religion. It certainly was a cult. >Religion tends to be more personal and more emotional I don't think this will really work either. Nietsche and Schopenhauer were intensely emotional, while some forms of Hinduism and Yoga are quite unemotional. Also, the phenomenologists, as well as such notables as Pascal and Descartes are intensely personal in their observations. For me, philosophy is very personal, because I think that it has bearing on my life. But I don't think that that makes philosophy a religion for me, any more than an emotional or personal devotion to science makes one any less scientific. Rather the reverse. >It is a difference of degree and of style. Most important dis- >tinctions cut across both religion and philosophy: e.g., dogma- >tism vs. independent inquiry; mysticism vs. rationalism; optimism >vs. pessimism; theism as against deism, pantheism, atheism and >agnosticism. I don't really think philosophy is dogmatic. The philosophic spirit, as I understand it, is one of free inquiry. And I believe it tends to be rather anti-mystical, so I don't think these really cut across. Also, I think we should decide more on the substance than on the style. Both religionists and philosophers have many styles. >A comprehensive, emotionally satisfying philosophical worldview, >imbuing a community of followers - such as Marxism, Objectivism >or Buddhism - has the properties of a religion, and, in the case >of Buddhism, has acquired the name, too. Now I tend to agree with you about Buddhism. It is much more of a philosophy than a religion, and certainly more of a philosophy than Marxism. >Lucretius expounds his >materialism with a truly religious rapture, and speaks of Epi- >curus as one does of a prophet and a savior. True, Epicureanism >never grew into an organized religion, but Stoicism, Cynicism >and Platonism, in a way, did - they were incorporated into Chris- >tianity. I admit there are borderline cases, where a mixture of rationality and non-rationality abound. I'm not at all sure that the criterion of rational-non rational is correct, but I don't think, if not, that we have discovered what *is* correct. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge