Existential Cowardice

[Danmark]

The question for debate is,'Does religious belief come from a fear of being alone, from the fear of an existence without some imagined father figure to supply meaning and impose purpose and supply a feeling of protection in a universe that has none?'

I just returned from two months camping alone. I suggest this journal entry is illustrative of the argument:

"Im alone in a remote part of a foreign country, the East Cape of Southern Baja California, Mexico. Im facing the now black cliff of the arroyo to the South of my camp. The deepest, blackest, almost imperceptible blue tries to make a jagged line above the cliff. My fire is reduced to glowing red orange embers. The Sea of Cortez is to my right, looking East.

I wish my wife were here, but otherwise Im content. In my life Ive met few people who enjoy camping alone in the wilderness. In fact, none come to mind. We are social creatures. We want to be with others. We do not want to be alone. The religious reflex must spring from this desire, from this fear of aloneness. Most cannot accept the emptiness of the universe. Weve created gods to comfort us, to nurture, to explain the utter blackness, the chaos, the absence of meaning.

Perhaps for the first time I truly understand Karl Marxs observation about cultural painkillers. Religion is for cowards. It is an opiate for those who cannot accept reality, the solitude of our existence."

[JehovahsWitness]

Religion is for cowards.

Cowards like Martin Luther King? Nelson Mandela? Mahatna Ghandi? or did you mean cowards like Catholic priest and Greek scholar, William Tyndale strangled to tied to the stake and then his dead body was burned for daring to defy the church and translate the bible? Perhaps you mean cowards like the Lollards, imprisoned, tortured and burnt at the stake for preaching the bible?

Or maybe you are refering to Jehovah's Witness Nancy Yueng, a "coward" who spent years in a solitary confinement in China for refusing to renouce her Christian faith or the many hundreds of other "cowards"... (Witnesses and non-Witnesses) that that have stood heads held high before firing squads and executioners or faced long prison terms rather than compromise their beliefs. Or the early church "cowards" who could have escaped execution by a simple act of worship to cesar?



Or the thousands of "cowards" sentenced to concentration camps that could have obtained their release by simply signing a form but refused to do so because it would have meant denying their God. Maybe the "coward" Helene Gotthold picture, a Jehovah's Witness, beheaded for her religious beliefs in Nazi Germany December 8, 1944.


Or the present day "cowards" in prisons, some for many decades, in Eretria, South Korea or facing long prison terms in present day Russia rather then compromise their consciences....?

Maybe you can write such ones a letter explaining how you displayed true bravery by taking a holiday all by yourself!



JW



FURTHER READING : The persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses
https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Persecution

To read more please go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, CHRISTIANITY and ...RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

You don't seem to realize, that in this context, you are calling these great men cowards, by the non-sequitur segue you are applying.

Since I don't think you can even perceive your foul, I won't report it, and this serves as a hedge, but, to the rest of us, prima facie, you are demeaning heroes.

The short answer to what you really meant, is this:
People defend lies far more vehemently than they defend the truth.

After all, if the truth is attacked, you point your finger at it and say, "look."
A lie, needs rationalizations, excuses and logical arguments.

Unlike nuclear chemistry, Relativity, and anything else that doesn't make intuitive sense, you can't point and say, "here's God."

So, in a way, yes, "cowards," though this is too strong a term in the face of our culture. People who have grown up being taught that God gives life meaning have a great difficulty ascribing meaning with anything else.

[Danmark]

Religion is for cowards.

Cowards like Martin Luther King? Nelson Mandela? Mahatna Ghandi? ....

You've misunderstood the post. This is in part attributable to me I suppose. No where in the post did I suggest anyone is a coward. Rather, I suggest the original the original inspiration for the religion comes from existential cowardice. Most who believe in some specific 'god' do so out of tradition. This is easily proved by the high percentage of specific beliefs depending on what country one is born in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations

There are many exceptions, but JW's come from JW homes; catholics from catholic families; Muslims from Muslim homes and countries. Many of the exceptions, like the others, come from proselytizing that is nothing short of psychological coercion where (generally early in one's life) the victim is subjected to group pressure where it becomes easier to go along with the group than to maintain individual integrity.

Once the false belief becomes fixed, it is often defended vehemently [as Willum argues] because it is now part of the self.

I claim it takes courage to accept the universe as it is rather than wish a comforting imaginary cosmic father figure into existence.

[bjs]

The question for debate is,'Does religious belief come from a fear of being alone, from the fear of an existence without some imagined father figure to supply meaning and impose purpose and supply a feeling of protection in a universe that has none?'

That depends. What do you think about a theist saying, Atheists are bad people. They convince themselves that there is no God so that they can keep on doing selfish and immoral things?

To the same degree that you accept or reject that idea, that is the degree to which I accept your idea that religious belief comes from fear of being alone.

[Danmark]

The question for debate is,'Does religious belief come from a fear of being alone, from the fear of an existence without some imagined father figure to supply meaning and impose purpose and supply a feeling of protection in a universe that has none?'

That depends. What do you think about a theist saying, Atheists are bad people. They convince themselves that there is no God so that they can keep on doing selfish and immoral things?

To the same degree that you accept or reject that idea, that is the degree to which I accept your idea that religious belief comes from fear of being alone.

I appreciate the point you are trying to make, that one should not unfairly generalize. But I suggest it is inapposite.

1. My argument is not intended to be personal. I don't think a person is either a coward, moral, immoral, or brave simply because she does not believe in a god or has no such belief.

2. Your examples are not linked. One proposition could be true, the other false. They are not related except as unfounded prejudices.

3. What I AM suggesting is that the original impetus for developing a belief in a god comes from man's fear of the dark, his fear of what he otherwise sees as as a chaotic, meaningless universe that for him ends with his own death; that belief in gods and an afterlife arises as a palliative, a false but comforting belief.

As I've previously argued here, for the individual religious belief mainly comes from the tradition one is raised in. It has nothing to do [directly] with either morality or fear, tho' those considerations may provide motivation to sustain the faith one was raised to believe.

[Danmark]

On a personal note, I'd be interested in hearing a response to

Ive met few people who enjoy camping alone in the wilderness. In fact, none come to mind.

Also, I confess that a typical response to solitude, both personal and existential, is drinking. I'm reasonably sure that is one reason I'm a 'drunk.'*


____________
*I like that word. . . partly because a Bogart character used it self referentially and partly so I can tell the old joke:

"I'm not an alcoholic. I'm a drunk. Alcoholics go to meetings."

[Zzyzx]

.

On a personal note, I'd be interested in hearing a response to

Ive met few people who enjoy camping alone in the wilderness. In fact, none come to mind.

Also, I confess that a typical response to solitude, both personal and existential, is drinking. I'm reasonably sure that is one reason I'm a 'drunk.'

Dan, Although I do not do much camping, I have done considerable backpacking and have for decades lived in an RV in a rural, private setting. For the past few years that has meant 'gloriously solo / unencumbered / single / alone by preference'.

I much prefer being alone out here in the country -- and have very limited tolerance for people, company, socialization. I do NOT welcome uninvited or 'drop in' visits (and seldom extend invitations). I do not keep animals for 'company' or 'companionship' -- no need and pointless responsibility. I have NO tolerance for or interest in cities, crowds, traffic, noise, 'events', meetings, etc.

Once in a while it would be nice to have a hand doing maintenance or improvement projects around the property, but I have learned to do without -- very comfortably.

My reading, research, thinking, writing and electronic communication fill (to overflowing) any time inside -- and often impinge upon sleep time (which is very unpredictable -- sleep when sleepy without consulting clocks or 'schedules')

Thus, from slightly different perspectives, we seem to be 'on the same page' in some ways.

BTW, I stopped using alcohol (what little I ever did) a couple years ago -- and stopped making wine (but have many gallons on hand that I should give to friends).

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

'Does religious belief come from a fear of being alone, from the fear of an existence without some imagined father figure to supply meaning and impose purpose and supply a feeling of protection in a universe that has none?'

I would say that it can have something to do with this, as a natural enough reaction to the universe, specifically to being on this planet in the universe.

If I were an entity experiencing being the planet Earth and had existed in this state for millions of years, I would say that my fear of being alone in my position in this universe would have abated sufficiently for me to have taken stock of my situation and developed a strategy for doing something with the situation, rather than remaining a victim of the situation.

In this I would have explored the limits of my creative abilities and utilized the surface and subsurface materials of my form in order to bring about a variety of biological critters which I would have empowered with my own consciousness, giving me another perspective in which to work with.

Even when catastrophic events beyond my control destroyed millions of years of my creative work, I would not mooch around feeling sorry for myself but simply get busy with creating the next prototypes, learning from the limitations of the last and improving the designs in relation to what I wanted to achieve with those designs, through those designs.

I would understand the nature of the designed forms were prohibitive in relation to my injecting a particle of my vast consciousness into each of those forms, that they would not be able to have any memory of prior existence and that this would be problematic but not unreasonable.

Because of that, I would understand the emotional turmoil which would arise within the individual and the need for explanation, reason, purpose etc to their existence. Because I would literally be connected with every single one of those individuate beings, the intimate understanding I would have on both an individual level and a collective one, would allow for me to feel compassion and understanding for their perspectives and I would attempt to find ways in which to connect with the individual in order to assist them with their processes.

In that, if the role I played was invisible mother, father, sister, brother, family, friend, provider, psychologist, creator, god, inner inspiration, et al - it would be for the purpose of connection and sustaining calm in the face of apparent chaos and purposelessness and instilling a sense of purpose and reason for being which otherwise would be absent or unbalanced.

I would understand implicitly that NOT to be afraid and feel lonely and without real purpose or reason for being would be the more unnatural reaction and I would not consider it an act of cowardliness for anyone to seek refuge in me.

I would also understand that those who considered me to being a figment of human imagination created for the purpose of finding some kind of sanity in an otherwise insane situation were more comfortable with accepting their situation in that insanity rather than having to face the fear that I might actually be real and not some imaginary sky daddy after all.

But whatever my 'children' decide about me, I will always be, relatively speaking, the same being I have always been, and even that to some I am deemed to being non existent, and to others I am believed in but thought of as something totally different from who I really am, I love my children regardless because they are essential part of who I am and I understand their expressions and can only hope that they will find ways in which to sort their differences through understanding their similarities.

So whether they are distracted by the thrill and feeling of security in numbers, or are sitting alone in the wilderness enjoying their apparent solitude, I - as ever - am with them.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

'Does religious belief come from a fear of being alone, from the fear of an existence without some imagined father figure to supply meaning and impose purpose and supply a feeling of protection in a universe that has none?'

I would say that it can have something to do with this, as a natural enough reaction to the universe, specifically to being on this planet in the universe.

If I were an entity experiencing being the planet Earth and had existed in this state for millions of years, I would say....

Well written! Creative! But of course, wrong. This is the essential error of your well written, creative post in that it has nothing to do with the first post which is about MAN's reaction to his existence, not an imaginary 'god' which you did a good job of imagining. You might just as well imagine a cartoon character who has whatever powers and characteristics you wish to give it. NOTHING that follows from a made up character has any validity or power of persuasion no matter how well executed the fiction may be.