
Religion without belief - kawera
https://aeon.co/essays/can-religion-be-based-on-ritual-practice-without-belief
======
barrkel
If we broaden our definition of religion, it loses much of its descriptive
power, and we'll have to invent a new word to describe the Abrahamic religions
with their jealous God, which define clear in-groups and out-groups, that
define modes of clothing and ritual that mark out believers and non-believers,
that require some kind of sacrifice to belong, and that are fundamentally
underpinned by the idea of a Covenant, a contract that rewards people for
following the tenets and punishes those who don't.

Personally, I think religion is a fine word for this. I'd rather keep it that
way. Ritual without belief and concomitant warm fuzzies of doing the Right
Thing is something else.

~~~
gnipgnip
That's a very interesting observation. I'd had to read an eye-opening book
called "The Heathen in his Blindness" [1] to understand the cultural grounding
I stand on.

As an Indian, whose own mother tongue has been neglected by the neo-colonial
state, and thus whose own epistemological roots are muddied up with those from
an over-bearing English imposition, it has become very difficult for me to see
the difference between Abrahamic traditions and the contemporary Indian ones
(in the city atleast). The latter simply don't make sense anymore (which is
likely why a lot of people are irreligious).

On the other hand, more than half of the traditional schools in India don't
believe in a creator, and it's not clear if any of them actually believe the
"devas" (godlings?) exist. Buddhism for instance borrows heavily from the
Indian pantheon of devas, but expressedly keeps mum about their existence;
those on the "Astika" side like Mimansa, while attesting the grounding of the
Vedas, don't believe in the existence or literal use of many of the categories
in contemporary Hindu life. Other than these, there was also a school of
determinism (slaughtered off by Ashoka), a (much maligned) materialist school,
along with who knows how many others - many of them were atheistic (in the
Abrahamic sense). I'm not even sure what the semantics of "creator" is in the
Sanskrit literature; there is a lot it, but its study is seen with utter
contempt (centers of Indic study are now in N.Y, Heidelberg and Kyoto).
Likewise, Yoga, meditation... gained mass appeal in India, after they took off
in the West.

Edit: Updated for clarity.

~~~
gnipgnip
(continued...)

It's almost a curse to be able to see all this, and be able to do very little
to ameliorate it. Considering the poverty of my native tongue, it'd be very
difficult for me to express it to the masses. Even if I learn the millennia
old language, no one would understand it.

[1] [http://www.cultuurwetenschap.be/pages/the-
heathen](http://www.cultuurwetenschap.be/pages/the-heathen)

Edit: Update for clarity.

------
joneil
> for the concept of religion to remain a useful cross-cultural category it
> must be shorn of its Abrahamic assumptions and understood to refer to a
> range of concepts and traditions that not only cluster around supernatural
> beliefs, but also practices, like rituals and festivals.

I've been finding it interesting to look even at the Abrahamic traditions -
what parts of the ritual / lifestyle / faith are valuable, even if you assume
the supernatural claims are bogus?

On this topic I've been enjoying the work of Peter Rollins [1]. One of the
points he makes is that often we desire certainty in our beliefs, and feel
safe with certainty. And it's interesting to watch someone swing from being
certain of the existence of a god, to being certain of the non-existence. What
they believe has changed ("A god does exist" / "A god does not exist") but how
they believe it is much the same ("I'm sure of this because of _____").

I guess that's the difference between being an (a)theist and an agnostic.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rollins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rollins)

~~~
kbutler
There are lots of patterns in my own religious tradition that I find valuable,
separate from the aspect of faith.

Some examples:

\- setting aside the Sabbath as a day of rest. Different from the rest of the
days of the week. A day for analysis of the direction of your life,
recommitment to your values, and taking a break from the burden of everyday
responsibilities and work and play.

\- ministering to neighbors. Watching out for and serving those around you.
Having someone close by who cares and is willing to help.

\- tithing - dedicating a fixed, significant percentage of income to charity.

\- fasting - abstaining from food and drink for a day, and giving the money
that would have been spent (and more if able) to help those in need. This has
social benefit as well as personal physical and spiritual/emotional benefit.

~~~
EdHominem
Tithing isn't charity. If it was, you could give your tithe to a street
person.

Try going to your temple/etc and telling them that you gave already. You'll
quickly learn that it's an in-group fee, not charity.

And yes, many people get a lot from mindfulness. Why do you feel that it's
only appropriate on one day of the week?

And how do you get there without faith?

~~~
losvedir
> _Try going to your temple /etc and telling them that you gave already.
> You'll quickly learn that it's an in-group fee, not charity._

Not sure where you're getting this but that hasn't been my experience at all.
From my upbringing in several Catholic churches you're expected to "tithe" as
a general principle but no one follows up with you on your accounts. My family
always set aside our tithing amounts each year, but we got to distribute it as
we saw fit, some to the church, sure, but others to scholarships or charities
that we wanted.

~~~
dkuntz2
The practice of tithing comes from a tax that existed to support the church
and clergy. Saving ten percent of your income and distributing it as you
please isn't tithing in the traditional sense, only the portion given to the
church is considered a tithe.

------
swayvil
If you assume that religion isn't just a club for ideologues, what you get is
more of a research-program.

There's a technique, there's a mystery, you do the technique to address the
mystery.

Techniques : meditation, fasting, hallucinogens.

Mysteries : God, Tao, Ultimate Reality.

Given the lack of technique in most of what we call religion these days, I
think what we're looking at is a degenerate form of something that was pretty
cool once upon a time. What we've got is basically fanfic.

~~~
gnipgnip
Very well put :) (although it probably doesn't fit the Abrahamic conception,
practice and history).

~~~
swayvil
That would be a case of the fanfic becoming the authority. Like a robot
turning on its creators.

------
eyelidlessness
> Are they religious or secular?

Secular, obviously. If you believe the ritual negates this, you're redefining
terms to suit your prejudices.

~~~
helthanatos
But we also have to bring into question Christians that claim they are
Christian but do not act like they are. Those people may claim to be
religious, but they are clearly not. Does having no belief in your religion
but still participating in some things mean you aren't religious at all?
Really, most of this is about definition vs. Practice.

Agnostics can be considered atheists in practice but their definitions differ
a bit.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
Surely the only thing necessary to be Christian is belief in Christ and that
he is our saviour or whatever?

~~~
Alex3917
A more clear example would be that in the U.S., most people claim to be either
theists or atheists. But in fact very few of them are actually telling the
truth, in that most of them are neither theists or atheists, but that's just
how they self-identify for whatever reasons.

The point is that whether people self-identify as being religious or not has
basically zero correlation with whether or not people are actually religious.
E.g. the media often claims that atheism/non-religious/SBNR is the fastest
growing religion, but there isn't really any strong evidence to support that.

~~~
eyelidlessness
> But in fact very few of them are actually telling the truth, in that most of
> them are neither theists or atheists, but that's just how they self-identify
> for whatever reasons.

Orly? What's the truth?

~~~
Alex3917
If you're asking whether there's some other category they fall into, not
necessarily.

~~~
eyelidlessness
You said "very few of them are actually telling the truth". I'm asking what's
the truth.

~~~
Alex3917
Just that they're neither atheists or theists. I.e. you're not really a theist
unless you believe in an anthropomorphic god, just believing in an abstract
conception of god isn't enough. And similarly you're not really an atheist
unless you wouldn't believe in god even if you saw him, a position which even
Richard Dawkins admits is untenable.

~~~
eyelidlessness
> you're not really a theist unless you believe in an anthropomorphic god,
> just believing in an abstract conception of god isn't enough

This is based on a pretty specific set of jargon that most people probably
don't even consider. I have a hard time believing that there's enough evidence
either way to say whether more people who claim they're theists are actually
deists, but it doesn't serve any purpose to conclude either way. As far as
colloquial usage is concerned, there are a lot of people who are honest in
their conviction as believers in "god" in some form or another, even if it
isn't as specific as you'd like it to be for the purposes of that
classification.

> And similarly you're not really an atheist unless you wouldn't believe in
> god even if you saw him

That's just... I don't even know how to address that. Your first claim was
extremely specific and conforms pretty closely to very well defined criteria,
but this one drifts much further from the same set of criteria.

> a position which even Richard Dawkins admits is untenable

I wouldn't be surprised. Literally no one would find it tenable. Not even
Richard Dawkins, who is wrong about nearly everything he says outside his
professional career.

------
andrewfromx
alan watts said this best. You can walk into a eastern temple and enjoy it.
laugh. do all the "silly" little rituals. Religion is _supposed_ to be fun and
NOT serious. The min you make it deadly seriously and tell children THIS IS
REAL you defeat the point. i.e. life is one big ride and silly. Life is very
very silly and not even a little bit serious. Even when people die. Espeically
when people die. Live your life this way and you won't fear death. You'll
enjoy your silly number of X years you get on earth and want to live a good
life cuz that's the most silly fun you can have. And _that's_ how you get
people to be "reglious". NOT BY PREACHING or saying do this "moral" behavior.
No no no. Live it up. Go to Burning Man. Enjoy the ride is what religion was
trying to tell us but the message is all mixed up now.

~~~
cmurf
I think this is completely culturally and moronically ignorant to such an
extreme degree. You _wish_ this were true. I wish it were true. But it's
complete, utter, bollocks. Life is one big ride and silly? Are you fucking
high? You've traveled no where. You've read no history at all whatsoever.
Yeah, what's going on in Syria is silly. Being drawn and quartered is one big
ride. What the fuck ever. Idiot. You clearly got Alan Watts wrong.

~~~
andrewfromx
oh I get your position. I felt that was true for years. The real question is,
is a human death tragic? Even your own? And the answer has to be no. It's not.
It's a goof this life. Dying is not the worse thing that can happen. Not
living is. How do I think terrible things like torture and kids dying in Syria
is silly? Because each human is NOT really a seperate thing that has to
survive at all costs. Think of humans like pids or threads. They come and go.
When a linux process dies is that tragic?

~~~
cmurf
You're even dumber than I thought. No fool, it's not death that's tragic, it's
human suffering. Torture for years before dying. Oh yeah, that's just a goof.
Asswipe.

~~~
andrewfromx
Well think about who taught you that life was serious. What was their agenda?
Well they want to rule the world of course. What's the best way to rule over
someone. Tell him to fear death and that their only choice is to do what you
say and they will avoid a horrible fate. How can you be "saved"? just stop
caring about your fate. Bring it on whatever is is. Torture, hard work
situation, any adversity in your life. Laugh at it and you can't be ruled.
That makes people very dangerous of course.

------
hprotagonist
>Because here's something else that's true. In the day-to-day trenches of
adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing
as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to
worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-
type thing to worship-be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-
goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical
principles-is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.
If you worship money and things-if they are where you tap real meaning in
life-then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough. It's the
truth. Worship your own body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always
feel ugly, and when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths
before they finally plant you. On one level, we all know this stuff already-
it's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, bromides, epigrams, parables:
the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up-front in
daily consciousness. Worship power-you will feel weak and afraid, and you will
need ever more power over others to keep the fear at bay. Worship your
intellect, being seen as smart-you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always
on the verge of being found out. And so on.

Look, the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're
evil or sinful; it is that they are unconscious. They are default-settings.
They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day,
getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value
without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing. And the world
will not discourage you from operating on your default-settings, because the
world of men and money and power hums along quite nicely on the fuel of fear
and contempt and frustration and craving and the worship of self. Our own
present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded
extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom to be lords
of our own tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation.
This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all
different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not
hear much talked about in the great outside world of winning and achieving and
displaying. The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and
awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about
other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little
unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is
unconsciousness, the default-setting, the "rat race"-the constant gnawing
sense of having had and lost some infinite thing.

\--[http://bulletin.kenyon.edu/x4280.html](http://bulletin.kenyon.edu/x4280.html)

~~~
m_mueller
I think the article is a bit misguided there. The purest form of atheism ( =
belief that there is no deity, as opposed to the rejection of belief in
deities ) it is just another fundamentally unprovable belief system. If you
wind the clock back far enough you always arrive at an undecided point where
both assumptions - chaos vs. intelligent creation - become equally valid from
our point of view.

I don't see how worshipping is universally linked to the human experience -
except if you define following the scientific process itself as 'worshipping'.
The whole point of it is that previous knowledge can be overturned by
evidence, so there should not be any dogma - and if you find any in your
field, there is something deeply wrong with it. There does seem to exist an
uncomfortable trend of going down deeply untestable rabbit holes in
theoretical physics however - string theory is the best example currently.

Now, when it comes to Computer Science, this field seems to be still full of
dogma - for me a sign that it isn't really a scientific field (yet) to begin
with. E.g. "X considered harmful" type statements by certain influential
people become way too dogmatic way too quickly, without actually requiring
evidence outside of a few usage examples.

------
known
"Earth is flat" \--Religion
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth)

------
known
Your Beliefs Doesn't Make You A Better Person; Your Behavior Does;

