No, I didn't invent the fear motivation and stick it into their tradition or practice. Yes, they actually said it. You've never talked to anybody who confessed that they believe in an afterlife because the alternative is too terrible?
You do bring up a good point. It's the pragmatic point that is probably the best of the reasons that I was presented when I was having doubts and asking questions that I wasn't supposed to ask. It's the idea that religious ideas often have a really good impact on people's lives. Hell, I still think in terms of the symbolism of the wheel of the year, because it did me so much good when I was practicing and just because I don't think it's all literally happening somewhere doesn't mean that benefit is negated for me.
A religious teaching can make people happier. It can help people be emotionally healthier--which I can certainly say that my Wiccan practice has done for me--and it can even by some definitions make them better people.
These things are not the same as proof of its actual empirical realness, though. Celebrating Lammas helps me deal with the problems I have with giving, and receiving. I don't have to actually believe it's happening to get those benefits, because the fact that I'm benefiting didn't prove anything to me other than that it's a really powerful and productive metaphor.
So yeah, I get that religion can be a positive inclusion in people's lives. I wouldn't still be practicing one if that were not the case. However, a teaching can be useful without being a literal reflection of reality.
There are a lot of religious people out there who don't need the teachings of their religion to be literally true. By some counts I'm one of them, and by others I suppose I'm not. However, I've had way too many people who claim not to be literalists still seem to have some ideas that still have to be literally true. One example would be Christians who can take Revelation as a metaphor, but don't believe the same can be done with the resurrection of Christ. Another would be Pagans who reject Christian-style literalism but still need to believe that asking the gods for things will help them come.
So yeah, the usefulness of religious teachings is something that I actually won't dispute, though I can see why that'd come as a surprise. It's belief in the literal truth of those teachings if they're not supported by empirical fact that I think is a bad idea, and which I've seen tends to be based on some poor reasoning and emotional attachment.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2010-11-09 08:20 pm (UTC)From:You do bring up a good point. It's the pragmatic point that is probably the best of the reasons that I was presented when I was having doubts and asking questions that I wasn't supposed to ask. It's the idea that religious ideas often have a really good impact on people's lives. Hell, I still think in terms of the symbolism of the wheel of the year, because it did me so much good when I was practicing and just because I don't think it's all literally happening somewhere doesn't mean that benefit is negated for me.
A religious teaching can make people happier. It can help people be emotionally healthier--which I can certainly say that my Wiccan practice has done for me--and it can even by some definitions make them better people.
These things are not the same as proof of its actual empirical realness, though. Celebrating Lammas helps me deal with the problems I have with giving, and receiving. I don't have to actually believe it's happening to get those benefits, because the fact that I'm benefiting didn't prove anything to me other than that it's a really powerful and productive metaphor.
So yeah, I get that religion can be a positive inclusion in people's lives. I wouldn't still be practicing one if that were not the case. However, a teaching can be useful without being a literal reflection of reality.
There are a lot of religious people out there who don't need the teachings of their religion to be literally true. By some counts I'm one of them, and by others I suppose I'm not. However, I've had way too many people who claim not to be literalists still seem to have some ideas that still have to be literally true. One example would be Christians who can take Revelation as a metaphor, but don't believe the same can be done with the resurrection of Christ. Another would be Pagans who reject Christian-style literalism but still need to believe that asking the gods for things will help them come.
So yeah, the usefulness of religious teachings is something that I actually won't dispute, though I can see why that'd come as a surprise. It's belief in the literal truth of those teachings if they're not supported by empirical fact that I think is a bad idea, and which I've seen tends to be based on some poor reasoning and emotional attachment.