After reading a Feministe post entitled Why be religious? (and, painstakingly, all of the comments to the article), I learned a lot of things about…
- Judaism as a religion of praxis and as an identity.
- The fact that atheists, like many ex-Mormons, ruin everything and this is why we can’t have nice things.
- I’m not excepted from item 2.
- I must be some kind of freaking robot/alien because so much of this stuff is incomprehensible to me.
But let’s stick to point 3. For the most part, when I read stuff like this, I want to get it. I want to want it, as well. But many times, I either don’t get what the people are talking about, or I don’t get the appeal. One such moment was when reading Athenia’s comment on Sacred Time and Sacred Places:
I think there are two important concepts for religion–Sacred Places and Sacred Time.
I can see how even if one does not describe themselves as of a certain religion, they still do because they cannot give up Sacred Time and the Sacred Places. For example, I will not give up Christmas even though I don’t go to church a lot anymore. It is too much tied into my family, it’s too much tied into my life—which sacred time and places tend to do.
Of course, one can make their own sacred places and sacred time, so I suppose that doesn’t really answer your question. I’m probably not the best person to comment on this matter actually.
The second paragraph is what make me wonder if I’m an alien/robot (beep boop!)
Athenia’s assertion is that even those who don’t describe themselves as religious actually do have certain religious traits — such as the preservation of “Sacred Time” and “Sacred Places.”
But for me, I don’t really regard myself as having “sacred time” or “sacred places.” Maybe I do and I’m just not being contemplative enough about it. Maybe introversion in general can be considered as needing more sacred time? Regardless, when I think about things in my life that could plausibly be considered either of these things, I feel like it cheapens the words to use them as labels.
I think holidays are a good example. I really don’t want to dump on my family or anything (any day now, my mom or dad will read these entries and chastise me for writing these things [but I really want to express that to me, this doesn’t seem like dumping at all. IMO, nothing is missing. I’m not whining. I’m just surprised whenever I talk to people about stuff like this that they assume that my family must be terrible.]), but for the most part, holidays are like every other day. This doesn’t mean that we don’t celebrate holidays, per se. But when I listen to others talk about the rituals they go through for holidays, those rituals just seem like a whole lot of work to me.
Occasionally, we might visit relatives for Thanksgiving or Christmas. But it’s not a prerogative and it’s not something that we do regularly. But if we are at our own house, then we aren’t going to invite relatives to our house. Or, for that matter, anyone else.
I know people who make Thanksgiving an affair of cooking all day with all the family members playing their parts. We don’t do that. (I really shouldn’t write this next part, but many people I talk to consider it blasphemy to have the Thankgiving meal catered.)
And Christmas is even more low-key. Sure, there are presents and toys and the fake-Christmas tree (usually…sometimes the tree just never comes out.) But opening the presents is a pretty low-key affair, and then everyone scatters to their own devices (literally…although I’ll probably have to run around to everyone else’s devices to help them set them up.)
I could say that we have some traditions. Advent calendars, whose chocolates are more often than not eaten in groups because we’ve forgotten to keep up with them day-by-day (and whose religious significance we have no clue of anyway.) Christmas day brings plastic candy canes filled with Reese’s miniatures, or M&Ms, or other candies. When people worry about Christmas becoming too consumerist, I fear that they will sneak a video camera into our home and use our family as evidence.
Again, I don’t think there is anything missing. I don’t “pine” for a more “traditional” experience. I really like being left to my own devices (and I do like helping people set up their tech gadgets…although I don’t like it nearly as much when I go home for Spring Break, and I have to fix all their tech gadgets.) So does that count as sacred time or place?
There’s another story, I guess. One day, my brother and all of his friends stayed up all night so they could hike to a mountain (OK, not a real mountain…one of those several-thousand-year-old-eroded-by-wind-and-water hills) to watch a sunrise. (This was actually kinda smart…they knew they couldn’t trust themselves to wake up that early so they approached it from a different route.)
It wasn’t my cup of tea (then again, real tea isn’t my cup of tea either), but I just couldn’t imagine finding any kind of joy from that. It was absolutely inconceivable. I can reason that there are plenty of people who love nature and the outdoors, but phenomenologically, I can’t imagine.
All in all, I was kinda interested in religion as community. I mean people say things like, “You can find community elsewhere; you don’t need religion for it,” (and also that many religious communities aren’t that good at being religious communities…or that even when they are good at being religious communities, that can sometimes lead to an insularity that is problematic elsewhere), but there was another comment that intrigued me:
Re: community, while I agree that it is not strictly to be found in “religious” worlds (esp. when the term “religion” bumps up awkwardly given its western connotations), I would venture to say that religious communities are ones in which there is a certain … thickness lacking in the secular world (again, these terms are hopelessly problematic).
Contra Bob Bellah’s work on “Bowling Alone,” a true community is not just a group of people one does things with but is rather a mimni-cosmos that structures one’s very sociality. If (G?d forbid) a loved one passes, the community is there to support one. If one gets married, the community are the ones to whom one announced and the ones with whom one celebrates. One shares in a sacred history with a community (indeed, in the Jewish calendar, it is almost tisha be-av, the commemoration of the destruction of the Temples; and in the Muslim calendar, it is Ramadan).
So I guess I’d be interested to know…for atheists who say they do have good secular alternatives for religious communities…is, say, a UU group something that “structures your very sociality”? Is a freethinker or skeptic group such? What does this even mean? Is it even desirable (because that question is separate from whether any secular group actually accomplishes it)?
…hmm…Obviously, that last paragraph won’t serve for most of you here, since most of you aren’t atheists (are you?), so here I must admit that this article is a repost from my personal blog. But I do want to hear about your sacred places and times.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m not one for making things harder than they have to be either, when it comes to traditions. I have to think some of these folks are like the natural childbirthers or the people who only want sugar- and taste-free snacks for their kids. If life is enjoyable, you’re not trying hard enough. Or something like that.
All spiritual experience is private and personal, so I do think your introversion comment is on track.
I don’t see the analogy — how is having children the way the female body was designed to “making things harder than they have to be“? I’m maybe with you on eating rice-cakes or fiber-bran.
Re: the OP
There is a basic human urge to worship, which also involves rituals. In this scientific age, post-Age of Reason, materialism (philosophically-speaking, not a person who loves the mall), etc. is a result of the planets being asleep. Even then, most everyone has rituals, or “sacred places/time” — with some degree of religious fidelity to them.
Justin: I don’t see the analogy — how is having children the way the female body was designed to “making things harder than they have to be“?
Because we now have ways of dulling the pain.
We were “designed” to walk – I assume you ride a bike, drive a car, or ride a bus at times.
We were “designed” to die if our appendix ruptures – I assume you’d want yours removed if it were inflamed (with anesthesia even).
We were “designed” to cycle with the sunlight – I assume you’ve stayed up past dusk with electric light to type on a man-made computer.
There are many things we were “designed” to do but from which we are far removed. This is an illogical argument.
There is a natural human tendency to “group”. This may be nationalistic, familial, religious, etc. Regarding religion, the tendency to “group” into a community is stronger than the actual beliefs of the religion.
The number one predictor of what religion someone adheres to in this world – is what religion is predominant in the area where someone is born. Someone born in India will likely be a Hindu. Someone born in Burma will likely be a Buddhist. Someone born in Iran will likely be a Muslim. Someone born in Norway will likely be a Lutheran. Someone born in Mexico will likely be a Catholic. Someone born in Utah will likely be a Mormon.
Because of societal pressures, it is very hard to get someone to change religions. Even in our missionary program, the biggest successes in USA and Europe are among displaced people – ie immigrants, and there are areas of the world where societal pressures are so great we don’t even send missionaries.
People want to “group”, people want to belong. It is only natural that they will group along religious lines.
Your argument is invalid.
In seriousness — most birth interventions have not been the equivalent of riding bikes as opposed to walking.
Good try though — but I’ll stay away now, so this doesn’t drift into anything weird — I’ve been accused of doing that.
hawkgrrrl,
I like the way that sounds. “If life is enjoyable, you’re not trying hard enough.”
But given the introversion thing, it would be interesting to see who personality-wise is more likely to be “religious” or “spiritual” or whatever (or if there is no correlation)…because it always seems that many religions drum up the extroverted community factor.
re 2,
Justin,
Basic human urge to worship, eh? So, I must really be in robot territory here. What does “planets being asleep” mean?
Mike S,
have to agree with you here. Although I do think there are these kinds of “back to basics” movements all across the spectrum. Not walking is a partial culprit of our expanding waistlines. Our habits with staying up late and working with computers produce many problems across the spectrum (not just sleep debt, not just eye strain issues, not just posture issues, but other things.) Not quite going to extend that argument to the appendix thing 😉
But as for grouping, that is always one thing that’s interesting. I understand that where you live/grow up influences a great deal of your personality, but I’m more interested in the areas where it does not. For example, growing up in x area doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily be down with x religion of the area. Doesn’t mean you’ll get the culture. So we have some people who — for whatever reason — feel like fish out of water in their own communities and homes. How does this happen?
re 5,
Justin,
That link is pretty weird and doesn’t really make help your point. But I can see kinda where you’re sayiing
To me, religious and spiritual are two very different things. Religious includes external observances like traditions, rituals, ordinances, belonging to a community, and codes of conduct. Spiritual is the internal pursuit of harmony and wisdom: seeking enlightenment, improvement and balance. Some LDS practices can lead to spiritual growth (fasting, prayer, scripture study, WoW) but they only do if used toward that end. They can also be completely religious (and not spiritual) in the way they are practiced.
Andrew,
Re:
No — not robot territory. Human brain cycles are tied to the cycles of the heavenly bodies [the planets, sun, comets, etc.]. Look up in the sky at night if you want to see what “planets being asleep” means. What you see as tiny, little specks invoked the ancients to fanatic devotion. That’s b/c the activity among them was markedly different than what is observed today.
Re:
The link is for a movie that explains the history and nature of interventions in the birthing process. The movie ends with one of the women involved in making the film [who b/c of her research decided to have a mid-wife assisted homebirth] having to go in for a hospital birth b/c her baby was breach.
Natural birthers aren’t making things harder than they have to be — b/c natural birthers aren’t against hospitals, sanitation, trained professional’s assistance — or even against bicycles, appendix surgery, or electrical lights. Humans have improved both the length and quality of life by learning how to intervene in medical emergencies, sure — but most have falsely been taught that birthing is one such emergency.
So, I failed to see Hawkgrrrl’s analogy because natural birthing isn’t a form of making things harder than it has to be.
And Mike’s objection was a straw-man because epidural+pitocin+C-section does not equal bicycle, soap, or indoor plumbing, etc.
Justin – Having given birth 3 times, I can say authoritatively that it hurts like hell. Hats off to those tough cookies who want to relish the pain. I’m not one of them.
Not knowing your birth stories, I can tell you authoritatively that there is marked difference in pain between being on your back with a pictocin drip and something more “natural” like the Bradley method for example.
Was yours more the former or the latter?
I had a DVT in my first pregnancy and had to have controlled labor for all 3 (pitocin, not pictocin). I had epidurals for all 3, but on the 2nd one, the epidural had worn off for the delivery. I varied between wishing I would die and thinking I really would. You’re not going to convince me I missed out on something wonderful; even if you had a uterus I would assume your pain threshold is just higher than mine. Since you don’t, I’m even more skeptical of your advocacy for natural childbirth.
I have a good friend who did home delivery with no medication for all 5 of hers. She also makes her own furniture. Kudos. Not my thing.
Pitocin (got its spelling right in #8, wrong in #10, squiggly red line under it in either case) is what causes contractions to be unbearably painful and often causes fetal distress (don’t worry the Dr. will be there for a c-section thank God). To me, that’s making things harder than they have to be.
I’m writing according to my experience coaching my wife through our >3 births at home — and I don’t need you to buy into my natural-birth advocacy (since I don’t advocate). It’s just that your analogy that natural-birthers are making things harder than they have to be is hog-wash.
Tell me, do you also not trust men who are OBGs? They don’t have uteruses either (or is it uteri?). Or is it just me? Probably just me.
re 8:
Justin,
I rescind the comment about the movie’s weirdness (when I saw it, looked like one huge ad kind of deal…since the page is formatted weirdly on the page.) [Actually, I am perfectly aware that a movie site is basically an ad, but not the ad I thought.]
I defer all the critiques I would have made to hawkgrrrl, who made them (of course) much better. I will say this is one of the more entertaining discussions I’ve seen here.
…all that being said, your explanation on the planets being asleep was probably the one that warranted weirdness more with which to begin. 😉 I have no idea what that means, but then, I’m not a nature worshipper and don’t know what appeals to them about it, past or present.
Justin – natural childbirth usually means without painkillers, not avoiding being induced. Either way, my medical condition made going into labor on my own dangerous, although I did with my third and had to be slowed down so I didn’t bleed to death.
You are correct in surmising that I would never use a male OBG. I’ve consistently gotten better care from my female OBGs than from the male doctors, radiologists and attending physicians I encountered during the process, although I only consider that observation relevant when dealing with girl stuff. My dentists have all been male.
This has been a major threadjack. Sorry Andrew!
I like comments on my posts. Threadjacks are a minor (but fortunately usually entertaining) risk to achieve that goal.
Lol — one more and I’ll be done:
Natural Childbirth is a philosophy of childbirth that is based on the notion that women who are adequately prepared are innately able to give birth to their child, without external intervention.
In other words, natural childbirthers are not for making things harder than they have to be — quite the contrary.
Andrew:
That’s b/c the skies appear different today than they did anciently. Have you heard of the work by Immanuel Velikovsky? Or more contemporary, Dave Talbott and Wallace Thornhill [website]? Or from an LDS context, Anthony Larson?
“Asleep” means the planets look like far-away dots that don’t do anything and aren’t actively manifesting the plasma displays that are recorded in prophecy. When the electrical currents “wake-up” and the skies begin to appear as they did anciently — it will be easier for you to imagine what was appealing to these “nature worshippers”.
Can’t say I’ve heard substantially of any of those figures. I may look further into those later. But anyway, Does that mean that when we start getting more sunspots activity that cults devoted to Sol/Apollo/insert sun god of choice here will become more popular?
I suppose that’s an interesting hypothesis, but this doesn’t explain why there is general religiosity and spirituality (whether these concepts are separated or no) even when the planets are boring.
In answer to your latter point:
I favor the interpretation that spirituality [and one’s degree of sensitivity to it] is a sense just like being musical or artistic. Some people can listen to the same musical piece or see the same artwork — but feel differently or experience it differently that each other.
But if someone told you they didn’t like *any* music, you’d suspect they lacked some essential human element.
No, I’d suspect their degree of sensitivity to harmonic elements is low enough as to lead them to reject all forms of music.
Isn’t that just a roundabout way of saying that the essential human element they were missing was their “sensitivity to harmonic elements”?
No — being highly sensitive to a certain tastes [musical, artistic, or religious as examples] are not distinctly or intrinsically human. Many people are prodigies, many have a desire and can be trained to heighten their ability, and many have no desire.
I’ve read enough of your posts on belief in the past [which I like BTW] to see how this might be a frustrating line of logic for you to accept — because I’m essentially saying the bell-curve never touches zero. It’s my understanding that no one is at absolute zero. You are either at a greater or a lesser position on a continuum.
When I was a young man, without going into detail, setting goals didn’t fit my personality. At the time, I felt it would be dishonest to say I did, or would, set goals. In one Church lesson (small class), our teacher was equally inflexible in his opinion that I should set goals, and we had a long conversation. It concluded with me agreeing that yes, I did form an intention to have breakfast in the morning before actually eating it, and the teacher declaring that *that* was goal-setting, so I did do it and now we could get on with the lesson.
Christmas is a really big holiday in Singapore, where Christians are about 20% of the population. There are Christmas lights, Santa Claus, soap suds in the streets as a snow substitute (it’s tropical summer), and shopping. Lots of shopping. I read that the government was instrumental in promoting the holiday to provide a boost to retail sales. The US is different, but it seems pretty evident that anyone so inclined can celebrate a completely secular Christmas here, too. In fact, whether you add a religious component is your own business, but well-funded advertisers make it their business to see that no one misses out on the secular side unless they are really determined.
I agree with Badger that Christmas is essentially a secular holiday, certainly in its origins and how we celebrate it contemporarily.
Queen Victoria gave birth to nine children, and didn’t do well at all with the pain. She became a very early patient in the history of modern analgesia during labor. “Modern” means anything but alcohol. For Prince Leopold, her eighth, she used inhaled chloroform (I know) under her doctors’ supervision, and she really liked the results.
Amazingly, this was controversial at the time. Didn’t Genesis 3:16 tell us that pain in childbirth was God’s will? Ministers wrung their hands. Labor pains made better mothers, you see. Arguments were made, positions taken, and editorials written, some critical, some supportive. When Victoria gave birth to her last child, having doubtless given the arguments all the attention they deserved, she used chloroform again.
When it’s the bishop’s daughter getting two pairs of earrings, that’s a scandal. When it’s Queen Victoria…well, we know how that controversy turned out.
re 22,
Justin,
Naw, it’s not frustrating. I’m just messin with ya.
re 25,
Badger,
Great Queen Victoria story (chloroform??)
chloroform??
You’re right, Andrew. Totally against the Word of Wisdom.
My mother had some very bad experiences with some of her 7 deliveries (between 1948 and 1968), and that was in the day of all male OBGYNs. At best, they gave her a “saddle block,” a precursor to an epidural. But she had to deliver one of my sisters in a full breech position without painkillers. After that, he stitched her up, also with no painkillers. The man was a sadist. Being raised on stories like that, I thought it best not to take chances.
I must say I never encountered any male doctor who was remiss in his duties or lacked compassion, but getting advice from someone who had firsthand experience as a patient was more empathetic and useful. I also found the male doctors to be more inclined to push their own opinions, while the female OBGYNs were more inclined to educate and inform but let me choose what I wanted to do without judgment or preference from them.