Philosophy Philosophies, the new religions?

[Second Summer]

The other day while I was philosophising and contemplating (otherwise known as unproductive daydreaming), it occurred to me that religion definitely is on the way out here in the enlightened and generally progressive Western world. Those other countries will catch up later, hopefully. Anyway, since I don't believe in a god myself, that seems like a good development to me. However, there are a few things that religion seems to offer that I feel we're missing out on. The main one is community. People are getting more and more isolated. Somehow loneliness is a big problem in our enlightened and progressive part of the world.

I had read about the atheist church in London recently, but to me that doesn't quite seem to do it. It's a bunch of people getting together not really because they share a set of values or convictions, except the not-believing-in-God part. Contrast that with a Christian church where they believe in an eternal afterlife, God's judgement (in which non-believers will be turned away and/or sent to the burning fire pits in Hell for eternal punishment), the second coming of Christ, the virgin birth, the 10 commandments, and so on, all described in detail in The Holy Bible. And they can look back on 2000 years of churches and people believing basically the same thing, with magnificent art works and breathtaking church architecture to enjoy.

So what do we non-believers have that can compete with that? One of the best things I can think of is Philosophy. Philosophy has an even longer history than Christianity, going back to the ancient Greek philosophers in Ionia in the late 7th or early 6th century BCE. If it was up to me, philosophy would be taught in schools from kindergarten and upwards. It's my belief it would create a better society with more balanced and emphatic individuals.

Anyway, instead of "atheist churches" I was envisioning "philosophy churches". And as with the many different religions and denominations, there are different schools of thought within philosophy. So they don't all have to agree or have the same convictions.

Could it work? Probably not, I suppose it would just be too elitist for ordinary people.

 

[ledboots]

That sounds so interesting and fun! I picture people wearing ancient grecian garb for some reason.

My daughter is a philosophy major. We always did extra education at home with the kids, and both of them liked philosophy topics from an early age. It would be fantastic for the schools to teach this, as well as critical thinking exercises.

 

[peacefulveglady]

Why do we need an add on to world religions? There all man made for control.

 

[cornsail]

Forming a bunch of "we all agree with each other" philosophy clubs would detract from honest critical thinking IMO. If one joins the Church of Anti-Realist Pataphysics and makes a bunch of friends who like to say "there is no spoon" before they eat and circlejerk about how dumb everyone else is, then one is going to have added incentives to maintain that belief system that they wouldn't have normally (which generally means more rigid and biased thinking). The idea of not being open to changing my mind would make philosophy terribly uninteresting to me.

 

[Second Summer]

I was just thinking out loud. It's probably a silly idea.

Forming a bunch of "we all agree with each other" philosophy clubs would detract from honest critical thinking IMO. If one joins the Church of Anti-Realist Pataphysics and makes a bunch of friends who like to say "there is no spoon" before they eat and circlejerk about how dumb everyone else is, then one is going to have added incentives to maintain that belief system that they wouldn't have normally (which generally means more rigid and biased thinking). The idea of not being open to changing my mind would make philosophy terribly uninteresting to me.

Well, the idea was it could replace religion, and at the same time get more lay-people interested in philosophy. Nothing would be preventing those more interested in independent, professional philosophy from pursuing that path.

Also, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that philosophy is less rigid than religion in the sense that students/followers of a certain philosopher master/teacher often develop their own ways of thinking. (Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle etc.) It may be based on the teachings of the master, but it's not the same. I suppose you could say it's a kind of evolution.

 

[Blobbenstein]

having the same beliefs as other people doesn't mean you are rigid.

I have come up with some of my own explanations for things.....as people might have read..

 

[SummerRain]

Forming a bunch of "we all agree with each other" philosophy clubs would detract from honest critical thinking IMO.

I agree with this.

I think that, sometimes, even identifying with a certain philosophy/set of ideas can detract from honest critical thinking. Even with something like veganism, sometimes identifying as a vegan means that it's easier to think about "is this vegan?" than "is this moral?" and people become more concerned with "is this a vegan idea? is this a vegan product?" rather than "is this the most moral product I can buy?" "is this a right choice to make?". Myself included.

It's so easy to get trapped into that way of thinking... I think the same applies to subscribing to the policies of one political party, or a movement of thinking. So extending that to a sort of "church" group would only make that happen more IMO.

But at the same time, I think that secular morality-based groups do exist that tend to replace some of the same social benefits as religion. Again, to use veganism as an example, I find that meeting up with vegan groups (IRL) provides more than just a shared belief in one area.

Most people have similar beliefs in general, but there is also a sense of ritual, advice giving, support, celebrations and shared experiences - and I think those are the areas that make a real church community. It's the big festivals/celebrations, the weekly routines, the meeting up and sharing experiences, giving advice, that are the cement holding the community together.

In the same way, I find with vegan groups, you get people asking for advice, giving support, sharing experiences, getting excited about vegan events, going to vegan restaurants together, fundraising, going out for meals together, cooking for each other, sharing recipes and new vegan products, etc. I think it's all this other "stuff" you have in common that cements the group, and I think something like veganism, where you have similar morals, but also lots of shared enthusiasms, concerns, awkward situations, that form a good community.

So in a way, I think with some groups this already occurs. It might not be a "church" but there's lots of secular groups with a common moral/interest that bind together, not just because of the one thing, but because of all the other stuff that comes with it. But I think that only works when there is all that other stuff, and something like an atheist church, well there just isn't the "stuff". They just have one thing in common, that for most people, doesn't really affect their lives, so I can't imagine there being much to bond over.

:s that was longer than I meant it to be...

 

[Second Summer]

I was just thinking out loud. It's probably a silly idea.

Forming a bunch of "we all agree with each other" philosophy clubs would detract from honest critical thinking IMO. If one joins the Church of Anti-Realist Pataphysics and makes a bunch of friends who like to say "there is no spoon" before they eat and circlejerk about how dumb everyone else is, then one is going to have added incentives to maintain that belief system that they wouldn't have normally (which generally means more rigid and biased thinking). The idea of not being open to changing my mind would make philosophy terribly uninteresting to me.

Well, the idea was it could replace religion, and at the same time get more lay-people interested in philosophy. Nothing would be preventing those more interested in independent, professional philosophy from pursuing that path.

Also, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that philosophy is less rigid than religion in the sense that students/followers of a certain philosopher master/teacher often develop their own ways of thinking. (Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle etc.) It may be based on the teachings of the master, but it's not the same. I suppose you could say it's a kind of evolution.

 

[cornsail]

I was just thinking out loud. It's probably a silly idea.

Well, the idea was it could replace religion, and at the same time get more lay-people interested in philosophy. Nothing would be preventing those more interested in independent, professional philosophy from pursuing that path.

Also, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that philosophy is less rigid than religion in the sense that students/followers of a certain philosopher master/teacher often develop their own ways of thinking. (Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle etc.) It may be based on the teachings of the master, but it's not the same. I suppose you could say it's a kind of evolution.

Yeah, I mean it would be interesting. My mind just goes to worst case and I envision things like wars between rivaling schools of philosophical thought. But I think moral leaders with a philosophical bent could be a positive thing. Atheist guru (?) Sam Harris seemed to be attempting to fill that "but what about morals?" gap that some people see when religion goes away with his book "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values". But that book was awful in my opinion and I do think it would have greatly benefited from a philosophy background.

Are there any schools of thought you have in mind as being potentially popular in the absence of religion?

 

[kibbleforlola]

As someone who does not like the Greeks (Aristotle believed women were less-developed men, and as a result were inferior - he even went so far as to say women had less teeth than men.* Also see: wandering uterus.**), and not to fond of the Enlightenment philosophers either (Rousseau's Social Contract makes it pretty clear that while man should be an active participant in government/society, women should not); I think that teaching classic philosophy in schools really wouldn't do anything different or better than teaching religion. However, if you want to teach critical thinking, go for it.

*This is an example of someone who spent too much damn time in their own head. If he, oh I don't know, compared his wife's and daughter's mouths to his own and his son's, he would see that teeth are the same - but theory was more important than reality.

**The idea of the wandering uterus hasn't left us. See: 19th century rest cure, current uses of bed rest for pregnant women, and the use of the word "hysteria".

Also, thinking about the multiple denominations of christianity, it's clear that religion isn't the unifying force we think it is; I think it's more of a splintering force. Remembering my youth at church, the best part was not the sermon - which I usually snuck outside with my friends, anyway, it was potluck. People came together over food, and people rarely talked about the service, even the adults. People talked about what was going on in their lives and the world at large. So that's what we need. Community dinners. Problem solved

 

[Second Summer]

Are there any schools of thought you have in mind as being potentially popular in the absence of religion?

No, not really. I've personally been fascinated with Nietzsche for a while now (or rather, the writings of other authors that talk about Nietzsche, as I tend to find his works too hard to understand!), but I'm not so sure a Nietzschean movement would be so good for society, world peace and all that.

As someone who does not like the Greeks (Aristotle believed women were less-developed men, and as a result were inferior - he even went so far as to say women had less teeth than men.* Also see: wandering uterus.**), and not to fond of the Enlightenment philosophers either (Rousseau's Social Contract makes it pretty clear that while man should be an active participant in government/society, women should not); I think that teaching classic philosophy in schools really wouldn't do anything different or better than teaching religion. However, if you want to teach critical thinking, go for it.

*This is an example of someone who spent too much damn time in their own head. If he, oh I don't know, compared his wife's and daughter's mouths to his own and his son's, he would see that teeth are the same - but theory was more important than reality.

**The idea of the wandering uterus hasn't left us. See: 19th century rest cure, current uses of bed rest for pregnant women, and the use of the word "hysteria".

Well, we have to remember the ancient Greeks lived in a very different time, and obviously not all their ideas are directly applicable to our society today. Some of it may have made sense back in their own time though. There was for example a strong distaste amongst ancient Greek philosophers for married life and children, possibly because that meant you'd have to provide for a family, which meant much less time and energy for philosophy. It would be better to focus instead on the more timeless ideas that originated from ancient Greece. I suppose that is probably how a "philosophy church" should be like as well: pick and choose the best ideas from different places, and be very careful about accepting any one philosophy as the best answer to everything.

Also, thinking about the multiple denominations of christianity, it's clear that religion isn't the unifying force we think it is; I think it's more of a splintering force.

I think back in the day it did have an important unifying role to play in society, but again that may be different now. There were less options in medieval times, and there were ways of dealing with splinterers that we don't have in our day and age. Philosophy on the other hand is more flexible and by nature should be more tolerant of deviating ideas.

Remembering my youth at church, the best part was not the sermon - which I usually snuck outside with my friends, anyway, it was potluck. People came together over food, and people rarely talked about the service, even the adults. People talked about what was going on in their lives and the world at large. So that's what we need. Community dinners. Problem solved

Well, veganism is a sort of "philosophy church", and we do lots of potlucks and meals together...!

 

[peacefulveglady]

I am finding my dads union is like a church because he keeps on saying great fellowship each time he gets with the union people LOL.

 

[toad1]

Ignoring the distinction between so called continental vs analytic philosophy and focusing on the latter, the only thing philosophers have in common is a methodology. In that sense, a "church of philosophy" makes no more sense than a "church of biology" or "church of mathematics".

But ideologies are the "new religion", people in the west are starting to group themselves along more secular lines now. Atheism, veganism, etc and these groups function, socially speaking, as religions.

 

[nigel1]

The other day while I was philosophising and contemplating (otherwise known as unproductive daydreaming), it occurred to me that religion definitely is on the way out here in the enlightened and generally progressive Western world. Those other countries will catch up later, hopefully. Anyway, since I don't believe in a god myself, that seems like a good development to me. However, there are a few things that religion seems to offer that I feel we're missing out on. The main one is community. People are getting more and more isolated. Somehow loneliness is a big problem in our enlightened and progressive part of the world.

I had read about the atheist church in London recently, but to me that doesn't quite seem to do it. It's a bunch of people getting together not really because they share a set of values or convictions, except the not-believing-in-God part. Contrast that with a Christian church where they believe in an eternal afterlife, God's judgement (in which non-believers will be turned away and/or sent to the burning fire pits in Hell for eternal punishment), the second coming of Christ, the virgin birth, the 10 commandments, and so on, all described in detail in The Holy Bible. And they can look back on 2000 years of churches and people believing basically the same thing, with magnificent art works and breathtaking church architecture to enjoy.

So what do we non-believers have that can compete with that? One of the best things I can think of is Philosophy. Philosophy has an even longer history than Christianity, going back to the ancient Greek philosophers in Ionia in the late 7th or early 6th century BCE. If it was up to me, philosophy would be taught in schools from kindergarten and upwards. It's my belief it would create a better society with more balanced and emphatic individuals.

Anyway, instead of "atheist churches" I was envisioning "philosophy churches". And as with the many different religions and denominations, there are different schools of thought within philosophy. So they don't all have to agree or have the same convictions.

Could it work? Probably not, I suppose it would just be too elitist for ordinary people.

Zikes. I just read this and as a "non-believer" myself I hope you were being tongue-in-cheek from the start. "We" are "enlightened" and "generally progressive"? Too elitist for ordinary people? If this is the language of any ideology I consider it quite naive.

If religion is pointless or stupid, why should we be motivated to replace it with something else? Why not just let it go? What you propose is just as divisive and dogmatic as religion is criticized of being. It's just as much a means for champions to position themselves as being better than others under the structure of some set of overarching intangible thoughts, ultimately corrupted to serve the will of those who want to control its direction.

 

[Second Summer]

Ignoring the distinction between so called continental vs analytic philosophy and focusing on the latter, the only thing philosophers have in common is a methodology. In that sense, a "church of philosophy" makes no more sense than a "church of biology" or "church of mathematics".

That is why I thought there could be several "churches" of philosophy.

But ideologies are the "new religion", people in the west are starting to group themselves along more secular lines now. Atheism, veganism, etc and these groups function, socially speaking, as religions.

To some small extent, yes, but I think they're still lacking in the social aspects compared to organised religion.

 

[Second Summer]

Zikes. I just read this and as a "non-believer" myself I hope you were being tongue-in-cheek from the start. "We" are "enlightened" and "generally progressive"? Too elitist for ordinary people? If this is the language of any ideology I consider it quite naive.

I think you may be reading this the wrong way. It's definitely not an "ideology" and not what I would call a serious proposition, it's more like loose thoughts and daydreaming, not too restricted by "second thoughts" or self-criticism. (Also, yes, I do consider the West to be enlightened and generally progressive relatively speaking compared to what goes on many other places in the world.)

If religion is pointless or stupid, why should we be motivated to replace it with something else? Why not just let it go?

Like I said, I think we're missing out on some things, especially the social aspects of organised religion. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also, mental illness has become more common, and I suspect a society with more social interaction could better prevent that from happening.

What you propose is just as divisive and dogmatic as religion is criticized of being. It's just as much a means for champions to position themselves as being better than others under the structure of some set of overarching intangible thoughts, ultimately corrupted to serve the will of those who want to control its direction.

I don't see how it's necessarily as dogmatic or divisive, but I see your point, and that development definitely seems like a danger. Maybe some of these problems could be prevented by imposing a particularly benevolent structure / organisation on these new "churches" right from the outset.

 

[nigel1]

IS, perhaps we don't disagree so much. And I agree that we need more deliberate group engagement as you do though I think more activities such as sewing circles and BINGO nights would serve the general public, in that regard, whether or not we have religious groups. Philosophy clubs would be, as they are now, valuable in that light.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Philosophies, the new religions?

first philosophical debate: Is there a God?