Atheism as a religion

[ThisLife]

Jealousy? It can only be.

 

While I don't jump up and down for The Dalai Lama, hearing that he's been compared to Hitler etc is ridiculous.

 

Derailing here hehe, but thanks for sharing

 

.

We're not 'derailing'. Parallel tracks are still allowed to exist side-by-side in this tiny subset of the world called 'TaoBums Forum'. The day they become forbidden will be the day I head for the hills.

 

.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Personally, I'd probably start my list with the French Revolution -- literal chopping off of heads in the name of the Age of Reason and the Scientific Revolution (the "real reasons" are more complicated than that, of course...)

 

Some real reasons:

 

Baron D'Hollbach

 

Denis Diderot

 

Who with their friends literally, yes pun acknowledged and intended, conspired to turn:

 

The French Enclyclodpedia

 

into an instrument of propaganda for the revival of Epicureanism that I have mentioned before. This was to a great extant the inspiration for Marx who combined his Epicureanism with a touch of Hegel to come up with "Dialectic Materialism".

[Brian]

^^^

 

First link should be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

 

And third link should be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die

 

Special characters cause problems...

[Owledge]

 

The choice of the swastika and its Sanskrit name are quite self explanatory.

 

Then of course the ideal of an aryan, a tribe from the Rk veda; a gross miss translation, but never the less ...

 

Wasn't it that he (and/or the Thule society) were interested in the potential power that could come from the knowledge from those areas? AFAIK he was very interested in the type of archeology and ancient studies that could give him an advantage. Thus all the talk about nazi UFO projects, likely related to the information in ancient Indian texts about vimanas. That would explain why he chose the swastika as his symbol. Also because it's regarded as a symbol of good luck. (And the SS using ancient rune letters is based on the same mindset.) And the name "Aryans" refers to a god race that came from the sky, with blond hair and blue eyes, so that's where that came from.

BTW, there's a funny coincidence about "88" being code speech for "Heil Hitler" in Germany (HH - H being the 8th letter in the alphabet), but in China, the number 88 is regarded as a symbol of good luck, too.

Well... ultimately it shows how little symbol worship manifests in the substantial realm, lol. ... Then again, he survived several attempts on his life and made it quite far in his plans.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Owledge

[Zhongyongdaoist]

BTW, there's a funny coincidence about "88" being code speech for "Heil Hitler" in Germany (HH - H being the 8th letter in the alphabet), but in China, the number 88 is regarded as a symbol of good luck, too.

 

Another Nazi meaning for "88":

 

The German "eighty eight"

 

One of the most effective pieces of artillery in the Second World War.

[Owledge]

 

Another Nazi meaning for "88":

 

The German "eighty eight"

 

One of the most effective pieces of artillery in the Second World War.

The amount of good luck being dealt by that thing is AAAbsolutely too much to handle for any recipient.

One would think the operators would receive more flak for this aggressive approach.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Owledge

[iain]

Wasn't it that he (and/or the Thule society) were interested in the potential power that could come from the knowledge from those areas? AFAIK he was very interested in the type of archeology and ancient studies that could give him an advantage. Thus all the talk about nazi UFO projects, likely related to the information in ancient Indian texts about vimanas. That would explain why he chose the swastika as his symbol. Also because it's regarded as a symbol of good luck. (And the SS using ancient rune letters is based on the same mindset.) And the name "Aryans" refers to a god race that came from the sky, with blond hair and blue eyes, so that's where that came from.

BTW, there's a funny coincidence about "88" being code speech for "Heil Hitler" in Germany (HH - H being the 8th letter in the alphabet), but in China, the number 88 is regarded as a symbol of good luck, too.

Well... ultimately it shows how little symbol worship manifests in the substantial realm, lol. ... Then again, he survived several attempts on his life and made it quite far in his plans.

 

Well the name swastika when broken down gives the following:

 

swa = self

astika = faithfull, having faith in God, pious, the length of eight.

 

Astika and Nastika can represent the two different directions of rotation of the symbol, and with that masculine or femanin dominance; energetically speaking of course.

 

But also āstika means "theist", while nāstika means "atheist"

 

The symbol represents universal growth or upachaya, some say the rotation of the galaxy, solar system, the Earth. The rotation and the 4 kendra being critical to Hindu astrology.

This rotation and direction are key aspects of the mathematics of hindu astrology the swastika represents the winds of change .Stability is shown in a chart (or the lack of) via this kendra (cross) and its potential for movement. If the arms at the end of the cross go in an anti zodiacal direction this is symbolic of material prosperity where as in the anti zodiacal direction this indicates spiritual prosperity. Known as the savya svastika and apasavya swastika, right and left handed. Now, if the swastika is turned 45° on to its point and is shown to be fallen, then this indicates very strong winds of change.Giving the patita savya svastika and patita apasavya swastika alternately, thus Hitlers usage was of the patita apasavya swastika, or the fallen left-handed swastika, perhaps wishing destruction of religion or spiritual things.

 

My instinct toward a reference to 88 would be first to 8 and 8 rather than 88 (in matters that concern the swastika) there is a highly important numerical concept used when considering Sanskrit text; that of bhavat bhavam. To understand this principle, which is fundamental to the construction of the chandas or rhythm in mantra, and also the functionality of the kundali or birth chart. We count starting from 1 not 0 and when we arrive at 13 we go back to 1; so when I think of 88 here this thought springs to mind; it could be referring to the 8th from the 8th; the 8th house representing sudden change and the end of things and the 8th from the 8th (the 15th) being thus the 3rd bhava, a house of upadesha or rapid growth perhaps universal (also shows death of the father and or collapse of the temple).

 

 

Edited October 28, 2014 by iain

[Rara]

 

This restores the links:

 

 

 

If you are referring to the idea of Islamic terrorists, how about this for atheist/anachist terrorists:

 

One well known example of Anarchist Terrorism

 

and also the inspiration for these particular attacks:

 

Luigi Galleani and the "propaganda of the deed"

 

These militant atheists were content with bombs and guns for terror and assassination and when related groups took power, settled on firing squads, rather than beheading.

 

One possible example among many.

 

Of course these poor deluded folks are not examples of the real, true atheists/anarchists:

 

 

Thanks for restoring the links.

 

Yes, power, greed, ego will always spawn violence.

 

However, nowhere in any of these arguments, is evidence that "atheism" prompted such violence. Just because the offender is an atheist doesn't mean their belief made him do it. This was motivated by class divide, more than anything.

 

Whereas an Islamic extremist/terrorist is sold/believes in a paradise reward for their actions...that it's what Allah wants.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Rara

[Owledge]

 

Well the name swastika when broken down gives the following:

 

swa = self

astika = faithfull, having faith in God, pious, the length of eight.

 

Astika and Nastika can represent the two different directions of rotation of the symbol, and with that masculine or femanin dominance; energetically speaking of course.

 

But also āstika means "theist", while nāstika means "atheist"

 

The symbol represents universal growth or upachaya, some say the rotation of the galaxy, solar system, the Earth. The rotation and the 4 kendra being critical to Hindu astrology.

This rotation and direction are key aspects of the mathematics of hindu astrology the swastika represents the winds of change .

Stability is shown in a chart (or the lack of) via this kendra (cross) and its potential for movement. If the arms at the end of the cross go in an anti zodiacal direction this is symbolic of material prosperity where as in the anti zodiacal direction this indicates spiritual prosperity. Known as the savya svastika and apasavya swastika, right and left handed.

Now if the swastika is turned 45° on to its point and is shown to be fallen, then this indicates very strong winds of change.

Giving patita savya svastika and patita apasavya swastika alternately, thus Hitlers usage was of the patita apasavya swastika, or the fallen left-handed swastika, perhaps wishing destruction of religion or spiritual things.

 

Now my instinct for 88 brings me to another important numerical concept often used when encoding and understanding Sanskrit text; that of bhavat bhavam.

To understand this principle which is fundamental to the construction of the chandas or rhythm in mantra and also the functionality of the kundali or birth chart. We count starting from 1 not 0 and when we arrive at 13 we go back to 1; so when I think of 88 here this thought springs to mind; it could be refering to the 8th from the 8th; the 8th house representing sudden change and the end of things and the 8th from the 8th (the 15th) being thus the 3rd bhava, which is the house of upadesha or rapid growth.

The 15th asterism or star is ruled by the wind god and also Rahu, who represents both the wind element and sudden change.

 

By the way... your posting ... "http://thetaobums.com/topic/36593-atheism-as-a-religion/page-23#entry588857"

 

^^

[iain]

By the way... your posting ... "http://thetaobums.com/topic/36593-atheism-as-a-religion/page-23#entry588857"

 

^^

 

Looks as though the subject was destined to crop up sooner or later.

Edited October 28, 2014 by iain

[Marblehead]

 

Oh, postscript regarding Hitler as a Christan:

 

That article is contradictory because it is a fact that Hitler ordered the use of much manpower and resources to find Christian artifacts. He felt that having Christianity support his ideology that his quest to conquer the world would be more acceptable to others.

 

We could do the research but I would be willing to bet that the article was written by a Christian who, after the fact, was trying to separate Hitler from Christianity. And remember, the Christian Church, both Lutheran and Catholic, supported Hitler and said absolutely nothing regarding the killing of millions of Jews.

 

And I will point out that the article tries to link Hitler with Nietzsche's philosophy, which is a direct and known lie.

[Bubbles]

This discussion just stirs up people's subjective views, sweeping generalizations instead of objective truths which require real, patient and humble years of work and research, without any guarantee of success, especially when it comes to historical events.

 

Below are the first verses of the Hsin Hsin Ming:

 

The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood
the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

 

Take care everyone,

[Owledge]

To set up what you like against what you dislike

 

is the disease of the mind.

Facebook culture: Lists of thumbs ups vs. thumbs downs. Preferrably updated weekly.

 

Personally, I remember a job interview long time ago. They asked me about my weaknesses. I told them I surely have them, and I will know them when I encounter them, but I don't like to keep a list of them.

In retrospect, I'd add that it would just feed them energy and be like: This is me. I identify with these things, I like them because they make me an interesting person. To be able to list my weaknesses spontaneously at a job interview I'd have to have them active and ready in my mind all the time. I prefer to be in doubt about whether the idea of a certain weakness really appies to me. And also stating a weakness implies its presence in any kind of situation, which is too general and often not the truth.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

That article is contradictory because it is a fact that Hitler ordered the use of much manpower and resources to find Christian artifacts.  He felt that having Christianity support his ideology that his quest to conquer the world would be more acceptable to others.

 

We could do the research but I would be willing to bet that the article was written by a Christian who, after the fact, was trying to separate Hitler from Christianity.  And remember, the Christian Church, both Lutheran and Catholic, supported Hitler and said absolutely nothing regarding the killing of millions of Jews.

 

And I will point out that the article tries to link Hitler with Nietzsche's  philosophy, which is a direct and known lie.

 

He felt that having Christianity support his ideology that his quest to conquer the world would be more acceptable to others: He would use anyone or anything to further his aims and destroy them when they were no longer useful to him.

 

the Christian Church, both Lutheran and Catholic, supported Hitler: That Hitler was quite willing to turn on his "supporters" as the:

 

Night of the Long Knives

 

aptly demonstrated.

 

. . . the article tries to link Hitler with Nietzsche's  philosophy: If this is what you are talking about:

 

Michael Burleigh contrasted Hitler's public pronouncements on Christianity with those in Table Talk, suggesting that Hitler's real religious views were 'a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzschean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-clericalism.'^%5B89%5D Richard Evans also reiterated the view that Nazism was secular, scientific and anti-religious in outlook in the last volume of his trilogy on Nazi Germany, writing, 'Hitler's hostility to Christianity reached new heights, or depths, during the war;' his source for this was the 1953 English translation of Table Talk.^%5B56%5D (Wikipedia on Hitler's Religious Views)

 

I am astonished that out of such a long and tightly argued discussion you would focus on such an insignificant aspect of it.  It certainly clarifies the nature of your attachment to Nietzsche.  It leaves me wondering if you understand the meaning of the word faux.

 

Postscript: I had prepared this before post, which covers the issues nicely.  I decided to post it anyway, to avoid the appearance of not having a response.

[Marblehead]

I am astonished that out of such a long and tightly argued discussion you would focus on such an insignificant aspect of it. It certainly clarifies the nature of your attachment to Nietzsche. It leaves me wondering if you understand the meaning of the word faux.

I have stated a number of times on this forum that I am a Neitzschean.

 

And yes, any use of Nietzschean philosophy by the Nazis was false usage. This was brought about by his sister and her SS boyfriend.

[Rara]

This discussion just stirs up people's subjective views, sweeping generalizations instead of objective truths which require real, patient and humble years of work and research, without any guarantee of success, especially when it comes to historical events.

 

Below are the first verses of the Hsin Hsin Ming:

 

The Great Way is not difficult

for those who have no preferences.

When love and hate are both absent

everything becomes clear and undisguised.

Make the smallest distinction, however,

and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

If you wish to see the truth

then hold no opinions for or against anything.

To set up what you like against what you dislike

is the disease of the mind.

When the deep meaning of things is not understood

the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

 

Take care everyone,

I agree but I do hope that we can all do our best to accept more that is going on reliable info

 

I am fully aware of bias, preference and belief that clouds rational and honest thinking...yet it is only normal to have such (perhaps uneducated biases (blind ones too)

 

Wow, I could go deep with this. I don't have time now I'm afraid.

[Marblehead]

I agree but I do hope that we can all do our best to accept more that is going on reliable info

 

I am fully aware of bias, preference and belief that clouds rational and honest thinking...yet it is only normal to have such (perhaps uneducated biases (blind ones too)

 

Wow, I could go deep with this. I don't have time now I'm afraid.

Well, when you have the time I will be here to read it.

 

And I agree, the passage that Bubbles posted is very relevant to this discussion. This is why I keep beating that dead horse of "subjectivity vs objectivity". Once we have added our preferences, biases, likes or dislike to the objective we have in fact, in our own mind, altered the reality of the objective.

[Rara]

Well, when you have the time I will be here to read it.

 

And I agree, the passage that Bubbles posted is very relevant to this discussion. This is why I keep beating that dead horse of "subjectivity vs objectivity". Once we have added our preferences, biases, likes or dislike to the objective we have in fact, in our own mind, altered the reality of the objective.

 

Damn, you just reminded me of another thread I wanted to open up. I will in fact do that and incorporate the said subject within it as there is some relation.

[Rara]

Ok, did it. It's long...enjoy!

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/36739-objective-vs-subjective-how-we-can-be-more-honest-with-ourselves-and-then-others/

[Marblehead]

I just responded to it.

 

Is anyone ready for me to post some Nietzsche quotes in this Atheist thread?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

However, nowhere in any of these arguments, is evidence that "atheism" prompted such violence. Just because the offender is an atheist doesn't mean their belief made him do it. This was motivated by class divide, more than anything.

 

Whereas an Islamic extremist/terrorist is sold/believes in a paradise reward for their actions...that it's what Allah wants. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

I'm afraid that you missed the point, neither theism or atheism inspires violence, it is rather the setting in which they are placed. Quakers are theists and believe in “friendly persuasion” and pacifism, because they believe this is what God wants. It is beliefs about God or gods that inspires action, or non-action for that matter.

 

Now in regard to Marxism and its descendants, and yes the government of the Peoples Republic of China is Marxist in inspiration, it is a Marxist belief that only violence will lead to people being freed from the superstitious belief in God that keeps them in mental chains because of beliefs in a “divine right of Kings”, divine retribution, etc.

 

The “evangelical” nature of Epicureanism, which is the inspiration for Marxism, goes back to antiquity and was part of Epicurus original teachings. Epicureanism was one of the original “cults” in the sense that they lived in communes and actively practiced conversion to “free” people from the “superstitious” fear of the gods and how the gods would punish them for not acting “right”. While orthodox Epicureanism is not libertine, it popular interpretations, with its emphasis on hedonism, were often used as rationals for libertine excesses.

 

The English Civil War and the French Revolution set two powerful examples of the violent overthrow of Monarchy and the Religious institutions that supported them, and whatever Diderot and D'Hollbach might have thought about either, Marx and his collaborator Engels did pick up the cue and adapted violence as part of their teaching.

 

About the use of violence, here is Marx and Engels:

 

In 1848 he and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto that "their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions".[7] (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

and here is Engels:

 

That force, however, plays yet another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with the aid of which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilised political forms

—Friedrich Engels, Anti-Duhring, 1877[13] (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

and

 

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois?

—Friedrich Engels, On Authority, 1872[14] (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Wikipedia on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

 

All of these in the name of freeing the people from the constraints of religion and giving them the gift of atheism. In terms of violence it goes down hill from there. During the Twentieth Century the attempt to establish and maintain "atheism" as a state institution caused millions of deaths. Mere Islamic terrorists pale in comparison. I hope they never catchup.

 

Thus it is the "ideology" in which theism or atheism is embedded which creates the violence, but atheism per se is no proof against violence and theism not necessarily an incitement to it.

[Marblehead]

Good post. However, this:

 

All of these in the name of freeing the people from the constraints of religion and giving them the gift of atheism. In terms of violence it goes down hill from there. During the Twentieth Century the attempt to establish and maintain "atheism" as a state institution caused millions of deaths. Mere Islamic terrorists pale in comparison. I hope they never catchup.

Your use of the word "Atheism" should be replaced with "Marxism" in order for it to be valid. As it stands I call it misleading.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

Good post. However, this:

All of these in the name of freeing the people from the constraints of religion and giving them the gift of atheism. In terms of violence it goes down hill from there. During the Twentieth Century the attempt to establish and maintain "atheism" as a state institution caused millions of deaths. Mere Islamic terrorists pale in comparison. I hope they never catchup.

Your use of the word "Atheism" should be replaced with "Marxism" in order for it to be valid. As it stands I call it misleading. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

You can deny that Marxism was an organized and militant atheism all you like, but it doesn't change facts. Marxism was all about establishing atheism as a state institution. This is typical:

 

In his rejection of all religious thought, Marx considered the contributions of religion over the centuries to be unimportant and irrelevant to the future of humanity.^[16][17] The autonomy of humanity from the realm of supernatural forces was considered by Marx as an axiomatic ontological truth that had been developed since ancient times, and he considered it to have an even more respectable tradition than Christianity. He argued that religious belief had been invented as a reaction against the suffering and injustice of the world. In Marx's view, the poor and oppressed were the original creators of religion, and they used it as a way to reassure themselves that they would have a better life in the future, after death. Thus, it served as a kind of "opium," or a way to escape the harsh realities of the world. (Marx, in Wikipedia on Marixist-Leninist atheism)

 

and the rest of the article expands on it.

 

I left you or anyone else who wishes to separate themselves from Marxism an out when I said:

 

Thus it is the "ideology" in which theism or atheism is embedded which creates the violence, but atheism per se is no proof against violence and theism not necessarily an incitement to it.

 

But denying the atheistic nature of Marxism simply undermines your claim to objectivity. I can understand that you are uncomfortable with the connection, but really it has little to do with you and how you think or act as a person who takes their own brand of atheism seriously.

[Marblehead]

 

You can deny that Marxism was an organized and militant atheism all you like, but it doesn't change facts. Marxism was all about establishing atheism as a state institution.

But replacing religions with Marxism is nothing less than establishing another religion. Any good Atheist would be strongly against this.

[Bubbles]

Please find below an excerpt of " A common faith" written by John Dewey. Sorry it is an long one. Emphasis is mine.

 

It may give food for thought in this discussion. I have often found that a bit of pragmatism is of help in philosophical thinking.

 

Excerpt begins here:

 

The discussion may be made more definite by introducing, at this point, a particular illustration of this type of reasoning. A writer says: ‘‘I broke down from overwork and soon came to the verge of nervous prostration. One morning after a long and sleepless night . . . I resolved to stop drawing upon myself so continuously and begin drawing upon God. I determined to set apart a quiet time every day in which I could relate my life to its ultimate source, regain the consciousness that in God I live, move and have my being. That was thirty years ago. Since then I have had literally not one hour of darkness or despair.’’

 

This is an impressive record. I do not doubt its authenticity nor that of the experience related. It illustrates a religious aspect of experience. But it illustrates also the use of that quality to carry a superimposed load of a particular religion. For having been brought up in the Christian religion, its subject interprets it in the terms of the personal God characteristic of that religion. Taoists, Buddhists, Moslems, persons of no religion including those who reject all supernatural influence and power, have had experiences

similar in their effect. Yet another author commenting upon the passage says: ‘‘The religious expert can be more sure that this God exists than he can of either the cosmological God of speculative surmise or the Christ like God involved in the validity of moral optimism,’’ and goes on to add that such experiences ‘‘mean that God the savior, the power that gives victory over sin on certain conditions that man can fulfill, is an existent, accessible and scientifically knowable reality.’’ It should be clear that this inference is

sound only if the conditions, of whatever sort, that produce the effect are called ‘‘God.’’ But most readers will take the inference to mean that the existence of a particular Being, of the type called ‘‘God’’ in the Christian religion, is proved by a method akin to that of experimental science.

 

In reality, the only thing that can be said to be ‘‘proved’’ is the existence of some complex of conditions that have operated to effect an adjustment in life, an orientation, that brings with it a sense of security and peace. The particular interpretation given to this complex of conditions is not inherent in the experience itself. It is derived from the culture with which a particular person has been imbued. A fatalist will give one name to it; a Christian Scientist another, and the one who rejects all supernatural being still another. The determining factor in the interpretation of the experience is the particular doctrinal apparatus into which a person has been inducted. The emotional deposit connected with prior teaching floods the whole situation. It may readily confer upon the experience such a peculiarly sacred preciousness that all inquiry into its causation is barred. The stable outcome is so invaluable that the cause to which it is referred is usually nothing but a reduplication of

the thing that has occurred, plus some name that has acquired a deeply emotional quality.

 

The intent of this discussion is not to deny the genuineness of the result nor its importance in life. It is not, save incidentally, to point out the possibility of a purely naturalistic explanation of the event. My purpose is to indicate what happens when religious experience is already set aside as something sui generis. The actual religious quality in the experience described is the effect produced, the better adjustment in life and its conditions, not the manner and cause of its production. The way in which the experience operated, its function, determines its religious value. If the reorientation actually occurs, it, and the sense of security and stability accompanying it, are forces on their own account. It takes place in different persons in a multitude of ways. It is sometimes brought about by devotion to a cause; sometimes by a passage of poetry that opens a new perspective; sometimes as was the case with Spinoza—deemed an atheist in his day—through philosophical reflection.

 

The difference between an experience having a religious force because of what it does in and to the processes of living and religious experience as a separate kind of thing gives me occasion to refer to a previous remark. If this function were rescued through emancipation from dependence upon specific types of beliefs and practices, from those elements that constitute a religion, many individuals would find that experiences having the force of bringing about a better, deeper and enduring adjustment in life are not so rare and infrequent as they are commonly supposed to be. They occur frequently in connection with many significant moments of living. The idea of invisible powers would take on the meaning of all the conditions of nature and human association that support and deepen the sense of values which carry one through periods of darkness and despair to such an extent that they lose their usual depressive character.

 

I do not suppose for many minds the dislocation of the religious from a religion is easy to effect. Tradition and custom, especially when emotionally charged, are a part of the habits that have become one with our very being. But the possibility of the transfer is demonstrated by its actuality. Let us then for the moment drop the term ‘‘religious’’and ask what are the attitudes that lend deep and enduring support to the processes of living. I have, for example, used the words ‘‘adjustment’’ and ‘‘orientation.’’ What do they signify?

 

While the words ‘‘accommodation,’’ ‘‘adaptation,’’ and ‘‘adjustment’’ are frequently employed as synonyms, attitudes exist that are so different that for the sake of clear thought they should be discriminated. There are conditions we meet that cannot be changed. If they are particular and limited, we modify our own particular attitudes in accordance with them. Thus we accommodate ourselves to changes in weather, to alterations in income when we have no other recourse. When the external conditions are lasting we become inured, habituated, or, as the process is now often called, conditioned. The two main traits of this attitude, which I should like to call accommodation, are that it affects particular modes of conduct, not the entire self, and that the process is mainly passive. It may, however, become general and then it becomes fatalistic resignation or submission. There are other attitudes toward the environment that are also particular but that are more active. We re-act against conditions and endeavor to change them to meet our wants and demands. Plays in a foreign language are ‘‘adapted’’ to meet the needs of an American audience. A house is rebuilt to suit changed conditions of the household; the telephone is invented to serve the demand for speedy communication at a distance; dry soils are irrigated so that they may bear abundant crops. Instead of accommodating ourselves to conditions, we modify conditions so that they will be accommodated to our wants and purposes. This process may be called adaptation.

Now both of these processes are often called by the more general name of adjustment. But there are also changes in ourselves in relation to the world in which we live that are much more inclusive and deep seated. They relate not to this and that want in relation to this and that condition of our surroundings, but pertain to our being in its entirety.

 

Because of their scope, this modification of ourselves is enduring. It lasts through any amount of vicissitude of circumstances, internal and external. There is a composing and harmonizing of the various elements of our being such that, in spite of changes in the special conditions that surround us, these conditions are also arranged, settled, in relation to us. This attitude includes a note of submission. But it is voluntary, not externally imposed; and as voluntary it is something more than a mere Stoical resolution to endure unperturbed throughout the buffetings of fortune. It is more outgoing, more ready and glad, than the latter attitude, and it is more active than the former. And in calling it voluntary, it is not meant that it depends upon a particular resolve or volition. It is a change of will conceived as the organic plenitude of our being, rather than any special change in will.

It is the claim of religions that they effect this generic and enduring change in attitude. I should like to turn the statement around and say that whenever this change takes place there is a definitely religious attitude. It is not a religion that brings it about, but when it occurs, from whatever cause and by whatever means, there is a religious outlook and function.

 

End of the excerpt

 

A common faith, John Dewey, pp 11-16, Yale University Press; 2nd edition 2013

 

Edited for a better layout

Edited October 30, 2014 by bubbles