religous observers

@mysterystar,

In order to experience religion, would it not be necessary to understand what one is experiencing? And would this necessity almost preclude experiencing religion only through watching others perform religious acts?
Say we are watching Midnight Mass at the Vatican next Christmas eve; we could observe it aesthetically, admire the great interior and the pageantry. But this observation would be a theatrical event on a par with the Trooping of the Colour.
What conditions would be necessary for us before we could understand this as a religious experience?

1 Reply

@jgweed,

I had a girlfriend who use to take me to her church every couple of weeks. It was non-denominational. As far as feeling I was a part of their religion, i did not. But I found myself relating in different ways and thinking to myself, i could have easily joined this church years ago when looking for answers and fulfillment.

I guess like any other experience, religion can be experimental, or, just a simple experience that you let go of after its over. I would imagine it could be healthy and give someone another moment of understanding our fellow man and woman.

Just remember to appreciate the people and not the ideas, then you will pass along with less judgment and more honesty. :a-ok:

1 Reply

@Joe,

A community of friendly souls all thinking they worshp a loving God...it may be an illusion but i can understand their community..an old village church with your neighbours, worshiping together and a friendly chat..How many actually question their faith in depth? do they have to?

1 Reply

@mysterystar,

Hey Mysterystar,

I'm glad you reposted this. I saw this in your intro post and was intrigued; we get an awful lot of discussion on various religious phenomena and rarely is it anything new. So thank you.

mysterystar wrote:

Please let me clarify an idea a little quickly. If one feels he does not have the capacity of mind, or heart, or heritage, or society, or may be even if one might be taught to believe the above doubt, could one choose to only experience religion vicarously? How many people only experience religion through the observance of others?

Good question. I think that you've described something that is going on increasingly over time - at least insomuch as I've observed it. I get the sense that religiosity, at least in the more public institutionalized sense, *is* often vicariously enjoyed. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, really; except that it could speak to religion becoming more of an individualized experience. It also might have to do with simple *pleasure* (wherein someone who either does believe or wants to believe enjoys observing those that seem so much more faithful. So yea, I think you've described something here we don't much talk about, but what to make of it - I'm not quite sure.

mysterystar wrote:

Could this be an alternative to agnostism, atheism, and theism?

As to this question, I'd say it's an easy "No"; but only because these three theistic divisions have nothing to do with what you're doing as much as they are concerned with what, if anything, you believe. If you don't know what you believe; neither believing nor disbelieving in any god you're an Agnostic. If you don't believe in a god you're an atheist and if you *do* believe in a god or gods you're a theist. We don't like the stigma of labels - most people don't, but these terms have only to do with your belief (or lack thereof) in a god or gods. I see a lot of effort expended here by good-natured, well-meaning folk who try wriggle their way out of one of these (as if there's some disease they'll catch) and I think I understand they reasoning and can emphathize. On the other hand, one can justifiably scream, "To hell with Labels!"; sure, but that doesn't mean that that flowering petaled plant growing there isn't a "Rose" - call it what you like, it doesn't change anything. But yea... I'm digressing horridly.

In any case, I'd think in your example (where one doesn't much take part in religiosity yet enjoys observing those who do), that observer could be any one of the three. I, myself, am an atheist but I *very* much enjoy religious phenomena; pontifications of the faithful, the whimsical musings of someone for whom religion is a deeply-personal experience, movies and books with religious themes, etc. I find them charming; and often, refreshingly sincere.

mysterystar wrote:

Is this stance as common as I think it is? Has it been labeled? Can we call it "observism"... but on a more abstract level is this "observism" an effective descriptor and choice that deserves to be promoted?

Sure, call it what you like! But I think it's making a dissimilar comparision to call it an alternative to agnosticism, atheism and theism. It's like saying, "Could we choose between the fruits: Apple, Pear, Papaya and Muffler?". An Observer could easily be any of the three and seems to speak to "behavior" rather than "belief or non-belief".

Anyway, nice post. I hope I've spoken correctly to what you were trying to get across.

Thanks

~~~~~~~~~

[*] As a side note, I find it ironic that many of the same people who refused to be called by these "unjust labels" are often the ones who abhor the political correctness of having to refer to people as "People", rather than "He". This isn't really relevant, but it is amusing given the appearance of hypocrisy.

0 Replies

@mysterystar,

mysterystar wrote:

Please let me clarify an idea a little quickly. If one feels he does not have the capacity of mind, or heart, or heritage, or society, or may be even if one might be taught to believe the above doubt, could one choose to only experience religion vicarously? How many people only experience religion through the observance of others? Could this be an alternative to agnostism, atheism, and theism?
Is this stance as common as I think it is? Has it been labeled? Can we call it "observism"
I know the catholic church believes in mediation but on a more abstract level is this "observism" an effective descriptor and choice that deserves to be promoted?

Hello mysterystar,

Let us look at the word "vicariously" and see if we can choose a better one. It is safe to use that word in that living vicariously through others is commonplace today. But I think it goes much deeper than that as it relates to religious experiences. One is the nature of the venue in that mentally we open up and release the fear that is needed to survive in the "real world". In that act there is a inexplicable bond that ensues between those individuals that creates a sense of peace that is virtually impossible to maintain outside of that venue. That is the essence that gives "religion" the power it has. It is real, and those of faith, to re-experience that "oneness" return to that environment.

The key words here, I feel, are the "opening up", and one can only do that when they are totally unafraid and that is what many religions offer is that environment in which one can do just that. I think we can use the word "vicarious" when those who witness the awe of such an event, but yet are not a part of it, though they can see the effects. IMO, there are those who will not "open up" for reasons only known to themselves and even then may not know what those reasons are. It's just they feel secure in their isolation and will not venture from it for fear of being disappointed or hurt, such has been their experiences in life.

So, what I am saying to view it as a vicarious relationship could only come from the "outside" looking in from someone who has not experienced that "reality".

Thinking out loud, my opinion. Good post.
William

1 Reply

@William,

I have experienced IT but my logic told me it was an illusion ...comfort as it is.. its not honest to ignore your gut feelings..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

I have experienced IT but my logic told me it was an illusion ...comfort as it is.. its not honest to ignore your gut feelings..

I understand that. What happens is "logically undefinable", in my opinion. Logically, it makes no sense. There is much about the human beiing that is beyond logic and understanding. On a lighter note, laughter and joy are the rewards of inner peace. If you remember Spock was the epitome of logic and he never cut a smile. Ha. All answers are not logical answers. IMO. But I do understand where you are coming from which leads me to believe whether or not your experience was real. Please, I am not denying it, it's just there are many who claim to be of a particular faith, who are still alien to what it is that draws so many to it. Please no offense meant. Smile

William

1 Reply

@mysterystar,

This alternative probably is a straw man. Additionally, religious observation might be seen as an appeal to authority without an indepedent argument.
Materialism, secularism, behaviorism, and political correctness are so antithetical to my personal beliefs originally this occured as a thought experiment.
Now I am going crazy with thoughts racing about bad faith, nasua<sp>, and being condemned to be free. As in a time of war, we are forced to decide and act. I don't know why the question of a belief in God is wracking me as particularly existential right now?
Why must religion inherently predate the phenomenal before it can be appreciated?

0 Replies

@mysterystar,

mysterystar;36403 wrote:

could one choose to only experience religion vicarously?

An atheist can certainly be moved by the deep feelings of others, including as they experience religion directly.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

yeah on a side note, Camu got away with plays and melodrama as philosophy I think.:bigsmile::perplexed:

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

I understand that. What happens is "logically undefinable", in my opinion. Logically, it makes no sense. There is much about the human beiing that is beyond logic and understanding. On a lighter note, laughter and joy are the rewards of inner peace. If you remember Spock was the epitome of logic and he never cut a smile. Ha. All answers are not logical answers. IMO. But I do understand where you are coming from which leads me to believe whether or not your experience was real. Please, I am not denying it, it's just there are many who claim to be of a particular faith, who are still alien to what it is that draws so many to it. Please no offense meant.
William

NO offence taken but are you sure your experience is real...i was sure at the time..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;36426 wrote:

A community of friendly souls all thinking they worshp a loving God...it may be an illusion but i can understand their community..an old village church with your neighbours, worshiping together and a friendly chat..How many actually question their faith in depth? do they have to?

What are the conversations for if not to challenge their faith in depth? In the Bible itself (and probably most other religious texts) it says "as iron sharpens iron, so must one man sharpen another." It calls for us to constantly challenge ourselves so that we may be "sharp." that's where the phrase came from.

As far as the discussion at hand. wrd to jgweed. While a lot of spiritual practice involves observance, there's that aspect of getting involved and experiencing it, not solely on an emotional level. Can I be an accomplished musician vicariously?

1 Reply

@Aphoric,

Aphoric wrote:

What are the conversations for if not to challenge their faith in depth? In the Bible itself (and probably most other religious texts) it says "as iron sharpens iron, so must one man sharpen another." It calls for us to constantly challenge ourselves so that we may be "sharp." that's where the phrase came from.

As far as the discussion at hand. wrd to jgweed. While a lot of spiritual practice involves observance, there's that aspect of getting involved and experiencing it, not solely on an emotional level. Can I be an accomplished musician vicariously?

So they should but how many do? was my question..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

NO offence taken but are you sure your experience is real...i was sure at the time..

Yes. I have devoted most of my life to it. It is all encompassing and the only thing that matters in my life. What is not sure, is if what I have experienced it solely for me or if it is to be expected by others too. As far as I am concerned, it is no longer a matter of "faith". It has gone well beyond that. In that experience much has happened that cannot be explained that allowed me to understand the magnitude of that we are a part of. It is a personal, mental, physical revelation that cannot be the result of any experience that can be trace to anything this earth has to offer. IMO. Not yet anyway. The "fact" that I know I experienced it, I know it exists, and to what degree it is experienced by others is not known. But I am reasonably sure those that question the existence of a higher understanding have not truly experience this revelation.

What is understandable is it is hard to maintain in our everyday reality and that is what gives the church such power for it provides that "safe haven" and the "group mentality" that allow this "revelation" to occur. I just know it does not take a church environment for this to happen, but it will take an enormous amount of faith which is the total lack of fear and that is the "surrender" most can only do in a save environment of a church. There are many, who call themselves "religious" who take extreme advantage of the phenomenon. Sad to say.

That's why so many associate this phenomenal "attuning" to the church, when in actually it is about the way life was meant to be. Most, because of the survivalist mechanisms we have in place that protect us in the reality we have created it is next to impossible to experience this "union" away from that venue and almost impossible to maintain. Which, in this regard, you could have very well have had an experience, but succumb to the harsh reality that is the world around you and were not able to maintain it. It is not easy, I assure you.

That is what confuses so many people as they cannot understand why God "restrict's" His "blessings" on those who are of a particular denomination and not to all people. Well, that's what I have been saying all along, He does. It just requires a "peace of mind" that is virtually impossible considering the barriers we have in the mind that we must have to survive in this world. That's the problem and the reason why those of faith keep going back again and again to tap into that oneness. It is what revival is all about.

If one's mind is truly at peace and unafraid it will naturally take place as one begins to understand the oneness of it all. In the world we live in it is impossible to imagine "any oneness" as we have learned to live separate from each other rather than depend on each other which makes it harder to understand. People spend their entire life patterning an existence in which they can deal with and control, apart from others and it is hard to get through those "safety shields" that can be also defined as the ego. Once fear is gone, the relationship we have of others takes on a whole new light. Now that is hard to explain. You can call it a love, a caring, a consideration that allows real communication and sharing.

I sorry if I got on a tangent here, but I have a tendency to do that for one thought automatically leads to another and so on and so on. I hope this answers your question. What I feel is the most important truth of all is this "revelation" is life and the way it is meant to be. It has nothing to do with any particular "religion". Not any more. Once we strive to end the fear, which is so pervasive in all we do, an all levels, we will begin to attune with that what we "know" as God. IMO, we have no other choice. It is the way it was meant to be. Smile

William

1 Reply

@William,

I appreciate your personel faith and how much it means to you and i can assure you i was of a like mind for many years but my need and my ability to be rational had a perpetual discussion and the rational me won....If i could find any reason to believe in a benevolent god ide still be like you but sorry for me he dont exist..Its that simple but i dont feel a loss or that something is missing because once i realised he was an illusion, well i could not miss something that was not there in the first place..I have communion with friends and family and the love we share..that is enough for me..

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

I appreciate your personel faith and how much it means to you and i can assure you i was of a like mind for many years but my need and my ability to be rational had a perpetual discussion and the rational me won....If i could find any reason to believe in a benevolent god ide still be like you but sorry for me he dont exist..Its that simple but i dont feel a loss or that something is missing because once i realised he was an illusion, well i could not miss something that was not there in the first place..I have communion with friends and family and the love we share..that is enough for me..

I understand. As you, at least as I can discern, relate "God" as a separate entity, it is extremely hard to get on a level of understanding that allows communication. I only use "God" and "He" for conversational purposes in that is what most people are accustomed to. This is about a oneness that cannot be understood of which we "are a part". That is all I am saying. You could be one who is in tune and don't realize it. The only thing that concerns me is if you were, you would more clearly understand what it is I am "trying" to say. There are many who are, and never step foot inside a chruch. The only difference is they are not antagonistic to it. I hope this makes sense. Smile

William

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

So they should but how many do? was my question..

How many secular oriented people do you think sit and challenge their moral views and beliefs? how many people do you think sit and adress the prevalent social issues of today? The problem does not lie in the idea that religious people don't challenge themselves. It lies in the idea that NOBODY challenges themselves. Thought on things like personal theology requires deep thinking. A lot of people are afraid of deep thinking because they have to challenge their realities and existing beliefs, which is anithetical to security.

1 Reply

@Aphoric,

Aphoric wrote:

How many secular oriented people do you think sit and challenge their moral views and beliefs? how many people do you think sit and adress the prevalent social issues of today? The problem does not lie in the idea that religious people don't challenge themselves. It lies in the idea that NOBODY challenges themselves. Thought on things like personal theology requires deep thinking. A lot of people are afraid of deep thinking because they have to challenge their realities and existing beliefs, which is anithetical to security.

many secular people question their morals but im talking about a strongly held belief system that the faithful should question..are you saying they should not?

0 Replies

religous observers

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know