Religion and Individualism

[Beren3000]

For my English class, we were working on a German novel called Demian by Herman Hesse. This novel invited us "not to consider prohibited anything the soul desires" and to find our own morality since "evil is always changing". We were discussing the novel one day and one of my classmates said that he thought that people who follow religion just choose the easy way out. IOW, they wait for religion to teach them morals instead of finding them out for themselves. His comment seems to suggest a view that following religion makes you less of an individual, that (to quote Bop's sig.) "morality is the herd instinct in the individual". Now, I completely refuse this reasoning, but I just wanted to know what you guys think about it. To what extent can religion and individualism co-exist? How far does it apply to your religion; or, if you have no religion, what is your opinion on the matter?

[The Gaffer]

Excellent topic, sir.

Personally, I kind of agree with the idea (though I am clear that many religious people are not doing this), but that is probably because I agree that morality etc come from ourselves and not from any deity.

Another aspect to the question is how much individualism is valued within a specific religion and how that affects our culture. As we know, the Reformation challenged the hierarchical orthodoxy of the Catholic Church and helped lead to the rise of individualism in the West.

Finally we've got the question of how religion is in fact a very effective means of transmitting "moral knowledge" and ensuring that we all behave ourselves. Maybe we're not ready as a species for truly individual morality (though personally I think that we are).

[Beren3000]

Just a few points:

-I'm not personally against the idea of individual morality, but IMO, it doesn't rule out the existence of evil. There is such a thing as BAD, so if you try to universalize individual morality, the immediate result will be the abolition of all constitution and the "bad" people will have a field day.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As we know, the Reformation challenged the hierarchical orthodoxy of the Catholic Church and helped lead to the rise of individualism in the West.

That doesn't neccesarily mean that the Catholic Church is anti-individualism, it's just the mal-practice and the abuse of power that reigned in Luther King's time were anti-individualist and wrong but the tenets of the Church in themselves are not.

More later, I gtg now.

[The Gaffer]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to differ about evil.

But how would "universalising individual morality" lead to the abolition of all constitution?

My view about individual morality is not a prescription but description: an opinion based on observation and thinking. Individual morality is, IMO, a fact of life and it hasn't led to "abolition of all constitution.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

nice topic, beren, best let Brownie, Rian, Inked, Lief, Lizra and Nurvi know about it, then we will have some excellent discussion

in my opinion, morality is individuality, you define your concepts personally, howerver, you may draw on a religious context if necessary, such as i base my belief system on that of the teachings of the buddha.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But how would "universalising individual morality" lead to the abolition of all constitution?

Because individual morality simply states that there is no universal morality. Law (and therefore Constitution) are simply not valid in that context because they represent the morality of a certain group of people only (the legislators) which can not apply to others.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well I guess we'll have to agree to differ about evil.

Care to elaborate? What leads you to say that there is no evil?

EDIT: Cross-post with LCoU

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

in my opinion, morality is individuality, you define your concepts personally, howerver, you may draw on a religious context if necessary, such as i base my belief system on that of the teachings of the buddha.

I guess your PoV is close to mine, but let me see if I understand it. Are you saying that individualism can exist in a religious context or that morality and individualism can encompass religion?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

My view about individual morality is not a prescription but description: an opinion based on observation and thinking. Individual morality is, IMO, a fact of life and it hasn't led to "abolition of all constitution.

No it hasn't and that's because we have laws - which are the secular version of "religious morality".

Whether you believe in a god or not - your morality is strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian principals if you live in the west. This is the culture that is predominate here. That is why In the US or in Europe - peopel don't throw acid on a woman for looking at a man or having sex out of wedlock. While in other parts of the world - it's condoned.

Society - whether it's through religion or through secular laws is solely what defines morality. If we condoned cannibolism tomorrow - inititially - because of the culture - people would still not feel comfortable eating another human being. But as time wore on - the morality would change because more people would find it acceptable as the old belief gave way to the new.

Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Whether you like it or not - it's the group (society) that defines morality - not the individual.

That is why we have laws. If it were the individual that really defined morality, then there wouldn't be any need for laws; ergo, individual morality universalised would lead to the abolition of laws.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

That is why we have laws. If it were the individual that really defined morality, then there wouldn't be any need for laws; ergo, individual morality universalised would lead to the abolition of laws.

Exactly - but since we can not rely on individual morality - what would end up happening is that we would have anarchy in the streets.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Exactly - but since we can not rely on individual morality - what would end up happening is that we would have anarchy in the streets.

Ok, so why are we still arguing? We're both saying the same thing: individual morality leads to anarchy!

[Starr Polish]

Well, even if one chooses to follow a religion, I've yet to meet one person who believes in everything exactly the same way as another (with the exception of cults). Take Christianity, for example (since it;s an easy example and I know it fairly well):

The Bible can be taken as completely literal, somewhat literal, somewhat symbolic or mostly symbolic. Should the apocrypha be included? Was this line accurately translated? Was Jesus preaching about love or the axe?

There are as many religions/faiths as there are people in the world.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

Well, even if one chooses to follow a religion, I've yet to meet one person who believes in everything exactly the same way as another (with the exception of cults). Take Christianity, for example (since it;s an easy example and I know it fairly well):

The Bible can be taken as completely literal, somewhat literal, somewhat symbolic or mostly symbolic. Should the apocrypha be included? Was this line accurately translated? Was Jesus preaching about love or the axe?

Interesting point. However, I wouldn't go as far as saying:

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

There are as many religions/faiths as there are people in the world.

There are general outlines to each faith that most (not to say all!) believers adhere to. Take the Ten Commandments for example; if you conduct a survey, 99.99% people would agree that "Thou shalt not kill" is morally correct. Christians also agree about Charity (though they might interpret it differently) and the divinity of Jesus, etc...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Ok, so why are we still arguing? We're both saying the same thing: individual morality leads to anarchy!

I was never arguing with you - I was agreeing with you. I even agreed with you on my first post - I had quoted the gaffer and was "arguing" with him.

My first post in this thread cross posted with your above it where we had basically said the same thing.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I was never arguing with you - I was agreeing with you. I even agreed with you on my first post - I had quoted the gaffer and was "arguing" with him.

Sorry!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Sorry!

No problem - happens to everyone.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

I guess your PoV is close to mine, but let me see if I understand it. Are you saying that individualism can exist in a religious context or that morality and individualism can encompass religion?

they can, they just usually dont
ie it is possible for one to encompass the other, and vice versa, it is just a human rarity

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

they can, they just usually dont
ie it is possible for one to encompass the other, and vice versa, it is just a human rarity

Now I'm confused. You're saying the "encompassing" can go either way? But how? One or the other (religion or individual morality) should be "bigger" or more of a "fact of life" as The Gaffer says. Either individual morality is the truth and religion is one of its maifestations or religion is the truth and individual morality is an aspect of it. So which do you think it is?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

neither is the 'truth', it is merely the perception of the one or the other that people view as 'truth', which is, more often than not, clouded by religion.

hope this clears my point up a bit

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

hope this clears my point up a bit

It does. I can now see that your point is different than mine!

[inked]

Since this a Tolkien forum, I oppose the LoTR to Hesse. Draw your own conclusions, but "good and evil have not changed". Morality is not relativistic nor societal, it overarchs societies. Else, why oppose Sauron?