Religion and Individualism

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

did you know chimpanzees are extremely capable of complex communication, as well as the fact that they teach ritual, tool-making etc?

does this mean they have a "soul"?

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

did you know chimpanzees are extremely capable of complex communication, as well as the fact that they teach ritual, tool-making etc?

does this mean they have a "soul"?

No it does NOT! Where is the emotion in these communications? It's not so much the complexity of the communication as it's the emotion involved in it IMO.
EDIT: Anyway, back to our original topic, those of you who see religion as a hindrance to the process of "individuation" as our teacher (quoting C. G. Jung) calls it, what do you think is a better path towards the individual?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

complex communication is a sign of higher reasoning and thus emotion, just ask any ethnoarchaeologist or bioanthropologist or palaeosociologist,
plus the significance of ritual and religion which is demonstrated by chimpanzees, and even more so by pygmy chimpanzees, thereby clearly showing ultimate sentience, maybe not up to exactly the same level as most cultures of homo sapiens sapiens, but maybe surpassing that of homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
IMO, i am not sure of the existence of a "soul" anyhoo, which is a whole other thread right there!

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

complex communication is a sign of higher reasoning and thus emotion.....

Not necessarily. *

Originally Posted by LCoU

maybe not up to exactly the same level as most cultures of homo sapiens sapiens, but maybe surpassing that of homo sapiens neanderthalensis.....

I sincerely doubt it, considering that the neandertal brain was significantly bigger than h. sapiens sapiens, and chimpanzees brains are significantly smaller than h. sapiens sapiens.

*Well, you did ask for a bio-anthropologist's POV

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Not necessarily. *




I sincerely doubt it, considering that the neandertal brain was significantly bigger than h. sapiens sapiens, and chimpanzees brains are significantly smaller than h. sapiens sapiens.

*Well, you did ask for a bio-anthropologist's POV

sorry, was just giving the view of an a-level ethnoarchaeologist/palaeosociologist student darn, thought i could rely on some backup

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

1-As I've said before, because the communication systems we detected so far seem to stem from basic instincts only: hunger, survival, reproduction, etc...

and the animals could say the same about us. and they would be right. we dont do things just for the sake of doing them. and you cant measure the worth or sophistication of other species using the measuring stick of your own species. you introduce enormous bias right from the start.

2-Because that would prove that we have a soul

wait wait... how does the fact that we can have an "intellectual" conversation prove anything? let alone this concept of a soul which by definition cant be proven by use of empirical practices. Your logic leap here is quite evil knievelian.

are capable of being individuals and animals are not and finally are able to have this kind of conversation in the first place.

animals cant be individuals? Tell that to my cat… she has quite a personality believe me. And, again, I don’t understand why this conversation makes us superior. Maybe ants do something that we couldn’t comprehend that they shake they heads and think man those humans cant even do X. they are soooo primitive.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

sorry, was just giving the view of an a-level ethnoarchaeologist/palaeosociologist student darn, thought i could rely on some backup

Backup? Oh.... I see.... I can do that. No problem-o.

/me leans in behind chrys and breathes heavily on his neck


I gotcha back man! and yer pants as well

[katya]

OK, back to original topic (and I'm looking for that Avatar stuff- you'll have to wait a bit or you could probably find it on the internet)- religion and individualism.

Who says we have a true individualism? Where do our personallities come from? It seems that we are influenced by genetics, and by environment. Is there something beyond that too? If so, what is it? Do you believe in a soul or something?

If there's nothing else, then how can we even be individuals? If we are made of only our influences acting on the starting point determined by genetics, then isn't religion just one more influence?

Is individualism thinking for ourselves? (I mean, to try to look at a thing and decide where you stand on it objectively? ..or something.) If so, then what is influencing our decisions anyway?

Is individualism something like our true self? Where does that come from? What is it?

If there is no true individualism, does that matter? Is it ok if we just live our lives trying to remain true to that person that outside forces have created?

If I sound too Naturalist, blame it on English class and Stephen Crane. Transcendentalism is so much more appealing somehow...

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by katya

Who says we have a true individualism? Where do our personallities come from? It seems that we are influenced by genetics, and by environment. Is there something beyond that too? If so, what is it? Do you believe in a soul or something?

For my part I do believe in a soul, as is clear from my previous posts. As to outside influence, of course we can't help being influenced by genes (if genetics really do affect psychological behavior) but the fact that each of us is made from a combination of maternal and paternal genes makes for the birth of a unique individual every time: yes, you're a combination of both your mother and father, but you're the only person in the world with such a combination.

Originally Posted by katya

If we are made of only our influences acting on the starting point determined by genetics, then isn't religion just one more influence?

Not necessarily, it depends on how you respond to religion. I believe that the purpose of religion (especially Christianity, forgive the inevitable bias here) is to get you acquainted with your true self, with your soul and eventually, with the ultimate "soul": God. The main argument that religion is anti-individualist (at least organised religion) is that it has a set of rules that the faithful should not trespass; but if you believe that these rules were decreed by a deity, then I don't see how you're drowning your true self; you can follow these rules and still have room to think for yourself.

Originally Posted by katya

If there is no true individualism, does that matter? Is it ok if we just live our lives trying to remain true to that person that outside forces have created?

Individualism doesn't necessarily mean that we consider ourselves self-made, I don't see how the vision of a "person that outside forces have created" contradicts the vision of the true individual. IMO, individualism is recognising that you are a unique being and freeing yourself (as much as humanly possible) from outside influence, whether you believe that you were created by God or sprang out from the random collisions of molecules is irrelevant.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Yes, but what would you call "good conversation" exactly? Good conversation around here in the Moot for instance is intellectual. Other good conversation could be the social ability to be able to get personal with people, get to know them really well on an emotional level, etc... The point: none of these "conversations" are found among animals (with the exclusion of whale-songs which we're not sure about ).

Well, good conversation in the sense of this thread is a mutual expression of interest in a given topic by a collection of persons to discuss the item(s) of interest. Some engage in constant deconstruction techniques (say, IR, for example ) and some in available data, and some in hypotheses, etc.

Even variant forms of expression such as rants or emotional responses to the subject contribute in some form to two results: 1) an increase in knowledge of the topic(s) and 2) an increase in understanding of the topic as it relates to the participants and their lives (professional or personal).

Quite a lot going on in conversation among humans.

[katya]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

For my part I do believe in a soul, as is clear from my previous posts. As to outside influence, of course we can't help being influenced by genes (if genetics really do affect psychological behavior) but the fact that each of us is made from a combination of maternal and paternal genes makes for the birth of a unique individual every time: yes, you're a combination of both your mother and father, but you're the only person in the world with such a combination.

I figured you did, but I was kind of asking anyone. I like the way you're defining individualism, too. I'm special, just like everyone else, right? No matter how I was formed, I'm still a special individual.

Not necessarily, it depends on how you respond to religion. I believe that the purpose of religion (especially Christianity, forgive the inevitable bias here) is to get you acquainted with your true self, with your soul and eventually, with the ultimate "soul": God. The main argument that religion is anti-individualist (at least organised religion) is that it has a set of rules that the faithful should not trespass; but if you believe that these rules were decreed by a deity, then I don't see how you're drowning your true self; you can follow these rules and still have room to think for yourself.

I can totally see that- just because there are rules to follow, and you're deciding to follow them because they are decreed by a deity... I mean, if you think that the path of your religion is the right path, then it only makes sense to follow the rules. Otherwise, I mean, do you even believe in the whole thing at all?

Personally, I have mentioned that I follow (rather sketchily) Buddhism- I like the idea that I am acting in a certain way not because of fear of the wrath of God, but because it's a good way to live. From what you said, it doesn't seem that you are doing the former either (but I could be wrong- it happens quite often, actually).

Individualism doesn't necessarily mean that we consider ourselves self-made, I don't see how the vision of a "person that outside forces have created" contradicts the vision of the true individual. IMO, individualism is recognising that you are a unique being and freeing yourself (as much as humanly possible) from outside influence, whether you believe that you were created by God or sprang out from the random collisions of molecules is irrelevant.

So basically, you're agreeing with what I suggested (or tried inarticulately to say). I'm presently just kinda throwing ideas out there, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say I agree with what you just said there.^ I could always change my mind though, so nobody hold me to anything I say. I'm still trying to figure out the truth for myself.

Lastly, are you the one I was talking with in the Emily Dickinson fan club thread? I'm sorry I kinda ditched you. My mind was just elsewhere. Or my English class was. I never realized how influenced I was by my English class. Everyone better be ready to hear me quoting Mark Twain for a while now, hahaha! (...um, no.)

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by katya

I like the idea that I am acting in a certain way not because of fear of the wrath of God, but because it's a good way to live. From what you said, it doesn't seem that you are doing the former either (but I could be wrong- it happens quite often, actually).

It's not exactly out of fear that I adhere to the rules, but it would be too presumptuous for me to say that I reasoned out these rules for myself and found them to be the rest there is.

[katya]

Hm, if you don't mind (and it's not too off topic) why exactly do you follow the rules, if not for either of the reasons you mentioned? I know when I still considered myself a Christian, I felt like I wanted to follow the Ten Commandments, because Jesus said so and because I believed it was right to follow Him, even if I didn't understand the reasons behind all of them. I have to admit that there was a certain element of fear though- Catholicism is really terrible- I used to feel guilty all the time, especially in confession.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by katya

Hm, if you don't mind (and it's not too off topic) why exactly do you follow the rules, if not for either of the reasons you mentioned?

As I said before, the reason is the love I feel for God and the belief that He is the Perfect Being. I said I can't just say that I reasoned out the morals on my own because I was born and raised to the morals I follow now: those of Christianity.

Originally Posted by katya

Catholicism is really terrible- I used to feel guilty all the time, especially in confession.

Well, that's just a shame! I don't think that Catholicism is supposed to make you feel guilty, I think it's just malpractice on the part of the clergy members.

[katya]

Yeah, Catholicism isn't really a bad religion- from afar, I'm kind of fond of it actually. Have you heard of the Catholic guilt trip though?
Whenever I was in confession, for example, I'd mention that I didn't go to church every week and that I didn't feel I prayed enough. And he'd say something like that if God is so wonderful and has done so much for you, why can't you take one single hour out of your life for Him? I suppose I was probably too sensitive.

Also, you say you haven't reasoned out the morals of Christianity, but have you reasoned out Christianity itself, or are you just believing it because that's how you were raised? I suppose whether a person believes in something because they've thought it out logically or if they are just following their heart, there's some honour in it either way. ...or something.

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by katya

Yeah, Catholicism isn't really a bad religion- from afar, I'm kind of fond of it actually. Have you heard of the Catholic guilt trip though?
Whenever I was in confession, for example, I'd mention that I didn't go to church every week and that I didn't feel I prayed enough. And he'd say something like that if God is so wonderful and has done so much for you, why can't you take one single hour out of your life for Him? I suppose I was probably too sensitive.

I've never understood the whole guilt trip thing. So, I'm supposed to give up time of my limited life that God gave me to sit in a building that humans, not God, constructed? And I have to choose a particular building that represents a particular interpretation of God (a certain denomination of church) and listen to how much better "we are than those other guys."

I'd much rather spend my Sundays laying in the grass in the park, enjoying the world as God made it. To me, that is giving time to God...appreciating what He's made.

[katya]

I think so too, Starr. Even though I'm agnostic now. There's an Emily Dickinson poem that goes along those lines.. "Some keep the Sabbath by going to church..." Beren3000?

[Starr Polish]

I love that poem.

I'm also basically agnostic, though I cling to certain Christian ideals, and have a feeling I'll come back to the faith like I have previously. The last four-five years have been rather interesting for me, spiritually.

[katya]

I see. I'd like to hear about it sometime, if you don't mind that is. I've gone through a lot spiritually last couple years too.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by katya

I think so too, Starr. Even though I'm agnostic now. There's an Emily Dickinson poem that goes along those lines.. "Some keep the Sabbath by going to church..." Beren3000?

There you go:

Some keep the Sabbath going to Church --
I keep it, staying at Home --
With a Bobolink for a Chorister --
And an Orchard, for a Dome --

Some keep the Sabbath in Surplice --
I just wear my Wings --
And instead of tolling the Bell, for Church,
Our little Sexton -- sings.

God preaches, a noted Clergyman --
And the sermon is never long,
So instead of getting to Heaven, at least --
I'm going, all along.

Great poem!