![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay. This is about Religion, and other shared belief systems. Skip as required. This is basically the end result of a long series of conversations with a number of people, both recently and in spurts over the years, that asked me to either take a definitive position, or explain why I wouldn't. Voila. Here you go.
Elements of Belief
This is a discussion of my understanding of and position on formal (shared) systems of belief.
The first thing I should probably say is that I'm not going to use the term 'religion' much, because while most religions are examples of formal belief systems, they are by no means the only ones, and my general approach is going to be the same across the board whether the belief in question is in God, or justice, or the complete absence of the Divine, or something else. I'll expand on that in a minute. Bear with me.
The second thing is that the language I use for concepts like this comes in many ways from my upbringing, which happened to be Irish Catholic. This means that while I do not subscribe now to the Catholic system of beliefs, much of my terminology may still come from that framework. I will try to avoid it or qualify it as much as possible, but it would do no harm to be aware that I may slip up here or there. (And to qualify that, there is nothing wrong with Catholic beliefs or terminologies, I just feel they may be too specific for the concepts I'm trying to grasp. Hopefully later you'll see why).
Thirdly, keep in mind that this is only my interpretation and understanding of these issues, and as always I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me on any point. I mean no offense by anything said here.
Right. Warnings out of the way. Carry on.
Belief Systems in General:
My understanding is that formal shared systems of belief (as opposed to formal systems of thought, or formal systems of analysis, etc) are based on five basic precepts, which can all exist independantly of each other, and some of which can help form the basis of other systems which have nothing to do with belief, and/or are systems within themselves. It's mostly the first two listed below which define the resultant system as a system of belief, but from what I can see the longer a system is in place, the more of the others it is likely to incorporate.
Said Elements are:
1) Faith:
The belief in something that is not readily provable or quantifiable. Whether this faith is faith in a deity, or a general state of divinity, or some aspect within humanity themselves such as love, or outside ourselves such as justice, or perhaps the definitive absence of any of the above, depends on the person in question. For the record, yes, I am including atheism as a faith, on the grounds that as yet humanity has no imperical means of proving the lack of the divine any more than we have the means to prove its existence. As long as the belief in question is in something that cannot be demonstrably known with absolute, 100% certainty, I'm counting it.
Faith, of course, can exist entirely on its own within a person, and carry its own formal interpretations and precepts. However, it can also be shared, which is where the other things come in. Faith is simply what makes it a system of belief.
2) Received Wisdom:
The acceptance of understanding of the thing you believe in from other people, either in the past or the present, that modifies or simply formalises your own beliefs. This would be where the likes of prophets or philosophers or priests come in, or even simply people you view as wise who can expand or alter your beliefs in ways you can accept.
To my mind, this is the beginnings on which many of the trappings and shared rituals of the larger systems are based, as well as the beginning of a distinct shared identity as followers of a particular faith. If faith is the basis of belief, then the received wisdom (or rather, acceptance of received wisdom) is the basis of the shared system. The degree to which things are shared and the degree of conformity within the belief varies from system to system, possibly depending on what values evolve to prominence.
3) Community:
When people accept a rough consensus view of their belief, they can develope a sense of shared identity surrounding a belief (or anything else for that matter). And very often they seem to begin forming communities around that shared identity. Communities that agree to live, together or separately, according to the precepts of their beliefs. *shrugs a little* Don't ask me about the mechanisms of this one, socially I'm an idiot.
4) History:
Over time a community or people develope a history. With identities built around a shared belief, very often elements of that history become incorporated into the structures and rituals of that belief, to honour that history and the struggles of its people with themselves and their faith and those that surround them, or even into the belief itself, as beliefs change over time when influenced by the forces surrounding the community. This is perhaps part of the reason why long-standing systems of belief tend to become more elabourate, and sometimes more prone to splintering within themselves, depending on what elements of the new structures/changes to belief are accepted by what part of the community.
5) Morality:
Which is a self-contained system of belief all on its own, based on the belief in the existence of the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. Most people, from what I can gather, form their own version of this system, and there are many, many shared versions, ranging from legal to religious. I put it in because in the context of other systems of belief, the raw form of this one is often adapted to suit that larger system. Things may become 'wrong' inside the system that would not necessarily be outside of it, and other things become 'right'.
From what I can see, these are the five basic elements of most of the larger shared belief systems, and many of the smaller. They are all perfectly capable of existing on their own, too, or in relation to other systems and identities entirely. And, perhaps most importantly, they all have their own value. Whether I accept or follow any or all of them, there is value in each, and in the combination. Danger, too, of course, but then there is danger in every element of human endeavour, especially if it involves the formation of shared identities that then have to interact with other shared identities.
Anyway. This is my understanding of shared belief systems in general. You can probably finish here if you want, because all that comes next is my explaining which one I personally happen to subscribe too, and why. Because a number of people have asked me lately to give them a definitive stance one way or another (long, complicated story), so I'm gonna. Heh.
Systems of Belief, And Me:
Okay. Technically, I subscribe to a lot of shared beliefs, simply because no-one has managed to prove conclusively that justice, or love, or morality, or many other theoretical concepts, exist. For this, though, I'm going to explain where I stand on the idea of Divinity, since that's what I was actually asked for -_-; The above was important, though, because it explains why I stand where I stand.
As far as I know, my particular set of beliefs comes under the heading of 'Agnostic', although that's probably not too helpful because there are a very wide range of beliefs that come under that heading. I think mine is somewhere between theist and pragmatic agnostic, but there are elements of both I disagree with (at least as they have been described to me, anyway).
The breakdown is this:
I believe in a Divine. Because nobody has proved that there isn't one, and it brings me comfort and a degree of pleasure to imagine that there is. I also believe, though this is more faith mixed with a healthy degree of hope, that It is kindly disposed towards humanity.
I do NOT believe in the human ability to understand said Divine, or know It's will, or know which humans It does and does not like. As far as I understand the Divine (which admittedly isn't far), it is somewhat by definition unprovable and unknowable. Otherwise, we wouldn't need faith, because we'd have knowledge/proof. I do not know, or claim to know, what shape, form, morality, will, likes/dislikes or anything else, this Divine may have. And I do not believe any other human may know, either, or if they do, I do not believe they could translate it to a shared audience and have the understanding remain intact. Therefore, I do not accept any shared understanding or holy writ.
[Note, this is not me saying that the shared understandings/writings/systems in existence are WRONG. As far as anyone knows, any, all, or none of them could be bang on. But since I don't have faith in the human ability to translate what they understood, or even really their ability to understand in the first place, yet, and I don't have any way of verifying what is essentially someone else's knowledge of the unknowable, I cannot bring myself to believe in those systems. The fault (if fault there is, and there may not be) lies with me.]
This, as far as I can tell, largely puts me outside the concept of a shared system of belief. I mostly believe that Divinity exists, and that everyone has to find their own way to understanding It, if they want to.
It also puts me outside many of the communities and identities formed based on a system of belief, although that isn't completely true or absolute. Like I said, my background is as an Irish Catholic, and my family and my history are shaped in part by that. That identity and that history are still mine, even if the faith that formed their beginning is not, and I still honour some of the rituals, in honour of the history. So, I assume, do many people, because once a system of belief has become a community and an identity, it becomes about more than just faith. It becomes about the people of that faith. I honour that people and that history.
There is also ... Okay. I have a number of problems with the intersection of morality and religion. This is mostly because my own moral system is relatively inflexible, and I don't accept any reason for harming someone that boils down to 'god(s) said so', when you can't know for sure if god(s) did, in fact, said so, but you can know for sure that what you're doing causes harm. As far as I'm concerned, my morality is my own affair, and the Divine's morality is It's, and if they clash I'll trust It to know that I acted in good faith and without intent to harm, and judge me accordingly. But that's ... possibly another issue altogether.
Basically, for those who asked? I believe in the Divine, but not in human understanding of the Divine. I believe in the Divine as something that does exist, and that we cannot Know on any definitive level unless It decides to inform us personally, which is entirely up to It. I believe that my faith as regards said Divine is not more important than the people around me, and that it is entirely possible to live a good and decent life without ever believing in divinity, but it brings me and others comfort to believe and there is no inherant harm in that.
I'm calling my position Agnostic. Not because I am uncertain of my position, but because my position is Uncertainty. With a healthy dollop of hope. Heh.
Sermon over. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. *grins*
This is a discussion of my understanding of and position on formal (shared) systems of belief.
The first thing I should probably say is that I'm not going to use the term 'religion' much, because while most religions are examples of formal belief systems, they are by no means the only ones, and my general approach is going to be the same across the board whether the belief in question is in God, or justice, or the complete absence of the Divine, or something else. I'll expand on that in a minute. Bear with me.
The second thing is that the language I use for concepts like this comes in many ways from my upbringing, which happened to be Irish Catholic. This means that while I do not subscribe now to the Catholic system of beliefs, much of my terminology may still come from that framework. I will try to avoid it or qualify it as much as possible, but it would do no harm to be aware that I may slip up here or there. (And to qualify that, there is nothing wrong with Catholic beliefs or terminologies, I just feel they may be too specific for the concepts I'm trying to grasp. Hopefully later you'll see why).
Thirdly, keep in mind that this is only my interpretation and understanding of these issues, and as always I may be wrong. Feel free to correct me on any point. I mean no offense by anything said here.
Right. Warnings out of the way. Carry on.
Belief Systems in General:
My understanding is that formal shared systems of belief (as opposed to formal systems of thought, or formal systems of analysis, etc) are based on five basic precepts, which can all exist independantly of each other, and some of which can help form the basis of other systems which have nothing to do with belief, and/or are systems within themselves. It's mostly the first two listed below which define the resultant system as a system of belief, but from what I can see the longer a system is in place, the more of the others it is likely to incorporate.
Said Elements are:
1) Faith:
The belief in something that is not readily provable or quantifiable. Whether this faith is faith in a deity, or a general state of divinity, or some aspect within humanity themselves such as love, or outside ourselves such as justice, or perhaps the definitive absence of any of the above, depends on the person in question. For the record, yes, I am including atheism as a faith, on the grounds that as yet humanity has no imperical means of proving the lack of the divine any more than we have the means to prove its existence. As long as the belief in question is in something that cannot be demonstrably known with absolute, 100% certainty, I'm counting it.
Faith, of course, can exist entirely on its own within a person, and carry its own formal interpretations and precepts. However, it can also be shared, which is where the other things come in. Faith is simply what makes it a system of belief.
2) Received Wisdom:
The acceptance of understanding of the thing you believe in from other people, either in the past or the present, that modifies or simply formalises your own beliefs. This would be where the likes of prophets or philosophers or priests come in, or even simply people you view as wise who can expand or alter your beliefs in ways you can accept.
To my mind, this is the beginnings on which many of the trappings and shared rituals of the larger systems are based, as well as the beginning of a distinct shared identity as followers of a particular faith. If faith is the basis of belief, then the received wisdom (or rather, acceptance of received wisdom) is the basis of the shared system. The degree to which things are shared and the degree of conformity within the belief varies from system to system, possibly depending on what values evolve to prominence.
3) Community:
When people accept a rough consensus view of their belief, they can develope a sense of shared identity surrounding a belief (or anything else for that matter). And very often they seem to begin forming communities around that shared identity. Communities that agree to live, together or separately, according to the precepts of their beliefs. *shrugs a little* Don't ask me about the mechanisms of this one, socially I'm an idiot.
4) History:
Over time a community or people develope a history. With identities built around a shared belief, very often elements of that history become incorporated into the structures and rituals of that belief, to honour that history and the struggles of its people with themselves and their faith and those that surround them, or even into the belief itself, as beliefs change over time when influenced by the forces surrounding the community. This is perhaps part of the reason why long-standing systems of belief tend to become more elabourate, and sometimes more prone to splintering within themselves, depending on what elements of the new structures/changes to belief are accepted by what part of the community.
5) Morality:
Which is a self-contained system of belief all on its own, based on the belief in the existence of the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. Most people, from what I can gather, form their own version of this system, and there are many, many shared versions, ranging from legal to religious. I put it in because in the context of other systems of belief, the raw form of this one is often adapted to suit that larger system. Things may become 'wrong' inside the system that would not necessarily be outside of it, and other things become 'right'.
From what I can see, these are the five basic elements of most of the larger shared belief systems, and many of the smaller. They are all perfectly capable of existing on their own, too, or in relation to other systems and identities entirely. And, perhaps most importantly, they all have their own value. Whether I accept or follow any or all of them, there is value in each, and in the combination. Danger, too, of course, but then there is danger in every element of human endeavour, especially if it involves the formation of shared identities that then have to interact with other shared identities.
Anyway. This is my understanding of shared belief systems in general. You can probably finish here if you want, because all that comes next is my explaining which one I personally happen to subscribe too, and why. Because a number of people have asked me lately to give them a definitive stance one way or another (long, complicated story), so I'm gonna. Heh.
Systems of Belief, And Me:
Okay. Technically, I subscribe to a lot of shared beliefs, simply because no-one has managed to prove conclusively that justice, or love, or morality, or many other theoretical concepts, exist. For this, though, I'm going to explain where I stand on the idea of Divinity, since that's what I was actually asked for -_-; The above was important, though, because it explains why I stand where I stand.
As far as I know, my particular set of beliefs comes under the heading of 'Agnostic', although that's probably not too helpful because there are a very wide range of beliefs that come under that heading. I think mine is somewhere between theist and pragmatic agnostic, but there are elements of both I disagree with (at least as they have been described to me, anyway).
The breakdown is this:
I believe in a Divine. Because nobody has proved that there isn't one, and it brings me comfort and a degree of pleasure to imagine that there is. I also believe, though this is more faith mixed with a healthy degree of hope, that It is kindly disposed towards humanity.
I do NOT believe in the human ability to understand said Divine, or know It's will, or know which humans It does and does not like. As far as I understand the Divine (which admittedly isn't far), it is somewhat by definition unprovable and unknowable. Otherwise, we wouldn't need faith, because we'd have knowledge/proof. I do not know, or claim to know, what shape, form, morality, will, likes/dislikes or anything else, this Divine may have. And I do not believe any other human may know, either, or if they do, I do not believe they could translate it to a shared audience and have the understanding remain intact. Therefore, I do not accept any shared understanding or holy writ.
[Note, this is not me saying that the shared understandings/writings/systems in existence are WRONG. As far as anyone knows, any, all, or none of them could be bang on. But since I don't have faith in the human ability to translate what they understood, or even really their ability to understand in the first place, yet, and I don't have any way of verifying what is essentially someone else's knowledge of the unknowable, I cannot bring myself to believe in those systems. The fault (if fault there is, and there may not be) lies with me.]
This, as far as I can tell, largely puts me outside the concept of a shared system of belief. I mostly believe that Divinity exists, and that everyone has to find their own way to understanding It, if they want to.
It also puts me outside many of the communities and identities formed based on a system of belief, although that isn't completely true or absolute. Like I said, my background is as an Irish Catholic, and my family and my history are shaped in part by that. That identity and that history are still mine, even if the faith that formed their beginning is not, and I still honour some of the rituals, in honour of the history. So, I assume, do many people, because once a system of belief has become a community and an identity, it becomes about more than just faith. It becomes about the people of that faith. I honour that people and that history.
There is also ... Okay. I have a number of problems with the intersection of morality and religion. This is mostly because my own moral system is relatively inflexible, and I don't accept any reason for harming someone that boils down to 'god(s) said so', when you can't know for sure if god(s) did, in fact, said so, but you can know for sure that what you're doing causes harm. As far as I'm concerned, my morality is my own affair, and the Divine's morality is It's, and if they clash I'll trust It to know that I acted in good faith and without intent to harm, and judge me accordingly. But that's ... possibly another issue altogether.
Basically, for those who asked? I believe in the Divine, but not in human understanding of the Divine. I believe in the Divine as something that does exist, and that we cannot Know on any definitive level unless It decides to inform us personally, which is entirely up to It. I believe that my faith as regards said Divine is not more important than the people around me, and that it is entirely possible to live a good and decent life without ever believing in divinity, but it brings me and others comfort to believe and there is no inherant harm in that.
I'm calling my position Agnostic. Not because I am uncertain of my position, but because my position is Uncertainty. With a healthy dollop of hope. Heh.
Sermon over. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. *grins*
