© Roger M Tagg 2009 revised December 2010
Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.
In today's world, many of us are faced with a "marketplace" of organized religious sects, each maintaining its own "unique" path to the truth. Each offers a "package" of beliefs, rules and duties. Each is maintained by a hierarchy of persons (or maybe a committee of equals). Many have significant wealth and property, donated by past adherents. There is motivation to uphold and maintain these structures for their own sake. There is also a sizeable proportion of the population that has abandoned these "traditional" religions, although many people still follow common principles of good behaviour. The spokespersons for traditional religion denigrate this as "secularism". Personally, I think this is unjust; most people "outside" religion still have a sense of what is of transcendent value, often just as good as those "inside".
Some of the world's major religions can be classed as "book" religions. The implication seems to be that revelation of what is good, or of value, has been revealed for all time in a set of books, or by a particular prophet at one particular moment in history. There are two big problems with this:
Aldous Huxley tried to grapple with this in his book The Perennial Philosophy, a term originally coined by Leibniz. We should be following ideals that are not so dependent on history or culture. There are clear similarities between the ideas of Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist mystics - if not between the doctrines of their earth-bound organisations.
I start from the position that "God" means Good - just as in Scandinavian languages, "Gods" means Goods (i.e. things transported by train etc) in English. So my God is the spirit of Good, or whatever things are of Value. This is "transcendent" in the sense that it is not inherent in the simple "facts" of matter and logic.
One may ask - what about evil? Do we have "Satan" by analogy? My view here is that evil (or sin) arises simply from our human rejection or ignoring of the interests of other beings; in other words, excessive selfishness and self-regard, and missing the spirit of Good. And of course there is no evil like group evil. (I like the quotes by RG Collingwood on p186 of DZ Phillips 'Religion and Understanding'.)
I don't believe any particular religious tradition has a monopoly on Good.
Demythologization is the idea that, in today's world and with our understanding of science and social patterns, we don't need all the stuff about supernatural interventions - terms in which people used to speak naturally in ancient times - in order to grasp the essentials of the Good. To use other analogies, we don't need to think of a God as an up-market Father Christmas, or as a super-organisation for receiving, answering and attending to our requests.
This is not my idea - I first read about it in John Robinson's book Honest to God. Robinson was the Anglican bishop of Woolwich near London - previously he was the Dean of the college where I studied. Robinson picked up the idea from Rudolf Bultmann, who was trying to apply some of the valuable insights of Heidegger's philosophy to modern religious thought.
I think that a de-mythologized view offers a way forward for those of us who want to think for ourselves. I don't want to imply that people should be barred from following traditional religions; whatever "lens" that we use to look at life and make sense of it is good, as long as it encourages appreciation and following of the Good and things of Value. For those of us who have encountered science, however, it is harder to accept, as facts, all the things that are stated in traditional religions. This forces us to take a more detached view of "biblical" truth.
I also think that, with a de-mythologized view, we have a better chance of avoiding some of the idiocies and injustices that have occurred in the history of religions. There are plenty of examples:
| - Sale of indulgences | - Witch hunts | - Burning at the stake |
| - Forcing Galileo to recant | - The Spanish Inquisition | - Bans on contraception |
| - Crusades, jihads and other wars of religion | - The Holocaust | - Untouchability |
| - Death for apostasy | - Honour killings |
A sad story appeared in "The Australian" recently. A former novice at a Catholic order's retreat told how a colleague had been drummed out. There had been a discussion on how many teeth horses had. The instructors referred to their books. The student suggested that they inspect the horses on the order's farm. This suggestion was angrily dismissed as "secularism".
Unfortunately such idiocies are not the sole preserve of Catholicism or any other religion.
I think that they have all started from genuine personal reflections and revelations of great men and women. These reflections catch the spirit of their times, and lead to great movements for a better civilization.
Sadly, as time goes on ...
My cynical conclusion is that religions often become a convenient device for people in power to require their subjects to suspend their better judgment and follow orders.
The human psyche has many needs, and some of these account for the need we all have for some sort of religion. Some examples are:
Traditional religions have certainly addressed these needs, although not always with credible explanations. However, if traditional religions do not appeal in today's environment, then there are many substitutes available, and many people adopt them. Examples are:
I don't want to imply that there is no value in some of these approaches; they may all help some people. They are only a problem to the rest of us if their adherents think that we should all take the same view as they do. Of course this also applies to traditional religions - and to my own ideas!
However some of these options suffer from the same ills as traditional religions, e.g. they develop into authoritarian structures geared to enforcing passive obedience on their followers. Some are also fertile grounds for bullshit and mumbo-jumbo.
I'm happy with the fact that many people choose to stay with the traditional styles of religion. Organized religious groups can help to advance the Good by providing structures for people to "belong". Some people might not do as well otherwise.
What are the common enemies of the Good? I'd list my top 5 as:
For an amusing comparison, see Kipfer's book for some nice diagrams of the various levels of hell, as drawn from Dante's Inferno.
For some amusement, try this page of Atheist Quotes.
This all represents my personal view, so please do not regard it as a pronouncement on what everyone else should think. I'd prefer it if you, the reader, follow the line you feel comfortable with.
For further discussion, particularly on the question of Value, take a look at the essays on Thoughts on a Consensus of Value and Some "Natural" Human Tendencies.
Index to more of these diatribes
Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.
This version updated on 3rd December 2010
If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au .