Is religion egocentric?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pieman333272

Guest
Inspired by a post on another thread, I figured I’d bring this up as I hear it enough. Often times, a non-religious person argues that religion is egocentric, based around self-fulfillment and an attempt to convince oneself that life has meaning. I also hear that apologists who argue for God do it based on being right… so, do these claims hold up? Or is such not the case? Hmm?
 
Well - tapping into my intro to psych courses of many years ago…
As I recall there were three levels the Id, the Ego and the Super-ego. If I were to place religion on that scale it would be the super-ego and not the Ego since it’s goal (at least Christianity’s goal) deals with perfection…

I realize that this isn’t what you asked for but…It was the first thing I thought of…

Anyway - I think that this is a question that ultimately has no answer. To the person of faith, religion is not egocentric. To a person who has denied God, then it is…

Peace
James
 
Inspired by a post on another thread, I figured I’d bring this up as I hear it enough. Often times, a non-religious person argues that religion is egocentric, based around self-fulfillment and an attempt to convince oneself that life has meaning.
Hmmm. Well I know when I was in my late teens and early twenties when I was constantly in search of sex, getting drunk, doing drugs, lying to girls, sometimes humiliating other guys for fun, and generally raising hell, I’d say I was pretty “egocentric”, and I was “based around self-fulfillment with an attempt to convince myself that that life has meaning”. And it was easier to live that way as long as I didn’t think about religion.
 
I think the emphasis is on humility and helping others. Ego has no place in anything taught by Jesus.
 
I think the emphasis is on humility and helping others. Ego has no place in anything taught by Jesus.
Precisely.
Actually, I’m Mildly Surprised At This Thread Topic.

Christianity (from MY Point Of View) is NOT about Oneself. Leave That To The Ultimate Self-Centered Religion, the NEW AGE MOVEMENT. I Should Know. I was One Of Them Once. 😦

Let’s not forget What Protestant Rick Warren’s Opening Sentence Of “The Purpose-Driven Life” Says:

“It’s Not About You.”👍
 
Inspired by a post on another thread, I figured I’d bring this up as I hear it enough. Often times, a non-religious person argues that religion is egocentric, based around self-fulfillment and an attempt to convince oneself that life has meaning. I also hear that apologists who argue for God do it based on being right… so, do these claims hold up? Or is such not the case? Hmm?
Yo, Pieman:

The correct question should be: “Is religiosity egocentric?” Religion is a system of faith and worship, that may include the God of Abraham, or it may not. 😃

God bless,
jd
 
“It’s Not About You.”
There’s a great moment from The Simpsons – back when it was still a good show – in which an athlete is talking about how Ned Flanders (the uber-religious neighbor of Our Favorite Family) helped him out. He says, “My life was partying every night. But then Ned and his Bible group showed me I can have more.”

And Homer, listening to this, sighs, “Professional athletes…always wanting more.”

Now that’s funny for a lot of different reasons. It’s funny on the surface for Homer’s innocent misunderstanding of what the speaker means by “more” – mixed with a piece of traditional wisdom recycled from Homer’s brain – but it’s also funny because Homer has inadvertently pointed out an attitude that underlies some practices of religion: if embracing the world and enjoying it is beneficial to me, then embracing religion is even more beneficial to me.

It’s like that poster above who says something like, “I used to seek out parties and getting drunk and girls and being cool…and now I seek out god.” In that situation, nothing really fundamental has changed: you’re still running around and searching for something outside of you to make you feel better. You’ve just substituted god for some tangible comfort.

Fundamentally, everything that people do is for the benefit of the self. Even the most “selfless” acts really boil down to your desire to do them – or your desire to obey a perceived obligation to do them – in expectation of some result, if only the result of feeling good about yourself and getting to think about how oh so holy and humble and selfless you are.

Now what I say above isn’t confined specifically to religious people. Non-religious people also do “selfless” things for selfish reasons. And non-religious people too substitute non-material things (“I’m going to improve myself!” or “I’m going to dedicate myself to a cause!”) for material things, all in an effort to feel better.

The wiser folks eventually realize that chasing things outside of yourself will never really bring you satisfaction, and that’s the whole purpose of meditation, which I just made a really long post about elsewhere on this site. Essentially, the point of meditation is to drop all of those desires and to just sit and to be, as you are.

Anyway, the thing about religion – and this is what people usually mean when they say that religion is “egocentric” – is that in a lot of cases, it seems like the religion 1) offers fantasy rewards for “selfless” behavior and 2) allows humans to project a self-image into the cosmos and call it “god.”

Point (1) above should be pretty clear to most readers, so I’ll address point (2) briefly. In a lot of cases, it seems like the god that people worship is a giant version of their ego-ideal, built up from the values they’ve internalized from culture and tradition and that they see as desirable.

For example, a lot of people are taught from a young age that it’s good to forgive people and that god is all-forgiving, so they take the thought “I should be a forgiving person” and project it onto the universe in the form of an omnipotent being that forgives everyone who asks. God, in this scenario, is a word for the qualities that the believer would like to have, which the believer has deluded himself are somehow absolute and applicable for everyone, not just him.

It works the other way, too. People who hate gays and have been taught that it’s somehow “wrong” to be gay can push that hate off on to an imaginary divine source. “Oh, I don’t hate gays – those are just god’s rules…”

If you read the thread I just posted on Zen meditation, you’ll see that one of the goals of meditation is to shut up your mind – for just a little while – and prevent it from telling you stories. Religion of this variety is one gigantic, egotistical story that gets in the way of clearly seeing reality for what it is.
 
There’s a great moment from The Simpsons – back when it was still a good show – in which an athlete is talking about how Ned Flanders (the uber-religious neighbor of Our Favorite Family) helped him out. He says, “My life was partying every night. But then Ned and his Bible group showed me I can have more.”

And Homer, listening to this, sighs, “Professional athletes…always wanting more.”

Now that’s funny for a lot of different reasons. It’s funny on the surface for Homer’s innocent misunderstanding of what the speaker means by “more” – mixed with a piece of traditional wisdom recycled from Homer’s brain – but it’s also funny because Homer has inadvertently pointed out an attitude that underlies some practices of religion: if embracing the world and enjoying it is beneficial to me, then embracing religion is even more beneficial to me.

It’s like that poster above who says something like, “I used to seek out parties and getting drunk and girls and being cool…and now I seek out god.” In that situation, nothing really fundamental has changed: you’re still running around and searching for something outside of you to make you feel better. You’ve just substituted god for some tangible comfort.

Fundamentally, everything that people do is for the benefit of the self. Even the most “selfless” acts really boil down to your desire to do them – or your desire to obey a perceived obligation to do them – in expectation of some result, if only the result of feeling good about yourself and getting to think about how oh so holy and humble and selfless you are.

Now what I say above isn’t confined specifically to religious people. Non-religious people also do “selfless” things for selfish reasons. And non-religious people too substitute non-material things (“I’m going to improve myself!” or “I’m going to dedicate myself to a cause!”) for material things, all in an effort to feel better.

The wiser folks eventually realize that chasing things outside of yourself will never really bring you satisfaction, and that’s the whole purpose of meditation, which I just made a really long post about elsewhere on this site. Essentially, the point of meditation is to drop all of those desires and to just sit and to be, as you are.

Anyway, the thing about religion – and this is what people usually mean when they say that religion is “egocentric” – is that in a lot of cases, it seems like the religion 1) offers fantasy rewards for “selfless” behavior and 2) allows humans to project a self-image into the cosmos and call it “god.”

Point (1) above should be pretty clear to most readers, so I’ll address point (2) briefly. In a lot of cases, it seems like the god that people worship is a giant version of their ego-ideal, built up from the values they’ve internalized from culture and tradition and that they see as desirable.

For example, a lot of people are taught from a young age that it’s good to forgive people and that god is all-forgiving, so they take the thought “I should be a forgiving person” and project it onto the universe in the form of an omnipotent being that forgives everyone who asks. God, in this scenario, is a word for the qualities that the believer would like to have, which the believer has deluded himself are somehow absolute and applicable for everyone, not just him.

It works the other way, too. People who hate gays and have been taught that it’s somehow “wrong” to be gay can push that hate off on to an imaginary divine source. “Oh, I don’t hate gays – those are just god’s rules…”

If you read the thread I just posted on Zen meditation, you’ll see that one of the goals of meditation is to shut up your mind – for just a little while – and prevent it from telling you stories. Religion of this variety is one gigantic, egotistical story that gets in the way of clearly seeing reality for what it is.
I have to admit I stopped reading at: “It’s like that poster above who says something like, “I used to seek out parties and getting drunk and girls and being cool…and now I seek out god.” In that situation, nothing really fundamental has changed: you’re still running around and searching for something outside of you to make you feel better. You’ve just substituted god for some tangible comfort”

You may perceive it as the same but its not. Its akin to someone being hungry and eating dounuts instead od healthy food to satify the hunger. Also faith is not about looking outside yourself, its just the opposite. And lastly you assume searching and finding God has no “tangible comfort”. So Iswould say you are absolutely right that like Homer it is indeed very funny that you misunderstand what happens in faith.
 
Fundamentally, everything that people do is for the benefit of the self. Even the most “selfless” acts really boil down to your desire to do them – or your desire to obey a perceived obligation to do them – in expectation of some result, if only the result of feeling good about yourself and getting to think about how oh so holy and humble and selfless you are.
Who let the ancient pagan stoic into the thread? 😛

At any rate, you can’t be serious, “even self-less” are really selfish? Self-sacrifice? Giving an old person a seat on the bus? A soldier who falls on a grenade for his friends? Such behavior is really selfish?

Do you realize what that means? It means you could never praise a person or think a person has done something well when that person does something self-less or self-sacrificing. I can’t call the soldier who fell on the grenade for his friends a hero and say “well done,” because, he was really doing it for himself. I can’t say “good job” to a child who shares half their lunch with a kid who forgot it, because the child was trying to feel good about himself. Selfishness is not praiseworthy, but the heathen just as much as the Christian praises such behavior, which suggests both really do recognize such behavior to be selfless.

At any rate, as C.S. Lewis points out in “The Weight of Glory,” (incidentally, a marvelous essay), there are rewards that do not sully motives. Not every desire for a reward makes a man a mercenary. There is a such thing as a proper reward, which are not just correctly attached to the activity, but are the activity itself in consummation.
  • ex. A man is mercenary if he marries a woman for her money, but not if he marries the woman because he loves her (marriage the the proper reward of love), and the consummation of that kind of love.
    ex2. A mature enjoyment of reading greek is the proper reward of a man learning to read greek, and he is not a mercenary for desiring it.
The proper reward of the Christian life is God, and a man is not mercenary because he desires God and the accompanying happiness. It’s just classic St. Augustine stuff: “you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” Since they end of man is God, happiness with Him is not mercenary or selfish; it is simply the proper reward of desiring God and the activity itself in consummation.

This is why the heathen poster above is mistaken when he says
you’re still running around and searching for something outside of you to make you feel better. You’ve just substituted god for some tangible comfort.
because those things are not the proper end of man. God is. So, the man who desires Him, and recognizes that his proper end is God is not selfish and is different from the man who tries to replace God with other things.
 
I have to admit I stopped reading
Admitting that you didn’t bother to read another’s post before responding is usually a sign that the response will be filled with misunderstanding.
You may perceive [substituting religion for material comforts] as the same but its not. Its akin to someone being hungry and eating dounuts instead od healthy food to satify the hunger.
I didn’t say it was “the same.” My words were “nothing really fundamental has changed.”

Your analogy just restates what I was saying. In the analogy, switching to different food doesn’t fundamentally change anything: the person is still taking in external things to try to satisfy a perceived need. In the same way, switching to religion – though it is, admittedly, “different” – doesn’t fundamentally change the underlying problem: the person is still turning to things outside of himself to provide him comfort.

The difference between the two examples is that our physical need to eat is real; our “spiritual” or “emotional” need to be “fulfilled” by things outside of us is an illusion created by our minds that insist on telling us stories about reality.
Also faith is not about looking outside yourself, its just the opposite.
So belief in a god and following what you think are the rules this god wants you to follow is not, in your estimation, “looking outside yourself”? I would be interested to hear you defend this position.
 
At any rate, you can’t be serious, “even self-less” are really selfish? Self-sacrifice? Giving an old person a seat on the bus? A soldier who falls on a grenade for his friends? Such behavior is really selfish?
Yes. The difference between us is that I don’t start from an a priori assumption that selfishness is “bad.”
Do you realize what that means?
Yes. Do you?
It means you could never praise a person or think a person has done something well when that person does something self-less or self-sacrificing.
Of course you can. You are just confusing yourself because you think that selfishness is somehow bad.

When someone performs an action that promotes social union or that we like as a society, we can appluad him and tell him “well done,” regardless of his motivations. When someone performs an action that hinders society or that we don’t like as a society, we can scold him or impose penalties upon him to discourage such behavior, regardless of his motivations.

The rest of your post is nothing more than random assertions of what the “proper end” of man is and special pleading that your religion is somehow exempt from the basic motivations and drives of human action.
 
Admitting that you didn’t bother to read another’s post before responding is usually a sign that the response will be filled with misunderstanding.

I didn’t say it was “the same.” My words were “nothing really fundamental has changed.”

Your analogy just restates what I was saying. In the analogy, switching to different food doesn’t fundamentally change anything: the person is still taking in external things to try to satisfy a perceived need. In the same way, switching to religion – though it is, admittedly, “different” – doesn’t fundamentally change the underlying problem: the person is still turning to things outside of himself to provide him comfort.

The difference between the two examples is that our physical need to eat is real; our “spiritual” or “emotional” need to be “fulfilled” by things outside of us is an illusion created by our minds that insist on telling us stories about reality.

So belief in a god and following what you think are the rules this god wants you to follow is not, in your estimation, “looking outside yourself”? I would be interested to hear you defend this position.
Thats right I did admit to not reading it, for what purpose would I continue? AGAIN your assumption that nothing has changed means its the same. If I dont change jobs then I have the _______ job or if I dont change clothes then I am wearing the _______ clothes. The fact is something HAS changed when you eat a banana over a donut when you are hungry or seek God instead of wine women and song.
 
your assumption that nothing has changed means its the same.
You continue to misunderstand, which suggests to me that you’re not really reading my posts but simply reacting to a misperception of them.

I’ll try again.

When I say that “nothing fundamental has changed,” I am referring to the fact that the basic pattern of action and motivation has remained the same, even though the circumstances have chaged.

So, yes, something has changed. You’ve switched to a different kind of food. But the pattern is the same (taking in nutrients from external sources) and the motivation is the same (performing this action to relieve an internal need).

Similarly, switching to your god is indeed different than wine, women, and song. It’s different. But I’m saying that the pattern is the same (appealing to something outside of yourself) and the motivation is the same (performing this action to make you feel better).

The difference between these two examples, I’m saying, is that we have to eat, physically, but we don’t have to listen to the stories our minds tell us about needing to be “fulfilled” by things outside of us.

Is my point clearer? I don’t care if you agree with me, but you seem to be having great difficulty understanding me, and I’d like you to at least understand my meaning before you decide not to agree.
 
You continue to misunderstand, which suggests to me that you’re not really reading my posts but simply reacting to a misperception of them.

I’ll try again.

When I say that “nothing fundamental has changed,” I am referring to the fact that the basic pattern of action and motivation has remained the same, even though the circumstances have chaged.

So, yes, something has changed. You’ve switched to a different kind of food. But the pattern is the same (taking in nutrients from external sources) and the motivation is the same (performing this action to relieve an internal need).

Similarly, switching to your god is indeed different than wine, women, and song. It’s different. But I’m saying that the pattern is the same (appealing to something outside of yourself) and the motivation is the same (performing this action to make you feel better).

The difference between these two examples, I’m saying, is that we have to eat, physically, but we don’t have to listen to the stories our minds tell us about needing to be “fulfilled” by things outside of us.

Is my point clearer? I don’t care if you agree with me, but you seem to be having great difficulty understanding me, and I’d like you to at least understand my meaning before you decide not to agree.
Well its good to see you agree that something has in fact changed which is different then what you initially claimed.

And yes we have to eat but what we eat is directly related to the quality of life. So a life without God can seem as “fulfilling” as a diet of donuts. Also it appears as though you think being “fulfilled” outside of oneself is a bad thing. None of us can be fulfilled only from within. Thats the problem with wine wome nand song its selfish not fulfilling.

Your point has always been clear and I quite frankly I dont care whether you think I dont understand it or not. Your saying I dont understand it doesnt make it true that i dont.
 
You continue to misunderstand, which suggests to me that you’re not really reading my posts but simply reacting to a misperception of them.

I’ll try again.

When I say that “nothing fundamental has changed,” I am referring to the fact that the basic pattern of action and motivation has remained the same, even though the circumstances have chaged.

So, yes, something has changed. You’ve switched to a different kind of food. But the pattern is the same (taking in nutrients from external sources) and the motivation is the same (performing this action to relieve an internal need).

Similarly, switching to your god is indeed different than wine, women, and song. It’s different. But I’m saying that the pattern is the same (appealing to something outside of yourself) and the motivation is the same (performing this action to make you feel better).

The difference between these two examples, I’m saying, is that we have to eat, physically, but we don’t have to listen to the stories our minds tell us about needing to be “fulfilled” by things outside of us.

Is my point clearer? I don’t care if you agree with me, but you seem to be having great difficulty understanding me, and I’d like you to at least understand my meaning before you decide not to agree.
Lest there be a question about what you said…“In that situation, nothing really fundamental has changed”
 
Yes. The difference between us is that I don’t start from an a priori assumption that selfishness is “bad.”

Yes. Do you?

Of course you can. You are just confusing yourself because you think that selfishness is somehow bad.

When someone performs an action that promotes social union or that we like as a society, we can appluad him and tell him “well done,” regardless of his motivations. When someone performs an action that hinders society or that we don’t like as a society, we can scold him or impose penalties upon him to discourage such behavior, regardless of his motivations.

The rest of your post is nothing more than random assertions of what the “proper end” of man is and special pleading that your religion is somehow exempt from the basic motivations and drives of human action.
How, Antitheist, does putting one’s own needs and desires above those of others help society?
 
Your saying I dont understand it doesnt make it true that i dont.
Of course not. It’s your not understanding it that makes it true. And you obviously did not comprehend my point, as you continue to demonstrate:
Well its good to see you agree that something has in fact changed which is different then what you initially claimed. …] Lest there be a question about what you said…“In that situation, nothing really fundamental has changed”
Yes, nothing fundamental has changed. There have been changes in the accidentals (changing a banana for a donut, or changing an ideal to be cool for an ideal to be holy), but the essentials, the fundamentals, the underlying pattern and motivation, remain the same.

You seem to be under the impression that there is a contradiction in saying that “something changed” but “nothing fundamental changed.” Perhaps you are not familiar with the word “fundamental.”
Obviously Mother Theresa was a self absorbed narcissist
Funny you should mention that. You might find interesting my contributions to this very old thread on here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=439055

Of course, I don’t expect you to actually read through my posts there because rationally understanding and responding to opposing points of view doesn’t seem to be something you’re very good at. But it would be good practice for you.
 
How, Antitheist, does putting one’s own needs and desires above those of others help society?
It doesn’t always. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes following your own needs and desires at the expense of others – like, for example, developing a superior product and crushing the competition in the market, allowing your superior product to come into popular use – is good for society. And sometimes it isn’t.

All I’m saying is that, ultimately, people are driven by their desires, even their desires to feel good about being “good people,” get a “reward” in heaven, or feel good about “obeying” some kind of obligation that they think exists.

I’m further saying that, ultimately, this kind of approach – which is fundamentally no different than trying to be a “cool” person to feel good – isn’t going to satisfy because it’s all about striving toward things outside of you.

Real spiritual progress is about getting rid of these illusions – all of them, including the one about trying to be “cool” and the one about trying to be “holy.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top