Spirituality vs. Religion: Which Leads to True Growth?

[Pythagorean]

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. "

Thoughts?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think the keyword is "subscribe". Personally I enjoy reading and learning about all religions and philosophies. They all have something to offer. In fact I was just at a Wiccan meeting last month. I would never join, but I found it an educational experience.

btw, is that first sentence switched around? Isn't focused independent thought better than group think?

fyi, let's not bring any value judgments of specific religions into this discussion.

 

[zomgwtf]

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. "

Thoughts?

I think this is all backwards..

group-think > independent thought
learning to discern truth on your own < being told what to believe
Independence and critical thinking =/= spirtual growth
Being told what to believe and group-thinking = spiritual growth

?

All backwards IMO

 

[Freeman Dyson]

That article is pretty sophomoric and petty.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

That article is pretty sophomoric and petty.

Try telling us how.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Try telling us how.

Did you read it? It is basically some name calling sprinkled with other arrogance.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Did you read it? It is basically some name calling sprinkled with other arrogance.

Which parts offended you the most? For crying out loud this is a discussion site, discuss! :D

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Which parts offended you the most? For crying out loud this is a discussion site, discuss! :D

This guy seems like self-help guru on an infomercial. Looks like one too. Trying to evangalise his own form of spirituality.

If you have the awareness level of a snail, and your thinking is mired in shame and guilt (with perhaps a twist of drug abuse or suicidal thinking), then subscribing to a religion can help you climb to a higher level of awareness.

Besides the insults, awareness of what?

For reasonably intelligent people who aren’t suffering from major issues with low self-esteem, religion is ridiculously consciousness-lowering.

another cheapshot based on subjective opinion. I could say the same of all people who buy all his self-help books. If people don't need religion or a spiritual authority, then why is he selling books as an authority on spirituality. I think he just sees religion as competition. I see this guy as a Deepak Chopra like personality. Click on some of the links and the stuff he is selling.

He goes on to cherrypick religious people as inbreds, hypocrites, stupid, evil, and slaves.

The more religious a person becomes, the less compassionate s/he is

?? This guy is just going on his own intuitive prejudices and not much else.

 

[Evo]

The way I read it, it's saying, that religion = group think. That religion prohibits independant thought. So, if the author is criticizing religion for dictating and restricting what a person thinks, the sentence makes sense. In this case, it does apply to some religions.

I haven't read the link, so I have no opinion on whatever else the person said.

 

[waht]

Are we discussing the website which is indeed crackpot or the OP's quote?

 

[zomgwtf]

I thought it was the OPs quote, but now I'm not sure. :tongue:

 

[Evo]

The OP's quote is from the link. He's quoting the author.

 

[MotoH]

The OP's quote is from the link. He's quoting the author.

Who just so happens to be a fissured storage container.


I can honestly say religion has made me more spiritual. To each their own I guess.

 

[lisab]

I didn't read the whole site, but he's selling 3-day "Consciousness Growth Workshops" so right away I see him as a bit shady.

Even if I agree with some of his points, I don't care for the tone of his rhetoric. If his ideas regarding "Consciousness" are valuable, he should be able to sell them without needing to tear down established religion. For example, regarding his reason #5 - I think it's a cheap shot to call a church donation the same as "Support Your Local Pedophile."

 

[Freeman Dyson]

The way I read it, it's saying, that religion = group think. That religion prohibits independant thought. So, if the author is criticizing religion for dictating and restricting what a person thinks, the sentence makes sense. In this case, it does apply to some religions.

I haven't read the link, so I have no opinion on whatever else the person said.

This is obviously true but what doesn't cause groupthink? Humans only seem to be able to unite AGAINST something or somebody else. Unity loses its meaning without something to unify against, which is quite often other people or idealogies. We see it in the guy's link. He is against something. Is religion any more uncritically lapped up, than say government? capitalism? Morality? Or any other kind of authority from what Weber called "the eternal yesterday"? Meaning the authority of tradition. I'm sure most of us here grew up in mainly capitalist societies. Who actually sat down and gave communism a good look? Who questions capitalism? Are we slaves to it? We are born into everything. The entire world was imposed and had plans and demands for us before we were even thought of. We are bound.

Life is big, scary, and ends unresolved. Some people need crutches to deal with that fact. And I say, why not? I would actually like that kind of comfort but religion doesn't do it for me. Nothing does. Which is why I am a mess.

 

[Gokul43201]

If we go by just the quoted excerpt, what is conveyed in it is hardly a new idea (and not terribly crackpottish by itself). We've heard similar thoughts expressed before by Voltaire, Jefferson, et al (most of whom we now refer to as deists).

 

[apeiron]

Steve's passionate pursuit of personal growth began while sitting in a jail cell. Arrested for felony grand theft at age 19 and expelled from school, the full weight of responsibility for his life came crashing down upon him. In an attempt to overcome his out-of-control kleptomania addiction, he decided the best course of action was to go to work on himself.

Since then Steve has become one of the most intensely growth-oriented individuals you'll ever know. While intensively studying time management techniques, he earned college degrees in computer science and mathematics in only three semesters. In later years he founded a successful software company, developed award-winning computer games, ran the Los Angeles Marathon, trained in martial arts, and adopted a raw vegan diet.

Steve has a reputation for conducting unusual growth experiments, such as his polyphasic sleep trial, during which he slept only two hours per day for five and a half months, publicly documenting his results each step of the way.

Just another waffling self-development guru - the authentic voice of the american dream. Now there is group think for you.

By tugging on your own bootlaces, you will haul yourself to a higher plane (where dollars flow like water and all consumer goods will be yours).

 

[Pythagorean]

Ok, instead of making personal attacks on the author though, I'm more interested in what you all think about the idea:

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. "

I didn't realize he was trying to sell stuff, I just thought the idea I quoted was interesting. I honestly came across it while googling random stuff and just happened to agree with the point.

group-think > independent thought

I think this is definitely true in the sciences and in many practical aspects of life. Not in spirtuality, though.

learning to discern truth on your own < being told what to believe

I'd like to hear why, exactly...?

Independence and critical thinking =/= spirtual growth

What do you define as spiritual growth? I think it pertains from mind and brain in terms of self-consciousness and our ability to realize who we really are despite our self-image and the image projected on us by society.

There are even spiritual arguments that follow from the lack of true self, and instead the integration into your environment (through both society and physical/energy exchange)

Being told what to believe and group-thinking = spiritual growth

Following from your definition of spiritual growth, please extrapolate.

think the keyword is "subscribe". Personally I enjoy reading and learning about all religions and philosophies. They all have something to offer. In fact I was just at a Wiccan meeting last month. I would never join, but I found it an educational experience.

I agree. My father actually introduced me to a lot of religions. I grew up a pluralists and eventually became an atheist. I'm also a nihilist, but not in the dark, dreary way it's always portrayed and/or stereotyped. My nihilist point of view is that the point of life (as far as each of us individuals is concerned) is subjective, but that shouldn't demean the value of the meaning of life any.

I have a similar appreciation of the eastern religions, especially Taoism.

 

[apeiron]

My nihilist point of view is that the point of life (as far as each of us individuals is concerned) is subjective, but that shouldn't demean the value of the meaning of life any.

You have not yet made it clear whether you want to discuss the particular world-view of a vacuous internet self-development guru or some general philosophical question.

But it the general question is about the meaning of life, as implied by your claims of nihilism, then the best way of finding meaning would be through a well-grounded theory of meaning.

Science generally tries to model the world in meaningless terms (material explanation, effective and substantive cause only). Meaning is to be found in Aristotle's other two causes - formal and final.

Modern religion claims to fill the causal gap, supplying the meaning - the formal and final causality. It sort of works in some ways, but it fails in the wider sense.

Where it works is when it does encode successful group-think. Religions evolved as the moral codes of cultures. They would be the accumulated wisdom of how to act that would allow groups of people to collectively be successful. Religion in that sense is not random ideas or weird beliefs but just time-proven ways of behaving.

So the religious group-think is meaningful information that should shape individuals.

Modern society as we know it became secular because the group-think became more general. Through philosophy and abstraction, we moved to a system based on general laws and principles - the local freedoms granted within a generalised framework of more fundamental constraints.

This more detached approach - where individuals were suddenly made more responsible for their own decisions against a background of philosophical "truths" rather than more immediate social group "truths" - did leave people uncertain about where the actual meaning in their actions came from. Science too, being so strictly materialistic, eroded this sharp sense of meaning that exists in the small world of traditional society (where every rock and tree has social meaning).

A gap was created. Confusion was bred. Meaning, in the systems view, always comes from the global scale of the hierarchy. Which for humans means the wider social group. But in modern society, where is our "group" that is our constraining context? It seems to be spread over so many levels, to be so diffuse and hard to see, that we can feel there is no rock of certainty at all.

Some people respond by looking for certainty in the hermetic rigidity of some religious cult (scientology, etc). Or a social tribe (punks, emos). Or a career (the persona or a salesperson, a doctor, an engineer). Or a nationality (a proud american, a proud israeli).

There are other responses like the attempt to transcend reality, to become the meaning giver yourself - Nietzsche's superman. Each of us can ascend the ladder of self-development to become our own god.

This is what makes the likes of Pavlina so objectionable and shallow. It fails to recognise that meaning comes from our global constraints. To be globally free would in fact to become actually meaningless.

How you go about finding meaningful constraints in a modern world with so many options, so many choices, and so little stability, is an interesting question. But Pavlina is not offering any intelligent guidance.

The answer lies not in transcending group-think but in finding the most satisfactory (for your purposes) level of group-thought from which to derive meaning in your actions.

The self-actualisation of new age spiritualism is a nebulous path. At least organised religion has organisation, even if it seems dated and out of touch with modern reality and knowledge.

A better modern response might be an awareness of the global constraints set by the bounds of human nature and the Earth's ecological limits. Issues like peak oil or climate change certainly ought to be a concrete source of meaning in people's lives.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

"Something as elaborate—as time-, energy-, and thought-consuming—as religion would not exist if it didn’t have secular utility. Religions exist primarily for people to achieve together what they cannot achieve alone. The mechanisms that enable religious groups to function as adaptive units include the very beliefs and practices that make religion appear enigmatic to so many people who stand outside of them.”

-D.S. Wilson, Darwin's Cathedral

"One reason that I don't spend a lot of time bashing religion is because there are so many other flagrant departures from factual reality to pick on. Take the patriotic history of nations--the leaders who can do no wrong, the noble "us" and evil "them"--who needs supernatural agents when we can so freely re-arrange the facts of the real world?"

-Wilson

"Trust that which gives you meaning and accept it as your guide."

-Jung

 

[Pythagorean]

You have not yet made it clear whether you want to discuss the particular world-view of a vacuous internet self-development guru or some general philosophical question.

The general philosophical question as it was quite by accident that I came across it from Pavlia's point of view, and probably wouldn't have even posted his link if I realized how distracting it would be.

So the religious group-think is meaningful information that should shape individuals.

How do you mean "should"?

Is it a moral declaration: individuals ought to be shaped by religion
Or a causal declaration: religion shapes individuals

"Group Think" is a strange word, the way it's usually used. It implies there's thinking involved. On the other hand, they way you're using it near the end of your post, thinking is actually involved. But this is an issue of semantics. I agree with you that part of finding our meaning in place requires us to look at society in whole, but that's not what Pavlia (or I) am referring to by group-think. "Group think" has the obvious negative connotation and really shouldn't be considered a type of thought, integrative or not.

 

[apeiron]

How do you mean "should"?

Is it a moral declaration: individuals ought to be shaped by religion
Or a causal declaration: religion shapes individuals

Harking back to earlier conversations, it would be a "moral and ethical" ought to the degree it equilibrated the individual~social dynamic of local competition~global co-operation. That would be a stronger theoretical answer from a systems modelling perspective.

But a casual causal declaration is also fine. It is a fact that societies shape individuals. And religions are formal, written-down, institutionalised expressions of group moral knowledge. So the expressed purpose of religions is indeed to shape (constrain) individual behaviour.

So it both is, and also is is ought...

"Group Think" is a strange word, the way it's usually used. It implies there's thinking involved.

I agree it is a term of abuse, used to frame social constraints in a negative fashion. It is a loaded term so I'm not sure why it is worth even starting with it when there is more neutral language that would not obscure the deeper truths of how social systems operate.

But I would be happy with the "think" part of things as I see no problem ascribing thought to groups. What else is science but an organised community of thinkers, collectively making incremental progress?

Does the internet "think"? It certainly shows some semblance of group thought (and many like to talk about the evolution of a global brain).

Does an ant colony think as a collective? There is good reason to see an ant colony as a distributed form of intelligence that forms a broad view of its foraging environment.

 

[octelcogopod]

Just because an idea is accepted by many and thus "groupthink" doesn't mean the idea is bad.
I think the key here and the point the original quote was trying to make, is that blind faith in the absence of evidence and critical thinking is bad.
There's nothing wrong with groupthink as long as it's not accepted blindly.
It should be analyzed and valued internally in each person.

I think what's funny is that atheism in general is trying to convey that one doesn't need faith in life, one only needs critical thinking and evidence.
And I certainly believe this is true. I believe an athetist can develop strong morals, balanced view of reality and be a good person even if he isn't guided by God to do so.

And this is where the quote comes in.
A common misconception among christians especially, is that atheists are bad people and lack morals, and that god is needed to guide us so we won't lose our goodness in the world.
This is blind ignorant belief and doesn't corrolate with the evidence presented in reality through the actions of people of atheism.

In that case groupthink is ignorant and lacks evidence, and if scrutinized would be proven false.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Just because an idea is accepted by many and thus "groupthink" doesn't mean the idea is bad.
I think the key here and the point the original quote was trying to make, is that blind faith in the absence of evidence and critical thinking is bad.
There's nothing wrong with groupthink as long as it's not accepted blindly.
It should be analyzed and valued internally in each person.

I think what's funny is that atheism in general is trying to convey that one doesn't need faith in life, one only needs critical thinking and evidence.
And I certainly believe this is true. I believe an athetist can develop strong morals, balanced view of reality and be a good person even if he isn't guided by God to do so.

And this is where the quote comes in.
A common misconception among christians especially, is that atheists are bad people and lack morals, and that god is needed to guide us so we won't lose our goodness in the world.
This is blind ignorant belief and doesn't corrolate with the evidence presented in reality through the actions of people of atheism.

In that case groupthink is ignorant and lacks evidence, and if scrutinized would be proven false.

Humans in general need more than just critical thinking and evidence. Science can't cover everything. There is more to the human experience.

And I think atheists are repaying the favor with their own best-selling polemics about how evil, stupid, and immoral religious people are. The atheist movement has become so obnoxious and lowbrow that I have found myself defending people and ideologies that I never thought I would.

 

[thack45]

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. "

Thoughts?

Religion here is an unknown variable and the notions of what spirituality is and how it "grows" are subjective. With this in mind one can neither say whether or not subscribing to "religion" is a growth impediment. Likewise here for group-thought vs independent thought.

 

[Huckleberry]

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

"When you subscribe to a religion, you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought. Instead of learning to discern truth on your own, you’re told what to believe. This doesn’t accelerate your spiritual growth; on the contrary it puts the brakes on your continued conscious development. "

Thoughts?

It could be the other way around for those who choose their religion. When you substitute nebulous group-think for focused, independent thought you subscribe to a religion.

Both statements are a gross generalization. Not all people who subscribe to a religion are incapable of independent thought. The author creates a false dichotomy so he can associate his product with intelligent, independent thought.

 

[octelcogopod]

Humans in general need more than just critical thinking and evidence. Science can't cover everything. There is more to the human experience.

And I think atheists are repaying the favor with their own best-selling polemics about how evil, stupid, and immoral religious people are. The atheist movement has become so obnoxious and lowbrow that I have found myself defending people and ideologies that I never thought I would.

I meant only in regards to what one believes is true, and how one perceives reality and the axioms of it.
I don't believe one needs more than what one can see to live and live happily.
I don't think it's necessary to add a God, and all the unwritten/written rules he has made for those who believe in him.
That doesn't mean there is only science one should believe in. All of human emotion and activity can be godless, and have all the goodness and nuance that christians say theirs have, and most of is it not scientific, but not religious either.

But the point is that when critical thinking and evidence is a part of your fundamental view of reality, you are much more susceptible to new ideas, and seeing the truth.
I believe the truth is incredibly important especially now that there's so much evidence in science.

As for atheism being lowbrow.. I'm not an active atheist I keep it to myself, but as Dawkins once said, if he had used the same language about football or politics, it would be considered rather mild, but once its about religion it immediately becomes harsh and shrill sounding.

There's probably varying degrees of truth to that.. But I'm pretty sure the outspoken atheists are basing it on proof and not slander.

 

[Pythagorean]

octelcogopod, apeiron:

With regards to "group think" I think you're somewhat playing on the words. "Groupthink" is a phrase that doesn't necessarily mean "thinking as a group". Furthermore, the whole phrase used is "nebulous group think", which is explicitly not the kind of "thinking as a group" that science performs.

In science, we are trained to understand and interpret results so that we can verify for ourselves the statements that other scientists are making. The evidence is always available to us, regardless of whether we exercise our right to verify it or not.

In religion, you simply take the word of your minister or the thousands-of-years-old scriptures that accompany religions. Ministers can claim to have special access to religious principles that you do not. In this way, science is much more dynamic and willing to change in light of new evidence than is religion.

I was raised into religion, myself, and the largest influencing factor was what some people call the "McNugget Factor". When your young and growing up, the prospect of going to hell is somewhat discouraging. Simply stated, we don't want to burn in hell like a chicken mcnugget, so out of fear, we accept the words of our religious leaders and parents.

The Catholic church was well known for playing on this behavior. Mere plebs weren't even allowed to read at the time, so they couldn't read the bible. But the Catholic Church was very helpful in relaying points through images. Namely, with pictures of sinners being torn apart by demons, and believers ascending the clouds with angels. This is the kind of set-up that leads to "groupthink", not "thinking as a group".

 

[mheslep]

Steve, the author of This, That, and the The Other Thing for "Smart People" says, about Steve:
"Steve has become one of the most intensely growth-oriented individuals you'll ever know"

Jeez. All hail Steve. He probably has his own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bays1tdQoZY".

I've seen some research suggesting that humans are hard wired to tend towards worshipping something. Perhaps that explains why, in my limited observation, that dumping all religion far too frequently ends up with the default of worshipping oneself. There's an allegory along those lines about a man, a woman, a snake, and a tree of knowledge.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My understanding of religion has been that it seeks to provide an allegedly sound framework from which to explore ones personal spirituality often focusing on prayer/meditation/(prayer/meditation through)ritual as the only truly powerful medium for spiritual growth. Some may get lost in dogma while others may realize it for the scaffolding of a spirituality that can only be realized through individual experience. The realization of a personal spirituality through religion may also be further frustrated by the use of religion by the church/temple/ect as a tool for social and political manipulation, drowning spirituality under dogma for nonreligious motives.

I think that C.S. Lewis' satire The Screwtape Letters rather aptly illustrates the seeming dichotomy between spirituality and institutionalized religion.

 

[zomgwtf]

Steve, the author This That and the The Other Thing for "Smart People" says, about Steve:
"Steve has become one of the most intensely growth-oriented individuals you'll ever know"

Jeez. All hail Steve. He probably has his own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bays1tdQoZY".

I've seen some research suggesting that humans are hard wired to tend towards worshipping something. Perhaps that explains why, in my limited observation, that dumping all religion far too frequently ends up with the default of worshipping oneself. There's an allegory along those lines about a man, a woman, a snake, and a tree of knowledge.

Indeed this has been suggested, I tend to think that this behaviour is an unavoidable artifact of our societal evolution.

This means that while humans do tend to worship something 'greater than themselves' it's not because they NEED to but because some other aspect of our societal evolution led to it and now we just continue on a basis of 'tradition' and the strong beliefs that rose out of it.

 

[mheslep]

My understanding of religion has been that it seeks to provide an allegedly sound framework from which to explore ones personal spirituality often focusing on prayer/meditation/(prayer/meditation through)ritual as the only truly powerful medium for spiritual growth. Some may get lost in dogma while others may realize it for the scaffolding of a spirituality that can only be realized through individual experience. The realization of a personal spirituality through religion may also be further frustrated by the use of religion by the church/temple/ect as a tool for social and political manipulation, drowning spirituality under dogma for nonreligious motives.

I think that C.S. Lewis' satire The Screwtape Letters rather aptly illustrates the seeming dichotomy between spirituality and institutionalized religion.

Well said and great illustration w/ Screwtape. I recommend the Screwtape play currently circulating.