Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The conflict of visions

By Dara Macdonald - posted Monday, 19 July 2021


 ...a pattern of beliefs, values, and actions that are acquired by members of a group. Religion constitutes an ordered system of meanings, beliefs, and values that define the place of human beings in the world.

Taken together these definitions are two limbed, the first is that there is a theory of how the world is or how it should be or what I will refer to as ‘doctrine’, the second is that there is an activity or a structure - particularly undertaken as a group - that gives life to the written doctrine or what I will refer to as ‘organisation’ or ‘institution’ or ‘Church’. 

To demonstrate that this working definition of religion -well - works! Take, for instance, the bible existing and being read and debated doesn’t make it a religion, any more than reading and debating Plato does. But put a structure of action and organisation around the text, e.g. the Catholic Church, only then can it be said to be a religion. Likewise, an organised group that has moral codes of conduct doesn’t mean it is a religion in which case every company that gives out an employee handbook of expected behaviour would be a religion, it is only when those behaviours are directed towards a goal consistent with a doctrine it is trying to give effect to, not simply so that the company is profitable because the employees don’t bring it into ill repute. 

Advertisement

Both doctrine and an organisation to give effect to the doctrine are necessary for something to be classified as a religion. 

The second question is: why do religions exist?

Psychologist Sigmond Freud issued a warning:

If you wish to expel religion from our European civilization you can only do it through another system of doctrines, and from the outset this would take over all the psychological characteristics of religion, the same sanctity, rigidity and intolerance, the same prohibition of thought in self-defence.

Humans are deeply social beings and like to not only have an individual sense of meaning but like to be part of a group that acts out the ethics or value structure held. Religions are powerful because they give both individual meaning and collective action. 

Freud was more negative - saying that religions bring rigidity - but in admitting that the only way to get rid of religion is to replace it is to admit that this structure is something that humans crave. 

Advertisement

The fact that many activist movements look like religions is no accident. The only ideologies that could have replaced the old religions are new ones. The only ideologies that could have had salience in a time bereft of meaning and ritual were things that could fill that void. 

The third question: what happens when you take the constrained vs unconstrained vision dichotomy and apply it to religions?

Religions can also fit into the ideological categories of constrained and unconstrained. Sowell gives an example of religious versions of these visions:

Fundamentalist religion is the most pervasive vision of central planning, though many fundamentalists may oppose human central planning as a usurpation or “playing God.” This is consistent with the fundamentalist vision of an unconstrained God and a highly constrained man.

Traditional religions (such as the example of a fundamental state religion above) usually contain some transcendent principle - such as a god - that is unconstrained by material existence. Often the view of humans is limited and thus is or ought to be constrained, while the deity of transcendent principle or goal is unlimited and thus unconstrained. 

Secular religions, that is ones without a transcendent property have the inverse structure. They believe that it is possible to create a kind of heaven on earth and therefore see humans as the vehicle for the ultimate doom or liberation (whichever the case may be) because there is no other heaven or hell than the material world the vision of this world is by nature constrained. The movement that typifies this is the modern environmental movement.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article was first published on The Conservative Vagabond. It is the first of a four part series.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

35 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dara Macdonald writes at The Conservative Vagabond.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Dara Macdonald

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 35 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy