It's interesting to see how much Christianity changed Scandinavia by suppressing parts of the culture, while at the same time so many symbols remains.
From the maypole to wishing my relatives God Jul. :)
Interesting that you mention the maypole. In the Caribbean the tinier islands(The Grenadines) that still follow some older European customs burst out the maypole for weddings and in other festival seasons.
I had no idea the use of the maypole was quite so widespread - I thought it was a particularly English thing. I've never encountered any reference to them here in Scotland.
And it's even bigger in the more Catholic parts (ex-pagan symbols often didn't sure survive the Reformation and its sola scriptura ideal). Although there's more larceny and alcohol involved than dancing with ribbons.
But while we're talking about stealing things, I think this went in several directions, with lots of Norse views and figures being influenced by other religions, including Christianity. Vikings and their sagas aren't exactly ancient.
Speaking about Vikings and ancient stuff, the Maeshowe tomb on Orkney has a lot of entertaining Viking graffiti left after a group of warriors sheltered there from a snowstorm:
It's rather historically accurate (though it's build on a legendary figure[1]), and is a good cool-down show for you and your loved one, when Game of Thrones ends since it's in a similar universe. I'd definitely recommend it. If nothing else, I feel they capture the mindset well, speaking as a Dane.
Vikings, the TV series, has nothing to do with Iceland.
So it has not boosted our national pride. The thing is that the 'Ásatrúarfélagið' has always been quite visible over here. I've always seen it as a "rebel"-religion over here.
EDIT: after writing this I realize your comment was probably sarcastic :)
It would be interesting if religion was 'repurposed' eventually in this way. Without getting into a 'does God exist debate' it would be interesting if people who were, for example Christian, that decided there was no God took the good parts of the religion (peace, forgiveness, some of the rituals etc.) and created a branch of it. Maybe it's already been done?
Indeed. Although my experience has been that without a common theological dogma holding a congregation together, UU's end up substituting political dogma for the same purpose. In other words, church services are basically MoveOn.org rallies with hymnals. If you're not a radical leftist then you will eventually find yourself lonely and burned out, because the worship of radical leftist political opinion IS their faith.
I'm not entirely sure that you CAN have something like a church congregation without some "glue" for social cohesion. I don't think that "Just be nice" is sufficient. Whether it's a shared dogma, or some shared activity, or (perhaps most effective of all) a shared enemy... groups seem to need a strong purpose in order to endure over the long-haul.
From what I've seen its a moderate international alignment.
The US two party system provides a far-right choice and an ultra-extremist-right choice. This is a little too international for some to handle, or you can think about it as they're not modifying their message to fit local culture, which probably doesn't help recruitment.
Its a big world, and the sermons posted on the local church website here, might have little appeal to the attendees of your local church.
From the transcript of the MLK sermon at my local UU church:
"We just heard words from Dr. King, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a
single garment of destiny.” I have always found a profound parallel between that
quote and the seventh principle of the Unitarian Universalist Association – that
we affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all life, of which we
are a part. Sighing with relief because I am not being treated unjustly is not an
adequate response for a Unitarian Universalist when so many are forced to go
without what they need."
Its not exactly "workers of the world unite" or "eat the rich", then again its not the contemporary "Christian" message of "let them eat cake".
I admit I am intensely biased, if I were legally forced to join / attend a church it would almost certainly be this one.
The thing is you don't have to decide there isn't a God, you don't have to change your religion at all, if you have any, to be a good person. We see a very vocal minority who are so loud, obnoxious and get so much air time we think there are a lot of them. I choose to believe there are far more good, moderate and reasonable religious people than there are idiots I see plastered on TV spouting nonsense. Being a good person is not connected in anyway with belief. Christianity already made a new branch to handle all the branches http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nondenominational_Christianity
>> "The thing is you don't have to decide there isn't a God, you don't have to change your religion at all, if you have any, to be a good person."
Of course. My comment was made as someone who 'doesn't know' but leans towards theism. And you certainly don't need religion to be a good person but as with any writings/teachings there can be value there. For example some people find the guidance of the writings by the Stoics useful. If we took the element of God out of the bible and distilled it down to useful teachings on life I wonder how useful non-religious people would find it. Would it be useful in a similar way to the writings of the Stoics for example?
>> "If we took the element of God out of the bible and distilled it down to useful teachings on life I wonder how useful non-religious people would find it."
Thomas Jefferson. Yeah... that Thomas Jefferson... not just some random dude with a common name.
There is a propaganda campaign to convince people that americans were united as hard core puritan evang neocon christians continuously from the earliest days until a very recent fall like when the Beatles arrived, but that fantasy has nothing to do with reality, of course.
> Without getting into a 'does God exist debate' it would be interesting if people who were, for example Christian, that decided there was no God took the good parts of the religion (peace, forgiveness, some of the rituals etc.) and created a branch of it.
Without getting into a "does God exist debate", I think there is considerable evidence that the inclusion of the belief in the existence of God and other similar aspects of religion that are distinct from (but part of the justification for) the behavioral elements you call "the good parts" are an important part of the memetic glue that holds the whole structure together.
But, sure, you see things a lot like that in, say, some Unitarian Universalist groups, and even some overtly atheist groups who have similar practical morality to what you call "the good parts" of Christianity, and consciously have adopted ritual structures mirroring those of Christian Churches -- without God -- as ways of maintaining community and venues for organizing charitable, etc., work.
> I think there is considerable evidence that the inclusion of the belief in the existence of God and other similar aspects of religion that are distinct from (but part of the justification for) the behavioral elements you call "the good parts" are an important part of the memetic glue that holds the whole structure together.
The whole structure of what? Europe is largely godless yet the society holds together just fine. There's really no need to confound "treat others as you want to be treated yourself" with anything supernatural.
The structure of the system of practices which includes the things described as the "the good parts", insofar as it makes sense to "branch" a religion and separate the belief in God from "the good parts" and continue as an organized system.
> Europe is largely godless yet the society holds together just fine.
I don't disagree with that, but I also don't think that's an example of what k-mcgrady was suggesting with branching Christianity and keeping "the good parts".
> Europe is largely godless yet the society holds together just fine
Completely false and uninformed statement. Some EU countries are very religious and show no decline in active participation. There are unrests, but they have little to do with religion or its lack.
Not necessarily. I know people from Europe who call themselves Christian, and yet when asked when was the last time they went to church, they basically just went for weddings and funerals.
So, sure, in a census or some government form they may self-identify as Christian, but for all practical purposes they are "godless"; IOW, "god" plays minimal to no role in their daily lives.
> I know people from Europe who call themselves Christian, and yet when asked when was the last time they went to church, they basically just went for weddings and funerals.
Degree of participation in religious ritual and degree of belief in God are not necessarily related. There's certainly some correlation, but its quite possible to believe that God exists, and that he isn't overly concerned with whether you show up at a particular building on a weekly basis.
> So, sure, in a census or some government form they may self-identify as Christian, but for all practical purposes they are "godless"; IOW, "god" plays minimal to no role in their daily lives.
You seemed to have conflated "God" with "formal religious ritual".
You describe pretty much most Christians thoughout Scandinavia. Not that they believe God to be non-existent, but that the metaphysical question of existence is pretty much dead and without practical interest. Lutheran Christianity unifies not by blind faith but in your actions.
>if people who were, for example Christian, that decided there was no God took the good parts of the religion (peace, forgiveness, some of the rituals etc.) and created a branch of it. Maybe it's already been done?
This is a decent summary of Unitarian Universalism. Also, some groups of Quakers lean heavily in this direction. There's still some mysticism there around "being held in the light" and "moved by the spirit" but people seem to mostly mean that metaphorically and don't talk much about God or the Bible.
Freemasonry? I knows it doesn't exactly fit your proposed requirements, but its not totally a wrong answer?
If you're willing to twist the list of "good parts" possibly into an unrecognizable controversial form, there's always prosperity gospel. Most people might not think they're selecting the good parts, but the PG participants obviously disagree.
Another interesting area research along the lines you're discussing would be Buddhism in general and specifically the somewhat heretical writings of Stephan Batchelor.
Masons carefully state that that they aren't a worship group but demand that you acknowledge a supreme being to become a member. So they sort of reject the rituals and do not avoid the god question.
This is exactly what several flavors of secular humanism have tried, but it turns out, without the cultural and memetic stickyness, these things don't become popular. You can have a personal ethical system without a pretend religion. I don't see how this is in within anyone's interest or time. That said, I've seen things like a very liberal interpretation of buddhism take this kind of role. Mostly, it seems, for the benefits of meditation, but this is a small movement. I'm not sure where millenials will fit into all this, but they are even less religiously affiliated than gen-x, which is a good sign, imo.
Personally, if I had a choice, I'd love to see things go towards a more decentralized role (personal and private spirituality) than yet another centralized role like organized religion, even if some new "ethical" religion takes over. I do sometime fantasize about some new spiritualism that's outcome based, but once more than x amount of people are involved, then politics takes over and any ethical integrity is lost.
As a recent dad, I have found no real replacement for all the religious holidays part of my culture. How do you replace Christmas? How do you handle relatives asking when you will baptize your baby? My non-religious wife and I take a hybrid role where we'll celebrate certain things for the sake of family, but won't do others like baptism. I think shopping around for one of the more 'less religious' religions is just a waste of our time and a disservice to our kids. I'd rather teach my kids the history, criticism, and the folly of organized religion than shove them into one my liberal values will tolerate. Dragging them to a Universal Unitarian service just seems to be kicking the can down the road.
"As a recent dad, I have found no real replacement for all the religious holidays part of my culture."
As an older dad, raised by non-denominational parents, you have a categorical error if you think chopping down pine trees, standing in line on black friday, and getting drunk watching football on TV are biblical in nature. (edited to add, we do that stuff for "fun", not because jesus told us)
> As an older dad, raised by non-denominational parents, you have a categorical error if you think chopping down pine trees, standing in line on black friday, and getting drunk watching football on TV are biblical in nature.
I don't know how you jumped from "religious" to "biblical"; none of them are biblical, sure, but at least the pine tree one has religious history (through a number of different religions on the way.)
As other comments in this thread have pointed out, Unitarianism is one such project. For a very different perspective read what some neoreactionary bloggers have written about repurposing Christianity as a founding myth to fuel a form of traditionalism compatible with a high-tech society. In this society you wouldn't necessarily have to believe in the myth to follow the rites and take part in the festivals, the benefit being the creation of a sort of a lowest common denominator of cultural unity (compare to Shinto in Japan). Unfortunately, I don't know of any master-post overview of their writing on the matter and I am not equipped to summarize it better than I already have.
For general design considerations for a "post-rationalist, post-nihilist" religion, however, I recommend http://www.moreright.net/postrat-religion/. I think you will find some insight in it
regardless of what your politics are. I especially like the idea of a "Truth-Myth barrier".
Without the mysticism, it holds little appeal. Even those people who enjoy ritual often need the thrill of mysticism to goad them into performing those, at least until it becomes habit/tradition.
It's already happening. I for example, consider myself a kind of atheist-catholic, and I'm not the first one. I go to church (not every sunday, but now and then), go on missionary trips and participate in a local community. It is not easy, as almost everyone does believe in God. But my friends are supportive, and I do get to debate once in a while and is all fun. Plus, I really dig Jesus ethics.
Isn't that what Buddhism, Confucianism, Zen and other East Asian philosophy-religions have always been about? A focus on ethics and the human condition without [too much] deity worship?
That's more or less my own belief system. I've hypothesized that concepts like God and angels and Heaven and such were likely meant to be metaphorical when they were first conceived, rather than literal - manifestations of certain Jungian archetypes or tropes or however one endeavors to categorize collectively-understood concepts.
I was raised Mormon. The Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. still live in my bookshelf alongside my most treasured books on science and computer programming - partly because of the significance they had on my upbringing and family identity, and partly because one does not have to believe the stories within them literally in order to benefit and learn from them.
In this regard, "holy" scripture is less of a strict historical record (though there are some elements of that as well, embedded within the fanciful depictions thereof) and more of an equivalent to Aesop's fables - stories which were meant to educate, and to convey abstract concepts difficult to succinctly and effectively communicate without such fanciful metaphors.
Consider the ancient Greeks and Romans... There was no Book of Zeus that the priest would read from every Sunday, the gods were useful metaphors for repeating patterns in history and human nature, and they didn't really care what you actually believed. Then along came the Christians and it wasn't enough for them, that you participated in the public rituals, you had to believe too. The Romans were perfectly happy to let people they conquered or otherwise incorporated into the Empire to do as they pleased, exchanging gods and legends willy-nilly. Judaism was fine with the Romans. That put the Christians and the Romans on a collision course. So I see this as a return to the old ways.
Actually, what put the Christians and Romans on a collision course is not that Christians believed in a God that cared about belief as opposed to participation in public rituals, but that Christians believed rather strongly in a God that cared about participation in public rituals, and, particularly, that Christian belief conflicted with participation in the public rituals of the Roman state religion, which while it might not care about belief, did care very much about everyone subject to it participating in its public ritual.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a ploy by Iceland's official tourism bureau. They're quite savvy and very in tune with popular culture. Check out one of their official videos: http://vimeo.com/12236680. BTW, I've been to Iceland and it really is a cool place.
53 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadBut while we're talking about stealing things, I think this went in several directions, with lots of Norse views and figures being influenced by other religions, including Christianity. Vikings and their sagas aren't exactly ancient.
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/maeshowe/maeshrunes.htm
[At almost 5000 years old Maeshowe definitely qualifies as ancient.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maypole#Germany_and_Austria
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings_(TV_series)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Lodbrok
So it has not boosted our national pride. The thing is that the 'Ásatrúarfélagið' has always been quite visible over here. I've always seen it as a "rebel"-religion over here.
EDIT: after writing this I realize your comment was probably sarcastic :)
I'm not entirely sure that you CAN have something like a church congregation without some "glue" for social cohesion. I don't think that "Just be nice" is sufficient. Whether it's a shared dogma, or some shared activity, or (perhaps most effective of all) a shared enemy... groups seem to need a strong purpose in order to endure over the long-haul.
The US two party system provides a far-right choice and an ultra-extremist-right choice. This is a little too international for some to handle, or you can think about it as they're not modifying their message to fit local culture, which probably doesn't help recruitment.
Its a big world, and the sermons posted on the local church website here, might have little appeal to the attendees of your local church.
From the transcript of the MLK sermon at my local UU church:
"We just heard words from Dr. King, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” I have always found a profound parallel between that quote and the seventh principle of the Unitarian Universalist Association – that we affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all life, of which we are a part. Sighing with relief because I am not being treated unjustly is not an adequate response for a Unitarian Universalist when so many are forced to go without what they need."
Its not exactly "workers of the world unite" or "eat the rich", then again its not the contemporary "Christian" message of "let them eat cake".
I admit I am intensely biased, if I were legally forced to join / attend a church it would almost certainly be this one.
Of course. My comment was made as someone who 'doesn't know' but leans towards theism. And you certainly don't need religion to be a good person but as with any writings/teachings there can be value there. For example some people find the guidance of the writings by the Stoics useful. If we took the element of God out of the bible and distilled it down to useful teachings on life I wonder how useful non-religious people would find it. Would it be useful in a similar way to the writings of the Stoics for example?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Thomas Jefferson. Yeah... that Thomas Jefferson... not just some random dude with a common name.
There is a propaganda campaign to convince people that americans were united as hard core puritan evang neocon christians continuously from the earliest days until a very recent fall like when the Beatles arrived, but that fantasy has nothing to do with reality, of course.
Not strictly, no, but belief influences decisions, so false beliefs can lead to bad decisions.
Without getting into a "does God exist debate", I think there is considerable evidence that the inclusion of the belief in the existence of God and other similar aspects of religion that are distinct from (but part of the justification for) the behavioral elements you call "the good parts" are an important part of the memetic glue that holds the whole structure together.
But, sure, you see things a lot like that in, say, some Unitarian Universalist groups, and even some overtly atheist groups who have similar practical morality to what you call "the good parts" of Christianity, and consciously have adopted ritual structures mirroring those of Christian Churches -- without God -- as ways of maintaining community and venues for organizing charitable, etc., work.
The whole structure of what? Europe is largely godless yet the society holds together just fine. There's really no need to confound "treat others as you want to be treated yourself" with anything supernatural.
The structure of the system of practices which includes the things described as the "the good parts", insofar as it makes sense to "branch" a religion and separate the belief in God from "the good parts" and continue as an organized system.
> Europe is largely godless yet the society holds together just fine.
I don't disagree with that, but I also don't think that's an example of what k-mcgrady was suggesting with branching Christianity and keeping "the good parts".
Completely false and uninformed statement. Some EU countries are very religious and show no decline in active participation. There are unrests, but they have little to do with religion or its lack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Irreligion
> Completely false and uninformed statement.
Not necessarily. I know people from Europe who call themselves Christian, and yet when asked when was the last time they went to church, they basically just went for weddings and funerals.
So, sure, in a census or some government form they may self-identify as Christian, but for all practical purposes they are "godless"; IOW, "god" plays minimal to no role in their daily lives.
Degree of participation in religious ritual and degree of belief in God are not necessarily related. There's certainly some correlation, but its quite possible to believe that God exists, and that he isn't overly concerned with whether you show up at a particular building on a weekly basis.
> So, sure, in a census or some government form they may self-identify as Christian, but for all practical purposes they are "godless"; IOW, "god" plays minimal to no role in their daily lives.
You seemed to have conflated "God" with "formal religious ritual".
This is a decent summary of Unitarian Universalism. Also, some groups of Quakers lean heavily in this direction. There's still some mysticism there around "being held in the light" and "moved by the spirit" but people seem to mostly mean that metaphorically and don't talk much about God or the Bible.
If you're willing to twist the list of "good parts" possibly into an unrecognizable controversial form, there's always prosperity gospel. Most people might not think they're selecting the good parts, but the PG participants obviously disagree.
Another interesting area research along the lines you're discussing would be Buddhism in general and specifically the somewhat heretical writings of Stephan Batchelor.
(for example: http://www.wisc-freemasonry.org/basics-of-freemasonry/qualif... )
Personally, if I had a choice, I'd love to see things go towards a more decentralized role (personal and private spirituality) than yet another centralized role like organized religion, even if some new "ethical" religion takes over. I do sometime fantasize about some new spiritualism that's outcome based, but once more than x amount of people are involved, then politics takes over and any ethical integrity is lost.
As a recent dad, I have found no real replacement for all the religious holidays part of my culture. How do you replace Christmas? How do you handle relatives asking when you will baptize your baby? My non-religious wife and I take a hybrid role where we'll celebrate certain things for the sake of family, but won't do others like baptism. I think shopping around for one of the more 'less religious' religions is just a waste of our time and a disservice to our kids. I'd rather teach my kids the history, criticism, and the folly of organized religion than shove them into one my liberal values will tolerate. Dragging them to a Universal Unitarian service just seems to be kicking the can down the road.
As an older dad, raised by non-denominational parents, you have a categorical error if you think chopping down pine trees, standing in line on black friday, and getting drunk watching football on TV are biblical in nature. (edited to add, we do that stuff for "fun", not because jesus told us)
I don't know how you jumped from "religious" to "biblical"; none of them are biblical, sure, but at least the pine tree one has religious history (through a number of different religions on the way.)
For general design considerations for a "post-rationalist, post-nihilist" religion, however, I recommend http://www.moreright.net/postrat-religion/. I think you will find some insight in it regardless of what your politics are. I especially like the idea of a "Truth-Myth barrier".
I know, right? Those fig trees are such scumbags; they totally deserve to wither and die.
;)
I was raised Mormon. The Bible, Book of Mormon, etc. still live in my bookshelf alongside my most treasured books on science and computer programming - partly because of the significance they had on my upbringing and family identity, and partly because one does not have to believe the stories within them literally in order to benefit and learn from them.
In this regard, "holy" scripture is less of a strict historical record (though there are some elements of that as well, embedded within the fanciful depictions thereof) and more of an equivalent to Aesop's fables - stories which were meant to educate, and to convey abstract concepts difficult to succinctly and effectively communicate without such fanciful metaphors.
A perfect religion for atheists.