By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Does China need religion?
Living in China, I've come to see that there are different aspects of religiosity. Chinese don't have a state religion, but I've seen an abundance of superstition, magical thinking and unquestioning traditional behaviour. Surprisingly, even hospitals are involved in it, and it has lowered my regard for 'traditional' medicine and many other aspects of this culture.
On the flipside, people seem to lack decent behaviour. No politeness, common courtesy, empathy or respect for strangers. They only care about being accepted by those in their immediate community, and couldn't care less about others. They are blissfully unaware about the consequences of their behaviour, and it's hurting their own society. It makes me wonder whether "Mainland Chinese" should be included in the definition of what constitutes a religion.
It frightens me to think, as opposed as I am of religion, Christianity would be a great improvement to these people in their everyday behaviour and interaction. if I ask myself whether I'd prefer my kids to be Christians, or have a Chinese mindset, then I'd go with Christianity as the lesser of two 'evils' (I'm not saying it's evil - just an expression).
I can't blame Chinese, though. This society is basically a giant playground full of schoolyard bullies and cowards, stealing each other's lunch money. If you go back to the feeling of terror you had as a child, you'll understand why Chinese behave and react this way towards leaders who are utterly rude and uncivilized, show no guilt or moderation in their behaviour, and go around unfairly implementing the 'law' while they take people's bribes.
It makes me understand why the belief in a higher power, who will judge and punish the wicked even after death, held such appeal to people in the middle ages. China is still in the middle of feudalism, and a bit of faith would greatly improve social capital, trust, civilized behaviour, personal freedom, mobility, and so on
This is a dangerous way of thinking. Europeans used to invoke this reasoning when it came to go set up colonies in barbaric lands. Just saying.
If there's a solution to the current problems of China, I sure hope not it is not religion.
You don't need religion to distinguish right from wrong, only a set of values based on something else than the absurdity of money*.
You don't need religion to product reasonable analysis and rational thinking, only to grow up in an environment that's not full of lies, excuses and rationalization for the incompetence of a minority.
I don't see religions as an evil as many do. They contributed a great deal in many good things of western civilization. But I like to think at some point we can manage to go beyond that.
*Money as well as everything it implies, including, having everything for sale in a society beyond considerations of ethics or morals.
Should social behaviour exist because:
* we are scared of the judgement and sentencing from one or more super-natural entities
* we understand the social cost that goes with asocial behaviour (example : "if we lie often, people won't trust each other, making life way more stressful than it can be otherwise")
You don't need religion to justify rationally humanism, altruism etc. If you think in term of society and social cost, you can have a rational morality, which gives you a consistent framework to define "good" and "bad". It's simple to teach too, if you teach logic and reasoning in parallel.
As I see it, religion replace one irrational thing by an other one.
coineineagh:
My worry is that people are too deep into the "Mainland" religion, that critical thought is too hard for everyone to understand and adopt at this moment. So perhaps replace a negative belief system with a more benign belief system instead?
Religion has been abused and used as a divisive tool by men in power all over the world. It has been used to twist and control the minds of people for ages because it is so effective. It is like a butcher's knife. In the right hands, it can be used to make a delicious meal. But in the hands of a selfish, power hungry man, it can cause injury and death.
That being said, the realization of a higher, intelligent power (in my eyes, the only logical conclusion) makes us humans accountable for our actions. It provides a basis for us to be responsible for each other. If there is no higher power (God?), why should the Chinese think any other way? If we are a product of evolution - survival of the fittest, why not exploit one another and cheat each other and do anything else to survive? We would only be animals after all, right? This is why the communist systems of the world have failed so quickly and why systems with freedom of religion have failed less so.
Of course this line of reasoning would require deep, rational thought. A quality that the system in China is not set up for.
coineineagh:
I studied Evolutionary Biology, as it happens. I disagree with your dichotomy here. A rational person would understand the value of reciprocal altruism in society. But since Chinese are often not rational about these things, and nobody speaks up to punsh egoism, your comparison holds true.
xinyuren:
If by reciprocal altruism you mean, being good for the betterment of society, this idea is mainly theoretical and I can think of no such structure that have ever existed very long outside of religion. Humans need authority. Without it, we go back to throwing sticks and stones at each other.
Shining_brow:
But, that would mean *IFF* such a being existed, these people would need to have that realisation themselves - and thus change their behaviour based on that.
However, there is a problem. It is a very very rare person who has much, yet chooses to throw it all away for the benefit of others. While it is those who are repressed and have little to lose who tend to follow higher powers - desperately hoping that their apparent meaningless existence, and all the suffering they endure, does in fact, have some meaning somewhere (and, that those who are evil at the top will be punished). So, the top dogs, who made all the decisions, are highly unlikely to ever 'get religion', and while religion can be a form of 'salvation', and even a route to dissent, I don't think it's a good idea. (well, not the monotheistic versions, anyway... too many books, laws and commandments to challenge the authority of man-made laws).
So, no, I disagree. I'd like to see the people become more altruistic for other than 'religious' reasons - that they can come to see the 'right' thing to do in their own minds and hearts.
Shining_brow:
Obviously, I was commenting at the same time as others...
Can we separate 'religious practice' from 'religion'?
xinyuren:
"religious practice" means practicing religion. How can you separate religion from that? How about separating "belief in higher power" from religion. Religion is the system of worship to a diety. Belief is just an acknowledgement that someone exists.
Shining_brow:
I meant, do the same sort of things as is done by those who follow a religion, without having the beliefs attached to it (other than believing in the benefits). I was thinking Buddhism etc, and meditative practices.
xinyuren:
I understand your thought, but this would eventually fail. Like "reciprocal altruism", this only would work in a textbook. Humans need motivation to do things. "For the good of the community" is not sufficient. What is good? Who is my community? These are decisions someone will have to make. This leads to religion or a powerful state authority. Left to our own devices and ungoverned, Society could not hold itself to such high standards.
DrMonkey:
Survival of the fittest is a concept way, way, way deeper than the survival of a single individual. It's about the survival of a group of different species in an ever changing environment. Evolution leads to cooperative behaviors : multi cellular organism, social animals, transmitted cultures, etc. You also have things like game theory, with the famous example of the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma where the optimal strategy is cooperation. You don't need an omnipotent space dad to justify altruism.
xinyuren:
@ dr.monkey - Yeah, a whole lot of theory, but nothing in practice. Like I said, show me a society where there is atruism without a religious influence.
I don't think 'religion' is needed, though I do think there are aspects to religion, and religious practices, that certainly the people (all people) could seriously do with (dare I say - need??)
While not a Buddhist, I do think the concepts of Right Mindfulness ought to be espoused.
Also, apparently meditation (even just entering into mild alpha states for a while - waking sleep) is supposed to make a person more compassionate (doesn't seem to for me 
). Certainly, it effects the way a person sees their environment, and their place in the world around them - to give courage, strength, determination... and I think these qualities allow a person to act both without thinking, and without wondering whether what they are doing is going to come back at them later (ie, lawsuit). Very few people are sociopaths, or psychopaths, so these qualities are unlikely to manifest violently or cruelly.
no one needs religion
xinyuren:
You're right. No one needs religion as you know and understand it. But everyone deserves the opportunity for truth. Without an accurate view of our world and universe, we are as clueless as monkeys.
andy74rc:
Truth doesn't come from religion as largely proved through the centuries.
Fact is that religion is a potent way to "force" people to develop morals. It works better with uneducated people. For all the others, the power of the logic and rationality works better. My personal opinion whether China need a religion? Yes they do, for the above mentioned reasons.
xinyuren:
Noone said the truth comes from these religions. In fact, I implied the opposite. But there is a truth. Either this universe was an accident or there was intelligence involved. Only these two options exist (from what is known by science). Knowing the truth is a freedom that everyone should have, but using it as a tool to "force" morality on people is the same as how Western civilizations have used it to control people
Scandinavian:
isn't there the 3rd option; that things just existed always, and go about the cycle of compacting to a tiny spot and then blowing up to form a universe. Not an accident.... and I am sure there are other options too... believing a "intelligence" is behind it is just grasping for "meaning" in everything, why does things have to have meaning ?
xinyuren:
that third option needs evidence. And to answer your meaning question, have you been in China too long? Are you really promoting, "no why"? Tell me what in this world doesn't have a meaning? Everything has a purpose, most of all this universe. To look up in the wondrous heavens or to examine our own amazing bodies and then to say, "No why" goes against every logic circuit in my brain. Maybe you have really settled down here and stopped thinking so much? sweet dreams
Scandinavian:
I am not saying "no why"... just that I can easily live without knowing the meaning of everything, seeking a God and then saying, "The bumblebee is black and yellow because God wanted it to be" or "The bumblebee is black and yellow for this and that scientific reason" vs. saying "I couldn't care less why the bumblebee is black and yellow"
xinyuren:
Ah. I understand you. There are many people who share you views, especially in China. Most thinking people see the value in knowing the truth about something, in this case the biggest something ever (origin of the universe). I guess you would be one of the poor lasses who choose the blue pill, not realizing there are deep implications in knowing the truth. On the other hand, there is something to be said for ignorant bliss. BTW, if you think this issue is about something as trivial as the color of a bee, you probably are better off remaining ignorant.
Scandinavian:
I didn't say I don't care about knowing :) I just say some things I don't care about. Bees are super fascinating by the way, but so are nuclear reactors, how to infuse bacon flavor into food, how to apply different technology to save the planet, how chocolate can kill a dog. It is deeply fascinating knowing that 2-3000 shipping containers drop of ships each year, I like knowing why an aircraft can fly. There are many things in this life worth knowing, but wanting an absolute knowledge, e.g. saying "God made everything, that is why they are like they are" is just dumb. Technology rocks.
xinyuren:
ok, so you choose not to know whether or not there is/was a creator. fair enough. at least you're honest and up front about it.
Scandinavian:
I would like to know how the world was created, certainly. But I don't want to spend time thinking about it and I don't think there is an afterlife, so the thought af a divine being having created the universe is absurd to me. I believe I am 100% atheist, not one of the people who think "Ah, I can always repent on my deathbed", thinking that would be having doubt, which I have none. Having doubt is what I see many churchgoers have. Complete faith, I've only seen once.
xinyuren:
Now I'm confused (and amused!). Your own words make you sound absurd. You admit you want to know how we originated, but you say you don't want to think about it? And even though you haven't thought about it, you've already dismissed a logical possibility (that intelligence was involved). So you're an atheist and have complete faith based on no knowledge and no thinking??? That's hilarious! Now, I think you were too honest and up front
. Yes! you have more blind faith than the Bible thumpers! Ignorance must really be bliss. You would have been better off by just saying you're not interested in the topic.
Scandinavian:
Pedantism, one of my hobbies. If Richard Hawkins rolls up to my house and screams, you wanna hear how the universe was created, I'll listen to him. But I don't want to sit and wonder about it myself, my time is better spent thinking about other things (and apparently this site)
(A true pedantic would comment on the word "Pedantism" as it strikes me as being not a cromulent word)
Shining_brow:
Theological debate... my pet :)
Firstly, the 'accident' and the 'ever expanding/contracting universe' fall into the same concept. Both are based on a purely mechanistic view of the universe, and all the physics involved. This would include multiple universe theory - as we're still looking at a physics of some sort.
AS for ID - just because this universe had an intelligent designer, doesn't actually mean that designer is either still around, or even gives (gave) a rat's about us and our lives. For that matter, as I think about it right now... it took about 16 Billion years from the apparent beginnings of this universe for humans to show up... and that after a couple of 'accidents' (including stars living out their lives, and the earth forming after the 2nd time), then dinosaurs, and all that stuff in between... just for us humans to have 'meaning'.
Unless you're a real bible-thumping, completely ignore physics (and stars, and all that stuff), and believe this world/universe really was created around 6000 years ago.That sort of religion I really hope Chinese never fully take on! Way too much ignorance (not too dissimilar to what they've got not, given the way the government controls information and education!)
As for Scandi's point (I thought you were a lad, not a lass!!), I think it's more that she's willing to ask questions, and get answers, to stuff that can be answered now... the question of divine origins isn't going to be answered now, so why bother with such questions! (was it Copernicus, when asked "Where is God in your (solar) system?", answered with "I have no need of god", or something similar??)
(although, I firmly believe that Life After Death can be answered! I'm slowly working on such a project (although, doubters will always doubt :p)
In another way, Scandi is also quite right - why invoke religion when economics and social stability should be just as good? If the two are that vastly different, then it's really only the fear of the creator that scares people into being moral/altruistic. If a person can't find their own answers, by looking around and finding logical reasons for acting as a decent person, then surely finding religion ought to be just as good as being told by the government what is the right way to act - ie, a "higher authority".
Who is Richard Hawkins? Richard Dawkins is a well known humanist and atheist.. so is unlikely to help you out much... Stephen Hawking is, of course, world famous as an astro-physicist.
Scandinavian:
Scandi is a lad, but I am confident enough in my masculinity to not start a crybaby fit when people make that mistake.
Richard Hawkins, maybe I meant Stephen Dawkins.....
Do Chinese people really need to be ideologically enslaved twice?
coineineagh:
...maybe. That's what my devil's advocate question is all about. You know how people will say that certain countries simply aren't ready for democracy (dangerous for minorities if the majority opinion is absolute). Well, in a strange way, I'm wondering if religion might be a step on the ladder towards improvement.
Scandinavian:
you mean that teaching misogamy is a step in the right direction ? I agree China needs morals, I just don't know what religion would have to do with that.
Religions are beliefs that people hold on to in hope of betterment to their otherwise mundane lives. I have yet to see a religion that teaches people bad things (apart from fanatics and radicals). Poor people are better believers of religion than the rich and wealthy. In China, those that do hold certain beliefs pray for wealth, health, peace and prosperity. You don't see the villas of rich people having altars on which they place their gods. I can only conclude that most people in China have wealth as their religion. It may sound bad but in reality, that is the case.
coineineagh:
Yes, and this is another aspect of things. Asian religions are a lot 'looser' than Christianity, Judaism or Islam. I think this is because people here are very utilistic, and trusting in an invisible higher power for an unsubstantiated reward may be too alien a concept. This touches on the issue of COULD they adopt religion, instead of SHOULD they... There are other problems with western religions that also pose a serious problem, like "blessed are the poor".
louischuahm:
Agreed. That's why it's easier to get the poor to convert.
Samsara:
"I have yet to see a religion that teaches people bad things"
Really... You mean like discriminating against gay people?
louischuahm:
Samsara@ Personally, i have nothing against gay people. People can do whatever they want so long as it works for them. Discrimination against gay people happens all over the world for whatever reason. Religion teaches us to accept other people's shortcomings but it's obvious that some of them have trouble accepting it.
Samsara:
If you personally have nothing against gay people, you are ignoring that the bible says it's wrong.
Religion teaches people all sorts of bad things. Fortunately, people have the ability to sort out right and wrong for themselves.
louischuahm:
Samsara@ Per your comment that people have the ability to sort out rights and wrongs, much of religion's teachings are subject to one's own interpretation. That's why we have people who believe the world should be rid of certain religions and their own installed as the one that will cure the world of it's ills. If people believe that being gay is right, then I'd say go right ahead. With the advent of modern thought, much of what is written in religious books carry little meaning. For instance, the belief that there is an afterlife isn't held as strongly as it would, say 100 years ago. We've all seen what can happen when religiously imbued individuals sweep people off their feet and wreak havoc to countries that have little or nothing to do with the perpetrator's religious ideology in the first place. So, in the age of individualism, if one believes one is gay and goes out to show the world, then he/she should follow his/her heart and do so. In my world, people being themselves are the real ones. We have enough people in this world who have 6 faces and 3 hearts as it is, so why complicate it by being someone else? Just be yourself and accept others being themselves.
Shining_brow:
"I have yet to see a religion that teaches people bad things (apart from fanatics and radicals)."
Ever heard of the Aztecs? Also, the vast majority of religions in humanity's history has included animal sacrifice, and often human sacrifice. They also condoned the 'us verse them' mentality, and condoned slavery, rape, violence, and genocide. Why? Cos our god says we're chosen, and if you don't believe that then you deserve whatever happens to you!
The interpretation thing really only becomes problematic when you have an 'original' source which you need to interpret. And that, basically, is religion!
@Samsara - no, the bible doesn't say being gay is wrong... There are sections within the bible that say it's wrong (OT, which apparently became irrelevant after JC came and told them what the new rules were), and sections which say nothing about it at all, and some which suggests it's not 'wrong', and the most important thing is your relationship with god, JC, etc There are, however, religions and denominations which say it's wrong. I, for one, think that if XYZ religion says being gay is wrong, and you're gay (or support GLBT), then you change religions - not try to change it! You don't come to China expecting everyone to change languages to accommodate a small number of people - you adapt, or you go to a different country!
louischuahm:
Shining@ Based on your Aztec example, what would we call Hitler, Ho Chi Min, et al? Surely they do similar things in the name of their beliefs, or is it religion if I were to accept the Aztec theory? What about the killing fields in Cambodia? As I said earlier, religion don't teach bad things to people. It's those who interpret it in their own twisted ways. In other words, fanatics who possessed fantastic oratorical skills were able to drive common folk into mass hysteria about his belief. If you look into the history of the crusades, can you safely say that the Turks, ottomans and Muslims were all evil and the crusades were a vehicle of mass destruction to rid them of this earth? That's where my point is. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, etc are all mainline religions but do they preach bad and evil things? The answer is a resounding NO! As such, your reasoning is flawed.
I'd say a cautious no... China could survive without religion (well, aside from atheism, which you could argue is more of a religious view, or view on religion, than religion itself, but that's quibbling). However, I don't think it'd hurt, and it could help.
I'm definitely not opposed to religion outright, but it's also something that requires deep, rational thought (as Xin Yuren noted). When talking about the subject, it's easy to get wrapped up in our own beliefs, where our own religious views are obviously correct and rational, and opposing views are obviously irrational and wrong. It’s also easy to see how the “wrong religion” is harmful.
From the point of view of one religion, at least the extreme point of view, it’s easy to say that it’s the solution to the problem. China is an officially atheist country, and that’s why everything is so messed up, like the Khmer Rouge, or the USSR, and if only they were had a religious tradition, everything would be better.
It’s true that most religions come with a set of rules, and rules, like the Ten Commandments, Jesus’ two commandments (“Love God with all thy heart, and love they neighbor as thyself”), Buddhism’s path to enlightenment, or Wiccan’s “Harm no one”. I would totally agree that a lot of the complaints expressed over and over on this forum would be solved if the Chinese loved their neighbor (and, like the Good Samaritan, viewed everyone as a neighbor), viewed greed as a hinderance to enlightenment, and treated others how they wanted to be treated. I just don’t think that allowing any religion, or all religions, to flourish will be a cure-all.
Just because you introduce rules, doesn’t mean people will follow them. If people already ignore “No smoking” signs, I doubt they’d start listening to “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven”. Of course, you can also use religion to justify whatever moral path you already had. If you believe God is on your side, then nothing you do is wrong. Conversely, if you are certain there is no God, and we’re all just following instinct, then morality is simply superstition. There is no such thing as good or evil, so might as well adhere to the natural order of things, where the strong get what they want by conquering the weak. If you’re an atheist sociopath, you’ll use atheism to justify your sociopathy. If you’re a Muslim sociopath, you’ll use Islam to justify your sociopathy. I’ve ridden in cars of people who have Buddha statues on the dashboard, but that didn’t stop them from behaving un-Buddhistly (assuming that’s a word…and if it’s not, it should be).
I don’t think a mass conversion (as unlikely as it may be) will cure all of societies ills, but I think true religious freedom would be help. At the least, letting people choose their own path of belief frees them from mental shackling, and the state enforced atheism isn’t really working for those who feel another calling. I also don’t really like when religion and politics are one and the same, and that’s pretty much the case in China. If atheism is the path one walks, then no problem (I’ve known many decent atheists and agnostics), but forcing it on someone isn’t working, and the state is doing of wonderful job of using enforced atheism to its own ends. The state determines what is right and wrong, not Buddha, nor Muhammad, nor Jesus, nor Yahweh (part of the justification for the persecution of Falun Gong, including justifying organ harvesting, was that their precepts of abjuring material wealth were incompatible with the atheist state, and too superstitious). If we cringe at theocracies, then atheocracies should be equally scary.
I don’t see atheism as the reason China is a mess, nor the reason the USSR, North Korea, or the Khmer Rouge were/are messes, but I do see religious persecution and the usurping of religion by the state as a big problem in all the above.
coineineagh:
Well, China allows a handful of religions to openly practice and convert now. But no tax-exempt status. Am I wrong about this? It's one good thing in China: Churches should pay their taxes just like every other institution.
Mateusz:
Sorta... they can openly practice, but only if they are approved by the state, and adhere to state control. That's why Buddhism in China isn't governed by the Dalai Lama, and the Pope isn't the final authority of the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church. Well, and Pope Francis has some views on wealth and social class that are way too commie for the Communist Party.
I'm on the line on tax-exempt status. I would like to see a full separation of Church and state. If religions want to meet in a building and suss out the nature of reality and what it means to be a good person, then I don't think they owe anything to the government. Though, I agree that if they start acting like a business, collecting revenue (tithes, donations, whatever you want to call it), purchasing property, and all that, then they're like any other institute, and should render unto the Party what is the Party's.
Imagine if Christianity became the official religion of China.
China would be an ultra-authoritarian, corrupt-to-the-core, one-party religious security state. I think the result would be worse than any literary dystopia yet written.
Imagine the Catholic Church when it was a one-party authority (during the Dark Ages), but with the CCP's apparatus of surveillance, punishment and mind-control. I'm going to start writing the next great dystopian novel now.
coineineagh:
One thing about Christianity - over the ages it has fragmented into different schools with varying values. It might actually help break up the country, ending the Han hegemony. Then again, if it's simply adopted as the single religion of an authoritarian state as you say, then yes, it's not likely to do anything good.
Samsara:
The CCP perceives religion as a threat due to its ability to unite people under a different ideology. But they've got to have been considering its possible applications....
Religiosity has proved to be an unassailable political force in America. The American brand of Christianity (judge people harshly! despise socialism! make money!) now has so little to do with anything Jesus said it's laughable.
Meanwhile, the Scandinavian nations have Christian heritage and are the best nations on Earth.
But China wouldn't really be starting on the same ethical footing as Scandinavia, would it?
xinyuren:
Pure Christianity has always been a perceived threat to the state (Jesus was killed on the charge of sedition). It's principles divert the worshippers allegiance away from the government. This has been a principle source of the persecution on it's followers throughout history, so any form of Christianity adopted by the state would surely be adulterated. As Jesus said, 'my kingdom (government) is not from here (the world)'. So I'm in agreement. Under this regime, a national religion would throw the people out of the pan and into the fire.
Mateusz:
"China would be an ultra-authoritarian, corrupt-to-the-core, one-party religious security state."
You mean to say that it's not already? Also, why would having Christianity as the state religion in and of itself cause it all to go downhill. I don't want to see any state religion, but I don't see how Christianity is like some plague upon society that will destroy all that we hold dear.
If you mean that the Party will use Christianity to forward its own agenda, then I totally agree it would. If you mean that Christianity is somehow unique in being used as a tool by the corrupt, then I am a bit skeptical there.
Also, best to not generalize. There is no "American brand of Christianity". Christianity in America runs the gamut from Neo-traditional conservative Christians who would rather pretend the whole bit about "Blessed are the peacemakers" didn't exist (along with everything Jesus ever said about rich people. Ever), to liberation theologists (Reverend Martin Luther King being one of those dirty commies who cared about the working class).
If nothing else, I oppose state religion because I would like all people to be free to follow their own religious paths (including path of no religion, or no theistic beliefs). That and a plurality will prevent any one religion from being too dominant. Religion is a powerful force, and easily used by the wrong people (like China is doing now, and theocracies have done before), so limiting that power keeps it in check. Besides, religion seems to work best when it's personal and on a small scale, and works worst when it's the government.
Scandinavian:
the Scandinavian nations are probably also the ones that have moved furthers away from their Christian heritage. Maybe that is why they are such great countries.
Scandinavian:
and I should add, just because people are not church-goes anymore, doesn't mean people are not aware of the heritage, most of the buildings are maintained for the historic value and many are very old
Scandinavian:
By the way Samsare. If you want to understand the Western world you need to read The Icelandic Sagas. Stories written about Iceland and the other northern countries before these places where enslaved by Rome (as the preface to the translation I read said) The stories deal with how life was at about the time of the Vikings, at the late stages of their domination of Europe, prior to Christianity being introduced. They near witness to a society of moral standards that many people today think can only come with religion. Sure, they had supernatural beliefs, but I am sure that anyone who says "It's better to have any religion than no religion" (thinking of the big world religions) would at the same time discredit anyone devoted to Asatru
The Icelandic Sagas, old as they are, embodies the Scandinavian culture more than anything else.
As the sagas take place in the time before Europeans started colonizing the world, these stories are also about the ancestors of the Kiwi's, the Yanks, the Taco Chwers etc. and a good slap in the face to those who think we need religion to know we all come from the same place
Mansonism. That will be Awesome for getting WWIII off to a great start and make it one to rival WWII !
get a billion+ han pissed fkn off and have them do that thing they keep talking about... grab some islands, hell, grab DPRK... lob a few nukes at Japanland !
Charlie is a sinister, goofy fk,, he would be the perfect new china 'doG' !
diverdude1:
oooops.. I knew I ripped the idea off from somewhere.... 
Man made religion, nope. Belief in a creator and higher power (the only logical conclusion in my opinion), absolutely.
Religions need to be replaced, not necessarily gone. I think the idea that God is every where and in everything needs to be replaced with worship of all life. Life is the miracle and it is in all things, if you want to call that God, then I get it. The do unto others, good smaritan, etc stories can stay. Religion should be all about teaching people to be better to each other, but I still want to cumeth in my neighbors wife.
If there was a God the way that the Bible etc claim, why doesn't he call? If he can use a burning bush, why can't he use a cell phone?
coineineagh:
you know all those Chinese who call, and you think it's a wrong number? maybe God no speaketh the English...
Scandinavian:
谷歌翻译是魔鬼的工作 (hmmm, or maybe I should have written that backwards)
China already has its ancient religions. Yes, I agree some have very bad habits. So now you want to teach then to be hypocrites. Christian style.
coineineagh:
Erm, ever heard of facesaving? The hypocrisy in Christianity, as well as the importance of virtuous appearances, wouldn't be a new thing. That's the stuff that improves the compatibility of Chinese with Christianity. They're already hypocrites - it's a deep-seated part of their culture. Rationality and democracy aren't compatible yet... but maybe after the Free Chinese Reformed Church gains popularity, who knows?
I've been majoring in Religious Studies for my Master's and let me tell you that your justifications for your very own proposed imposition of Christianity on the Chinese is exactly how all the missionaries expounded their trips to here in the middle ages.
All that you see about Chinese people now did not take roots in them overnight, nor during the "dark" years of atheist communism. It's always been one of the most isolated cultures in the world and it is a very old one too. Religion here has always been more like philosophy rather than the western sense of it that we are accustomed to know.
Another thing is that in any field, whether it be science, infrastructure, music, health, throughout history China has always found its own solution. If they like and/or understand some concept from the outside, they take it or come up with their analogue of it. So one can always only observe how China changes.
coineineagh:
What strikes me, is that these apparent atheists display more superstition, magical thinking, unquestioning conformity and self-justification than I've experienced from most religious folk over the years. So I wonder: Would religion be an improvement? Anyway, children have their own way of integrating knowledge from the world into their own understanding and world view. I see a lot of parallels in Chinese mentality.
xinyuren:
I have often noted a parallel between Chinese society and children. I always thought it was a result of the Leap Forward, but maybe they were always this way? Interesting.
The majority of the comments have equated religion with hypocrisy, dogma, corruption, and mind control. Rightly so, for this is what most of religion has given mankind for centuries. Anytime man has an opportunity to enslave another, they usually take it. Sadly, this appears to be our nature and unfortunately it clouds the real issue. We as a species are fast approaching an immovable wall. This is not just a Chinese problem. The world has become a darker, less hospitable place. We are ruining ourselves as well as our environment. Too many people want to ignore it and pretend it will go away, but logic dictates that it won't. Looking into our past will give us insight into our future.
Is this world, this universe, just some random occurrence triggered by chance? If so, then it's academic. Reason and logic tells us what will happen next, and it will happen pretty soon by most scientist's predictions. Why should China, or any of us change? There is nothing we can do, or we would have already done it by now. Our species is in pretty deep.
If we are a creation of some intelligent source? Then there is a reason why we are here and it is likely this source can tell us where we are going. Sort of like how we take our car to the dealer to diagnose mechanical problems.
So it really makes a difference which answer is true. The difference between life and extinction. This is the reason scientists and great minds everywhere are searching for the answer. Religion has also been about searching for truth and while the majority of them have failed, it doesn't mean the search is not worthwhile. Perhaps in China, somewhere in it's long history, someone came to the conclusion that there wasn't a creator, it doesn't matter what we do, we're all animals. Maybe that's why Chinese are the way they are today.
Samsara:
Which group of people are most likely to deny climate change? The American religious Right. Which type of people don’t think we need rational solutions to global problems because everything is part of God’s plan? Religious people.
It is the religious outlook, not the scientific one, that is fatalistic.
It is scientists, not religious people, who are actually tackling the problems we face, and working on solutions.
If the world does not have an intelligent creator, we are the beings with the most responsibility and the most agency. Only if God does not exist are we the ones completely responsible for our own situation.
Claiming that the events we experience are part of God's plan is deferring responsibility. It is not a solution.
And you claiming that non-religious beliefs (like SCIENCE) offer no future for society, then trying to fit scientists' efforts into your pro-religious worldview is pretty low.
xinyuren:
Wow, I see so many mischaracterizations of my ideas that I don't know where to begin.
It seems that you, like most posters on this thread are confusing religion with the search for truth. I said science and religion have been about searching for truth. Both factions understand the real relevance and implications of each eventuality. I don't know what you're going on about, God's plan and all.
Secondly, regardless of what anyone is doing about the problem, the facts remain. The logic is not going to change. Everyone can see the wall ahead and no-one has an answer. Call it fatalistic if you like, it is the truth.
Finally, I never said scientist's reason for seeking truth had anything to do with God. Again, I don't know where you get that.
My summary was pure reason and logic. Man's nature is a known. It has been established for millennia. Empires have risen and fallen and our nature has never change. We are not suddenly going to make a U-turn because catastrophe is ahead. That simply isn't logical thinking. Can we individually do something about our situation?
I think so. I say it starts with finding the truth to this basic question: Where did we come from? Having done that, we can take things to their logical conclusion. I don't think that's fatalistic at all. That's just solving a problem. Many scientists and theologians agree.
Samsara:
Scientists discover real and practical solutions. Religion doesn't.
That's a pretty important distinction considering your claims that non-religious worldviews (SCIENCE) result in doom.
xinyuren:
It is true, science tackles many practical problems. I am a big fan of science. But science can never solve this problem that we face because they (like you) are ignoring the source of the problem. This is not a technological problem. Let me make this clearer for you. We have enough technology now to solve the problem. Got it? Now let me tell you what the real problem is. It's us! Selfish people are the problem. Mankind's very nature is causing it's ruin. Do you think suddenly our world is going to turn unselfish? We will need to if we are going to survive this. In fact, we will have to be the most unselfish world in the history of unselfishness. It doesn't matter how advanced our science is. If we, as a species, aren't willing to put others ahead of ourselves, it is all for naught.
Now, logically thinking, how likely is the chance of the world suddenly becoming unselfish? Think on that awhile.
Samsara:
Humans are a tenacious, adaptable and industrious species, and will endure when things get a lot worse (which they may).
Your claims that non-religious worldviews result in societal decay are what I object to. They don't, and whether or not humans overcome their selfishness, the solutions to our global problems will be scientific, not religious ones.
xinyuren:
Once again (am I not clear?), I am not promoting a religious view! I have on many occasions criticized religion for failing to live up to the high standards they claim to aspire. You want to rant about religion? Go ahead, but don't muddy my argument with it. The search for truth is beyond religion. Science, philosophy and even artists are seeking truth. My argument is that the answer lies at the end of that search. Or at least there will be an understanding of how to handle the problems we face today.
As for your faith in humans, there is no historical evidence for the hope you hold, but I won't blame you for hanging on to it. Good luck with that.
Shining_brow:
Sorry Xin, I think you've got it the other way around.
I think we need the solutions first, before we bother with the bigger questions, as you suggest. (although. I should change that to "it's more likely to happen this way" ,than "we need").
The destruction you think is coming is a pragmatic consideration, which as we draw nearer to how bad things can get, will lead to changes being made by the most selfish of people (of course, far too late by then!!)
When we hit the point of no return, humans still aren't going to change that much.
The logic is - we do see the wall, and there are many who are trying to do something to stop the train wreck... but it's those super-greedy rich bastards who don't care - they seem to think that they'll be ok somehow (maybe they know something we don't!! Maybe they've been building all those nice domed cities we see in post-apocalyptic worlds we see in the movies, and look to keep their world domination in there!)
I do, however, have one major disagreement with your thinking - that of human nature. No, actually, I don't think we actually know what humans are truly like. Throughout the last few thousand years, humans have still been squabbling for the scraps of life.. food, water, health, housing, etc. We've never been in a position where we all had everything, and no-one lacked for anything. In the next century or two, presuming we don't blow this place up, we'll actually get pretty close to that (if we choose!) . No disease, no famine, no thirst, complete bio-regeneration of the body, ease of transport, no need for fossil fuels, etc etc etc. Possibly even things like Star Trek replicators!! The only problem we might have is space - but that will also depend on technological advancements - there is, in fact, plenty of space on this planet to accommodate 10 billion people.. it just depends on whether we all want to live in massively tall apartment blocks, or have a few acres to ourselves - if the latter, are we willing to chop down all those trees?? With transport, we should be able to go where-ever we want, extremely quickly and (if such a thing exists) cheaply!
Anyway, the point of that is - we'll only know what we're really like when we can all start just living freely, not under the current burdens of 'life'.
xinyuren:
You know why we've never been in a position where we had everything? Because we'd have to help each other to get there. We'd have to even out the gap between the super rich and the poor. We'd have to care less about profits and more about the world's welfare. My father once told me, it's easy to be good and strong and brave when times are easy. The real test of character is when you are under pressure. When times are bad. When you are forced to make difficult decisions. That is when your true nature is revealed. As long as man is selfish and greedy, we will never reach this utopia state you speak of.
This generation of mankind doesn't have the character to carry that dream through. I don't think you really know how deep we are in. For this world to survive, it will take every country in the world to cut fossil fuels, stop polluting the waters and air, stop fighting each other and pool resources to make this happen. The biggest populations are undeveloped countries, so developed countries will have to sacrifice their creature comforts. And all this during a global financial crisis. The effort required to pull out of this will be unprecedented. The things you're talking about are a pipe dream. We use our technology to spy on each other and bomb each other, not help one another.
If you think this will happen, if you think the global community will suddenly pull together in unity and sing kumbaya together, you truly have great faith. You and Samsara have enough faith to start your own religions. In fact, it seems you both are kneeling at the feet of the god of science. Too bad, you still have to rely on humans to control that technology. That seems like a losing hand to me. I know I wouldn't put my money on that horse.
More people die in wars fought over religion than any other cause. Why should China want a new problem to deal with? Suggest you all watch the movie Zeitgeist which show how and why religion was created by man to control and intimidate others.
coineineagh:
What a coincidence, I'm just downloading their 3rd movie which I haven't seen yet. Yes, I'm aware of the history of religion, and despite Zeitgeist's simplified summary of the issue, I agree with their overall conclusion. Despite this, I wonder if a focus on societal ethics, no matter how skewed, is an improvement over the dystopian non-interest displayed here. Violence is a consequence of any change in Chinese society, so I fear it's unavoidable. Deaths happen here all the time; casualties are China's preferred solution to any problem (kill/execute/starve people until the problem goes away - no need to change or adapt).
The worst thing about China is that people here don't value human life, the very thing that religion actually brings along with a deeper way of seeing the world rather than purely materialistic and overly practical like the Chinese. I hate the use of the word religion as it almost always is used negatively (and yes there are some dangers in any religion) but completely take it away and the world goes the way of China instead of some peace loving utopia that some atheists would have you believe. I'm sorry but China needs religion, but it should never be forced.
xinyuren:
which religion? China already has Buddhism. Some form of Christianity has been established in many parts, and have you ever heard of Lanzhou noodles? Plenty of people with a religion run those shops. It's funny how people are viewing religion as some sort of mass crowd control, but that really shouldn't be the point of having a religion. This point has been lost long time ago... sigh.
coineineagh:
xinyuren, you won't find spiritual enlightenment from reading a holy book. religion is about herding people into unquestioning conformity to a fixed (perfect) world view; blessed are the meek. It has a purpose, though. China seems more in need of it than most places. Before you can improve your spiritual progress, you must first learn to respect yourself and others.
xinyuren:
@coineineah
....says a person who doesn't even believe in God. Of course that would be your viewpoint. But speaking from a purely logical viewpoint (and using the very strict definition of religion), the primary purpose of religion is to provide a structured groundwork for communicating with the Creator. Religion has long ago fractured into a million pieces, but logic dictates that there indeed was (and is) such a structure, and one can learn very much by reading from the right holy book with the proper motive.
I find it very disturbing, but not surprising, that all these atheists who cling to science, fail to use the scientific method in coming to conclusions about origin of life. Logic and evidence are the prime tools of reason, yet they throw them out the window in this case. Could it be because all the logic and evidence points to an answer they don't want to accept?
ps... sorry pbrown, I may have hijacked your thread a little.Scandinavian:
If you think religion bring peace and tranquility, then good for you. If you think religions people are happier and more balanced people who respect life, then you are wrong. Look at the "pro lifers" the jihadist, the self-immolating Buddhists.
If you cannot behave on your own, don't blame lack of religion, blame yourself for being a prick.
coineineagh:
you reason that there must be something, because everyone has a tendency to form beliefs, in particular ones of all-powerful creators overseeing us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstitious_pigeons "Skinner placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these same actions... Skinner suggested that the pigeons behaved as if they were influencing the automatic mechanism with their "rituals" and that this experiment shed light on human behavior." "It is a mistake to suppose that the whole issue is how to free man. The issue is to improve the way in which he is controlled"
xinyuren:
@coin*
all that writing (with refs,even) and you still fail to address the main issue. I'm not surprised and I can't blame you. If you addressed it, you would be found lacking. You must be a politician. You can't address the issue, so you poke at the opposition.
coineineagh:
@xinyuren: You have chosen a favourable definition of religion, just like you've chosen a favourable framework by which you claim I've lost the argument. This is wiki's short definiton of religion: "A religion refers to a set of variously ORGANIZED beliefs about the relationship between natural and supernatural aspects of reality, and about the role of humans in this relationship." and I doubt regular dictionaries will include anything about communicating with a creator. that would assume the religion has a creator, and allows communication. not all do.
xinyuren:
coin,*
First, the definition of religion has NOTHING to do with the main issue. In fact, the issue that you are trying to dodge has nothing to do with religion. Secondly, in order to have a relationship, there must be communication. Almost all forms of religion involve some form of communication with the supernatural. I do concede one point. I should have said "supernatural" instead of "Creator". Your chosen definition is in harmony with mine. Mine is just more succinct.
pbrown22:
@xinyuren, its fine you hijacked my thread. haha. Sorry, I was talking about Christianity when I made reference to religion in my thread. I'm not ashamed of being a follower at all. The biggest problem in the world is people (myself included) and more specifically people's hearts and the values they keep within them. We'll never find a way to solve those with pure knowledge and science like lots on here somehow confusingly are led to believe.
China needs to start thinking. They need to learn to start using their noggin'. A mind, properly exercised, can make it's own decisions about religion.
Seems China is getting what it doesn't need http://shanghaiist.com/2014/04/21/china_headed_to_become_the_most_chr.php
Shining_brow:
""They want the pastor to preach in a Communist way. They want to train people to practice in a Communist way," the house-church preacher said."
Oh, no - no they don't!!!!
xinyuren:
This is not the end of it. The State will strike back. And not just in China.
