Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 12,118
- Location
- Chochenyo Territory, US
- Gender
- nb; all pronouns fine
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
I take as a first principle in my thinking that no human being probably has credible answers to the truly "big questions" - why the universe exists, what lends it form and structure, what the ideal social orientation of a human ought to be. And yes, a religious identity or label is first and foremost a social identity, a descriptor of what communities one belongs to. The idea that religious labels reflect specific shared beliefs is not empirically sound, and indeed a bit implausible given the predictability which which children follow their parents and/or closest peers in selecting them. If you think that the label you claim makes you any more or less "correct", whether you arrived at that label through some strict logical progression or deduction or just let yourself get guided into one by society and circumstance, strikes me as more than a bit foolish. We are extremely limited in our ability to truly observe the universe, let alone interpret what we see. Our senses are not trustworthy, nor instruments meant to extend their reach while still imitating those senses with all of their strengths and limitations. On what rational basis could one choose a cosmology, when no one has an appropriate vantage point for evaluating cosmologies? Any theory of what the universe is or could be is speculation based on partial data on a single sample, the universe we inhabit. It is not a strong case. It is more akin to two goldfish arguing about what lies beyond the goldfish bowl. As an anthropologist, I long ago gave up on the idea that any culture could be seen as inherently superior to another; there being no basis for such a claim except by comparison to another culture with similar strengths and weaknesses, and more shared consensus than most people realize. That being the case, it shouldn't be surprising that I take a relativistic view toward religion also. I'm not a relativist because I think it is "most right" to see things primarily relative to one another, but because I can't conceive of a rational basis for any other approach. If there is no basis for absolutism, relativism is the only logical option even if it does not lead to emotionally satisfying certainty.
That said, I also have no problem with religion, and am continually baffled with how agnosticism came to be semantically tied to atheism in the first place, as they seem like nearly opposite philosophical orientations to me. I am not at all averse to participating in religious life, or even accepting religious labels situationally, quite the contrary. To me, a religion is a symbolic system not unlike a language; a consensus set of narrative and ritual structures that help us to communicate with one another and with whatever other forces might be out there. Oral language is somewhat limited by the necessity of being tied to consistent definitions; the symbolism built into art, music, and ritual is more flexible, able to expand or contract wildly based on one's experiences. Religion is the complex of semiotic systems; it touches on all of the others, reshaping things from the obvious (decoration, clothing) to the intrinsic (ways of thinking, the body itself, stories). I find and have always found religious life singularly fascinating; I made studying it my focus, and engage in many different traditions simultaneously, both in professional and personal contexts, not wanting any of the richness and nuance. I am a passionate advocate of learning new actual languages, musical genres, artistic forms, etc., for similar reasons.
In other ways, though, I am not so fond of labels, or of taking them on. People tend to label me as they do all other people, though, so I try to stick to what is most accurate. But there are plenty of labels you could stick to me with some degree of accuracy or inaccuracy. They are valuable to me mostly in terms of how they open or close doors. At the end of the day, I value plurality more than anything else, and am eager to talk to as many people as possible about as many things as possible while the short clock of my mortality plays out. But people don't like dealing with a blank canvas, it makes them edgy. So I generally try to go with whatever makes the most sense in context. That leaves "Agnostic" for the reasons described above, "Ecclectic" if I'm talking to Pagans who know what that one means (it's a good description of the way I pick up new ideas as I go along but try to synthesize them into consistent magical practices), "Christian" because socially and experientially that is unchallengeably the tradition I know best and most instinctively, "Progressive Christian" if further clarification is needed as to flavor, "Pagan" for similar reasons, and sometimes "Heretic" for what should be obvious reasons given the others. There also definitely some things that I am not, and these are much easier to define.
That said, I should hate to think that any of these labels got between me and a good conversation, and it annoys me heavily when too much stock is put in them. In this respect, I really like the fact that I am disallowed from identifying religiously while at work. Just as well there should be no temptation, since it only puts a blockade between student and lesson in any case; unlike with fieldwork, no label is expected in that case so not providing one is less off-putting. I deeply prefer that state of mutually accepted anonymity for the most part.
That said, I also have no problem with religion, and am continually baffled with how agnosticism came to be semantically tied to atheism in the first place, as they seem like nearly opposite philosophical orientations to me. I am not at all averse to participating in religious life, or even accepting religious labels situationally, quite the contrary. To me, a religion is a symbolic system not unlike a language; a consensus set of narrative and ritual structures that help us to communicate with one another and with whatever other forces might be out there. Oral language is somewhat limited by the necessity of being tied to consistent definitions; the symbolism built into art, music, and ritual is more flexible, able to expand or contract wildly based on one's experiences. Religion is the complex of semiotic systems; it touches on all of the others, reshaping things from the obvious (decoration, clothing) to the intrinsic (ways of thinking, the body itself, stories). I find and have always found religious life singularly fascinating; I made studying it my focus, and engage in many different traditions simultaneously, both in professional and personal contexts, not wanting any of the richness and nuance. I am a passionate advocate of learning new actual languages, musical genres, artistic forms, etc., for similar reasons.
In other ways, though, I am not so fond of labels, or of taking them on. People tend to label me as they do all other people, though, so I try to stick to what is most accurate. But there are plenty of labels you could stick to me with some degree of accuracy or inaccuracy. They are valuable to me mostly in terms of how they open or close doors. At the end of the day, I value plurality more than anything else, and am eager to talk to as many people as possible about as many things as possible while the short clock of my mortality plays out. But people don't like dealing with a blank canvas, it makes them edgy. So I generally try to go with whatever makes the most sense in context. That leaves "Agnostic" for the reasons described above, "Ecclectic" if I'm talking to Pagans who know what that one means (it's a good description of the way I pick up new ideas as I go along but try to synthesize them into consistent magical practices), "Christian" because socially and experientially that is unchallengeably the tradition I know best and most instinctively, "Progressive Christian" if further clarification is needed as to flavor, "Pagan" for similar reasons, and sometimes "Heretic" for what should be obvious reasons given the others. There also definitely some things that I am not, and these are much easier to define.
That said, I should hate to think that any of these labels got between me and a good conversation, and it annoys me heavily when too much stock is put in them. In this respect, I really like the fact that I am disallowed from identifying religiously while at work. Just as well there should be no temptation, since it only puts a blockade between student and lesson in any case; unlike with fieldwork, no label is expected in that case so not providing one is less off-putting. I deeply prefer that state of mutually accepted anonymity for the most part.
Last edited: