Religious beliefs of Iron Maiden fans

[Siddharth]

Read about a Pew Research report yesterday that says "every one in six people in the U.S. is an Atheist" and that Christianity is on a decline and so about people going to Churches. Just wanted to have a discussion, if that's okay!

Talking about myself. Yes, I'm a religious person. Follows Sanatan Dharma (generally called Hinduism) and personally believe that a higher power can be in any form and anywhere. What the report (one I cited above) says is that, of most of the "non-believers" are either Athiests, Agnostics or people who couldn't come to a conclusion whether they believe in something or not. The last category, as per the report, was found to be "generally least civilized". What is your view on that?

Having known about the Social Contract theories given by Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau (many are there but these are majorly regarded), to some extent I do believe that man, by nature is nasty, dominant, brutal etc. as said by Hobbes but also social (though still being pre-civil), as said by Locke. My personal opinion falls excatly between the two. Religion does play a major role in "taming" and keeping man "civilized" to a level. I'm not sure whether those, who couldn't take a stand on their religious beliefs are not civilized but I get where that could be coming from and do look upon religion as an important estate of human civilization (filled with its own merits and demerits) rather than for its supernatural aspects.

 

[Onhell]

Well, you're tackling two things here so I'll address them separately.

Read about a Pew Research report yesterday that says "every one in six people in the U.S. is an Atheist" and that Christianity is on a decline and so about people going to Churches. Just wanted to have a discussion, if that's okay!

Talking about myself. Yes, I'm a religious person. Follows Sanatan Dharma (generally called Hinduism) and personally believe that a higher power can be in any form and anywhere. What the report (one I cited above) says is that, of most of the "non-believers" are either Athiests, Agnostics or people who couldn't come to a conclusion whether they believe in something or not. The last category, as per the report, was found to be "generally least civilized". What is your view on that?

These studies come out fairly often and to what I've seen and studied, the US is an anomaly. Usually, the more developed a country is, the less "religious" it becomes, meaning going to church and OVERTLY expressing any spirituality/religiosity. Not the case in the US where 5 of 6 people, by what you cite, are still "religious." The Evangelical movement has only gotten stronger to the point of being able to enact federal and local policies/laws. That's why it is ridiculous when people in the U.S say that ¨Christianity is under attack!" From who? There are countries where that's the case but they are mostly in the Middle East and a few African countries. But by all accounts and personal experience, The U.S is very much a religious country and these studies about religion being on a decline is usually Satanic Panic, click-baity crap.

I'm also curious to know what is meant by "less civilized?" This isn't the 19th century anymore, is that still a thing?

Having known about the Social Contract theories given by Hobbes, John Locke, Rousseau (many are there but these are majorly regarded), to some extent I do believe that man, by nature is nasty, dominant, brutal etc. as said by Hobbes but also social (though still being pre-civil), as said by Locke. My personal opinion falls excatly between the two. Religion does play a major role in "taming" and keeping man "civilized" to a level. I'm not sure whether those, who couldn't take a stand on their religious beliefs are not civilized but I get where that could be coming from and do look upon religion as an important estate of human civilization (filled with its own merits and demerits) rather than for its supernatural aspects.

As for social contracts... People are very social and fiercely loyal to their tribes, that's it. That's why, even today, being ostracized from a group, even if it doesn't lead to your death, sucks. Isolation is usually the number one reason cited as to why Finns commit suicide. We NEED contact and interaction. Now, if someone is NOT in our tribe, yes we tend to be brutal cruel and have an US/Them thing going on.

As for a functioning society, I'm reminded of something I saw in my Asian Religions class MANY years ago that a famous atheist Chinese philosopher said that while he didn't believe in that "crap" he felt it was important for a healthy society. It allowed people a healthy outlet for their frustrations. Basically he said it was better for people to pray and go to temples than to riot in the streets and go to bars.

 

[Siddharth]

As for social contracts... People are very social and fiercely loyal to their tribes, that's it.

You are talking about another aspect, my friend. Social Contract theory is different altogether. Very briefly speaking, it talks about a 'state of nature' which is a hypothetical situation in which humans lived in a primitive condition with only "might being right". Some thinkers say man is greedy, brutal and savage by nature, some say he may have these traits but longs for a social association. Hence, they need a supreme authority or a "Leviathan" to whom they submit their rights to some extent and can expect the same to be protected in times of need. These are NOT related to religion but are actually concepts in Political Science. I was simply trying to draw an analogy from them as how religion pretty much plays a similar role.

 

[Magnus]

Basically he said it was better for people to pray and go to temples than to riot in the streets and go to bars.

I'd prefer bars, thank you. And I've done some rioting in the streets in the last decades. Bars for sure. Pubs, actually.

 

[Magnus]

... But I've been to Temple Bar in Dublin so I guess it's all right in the end...

 

[Magnus]

Anyway, as one of the greats once said (I'm almost, but not entirely, certain it was Donald Johanson), there are only two kinds of palaeontologists* - those who are superstitious and those who don't admit it.
Now, I'm not superstitious (see above) but luck is indeed such an important part of our job that I fully understand.

*If it was DJ indeed, that's not the way he'd have spelled** it.
** "spelt" being out of question.

 

[Vaenyr]

I grew up Christian Orthodox, Greek specifically. My parents didn't go to church due to not having the time for it because of their jobs but they were still pious. Church was more of a "wedding/baptism/funeral" kinda thing, than a "go to mass" thing. In fact, I visited masses more often with my school (a Greek school in Germany) than I did with my family. In third grade we had a class about Greek mythology and from fourth grade onwards we had a subject centered on religion which mostly dealt with Christianity. Later on it became a class about the history of religion, delving into other religions as well and the final two years were essentialy a "morals and ethics" class, which was the most interesting part for me.

I was never really religious and I've been an atheist for most of my life. I was deeply aware of theological teachings but they never connected with me. At some point during my early teens I realized that I didn't believe any of the stuff I learned. In fact, I'm not a big fan of organized religion and though I've certainly had an edgelord phase where I was needlessly hostile, I've arrived at a point where I think anyone should believe and practice what they want, as long as those beliefs don't infringe of the rights of other people. I understand why people are religious and even if I'm quite certain in my own beliefs, I can still see and recognize that faith can give a person a lot of strength and support to deal with the hardships of life. I have no right to interfere with that (again, under the assumption that it's not harmful beliefs). Personally I don't have a single religious or spiritual bone in my body. I know that we don't have all the answers yet and that science doesn't explain everything, but I also believe firmly that there is no higher power of any kind out there, nor do I think there is an afterlife or anything similar. And that's okay. We have one life to live, so we should try to do the best we can.
One fun interpretation of reincarnation that I read was based on the conservation of energy stating that once we die the energy of the body is dispersed and reused in some other place in the universe. Maybe another human, maybe a tree, maybe a distant star. It's a fun thought experiment.

That said, I've always been fascinated with religion and I'm still interested in reading about various belief systems to this day. It was consistenly one of the subjects in school where I performed very well and I remember that one of my teachers let me prepare and hold a lecture about Satanism when the time came to examine that, since I was the only (openly) atheist of the entire school and the only one who thought that the way our school book portrayed things (and funnily enough quoted a member of Dimmu Borgir lol) was a bit too stereotypical and I wanted to introduce a bit of nuance.

There is a ton of interesting material in the Bible (and it's a pretty metal book to be honest lol), so for most of my life I was mostly familiar with Christianity. I grew up with a ton of muslims, so I was pretty familiar with Islam as well. Side note, some of the kindest, most decent, respectful and good people I've known were devout muslims. Over the years I've been branching out and reading more about different cultures. A friend went to Utah for a semester a few years ago as a practicing Catholic and came back as an active LDS member. I fell down the rabbit hole and spent a good 6 months or so reading up on the history of that particular denomination. I don't have many nice things to say and in the end it actually cost me a friendship, so I think I'll leave it at that and won't say anything more, since the thread is supposed to stay respectful.

Lately I've been reading about Hinduism and about the religious and spiritual beliefs of the Yoruba people (a West African ethnic group). Growing up in Germany and with a lot of American media, I was constantly surrounded with Christian stories and beliefs, so it's very interesting to read completely different approaches to spirituality.

(Edit: One thing I forgot to mention, I sang in the choir of the Technical University in Dortmund and we had a few concerts in churches. During that time I went to a Catholic mass for the first time and it was quite the surreal experience for someone who up to that point only knew how things were in the Orthodox church. The differences are striking and as someone who wasn't used to their way it felt so strange and otherworldly. Maybe even creepy, in a sense. Fascinating in many ways)

 

[____no5]

Sadly, we didn't have classes about Greek mythology in my time, but my mother had brought me a series of quality illustrated books about it and I knew the basics (actually more than most adults will even know) of it before I reach 12.
Later, we did Iliad & Odyssey at school, an analysis that lasted a whole year for each, 13 and 14 years old. After I finished school I dived again in those 2 books and had the opportunity to study many books that my mother was taught for her archaeology degree in 70s.

I am not into religion too much, but kind of religious person if that makes sense. Because of my study in Greek tradition and also having lived in a country with rich evidence of other religions and now Christianity, I tend to view Christ as one of the many, not the one and only. Also I respect the other Abrahamic religions and generally the spirituality. I have an interest in India as the living example of what religion in Greece looked like (kind of) and an affection in Buddhism, which I view as the most noble of them all.
I'm not practicing anything, I had a Christian period in my life but even then I was not too conventional.

 

[Siddharth]

what religion in Greece looked like (kind of) and an affection in Buddhism

Interesting that you mentioned it. There had been Greek interactions with people residing in India after Alexander the Great's brief incursion into the area. Buddhism was a prominent religion among the Indo-Greek kingdoms (as they looked upon caste divisions in Hinduism as an obstacle and helped them to carry on with trade). Buddhist art is very rich. There is even Gandhara school of art which consists of Hellenistic interpretations of it. Often contrasted with Indian Buddhist Art (Mathura School of art and several others).

Gandhara School of art (present day Central Asia)


Mathura school of art

One fun interpretation of reincarnation that I read was based on the conservation of energy stating that once we die the energy of the body is dispersed and reused in some other place in the universe. Maybe another human, maybe a tree, maybe a distant star. It's a fun thought experiment.

I have even heard about its interpretation as in Physics, when a body is at rest having potential energy after getting struck by another object that turns it into kinetic energy and hence its further dispersion. Interesting thought!

 

[Perun]

Strictly speaking, Mathura isn't a Buddhist school. It has Buddhist sculptures, but it is far more diverse, reflecting the entire religious and social fabric of its time. The Buddhist sculptures are by far the most boring aspect of it, IMHO.

 

[Siddharth]

Strictly speaking, Mathura isn't a Buddhist school. It has Buddhist sculptures, but it is far more diverse, reflecting the entire religious and social fabric of its time.

Correct! It actually has sculptures ranging from Hinduism, Buddhism and even Jainism. I was just giving an example.

 

[____no5]

Interesting that you mentioned it. There had been Greek interactions with people residing in India after Alexander the Great's brief incursion into the area. Buddhism was a prominent religion among the Indo-Greek kingdoms (as they looked upon caste divisions in Hinduism as an obstacle and helped them to carry on with trade). Buddhist art is very rich. There is even Gandhara school of art which consists of Hellenistic interpretations of it. Often contrasted with Indian Buddhist Art (Mathura School of art and several others).

I'm very impressed that you know that. It appears that the first sculptures of Buddha were influenced by Apollo's ones. Haven't dig too deep but I've came across it various times.
This is one of the two widely unknown but very interesting stories about Hellenistic period in middle Asia. The other one has to do with the Silk Road:
Around 130 BC Chinese emperor sent the legendary Zhang Qian to explore the kingdom of Dayuan (Da =Big, Yuan =Ionians, same as Yunanistan) somewhere in today's Tajikistan. Tne feedback from this trip is said to have led to the development of the Silk Road.

From Wikipedia: The Chinese were also strongly attracted by the tall and powerful horses (named "heavenly horses") in the possession of the Dayuan (literally the "Great Ionians", the Greek kingdoms of Central Asia), which were of capital importance in fighting the nomadic Xiongnu.[39][40][41][42] They defeated the Dayuan in the Han-Dayuan war. The Chinese subsequently sent numerous embassies, around ten every year, to these countries and as far as Seleucid Syria.

Thus more embassies were dispatched to Anxi [Parthia], Yancai [who later joined the Alans ], Lijian [Syria under the Greek Seleucids], Tiaozhi (Mesopotamia), and Tianzhu [northwestern India] ... As a rule, rather more than ten such missions went forward in the course of a year, and at the least five or six. (Hou Hanshu, Later Han History).

These connections marked the beginning of the Silk Road trade network that extended to the Roman Empire.[43]

Below wall tapestry from 200 BCE found in Xinjiang! Note the blue eyes, the way of painting appears to be Greek influenced and the Centaurus.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Huh.

As the probably most openly religious member here (not comparing the levels of personal piety, more like how in your face it tends to be, which is also the matter of personal character), I originally intended to avoid this thread like the plague (though I might have once posted here, since I'm getting notifications); you know, just to be on the safe side, much as I tend to avoid the politics threads, mainly because it makes me feel down and depressed that I can't seem to agree with anyone.

But anyway, I'm a trad-leaning Catholic with a degree in theology, an adult convert. Theology and spirituality (and art, which is not utterly irrelevant here) are among the highest of my concerns, highest of my priorities and it permeates pretty much everything - it has influenced my hobbies and interests, my family life (wife converted along with me, we were both baptised in 2017, but it also had an influence on how we spend time together, how we spend money, the number of our kids, the education and so on), my politics and engagement in society, the relationships I keep and work on and so on.

A friend of mine - it's actually my best friend, apart from my wife, I guess - keeps saying the old bon mot - "there's a Catholic way to climb up a tree." Meaning, you are climbing the tree like everyone else does, you do the same things... but you do it in a completely different universe. And I personally find it beautiful.

It also made me reevaluate and get more invested into Tolkien, who was also similarly conservatively Catholic with similar accents and whose faith also influenced pretty much everything he did, including his secular lectures - at least once you know where (or how) to look. But there's a million other people, not just him, however I picked him as one of my Patrons Saint (along with St. Dominic, St. Thomas More and St. Francis), even though he isn't canonised yet. And also, it tends to get me into conflict with those who would like to have him secular or cafeteria or whatever and try to argue that he didn't believe, that it's not present in his work, whatever. To which I usually seethe and post paragraphs of text with references. Anyway, I digress, just wanted to say this is personal.

As always - and the people here who know me know that - I'm always open to answer pretty much anything, much like I'm being quite open on this forum in general, the semi-anonymous profile here allowing me to share even personal and intimate details without any problem.
(for example - here is my personal political/societal worldview, which is also connected therewith and has been influenced by Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, Waugh etc. Might be of interest to some)

Also, in case of any question regarding Catholicism and Christian theology in general, I'm always willing to answer to the best of my capabilities.

 

[Onhell]

Huh.

... I tend to avoid the politics threads, mainly because it makes me feel down and depressed that I can't seem to agree with anyone.

You're not alone in that.

But anyway, I'm a trad-leaning Catholic with a degree in theology, an adult convert. Theology and spirituality (and art, which is not utterly irrelevant here) are among the highest of my concerns, highest of my priorities and it permeates pretty much everything

Seems you joined once I STOPPED being exactly that lol. I used to be very vocal about my catholic faith and in fact that I wanted and was well on my way to becoming a priest. While I am no longer a practicing Catholic it still informs/colors my worldview and when articulating philosophical matters I tend to express myself from that standpoint.

...Also, in case of any question regarding Catholicism and Christian theology in general, I'm always willing to answer to the best of my capabilities.

I'm taking you up on this.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Seems you joined once I STOPPED being exactly that lol. I used to be very vocal about my catholic faith and in fact that I wanted and was well on my way to becoming a priest. While I am no longer a practicing Catholic it still informs/colors my worldview and when articulating philosophical matters I tend to express myself from that standpoint.

If you happen to know Brideshead Revisited (either the book or the incredibly accurate 1981 TV miniseries with Jeremy Irons - not the 2008 movie), i.e. the book that my friend gave me and which was the final straw that made me convert, you know what I think about that.
(if not, read/watch it sometimes. But again, not the movie, the movie is an abomination)

 

[____no5]

You guys, ever wondered what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic faiths? We used to be one right? Then we separated. Of course the real reason was redistribution of power, but have you ever wondered what was the theory /dogma difference that made it happen?

@JudasMyGuide @Onhell

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Yep, we certainly have; it's one of the things you come across when you're studying theology and honestly, the rejoining of the both branches in the East-West schism is something we'd like to do - especially the Catholics, the Orthodox vary (the problem is there is no single "Orthodoxy", these are autocephalous churches that tend to somewhat have it their way and it's often hard to come across a consensus); I'm bookmarking it and I'll do a brief summary on the division a bit later (hopefully still today).

 

[Onhell]

You guys, ever wondered what is the difference between Orthodox and Catholic faiths? We used to be one right? Then we separated. Of course the real reason was redistribution of power, but have you ever wondered what was the theory /dogma difference that made it happen?

@JudasMyGuide @Onhell

As it goes, in 1060ish a Catholic bishop and an Eastern bishop had a huge debate over the Creed. Catholics say, "We believe in the Holy Spirit/Ghost (take your pick), Who proceeds from the Father AND the Son." Orthodox say, "Who proceeds from the Father," and ONLY the father. In short, Orthodox Christians had an issue with putting Jesus on equal footing as the Father. To the casual observer it is a throwaway line which no one really cares about, BUT the theological/philosophical stakes/ramifications are HUGE and it matters greatly. The gap couldn't be bridged and that was that.

 

[GhostofCain]

It is interesting reading about all your different beliefs as a convinced atheist who appreciates the cultural aspects and art from different religions.

 

[____no5]

As it goes, in 1060ish a Catholic bishop and an Eastern bishop had a huge debate over the Creed. Catholics say, "We believe in the Holy Spirit/Ghost (take your pick), Who proceeds from the Father AND the Son." Orthodox say, "Who proceeds from the Father," and ONLY the father. In short, Orthodox Christians had an issue with putting Jesus on equal footing as the Father. To the casual observer it is a throwaway line which no one really cares about, BUT the theological/philosophical stakes/ramifications are HUGE and it matters greatly. The gap couldn't be bridged and that was that.

Ok yes. But how it really translates in the real life? In the distribution of power?

By the way I’m happy you both seem to be knowledgeable about the matter, there are so many proud orthodox that ignore this.

But the question remains. I genuinely have no clue what is the real translation of that thing. I have some guesses but want to hear your opinion first.