Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Academia and Religion/Spiritualism

.
I wonder if there was a way to meld the two...

The anima that vitalizes the religious spirit is powerful. Religion somehow has the abililty to connect with people on a very deep level. What if you could combine academia and the religious/spiritual being in order to create a culture of people who see knowledge and wisdom of all things as divine?

What would it be about? It would be about understanding truth and applying knowledge wisely while also developing the character to adhere to truth and avoid self-corruption or being corrupted.

If you were to build a nation of truly good people...what would it be like? What would be it's policies? How would it treat other people around them? What happens when you are attacked? If you were to build a good man or woman...how do you start? What do you teach them? What does a good man or woman believe in?
.

Comments

Idealism is necessary for advancement. If we don't aim for ideals, we will achieve less.

I like the idea, in theory, but in practice I don't see how to avoid corruption. The best we can hope for, in my opinion, is to keep reinventing things, including organizations. When newly formed, they seem less corrupt. Or maybe the corruption isn't as noticeable, as it is all new. Hmmmm.
 
The major conflict in your idea is this:
In academia, diversity fuels and powers the process and ideas (until recently, that is). Strength through adaptability.
In religion, the power usually comes from obedience and uniformity. Rigid strength.

The monotheistic religions have all sponsored scientific growth, UNTIL those discoveries threatened their dogma.
Faith does not require proof. Proof is the antithesis of Faith. Academics and Spirituality are Matter and Antimatter.

People choose their religion. They cannot choose their science.
In esoteric terms, once Love is quantified, is it any longer a powerful force in our lives?

There is this new breed. People that claim to be Atheist, but have a religious-like dogma to their theories.
Science is supposed to be open-minded yet rigorous. Not political, partisan and prejudiced. We tried that in the 16th century. Didn't work well.
 
Winston;bt10661 said:
The major conflict in your idea is this:
In academia, diversity fuels and powers the process and ideas (until recently, that is). Strength through adaptability.
In religion, the power usually comes from obedience and uniformity. Rigid strength.

The monotheistic religions have all sponsored scientific growth, UNTIL those discoveries threatened their dogma.
Faith does not require proof. Proof is the antithesis of Faith. Academics and Spirituality are Matter and Antimatter.

People choose their religion. They cannot choose their science.
In esoteric terms, once Love is quantified, is it any longer a powerful force in our lives?

There is this new breed. People that claim to be Atheist, but have a religious-like dogma to their theories.
Science is supposed to be open-minded yet rigorous. Not political, partisan and prejudiced. We tried that in the 16th century. Didn't work well.

I don't agree that academia and religions/spirituality is necessarily opposed. It just depends on what the religion is. If there was a religion that pursued truth and wisdom than there is no difference. But...there wouldn't be much change in the world since truth is merely knowledge, and wisdom- or how to act wise in this or that situation- is up for interpretation and can yield anything from global benevolence to fend-for-yourself ideologies.

Unfortunately, people can and have chosen their science before. Science isn't necessarily truth, but an interpretation of the truth. Like climate change- an obscure subject when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it- people have sophisticated arguments for different sides of the debate. These sides are all endorsed by scientists who claim their science is the correct one, but none can offer direct proof so the public is left. The government and major business have aligned and powerfully funded pro-climate change parties and so this is what's emphasized in schools and media to the point that those who have not made their own choice on this issue don't really have a choice since they are indoctrinated with it through saturation. Similar things, of course, have occurred in the past. In fact, religion was, at one point, a scientific truth endorsed and enforced by government and various other entities.

Religion's one of those things I can argue on for days so I'll cut short, lol. But basically, so you know where my mind is, Miyamoto Musashi- the author of "The Book of Five Rings" had stated that a person's actions are strongest when their mind, heart, and soul aimed in the same direction. A deviation in one means a less efficient result. If you want to live a life based on truth and wisdom, or you want to create a world based on truth and wisdom, then you can't pick and chose. You have to think it, it has to be a part of your spiritual goals and ambitions, and it has to be a part of your relationships. In my opinion, the corruption you see at the top is merely a reflection of the corruption that seethes in all of us. In other words, evil, immorality, corruption, perversions, or whatever at the top could never survive if it was not present at the bottom.
 
Winston;bt10661 said:
The major conflict in your idea is this:
In academia, diversity fuels and powers the process and ideas (until recently, that is). Strength through adaptability.
In religion, the power usually comes from obedience and uniformity. Rigid strength.

The monotheistic religions have all sponsored scientific growth, UNTIL those discoveries threatened their dogma.
Faith does not require proof. Proof is the antithesis of Faith. Academics and Spirituality are Matter and Antimatter.

People choose their religion. They cannot choose their science.
In esoteric terms, once Love is quantified, is it any longer a powerful force in our lives?

There is this new breed. People that claim to be Atheist, but have a religious-like dogma to their theories.
Science is supposed to be open-minded yet rigorous. Not political, partisan and prejudiced. We tried that in the 16th century. Didn't work well.

People absolutely choose their science. Otherwise their would not be any scientific debates or change in scientific theories. And yet those things happen.

Back in the past, doctors performed autopsies, then delivered babies. And women died of infection following the births. It took far too long from when one brave soul suggested they wash their hands in between before finally that strange notion of doctors causing the deaths to be verified. The doctors chose their science. And in their science there was no connection.

I do agree that atheists can be very religious in their beliefs.
 
Good grief! Where to start, and why are we even bothering, because those who have posted thus far have wide-ranging intelects, openeness, and eclectic senses of relevance so, given all of that, we are collectively doomed to fail at arriving at consensus. Won't happen. What WILL happen, is provocative questions. And I'm good with that. That's why I'm throwing my hat in the ring with you guys.

I'm a poet. Prior to that, I was an academic and an administrator. I taught English and, for eight years, was Head of my department. In 2003--a year of stunning insight for me personally :icon_cyclops_ani:--I retired. So for 14 years I've been having a wonderful time writing poetry and, curiously, I feel my thinking and creativity have been on an upward curve during that time, following 32 years of 'flat' plane, or downward spiral at The Academy. That's not intended as any kind of put-down of The Academy, just a statement of how I 'felt'. I'll be 80 next month, but my 55-year-old girlfriend says I'm a fucking juvenile delinquent. That is definitely to be taken metaphorically.

Do you folks think I can contribute in some potentially interesting ways to this dialectic? Please be frank. I should add that I'm a 'considered' Atheist. Perhaps. I dislike labels, but I probably would be most comfortable there, were one to insist on some kind of declaration. I've studied all the major forms of intervention, and that's where I would end up. Or in a Zen monastery, hoping to be chosen as a walk-on in the next reincarnation of "Seven Samurai".

This annoying business called life now pulls me away from this page, but I shall return.
 
Ouch! That is going to take up a lot of your energy, Clark, unless you happen to have juvenile energy.
 
clark;bt10719 said:
I'll be 80 next month, but my 55-year-old girlfriend says I'm a fucking juvenile delinquent.

Now this is a quality sentence. It's the sort of thing my dad would say.

Dad? Is that you?
 
Neetu;bt10726 said:
Ouch! That is going to take up a lot of your energy, Clark, unless you happen to have juvenile energy. ��
My late Fascist aunt was fond of saying--with accompanying curl-ed lip and trademark sigh of frustration-- that males in our family START, mind you just START, to mature a bit at about age 65. So perhaps the 'juvenile' energy you mention is more than apt. Just before he was killed in a tractor accident at age 96, my grandpa so thoroughly humiliated an arrogant candidate for mayor of Winnipeg at a townhall meeting, that the man had to withdraw from the race. Apparently, grandpa went at the guy for 20 minutes, citing dates, places, statements, events, sources. . .without once consulting a note! So, yes, I really have inherited all this 'juvenile' energy, Neetu, and if these guys think I'll be a fit, I'll pour some of it out here. The thread looks like fun. Join in!
 
Pour it out, Clark, whatever your thoughts on this subject! As for me, my head is spinning from a two-week immersion in a nation that celebrates over 33 million gods/goddesses....don't think I can even begin to talk about religion!


clark;bt10728 said:
My late Fascist aunt was fond of saying--with accompanying curl-ed lip and trademark sigh of frustration-- that males in our family START, mind you just START, to mature a bit at about age 65. So perhaps the 'juvenile' energy you mention is more than apt. Just before he was killed in a tractor accident at age 96, my grandpa so thoroughly humiliated an arrogant candidate for mayor of Winnipeg at a townhall meeting, that the man had to withdraw from the race. Apparently, grandpa went at the guy for 20 minutes, citing dates, places, statements, events, sources. . .without once consulting a note! So, yes, I really have inherited all this 'juvenile' energy, Neetu, and if these guys think I'll be a fit, I'll pour some of it out here. The thread looks like fun. Join in!
 
Kaminoshiyo, religion connects at a deep level, no doubt, but it also divides at a deep level. Look at the forces that are in a perpetual state of violent conflict all over the world to see the impact of this deep connection. I don't personally think religion is necessary for social harmony and is an organized entity that man has created to exploit the individual's insecurities and fear of the unknown. I do not say this as an atheist (I am agnostic), but simply as an observation of the state of our world in which religion has seldom led to peace. I don't see why we need to combine academia with religion unless it is to understand religion in its entirety.
 

Blog entry information

Author
kaminoshiyo
Views
69
Comments
12
Last update

More entries in Creative Writing 101

Top