You don’t have to do it that way. (I like your accidental shorthand for ascetists, though.) It’s possible to find the zen, or whatever, in everyday things, and it’s also a hell of a lot more convenient than selling all your possessions - particularly in this market! - and finding an overgrown forests with a monastery and moving into it. You wouldn’t have to shave your head either, if you’ve got one of those bug-shaped heads. The shorn look isn’t for everybody.
This doesn’t really describe me but I feel obliged to offer a mild defense anyway: wacky costumes and made up ceremonies can be fun and shouldn’t be dismissed just because they’re silly and made up. In fact in other parts of this post you indicate you’d be happy with those things. The difference is the authority or validity you choose to imbue these rituals with. They’re about as useful as you make them, which means they can be helpful if you want them to be.
It doesn’t sound like you really want to delude yourself, it sounds like you’re resentful of the idea somebody else is happier than you are.
I think the reason you’re having trouble with it is because you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. Religion isn’t the search for comfort in ignorance, though it may appear that way from an agnostic/athiestic perspective, it is a search for truth and reason. Religion is an orthogonal concept, and the reason so many people misunderstand it is because so many people on both sides of the debate are trying to make science or religion answer questions that they cannot.
That is, science can answer questions like the origin of life or the universe, how the body works, but it cannot answer questions about why life exists, what our purpose is here, how we should interact with our fellow man and with ourselves. Religion address that aspect of our humanity that isn’t able to be rationalized, mathetmatically modelled. It’s a search for truth, but a completely different kind of truth.
This sounds like a Deist perspective and, as a Christian myself, it’s actually a lot closer to what I believe than the “bearded man in the sky” that seems to be the stereotype. While the existance of a god or higher power is generally the conclusion that most religions end up at, it isn’t inevitable (Buddhism being an obvious example). So, examine the spiritual questions that are on your mind and reach your own conclusion. You may end up believing he has to exist, or that he doesn’t exist, or that his existence/non-existence isn’t relevant to the questions you’re asking.
This, I think, is a result of phrasing the question poorly. I don’t want to get too nitty-gritty into the question, because then we’re mostly just examining my specific view on the question because I personally believe in in God and have no qualms with bad things happening sometimes and not others; in fact, I’d see it being different as evidence that my theology was incorrect.
As for the term miracle itself, it’s WAY WAY over-used. Plane victims surviving may or may not have having to do with divine intervention, so unless it is, it’s just silly. Jesus performed miracles, many of the prophets performed miracles, many other figures in many other belief systems performed miracles, but healing from cancer or surviving a horrific accident are not miracles.
This, I suppose is a matter of perspective. Those who celebrate Jesus for his suffering are completely missing the purpose of his suffering and he is remembered by his followers for making that sacrifice.
But how does standing out and being a target make him a mark? He was preaching concepts that STILL haven’t been fully embraced by world today and were perceived as heretical at the time. He HAD to become a target, as any religious figure would, or any facilitator of cultural change. How many people who have had an impact on the course of human history anywhere near that level haven’t been polarizing and targetted figures?
It may be bullshit or misguided, but it does ofter some answers to some of the fundamental questions that other religions offer, like purpose, ethical code, connections between people. Hell, I even think they get a few things right that the stereotypical Christian theology does not (though I’d blame that mostly on bias in the early Church and modern culture than a fundamental incorrectness). Sure, I think a lot of the chants and candles and stuff are silly, but there are at least answers to those fundamental questions, even if they are wrong, and at least a wrong answer settles the urge.
This, I think, is your biggest problem with faith. Faith is NOT dependent on proof, if it were provable it would be fact. There is no factual answer to questions that are inherently unanswerable with rational, logical though processes. A question like, why are we here doesn’t have a factual answer. To those non-religious, the answer may be “there is no reason”, but to many people that is not the answer. And with such a fundamental question, it is a pillar that colors our perspective on EVERYTHING such that anything we see is evidence as to why we are right and everyone else is wrong. For someone who doesn’t believe in a non-physical realm, it’s simple to come up with a logical explanation for why something isn’t supernatural, and for those who do believe, it’s simple to come up with a logical explanation for why is, but either logical path is invariably based on axioms that are extracted from these fundamental questions that we all need answers to.
I’m not quite sure how your commentary here makes a whole lot of sense. Sure, there’s this stereotype of what Islam is all about, but I know plenty of Muslims who are not a thing like these cultures. One thing you have to remember is that it’s easy to get a skewed image of virtually ideology because it’s always the extremists who are the loudest. By the same token, how many Democrats/Republicans do you know who fit the stereotypes for those ideologies? Sure, you probably know plenty, but of all the people you know who don’t fit those sterotypes, chances are that most of them are one or the other, and that they outnumber those who DO fit the stereotype quite considerably.
They didn’t really eschew religion. Sure, they don’t have a god in the ideology, but they didn’t circumvent the fundamental questions. But they still have answers to a number of these questions like why we’re here and how we should interact with eachother.
I think the part that you’re noticing is that, unlike a lot of Western religions, they take the direct approach to answer the questions that religion seeks to answer. In Western religion, we learn about God first, but in Easern religion, those answers are laid out from the very beginning.
The other thing is, they haven’t confused religion’s purpose like the West has either. You don’t see Buddhists trying to explain how their belief structure explains the beginning of life or the universe, there are disputes about whether their religion and science are compatible or not because they clearly see that they’re not even attempting to answer the same questions.
The thing is, while they do have a no-nonsense approach to answer the fundamental questions, their answers have resulted in the life-style that you observer. Seriously, if you believe that existence is an illusion, that we’re here to achieve enlightenment, and that life is pain and suffering, why wouldn’t you want to exclude yourself from the life that everyone else has?
So, yeah, I don’t think you necessarily want to be blissfully ignorant, it just sounds to me like you’re not satisfied with how your current answers to those questions and it’s making you unhappy. I assume you’re atheist now and believe life doesn’t have a purpose. Do you really believe that and are you comfortable with that and how it plays out in your life? If you are, great; if not, take another look at it. Same with all the other spiritual questions, which I won’t pretend are a simple, unique, finite set. But bottom line, if you’re looking at religion as an answer for a way to be blissfully ignorant, you’re never going to be happy.
I’m generally familiar with your perspective, and while I fundamentally agree with you, I don’t think this is a helpful approach. I say this because this sort of response presupposes that the person who asked has faith in God. The whole reason this question has come up is because he doesn’t believe. How can he ask someone that he doesn’t really believe in to help him believe in him.
I do believe in a fundamental truth, and of course I think I’m right because, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t believe it. So, if he’s truly seeking the truth to those answers then, whether or not he has faith in God now, he’ll open his heart and mind to be receptive to the truth. If he’s not fully seeking the truth, then he may not change and remain unhappy, or may end up somewhere in between. But even then, that answer assumes that I’m right in the belief in a single truth and that my answer is right (or, at least, close to wright) which is not something that I can assume that he believes or, for that matter, ever will.
Instead, what people will see is those who are happy with their lives and their answers to these questions and that is what will attract them to asking questions about their faith, figuring out how that works in with what they believe.
One word: Plastics. There’s a great future in plastics.
Seriously, though, it sounds like you’re struggling with the fact that “believers” seem to have it better somehow, since they wholeheartedly embrace the concept of faith in some kind of metaphysical mythos. In fact, it seems you’re downright bitter about it.
Trust me, I get it - I was there a few years ago, as I struggled to define my worldview, before I realized I am a committed atheist. My advice: Just let go of any frustration over what other people believe. Embrace the intellectual freedom that non-belief entails, but also actively try to be happy that others have something that fulfills them, regardless of the source.
I look at believers like Barry Manilow fans (or Deadheads, Parrotheads, Phishers, etc. - take your pick of the many odious musical acts I dislike): I can’t bring myself to listen to him, but if someone out there gains some happiness from his music, who am I to begrudge them? As long as they don’t come into my house and put him on the radio, anyway.
Statistically speaking, atheists and agnostics seem to be happier and more satisfied in life. Of course they are also more liable to commit suicide, so there might be a relation there in the same way that Cuban hospitals abort anything less than a perfect baby and consequently everyone has a long lifespan. I don’t think suicide is all that common that this is the cause, though.
Surrender your will and your life to God as you understand Him. If you are not willing, pray for the willingness.
And don’t get hung up on religion – God reveals Himself to you when you draw near to Him. A soundbite from the rooms of AA which is instructive if not entirely resonant to me:
Religion is for people who are afraid of Hell; spirituality is for people who have already been there.
If I may be so bold as to offer you an alternative: start your own. You noted the problems with alternative religions but you didn’t recognize the opportunity they offer. Since they are all made up recently and have set dressing of what modern people think of as old and powerful there’s nothing to stop you from channeling your faith into your own new religion. You make up some simple aphorisms, attack the established large religions to build a reputation, and convince a lot of suckers to give you money. It worked for one science fiction writer, it can work for you!
Plus some bowling-loving California weirdos. And then on the other hand, if you prefer a belief style that’s more fervent, there’s the Church of the Subgenius.
Well, there’s the possibility of demonic powers and insanity - which may be what the OP is looking for, although perhaps not - and the opportunity to be eaten last.