"Religion and the secular in Japan"

[JasonTakeshi]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

I find issue with the claim that any given religion is philosophy plus ritual. Your professor (if he or she is not a professor of Philosophy) is clearly misusing the term.

And I'm a published Philosopher of Religion! This is one area where I really, really know what I'm talking about. (Co-editor of a university Philosophy of Religion journal, plan to get a masters in Philosophy, but it's on the back burner).

About what? Philosophy @ religion?

[Ryzorian]

Have to be careful with some academics....for them philosophy is thier religion.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Have to be careful with some academics....for them philosophy is thier religion.

Especially if they "really, really" know what they are talking about.

Luckily all questions can be answered when a masters or higher is obtained.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Have to be careful with some academics....for them philosophy is thier religion.

Originally Posted by clintjm

Especially if they "really, really" know what they are talking about.

Luckily all questions can be answered when a masters or higher is obtained.

Is this part of the new modern conservative thinking where we should be skeptical of the well-read and well-educated?

Only in America are scientists and those that strive to increase the wealth of knowledge in the world looked at with suspicion, as if they have some ulterior motive.

The more you know the less you should be trusted?

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

Is this part of the new modern conservative thinking where we should be skeptical of the well-read and well-educated?

Only in America are scientists and those that strive to increase the wealth of knowledge in the world looked at with suspicion, as if they have some ulterior motive.

The more you know the less you should be trusted?

Come'on; do you have to make everything political? But to answer, with this administration, might just have to.

Nah... but if you really want to know, I'm just tired of elitist and or eltist-progressives from Ivy League schools telling us how to do things they really have no real-life experience in. But I digress.

But more so to the point, ones who claim to be the go to guy because they are "really,really" interested in it and have studied a professor's opinion or literature on a opinion based subject, such as "the philosophy of religion", is one to be skeptical of as they claim being an expert in such matters.


No. Keep the scientists. Just be skeptical of where they get their funding for their research.

Hockey (stick) anyone?

____________________________

Philosophy and religion are essentially identical. They both aim to discover God.
- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

I think you are getting more philosophical than I am prepared to.

I will say please consider the notion that instead "shyuukyou" not fitting into the definition of religion, it is possible that "religion" doesn't fit into the Japanese notion of shyuukyou.

Youre absolutely right. That is what I intended to mean. That the concept of shuukyou and religion dont meet. I hope you didnt think that I thought that the Japanese have a "wrong" definition or conception of the word and that we have the "right" one. (Actually, I think I swing the other way. In my opinion I think the understanding of Shuukyou is more useful and easier to work with over religion)

Originally Posted by MMM

　I am not quite understanding your idea that a Japanese person can compare religious beliefs with political beliefs in a way that we wouldn't do in the West.

A clue to the answer youre looking for is in the part Ive bolded. A discussion on the assumptions made about human nature (which I would say is what fundamentally seperates political ideologies from each other) is just that. Japanese dont treat the discussion as two different realms.

Lets take the creation of the Earth in the bible and compare it with the creation of the Earth in Nihonshoki. In the bible the Earth was created roughly 6000 years ago by God in 7 days. This is completely at odds with modern science and people that strictly believe it are conveniently labelled fundamentalists. YET there is still a realm for this story to thrive in and have relevance as some sort of metaphor and that is the religious one. Many Christians can reconcile their belief in God creating the Earth as it is told in the bible with modern science because they have the concept of "faith"(religion) and "reason"(science) and they remain seperated.

Now for Nihonshoki. The Universe was born of an egg which created the heavens and the Earth. You'd be hard pressed to find a Japanese person to whom this story is even relevant in a working sense and the reason being that shuukyou was never institutionalised in the Japanese mind as it has been in the Western one. It is simply imagined as I described it above. "The teachings of a group or sect".

Not to say that faith doesnt exist in Japan. I have a friend who has a passive belief that every object has a type of "spirit" or "energy" inside them that must be respected (be it a beautiful tree or flower to the computer keyboard Im typing on).

Originally Posted by MMM

But bringing that idea of traditional being religious...just because a tradition is based in a religious practice doesn't make the practitioner necessarily "religious". I think what someone considers themselves and who they look to for guidance more accurately defines whether one is religious or not.

I completely agree. Yet the "debate" as to whether Japan can be considered a religious country was (is still?) contested in the field of Japanology. The argument of the essay I gave in the OP gives says the answer is a definitive no... but rather than give his own definition of religion and justify his position based on that he simply argues that "religion" as it is understood by the people that say it is a religious country, does not exist and that it might even be a flaw in the Western mindset to imagine it apart from other fields of study which address similar things to those that "religion" does. (Assumptions of human nature, interpretation of life and death, the universe etc.)

[Paul11]

You are correct that it may be our view of religion that presents the hurdle. Most members of non-western cultures don't view religion as a seperate topic unto itself. It is an unseperable part of life. It is intertwined with and just part of our actions and beliefs in a way that, while able to be articulated and understood by an individual, is usually an unconscious part of it all.

Most Japanese I know say they are not religious (i.e. claiming no religion or participating in regular devotions) but appear much more religious than other people I know. It is just part of the way of thinking.

If you visit Japan you might notice this as well as people appearing to be overtly superstitious.

the debate between those studying Japan, I beleive, is due to a shallow understanding of religion as well as the innability to accept/understand dichotomy. There is a great quote by a Japanese zen "master" the effect of: Only an immature mind is unable to understand reconcile dichotomy/contradiction.

[JasonTakeshi]

The holocaust is going to happen.

Because I've read the bible.

[TalnSG]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

My professor defines religion academically by saying it is "philosophy + ritual". What we've done in the West is create a whole new paradigm called "religion" which exists APART from Philosophy AND ritual. The Japanese simply haven't made this seperation and that is why religion doesnt translate into "Shuukyou".

I would not say that this definition is wrong, but that it is incomplete. Of course my opinion is influenced with a life spent in the midst of western thought and organized religions, but with faiths securely bound in eastern spirituality.

Philosophy and Religion are destined to overlap and influence each other. Philosophy exists totally separate from Religion in limited instances and Religion can exist apart from philosophy.

There is a endless supply of instances of the latter, which I consider one of the primary causes for failure of mainstream Religion. Its seems when ritual supercedes understanding and relies purely faith, and even defies accepted philosophies the result is commonly conflict and crisis on a personal and/or cultural level. As for ritual, I regard it primarily as simply the vehicle/tool for expression of that which cannot be completely verbalized. And thus, essential to expressions of faith and sprituality. Religion (as often defined in the west) has too often made ritual a tool merely for perverting faith to power for those who would enforce ritual observances.

In the same vein, it seems to me, that when philosophy is isolated from the spiritual realms, it becomes cold, nearly inhuman and of little use beyond a mental exercise.


OK, the mind is diverging in soooo many directions now that I will stop and wait to read more from everyone.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by TalnSG

I would not say that this definition is wrong, but that it is incomplete. Of course my opinion is influenced with a life spent in the midst of western thought and organized religions, but with faiths securely bound in eastern spirituality.

Philosophy and Religion are destined to overlap and influence each other. Philosophy exists totally separate from Religion in limited instances and Religion can exist apart from philosophy.

There is a endless supply of instances of the latter, which I consider one of the primary causes for failure of mainstream Religion. Its seems when ritual supercedes understanding and relies purely faith, and even defies accepted philosophies the result is commonly conflict and crisis on a personal and/or cultural level. As for ritual, I regard it primarily as simply the vehicle/tool for expression of that which cannot be completely verbalized. And thus, essential to expressions of faith and sprituality. Religion (as often defined in the west) has too often made ritual a tool merely for perverting faith to power for those who would enforce ritual observances.

In the same vein, it seems to me, that when philosophy is isolated from the spiritual realms, it becomes cold, nearly inhuman and of little use beyond a mental exercise.


OK, the mind is diverging in soooo many directions now that I will stop and wait to read more from everyone.

Hmmm... I think the way in which you describe ritual and faith superceding the commonly accepted philosophies as validating my teachers definition of religion being philosophy plus ritual.

Also I dont understand. Is the existence of a "spiritual realm" the line that seperates philosophy and religious teaching? How can you define and seperate the spiritual from the non-spiritual in order to define philosophy and religion? After all when dealing with matters of human consciousness then where do you put that? For me the line is blurry and I would argue that it is not NEEDED as a concept EXCEPT to legitimise the seperation of religious teaching and philosophy. (I would go as far to say that it doesnt exist... but we can save that for another thread as it isnt relevant yet)

I mean I dont understand what you mean by "cold" philosophy isolated from the "spiritual realm".