Hi friends

I want to write my ideas about role and fonctions of religion in our life and i invite you for sharing.

fd.walter@yahoo.com

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fred Walter,

My principal ideas:

1- Religious experience or mystical experience is direct effect of God (supernatural phenomenon) on human".

2- Religious experience as a psychic and emotional reward stimulate individual to repeat it for regaining such rewards.

3- If religious experience can to produce such rewards frequently, it will condition the individual for re operate previous actions related to the experience.

4-Therefore, "operant conditioning principles" is dominant on the relationship between human and God and principal factors are "direct relation" and "rewards".

5- Rewards means very good and very useful things (biologic or social or economic or....) that the human receives immediately in everyday life. About religious experience, these rewards are very different of other rewards in everyday life. These are things that the human suppose that these are as coming from God or Jesus (directly and suddenly) .for example, all of the experiences of Saint Augustine and Saint Teresa and ……

6-Direct relation between human and God be started exactly with "operant conditioning principles" but in the next steps, it changes formal and typically :

In primary step, God is "one source"("one mechanic phenomena" like "a matter") that has relationships with the man and "standard operant conditioning principles" is dominant on this type of relation.

In secondary step, God is not just one source for giving the rewards .it is also "one person similar to the man" that react with him like other people that they are in relationship together (in all of dimensions of one social relation between two person. .for example, two friends that they have "near relation " or two person that they are in love).In other word, "God shows himself to him more clear than before". I believe that, it is the manner of God for showing himself to other. I believe that, in this step also operant conditioning principles is dominant but it constitutes the rewards that they are multidimensional. Remember, this rewards are supernatural and they have very different affects than the rewards in other sources.

In primary step, The man is one person that has one personality constitute many characters and God is one source for giving special regards .But in the next steps, little by little, The man will change (in emotion, in mind, in action, in social relation, in religious practices,…) and God will change (in character and in level of effect on the man).

In mysticism, there are very different terms and words for calling these steps but i believe that they are not important.

Final step is "union with God". Guess, which type of relation and which type of experience is in this step?! I see religion always, in this viewpoint.

7- It is very mistake that individual see religion and God constitutes many commands and many of rules that just they will increase problems and expenses of the individual without attain to rewards or solutions for receiving rewards immediately. Are you agreeing with me?

I propose one question for thinking :


Question: Is religion useful if it can not to change perceptibly "our life"?

My answer: 1- It isn't useful if it can not to change sensibly "our everyday life".

2- Fundamental phenomenon in religion is "type of relationship between human and God" and this factor is determinative "on changing" and "on rate of changing of "our life.

3- All of teaches about religion can not be useful for the changing, if the fundamental factor not be sensible (including of "the immediate rewards ")

Fred W---

Thanks for starting a new thread--good idea.

Your first post, with more expansion of your ideas, is clearer.

As I said on the other thread, I'm interested in talking about these things in these terms because I've found it helpful to me before. I will continue to think things over and post my experiences and questions here.

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Walter:


6-Direct relation between human and God be started exactly with "operant conditioning principles" but in the next steps, it changes formal and typically :

In primary step, God is "one source"("one mechanic phenomena" like "a matter") that has relationships with the man and "standard operant conditioning principles" is dominant on this type of relation.

In secondary step, God is not just one source for giving the rewards .it is also "one person similar to the man" that react with him like other people that they are in relationship together (in all of dimensions of one social relation between two person. .for example, two friends that they have "near relation " or two person that they are in love).In other word, "God shows himself to him more clear than before". I believe that, it is the manner of God for showing himself to other. I believe that, in this step also operant conditioning principles is dominant but it constitutes the rewards that they are multidimensional. Remember, this rewards are supernatural and they have very different affects than the rewards in other sources.

I would guess you are familiar with Martin Buber's I and Thou ? Do you see this change between steps as possibly similar to moving from an "I/It relationship" with God to an "I/Thou relationship" with God?

I thought this article was a pretty good, brief explanation of operant conditioning, so maybe others who aren't familiar with that term will know what is meant: www.helium.com/items/564262-in...operant-conditioning

Good topic, Fred.

I agree that religion is useless if it doesn't bring about changes in a person's life. But is that the fault of a religion, or an individual? Even the old pagan religions motivated people to make changes in their lives, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether those religions really pointed to the one, true God or to something counterfeit.

It would seem to me difficult to establish the difference a religion makes to a person. It could be very slight at one time in life and more significant in another. The telling factor is the degree of faith and commitment a person has, and this isn't always rewarded by religious experience. In fact, it seems to me that the majority of people "believe without seeing," which is to say they act as though the tenets of their religion is true without being rewarded by mystical experiences other than, perhaps, a peaceful conscience. Then there's the troubling issue of people who have had religious experiences but who have "backslid" to a sinful life. Religious experience is undboutedly a motivator, but not necessarily a guarantor of ongoing commitment.

So . . . it's complicated.

This mention of the utilitarian value of religion makes me think of the debate on Friday night.

Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens were in Canada to debate the motion "Religion is a force for good in the world" -- Tony Blair for, Christopher Hitchens against.

The audience of 2,600 people ended up voting for Blair's position 32%, for Hitchens' position 68%, though most of them had already chosen their positions before the actual debate!

Of course, a debate on an issue like this can only ever be an exercise in rhetoric. There is no way to measure the "goodness" or otherwise of religion, and hence there can never be any way to conclusively prove the issue to a disinterested observer.

Hi Phil & Fred W.

Fred W. I had never heard that mystical experiences were psychic in nature. Perhaps
you could share with me what your understanding of psychic is. This would be helpful. Can you point me in the direction of where you got this information (if it's a source I can look at on the web that is) I have been doing some research on this today & have found some reference to this.

Phil, if time permits what is your opinion on mystical experiences being psychic in nature? If this has been discussed before I can look
into it.

Thank you both so much

All,

My dibs.

Sometimes we don’t get the correct answers because we ask the wrong questions.

Questioning the usefulness of religion is in itself revealing and might betray our secular cultural conditioning that implies there is only value in the pragmatic and utilitarian aspects of any endeavor or pursuit. Should one want to pass judgment on the utility of religious practice? Must one have to change stones to bread? (The Pope in his book Jesus of Nazareth does a great job in expounding on the temptations of Christ).

Given that Fred’s ‘operant conditioning’ premises are not the beginnings (conscious or unconscious) of a trip down the classic ‘religion is the opiate of the people’ trail, I would say that the use of ‘conditioning’ is an improper terminology and should be abandoned in discussion of religion. Such terminology is an obstacle. In a certain sense to retain it would be to attack religion Operant Conditioning implies loss of freedom, and a self-duping. Whereas religious practice is fixed on our realizing the attainment of the true freedom God desires us to have and the intimacy of knowledge and relationship with Him that He wants us to have. God is not our puppet master, nor does He want to be. Love is not slavery. God did not give us free will (our greatest power) so we would abandon it to conditioning in any form.

It’s not clear whether Fred is a Christian as yet, but for Christians the scriptures Jn 14:21-23 indicate that obedience is pre-requisite to valid experiences of God’s indwelling (mysticism), and the mystical doctors of the Catholic church anyway, insist on the primacy of objective and doctrinal truth over subjective religious experiences and of public revelation over private. John of the Cross for one, advises sidestepping the receipt of apprehensions and experiences (‘rewards’) as the safe and secure means to growth in holiness and the furtherance of our intimacy with God. Fred’s principal ideas 2 thru 4 misconstrue this.

As for religious practice being ‘rewards based’ one is called to mortification contrary to any over indulgence in pleasure based drives or appetites (the ‘flesh’).

Pop-pop

Hi Mary Sue---I'm thinking that by Fred W's use of "psychic" he means psychological, not the popular meaning of psychic. Maybe Fred can clarify what he means?

Hi Pop-pop---

I find your posts thought-provoking and often funny. In a friendly way, though, I'll say that operant conditioning isn't what you appear to think it is. We all use operant conditioning, though we usually don't think of it explicitly. Conditioning is an often useful part of life. If you've raised children, taught a dog to sit or come, or trained yourself to have a good habit, you have used operant conditioning. God uses it, too--it can be a means of communication, not necessarily control, and in fact can be among the least controlling ways to for beings to interact, because it's all about making choices.

However, it's my thinking that rewards (peace, bliss, good feelings, etc.) don't necessarily produce genuine love. There I would agree with what I think you're saying. But I'd also agree with what I think Fred W may be saying, that God can use rewards, then from there grow that into genuine love. And therein we differ from animals, who, arguably, are not asked by their Creator to grow up into real love.

Speaking of animals, I was just whinnyied to, to get off the computer and let the horses into pasture. I will say more later.

Hi to all friends

I am very glad that you are thinking about my ideas; even if its result is disagree with my ideas.

I am a Christian but i believe that we need to find a new view point and a new understanding of God, of religion and of life for achieving to good life. The current life is not good and religion maybe is wrong and useless .If it is wrong, it is better that we remove religion from our life and if it is True and useful, then it is better that we be totally religious.

Phil said:
<< I agree that religion is useless if it doesn't bring about changes in a person's life. But is that the fault of a religion, or an individual? >>


I: I believe that "we can understand religion correctly, if we abandon holiness from it" and if we want to examine role of religion in every day life, it is necessary and rational that we use religion like one tool for immediate desires. If the result be negative, we should examine that it is the fault of a religion, or an individual but we have examined religion yet or no?


Phil, I believe that" religious experience is the main tool of religion. If we remove it, religion will be useless." I will present my reasons but bit by bit.

Derek, it is true, utilitarianism is one type of rationality and i believe that it is the only kind of rationality that is dominant on the human. Utilitarianism is one of the new versions of terms that are for understanding of operant conditioning principles.

Mary said: <<I had never heard that mystical experiences were psychic in nature.>>

I : Ok, i correct the term used in description of religious experience (phenomenological)but i think that William James for the first time had used the term in description of religious experience in his book(The variety of religious experience) and if you search scientific articles about religious experience in Yahoo or Google , you will find certainly the term.
Suppose that religious experience is one experience as "one supernatural event with intense psychological affects". There is many articles that has written by psychiatrists and psychologists and in one article that i have read it in 2007(now,i have forgotten it's name),they had examined the religious experience in samples through examination of his affects into brain (brain scan and….).

pop-pop,i agree with you and it seems that it is better that i remove the term (operant conditioning) in my ideas here and it is an improper terminology and such terminology is an obstacle but i believe that it is surrounded on all our actions in life like animals and we just try knowing things as human who is ruling the world and the nature and has created civilizations and cultures.Yes,we are ruling the world and the nature but We behave in accordance with "operant conditioning principles "or utilitarianism (as Derek said)whether we be religious or no.


Ariel said: <<Do you see this change between steps as possibly similar to moving from an "I/It relationship" with God to an "I/Thou relationship" with God?>>


I: yes, the type of relation between human and God change and move from I/It relationship to an I/Thou relationship.


Ariel said: << operant conditioning isn't what you appear to think it is. We all use operant conditioning, though we usually don't think of it explicitly. Conditioning is an often useful part of life. If you've raised children, taught a dog to sit or come, or trained yourself to have a good habit, you have used operant conditioning. God uses it, too--it can be a means of communication, not necessarily control, and in fact can be among the least controlling ways to for beings to interact, because it's all about making choices.

However, it's my thinking that rewards (peace, bliss, good feelings, etc.) don't necessarily produce genuine love. There I would agree with what I think you're saying. But I'd also agree with what I think Fred W may be saying, that God can use rewards, then from there grow that into genuine love. And therein we differ from animals, who, arguably, are not asked by their Creator to grow up into real love.>>

I: I am very agreeing with you and i add, if we are one specialist or one worker or one politician, operant conditioning principles is surrounded on all our actions but this relationship between us and things is not naked like relationship between dog and … and between human and …. (all of type of addictions like drugs addictions and sexual addictions and internet addictions and…. ) .


Thanks to all.

Fred, have you had an opportunity to view this
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14621a.htm

I've decided to look into religious conditioning principles of reinforcement theory. Because at the moment I don't know what your talking about. Although the above
article states that ""Mystical theology is the science which treats of acts and experiences or states of the soul which cannot be produced by human effort or industry even with the ordinary aid of Divine grace." It sounds to me that you
are saying this is incorrect? Am I understanding you correctly?

Ariel, (et. al.)

In all honesty, I was not a pysch major and am out of my field here, but prior to writing my earlier comment I did go to the link you had recommended and provided us. I wasn’t sure exactly what operant conditioning was.

I found there, these descriptive statements:

1. Operant conditioning is the use of consistent consequences to mold a desired type of behavior.
2. All forms of operant conditioning take the form of stimulus, conditioned response, reward.
3. According to the American Heritage Dictionary operant means to produce an effect that will cause a
spontaneous reaction.

It also mentions that one of the human applications of operant conditioning is found in modern marketing techniques.

Now I can see that you would consider operant conditioning as a useful part of life. Certainly it’s beneficial for you to have your horse go where you desire he/she go and to train your dog to sit up at your command.

My bride too, perhaps without formal knowledge of OC terminology (kind of as an instinctual Venusian thing maybe) believes OC is a useful part of life (our marital life) as well, and having worked in sales and being familiar with ’bait and switch’ techniques, as well as having grown up under the tutelage of her female family members, believes that her system of reward and punishment is an effective behavioral skill. How did you phrase it -- a means of communication? Sort of like -- communicating who has the power! Lol. This is why you think God must be a She? !

Certainly every time I see a beautiful woman, and there are many, I say to myself, “what must God be like!” Yet I know He must be a HE. Lol.

Anyway, back in the jungle.. OC is manipulation -- at best, perhaps with wonderfully benevolent feelings motivating the conditioner of the organism being conditioned. But in the end, it is directed towards the accomplishment, the fulfillment, of the conditioner’s will/desires; in the end, directed towards overcoming the volition, the will -- the free will -- of the conditionee.

God does not manipulate us. He did not gift us with free will to then (oh so cleverly, oh so benevolently) manipulate it away with a system of rewards and punishments. That’s totally against God’s nature. His ways are not our ways.

So, still my dibs: (and I don’t know where you (Fred) are going with all these ideas). I think OC is wrong terminology. I dislike the word “rewards” as well, if it’s to be used companion with OC conceptualizations.

Yes we will experience consolations and joy and the whole range of human emotions, and perhaps for some the mystical unctions of the Spirit during our spiritual journey -- as well as experiencing -- dryness, trials, tribulation, rejection, suffering and incomplete and unfulfilled understanding of God -- and perhaps even martyrdom. But all these should not be construed as rewards and punishments; nor God’s benevolent conditioning of us. We are made in His image and likeness -- thereby necessitating the fullness of capability of free will. Only by sin do we relinquish our free will -- not by any manipulated or conditioned surrender of it to its creator. When and if we give Him our will it is gift -- mutual gifting as He gives us Himself. Love cannot be otherwise.

Pop-pop

p.s.
When Jesus saw Nathaniel under the tree He remarked: “This man is a true Israelite -- there is no guile in him.” (Wouldn’t be a practitioner of modern marketing techniques).

p.p.s. I love you , Ariel -- no horsing around!

Mary

I read the above article .We are not still in this step for examining of theological aspects of religion. I propose that we situate out of theological theories for the examining. About above article, it discuss in relation between "Soul" and "God" and i believe that it is related to final step (union with God).We are still in step of "relation between Body and God", no Soul and God. Please write about religious conditioning principles of reinforcement theory.

My friends

I will continue to write my ideas but it seams that you will be still in thinking and discussions about operant conditioning principles in religion .Therefore please think and read exactly about "operant conditioning principles" and also read sociologic theories as coming from operant conditioning principles theory .Compensator theory is one of them in sociology. For starting, see below:

<< Bainbridge (2005) proposes a compensator theoretical account in which the lack of social obligations allows individuals more freedom to espouse atheism. Certainly, the compensator theory of religion is not new (see Stark and Bainbridge 1987), nor is the distinction between primary and secondary compensators (see Bainbridge 2002). While these theoretical models have been fruitful in generating hypotheses (Bainbridge 2005), they have also been criticized on various grounds (e.g., Bruce 1999; Jerolmack and Porpora 2004).

As Bainbridge (2005) explains, in the absence of a desired reward, individuals will often accept explanations that the reward will be attained in a nonverifiable context, such as the distant future. Compensators are postulations of reward according to explanations that cannot be empirically tested (Bainbridge 2005). For example, people may be religious because being religious is expected to bring them future rewards, such as eternal life, when that reward cannot otherwise be attained.
Bainbridge argues that the compensator theory is not only psychological, but also social, and he differentiates between primary compensation and secondary compensation: ―Primary compensation substitutes a compensator for a reward that people desire for themselves‖ (Bainbridge 2005: 6). Primary compensation is psychological and satisfies the needs of the believer. Secondary compensation substitutes a compensator for a reward that a person is compelled to provide to another person. Thus secondary compensation is social in nature and sustains relationships when one person is unable to provide a reward to another person that the latter desires.>>


(Source: Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion-
http://www.religjournal.com)

Hey, thanks for the love, Pop-pop!

I think we still mean different things in using the word conditioning. As I've used conditioning with horses, and then looked at God's interactions with us as His sheep--"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want/ He makes me lie down in green pastures, He leads me beside quiet waters, He restores my soul"--I still propose that God can use conditioning as a means of communication, not control or manipulation.

Here is something I'll ask your thoughts on, Pop-pop: Horses are flight animals, as are sheep. I and my horses are two very different species, with neither party quite sure, initially, what to make of the intentions of the other. I've worked with horses before that had almost no human contact, and operant conditioning---positive reinforcement and a very "present", aware, conscious form of negative reinforcement---was a useful means of communicating that "People are good to be around" that the horse could decide for himself to choose to believe or not. Or, in other words, it was a means to socialize the horse.

So, given that understanding operant conditioning can help bridge the gap between two very different creaturely species, might not God do something similar at times, especially at the beginning of the relationship, to help bridge the gap between, say, me as a flighty, cautious, fearful creature, and Him?

Fred W--I see we sort of cross-posted. I'm interested in thinking over the excerpt that you posted, and will consider it more.

Category 1: Religious experience

My idea: << God can not affect on human meaningfully if God's affects are not direct and are not more intense than other factors that they have affect on human.>>

Human grow and is trained by all of factors that they have direct and meaningful affect on he/she and it is mechanism of any type of meaningful affect on human. If God is determinative for growing of human, but " God can not affect on human meaningfully if God's affects are not direct and are not more intense than other factors that they have affect on human".


Please think and share with me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fred Walter,

quote:

I: I believe that "we can understand religion correctly, if we abandon holiness from it" and if we want to examine role of religion in every day life, it is necessary and rational that we use religion like one tool for immediate desires. If the result be negative, we should examine that it is the fault of a religion, or an individual but we have examined religion yet or no?

I'm way behind in my reading!

I don't follow why or how abandoning (the concept? practice?) of holiness brings about a "correct" understanding of religion. Holiness is the whole point of religion -- at least in Christianity.
- http://www.actsion.com/beauword.htm

Maybe something else is implied in your point, Fred, but I'm not sure what would be left if the goal of holiness were removed from religion. I know you're trying to bring sociological analysis to the topic, but it seems that such analysis must needs take into account the distinctively religious nature of human beings. The reason we find religion in all cultures is because we have this innate sense that there is a higher meaning to life that we ought to consider in living our lives. There is a sociological dimension to all this, but it doesn't follow that religion can be reduced to a "sociological phenomenon" that can be accounted for using the usual analytical tools of sociology. One can go through the exercise, of course, but the consequence will be a reductionism akin to scientific materialists' attempts to explain our thoughts and emotions in terms of brain chemistry. Sure, brain chemistry matters, but it's concomitant to psycho-spiritual activity rather than causative. Same goes for the sociological dimension of religion, it seems to me. It's there, all right, along with our cultures, language, clothing, and DNA, but it doesn't adequately account for the "role of religion in everyday life" (thread topic). The role of religion in every day life surely does have a sociological dimension, but the proper understanding of this role must cannot be had unless one takes into account the spiritual dimension of human nature and experience. These are the primary concerns of religion.

Phil

Certainly.Nothing will be left if the goal of holiness be removed from religion.My point was consideration of religion like one recommendation from a person(God here)for changing of life.If one person come and suggest anything,you consider his suggestion or his holiness? I said that for real understanding of religion and God and role of religion,rationality is examining of religion like any suggestion from everybody.It is certainly true that when result of this examination be positive,we will find holiness in nature of religion and even in nature of relation between human and God.

You said:<< The reason we find religion in all cultures is because we have this innate sense that there is a higher meaning to life that we ought to consider in living our lives. There is a sociological dimension to all this, but it doesn't follow that religion can be reduced to a "sociological phenomenon" that can be accounted for using the usual analytical tools of sociology >>.

I : I believe that if religion can not be reduced to a "understandable phenomenon for applying it to change of life"(sociological phenomenon or psycological phenomenon or...),it will be useless.

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Walter:

I : I believe that if religion can not be reduced to a "understandable phenomenon for applying it to change of life"(sociological phenomenon or psycological phenomenon or...),it will be useless.

Fred W---Why do you say that? I'm curious, not arguing, though I disagree with you here.

There have been periods in my life where I think I can relate to some of your questions. However, there hasn't been any time where I thought a relationship with God--or with anyone, really--was useless if I couldn't reduce it to a fully understandable level. And partly as I've gotten more experience in life, and even particularly through mystical experience of the grace-given sort (not trained), I've learned somewhat to rest in not fully being able to comprehend what God is up to with us...though I still ask alot of questions. ( I can try to share an experience, but I'm not sure I can do a decent job of explaining, or that it would be something that you could relate to.)

Hi there again, Pop-pop.

I realized I haven't really given an example of the kind of operant conditioning with a horse that I think could compare to something God might do with us. So I'll try tomorrow to come up with a brief story to illustrate what I mean.

quote:

Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens were in Canada to debate the motion "Religion is a force for good in the world" -- Tony Blair for, Christopher Hitchens against.

The audience of 2,600 people ended up voting for Blair's position 32%, for Hitchens' position 68%, though most of them had already chosen their positions before the actual debate!

Of course, a debate on an issue like this can only ever be an exercise in rhetoric. There is no way to measure the "goodness" or otherwise of religion, and hence there can never be any way to conclusively prove the issue to a disinterested observer.

Interesting, Derek. I've seen such debates before, particularly between Dinesh D'Souza and Hitchens. Hitchens is simply a crude religion-basher in the superficial guise of eloquence. There are many reasons to bash religion, but I don't think Hitchens has yet come upon an authentic and fair one.

What Hitchens is arguing from is a different set of values, values that Dennis Prager and others call "secular-socialist" values. They argue from the naive standpoint that their values are somehow natural, neutral, and as obvious as the ground we stand on. They believe that because their values are not tainted by any association with "irrational" religion that therefore they must be superior values, ones based on their own infallible sense of "reason." Ironically, their values to some extent still derive from Christian values, if only in opposition to them. It's a set of values that says "Having rejected Christianity, we must therefore reject its underlying values. Therefore, the values we hold in opposition must, by definition, be good."

And it's exactly that sort of thinking (or lack of) that has led to moral confusion among the left regarding many subjects, including multiculturalism, partial birth abortion, and the danger of Islamism.

The secular-socialists (who hold a specific values system that can be equated to a quasi- or undeclared religion) don't seem to understand that there really is no values-neutral outlook. There is only the conceit of such a thing. They bash religion while remaining completely unaware of their own often zealous commitment to their dogma.

I'm not a Christian, but I share most of the Judeo-Christian values: hard work, frugality, self-responsibility, honesty, integrity, mercy, personal charity, love-thy-neighbor, the sanctity of the individual, property rights, the forthright protection of the innocent from the evil, the idea of objective truth, and the value of truth itself. Very few, if any, of these are values shared by the left.

Regarding religion, if it's a search for basting yourself in soothing mystical emotions, one should remember that Islamic terrorists gained great bursts of religious exaltation from their murderous actions. Surely we need to be grounded in more than just emotion or "mystical experiences," as valuable as those things are. But if that all that a religion is, it's simply an addiction of another type.

Truth, on the other hand, is much more demanding and can be quite satisfying as well. Feelings, emotions, and mystical experience are all things that can guide as well as confuse, at least in my experience. THAT such things exist show us of the non-material aspects of this universe and its inherent meaning (as well as its inherent existential profundity). But the formula for life is bigger than transient emotions.

I would say that when religion is a path to a deepening of peaceful meaning, wise experience, and thoughtful awareness, it's a positive. When it's a substitute for some of the inherent uncertainties of life or merely an ego boost, I'm not so sure.