Worship

[brightlights]

Eleanor Wilner is a contemporary American poet. She is also an atheist. When asked to share some thoughts on God she wrote:

Would I describe myself as an atheist? Yes and no. Theism means belief in a god or gods, and so atheism would suggest the rejection of that kind of construction, which is to say, the notion of a god as a person, in short a kind of divine projection of a figure who is something like ourselves, and cares what we do or think or want. To me this is personification of what is beyond us, and is arrogant and altogether too satisfying. It seems to be part of what comes from the childhood of the race. Does this mean I believe that nothing is holy? No. Do I believe in worship? Yes. I agree with David Foster Wallace, who in his famous commencement speech at Kenyon College said:

You get to decide what to worship. Because here’s something else that’s true. In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.

He goes on to say that if you worship money and things, you’ll never have enough; if you worship sexual allure and beauty, you’ll always feel ugly and fear age; if you worship power, you’ll fear weakness and grow paranoid; if you worship intellect, you’ll feel stupid and a fraud, and so on. All of these he calls the “default settings”:

On one level, we all know this stuff already—it’s been codified as myths, proverbs, cliches, bromides, epigrams, parables: the skeleton of every great story. The trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

I quote this because I couldn’t say it better. It’s why I write poetry, to keep that “truth up front,” to pay attention to what otherwise goes unnoticed as we go on default setting.

Are they right? Is there any truth to what they're saying?

 

[Elioenai26]

Excellent quotes from people who, as far as I can gather, are trying to be honest and transparent with how they feel.

I can personally attest to the veracity of Wallace's statement regarding the being eaten alive by whatever we worship other than God. I have experienced it in my own life too many times to count.

I also believe Wallace was right and that Wilner would agree, that everyone worships something.

To expound on this, or rather, to simplify it and boil it all down to one, I would say, that a man ultimately worships either himself, or God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are they right? Is there any truth to what they're saying?

No, not without watering down the meaning of the word worship past the point of usefulness.

Do you like chocolate ice cream? Then you worship it like a god!!!!!!!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is no such thing as not worshipping.

I don't think Wallace is right about this. Certainly, everyone has values, and puts values in various things, such as money, friendship, romantic love, truth, knowledge, etc.

But except in rare cases, I don't think this reaches the level of worship, without doing violence to the meaning of 'worship'. Those rare cases are pathological and lead to problems as Wallace and Wilner suggest.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think Wallace is right about this. Certainly, everyone has values, and puts values in various things, such as money, friendship, romantic love, truth, knowledge, etc.

But except in rare cases, I don't think this reaches the level of worship, without doing violence to the meaning of 'worship'. Those rare cases are pathological and lead to problems as Wallace and Wilner suggest.

This ^


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

Essential and Eudaimonist, I appreciate your responses.

So would this mean that there is something fundamentally different about non-religious people? I only see three options:

1. Some people worship and others don't. Human beings are not essentially the same. There are dramatic differences from person to person.
2. "Worship" doesn't really exist. What religious people call worship is something else. Perhaps a glorified form of valuing.
3. Everyone worships. "Worshiping" (or perhaps a less religious word that gets at the same concept) is a universal human phenomenon.

Keep in mind that most people for most of the history of the world have participated in what we would commonly call "worship". Only in very recent history have people began to not worship. In other words, atheism is a modern phenomenon.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So would this mean that there is something fundamentally different about non-religious people?

No, it only means that not everyone engages in worship.

Keep in mind that most people for most of the history of the world have participated in what we would commonly call "worship". Only in very recent history have people began to not worship. In other words, atheism is a modern phenomenon.

I would keep that in mind if I thought it was historically accurate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

No, it only means that not everyone engages in worship.



I would keep that in mind if I thought it was historically accurate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Could you give an example of a culture that did not engage in worship or religious activity?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Essential and Eudaimonist, I appreciate your responses.

So would this mean that there is something fundamentally different about non-religious people?

Certainly religious and non-religious people are different, since we can make the distinction between them. I don't see that it constitutes a 'fundamental difference'.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Perhaps the word worship is scary to those that are unfond of religious ceremonies so they see the word as meaning to participate in a religious ritual but I have always understood the word to mean something more akin to adoration or glorification. Putting a being , concept or object above oneself or one's fellows in importance. So to me anyone that believe for instance the collective good is to take precedence over the individual good is worshiping the collective. Anyone that would covet money to the extent that they would neglect their own family is worshiping money. This IMO is how the two cited in the OP are also seeing this and so I see no reason to quibble about the wording if one doesn't like the word worship for this substitute whatever you like but address the actual point as well. The theistic person, apart from their rituals, gives precedence to their God in the same way that the non theistic person give precedence to other people, groups, ideas, things etc. Is that a valid comparison or not. IOW do humans naturally seek for something or someone to give their life what they believe to be a higher purpose or a greater relevance? I think that they do.

 

[brightlights]

Certainly religious and non-religious people are different, since we can make the distinction between them. I don't see that it constitutes a 'fundamental difference'.

What I mean by fundamental difference is a difference in essence. For example, we can fairly say that humans are essentially sexual. If one human proves to not be sexual then this would make them essentially or fundamentally different. Here are a number of things we can say about humans essentially:

Humans are sexual
Humans are creative
Humans are rational
Humans are political
Humans are biological (needing food, water, and air among other things)

The question is: are humans essentially religious? If not, why is the phenomenon as universal as the rest?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Could you give an example of a culture that did not engage in worship or religious activity?

You had written: "Only in very recent history have people began to not worship."

You said people, not "culture".

The question is: are humans essentially religious?

No more than they are essentially astrologers, even though astrology has been popular for thousands of years.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

You had written: "Only in very recent history have people began to not worship."

You said people, not "culture".

I mean people in a general sense.

No more than they are essentially astrologers, even though astrology has been popular for thousands of years.

Astrology is one of many manifestations of human religiousness.

 

[yasic]

Could you please define worship.

If you define worship an object to be 'Believing that object to be valuable enough to continue living and to direct your actions towards attaining or bettering the object' then yes you could say that some atheists worship money while other worship having their friends be happy.

How on earth this shows atheists do not exist is beyond me. (Unless you define atheism as 'someone without a reason to live' as opposed to 'someone who does not believe in the existence of a god.')


If on the other hand you define worship like I do as 'worship is believing something is so great or perfect it deserves ones overt respect and admiration' then there are plenty of atheists who do not worship anything (and worship of money is all but impossible by this definition)


However I am not the person who made this topic so I will leave it to you to tell me how you define worship.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So to me anyone that believe for instance the collective good is to take precedence over the individual good is worshiping the collective.

Surely many Christians put the collective good over the individual good. Most acts of charity are costly to the individual in service of the collective. Do these Christians worship two masters?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Astrology is one of many manifestations of human religiousness.

I don't see how. What does "religiousness" mean to you?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Not really. Because in the "day-to-day trenches" of my adult life, I just don't really care.

 

[brightlights]

I don't see how. What does "religiousness" mean to you?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think it can mean many things but in this instance I mean assigning supernatural meaning to natural phenomena. Surely astrology is in this sense religious.

 

[Paradoxum]

Are they right? Is there any truth to what they're saying?

It sounds good to me. But I don't think it is God that is the safe thing to worship, but rather Goodness.

If you concept of God is wrong, then it could seriously mess you (and the people you love) up. For example, westboro baptist church (messed up minds, and rejecting their children who escape the cult), terrorism, crazy things that happened in old Christian Europe, an oppressed subconscious.

Excellent quotes from people who, as far as I can gather, are trying to be honest and transparent with how they feel.

I can personally attest to the veracity of Wallace's statement regarding the being eaten alive by whatever we worship other than God. I have experienced it in my own life too many times to count.

I also believe Wallace was right and that Wilner would agree, that everyone worships something.

To expound on this, or rather, to simplify it and boil it all down to one, I would say, that a man ultimately worships either himself, or God.

I don't think that is true. I still believe morality is above me.

Perhaps the word worship is scary to those that are unfond of religious ceremonies so they see the word as meaning to participate in a religious ritual but I have always understood the word to mean something more akin to adoration or glorification. Putting a being , concept or object above oneself or one's fellows in importance. So to me anyone that believe for instance the collective good is to take precedence over the individual good is worshiping the collective. Anyone that would covet money to the extent that they would neglect their own family is worshiping money. This IMO is how the two cited in the OP are also seeing this and so I see no reason to quibble about the wording if one doesn't like the word worship for this substitute whatever you like but address the actual point as well. The theistic person, apart from their rituals, gives precedence to their God in the same way that the non theistic person give precedence to other people, groups, ideas, things etc. Is that a valid comparison or not. IOW do humans naturally seek for something or someone to give their life what they believe to be a higher purpose or a greater relevance? I think that they do.

It can make sense to think of worship like that. That is like how my old church taught worship. As something you can do anywhere you are, without music and song.

 

[essentialsaltes]

sexual
creative
rational
political
biological (needing food, water, and air among other things)

The question is: are humans essentially religious? If not, why is the phenomenon as universal as the rest?

Some people claim to be asexual. I confess I don't understand it, myself, but I have no reason not to take people's word for their own experience. I'm also afraid my experience tells me that many people are *not* creative or rational. I'll spot you biological as a universal trait of humanity, but most of these are subject to personal choices, and religion is no different. It seems strange to me that your take on the matter is to declare that religion is universal, and that anyone who disagrees must be a totally different sort of being, rather than just admitting that religiosity is not, in fact, universal.