.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Worship is an expression of love, consisting of the worshipper focusing their attention, through both their senses and their organs of action on their beloved »
.

I beg to differ, Yuyutsu.

The OED defines worship as :

« The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity »

It indicates no less than 25 definitions of love, the first of which is “an intense feeling of deep affection”, but that is only part of the story and, in my view, not the essential part.

The biological anthropologist, Helen Fisher, suggested that " Love may be understood as part of the survival instinct, a function to keep human beings together against menaces and to facilitate the continuation of the species".

I, personally, like the definition of the Australian biologist, Jeremy Griffith: "unconditional selflessness". This, to me, is the essence of the word.

I also like Aristotle's definition, which was later adopted by Thomas Aquinas: "to will the good of another", though it lacks the notion of "selflessness" which, to me is an indispensable feature of "love". Perhaps it is a vestige of my Christian education, but I cannot conceive of "love" without some form of personal engagement, the "giving of oneself", an element of self-sacrifice.

Either love is or it is not and if it is not, then it has never been. In my mind, there is no such thing as temporary or partial love. Either it is total, eternal and indestructible or it is not.

That is not the case of worship. As I am sure you are well aware, polytheism exists. Many people around the world continue to worship several Gods as well as several different forms of the same God.

Their “focus” (to employ your term) is largely fragmented and dispersed in many different directions :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism

Also, history is full of conquered peoples’ forced religious conversions. Though some continued, secretly, to practice their traditional religions, many others believed that their new master’s God was superior to theirs and willingly worshiped him instead :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Commenting on my statement «God is a hypothesis that some people believe to be true. I don’t », you exclaimed :

« You still don't get it! »
.

Allow me to express it differently. There are many different theories about how the universe came about. Some are scientific, pseudo-scientific (science-fiction), mythological, fantastical, religious, etc. A fairly common theory is that it was created by a God.

Unfortunately, nobody knows for sure which of these different theories is correct. None of them has been indisputably established as the right one.

I consider that the scientific method is the most effective means of discovering the truth. Its past achievements have convinced me of this. We have learned more about the universe and ourselves through scientific effort than religion and sacred scripture have ever revealed.

Scientific theory is evolutive. Religious theory has ossified and become dogma, the dogma of faith – “principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true” (OED).

Religion has a long tradition of exercising strict control over access to knowledge through various forms of censorship and the imposition of religious dogma. Genesis 2:16–17 testifies to this.

But science has disproven important principles of religious dogma in the past and I expect it to continue to do so.

Despite this, a large proportion of humanity continues to believe in a hypothetical, or theoretical God. I do not. I place my faith in science.

In my view, religion should concentrate its efforts on its important role of assisting people cope with the vicissitudes of daily life and the anguish of the prospect of death – their own and that of their loved ones.

It has no place in attempting to explain what it does not understand itself. Also, I see no justification for maintaining the illusion of a hypothetical or theoretical God. It is disrespectful of people struggling to cope with their difficulties and existentialist angst.

It is disgraceful for religion to seek to take advantage of their misfortune in order to promote its theories and impose its dogma.

.

Dear Banjo,

When you love someone, you don't expect them to be perfect or a deity, but adore them warts and all! Say for example that your rag-doll is completely dirty and torn, or say your beloved does not exist - such small details wouldn't hinder a lover at all, what's the big deal...

Love has many expressions, and so does worship. On Shri Krishna's birthday for example, we place a doll of the baby Krishna in a rocking cradle and at midnight take turns to rock him by pulling a string. This creates a warm feeling of parental love towards God.

As you say, love is selfless. It is common, though, for our thoughts and feelings to be impure and include other things and selfish motives besides love, then one might hesitate and think: "why should I bother loving and worshipping since I won't get anything in return". Following one's survival instinct is an example of an impurity - a pure lover wouldn't care whether they (and/or their genes) live or die!

Similarly, pure worship is not asking for anything in return.

«Either love is or it is not and if it is not, then it has never been. In my mind, there is no such thing as temporary or partial love. Either it is total, eternal and indestructible or it is not»

The sun is always out there in the sky, but at night it is obscured by the earth and at times it is obscured by clouds.

«polytheism exists. Many people around the world continue to worship several Gods as well as several different forms of the same God.»

There are no several Gods: All is God, all is one. Though some worshippers do not understand this, the "Gods" that you refer to are just gods with a small 'g', different representations of God.

«history is full of conquered peoples’ forced religious conversions.»

History is indeed full of cases where institutions that were supposed to provide religion betrayed their purpose. Such forced conversions were anything but religious.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«There are many different theories about how the universe came about. Some are scientific, pseudo-scientific (science-fiction), mythological, fantastical, religious»

It's none of religion's business to tell you how the universe came about. If such questions bother you, then the best way to get them answered is through science: religion is there to tell you how to break free of this illusion of the world!

«A fairly common theory is that it was created by a God.»

I'm aware of it, this comes from an incorrect and logically-impossible interpretation of the bible.

Yet, if someone considers the existence of the world to be a good thing, then that theory can help in producing feelings of veneration and thankfulness towards God, which is good.

«I consider that the scientific method is the most effective means of discovering the truth.»

Science can only discover relative, objective, truth and it's indeed the best at it. For example, "If the world was real, then the earth revolves around the sun". However, the world is only an illusion.

«Religion has a long tradition of exercising strict control over access to knowledge»

Again, abuse by institutions that were supposed to provide religion was historically rife.

«In my view, religion should concentrate its efforts on its important role of assisting people cope with the vicissitudes of daily life and the anguish of the prospect of death – their own and that of their loved ones.»

This is a step forward than trying to explain the world, but what you speak about is just therapy, while religion aims further beyond: religion leads from untruth to truth, from darkness to light and from death to immortality.

«I see no justification for maintaining the illusion of a hypothetical or theoretical God.»

God is neither an illusion, nor hypothetical or theoretical - it's the world which is an illusion, including our imagined separateness.

«It is disrespectful of people struggling to cope with their difficulties and existentialist angst.»

These are two very different problems: life-difficulties can be solved by therapy, but existentialist angst can only be resolved by finding God.

Yuyutsu writes Oct 7. p 20: "Everyone worships something - this is human nature"

My previously-held opinion that you were too erudite to make such a foolish observation, is a salutary lesson that believers in magic are unstable in their convictions and therefore not to be relied upon. I'm a little concerned that more writers have not accosted you and taken you to task for your abnegation of common sense.

The examples you provide are puerile. Some disturbed humans may worship an invisible magician or even another human. Many, many humans admire, enjoy, are devoted to, deeply appreciate, hold in awe, view as mystical or transcendent, those things you exemplify. Worshipping at the altar of power and or money is using "worship" as a metaphor for hyperbolic expression.

At best, it is deceit to try attributing manifold interpretations to a word, especially when it is done with such glib and facile attention to truth and with such a base motive.

WORSHIP: [1] n. The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity. Syn, veneration, adoration, glorification, exaltation
v. Show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites. Syn, revere, venerate, adore, honour, glorify, exalt, extol.

You, like so many faithful, like to burden those who disagree with you with the same baggage of contradictory nonsense that your faith lumbers you with. FAITH is a word most commonly perverted by religious conniving and given your record, I'd wager you have been guilty here also.

You also assert: "while worshipping God purifies your heart and helps you out of it."

If my heart was found in need of purification I would consult a doctor. The heart is a wonderful organ. It pumps blood through our body, thus maintaining our life. That it is the seat of emotion, of reverence for magic, of eternal love, etc, etc, is romantic and fanciful nonsense. In its favour, it is not quite so harmful a deceit as the dishonest contriving with the words "worship" and "faith".
continued......

continued......
You assert further: "I wonder what you think about someone who loves another for no rational reason, where they have nothing to gain for it - they must be total idiots, right?"

Although you address Banjo with this question, I feel it imperative to indicate that here too you fall into the trap of romantic, fanciful piffle. Any psychologist worth his salt will advise that love is essentially a selfish emotion that had endured more romantic garbage written about it than just about anything else that is a trait of humankind. Here I go, making a bold all-encompassing assertion for which fault I have berated you. But there is a big difference, for decades of research confirms the truth of my assertion. All humans are burdened with an innate proclivity for covetousness from an early age. Some things appeal to our senses more than others and this phenomenon differs between individuals. We grow to maturity coveting and at a certain age our hormones concentrate that coveting to a wonderful degree. Human beings have worshipped at the altar of love and ennobled it into the precise opposite of what it actually is. Because it has humble and ignoble origins.

So your use of the words "for no rational reason" and "have nothing to gain" is inappropriate. Both rationality and gain are present. So pervasive and persuasive has been the deception over millennia that people fail to recognise it. That many assume this romanticisation and cultivate it does not make them total idiots, for there is a noble process that brought about the deception. The desire for something to be seen as good rather than bad if it is universal in its application. That it tends to bring joy and a transcendence over the profane and the mundane. It is the epic and the saga of some of humankind's nobler traits.

I have fallen victim to it several times and unabashedly so.