Is organised belief always doomed to fail?

[iBrian]

Really great point by Bob X in another thread worth giving it own space here:

I hope you won't be offended by this analogy, but: frequently I used to encounter true-believer Marxists who agreed that Soviet and Chinese Communism went off track and turned to evil, but that these were not "real" Communism. Communism "could have" developed in a beautiful way, and still could if the correct path were followed; it was all the fault of Stalin and Mao that things got off-track; a lot of these true-believers were Trotskyites who thought that if only Trotsky had prevailed in the power struggle, everything would have turned out differently, and if I pointed out that Trotsky too behaved like a rather nasty SOB in, for example, the early phases of the Russian Civil War, this would offend them.

But the more fundamental problem I had with this line of thought was: doesn't it say something bad about Marxism that every time it has been tried, the bully-boys just take over and turn it into an excuse for a tyranny? Wasn't there a "historical inevitability" about Stalin prevailing in Russia: that is, could Trotsky possibly have prevailed in any other way except by being even worse than Stalin?

And this is my analogy for you: you say that the prevailing idea of Christianity isn't "real" Christianity, but doesn't it say something bad about Christianity itself that the prevailing form of Christian beliefs, everywhere, has always developed in what you think of as the "wrong" direction? If the early Christians had it "right", how come Christianity didn't "stay right", anywhere? Is Satan more powerful than God?

Perhaps the issue is simple - as social apes who organise within groups, those groups inevitably come to wield social power. Social power that many would love to use and abuse for their own interests regardless and against the wider social interest of that specific group.

Therefore any organised system, once it becomes large enough, will inevitably become subject to larger abuse.

Perhaps it would be fairer to say that any organised system will become subject to abuse within itself by its own members - but once that system becomes large enough and powerful enough to be able to impact social spheres outside of itself, it will necessarily gravitate individuals within who seek to use and abuse that power and influence.

I look at the Baha'is and have a lot of synergy with my own beliefs, but consider their being organised as a huge flaw - at the moment, the Baha'is may appear sweet and innocent, but if they were a world government I can see how the entire organised religion could be turned into an absolute monster.

I'm always reminded of the New Testament quote about Satan owning the earth - one interpretation being our earthly selfish desires are evil, but that the world is ruled by governments who inevitably are driving by individuals who will use the system for their own selfish ends (any country's national politics will usually suffice as an example).

But - the wider question is - does this mean that any spiritual system is open to abuse? Does being a system based on spiritual principles mean that it is ever immune?

I'm not convinced it is - the recent French TV reconstruction of Milgram's experiments remind us that authority can be abused and followed simply because of our hard-wired tendency to obey authority, in other words, absolve ourselves of decision-making responsibilities in lieu of the demands of authority.

I remember once thinking it may be worth starting up a spiritual group, but even at the start of my spiritual learning I could see how it could eventually become corrupted if not careful, despite any protections put in place, and that the best way to organise spiritual learning and teaching would have to involve a lack of formal hierarchy, and make it more personal-driven - perhaps like how Krishnamurti emphasised.

In which case, which would be the most efficient way to balance the process of teaching spiritual matters in a shared manner, and ensuring that shared environment was not entirely controlled?

 

[Sancho]

Hi.
This second decade of the 21st century offers us all a unique crossroads of many paths. We are either heading towards global consolidation of governmental and corporate power or ecological disaster or a new era of using available technologies to unite the power of the people into a whole new organizational entity that could exist alongside governments, corporations, religions, while taking on roles of those institutions. What are those roles? And how would groups seperate from governments, religions, corporations, take on those roles? These are open questions.
As I've expressed these views elsewhere I'll keep it short and just say that perhaps as our cultures become more enmeshed we can use the opportunity to unite across many lines in ways that could allow the current institutions to continue on but have to adapt to a seperate network of organizations. Groups like Acorn, the Salvation Army, and Greenpeace are already doing this kind of work, influenceing policies and filling the gaps that governments neglect. Religion is an entity like this. As you say, power corrupts in any situation. We need to allow unity without consolidation of power. To change our cultures we need to bring religious thought, political thought, scientific thought, and every other kind of thought into one forum where we can bring our heads together to shape our world.

 

[Sancho]

Just wanted to add that this website, interfaith.org, could be seen as an example of this new kind of organizational entity I speak of. Discussions like this are a necessary step in the direction I'm pointing to.
Interfaith discussions of any kind alter the frames of reference through which we perceive the world and its possibilities.

 

[Thomas]

Perhaps the issue is simple - as social apes who organise within groups, those groups inevitably come to wield social power. Social power that many would love to use and abuse for their own interests regardless and against the wider social interest of that specific group.

Agreed.

Therefore any organised system, once it becomes large enough, will inevitably become subject to larger abuse.

I also think there's the abuse of those offloading personal responsibility onto the larger social group ... so you get the problem from both ends.

But - the wider question is - does this mean that any spiritual system is open to abuse? Does being a system based on spiritual principles mean that it is ever immune?

No. Any system is open to abuse.

I remember once thinking it may be worth starting up a spiritual group, but even at the start of my spiritual learning I could see how it could eventually become corrupted if not careful, despite any protections put in place, and that the best way to organise spiritual learning and teaching would have to involve a lack of formal hierarchy, and make it more personal-driven - perhaps like how Krishnamurti emphasised.

You would also require a degree of personal reflection and infallibility. Having taught large groups, I know that what you face is your own weakness and shortcoming, as well as your strength and inspiration, for if nothing else you produce little copies of yourself ... and that as much as they love you, the group will have you in a moment if you show a sign of weakness.

In which case, which would be the most efficient way to balance the process of teaching spiritual matters in a shared manner, and ensuring that shared environment was not entirely controlled?

I wish I knew ... and I'm guessing there's a few others who do, also.

When I joined a cult as a young man it was less than a hundred members ... and it was something to behold in its power and its generosity. Then it grew, and grew, and soon was over a couple of thousand, with centres in Europe and the US ... and it became a monster.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Well this is an interesting one....

I think Thomas may agree that I am a fan or belong to a disorganized belief system....so by proxy do we succeed?


Seriously I believe I am part of a growing movement that will eventually allow Christianity to continue....and not fail as it seems to be leading.

Seems to me, (getting ready to duck) that the insurgence of the literal fundamental churches in the last hundred years in the states is part of the disenchantment....sure they've found their followers, but many have run screaming.

As I am more of a universalist....those churches that moved into an area and married Jesus's teachings with the local stories are strong...I've met folks who grew up in Brazil or the Islands with a very Christian/Voodoo mixture Catholic/Voodoo at that but it worked because the missionaries didn't kill the connection to spirit that was already there.

Then there are other folks here that have Christian/XYZ beliefs... and while others call them heretics, they have a comfort with spirit that many of the faithful don't.

The definition of G!d is evolving....G!d isn't evolving but the understanding is...and if the organization doesn't evolve preachers will be standing at the pulpit wondering where the heck the congregation went.

 

[Saltmeister]

Then it grew, and grew, and soon was over a couple of thousand, with centres in Europe and the US ... and it became a monster.

um . . . what kind of monster? A benign or malign one? There are good and bad dragons aren't there?

One group/organisation I remember reading about (when I was obsessed with studying cults on the Internet) that turned into a "monster" of sorts was the "Mother of God" cult.

. . . and oh what a name. The word "mother" is often used as a kind of swear word. The mother of this evil, the mother of that evil . . . I could have called it the "Mother of Abominations" instead. It tried to be holy in ways that were unholy.

I'd just like to say that it was fun reading about cults. The mere statement of the existence of "evil" was a form of entertainment for me. It makes me grateful that God didn't make the world boring. It appeals to my desire for adventure.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"Is organised belief always doomed to fail?"

--> I say yes. As the centuries go by, all organized religion gets corrupted to some extent. That is why new religions periodically sprout up, in order to reteach the original teachings that have become corrupt. No religious organization run by humans can completely escape moral corruption forever.

 

[citizenzen]

"Is organised belief always doomed to fail?".

What is failure?

Think of the Catholic church. I imagine there are many, many members even today that it's helping to bring to states of grace and enlightenment.

How could that be viewed as failure?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

CZ,

I guess it depends on your definition of failure. I think there are members of flawed organizations in the world who benefit from such membership in a positive way. But I do not feel that having such members automatically makes an organization a positive organization. That is a leap of faith (both in a religious sense and in the sense of the field of logic) and I do not accept such leaps of faith.

 

[citizenzen]

I guess it depends on your definition of failure.

I think it definitely depends on how you define it. I'm a Buddhist, and Buddhism has as long a history of "failure" (becoming entangled in social, political and bureaucratic systems) as any other religion. And yet, as a young man (and still to this day) its teachings fascinate and motivate me to find a better way to live.

I think that the truism, "Success breeds failure" applies here. I just want to make sure we focus as much on the beginning of that old saying as on the end.

 

[Saltmeister]

I think that the truism, "Success breeds failure" applies here.

That has certainly been true of my personal life. I was a workaholic for eleven years and it left me exhausted and unable to do even the most basic, routine things. I'm so embarrassed and ashamed. I've disappointed a lot of people.

Don't be too successful, lest you fall victim to victory fever.

 

[citizenzen]

'm so embarrassed and ashamed. I've disappointed a lot of people.

JFC... who's putting this pressure on you?! I'm sorry to hear that you're in this state. It must be devastating.

The only thing I'd like to remind you of... is that the only thing we're here on Earth to do is to live, until we die. Everything else is a self-imposed obligation. It may be fun, it may be fulfilling, but ultimately, it doesn't come from anybody but you.

If you don't mind the baggage, carry all that you want.

But if you're tired of that load, drop it by the wayside brother... it sounds like you could use the rest.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

CZ,

I totally agree with you. When I look at some of the different types of Buddhism (Nichiren, Zen, Tibetan, Theravadin), I have to scratch my head and ask myself, "Do all of these people belong to the same religion?!" Every religion suffers from having its teachings altered as the centuries go by. It is something we must watch for and never accept.

Regarding the idea of good people going to bad churches, I am reminded of my trip a long time ago when I went to go get my car fixed by a dishonest car mechanic. I knew the guy was a crook, but he fixed by car, no problem, and he charged me a very decent rate. I was more than happy to get good service from a crook, and I think people who get good assistance in increasing their level of spirituality from bad churches are in the same boat.

 

[Saltmeister]

JFC... who's putting this pressure on you?! I'm sorry to hear that you're in this state. It must be devastating.

Workaholism is usually self-imposed. I thought of myself as a machine that could keep going and going and going. I thought I was like the Terminator. Determined. Unstoppable. Relentless. Without pity or emotion. Nobody could bargain with me. I would never stop until I succeeded.

It all came crashing down at the same time as Lehman Brothers' collapse. While Americans were stuffing themselves with mortgage and credit card debt, I was stuffing myself with work. While Americans thought they could prosper from more debt, I thought I could be more productive if I kept myself busy. Eventually too much work with too little rest does damage to your mind. America put itself in danger of an economic depression. I put myself in danger of a mental/emotional depression. America was heading into an economic crisis. I was heading into a . . . what d'ya call it . . . identity crisis, mid-life crisis?

Just like America, I also needed a stimulus package to keep myself going. I had to keep myself busy for just a bit longer, and slowly reduce the amount of work I was doing. Just a bit more stimulation before I stop altogether.

There has certainly been devastation. I wasn't the "superpower" I thought I was. I burnt myself out, burnt myself alive. Let's hope I can rise up like a phoenix from the ashes.

The only thing I'd like to remind you of... is that the only thing we're here on Earth to do is to live, until we die. Everything else is a self-imposed obligation. It may be fun, it may be fulfilling, but ultimately, it doesn't come from anybody but you.

Well, what can I say? I've been reduced to the basics.

I've never felt more vulnerable and fallible. It's made me develop more humility with regards to my ambitions and potential as a person.

BTW, what's JFC?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Saltmeister, personal excellence is worth striving for, but everything should be done in wise moderation. It's good that you came to recognize your limits.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps the issue is simple - as social apes who organise within groups, those groups inevitably come to wield social power. Social power that many would love to use and abuse for their own interests regardless and against the wider social interest of that specific group.

Therefore any organised system, once it becomes large enough, will inevitably become subject to larger abuse.

Possibly, but I think that requires followers (RWAs) who like to put their faith in leaders.

If a group is anti-authoritarian in nature (herding those cats, yee ha!), I wonder if it would be as prone to abuse. Possibly not.

Nevertheless, I think that it may be better for moral communities to organize in small units, without any organization with authority on top.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[citizenzen]

BTW, what's JFC?

It's shorthand swearing. Some people may not appreciate it if I spelled it out, but the first and last letters stand for "Jesus Christ". I'll leave it up to you to figure out the middle letter.

Anyways... It sounds like you learned a lot about yourself. I am sorry that the lessons came with such pain. It almost sounds like a birth and now you're outside the womb, vulnerable, but for the first time really free. Where you go from here is your next great adventure.

Here's to undertaking it with a renewed appreciation for wisdom, compassion and a love for all life.

Peace!

 

[Saltmeister]

It's shorthand swearing. Some people may not appreciate it if I spelled it out, but the first and last letters stand for "Jesus Christ". I'll leave it up to you to figure out the middle letter.

Oh yeah . . . I wasn't expecting such an exclamation. No problem if you want to make another loud post in the future. Kentucky Fried Chicken.

It almost sounds like a birth and now you're outside the womb, vulnerable, but for the first time really free. Where you go from here is your next great adventure.

More like a rebirth . . .

 

[shawn]

Jesus Flying Christ
OMG LOL