Religion and pleasure

[Angrboda]

I think you need to be clear about whether you are addressing the relationship between pleasure and religion in general, or pleasure and specific religions in particular. It's a rather common mistake, but in this context it is fatal, as you are making general statements about religion based on the particulars of one religion. That makes your conclusions about religion faulty and essentially non sequiturs.

A Buddhist's understanding and attitudes toward pleasure are mediated through their beliefs about dukkha (disturbance), dependent origination and so on, and arguments about why Christianity or Judaism have the specific relation to pleasure that they do is likely going to be irrelevant to the question of why Buddhists have certain attitudes towards pleasure.

And as a Hindu who has followed various paths, I can assure you that the relationship between pleasure and Hindu beliefs, practices, and traditions will likely be yet another thing entirely. And I can also tell you that the relationship between Taoism and pleasure is yet something else.

So, you're attempting to draw lessons about universal aspects of human behavior by making arguments that address only a small, narrow spectrum of the behavior in question. I don't think you're likely to succeed at either end of the spectrum, as if you address your arguments toward Judeo-Christian practices specifically, you've not only failed to identify anything essential to religion, you've bankrupted any claim that it is even a general truth about that particular religion, as it's no longer a feature of Judeo-Christianity as a religion, but rather a claim about the behaviors of a specific group of people whose behaviors in relation to pleasure may or may not be on account of it being a religion. To be sure, as I suggested earlier, the attitudes you are describing are as much specifically western as they are religious.

As I'm thinking about this, I'm reminded of statements the Dalai Lama has made regarding "defilement" through homosexual practices and masturbation. While the Dalai Lama is certainly a religious figure, I think it's sensible to regard such statements as stemming as much from his human nature as stemming from his religious nature. Attitudes toward human sexual behavior are far from the sole province of religion. So you're missing the goalpost to the left and to the right, by not addressing religion itself, and by mixing in attitudes which may be purely secular or a result of our evolved psychology, and labeling it a religious attitude.

For example, the Jews are known for having strict dietary laws regarding eating pork. Nobody knows for certain why, but several secular theories have emerged. One is that ingestion of pork posed a health hazard as a consequence of the parasite that causes trichinosis and other aspects of the pig's habits and biology. Thus, it is suggested that the dietary restriction evolved because those who adopted it were healthier and more successful as a result. Another theory is that it was used as a way to distinguish the Jews from the greater Canaanite population. In particular, it's been noted that the Jews and the Philistines occupied different geographical spaces in the Levant, one being concentrated in the lowlands and urban areas, the other in the highlands. Since the husbandry of pigs is also geographically stratified in this way, there may have been both cultural and economic reasons for not eating pork, along the lines of not giving comfort and aid to the enemy. And note that this is specific to the Jews and Canaanites as distinct ethnic groups, as much as on account of religious differences. There are other theories about the dietary restrictions, but the point is clear, you can't simply assume that because a specific group of people adopt a practice or attitude, and those people are also religious, that the practice is necessarily a consequence of the nature of either that religion specifically, or religion in general.

(For those of you playing the home game, that's one of Meylis Delano Lawrence's favorite fallacies which he cited in his "Top Logical Fallacies Used By Religion" thread, aka cum hoc ergo propter hoc.)

I'm going to close by attempting to tag a point on my way out, without going into a lot of detail. Humans are, by their nature, fallible. Neither religious nor non-religious are immune to the phenomena of failing to live up to what they hoped to do. Humans misbehave. We sacrifice long term goals for the achievement of short term ones, and so on. Humans have developed both social and psychological means of addressing this problem. We have instincts which help guide us away from acts of stupidity. We have the ability to hypothesize ethical situations and evaluate them by making moral judgements. We have the ability to form social hierarchies with provisions for encouraging and enforcing correct behavior. And we've developed culture that includes both religious ideas as well as secular philosophies, geared toward helping us live right. In a strange way, this thread is an example of the same phenomena, including a lot of knee jerk reactions that seem to imply that denying pleasure and gratification is, if not uniformly wrong, at least worthy of suspicion. This ignores that human psychological and social mechanisms which address the relationship between desire and behavior also serve beneficial roles. You don't have to be religious to hope your child learns to delay gratification and attends to his homework first, and the videogame afterward.

[Doubting Thomas]

Not exactly sure if it was me you were addressing there or not, but I was pointing out to GC that we can enjoy things he enjoys, as well as things he considers sinful.

But yes, we can also eat pork, but I doubt that GC considers that sinful.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

The prohibition of pleasure in religions, is, as others have stated, a means of control. George Orwell covers it in 1984. Sex especially is prohibited because the institution wants to control your emotions, and is threatened by your ability to feel good either by yourself or with the help of a partner. Because I resent the establishment, I do my best to experience pleasure as much as it is reasonable to do so without harm to others. I also encourage people to express their thoughts about sex and sexuality freely, and encourage them to be sexually open around me. In doing this, I am deconverting them on a deeper level than mere atheism. I'm removing the taboos ingrained deeply in their minds.

Not that this always ends well. Often some transference happens and my (male) friends have sexual feelings for me, which I as a lesbian cannot reciprocate. I try to redirect their focus, but I do not always succeed. Sometimes these relationships can end ugly.

[genkaus]

The bold is what I'm speaking of. What you picked out is a general statement about what Christianity says. Sorry if it was misleading.

So, if I say that a lot of Christians do find pleasure in so-called 'sinful' acts, your reply would be...?

---

---

I think you need to be clear about whether you are addressing the relationship between pleasure and religion in general, or pleasure and specific religions in particular. It's a rather common mistake, but in this context it is fatal, as you are making general statements about religion based on the particulars of one religion. That makes your conclusions about religion faulty and essentially non sequiturs.

A Buddhist's understanding and attitudes toward pleasure are mediated through their beliefs about dukkha (disturbance), dependent origination and so on, and arguments about why Christianity or Judaism have the specific relation to pleasure that they do is likely going to be irrelevant to the question of why Buddhists have certain attitudes towards pleasure.

And as a Hindu who has followed various paths, I can assure you that the relationship between pleasure and Hindu beliefs, practices, and traditions will likely be yet another thing entirely. And I can also tell you that the relationship between Taoism and pleasure is yet something else.

So, you're attempting to draw lessons about universal aspects of human behavior by making arguments that address only a small, narrow spectrum of the behavior in question. I don't think you're likely to succeed at either end of the spectrum, as if you address your arguments toward Judeo-Christian practices specifically, you've not only failed to identify anything essential to religion, you've bankrupted any claim that it is even a general truth about that particular religion, as it's no longer a feature of Judeo-Christianity as a religion, but rather a claim about the behaviors of a specific group of people whose behaviors in relation to pleasure may or may not be on account of it being a religion. To be sure, as I suggested earlier, the attitudes you are describing are as much specifically western as they are religious.

As I'm thinking about this, I'm reminded of statements the Dalai Lama has made regarding "defilement" through homosexual practices and masturbation. While the Dalai Lama is certainly a religious figure, I think it's sensible to regard such statements as stemming as much from his human nature as stemming from his religious nature. Attitudes toward human sexual behavior are far from the sole province of religion. So you're missing the goalpost to the left and to the right, by not addressing religion itself, and by mixing in attitudes which may be purely secular or a result of our evolved psychology, and labeling it a religious attitude.

For example, the Jews are known for having strict dietary laws regarding eating pork. Nobody knows for certain why, but several secular theories have emerged. One is that ingestion of pork posed a health hazard as a consequence of the parasite that causes trichinosis and other aspects of the pig's habits and biology. Thus, it is suggested that the dietary restriction evolved because those who adopted it were healthier and more successful as a result. Another theory is that it was used as a way to distinguish the Jews from the greater Canaanite population. In particular, it's been noted that the Jews and the Philistines occupied different geographical spaces in the Levant, one being concentrated in the lowlands and urban areas, the other in the highlands. Since the husbandry of pigs is also geographically stratified in this way, there may have been both cultural and economic reasons for not eating pork, along the lines of not giving comfort and aid to the enemy. And note that this is specific to the Jews and Canaanites as distinct ethnic groups, as much as on account of religious differences. There are other theories about the dietary restrictions, but the point is clear, you can't simply assume that because a specific group of people adopt a practice or attitude, and those people are also religious, that the practice is necessarily a consequence of the nature of either that religion specifically, or religion in general.

(For those of you playing the home game, that's one of Meylis Delano Lawrence's favorite fallacies which he cited in his "Top Logical Fallacies Used By Religion" thread, aka cum hoc ergo propter hoc.)

I'm going to close by attempting to tag a point on my way out, without going into a lot of detail. Humans are, by their nature, fallible. Neither religious nor non-religious are immune to the phenomena of failing to live up to what they hoped to do. Humans misbehave. We sacrifice long term goals for the achievement of short term ones, and so on. Humans have developed both social and psychological means of addressing this problem. We have instincts which help guide us away from acts of stupidity. We have the ability to hypothesize ethical situations and evaluate them by making moral judgements. We have the ability to form social hierarchies with provisions for encouraging and enforcing correct behavior. And we've developed culture that includes both religious ideas as well as secular philosophies, geared toward helping us live right. In a strange way, this thread is an example of the same phenomena, including a lot of knee jerk reactions that seem to imply that denying pleasure and gratification is, if not uniformly wrong, at least worthy of suspicion. This ignores that human psychological and social mechanisms which address the relationship between desire and behavior also serve beneficial roles. You don't have to be religious to hope your child learns to delay gratification and attends to his homework first, and the videogame afterward.

---

I'm not sure who are you replying to exactly, but here's how you are missing the point. We are not talking about the relation between a specific religion and pleasure in general. We are talking about the relation between a specific aspect of pleasure and religion in general. As you said, different religions take different paths towards pleasure. They have their own theories and rules about what kind of pleasure is "virtuous" and how to achieve it. But what they all have in common is the path they don't take.

The so-called earthly or base pleasures, things that we do simply for pleasure's sake and with no higher purpose in mind - such things are treated negatively in almost all religions. Its not delayed or conditional gratification - it is gratification denied. Religions do not say that its okay to be sexually promiscuous as long as everything is safe, sane and consensual - they outright condemn it. They do not say you can overeat as long as you put in extra hours at the gym - they simply tell you to always be moderate. Its one thing to tell your child that he can play videogames only if he attends to homework first and quite another to tell him that he should not be playing it at all. That the fact that he even wants to play it shows that there is something wrong with him.

[Godscreated]

The bold is what I'm speaking of. What you picked out is a general statement about what Christianity says. Sorry if it was misleading.

So, if I say that a lot of Christians do find pleasure in so-called 'sinful' acts, your reply would be...?

I would say you are right, they are living with sin and unrepentant sin can bring difficult times for Christians. Not to make a NTSM but a lot of so called Christians give the Christian community a black eye. I know there are probably few if any Christians who at on time or the other not found pleasure in sin, the Bible tells us that man finds pleasure in sin. It's being a Christian that will bring the conviction of the Holy Spirit and thus the need to repent, if one calls their self a Christian and is not bothered by sin I would question what they believe, then that's me. I've been guilty of finding pleasure in sin, but find conviction because of it. I never said we're perfect.

---

Going on bike trips and white water kayaking (use to be one of my favorites until I hurt my back), I can still canoe on calmer waters. I tournament fished for many years, I still hunt and do wood work. I know many Christians that are very active in things like marathon runs, hiking and ect.

Guess what? We atheists can also enjoy those things, and at the end of the day enjoy a glass of beer or wine without feeling any guilt about it.

So can I, over indulging is the sinful part of drinking.

Then we can also have sex with someone we're not married to but perhaps in a committed relationship, and not feel guilty about that, either.

Nope, off limits to Christians though many do, scripture gives us many reasons to stay pure before marriage.

[Lucanus]

Then we can also have sex with someone we're not married to but perhaps in a committed relationship, and not feel guilty about that, either.

Nope, off limits to Christians though many do, scripture gives us many reasons to stay pure before marriage.

Your use of the word "pure" spurs some more questions. What makes something pure or impure? Why is that? What is your definition of "pure"?

[Godscreated]

Nope, off limits to Christians though many do, scripture gives us many reasons to stay pure before marriage.

Your use of the word "pure" spurs some more questions. What makes something pure or impure? Why is that? What is your definition of "pure"?

Not defiled by sinful acts in a given area of life, unfortunately i can't say i have experience much in my life.

[Lucanus]

I see. So purity is the absence of sin.
And why is sin there?
Because we are imperfect, lowly humans.

I see where you are going...
Wouldn't it be so much simpler to live healthy lives as humans without worrying about any man in the sky sentencing us to eternal suffering because of our (finite) sinful attitude he himself created?

[Godscreated]

I see. So purity is the absence of sin.
And why is sin there?
Because we are imperfect, lowly humans.

I see where you are going...
Wouldn't it be so much simpler to live healthy lives as humans without worrying about any man in the sky sentencing us to eternal suffering because of our (finite) sinful attitude he himself created?

He did not create them, we did, scripture even tells us we did and that in the last days man will make himself more perverse than at any other time.

[Lucanus]

Please explain how we created our "sinful nature"