{"id":1894,"date":"2018-08-08T08:43:43","date_gmt":"2018-08-08T08:43:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=1894"},"modified":"2025-08-01T13:56:41","modified_gmt":"2025-08-01T13:56:41","slug":"triangle-of-religion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/open-religion\/triangle-of-religion","title":{"rendered":"Triangle of Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"

This triangle is a \u2018landscape of religion\u2019 at a conceptual level, showing \u2018Open Religion\u2019 as part of this landscape.<\/h3>\n

This is all very conceptual. Concrete religions or \u2018ways to experience religion\u2019 are situated somewhere within the triangle, not therefore at the corners or sides.<\/span><\/p>\n

Three corners of the triangle<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Within the triangle, you see a circle. This is where, as I see it, most individuals are situated at present. Of course, many are situated outside of this circle. Please see this as abstract. The only goal is to depict something very schematically. For instance, the surface of this circle can be very different in reality.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Again: this is very abstract-schematic. The corners are not<\/em> about individual religions. The terms that I use are also nothing more than terms: pointers to abstract \u2018entities\u2019 (concepts) that don\u2019t necessarily correspond with existing individual elements of the real landscape. In other words: this is a map of a conceptual<\/em> \u2018landscape of religion\u2019.<\/p>\n

A = religious \u2018concept-ism\u2019<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here, \u2018God\u2019 is treated like something objectifiable, an \u2018instantiation\u2019 of some humanly knowable and understandable concept. Most childishly, it looks like Santa Claus. Less childishly, it looks like anything that you can describe on a piece of paper without \u2018involvement of the heart\u2019 of any kind at all.<\/p>\n

A religious concept-ist pretends to see the<\/em> truth in (his) God(s).<\/p>\n

Not being an expert in religions, I do recognize it in many cases of \u2018fundamentalism\u2019.<\/p>\n

B = religious \u2018nihil-ism\u2019<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

or one might say: \u2018a-religious atheism\u2019.<\/p>\n

Here, the basic assumption is that where (A) speaks about \u2018God\u2019, there is only matter-or-nothing. Again: no \u2018involvement of the heart\u2019 (with which, by the way, I don\u2019t mean \u2018emotions\u2019 as much as I do mean \u2018subconceptual processing\u2019). [see: \u2018About \u2018Subconceptual\u2019<\/a>]<\/p>\n

A religious nihil-ist pretends to see the<\/em> truth in nihil.<\/p>\n

C = Open Religion<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The \u2018open\u2019 here points directly to \u2018subconceptual\u2019. See the whole \u2018Open Religion\u2019 project.<\/p>\n

Three sides of the triangle<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think these are quite self-explanatory.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, reality is not yet very much \u2018Open\u2019. However, I think that we are not far from it. What shows differently may be quite a thin layer. The more I look into the history and present of religions, the more I get convinced of this.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m an optimistic guy\u2026<\/p>\n

But even so, I see much real and possible suffering on the way towards it, if we as a society and as individuals don\u2019t take care. This is not hypothetical. It\u2019s going on. Therefore, I think the following is extremely important.<\/p>\n

The gentle slope<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"In an evolution towards Open Religion (C), either coming from (A) or from (B), it\u2019s important to reach for achieving a \u2018gentle slope\u2019, as in this drawing.<\/p>\n

The \u2018Open Religion\u2019 project is meant to prepare such gentle slope towards fully Open Religion (the area at the bottom of the drawing, being prepared in the meantime) in which people can feel at home with their religious feelings without necessity of any<\/em> objectification at all. In this, people can feel free at last. Thus, the project is about \u2018opening religion\u2019. The blogging texts that you find online within the AURELIS blog are meant to be a continuous invitation, a suggestion to relax \u2018hard\u2019 concepts towards a much gentler way of dealing with them.<\/p>\n

Until now, I talked about a triangle but<\/p>\n

actually, there is a \u2018fourth corner\u2019 (in a third dimension, if you want)<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

which I would call \u2018na\u00efve religiosity\u2019<\/strong>. This is a kind of \u2018primitive\u2019 form of thinking in which no distinction is made between conceptual and non-conceptual religiosity. The distinction is just not alive within the mind of the \u2018adherent\u2019 who simply goes with the flow. According to many historians, this was the way that the \u2018common man\u2019 mostly experienced his religiosity also in the West even until a few centuries ago. Completely disregarding this may lead to huge misunderstandings about where \u2018religiosity\u2019 comes from\u2026 and where it might relatively<\/em> easily go to.<\/p>\n

\u2018Primitive\u2019 is not used here in a denigrating way. I think it overlaps quite a lot with \u2018Open Religion\u2019 which is of course dear to me. Moreover, this overlap is very relevant.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a pity that many individuals harshly drop out of their faith.<\/strong><\/p>\n

They fall to a god-less bottom-of-the-abyss, and hurt terribly.<\/p>\n

This may also be why many prefer fundamentalism instead. The \u2018Open Religion\u2019 goal is not to tear people by force out of their present state, whatever this may be. That is not needed. One can retain what one finds deeply valuable within one\u2019s religious setting. This is about deeply human<\/em> values.<\/p>\n

As a general admonition if you are on this path: don\u2019t lose anything deeply valuable to you.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is eventually no need to. If you feel that it happens to you nevertheless, please think more and deeper. What bad thoughts or feelings may come to you, is not an indication of what you\u2019re going to if you\u2019re doing it well.<\/p>\n

Moreover, evolving through a gentle slope is also the best way to let \u2018Open Religiosity\u2019 grow inside. It\u2019s just, plainly, efficient.<\/p>\n

Towards \u2018Open Mindfulness\u2019<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

According to me, a truly \u2018Open Religious\u2019 attitude may eventually lead to \u2018Open<\/em> Mindfulness\u2019. [See Read&Do \u2018Open Mindfulness\u2019<\/a>]<\/p>\n

NOTE: as Open Religion is different from any concrete religion, \u2018Open Mindfulness\u2019 is different from Mindfulness.<\/em><\/p>\n

Of course, most important in this is that people should really<\/em> be<\/em> free and feel<\/em> free to go this way if they feel personally ready. After all, any kind of worthwhile religiosity is impossible if it\u2019s not experienced in a setting of freedom.<\/p>\n

Just as love.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This triangle is a \u2018landscape of religion\u2019 at a conceptual level, showing \u2018Open Religion\u2019 as part of this landscape. This is all very conceptual. Concrete religions or \u2018ways to experience religion\u2019 are situated somewhere within the triangle, not therefore at the corners or sides. Three corners of the triangle Within the triangle, you see a Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1895,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[25,97],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/278.jpg?fit=949%2C551&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-uy","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1894"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1894"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1894\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10187,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1894\/revisions\/10187"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1895"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}