The Cicero Syndrome

[taykair]

The reasons people give for their antipathy toward religion are as diverse as the people themselves. Yet, I sometimes wonder if the true foundation of their rejection of religion lies elsewhere.

In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, the conspirators meet in Brutus' house to plan the assassination of Caesar. Part of the discussion concerns who will be included amongst the conspirators.

Cassius recommends Cicero to be a part of their plot. Casca, Cinna and Metellus Cimber agree, with the latter adding that Cicero's maturity will compensate for what would otherwise be seen as the rash actions of younger men:

CASSIUS: But what of Cicero? Shall we sound him? I think he will stand very strong with us.

CASCA: Let us not leave him out.

CINNA: No, by no means.

METELLUS CIMBER: O, let us have him, for his silver hairs will purchase us a good opinion and buy men's voices to commend our deeds: It shall be said, his judgment ruled our hands; our youths and wildness shall no whit appear, but all be buried in his gravity.

Brutus, however, rejects the idea - and his reason is interesting:

BRUTUS: O, name him not: let us not break with him; for he will never follow any thing that other men begin.

Is this, then, what truly lies at the heart of the rejection of religion by some? Do they truly have sound, objective reasons for their refusal of religion, or is it simply a matter of ego? Do they suffer from Cicero Syndrome - refusing to become a part of something of which they themselves cannot be the center?

 

[Sunstone]

Do they suffer from Cicero Syndrome - refusing to become a part of something of which they themselves cannot be the center?

Have you considered the possibility that your ego might be preventing you from genuinely and deeply understanding the reasonings of people who do not accept the various religions, and that instead of genuinely and deeply understanding those people, you fall back on something as shallow and superficial as you propose in the OP?

 

[Rival]

I was going to respond to this thread but then I realised that it's not about me so I didn't bother.

 

[taykair]

Have you considered the possibility that your ego might be preventing you from genuinely and deeply understanding the reasonings of people who do not accept the various religions, and that instead of genuinely and deeply understanding those people, you fall back on something as shallow and superficial as you propose in the OP?

Anything is possible, I suppose. I do try to understand what others believe (or don't believe). However, much of it rings rather hollow. No matter how they may express their beliefs, though, I would never accuse any of them of lacking depth.

 

[taykair]

I was going to respond to this but then I realised that it's not about me so I rejected the thread.

Good for you!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The reasons people give for their antipathy toward religion are as diverse as the people themselves. Yet, I sometimes wonder if the true foundation of their rejection of religion lies elsewhere.

In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, the conspirators meet in Brutus' house to plan the assassination of Caesar. Part of the discussion concerns who will be included amongst the conspirators.

Cassius recommends Cicero to be a part of their plot. Casca, Cinna and Metellus Cimber agree, with the latter adding that Cicero's maturity will compensate for what would otherwise be seen as the rash actions of younger men:

CASSIUS: But what of Cicero? Shall we sound him? I think he will stand very strong with us.

CASCA: Let us not leave him out.

CINNA: No, by no means.

METELLUS CIMBER: O, let us have him, for his silver hairs will purchase us a good opinion and buy men's voices to commend our deeds: It shall be said, his judgment ruled our hands; our youths and wildness shall no whit appear, but all be buried in his gravity.

Brutus, however, rejects the idea - and his reason is interesting:

BRUTUS: O, name him not: let us not break with him; for he will never follow any thing that other men begin.

Is this, then, what truly lies at the heart of the rejection of religion by some? Do they truly have sound, objective reasons for their refusal of religion, or is it simply a matter of ego? Do they suffer from Cicero Syndrome - refusing to become a part of something of which they themselves cannot be the center?

In my experience, no.

What people have when they leave a religion is sound subjective (ie, personal) reasons. Many go on to other faiths, sometimes where they are more under the new religion, but also where religion does not play as central of a role in their lives...but it does not appear to be that they wish to be the center of attention.

Many leave religion entirely, so that no religion has a role...and it's not because they want to be 'the center.' It's because they do not believe that any religion has any positive role for their lives.

People who won't join in with what others have started are, generally speaking (and to my understanding), narcissists. I understand that around 6 percent of Americans may have narcissistic personality disorder, although the number may be lower in other countries.

 

[taykair]

In my experience, no.

What people have when they leave a religion is sound subjective (ie, personal) reasons. Many go on to other faiths, sometimes where they are more under the new religion, but also where religion does not play as central of a role in their lives...but it does not appear to be that they wish to be the center of attention.

Many leave religion entirely, so that no religion has a role...and it's not because they want to be 'the center.' It's because they do not believe that any religion has any positive role for their lives.

People who won't join in with what others have started are, generally speaking (and to my understanding), narcissists. I understand that around 6 percent of Americans may have narcissistic personality disorder, although the number may be lower in other countries.

Thanks for your response. Yes, there are a few narcissists, but I'm not one myself. Not me. Me? No way.

Oh, and thanks for noticing that the OP was not a statement, but rather a question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is this, then, what truly lies at the heart of the rejection of religion by some?

You'd have to ask each person to me. Me, religion was a poison to me, and left me in a very poor condition. I cut religion out of my life, improved in strides, and have seen no reason nor felt any compulsion to drive me back to religion. It has nothing to offer or provide to me, but plenty of time to waste.

 

[taykair]

You'd have to ask each person to me. Me, religion was a poison to me, and left me in a very poor condition. I cut religion out of my life, improved in strides, and have seen no reason nor felt any compulsion to drive me back to religion. It has nothing to offer or provide to me, but plenty of time to waste.

If your religion offers you nothing, and if your life has been improved without it, then you are indeed better off rejecting it. You'll get no argument from me.

 

[Aldrnari]

Narcissism would strike me as an odd reason to "reject" a religion, but anything is possible, I suppose.

Try to remember, however, that not everyone who is irreligious "rejects" religion. Some people prefer spending Sundays fishing with their grandkids, some have an attitude of "live and let live," and some just feel closer to "god" when taking a stroll through the woods rather than sitting in a man made church.

As you say, people's reasons are as diverse as they are as people. The only root for their decisions are their own life experiences, IMO. How you get "ego" from that, I'm not sure.

 

[Stevicus]

Is this, then, what truly lies at the heart of the rejection of religion by some? Do they truly have sound, objective reasons for their refusal of religion, or is it simply a matter of ego? Do they suffer from Cicero Syndrome - refusing to become a part of something of which they themselves cannot be the center?

It might be just the opposite. Religion believes that the Earth and humanity are the center of the universe, that God created a universe of trillions of galaxies just for little ol' us. Religion teaches people that God loves us and has a "plan" for us, each and every individual. The idea that God cares so much for every human, watches every little thing they do, makes note of every sin they commit. This makes every individual human the center of God's existence.

 

[taykair]

Narcissism would strike me as an odd reason to "reject" a religion, but anything is possible, I suppose.

Try to remember, however, that not everyone who is irreligious "rejects" religion. Some people prefer spending Sundays fishing with their grandkids, some have an attitude of "live and let live," and some just feel closer to "god" when taking a stroll through the woods rather than sitting in a man made church.

As you say, people's reasons are as diverse as they are as people. The only root for their decisions are their own life experiences, IMO. How you get "ego" from that, I'm not sure.

It is ego when we attempt to make the religion conform to ourselves instead of the other way around.

As for my use of the word "reject": I have been taken to task (at another site where I posted this) for using this particular word. It seems that some folks get a little upset when I use it - as if it's not being "polite" enough. But it is what it is. Non-acceptance is rejection. We can substitute various euphemisms for the word, or say things such as "while I appreciate and respect your point of view, I disagree with it", but it's still rejection. There's nothing evil or mean-spirited about the word. It just describes an action, that's all.

 

[taykair]

It might be just the opposite. Religion believes that the Earth and humanity are the center of the universe, that God created a universe of trillions of galaxies just for little ol' us. Religion teaches people that God loves us and has a "plan" for us, each and every individual. The idea that God cares so much for every human, watches every little thing they do, makes note of every sin they commit. This makes every individual human the center of God's existence.

I liked the way you turned my argument around. I guess that'll show me...

 

[Stevicus]

I liked the way you turned my argument around. I guess that'll show me...

Religion never would have caught on without some sort of reward/punishment system which is relevant to the individual, who is basically self-centered by default.

 

[taykair]

Religion never would have caught on without some sort of reward/punishment system which is relevant to the individual, who is basically self-centered by default.

So, religion minus ego equals no religion? No, I'm sure that's not what you're saying. Please excuse my simple-mindedness.

 

[Aldrnari]

It is ego when we attempt to make the religion conform to ourselves instead of the other way around.

Even those who are raised in a particular faith should test their religion to see if it rings true. If/when things are proven false, they should adjust accordingly, or search for a different path, IMO.

Ego plays no part in honest inquiry and testing. On the other hand, unquestioning obedience leads to delusion and closed mindedness when it comes to faith, or even observing reality...

As for my use of the word "reject": I have been taken to task (at another site where I posted this) for using this particular word. It seems that some folks get a little upset when I use it - as if it's not being "polite" enough. But it is what it is. Non-acceptance is rejection. We can substitute various euphemisms for the word, or say things such as "while I appreciate and respect your point of view, I disagree with it", but it's still rejection. There's nothing evil or mean-spirited about the word. It just describes an action, that's all.

Honestly, it just isn't an accurate word to describe the situation. To reject something is to actively dismiss it. Sometimes people just don't care enough about something to actively take a stance against it. To use it is to make an assumption about someone's motives that could be untrue.

The fact that I'm not the only one to question you on it's use should be telling...

 

[ChristineM]

The reasons people give for their antipathy toward religion are as diverse as the people themselves. Yet, I sometimes wonder if the true foundation of their rejection of religion lies elsewhere.

In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, the conspirators meet in Brutus' house to plan the assassination of Caesar. Part of the discussion concerns who will be included amongst the conspirators.

Cassius recommends Cicero to be a part of their plot. Casca, Cinna and Metellus Cimber agree, with the latter adding that Cicero's maturity will compensate for what would otherwise be seen as the rash actions of younger men:

CASSIUS: But what of Cicero? Shall we sound him? I think he will stand very strong with us.

CASCA: Let us not leave him out.

CINNA: No, by no means.

METELLUS CIMBER: O, let us have him, for his silver hairs will purchase us a good opinion and buy men's voices to commend our deeds: It shall be said, his judgment ruled our hands; our youths and wildness shall no whit appear, but all be buried in his gravity.

Brutus, however, rejects the idea - and his reason is interesting:

BRUTUS: O, name him not: let us not break with him; for he will never follow any thing that other men begin.

Is this, then, what truly lies at the heart of the rejection of religion by some? Do they truly have sound, objective reasons for their refusal of religion, or is it simply a matter of ego? Do they suffer from Cicero Syndrome - refusing to become a part of something of which they themselves cannot be the center?

Speaking for myself i believe my reasons are extremely sound. I think its quite disingenuous, in fact, grossly egotistical to assume someone is as petty minded as you paint them because they don't believe in the same mythologies as you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you considered the possibility that your ego might be preventing you from genuinely and deeply understanding the reasonings of people who do not accept the various religions, and that instead of genuinely and deeply understanding those people, you fall back on something as shallow and superficial as you propose in the OP?

^ what he said ...

 

[Stevicus]

So, religion minus ego equals no religion? No, I'm sure that's not what you're saying. Please excuse my simple-mindedness.

Well, what does religion actually try to do? What is its purpose? Religion attempts to explain some of the mysteries of life which can not be explained, such as where do we come from, who or what created the Earth, humanity, and the universe around us - questions like that.

Let us suppose, hypothetically, that the universe was created by God, but that humanity was some sort of bizarre "accident" that God never intended to create. What if the real truth was that all humans were going to Hell, regardless of whatever kind of life we lived or what kind of faith we have in God? If there was no "reward" at the end and we were told that a fiery afterlife is the sacrifice that God wants us to make (because He never wanted to create us in the first place), would humans really go along with such a religion?

Religion often tries to offer people hope and give some sort of meaning to the lives of individuals, and that's why many people flock to religion. Who would join or support a religion which told people that their lives are utterly without meaning or purpose, and that we were all going to Hell in the end? I daresay that many people might reject such a religion.

The universe is a very cold and frightening place. It moves and functions in ways that humans are only barely beginning to understand. Is it ego or self-centeredness to accept the universe on those terms, without necessarily having faith in some supernatural deity or deities?

 

[taykair]

Even those who are raised in a particular faith should test their religion to see if it rings true. If/when things are proven false, they should adjust accordingly, or search for a different path, IMO.

Ego plays no part in honest inquiry and testing. On the other hand, unquestioning obedience leads to delusion and closed mindedness when it comes to faith, or even observing reality...

Honestly, it just isn't an accurate word to describe the situation. To reject something is to actively dismiss it. Sometimes people just don't care enough about something to actively take a stance against it. To use it is to make an assumption about someone's motives that could be untrue.

The fact that I'm not the only one to question you on it's use should be telling...

I agree with your first statement completely. Self-examination is indeed a wonderful thing.

As for the last: I make no assumption about another's motives when I say that one has rejected a particular point of view. I do not ascribe his rejection to hatred of that view, or ignorance of it, or even the ignoring of it. All I'm saying is that the person rejects it. In other words, he does not accept it.

Perhaps the word "reject" has emotional undertones which rankle some folks. Perhaps there are those who feel that the use of "rejection" implies that someone is actively seeking to "stamp out" the belief in question. I don't.

Still, perhaps another word would have done better.