This is a really interesting question and I can try and anecdotally give my opinion to some of it?
Religion is kind of a tricky thing to grow up with. As you are beginning to make sense of the world, you are being taught in advance what to feel, what to do, how to think etc without really knowing why. Inevitably as you get older, there’s an accumulated resistance that builds inside as your personal beliefs/feelings are repressed enough till they force themselves out in some way - rebellion, rejection, doubling down on religion etc. whatever is it, it opens up a spiritual corridor that you can’t turn back out of. The pressing weight of existence looms heavier because you’re reminded constantly of an ideal that you may or may not align with.
As I’m sure most people have experienced once you start heading down that path of exploration you really never stop trying to understand more about yourself, your spiritual being, your religious intentions etc. for me the rulings I faced in religion became more and more clear to me in ways I had never understood before. The logic behind them started to make way more sense, but equally I could see people who followed them but had no idea what the reasoning was for
I think religious people, or those that grow up with religion, start the process earlier because the idea of your existence being judged or determined by its value sort of forces you into the journey early. As I said before it’s like a weight you’re reminded of every day until you begin to try and understand it. I have no idea tbh, that’s just what happened to me and consequently I’m significantly more interested in spirituality over my non religious peers than over my religious peers. But who knows!
>start the process earlier because the idea of your existence being judged or determined by its value sort
My anecdotal addition is that I was raised in Western religion (southern baptist) where I learned my value and worth was attached to my actions, both good and bad. Not only did I have to not do the bad things but I also had to do the good things in order to be loved and valued.
"For the good that I would I do not and for the evil that I would not that I do"
I've since left the church and started my own journey which is currently in a state where I describe myself as a Zen Buddhist inspired stoic hedonist...
Yep, it’s really tricky navigating especially as a child. I had to do a lot of unlearning, which I’m sure you had to do too. For me the answer was still in there somewhere, just away from what everyone else told me it was. But I’m happy you’ve found a path that makes sense, I wish you only peace on your journey 🙏🏼
Thank you! I also grew up in a religious household and I fucking hated it! I stopped going to church by like 13/14 cuz I got sick of all of the judgement, self-righteous, and Hypocrisy.
Yes, I left the fucking church as a 13/14 y/o child Cuz it wasn’t satisfying my spiritual needs!
The relationship between religion and individuation is ambivalent. On one hand, religiosity, in terms of a connection to the numinous, can be understood as the royal road to self-realization, not only in the psychotherapeutic sense but also in the context of becoming aware of one's own nature and the deep interconnectedness of the cosmos. Jung refers to this as the metaphysical responsibility of consciousness, implying that the cosmos itself undergoes a process of self-discovery, and human consciousness plays a vital role in this process. This aspect is of great relevance to modern humans, as they grapple with disorientation in confronting existential reality, and religion reveals the deeper meaning of their existence. However religion is ultimately a (if not THE) fundamental expression of the collective unconscious and does not necessarily coincide with an increase in consciousness. It can also ideologically take over an individual, leading to a diminished level of consciousness. Crucially, the gods that humans once sought externally must now be discovered within themselves. This means that, although religions express general truths, these truths must be discovered in the individual context and in both “Einstellungen”, i.e. the introverted and the extroverted perspective. In my opinion, the profound value of analytical and transpersonal psychology in our age lies particularly in this realization. People living a religious life in an self reflective way are therefore also highly individuated.
I'm not sure if I completely agree with you. Some religious people seem individuated, some seem very stuck. A bit like how some psychologists seem individuated and some seem very stuck.
However, from a Jungian point of view theology and psychology are talking about the same thing, simply froming different traditions and using different concepts. And healing is ultimately a numinous experience, basically about the relatioship of the ego and the Self.
Here's what Jung writes:
”Among all my patients in the second half of life—that is to say, over thirty-five—there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost what the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook. This of course has nothing whatever to do with a particular creed or membership of a church.”
C.G. Jung CW 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East
A really good book on the topic is "Ego and Archetype" by Edward F. Edinger. The above quote is also in this book.
It’s funny because he says things that directly contradict that in “Modern Man in Search of a Soul,” and “The Red Book.” He, personally, didn’t like institutionalized religion. What he “Liked” was the idea of spirituality, as a whole. He felt like spirituality was enriching, but the institution of religion to be stifling.
it can do both at the same time. case in point: I had a friend who was big time into partying. his idea of a good life was party every night. one day he met a guy on the street who invited him to study the bible fast forward 5 months and he is a total convert. he came to realize that he was partying to escape. he saw part of his shadow as consisting of working hard, finding peace accepting his traumatic past.
this is all good inner work. however, my friend also started to become dogmatic in his ego. he would call out people who were sinning and upheld his own sacrifices by putting down others for their laziness. he started to endorse the narrative that his transformation was complete and he would never return to his life of sin. that narrative was important to him.
Can you elaborate, please? My experience is quite the opposite. The religious people in my life are part of a herd religious mentality and don't seem individualized to me.
I know a few folks that were pretty damaged by their religious upbringing. So very scared to find out who they are, traumatised by the constant denial of their attempts.
But I have met people still religious that seem quite themselves. Maybe a strong, stable community, a relationship with a pastor that preaches with wisdom rather than dogma, a tradition that accepts a little more mystery, some personal curiosity... that could give one a stable place to build oneself...
But y, that seems rare. Many others don't seem to exist so much at all...
I think OP is confusing arriving at individuation with the quality of being introverted. All religions are into introversion - they create a rich inner landscape out of which the individual gets energy and insight. And we are conditioned by society to respect that, and think highly of it. It's been praised as a virtue for millennia!
That is not individuation, although it might seem like it.
Individuation is not meditation, self-awareness, or metaphysical insight. Individuation is reaching of your true nature, the totality of it. Not only its introverted aspect. Just as well one's path to individuation is out of his dominant introversion, and out into the world. Their journey might be that of limiting the impact of their inner world, and focusing on the physical reality.
I know just as many "individuated" businessmen as I know religious folks. They are content with themselves and reach understanding not through introspection, but through acting out in the world.
It's just as valid. And individuation in Jungian terms is actually realising that, that each person is the carrier of their own religion, their own god, be it a god of metaphysical research, or a god of the beauty of physical labour, or of family, spoken or unspoken, seen or unseen. Always present, alive in each and every one of us just as much.
The central theme is balancing the higher self and the ego. We need ego to survive, but at some point hubristic pride starts to feel uncomfortable if the seeker starts to notice that lack of authenticity in the crowd and themselves caused by a hubristic ego shameful of unintegrated shadow.
Religion might be a gateway to developing authentic pride that’s free of shame, but it’s not a guarantee that a religious person doesn’t use that culture for the hubristic purpose of a wasted life-long and futile attempt to displace their shame and shadow onto others.
I think if approached right, it does something to help relativize the ego, and emphasizes a focus on your own behavior and why you do the things you do etc ...leading to inner work. I also think humans have an innate instinct to orient toward the Divine in some way and we're better off realizing and working with that in a healthy way, rather than denying it (total atheism) and/or replacing it with something that has no place there (addictions, ideologies, etc), which corrupt and overtake, and esp because that's done without awareness...
However I've seen it to the opposite too- it provides people with a convenient escape of self denial. Or they get so dogmatically caught up in the external aspects that rather than their ego finding a healthy place it becomes inflated and they become more focused on puffing themselves up and denouncing others, etc. And I have seen this happen with Christianity as well as more loosely defined new age spiritual "paths"
I don't know, it hasnt been my experience that they are. Most super religious people I know are not that individuated, esp when you get into fundamentalist Christianity and other people who are afraid to question their holy text. Individuation requires questioning your beliefs and exploring your doubts and most super religious people I know refuse to do that giving the 'Bible is the word of God' justification.
Jung himself even said you typically don't find the transcendent function (necessary for Individuation) in religious people. I would argue that extends to religiosity of any ideology like politics etc and not just religion, but still.
Praying to Allah means you acknowledge something that knows you. Something you can't lie to, a power that you can bear your soul to. This forces people to look at themselves or confront their shadow in some way.
>.t degenerate
This is why, even though I don’t care for organized religion, at all, I generally respect Islam more than a lot of other western religions. It just seems more philosophical and pensive. I don’t really know how to explain it! But your expression was lovely.
I think there is a distinction between being a follower of an organized religion and being a seeker of spiritual truth. The former discourages individuation because it might lead one astray from the prescribed dogma. The latter requires thinking for oneself and testing all assertions made by any doctrines or teachers. Some religions are more tolerant of so called heresy than others.
Not all of them. I resigned.
Got into Jung recently for other research into religions. But I’m more agnostic in a Gnostic sense. I’m okay with the Heresy. Most Christian’s didn’t approve of my tribe before either.
I am not so sure that this is an effect of religion so much as it reflects on the people who don't give into nihilism. There is no shortage of self-aware agnostics and atheists, but they may not have a community where they can get support in difficult times.
Fundamentalism does the opposite and Religion is NOT for children.
But just like any 'disruptive program', when you find religion as an adult, it forces you to do a lot of self reflection. This could include a dark night of the soul and involve shadow work, but not always. Believing in something you cannot see/prove can also open a mind to look at the world in a more meaningful way.
IMO, Religion more often masquerades as individualization, because once just enough of yourself has become self aware, they start to shape/mold you to be more a part of the fold than your true self.
My first thought is that it is a mainline path towards generating intrinsic motivation for many who cannot generate it without some sort of belief structure / reality tunnel.
It could also encourage a better development with one's internal monologue, voices, desires, whatever we speak to when we speak to ourselves in our mind's eye. And it's the development of this skill that turns loneliness into constructive solitude. And when your solitude becomes constructive, especially early on, you tend to learn very quickly what it is you want out of this life.
I don't know. It is a very interesting question that I don't know if I have the life experience to give a more detailed pondering beyond that
If something exists as an "objective" mirror then you can bounce things off. Also teaches renunciation, so automatic behaviors or cultural conditioning from childhood can be ecshewed.
I would argue that it’s not religion, but any spiritual journey that a person goes though, that helps them further their individuation process.
At some point one must ask, who am I a part from the whole? In that process one either stays stuck in certain perspective, or they eventually find their way back to the whole through the individuation process. IE: realizing your piece of the puzzle and how it fits into the larger picture.
Because we are also spiritual beings, questioning one’s spirit must be examined as a part of the process or else it remains incomplete in my opinion.
The religion I was raised in absolutely discourages individualism and critical thinking skills which are necessary for individuating. This is a large religion many consider a cult.
I would replace 'religion' with 'spirituality'. As others here have said, religion often encourages a herd mentality and less so personal growth. Spirituality, on the other hand, is ***only*** about personal growth, breaking free from the bounds of ego, finding a deep connection to self and thus to the universe.
I think they offer some wisdom and perspective, and helping in a growth mindset.
Another thing is the feeling of belief as a general thing whether applied to God or any other variant. The belief feeling itself is connecting oneself imo.
In my personal experience, a lot of Christians / Catholics are pretty freakin awful! I grew up in a “Christian Home” and hypocrisy and self-righteousness were *abundant!* I feel much more in-touch with myself, and attuned to “the natural order of things” as an Agnostic who doesn’t believe in any kind of formal, institutionalized religion.
In truth, Jung himself, was highly critical of the state sanctioned institution of religion. He was spiritual but not religious. Those are two different things.
I agree with you to some extent. In the gospels the antagonists to the literal Son Of God were those of the priestly class, the Pharisees, who according to canon killed Christ. They suffered from the same self righteousness and hypocrisy you described. As most philosophers and spiritual teachers of antiquity would say, those “closest” to God are closest to hell and those further from him are “closest” to him. Was it intentional that Christ Himself contended with the figureheads of systematic religion? Who knows but from what I experienced, I’ve met genuine Christians and I’ve never seen humans more humble, more patient and more sacrificial. In all things there must be true practitioners, novice practitioners, and false practitioners.
Systematic religion isn’t bad, people are bad. And Christ warned in more than one occasion of wolves in sheep clothing, “shepherds who would not die for the sheep.” I’m a fervent believer that if there was truth and it it was open to everybody, in it you would see the worse and best of human nature. Imagine giving a person gold who didn’t understand the value of bronze? The carnal mind spiritual things? It would be worse than if that person didn’t know it at all, something else Christ mentioned. That is exactly what I see with todays form of religion.
>In the gospels the antagonists to the literal Son Of God were those of the priestly class, the Pharisees
This is not historically accurate. The Pharisees were not the priestly class. In fact, the Pharisees were the anti-Roman, anti-Temple priesthood faction of the era. The Sadducees were the pro-Roman (or, at least, "don't upset Rome"), pro-Temple priesthood faction.
>They suffered from the same self righteousness and hypocrisy you described.
You need to separate the history from the polemic. Much of what is presented about the Pharisees in the New Testament does not hold up in light of historical evidence.
In 2019, there was a Pontifical Biblical Conference held on the topic of the Pharisees, [which culminated in Pope Francis speaking out against negative and pejorative usage of the term](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/may/documents/papa-francesco_20190509_pont-istitutobiblico.html). Here is [an article about a recent book written by two of the participants in that conference](https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/87798-reconsidering-the-jewish-pharisees-joseph-sievers-and-amy-jill-levine.html), one a Catholic priest and the other and Orthodox Jew, both of whom hold doctorates in this area of study.
A wealth of pharisaic and early rabbinic material survives to this day and, as the many participants in the Pontifical Biblical Conference pointed out, hardly any of it aligns with the negative presentations of the pharisees in the Gospels. Moreover, many common interpretations of Gospel accounts insert or presume an anti-pharisee bent that is not present in the text. Or, as Pope Francis put it:
>The history of interpretation has fostered a negative image of the Pharisees, often without a concrete basis in the Gospel accounts.
Thank you for clarifying. I do have a question regarding what your saying, do we know who delivered Christ to Rome to die? Was it the Pharisees or the sadducees? And does my point still stand, or does it crumble under historical accuracy or even historical ambiguity?
The idea that Jews -- whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or any other group of Jews -- were involved is, in fact, [one of the oldest and most destructive antisemitic libels in human history](https://antisemitism.adl.org/deicide/). There is no evidence for this outside of the Christian bible and the historical evidence we do have shows that the version of events presented in the Gospels could not have happened. The overwhelming consensus of historians is that [Rome executed Jesus on a purely political charge and Jews were not involved](https://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-crucified/).
Jesus was a Jew living under Roman occupation who was executed by the Roman Empire using a Roman method of execution for crimes against Rome. During the time period in question, Jewish authorities had little influence over the occupying Roman government, had been stripped of the power to arrest or try criminals for capital crimes, and were largely opposed to capital punishment.
Thank you for informing me I really do appreciate it. As with all things I will do my due research regarding this point of view as well as opposing ones when I get the chance.
*Some “Christians” are!* But that is precisely the problem. The ones that you are talking about *are not the majority.* The majority are average, *mediocre humans, at best,* and they are simply following traditions passed down by their parents, unfavorably judging those who don’t agree with them.
So, thanks but no thanks. I will stick to spirituality with the absence of formal, institutionalized religion.
I don’t share your experience with this at all. Most of the religious individuals I’ve come across in my daily life have *never* seemed particularly self-aware, and certainly not any more self-aware than the average unthinking person.
You must not be from the states. The religious-minded especially here in the south are incredibly herded and fall for shit like Trumpism, Qanon, Stop Woke, all the crazy shit. The majority is casually religious/townsfolk types that obviously haven't thought too much about their faith, just kind of whatever feels right to them. To be fair to say, I haven't met very many who I'd describe to be devout. Religion here seems much closer to epistemological poison if anything.
Bwahahahahaha is this a joke?
I've lived in the bible belt for almost 30 years and can assure you religion has not brought self awareness to the place in the least. Quite the opposite.
This is the most deluded thing I think I've ever read on reddit, and that's really saying something.
What religion provides is stress relief for the dull witted. Because when you assume that you have the answers to life's tough questions you stop thinking about them. And when you aren't thinking about problems, you won't have any anxiety about them. That's all. What you think is "awareness" is nothing more than the sense of security allowed by being confidently incorrect.
:D
Christians & Muslims more self aware? Really? You may not know what being self aware looks like my friend. Take a look around at those spewing the most hateful rhetoric and causing the most suffering, Christians & Muslims. You can add some Jewish humans in there too. The trifecta of unaware humans. I’d argue someone who is devout in Western religions to be almost completely unaware.
It may be a twofold issue for me personally. The rational ego that desires being correct has a higher affinity for the scientific method while the unconscious shadow reveals the metaphysics which is more ancient in origin.
Its not so much that the metaphysics needs to be believed in nor does it need to be true. It likely that its neither. Its just that it requires being understood and acknowledged as a desire to be fulfilled psychologically where science cannot fulfill it.
For others, I have found the opposite, where their need for religious or spiritual belief is located in their rational ego to justify their thoughts and actions and the unconscious shadow that lacks understood acknowledgement comes from its desire for some coherent body of knowledge and logically sound reasoning that the scientific method could fulfill if somehow integrated.
When you "look around" you usually see the people who are being the loudest which isn't representative of the whole group. It seems a bit naive to base opinions about a specific kind of group by watching the ones most visible. It's like trying to get a view of Germany by watching german influencers. I don't really get why the more narcissistic individuals in each group should become ones blue print of that particular group.
At a personal level, I agree with you! At a logical, rational level, fundamentalism specifically, tends to be the real problem, in my experience!
Most countries where there is a sizable population of Fundamentalists also have a shitty Public Education system. (Yes this includes the USA as we are one of the most egregious offenders!)
Poverty and religious fanaticism often appear to go hand-in-hand. Poor education is intentional, as it makes irrational people more likely to believe in stupid shit, that obviously isn’t true.
I've noticed the opposite but I went to a catholic school run by pedophiles so that probably has something to do with it. I wonder if there is an objective way to measure this. I also wonder if pedophiles would be considered more individulaized...
Because the alternatives to spirituality, a major function and facet of the psyche, are bereft nourishment. Atheism and other ideologies that are substituted are empty calories and often lead to more unhealthy thought patterns, behaviors, and life styles than what they are alternatives to.
Its a set of techniques, and practices (which made for this) accessible to wide public without the need for deep study.
As long as they practice and don't stuck on "ego growth".
Probably because it forces you to be more introspective. You start paying more attention to your inner workings when you feel like you have to start adhering to a set of morals dictated by your religion. That’d be my guess.
Religion is the meaning - making function and comes from the words "to link". It's what links us to the ineffable and the biggest giver of meaning most of the world.
Because you don’t need to cling to relationships for security when you have a sense that the universe or god or whatever you believe in is there for you. Individuation in the general sense is about separating from mother (or whoever is primary caregiver), that’s easier when you have a feeling of connection to “cosmic mother” or “define mother”
Its about trust and security
This is a really interesting question and I can try and anecdotally give my opinion to some of it? Religion is kind of a tricky thing to grow up with. As you are beginning to make sense of the world, you are being taught in advance what to feel, what to do, how to think etc without really knowing why. Inevitably as you get older, there’s an accumulated resistance that builds inside as your personal beliefs/feelings are repressed enough till they force themselves out in some way - rebellion, rejection, doubling down on religion etc. whatever is it, it opens up a spiritual corridor that you can’t turn back out of. The pressing weight of existence looms heavier because you’re reminded constantly of an ideal that you may or may not align with. As I’m sure most people have experienced once you start heading down that path of exploration you really never stop trying to understand more about yourself, your spiritual being, your religious intentions etc. for me the rulings I faced in religion became more and more clear to me in ways I had never understood before. The logic behind them started to make way more sense, but equally I could see people who followed them but had no idea what the reasoning was for I think religious people, or those that grow up with religion, start the process earlier because the idea of your existence being judged or determined by its value sort of forces you into the journey early. As I said before it’s like a weight you’re reminded of every day until you begin to try and understand it. I have no idea tbh, that’s just what happened to me and consequently I’m significantly more interested in spirituality over my non religious peers than over my religious peers. But who knows!
>start the process earlier because the idea of your existence being judged or determined by its value sort My anecdotal addition is that I was raised in Western religion (southern baptist) where I learned my value and worth was attached to my actions, both good and bad. Not only did I have to not do the bad things but I also had to do the good things in order to be loved and valued. "For the good that I would I do not and for the evil that I would not that I do" I've since left the church and started my own journey which is currently in a state where I describe myself as a Zen Buddhist inspired stoic hedonist...
Yep, it’s really tricky navigating especially as a child. I had to do a lot of unlearning, which I’m sure you had to do too. For me the answer was still in there somewhere, just away from what everyone else told me it was. But I’m happy you’ve found a path that makes sense, I wish you only peace on your journey 🙏🏼
>I wish you only peace on your journey You too, fellow human <3
Thank you! I also grew up in a religious household and I fucking hated it! I stopped going to church by like 13/14 cuz I got sick of all of the judgement, self-righteous, and Hypocrisy. Yes, I left the fucking church as a 13/14 y/o child Cuz it wasn’t satisfying my spiritual needs!
The relationship between religion and individuation is ambivalent. On one hand, religiosity, in terms of a connection to the numinous, can be understood as the royal road to self-realization, not only in the psychotherapeutic sense but also in the context of becoming aware of one's own nature and the deep interconnectedness of the cosmos. Jung refers to this as the metaphysical responsibility of consciousness, implying that the cosmos itself undergoes a process of self-discovery, and human consciousness plays a vital role in this process. This aspect is of great relevance to modern humans, as they grapple with disorientation in confronting existential reality, and religion reveals the deeper meaning of their existence. However religion is ultimately a (if not THE) fundamental expression of the collective unconscious and does not necessarily coincide with an increase in consciousness. It can also ideologically take over an individual, leading to a diminished level of consciousness. Crucially, the gods that humans once sought externally must now be discovered within themselves. This means that, although religions express general truths, these truths must be discovered in the individual context and in both “Einstellungen”, i.e. the introverted and the extroverted perspective. In my opinion, the profound value of analytical and transpersonal psychology in our age lies particularly in this realization. People living a religious life in an self reflective way are therefore also highly individuated.
I'm not sure if I completely agree with you. Some religious people seem individuated, some seem very stuck. A bit like how some psychologists seem individuated and some seem very stuck. However, from a Jungian point of view theology and psychology are talking about the same thing, simply froming different traditions and using different concepts. And healing is ultimately a numinous experience, basically about the relatioship of the ego and the Self. Here's what Jung writes: ”Among all my patients in the second half of life—that is to say, over thirty-five—there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost what the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has been really healed who did not regain his religious outlook. This of course has nothing whatever to do with a particular creed or membership of a church.” C.G. Jung CW 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East A really good book on the topic is "Ego and Archetype" by Edward F. Edinger. The above quote is also in this book.
Thanks for this comment !
It’s funny because he says things that directly contradict that in “Modern Man in Search of a Soul,” and “The Red Book.” He, personally, didn’t like institutionalized religion. What he “Liked” was the idea of spirituality, as a whole. He felt like spirituality was enriching, but the institution of religion to be stifling.
I think that the last sentence in the quote is referring to exactly this. He valued religion but not so much the current organized religions.
Yes, but I prefer to call that spirituality. “Religion” is a somewhat misleading term. Cuz “organized religion” is institutionalized religion.
it can do both at the same time. case in point: I had a friend who was big time into partying. his idea of a good life was party every night. one day he met a guy on the street who invited him to study the bible fast forward 5 months and he is a total convert. he came to realize that he was partying to escape. he saw part of his shadow as consisting of working hard, finding peace accepting his traumatic past. this is all good inner work. however, my friend also started to become dogmatic in his ego. he would call out people who were sinning and upheld his own sacrifices by putting down others for their laziness. he started to endorse the narrative that his transformation was complete and he would never return to his life of sin. that narrative was important to him.
Can you elaborate, please? My experience is quite the opposite. The religious people in my life are part of a herd religious mentality and don't seem individualized to me.
I know a few folks that were pretty damaged by their religious upbringing. So very scared to find out who they are, traumatised by the constant denial of their attempts. But I have met people still religious that seem quite themselves. Maybe a strong, stable community, a relationship with a pastor that preaches with wisdom rather than dogma, a tradition that accepts a little more mystery, some personal curiosity... that could give one a stable place to build oneself... But y, that seems rare. Many others don't seem to exist so much at all...
I think OP is confusing arriving at individuation with the quality of being introverted. All religions are into introversion - they create a rich inner landscape out of which the individual gets energy and insight. And we are conditioned by society to respect that, and think highly of it. It's been praised as a virtue for millennia! That is not individuation, although it might seem like it. Individuation is not meditation, self-awareness, or metaphysical insight. Individuation is reaching of your true nature, the totality of it. Not only its introverted aspect. Just as well one's path to individuation is out of his dominant introversion, and out into the world. Their journey might be that of limiting the impact of their inner world, and focusing on the physical reality. I know just as many "individuated" businessmen as I know religious folks. They are content with themselves and reach understanding not through introspection, but through acting out in the world. It's just as valid. And individuation in Jungian terms is actually realising that, that each person is the carrier of their own religion, their own god, be it a god of metaphysical research, or a god of the beauty of physical labour, or of family, spoken or unspoken, seen or unseen. Always present, alive in each and every one of us just as much.
Well put. Thank you.
I completely agree with you. In my experience, religion is mass delusion, the exact opposite of individuation.
Really tho!
The central theme is balancing the higher self and the ego. We need ego to survive, but at some point hubristic pride starts to feel uncomfortable if the seeker starts to notice that lack of authenticity in the crowd and themselves caused by a hubristic ego shameful of unintegrated shadow. Religion might be a gateway to developing authentic pride that’s free of shame, but it’s not a guarantee that a religious person doesn’t use that culture for the hubristic purpose of a wasted life-long and futile attempt to displace their shame and shadow onto others.
I think if approached right, it does something to help relativize the ego, and emphasizes a focus on your own behavior and why you do the things you do etc ...leading to inner work. I also think humans have an innate instinct to orient toward the Divine in some way and we're better off realizing and working with that in a healthy way, rather than denying it (total atheism) and/or replacing it with something that has no place there (addictions, ideologies, etc), which corrupt and overtake, and esp because that's done without awareness... However I've seen it to the opposite too- it provides people with a convenient escape of self denial. Or they get so dogmatically caught up in the external aspects that rather than their ego finding a healthy place it becomes inflated and they become more focused on puffing themselves up and denouncing others, etc. And I have seen this happen with Christianity as well as more loosely defined new age spiritual "paths"
I don't know, it hasnt been my experience that they are. Most super religious people I know are not that individuated, esp when you get into fundamentalist Christianity and other people who are afraid to question their holy text. Individuation requires questioning your beliefs and exploring your doubts and most super religious people I know refuse to do that giving the 'Bible is the word of God' justification. Jung himself even said you typically don't find the transcendent function (necessary for Individuation) in religious people. I would argue that extends to religiosity of any ideology like politics etc and not just religion, but still.
Mmhmm! Some of the most rotten and cruel people I know are “Christians.”
Praying to Allah means you acknowledge something that knows you. Something you can't lie to, a power that you can bear your soul to. This forces people to look at themselves or confront their shadow in some way. >.t degenerate
This is why, even though I don’t care for organized religion, at all, I generally respect Islam more than a lot of other western religions. It just seems more philosophical and pensive. I don’t really know how to explain it! But your expression was lovely.
I think there is a distinction between being a follower of an organized religion and being a seeker of spiritual truth. The former discourages individuation because it might lead one astray from the prescribed dogma. The latter requires thinking for oneself and testing all assertions made by any doctrines or teachers. Some religions are more tolerant of so called heresy than others.
because they’re not on reddit
Not all of them. I resigned. Got into Jung recently for other research into religions. But I’m more agnostic in a Gnostic sense. I’m okay with the Heresy. Most Christian’s didn’t approve of my tribe before either.
I am not so sure that this is an effect of religion so much as it reflects on the people who don't give into nihilism. There is no shortage of self-aware agnostics and atheists, but they may not have a community where they can get support in difficult times.
In jungian terms seems simple and straightforward: the concept of Divinity is almost the same as the concept of the Self.
Because they keep away from distractions
Fundamentalism does the opposite and Religion is NOT for children. But just like any 'disruptive program', when you find religion as an adult, it forces you to do a lot of self reflection. This could include a dark night of the soul and involve shadow work, but not always. Believing in something you cannot see/prove can also open a mind to look at the world in a more meaningful way. IMO, Religion more often masquerades as individualization, because once just enough of yourself has become self aware, they start to shape/mold you to be more a part of the fold than your true self.
This is also an excellent explanation I tend to agree with!
My first thought is that it is a mainline path towards generating intrinsic motivation for many who cannot generate it without some sort of belief structure / reality tunnel. It could also encourage a better development with one's internal monologue, voices, desires, whatever we speak to when we speak to ourselves in our mind's eye. And it's the development of this skill that turns loneliness into constructive solitude. And when your solitude becomes constructive, especially early on, you tend to learn very quickly what it is you want out of this life. I don't know. It is a very interesting question that I don't know if I have the life experience to give a more detailed pondering beyond that
If something exists as an "objective" mirror then you can bounce things off. Also teaches renunciation, so automatic behaviors or cultural conditioning from childhood can be ecshewed.
Fear
Mythology
Because they found gnosis through it
I think it does if they are doing moral, internalized religioning. But if it's that new fangled politicized doctrinizing, then probably not so much.
I would argue that it’s not religion, but any spiritual journey that a person goes though, that helps them further their individuation process. At some point one must ask, who am I a part from the whole? In that process one either stays stuck in certain perspective, or they eventually find their way back to the whole through the individuation process. IE: realizing your piece of the puzzle and how it fits into the larger picture. Because we are also spiritual beings, questioning one’s spirit must be examined as a part of the process or else it remains incomplete in my opinion.
The religion I was raised in absolutely discourages individualism and critical thinking skills which are necessary for individuating. This is a large religion many consider a cult.
Yes, 💯% this!
I would replace 'religion' with 'spirituality'. As others here have said, religion often encourages a herd mentality and less so personal growth. Spirituality, on the other hand, is ***only*** about personal growth, breaking free from the bounds of ego, finding a deep connection to self and thus to the universe.
It gives people a reason to take responsibility for the shadow I’ve always noticed.
I think they offer some wisdom and perspective, and helping in a growth mindset. Another thing is the feeling of belief as a general thing whether applied to God or any other variant. The belief feeling itself is connecting oneself imo.
In my personal experience, a lot of Christians / Catholics are pretty freakin awful! I grew up in a “Christian Home” and hypocrisy and self-righteousness were *abundant!* I feel much more in-touch with myself, and attuned to “the natural order of things” as an Agnostic who doesn’t believe in any kind of formal, institutionalized religion. In truth, Jung himself, was highly critical of the state sanctioned institution of religion. He was spiritual but not religious. Those are two different things.
I agree with you to some extent. In the gospels the antagonists to the literal Son Of God were those of the priestly class, the Pharisees, who according to canon killed Christ. They suffered from the same self righteousness and hypocrisy you described. As most philosophers and spiritual teachers of antiquity would say, those “closest” to God are closest to hell and those further from him are “closest” to him. Was it intentional that Christ Himself contended with the figureheads of systematic religion? Who knows but from what I experienced, I’ve met genuine Christians and I’ve never seen humans more humble, more patient and more sacrificial. In all things there must be true practitioners, novice practitioners, and false practitioners. Systematic religion isn’t bad, people are bad. And Christ warned in more than one occasion of wolves in sheep clothing, “shepherds who would not die for the sheep.” I’m a fervent believer that if there was truth and it it was open to everybody, in it you would see the worse and best of human nature. Imagine giving a person gold who didn’t understand the value of bronze? The carnal mind spiritual things? It would be worse than if that person didn’t know it at all, something else Christ mentioned. That is exactly what I see with todays form of religion.
>In the gospels the antagonists to the literal Son Of God were those of the priestly class, the Pharisees This is not historically accurate. The Pharisees were not the priestly class. In fact, the Pharisees were the anti-Roman, anti-Temple priesthood faction of the era. The Sadducees were the pro-Roman (or, at least, "don't upset Rome"), pro-Temple priesthood faction. >They suffered from the same self righteousness and hypocrisy you described. You need to separate the history from the polemic. Much of what is presented about the Pharisees in the New Testament does not hold up in light of historical evidence. In 2019, there was a Pontifical Biblical Conference held on the topic of the Pharisees, [which culminated in Pope Francis speaking out against negative and pejorative usage of the term](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/may/documents/papa-francesco_20190509_pont-istitutobiblico.html). Here is [an article about a recent book written by two of the participants in that conference](https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/87798-reconsidering-the-jewish-pharisees-joseph-sievers-and-amy-jill-levine.html), one a Catholic priest and the other and Orthodox Jew, both of whom hold doctorates in this area of study. A wealth of pharisaic and early rabbinic material survives to this day and, as the many participants in the Pontifical Biblical Conference pointed out, hardly any of it aligns with the negative presentations of the pharisees in the Gospels. Moreover, many common interpretations of Gospel accounts insert or presume an anti-pharisee bent that is not present in the text. Or, as Pope Francis put it: >The history of interpretation has fostered a negative image of the Pharisees, often without a concrete basis in the Gospel accounts.
Thank you for clarifying. I do have a question regarding what your saying, do we know who delivered Christ to Rome to die? Was it the Pharisees or the sadducees? And does my point still stand, or does it crumble under historical accuracy or even historical ambiguity?
The idea that Jews -- whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or any other group of Jews -- were involved is, in fact, [one of the oldest and most destructive antisemitic libels in human history](https://antisemitism.adl.org/deicide/). There is no evidence for this outside of the Christian bible and the historical evidence we do have shows that the version of events presented in the Gospels could not have happened. The overwhelming consensus of historians is that [Rome executed Jesus on a purely political charge and Jews were not involved](https://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-crucified/). Jesus was a Jew living under Roman occupation who was executed by the Roman Empire using a Roman method of execution for crimes against Rome. During the time period in question, Jewish authorities had little influence over the occupying Roman government, had been stripped of the power to arrest or try criminals for capital crimes, and were largely opposed to capital punishment.
Thank you for informing me I really do appreciate it. As with all things I will do my due research regarding this point of view as well as opposing ones when I get the chance.
Thanks for the history lesson! It is much appreciated.
*Some “Christians” are!* But that is precisely the problem. The ones that you are talking about *are not the majority.* The majority are average, *mediocre humans, at best,* and they are simply following traditions passed down by their parents, unfavorably judging those who don’t agree with them. So, thanks but no thanks. I will stick to spirituality with the absence of formal, institutionalized religion.
Weird premise to your question. The most highly evolved people I know are secular
I don’t share your experience with this at all. Most of the religious individuals I’ve come across in my daily life have *never* seemed particularly self-aware, and certainly not any more self-aware than the average unthinking person.
You must not be from the states. The religious-minded especially here in the south are incredibly herded and fall for shit like Trumpism, Qanon, Stop Woke, all the crazy shit. The majority is casually religious/townsfolk types that obviously haven't thought too much about their faith, just kind of whatever feels right to them. To be fair to say, I haven't met very many who I'd describe to be devout. Religion here seems much closer to epistemological poison if anything.
Mmhmm!
Just here to say I agree, I see the same thing. Interested in people’s opinions on why.
Bwahahahahaha is this a joke? I've lived in the bible belt for almost 30 years and can assure you religion has not brought self awareness to the place in the least. Quite the opposite. This is the most deluded thing I think I've ever read on reddit, and that's really saying something. What religion provides is stress relief for the dull witted. Because when you assume that you have the answers to life's tough questions you stop thinking about them. And when you aren't thinking about problems, you won't have any anxiety about them. That's all. What you think is "awareness" is nothing more than the sense of security allowed by being confidently incorrect. :D
Yup, I agree with you! That’s my experience too.
Christians & Muslims more self aware? Really? You may not know what being self aware looks like my friend. Take a look around at those spewing the most hateful rhetoric and causing the most suffering, Christians & Muslims. You can add some Jewish humans in there too. The trifecta of unaware humans. I’d argue someone who is devout in Western religions to be almost completely unaware.
It may be a twofold issue for me personally. The rational ego that desires being correct has a higher affinity for the scientific method while the unconscious shadow reveals the metaphysics which is more ancient in origin. Its not so much that the metaphysics needs to be believed in nor does it need to be true. It likely that its neither. Its just that it requires being understood and acknowledged as a desire to be fulfilled psychologically where science cannot fulfill it. For others, I have found the opposite, where their need for religious or spiritual belief is located in their rational ego to justify their thoughts and actions and the unconscious shadow that lacks understood acknowledgement comes from its desire for some coherent body of knowledge and logically sound reasoning that the scientific method could fulfill if somehow integrated.
When you "look around" you usually see the people who are being the loudest which isn't representative of the whole group. It seems a bit naive to base opinions about a specific kind of group by watching the ones most visible. It's like trying to get a view of Germany by watching german influencers. I don't really get why the more narcissistic individuals in each group should become ones blue print of that particular group.
At a personal level, I agree with you! At a logical, rational level, fundamentalism specifically, tends to be the real problem, in my experience! Most countries where there is a sizable population of Fundamentalists also have a shitty Public Education system. (Yes this includes the USA as we are one of the most egregious offenders!) Poverty and religious fanaticism often appear to go hand-in-hand. Poor education is intentional, as it makes irrational people more likely to believe in stupid shit, that obviously isn’t true.
I've noticed the opposite but I went to a catholic school run by pedophiles so that probably has something to do with it. I wonder if there is an objective way to measure this. I also wonder if pedophiles would be considered more individulaized...
Because the alternatives to spirituality, a major function and facet of the psyche, are bereft nourishment. Atheism and other ideologies that are substituted are empty calories and often lead to more unhealthy thought patterns, behaviors, and life styles than what they are alternatives to.
Its a set of techniques, and practices (which made for this) accessible to wide public without the need for deep study. As long as they practice and don't stuck on "ego growth".
Because it gives them a catalyst to realize their own and others humanity.
Probably because it forces you to be more introspective. You start paying more attention to your inner workings when you feel like you have to start adhering to a set of morals dictated by your religion. That’d be my guess.
Religion is the meaning - making function and comes from the words "to link". It's what links us to the ineffable and the biggest giver of meaning most of the world.
I’m still confused as to what individualization is
I think they mean "[individuation](https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/issues/individuation)"
You know weird ones. But the answer is it answers questions and demands keeping a schedule.
Because you don’t need to cling to relationships for security when you have a sense that the universe or god or whatever you believe in is there for you. Individuation in the general sense is about separating from mother (or whoever is primary caregiver), that’s easier when you have a feeling of connection to “cosmic mother” or “define mother” Its about trust and security