Introduced by: Grace Chan
Moderated by: Pia Wong
Grace began by suggesting four ways of defining religion: (1) as a primitive form of philosophy, intended to explain the unexplainable; (2) as faith in a higher being(s); (3) as an alternative to psychology to soothe our uncertainties regarding our own existence; and (4) as an inquiry into what lies beyond our physical/ mortal existence. Insofar as religion tends to encourage people to accept and follow, it is anti-philosophical. She then suggested four ways of defining sports: (1) as fitness exercises practised in order to maintain good physical and mental health; (2) as competition, a meaning that has its roots in the animal kingdom (e.g., competing for mating partners), where it is part of the evolutionary process that ensures the best genes will be passed on; (3) as a drive to surpass our physical limits, challenging us to reach the (previously) unreachable; and (4) as an alternative way of establishing cultural identity (cf. the stereotype of the Chinese being good at table tennis, Brazilians at soccer, etc.). Sports typically requires us to practise, challenge and believe. In this sense, it is like religion, in that it discourages our meditative nature, thereby tending to carry with it an anti-philosophical element. Moreover, when sport operates in its most extreme mode, it shares various similarities with religion: in both cases, people often try to reduce what they are doing to a science; both can involve elements of worship, even to the point of idolizing the most outstanding practitioners; people may be willing to die for both, or can lose their rationality in fanatical devotion; and both stand in danger of promoting international alienation instead of harmony. Grace concluded that "sport is a sociological form of religion", a "pagan derivative".
Helen opened the discussion by asking how we should understand people who practise neither religion nor sports. Tom responded by recommending a web site that relates sports to philosophy. He also noted that both can be forms of entertainment, both may involve religion in some way, and both can be phony.
Pia then suggested we focus first on whether sports is parallel to religion or an alternative to it. Tom said either could be the case. Rose observed that some people seem to treat sports as a religion. Barbara G. asked how the distinction between faith, religion, religious practise, and theology impinges on this whole issue. Grace replied that faith is based on a kind of experience that cannot and does not need to be proved, whereas sport is based on a kind of experience that is scientifically measurable. Whereas religion deals with fundamentals, sport does not. The latter, unlike the former, is therefore dispensable.
Edmund observed that in sports there is a winner and a loser, whereas religion tends to see people as equal. Grace disagreed, pointing out that Jesus chose certain people while leaving others unchosen, and that Islam regards men as more important than women. Tom clarified that religion gives a sense of equality only to those people who are insiders, sharing the same tradition; outsiders tend to be viewed as unequal.
Barbara G. asked what we can gain from comparing sports and religion, noting that many people participate in both with no apparent conflict. Pia questioned whether sports can ever actually replace religion, in the sense of fulfilling the higher purposes of being religious. Daniel replied that in Australia (as evidenced recently by the Olympics) it often does replace religion. This prompted Rose to ask: "What about people who just watch?" In such cases, sport has no physical value for the observer. Steve agreed, but asked whether spectators might gain a spiritual value that is even more relevant to the topic under consideration than is the physical value of participating in sports.
At this point, Simon claimed that sports is about self-interest, whereas religion is about self-sacrifice. But Edmund pointed out that in the relationships between team members, self-sacrifice does play an important role in sports. To say these two are mutually exclusive is a misnomer, opined Melissa. Barbara T. added that self-sacrifice is not an aspect of all religions. Religion is fundamentally about a person's relation to a higher power. Sports often emphasizes self-sacrifice more than religions do. Kwok agreed, saying that religion is more about self-development than about self-sacrifice.
Sunny then stated that participating in sports is good for physical and perhaps even psychological self-development, but religion is about spiritual self-development--something sports cannot help us with. Barbara T. disagreed, sharing about her son's spiritual experiences as a surfer. Surfing puts him in touch with his own spirituality, becoming for him a form of communion with nature and even with God. Julian noted that drugs can be viewed as producing a similar effect. "And so can philosophy!" quipped Margaret. "Can it?" Steve asked, reminding us that Grace's introduction distinguished philosophy rather sharply from both religion and sports. Jeff opined that anything can be made into a religion, adding "So what?" Kwok said to be religious is to want a good life. And Barbara added that religion does not necessarily negate thought, since it is closely related to theology.
Paul argued that the whole idea that religion and sports negate thought is problematic, because many people have devoted a great deal of deep thinking to both areas. The key to understanding their relationship, he continued, is to recognize that both can provide people with a sense of self-identity. Sports is the inevitable successor of religion in modern societies. But the difference between sports and religion is that nobody uses sports as a way of building a relationship with a supreme being. Upon questioning from Steve, Paul at first said his view implies that sports cannot be an alternative to religion. But Steve claimed that Paul's view actually leads to the opposite conclusion: people who do not believe in God will not want the metaphysical extras provided by religion; sports on its own would therefore suffice to fulfil whatever spiritual needs can be met without believing in God. Paul agreed, but added that unlike religion, no ethical system is involved in sports.
Barbara T. asked if we could be more specific about what kind of sports and what kind of religion we are talking about. Many sports are different from the competitive types typically seen on television, and many religions do not fit into the "catholic" stereotype but focus more on encouraging people to know how to live. Along these lines Julian distinguished between a moral code and a physical code. But Tom pointed out that sports also depends on rules.
Simon asked for examples of physical exercises with spiritual meaning, adding that he practises t'ai chi without regarding it as a religious discipline. Pia named yoga and Rose t'ai chi itself as examples. Kwok shared about his t'ai chi teacher, who has achieved what others recognize as a significant level of spiritual self-development even though he himself does not give such a metaphysical interpretation to the exercises he practises. Simon regarded this claim as deceptive, because such positive results could be due to nothing but the effects of physical relaxation. It might have to do with brain states rather than spirituality.
John expressed a negative answer to the evening's topic, defending it by saying religion is for those who think they know the meaning of life, whereas sports is just a pastime. Admitting that this is sometimes true for sports, Steve asked: "can it be more?" What if some people invest their participation in sports with a deep spiritual meaning, as Barbara T.'s son does? Is that possible? Barbara G. claimed it can be the case, but is not necessarily so. She cited old-style cricket as an example of a team sport that is not competitive in the usual sense.
Jeff asked us to focus more on the relation between the physical and the spiritual. Kwok responded by reaffirming his view that to be religious is to be constantly examining yourself, in the manner of Socrates or Plato. Daniel objected to this reference, on the grounds that these ancient Greek philosophers were actually reacting against the religion of their day. They would have regarded themselves as promoting philosophy, not religion. He offered a distinction between esoteric and exoteric religion, the former involving self-examination and being potentially consistent with a philosophical approach to life, the latter involving unquestioned belief and running counter to the spirit of philosophy. Kwok responded by pointing out that it is possible to have a spiritual experience through the practice of philosophy--a point Daniel regarded as debatable. Kwok clarified that he was referring to mystical experiences that can occur, for example, while sitting in a quiet place among the trees, reading a philosophical text.
Margaret reminded us that sports can be traced back to pagan religious ceremonies, where games were played in honor of the gods. She expressed interest in Grace's suggestion that sports goes back even further than that, to animal forms of competitive behavior. At this point, Pia suggested we take a break, reminding us to continue thinking about whether or not religion can be an alternative to sports.
After the break Grace commented that Barbara T.'s example of her son's approach to surfing confirms that sports can be a way to experience religion. However, this is a highly individualized view of religion. What most of us think of when we refer to religion is organized religion. "Can sports be an alternative in this sense too?" she asked. Steve mentioned that he knows of a Christian organization that uses sports as a means of evangelism. Edmund opined that in this case sports is merely being used as a tactic to make people religious, not as an alternative to religion. Pia responded that she knows of a group in Notre Dame that uses sports to build moral character, and that in this case it is coming closer to being a genuine alternative.
Pia then asked whether sports is capable of instilling meaningful values, as religion is intended to do. Kwok suggested "never give up" as a possible case in point. Daniel claimed that modern sports is becoming increasingly corrupt. Rose added that the tendency of so many athletes these days to take performance-enhancing drugs is evidence that competition is become more important than sport. But John warned that we should not become distracted by cases of cheating.
Margaret referred back to Steve's example of sports evangelism and interpreted the attractiveness of this tactic as being due to the tribal roots of both religion and sports. Julian then remarked that Maslow places the sense of belonging halfway up his hierarchy of needs. Self-actualization is at the top. Most people initially join religious groups in order to meet the lower, sense-of-belonging need; sports can be an effective alternative to religion at this level. But when it comes to the highest expressions of religion, as promoting a person's self-actualization, sports can no longer be an effective alternative. Pia reminded us again of the apparent counter-example of the latter point provided by Barbara's surfing son. Julian responded that in order for a sport to fulfill the higher function, the person needs to believe in God, which means that the sport is becoming a form of religion. Steve emphasized that this is different from being an alternative. Whereas sports can be a genuine alternative to religion at the level of "sense of belonging", they merge at the level of "self-actualization". Julian agreed, pointing out that participants in both sports and religious groups can experience the numinous. And Ken added that a sense of union with God comes at the highest level of almost any human activity, such as music. So this insight is not limited to sports.
Daniel stressed that such experiences can also be explained in either psychological or biological terms. The experiences as such do not make him skeptical, but he is skeptical about the interpretations some people give them. Often such experiences are actually brought about by the prior influence of a person's theoretical convictions. But in other cases the theories do genuinely arise out of the experiences. Along these lines Simon observed that in sports the sense of euphoria arises out of a real achievement, whereas a religious experience is not achieved in the same manner. But Pia objected to this suggestion on the grounds that sports and religion do share the same tools: both involve bodily activity, thinking, etc. And Barbara T. reaffirmed that sports is not always about competition. Ken mused that God may be experienced while riding a wave just as much as while attending a church. Simon confessed that, as an atheist, he does not regard self-actualization as a genuinely higher level of development: there is no "lower self" and "higher self"; it's just that we feel good some days and bad other days.
Kwok agreed with Daniel's emphasis on interpretation, but insisted that religious experience and dogma be carefully distinguished. Both religion and sports can give us liberating experiences, but we must remember that when we begin to form theories to explain such experiences, we are using metaphors. Along these lines, Steve pointed out that religious/theological metaphors are often taken from sports, as when a person's spiritual journey is described in terms of climbing a mountain or running a race.
Steve further observed that an important distinction has emerged between sports as a competitive activity and sports as an activity for self-development. Tom added that a very similar distinction applies to religion: proselytizing versus self-development. Kwok stated that for a person devoted to sports, the sport is a religion; it's not a substitute. He claimed that it comes down to a personal choice for each individual. To this Simon responded by reminding us of the fact that many people participate in both. Realizing that we were beginning to repeat ourselves, Pia concluded the discussion.
+++
Steve announced that the next meeting would be held on 7 November and would be introduced by Lene, on a topic relating to nature. The following topics were suggested for future meetings:
- Guilt: ethical relativism and absolute moral standards
- The meaning of Christmas
- How far is Hong Kong from being an ideal State?
- Can it ever be right to take a life in order to save a life?
- How do you cope with moral dilemmas?
- The pleasures of the unexamined life
- The nature of friendship
- The possibility of altruism or Can an act ever be altruistic?
No decisions were made for the December meeting. But Steve encouraged everyone to consider volunteering to introduce one of these (or other) topics.
This page was placed on this web site on 11 February 2001.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.