Nirvana is...an absolute state of omni-absency, total absolute nothingness.

Nirvana is an endless dreamless sleep. — GraveItty

Please expand upon this. Is this describing a diminishment of consciousness (I do not think so), or, perhaps, a full or expanded consciousness accompanied by some type of "absolute emptiness"? I cannot fathom what is meant by this.

I think it's possible that when we die our consciousness enters another body and we can call this reincarnation or the ressurection of the body (if we get the same body back). — Gregory

Why so? Particularly in light of the fact that,

...it seems we are bodies and brains so we seem to die on our death beds for good... — Gregory

What do you mean "significant" when you say significant portion? — god must be atheist

See sense 4 under the English entry below:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/significant

I put to you dear M. Zwingli, that you make up your own data. Is that true, or not? — god must be atheist

Hey man, I don't remember even trying to offer "data", so how can my "data" be "made up"? How fatuous a consideration is this? Citations of data? What do you expect, me to do research, count numbers, and render stats? Man, get the fuck outta here. What I offer herein, is my opinion based upon general observation only. What am I writing, a thesis paper? Get real...this is a pastime for me, nothing more, and my posts are made on work breaks, in between book chapters, and at other such opportune moments. How much you payin' me to produce data sets and find pertinent citations? This whole enterprise amounts to no more than conversation between guys who, if they had anything better to do, wouldn't be fucking around on here...and yeah, that includes me as well. PF is essentially one big "shoutbox" for reasonably inteligent guys to talk about their opinions...one big, extended tertulia. Truth? The Philosophy Forum is, for most, a leisure activity, and an opportunity to converse with other reasonably intelligent people about something other than...I don't know...Kim Kardashian, or whatever else fascinates the moronic general populace. As a result, this should be made enjoyable, not contentious. Me? I'm here for intelligent banter, not to do work...

Regarding the subject matter, no you're right...the U.S.economy is simply an economic pseudo-aristocracy run by an economic elite who all come from a long line of men born with silver spoons in their mouths. Happy? But then, how the fuck do you explain a guy like Ray Dalio, who grew up the son of a nightclub musician, and whose annual compensation now dwarfs that of any corporate "CEO" that you could cite (including those in Canadian commercial banks)? How do you explain Ken Langone, whose father was a plumber, or John Henry, whose parents were soybean farmers, and who now is wealthy enough to own the Red Sox franchise? I can cite examples, but if you want statistics, you're gonna have to go somewhere else.

Sorry for the vehement tone, man, but you "got my back up". Since I kinda feel like a 'loser' in life, I can be touchy when it comes to even minor insults, especially those of an inane nature, and I suppose my own "emotional competence" could use some work. Instead of waiting for data sets from me, why don't you just go ahead and tell me how it is, then, and render your own obviously handy data sets and citations? What are your own opinions about corporate officers, and about the relationship of so-called "emotional intelligence" to the attainment of such a position? I'd rather read that than petty insults of myself. Just do me a favor. Next time I express an opinion on here, please don't ask me for data or statistics, nor insinuate that I have concocted non-existent, imaginary data. Just give me your opinion in return, and if you're interested, feel free to ask me why I believe thusly.

Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country? — Wheatley

Of course it is, in more than one sense. The very genesis of the nation was in imperialism, for what else is colonialism within an occupied country? It's not like the European colonial powers came upon deserted lands and decided to establish colonies, right? The need for displacement was obvious ab initio. Then, within a newly independent U.S., within which many (most) citizens simply thought to maintain the original 13 colonies as a nation (or as a group of nation's, depending on individual perspective), old Tom Jefferson, he of the "equality of all (white) men" (massive hypocrite, was he), showed himself to be the most significant imperialist of American history, wanting to buy this and that territory from European colonial powers (he wanted to buy Cuba from Spain as well...thought it 'essential', and dreamed that the U.S. would stretch southward to the Tierra del Fuego!). Later, the "westward expansion" of an independent U.S. is filled with horrific stories of mass displacement and land appropriation, the general attitude seeming to have been: "those (so-called) 'Indians'? Fuck them..." It was a march across the continent in fulfillment of a geographically and idealistically based notion of "manifest destiny", with military power as the sole determinative.

Today, now that we've become fat and happy at the expense of all kinds of other cultures, we want just to forget all that, as if it was a bad dream, and to immerse ourselves in newfound 'liberally democratic' self-righteousness. Now, as such, we have become, rather, culturally imperialistic, seeming to feel that all other cultures should...must become as "liberally democratic" as we are ourselves, and should adopt and share our own worldview. Is this not what is meant by "making the world safe for democracy"? Who will make the world safe from democracy, along with all the other American notions of "good government"? In this, there seems to be no acceptance of the notion that other cultures might have worldviews and ideologies different from our own. Whence do you think the massive general outcry in America over the recent 'Kashogji' affair in Turkey? Why do you think we spent 20 years in Afghanistan, having meted out the initial justifiable punishment upon the Taliban which was the pretext for our entrance there? American leadership appears ultimately to have wanted that country to become a nice, democratic, little mirror of America, but wearing 'Shalwar and Khamiz', as we think every culture should become. But, what if Afghanis don't want their several thousand year old culture (even as bastardized as it has been by Islam) to change just so they can go cast a goddamned vote every couple of years? You want to know what democracy would do to Afghani culture? "Poof", the end of their tribes, clans, and everything else that has ordered their world, and determined their very identities, for thousands of years. My point? Not every place can or should look, or be, like America. We Americans simply cannot accept that other cultures differ substantially, especially in notions of law, 'freedom', government, propriety, ontology, and identity, from our own, and many think that the entire world must become like us. This is the very definition of cultural imperialism.

My question: looking throughout history, what single aspect of the American ethos does not display an inherent imperialism? Not that I'm complaining about my own situation...I fuckin' love my fat, happy American life, for the most part. Well, that's not exactly true...I don't love my own life in particular, but I definitely do love the fact that there exists a constant opportunity for my own self-betterment, apparently waiting for me to seize it.

I think the whiff of it was, that in publicly held companies, the CEOs did not have to have had old money. Well, in your milieu that was true, and my personal (PERSONAL) experiences that was not true. — god must be atheist

If you take, say, the "class" of corporate officers as a whole, you will certainly find an outsized percentage who come from privileged backgrounds. This only makes sense, more resources allow for greater educational and other opportunities. I think, however, that if you looked at the Fortune 500, you might find a significant proportion of CEO's come from rather modest backgrounds, and that "emotional competence" is an important part of their toolkit. But, this is saying nothing about "high finance" (by which I mean equity investing, asset management, and the like) per se, wherein background offers no guarantee of success, unless within a private concern, like Fidelity, for instance. Privilege helps with education, and often in "getting one's foot in the door", but it appears to me that after that, other drives and competencies tend to assume a greater role in advancement.

P.S., is the moderation on this site not wonderful, giving plentiful leeway for such enjoyably tangential conversation?

over the field where I walked hang a low blanket of autumn mist. Above it, the head of our dog was better to see than her body. Once in a while she playfully jumped out of the blanket, her full self appearing dark white and blue beneath the extraordinary brightly shining moon. The trees, from which drops and nuts fell sometimes, stood tall and black and frozen, without motion. The silence was screaming, besides the puffs of condensed breath coming from our mouth. — GraveItty

Very nice, indeed. Thank you for sharing an intimate experience in such an erudite manner.

makes your contributions all the more valuable. Philosophy is diminished without a foundation of precise knowledge. There was another fellow on here, called himself "Prishon", who I think might have been a physicist. He often included opinions in posts which would seem to make that apparent. Unfortunately, he has left the site because of certain...issues.

The real material we are talking here consists of the immaterial content of matter and the potentiality of the mediating fields, which contains no charge (though in the color charge domain, the mediating potential, the gluons can itself contain charge, so mental and matter are one at the base level of physics), as photons are charge neutral, not possessing it. — GraveItty

Now, my lack of a college education (I suppose) is coming into play. Indeed, "...photons are charge neutral, not possessing it" is the only of your statements which I know and understand.

Em, sorry to be arguing Physics with a physicist, BTW...kinda like arguing slapstick comedy with this guy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curly_Howard
I can hear myself now: "Look, Jerry, all the 'nyuk nyuk nyuk' stuff is just never gonna fly..."

Don't laugh! I'm serious... — GraveItty

I only laugh because you may have just exceeded my understanding of Physics, is all. Even so, I still maintain that ["physical" = "material"] ≠ "real". There exist real things which are immaterial, and which are material to our discussion for their being real. :grin:

It is true that science and logic cannot disprove God, but, on the other hand, science and logic cannot prove God's existence. — Jack Cummins

Yes, um...well said.

I would argue that both science and logic can and do ‘prove’ gods existence. — Robbie84

In a sense...the consideration of "God" both scientifically and logically proves the existence of God as an idea, but no more...certainly not of God as a real entity.

Real particles have a fixed energy momentum relation, as in classical mechanics Virtual particles lack this property. Giving rise to the strangeness of QM. In a sense all particles are virtual, hence real. — GraveItty

Haha, this may be above my pay grade.

Though virtual, very real...don't confuse virtual with non-real... — GraveItty

Um... Virtual - (1) In effect or essence, if not in fact or reality; imitated, simulated; (2) Having the power of acting or of invisible efficacy without the agency of the material or measurable part; potential.

Is "real" synonymous with "physical"? More to the point, is "physical" not synonymous with "material"?

As for a photon, it is a quantum of electromagnetic energy which may be, and is useful to physicists when considered as a particle, but is in actuality not a particle of matter. A photon has no "rest mass". You could not hold a bottle full of photons, because photons would not be contained by the bottle, and in fact, there are no actual things called photons to be contained by the bottle. A photon is but a measure of energy. In this, holding a "bottle of photons" would be akin to holding a "bottle of inches".

Quid sapere debeam, in re eius causae? — Michael Zwingli

Aahm..."What is it that I should know concerning this matter?"

Matter — GraveItty

Extstent and physical, agreed.

force, and energy — GraveItty

Existent, but surely not physical. Hold out a piece of force for me to examine... These thing appear able to influence physical objects, while not being physical themselves. I think that we are using "physical" in differing senses: you as meaning "pertinent to the study of (mechanical) physics", and I as meaning "materially objective" (or perhaps "objectively material"?).

Sapere aude! — TheMadFool

Quid sapere debeam, in re eius causae?

I'm not buying. — TheMadFool

Pray tell. At your leisure, of course (it is quite early where I am...dealing with a bit of insomnia).

Imagine all this taking place in a live discussion! :gasp: — Alkis Piskas

:gasp: is right!

Just keeping it real. :wink: — Banno

Heheh, but it is really false to consider that the instantaneous existence any paticular objective quality is dependent upon a subjective qualia. We must assume that in the absence of some natural change, the physical qualities which have the capacity of producing particular subjective experience as we regard them, continue to exist after we have ceased to regard them. To consider any differently is to consider the universe as being irrational. I agree it's fun to play the devil's advocate, though. The foregoing, of course, does not pertain to the consideration of the existence of God, though, since that involves neither subjective qualia, nor objective quality, but rather appears to involve imagination only.

For science, the nonphysical = nonexistence. — TheMadFool

This premise is false. Physics deals with force and energy as well as matter, and these are non-physical, yet assumed by physicists to exist. Your statement would pertain truly to the "life sciences", though, but only if taken in isolation (meaning, I'm sure that Biologists and Chemists believe that force and energy exist, even though considerations thereof do not generally pertain to their work).

Do you expect a monkey to come out of your computer right now? You don't because the world is understood by you to be rational — Gregory

Are you suggesting that the only way for any object in the universe to appear rational is for it to have been "created with purpose", or for any occurrence in the universe to appear rational is for it to be purposeful?

than you yourself would no longer make sense — Gregory

Hahaha, I think I've made less and less sense as time has gone by...

The point of the PoSR is that truth, when realized, is in accord with reality. — Gregory

Though I agree that reality is the essence of truth, I don't see that as having much to do with the PoSR. The PoSR simply states that every aspect of the natural universe must have a cause underlying it's existence. I agree. The universe is composed of energy and matter, which are mutually interchangeable. Before our universe existed (disregarding that there may be other "universes" distant from ours), all was pure energy. For this energy to have existed, there must have been some happenstance or situation which caused it to exist. This, however, is in no way determinative of the existence of deity. In order for the fact of the original energy from whence our universe to show a deity, that energy must be shown to have been purposeful, rather than arbitrary, which it has not displayed.

The world makes sense to me but if you are to say that world doesn't make sense and you are only matter, than you yourself would no longer make sense. — Gregory

I'm not sure what we're talking about in this sentence. "Making sense" is an entirely subjective perception.

That's a disconnection from God and truth — Gregory

? Please elaborate.

What would a purposeless thing look like? — Gregory

Like our universe, which has no purpose, but rather just happened.

Many people do not. You hear people speaking of "my truth" or "it's true to me" all the time. — Manuel

A perfect example of this is the absurd and embarrassing Catholic phenomenon (I was raised Catholic, and was always embarrassed by this) of the various "apparitions of Mary" (you know...Our Lady of this, Our Lady of that). People fallaciously accepting the (drug induced? faith induced? is there a difference?) subjective experience of one or two individuals as proof that "Mary the mother of God" is visiting her blessings upon the world. At least to it's credit, the Vatican has been wise enough never to overtly endorse these absurdities.

everything has a cause — Gregory

But, that is not to say that every phenomenon is purposeful, just that it is caused.

all have had profound experiences that reveal such truths to them. — Manuel

Subjective experiences are not evidential, not admissible in the Court of Mikey as evidence; the only evidence which is admissible is objective in nature, and perceptible by those other than the claimant. If an objectively perceptible proof is manifested that any God exists, then that proof must be phenomenologically physical by definition, meaning that the phenomenon cited as proof must obey the laws of physics (that is, by the laws of mechanics) and be measurable by instrumentation, and so natural, which would then render this hypothetical God a natural being...something which exists in the realm of nature. (Now, how's that for some stream of consciousness shit?)

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Scientific investigation cannot do so because the question of deity lies outside of if scope of inquiry. Science deals with the natural universe, and claims of the existence of deity are, by their very nature, supernatural claims.

Logic cannot positively disprove claims regarding deity, but it can provide a rational basis for not believing therein. The rationale for this was stated most succinctly, as far as I know, by Bertrand Russell. I paraphrase: "the acceptance of supernatural claims requires supernatural proofs". This means, of course, that in the absence of a supernatural manifestation giving proof of the existence of God, it is irrational to believe in such an existence, and the claim should be met with a "provisional skepticism", which does not categorically deny the existence of deity, and yet refuses to accept it.

My beef with EQ is that it is 1. a misnomer, and 2. due to not being quantifiable. — god must be atheist

But, as I have already noted,

...there is no academically recognized thing called "EQ"... — Michael Zwingli

...but there are tests which purport to measure what I would call "emotional competence", which the OP has described above.

you for replying at the place of the poster, TheQuestion to whom I addressed my question and who is responsible to clear up this issue and who, BTW, has never done that, as I realized after looking at all the posts in this thread. (You could at least save me some time and refer me to the appropriate post ...) — Alkis Piskas

Alkis, I think the poster might have been referring to my post above, wherein I noted:

...discussions involving so-called "emotional intelligence" are centered around what helps people "succeed" within the business environment...what facilitates the climb of the "corporate ladder"... — Michael Zwingli

In this, most popular depictions of "emotional intelligence" occur within the context of the ever vibrant "business improvement"/"business advice" industry.
He, @god must be atheist, must have mistaken me for "the Question", who must certainly, undoubtedly, be a smashing looking fellow...:wink:

Old money. Neither EQ nor IQ. If you are not totally dumb, but own assets over ten million dollars, you are guaranteed to be a CEO and such-like. — god must be atheist

I won't bother to go into lengthy explanations, but at least in the "high finance" sector: investment banking, private equity, hedge funds, etc., this is quite untrue. That is, it seems to be the usual "outsider's perspective" containing no more than a grain of truth, being either a common "outsider's" misconception, or the remonstration of "sour grapes". In this industry, because of the rigors and expectations foisted upon junior employees, most of the "connection" and nepotism hires have all "washed out" by year five, and those who endure are those who are (1) hyper-competitive and "driven" by nature, and (2) good at building relationships (which is where "emotional intelligence" plays a role).Things may be more as you describe in less competitive corporate environments, though I suspect not by too much. Certainly, however, this does not apply to privately owned companies.

If the question is why should we put a premium on IQ when it is EQ that better defines success, the question comes down to what success means. — Hanover

Usually, discussions involving so-called "emotional intelligence" are centered around what helps people "succeed" within the business environment...what facilitates the climb of the "corporate ladder". In the business world, wherein the selective cultivation of relationships and the manipulation of people within a (working) group dynamic are key skills, emotional competency assumes a higher than usual value. The business world is a brutal one, and the ability to control one's own emotions as well as discern snd massage those of others gives a person an advantage within that particular environment. Academics usually complain about their lot: publishing important papers in the quest for tenure, and all that. But, I'll take the ivory tower over the business office any day.

...I think the rich countries are simply going to have to open their borders for displaced persons and use their wealth to accommodate them. — tim wood

Just out of curiosity, Tim, in what way do you view the issue of dp's as an adjunct to climate remediation? Is this simply the type of "pork" (to use a legislative term for lack of a better) that gets amended to any negotiation? It would seem to me that bringing relatively poor people into a societal situation within which they can become as strongly carbon-positive polluters as the rest of us "first worlders" might be antithetical to climate remediation. In short (and I know it sounds terrible): from an environmental perspective, the world's poor seem less haful where they are, where their relative lack of resources limits the environmental harm that they can do. Not that I don't feel badly about poverty and war...(fer chrissake, I am one of the poor, and here in America, to boot!)

Every emotion is accompanied by the same neuronal functioning as a thought process. In emotion, the body is involved more than in thought...No extra biochemical reactions involved in the brain... — GraveItty

Thought and emotion are highly interdependent, with the perception of external stimuli producing both thoughts and emotions, and the experience a given emotion causing the localized release of either exitatory or inhibatory neurotransmitters which either facilitate or depress thought production in certain areas of the brain, effecting the types of thoughts we have in general. In this way, emotions have a greater influence upon rational thought than the obverse.

Sure. I've known a few CEO's, most of them were not much good at their job and got there because they were more ruthless than the others. — Tom Storm

For them, even more important than "ruthlessness", is the very ability to discern one's own emotions, as well as those of others, and to determine the effect that they will have upon individual decision-making and upon "group dynamics". Then, said "ruthlessness", which in actuality involves the ability to manipulate one's own decisions and those of others, given the percieved emotions involved. A good example of this has been stated above:

When to be mean? Is a good example of it. — Varde

Just so.

Great thread topic! The influence upon the person, of the affective dimension of the mind is a subject of great interest to myself. This is quite a psychological subject...if only there were a few psychiatrists on the site who might contribute...

Check out Descartes' Error by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio — 180 Proof

Thanks for that, I certainly will.

I thought EQ (although initially based on an old psychology paper) was essentially the creation of a journalist and part of the self-help world. I wonder it the term is almost meaningless and is generally used to separate people on the spectrum or narcissists from the supposedly neurotypicals. — Tom Storm

First of all, there is no academically recognized thing called "EQ", which, I assume, would ostensibly refer to a measurable and testable "Emotional Quotient" (in actuality, the model of testing for "IQ", and the very understanding of what constitutes "intelligence" as well as the competency of the current model of standardized testing in general, have been called into question by the work of folks like Howard Gardner, with his theorization about "multiple intelligences"). What has become a field of study in psychology since the work of John Mayer and Peter Salovey, is the study of "emotional intelligence", which refers to relative individual ability to recognize and manage (not necessarily "control") the brain's affective output in positive, productive ways. Mayer and Salovey did, indeed, develop a test designed to measure such competency, the MSCEIT, but the results thereof do not constitute any type of recognized "EQ". The "journalist" you mention is one Goleman, who in his book of the 1990's Emotional Intelligence, popularized the work of Mayer-Salovey and others into this emerging field of psychology.

It seems to me, it is more useful to know how to navigate the emotional spectrum than understanding the purpose of thought.
— TheQuestion

You assume a separation of these two. In reality they are connected. — GraveItty

Better than saying "they are connected", is to say that "they work in concert to produce decision-making". Both reason (rational thought) and emotion are produced by the brain (rational thoughts are more bio-electrical in origin, and emotions more biochemical, but these are generalizations). These clearly work together in individual decision making. Who had not had the experience of knowing the "wise" thing to do, and yet doing the opposite, anyways? Surely, we can all relate to the guy who says to himself, "man, any relationship that I have with that 'b!£¢h' is going to turn into a 'shit show'", yet pursues the relationship anyways because the object woman is "prime", meaning that she has the type of good looks which will raise a fella's social capital if he is seen as "having her". Such a decision is based solely upon attainment of an emotional objective. The point is, that rational thoughts, both by themselves and especially as they factor into decisionmaking, are filtered through the complex of emotion, the highly individualized product of the affective mind, before they reach the level of our conscious thought. The human faculty which has become known as "emotional intelligence" (probably not the best of terms...perhaps 'emotional competence' might be better?) is the ability of an individual to readily discern and manage the influence that the particular emotional product of his individual brain has upon his rational decisionmaking, so mitigating the effect that emotional response might have upon his decisions. This has a profound effect in "real life". Your average CEO is usually not the "smartest" guy in the company...he's the guy who is most competent at doing just this.

If a belief system is ‘delusional’ , an existential ‘falsehood’, that implies a correct truth, and the scientistic way of thinking puts scientific method in the privileged role among all the cultural disciplines of arbiter of truth as ‘correctness’. Belief systems, including scientific theories , arent true or false in realism to some fixed standard, they’re useful in relaton to our aims. — Joshs

Yes, so true, and this is why I would never slip into the "antitheist" category of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, and others. I do not take the position that anything which has been demonstrated by science disproves the existence of deity in the least. Even so, from a rational, logically positivist perspective, the assertion that "there exists an omni-present/scient/potent God which has caused all things to be, and which may or may not assume a role in human affairs" must not be afforded any semblance of belief in the absence of evidence, either perceptible or verifiably historical, showing this to be true. To do so would seem to expose the individual to various types of danger, primarily psychological, but also financial and perhaps resultantly physical.

Etymology: dyeu- Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to shine."

Make washing the dishes shine, babe! :halo: — praxis

Haha...very well, I surrender.

Curiously, you seem to point out that we’re surrounded in daily rituals and that any one of them could elevated to divine status. That sounds like an expression of spirituality to me, or ‘spiritual but not necessarily religious’. — praxis

I would not use the term "divine status", and even if I believed in the concept of divinity, I cannot understand how an "elevation to divine status" might apply to a ritual. To me, ritual has a profound emotional, which is to say "psychological" benefit, but not believing in any incorporeal aspect of the human, I categorically deny any "spiritual" benefit therefrom.

Also curious that you put so much weight on ritual, like saying that a cake has everything to do with eggs and the rest of the ingredients aren’t of much importance — praxis

Well, in my own estimation, ritual and community are indeed the only truly beneficial aspects of our modern theistic religions, the rest amounting, to echo Dawkins, simply to the reinforcement of delusion. Indeed, I think that certain elements of what are viewed as "pagan" belief systems contain more truth in this regard. There may be a benefit to the moral teachings of our religions, but since the morals taught are predicated upon existential falsehood, I feel that morality is better taught within another context, such as that provided by philosophy. In order to exemplify the psychological benefits of ritual, I would indicate the phenomenon of the "city hall", "courthouse", or "justice of the peace" wedding. Not that I am particularly enamored of American wedding traditions (if I never dance the 'hokey-pokey' again, it will be too soon!), but a buddy of mine got married at City Hall, and afterwards, all I could think was, "doddamn, that sucked..." Ritual, meaningful ritual, adds a huge amount of value to the milestones of human life.

I come from a Catholic background, and I do still go to church with a friend at times. However, I feel that going to church is extremely stressful, especially the rituals. — Jack Cummins

Ah, I enjoy the ritual...it is the very reason I attend. I like it for it's particular beauty, and for it's familiarity. Of course, I don't recite the creed or many of the recited prayers, rather keeping mum with my eyes downcast (I sit at the back), and I don't take communion out of respect for the obvious position of the Church regarding that.

I approach the questions about God with mixed thoughts. — Jack Cummins

I as well.

Philosophy and religion have combined origins, as expressed in the history of Western philosophy.
— Jack Cummins

I disagree. Western religion has its origins in old Greece, a country more philosophical than others — GraveItty

I think that it behooves us to avoid thinking of religion in terms of belief...of belief systems. Even though it is eminently true that:

religion does not explain anything, only pacifies existential anxieties with self-serving, tribe-centric, ritualized myths and cautionary fairytales — 180 Proof

...meaning that while (at least our monotheistic "western") religions seek to instill certain beliefs and belief systems ("creeds"), they are not at all concerned with "correct belief", belief that is reflective of objective truth. This, however, is only characteristic of "religions", meaning of "religion" in particular senses; it is not in my view the defining characteristic of "religion" in the general sense. The defining characteristic of "religion" in general, I take to be ritual observance. This thing, this ritual observance, is noted alongside "belief"/"credo" in all of our aforementioned monotheistic religions, wherein it serves an "edifying" role by both reinforcing credal belief and strengthening the "community of belief". Another term for such "credal belief" is, in fact, "faith", and another term for "community of belief"/"faith community"are "church" and "ummah". In this is the very motive of our particular contemporary "religions": the building of a "community of faith" (that is, of "a community based upon incorrect belief unsupported by evidence"). If you strip the ritual practice out of contemporary religion, and leave only the credal belief, then I think what results is "cultism". Though it has come to play such a supportive role within "religion" as a particular term, I believe ritual observance to be the defining characteristic of "religion" in general, and the strengthening of community which results therefrom, particularly without any strengthening of particular belief, I believe to be the motive behind religion in general (without the context of the particular "religions" that have developed and are familiar to us)
.
I myself am a exemplar of what I mean. Though now an atheist (but not an antitheist!), I indulge myself by attending Catholic mass with what I would characterize as"infrequent regularity". The Mass, of course, is a highly ritualistic undertaking, and quite a beautiful one. Even though this ritual has lost much of it's meaning for me as my personal beliefs have changed, I like to attend to indulge my inner need for familiar ritual. The observance of familiar ritual seems to have an upholding, almost curative effect totally independent of belief. In short, since I no longer believe in the concept of the human "soul" or "spirit", I typically refer to myself, in an inversion of the (moronic, in my view) popular apophthegm, as being "religious but not spiritual". My point in so doing is to highlight that "religion" has everything to do with ritual observance, and very little, if anything, to do with belief. For quite a long time, for years, after leaving the Army, I did my own formulation of "P.T." every morning. This was in fact a "religious exercise" for me, which has as much psychological benefit for me as physical. We do well to acknowledge the beneficial effects of ritual in human life, and to recognize that this is what is properly referred to by the term "religion".

Alternatively, "philosophy" has a great deal to do with beliefs, especially as they are systematized into belief systems. Correct understanding leading to correct belief seems to myself to be the very purpose of and motive behind philosophy. In this, the motivum behind philosophy differs from that of both "religions" in the particular sense familiar to us (the building of a "community of faith" (that is, of "a community based upon incorrect belief unsupported by evidence"), and "religion" in the general sense ("ritual observance determined for the definition and edification of community apart from considerations of 'faith' "). I think that what the OP is questioning within this thread, is whether the motive of philosophy would allow it to replace or be incorporated into either our particular "religions", replacing the role currently played by "faith" in the absurd, or into "religion" in general, given the differing motives underlying them.