Does the term "religion" refer to nothing? — Banno

It means different things in different contexts.

"Religion" means something different to modern Western secular culturologists than it does to a pious Roman Catholic, for example.

And back to Humpty Dumpty:

Words simply don't have essences, and their meaning is based upon usage and context. — Hanover

But when we actually use a word, we assume, take for granted it has an essence. When we use words, we don't think of them as some kind of amoebic, shapeless, shape-shifting entities that can mean anything and perhaps even nothing.

We can substitute cups for religion in this debate is my point, which would be an easy way to avoid the loaded topic of religion. — Hanover

On the contrary, it's instructive to look into the processes of the meaning of words precisely when it comes to "loaded topics" like religion.

But when we actually use a word, we assume, take for granted it has an essence. — baker

Maybe, I don't know what incorrect assumptions people make, but why is it relevant that we evaluate our incorrect knee jerk reactions?

the contrary, it's instructive to look into the processes of the meaning of words precisely when it comes to "loaded topics" like religion. — baker

Of course. But just like cups neither have essences, which was my point.

The issue is how can we or how do we consider a certain moral standard or moral judgment relevant, binding, as something that is more than mere opinion. — baker

It's always opinion, even when it is theistic. That's the point. It's always going to be an interpretation of what someone thinks a god wants or what someone thinks is best for humans. No way out of that.

I think something that is missed in its absence is any reason for 'being good'. After all, if life is the outcome of chance, and humans no more than physical, then there's no greater purpose to be served other than possibly warm feelings of self-justification. — Wayfarer

Indeed.

For virtue to be "its own reward", being virtuous has to be about more than just the gratification of one's ego; instead, it has to have real-world consequences that are advantageous for the person acting virtuously. Otherwise, virtue becomes something vestigial, expendable.

In some religions, being virtuous serves the purpose of purification (mental and bodily), and purification is done for the purpose of attaining goals that would otherwise not be attainable.

And even in entirely worldly settings, morality is implicitly conceived as serving a purpose. For example, a student needs to behave virtuously in order to complete his studies. If he focuses (too much) on drinking and partying, he won't be able to concentrate to study, won't have the time to do complete his academic assignments, and so on.


- - -

The notion that one needs a reason for being good is... problematic. As if one needed a reason to do what one ought do...
/.../
So, what is it that one receives from being a part of a ritualistic community that is necessary, or needed, to make one a good person? — Banno

By being part of a _religious_ community, one has a context in which certain actions seem meaningful and worthwhile even when they are hard to do or don't have immediately visible positive outcomes.

There are other communities membership in which gives one such context, but a religious community ideally provides a broader metaphysical framework than other communities can.

It's always opinion, even when it is theistic. That's the point. It's always going to be an interpretation of what someone thinks a god wants or what someone thinks is best for humans. No way out of that. — Tom Storm

When you put it like that, all hope is lost, of course.

No, but one needs to posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard one's moral judgments as relevant. — baker

Is your claim that only people who posit an absolute moral authority have any say on issues of morality? Those who do posit an absolute moral authority do not always hold the same opinion as to whether a particular act is moral. Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.

What you say of the word "religion" is not unique to the word "religion," but is a universal limitation of word definition. The term "religion" includes a number of examples, all of which are clearly designated among speakers for what they are, for example: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hare Krishna, Janism, Hinduism, Islam, and then there are thousands of others in every corner of the world, many of which have come and gone over the millennia. We can try to find the element common to all that defines "religion," but, try as we might, we will continue to find that there is no essential element that must exist in order for the belief system to be a religion. The reason for this is because essentialism is not a sustainable argument as it relates to definitions of terms. — Hanover

No, this isn't because essentialism would be wrong, but because an inductive approach to the definition of something is backwards.

We cannot come up with the definition of "religion" by "observing" "religions", for without an a priori definition of what we're looking for, we cannot even decide what to look for, what to speak of looking for it.

You cannot figure out what a cup is by observing cups. Without having any idea what a cup is to begin with, you won't know what to focus on to begin with.

The process of how a word gets a dictionary-level definition, a meaning, is simultaneously inductive and deductive. We start off with some preconceived notions with the help of which (through which) we observe reality, and then we sometimes adjust based on "what we find" (in line with our knowledge, needs, interests, and concerns).

Meaning is using terms to refer to things that are not words. If the word does not refer to anything that exists outside of one's own mind yet it is used to refer to things outside of one's mind (confusing the map with the territory) then it is a meaningless word - just like the term, "god".

Now, if it is correctly being used to refer to a concept (those things that only exist in minds) then it has meaning. The difference is do those concepts then refer to things in the world.

Religion is the belief in things outside of, or beyond, the natural.
— Harry Hindu

If we're using the term "religion" within a community, it has meaning, even if the meaning amounts to delusional, confused, and inconsistent beliefs about the origins of the universe. To declare that the term is meaningless is to claim it's gibberish, just sounds conveying no thought whatsoever. "God" means something different from "cat" and different from "jldjlk." To say otherwise is just to impose an opinion on the validity of the concept that underlies the word "God."

My belief in bigfoot is different from my belief in gorillas, but my belief in bigfoot doesn't dissolve into meaninglessness because there is no such thing as bigfoot.

Your definition of religion is wanting and does not universally describe all religions. It's entirely possible to have a religion with gods that interact only on the "natural" level, which isn't entirely inconsistent with primitive religions, especially considering in primitive societies they don't have a real distinction between the miraculous and ordinary earthly events.

For your definition to be workable, you would be admitting to essentialism. — Hanover

No, he wouldn't. He would only claim one particular meaning to be the correct one, or the most common or relevant one.

No, but one needs to posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard one's moral judgments as relevant.
— baker

Is your claim that only people who posit an absolute moral authority have any say on issues of morality? — Fooloso4

They are the only ones who can be taken seriously. In contrast, those who shoot themselves in the foot by openly declaring any extent of incompetence disqualify themselves from the onset.

Those who do posit an absolute moral authority do not always hold the same opinion as to whether a particular act is moral.

Of course.

Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.

It's not clear what you mean here.

My theme here is how to regard one's moral judgments as relevant.

why is it relevant that we evaluate our incorrect knee jerk reactions? — Hanover

1. How do you know they are incorrect?

2. Our "knee jerk reactions" are relevant because they are our starting point, our foundation.

If you do not find rape repellent, then that is about you, not about rape. If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not do such things, you are morally bankrupt. — Banno

Rape and murder are easy examples.

How about other examples of virtue:

If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not drink alcohol, you are morally bankrupt.
If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not tell white lies, you are morally bankrupt.
If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not illegaly download stuff from the internet, you are morally bankrupt.
If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not spit on the floor in public areas, you are morally bankrupt.
If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not walk on the lawn where there is a sign "Do not walk on the lawn!", even when other people walk on this lawn, you are morally bankrupt.

Do you still agree?

Cannibalism is not murder, but killing for food. Infanticide in animals is an instinctive, well-regulated behavior, not a random act of passion.When these acts occur in animals they are part of the social order, not disruptive of it.

Belief in a morality that transcends time and place requires belief in some kind of "afterlife" (such as in the sense of the Christian afterlife, the Hindu reincarnation, or Buddhist rebirth).

Without God's judgment or karma, the notion of justice doesn't apply, and without justice, morality is unintelligible.
— baker

This is idiosyncratic to certain religions, but not logically dictated. — Hanover

It's dictated by our need for our moral behavior to be relevant, meaningful, worthwhile. And to be such in various life circumstances.

When things are going well for you in your life, it might seem to go without saying that it is morally wrong to steal and you won't steal. But what about when you fall on hard times, or when an opportunity for an easy theft presents itself: What will then be your motivation to stick to your moral principle of not stealing, even though sticking to that principle can sometimes be inconvenient, hard, or even life-threatening?

Judaic views vary, although the afterlife is not posited for the purposes of meting out eternal rewards and punishments. It is used to purge one of sin in order to return the person to his holy state. It is a time of atonement, not punishment, and not to exceed 12 months (cool, right?).

But this applies only to Jews, not to everyone, correct?

The point being that doing good can be for that sake of doing good alone, despite how other models might handle sin.

Since there are usually good times and bad times in a person's life, the matter is a bit more challenging.

Cannibalism is not murder, but killing for food. Infanticide in animals is an instinctive, well-regulated behavior, not a random act of passion.When these acts occur in animals they are part of the social order, not disruptive of it. — Janus

What makes you think the same doesn't apply to humans?

People generally kill people for the sake of (re)establishing social order (whatever they understand by that in any given case).

Our role and responsibility is not enhanced but is instead diminished by claims of cosmic significance. — Fooloso4

How so?

What goes on here has no describable significance for the universe. — Fooloso4

You write this as if there is a real universe without sentient beings in it to realise what it is. Nobody has any knowledge of such a universe. What if part of the significance of sentient beings is to help bring reality into existence? ¹

For virtue to be "its own reward", being virtuous has to be about more than just the gratification of one's ego; instead, it has to have real-world consequences that are advantageous for the person acting virtuously. Otherwise, virtue becomes something vestigial, expendable. — baker

:ok:

The expectation of an incontrovertible moral principle is naive, even childish. — Banno

No, it is goal-oriented, purpose driven: In order to attain goal X, you must behave in such and such ways.

If your goal is to never cause a traffic accident due to drunk driving, you must never drink and drive.
This is incontrovertible.

Murder is disruptive of the social order; it is irrelevant what the murder's intentions regarding the social order might be imagined to be. And it is arguable that in almost all cases we would have no reason to think that the murderer had any purpose at all regarding the wider social order.

It's why the US goes to war, for example: They go kill the terrorists, so that social order can be established.

Or take on smaller scale example: That husband who shot and killed his wife, claiming he did it because she wouldn't stop nagging him. The nagging was the disruption of the social order, killing her was his (final) act of (re)establishing social order.

You cannot figure out what a cup is by observing cups. Without having any idea what a cup is to begin with, you won't know what to focus on to begin with. — baker

You've not familiar with hermeneutics?

Killing in war situations is not defined as murder. Your husband and wife example is laughable and not deserving of a response.

Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.

It's not clear what you mean here. — baker

If you have 100 people, 50 think that there is an absolute moral authority and 50 do not. If you poll them on their views of moral issues you will not be able to identify who was in one group rather than they other.

And rape is not as universally condmned as we might hope, and certainly not as much in antiquity as today.
What causes the lack of confidence in the evil of rape among those who shrug it off? Just that they're evil (i.e. "morally bankrupt") and be obviously circular? — Hanover

They don't simply shrug it off; they shrug it off _selectively_.
For example, about a 150 years ago in the US, many whites believed it was not wrong for white men to rape a black woman; but they would hang a black man who was suspected of raping a white woman.

I once heard that the Ten Commandments are actually a short form, and were not intended to be taken generally, universally, without further qualification.

So, for example, "Thou shalt not kill" wasn't actually a general prohibition of killing, but was intended to mean "Thou shalt not kill any members of your own tribe, unless specified otherwise (e.g. if they committed adultery, etc.)", and outsiders were not included in this prohibition (ie. it was not prohibited to kill outsiders).
Such a reading explains the apparent contradictions in what adherents of the Ten Commandments profess to believe and what they do.

My point here is to either ask you accept that rape (or slavery or genocide) (1) has been moral at one point and now it's not or (2) was never moral but was mistaken as moral.

Pick your poison. I choose 2.

Your assumption is that the action is all that matters, regardless by whom it is done, to whom, and under what circumstances. It is on this point that many people disagree.

If you have 100 people, 50 think that there is an absolute moral authority and 50 do not. If you poll them on their views of moral issues you will not be able to identify who was in one group rather than they other. — Fooloso4

Sure, but that isn't my scope of interest anyway.

You've not familiar with hermeneutics? — Janus

I'm just not familiar with magic.

If in a discussion between A and B, A insists on the central significance of X while B insists that X be entirely excluded from the discussion as "not even a possibility" - there is literally nothing left for A and B to talk about.

To my view, Wayfarer was relating this simple fact. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure. But he also said something else, which was what I addressed. If one says things that disqualify one, then one shouldn't be surprised of the negative response.

Killing in war situations is not defined as murder. — Janus

War is "nothing personal", eh?

There is no god. We make our own purpose. — Banno

Nah, self-help literature does it for us.

So each religion sets out levels of selfhood that align to levels of reality. These form common element in that might be taken as setting out the nature of religion.

It doesn't capture me in the way it seems to have captures you, but we can add transcendence, or some form of hierarchy proceeding from self "upwards" towards divinity of one sort or another, to the list of potential "stipulated anchors"

Religion as longing. Why not?

Hermeneutics, not hermetics.