Whether the gods exists or not, a well structured and developed philosophy of religion is a very good idea.

Perhaps we should preface our assertions about god(s) with the phrase, "whether the gods exists or not": Whether the gods exist or not, religions are a human creation. Theology (about the gods that may or may not exist) is a human creation. Ritual is a human creation. Whether the gods exists or not, religions, rituals, and theology have value and meaning to people.

Can people (ardent believers, lukewarm believers, apostates, agnostics, atheists...) agree that there is a a limit on how much anyone can know about the gods, which is imposed by the differences we suppose exist between humans and gods?

Can we agree that believers can not precisely map out what they can know about the gods (because the gods are to some extent unknowable)?

" :fire: "

Let's start this way: three terms: god, religion, theology. Pick one, and start your post with "God is," or "Religion is," or "Theology is." — tim wood

Holy hat trick! This trinity seems to me too entangled to pick just one term to begin with; so ...

"God" is an empty name.

Theology is a litany of rationalizations (i.e. dogmas) for suspending disbelief in "god".

Religion is ritualized daily living as if (a) theology is true.


"I Am hath sent me unto you."

(Thus Spoke 180 Proof)

Impossible without some generosity.

I’ve put forward Geertz’ general layout for the term ‘religion’ to start discussions before but no one seemed particularly interested.

The best you can hope for is to find people who are willing to accept other people’s views without trying to bend them.

God:
Is that which nothing greater can exist; where "greater" means the most "powerful" in the sense of abilities.

Can we agree that believers can not precisely map out what they can know about the gods (because the gods are to some extent unknowable)? — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Although I believe my definition to be correct, it is indeed incomplete. As God would be a higher being that us, we could not fully grasp its concept.

Theology:
Is the scientific (rational) study of truth based on data from the gods, like the bible etc. I agree with @Bitter Crank that it is a human creation, and @180 Proof's definition. This does not imply subjectivity.

Religion:
Is the set of behaviour based on the findings of the theology. I agree with "180 Proof"'s definition again.

Whether the gods exist or not, religions [and rituals] are a human creation. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily. In some religions like christianity, judaism and islam, the belief is that the religious instructions were given by the gods, or else confirmed by the gods that the existing behaviours were good (like some ethical acts).

"Theology is." — tim wood

I think assertion would yield fruitful discussion, but in line with the concerns expressed in your OP, I think we'd need to narrow the focus, or there might be the tendency for people to go off in infinite directions on a too-broad topic.

So what is it about theology that we might want to investigate:

Can we agree that believers can not precisely map out what they can know about the gods (because the gods are to some extent unknowable)? — Bitter Crank

BC, would this lead to a discussion on the nature of faith?

Theology is a litany of rationalizations for suspending disbelief in "god". — 180 Proof

180, this is an interesting proposition: that all theology consists of (psychological, I take it) rationalizations or manipulations of the story line?

Not necessarily. In some religions like christianity, judaism and islam, the belief is that the religious instructions were given by the gods — Samuel Lacrampe

I must respectfully disagree, or point out that you may be jumping the gun by getting into the contents of this religion or that. This goes back to the issue of faith--asserting the belief that human-written texts are the word of the diety.

But talking about the nature of faith is not the same as espousing faith in the doctrine that a diety directly inspired a written text. I don't get the impression that we want to jump into a discussion about whether or not Torah, Koran or Gospels were dictated by a diety.

Bull elephant in the room :eyes:

What is faith?

Faith is taking “because X said/thinks so”, i.e. the absence of any reason, to be a reason, for any X, including “everyone” or yourself.

Religion is any system of beliefs about reality or morality grounded ultimately in faith thus defined.

“God” can mean different things to different religions.

And theology is the attempt to study “God” (whatever that means) with reason.

I majored in comparative religion. In the first class we sort of ‘workshopped’ possible definitions of religion. We found, to my surprise, that we couldn’t arrive at one; that every proposed definition couldn’t accomodate some form of religion.

Soon after we discussed the etymology of the word itself: the first definition being from the Latin ‘religio’, meaning ‘attitude of awe and reverence to the gods’. It seemed the most obvious derivation.

The second possible derivation was from ‘re-ligare’ where ‘ligare’ is related to the root ‘lig-‘ meaning ‘binding’ or ‘tying’ (cf ligature, ligament.) So re-ligare was to join to or unite with.

I formed the immediate impression that this latter was similar in meaning to the Indic ‘yoga’ meaning ‘to yoke or join’. And that understanding of the meaning is very much in line with my own to this day.

Later on we also studied Rudolf Otto’s book The Idea of the Holy. This was an exploration of the defining characteristics of religious epiphanies from a cross-cultural perspective. William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience and Alduous Huxley’s The Perennial Philosophy also became ‘go-to’ texts along these lines.

So as regards the subject-matter, I am of the view that religion is a universal characteristic of human culture. It obviously takes many forms, from the grotesque to the sublime, and many points between. It can be used as oppressive organ of state control or as a liberation from social constraints. It is many things, but one thing I will observe is that it has a specific meaning in Christian and post-Christian culture, but one which if often felt rather than consciously articulated.

I must respectfully disagree, or point out that you may be jumping the gun by getting into the contents of this religion or that. — uncanni

I believe you are missing the point. The original goal as per the OP is to find statements that most groups agree with, and my point is that there are many groups which disagree with the statement that religions are always a human creation.

Faith is taking “because X said/thinks so”, i.e. the absence of any reason [...] — Pfhorrest

The christian catholics would not agree with this definition of faith. As described, this would be called "blind faith", which is not regarded as a good thing. As per Thomas Aquinas, faith falls between zero knowledge (ie blind faith) and certainty about an object. Strong faith is supported by reason; reason which, while not achieving a full proof, yields to the probable or the reasonable. Thus any act based on a belief supported by the probable or the reasonable is an act of faith, which is good; where as any act based on a belief devoid of any reason would be blind, which is foolish.

That definition of faith would include basically all secular belief as well though, so doesn’t seem useful for distinguishing faith from other modes of belief.

Another useful definition to consider is fideism which ‘maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior.’ Much of the criticism of religion on this forum assumes that religion is defined by fidiesm but it is not necessarily the case. Catholicism generally is less prone to fidiesm than Protestantism with its emphasis on ‘salvation by faith alone’.

I believe faith applies to secular topics as well. E.g. trust that your spouse is not cheating without hiring an investigator to confirm, is a type of faith. That said, to stay on the topic of religion, we could say that "faith", in the context of this discussion, is the belief supported by the probable or the reasonable, regarding religious claims.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Bull elephant in the room :eyes:

What is faith? — 180 Proof

"Faith" - irrational belief / practice - is like poor hygiene, pathogenic contagions & pollution: failure to resist oppose & prevent is more often than not hazardous to y/our health."

Faith consists of:

"[....] wholly subjective, worshipful trust or hope in [ ... ] 'Ultimate Mystery'."

~

"Faith" = trust-in/assent to mysteries & fact-free practices - beliefs/just-so-stories for 'placebo fantasy effects' ... [...]

Let's start this way: three terms: god, religion, theology. Pick one, and start your post with "God is," or "Religion is," or "Theology is." — tim wood

God: X
Theology: discussion about X & practice
Religion: practice

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Over the course of 4 years we made some progress, but better to keep it short in this environment. I'll contribute if anything relevant comes.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

My objection is then that you have defined faith as “probable or reasonable belief about religious topics”, which is most problematic for excluding all unreasonable or improbable beliefs (“blind faith”) as not faith at all, but even if we fix that, that just means that faith is any belief about religious topics, which would then make religion defined in reference to faith circularly defined.

The thing that distinguishes faithful belief from other belief is its independence of good reasons. Thomists may claim that you should strive also to have good reasons in addition to your faith, but that is just saying not to go on faith alone, as faith alone (without reason) is blind. Faith per se is thus exactly what they would call “blind faith”, and it is only in fortifying a belief with something besides faith that it becomes not blind.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The not-faith is reason.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The second possible derivation was from ‘re-ligare’ where ‘ligare’ is related to the root ‘lig-‘ meaning ‘binding’ or ‘tying’ (cf ligature, ligament.) So re-ligare was to join to or unite with. — Wayfarer

The modern definition of "Religion" typically refers to an authoritative creed, of which there are many. But I think religion-in-general goes deeper than that, into the essence of human nature. It's not just intellectual assent to a list of specific "truths", "facts" or commandments. Instead, it's an emotional bond to a family or tribe or social group. The details differ from tribe to tribe, but the feeling of belonging is the same for all people of all places and all times. It's the same emotional connection that unites a family or football team, or military unit. And it may even be motivated by the same neurotransmitters (e.g. oxytocin) that bond a mother and her baby.

But, in a more general sense, I like to use the Latin roots to see what the word originally referred to. As you noted, "re-" = back, again, past; and "ligare-" = join, unite, bond. a link. So I conclude that the essential meaning of "religion" is "tradition" : an emotional link to a common history.

For example, many Christian Catholics and Protestants are more loyal to their local social group than to the required creeds of their sect, or to the official leaders of their church. So, when push comes to shove, they would place more weight on their 2000 year old Christian tradition, than on any abstract belief, such as Trinity or Transubstantiation. Hence, their common bond of Christian fellowship would outweigh any milder feelings for fellow humans, who belong to a different tribal tradition, such as Hinduism or Islam. Emotionally, religion is Us versus Them.


Dictionary.com, word origin for "re-" : a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion: regenerate; refurbish; retype; retrace; revert.

Jesus admonished the Pharisees, who he viewed as apostates from the true religion (tradition) handed down by Moses. In the words of Isaiah, referring to God : "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”. Mark 7:7-13 [ Ironically, the Pharisees considered themselves to be conservatives. But apparently not conservative enough for the fundamentalist Jesus people. ]

@Swan Quoting me(?) out of context always scratches the wrong itch ... now I'm on the wet spot. :kiss: the latest profile pic, btw.

"God is an empty name"? is that the best you can do, 180?

Whatever "God" may be, it cannot be an empty name: it would seem that in every usage, it means something. — tim wood

C'mon, you can do better than that, tim.

Pegasus
Elf
Hell
Ghost
Atlantis
Magic
Limbo
Angel
Paradise
Etc ...

Every time we use empty names like these in a sentence they mean something in a relevant language-game but not in others. "Meaning is usage", no? Anyway, skim the wiki for empty name I again link here and you'll be hard pressed to object to my definition of "God" in a serious manner. The Rorschach-like semantic baggage of this (transcendental) signifier in particular nearly screams "Empty Name" ...

How, it being an empty name, do you account for the persistence of the idea? — tim wood

See the empty names above? Now ask yourself, tim, how you can ask such a vacuous question.

Yeah, but I doubt anyone will bother reading it sadly :(