A personal purpose can be any methodology which helps heal the illusion of division which is fundamental to the human experience. — Jake

Don’t need religion for this purpose. If fact, religious beliefs and practices may get in the way of fulfilling this purpose.

Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering — Jake

Do you have a doctrinal reference for this ‘suggestion’? Maybe it will help to make some sense of this.

The typical person is not overly concerned with abstractions like enhancing social unity, but is instead engaging in religion to address their own personal situation. — Jake

Or it’s just something they were brought up believing.

Of course folks aren’t always consciously aware of what drives them.

Christianity is based in grace though, not in deeds, not analysis, not even necessarily practice — All sight

I believed in it, I woudn’t bother with a philosophy forum.

While you believed in it, you wouldn't bother, or because I do I shouldn't?

The point is, this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy is what is being discussed. I am not at all opposed to the Christian faith, but it seems to me that if that is your belief, then there ought to be something better to do than debating it online.

I don't know what to say? It certainly doesn't follow that if one believed it, they ought to therefore go and discuss it in a conceptual, historical, philosophical way, but it certainly doesn't follow that you shouldn't either. Clearly the church fathers did discuss it, and study it, but not everyone does or has to. Why would you suggest that?

I'm not convinced that religion has a single purpose. (Or a single definition, for that matter.)

The 'primal' sort of religion seems to be about inducing whatever cosmic powers might exist to bestow favors like good fortune, abundant harvests, healthy children or victory in battle. To achieve that end, people would perform sacrifices, utter prayers and perform ceremonies before undertaking activities.

Later religion seemed to place more emphasis on rescuing people from death. Heavens became more pronounced. Ethical concerns were highlighted, since entry into whatever heaven they imagined typically required meeting some standard and passing some sort of judgement.

And this gradually expanded into other more esoteric sorts of salvation, such as the Buddhist salvation from 'dukkha'.

There often seems to be a metaphysical aspect to religion, a feeling that it facilitates access to transcendent realities that exceed the conditions of earthly life.

Don’t need religion for this purpose. If fact, religious beliefs and practices may get in the way of fulfilling this purpose. — praxis

Agreed. My point is only that many people have used religion for this purpose. Religion is probably the largest longest most organized system to address these needs. But I do agree it's not a requirement. I also agree that a key problem for religion is that it typically tries to use thought (beliefs etc) to solve the problem, when in fact thought is the source of the problem. It's a process which can be like an alcoholic trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch.

You asked about this...

Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering — Jake

First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.

Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn", sometimes called love, a process of surrendering the "me" to something or somebody else. To the degree the "me" melts away in a particular situation, so does the perceived division, and thus the fear, and thus the inner conflict, and thus the outer conflict. The user dies to division and fear, and is reborn in to peace.

Of course no human being has perfected this process, so it's an ongoing day to day struggle to accept psychological death (the surrender of "me") as the price of peace. Jesus sometimes yelled at people, priests sometimes rape children, we are all immersed in "sin" as the Catholics might put it.

I'm speculating now, but the Christian concept of "original sin" may be referring to the source of this experience of division (and thus all the other problems), thought itself. Or at least that is my own preferred interpretation, I don't speak for Christians or anybody else here.

Thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts. So for instance, we have words like "mind" and "body" even though mind and body are really one thing. It's this built-in process of conceptual division which creates the concepts "me" and "everything else" which all other problems arise from.

So for instance, the idea of "getting back to God" could be interpreted as an attempt to heal the perceived division between "me" and "everything else". I would agree with you (if I understand you) that the God concept is not a necessary ingredient, but only a personalization of reality that some people find helpful.

For the atheist, "getting back to reality" can work just as well, but like with religion, it should ideally be primarily an emotional experience and not just an intellectual abstraction. Atheist meditators can reach for these experiences beyond the illusion of division without any reference to anything religious.

Sorry for all the words, hopefully something in there addresses your question.

Why would you suggest that? — All sight

I am responding to what you say here which is about ‘salvation by faith’. That is what I am saying is not amenable to debate or discussion, whereas the Church fathers and scholastic philosophers were also philosophers. I read an interesting book a while back which contains an account of the correspondence between Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus was very much the humanist whereas Luthers’ dogmatism verges on the fundamentalist. Erasmus is known as one of the founders of Renaissance humanism, whereas Luther [and Calvin] loom large in evangelical Christianity. And that is what I left behind when I declined confirmation. Had I not done so, I very much doubt I would be posting here.

I would even add that traditionally "philosophy" is not mere idle talk, but meant a way of life, which is precisely why religion is one of the center stage subjects, and the idle musings on technical subjects that one in no sense practices is what is not philosophical. — All sight

Completely agree. That is why I like Pierre Hadot’s work.

:up: I see things in much the same way, but it’s much more difficult than it can be made to sound in that kind of analysis.

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together. — praxis

The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. — Relativist

Religion is the appeal to the ineffable for answers to questions not otherwise answered. — tim wood

I think it’s an early attempt at building a metaphysical model of the universe — Devans99

These are good answers. Much more constructive than the usual knee-jerk stuff. :up: And much closer to the mark, IMO. :smile: Hail Eris! :joke:

"Completely agree. That is why I like Pierre Hadot’s work."

Ah. Do you, like Hadot, think (as Socrates did) that philosophy is discussed in person, face to face. Is spoken, and is distorted and ineffective in written form such as this?

Just skimming over his wiki page, I am not familiar with him myself.

[Religion]'s real value is as a philosophy, and it ought to be treated as such — S

Yes, that's a fair observation. :up: Religion seeks to explain certain things; that's philosophy. But it offers no evidence, in the sense that a scientist would mean it, and this puts a lot of philosophers off. Many humans, including philosophers, have problems confronting vague and ill-defined problems and issues, even though our real, everyday, world is full of nothing but. :wink: We need ways of thinking about vague things, IMO. It's not acceptable to just dismiss that which we can't deal with. :chin: [Also IMO :smile: ]

...it ought to be treated as such, and compared to other philosophies as though on a level playing field, not mindlessly worshipped or placed on a pedestal — S

Compared to similar philosophies, perhaps. To compare religion with (say) Objectivism seems unlikely to lead to any useful conclusions. While comparing it to the Eastern 'religions' - which resemble philosophy more to Western eyes than other religions do - might prove fruitful? Then there are moral/ethical matters, which religions regularly speak of. Comparison here might also prove useful.

I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. People who don't believe tend to say things like this, genuinely unaware of the number of unjustified beliefs they themselves hold. We all do. If one believes in a particular religion, one respects its teachings. From the outside, we could reasonably describe this is being "placed on a pedestal", but showing respect is what we all do toward things we, er, respect.

If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy.... :chin:

this is the better entry. I like him because I think philosophy is, properly, 'philo~sophia' - love-wisdom, as a way of living. Key paragraph:

For Hadot...the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (PWL 84).

Transpose the terminology to Sanskrit instead of Greek, and you could be describing the discipline of Vedanta or Buddhism. It has a religious side but only in a sense - Socrates was, after all, sentenced for for encouraging atheism. [Have to go, back later.]

Socrates denied that he was an atheist, as that didn't make any sense, as he was acting on what he heard that the Oracle of Delphi said about him, and to the complete inverse, thought himself to be on a divine mission. He just thought that there was nothing wrong with questioning everything, including that.

I definitely agree that philosophy was originally a way of life, and involved practices, and not what it is now taken to be academically. I really don't find academic philosophy to be very interesting, but then, as has been mentioned before, it is almost never brought up or discussed here in any case, so I'm definitely not alone. I too prefer the more traditional approach.

Though, I'm a common man, and think that one needs to work with their hands, move their bodies around. Craftsmen, artists, they're the religiously inclined, though being half an idler, I like philosophy too.

Just to say, some good lyrics on the subject: "Go ahead as you waste your days with thinking
When you fall, everyone stands
Another day, and you've had your fill of sinking
With the life held in your
Hands are shaking cold
These hands are meant to hold
Speak to me
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Move along
Move along
So a day when you've lost yourself completely
Could be a night when your life ends
Such a heart that will lead you to deceiving
All the pain held in your
Hands are shaking cold
Your hands are mine to hold
Speak to me
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
When everything is wrong, we move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
When everything is wrong, we move along
Along, along, along, along
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do (Know you do)
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along" - all american rejects

Or there is also that song that they sing in game of thrones, "hands of gold are always cold"?

Is this wisdom? And if it is, it itself may not be philosophy, but I think that it is precisely the kind of thing that a philosopher ought to love.

Music at work is also hilarious, by tragically hip: "Everything is bleak
It's the middle of the night
You're all alone and
The dummies might be right
You feel like a jerk
My music at work
My music at work"

The answer to most of Harry’s post:
.
I refer Harry to my post that he’s “replying to”. He shouldn’t need for it to be repeated to him. He’s just continuing to repeat what I’ve already answered.
.
He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it.
.
The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof.
.
We all get that Harry himself doesn’t know of any evidence or reason to believe anything that can be called Theism. No one’s criticizing him for that. But Harry has the astounding conceit to believe that he knows all the beliefs of all Theists, and the reason or motivation for that variety of beliefs, and that that none of the diverse beliefs of any Theists are supported by evidence.
.
Aside from that, Harry doesn’t understand that the topic here is Reality itself. In such matters, different, separate from, and outside the specifically-self-circumscribed describable realm of physical science and describable metaphysics, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that he can validly apply the rules that we’re familiar with in the describable realm of physical science and describable metaphysics outside of their specific domain, where the pseudoscientists known as Science-Worshippers want to apply to it.
.
So, in matters outside the describable realm of physics and describable metaphysics, the matter of the justification for faith (often, and probably best, defined as trust), aside from any evidence, Harry’s pseudoscientific approach just isn’t relevant.
.
There, the “scientific method” becomes the pseudoscientific method.
.
In other threads, I’ve amply discussed my own impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them (the “outward signs” that fit Merriam-Webster’s definition of evidence). No, I’m not going to repeat it all here for Harry.
.
When I discussed those reasons, I wasn’t arguing or asserting about the Theism vs Atheism issue. I was merely telling of some reasons, without claiming that Harry should agree about them, or that Atheists should change their beliefs.
.
Additionally, the Scholastics have discussed justification for faith, aside from evidence. …regarding a matter not within the purview of the scientific method and logic. Those “arguments” (I call them “discussions”) are intriguing. There are of course more elaborate, more modern versions, but also other, similarly-intriguing, but simpler and more modest discussions. Does Harry have a sweeping demonstration that all of those are wrong?
.
No doubt there are other Theists similar to me, and maybe or probably, a wide variety of them different from me, but also completely different from what Harry understands from his own dogmatic Theism.
.
I don’t directly argue the Theism vs Atheism issue. I indirectly discuss it when I discuss the matter of what Atheists are trying to say, and the matter of their typical dogmatic belief in their own religion of Science-Worship and Materialism.
.
Most aggressive Atheists firmly, unshakably and dogmatically believe in Materialism. From the definitions, in Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, of “Materialism” and “Religion”, Materialism is a religion.
.
But whether or not Harry agrees with those dictionaries, the fact remains that Materialism claims an unsupportable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact in the physical world and in metaphysics…where there’s no need for a brute-fact, and where a brute-fact is regarded as discrediting. Harry needs to understand that, if he believes in Materialism, he’s very much a believer in something without support.
.

Please help me determine which claim with no evidence I should go with.

.
Sure, I’d be glad to help you: There’s no reason why you should believe anything that you don’t know of any reason to believe.
.
But shed some of your conceit. You aren’t qualified to authoritatively blanket-rule on justification for all (unspecified by you) beliefs of all Theists.
.
If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you?
.
If you want an argument about Theism vs Atheism, then I declare you the winner of your argument, by default.
.

Why could it not simply be that the universe just exists with us being a part of it?

.
…Materialism’s brute-fact that you believe in. …you who don’t think that you’re a believer.
.

That is what theists claim about their god - that it just exists and has always existed.

.
Even in metaphysics there uncontroversially are timeless things. We’ve discussed them in other threads, though they’re off-topic here. Timelessness isn’t unheard of, even in describable metaphysics.
.
As for “uncaused”, the difference is that Materialism’s brute-fact is in the physical world and describable metaphysics, where the familiar rules of logic and science apply, and where a brute-fact is quite unnecessary and usually disapproved-of.

.

Also, we have a problem in defining "god", no?

.
Yes.
.
You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
.

What is a "god"?

.
If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Yes, Theists shouldn't waste time debating Atheists.

As I said, I don't directly debate the matter. I've just been questioning what Atheists mean or are trying to say, and their own uncritical belief in Materialism's brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

that covers about 99% of the reason i enter into discussions such as these. I have no issue with atheism as a belief. I have always acknowledged that there are reasonable arguments in its favor.

My only issues are, do not say as a matter of fact that God is not. And do not directly or indirectly with the oft used " fairy tale" "spaghetti monster" "Santa Clause" type language say that theism is unreasonable.

The Hitchens- esk smugness and sarcasm of the pseudo intellectual atheist is trying.

I also agree that a key problem for religion is that it typically tries to use thought (beliefs etc) to solve the problem, when in fact thought is the source of the problem. It's a process which can be like an alcoholic trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch. — Jake

Good metaphor.

I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc. This may be an unavoidable evolutionary artifact, I don't know, but I do know that it can be dealt with without religion.

First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems. — Jake

In all practicality, I think this works the other way around in our minds. "Me" is very big or significant, and "everything else" is small or of less significance, and it's this selfishness that makes us fail to act cooperatively.

In a perfect world, religion functions to reduce our selfishness and increase our cooperation for the mutual benefit of all. I believe it does function this way to some extent, in some circumstances, and that's great, but, as you suggest, it's ultimately like trying to cure alcoholism with a case of scotch. Our personal narrative merges with the overarching religious narrative, reify our sense of self and escalate our self-concept to cosmic proportions. When this happens, there is no horror that can't be rationalized.

Incidentally, I watched an interview with a Trump supporter the other day on YouTube who was explaining why she still supports him (despite all the shenanigans, I suppose). She said it was because he has conservative and evangelical values. Trump claims to have such values, and for this woman the mere claim is good enough. He doesn't need to express these values. How could just saying so be good enough? Because she doesn't actually have these values herself. It's only really about being part of the tribe.

Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn", sometimes called love, a process of surrendering the "me" to something or somebody else. To the degree the "me" melts away in a particular situation, so does the perceived division, and thus the fear, and thus the inner conflict, and thus the outer conflict. The user dies to division and fear, and is reborn in to peace. — Jake

Love necessarily has an object, so love cannot transcend the duality of self and other. If you love everything, which would include war, suffering, disease, evil, escargo, and all things bad, then love has no meaning.

First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems. — Jake

Speak for yourself.

It seems to me, thanks to the knowledge science is providing, that everything is interconnected. I don't experience a fear of everything else. I experience curiosity. If it is fear that you experience, then no wonder you turn to a delusion - to alleviate that fear.

He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it. — Michael Ossipoff

All of them. Now the ball is in your court to show evidence for just one.

The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof. — Michael Ossipoff

Exactly. It is a conglomeration of evidence that provides proof, and there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god". Again, the ball is in your court.

If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you? — Michael Ossipoff

It is they that approach me, or create posts on this forum. I merely question their unfounded claims. I don't go around announcing my atheism. There is nothing to announce.

You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it. — Michael Ossipoff

The burden to define god is on the person making the claim.

The rest of your post seems to attack the scientific method and to make a claim that there are things outside of "physical" science. Yeah, I've heard it all before. It comes down to answering this question:
Does god have a causal influence on reality? If it does, then why would science not be able to explain it and find evidence of it?

Everything is natural. There is no such thing as the supernatural. Everything is interconnected and therefore should be explainable by one consistent method - science. Religion is inconsistent to the point where people of different religions try to kill each other for believing in a different god. Science knows no contextual limitations. True science is open to new evidence for anything, all you have to do is provide it.

Do you think science will be able to definitely answer how the universe was created one day ??

First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.
— Jake

Speak for yourself.

It seems to me, thanks to the knowledge science is providing, that everything is interconnected. I don't experience a fear of everything else. I experience curiosity. If it is fear that you experience, then no wonder you turn to a delusion - to alleviate that fear. — Harry Hindu

I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.

Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it.

I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.

Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it. — praxis

It seems that your first and second paragraph contradict each other. If existential anxiety is a natural consequence of how our minds evolved, then existential anxiety is natural. Any attempt to separate human beings from nature would be a mistake. Every animal has it's own unique set of physical and psychological adaptations to its environment. Humans are no different.

Humans beings are the products of natural processes and therefore everything we do and create is natural. Separating the creations of man from other natural products (artificial vs natural) stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature. We aren't. Other animals create things and manipulate their environment and they are still considered natural. Stars create new elements in their cores and spew them out into the universe when they explode and they are considered natural. It is only humans that are somehow different. Religion has played a big role in how we see ourselves in relation to the rest of nature and has influenced this idea of separateness and it could be the implications of religion that is the cause of Jake's anxiety.

As for the existential anxiety that we experience from time to time, there are many non-religious methods for alleviating it. Take a look at these two links:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/philosophical-cure-anxiety

https://psychcentral.com/blog/existential-despair-a-deeper-cause-of-human-anxiety/

They both seem to indicate that many people attempt to coverup the causes of their anxiety with delusional thoughts. They don't want to face those questions, so they come up with an answer that allows them to keep going on with their lives. I think that they should be embraced and discussed, as it helps to provide real solutions, not delusional ones.

It seems to me that alleviating this anxiety is just a matter of changing your thoughts. It is also a matter of changing your view about meaning. It shouldn't be scary to discover that meaning is within your own power to create and not in the hands of someone else. It is empowering. The influence the world has on our decisions is just evidence that we are part of the world and we also have an influence on it. We do have the power to make change. Questioning prior decisions is a waste of time and should only be thought about to make better decisions in the future. Making mistakes isn't bad. It is how we learn and grow as individuals. We also shouldn't be looking at ourselves as victims of procreation, rather we should see ourselves as lucky to be here to experience the roller coaster of life.

Do you think science will be able to definitely answer how the universe was created one day ?? — Rank Amateur

If the universe has a cause, then yes, science should be able to explain that causal relationship.

What is sad is that belief has been mutated into some sort of dialectic. "Everything that can be believed is an image of truth." William Blake

If you have beliefs that would perhaps, after some sort of assimilation and a lack of accommodation on the part of the focal point of such an assimilation, be shown to be commensurable with those of an organized religion... You are attacked. You are told that you are stupid, a moron, illogical, etc etc, subterfuge this, circumlocution that, and blah blah blah.

If you have the ability to TRULY believe something... Which... Even those who blow themselves up I daresay don't have it... Then you must be firmly based... For the only things that can be truly believed are those which are proximal, sure, certain... FEW!

If the universe has a cause, then yes, science should be able to explain that causal relationship. — Harry Hindu

Seems like you have faith in science.

I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc. — praxis

If this were true, if these problems arise from bad thought content, then over thousands of years some group of people would have found the correct thought content and would be living in peace. Other people would see their experience of peace, desire it, and adopt the correct thought content. Over time everyone would jump onboard and we'd be living in utopia.

What we see instead is that the problems which afflict human beings are universal, arising in every time and place. This suggests a source of such problems which is also universal. And so we should ask, what do all human beings have in common? It's on this reasoning that I suggest that the source of these problems is the nature of thought itself, the way it works.

If true, this has huge implications for philosophy. If the source of our problems is thought itself then no collection of thoughts, however clever, are likely to solve the problem. And this is what we in fact see in the real world. The best minds among us all over the world have been searching for the correct thought content for thousands of years, and here we still are, killing each other with abandon, enduring inner personal conflict etc.

"Me" is very big or significant, and "everything else" is small or of less significance, and it's this selfishness that makes us fail to act cooperatively. — praxis

We try to make "me" very big by a variety of means out of the realistic understanding that it is actually very very small in comparison to the environment it inhabits.

In a perfect world, religion functions to reduce our selfishness and increase our cooperation for the mutual benefit of all. — praxis

Imho, religion is ultimately not about social cohesion, but personal "salvation", by which I mean achieving psychological reunion with nature, reality, god, whatever one wishes to call it.

Imho, such reunion is not technically possible because we have never been divided in the first place. So it's more accurate to say that religion (and other techniques) are about easing the illusion that we are alone, isolated, vulnerable, divided from reality.

Imho, that illusion is generated by the divisive nature of thought. Thought is a medium that operates by a process of conceptual division, and so everywhere we look we see division. The illusion is profound because not only are we observing reality through thought, we ourselves are made of thought psychologically. Thus, we are fully immersed in a medium whose primary function is division.

This might be compared to being born wearing pink tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we go all our lives all of reality will appear to be pink colored. But the pink isn't a property of what we are observing, but rather of the tool being used to make the observation.

Belief based religions might be compared to an attempt to buy bigger pink tinted sunglasses with a stronger prescription. :-)

I see things in much the same way, but it’s much more difficult than it can be made to sound in that kind of analysis. — Wayfarer

It's difficult if we want it to be difficult, as we often do.

Most expert commentators on these subjects want it to be difficult and complicated, because otherwise they can't play the role of expert. :smile:

And to be fair, the primary problem most of us face is that we spend way too much time thinking about ourselves, a problem we attempt to solve by thinking about ourselves some more. And then some expert comes along and says, "Our situation is very complicated, we need to think about it in great detail!" and we can't wait to jump onboard because the expert is offering us just what we most want, a reason to think, think, think, more, more, more about me, me, me.

I have this fantasy image in my mind of a real priest (not one of the fakey ones). We take our problems to the priest and he listens patiently. When we're done talking we await his response to all our problems. The priest says, "That's very interesting, thank you so much for sharing your situation". Then he looks at his watch and says, "Oh my, it's time for lunch already, let's go work in the soup kitchen together."

:clap:

True, truth can be hard to take in. I know that's not what you mean but I just thought I'd just add to the argument. — MountainDwarf

Yes, truth can be hard to take in, hence the function of religion to placate those who can't cope with the world as it is.

This is why I believe Christianity went through a reformation. — MountainDwarf

It didn't go far enough, and it can't go far enough without ceasing to be Christianity. Fiction spun as fact is at the core of Christianity, and that's a line that myself and many others are not willing to cross.