Religions need to be unified. They basically have the same ethical guidelines, the same fundamental metaphysics and operate within practically the same social and psychological parameters. So, why not? — BrianW
I agree that in a fully developed argument one would need to define "God". Here and in other places it is convenient shorthand for a supernatural being. — Rank Amateur
They might. Or they might not. A parish priest might know nothing else, but a Tantrik Sadhaka might cook a meal on pages of scripture.
What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture. — Wayfarer
Again - There is no basis to believe as a matter of fact that God is not. You can not say, as a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. Simply because no one has seen a unicorn does not make it a matter of fact that they do not exist. If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so.
There are many reasoned arguments for theism - and many reasoned arguments against - they are all very well know - hopefully you do not need a list. Both positions are reasonable. — Rank Amateur
So, getting back to the question, if they don't have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth, then how else might they get to a revealed truth? Divine intervention? A miracle? Puh-lease... — S
Buddhist sādhana (Japan)
Buddhist sādhana (Japan)
Shugendō sādhana (Japan)
Shugendō sādhana (Japan)
Sādhana (Sanskrit साधन; Tibetan: སྒྲུབ་ཐབས་, THL: druptap; Chinese: 修行), literally "a means of accomplishing something",[1] is a generic term coming from the yogic tradition and it refers to any spiritual exercise that is aimed at progressing the sādhaka towards the very ultimate expression of his or her life in this reality.[2] It includes a variety of disciplines in Hindu,[3] Buddhist,[4] Jain[5] and Sikh traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives. — Wikipedia
so that the rubbish does not pollute the more worthy philosophical discussions. — Banno
I’m not following. You mention things (“realities”) that you claim can’t be depicted in non-religious terms. Indeed you mentioned the unconscious yourself. That’s not a domain restricted to religious belief. — praxis
I have no idea at all what that was suppose to mean. You asked for an argument - I gave you one. I think you are just getting semantic - but I am not sure. Are we in disagreement with what a fact is? — Rank Amateur
(I should note, this passage is frequently referenced by Western Buddhists in support of a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism. I don't think it is really that, but the emphasis on 'finding out for yourself' is indisputable.) — Wayfarer
2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.
the world is round is a fact.
the cat is in fact on the chair — Rank Amateur
that which is confirmed to be consistent with an observed reality is a fact. — Rank Amateur
It is not a fact that unicorns [d]o not exist, and no self respecting biologist would ever make such a claim. — Rank Amateur
Because no one has ever seen a unicorn, does not mean they, as a matter of fact, do not exist. It is possible that in some dark jungle somewhere there are a few unicorns. New species are found all the time - that no one new existed before. — Rank Amateur
It is, however a very reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist. — Rank Amateur
If a belief is not supported by logical or empirical evidence, then it must (purportedly at least) be supported by intuition or personal experience. But then it is always your personal intuition and experience, or my personal intuition and experience! — Janus
people just end up talking past one another. — Janus
But it's not - it's situated in a domain of discourse. Again - your only modes of interpretation are limited to positivist (empirical-mathematical), or personal and subjective - science, poetry, or an elusive feeling of the ineffable. If it doesn't fit into those categories, then you can't understand it. — Wayfarer
You're right about that, and I'm tired of trying. — Wayfarer
Sadhana:
Buddhist sādhana (Japan)
Buddhist sādhana (Japan)
Shugendō sādhana (Japan)
Shugendō sādhana (Japan)
Sādhana (Sanskrit साधन; Tibetan: སྒྲུབ་ཐབས་, THL: druptap; Chinese: 修行), literally "a means of accomplishing something",[1] is a generic term coming from the yogic tradition and it refers to any spiritual exercise that is aimed at progressing the sādhaka towards the very ultimate expression of his or her life in this reality.[2] It includes a variety of disciplines in Hindu,[3] Buddhist,[4] Jain[5] and Sikh traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives.
— Wikipedia
You see, because Protestant Christianity has made 'religion' a matter of believing the dogma, on pain of eternal hell, then we have collectively walked away. But I am arguing, this is because of deficiencies in the way 'religion' has been understood and practiced from the outset in Western culture. Something fundamental was lost in the tumult which sorrounded the formation of the Christian Churches. — Wayfarer
But, what is 'religion'? There are actually two derivations: one is 'religio', 'attitude of awe and reverence towards the Gods'. But there's also another - 're-ligare', to tie or to bind, yoke or join. 'Religion' had originally many sources; most of what is remembered relates to the former category. But, I would argue, in the latter category, are the sources that flowed from the shamans, from ascetic practices, accessing particular modes of consciousness - the kinds of things that are preserved in Buddhism.
OK, you might say - that's not 'religion'. But if not - what is it? Where does it belong? Who teaches it? Where do you learn about it? — Wayfarer
'Western culture' is stuck in this death role of 'enlightenment science' vs 'superstitious religion' which is where a lot of people seem to be.
I'm certainly not disputing that you can enter a peaceful and profound state of mind, and come to, say, some enlightening realisation about yourself or your view of life, how to live it, and so on. But that's not the same thing. That's changing the subject. — S
Modern psychedelic guides could be seen as contemporary shamans. — praxis
You can't transcend if you are bound, and there may actually be a negative incentive to unbind. — praxis
No it's not - it's an alternative understanding of the meaning of 'religion', which has been overwhelmed by the dominant narrative. — Wayfarer
Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises? Karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God or impersonal deity, eternal punishment or temporary hell, one God or many gods? Can any of those be philosophically argued for without the support of dogmatic faith? I would say no — Janus
We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes. — praxis
We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes.
— praxis
Please provide the names of everyone who enjoys psychological suffering and wants theirs to continue. — Jake
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. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.