I’m confused by this. The theme is pretty expressly that “religion” is the proper term to describe a language community engaged in meaning creation regarding issues of ultimate concern. I was additionally suggesting that there is a philosophical push to understanding religion in that way given the communal nature of meaning creation and how individuals (as individuals) seem incapable of creating meaning devoid of community.

It may be that you disagree with any or all of that paragraph, but I’m not sure how much clearer I can be without just being repetitive. My hope was to explore the topic through use of borderline cases where people include/lack certain sorts of traits typically understood as being religious and finding out whether there is a philosophical value in understanding a borderline case one way or the other. In particular, I wanted to see where religion is without theism so far as people on this board are concerned.

Given that posts go the way the go, there is some meandering going on, but such is the way of things.

As for avoiding issues of ultimate concern, I’m not sure how you figure that. I don’t actually care about Christianity, but to the extent that I do, it is typically around modern liberal Christian theologians that are existential in orientation, essentially atheistic, and uncommitted (or outright hostile to) the historical Jesus or other historical basis for Christianity (i.e. that the value of Christianity is independent of any particular historical claim). Suffice it to say, the only thing such people care about in the religious context are areas of ultimate concern (with whatever convoluted subject-subject rhetoric they have invented in the wake of Buber).

So yes, historically Christianity has sucked. But they aren’t the only religion in the world or the one that I intend to spend time discussing. It is sort of like discussing the Russians when discussing communism - flies in the ointment of utopia.

A striking resemblance, no?
— TheMadFool

Oh, indeed - has the penny dropped? — Banno

Not yet but I'm getting there. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer here.

If meaning is use, then the meaning of your life is what you do. — Banno

Yes, and I find it fascinating how Wittgenstein's theory of meaning (of words) as use fits like a glove with existential meaning (of life) as purpose. In both cases, meaning is about how we use things, in the former, a word, in the latter, a life.

The reason why all of us do different things in life, find meaning therein, is because there's no single purpose/meaning to life. Words lack in the same way - missing essences - and thus their meaning changes with how we use them. That's as far as I could get.

...religion provided one of the most satisfying answers to that existential query.
— TheMadFool

Well, I won't agree with that. Religion perhaps provides a cookie-cutter replacement for meaning. It's for folk who want a prefabricated answer, one that avoids having to be critical or think for oneself. that may be satisfactory for you, but not for me. — Banno

All I can say is religion, since it's essentially cosmic in proportion and scale, provides the greatest meaning a life could have. What better way to purpose one's life than by contributing to, in some way, the universe itself and God it's creator? It doesn't get bigger than that, right?

You could do so publicly, but then Banno would think you missed the joke. — Ennui Elucidator

:grin:

This idea seems important to you. You already know I disagree with your choices. But I will ask you, what does it mean? — Tom Storm

Not sure what you are asking here. What is spirituality if not religious? Besides saying, “Spirituality is not religious,” what is it that spirituality includes that is not within religion or that is of necessity included within religion that makes it exclude spirituality?

The point I am making is that gods and religions continue to have a hold on much human behaviour, choices, politics, culture and wars, regardless of what a few academics think. — Tom Storm

I’m not sure where you think there is any disagreement on this point. But since this is a philosophy forum, I am talking to people putatively engaged in philosophical analysis, not fundamentalists engaged in something else. I cannot, and do not, account for why people believe what they believe or accept in the face of what I believe to be compelling evidence/argument to the contrary.

Regarding the difference in culture between us, it will certainly color our experience of the issue. You’ll go on holiday while I go on vacation and claim that your holidays are secular, I suspect, despite the obviously religious language describing your experience. I won’t speak for you, but the typical secular Christian going on about how secular they and their community are without considering the perspective of a religious out group to the experience provides special sorts of challenges in having them recognize why there is “secular Christianity” rather than secular anything else and what that means for what a society looks like. But again, that is a sociological matter rather than a philosophical one.

All I can say is religion, since it's essentially cosmic in proportion and scale, provides the greatest meaning a life could have. What better way to purpose one's life than by contributing to, in some way, the universe itself and God it's creator? It doesn't get bigger than that, right — TheMadFool

Wow! Well put!

:up: :100: !!!!!!!!!

Though I thought you were an atheist.

The theme is pretty expressly that “religion” is the proper term to describe a language community engaged in meaning creation regarding issues of ultimate concern. — Ennui Elucidator

A religious community might engage in making shite up.

A philosophical community might enguage a more critical attitude.

What better way to purpose one's life than by contributing to, in some way, the universe itself and God it's creator? — TheMadFool

And how would you assure yourself that you are actually contributing to the universe, and and to god?

Faith? That'll work. But I suspect you are too critical for that.

I may be wrong.

A religious community might engage in making shite up. — Banno

Like the scientific community has done.

And yet you talk to me on a device reliant on science's good auspices. A performative contradiction?

Gods made it possible in the first place. Without creation no fiddling around with physical matter.

Gods made it possible in the first place. Without creation no fiddling around with physical matter. — Prishon

You might say that; I wouldn't know.

But this computer does not work via prayer.

But this computer does not work via prayer. — Banno

:rofl:

You can consider program language a prayer. And damned, how I curse this phone! Make a prayer to let it function properly! Sometimes it even works!

Ludwig Wittgenstein was of the opinion that meaning is use. — TheMadFool

More precisely, meaning is use within a language game by players in a community (i.e. form of life).

Sure, treat religion as a form of life; then what it means is what it does.

Which in the main is fleecing the sheep. — Banno

Religion, n. A flock of sheep bound into a community (by imaginary fears & hopes) in order to facilitate fleecing by (a) shepherd(s).

If god is dead and religion is god talk, I don’t see where we are going. — Ennui Elucidator

From devout belief (onwards and then back) to make believe ... which Žizek calls "the sublime object of ideology".

As for god being dead, whence god? — Ennui Elucidator

It's undead. Like "spiritual, but not religious" – animated, but not alive.

So the right question (as far as I can tell) is how is it that the gods survive alleged secularism? — Tom Storm

(See my replay to Ennui just before this one.)

My bad for the misunderstanding apparent. Religion, insofar as what I said earlier matters, stands for what seems to be missing in non-religious worldviews - that yearning to be part of something bigger as some like to put it. The closest such concepts free of religious baggage I can find are ecological movements and Niel deGrasse Tyson's Comsic Perspective.

Basically, I just picked religion out of convenience rather than anything else.

Ludwig Wittgenstein was of the opinion that meaning is use. :chin:
— TheMadFool
More precisely, meaning is use within a language game by players in a community (i.e. form of life). — 180 Proof

Indeed. However, I was wondering about the possibility of Wittgenstein's theory of meaning as use being an auxiliary to the more widely held belief of meaning as tied to the notion of an essence to words. I fail to see why this is an either...or... choice? Can't we have the best of both worlds? As it is Wittgenstein can't deny that a word has an essence within a language game, no?

Religion, n. A flock of sheep bound into a community (by imaginary fears & hopes) in order to facilitate fleecing by (a) shepherd(s). — 180 Proof

Yep.

...which Žizek calls "the sublime object of ideology". — 180 Proof

The overlap with faith out be apparent; faith is belief despite the facts. Hence faith is the very stuff of ideology.

My bad for the misunderstanding apparent. Religion, insofar as what I said earlier matters, stands for what seems to be missing in non-religious worldviews - that yearning to be part of something bigger as some like to put it. The closest such concepts free of religious baggage I can find are ecological movements and Niel deGrasse Tyson's Comsic Perspective. — TheMadFool

Don't mistake silence for absence. The secular world if full of nods and winks towards what we might call the numinous. The difference is not making claims to knowledge.

Puts me in mind of the Dave Allan joke:

The Pope and an atheist are having a discussion...

and it slowly gets more and more heated until eventually the Pope can't take it anymore and he says to the atheist - "You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there."

The atheist laughs and says - "With all due respect, we sound awfully similar. You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there but the difference is you think you've found it.

I was wondering about the possibility of Wittgenstein's theory of meaning as use being an auxiliary to the more widely held belief of meaning as tied to the notion of an essence to words. — TheMadFool

Read the opening of the PI where Witty explicitly rejects "the more widely held" (Adamic / Augustinian) "essence of words" and thereby investigates 'usage-meaning' instead. "Use" is the broad alternative to the very narrow scope of "essence" and is not "auxiliary" as far as Witty is concerned.

Read the opening of PI where he explicitly rejects "the more widely held" (Adamic / Augustinian) "essence of words" and thereby investigates 'usage-meaning' instead. "Use" is the broad alternative to the very narrow scope of "essence" and is not "auxiliary" as far as Witty is concerned. — 180 Proof

Then that's Wittgenstein's problem, no? To have multiple referents doesn't imply that there are no referents - the arbitrary nature of how we assign meaning to words doesn't imply no essence was/is implied.

My hunch is Wittgenstein conflates the abscence of a single referent for a word with no referent for that word. That's like saying "John" could refer to any of 3 Johns in a room and so "John" doesn't refer to anyone. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

Don't mistake silence for absence. The secular world if full of nods and winks towards what we might call the numinous. The difference is not making claims to knowledge.

Puts me in mind of the Dave Allan joke:
The Pope and an atheist are having a discussion...

and it slowly gets more and more heated until eventually the Pope can't take it anymore and he says to the atheist - "You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there."

The atheist laughs and says - "With all due respect, we sound awfully similar. You are like a man who is blindfolded, in a dark room who is looking for a black cat that isn't there but the difference is you think you've found it. — Banno

Wise words! The numinous, yes, that's the apposite word.

Then that's Wittgenstein's problem, no? To have multiple referents doesn't imply that there are no referents - the arbitrary nature of how we assign meaning to words doesn't imply no essence was/is implied. — TheMadFool

...and we were so close...

My hunch is Wittgenstein conflates the abscence of a single referent for a word with no referent for that word. — TheMadFool

Yet another hunch. God forbid that you ever actually get around to reading the damn book.

Read Witty's PI, Fool (at least the first half of it). :smirk:

:lol: I'll now stop my speculations on Wittgenstein, download his books, and read them.

Read Witty's PI, Fool (at least the first half of it). — 180 Proof

:ok:

My bad for the misunderstanding apparent. Religion, insofar as what I said earlier matters, stands for what seems to be missing in non-religious worldviews - that yearning to be part of something bigger as some like to put it. The closest such concepts free of religious baggage I can find are ecological movements and Niel deGrasse Tyson's Comsic Perspective. — TheMadFool

Yearning to be part of something bigger? Dunno bout them but Prishon donot wanna be part of bigger thing. Prishon wonders how all to be came!

Neil deGrasse free of religious bagage? His whole being IS the bagage he must carry everyday like a burden... like Jesus had to carry that Godd":$#d cross of his!

Sorry for noticing a spelling mistake, but is deGrasse comsic? Sick about his own com?

Read Witty's PI, Fool (at least the first half of it). — 180 Proof

Whats PI?

I feel numinously. Prishon says me not to worry about that. Prishon says everything be allright. Thank you Prishon.

Whats PI? — Prishon

March 14 obviously.

Whats PI?
— Prishon
March 14 obviously. — 180 Proof

Prishon did looky looky in big book on net. Big wikibook says pi is very big number! 3.1415 and big number of numbers still coming. Prishon cannot write all. Prishon lasie this morning.

PI no 24 april! Rishon no stupid!

...and we were so close... — Banno

I don't know what it is but my gut instincts tell me that Wittgenstein's wrong. I know you idolize him (I read your profile) and I hope we can discusss Wittgenstein's theories once I have a good handle on his ideas. Until then, kindly excuse my comments on Wittgenstein as more funny than serious. Thanks. Good day.

I don't know what it is but my gut instincts tell me that Wittgenstein's wrong. — TheMadFool

Prishon likey likey this! Prishon glad to hear! Prishon WTF? Shut up now! I think you are right. I haven't read the guy but I dont think he manages to tickle me. Whats in a name? Everything: Wit like stone...Prishon say me li... Prishon shut the fuck up!

My bad for the misunderstanding apparent. Religion, insofar as what I said earlier matters, stands for what seems to be missing in non-religious worldviews - that yearning to be part of something bigger as some like to put it. The closest such concepts free of religious baggage I can find are ecological movements and Niel deGrasse Tyson's Comsic Perspective.
— TheMadFool

Yearning to be part of something bigger? Dunno bout them but Prishon donot wanna be part of bigger thing. Prishon wonders how all to be came!

Neil deGrasse free of religious bagage? His whole being IS the bagage he must carry everyday like a burden... like Jesus had to carry that Godd":$#d cross of his!

Sorry for noticing a spelling mistake, but is deGrasse comsic? Sick about his own com? — Prishon

Niel deGrasse Tyson, in one interview, admits that the universe could be a simulation but then he takes utmost care to distances himself from religion. If God exists, isn't the universe a simulation?