Perhaps the religious aspects often blend in to what commonly is viewed as "culture" or "cultural aspects" as we don't want to admit the religious undertones in them. — ssu

So true. Even atheists mostly take their morals from religion even unintentionally.
Since they get raised in mostly religious societies. And like it or not human societies were built on the base of religions morals.

For example, Imagine an atheist who was raised from religious parents. What "sort" of morals would he get?
But yeah, most would never admit that indeed. They somehow see it as a taboo matter, imo at least.

The psychological point of view is worth taking into consideration, because it comes into play in explanations. However, philosophy does seek to go beyond this, but, in many ways, people are bound up with their own psychological subjectivities. It is hard but may be the task of the philosophers to see beyond this.

Psychology and philosophy were once more united and psychology has developed so far, in neuroscience. How metaphysics lies in this is questionable; and it is possible to ask whether metaphysics is based on physics? This leads to the question of where, if at all, religious perspectives fit in? In relation to your question about the background of comparison, it may be that it is extremely complex.

I think that your ideas on trying to define 'God' are important because the idea is so ambiguous and used in such different ways. The analysis of language may be so important in discussing religious concepts. — Jack Cummins

My use of the word "God" here is = "answers to existential questions".
God is maybe the most vague human idea indeed, so with much respect to the language problem, I think that proper wording could solve a very big amount of problems in such issues.

People should state and agree, from the beginning of their discussion, on the exact definition that THEY would mean using the word of each concept they discuss about.
And then start discussing.

At that case, my bad, cause I should have stated it from the beginning.And I didn't.
My guess is, that I probably liked the way the phrase "sounded" and I didn't want to "spoil" it by expanding it more.

I was raised and educated Roman Catholic and became (came out of the closet, so to speak) apostate at 16 and weak atheist at 17/18. Forty years on, I'm still not aware of any "religious morals" you mention that have ever informed my morality (re: ethical naturalism) if by "religious morals" what is meant is normative conduct justified by "divine commands".

I don't have a clear idea about what constitutes the "psychological." It seems like it is not only a set of explanations but a method for putting other problems in a context. So, the comparison of philosophical with religious experience seems to assume an underlying something to which both relate. There are a number of disciplines that attempt to understand things in that way. I am asserting you are taking some kind of stance like that to view philosophy and religion from a distance far enough away to see them apart. My experience of these activities has not been something where the different qualities announced themselves as what they are by simply appearing.

I'm still not aware of — 180 Proof

Yeah but you can be unaware of.In unconscious level.

At the end all the crucial years of a child's character formation(age 16) you were given religion morals from your parents. No?

But well even if at the end you don't, that doesn't mean that other atheists even unintentionally don't get influenced by religion morals.
Since these morals are-were everywhere in our societies.

The "excuse" for religion morals is, yes as you mentioned, divine commands, but that doesn't change anything I think. The essence remains the same. Morals are still there even built in such a lame excuse.

They somehow see it as a taboo matter, imo at least. — dimosthenis9

It's not only the atheists. Simply Western democracies who want to uphold freedom of religion and be multicultural (in the positive way) don't simply want to brandish the religious aspects of their heritage. Or especially admit how their core values are partly Christian values. But we cannot escape our history.

Just look at the national flags of the Nordic countries. Do note the symbolism.



And when we enlarge this view to especially Muslim countries, the link between religion and the state is even more obvious and totally clear. Prophet Muhammad was a ruler of the Ummah and caliphs were the political successors to Muhammad. State and religion do go hand in hand.

Stories based on mysteries do not explain anything – responding to unknowns with greater unknowns begs questions rather than answers them – they only ritualize ignorance (i.e. illusions of knowledge) and domesticate our fears with placebo-fetishes aka "hopes". I understand philosophy as always having consisted in, at minimum, a repertoir of metacognitive techniques / exercises for countering (unlearning) the infantilizing vices (habits) of religion.

Just look at the national flags of the Nordic countries. Do note the symbolism. — ssu

Hahaha. Man I never noticed that!!!

And now I wonder how many others flags of countries includes a Cross! Or any other religion symbol.My country's flag includes also!

Damn I liked that!I think that is a huge proof of how religion has been such a huge moral base in every aspect of our human societies.

Simply Western democracies who want to uphold freedom of religion and be multicultural (in the positive way) don't simply want to brandish the religious aspects of their heritage. Or especially admit how their core values are partly Christian values. — ssu

I think they do good on that if their goal is to unite every culture-religion under a common state "umbrella".It's logical imo.

Metaphysics is beyond our reach. Yet metaphysics isn't totally unimportant. And so aren't the things that are subjective to us. What is good and what is bad, just or unfair, morally right and morally wrong. We cannot get an purely objective answer to these questions deducted from some logic. Yet we have had religions to answer these (and philosophy). If people have seen the answers to be good for a long time, no need to discard them because they are old views.

Yet some things do change in thousands of years, so part we can leave to it's own I guess.

I am sure that many people have different angles on what is 'psychological'. In many ways, my own is shaped by the psychodynamic thinkers, including Freud and, especially, Carl Jung. Both of these writers spoke in great depth about religion and its mythological significance. The two writers did not agree, and even became enemies, but they both looked at the way in which religious ideas became important in culture for fulfilling psychological needs.

In many ways, Jung saw the need for some kind of 'mythos' or religious way of seeing as being positive. He drew upon mythology and anthropology. In some ways, he offers a critique of Western religions, but he was suggesting that there was an overriding need for meaning. I am sure that he was aware that the ideas of religion were breaking down, as he made reference to the ideas of Nietzsche.

I had never read Zapffe before reviewing this thread, but have discovered in him a "kindred spirit" (for lack of a better term) of sorts. I had arrived at some similar conclusions independently of the man, and via a different route: that the basic problem facing humankind is, and that the global crises looming on "the horizon" are caused by, what is essentially an evolutionary mishap: the overdevelopment of the frontal brain within one (our) species of mammal, allowing for powerful reasoning, scientific, and abstract thought without there being a proportionate cognitive development allowing for self regulation of those abilities. — Michael Zwingli

I think Zappfe was mentioned a few years back by one of the resident anti-natalists. The problem is the lop-sided development of the human psyche post-Enlightenment. It has become entirely preoccupied with externals. It is the crisis of Western civilization. This crisis is now manifesting as imminent environmental catastrophe but it has many other forms. But as you've described yourself as a positivist I don't expect that kind of analysis would be of interest to you.

In many ways, my own is shaped by the psychodynamic thinkers, including Freud and, especially, Carl Jung. — Jack Cummins

I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost that which the living religions of every age have given their followers, and none of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook. — Jung

Jung is interesting. The architectural side is at odds with the willingness to hear about individual suffering. He did both. Something about the experience led him to something very different from others.
But that to me seems like a retreat from explanation. There is no bon mot. You should be unhappy.

If you say so. :roll:

We're an eusocial species and our functional defects – physical & psychological vulnerabilities which makes us dysfunctional when neglected or exacerbated – are objective facts about us. Given that, it's clear (to me at least!) that "religion" has never told us anything about what harms us and what not to do to avoid harming each other that we didn't already know otherwise (re: group survival). "Earth mommy" & "sky daddy" cults alike were built on – with myths / mysteries occulting – our species eusociality: that the natural grounds of moral norms are derived via (ecology-/culture-sensitive) defeasible reasoning.

Part of the issue may be about whether religious thinking is about finding 'healing' or meaning', or objective truth. Also, there is the question as to how much it matters. Coming from a philosophy perspective, I am more inclined to think that objective aspects of 'truth' are important. However, in some ways this focus goes back to an original religious stance, and, in some ways, without a bigger religious perspective, it could be argued that the psychological and personal meanings are the most which can be achieved or imagined.

... an overriding need for meaning, — Jack Cummins

What do you think of Viktor Frankl's logotherapy in comparison to Jungian psychotherapy?

I am not sure whether one may remain happy or not with Jung's analysis. He looked at the aspects of experience, and I did spend some time in Jungian analysis. It made me aware of so many conflicting aspects of myself and, to a large extent, humanity.However, I would say that I am interested in Jung's ideas, including his critique of religion. However, from a philosophy point of view, I wonder how much stands up to philosophical scrutiny, especially the idea of the collective unconscious.

I began a book by Victor Frankl last week, so I will bear in mind your question, and, hopefully be able to give an answer to this in a few days; and maybe this will be of significance for the thread discussion which I initiated.

I wonder how much stands up to philosophical scrutiny, especially the idea of the collective unconscious. — Jack Cummins

This is a great question but also makes me wonder if you want to have your cake and eat it too. The collective unconsciousness is presented as both a phenomena and an idea. Jung is not interested in tricking people about it. It is either one or another.

I think that it may be likely that I wish to 'have a cake and eat it', but, beyond this, I do wonder about how the idea of the collective unconscious stands in philosophical credibility. Part of the problem may be about seeing it as an abstract entity, and Jung contributes to this by arguing in terms of an objective psyche. However, in its favour is the shared aspect of symbolism and cultural meanings, even to the point where there may be considered to be universal 'truths', beyond cultural significance. The question may be about shared cultural meanings as aspects underlying myths.

now I wonder how many others flags of countries includes a Cross! Or any other religion symbol.My country's flag includes also! — dimosthenis9

Well, off the top of my head: England, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda (???), the Republic of Georgia, Greece, Switzerland, the old Duchy of Savoy (perhaps the modern French department?), Republic of Italy (when charged with the escutcheon of state), the Dominican Republic, ...umm...

Well said.

Now count the crescents.

haha, I'll just say "most Muslim countries"!
That was just a little mental exercise for me...

It's not that complicated really. You can have the same discussions and reach the same conclusions just they don't really matter that much when your wrong or even if not especially when you're right for that matter. Nihilism is the true dark shadow of religious faiths in my opinion. The "bastid" child of religion and philosophy that nobody told was actually adopted and not related to either that decided to move in to both homes at once without asking and now refuses to pay rent whilst simultaneously decreasing the property values of both.

that the natural grounds from moral norms are derived via (ecology/culture-sensitive) defeasible reasoning. — 180 Proof

True but isn't that normal? At the end aren't religions only human inventions? So of course these morals were taken from nature, reasoning, social beneficial behaviors etc etc. Religions copied all these normally.

But the thing with religions is that they were the most functional "moral glue" (so far at least) for the societies. Their "excuse" was what persuaded most people to follow all these pre-existing morals. As people to get convinced following them.

And unfortunately even nowadays people need a God as to get convinced(with all the problems which come in package with that kind of attitude) .Fear and reward of a divine authority.
Since sadly Logic isn't enough for them. Yet at least.

And unfortunately even nowadays people need a God ... — dimosthenis9

An appeal to popularity deflects from this issue of the historicity / genealogy of "religiousity" and the subsequent contrast of philosophical practices. "Religion" is atavistic and "philosophy" fundamentally confronts, undermines, that atavism. The cultural and institutional function of "religion for social cohension" is an anachronism shown to be so, after all, since the advent of established cosmopolitan societies such as the multi-ethnic and multi-religious e.g. Roman Republic-then-Empire from c5th century BCE to 5th century CE or the establishment of al-Andalus and subsequent Caliphates from the 8th to 15th centuries CE. "Religion", like other illusions / distractions (e.g. alcohol, sports, movies & shopping), may be "popular" with the masses, dimo9, but the topic at issue here being discussed is whether or not philosophical thinking (and its progeny) is better for the life (and livelihoods) of the mind than religious believing.

cults alike were built on – with myths / mysteries even occulted – our species eusociality: that the natural grounds from moral norms are derived via (ecology-/culture-sensitive) defeasible reasoning. — 180 Proof

You might be on to something here. I think it is socially important to have those 'natural grounds' to moral norms that you talk about. Even philosophers try this and make the case for humanism. Religion of course has either gods or a god as the 'natural grounds' for moral norms. Moral norms and what is right and wrong have to be universally accepted in order for a society to work. Religions try to enforce those codes of conduct.

Which actually just shows that there's no objective answer, no logical deductive reasoning for such a subjective issue.

Thank you for your reply and I will try to follow through Schopenhauer's ideas about religion. — Jack Cummins

That particular essay I linked to is concise and well-written. The SEP entry on Schopenhauer is also worthwhile. I think with your interests you should familiarise himself with his ideas. Bryan Magee's book Schopenhauer's Philosophy is a good intro.

At the end aren't religions only human inventions? — dimosthenis9

Religions generally don't believe that, it's very much more characteristic of secular culture. Which figures, because there's no conceptual space for 'revealed truth' in secular culture.

but the topic at issue here being discussed is whether or not philosophical thinking (and its progeny) is better for the life (and livelihoods) of the mind than religious believing — 180 Proof

Well for me philosophical thinking is better indeed since gives you a deeper realization of morals and the actual reasons for acting "good" in societies. Makes you dig deeper inside yourself and with not just following divine orders without any questioning them at all.

But again I m not sure we could make a rule out of that. Since as for others, philosophy is not enough to fill their existential void and have the need of turning into a God as to find "answers". It's a subjective matter after all.
I can't accuse them of being wrong and me the right one, since me myself I don't have all the answers.

My problem as I mentioned again is with the fanatics and not with theists themselves.

Well for me philosophical thinking is better indeed since gives you a deeper realization of morals and the actual reasons for acting "good" in societies. — dimosthenis9

Sorry! Wanted to comment and accidentally pushed the place-button.

Allright. A deeper realization of morals and the reason for it while living in a society. I don't think that's what philosophy is about. You just make it substitute for religion.

But again I m not sure we could make a rule out of that. Since as for others, philosophy is not enough to fill their existential void and have the need of turning into a God as to find "answers". It's a subjective matter after all. — dimosthenis9

You can't make a rule out of that indeed. It would be the same as religious fanatics do. Well, you can make a rule out of it as long you keep it for yourself.

can't accuse them of being wrong and me the right one, since me myself I don't have all the answers. — dimosthenis9

So if you have all the answers you can accuse them of being wrong?

Makes you dig deeper inside yourself and with not just following divine orders without any questioning them at all. — dimosthenis9

You don't like authority.

What existential void are you talking about? You think without gods the world is empty and amoral? If so, why you connect moral with God?