As I said, for some word to have meaning it needs to refer to something. So if the user of the word, "religion" isn't referring to anything then it would just be a string of meaningless scribbles or sounds from their mouths.If we're using the term "religion" within a community, it has meaning, even if the meaning amounts to delusional, confused, and inconsistent beliefs about the origins of the universe. To declare that the term is meaningless is to claim it's gibberish, just sounds conveying no thought whatsoever. "God" means something different from "cat" and different from "jldjlk." To say otherwise is just to impose an opinion on the validity of the concept that underlies the word "God." — Hanover
I understand that beliefs in bigfoot are not the same thing as bigfoot itself. We can talk about both but some people can confuse their belief with the real thing.My belief in bigfoot is different from my belief in gorillas, but my belief in bigfoot doesn't dissolve into meaninglessness because there is no such thing as bigfoot. — Hanover
It seems to me that if you want to posit gods on the natural level then you would be practicing science, not religion - which leads me to think of another definition for religion: The act of favoring one unprovable concept over all other unprovable concepts. There is no reason to value one concept that has no evidence over other concepts that don't have any evidence or even others that do have evidence. In this way, religion is a type of delusion. And in this way, atheists are not necessarily denying a theists claims, they simply find no good reason to believe what one theist says over another, or what one philosopher says over another - when none of them are able to provide any evidence for their claims. Essentially a non-religious person would be one that has an open-mind; one that understands that they and others are probably wrong when there is no evidence and questioning yours and others beliefs is a good thing.Your definition of religion is wanting and does not universally describe all religions. It's entirely possible to have a religion with gods that interact only on the "natural" level, which isn't entirely inconsistent with primitive religions, especially considering in primitive societies they don't have a real distinction between the miraculous and ordinary earthly events.
For your definition to be workable, you would be admitting to essentialism. — Hanover
What has happened in Western religious discourse, according to Karen Armstrong, is that the emphasis on belief and believing have distorted this meaning, by making religion a propositional matter, not a way-of-being. 'Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed to a transformative way of life that takes you beyond the prism of selfishness. All good religious teaching – including such Christian doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation – is basically a summons to action. Yet instead of being taught to act creatively upon them, many modern Christians feel it is more important to "believe" them.' And you see that reflected a lot in the debates about religion on this forum. — Wayfarer
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). — 180 Proof
Religion is ritualized daily living as if (a) theology is true — 180 Proof
At the "heart" of religion (esoterica) is "the mystery"; the rest (exoterica) is public-facing, dumbed down, ritual reenactments via mneumonic narratives about aspects (metaphors?) of "the mystery". Philosophy is the rational exorcism of self-abegnating, stupifying, infantilizing, reality-denying/escapist "mysteries" of which religion (i.e. cultic (conspiratorial) thinking) consists. — 180 Proof
"The goal" of religion (i.e. to bind (them) together) is to (A) mytho-psychologically groom thenaive[gullible] to sadomasochistically obey and (B) to theo-politically corral superstitious sheep. — 180 Proof
I think it's reasonable to claim 'to the degree a philosophy is fundamentally disembodied (immaterial) and/or transcendent (essentialist), it functions as a religion'. Spinoza has it right (reread his quote in my first post above) that philosophy is first and foremost an internal critique of its own religiosity (re: the disembodied, the transcendent), which, as a consequence, undermines any rational pretenses for "justifying" religious ideas and practices (e.g. theology, theodicy, theocracy). — 180 Proof
The degree to which "a coherent set of ideas" is dogmatic – appeals to Mystery (Ignorance) / Authority / Tradition / Popularity / Emotion - is the degree to which I'd classify it as belonging toreligious[magical] discourse, or "a religion". — 180 Proof
A religionjustifies[rationalizes] – exegetes, preaches, proselytizes – its fundamental sine qua non claims (i.e. doctrines, rites) primarily via appeals to ignorance, etc, thereby reinforcing incorrigibility in its adherents. Re: dogmatics, mysteries ... — 180 Proof
The pan-cultural ancestrality of religion is well-established and therefore its expression as well as amplification of human atavisms & biases (i.e. conspiracy-wishful-magical-group thinking) are abundantly manifest throughout history. — 180 Proof
I fancy the imagery of 'religions are the ancestors' of philosophy and 'the sciences are her descendents'. — 180 Proof
Magical thinking (e.g. religion) is as insidious as any retrovirus. Only smart, hyper-imaginative, loquacious apes would be neurotic enough to propitiate invisible friends (e.g. with animal/human sacrifices) for protection from invisible enemies ... " :fire: " — 180 Proof
A religion is just an official – socially institutionalized – cult. — 180 Proof
Thus, the (self-abnegating) religious mindset: denial that only 'here and now' ever matters here and now (re: the absurd .. ); denial of ephemerality and oblivion (re: the tragic ...); denial of nature (re: the fallibilistic (i.e. evidence, facticity)). — 180 Proof
As I said, for some word to have meaning it needs to refer to something. So if the user of the word, "religion" isn't referring to anything then it would just be a string of meaningless scribbles or sounds from their mouths.
What one person means by "religion" someone else could mean something different, then how do we know that they are even talking about the same thing? To say that the word has meaning in that any person can use it however they want renders the word meaningless in that it is now to vague for anyone to understand how it is being used and that it would be more efficient to just say what you are referring to rather than use the word, "religion" at all. It becomes useless. — Harry Hindu
It seems to me that if you want to posit gods on the natural level then you would be practicing science, not religion - which leads me to think of another definition for religion: The act of favoring one unprovable concept over all other unprovable concepts. — Harry Hindu
Humans are creatures of habit. Memory is applied to to the mundane making it sacred. Be this a football stadium, church, house or a simple rock.
The story we apply to lived experiences creates a narrative that can be passed on and repeated. Needless to say such a ‘habit’ is kind of useful in terms of evolution as it helps us adapt to the environment and approach it from different angles rather than as a mere set of lifeless variables.
Without value there is nothing there for us to pay attention to. Without a means of applying or removing value we are not anything as stagnation of value is just as dead as having no value at all. — I like sushi
Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. — Wayfarer
Can what is good in religion - charity, ritual, what you will - not happen without the mythical background? — Banno
The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them.
Can what is good in religion - charity, ritual, what you will - not happen without the mythical background? — Banno
As if one needed a reason to do what one ought do... — Banno
A snippet from Josiah Royce:
The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. — Wayfarer
These types of threads typically comprise an attempt to elicit arguments from defenders of religious ideas. The aim of the game is then to successfully knock as many of the coconuts off the pole as possible - at least to the throwers satisfaction, which in such cases is not as objectively defineable as in the actual game. — Wayfarer
Surely there must be a reason not to murder, else what makes it wrong? — Hanover
Leaving aside empathy, morality seems to be created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve their preferred forms of order. Murder fucks up order. — Tom Storm
If there is a reason, then it must apply for the act to be immoral. That is, if the slaughter of an innocent is necessary for the maintenance of order, then it is moral, correct? — Hanover
And visa versa, surely? — Tom Storm
You seem to be arguing in favor of a foundational or transcendental guarantor for 'goodness' which you might consider to be an almost meaningless term without one. — Tom Storm
That will only work if there is no other reason for being good. Now I think that there are other reasons, including being a decent person. Hence I am critical of your post. — Banno
Much of what is posited in the name of religion is immoral. Religion, like all human activities, is plagued by hypocrisy and authoritarianism. — Banno
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. — Nagel
do we at least agree that ritual practice of some sort seems central to the concept of religion? — Banno
It's a question of reason, meaning, and purpose - and the absence of it. 'In social science, 'disenchantment' is the cultural rationalization and devaluation of [the spirit] apparent in modern society. — Wayfarer
The residue of Christian-inspired virtues remain, — Wayfarer
And I would obviously not agree. — Wayfarer
The problem is... — Wayfarer
But, why? What drives that? Mircea Eliade's answer is that religious ritual seeks to re-create the sacred in the midst of the profane. That the religious traditions seek to embody a relationship with the origin of all. Plainly much of that has become attenuated and trivialised and dessicated in today's world, but that was what was behind it. — Wayfarer
The residue of Christian-inspired virtues remain,
— Wayfarer
Putin would agree with you and claim he's restoring it. — Tom Storm
Exactly and a good illustration of how theism offers no objective basis to morality. — Tom Storm
So I think your accusation, and your psychologising, misguided. — Banno
Here's promise of something more interesting:
But, why? What drives that? Mircea Eliade's answer is that religious ritual seeks to re-create the sacred in the midst of the profane. That the religious traditions seek to embody a relationship with the origin of all. Plainly much of that has become attenuated and trivialised and dessicated in today's world, but that was what was behind it.
— Wayfarer
If this is so, then it matters not what religious practice one adopts. Further, this expression "...the origin of all...", expresses an ontological error. — Banno
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.