Hick is known as a pluralist. That captures the point I'm trying to make about there being a 'core insight' that is carried in the various traditions - but without merging them all into a kind of new-age syncretism. They're agreeing AND disagreeing about something real. But whatever that reality is, is out-of-scope for what we currently understand as science.

that virtue is Christian-inspired is a convenient, self-serving myth. — Banno

But what underwrites virtue? It's all very well to gesture towards eudomonia, but Aristotle was also quite religious in a different way to Christianity, but nevertheless:

[1177a11] But if happiness [εὐδαιμονία] consists in activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be activity in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be the virtue of the best part of us. Whether then this be the Intellect [νοῦς], or whatever else it be that is thought to rule and lead us by nature, and to have cognizance of what is noble and divine, either as being itself also actually divine, or as being relatively the divinest part of us, it is the activity of this part of us in accordance with the virtue proper to it that will constitute perfect happiness; and it has been stated already* that this activity is the activity of contemplation [θεωρητική]. — Nichomachean Ethics

Furthermore, he elaborates elsewhere that seeking this out is the telos, the ultimate aim, of philosophy itself. And you won't find many counterparts to that in today's philosophy. (This is a major point in After Virtue.)

I'm at pains to point out that it's not exactly 'theism' that at issue. — Wayfarer

Yes and no. The idea of god being dead, with all foundational values collapsing, is on the table in this discussion. And Weber's idea of disenchantment also springs from theism's gradual diminution from Western cultural life. But of course we can locate foundational values in idealism and mysticism too.

.

humans live in an unreal world, a false world, a sea of delusion. — Wayfarer

This is an intoxicating story, which probably tempts just about everyone interested in philosophy, be it on the religious or anti-religious wing. Enlightenment, waking from the dream, bearing the torch, leading others from the cave...this is the general form of the grand version the intellectual hero myth, or so it seems to me.

But one man's torch is precisely another man's delusion. For some, the myth of the cave is itself the cave. The narrative is aggressive, since it labels the majority (the generic other) as confused and lost (it doesn't matter that much what the content happens to be.) 'I'm OK, You're not OK.'

I don't deny the allure of this aggression. I also don't pretend that this description is exhaustive. I think the way we live now is alienating and unreal ('society of the spectacle,' etc.) One of the weird features of this world is the rank plurality of aggressively grand narratives.

This is an intoxicating story.... — jas0n

I like what you write here.

Quick question however -

I think the way we live now is alienating and unreal ('society of the spectacle,' etc.) — jas0n

When did humans last have a culture that did not contain its share of unreality and alienation? One of the other great intoxicating stories is the notion of paradise lost or, in internet comments language; 'Everything today is worse that it used to be...'

When did humans last have a culture that did not contain its share of unreality and alienation? One of the other great intoxicating stories is the notion of paradise lost or, in internet comments language; 'Everything today is worse that it used to be...' — Tom Storm

Exactly !

Guy Debord opens his The Society of the Spectacle with an old quote from Feuerbach.

But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence... illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm

Perhaps Debord would say that Feuerbach was already living in the beginning of the age of the spectacle (yet without photorealistic false-Heaven that Berger, a similar thinker, talks about.) Maybe he just liked the eloquence.

I think your point touches on a version of cave myth as the actual cave. I looked up some 'pure witness' mysticism, and a big theme there is that it's precisely the seeking of this nondual experience that obscures it. I suspect that alienation just comes with sophistication and differentiation. It's a toll one pays.

Here's a taste of a 'non-religious' (?) example of 'the general theory of a the dominant illusion.'

In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.

The images detached from every aspect of life fuse in a common stream in which the unity of this life can no longer be reestablished. Reality considered partially unfolds, in its own general unity, as a pseudo-world apart, an object of mere contemplation. The specialization of images of the world is completed in the world of the autonomous image, where the liar has lied to himself. The spectacle in general, as the concrete inversion of life, is the autonomous movement of the non-living.

The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as all of society, as part of society, and as instrument of unification. As a part of society it is specifically the sector which concentrates all gazing and all consciousness. Due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is the common ground of the deceived gaze and of false consciousness, and the unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of generalized separation. — Debord

A taste of Berger, too. Why not?

Publicity is effective precisely because it feeds upon the real. Clothes, food, cars, cosmetics, baths, sunshine are real things to be enjoyed in themselves. Publicity begins by working on a natural appetite for pleasure. But it cannot offer the real object of pleasure and there is no convincing substitute for a pleasure in that pleasure's own terms. The more convincingly publicity conveys the pleasure of bathing in a warm, distant sea, the more the spectator-buyer will become aware that he is hundreds of miles away from that sea and the more remote the chance of bathing in it will seem to him. This is why publicity can never really afford to be about the product or opportunity it is proposing to the buyer who is not yet enjoying it. Publicity is never a celebration of a pleasure-in-itself. Publicity is always about the future buyer. It offers him an image of himself made glamorous by the product or opportunity it is trying to sell. The image then makes him envious of himself as he might be. Yet what makes this self-which-he-might-be enviable? The envy of others. Publicity is about social relations, not objects. Its promise is not of pleasure, but of happiness : happiness as judged from the outside by others. The happiness of being envied is glamour.

Being envied is a solitary form of reassurance. It depends precisely upon not sharing your experience with those who envy you. You are observed with interest but you do not observe with interest - if you do, you will become less enviable. — Berger

This is in Kojève too. We desire to be desired. Someone needs to be blind, less than, looking up, outside in the cold... (?)

The idea of god being dead, with all foundational values collapsing, is on the table in this discussion. — Tom Storm

It's an idea I've never bought into. I'm old enough to remember the (in)famous Time Magazine cover story on that, and didn't take it seriously, not that I was 'churchy'.

one man's torch is precisely another man's delusion — jas0n

The fact that these traditions can go wrong and become disastrously perverted is a consequence of human nature. Humans can wreck just about anything.

A taste of Berger, too. Why not? — jas0n

I really liked his book The Heretical Imperative. And I got a lot out of sociological studies of religions.

perhaps one man's torch is precisely another man's delusion — jas0n

The sun’s light is refracted by the earth’s atmosphere into the spectrum of the different colours of the rainbow. Perhaps the ultimate light of the universal divine presence is refracted by our different human religious cultures into the spectrum of the different world faiths. Or, in the words of the medieval Sufi thinker, Jalaluldin Rumi, ‘The lamps are different but the Light is the same: it comes from Beyond’.

And concerning the different, and indeed often conflicting, belief systems of the religions: our earth is a three-dimensional globe. But when you map it on a two dimensional surface, such as a piece of paper, you have to distort it. You cannot get three dimensions into two without distortion. And there are a variety of projections used by cartographers which are different systematic ways of distorting the earth’s curvature to represent it on a flat surface. But if a map made in one projection is correct it does not follow that maps made in other projections are incorrect. If they are properly made they are all correct, and yet they all distort. Perhaps our different theologies, both within the same religion and between different religions, are human maps of the infinite divine reality made in different projections, i.e. different conceptual systems. These all necessarily distort, since that infinite reality as it is in itself cannot be represented in our finite human terms. But perhaps all are equally useful in enabling us make our journey through life. — John Hick

But, in a pluralistic culture where very different and even antagonistic cultures are all in contact through global media, there's also bound to be a lot of friction.

The fact that these traditions can go wrong and become disastrously perverted is a consequence of human nature. Humans can wreck just about anything. — Wayfarer

Indeed. In that post, I was trying to think from a neutral place and acknowledge the aggressive clash of demystifications. We have metaphors of vision and light and a metaphors of curtains and veils. Zoom out to this level, and we're like a bunch of pugnacious one-eyed men calling each other blind.

I really liked his book The Heretical Imperative. — Wayfarer

Different Berger actually. The 'glamour' critic is John Berger. I did value Peter Berger's The Social Construction of Reality.

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

What do "habits" and "values" have to do with religion - as if religion has a monopoly on the use of such terms?

We are not creatures of habit. If we were then there wouldn't be humans that go against the grain, like Galileo, and question our habits and values. The world changes so any habits eventually don't work anymore and new ways of adapting are valued (selected by natural selection).

It seems to me that walking that thin line between habit and novelty is the human condition, at least for those that are non-religious. The religious are the ones that stick with habit even in the face of drastic change to their own detriment.

This problem with the term "religion" is no different from the term "cup," yet we use the term cup in a meaningful way. That is, I can give thousands of examples of cups (just like I can with religions), but there will always be some cup example that falls outside the definition that we keep trying to refine. There is no essential element of a cup for it to be a cup, but that hardly means we can't speak of cups. — Hanover

Sure, our use of language attempts to divide the world into neat boxes and we often find that the world is not neatly divided into boxes, but it seems to me that for you to even imply that there are common and uncommon properties that make some thing a cup is itself admitting that there are properties that make one thing more of a cup than another. The fact that you would scoff at my attempt to show you a bowl and call it a cup proves my point. The same goes for religion.

I should point out that religion is a human invention. Natural things like oceans vs. seas, asteroids vs. comets are not. So in trying to define, or divide nature, into boxes we will find that there are objects that will challenge our definitions. This is not the case for human inventions, like religions and presidents. Humans invented these things and have a much easier time defining them than things that we didn't invent.

I just see this comment as positing a false dichotomy between (1) the scientific method and (2) religion. Most people use neither, but accept as proof just their instinct or general observations. We don't engage in rigorous experimentation for most of our beliefs. Someone who insists upon herbal remedies, for example, isn't practicing religion or science.

It's an error to also deny an overlap between the two also, as most religious people accept science (to greater and lesser degrees) and plenty of scientists allow for the unknown variable, which they to greater and lesser extent attribute to God.

In any event, nothing I've said is inconsistent with atheism or suggests, hints, or intimates there may be a god. My point is simply that your argument of the incoherency of the term "religion" effectively proves its non-existence is incorrect. — Hanover

Sure it does. Your explanation shows that atheism qualifies as a religion, not to mention believing in evolution by natural selection, that Augustus was the first Roman Emperor, or that I need to wear a mask to stop the spread of Covid - all religions by your standard. :confused:

Most people use science without even knowing it. Using your senses, solving problems by the process of elimination, testing your ideas, etc. are all aspects of doing science. Favoring one untested idea over other untested and tested ideas is the primary characteristic of a religion.

So far as the topic goes, do we at least agree that ritual practice of some sort seems central to the concept of religion? — Banno

Human life is pervasively ritualistic. Much of it is non-religious, so no.

So far as the topic goes, do we at least agree that ritual practice of some sort seems central to the concept of religion?
— Banno

Human life is pervasively ritualistic. Much of it is non-religious, so no. — frank

Right. I think it is the motive behind the ritual that makes it religious or not. If the motive is to achieve some goal where there is no evidence that such rituals achieve such goals, then that is a religion.

Right. I think it is the motive behind the ritual that makes it religious or not. If the motive is to achieve some goal where there is no evidence that such rituals achieve such goals, then that is a religion. — Harry Hindu

Shaking hands is a ritual. Is there any evidence that it achieves its goals? :lol:

The goal in hand-shaking is to great someone, to begin a conversation and to show that you come in peace and aren't holding a weapon. There is evidence this ritual achieves that goal, unlike some ritual that gets you to heaven or nirvana, or pleases some god.

How about the Jewish ritual of washing your hands before you eat? Effective or not?

How about the Jewish ritual of washing your hands before you eat? Effective or not? — frank

Washing your hands before you eat isn't necessarily a Jewish ritual. Are you Jewish every time you wash your hands?

There is evidence that washing your hands before you eat promotes a healthy lifestyle.

Any other examples you want to throw at me? This is fun.

Washing your hands before you eat isn't necessarily a Jewish ritual — Harry Hindu

It actually is. It was a whole thing.

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety.

As ssu says: learn history.

This problem with the term "religion" is no different from the term "cup," yet we use the term cup in a meaningful way. That is, I can give thousands of examples of cups (just like I can with religions), but there will always be some cup example that falls outside the definition that we keep trying to refine. There is no essential element of a cup for it to be a cup, but that hardly means we can't speak of cups. — Hanover

I should also add that if the term "religion" is as vague as you claim, then I could just as easily claim that any behavior or belief is not a religion. This is the problem is asserting that the definition of "religion" is subjective, or that people can use the term however they want, because someone can always use it in a way that is contradictory to another use.

Then all Jews should be following the rituals as laid out originally in the Bible, yet many of them don't, yet still call themselves "Jews".

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety. — frank

So practicing a religious ritual shows that you are religious?

By the 1st Century, it was apparently used as a show of piety.
— frank
So practicing a religious ritual shows that you are religious? — Harry Hindu

Yes. Plus it lessens your chances of food poisoning.

Yes. Plus it lessens your chances of food poisoning. — frank

Right. So, there is evidence that washing your hands lessens your chances of food poisoning, hence washing your hands is not religious. But there is no evidence that washing your hands is a display of piety. It seems to me that when your goal is to lessen you chance of food poisoning and not to display piety, then the "ritual" is non-religious.

Also, there is no evidence that Jews were the first to wash their hands. That would be a religion to believe that.

then the "ritual" is non-religious. — Harry Hindu

And since there are non-religious rituals, and religions that don't have specific rituals, ritual is not the essence of religion.

It shouldn't be surprising that after 5000 years of drastic change in world views, the word "religion" is hard to define.

The notion that one needs a reason for being good is... problematic. — Banno

I agree.

We do not need a reason for wanting what is good for ourselves. Although what we want may not actually be good for us, we want it for no other reason than because we regard it as good.

The more our desire for what is good is motivated by the question of what is good, the closer the connection between what we seek and what we are. The desire for what is good becomes inextricably linked to the desire to be good. The reason for being good is for no other reason than that we regard it as good.

But there is a much simpler answer. Being good is not the result of finding some reason for being good. We do not need a reason to care or be empathetic. If we lack those capacities there is no reason that will make us care or become empathetic. If we are completely devoid of goodness there is no reason that will provide us or compel us to do what we have no capacity for.

Although religion may play a role here, it is not a necessary role.

Although religion may play a role here, it is not a necessary role. — Fooloso4

Our concept of goodness is complex because it's a fusion of a number of different cultural attitudes. It can be about duty, progress, victory over adversity, etc.

Most of these concepts were transmitted by religious traditions, so we could say that's the role of religion here.

Most of these concepts were transmitted by religious traditions, so we could say that's the role of religion here. — frank

I agree that religion has played a role in transmission. Certainly claims of divine origin and authority have proven to be effective. They place moral authority above man.

A more fundamental question has to do with the origin of these concepts. Do they come from the gods or from men using the gods as a guise? What do we know of what the gods demand of us? All that has been transmitted to us has been through the work of men. What do we do when these works tell us different and conflicting things?

Much of religion has been exclusionary even when it strives to be universal. A morality that may work for an insular group can come into conflict with that other groups that either hold different or no religious beliefs.

There is no necessity that what has historically been transmitted by religious tradition must be transmitted by religious tradition. In fact, for those who have become suspicious of it or outright reject it, religion can be an impediment to ethics.

Much of religion has been exclusionary even when it strives to be universal. A morality that may work for an insular group can come into conflict with that other groups that either hold different or no religious beliefs. — Fooloso4

If our tradition is good and ultimately true then other ways must be false and bad, and this discrepancy is commonly capitalized on in order to reify tribal identity, and rationalize abuse of the other.

religion can be an impediment to ethics. — Fooloso4

If the role of religion is really to bind people in a tribal group then dependency on the group is essential. Personal development of virtue leads to independence and is therefore at odds with the purpose of religion.

What do we do when these works tell us different and conflicting things? — Fooloso4

And that's an important question. What is the value of conflict on this forum? I'd say ideally it allows for deeper examination and reflection.

That’s one reason to respect opposing views. Another is that it allows a diverse population to exist peacefully. Acceptance promotes recognition of humanity. That's a value from our time.

There is no necessity that what has historically been transmitted by religious tradition must be transmitted by religious tradition. — Fooloso4

I agree. I think an important point alluded to in the OP article is that the remnants of religion are all around us. We don't recognize them until we start doing a little exploration of history. So religion isn't over there somewhere in those people. It's here. Within you. In the way you speak, think, and act.

This is the main reason religion is hard to define now.

practicing a religious ritual shows that you are religious? — Harry Hindu

This imposes a modern sensibility on some ancient belief systems. What you call "ritual" for some encompasses their every act, from opening their eyes in the morning to going to sleep at night. They behave in a way consistent with God's will because they believe that's the correct way to behave. By the same token, you behave as you do based upon empirical evidence, believing certain behaviors lead to certain consequences.

Your ritual of hand washing is not just for clean hands, but for safe food, avoidance of illness, long life, etc. That is, to achieve your good. That's precisely why the religious wash their hands. I just want to point out here that the religious are not superstitious, simply trying to quell their OCD, but they believe as firmly as you in the legitimacy of their behavior.

Then all Jews should be following the rituals as laid out originally in the Bible, yet many of them don't, yet still call themselves "Jews". — Harry Hindu

Actually, the ancient Hebrews were descents of the Jews, and typically the word "Jew" wouldn't have been used pre 6th century bce. In any event, Judaism changed dramatically over the years, bringing up again the problem of their not being an essence to the term.

I describe myself as a non-ritualstic Jew. That doesn't mean my family won't gather for Passover Seder, but that has nothing to do with me thinking God will bless me for the event anymore than when your family might gather for your birthday. In truth, along with our matzoh, we color eggs on Passover, which isn't exact textbook haggadah. Is that ritual?

If the role of religion is really to bind people in a tribal group then dependency on the group is essential. Personal development of virtue leads to independence and is therefore at odds the purpose of religion. — praxis

There is a tension here. On the one hand, one must be obedient, but on the other there are cases, as with the prophets of Israel, where the people are corrupt and the prophet stands against them. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah because the people are corrupt God is about to destroy them. Abraham stands with the righteous among them and against God, questioning him: "Will you wipe away the righteous with the wicked?" (Genesis 18:22)

What is the value of conflict on this forum? I'd say ideally it allows for deeper examination and reflection. — frank

I agree. And the fact that it takes place on a forum rather than in private is important. All too often there are some who are more interested in defending their claims then in reflecting on them. Those who are reading without having a stake in a particular outcome may be the ones who most benefit.
(

We don't recognize them until we start doing a little exploration of history. — frank

Some people are puzzles why an atheist would know the Bible. Until recently (20th century?) educated people in the West were very familiar with the Bible, whether they agreed with it or not. A favorite example of mine is from Descartes. What he is doing in the Meditations can be seen in a different light when one is familiar with the theme of being like God in Genesis, and how this relates to what Descartes says about knowledge, will, immortality and perfectibility.

“The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” — Genesis 3:22

The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. — Genesis 11:6

By willing only what one knows Descartes says we cannot err. His geometric method of solving for any unknown makes it possible, given enough time, which is assured by an immortal soul/mind, to leave nothing unknown. Thus man is infinitely perfectible, that is, more and more like the gods. Nothing we plan to do will be impossible.