You make it sound like shit when you put it like that. — baker


If the shoe fits... — Banno

If the fool shits...

It's there, but solely confined to the innermost circle. That's why, in the 'scientific worldview', nothing really happens for any reason, as distinct from a prior material cause. — Wayfarer

Here's a topic!

I think this a too narrow notion of science. Science is, for many if not most scientists, a spiritual practice, a way of transcending their self by achieving an understanding of the world. The rituals of bottle washing and statistical analysis are part of a far bigger picture, they have a place within a great enterprise that has as it's goal the comprehension of reality itself. How is that not much the same as your circles in circles?

The scientists innermost reality may be washing bottles, the outermost may be understanding our place within the cosmos. Their innermost selfhood their concentration on the lifecycle of some parasitic worm, their outermost, why things are as they are.

Oh please. I'm trying to decipher your objective here as much as you are trying to decipher mine — Hanover

Doubtless.

If the fool shits... — Janus

Who here is not a fool? You?

Who did you think I was referring to? Exempting myself? Not I. Really merely a play on words...with no one in particular in mind...

In my defence I did lead with

It is apparent that it is not possible to set out what it is to be a religion, any more than for what it is to be a game. — Banno

So the candidates for an anchor that seem most promising are ritual, transcendent hierarchies and longing.

The question which for me is central to the thread is now why science does not count as a religion, given these anchors.

SO you've some knowledge of introspection. What do you think of 's

if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe.

Is introspection fundamental to understanding our place in the Universe? Or can physics show us the face of god?

I think Schopenhuaer's statement is an apologetic for his idea that the noumenon is Will. Not so profound, in my view, and all the less so because he nicked the idea from Spinoza (conatus).

The idea that pure intellectual intuition can yield real knowledge was demolished by Kant, and Hegel attempted to resurrect it. The idea is common to religions in the forms of "revelation" or "enlightenment". .

I think such intuitionistic ideas are incapable of demonstration; even if intuition or introspection can give us true direct knowledge of the nature of things, that it could do so can never be demonstrated. So we might know, but can never know that we know. Same goes for science, of course. The whole idea of certain knowledge is bogus, in my view.

I think the most certain knowledge we can have is the phenomenological knowledge of reflection on our experience. But even that assumes the reliability of memory. I think we live better if we live comfortable with uncertainty.

On longing...

So, the human condition is indeterminate on all fronts where knowledge stakes a claim. Our existence is entirely indeterminate in all of its affairs, and this deserves repeating, because it is rarely given its due, to, well, stand before all things and realize our familiar systems of explaining the world are without ground. It is standing before the world without the presumption of knowing; THIS is, I argue, the essence of religion. And there is nowhere this is experienced so deeply as in ethics. — Constance

You are describing a sort of existential angst, the looking into the void, the acknowledgement that all this stuff is bullshit.

But so much of religion is the opposite; the certainty of faith runs whole against what you set out here. Faith is "standing before the world with the presumption of knowing."

I hadn't realised the link between Spinoza's pantheism and the Jewish tradition of eminence until this thread.

I think the most certain knowledge we can have is the phenomenological knowledge of reflection on our experience. — Janus

...whereas I would not call that either certain, nor knowledge. It doesn't have the propositional character of either. The private nature of introspection rules it out of contention for a foundation for knowledge.

Interesting.

But so much of religion is the opposite; the certainty of faith runs whole against what you set out here. Faith is "standing before the world with the presumption of knowing." — Banno

But see: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV

The private nature of introspection rules it out of contention for a foundation for knowledge. — Banno

Not introspection, reflection. By remembering we can know how things seem to us. Even in relation to mere introspection, if we report whatever we find and others report the same, then we can have an inter-subjective basis for knowledge, which in the final analysis, is the only basis there is. Of course none of it demonstrates anything about anything beyond our experience.

Does it make sense to say one knows how things seem? Isn't it just that they seem? Any ratiocination is excessive.

It would be a mistake to think that because something is undefined, it is meaningless.

Knowing how things seem means becoming conscious of how they seem. Seeming can very well remain unconscious.

Knowing how things seem means becoming conscious of how they seem. — Janus

I don't agree, not at first blush. Knowing is doing; That one knows how to ride a bike is demonstrated in the act of riding. Just being aware (conscious) of the bike is wholly insufficient.

And when the you lie there annihilated by your own foolishness at the horse's feet, THEN the religious event has its grounding. — Constance

How true!

Did you know that the Krishna - avatar of Vishnu, the supreme god of the Hindu Trimurti - is less well known for his miracles than his cunning? Kinda blurs the boundary between supernatural powers and just plain and simple intelligence.

would be a mistake to think that because something is undefined, it is meaningless. — Banno

The reference to Ecclesiastes was to provide a counter to the idea that religion does not include existential doubting and to quell your whole enterprise of finding a few key terms to focus on in your quest for a definition of "religion."

In any event, don't get too focused on the word "meaningless" in that translation. The more accurate translation is probably "vapor." https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/what-translation-best-translates-the-word-vanity-in-the-kjv-in-ecclesiastes

"Vanity" is a common translation as well.

We can't even define the meaning of meaningless. Ironic I guess.

I don't agree, not at first blush. Knowing is doing; That one knows how to ride a bike is demonstrated in the act of riding. Just being aware (conscious) of the bike is wholly insufficient. — Banno

That one knows how things seem to one is demonstrated in the act of being conscious of how things seem. It is also an act, a doing. I wasn't suggesting that one could know how to do complex tasks merely by being aware of them or whatever apparatus they involve.

\

That one knows how things seem to one is demonstrated in the act of being conscious of how things seem. It is also an act, a doing. — Janus

Ah, seeming as something we do... a practice, the following of a rule?

The rule would be to reflect, or be aware, I suppose.

But so much of religion is the opposite; the certainty of faith runs whole against what you set out here. Faith is "standing before the world with the presumption of knowing." — Banno

That is not Kierkegaardian faith, of course. But as the usual kind, Chomsky was asked about religion and his response was a good one. If you're just desperate and life is just wretched wherever you turn, I am not going to be giving you an argument about the foolishness of public religions.

But as a philosophical question of religion is not bound to incidentals. It wants to know what is it in the world that makes the world a "religious place" and I mean "religious" as a structural feature. We don't want a thing to be defined by its entanglements. Faith as a presumption of knowing, rather than as I have characterized it, would be a matter of objectifying metaphysics, taking strong impossible claims as if they were as true as geology. I have little patience for this kind of thing.

As a structural feature of our existence, I refer to the structure of knowledge relations, all of which are open. It is, I mean it should be, quite a thing to really understand this.

I think this a too narrow notion of science. Science is, for many if not most scientists, a spiritual practice, a way of transcending their self by achieving an understanding of the world. The rituals of bottle washing and statistical analysis are part of a far bigger picture, they have a place within a great enterprise that has as it's goal the comprehension of reality itself. How is that not much the same as your circles in circles? — Banno

I had this more in mind:

At the basis of the whole modern view of the world lies the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena. — TLP 6.371

Did you know that the Krishna - avatar of Vishnu, the supreme god of the Hindu Trimurti - is less well known for his miracles than his cunning? Kinda blurs the boundary between supernatural powers and just plain and simple intelligence. — Agent Smith

Implying that the religious situation is no more than a realization of one's lack of cunning? But then, the term "supernatural" just gives religion a bad name, which it usually deserves. But the reality of religion lies outside of the cunning and the supernatural. It is something else.

Dawkins has not the least inkling of what the term 'transcendence' means. — Wayfarer

This reeks of prejudice and close-mindedness.

Saying Lord of the Rings is not an accurate account of the history of the world is neither useful nor cogent. — Banno

What if half the world “believes” that it’s accurate?

Science is, for many if not most scientists, a spiritual practice, a way of transcending their self by achieving an understanding of the world. The rituals of bottle washing and statistical analysis are part of a far bigger picture, they have a place within a great enterprise that has as it's goal the comprehension of reality itself. How is that not much the same as your circles in circles? — Banno

The "rituals of bottle washing"? And the liturgy of the lecture hall and the Eucharist examination? Heh, heh....I don't think so. If so, then everything is religion. Washing my dog. Ah, the soapy....baptism?

We cannot make explicit the bounds of when a proper invocation of religion is made, however we can generally demarcate the territory. You and I may not agree on what religion is, but I think we will likely agree on many things that are not religious and many things that are. I do, however, find the mention of magic in the article to be helpful - not everything fantastical/miraculous is in the bucket.

What I want to shy away from is the idea that the concept is of necessity the same in all contexts - that what makes religion fit for use in one case is what makes it fit for use in another. We try it and see if helps the conversation along - no need to quibble about use if we find it falls flat. And that perhaps is the unspoken difference - the people in the article are making use of the word and other people seem to be more interested in saying why the “concept” is stupid.

I was thinking that being aware of (x) is seeing it as... Is that right?

Then they are mistaken.