No. It's exactly right. Show me were it goes wrong. — Banno
The religious one, yes, by definition.
That's the thing about stipulating definitions. They make philosophy so much easier — Banno
The point is to determine what they are. — Banno
From this very superficial analysis of good definitions, it appears that for us to able to define a word it's necessary for the referents of the word (the extension) to be both alike (genus) and unalike (differentia). That's a tall order even for someone as powerful as Momma Nature. — Agent Smith
All right, it's porridge (Genus) without sugar (differentia) — Banno
Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements; however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.
In English, the meaning "particular system of faith in the worship of a divine being or beings" is by c. 1300; the sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.
You view would seem to be at odds with the church fathers. — Banno
Let's wait till we know god exists before we start calling things 'divine'. — ZzzoneiroCosm
The point of that study was, as the quoted section says, to understand the common themes in different religious traditions, through a number of perspectives. It was as near as you can get to a kind of scientific study of the subject. I found the anthropological and sociological perspectives particularly interesting. — Wayfarer
I know what they do and how they think. Philosophy's job, as I see it, is to take this, and give a reflective analysis. What is going on when we pull away from the participation, and see it in a broader context? — Constance
You seem to think other people are as much in the dark about god as you. — baker
But what when no actual religious person believes those things? Comparative religion tends to offer concepts that are alien to actual practitioners. Religious people normally don't seem to have a metareligious or suprareligious view of their religion. — baker
The moment we 'pull away from the participation', we stop being religious.
What use is the 'broader context' to a religious person? — baker
So what? You're not allowed to have an interest in the subject unless you're a 'religious person'? Who get to decide that? — Wayfarer
Do you know that god exists, or do you believe that god exists? — ZzzoneiroCosm
Well, the broader context is philosophy's world: pull away from mundane affairs and ask more fundamental questions, like what does it mean to know something, not about the weather of if the couch is comfortable, but anything at all. But when you arrive here, you face indeterminacy, which is a term I lifted from others to use place of metaphysics. — Constance
When you face indeterminacy at the foundation of all of our affairs, you are where religion begins, and where philosophy should be. The former is fiction, largely, the latter analysis.
Perhaps not so useless; after all, it is not something to be measured by how it looks in the dress, the posture and behavior, and so on. — Constance
My point is that comparative religion offers concepts that are alien to actual religions, concepts that are artificial impositions on actual religions.
For example, the idea that all religions are essentially about the same things, the same desire for the sacred. In contrast, religions typically take a dim view of eachother. — baker
The hatred that religions have often showed for other religions is one of the best arguments against religion. — Wayfarer
As I said at the outset, when I embarked on that course of study, my quest revolved around 'what is enlightenment?' (Years later that would become a magazine title published by a turn-of-the-centuy bogus guru.) But I still think it's a valid and legitimate question.
The kind of cross cultural study of religion that comparative religion offers provides plenty of insights into that.
It's not clear whether the idea is justified that enlightenment is somehow an objective phenomenon, quite independent of religions, and that different religions just have different takes on it. — baker
I have always understood religion to include epistemology, and other philosophical disciplines.
Granted, some religions are more explicit about this than others.
In regard to this, I've had strange experiences with some religious people. For example, when I asked a Christian what the self was, he told me that this was the field of psychology, not religion. He preached eternal damnation to outsiders of his religion, yet he thought it is psychology that decides what exactly it is that burns in hell forever. Bizarre! — baker
And you remain mundane, as always. — Constance
Here you find foundational indeterminacy, which reveals itself as a wonder and horror of our being here. One has to step OUT of texts to witness this. — Constance
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.