The OP provides an excellent opportunity to investigate the boundaries of religion. Much like how philosophers of science and scientists did with science (re the demarcation problem), we could also come up with some kind of criteria to distinguish philosophy of religion from pseudophilosophy of religion. However, I fear coming up with a set of conditions that must be fulfilled to qualify as genuine philosophy of religion isn't going to be a walk in the park. It's going to be an uphill task to decide whether or not a particular line of inquiry is relevant to religious philosophy. Sometimes the weirdest questions have unexpected philosophical significance, especially since they're usually on perceived inconsistencies in the central narrative of certain faiths.

I had thought from your last few comments towards me that you had decided it was fine to just stipulate a definition and be done with it.

So you think there must be a set of conditions that are necessary and sufficient to set out the meaning of "religion", but that these conditions are difficult to determine?

As opposed to there not being such a set of necessary and sufficient conditions because we find meaning by looking to the way the word is used, which is subject to change?

Well, the truth is, we can develop a criterion for philosophy of religion and utilize it to guide threads and dicussions. It's just that questions that prima facie seem to have no relevance actually do have one; we just need to dig a little deeper to see it. That's all.

As I pointed out, most religious threads seem to be on inconsistencies or plot holes and that's philosophy in my book: a quest for coherence in belief systems which religions are.

↪Banno Well, the truth is, we can develop a criterion for philosophy of religion and utilize it to guide threads and dicussions. It's just that questions that prima facie seem to have no relevance actually do have one; we just need to dig a little deeper to see it. That's all. — Agent Smith

SO suppose we do this, developing a set of Criteria. Suppose that some break-off group of Fundamentalist Christians set up a new organisation that meets almost, but not quite, all of the criteria to count as a religion.

Will you say that they are not a religion, or will you say that your criteria need adjusting?

If you say that they are not a religion, then your criteria are stipulated, not grounded on observation.

If you say that they are a religion, then your criteria were incomplete or inaccurate - they were wrong.

Further, this process can be repeated for any given criteria.

What follows?

When you identify a category/class, you do so by observing a motif/pattern/commonality among the members of that category/class. i.e. this is not arbitrary or, as you put it, stipulation.

Once this is under our belts, we adhere to it sensu stricto and all will be well.

Most of the time we're careless in the way we use words - we've broken bent the rules of word application (I recall you mentioned how we replace conjunction with disjunction in re definitions) and hence the predicament we find ourselves in.

Sure, all that. But address the example directly. IF your method is to observer a motif/pattern/commonality, you had best give an account of what you will do with new information. IF you set up your definition, then find a counter-instance, do you modify the definition or deny that the counter-instance is a religion? Ad hoc hypothesising or Falsification?

Sure, all that. But address the example directly. IF your method is to observer a motif/pattern/commonality, you had best give an account of what you will do with new information. IF you set up your definition, then find a counter-instance, do you modify the definition or deny that the counter-instance is a religion? Falsification or ad hoc hypothesising? — Banno

If it were upto me, I'd not compromise with my definition, which as I said is based on observed shared features, for to do so would wreak havoc in philosophy. In my view, misuse of words isn't as much an indication of wooly thinking (a bug) as it is of pattern recognition (a feature) albeit flawed.

If it were upto me, I'd not compromise with my definition, — Agent Smith

In which case you are simply stipulating a definition, never to be countered.

that's fine, so long as you do not adopt the false notion that you have found out something fundamental; about religion, rather than just decided to use the word in only one particular way.

In which case you are simply stipulating a definition, never to be countered.

that's fine, so long as you do not adopt the false notion that you have found out something fundamental; about religion, rather than just decided to use the word in only one particular way. — Banno

I must stress on the fact that we don't, as you seem to believe, stipulate definitions. We examine certain objects (physical/mental) and look for similarities that when found become the foundation of definitions. There's a rationale to definitions i.e. they're not someone's whim and fancy.

After we have a definition, we have to follow the rules, strictly, and clarity is assured.

I must stress on the fact that we don't, as you seem to believe, stipulate definitions. — Agent Smith

But that is exactly what you are doing; you are saying "Religion is A, B, C, and anything that is not A,B, C is not a religion".

Sure, you look around first, then you stipulate based on what you know and thereafter reject anyting that does not suit your definition.

After we have a definition, we have to follow the rules, strictly, and clarity is assured. — Agent Smith

So you are making a decision at some point not to further modify your definition; that is, to stipulate the definition.

As far as I can tell, this:

When we closely examine certain things, similarities and differences will be noticed. We can use the former to construct groups/categories. This isn't what I would call a personal decision - it's based on facts (shared objective features unify things under one class).

Once we've got a bead on a specific class, we can immediately infer what belongs or doesn't belong to that class. The only way we could goof up is if we don't apply the criteria for that class in the way it should be, sensu stricto. Demanding precision and accuracy vis-à-vis criteria isn't an act of stipulation.

Recall The Concept of Religion

What you are doing is what is described in the history section of article in SEP. You are adopting the position attributed to Edward Herbert, then Edward Burnett Tylor, then William James. Each is eventually found wanting; But you would perhaps have us stay with Herbert, restricting the term to "idealized Protestant monotheism".

Sure, it's not a personal decision. It is still a stipulation. Sure it's based on the facts, but the facts are subject to change without prior notice. Insisting that everything that meets your criteria, and nothing that doesn't, is religion, is stipulation.

The interesting theological questions don't lay in the explicative or moral domain of existence. The interesting theological questions concern the motives of God or their means of communication with their creation.

What you are doing is what is described in the history section of article in SEP. You are adopting the position attributed to Edward Herbert, then Edward Burnett Tylor, then William James. Each is eventually found wanting; But you would perhaps have us stay with Herbert, restricting the term to "idealized Protestant monotheism".

Sure, it's not a personal decision. It is still a stipulation. Sure it's based on the facts, but the facts are subject to change without prior notice. Insisting that everything that meets your criteria, and nothing that doesn't, is religion, is stipulation. — Banno

Ok, let's agree that the definition of the word "religion" is stipulative, but that's not anything to worry about is it? As long as you agree that words aren't defined in a whimsical, anything-goes, fashion, I don't see a problem. To drive home the point, suppose I pick up on a motif that unifies beliefs A, B, C (say that's x). I'm justified then to "stipulate", assuming this is what's going (I have my doubts), that A, B, C is to be given a category of its own with x as the membership-determining property. Let's call this category C. As is clear to you, the decision to create the category C is well-grounded (there's a shared feature viz. x). In other words a definition being stipulative isn't something we should get our knickers in a twist for.

The OP provides an excellent opportunity to investigate the boundaries of religion. — Agent Smith

Who do you propose could set the boundaries to religion? Such boundaries could only be set by God, or the gods, because only these divinities might have access to that knowledge. If human beings tried to set such boundaries the human beings would be claiming to know what could only be known by God, and that would necessarily be mistaken. Reminds me of "The Euthyphro". An adventure which is a mistake from the outset.

No matter how cogent and applicable, stipulative definitions are limited to the discursive contexts within which they can be used to make sense – eludicate – some perplexity at hand. Nonetheless, I'll give it a go:

religion – an established tradition of collective, or communal, worship (as if there is at least one 'agent of providence')

cult – at the esoteric heart of each religion, a cabal of initiates (acting as if there is an 'eschatological conspiracy')

Philosophy of Religion – analysis of the necessary and sufficient conditions, as well as the interpretative (narrative) contents, of worship

Theology – speculations on the nature of being worthy – in contrast to being unworthy – of worship

pseudophilosophy – dogma (worldview) derived from fallaciously reified abstractions, ideas, affects, psychological projections

To my mind, like other speculative topics, both theology and philosophy of religion are always at risk of degenerating into pseudophilosophies (for instance, when the focus is "on god/s" instead of "on what is said, or believed, about god/s").

pseudophilosophies (for instance, when the focus is "on god/s" instead of on "what is said, or believed, about god/s"). — 180 Proof

Philosophy isn't science. As something pseudo- to exist there must be something" Sure" to exist also as to make the comparison possible. And I don't think in philosophy there are many sure things . You could name almost all philosophies pseudophilosophies then.
And why the philosophy about God is bad or pseudo and that of "what is said about God" the "right" one? What is the criteria?

Philosophy isn't science. — dimosthenis9

Non sequitur. I didn't claim or imply "philosophy is science". Address what I've actually written and I'll get back to you.

Didn't say you did. My words.So what pseudo in philosophy means? And what is pseudo in philosophy of God compared to the other?

pseudophilosophy – dogma (worldview) derived from fallaciously reified abstractions, ideas, affects, psychological projections — 180 Proof

What anyone finds fallacious especially in God and religion issues is absolutely subjective.

In other words a definition being stipulative isn't something we should get our knickers in a twist for. — Agent Smith

So here's the earliest definition for you:

— 1. A History of the Concept

• there is a supreme deity,[2]
• this deity should be worshipped,
• the most important part of religious practice is the cultivation of virtue,
• one should seek repentance for wrong-doing, and
• one is rewarded or punished in this life and the next.

Your argument concludes that you are content with that - and will defend it against attempts to change it.

This is not something you would reconsider? If not, then it seems to me you have simply removed yourself from the conversation by act of fiat.

Suit yourself. I had at times thought you had more nous.

I had at times thought you had more nous — Banno

With enough nous you can hang yourself.

What anyone finds fallacious especially in God and religion issues is absolutely subjective. — dimosthenis9

Dinosaur bones are only subjectivity real?

Can't see the connection you want to imply.

What I was objecting was about distinguishing one philosophy of God or religion as "right" and the other as wrong and by which criteria one is called pseudo.
You apparently took it to the next level, considering all philosophies of God and religions as pseudo philosophies and useless.

No, I only attempted to point out that religious folk make claims that are objectively falsifiable. Does God exist? I don’t know. Did God make the world in seven days? Doesn’t look like it, unless he intentionally made it look like it took a bit longer for some reason. He does work in mysterious ways, so they say.

:up: Good, even if somewhat idiosyncratic, definitions.



Well, it's definitely much better to maintain a flexible attitude when it comes to definitions; a word's meaning must keep up with the times (re panta rhei) - new ideas, novel discoveries, etc. should be taken into account. However, not at the expense of a loss in clarity. It's a tightrope walk: On one side the straitjacket of rigid, lifeless definitions and on the other side chaos/confusion; we can afford neither.

With enough nous you can hang yourself. — Fooloso4

:lol: Yup, à la Socrates although his death was by hemlock. What's a hangman's rope anyway, a plant product after all. :chin: Plants...they have a way of doing things.