So religion can be, unsurprisingly, valid with reality and can even inform and intuit how the world fundamentally works. I would say, being charitable, they're all valid to some extent even if when applied to the slightest non-adjacent issue they may desire caveats.

Also certain religious positions informed math. The astrology which the sumerians developed for farming etc, showed around 360 days a year. This seemed to be what determined truth or reality most for them so they departed with standard fingers and toes number bases and used a base 60. This allowed fractions and an easily workable base that allowed trigonometry, metal-smelting perhaps etc.

I hope you don't mind a slight digression. I think the naturalist/meteorological theory of religion (that man sought religion to explain natural/meteorological phenomena) has a lot more issues as it would imply less naturalism still.

I'm not a continentalist at all but I believe the distinction was between phenomenology (there are objective ways to understand viewpoints, so requiring an external to communicate perspectives) vs psychologism as you've explained.
I can't speak to what Heidegger said particularly.

I could give an example in joystick controllers. It requires more than two inputs in any direction. You can use fuzzy logic which gets rid of law of non-contradiction and law of excluded middle and allows half presses on electric keyboard which mimics the piano key hitting a string with the variable force you use to press it.
So while digital can't exactly mimic the analog in that same manner, it can do a decent job trying to cover it.
Classical logic, however, is dualistic and uses only a bivalence logic (bi = two and valence = value) so the way they get around it is by using two or multiple propositions creating a pseudo-multi-valued logic (speed/force and direction).

There are other issues including Russell's paradox but computers run on them. I think the "true/false" duality actually hides two other choices (maybe "stop/go") but it is workable just doesn't seem fully accurate. A corollary may be that polarities/opposites don't actually exist except as an epistemological framework that inaccurately captures what happens (xx > xy chromosomes etc).

I'd appreciate it if you don't reply to me.

He said at the end of tractatus that "what one cannot say one shouldn't speak of". This was confused by carnap and the austrian school that he was a logical empiricist. He wasn't saying that though, he was christian after reading cs lewis's famous christianity book about the gospels (which he liked better than the gospels he read after and had to be convinced that the gospels were worthy of cs lewis attributions).
In that I'm not sure what you mean by a mystic unless you mean christian who wasn't very religious.

Newton was into very esoteric spirituality and became a private unitarian after investigating the bible.

If being bad at something doesn't preclude admission then it seems to be a general will that allows identification.

I think etymologically we use senses to convey knowledge in general just as a biological derivative. We rely on our senses a lot. If it's prevalent in attic greek/sumerian I wouldn't be surprised but we had a huge empiricist turn in the early modern era which was separate of the catholic aristotelian turn where everything is from God.
There are several possible derivations.

I mean as anybody has said, the issue is clearly meta. There's nothing in even the most perverse of interpretations of Putin that suggest getting rid of him, or even his friends, would help. It's been said even more that getting rid of Russia wouldn't help (it hasn't been said but this applies to asia as well). At a certain point the obvious solution of ridding things or focusing on just Putin won't suffice.
I think an interesting point was the "kleptopia" (an honestly useless neologism where "late-stage capitalism" or a derived perspective from a fuller body of work may have sufficed) argument and that may solve issues that precipitate into issues that the articles touched upon. Introducing social credit system as an economic system of value or even promoting digital currencies may help but we have to see this completely as a failure of the west or the west loses the right of hegemony as a superpower (which it's already had chipped away). The sanctions are further arguing against any proper western hegemony.
For history this will be viewed less as "Putin's war" and more as a continual fall of western hegemony that started with its domestic issues, went through afghanistan and the covid conspiracies and finally here.

I think I've got a feel for what you mean.

I agree with this. I think all religions have been developing towards a monotheist conception of Hod because that's what he is and we still have a few more conceptions to understand as we grow in our relationship with him.

What's an "OOOO-god"?

The hebrews took a similar henotheist/monolatry route that the greeks did with their patron gods. It allowed a better metaphysical foundation for ethics, sovereignty etc. An obvious metaphysical development after that is pure monotheism and then some type of universalism. It has practical advantages over the previous stages of religion because it overlaps more properly with reality.

I think it's been over-said that your conversation topic being limited to the 5 essays will never answer your question and that you should've been clear you wanted no more answer than what the 5 essays professed.

Quantity has never meant a change in quality. Monotheism wasn't about getting rid of many gods, it was about having a single foundation. Plato and Aristotle required a single foundation.

I can go the opposite route. In histories of philosophy they generally include freud who either did detest philosophy or would have detested the label. It's hard to include psychologism etc without including all the metaphysical work he did about establishing a variable and developing as much of human psychology (even developing concepts we still use today like subconscious and projections and other bits).

Political philosophy is not what politicians practice. I think a very easy finish line is saying you have your own metaphysics which can derive a philosophy of history/sex/math/politics/biology ad naseum formally. If you can effectively have an opinion on everything as derived from your metaphysics then you're a philosopher in people's eyes.
Everyone borrows their culture's metaphysics and wisdom and they necessarily seek wisdom so in all senses I would call everyone a philosopher in that they will always benefit from learning philosophy in any endeavor they take. Philosophy is unique in that but if people want the concept of a successful or paradable philosopher then that formal metaphysics works.

I think he's saying if you have to "pay your dues" to be a philosopher then how does he know if he's paid his dues? The example was studying over a line in Plato that you may consider mystic for decades and come out with the idea of objective justice after all that? In this sense they're using time and effort in established philisophy to see if that's paying dues. He was hoping for a very specific answer and finish line.

Sure but perspectives would be immaterial here to the question of God's existence or not.
For lack of exhaustion, this link deals a bit more into the issues of a scholastic conception of christ as used by catholics then.

Edit: For fun, this is a positive example of religion affecting physics. Newton's particular conception justified an aristotelian prime mover which informed his physics in a different way from Leibniz. A key difference between the two is Newton's acceptance of absolute motion where Leibniz only allowed relative motion. I don't know the formal derivation but I imagine this suffices.

Also this may be interesting,

In recent literature, Newton's theses regarding the ontology of space and time have come to be called substantivalism in contrast to relationism. It should be emphasized, though, that Newton did not regard space and time as genuine substances (as are, paradigmatically, bodies and minds), but rather as real entities with their own manner of existence as necessitated by God's existence (more specifically, his omnipresence and eternality).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/

That quote is emphasizing why Newton chose absolute space and absolute time which was a development past Descartes, who denied space because he didn't think anything could be empty. Two different conceptions of God with two different physics derivations.

You said math can be informed by anything and I showed an example where calculus, which is really close to arithmetic, still can't inform arithmetic.
In this, since religion informs math, it is not informable by culture. You may be conflating math the field with math the objects/relationships of quantity etc.

Edit: Math, the field, may decide to go to lunch later because a fire drill where math, the system of relationships between quantities, is never affected by fire drills, it actually informs the physics which allows them.

I think maybe a more concrete example is how arithmetic informs calculus (you need arithmetic to do calculus but not vice versa). Whether you use a duodecimal system or decimal etc, and even how you do arithmetic (whether it's wrong or not) informs how the calculus problem will be (what digits are used and whether it's wrong or not or whether there are multiple answers).
In this same sense, culture simply doesn't have the ability to inform decisions like whether math/science are foundationalist and how they relate to each other (creation/causation narrative). An example of this is the Jesuits, and even ancient greeks up to archimedes and beyond, denying or banning infintesimals. This changed how math was done (more geometrically) and caused calculus to not be developed.

As for the last bit, I believe people pick what they believe is most true in any situation and existential crises happen when a really fundamental belief one holds is shown to not be as universally applicable so I believe trend towards a single foundation or fundamental truth but allow caveats either through ignorance or some more fundamental truth that guides when to choose between the two.

Maybe a distinction between spirituality of your culture and spirituality of you as an individual may help. We would say spirituality of your culture informs the individual but that the spirituality of the culture is still deficient of God.

However you may define God (even as a "woo"), it's dealing with objects which would inform math etc. The best example I can think of which is complete is Aristotle's prime mover and how important and informative it is to the universe as he views it. His science, to whichever degrees of accuracy they are, are informed by that thing which is more fundamental than a culture. In fact his culture is polytheistic so a culture can't be an object which allows one to reach God fundamentally (even if the culture's spirituality informs your own (whichever that would be)).

It runs into an induction issue by trying to account for ontological assertions simply through culture (family or macro-cultures). For instance genders are defined as social constructs but they are informed by material considerations of sex and gametes etc.
Religion, even excluding how at least abrahamic religions approach God, could never be approachable if it was fundamentally determined by culture. Metaphysics is about first principles and a creator etc is a first principle. Your conception of God informs your worldview of math, science, ethics where what a culture can determine meaningfully is much less.

For theists this isn't a big picture at all (and sometimes ever) for how they deal with religion or spirituality. If it was all they focused on they would never get to worshipping God. In abrahamic religions, as well as assumedly with all other religions, you actually grow in your relationship with God so it would be God which determines your theistic positions (why and how) etc still.
The reason you believe in God is based on your relationship with him. Some conceptions of God demands animal sacrifices, some charitability, some war, meditation etc and these can speak to you in different ways with different applicability and explanatory power on your ethics and understanding of the world and its parts. You could never get to all of that and what theism does by examining belief without a conception of God.

I think fear can lead to it and I think death is the best expositor of fear for all creatures mostly. I personally don't think "death" is a thing so much as it's the absence of life (when your body stops working). I don't think death is a tangible or intangible object or energy which spreads over people. I think that's why I defined the beginnings of religions/spirituality/etc in terms of love (and the loss/absence of it). It seems to be a verifiable variable that can be worked with.

Edit: It was nice talking to you.

"Good evidence" is doing a lot of work - the wiki says empirically unfalsifiable which can be reworded as unverifiable here. Belief entails "good evidence" for the believer so it's immaterial here.

The point, for Russell's teapot, is whether it's verifiable or not - not whether we have reason to believe it's there or not (which was the point of Russell's Teapot).
Russell's Teapot was for Russell unverifiable (before the space age) but it can be verified today given some effort. Atheism, on the other hand, has nothing to verify. Theism does (a conception of God).

That people can arrive to the concept of theism, but also spirituality, without death. They can use love or sex (as in tantric sex which is spirituality development through sex from the Hindu tradition).

"No good reason" is tangential here but as for the question "does God exist" no human/conscious creature can arrive at the negative position.

I think it's definitely possible. Sex could be an opening towards it (as in tantric sex) and definitely love still.

I mean you have to define gods to fear them and people, even if it's a fear-worshipping cult, don't fear them all equally. Fear is definitionally a predicate of the religion and not one that is necessary to have the religion. In that, fear is defined by the religion/gods and not the other way around. A better metric is probably "being" and humans grasp to that based on love initially and a more developed "spirituality" later.

Edit: Can fear lead to spirituality? I think it's possible definitely, even to love, but I think fear-based love/spirituality cannot fully express either and would remain shallow if it is used as the guiding variable for either.

I would say pyramids are a development of the burial cult stage with developments past animism towards paganism.
Some spiritual traits about pyramids: they are built high to bridge the path between earth and the sun (heaven), the bodies are not burned to get closer to heaven, dead pharoahs may become gods if they reach their path (and get haloes which are just suns over your head), embalming is an understanding of the body and which are most important (which influences early surgery).
So a lot of ethical, scientific discoveries are from this. I think it would be hard to define these meaningfully in terms of fear.

I get your point but I'm just here to talk about philosophy and I try to avoid conversations that are dead-ends.

Sure but it's hard to speak about love or charitability in fear except at most on a shallow level. It's much easier to speak about charitability in terms of love rather than fear.

In addition to that, I think the first stage of religion is the burial cults which are derived in animals today from extreme love and then grief at loss. It'd be hard to consider those feelings in terms of fear except derivatively for some people.
Animism, what I assume is the second stage of religion, seems almost entirely impossible to speak of in fear in the later developments (such as shintoism) but even in terms of late-stage hunter-gatherer totem animal animism, the fear of the animals if predicated off the beings (in whichever interpretation) and not the subject or foundation itself.

I suppose epistemologically it may seem more accurate for some but the ontological narrative informs the epistemological narratives.

Primal fears are logical or are properly consequential or derivable. I wouldn't say primal fears can meaningfully speak about religions in anything less than a shallow sense though.

I think you're using very colloquial useage of the term wise (which is really a general word anyways). I'm using it more trivially in the sense, "man can only do that which they most want to do in the best way possible given the circumstances".

Yeah I would agree with that and similarly I'd charitably apply it to theists. There's some logical reason they believe what they do so "belief" is a non-starter for any proposition. It's necessarily entailed with anything one says even if conditionally.

Sure, it entails knowledge to do anything epistemologically and ontologically.

I 100% agree otherwise you're saying something trivial (nothing is nothing, which without anything to parse meabs nothing) which is immaterial to being the negation of theism.