They were like the discomfort of very cold weather: one shivered. — BC

Not to be a stickler, but shivering in the cold: if there is a God, It might stand responsible for that, and for the cold. But if I imagined the cold to be anything beyond the temperature and a potentially painful experience; if I imagined it to be, for example, a curse, or a sign, then I'm to "blame" for that.

I think it's like a preschooler asking if her parents also hate the monster in her closet tormententing her. For some it goes further; asking why her supposedly loving parents allow monsters to occupy her closet

If that's the result in logic, I accept. Now how to answer the residual unresolved question? How then is [only so called for a point of mutual focus] God to be conceived of, absolutely? I.e., where we are not left with any risk of elimination by a simple sweep of logic.

No offense but how can "theism be true? As in ultimately/absolutely, independently of humans. We made it up. I like your definition, I agree with the point you're making, Im just also taking a step back and saying, we can't grasp its truth by thinking about it. I'm not in a position to doubt whatever it is that is [more] real than us. So I don't. If that's just agnostic, so be it. But I'm also saying I'm not in a position to grasp its reality with my little language box. In my readings etc. that there is such a Truth not accessible to us through our minds seems inevitably to come up. I see the inescapable paradox. I think we all do but we yammer on; its what we are. Anyway, that's what draws me (and presumably many) to whatever it is that is [more] real than us. But I recognize that I can't access that with my mind. My mind inevitably makes stuff up (like theism); albeit functional and valuable in our own world. They necessarily can't surpass the gap from their constructedness to whatever that reality is.

That's why I initially said, and still think, you cannot access "God" by any method of proof.

No. I don't think it's possible to affirm anything outside of the minds affirming. Does that mean there is no other access to "X"? In other words is "X" only real if a human mind can affirm it? Or, if "X" is real, must it only be accessible as real to the human mind? I hypothesize that the "flaw" in proving God is not necessarily to be focused on God, but rather on the proving, and the idea that our flaws in proving "X" somehow seal the fate of "X".

Some of us affirm the "god exists" in the heads of it's believers and nowhere else. — 180 Proof

There is nowhere else to "affirm". Where outside of the heads of its believers is anything affirmed?

If included in the definition of God is a thing transcending the mundane; and if proof is a thing of the mundane, then you're not going to reach any certainty regarding God by proving it.

they believe that visual perception has nothing to do with them." Extend this lack of ownership via lack of qualia to all qualia and the self itself disappears. — Luke

Visual sensation always and already has nothing to do with the self. It's when sensation gets immediately translated/assimilated to perception (to simplify: sensation mediated by language) that the Subject steps in and the visual sensation becomes a linear, more or less narrative experience. No longer seeing [the nameless thing presently]. Now I am seeing an apple. This translation of sensation into a linear event, an always becoming, necessarily unified by a Subject in order to conform to the logic of its dynamic, gives rise to the illusion that "I see apple" and "You see apple" are irreconcilable alienated. But really both of us are human organisms sensing the same thing with the visual sense organ etc. There is no qualitative difference until the particular embodied mind constructs a Fictional one.

. I think when you get to that rarified "space" of a phenomenologically reduced world and thought is free of the clutter or habituated assumptions, THERE you discover the transcendental self. — Constance

The strange thing I have found myself saying, here again, I totally agree. I'm just saying, as it appears from this last post is at least vaguely in line with what others have said that that so called transcendental self is not the I conventional brought to mind as ourself; it is utterly not that I. It is necessarily "transcendent" as in utterly other. And unless we want to adopt a tri-ism, that utterly other can't be the spirit, must be the conscious body

For example, Does the Bible have any prima facie authority at all on matters of philosophy? — Constance

No. It has no authority. It was brought up as an historical document to illustrate the human intuition regarding the conflict between Mind(knowing) and Body(being).

I say a "disembodied" pain is impossible, — Constance

I agree. Pain requires nerves. That organism with nerves is the agent of the pain. But the suffering we construct to displace pain, is all in the constructing and projecting of the Mind without agency.

A thing which suffers? Nobody argues this — Constance

That may be.

At any rate, if you think about the self, human dasein, as a thing, you are deep in scientific reductive territory. — Constance

I do not. I think about the self and human so called dasein (I'm not sure why that concept is treated as a given) as NO THING

Love your enemy. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, but if only [that one stuck around]

For me, and I am likely in the minority, the historical facts are not necessary to appreciate/even if one wishes, to adhere to the message.

If Jefferson et. al. were mythological, and if I were an American, I might still appreciate and live by the Constitution.

If Socrates and Kant were mythological, I might still appreciate and live by the philosophies contained therein.

Why can't I appreciate and adhere to Christian principles and deny its history. Who says that you have two choices, believe and belong, or reject and stay clear?

First, I understand your position, and there are approaches to religion where I would agree with you. Outside of what each of us thinks of as "essence" of religion, I likely have no dispute with any claim that religions per se and in practice are rarely liberating from suffering, if ever.

Second, and this is most important, I reiterate that my expressions are entirely hypothetical, and would likely fail even the test of logic. (especially falsifiability).

Then why?

Fair question. My responses below may address that.

This story (myth) is not "salvation" because, in fact, one's "suffering" (i.e. frustrations, fears, pains, losses, traumas, dysfunctions) ceases only with one's death. — 180 Proof

Yes. We can't escape the enumerated examples of suffering until death. Salvation is a term borrowed from "religion" and is of course misleading. My admittedly overzealous assertion for what it's worth is that religion--loosely, focus on/concern with the transcendent (I can easily adjust that "definition")--as opposed to religions and their various failed manifestations; can provide "the right attitude" (though "right" implies orthodoxy and that's not what I mean) to bear the suffering, by "enlightening" us to the transient nature of that thing which is most desperate to escape it. That is, by pointing to an ultimate reality beyond the suffering.

Yes. I already see the ways in which you can properly dispute this. However, 1. Space and time; 2. The very nature of what I'm suggesting has its proper place in doing something and necessarily not in discourse.

Besides, most historical religions preach that every person has an 'eternal soul' – imo, there isn't any notion that's more of an ego-fetish than this. — 180 Proof

I completely agree with you. That is where both religion, and, with respect, much philosophy, east and west, has gone astray. That is the exact point. Fetishization of the Subject, causes our awareness to focus on that illusion as a thing which suffers and ought not to. I'm wondering whether (like so many things which history corrupts) the essence of religion (to remind/warn against etc. this fetishizing of the ego) has been "lost."

In any event, I'm clearly having difficulty expressing that clearly. I'm not fixated on an idea which I alter to meet with criticism. Believe me that I get your criticism, but am only responding because it appears the point I am trying to make is misunderstood.

Yes, religions are not successful at dealing with suffering; but not because there is utterly no valid function. Rather, because the valid function--to de-fetishize and de-mythologize the ego--has been lost.

I am not prepared to do an exegesis of scriptures, or to review theologians here. But if it helps (and at the obvious risk of further confusing) here are a couple of the sources for my intuition/perhaps bold hypothesis that religion is essentially "designed" to put the ego in its place: Christianity's essence "love your neighbor as yourself, love God with all your might." Islam is by name, submission (to god). In the eastern religions, Hinduism /Buddhism, this emphasis on "liberation" from ego is even patently obvious. Atman is Brahman/ there is no self. Yes, all of the aforementioned have bastardized this proposed essence.

Any way, for what that was worth. Maybe I'm completely out to lunch. But I haven't been persuaded otherwise. Like I said, not from any aversion to being so persuaded.

Still a bit mystified by "organic," though. — Constance

I imagine not just the Abrahamic, but Western philosophy too, had always entertained an intuition about this--that what happens in Human Consciousness, is not Real. Although, Mind itself having evolved "an interest" in its own survival and
growth, developed mechanisms which block the obvious, that Reality is the living organism, and out of this, emerges the attachment western philosophy cannot shake, the reification of itself, presented to us as Spirit, and its necessary dualism. The intuition is expressed earlier than Plato, but with him the attachment to mind, and corresponding demeaning of the flesh, begins to structure the future. Kant I think knew it, that reality was a thing not knowable by mind, but actually inaccessible to it. But he understandably did the ethical thing and steered clear. Focusing instead on the best way he could present Mind as Constructed, experience as just projections of that, for his time, and given his locus in time. Then the thing unfolds. It is not Scientistism, nor Empiricism, nor physicalism, which prompts me to view reality as organic. It is, I genuinely, ironically, believe. The comical is I shouldn't even attempt to prove it. Proving it is not it. But so called we, actually are. But alas, lije everyone else, I am no less attached to the reified Mind. That makes me necessarily speak.

Mind being make-believe (construct-project), by the way, is not good or bad, mind is both. That's just how it evolved after trial and error, most efficiently. In order to perpetuate construction and projection, it evolved difference, causing a reason for construction and projection, time, narrative or linear form of experience, cause and effect, logic, grammar, subject, me. This is a significant thing for metaphysics to go on dreaming about forever. Why does it have to be real?

Still a bit mystified by "organic," though. — Constance

To try simply, borrowing (not necessarily endorsing) an Abrahamic metaphor, so called "God" cares only about the living(ness) of "his" "creation" i.e., organic; and not the becoming, knowledge, that "he" actually warned humans against. Out of the latter, we invented a universe of our own, unreal, and not "precious" to "God." Now, yes, I am being "poetic" and do not necessarily hold to "God," and "precious." My point is, we have been clinging to knowledge at the direct expense of living. Living is not in our constructions, but in our being. The whole false spirit/body duality, is a direct result of that clinging.

The question is, is it possible for an idea or an experience or a disclosure of any kind to be both what it is, yet occurring to "no one" ? Not about occurring in some locality, which is trivially true (Locality?), but experience of any kind requires it to be an experience to, or of someone. There is no such thing as an unmoored experience. — Constance

Is this the "tree falls in a forest" conundrum? I say it makes a sound. To humans only, the question matters, because of the illusion of separation between sound and perceiver/object and subject/cause and effect. EDIT: experience, by the way, I hold to be restricted to humans. So that is why "there is no such thing as an unmoored experience;" there is no real such thing as "experience" period.

Consider also: A babe in arms has no constructed agency, no historical self, neither personal nor cultural, yet her suffering and delight must have agency — Constance

Perfect illustration, the babe has no self based experience; no agency. Not mother feeds me; rather, just feeding.

No reason for me to disagree. Why not religions are tribal because kinship is tribal, and kinship is a driving force or fundamental element in religions.

I could stop there and feel the pleasure of our bond.. .

But the essence. .

Anyway, like I said, I appreciate and note the importance of your perspective (that sounds like lip service but I mean it. Ultimately, how could I know?)

is kinship not an ego less drive? I get that quickly egos rush in; buy at its "essence."

First, I assume you are labeling the hypothesis as a duality real land phony water for convenience. You are following well enough to know that such a label does not really define it, but let's carry on.
I want to "cooperate" and agree that I would feel such a kinship, but I truly do not know. Likely because kinship, though functional at the institutional level of religions is irrelevant to my understanding of the essence.
I agree with you that binding/community is a manifestation of religions as they developed, but not necessarily its essence.
Also, I think you'll agree that etymology, the latin root, though helpful, is not a conclusive way of understanding the essence.
I would feel something positive from agreement from others, but I am not sure if kinship is the root of that feeling. Maybe it is, bonding being a real organic drive for humans.
But then, so can the same be said of politics, philosophy, sports, etc etc etc. we seek agreement because of the pleasant feeling triggered by our drive to bond with others of our species.
Look, I reiterate, maybe you are right and bonding is the essence of religion, but in the sense that bonding is also the essence of law, society, the family etc etc.
You are definitely raising some very helpful points (for me to consider). I hope you are benefiting, as much as I am.

ou feel like kinship with those who see the world as you do, don’t you — praxis

No, but likely because I do not belong to any community of such believers. I suppose, if you told me you understood and agreed with my (let's be clear:) hypothesis, I might feel something akin to kinship. I'm not sure.

you admit that your adulation of egolessness is like a fetish — praxis

Well, words are never successful at precisely capturing truth. "adulation" not sure, observation (insofar as observation can even be relied upon) of the reality of egolessness, ...like a fetish? Hmm, that's tricky, and helpful to point out again (I have admited this "problem" several times in my efforts to gain a better understanding). Ego is like a fetish, in that we ascribe a truth to it that is not real (in nature). So, yes, so too my "adulation" of egolessness. And your "hidden" point is significant. Ultimately, everything I say or do regarding this topic is a "fetish" in the sense that I am ascribing a truth to a constructed fiction. But, just as in the case of sex (I cannot imagine mating in the way I described), I am bound to participate in the fetishized version.

That is why I have been suggesting that I cannot know egolessness; I cannot define it; doing so requires the ego. I need not do anything to be the real organic being that I am without "I". Because I already am that being. I am simply pointing to that truth; and, I think religion, at its essence, also points to that truth.

I am flowing on a synthetic river, seeing the real land on both sides of me. I am not saying I can get off the river. I just think it is functional knowing that. Religion(s) does not resolve the problem, it simply reminds us of the problem. Out of that "knowledge" we can flow more functionally. (Sorry for the metaphor. I hope it captures the gist.

in fairness, I do not speak for Constance. In fact, I do not think he agrees with me that the Subject/Ego is--to stick to your term--also a "fetish."

I wouldn't say corrupt with any connotation that word delivers; nor would I say inherently. I'd say (without enough attention paid to wording) we are a species divided between our natures and our constructions, Mind; and that the latter has displaced the former, a thing neither "good" nor "bad" but having aspects of both. To re-use the sex analogy, love making, good; rape, bad. Both are unnatural expressions of the mating/bonding drive.

As for religion is fetishism--the way we have discussed it most recently, sure. Even the essence is a "fetish" constructed, like love making, to address a real drive.

note that we cannot escape sex as a fetish while being human; just as we cannot escape the ego. I am suggesting, only that we recognize them and carry on F----ing, so to speak.

It’s as though you and Constance insist that sex is a fetish. It is not. — praxis

I did not notice that simile. But, at the risk of further alienating you, I agree with Constance. There is mating. Presumably, a seconds long process. There is sex, a human construction and projection displacing it. I don't know about C., but I'm not judging sex when I make that observation. I'm recognizing that "even" a matrimonial based exchange between a so called man and a so-called woman, even limited to a so called missionary style, even if it's drive is human bonding and procreation, cannot but be a construction and projection of what I am calling mating.

I cannot provide a detailed argument here; just as I cannot provide one for why I think at its essence religion is the recognition of the emptiness of ego.

If you disagree, great (unfacetiously). You may be right, and I certainly may be wrong

Religions have all sorts of answers to all sorts of questions. — praxis

It appears you linger at the "institutional" notion of religion. I (presumably...or presumptiously) / this is discussing the vaguely* singular "essence" out of which the institutions emerged. I am not sure we can surpass this difference and reach any mutual understanding.

I'm fine. If I too was discussing religions, as you seem to be, I would likely agree with your points ("all sorts of answers" etc).

Out of religion came countless religions??? That doesn’t make any sense. — praxis

Ditto my response above.

*I use "vaguely" singular because at the level of essence, quantity is not relevant. However, I would think that a reasonable objection might be, there is no singular essence to religion. If that is what you are saying, ok. But I would ask, what makes you proclaim, as you seem to (admittedly, free of the word "essence") that the essence of religions is faith in a given ultimate authority?

The question a religion poses is whether you have faith in its *ultimate* authority — praxis

A religion is an institution or ideology. — praxis

Sure. Or a mechanism humanity developed--is still developing--to address a real problem. In my databank, it appears that religion addresses the problem of human suffering. Hence, liberation, salvation, atonement. Religion's answer: know that your ego is nothing. There is a Reality that is/does without your ego. And that's your salvation from sufdering. Out of this ever evolving mechanism came countless manifestations--your institutions and ideologies.

Can't we say the sake about most if not all uniquely human developments: we make shit up to address real problems. Romance/Matrimony etc addresses mating--it doesn't mean mating, the essence, is not Real. Philosophy, not far from Religion, just as pompous about its method, addresses the aware-ing that the shit we make up isn't real; no one has yet succeeded, nor will they, at this, the "institutional/ideological" level, that doesn't mean the aware-ing that it is made up is not Real.

The essence of religion addresses a real human problem. I personally don't care how people want to express it or even mess it up. I can focus on the essence. Which I'm sure you are capable of too; conventional thinking can be a block. And, this is what behind all of the complex and compelling constructions the OP has generated, the protestations as much as the engagements, the OP is getting at--at least from my perception. The essence of religion is actually an attempt to address "Philosophy's" Biggest problem: Reality.

The question a religion poses is whether you have faith in its *ultimate* authority. — praxis

Not necessarily, if you don't mind the weigh-in. It appears that way in religion's manifestation as institutions, I agree. Even so called atheistic/agnostic ones like Buddhism where the "authority" might be the Four Truths etc.

But in "essence" the question a religion poses is whether you prioritize the truth/reality/ultimate as the ego, or an Other.

You might say I just re-worded your point; that my "an Other" is your "Authority." But there is a significant difference. The "problem" religion emerged to "correct" is not so much a need to submit to some godly authority as it is a need to surrender our misguided love affair with our so called self.

But there "is" no trace — Constance

Yes. I'm good with that. I only refer to trace relationship as a courtesy, the final convenient fiction, imagined as "taking place" just as human existence leaves being and engages time, just as mind's perception displaces sensation with signifiers of the latter, and we lose our point of return. There is no trace because the gap between mind and being is untraceable. We cannot be being through the mediation of time; even the ego is of time and has no place in a True reduction beyond mind.

Deconstruction and religion are method and manifestation, respectively — Constance

Very nice. The latter, corruptible. If the former is sound, that shouldn't matter. Because method is the essence.

do note that you insist on the term "organic" as a kind of bottom line to thinking about our existence. I can't really address this, for it is a kind of "scientism" by which I mean it is a borrowing from empirical science's descriptive terms to think philosophically. But science is not philosophy — Constance

I get it entirely. But with respect, I am not using Organic from the perspective of a scientist and in my humble opinion, while I should employ the right terminology as best I can etc., in this case, being an unconventional viewpoint, there is no "better" word to describe the human qua being, than organic. And I sense the word is slightly offensive because of the implications for spirit which we have been so conditioned to favor. My rejection of spirit is not scientific, on the contrary, it is profoundly "religious" in the way you have been in my opinion properly referring.

There isn't even a moral relationship. It's just a confirmation of the intuition that one probably shouldn't boil one's hand. That isn't moral. — AmadeusD

Yes, I agree. We superimpose morality, "long after" the fact.

I think we have so immersed ourselves in our constructions, obviously we can no longer simply depend upon our instincts to trigger functional behaviour. So we construct more, by way of morality, and so on and so on, to displace out instincts, drives, sensations, etc. as the triggers for human behaviour.

ADDENDUM: And, I think I am capable of not sticking my neighbor's hand in boiling water, yes, because I know how it feels, but because there is no intuition driving me to harm my neighbor, not because of a moral imperative.

For me, if you're asking "is our identity what it is to be human," as if being human is an absolute in the universe, in and of itself, definitely, no. Because I don't think being human is an absolute in and of itself. And if it were, how could a label be its essence? What would make us human in that case would be something absolutely pre-existing in the universe, some sort of "Let us make man and woman" requiring nothing further to make us human. I hope I've expressed my thought clearly. I know how simplistic it sounds.

That leaves (perhaps, among other alternatives) is identity what it is to be human, only in the way we humans view ourselves, and identify ourselves as human (i.e. and not say, how the Universe, or a God views/identifies us). In which case identity can be what makes us human, no need to even bother making reasoned arguments to deal with opposing facts, as long as there is some consensus, because, not just identity, but so does every other "fiction" we have displaced our reality with, make us human.

Our reality is, like that of every other creature in the universe so far: i. e., there is no such reality as personal identity. It's just one of the things our mind constructs and projects into "our" "world."

If being human is an absolute, distinct from other living beings, then that's what makes us human.

If being human is a make-belief, made up and believed to matter, but really just a convenience we have adapted for our survival, then yes, identity is what makes us human, but so does commerce, and rituals, architecture and philosophy. Asking the question, is identity what makes us human, is what makes us human.

Add: or most simply put, for me, identity might be what makes us human, but we made up "human" no such identity is real.

Only we make human and not human.

NOW you know the REAL ground for the moral prohibition against doing this to others. — Constance

Yes. The REAL ground is living bodies feel real pain. At that real level however, no one thinks of sticking a hand in boiling water because at that level no one thinks. Thinking and the moral prohibitions emerge out of these organic feelings, are effected by them; but there is no (ontological? metaphysical?) relationship. Pain feeling a certain way for triggering certain behavior is nothing like Morality. The trace relationship between REAL pain and any and all moral prohibitions is long long gone; so long gone that there is an unbridgeable gap between the REAL "reason" (I.e. REAL pain) and all of the multitudes of constructed ones.

Redemption consists in coming to awareness of the true good, which is concealed or obscured by ignorance (in Advaita) or the original sin (in Augustine.) — Wayfarer

Sounds fitting from where I'm looking.

Disillusionment with a religious institution is often experienced as nihilism, for instance. — praxis

Yes, and as you say, not necessarily so. While I believe that ultimately, even the so called essence of so called religion is a construction and projection: and, more, that religion is patently so, at the institutional level, and as it is practiced conventionally; and, that, therefore, all is "corruptible;" I believe that at least, at the level of so-called essence, religion can work as a tool, no matter how fictional, for "seeing" corruption in institutions, the ego (an established "law" under which this animal is bound to function), no less such an institution; and, therefore, no less corruptible. How? It promotes, nudges, provides, a glimpse into the contingent nature of all such constructions and projections, and that "liberation" or "salvation" may come with a recognition that there is a Truth or Reality "outside" of our "selves."

meaningful connection with a community — praxis

meaningful connection with a community if not only available in and through institutions, but also there is no reason why meaningful connections are discarded when a failed institution is discarded.

Like putting aside the concepts of good and bad, right? — praxis

P.S., for me, for what it is worth: right.

but it is not the language that is unreal, but the ideas conceived IN language that are in error. If I say the moon is made of cream cheese, I am wrong. — Constance

This and your subsequent reply, are opening doors to new ways of thinking of this. Or, to be more precise, you are addressing the same issues having focused in more precisely. I need to re-read. For all I know, you have addressed my concerns.

However, prima facie, this comes to mind.
1. Yes, obviously I agree that in common sense, or in conventional thinking, it is not the language but the ideas which are in error; however,
2. Are we not trying to "transcend" /Reduce /abstract from common sense and convention? Is your point not failing to see (assuming Saussure is making a reliable point--I have never fully contemplated it) that language, is one mechanism: Sign is Signifier and Signified? Even if I were to say the moon is made of minerals; I might be factually and functionally "correct," but ultimately I have used a representational tool to construct another representational tool, and so on without end. Does this not suggest that signs, though they function to construct useful "truths," are necessarily empty and devoid of ultimate truth? And is not the Subject just such a sign for the Body? If I were to say, "I am I," that might be functional, but is it True? Isn't it unavoidable that ultimately what is this I purporting to be I; and what is this I it is purporting to be. We are compelled to find the unrepresented truth not in representation. Language is, and I say, only is, representation; reality is in the acting/being/doing/feeling/sensing cleared of all language. Impossible for humans? Maybe? But reaching conclusions only because they are functional, i.e. possible and free of absurdity, just proves my concern; that is, that all of our so called truths, including myself, are simply functional tools.

ADDED: I understand and appreciate your recent focus on value (I did see its seeds in the beginning of the OP but note how you have developed it). It is perhaps a "high end" fictional assessment of the human condition, higher than leaving value completely out of it; but it is ultimately fictional too. At some point, to arrive "where" the essence of religion arose to lead us, those high ideas need too, to be abandoned or set aside at least.

so here we abstract from all of the contextual variations in which we find the good, bad, should, shouldn't, right, wrong of ethics, and inquire about the nature of what is in what is observed. — Constance

Exactly. Entirely agree. You think I go too far in abstracting from the contextual because I abstract from the abstracter in the end; I think you do not go far enough because you leave the abstracter in place; you do so because the result is absurd otherwise. A compromise? At least admit the abstracter is a necessary fiction, because ultimately the abstractions are done in its name and for its sake.

you're not going to get that tart to your dessert plate — Constance

I completely understand the challenge. I even accept that the point may be inescapably moot because we cannot get the tart onto the plate. However, that we lack the capacity or tools to locate the reality while in the shoes of the agent, does not mean the reality does not exist. Another explanation is that the agent only exists in its world of construction, and has no access to reality. Maybe the goal isn't to get the tart onto the plate but to start chewing, trusting that the tart is already in our mouths.

Who is willing my heart to beat?

The fact that we, following Aristotle, ascribe that particular event of the Body to an autonomic process, gladly accepting that there is no agent there; but refuse to categorize mind as an autonomic process without an agent simply because therein is produced the so-called agent, does not mean our ascriptions and categorizations are even most functional, let alone capital T Truth.

Religion is a human construction, or as Constance described it, an institution. — praxis

I agree completely, and with your chiropractor analogy.

Respectfully, agreeing with both* points quoted here does not nullify my points above, if that's your point.

*they are subtle distinct.

1. "construction" the essence** of religion might be a mechanism having evolved in mind to "remind" us that the evolving system of constructions is an other than our real natures. Why would such a mechanism evolve (become constructed) in/by mind? Because it served a function which allowed for its repetition such that it becomes conditioned. An e.g. of such function? Bodies feel the bliss of turning natural Aware-ing back upon its own being. How is this "religion"? Because Mind has brought us out of reality, we have chosen the proverbial tree of knowledge and forsaken life; and, with the former comes a knower, and thus ignorance, attachment, suffering. In being, the body, there is only variations and degrees of pleasure and pain, never lingering, always present.

**primitive purpose, why it arose, what it is before it is "corrupted" Or, as opposed to "religions" the institutions below.

2. "Institution" everything from its essence, it's mythical first projection, becomes corrupted. Why do we act like religion is special? Is Democracy to blame for the current cynicism infecting western democracies? F the institutions when they fail. Don't discard the essence.

I cannot speak for tge OP. That may be what the OP is ultimately saying, but by further defining philosophy in an insightful way. I just personally think the OP stops short.

What I am saying is the essence of religion is to provide a glimpse/reminder/path "without" or "away" from all constructions of human mind. This necessarily includes philosophy as such a construction, notwithstanding its claims to access some universals purported to be independent of human construction. Such a path cannot be sustained with mind, and therefore cannot be the ambit of philosophy. It can only be accessed by a turning away from mind and awakening to being. Like the OP, I hypothesize this is unsustainable; but nevertheless, that is the essence of religion, awakening, no matter how infinitesimally, to Reality without the ego/subject. EDIT: and without the Subject necessarily means without the medium in which the subject exists, Mind (and philosophy also necessarily exists in tgat medium, so no, religion is not essentially philosophy, but rather, a thing by and concerning the body, and not the mind)

Two among maybe endless qualifiers/terms
1. That is not to say philosophy
has no function; nor that it cannot serve at least along side of religion's essential function.
2. Conversely, Religion is ultimately no less a construction than philosophy. Including the manner in which I pretend to speak for it. Its essence cannot be spoken. It can only be/do.

Hence, I am hypothesizing about the "essence," and to that word, I hypothesize loosely that such essence is either derived from a natural organic awareness or drive, such as, the natural awareness that the organic being is other than the constructions of mind; or it is an early mechanism evolved in mind itself, to preserve a reminder/link to, the reality of our organic natures, having evolved because it served a function which was/remains fitting.

or to put the secondary function more concisely, the appearances we see and projedt to the world (incl our selves) are constructed by all relevant structures which happen to have crossed paths at a given moment. Religion awakens you to tge fkeetingness of becoming, and tge stability (hasty word usage) of being