as Nagel notes, our culture is characterised by a deep-seated 'fear of religion'. — Wayfarer

Don't you think we should fear it, or at least regard it with a good amount of caution? Religion can be a powerful tool in the hands of a charismatic leader. A tool that can be used for selfish gain rather than the benefit of its adherents. There are countless examples of this. Once you devalue reason and overvalue faith anything is possible. Subscribing to conspiracy theories and 'alternative facts' can become a sign of solidarity, rather than a sign of madness.

We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes.
— praxis

Please provide the names of everyone who enjoys psychological suffering and wants theirs to continue. — Jake

It's not that simple, as I tried to explain.

Doesn't everyone want to be physically healthy? It is well know how to go about achieving this, so why are so many people overweight, unfit, and apparently content with less than optimal health?

The problem here is that science is bound to a worldview in which the universe is essentially meaningless. So meaning itself can only ever be personal or social - it can't have any referent beyond either the individual or the collective. — Wayfarer

How do you objectively separate the meaningful from the unmeaningful? Meaning is tied to vastly more than an individual or collective.

But, what is 'religion'? There are actually two derivations: one is 'religio', 'attitude of awe and reverence towards the Gods'. But there's also another - 're-ligare', to tie or to bind, yoke or join. 'Religion' had originally many sources; most of what is remembered relates to the former category. But, I would argue, in the latter category, are the sources that flowed from the shamans, from ascetic practices, accessing particular modes of consciousness - the kinds of things that are preserved in Buddhism.

OK, you might say - that's not 'religion'. But if not - what is it? Where does it belong? Who teaches it? Where do you learn about it? — Wayfarer

Modern psychedelic guides could be seen as contemporary shamans. There may be better examples but they at least fill the criteria of being non-religious.

Accessing particular modes of consciousness can be aided by science, and may actually be better suited to the task, at least in terms of efficiency and consistency, and also not constrained by the binding ('re-ligare') effect of religious devotion. You can't transcend if you are bound, and there may actually be a negative incentive to unbind.

'Western culture' is stuck in this death role of 'enlightenment science' vs 'superstitious religion' which is where a lot of people seem to be.

Mindfulness and similar secular practices are all over the place these days. There's even secular buddhism: http://secularbuddhism.org

I don't think the picture has as much contrast as you paint it.

I’m not following. You mention things (“realities”) that you claim can’t be depicted in non-religious terms. Indeed you mentioned the unconscious yourself. That’s not a domain restricted to religious belief.

Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.
— Wayfarer

What realities would that be?
— praxis

To think of a few examples at random - the sacred feminine/motherhood/Mother Mary/Kwan Yin

The Hero's Journey, the hero with a thousand faces.

Suffering/sacrifice/loss

Redemption/salvation/transcendence. — Wayfarer

Most of what you mention isn't even typically construed as religious. I'm not sure why you don't believe these things can't be depicted in other than religious terms.

People make omelettes and omelettes are made from egg, therefore people are eggs? — S

Johnny makes omelets and omelet making is a form of cooking, therefore Johnny is a crook.

Religions make metaphysical claims and metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, therefore religion is philosophy?

Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful.
— praxis

That doesn't necessarily make it good. Is the religion of the cave prisoners, the primary meaning of which stems from shadows on the cave wall, good? Good compared to what? That's the question. Good compared to the same situation, but without shadows on the wall? That's understandable. Good compared to breaking free and seeing the world as it is? Much less understandable. Who needs cave shadows when there's a whole world full of natural wonder to explore? Suddenly the significance of cave shadows and the lives of the prisoners seems extraordinarily impoverished. — S

A believer might argue that meaninglessness is impoverished.

I would argue that meaning is all around us and we are free to discover and develop it as we see fit. We don't need to be spoon-fed by some authority figure an outdated prepackaged system.

Who are we to question? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Fellow human beings who share this world.

Who is above questioning? Religious authorities??? :lol:

Besides, we’re living in a ‘post-secular’ culture nowadays. Contrary to the hopes of Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms. — Wayfarer

What realities would that be?

I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc.
— praxis

If this were true, if these problems arise from bad thought content, then over thousands of years some group of people would have found the correct thought content and would be living in peace. Other people would see their experience of peace, desire it, and adopt the correct thought content. Over time everyone would jump onboard and we'd be living in utopia. — Jake

We're not rational beings, Jake. This is not how the world works. We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes.

For example, I eat pretty well, say fit and maintain an ideal weight, and consequently I'm in good health. Do overweight, unfit and unhealthy people look at me, desire health, and adopt a similar lifestyle to mine? That would be the rational thing to do, but unfortunately we have many ingrained and learned habits to contend with.

If true, this has huge implications for philosophy. If the source of our problems is thought itself then no collection of thoughts, however clever, are likely to solve the problem. And this is what we in fact see in the real world. The best minds among us all over the world have been searching for the correct thought content for thousands of years, and here we still are, killing each other with abandon, enduring inner personal conflict etc. — Jake

This is incorrect, measurable progress has been achieved in most areas.

Also, it's not clear what you mean when you refer to "thought." Much of what goes on in the human mind is subconscious.

Imho, religion is ultimately not about social cohesion, but personal "salvation", by which I mean achieving psychological reunion with nature, reality, god, whatever one wishes to call it.

Imho, such reunion is not technically possible because we have never been divided in the first place. So it's more accurate to say that religion (and other techniques) are about easing the illusion that we are alone, isolated, vulnerable, divided from reality. — Jake

Being a social species it makes sense that we might have an instinctual aversion to being alone, isolated, vulnerable, and divided from reality. For the vast majority of our evolutionary history, expulsion from the tribe meant almost certain death. It's also hard to pass on genes in isolation.

It feels meaningful to be part of something larger than yourself, particularly with people who share your goals and values. Right? What better expression of this natural desire than a religion?

Imho, that illusion is generated by the divisive nature of thought. Thought is a medium that operates by a process of conceptual division, and so everywhere we look we see division. The illusion is profound because not only are we observing reality through thought, we ourselves are made of thought psychologically. Thus, we are fully immersed in a medium whose primary function is division. — Jake

All mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' yet not all mammals appear to suffer the consequences you seem to be suggesting. How do you explain that?

I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.

Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability to simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it.
— praxis

It seems that your first and second paragraph contradict each other. If existential anxiety is a natural consequence of how our minds evolved, then existential anxiety is natural. Any attempt to separate human beings from nature would be a mistake. Every animal has it's own unique set of physical and psychological adaptations to its environment. Humans are no different. — Harry Hindu

I meant to say that I don't think it's natural to fear largeness or otherness, as Jake appeared to claim. If this were true then we'd have a natural fear of looking up at the sky, for example. We don't. Many look up at the sky with a yearning to explore the unknown.

As for the existential anxiety that we experience from time to time, there are many non-religious methods for alleviating it. Take a look at these two links: — Harry Hindu

Indeed, check out this method: Hallucinogenic Drug Psilocybin Eases Existential Anxiety in People With Life-Threatening Cancer

It shouldn't be scary to discover that meaning is within your own power to create and not in the hands of someone else. It is empowering. — Harry Hindu

Maybe not just empowering but increasingly imperative.

I’ve been thinking there’s a problem with Christianity’s doctrine of salvation (soteriology). — Empedocles

I think a good first step would be to determine exactly what is meant by salvation in Christian doctrine or perhaps religious doctrine in general.

Saved from what?

First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.
— Jake

Speak for yourself.

It seems to me, thanks to the knowledge science is providing, that everything is interconnected. I don't experience a fear of everything else. I experience curiosity. If it is fear that you experience, then no wonder you turn to a delusion - to alleviate that fear. — Harry Hindu

I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.

Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it.

I also agree that a key problem for religion is that it typically tries to use thought (beliefs etc) to solve the problem, when in fact thought is the source of the problem. It's a process which can be like an alcoholic trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch. — Jake

Good metaphor.

I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc. This may be an unavoidable evolutionary artifact, I don't know, but I do know that it can be dealt with without religion.

First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems. — Jake

In all practicality, I think this works the other way around in our minds. "Me" is very big or significant, and "everything else" is small or of less significance, and it's this selfishness that makes us fail to act cooperatively.

In a perfect world, religion functions to reduce our selfishness and increase our cooperation for the mutual benefit of all. I believe it does function this way to some extent, in some circumstances, and that's great, but, as you suggest, it's ultimately like trying to cure alcoholism with a case of scotch. Our personal narrative merges with the overarching religious narrative, reify our sense of self and escalate our self-concept to cosmic proportions. When this happens, there is no horror that can't be rationalized.

Incidentally, I watched an interview with a Trump supporter the other day on YouTube who was explaining why she still supports him (despite all the shenanigans, I suppose). She said it was because he has conservative and evangelical values. Trump claims to have such values, and for this woman the mere claim is good enough. He doesn't need to express these values. How could just saying so be good enough? Because she doesn't actually have these values herself. It's only really about being part of the tribe.

Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn", sometimes called love, a process of surrendering the "me" to something or somebody else. To the degree the "me" melts away in a particular situation, so does the perceived division, and thus the fear, and thus the inner conflict, and thus the outer conflict. The user dies to division and fear, and is reborn in to peace. — Jake

Love necessarily has an object, so love cannot transcend the duality of self and other. If you love everything, which would include war, suffering, disease, evil, escargo, and all things bad, then love has no meaning.

A personal purpose can be any methodology which helps heal the illusion of division which is fundamental to the human experience. — Jake

Don’t need religion for this purpose. If fact, religious beliefs and practices may get in the way of fulfilling this purpose.

Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering — Jake

Do you have a doctrinal reference for this ‘suggestion’? Maybe it will help to make some sense of this.

The typical person is not overly concerned with abstractions like enhancing social unity, but is instead engaging in religion to address their own personal situation. — Jake

Or it’s just something they were brought up believing.

Of course folks aren’t always consciously aware of what drives them.

Given the above, we necessarily interact with religion socially. Glue has no purpose without things to bind.
— praxis

So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal? — MountainDwarf

Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful.

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together.
— praxis

Surely this is a big factor. An essential purpose of religion? Ok, agreed.

But the primary purpose of religion is ultimately personal. — Jake

Social or personal doesn’t speak to purpose, and in any case, pretty much anything could be construed as ultimately personal, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Perhaps you mean something along the lines that salvation, which is experienced personally, is the purpose of religion. This cannot be the essential or primary purpose simply because salvation is unnecessary, or rather, salvation could mean being saved from a life of meaninglessness or anxious feelings of separateness.

There is no such thing as a personal religion. The enlightenment endowed us the freedom to seek out and develop our own spiritual experiences, insights, and philosophies.

Religions don't go on for thousands of years based on abstractions like "binding a community together in common values and purpose". — Jake

Successful religions last because they are meaningful. Purpose and values are components of meaning.

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together. For the vast majority of human evolution, survival may have depended on being part of a tightknit community, so it would seem natural to have developed a strong desire for meaning, at least once more basic needs (water, food, shelter) were met.

Given the above, we necessarily interact with religion socially. Glue has no purpose without things to bind.

I remain surprised at the reluctance to consider the cause — Marcus de Brun

I imagine that if you could explain universal underlying theism you would have already.

Again, your error is in assuming this instinct is necessarily expressed as theism. It can be expressed in many different forms.
— praxis

Again you are applying a rather shallow and 'criticism-hunting' approach to what I write. I dont mind the criticism if it is a reflection of what I am attempting to say. — Marcus de Brun

I'm merely pointing out the fundamental flaw in your understanding. Whether or not it's shallow or "criticism hunting" is irrelevant to its validity. Further, you don't address and refute the criticism but only reiterate what you've already expressed, claiming that my criticism is unrelated to what you're trying to say.

Theism, ... is constructed upon a thought construct a basis that is common to all men — Marcus de Brun

The theistic logic, the belief system that all humans have — Marcus de Brun

the underlying universal theism — Marcus de Brun

the true theistic basis of human existence — Marcus de Brun

This muddy idea you keep driving about an underlying universal theism is silly on the face of it simply because, as anyone making such a claim should know, there are non-theistic religions in the world.

There are gods within Buddhist doctrine, for instance, but these gods exist on the same existential plane as all sentient beings. They're not the childishly theistic 'father in the sky' gods but merely fellow sentient beings who do not realize their true nature of emptiness, according to Buddhist doctrine.

The same for hunger and eating, there is a primordial and instinctual basis for these practices and their associated beliefs, a primordial basis that is related back to human instinct. — Marcus de Brun

Again, your error is in assuming this instinct is necessarily expressed as theism. It can be expressed in many different forms.

God is merely a refinement of the original thought-construct and is non-essential to a Theism or belief system that is constructed upon a notion of the immaterial. — Marcus de Brun

God or gods are essential to theism. Theism means belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

A god or gods are not essential for a belief system constructed upon the notion of the immaterial.

Your error appears to be falsely assuming that religion is necessarily theistic.

It's true the philosophical process involves in it a value of critical judgement and skepticism but I don't think that stands in contrast to religion — aporiap

Where it specifically contrasts is faithfulness to the particular religion. Clearly it’s more than a just a culturally generated worldview if it requires faith.

so you can come up some answers of your own... — ChatteringMonkey

Exactly. This doesn’t fly so well in religious circles.

How to deal with emotions? — ChatteringMonkey

Starting with the most basic, carefully regulate diet and physical activity. This is the best place to start because many emotions primarily function to regulate energy. I could go on, but, this isn’t a philosophical question.

Questions surrounding emotions and their relationships to virtue and living a good life are interesting.

The majority of philosophers are known for their philosophical systems, which serve as worldviews, 'answers'. — aporiap

They’re not any sort of absolute authority. It’s perfectly acceptable, and even considered a good and beneficial practice, to question these worldviews.

To accept them without question by mere authority or as an expression of solidarity with the ‘group view’, especially if they appear untrue, would be more like religion.

I think good philosophy should also provide some answers. And it does that too... just not in this case it seems. — ChatteringMonkey

It seems to not have answers to what questions?

A fundamental demarcation between religion and philosophy is that the former provides answers and the latter seeks them. That being the case, no religion is truly philosophical.

If you don’t have any philosophical questions about emotion then I don’t see a problem.

A news outlet could perhaps attempt to present all relevant or known narratives.

We are biological beings, and part of our brain is the limbic system that controls emotions and instincts — ChatteringMonkey

This is a rather outdated understanding of what portions of the brain and body ‘control’ emotions.

Anyway, what sort of philosophical questions do you have about emotions?

OP-ED

Alone and afraid – deep inside the Trump Whitehouse. The true story of one cowardly resister.

Rather, in accordance with your claim that art provides an "religious jag," whatever art is congruent with their religious views would have the greatest potential to "induce an arrest in normal everyday consciousness" (what you claim is the goal or function of art) and whatever art was incongruent with their system of beliefs and meaning would likely fail to induce such an arrest in normal consciousness. Right?
— praxis

I don't think it's that cut and dried. — gurugeorge

Of course it's not. I was attempting to illustrate the absurdity of your idea.

secular humanists can enjoy the older, religious works of art, and religious people can enjoy some modernist art too — gurugeorge

How generously and open-minded of you to think so. :roll:

the function of art as providing an arrest in normal everyday consciousness transcends questions of meaning in that social sense — gurugeorge

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that you're simply wrong about the function of art and therefore don't need to try making a square fit a round hole by claiming it transcends shape.

But to be really clear, then perhaps i should stick to "mystical" instead of religious. — gurugeorge

If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have mentioned religious to begin with.

I do believe that mysticism is more at the root of religion than the kind of "social glue" factors that rationalists usually canvass, though they are important too. — gurugeorge

Even if this was saying much of anything, you haven't made a case for equating aesthetics and mysticism. They may be similar brain states but it's our cultural and individual conditioning that determines how we interpret these experiences. Atheists or "secular people" don't visit art galleries for spiritual awakening.

You're a guru of ignorance, george. Crawl back to whatever hillbilly barstool you staggered away from. Maybe you'll find a disciple or two there.

Don’t feign ignorance, Frank, it’s unbecoming of @ArguingWAristotleTiff’s champion. Not to mention the other shameless fallacies, including that pathetic excuse of an ad hom, and it was three paragraphs long. I can practically see Tiff cringing.

We’re not playing the same game. Going back to the beginning, the challenge was to defend the belief that Trump is good for the country and democracy, not to prove it.

The refuge of a poor loser is to move the goalpost. :razz:

You haven't proven your point. Sorry. — frank

And you made yours with “Dow Jones loves him”?

Faint, my friend, so very faint.

Forgive me, Frank, if I ignor the personal nonsense and only address some of your points.

It's not good for democracy to erode the independence of law enforcement and the judiciary, and it's not good for democracy to deliberately undermine the free press.
— praxis

Lincoln suspended the right to writ of habeas corpus. Democracy got along just fine. I think you'd probably agree the present situation is fairly tame in comparison, yet you declare the sky is falling. Why is that? — frank

The question is if the kind of actions that I’ve pointed out are good for democracy. Many believe that a free press and an independent judiciary and law enforcement support a healthy democracy. If that’s true then any effort to undermine these institutions is, well, not good, right?

A new report concludes that one effect of these rollbacks and changes to regulatory agencies is 80,000 deaths each year.
— praxis

That's a worrying speculation. May we have some proof that 80,000 people died because of those regulatory changes? — frank

I can look up a link to the report if you like. I gave a link to the list of deregulations, which is quite extensive.

With the new tax bill that number is expected to increase by 13 million in ten years.
— praxis

Do I need to explain the difference between a stray expectation and proof? — frank

Do you actually believe these reports are wild speculation? There are already 3.2 million fewer Americans with healthcare, as I pointed out.

Prove that he's bad for our country or democracy if your heart can handle the challenge. — frank

I guess preaching to the choir takes heart, but of a different sort. The only hard part is deciding where to start.

I know, last nights rally in Indiana. Talking about the Justice Department and FBI, Trump said "I wanted to stay out. But at some point, if it doesn't straighten out properly -- I want them to do their job -- I will get involved, and I'll get in there, if I have to." Also, in regard to the 'fake news' (news that is unfavorable to him) he said "These are just dishonest, terrible people. I'm telling you that. Terrible people." This on the same day that a man was charged with making violent threats to Boston Globe employees, calling the newspaper the "enemy of the people."

It's not good for democracy to erode the independence of law enforcement and the judiciary, and it's not good for democracy to deliberately undermine the free press.

The environment
Here's a list of the environmental regulatory rollbacks of the Trump Administration:
http://environment.law.harvard.edu/POLICY-INITIATIVE/REGULATORY-ROLLBACK-TRACKER/

A new report concludes that one effect of these rollbacks and changes to regulatory agencies is 80,000 deaths each year.

Healthcare
3.2 million fewer Americans have healthcare since Trump took office. With the new tax bill that number is expected to increase by 13 million in ten years.

Employment and the economy
Really good. Sustainable??

I'm not faint. Dow Jones loves him. QED. — frank

Sounds pretty faint to me.