I actually meant the idea that view that is critical of all religion, specifically on the basis that they're irreconcilable and that schisms aren't based on any kind of underlining logical framework. — Hallucinogen
Their view seems to amount to thinking that there can be no common framework that would provide the pathway of reasoning to a "correct" answer with regards to religious questions. In other words that religious disputes cannot be solved because there's no reliable source of reason for solving them? It seems to be a view a lot of atheists and agnostics have. — Hallucinogen
"Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances." — Oxford Dictionary
Would this be religious pluralism? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Indifferentism is used to describe the non-committal belief that no one religion is better than any other — Count Timothy von Icarus
I am not sure if there is a specific sub-type of religious pluralism that specifies that all religions are epistemologically disjunc — Count Timothy von Icarus
Neither. I'm saying that "all religions" are myths and that they can be – most, especially dead religions, have been – studied as such. They have the same function (re: pacifying false fears with false hopes) even though their contents may be "incompatible" like e.g. 'styles of art' or 'varieties of medicines' or 'tribal/territorial identities' throughout history and across cultures. I suppose this implies the "doctrine" of religious skepticism.Are you saying mythology itself holds this view or that the universe of each myth entails incompatability with all others? — Hallucinogen
They have the same function (re: pacifying false fears with false hopes) — 180 Proof
their contents may be "incompatible" like e.g. 'styles of art' or 'varieties of medicines' or 'tribal/territorial identities' throughout history and across cultures. — 180 Proof
Yes, "religious claims" have never been publicly demonstrated to be true.Would you say that they are all devoid to true content (in their claims)? — Hallucinogen
Usually. No.But what about the claims of religions, are those incompatible, or are you unsure?
Could you point to what the following definition, from the Oxford definition is lacking?
"Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to, and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power; the performance of religious rites or observances."
— Oxford Dictionary — Hallucinogen
“Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.”
At the very least, it seems impossible to say which one should be taken seriously
Some vague notion that religions all focus on the idea of oneness or transcendence is so slippery and inexact it would seem to be foundational quicksand
Your comparison with governments seems a false equivalence, as governments are nominally cooperative and administrative entities and by definition flexible and subject to constant modifications and never deal in transcendence or Truth. And don't forget that anarchists would seek to abolish governments precisely because there are no best forms of government
If the Buddhist tells me they have experienced Nirvana, I can't reject the veracity of that claim simply because it's presumably incompatible with the dogmatic claims of Roman Catholicism. That makes no sense. — public hermit
Religion escapes legitimate critique precisely because, at its best, it deals in experience. You and I might not get it, but we can't say much about it until we have the experience. — public hermit
If a Christian says that their faith tells them that God hates fags and thinks women should stay at home and black people are inferior - do you accept that claim because it is faith based and they experience the truth of these claims? How do you determine what religious claim you will accept? The same Christian religion will also have people who say faith tells them that god loves and endorses gay people and wants women to work and is a feminist. You might say that the same religion 'cancels itself out
I don't think experience is a 'get out of jail free' card. Is there anything that can't be justified through claiming experience
I think the general point is not that all religions are 'rubbish' but that no religion has demonstrated why it or others deals in Truth about reality. Until this happens, why take any of them seriously? I am not saying none of them are true, I am saying none of them are in a position to demonstrate their truths. And all religions justify their diverse 'authenticities' using similar arguments - personal experience, causation, meaning, truth, morality, etc.
What I reject is someone claiming they're all invalid since, as a whole, they're mutually incompatible. As I have shown, that's fallacious. — public hermit
But what about the claims of religions, are those incompatible, or are you unsure? — Hallucinogen
Usually. No. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.