The category Philosophy of Religion ought be empty. — Banno

You're not helping.

It's a failing of mine, sure enough. I've read more of Anselm and Kenny than is healthy.

So you're basically a positivist, then?

More like a provocativist, methinks.

Jesus Christ's Resurrection History or Fiction? — Banno

In another forum long ago and far away you asked if Pegasus existed. Literally? Figuratively? Millions of people will recognize a drawing of Pegasus; that horses can fly is plausible in mythological contexts. How can we say Pegasus does not exist? We don't seem to object to Clark Kent's various powers, or Spiderman's, Wonder Woman's, etc. Hobbits are sufficiently real that a scientific article about very small skeletons on the island of Flores found it necessary to claim Homo floresiensis did not descend from Hobbits. Hobbits and orcs are as real to millions of people as Uighurs.

I believe that Pegasus literally exists as the image and concept of a horse with wings that appears in mythical tales. I believe that Jesus literally exists as a beloved and sometimes fearsome character in ancient literature--ancient literature which has been read to the people for the last 2000 years, and thus has kept Jesus thriving.

My guess is that an actual person named Jesus (Joshua) actually existed and had some sort of connection to the Jesus of the Gospels. We don't know - can't know at this point - what the connection is, exactly.

There is good reason to believe that God exists as the mythical creator and ruler of the cosmos. It's a myth that many people love, inhabit, and enliven -- the same way that people love, inhabit, and enliven the story of Jesus or the story of Frodo.

Myths are "real". The story of Frodo (LOTR) is a real story. I've read it many times. On the one hand, I know that no such place as the Shire or Middle Earth or Mordor exists, but on the other hand, these places are potently real in the story. How real does a myth have to be?

If people began to sign up for trips to Middle Earth I would be quite concerned. It would indicate an outbreak of some sort of mass hysteria. I feel much the same about Jesus, God, Paul, Christianity, etc. As long as people love, inhabit, and enliven the scripture as mythical material, they're doing what people are meant to do with cultural creations. IF they decide to have themselves nailed to a cross for their sins, then no. They have gone off the deep end.

One of my sisters is an ardent Bible-believing Baptist. She's a tough act to put up with. She knows she is 100% right about her understanding of the Bible, but when it comes to illness, she'll be the first to recommend seeing a doctor. No faith healer for her. She takes no chances with sketchy brakes or odd transmission noises. But she does love, inhabit, and enliven the New Testament. It's her Lord of the Rings, Homer, and Shakespeare.

Is that the only option? God or Positivism?

One hopes.

Your OP sounds exactly like what an Ayer or a Carnap would say. There is of course much more to the subject but not from this starting-point.

Is it any more of a positive provocation to imply the religious are merely delusional than it is to suggest trans people are?

Have I suggested either?

There is nothing sensible to be said here. Silence.

Perhaps @Bitter Crank would prefer this of his sister.

There is nothing sensible to be said here. — Banno

Proof by demonstration?

If you don't trade in the currency in which someone has invested their identity, positive communication isn't possible, sure.

But it takes more to demonstrate their money is worthless.

An interesting analogy. Perhaps in this case the currency can only be exchanged for more currency.

In which case, it's not insensible for them to continue to trade among themselves. As in, to the extent that the linguistic currency forming the belief systems of the religious functions within their communicative sphere, their exchanges are sensible within that sphere. Ergo, this category being defined as such a sphere lends its contents immunity from the sweeping nature of your criticism, no?

Nothing sensible can be said here. The category Philosophy of Religion ought be empty. — Banno

Wow, we are far apart on this one. :gasp:

There is nothing sensible to be said here. — Banno

Three monks decided to meditate silently without speaking. During the night, the candle began to flicker and then went out. The first monk said, "Oh, no! The candle is out." The second monk said, "Aren't we supposed to be silent?" The third monk said, "Ha! I'm the only one who didn't speak."

Nothing sensible can be said here. — Banno

You're not helping. — Baden

Banno So you're basically a positivist, then? — Wayfarer

I'll toss some arguments in. Copied from elsewhere:

Is your deity real?

Everyone knows that not all gods can be real.
∴ Hence some or all gods are imaginary/fictional.

Some adherents are convinced through faith. Diverse faiths work.
∴ Hence faith works for imaginary/fictional gods.

Many adherents are convinced through directed indoctrination.
∴ Hence indoctrination works for imaginary/fictional gods.

Different adherents are convinced by their love of different gods.
∴ Hence imaginary/fictional gods can be loved.

Everyone knows that not all holy scriptures are true.
∴ Hence scriptures contain fictions.

Different adherents are inspired by different gods and holy scriptures.
∴ Hence fictions can inspire.

There are many inconsistent revelations and messiah avatar Buddha Jesus Mahdi claimants.
∴ Hence there are personal experiences that are wrong in what's purported.

Deities are neither evident nor necessary when religions spread.
∴ Hence nothing but humans are needed to spread religions.

We differentiate real and imaginary/fictional by evidence and reason together.
Many gods cannot be differentiated real or imaginary/fictional.
∴ Hence it stands to reason that many or all adherents are wrong.

Seriously, what should you believe...?

Meanwhile, religions build empires, proselytize, indoctrinate children, has waged wars and conquest (which fortunately has waned), ... We're not just talking the 5-day weather report for Manhattan, we're talking fantastic claims that supposedly apply to everyone, everything even.

Are the discussions in there really so different from many of those elsewhere? Silly questions aren't exclusive to the philosophy of religion category. The disease is much more widespread than that. If you want to make a start on getting rid of the problem, then you'd have to amputate a large chunk of the forum. But that might be seen as heavy handed, and then you'd rob these poor fools of an opportunity to get themselves out of their muddle, and you'd rob us of an opportunity to scoff at them.

you'd rob us of an opportunity to scoff at them — S

And scoffing is very important to us. I like to scoff. Sometimes it turns into a scoffing fit. Great word that, scoff.

The list of questions is a hodge-podge showing little reflection. Some (such as the existence of God) belong to metaphysics or natural theology. Others belong to Christian theology and the back and forth of apologetics, or to ethics.

The philosophy of religion is reasoned reflection on religious practice. Clearly, it has a place in the spectrum of philosophical thought independently of one's metaphysics, personal beliefs and faith commitments.

Seriously, what should you believe...? — jorndoe

From Maverick Philosopher - an abstract of Josiah Royce’s philosophy of religion:

a) There is a paramount end or aim of human life relative to which other aims are vain.

b) Man as he now is, or naturally is, is in danger of missing his highest aim, his highest good.

To hold that man needs salvation is to hold both of (a) and (b). I would put it like this. The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. It is not, for them, what William James in "The Will to Believe" calls a "living option," let alone a "forced" or "momentous" one.

Most folks here fall into those who don’t - which is OK, it’s a secular philosophy forum. But at least this helps clarify what is/is not being ‘believed’.

Is that the only option? God or Positivism? — Banno

God as a positivist idealist.

And scoffing is very important to us. I like to scoff. Sometimes it turns into a scoffing fit. Great word that, scoff. — Bitter Crank

Sounds like the start a new school of of philosophy.

Sounds like the start a new school of of philosophy. — Marchesk

Ah, the Skophist School, founded in the Ionian island of Skophios.

Their writings were unfortunately not preserved, but their method has been handed down from generation to generation, each passing on the scoff of their ancestors.

salvation
natural life [...] unsatisfactory
missing [...] Higher Life of true happiness — Wayfarer on Royce

Emotive appeals aside, @Wayfarer, it then seems a bit ironic that these enterprises have led to people surrendering moral agency to (man-made) scriptures and invisible "someone"s that can't be asked.
Is that "salvation"? As far as I can tell, at most rendering a false sense of "salvation" (and hit-or-miss self-improvement).

Philosophy is as much concerned with finding errors as whatever else.

By the way, the copy/paste'd arguments above are mostly concerned with the highly elaborate religions, real life denominations/sects/cults.
Not much is being said about unassuming deism or panpsychism for example.

It is a peculiar habit of God's that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution, so that the divine remains under other people's control. — Patricia Crone

Let the gods speak for themselves.

Silence — Banno

There are many inconsistent revelations and messiah avatar Buddha Jesus Mahdi claimants.
∴ Hence there are personal experiences that are wrong in what's purported. — jorndoe

Emotive appeals aside, Wayfarer, it then seems a bit ironic that these enterprises have led to people surrendering moral agency to (man-made) scriptures and invisible "someone"s that can't be asked.
Is that "salvation"? As far as I can tell, at most rendering a false sense of "salvation" (and hit-or-miss self-improvement). — jorndoe

Beat me why you've been asking this question on philosphy forums for ten years. I don't understand what it is you are trying to find out, or why.

From Maverick Philosopher - an abstract of Josiah Royce’s philosophy of religion:

a) There is a paramount end or aim of human life relative to which other aims are vain.

b) Man as he now is, or naturally is, is in danger of missing his highest aim, his highest good.

To hold that man needs salvation is to hold both of (a) and (b). — Royce, quoted by Wayfarer

This strikes me as a terribly narrow definition of religion. I know there's no point ultimately in arguing definitions so I won't say it's wrong. I'll just say that I find it unpleasant and unhelpful.

Why? Because rather than just saying that I feel a need for a teleological religion, it implies that anybody whose religion is not teleological is wrong and is leading a deficient life. At least it encompasses Buddhism and some Indian religions, but it excludes many ancient religions, including most folk religions. It even implies that there is a single highest aim and that some may - be they ever so devout - have a different aim, and hence be wrong.

The quoted person goes on:

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory;

Again I recognise in this only a restricted group of religions. One can enjoy and get great fulfilment from one's religion without believing that anybody who doesn't do likewise is 'radically deficient'.

What would I offer in place of the above, given that I find it so distasteful? Perhaps something like the following. It would benefit from workshopping no doubt.


1- There are mysteries of this life that we will never be able to comprehend, yet which many people find deeply moving. We might call these 'ultimate mysteries'.

2- Many people have a yearning for connection with others, which includes love but is not limited to love.

3- Religious activity consists of practices of meditation, reflection, communication attempts or ritual focused on the above notions of ultimate mysteries and connection.

4- A person that regularly engages in religious activity may be described as religious.

5- Many people find that their life is enhanced by regular religious activity. In some cases it may be that they felt their life was deficient before becoming religious. In others it may be that they felt no deficiency, but nevertheless found the religious activity to be a positive experience and hence continued it.

6- A particular set of religious activities that is practised by many people could be described as a 'religion'. But this can only ever be a rough approximation, because variation in practices is continuous. No two people will have exactly the same set of practices.

Reading that back, I notice that the concept of 'belief' is not mentioned. I tried to find a place to insert it, but couldn't find a place that it fitted. After further reflection, I concluded that, while belief is often important to religious people, it is not universal. Religion, prayer, ritual can be just a question - "if there is anybody out there listening I greet you". One can revere sacred mysteries and send attempts at communication without having to believe in particular answers to the mysteries or that anybody is listening. As with all new ideas I have, I was shortly reminded that that one is not new. The homosexual Roman Catholic priest James Alison expressed it in this interview, where he said that it was inaccurate and dismissive to refer to religions as 'faiths'

My very first class in comparative religion was devoted to the task 'define religion'. To our surprise, we failed. But that passage I quoted from Royce is very much in line with how I understand my own spiritual quest.

I notice however that your definitional approach is subjective. I think you have difficulty with the idea that what someone sincerely believes could be mistaken - which is understandable from the perspective of liberal individualism. So religions are validated because they serve an individual or social purpose - not because they refer to anything beyond that.

But in my case, I have been reflecting (gloomily) on the fact that very sincere, well-educated and even well-motivated people can nevertheless be completely mistaken. Heck, I think there are entire religious cultures that are fundamentally delusional - I would nominate Scientology as a gold-plated example (although I'm also highly dubious about Joseph Smith.)

The point is, in liberal, secular cultures, it is required that we tolerate diversity - which is great and I wouldn't have it any other way. But just because everyone is entitled to a point of view, doesn't mean all points of view are fruitful. Or, to put it another way, 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts' (Daniel Patrick Moynihan.)

The issue nowadays is that in the absence of an agreed religious culture, the only commonly-accepted arbiter of fact is science, which however is entirely concerned with what is measurable. Hence the constant reference to what is 'objective' as the criterion of truth; but that unfortunately excludes the domain of the transcendent.

Is there such a domain? Ah well there's the million dollar question. I believe there is, but my belief is at least informed by the reasonably impartial study of diverse traditional answers to that question. And as a consequence, I subscribe to the overall framework of the 'perennial philosophy'; actually my overall attitude is 'small-t theosophy' (i.e. theosophical but not a member of the Theosophical Society.) But, for example, that framework allows you to appreciate various spiritual and philosophical schools on their own merits, without going on to claim (as many do) that as they all differ, then it can be said they all cancel each other out. (Although I also don't claim that they are all simply the same, either.)

But the fact that the Royce quotation - the full post of which is here, by the way - could be said to be equally true of Buddhist, Christian and Hindu attitudes, is grounds for confidence in it, in my view, as they are the traditions which I feel the greater affinity with.

to put it another way, 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts'

Do you feel that religion, as you understand it, deals with facts, or with mysteries?

I cannot deny that some religions appear to claim to be in possession of certain facts - such as the RC doctrines of the Ascension and the Immaculate Conception. Do you regard such claims as assertions of concrete truth, to be taken literally, or as ways of approaching a mystery? The former will be truth-apt, the latter not.

It's obviously a tough question. As you know, I'm not a philosophical/ scientific materialist (not saying that to cast aspersions on those who are.) But to me the world is a much more mysterious place than to those who simply accept materialism to be true.

I remember you and I discussing the Jacalyn Duffyn story previously. If you look into the history of Catholicism there are many such stories of miraculous cures and events. I don't believe they're all simply fictional, and that one of the things that makes them credible is the sceptical approach the Church takes to them - don't forget that the role of the 'devil's advocate' was devised for exactly this purpose. Duffyn says 'I never expected such reverse skepticism and emphasis on science within the church'. She remains atheist, but also says the voluminous evidence she reviewed in her research simply can't be explained away. (Same can be said for Ian Stevenson's evidence of children who recall previous lives in my opinion.)

But I'm also not particularly attached to such things being true. Like, I don't 'pray for miracles' (although I have sent up the odd prayer in times of trouble.) But I do regard them as among the evidence for the fact that the powers or realities that the religions appeal to are real.

From a reader review of a Huston Smith's book Forgotten Truths: 'there are "levels of being" such that the more real is also the more valuable; these levels appear in both the "external" and the "internal" worlds, "higher" levels of reality without corresponding to "deeper" levels of reality within. On the lowest level is the material/physical world, which depends for its existence on the higher levels. On the very highest/deepest level is the Infinite or Absolute.

Basically Smith's book is an attempt to recover this understanding from materialism, scientism, and "postmodernism." It doesn't attempt to adjudicate among religions (or philosophies), or spell out any of the important differences between world faiths, and it is not intended to substitute a "new" religion for the specific faiths which already exist. Nor should any such project be expected from a work that expressly focuses on what religions have in common. Far from showing that all religions are somehow "the same," Smith in fact shows that religions have a "common" core only at a sufficiently general level. What he shows, therefore, is not that there is really just one religion, but that various religions are actually agreeing and disagreeing about something real, something about which there is an actual matter of fact, on the fundamentals of which most religions tend to concur while differing in numerous points of detail (including practice). Of course any two religions therefore have much more in common than any single religion has with "materialism". In fact one way to state the "common core" of the world's religions is simply to say that they agree about the falsehood of materialism."

That's about how I see it.