Religions need to be unified. They basically have the same ethical guidelines, the same fundamental metaphysics and operate within practically the same social and psychological parameters. So, why not? — BrianW

Wow, that's such an interesting idea. It brings to mind identities and communities such as theosophy, yoga, spiritism and spiritualism (also buddhism, taoism and others based on ethics/morals instead of focus on a deity) whose ways are respectable in these modern times and seem to lack antagonism to both the scientific and metaphysical paradigms. They accept all religions; are based on unity (togetherness); encourage personal choice in all matters; and are not focused on expressing the strength of one's convictions, instead, they focus on how better an individual can serve the community after having recognized their personal value first.

Truly an inspired idea.

Yeah, great... good luck with that, but I'll pass.

I agree that in a fully developed argument one would need to define "God". Here and in other places it is convenient shorthand for a supernatural being. — Rank Amateur

Since all arguments are based on natural reasoning and evidence there can never be any rational or empirical demonstration of the existence of supernatural being. It is the archetypal object of faith.

They might. Or they might not. A parish priest might know nothing else, but a Tantrik Sadhaka might cook a meal on pages of scripture.

What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture. — Wayfarer

Okay. You say they might or might not. So, getting back to the question, if they don't have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth, then how else might they get to a revealed truth? Divine intervention? A miracle? Puh-lease...

Thanks. It makes you wonder, why would anyone discuss those tired old dinosaurs which seem to only bring misery to discussions about religions. There's so much positivity everywhere else, why not direct towards that? What good is all this senseless conflict, I wonder? The Buddha taught, "violence begets violence." Is it not the same here? The more we attack each other the further we go from a resolution. As a philosopher would ask, "where is the sense or integrity in that?"

Again - There is no basis to believe as a matter of fact that God is not. You can not say, as a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. Simply because no one has seen a unicorn does not make it a matter of fact that they do not exist. If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so.

There are many reasoned arguments for theism - and many reasoned arguments against - they are all very well know - hopefully you do not need a list. Both positions are reasonable. — Rank Amateur

Ah, so you confuse fact and justification. Thanks for making that clear. There's a fact of the matter, even in the absence of justification for or against.

:starstruck: [Mind-socks blown off!]

So, getting back to the question, if they don't have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth, then how else might they get to a revealed truth? Divine intervention? A miracle? Puh-lease... — S

Sadhana:

Buddhist sādhana (Japan)
Buddhist sādhana (Japan)
Shugendō sādhana (Japan)
Shugendō sādhana (Japan)
Sādhana (Sanskrit साधन; Tibetan: སྒྲུབ་ཐབས་, THL: druptap; Chinese: 修行), literally "a means of accomplishing something",[1] is a generic term coming from the yogic tradition and it refers to any spiritual exercise that is aimed at progressing the sādhaka towards the very ultimate expression of his or her life in this reality.[2] It includes a variety of disciplines in Hindu,[3] Buddhist,[4] Jain[5] and Sikh traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives. — Wikipedia

You see, because Protestant Christianity has made 'religion' a matter of believing the dogma, on pain of eternal hell, then we have collectively walked away. But I am arguing, this is because of deficiencies in the way 'religion' has been understood and practiced from the outset in Western culture. Something fundamental was lost in the tumult which sorrounded the formation of the Christian Churches.

so that the rubbish does not pollute the more worthy philosophical discussions. — Banno

About whether there really is a cup in the cupboard, and whether it's really red.

The cosmological argument is, if sound, at most an argument for a 'prime mover'. If we are to have a comprehensive, unified vision of what the prime mover could be, it must encompass and integrate science and all the rest of human experience. Any single "revealed truth' is inadequate; but the range of revealed truths, as showing the ambit of natural metaphysical reasoning is anthropologically relevant to the question.

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. — praxis

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

I have no idea at all what that was suppose to mean. You asked for an argument - I gave you one. I think you are just getting semantic - but I am not sure. Are we in disagreement with what a fact is? — Rank Amateur

Yes, we seem to be in disagreement with what a fact is, because in a previous post, you were describing justification when you were supposed to be explaining why there's no fact of the matter, which suggests either that you're confusing fact with justification or you think that fact depends on justification. Both are mistaken.

Let me break down your comment for you to make it clearer:

"Basis to believe": justification.

"There is a God": fact (assumed for sake of argument).

"Unicorns do not exist on Earth": fact (assumed for sake of argument).

"No one has seen a unicorn": justification, arguable.

"If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so": Misunderstanding - justification not needed for there to be a fact of the matter, say, that God does not exist. Justification only required for supporting claim that it is a fact that God does not exist.

I'll leave it at that, as hopefully that'll do. My dispute with you is that you're claiming that there's no fact of the matter. There is. But that's as far as the dispute goes for now, and I want you to understand that. I don't need to provide justification that it's a fact that God doesn't exist, because I'm only going as far as claiming, contrary to your claim, that there is a fact of the matter, one way or the other.

No, it's recognizing the need to include science, since it is the most reliable method of investigating the nature of the real. Science cannot reasonably be excluded; it would be a mistake.Scientism consists in excluding the merely human, the aspects of the manifest dimension of experience that the scientific method alone is not adequate to investigate; of course that is also a mistake.

yes we are in disagreement with what a fact is.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.
the world is round is a fact.
the cat is in fact on the chair
that which is confirmed to be consistent with an observed reality is a fact.

It is not a fact that unicorns to not exist, and no self respecting biologist would ever make such a claim.
Because no one has ever seen a unicorn, does not mean they, as a matter of fact, do not exist. It is possible that in some dark jungle somewhere there are a few unicorns. New species are found all the time - that no one new existed before.

It is, however a very reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist.

(I should note, this passage is frequently referenced by Western Buddhists in support of a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism. I don't think it is really that, but the emphasis on 'finding out for yourself' is indisputable.) — Wayfarer

If a belief is not supported by logical or empirical evidence, then it must (purportedly at least) be supported by intuition or personal experience. But then it is always your personal intuition and experience, or my personal intuition and experience!

Does your conservatism and penchant for dogma preclude you from "a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism"? Or if that is not it, then what is your reason?

Of course you can, and will be (as we all are) governed by your intuition and what you believe your experience shows you when it comes to what to believe in those matters for which there cannot be logical demonstration or empirical evidence; but the point is that all that is merely subjective. What merely seems right to you, the mere fact that it seems right to you, can never be reason for someone else to accept it against their own intuitions and experience. That is why such matters do not belong to philosophical discussion; people just end up talking past one another.

2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.
the world is round is a fact.
the cat is in fact on the chair — Rank Amateur

All fine examples of facts.

that which is confirmed to be consistent with an observed reality is a fact. — Rank Amateur

Yes, but as a definition, that would be overcomplicated and would lead to problems. You'd need a simplified definition which avoids those problems. A fact is just what is the case. A state of affairs. It needn't be confirmed to be consistent with observed reality. Again, that's basically saying that for there to be a fact, it needs justification. No, it doesn't! There can be unknown, unconfirmed, unobserved, unjustified facts! And, as a definition, that would rule out that possibility, which would be a mistake. For example, let's say that there's a galaxy out there that we have yet to observe. That is possible, if not highly probable. And if it is so, then it'd be a fact that there's a galaxy out there, despite it not being confirmed to be consistent with observed reality.

It is not a fact that unicorns [d]o not exist, and no self respecting biologist would ever make such a claim. — Rank Amateur

Your mistake here is to fail to realise that you aren't justified in claiming that it's not a fact that unicorns don't exist. It could be a fact that unicorns don't exist, even if we can't yet justify that fact! How could you possibly know that it's not a fact? Have you searched the entire universe for unicorns? You're making the same mistake you suspect of me. The biologist, to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, wouldn't say one way or the other whether it's a fact, and for the same reason.

Because no one has ever seen a unicorn, does not mean they, as a matter of fact, do not exist. It is possible that in some dark jungle somewhere there are a few unicorns. New species are found all the time - that no one new existed before. — Rank Amateur

I agree to some extent, as with the historic case of black swans, and then black swans were of course discovered. However, if we know enough about them and their habitats, and we have searched well enough, in all the right places, over a long enough period of time, then we can say that it's very unlikely that unicorns exist on Earth. And that likelihood can be so low that for all intents and purposes, unicorns don't exist. Absence of evidence, in some cases, can be evidence of absence. If a unicorn would leave traces, which it almost certainly would, then it can be traced. No unicorn traces have been found. Possibility alone is insufficient. What if it were possible, yet 99.9% improbable? That's no good reason to believe that it's a serious prospect, and it's very good reason not to believe that you'll ever encounter a unicorn in your lifetime.

Your belief in God, like a belief in unicorns, is unscientific and requires a leap of faith.

It is, however a very reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist. — Rank Amateur

Then, for that same reason, it is a very reasonable belief that God does not exist.

And that also contradicts your earlier claim, because, if it is very reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist, then it is very reasonable to believe that it's a fact that unicorns do not exist.

If a belief is not supported by logical or empirical evidence, then it must (purportedly at least) be supported by intuition or personal experience. But then it is always your personal intuition and experience, or my personal intuition and experience! — Janus

But it's not - it's situated in a domain of discourse. Again - your only modes of interpretation are limited to positivist (empirical-mathematical), or personal and subjective - science, poetry, or an elusive feeling of the ineffable. If it doesn't fit into those categories, then you can't understand it.

people just end up talking past one another. — Janus

You're right about that, and I'm tired of trying.

But it's not - it's situated in a domain of discourse. Again - your only modes of interpretation are limited to positivist (empirical-mathematical), or personal and subjective - science, poetry, or an elusive feeling of the ineffable. If it doesn't fit into those categories, then you can't understand it. — Wayfarer

"Can't understand it": how presumptuous you are! If someone disagrees with you it shows a failure of understanding. And yet you seem to be able to offer no cogent arguments to support your assertions; the hallmark of the fundamentalist!

Of course "domains of discourse" can be based on shared personal faiths; I haven't said that people cannot agree with one another about their personal intuitions and experiences. That's just what religions are. The point is that there is no way to logically or empirically demonstrate the soundness or even the coherency of their agreement; and thus it does not qualify as actually corroborable; and thus it is merely a matter of sentiment.

And of course, as usual, you haven't attempted to answer the questions that raise difficulties for your conservative, dogmatic standpoint; and nor do you want to openly admit that it is conservative and dogmatic it seems. All of this is fair enough, but it's not philosophy; it's religion...or politics...

You're right about that, and I'm tired of trying. — Wayfarer

If you could provide an actual argument as opposed to mere assertions it would be a start to the process of transcending 'talking past one another". But whenever I present arguments that refute, or at least purport to refute, your position, instead of countering them with argument you become offended, and say I am being rude, or insult me by claiming I don't understand.

The philosophical failure to engage is yours. If you're tired of trying, why not recognize that you either need to try harder or recognize that you are barking up the wrong tree, and just accept your religious beliefs for what they are: religious beliefs. (And as I always say, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with religious belief, but religious belief posing as philosophy is offensive).

Sadhana:

Buddhist sādhana (Japan)
Buddhist sādhana (Japan)
Shugendō sādhana (Japan)
Shugendō sādhana (Japan)
Sādhana (Sanskrit साधन; Tibetan: སྒྲུབ་ཐབས་, THL: druptap; Chinese: 修行), literally "a means of accomplishing something",[1] is a generic term coming from the yogic tradition and it refers to any spiritual exercise that is aimed at progressing the sādhaka towards the very ultimate expression of his or her life in this reality.[2] It includes a variety of disciplines in Hindu,[3] Buddhist,[4] Jain[5] and Sikh traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives.
— Wikipedia

You see, because Protestant Christianity has made 'religion' a matter of believing the dogma, on pain of eternal hell, then we have collectively walked away. But I am arguing, this is because of deficiencies in the way 'religion' has been understood and practiced from the outset in Western culture. Something fundamental was lost in the tumult which sorrounded the formation of the Christian Churches. — Wayfarer

A spiritual exercise? Seriously? Then can you please give me an example of a revealed truth that can be gained in this way? Because surely it can't be the kind of things which I at first had in mind when we were talking about dogmatic devotion. I am now thinking that we're at cross purposes, and that your answer will only, in a sense, trivialise what we were talking about. When there was mention of the requirement of dogmatic devotion, obviously that brings to mind, say, that God exists and is our personal saviour. Now, that can't be discovered through spiritual exercise. But I'm certainly not disputing that you can enter a peaceful and profound state of mind, and come to, say, some enlightening realisation about yourself or your view of life, how to live it, and so on. But that's not the same thing. That's changing the subject.

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 certainly not disputing that you can enter a peaceful and profound state of mind, and come to, say, some enlightening realisation about yourself or your view of life, how to live it, and so on. But that's not the same thing. That's changing the subject. — S

No it's not - it's an alternative understanding of the meaning of 'religion', which has been overwhelmed by the dominant narrative.

Modern psychedelic guides could be seen as contemporary shamans. — praxis

Sorry but that's bollocks, unless you're talking about people like Jung, and nobody takes Jung seriously outside arts faculties. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine, whose sole aim is, in Freud's words, to 'transform hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness'. There is no category for this kind of teacher or education in post-Enlightenment culture; why do you think Buddhism has suddenly become popular?

You can't transcend if you are bound, and there may actually be a negative incentive to unbind. — praxis

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.

Does Reason Know what it is Missing?, Stanley Fish.

No it's not - it's an alternative understanding of the meaning of 'religion', which has been overwhelmed by the dominant narrative. — Wayfarer

With due respect, come off it. You interjected in the wrong context to push your own preference that yoga can make you feel all zinged out, maaaan. No one was disputing that.

This was the context:

Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises? Karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God or impersonal deity, eternal punishment or temporary hell, one God or many gods? Can any of those be philosophically argued for without the support of dogmatic faith? I would say no — Janus

You left out those examples in the bit that you quoted in your reply. You can't get to karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God, and so on, from some spiritual bloody exercise. Or do you disagree? If so, I would love to hear how you can get from, say, the mountain pose, to discovering that reincarnation really happens. That just sounds like delusion.

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.

If you agree that psychological suffering is universal, then we should be looking for a source that is also universal. Thought content, ideas, concepts, philosophies etc are not universal, they vary greatly.

No, it's also a matter of faith and practice (which are really inseparable). the beliefs associated with religion, taken as propositions (which many fundamentalist apologists and opponents of religion do) are "not even wrong".

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 point is, this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy is what is being discussed. I am not at all opposed to the Christian faith, but it seems to me that if that is your belief, then there ought to be something better to do than debating it online. — Wayfarer

This seems to be a monstrous irony coming from you!

There is no point in discussing your religion with anyone who doesn't share your particular preconceptions/ beliefs. Discussion with other adherents, whether the religion is Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or Christianity is a part of the theology of that religion, not part of philosophy. Yet within the context of a faith such discussion may be fruitful, but not without it.

Why? Should you only ever preach to the choir, and only ever talk to people that already agree with you? For me personally, I don't find that nearly as fruitful, or time as well spent as sharing differing perspectives. I already know what I think, and personally like to learn new things.

Within the context of faith it is not possible to have significantly "differing perspectives" when it comes to the essential elements of that faith. If you do have significantly differing perspectives from your particular sect, then you will be joining another sect or creating a new one.

Philosophy does not consist in "preaching" to anyone, but rather in seeking to understand or create unified consistent visions of life and reality and then testing them the utmost to see if they are consistent with and explanatorily adequate to the whole range of human experience.