• Terrapin Station
    Can you give an example of a religion (not people who claim to be followers) that doesn't include supernatural beliefs?anonymous66

    In addition to Scientology, another example is LaVeyan Satanism.
  • anonymous66
    Re: Scientology.. (from wiki)
    Theological doctrine

    Scientology does not preach or impose a particular idea of God on Scientologists. Rather, people are expected to discover the truth through their own observations as their awareness advances.

    ... the Church of Scientology has no set dogma concerning God that it imposes on its members. As with all its tenets, Scientology does not ask individuals to accept anything on faith alone. Rather, as one’s level of spiritual awareness increases through participation in Scientology auditing and training, one attains his own certainty of every dynamic. Accordingly, only when the Seventh Dynamic (spiritual) is reached in its entirety will one discover and come to a full understanding of the Eighth Dynamic (infinity) and one’s relationship to the Supreme Being.[118]

    From the Scientology site above... "DOES SCIENTOLOGY HAVE A CONCEPT OF GOD?

    Most definitely. In Scientology, the concept of God is expressed as the Eighth Dynamic—the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being."
  • m-theory
    What about Havens gate?
    They did not have super natural beliefs, but were they a cult or a religion?

    Do you have to have a large enough fellowship to be considered a religion?
  • Terrapin Station

    Yeah, I'd say they count, too. And yeah, the cult/religion line seems to be one of just how many followers/just how much history, etc. the movement has, which makes it a pretty gray line.
  • Thorongil
    Perhaps deism, pantheism, panentheism, and Logos could be seen as forms of ietsism?anonymous66

    Maybe! However, I would tend to think these -isms are more defined than ietsism, which picks out that supremely (and seemingly deliberately) vague, unhelpful, and frustrating reply that one's typical fellow apes give in response to whether they believe in God: "I think there must be something out there," "I believe in a higher power," or "I think there's something bigger than myself." These phrases are fit to make any philosopher fly into a rage, but they represent, in my view, the extent to which people have pondered anything metaphysical and make up the predominant belief of most people today, at least in the industrialized world.
  • TheMadFool
    Religion is a type of philosophy...

    And vice versa
  • Cavacava
    Historically few philosophers died for their beliefs.
  • Janus
    Only something supernatural can express the Supernatural.'mcdoodle

    What do you think this means?
  • R-13

    It sounds like the suggestion that there is something truly Supernatural encoded by or hinted at by tales of miracles. (Hope you don't mind the interjection.)
  • mcdoodle
    I've been thinking about the meaning of Wittgenstein's 'Only something supernatural can express the Supernatural.'

    (There is an essay online by Cecilia Rofena from a book 'Wittgenstein and Plato' which expressly links their notions of the divine, you can find bits of it in Google books. She argues that the added word 'something' in the English translation has a wrong implication which isn't in the German.)

    To me Witt is writing about what I think of not as supernatural but as 'extra-natural'. Our ordinary use of language, and the scientific enterprise, both assume a 'natural' world. This is the world of facts as he would have put it at the time of his writing the Tractatus.

    But section 6.4 of the Tractatus outlines what such language - and science - cannot talk about. Having spent most of his book on the world that is the case, does this make sense of the world? No. (No wonder Russell was shocked at what his pupil came up with) 'The sense of the world must lie outside the world.' (6.41) 'It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental. (Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.)' (6.421) Of course, he does very occasionally put ethics into words all the same :)

    So I suggest he talking about what we would currently call a different discourse or level of discourse. These are things of which it's difficult to speak, because our language is ill-suited to such matters. Ethical behaviour has effects but...

    'If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the limits of the world, not the facts--not what can be expressed by means of language. In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to speak, wax and wane as a whole. The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man.' (6.43)

    I think there is an unresolved contradiction here. The word 'only' is odd. For earlier in the Tractatus of course the limits of my language are the limits of my world. So to alter those limits is to alter something profound. And indeed this seems implied in 'altogether different world'. But there isn't then a clear link between good exercise of the will and happiness, or bad and unhappiness. Some debate is heavily abbreviated here.

    I don't mean Witt wasn't in some way religious. He was particularly drawn to Kierkegaard and debated what Kierkegaard implied for him. But most of the time religious concern wasn't - back to the op - what for him his own philosophy was about.
  • Cavacava
    Religion reveals truths which make substantive contributions to the lives of the faithful.
    Philosophy makes no substantive contribution to what we know, it analyzes how we know what we know.
  • Buxtebuddha
    Religion reveals truthsCavacava

    How do you know this?
  • Agustino
    How do you this?Heister Eggcart
    I do this like this bruv... :D
  • Buxtebuddha
    I just woke up, forgive my typo Lord Agu.
  • Cavacava

    The faithful say its revelation, and they believe it's true. I don't doubt their belief, do you?
  • m-theory
    Truths about what?
    Philosophy makes no substantive contribution to what we know, it analyzes how we know what we know.Cavacava
    Do you know this because of religious revelation?
  • Cavacava

    I am not sure what you are asking. Can you rephrase.
  • m-theory
    You said religion reveals truths, about what?

    And I wanted to know how you know this is true.
    Philosophy makes no substantive contribution to what we know, it analyzes how we know what we know.Cavacava

    Was that a truth that religion revealed to you?
  • Cavacava

    It reveals truths about God and life, why and how to live a life of faith. It adds something material, substantial to their lives. [to best of my understanding]

    Philosophy makes no substantive contribution to what we know, it analyzes how we know what we know.
    — Cavacava

    This my opinion about Philosophy role's , and it was presented to differentiate between Philosophy and what Religion says and does.
  • m-theory
    Is it your belief that religion is the only way to have truths revealed about life and god?
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.