You retreat from an incredibly basic request to clarify the term you were using and attack my character instead of attacking the argument. — Philosophim

Retreat I did not, what I did was explain why I am not interested in this approach and provide an argument. Your credentials cannot save you from an argument. You are already doing the exact thing I am talking about -- that's why we are not defining every word here. This allows us to actually have a conversation.

Do you see me going around with my nose in the air thinking that "I'm better than all of these novices"? — Philosophim

When did I say I was better? I just don't have time for it. Further, I would clarify that teaching and philosophizing are different activities. I weigh all questions equally, whether they come from scholars or beggars, on the basis of their value.

That knowledge is to be spread, shared, and engaged with by others, not hoarded like some treasure of personal superiority. — Philosophim

I couldn't agree with you more passionately, friend, I'm not the one you need to rebuke here. These lines need to be directed at American philosophy and academia in general, most specifically analytical philosophy. A large portion of my mental powers are spent trying to figure out how to do the very thing you are talking about.

You are not a dense person, so I leaning on the assumption you are using this as an excuse to avoid conversation when it becomes difficult for you. — Philosophim

Extracting a formal definition for religion is not difficult. Maybe try taking my own explication here (time/value) as oppose to divining my motives.

That is being an intellectual coward, and a hypocrite. You'll be a polemicist and yell at people all day — Philosophim

Yell? That is not polemics. Further, one cannot yell with words, one can emphasize, but one cannot yell.

Didn't you say thought thrived on conflict? Don't you constantly lament that philosopher's are not willing to engage you on points you find important? — Philosophim

I always qualify this because I am not merely stating an emotive platitude. Talking to an ignorant person in a specific way can detract both from intelligence and quality. Not every instance of negation is an instance of quality negation. Take Christianity for example, it is quite a large waste of life and resources to spend one's time refuting apologetic arguments. One is decreased by engaging the sophistry of creationism for example.

This is what I can tell you. I am not interested in debating the formal definition of religion. The real question is how far a philosopher's method can take him in the direction of knowledge. To do this effectively one must learn how to discriminate on the basis of intelligence, to speak in Nietzsche's terms, one must learn how to pass by.

However, if you simply must have it, if you cannot understand what I am here saying, then I will provide a formal definition to fulfill your request. (Notice that I have already been discussing this topic with other people, though we did not begin with a formal definition, some progress has already been made between us.)

You quoted me without saying anything. Did you have a point to make? — RogueAI

Only that, "if you don't see no matter what," then I don't see the point of discoursing with you. You have already made up your mind.

Although I'm not referring to religion per se, the question is about whether technology is a religion. — TheMadFool

Sorry, I can't help you here MadFool.

Only that, "if you don't see no matter what," then I don't see the point of discoursing with you. You have already made up your mind.

This is unclear.

This is unclear. — RogueAI

I like to ask Christians, 'is it possible that what the Bible says could be false?' They usually say no, which proves they are dogmatists, have invincible psychological conviction. One cannot reason with this, one can only refute it.

I like to ask Christians, 'is it possible that what the Bible says could be false?' They usually say no, which proves they are dogmatists, have invincible psychological conviction. One cannot reason with this, one can only refute it.

Are you assuming I'm a Christian? I'm not.

Are you assuming I'm a Christian? I'm not. — RogueAI

That was not my point. My point was your dogmatism.

Jersey, I have a master's in philosophy. You have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to show other wise. What are your credentials? Do you have a source that backs your claim?
See my reply to Judaka to understand why defining terms in discussion is a fundamental of logical discourse. — Philosophim

It is good to see more and more people turning against this type of pseudophilosophy. Well said @Philosophim!

If the question was, what kind of thing is religion, then we wouldn't proceed from a definition, because the object is to discuss then produce a definition. If we are asking, is X a religion, then we need a definition of religion before we can proceed in that judgement.

If what you say is correct I should not be able to discourse on this topic with anyone until a formal definition has been established, but that is not what has transpired here. When two people learned in religion come together they can indeed ask this question and proceed forward with it. Nevertheless I will provide a formal definition:

"Religion: a specific form of social consciousness whose characteristic feature is a fantastic reflection in people's minds of external forces dominating over them, a reflection in which earthly forces assume unearthly forms. Marxism/Leninism considers R. a historically transient phenomenon of social consciousness and shows the main factors that determine its existence at different stages of society's development. The appearance of R. in primitive society was conditioned by man's impotence in face of the forces of nature because of the low level of the productive forces. The existence of R. in antagonistic class societies may be traced to class oppression, unfair social relations, the poverty and rightless status of the masses, which breed despair and a sense of hopelessness thus turning people's hopes to supernatural forces. By giving people false bearings and placing the solution of the vital problems of being in the other world, R. strengthens and perpetuates man's dependence on external forces and dooms him to passiveness, holding down his creative potential. In the society of antagonistic
classes it diverts working people from active participation in the struggle for changing the world and impedes the formation of their class consciousness. Marx called R. "opium for the people". A scientific analysis of R. rests on the premise that it is a complex social phenomenon, a system of specific ideas,
feelings and religious rites, and in a class society also of institutions that bring together professional clergymen. The above aspects are directly related to, and change with the social relations. This is distinctly seen in the present conditions when R. is being modernised under the influence of social, scientific and technological progress which has led to a crisis of R. The essence of R., however, remains unchanged and its disappearance, as predetermined by the course of social development,
is inevitable..."

The existence of R. in antagonistic class societies may be traced to class oppression, unfair social relations, the poverty and rightless status of the masses, which breed despair and a sense of hopelessness thus turning people's hopes to supernatural forces. By giving people false bearings and placing the solution of the vital problems of being in the other world, R. strengthens and perpetuates man's dependence on external forces and dooms him to passiveness, holding down his creative potential. In the society of antagonistic
classes it diverts working people from active participation in the struggle for changing the world and impedes the formation of their class consciousness. Marx called R. "opium for the people". — JerseyFlight

This part may be somewhat consistent with "technology".

A scientific analysis of R. rests on the premise that it is a complex social phenomenon, a system of specific ideas,
feelings and religious rites, and in a class society also of institutions that bring together professional clergymen. — JerseyFlight

This I believe is not consistent with "technology".

And the point of inconsistency begins in the other part, with the phrase "holding down its creative potential". Technology, under a scientific analysis, is a creative potential, so if religion imposes restrictions on creativity, then it is fundamentally opposed to technology which acts to circumvent those restrictions.

The specifics of the inconsistency, are that the creativity which is supported by technology promotes a divisive power within the society. Through providing a multitude of various choices, technology promotes division within society, as indicated by the numerous different branches of science and engineering. On the other hand, religion promotes unity "a system", unified by bringing together professionals, as you describe.

You might see that the conditions described in the first quote above, the hopelessness and despair, are created by technology in its divisive capacity of creating haves and have nots. Religion proposes "supernatural forces", as the true source of equity amongst people. Whether this is a false bearing or not is debatable.

The essence of R., however, remains unchanged and its disappearance, as predetermined by the course of social development,
is inevitable..." — JerseyFlight

Religion might disappear if someone could propose a principle of equity which is not dependent on the super natural. Until then, the divisiveness created by technology will continue to fester and the need for religion will only grow..

When did I say I was better? I just don't have time for it. — JerseyFlight

Yes, you are saying you are better, because that person is beneath your time. That's what thinking you are better than other people who reply to you means. Of course, you seem to have the time to give a lengthy reply after I called you out on it. Your claim to carefully measuring posts that are worth replying to doesn't hold water in my case. Let me remind you of the post that you didn't need to reply to, but did anyway.

Without defining what a religion is, I'm not sure we can come to any meaningful discussion comparing it to technology. Each of us would just use our own subjective interpretations at that point, and we would each be in our own opinionated world. If that is the type of topic you would like this to be, I will bow out and let others continue. — Philosophim

If you are carefully measuring your time/value here, why bother replying to a post that is politely telling you if you did not wish to define your terms, I couldn't see being a contributor to the conversation. I'm indicating I'm leaving, but to please continue on. I did not insult your thread, or your argument, and I thought the conversation had gone nicely.

There is no time/value in leaving a snide comment about me being a "novice".

Lets also put your approach on another foot and see if it holds water.

Lets say you enter a Christian thread and ask them to define God after you're not sure what they mean by God. They tell you,

I have purposely bypassed this approach. This leads to a dead end. — JerseyFlight

Deciding to leave because you see you can't discuss with his approach, you say as such, and take your leave. They then reply:

What I have learned, having had many exchanges, is that the act of formally defining things is often the mark of a novice dialectician. — JerseyFlight

Do you think, "Oh, that person must be so wise and experienced in discussing! I guess I have a lot to learn by asking him to clarify what he meant by God! They aren't being snide, its just a time/value evaluation obviously!"

Or do you think that the person realized they couldn't or didn't want to answer a question because they didn't like where it might go? And because they were insecure about it, they decided to throw a parting shot as you left? Come now Jersey, we know which one you would think.

If mine or your own words still don't convince you, notice others are asking you to clarify what in the world you mean by "religion" as well? Its not a bunch of "novices" asking you to waste your time Jersey. Its people asking a basic question because the topic doesn't make any sense without it. If you want to make your posts take less of your time defending, work on answering questions clearly that ask clarification for on what you're actually trying to say. You'll get far less blow back on what you're defending, and maybe you'll find clarity in the discussion that you didn't realize you were missing.

measuring — Philosophim

What do you mean by measuring?

indicating — Philosophim

What do you mean by indicating?

insecure — Philosophim

What do you mean by insecure?

novices — Philosophim

What do you mean by novices?

One cannot get very far in this kind of exchange. Further, this is not the kind of exchange we are having, we are having the kind of exchange I referenced, where meanings are assumed so that conclusions can be comprehended.

A formal definition has been provided so you are free to proceed in terms of your method, it doesn't mean I will be joining you, but have it at friend.

Your objections here are nothing more than a personal complaint, you are free to it, but I am not interested in it. The topic of the thread: is technology a new religion?

we know which one you would think. — Philosophim

I wasn't aware that a masters degree gives one the ability to read minds?

Best of luck to you. :smile:

"A scientific analysis of religion rests on the premise that it is a complex social phenomenon, a system of specific ideas, feelings and religious rites, and in a class society also of institutions that bring together professional clergymen."

This I believe is not consistent with "technology". — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting... thinking in terms of an elite assemblage of people that technology casts into positions of status and power. Institutions are also assembled around and from technology, just like churches are assembled from Christianity.

This is interesting... thinking in terms of an elite assemblage of people that technology casts into positions of status and power. Institutions are also assembled around and from technology, just like churches are assembled from Christianity. — JerseyFlight

I don't agree with your analogy. The people whom technology casts into positions of status and power are entrepreneurs, inventors, while the people that the Church gives power to are those who adhere to the structure of the religion. So we have two very distinct sources of power here. in one case the power is derived from being creative and original, while in the other the power is derived from adherence to the existing religious structure.

I'm not sure the reason of why people end up in these positions, necessarily negates the notion of these positions occupying a similar place in culture? I should mention, I am not dogmatic about any of this, my approach here is just a free flow of speculation. I find it to be an interesting question. Technology does hold a privileged position in culture, people devote themselves to it, we order our lives around it, but it is, like religion, just a thing we create, though it is more than idealism in this sense. What I think makes this topic important is the authority that technology has in culture; what also makes it important is what humans are willing to do for it, how they are prepared to submit to it.

You are being snide again with a side of petulance. It is imperative to ask for clarification when you begin to see that the terms you are using seem to differ from the other persons. Of course you start with assumptions, then ask for clarification when you start to realize there are underlying differences. People who are honest do this with regards to getting to the bottom of the issue. People who are dishonest will use it as a delaying tactic, and ask absurd questions that both parties know is unneeded.

But dishonest people will also shy away from clarifying their position when they aren't sure themselves, or they think it will open them up to countering what they want to believe.

I only asked clarification on what you meant by religion when it was obvious you and I had two very different underlying meanings. This is very simple Jersey. You chose the path of a dishonest dialectician.

I wasn't aware that a masters degree gives one the ability to read minds? — JerseyFlight

Nope, but I also have a bachelor's of science. It allows me to identify BS. (Lame joke, we don't have voice tone here unfortunately) One technique you learn to quickly identify is an inconsistent ideology or stance. A dishonest dialectician will often try to defend their reasoning at any cost, and this is a typical pattern they fall into. I only point it out so you will be honest in the future. I don't begrudge your attempt to defend yourself, but if you feel you have to fall to such tactics, it is very ok to just say, "I need to think on it".

Best of luck to you. :smile: — JerseyFlight

And you as well. I hope our future posts on topics fair better. Less troll, more droll eh?

Having a conversation about me? I already provided a formal definition, so I don't know what you're going on about here. I don't have a problem with formal definitions, these are the easiest thing in the world to provide. I have multiple dictionaries and philosophical, religious dictionaries in my home. I just don't find your approach to be very fruitful. Further, I agreed with you from the very beginning: "...I'm not saying this should never be done, sometimes it's forced by the context."