I always preferred to believe that the derivation from ‘re-ligare’, ‘to bind or unite’ was superior to the derivation ‘religio’ as ‘peity with respect to the gods.’ It says something about two aspects or facets of religion, the first being usually overlooked on the grounds that the second is what religion ‘really means’.

Xenophanes replaced the concrete poly by an abstract mono...and Western religion, delegating God to the same extramundane world. — GraveItty

I think you make an unwarranted leap. The Greek conception of deity was quite mundane. The gods of the pantheon were in no way "omni-" anything. The conception of the incorporeal "omni" God is a Christian/Islamic concept with it's roots in the Levant. Because Xenophanes and Plato concieved of idealized, metaphysical objects does not mean that this is how the Greeks in general concieved of deity. I also, however, think that Jack is wrong to think that philosophy and religion have "combined origins". I think the motives for each are entirely different, and distinct.

I always preferred to believe that the derivation from ‘re-ligare’, ‘to bind or unite’ was superior to the derivation ‘religio’ as ‘peity with respect to the gods.’ It says something about two aspects or facets of religion, the first being usually overlooked on the grounds that the second is what religion ‘really means’. — Wayfarer

So true.

I think you make an unwarranted leap. The Greek conception of deity was quite mundane — Michael Zwingli

That's true. But, as you can read, Xenophanes didn't like them and turned into an abstract 1. Existing independently from as and being the only true one. Which is no problem, but this attitude shows contempt f for other realities and conceptions of truth. Existing in the same kind of extramundane world as Plato suggested for his math. Being able to know approximations only. But not the God by itself (who in the western conception is reduced to a merely formal moral system). An attitude present in modern science.

I believe religion , when it began, was on the right track - for people to be successful, they had to keep x happy or else... catastrophes in the form of diseases, pestilence, floods, earthquakes, etc. would follow. It's just that people, for some reason, thought beings, somewhat like us but more powerful, were the x they had to placate/proposition for stuff like bountiful harvests, cures, etc. Had they simply realized that it was not who? - gods - they had to please but what? - (mother) nature - I'm sure we wouldn't be in the sorry situation we are in today (climate catastrophe just around the corner).

By the time philosophy came onstage, it was too late - religion had already sprouted roots so deep and extensive that any attempts to correct the error in our thinking was a lost cause.

That was just the beginning of our tragic tale though. In time philosophy birthed natural philosophy (science) and it delivered the goods - explanation after explanation, theory after theory, hypotheses after hypotheses, science unravelled the mysteries of the universe. One particular component of this knowledge explosion was technology which despite making life so much easier had hidden costs which we're just beginning to realize.

To make the long story short religion, as an explanation was too less and science as one was too much!

:up:

To make the long story short religion, as an explanation was too less and science as one was too much!

I was with you, Fool, up to this sentence. I think religion does not explain anything, only pacifies existential anxieties with self-serving, tribe-centric, ritualized myths and cautionary fairytales, whereas science does not explain enough of "the big picture" for most people (especially nonscientists) producing only approximate, defeasible, probabilistic models of fragments of "the big picture". Philosophy explores ways of making sense of the incompletable(?) set of puzzle-like fragments in the most general scope; religion today only mystifies and stupifies what its theologians and preachers do not understand or refuse to accept. Thus:

Napoleon: M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its creator.
Laplace: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

:fire:

As for the ramifications of modern technology, they result from mostly laissez-faire applications of science in the service of capitalist exploitation of human labor and natural resources (re: externalization of costs – material, social & psychological). Religion tends to aid and abet acquiescent conformity to debt-peonage & hedonic treadmilling, etc.

was with you, Fool, up to this sentence. — 180 Proof

:grin:

I think religion does not explain anything, only pacifies existential anxieties with self-serving, tribe-centric, ritualized myths and cautionary fairytales, whereas science does not explain enough of "the big picture" for most people (especially nonscientists) producing only approximate, defeasible, probabilistic models of fragments of "the big picture". — 180 Proof

I catch your drift but frankly, from the perspective of a climate scientist or an ecologist we know too much, we're too smart for our own good is the expression apt for the occasion. I don't deny that this could be interpreted in the opposite sense - our ignorance of ecology, biology, and other matters proving to be a major setback - but, we're oh! so proud of our science, so mesmerized by it that I fear I would be taken as a madman if I even hinted at such a possibility. :grin:

Philosophy explores ways of making sense of the incompletable(?) set of puzzle-like fragments in the most general scope; religion today only mystifies and stupifies what its theologians and preachers do not understand or refuse to accept. Thus:
Napoleon: M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its creator.
Laplace: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.
:fire: — 180 Proof

Yes, religion, despite its claims that it provides some kind of an overall framework to structure our lives with is guilty of ignotum per ignotius: what we don't understand is being "explained" by something that is even more inexplicable. :up:

As for the ramifications of modern technology, they result from mostly laissez-faire applications of science in the service of capitalist exploitation of human labor and natural resources (re: externalization of costs – material, social & psychological). Religion tends to aid and abet acquiescent conformity to debt-peonage & hedonic treadmilling, etc. — 180 Proof

:up: I have a lot to learn is all I can say 180 Proof. Feeling the full impact of the Dunning-Kruger effect here.

Philosophy and religion have combined origins, as expressed in the history of Western philosophy.
— Jack Cummins

I disagree. Western religion has its origins in old Greece, a country more philosophical than others — GraveItty

I think that it behooves us to avoid thinking of religion in terms of belief...of belief systems. Even though it is eminently true that:

religion does not explain anything, only pacifies existential anxieties with self-serving, tribe-centric, ritualized myths and cautionary fairytales — 180 Proof

...meaning that while (at least our monotheistic "western") religions seek to instill certain beliefs and belief systems ("creeds"), they are not at all concerned with "correct belief", belief that is reflective of objective truth. This, however, is only characteristic of "religions", meaning of "religion" in particular senses; it is not in my view the defining characteristic of "religion" in the general sense. The defining characteristic of "religion" in general, I take to be ritual observance. This thing, this ritual observance, is noted alongside "belief"/"credo" in all of our aforementioned monotheistic religions, wherein it serves an "edifying" role by both reinforcing credal belief and strengthening the "community of belief". Another term for such "credal belief" is, in fact, "faith", and another term for "community of belief"/"faith community"are "church" and "ummah". In this is the very motive of our particular contemporary "religions": the building of a "community of faith" (that is, of "a community based upon incorrect belief unsupported by evidence"). If you strip the ritual practice out of contemporary religion, and leave only the credal belief, then I think what results is "cultism". Though it has come to play such a supportive role within "religion" as a particular term, I believe ritual observance to be the defining characteristic of "religion" in general, and the strengthening of community which results therefrom, particularly without any strengthening of particular belief, I believe to be the motive behind religion in general (without the context of the particular "religions" that have developed and are familiar to us)
.
I myself am a exemplar of what I mean. Though now an atheist (but not an antitheist!), I indulge myself by attending Catholic mass with what I would characterize as"infrequent regularity". The Mass, of course, is a highly ritualistic undertaking, and quite a beautiful one. Even though this ritual has lost much of it's meaning for me as my personal beliefs have changed, I like to attend to indulge my inner need for familiar ritual. The observance of familiar ritual seems to have an upholding, almost curative effect totally independent of belief. In short, since I no longer believe in the concept of the human "soul" or "spirit", I typically refer to myself, in an inversion of the (moronic, in my view) popular apophthegm, as being "religious but not spiritual". My point in so doing is to highlight that "religion" has everything to do with ritual observance, and very little, if anything, to do with belief. For quite a long time, for years, after leaving the Army, I did my own formulation of "P.T." every morning. This was in fact a "religious exercise" for me, which has as much psychological benefit for me as physical. We do well to acknowledge the beneficial effects of ritual in human life, and to recognize that this is what is properly referred to by the term "religion".

Alternatively, "philosophy" has a great deal to do with beliefs, especially as they are systematized into belief systems. Correct understanding leading to correct belief seems to myself to be the very purpose of and motive behind philosophy. In this, the motivum behind philosophy differs from that of both "religions" in the particular sense familiar to us (the building of a "community of faith" (that is, of "a community based upon incorrect belief unsupported by evidence"), and "religion" in the general sense ("ritual observance determined for the definition and edification of community apart from considerations of 'faith' "). I think that what the OP is questioning within this thread, is whether the motive of philosophy would allow it to replace or be incorporated into either our particular "religions", replacing the role currently played by "faith" in the absurd, or into "religion" in general, given the differing motives underlying them.

Your reply is interesting and I come from a Catholic background, and I do still go to church with a friend at times. However, I feel that going to church is extremely stressful, especially the rituals. I actually wrote this thread on Saturday after going to church. I approach the questions about God with mixed thoughts.

But I do agree that religion is often more than ideas and is based on the community elements and the rituals. One interesting contrast to Catholicism is the movement of the Quakers, which is about sitting in silence and speaking when inspired to do so. I went to a meeting once and I do hope to go to another one at some point.

We do well to acknowledge the beneficial effects of ritual in human life, and to recognize that this is what is properly referred to by the term "religion". — Michael Zwingli

We would also do well to acknowledge a foolish consistency. Curiously, you seem to point out that we’re surrounded in daily rituals and that any one of them could be elevated to divine status. That sounds like an expression of spirituality to me, or ‘spiritual but not necessarily religious’. Also curious that you put so much weight on ritual, like saying that a cake has everything to do with eggs and the rest of the ingredients aren’t of much importance.

I’m not at all religious, btw, but still feel moved in the midst of religious rituals.

I come from a Catholic background, and I do still go to church with a friend at times. However, I feel that going to church is extremely stressful, especially the rituals. — Jack Cummins

Ah, I enjoy the ritual...it is the very reason I attend. I like it for it's particular beauty, and for it's familiarity. Of course, I don't recite the creed or many of the recited prayers, rather keeping mum with my eyes downcast (I sit at the back), and I don't take communion out of respect for the obvious position of the Church regarding that.

I approach the questions about God with mixed thoughts. — Jack Cummins

I as well.

Curiously, you seem to point out that we’re surrounded in daily rituals and that any one of them could elevated to divine status. That sounds like an expression of spirituality to me, or ‘spiritual but not necessarily religious’. — praxis

I would not use the term "divine status", and even if I believed in the concept of divinity, I cannot understand how an "elevation to divine status" might apply to a ritual. To me, ritual has a profound emotional, which is to say "psychological" benefit, but not believing in any incorporeal aspect of the human, I categorically deny any "spiritual" benefit therefrom.

Also curious that you put so much weight on ritual, like saying that a cake has everything to do with eggs and the rest of the ingredients aren’t of much importance — praxis

Well, in my own estimation, ritual and community are indeed the only truly beneficial aspects of our modern theistic religions, the rest amounting, to echo Dawkins, simply to the reinforcement of delusion. Indeed, I think that certain elements of what are viewed as "pagan" belief systems contain more truth in this regard. There may be a benefit to the moral teachings of our religions, but since the morals taught are predicated upon existential falsehood, I feel that morality is better taught within another context, such as that provided by philosophy. In order to exemplify the psychological benefits of ritual, I would indicate the phenomenon of the "city hall", "courthouse", or "justice of the peace" wedding. Not that I am particularly enamored of American wedding traditions (if I never dance the 'hokey-pokey' again, it will be too soon!), but a buddy of mine got married at City Hall, and afterwards, all I could think was, "doddamn, that sucked..." Ritual, meaningful ritual, adds a huge amount of value to the milestones of human life.

I was just reading your reply and it would probably be too simplistic to say that philosophy provides a replacement for religious ideas. I was thinking about the ideas, but I am aware that religion provides a whole social structure.

I am aware that many thinkers combine philosophy and religion. However, in the secular age, philosophy may be more of a means by which people think about the big questions of human existence. I began within religious thinking and philosophy, and try to read and think as widely as possible. Sometimes, I probably take it all a bit too seriously but, generally, I wish to approach life and the philosophy underlying the religious quest in an open, but critical way. I find the area of religion fascinating.

I think that the posters on this forum who propose theist arguments are more inclined to swing my thoughts against belief in God than the atheist ones. I wonder if I am the only person who finds this. — Jack Cummins

Even though my belief didn't weaken as much as yours, I do share your scepticism toward those who proclaim the truth blindly and fiercely, it makes them sound non authoritative and sometimes funny.

I'm not philosopher, my "occupation" is apologetics, and I'm interested to hear how would you explain unfolding events of of Jesus' life?

My question:
Why would someone after having a chance to evade painful death penalty insist on his teachings?
Jesus had the chance to evade mortal accusations multiple times yet it didn't care, instead he even predicted his own fate.
Interestingly, even after being on the cross he didn't ask for mercy but still persist.

Anyone in such situation would do anything to avoid painful death, why was Jesus different?
What's your opinion? or how would you explain Jesus?

The origins of Western religion is interesting and I am sure that Greece was central, but it is probably extremely complex. That is because there was so many cultural crossovers, including the ideas of the Egyptians. Also, there are many divisions, including the mainstream and esoteric, as well as the political factors. It is likely that these came into play in the underlying relationships between philosophy and religion. It is such a wide area because both areas have played such an important role in providing a basis for the exploration of metaphysics and what it means to be human, even though many people have moved outside of religious traditions, and science offers such an important source for understanding.

I would not use the term "divine status", and even if I believed in the concept of divinity, I cannot understand how an "elevation to divine status" might apply to a ritual. — Michael Zwingli

Etymology: dyeu- Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to shine."

Make washing the dishes shine, babe! :halo:

the secular age — Jack Cummins

In a determinedly brilliant new book, Charles Taylor challenges the ‘subtraction theory’ of secularization which defines it as a process whereby religion simply falls away, to be replaced by science and rationality. Instead... The result is a radical pluralism which, as well as offering unprecedented freedom, creates new challenges and instabilities. — London Review of Books

You raise many questions, and Socrates as well as Jesus accepted the pain of death, as did some Christian martyrs.

Part of the problem in understanding Jesus is that there is so little to go on apart from the scriptures and it is likely that these were written such a long time after his death. It is accepted in theology that the authors of the Gospel were not those as they were named. So much of Christianity was based on the ideas of Paul, rather than Jesus. There is also the big question about what was included or excluded from the Bible, which is so bound up with the history of the early church. Figures like Origen were central and the controversies surrounding Gnosticism. The discovery of the Gnostic gospels in Nag Hammadi lead to accounts which are very different from traditional ideas about the life and teachings of Jesus. So, the quest to understand the historical figure of Jesus as a person is complicated.

Charles Taylor's book sounds interesting and I will try to find out more, so thanks for the recommendation.

I was curious about your use of the phrase 'the secular age'. Subtraction theory or something else?

I didn't have a particular theoretical basis for choice of the word 'secular age'. I used it because, as I understand, statistics show that people have moved away from religious perspectives, although I would not be able to quote official statistics, and I am sure that it varies so much in different parts of the world, and I wonder how accurate the statistics are and whether it is true that the 'secular age' is a fair reflection of the picture of human beliefs in the twentieth first century.

Well, in my own estimation, ritual and community are indeed the only truly beneficial aspects of our modern theistic religions, the rest amounting, to echo Dawkins, simply to the reinforcement of delusion — Michael Zwingli

The irony is that Dawkins’scientistic approach to empiricism makes his thinking religious in a broad
sense. If a belief system is ‘delusional’ , an existential ‘falsehood’, that implies a correct truth, and the scientistic way of thinking puts scientific method in the privileged role among all the cultural
disciplines of arbiter of truth as ‘correctness’. Belief systems, including scientific theories , arent true or
false in realism to some fixed standard, they’re useful in relaton to our aims.

If a belief system is ‘delusional’ , an existential ‘falsehood’, that implies a correct truth — Joshs

Not at all. People believe in countless institutional truths and it's not delusion but practical agreement. Money, for instance, is one the most widely accepted fictions there is.

Philosophy replaces religion inasmuch as you decide it does. If there is a philosophy which has a spiritual or mystical aspect which is appealing, then you could use than instead of religion.

believe in countless institutional truths and it's not delusion but practical agreement. Money, for instance, is one the most widely accepted fictions there is — praxis

What are you contrasting delusion and fiction with? Tell me what gives the opposite of those notions its justification.

The origins of Western religion is interesting and I am sure that Greece was central, but it is probably extremely complex. — Jack Cummins

One key issue in Christianity is that it was adopted by an existing Empire, finally accepted by the ruling class. I think this is the reason why just so much of philosophy of Antiquity is embraced in Christianity. Christianity just swam into existing institutions and society without breaking it. After all, the last existing organizational remnant of the (West) Roman Empire lives on with the Papacy and the Catholic Church. (They still use sometimes Latin, don't they?)

Would have been a bit different if Jesus has had a similar career as Prophet Mohammad: raising an army an conquering his own Christian turf.

The irony is that Dawkins’scientistic approach to empiricism makes his thinking religious in a broad sense. If a belief system is ‘delusional’ , an existential ‘falsehood’, that implies a correct truth, and the scientistic way of thinking puts scientific method in the privileged role among all the cultural disciplines of arbiter of truth as ‘correctness’. — Joshs

I think the down-to-Earth problem is that a person like Dawkins has gotten quite enough of hate mail from Christian fundamentalists that he has become bitter and simply has no respect for religious people, which make his views about them condescending. When it comes to religion, Dawkins is ready for the fight, ready to defend his precious science from creationists. I assume if the topic would be some new breakthroughs in science or interesting theories, he would be far open to discussion. And of course, Dawkins can pick from a multitude of lunatic holy-rollers. It tells something about the public discourse in the Anglosphere. I think Dawkins sees religion as a threat or at least a nuisance to science, and of course his personal experience likely has had an effect on him.

Here in my little country a similar debate between science and religion was started with a professor of astronomy (and a populizer of science) and a local bishop. But it simply didn't catch on in the same way. The professor, an atheist, didn't have to be defensive at all or explain his views just why he is an atheist (Finns aren't very religious, thanks to Lutheranism being a state religion). The bishop had no problems with modern science and was very informed as an academic. Basically neither of them irritated the other side and in the end you had a friendly and respectful exchange of views...which is boring for others than those deeply interested in the subject (and philosophy).

All I'm saying is that there are fictions (institutional truths) that are based on social agreement (rational) rather than social delusion (irrational).

I don't know how the scientific method could be construed as having a privileged role among all cultural disciplines. I don't know how scientific theories could be construed as belief systems.

However benign, even enjoyable, religions' worship rituals can be, they also have well-documented malignant (i.e. self-abnegating) tendencies and effects on many of its adherents. By comparison, philosophy has no such psychologically adverse effects on its aspirants. That (troubled) individuals seeking succor in "answers", or "the truth", are often drawn to either practice or even both has, of course, always been the case as well as the fact that neither adequately treats what congenitally ails them. "Metaphysical need?" "Existential void?" These are problems to be addressed and endured (like being embodied), not solved or "cured". There simply is no viable escape from existence.

Thinking may be an infinite maze – answers being questions' way of generating more questions – but believing is a cul de sac (and often a deadfall). That we, as a species, naively habitualize believing before we acquire habits of thinking, and much longer still before we (if ever ) unlearn many bad habits (i.e. beliefs) which block thinking well, is tragic: it's the over-long reliance on crutches (i.e. magical beliefs, fact-free biases, heuristic blinders), IME, that has always crippled (even many of the best) human minds.

All I'm saying is that there are fictions (institutional truths) that are based on social agreement (rational) rather than social delusion (irrational). — praxis

What kind of situation would be an example of irrationality and social delusion and what about it does not make use of social agreement?

I don't know how the scientific method could be construed as having a privileged role among all cultural disciplines. I don't know how scientific theories could be construed as belief systems — praxis

If scientific theories are not belief systems then what are they? Are they attempts to represent the way the real world is? if so, are there any other cultural disciplines you know of that can approximate the way the world is with the precision and potential for making progress toward truth that science can?

If scientific theories are not belief systems then what are they? — Joshs

Experimental algorithms (i.e. toolkits).