Isn't physicalism a metaphysical claim?

It looks to me like you ditched my question. Excellent.

Isn't physicalism a metaphysical claim? — Tom Storm

I believe it is, yes.

It looks to me like you ditched my question. Excellent. — praxis

Was it about faith? Because the rest made no sense.

From the SEP article in the OP:

That a concept always corresponds to something possessing a defining property is a very old idea. This assumption undergirds Plato’s Euthyphro and other dialogues in which Socrates pushes his interlocutors to make that hidden, defining property explicit, and this pursuit has provided a model for much not only of philosophy, but of the theorizing in all fields. The traditional assumption is that every entity has some essence that makes it the thing it is, and every instance that is accurately described by a concept of that entity will have that essence.

There's then a lot of complicated analysis of what a 'polythetic' conception of religion might be, drawing on Wittgenstein's 'family resemblances' idea.

I remember discussions on other forums of the notion of 'non-conceptual wisdom', often associated with Buddhist and tantric practices. It goes without saying that forming a concept of anything non-conceptual is self-contradictory; from the viewpoint of conceptual analysis it's a nonsensical idea. But consider this example: religious teachings generally criticize self-centredness or egocentricity. That is found in many diverse religious traditions. But is being egocentric a concept? Well, I can form a concept of it, of what it means, but in practice, in the day-to-day sense, it's a set of habitual attitudes and behaviours. Egocentricity is something other than a conceptual understanding, it's an habituated mode of being and behaviour. So too is breaking it down or become less egocentric - which can be a traumatic experience, or a cathartic experience. But the upshot of that may well be a sense of liberation, in the sense of being freed from a deficient way of being.

As Karen Armstrong says 'When a mythical narrative was symbolically re-enacted, it brought to light within the practitioner something "true" about human life and the way our humanity worked, even if its insights, like those of art, could not be proven rationally. If you did not act upon it, it would remain as incomprehensible and abstract – like the rules of a board game, which seem impossibly convoluted, dull and meaningless until you start to play.

Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.'

What has happened in Western religious discourse, according to Karen Armstrong, is that the emphasis on belief and believing have distorted this meaning, by making religion a propositional matter, not a way-of-being. 'Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed to a transformative way of life that takes you beyond the prism of selfishness. All good religious teaching – including such Christian doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation – is basically a summons to action. Yet instead of being taught to act creatively upon them, many modern Christians feel it is more important to "believe" them.' And you see that reflected a lot in the debates about religion on this forum.

It is apparent that it is not possible to set out what it is to be a religion, any more than for what it is to be a game. — Banno

Yet people do it all the time, those Humpty Dumpties!

I pretty much agree with your account. If there is something to be found in religion, it is in the practice, and not in the analysis, in the doing and not in the believing. As factual accounts, religious texts are notoriously inaccurate. So on that score alone their success is puzzling. Hence the merit of religion is not found in conceptualisation.

Your article from Armstrong is interesting. I'm not convinced by her case that "...during the modern period, scientific logos became so successful that myth was discredited, the logos of scientific rationalism became the only valid path to truth, and Newton and Descartes claimed it was possible to prove God's existence, something earlier Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians had vigorously denied." Certainly Aquinas and Anselm didn't deny that it was possible, indeed necessary, to prove God's existence; and neither could be considered "modern". Nor is the change in use of "belief" from "confidence" to "creed" as modern as she supposes, dating at least from c.1200. But despite these quibbles I suspect the thrust of her article is accurate. The ambiguity of Wittgenstein's attitude to religion has been well noted, but it is apparent that it was something along the lines of the centrality of religious practice, not of religious belief.

It strikes me as curious that the SEP decided to publish an article on the "concept" of religion. Unsurprisingly, that article is mostly about the nature of conceptualisation, analysed through a systematic account of definition. It's effectively an article about definition, using religion as it's example. As such it attempts to systematise Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance, a fraught task which misses the point; some (most) terms are useful despite not being definable in such an explicit fashion.

So two things of note: the first, that it is no surprise that the article fails to explicitly define religion; the second, that religion centres on practice rather than on creed.

Thank you for actually addressing the topic.

Hence the merit of religion is not found in conceptualisation. — Banno

On the contrary, its only merit is found in conceptualization because it is religious ideas (fictions) that serve to bind groups with common values, a meta-narrative, norms, goals, and so on. Ritual is part of that, but then ritual is also part of secular life. Ritual can also be part of non-religious spiritual life.

Was it about faith? — frank

Faith in religious authority, yes. You are paying attention. :razz:

Because the rest made no sense. — frank

I don’t know how to make a piña colada either, if I’m honest.

Then what of 's comment?

Without specifics I’ll simply say that practice or a “way-of-being” doesn’t require religion.

Faith in religious authority, yes. You are paying attention — praxis

Christianity has clear religious authorities. I was kind of befuddled when I discovered that it's an oddity that way.

Worldviews just sort of arise. Maybe there's some natural selection involved, I don't know. But it's never just a top-down sort of thing.

I don't think anyone claimed it did. Rather the claim is that religion is one amongst many ways of being.

Not seeing a theme here.

Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.' — Wayfarer

'Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed… — Wayfarer

The claim seems to be that if you practice righty you’ll eventually get it and that only poor practitioners lose faith or never get it. If you hold that these Truths cannot be false there is no other way to look at it, and they necessarily hold that they cannot be false.

People sometimes like to quote the Kalama Sutta where the Buddha says something to the effect of ‘try it out and if it works for ya, well, welcome aboard, mate :heart: ’. Nowhere does he grant the possibility of falsehood.

This assumption undergirds Plato’s Euthyphro and other dialogues in which Socrates pushes his interlocutors to make that hidden, defining property explicit ...The traditional assumption is that every entity has some essence that makes it the thing it is

I think there is another way to look at this. The question is epistemological rather than ontological. Euthyphro cannot demonstrate that what he is doing is pious if he cannot say what piety is. I don't know that family resemblance gets us further, for we would first have to agree that 'x' and 'y' are pious in order to conclude what he is doing is pious based on resemblance. But 'x' and 'y' might be contested. On my reading of Plato this is consistent with his skepticism, his knowing that he does not know. The best we can do is have opinions that stand up to examination, opinions that seem most likely to be true.

What has happened in Western religious discourse, according to Karen Armstrong, is that the emphasis on belief and believing have distorted this meaning — Wayfarer

In that case Paul and Christianity are at the center of this distortion. According to Paul, one is saved by belief. The "way-of-being for those who are saved is no longer the way of being of us who are still under the power of sin. Neither way of being is within our power.

Worldviews just sort of arise. Maybe there's some natural selection involved, I don't know. But it's never just a top-down sort of thing. — frank

There are all sorts of worldviews. I’m claiming that religions always make metaphysical claims (ultimate truths) that require uncommon access. Those with uncommon access have authority, assuming there’s no higher authority, so it is always a top-down sort of thing.

In that case Paul and Christianity are at the center of this distortion. — Fooloso4

I take Armstrong to be criticising the propositional nature of religions in today’s culture, although I do agree that the seed of that is in Christianity from the start. But I would also hark back to the long-forgotten distinction between gnostic and pistic forms of Christianity. The gnostic forms are said to be grounded in insight (their doctrinal authority said to be in the verse ‘you will know the truth and the truth will set you free’) whilst the pistic forms very much on belief (‘pistis’ meaning belief or opinion, grounded in ‘believe and be saved’). In Indic religions, this was not so much a division, as it was recognised that different kinds of people required different ways of approaching the question; so there is a Jñāna path, for ‘discriminative wisdom’, and the devotional path, Bhakti Marga (e.g. the Hare Krishna sect) for the less intellectually adept. They’re seen as complementary rather than exclusive. But in the West, there was huge conflict around the doctrinal formation of Christianity, a lot of it focussed on establishing right belief (orthodoxy) and much of it deliberately intended to exclude or marginalise Gnosticism (although that is tangential to this thread.)

The best we can do is have opinions that stand up to examination, opinions that seem most likely to be true. — Fooloso4

It seems the case with the Euthypro in particular, but I take the idea of ‘conceptual definition’ and ‘essences’ to be referring also to the later development by Aristotle of his metaphysics and his formal doctrine of the grounds of identity and the nature of being. That is the context within which discussion of the nature of perceiving ‘what truly is’ was framed. Originally, that was in the province of the sages, like Parmenides (at least according to Peter Kingsley).

There are all sorts of worldviews. I’m claiming that religions always make metaphysical claims (ultimate truths) that require uncommon access. Those with uncommon access have authority, assuming there’s no higher authority, so it is always a top-down sort of thing. — praxis

It's still not clear to me how you're using "metaphysical claims" and "ultimate truths". The term "ultimate truth" comes directly from medieval Europe. It was part of the ideology behind Gothic cathedral architecture.

How are you using it? Give me an example.

Give me an example. — frank

This one’s magnificent.

Which one is that?

Notre Dame:

I’ve visited that one. Now I wish we visited Sainte-Chapelle, the one pictured in my post above.

I’ve always been fond of this one:

Clifford Geertz: “A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”.

It basically describes what it is to be human really. You can literally replace the term ‘religion’ with a number of things and still find that it makes sense.

Note: As you may know the in depth explanation of this is several pages long. I did find Geertz’s over all attitude to the concept of ‘religion’ a little off in places though. The book this is taken from shows his lack of scholarship in that he often veers into opinion rather than giving an objective account.

@Banno One thing in particular that is present in all ‘religions’ is a tradition of ritual that is known to induce altered states of consciousness:
- Trance Dance
- Prayer
- Meditation
- Fasting
- Sleep Deprivation
- Intense Focus
- Sensory Deprivation
- Mnemonics

All of the above are present in religious practices, but some are more subtle than others. Theatre and ceremony are also pretty much the same thing it is just that in the modern era we have become more and more detached from ‘theatre’. Meaning, in the past we were active participants far more often. Today the ‘theatre’ personal experiences of ‘theatrics’ far more distanced and passive.

In comparison to patriotism we see this is more mild forms with national anthems and memorable symbols infused with emotion.

I’ve visited that one. — praxis

Me too. :cool:

I went in LamSagrada Familia for what I thought would be 30-60 mins max. 3hrs later still open mouthed!

If you go make sure you get sundown for the full effect. Literally breathtaking. I walked outside after over two hours and had to go back in because I couldn’t believe how amazing it was!

Does the term "religion" refer to nothing? — Banno

Meaning is use. We use the term, to be sure. It must therefore have meaning. — Hanover

Meaning is using terms to refer to things that are not words. If the word does not refer to anything that exists outside of one's own mind yet it is used to refer to things outside of one's mind (confusing the map with the territory) then it is a meaningless word - just like the term, "god".

Now, if it is correctly being used to refer to a concept (those things that only exist in minds) then it has meaning. The difference is do those concepts then refer to things in the world.

Religion is the belief in things outside of, or beyond, the natural.

Wow, if I’m ever in that neighborhood I definitely will.

Meaning is using terms to refer to things that are not words. If the word does not refer to anything that exists outside of one's own mind yet it is used to refer to things outside of one's mind (confusing the map with the territory) then it is a meaningless word - just like the term, "god".

Now, if it is correctly being used to refer to a concept (those things that only exist in minds) then it has meaning. The difference is do those concepts then refer to things in the world.

Religion is the belief in things outside of, or beyond, the natural. — Harry Hindu

If we're using the term "religion" within a community, it has meaning, even if the meaning amounts to delusional, confused, and inconsistent beliefs about the origins of the universe. To declare that the term is meaningless is to claim it's gibberish, just sounds conveying no thought whatsoever. "God" means something different from "cat" and different from "jldjlk." To say otherwise is just to impose an opinion on the validity of the concept that underlies the word "God."

My belief in bigfoot is different from my belief in gorillas, but my belief in bigfoot doesn't dissolve into meaninglessness because there is no such thing as bigfoot.

Your definition of religion is wanting and does not universally describe all religions. It's entirely possible to have a religion with gods that interact only on the "natural" level, which isn't entirely inconsistent with primitive religions, especially considering in primitive societies they don't have a real distinction between the miraculous and ordinary earthly events.

For your definition to be workable, you would be admitting to essentialism.

Clifford Geertz: “A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”. — I like sushi

So capitalism is a religion...? Thought so.

- Trance Dance
- Prayer
- Meditation
- Fasting
- Sleep Deprivation
- Intense Focus
- Sensory Deprivation
- Mnemonics — I like sushi

...all can be found on the floor of any stock exchange!

Yeah! :D It is more or less a definition of human behaviour