Words simply don't have essences, and their meaning is based upon usage and context. — Hanover
We can substitute cups for religion in this debate is my point, which would be an easy way to avoid the loaded topic of religion. — Hanover
But when we actually use a word, we assume, take for granted it has an essence. — baker
the contrary, it's instructive to look into the processes of the meaning of words precisely when it comes to "loaded topics" like religion. — baker
The issue is how can we or how do we consider a certain moral standard or moral judgment relevant, binding, as something that is more than mere opinion. — baker
I think something that is missed in its absence is any reason for 'being good'. After all, if life is the outcome of chance, and humans no more than physical, then there's no greater purpose to be served other than possibly warm feelings of self-justification. — Wayfarer
The notion that one needs a reason for being good is... problematic. As if one needed a reason to do what one ought do...
/.../
So, what is it that one receives from being a part of a ritualistic community that is necessary, or needed, to make one a good person? — Banno
No, but one needs to posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard one's moral judgments as relevant. — baker
What you say of the word "religion" is not unique to the word "religion," but is a universal limitation of word definition. The term "religion" includes a number of examples, all of which are clearly designated among speakers for what they are, for example: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hare Krishna, Janism, Hinduism, Islam, and then there are thousands of others in every corner of the world, many of which have come and gone over the millennia. We can try to find the element common to all that defines "religion," but, try as we might, we will continue to find that there is no essential element that must exist in order for the belief system to be a religion. The reason for this is because essentialism is not a sustainable argument as it relates to definitions of terms. — 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.
— 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. — Hanover
No, but one needs to posit an absolute moral authority in order to regard one's moral judgments as relevant.
— baker
Is your claim that only people who posit an absolute moral authority have any say on issues of morality? — Fooloso4
Those who do posit an absolute moral authority do not always hold the same opinion as to whether a particular act is moral.
Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.
If you do not find rape repellent, then that is about you, not about rape. If you need an argument to convict you that you ought not do such things, you are morally bankrupt. — Banno
Belief in a morality that transcends time and place requires belief in some kind of "afterlife" (such as in the sense of the Christian afterlife, the Hindu reincarnation, or Buddhist rebirth).
Without God's judgment or karma, the notion of justice doesn't apply, and without justice, morality is unintelligible.
— baker
This is idiosyncratic to certain religions, but not logically dictated. — Hanover
Judaic views vary, although the afterlife is not posited for the purposes of meting out eternal rewards and punishments. It is used to purge one of sin in order to return the person to his holy state. It is a time of atonement, not punishment, and not to exceed 12 months (cool, right?).
The point being that doing good can be for that sake of doing good alone, despite how other models might handle sin.
Cannibalism is not murder, but killing for food. Infanticide in animals is an instinctive, well-regulated behavior, not a random act of passion.When these acts occur in animals they are part of the social order, not disruptive of it. — Janus
Our role and responsibility is not enhanced but is instead diminished by claims of cosmic significance. — Fooloso4
What goes on here has no describable significance for the universe. — Fooloso4
For virtue to be "its own reward", being virtuous has to be about more than just the gratification of one's ego; instead, it has to have real-world consequences that are advantageous for the person acting virtuously. Otherwise, virtue becomes something vestigial, expendable. — baker
The expectation of an incontrovertible moral principle is naive, even childish. — Banno
Differences do not track along the divide between those who posit a moral authority and those who reject such an authority.
It's not clear what you mean here. — baker
And rape is not as universally condmned as we might hope, and certainly not as much in antiquity as today.
What causes the lack of confidence in the evil of rape among those who shrug it off? Just that they're evil (i.e. "morally bankrupt") and be obviously circular? — Hanover
My point here is to either ask you accept that rape (or slavery or genocide) (1) has been moral at one point and now it's not or (2) was never moral but was mistaken as moral.
Pick your poison. I choose 2.
If in a discussion between A and B, A insists on the central significance of X while B insists that X be entirely excluded from the discussion as "not even a possibility" - there is literally nothing left for A and B to talk about.
To my view, Wayfarer was relating this simple fact. — ZzzoneiroCosm
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.