↪Banno Well, the truth is, we can develop a criterion for philosophy of religion and utilize it to guide threads and dicussions. It's just that questions that prima facie seem to have no relevance actually do have one; we just need to dig a little deeper to see it. That's all. — Agent Smith
Sure, all that. But address the example directly. IF your method is to observer a motif/pattern/commonality, you had best give an account of what you will do with new information. IF you set up your definition, then find a counter-instance, do you modify the definition or deny that the counter-instance is a religion? Falsification or ad hoc hypothesising? — Banno
If it were upto me, I'd not compromise with my definition, — Agent Smith
In which case you are simply stipulating a definition, never to be countered.
that's fine, so long as you do not adopt the false notion that you have found out something fundamental; about religion, rather than just decided to use the word in only one particular way. — Banno
I must stress on the fact that we don't, as you seem to believe, stipulate definitions. — Agent Smith
After we have a definition, we have to follow the rules, strictly, and clarity is assured. — Agent Smith
What you are doing is what is described in the history section of article in SEP. You are adopting the position attributed to Edward Herbert, then Edward Burnett Tylor, then William James. Each is eventually found wanting; But you would perhaps have us stay with Herbert, restricting the term to "idealized Protestant monotheism".
Sure, it's not a personal decision. It is still a stipulation. Sure it's based on the facts, but the facts are subject to change without prior notice. Insisting that everything that meets your criteria, and nothing that doesn't, is religion, is stipulation. — Banno
The OP provides an excellent opportunity to investigate the boundaries of religion. — Agent Smith
To my mind, like other speculative topics, both theology and philosophy of religion are always at risk of degenerating into pseudophilosophies (for instance, when the focus is "on god/s" instead of "on what is said, or believed, about god/s").religion – an established tradition of collective, or communal, worship (as if there is at least one 'agent of providence')
cult – at the esoteric heart of each religion, a cabal of initiates (acting as if there is an 'eschatological conspiracy')
Philosophy of Religion – analysis of the necessary and sufficient conditions, as well as the interpretative (narrative) contents, of worship
Theology – speculations on the nature of being worthy – in contrast to being unworthy – of worship
pseudophilosophy – dogma (worldview) derived from fallaciously reified abstractions, ideas, affects, psychological projections
pseudophilosophies (for instance, when the focus is "on god/s" instead of on "what is said, or believed, about god/s"). — 180 Proof
Non sequitur. I didn't claim or imply "philosophy is science". Address what I've actually written and I'll get back to you.Philosophy isn't science. — dimosthenis9
In other words a definition being stipulative isn't something we should get our knickers in a twist for. — Agent Smith
What anyone finds fallacious especially in God and religion issues is absolutely subjective. — dimosthenis9
With enough nous you can hang yourself. — Fooloso4
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.