No. It's exactly right. Show me were it goes wrong.

No. It's exactly right. Show me were it goes wrong. — Banno

Porridge. Atheists eat porridge too, oui?

The religious one, yes, by definition.

That's the thing about stipulating definitions. They make philosophy so much easier.

The religious one, yes, by definition.

That's the thing about stipulating definitions. They make philosophy so much easier — Banno

The "religious" atheists? :chin: Is that not a contradiction?

Taking a few steps back, I'd say we're supposed to attend to only the essentials which, it just dawned on me, are simply those properties that populate the zone of overlap between purported religions.

Remember that we labeled the religions as religions and if we find nothing that links religions up, the blame falls squarely on our shoulders. GIGO!

I dunno. This conversation seems absurd. As if the writer of the article, or the other folk who posted here, or I, did not think "what we need are the essential characteristics..."

The point is to determine what they are.

You haven't justified your stipulation. Nor, i think, added much to the discussion.

The point is to determine what they are. — Banno

I answered that question 2/3 posts ago. Essential features are:

1. For a class, those properties which all members share.

2. For an individual, those properties that identify it and it alone from the rest in class.

The two seem to go hand in hand as far as I can tell: We must be able tell apart a class from other classes, like how individuals are distinguished from other individuals.

My hunch is that the first step towards a definition is to make observations. Assume there are only 5 object (A, B, C, D, E) in a hypothetical universe. We find out that A, B, and C share feature X and we then bring them under one banner, (say) religion. We also discover that C, D, and E have Y in common, we group them together as (say) philosophy.

As you can see, we have two classes in our hypothetical universe viz. religions and philosophies with only C being both.

This is the genus stage of proper definitions.

Now we have to find some way of differentiating A from B and C; the same goes for B and C and D, E.

This is the differentia stage of proper definitions.

From this very superficial analysis of good definitions, it appears that for us to able to define a word it's necessary for the referents of the word (the extension) to be both alike (genus) and unalike (differentia). That's a tall order even for someone as powerful as Momma Nature.

I'd be grateful if you could kindly attend more closely to the paragraph that immediately precedes this sentence. Much obliged. My paradox-o-meter is getting a reading. Maybe it's just a glitch!

From this very superficial analysis of good definitions, it appears that for us to able to define a word it's necessary for the referents of the word (the extension) to be both alike (genus) and unalike (differentia). That's a tall order even for someone as powerful as Momma Nature. — Agent Smith

All right, it's porridge (Genus) without sugar (differentia).

All right, it's porridge (Genus) without sugar (differentia) — Banno

You have a point. This is a bloody cartoon!

"Religion" stems from the Latin "religare". Which means "to bind". "Religio" is a bond, an obligation. Which evolved into "living under monastic vows".

In principle, one can be religious about anything. You can feel obliged to God, the State, the School System, or your mother in law.

"Curiously, for a people so religiously minded, the Greeks had no word for religion itself; the nearest terms were eusebeia (“piety”) and threskeia (“cult”)."

Curiously indeed! Olympus was crowded. Didn't they worship or felt obliged? Was it a cult for them? Piety?

Is religion a modern phenomenon, concept, idea, practice? Is it connected with god(?) uniquely? Like I said, it can be used non-theistically. Wikipedia agrees:

Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements; however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.

From the Online Ethymology Dictionary:

This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via the notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.

In English, the meaning "particular system of faith in the worship of a divine being or beings" is by c. 1300; the sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.

There is more to it... A manner of life, morals, being careful of creation, or a bond with God, it can be associated with religion, but when I think of religion, the first think that pops up in my mind are visions of churches, mosques, rituals, religious culture, power hierarchies (God being just an instrument to maintain it), candles, choirs, Christmas, fastening, Carnevale, saints, the pope, Khomeini, praying, Sundays, temples, offerings, hell and heaven, Olympus, damnation, good and bad, Christ (in Rio), Buddha, Mohammed in Mecca dancing the Hajj , crosses on tops of high mountains, holy books, rising seas, Armageddon, the ark, ten commandments, Bismillah, Beelzebub, boats beneath fire, crusades, missionaries, in the name of... etcetera. And not so much of the nature of God, theodicees, apologetics, the reasons for creation, the meaning of life, or science.

You view would seem to be at odds with the church fathers. — Banno

Yes. Because it is at odds with the fathers. They, in general, have little understanding of the sciences closing in at the fundamentals, the bearing structure of creation. Had they the knowledge, they could rightfully justified pronounce in joy a first clear evidence of the Holy God in the heavens. Of course I'm exaggerating here but in principle they could.

I hope your back pain abates, if it’s any comfort, I’ve had that occur twice in my life, both times it was excruciating but it passed after a day. — Wayfarer

Good for you. I'm not so lucky.

Let's wait till we know god exists before we start calling things 'divine'. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You seem to think other people are as much in the dark about god as you. That's bold.

Yes, it can look like this. It can also look like my uncle Raymond who has a phd in geology. Do better! — Constance

I'm refering to the uselessness of self-mortification practices.

The point of that study was, as the quoted section says, to understand the common themes in different religious traditions, through a number of perspectives. It was as near as you can get to a kind of scientific study of the subject. I found the anthropological and sociological perspectives particularly interesting. — Wayfarer

But what when no actual religious person believes those things? Comparative religion tends to offer concepts that are alien to actual practitioners. Religious people normally don't seem to have a metareligious or suprareligious view of their religion.

I know what they do and how they think. Philosophy's job, as I see it, is to take this, and give a reflective analysis. What is going on when we pull away from the participation, and see it in a broader context? — Constance

The moment we 'pull away from the participation', we stop being religious.

What use is the 'broader context' to a religious person?

You seem to think other people are as much in the dark about god as you. — baker

They like to say they know what they only believe.

Do you know that god exists, or do you believe that god exists?

But what when no actual religious person believes those things? Comparative religion tends to offer concepts that are alien to actual practitioners. Religious people normally don't seem to have a metareligious or suprareligious view of their religion. — baker

So what? You're not allowed to have an interest in the subject unless you're a 'religious person'? Who get to decide that?

The moment we 'pull away from the participation', we stop being religious.

What use is the 'broader context' to a religious person? — baker

Well, the broader context is philosophy's world: pull away from mundane affairs and ask more fundamental questions, like what does it mean to know something, not about the weather of if the couch is comfortable, but anything at all. But when you arrive here, you face indeterminacy, which is a term I lifted from others to use place of metaphysics.
When you face indeterminacy at the foundation of all of our affairs, you are where religion begins, and where philosophy should be. The former is fiction, largely, the latter analysis.

I'm refering to the uselessness of self-mortification practices. — baker

Perhaps not so useless; after all, it is not something to be measured by how it looks in the dress, the posture and behavior, and so on.

So what? You're not allowed to have an interest in the subject unless you're a 'religious person'? Who get to decide that? — Wayfarer

It"s not clear how you get to that from what I said ...

My point is that comparative religion offers concepts that are alien to actual religions, concepts that are artificial impositions on actual religions.

For example, the idea that all religions are essentially about the same things, the same desire for the sacred. In contrast, religions typically take a dim view of eachother.

Do you know that god exists, or do you believe that god exists? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Neither. But simply for the sake of precision, I cannot just exclude the possibility that god exists.

Well, the broader context is philosophy's world: pull away from mundane affairs and ask more fundamental questions, like what does it mean to know something, not about the weather of if the couch is comfortable, but anything at all. But when you arrive here, you face indeterminacy, which is a term I lifted from others to use place of metaphysics. — Constance

I have always understood religion to include epistemology, and other philosophical disciplines.
Granted, some religions are more explicit about this than others.

In regard to this, I've had strange experiences with some religious people. For example, when I asked a Christian what the self was, he told me that this was the field of psychology, not religion. He preached eternal damnation to outsiders of his religion, yet he thought it is psychology that decides what exactly it is that burns in hell forever. Bizarre!

When you face indeterminacy at the foundation of all of our affairs, you are where religion begins, and where philosophy should be. The former is fiction, largely, the latter analysis.

Not sure I know what you mean here.
For the religious, there seems to be no such indeterminacy.

Perhaps not so useless; after all, it is not something to be measured by how it looks in the dress, the posture and behavior, and so on. — Constance

You're describing the experience of zoning out. It can certainly be pleasant enough, it can seem profound. But I question its value in relation to suffering.

My point is that comparative religion offers concepts that are alien to actual religions, concepts that are artificial impositions on actual religions.

For example, the idea that all religions are essentially about the same things, the same desire for the sacred. In contrast, religions typically take a dim view of eachother. — baker

The hatred that religions have often showed for other religions is one of the best arguments against religion.

As I said at the outset, when I embarked on that course of study, my quest revolved around 'what is enlightenment?' (Years later that would become a magazine title published by a turn-of-the-centuy bogus guru.) But I still think it's a valid and legitimate question.

The kind of cross cultural study of religion that comparative religion offers provides plenty of insights into that.

The hatred that religions have often showed for other religions is one of the best arguments against religion. — Wayfarer

I think this hatred is an argument against comparative religion.

Why do you think it's an argument against religion?

As I said at the outset, when I embarked on that course of study, my quest revolved around 'what is enlightenment?' (Years later that would become a magazine title published by a turn-of-the-centuy bogus guru.) But I still think it's a valid and legitimate question.

The kind of cross cultural study of religion that comparative religion offers provides plenty of insights into that.

How does it do that, can you elaborate?

Every religion that has a notion of 'enlightenment' has its own ideas about what it is, how to achieve it, and how relevant it is.

It's not clear whether the idea is justified that enlightenment is somehow an objective phenomenon, quite independent of religions, and that different religions just have different takes on it.

It's not clear whether the idea is justified that enlightenment is somehow an objective phenomenon, quite independent of religions, and that different religions just have different takes on it. — baker

At last! You say something connected to what I've written. Took some doing. It is, nevertheless, a thesis I find both defensible and appealing, because it points to a genuine 'higher truth' over and above the individual manifestations that have appeared in different times and cultures.

I have always understood religion to include epistemology, and other philosophical disciplines.
Granted, some religions are more explicit about this than others.

In regard to this, I've had strange experiences with some religious people. For example, when I asked a Christian what the self was, he told me that this was the field of psychology, not religion. He preached eternal damnation to outsiders of his religion, yet he thought it is psychology that decides what exactly it is that burns in hell forever. Bizarre! — baker

Christians are the MOST compromised in their clarity of thought. You might as well ask a child. Christians are my pet peeve because they think dogmatically, the enemy of inquiry. Kierkegaard went on and on in his distain for this kind of thing. Popular religions are messy things, and I don't care about this boring dimension of our lives, the way we manufacture entanglements. Might as well be a politician.

Beneath all of this, where the primitive beginnings are and the world, the "originary" world, shows itself, this is philosophical. Here you find foundational indeterminacy, which reveals itself as a wonder and horror of our being here. One has to step OUT of texts to witness this.

You're describing the experience of zoning out. — baker

And you remain mundane, as always.

And you remain mundane, as always. — Constance

Oh.

Do tell how you distinguish between
on the one hand, religious/spiritual/philosophically deep/profound experiences or insights,
and
on the other hand, the feel good feeling you get after a good meal, or the experience of hypoxia, or what comes up when under the influence of intoxicants
?


It seems that you're ascribing profundity where it shouldn't be ascribed, but you miss out on occasions where it does.

Here you find foundational indeterminacy, which reveals itself as a wonder and horror of our being here. One has to step OUT of texts to witness this. — Constance

Such "stepping out of texts" is, for all ordinary practical intents and purposes, impossible.
What you're doing is just ditching standard religious texts, and firmly embedding yourself in other texts.