What is religion?
In another thread on Shamanism, Javi and I briefly disagreed on whether God is separable from religion.
Here is a simple argument:
I can imagine a world in which God exists and neither he nor anyone else follows any religion.
Actually, the discussion was is belief in God necessarily religious. But still, I don't see why belief in God requires being religious.
Here is a simple argument:
I can imagine a world in which God exists and neither he nor anyone else follows any religion.
Actually, the discussion was is belief in God necessarily religious. But still, I don't see why belief in God requires being religious.
Comments (97)
God's existence needs a belief. Someone who believes in his existence. This state of mind is based on faith. And faith is a sacred/religious concept. Then, God necessarily depends on all of these characteristics to exist himself. If you think deeply it would be even worthless the existence of God in a world without religion. What would be the aim of God then?
Check this paper: The Kant-Friesian Theory of Religion and Religious Value
I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith. The dogmatism of metaphysics, that is, the precondition that it is possible to make headway in metaphysics without a previous critique of pure reason, is the source of all that unbelief, always very dogmatic, which wars against morality. - Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft
Kant believed, indeed, that morality was what religion was all about and that it provided a basis for rational belief in concepts like God, freedom, and immortality; but this provided no ground for any other aspects of traditional religious practice, belief, or experience :flower:
Rudolf Otto takes the Latin word numen, "the might of a deity, majesty, divinity" and coins the term "numinous" to describe either religious feelings or the religious aspect attributed by those feelings to experiences and objects. He characterizes the feelings as involving 1) ultimacy, 2) mystery (mysterium), 3) awe (tremendum), 4) fascination (fascinans), and 5) satisfaction. Unassociated with any objects, the sense of the numinous is a feeling of "daemonic dread," a sense of the uncanny, frightful, eerie, weird, or supernatural. These feelings make us feel vulnerable and overpowered, what Otto calls "creature feeling."
Conclusion: God depends on religion because the religious nature is how God is fed.
Belief in god doesn't need religion just as religions don't need a belief in god. For the latter I think of Soviet era communism. The distinction between having religion and having a belief in god/s is an old one. Religion of course is notoriously difficult to define; Karen Armstrong, a popular writer on religions has stated that religion can't really be defined. She knows more than I do about religions so I am happy to accept this view. Besides, my friend Suzy, an academic here, believes in god but holds no holy book as sacred and attends no church or temple or follows any doctrines. She is a theist with no religion. There are many such folk.
A g/G is a theory.
Some practices have (need) a theory and some don't.
You don't have to go that far. A simple answer can be given by examining religions in which "God" or a "Supreme Being" or a "Higher Power" is not a part. They are called non-theistic religions.
The first and most important of them is Buddhism. (There may be some secondary deities, but only in some of its forms.)
Then, we have: Agnosticism, Atheism, Jainism and Taoism
(The first two are considered as faiths or beliefs, but they still carry the concept and attribute of "religion".)
Then, there are a lot of relatively modern religions --recongized officially as such-- where God or Supreme Being, etc. play no role in them, but do not make the "headlines" ...
A religion seems to be when there is revered beliefs and ideals.
If you revere your favourite band or movie, it can become like a religion, a lifestyle. Probably because the band or movie gives expression to some cherished ideal.
I'm confused sometimes if I should welcome or repress reverence, since I think it tends to be an exaggeration of the worth of something. Yet, it also makes the thing more appreciated when its revered.
Agnosticism and atheism aren't generally considered religions if that's what you meant to say. If that is what you meant to say, can you explain?
Huh? Isn't this just a misplaced notion that evangelicals sometimes produce? You might call some expressions of humanism a religion. Atheism, however, is just a position on one thing - they are not convinced god/s exist. If there is more to it than this, it's probably something else.
Agnosticism "I don't know whether or not to worship any god."
Atheism "I don't worship this god, or I don't worship those gods, or I don't worship any god."
Where's @Wayfarer?
:up: :100:
This is only a figure of speech. From this aspect, there are millions of religions in the world.
Let's don't vandalize the concept of religion, the term "religion" and religion itself!
No, I didn't mean that atheism and agnosticism are or are considered religions. What I said, that "they still carry the concept and attribute of 'religion'" is ineed wrong and thank you for noticing it. I would better say that they are related to religion.
And in the following reference, atheism is more than just related to religion:
"A recent case handed down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals holds that atheism is entitled to the same treatment that traditional religions receive under the Constitution." (https://watermark.silverchair.com/47-4-707.pdf))
Anyway, you shouldn't pay that much attention to this detail, which was a secondary and unimportant point in my whole post. It is my whole point where you should put your attention on and comment on.
E tu, Brute?
Are you too trying to find mistakes in secondary and unimportant points and stick on them, like @praxis?
I said --in parenthesis-- about agnostisism and atheism that they "carry the concept of religion" and that was wrong indeed. I would have rather said that they are related to religion.
And what a "coincidence": Neither you nor @praxis have commented on my whole point which was the essence of my response to the topic and much more important than the above mistake.
Next time please try to comment on my whole point. Both of you.
I did, sorry if I missed that part of it. :pray: Nevertheless, I enjoy pontificating about the notion of atheism as a faith regardless of your clarifications.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
No. I often find the subsidiary points people make far more interesting than their primary argument - this is not a comment on you, but a general observation.
Your main point about non theistic faiths was fine, which is why I left it alone. :wink:
Just a follow up - when people say atheism is a belief, I general say, 'actually it's a lack of belief.' Just as not believing in fairies is not a belief. No one belongs to the 'Not A Believer in Fairies' school. Of course, I am talking here about a specific usage of 'belief', not just what a person believes...
Glad to hear that. Not esp. because you accepted it --it would be also fine if you didn't-- but because you have read it! :smile:
Quoting Tom Storm
I agree. Yet, some atheists try also to prove that God doesn't exist. Which has no sense, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread and elsewhere. You can't prove --and it doesn't make sense trying to do so-- that something does not exist, which you assume a priori that it doesn't exist or which has never been proved to exist! We create an imaginary God in a arbitrary way, we give it imaginary attributes. also in a arbitrary way, and then we try to prove that it doesn't exist neither are its attributes!
An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of God. That's all. And this does not mean that he/she does not have a religion or is not a religious person in general him/herself.
Quoting Tom Storm
Right. It's a lack of belief, as you said earlier.
Quoting Tom Storm
I know.
Atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment. The establishment clause not only prohibits governments from directly establishing a religion, but also prohibits them from favoring one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.
The options as far as CONVICTION of God's reality are:
1. I lack conviction that God is real or unreal.
2. I am convinced God is real.
3. I am convinced God is not real.
I am convinced these are the common everyday meanings of agnostic, theist, and atheist.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
This is not "simply someone who does not believe in the existence(/nonexistence)of God"
That is me, as an agnostic.
Yes, I mentioned that to you earlier, didn't I?
"A recent case handed down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals holds that atheism is entitled to the same treatment that traditional religions receive under the Constitution." (https://watermark.silverchair.com/47-4-707.pdf))
Yes, and you also wrote:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
[s]What exactly do you mean by that? Simply that its necessarily treated like one under the First Amendment?[/s]
A better question: why did you point out the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pdf in the first place?
This is exactly the definition of atheist, not agnostic.
Let's put them both in their right place. I will bring in two standard references: one dictionary and one encyclopedia. Anyone is welcome of course to bring in other standard sources.
1) Agnostisicm
(Agnostic is) "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." (Oxford LEXICO)
Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that ''human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.'' (Wikipedia)
Common in both: "Nothing is known or can be known about God"
2) Atheism
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (Oxford LEXICO)
"In the broadest sense, it is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. (Wikipedia)
Common in both: "Lack of belief in the existence of God"
No, this is what you said: "Atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment."
What I talked abouy is Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Anyway, let's do not continue going astray from the topic, esp. talking about such a trivial matter ... I'm not interested, anyway.
Why? What does it have to do with defining religion? The implication seemed to be that mentioning it somehow supports the notion that atheism is a religion or religion-like. If thats not the intended implication then fine.
I told you what I believe these words mean in their most everyday usage.
Do you disagree that I offered decent definitions of their everyday meaning?
As I said, not interested. Sorry.
No, not at all. I appreciated this. Personal definitions are just fine. As far as they do not deviate much from standard ones. That's why I prefer using mainly the second ones. They are the best and safest way in discussing based on common terms and not on misundestood, misinterrpreted and/or distorted definitions or descriptions.
Who's standards?
Academics have one set of standards. Non academics often have other standards.
Atheism, theism, and agnosticism, have been around a long time and in other languages and traditions, with their own words that may have different meanings.
And these words are about God. Do you think there is a standard definition for God across all religions cultures and times?
For example,
"The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
Your interest is no concern of mine so there is no reason for you to express sorrow or regret.
We have no choice but to conclude from your silence on the matter that mentioning the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case (the link is bad, btw) is in no way intended to somehow imply support for the notion that atheism is a religion or religion-like and your reason for pointing out the case has become one of the great TPF mysteries that we must face alone and without your kindly assistance.
Sometimes I think God should just be an umbrella term including belief in an Eternal morality with consequences.
Ergo morality is objective,eternal and supreme. Eg Karma.
You are right.
OK.
Some theists hold that theism is a common sense default state or what have you, and that not believing in God is based on a confusion, like not believing in gravity just because you can't see it, even though its influence is apparent to everyone.
"Some theists" also hold it is "common sense" that the Earth is" flat, only 6,000 years old & the center of crearion". :mask:
I understand those theists doctrines. But while gravity is indeed a physical fact that affects everyone because it explains why our bodies are attracted to the centre of the earth and has been proven by many theories of physics, God still depends on someone's faith. It doesn't matter if you do not "see" gravity because it will affect you physically.
Gravity was always been there and later on, we the humans "discovered" it through researchers because these, precisely, wanted to go further than "God's mercy."
Could it be said that the common sense default position is to be believe in moral cause and effect,AKA Karma?
Because God and Karma are the same concept from a different angle.
This is two different categories of knowing. Empirical investigation cannot be used to prove or disprove first principles. You can't for example examine an axiom under a microscope.
Not sure I see how Karma and God is the same concept from a different angle. Objective morality I would see as some aspect of an objective God.
Karma is the belief that good and bad is always rewarded and punished.
This is basically what theism is from another angle.
You can't seperate morality from God or karma in theist circles.
Sure, it doesn't matter what they hold to be common sense. But some claim their belief in God is not based fundamentally on faith. I don't know how to test that claim.
Quoting 180 Proof
Maybe gnosis or belief of/in God doesn't quire faith? I do not know. But nothing about the theory or intuition of God sounds to me like it would by definition require or be at its root dependent upon faith. It doesn't really matter if most believers say their belief is based in faith.
Just like some people trust science and the media and Bill clinton...
Maybe karma can exist without a God, and God can exist without being personally involved with matters of justice?
The thing is nobody in here as given a bare minimum definition of what a God must be. I think for me I just think of some ultimate being. I don't know what all that entails.
Quoting 180 Proof
Suspension of disbelief does not entail that what is accepted during that suspension is merely fictitious. Rather, what has been accepted simply has not been critically examined to determine its truth value, leaving the possibilities open.
Edit: However, I tend to think that ALL belief is unjustified. Until I actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN, how can my belief be justified? I even go so far as to say belief is the enemy of knowledge.
Perhaps Faith is extreme or perfected Trust
Of course it depends on one's concept of God.
Religions do not seperate God from morality or vice versa
With Karma how would you say it got enforced?
And would an ultimate being not get involved to rectify injustice?
Me myself,I'm a Sufi mystic so God is felt in the heart,so all these abstract definitions and a lot of theology is meaningless to me.
"Perhaps Faith is extreme or perfected Trust"
That's a great quote. No perhaps about it!
That's how I see my faith.
Plato already told you their is intuitive direct knowledge.
Axiomatic and Trustworthy.
Common sense abdicated in favour of unreasonable doubt!
And assuming you are like me, the INTUITION comes first, of something higher than the mundane world, senses and logic. And as this INTUITION is followed more and more, against the naysaying of our own doubts(which could be triggered by others) our Faith increases, until one day we live entirely by a higher sense of order without reliance on logic or the senses (or at least intuition becomes the dominant compass). And the INTUITION guides us eventually to its source, leading to "gnosis" (don't know the Sufi term) The pure intuitive realization of the root principle or pattern that guides all things?
What is intuition though, I don't know. Maybe gnosis is required to know! "root principle" sounds a bit dry too, probably not the best term. I sound like a wannabe know it all.
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm tired to look up these terms.
I'll take a crack at it tomorrow, I think.
There is lot to be said for your post on Intuition and Gnosis. Said like a true mystic!
My one additional but very important point is this.
Intuition is the natural normal innate born condition.
One must have a kind of "trauma" or fear to supress it.
And one can return to innate gnosis by various processes,by platos or other mystical paths,or even through sport.
Some people think that. Faith is the excuse they give for believing in something when they have no good reasons. If you have good reasons to believe something, you give those reasons. If you have nothing, you can say it's down to faith. And there's nothing you can't justify using faith - I remember well some devote Christian South Africans telling me that apartheid was god's will and that they had this on faith. No reason necessary.
No... common sense is Aristotelian logic.
:100: :fire:
Quoting Tate
Göbekli Tepe is about 12,000 years old ..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
So is prostitution. :cool:
You know people had common sense before Aristotle right?
And yes,in addition to karma ( cause and effect!) being common sense so is Identity and contradiction,ish.
Hume may have doubted cause and effect but he still lived it practically.
What I pretended to show you is the fact that "common sense" is logic not Karma or God. When Aristotle defined these philosophy theories, he intended to go further than mythology.
You know people had believed in different dieties before the Biblie or the Quran right? :eyes:
Yes of course,many people use "faith" for the unjustifiable and immoral. Just like science is used to make weapons and torture equipment and enforce oppression.
Their are always reasons given for faith,its just what criteria of reason you accept.
I feel god in my heart is a reason. Its just that some people misuse that reason.
Bottom line,you will find all things depend on a certain type of trust. Philosophers of all people should know,after all these centuries of pontificating they still trust in "abstract reason" when they can even agree or prove much of anything!
Aristotle believed in God ( prime mover) and Karma ( moral actions having consequences) as did plato.
And yes,God has different names in Arabic and hebrew and existed before the bible and quran.
God was also misinterpreted before these books and after!
The concept of God does not come from Books or priests.
Do you have a particular god in mind?
I think you don't understand Aristotle yet... please go and read some Greek philosophy books. It would prevent you from say ignorant arguments as "Aristotle believed in God"
Is that supposed to be an argument!
Many people know aristotle believed in a prime mover.
You disputing that?
You can call god what you want in your own language or use a name you feel comfortable with.
I'm talking about the god of conscience. Everybody has a conscience they feel. That's the one I'm referring to.
Yes, Aristotle believed in a "prime mover" but I guess your God doesn't fit in this:
As there are no motions of motions, we can set aside action and passion (items (7) and (8) in the Categories). This leaves us with the shorter list of relevant categories, (1) substance, (2) quality, (3) quantity, and (4) place.
Aristotle asserts that some things are the same both in potentiality and in actuality, but not at the same time or not in the same respect, as e.g. [a thing is] warm in actuality and cold in potentiality (Physics 3.1, 201a1922) Aristotles Natural Philosophy
In any case, the actuality of what is potentially F, whenever, being in actuality, it is active-not insofar as it is itself, but insofar as it is moveable- is motion. Aristotle (Physics)
We can see that there appears to be an endless regress. A is moved by B. B is moved by C. C is moved by D so on and so on. The question is, how far back does it go?
To answer this, Aristotle proposes what is known as the unmoved mover. This entity would be the end of the line, so to speak. The unmoved mover would have initiated movement within the universe. More importantly, the unmoved mover would not have been set in motion by another thing. Who Is the Unmoved Mover?
Quoting 180 Proof
Natural science relies on verificationism?: "only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies)."
At the same time, scientific theories attempt to explain empirical observations. You can't empirically observe/verify the theory/explanation itself. Explanations aren't empirical. Go figure? Its almost like theories involve metaphysical aspects?
Yet, theories, being non-empurical, aren't reducible to mere tautologies are they?
If science relied strictly on what is empirically verifiable or observable there wouldn't be scientific theories. Ought there not to be theories in science? Do scientific theories muddle empirical science with philosophy/metaphysics?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking how can one know that they know?
Quoting javi2541997
We won't know now since he was banned.
Is there something wrong with prostitution, Tom?
Why do you ask, are you a Catholic?
"Religion is old". pointing to a citation of an 8000 year old religion.
"So is prostitution"
What was your point? If you didn't have one and were just randomly mumbling like an Alzheimer's victim, that's fine. I was just asking.
That was disrespectful as hell...
What Tom said to you is the fact that he doesn't care about how old religion is. Prostitution is also an old profession, so what? Didn't you get the ironic tone?
That's true, it was disrespectful. Sorry, Tom.
I thought he was condemning religion and prostitution at the same time. That's why I asked if he had a problem with prostitution.
He answered that by asking me if I'm Catholic.
I have no idea what's going on there.
No problem.
Thanks
Prostitution is often called 'the world's oldest profession'. When someone points to religions being old as a criterion of value, I point out this. One of the very things religion often condemns - prostitution - is probably as old as religion. And it was a jape - hence the emoji.
Anyway enough on this, right?
Right! :up:
Ok, you express yourself better than before.
If you glance at the website I pointed to, it explains that we get insight into ancient religions by looking at the way people handled death.
You'll probably find that this is still true. Death will bring you back to your society's version of the temple.
Just to clarify, there's nothing wrong with religion or prostitution. The fact that they're both really old should give us pause. Why have they been with us for so long?
It's also associated with Astarte.
It is interesting indeed. But I see it as good research about anthropology.
But not religion?
Ancient Egypt was polytheistic and represented all their reality through the so-called hieroglyphs.
We can be agreed that the figure can represent a "prostitute's workplace" but it is complex because their representations tend to be arbitrary.
It was just my point of view on the topic.
'Monogamy' (re: prohibitions / stigma of prostitution) is a very recent cultural development of our species and 'denial of mortality' (e.g. religion) is an atavistic coping (anti-anxiety à la placebo) mechanism that might have given rise to culture in the first place. They are legacies of the childhood of the species, IMHO, and nothing more, and their antiquity no more justifies them than e.g. cannibalism is justified by its antiquity.
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't know. Atheism (or something close to it) is fairly old, although no where near as old as religion.
Maybe atheism just comes and goes and religion is the norm.
Astarte didn't originate in Egypt. She's Semitic.
Although it brings with it the burden Camus talked about. It's nice to here you refer to Lucretius as late, though. Some seem to think we went from the stone age to Greece and Rome.
[quote=Psalms 14:1 (KJV)]The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.[/quote]
Who are you talking about?
You mentioned naturalistic philosophy, so I thought you meant Lucretius.
Psalms is from the Iron Age. They didn't believe in life after death, btw.
Which burden is that? A la Sisyphus?
Sisyphus is Camus' answer to the problem.