IS there an eastern/pagan solution to our religious delimas?

[LuisDantas]

But how do you filter the "good" and the "bad"?

By being criterious, attentive and honest. There is no great mystery involved, although there is quite a lot of reflection and insight.

They normally follow dictionary definitions unless you are trying to redefine a word for your own purposes.

Who are those people you speak of here?

I highly disagree, but seeing as you are likely to just no true-scotsman any religion that does otherwise, I see why you would like to make that assertion.

We all have a duty to tell that which is proper from that which is not. If anything, that is more true of religion than of most other subject matters.

Is it sad that the only way you can make religion seem good is by defining it as humanistic philosophy?

Is it? What could possibly be better?

By your definition of religion, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and many other religions are not religions.

Judaism is a true religion, AFAIK. So are many segments of Christianity, albeit hardly all.

Islaam is an extreme case. So is Christianity, but not to a comparable extent.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

By being criterious, attentive and honest. There is no great mystery involved, although there is quite a lot of reflection and insight.

So it is subjective?

Who are those people you speak of here?

They are not here.

We all have a duty to tell that which is proper from that which is not. If anything, that is more true of religion than of most other subject matters.

Because you redefined words in order to suit your own viewpoint. That seems to be something I see a lot on the far-right and far-left in politics.

Is it? What could possibly be better?

Using a proper definition besides one that basically means "Philosophy or religion I like = religion. Philosophy or religion I don't like =/= religion."

Judaism is a true religion, AFAIK. So are many segments of Christianity, albeit hardly all.

Islaam is an extreme case. So is Christianity, but not to a comparable extent.

Have you read the Torah? It's almost as bad as the Qu'ran.

Really it seems to me you are applying your arbitrary definition based on the average behavior of the practitioner rather than the content of the religion itself.

 

[Quintessence]

No, we are actually doing doing it from the standard of any philosophy, not just natural philosophy which would require verification of empirical evidence using the scientific method.

If that's your perspective on it. I am simply making an observation from my own. That said, please keep in mind that while I responded to your post because you responded to one of mine, my observations were not based on you.

Religions make claims about reality....

Perhaps some of them do. That's not how I would frame things. If you are assuming religions make claims about reality rather than draw maps of territory (aka, like an artist paints a landscape) that's going to make further conversation on this issue very challenging. The rest of your response seems to confirm that for me, because it is following a very different train of thought than I. I'm sure you feel what you said feels applicable, but it read as very apples and steel gears for me.

 

[LuisDantas]

So it is subjective?

Religion is unavoidably subjective, if it is religion at all.

They are not here.

Because you redefined words in order to suit your own viewpoint. That seems to be something I see a lot on the far-right and far-left in politics.

I don't think I am the one redefining anything, nor do I understand why you are mentioning politics here. Care to explain?

Using a proper definition besides one that basically means "Philosophy or religion I like = religion. Philosophy or religion I don't like =/= religion."

I take it that you are implying that I use such a silly definition?

I think you need to support such a claim, if you truly want to make it.

Have you read the Torah? It's almost as bad as the Qu'ran.

Oh, but Judaism far better transcends the Torah than Islaam even dreams of transcending the Qur'an.

It is really no comparision.

Really it seems to me you are applying your arbitrary definition based on the average behavior of the practitioner rather than the content of the religion itself.

All definitions of religion are arbitrary. It just turns out that I have no shame of taking due responsibility for mine.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Perhaps some of them do.

Name one that doesn't.

That's not how I would frame things. If you are assuming religions make claims about

reality rather than draw maps of territory (aka, like an artist paints a landscape) that's going to make further conversation on this issue very challenging.

They do make claims about reality. I brought up several points to support this that you did not address.

The rest of your response seems to confirm that for me, because it is following a very different train of thought than I. I'm sure you feel what you said feels applicable, but it read as very apples and steel gears for me.

It really seems to me that you are dead-set on giving religions a special status compared to other truth claims.

Why is that?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Religion is unavoidably subjective, if it is religion at all.

So how is it any different than something that is completely made-up?

I don't think I am the one redefining anything, nor do I understand why you are mentioning politics here. Care to explain?

You are the one not using the English definition of an English word.

I was trying to show how that behavior can be used to justify extreme positions.

I take it that you are implying that I use such a silly definition?

Yes. I think you do.

I think you need to support such a claim, if you truly want to make it.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have holybooks that profess to be true through the same sort of rhetoric and make similar claims about reality.

Yet you consider some of those religions religions and some not based on how you seem to like those claims.

Oh, but Judaism far better transcends the Torah than Islaam even dreams of transcending the Qur'an.

So the way a religion becomes a religion is by ignoring most of it's religious texts? Again I think you need to justify your arbitrary definition.

All definitions of religion are arbitrary. It just turns out that I have no shame of taking due responsibility for mine.

If you want to have a word that conveys your definition then make one up, don't try to hijack another word.

The word "religion" is does not mean and has never meant what you mean it to mean.

This is the same thing people who redefine atheists as misotheists or Wiccans as Satanists and then act like every atheists they meet is a misotheist or Wiccan is a Satanist do.

If you are going to use a different definition of religion then the rest of the English speaking world then you should realize that when we use the word, we are not meaning your definition.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Did Siddhartha Guatama create all of the ideas present in most forms of Buddhism today?
How do you define the difference between a religion and a philosophy?

But how do you filter the "good" and the "bad"?
Is it sad that the only way you can make religion seem good is by defining it as humanistic philosophy?
By your definition of religion, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and many other religions are not religions.

No, we are actually doing doing it from the standard of any philosophy, not just natural philosophy which would require verification of empirical evidence using the scientific method.
If anyone could provide rational evidence for their ideas of metaphysics then that would be fine as well.

Religions make claims about reality and as such they should have those claims questioned just like every other claim about reality. There is no reason why they should be given a free-pass to avoid criticism or demand of logical backing.
I have never met anyone who applies scientific standards to art and I doubt I ever will.

Again, I do not know of anyone who has done/does that.

Buddha stated the basic ideas. People have expanded them in various ways, even including things that Buddha was against.

In the Abrahamic sense, a religion requires a God and its worship (as you have yourself said). In dharmic religions, that is not a necessity all the time. Believe in God, good; don't believe in God, that too is good, provided you are following your dharma.

What is civil and what is humane is good.
Why is that sad? IMHO, it is probably the best way.
Religions that aggressively hunt for adherant are not religions but hungry cults.

Sure, our beliefs should not go against science, that will probably be falsehood. I always check my beliefs with science. I do not ask for free-pass.

You have just arrived here, it takes some time.

 

[LuisDantas]

So how is it any different than something that is completely made-up?

Mainly, by taking due responsibility for what is proposed.

You are the one not using the English definition of an English word.

I don't think English has become quite that confused, personally.

I was trying to show how that behavior can be used to justify extreme positions.

I guess you failed then.

Yes. I think you do.

Duly noted. It matters little, but noted.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have holybooks that profess to be true through the same sort of rhetoric and make similar claims about reality.

The Abrahamics are admittedly a weird bunch. The degrees to which they manage to overcome the drawbacks of their self-imposed weirdness varies greatly. Islaam is entirely crippled, even degenerated by them. Judaism and to a lesser degree Christianity learned better.

Yet you consider some of those religions religions and some not based on how you seem to like those claims.

Of course I do. I expect everyone to make their own decisions on such matters, and I am no exception.

So the way a religion becomes a religion is by ignoring most of it's religious texts? Again I think you need to justify your arbitrary definition.

Any honest examination will show the obvious: texts are just words on paper. They can hardly be expected to carry a whole religion even in the best circunstances.

They are not entirely useless, but it is a poor religion that which fails to transcend (not "ignore") its own texts.

If you want to have a word that conveys your definition then make one up, don't try to hijack another word.

My point exactly, son.

The word "religion" is does not mean and has never meant what you mean it to mean.

Well, I guess you stopped me. Or something.

This is the same thing people who redefine atheists as misotheists or Wiccans as Satanists and then act like every atheists they meet is a misotheist or Wiccan is a Satanist do.

Because you say so?

Really?

I don't think you have thought your way through that claim very well.

If you are going to use a different definition of religion then the rest of the English speaking world then you should realize that when we use the word, we are not meaning your definition.

I will keep that in mind in case it ever becomes an issue, then.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No. I know what's what. Crows excel at that.

Well, another way in which you can help yourself to "know what's what" is to know that you can reply to a post such that the person you are replying to is notified, and your reply post will carry the relevant quote from the person you are replying to.

Also - I couldn't help but notice in your post about taoism, you describe it thus:

It is a reverence for Reality, from a position of Humility, embracing Responsibility, and a genuine Love for the Earth.

Note the part in bold, underline, italics. Do you really believe that you act "from a position of humility?" Do you believe that you can do so even as you make claims that you are a crow and say things like:

I know what's what. Crows excel at that.

Equating yourself to a crow, and then gushing over crows as if they are the best things in he world, and have it all figured out, and look down at humanity with contempt and confusion at their idiotic actions... it all seems a little less than humble, to be honest.

 

[crowfeather]

Without intuition, there would be no way to explain such things to your intellect. So excuse me if I don't attempt to.

 

[Quintessence]

Name one that doesn't.

Technically? All of them, I would suppose? The humans who interpret teachings of religions do so in many different ways within and across traditions. There's necessarily going to be considerable heterogeneity. How individual humans take the various aspects of a religion or worldview is ultimately quite personal and subjective.

But I feel the need to ask a question for clarification. What, precisely, do you mean by "claims about reality?" I tend to interpret that as making claims about the territory, or attempting to proclaim absolute truth through dogma. As far as I'm aware, all humans ever do is make maps of the territory... whether we're talking religion, politics, arts, or sciences. There are certainly those who operate within various traditions who keenly aware of that and are painting a picture or drawing a map of the landscape and will not conflate their maps with territory.

They do make claims about reality. I brought up several points to support this that you did not address.

I don't know how. You view religion (and probably reality in general) in a completely different way than I do. I'm not sure how to communicate across that barrier.

It really seems to me that you are dead-set on giving religions a special status compared to other truth claims.

Why would you think that? I have no interest in such things. I wouldn't say I have much if any interest in this thing called "truth claims" either. To me, all human understanding of reality is a map of territory, or stories that we tell ourselves and to others. By extension, I then see the narratives religions tell about the territory as maps - not as these "truth claims" you are talking about. They're paradigms. Ways of seeing. One amongst many. And many of the stories told are quite interesting! It would be dreadfully boring if we all told the same ones...

 

[sayak83]

I would just be happy with religion acting like a cogent philosophy (name drop?) rather than a series of claims about reality reliant on faith. But at that point I would not consider them religions anymore.

In this sense then, religions become irrational and incoherent by definition, does it not?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Buddha stated the basic ideas. People have expanded them in various ways, even including things that Buddha was against.

In the Abrahamic sense, a religion requires a God and its worship (as you have yourself said). In dharmic religions, that is not a necessity all the time. Believe in God, good; don't believe in God, that too is good, provided you are following your dharma.

What is civil and what is humane is good.
Why is that sad? IMHO, it is probably the best way.
Religions that aggressively hunt for adherant are not religions but hungry cults.

Sure, our beliefs should not go against science, that will probably be falsehood. I always check my beliefs with science. I do not ask for free-pass.

You have just arrived here, it takes some time.

I did not say that a religion is required to be theistic.

But whether your religion directly contradicts science or not does not make it logical to hold.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

My point exactly, son.

Oh really?

Then pull up a dictionary definition of religion that matches your definition of religion.

I'm starting to see why some people here don't like you.

Because you say so?

Really?

I don't think you have thought your way through that claim very well.

You redefine a word and then when someone else uses the word you claim they are using your definition.

The people who redefine atheists as monotheist and Wiccan as Satanist do the same thing, just for more malevolent purposes.

 

[LuisDantas]

You really need to research religion better, @CogentPhilosopher . You are giving way too much weight to unwarranted Abrahamic claims.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Technically? All of them, I would suppose? The humans who interpret teachings of religions do so in many different ways within and across traditions. There's necessarily going to be considerable heterogeneity. How individual humans take the various aspects of a religion or worldview is ultimately quite personal and subjective.

So therefore religions are claims about reality and should be treated as such.

But I feel the need to ask a question for clarification. What, precisely, do you mean by "claims about reality?" I tend to interpret that as making claims about the territory, or attempting to proclaim absolute truth through dogma. As far as I'm aware, all humans ever do is make maps of the territory... whether we're talking religion, politics, arts, or sciences. There are certainly those who operate within various traditions who keenly aware of that and are painting a picture or drawing a map of the landscape and will not conflate their maps with territory.

A claim about reality is when you claim that something is true. That's all it is.

I don't know how. You view religion (and probably reality in general) in a completely different way than I do. I'm not sure how to communicate across that barrier.

My view is really not complicated when it comes to truth claims.

Does it have support? If it does have support is it viable support? Does it not use any logical fallacies? Does it not contradict itself? Does it not contradict any known facts? Is it likely to be true given what I know?

If the answer is yes to all of these then I will believe it but we happy to have it debunked.

My views of subjective things is much more complicated.

Why would you think that? I have no interest in such things. I wouldn't say I have much if any interest in this thing called "truth claims" either. To me, all human understanding of reality is a map of territory, or stories that we tell ourselves and to others. By extension, I then see the narratives religions tell about the territory as maps - not as these "truth claims" you are talking about. They're paradigms. Ways of seeing. One amongst many. And many of the stories told are quite interesting! It would be dreadfully boring if we all told the same ones...

I understand what you are getting at having been a follower of several religions before.

However I find that these different views are a result of taking certain things to be true. AKA: Believing in certain truth claims.

Believing in unfounded claims about truth can lead to something as benign as Wicca or something as dangerous as Islam.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

In this sense then, religions become irrational and incoherent by definition, does it not?

Irrational yes.

Incoherent no.

 

[Quintessence]

So therefore religions are claims about reality and should be treated as such.

Not my perspective, not my treatment. I'm not sure how it works to view religions this way in light of the community/social and ritual aspects of religions (which aren't "claims about reality" whatever is meant by that).

A claim about reality is when you claim that something is true. That's all it is.

I suppose it isn't so simple for me. What does it mean to say something is "true?" Something can be said to be "true" if one has observed it. It can be said to be "true" if it has been observed by many people (aka, intersubjective verification). It can be said to be "true" if it is useful. What is "true?"

Does it have support? If it does have support is it viable support? Does it not use any logical fallacies? Does it not contradict itself? Does it not contradict any known facts? Is it likely to be true given what I know?

So by "true" do you mean "meets my particular standards" I guess? If a religion doesn't care about meeting your standards (or possibly anyone else's) are they still making a "truth claim" from your perspective?

Perhaps that's part of my hangup about this suggestion that all religions make "truth claims." Many adherents of various religions do not care if outsiders follow their paths. It is "this is how I view things" or "this is what my tradition teaches" not "this is the truth" (a "truth claim", not uncommonly followed by a demand that others accept their truth as the truth as well). I don't view myself as making any sort of "truth claims" within my religious tradition. I don't think that paints an accurate picture of how I (or many other religious traditions) approach things. It sounds much to exclusivist, if that makes sense.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

You really need to research religion better, @CogentPhilosopher . You are giving way too much weight to unwarranted Abrahamic claims.

I have researched religion fairly well. I made a perfect score in my World Religions course without having to do any additional studying.

Do not try to shift all of the blame on the abrahamic religions.

Eastern, new age, and pagan religions still make claims about reality that are unfounded.

 

[sayak83]

Irrational yes.

Incoherent no.

Why would you consider a worldview based on personal or communal experiences irrational?