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

[CogentPhilosopher]

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).

There are parts of religion that are not claims about reality, and I don't usually have a problem with those parts. But religions as a whole do have claims about reality.

I suppose it isn't so simple for me. What does it mean to say something is "true?"

I am assuming you are in reference to a belief being true? I didn't say it had to be true to believe it rationally but rather that you should use logical thinking to try to see if it is true.

Something can be said to be "true" if one has observed it.

Not really. Your senses can deceive you. You could say that it is likely true given your circumstances.

It can be said to be "true" if it has been observed by many people (aka, intersubjective verification).

It makes it more likely if you where part of that group, but people can lie or be deceived.

It can be said to be "true" if it is useful.

I'm going to call complete bull**** on that one. XD

So by "true" do you mean "meets my particular standards" I guess?

H*** no!

First of all, these are not my particular standards, this comes from basic logic.

Second of all, these determine if something is likely or unlikely to be true. There are very few things you can know to be true.

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?

By factual definition, yes they are making a truth claim. Because they claim for something to be true.

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"

Truth claim =/= Trying to convert other people.

I have no idea where you got that idea.

Religions that do not, usually, try to convert people like Wicca still make claims about reality.

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.

If I ask you about the beliefs of your religious tradition and you can answer then it is a truth claim. If you cannot answer then it is not a religious tradition.

It sounds much to exclusivist, if that makes sense.

So its wrong.....because it shows that truth is not subjective?

Oh, right your a relativist.

Frankly believing that truth is subjective contradicts one of the few 100% facts we know about reality, the law of non-contradiction.

Unless you change the definition of truth, in which case it's just an argument of semantics and does not change that what reality truly is does not change depending on peoples' perspectives.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

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

That is not the definition of religion.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Unfounded on what? They are founded precisely on the things they claim, the experiences of the people who follow that tradition.

 

[sayak83]

That is not the definition of religion.

There are as many definitions of religion as there are dictionaries.
What is "religion"?

Let's consider the Pentecostal tradition. It's based on the experiences of the followers of the tradition who interpret those experiences as that of the Spirit. Agreed? Now explain the irrationality.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Unfounded on what? They are founded precisely on the things they claim, the experiences of the people who follow that tradition.

1) Those religions existed before mass amounts of people had "experiences" with that religion. So that is not what it is founded on.

2) People can lie and/or be deceived.

3) If you believe that mass "experiences" validates a religion, then all religions are correct even the ones that contradict themselves. Therefore that conclusion is incorrect.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

There are as many definitions of religion as there are dictionaries.
What is "religion"?

Fair enough.

But yours is not one of any of the purposed ones and is highly unusable.

By your definition, eating a sandwich is a religion.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Let's consider the Pentecostal tradition. It's based on the experiences of the followers of the tradition who interpret those experiences as that of the Spirit. Agreed? Now explain the irrationality.

Look at my other post and see it.

 

[sayak83]

1) Those religions existed before mass amounts of people had "experiences" with that religion. So that is not what it is founded on.

2) People can lie and/or be deceived.

3) If you believe that mass "experiences" validates a religion, then all religions are correct even the ones that contradict itself. Therefore that conclusion is incorrect.

1) This is patently false. Religions like language have always had hundreds and thousands of people following it. The identification label changes as groups begin to split off from each other based on their diverging experiences and accompanying traditions and rationalizations (eg. Christianity or Buddhism) and while one person is often credited for his or her outside influence, it's really a communal evolution.
2) Yes. What follows from that?
3) There are as many realities as there are sentient beings and the objective reality is merely the most useful convention by which there could be effective sharing between these varying subjective realities. The effectiveness is deduced by subjective evaluation of eudaimonia by each and every subjective being participating in that language.
Please demonstrate that this view is more irrational than your own view of one true objective reality. Thanks

 

[sayak83]

Fair enough.

But yours is not one of any of the purposed ones and is highly unusable.

By your definition, eating a sandwich is a religion.

In Buddhism it is.

But you said I have defined religion somewhere. Where?

Here is the one I like the best from the religious tolerance article.

. a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought."

 

[Quintessence]

First of all, these are not my particular standards, this comes from basic logic.

Second of all, these determine if something is likely or unlikely to be true. There are very few things you can know to be true.

Pardon... my point is that the standard you are using for the word "truth" is not shared by everybody. Looking at how you are understanding the term "truth" that makes me more confident than ever that many adherents of religions do not make "truth claims" with respect to how you are viewing "truth." It seems you would not, for example, consider viewing something as useful to be a "truth claim," and you would not consider personal experiences to be "truth claims" either, right?

If I ask you about the beliefs of your religious tradition and you can answer then it is a truth claim.

Alas, I think we have a contradiction here. I do what I do in my traditions because, first and foremost, I like it and it is useful. They are true to me in the sense of "I like this" and "this is useful for my life right now." But you have said that you don't consider these things to be ways something can be true, so I can't be making truth claims per your own standard. Right?

Oh, right your a relativist.

Not how I would describe myself, FYI. It's more that I'm pretty frank about the limits of humans, don't like to conflate maps with the territory, and don't like to insist everyone follow the same map of said territory.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

1) Religions like language have always had hundreds and thousands of people following it.

Are you a science denier?

People have not always existed.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Pardon... my point is that the standard you are using for the word "truth" is not shared by everybody.

No, just by philosophers and a lot of other academia.

Looking at how you are understanding the term "truth" that makes me more confident than ever that many adherents of religions do not make "truth claims" with respect to how you are viewing "truth."

They claim something is true.

Are you denying this?

It seems you would not, for example, consider viewing something as useful to be a "truth claim," and you would not consider personal experiences to be "truth claims" either, right?

If you claimed that you had a personal experience or you claimed that something is useful then yes they are truth claims.

Alas, I think we have a contradiction here. I do what I do in my traditions because, first and foremost, I like it and it is useful. They are true to me in the sense of "I like this" and "this is useful for my life right now." But you have said that you don't consider these things to be ways something can be true, so I can't be making truth claims per your own standard. Right?

If you just use the ritual for peace of mind or what not and do not buy into the other claims of a religion, you are not following the religion.

If the religion is just a series of rituals with no claims about what they do. Then it's not a religion.

Not how I would describe myself, FYI. It's more that I'm pretty frank about the limits of humans, don't like to conflate maps with the territory, and don't like to insist everyone follow the same map of said territory.

Until you show me how that analogy is useful. I am not going to follow it.

 

[sayak83]

Are you a science denier?

People have not always existed.

Religion, like technology or language is a communal creation from the earliest. That's what I am getting at. A language was not invented by one person. Religions are like that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

My religion is for me. Sure, Christians and Muslims will find it extreme strange that I reject God and accept energy as the sole constituent of all things in the universe. And when asked where from that energy came, I would reply that perhaps it arose 'ex-nihilo'. Sure, most people will find my views very strange, illogical too. What! Creation without any intelligence behind it! Impossible. There is that white-bearded old gent behind all this.

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

Heh. Luis is one of the most loved person in this forum,

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Religion, like technology or language is a communal creation from the earliest. That's what I am getting at. A language was not invented by one person. Religions are like that.

Cough cough, Islam, cough cough.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

My religion is for me. Sure, Christians and Muslims will find it extreme strange that I reject God and accept energy as the sole constituent of all things in the universe. And when asked where from that energy came, I would reply that perhaps it arose 'ex-nihilo'. Sure, most people will find my views very strange, illogical too. What! Creation without any intelligence behind it! Impossible. There is that white-bearded old gent behind all this.

Yeah that still contradicts science.

Fundamental forces and space-time are not composed of energy.

Heh. Luis is one of the most loved person in this forum,

I said some.

 

[sayak83]

Cough cough, Islam, cough cough.

You believe everything in the Quran was written by Muhammad? Cough cough.
How about the Hadith? Cough cough cough.

How much of the Quran is a reaction to the fluid changes in the socio_political situation of the growing community? Cough.

 

[sayak83]

Pardon... my point is that the standard you are using for the word "truth" is not shared by everybody. Looking at how you are understanding the term "truth" that makes me more confident than ever that many adherents of religions do not make "truth claims" with respect to how you are viewing "truth." It seems you would not, for example, consider viewing something as useful to be a "truth claim," and you would not consider personal experiences to be "truth claims" either, right?



Alas, I think we have a contradiction here. I do what I do in my traditions because, first and foremost, I like it and it is useful. They are true to me in the sense of "I like this" and "this is useful for my life right now." But you have said that you don't consider these things to be ways something can be true, so I can't be making truth claims per your own standard. Right?



Not how I would describe myself, FYI. It's more that I'm pretty frank about the limits of humans, don't like to conflate maps with the territory, and don't like to insist everyone follow the same map of said territory.

I think both you and I agree on this. For a similar and highly influential view, one does not have to look beyond William James
James, William | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Pragmatism - Lecture VI. Pragmatism’s Conception of Truth (by William James)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah that still contradicts science. Fundamental forces and space-time are not composed of energy.

Fundamental forces/Space-time/Energy or all together. Are they not synonyms of each other, Brahman? I do not know which comes first. We have not yet been there.

 

[Quintessence]

They claim something is true.

Are you denying this?

Interesting choice of words... "deny." I don't have anything to add beyond what I just said earlier there and don't feel like repeating myself.

If you

claimed that you had a personal experience or you claimed that something is useful then yes they are truth claims.

Yeah, at this point I'm just going to call me attempting to understand what you consider "truth" and "truth claim" a futile effort because this really seems to contradict what you were saying earlier.

If you just use the ritual for peace of mind or what not and do not buy into the other claims of a religion, you are not following the religion.

If the religion is just a series of rituals with no claims about what they do. Then it's not a religion.

If that's your opinion. I strongly disagree with your opinion. It is what it is.

Until you show me how that analogy is useful. I am not going to follow it.

Wait... what? I never asked you to follow it. Where did this come from?
But if you don't at least understand it, you aren't going to understand my perspective and it's a waste of my time to continue trying to explain it to you. Then again, I don't understand your perspective either, so... eh. I think I'm done.