Please Define "Religion"

[Augustus]

In this particular case, if your definition treats ideas of a different character as having the same character, then it is perfectly reasonable to point that out and explain why such usage is problematic.

The point is that they are ideas with the same purpose

I will ask directly then, is it your position that fictional beliefs are a requirement for any society to function? Fictional beliefs in my usage would be those that are objectively not true.

They are certainly dependent on narratives that are not objectively true. You can't get from is to ought without this.

In theory, none of these need to be objectively not true, but in practice this is too high a bar to clear.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...Fictional beliefs in my usage would be those that are objectively not true.

Here is a test for you. This is written by actual scientist to the limit of objective true with science for what science can't do:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

The problem with your model is that you do those things yourself in your posts, yet you claim science in effect. So if science is the best model for understanding the world, then only use objectively true on best as per external sensory evidence. But you can't because best has no objective referent.
You seem unable to understand the limit of objectively true as it relates to you.

When asked for that, you answer how you think and feel and not with evidence for observation of best. That has been going on for a while now.

 

[MikeF]

The point is that they are ideas with the same purpose
They are certainly dependent on narratives that are not objectively true. You can't get from is to ought without this.

Then it is your position that objectively false beliefs are not a requirement to achieve the *purpose* of social cohesion. Yes?

That leaves us with what is objectively true and subjective values. My position would be that subjective values are neither true nor false, but are preferences of an individual influenced and informed by a wide variety of factors. If 2 or more individuals agree on a particular value, that agreement is not a fiction in and of itself. Would you agree?

In theory, none of these need to be objectively not true, but in practice this is too high a bar to clear.

To high a bar to clear, ever? Objectively false beliefs are required by all human beings indefinitely into the future?

I disagree here. I certainly agree that weening off the use of objectively false beliefs will not occur tomorrow or in 10 years, but I do not agree that it is an impossibility or that we must accept the current arrangement of objectively false beliefs as fixed and immutable.

If it is your position that objectively false beliefs can never be eliminated, is it your position that all currently held objectively false beliefs must be maintained as they are?

How much objectively false belief is required for society to function?

Are specific false beliefs required or does the specific false belief not matter, it is simply that a false belief be widely accepted?

If a specific false belief is not required, can an objectively false belief be modified or changed to better suit the needs and requirements of the society that is dependent on the false beliefs?

 

[MikeF]

Here is a test for you. This is written by actual scientist to the limit of objective true with science for what science can't do:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

The problem with your model is that you do those things yourself in your posts, yet you claim science in effect. So if science is the best model for understanding the world, then only use objectively true on best as per external sensory evidence. But you can't because best has no objective referent.
You seem unable to understand the limit of objectively true as it relates to you.

When asked for that, you answer how you think and feel and not with evidence for observation of best. That has been going on for a while now.

I am unclear of your position Mikkel. I keep getting the impression from you that there is no such thing as objectively true, that it doesn't exist and such a thing is impossible to know, yet your reference link seems to indicate we can distinguish between objective and subjective. What is your position on the existence of objective reality? Is there such a thing as objectively truth and objectively false?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then it is your position that objectively false beliefs are not a requirement to achieve the *purpose* of social cohesion. Yes?

That leaves us with what is objectively true and subjective values. My position would be that subjective values are neither true nor false, but are preferences of an individual influenced and informed by a wide variety of factors. If 2 or more individuals agree on a particular value, that agreement is not a fiction in and of itself. Would you agree?
...

Now we are getting somewhere.
The problem that remains is that all form of true, proof and evidence are in effect not objective. They are first person cognitive.
But to understand that we have to start here:
"
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[46] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47]

The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality.".[50] "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[51] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[48][49] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[52] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[50]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[49] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[54] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[55]
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[49]
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[49]
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[49] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[56]"

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
That is philosophy of science and if you can't understand how it is this:
"...All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] ..."

Then we will be going in circles, because you treat knowledge as a justified true belief, but that has never be done in all of the recorded history,
That is the connect to philosophy. Science gave up on knowledge as above and made it cognitive. If you accept these axiomatic assumptions, which are without truth, you can do science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am unclear of your position Mikkel. I keep getting the impression from you that there is no such thing as objectively true, that it doesn't exist and such a thing is impossible to know, yet your reference link seems to indicate we can distinguish between objective and subjective. What is your position on the existence of objective reality? Is there such a thing as objectively truth and objectively false?

I have already answered that one post before this one.

 

[MikeF]

Now we are getting somewhere.
The problem that remains is that all form of true, proof and evidence are in effect not objective. They are first person cognitive.
But to understand that we have to start here:
"
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[46] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47]

The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality.".[50] "As an individual we cannot know that the sensory information we perceive is generated artificially or originates from a real world. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. ... The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them."[51] "Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws.[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[48][49] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[52] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[50]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[49] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[54] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[55]
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[49]
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[49]
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[49] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[56]"

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
That is philosophy of science and if you can't understand how it is this:
"...All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] ..."

Then we will be going in circles, because you treat knowledge as a justified true belief, but that has never be done in all of the recorded history,
That is the connect to philosophy. Science gave up on knowledge as above and made it cognitive. If you accept these axiomatic assumptions, which are without truth, you can do science.

I would say that I only accept two axioms: 1)that I exist; 2) that I experience. The rest is built from that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say that I only accept two axioms: 1)that I exist; 2) that I experience. The rest is built from that.

How do you experience?

 

[MikeF]

How do you experience?

Through my biological sense organs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Through my biological sense organs.

How many are there and are there other process in a barab?

 

[MikeF]

How many are there and are there other process in a barab?

Not listing biological senses and I'm not familiar with the term 'barab'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not listing biological senses and I'm not familiar with the term 'barab'.

Sorry, brain. So you are not going to answer. Okay.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is the false equivalency. Not all stories that outline values and explain how things should be are fictional. Myths are fictional.

To dismiss myths as fictional, is to completely misread their purpose. Myths often contain far deeper universal truths than are ever communicable through the iteration of supposedly factual narratives. Which is pecisely why Biblical and classical Greek mythologies inspired poets and artists throughout the European enlightenment.

The works of Milton, Blake, Keats and Shelley didn't draw from these sources because they thought they were literally true; they drew from them because they recognised, in the story of Orpheus and Eurydice, for example, truths about life, death, loss and sorrow, the transcendent power of love and beauty, and the tragic consequences engendered by a sudden loss of faith.

 

[MikeF]

To dismiss myths as fictional, is to completely misread their purpose. Myths often contain far deeper universal truths than are ever communicable through the iteration of supposedly factual narratives. Which is pecisely why Biblical and classical Greek mythologies inspired poets and artists throughout the European enlightenment.

The works of Milton, Blake, Keats and Shelley didn't draw from these sources because they thought they were literally true; they drew from them because they recognised, in the story of Orpheus and Eurydice, for example, truths about life, death, loss and sorrow, the transcendent power of love and beauty, and the tragic consequences engendered by a sudden loss of faith.

The issue for me is not whether there is value in fiction which is understood to be fiction. Fiction in literature is extremely valuable on multiple levels. Beyond simple enjoyment of stimulating various emotions within ourselves, I see fiction as a powerful laboratory where one creates thought experiments to explore the human condition, challenge and test values and cultural norms, and evaluate novel and creative alternatives to the status quo. In that regard I have no issue with myth being recognized as myth, as fiction.

What I do take issue with, is when a fiction is regarded as immutable truth, or when a subjective value is portrayed as an objective and immutable fact. The more members of a group that share such false beliefs, the greater the impact they will have on the group or society as a whole, for all beliefs we hold affect our choices and actions, as individuals and in regards to group affairs.

I am not dismissive of myth as myth, I am instead acutely aware of the impact to society when fiction is held as immutable truth, and see greater value in distinguishing fact from fiction, and see governing values as the product of shared agreement among group members, not the requirement or dictate of an immutable fictional abstraction.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The issue for me is not whether there is value in fiction which is understood to be fiction. Fiction in literature is extremely valuable on multiple levels. Beyond simple enjoyment of stimulating various emotions within ourselves, I see fiction as a powerful laboratory where one creates thought experiments to explore the human condition, challenge and test values and cultural norms, and evaluate novel and creative alternatives to the status quo. In that regard I have no issue with myth being recognized as myth, as fiction.

What I do take issue with, is when a fiction is regarded as immutable truth, or when a subjective value is portrayed as an objective and immutable fact. The more members of a group that share such false beliefs, the greater the impact they will have on the group or society as a whole, for all beliefs we hold affect our choices and actions, as individuals and in regards to group affairs.

I am not dismissive of myth as myth, I am instead acutely aware of the impact to society when fiction is held as immutable truth, and see greater value in distinguishing fact from fiction, and see governing values as the product of shared agreement among group members, not the requirement or dictate of an immutable fictional abstraction.

I assume you are referring here to Bible literalists, Young earth creationists etc, who consider Genesis to be 'immutable truth'. This is pretty much an exclusively American phenomenon, and I agree it's absurd.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

I assume you are referring here to Bible literalists, Young earth creationists etc, who consider Genesis to be 'immutable truth'. This is pretty much an exclusively American phenomenon, and I agree it's absurd.

Actually, I am referring to any instance where a fiction is held as an immutable truth, be it religious or any other category you wish to name.

I would ask why is the Bible literalist any more or less absurd than any other believer in myth, whatever that myth might be. You seem to have drawn a particular line between myth and not-myth in the Abrahamic belief systems (Abrahamic here would be a very broad category of inter-related belief born out of the Levant region of the Mediterranean, which you may or may not see as a useful grouping). If myth is a widely held (as true or real) yet false belief or concept, then the believers do not see or realize the beliefs are myth (false), correct? If the initial or foundational premises are false, then it does not matter where you draw the line in your literal vs abstract interpretations for it is all equally myth, and as such, open to all the vulnerabilities inherent in treating fiction as fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

IMO



Actually, I am referring to any instance where a fiction is held as an immutable truth, be it religious or any other category you wish to name.

I would ask why is the Bible literalist any more or less absurd than any other believer in myth, whatever that myth might be. You seem to have drawn a particular line between myth and not-myth in the Abrahamic belief systems (Abrahamic here would be a very broad category of inter-related belief born out of the Levant region of the Mediterranean, which you may or may not see as a useful grouping). If myth is a widely held (as true or real) yet false belief or concept, then the believers do not see or realize the beliefs are myth (false), correct? If the initial or foundational premises are false, then it does not matter where you draw the line in your literal vs abstract interpretations for it is all equally myth, and as such, open to all the vulnerabilities inherent in treating fiction as fact.

Here is the problem in the academic sense. There are 5 theories of truth and none of them are immutable, yet you treat your truth as immutable.
That has nothing to do with truth, the same is the case of knowledge, there are at least 4 standard theories of knowledge and for science there are 4 main groups. And then I don't even include strong skepticism.
Yet you claim for all 3 categories that yours are in effect absolutely true for all humans and all of the world.

So here is the falsification of your thinking. I can think and act differently for all 3, but if they are as objective as as gravity, I can't. Yet I can and that is because your version are based on how you think and so are mine. They are both not true as objectively true, but rather they are both myths. The difference is that you believe you are not a case of that, but only everybody else, where as I know it is the case for us both.
That is cognitive and a result of different thinking.

 

[MikeF]

... There are 5 theories of truth ...

... there are at least 4 standard theories of knowledge

... for science there are 4 main groups [of knowledge?, group being distinct from theory?]

In an academic sense, any category is an abstraction that has been created to aid us thinking and organizing our thoughts and ideas about a particular thing or subject. Such categories are not immutable and only have value if they continue to be useful.

Just because someone or someones created all the categories you vaguely reference, it does not mean they cannot be evaluated and questioned as to their continued utility.

Whatever categories your are hanging on to above may no longer have value or reflect an up-to-date understanding of the subjects.

 

[RestlessSoul]

IMO



Actually, I am referring to any instance where a fiction is held as an immutable truth, be it religious or any other category you wish to name.

I would ask why is the Bible literalist any more or less absurd than any other believer in myth, whatever that myth might be. You seem to have drawn a particular line between myth and not-myth in the Abrahamic belief systems (Abrahamic here would be a very broad category of inter-related belief born out of the Levant region of the Mediterranean, which you may or may not see as a useful grouping). If myth is a widely held (as true or real) yet false belief or concept, then the believers do not see or realize the beliefs are myth (false), correct? If the initial or foundational premises are false, then it does not matter where you draw the line in your literal vs abstract interpretations for it is all equally myth, and as such, open to all the vulnerabilities inherent in treating fiction as fact.

Here we are at cross purposes again. I do not acknowledge a binary approach to understanding narrative, with truth on one side, and myth - indistinguishable from all other fictions - on the other. This allows for little nuance or ambiguity, with regards either to what is meant by truth, or by myth. In my philosophy, which I consider fully compatible with logic, reason, and modern scientific enquiry, there are no absolutes and can be no certainties.

Truth, like reality, is ellusive and can only ever be approached or perceived obliquely or indirectly. We cannot look directly at the sun, or we would be blinded. That's both a metaphor, and a literal truth; mythologies are full of the former. It is not false to say Icarus flew too close to the sun, and fell to earth, because the story of Icarus is a myth predicated on nmetaphor, at the core of which are universal truths about the human spirit. To fully understand the truth within the myth,incidentally, it's necessary to acknowledge that befrore he fell to earth, Icarus also flew. Which happens to be the first line of a poem (Failing and Flying) by Jack Gilbert. If the foundational premises of Greek mythology were false, would a 20th Century poet be finding meaning there? seems unlikely.

 

[PureX]

Actually, I am referring to any instance where a fiction is held as an immutable truth, be it religious or any other category you wish to name.

Fiction is never held as "immutable truth". It can only be held to represent an immutable truth. That is the defining difference between fiction and non-fiction: the representational vs the non-representational. And representational literature (fiction) requires interpretation. The characters and events have to be allowed to stand as archetypes for real kinds of people and events. And in doing so they can then illuminate the truth of the real better than reality itself, can.

Which is why fiction is very often far better at illuminating reality and truth than reality itself is. But none of this can work unless we allow the fiction to represent reality. And then "declutter" it for us.

I would ask why is the Bible literalist any more or less absurd than any other believer in myth, whatever that myth might be.

To "believe a myth" is not a myth is to deny it the ability to do what it was intended to do: i.e., represent the truth of reality, as opposed to alliterating it. However, humans are rarely mentally articulate enough to consciously recognize these sometimes subtle differences in methods of conveying the truth. Which makes for a discussion on the subject to very often become "talking past" each other. Recognizing the difference between the representation and the represented is not something the average person is going to be able to do, consciously, and even fewer are going to be able to articulate that difference in a conversation.

It doesn't mean they don't know the difference between fiction and fact, or myth and history. It just means they can't articulate it for you.