Please Define "Religion"

[The Kilted Heathen]

You can't observe good and bad and you can't observe that the world is material or from God.

That doesn't clear up much at all.

One can objectively observe good and bad, both on personal and broader levels (societal, global). Daily we observe through all senses that the world is in fact material.

The only thing you got accurate there was that it can't be observed that the world is from a god or gods. Enter belief and faith.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That doesn't clear up much at all.

One can objectively observe good and bad, both on personal and broader levels (societal, global). Daily we observe through all senses that the world is in fact material.

The only thing you got accurate there was that it can't be observed that the world is from a god or gods. Enter belief and faith.

So what is the objective observable properties of good?

 

[MikeF]

Individual human subjectivity as for at best a combination of limited reason and necessary feelings. At least that is what brain scans show. We have been over that before.

Previously you said that reason *can not* do morality, and now you indicate that it does, or has a role. In any case, you seem to feel that morality is a subjective creation of human beings and that it is verifiable with science as you seem to have confidence in what brain scans can show on the subject. This position also seems to conflict with your previous statement. If feelings are involved, if human beings are involved, I would think science would be helpful (and you seem to agree) as it is through science that we can understand how and why we work and behave as we do. With morality a human construct, understanding human beings should shed light on why we create moral constructs and why they are not uniform across all populations.

You have yet to comment on who you see as the arbiter of whether a belief or idea is true or false such that we can label the false ones as myth.

 

[MikeF]

It's riddled with myth.


"Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism."

Largely a myth that the Greeks were "secular rationalists" and thus the forerunners of modern Humanists. Even Greek Materialists held beliefs that were significant supernatural

"Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds."

an ethical outlook verifiable by the scientific method??? A scientistic myth for sure.

"Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

There is a common humanity that we have moral obligations to? Basically internalised Christianity (certainly hints of Pelagianism in that we are naturally good and can reach earthly salvation through good works, and Gnosticism, knowledge can enable us to transcend our true nature)

Our potential for development and good is "for all practical purposes, unlimited"? For me the science pretty clearly shows we are significantly limited and constrained by our genetics in this regard

That's great that you seem to be in agreement with Mikkel. If you read the remainder of my post, you will see why I did not respond to the content of his post. The part you have quoted above was simply my attempt to confirm what he was implying, as he did not spell it out.

I will repeat my comments to you that I made to him:

"I supposed we would first have to define and agree on what qualifies as myth. We would also have to decide if there are different kinds of myth, whether myths are wholly religious, not religious, or can be either, as well as some a combination of both.

Once we have an understanding of what is meant by the word myth, we can then analyze the above vision statement to determine if it qualifies as myth, to what extent, and of what possible type of myth."
​

ETA: I haven't forgot about your previous post in response to me, it simply required more than a quick response and I haven't had the chance for a proper response.

 

[Augustus]

Daily we observe through all senses that the world is in fact material.

Is this true?

We can observe that the world has material aspects, but we don't observe that the theory of materialism is correct. This rests on several axiomatic assumptions (or perhaps deductions) that are only 'self-evident' if you are taught them. Hence (almost) all pre-modern societies have 'observed' (or have been cognitively deceived) that there are unseen forces acting in the world.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So what is the objective observable properties of good?

That which benefits and incurs minimal debt or harm. Antithetical to that which harms and hinders. How does this relate to the topic?

Is this true?

Yes.

 

[Augustus]

"I supposed we would first have to define and agree on what qualifies as myth. We would also have to decide if there are different kinds of myth, whether myths are wholly religious, not religious, or can be either, as well as some a combination of both.

Once we have an understanding of what is meant by the word myth, we can then analyze the above vision statement to determine if it qualifies as myth, to what extent, and of what possible type of myth."

It's simply a story that explains why something is the way it is or gives meaning to a community. It isn't a synonym of "untrue" as myths can be anywhere from broadly true to entirely fantastical.

Some people prefer the term mythos to differentiate from the common understanding of myth.

 

[Augustus]

Yes.

Cognitive science and pretty much all of human history suggest otherwise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That which benefits and incurs minimal debt or harm. Antithetical to that which harms and hinders. How does this relate to the topic?


Yes.

What does that look like or otherwise with external sensory experience?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Cognitive science and pretty much all of human history suggest otherwise.

In what way? Being material is being made of matter. Are you trying to tell me that a rock is ethereal?

What does that look like or otherwise with external sensory experience?

Are you going to answer how this is related to the topic of religion? I have very little interest in a circular discussion.

 

[MikeF]

Is this true?

We can observe that the world has material aspects, but we don't observe that the theory of materialism is correct. This rests on several axiomatic assumptions (or perhaps deductions) that are only 'self-evident' if you are taught them. Hence (almost) all pre-modern societies have 'observed' (or have been cognitively deceived) that there are unseen forces acting in the world.

In your opinion, does gravity qualify as an unseen force? Realistically, the effects of gravity are observed so the force should be considered observed. The question then becomes how or why does it act the way we observe. What the pre-moderns observe and what we observe remains the same. The question is, if we can't determine why, do we make something up and hold it as true, or do we simply say we don't know.

The pre-moderns did not observe anything we aren't observing. The difference is in their explanation of why, and their explanations of why were not based on observations of the why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Are you going to answer how this is related to the topic of religion? I have very little interest in a circular discussion.

How do you see good as with your eyes? Just answer how you do that?

 

[dybmh]

I would say yes.

Eh, maybe. Any example I can think of requires commitment.

Yes: community and identity.

If a person identifies as a member of a religious community and, in turn, the other members recognize that person as a member, then they're part of the religion... i.e. they're religious.

That's congregational acceptance; that's different. And, identifying as a member is commitment to what that label represents to that specific individual. No commitment means no label.

Religious commitment is only as important as a specific religious community decides it is.

Your personal experience may be valid for your own personal religious community, but it's not the be-all amd end-all of religion.

If the definition is accurate, then it will include what I've observed personally unless you can show how my personal experiences are not appropriate.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How do you see good as with your eyes? Just answer how you do that?

I answered that. If you're looking for specific examples, they are myriad and I am loathe to spend endless hours providing example after example of good things and acts. To be clear; this is not to say that this cannot be done, rather that it is a waste of time with the definition that I gave you here. Take that and apply it in observance. What's more, it is not a stark dichotomy but a gradient; you will find both good and bad in a wildfire.

With this line of questioning, aside from the relation to what religion is, what is your point?

 

[Augustus]

In what way? Being material is being made of matter. Are you trying to tell me that a rock is ethereal?

Is this true?

We can observe that the world has material aspects, but we don't observe that the theory of materialism is correct. This rests on several axiomatic assumptions (or perhaps deductions) that are only 'self-evident' if you are taught them. Hence (almost) all pre-modern societies have 'observed' (or have been cognitively deceived) that there are unseen forces acting in the world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can't morality and problem as they have no observable properties. You confuse your cognition and feelings with observation.

Morality is what a society will like its members to do, it is a sort of book of law of the society, very precise instructions. Some where it says it is OK to marry your first cousin (Muslims), some times it says do not marry your second cousin (Hindus), other times it says marrying within seven generations is incest (Jat, a Hindu caste).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Eh, maybe. Any example I can think of requires commitment.

So you aren't familiar with any religions that consider children to be members before they're old enough to make a commitment?

That's congregational acceptance; that's different. And, identifying as a member is commitment to what that label represents to that specific individual. No commitment means no label.

If you think that merely self-identifying as a member of a religion constitutes a "commitment," then I have no idea what you mean by "commitment."

If the definition is accurate, then it will include what I've observed personally unless you can show how my personal experiences are not appropriate.

They're fine; it's just that they only represent one slice of the religious landscape.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Mmk, well I'm not talking about materialism. Perhaps go back to my original comment and revisit your approach.

 

[Augustus]

In your opinion, does gravity qualify as an unseen force? Realistically, the effects of gravity are observed so the force should be considered observed. The question then becomes how or why does it act the way we observe. What the pre-moderns observe and what we observe remains the same. The question is, if we can't determine why, do we make something up and hold it as true, or do we simply say we don't know.

The pre-moderns did not observe anything we aren't observing. The difference is in their explanation of why, and their explanations of why were not based on observations of the why.

Cognitive science has shown that, from childhood, humans perceive agency in inanimate objects and with regards to things like cause/effect. This is no doubt the origin of supernatural beliefs, superstitions, etc.

This is what I mean by unseen forces. These are perceived (i.e. observed) even though they don't actually exist.

The pre-moderns didn't "observe" anything different, what needs to be learned is to disregard parts of perception as illusory.

See for example:

Religion is natural, atheism is not: On why everybody is both right and wrong

Religion is natural, atheism is not: On why everybody is both right and wrong

 

[Augustus]

Mmk, well I'm not talking about materialism. Perhaps go back to my original comment and revisit your approach.

Mikkel was in the post you replied to though, so I was noting the difference between saying the world has material components and holding a materialistic worldview.