Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[sojourner]

I just created the word 'elcadomat' with highly intentional meaning. I see no evidence that the word 'elcadomat' has a mind.


i appreciate that.


Only sometimes.


By these things I assume you mean myth, metaphor, and ceremony. Sure.

One does not interpret intended meaning. One interprets the actions and words, and then infers the intended meaning from those actions and words. And that's okay.

The ceremony does not make meaning. It only conveys meaning between people who have a pre-existing understanding of the symbology.

As I said before, one does not interpret intended meaning. One interprets the actions and words, and then infers the intended meaning from those actions and words. And that's okay.

Since it’s people who comprise the religions, and people who participate in the myths, metaphors and ceremonies, your point becomes a little lost. You are adamant that religions don’t make meaning, that people make meaning. Since religions are the people who comprise them, “people” and “religions” become one and the same thing for purposes of our discussion. There is no “religion” that stands on its own apart from those who participate in it. Therefore, religions make meaning. Why? Because the intention of the participating people is indemic to the scope of experience the religion defines. And the intentions are mindfully set forth, according to the tenets of the defined religion. The vehicle and the source are the same thing.

 

[ppp]

Since it’s people who comprise the religions, and people who participate in the myths, metaphors and ceremonies, your point becomes a little lost. You are adamant that religions don’t make meaning, that people make meaning. Since religions are the people who comprise them, “people” and “religions” become one and the same thing for purposes of our discussion. There is no “religion” that stands on its own apart from those who participate in it. Therefore, religions make meaning. Why? Because the intention of the participating people is indemic to the scope of experience the religion defines. And the intentions are mindfully set forth, according to the tenets of the defined religion. The vehicle and the source are the same thing.

I think I said that.

Religion has no independent existence. Religion is the label we put on a given set of metaphor, myth and ceremony that was created by individuals. If thinking beings were to disappear today, there would be no religion.

Those things do not create meaning. They are the expression and communication of meaning from people that create them. You are confusing the vehicle for communicating meaning with the source. This is like claiming the the book creates meaning, when it reality the only things that create meaning are the author and the reader.

 

[sojourner]

I think I said that.

Then why are you arguing with me over this?

 

[ppp]

Then why are you arguing with me over this?

Hey, you're the one that argued with me after I said it. I'm the one who's been literally saying that only individuals create meaning and that ceremonies are merely a vehicle for communication of that meaning this whole time.

 

[sojourner]

Hey, you're the one that argued with me after I said it. I'm the one who's been literally saying that only individuals create meaning and that ceremonies are merely a vehicle for communication of that meaning this whole time.

But what I’m saying is that it’s more than just that. Religions and their vehicles are not just mindless “things.” They are part of the organic whole of the universe. They are organic in the same way that human beings are organic, because they are formed of us. At least in the Christian tradition — and, from what I understand, the Judaic, Buddhist and Hindi traditions — when individuals come together in worship, prayer, the contemplation of symbols, the observance of ceremony, and share common imagery, myth, and metaphor, they form something that is greater than the sum of its individual, human parts. And that whole has a consciousness of its own that is part of, and yet distinct from, those individuals who comprise it. Christians become one body — the Body of Christ. And the ceremonies, myths, metaphors, symbols take on a life of their own, far beyond what any one individual can create. It is the collective and distinct consciousness that makes meaning. IOW, it’s the religion — the ekklesia — the people gathered into one, that makes meaning. Out of that meaning arise many interpretations of that meaning, and those interpretations, in turn, add to the collective meaning of the whole. It is a wholly cyclical and symbiotic paradigm.

So, the ceremonies are vehicles, but they’re also an impetus, and mindful, intentional beings, distinct from the individuals involved, and inexorably part of them at the same time.

 

[ppp]

But what I’m saying is that it’s more than just that. Religions and their vehicles are not just mindless “things.” They are part of the organic whole of the universe. They are organic in the same way that human beings are organic, because they are formed of us. At least in the Christian tradition — and, from what I understand, the Judaic, Buddhist and Hindi traditions — when individuals come together in worship, prayer, the contemplation of symbols, the observance of ceremony, and share common imagery, myth, and metaphor, they form something that is greater than the sum of its individual, human parts. And that whole has a consciousness of its own that is part of, and yet distinct from, those individuals who comprise it. Christians become one body — the Body of Christ. And the ceremonies, myths, metaphors, symbols take on a life of their own, far beyond what any one individual can create. It is the collective and distinct consciousness that makes meaning. IOW, it’s the religion — the ekklesia — the people gathered into one, that makes meaning. Out of that meaning arise many interpretations of that meaning, and those interpretations, in turn, add to the collective meaning of the whole. It is a wholly cyclical and symbiotic paradigm.

So, the ceremonies are vehicles, but they’re also an impetus, and mindful, intentional beings, distinct from the individuals involved, and inexorably part of them at the same time.

That is an interesting bunch of ideas. How do you plan to demonstrate that ceremonies are thinking agents in any literal sense? Oh I should ask, do you plan to demonstrate that your ideas or anything but assertions?