PlaClair, "a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns" as a definition, seems to me to refer to an individual's personal paradigm or worldview. It does not define what I think of as the world's religions. If one's worldview excludes dogma, that seems to me to be a good thing, but most of the world's predominate religions embody dogma.But they don't all, and they don't have to. Religion can be something else, something positive. Why is that so hard for people here to accept? Did you read what I wrote about religion in my life? I am far from alone. Maybe you haven't had experiences like that but much of our population has. I get that you formed a positive and enlightened worldview from within the religion in which you were raised. But you seem to be attempting to define such a world view as what all religions are. One could define a pile of shit as a wondrous commodity that can fertilize and enhance vegetative growth. Okay, that's true, but it is still also a pile of shit.
I get that you formed a positive and enlightened worldview from within the religion in which you were raised. But you seem to be attempting to define such a world view as what all religions are.No, Tim, that's not the point at all. I am not interested in making a judgment about what the religions have been. (What purpose would that serve?) I am interested in what religion might become.
James 1:27 This is the simple truth of what God himself through James says IS religion:
“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
- King James Bible “Authorized Version”, Cambridge Edition
It can’t be stated any simpler for Bible based Christians. Contrast that with what other posters are telling each other and the threads readers what THEY say religion is.
Sadly many believers don’t even know this simple Bible definition because so many denominations complicate/confuse/mix it in with dogma, creeds and traditions.
Religion in the dictionary is any set of "spiritual"precepts one follows. That could mean almost anything hence the long wordy debates. So I understand the cause of the strife/misunderstandings amongst you so I thought I’d add this. What many here and elsewhere actually debate/discuss is what MAN does with all the various religions and then so many place blame on God??? Put the blame where it squarely belongs…on mankind.
Just putting a few thoughts together, wondering what y'all think. Even Rodin. In the community of scientists, when an idea is put out there, everyone is expected to comment on it, if they have knowledge of the topic. It is a way to share experiences and find out if others feel the same. Scientists from many countries and cultures cooperate to look into these questions. People put aside their differences to work on things they are passionate about. Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience. It is the one theological argument that can't be argued with. Religions attach themselves to cultures as a way to help them compete. Sects continue to splinter as they argue about who has it right. They can't agree on the details, only that there is something they experience that is innate, therefore validating their brand. But if you suggest looking at the similarities, few are interested. That's why it's unsocial to discuss religion, it brings up those passions that separate us. It seems science is better at one of the things religion says it is it does best, build community.This is an interesting way of looking at it. I agree with the others that one needs to be careful that the defintions of words like community don't make part of the argument circular. I think you are basically correct but it needs polishing. Religion may be better in some ways of building community --just not the way you describe. Science is better is some ways at "self-improvement" (i.e. "progress") although the continuing existence of religion indicates it can indeed adapt one way or another.
This is an interesting way of looking at it. I agree with the others that one needs to be careful that the defintions of words like community don't make part of the argument circular. I think you are basically correct but it needs polishing. Religion may be better in some ways of building community --just not the way you describe. Science is better is some ways at "self-improvement" (i.e. "progress") although the continuing existence of religion indicates it can indeed adapt one way or another.Wow. Constructive criticism. Don't see that a lot. Thanks Jackson. I realized right away that we don't have good words for a community or organization that forms around an evidence based idea that resulted from scientific inquiry but does not require further scientific knowledge to be dealt with. Richard Carrier calls the science of discovery and proof Science I and the engineers and users of it Science II. I think that's why a non-scientist environmentalist gets labeled a "believer". They can't explain or teach something like climate change in detail but they trust the scientific consensus. This is not a faith based trust, since they could go to 8 years of schools and verify everything they know, but it's still trust.
James 1:27 This is the simple truth of what God himself through James says IS religion: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." - King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition It can't be stated any simpler for Bible based Christians.I get what your saying Rodin, but I can unsimplify this pretty fast. Even in the time of James, there were not just orphans, widows and people able to help. There were very capable slaves who were not allowed to leave their homes by their master. Their were men who had lost a hand farming. The Bible is good at telling you to help people who need help, but it is very weak at helping you determine exactly who needs it and who is capable. Karl Marx had the same problem. It all sounds nice on the surface, but someone says, "I need help" and someone else says, "What, you look fine", then, "I look fine, but I'm depressed", and, "Oh, just get over it". See what I'm saying?
I get that you formed a positive and enlightened worldview from within the religion in which you were raised. But you seem to be attempting to define such a world view as what all religions are.No, Tim, that's not the point at all. I am not interested in making a judgment about what the religions have been. (What purpose would that serve?) I am interested in what religion might become. You can't fix something if you don't what's wrong with it.
I get that you formed a positive and enlightened worldview from within the religion in which you were raised. But you seem to be attempting to define such a world view as what all religions are.No, Tim, that's not the point at all. I am not interested in making a judgment about what the religions have been. (What purpose would that serve?) I am interested in what religion might become. You can't fix something if you don't what's wrong with it. Right. And we do know what's wrong with it. You and I mainly agree on what's wrong with it. I'm not saying we shouldn't know as much history as we can, and consider it. I'm saying that the point of our endeavors is not to judge the past but to understand it so we can act now, and create our future.
I'm not talking about which of the two things an already free and healthy person chooses to do. I'm talking about which of the two builds community in a way that leads to a healthy society that encourages freedom.AFAIK, neither. Science gives us the ability to have a healthy society in the sense of longer life expectancy, increased safety, etc., which leads to more freedoms; but it doesn't tell us why we ought to have those freedoms. I guess I'm saying science can't provide moral framework. Religion can't either, but most people are designed to think it does.
Science gives us the ability to have a healthy society in the sense of longer life expectancy, increased safety, etc., which leads to more freedoms; but it doesn't tell us why we ought to have those freedoms. I guess I'm saying science can't provide moral framework. Religion can't either, but most people are designed to think it does.These are good points. People want to think that their values are objectively grounded. The problem with that is that human experience, by definition, is subjective. On the other hand, human beings have a wide range of common ground. So the term "inter-subjective" is more accurate than "subjective." Fortunately, I think (and of course that is a value judgment), some things are so clearly preferable ever others that we can develop values systems that look as though they are objective. For example, if someone came running at every person on Earth with a sharp stick, threatening to poke out the eyes, pretty much everyone would have a flight response and try to avoid having her/his eyes poked out. Keep eyes: good result. No keep eyes: bad result. Because of our common ground, we can fashion values systems, legal systems that pretty much work, and a medical science that identifies and classifies diseases. There is an objective component to this but it's not entirely objective. Unfortunately, some people think that if they say "God is the source of all our values," they've given ethics an objective grounding. Of course, that is sheer nonsense, but talking people out of it can be difficult or impossible, partly because some people absolutely refuse to let go of the idea that there just has to be an absolute and objective grounding for our values, even though, palpably, there isn't.
Just putting a few thoughts together, wondering what y'all think. Even Rodin. In the community of scientists, when an idea is put out there, everyone is expected to comment on it, if they have knowledge of the topic. It is a way to share experiences and find out if others feel the same. Scientists from many countries and cultures cooperate to look into these questions. People put aside their differences to work on things they are passionate about. Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience. It is the one theological argument that can't be argued with. Religions attach themselves to cultures as a way to help them compete. Sects continue to splinter as they argue about who has it right. They can't agree on the details, only that there is something they experience that is innate, therefore validating their brand. But if you suggest looking at the similarities, few are interested. That's why it's unsocial to discuss religion, it brings up those passions that separate us. It seems science is better at one of the things religion says it is it does best, build community.Are we talking about which is more satisfying? Which is more useful? Science is the only way to investigate nature, but religion is simply more attractive than science. (To most people.) That won't change. That's not true for me or a lot of other people I know. Getting together with people and having good social connections is, but it doesn't have to be a religious gathering. It's far better of it isn't. If you are using "religion" in its most benign and unspecific definition, then it's hardly worth using it at all. If a term has no actual definition, it can mean anything, in the end it means nothing, which is why I don't use it. Lois
That's not true for me or a lot of other people I know. Getting together with people and having good social connections is, but it doesn't have to be a religious gathering. It's far better of it isn't. If you are using "religion" in its most benign and unspecific definition, then it's hardly worth using it at all. If a term has no actual definition, it can mean anything, in the end it means nothing, which is why I don't use it. LoisIt may not mean anything to you, and if you left it there, that would be OK. But you don't. You make value judgments about what is better, and about whether "religion" is worth "using" "in its most benign and unspecific definition." Ironically: what the hell does that mean? And on what basis do you say other people's concepts of religion don't mean anything to them? And if that's not what you're saying, then what are you saying? Unspecific definitions, indeed.
I get that you formed a positive and enlightened worldview from within the religion in which you were raised. But you seem to be attempting to define such a world view as what all religions are.No, Tim, that's not the point at all. I am not interested in making a judgment about what the religions have been. (What purpose would that serve?) I am interested in what religion might become. I know that a metaphor can only be stretched so far. Nonetheless, if crap is changed into a chemical fertilizer, it is no longer called crap. I think that I understand that you wish to further your ideas through the vehicle of "religion" as we humans seem to be so motivated "religiously". I tend to think, however, that this is a rabbit trail that simply leads back to religiosity.
That's not true for me or a lot of other people I know. Getting together with people and having good social connections is, but it doesn't have to be a religious gathering. It's far better of it isn't. If you are using "religion" in its most benign and unspecific definition, then it's hardly worth using it at all. If a term has no actual definition, it can mean anything, in the end it means nothing, which is why I don't use it. LoisIt may not mean anything to you, and if you left it there, that would be OK. But you don't. You make value judgments about what is better, and about whether "religion" is worth "using" "in its most benign and unspecific definition." Ironically: what the hell does that mean? And on what basis do you say other people's concepts of religion don't mean anything to them? And if that's not what you're saying, then what are you saying? Unspecific definitions, indeed. Go troll somebody else's thread. You are the King of messing with definitions. I already quoted you on several occasions saying religion is whatever anyone wants it to be. You prefer undefining or clarification.
I get that you formed a positive and enlightened worldview from within the religion in which you were raised. But you seem to be attempting to define such a world view as what all religions are.No, Tim, that's not the point at all. I am not interested in making a judgment about what the religions have been. (What purpose would that serve?) I am interested in what religion might become. I know that a metaphor can only be stretched so far. Nonetheless, if crap is changed into a chemical fertilizer, it is no longer called crap. I think that I understand that you wish to further your ideas through the vehicle of "religion" as we humans seem to be so motivated "religiously". I tend to think, however, that this is a rabbit trail that simply leads back to religiosity. Exactly my point. You can have a great mission, one of peace and neighborliness, but if you don't tend that compost pile, it's just garbage, it won't fertilize anything.
I'm not talking about which of the two things an already free and healthy person chooses to do. I'm talking about which of the two builds community in a way that leads to a healthy society that encourages freedom.AFAIK, neither. Science gives us the ability to have a healthy society in the sense of longer life expectancy, increased safety, etc., which leads to more freedoms; but it doesn't tell us why we ought to have those freedoms. I guess I'm saying science can't provide moral framework. Religion can't either, but most people are designed to think it does. "Science" may have been a bad choice of words. The science you mention here is what a lot of people think of when they hear the word. It's the results of science, what it gives us. But there are times when we need a solution but science doesn't have it yet, so we need politics to decide what is fair based on what we know now. That will yield a better result if it is based on an epistemology that gets us as close to the truth as we can and a value of fairness that includes as many as possible. The word for all that is "philosophy". Richard Carrier talks about how "philosophy" used to be the only word for exploring the world and asking "why" as well as "how". There never was an official time when "science" became it's own thing, but they have become separate in the minds of the average person. I don't use "philosophy" even if I'm referring to the philosophy of falsifiability, because people tend to think of that as part of the scientific method. Of course it is part of it, which makes my point that philosophy includes science, epistemology and politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ
Go troll somebody else's thread. You are the King of messing with definitions. I already quoted you on several occasions saying religion is whatever anyone wants it to be. You prefer undefining or clarification.I'm not trolling, that's not what I wrote, and I didn't force you to engage me in a dialogue. Put me on ignore if you don't want to read what I write. I wrote that people can define terms however they like BUT there has to be a core of meaning for effective communication to occur. That is why I called you on it when you truncated my post.
I tend to think, however, that this is a rabbit trail that simply leads back to religiosity.On what basis? In other words (correct me if I am wrong), you are saying that if a group of people (x) engage in conduct (y), the result will be "religiosity" (z). I do not follow that. In fact, I don't know what you mean by religiosity. I know what dictionaries say it means but that does not tell me what you mean by it. Presumably, you have a set of images in your mind when you write that. If I could know what those images look like to you, then I could evaluate your statement. If the rabbit is real, and there really is a trail, then it had to get down the rabbit trail somehow. So if you have the inclination, time and patience, perhaps you can spell out what you are saying. Flesh out x, y, and z for me, and explain as though I was a six-year-old how you are connecting the dots. One of two things is going on here, in my opinion. I maintain that this is just another example of reacting emotionally to the word "religion." But obviously, some intelligent people do not agree with me. So if you would do me the courtesy, Tim, and flesh this out, I promise you that I will try to wipe away my assumptions and consider what you have to say.
If a given group of people (x) come up with an objective and positive humanity-fostering-worldview, and espouse that to the world as a new “religion” (y), the very identification of the worldview as a “religion”, is likely to carry with it, trappings that are elemental to most of the world’s religions (e.g., dogmatic thinking, rituals that support the dogma without regard to objectivity), and lead to behavior that is grounded in simply deciding to believe in that worldview, without regard to its initial objective groundwork (z).
If a given group of people (x) come up with an objective and positive humanity-fostering-worldview, and espouse that to the world as a new "religion" (y), the very identification of the worldview as a "religion", is likely to carry with it, trappings that are elemental to most of the world's religions (e.g., dogmatic thinking, rituals that support the dogma without regard to objectivity), and lead to behavior that is grounded in simply deciding to believe in that worldview, without regard to its initial objective groundwork (z).I disagree. Having been a member of an Ethical Culture Society, I know for a fact that conditions x and y can be met without leading to z. I've seen it. It depends on clarity, commitment and other things that people bring to the group when they join it. So I'll ask the seminal question again: on what basis?