Jump to content
Science Forums

What Is Religion?


IDMclean

Recommended Posts

This is a false analogy - Pyrotex seems to be saying that there's never been a proven true religion, and it isn't possible to prove religion false for the same reason. It is more like saying that there is no best President, nor, by the same token, a worst President.

 

I guessed as much, but a less enlightened person might mistake what he is saying for my analogy. One must be careful with their words when one posts such statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll bite.

 

Which method is the true method of ending recession. Priming the pump, or trickle down economics?

 

Ah you see, human philosophies are touted all the time as being the better way, which you know to be what someone means when they say the "true" religion. When someone says the "true religion" they mean the only religion they know of that deals with all the problems in the best way.

How does one define "best". Well, it would be defined based on their experience. If they have not experienced a better way, then they would say the best way is a way that in your opinion is second best.

The amiguity due to experience is part of the problem Pyro sees. Thus you must always keep searching, keep testing, and keep compiling. So you see KAC, , there isn't a simple answer.

 

Now, if you want to be like Pyro, and set your rules for religion to be, a grouping of teachings that are within the rules of empirical materialism, where tangible objects and beings can be questioned and tested over and over again until they make a mistake and show they are imperfect, then you aren't looking for religion, you are looking for non-religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a false analogy - Pyrotex seems to be saying that there's never been a proven true religion, and it isn't possible to prove religion false for the same reason. It is more like saying that there is no best President, nor, by the same token, a worst President.

We're dancing in circles here.

 

Religion is tied to belief in the supernatural, things that have stuff to do with your 'soul' after you croak. It involves a leap of faith, a belief in that which cannot be empirically proven. Therefore, the only evidence for this can eminate from people who have died, and returned to the land of the living to give testimony of what awaits after death. And nobody has done so thus far. If you or any of your family members have indeed done so, please go and visit this site, and post a scan of your million dollar check with your next post here.

 

And that's the extent of what religion is, and the shortcomings of whether it's true or not.

 

Religion isn't philosophy, although it might contain elements of it. Philosophy bothers itself with logic, and morals. Religion bothers itself with fairytales, using 'morals' as a handy cloak to hide the meme. Religion is me saying I've pissed off the refridgerator, that's why there's mould on the bread. I have to say seven 'hail fungi' and sacrifice my labrador's first-born puppy in order to appease the fridge, otherwise my offspring will suffer pestilence and green bread unto the seventh generation.

 

That is clearly not philosophy. It is superstition.

 

(And the above's not a strawman, either.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're dancing in circles here....And that's the extent of what religion is, and the shortcomings of whether it's true or not.

Religion isn't philosophy, although it might contain elements of it. Philosophy bothers itself with logic, and morals. Religion bothers itself ...)

Religion bothers itself with superstition, the invisible remains of dead people, myths, hero stories, and answers to the really big questions, like: what is my purpose? why do I have to die? and where can I find the best drink in the galaxy?

 

But it doesn't matter what the answers are, because you're gonna die anyway and then the Great Garglesiezure will just wipe you up with his cosmic hankie.

 

What we are dealing with here is: [ta-da]

"DISSEMBLING"

 

Dissemble, v., to conceal the true nature of; to make a pretense of; to fake a deceptive outward appearance, attitude or action.

 

Any third-grader can tell you what a "religion" is. Most fifth graders can tell you what several different religions are and how they're different. This is easy, sneazy stuff. But some folks hereabout (I will not name names) profess to be totally bum-fuzzled!! They don't know what it means! Oh, horrors! Let's go explain it to them, and earn their gratitude. Oh, horrors! They don't understand our explanations!

 

Whatever shall we do???

 

Methinks somebody is dissembling. Methinks they have a perfectly clear understanding of the word "religion". C'mon Boerseun, let's go get a drink and let them hammer on each other till the... well... till the cows come home. No offense intended. :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoken by a man who has never studied religion and another who studied and found no answers.

As it is obvious though that they are what they are, I'll let KAC decide if he wants to continue a discussion with a religious person, or if he wants to believe two people who obviously find it laughable.

 

to fake a deceptive outward appearance, attitude or action

 

That's an interesting definition. Sounds like a double fake to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any third grader can, then why can't you people?

 

My assertion isn't that there is no "true" religion. Nor is it my assertion that religion is a philosophy.

 

Here is my new hypothesis. Religion is a meaningless concept. It does not distiguish any meaningful observable, measurable, quantifiable, qualifiable activity, behavior, or consequence.

 

I am going to assume that there is no "religion" until it can supported otherwise. I can look at a rock and go, well that is a rock. I can examine it, pick it apart, and I can otherwise classify it.

 

Religion, it would seem to me as good as saying KVSAHFDSI. What does that word mean? of how about weeblestoaph? YHWH?

 

I can tell you what Weeblestoaph means to me, but that doesn't mean it's in the dictionary.

 

Each of you assumes one way or another, it would seem anyway through your arguements, that religion is infact a thing. If it is a thing it can be clearly classified. Might take a while, but it is not a purely subjective term. It has common, required elements, otherwise things would not get grouped under the term "religion", just as different schools of thought are grouped under the term "philosophy", and different fields of study, like physics, are grouped under "science".

 

Physics may be somewhat different than chemistry, or astronomy, but they all group together because they use scientific methodology. They have common, classifiable elements that distiguish them from other concepts. These elements are invariant. Hence objectively classifiable.

 

So, if what you say pyro, is true. Then I can go ahead and write religion out of my book of words. I can talk about behaviors such as worship. Acts such as martyrdom. Beliefs systems such as doctrines. I can talk about affects such zeal. These are all things which I can classifiably talk about and clearly know what I mean when I communicate them. They classically are concidered part and parcel of religion, but I can't say that they are exclusive to religion. They aren't even defining of religion.

 

Therefore my answer to the question "What is Religion?" at this point is Mu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any third grader can, then why can't you people?....

Errrrr... are you talking about me?

I have no problem understanding the concept of "religion". Never have.

 

Now, when I was still a bible thumper in my 20's, I often heard our fundementalist preachers attempt to do word-magic on words such as "religion", "christian", "moral", etc, in order to distort those words for a particular purpose. Typically, the purpose was to convince the choir that really good, god-fearing, church-going folks from other denominations were NOT "religious", "christian", "moral", etc.

 

Even in my early teens, I saw through this play-pretend dictionary logic. Such arguments are totally fallacious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pyro. Did it not take you until your early 20's to make major revisions to your religious beliefs? I believe this was his point.

Your claim that a third grader can see it clear as day is either false, or true. If it is true, then you suddenly become included in the category of 'those who weren't as bright as a third grader at the age of 20, which then makes your comment that a third grader suspect.

 

It was apparent to me however that that was nothing more than hyperbole.

 

I should add that I knew a first grader who could probably defend the Bible and its teachings better than half if not more of the people on hypography. He's now in second grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that you, Pyrotex, understand what you mean by religion. I however, don't. So far religion has been expressed, and the expression has been found to be lacking, or to be the same as another thing such philosophy.

 

Fervor does not a religion make. Belief does not a religion make. Worship does not a religion make. God does not a religion make. Superstition does not a religion make. The list goes on, but none of these concepts are essential to make a religion. It would seem to me that all one has to do is say "This is my religion." and describe it. Then they are eligible for tax exempt status and legal protections, on basis of "religious beliefs".

 

To me this is atrocity. I don't want a superstitious government. I don't want businesses protected because they propound to be religious orginizations. To me, there is no discernable difference between a religious orginization and a business.

 

In consideration for legal and political treatment there is a difference. However, I do not think this difference is justified.

 

Just to pre-empt, business in this can mean non-profit business.

 

I am not trying at handwaving here. I am seriously concerned that the concept of religion itself may well be fallacious, or ill conceived. Sure tradition would hold it to be a thing, but I can not for the life of me jusitify that. So at best it is a belief. You can believe in invisible pink elephants, that doesn't mean you get special treatment because you so believe. At worst it is a non-sense word, and concept. Deeply fallacious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that I knew a first grader who could probably defend the Bible and its teachings better than half if not more of the people on hypography. He's now in second grade.
Poor kid...
There's a line from "Gone in 60 Seconds" the Nick Cage version that ends with "I say poor us."

 

Yeah, thanks for reinforcing my point and expanding it to a greater audience. :cup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that you, Pyrotex, understand what you mean by religion....Worship does not a religion make. God does not a religion make. Superstition does not a religion make...
You are confusing "essential" (or necessary) and "sufficient". Worship and God are not essential to make a religion, but they are sufficient to make a religion. This is inarguable so I will say nothing further.
It would seem to me that all one has to do is say "This is my religion." and describe it. Then they are eligible for tax exempt status and legal protections...
Actually, this is pretty much the way it works in the US. It's an atrocity to me, too. I don't want a superstition driven government either, or to have economic or legal benefits given to businesses because they are associated with religion. At one time, New York City was going in debt because so much of its commerical real estate was owned by religions. Somehow they reversed that trend. {somebody correct me if that isn't historically true}

 

"Religion" can have a straightforward meaning, and still be implemented in an irresponsible manner. And though not all religions have gods, or have worship rituals, any organization that DOES base its existence around the worship of a god is most certainly a "religion". Of course, it could always be a very BAD religion. :ebomb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is inarguable so I will say nothing further

 

How is it inarguable. My experience is when some one says something it is no such thing.

 

Now, you make my point. It is obvious that religion can be clearly and objective defined. There is some quality that can be identified that is common to any religion. Why is it that the practice of systematic worship of a diety constitutes a religion? Would that exclude the systematic practices of a field of study?

 

Take for instance Buddhism. Some of it's interpertations can be considered purely philosophical. What causes Buddhism or Taoism to cross from philosophy into the realm of religion? If that (or those) element(s) are identified then I think we have the essence of religion, and a meaningful word.

 

As far as I can see I can worship an idea or a methodology and practice it rigorously and still not consider it a religion. In my own case, for all intents and purposes I hold many of the classical traits associated with a religious practitioner.

 

What is to distance Science the religion from Science the philosophy? What is to distance Buddhism the religion from Buddhism the philosophy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Why is it that the practice of systematic worship of a diety constitutes a religion? Would that exclude the systematic practices of a field of study?...

It is difficult to follow your reasoning. But my best guess is that you are somehow assuming that the word "religion" came first, and then people started doing stuff and claiming the stuff was their "religion". Or perhaps you have assumed that the dictionary is some sort of celestial authority that mandates how "religion" is to be done. Or perhaps you have set "religion" on some sort of conceptual pedestal and demand that any spiritual activity must meet your very high standards before it is truly a "religion".

 

All of these are very well-worn paths of faux-reasoning, leading to dead ends. They do not prove anything. However, they CAN waste a lot of time.

 

Any argument that depends upon exacting dictionary definitions, or that demands that people live up to your definition of a word, is usually (usually! I suppose there could be exceptions) a bogus argument. But such arguments often sound so good and seductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But my best guess is that you are somehow assuming that the word "religion" came first, and then people started doing stuff and claiming the stuff was their "religion". Or perhaps you have assumed that the dictionary is some sort of celestial authority that mandates how "religion" is to be done. Or perhaps you have set "religion" on some sort of conceptual pedestal and demand that any spiritual activity must meet your very high standards before it is truly a "religion".

 

None of the above. I am asking for characteristics that allow something to be categorized as a religion. I am seeking to define the term, cause as it stands with me it has no definite meaning. The dictionaries do not define it in such a way that I can talk about it and reasonably know what meaning I am communicating to others. Particularly yourself, Pyrotex. :0005:

 

We as it seems from previous discussion have vastly different ideas of what "religion" means. Hence our past communication failures regarding the topic.

 

Now as for definition arguementation? It simple. If I define the domestic pig as a fleshy pink creature with four legs, a curly tail, and a snout and you argue that a scalely green creature with a straight tail that lacks a snout is a pig, then we are obviously talking about different things. The latter does not live up to the definition of the concept of a "Domestic pig". Even though they both inherit characteristics because they are quadrapedal creatures.

 

Much like talking about particles. You tell me you have a nuetral charge, massless particle that you think is a neutron, I will tell you well by definition a neutron has mass, so you must be talking about a photon.

 

Different concepts. Different words.

 

I am not saying any one must live up to my definition of religion, however in order for me to meaningfully discuss religion I must know with reasonable (key word here, as religion it seems is irreasonable) certainty what I mean when I express that word. Otherwise the patterns that will form in the participant's head will not match the patterns I used to form the expression.

 

What I am saying is that if science and philosophy (clearly defined concepts) are rational numbers by definition, Religion must be Not a Number (NaN), again by definition. Not the same family, you see?

 

I don't really care if it's impolite. I don't hold anything by superstition, trancendental (above and beyond existence) nonthings, and mysterious unknowable nonforces. So if religion by it's definition is superstitious, trancendental nonthings, and mysterious unknowable nonforces, then in my book at best it is a nonentity. I have better words to use, and better things to do with my time then discussing invisible, intangible, scentless pink elephants that have no "hair". Much less Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and associated nonsense.

 

So basicly, I am not saying yes or no, but mu to the very nonconcept. It's not that you have to live up to this definition, it is that I am saying by definition, no-thing is a religion. If we can discuss it, with real world meaning, then it is a some-thing and is not religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...