I am always curious how the Christians in this country are always calling the Atheist a religious group. While at the same time say that Buddhism is not a religion. The Buddhist clearly have deities, festivals, ceremonies. The Atheist have none, Just meetings at the local pub, pizza joint etc. More on the level as you put it. Worshiping Manchester United. (Which isn't a bad idea by the way)
Why is it important to secure a definition of 'religion'? As Wittgenstein pointed out, no words can be sufficiently defined as definition will require other words which are also never sufficiently defined.
Assuming 'religion' has a 'correct' definition is a return to Platonism, as if 'religion' were a Form (eidos). A word refers to a use, not a 'thing'.
@Ontologistics Hence the difference between defining and descriptive definitions. The main reason I can seem, in fact the only one (hence the question), is as a cultural benchmark as to the opinion of religion within particular historical epochs. Beyond this secondary purpose, I too think it is semantic squabling, really?
Fair enough. I see that the definition will suggest concomitant cultural beliefs (as you say towards the end of the video). I suppose this is philology and etymology then.
Religion? An artifact of human psychological need. Speaking of which, this is excellent: watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
I prefer the polythetic approach (which reminds me of the DSM's diagnostic categories) because it is inclusive without collapsing under exceptions. I think that it is human to desire a single explanation for a given phenomenon, and human folly to assume that a complex, evolved phenomenon can have a single explanation. (I'm not calling you a fool, merely saying things are complex.)
I think too much emphasis have been put into Deities and Revelations rather than Anthropocentric approaches.
I see Religion as a well defined set of Memeplex byproduct of Cultural Evolution and a Natural Phenomenological Experience. It serves many purposes, like social order and cohesion, moral compass, a guide in life, as answers to deep question and a repository of hopes, dreams and fears. I think deities is the result of a natural need of being directed by & trust a superior been, a leader.
@mrgodbehere I think so, I don't have a problem with that. The fact that early Christians saw Stoicism as a competing philosophy/religion gives a hint of commonality. AFAIK, Communism also discarded Religion as a conflicting force, but Communism is much narrower in scope than traditional Religions. As Culture and Science continue to evolves, Religions start shrinking and narrowing in their purpose, functions are being replaced for secular approaches.
@skinnyjohnsen Nope, this is a different series. I didn't realise it was on private, it shouldn't have been! I've just made them public. Go to the playlist and select EP 5a from there and it should work now.
Very interesting and thought provoking video my friend. My own idea of religion is just any belief in the supernatural realm for which evidence does not exist, but then i think thats more for the term faith than religion. Is this you narrating this video. Thanks bud.
@01101100d Interesting, thats almost like the 'belief in supernatural power" of Marrett. I think the wupernatural aspect is important, otherwise you end up with Marxism etc as religions, and I think the supernatural is perhaps the strongest differentiation between religion and ideology.
@mrgodbehere Most definately, everytime i try to think of the concept, the word "supernatural" appears all the time, since that's what religions are based upon, then the supernatural itself is based on something for which no evidence exists. The problem is that religion cant have one defining term that stands true for all beliefs, it's a very complex system thats arisen in different ways for different reasons throughout many cultures. :-)
Religion: the filling in of knowledge gaps with the supernatural by the credulous, and the subsequent disproportionate, fanatical defense of said delusions by the same, despite a lack of evidence and/or an over-abundance of counter-evidence.
I am always curious how the Christians in this country are always calling the Atheist a religious group. While at the same time say that Buddhism is not a religion. The Buddhist clearly have deities, festivals, ceremonies. The Atheist have none, Just meetings at the local pub, pizza joint etc. More on the level as you put it. Worshiping Manchester United. (Which isn't a bad idea by the way)
pumpstations 1 year ago
Why is it important to secure a definition of 'religion'? As Wittgenstein pointed out, no words can be sufficiently defined as definition will require other words which are also never sufficiently defined.
Assuming 'religion' has a 'correct' definition is a return to Platonism, as if 'religion' were a Form (eidos). A word refers to a use, not a 'thing'.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
@Ontologistics Hence the difference between defining and descriptive definitions. The main reason I can seem, in fact the only one (hence the question), is as a cultural benchmark as to the opinion of religion within particular historical epochs. Beyond this secondary purpose, I too think it is semantic squabling, really?
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
Fair enough. I see that the definition will suggest concomitant cultural beliefs (as you say towards the end of the video). I suppose this is philology and etymology then.
Ontologistics 1 year ago
Religion? An artifact of human psychological need. Speaking of which, this is excellent: watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
I prefer the polythetic approach (which reminds me of the DSM's diagnostic categories) because it is inclusive without collapsing under exceptions. I think that it is human to desire a single explanation for a given phenomenon, and human folly to assume that a complex, evolved phenomenon can have a single explanation. (I'm not calling you a fool, merely saying things are complex.)
musekiteer 1 year ago
I think too much emphasis have been put into Deities and Revelations rather than Anthropocentric approaches.
I see Religion as a well defined set of Memeplex byproduct of Cultural Evolution and a Natural Phenomenological Experience. It serves many purposes, like social order and cohesion, moral compass, a guide in life, as answers to deep question and a repository of hopes, dreams and fears. I think deities is the result of a natural need of being directed by & trust a superior been, a leader.
Lucem2 1 year ago
@Lucem2 Good definintion! But could stoicism and communism be defined as a religion in that case?
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere I think so, I don't have a problem with that. The fact that early Christians saw Stoicism as a competing philosophy/religion gives a hint of commonality. AFAIK, Communism also discarded Religion as a conflicting force, but Communism is much narrower in scope than traditional Religions. As Culture and Science continue to evolves, Religions start shrinking and narrowing in their purpose, functions are being replaced for secular approaches.
In short, it is a Dynamic Memeplex Superset.
Lucem2 1 year ago
Is this no. 5? After Identity In History 4.5 I pressed on the screen for next, only to be told "this is set on personal";-(
skinnyjohnsen 1 year ago
@skinnyjohnsen Nope, this is a different series. I didn't realise it was on private, it shouldn't have been! I've just made them public. Go to the playlist and select EP 5a from there and it should work now.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
Very interesting and thought provoking video my friend. My own idea of religion is just any belief in the supernatural realm for which evidence does not exist, but then i think thats more for the term faith than religion. Is this you narrating this video. Thanks bud.
01101100d 1 year ago
@01101100d Interesting, thats almost like the 'belief in supernatural power" of Marrett. I think the wupernatural aspect is important, otherwise you end up with Marxism etc as religions, and I think the supernatural is perhaps the strongest differentiation between religion and ideology.
And yes, they are my dulcet northern tones ;-)
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere Most definately, everytime i try to think of the concept, the word "supernatural" appears all the time, since that's what religions are based upon, then the supernatural itself is based on something for which no evidence exists. The problem is that religion cant have one defining term that stands true for all beliefs, it's a very complex system thats arisen in different ways for different reasons throughout many cultures. :-)
01101100d 1 year ago
This is very thought provoking. I must cogitate upon this before making a serious comment. Very good stuff here mrgodbehere.
macnutz 1 year ago
Religion: the filling in of knowledge gaps with the supernatural by the credulous, and the subsequent disproportionate, fanatical defense of said delusions by the same, despite a lack of evidence and/or an over-abundance of counter-evidence.
Or, to put it another way: People are DUMB.
BionicDance 1 year ago