Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

religion

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
871 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Jan 29, 2008

The definition of religion as a system of doctrines, ethics, rituals, myths, and symbols for the expression of ultimate relevance. Why we don't say "faith" or "belief."

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 4 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (headlessprofessor)

  • 1. Not "ethics" (autonomos) but "morals" (heteronomos).

    2. Redefining belief to signify "knowledge" (fact) or "model" (theory), isn't this misleading?

    please comment.

  • Misleading in what way? I see it as an advance of clarity.

Video Responses

This video is a response to Atheism and the Null Hypothesis
see all

All Comments (11)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • myths are sometimes believed

    that's what fundamentalist usually do

  • I mean, a clear distinction can be made, equating them increases ambiguity (not misleading, I correct myself).

    I'm much more interested in the distinction between ethic and moral.

    Thanks for the answer

  • If you, after seeing this video, you are still using words like "belief" and "prove" and "truth" to describe religion, you did not understand the video. The purpose of this video is not to convert atheists, but simply to describe what religion is, and get it out of the rhetoric that both proselytizers and atheists are stuck in.

  • So what you are trying to say is that you're revering a symbol without believing it? This video completely contradicts itself. I can't even use scientific terms to describe how incredibly blind this video is. What you are saying is that deities are to be accepted and not doubted. So in other words, you are making excuses for having no scientific evidence whatsoever to prove this. Main Idea: I don't plan to accept something if I haven't any facts to prove that it is true.

  • Human beings put the pen to the paper, whether or not one accepts that God is responsible for the words of the Quran or Bible is a matter of doctrine.

    What is most obvious to me is that scripture requires human interpretation. I am less worries about what books someone accepts as scripture, and more worried about how someone interprets that scripture.

  • In the case of the 9/11 hijackers, it WAS vindicated in a larger community--the entire countries they were from!

    This is why falsification is better than vindication, as Wason's Task clearly shows.

  • What happened on 9/11, and at Waco, and at Jonestown, represents what happens when people form an abusive cult instead of trying to vindicate their ethics in a dialog with the larger community.

  • Haven't seen this approach before, thanks for your insight =)

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more