What is the meaning of religion

[Steve3007]

Atreyu (with word added in square brackets for context):

I believe it [consciousness] has always existed. The "beginning", if there was one, was when it existed, or at least when it became active. For us, where it "comes from", can be understood by understanding that consciousness can only be acquired as a result of the help and guidance from an already existing consciousness. Consciousness cannot arise in a vacuum. If nothing is conscious, then there is no substrate from which it could arise.

This would suggest that you wouldn't rule out the creation of artificial consciousness by a conscious agent like a human being? The only thing you seem to rule out for sure is the spontaneous emergence of consciousness. So, much like Ranvier's "conservation of of purpose" law, you postulate a kind of "conservation of consciousness" law. I can't really argue against that because it's simply an assertion of something that you believe to be true. The only thing I would point out is that other conservation laws (such as "conservation of energy") are arrived at by Inductive generalization from specific cases. i.e. they stand or fall by our ability to verify or falsify them.

The evidence available so far seems to me to falsify "conservation of consciousness". i.e. the only place in the universe where we know consciousness to exist is the surface of the planet Earth. And we have a lot of evidence that at some point in the past the surface of the Earth did not exist. You've said in the past that life (and therefore consciousness?) could have been carried here on asteroids/meteors/whatever. I've pointed out that those objects also didn't exist at some point in the past.

[Alias]

Civilization is built around these "silly tales about unconvincing deities and their ridiculous demands."

And here I thought civilizations were built around natural harbours and defensibe hill-tops.
The stories are made to keep the population quiescent, productive and obedient. That's why the stories change with changes in governance; the laws change with the needs of leaders for more or less self-sacrifice on the part of the workers; more or less aggressive armies, more or less surplus females; with industrial and economic conditions.

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values.

Rationalism doesn't assume anything. Rational people - anthropologists, etc. - follow the evidence they can find wherever it leads.

Rather, religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs.

Where is this sequence to be found? For example, where are the examples of a people (presumably verbal; preferable literate or at least pictograte) with no values, holding a referendum and deciding collectively to spot and chase down a set of values? And what does "there formulates" mean, exactly? Are values self-generating? Do they self-form on demand, or spontaneously? In nascent civilizations, or in the wild, and civilization then coalesces around them? Or was it single individuals, like Confucius, Aaron and Muhammad? If the latter, what rock did they grow up under, to come up to adulthood 1. value-less 2. aware that a system of values was needed and 3. informed enough to formulate one?

Back in the day, people were much more aware of their inner life than people today for the simple reason that there wasn't much to distract them.

Which "day" was that? 1850 in the mines and tenements? 1500 in the fields and galleys? 4000BC on pyramid detail? Surely not so far back as 10,000 BC, when life took quite a lot of effort to sustain and not-so-primitives buried their dead with cherished possessions and talismans...

Felt values were as real or even more real than the material world: they actually meant something.

What makes you think so? Flea-bites probably itched just as much; certainly, the wounds and fractures are evident even on the oldest fossil bones; and people today seem to need a manurewagon-load of substances, organic and synthetic, as well as rituals, gurus, self-help books and visualizing pep-talks to cope with their distracted material reality

"May you live in interesting times" is an ancient Chinese curse, not a blessing, for this very reason.

They meant peasant uprising, wars, tornadoes financial crises, instability.[/quote]

Interesting times distract us from what really matter: spiritual progress.

Which is measured in what units? How do you tell another person, or a society, is making any?
Is it like America's current long torchlight-and-assault-rifle parade to the middle ages?

[Count Lucanor]

Watts summed up the situation very well using a logic anyone can follow,

We can follow that logic to the cliff where it runs to and witness its failure, although it's quite boring to see that show again. I mean, the cosmological argument at this time?

...but the success of material science has led many people to the illogical, if not irrational, conclusion that matter is all there is or, if not all, at least the bottom line.

But I'm pretty sure we cannot talk about the success of "spiritual science", can we?

But religion's pursuit of values is a whole other dimension of life. It is therefore called by its critics a delusion, memes, a “parasite,” an opiate, irrational, intolerant, dogmatic, an intrusion on other people's lives and other such nonsense while ignoring (as did Marx) the fact that universities, hospitals, art, music, dance, modern science and even the values that lead critics to excoriate religion has historical ties to the religious impulse in is man.

It's not religion's pursuit of values, but man's pursuits shaping his values according to his concrete conditions of existence, which can take the form of religion. These institutions are not tied to the religious impulse; in fact, religiosity is another institution of which we can find the origin in social life, which is determined by the material conditions of existence.

[Alias]

The familiar old ancient Greek legends and poems, for example, could be regarded as simply a bunch of silly tales. But they have served as a deep source of metaphor for thousands of years.

Only, those are quite modern, anthropology-wise. They're observations of human psychology, rather than metaphysics: the very gods themselves, and their relationships, are embodiments of human attributes and relations. If values reflect Greek city-state political arrangements, rather than absolute or universal spiritual aspirations.

-- Updated October 1st, 2017, 10:33 am to add the following --

I meant: If [it encompasses a system of] values, these reflect, etc. (my cut-and-paste is hit-and-miss)

[Dark Matter]

But religion's pursuit of values is a whole other dimension of life. It is therefore called by its critics a delusion, memes, a “parasite,” an opiate, irrational, intolerant, dogmatic, an intrusion on other people's lives and other such nonsense while ignoring (as did Marx) the fact that universities, hospitals, art, music, dance, modern science and even the values that lead critics to excoriate religion has historical ties to the religious impulse in is man.

It's not religion's pursuit of values, but man's pursuits shaping his values according to his concrete conditions of existence, which can take the form of religion. These institutions are not tied to the religious impulse; in fact, religiosity is another institution of which we can find the origin in social life, which is determined by the material conditions of existence.

What you're saying is that necessity drove men together, religion kept them together.

[Count Lucanor]

(Nested quote removed.)

It's not religion's pursuit of values, but man's pursuits shaping his values according to his concrete conditions of existence, which can take the form of religion. These institutions are not tied to the religious impulse; in fact, religiosity is another institution of which we can find the origin in social life, which is determined by the material conditions of existence.

What you're saying is that necessity drove men together, religion kept them together.

As an illusory comfort, an escape (in fantasy) from the valley of tears. The issue then is to replace that illusion with a real solution to men's problems.

[Dark Matter]

Here in an interesting article that directly relates to the OP:

Mathematics and the Religious Impulse

-- Updated October 1st, 2017, 3:12 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

What you're saying is that necessity drove men together, religion kept them together.

As an illusory comfort, an escape (in fantasy) from the valley of tears. The issue then is to replace that illusion with a real solution to men's problems.

Hence the religious impulse. Look, no one is denying the evolutionary origin of religion, at least I'm not, but as religion evolved it aquired the ability and indeed the drive to look into the abyss from where the music comes (read the article). Remember, too, that for the first modern scientists like Galileo and Newton, mathematics was a way of communion with the mind of God.

I've encountered several here who, when looking into the abyss, are quite satisfied with "I don't know." They don't understand the qualitative difference between "I don't know" and not-knowing. The former is proud that it finds comfort in ignorance; the latter listens to the music from the abyss and gives it his or her unique conceptual interpretation.

[Alias]

I've encountered several here who, when looking into the abyss, are quite satisfied with "I don't know." They don't understand the qualitative difference between "I don't know" and not-knowing.

Always happy to be informed my own state of mind by someone I've never met.

The former is proud that it finds comfort in ignorance;

Or simply admits an obvious fact: a so-far inescapable dearth of reliable information.

the latter listens to the music from the abyss and gives it his or her unique conceptual interpretation.

Makes **** up to cover that same ignorance. But the **** they make is often musically fulfilling - that much is true.
(Other times, it requires the suffering and death of many humans and other species.
An honest, patient collection of data requires some little discomfort and hardly any sacrifice, but is short on operatic potential.)
Nobody wants to take away your personal divine revelation. Just don't foist it on others.

[Dark Matter]

It is exceedingly odd that while critics of religion accept and even demand that evolution be credited with the way things are, they are unwilling to accept that religion, too, evolves. That is, they believe that what motivated troglodytes towards religion still motivates of modern man.

If the issue is to replace that illusion with a real solution to men's problems," we should take note that "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

-- Updated October 1st, 2017, 3:58 pm to add the following --

I've encountered several here who, when looking into the abyss, are quite satisfied with "I don't know." They don't understand the qualitative difference between "I don't know" and not-knowing.

Always happy to be informed my own state of mind by someone I've never met.

The former is proud that it finds comfort in ignorance;

Or simply admits an obvious fact: a so-far inescapable dearth of reliable information.

the latter listens to the music from the abyss and gives it his or her unique conceptual interpretation.

Makes **** up to cover that same ignorance. But the **** they make is often musically fulfilling - that much is true.
(Other times, it requires the suffering and death of many humans and other species.
An honest, patient collection of data requires some little discomfort and hardly any sacrifice, but is short on operatic potential.)
Nobody wants to take away your personal divine revelation. Just don't foist it on others.

Steve: remember what I said about religion being called by its critics a delusion, memes, a “parasite,” an opiate, irrational, intolerant, dogmatic, an intrusion on other people's lives? It's like something what I said hit a raw nerve.

[Alias]

It is exceedingly odd that while critics of religion accept and even demand that evolution be credited with the way things are, they are unwilling to accept that religion, too, evolves. That is, they believe that what motivated troglodytes towards religion still motivates of modern man.

I'm not sure to what critics you refer, but as you quote me below, I'll take it as including myself.
In fact, I have never demanded any 'credit' for evolution, though I accept its to-date condition as a viable and credible body of scientific work.
Nor have I so much criticized religions as critiqued them: described how they operate, and what functions they serve, in differently structured societies.

If the issue is to replace that illusion with a real solution to men's problems," we should take note that "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

That's valid. So, toss the bibles and puranas, as well as Clausewitz, The Prince and neoclassical economic growth theory and pick up a how to install a solar array manual or vegetarian cookbook.

[Steve3007]

Dark Matter:

Steve: remember what I said about religion being called by its critics a delusion, memes, a “parasite,” an opiate, irrational, intolerant, dogmatic, an intrusion on other people's lives? It's like something what I said hit a raw nerve.

You said that religion is called those things "because it pursues values". That was the part I was surprised about. I'm surprised that anybody would find fault with another simply for pursuing, or having, values.

But, let's be honest, people don't say those things about religion because it pursues values. They have other things in mind.

In the USA they have "In God We Trust" written on the bank notes. They have presidents who regularly remind the populace that worshiping God is the American way. People who don't explicitly state their belief in God (or "a higher power") are barred from public office. Religions are given tax breaks. etc.

I think it's probably specific things like these (specific issues about a specific religion in a specific country), that non-religious people are probably thinking about when they complain about intrusion into other people's lives and so on. And when the very small minority of non-religious people who complain about this environment speak up, and some people denounce them for constantly attacking religion, I can see why they'd be a bit exasperated at the lack of even-handedness.

As I've often said: it takes all sorts to make a world. I personally have no religious convictions but am perfectly happy to keep quiet about that when travelling in countries where almost everyone does and where adherence to the predominant religion of that country is necessary for anyone who wants to do anything in public life. But I can certainly see why someone who lived in such a place, and who didn't have any religious convictions, might want to exercise their right to free speech and gripe about it every now and then.

[Dark Matter]

Why should it surprise you? Comments like "Just don't foist it on others" is a defensive stance against values, not beliefs. It raises the question why the only ones who interpret religious beliefs to be truth-statements are critics and fundamentalists.

[Alias]

Or they might even object to the treatment of one religious group by another religious group, just on the grounds of fairness.
Which is a non-religious value.

-- Updated October 1st, 2017, 5:04 pm to add the following --

Why should it surprise you? Comments like "Just don't foist it on others" is a defensive stance against values, not beliefs.

Nope. It's a defensive stance against intrusion in one's private life by dictating "secular" laws regarding marriage, public education and medical treatment.
And crusades and jihads - not a fan of either, me.

[Dark Matter]

Why should it surprise you? Comments like "Just don't foist it on others" is a defensive stance against values, not beliefs.

Nope. It's a defensive stance against intrusion in one's private life by dictating "secular" laws regarding marriage, public education and medical treatment.

Societies need some kind of structure in order to function. The statement, “Every impulse of every electron, thought, or spirit is an acting unit in the whole universe” is reasonable in terms of both religion and mathematics. On the other hand, statements like "Just don't foist it on others" speaks of a deep-seated fear of having to answer to a higher authority, power, or reality. It's a way of saying “I don't want to listen to anyone, much less the music coming from the abyss because I believe what's good for me (or my group) is good for the world and the universe.”

"Only sin is isolated and evil gravity resisting on the mental and spiritual levels. The universe is a whole; no thing or being exists or lives in isolation."

[Count Lucanor]

Here in an interesting article that directly relates to the OP:

Mathematics and the Religious Impulse

I don't know, maybe I'm getting old, but when will someone come up with some new, original argument for theism that has not been tried before? This is just a cheap remake of the ad ignorantiam fallacy (if you can't prove that something does not exist, therefore it must exist) and using the limits of inductive knowledge to shift the burden of proof. Note the tricky words that the author employs before delivering his failed analogy:

"why so many of us are driven to embrace realities that go beyond what science can establish with clarity."

Wait a minute, what "realities"? If they have not been established as truths, how can they be a priori deemed as realities? What he is really saying is that he feels justified (by the ad ignorantiam fallacy) to believe some stuff that he thinks is in a safe space, free and unharmed from scientific and philosophical inquiries. In other words, what he means to say is:

"why so many of us are driven to embrace fantasies that go beyond what science can establish with clarity."

Yeah sure, people can embrace any belief that they want, whether is Zeus or the Moon Goddess. That they are real is something else.

Hence the religious impulse. Look, no one is denying the evolutionary origin of religion,

If so, I can happily volunteer!!!

at least I'm not, but as religion evolved it aquired the ability and indeed the drive to look into the abyss from where the music comes (read the article). Remember, too, that for the first modern scientists like Galileo and Newton, mathematics was a way of communion with the mind of God.

From an epistemological point of view, we may acknowledge an abyss of the unknown. It's epistemic, abstract, not a real place in ontological terms, so nothing will be coming out of it. As for an ontological abyss, one of time and space, if something had been coming out of it (the music) we would have noticed. And if we had noticed something we can't describe, it still would be part of the continuum of time and space, in other words, within the boundaries of the material world, the only music we have listened so far.

I've encountered several here who, when looking into the abyss, are quite satisfied with "I don't know." They don't understand the qualitative difference between "I don't know" and not-knowing. The former is proud that it finds comfort in ignorance; the latter listens to the music from the abyss and gives it his or her unique conceptual interpretation.

One either knows or doesn't know. What theists do is disguise their blind beliefs as knowledge.