What is religion?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6013
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What is religion?

Post by Consul »

h_k_s wrote: May 28th, 2019, 6:32 pmNote the word "belief" in both of your sentences.
Ergo it is a belief system either way you define it.
A nonbelief, an absence or lack of belief is not a belief.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Consul wrote: May 28th, 2019, 7:10 pm
h_k_s wrote: May 28th, 2019, 6:32 pmNote the word "belief" in both of your sentences.
Ergo it is a belief system either way you define it.
A nonbelief, an absence or lack of belief is not a belief.
And just to make this even clearer...if a doctor says you do not have a tumor, despite the fact that that sentence has the word tumor in it, you don't have a tumor.

If someone lacks a car, they don't have a car, even though the sentence had the word.

When it comes to beliefs, one can say: I do not believe X, and not necessarily believe that not X must be the case.

There are lots of things I do not believe are true, but which I don't assume are false. Heck, there are many things I don't even know some people believe are true. Maybe I could be convinced, maybe they could show me the film of it, after telling me about it. Who knows. But right now I lack a belief.

There are atheists who believe there is no God. They have a belief - though this still does not qualify as a belief system. But there are atheists who merely lack a belief.

an atheist can be of either type.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: What is religion?

Post by h_k_s »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: May 29th, 2019, 3:34 am
Consul wrote: May 28th, 2019, 7:10 pm

A nonbelief, an absence or lack of belief is not a belief.
And just to make this even clearer...if a doctor says you do not have a tumor, despite the fact that that sentence has the word tumor in it, you don't have a tumor.

If someone lacks a car, they don't have a car, even though the sentence had the word.

When it comes to beliefs, one can say: I do not believe X, and not necessarily believe that not X must be the case.

There are lots of things I do not believe are true, but which I don't assume are false. Heck, there are many things I don't even know some people believe are true. Maybe I could be convinced, maybe they could show me the film of it, after telling me about it. Who knows. But right now I lack a belief.

There are atheists who believe there is no God. They have a belief - though this still does not qualify as a belief system. But there are atheists who merely lack a belief.

an atheist can be of either type.
I have a good friend who is a neighbor and he is an avowed atheist.

He too argues that it is not a belief system.

I don't argue the point with him. He is too good of a friend to annoy.

But again, only agnosticism is a non-belief system. Because agnostics believe nothing either way.

Atheism is a personal belief that there is no God.

Q.E.D.
User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 1243
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: What is religion?

Post by h_k_s »

My aforementioned friend and neighbor explains that atheism is a spot on the theist/atheist spectrum.

At the far right are the theists (meaning they believe in a God who watches over them personally).

Just to the left of this are the deists (meaning they believe in a God who is distant and who after creating the Universe has stayed hidden, sort of like the Prime Directive in Star Trek, so as to avoid cultural contamination).

Just to the left of this are the agnostics (meaning they believe in nothing and further believe it is not possible to know either way if there is a God or not).

And to the far left are the atheists. They believe there is no God.

He explains how he progressed all the way from the far right to the far left in steps, one step at a time. He used to be a Protestant minister. Fascinating story.

In the history of philosophy, Bertrand Russell was the most famous atheist.

And currently, the British Empiricist, Roger Scruton, is a Deist. He has a chapter in his book "Modern Philosophy" on God. The contents are mostly taken directly from Aristotle.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7914
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by LuckyR »

A series of beliefs are not a belief system for the purposes of defining a religion. Everyone has a series of beliefs but not everyone's beliefs constitute belief in religion.

For example although it is possible to create a religion out of science, not everyone who believes in science is a subscriber to "the religion of science". Similarly, one could argue that some militant atheists have created a "religion of atheism", this would be a tiny fraction of all who don't believe in a cloud fairy.
"As usual... it depends."
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: What is religion?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

Scruffy Nerd Herder wrote,
Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.


I think what is missing from all that is a mention that the religious person we are considering might have an encounter with a god or gods. That is not a belief, but a type of religious perception. The person sees his god. Then of course there will probably be feelings associated with that encounter: trembling, a feeling of dread, joy, even mystical eroticism.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Posts: 36
Joined: November 29th, 2016, 3:51 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Scruffy Nerf Herder »

Consul wrote: May 28th, 2019, 4:16 pm
h_k_s wrote: May 28th, 2019, 4:02 pmAtheism embraces the belief that no god(s) exist(s). That is a belief system.
Positively defined, atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of deities (positive atheism/strong atheism/antitheism).

Negatively defined, atheism is the nonbelief in the existence of deities (negative atheism/weak atheism).
These are the definitions supplied by the New Atheism Movement and they are definitions that not only supplant the classical definitions, damaging the continuity of the philosophical discussion, but they render the term 'agnosticism' meaningless. See the definitions from post number three here for what philosophers around the time of the beginning of modern philosophy would have understood by the terms (under the standard understanding in the field that modern philosophy begins with Descartes and Kant):
The classical definitions which are precise and useful in helpful establish a good universe of discourse are as follows:

Atheism is the positive assertion that there is no deity or deities. Because you cannot prove a negative, normally arguments for this viewpoint work along the lines of describing reality, whether through empirical, rational, or combinational (some synthesis of the two main viewpoints on the source of knowledge) means, and try to establish that there is no deity by describing reality and pointing out that it is inconsistent with ideas we have about divinity.

Theism is the very opposite. It is the positive assertion that there is a deity or deities. Those who call themselves a theist but don't associate this term with positive arguments in favor of the proposition are doing themselves a disservice as this obfuscates a healthy understanding of the metaphysical and theological dialogues throughout history.

Agnosticism is a combination of two assertions. The first is that we have insufficient grounds to make a positive argument either way. The second is that given that state of affairs it is arguably most rational to suspend judgement.

Fideism, on the other hand, agrees with the first assertion of agnosticism, but proceeds to argue that it is most rational to err on the side of belief. Pascal's Wager is a commonly familiar example of an argument for Fideism worth mentioning here.
Now onto some more material in the thread:
Consul wrote: May 28th, 2019, 7:10 pm
h_k_s wrote: May 28th, 2019, 6:32 pmNote the word "belief" in both of your sentences.
Ergo it is a belief system either way you define it.
A nonbelief, an absence or lack of belief is not a belief.
This isn't exactly a helpful way to think of positions in philosophy. It'd be more accurate to say that each position has propositional content, that it has to involve some kind of positive argument as one cannot logically argue for a negative, than it would be to say that any of the propositions are or are not a belief. The point is that the interlocutors believe this or that argument is sound; ideally, discussions in philosophy just aren't the same as beliefs that people hold as the term 'belief' carries with it the connotation of dogmatism.
LuckyR wrote: June 1st, 2019, 4:29 pm A series of beliefs are not a belief system for the purposes of defining a religion. Everyone has a series of beliefs but not everyone's beliefs constitute belief in religion.

For example although it is possible to create a religion out of science, not everyone who believes in science is a subscriber to "the religion of science". Similarly, one could argue that some militant atheists have created a "religion of atheism", this would be a tiny fraction of all who don't believe in a cloud fairy.
Your distinctions here are helpful and appreciated. The problem with equating "beliefs about the issue of deity" with religion is that it falls short as a definition considering the profound and noteworthy similarities of religions that don't even bother to define or contemplate deity, that teach atheism, or ones that refer to a cosmic principle that can't be understood as anything like deity (I'm referring specifically to Taoism here); there are broader definitions that are possible which not only have more explanatory scope because they include this variety of options but they can have better explanatory power through trying to explain some current that ties together all of these groups. I opted for a definition that appeals to a sociological/anthropological understanding of religion in which group dynamics interact with the human tendency to have a powerful need to consider various metaphysical and ethical questions.

Out of the examples of kinds of definitions that I supplied, my intention was to try for a descriptive definition. Here are the definition types again:
*A real definition is the kind of definition that attempts to describe some concrete thing for what it is. These kinds of definitions can be quite elusive and often an exercise in futility (a real definition isn't useful in the case of this thread) because there are so many subjects that can't be broken down into concrete and tangible terms, e.g. "what is virtue".

By contrast where they really are put to good use is when everyone in a discussion is agreeing that "yes, that is a bar of gold".

*A dictionary definition is concerned with one or more primary ways in which a word is used in the common vernacular. Slang terms don't often end up in a dictionary because they simply aren't prevalent enough to have a reasonable possibility of being present in conversation virtually everywhere a language is in use.

*A stipulative definition is the most context dependent kind of definition as it is a hypothetical meaning being given for a word in order to illustrate something only within that particular discussion. Such a definition is often offered along these lines: "let's assume for the sake of discussion that all dogs are red, now if all dogs were red..."

*A descriptive definition is what it sounds like. It is any definition which is chiefly concerned with giving an adequate description of something.

Let's say we needed a definition for George Washington. A definition such as "George Washington was an American president" would be quite unfit for a discussion in which one participant was asking who George Washington was. There have been numerous American presidents over the span of several lifetimes.

What a perfectly descriptive definition needs is to be both extensional and intensional. For it to be extensional means that there must be no actual counterexamples, and for it to be intensional means that there must be no possible counterexamples either. Only certain things are capable of possessing a perfectly descriptive definition because having an intensional definition can turn out to be an astringent requirement.
I sympathize with Consul's quotations from Eric Sharpe and William Alston and what he shared serves to highlight why I wasn't concerned with providing a real definition or a dictionary definition. On the one hand it hardly makes any sense to think of a real definition for religion and on the other hand a dictionary definition would be practically without substance, it doesn't help us to understand anything, hence the attempt at a descriptive definition.
GaryLouisSmith wrote: June 2nd, 2019, 3:02 am Scruffy Nerd Herder wrote,
Given that, a religion is a social phenomenon in which:

-There are multiple adherents who gather together for the express purpose of sharing in the religion.
-There are standard, accepted texts, which define the beliefs which adherents subscribe to. Within a religion there may not be unanimity on how to understand the texts, and what all are the accepted and possibly rejected texts, but this is enough of a universal phenomenon to warrant inclusion as a criterion.
-The beliefs associated with a religion must encompass enough general philosophical questions, mostly of the metaphysical and especially the ethical variety, to constitute an overall worldview.


I think what is missing from all that is a mention that the religious person we are considering might have an encounter with a god or gods. That is not a belief, but a type of religious perception. The person sees his god. Then of course there will probably be feelings associated with that encounter: trembling, a feeling of dread, joy, even mystical eroticism.
What of religions that aren't concerned with spiritually encountering deity or ones that don't even believe there is one in the first place? E.g. Buddhism, Carvaka Hinduism, Confucianism, Laveyan Satanism, and so on.
GaryLouisSmith
Posts: 1135
Joined: June 2nd, 2019, 2:30 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gustav Bergmann
Location: Kathmandu, Nepal
Contact:

Re: What is religion?

Post by GaryLouisSmith »

It seems to me that a religion without a god or gods is not a religion. I know that in the West, Buddhism and Hinduism and other “Eastern” religions have been secularized and stripped of their gods. It seems to me that they are not real religions, but some sort of mental manipulation for the sake of achieving a desired mental state. Here in Kathmandu, Nepal, I am right now surrounded by Buddhist monasteries, which I often visit. They are all full of images of gods, of which there are many.

That said, if Westerners want to think of their secularized “religions” as religions, I don’t care. Perhaps you are looking for a definition of religion that incorporates all of those theistic and non-theistic forms. And you are looking for a sociological definition? You are looking, maybe, for the outward, worldly appearance of religion. So be it. But it seems strange to me. I think most people here would be like me and wonder what the point is, if the heart of religion is to be ignored.
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 948
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Karpel Tunnel »

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote: June 3rd, 2019, 1:59 am These are the definitions supplied by the New Atheism Movement and they are definitions that not only supplant the classical definitions, damaging the continuity of the philosophical discussion, but they render the term 'agnosticism' meaningless.
1) first if this was true, we still have people who fit the definitions Consul listed. 2) I don't think you are correct re: agnostiicsm. Agnosticism is an epistemological position. It is belief about humans inability to know if there is a god or not (and often any other transcendent entity). Thus one can even be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

If we actually go back to the origins in the west, one could even be a theist and be accused of atheism....
In Western classical Antiquity, theism was the fundamental belief that supported the legitimacy of the state (the polis, later the Roman Empire). Historically, any person who did not believe in any deity supported by the state was fair game to accusations of atheism, a capital crime.
Here is it CLEARLY a lack. ONe who did not support the specific gods of the state.


Now onto some more material in the thread:
Consul wrote: May 28th, 2019, 7:10 pm

A nonbelief, an absence or lack of belief is not a belief.
This isn't exactly a helpful way to think of positions in philosophy. It'd be more accurate to say that each position has propositional content,
This is assuming that atheism is a position, when its origins were a classification of the person. Postions in philosophy are not classifications of people - though people are sometimes also referred to by their positions as a way to classify them.

A position is generally a conclusion or belief which one has reached and in philosophy argued for. Labeling oneself an atheist or a theist is not a position. Obviously one can do both and one can mix up the two acts in all sorts of fuzzy ways.

that it has to involve some kind of positive argument as one cannot logically argue for a negative
1) then you cannot logically argue for what you just asserted here, it being a negative.
2) Of course you can argue for a negative. If we are talking about arguments in relation to the non-existence of something, one cannot prove that something does not exist, especially something transcendent, but then proofs are the realm of math and symbolic logic. Once can certainly mount arguments and logical ones arguing against the existence of, say, bigfoot, the continued existence of large living dinosaurs. Perhaps somewhere on the earth in some remote region one still exists and has managed not to be seen. So perfect certainty could be ruled out. But one can argue against the existence and logically. And in this way support a belief that large dinosaurs no longer live and more free on the earth.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Posts: 36
Joined: November 29th, 2016, 3:51 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Scruffy Nerf Herder »

Karpel Tunnel wrote: June 3rd, 2019, 6:10 am1) first if this was true, we still have people who fit the definitions Consul listed.
See the extensive explanations I provided for what makes a useful definition. In this case continuity is a big deal as I'll be delving into further in this post.
2) I don't think you are correct re: agnostiicsm. Agnosticism is an epistemological position. It is belief about humans inability to know if there is a god or not (and often any other transcendent entity). Thus one can even be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
As is often the case with such terms there are a variety of uses and yes it isn't too atypical for a philosopher to say "I'm agnostic on this subject" or "I'm an atheist on the subject" without even specifically referring to theological questions in metaphysics because it can be used in an epistemological sense. However, sense the advent of modern philosophy there have been standardized definitions; in fact Kant's glossaries of technical terms still hold true for the most part today.

This is why I mention continuity. Standardized definitions are important for philosophers understanding each other when writing on such technical subjects in this era, I'm not supplying anything idiosyncratic or reinventing the wheel here in any way. The New Atheism Movement really has been coming up with harmful innovations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

If we actually go back to the origins in the west, one could even be a theist and be accused of atheism....
The site policy on Wikipedia and Google can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5834

The long and the short of it is that Wikipedia hasn't been deemed a reputable source. Given that I'll be supplying a source here that is unquestionably reputable and quoting an excerpt from it that helps to establish the very points I've been making, and will try to explain further: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/athe ... /#DefiAthe
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.

While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy. For example, many writers at least implicitly identify atheism with a positive metaphysical theory like naturalism or even materialism. Given this sense of the word, the meaning of “atheism” is not straightforwardly derived from the meaning of “theism”. While this might seem etymologically bizarre, perhaps a case can be made for the claim that something like (metaphysical) naturalism was originally labeled “atheism” only because of the cultural dominance of non-naturalist forms of theism, not because the view being labeled was nothing more than the denial of theism. On this view, there would have been atheists even if no theists ever existed—they just wouldn’t have been called “atheists”. (Baggini [2003] suggests this line of thought, though his “official” definition is the standard metaphysical one.) Although this definition of “atheism” is a legitimate one, it is often accompanied by fallacious inferences from the (alleged) falsity or probable falsity of atheism (= naturalism) to the truth or probable truth of theism.

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.
Notice how philosophers such as Antony Flew are "departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy", that there is indeed a standard accepted definition and it is the same that I provided.
This is assuming that atheism is a position, when its origins were a classification of the person. Postions in philosophy are not classifications of people - though people are sometimes also referred to by their positions as a way to classify them.

A position is generally a conclusion or belief which one has reached and in philosophy argued for. Labeling oneself an atheist or a theist is not a position. Obviously one can do both and one can mix up the two acts in all sorts of fuzzy ways.
I'm afraid I'm a bit confused here as you talk as if you're disagreeing but you do appear to be in agreement here with atheism being a position and not a classification. Positions have propositional content and classifications don't.
1) then you cannot logically argue for what you just asserted here, it being a negative.
I can't even start to make sense of this because you quoted nothing but a snippet of a sentence clause and the relationship between what you're saying here and that clause isn't clear.
2) Of course you can argue for a negative. If we are talking about arguments in relation to the non-existence of something, one cannot prove that something does not exist, especially something transcendent, but then proofs are the realm of math and symbolic logic. Once can certainly mount arguments and logical ones arguing against the existence of, say, bigfoot, the continued existence of large living dinosaurs. Perhaps somewhere on the earth in some remote region one still exists and has managed not to be seen. So perfect certainty could be ruled out. But one can argue against the existence and logically. And in this way support a belief that large dinosaurs no longer live and more free on the earth.
I established this much when I originally supplied the definition for atheism. We're in no disagreement here except your line of thinking that such arguments must be negative. Those arguments that one can make against something's existence and do so logically in the process are arguments that start by making positive assertions about reality, then defining the thing in question and pointing out that it is inconsistent with those positive assertions.

Here is an example: "God designed life." A typical atheist rebuttal: "Organisms have evolved characteristics that are actually detrimental; this is more indicative of a seemingly random process mostly repeating patterns that work out while retaining detrimental characteristics if they aren't detrimental enough to hinder reproduction and survival, than it is indicative of a creator designing things." There are no negations in that atheist rebuttal.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Since a theist can exist without a religion, atheism can too.
In very small measure you can make a religion out of atheism, but I don't know of many clear examples.
Since atheism is most often a rejection of all religion as well as the concept of god, its a clear breach of common sense to make a religion out of it.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Posts: 36
Joined: November 29th, 2016, 3:51 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Scruffy Nerf Herder »

h_k_s wrote: May 28th, 2019, 4:02 pm
Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote: May 27th, 2019, 11:15 pm
h_k_s wrote: May 27th, 2019, 7:33 pmAtheism is indeed a belief system. If you want to be purely scientific then you need to become agnostic instead of atheist.

But you also need to be careful not to let science become your religion.

You either have religion or you don't.

You must be critical and suspicious of science because scientists must be critical and suspicious themselves.

Only pure philosophy can give you assurance of what you know and what you cannot know, but only if you have not polluted your own philosophy with Sophism.
-I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't strictly agree with the idea that atheism is a belief system. I say that because in order for something to be a belief system or worldview it must encompass multiple propositions within metaphysics and/or ethics.

Atheism is a proposition in philosophy of theology or metaphysics, however you want to look at it, that forwards the claim that there is no deity or deities. This can't be considered a belief system or worldview as it is only one position taken on one particular question. While atheism is taken to mean a lot of different things in this day and age, especially because of the New Atheism Movement, to the point that there is talk of "soft atheism" and "hard atheism", this is problematic because it does damage to the continuity of the discussion and it is bastardizing language that will make it difficult for this and future generations to understand a lot of the academic dialogue throughout history over theology and metaphysics.

The classical definitions which are precise and useful in helpful establish a good universe of discourse are as follows:

Atheism is the positive assertion that there is no deity or deities. Because you cannot prove a negative, normally arguments for this viewpoint work along the lines of describing reality, whether through empirical, rational, or combinational (some synthesis of the two main viewpoints on the source of knowledge) means, and try to establish that there is no deity by describing reality and pointing out that it is inconsistent with ideas we have about divinity.

Theism is the very opposite. It is the positive assertion that there is a deity or deities. Those who call themselves a theist but don't associate this term with positive arguments in favor of the proposition are doing themselves a disservice as this obfuscates a healthy understanding of the metaphysical and theological dialogues throughout history.

Agnosticism is a combination of two assertions. The first is that we have insufficient grounds to make a positive argument either way. The second is that given that state of affairs it is arguably most rational to suspend judgement.

Fideism, on the other hand, agrees with the first assertion of agnosticism, but proceeds to argue that it is most rational to err on the side of belief. Pascal's Wager is a commonly familiar example of an argument for Fideism worth mentioning here.

-Science by its very nature isn't a religion. Religions can be oriented around science, but if religion is to be understood as a sociological phenomenon with the definition that I proffered in the OP, the two spheres are not fully mutually exclusive but exclusive enough that it would be a particular understanding of science coupled with other metaphysical and ethical propositions.

If science can be understood as anything in particular it is a specific sphere of questions within epistemology and metaphysics. Throughout history, Rationalism and Empiricism have at times been ascendant or intermingled in the study of science, but clearly both have always held sway. Even in Aristotle, the mind credited as the father of Empiricism, we see concepts that aren't strictly empirical (such as syllogisms and hylomorphisms) being used to help describe the natural world.

But I digress, my real point is here that there isn't enough general meat on the bones for there to be a religion organized purely around describing the natural world without recourse to discussion concerning ethics. A religion has to be general enough to evolve the social elements that make one organized.

-What is pure philosophy? Why is it necessary to agree that the Sophists were wrong? E.g. what of postmodernism and subjectivism? Isn't it only customary to dismiss Sophism out of hand because of history's great love for Socrates and Plato?
Atheism embraces the belief that no god(s) exist(s). That is a belief system.
You're conflating a belief with a belief system. One belief does not make a system. Believing that there is no such thing as deity does not instantly mean you believe certain things regarding other questions e.g. "do humans have rights", "why do we exist", "is ethics a real thing and if it is indeed real what should we tink about ethics", etc.

Merely being an atheist is not enough to build a full metaphysical and ethical picture. That is what a religion does, it builds a general picture for the adherent telling them how things are.

A Tibetan Buddhist doesn't merely believe there is no god or gods, he believes that reality as we perceive it is maya/illusion, that language is empty, that there is no self, that disabusing ourselves not only of belief in those notions but attachment to them is enough to liberate us from the suffering that comes with existence. He is following a religion. Somehow who just says "I am an atheist" is not.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Posts: 36
Joined: November 29th, 2016, 3:51 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Scruffy Nerf Herder »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 3rd, 2019, 7:57 am Since a theist can exist without a religion, atheism can too.
In very small measure you can make a religion out of atheism, but I don't know of many clear examples.
Since atheism is most often a rejection of all religion as well as the concept of god, its a clear breach of common sense to make a religion out of it.
Carvaka Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other atheist sects of Buddhism, Laveyan Satanism, religious worship of a secular government (e.g. the phenomenon of Stalinism), those are just a few examples of religion being practiced by atheists.

Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions. E.g. quite a lot of the world is Buddhist and quite a lot of those Buddhists belong to sects which are atheist. They do not share in your notion that atheism means rejection of religion.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 8:20 am
Sculptor1 wrote: June 3rd, 2019, 7:57 am Since a theist can exist without a religion, atheism can too.
In very small measure you can make a religion out of atheism, but I don't know of many clear examples.
Since atheism is most often a rejection of all religion as well as the concept of god, its a clear breach of common sense to make a religion out of it.
Carvaka Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other atheist sects of Buddhism, Laveyan Satanism, religious worship of a secular government (e.g. the phenomenon of Stalinism), those are just a few examples of religion being practiced by atheists.
The people that follow those might also be dog lovers, or haters of worms. But they are not relevant, neither is atheism. People do not follow Stalin BECAUSE they are atheists.
The Charvaka are nor concerned with rejecting god. That is not the point of their religion in any sense.

Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions. E.g. quite a lot of the world is Buddhist and quite a lot of those Buddhists belong to sects which are atheist. They do not share in your notion that atheism means rejection of religion.
Flaming is not allowed in the Forum.
Last edited by Sculptor1 on June 22nd, 2021, 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Scruffy Nerf Herder
Posts: 36
Joined: November 29th, 2016, 3:51 am

Re: What is religion?

Post by Scruffy Nerf Herder »

Sculptor1 wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 10:48 am
Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 8:20 am
Sculptor1 wrote: June 3rd, 2019, 7:57 am Since a theist can exist without a religion, atheism can too.
In very small measure you can make a religion out of atheism, but I don't know of many clear examples.
Since atheism is most often a rejection of all religion as well as the concept of god, its a clear breach of common sense to make a religion out of it.
Carvaka Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism and other atheist sects of Buddhism, Laveyan Satanism, religious worship of a secular government (e.g. the phenomenon of Stalinism), those are just a few examples of religion being practiced by atheists.
The people that follow those might also be dog lovers, or haters of worms. But they are not relevant, neither is atheism. People do not follow Stalin BECAUSE they are atheists.
The Charvaka are nor concerned with rejecting god. That is not the point of their religion in any sense.

Your idea that it's a clear breach of common sense is potentially demonstrating that you may have too traditional and Eurocentric of a perspective to be familiar enough with the not insignificant number of atheist religions. E.g. quite a lot of the world is Buddhist and quite a lot of those Buddhists belong to sects which are atheist. They do not share in your notion that atheism means rejection of religion.
Flaming is not allowed in the Forum.
-I'm not sure I understand what criticism you're trying to level when you say that atheism isn't the central point of those religions. It doesn't have to be in order for them to be atheists.

-I did my best to make it quite unambiguous that it wasn't my intention to throw an ad hom at you. Not sure why you're potentially accusing me of flaming when I did make a respectable effort at being polite as I could be?

Is it flaming just using the expression Eurocentrism at all?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021