A Defense of Religion [W:331 & 426]

[Angel]

A Defense of Religion

This thread is dedicated to the PHILOSOPHICAL defense of religion.

Not this religion or that religion, but religion in the general sense --
the religious attitude, if you will -- the religious impulse, the religious experience.

This thread is not about organized religion.

It is not about Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism, or any of the
other major religions of the world.

This thread is about what was in Man's heart and head twenty thousand years before the major religions were organized.

This thread is about that original connection to the world that recognizes and acknowledges the world's spiritual provenance.

***

I aim to show that religion, in the sense just adumbrated, is a profoundly rational response to the mysteries surrounding human life on earth.

Indeed, that it is the only truly rational response to life.

To fall short of a religious experience of life is to fall short of rationality.

Because the religious experience begins where all experience begins: CONSCIOUSNESS.

Mind, spirit, soul, psyche -- these are the familiar names of the nuances of consciousness as they have come down to us across the ages.

Let us begin with two self-evident truths:

CONSCIOUSNESS IS IMMATERIAL

REALITY IS CONSCIOUSNESS OF REALITY

***


"Skeptics, on guard!"​

 

[HonestJoe]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

I’m not sure what you’re describing is really a defence of religion as it’s commonly understood. I don’t see why the concepts you’re talking about couldn’t be acknowledged and experienced without needing any kind of religious elements at all. I’d suggest that the word “religion” carries too much social baggage today and no amount of trying to exclude that is going to prevent it influencing the discussion. You might be better off not using the term at all and just working from first principles.

 

[William Rea]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Demonstrate that a soul, spirit or psyche exists independent of anything material. Where is your spirit substance?

 

[RoccoR]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

RE: A Defense of Religion
※→ Angel, HonestJoe, William Rea, et al,

I understand the question is: → Why is their a religion, rather than not?

Religion is NOT a matter of "evidentialism." It is faith-based in the hope that their is something more to existence (why are we here → is there anything more). → First you are born, then you die; that's it → סוף. IF that belief "helps" people get through the day and to be a solid citizens; compassionate when necessary, and always productive ∴ THEN religion has a benefit. IF following a religion to such a degree that it is imposed upon the general population, becoming compulsory ∴ THEN the religion is counterproductive. The maintenance of a secular state is paramount.

]→ Summary

A steadily growing body of evidence from the social sciences demonstrates that regular religious practice benefits individuals, families, and communities, and thus the nation as a whole. Policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels should therefore encourage an environment in which religious institutions and organizations can thrive and citizens can actively practice their faith.

• Recognition of Religion and the exploitation of it's capabilities to is not the same thing as encouraging a religion or compulsory participation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[devildavid]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

RE: A Defense of Religion
※→ Angel, HonestJoe, William Rea, et al,

I understand the question is: → Why is their a religion, rather than not?

Religion is NOT a matter of "evidentialism." It is faith-based in the hope that their is something more to existence (why are we here → is there anything more). → First you are born, then you die; that's it → סוף. IF that belief "helps" people get through the day and to be a solid citizens; compassionate when necessary, and always productive ∴ THEN religion has a benefit. IF following a religion to such a degree that it is imposed upon the general population, becoming compulsory ∴ THEN the religion is counterproductive. The maintenance of a secular state is paramount.

​

• Recognition of Religion and the exploitation of it's capabilities to is not the same thing as encouraging a religion or compulsory participation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Here is an article that suggests the role of religion in longevity is not straightforward. So it may not really be religion we should credit or blamer for positive or negative impacts on our lives. Religion may just be a symptom of the human condition, not a cause of it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-really-live-longer

 

[Angel]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

I’m not sure what you’re describing is really a defence of religion as it’s commonly understood. I don’t see why the concepts you’re talking about couldn’t be acknowledged and experienced without needing any kind of religious elements at all. I’d suggest that the word “religion” carries too much social baggage today and no amount of trying to exclude that is going to prevent it influencing the discussion. You might be better off not using the term at all and just working from first principles.

What you say about "social baggage" is undeniable, HonestJoe. But the concept I'm talking about -- the raised consciousness that is spirituality, which goes back to primitive wonder before the world and to which primitive burial rites and cave paintings attest -- lies at the root meaning of the word religion, i.e., re-ligio, a binding impulse; and to divorce this concept from religion entirely and to treat it as a free-standing spiritual attitude does a disservice to religion, which is under attack today and in need of a principled defense, or so it seems to me. The six billion believers in the world should not be caricatured as fantasists, as they are by the vociferous anti-religion faction led by gurus like Richard Dawkins, without someone speaking on their behalf. Consider this thread a rational PR campaign to disabuse the public of a media-generated perception that these six billion belivers are delusional. Restricting the OP to talking about spirituality, say, would risk missing the point of a "defense." Poets are spiritual in their own way, but no one is attacking poetry today.

 

[Angel]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Here is an article that suggests the role of religion in longevity is not straightforward. So it may not really be religion we should credit or blamer for positive or negative impacts on our lives. Religion may just be a symptom of the human condition, not a cause of it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201302/do-religious-people-really-live-longer

An interesting non-sequitur, David. The role of religion in physical health and longevity is interesting to a strictly physicalist account of human life perhaps, but it misses the point of religion, which goes rather to the meaning of life whether that life is short or long.

 

[devildavid]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

An interesting non-sequitur, David. The role of religion in physical health and longevity is interesting to a strictly physicalist account of human life perhaps, but it misses the point of religion, which goes rather to the meaning of life whether that life is short or long.

What is the meaning of life?

 

[Angel]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

What is the meaning of life?

That is the question!
That is the religious question in a nutshell!
Yes, exactly!

 

[devildavid]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

That is the question!
That is the religious question in a nutshell!
Yes, exactly!

Yes, but why is it significant? And why does religion fail to answer it satisfactorily?

 

[Angel]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Yes, but why is it significant? And why does religion fail to answer it satisfactorily?

Why is the meaning of life significant? Because it is the most important question Man asks of the world.
What makes you think religion fails to answer this question, David? Or do you only mean why does religion fail to answer this question for you?
As to the latter, we both know why, don't we?

 

[Tim the plumber]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

CONSCIOUSNESS IS IMMATERIAL

REALITY IS CONSCIOUSNESS OF REALITY

What????

Let us begin with two self-evident truths:

These statements are in no way at all true as they have no real meaning. Just gibberish.

Clearly there is a reality even when we are not concious of it. Thus the second is obviously utterly wrong. The first is simply nonesense.

If the defense of religion is that you want to spout gibberish and be allowed to do so in some sort of social group which likes that kind of thing you have made the mystake of thinking that we all share such a love of lying.

 

[Angel]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Demonstrate that a soul, spirit or psyche exists independent of anything material. Where is your spirit substance?

Consciousness, which escapes materialist explanation, demonstrates the immateriality of the psyche. The historically cognate concepts of spirit and soul are products of raised and rarefied consciousness. Your personal intuitions may not reach the nuances, but you can hardly deny your own consciousness.

 

[Tim the plumber]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

What you say about "social baggage" is undeniable, HonestJoe. But the concept I'm talking about -- the raised consciousness that is spirituality, which goes back to primitive wonder before the world and to which primitive burial rites and cave paintings attest -- lies at the root meaning of the word religion, i.e., re-ligio, a binding impulse; and to divorce this concept from religion entirely and to treat it as a free-standing spiritual attitude does a disservice to religion, which is under attack today and in need of a principled defense, or so it seems to me. The six billion believers in the world should not be caricatured as fantasists, as they are by the vociferous anti-religion faction led by gurus like Richard Dawkins, without someone speaking on their behalf. Consider this thread a rational PR campaign to disabuse the public of a media-generated perception that these six billion belivers are delusional. Restricting the OP to talking about spirituality, say, would risk missing the point of a "defense." Poets are spiritual in their own way, but no one is attacking poetry today.

You have a choice, that of wanting to have all that wonder and the alternative of understanding some of it.

The understanding of the world will lead to much more wonder and more depth of experience of this fasinating wonderous world but will often involve disrupting and dispelling ideas you want to believe in. Unlucky.

That you choose the state of arrogant belief in gibberish is your look out but don't expect congratualations for it.

 

[William Rea]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Consciousness, which escapes materialist explanation, demonstrates the immateriality of the psyche. The historically cognate concepts of spirit and soul are products of raised and rarefied consciousness. Your personal intuitions may not reach the nuances, but you can hardly deny your own consciousness.

So you can't demonstrate it.

 

[Tim the plumber]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Consciousness, which escapes materialist explanation, demonstrates the immateriality of the psyche. The historically cognate concepts of spirit and soul are products of raised and rarefied consciousness. Your personal intuitions may not reach the nuances, but you can hardly deny your own consciousness.

What the heck is is about conciousness that you think defies explaination?

 

[Tim the plumber]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

That is the question!
That is the religious question in a nutshell!
Yes, exactly!

So the OP with those statements is actually the question of what is the meaning of life?

 

[William Rea]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

What the heck is is about conciousness that you think defies explaination?

It's a god of the gaps appeal to ignorance, a complete evangelical cliche. Cletus says, 'you can't explain X therefore woo'.

 

[Angel]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

What????



These statements are in no way at all true as they have no real meaning. Just gibberish.

Clearly there is a reality even when we are not concious of it. Thus the second is obviously utterly wrong. The first is simply nonesense.

If the defense of religion is that you want to spout gibberish and be allowed to do so in some sort of social group which likes that kind of thing you have made the mystake of thinking that we all share such a love of lying.

If these statements are "gibberish" to you, if they have "no real meaning" for you, then you can hardly be considered a competent judge of their truth value.
The immateriality of consciousness has behind it four hundred years of modern materialist scientific failure to account for it, and four hundred years of modern philosophical failure to refute mind-body dualism as well.

 

[William Rea]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

If these statements are "gibberish" to you, if they have "no real meaning" for you, then you can hardly be considered a competent judge of their truth value.
The immateriality of consciousness has behind it four hundred years of modern materialist scientific failure to account for it, and four hundred years of modern philosophical failure to refute mind-body dualism as well.

Demonstrate that consciousness is separate from the physical brain. Produce your spirit substance.

 

[Angel]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

So you can't demonstrate it.

QED as far as I'm concerned. If you have doubts based on your own individual consciousness, that's a purely idiosyncratic problem.

 

[Tim the plumber]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

If these statements are "gibberish" to you, if they have "no real meaning" for you, then you can hardly be considered a competent judge of their truth value.
The immateriality of consciousness has behind it four hundred years of modern materialist scientific failure to account for it, and four hundred years of modern philosophical failure to refute mind-body dualism as well.

Eh??

Conciousness is not difficult to understand at all. There are attempts to create machine conciousness. Just because it is a very difficult and complex task for computers to do does not change the fact that it as simple, philosophically, as creating an artificial heart.

 

[Angel]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Eh??

Conciousness is not difficult to understand at all. There are attempts to create machine conciousness. Just because it is a very difficult and complex task for computers to do does not change the fact that it as simple, philosophically, as creating an artificial heart.

Here, this may help you to understand the insurmountable difficulties faced by materialist science in accounting for consciousness.
What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-neuroscience-cannot-tell-us-about-ourselves

 

[devildavid]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Why is the meaning of life significant? Because it is the most important question Man asks of the world.
What makes you think religion fails to answer this question, David? Or do you only mean why does religion fail to answer this question for you?
As to the latter, we both know why, don't we?

Why does life need to have meaning? How does a belief in meaning change our lives at all?

If you think religion answers this question, what answer has it provided for you?

 

[William Rea]

re: A Defense of Religion [W:331]

Here, this may help you to understand the insurmountable difficulties faced by materialist science in accounting for consciousness.
What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves
What Neuroscience Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves - The New Atlantis

I always say to Evangelical extremists that even if you disproved the Theory of Evolution it does not mean Creationism is right, the parallels to your dogma are obvious.

Demonstrate that the immaterial exists.

You have asserted that it does but, you haven't demonstrated it.