Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,910
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Patrick Fagan PhD said:]→ 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.
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
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.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.
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.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.
That is the question!What is the meaning of life?
That is the question!
That is the religious question in a nutshell!
Yes, exactly!
Why is the meaning of life significant? Because it is the most important question Man asks of the world.Yes, but why is it significant? And why does religion fail to answer it satisfactorily?
CONSCIOUSNESS IS IMMATERIAL
REALITY IS CONSCIOUSNESS OF REALITY
Let us begin with two self-evident truths:
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.Demonstrate that a soul, spirit or psyche exists independent of anything material. Where is your spirit substance?
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.
So you can't demonstrate it.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.
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.
That is the question!
That is the religious question in a nutshell!
Yes, exactly!
It's a god of the gaps appeal to ignorance, a complete evangelical cliche. Cletus says, 'you can't explain X therefore woo'.What the heck is is about conciousness that you think defies explaination?
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.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.
Demonstrate that consciousness is separate from the physical brain. Produce your spirit substance.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.
QED as far as I'm concerned. If you have doubts based on your own individual consciousness, that's a purely idiosyncratic problem.So you can't demonstrate it.
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.
Here, this may help you to understand the insurmountable difficulties faced by materialist science in accounting for consciousness.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.
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?
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?