A Religious Animal

[Chagos]

So you can't read well and you don't take correction well.
Please annoy someone else with your figments.
Happy Holidays.

None of which (yet another deflection of yours) takes anything from the fact that with the OP you have made a claim, thruout this thread have been asked to corroborate it and til now, 150+ posts later, have failed to do so.

I have no problem if you believe what you claim and no interest in even attempting to shake that belief. As little as I'm desirous of being critical of either religion or spirituality. Yet you made a claim that went beyond stating what you believe, so you opened a debate.

So meet the challenge you have thus brought upon yourself and don't complain over being annoyed by other posters' persistence.

Or state that the premise of your OP is simply what you believe and we can be done.

 

[blarg]

You can bee born without a brain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

Being born without something doesn't mean it isn't inherent.


The existence of exceptions does not negate the rule.

it means its not inherent to you or all members of groups you fall under

being common docent trump the meaning of the word

 

[JMR]

Man is a religious animal

Just as Man is a social animal,

Just as Man is a political animal,

Indeed just as Man is a rational animal

So too is Man a religious animal

From the primitive cave painting to the Sistine Chapel,

Man has tried to connect with Divinity

Before the later revelations,

Before the visions and covenants that came later,

Before the tribal organization of religion,

From the very beginning

Man sought connection (religare, to bind fast) to the Spirit


Religion is in Mankind's DNA

Religion is in the nature of Man

To deny the religious impulse in Man
To decry the religious experience in Man
To defy the institution of religion
Is the Height of Folly
Is the Depths of Despair

Religion is the Signature of Man​

I accept that Man is spiritual, and seeks connection to the divine. This is often an individual pursuit.

That drive is different than the impulse to make an institution of religion. So my reading of the above actually declares man's need for religion is a weakness, but his individual search for the divine is a strength.

Mark Twain had some remarks on this matter that are relevant perhaps:

“Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.”


― Mark Twain

 

[Angel]

None of which (yet another deflection of yours) takes anything from the fact that with the OP you have made a claim, thruout this thread have been asked to corroborate it and til now, 150+ posts later, have failed to do so.

I have no problem if you believe what you claim and no interest in even attempting to shake that belief. As little as I'm desirous of being critical of either religion or spirituality. Yet you made a claim that went beyond stating what you believe, so you opened a debate.

So meet the challenge you have thus brought upon yourself and don't complain over being annoyed by other posters' persistence.

Or state that the premise of your OP is simply what you believe and we can be done.

I'm not annoyed by persistence, Chagos, I'm annoyed by game-playing. You're just playing the posting game. I'm presenting a thesis and arguments in support of that thesis.
Have you read any of the posts on the Numinous, for example? I didn't think so.
No, you drop in on an exchange that you misunderstand, I correct you, and you try to save face by going off on the thread as a whole.
If you want to discuss the topic, then stop posting about me and start replying to the points being made.Then I'll take you seriously.

So you misunderstood that sidebar about immunity. It was the latest in a line of posts occasioned by another game-player who's making heavy weather about the word "inherent." That's all that was about.

Man is a religious animal. In the same way Man is a political animal, and a social animal, and a rational animal. That's the thesis.
The religious experience is the experience of the numinous in the world.

Do you have anything to say about either of these points?

 

[CLAX1911]

it means its not inherent to you or all members of groups you fall under

I understand your claim. I don't necessarily disagree. You haven't made your case however.

You repeatedly said it isn't something you are born with. I don't think that matters.

being common docent trump the meaning of the word

Not sure why you said this.

 

[blarg]

I understand your claim. I don't necessarily disagree. You haven't made your case however.

You repeatedly said it isn't something you are born with. I don't think that matters.

Not sure why you said this.

seems like if you never had something its not

in·her·ent
inˈhirənt,inˈherənt/Submit
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.

and that for something to be inherent in a species all members of it need it

thats not to say traits cant be inherent in most members of a species

and i can even get behind angels meaning that man is religious in the sense that humans are capable of and have practiced religion

ill admit im just arguing semantics at this point

 

[Chagos]

without going into the irrelevancies that precede

~....................................Man is a religious animal. In the same way Man is a political animal, and a social animal, and a rational animal. That's the thesis.
The religious experience is the experience of the numinous in the world.

Do you have anything to say about either of these points?

Yes, that they represent a thesis. Better said all of them are part of the same, the thesis being somewhat summarized in your opening post by

Religion is in Mankind's DNA
Religion is in the nature of Man

and "qualified" by

To deny the religious impulse in Man.......................Is the Height of Folly

Now what?

You want your thesis to stand without any challenge by others to defend it?

Then you should have said so from the start.

 

[CLAX1911]

seems like if you never had something its not

So because some children are born without sight, sight isn't inherent? I disagree.

and that for something to be inherent in a species all members of it need it

So because the existence of anomalies shows that almost everything including having a brain is not something all members have, following your logic nothing is inherent and the word is meaningless.

thats not to say traits cant be inherent in most members of a species

It's to say exactly that. Inherent can't be in most by your own words it has to be in all.

and i can even get behind angels meaning that man is religious in the sense that humans are capable of and have practiced religion

ill admit im just arguing semantics at this point

It seems you are conflicted about your own position.

 

[blarg]

So because some children are born without sight, sight isn't inherent? I disagree.

So because the existence of anomalies shows that almost everything including having a brain is not something all members have, following your logic nothing is inherent and the word is meaningless.

It's to say exactly that. Inherent can't be in most by your own words it has to be in all.



It seems you are conflicted about your own position.

its inherent to every 1` who has it that just dosent apply all of humanity

the word is not meaningless less just because it dosent cover as much as you would like when applied to are species as a whole

something can be inherent to you and not all mankind im only saiyng it has to be in all if your applying it to all of us

dont think you quite understood my position

 

[CLAX1911]

its inherent to every 1` who has it that just dosent apply all of humanity

Having two arms is inherent to everyone who has them but that didn't apply to all humanity.

the word is not meaningless less just because it dosent cover as much as you would like when applied to are species as a whole

It is meaningless when applying your logic.

something can be inherent to you and not all mankind im only saiyng it has to be in all if your applying it to all of us

Its a general statement.

dont think you quite understood my position

IT doesn't make much sense to me no.

 

[Angel]

None of which (yet another deflection of yours) takes anything from the fact that with the OP you have made a claim, thruout this thread have been asked to corroborate it and til now, 150+ posts later, have failed to do so.

I have no problem if you believe what you claim and no interest in even attempting to shake that belief. As little as I'm desirous of being critical of either religion or spirituality. Yet you made a claim that went beyond stating what you believe, so you opened a debate.

So meet the challenge you have thus brought upon yourself and don't complain over being annoyed by other posters' persistence.

Or state that the premise of your OP is simply what you believe and we can be done.

You say the same thing at #115, Chagos:
#115

Nope, all we get is you saying so. That the religious impulse is in everyone to begin with thus remains nothing more than a (your) claim.

Fail.

There you throw out the IT-Game-Player's-Shibboleth -- "Fail"; now in #151 you're relying on another Game Player's favorite -- "deflection."
On top of that you just repeat an inaccuracy which I corrected a few posts ago. A few posts ago I corrected you, assuring you that I don't mind persistence, and that it's gamesmanship I mind. And here you are in #151 just ignoring my previous post and asserting once again, inaccurately, that persistence annoys me. Just more gamesmanship from you, Chagos.

You assert that the OP thesis remains only my unsupported claim, and yet I've posted links and excerpts from some of the greatest minds like Emerson and James and Whitman and Tagore and Jung and Otto, all of whom support my thesis -- indeed some of whom have said the exact same thing I am saying here in this thread.

Have you engaged any of these posts? Not a one.
You're just posting to write "Fail" or "Busted" or some other silly piece of IT Gamesmanship Jargon. One of your fellows posts just to use the word "drivel." That's all he ever posts. Another always posts that whoever he happens to be annoying at the time doesn't know what he/she's talking about. He gets off posting this time and again.
It's all bull****, man.

The thesis put forward in the OP is an idea that has been a lifetime in forming in me, and I will not abide typically silly IT ChitterChat tactics to detract from its importance.
Now if you'd care to discuss the OP thesis or the excerpts from any of the world-historical figures I've posted, I'd be delighted to oblige you.
But if all you're about is gamesmanship, then I'm going to call you on it time and again.

Meanwhile, again, Happy Holidays.

 

[William Rea]

You say the same thing at #115, Chagos:
#115

There you throw out the IT-Game-Player's-Shibboleth -- "Fail"; now in #151 you're relying on another Game Player's favorite -- "deflection."
On top of that you just repeat an inaccuracy which I corrected a few posts ago. A few posts ago I corrected you, assuring you that I don't mind persistence, and that it's gamesmanship I mind. And here you are in #151 just ignoring my previous post and asserting once again, inaccurately, that persistence annoys me. Just more gamesmanship from you, Chagos.

You assert that the OP thesis remains only my unsupported claim, and yet I've posted links and excerpts from some of the greatest minds like Emerson and James and Whitman and Tagore and Jung and Otto, all of whom support my thesis -- indeed some of whom have said the exact same thing I am saying here in this thread.

Have you engaged any of these posts? Not a one.
You're just posting to write "Fail" or "Busted" or some other silly piece of IT Gamesmanship Jargon. One of your fellows posts just to use the word "drivel." That's all he ever posts. Another always posts that whoever he happens to be annoying at the time doesn't know what he/she's talking about. He gets off posting this time and again.
It's all bull****, man.

The thesis put forward in the OP is an idea that has been a lifetime in forming in me, and I will not abide typically silly IT ChitterChat tactics to detract from its importance.
Now if you'd care to discuss the OP thesis or the excerpts from any of the world-historical figures I've posted, I'd be delighted to oblige you.
But if all you're about is gamesmanship, then I'm going to call you on it time and again.

Meanwhile, again, Happy Holidays.

The snark hasn't ended has it Angel. Truce over.

One thing this last couple of exchanges with Chagos has confirmed to me is that your posts are politicised religious in nature, not actually attempting to find anything deeper and that you are trying to hide that by pretending to be on some higher moral plane. Nobody is fooled and as such, my responses will now take that into account.

 

[Angel]

The snark hasn't ended has it Angel. Truce over.

One thing this last couple of exchanges with Chagos has confirmed to me is that your posts are politicised religious in nature, not actually attempting to find anything deeper and that you are trying to hide that by pretending to be on some higher moral plane. Nobody is fooled and as such, my responses will now take that into account.

That truce didn't last very long. Curious. There's not a bit of snark in the post you quote. Not a syllable. Makes one wonder about your sincerity.
Happy Holidays.

 

[Angel]

The OP thesis has virtually gone unchallenged in this thread. This may well be because the OP thesis -- that Man is a religious animal -- is quite beyond dispute or challenge.
Bene.

What I'd like to try to do next is somewhat more controversial. I'd like to try to connect two ideas which, as far as I know, have never been connected before.
I'd like to try to connect Rudolf Otto's idea of NUMINOUS EXPERIENCE with Immanuel Kant's idea of the NOUMENON.

If such a connection can be made cogently, it seems to me, the very solution of the World Riddle will be within our reach!

About Rudolf Otto's Numinous:

...
Numinous
The word was popularized by the German theologian Rudolf Otto in his influential 1917 book Das Heilige, which appeared in English as The Idea of the Holy in 1923.[2] Otto writes that while the concept of "the holy" is often used to convey moral perfection – and does entail this – it contains another distinct element, beyond the ethical sphere, for which he uses the term numinous.[3]:5–7 He explains the numinous as a "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self". This mental state "presents itself as ganz Andere,[4] wholly other, a condition absolutely sui generis and incomparable whereby the human being finds himself utterly abashed."[5] Otto argues that because the numinous is irreducible and sui generis it cannot be defined in terms of other concepts or experiences, and that the reader must therefore be "guided and led on by consideration and discussion of the matter through the ways of his own mind, until he reach the point at which 'the numinous' in him perforce begins to stir... In other words, our X cannot, strictly speaking, be taught, it can only be evoked, awakened in the mind."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous

About Kant's Noumenon:

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Noumenon

In metaphysics, the noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used when contrasted with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be apprehended by or is an object of the senses. Modern philosophy has generally been skeptical of the possibility of knowledge independent of the senses, and Immanuel Kant gave this point of view its canonical expression: that the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable through human sensation. In Kantian philosophy, the unknowable noumenon is often linked to the unknowable "thing-in-itself" (in Kant's German, Ding an sich), although how to characterize the nature of the relationship is a question yet open to some controversy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

 

[William Rea]

That truce didn't last very long. Curious. There's not a bit of snark in the post you quote. Not a syllable. Makes one wonder about your sincerity.
Happy Holidays.

The truce lasted for as long as you desisted with the snark over the Christmas/New Year period. You can't even discern where you post snark let alone stop doing it but, that's not my problem so, normal service resumes.

While I have no problem using the term 'Happy Christmas' I don't return the compliments of the season to you because, your posts indicate that you have clearly wrapped yourself up in text and forgotten what being human actually is. I suspect that you wouldn't be able to comprehend the meaning of 'Happy Christmas' beyond it being a means to forward an agenda that you have.

 

[Angel]

The truce lasted for as long as you desisted with the snark over the Christmas/New Year period. You can't even discern where you post snark let alone stop doing it but, that's not my problem so, normal service resumes.

While I have no problem using the term 'Happy Christmas' I don't return the compliments of the season to you because, your posts indicate that you have clearly wrapped yourself up in text and forgotten what being human actually is. I suspect that you wouldn't be able to comprehend the meaning of 'Happy Christmas' beyond it being a means to forward an agenda that you have.

Suit yourself.
You must have panicked once you realized the "truce" removed from you the very thing you enjoy doing most here -- personal criticism.
Also according to this "truce" of yours you could only discuss a topic seriously and civilly -- Oh, the horror! the horror!
You therefore had no choice but to find snarkiness where there wasn't.
(Guru Dawkins might have called this "The Snark Delusion," no?)
So you found it in "Happy Holidays"!
And your panic attack ended.
God bless you for the silly-billy that you are!

 

[Angel]

The Christmas Truce of 1914

"Merry Christmas DP!" ​

 

[Chagos]

You say the same thing at #115, Chagos:
#115

I know what I said

~.........................irrelevancies edited for brevity..............................~

You assert that the OP thesis remains only my unsupported claim, and yet I've posted links and excerpts from some of the greatest minds like Emerson and James and Whitman and Tagore and Jung and Otto, all of whom support my thesis -- indeed some of whom have said the exact same thing I am saying here in this thread.

and all of them corroborating their opinion with evidence as little as you do. That's the whole point here, one can develop a philosophical stance, believe the thesis that it's made out of and be happy with the whole thing. But you apparently cannot. You want to sell an opinion, no matter how well thought out and no matter how shared by many of lesser or greater fame, as representing hard scientific fact. Lastly on the strength of so many sharing it.

Well that they agree with you or, better said, you agree with them is all really dandy. But takes nothing from the fact that it's all opinion. On their part as well as on yours.

Have you engaged any of these posts? Not a one.

Why would I engage upon something that you present not as philosophical fodder but as factual evidence for the validity of your original claim?

~...............irrelevancies edited for the sake of brevity................~

The thesis put forward in the OP is an idea that has been a lifetime in forming in me, and I will not abide typically silly IT ChitterChat tactics to detract from its importance.

Now we're getting somewhere at last. IT's AN IDEA.

Well, if you had presented it as such instead of what you presented it as from the OP onwards, this whole discussion need not have taken place at all. What you interpret as silly IT chit-chat served basically to clear up the confusion that you generated by starting this whole thing with factual statements or, better said, the futile attempts at making those in the OP.

Now if you'd care to discuss the OP thesis or the excerpts from any of the world-historical figures I've posted, I'd be delighted to oblige you.
But if all you're about is gamesmanship, then I'm going to call you on it time and again.

Well, seeing how the whole thing has now been established as representing ideas, it suffices to say that I don't share into them as far as the inborn religiosity or spirituality of humans is concerned. The reasons being obvious by now, I would think.

And unless you shift the goalposts back to the whole OP presenting evidenced facts, there's not much to discuss. If you do however, rely on being called out over that.

Meanwhile, again, Happy Holidays.

Indeed the same to you.

 

[Angel]

...[Irrelevancies edited for brevity]...

Oops!

 

[Angel]

"The Numen and the Noumenon"

COMING SOON

2018




...​

 

[William Rea]

Suit yourself.
You must have panicked once you realized the "truce" removed from you the very thing you enjoy doing most here -- personal criticism.
Also according to this "truce" of yours you could only discuss a topic seriously and civilly -- Oh, the horror! the horror!
You therefore had no choice but to find snarkiness where there wasn't.
(Guru Dawkins might have called this "The Snark Delusion," no?)
So you found it in "Happy Holidays"!
And your panic attack ended.
God bless you for the silly-billy that you are!

I'm not wrong about your snark Angel. Your posts today have been pretty much all snark, not just the ones addressed to me. My offer was genuinely made but, your politicised religious agenda couldn't hold back even for a short while. My expectations from someone that claims to be so 'spiritual' were probably higher than reality could deliver.

 

[soylentgreen]

You take the term religion in its limited sense of organized religion; I take it in its pre-organized sense of a primal spiritual impulse. That is the basis of our disagreement.

Even if you take it that way it is still a misrepresentation. You are taking ordinary emotions of awe and wonder and binding them to a man made belief that is learnt not a part of our birth heritage. We create a spiritual belief from what we feel.

Anyway, I did ask. What is your understanding of the term "reality" such that "religion" in your sense "perverts" it?

Once again that is for the spiritual tro answer. You need to tell me what your belief is, not i assume it.

 

[Angel]

Even if you take it that way it is still a misrepresentation. You are taking ordinary emotions of awe and wonder and binding them to a man made belief that is learnt not a part of our birth heritage. We create a spiritual belief from what we feel.

You've got the cart before the horse here. Man "made" that belief long long before there was a "heritage."

Once again that is for the spiritual tro answer. You need to tell me what your belief is, not i assume it.

No, you're the one who claimed that religion perverts reality; so the onus is on you to account for that which in your view is being perverted.

 

[Angel]

I'm not wrong about your snark Angel. Your posts today have been pretty much all snark, not just the ones addressed to me. My offer was genuinely made but, your politicised religious agenda couldn't hold back even for a short while. My expectations from someone that claims to be so 'spiritual' were probably higher than reality could deliver.

You're seeing snark before your eyes, man. Nothing addressed to you was the least bit snarky. As to my posts to others, whether or not they were snarky has nothing to do with our personal "truce" -- or did you have the chutzpah to think that you are the monitor of my posting in general? Your offer was not genuinely made and I have no "politicized religious agenda." I just can't stand bullies.

 

[William Rea]

You're seeing snark before your eyes, man. Nothing addressed to you was the least bit snarky. As to my posts to others, whether or not they were snarky has nothing to do with our personal "truce" -- or did you have the chutzpah to think that you are the monitor of my posting in general? Your offer was not genuinely made and I have no "politicized religious agenda." I just can't stand bullies.

I do not like bullies either but, I dislike mendacious people with an agenda as well. I'm not trying to bully you, I'm letting you know that you have failed to conceal your agenda. I know that the snark is a means to an end and that it suits you to be this philosophical martyr while indulging in the backhanded stuff. Any time you actually want a discussion like honest and open people I'm waiting for you to start.

That humans exhibit religious behaviours is not something I question too much, what you always fail to do is to link that to anything real. We imagine all sorts of things, we don't assume that that makes them real.