Perhaps it would be suitable to move that discussion here / stop hijacking the UK Conservative leadership thread?
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 19, 2019, 07:29:38 PM
Perhaps it would be suitable to move that discussion here / stop hijacking the UK Conservative leadership thread?
Yes.
Perhaps the mind is similar to a 3 or 4 ft length of wood, if used as a yard stick to measure the world at large and oneself, then it's a philosophical tool.
If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2019, 08:34:35 PM
Perhaps the mind is similar to a 3 or 4 ft length of wood, if used as a yard stick to measure the world at large and oneself, then it's a philosophical tool.
If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.
It's a little unsettling that I wasn't sure for a moment if you were discussing religion, or Brexit... :P
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2019, 08:34:35 PM
If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.
Who are you talking about? Don't be coy.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 19, 2019, 08:36:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2019, 08:34:35 PM
Perhaps the mind is similar to a 3 or 4 ft length of wood, if used as a yard stick to measure the world at large and oneself, then it's a philosophical tool.
If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.
It's a little unsettling that I wasn't sure for a moment if you were discussing religion, or Brexit... :P
Well it now has some of the elements of one, including the ritual enunciation* of 'The Democratic Will Of The British People' etc.
* it's rather late here, so can't put my finger on a word meaning a religious refrain / sacrament.
Liturgy?
Doctrine? Dogma?
Quote from: mongers on July 19, 2019, 08:34:35 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 19, 2019, 07:29:38 PM
Perhaps it would be suitable to move that discussion here / stop hijacking the UK Conservative leadership thread?
Yes.
Perhaps the mind is similar to a 3 or 4 ft length of wood, if used as a yard stick to measure the world at large and oneself, then it's a philosophical tool.
If used as crutch to prop up a fragile self or uncompromising ego, it has some characteristics of a religion.
Metric please, if we are to talk about modernity and progress. :P
From the other thread:
Quote
My argument that "Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion" is not, obviously, an argument that it was literally, a religion, any more that my argument that Marxism was one, even though many of its followers acted pretty much exactly like it was one.
Neo-Confucianism took a lot of the mystical elements of Taoism, in particular the concept of a separate "heaven" that acted, not in accordance with the will of some 'gods' or other, but, rather, as a force in the universe much like gravity - pervasive, but not completely understood. The tenets of Neo-Confucianism were not subject to change through observation and correction; they were based on universal truths (including the truth that ritual had an impact on the environment, and not just the person engaging in the ritual). The key to understanding the burden the Confucianism to some extent, and Neo-Confucianism to a greater extent, placed on modernization was that the Chinese were sure they had the answer to the problems of society, and so were dismissive of any knowledge or progress that didn't bring them closer to that answer. That's what religions effectively do to retard progress.
I have no problem with the argument that Neo-Confucianism retarded progress.
The problem I have with this is that it distorts the meaning of the term "religion". Agreed that ideology that is unchallenged can be a roadblock to progress - any ideology - but I do not agree that "religion" is, for all intents and purposes, 'an ideology that is unchallenged'. Some things are religions yet are subject to challenge - such as mysticism (in its true meaning); some are non-religious ideologies, not subject to challenge. In many cases, such as that of England in the decades after the English Civil War, religions were subject to challenge - simply by circumstances (a great deal of competition that could not be completely silenced).
To take an example - Neo-Confucianism, as described in the previous links, used the doctrine of the five elements to categorize the universe. This isn't all that different from, say, the doctrine of the four humours in medicine. Yet it would be odd to say the least to categorize the doctrine of the four humours as a "religion", rather than a pseudo-science.
In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather
any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.
In contrast, a 'religion' that is subject to constant challenge and competition is no bar to progress, even if it has the most wacky beliefs.
Quote from: Malthus on July 21, 2019, 09:57:43 AM
From the other thread:
Quote
My argument that "Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion" is not, obviously, an argument that it was literally, a religion, any more that my argument that Marxism was one, even though many of its followers acted pretty much exactly like it was one.
Neo-Confucianism took a lot of the mystical elements of Taoism, in particular the concept of a separate "heaven" that acted, not in accordance with the will of some 'gods' or other, but, rather, as a force in the universe much like gravity - pervasive, but not completely understood. The tenets of Neo-Confucianism were not subject to change through observation and correction; they were based on universal truths (including the truth that ritual had an impact on the environment, and not just the person engaging in the ritual). The key to understanding the burden the Confucianism to some extent, and Neo-Confucianism to a greater extent, placed on modernization was that the Chinese were sure they had the answer to the problems of society, and so were dismissive of any knowledge or progress that didn't bring them closer to that answer. That's what religions effectively do to retard progress.
I have no problem with the argument that Neo-Confucianism retarded progress.
The problem I have with this is that it distorts the meaning of the term "religion". Agreed that ideology that is unchallenged can be a roadblock to progress - any ideology - but I do not agree that "religion" is, for all intents and purposes, 'an ideology that is unchallenged'. Some things are religions yet are subject to challenge - such as mysticism (in its true meaning); some are non-religious ideologies, not subject to challenge. In many cases, such as that of England in the decades after the English Civil War, religions were subject to challenge - simply by circumstances (a great deal of competition that could not be completely silenced).
To take an example - Neo-Confucianism, as described in the previous links, used the doctrine of the five elements to categorize the universe. This isn't all that different from, say, the doctrine of the four humours in medicine. Yet it would be odd to say the least to categorize the doctrine of the four humours as a "religion", rather than a pseudo-science.
In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.
In contrast, a 'religion' that is subject to constant challenge and competition is no bar to progress, even if it has the most wacky beliefs.
Indeed.
At issue is the something that actively* suppress other people's reasoning, be that evangelical Islam, the inquisition/mediaeval Catholic church, communism or capitalist orthodoxy .
* or in effect does, such that the costs of challenging received 'wisdom' are personally or economically costly.
Quote from: Malthus on July 21, 2019, 09:57:43 AM
In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.
Absolutely right.
Quote from: Malthus on July 21, 2019, 09:57:43 AM
In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.
Exactly my point. Something "impervious to challenge" is, effectively, a religion. It is believed because it is the received wisdom, and cannot be challenged because it was devised by something "far wiser than us."
"Religion" is a fairly hard term to pin-down. It encompasses the complex theology of the Catholic Church as well as the Animist who thanks the trees for giving up their fruit.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2019, 05:46:50 PM
"Religion" is a fairly hard term to pin-down. It encompasses the complex theology of the Catholic Church as well as the Animist who thanks the trees for giving up their fruit.
Yeah the line between religion and superstition and philosophy and all gets rather blurry. But do we really need to get bogged down in semantics?
Define semantics.
In summary - I believe that it is not 'religion' per se that is harmful to progress, but rather any situation in which an ideology exists that becomes impervious to challenge for some reason or other - whether because it resists violently any heterodoxy, like Wahhabi Islam; or because it becomes embedded as the governing philosophy of an empire, like Neo-Confucianism; or because of its great antiquity it is held in exaggerated esteem, like the four humours theory in medicine.
In contrast, a 'religion' that is subject to constant challenge and competition is no bar to progress, even if it has the most wacky beliefs.
[/quote]
Can ideologies truly compete with one another? It seems that p, just like religion, once a certain thresholdmof acceptance has been reached for an ideology, the natural tendancy is to squash the others.
The same with religion. Islam and Judaism do not compete with one another, they seek to eviscerate ;) the other from their respective society. As much as Canadian Jews can be liberal, I can not imagine a Bronfman converting to islam and still be part of the family empire. No more than a Clinton could wear a MAGA hat.
It can and it does happen everywhere, but it's not exactly free and fair competition everywhere.
When I was a kid, different teachers of different levels always repeated the same story. That Chinese culture was the greatest in the world. See, Chinese invented the printing press, the compass, gunpowder, paper and whatnot. Chinese were much more virtuous than westerners. They respected teachers, parents and the elderly, unlike the westerners. Chinese saved money, worked hard and invested in the future. Westerners only knew how to borrow, go bankrupt, slack off and western civilization was on borrowed time. China was the greatest nation on earth throughout most of humanity's history. Etc.
Even they knew all that talk was kind of at odds with the reality that China (especially in the 80s) was poor, backward, while the west was strong and prosperous. The excuses they used included that the west's strength was temporary, and China would win in the long haul, the Mongols and Manchus messed up everything and it would take some time to fix everything, the Japanese robbed China of everything in WWII, etc.
I always found their arguments to be a bit...lacking.
I'm far from an expert on neo-Confucianism, but my understanding is that it includes a variety of rites, ceremonies and ritual practices, including rituals surrounding ancestor worship. On that basis, I would say it could qualify as religio in the classical sense.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2019, 05:49:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2019, 05:46:50 PM
"Religion" is a fairly hard term to pin-down. It encompasses the complex theology of the Catholic Church as well as the Animist who thanks the trees for giving up their fruit.
Yeah the line between religion and superstition and philosophy and all gets rather blurry. But do we really need to get bogged down in semantics?
Probably.
Quote from: Valmy on July 21, 2019, 05:49:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2019, 05:46:50 PM
"Religion" is a fairly hard term to pin-down. It encompasses the complex theology of the Catholic Church as well as the Animist who thanks the trees for giving up their fruit.
Yeah the line between religion and superstition and philosophy and all gets rather blurry. But do we really need to get bogged down in semantics?
We don't, if we don't care about the meaning of words. :P
Quote from: The Brain on July 21, 2019, 07:18:24 PM
Define semantics.
:lol:
I feel Brain might be anti-semantic :(
:(
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 10:48:21 AM
We don't, if we don't care about the meaning of words. :P
If the cost of caring about the meaning of words is to get really pedantic about how to classify all ideas as religious or not then I guess my sanity demands that I don't care :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2019, 11:23:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 10:48:21 AM
We don't, if we don't care about the meaning of words. :P
If the cost of caring about the meaning of words is to get really pedantic about how to classify all ideas as religious or not then I guess my sanity demands that I don't care :P
Ah, that is something else. It is difficult to avoid semantics when when uses words. We use words to convey meaning after all. I am not sure anyone in this thread has reached the point of being pedantic. It is an interesting discussion.
If you are conflating semantics with being pedantic then shame on you. In your years here you have had good demonstrations of the difference :D
To a large extent, all human institutions must both resist challenges (otherwise they would not be distinctive from other endeavors) and channel criticism (otherwise the only option would be revolt). An institution must be robust enough to dispense you from re-inventing the wheel every time, for that is their advantage, i.e., they think for you. I don't have to rediscover gravity myself to build upon all the physics that have been done since then. And institutions must be able to accommodate critique, which they usually do by distinguishing legitimate critique (e.g., a trial, an experiment, an exegesis of sacred text), from illegitimate challenges. The whole notion of it being distinct areas of human understandings, "categories of knowledge" relies on identifying, artificially isolating if you will, the specific ways in which these channels of critique are created and maintained.
You can thus have very stultified sciences, and very dynamic religions; religions with little coercive powers, and technocracies. So, rather than determine that religions are defined by the absence of challenge, or by blind following (because you can find blind followers and zealous enforcers in all institutions), it may be more productive to identify what specific challenges are welcomed by science, by philosophy, by religion. And it seems that a big dividing line must be transcendence/materialism.
If we identify progress with materialism, then obviously, a bunch of philosophical, religious, and scientific ideas that created it, promoted it, accommodated it, thrived on it, have fared, and will fare better. That is, in essence, what Max Weber identified as the disenchantment of the world. If we identify progress with salvation, or spiritual enlightenment, then the idea that the material world needs to be utterly transformed and mastered loses quite a bit of urgency.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 09:49:02 AM
I'm far from an expert on neo-Confucianism, but my understanding is that it includes a variety of rites, ceremonies and ritual practices, including rituals surrounding ancestor worship. On that basis, I would say it could qualify as religio in the classical sense.
I would say Chinese tradition contained rituals surrounding ancestor worship, but the way the leading Neo-Confucian thinkers regarded the topic isn't very "religious". Like nearly every pre-modern philosophy aside from pure materialism, it took pre-existing supernatural concepts for granted and tried to fit them into the theory they were attempting to create. Ancestor worship is very ancient in China.
The significant concept here is "qi", by which they meant basically 'the inherent pattern of a thing'. Example: a leaf of a rose has a pattern, or 'qi', which is what makes it different from everything else; if I draw a rose-leaf, if someone else can recognize it, it is because we both share the same mental pattern, or qi, of a rose leaf.
The spirits of the ancestors were not thought of as literal ghosts, but rather as the embodiment of the "qi" of those ancestors.
Similarly with rituals and ceremonies. Every society has rituals and ceremonies, and certainly Confucianism put a lot of emphasis on them - most importantly, that they be performed
correctly. This is because correctly performing rituals was supposed to be good and civilizing in and of itself, regardless of the content and meaning of the rituals. The word used in Chinese is "li", by which is meant much more than "rituals":
QuoteThe rites of li are not rites in the Western conception of religious custom. Rather, li embodies the entire spectrum of interaction with humans, nature, and even material objects. Confucius includes in his discussions of li such diverse topics as learning, tea drinking, titles, mourning, and governance. Xunzi cites "songs and laughter, weeping and lamentation...rice and millet, fish and meat...the wearing of ceremonial caps, embroidered robes, and patterned silks, or of fasting clothes and mourning clothes...unspacious rooms and very nonsecluded halls, hard mats, seats and flooring"[3] as vital parts of the fabric of li.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_(Confucianism)
Basically, like "qi", "li" references the essential pattern - in this case, the pattern of human behaviour - the
right way of doing things, which could include how to wear your clothes or how to worship the local civic gods - assuming such worship is necessary:
QuoteLi consists of the norms of proper social behavior as taught to others by fathers, village elders and government officials. The teachings of li promoted ideals such as filial piety, brotherliness, righteousness, good faith and loyalty.[4] The influence of li guided public expectations, such as the loyalty to superiors and respect for elders in the community.
Continuous with the emphasis on community, following li included the internalization of action, which both yields the comforting feeling of tradition and allows one to become "more open to the panoply of sensations of the experience" (Rosemont 2005). But it should also maintain a healthy practice of selflessness, both in the actions themselves and in the proper example which is set for one's brothers. Approaches in the community, as well as personal approaches together demonstrate how li pervades in all things, the broad and the detailed, the good and the bad, the form and the formlessness. This is the complete realization of li.
The rituals and practices of li are dynamic in nature. Li practices have been revised and evaluated throughout time to reflect the emerging views and beliefs found in society.[5] Although these practices may change, which happens very slowly over time, the fundamental ideals remain at the core of li, which largely relate to social order.
Because China was a society in which, historically, civic gods and ancestors were worshipped, of course such rituals must be undertaken. But I think it is a mistake to think that, because the philosophy required rituals (including religious rituals), it is itself religious; a Neo-Confucian would see no contradiction in applying that philosophy in a culture lacking civic gods. In such a culture, proper "li" would not include rituals worshipping civic gods.
The focus of "li" is not on the gods, but on man: that partaking in rituals (which may, or may not, include ritual worship of gods) preserve social order and propriety, quite regardless of whether anyone believes in said gods; and by the same token, if the gods become a source of social instability - why, they ought to be discarded.
See for example: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Asia/AsiaWong.htm
A Neo-Confucian would grasp exactly what is at stake, for example, in putting "In God We Trust" on the US coinage. Does putting it there enhance social stability and otherwise improve society? Then keep it on (even if you are an atheist) - it's part of the society's "li". On the other hand - is it a completely outmoded expression of a religion that no longer commands universal respect? An argument can be made that the "li" ought to evolve ... though as natural conservatives, the Neo-Confucian would rather err on the side of keeping it on (though a counter-argument could be that the practice is itself relatively new!).
Is there widely accepted definition for "Religion"?
Quote from: viper37 on July 21, 2019, 08:53:25 PM
Can ideologies truly compete with one another? It seems that p, just like religion, once a certain thresholdmof acceptance has been reached for an ideology, the natural tendancy is to squash the others.
The same with religion. Islam and Judaism do not compete with one another, they seek to eviscerate ;) the other from their respective society. As much as Canadian Jews can be liberal, I can not imagine a Bronfman converting to islam and still be part of the family empire. No more than a Clinton could wear a MAGA hat.
It can and it does happen everywhere, but it's not exactly free and fair competition everywhere.
Whether members of the religion (or philosophy or whatever) are okay with change isn't the only factor. Of greater significance is the ability of members of that ideology to create conformity.
For example - Orthodox Jews are notorious for their dislike of change. While I am myself Jewish, I have essentially nothing whatsoever in common with most Orthodox Jews, and do not follow their ideology. No doubt they strongly disapprove. However, they have essentially no power to do anything about it, and their disapproval is therefore ineffective.
Similarly, supporters of Communist orthodoxy mean one thing if you happen to be living in Ukraine in 1932, and quite another thing if you happen to be attending university in Toronto in 1992. In the one case they are a deadly threat, and in te other case an annoying nuisance, in certain humanities courses.
Point is that if Orthodox Jews (or Communists, or anything) are given total power, they could become a severe impediment to progress; but here in the West at least they lack that power.
I'm a bit of a Wang Ch'ung man myself.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2019, 01:28:26 PM
Is there widely accepted definition for "Religion"?
There are several, more or less, but the whole excercise has come under criticism for being basically a construct of the West.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion
My own would go something like this:
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe when considered as the creation or emanation of a superhuman agency or agencies, or of humanity's relationship with this agency (or agencies), usually involving devotional and ritual observances based on these beliefs, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs, derived from these beliefs.This is, for example, why I don't think Neo-Confucianism is a good "fit". Certainly, it supports the use of rituals and it has a significant moral code. However, the link between the support of the rituals and the code and any supernatural agency is weak.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2019, 01:26:34 PM
Similarly with rituals and ceremonies. Every society has rituals and ceremonies, and certainly Confucianism put a lot of emphasis on them - most importantly, that they be performed correctly. This is because correctly performing rituals was supposed to be good and civilizing in and of itself, regardless of the content and meaning of the rituals.
Again that seems to be a defining mark of a religion. Much of religious practice, even in modern Western religions, revolves around correct performance of rituals, without necessarily reflecting on content and meaning. How often have you participating in candle lighting rituals for example - ubiquitous in the Jewish faith - yet what does it mean? Where did it come from? it's not in the Torah, or any other Scripture, or even the Mishnah. It's a long-standing custom around which rituals were built.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2019, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 22, 2019, 01:28:26 PM
Is there widely accepted definition for "Religion"?
There are several, more or less, but the whole excercise has come under criticism for being basically a construct of the West.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion
My own would go something like this:
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe when considered as the creation or emanation of a superhuman agency or agencies, or of humanity's relationship with this agency (or agencies), usually involving devotional and ritual observances based on these beliefs, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs, derived from these beliefs.
This is, for example, why I don't think Neo-Confucianism is a good "fit". Certainly, it supports the use of rituals and it has a significant moral code. However, the link between the support of the rituals and the code and any supernatural agency is weak.
Ancient religions didn't typically delve very deeply into the "cause, nature and purpose of the universe" - addressing human interaction with supernatural agencies was more common.
Again, rituals exist well beyond religion. Commencement, court proceedings, fraternities, military salutes, etc.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 02:35:09 PM
Ancient religions didn't typically delve very deeply into the "cause, nature and purpose of the universe" - addressing human interaction with supernatural agencies was more common.
Which ancient religions did not have a creation story?
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 22, 2019, 02:37:04 PM
Again, rituals exist well beyond religion. Commencement, court proceedings, fraternities, military salutes, etc.
The legal profession in America has often been compared to a priesthood. Military lifers often describe their devotion to the service and its rigors in religious terms. The categories can blur. But religion is the set of practices and disciplines one follows not because one adheres to a particular profession but because one recognizes oneself as a member of a particular community of people. One is a student some of the time, a solider others, still others a lawyer or litigant, but always a Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc.
If the sine qua non of religion is acceptance of a set of dogmatic beliefs about the supernatural, most present day or historical Christians are/were not Christian at all, but pagans whose spiritual world is dominated by beliefs in a multiplicity of saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces.
Judaism emerges as a recognizable faith sometime around the 400s BC but there is no attempt to set forth any systematic dogma or theology until 1300 years later.
Quote from: Malthus on July 22, 2019, 01:41:36 PM
Point is that if Orthodox Jews (or Communists, or anything) are given total power, they could become a severe impediment to progress; but here in the West at least they lack that power.
we're saying exactly the same thing: it is a question of numbers. With numbers comes power. If left unchecked, any ideology or religion can become problematic through an increase in radicalization.
Communists had an easier time gaining converts than Orthodox Jews.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 03:00:15 PM
If the sine qua non of religion is acceptance of a set of dogmatic beliefs about the supernatural, most present day or historical Christians are/were not Christian at all, but pagans whose spiritual world is dominated by beliefs in a multiplicity of saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces.
That is a different sort of distinction. You are talking about the division between orthodoxy and heresy within a given religion, but that debate all takes place within a religious belief.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 22, 2019, 03:06:17 PM
Communists had an easier time gaining converts than Orthodox Jews.
I think Orthodox Jews do not seek converts and do their best to actively discouraged conversion from non Jews. I may be wrong though, Malthus and Minsky will surely correct me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 02:55:20 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 02:35:09 PM
Ancient religions didn't typically delve very deeply into the "cause, nature and purpose of the universe" - addressing human interaction with supernatural agencies was more common.
Which ancient religions did not have a creation story?
Many of them had several. Even now. Genesis has at least two; the profession of editor was still being evolved in those days.
Origin stories for just about anything are always thick on the ground. There is a reason why Near Eastern scriptural texts have lots of similarities; they are all recycling the repackaging the same oral histories, legends, travelers tales, and tall stories. The texts are just packaging together stories we already know and linking them to the local supernatural bigwig. Everyone in the northern Jordan valley knows about the odd rock formation and everyone knows the local legend that it's a woman whose tears turned her into a pillar of salt. It all gets packaged into the official story - that's how the locals know it must be true and recognize it as theirs.
You can search through the Synoptic Gospels in vain to learn about the "cause, nature and purpose of the universe." The early Jewish religion takes at its basis a local land contract between an ancestral notable and a diety. The "universe" ain't in the picture, despite cameos from assorted Moabites and Edomites, and featuring for this showing only the Pharaoh Ramses.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 03:07:15 PM
You are talking about the division between orthodoxy and heresy within a given religion, but that debate all takes place within a religious belief.
yeah and what belief is that?
An educated Christian would say immortality of the soul is fundamental to belief, which arguably makes that person more of Neo-Platonist than a follower of the man-being who preached the Gospel and seems to know nothing about that concept.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 03:00:15 PM
But religion is the set of practices and disciplines one follows not because one adheres to a particular profession but because one recognizes oneself as a member of a particular community of people.
You seem to be conflating ritual with religion. Lawyers, students, warriors, priests, children -- are all members of specific communities, and all human communities have considerable rituals that enforce, and assign identities to themselves, and these sub-groups. Sure, one engages into the ritual of the trial only briefly -- and the point of this ritual is to recognize one as part of the community which will judge you, and which requires you to submit to the judgment. And similarly, one is a children for a limited time - then comes the coming of age ritual. These rituals can have considerable religious, or spiritual overtones. But many do not. It's just "how it's done", within the Cuivas, or the Jews, or the Igbo, or the Cherokees, or the English, or the Marines.
Again, rituals are not the marker of religion. They exist precisely to maintain and sustain group identity, whether that group is based around religious belief, age, profession, activity, status, etc. The religious content of rituals can be quite poor, as you note. And many religious belief are not tied to any specific ritual.
The main reason why rituals are associated with religion is precisely because "how it's done" in the majority of human communities in history has been tied to some ancestral past, held to be witness to the event, and guardian of tradition. This can be heavily enforced by institutions, and dogma. Or it can be loosely enforced by elders and wise women.
We may well decide that ritual is only reserved for these group-enforcing practices that concern religion - and thus ascribe, as you do, other types of rituals as "religious-like", but that robs us of some capacity to understand how identities are generally ascribed and enforced AND of the capacity to understand the specificity of religion.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 03:07:15 PM
You are talking about the division between orthodoxy and heresy within a given religion, but that debate all takes place within a religious belief.
yeah and what belief is that?
An educated Christian would say immortality of the soul is fundamental to belief, which arguably makes that person more of Neo-Platonist than a follower of the man-being who preached the Gospel and seems to know nothing about that concept.
If you are going to define religious belief as that which must be orthodox or in keeping with what "an educated" member of the religion might think then you are rendering non religious a lot of people who might be surprised by their new status. There are people who consider themselves Christians who believe that "saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces" exist. But the don't meet your definition and so, by the stroke of your pen/keystroke are given a status which non of them would recognize as valid.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 21, 2019, 05:46:50 PM
"Religion" is a fairly hard term to pin-down. It encompasses the complex theology of the Catholic Church as well as the Animist who thanks the trees for giving up their fruit.
Yeah, also there's a big difference between a a cuddly Lutheran with a spiritual approach to life, say, and a Wahhabi with a narrow legalistic one.
I like Nassim Taleb's take on religion as a heuristic for intergenerational risk management (avoiding, for example, gambler's ruin and similar hazards).
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 22, 2019, 03:36:32 PM
Lawyers, students, warriors, priests, children -- are all members of specific communities, and all human communities have considerable rituals that enforce, and assign identities to themselves, and these sub-groups.
Students, warrior and lawyers aren't members of specific communities; people are members of those communities, and some people hold some of those roles some of the time. The set of rituals and practices that extends across the community and binds all at all stages of life is the
religio Its fair to accuse me of "conflating ritual with religion" but you also aren't advancing an alterative. Any definition can be easily deconstructed or accused of incompleteness, over-inclusiveness or conflation. Pick your poison.
Malthus did present a coherent definition of sorts - the mark of religion being a set of beliefs regarding a supernatural agency or agencies and its/their relationship to the world. But if we focus as CC suggests on what actual adherents to the religion do and believe, much of what they do and think about regularly in relation to their religion has nothing to do with that set of beliefs. It would be odd if much of what people do and believe concerning their religion is bereft of the thing that defines it as a religion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 04:07:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 03:07:15 PM
You are talking about the division between orthodoxy and heresy within a given religion, but that debate all takes place within a religious belief.
yeah and what belief is that?
An educated Christian would say immortality of the soul is fundamental to belief, which arguably makes that person more of Neo-Platonist than a follower of the man-being who preached the Gospel and seems to know nothing about that concept.
If you are going to define religious belief as that which must be orthodox or in keeping with what "an educated" member of the religion might think then you are rendering non religious a lot of people who might be surprised by their new status. There are people who consider themselves Christians who believe that "saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces" exist. But the don't meet your definition and so, by the stroke of your pen/keystroke are given a status which non of them would recognize as valid.
My point is not the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy. It's the distinction between (1) what scriptural texts actually say; (2) the "official" set of dogmas or doctrines, and (3) what people actually do and believe. I accept your point that Christians are the people who consider themselves Christian. But the actual content of their beliefs is probably closer to that of their pagan ancestors than what is taught in the seminaries. If that is so then to define religion as a set of beliefs concerning a supernatural being is problematic, because it means Christians have beliefs that are un-Christian. If one defines Christianity as simply that set of things that Christians do, that problem goes away.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 04:41:17 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 22, 2019, 03:36:32 PM
Lawyers, students, warriors, priests, children -- are all members of specific communities, and all human communities have considerable rituals that enforce, and assign identities to themselves, and these sub-groups.
Students, warrior and lawyers aren't members of specific communities; people are members of those communities, and some people hold some of those roles some of the time. The set of rituals and practices that extends across the community and binds all at all stages of like is the religio
Its fair to accuse me of "conflating ritual with religion" but you also aren't advancing an alterative. Any definition can be easily deconstructed or accused of incompleteness, over-inclusiveness or conflation. Pick your poison.
Malthus did present a coherent definition of sorts - the mark of religion being a set of beliefs regarding a supernatural agency or agencies and its/their relationship to the world. But if we focus as CC suggests on what actual adherents to the religion do and believe, much of what they do and think about regularly in relation to their religion has nothing to do with that set of beliefs. It would be odd if much of what people do and believe concerning their religion is bereft of the thing that defines it as a religion.
Well, I can see someone conducting a ritual - say sacrificing to Zeus the Father of the Gods - without caring much about the theology of it all, and more concerned about 'is my sacrifice making a good impression on my neighbours and rivals? Is it too ostentatious, or not rich enough?'.
I still think it makes more sense to classify that as a 'religious' activity, despite the fact that it may in many ways be no different from any other type of conspicuous consumption like buying a flashy car (or chariot), because ultimately it is set in motion by a set of beliefs we define as 'religious'.
Admittedly the line gets very thin at times - indeed, arguably the Reformation was set in motion exactly because Italian nobles of the Renaissance treated the Catholic Church as just another forum in which to compete for wealth and status, which pissed the actual religious people off.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 04:41:17 PM
Students, warrior and lawyers aren't members of specific communities; people are members of those communities, and some people hold some of those roles some of the time. The set of rituals and practices that extends across the community and binds all at all stages of life is the religio
In which case, the State, or the Nation, becomes a religio.
Again, I think I have addressed that in my post above which everyone seems to have ignored. The problem we face is two-fold.
1) How can we have a definition of religion that keeps out forms of belonging, which we know and experience, and which we would not be comfortable in defining as religion - except in a polemical way. (i.e., things I hate are a religion, things I subscribe to are perfectly rational forms of engagement).
2) How can we have a definition of religion that accommodates the wide diversity of human spirituality. One way that has historically been done, has been to identify as religion only those sets of belief that are institutionally enforced by a dedicated priesthood (as opposed to, say, enforced strictly by a community).
As I suggested above, these two problems seem to be linked to the fundamental rupture that is instantiated by the invention of "secularism", of which we are very much the product. It is a rupture that allows us to distinguish between rote, ritualism, and meaningful engagement with religious idea - whereas such a distinction would have been unthinkable in most human societies. In other words, you may doubt the efficacy of the sacrifice you perform, but you would not doubt the existence of a very porous border between this world, peopled by "us humans" and a different world(s) peopled by entities, and governed by very different rules.
It is also the rupture which has allowed the State, and the Nation, to be distinguished as entities independently from religious belief, precisely capable of "linkages", of overseeing all aspects of life, and binding everyone into the community.
This is why I suggested contrasting concern with transcendence with concern with materialism. It does not create a very neat divide, but I think it is at least intellectually productive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 04:48:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 04:07:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 03:07:15 PM
You are talking about the division between orthodoxy and heresy within a given religion, but that debate all takes place within a religious belief.
yeah and what belief is that?
An educated Christian would say immortality of the soul is fundamental to belief, which arguably makes that person more of Neo-Platonist than a follower of the man-being who preached the Gospel and seems to know nothing about that concept.
If you are going to define religious belief as that which must be orthodox or in keeping with what "an educated" member of the religion might think then you are rendering non religious a lot of people who might be surprised by their new status. There are people who consider themselves Christians who believe that "saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces" exist. But the don't meet your definition and so, by the stroke of your pen/keystroke are given a status which non of them would recognize as valid.
My point is not the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy. It's the distinction between (1) what scriptural texts actually say; (2) the "official" set of dogmas or doctrines, and (3) what people actually do and believe. I accept your point that Christians are the people who consider themselves Christian. But the actual content of their beliefs is probably closer to that of their pagan ancestors than what is taught in the seminaries. If that is so then to define religion as a set of beliefs concerning a supernatural being is problematic, because it means Christians have beliefs that are un-Christian. If one defines Christianity as simply that set of things that Christians do, that problem goes away.
The definitional exercise you are embarked on leads to odd results. Of course Christianity grew out of what had existed before it. The whole concept of an "official dogma and what the texts actually say are very problematic as it engages questions of whose version, what texts, what version of the bible etc etc. That gets us back into a debate of what became orthodox and heretical. Are all the variations of Christianity around the world who have to one degree or another taken on local beliefs not religious?
Historically I don't think the issue is Christian communities drifting away from orthodoxy to alternative or heterodox beliefs. It's more that existing belief communities accepted a basic or titular form of conversion, changed some labels around, and were designated "Christian" without much if any fundamental alteration in belief structure. Similar dynamic occurred in the history of Islam, which has very low immediate barriers to entry and a historical penchant for mass conversion events.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 22, 2019, 06:28:48 PM
This is why I suggested contrasting concern with transcendence with concern with materialism. It does not create a very neat divide, but I think it is at least intellectually productive.
It does also sweep in a lot of thought that isn't typically considered religious.
Also where does Marxism sit on this dichotomy - the idea of transcendence through the embrace of a materialist worldview?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 22, 2019, 07:31:11 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 22, 2019, 06:28:48 PM
This is why I suggested contrasting concern with transcendence with concern with materialism. It does not create a very neat divide, but I think it is at least intellectually productive.
It does also sweep in a lot of thought that isn't typically considered religious.
Could you provide some examples?
QuoteAlso where does Marxism sit on this dichotomy - the idea of transcendence through the embrace of a materialist worldview?
I think Marxism is precisely the attempt at recognizing, and bridging that dichotomy. There is a reason, I think, why the materialism of Marxism has retained explanatory power, while its transcendent aspect has considerably receded, including in nominally Communist regimes. (North Korea certainly does its best to intertwine transcendence with materialism, though).
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 02:55:20 PM
Which ancient religions did not have a creation story?
Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism off the top of my head.
Hinduism? Huh. They don't have anything about creation in there someplace? They have so many stories.
Quote from: Valmy on July 22, 2019, 11:52:31 PM
Hinduism? Huh. They don't have anything about creation in there someplace? They have so many stories.
According to Hindu beliefs, the world is an illusion. It was never "created." All that we think of as the world is just how our Atman, contaminated with matter, (mis)perceives the ultimate reality, or Brahman. The secret is to achieve moksha, where you are not longer distracted by the false reality, and directly perceive Brahman. You will be reborn until you achieve moksha, but you are reborn into the illusion, not the reality.
For all you know, says Hindu philosophy, you might be the last bit of Atman that has not yet achieved moksha. Everyone you know might be an NPC, and you could never tell.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 22, 2019, 07:38:05 PM
Could you provide some examples?
The entire field of metaphysical philosophy for starters.
QuoteI think Marxism is precisely the attempt at recognizing, and bridging that dichotomy. There is a reason, I think, why the materialism of Marxism has retained explanatory power, while its transcendent aspect has considerably receded, including in nominally Communist regimes. (North Korea certainly does its best to intertwine transcendence with materialism, though).
Yes the transcendent aspect of Marxism doesn't have the best track record. The materialist aspect is more mixed: on one branch you get the Bernsteinist welfare state, on the other, the Holodomor.
Quote from: grumbler on July 22, 2019, 11:50:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 22, 2019, 02:55:20 PM
Which ancient religions did not have a creation story?
Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism off the top of my head.
You should probably give it a bit more thought.
Hinduism definitely has a creation story. In fact it has many.
Buddhism check out the Aggan̄n̄a Sutta although more of a cyclical tale then a true beginning
Confucianism - I see what you did there :P
Taoism - check out the universal egg
There are huge problems with generalizing about things like "Taoism", "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" - even moreso than about generalizing about things like "Christianity" and "Islam". And these problems point directly to the subject under debate.
Basically, these former labels each cover a huge range of beliefs, creeds and philosophies. "Hinduism", for example, is often used as a short-hand for the religious traditions of India (where they aren't labelled as something else, like Buddhism or Jainsim). There are aspects of these which are clearly religions, and other aspects which are more philosophical systems. The religious aspects include creation myths (several!).
Similarly, Buddhism has aspects which are clearly philosophical ways of looking at the world, and aspects which are clearly religious - some sects of Buddhism are very similar to Catholicism, having saints, heavens, hells, prayers, etc.
Taoism is likewise often divided into "religious" and "philosophical" Taoism; the former is very similar to some types of Buddhism.
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2019, 12:55:44 PM
There are huge problems with generalizing about things like "Taoism", "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" - even moreso than about generalizing about things like "Christianity" and "Islam". And these problems point directly to the subject under debate.
Basically, these former labels each cover a huge range of beliefs, creeds and philosophies. "Hinduism", for example, is often used as a short-hand for the religious traditions of India (where they aren't labelled as something else, like Buddhism or Jainsim). There are aspects of these which are clearly religions, and other aspects which are more philosophical systems. The religious aspects include creation myths (several!).
Similarly, Buddhism has aspects which are clearly philosophical ways of looking at the world, and aspects which are clearly religious - some sects of Buddhism are very similar to Catholicism, having saints, heavens, hells, prayers, etc.
Taoism is likewise often divided into "religious" and "philosophical" Taoism; the former is very similar to some types of Buddhism.
Sure, and for that reason making a specific claim that all that falls under those labels has no creation story is very problematic. It is the same problem JR has in the definitions offered. It all amounts to special pleading by focusing on the aspects of the religious beliefs that agree with their position without acknowledging the other bits that do not.
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2019, 12:55:44 PM
Basically, these former labels each cover a huge range of beliefs, creeds and philosophies. "Hinduism", for example, is often used as a short-hand for the religious traditions of India (where they aren't labelled as something else, like Buddhism or Jainsim).
And, of course, back in the day people did not realize those were actually different religions.
I found it fascinating how Hinduism is such a bizarrely big umbrella...yet somehow also spread itself beyond India and into Indonesia and other places. "Have you heard the massive amounts of good news?" The Hindu missionaries would say.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 22, 2019, 06:28:48 PM
Again, I think I have addressed that in my post above which everyone seems to have ignored. The problem we face is two-fold.
Well, to be honest, I didn't quite understand it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2019, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 23, 2019, 12:55:44 PM
Basically, these former labels each cover a huge range of beliefs, creeds and philosophies. "Hinduism", for example, is often used as a short-hand for the religious traditions of India (where they aren't labelled as something else, like Buddhism or Jainsim).
And, of course, back in the day people did not realize those were actually different religions.
I found it fascinating how Hinduism is such a bizarrely big umbrella...yet somehow also spread itself beyond India and into Indonesia and other places. "Have you heard the massive amounts of good news?" The Hindu missionaries would say.
Heh the Cambodians at least seemed to have been obsessed with two things from the Hindu mythology: the so-called "churning of the sea of milk" episode, and the adventures found in the Ramayana.
Whole walls of Angkor Wat were carved with scenes of the Monkey Army fighting demons:
(https://i.imgur.com/gwFmhUF.jpg)
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2019, 02:35:22 PM
"Have you heard the massive amounts of good news?"
:lol: