Yes. Some think irrationally. Some think vaguely. Some think imprecisely. And none of them, not even the experts, are able to say precisely what they mean, so long as they cling to the term "religion." Hence, there are good reasons to reject the term.Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:11 pmBut people think of it differently...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:28 pm I'm saying "religion" is a vague term. It's been used to describe practically everything, to the point where it's become useless. I'm saying "Pick a precise term."
I believe in objective reality.I asked you what you think?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:06 pmWe'll find out, I expect.Lacewing wrote: Do you think that what you talk about is anything more than what appears to you?
I think it's important not to go to extremes with definitions and positions.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:06 pmIf one does not already know that 2+2=4, they're in no position to say whether 2+2+5 is a lie or foolishness, or just a better answer.
It's not "to extremes."
Asking a person to be exact about what he/she means is only a form of rationality and politeness. It's saying, "I believe that what you may be trying to say is potentially so important that I want to be sure to understand exactly what you are trying to communicate." To leave that vague is, by contrast, to say, "Knowing exactly what you mean is of no importance to me; my own view is more important, and so long as I can air it, who cares what you meant?"
So let's go the first way, not the second. Let's give people credit for the possibility that they have something important to say; and if we suspect unclarity has crept into their usage, then in aid of them being able to say it, ask them precisely what they meant before we react. In other words, let's give them the dignity of specifying their definition, so we can speak to their point.