what is the religion of reason?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by DPMartin »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:15 am
Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 8:26 am The idea of reason has a history. Socrates and Confucius were salient figures who advanced the idea of reason, and in modern Europe Descartes made a great leap forward that enable scientific enlightenment. I have not studied the history of reason as such however these few examples are common knowledge.
So, when DP Martin is talking about the religion of reason, what do you think me means by 'reason' in that phrase? I assumed he meant this in a pejorative sense. That people overvalue reason or have a kind of problematic faith in it, but he or she decline to clarify that or what was meant by reason here, in this thread. I see people having a variety of ideas about what reason is and wondered what he or she meant or what she thought
the reason was that others were worshipping. Any thoughts?

And as an aside, I think I agree, but since I am not sure what was meant, I'm trying to get more information.
well well, you get it after all

they don't seem to have a problematic faith in reason, their faith is apparently reason. and since this society sees faith as religion there you are. They believe and trust in reason over all else. hence idolized as the greatest thing, and treated as a god though most likely they would never admit such a travesty that they actually worship something. if you honor it as a god, then it’s your god.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Belinda »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:41 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 1:01 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:12 am


What's your definition of religion that is so much better?
A means of social control which is supported by a mythology. The recent celebratory ritual surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth exemplifies both socia what l control and mythology.
That's absurd, then to criticise what I said about religion, if that is what you are saying, since in order to control the population what you need is to give people a thing the WANT TO belief.
This Forum is getting tedious when people who agree always respond with attacks.
You are right. Without the tribal motive people would not be interested in believing the same mythology as everyone else.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Sculptor »

DPMartin wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:39 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:05 pm
DPMartin wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:18 pm

So, you're saying you acknowledge reason as the most high entity, correct? If so, then you’re saying you are your most high entity seeing reason is a product of the mind or thought.
What is your reason for saying that?
apparently you don't have an answer for what i asked
Unless you can say what is your reason, your question is meaningless.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:27 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:41 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 1:01 pm
A means of social control which is supported by a mythology. The recent celebratory ritual surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth exemplifies both socia what l control and mythology.
That's absurd, then to criticise what I said about religion, if that is what you are saying, since in order to control the population what you need is to give people a thing the WANT TO belief.
This Forum is getting tedious when people who agree always respond with attacks.
You are right. Without the tribal motive people would not be interested in believing the same mythology as everyone else.
I think it is quite possible that people are capable of believing nonsense regardless of their peers, that is how Christianity got started and replaced a shedload of so-called "Pagan" religions; not because they belonged to a "tribe" but for many other reasons; some in rebellion to their tribe; until that tribe (ROME) appropriated the religion 300 years later. SO at least in the early stages it was not about tribalism nor social control, but about wanting to believe in something "better".
I would suggest that the trajectory of most religions start that way, except that it usually does not take 300 years to come under the aegis of the state.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Harbal »

DPMartin wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:18 pm what is the religion of reason? Just how powerful can self-justification be? How is it that one can believe in reason as their god, worshiped as the most admirable thing? Truly they see it as the provider of all they need to know.
I get the impression you think that placing faith in reason is not a good thing. If that is the case, why don't you just say so?
FrankGSterleJr
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:41 pm

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by FrankGSterleJr »

So much very important news, notably worldly suffering and tragedy, has been overridden and omitted to make available as much newsprint and broadcast-time as possible for the passing of Queen Elizabeth. With all due respect, she's one person, however beloved and special to many people. And I'm far from being the only news-consumer troubled by this clear inequity involving news coverage.

Every time I turned to Canada's national CBC news channel, day or night, it was various forms of this.

A renowned newsman once justly implicated the Western world's news coverage and consuming callousness and imbalance: “A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.”

Thus I wrote the relevant verse below:


WITH news-stories’ human subjects’ race and culture dictating
quantity of media coverage of even the poorest of souls,
a renowned newsman formulated a startling equation
justly implicating collective humanity’s news-consuming callousness
— “A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus
make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.”

According to this unjust news-media mentality reasonably deduced
five hundred prolongedly-war-weary Middle Eastern Arabs getting blown
to bits in the same day perhaps should take up even less space and airtime.
So readily learned is the tiny token short story buried in the bottom
right-hand corner of the newspaper’s last page, the so brief account
involving a long-lasting war about which there’s virtually absolutely
nothing civil; therefore caught in the warring web are civilians most
unfortunate, most weak, the very most in need of peace and civility.

And it’s naught but business as usual in the damned nations
where such severe suffering almost entirely dominates the
fractured structured daily routine of civilian slaughter
(plus that of the odd well-armed henchman) mostly by means
of bomb blasts from incendiary explosive devices,
rock-fire fragments and shell shock readily shared with freshly shredded
shrapnel wounds resulting from smart bombs sometimes launched for
the stupidest of reasons into crowded markets and grade schools.

Hence where humane consideration and conduct were unquestionably
due post haste came only few allocated seconds of sound bite — a half minute
if news-media were with extra space or time to spare — and one or two
printed paragraphs on page twenty-three of Section C; such news
consumed in the stable fully developed, fully ‘civilized’ Western world
by heads slowly shaking at the barbarity of ‘those people’ in that
war-torn strife which has forced tens of thousands of civilians to post haste
gather what’s left of their shattered lives and limbs and flee.

Thus comes the imminent point at which such meager-measure
couple-column-inches coverage reflects the civil Western readers’
accumulating apathy towards such dime-a-dozen disaster zones
of the globe, all accompanied by a large yawn; then the
said readers subconsciously perceive even greater human-life devaluation
from the miniscule ‘hundreds-dead-yet-again’ coverage.

Consequently continues the self-perpetuation of the token-two-column-inch
(non)coverage as the coldly calculated worth of such common mass slaughter,
ergo those many-score violently lost human lives are somehow worth
so much the less than, say, three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.

Perhaps had they all been cases of the once-persecuted suddenly
persecuting or the once-weak wreaking havoc upon their neighboring indigenous
minorities — perhaps then there’d be far more compassionately just coverage?
The human mind is said to be worth much more than the sum of the
human body’s parts, though that psyche may somehow seem to be of
lesser value if all that’s left is naught but bomb-blast-dismembered body parts.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Walker »

The religion of reason is worshiped through devotion to reasons.

The religion of reason is only a religion,
if reason is reasoned to be divine.

Religion requires a form of divinity, either relative or absolute.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9452
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Harbal »

FrankGSterleJr wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:44 pm A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.
I can understand why that might be the case in the UK, but it probably isn't the case in Pakistan.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Harbal wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:42 pm
DPMartin wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:18 pm what is the religion of reason? Just how powerful can self-justification be? How is it that one can believe in reason as their god, worshiped as the most admirable thing? Truly they see it as the provider of all they need to know.
I get the impression you think that placing faith in reason is not a good thing. If that is the case, why don't you just say so?
And, heck, I wouldn't mind some examples, ones showing the difference between using reason/valuing it and making a religion out of it. I can imagine agreeing or disagreeing if there was some clear explanation/demonstration of what the characteristics are. Otherwise, yes, I think we are left with impressions in the fog of abstraction.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Belinda »

FrankGSterleJr wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:44 pm So much very important news, notably worldly suffering and tragedy, has been overridden and omitted to make available as much newsprint and broadcast-time as possible for the passing of Queen Elizabeth. With all due respect, she's one person, however beloved and special to many people. And I'm far from being the only news-consumer troubled by this clear inequity involving news coverage.

Every time I turned to Canada's national CBC news channel, day or night, it was various forms of this.

A renowned newsman once justly implicated the Western world's news coverage and consuming callousness and imbalance: “A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.”

Thus I wrote the relevant verse below:


WITH news-stories’ human subjects’ race and culture dictating
quantity of media coverage of even the poorest of souls,
a renowned newsman formulated a startling equation
justly implicating collective humanity’s news-consuming callousness
— “A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus
make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.”

According to this unjust news-media mentality reasonably deduced
five hundred prolongedly-war-weary Middle Eastern Arabs getting blown
to bits in the same day perhaps should take up even less space and airtime.
So readily learned is the tiny token short story buried in the bottom
right-hand corner of the newspaper’s last page, the so brief account
involving a long-lasting war about which there’s virtually absolutely
nothing civil; therefore caught in the warring web are civilians most
unfortunate, most weak, the very most in need of peace and civility.

And it’s naught but business as usual in the damned nations
where such severe suffering almost entirely dominates the
fractured structured daily routine of civilian slaughter
(plus that of the odd well-armed henchman) mostly by means
of bomb blasts from incendiary explosive devices,
rock-fire fragments and shell shock readily shared with freshly shredded
shrapnel wounds resulting from smart bombs sometimes launched for
the stupidest of reasons into crowded markets and grade schools.

Hence where humane consideration and conduct were unquestionably
due post haste came only few allocated seconds of sound bite — a half minute
if news-media were with extra space or time to spare — and one or two
printed paragraphs on page twenty-three of Section C; such news
consumed in the stable fully developed, fully ‘civilized’ Western world
by heads slowly shaking at the barbarity of ‘those people’ in that
war-torn strife which has forced tens of thousands of civilians to post haste
gather what’s left of their shattered lives and limbs and flee.

Thus comes the imminent point at which such meager-measure
couple-column-inches coverage reflects the civil Western readers’
accumulating apathy towards such dime-a-dozen disaster zones
of the globe, all accompanied by a large yawn; then the
said readers subconsciously perceive even greater human-life devaluation
from the miniscule ‘hundreds-dead-yet-again’ coverage.

Consequently continues the self-perpetuation of the token-two-column-inch
(non)coverage as the coldly calculated worth of such common mass slaughter,
ergo those many-score violently lost human lives are somehow worth
so much the less than, say, three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.

Perhaps had they all been cases of the once-persecuted suddenly
persecuting or the once-weak wreaking havoc upon their neighboring indigenous
minorities — perhaps then there’d be far more compassionately just coverage?
The human mind is said to be worth much more than the sum of the
human body’s parts, though that psyche may somehow seem to be of
lesser value if all that’s left is naught but bomb-blast-dismembered body parts.
if any one of those Pakistan men or women had their story told in the intimate and emotive detail that Queen Elizabeth's story has been told almost countless times then that Pakistan man would fulfill one of the conditions to be as newsworthy as Queen Elizabeth.

If that Pakistan man had been as influential and as rich as Queen Elizabeth then he or she would have fulfilled the other conditions for newsworthy.

It may be that one of the Pakistan persons on that bus fulfils all three conditions or maybe only one of them but lacked the publicity machine of the British monarchy.

The moral status of reportage depends on the quality of reportage, which in turn depends on how the reportage is financed. If the financial backers of the medium care about nothing but making money then sensationalism will fill the medium. However even the most disinterested set of reporters and editors would find the recent royal news event a hard nut to crack and replace with the story of an obscure life and death in Pakistan or anywhere else.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by bobmax »

I think that reason can be considered a religion when it is understood as a determined thought.

And this is a misunderstanding, because reason is not limited to determined thought.

Determined thinking mirrors the manifold world.
That is, the division of reality into distinct parts.
This division is indispensable to be able to operate in the world, because it allows to determine it by analyzing the relationships between its parts.

However, when this determination becomes absolute truth then we have a religion.
That is, the distinction is considered "true", the multiple is the Truth.

But reason knows, even though it cannot express it through determined thought, that the multiple is not absolute truth, but is only a provisional interpretation of the world.

Reason perceives the One.
And the One can never be a religion, since for the determined thought the One coincides with the Nothing.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Iwannaplato »

bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:10 am I think that reason can be considered a religion when it is understood as a determined thought.

And this is a misunderstanding, because reason is not limited to determined thought.

Determined thinking mirrors the manifold world.
That is, the division of reality into distinct parts.
This division is indispensable to be able to operate in the world, because it allows to determine it by analyzing the relationships between its parts.

However, when this determination becomes absolute truth then we have a religion.
That is, the distinction is considered "true", the multiple is the Truth.

But reason knows, even though it cannot express it through determined thought, that the multiple is not absolute truth, but is only a provisional interpretation of the world.

Reason perceives the One.
And the One can never be a religion, since for the determined thought the One coincides with the Nothing.
You seems to be attributing knowledge and belief to reason. Reason is not a thinking agent. It doesn't know things. It doesn't perceive things. There can be many definitions of reason, but I haven't heard of one that considers reason to be a kind of mind. Generally reasoning is some kind of process of assertions and justifications in some kind of verbal format: speaking, writing....

Some people believe that distinctions are provisional, others do not. (with people who have different beliefs regarding different things and other views combining or separate from those). People who reason don't all think that distinctions are all provisional.

What is a determined thought? (as opposed to other kinds of thought)
Age
Posts: 20042
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:07 am
Harbal wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:42 pm
DPMartin wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:18 pm what is the religion of reason? Just how powerful can self-justification be? How is it that one can believe in reason as their god, worshiped as the most admirable thing? Truly they see it as the provider of all they need to know.
I get the impression you think that placing faith in reason is not a good thing. If that is the case, why don't you just say so?
And, heck, I wouldn't mind some examples, ones showing the difference between using reason/valuing it and making a religion out of it.
I do not think 'the point' has been 'making a religion out of reason'' but rather 'making a religion of reason, itself'.

In other words just having a faith and/or a belief in 'reason', itself, and especially so in one's OWN 'reason'.

Exactly like one having faith or belief in something, especially of one's own making up, one can also have this religious attitude of or to just about ANY thing. This phenomena can be seen just about everywhere in adult human behaviour and in adult thought and thinking. Some "scientists" have a faith or a belief in what some "others" say, or do, and so just accept and agree with what those ones say or said, based on nothing more than faith or belief alone. Which is more or less just what the 'religion' word means and refers to, EXACTLY.

So, some "scientists" are even MORE 'religious' than what the so-called "religious" are. That is; those so-called "scientist" worship and BELIEVE IN some "others" MORE than the "religious" worship and BELIEVE IN, in the things that they do, human or nonhuman alike.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:07 amI can imagine agreeing or disagreeing if there was some clear explanation/demonstration of what the characteristics are. Otherwise, yes, I think we are left with impressions in the fog of abstraction.
The word 'religion' just refers to or means the having of faith, belief, worship, and/or devotion in, of, or to some 'thing'. From this context, ANY adult human being can be 'religious' to, of, or in ANY thing', including 'reason', itself, and especially one's OWN 'reason'. Some have faith, belief and/or worship and are devout to some 'god', and especially their OWN 'god' (of choosing).

ANY one can CHOOSE absolutely ANY 'thing' to be 'religious' of or about, from the definition of 'religion' just provided. This, obviously, includes 'reason' itself.

So, ,the 'religion of reason' is just the EXACT SAME as the 'religion of ANY thing else's.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Sculptor »

bobmax wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:10 am I think that reason can be considered a religion when it is understood as a determined thought.
Reason cannot be a determined thought.
You seem to have an odd idea of the process which is reason.
A thought that has become "determined" (and I assume you do not mean that in a free will/causality way), in the sense of becoming intransigent, then it has departed from reason and has become dogma.


And this is a misunderstanding, because reason is not limited to determined thought.
It is with you that the misunderstanding has occurred.
Reason it not just "not limited" in this way. Reason has no part of it.


Determined thinking mirrors the manifold world.
That is, the division of reality into distinct parts.
This division is indispensable to be able to operate in the world, because it allows to determine it by analyzing the relationships between its parts.

However, when this determination becomes absolute truth then we have a religion.
That is, the distinction is considered "true", the multiple is the Truth.

But reason knows, even though it cannot express it through determined thought, that the multiple is not absolute truth, but is only a provisional interpretation of the world.

Reason perceives the One.
And the One can never be a religion, since for the determined thought the One coincides with the Nothing.
OMG!!
This is amusing.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: what is the religion of reason?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:31 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:07 am
Harbal wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 10:42 pm

I get the impression you think that placing faith in reason is not a good thing. If that is the case, why don't you just say so?
And, heck, I wouldn't mind some examples, ones showing the difference between using reason/valuing it and making a religion out of it.
I do not think 'the point' has been 'making a religion out of reason'' but rather 'making a religion of reason, itself'.

In other words just having a faith and/or a belief in 'reason', itself, and especially so in one's OWN 'reason'.

Exactly like one having faith or belief in something, especially of one's own making up, one can also have this religious attitude of or to just about ANY thing. This phenomena can be seen just about everywhere in adult human behaviour and in adult thought and thinking. Some "scientists" have a faith or a belief in what some "others" say, or do, and so just accept and agree with what those ones say or said, based on nothing more than faith or belief alone. Which is more or less just what the 'religion' word means and refers to, EXACTLY.

So, some "scientists" are even MORE 'religious' than what the so-called "religious" are. That is; those so-called "scientist" worship and BELIEVE IN some "others" MORE than the "religious" worship and BELIEVE IN, in the things that they do, human or nonhuman alike.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:07 amI can imagine agreeing or disagreeing if there was some clear explanation/demonstration of what the characteristics are. Otherwise, yes, I think we are left with impressions in the fog of abstraction.
The word 'religion' just refers to or means the having of faith, belief, worship, and/or devotion in, of, or to some 'thing'. From this context, ANY adult human being can be 'religious' to, of, or in ANY thing', including 'reason', itself, and especially one's OWN 'reason'. Some have faith, belief and/or worship and are devout to some 'god', and especially their OWN 'god' (of choosing).

ANY one can CHOOSE absolutely ANY 'thing' to be 'religious' of or about, from the definition of 'religion' just provided. This, obviously, includes 'reason' itself.

So, ,the 'religion of reason' is just the EXACT SAME as the 'religion of ANY thing else's.
I am still curious about what DP considers to be the signs that show when something is the religion of reason.
what is the religion of reason? Just how powerful can self-justification be? How is it that one can believe in reason as their god, worshiped as the most admirable thing? Truly they see it as the provider of all they need to know.
Who is the 'they' DP refers to? What is it about them that leads to this label? And so, for me, I think it would give me a clearer understanding of DP's position if I knew the 'they' and then also have some examples of the signs that 'they' are doing this/believe this.
Post Reply