Obviously we are far part as to how we appreciate what religion is. Where you seem to be limited to a secular worldly meaning. I am more open to the universal meaning in which religion has different objective qualities. From this perspective there is the exoteric level, the esoteric level, and the transcendent level. You only accept the exoteric or outer level containing all the misconceptions normal for this level. When a seeker of truth experiences there is something greater than the exoteric which as you suggest is often used for secular manipulations, they can enter an esoteric path inwardly leading in the direction of the conscious origin of religion or the transcendent level. So when you write of religions it cannot make any sense to me until you specify which level of religion you refer to.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:04 amIt's the other way around. Politics favor religion as a mechanism to justify laws where it lacks complete agreement by objective standards whether it be at odds with science or to sufficient popular appeal. Science, while not without similar politics, is strictly intended to deal with the lowest denominational truths agreed upon by all people regarding nature itself, ...as opposed to something 'super-natural' or beyond our objective AGREEMENT about them.Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:18 am Fortunately there is a minority who realize the importance of the religious truths which enable a person to experience the objective value or quality of what the partial truths of science reveal. Because they are open minded as opposed to being agenda driven they can experience revelation by intuition.
Intuition is an artistic aptitude with regards to thinking creatively and is useful for us to 'visualize' something prior to determining any proof needed that science later takes on. This does not exclude things that relate to religion but has to require a strict means to test claims that are not universally shareable. Science is a 'politic' in that it collectively votes upon observed phenomena, interpretation, and the routines used to determine the best agreement. But the ethics itself involves people which is a form of 'religious' participation of subjects within the minds of each scientist.
"Truth" itself is just a human term itself used to reference agreement between two or more people. Since all beliefs are broader an issue than the minimal things we agree on, all beliefs not shareable belong to philosophy properly but science to a subset of it that deals with Nature we can determine with what we have absent of mere 'faith'.
I know this must seem outrageous but here is some information on it for anyone interested. It is written by Thomas McFarlane who is a man of science. But for those like me, religion can be both a tool which serves political manipulation or serve as the foundation for a society in which technology serves Man's objective meaning and purpose by enabling the experience of objective "value."
https://integralscience.wordpress.com/1 ... religions/.