What should religion be based on?

[A_Seagull]

I think the question is anti-religious, and I wonder who Phil imagined would try to answer it.

But it certainly isn't anti-philosophy. And this is a philosophy forum.

[mickthinks]

I disagree. If philosophy requires us to frame thoughtful and meaningful questions in pursuit of greater understanding, then it (Phil's question) certainly is anti-philosophical as well as being anti-religious.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Religion has to be, and in fact is based on false promises that mobilise people's fear. It is engineered as a mechanism of social control, and oppression.
All successful religions have these things in common.

Philosophy is only relevant to this discussion to unpack and expose religion for what it is.

The contents of religion obey no philosophical rules, follow none of it's recommendations, and fails to respect its most fundamental aims.

[A_Seagull]

Religion should be based on transcendality. From latin "re-ligo", to tie, to unite. To tie your spirit to a transcendental entity. This is religion.

From Wiki: "In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of a god's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws"

The problem is two fold:
1. You cannot know what exists beyond the material universe. It could be anything from a cuckoo clock to an oversize chicken, or even nothing at all.

2. Since this 'transcendental entity' is entirely beyond the material universe, it is impossible to interact with it. And even impossible to know that one has interacted with it.

So I would conclude that religion is not a 'tying of one's spirit to a transcendental entity'.

[David Handeye]

Re-ligo, re-ligare; literally "what is tied once again", in the specific case renewing the relationship with the transcendent goddess which was interrupted by naughtiness, i.e. by sin.

[thedoc]

A religion is the dogma, based on the prevailing Mythology. A Mythology is a set of stories where each individual derives the same meaning as everyone else, rituals guarantee this. A Religion has all its beliefs nailed down and written in stone, so that everyone knows what they are supposed to believe.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Re-ligo, re-ligare; literally "what is tied once again", in the specific case renewing the relationship with the transcendent goddess which was interrupted by naughtiness, i.e. by sin.

RUBBISH.
How naive of you!
Religion is a BINDING that enslaves people to the state.


\

[A_Seagull]

I disagree. If philosophy requires us to frame thoughtful and meaningful questions in pursuit of greater understanding, then it (Phil's question) certainly is anti-philosophical as well as being anti-religious.

Philosophy does not require us to 'frame questions in pursuit of greater understanding'.

Philosophy requires us to examine the world we live in and make sense of it and to examine our place within the world and make sense of that too.

Religion is an important phenomenon within the world, so it is the role of philosophers to try to make sense of it. And that is what this thread is all about.

[David Handeye]

RUBBISH.
How naive of you!
Religion is a BINDING that enslaves people to the state.

I'm sorry, Hobbes, I didn't invent words.

[ReliStuPhD]

RUBBISH.
How naive of you!
Religion is a BINDING that enslaves people to the state.

I'm sorry, Hobbes, I didn't invent words.

You'll have to excuse Hobbes. He's under the impression that coherent arguments aren't a prerequisite for meaningful discussion. It's better to just add him to the ignore list as you would a petulant child.

[mickthinks]

Philosophy does not require us to 'frame questions in pursuit of greater understanding'. Philosophy requires us to examine the world we live in and make sense of it and to examine our place within the world and make sense of that too.

... and if there are no questions, what is there to examine and make sense of?

[A_Seagull]

Philosophy does not require us to 'frame questions in pursuit of greater understanding'. Philosophy requires us to examine the world we live in and make sense of it and to examine our place within the world and make sense of that too.

... and if there are no questions, what is there to examine and make sense of?

Are you not alive?

[mickthinks]

Ah, a rhetorical question! Even rhetorical questions can be framed in the pursuit of greater understanding, though I think your question here shows a lack of thought.

Naturally, even necessarily, I believe I am alive. And in living, I am engaged in thinking, and thought leads me (inevitably, I believe) to questions I would like answers to. For example, I want to know what you think the point was of asking me "Are you not alive?"

[A_Seagull]

Ah, a rhetorical question! Even rhetorical questions can be framed in the pursuit of greater understanding, though I think your question here shows a lack of thought.

Naturally, even necessarily, I believe I am alive. And in living, I am engaged in thinking, and thought leads me (inevitably, I believe) to questions I would like answers to. For example, I want to know what you think the point was of asking me "Are you not alive?"

As a live being, you are being bombarded with sensory data on a perpetual basis, from eyes, ears, skin etc.. The task of the brain is to make sense of that data. Irrespective of any questions.

Philosophy is just the same, except at a somewhat higher level.

[mickthinks]

The task of the brain is to make sense of that data. Irrespective of any questions.

And when all of the data make sense immediately, there will be no questions. And when they don't (as I believe is inevitable) questions will arise that are not "irrespective of any questions".

Philosophy is just the same, except at a somewhat higher level.

LOL You might just as well say, to take one obvious example, "Music is just the same as noise, but at a higher level". It may be true, on an astoundingly low level, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that Beethoven wasted his time learning to write symphonies, or indeed that I am wasting my time listening to them.

To put it another way, the difference between lower and higher levels is the point at issue. I believe we cannot reach the higher level without framing thoughtful and meaningful questions and then finding answers (leading on to more thoughtful questions, and thus a never-ending process of inquiry).