What should religion be based on?

[A_Seagull]

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).

Do you have any evidence for your belief?

Or is it just a presumption, based upon the fallacious inference that because something was done one way in the past that it must necessarily always be done that way?

PS I don't follow your analogy of noise and music. Noise is by definition random and 'incompressible'. Music is not random, and contains many overlapping patterns, it can be considered as 'compressible'.

[mickthinks]

... the fallacious inference that because something was done one way in the past that it must necessarily always be done that way?

As opposed to the equally fallacious inference that because something was done one way in the past it must necessarily never be done that way again?

Do you have any evidence that perfect knowledge with no outstanding questions is humanly possible ?

[marjoram_blues]

Go ahead.

Let's hear the definition...

Each definition already offered is 'workable' as a starting point for the initial exploration by PhilX.
I thought the wiki one was pretty substantive. It can be snipped or expanded, as required.

This thread was started by someone who has previously told me he is naturally curious and, apparently, feels no need for definitions.
Ref: 'Is philosophy nitpicking?' :<<I avoid defining terms because that tends to limit discussion. I prefer to let the context define the meaning of a word or phrase (so far I haven't ran into problems in this area).>>
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15125

It is now up to him to clarify his issue and his thinking process.

[Hobbes' Choice]

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 are not guilty of inventing words, You are guilty of misunderstanding them.
And adding your own idiotic spin.
"religion" implies tying people together, like the fasces.
It does NOT imply; "transcendent goddess which was interrupted by naughtiness".
That is just your inner idiot speaking.

[Hobbes' Choice]

religion (n.)
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."

Underlined in BOLD for the hard of thinking.

[Immanuel Can]

You're making too much of the word "bound." We use it in many ways...like "I'm bound to go mad," or "The prisoner is bound," or "I'm bound for the New World," and so on. Etymology is helpful, but is not the answer to everything, because words can take on different nuances with usage.

For example, take the word "lord": it's etymological origin is "loaf-wielder." But do you suppose that everyone must agree that that is precisely what the word means today? A "lord" is a baking-distributor?

It's more important to ask, "How is the word being used now?"

Certainly few "religious" types (whatever those may be) would probably not consent, "I'm religious because I'm bound (i.e. forced or constrained by power) to be." So I think you won't get many to concede so literalistic a definition as you're proposing.

[bobevenson]

What should religion be based on? "The Ouzo Prophecy," of course.

[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.

You are not guilty of inventing words, You are guilty of misunderstanding them.
And adding your own idiotic spin.
"religion" implies tying people together, like the fasces.
It does NOT imply; "transcendent goddess which was interrupted by naughtiness".
That is just your inner idiot speaking.

Not transcendent goddes which was interrupted, the relationship, was interrupted.
Note, rel-igion, rel-ationship, have the same semantic root.

[marjoram_blues]

The Destructive Spirit of Religion
from: http://www.christian-faith.com/how-spir ... pirit-god/

Definition: by the spirit of religion we mean that group of evil spirits which inspire loyalty to religious concepts and practices in such a way as to oppose and possibly to counterfeit the true work of the Holy Spirit.
Satan knows he cannot stop people from being religious. He therefore seeks to pervert the religious instinct of mankind by deception. All religious deceptions work to draw men away from glorifying and enjoying Christ.

One of the posters thought 'the spirit of religion to be on a par with the spirit of murder'...

The first Characteristic of the 'Work of Religious Spirits':

Fear of not being good enough
...People under religious spirits are carrying heavy burdens and do not have the sense of freedom that comes when we know that our sins are washed away. The Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and JOY in the Holy Spirit. If you are religious but you have no peace or joy, something is wrong. Condemnation and unrighteous judgment may have stolen it from you.

I wonder how they would answer the question posed by PhilX - 'What should religion be based on?'
Perhaps: There is only one true religion and it is based in the Kingdom of God, and in the Holy Spirit of righteousness, peace and joy'.
There is nothing else to consider...but the truth?

Have I got this about right?
I wonder, IC, if this position is near your own one?

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder, IC, if this position is near your own one?

No, quite far away actually, in spite of it making reference to some terms that come from the Christian tradition; for even it's account of these is incorrectly and pejoratively characterized, so not at all helpful to anyone trying to understand. Even more to the point, any definition of "religion" that relied on these terms would exclude everything from Islam to Hinduism to Buddhism to Taoism to Polytheism...

You see the problem, I'm sure. The term "religion" is only slightly more informative than the word "thing." It just covers too much and specifies too little.

But if we worry less about the label and instead simply look at what people think is "true," then we gain a basis for comparison through ontology and can start to make more intelligent judgments. That's what I would choose.

[marjoram_blues]

Thanks for quick and helpful post, IC.
So, what do you think is true, when it comes to religion? Or am I asking the wrong question...

[Immanuel Can]

Well, perhaps: after all, I wouldn't "come to religion".

But I do have views about what is true about life, the universe and everything...as does everyone, I think. And I think that any view of our own lives, whether "religious" or not, has to be based on the answer to three simple questions:

1) From where do we come?

2) To where are we going?

3) Meanwhile, and in light of the previous two questions, what is "the good life"?

Those, I think cover the ontological basics. And the neat thing about those three questions is that you will find they give you a basis for analyzing and comparing anyone else's view, whether we suppose that view is "religious" or not.

That seems a good "basis" to me.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well, perhaps: after all, I wouldn't "come to religion".

But I do have views about what is true about life, the universe and everything...as does everyone, I think. And I think that any view of our own lives, whether "religious" or not, has to be based on the answer to three simple questions:

1) From where do we come?

2) To where are we going?

3) Meanwhile, and in light of the previous two questions, what is "the good life"?

Those, I think cover the ontological basics. And the neat thing about those three questions is that you will find they give you a basis for analyzing and comparing anyone else's view, whether we suppose that view is "religious" or not.

That seems a good "basis" to me.

What do you mean "we"?

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean "we"?

Humans.

Unicorns, leprechauns and dwellers of the Delta Quadrant will have to ask their own questions.

[A_Seagull]

... the fallacious inference that because something was done one way in the past that it must necessarily always be done that way?

As opposed to the equally fallacious inference that because something was done one way in the past it must necessarily never be done that way again?

Do you have any evidence that perfect knowledge with no outstanding questions is humanly possible ?

I never asserted "that perfect knowledge with no outstanding questions is humanly possible".

In fact I take the opposing view that perfect knowledge is most likely impossible, And that even if one did have 'perfect knowledge' one could not know that one did.

Going back to your reference about music..... Do you not learn about Beethoven's symphonies without asking any questions? Indeed I would suggest that 'asking questions' would detract from the experience.