What is religion ?

[Walker]

Doc, would you agree that:

Religions point out spirituality hiding in the confusion of chaos, life, purpose, all the good stuff.

The worship is revealed to the witness by the actions of worship rituals, actions copacetic with the particular view. For example, the sky burial of Tibet is a spiritual action, but not to many other religions that have other views about this and that.

In theory, consistent spiritual actions will yield a consistent result, which is why yoga is called a science and an art, one can say it’s the science of artful action without end.

The spirituality of skipping through the daisies and being one with the blue sky and perfect climate may be a pleasure, but it’s more of a base pleasure, an animal sensation. Some views figure that’s spirituality, which makes the nature of devotional spiritual practice a matter of capacity within the religion. For example, some are lamas while some are farmers and craftsmen, while some say Buddhism is not a religion because of comparisons with other religions rather than with what it takes to religiously perform daily, devotional practices with the purpose of spirituality permeating all of daily life, and night time too.

Now I must travel.

[godelian]

Traditional definition of religion implies the belief of a superior principle.

It's both a belief in and worship of a superior principle as a moral theory, i.e. the specification of what is right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, halal and haram.

Religious law is very defining for Judaism and Islam but not much for Christianity.

In what extent this belief implies only what we call religions, and not other things such as ideologies.

An ideology is a single-topic theory. E.g. communism about class struggle, feminism about gender struggle, Nazism about racial struggle, and so on.

An ideology pits two demographics against each other, proclaiming the victim hood of one demographic and the oppressor status of another.

An ideology is the systematization of a particular social strife.

While religion is an all encompassing moral theory, an ideology defines a particular struggle between two enemies.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The question seems to be trivial. When we talk about religions, every one knows what it refers to : Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

We have an idea of the extension the term refers to. But we don't have a true comprehension of this word.

To understand the term 'religion' we need to trace our history back to 3.5 billion years of organic [since abiogenesis] and 13.7 billion years of physical [BB] history.

Upon the emergence of humans somewhere along that history, there was a subsequent emergence of human drives, impulses and related an existential pains and angsts [mental and physical] that are the roots of what we at present called "religion".

Paleolithic Religions
Paleoanthropologists Andre Leroi-Gourhan and Annette Michelson believe unmistakably religious behavior emerged by the Upper Paleolithic, before 30,000 years ago at the latest,[1] but behavioral patterns such as burial rites[2] that one might characterize as religious — or as ancestral to religious behavior — reach back into the Middle Paleolithic, as early as 300,000 years ago, coinciding with the first appearance of Homo neanderthalensis and possibly Homo naledi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion

Analogy:
The human nature of the fundamental Nutrition and Digestive system since 300,000 years ago has not change and not different from the fundamental Nutrition and Digestive system of the modern man; what is different are merely the forms of food choices, production, preparation and ways of consuming food.

The physical digestive system has not changed.
The essential nutrients has not changed:

Essential nutrients are nutrients that the human body cannot synthesize and must be consumed through food. They are vital for good health, growth, and reproduction. Some examples of essential nutrients include:
Protein: Helps build muscle, skin, hair, and other tissues, and provides energy
Carbohydrates: The primary fuel for the brain, nervous system, and red blood cells
Fat: Helps absorb fat-soluble vitamins, provides energy, and makes up almost all cell membranes
Vitamins: There are 13 essential vitamins, including vitamins A, C, B6, and D
Vitamin D: The body cannot synthesize vitamin D, so a deficiency can lead to serious health problems
Calcium: Helps build strong bones and teeth, and promotes heart health
Iron: An essential constituent of many metalloproteins, and is essential for oxygen transport, electron transfer, and catalytic reactions
Potassium: The body cannot produce potassium, so it must be obtained from foods

It the same with 'religion' the fundamental of the religious impulse [dealing with existential pains and angsts] and drive has not changed and will not changed while what had changed are merely the forms resulting the present modern religions.

The fundamental religious impulse is also inherent in all humans and also the 'spiritual' impulse to deal with an inherent cognitive dissonance driven by an existential crisis.
Thus it possible religions as forms could disappear in the future to be replaced with 'spiritual' practices to deal with the fundamental impulse.

The problem is the majority are unable to grasp the root cause of what is termed 'religion' and also 'spiritual' in the modern times.

The fundamental existential-crisis drive is inherent in all humans and where those who do not 'crutch' on religious or spiritual, they turned to non-religious and spiritual alternatives like drugs, pain killers, and the likes to deal with the existential pain.

To have a true comprehension of the term 'religion' we need to take into account the above nuances.

Hi Veritas Aequitas,
Do you make a difference between religion and spirituality ?

I did as above.
They are different concepts, there are degrees of spirituality in religions but 'spirituality' [non-material mental acts re existential pains] is on its own.

And do you think that each existential pains and angsts leads to religion ?

There is only one generic existential pain and angsts manifested in different form, but the basic one leads to religion[s] as one way to soothe the pain. Typically, the soteriological promises of the Abrahamic religions give immediate relief to the existential pain.

[Age]

The question seems to be trivial. When we talk about religions, every one knows what it refers to : Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

We have an idea of the extension the term refers to. But we don't have a true comprehension of this word.

Traditional definition of religion implies the belief of a superior principle.

In what extent this belief implies only what we call religions, and not other things such as ideologies.

Ideologies seems to have legitimacy on the public space whereas religion doesn't.

What does this difference tell to us about the signification of religion ?

It could be said or argued that when one is 'religious' they have or hold a 'belief', whereas when one has an 'ideology: they have a 'view' instead.

There is also a huge difference in having 'a view' compared to when holding 'a belief'.

Hi Age,

View is an interesting word. You may know the german term of weltanschauung. In english, it means "worldview".

Well, this concept is used by many philosophers to describe a metaphysical representation of the world as a whole.

What is the 'metaphysical' word here meaning, or referring to, exactly?

And, what are the words 'the world' here referring to, exactly?

Is there a representation being made of 'the world', earth, or something else?

I don't think it is impossible for 'religions' to apply this term to refer to themselves.

Typically, some philosophers speak about a christian worldview.

So, there not actually referring to 'the world', earth, correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_worldview

you appear to have completely and utterly misconstrued what I was getting at, and meaning, above here in regards to having 'a view' can be and is very different from holding 'a belief'.

[Dr Faustus]

Doc, would you agree that:

Religions point out spirituality hiding in the confusion of chaos, life, purpose, all the good stuff.

The worship is revealed to the witness by the actions of worship rituals, actions copacetic with the particular view. For example, the sky burial of Tibet is a spiritual action, but not to many other religions that have other views about this and that.

In theory, consistent spiritual actions will yield a consistent result, which is why yoga is called a science and an art, one can say it’s the science of artful action without end.

The spirituality of skipping through the daisies and being one with the blue sky and perfect climate may be a pleasure, but it’s more of a base pleasure, an animal sensation. Some views figure that’s spirituality, which makes the nature of devotional spiritual practice a matter of capacity within the religion. For example, some are lamas while some are farmers and craftsmen, while some say Buddhism is not a religion because of comparisons with other religions rather than with what it takes to religiously perform daily, devotional practices with the purpose of spirituality permeating all of daily life, and night time too.

Now I must travel.

Hello Walker,

What you said makes me wondering about is what defines and distinguish a religious from a non religious practice. You mentioned the sky burial of Tibet. Do we make a distinction between sky burial of Tibet and our burial, or other funeral ritual such as cremation ? I don't think that cremation is seen in Occident as a religious practice.

[Dr Faustus]

Traditional definition of religion implies the belief of a superior principle.

It's both a belief in and worship of a superior principle as a moral theory, i.e. the specification of what is right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, halal and haram.

Religious law is very defining for Judaism and Islam but not much for Christianity.

In what extent this belief implies only what we call religions, and not other things such as ideologies.

An ideology is a single-topic theory. E.g. communism about class struggle, feminism about gender struggle, Nazism about racial struggle, and so on.

An ideology pits two demographics against each other, proclaiming the victim hood of one demographic and the oppressor status of another.

An ideology is the systematization of a particular social strife.

While religion is an all encompassing moral theory, an ideology defines a particular struggle between two enemies.

Hello Godelian

I think the way you define ideologies is quite questionable. The term ideology was popularized by Marx and his movement to designate a system of legitimization aimed at promoting a divided society by denying it. This term ideology differs depending on who uses it. To the point that we can say that ideology is in fact mainly the ideas of others.

Marxism and communism can't be reduced to a class struggle theory. It is above all a call for an achieved naturalism by social transformation.

For nazism, it is also hard to reduce it as a theory of racial struggle. One of Hitler's designs was to reconstitute what he called an ersatzreligion.
Moreover, nazism was principally influenced by volkisch mysticism and by a particular consideration about nature from which the concept of Lebensraum came.

[Dr Faustus]

To understand the term 'religion' we need to trace our history back to 3.5 billion years of organic [since abiogenesis] and 13.7 billion years of physical [BB] history.

Upon the emergence of humans somewhere along that history, there was a subsequent emergence of human drives, impulses and related an existential pains and angsts [mental and physical] that are the roots of what we at present called "religion".



Analogy:
The human nature of the fundamental Nutrition and Digestive system since 300,000 years ago has not change and not different from the fundamental Nutrition and Digestive system of the modern man; what is different are merely the forms of food choices, production, preparation and ways of consuming food.

The physical digestive system has not changed.
The essential nutrients has not changed:



It the same with 'religion' the fundamental of the religious impulse [dealing with existential pains and angsts] and drive has not changed and will not changed while what had changed are merely the forms resulting the present modern religions.

The fundamental religious impulse is also inherent in all humans and also the 'spiritual' impulse to deal with an inherent cognitive dissonance driven by an existential crisis.
Thus it possible religions as forms could disappear in the future to be replaced with 'spiritual' practices to deal with the fundamental impulse.

The problem is the majority are unable to grasp the root cause of what is termed 'religion' and also 'spiritual' in the modern times.

The fundamental existential-crisis drive is inherent in all humans and where those who do not 'crutch' on religious or spiritual, they turned to non-religious and spiritual alternatives like drugs, pain killers, and the likes to deal with the existential pain.

To have a true comprehension of the term 'religion' we need to take into account the above nuances.

Hi Veritas Aequitas,
Do you make a difference between religion and spirituality ?

I did as above.
They are different concepts, there are degrees of spirituality in religions but 'spirituality' [non-material mental acts re existential pains] is on its own.

And do you think that each existential pains and angsts leads to religion ?

There is only one generic existential pain and angsts manifested in different form, but the basic one leads to religion[s] as one way to soothe the pain. Typically, the soteriological promises of the Abrahamic religions give immediate relief to the existential pain.

Well, let's assume that there is only one generic existential pain and angst, Is there only one way to soothe this pain or several ? In the case of several ways, how do you make the difference between these ways and the religious way ?

[Dr Faustus]

It could be said or argued that when one is 'religious' they have or hold a 'belief', whereas when one has an 'ideology: they have a 'view' instead.

There is also a huge difference in having 'a view' compared to when holding 'a belief'.

Hi Age,

View is an interesting word. You may know the german term of weltanschauung. In english, it means "worldview".

Well, this concept is used by many philosophers to describe a metaphysical representation of the world as a whole.

What is the 'metaphysical' word here meaning, or referring to, exactly?

And, what are the words 'the world' here referring to, exactly?

Is there a representation being made of 'the world', earth, or something else?

I don't think it is impossible for 'religions' to apply this term to refer to themselves.

Typically, some philosophers speak about a christian worldview.

So, there not actually referring to 'the world', earth, correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_worldview

you appear to have completely and utterly misconstrued what I was getting at, and meaning, above here in regards to having 'a view' can be and is very different from holding 'a belief'.

Not an easy task to define metaphysics. Let's say that in this context, this is an a priori representation of the world.

World refers to the totality of what exists here.

you appear to have completely and utterly misconstrued what I was getting at, and meaning, above here in regards to having 'a view' can be and is very different from holding 'a belief'.

Well, i feel sorry for that. Maybe you could explain how do you define a view and how you distinguish it from a belief ?

[Dubious]

One of the main travesties the human race is responsible for.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hi Veritas Aequitas,
Do you make a difference between religion and spirituality ?

I did as above.
They are different concepts, there are degrees of spirituality in religions but 'spirituality' [non-material mental acts re existential pains] is on its own.

And do you think that each existential pains and angsts leads to religion ?

There is only one generic existential pain and angsts manifested in different form, but the basic one leads to religion[s] as one way to soothe the pain. Typically, the soteriological promises of the Abrahamic religions give immediate relief to the existential pain.

Well, let's assume that there is only one generic existential pain and angst, Is there only one way to soothe this pain or several ? In the case of several ways, how do you make the difference between these ways and the religious way ?

There is one fundamental generic existential pain and angst just like the generic hunger drive where it is expressed in the many ways the the hunger pangs are satiated via the different types of food produced, prepared and consumed.

Just like how the generic hunger pangs are soothed by the neural inhibitors that are triggered when the system sensed there is sufficient food intake, the generic existential pain and angst are also modulated by its relevant inhibitors.

Note the existential pains and angsts are inherent and always there as programmed in the DNA and expressed accordingly.

To ensure the above is not present all the time, humans are evolved with a default inhibitors to suppress the above, but there are naturally linkages that take effect subliminally [unconsciously] and angsts and the like.

The religious ways [soteriological promises] triggered inhibitors that inhibit the related pain circuit and the angsts.
In Buddhism and other Eastern religions, believers are taught how to mindfully trigger the relevant inhibitors.
Pain killers, opioids and the like are chemicals that directly inhibit the pain circuit, that is why they are called pain killers.
Various other drugs trigger inhibitors in their own way.
There are other secular activities [incl. 'spiritual' ] that also trigger the pain inhibitors in various ways.

At present and the present phase of humanity, the Abrahamic religions are the most effective natural ways with their soteriological promises [just believe and one is saved!] BUT it has its side effects which will be a hindrance for the progress of humanity in the future.
For the future, we have to find foolproof [no side effects] ways to modulate the inherent pains and angsts from the existential crisis on the basis of its neural grounds.

[Age]

Hi Age,

View is an interesting word. You may know the german term of weltanschauung. In english, it means "worldview".

Well, this concept is used by many philosophers to describe a metaphysical representation of the world as a whole.

What is the 'metaphysical' word here meaning, or referring to, exactly?

And, what are the words 'the world' here referring to, exactly?

Is there a representation being made of 'the world', earth, or something else?

I don't think it is impossible for 'religions' to apply this term to refer to themselves.

Typically, some philosophers speak about a christian worldview.

So, there not actually referring to 'the world', earth, correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_worldview

you appear to have completely and utterly misconstrued what I was getting at, and meaning, above here in regards to having 'a view' can be and is very different from holding 'a belief'.

Not an easy task to define metaphysics. Let's say that in this context, this is an a priori representation of the world.

World refers to the totality of what exists here.

So, when you say, 'world', what you actually mean is 'Universe', right?

you appear to have completely and utterly misconstrued what I was getting at, and meaning, above here in regards to having 'a view' can be and is very different from holding 'a belief'.

Well, i feel sorry for that. Maybe you could explain how do you define a view and how you distinguish it from a belief ?

Yes you are correct. Maybe I could. And, by the way, there is absolutely nothing here that you have to feel sorry for

[godelian]

Marxism and communism can't be reduced to a class struggle theory.
For nazism, it is also hard to reduce it as a theory of racial struggle.

There is obviously always more to an ideology than just pitting one group against another.

However, hatred is definitely its unique selling proposition.

Fomenting hatred against the bourgeoisie. Fomenting hatred against the Jews. The rest of the ideology is never unique. The rest is never particularly memorable. The rest will never drive its supporters to ecstasy. A successful ideology identifies an enemy and encourages hatred against these people, considered to be despicable. That is why a successful ideology is so attractive. This is why it spreads so easily. Nothing motivates people more than virulent hate speech.

If an ideology does not harness and galvanize seething hatred, then it will never become popular.

Communism and Nazism are spectacularly good at targeting a particular demographic as an object of hatred. These things are pure genius, albeit evil.

[Dr Faustus]

I did as above.
They are different concepts, there are degrees of spirituality in religions but 'spirituality' [non-material mental acts re existential pains] is on its own.


There is only one generic existential pain and angsts manifested in different form, but the basic one leads to religion[s] as one way to soothe the pain. Typically, the soteriological promises of the Abrahamic religions give immediate relief to the existential pain.

Well, let's assume that there is only one generic existential pain and angst, Is there only one way to soothe this pain or several ? In the case of several ways, how do you make the difference between these ways and the religious way ?

There is one fundamental generic existential pain and angst just like the generic hunger drive where it is expressed in the many ways the the hunger pangs are satiated via the different types of food produced, prepared and consumed.

Just like how the generic hunger pangs are soothed by the neural inhibitors that are triggered when the system sensed there is sufficient food intake, the generic existential pain and angst are also modulated by its relevant inhibitors.

Note the existential pains and angsts are inherent and always there as programmed in the DNA and expressed accordingly.

To ensure the above is not present all the time, humans are evolved with a default inhibitors to suppress the above, but there are naturally linkages that take effect subliminally [unconsciously] and angsts and the like.

The religious ways [soteriological promises] triggered inhibitors that inhibit the related pain circuit and the angsts.
In Buddhism and other Eastern religions, believers are taught how to mindfully trigger the relevant inhibitors.
Pain killers, opioids and the like are chemicals that directly inhibit the pain circuit, that is why they are called pain killers.
Various other drugs trigger inhibitors in their own way.
There are other secular activities [incl. 'spiritual' ] that also trigger the pain inhibitors in various ways.

At present and the present phase of humanity, the Abrahamic religions are the most effective natural ways with their soteriological promises [just believe and one is saved!] BUT it has its side effects which will be a hindrance for the progress of humanity in the future.
For the future, we have to find foolproof [no side effects] ways to modulate the inherent pains and angsts from the existential crisis on the basis of its neural grounds.

Note the existential pains and angsts are inherent and always there as programmed in the DNA and expressed accordingly.

That means that all human has experienced this existantial pain and angst i guess.

Has a DNA sequence been identified responsible for existential pain and angst ?

The religious ways [soteriological promises] triggered inhibitors that inhibit the related pain circuit and the angsts.
In Buddhism and other Eastern religions, believers are taught how to mindfully trigger the relevant inhibitors.
Pain killers, opioids and the like are chemicals that directly inhibit the pain circuit, that is why they are called pain killers.
Various other drugs trigger inhibitors in their own way.
There are other secular activities [incl. 'spiritual' ] that also trigger the pain inhibitors in various ways.

So existential pain and angst leads to many ways to inhibit it. If i sum up the list of ways you mentioned, there is :
- drugs
- religions
- secular activities

So if existential pain explains religious behaviours, it doesn't explain it specificity, right ?

So religions can't be reduced as a psychological reaction of existential pain. It doesn't help us to clearly understand what religion is.

At present and the present phase of humanity, the Abrahamic religions are the most effective natural ways with their soteriological promises [just believe and one is saved!] BUT it has its side effects which will be a hindrance for the progress of humanity in the future.
For the future, we have to find foolproof [no side effects] ways to modulate the inherent pains and angsts from the existential crisis on the basis of its neural grounds.

That is an interesting point of view, if abrahamic religions are the most effective natural ways to inhibit existential pain, does that mean that we are naturally induced to believe in the abrahamic God ?
Shouldn't we prescribe it as a therapy for those who suffer for existential pain ?
How do we measure the efficiency of abrahamic religions ?
Should we convert countries that don't believe in abrahamic religions to release them from their existential pain, because that stays the best remedy in the market for it ?

[Dr Faustus]

Marxism and communism can't be reduced to a class struggle theory.
For nazism, it is also hard to reduce it as a theory of racial struggle.

There is obviously always more to an ideology than just pitting one group against another.

However, hatred is definitely its unique selling proposition.

Fomenting hatred against the bourgeoisie. Fomenting hatred against the Jews. The rest of the ideology is never unique. The rest is never particularly memorable. The rest will never drive its supporters to ecstasy. A successful ideology identifies an enemy and encourages hatred against these people, considered to be despicable. That is why a successful ideology is so attractive. This is why it spreads so easily. Nothing motivates people more than virulent hate speech.

If an ideology does not harness and galvanize seething hatred, then it will never become popular.

Communism and Nazism are spectacularly good at targeting a particular demographic as an object of hatred. These things are pure genius, albeit evil.

I understand that you hate nazism and communism, but what about the others : socialism, liberalism, anarchism, nationalism, monarchism, cesarism, mondialsm, pacifism, ecologism, etc.

Do they all have an object of hatred ?

[godelian]

I understand that you hate nazism and communism, but what about the others : socialism, liberalism, anarchism, nationalism, monarchism, cesarism, mondialsm, pacifism, ecologism, etc.

Do they all have an object of hatred ?

They become a powerful social movement when they clearly designate an enemy. For example:

Liberalism is anti-clerical.
Nationalism is anti-immigrant.

Anarchism is never a powerful movement because that would be contradictory. Same for pacifism. They get beaten up and coerced by adversaries perfectly willing to use violence.

Antifa has an object of hatred: the demographic perceived as "fascist".

At the core of socialism, you always have extremists who are in reality something else, such as communists.

Monarchism is typically weak. They are no match for their more extremist adversaries.

An ideology without an enemy is a weak ideology. Either they have something more radical at their core, or else they will fail to galvanize the masses into action.

For example, when the gloves come off, there are no real socialists. Something much more extreme will lead the pack and use violence against the competition.