What is religion ?

[promethean75]

Fixed it for you, G.

"Every religion except Cristianity will be able to defend itself against atheism, yes, but not Spinoza."

[godelian]

Fixed it for you, G.

"Every religion except Cristianity will be able to defend itself against atheism, yes, but not Spinoza."

Spinoza apparently believed in pantheism:

ChatGPT: What is pantheism?

Pantheism is the belief that God and the universe are identical, or that everything that exists is a manifestation of God. ...

This obviously implies that the universe has always existed and is eternal.

ChatGPT: Did Spinoza believe that the universe is eternal?

Yes, Baruch Spinoza did believe that the universe is eternal, though his conception of eternity is somewhat different from traditional religious views. For Spinoza, everything that exists is part of a single, infinite substance he called "God" or "Nature" (Deus sive Natura), and this substance is eternal.

However, eternal time cannot expand or progress. This is not compatible with our perception of time. Our universe does not work like that. Pantheism is also incompatible with modern cosmology according to which there is a beginning of times, i.e. an initial time point zero. This is incompatible with a pantheist eternal universe.

Pantheism requires an actual infinity in the physical universe, which would in turn absorb all arithmetic. This is not what we can observe around us.

Spinoza's pantheism is simply incompatible with observable physics.

If our universe were pantheistic, then its construction logic would contain an infinite cardinal, triggering Tennenbaum's theorem:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-sta ... arithmetic

Tennenbaum's theorem shows that for any countable non-standard model of Peano arithmetic there is no way to code the elements of the model as (standard) natural numbers such that either the addition or multiplication operation of the model is computable on the codes.

No computation or computing device can function in these circumstances. Hence, the construction logic of our universe cannot possibly contain an infinite cardinal.

Pantheism is just one element in Spinoza's philosophy that does not withstand scrutiny. At first glance, the remainder of his philosophy does not look particularly better either.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have explained the root of religion and non religion.
So, we don't really understand what a religion is with your explanation.

The most critical of all [if not] knowledge is, once we understands the root causes of all things we can easily understand their manifestations. This is why Science is always chasing after the root causes and fundamental principles. Then we can deal with its complexities.

When the cons outweigh the pros of religions, then human should focus more on the root causes to deal with religions to deal with its cons.

It is just like the drinking of coffee and tea, which many do for social reasons and others, but the main reason for the majority continuing to drink is the caffeine therein. It is the same with alcohol.

I think that this is a minority who drink coffee, tea or alcohol for its substance. Majority drinks it for cultural reasons.

I believe it is the majority who are affected by the caffeine or alcohol in some ways, else they would have avoid it. Example beer is basically not something pleasant but it popular for social reasons as drawn in by the alcohol at least to some degrees.

What is secular is non-religious.
"Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion." WIKI

This definition is interesting because it opposes religions to naturalism.
This opposition is forged in eighteen century with the opposition of christianism and what they called natural religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion

They seemed to have a naturalistic approach of God and moral, but they spoke about a religion.
Knowing that, this opposition between religion and secular is questionable.

If the terms are too vague for some reasons, then we can resort to narratives which is a bit tedious but will establish understanding [not necessary agreement] more easily.

But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.
There is no way the existence of God can be proven via Natural Science.
The gold standard of the credibility and objectivity of reality is from the scientific framework and system, there is no other better.

It is Impossible for God to be Real -Naturally
viewtopic.php?t=40229

[Veritas Aequitas]

If I publish it will be something like this
This only has ~15 themes [rough ones] compared to my precise 20 main & 1400 sub-themes.

Publish it and ask the public for comments. I am not going to waste my time on unpublished materials.

I did not ask you to read my thesis.

I am pointing out as a discussion, for you to be a real officially Muslim you need to read the Quran thoroughly in the manner I did, else you are a pseudo-Muslim.
Actually it is very easy, i.e.
1. Open Microsoft Excel, any Spreadsheet or Database Program
2. Copy the whole 6236 verses of the Quran in one column.
3. Read each verses and identify each related theme and mark it
4. @Count [.. ] the number of verses related to each theme column
5. Take an overall view of your analysis, and the conclusion would be the whole book is heavily evil laden.
6. What is 'good' therein is confined to believers only; overall there is nothing good for non-believers.

Note this:
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ... ook=q&id=2
analysis of the following themes:
-Cruelty & Violence
-Injustice
-Intolerance
There are a listed total >1000 of verses related to the above.
Given a margin of 10% error, it is still too many for a supposedly "religion of peace" which so far had driven many to cut and blow non-believers in pieces.

[godelian]

I am pointing out as a discussion, for you to be a real officially Muslim you need to read the Quran thoroughly in the manner I did, else you are a pseudo-Muslim.

Well, you are not allowed to determine or even question the Islamic status of any purported believer. Only the Ulema (scholars) are allowed to insinuate or pronounce the takfir of an individual.

Furthermore, such determination is subject to numerous formalisms in judicial law, with optionally an extensive appellate procedure in front of the qadi (judge) of an Islamic court.

The short of it, is that the defendant cannot lose the court case if he makes the declarations that his lawyer advises him to make.

Excommunication in Islam is only possible with the consistent assistance of the defendant himself. Otherwise, if the defendant puts up at least some form of defense, he will always win the case.

You are not allowed to question anybody else's Islamic status or lack thereof. Those are the rules of the game in Islam.

You claim to know things about Islam but your insinuations are strictly forbidden in Islam. In that case, how much of an expert can you be?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am pointing out as a discussion, for you to be a real officially Muslim you need to read the Quran thoroughly in the manner I did, else you are a pseudo-Muslim.

Well, you are not allowed to determine or even question the Islamic status of any purported believer. Only the Ulema (scholars) are allowed to insinuate or pronounce the takfir of an individual.

Furthermore, such determination is subject to numerous formalisms in judicial law, with optionally an extensive appellate procedure in front of the qadi (judge) of an Islamic court.

The short of it, is that the defendant cannot lose the court case if he makes the declarations that his lawyer advises him to make.

Excommunication in Islam is only possible with the consistent assistance of the defendant himself. Otherwise, if the defendant puts up at least some form of defense, he will always win the case.

You are not allowed to question anybody else's Islamic status or lack thereof. Those are the rules of the game in Islam.

You claim to know things about Islam but your insinuations are strictly forbidden in Islam. In that case, how much of an expert can you be?

One can be an expert in any subject based on rationality plus credibility and objectivity.

The fact is Islam is an irrational ideology, thus any rational person should be able to question Islam in the name of progress for humanity to avoid the very possible extermination of the human species by extremist Islamists in the name of the religion.
This possibility is supported by verses in the Quran, i.e.

1. Believers are informed life on Earth is horrible and condemnable in contrast to eternal life in paradise.
2. Believers are promised eternal life in paradise if they comply with the terms of their contract with God
3. 5:33 permit the killing of non-believers upon the slightest threat to the religion, plus other violent verses support the killing of non-believers.
4. those who kill to protect the religion are rewarded 10 folds

Therefore Muslims has nothing to lose even if the human species on Earth is exterminated or the Earth is destroyed.
Some 10% i.e. 150 millions [individualp[s], groups, states] would not have a problem to take this option when WMDs are cheap and easily accessible in the future.
I took a certificate course in 'Terrorism' and it is reported by Islamic extremist groups are trying to source nuclear and other WMDs.

The killing in the name of the religion is already evident since the past and at present;

see: Religion of Peace
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
46,242 fatal incidents [with deaths] by Jihadists since 911.

Are you in that category?

[godelian]

One can be an expert in any subject based on rationality plus credibility and objectivity.

You are not even able to abide by the most basic rules of the game, and you call yourself an expert? That's like someone playing a chess game, who cannot move a bishop correctly, but still calls himself an expert at chess. Seriously, you fail at the most basic level.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One can be an expert in any subject based on rationality plus credibility and objectivity.

You are not even able to abide by the most basic rules of the game, and you call yourself an expert? That's like someone playing a chess game, who cannot move a bishop correctly, but still calls himself an expert at chess. Seriously, you fail at the most basic level.

I don't claim to an expert of the grandmaster level [95/100], but merely a near-expert [75/100].
You're a Muslim, let compete at the game and see who comes up the winner in terms of knowledge of your God's words.

[godelian]

I don't claim to an expert of the grandmaster level [95/100], but merely a near-expert [75/100].
You're a Muslim, let compete at the game and see who comes up the winner in terms of knowledge of your God's words.

Before this is possible, you must first successfully argue that "knowledge" is a total order:

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

In mathematics, a total order or linear order is a partial order in which any two elements are comparable. That is, a total order is a binary relation ≤ on some set X, which satisfies the following for all a , b and c in X:

a ≤ a (reflexive).
If a ≤ b and b ≤ c then a ≤ c (transitive).
If a ≤ b and b ≤ a then a = b (antisymmetric).
a ≤ b or b ≤ a (strongly connected, formerly called total).

A set equipped with a total order is a totally ordered set.

In fact, it is not enough to demonstrate that knowledge is a totally ordered set. Since we intend to use measurements for comparison, we also need a metric.

ChatGPT: Is it possible to quantify knowledge?

While it's possible to develop various methods to quantify certain aspects of knowledge (such as facts, skills, or expertise), capturing the full complexity of what knowledge is—especially when it involves deeper understanding, insight, creativity, or wisdom—remains an ongoing challenge. In most cases, a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches is used, but no single metric can fully capture the richness of human knowledge.

ChatGPT: Can you measure something if it has no usable metric?

If something has no usable metric, the challenge becomes more complicated. A usable metric typically means a measurement or indicator that is reliable, valid, and applicable for making meaningful comparisons, decisions, or evaluations. Without a usable metric, you don't have a standardized or dependable way to assess or quantify the thing you're interested in.

ChatGPT: Is knowledge a totally ordered set?

Conclusion

Knowledge is not a totally ordered set in the mathematical sense. While some domains of knowledge may exhibit hierarchical structures (such as certain aspects of science or logic), the entirety of human knowledge is too vast, diverse, and context-dependent to fit into a single totally ordered set.

Instead, knowledge is better understood as a partially ordered set (or even something more complex, like a network or web of interconnected ideas), where some concepts are linked or ordered, but many others cannot be compared in a simple linear fashion. The rich, multidimensional nature of knowledge resists the kind of strict linear ordering that would define a totally ordered set.

Determining a winner in terms of knowledge requires knowledge to fit in a single totally ordered set allowing for measurements based on a usable metric. This is not feasible.

[Dr Faustus]

You have explained the root of religion and non religion.
So, we don't really understand what a religion is with your explanation.

The most critical of all [if not] knowledge is, once we understands the root causes of all things we can easily understand their manifestations. This is why Science is always chasing after the root causes and fundamental principles. Then we can deal with its complexities.

When the cons outweigh the pros of religions, then human should focus more on the root causes to deal with religions to deal with its cons.

It is just like the drinking of coffee and tea, which many do for social reasons and others, but the main reason for the majority continuing to drink is the caffeine therein. It is the same with alcohol.

I think that this is a minority who drink coffee, tea or alcohol for its substance. Majority drinks it for cultural reasons.

I believe it is the majority who are affected by the caffeine or alcohol in some ways, else they would have avoid it. Example beer is basically not something pleasant but it popular for social reasons as drawn in by the alcohol at least to some degrees.

What is secular is non-religious.
"Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion." WIKI

This definition is interesting because it opposes religions to naturalism.
This opposition is forged in eighteen century with the opposition of christianism and what they called natural religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion

They seemed to have a naturalistic approach of God and moral, but they spoke about a religion.
Knowing that, this opposition between religion and secular is questionable.

If the terms are too vague for some reasons, then we can resort to narratives which is a bit tedious but will establish understanding [not necessary agreement] more easily.

But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.
There is no way the existence of God can be proven via Natural Science.
The gold standard of the credibility and objectivity of reality is from the scientific framework and system, there is no other better.

It is Impossible for God to be Real -Naturally
viewtopic.php?t=40229

The most critical of all [if not] knowledge is, once we understands the root causes of all things we can easily understand their manifestations. This is why Science is always chasing after the root causes and fundamental principles. Then we can deal with its complexities.

When the cons outweigh the pros of religions, then human should focus more on the root causes to deal with religions to deal with its cons.

this approach is more theology than science in my opinion. If someone absolutely wants to find the root cause of religion, it is the universe, nature or God, since it is the root cause of everything that exists.
Science tries to définie what things are, i.e. what are their déterminations, their forms. That is why it practices reductionism to an object perfectly understood.
Your explanation is not a good reduction because it does not only explain religion. So it does not help us to understand what it is.

believe it is the majority who are affected by the caffeine or alcohol in some ways, else they would have avoid it. Example beer is basically not something pleasant but it popular for social reasons as drawn in by the alcohol at least to some degrees.

But why beer and not another unpleasant alcohol beverage ? what makes the beer more widespread ?

If the terms are too vague for some reasons, then we can resort to narratives which is a bit tedious but will establish understanding [not necessary agreement] more easily.

But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.
There is no way the existence of God can be proven via Natural Science.
The gold standard of the credibility and objectivity of reality is from the scientific framework and system, there is no other bette

Natural religion is a naturalistic approach of Christianity. It is not really science, but it is a beliefs shared by many Scientist of thé century. it influenced mant ideas. the idea of natural rights that is the foundation of human rights, and the idea of dissociating Christianity to politics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You have explained the root of religion and non religion.
So, we don't really understand what a religion is with your explanation.

The most critical of all [if not] knowledge is, once we understands the root causes of all things we can easily understand their manifestations. This is why Science is always chasing after the root causes and fundamental principles. Then we can deal with its complexities.

When the cons outweigh the pros of religions, then human should focus more on the root causes to deal with religions to deal with its cons.

I think that this is a minority who drink coffee, tea or alcohol for its substance. Majority drinks it for cultural reasons.

I believe it is the majority who are affected by the caffeine or alcohol in some ways, else they would have avoid it. Example beer is basically not something pleasant but it popular for social reasons as drawn in by the alcohol at least to some degrees.

This definition is interesting because it opposes religions to naturalism.
This opposition is forged in eighteen century with the opposition of christianism and what they called natural religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion

They seemed to have a naturalistic approach of God and moral, but they spoke about a religion.
Knowing that, this opposition between religion and secular is questionable.

If the terms are too vague for some reasons, then we can resort to narratives which is a bit tedious but will establish understanding [not necessary agreement] more easily.

But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.
There is no way the existence of God can be proven via Natural Science.
The gold standard of the credibility and objectivity of reality is from the scientific framework and system, there is no other better.

It is Impossible for God to be Real -Naturally
viewtopic.php?t=40229

The most critical of all [if not] knowledge is, once we understands the root causes of all things we can easily understand their manifestations. This is why Science is always chasing after the root causes and fundamental principles. Then we can deal with its complexities.

When the cons outweigh the pros of religions, then human should focus more on the root causes to deal with religions to deal with its cons.

this approach is more theology than science in my opinion. If someone absolutely wants to find the root cause of religion, it is the universe, nature or God, since it is the root cause of everything that exists.

believe it is the majority who are affected by the caffeine or alcohol in some ways, else they would have avoid it. Example beer is basically not something pleasant but it popular for social reasons as drawn in by the alcohol at least to some degrees.

But why beer and not another unpleasant alcohol beverage ? what makes the beer more widespread ?

If the terms are too vague for some reasons, then we can resort to narratives which is a bit tedious but will establish understanding [not necessary agreement] more easily.

But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.
There is no way the existence of God can be proven via Natural Science.
The gold standard of the credibility and objectivity of reality is from the scientific framework and system, there is no other bette

Natural religion is a naturalistic approach of Christianity. It is not really science, but it is a beliefs shared by many Scientist of thé century. it influenced mant ideas. the idea of natural rights that is the foundation of human rights, and the idea of dissociating Christianity to politics.

Note another root cause of theism:

Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

This is what is hindering you from spreading your thinking on a wider and deeper basis.

My point is religion [Christianity the most efficient & optimal at present] is optimal to the current constraints where the existential crisis is very active, but it will not be optimal for the future when human evolve more positive in terms of their psychological states.

[Dr Faustus]

The most critical of all [if not] knowledge is, once we understands the root causes of all things we can easily understand their manifestations. This is why Science is always chasing after the root causes and fundamental principles. Then we can deal with its complexities.

When the cons outweigh the pros of religions, then human should focus more on the root causes to deal with religions to deal with its cons.



I believe it is the majority who are affected by the caffeine or alcohol in some ways, else they would have avoid it. Example beer is basically not something pleasant but it popular for social reasons as drawn in by the alcohol at least to some degrees.


If the terms are too vague for some reasons, then we can resort to narratives which is a bit tedious but will establish understanding [not necessary agreement] more easily.

But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.
There is no way the existence of God can be proven via Natural Science.
The gold standard of the credibility and objectivity of reality is from the scientific framework and system, there is no other better.

It is Impossible for God to be Real -Naturally
viewtopic.php?t=40229

The most critical of all [if not] knowledge is, once we understands the root causes of all things we can easily understand their manifestations. This is why Science is always chasing after the root causes and fundamental principles. Then we can deal with its complexities.

When the cons outweigh the pros of religions, then human should focus more on the root causes to deal with religions to deal with its cons.

this approach is more theology than science in my opinion. If someone absolutely wants to find the root cause of religion, it is the universe, nature or God, since it is the root cause of everything that exists.

believe it is the majority who are affected by the caffeine or alcohol in some ways, else they would have avoid it. Example beer is basically not something pleasant but it popular for social reasons as drawn in by the alcohol at least to some degrees.

But why beer and not another unpleasant alcohol beverage ? what makes the beer more widespread ?

If the terms are too vague for some reasons, then we can resort to narratives which is a bit tedious but will establish understanding [not necessary agreement] more easily.

But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.
There is no way the existence of God can be proven via Natural Science.
The gold standard of the credibility and objectivity of reality is from the scientific framework and system, there is no other bette

Natural religion is a naturalistic approach of Christianity. It is not really science, but it is a beliefs shared by many Scientist of thé century. it influenced mant ideas. the idea of natural rights that is the foundation of human rights, and the idea of dissociating Christianity to politics.

Note another root cause of theism:

Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

This is what is hindering you from spreading your thinking on a wider and deeper basis.

My point is religion [Christianity the most efficient & optimal at present] is optimal to the current constraints where the existential crisis is very active, but it will not be optimal for the future when human evolve more positive in terms of their psychological states.

That future optimum, will you call that religion ? Why not ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

this approach is more theology than science in my opinion. If someone absolutely wants to find the root cause of religion, it is the universe, nature or God, since it is the root cause of everything that exists.



But why beer and not another unpleasant alcohol beverage ? what makes the beer more widespread ?



Natural religion is a naturalistic approach of Christianity. It is not really science, but it is a beliefs shared by many Scientist of thé century. it influenced mant ideas. the idea of natural rights that is the foundation of human rights, and the idea of dissociating Christianity to politics.

Note another root cause of theism:

Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

This is what is hindering you from spreading your thinking on a wider and deeper basis.

My point is religion [Christianity the most efficient & optimal at present] is optimal to the current constraints where the existential crisis is very active, but it will not be optimal for the future when human evolve more positive in terms of their psychological states.

That future optimum, will you call that religion ? Why not ?

The term 'religion' has too much negative baggage from the evil acts, scandals, corruption, abuses, etc. it was associated with in the past and at present.

I had stated, the trend of managing TMT is moving away from organized and instutionalized religion towards individual[s] taking their own responsibility to deal with the TMT [existential pains and angst].

Christianity at present is most optimal but as individuals take their own responsibilities, they would be moving toward a more spiritual path [partly religious] like Buddhism-proper, and therefrom to be weaned off from religion altogether.

The future non-religious paths [whatever it will be called] in dealing with the inherent TMT will inherit all the positives from the past religion together will modern and effective practices.

[Dr Faustus]

Note another root cause of theism:

Terror Management Theory
viewtopic.php?t=43101

This is what is hindering you from spreading your thinking on a wider and deeper basis.

My point is religion [Christianity the most efficient & optimal at present] is optimal to the current constraints where the existential crisis is very active, but it will not be optimal for the future when human evolve more positive in terms of their psychological states.

That future optimum, will you call that religion ? Why not ?

The term 'religion' has too much negative baggage from the evil acts, scandals, corruption, abuses, etc. it was associated with in the past and at present.

I had stated, the trend of managing TMT is moving away from organized and instutionalized religion towards individual[s] taking their own responsibility to deal with the TMT [existential pains and angst].

Christianity at present is most optimal but as individuals take their own responsibilities, they would be moving toward a more spiritual path [partly religious] like Buddhism-proper, and therefrom to be weaned off from religion altogether.

The future non-religious paths [whatever it will be called] in dealing with the inherent TMT will inherit all the positives from the past religion together will modern and effective practices.

Well, this theory is just another way of universal explanation of existential pain, which lead to another way to inhibit existential suffering, a psychological way.

But this way leads to the same myths :
- Individual salvation : while salvation is actually always organized by institutions, cultures, sociétés.
- Universality : while this way will also leads to the same rejection of the other ways, promoted by different cultures, seen as primitive, or by other intern groups seen as dangerous idéologies.

[godelian]

My point is religion [Christianity the most efficient & optimal at present] is optimal to the current constraints where the existential crisis is very active

What efficiency metric do you use? Where are your measurements? On what grounds do you even argue that the set of religions is a total order? The problem is that your math does not add up. What you argue, clearly points to pseudoscience.