What is religion ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nonsense.

"First we guess it"

Empiricism comes at the end. Not at the beginning; so nothing is "based" on it.

https://youtu.be/EYPapE-3FRw?si=AD1dAhxtzBTiUmm0

You are relying on scientific realism, i.e. presuming there is something pre-existing to be discovered by science.

My approach is based on scientific antirealism, i.e. there is nothing transcendental beyond what science concluded via observation.

The Transcendental Ground of Science
viewtopic.php?t=43091

No, I am not. Guessing a working principle is anything BUT realism.

Also... you are fucking confused about the implications of your own claims. If science is "based on empirical observations" then what is it that you are empirically observing? What is it that you are subjecting to empiricism?

Philosophical realism which claim there is an pre-existing reality awaiting discovery [exist regardless of whether there are humans or not] is full of holes.
The Failures of Philosophical Realism
viewtopic.php?t=43061

There is the alternative thesis to the unrealistic philosophical realism view of reality, i.e.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
This prior emergence and realization is in tandem with the human conditions, thus it cannot pre-exist absolutely mind independent of human conditions.

[Skepdick]

You are relying on scientific realism, i.e. presuming there is something pre-existing to be discovered by science.

My approach is based on scientific antirealism, i.e. there is nothing transcendental beyond what science concluded via observation.

The Transcendental Ground of Science
viewtopic.php?t=43091

No, I am not. Guessing a working principle is anything BUT realism.

Also... you are fucking confused about the implications of your own claims. If science is "based on empirical observations" then what is it that you are empirically observing? What is it that you are subjecting to empiricism?

Philosophical realism which claim there is an pre-existing reality awaiting discovery [exist regardless of whether there are humans or not] is full of holes.
The Failures of Philosophical Realism
viewtopic.php?t=43061

There is the alternative thesis to the unrealistic philosophical realism view of reality, i.e.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
This prior emergence and realization is in tandem with the human conditions, thus it cannot pre-exist absolutely mind independent of human conditions.

You ran off into the hills of philosophical abstraction again.

I asked you a simple question. If something is BASED on observations; then what are you observing?

The exact same sort of attack you've constructed against Realism can be constructed against all Philosophy. What Philosophers call "theories of truth" are just misnomers for theories of justification.

Truth is what justifies.

You say and think X? Justify it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, I am not. Guessing a working principle is anything BUT realism.

Also... you are fucking confused about the implications of your own claims. If science is "based on empirical observations" then what is it that you are empirically observing? What is it that you are subjecting to empiricism?

Philosophical realism which claim there is an pre-existing reality awaiting discovery [exist regardless of whether there are humans or not] is full of holes.
The Failures of Philosophical Realism
viewtopic.php?t=43061

There is the alternative thesis to the unrealistic philosophical realism view of reality, i.e.
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
This prior emergence and realization is in tandem with the human conditions, thus it cannot pre-exist absolutely mind independent of human conditions.

You ran off into the hills of philosophical abstraction again.

I asked you a simple question. If something is BASED on observations; then what are you observing?

What humans are observing is not something that is absolutely independent pre-existing out there.

What humans are observing is like a person who is observing his own hallucinations but in this case, this hallucination [empirical reality and that has relative mind-independence] has a higher degree of reality and objectivity.

Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality | Anil Seth | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo

Your brain doesn’t detect reality. It creates it. | Lisa Feldman Barrett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikvrwOnay3g

“Indeed, the line between perceiving and hallucinating is not as crisp as we like to think. In a sense, when we look at the world, we are hallucinating all the time.
One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data.”
― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

[Dr Faustus]

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.

I am not too sure of the above points.

Base on what I think, here is my views:

The root cause is the existential crisis where the majority resorted and is resorting to the idea salvation [soteriology] in the past and at present.
While salvation is actually always organized by institutions, cultures, sociétés. in the past and the present and has its pros, it has generated terrible cons of evils as well.
The future solution is when we understand the Principles of TMT, there would not be a need for salvation [soteriology] in the future to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

What we look forward in the future are foolproof [no side effects] solutions to deal with the existential crisis and it existential pains and angsts.
nb: my emphasis 'foolproof' and taking care [to the best of abilities] of all possible side effects that may crop up; many often overlook this point of mine.

There will still be institutions, cultures, sociétés in the new approach, but they will merely assist and facilitate individual[s] to improve; they will not be imposing any authority to coerce individual[s] to comply with any of their rules.

Note I am looking at solutions to deal with the existing cons in the future [next 50, 100, 150 years or more], but we need to initiate the planning now.

Neither am I (sure). These are just personal convictions based on my experience and my lecture of History.

First, what I meant by salvation is not litteral, it is just the promise of a better gestion of existential pain.
Moreover, it promises something better to ancient ways, without violence.

There is no transformation without side effect.

Speaking about a new optimum to manage existential pain implies a cultural transformation worldwide. I don't see how this kind of transformation will not implies side effects.

So, if we want transformation, we have to make it for really good reasons. Suppression of violence is not really a good reason. There is not many chances to expect this result.

[Dr Faustus]

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.
But https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion actually is not natural.

One consequence of the naturalist denying of a separate first cause, is that their "un-created" universe would be eternal.

There would be no beginning of times. Hence, our time would be an actual infinite. The main problem with that view is that infinity absorbs all arithmetic. Time would not be able to expand or progress. The very fact that time does progress requires it to be finite. That means that there must be a beginning of times. Hence, naturalism is not compatible with observable structure of our universe.

The observable structure of our universe is compatible only with the existence of a beginning of times. So, then the question arises: What exactly happened in that beginning?

There is a distinction made between Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata

[Skepdick]

What humans are observing is not something that is absolutely independent pre-existing out there.

I didn't ask you if it's dependent or independent; pre-existing or non-pre-existing.

I asked you what it is.

What humans are observing is like a person who is observing his own hallucinations but in this case, this hallucination [empirical reality and that has relative mind-independence] has a higher degree of reality and objectivity.

I didn't ask you what it's like either.

One could almost regard perception as the act of choosing the one hallucination that best fits the incoming data[/color][/b].”
― V.S. Ramachandran, The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist's Quest for What Makes Us Human

[/quote]
What do you cal lthe origin of the "incoming data"?

[Skepdick]

There is a distinction made between Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata

Collapsing and drawing distinctions is grounded in teleology.

Any two things are different, except for their similarities.
Any two things are the same, except for their differences.

Putting things in italics; and capitalizing words doesn't change the theleological/theological nature of the game.

At the level of abstraction you are operating at one can trivially draw a parallel between the Natura Naturans-Natura Naturata distinction; and the Essence-Energies distinction.

[Dr Faustus]

There is a distinction made between Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata

Collapsing and drawing distinctions is grounded in teleology.

Any two things are different, except for their similarities.
Any two things are the same, except for their differences.

Putting things in italics; and capitalizing words doesn't change the theleological/theological nature of the game.

My point was to answer to Godelian about natural religion, who believes (as i interpret it) that they do not make distinction between God and World. Actually they do.

[Skepdick]

My point was to answer to Godelian about natural religion, who believes (as i interpret it) that they do not make distinction between God and World. Actually they do.

They do; and they don't. As and when it suits them. All distinctions are ephermal.

Because (like I said)...Collapsing and drawing distinctions is grounded in teleology - it all serves a purpose. And the purpose is to configure a mind in a particular frame.

Theologians aren't exempt from the functioning of language/thought.

[Dr Faustus]

My point was to answer to Godelian about natural religion, who believes (as i interpret it) that they do not make distinction between God and World. Actually they do.

They do; and they don't. As and when it suits them. All distinctions are ephermal.

Because (like I said)...Collapsing and drawing distinctions is grounded in teleology - it all serves a purpose. And the purpose is to configure a mind in a particular frame.

Theologians aren't exempt from the functioning of language/thought.

And so what ?

What are their purpose ? (They are not theologians)

[Skepdick]

And so what ?

What are their purpose ? (They are not theologians)

Ask them,

Are you telling me there is no purpose to you distinguishing between theologians and non-theologians?
You don't know why you draw distinctions?

Being ignorant of the purpose of a distinction doesn't imply lack thereof.

[Dr Faustus]

And so what ?

What are their purpose ? (They are not theologians)

Ask them,

Are you telling me there is no purpose to you distinguishing between theologians and non-theologians?
You don't know why you draw distinctions?

Being ignorant of the purpose of a distinction doesn't imply lack thereof.

Well, when i want to make a distinction between my phone and my hand, it is because my phone is not a part of my hand. But i don't have more reasons than that ? Maybe you do.

[Skepdick]

Well, when i want to make a distinction between my phone and my hand, it is because my phone is not a part of my hand. But i don't have more reasons than that ? Maybe you do.

You must be new to the metaphysics of identity.

When you want to draw such a distinction - you draw it.
When you want to collapse such a distinction - you collapse it. Using collective nouns. Such as "matter"; or abstract nouns such as "things".

That they are different configurations of matter is neither here nor there. They are essentially identical given some ephermal classification scheme.

All such choices are equally arbitrary in terms of reflecting reality, but they're not arbitrary in terms of their purposes - they serve specific ends we have in mind. Some distinctions are more useful than others for some purposes - no distinction-scheme comes closer to truth than any other.

Your ignorance of this fact doesn't change this fact.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

[Dr Faustus]

Well, when i want to make a distinction between my phone and my hand, it is because my phone is not a part of my hand. But i don't have more reasons than that ? Maybe you do.

You must be new to the metaphysics of identity.

When you want to draw such a distinction - you draw it.
When you want to collapse such a distinction - you collapse it. Using collective nouns. Such as "matter"; or abstract nouns such as "things".

That they are different configurations of matter is neither here nor there. They are essentially identical given some ephermal classification scheme.

All such choices are equally arbitrary in terms of reflecting reality, but they're not arbitrary in terms of their purposes - they serve specific ends we have in mind. Some distinctions are more useful than others for some purposes - no distinction-scheme comes closer to truth than any other.

Your ignorance of this fact doesn't change this fact.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

The fact that drawing is teleological does not mean it is an autonomous construction.
What is the purpose of making such distinctions in a uniform world ?

[Skepdick]

The fact that drawing is teleological does not mean it is an autonomous construction.

The fact that it can be drawn OR erased means precisely that.

The fact that we can redraw these lines proves they're our lines to draw - and that's exactly what philosophy is about.

That's what having a "philosophy" (a world-view) amounts to.

What is the purpose of making such distinctions in a uniform world ?

You've missed the forrest for the trees.

CHOOSING to start with a uniform world that you then discretize; is as arbitrary as CHOOSING to start with a discrete world that you then unify.

The purpose is the point being worked towars.