What is religion ?

[Dr Faustus]

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.

Not really, you don't draw from nothing.

A forrest of trees is not uniform. There are many different forms in a forest of trees.

[Skepdick]

Not really, you don't draw from nothing.

A forrest of trees is not uniform. There are many different forms in a forest of trees.

You are literally affirming what I just said.

Would it still be a forest if it were made of many different non-trees?

Notice how you are using a collective noun "trees" to collapse the distinctions between multiple, different and unique things.
If they are "not uniform" then why are you calling them all "trees"?

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

[Dr Faustus]

Not really, you don't draw from nothing.

A forrest of trees is not uniform. There are many different forms in a forest of trees.

You are literally affirming what I just said.

Would it still be a forest if it were made of many different non-trees?

Notice how you are using a collective noun "trees" to collapse the distinctions between multiple, different and unique things.

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

Actually there is a distinction i make between a forest of trees and the representation of it.

What is the purpose of this distinction ?
I don't live in my representation.
If i lived in my representation, What kind of other distinction could I make from my representation of a forest of trees ?

[Skepdick]

Actually there is a distinction i make between a forest of trees and the representation.

What is the purpose of this distinction ?
Actually I don't live in my representation ?
If i lived in my representation ? What kind of other distinction could I make from my representation of a forest of trees ?

Why are you representing them as "trees"?

Why aren't you representing them as multiple, different and unique things that can't be represented with the collective noun "trees"?

Why are you erasing the distinction between the elements by collectivising them under an umbrella term? Collective nouns destroy fidelity; and the identity of the constituents.

Why are you even talking about a forest; or the forest?

[Dr Faustus]

Actually there is a distinction i make between a forest of trees and the representation.

What is the purpose of this distinction ?
Actually I don't live in my representation ?
If i lived in my representation ? What kind of other distinction could I make from my representation of a forest of trees ?

Why are you representing them as "trees"?

Why aren't you representing them as multiple, different and unique things that can't be represented with the collective noun "trees"?

Why are you erasing the distinction between the elements by collectivising them under an umbrella term? Collective nouns destroy fidelity; and the identity of the constituents.

Why are you even talking about a forest; or the forest?

For simplification I guess. Unfortunately, I don't have any purpose to distinguish them and they have the same use for me in those circumstances. It doesn't mean that they are just what I say about them, whatever I say about them. But it doesn't mean either that what I say about them is an autonomous fantasy.

Furthermore, the purpose of this topic is initially to understand the purpose of such a classification between religion and non religion, and maybe to question it utility. So I am conscious about the teleological concerns of concepts, especially when the reference of these concepts is associated with an object whose ontology is purely social.

[Skepdick]

For simplification I guess. Unfortunately, I don't have any purpose to distinguish them and they have the same use for me in those circumstances.

Q.E.D

It doesn't mean that they are just what I say about them, whatever I say about them. But it doesn't mean either that what I say about them is an autonomous fantasy.

It means precisely that. You've stripped away all the complexity for some simpleton purpose of yours.

Furthermore, the purpose of this topic is initially to understand the purpose of such a classification between religion and non religion, and maybe to question it utility. So I am conscious about the teleological concerns of concepts, especially when the reference of these concepts is associated with an object whose ontology is purely social.

Purposeless thought/language is meaningless thought/language. If there's no purpose to speaking; or thinking about trees/forests - then why are you doing it?

What is the meaning of your communication?

The most common purpose for distinguishing between religion and non-religion is to invent yourself a moral high horse to climb upon and proclaim that your in-group is better than the outgroup. Irrespective of which group you self-identify with.

The purpose is tribal warfare.

[Dr Faustus]

For simplification I guess. Unfortunately, I don't have any purpose to distinguish them and they have the same use for me in those circumstances.

Q.E.D

It doesn't mean that they are just what I say about them, whatever I say about them. But it doesn't mean either that what I say about them is an autonomous fantasy.

It means precisely that. You've stripped away all the complexity for some simpleton purpose of yours.

Furthermore, the purpose of this topic is initially to understand the purpose of such a classification between religion and non religion, and maybe to question it utility. So I am conscious about the teleological concerns of concepts, especially when the reference of these concepts is associated with an object whose ontology is purely social.

Purposeless thought/language is meaningless thought/language. If there's no purpose to speaking; or thinking about trees/forests - then why are you doing it?

What is the meaning of your communication?

The most common purpose for distinguishing between religion and non-religion is to invent yourself a moral high horse to climb upon and proclaim that your in-group is better than the outgroup. Irrespective of which group you self-identify with.

The purpose is tribal warfare.

It means precisely that. You've stripped away all the complexity for some simpleton purpose of yours.

That's what I did, which doesn't mean things are reduced to what i do. It is not what I meant.

The meaning of my communication is not to express the totality of what things are or are not. I do not have this pretention.

Actually the only purpose I see about speaking of trees is to answer to the discussion you introduce about purpose. Why did you introduce it ? i don't have any idea.

[Dr Faustus]

For simplification I guess. Unfortunately, I don't have any purpose to distinguish them and they have the same use for me in those circumstances.

Q.E.D

It doesn't mean that they are just what I say about them, whatever I say about them. But it doesn't mean either that what I say about them is an autonomous fantasy.

It means precisely that. You've stripped away all the complexity for some simpleton purpose of yours.

Furthermore, the purpose of this topic is initially to understand the purpose of such a classification between religion and non religion, and maybe to question it utility. So I am conscious about the teleological concerns of concepts, especially when the reference of these concepts is associated with an object whose ontology is purely social.

Purposeless thought/language is meaningless thought/language. If there's no purpose to speaking; or thinking about trees/forests - then why are you doing it?

What is the meaning of your communication?

The most common purpose for distinguishing between religion and non-religion is to invent yourself a moral high horse to climb upon and proclaim that your in-group is better than the outgroup. Irrespective of which group you self-identify with.

The purpose is tribal warfare.

That is interesting. The way you define religion inderectly is to identify a religion to a given tribe, culture. So religion becomes a synonym of a particular culture opposed to a universal civilization.

And I think I agree with this comprehension of what religion designate. But there is a problem, what kind of concept can overcome this representation which perpetuates inconsciously the same purpose of universal religions such as christianism and Islam. And the question may interest you, for what purpose ?

[Skepdick]

That is interesting. The way you define religion inderectly is to identify a religion to a given tribe, culture. So religion becomes a synonym of a particular culture opposed to a universal civilization.

I don't define "religion" any kind of way. That's the whole point. To "define" something is to put an end to - it's to draw a line. When you define "religion" any kind of way; then anything which falls outside of the definition is non-religion.

If you want to universalize - sure... everyone's religious. Some people deny it because they have no clue what their religion is.
Or you can go the other way - nobody is religious. Only in name.

And I think I agree with this comprehension of what religion designate.

Religion designates whatever you think it designates. That's the whole point of these wishy washy open ended words.

For you to draw a line somewhere.

But there is a problem, what kind of concept can overcome this representation which perpetuates inconsciously the same purpose of universal religions such as christianism and Islam. And the question may interest you, for what purpose ?

I am not using it in any universal sense so I have no idea.

My whole point is that the designator "religious" and "non-religious" apply to most people. Depending on what it is you are attempting to convey.

[Skepdick]

Actually the only purpose I see about speaking of trees is to answer to the discussion you introduce about purpose. Why did you introduce it ? i don't have any idea.

I know exactly why I use all the language that I am using. It's calculated and strategic.

I've even made my agenda explicit. At this very moment my purpose is to make you realize that what I am saying about language-use is true.

Then you can tell us the purpose of your question.

[Dr Faustus]

That is interesting. The way you define religion inderectly is to identify a religion to a given tribe, culture. So religion becomes a synonym of a particular culture opposed to a universal civilization.

I don't define "religion" any kind of way. That's the whole point. To "define" something is to put an end to - it's to draw a line. When you define "religion" any kind of way; then anything which falls outside of the definition is non-religion.

If you want to universalize - sure... everyone's religious. Some people deny it because they have no clue what their religion is.
Or you can go the other way - nobody is religious. Only in name.

And I think I agree with this comprehension of what religion designate.

Religion designates whatever you think it designates. That's the whole point of these wishy washy open ended words.

For you to draw a line somewhere.

But there is a problem, what kind of concept can overcome this representation which perpetuates inconsciously the same purpose of universal religions such as christianism and Islam. And the question may interest you, for what purpose ?

I am not using it in any universal sense so I have no idea.

My whole point is that the designator "religious" and "non-religious" apply to most people. Depending on what it is you are attempting to convey.

I don't define "religion" any kind of way. That's the whole point. To "define" something is to put an end to - it's to draw a line. When you define "religion" any kind of way; then anything which falls outside of the definition is non-religion.

What did you do then when you pointed out a purpose of distinction between religion and non religion as a tribal warfare, assuming it was mine or maybe a generic person designated by "you" ?

You gave indirectly a definition of religion, not yours I guess.

My whole point is that the designator "religious" and "non-religious" apply to most people. Depending on what it is you are attempting to convey.

Actually religion is a term that has a social use. this term is used to refer to distinct things. But I think that this category as it is usually understood cannot really be applied to all cultures. However, it is also considered as a universal anthropolgic category. My objective here is to note the fact that this category is lacking in the understanding of human cultures.

[Dr Faustus]

Actually the only purpose I see about speaking of trees is to answer to the discussion you introduce about purpose. Why did you introduce it ? i don't have any idea.

I know exactly why I use all the language that I am using. It's calculated and strategic.

I've even made my agenda explicit. At this very moment my purpose is to make you realize that what I am saying about language-use is true.

Then you can tell us the purpose of your question.

Well on the fact that things are distinguished for a purpose, I already realized it. On the fact that they are arbitrary distinguished, i disagree.

[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.

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.

Hello Doc,

Apparently:

A religious practice generates spirituality that is expressed in action and thought. Conversely, a practice that generates spirituality is a religious practice. An example of this is the Japanese tea ceremony in which ego dissolves into the purpose at hand.

The purpose of generating spirituality is to make spirituality a spontaneous expression every moment, as it was for those who inspired the religion.

Every moment includes chopping wood, hauling water, wearing a loincloth, or smoking a bidi, etc.

Different religious practices appeal to various capacities, from intellectual analysis to whirling dervish. Religious practices are designed to awaken the spontaneous spirituality that is perceived in the actions and words of those who inspired the religion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I am optimistic the new non-religious alternatives to religions without side effects is possible in the future [in 75, 100, or > years] given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology especially from AI [deep learning].
There will be side effects but they will be continually polished off as they arise based on unforeseen variables.

The default of the new alternative will be without suppression, enforcement, coercion from third parties using law, rules and other methods.
By then, it will be voluntarily, base on freewill, spontaneously and as a natural feature of human nature.

Look, at present a large % of humans do not arbitrary commit evil acts, take drugs, believe in a religion and the like based on their natural psychological state. So this is a matter of expediting the natural process to the majority > 90%.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

What do you call the origin of the "incoming data"?

When a person hallucinates 'something X' and claims there is "something X" which is very "real", the logic from that perspective is the the origin "incoming date" must be from that external something X or from somewhere external which is independent from the observer.

This similar to the brain-in-the-vat thought-experiment.
In this case, there is a supposed 'incoming data' but the overall reality is grounded to the brain-in-the-vat.

In the case of humans, the origin of the incoming data of reality is somehow grounded to humans themselves. Somewhat circular but not fully.

It is just that humans cannot make an absolute claim there is an absolutely 100% certainty there is a human/mind independent reality; the most humans can claim is the human/mind independence is relative to the humans themselves.
This sort of skepticism and suspension of judgment is very rational and reasonable.

If we blindly surrender to an absolute claim there is an absolutely 100% certain human/mind independent reality, we open a pandora box to all sorts of irrational and delusional supernatural claims that lead to great evils as evident in the past and at present.