What Is Religion?

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Thanks, hallenrm. As this thread seems to be "stolen" from the philosophy vs religion thread, you would be on point with that thread.

Naugty naught KickAssClown you thief . Wow, I'm in the middle of a turf war. But this time, it's not over drugs and guns, it's over ideas.

Seriously, I think your title suggests that, although there is some overlap, it is a different type of discussion to here.

However, even if they are the same, surely the best thing to do is to cooperate and refer to posts in each other's threads

Perhaps a summary of the relevant conclusions reached in your thread would be handy.

[cwes99_03]

That's why I said I didn't mind if it gets discussed here. The ideas seem to overlap quite a bit though. Perhaps my thread title was too specific?

I was not accusing when I said stolen, so that everybody is on the same page. The quote though at the beginning was on another thread, and I had been trying to get those people who were also discussing a lot of the same topics to discuss the philosophy vs religion thread. So I posed a question and CraigD responded with that definition which was restating the definition I had taken from the philosophy vs religion thread.

Ok. I have spammed enough links to my thread. I will check in here, and hope others will check out my thread. :0

PHILOSOPHY VS RELIGION

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

KAC, I don't mind if you want to discuss this here as well, but what motivated you to move away from the philosophy vs religion thread?

Don't worry. The mods and admins will handle this for you. You can stick to the discussion or reference another thread when needed.


Cheers.

[cwes99_03]

I was asking a serious question. Perhaps this discussion is meant to take a different path. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this thread and it's similarities to the other one.

[KickAssClown]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

KAC, I don't mind if you want to discuss this here as well, but what motivated you to move away from the philosophy vs religion thread?

Well, I felt that the other threads on the subject were focused on answering the questions. Like yours is asking what is the difference between religion and philosophy. Which for me has become a fallacy of many questions, or at least is circumspect.

This thread, I am more aimed at comprehending what is ment when some one says the words "religion", "religious", "faith", "sacred", and "holy".

That is defining clearly what this symbol means, what it represents. I am seeking this because I can have no meaningful discussion on the topic until I know whether this is a non-topic or a topic. I may altogether eliminate religion from my book if I find it to have little to no symantic value.

I mean it seems to me that religion, like many of the things in so called religions, say clearly that "You can't define me, you can't know me. I am above and beyond that which exists. I am trancendant.", and being that I am strictly scientific, logical, and matterial, I can't accept anything like that. To me such declarations are declaration of irrelevance.

If such is the case, than I will cease touting myself as a religious scientist.

However, like I said, first I must evaluate the word, and clearly define it, or failing that eliminate it from my dictionary as a distinct entity. It may very well be that religion gets written under the topic of philosophy if it survives this process.

Supernatural is a no go for me. Anything that can be experienced in my book is natural, therefore nullifying such a notion.

There is a distinct difference between unknown-unknowable and unknown-knowable. My observations and contemplations of the universe support the latter, and as of current disprove the former.

[cwes99_03]

I hear you clearly. Okay, I'll put in my two cents and continue to audit this thread.

When I say religion, I refer to study and worship of a divinity in a way prescribed by that divinity.
There are occasions where the term religious may be applied to the non-divine. When someone does something religiously, they are said to be applying themselves in a way that is similar to the way a religious person applies themselves to their worship of their divinity. Thus someone who applies themselves whole-heartedly, whole-souled, and whole minded (that's a Biblical reference anyway but I think it transcends the topic) would be working at something religiously.
Now do they truly have to work at it with every fiber of their being? Not really, after all you have to eat and drink and probably work to support your living. But you would devote so much time to it and place so much value in it that without it you might feel lost or have a major amount of extra time. Thus I currently spend about 12 hours or more a week working at my religious study, not including the hours that I randomly think about it. I don't equate my secular work as religious, because at the end of the day I go home and don't think about it. I could change jobs tomorrow and still continue living the rest of my life without problems.

When you say that can be experienced, you might have to dig deeper. Some people say they experience life changing things after attending church. They change their lives, they are moved to do things. Others have "experienced" ghosts and many other things that they define as supernatural.

I agree with you on the unknown-unknowable part. I don't much care for it. I've met priests who when asked a question, reply "that is not for man to know, God works in mysterious ways." I never accepted that, and today study with a group of people who likewise don't agree with the concept. They will however admit that some things we don't know yet. I can only think of one thing in which they say that no man can know.
I'll explain. No man can be certain when I'm going to make a decision to do a particular action, unless I tell them. If I never tell them, then they can't know. They can make educated guesses, but they can't be certain. Likewise, the Bible says this of Armageddon.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

..."that is not for man to know, God works in mysterious ways." I never accepted that, and today study with a group of people who likewise don't agree with the concept.

If you're discussing a deity who's to be believed in, acting in 'mysterious ways' is the deity under discussion's main claim to fame, and main stock in trade. The moment we can investigate this deity, we remove him/her from the realm of the 'unknowable' to the 'knowable', which means we don't have to believe in the deity anymore, we can know him/her from empirical evidence. A deity has to act in mysterious ways, otherwise he/she gets relegated from the realm of belief/faith to the shallow, vulgar pit of empirical knowledge...

[KickAssClown]

Alright, let's introduce another possible defining element.

Zeal. Which would be related to but distinct from Devotion.

As for the bit's about experience, well simply put what those people profess to experience can be chalked up to a large number of knowable causes. Like social catharsis.

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

If you're discussing a deity who's to be believed in, acting in 'mysterious ways' is the deity under discussion's main claim to fame, and main stock in trade. The moment we can investigate this deity, we remove him/her from the realm of the 'unknowable' to the 'knowable', which means we don't have to believe in the deity anymore, we can know him/her from empirical evidence. A deity has to act in mysterious ways, otherwise he/she gets relegated from the realm of belief/faith to the shallow, vulgar pit of empirical knowledge...

You are not using mysterious in the proper way. You are strictly equating mystery with the physical. A science fiction book is well known for explaining things that can't physically happen yet. The applicatoin of an explanation is all that is needed. In religion, which I know you equate with fiction and you realize others do not, the same can sometimes be said. An explanation that is acceptable to reason is made.

Thus when someone asks why does God allow suffering (speaking of the Christian god) and a priest says "it is not for man to know, God works in mysterious ways", then either he hasn't read the Bible well, or the Bible doesn't explain. I have read the Bible, and can say it does explain, but that is neither here nor there.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

You are not using mysterious in the proper way. You are strictly equating mystery with the physical. A science fiction book is well known for explaining things that can't physically happen yet. The applicatoin of an explanation is all that is needed. In religion, which I know you equate with fiction and you realize others do not, the same can sometimes be said. An explanation that is acceptable to reason is made.

Thus when someone asks why does God allow suffering (speaking of the Christian god) and a priest says "it is not for man to know, God works in mysterious ways", then either he hasn't read the Bible well, or the Bible doesn't explain. I have read the Bible, and can say it does explain, but that is neither here nor there.

C, with all due respects, can I please ask you to explain in plain English what you've written above? The contradictions in the first paragraph are glaring to the extent where I have to ask you for clarification.