What's the Point of Religion?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Russell Parr »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Russell,
Diebert's chicanery is astounding.
A thread gets a head of steam and runs away.
Diebert contributes generally in the order of 20% of the posts.
When the tide turn against him.
He chimes in:
This is all feminine minded.
If you've got a hunch on some ulterior motive Diebert might've had in making his statement, you'll have to take that up with him.
You jump in (protecting the forum)
I saw an opportunity to carry on a conversation on a point that I found to be relevant to the topic. I'm not really interested in contributing to any of the blasé "he said/she said" nonsense.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Leyla Shen »

Beingof1 wrote:
The value of religion is to reach a consensus on what needs to be asked and why.
Hm…

What is evident in this regard is that both science and religion are doctrinal. The intrinsic value of each of them to their own practitioners therefore is to reach a consensus on what needs to be asked and why. Yet, science and religion are dialectically opposed; i.e., they reach an opposite consensus in relation to each other on what needs to be asked and why.

Given this, what would you say constitutes the intrinsic and extrinsic values of their respective doctrines? Of what value is religion to science, and science to religion, if any?
Between Suicides
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Beingof1 »

Good to see ya Leyla, it has been a long time since I have seen you out and about skewing and hunting down male egos.

How was lunch?
Leyla Shen wrote:Beingof1 wrote:
The value of religion is to reach a consensus on what needs to be asked and why.
Hm…

What is evident in this regard is that both science and religion are doctrinal.
The eventually devolve into belief-systems and become powerless.
The intrinsic value of each of them to their own practitioners therefore is to reach a consensus on what needs to be asked and why. Yet, science and religion are dialectically opposed; i.e., they reach an opposite consensus in relation to each other on what needs to be asked and why.

Given this, what would you say constitutes the intrinsic and extrinsic values of their respective doctrines? Of what value is religion to science, and science to religion, if any?
Religion asks the 'why' question. Science asks 'how'. Both have their value.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein

I am not saying the conclusions of either are the utopia - but they certainly appear to be for most according to Marx.

Are we men or mice? As Groucho Marx said, “throw a piece of cheese on the floor, and we’ll find out.”
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Leyla Shen »

Good to see ya Leyla, […]
Thank you, and likewise. (:
[…] it has been a long time since I have seen you out and about skewing and hunting down male egos.

How was lunch?
Well, the thing about “male egos” is that, if you are lucky enough to have one boldly venture into your territory, they are so full of protein you can spend a whole week dozing in the sun on the savannah digesting the catch.
[Science and religion] eventually devolve into belief-systems and become powerless.
Religion is, by definition, already a belief system (to give some appropriate contrast to the point being made: religionists are not the same as theologians or scientists). Does it follow that it is powerless?

As for science, it isn’t possible by its very methodological nature for it to devolve into anything. What is possible is for non-science to be misrepresented as science.
Religion asks the 'why' question. Science asks 'how'. Both have their value.
It’s not clear to me what you mean here. Do you mean to imply, considering the nature of your broader reply, that any scientific proposition (theoretical framework for) “the why question” is thereby necessarily religious and that, conversely, an aspect of religion which proposes a question of and answer to a “how” question is necessarily scientific?
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein
But if religion asks the “why” question and science the “how”, wouldn’t it be the case that science is blind without religion and religion lame without science?

~

As much as it is a favourite topic, I am not in a position to address the balance of your post right at this moment but very much look forward to doing so as early as possible.

See you then!
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein
Einstein also wrote:
  • The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions
Now how does this rhyme with the earlier quote? It's one of those details too which might be too hard to digest but here it goes, the preceding lines of the lame and blind quote.
  • But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. --source
Let me stress again the important of attention, detail, truthfulness, consistency and humility in the face of undesired truths. It's the ego which tries to take a ride with chinese whispers.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Diebert's chicanery is astounding. A thread gets a head of steam and runs away. Diebert contributes generally in the order of 20% of the posts. When the tide turn against him, he chimes in:
this is all feminine minded.
This is indeed all extremely feminine minded. Thanks for reminding :)
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Beingof1 »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Well, the thing about “male egos” is that, if you are lucky enough to have one boldly venture into your territory, they are so full of protein you can spend a whole week dozing in the sun on the savannah digesting the catch.
You intimidate men then? I cannot imagine why.

How do children and small animals react when you approach?
[Science and religion] eventually devolve into belief-systems and become powerless.

Religion is, by definition, already a belief system (to give some appropriate contrast to the point being made: religionists are not the same as theologians or scientists). Does it follow that it is powerless?
All the major religions of the world, at their inception, were filled with the 'why' question. It is almost a trademark that you have a sage appear, he asks a lot of questions and points to experience. The sage offers a cosmic religion that is all inclusive. It is after the departure of the sage that the religions get to work to capitalize on the innocent hope of the starry eyed. They begin by separating their special brand of religion as superior to all others. The result is, another method of competition for resources.

I do understand your point of theologians however, I would include many of the theologians as culprits of misinformation when it comes to religion. Science has no business - if it is actually science - asking the big 'why' question. When I say this, it needs context. The 'why' of existence and being. They can ask all of the function of reality questions posed as the 'why', but it is a stepping stone to explain the 'how'.
As for science, it isn’t possible by its very methodological nature for it to devolve into anything. What is possible is for non-science to be misrepresented as science.
This is what I meant. Science gets stuck in a belief-system also. If you could ask Tesla, Einstein and Galileo, they would all agree.
Religion asks the 'why' question. Science asks 'how'. Both have their value.

It’s not clear to me what you mean here. Do you mean to imply, considering the nature of your broader reply, that any scientific proposition (theoretical framework for) “the why question” is thereby necessarily religious and that, conversely, an aspect of religion which proposes a question of and answer to a “how” question is necessarily scientific?
Yes - in the context of what I meant. Sorry for not being clear. Religion and science do overlap at times.

If religion asks how the universe began (as an example), they are in the context of the scientific. If science asks why we want to know who or what created the universe, we are in the domain of religion/philosophy.

But as I said, they overlap and the lines do blur at times.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein

But if religion asks the “why” question and science the “how”, wouldn’t it be the case that science is blind without religion and religion lame without science?
If that works for you.

~
As much as it is a favourite topic, I am not in a position to address the balance of your post right at this moment but very much look forward to doing so as early as possible.
I knew there was a lot of info to process in the bulk of my post. I will try to tidy it up.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Beingof1 wrote:"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein
Einstein also wrote:
  • The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions
Hello D-man, how in the world are ya? Appreciate you and the conversations we have had over the years. Though we have never met in person, I see you as a friend.

I like throwing American slang at ya cause you being Dutch and all, its kinda fun.

Einstein liked Spinoza`s impersonal God, yup. Kind of pantheistic without the theistic part ;)
Now how does this rhyme with the earlier quote? It's one of those details too which might be too hard to digest but here it goes, the preceding lines of the lame and blind quote.
Calm down, you are scarey when you get all riled up.
  • But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. --source
Let me stress again the important of attention, detail, truthfulness, consistency and humility in the face of undesired truths. It's the ego which tries to take a ride with chinese whispers.
OK - consider me chastised.

Could you fill me in on what I missed?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Leyla Shen »

Let me see... surely the answer to these questions depends, doesn’t it:
L:
Well, the thing about “male egos” is that, if you are lucky enough to have one boldly venture into your territory, they are so full of protein you can spend a whole week dozing in the sun on the savannah digesting the catch.

B1:
You intimidate men then? I cannot imagine why.

How do children and small animals react when you approach?
Are men “male egos”, children or small animals?

I could argue that I am a phallic woman, which would make me a male ego, and then you could ask me if I am a cannibal.
L:
[Science and religion] eventually devolve into belief-systems and become powerless.

Religion is, by definition, already a belief system (to give some appropriate contrast to the point being made: religionists are not the same as theologians or scientists). Does it follow that it is powerless?

B1:
All the major religions of the world, at their inception, were filled with the 'why' question. It is almost a trademark that you have a sage appear, he asks a lot of questions and points to experience. The sage offers a cosmic religion that is all inclusive. It is after the departure of the sage that the religions get to work to capitalize on the innocent hope of the starry eyed. They begin by separating their special brand of religion as superior to all others. The result is, another method of competition for resources.

I do understand your point of theologians however, I would include many of the theologians as culprits of misinformation when it comes to religion. Science has no business - if it is actually science - asking the big 'why' question. When I say this, it needs context. The 'why' of existence and being.* They can ask all of the function of reality questions posed as the 'why', but it is a stepping stone to explain the 'how'.
*But you are not describing religion here. You are describing philosophy. Do you make no distinction between religion and philosophy? I do: religion does not ask “the big question”, it is a belief that it has the answer to “it”, which comes to view by virtue of the evidence (logical and empirical) against it.
L:
As for science, it isn’t possible by its very methodological nature for it to devolve into anything. What is possible is for non-science to be misrepresented as science.

B1:
This is what I meant. Science gets stuck in a belief-system also. If you could ask Tesla, Einstein and Galileo, they would all agree.
Sure. Yet, the proposition that science may “get stuck in a belief system” is not the same as science is a belief system. It is philosophy and science itself which determine which is what.
B1:
Religion asks the 'why' question. Science asks 'how'. Both have their value.

L:
It’s not clear to me what you mean here. Do you mean to imply, considering the nature of your broader reply, that any scientific proposition (theoretical framework for) “the why question” is thereby necessarily religious and that, conversely, an aspect of religion which proposes a question of and answer to a “how” question is necessarily scientific?

B1:
Yes - in the context of what I meant. Sorry for not being clear. Religion and science do overlap at times.
No apologies necessary. They overlap because they are dialectically opposed.
B1:
If religion asks how the universe began (as an example), they are in the context of the scientific. If science asks why we want to know who or what created the universe, we are in the domain of religion/philosophy.
Aha! “Religion/philosophy”. And still you see no difference? How, then, would it be possible to engage in the philosophy of religion if there existed no difference between them?
B1:
But as I said, they overlap and the lines do blur at times.
Well, let’s just say we’re working on that... (:
B1 quoted:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein

L:
But if religion asks the “why” question and science the “how”, wouldn’t it be the case that science is blind without religion and religion lame without science?

B1:
If that works for you.
The question was not about “what works for me”. It was about what follows from your reasoning and whether or not it is logically consistent with what you quoted above.

~
L:
As much as it is a favourite topic, I am not in a position to address the balance of your post right at this moment but very much look forward to doing so as early as possible.

B1:
I knew there was a lot of info to process in the bulk of my post. I will try to tidy it up.
It’s a big subject. (:

There will surely be a natural point of entry for Marx once we establish more clearly between us where we each stand on the above fundamentals that lead to him.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Beingof1 wrote:Hello D-man, how in the world are ya? Appreciate you and the conversations we have had over the years. Though we have never met in person, I see you as a friend.
Hi Being, we have seen eye to eye at times and it's cool. I can certainly forgive your enthrallment with certain religious expressions and theology :-)
Calm down, you are scarey when you get all riled up.
People do seem to find my earnestness scary or frustrated sounding at times. I suspect a cultural difference as in most of Europe I'm known as a famous comedian. Then again, perhaps the confusion is good, gravity is just as problematic as lightly stepping over things with a wink and a smile.
Could you fill me in on what I missed?
Perhaps you can help here. Somewhere in this thread I tried to explore the subject of dukkha, the Buddhist notion of suffering, of existence, of becoming. And the notion of how this would "stop arising" or "release" at the metaphysical level and not just with the more obvious emotional attachments. Any thoughts from your perspective?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by jupiviv »

Most Buddhist teachers seem to think that the notion of dukkha is neither pessimistic nor optimistic but rather realistic. Reality can be validly seen either pessimistically or optimistically, or both, or neither. That's true, but it's irrelevant to the four noble truths. What the four noble truths are concerned with is Reality itself:

1. There is suffering, i.e, things.
2. There are causes of suffering, i.e, other things.
3. There are effects of suffering, i.e, other things.
4. There is liberation(independence) from suffering(things), viz., the Infinite. The way to achieve this is the noble eightfold path.

Buddhists seem to think the eightfold path is some kind of moral code or a guide to achieving liberation from suffering, which shows they have no understanding of the four truths. There is no liberation from suffering for finite things, since all finite things are suffering by their very nature. The only thing that is free of suffering is the totality of all suffering(or finite things). And since things both arise from and dissipate into the boundless ocean of suffering(the All), they are following the eightfold path by default.

What I just described is the point of religion. It nothing more than a simple, blind, unreserved faith in God. What else could it be?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Leyla Shen »

The only thing that is free of suffering is the totality of all suffering(or finite things). And since things both arise from and dissipate into the boundless ocean of suffering(the All), they are following the eightfold path by default.

What I just described is the point of religion. It nothing more than a simple, blind, unreserved faith in God. What else could it be?
Excellent point, jupiviv.
Between Suicides
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Beingof1 »

Leyla:
Are men “male egos”, children or small animals?

I could argue that I am a phallic woman, which would make me a male ego, and then you could ask me if I am a cannibal.
Most men confuse the "male ego" with the identity of who they are. They are gullible enough to allow others to determine the identity as this is tied into appearances. You could not hunt what was not there.

The children and small animal thing was to point to the defenseless victim role. Allow others to determine your value, choices and world view and you have been victimized.

Are you a cannibal?
*But you are not describing religion here. You are describing philosophy. Do you make no distinction between religion and philosophy? I do: religion does not ask “the big question”, it is a belief that it has the answer to “it”, which comes to view by virtue of the evidence (logical and empirical) against it.
Expand your thought here so that we can be on the same page as to definitions. Where do you draw the line of distinction between religion and philosophy.

My experience with religion is that they attempt to answer some questions and do not claim to have them all.

I will use your definitions once I know what they are.
Sure. Yet, the proposition that science may “get stuck in a belief system” is not the same as science is a belief system. It is philosophy and science itself which determine which is what.
I agree. I was refering to the scientific community and if we are going to remain consistent, we must say the religious community also. Both have their methods.

The scientific community uses the scientific method to discover the how question. The religious community uses a method (usually the study of holy texts and prayer/meditation) to discover the why question.
They overlap because they are dialectically opposed.
It is akin to listening to two different language speakers trying to communicate. One is speaking Chinese and the other is speaking Greek.
But as I said, they overlap and the lines do blur at times.



Well, let’s just say we’re working on that... (:
Yes indeed, we are doing that right now.

Lets use an example that most everyone here should be familiar with.

How do things form?
Science - Cause and effect is how things form.
Religion/philosophy - God did it, the void, it has always been and so on.

Why do things form?
Science - What was the question?
Religion/philosophy - Consciousness desire, God`s desire, things are not really there and so on.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein

The question was not about “what works for me”. It was about what follows from your reasoning and whether or not it is logically consistent with what you quoted above.
Science is lame by itself because it never asks 'why' things are the way they are. You can say electricity seeks ground and this is why you must tie in a circuit. You could follow by asking 'why' does electricity seek ground and you get answers like "the laws of physics' and you are right back to the 'how'.

It cripples the individual asking the 'why' question because you have not answered who it is asking. Who is asking is intimately connected to 'why' as why contains volition and will.

~

Religion/philosophy is blind because it never asks 'how'. How does electricity seek ground? God does it, the void does it, there is no electricity and so on. How is in the realm of empirical observation and this, is the domain of science.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Beingof1 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Hi Being, we have seen eye to eye at times and it's cool. I can certainly forgive your enthrallment with certain religious expressions and theology :-)
I forgive you also - you may kiss the ring ;)
Perhaps you can help here. Somewhere in this thread I tried to explore the subject of dukkha, the Buddhist notion of suffering, of existence, of becoming. And the notion of how this would "stop arising" or "release" at the metaphysical level and not just with the more obvious emotional attachments. Any thoughts from your perspective?
I think most of the confusion is in the misunderstanding that the Buddha taught to extinguish all desire. When one looks at the eightfold path, this misconception is dispelled. I gave a lengthy answer on Pye`s thread.


Edit: Jupiviv answer that was quoted by Leyla is superb to expand on your question.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by jupiviv »

Actually the noble truths could also be interpreted like this:

1. There is suffering.
2. Desire causes suffering.
3. Desire ends suffering.
4. Following the eightfold path ends desire, and therefore suffering.

This is much more in line with the standard Buddhist rhetoric. Of course, the snag here is that both suffering and desire may end or arise regardless of whether one follows the eightfold path or not. So if someone is following the eightfold path with the goal of rooting out all desire from his mind, then he is not actually following it, since he's got the "right knowledge" bit wrong. The best one can do is try to prevent desire from clogging up the Dharma wheel, which it does by its very nature.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Leyla Shen »

B1:
L: Are men “male egos”, children or small animals?

I could argue that I am a phallic woman, which would make me a male ego, and then you could ask me if I am a cannibal.

B1: Most men confuse the "male ego" with the identity of who they are. They are gullible enough to allow others to determine the identity as this is tied into appearances.
I would like to get away for a moment from this artifact of religious buddhism, this be-all and end-all generic "truth of" “appearances”, which melts everything into an indistinct and meaningless whole. You know, the pseudo-wisdom in adopting as a standalone doctrine “every thing is an appearance”. Blah-blah, fucken blah. Male ego is an appearance, identity is an appearance, et cetera, ad nauseam.

If we do that, as it is, it’s not even clear that you yourself recognise a distinction between male ego and what might rightly constitute self-identity, except only by implying such a self-identity exists... somewhere, somehow, outside of the clutches of ego.

What’s of potential relevance here is, of course, the origin of ego, i.e., of the “psychoanalytic” approach to (and as) “the truth of the unconscious”. In particular interest, of the three registers, the Symbolic Register. This Register is the totality of language as signifiers and referents, the former being fluid in meaning insofar as such a word’s meaning is not strictly limited in the psyche to its material referent, a material object. For example, let’s take the word "penis". For as long as it refers only to the male organ, it is a referent. When, however, it is disembodied as an organ-in-itself and given signification (as the phallus, for example) it becomes capable of mystical powers far beyond its organic function! as is captured neatly by the idea “penis envy”; the corresponding sexualised signification is that the vagina signifies a lack and that lack is that females (the signified "woman"), not having a penis, are, therefore, lacking some thing. Fuck knows what and in whose psyche because, you know, we’re dealing with the “truth of the unconscious”, but there you have it.

Now, what I would like to know is, how does this fit in or contrast with your idea of male ego that “men are gullible enough to allow others to determine the identity as this is tied to appearances”?
You could not hunt what was not there.
Indeed. (: How does one hunt a lack, eh?
The children and small animal thing was to point to the defenseless victim role. Allow others to determine your value, choices and world view and you have been victimized.
But do you mean to suggest children, small animals and predators are such out of a choice of identities? Aren't all children victimised in that way by their parents, society?
Are you a cannibal?
Only in the unconscious, where I am also a lion... (:
L: *But you are not describing religion here. You are describing philosophy. Do you make no distinction between religion and philosophy? I do: religion does not ask “the big question”, it is a belief that it has the answer to “it”, which comes to view by virtue of the evidence (logical and empirical) against it.

B1: Expand your thought here so that we can be on the same page as to definitions. Where do you draw the line of distinction between religion and philosophy.

My experience with religion is that they attempt to answer some questions and do not claim to have them all.

I will use your definitions once I know what they are.
Hm. How about if I add this: Philosophy requires no rituals. It demands only clarity and ingenuity of thought—insight. Contrast this with the study of “holy” (?) texts and prayer (to what/whom?), which is not the same as meditation, by the way, by definition. Since when we speak in referents, one assumes conventional definitions apply unless otherwise specified, would you please explain how meditation and prayer are the same thing?
L: Sure. Yet, the proposition that science may “get stuck in a belief system” is not the same as science is a belief system. It is philosophy and science itself which determine which is what.

B1: I agree. I was refering to the scientific community and if we are going to remain consistent, we must say the religious community also. Both have their methods.

The scientific community uses the scientific method to discover the how question.
The “how” question necessarily addresses the why, since it is hardly possible to answer one without the other.
The religious community uses a method (usually the study of holy texts and prayer/meditation) to discover the why question.
Where does the answer come from? Oh, look! It's a "where" question! (((:
L: They overlap because they are dialectically opposed.

B1: It is akin to listening to two different language speakers trying to communicate. One is speaking Chinese and the other is speaking Greek.
赦免 ?
B1: But as I said, they overlap and the lines do blur at times.

L: Well, let’s just say we’re working on that... (:

B1: Yes indeed, we are doing that right now.

Lets use an example that most everyone here should be familiar with.

How do things form?
Science - Cause and effect is how things form.
Religion/philosophy - God did it, the void, it has always been and so on.
It is my contention that the "how" for science above is also the "why", and I maintain the above distinction I made between religion and philosophy.
Why do things form?
Science - What was the question?
Religion/philosophy - Consciousness desire, God`s desire, things are not really there and so on.
See reply to the first of your examples.
L: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Einstein

The question was not about “what works for me”. It was about what follows from your reasoning and whether or not it is logically consistent with what you quoted above.

B1: Science is lame by itself because it never asks 'why' things are the way they are. You can say electricity seeks ground and this is why you must tie in a circuit. You could follow by asking 'why' does electricity seek ground and you get answers like "the laws of physics' and you are right back to the 'how'.

It cripples the individual asking the 'why' question because you have not answered who it is asking. Who is asking is intimately connected to 'why' as why contains volition and will.
What?

You can’t answer the “why” question unless you assume there is a who there to ask about/about it?

(: Interesting you should say that, really...

~
Religion/philosophy is blind because it never asks 'how'. How does electricity seek ground? God does it, the void does it, there is no electricity and so on. How is in the realm of empirical observation and this, is the domain of science.
You claim that religion asks “the why” question and science “how” and I have stated that for religion “the why” is god. For science, it’s demonstrably causality. And between them philosophy has a field day.

But, when you say religion asks “the why” question and science “how”, and Einstein says, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”, given his views on a belief in god, is he not simply saying that religion necessarily preceded science and that without science religion will never see the nature of its own truth and understanding?

In other words, is it not possible that Einstein too suggests that science is in dialectical opposition to the truth of god, and in the classically Hegelian sense! The “truth and understanding of religion (god)” as thesis, the “truth and understanding of science (man)” as antithesis ending with the famous Hegelian synthesis, “god is man”?
Between Suicides
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Beingof1 »

Leyla:
B1: Most men confuse the "male ego" with the identity of who they are. They are gullible enough to allow others to determine the identity as this is tied into appearances.



Leyla: I would like to get away for a moment from this artifact of religious buddhism, this be-all and end-all generic "truth of" “appearances”, which melts everything into an indistinct and meaningless whole. You know, the pseudo-wisdom in adopting as a standalone doctrine “every thing is an appearance”. Blah-blah, fucken blah. Male ego is an appearance, identity is an appearance, et cetera, ad nauseam.

If we do that, as it is, it’s not even clear that you yourself recognise a distinction between male ego and what might rightly constitute self-identity, except only by implying such a self-identity exists... somewhere, somehow, outside of the clutches of ego.
I was speaking of the self image not emptiness. I have written extensively on the construct known as the self. It is a memory recreation and is a historical account of experience.
What’s of potential relevance here is, of course, the origin of ego, i.e., of the “psychoanalytic” approach to (and as) “the truth of the unconscious”. In particular interest, of the three registers, the Symbolic Register. This Register is the totality of language as signifiers and referents, the former being fluid in meaning insofar as such a word’s meaning is not strictly limited in the psyche to its material referent, a material object. For example, let’s take the word "penis". For as long as it refers only to the male organ, it is a referent. When, however, it is disembodied as an organ-in-itself and given signification (as the phallus, for example) it becomes capable of mystical powers far beyond its organic function! as is captured neatly by the idea “penis envy”; the corresponding sexualised signification is that the vagina signifies a lack and that lack is that females (the signified "woman"), not having a penis, are, therefore, lacking some thing. Fuck knows what and in whose psyche because, you know, we’re dealing with the “truth of the unconscious”, but there you have it.

Now, what I would like to know is, how does this fit in or contrast with your idea of male ego that “men are gullible enough to allow others to determine the identity as this is tied to appearances”?
The male ego is a projection out from the mind. It is designed to conceal perceived self image vulnerability and enhance admiration. It is like an ancient Greek actors mask that concealed the true identity of the one wearing it and instead wears a great warrior, genius, skilled master, etc. type of mask.

The desire of being admired by others is rooted in the idea that once someone reaches a certain level of glory, instant blissful fullfilment of the true or real person that remains hidden and vanquishes all envy and resentment. This idea, of course, is a phantom.

Context is important in discussions.
B1:The children and small animal thing was to point to the defenseless victim role. Allow others to determine your value, choices and world view and you have been victimized.


Leyla: But do you mean to suggest children, small animals and predators are such out of a choice of identities? Aren't all children victimised in that way by their parents, society?
Do not make the metaphor or analogy more important than the point being made. The small child or small animal is the hidden perceived vulnerability to the opinion of others as to the self worth.

Almost all children have experienced a legion of trauma by the parents, yes. This creates the ego mask by means of protecting the inate desire for childlike innocence. It is designed by the mind as a self defense mechanism.
Hm. How about if I add this: Philosophy requires no rituals. It demands only clarity and ingenuity of thought—insight. Contrast this with the study of “holy” (?) texts and prayer (to what/whom?), which is not the same as meditation, by the way, by definition. Since when we speak in referents, one assumes conventional definitions apply unless otherwise specified, would you please explain how meditation and prayer are the same thing?
I will use your definitions for philosophy and religion. Bear in mind that words are pointers to meanings. They can carry loaded emotional triggers if there are memory associations.

Meditation and prayer for me - as a personal experience - are one and the same. I suppose you may mean the common reference to meditation being the quieting of the mind and prayer petitioning someones brand of God.
The “how” question necessarily addresses the why, since it is hardly possible to answer one without the other.
In every case of scientific theories, the why question leads to another how.

Take the example of cosmology. You can ask 'why' the universe is? The answer you get, will always include the 'how' or it is not the scientific method.

The scientific method:
1) observation - postulate
2) experimentation
3) duplication - hypothesis
4) Predictive ability
5) falsification - theory

This method always, without exception, leads to a 'how' conclusion.

This video is directly related to our discussion, give it a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

~
B1; The religious community uses a method (usually the study of holy texts and prayer/meditation) to discover the why question.

Where does the answer come from? Oh, look! It's a "where" question! (((:
Funny. Yes well, you are speaking of the religious branch that makes up its mind according to this strong inquiry method: "Follow him...he speaks in sentences."

Many religious folks are easily influenced, so I get your point.
B1: It(science) cripples the individual asking the 'why' question because you have not answered who it is asking. Who is asking is intimately connected to 'why' as why contains volition and will.


Leyla: What?

You can’t answer the “why” question unless you assume there is a who there to ask about/about it?

(: Interesting you should say that, really...
You know me well enough, you should know that I meant a discovery of what/who exactly is observing, perceiving or ascertaining the universe.
You claim that religion asks “the why” question and science “how” and I have stated that for religion “the why” is god. For science, it’s demonstrably causality. And between them philosophy has a field day.
Causality does not answer the 'why' question. It only states a method or process. You can ask the mother of all questions "who or what is observing the universe"? The answer, according to cause and effect belief systems is "other things caused something or someone to observe the universe." Another 'how' answer ad infinitum.

History teaches us that men and nations inquire wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.:)
But, when you say religion asks “the why” question and science “how”, and Einstein says, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”, given his views on a belief in god, is he not simply saying that religion necessarily preceded science and that without science religion will never see the nature of its own truth and understanding?
I think he is saying much more than that but that may be my years of being on the path of truth and relating it to my own experience.
In other words, is it not possible that Einstein too suggests that science is in dialectical opposition to the truth of god, and in the classically Hegelian sense! The “truth and understanding of religion (god)” as thesis, the “truth and understanding of science (man)” as antithesis ending with the famous Hegelian synthesis, “god is man”?
We can speculate what Einstein meant but it will end up being just that.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Just a short interlude: What Twins Reveal About The Science Of Faith
  • Skeptics among you might say that the twin studies showing similarity for belief are just reflecting some cultural or family influence that wasn't properly corrected for in the study design. However in one study of adopted twins, the researchers looked at religious belief in a number of adopted twins raised apart. They found exactly the same result--greater similarity in identical twin pairs, even if raised apart. The conclusion is unavoidable: faith is definitely influenced by genes.
By the way, it's not clear to me if "raised apart" would mean also "no contact". Or if it would mean there was no shared history even for a few weeks or months which might have some significance. But we can be quite sure that pure free will or chance wasn't the case.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by jupiviv »

I don't think they had a very clear definition of "belief". "One level of belief in God and overall spirituality". What exactly does "one level" entail?

Also, "the capacity to reach out beyond oneself and discover or make meaning of experience through broadened perspectives and behavior."

That's not very clear. What does reaching beyond oneself mean? Romance? Compassion? Cooperation? Charity? Are they saying non-belief and these qualities are mutually exclusive or something? Making meaning of experience through broadened perspectives - looking at things from a broad perspective is spiritual? So if someone has a bad divorce and concludes that all marriage is hopeless, he is being more spiritual than someone who decides to remarry?

"I believe that all life depends on some spiritual order or power that cannot be completely explained"--true or false?

Thinking that something can't be fully explained is spiritual?

"Often when I look at an ordinary thing, something wonderful happens--I get the feeling that I am seeing it fresh for the first time"--true or false?

This makes no sense. How is being deeply impressed by something a sign of spirituality?

Not to mention, the only example they gave was utter bullshit.

I'm sure that all the spiritual qualities they mention are genetically inherited, but I've no idea why they are calling them "spiritual." If belief is defined to have anything to do with actual reasoning or ideas rather than just unconscious impulses/instincts, then it is certainly not genetically inherited. Perhaps the capacity or even predilection for reasoning in a ruthless, uncompromising way may be inherited, but not the reasoning itself.

My grandfather was a Hindu turned communist-atheist turned agnostic, and his father was a famous professor of philosophy and a staunch Hindu. My father is a Hindu turned communist-atheist turned Hindu, my older uncle is a communist-atheist and a Hindu, my aunts are Hindus, and my mother is Hindu. I am a politico-socio-sexo-religious atheist. None of my views on religion(and most other things, probably) coincide with those of my ancestors, although I'm pretty sure I've inherited quite a few "spiritual traits" from them.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:My grandfather was a Hindu turned communist-atheist turned agnostic, and his father was a famous professor of philosophy and a staunch Hindu. My father is a Hindu turned communist-atheist turned Hindu, my older uncle is a communist-atheist and a Hindu, my aunts are Hindus, and my mother is Hindu. I am a politico-socio-sexo-religious atheist. None of my views on religion(and most other things, probably) coincide with those of my ancestors, although I'm pretty sure I've inherited quite a few "spiritual traits" from them.
Well, the article mentioned a scale of self-forgetfulness, transpersonal identification and mysticism. As Hinduism and Jupivinism appear to me as pretty religious/philosophical in nature, you would indeed form a fine example of what the researchers suggested. Even Communism holds in my view some reaction to religious alienation. Just forget about the specifics of some religious view and see how in all instances they need a certain type of "broader" identification and mystic and otherworldly sounding symbols to express themselves.

My father and his mother were above average religious for the culture they were part of. Both deeply Christian with some private mystical and prophetic tendencies. Although my views never had much in common with theirs apart from sharing the stories and texts, the inheritance might still be in place. Lets just hope we can redeem our forefathers then!
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

There's a 'dare not' and 'avoid like the plague' thing in your speaking Jup.
Reaction.
What is being protected?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Pam Seeback »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Yes. See the Maha-parinibbana Sutta for the Buddha's explanation of when the time of Total Unbinding "occurs":

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html

Great, I see it in the exact same way then, I know for a fact some others don't take it so literally and see the idea as an attempt to 'trash life' or so forth. I was on this website reading Suttas about unbinding just last night.
Good to see someone is getting it, starting to think the feminine around here are doing better than the masculine.

I can only imagine then Moving that you (without any goal, incentive) spend a deal of timeless time without craving for the world, released, resting in That peace. On the same page?

"Transient are all compounded things, Subject to arise and vanish; Having come into existence they pass away; Good is the peace when they forever cease."

"No movement of the breath, but with steadfast heart, Free from desires and tranquil — so the sage Comes to his end. By mortal pangs unshaken, His mind, like a flame extinguished, finds release."

"Through the destruction of the three fetters has become a stream-enterer, and is safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment."

"Utterly freed from the taints of lust, becoming, and ignorance"
When I am awake (conscious of wisdom's voice) the goal of liberation from the nature of things is forefront in my mind, a goal which includes the incentive of wisdom, that is, the end of suffering for all sentient beings. Every day I struggle to remain awake to the principle of unbinding or "patiloma", the Pali word for "reverse order."

The principle or law of dependent origination is not an easy principle or law to reverse, to unbind; if it were, suffering would have ended "eons" ago.

As an aside, in the bible "patiloma" is represented by the unbinding principe of "God in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself."
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:As Hinduism and Jupivinism appear to me as pretty religious/philosophical in nature
I beg to differ. If Jupivinism is religious/philosophical then Hinduism(in its extant form) isn't, and vice versa.
Just forget about the specifics of some religious view and see how in all instances they need a certain type of "broader" identification and mystic and otherworldly sounding symbols to express themselves.
Well Hinduism at least doesn't involve any broad identification. Hinduism is basically about having fun in the name of worshipping idols. We Indians have a sense of humour and celebration which isn't readily understandable to westerners, which is why those western neo-hippies are an unending source of lulz during our festivals.

The specifics of a religious view are actually what matters - is it a rational view or not? What is the object(if any) of the mysticism? How broad is the perspective of the individual in question? Is it the broadness of the Infinite or merely a finite whole? That would determine whether it is a truly spiritual view or not.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

movingalways wrote: the goal of liberation from the nature of things is forefront in my mind,

And do you see residing in "meditation" as part of this path of non-attachment? You mentioned the eightfold path and of course Buddha spoke of contemplation of bodily feeling, etc. When you say being awake to it, do you mean awake to 'not me', a fleeting experience.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What's the Point of Religion?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Well Hinduism at least doesn't involve any broad identification. Hinduism is basically about having fun in the name of worshipping idols. We Indians have a sense of humour and celebration which isn't readily understandable to westerners, which is why those western neo-hippies are an unending source of lulz during our festivals.
There are the cultural traditions vs the various philosophical schools or course. Hard to seperate. Indeed your sense of humour is not always appearant to everyone : )
The specifics of a religious view are actually what matters - is it a rational view or not? What is the object(if any) of the mysticism? How broad is the perspective of the individual in question? Is it the broadness of the Infinite or merely a finite whole? That would determine whether it is a truly spiritual view or not.
In this case it were not the specifics actually which mattered. But the restlesness, the inquiries, the willingness to extend existential interest to a larger framework like Marxism, some Hindu tradition, a philosophical school, etc, I think your list of ancestors described it well enough although it's hard to know what is culture and what not in these cases.
Locked