Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Yes.
11
92%
No.
1
8%
 
Total votes : 12

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby phyllo » Sat Dec 27, 2014 4:00 pm

Btw, it is not Buddhism's main purpose to promote Science and Technology. The plus point is, Buddhism whilst do not promote, it also do not hinder Science and technology. On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions do specifically limit/hinder Science and Technology. This is why we have Creationism to counter Evolution, the counter against cloning, stem cell research, etc.
Islam is your best example of a religion hindering science. Contrary to the standard bleating of atheists, the RC church preserved knowledge and dispersed it. It created the educational system in Europe and founded the first universities. Judaism places a high value on knowledge, learning and achievement. The RC church was never against evolution. The Muslims had a sophisticated theory of evolution in the middle ages. Creationism is a product of the American south and really it is a molehill which has been made into a mountain.
Not everything that science does is moral and ethical. That has to be brought out in the open and discussed. Religions would not be fulfilling their function if they did not act as a moral compass.
The Jesuit China missions of the 16th and 17th centuries introduced Western science and astronomy, then undergoing its own revolution, to China. One modern historian writes that in late Ming courts, the Jesuits were "regarded as impressive especially for their knowledge of astronomy, calendar-making, mathematics, hydraulics, and geography."[90] The Society of Jesus introduced, according to Thomas Woods, "a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible."[2] Another expert quoted by Woods said the scientific revolution brought by the Jesuits coincided with a time when science was at a very low level in China:

[The Jesuits] made efforts to translate western mathematical and astronomical works into Chinese and aroused the interest of Chinese scholars in these sciences. They made very extensive astronomical observation and carried out the first modern cartographic work in China. They also learned to appreciate the scientific achievements of this ancient culture and made them known in Europe. Through their correspondence European scientists first learned about the Chinese science and culture.
—[3]

Conversely, the Jesuits were very active in transmitting Chinese knowledge to Europe. Confucius's works were translated into European languages through the agency of Jesuit scholars stationned in China. Matteo Ricci started to report on the thoughts of Confucius, and Father Prospero Intorcetta published the life and works of Confucius into Latin in 1687.[91] It is thought that such works had considerable importance on European thinkers of the period, particularly among the Deists and other philosophical groups of the Enlightenment who were interested by the integration of the system of morality of Confucius into Christianity.[92][93]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... y_in_China
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby phyllo » Sat Dec 27, 2014 4:05 pm

Buddhism [and others Eastern religions] meanwhile has great potential in their dynamism to complete spirituality with modern Scientific knowledge and technology. Here is how one famous Scientist see Buddhism,
If you had done some research, then you would know that Einstein did not say it.
1) Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and the spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. and 2) Buddhism is the only religion able to cope with modern scientific needs – Einstein

As a Buddhist and physicist myself, I'd be delighted if this very widely-cited quote really could be attributed to Einstein, but regrettably there is no evidence that it can. It sometimes appears with a reference to Albert Einstein: The Human Side (Princeton University Press, 1954), but there is never a page reference - for the simple reason that the quote does not appear anywhere in that book.

I have personally discussed the reliability of this quote with Einstein scholars (including John Stachel at Boston U, and founding editor of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein), and with the authors of compilations of Einstein quotations (Thomas J. McFarlane, author of Buddha and Einstein: The Parallel Sayings and Alice Calaprice, author of The New Quotable Einstein) - none of whom cite it. In short, neither they nor I know of any evidence that Einstein delivered a speech containing this quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABud ... _quotation
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby phyllo » Sat Dec 27, 2014 5:41 pm

Whilst there are advancements in Science and Technology in the Christian and Islamic communities in some eras of history, this is not directly due to the religions themselves, but rather due to the inherent progressive elements of human nature and being human. This is why there is no consistency in the progress of Science and Technologies within Christian and Islamic communities around the world.
There is good reason to believe that the external emphasis of Abrahamic religions and the concept of an intelligent creator God are more conducive to scientific advancement than the internal emphasis of Buddhism. From the article on the history of science in China :
As for Needham, he wrote that cultural factors prevented traditional Chinese achievements from developing into what could be called "science." It was the religious and philosophical framework of the Chinese intellectuals which made them unable to believe in the ideas of laws of nature:

It was not that there was no order in nature for the Chinese, but rather that it was not an order ordained by a rational personal being, and hence there was no conviction that rational personal beings would be able to spell out in their lesser earthly languages the divine code of laws which he had decreed aforetime. The Taoists, indeed, would have scorned such an idea as being too naïve for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... stagnation

If it was 'due to the inherent progressive elements of human nature and being human' then one would expect Buddhist societies to advance at a pace which is similar to Judeo-Christian societies. In fact, one could expect faster advancement in Asian societies since Asians score high on IQ tests.

Admittedly, the interactions of geography, culture, economics and religion are very complex.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 27, 2014 6:20 pm

To find the truth, you have to get out of the politics.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby phyllo » Sat Dec 27, 2014 7:41 pm

I note you like throw in counters merely for countering sake, but they all lack the necessary depth.
I see people posting long, well-researched, arguments which you largely ignore. You seem to be completely enamored with your own little theory. I don't want to waste too much of my time. For example, I did not even bother with these posts:
Prismatic wrote:
However, the relevant point is those limited religions [which are VERY efficient at present] are rigid and fixed based on immutable doctrines. Note infallible humans cannot edit or change the words of God, that would be blasphemous.
In addition, the thousands of evil laden verses fixed and immutable will be a net-liability to humanity in the future.
The above refer to the Abrahamic religions [AR], i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
If you had though about it , then you would realize that both Christianity and Islam are a rewriting of older 'immutable' doctrines.
However, I see a problem with the Abrahamic religions which rely on an infallible God whose delivered holy texts cannot be edited, revised nor changed by fallible humans. Since it is impossible for God to exists and reappear to change his holy texts, it would be impossible for the Abrahamic holy texts [which originally is very primal and primitive based] to be changed and thus that limit their evolution.
If God exists and if He is responsible for the holy texts then He can reappear and change the texts.
If God does not exist then humans wrote the holy texts and humans can change the holy texts. The mechanism of change would be exactly the same as the mechanism which produced the original text.

Seriously, try to think it through BEFORE posting.
I think you get a greater payoff if you take my points optimistically and research into them in details, in greater depth and verify them yourself.
Because of the proliferation of bullshit on this site, I research quite a few of the posts which are in the areas of my interest. I usually don't bother to post my findings.
That is one reason that I continue to come to this site - it keeps me from getting complacent.

With respect to your posts ... your understanding of religions and human psychology is superficial. I have researched it for many years and I know more about it than you do.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 3:16 am

phyllo wrote:
Btw, it is not Buddhism's main purpose to promote Science and Technology. The plus point is, Buddhism whilst do not promote, it also do not hinder Science and technology. On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions do specifically limit/hinder Science and Technology. This is why we have Creationism to counter Evolution, the counter against cloning, stem cell research, etc.

Islam is your best example of a religion hindering science. Contrary to the standard bleating of atheists, the RC church preserved knowledge and dispersed it. It created the educational system in Europe and founded the first universities. Judaism places a high value on knowledge, learning and achievement. The RC church was never against evolution. The Muslims had a sophisticated theory of evolution in the middle ages. Creationism is a product of the American south and really it is a molehill which has been made into a mountain.
Not everything that science does is moral and ethical. That has to be brought out in the open and discussed. Religions would not be fulfilling their function if they did not act as a moral compass.
The Jesuit China missions of the 16th and 17th centuries introduced Western science and astronomy, then undergoing its own revolution, to China. One modern historian writes that in late Ming courts, the Jesuits were "regarded as impressive especially for their knowledge of astronomy, calendar-making, mathematics, hydraulics, and geography."[90]
...
...
It is thought that such works had considerable importance on European thinkers of the period, particularly among the Deists and other philosophical groups of the Enlightenment who were interested by the integration of the system of morality of Confucius into Christianity.[92][93]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... y_in_China
There you go again with your narrow and shallow perspectives.

I said the Abrahamic religions are inherently partly evil and also hinder progressive scientific knowledge. Why? .. because the words of God is supreme while the knowledge [Science, especially those that challenges the holy texts, etc.] brought forth by man is fallible.

I was stating Buddhism all the way, but you introduced Confucius. In any case, both Buddhism and Confucianism do not hinder Science in general. The advancement of Science [despite the many inventions by the Chinese in China then] was stagnant because they did not focus in the direction of the Scientific Method and it framework, and thus did not have an efficient structure to expand Scientific knowledge.

In contrast, the Abrahamic Religions [AR] has the fundamentals in their holy texts to resist Science especially when Science and philosophy discover truths that contradict their [AR] holy texts and interpretations.

The AR has been restricting any form of knowledge other than those that conform to their holy texts. Anyone who introduced or practiced knowledge contra to the holy texts were persecuted and killed in the most horrific manner. Note the inquisitions, etc.
This culminated to the events of Copernicus.

The Church only relented where they are cornered with the truths and thus letting go their resistance to Science where the truth is so obvious. This is where the Jesuits came in later [long after Bacon, the enlightenment and other Scientific progress] with the receptiveness to some aspects of Science and technology.

Btw, I did NOT link Science with Ethics at all. Religions (Abrahamic and others) are critical for ethical issues, but they are at best transitory and relative to certain human conditions and phases. The Abrahamic Religions with their VERY rigid Ethical System are relevant for then and now but their expiry date and net effectiveness [pros over cons] is coming to an end in the advent of the trend of the exponential expansion of human knowledge.

My point, the Abrahamic Religions in general will ALWAYS resist Science in one form or another, e.g. Creationism, and others, because the Abrahamic religions are grounded on a necessary lie while Science is seeking for truths.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 28, 2014 3:24 am

phyllo wrote:
I note you like throw in counters merely for countering sake, but they all lack the necessary depth.
I see people posting long, well-researched, arguments which you largely ignore. You seem to be completely enamored with your own little theory. I don't want to waste too much of my time. For example, I did not even bother with these posts:
Prismatic wrote:
However, the relevant point is those limited religions [which are VERY efficient at present] are rigid and fixed based on immutable doctrines. Note infallible humans cannot edit or change the words of God, that would be blasphemous.
In addition, the thousands of evil laden verses fixed and immutable will be a net-liability to humanity in the future.
The above refer to the Abrahamic religions [AR], i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
If you had though about it , then you would realize that both Christianity and Islam are a rewriting of older 'immutable' doctrines.
However, I see a problem with the Abrahamic religions which rely on an infallible God whose delivered holy texts cannot be edited, revised nor changed by fallible humans. Since it is impossible for God to exists and reappear to change his holy texts, it would be impossible for the Abrahamic holy texts [which originally is very primal and primitive based] to be changed and thus that limit their evolution.
If God exists and if He is responsible for the holy texts then He can reappear and change the texts.
If God does not exist then humans wrote the holy texts and humans can change the holy texts. The mechanism of change would be exactly the same as the mechanism which produced the original text.

Seriously, try to think it through BEFORE posting.
I think you get a greater payoff if you take my points optimistically and research into them in details, in greater depth and verify them yourself.
Because of the proliferation of bullshit on this site, I research quite a few of the posts which are in the areas of my interest. I usually don't bother to post my findings.
That is one reason that I continue to come to this site - it keeps me from getting complacent.

With respect to your posts ... your understanding of religions and human psychology is superficial. I have researched it for many years and I know more about it than you do.

:text-yeahthat:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 4:03 am

phyllo wrote:
I note you like throw in counters merely for countering sake, but they all lack the necessary depth.
I see people posting long, well-researched, arguments which you largely ignore. You seem to be completely enamored with your own little theory. I don't want to waste too much of my time.
The fact is all the points you throw out are easily dismissed as irrelevant counters.

I have to admit, in a forum like this and as my time is limited, there is no good reasons and obligations for me to present my 'well-researched' views in detail. What I have presented is merely the very small tips-of-icebergs of what I know and the arguments I have on hand. The point is these tips has valid room for anyone to dive deep into the other 9/10 of the icebergs.
In any case, I am presenting (at my own pace and discretion) the details, .e.g. note I raise the thread on 'The Complex Human Being.' One has to clear this internal hurdle before attempting to understanding the complexity of the external.

In anycase, note the critical value of philosophy is questioning [Russell] and what you are doing is trying to kill 'questioning' with dead-end counter views.

For example, I did not even bother with these posts:
Prismatic wrote:
However, the relevant point is those limited religions [which are VERY efficient at present] are rigid and fixed based on immutable doctrines. Note infallible humans cannot edit or change the words of God, that would be blasphemous.
In addition, the thousands of evil laden verses fixed and immutable will be a net-liability to humanity in the future.
The above refer to the Abrahamic religions [AR], i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
If you had though about it , then you would realize that both Christianity and Islam are a rewriting of older 'immutable' doctrines.
First, it is your discretion whether to bother or not. I understand, this is a pot-luck sort of philosophy forum where members contribute their views and others has the discretion to pick and choose what they like to participate in within the rules of this forum.
In any case, there is a lot of truth below the 1/10 of what I presented above if only you care to dive in deep.

However, I see a problem with the Abrahamic religions which rely on an infallible God whose delivered holy texts cannot be edited, revised nor changed by fallible humans. Since it is impossible for God to exists and reappear to change his holy texts, it would be impossible for the Abrahamic holy texts [which originally is very primal and primitive based] to be changed and thus that limit their evolution.
If God exists and if He is responsible for the holy texts then He can reappear and change the texts.
If God does not exist then humans wrote the holy texts and humans can change the holy texts. The mechanism of change would be exactly the same as the mechanism which produced the original text.
Seriously, try to think it through BEFORE posting.
That is what happened to Christ, Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh [Bahai], Mirza Ghulam Ahmad [Ahmadiyya] and many other lesser known so-called prophet or messenger of God who claimed they are the personal agent of God.
If God is to reappear and change the texts, then he has to appear objectively as real. But none of the messengers and prophets has been able to proof the existence of their so-claimed God.
On the other hand I had given many possible reasons why and how God was a necessary illusion to deal with the existential dilemma.
Actually, you are the one who is not doing any serious thinking but rather blinded by deep emotional cognitive biasness and blindness.

If it is humans who wrote the 'holy' texts, there is no issue at all.


I think you get a greater payoff if you take my points optimistically and research into them in details, in greater depth and verify them yourself.
Because of the proliferation of bullshit on this site, I research quite a few of the posts which are in the areas of my interest. I usually don't bother to post my findings.

With respect to your posts ... your understanding of religions and human psychology is superficial. I have researched it for many years and I know more about it than you do.
How did you conclude my presentation is superficial when I have only presented 1% of what I have researched and reflected on for many years. This show your impulsiveness.

Personally, I do not give a damn about whatever opinions others has on my views. What is important is I keep questioning [that's philosophy] and ensure responsibility of intellectual integrity in the knowledge I seek [which I has no obligation to present the details to others unless I am presenting a paper to a recognized intellectual institution].
To maintain my personal intellectual integrity, I ensured I had covered at least many books and articles [e.g. in my Kant Folder, there are 1850 files in 31 sub-folders] on the subject and terms before I speak about it (otherwise I will qualify if I am not too sure). This is why I am very confident you will not likely to catch me [if any, will be rare] off guarded as I have many ace cards on hand.

That is one reason that I continue to come to this site - it keeps me from getting complacent.
Same for me joining a philosophical forum, i.e. to refresh and keep the knowledge I gathered in tune, besides the necessary practices.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:05 am

Well, if you are going to stick around, at least learn a few of the root words, even if they don't support your self-supporting stockpile of junkets;
phi·los·o·phy
(fĭ-lŏs′ə-fē)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
2. A system of thought based on or involving such study: the philosophy of Hume.
3. The study of the theoretical underpinnings of a particular field or discipline: the philosophy of history.
4. An underlying theory or set of ideas relating to a particular field of activity or to life as a whole: an original philosophy of advertising; an unusual philosophy of life.

You seem to be particularly weak in 1 and 2. And thus very speculative and biased in 3 and 4.

Perhaps if you adopted a standard for correctness other than, "I like what that person said about it".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:42 pm

I said the Abrahamic religions are inherently partly evil and also hinder progressive scientific knowledge. Why? .. because the words of God is supreme while the knowledge [Science, especially those that challenges the holy texts, etc.] brought forth by man is fallible.
That seems to be confirmed by the experience of Islam after the Golden Age, directly contradicted by the experience of Christianity in Europe and also contradicted by the experience of Buddhism in Asia. On the whole, it appears to be an inadequate description of what has happened.

I was stating Buddhism all the way, but you introduced Confucius. In any case, both Buddhism and Confucianism do not hinder Science in general. The advancement of Science [despite the many inventions by the Chinese in China then] was stagnant because they did not focus in the direction of the Scientific Method and it framework, and thus did not have an efficient structure to expand Scientific knowledge.
You didn't read the quote correctly... Confucianism was a minor point.
In contrast, the Abrahamic Religions [AR] has the fundamentals in their holy texts to resist Science especially when Science and philosophy discover truths that contradict their [AR] holy texts and interpretations.

The AR has been restricting any form of knowledge other than those that conform to their holy texts. Anyone who introduced or practiced knowledge contra to the holy texts were persecuted and killed in the most horrific manner. Note the inquisitions, etc.
This culminated to the events of Copernicus.
This is a common error ... the belief that everyone who thought differently was persecuted. That did not happen. Since you bring up the Inquisition ... over several hundred years, there were 150,000 trials and 3,000 executions. Unfortunate but hardly a wholesale suppression of others.
Compare that to the Reign of Terror (1793-1794) when 31,000 'enemies of the revolution' were killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition#Statistics

The Church only relented where they are cornered with the truths and thus letting go their resistance to Science where the truth is so obvious. This is where the Jesuits came in later [long after Bacon, the enlightenment and other Scientific progress] with the receptiveness to some aspects of Science and technology.
The Jesuits were founded in 1540. The first failed mission to China was in 1552. The first successful contact was in 1582. Francis Bacon lived 1561-1626.

Btw, I did NOT link Science with Ethics at all. Religions (Abrahamic and others) are critical for ethical issues, but they are at best transitory and relative to certain human conditions and phases. The Abrahamic Religions with their VERY rigid Ethical System are relevant for then and now but their expiry date and net effectiveness [pros over cons] is coming to an end in the advent of the trend of the exponential expansion of human knowledge.
That would make an interesting thread ... the new ethics that are coming real soon.

My point, the Abrahamic Religions in general will ALWAYS resist Science in one form or another, e.g. Creationism, and others, because the Abrahamic religions are grounded on a necessary lie while Science is seeking for truths.
Let's see ...the Christian Church has been able to brainwash practically everyone from a young age. They controlled all the schools in the Middle Ages and founded the universities. Even now, we must be constantly vigilant since Creationism may be forced on us at any moment.
But ... Western Europe and America have been the centers of science and technology. Not the Buddhist societies. Not the Muslim societies.
:-k I must say that the Christian Church has been remarkably ineffective in suppressing science. The Muslims seem to have done it quite easily but the Christians are complete failures. :-?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:12 pm

In anycase, note the critical value of philosophy is questioning [Russell] and what you are doing is trying to kill 'questioning' with dead-end counter views.
You seem to be content to look at your construct from one vantage point. You want to limit the discussion in each thread. You want everyone to agree with you. You want yes-men.

I want to look at this from every direction. I want to see the whole picture. I think that I am doing more questioning than you.
How did you conclude my presentation is superficial when I have only presented 1% of what I have researched and reflected on for many years. This show your impulsiveness.

You presented your 1% analysis of Abrahamic and Eastern religions - it seems clearly flawed. Unless the other 99% is very different, we can expect more of the same.
Unless the iceberg turns to gold below the waterline, it's safe to say that it's made of ice all the way through.
To maintain my personal intellectual integrity, I ensured I had covered at least many books and articles [e.g. in my Kant Folder, there are 1850 files in 31 sub-folders] on the subject and terms before I speak about it (otherwise I will qualify if I am not too sure). This is why I am very confident you will not likely to catch me [if any, will be rare] off guarded as I have many ace cards on hand.
I'm not particularly interested in the cubbyholes that Kant has constructed. To paraphrase the Zen Buddhists : "If you meet Kant on the road, kill him."
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:58 am

James S Saint wrote:Well, if you are going to stick around, at least learn a few of the root words, even if they don't support your self-supporting stockpile of junkets;
phi·los·o·phy
(fĭ-lŏs′ə-fē)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
2. A system of thought based on or involving such study: the philosophy of Hume.
3. The study of the theoretical underpinnings of a particular field or discipline: the philosophy of history.
4. An underlying theory or set of ideas relating to a particular field of activity or to life as a whole: an original philosophy of advertising; an unusual philosophy of life.

You seem to be particularly weak in 1 and 2. And thus very speculative and biased in 3 and 4.

Perhaps if you adopted a standard for correctness other than, "I like what that person said about it".
The above is very myopic. You mentioned 'root' word but instead focus on the twigs and leaves.
Whatever follow from your wrong interpretation and understanding of philosophy per se is a sham.

To the point, note;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy?s=t
Word Origin and History for philo-sophy
n.
c.1300, "knowledge, body of knowledge," from Old French filosofie "philosophy, knowledge" (12c., Modern French philosophie) and directly from Latin philosophia and from Greek philosophia "love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation," from philo- "loving" (see philo- ) + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;" of unknown origin.


I suggest you read and analyze at least 300++ definitions [which I have done] of 'what is philosophy' from all over the world in every culture and abstract the essence. Then you will get a better idea of what is philosophy proper.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:09 am

phyllo wrote:I'm not particularly interested in the cubbyholes that Kant has constructed. To paraphrase the Zen Buddhists : "If you meet Kant on the road, kill him."
IMO, from the intellectual [not practical] perspective, Kant is the greatest philosopher of all time, i.e. even more systematic and thorough than the higher intellectual aspects of Buddhism (Mahayana and Vajrayana).

I quote that Lin Chi statement very often so I understand the point.
Whilst Kant is the greatest philosopher of all time, he has his very ugly 'warts' [due to his time] and was no 'saint' nor 'angel.' Fortunately his great philosophy can stand independent in time from of his era-conditioned individual person and some ugly personal views.

Note the Buddha's parable to "kill" [from a similar extreme perspective] his teachings, re the 'raft and shore' simile/parable. The same attitude can be directed at Kant's philosophy and other philosophies.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Arminius » Thu Jan 08, 2015 10:52 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:IMO, from the intellectual [not practical] perspective, Kant is the greatest philosopher of all time, i.e. even more systematic and thorough than the higher intellectual aspects of Buddhism (Mahayana and Vajrayana).

I quote that Lin Chi statement very often so I understand the point.
Whilst Kant is the greatest philosopher of all time, he has his very ugly 'warts' [due to his time] and was no 'saint' nor 'angel.' Fortunately his great philosophy can stand independent in time from of his era-conditioned individual person and some ugly personal views.

Note the Buddha's parable to "kill" [from a similar extreme perspective] his teachings, re the 'raft and shore' simile/parable. The same attitude can be directed at Kant's philosophy and other philosophies.

Which "ugly 'warts'" do you mean?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Jan 10, 2015 8:53 pm

Arminius wrote:Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Religare - something which binds you to self.
A spiritual perspective which guides one's life. My religion is the all- encompassing inspiring nature and the stars.
It's anything which draws us in and binds us. It could be harmful or beneficial.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Orbie » Sat Jan 10, 2015 9:07 pm

God is a realization, oh, not in the mode of an intellectual excercise, but the sudden realization that i=u=them=all=them=u=i. That this is the crown jewel of all the mantras, sutras, catholicisms, muslims,olympus's,yehowas, christs, mahatmas,
that make possible in the creation of that magick moment where you and i can stop time by merely transposing into one another, for a moment of time, our own sense of our own singularity.-realizing that we are, for that very briefest moment, when time ceases to exist. Our love then is borne out of the despair of realizing this, that where this came from, is hidden in infinitely layered faith in one another, then rising to include more and more, .This love counterbalances Nature's cruel evolutionary struggle, the vagrancies of the struggle for sexual dominance.
Religion is the opposite: it starts the process of desgtructuring this pyramid, culminating in arrival to the apex, where You will not again fear non existence.
You are with God.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:16 pm

Arminius wrote:According to Peter Sloterdijk religion is exercise, training.


That makes absolutely no sense to me. One might say that one trains and exercises 'religiously" but I don't see religion as those two nouns.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15681
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby phyllo » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:46 pm

That makes absolutely no sense to me. One might say that one trains and exercises 'religiously" but I don't see religion as those two nouns.
It trains you to be closer to God. To listen, to see, to recognize, to understand.

That's the religion of seekers.

It's not the 'go to church every Sunday' religion. Not the 'listen blindly to a preacher' religion.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11864
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Do you really know what „religion“ is and/or means?

Postby Arminius » Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:00 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Arminius wrote:According to Peter Sloterdijk religion is exercise, training.


That makes absolutely no sense to me. One might say that one trains and exercises 'religiously" but I don't see religion as those two nouns.

Peter Sloterdijk says (in his book "Du mußt dein Leben ändern" - "You Must Change Your Life", p. 12 and p.133): "es gibt keine Religionen (translation: "there are no religions"), "sondern nur mißverstandene spirituelle Übungssysteme" (translation: "but only misunderstood spiritual exercise systems").
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]