on discussing god and religion

[iambiguous]

Previous attempts at dialogue with you have repeatedly broken down over your habit of dismissing other's concepts as "contraptions" rather than showing that you made good faith efforts to understand what others mean. I'm not interested in proffering ideas only to have them summarily shot down as contraptions. Without a demonstration that you at least attempt to comprehend a proposition and your reasons for rejecting it, "dialogue" is a waste of time.

Over and over again:

Note a set of circumstances in which we exchange our current thinking about God and religion as this relates to our current thinking about morality here and now and immorality there and then

Then in this exchange you can note these accusations you level against me.

That's the dialogue that I wish to pursue. God and religion as it relates to the behaviors we choose in regard to conflicting goods as that pertains to our thinking about "I" on the other side of the grave. That is the whole point of this thread.

I don't view gods as possible explanations. I view them as archetypal representations of being which is fundamentally unexplainable.

Okay, so how do you view god and religion in regard to the behaviors you choose when confronted with a context in which others challenge those behaviors?

Instead, it's ever and always up in the clouds with you:

I don't accept your three assumptions above as conditions for dialogue. The antimony of free will versus determinism is an open question. "Omniscience" is incomprehensible. "No God world" explains nothing.

Then explain the assumptions that you have accumulated in regard to free will, omniscience and the distinction you make between a God and a No God world.

Given a context that most of us are likely to be familiar with. Instead, we get this "context":

A context for my statement about skepticism and cynicism is your thread and your use of the contraption dismissal. Whether or not I will supply more details depends on you convincing me that you see what you have been doing and demonstrating that you can change your habit.

Note to others:

What point is he making here that I am apparently unable or unwilling to grasp?

[felix dakat]

I was just asking you to commit to reasoned arguments against propositions you disagree with rather than merely dismissing them as contraptions. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

[iambiguous]

I was just asking you to commit to reasoned arguments against propositions you disagree with rather than merely dismissing them as contraptions. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

And how hard is it to understand that my preference is to take intellectual contraptions like this and explore them more substantively in regard to human interactions that come into conflict as a result of different assessments of God and religion. And, then, insofar as these assessments lead one to choose a moral narrative here and now in preparation for one's fate there and then.

Arguments I make in that discussion you can defend as either reasonable or attack as unreasonable.

Or, from my frame of mind, at least be more honest with yourself and ask why you seem so reluctant to go there.

Note to others:

Would anyone else be willing to exchange points of view regarding the main intention of this thread: to connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave as that is intertwined existentially with their belief about the fate of their soul/self on the other side of the grave.

That way Felix can level his accusations against me as they pertain to a set of circumstances we are all likely to be familiar with.

[felix dakat]

Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn't worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn't worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.

Note to others:

Well, never mind.

[felix dakat]

Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn't worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.

Note to others:

Well, never mind.

Yours is a predictable response of a man who is critical of others but uncritical of himself. Of course you being a moral nihilist, the value of self-criticism has no value. But by the same lack of a standard, your criticisms of other's thinking have no value either. By your standard, which has no value, wasting time is all that is possible. As soon as you admit the possibility of value, you refute the basis of moral nihilism. But there's a way out. Stop your ears! Without an argument or evidence, call such thinking "a contraption!" Or make no attempt to comprehend and ask others "what on Earth is he talking about?" The consolation of denial is ever only a dismissal away for you.

[felix dakat]

What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That's known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don't. You've been playing that game on this forum for years. That's why I don't play with you.

[zinnat]

Wrong thread.

[zinnat]

Wrong thread.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn't worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.

Note to others:

Well, never mind.

Yours is a predictable response of a man who is critical of others but uncritical of himself.

Again, choose a set of circumstances that revolve around the reason I created this thread -- morality here and now, immortality there and then -- and, as the exchange unfolds, you can note to others how uncritical I am in regard to myself.

Of course you being a moral nihilist, the value of self-criticism has no value.

That's absurd. My point is that self-criticism in regard to the relationship between goals and behaviors out in the either/or world can be measured with a fair degree of precision. Jane is burdened with an unwanted pregnancy. Her goal is to abort it. She either does so successfully or she doesn't.

Or: Jane successfully aborts her fetus. John, a devout Catholic, criticizes her decision as a sin against God. But: How might "self-criticism" be different here? Does this God exist? Is abortion a sin to this God? Will He punish Jane for having the abortion? How are arguments/criticisms here judged with a fair degree of precision?

It's not a "lack of standards" in this context, but the extent to which any one particular standard can be defended such that criticism of it is always effectively rebutted.

And I challenge you to note how your own standards in regard in abortion and religion and God are not rooted in the manner in which I deem my own are on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

I don't refute the "possibility of value". I only suggest that the standards of "I" here are rooted more in dasein than in any particular rendition of a God, the God, my God.

Your own for example. Again, what exactly is it in regard to abortion? How did you come to acquire it? How was this acquisition more or less the embodiment of dasein?

Instead, you invariably reconfigure into stooge mode:

But there's a way out. Stop your ears! Without an argument or evidence, call such thinking "a contraption!" Or make no attempt to comprehend and ask others "what on Earth is he talking about?" The consolation of denial is ever only a dismissal away for you.

What on Earth are you talking about here?

Join me in a discussion of human interactions revolving around conflicting value judgments revolving around either a God or a No God world, and we can explore your own rendition of my rendition of a "contraption" more substantively.

[iambiguous]

What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That's known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don't. You've been playing that game on this forum for years. That's why I don't play with you.

Note to others:

Why does he refuse to take these obtuse accusations against me to a discussion involving a set of circumstances where our respective moral philosophies can be examined more in detail, more descriptively, more substantively?

[felix dakat]

Note to others:

Well, never mind.

Yours is a predictable response of a man who is critical of others but uncritical of himself.

Again, choose a set of circumstances that revolve around the reason I created this thread -- morality here and now, immortality there and then -- and, as the exchange unfolds, you can note to others how uncritical I am in regard to myself.

Of course you being a moral nihilist, the value of self-criticism has no value.

That's absurd. My point is that self-criticism in regard to the relationship between goals and behaviors out in the either/or world can be measured with a fair degree of precision. Jane is burdened with an unwanted pregnancy. Her goal is to abort it. She either does so successfully or she doesn't.

Or: Jane successfully aborts her fetus. John, a devout Catholic, criticizes her decision as a sin against God. But: How might "self-criticism" be different here? Does this God exist? Is abortion a sin to this God? Will He punish Jane for having the abortion? How are arguments/criticisms here judged with a fair degree of precision?

It's not a "lack of standards" in this context, but the extent to which any one particular standard can be defended such that criticism of it is always effectively rebutted.

And I challenge you to note how your own standards in regard in abortion and religion and God are not rooted in the manner in which I deem my own are on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

I don't refute the "possibility of value". I only suggest that the standards of "I" here are rooted more in dasein than in any particular rendition of a God, the God, my God.

Your own for example. Again, what exactly is it in regard to abortion? How did you come to acquire it? How was this acquisition more or less the embodiment of dasein?

Instead, you invariably reconfigure into stooge mode:

But there's a way out. Stop your ears! Without an argument or evidence, call such thinking "a contraption!" Or make no attempt to comprehend and ask others "what on Earth is he talking about?" The consolation of denial is ever only a dismissal away for you.

What on Earth are you talking about here?

Join me in a discussion of human interactions revolving around conflicting value judgments revolving around either a God or a No God world, and we can explore your own rendition of my rendition of a "contraption" more substantively.

Why would I? You haven't acknowledged that you have a habit of dismissing concepts as contraptions without showing that you have understood the concept or presenting arguments for why it should be rejected. You also dismiss arguments that you don't like by appealing to others asking "what on Earth does he mean?" You apparently think these insulting rhetorical devices constitute reasonable dialogue. This is all been pointed out to you a number of times by different people on this forum. But you don't seem to get it or make any attempt at changing your method. I've watched intelligent people go round and round with you and get nowhere. You find that satisfying. To me it looks like a waste of time which apparently as good as It gets for you as you await death in your meaningless world. No thanks.

[felix dakat]

What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That's known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don't. You've been playing that game on this forum for years. That's why I don't play with you.

Note to others:

Why does he refuse to take these obtuse accusations against me to a discussion involving a set of circumstances where our respective moral philosophies can be examined more in detail, more descriptively, more substantively?

I've already told you. You refuse to comprehend. You are not a trustworthy interlocutor.

[iambiguous]

Join me in a discussion of human interactions revolving around conflicting value judgments revolving around either a God or a No God world, and we can explore your own rendition of my rendition of a "contraption" more substantively.

Why would I? You haven't acknowledged that you have a habit of dismissing concepts as contraptions without showing that you have understood the concept or presenting arguments for why it should be rejected. You also dismiss arguments that you don't like by appealing to others asking "what on Earth does he mean?" You apparently think these insulting rhetorical devices constitute reasonable dialogue. This is all been pointed out to you a number of times by different people on this forum. But you don't seem to get it or make any attempt at changing your method. I've watched intelligent people go round and round with you and get nowhere. You find that satisfying.

And around and around you go. Up in the clouds of "general accusations" against me. Your very own "intellectual contraptions" that ever and always make me the problem here. Stooge mode.

But in regard to your value judgments relating to a set of circumstances that involve your own thoughts and feeling about God and religion? How that part can precipitate contacts with others who have very different assessments of "morality here and now and immortality there and then"?

The part where you connect the dots between the bahaviors you choose on this side of the grave given your current assumptions about the fate of "I" on the other side?

The part where you discuss how your own value judgments, your own understanding of God and religion are not just a subjective "existential contraption" derived from dasein?

The part where you demonstrate how and why your own spiritual path is in fact that which all other rational and virtuous men and women obligated to take...with so much at stake on both side of the grave.

The whole point of the thread? No, you can't, don't, won't go there.

And yet, from my frame of mind, if you are going to level accusations about me "dismissing concepts as contraptions without showing that you have understood the concept or presenting arguments for why it should be rejected", would not attaching those concepts to our respective assessments of actual human interactions make your indictment that much more clearly understood? Isn't that precisely my point in suggesting that you do bring your accusations "down to earth"?

To me it looks like a waste of time which apparently as good as It gets for you as you await death in your meaningless world. No thanks.

We all await death. And we all have an abundance of existential meaning embedded in the lives that we choose to live.

But only the religious objectivists are able to think themselves into believing that death is just the beginning for the "soul". And only the religious objectivists have a God or a Buddha to fall back on when attempting to grapple with the right thing or the enlightened to do on this side of the grave. That is precisely the font around which they can anchor the "real me".

I get that. I once believed it fiercely myself. But now my conclusion that my existence is essentially meaningless in what I presume to be a No God/No Religion world is derived from what "here and now" seems reasonable to me. That it makes for a rather grim outlook on life doesn't make it less reasonable.

Instead, all I can do is to come into threads like this this one and note the extent to which those who do believe in God and religion are able to relate to me why they believe what they do. And how they are able to demonstrate to me why I ought to believe it too. And then in the process being able to note how the arguments I make in my signature threads here -- the source of my own thinking -- are not nearly as reasonable as I think they are.

But: only in bringing our arguments out into the world that we live in -- circumstantially, existentially, descriptively.

[iambiguous]

What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That's known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don't. You've been playing that game on this forum for years. That's why I don't play with you.

Note to others:

Why does he refuse to take these obtuse accusations against me to a discussion involving a set of circumstances where our respective moral philosophies can be examined more in detail, more descriptively, more substantively?

I've already told you. You refuse to comprehend. You are not a trustworthy interlocutor.

Okay, but here I'm after the insights of others. Perhaps they can reconfigure your words into a point that is clearer to me. Perhaps they might even be willing to imagine your own point by relating it to a set of circumstances in which my refusal to comprehend becomes more readily apparent. How, given my assessment of God and religion, relating to, say, an issue like abortion or social justice or homosexuality, it becomes clearer as to how I am not trustworthy.

You know, given that you won't go there yourself.

[iambiguous]

What’s New in….Philosophy of Religion
Daniel Hill describes how the work of Alvin Plantinga has revolutionised Philosophy of Religion.

The way we see the philosophy of religion will depend on the way we see its mother discipline, philosophy itself. Suppose that we think of philosophy as the analysis of abstract and, in some sense, ultimate concepts. One way to define philosophy of religion then would be to say that it is the analysis of the concepts which we encounter in religion(s), just as philosophy of science is the analysis of the concepts which we encounter in science.

I'll probably never understand philosophy as a "discipline", as the "analysis of abstract and, in some sense, ultimate concepts."

It's as though everyone has to agree on the words we use to communicate philosophy before we can take those carefully calibrated words out into the world we live in. The philosophy of religion. Okay, how is that connected to the behaviors that we choose in actually practicing a religion?

At the SEP it is described as "the philosophical examination of the themes and concepts involved in religious traditions as well as the broader philosophical task of reflecting on matters of religious significance including the nature of religion itself, alternative concepts of God or ultimate reality, and the religious significance of general features of the cosmos (e.g., the laws of nature, the emergence of consciousness) and of historical events (e.g., the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, the Holocaust)".

The Holocaust is noted. But it seems it can only be discussed and debated existentially after serious philosophers have resolved all of the technical issues that inform a truly epistemologically sound discussion and debate.

Whatever that means. And that still eludes me. Though, sure, this may reflect more my own shortcomings than those I criticize.

On the other hand, looking at many of the philosopher of religion’s traditional concerns, one could easily see it as really being a branch of metaphysics. Many of the concepts of religion (the concept of God, for instance) are important for the metaphysician to grapple with. After all, if there is a God, then God is a pretty important part of the nature of reality as a whole (see ‘Philosophy in a Nutshell’). If there is no God, then God isn’t very important at all, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not important to say why one believes there isn’t a God.

For me, metaphysics gets all tangled up in determinism and solipsism and sim worlds and an understanding of "existence itself". And a part of me recognizes that I will almost certainly go to the grave -- to my obliteration -- utterly ignorant of what these things entail. Let alone their connection to God. But, sure, if there are any metaphysicians among us grappling with the concepts of religion in sync with the concepts of God, come as close as you can to the day to day reality of your own existence.

[iambiguous]

What’s New in….Philosophy of Religion
Daniel Hill describes how the work of Alvin Plantinga has revolutionised Philosophy of Religion.

Continentals versus Analyticals

Philosophers of religion, like other philosophers, fall into two camps; those influenced by ‘continental philosophy’ who tend to dominate theology departments, and ‘analytical philosophers’, who dominate the philosophy departments, at least at the main centres for philosophy of religion.

From Philosophy Now:

"Analytic philosophy is concerned with analysis – analysis of thought, language, logic, knowledge, mind, etc; whereas continental philosophy is concerned with synthesis – synthesis of modernity with history, individuals with society, and speculation with application.'

Imagine approaching God and religion from one frame of mind rather than the other. Which do you so suppose might come closest to to examining and assessing God and Religion as it is actually practiced by flesh and blood human beings going about the business of living their lives?

Sure, if you are in the theology department why not approach God and religion more "conceptually", "theoretically", "analytically" up on the celestial skyhooks?

Thus:

So the analytical philosophers have tended to approach philosophy of religion with the tools for which they are famed: logic, precision, clarity, and careful argumentation. The continentals generally go for the Big Questions of love, life, and death in the less formal and more literary style of their influences. It is important to remember that most philosophers of religion also work in other areas of philosophy.

On the other hand, how "careful" can the analytic arguments be when their technical conclusions are taken out into the world? Why? Well, in order to examine how "for all practical purposes" God and religion function existentially in the lives of the true believers: providing them with "paths" in choosing virtuous and enlightened behaviors on this side of the grave in order to put them on the "path" to immortality and salvation on the other side.

What of "logic, precision and clarity" there?

Is it any wonder then that so many religionists on this thread become, for all intents and purposes, theologians bent only on discussing God and religion in an exchange of "spiritual contraptions". And the last place they want to take them, in my opinion, are to the questions that revolve around "love, life, and death". Or, in any event, given particular sets of circumstances construed by those on many different spiritual paths in many different conflicting ways.

[iambiguous]

What’s New in….Philosophy of Religion
Daniel Hill describes how the work of Alvin Plantinga has revolutionised Philosophy of Religion.

Catholics & Calvinists

Most philosophers of religion also fall into one of two camps from the religious point of view too: the majority are either Roman Catholics or Reformed Calvinists. (There are a few important exceptions, such as William Alston and Peter van Inwagen, who are both Episcopalians, and Richard Swinburne of Oxford, a member of the Orthodox Church.) Notre Dame itself seems to have cornered the market in philosophy of religion by recruiting both Roman Catholics and Reformed Calvinists.

Mind you, this is not about how this or that Catholic or this or that Calvinist views God and religion. Let alone the existential relationship between "morality here and now" and "immortality there and then". Instead, it's about how "philosophers of religion" speak of these two Christian paths such that the actual lives of those on them, and the behaviors that they choose will hardly ever come up.

Indeed just noting the two paths may well be as far as they go.

Big Alvin

Notre Dame’s brightest star is Alvin Plantinga, whom everyone agrees to be the current world-leader in the field. He is a product of the analytical school of philosophy and of the Dutch Reformed Church. Hence the Dutch surname; Plantinga himself once quipped that “there is a law-like generalisation that if an American philosopher’s name ends in ‘-a’ … then that philosopher is a graduate of Calvin College”. One of Plantinga’s most important early works was The Nature of Necessity (1974) which was essentially (if you’ll excuse the pun) a treatise on modal logic, but which had some important applications to the philosophy of religion.

For some reason, this is important to know. For you perhaps.

Plantinga had already begun to explore these applications in his book God and Other Minds (1967) and in its slightly more popular version God, Freedom, and Evil (1974). In these books Plantinga attempts to rebut arguments against belief in God (theism), and to show how belief in God can be justified. Since then Plantinga has broadened his concerns into general epistemology, in other words the study of how we can know things.

On the other hand, there is still no actual God around for them to study epistemologically. To, for example, ascertain how God can know things.

Get it? Not books about the existence of an actual God who has revealed Himself, or who has been beyond all doubt demonstrated to exist by mere mortals. Instead it is books that focus solely in on how the belief in God can be justified in arguments. A God/the God created epistemologically. Not unlike what a lot of the posters here attempt. And since this God exists only in the author's head there's no reason yet to bring Him "out into the world". Not until the arguments for and against His existence themselves have been...resolved.

[iambiguous]

What’s New in….Philosophy of Religion
Daniel Hill describes how the work of Alvin Plantinga has revolutionised Philosophy of Religion.

Proving God Exists

Traditionally, philosophers of religion have answered “deductively or inductively sound arguments” to the above question, and a large part of the philosophy of religion has consisted of the advancement of arguments designed to support the conclusion that there is a God. There are three very important ones.

Though even the unimportant ones are almost always encompassed only in a world of words. God defined into existence with knowledge that revolves almost entirely around the meaning we give to words derived from the meaning we give to other words.

(1) The ontological argument

This had been written off (like so much else in the philosophy of religion) until Plantinga revived it in The Nature of Necessity in a new, modal, version. The argument was originally put forward in 1078 AD by Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his work Proslogion, though it is hotly disputed whether it actually is an argument or rather an investigation into God’s mode of existence. Plantinga’s modal version, however, claims that God is a logically necessary being and then moves from the alleged possibility of God’s necessary existence to God’s actual necessary existence. This move is legitimated by a system of modal logic known as (S5). There is still much debate about Plantinga’s argument and how to understand Anselm’s version. Graham Oppy has even written a whole book recently, just on the ontological argument: Ontological Arguments and Belief in God.

Why must God exist? Because it is logically necessary. And who asserts this? Mere mortals. And mere mortals have access to what definitive arguments and evidence to actually demonstrate this on par with, say, the arguments and the evidence that can be presented in order to demonstrate that the universe itself exists?

Modal logic. Whole books written about it.

On the other hand, whole books have been written about the existence of the Big Bang. But unlike with God the evidence goes considerably beyond just modal logic.

So, explore the definition and meaning of modal logic here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

Then in regard to the existence of God and, in particular, His existence given the main components of the ontological argument how close can one come to connecting that dot to actual empirical, material evidence that through experiments, prediction and replication brings one to the conclusion that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... arguments/

In other words, before we get to the part revolving around theodicy.

[iambiguous]

The Pope, the coronavirus and a God/the God/his God

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opin ... e=Homepage

In this past year of change, my mind and heart have overflowed with people. People I think of and pray for, and sometimes cry with, people with names and faces, people who died without saying goodbye to those they loved, families in difficulty, even going hungry, because there’s no work.

Sometimes, when you think globally, you can be paralyzed: There are so many places of apparently ceaseless conflict; there’s so much suffering and need. I find it helps to focus on concrete situations: You see faces looking for life and love in the reality of each person, of each people. You see hope written in the story of every nation, glorious because it’s a story of daily struggle, of lives broken in self-sacrifice. So rather than overwhelm you, it invites you to ponder and to respond with hope.

And on and on and on. Heartfelt perhaps, but as with so many other religionists, an utter refusal to acknowledge the fact that if this God of his does in fact exist then He is Himself responsible for the existence of the coronavirus. And hundreds and hundreds of other pathogens, diseases and physical afflictions.

Unless, of course, He is not omnipotent in regard to His creation.

And there is an underlying message throughout this particular sermon:

God asks us to dare to create something new.

In other words, that maybe the coronavirus is God's way of spurring us on to become, what, Catholics like the Pope?

Or Pedro?

Sure, I recognize what prompts this particular reaction of mine. That I am myself virtually powerless in the face of all the terrible ordeals that afflict the human race. And that I actually need for God to exist so that at least there is someone or something to blame. Better that than lump all of the ordeals into the brute facticity of an essentially meaningless existence.

But, for me, it is always about theodicy. And the sheer absurdity of reconciling the world as it is with a so-called "loving, just and merciful" Creator.

[Dan~]

Jew-God is cruel as hell.
When someone dies, it was because God was angry.
When someone is born, it is because God was merciful.

[obsrvr524]

I'm still wondering where the globalist Pope was while COVID was secretly poring into Italy and the Vatican.

[iambiguous]

Jew-God is cruel as hell.
When someone dies, it was because God was angry.
When someone is born, it is because God was merciful.

And you have ample evidence with which to demonstrate this? Or, if it's all on faith, how more or less blind?

And, just out of curiosity, would you be willing to commence an exchange in which you connect the dots between the behaviors you choose in regard to conflicting value judgments on this side of the grave, your beliefs in God and religion, and what you imagine the fate of your own particular "I" will be on the other side of the grave.

That, after all, was the whole point of my having begun this thread with zinnat.

[iambiguous]

I'm still wondering where the globalist Pope was while COVID was secretly poring into Italy and the Vatican.

How about you?

...just out of curiosity, would you be willing to commence an exchange in which you connect the dots between the behaviors you choose in regard to conflicting value judgments on this side of the grave, your beliefs in God and religion, and what you imagine the fate of your own particular "I" will be on the other side of the grave.

That, after all, was the whole point of my having begun this thread with zinnat.

[iambiguous]

Christian meditation is a form of prayer in which a structured attempt is made to become aware of and reflect upon the revelations of God. The word meditation comes from the Latin word meditārī, which has a range of meanings including to reflect on, to study, and to practice. Christian meditation is the process of deliberately focusing on specific thoughts (such as a bible passage) and reflecting on their meaning in the context of the love of God.

I would be equally curious to explore this aspect of the religious experience with those who practice it.

Only more in the spirit of this thread: Christian meditation insofar as it becomes a part of the life that one lives...insofar as there is an existential interaction between morality here and now and immortality there and then.

The part where reflection and study gives way to practice such that one set of behaviors is deemed virtuous and another not.