[ihasa]

I don't think experience has anything to do with religion at all. I'll explain.

The definition of religion is: a collection of beliefs shared by a group of people.

The definition of belief is: a proposition an individual considers to be true. That means beliefs exist in lieu of any empirical evidence - otherwise it's not a belief, it's knowledge (the curious implication is that believing in something doesn't make it a fact, which has to be verifiable by definition).

Experience, on the other hand, is a personal phenomena, what is called a posteriori knowledge. You only acquire it after the fact. Since it happens after the fact, you can collect your observations about it and transmit to someone else - for the receiving individual, it will be empirical knowledge. Given the same set of empirical evidence, the individual can arrive at the same conclusion thru reasoning, or prove it incorrect, but it's still up to the other individual to make sense of it - you can't transmit your experience, because it's personal.

Well, from those definitions one can conclude the only mechanisms that can be used to transmit beliefs are dogmas and traditions. It can't be transmitted thru reasoning since there's no fact to learn from (it's a belief); no experience to relate about; therefore, no empirical knowledge to be transmitted; finally, nothing to be proved or not, because it's not based on any empirical evidence.

I think there is (or can be) more to religion than a shared, transmitted belief... there is / can also be shared religious practice, for example the practice of meditation, fasting, practicing compassion etc. These things are all to do with experience, not belief or dogma. These days religion is more about the belief, the dogmas, and all that; but it needn't be, and hasn't always been the case.

IThat also explains why I'm agnostic, not atheist. Atheism rejects the belief in deities (or a deity), but it's a belief, can't be proved either. By definition, it's a religion

I also disagree with this, very strongly!!!!

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid position to adopt because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists.

Prejudice Against Atheism, Atheists

Agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

[Na Horuk]

That also explains why I'm agnostic, not atheist. Atheism rejects the belief in deities (or a deity), but it's a belief, can't be proved either. By definition, it's a religion

lol I was with you up until here. It can be proven and 'rejecting the existence of something' is not a religion. Atheism would be a religion if it had its authorities (which it does not, it has celebrities, but not authorities), dogmas, rituals, ... Now, sure, a person could theoretically be obsessed with atheism, but that would be a personal obsession, not a religion. Its different. You wouldn't say that not believing in Nessi is a religion.

[hcarvalhoalves]

lol I was with you up until here. It can be proven and 'rejecting the existence of something' is not a religion.

You're mistaken, it cannot be proven because there's nothing to be proved to begin with. It's a belief, not a hypothesis. A belief is hold true by default.

Mental exercise: I can believe pink elephants exist, and in you failing to prove they don't, my belief stands true because it doesn't contradict anything. The opposite: I can believe pink elephants don't exist, and it doesn't contradict anything either.

You only leave the belief territory once you start trying hypothesis. That is: you can prove how humans came to existence, how the planet came to existence, how the universe came to existence. It still doesn't contradict the belief in a deity.

Atheism would be a religion if it had its authorities (which it does not, it has celebrities, but not authorities), dogmas, rituals, ... Now, sure, a person could theoretically be obsessed with atheism, but that would be a personal obsession, not a religion. Its different. You wouldn't say that not believing in Nessi is a religion.

Religion doesn't necessarily rely on authorities or rituals. But even then, it's hard to define what are those to begin with. If you go back to the most accepted definition, religion is "a collection of beliefs shared by a group of people".

On top of that, atheism is not rejection of religion, it's rejection on the existence of a deity. I think you're confusing theism and religion.

Finally, it's easy to subvert your example. Not believing in Nessi is believing Nessi doesn't exist. What I think you wanted to say is that, in the absence of evidence, there's no reason to conclude such thing as Nessi does exist. That's totally valid, but it's different than belief because that's rationalism, can you see?

I find Socrates was wise when he said:

I know one thing: that I know nothing.

[ihasa]

You keep saying that the ultimate definition of religion is a collection of beliefs shared by a group of people. I tdo not know where you get this idea from, but that is way too open a definition of religion. Religion has qualities which are quite different from other sorts of belief systems which are based on rationalism. Here is a summary of definitions c/o Wikipedia:

There are numerous definitions of religion and only a few are stated here. The typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a "belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods"[17] or the "service and worship of God or the supernatural".[18] However, many writers and scholars[who?] have noted that this basic 'belief in god' definition fails to capture the diversity of religious thought and experience.[citation needed] Edward Burnett Tylor defined religion as simply "the belief in spiritual beings".[19] He argued, back in 1871, that narrowing the definition to mean the belief in a supreme deity or judgment after death or idolatry and so on, would exclude many peoples from the category of religious, and thus "has the fault of identifying religion rather with particular developments than with the deeper motive which underlies them". He also argued that the belief in spiritual beings exists in all known societies.

The anthropologist Clifford Geertz defined religion as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.[20] Alluding perhaps to Tylor's "deeper motive", Geertz remarked that "we have very little idea of how, in empirical terms, this particular miracle is accomplished. We just know that it is done, annually, weekly, daily, for some people almost hourly; and we have an enormous ethnographic literature to demonstrate it".[21] The theologian Antoine Vergote also emphasized the "cultural reality" of religion, which he defined as "the entirety of the linguistic expressions, emotions and, actions and signs that refer to a supernatural being or supernatural beings"; he took the term "supernatural" simply to mean whatever transcends the powers of nature or human agency.[22]

The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things".[23] By sacred things he meant things "set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them". Sacred things are not, however, limited to gods or spirits.[note 2] On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred".[24] Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them.[25]

In his book ‪The Varieties of Religious Experience‬, the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine".[26] By the term "divine" James meant "any object that is godlike, whether it be a concrete deity or not"[27] to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity.[28]

Echoes of James' and Durkheim's definitions are to be found in the writings of, for example, Frederick Ferré who defined religion as "one's way of valuing most comprehensively and intensively".[29] Similarly, for the theologian Paul Tillich, faith is "the state of being ultimately concerned",[30] which "is itself religion. Religion is the substance, the ground, and the depth of man's spiritual life."[31]

None of the above definitions can be said to describe 'atheism' now can they?

[hcarvalhoalves]

I think there is (or can be) more to religion than a shared, transmitted belief... there is / can also be shared religious practice, for example the practice of meditation, fasting, practicing compassion etc. These things are all to do with experience, not belief or dogma. These days religion is more about the belief, the dogmas, and all that; but it needn't be, and hasn't always been the case.

I think there's a small semantic mistake, by experience I mean experience as defined in philosophy: knowledge acquired a posteriori (after fact).

Meditation, fasting, practicing compassion... those are practices, yes, but they get transmitted thru dogma or tradition. I think there's a bad connotation regarding dogma nowadays, but by definition it's just something that isn't argued - be it because is the basis of the belief itself (e.g., there can't be Christianity without compassion, because compassion was wisdom transmitted by Christ himself) or because it's imposed by others.

I also disagree with this, very strongly!!!!

I don't subscribe to the line of thinking from the text you posted, which tries to frame it as either theism or atheism, and then throw agnosticism on top, since agnosticism is not subject to (a)theism in any way - quite the contrary. Agnostic thinking on literature predates atheism, which can be traced back to greek philosophy, while atheism as we know (actively rejecting deities) is relatively new, around 17-18th century.

It can be argued wether atheism is the "default" way of thinking - that is, that in the absence of cultural influence, humans have no belief in a deity. This is defined by some as "practical atheism", which is would be never having though about the existence of a deity. There are interesting anthropologic studies around this theme to figure out if this happens with remote populations and other cultures, but as far as I know there's nothing conclusive.

In the end, I don't subscribe to thinking such thing as agnostic theist is possible in practice. If you believe in a deity you just don't care wether it can be proved to exist or not - it's a belief, it's not based on empiricism. Similarly, if you view that certain claims can never be verified true or false (such as existence of a deity), choosing to believe in either is no different than just betting in zero-sum game.

[les3547]

I don't think experience has anything to do with religion at all. I'll explain. . . . .it can't be transmitted thru reasoning since there's no fact to learn from (it's a belief); no experience to relate about; therefore, no empirical knowledge to be transmitted; finally, nothing to be proved or not, because it's not based on any empirical evidence.

I think your reasoning is a mess. First of all, you assume the truth of what you said you were going to explain when you say “there is no experience to relate about.” Wasn’t that supposed to be the conclusion (“I don't think experience has anything to do with religion at all”) we reach from your premises and logic? Instead you use it as one of your premises!

Then you claim there is no empirical evidence (I assume you mean of a religious experience). Really? Empirical means experience, so what are you doing, excluding every type of experience but sense experience? And so, if I tell you that a genuine religious experience is not known through the senses (and I don’t say that all claims of religious experience are genuine), then you think you get to say it isn’t “empirical” because you can’t use your senses to investigate?

You’ve not made an attempt to list what experience there might be, you’ve assumed there is none and took off from there. To me, it shows you don’t understand the conversation we were having that there is a difference between religion and religious experience.

I think someone already pointed out that if, say, a religious experience can be had through some inner technique, then that can passed along for others to try. If so (and I say that is so), then your argument falls apart.

[les3547]

Meditation, fasting, practicing compassion... those are practices, yes, but they get transmitted thru dogma or tradition. I think there's a bad connotation regarding dogma nowadays, but by definition it's just something that isn't argued - be it because is the basis of the belief itself (e.g., there can't be Christianity without compassion, because compassion was wisdom transmitted by Christ himself) or because it's imposed by others.

If meditation or inner prayer techniques are passed down through the centuries, that doesn't make them merely dogma to everyone, only to those who believe them without actually attempting them.

For some people, the first thing they want to do is try the techniques to see what experience can be had. In that moment of experience, dogma has absolutely nothing to do with anything. And neither do the a posteriori and a priori concepts you seem fond of since experience always occurs, without exception, now.

---

Last edited by les3547; 09-18-2012 at 05:27 PM.

[hcarvalhoalves]

You keep saying that the ultimate definition of religion is a collection of beliefs shared by a group of people. I tdo not know where you get this idea from, but that is way too open a definition of religion. Religion has qualities which are quite different from other sorts of belief systems which are based on rationalism. Here is a summary of definitions c/o Wikipedia:

If it's based on rationalism it doesn't resort to beliefs.

Also, you understand I was nudging atheists when I defined atheism as a religion, right? Hence why I used the smiley.

By a narrow definition of religion, only qualifies anything that has a clerk, rituals and cults. That's how atheism likes to define religion.

In a broader sense, though, one can argue wether atheism isn't a religion too, since it's based on the belief deities do not exist, without conclusive evidence, and a point that can't be argued (since it's the very basis of atheism). This is the very definition of dogma.

It's a funny way to think. Food for thought.

[hcarvalhoalves]

I think someone already pointed out that if, say, a religious experience can be had through some inner technique, then that can passed along for others to try. If so (and I say that is so), then your argument falls apart.

Since you mentioned meditation as one of the examples...

Please me correct if I'm mistaken. As I understand it, meditation, as defined by Buddhism, is the practice which culminates in increased awareness about the true nature of things. Buddha himself practiced it to exhaustion, became enlightened, and then the knowledge about the practice (meditation) was transmitted by oral/written tradition to disciples ever since.

I'm citing meditation and Buddhism here because when I wrote that sentence I was actually thinking about it.

Previously, when I said experience can't be transmitted, I wasn't talking about transmitting the knowledge on "how to meditate". I was talking about transmitting the experience that arises from meditation, which is intrinsically personal. In the case of Buddhism, the whole point is that Buddha can't transmit his enlightenment to others, only show the path (meditation). I believe you agree with me here.

When I said "I don't think experience has anything to do with religion at all", I was saying religion doesn't depend on experience because it perpetuates itself on tradition. For example, in Buddhism, what each individual passes forward is the practice of meditation, not the knowledge absorbed from the practice of meditation - not even the original Buddha did it, and that's the core of it all (you have to practice it yourself).

So I don't disagree when you say "a religious experience can be had through some inner technique, then that can passed along for others to try", although in my original example I was talking about experience as a noun (the experience), not the verb (to experience).

[les3547]

Previously, when I said experience can't be transmitted, I wasn't talking about transmitting the knowledge on "how to meditate". I was talking about transmitting the experience that arises from meditation, which is intrinsically personal. In the case of Buddhism, the whole point is that Buddha can't transmit his enlightenment to others, only show the path (meditation). I believe you agree with me here..

No, I don't quite agree. For example, there has been a tradition in Ch'an (Zen) that part of learning meditation was "mind to mind transmission." There isn't enough space here to make my case (nor do I have the time), but I have good reason to believe that people like Jesus and the Buddha were "high," and that people who came in contact with them got a contact high. The people who undertook to learn and become proficient in the inner teaching kept the experience alive, and then when they taught others, a bit of that "contact high" was available to help people connect the inner techniques to the experience. So in the case of Bodhidarma, who brought meditation to China from India (Ch'an means meditation), if my theory is correct he also brought the experience alive in himself so that mind to mind transmission could take place. In Christianity, we see the experience being "transmitted" in monasteries through what was known as "prayer of the heart" and the "prayer of union." As the centuries pass however, the degree the original experience is still available gradually diminishes.

So I do believe experience can be transmitted. I think there are even more mundane examples of "contact highs" too, such a when a sincere person touches one's heart, or when a genuinely happy person can uplift the spirits of not-so-happy people.

[bossa]

Seems to me more complex than this.

True, there is such a thing as primary experience, which usually seems to be the same or very similar across humanity. And equally true, there is such a thing as religious (or philosophical) convention that seems to vary across humanity.

However, the religion/philosophy acts as a container, a mnemonic, and a means to integrate the primary vision.

Let me illustrate this: A person has such an experience, but her frame of reference does not include the mystical. She will perhaps suppress the memory, or she will believe herself psychotic and start to act accordingly. Some time later she has integrated some consciousness/religion philosophy, and now her experience has a different meaning, something perhaps to be sought rather than avoided. It is now a good thing, the best thing in the world, rather than the onset of mental illness.

Perhaps she sees things in terms of angels and demons; of spirit possession and so on. Some years later she now has integrated ideas of enlightenment and realization - now that same experience exists along those lines.

Once I had a Kundalini experience (although at the time I did not know it) and it was both amazing and terrifying for a few moments. At the time, I was very ill and lying on my stomach in bed when I heard a hissing sound and felt something moving up my spine like a slow moving electrical shock and all the hairs on my body stood up. The hissing got louder as the sensation moved up my spine and eventually stopped with an explosion of white light and a loud crack that I actually heard (even though there was no external sound). It was only after studying meditation some years later that this became something I had the tools to deal with mentally and physically.

The original tendency was to think "demons" due to folklore and my limited understanding at the time.

[Nesster]

Mental exercise: I can believe pink elephants exist, and in you failing to prove they don't, my belief stands true because it doesn't contradict anything. The opposite: I can believe pink elephants don't exist, and it doesn't contradict anything either.

You only leave the belief territory once you start trying hypothesis. That is: you can prove how humans came to existence, how the planet came to existence, how the universe came to existence. It still doesn't contradict the belief in a deity.

Underlying this are a few beliefs - a primary one being that there is 'proof' that is 'proof' in every relative situation. Another one is that there is such a thing as 'objective existence' that we can definitively 'prove' and approach with rationality alone. For that matter, by prioritizing the rational you also look to remove the emotional underpinnings of rationality.

If I experience a pink elephant, say, using this image instead of Les' mind to mind transmission - which sounds weird and impossible, but which once experienced is tangibly real - and you do not, based on your experience and frame of reference you conclude pink elephants do not exist. You have an air tight argument. And should you some time experience a pink elephant, you probably will ascribe it to too much drink causing a prefrontal lobe disturbance


----

Meanwhile -- there's a handy concept of exoteric and esoteric apects of religion. Bossa's example of the K is a good one -- the esoteric side of 'religion' can provide a framework for holding experience. Practices associated with religion in part evolve in order to give more permanence to whatever is 'gained'. I could think 'possession', or I could say, oh, cool, it's Kundalini... or I could seek to change my relation to it all.

That the exoteric aspects have little to do with this directly doesn't invalidate the whole. Indeed, much of what is exoteric from the point of view of someone fully in the esoteric 'makes sense'... Often I think of Heisenberg along these matters - so often what 'is' also 'isn't', something can unfold or unravel/fold down so quickly

[boriscleto]

Dwindling In Unbelief: The naked Muhammad (Don't look or you'll go blind)

Yesterday, the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, published some cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad (pb&jbuh). This, of course, is something no one is supposed to do, because it's blasphemy to show any kind of visual representation of Muhammad.

It all has to do with Muhammad's amazing modesty. He was the most modest person to have ever existed. He said so himself.

And he was especially modest when it came to exposing his private parts. No one, not even his favorite wife, Ayesha, ever saw him naked. Good thing, too, because if they did, they'd go blind.

[jeffkrol]

Again.. throughout history it is about and and power.. not religion.......

sorry ties int my Jesus thread:

In the year 1198 Pope Innocent III delegated two simple monks to judge the heretics. "We command", he says "to the Princes, to the Counts, and to all Lords of your lands, to aid them against the heretics, by the authority that they have been given to punish the evil-doers, so that when Brother Rainier has excommunicated them, the Lords should seize their property, banish them from their lands, and punish severely those who dare to resist. Now, we have given authority to Brother Rainier to compel the Lords to do this, on pain of excommunication and interdiction of their property, etc." This was the first foundation of the Inquisition

Voltaire on the Wars against Cathars of the Languedoc

EARLY Rove...........
http://www.midi-france.info/131201_belloc.htm

and:
http://www.philipcoppens.com/catharism.html

Whichever scenario is true, the end conclusion remains the same: an estimated 200,000 to one million people died during the twenty year campaign, which began in earnest in Béziers in July 1209. After assembling the papal troops, these marched to Béziers, where they ordered that 222 people, suspected of being Cathars, were handed over to them by the citizens of the town. When this was refused, the papal troops decided to attack. One of the crusaders asked their leader, the Papal Legate Arnaud-Amaury, how to distinguish between the 222 heretics and the thousands of faithful Catholics that lived in the city. “Kill them all,” was the abbot’s alleged reply. “God will recognise his own!” The number of dead that day was between 7000 and 20,000, the latter figure being the one quoted when Arnaud-Amaury reported back to the Pope.
With such carnage, it was clear that the other towns (e.g. Narbonne and Carcassonne) offered no resistance and soon, the Southern counts had lost their territories and powers to the King of France and his allies. For these Northern lords, attaining the lands of the Languedoc had always been paramount; their mission had been accomplished.

Though the crusade was over, only the powerbrokers that had supported the spread of Catharism had been removed from power, their lands confiscated.

OF COURSE they had to be eliminated:

Amidst the wild speculation as to what they might have secured, some believe it was a holy book, containing the wisdom of the Cathar religion. It is indeed unlikely that the Cathars would have secured a physical treasure, if only because it would have been too heavy, and in their eyes, unimportant: Catharism saw everything on this plane of existence as evil and despicable; money and wealth were chief amongst Earth’s – and Satan’s – vices.
Authors such as Walter Birks and R.A. Gilbert, as well as Elizabeth van Buren, have therefore suggested that the Cathars guarded a manuscript, knowledge – a spiritual treasure. This manuscript is often said to be the “Book of Love” and is linked with the Gospel of John, and is claimed to contain “sublime teachings, marvellous revelations, the most secret words confided by our Lord Jesus Christ to the beloved disciple [John the Evangelist]. Their power would be such that all hatred, all anger, all jealousy would vanish from the hearts of men. The Divine Love, like a new flood, would submerge all souls and never again would blood be shed on this earth.” The only problem with this conclusion, of course, is that the Cathars were not really Christians; their doctrine did not focus on Jesus…

[boriscleto]

Fox News Host Wants Federal Investigation into 'South Park' for Blasphemy | Crooks and Liars

Youtu.be

Youtu.be