Originally posted by Palynkaedit: "But if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?"
But if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?
It also seems you equate all social dogmatists (dogma in the authoritarian sense) with religion. Although this is an interesting euph ...[text shortened]... le) and, conversely, labelling all social dogmas as religious is then a purely literary device.
A "purely personal view" is a result of one's theory of reality, and we could maybe agree that some theories of reality are indeed religious.
Therefore I see not how do I deny the possibility of a personal view of religion since the individuals who share a specific view -which is anyway a social product!- are free to recognise and classify it as both "personal" and "universal". On the other hand, this is how a religion expands in the societies -and it seems to me that this is also the basis of the myth of the idea known as "absolute truth".
Furthermore, I do equate any given dogma with religionism because I see no contradition; and methinks that a religion -this is the case of the Abrahamic religions amongst else, no?- is indeed dogmatic to the hilt.
But I may be wrong; could you inform me about a religion that it is not based on a specific religious core belief that it must be blindly accepted in full by the believers of that religion?
😵
Originally posted by black beetleAgain you mix assertion with dogma. Only the first is required. You also now equate what you called "social apparatus" with "social product" as if they were equal. I'm not interested in mental contortionism, beetle.
edit: "But if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?"
A "purely personal view" is a result of one's theory of reality, and we could maybe agree that some theories of reality a ...[text shortened]... elief that it must be blindly accepted in full by the believers of that religion?
😵
Originally posted by PalynkaI will try to make myself clearer.
Again you mix assertion with dogma. Only the first is required. You also now equate what you called "social apparatus" with "social product" as if they were equal. I'm not interested in mental contortionism, beetle.
In my opinion the factual social product (religion/ human invention) follows a process based on its cornerstone (assertions and dogma, which they both can be personal and/ or universal and they are constituting a body of collective archetypes which in turn they become the basis of the invention of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority. This means that, along with the given plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages and worshipping of supernatural existences, “religion” can be understood too as an apparatus of collective representations that they express collective realities. And this is not “mental contortionism”. In fact, I see no contradictions and I also join hands with our good ole Durkheim.
Furthermore, since a religion -and therefore its believers too- are both a vital part of a given society, “religion” can be described as a specific social apparatus that triggers solidarity and identification of the believers within a society, providing a theory of reality, a meaning for a purposeful life, authority figures and “reinforcement” of the collective moral and social norms.
Now I hope that you clearly understand my thesis in full. But if we do not agree up to here, I am ready for your falsification
😵
Originally posted by black beetleOh! Thats a good definition. I was certainly scratching my head at this question, but fortunatetly Mr. BB has come along and given a nice definition.
I will try to make myself clearer.
In my opinion the factual social product (religion/ human invention) follows a process based on its cornerstone (assertions and dogma, which they both can be personal and/ or universal and they are constituting a body of collective archetypes which in turn they become the basis of the invention of collective beliefs a ...[text shortened]... tand my thesis in full. But if we do not agree up to here, I am ready for your falsification
😵
I would like to add that religon can be made by anyone containing the godseed. (everyone)
Originally posted by BadwaterA god is what I believe in.
Religion is what I believe in.
Cult is what others believe in.
Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
An idol is what others believe in.
Morality is what I live according to.
Immorals is what others are.
Others are hypocrits.
I'm never a hypocrit.
Irony? Nooo...
Originally posted by black beetleIt's not about falsification. Durkheim (and you) focus on the social role of religion and how society shapes and is shaped by it. What I'm saying is that for me any belief about a non-chaotic supernatural is religious. This definition encompasses parts of yours (so it's not about proving you wrong), but excludes the political dogmas that you mentions.
I will try to make myself clearer.
In my opinion the factual social product (religion/ human invention) follows a process based on its cornerstone (assertions and dogma, which they both can be personal and/ or universal and they are constituting a body of collective archetypes which in turn they become the basis of the invention of collective beliefs a ...[text shortened]... tand my thesis in full. But if we do not agree up to here, I am ready for your falsification
😵
You see, religion (in my definition) requires assertions, by definition of supernatural. It's a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Moreover, by requiring assertions about the supernatural, they have a core of beliefs beyond the moral ones that are not falsifiable. This is not true of the political dogmas. Take a set of moral principles and one can check if these are consistent with those political views and confront them both in abstract and in practice.
So, in a sense, we're talking in cross-purposes.