Originally posted by black beetleYou said this:
But I was ultra specific when I offered my idea!
If you read again the fourth paragraph of my third post at the first page of this thread you will see I assumed that “…when I trade the orthodox religious concept of the sacred supernatural existence and of the supernatural realm of reality (that they have to be worshipped by the believers) with the ra ...[text shortened]... a thing as "...the existence of political beliefs that they are not religious".
Clear?
😵
"religion is merely a body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority."
If any body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority is a religion, then this denies the existence of political beliefs that are not religious (apart from maybe extreme anarchic political beliefs).
If you just mean "some" body of collective beliefs da-da-da" are a religion, then you didn't provide a definition at all!
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm happy with that, but then you need to interpret my previous claims regarding "belief systems" as being about "belief sets". I'll use your distinction from now on.
I think that it is useful to distinguish between belief systems (rigorously coherent, consequently rare, possibly unavailable in pure form) and belief sets (present in every person with a functioning brain).
Originally posted by PalynkaAnd earlier I said that:
You said this:
"religion is merely a body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority."
If any body of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority is a religion, then this denies the existence of political beliefs that are not religious (apart from maybe extreme anarchic political beliefs).
If you just me ...[text shortened]... collective beliefs da-da-da" are a religion, then you didn't provide a definition at all!
"Since every religion is not divinely or supernaturally inspired and it is solely a human invention, I see it as just another social product that constitutes a body of collective archetypes which in turn they became the basis of the invention of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority.
In my opinion a “religion” is not necessarily just a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages and worshipping of supernatural existences, but also an apparatus of collective representations that they express collective realities."
It seems we all have a good time over here, no?
😵
Originally posted by black beetleAgain you avoid commitment in your definitions.
And earlier I said that:
"Since every religion is not divinely or supernaturally inspired and it is solely a human invention, I see it as just another social product that constitutes a body of collective archetypes which in turn they became the basis of the invention of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority.
In my opinion ...[text shortened]... hat they express collective realities."
It seems we all have a good time over here, no?
😵
Are ALL "apparatus of collective representations that they express collective realities"? If not, then you're not defining anything, just mentioning a few non-unique characteristics.
Originally posted by PalynkaI understand you to use 'institution' in the sense that a religion is an institution -- correct? In other words, an institution is the manifestation of a belief system. Well, as far as I know, Calvinism is a grim but non-contradictory belief system. And, as far as I know, Judaism and Islam are too. I could dig up a paper mapping Islam onto Spinoza (and we all know how logical he was) if you really insist.
It was a bold claim, as are most claims that contain "all" or "none", and unprovable. You can, however, falsify it by finding me an institution which is founded on a perfectly non-contradictory belief system.
I want to hold to my basic position, which I hope I set out sufficiently clearly: that a belief system is founded on a set of premises that entail the rest of it. This entails, too, the following paradox: that in order to adhere to the core set of beliefs, it is often necessary to resort to irrational fictions.
Regarding the non-chaotic supernatural, you've dodged Buddhism.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhen I say that a “religion is not necessarily just a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages and worshipping of supernatural existences" I have the feeling that I anyway define religion as "a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages and worshipping of supernatural existences".
Again you avoid commitment in your definitions.
Are ALL "apparatus of collective representations that they express collective realities"? If not, then you're not defining anything, just mentioning a few non-unique characteristics.
Furthermore, I am more specific and I claim in addition that, as a social product, all the religions are also an apparatus of collective representations that they express collective realities.
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageCome on, Calvinism? "Sola scriptura" is by itself a contradiction! (in the same manner as "the only rule is that there are no rules" )
I understand you to use 'institution' in the sense that a religion is an institution -- correct? In other words, an institution is the manifestation of a belief system. Well, as far as I know, Calvinism is a grim but non-contradictory belief system. And, as far as I know, Judaism and Islam are too. I could dig up a paper mapping Islam onto Spinoza (and ...[text shortened]... t to irrational fictions.
Regarding the non-chaotic supernatural, you've dodged Buddhism.
I don't know how I dodged Buddhism, can you say more?
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you logically adumbrate an illogical premise, you end up with a magnificently rococo edifice, don't you? That's the joy of this whole thing: the founding premise doesn't have to be logical, but the working out of it has to be logical to the point of mania -- as in Calvinism.
Come on, Calvinism? "Sola scriptura" is by itself a contradiction! (in the same manner as "the only rule is that there are no rules" )
I don't know how I dodged Buddhism, can you say more?
Well, Buddhism is commonly defined as a religion yet it does not entail belief in any supernatural, chaotic or otherwise. Therefore it eludes your definition.