153d
@Lionel-Hutz saidPsychologists would have a problem with a concept of the religious self.
Debate Eliade's the sacred and the profane.
Go!
I'm not sure it truly exists. I mean, some people like to describe themselves as such, but it is like wearing a self-made costume only to appear like something you're not. Most people who describe themselves in this way most certainly are not.
152d
@Suzianne saidI agree with you.
Psychologists would have a problem with a concept of the religious self.
I'm not sure it truly exists. I mean, some people like to describe themselves as such, but it is like wearing a self-made costume only to appear like something you're not. Most people who describe themselves in this way most certainly are not.
But, wouldn't you say that the entire confusion arises from everyone confusing religiosity* as something one is rather than something one does?
Just a thought.
152d
@Lionel-Hutz saidNobody is born religious. Religion is a learned thing, and will very largely depend upon where one is born.
I agree with you.
But, wouldn't you say that the entire confusion arises from everyone confusing religiosity* as something one is rather than something one does?
Just a thought.
@Indonesia-Phil saidAll major cultures in history disagree.
Nobody is born religious. Religion is a learned thing, and will very largely depend upon where one is born.
Also Eliade.
And, finally, neuropsychology may have a word or two about it.
@Lionel-Hutz saidYes, absolutely.
I agree with you.
But, wouldn't you say that the entire confusion arises from everyone confusing religiosity* as something one is rather than something one does?
Just a thought.
But white folk, especially, are good at doing that.
And they pat themselves on the back about it constantly.
Too bad it'll be a case of Jesus saying, "I never knew you."
152d
1 edit
@Lionel-Hutz saidReligion IS a learned thing. Who you learn it from is as important as what you learn.
All major cultures in history disagree.
Also Eliade.
And, finally, neuropsychology may have a word or two about it.
Even psychology counts it as a response to a stimulus. Your religion depends on your stimulus.
152d
@Lionel-Hutz said'All major cultures in history disagree.' Yes, well all of them have a vested interest in doing that, don't they, for the maintenance of their culture. Nobody is genetically programmed to one religion or another, we learn according to where we are, and the influences to which we are subjected.
All major cultures in history disagree.
Also Eliade.
And, finally, neuropsychology may have a word or two about it.
152d
4 edits
Sorry but you are both wrong. In philosophy there is a little experiment:
Imagine a human being is alone in the entire planet. No society ergo no culture. Will he develop by himself a cosmogony and experience hierophanies, triggering sacred rituals to connect with space and time outside of his material existence, i.e. something greater than him?
Ta-da! The philosophical experiment has an output signaling towards a positive answer: It is highly probable that he will, as the output follows a logical line from the input.
P.s. It is as the squirrel born in a laboratory with no contact with other squirrels. The squirrel still will scratch the metallic bottom of the cage even though (a) it has no nut to hide, and (b) it has never seen other squirrels doing it.
151d
@Lionel-Hutz saidIs this an actual 'experiment' or a theoretical experiment? You haven't answered your own question apart from by saying that it is 'highly probable' that he would experience some kind of spiritual experience; it's hardly scientific, is it, or conclusive.
Sorry but you are both wrong. In philosophy there is a little experiment:
Imagine a human being is alone in the entire planet. No society ergo no culture. Will he develop by himself a cosmogony and experience hierophanies, triggering sacred rituals to connect with space and time outside of his material existence, i.e. something greater than him?
...[text shortened]... cage even though (a) it has no nut to hide, and (b) it has never seen other squirrels doing it.[/i]
Nor can his experience (if he has one) be described as 'religious', in nature; i.e. he has not subscribed to any particular religious belief, because he doesn't know of any. Which rather proves my point, which is still that we are not born with any particular religious leaning. All of the established religions are cultural in nature, and are learned.
151d
@Indonesia-Phil saidExcuse me?
Is this an actual 'experiment' or a theoretical experiment?
Brother from a different mother... the matter at hand is not susceptible to empirical methods.
You're mixing fishes with toasters.
151d
@Lionel-Hutz saidImagine a human being is alone in the entire planet. No society ergo no culture. Will he develop by himself a cosmogony and experience hierophanies, triggering sacred rituals to connect with space and time outside of his material existence, i.e. something greater than him?
Sorry but you are both wrong. In philosophy there is a little experiment:
Imagine a human being is alone in the entire planet. No society ergo no culture. Will he develop by himself a cosmogony and experience hierophanies, triggering sacred rituals to connect with space and time outside of his material existence, i.e. something greater than him?
...[text shortened]... cage even though (a) it has no nut to hide, and (b) it has never seen other squirrels doing it.[/i]
An interesting hypothetical question, I'll admit, but this "Petre dish" example is so very unlikely as to make it irrelevant.
151d
@mchill saidThe search for meaning is a little bit more than merely irrelevant and experiments in moral philosophy are necessary, sometimes with reductio ad absurdum. Also with some cognac.
Imagine a human being is alone in the entire planet. No society ergo no culture. Will he develop by himself a cosmogony and experience hierophanies, triggering sacred rituals to connect with space and time outside of his material existence, i.e. something greater than him?
An interesting hypothetical question, I'll admit, but this "Petre dish" example is so very unlikely as to make it irrelevant.
Plus, with artificial intelligence, who knows? We may end up like the squirrel born in a lab without any contact with other squirrels 🙂
151d
@Lionel-Hutz saidWell then you should not use the word 'experiment', since this implies method, observation and a measurable result; your 'man alone in the world' is pure imagination.
Excuse me?
Brother from a different mother... the matter at hand is not susceptible to empirical methods.
You're mixing fishes with toasters.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to put across, perhaps you would clarify.