https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... eligion/p1
The second possible derivation was from ‘re-ligare’ where ‘ligare’ is related to the root ‘lig-‘ meaning ‘binding’ or ‘tying’ (cf ligature, ligament.) So re-ligare was to join to or unite with. — Wayfarer
The modern definition of "Religion" typically refers to an authoritative creed, of which there are many. But I think religion-in-general goes deeper than that, into the essence of human nature. It's not just intellectual assent to a list of specific "truths", "facts" or commandments. Instead, it's an emotional bond to a family or tribe or social group. The details differ from tribe to tribe, but the feeling of belonging is the same for all people of all places and all times. It's the same emotional connection that unites a family or football team, or military unit. And it may even be motivated by the same neurotransmitters (e.g. oxytocin) that bond a mother and her baby.
But, in a more general sense, I like to use the Latin roots to see what the word originally referred to. As you noted, "re-" = back, again, past; and "ligare-" = join, unite, bond. a link. So I conclude that the essential meaning of "religion" is "tradition" : an emotional link to a common history.
For example, many Christian Catholics and Protestants are more loyal to their local social group than to the required creeds of their sect, or to the official leaders of their church. So, when push comes to shove, they would place more weight on their 2000 year old Christian tradition, than on any abstract belief, such as Trinity or Transubstantiation. Hence, their common bond of Christian fellowship would outweigh any milder feelings for fellow humans, who belong to a different tribal tradition, such as Hinduism or Islam. Emotionally, religion is Us versus Them.
Dictionary.com, word origin for "re-" : a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion: regenerate; refurbish; retype; retrace; revert.
Jesus admonished the Pharisees, who he viewed as apostates from the true religion (tradition) handed down by Moses. In the words of Isaiah, referring to God : "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”. Mark 7:7-13 [ Ironically, the Pharisees considered themselves to be conservatives. But apparently not conservative enough for the fundamentalist Jesus people. ]
Phil Forum : Philosophy of Religion
Re: Phil Forum : Philosophy of Religion
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... eligion/p2
Can't completely agree - while it is of course true that 'tradition' means 'to carry forward', but the idea of 'joining' or 'union', as in 'union with the divine' (or theosis or apotheosis) is not temporally-bound in any way. The tradition is seen in some sense as a vessel for preserving the gist of such teachings, but from their perspective, the subject is 'the deathless'. — Wayfarer
Yes. But I was talking about the physical motivation behind the felt human need for union with Mother, Father, Family, Tribe, and God. That urge to unite is "deathless" as long as it has roots in human nature. And Culture, including Religion, is the offspring of Human Nature, which is an outgrowth of Physical Nature, and so forth.
External traditions (e.g memes; ceremonies) are symbolic cultural models of inner natural emotions. When we observe Hindus bathing in the Ganges, and Baptists immersed in rivers or water tanks, we can see the common human urge for purging and purification. Inner Meanings are preserved and propagated in outer traditions.
Can't completely agree - while it is of course true that 'tradition' means 'to carry forward', but the idea of 'joining' or 'union', as in 'union with the divine' (or theosis or apotheosis) is not temporally-bound in any way. The tradition is seen in some sense as a vessel for preserving the gist of such teachings, but from their perspective, the subject is 'the deathless'. — Wayfarer
Yes. But I was talking about the physical motivation behind the felt human need for union with Mother, Father, Family, Tribe, and God. That urge to unite is "deathless" as long as it has roots in human nature. And Culture, including Religion, is the offspring of Human Nature, which is an outgrowth of Physical Nature, and so forth.
External traditions (e.g memes; ceremonies) are symbolic cultural models of inner natural emotions. When we observe Hindus bathing in the Ganges, and Baptists immersed in rivers or water tanks, we can see the common human urge for purging and purification. Inner Meanings are preserved and propagated in outer traditions.
Re: Phil Forum : Philosophy of Religion
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... eligion/p3
Actually, much closer to the ground, in that for certain words I wonder if any agreement, even provisional, on meaning is possible. On "God" for example, unless I've missed it, no one has pinned anything down. Yours is the empty name, mine the idea, some Anselm, and X. That's it for God. — tim wood
Perhaps a different approach to the generic name "God" would be helpful. For Atheists, "god" refers to an empty set. But for Theists, "God" refers to a meaningful, but abstract concept, with associated feelings. For example, "United States" is not a concrete thing, but an abstraction that invokes positive feelings for some, and negative feelings for others.
In order to avoid the conflicting theological baggage attached to the "God" designation that means different things to different people, I spell it "G*D", and provide a definition that fits my personal worldview*1. But I cannot give a concrete description, or claim that "G*D" is real and empirical. Instead, my "G*D" is a gap-filler in the same sense that scientists use "Dark Matter" and "Multiverse". They don't know what Dark Matter is, only what it does. Likewise, Multiverse is an explanatory hypothesis, with no possibility for empirical confirmation. It has to be taken on Faith. I don't know what G*D is, only what it has done : enform this non-self-existent universe. And since generic Information is the fundamental substance of the material universe, I must assume that G*D is an Enformer. *2
These knowledge-gap-filler terms are useful in that they convey a meaning that can be communicated, even though the referent is not accessible to objective confirmation. For me, "G*D" refers to the logical "First Cause" and "Logos" hypotheses of Aristotle. Objectively, we can all agree that the world exists. But how it came to be is debatable. So. those with Materialist assumptions imagine an eternal mechanical Multiverse, while those with Spiritualist assumptions imagine an eternal king-like magician (Jehovah), or an infinite abstract power with no human characteristics (Allah). None of us has any direct knowledge of the object referred-to by our gap-filler names. But we can use the agreed-upon definitions of those terms for philosophical discussions. We may not accept that those definitions are factual, but at least we can know what we are talking about.
*1 G*D : " I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, . . . ."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
*2 EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Actually, much closer to the ground, in that for certain words I wonder if any agreement, even provisional, on meaning is possible. On "God" for example, unless I've missed it, no one has pinned anything down. Yours is the empty name, mine the idea, some Anselm, and X. That's it for God. — tim wood
Perhaps a different approach to the generic name "God" would be helpful. For Atheists, "god" refers to an empty set. But for Theists, "God" refers to a meaningful, but abstract concept, with associated feelings. For example, "United States" is not a concrete thing, but an abstraction that invokes positive feelings for some, and negative feelings for others.
In order to avoid the conflicting theological baggage attached to the "God" designation that means different things to different people, I spell it "G*D", and provide a definition that fits my personal worldview*1. But I cannot give a concrete description, or claim that "G*D" is real and empirical. Instead, my "G*D" is a gap-filler in the same sense that scientists use "Dark Matter" and "Multiverse". They don't know what Dark Matter is, only what it does. Likewise, Multiverse is an explanatory hypothesis, with no possibility for empirical confirmation. It has to be taken on Faith. I don't know what G*D is, only what it has done : enform this non-self-existent universe. And since generic Information is the fundamental substance of the material universe, I must assume that G*D is an Enformer. *2
These knowledge-gap-filler terms are useful in that they convey a meaning that can be communicated, even though the referent is not accessible to objective confirmation. For me, "G*D" refers to the logical "First Cause" and "Logos" hypotheses of Aristotle. Objectively, we can all agree that the world exists. But how it came to be is debatable. So. those with Materialist assumptions imagine an eternal mechanical Multiverse, while those with Spiritualist assumptions imagine an eternal king-like magician (Jehovah), or an infinite abstract power with no human characteristics (Allah). None of us has any direct knowledge of the object referred-to by our gap-filler names. But we can use the agreed-upon definitions of those terms for philosophical discussions. We may not accept that those definitions are factual, but at least we can know what we are talking about.
*1 G*D : " I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, . . . ."
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
*2 EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Re: Phil Forum : Philosophy of Religion
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/344356
Hi. Perhaps you are oversimplifying atheism here. I'm an 'atheist,' but I also think God is a concept of central importance. I'd say that an atheist thinks of God as 'only' a concept. A theist might instead separate their concept of God from God itself. — jellyfish
It was a simple dichotomy, for purposes of illustration, not argumentation. However, to complicate the issue further, let's say that, "an atheist thinks of God as 'only' a concept", while a Theist thinks of God as the 'referent' of the concept. So the question boils down to whether there is Content for the Concept.
In my view, there is no concrete humanoid person out there playing the role of God. No "teapot circling Mars". Instead, since the real material world ultimately consists of immaterial Information (e.g. mathematics), G*D is not just out-there in eternity-infinity, but in every particle of space-time. I have detailed arguments to support that assertion, but I can't claim that it is revealed Truth, merely my personal opinion. For all practical purposes, it makes me an A-Theist. But for philosophical purposes, it makes me a Deist.
Fair enough, but this looks like a philosopher's 'God.' It's a piece of sculpture. It scratches an itch that most people don't have. — jellyfish
This is indeed the abstract philosopher's God. But, as a hypothesis, it explains a lot about "entanglement" and the ubiquitous role of Information in the world. As a popular religion, it would be impractical, since it doesn't "scratch an itch" that most people of the world have always had : someone to give us unconditional love and to defend us from evil. Instead, it merely puts the ointment of theory on "itches" that philosophers have always had : ultimate "why" questions.
Russell's Teapot : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
"Scientists and Philosophers are always on the lookout for significant patterns in Nature from which they can extract specific meanings. Those extracted pieces of meaning are then labeled generically as information. But how that “information” came to be encoded in the material of nature is not often questioned by scientists. That’s not considered to be a practical project, so it’s left to impractical amateur philosophers to speculate on the origins of information: e.g. which came first, the informer or the information---the sculptor or the sculpture?" http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... lcome.html
Hi. Perhaps you are oversimplifying atheism here. I'm an 'atheist,' but I also think God is a concept of central importance. I'd say that an atheist thinks of God as 'only' a concept. A theist might instead separate their concept of God from God itself. — jellyfish
It was a simple dichotomy, for purposes of illustration, not argumentation. However, to complicate the issue further, let's say that, "an atheist thinks of God as 'only' a concept", while a Theist thinks of God as the 'referent' of the concept. So the question boils down to whether there is Content for the Concept.
In my view, there is no concrete humanoid person out there playing the role of God. No "teapot circling Mars". Instead, since the real material world ultimately consists of immaterial Information (e.g. mathematics), G*D is not just out-there in eternity-infinity, but in every particle of space-time. I have detailed arguments to support that assertion, but I can't claim that it is revealed Truth, merely my personal opinion. For all practical purposes, it makes me an A-Theist. But for philosophical purposes, it makes me a Deist.
Fair enough, but this looks like a philosopher's 'God.' It's a piece of sculpture. It scratches an itch that most people don't have. — jellyfish
This is indeed the abstract philosopher's God. But, as a hypothesis, it explains a lot about "entanglement" and the ubiquitous role of Information in the world. As a popular religion, it would be impractical, since it doesn't "scratch an itch" that most people of the world have always had : someone to give us unconditional love and to defend us from evil. Instead, it merely puts the ointment of theory on "itches" that philosophers have always had : ultimate "why" questions.
Russell's Teapot : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
"Scientists and Philosophers are always on the lookout for significant patterns in Nature from which they can extract specific meanings. Those extracted pieces of meaning are then labeled generically as information. But how that “information” came to be encoded in the material of nature is not often questioned by scientists. That’s not considered to be a practical project, so it’s left to impractical amateur philosophers to speculate on the origins of information: e.g. which came first, the informer or the information---the sculptor or the sculpture?" http://enformationism.info/enformationi ... lcome.html
Re: Phil Forum : Philosophy of Religion
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/345111
Maybe I find the choice of 'G*D' as a name for it sub-optimal. Maybe I think it doesn't really answer the question. (Is there a question?) — jellyfish
As I began to develop my own personal Agnostic worldview, I tried to avoid any religious terminology. But eventually I realized that the Ultimate Source of ubiquitous Information is equivalent in most respects to the ancient concept of an abstract world-sustaining creator God (e.g. Brahman). When I used evasive terms in discussions, I had to provide long round-about definitions. So I gave-up and made-up a neologism that suggests a creator deity, but with a question mark. Since I have no direct evidence of this hypothetical Enformer, the asterisk in "G*D" means "to be determined". Pre-scientific thinkers were not idiots; they were just working with incomplete information about how the world works.
Interestingly, the modern understanding of Information/Energy is similar to the archaic notion of Spirit : invisible, intangible, causal agency. So I view Enformationism as a 21st century update of outdated philosophical theories of Materialism and Spiritualism. Information is the essence of both Matter and Mind. Unfortunately, few people have read my thesis, so they don't fully grasp what I mean by Enformation or by "G*D".
Yes, there are many questions that are answered by the G*D concept. But the new answers are not found in conventional Science or Religion. The Enformationism thesis asks those age-old queries, and proposes theoretical answers. But Atheists dismiss them as "gap fillers" or "empty set", because they have an outdated understanding of Physics and Metaphysics.
Maybe I find the choice of 'G*D' as a name for it sub-optimal. Maybe I think it doesn't really answer the question. (Is there a question?) — jellyfish
As I began to develop my own personal Agnostic worldview, I tried to avoid any religious terminology. But eventually I realized that the Ultimate Source of ubiquitous Information is equivalent in most respects to the ancient concept of an abstract world-sustaining creator God (e.g. Brahman). When I used evasive terms in discussions, I had to provide long round-about definitions. So I gave-up and made-up a neologism that suggests a creator deity, but with a question mark. Since I have no direct evidence of this hypothetical Enformer, the asterisk in "G*D" means "to be determined". Pre-scientific thinkers were not idiots; they were just working with incomplete information about how the world works.
Interestingly, the modern understanding of Information/Energy is similar to the archaic notion of Spirit : invisible, intangible, causal agency. So I view Enformationism as a 21st century update of outdated philosophical theories of Materialism and Spiritualism. Information is the essence of both Matter and Mind. Unfortunately, few people have read my thesis, so they don't fully grasp what I mean by Enformation or by "G*D".
Yes, there are many questions that are answered by the G*D concept. But the new answers are not found in conventional Science or Religion. The Enformationism thesis asks those age-old queries, and proposes theoretical answers. But Atheists dismiss them as "gap fillers" or "empty set", because they have an outdated understanding of Physics and Metaphysics.
Re: Phil Forum : Philosophy of Religion
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/345111
Is the universe a person? Some mere parts of it are, such as humans. Can the whole of the universe be a person, or can only mere parts of it? Such a universal person, a god, would have nothing to experience or act upon but itself; can such an isolated being be a person at all? — Pfhorrest
I have asked those same questions about my hypothetical G*D. And my answer is No.
First, my G*D is not Theistic or Pantheistic, but PanEnDeistic. Defined as Eternal-Infinite, hence wholly transcendent (Ideality) and partly immanent (Reality). If G*D is ALL, Omni-existent, then any experiences or actions must be internal. Such a G*D is not a being, but BEING itself : the power to exist. And "person" is an anthropomorphic concept that could not apply to an abstract generality. Example : the United States is an abstract concept, a generalization, not a person. G*D can be personal, only in the sense that You are part of ALL.
Is the universe a person? Some mere parts of it are, such as humans. Can the whole of the universe be a person, or can only mere parts of it? Such a universal person, a god, would have nothing to experience or act upon but itself; can such an isolated being be a person at all? — Pfhorrest
I have asked those same questions about my hypothetical G*D. And my answer is No.
First, my G*D is not Theistic or Pantheistic, but PanEnDeistic. Defined as Eternal-Infinite, hence wholly transcendent (Ideality) and partly immanent (Reality). If G*D is ALL, Omni-existent, then any experiences or actions must be internal. Such a G*D is not a being, but BEING itself : the power to exist. And "person" is an anthropomorphic concept that could not apply to an abstract generality. Example : the United States is an abstract concept, a generalization, not a person. G*D can be personal, only in the sense that You are part of ALL.
Re: Phil Forum : Philosophy of Religion
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... f-religion
That said, since god as I have defined possesses all abilities that exist (or more), and since persons exist, then god must possess the ability of persons too. But as the perfect being, it is not limited to possessing the abilities of persons only. — Samuel Lacrampe
I agree. But, when god is labeled as "a perfect being", it's an Oxymoron. In our experience, no created or mortal beings are perfect. Because, given Life & Time, they have the potential for further development. That's why I try to avoid the confusion by labeling G*D as "BEING" : defined as the eternal-infinite power to exist. Since that includes all possibilities, it means that G*D has the potential for Personality. But only in the world of imperfect created beings is that opportunity actualized into reality. "Person" is a relative term, while "BEING" is an absolute concept.
That said, since god as I have defined possesses all abilities that exist (or more), and since persons exist, then god must possess the ability of persons too. But as the perfect being, it is not limited to possessing the abilities of persons only. — Samuel Lacrampe
I agree. But, when god is labeled as "a perfect being", it's an Oxymoron. In our experience, no created or mortal beings are perfect. Because, given Life & Time, they have the potential for further development. That's why I try to avoid the confusion by labeling G*D as "BEING" : defined as the eternal-infinite power to exist. Since that includes all possibilities, it means that G*D has the potential for Personality. But only in the world of imperfect created beings is that opportunity actualized into reality. "Person" is a relative term, while "BEING" is an absolute concept.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests