Defining religion

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Oli's post 159 in the Swinging: Right or wrong? thread in the Ethics, Morality and Justice forum.

Alright, I had tried to avoid bringing this thread over here as I admit I've been leery of entering in this forum, but I feel that I have to, as the off topicness of the thread where it's in has gone on too long. So here we go...

But spirituality may also be about the development of the individual's inner life through specific practices.[/indent]Clearly, I'm going for the last bolded sentence there. And if specific practices are introspection, reading, conversing online or playing World of Warcraft, hey, they're specific practices, aren't they ?

They're specific practices.
Do they have any concern with "development of the individual's inner life" or are they merely diversions?

I contend that they contribute to the development of this individual's inner life. Opinions on the matter may vary .

And seriously, why does it have to be just -one- spiritual teacher? Why can't we have several? I'm sure that many would find musicians or actors to be people they believe have taught them something quite important.

Spiritually or musically/ thespian-wise?

I guess. I also think that influences such as one's parents, friends, lovers and children can certainly shape the path of one's life.

I don't know, that science has discovered some interesting things, say. Or that the sun will rise tomorrow.

If science has discovered something new then belief isn't required, any more than belief in my chair required.

I've heard scientists say that a type of bubble, moving near (or at?) the speed of light, could destroy this part (or any part) of space before we even knew what hit us. I don't know the likelihood of such an event, however. So perhaps the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is, in a way, a belief after all. There are many things that we believe, or have theories for. This doesn't mean that all beliefs are correct, only that many people believe them.

And as for the sun rising tomorrow, I don't believe it, I assume it.

Whether you believe it or assume it, your belief/assumption may be erroneous.

Look, maybe you don't deal with people who feel that they're religious in some sense. I sometimes do however, and I'd like to be able to define it in such a way that, when in their company, I can nod and say that I, too, consider myself to be religious, and perhaps tell them how I define religion to some extent. And when I'm with people who abhor the term, I can say that I, too, am not religious. You just have to know your audience.

Um, duplicity?
In the company of religious people I inform them I do not and cannot share their belief.

I don't think it's duplicity. I simply think it's using language that people are comfortable with. You must remember how I define religion when saying that I have one as well. And like I said, I would only claim to have one in the company of people who believe themselves to be religious -and- that I get along with; if I didn't, I think that I would simply say that I'm not religious and be done with it.

That you were born from a woman?

It's a working hypothesis.
It fits observed phenomena.
Belief is not required.

You mean most people would call it a fact instead of a belief. In this particular case, I would agree that it is a fact. There are other beliefs that only masquerade as facts, however. What happened on 9/11, for instance.

I'm an engineer: I don't need belief.
If it works it works, if it doesn't I junk it and find something that does.

When it comes to religion and people who claim to be religious, I find that there are times when it's good to define religion in certain ways. I'm sure there are some things you believe in, with varying levels of belief, such as what will happen in the future; a working hypotheses if you will. I like to use the term 'believe' for a range of things, but generally for things I hold to be true to a lesser or greater degree and that may not be believed by all of the audience I'm speaking with.

 

[Oli]

I contend that they contribute to the development of this individual's inner life. Opinions on the matter may vary .

Hmm, okay what's an "inner life"?

I guess. I also think that influences such as one's parents, friends, lovers and children can certainly shape the path of one's life.

You guess?
It was an either/ or question.
Does your music teacher contribute to your "inner life" or your musical skills?

I've heard scientists say that a type of bubble, moving near (or at?) the speed of light, could destroy this part (or any part) of space before we even knew what hit us. I don't know the likelihood of such an event, however. So perhaps the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is, in a way, a belief after all.

How does the possibility, or not, of a bubble moving C imply my assumption is a belief?

Whether you believe it or assume it, your belief/assumption may be erroneous

Hmm, remember a comment I made much earlier about human thinking/ speech.
The unvoiced addendum: subject to change?

I don't think it's duplicity. I simply think it's using language that people are comfortable with. You must remember how I define religion when saying that I have one as well. And like I said, I would only claim to have one in the company of people who believe themselves to be religious -and- that I get along with; if I didn't, I think that I would simply say that I'm not religious and be done with it.

Comme ci, comme ca...

You mean most people would call it a fact instead of a belief. In this particular case, I would agree that it is a fact. There are other beliefs that only masquerade as facts, however. What happened on 9/11, for instance.

11th of the 9th.
So don't believe: investigate.
Or ignore.

I'm sure there are some things you believe in, with varying levels of belief, such as what will happen in the future; a working hypotheses if you will.

You're sure.
I'm not.

I like to use the term 'believe' for a range of things, but generally for things I hold to be true to a lesser or greater degree and that may not be believed by all of the audience I'm speaking with.

If hold something to be true it's because I have overwhelming evidence to support it and little to none to contradict it.
Should my audience "believe" otherwise then that indicates they've either skipped part of their education (in the all-round sense) or are privy to brand massive doses of new information that I haven't accessed yet.

 

[scott3x]

I contend that they contribute to the development of this individual's inner life. Opinions on the matter may vary .

Hmm, okay what's an "inner life"?

I define it as things that affect my inner workings, such as my behaviour and attitudes. My core, if you will.

And seriously, why does it have to be just -one- spiritual teacher? Why can't we have several? I'm sure that many would find musicians or actors to be people they believe have taught them something quite important.

Spiritually or musically/ thespian-wise?

I guess. I also think that influences such as one's parents, friends, lovers and children can certainly shape the path of one's life.

You guess?
It was an either/ or question.

I can't answer it that way, because I'm not sure how you're defining 'thespian wise'. If you're saying that I worship certain musicians as Gods, then no, I don't. If you're asking if they have affected my inner workings or core, I would say that yes, they have.

Does your music teacher contribute to your "inner life" or your musical skills?

My music teachers weren't so impressive, but I can't say the same for many musicians I have heard.

I've heard scientists say that a type of bubble, moving near (or at?) the speed of light, could destroy this part (or any part) of space before we even knew what hit us. I don't know the likelihood of such an event, however. So perhaps the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is, in a way, a belief after all.

How does the possibility, or not, of a bubble moving C imply my assumption is a belief?

A belief is something that may be mistaken, right? That's what I meant.

Whether you believe it or assume it, your belief/assumption may be erroneous

Hmm, remember a comment I made much earlier about human thinking/ speech. The unvoiced addendum: subject to change?

Fine. I would argue that such feelings that are subject to change can be called beliefs. If you don't like the term, I suppose you can go for the longer 'working hypothesis', but surely you realize that not everyone wants to use more syllables when they can use less?

I don't think it's duplicity. I simply think it's using language that people are comfortable with. You must remember how I define religion when saying that I have one as well. And like I said, I would only claim to have one in the company of people who believe themselves to be religious -and- that I get along with; if I didn't, I think that I would simply say that I'm not religious and be done with it.

Comme ci, comme ca...

Translated from french, that means 'more or less' (more or less ). What are you trying to convey here?

You mean most people would call it a fact instead of a belief. In this particular case, I would agree that it is a fact. There are other beliefs that only masquerade as facts, however. What happened on 9/11, for instance.

11th of the 9th.
So don't believe: investigate.
Or ignore.

Some people blindly believe the official story; they would probably say that the official story is comprised of facts. Others investigate and are still unsure as to what happened and continue to find out more. Still others investigate and have come to have different beliefs as to what happened on that day then the mainstream view but are still investigating to find out more and to perhaps persuade others of their views/beliefs. Others don't care what the truth is (more or less your ignore). I think the movie Zeitgeist was exemplary in its showing how people are prone to believing all sorts of nonsense, concerning religion, 9/11 and their view that banks are benign creatures; although the part about benign creatures is fading in today's climate of bank bailouts at taxpayers' expense.

I'm sure there are some things you believe in, with varying levels of belief, such as what will happen in the future; a working hypotheses if you will.

You're sure.
I'm not.

Fine. Call them 'working hypothesis' if you dislike the term 'belief' so much.

I like to use the term 'believe' for a range of things, but generally for things I hold to be true to a lesser or greater degree and that may not be believed by all of the audience I'm speaking with.

If I hold something to be true it's because I have overwhelming evidence to support it and little to none to contradict it.
Should my audience "believe" otherwise then that indicates they've either skipped part of their education (in the all-round sense) or are privy to brand massive doses of new information that I haven't accessed yet.

Sounds good. I suppose I could say "I hold the proposition that 9/11 was an inside job to be true", but it's shorter to simply say "I believe 9/11 was an inside job".

 

[Oli]

I define it as things that affect my inner workings, such as my behaviour and attitudes. My core, if you will.

In other words: just being you.
Why add another term with a nebulous meaning?

I can't answer it that way, because I'm not sure how you're defining 'thespian wise'.

In the sense that an acting teacher teaches you acting skills...

If you're saying that I worship certain musicians as Gods, then no, I don't. If you're asking if they have affected my inner workings or core, I would say that yes, they have.

Gods?
No, you brought up music/ acting teachers as examples affecting "inner lives".
I contend that acting/ music teachers affect acting/ musical skills.
As opposed to "inner life".

A belief is something that may be mistaken, right? That's what I meant.

Nolo contendere, and beside the point.
The bubble (real or not) has no bearing on the sun (or my lack of belief that it will rise tomorrow)

Fine. I would argue that such feelings that are subject to change can be called beliefs. If you don't like the term, I suppose you can go for the longer 'working hypothesis', but surely you realize that not everyone wants to use more syllables when they can use less?

Everything is subject to change, neh?
We cannot state with certainty that things will always remain as they are.
A working hypothesis is not a belief - a belief holds something to be true regardless of evidence.
A working hypothesis says "it worked last time, I'll do X on the assumption that it will still work but if it doesn't I'll alter my approach"

Translated from french, that means 'more or less' (more or less ). What are you trying to convey here?

It's a colloquialism: "this way/ that way", maybe. You don't call your practice "duplicity", I see it that way. Tomahto/ tomayto? :shrug:

Some people blindly believe the official story

Alternatively: some people blindly believe it's a conspiracy.
What are the facts?
(That's rhetorical, by the way. I have no interest in "9/11", it was just a larger event than those the UK has been going through for decades and just happened to occur in a country that [apparently] enjoys its hysteria).

Fine. Call them 'working hypothesis' if you dislike the term 'belief' so much.

No, a working hypothesis is NOT a belief.

 

[SkinWalker]

More 9/11 nonsense disguised as a religion thread. There are plenty 9/11 threads to post in at the Pseudoscience subforum. This one is closed/flushed if anyone has questions/concerns, PM me.