The purpose of Religion.

[superluminal]

Superluminal,

You didn't understand what I meant. Scientific thought cannot provide a context for the self from a personal standpoint, i.e. subjectively and from the view of the person having the experience. Science requires that one remove oneself from their own personal experiences in order that he or she can observe the phenomenon objectively, so no, science cannot provide a personal set of reference points with which to relate to everything else.

What I am saying is that, if you take myths and ritual practices metaphorically then such ideas make perfect sense in relation to the real world. Most people are incapable of using religion the way it should be used because they take those myths literally rather than figuratively. It's like saying that a song that contains a lot of imagery and metaphor is speaking of these things as if they are real, but of course they are not. Those metaphors and that imagery are there to give you a subtle understanding of the point that the poet or musician is trying to make. Religion is the same.

I almost agree with you. First though, "Religion is the same" is wishful thinking. Most people take it literally and are not high-order philosophists (my own new word!), but I understand what you are saying. I also think that your categorization of science may be a bit naive.

Many scientists have a "context for the self from a personal standpoint". Remember, the experience of science to the science-minded is still completely subjective. I have no religion yet have a highly developed subjective emotional response to the cosmos as illuminated by science.

The method of science must be as impersonally objective as possible, but the findings of science (the most important part of course) can make one soar emotionally and intellectually and provide the most satisfying context for the self that I can imagine. I find religion as a basis for these things to be a shallow attempt, ultimately doomed to failure due to a total lack of a reference to reality. See?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I understand what you are saying, but my characterization of science is not naive. I was making a point about the method of science. What you just described to me as your own, personal, subjective experience is exactly what a religious experience sounds like, and so I take it that the process of discovering external, objective truths has become somewhat of a religion to you, albeit in a totally different context. The effect is the same.

It seems to me that you think "religion", in the broadest context, is the set of rituals and myths contained within it. What I am saying is that religion is the experience that these things invoke, because they are tools designed to induce such feeling. I might accept that you believe these tools have become outmoded and are no longer necessary, but to say that they are silly or that only stupid people use them bugs the hell out of me. I do not believe that they are outmoded, that they work perfectly when understood.

 

[superluminal]

I understand what you are saying, but my characterization of science is not naive. I was making a point about the method of science. What you just described to me as your own, personal, subjective experience is exactly what a religious experience sounds like, and so I take it that the process of discovering external, objective truths has become somewhat of a religion to you, albeit in a totally different context. The effect is the same.

It seems to me that you think "religion", in the broadest context, is the set of rituals and myths contained within it. What I am saying is that religion is the experience that these things invoke, because they are tools designed to induce such feeling. I might accept that you believe these tools have become outmoded and are no longer necessary, but to say that they are silly or that only stupid people use them bugs the hell out of me. I do not believe that they are outmoded, that they work perfectly when understood.

If that were their only "purpose" and their only "effect" I would agree. However, as I've been trying to get across, religion is NOT a subjective thing in reality. It overflows into objective existence and fucks things up. Taken purely as a means to generate a self-referential mental "high" they may work fine for many people.

Again, if people only used religion as you describe then no one would have any issues. That's not generally what discussions hereabouts involve.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

That's fine. I agree with you. People use religion the wrong way in many cases because it is convenient to do so, not because religion itself is flawed or stupid. I think you're just raw about the specific ways in which religion has been used, and it's spilling over into the philosophical discussion about the nature of religion.