Okay, so our elephant is not so normal. I guess he had a birth defect and was only born with three legs, but these are the only legs he has to stand on!
(For new readers, We have often heard the comment "There is an elephant in the room". This is an idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed. It is based on the idea that an elephant in a small room would be impossible to overlook. The elephant in our room is a metaphor for "worldview". As discussed two blogs ago, many of the problems we have and will continue to encounter in this dialogue are due to the fact that we have two very different worldviews, mine metaphysical Christianity, his metaphysical naturalism.)
As I was saying, I find three basic components to a worldview, three foundational or fundamental concepts basic to every worldview, which the rest of ones worldview stands on, hence the three-legged elephant. These are metaphysics (the study of the ultimate nature of reality), epistemology (the study of the nature and limits of human knowledge), and ethics or morality (the study of right and wrong attitudes, judgements and actions). These three legs determine how we understand and interpret every human experience.
Therefore, I thought it was great for us to be discussing "non-theistic morality" since this is one of the legs of our elephant. The more we address the elephant in the roon the better chance we have of understanding one another and learning from each other.
You said, "It is a common mistake for a christian to assume that if someone doesn't believe in a god that they have no basis for being moral." I think that you are correct in saying this (that Christians assume this), but I am not sure that I make this exact assumption. I think that you are a very moral and upstanding man though you do not believe in God. What I would say is that any non-theistic thought system cannot account for morality. This does not mean that non-theists are not moral, but that there is ultimately no logical foundation for morality in non-theism. It is kind of like math. Unbelievers use math every day, just as they use morality, but the fact that they use math does not mean that they can account for the ability to use math or account for why math works. I am sure I have made this as clear as mud.
Anyway, that being said, I don't actually want you to respond to this, I just wanted you to know where I stood. I do, however, await your first installment of why you believe that non-theists have a basis for being moral. Knowing you it ought to be great!
Have a great day my friend.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
More on Religion
I think it would be great for our next discussion to revolve around the idea of a non-theistic basis for morality. Let's do it!
I do have a few other remarks tied to our previous discussion as well as some preliminary comments for our new, so here goes.
You said, "Creationism is religious in that it is dependent upon religion for its existence." I don't think that it is at all necessarily dependent upon religion. Creationism is simply a model of origins, just like evolution. In fact I like to call evolution "Naturalism's creation story". So creationism is not dependent on a "system of belief that has a form of worship as integral to it". It does appeal to the super-natural for the origin of the natural, but this does not seem to be religious in the sense that I have heard you use the term. Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious? The same is true, of course, of a Christian worldview. Though a super-natural God is integral to its belief it in no way demands a form of worship, though I would agree that the adherents of such a worldview will almost always become religious and worship God as an extension of it. But I again think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism.
You also said, “Think of it like this. A worldview is a systematic set of beliefs. Religion is a specific type of acting out of those beliefs. It is one possible way of putting a worldview into practice.” I agree with this statement almost completely. Though you and I might differ a little in "the specific type of acting out" I do believe it is a way of "putting a worlrdview into practice".
You said, "I have a strong preference of using this as an educational opportunity for both of us rather than a debate or a fight, so to speak, and it has worked as that most excellently so far, in my opinion. We have no requirement to come to agreement. It is fine, at least in my opinon, for us both to use this as an opportunity to educate the other and help them come to a greater understanding."
Amen to that (can I say Amen?). I agree. I have much enjoyed this so far and look forward to our continuing discussions.
To keep this post from getting too long I will end this one now and write another post for my preliminary comments on our new topic of "non-theistic morality".
I do have a few other remarks tied to our previous discussion as well as some preliminary comments for our new, so here goes.
You said, "Creationism is religious in that it is dependent upon religion for its existence." I don't think that it is at all necessarily dependent upon religion. Creationism is simply a model of origins, just like evolution. In fact I like to call evolution "Naturalism's creation story". So creationism is not dependent on a "system of belief that has a form of worship as integral to it". It does appeal to the super-natural for the origin of the natural, but this does not seem to be religious in the sense that I have heard you use the term. Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious? The same is true, of course, of a Christian worldview. Though a super-natural God is integral to its belief it in no way demands a form of worship, though I would agree that the adherents of such a worldview will almost always become religious and worship God as an extension of it. But I again think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism.
You also said, “Think of it like this. A worldview is a systematic set of beliefs. Religion is a specific type of acting out of those beliefs. It is one possible way of putting a worldview into practice.” I agree with this statement almost completely. Though you and I might differ a little in "the specific type of acting out" I do believe it is a way of "putting a worlrdview into practice".
You said, "I have a strong preference of using this as an educational opportunity for both of us rather than a debate or a fight, so to speak, and it has worked as that most excellently so far, in my opinion. We have no requirement to come to agreement. It is fine, at least in my opinon, for us both to use this as an opportunity to educate the other and help them come to a greater understanding."
Amen to that (can I say Amen?). I agree. I have much enjoyed this so far and look forward to our continuing discussions.
To keep this post from getting too long I will end this one now and write another post for my preliminary comments on our new topic of "non-theistic morality".
Monday, July 28, 2008
On the Elephant and how to proceed.
You said:
Thinking about it some, I'm not sure you can draw all that precise a line sometimes. From my perspective, this is more or less just me 'supposing' than anything real. If I start trying to draw precise lines around definitions here, I start running into problems. How do you measure religion? How do you measure worship? How do you compare it against something else to see how it is like that something or different? How do you figure out what is worship vs. not worship? or Religion vs. not religion?
My vague, general notion is that Creationism is religious in that it is dependent on religion for its existence, but it is not in and of itself religion. Scientologists and Muslims and Christians are all creationists(at least I think so) but the religions tied to their disparate creation stories are different. I would say, generally, that creationism is an attribute of some religions, but it is not in and of itself religion. A christian worldview is similar. I don't think of it as religion, but I do think of it as religious in nature. I'd think that there are really high odds that a person that held a christian worldview was in fact a practioner of the christian religion.
Think of it like this. A worldview is a systematic set of beliefs. Religion is a specific type of acting out of those beliefs. It is one possible way of putting a worldview into practice. Does that make sense?
On whether or not we should continue? I think it could potentially be valuable. I suspect that we easily misunderstand each other sometimes. I use words in unfamiliar ways and mean different things than you do sometimes. And I'm not just talking about definitions. I'm also talking about underlying assumptions. For example, if you hear the term Secular Humanism, I'll bet you have a really different set of underlying assumptions about it than I do. Same with the word Atheism. There are other ready areas of misunderstanding. For example, it is a common mistake for a christian to assume that if someone doesn't believe in a god that they have no basis for being moral. From my perspective that couldn't be further from the truth. If we can do it in a non-confrontational way, it might be worthwhile to explore a non-theistic basis for morality, as another example of the type of topic I'm interesed in pursuing.
And that is just barely scratching the surface of possible topics that could enrich us both. I have a strong preference of using this as an educational opportunity for both of us rather than a debate or a fight, so to speak, and it has worked as that most excellently so far, in my opinion. We have no requirement to come to agreement. It is fine, at least in my opinon, for us both to use this as an opportunity to educate the other and help them come to a greater understanding.
Do well, friend.
That being said, I think this discussion will continue to be profitable in the fact that we can attempt to keep one another consistent in his own worldview and definitions. Plus, I am very interested in finding out a further explanation of your belief. I am interested because of your statement, “So acts that are distinct in having the intent of serving some kinda god are worship, and as such are part of religion.” Are you saying that you would not include Creationism or a Christian worldview as being religion then? The fact that I would see mathematics as a creation of God, governed by God and given meaning and purpose by God would not then be a religious view because it is not inclusive of religious devotion at these points. These are beliefs about existence and reality that are not necessarily inclusive of worship. One can hold them without worshipping the God who he believes does all of this. So is that then not religious? I would’ve thought you would include these things, but now I’m not sure so I’m just looking for further clarification.I confess that I haven't thought about the distinction between religion and worship all that precisely, so that may explain some of the fuzziness of my answer.
Thinking about it some, I'm not sure you can draw all that precise a line sometimes. From my perspective, this is more or less just me 'supposing' than anything real. If I start trying to draw precise lines around definitions here, I start running into problems. How do you measure religion? How do you measure worship? How do you compare it against something else to see how it is like that something or different? How do you figure out what is worship vs. not worship? or Religion vs. not religion?
My vague, general notion is that Creationism is religious in that it is dependent on religion for its existence, but it is not in and of itself religion. Scientologists and Muslims and Christians are all creationists(at least I think so) but the religions tied to their disparate creation stories are different. I would say, generally, that creationism is an attribute of some religions, but it is not in and of itself religion. A christian worldview is similar. I don't think of it as religion, but I do think of it as religious in nature. I'd think that there are really high odds that a person that held a christian worldview was in fact a practioner of the christian religion.
Think of it like this. A worldview is a systematic set of beliefs. Religion is a specific type of acting out of those beliefs. It is one possible way of putting a worldview into practice. Does that make sense?
On whether or not we should continue? I think it could potentially be valuable. I suspect that we easily misunderstand each other sometimes. I use words in unfamiliar ways and mean different things than you do sometimes. And I'm not just talking about definitions. I'm also talking about underlying assumptions. For example, if you hear the term Secular Humanism, I'll bet you have a really different set of underlying assumptions about it than I do. Same with the word Atheism. There are other ready areas of misunderstanding. For example, it is a common mistake for a christian to assume that if someone doesn't believe in a god that they have no basis for being moral. From my perspective that couldn't be further from the truth. If we can do it in a non-confrontational way, it might be worthwhile to explore a non-theistic basis for morality, as another example of the type of topic I'm interesed in pursuing.
And that is just barely scratching the surface of possible topics that could enrich us both. I have a strong preference of using this as an educational opportunity for both of us rather than a debate or a fight, so to speak, and it has worked as that most excellently so far, in my opinion. We have no requirement to come to agreement. It is fine, at least in my opinon, for us both to use this as an opportunity to educate the other and help them come to a greater understanding.
Do well, friend.
There is a Metaphysical Elephant in the Room!
Okay, so sometimes I’m a little slower than at others. All the signs were there. I should’ve seen it earlier but just didn’t catch it until now. There is a giant metaphysical elephant in the room that is keeping us from seeing eye-to-eye.
I know, I was dull, but the reasons for our differences finally became apparent to me. It is because we have two completely different metaphysical worldviews that are determining our ideas about religion and worship. Yours comes from metaphysical naturalism, mine from metaphysical Christianity. This became obvious as I read your statements, “That can apply to things that are totally secular and not at all religious” and “When I eat breakfast in the morning, I’m not doing it to worship a non-existent god of secular humanism; I’m doing it because I’m hungry”. Both of these statements are worldview concepts that differ fundamentally from mine. I believe, “Whatever is not of faith is sin” and “Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” We probably couldn’t be more distinct in these basic ideas.
Now it is obvious to us that that is no self-evident invariant neutral definitions of “religion” and “worship” but that their definitions are subject to an individual’s worldview, just as the interpretation of every fact of nature (creation) is subject to the interpreter’s worldview. So it only makes sense, since you are a naturalist, that you be consistent with your naturalist metaphysic and make distinctions between secular actions and religious actions. It makes just as much sense that I, being a Christian, remain consistent with my Christian worldview and hold that there are no activities that lay beyond the scope of one’s duty unto God (therefore all actions are ultimately religiously motivated).
The problem arose when we were asking one another to become inconsistent with his metaphysical beliefs by defining religion in a way that is incompatible with that worldview. All of this is to say that it appears as if we need to take a step back and discuss one another’s basic metaphysical views prior to coming to definitions about such things as “religion” and “worship”.
That being said, I think this discussion will continue to be profitable in the fact that we can attempt to keep one another consistent in his own worldview and definitions. Plus, I am very interested in finding out a further explanation of your belief. I am interested because of your statement, “So acts that are distinct in having the intent of serving some kinda god are worship, and as such are part of religion.” Are you saying that you would not include Creationism or a Christian worldview as being religion then? The fact that I would see mathematics as a creation of God, governed by God and given meaning and purpose by God would not then be a religious view because it is not inclusive of religious devotion at these points. These are beliefs about existence and reality that are not necessarily inclusive of worship. One can hold them without worshipping the God who he believes does all of this. So is that then not religious? I would’ve thought you would include these things, but now I’m not sure so I’m just looking for further clarification.
Anyway, I have waxed on for far too long. I look forward to hearing from you and hearing if you think its worthy to “digress” into our metaphysical axioms.
Be well and happy my friend!
I know, I was dull, but the reasons for our differences finally became apparent to me. It is because we have two completely different metaphysical worldviews that are determining our ideas about religion and worship. Yours comes from metaphysical naturalism, mine from metaphysical Christianity. This became obvious as I read your statements, “That can apply to things that are totally secular and not at all religious” and “When I eat breakfast in the morning, I’m not doing it to worship a non-existent god of secular humanism; I’m doing it because I’m hungry”. Both of these statements are worldview concepts that differ fundamentally from mine. I believe, “Whatever is not of faith is sin” and “Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” We probably couldn’t be more distinct in these basic ideas.
Now it is obvious to us that that is no self-evident invariant neutral definitions of “religion” and “worship” but that their definitions are subject to an individual’s worldview, just as the interpretation of every fact of nature (creation) is subject to the interpreter’s worldview. So it only makes sense, since you are a naturalist, that you be consistent with your naturalist metaphysic and make distinctions between secular actions and religious actions. It makes just as much sense that I, being a Christian, remain consistent with my Christian worldview and hold that there are no activities that lay beyond the scope of one’s duty unto God (therefore all actions are ultimately religiously motivated).
The problem arose when we were asking one another to become inconsistent with his metaphysical beliefs by defining religion in a way that is incompatible with that worldview. All of this is to say that it appears as if we need to take a step back and discuss one another’s basic metaphysical views prior to coming to definitions about such things as “religion” and “worship”.
That being said, I think this discussion will continue to be profitable in the fact that we can attempt to keep one another consistent in his own worldview and definitions. Plus, I am very interested in finding out a further explanation of your belief. I am interested because of your statement, “So acts that are distinct in having the intent of serving some kinda god are worship, and as such are part of religion.” Are you saying that you would not include Creationism or a Christian worldview as being religion then? The fact that I would see mathematics as a creation of God, governed by God and given meaning and purpose by God would not then be a religious view because it is not inclusive of religious devotion at these points. These are beliefs about existence and reality that are not necessarily inclusive of worship. One can hold them without worshipping the God who he believes does all of this. So is that then not religious? I would’ve thought you would include these things, but now I’m not sure so I’m just looking for further clarification.
Anyway, I have waxed on for far too long. I look forward to hearing from you and hearing if you think its worthy to “digress” into our metaphysical axioms.
Be well and happy my friend!
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Religion: my response to pt4
Sorry about taking so long to respond. Life gets in the way of things like this that you do sometimes.
You don't seem to like my use of the word worship, so I need another word for it that means the same thing I was trying to convey. When you put your shoes on in the morning, that is not worship like I was using it. Nor is driving to work, nor is mowing the lawn, nor is changing the oil in my car. But praying to a god is, and so is singing songs of praise, and so is going to church services, and so is any activity whose primary or exclusive intended function is in service of a god. Now, you may argue that when I do all those tasks that they are worship whether I realize it or not, but I hope you can agree that their primary or exclusive intended function when I do them is most definitely not worship. When I eat breakfast in the morning, I'm not doing it to worship a non-existent god of secular humanism; I'm doing it because I'm hungry! And so on. So acts that are distinct in having the intent of serving some kinda god are worship, and as such are part of a religion. I of course want to emphasize that I'm not trying to impose this definition on you; I'm just trying to explain the way I see things.
Alright, so I think we should attempt another definition exempting the words “worship” and “presupposition”. Here is my next shot:Not specific enough. Sorry. That can apply to things that are totally secular and not at all religious. I know computer programmers that are totally commited to the Object-Oriented model of computer programming, and refuse to do any other type of programming. For them it really is "a set of beliefs regarding the nature of reality that both informs and influences their life experiences".
Religion is “a commitment to a set of beliefs concerning the nature of reality that both informs and influences one's life experiences.”
You don't seem to like my use of the word worship, so I need another word for it that means the same thing I was trying to convey. When you put your shoes on in the morning, that is not worship like I was using it. Nor is driving to work, nor is mowing the lawn, nor is changing the oil in my car. But praying to a god is, and so is singing songs of praise, and so is going to church services, and so is any activity whose primary or exclusive intended function is in service of a god. Now, you may argue that when I do all those tasks that they are worship whether I realize it or not, but I hope you can agree that their primary or exclusive intended function when I do them is most definitely not worship. When I eat breakfast in the morning, I'm not doing it to worship a non-existent god of secular humanism; I'm doing it because I'm hungry! And so on. So acts that are distinct in having the intent of serving some kinda god are worship, and as such are part of a religion. I of course want to emphasize that I'm not trying to impose this definition on you; I'm just trying to explain the way I see things.
So we can agree to “a set of beliefs” I think, now we approach what those set of beliefs is about. I think that we might be able to agree that the set of beliefs is about “the nature of reality”. Whether Christian, naturalist, atheist, or Buddhist, our beliefs are about what we think exists and runs throughout reality, including its origin and meaning.Kinda. Probably not specific enough, but probably good enough for starters :)
The third phrase is still tentative to me. The wording is still awkward. What I am trying to say is that those beliefs (about reality) then manifest themselves through how we live our lives. Much of what we do is a result of these beliefs. And so for each belief system, their lifestyles “live out” what their beliefs are. These “manifestations” of belief are obviously very diverse, according to the belief system, and yet one thing is consistent, and that is that each is a result of what they believe.That kinda works. I think of a belief as a mental model of our past experiences. We use them to inform our decisions abut future actions. Past experiences are funny things though. They fade with time, and our mental models of them may be more or less accurate, depending on the circumstances. And the experience may be a lesson in a classroom, or a sermon in a church, that may or may not relate to reality. So our mental model of that past experience(our belief) may in fact have a totally false basis, and we may still hold it near and dear!! Sometimes we as humans, unfortunately, have to deal with the traumatic experience of having events happen in our lives that throw those beliefs into doubt, and force us to re-evaluate them, and sometimes even repair or re-construct those mental models so that they really do map better to reality. Traumatic and hard, but sometimes necessary.
So what think ye?I think it's an intriguing discussion so far, and I appreciate the invitation to join in on it. I like the format I think.
P.S. I will post later my responses to your previous blog, but we are preparing for company so time does not permit. They were great comments and are deserving of response. And though it might eventually become irrelevant to our topic at hand they are all subjects that we will certainly hit upon later, so they are worthy of further discussion.We might want to consider posting our responses in the responses section of the blog. Especially since it seems to be just the two of us for now. As side topics spin off, it might be easier to keep track of what we are doing by using the comment sections for our own benefit.
Have a great one!You too, man. And don't feel like you have to respond fast. I really put a lot into this post, and it may take time to digest and respond, and that is fine. No need for us to rush this :)
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Religion pt4
Q: What do you call it when a pirate publishes his thoughts on the internet?
A: A "blarg"
Hehehe, sorry, couldn't resist. I guess the real question is, "Is his blarging an act of worship???" Hey, its your word, not mine!!!! I just thought we should have a little fun with it!
Alright, so I think we should attempt another definition exempting the words “worship” and “presupposition”. Here is my next shot:
Religion is “a commitment to a set of beliefs concerning the nature of reality that both informs and influences one's life experiences.”
So we can agree to “a set of beliefs” I think, now we approach what those set of beliefs is about. I think that we might be able to agree that the set of beliefs is about “the nature of reality”. Whether Christian, naturalist, atheist, or Buddhist, our beliefs are about what we think exists and runs throughout reality, including its origin and meaning.
The third phrase is still tentative to me. The wording is still awkward. What I am trying to say is that those beliefs (about reality) then manifest themselves through how we live our lives. Much of what we do is a result of these beliefs. And so for each belief system, their lifestyles “live out” what their beliefs are. These “manifestations” of belief are obviously very diverse, according to the belief system, and yet one thing is consistent, and that is that each is a result of what they believe.
So what think ye?
P.S. I will post later my responses to your previous blog, but we are preparing for company so time does not permit. They were great comments and are deserving of response. And though it might eventually become irrelevant to our topic at hand they are all subjects that we will certainly hit upon later, so they are worthy of further discussion.
Have a great one!
A: A "blarg"
Hehehe, sorry, couldn't resist. I guess the real question is, "Is his blarging an act of worship???" Hey, its your word, not mine!!!! I just thought we should have a little fun with it!
Alright, so I think we should attempt another definition exempting the words “worship” and “presupposition”. Here is my next shot:
Religion is “a commitment to a set of beliefs concerning the nature of reality that both informs and influences one's life experiences.”
So we can agree to “a set of beliefs” I think, now we approach what those set of beliefs is about. I think that we might be able to agree that the set of beliefs is about “the nature of reality”. Whether Christian, naturalist, atheist, or Buddhist, our beliefs are about what we think exists and runs throughout reality, including its origin and meaning.
The third phrase is still tentative to me. The wording is still awkward. What I am trying to say is that those beliefs (about reality) then manifest themselves through how we live our lives. Much of what we do is a result of these beliefs. And so for each belief system, their lifestyles “live out” what their beliefs are. These “manifestations” of belief are obviously very diverse, according to the belief system, and yet one thing is consistent, and that is that each is a result of what they believe.
So what think ye?
P.S. I will post later my responses to your previous blog, but we are preparing for company so time does not permit. They were great comments and are deserving of response. And though it might eventually become irrelevant to our topic at hand they are all subjects that we will certainly hit upon later, so they are worthy of further discussion.
Have a great one!
Monday, July 21, 2008
Religion: my response to pt3
So far it's certainly an interesting discussion.
I don't know that I'd define worldview in quite the same way as you do. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by “network of presuppositions”. Why not just call it a network of beliefs? What additional connotations or denotations does presupposition carry with it that makes it a preferred term over the simpler word “belief”? Not verified or verifiable? I don't think that is applicable either. Lots of things are verified or verifiable to a greater or lesser degree. I believe that I'm sitting in front of my computer monitor. That is verified by my experience of sitting in front of my computer monitor. Do I know it with 100% certainty? Of course not. But I have a sufficient level of certainty to continue in my current course of action, and that is good enough. It is verified and verifiable by being a repeatable experience that is consistent with similar past experiences.
I may have been mistaken in using the word metaphysical, or at least misleading. Metaphysics is “the philosophical study of being and knowing”. I used the word in the context of Metaphysical Naturalism, by which I mean any worldview or philosophical system that maintains that Nature is all there is, that all we can be or know is contained in nature. Is this different that how you were understanding it?
Yes, I'm at variance with your statement that every moment of every day every human being is worshipping something. Or rather, if that is the definition of worship I see it as a meaningless word. If there is nothing that is not worship, how is that really any different that saying that there is no such thing as worship? One person calls all human activity “worship”, and another calls all human activity “blarg”. Who is to say that either one is wrong. The word is meaningless unless you have something to compare it to, something to say that it is different than.
I would disagree that every naturalist has an object of highest allegiance in their life. I consider myself a naturalist. I don't worship my intellect; I know it is weak and fails me sometimes. I don't worship nature. It simply exists. There is no allegiance per se. There is simple acknowledgement. Acknowledgment is not worship.
I agree that we vary on what we mean by worship, but I think we vary a little more than that, hehe.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Religion pt3
Thanks for your great response. I must admit that I was somewhat surprised at your definition of "religion". I guess I was expecting something a little different, but I am not sure what.
I think your definition is well thought out and very clearly explained in what you said. As you anticipated I do have a different idea for the definition at a few points as I will try to make clear. One thing is certain, the definition you began with is a good building point.
I certainly agree with your first phrase that religion is "a subset of worldviews". Now I take the term worldview to mean "a network of presuppositions which are not verified (or verifiable) by the procedures of natural science regarding reality, knowing, and conduct in terms of which all human experience is related and interpreted." In other words, worldviews are our preexisting beliefs by which we understand and interpret reality. In your original post I believe you used the term "metaphysical", which leads me to believe that you would agree with me on this definition of a worldview.
Now I think where we might begin to differ, though only slightly (or possibly more than that) is the latter part of your definiton where you say it is a subset of worldviews "that involve some sort of worship as being integral to its structure." Now, let me first say that I would also completely agree with this given my definition of "worship", but I know that this is where we differ. Let me explain.
I firmly believe that "all of life is worship". That means that every moment of every day I am worshipping something, and that every other human being is also doing the same. Worship is the acting out or the manifestation of my beliefs. Whatever my highest allegiance is to at any given moment, that is what I am worshipping at that moment.
So let me put this into the context of the illustrations that you used. I would agree that Christianity, Communism and Animism all all forms of religion because they include worship. Each of these worldviews establish something as the object of highest allegiance. For Christianity it is Christ. For animinsm it is many different objects, for Communism it was the state. But I would also include philisophical naturalism because every naturalist still has an object of highest allegiance in their life. It might be nature, it might be their own intellect, it might be themselves or something else, but they still have that allegiance which compels them to act as they do. This allegiance and action is worship.
The actions might manifest themselves differently. For Christians it includes (but is by no means limited to) bowing, praying and singing, the same for animists, and, as you mentioned, in some part for Communists. But this is only very small parts of the time in each of these peoples lives. Communists act out their belief in their lifestyle too. In their learning and teaching, in their relationships, in their thinking and every other activity. And so do Christians and animists. And so do philisophical naturalists. Though a part of their worship does not include activities such as prayer and singing, they live out their lives according to that which is most important to them. This is worship too, only manifesting itself in different forms like all of the others manifest themselves in different forms. My point is that it is all still action motivated by ones greatest allegiance.
So back to your original definition, I could use the same wording as you used without much problem, but I think where we vary is in the idea of worship. Perhaps I would change the wording a little to say "a subset of worldviews which determines ones actions".
Now it is I that have rambled on for too long.
I am sure this will not be our consensus definition, but hopefully it will help us work a little closer to it.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
I think your definition is well thought out and very clearly explained in what you said. As you anticipated I do have a different idea for the definition at a few points as I will try to make clear. One thing is certain, the definition you began with is a good building point.
I certainly agree with your first phrase that religion is "a subset of worldviews". Now I take the term worldview to mean "a network of presuppositions which are not verified (or verifiable) by the procedures of natural science regarding reality, knowing, and conduct in terms of which all human experience is related and interpreted." In other words, worldviews are our preexisting beliefs by which we understand and interpret reality. In your original post I believe you used the term "metaphysical", which leads me to believe that you would agree with me on this definition of a worldview.
Now I think where we might begin to differ, though only slightly (or possibly more than that) is the latter part of your definiton where you say it is a subset of worldviews "that involve some sort of worship as being integral to its structure." Now, let me first say that I would also completely agree with this given my definition of "worship", but I know that this is where we differ. Let me explain.
I firmly believe that "all of life is worship". That means that every moment of every day I am worshipping something, and that every other human being is also doing the same. Worship is the acting out or the manifestation of my beliefs. Whatever my highest allegiance is to at any given moment, that is what I am worshipping at that moment.
So let me put this into the context of the illustrations that you used. I would agree that Christianity, Communism and Animism all all forms of religion because they include worship. Each of these worldviews establish something as the object of highest allegiance. For Christianity it is Christ. For animinsm it is many different objects, for Communism it was the state. But I would also include philisophical naturalism because every naturalist still has an object of highest allegiance in their life. It might be nature, it might be their own intellect, it might be themselves or something else, but they still have that allegiance which compels them to act as they do. This allegiance and action is worship.
The actions might manifest themselves differently. For Christians it includes (but is by no means limited to) bowing, praying and singing, the same for animists, and, as you mentioned, in some part for Communists. But this is only very small parts of the time in each of these peoples lives. Communists act out their belief in their lifestyle too. In their learning and teaching, in their relationships, in their thinking and every other activity. And so do Christians and animists. And so do philisophical naturalists. Though a part of their worship does not include activities such as prayer and singing, they live out their lives according to that which is most important to them. This is worship too, only manifesting itself in different forms like all of the others manifest themselves in different forms. My point is that it is all still action motivated by ones greatest allegiance.
So back to your original definition, I could use the same wording as you used without much problem, but I think where we vary is in the idea of worship. Perhaps I would change the wording a little to say "a subset of worldviews which determines ones actions".
Now it is I that have rambled on for too long.
I am sure this will not be our consensus definition, but hopefully it will help us work a little closer to it.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Religion pt2
Yes, I agree that it's worthwhile to establish some preliminary definitions. A good definition, from a philosophical perspective at least properly classifies something. In other words, it says what it's genus and species is! What do the things that are like it have in common with it? In what ways do things that differ from it differ? How can you clearly distinguish what group it is a part of, and what is a part of it's group is a good way to look at it. Until the need arises I'm going to more or less go for working definitions instead of precise definitions. Attempting precise definitions when we have such radically different views on things might end up being a venture in semantic argument more than a discussion of anything meaningful.
How would I define religion? Here is my first stab, but it might need revising as we talk and think things through. Religion is the subset of worldviews that involves some form of worship as being integral to it's structure.
It doesn't require that the thing being worshipped actually exist, mind you. It simply requires supplicants and a posited object of worship. It is sufficient for the religion to exist for the object of worship to simply be 'believed in'. The participants in the religion don't even need to have any specific knowledge of the item that they are worshipping.
To clearly elucidate what I mean in the context of making a good definition, like i discussed in the opening paragraph, a religion is a specific type of worldview/belief structure. There are, in other words, worldviews/belief structures that aren't religions at all, and there are subtypes of religions that all share common traits that make them all religions. I would posit that philosophical(metaphysical) naturalism is an example of a worldview that is not at all a type of religion. There is no worship of anything involved; it is clearly and inherently distinct from being a religion by virtue of that. Animism is an example of a type of religion that worships nature, or aspects of nature. Metaphysical Naturalism invokes or asks no worship of anyone; at a very base level it merely acknowledges nature as being all there is. Communism, under the guise of this definition, at least how it was practiced in the Stalinist era of the old Soviet Union, was clearly a religion. The state was worshiped. They even had workers meetings in which they sang songs of praise to the state. Christianity is another example, and the christian object of worship is Jesus Christ.
Sorry about rambling on so long, but I kinda wanted to cover several things. I'm sure you want to talk about some of what I said there, but you'd probably also like to submit your own definition of the word religion. I somehow have a sneaking suspicion that it will be vastly different than mine. It'll be interesting to see if we can come to a definition that we both can agree upon.
How would I define religion? Here is my first stab, but it might need revising as we talk and think things through. Religion is the subset of worldviews that involves some form of worship as being integral to it's structure.
It doesn't require that the thing being worshipped actually exist, mind you. It simply requires supplicants and a posited object of worship. It is sufficient for the religion to exist for the object of worship to simply be 'believed in'. The participants in the religion don't even need to have any specific knowledge of the item that they are worshipping.
To clearly elucidate what I mean in the context of making a good definition, like i discussed in the opening paragraph, a religion is a specific type of worldview/belief structure. There are, in other words, worldviews/belief structures that aren't religions at all, and there are subtypes of religions that all share common traits that make them all religions. I would posit that philosophical(metaphysical) naturalism is an example of a worldview that is not at all a type of religion. There is no worship of anything involved; it is clearly and inherently distinct from being a religion by virtue of that. Animism is an example of a type of religion that worships nature, or aspects of nature. Metaphysical Naturalism invokes or asks no worship of anyone; at a very base level it merely acknowledges nature as being all there is. Communism, under the guise of this definition, at least how it was practiced in the Stalinist era of the old Soviet Union, was clearly a religion. The state was worshiped. They even had workers meetings in which they sang songs of praise to the state. Christianity is another example, and the christian object of worship is Jesus Christ.
Sorry about rambling on so long, but I kinda wanted to cover several things. I'm sure you want to talk about some of what I said there, but you'd probably also like to submit your own definition of the word religion. I somehow have a sneaking suspicion that it will be vastly different than mine. It'll be interesting to see if we can come to a definition that we both can agree upon.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Religion
During our many discussions you and I have both used the term "religion". Accoding to Marx it is the "Opiate of the Masses". According to Bierce religion is "A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." I recently watched the movie Expelled where many scientists also used the word "religion" as opposed to "science". So what exactly are we meaning by the word "Religion", so that we can come to a consensus on some defintions before going much further. So how would you define the term "Religion"?
Hey! Thanks for the invitation! I'm looking forwart to the back-and-forth discussion that we can have here. Always interesting to chat in real life, but it's really nice to have the time to think thru the finer points of a discussion. Sometimes you pick up things that you'd miss otherwise.
Looking forward to this, my friend.
Looking forward to this, my friend.
In the Beginning...
Okay, so I couldn't help the title! Evert and I have been good friends for many years and throughout those years have found much fun in our multitude of discussions. The other day we were once again having one of our great talks on morality when the thought popped into my head that we should publish these conversations on a blog site. This way we can articulate our ideas more clearly as well as have a braoder forum for dialogue. Also, we figured if anyone wanted to spy in on our conversations that it might be fun for them also. So here we are, at the beginning of what will hopefully be many great discussions to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
