| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"*Anarcissie*" |
| Date: |
30 May 2007 07:21:19 AM |
| Object: |
Re: After Religion |
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs. Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day.
.
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
30 May 2007 07:50:06 PM |
|
|
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs. Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
31 May 2007 08:52:26 AM |
|
|
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1180572606.216779.234460@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs. Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
And in certain contexts, the pernicious idea of favouring dimensions over
definitions manifests capacity for intense evil. Such as declaring certain
races and cultures subhumans when they do not meet the dimensional
specifications set by the more powerful races and cultures.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
31 May 2007 07:09:36 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs. Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions. I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Whitehead" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
31 May 2007 09:00:47 AM |
|
|
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180613376.626418.124050@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead"
<somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs. Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions. I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want.
In investigations - specifically defining what a "game" is - a problem
presented to him by an economist whose name slips me... and Derrida's ideas
of links - chains of meaning...???
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
31 May 2007 09:57:06 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:00 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180613376.626418.124050@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...> On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead"
<somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs. Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions. I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want.
In investigations - specifically defining what a "game" is - a problem
presented to him by an economist whose name slips me... and Derrida's ideas
of links - chains of meaning...???
Any word in normal usage points to a sort of
cloud of meaning, with a given instance to which
the word is applied falling in more or less central
or dense parts of the cloud. For this reason in
some practices (games?) such as mathematics
or law it is necessary to use rather odd language
to produce definitions with distinct boundaries.
On top of that problem, there is the problem that
words get some of their meaning from the
contexts, textual and social, in which they're
used. A good example of this in the case of the
word "religion" was one already given in this
discussion, that of assigning some religion to
all persons in a school or military service. In
the U.S. Army, if you said that you belonged
to no religion, the dog tag makers used to
stamp "PROTESTANT" on your dog tags.
So what does "religion" mean in such a case?
Not belief, not faith, not association, not
practice, not ethnicity, not culture.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kater Moggin" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
01 Jun 2007 05:28:13 AM |
|
|
Anarcissie <anarcissie@gmail.com>:
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions. I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game".
Yep, games. In _Philosophical Investigations_ 66. Here's
the passage:
Consider for example the proceedings we call "games."
I mean board-games, card-games, Olympic games, ball-
games, and so on. What is common to them all? --
Don't say, "There _must_ be something in common, or
they would not be called 'games'" -- but _look and
see_ whether there is anything common to all.
-- For if you look at them you will not see
something that is common to _all_, but
similarities, relationships, and a whole series of
them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look!
-- Look for example at board-games, with their
multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-
games; here you find many correspondences with the
first group, but many common features drop out,
and others appear. When we pass next to
ball-games, much that is common is retained, but
much is lost. -- Are they all 'amusing'? Compare
chess with naughts and crosses. Or is there
always winning and losing, or competition between
players? Think of patience. In ball-games there
is winning and losing; but when a child throws his
ball at the wall and catches it again, that
feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played
by skill and luck; and at the difference between
skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of
games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the
element of amusement, but how many other
characteristic features have disappeared! And we
can go through the many, many other groups of
games in the same way; can see how similarities
crop up and disappear.
And the result of this examination is: we see a
complicated network of similarities overlapping
and criss-crossing: sometimes overall
similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.
I think "religion" might be another of that kind.
Some particular religions, too. I typed that in during an
earlier discussion of gnosticism.
-- Moggin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
31 May 2007 10:22:24 PM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:09 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs. Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions.
Which is why dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopaedias and manuals are
so important. They define meanings of words. People of slightly
below average intelligence, and above, thus have the scope of knowing
what is being talked about.
I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want
My point is that the term "religion" is practically impossible to
define - dictionaries, etc. do not give satisfaction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
01 Jun 2007 08:14:24 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 11:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 31, 10:09 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead" <somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs. Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions.
Which is why dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopaedias and manuals are
so important. They define meanings of words. People of slightly
below average intelligence, and above, thus have the scope of knowing
what is being talked about.
I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want
My point is that the term "religion" is practically impossible to
define - dictionaries, etc. do not give satisfaction.
Modern dictionaries usually try to report usage.
Since the term _religion_ refers to so many things,
I thought the analysis of the term into different
dimensions could be helpful.
In this thread, I have tried to make it clear that I
thought that when the authors of the articles and
the books the articles were about referred to religion,
they were referring to a certain subset of everything
we might call "religion", to wit, self-conscious,
organized groups which define themselves as
religions. You seemed to object to this but I
think that is what the authors are talking about
in the main -- not private spiritual practice or
the gods themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
01 Jun 2007 10:16:31 PM |
|
|
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180703664.818860.175710@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 11:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 31, 10:09 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead"
<somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs.
Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions.
Which is why dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopaedias and manuals are
so important. They define meanings of words. People of slightly
below average intelligence, and above, thus have the scope of knowing
what is being talked about.
I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want
My point is that the term "religion" is practically impossible to
define - dictionaries, etc. do not give satisfaction.
Modern dictionaries usually try to report usage.
Since the term _religion_ refers to so many things,
I thought the analysis of the term into different
dimensions could be helpful.
That is not analysis, that is going off into tangents.
In this thread, I have tried to make it clear that I
thought that when the authors of the articles and
the books the articles were about referred to religion,
they were referring to a certain subset of everything
we might call "religion", to wit, self-conscious,
organized groups which define themselves as
religions.
That is no definition of religion, and thus there is nothing to show how
these groups are religious apart from their say-so.
You seemed to object to this but I
think that is what the authors are talking about
in the main -- not private spiritual practice or
the gods themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
02 Jun 2007 09:09:58 AM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 11:16 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180703664.818860.175710@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 11:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 31, 10:09 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead"
<somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs.
Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions.
Which is why dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopaedias and manuals are
so important. They define meanings of words. People of slightly
below average intelligence, and above, thus have the scope of knowing
what is being talked about.
I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want
My point is that the term "religion" is practically impossible to
define - dictionaries, etc. do not give satisfaction.
Modern dictionaries usually try to report usage.
Since the term _religion_ refers to so many things,
I thought the analysis of the term into different
dimensions could be helpful.
That is not analysis, that is going off into tangents.
In this thread, I have tried to make it clear that I
thought that when the authors of the articles and
the books the articles were about referred to religion,
they were referring to a certain subset of everything
we might call "religion", to wit, self-conscious,
organized groups which define themselves as
religions.
That is no definition of religion, and thus there is nothing to show how
these groups are religious apart from their say-so.
As it happens, the politically significant groups in
the United States all profess allegiance to the God
of Abraham. So we could define "religion" (for the
benefit of the present discussion) as communal
belief in the God of Abraham, and practices, personal
and social, deriving from this belief. Is that what you
wanted, or do you want me to cut it broader or
narrower?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
03 Jun 2007 07:50:02 AM |
|
|
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180793398.214704.237210@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 11:16 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180703664.818860.175710@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 11:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 31, 10:09 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead"
<somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee"
<adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the
sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs.
Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions
when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions.
Which is why dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopaedias and manuals are
so important. They define meanings of words. People of slightly
below average intelligence, and above, thus have the scope of knowing
what is being talked about.
I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want
My point is that the term "religion" is practically impossible to
define - dictionaries, etc. do not give satisfaction.
Modern dictionaries usually try to report usage.
Since the term _religion_ refers to so many things,
I thought the analysis of the term into different
dimensions could be helpful.
That is not analysis, that is going off into tangents.
In this thread, I have tried to make it clear that I
thought that when the authors of the articles and
the books the articles were about referred to religion,
they were referring to a certain subset of everything
we might call "religion", to wit, self-conscious,
organized groups which define themselves as
religions.
That is no definition of religion, and thus there is nothing to show how
these groups are religious apart from their say-so.
As it happens, the politically significant groups in
the United States all profess allegiance to the God
of Abraham. So we could define "religion" (for the
benefit of the present discussion) as communal
belief in the God of Abraham, and practices, personal
and social, deriving from this belief. Is that what you
wanted, or do you want me to cut it broader or
narrower?
Since I do not belong to the US, nor do I follow any Abrahamic Sect, that
definition is irrelevant to me. In any case, you are not making any sort of
definition, merely providing a political colouration to certain traditional
beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
03 Jun 2007 08:25:32 AM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 8:50 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180793398.214704.237210@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 11:16 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180703664.818860.175710@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 11:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 31, 10:09 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead"
<somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee"
<adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the
sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs.
Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary, definitions
when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions.
Which is why dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopaedias and manuals are
so important. They define meanings of words. People of slightly
below average intelligence, and above, thus have the scope of knowing
what is being talked about.
I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want
My point is that the term "religion" is practically impossible to
define - dictionaries, etc. do not give satisfaction.
Modern dictionaries usually try to report usage.
Since the term _religion_ refers to so many things,
I thought the analysis of the term into different
dimensions could be helpful.
That is not analysis, that is going off into tangents.
In this thread, I have tried to make it clear that I
thought that when the authors of the articles and
the books the articles were about referred to religion,
they were referring to a certain subset of everything
we might call "religion", to wit, self-conscious,
organized groups which define themselves as
religions.
That is no definition of religion, and thus there is nothing to show how
these groups are religious apart from their say-so.
As it happens, the politically significant groups in
the United States all profess allegiance to the God
of Abraham. So we could define "religion" (for the
benefit of the present discussion) as communal
belief in the God of Abraham, and practices, personal
and social, deriving from this belief. Is that what you
wanted, or do you want me to cut it broader or
narrower?
Since I do not belong to the US, nor do I follow any Abrahamic Sect, that
definition is irrelevant to me. In any case, you are not making any sort of
definition, merely providing a political colouration to certain traditional
beliefs.
Well, actually, the present discussion wasn't about
you, it was about politics and culture in the West
(Western Europe and the Americas) and possibly
in the Middle East -- mostly. I am not familiar
enough with the situation in southern and eastern
Asia to know if there has been a similar upsurge of
politically-connected fundamentalism in that
area. We would certainly have to define religion
differently if we were going to include you and
the rest of south and east Asia (and its diasporas)
in the scope of the discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
04 Jun 2007 08:58:42 AM |
|
|
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180877132.862152.221790@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 8:50 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180793398.214704.237210@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 11:16 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180703664.818860.175710@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 11:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
On May 31, 10:09 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 8:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
On May 30, 10:21 pm, *Anarcissie* <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 4:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
On May 24, 12:05 am, "James Whitehead"
<somewh...@overtherainbow.com>
wrote:
"*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179511623.856481.60130@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 17, 8:31 am, "Arindam Banerjee"
<adda1...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
How do you define religion?
I think what is being discussed here under the name of
religion is organized, institutionalized religion, the
sort
of thing called "religion" by its participants, as
opposed
to tribal practices or individual spiritual beliefs.
Although
there might be some overlap.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1784772
might help?
No. Dimensions do not amount to a definition.
I think the dimensions might be useful in considering
borderline cases -- organziations or movements which
had some characteristics similar to religions, like the
Communist parties back in the day
No, I would not think so. Dimensions are arbitrary,
definitions
when
accepted are not. When we stress of dimensions as opposed to
definitions, we lose focus and waste our efforts.
Somewhere Wittgenstein points out that there are
words, concepts, and so on which are used in varying
and overlapping ways by different people, or by the
same person at different times and in different
contexts, so that they do not have a single, fixed,
coherent definition but rather several linked
definitions.
Which is why dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopaedias and manuals
are
so important. They define meanings of words. People of slightly
below average intelligence, and above, thus have the scope of
knowing
what is being talked about.
I think he was talking about the word
(or concept of) "game". I think "religion" might
be another of that kind. Examples if you want
My point is that the term "religion" is practically impossible to
define - dictionaries, etc. do not give satisfaction.
Modern dictionaries usually try to report usage.
Since the term _religion_ refers to so many things,
I thought the analysis of the term into different
dimensions could be helpful.
That is not analysis, that is going off into tangents.
In this thread, I have tried to make it clear that I
thought that when the authors of the articles and
the books the articles were about referred to religion,
they were referring to a certain subset of everything
we might call "religion", to wit, self-conscious,
organized groups which define themselves as
religions.
That is no definition of religion, and thus there is nothing to show
how
these groups are religious apart from their say-so.
As it happens, the politically significant groups in
the United States all profess allegiance to the God
of Abraham. So we could define "religion" (for the
benefit of the present discussion) as communal
belief in the God of Abraham, and practices, personal
and social, deriving from this belief. Is that what you
wanted, or do you want me to cut it broader or
narrower?
Since I do not belong to the US, nor do I follow any Abrahamic Sect, that
definition is irrelevant to me. In any case, you are not making any sort
of
definition, merely providing a political colouration to certain
traditional
beliefs.
Well, actually, the present discussion wasn't about
you, it was about politics and culture in the West
(Western Europe and the Americas) and possibly
in the Middle East -- mostly.
I am perfectly sure this discussion is not about me. However, it is you who
went from the general to the specific, when you brought up the US and
Abrahamic faiths in a discussion. Besides, you asked me a question about
what I wanted. If I as as consequence give a reply pertaining to my state
of affairs, to be told that the discussion is not about me, seems rather
rude. But then, various peoples have various standards of politeness.
There are those who are sure that bombing a country to extinction is the
most potent form of personal introduction!
I am not familiar
enough with the situation in southern and eastern
Asia to know if there has been a similar upsurge of
politically-connected fundamentalism in that
area. We would certainly have to define religion
differently if we were going to include you and
the rest of south and east Asia (and its diasporas)
in the scope of the discussion.
Quite. Definitions are what I am looking for. How do you define the
religion you know? You can start with any Abrahamic faith of your choice.
I define definition as a satisfying set of words, that describes the
fundamentals of any concept precisely and completely. Like, a circle is
primarily defined as a curved line enclosing a space, where every point on
it is equidistant from a certain fixed point. In the secondary sense it is
described in terms of the co-ordinates of its centre, and the radius.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "michael" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
03 Jun 2007 09:01:40 AM |
|
|
*Anarcissie* wrote:
Well, actually, the present discussion wasn't about
you, it was about politics and culture in the West
(Western Europe and the Americas) and possibly
in the Middle East -- mostly. I am not familiar
enough with the situation in southern and eastern
Asia to know if there has been a similar upsurge of
politically-connected fundamentalism in that
area. We would certainly have to define religion
differently if we were going to include you and
the rest of south and east Asia (and its diasporas)
in the scope of the discussion.
ah, well, this explains a lot... so when you referred to "religion"
apparently meeting some fundamental human needs, thus inevitably
requiring something to come "after" it, you intended us to understand
that well over half of what most of us consider to be human beings were,
in fact, "disincluded"...
which makes mr. bannerjee's pale posteriori musings more to the point
than i could ever have imagined... or wished...
eew...
michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
03 Jun 2007 09:11:18 AM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 10:01 am, michael <mjwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
Well, actually, the present discussion wasn't about
you, it was about politics and culture in the West
(Western Europe and the Americas) and possibly
in the Middle East -- mostly. I am not familiar
enough with the situation in southern and eastern
Asia to know if there has been a similar upsurge of
politically-connected fundamentalism in that
area. We would certainly have to define religion
differently if we were going to include you and
the rest of south and east Asia (and its diasporas)
in the scope of the discussion.
ah, well, this explains a lot... so when you referred to "religion"
apparently meeting some fundamental human needs, thus inevitably
requiring something to come "after" it, you intended us to understand
that well over half of what most of us consider to be human beings were,
in fact, "disincluded"...
Not necessarily. When it comes to Asian matters,
I am mostly agnostic -- not in the sense of "cannot
know" but in the sense of "don't know."
.
|
|
|
| User: "michael" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
03 Jun 2007 09:55:34 AM |
|
|
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Jun 3, 10:01 am, michael <mjwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
Well actu,ally, the present discussion wasn't about
you, it was about politics and culture in the West
(Western Europe and the Americas) and possibly
in the Middle East -- mostly. I am not familiar
enough with the situation in southern and eastern
Asia to know if there has been a similar upsurge of
politically-connected fundamentalism in that
area. We would certainly have to define religion
differently if we were going to include you and
the rest of south and east Asia (and its diasporas)
in the scope of the discussion.
ah, well, this explains a lot... so when you referred to "religion"
apparently meeting some fundamental human needs, thus inevitably
requiring something to come "after" it, you intended us to understand
that well over half of what most of us consider to be human beings were,
in fact, "disincluded"...
Not necessarily. When it comes to Asian matters,
I am mostly agnostic -- not in the sense of "cannot
know" but in the sense of "don't know."
i see... but as you pointed out to mr. bannerjee mere posts ago,
Well actually, the present discussion wasn't about
you,
but what *must* follow "religion" given its virtually genetic embedding
in the species... which term species is usually understood to include
"asian matters"...
i only bring this up because i thought the subject interesting primarily
for its wrongheadedness...
as i stated earlier, i think that what comes after liberal secularism,
full-bloomed or sprouted or even merely seed spilled on barren ground,
was the more relevant question, seeing how "religion" is roaring back in
full cry these days...
the cringing and illogical vacuity of our confreres from "alt.atheism",
with their irrational fundamentalist faith in a hollow definition, being
a hint of one direction things will take in places where people begin to
fear saying something like Everyman in philip roth's latest says:
"Religion was a lie that he had recognized early in life, and he found
all religions offensive, considered their superstitious folderol
meaningless, childish, couldn't stand the complete unadultness-- the
baby talk and the righteousness and the sheep, the avid believers. No
hocus-pocus about death or God or obsolete fantasies of heaven for him.
There was only our bodies, born to live and die on terms decided by the
bodies that had lived and died before us. If he could be said to have
located a philosophical niche for himself, that was it-- he'd come upon
it early and intuitively, and however elemental, that was the whole of
it. Should he ever write an autobiography, he'd call it 'The Life and
Death of a Male Body.'
a few years back he wrote "The Dying Animal"...
the number of places in the world where such sentiments would be subject
to censorship as blasphemous is growing not shrinking, as is the number
of secular liberals who would find them offensive or needlessly
provocative...
michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Anarcissie*" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
03 Jun 2007 01:54:19 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 10:55 am, michael <mjwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
On Jun 3, 10:01 am, michael <mjwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
Well actu,ally, the present discussion wasn't about
you, it was about politics and culture in the West
(Western Europe and the Americas) and possibly
in the Middle East -- mostly. I am not familiar
enough with the situation in southern and eastern
Asia to know if there has been a similar upsurge of
politically-connected fundamentalism in that
area. We would certainly have to define religion
differently if we were going to include you and
the rest of south and east Asia (and its diasporas)
in the scope of the discussion.
ah, well, this explains a lot... so when you referred to "religion"
apparently meeting some fundamental human needs, thus inevitably
requiring something to come "after" it, you intended us to understand
that well over half of what most of us consider to be human beings were,
in fact, "disincluded"...
Not necessarily. When it comes to Asian matters,
I am mostly agnostic -- not in the sense of "cannot
know" but in the sense of "don't know."
i see... but as you pointed out to mr. bannerjee mere posts ago,
Well actually, the present discussion wasn't about
you,
but what *must* follow "religion" given its virtually genetic embedding
in the species... which term species is usually understood to include
"asian matters"...
i only bring this up because i thought the subject interesting primarily
for its wrongheadedness...
as i stated earlier, i think that what comes after liberal secularism,
full-bloomed or sprouted or even merely seed spilled on barren ground,
was the more relevant question, seeing how "religion" is roaring back in
full cry these days...
the cringing and illogical vacuity of our confreres from "alt.atheism",
with their irrational fundamentalist faith in a hollow definition, being
a hint of one direction things will take in places where people begin to
fear saying something like Everyman in philip roth's latest says:
"Religion was a lie that he had recognized early in life, and he found
all religions offensive, considered their superstitious folderol
meaningless, childish, couldn't stand the complete unadultness-- the
baby talk and the righteousness and the sheep, the avid believers. No
hocus-pocus about death or God or obsolete fantasies of heaven for him.
There was only our bodies, born to live and die on terms decided by the
bodies that had lived and died before us. If he could be said to have
located a philosophical niche for himself, that was it-- he'd come upon
it early and intuitively, and however elemental, that was the whole of
it. Should he ever write an autobiography, he'd call it 'The Life and
Death of a Male Body.'
a few years back he wrote "The Dying Animal"...
the number of places in the world where such sentiments would be subject
to censorship as blasphemous is growing not shrinking, as is the number
of secular liberals who would find them offensive or needlessly
provocative...
It seems to me the retreat of fundamentalist and Evangelical
Christianity in the United States, the political retreat, is
already evident, in that someone like Giuliani, who supports
both abortion and Gay rights, is the leading Republican
presidential candidate. It was evident even earlier, when
South Dakota defeated abortion prohibtion 55% - 45% in
the same referendum that brought the Democrats to a
Congressional majority. Moreover, after several years of
just hoping the religious infestation would just go away,
liberals and rationalists are counterattacking quite
vigorously. (That's what both articles quoted were
about.) I expect to hear similar news from the cultural
satellites of the United States.
Just paying attention to the U.S. for the moment, and
assuming that other collections of humans have been or
will be at similar points in their cultural evolution, it
seems worthwhile to ask what function this mostly
rightist religious activity served, that is, what needs or
desires it filled, and how those needs and desires will
be filled as it declines, if only so that we can try to
avoid a repetition of the experience.
I am not at all sure that religion in the narrow sense
I gave above is embedded in the species, but I do
think religious organizations feed on something
embedded in the species.
.
|
|
|
| User: "michael" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
04 Jun 2007 07:07:03 AM |
|
|
*Anarcissie* wrote:
It seems to me the retreat of fundamentalist and Evangelical
Christianity in the United States, the political retreat, is
already evident, in that someone like Giuliani, who supports
both abortion and Gay rights, is the leading Republican
presidential candidate.
i'm not convinced that the republican party fielding giuliani as a
candidate in an election they see as almost impossible to win could or
should be read as a retreat, political or otherwise, of fundamentalist
and evangelical christianity... more like a (temporary?) gop retreat
from near-total reliance on that demographic... mccain is no more
acceptable to them after all...
if the evangelicals lose control of the republican party, it won't be
because *they've* retreated... and if more and more dems start harping
on their profound faith in the lord and shaping their platforms to draw
centrist evangelicals, it will hardly be because "religion" (or do you
now wish to narrow it further to the right-wing fundamentalist
american-only variety?) is in retreat... here's obama:
"My faith also tells me that – as Pastor Rick has said – it is not a sin
to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent His only Son to Earth,
it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and
clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed
from righteousness. Living His example is the hardest kind of faith –
but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not
only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better
politics as Americans."
social gospel christianity may be left-wing in many ways, but it's still
"religion", and still repulsive, irrational and unlikely to end up
anywheres good... maybe after "religion"-right comes "religion"-left?
It was evident even earlier, when
South Dakota defeated abortion prohibtion 55% - 45% in
the same referendum that brought the Democrats to a
Congressional majority.
again, a lost battle is not equivalent to a retreat... evangelicals were
not that strong in sd, apparently, and their refusal to soften the
legislation, which is likely why it didn't go through, hardly smacks of
retreat, more like an experimental probe to see how far they could
push... fortunately, it failed... but since the evangelical community is
growing in sd, there's always next time...
Moreover, after several years of
just hoping the religious infestation would just go away,
liberals and rationalists are counterattacking quite
vigorously. (That's what both articles quoted were
about.)
indeed... and as i pointed out, this vigorous counterattack is in
belated response to the dynamism of the whackos, not a meanspirited kick
'em while they're declining whoop of victory...
I expect to hear similar news from the cultural
satellites of the United States.
unless you're referring to canada here, and even then you have to point
out the vast religious differences, i don't quite get this...
how would one identify a "cultural" satellite of the us? "culturally",
the us is arguably as exceptional as american exceptionalists have
always claimed...
Just paying attention to the U.S. for the moment, and
assuming that other collections of humans have been or
will be at similar points in their cultural evolution, it
seems worthwhile to ask what function this mostly
rightist religious activity served, that is, what needs or
desires it filled, and how those needs and desires will
be filled as it declines, if only so that we can try to
avoid a repetition of the experience.
your baffling notion re: "similar points in ... cultural evolution"
aside, it might be better to wait until this resurgence of religion as a
political power in many places around the globe has reached its apogee
before we ask such questions...
I am not at all sure that religion in the narrow sense
I gave above is embedded in the species, but I do
think religious organizations feed on something
embedded in the species.
it seems unlikely that there are any organisations that don't feed
thusly, which is why i think that pointing to this aspect of "religion"
is meaningless, in that it just says that "religion" exists...
michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
03 Jun 2007 07:13:51 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 12:01 am, michael <mjwilso...@gmail.com> wrote:
*Anarcissie* wrote:
Well, actually, the present discussion wasn't about
you, it was about politics and culture in the West
(Western Europe and the Americas) and possibly
in the Middle East -- mostly. I am not familiar
enough with the situation in southern and eastern
Asia to know if there has been a similar upsurge of
politically-connected fundamentalism in that
area. We would certainly have to define religion
differently if we were going to include you and
the rest of south and east Asia (and its diasporas)
in the scope of the discussion.
ah, well, this explains a lot... so when you referred to "religion"
apparently meeting some fundamental human needs, thus inevitably
requiring something to come "after" it, you intended us to understand
that well over half of what most of us consider to be human beings were,
in fact, "disincluded"...
which makes mr. bannerjee's pale posteriori musings more to the point
than i could ever have imagined... or wished...
What's a pale posteriori musing?
eew...
michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "michael" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
04 Jun 2007 07:14:52 AM |
|
|
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
What's a pale posteriori musing?
a wan refraction of your thrust at those of us possessed of "white
backsides"...
michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arindam Banerjee" |
|
| Title: Re: After Religion |
04 Jun 2007 08:44:36 AM |
|
|
"michael" <mjwilson51@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cie1vF3195r3U1@mid.individual.net...
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
What's a pale posteriori musing?
a wan refraction of your thrust at those of us possessed of "white
backsides"...
Hmm, I had thought it was some rare sort of Derrida-speak.
michael
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
