Definition of religion

[Into the Night]

Looks like Durkheim gets closest.

Not quite. Religion does not require an organization or a church building.

 

[Into the Night]

I like his too, because a search or quest for the sacred really what sets religion apart from other social conventions.

For the atheists, I actually like Lenin the best, because he has a mechanistic, causal explanation for religion rather than just calling it dumb or delusional.

Ulanov (Lenin) called any competing religion from his a 'yoke', then proceeded to place a heavy yoke on the people.

 

[Into the Night]

I used to think of myself as somewhat of an atheist and that there was only one truth. Kinda softened that a bit, but still reject the Christian version of a personal and interactive deity.

There is no 'somewhat' an atheist. You are either religious or you are not.

 

[Into the Night]

Life is a journey. My trajectory is has been through different shades of atheism, Christianity, agnoticism, pantheism.

I definitely do not accept the hubris that human sensory perception, empiricism, and our souped up chimpanzee mental cognition necessarily gives us access to all of reality and higher truths

There are no 'shades' of atheism. You are either religious or you are not.

 

[Into the Night]

We tend to be hubristic, in the widespread assumption that with the right scientific experiments and mathmatical equations we can answer any and all questions about reality and the human experience.

In that sense, I think we tend to vastly overestimate the cognitive abilities and reach of our simian brains.

Science isn't experiments. Science isn't mathematics (although is uses mathematics). Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There will never be an infinite number of theories. A theory is not 'reality'. A theory is an explanatory argument.

 

[Into the Night]

Most of them are not packing a full seabag...mostly the Trumpers...but some Democrats as well.

Everybody's wrong but you, eh, Dutch?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

IMA CRAZY GOOF
I BE DANCIN' THE CRAY-CRAY
DOC DUTCH LIGHTS MY FIRE

You be goofy enough to work at Disneyland, Sybil.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Science isn't experiments. Science isn't mathematics (although is uses mathematics). Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There will never be an infinite number of theories. A theory is not 'reality'. A theory is an explanatory argument.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been shown to be accurate with such a degree of frequency that it is effectively accepted as the most likely true explanation of an effect.

("Theory" as opposed to the common parlance use of the word. Technically speaking in science a theory is a very well evidenced hypothesis and not just a "guess")

 

[Into the Night]

A proper definition of religion must contain the following elements:

1. unfalsifiability
2. must not require a deity, although one is certainly optional
3. set of assumptions (dogma) to guide socio-political / life decisions that involves some element of supernatural/metaphysical/mystical
4. no rational basis for the belief(s). The correct word is "irrational" however too many people misunderstand "irrational" to mean "emotional" and "not thinking straight." In this case, "irrational" means "without a rational basis", i.e. without science, math, direct observation, logical theorem, economic model, etc.

Ergo: A followed unfalsifiable and irrational theistic dogma guiding one's socio-political and life decisions.

The extent to which a religion involves the supernatural/metaphysical/mystical is the religion's theism. This can include deities and other planes. For example, the Lakota Sioux hold, as part of their religion, that one should respect others. This is not theism; however, their belief in the spirit of the river is. I am an atheist. If I were to adopt the Lakota tenet of respecting others, I would still be an atheist; however, if I were to adopt the Lakota belief in the spirit of the river, I would cease to be an atheist.

So we come to the Marxist religions. Those that believe in spiritual entities/forces such as the global Climate, Global Warming, greenhouse effect, etc., are theists to that extent. Those who deny human nature to believe in the (not real) Marxist nature of humanity (or irrational denial of human nature), are not only religious but are also theists to that extent.

There you go. This is my operating definition.

I must disagree with No. 4. All theories conform to logic, even nonscientific ones. ?A->A is a valid expression. This is the circular argument, which all religions are based upon. Religions are also based on explaining an observation, therefore an observation is a necessary part of any religion. Remember that an observation is not a proof...merely evidence, since all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

A theory of science is a theory (an explanatory argument). It is also falsifiable. A non-scientific theory is also an explanatory argument. It is not falsifiable. A non-scientific theory is not scientific by definition. In and of itself, however, it is quite rational.

Concerning the Marxist religions (which are fundamentalist by nature): they are essentially irrational, since they all try to prove their religion True, and are all based on meaningless buzzwords as the 'proof'. An attempted proof by void IS irrational.

It is the fundamentalist that is irrational, not a religion per say. Believers of Marxist religions are therefore inherently irrational, since they are inherently fundamentalist style religions. Fundamentalism is in and of itself irrational. All fundamentalists attempt to prove their religion True, and therefore create the circular argument fallacy.
The form they take is typically ?<void>->A or ?A->A&B. Both are invalid expressions, and both are irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

A theory is a hypothesis that has been shown to be accurate with such a degree of frequency that it is effectively accepted as the most likely true explanation of an effect.

("Theory" as opposed to the common parlance use of the word. Technically speaking in science a theory is a very well evidenced hypothesis and not just a "guess")

WRONG. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.

It is not possible to prove any theory True. A theory of science may have mountains of supporting evidence, but it means NOTHING in the face of a single piece of falfifying evidence. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.
A theory is an explanatory argument, nothing more. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion, nothing more.

No theory of science has ever been proven True. It is not possible. ANY theory of science is falsifiable, that is, it is possible to test the theory itself to try to break it. That test must be specific, must produce a specific result, must be available to conduct, and must be practical to conduct. If a test of the Theory of Motion showed that F does not equal mA (where 'F' is force, 'm' is mass, and 'A' is acceleration), then that theory would be falsified, and nothing will save it. It would be utterly destroyed. It doesn't matter if Newton created that theory or not. It doesn't matter if people have not falsified it for a thousand years. Once it happens, it happens. There is NO saving that theory from falsification should such a test be found.

So far, no test has yet revealed that F != mA. That does not preclude there is no such test. That in and of itself is an argument of ignorance fallacy. Like all fallacies, it is irrational.

There is good confidence that F=mA. Heck, we flew to the Moon and back using this equation. That does NOT prove the equation true, however. A test may come along at any time that winds up falsifying this equation (and the theory with it).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

A proper definition of religion must contain the following elements:

1. unfalsifiability
2. must not require a deity, although one is certainly optional
3. set of assumptions (dogma) to guide socio-political / life decisions that involves some element of supernatural/metaphysical/mystical
4. no rational basis for the belief(s). The correct word is "irrational" however too many people misunderstand "irrational" to mean "emotional" and "not thinking straight." In this case, "irrational" means "without a rational basis", i.e. without science, math, direct observation, logical theorem, economic model, etc.

Ergo: A followed unfalsifiable and irrational theistic dogma guiding one's socio-political and life decisions.

The extent to which a religion involves the supernatural/metaphysical/mystical is the religion's theism. This can include deities and other planes. For example, the Lakota Sioux hold, as part of their religion, that one should respect others. This is not theism; however, their belief in the spirit of the river is. I am an atheist. If I were to adopt the Lakota tenet of respecting others, I would still be an atheist; however, if I were to adopt the Lakota belief in the spirit of the river, I would cease to be an atheist.

So we come to the Marxist religions. Those that believe in spiritual entities/forces such as the global Climate, Global Warming, greenhouse effect, etc., are theists to that extent. Those who deny human nature to believe in the (not real) Marxist nature of humanity (or irrational denial of human nature), are not only religious but are also theists to that extent.

There you go. This is my operating definition.

I must disagree with No. 4. All theories conform to logic, even nonscientific ones. ?A->A is a valid expression. This is the circular argument, which all religions are based upon. Religions are also based on explaining an observation, therefore an observation is a necessary part of any religion. Remember that an observation is not a proof...merely evidence, since all observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

A theory of science is a theory (an explanatory argument). It is also falsifiable. A non-scientific theory is also an explanatory argument. It is not falsifiable. A non-scientific theory is not scientific by definition. In and of itself, however, it is quite rational.

Concerning the Marxist religions (which are fundamentalist by nature): they are essentially irrational, since they all try to prove their religion True, and are all based on meaningless buzzwords as the 'proof'. An attempted proof by void IS irrational.

It is the fundamentalist that is irrational, not a religion per say. Believers of Marxist religions are therefore inherently irrational, since they are inherently fundamentalist style religions. Fundamentalism is in and of itself irrational. All fundamentalists attempt to prove their religion True, and therefore create the circular argument fallacy.
The form they take is typically ?<void>->A or ?A->A&B. Both are invalid expressions, and both are irrational.

Watching you try to have a "rational" conversation with your sock is the #1 example of cray-cray on JPP, Sybil.

The fact you agree with your own sock except for #4 looks good until someone reads #4 and your reply, which have nothing to do with one another. You're a nutjob, Sybil. Get help, sir.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

WRONG. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.

100% wrong. 100000000000000% wrong.

Here you go.

Now, as for your "null hypothesis" that's wrong too. The null hypothesis is contrasted with the "alternate hypothesis" and both are simply hypotheses. This is used in inferential statistics and one tests against the null.

 

[saltydancin]

Two words: Dick pics.

You may very well practice that Christiananality Mohammed pedophilia religion defined by pics; two words: no time.

 

[Into the Night]

Watching you try to have a "rational" conversation with your sock is the #1 example of cray-cray on JPP, Sybil.

The fact you agree with your own sock except for #4 looks good until someone reads #4 and your reply, which have nothing to do with one another. You're a nutjob, Sybil. Get help, sir.

Sybil is your sock, so you are just insulting yourself.

 

[Into the Night]

100% wrong. 100000000000000% wrong.

Argument from randU fallacies. Math error: undeclared boundary.

Now, as for your "null hypothesis" that's wrong too. The null hypothesis is contrasted with the "alternate hypothesis" and both are simply hypotheses. This is used in inferential statistics and one tests against the null.

Holy Links are not a proof. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. A hypothesis does not become a theory.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sybil is your sock, so you are just insulting yourself.

I have no doubt you truly believe that is true.

 

[IBDaMann]

I must disagree with No. 4. All theories conform to logic, even nonscientific ones.

I understand your concern, and I am not saying what you think I'm saying, so allow me to clarify further.

A rational basis for a belief is a basis that cannot be denied by a rational adult, i.e. this is why a rational adult should believe this. A rational basis is similar to a "proof" except that it involves all science, math, logic, economics, observations, empirical evidence, etc... It does not mean that a belief that does not have a rational basis should not be believed, it only means that it could/might be denied by a rational adult. One could preach a particular religion, e.g. Christianity, and it might very well resonate with some and they might believe it. The key is that some rational adults might reject the faith as well. Any proselytizer of the faith would not be able to call those who reject the faith irrational solely on the basis of the rejection.

On the other hand, if you were to go on a vacation for two weeks and not arrange for anyone to feed your fish because you refuse to accept all explanations for how they will be dead upon your return, you could be labeled as irrational (on that matter). There is a compelling reason for you to hold a particular belief that is founded in science/math/logic/economics/etc, and you could be labelled irrational solely on the basis of the rejection ... unless you actually want your fish dead.

That is all that means. A rational basis means that a rational adult must accept. An irrational belief may be denied by a rational adult (or may be accepted). Religions are inherently irrational (per this definition) and may be denied by a rational adult.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I understand your concern, and I am not saying what you think I'm saying, so allow me to clarify further.

A rational basis for a belief is a basis that cannot be denied by a rational adult, i.e. this is why a rational adult should believe this. A rational basis is similar to a "proof" except that it involves all science, math, logic, economics, observations, empirical evidence, etc... It does not mean that a belief that does not have a rational basis should not be believed, it only means that it could/might be denied by a rational adult. One could preach a particular religion, e.g. Christianity, and it might very well resonate with some and they might believe it. The key is that some rational adults might reject the faith as well. Any proselytizer of the faith would not be able to call those who reject the faith irrational solely on the basis of the rejection.

On the other hand, if you were to go on a vacation for two weeks and not arrange for anyone to feed your fish because you refuse to accept all explanations for how they will be dead upon your return, you could be labeled as irrational (on that matter). There is a compelling reason for you to hold a particular belief that is founded in science/math/logic/economics/etc, and you could be labelled irrational solely on the basis of the rejection ... unless you actually want your fish dead.

That is all that means. A rational basis means that a rational adult must accept. An irrational belief may be denied by a rational adult (or may be accepted). Religions are inherently irrational (per this definition) and may be denied by a rational adult.

Watching you talk to yourself is interesting, Sybil. Revealing too.

 

[IBDaMann]

I have no doubt you truly believe that is true.

This is because vegetables never have any doubts, Terry.

 

[IBDaMann]

Watching you talk to yourself is interesting, Sybil.

I find it amazing that mere synaptic activity on your brain stem could cause you have visions and to cognitively outperform Nordberg. Amazing.