mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, but that raise the question of axioms about the world and the limit of the axioms in methodological naturalism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is your definition of religion?
- Thread starter VoidCat
- Start date
Yes, but that raise the question of axioms about the world and the limit of the axioms in methodological naturalism.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I think it's limiting and misleading to think of religion as a set of beliefs and nothing else. There is so much more to it - community, ritual, practice, feasts, everyday life, political and personal identity, that cannot be simply subsumed under "belief" that I would nevertheless consider an integral aspect of people's religions.
Augustus
…
Few religions make any distinction between sacred and secular.
It's more a Christian than a universal concept.
The term supernatural is somewhat problematic being that it is both judgemental and culturally contingent.
Most followers of religions would reject such a distinction if it made conceptual sense to them (which it probably wouldn't).
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Most public spiritual practices have a concept of the sacred that is different from the more 'mundane' world, though - be they sacred places, sacred objects, or even sacred people. This is certainly not limited to Christianity - and if anything, I would argue that the concept of sacredness is a relatively weak one in the Abrahamic religions, compared to e.g. earlier European and Middle Eastern polytheistic religions. which were often much more profoundly tied to particular sacred places.
VoidCat
Pronouns: he/him/they/them
of course. I agree
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
I would suggest that the limits of axioms with regard to empirically derived evidence. Are defined by experimental and observational uncertainties.
For example the axiom that the Sun is composed primarily of hydrogen and helium plasma is as reliable, after consideration, as the margin of error inherent in the spectrometric analysis of light emanating from the Sun allows. No axiom or scientific fact is 100% reliable. I may have misunderstood your response. I am no philosopher!
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
@Azrael Antilla , you cannot change Mikkel. He is a thorough skeptic. His reply should be coming soon. 
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
I would usually point to the predictive success of a scientific theory, defining how accurately it reflects reality. As a measure of its truth. Of course all scientific theories are mere mathematical models. Not articles of faith.@Azrael Antilla , you cannot change Mikkel. He is a thorough skeptic. His reply should be coming soon.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Small nitpick - the sun being composed of hydrogen and helium is not an axiom, it's a hypothesis informed by empirical observation.
An axiom would be e.g. the Axiom of Noncontradiction - a statement that functions as a necessary and unquestionable* principle upon which we build our theories and observations, but which is not a verifiable (or falsifiable) theory or observation in itself.
*) with "unquestionable" here to be understood as "must not be questioned", not "cannot be questioned" - philosophy being what it is, we could certainly imagine theories not based on the axiom of noncontradiction, but those theories would look profoundly different from the ones based on that axiom; arguably, our science tends to rely on being non-contradictory, with logical contradiction being generally seen as a failure state in a scientific theory.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Good post!
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
Unfortunately I do not understand philosophical terminology. Certainly I understood the term axiom to mean a truth. Indeed all scientific theories are testable hypothesis. That I do know.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
@Azrael Antilla , you cannot change Mikkel. He is a thorough skeptic. His reply should be coming soon.
@Azrael Antilla also.
Sometimes I just leave it be. But yes, as far as I can test it, there is no single methodology for all of the world.
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
I only understand the scientific method. As being the most successful and productive way of determining fact from fiction. Perhaps not the only way. Just the most reliable and trustworthy. Imo.
Augustus
…
I agree there is a concept of sacred in many belief systems, just not that this contrasts with a 'secular' sphere.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
What distinguishes an axiom from a theory is that the latter is testable, either by verification (proving it true, at least for the time being) or falsification (proving it false). Axioms are not testable, and are typically taken as true in order to form a premise or foundation for theories or arguments.
An example I already brought up is the Axiom of Noncontradiction: "Two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true." This cannot be proven or tested, and has not been derived from observation; however, in order to have a theory containing statements that can only be either true or false, but not both, we need to take this axiom to be true.
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
I see. Logic based abstract constructs that may or may not be obtained from faulty premises or subjective experience? An esoteric and alien world of symbols to my modest little neural network!
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
And literally the building blocks for logic, maths, science, and consistent argumentation.
I always say that religion is "the process by which man is bound back to God, or keeps his bond with God." This definition goes well with my understanding of human nature and persons as being in a corrupted state after the Fall, so we are on a return swing right now. I say this definition because of Lactantius and St. Augustine. Lactantius says:
"We have said that the name of religion is derived from the bond of piety, because God has tied man to Himself, and bound him by piety; for we must serve Him as a master, and be obedient to Him as a father."
St. Thomas records St. Augustine saying in the Summa: "according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei x, 3) it may also take its name from the fact that "we ought to seek God again, whom we had lost by our neglect" [St. Augustine plays on the words 'reeligere,' i.e. to choose over again, and 'negligere,' to neglect or despise.]. Or again, religion may be derived from "religare" [to bind together], wherefore Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 55): "May religion bind us to the one Almighty God." However, whether religion take its name from frequent reading, or from a repeated choice of what has been lost through negligence, or from being a bond, it denotes properly a relation to God. For it is He to Whom we ought to be bound as to our unfailing principle; to Whom also our choice should be resolutely directed as to our last end; and Whom we lose when we neglect Him by sin, and should recover by believing in Him and confessing our faith."
I think this sort of definition also goes perfectly with what St. James the Apostle says in his Epistle: "pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." The reason being is that by not losing oneself in the world they do not break our bond with God, and by love of others especially the least of mankind one shows their bond with God (who made them). So pure religion is about these things.
(All is my opinion in this post.)