Religion

tama

(9,137 posts)

94. Depends

Tue Apr 17, 2012, 04:33 PM

Apr 2012

on the definition of 'knowledge'. Experiencing 'now' as is and happens without relating the moment of 'now' to other moments (in past or future) is esperiencing, and what Aristotle calls gnosis. Epistemic (again, in aristotelian terminology) or scientific knowledge involves drawing empirical conclusions and generalisations from comparisons between more than on moment.

Analytical knowledge of making strict divisions and definitions over phenomenological world does not have a good analytical definition of phenomenology of awareness and/or consciousness to begin with, which raises the question what kind of "knowledge" is the claim that they reduce to brain and brain alone.

From what we have learned from anesthesiology shows e.g. that when neo-cortex has been inactivated, patients (deeper brain areas? what?) can and do still react to environment and verbal instructions, but do not have access to conscious memories from those events. So was it "you" responding to environment during that period of inactive neo-cortex, or are "you" just the property of consciouss memories? What is the good analytical definition of "you"?

And what if evidence from NDE and memories of other lives is not outright rejected, but accepted as relevant for study of consciousness and awareness?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

110 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What is the purpose of religion? An open question. [View all] SamG Apr 2012 OP

Organized religion? Cirque du So-What Apr 2012 #1

I am not religious Politicalboi Apr 2012 #2

It answers otherwise unanswerable questions and creates a set of rules for operating a society OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #3

For some it creates the hope that those they don't like are suffering for eternity.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #4

In Christianity, it's a duality OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #8

You forgot The God of the gaps.. Fumesucker Apr 2012 #9

No, no, no.. nowadays kids worship at Aero & A/F OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #13

It answers otherwise unanswerable questions? Like what, exactly? cleanhippie Apr 2012 #14

Most religions attempt to answer the following FAQs OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #17

The question is, do they fit the definition of "answers" in the same way we mean darkstar3 Apr 2012 #19

That's where the whole "faith" thing comes in. OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #20

Exactly, and faith is not an answer. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #22

Some see the world in a different way OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #55

Again, that's not an answer. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #57

What is the square root of -1? OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #60

And no one calls it an "answer". darkstar3 Apr 2012 #62

I think you'll find math teachers who call it an "answer" OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #64

It's tama Apr 2012 #65

By your definition then, "faith" is simply making up what you want to believe and leaving it at that cleanhippie Apr 2012 #25

Faith is only self delusion if used to answer a question that already has an answer OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #54

And yet have failed miserably to answer even a single one. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #24

Do you really want to spend time dwelling on what happens to lost loved ones after they die? OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #31

I spend no time dwelling on it, as the answer has already been found. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #32

Kinda back to the old if you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch ... thing again humblebum Apr 2012 #36

Nope. That's a straw man you're attacking. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #37

So then. You are saying that empiricism has little to do with science? humblebum Apr 2012 #40

No, your reductio ad absurdum has little to do with science. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #41

It is the very basis of science. nt humblebum Apr 2012 #43

Perhaps you unfamiliar with reductio ad absurdum? darkstar3 Apr 2012 #44

I think perhaps you are unfamiliar with the role of observation, forming hypotheses, and humblebum Apr 2012 #46

No. Not at all. I have extensive training in the scientific method. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #47

"Your claim regarding the 5 senses has nothing to do with the scientific method" ??? humblebum Apr 2012 #48

Are you familiar with the concept of fallacy? darkstar3 Apr 2012 #51

Quite familiar with it, and I do not recognize it as applicable here. You are humblebum Apr 2012 #58

Identifying fallacy is clearly not something in which you are interested. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #61

Nor which you are an expert at. humblebum Apr 2012 #63

Don't look now, but you have something on your face. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #69

The fact is that many people give credence to experiential knowledge AlbertCat Apr 2012 #88

Depends tama Apr 2012 #94

So was it "you" AlbertCat Apr 2012 #96

So the body tama Apr 2012 #97

You have no way of knowing that, unless of course humblebum Apr 2012 #102

The physical body decays. We don't know what hapens to the conscious being within the body OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #52

I do not disagree with you, other than to say that while it ATTEMPTS to answer... cleanhippie Apr 2012 #70

We don't know what hapens to the conscious being within the body AlbertCat Apr 2012 #89

You just hit on what I consider to be the worst aspect of religion. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #33

That's one way to look at it OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #49

I just think we shouldn't stop looking. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #50

Fair enough OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #53

You just hit on what I consider to be the worst aspect of religion. AlbertCat Apr 2012 #84

It answers otherwise unanswerable questions AlbertCat Apr 2012 #83

In the U.S. religion has two purposes: 1) To provide a "neighborhood" since we don't have Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2012 #5

In the U.S. religion has two purposes: AlbertCat Apr 2012 #85

Wait a minute, then mine are #3 and #4. :) nt Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2012 #101

Provide an agreed upon structure for spiritality TrogL Apr 2012 #6

Please tell us more about "an agreed upon structure for spirituality" SamG Apr 2012 #12

To be more specific TrogL Apr 2012 #81

Just what makes a "qualified theologian" qualified in the first place? cleanhippie Apr 2012 #15

A "qualified theologian"? Isn't that like a qualified astrologer or something? Humanist_Activist Apr 2012 #75

Only to a bigot nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #76

That word, I don't think you know what it means. n/t Humanist_Activist Apr 2012 #77

... opiate69 Apr 2012 #78

Did I miss something? darkstar3 Apr 2012 #79

You have missed s whole era! Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #82

You have missed s whole era! AlbertCat Apr 2012 #86

Prove it. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #98

I'm making the distinction between a full-blown theological degree and some quack from Bible College TrogL Apr 2012 #80

Yeah, I still can't take it too seriously, its like a full blown degree in UFOlogy... Humanist_Activist Apr 2012 #110

It is a tool to manipulate the masses by quelling fears, some of which are rhett o rick Apr 2012 #7

Historically, it was the means for man to keep control over society. Dawson Leery Apr 2012 #10

Historically, it was the means for man to keep control over society. AlbertCat Apr 2012 #87

Emotional predictability. nt rrneck Apr 2012 #11

Yet in reality, it has been nothing but emotional UNpredictability. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #16

How so? nt rrneck Apr 2012 #23

There is no telling how a religious believers will react emotionally from one to the next. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #27

I dunno about that. They seem to fuck up pretty consistently. rrneck Apr 2012 #35

The emotional reactions tama Apr 2012 #66

As is the verbal vomit of the philisophical bullshit artists. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #68

It's a good living for the clergy. FarCenter Apr 2012 #18

To make little kids quit asking questions and behave izquierdista Apr 2012 #21

I think of religion as an emergent behavioral phenomenon, not as a thing created with a purpose Silent3 Apr 2012 #26

I'm neither religious or spiritual but I can objectively understand multiple purposes for religion independentpiney Apr 2012 #28

It probably springs from the human need to make sense of the universe customerserviceguy Apr 2012 #29

I think you might want to make a distinction between belief in God and belief in religion. Fresh_Start Apr 2012 #30

To dupe the gulliable out of what meager funds they have. MrSlayer Apr 2012 #34

Once in grade school, a student who almost never spoke up in class waved his dimbear Apr 2012 #38

To help rulers control the masses. Odin2005 Apr 2012 #39

Since our resident religion haters did not have the decency or the courtesy Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #42

This a forum, not a safe space. All voices are welcome, darkstar3 Apr 2012 #45

The OP did say "I would respectfully ask those who are NOT religious to just read the posts" OmahaBlueDog Apr 2012 #56

And as you'll notice, I didn't answer the OP. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #59

Of course this is a "group" which acts like a forum, Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #73

And bigotry has a meaning you cheapen every time you misuse it like that. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #74

And yet you failed to respect his request. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #107

You're right and it's disappointing that some ignored the request. mr blur Apr 2012 #67

Correct! And there is plenty of bigotry wrapped in prayer. Plenty!!nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #105

Translation: "the mean ol' non-believers didn't give you an answer I find acceptable." cleanhippie Apr 2012 #71

Where is YOUR decency or honor? YOU failed to respect his request. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #108

To give us connection with the infinite and unknown. /nt Festivito Apr 2012 #72

If it's unknown, how do you connect with it? laconicsax Apr 2012 #90

For a start, accepting a word for it and using it in a sentence as you just did. /nt Festivito Apr 2012 #103

That really isn't connecting with anything. laconicsax Apr 2012 #106

I say concepts and their associated words connect. Do you say they do not connect? Festivito Apr 2012 #109

To give us connection with the infinite and unknown. AlbertCat Apr 2012 #91

Science renders unknowns into knowns, but still leaves more unknown. Festivito Apr 2012 #104

What is the purpose of religion? AlbertCat Apr 2012 #92

We should be open to respecting and learning from those who claim to know. AlbertCat Apr 2012 #93

You have misread this. The OP was a repeating troll who poses as an extreme atheist. cbayer Apr 2012 #95

Good riddance. darkstar3 Apr 2012 #99

Watch for him. He will be back and I promise you, he is not friend to the atheists here cbayer Apr 2012 #100