borderpolice
Well-known member
autophoron said:the truth of statements varies on the field of beliefs which gave rise to them. The field is a relative ontology. This is what I call ideology.
Why are you telling me this. Of course truth is always relative to, simplifying greatly, background theories. What
makes you think I hold any other position? I must be misexpressing myself.
autophoron said:Adequate ideas are achieved by understanding the causes that bring about your state.
which is tantamount to saying there cannot be adquate ideas because it appears impossible to give a complete
enumeration of causal factors affecting human mental state.
autophoron said:you would like to define “religion” in a fairly pedestrian way
religion = ritual is not pedestrian? I have suggested why i don't think this is a particularly far reaching equivocation.
autophoron said:but what is more interesting and productive is to ask what is religion, what are the mechanisms that bring it about and which make it cohere.
and there i was thinking that that's what i was trying to do?
autophoron said:one sees that “reality” is a constructed thing.
I have called myself a constructivist, why do you think i did that?
autophoron said:If you want to go on and declare “science = good, religion = bad”
Where have i made such a simple-minded statement?
autophoron said:cast the effects of religion without the theism invoked.
but what are the effects? religious intelerance? boredom? eudaimonia? and why?
autophoron said:More pertinent than the decrying of religion would perhaps be question, “In what way is science the mythology/religion of our age?”
given your equivocation, even more pertinent would be the question: "can there be anything that is not
religion"?
maybe we should let our discussion come to an end here. you are not going to trip me up with methodological
issues and i seem unable to communicate that "religion = ritual = good", while easily consistent, doesn't appear
to be particularly fruitful.