Is Allegorical Religion better than Fundamentalism?

[The Grand Nudger]

There is a reason why there are no rational religions. Because the meaning of the word ‘religion’ refers to things that aren’t rational.

If you have a system of beliefs that you are passionate about that you have actually thought  through and are actually rational it would be more accurate to call it your philosophy, your way of life or your worldview. You could religiously believe in the goodness of a complete absence of religions without that being contradictory and that just makes clear exactly what kind of equivocation could be going on here. It wouldn’t be your religion of no religions.

You can call whatever you want your religion but that doesn’t necessarily mean it actually is because words mean things.

Hopefully that last post cleared up any miscommunication.  You'll notice that there is no requirement of irrationality in what I'm talking about.  That, is what I was referring to when I mentioned there were probably negatively appraised requirements on your part for what you would accept as a religion.  To you, if it's not irrational, it can't be a religion.  We do have a tendency to refer to our religions when discussing our ethics and our philosophy - take any of the christian posters here in this thread as an example.  

A religion of no religions is an oxymoron, a religion of x is just a placeholder for a religion that doesn't contain those things you or me or the housecat might find problematic, and does contain those things we possess a great deal of confidence in. To clear the hurdle of religion, they would be the things we are most confident in, and there would have to be other people who shared our views. If irrationality is one of the problematics things, that would be reflected in it's rejection in the religion - and if rationality is a thing we have great confidence in, it would be included or even elevated.

[Angrboda]

Perhaps an analogy might be in order. If a 300-ton statue appeared on the summit of Mt. Everest, we might with some justification conclude that aliens or a god was responsible. On the other hand, if that same statue were found on a modest hill in the New York countryside, we're not going to say, "Aha! Aliens!" If the path up from the bottom can reach the goal, the path down from the top is eliminated by Occam's razor. The path from the bottom up, ceteris paribus, is far more probable. We don't consider relationships to the mundane to be "religious."

[The Grand Nudger]

Religion and religious apprehension can be the path from the bottom up, too. I know I use the example alot, but a religion of nature. Without god gods or animating spirits of any kind. Where the full and accurate explanation for the statue - which could be the object of reverence on a mountain or a modest hill in new york is completely natural, nature metaphysically ultimate - and thus all of the valid context of religious experience to be found in what we might otherwise call the mundane.

A person who holds such a religion is unlikely to call it mundane, ofc. Stonehenge may not be perched on a cliff, but it's pretty damned magnificent. Any rate, a religion of nature is a literalist or fundamentalist religion. It means exactly what it says and systematically builds it's coherent worldview on the basis of those few assertions. No analogies or metaphors or intermediaries required.

[RBP3280]

[Fake Messiah]

[Belacqua]

Perhaps an analogy might be in order.  If a 300-ton statue appeared on the summit of Mt. Everest, we might with some justification conclude that aliens or a god was responsible.  On the other hand, if that same statue were found on a modest hill in the New York countryside, we're not going to say, "Aha! Aliens!"  If the path up from the bottom can reach the goal, the path down from the top is eliminated by Occam's razor.  The path from the bottom up, ceteris paribus, is far more probable.  We don't consider relationships to the mundane to be "religious."

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

[Jehanne]

Perhaps an analogy might be in order.  If a 300-ton statue appeared on the summit of Mt. Everest, we might with some justification conclude that aliens or a god was responsible.  On the other hand, if that same statue were found on a modest hill in the New York countryside, we're not going to say, "Aha! Aliens!"  If the path up from the bottom can reach the goal, the path down from the top is eliminated by Occam's razor.  The path from the bottom up, ceteris paribus, is far more probable.  We don't consider relationships to the mundane to be "religious."

]admin]Link removed.[/admin]

These types of books are being read by some of the folks lounging in the Barnes & Noble Cafe.  Can you provide a synopsis instead?

[Angrboda]

Perhaps an analogy might be in order.  If a 300-ton statue appeared on the summit of Mt. Everest, we might with some justification conclude that aliens or a god was responsible.  On the other hand, if that same statue were found on a modest hill in the New York countryside, we're not going to say, "Aha! Aliens!"  If the path up from the bottom can reach the goal, the path down from the top is eliminated by Occam's razor.  The path from the bottom up, ceteris paribus, is far more probable.  We don't consider relationships to the mundane to be "religious."

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

I haven't fully digested your prior post, but I will say that I am inclined to define the soul as that part of human nature which is not understood (the poorly illuminated corners of being human, like consciousness, meaning, monsters, and so on).  That being said, these things remain fertile ground because we have no bottom-up explanation for them.  You're basically confirming my point that religion is about the extra-mundane.  Extra-mundane doesn't mean unfamiliar.  We are all familiar with plenty of phenomenon that defies mundane explanation.  Put it into a different perspective.  Suppose in the 26th century we will have mapped out the brain and what is actually happening when a Zen monk experiences satori and it's readily demonstrated that there is nothing mystical about it.  Will it still be religious?  Or take ayahuasca.  If we learn that there are mundane reasons why people feel that everything is one under its influence, will the experience still be considered mystical, except by ignorant people?

[The Grand Nudger]

[Jehanne]

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

I haven't fully digested your prior post, but I will say that I am inclined to define the soul as that part of human nature which is not understood (the poorly illuminated corners of being human, like consciousness, meaning, monsters, and so on).  That being said, these things remain fertile ground because we have no bottom-up explanation for them.  You're basically confirming my point that religion is about the extra-mundane.  Extra-mundane doesn't mean unfamiliar.  We are all familiar with plenty of phenomenon that defies mundane explanation.  Put it into a different perspective.  Suppose in the 26th century we will have mapped out the brain and what is actually happening when a Zen monk experiences satori and it's readily demonstrated that there is nothing mystical about it.  Will it still be religious?  Or take ayahuasca.  If we learn that there are mundane reasons why people feel that everything is one under its influence, will the experience still be considered mystical, except by ignorant people?

Electricity used to be believed by many to be magical until Ben Franklin pushed it into the arena of natural phenomenon.