Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States.

Public law 97-280 acknowledges that the Bible has had an influence on our government and declares 1983 the year of the Bible.
I have no problem with that. It certainly had more influence than Fear of Flyng.
However it doesn't establish that the U.S. government is a religion nor does it lesson the wall between religion and our government.

_________________________________________________________​

​

The second quote is from Theology on the Way to Emmaus, by Nicolas Lash, a Roman Catholic theologian, not a secular or "hedon" philosopher such as Socrates.

So let's look at it.
Religions beliefs are non-empirical. They are not based on observation.

They are a homologous (having the same relation, relative position, or structure, in particular. - 1) set of ideological (An ideology is a body of ideas, and those who agree with the main idea of something take an ideological stand to support it. -2) beliefs.

So religious beliefs are not based on observation and they are a set of ideas that certain individuals collectively support.

Okay so far.

Next he states that unlike science, which is based on cognition, that is (the set of all mental abilities and processes related to knowledge, attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc. - 3); rather it is evaluative in nature. How we are to evaluate it in a non-cognitive manner he hasn't mentioned as yet.

To para phrase so far, religious beliefs are not based on observation and they are a set of ideas that certain individuals collectively support in an unreasoning manner.
I can agree with that.

He then goes on to state that accepting a religious belief requires action, that is a physical participation, which philosophy does not.
I assume he means that a religious belief requires a set of rituals and or practices that certain individuals collectively support. That would be the physical participation.

Now here is where he takes a leap into a misconstrued deduction.
He attempts to establish that philosophical belief is the same as religious belief if you choose to act on your philosophical beliefs.
He is arguing that as religious beliefs are a set of agreed upon ideas which require non-observation and non-reasoning (they are not cognitive) and an agreed upon set of rituals and or practices; they must therefore be the same as philosophical beliefs (which he never defines), if you, as an individual, not a collection of individuals, act upon them.

So hocus pocus, any undefined philosophical belief that you, as an individual, not a collection of individuals, act upon becomes ipso facto, a religion!

His last paragraph makes no sense to me at all.
Religious ideas may be the answer to problems of meaning in both of the above senses? He goes on...they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole including cathexis?
When I look up cathexis I find it merely means an (investment of mental or emotional energy in a person, object, or idea -4) Some sources state (especially to an unhealthy degree).

So first of all he states that religious ideas are non-empirical and not based on cognition, as science is, now he tells us they involve a cognitive definition. You can't have it both ways, Nick.

So I'll stop there as he seems to be using a bunch of fifty cent words to just confuse himself and us.

 

In post number 95 you included a jpeg entitled "Religious Belief Systems" which came from Theology on the Way to Emmaus, by Nicolas Lash.

In it he states:

And I translated non empirical as meaning that religion was only comprised of non empirical beliefs, as he said. Empirical means:

So Lash is saying that religion is not based on observation. If you choose to define empirical differently, then it can mean anything you so desire, otherwise that is what Lash is saying and if you don't agree with it you are not agreeing with Lash. I never said what I believe.

Lash is saying that religious beliefs are not based on experience and are the same set of beliefs. You don't agree with him.

Next, Lash tells us the beliefs are ideological, that is a body of ideas. A body of ideas is a collection of ideas.

You don't agree with Lash here either.

If that is how you choose to define religion; however religion can not be ideological if it is not based on a set of ideas, it can not be a homologue if the ideas are not the same, and it can not be non-empirical if the ideas are based on the senses.

So, if I understand you correctly, you don't agree with Lash on any of these points.​

 

Now, the next section.

A religious belief, which he has previously defined (see my last post or his own words) is a commitment; that is a dedication, engagement, or obligation, to its implementation in action. Implementation in action I understand as to implement (or put into effect) in action (or the process of doing).
A religious belief is a dedication, obligation, or engagement that is put into effect by action.

Philosophical belief requires no dedication, obligation, or engagement, nor does it need to put into effect by action. Religion does.

Then you offer an example:.

Your example seems to be saying that as long as you just believe that killing a bug is wrong and take no action whatsoever concerning the bug, it is a philosophical belief. But if you take any action whatsoever concerning said bug, such as feeding it milk and cookies, you have now established a religious belief. I have no idea what the belief would be as it is not ideological, not homogeneous, and nothing is stated as to what the belief is.

Be that as it may Lash then goes on:

So here you agree with Lash, but Lash has previously stated that religious beliefs require a homogeneous non observable ideology.
Now he tells us that all we really need is to act on any philosophical belief.

So if I belief it is philosophically wrong to discriminate against people with physical handicaps and then if I award a job to a person with a physical handicap instead of automatically rejecting them based on their physical handicap, you are saying that I am operating under a religious belief,

​

To which I would politely say, BS.​

 

Yes well, I look up words in a dictionary, sometimes I cross reference the word using several dictionaries. Then I use the most applicable definition based on the context of the sentence and subject in which the word is used.

I assume you don't agree with the following definitions:

philosophical
relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.


Belief
something believed; an opinion or conviction:

empirical
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

homologue

a homologous thing
homologous

having the same relation, relative position, or structure, in particular.
Religion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

And so on.

So please correct these and any other definitions that don't conform to philosophy, religion, or metaphysics; cite the correct definitions, list your sources and then explain how those definitions apply to the section you posted by Lash.

I'll wait.​

 

It's a little hard to follow you with all these colors instead of quote boxes, but I'll try.

I'm not arguing that religious beliefs are not ideologically homologous. I agree that they are.

Illegal? Misconstrued maybe, but hardly illegal.

Here is the context:

I will let it stand.
Now tell me what Lash is saying in this sentence please. My understanding is that for the purposes of Lash's argument he is defining religious beliefs (may here be characterized) as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs.
What is your understanding of this sentence?

I understand how you define religion. You take the standard accepted definition and exclude the primary point:

Then you focus on the similarities relgion may have with secular philosophy:

Thus, by eliminating part of the definition you unite secular philosophy and religion into one thing.
Are you claiming that there is no difference between secular philosophy and religion?

Here again you are equating any moral decision as a religion. I can't argue with that as you do not recognize any other definition of religion.
By your definition every time I decide to kill or not kill a bug I am exercising my religion.

Okay, have it your way believe anything you want, but I don't have to agree and I am free to believe that you are completely wrong.

None that I know of.
I am not allowed to post my understanding of words and their use, nor rephrase any sentences to illustrate my understanding, I must use your understanding of commonly accepted definitions, and I must accept your interpretation of what secular philosophy and religion are.

Apparently I also know little to nothing about philosophy and religion as I continually bluff, I am not able to frame my arguments correctly, I illegally change the context of everything apparently and I think you said I am boring.

In short, for me to continue the argument, or debate, I must agree with you in every particular.
That I can not do as there would then be no argument or debate, so no there is no better way to argue your point that I can see.

 

How? In what way specifically.

Nonsense, I have done no such thing.
How or what are you using to conclude that?
Then after answering that, did I eliminate or did someone else add?
Explain how you think it is 'one thing'.

Here is the definition:

You stated:

You say above that religion has nothing to do with invisible space men (I interpret that as a God or gods, correct me if I'm wrong and if I am explain what you mean by invisible space men), rituals, agencies or agency, the purpose of the universe etc.

So in my understanding you don't agree with the definitions inclusion of "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances".

Instead only the part "often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Am I wrong? If so, what are the other parts that religions and secular philosophy have that cause them to differ besides "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances"?

How are they not the same thing, how do they differ, in your view, that's what I don't understand.

Well that's the rub isn't it? Words have different meanings and interpretations. In order to arrive at a consensuses we often have to relate our understanding to that of another.
If I feel you are misconstrued something, I must offer my understanding back to you in whatever way I can to see if you accept or decline my understanding, often times this results in a new way of looking at a problem that you or I may feel we already hold the only correct solution to.

 

Well let's go over it again as the op is about religion and the governemnt so I don't understand how a discussion of what religion is could possibly be off topic.

Okay, let's not use a dictionary. Please define what a religion is for us. I have read some Kant, and Hume but not Durkhiem and I don't have the time to read all their stuff and find out how they defined religion and philosophy, so please supply the pertinent quotes so that I can understand what you are trying to say.

Or if you choose please tell me how my dictionary definition is different from how Kant, Hume, and Durkhiem define religion and secular philosophy and how they differ. Quotes should be provided. That's all I'm asking.

I freely admit to large areas of ignorance on my part. I am trying to understand your position. You wish to drop dictionary definitions and use a philosophical definition you keep talking about. Fine.
I cited my source, from a dictionary, and included the definition. Would you please cite the philosophical definition and the source. I didn't say secular sources define religion differently than you and leave you hanging, I provided the definition and the source so that you could agree or disagree with it and state your reason for doing so.

But, I'll drop my dictionary definition and await your source that supports Lash.

I'm sorry I must have missed that request.

A religion, in my view, must have a component that addresses a divine being of some sort, number one. For instance, Roman Catholicism believes in a divine being in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It meets the first requirement for a religion.
Buddhism has no belief in a divine being, it fails the first test and I do not consider it a religion.

Second, a religion requires a common set of rituals, some are referred to as sacraments. Roman Catholicism has a common set of rituals, the rituals of the Mass would be one example. It meets the second requirement for a religion.
Buddhism has many rituals, but they are not needed to be observed, any one can call themselves a Buddhist if they subscribe to Buddhist inquiries. It fails the second test as the rituals are not required.

Third, a religion is a set of beliefs that inquire into the nature of the universe. Roman Catholicism looks at the nature of the universe and tells us about what God is, what man is, and how the two interact in a dogmatic way. It meets the third requirement for a religion.
Buddhism asks us to look into the nature of the universe, but it does not present any portion of its understanding of the universe as dogma. Instead it tells us to explore, test, and verify anything it tells us on our own. It tells us to never accept any of its teachings as dogma. It fails the third test as it has no set dogma.

Fourth, religions have a moral code. In Roman Catholicism we could look at a very basic form, which when violated is called sin. It passes the fourth test.
Buddhism also has a moral code, it passes the fourth test.

Now, to be a religion all four tests must be passed. Roman Catholicism passes all four, it is a religion.
Buddhism passes one of four, it is not a religion.

To recap: Let's compare Roman Catholicism to your list above.

1. It has a set of beliefs. They are commonly found in something called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The link is from the Vatican archives.
2, 3, and 4. Here is an explanation of the cause, nature , and purpose of the universe as explained by the Catholic Education Resource Center.
5 and 6. See the above link to the Catholic Education Resource Center.
7, 8, and 9. Ibid.

If you wish I'll quote specific passages, but I don't have the time right now. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and this link.
Again, I have supplied citations and when I get time I'll be glad to supply quotes, but the tenets of Catholicism are pretty well known.

Moving on:

I am disappointed in you for not explaining how they differ, but I'll be glad to.

I listed four requirements for a religion, belief in a divine being, a common set of rituals, a common set of dogmatic beliefs about the universe, and a moral component.

Then I gave examples of Roman Catholicism and maintained that it met all those requirements and so was a religion.
I stated that Buddhism only met three of those requirements, and so was not a religion.

Now we will look at philosophy.
Note that I make a distinction here, religious philosophy would contain a belief in a divine being, and inquire into the nature of the universe but only within the confines of a religion or religious outlook. It would also inquire into morals both religious and secular. It would not have any dogmatic rituals. So it would not be a religion, but it could be contained by or seek to support a religion or religious system.

And we have secular philosophy. It does not believe in a divine being, it does inquire into the nature of the universe, it also inquires into morals, but it has no dogmatic rituals. So it also is not a religion and it doesn't seek to support a religion or religious system.

If I made myself clear as to the distinction between religion and philosophy please let me know. If not, ask me about what you don't understand or agree with.

I hope I have made my case and supported it. I don't have time to read the entire library of books you suggest. I have no idea what a ROE is or what will happen if you choose to use it.