There seems to be an implicit notion that the term religion implies something 'divine', which for whatever reason needs to be 'pleased'. I don't know why such an entity has to enter the discussion. Personally I don't believe in deities except as psychological constructs.
I will give a few definitions and a few of my premises in advance, in hope of reducing the confusion.
From Wikipedia:
As such it is a part of a societies cultural inheritance. And likely the most effective vector for the transmission of ethical values, and an effective mean to have them converge. Ethical values are not absolute. A nomadic shortage society is likely to develop a different ethical framework than an urban affluent society.
Whether a deity or a general guiding principle factually exists isn't very important, because I believe that people don't act upon reality, but upon a map of reality, which is formed by their perceptions and beliefs. A deity or a guiding principle does not need to have any factual existence to affect the map. It is sufficient that someone beliefs in it.
The map doesn't need to be a perfect mapping of reality either. It is sufficient if it allows the user to navigate the area of it's application without detrimental effects compared to a perfect map. Most people will for example never experience any problems with the belief that atomic nuclei are held together by the holy spirit.
Exaltation can be understood on a personal level as a feeling of exaltation, which would act as positive reinforcement. I am assuming here that feeling exalted is enjoyable. It can also be understood in a framework of social ethics as a development towards an ethical ideal. I am using it in the latter sense.
What prompted me in other discussions to ask for opinions about the 'illusions that exalt us' was an apparent tendency to discard anything, that isn't based on observation or deduction from observations.
Possible alternative sources for cognition include religion, but could also be Myths or even Science Fiction. Religions as an alternate source for cognitions have the slight advantage , that parts of the cognitions derived from them have already been empirically tested in a social environment.
Illusions and beliefs are by definition not observable. Their effects are only observable if they are assumed to be true and acted upon. A typical example of this would be the belief 'All men are created equal'. In it's pertinent quality for this discussion, it isn't different to any belief in a deity- To be effective it needs to be accepted as a consentual truth. With the idea of equality and the idea of non-violence, we have two examples of unfounded beliefs, which became 'true' enough, to have normative power in a society und which are recognized as good and valuable. In the case of 'All men are created equal', it is often even referred to as self-evident. But again, they weren't effective in themselves. They had to be believed to cause any observable effect in society.
In my experience beliefs that aren't already carried over from childhood are more easily accepted in exceptional mental states. The most common mean for transmitting information between humans is language, which is why i hold it to be important. The most common mean to arouse emotions is language too. As opposed to scientists, preachers, poets and other purporters of beliefs have a tradition in the use of language for this purpose.
I certainly agree with it. Being born and socialized not only into a democracy, but into a nation that suffered a kind of national trauma stemming from a lost war under a regime which denied said premise, it is a belief as firmly held by me, as the belief in a paternal deity is held by a devout catholic. But I don't think it was that common place for most of european history. I don't see anything intrinsic to human nature, that says 'All men are created equal'.
I did not claim this. I claimed that religion, fiction,legends and dreams are valid sources of potentially good and valuable cognitions, the mentioned 'Illusions that exalt us', and asked for opinions on this subject.
I did not claim that you have to believe any arbitrary nonsense, because you can find something valuable in a religion, and I certainly did not introduce any deities in this thread. I did imply though that I would consider it wrong to discard religions as sources of cognition, because you have for example a grudge with an imaginary paternal deity.
I called it a religious principle, because the vector of transmission was religious. I would accept american transcendentalsim as a religious source too, if vedic religions aren't satisfactory, but given that Thoreau was a big fan of vedic scriptures, the distinction seems kind of moot.
I am not sure whether I understand the question.
If you insist on a divine being that has to be pleased, we could adopt a christian framework. There i'd venture that pleasing God would be seen as a more exalting motivation than brotherly love from another belief. In this context an exaltation of God is by definition not possible, because as far as I understand it, God is already the highest and most perfect possible being in this frame of reference. A follower of God could be exalted by virtue of becoming a more faithful believer though.
What keeps you from causing harm is hopefully your critical faculty. You don't have to blindly follow any arbitrary commandment, if you can find something exalting in a religion.
The effects of your actions on the belief aren't dependent on the source though. It doesn't play a role whether you treat all men as equal to please the IPU or because you consider it to be beneficial for your genepool from some reasoning derived directly from the idea of cooperative genes.
I will give a few definitions and a few of my premises in advance, in hope of reducing the confusion.
From Wikipedia:
As such it is a part of a societies cultural inheritance. And likely the most effective vector for the transmission of ethical values, and an effective mean to have them converge. Ethical values are not absolute. A nomadic shortage society is likely to develop a different ethical framework than an urban affluent society.
Whether a deity or a general guiding principle factually exists isn't very important, because I believe that people don't act upon reality, but upon a map of reality, which is formed by their perceptions and beliefs. A deity or a guiding principle does not need to have any factual existence to affect the map. It is sufficient that someone beliefs in it.
The map doesn't need to be a perfect mapping of reality either. It is sufficient if it allows the user to navigate the area of it's application without detrimental effects compared to a perfect map. Most people will for example never experience any problems with the belief that atomic nuclei are held together by the holy spirit.
Exaltation can be understood on a personal level as a feeling of exaltation, which would act as positive reinforcement. I am assuming here that feeling exalted is enjoyable. It can also be understood in a framework of social ethics as a development towards an ethical ideal. I am using it in the latter sense.
What prompted me in other discussions to ask for opinions about the 'illusions that exalt us' was an apparent tendency to discard anything, that isn't based on observation or deduction from observations.
Possible alternative sources for cognition include religion, but could also be Myths or even Science Fiction. Religions as an alternate source for cognitions have the slight advantage , that parts of the cognitions derived from them have already been empirically tested in a social environment.
Illusions and beliefs are by definition not observable. Their effects are only observable if they are assumed to be true and acted upon. A typical example of this would be the belief 'All men are created equal'. In it's pertinent quality for this discussion, it isn't different to any belief in a deity- To be effective it needs to be accepted as a consentual truth. With the idea of equality and the idea of non-violence, we have two examples of unfounded beliefs, which became 'true' enough, to have normative power in a society und which are recognized as good and valuable. In the case of 'All men are created equal', it is often even referred to as self-evident. But again, they weren't effective in themselves. They had to be believed to cause any observable effect in society.
In my experience beliefs that aren't already carried over from childhood are more easily accepted in exceptional mental states. The most common mean for transmitting information between humans is language, which is why i hold it to be important. The most common mean to arouse emotions is language too. As opposed to scientists, preachers, poets and other purporters of beliefs have a tradition in the use of language for this purpose.
I certainly agree with it. Being born and socialized not only into a democracy, but into a nation that suffered a kind of national trauma stemming from a lost war under a regime which denied said premise, it is a belief as firmly held by me, as the belief in a paternal deity is held by a devout catholic. But I don't think it was that common place for most of european history. I don't see anything intrinsic to human nature, that says 'All men are created equal'.
I did not claim this. I claimed that religion, fiction,legends and dreams are valid sources of potentially good and valuable cognitions, the mentioned 'Illusions that exalt us', and asked for opinions on this subject.
I did not claim that you have to believe any arbitrary nonsense, because you can find something valuable in a religion, and I certainly did not introduce any deities in this thread. I did imply though that I would consider it wrong to discard religions as sources of cognition, because you have for example a grudge with an imaginary paternal deity.
I called it a religious principle, because the vector of transmission was religious. I would accept american transcendentalsim as a religious source too, if vedic religions aren't satisfactory, but given that Thoreau was a big fan of vedic scriptures, the distinction seems kind of moot.
I am not sure whether I understand the question.
If you insist on a divine being that has to be pleased, we could adopt a christian framework. There i'd venture that pleasing God would be seen as a more exalting motivation than brotherly love from another belief. In this context an exaltation of God is by definition not possible, because as far as I understand it, God is already the highest and most perfect possible being in this frame of reference. A follower of God could be exalted by virtue of becoming a more faithful believer though.
What keeps you from causing harm is hopefully your critical faculty. You don't have to blindly follow any arbitrary commandment, if you can find something exalting in a religion.
The effects of your actions on the belief aren't dependent on the source though. It doesn't play a role whether you treat all men as equal to please the IPU or because you consider it to be beneficial for your genepool from some reasoning derived directly from the idea of cooperative genes.
Last edited:
). I broadly agree with this view, though of course it is an illusion, since science is funded, and decisions are taken about what to fund. What is interesting is that it is an illusion of the type Blauregen is raising. An ideal, if you like. Freedom of research is not a scientific principle: it is quite an inspiring illusion. That it is untrue is not a reason to discard it as an ideal.