3 ms·

> Religion and morality aren't distinct concepts. This is only true if you define the "Religion" out of religion; that is, shear it of any dogma or faith claim

by msla 6y ago

> Religion and morality aren't distinct concepts. This is only true if you define the "Religion" out of religion; that is, shear it of any dogma or faith claims or even the "funny hats social club" cultural aspect, and then say that all of the remaining guidance is the religion. This isn't what religion means to most people, regardless of whether they have one or not.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
On my analysis, I'm shearing what I believe you mean by "faith claims" from the term "religion". But I'm definitely leaving in dogma and the funny hats social club cultural aspect. For example, look at the scandal from some years back in which some European (Spanish?) meat products were found to include horse meat. Everyone agreed that (1) there was no risk of any kind involved in eating the "contaminated" products; (2) you could not taste the difference; (3) a recall was in order; (4) this was and deserved to be a HUGE scandal. I'm saying that the modern Western prohibition on eating horse is a religious phenomenon, regardless of whether people are comfortable calling it one. If you are using a definition of "religion" that doesn't include things like this, your terms do not carve reality at the joints.
- msla 6y ago
  > I'm saying that the modern Western prohibition on eating horse is a religious phenomenon, regardless of whether people are comfortable calling it one. And this is contrary to what people understand as religion, which seems to avoid carving reality at the joints: All of a sudden you can dispute the notion that people can be irreligious by pointing to some social conventions they follow, and demanding that those conventions are religion. That does not seem very respectful to personal self-identity.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > And this is contrary to what people understand as religion, which seems to avoid carving reality at the joints It's not. It matches exactly what people understand as religion in any context that doesn't involve themselves. Compare the Roman Emperor, who was never referred to as a "king" -- by the Romans -- because the concept was taboo. The Greeks went ahead and referred to him as a king. Who was right? What would we gain by excluding imperial Rome from a study of monarchical societies?

by msla 6y ago

thaumasiotes 6y ago

On my analysis, I'm shearing what I believe you mean by "faith claims" from the term "religion". But I'm definitely leaving in dogma and the funny hats social club cultural aspect. For example, look at the scandal from some years back in which some European (Spanish?) meat products were found to include horse meat. Everyone agreed that (1) there was no risk of any kind involved in eating the "contaminated" products; (2) you could not taste the difference; (3) a recall was in order; (4) this was and deserved to be a HUGE scandal. I'm saying that the modern Western prohibition on eating horse is a religious phenomenon, regardless of whether people are comfortable calling it one. If you are using a definition of "religion" that doesn't include things like this, your terms do not carve reality at the joints.

msla 6y ago
> I'm saying that the modern Western prohibition on eating horse is a religious phenomenon, regardless of whether people are comfortable calling it one. And this is contrary to what people understand as religion, which seems to avoid carving reality at the joints: All of a sudden you can dispute the notion that people can be irreligious by pointing to some social conventions they follow, and demanding that those conventions are religion. That does not seem very respectful to personal self-identity.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > And this is contrary to what people understand as religion, which seems to avoid carving reality at the joints It's not. It matches exactly what people understand as religion in any context that doesn't involve themselves. Compare the Roman Emperor, who was never referred to as a "king" -- by the Romans -- because the concept was taboo. The Greeks went ahead and referred to him as a king. Who was right? What would we gain by excluding imperial Rome from a study of monarchical societies?