Although the randomness and copied-and pasted look of Foxy’s latest posts have left me scratching my head with their apparent irrelevance to the original topic, or where it has lead to now, George is right. You could even break those down into lower order categories too.

Sociology, for example, can also explain religion from a Weberian perspective, a symbolic interactionist perspective, a conflict perspective, a Marxist perspective, a feminist perspective. All are valid perspectives to one degree or another and they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

A psychological perspective could be further broken down into a social learning perspective, a behavioural perspective, a developmental perspective, a trait perspective, a evolutionary psychology perspective, a heredity perspective, a neurological perspective, a cognition perspective, a situational perspective, a biosocial perspective. a seizuring theory perspective. The list goes on and on.

Yuyutsu,

Interesting point, though I'm not sure that it's very useful in a practical sense.

Dear A.J. Philips,

I assumed that looking at religion from various
perspectives would add something to this discussion
Friends and I were talking about this very subject
on Saturday evening and yes we did discuss Karl Marx,
we did discuss historical evidence to support
Marx's views. We discussed the ancient societies in
which rulers were believed to be divine, or at least
descended from gods - the pharaohs of Egypt came up
as an example and we also discussed the legitimate
political authority that religion serves.

Anyway, all I was trying to do is broaden the discussion.

See you on another thread.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Interesting point, though I'm not sure that it's very useful in a practical sense.>>

It shows how the definition of atheism is anything but useful in a practical sense.

I for example could be considered an atheist because I do not believe that God (or any other gods) exists. While I love God and routinely try to remember and serve Him more, the fact that I don't believe his existence makes me an atheist, technically.

Someone else could be an avowed atheist, but dedicate her life to the service of others in need without any selfish motive. Why would she do that? What but God connects her to those she serves so she can love them more than her personal needs? Such a person loves and serves God - except she doesn't use the "magic word".

Someone else on the other hand, could be a priest molesting choir boys for breakfast: they constantly declare a belief in God's existence, but behave as if nobody is watching them.

AJ: Sociology, for example, can also explain religion from a Weberian perspective,

There-ya-go-again, getting all tied up with Navel Gazing. You are thinking too deeply into the subjects for the ordinary person. As a consequence Philosophers tie themselves in knots. Sort of walking into a Mirror Maze at the Show. When it's all said & done, all you get is your own reflection multiple times of your own personal view.

Philosophy being one of those airy-fairy subjects. People, who are not much good at anything else get themselves into. They then portray themselves to others, as little all knowing Gods, when they are really just confused people. Xin loi, but that's how I feel about useless time wasting Subjects at Uni.

I said it before, your ordinary Theist & atheist doesn't dwell much past what they themselves believe personally. Some are militant about the subject but most are not.

Yeah, Yuyutsu...you and I had discussions on your idea of God many moons ago.

For someone who doesn't believe something exists, it's always puzzling to me why you assign "Him" a gender (and a capital "H")?

God obviously "does" exist for you (even as merely a concept) - or you would not find it necessity to reference "God" as something you ".... routinely try to remember and serve....

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

Thank you for your explanations. I appreciate your patience. However, I am no further advanced than I was before. If you don’t mind, I shall continue to share my thoughts with you so that you can relate to me more easily.

Your example of a rock is a good place to start. I see four major differences between a rock and a concept :

• A rock is material, whereas a concept is immaterial
• A rock is a single object exterior to mankind, whereas a concept is a mental representation of reality in the mind of one or more individuals
• A rock has an existence independent of mankind, whereas a concept does not. Man creates the concept, not the rock
• There may be a shared perception of a rock by independent observers, whereas a concept may be recognized as valid by some but not by others, some of whom either reject it, are undecided, or simply refuse to take position.

I am also very wary of the notion of the absolute. I doubt that there is such a thing. I see it as purely theoretical, unrealistic, unattainable, non-existent, a figment of the imagination. I should even go so far as to say that It rings of ecclesiastical overtones. It evokes the transcendental, the supernatural.

It appears to me to be tendentious and, therefore, probably has no place in logic.

In addition, any theoretician, be it of the highest authority, who endeavours to impose a concept such as “logical absolutes” as a “sine qua non” condition for a rational discussion must be quite unsure of himself to feel the need to employ such intellectual tyranny.

No matter how hard I look, I fail to see the Emperor’s new clothes. For me, he is naked. There is no “absolute” truth. There are as many “truths” as there are observers. Everything in the universe is relative. And human logic has its limitations...

.

(Continued …)

.