5 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

It just occured to me - should we even debate religious folks? With the exception of stuff like creationism and faith healing, most of human religion is pretty harmless even though it can be bizarre at times.

I’m not sure what you mean by “debate” here. Do you mean attack? Or challenge? That would make sense from the context, but it’s not how I understand the term. Surely one debates a proposition of some kind. What would the proposition be here?

On 9/17/2025 at 10:34 AM, Eise said:

What is the methodology of religion? Can you add some examples from different religions, like Christianity and Buddhism?

Good questions, but I am not sure I have answers because I don't actually study religions -- I study emotion. I suppose that most people would study the religions, then after a while would realize that each of these different religions serve the same purposes, then identify those purposes and recognize that emotion is at the heart of religion. I came at the idea backward because I study consciousness. It was decades ago when I realized that when science talks about consciousness, they are talking about the brain; when philosophy talks about consciousness, they are talking about thought and/or will; no one really studies emotion which is a major part, maybe the most important part of consciousness because emotion is self activating. That is why I turned to religion for information, as they do the most in-depth study of emotion.

So what are the methodologies? Religions gather or group people regularly (like Sunday meetings). They use music, art, and sometimes dance, to promote feelings/emotions to enhance ideals. They designate moral codes and incorporate histories that hope to cause peace and comfort within a group -- which would be why religion has been referred to as "the glue that holds a society together". They will often provide methods to promote forgiveness or absolution from sin/bad behavior. They interpret "Gods". They instruct people on what to expect after death, but you know all this. The actually methodologies are created by interpretations and compliment the various cultures. None of this works through science as far as I can see, but it all helps to bond people.

On 9/17/2025 at 10:34 AM, Eise said:

Well, it seems quite obvious to me what science can do: do research in questions that can be empirically answered. (We leave out mathematics here...). So what is left for religion? E.G. Ethics, Aesthetics, meaningfulness, etc. These are important topics, and in my opinion, not empirical. But they can all be done without religion. Or not?

Of course you know what science can do, you studied philosophy of science. As a philosopher, you also know the value of a valid premise, and know that an invalid premise corrupts all the work that follows. By looking at your above statements/questions, it is clear to me that you have no idea of what religion actually gives us -- its value. Don't feel bad as most people don't recognize what the core of religion actually is. Even religious people, who promote religions see spirit as the main idea, and don't really know why religion is so important. Do you have a valid premise? Do you know what the value of religion actually is? Bonding, Eise! Religions study emotion and promote bonding and balance. Without emotion and bonding, all life would cease, not just human life, but ALL life. I think that is kind of important and worthy of a little study.

On 9/18/2025 at 7:25 AM, dimreepr said:

What makes you think karma has a rollover?

"Rollover"? Are you talking about reincarnation? I was referring to the information Joigus provided.

On 9/18/2025 at 7:25 AM, dimreepr said:

Karma is about damaging ones soul, cause and effect is a purely internal affair.

It is, yes, but it is also about much more than that. One thing that it is about is repairing the damage. Karma is not a Christian concept where we get a one-way ticket to hell if we damage ourselves. Karma is also about repairing the damage, it is about redemption, it is about balance. It is also about more than an individual's soul, as it is also about cultures, societies, species, ecosystems -- the balance in everything.

On 9/18/2025 at 8:20 AM, joigus said:

You did say "science people always misinterpret karma". You either meant the question of karma shouldn't be addressed from a scientific stance,

Exactly. I have stated repeatedly in this thread that science does not understand religion, so scientific minds do not understand religions well enough to analyze them.

On 9/18/2025 at 8:20 AM, joigus said:

or --worse--, that "science people" --in general-- are too stupid to understand this particular religious idea no matter how well-read they are in it.

No. Most science people that I know of have either a high average intellect, or a very high above average intellect. But this does not make them all knowing. Science people tend to attribute all things to a physical cause, which flies in the face of what religion teaches. This thinking creates a bias that few science people can get past.

On 9/18/2025 at 8:20 AM, joigus said:

How on Earth would I know? I'm just carrying over a concept I learnt from religious folks. Ask them for the finer points of karmic existence. I can facilitate you access to a karmic consultant if you're interested.

No thank you. As I stated earlier, I study emotion, not religion. Karma is an example of how emotion can work.

On 9/18/2025 at 8:20 AM, joigus said:

In the meantime, karma does mean "cause and effect" to a vast community of people interested in Eastern religions, including those considered masters of the subject.

Fine, but there is a point to the "cause and effect" and that point is balance. I suspect that the "masters" know this.

Gee

My apologies to Eise, Dimreepr, and Joigus for being so late with this response. If you respond to this post, do not expect an immediate answer from me. I am getting slower.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Good questions, but I am not sure I have answers because I don't actually study religions -- I study emotion. I suppose that most people would study the religions, then after a while would realize that each of these different religions serve the same purposes, then identify those purposes and recognize that emotion is at the heart of religion. I came at the idea backward because I study consciousness. It was decades ago when I realized that when science talks about consciousness, they are talking about the brain; when philosophy talks about consciousness, they are talking about thought and/or will; no one really studies emotion which is a major part, maybe the most important part of consciousness because emotion is self activating. That is why I turned to religion for information, as they do the most in-depth study of emotion.

The philosophy of religion is more about how to control the destructive emotions when the target is unobtainable and provide a platform from which to enjoy those that have.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

What makes you think karma has a rollover?

"Rollover"? Are you talking about reincarnation? I was referring to the information Joigus provided.

  On 9/18/2025 at 12:25 PM, dimreepr said:

Karma is about damaging ones soul, cause and effect is a purely internal affair.

It is, yes, but it is also about much more than that. One thing that it is about is repairing the damage. Karma is not a Christian concept where we get a one-way ticket to hell if we damage ourselves. Karma is also about repairing the damage, it is about redemption, it is about balance. It is also about more than an individual's soul, as it is also about cultures, societies, species, ecosystems -- the balance in everything.

Bolded mine. this is your bias talking and why you're fundamentally wrong; karma and god are the same thing, a story we should tell ourselves for the sake of society, as it's a by product of our own contentment/happiness.