Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lydia Matson]

Everyone believes something with regard to religion, whether for or against, and when discussing topics regarding human existence it can't really be avoided. I do think it's possible to use more inclusive language and invite everyone to the conversation regardless of belief.

I disagree. Everyone do not believe something with regard to something. There is a group called atheists who do not possess any religious beliefs. They may have their own beliefs which are clearly not religious. So such people can be included in discussions about consciousness avoiding any inclusion of religious ideas.

I think atheism is still a belief in the lack of religion, and therefore is a belief with regard to religion. I didn't mean that everyone is religious, sorry if that was confusing!

[trevorlando]

I feel as though both of these concepts go hand in hand. I think that we can indeed speak about consciousness without mentioning religion, it is indeed possible. But I do not think that we need to discuss this topic that way. I think it is best to acknowledge that religious commentary and terms are definitely going to come up when we speak about consciousness. These kinds of conversations and discussions only work, when all individuals are open-minded and not closing off a topic merely based on religious context. I think that these discussions are smoothest when we can mention and welcome both sides without trying to restrict any of our thoughts to specific non-religious terms. For me, as a non-religious person, I know that these kinds of ideas are going to come into contact with the consciousness-driven topics that we are discussing, and including religious commentary, terms, or context should not hold back the rest of the supported concepts.

[Shondranika Ford]

I see what you’re saying. I think the author did a great job being neutral and stating disclaimers about religion. I believe the non-religion discussions can occur, but I think that many people engage in consciousness and similar topics by relying on religious experiences or by referring to concrete references in literature.

[OTrain M]

No, I think we can talk about consciousness without tapping to religious related material. The reason why this seems impossible now it is because religions has taken a lot of space in our live, as we have let it roam free, using is as its fuel. But a lot of people are distancing themselves from it and are discussing a lot of questions without calling unto it. With time, this will be possible. But now, I don't think it will be. So we will have to brace ourselves.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Consciousness is not understood or explained very well in the scientific subjects or literature. But the religions have spoken many things related to consciousness. So most of us are preoccupied with religion-related thoughts when we talk about consciousness.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I see what you’re saying. I think the author did a great job being neutral and stating disclaimers about religion. I believe the non-religion discussions can occur, but I think that many people engage in consciousness and similar topics by relying on religious experiences or by referring to concrete references in literature.

I agree with you. Although the author has done a great job by being unbiased, it is not very easy for all the readers to remain unbiased when the concept of consciousness is being discussed.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

No, I think we can talk about consciousness without tapping to religious related material. The reason why this seems impossible now it is because religions has taken a lot of space in our live, as we have let it roam free, using is as its fuel. But a lot of people are distancing themselves from it and are discussing a lot of questions without calling unto it. With time, this will be possible. But now, I don't think it will be. So we will have to brace ourselves.

The religions have remained as the vehicle to transport the ideas of the ancient philosophers (religious leaders are a sort of philosophers). And that vehicle has been very successful in doing that. Although it has been modified and corrupted by many in the past, and even today being done so, I am not sure whether we will be able to get rid of it completely.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

Given that humans are spiritual beings, I do think it would be challenging to keep religious references out of discussions about consciousness. Humans are conscious of their surroundings thanks to their mental faculties. As spiritual creatures, we are in sync with the God within us and the God within others. Therefore, it is impossible to talk about consciousness without also talking about our awareness of God.

With all due respect to your beliefs, I do not personally believe that humans are spiritual. There are spiritual humans and there are non-spiritual ones as well. For the spiritual ones this might be an issue.

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I feel as though both of these concepts go hand in hand. I think that we can indeed speak about consciousness without mentioning religion, it is indeed possible. But I do not think that we need to discuss this topic that way. I think it is best to acknowledge that religious commentary and terms are definitely going to come up when we speak about consciousness. These kinds of conversations and discussions only work, when all individuals are open-minded and not closing off a topic merely based on religious context. I think that these discussions are smoothest when we can mention and welcome both sides without trying to restrict any of our thoughts to specific non-religious terms. For me, as a non-religious person, I know that these kinds of ideas are going to come into contact with the consciousness-driven topics that we are discussing, and including religious commentary, terms, or context should not hold back the rest of the supported concepts.

Maybe you are correct. Since this is a philosophical discussion, I think we have to include each and every related speciality or field without holding back anything.

[Alex Reeves]

That may not be too easy, simply because consciousness deals with the spirit, and religion also deals with the spirit. So I think it will be very difficult to separate the two.

[abstactlemon]

I think religion and spirituality go hand in hand. But I also think we draw a lot of our religion from our spiritual, a lot of the same virtues are found in both places so I think they’re severely intertwined.

[Amarachi Nzeakor]

For many, the central concepts of love, faith, and consciousness were thought in the church. We may experience these emotions outside the setting of religion, and that's ok. The statement is merely there to draw similarities, not as a rule. Perspective is essential: Taking what we want from the book and tailoring it to our likeness.

[Blessing Chi Peculiar]

I don't think so because religion receives superior and consistent homage, there is a lot of hostility directedtowards it. Religious leaders prosper, but they are successful because they choose to do it. Control will not be a factor. What drives a man to behave as he does?

[ahassan_96]

Religion is just an integral part of spirituality, especially in practicality. Since consciousness relates to our thinking patterns, belief comes as a result of the way life is perceived. Thus, in the process, the human conscious has developed unique and profound ways to come up with structural patterns that determine how the mind should operate for it to be deemed as functional.

However, I don’t think religion necessarily shapes our consciousness. It’s just practicality on its part. The topic about consciousness is wide and doesn’t rely on linear dynamics, rather, expansion. So religion may be part of the human consciousness, but being conscious simply means expanding your awareness to limitless possibilities without relying on limited concepts.

[Kendal Low]

I think that while it might be difficult, it is definitely possible. You can be spiritual without being religious. I personally believe that religion and spirituality are two completely different things, even though many people would disagree.