Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Pattern-chaser]

"core being" is a fallacy. Nothing has core being . Things seem as they are because that is how children of a culture are taught to perceive them'.

I think "core being" is an informal phrase we use to describe a collection of attributes (or whatever) that we consider to be *defining characteristics* of (human) beings. That we have such attributes is undeniable, but I don't think "core being" is A Thing, but only a simple description?

[Stoppelmann]

"core being" is a fallacy. Nothing has core being . Things seem as they are because that is how children of a culture are taught to perceive them'.

I think "core being" is an informal phrase we use to describe a collection of attributes (or whatever) that we consider to be *defining characteristics* of (human) beings. That we have such attributes is undeniable, but I don't think "core being" is A Thing, but only a simple description?

I mentioned it here:

The next statement I will put down to semantic differences, because what I mean by a "core being," is the silent observer, that becomes perceptible when the loudness of the periphery and the endless monologue in our minds is coped with, which in most Eastern traditions enables mindfulness and equanimity, and is also valued in Mystic and contemplative traditions of the West. Rather than use the whole range of expressions used for this phenomenon, I used the term "core being," which like other expressions is just a label. So, if you still maintain that it is a fallacy, you would have to take it up with rather a lot of people.

[rainchild]

I have read about three possible religious foundations for coexistence among religious believers.

First, there is the fact that, in Far Eastern religions, it is possible for any given individual to adhere to more than one religion at a time. In Japan, one can be both a Shinto (to address spiritual concerns relating to this present life) and a Buddhist (specifically Pure Land Buddhism, which addresses the concerns of the next life). Among Chinese believers, one can be a Daoist, a Confucian, and a follower of traditional Chinese religion.

Second, we have Sikhism's respect for other religions, already mentioned earlier in this thread.

Third, we have polytheism. If culture A. has a fire-god and culture B. also has a fire-god, the two cultures can acknowledge that they are worshipping the same being in connection with all things fiery. And so too with other gods.

[Pattern-chaser]

"core being" is a fallacy. Nothing has core being. Things seem as they are because that is how children of a culture are taught to perceive them'.

I think "core being" is an informal phrase we use to describe a collection of attributes (or whatever) that we consider to be *defining characteristics* of (human) beings. That we have such attributes is undeniable, but I don't think "core being" is A Thing, but only a simple description?

I mentioned it here:

The next statement I will put down to semantic differences, because what I mean by a "core being," is the silent observer, that becomes perceptible when the loudness of the periphery and the endless monologue in our minds is coped with, which in most Eastern traditions enables mindfulness and equanimity, and is also valued in Mystic and contemplative traditions of the West. Rather than use the whole range of expressions used for this phenomenon, I used the term "core being," which like other expressions is just a label. So, if you still maintain that it is a fallacy, you would have to take it up with rather a lot of people.

[My highlighting of Belindi's text.]


Yes, you did, as I saw. I was trying to generalise a little, to say that "core being" is not an unusual term, and is fairly widely-used — specifically, that it is not a fallacy, and that all humans (and maybe other living things) have 'core being'.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have read about three possible religious foundations for coexistence among religious believers.

First, there is the fact that, in Far Eastern religions, it is possible for any given individual to adhere to more than one religion at a time. In Japan, one can be both a Shinto (to address spiritual concerns relating to this present life) and a Buddhist (specifically Pure Land Buddhism, which addresses the concerns of the next life). Among Chinese believers, one can be a Daoist, a Confucian, and a follower of traditional Chinese religion.

Second, we have Sikhism's respect for other religions, already mentioned earlier in this thread.

Third, we have polytheism. If culture A. has a fire-god and culture B. also has a fire-god, the two cultures can acknowledge that they are worshipping the same being in connection with all things fiery. And so too with other gods.

This is an interesting post, that I read with interest. I'm ashamed to say that my first thought was dismissive, that you are just describing tolerance in 3 ways. That's true enough, but my lapse into common argument — debate, not discussion — was and is unhelpful (even in my own head). At least I recognised quite quickly what I'd done, and thought again.

Of course you're talking about tolerance — this topic is seeking coexistence, after all. And you raise some interesting points. Followers of the Eastern faiths are not usually exclusive, as the Abrahamic faiths are. I find it comforting and encouraging that in the East, faiths respect one another's teachings, and even share some of them, without rancour.

Not only has one of the Sikh gurus recommended that his followers respect the beliefs of other faiths, but also the Hindu view of God occurs to me. They believe that any and every God ever described or worshipped by humans illustrates one or more aspects of Brahman, the one ineffable God. So Jesus, Zeus, and Quetzalcoatl all have their place in the overall scheme of things, and Hindus accept them all as describing 'God', or some part thereof.

We could look at this topic as a search for a non-Abrahamic religion, as they are the main (only?) One and Only Truth-ers. Starting with Yahweh, and continuing the tradition into Jesus and then the Prophet Mohammed, they all insist that only their truth is 'true'. So it is almost fair to say that we can satisfy the aspirations of this topic simply by looking for religion *well away from* the Jewish-derived ones.

And yet even in these most intolerant of human religions, there are rays of hope. Christians teach us to "love thy neighbour as thyself", which is a tolerant sentiment that I'm sure is echoed in Judaism and Islam too, but I don't know that for sure. I was raised RC in a Christian nation-society, so that is where most of my knowledge lies.


I'm not quite as convinced by your third point. Agreement with our neighbours that our fire-god and theirs are more or less the same entity is stretching practical expectations, I think? But I do wonder if the Hindu view that I just described might be of help in this? That both the cultures in your example might find it easier to agree that both fire deities reflect similar aspects of the ineffable God? It might work...

In summary, the only new thing I'm saying here is that perhaps the problem this topic seeks to solve is not a problem with all religions, but only with Judaism and its 'descendants'? Is this a helpful thought?

[Stoppelmann]

I have read about three possible religious foundations for coexistence among religious believers.

First, there is the fact that, in Far Eastern religions, it is possible for any given individual to adhere to more than one religion at a time. In Japan, one can be both a Shinto (to address spiritual concerns relating to this present life) and a Buddhist (specifically Pure Land Buddhism, which addresses the concerns of the next life). Among Chinese believers, one can be a Daoist, a Confucian, and a follower of traditional Chinese religion.

Second, we have Sikhism's respect for other religions, already mentioned earlier in this thread.

Third, we have polytheism. If culture A. has a fire-god and culture B. also has a fire-god, the two cultures can acknowledge that they are worshipping the same being in connection with all things fiery. And so too with other gods.

This is an interesting post, that I read with interest. I'm ashamed to say that my first thought was dismissive, that you are just describing tolerance in 3 ways. That's true enough, but my lapse into common argument — debate, not discussion — was and is unhelpful (even in my own head). At least I recognised quite quickly what I'd done, and thought again.

Of course you're talking about tolerance — this topic is seeking coexistence, after all. And you raise some interesting points. Followers of the Eastern faiths are not usually exclusive, as the Abrahamic faiths are. I find it comforting and encouraging that in the East, faiths respect one another's teachings, and even share some of them, without rancour.

Not only has one of the Sikh gurus recommended that his followers respect the beliefs of other faiths, but also the Hindu view of God occurs to me. They believe that any and every God ever described or worshipped by humans illustrates one or more aspects of Brahman, the one ineffable God. So Jesus, Zeus, and Quetzalcoatl all have their place in the overall scheme of things, and Hindus accept them all as describing 'God', or some part thereof.

We could look at this topic as a search for a non-Abrahamic religion, as they are the main (only?) One and Only Truth-ers. Starting with Yahweh, and continuing the tradition into Jesus and then the Prophet Mohammed, they all insist that only their truth is 'true'. So it is almost fair to say that we can satisfy the aspirations of this topic simply by looking for religion *well away from* the Jewish-derived ones.

And yet even in these most intolerant of human religions, there are rays of hope. Christians teach us to "love thy neighbour as thyself", which is a tolerant sentiment that I'm sure is echoed in Judaism and Islam too, but I don't know that for sure. I was raised RC in a Christian nation-society, so that is where most of my knowledge lies.


I'm not quite as convinced by your third point. Agreement with our neighbours that our fire-god and theirs are more or less the same entity is stretching practical expectations, I think? But I do wonder if the Hindu view that I just described might be of help in this? That both the cultures in your example might find it easier to agree that both fire deities reflect similar aspects of the ineffable God? It might work...

In summary, the only new thing I'm saying here is that perhaps the problem this topic seeks to solve is not a problem with all religions, but only with Judaism and its 'descendants'? Is this a helpful thought?

YES!

[Belindi]

"core being" is a fallacy. Nothing has core being . Things seem as they are because that is how children of a culture are taught to perceive them'.

I think "core being" is an informal phrase we use to describe a collection of attributes (or whatever) that we consider to be *defining characteristics* of (human) beings. That we have such attributes is undeniable, but I don't think "core being" is A Thing, but only a simple description?

I mentioned it here:

The next statement I will put down to semantic differences, because what I mean by a "core being," is the silent observer, that becomes perceptible when the loudness of the periphery and the endless monologue in our minds is coped with, which in most Eastern traditions enables mindfulness and equanimity, and is also valued in Mystic and contemplative traditions of the West. Rather than use the whole range of expressions used for this phenomenon, I used the term "core being," which like other expressions is just a label. So, if you still maintain that it is a fallacy, you would have to take it up with rather a lot of people.

Many people who hold that there is no self or immortal soul would be from "eastern religions",

[rainchild]

In summary, the only new thing I'm saying here is that perhaps the problem this topic seeks to solve is not a problem with all religions, but only with Judaism and its 'descendants'? Is this a helpful thought?

Yes, I think so.

As I think about it, I can understand your skepticism about my point about polytheism. After all, polytheistic societies warred against each other notwithstanding all the analogies between their pantheons.

But this leads us to a larger point: the absence of religious conflict doesn't necessarily mean the absence of conflict. China, Korea, Viet Nam, and Japan aren't due for any religious wars in the foreseeable future, but throughout history, they've had more than a few bones to pick with each other.

In the absence of religious excuses for conflict, we humans find other excuses, not in the least of which are a) retribution, and b) the acquisition of territory & the control of resources.

[Stoppelmann]

In summary, the only new thing I'm saying here is that perhaps the problem this topic seeks to solve is not a problem with all religions, but only with Judaism and its 'descendants'? Is this a helpful thought?

Yes, I think so.

As I think about it, I can understand your skepticism about my point about polytheism. After all, polytheistic societies warred against each other notwithstanding all the analogies between their pantheons.

But this leads us to a larger point: the absence of religious conflict doesn't necessarily mean the absence of conflict. China, Korea, Viet Nam, and Japan aren't due for any religious wars in the foreseeable future, but throughout history, they've had more than a few bones to pick with each other.

In the absence of religious excuses for conflict, we humans find other excuses, not in the least of which are a) retribution, and b) the acquisition of territory & the control of resources.

I think that it is about time for us to accept that religion was generally an excuse rather than a reason for conflict. I can remember how for decades, the Northern Irish conflict was called a religious conflict. However, it was about injustice and resentment, which had historical beginnings when the catholic population was continuously imposed upon by the British government, including bringing their largely protestant workers into the country for the industry they were starting up. Religion was used as an identifier in many ways, but they could have also said that the protestants were not Irish.

This has been the case in many "religious conflicts".

[Pattern-chaser]

I think that it is about time for us to accept that religion was generally an excuse rather than a reason for conflict.

I read an article a while ago, about 'terrorists' and similar groups. It concluded in agreement with you, that religion was often used as an excuse. When they looked carefully, they nearly always found that the cause of the dispute(s) was national or geographic, about land and territory (and the resources that come with them), and that the religious component was little more than a misperception, a misappropriation of blame, if you will.

The article seems to have disappeared now, but here is an excerpt, taken from my copy:

There Are Two Causes of Terrorism

All terrorist acts are motivated by two things:

• Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.
• The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.

This explanation of the causes of terrorism may be difficult to swallow. It sounds too simple, or too theoretical. However, if you look at any group that is widely understood as a terrorist group, you will find these two elements are basic to their story.

• Zionists who bombed British targets in 1930s mandate Palestine felt they must do so in order to create a Jewish state.
• The IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombed English targets in the 1980s to make the point that they felt their land was colonized by British imperialists.
• In the 1960s and 1970s, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine felt that armed attacks in Israel were a justifiable response to the usurpation of their land.
• Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on American interests in the 1990s stemmed from his belief that U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia represented an abomination to the kind of Islamic state he believed should exist in the Arabian peninsula.
• Uighur separatists in China today feel that Chinese religious repression (the Uighur Chinese are Muslims) justifies their terrorist tactics.
• In some cases, people choose terrorist tactics based on a cause whose righteousness they believe in to the exclusion of nearly all else. Abortion clinic bombers in the 1990s and groups such as the Animal Liberation Front believe zealously in their causes.

The article goes on to offer more justification for the view presented. Here is a final snippet, more specifically relevant to the discussion in hand:

Although many people today believe that that religious fanaticism "causes" terrorism, it isn't true. It may be true that religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. But we know that religious zealotry does not 'cause' terrorism because there are many religious fanatics who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. So there must also be other conditions that in combination provoke some people to see terrorism as an effective way of creating change in their world.

[Lagayscienza]

Religion per se may not result in terrorism. But there certainly seems to be a correlation between certain religions and terrorism. But, of course, an as big tobacco never tired of repeating, correlation is not causation.

[Stoppelmann]

Religion per se may not result in terrorism. But there certainly seems to be a correlation between certain religions and terrorism. But, of course, an as big tobacco never tired of repeating, correlation is not causation.

Terrorism is a complex phenomenon with multiple causes, and it is important to note that there is no single factor that can explain all instances of terrorism. However, researchers and experts have identified several factors that may correlate with terrorism. Recognising that correlation does not imply causation is crucial, and different cases may have different motivating factors. Some of the factors often associated with terrorism include:

Political Factors: Many acts of terrorism are rooted in political grievances, such as perceived oppression, discrimination, or the desire for autonomy or independence. Political instability and conflict can create conditions conducive to terrorism.

Religious Extremism: Some terrorist acts are motivated by religious ideologies. Extremist interpretations of religious beliefs may be used to justify violence against perceived enemies or those who hold different beliefs.

Economic Factors: Socioeconomic issues, such as poverty, inequality, and lack of economic opportunities, can contribute to frustration and disenchantment, creating fertile ground for recruitment by extremist groups.

Social Alienation: Individuals who feel marginalised, socially isolated, or excluded from mainstream society may be more susceptible to radicalisation and recruitment by terrorist organisations.

Ethnic and Nationalistic Motivations: Terrorism can be driven by ethnic or nationalistic sentiments, where groups seek to promote the interests of a particular ethnic or national identity, often in response to perceived injustices or historical grievances.

Globalization and Communication: Advances in technology and communication have facilitated the spread of extremist ideologies and the recruitment of individuals into terrorist organisations.

State-Sponsored Terrorism: In some cases, states may use terrorism to advance political goals or destabilise their adversaries. State sponsorship can contribute to the perpetuation of terrorism.

Psychological Factors: Individual motivations can vary, and some people may be drawn to terrorism due to personal psychological factors, such as a desire for power, revenge, or a sense of belonging to a radicalised group.

[LuckyR]

Religion per se may not result in terrorism. But there certainly seems to be a correlation between certain religions and terrorism. But, of course, an as big tobacco never tired of repeating, correlation is not causation.

Choosing terrorism (vs conventional warfare techniques) is a matter of relative wealth and power, not of ideology. That's why when the US was weak and poor it fought in a guerilla style (in the Revolutionary War) and later when it could afford a standing army, fought conventionally.

Don't you think Hamas would prefer to fight with it's 7th Armored division and F 18 fighter bombers, if it could?

[Sy Borg]

Religion per se may not result in terrorism. But there certainly seems to be a correlation between certain religions and terrorism. But, of course, an as big tobacco never tired of repeating, correlation is not causation.

Choosing terrorism (vs conventional warfare techniques) is a matter of relative wealth and power, not of ideology. That's why when the US was weak and poor it fought in a guerilla style (in the Revolutionary War) and later when it could afford a standing army, fought conventionally.

Don't you think Hamas would prefer to fight with it's 7th Armored division and F 18 fighter bombers, if it could?

If you look at the situation with blinkers, as if it's all about the devout Middle East vs the somewhat more secular west, then that is the case.

However, Muslim-on-Muslim terrorism is rife in the region, more the exception than the rule. What other regions can say the same? Iran (a bombing just recently, even if they laughably blame Israel), Yemen, Syria, Iraq. The battle between Sunnis and Shias has been long and bloody and shows no sign of alleviating, let alone stopping.

The link between Islam and violence is undeniable. It's Islam's extreme dogmatism, refusal to compromise on any issue and promises of rewards in the afterlife for acts of extreme violence. To be fair, the problem is the corrupted modern extremist Islam (which has almost nothing to do with what the Koran says) rather than Islam itself. However, extremism is so common in Islam compared with other religions, that it's clear there is something drastically wrong with the ideology. Islamic countries famously do badly on most societal metrics unless they are sitting atop oil field. The combination Marxism (as rebellion against capitalist colonisers), tribalism and Islam has been a disaster for African nations.

I don't think any of the Abrahamic religions play well with others, tending more towards dogmatism than Buddhism, Hinduism and the Tao.

[Lagayscienza]

I think that is a fair assessment of the situation. There does seem to be a correlation between a modern form of Islam, with its ideology of divine reward for acts of violence, and terrorism. Next time you watch the news on TV and see the beginning of a report of a terrorist suicide bombing somewhere that kills dozens, do you even need to wait to hear the details before you know what the religion of the bombers probably is?

When this correlation is pointed out, we hear the repeated refrain from theists, but correlation is not causation. It's a nice trope and big tobacco used it successfully for decades. As did big oil. When used in this way it's just a way of denying truth.