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

[mark liu]

I have always considered religion to be a great stimulus when it comes to conversation like this. It most certainly is possible to have a discussion without the idea of religion yes, but I find the best discussions come when religion, be it in favour or against your argument, is challenged or used as a form of example.

[Sushan]

I have always considered religion to be a great stimulus when it comes to conversation like this. It most certainly is possible to have a discussion without the idea of religion yes, but I find the best discussions come when religion, be it in favour or against your argument, is challenged or used as a form of example.

Your perspective on the importance of religion in enriching discussions about consciousness is certainly shared by many. Religion can indeed provide a deep reservoir of metaphors, narratives, and philosophical insights that enrich our conversations. However, there are compelling arguments and methods for exploring such topics from secular perspectives as well.

For instance, when discussing concepts like consciousness, love, or morality, many turn to cognitive science, psychology, and philosophy devoid of religious context. Philosophers like Daniel Dennett and neuroscientists like Sam Harris have extensively explored consciousness using methods grounded in empirical research, rational argumentation, and ethical reasoning without relying on religious frameworks. Their work demonstrates how deeply we can dive into these topics by examining human behavior, brain functions, and evolutionary biology.

Additionally, interdisciplinary fields like neurophilosophy and bioethics offer frameworks for discussing complex human experiences and ethical dilemmas in ways that are accessible to people of all religious backgrounds, fostering a more inclusive dialogue.

Given the breadth of perspectives and the richness that secular approaches bring to the table, why do you feel that discussions are more fruitful when religion is involved? Can you see ways in which non-religious frameworks might equally enrich our understanding of consciousness?

[mark liu]

I have always considered religion to be a great stimulus when it comes to conversation like this. It most certainly is possible to have a discussion without the idea of religion yes, but I find the best discussions come when religion, be it in favour or against your argument, is challenged or used as a form of example.

Your perspective on the importance of religion in enriching discussions about consciousness is certainly shared by many. Religion can indeed provide a deep reservoir of metaphors, narratives, and philosophical insights that enrich our conversations. However, there are compelling arguments and methods for exploring such topics from secular perspectives as well.

For instance, when discussing concepts like consciousness, love, or morality, many turn to cognitive science, psychology, and philosophy devoid of religious context. Philosophers like Daniel Dennett and neuroscientists like Sam Harris have extensively explored consciousness using methods grounded in empirical research, rational argumentation, and ethical reasoning without relying on religious frameworks. Their work demonstrates how deeply we can dive into these topics by examining human behavior, brain functions, and evolutionary biology.

Additionally, interdisciplinary fields like neurophilosophy and bioethics offer frameworks for discussing complex human experiences and ethical dilemmas in ways that are accessible to people of all religious backgrounds, fostering a more inclusive dialogue.

Given the breadth of perspectives and the richness that secular approaches bring to the table, why do you feel that discussions are more fruitful when religion is involved? Can you see ways in which non-religious frameworks might equally enrich our understanding of consciousness?

You make excellent points, it was nice to read such a well balanced and thought out argument.

Whilst I would not say that a religious approach to philosophy is more or less valuable than a secular approach to philosophy, I would say each have their own merits. For example, we can take a basic situation in everyday life. Let us take being vegetarian as an example.

The justifications may stem from religious or secular origins as a simplified model. The religious perspective may be that you should not cause harm to creations of God. The secular model may be that it is better for the environment.

Whilst scientifically the secular model can be proved, the same cannot be said for the religious model when using the means of science. That being said, the religious model can also not be disproved via science.

What I would like to say is that the religious model of thinking gives many possibilities which are both impossible to disprove, yet impossible to prove via science. Creating a sense of grey area. I find when we challenge ourselves and think about grey areas from a philosophical perspective that it gives more interesting arguments when neither person is “correct.”

The above is just a little thought experiment I had- I’d be happy to discuss any other examples anybody can think of.

[Sushan]

I have always considered religion to be a great stimulus when it comes to conversation like this. It most certainly is possible to have a discussion without the idea of religion yes, but I find the best discussions come when religion, be it in favour or against your argument, is challenged or used as a form of example.

Your perspective on the importance of religion in enriching discussions about consciousness is certainly shared by many. Religion can indeed provide a deep reservoir of metaphors, narratives, and philosophical insights that enrich our conversations. However, there are compelling arguments and methods for exploring such topics from secular perspectives as well.

For instance, when discussing concepts like consciousness, love, or morality, many turn to cognitive science, psychology, and philosophy devoid of religious context. Philosophers like Daniel Dennett and neuroscientists like Sam Harris have extensively explored consciousness using methods grounded in empirical research, rational argumentation, and ethical reasoning without relying on religious frameworks. Their work demonstrates how deeply we can dive into these topics by examining human behavior, brain functions, and evolutionary biology.

Additionally, interdisciplinary fields like neurophilosophy and bioethics offer frameworks for discussing complex human experiences and ethical dilemmas in ways that are accessible to people of all religious backgrounds, fostering a more inclusive dialogue.

Given the breadth of perspectives and the richness that secular approaches bring to the table, why do you feel that discussions are more fruitful when religion is involved? Can you see ways in which non-religious frameworks might equally enrich our understanding of consciousness?

You make excellent points, it was nice to read such a well balanced and thought out argument.

Whilst I would not say that a religious approach to philosophy is more or less valuable than a secular approach to philosophy, I would say each have their own merits. For example, we can take a basic situation in everyday life. Let us take being vegetarian as an example.

The justifications may stem from religious or secular origins as a simplified model. The religious perspective may be that you should not cause harm to creations of God. The secular model may be that it is better for the environment.

Whilst scientifically the secular model can be proved, the same cannot be said for the religious model when using the means of science. That being said, the religious model can also not be disproved via science.

What I would like to say is that the religious model of thinking gives many possibilities which are both impossible to disprove, yet impossible to prove via science. Creating a sense of grey area. I find when we challenge ourselves and think about grey areas from a philosophical perspective that it gives more interesting arguments when neither person is “correct.”

The above is just a little thought experiment I had- I’d be happy to discuss any other examples anybody can think of.

I appreciate your nuanced take on the merits of religious versus secular frameworks in philosophical discussions. Your example about vegetarianism illustrates well how different perspectives can enrich our understanding and foster deeper debates. It's true that religion often introduces concepts that defy empirical testing, thus opening up discussions that stretch our imagination and moral reasoning.

This approach to engaging with both provable and unprovable ideas does indeed create a fertile ground for debate, one that can be both challenging and intellectually stimulating. In line with your thought experiment, I wonder how these perspectives might apply to other contemporary ethical dilemmas, such as artificial intelligence or genetic engineering. Both areas raise questions that straddle moral, practical, and existential domains.

For example, when discussing AI, a religious perspective might frame the creation of intelligent machines as delving into realms that traditionally belong to the divine, while a secular perspective might focus on the implications for society, employment, and privacy. Each angle offers unique insights that could broaden our discussion and deepen our understanding of the potential impacts of AI.

[Raymonda Onwuka 1]

It is not too hard to separate them. Consciousness is in made originally while religion was made by man to portray pleases him.

[Sushan]

It is not too hard to separate them. Consciousness is in made originally while religion was made by man to portray pleases him.

Your assertion that religion is "made by man" while consciousness is "made originally" points to a materialist view, which holds that consciousness arises solely from physical processes. This perspective itself fuels an ongoing debate about the origins and nature of consciousness—whether it is an emergent property of the brain or something more profound, possibly interconnected with the metaphysical.

In philosophy, consciousness has often been examined through various non-religious frameworks, such as dualism, materialism, and phenomenology, which do not necessarily reference religious beliefs. Philosophers like Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers have approached the subject using arguments and theories that focus on the nature of the mind and its processes, rather than divine or spiritual explanations.

On the other hand, religious contexts often provide a narrative that resonates with people's existential queries and spiritual experiences, enriching the discussion by incorporating a broader range of human experience. For instance, many religious traditions offer unique perspectives on the nature of consciousness and its relation to the soul, which can be valuable in a comprehensive exploration of the topic.

How do you think we can effectively integrate these diverse viewpoints in a way that respects both religious and non-religious beliefs while deepening our understanding of consciousness?

[Tom Gada]

It can be challenging to discuss consciousness without referencing religious perspectives, as the concept of consciousness has been deeply intertwined with religious beliefs and philosophies for centuries. This is due to the fact that consciousness is a complex phenomenon that has been explored by many different cultures and traditions, and the concept of a conscious mind or spirit has been central to many religious doctrines.

[Tomy Chandrafrost]

Perhaps it's not difficult if we learn about psychology and philosophy. Essentially, consciousness, in my opinion, is a neutral concept and doesn't have to be related to any religion.

[Silvia Orenge]

The fact is that many people have ties to religion today. Many people reading the book are religious or have religious family members. I think it is our innate urge for tribalism to want to associate ourselves with one group or another.
It makes sense to create familiarity between those who are not religious and those who are.

We are all going to have to let go of religion some day, because religions do not embrace change. If someone has an experience that is different from what is specified in the religious writings, it is frowned upon because it threatens the sustenance of the religion. This does not mean that the person's realization is wrong; just different. Religions are therefore spiritually rigid. Religious people will not perceive this if they are not included in philosophical discussion.

[Chinedum Chijioke]

Religion and faith play a significant role in my life, influencing my perspective on the world and existence. Hence, discussing consciousness inevitably involves considering our awareness of the divine.

[Elijah Reuben]

It is hard to exclude religious references from discussions about conscience. I said so because even the word conscience has a religious origin. It is that which discerns between right and wrong in man.

[Henry Chude]

Excluding religious references from discussions about consciousness can be challenging due to the deeply intertwined nature of spirituality and human understanding of the mind. Consciousness has been a central theme in religious and philosophical traditions for millennia, often explored through concepts of the soul, spirit, and afterlife. These cultural and historical influences shape people's perceptions and discussions of consciousness, making purely secular discourse difficult. However, scientific and philosophical discussions about consciousness can focus on empirical and theoretical frameworks, such as neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy of mind, to explore consciousness from a non-religious perspective. By concentrating on observable phenomena, brain function, and theories like emergent properties or computational models, discussions can remain secular. While challenging, separating religious references is feasible by adhering strictly to scientific and philosophical methodologies that do not rely on spiritual or religious interpretations.

[Rose Lineani]

This shows how deeply intertwined spirituality and religion are in our language and conceptual frameworks.

[Sushan]

It can be challenging to discuss consciousness without referencing religious perspectives, as the concept of consciousness has been deeply intertwined with religious beliefs and philosophies for centuries. This is due to the fact that consciousness is a complex phenomenon that has been explored by many different cultures and traditions, and the concept of a conscious mind or spirit has been central to many religious doctrines.

Yes, it can be difficult, but is it too difficult? If the goal is to define consciousness purely in scientific terms, there’s a path to do that, even if it means working within a more limited scope. Science has made strides in understanding brain function and awareness, although it hasn’t fully mapped consciousness. Still, in purely philosophical discussions, ideas from religion are almost inevitable, since they’ve defined the way people think about consciousness for so long.

[Sushan]

Perhaps it's not difficult if we learn about psychology and philosophy. Essentially, consciousness, in my opinion, is a neutral concept and doesn't have to be related to any religion.

Yes, I agree. While philosophy allows us to go deeper into issues of awareness and identity in a more abstract manner, psychology provides a framework for examining consciousness from a cognitive or neurological standpoint. Without involving religion, both fields can provide some good footing.

That said, some might feel that removing the spiritual side risks leaving out a dimension people have associated with consciousness for ages. But I think it’s refreshing to explore it neutrally too—seeing it as a universal part of human experience that doesn’t require a religious angle. Do you think the concept loses something if we don’t include the spiritual side?