I was suggesting that religion must be more than just any old belief that an individual or a community happens to take seriously. I was nitpicking. I'd say that a religion must at least be a cosmological theory, even if it's a bad theory.
All these religions have their roots in mysticism, as you say, or this would be my view, so you've answered your first question. Only if we deny the mystical source of religion would it become an impediment to knowledge. I don't quite understand what your second question is asking.
True knowledge is not what someone else tells us. That would be heresay.
In this manner, we could say that the Semitic faiths (and by Semitic I mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as to a lesser extent moribund Zoroastrianism and late Manichaeanism), being inherently mono- or bi- theistic and having only limited canon, are actually greater impediments to knowledge than are religions with strong mystical traditions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Sikhism? Yet that, too, leaves us with unanswerable questions, for there lies in all Semitic traditions deep (if necessarily somewhat secretive) mystical traditions; that is, are religions borne out of a want to know and mystics wish to strengthen their knowledge by appealing to what we know to explain the unknown? (Note this was the appeal mechanism made.)
Whoever, I was attempting to better flush out Theaetetus's ideas, not introduce ideas of my own. In other words, I was trying to see how he had arrived at his ideas rather than defend or attack them.
My thoughts on the matter (also highly unoriginal):
1. Dogma is hearsay; as hearsay, it is an impediment to knowledge. (per your post)
2. Mysticism is an appeal to knowledge; it is an attempt to find truth through one's own spiritual reflection (preferably with reckless abandon of dogma).
3. All faiths begin as mysticism.
4. Mysticism can become dogmatic, but not the other way around.
5. All faiths have inherently mystical branches (Sufism, Kabbala) and inherently dogmatic branches (Catholicism, Orthodox Jewishness).
6. Some faiths place more importance on mysticism (in general) and others on dogma (in general).
7. All faiths are articulations of combined metaphysical and ethical systems, universally involving at least one unprovable axiom (which may actually bring religion into line with the Incompleteness Theorem).
...Keep in mind these are just random thoughts, not any attempt at argument.
It has to do with the way the indoctrinated dogma of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were used to suppress new ideas. If you look through mystical systems their is always an underlying desire to know, while in the big three mono-faiths they is an underlying desire of the authorities to have the common people submit to a higher power. The authorities were rather effective at turning the unknown into the absolutely known.
Whoever, I was attempting to better flush out Theaetetus's ideas, not introduce ideas of my own. In other words, I was trying to see how he had arrived at his ideas rather than defend or attack them.
My thoughts on the matter (also highly unoriginal):
1. Dogma is hearsay; as hearsay, it is an impediment to knowledge. (per your post)
2. Mysticism is an appeal to knowledge; it is an attempt to find truth through one's own spiritual reflection (preferably with reckless abandon of dogma).
3. All faiths begin as mysticism.
4. Mysticism can become dogmatic, but not the other way around.
5. All faiths have inherently mystical branches (Sufism, Kabbala) and inherently dogmatic branches (Catholicism, Orthodox Jewishness).
6. Some faiths place more importance on mysticism (in general) and others on dogma (in general).
7. All faiths are articulations of combined metaphysical and ethical systems, universally involving at least one unprovable axiom (which may actually bring religion into line with the Incompleteness Theorem).
...Keep in mind these are just random thoughts, not any attempt at argument.
I'll challenge this notion again. It seems to me that political powers use religion as they do other forces and systems in a society, economics, education, history, everything they can get their hands on. Certainly, polytheistic religions have been as susceptible to political manipulation as have been the monotheistic ones. This is not a reflection on the nature of theism, but a reflection on the nature of political power. It would be like saying that communism leads to dictatorship. It's confusing the core ideas with the way they have played out at the hands of the politically influential.
I'll challenge this notion again. It seems to me that political powers use religion as they do other forces and systems in a society, economics, education, history, everything they can get their hands on. Certainly, polytheistic religions have been as susceptible to political manipulation as have been the monotheistic ones. This is not a reflection on the nature of theism, but a reflection on the nature of political power. It would be like saying that communism leads to dictatorship. It's confusing the core ideas with the way they have played out at the hands of the politically influential.
Is a cosmological theory a necessary element within religion?
I think so. It would be possible to have a set of ethical beliefs without any cosmological theory underpinning it (Humanism? Marxism?), but I wouldn't call this set of beliefs a religion.
I actually agree with you. I forgot that the reason why there is Buddhism is due to the caste system and other political manipulations of Hinduism.
I should have just lumped in all dogmatic, indoctrinated versions of religion together as wanting believers to blindly follow. It makes a nice way to build up political capital. But it cannot be denied that the great magnitude of the effect of the big three one god religion had a much more dominant effect on the world.
Excellent question. Is a cosmological element necessary for religion? Certainly ethical and metaphysical elements are...What you are really asking is, Is Confucianism a religion? Is Taoism a religion? Is Buddhism a religion? And of course, what are cosmological elements?
The explanation I can think of is, Cosmological elements are things that explain the origin and maintenance of the physical world. Previously, I had been grouping these elements under the more general category of "metaphysical" elements, which would now reduce to being merely what underpins the world (two different things).
Buddhists believe that "dependent origin" created* and maintains the world. Therefore, it has cosmological elements; therefore it is a true religion. Taoists believe that a monistic force called the "Tao" not unlike Brahman or Spinoza's God created** and maintains the world; therefore, it, too, can be classified under religion.
But, insofar as I know, the Confucians do not. It evolved as a specific method of philosophy undergirding common Chinese religious thought (that is, polytheistic Chinese deities) and, to a greater degree than even Taoism, had fully religious qualities tacked on to it much later in its history; thus, Confucianism is not a religion but rather a system of ethics not unlike Socratinism.
Might it not be a mistake to draw a distinction between the origin of the physical world and that which underpins it? What if they are the same thing?
My view would be that if for some reason metaphysicians everywhere suddenly became professionally interested in Mysticism, then Metaphysics and Cosmology would become the same thing.
I know what you mean here, I think, but you're saying that a religion is a true religion if it has cosmological elements. Quantum cosmology is therefore a true religion.
But then, what distinguishes a science from a religion? If it is dogmatic monotheism then the difference is obvious. If it is true religion then nothing at all. The Dalai Lama characterises Buddhism as a science of mind.
It's probably just a matter of definitions, but it seems this way to me also. I do wonder, however,at the way Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism dovetail so neatly. I suspect that Confucianism's behavioural system may have originated in the same place as the Buddha's right-lifestyle and Lao-tsu's Way.
What if they aren't? That's why the distinction needs to be made.
If a metaphysician (ontologist) became interested in mysticism, it would result in mysticality-driven metaphysics, which is different than metaphysically-driven mysticism (it's all in the language, wording, tone, and inherent rationality).
No it ain't. I said religion is a unified system of cosmology and metaphysics and ethics: there are no metaphysical or ethical imperatives in science; therefore, it is no true religion.
There are no cosmological (i.e., describing origins and maintenance) imperatives in traditional Western philosophy; ergo it is no true religion.
As you may be aware, in the modern (American) way of thinking about things, science means something very specific, i.e., a way of thinking about the world using empiricality, inductive reasoning, and the "scientific method"; the more traditional meaning, deriving from Lat. scire /ski ray/ "to know", science simply meant the pursuit of knowledge. In this way was philosophy considered "the greatest of sciences." The Dalai Lama, I am sure, is aware of these distinctions.
But keep this in mind: Buddhism originated in India as a response to increasing politicization of Hinduism...
Also, the monisms evident in Taoism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Spinoza's Ethics, among yet still other texts, all also dovetail nicely together.
What you say about the misuse of religious dogma is certainly true. But I think the issue here concerns the misuse of it within and by the respective Churches, not by outsiders.
We'll have to agree to disagree then, for I stand by what I said the first time. If you truly believe that Buddhism originated in India as a response to increasing politicization of Hinduism then you are not likely to agree with anything I might say about it.
Might it not be a mistake to draw a distinction between the origin of the physical world and that which underpins it? What if they are the same thing?
The importance of Buddhism does not lie in its historical origin--
