Joanathan,
Don't panic ... you think, therefore you are ... (you are thinking aren't you?)

Of course one neat approach to the question would be that if one could prove that there was no religion at all, then we'd have answered the question about whether there was one true religion. Looking around though, it appears that there are plenty of institutions that identify themselves as religions without much contradiction.

If it flows from Deleuze that nothing exists, then neither can Deleuze's theories and 'Pop!' we reappear from the vacuum.

'God in all things' ... close to my own view.
I wonder if the octopi agree?

There is still the problem of views which are coherent to themselves but incommensurable to each other, that is to say they don't even contradict each other. And also what IS "religion"?

Wouldn't "God in all things" equate a tautology ("God in nothing") ?

I think I remember something from Deleuze stating something along the lines of, "what exists is the power to differ". He doesn't mean that there is nothing, rather an irreducible process.

Hi Andrew
Quick reply from me.

There is still the problem of views which are coherent to themselves but incommensurable to each other, that is to say they don't even contradict each other.

Not sure who or what point that's aimed towards Andrew, can you give an example?

And also what IS "religion"?

I'm sure we could all reach for a dictionary and then spend some time trying to drive out a correct answer. I'm more interested in what Russell's definition is as he first raised this question.

Wouldn't "God in all things" equate a tautology ("God in nothing") ?

Do you mean that those two statements mean the same thing? I don't think so but maybe I'm missing something obvious. If I have five glasses, beer in all five is not the same as beer in none of them. I don't see how either is a tautology.

Where views have no similarity, there can be no better, worse, right or wrong. The contact between such views is a relation without relation. An example in the form of language games would be something like; "The sandwich tastes like the number 4".

We won't get much help from a dictionary I'm afraid. Religion is commonly (and falsely) determined by historically powerful manifestations of religiosity. It is not about Gods & anthropomorphisms per se, but to do with more basic mundane cultural/social activity.

Identity constitutes at least one difference. Common sense context is a multiplicity of differences. There must be an "other than god", for "god" to be meaningful.

I said in an earlier post that I felt this question was poorly formed, since it presupposes that there must be a "true" religion, however more recently I'm wondering does Religion even have a place in Philosophy? Since looking at religions historically, none of them began with a philosophical framework or even a main idea, any Philosophical framework seems to be something that was tacked on afterwards.

Max Weber tells us that religion begins with the "possession of the deity" or what Joachim Wach calls "the experience of the holy"; basically the sense of being a vessel of the divine. So, Jesus, Zoroaster, Mohammed or Buddha, at the very outset, never offered their circle of followers a better state in the hereafter, an improved social order, or any other reward apart from a certain psychological state in the here and now.

In most cases, it seems that according to the various scriptures and legends, this experience happens in an instant. So, Mohammed fasts on a mountainside near Mecca and -bang!- vast revelation and the beginning of Islam. Saul of Tarsus walks to Damascus and —flash!— he hears the voice of the Lord and becomes a Christian. It's a similar situation with Christian Rosenkreuz and his "Godilluminated" brotherhood of Rosicrucians, Emanuel Swedenborg whose mind suddenly "opened", Sadhu Sundar Singh who saw a vision, etc. etc. These historic revelations have been explained in many ways, perhaps as the result of epilepsy, changes in metabolism due to fasting, self-hypnosis, drugs or actual intervention by the supernatural.

Now, all the modern religions (and even the Occult mysteries for that matter) talk about an "Other World", whether this is Heaven or the flying saucers - a world that the "rational" world is blind to, the experience of which, Joachim Wach explains to us:

Following a profound new experience, providing a new illumination of the world, the founder, a highly charismatic person, begins enlisting disciples. These followers become an informally but closely knit association, bound together by the new experience, whose nature the founder has revealed and interpreted.

• The followers may be regarded as the founder's companions, bound to him by personal devotion, friendship and loyalty.
  
• A growing sense of solidarity both binds the members together and differentiates them from any other form of social organization.
  
• Membership in the circle requires a complete break with the ordinary pursuits of life and a radical change in social relationships.
  
• Ties of family and kinship and loyalties of various kinds are at least temporarily relaxed or severed.
  
• The hardships, suffering and persecution that loom for those who join the group are counterbalanced by their high hopes and firm expectations.
  

The Founder:

• Has "visions, dreams, trances, frequent ecstasies" ... "unusual sensitiveness and an intense emotional life".
  
• Is ready to interpret manifestations of the divine.
  
• Has an uncompromising attitude and an archaic manner and language.
  
• Appears as a renewer of lost contracts with the hidden powers of life.
  
• Does not usually come from the aristocracy, the learned or refined; frequently he emerges from simpler folk and remains true to his origin even in a changed environment.
  
• Speaks cryptically, with words, signs, gestures, many metaphors, and symbolic acts of a diverse nature.
  

Further, according to Max Weber, the founder illuminates and interprets the past and anticipates the future in terms of the kairos (the supreme moment), in one of two ways:

As an "ethical" prophet, like Jesus or Moses, who outlines rules of conduct for his followers and describes god as a super-person who passes judgment on how we live up to the rules.
Or
As an "exemplary" prophet, like Buddha, for whom god is impersonal, a unifying flow or force. Thus, the exemplary prophet does not present rules of conduct. He presents his own life as an example for his followers...

In all these religious circles, the groups became tighter and tighter by developing their own symbols, terminology, life styles, and over time, simple cultic practices and rites, often involving music and art - all of which grow out of the new experience, and seem weird or incomprehensible to those who have never had the experience. At this point, they might also "develop a strong urge to extend the message to all people".

Further, within the religious circle, status becomes a simple matter. The world is simply divided into "the aware" i.e. those who have had the experience of being vessels of the divine, and the great masses of "the unaware".

Seems to me that whether religion has a place in philosophy (or vice versa) there is, at least, an overlap between the states of affairs discussed and described in philosophy and those in religion. In the past, philosophers have certainly regarded religion as being a domain open to philosophical investigation and discussion, William James springs to mind.

I propose that where Philosophers past might have regarded religion as being a domain open to philosophical investigation and discussion, they have in fact been dealing with the propositions put forward by religious types:

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
If god is all-powerful, can she create a weight that she cannot lift?

Not the meta-question of the coming into existence of religion, which seems (to my mind) to be better addressed through sociology or psychology.

What a fascinating topic! I recently watched this talk from former priest and physicist Mark Vernon on the importance of the spirit of agnocistism - the art of embracing doubts, the unknown etc. I think this offers an interesting direction for the present reflection. You can check the full video there:

http://iai.tv/video/m...

Enjoy!

Emily.