The references and aspects of religion are metaphysical and therefore non-sensical and should therefore be dismissed.

Depends on how you read the scriptures. Some interpretations do derive metaphysical conclusions, but this is not necessary.

Religion by definition is dependant upon belief.

Belief itself is justifiable for a person to think about to themselfs; or within a religious community with other 'believers' - This unfortunately is a private language, for the language to be public, and allow people the ability to converse with actually making sense of anything, it must be publically verifiable. Many scholars have correctly expressed the forementioned. This ultimately leads to the conclusion - Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

You should read up on A.J Ayer as his writing is very easy to understand. All meaning is derived from language, such that everything begins in experience and is labelled, the knowledge we have is expressed through the language which we do not allow to be anything else - this is what is publically accepted in soceity.

Now - for someone to hold their beliefs, that is absolutly fine. But for them to discuss them - they are wasting their breath as they are not mentioning anything.

Metaphysics has been erradicated since Hume first mentioned it, which at the time was not labelled 'metaphysics' but he said in section II of his enquiries: 'Here, therefore is a proposition which may banish jargon annd make every dispute equally intelligible: When we entertain any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without meaning or idea (as is too frequent), we need but enquire, from what impression is that supposed idea derived?'' - This which is reference to pseudo debates (aka metaphysics) which the questions themselfs have unobtainable answers as there is no test, even in theory that we can put forward to answer them. Hume was a meaning empiricist - everything begins in experience. This was then furthered by Ayer as linguistic analysis.

(a quote from hume relevant to the matter 'a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence' - where is the evidence of religion? How is it possible to obtain the notion of God and verify that God exists?)

Quote:

Religion by definition is dependant upon belief.
I disagree.

You may be interested in the book Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor.

The conclusion makes sense to me, but not because of the premises here. You're right to say that groups of worshipers develop their own jargon, but this is similar to the jargon of philosophers. It is very possible to learn that jargon.

He is on my reading list. But I'm not so sure about the idea that all meaning is derived from language. Seems the other way around. Prior to language, did human thought have no meaning?

Sure, they are mentioning something - their beliefs. Without a similar experience, discussing those beliefs with someone might be difficult, but hardly impossible.

I've read the Hume. But this treatment assumes that religious discourse is necessarily metaphysical. To answer Hume's question, in this context, I would say that the ideas of believers are derived from their experience.

Through experience. Verification is more difficult. That's up to the individual - I cannot verify my God to another, no one else can verify theirs to me. You simply have to have the experience. I can verify that my shirt is green because I can bring you the shirt and you can see the color. But I cannot bring you to God, you have to bring yourself there.

If there is no belief, then what does religion have at its foundation? Where is the evidence without the necessity to believe?

Yes, human thought does have meaning. BUT it lacks intelligible meaning. That is as it is not capable of being apprehended by the intellect alone. Prior to language - the nonsense was not conversed was it? (Yet such a proposition from myself is nonsensical due to there being no way of me verifying such a thing, there are no texts or recordings of what it was like before language existed. Yes - you may try and pick what i refered to apart with the use of cave paintings etc - that itself was the beginning of a language, of communication, and yes it began in experience, with the public verification of sense data, allowing the ability to share what may be verified!

I do agree, it is possible to learn the 'private' religious language and discuss it with other people. But to be able to do so with significance, the statement must be tautologous or you must be able to verify it at least in principle, otherwise it is devoid of meaning, it is not part of the public language.

Ultimately the job of philosophy is to elucidate, talking of nonsensical matters is hardly analysing and clarifying, because by their very definition, they cannot be verified.

Ok, well, your statement is valid, if there are other people able to share your experience, and then verify it. If there are not, what is the difference between me hallucinating or simply having an illusion? It may be the case that what you experienced was the case. But for it to be the case, it must be publically verified. A private experience is nonsensical, and therefore should not be discussed (in relation to philosophical debate ofcourse, I am not disputing your beliefs, only your ability to converse the topic in philosophical debate).

I agree completely that you obtain knowledge through experience. I am ofcourse an empiricist myself. Thus I do agree. But what i strongly disagree with is 'I cannot bring you God, you have to bring yourself there' From what you are saying, it is only possible for someone to experience God if they take to the experience - similarly create the experience. If this was possible - would people not do this daily? would they not do it together? because if they did experience God together and could verify that they were experiencing God i would agree that it was an intelligible statement, and thus allowing discussion. But untill you can provide a test, even in theory for the existence of God, God remains metaphysical and therefore cannot be discussed.