I don't find that definition of religion useful.
So the definition one is using is one that assists the user in doing what the user is trying to do, in the effort to communicate with those who are going to receive that communication. I agree that the definition should be useful for the context in which it is being used. So indeed the usefulness of the definition should be a factor in its choice. So I am attempting to point the recipients' attention to all those things that we currently point to, and have in the past pointed to, and labeled a "religion." So my definition would cover Unitarian Universalism, which is considered by almost everyone to be one of the religions, whereas your definition would not. But interestingly my definition would cover something like humanism, insofar as humanism is an adult effort to work on how we should live our lives.
"Religion" is a polysemic word, that is, one with multiple definitions that aren't necessarily distinct, but form a spectrum of overlapping ideas. We all seem to have a different definition, many defining religion as essentially any worldview.
People with a belief in a deity are different than other kinds of people. Their worldviews are very different from those with a humanistic worldview, for example. I find making the distinction more useful than grouping them together.
Yes, because you are trying to group people into those who do something called "believing in God" or things similar to that from those who don't do so. And why you are doing that, i.e., what you are trying to accomplish, is to advocate for one of those groups (yours) over another or others. I understand that. But my goal is something different. I am trying to help our species come together despite the differences that exist between some of its members, by virtue of overcoming those differences through rational discussion. I recognize that we humans have a lot of imperfections, and a lot of tendencies that cause behavior that leads to pain, suffering, disability, and early death (PSDED). I am trying to contribute to a process of improvement of us humans, and am wanting to refer to all of those efforts that we are making to improve, i.e., to do what we really should do if we want to reduce markedly our tendency to engage in behaviors that lead to PSDED.
There is an analogy that I find somewhat helpful. Children start out with a lot of behavioral tendencies that are not optimal. But they are able to improve. Helping them to improve is called "child rearing." We help them to become more "civilized." (We of course do not do a very good job, yet, but our child rearing methods are subject to improvement.)
Well, our religions (using my definition) have a lot of good and a lot of bad in them. Because of their having a lot of bad in them, some advocate that religion should be stamped out, rather than helped to improve. So an analogous approach to children would be to stamp them out rather than help them to improve. The analogy has a flaw of course, in that children are being helped by those that are no longer children, whereas it is we within our religions that have to work on improving ourselves, by using our observation and imagination to bring about optimal innovation within our religions, that is actually optimization that we are bringing about in ourselves. We have to help ourselves improve, by using observation, reasoning, and imagination. We have to rear ourselves. But the basic alternative is between stamping out "them" vs. working together for improvement (e.g., by sharing and comparing our ideas through discussions like these). I believe that our tendency toward tribalism is one of our greatest causes of PSDED. Our coming together, through social contracting based upon increasing understanding of each other, is the way I prefer.
That doesn't describe a humanist like me or my worldview at all. Grouping us all together isn't helpful to humanists, who benefit from accentuating the differences, but it is to the church, which benefits from blurring them, as it does by conflating two radically different meanings of faith - one unjustified belief, like religious faith, and one justified belief based on evidence, such as when I say that I have faith that my car will start again the next time I try to start it just like it has the last 200 times I've tried.
That would be another example of two distinct ideas that deserve two distinct words, and, of course, it benefits the church to blur and conflate them as if they are identical, equivalent, or interchangeable.
To avoid ambiguity and make the distinction clearer rather than blurrier, I don't use the word "religion" if there isn't a god belief.
I understand. Your approach has to do more with who is going to win out over whom, and is consistent with the way we usually think. Many, many more people will agree with you rather than me. I acknowledge that. But I look at how this natural tendency of ours to divide into competitive, conflicting groups has worked so far, and am advocating a different approach that I believe would help us better in an effort to become a more unified, understanding, and caring species in the future. But I agree that we have a long way to go, and that we may never get there because as our groups go to war with each other, with ever-increasing technological capability, we become precariously closer to eliminating ourselves completely.
For a clearer and more complete description of how I think about these things, I do invite you to take a look at the website:
Humanianity
And please note that I believe that humanism is indeed a positive development in the emergence of Humanianity.
Bill Van Fleet
