Let's define Religion.

[Earthtank]

I've been told that Religion cannot be defined, or at the very least, any attempt will be so inadequate as to make the definition useless. I think for most people, there are certain sets of beliefs that seem to easily fit into a category with the label Religion. I anticipate most of the difficulty will lie on those that fall on the boundary of a general definition, but alas, I might be completely wrong.

I would love to put this to the test. My idea is that I will provide an initial definition of Religion and have RF members delineate all the ways in which it is inadequate or misses the mark (which I am sure it will). Hopefully there will be suggestions on how to improve the definition along with discussion about the pro's and con's of possible changes. I would also be curious to know if folks think common usage of the word 'religion' is generally useful today or wholly problematic and why.

And remember, we want to identify those few characteristics that are felt to be shared by all beliefs under a heading of Religion. Here is my concoction for the definition of religion:

Religion - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos, with the existence of an agency or agencies not bound by physical laws or manifestations of existence not bound by physical laws, and such beliefs are held as true by Faith and do not require empirical verification.

OK, let me have it.

I believe your question is flawed imo, i think you should choose a religion then, define. Way too much room for ambiguity and and ultimate waste of time in the way the question is posed/worded.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

............... If a majority of people agree on something then it is true?

I find the ^ above ^ is the opposite of what Jesus taught.
Jesus taught MANY (aka majority) would prove false.
What would prove true is that Jesus' followers would be hated - Matthew 10:22; 24:9; Luke 21:17

 

[MikeF]

To me the 'set of criteria' specific to the Bible is: that Jesus is: the 'way' the religious 'truth' and the 'life'. John 14:6
* The way for humans to be reconciled to God.
* The truth because what was foretold came to pass in Jesus.
* The life because by means of Jesus' ransom opens up the way for everlasting life either in heaven or on earth.

Thanks for your input.

 

[MikeF]

I believe your question is flawed imo, i think you should choose a religion then, define. Way too much room for ambiguity and and ultimate waste of time in the way the question is posed/worded.

Certainly one can choose to follow a religion and then think about the specifics of that religion.

But if one recognize that there are more than one religion, then one has the opportunity to ask what makes a religion or a belief religious as opposed to non-religious. One may ask what essential characteristics might encompass anything one might consider to be religion.

 

[infrabenji]

I reading through the list I found more than a few of the quotes to be commentary on religion as opposed to an attempt to define a class or category. Would you agree?

Do you consider the exercise of defining a category of religion useful?

Hi, good afternoon. I don’t typically find anything about religion per se useful. These are just some quotes I copied and pasted from some interesting people I found online.

 

[Augustus]

In Ancient Greece being a citizen with duties and obligations can be considered a social concept. Those features are not religious unless dictated by or resulting from the religious belief set.

This is one reason why the concept of religion obfuscates more than it enlightens. The idea of a 'social concept' distinct from religion is the idea that there is a clear divide between the secular and the religious. This distinction didn't exist in most societies, and the concept is generally a product of European Christianity.

Citizenship didn't derive from religion in a scriptural sense, but citizenship could not be separated from religion in a practical sense as religion was the fictive kinship that bound the community and one could not be a citizen while rejecting the ritual.

As to Genesis, that some percentage of the whole of Abrahamic faiths consider it myth and not fact doesn’t mean that the adherents don’t attribute the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos to a mythic entity which they consider to be true. The religious tenets are believed true and the tenets are justified by myth.

In apophatic theology, God cannot even be said to exist

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

Depends on who or what is assigning purpose. Who or what is assigning purpose in Marx’s view?

If a utopian outcome is viewed as the inevitable end point of History, on what grounds should that not be considered different from Divine Providence?

Not all false beliefs are Religion. That they created false narratives around evolutionary biology has it grounded in the realm of physical reality. False belief or self-deception alone does not constitute a religious belief. And for that matter, not all magical or mystical beliefs would be considered Religion. If one believes in Leprechauns, it would not be religious because it is not part of a belief set relating to the creation, nature, and purpose of the cosmos. Not all myths are religious myths.

You defined religion as "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos, with the existence of an agency or agencies not bound by physical laws or manifestations of existence not bound by physical laws, and such beliefs are held as true by Faith and do not require empirical verification."

Naziism combined blood and soil nationalism with a Providential and millenarian teleology, this is an agency not bound by physical laws, held as true by faith and incorporating a view on the nature of the cosmos.

So it meets your criteria.

That there are social values that developed through religious belief is not in question. However, it can be argued that religion was used as justification for both sides of the civil rights conflict, be it civil rights for people of color, or women. Arguing for fair treatment is not a religion no matter how you want to spin it.

It's not simply arguing for fair treatment though, it's a salvation narrative containing Original Sin (White Privilege), virtue from suffering (intersectionality, the more 'oppressed' you are the greater your moral authority), heresy (being cancelled), saints/martyrs (George Floyd), redemption, etc...

From the Secular Humanist horses mouth:

“Secular humanism emerges, then, as a comprehensive nonreligious life stance that incorporates a naturalistic philosophy, a cosmic outlook rooted in science, and a consequentialist ethical system.”
https://secularhumanism.org/what-is-secular-humanism/secular-humanism-defined/
Not a religion.

I asked you which things I said were wrong as there is no standardised definition of religion on which to judge. Of course they say they are not a religion as religion in the average Humanists worldview plays the role of Satan in Christian theology.

Let's take Richard Dawkins as the model Secular Humanist, which of the things I mentioned don't apply to him?

Well, I suppose it is up to the peanut gallery to decide. All I can say is that we first start with similarities to develop our overarching category, and then it would be differences in construct and social roles upon which one might create subcategories. To avoid the process altogether would seem to isolate us in our own culture and religious beliefs. Kind of a don’t ask, don’t tell scenario or an ostrich with its head in the sand.

That seems a strange way to look at it. Unless we can use the word 'religion' then there is no point in looking at historical belief systems?

We just acknowledge that studying historical belief systems is facilitated by not making people think in terms of a word that has inescapable modern, Western connotations that don't map on well to pre-modern, non-Western times.

The main reason many atheists want there to be a clear category of religion is because they want to feel superior by not belonging to it. It's not about understanding the past, but differentiating themselves from it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...... I don’t typically find anything about religion per se useful..........

To me 'HOPE is useful' because anyone can find meaning or purpose in life, but as far as 'everlasting hope' to me this is where religion enters into the picture.
Most people are taught to want to have hope such as going to a heaven when they die.
In the Bible I find a useful earthly hope. The hope that there will be a wonderful-bright future for Earth and its people.
This useful hope is what I find described in Isaiah 35th chapter.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Certainly one can choose to follow a religion and then think about the specifics of that religion.
But if one recognize that there are more than one religion, then one has the opportunity to ask what makes a religion or a belief religious as opposed to non-religious. One may ask what essential characteristics might encompass anything one might consider to be religion.

The ^above^ reminded me about the ancient Israelites in ancient Israel.
They were surrounded by foreign-nations belief systems.
ALL would be considered as being religious.
The question is: Which religion does God accept as the true or genuine religion __________.
According to Jesus' teachings: God accepted the old Hebrew Scriptures as what God accepted.
Jesus enlarged and expounded on how and why those Scriptures applies to us.

 

[infrabenji]

To me 'HOPE is useful' because anyone can find meaning or purpose in life, but as far as 'everlasting hope' to me this is where religion enters into the picture.
Most people are taught to want to have hope such as going to a heaven when they die.
In the Bible I find a useful earthly hope. The hope that there will be a wonderful-bright future for Earth and its people.
This useful hope is what I find described in Isaiah 35th chapter.

The last thing when she emptied the box was hope lol. I’m glad in a way you have “earthly hope”. I think I do too though we might define it differently. I’ve come across your counter points; believers in “everlasting hope” including my own parents, who view evil in the world as good because it means that Jesus will come back sooner. The world will be destroyed, but they’ll be fine because they’ll get raptured or whatever. I feel the latter is a dangerous position to hold because they obfuscate themselves and others into believing evil and wrongdoing in the world is the result of a divine plan for which they have no control or responsibility. It’s gods plan. God works in mysterious ways kind of thinking.

 

[MikeF]

The main reason many atheists want there to be a clear category of religion is because they want to feel superior by not belonging to it. It's not about understanding the past, but differentiating themselves from it.

I do not disagree that for the non-religious, the demonstrated constant of religion as myth supports their confidence in holding a non-religious position. I equally believe that for the theist who has emotional, deeply entrenched beliefs in one particular set of religious beliefs, it is in their emotional interest to discourage efforts to demonstrate the constant of religion as myth, to discourage the equating of their religious beliefs with all others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not disagree that for the non-religious, the demonstrated constant of religion as myth supports their confidence in holding a non-religious position. I equally believe that for the theist who has emotional, deeply entrenched beliefs in one particular set of religious beliefs, it is in their emotional interest to discourage efforts to demonstrate the constant of religion as myth, to discourage the equating of their religious beliefs with all others.

Stop speaking for the non-religious. I am one of them and your claims doesn't represent me.

 

[PearlSeeker]

religion | Origin and meaning of religion by Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

religion | Origin and meaning of religion by Online Etymology Dictionary

Yes, that is one version of the word "religion".

 

[MikeF]

Stop speaking for the non-religious. I am one of them and your claims doesn't represent me.

Certainly, I should have added the modifier "some may".

 

[Augustus]

I do not disagree that for the non-religious, the demonstrated constant of religion as myth supports their confidence in holding a non-religious position. I equally believe that for the theist who has emotional, deeply entrenched beliefs in one particular set of religious beliefs, it is in their emotional interest to discourage efforts to demonstrate the constant of religion as myth, to discourage the equating of their religious beliefs with all others.

It does the opposite of what you suggest though, it suggests there is nothing special about religious beliefs at all. Religious folk already know there are other religions and they already hold their own one as special and the others as myths.

If you create 'religion' as a special category, then, for many people, you lump people into 'good' or 'bad' as they are 'religious' or 'not religious' (which is good/bad depends on your ideology).

The kind of person who cares about what you suggest probably has more desire to differentiate themselves from the irreligious than from other religious adherents. They also probably don't care much for a theoretical discussion of whether or not a religion is a meaningful category beyond as an imprecise linguistic shorthand.

As such, there doesn't seem to be the same motivation as there is for the 'rational atheist' who needs the category of religion to feel superior. The religious person can feel superior knowing theirs is the One True Religion no matter how many other religions there are.

Anyway, potential bias doesn't impact whether or not it is a useful category for historical and cultural analysis conducted in good faith.

In terms of equating belief systems with other, which pair of belief systems share more in common (and do you think it is particularly close):

1. Liberal protestantism and Secular Humanism
2. Ancient Greek religion and Liberal Protestantism
3. Ancient Greek religion and Secular Humanism

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It does the opposite of what you suggest though, it suggests there is nothing special about religious beliefs at all. Religious folk already know there are other religions and they already hold their own one as special and the others as myths.

If you create 'religion' as a special category, then, for many people, you lump people into 'good' or 'bad' as they are 'religious' or 'not religious' (which is good/bad depends on your ideology).

The kind of person who cares about what you suggest probably has more desire to differentiate themselves from the irreligious than from other religious adherents. They also probably don't care much for a theoretical discussion of whether or not a religion is a meaningful category beyond as an imprecise linguistic shorthand.

As such, there doesn't seem to be the same motivation as there is for the 'rational atheist' who needs the category of religion to feel superior. The religious person can feel superior knowing theirs is the One True Religion no matter how many other religions there are.

Anyway, potential bias doesn't impact whether or not it is a useful category for historical and cultural analysis conducted in good faith.

In terms of equating belief systems with other, which pair of belief systems share more in common (and do you think it is particularly close):

1. Liberal protestantism and Secular Humanism
2. Ancient Greek religion and Liberal Protestantism
3. Ancient Greek religion and Secular Humanism

Clarification, what is your usage of liberal? European or US?

 

[Augustus]

Clarification, what is your usage of liberal? European or US?

European.

For example Anglicanism.

 

[wellwisher]

That is in effect morality, ethics and psychology.

The human brain has two centers of consciousness, the inner self and the ego. The inner self is older and connected to natural human instinct. The ego is newer and is unusually called the conscious mind in psychology. Morality, Ethics and Psychology are more geared to the ego , while religion is more geared to the inner self. That is the dividing line.

Carl Jung developed the theory of the collective unconscious. He was accused of religion by atheists since he went beyond the ego, using religious symbolism to develop his thesis .

Jesus said blessed are the poor. The ego does not fully understand that since it depends on money and bling to inflate itself within culture. This statement makes more sense to the inner self, since bling is not important to natural animals. They live in Eden via instinct.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The human brain has two centers of consciousness, the inner self and the ego. The inner self is older and connected to natural human instinct. The ego is newer and is unusually called the conscious mind in psychology. Morality, Ethics and Psychology are more geared to the ego , while religion is more geared to the inner self. That is the dividing line.

Carl Jung developed the theory of the collective unconscious. He was accused of religion by atheists since he went beyond the ego, using religious symbolism to develop his thesis .

Jesus said blessed are the poor. The ego does not fully understand that since it depends on money and bling to inflate itself within culture. This statement makes more sense to the inner self, since bling is not important to natural animals. They live in Eden via instinct.

Well, that is your belief system. It is not mine.

 

[MikeF]

It does the opposite of what you suggest though, it suggests there is nothing special about religious beliefs at all. Religious folk already know there are other religions and they already hold their own one as special and the others as myths.

If you create 'religion' as a special category, then, for many people, you lump people into 'good' or 'bad' as they are 'religious' or 'not religious' (which is good/bad depends on your ideology).

The kind of person who cares about what you suggest probably has more desire to differentiate themselves from the irreligious than from other religious adherents. They also probably don't care much for a theoretical discussion of whether or not a religion is a meaningful category beyond as an imprecise linguistic shorthand.

As such, there doesn't seem to be the same motivation as there is for the 'rational atheist' who needs the category of religion to feel superior. The religious person can feel superior knowing theirs is the One True Religion no matter how many other religions there are.

Anyway, potential bias doesn't impact whether or not it is a useful category for historical and cultural analysis conducted in good faith.

In terms of equating belief systems with other, which pair of belief systems share more in common (and do you think it is particularly close):

1. Liberal protestantism and Secular Humanism
2. Ancient Greek religion and Liberal Protestantism
3. Ancient Greek religion and Secular Humanism

Am I correct in recalling that it is your position that all belief is myth?

Additionally, is it your position that beliefs in myth are necessary or required? Essentially, that we cannot function without myths?