Please Define "Religion"

[The Sum of Awe]

Imho religion is an organized set of beliefs and practices and spirituality is a personal set based on faith.

 

[dybmh]

Certainly, you may define any word in any way you see fit. I would only suggest that language becomes more useful and efficient when we collectively come to some agreement on what the words we use mean.

Sure, so let's look at my very simple definition. Can someone be religious without commitment?

 

[MikeF]

Sure, so let's look at my very simple definition. Can someone be religious without commitment?

Your definition equates Religion to commitment, to a persistent *action* of any type, disassociated from belief. I would argue that in most common usage of the term Religion, the element of belief is a stronger criteria than any particular action.

I would also add that we use words in a variety of ways. Word that have a main or general meaning can be used in a creative literary way as well, metaphorically being one example. Slang would also be an off-brand use of a particular word as well.

When someone says "She works out religiously." the intent is not to say she is practicing a Religion, rather, it is a simile that means to equate her dedication to that particular activity (exercise) to the dedication one imagines in a devoutly religious person to their Religion.

To my mind, and I would argue many others, Religion means more than dedicated action.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'd probably define religion as being a subset of ideology, that is, having certain appropriate beliefs and practices, and usually with an essential link to some source of an immaterial nature that might explain existence. Mostly just associated with humans too, as to any beliefs relevant to them, and often as to the process involved in the human life cycle.

 

[dybmh]

Your definition equates Religion to commitment, to a persistent *action* of any type, disassociated from belief. I would argue that in most common usage of the term Religion, the element of belief is a stronger criteria than any particular action.

I would also add that we use words in a variety of ways. Word that have a main or general meaning can be used in a creative literary way as well, metaphorically being one example. Slang would also be an off-brand use of a particular word as well.

When someone says "She works out religiously." the intent is not to say she is practicing a Religion, rather, it is a simile that means to equate her dedication to that particular activity (exercise) to the dedication one imagines in a devoutly religious person to their Religion.

To my mind, and I would argue many others, Religion means more than dedicated action.

Yes, but you seem to be skipping over my point. Simple question, yes or no, can a person be religious without commitment? If not, are there any other required aspects/elements more important than commitment? I'm proposing that commitment far and away is the most important element, and because of that, the entire descriptor is dependent on it.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, but you seem to be skipping over my point. Simple question, yes or no, can a person be religious without commitment? If not, are there any other required aspects/elements more important than commitment? I'm proposing that commitment far and away is the most important element, and because of that, the entire descriptor is dependent on it.

The question of the OP is "Please Define 'Religion'." This is not the same as asking what behaviors are required for someone to be considered following, adhering to, or believing in a particular Religion.

As to your tangential question of whether a person can be regarded as religious without commitment to their particular Religion, I would say it depends on your measuring stick. Is the subjective attitude of the individual the determining criteria? In other words, if they consider themselves religious regardless of their level of participation, is that all that is required? A different measuring stick might be the tenets and requirements of their declared Religion. If a certain threshold of commitment were mandated by the Religion and the individual did not meet that minimum, others of that Religion might determine that the individual was consequently not religious.

From my experience, many Religions recognize varying levels of participation and commitment, and so to your question I would say yes, a person can be religious without commitment. Religiosity to me is foremost a subjective attitude of the individual. Certainly people can judge the religiosity of others in reference to their personal subjective standard or that of a particular Religion. It would come down to who you consider to be the valid arbiter of who is being religious and by what criteria.

Putting religiosity aside and focusing on the question of the OP, how do you define the category Religion. Is it simply the active property commitment, commitment to any old thing, or is more about beliefs, as I would argue a commitment to something would require a belief to motivate or dictate that commitment. If beliefs are involved, what characteristics or properties of belief fall under the category of Religion as opposed to some other category such as Economics or Politics?

 

[dybmh]

The question of the OP is "Please Define 'Religion'." This is not the same as asking what behaviors are required for someone to be considered following, adhering to, or believing in a particular Religion.

Yes, and I answered "Put simply ... ". I acknowledged from the beginning that I was answering broadly.

As to your tangential question of whether a person can be regarded as religious without commitment to their particular Religion, I would say it depends on your measuring stick. Is the subjective attitude of the individual the determining criteria? In other words, if they consider themselves religious regardless of their level of participation, is that all that is required? A different measuring stick might be the tenets and requirements of their declared Religion. If a certain threshold of commitment were mandated by the Religion and the individual did not meet that minimum, others of that Religion might determine that the individual was consequently not religious.

1) It's not tangential. You objected to my very short definition in which the word commitment was underlined.
2) What you're describing does not contradict my definition. A person who labels themself as a follower of a religion is demonstrating a commitment to that label and what it represents to them.

From my experience, many Religions recognize varying levels of participation and commitment, and so to your question I would say yes, a person can be religious without commitment. Religiosity to me is foremost a subjective attitude of the individual. Certainly people can judge the religiosity of others in reference to their personal subjective standard or that of a particular Religion. It would come down to who you consider to be the valid arbiter of who is being religious and by what criteria.

You've changed the subject to congregational acceptance.

Putting religiosity aside and focusing on the question of the OP, how do you define the category Religion. Is it simply the active property commitment, commitment to any old thing, or is more about beliefs, as I would argue a commitment to something would require a belief to motivate or dictate that commitment. If beliefs are involved, what characteristics or properties of belief fall under the category of Religion as opposed to some other category such as Economics or Politics?

Good. This is productive.

As I said "religious" describes commitment like someone taking medicine "religiously". When someone takes medicine religiously, they do not choose to take it depending on if they need it or if they notice the effects. They take it, because they take it.

Holding a belief requires a high level of commitment. That's the nature of belief. That's why regular practice of a belief system is described as religious. When it's based on belief, regular practice *always* requires commitment.

Topics like economics are more grounded in facts and measurable quantities. The study of economics does not require the same level of commitment. A person can be an economist while maintaining their scepticism, for example. That's not possible with a belief.

So, if religiousity is plotted on a line, from my POV, the zero point designating religious vs. non-religious is set at the point where the practice is continued consistently without noticable effect. Translating this in terms of economic studies, it becomes a religious practice when economic indicators are measured in spite of their reliability and published alongside the reliable measurements. I think you'll agree it's an absurd notion, and that's why claiming an economist is practicing religion is a pejorative.

But, it could happen and it does happen. Sciency folks are not immune to becoming emotionally attached to their theories. Hopefully we dont need to argue about this point.

So again, "religious" describes a level of commitment. The litmus is whether or not the practice continues lacking reinforcement.

 

[MikeF]

A person who labels themself as a follower of a religion is demonstrating a commitment to that label and what it represents to them.

Exactly, it is a commitment to a set of beliefs, and that set of beliefs of a Religion along with many other, differing sets of beliefs we group under the category of Religion. One can be committed to an economic system, say communism, or a political system such as monarchy, yet most folks do not consider communism or monarchy to be a religion or fall within the category of Religion. If one can be committed to belief sets that are not Religion as well as those that are Religion, then commitment is not the criteria by which to differentiate what is Religion and what is not Religion. There must by some types of belief that are specific to Religion that are not found in other categories such as economics and politics. It is not clear to me what types of beliefs you consider to be found under the category Religion.

So again, "religious" describes a level of commitment. The litmus is whether or not the practice continues lacking reinforcement.

A level of commitment to what? We are not defining the word 'religious' and its varied usages, we are defining the word 'Religion'. These are different words.

 

[dybmh]

Exactly, it is a commitment to a set of beliefs, and that set of beliefs of a Religion along with many other, differing sets of beliefs we group under the category of Religion.

That's not what I said. I said it was commitment to what the label represents. That could be beliefs, it could be other shared values, shared priorities. The underlying characteristic is commitment. You are describing a subset of religion by anchoring it to beliefs.

One can be committed to an economic system, say communism, or a political system such as monarchy, yet most folks do not consider communism or monarchy to be a religion or fall within the category of Religion.

Most. PishPosh. Just because it's uncommon doesn't mean it can't happen. I think most folks would agree that it's possible.

If one can be committed to belief sets that are not Religion as well as those that are Religion, then commitment is not the criteria by which to differentiate what is Religion and what is not Religion. There must by some types of belief that are specific to Religion that are not found in other categories such as economics and politics. It is not clear to me what types of beliefs you consider to be found under the category Religion.

Again, you're tethered to beliefs. If you can free yourself from this, you might see my point. Will you try to see it from a broader perspective? For example, I know people personally who regularly practice Judaism because they are commited to the traditions, not to the beliefs. They are religious Jews, they walk the talk. But they don't believe. By your standards, they are not religious, by my standards they are religious. Obvs I feel I'm right on this and these folks shouldn't be excluded from being considered religious Jews.

A level of commitment to what? We are not defining the word 'religious' and its varied usages, we are defining the word 'Religion'. These are different words.

Oy! A religion is practiced by religious people. Understanding what makes a person religious defines what makes a religion. Again, it's commitment. Can a religion exist without commitment? No. Can a religion exist without belief? Yes.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Does that mean the Vatican is a scam?

Well, with a bad economy the wealth the Vatican has amassed could look like easy taking by the political even easy through the international banking system. No divine protection for the material........

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My understanding of what the word "religion' means is defined at James 1:27
To look after orphans and widows in their time of affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
Just as Jesus was 'neutral' in world affairs so would his followers be the same.
Religion means "worship" as Jesus taught at John 4:23-24 to worship his God with spirit and truth.
Religious truth as Jesus taught from Scripture - John 17:17
With ' spirit ' as to have an active worship.
As a pep rally is designed to create school spirit, the Bible creates a spiritual life style.
As a high-spirited horse is active so would Jesus' followers be active in both practical and spiritual ways.
Showing practical love as the neighborly good Samaritan did.
Showing spiritual love by cultivating the frutiage of God's spirit as listed at Galatians 5:22-23.

So, for clarification, religion refers specifically to the beliefs and practices of Christianity? Would that be all Christian denominations, or a specific one?
If so, this seems quite a narrow definition or meaning to what I've generally seen.[/QUOTE]

We would be speaking about genuine 1st-century Christianity as found in Scripture. Genuine 'wheat' Christians.
The fake 'weed/tares' so-called Christian are mostly Christian in name only - Matthew 7:21-23.
Thus, specific to the one genuine wheat Christians as taught in Scripture would be the real ones.
Jesus taught the genuine and the fake would grow together until the Harvest Time of separation.
Jesus as King (and Judge) will do the 'separating work' at Jesus' coming Glory Time - Matthew 25:31-34,37.
Most professing Christians are on the wide road leading to destruction.
Whereas, the genuine 'wheat' are on the narrow path leading to everlasting life.
So, even though the fake 'weed/tares' are more numerous today does Not mean for always.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

...............Again, you're tethered to beliefs. If you can free yourself from this, you might see my point. Will you try to see it from a broader perspective? For example, I know people personally who regularly practice Judaism because they are committed to the traditions, not to the beliefs. They are religious Jews, they walk the talk. But they don't believe. By your standards, they are not religious, by my standards they are religious. Obvs I feel I'm right on this and these folks shouldn't be excluded from being considered religious Jews.......................

Wrong to be committed to tradition/customs (outside of Scripture) as found at Matthew 15:9.
In the Bible ' belief ' is important as found at John 6:29 B to 'believe' on the one whom God sent to us (aka Jesus).
Believe, have belief, in the teaching of Christ Jesus as found in the Bible.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Imho religion is an organized set of beliefs and practices and spirituality is a personal set based on faith.

I find the faith Jesus taught about was Not credulity (blind faith) but confidence in God's Word aka Bible.
Jesus used logical reasoning referring back to the old Hebrew Scriptures on which to base his beliefs/ faith.

 

[MikeF]

That's not what I said. I said it was commitment to what the label represents. That could be beliefs, it could be other shared values, shared priorities. The underlying characteristic is commitment. You are describing a subset of religion by anchoring it to beliefs.

Again, you're tethered to beliefs. If you can free yourself from this, you might see my point. Will you try to see it from a broader perspective? For example, I know people personally who regularly practice Judaism because they are commited to the traditions, not to the beliefs. They are religious Jews, they walk the talk. But they don't believe. By your standards, they are not religious, by my standards they are religious. Obvs I feel I'm right on this and these folks shouldn't be excluded from being considered religious Jews.

Ahh. Perhaps the stumbling block in the conversation is the word belief.

How about this: Is it fair to say the label represents concepts? Concepts can include belief (as you interpret that word), as well as practices, rituals, and regulations on behavior.

In your example then, there are Jews who believe in the Abrahamic God and Jews who do not believe in the Abrahamic God, yet both groups adhere to the same set of concepts that constitute a Religion, in this case the Jewish Religion. Is this fair and accurate?

My question then is, what about this set of concepts make them a Religion as opposed to not a Religion (Economic or Political concepts, say).

If you are saying commitment of any concept makes that concept a Religion, then Marxism is a Religion, Capitalism is a Religion, committing to the Whole 30 Diet is a Religion, committing to stamp collecting is a Religion. If this is the case, that's fine, I'm just trying to pin down exactly where you stand. I, personally, do not see this as a useful definition, nor one that reflects the use of the word Religion in the academic world. You won't find stamp collecting in a comparative religion class.

Oy! A religion is practiced by religious people. Understanding what makes a person religious defines what makes a religion. Again, it's commitment. Can a religion exist without commitment? No. Can a religion exist without belief? Yes.

And this begs the question, a commitment to what. If Religion is a commitment to anything, then I do not see that as a useful definition.

 

[dybmh]

Wrong to be committed to tradition/customs (outside of Scripture) as found at Matthew 15:9.
In the Bible ' belief ' is important as found at John 6:29 B to 'believe' on the one whom God sent to us (aka Jesus).
Believe, have belief, in the teaching of Christ Jesus as found in the Bible.

I am fully aware of the bias opposed to tradition in your faith. But thank you for the reminder.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sure, so let's look at my very simple definition. Can someone be religious without commitment?

Sure, the 1st-century scribes and Pharisees were religious but without commitment to the Law - Matthew 15:9
They made a pretence of honoring God all the while craftily promoting their own selfish agenda - Matthew 23:2
Human ideas as found at Mark 7:1-13
Their ' rules ', their ' traditions/customs ', their 'regulations' as if they were the Dr. of Law.
Thus, they used 'their opinions' and tried to shove it into the mouth of God as they were some sort of holy ventriloquists.

 

[dybmh]

Ahh. Perhaps the stumbling block in the conversation is the word belief.

How about this: Is it fair to say the label represents concepts? Concepts can include belief (as you interpret that word), as well as practices, rituals, and regulations on behavior.

In your example then, there are Jews who believe in the Abrahamic God and Jews who do not believe in the Abrahamic God, yet both groups adhere to the same set of concepts that constitute a Religion, in this case the Jewish Religion. Is this fair and accurate?

Well, not exactly. My hang up on this is that pracices and rituals aren't concepts. They are real, physical, actions. Even a commitment to study regularly is a physical action even though the activity is cerebral.

So the comparison is between two groups of Jews, on group believes in Jewish concepts of God and scripture, the other group doesn't, but both perform the same ( basically the same ) riual on a regular basis. In my view, both groups are religious. One group is more religious because they are more commited. But both are religious because they both complete the tasks regularly without needing to realize any positive benefit from it.

My question then is, what about these set of concepts make them a Religion as opposed to not a Religion (Economic or Political concepts, say).

Sorry, 'concepts' still isn't a good fit for what I'm trying to describe.

If you are saying commitment of any concept makes that concept a Religion, then Marxism is a Religion, Capitalism is a Religion, committing to the Whole 30 Diet is a Religion, committing to stamp collecting is a Religion. If this is the case, that's fine, I'm just trying to pin down exactly where you stand. I, personally, do not see this as a useful definition, nor one that reflects the use of the word Religion in the academic world. You won't find stamp collecting in a comparative religion class.

Well, that's true.

My point is that Marxism, Captialism, the whole 30 diet, stamp collecting can become religion depending on the level of commitment. When that commitment rises to the level of regular practice without any consideration/necessity of reward, yes I think those secular persuits become a religion. Imagine someone who is a capitalist zealot, or someone who is a stamp collecting fanatic. Does that help?

And this begs the question, a commitment to what. If Religion is a commitment to anything, then I do not see that as a useful definition.

Not to anything. It's a commitment to a consistent practice which is not dependent on positive reinforcement. Someone who consistently executes a Marxist policy in spite of a lack of community benefit would be practicing a religion based on Marxism.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I am fully aware of the bias opposed to tradition in your faith. But thank you for the reminder.

My faith (belief) or as found at Isaiah 29:13 _______________

 

[England my lionheart]

Then a Bic pen with the ink stem removed to shoot spit balls, an easy to use conduit for aiming spit balls, is that Religion?

Does that define religion?,I think not.

 

[MikeF]

Well, not exactly. My hang up on this is that pracices and rituals aren't concepts. They are real, physical, actions. Even a commitment to study regularly is a physical action even though the activity is cerebral.

So the comparison is between two groups of Jews, on group believes in Jewish concepts of God and scripture, the other group doesn't, but both perform the same ( basically the same ) riual on a regular basis. In my view, both groups are religious. One group is more religious because they are more commited. But both are religious because they both complete the tasks regularly without needing to realize any positive benefit from it.


Sorry, 'concepts' still isn't a good fit for what I'm trying to describe.

Well, that's true.

My point is that Marxism, Captialism, the whole 30 diet, stamp collecting can become religion depending on the level of commitment. When that commitment rises to the level of regular practice without any consideration/necessity of reward, yes I think those secular persuits become a religion. Imagine someone who is a capitalist zealot, or someone who is a stamp collecting fanatic. Does that help?


Not to anything. It's a commitment to a consistent practice which is not dependent on positive reinforcement. Someone who consistently executes a Marxist policy in spite of a lack of community benefit would be practicing a religion based on Marxism.

All right, my friend. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate your position.