• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How precise do we have to be...

How far do you go?

  • Infinitely far. "Religion in general" has to reflect every religion

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Christianity alone (36% of adherents)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The above plus Islam (65%)

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • The above plus Hinduism (83%)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The above plus Buddhism (90%)

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • The above plus Chinese traditional religion (96.3%)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The above plus Sikhism (96.6%)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The above plus Spiritism (96.9%)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The above plus Judaism (97.1%)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (describe in thread)

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Total voters
    7
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
... in order to make general statements about religion as a whole?

We make statements about, say, cars in general that don't include outliers (e.g. racecars or someone's classic car that only comes out of the garage for weekend cruises). Presumably, we can also make general statements about religion as a whole that may ignore smaller religious groups.

So... how far do you think we need to drill down into the smaller religions before we can make general statements about the overall impacts or traits of religion in general or religion as a whole?

(Percentages derived from the stats given here)
 
P

pearl

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
So... how far do you think we need to drill down into the smaller religions before we can make general statements about the overall impacts or traits of religion in general or religion as a whole?
Click to expand...

So what you have are differing expressions of faith in a 'wholly other'.
Then there is the actualization, inculturation etc. defining the core beliefs of a particular religion.
 
HonestJoe

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
... in order to make general statements about religion as a whole?
Click to expand...
It isn't a question of precision, it's a question of context. There is very little you can accurately say about literally all religion, but that is true of pretty much any concept or topic (as with your cars example).

For people to understand what you're actually referring to when you make any statement, there needs to be context. Context can be implied (and pretty much always is to some extent) but sometimes it needs to be explicitly stated, especially if the topic is potentially controversial or accuracy is especially important.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
So... how far do you think we need to drill down into the smaller religions before we can make general statements about the overall impacts or traits of religion in general or religion as a whole?
Click to expand...
As a rule, I don't think you legitimately can make general statements about that. More importantly, I don't think you should; I see zero positive benefit and plenty of negative ones (intended or not).

There are certainly elements or concepts that are commonly part of many religions but those specific elements can be identified separately (hence context) rather than just saying "religion does X". That can also help identify those that aren't exclusive to or reliant on religion at all (though that is often exactly what people are trying to avoid accepting in the first place).
 
Erebus

Erebus

Well-Known Member
I went for "the above plus Buddhism." If somebody wants to make general statements about religion then only needing to know the basics of four of them should be perfectly doable. Since that accounts for 90% of religious adherents, you can pretty safely say that you've covered the general trends. Seems a decent rule of thumb to me, though it's hardly something you have to do and it also depends on context. For example, a discussion on the psychology of religious belief may not require a great deal of specific knowledge of those religions.

If you wanted to make a statement about all religion, then you should account for the minor religions too. I'd say it's probably better to avoid making that kind of statement and this is where I regularly see people trip up. This goes double for people treating Christianity alone as representative of all religion. "Religious people do/believe X" would qualify as a statement about all religion in my opinion.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
The more precisely we are able to articulate our ideas to others, the more clearly we will have considered them, for ourselves. Because we have to do the latter to do the former. A confused mind can only offer confused statements. And clarity matters.
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Counting adherents isn't a bad approach, but it seems like "impact on society" is also important. E.g. the world might very well end because (relatively speaking), and handful of Jews are in conflict with a handful of Muslims.
 
Kooky

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Why not just use more accurate qualifiers such as "most religions", "major religions", "mainstream religion", or "religion to the degree I'm familiar with it"?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
HonestJoe said:
It isn't a question of precision, it's a question of context. There is very little you can accurately say about literally all religion, but that is true of pretty much any concept or topic (as with your cars example).

For people to understand what you're actually referring to when you make any statement, there needs to be context. Context can be implied (and pretty much always is to some extent) but sometimes it needs to be explicitly stated, especially if the topic is potentially controversial or accuracy is especially important.

As a rule, I don't think you legitimately can make general statements about that. More importantly, I don't think you should; I see zero positive benefit and plenty of negative ones (intended or not).

There are certainly elements or concepts that are commonly part of many religions but those specific elements can be identified separately (hence context) rather than just saying "religion does X". That can also help identify those that aren't exclusive to or reliant on religion at all (though that is often exactly what people are trying to avoid accepting in the first place).
Click to expand...
But there are contexts where we deal with all religion; laws, for instance.

If a society is considering, say, a new subsidy or freedom for religious organizations, the effect is going to be on religion as a whole. We can ask ourselves if the overall effect of the change is good or bad and what magnitude the effect will be. At some point, the net impact of small religions is less than the rounding error on the net impact of the larger religions.

Or think about questions like "what is the impact of religion on society?" All else being equal, the smaller a religion, the less the answer to that question depends on the specifics of that particular religion.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
You spoiled your poll by including Christianity. I would not touch Abrahamic religions even with a long pole.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Aupmanyav said:
You spoiled your poll by including Christianity. I would not touch Abrahamic religions even with a long pole.
Click to expand...
I would say that any consideration of religion as a whole is going to be severely lacking if we ignore the world's largest religion.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Kooky said:
Why not just use more accurate qualifiers such as "most religions", "major religions", "mainstream religion", or "religion to the degree I'm familiar with it"?
Click to expand...
But do we need to?

To go back to the analogy in the OP, people talk about the impacts of "car culture" (for instance) without using those sorts of qualifiers. Why would they be necessary for religion if they aren't necessary in other contexts?
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
9-10ths_Penguin said:
I would say that any consideration of religion as a whole is going to be severely lacking if we ignore the world's largest religion.
Click to expand...
I considered the Abrahamic religions, not just the largest (the second one also is close and may overtake the first), and have rejected them. They are a corrupting influence in the world.
 
Kooky

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
9-10ths_Penguin said:
But do we need to?

To go back to the analogy in the OP, people talk about the impacts of "car culture" (for instance) without using those sorts of qualifiers. Why would they be necessary for religion if they aren't necessary in other contexts?
Click to expand...
I don't understand what all this is supposed to be about, to be honest.
If you personally don't think further qualifiers are necessary, then don't use them, problem solved!
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
icehorse said:
Counting adherents isn't a bad approach, but it seems like "impact on society" is also important. E.g. the world might very well end because (relatively speaking), and handful of Jews are in conflict with a handful of Muslims.
Click to expand...
Fair point, though that approach still suggests that we can ignore most small religious groups and still make valid statements about religion as a whole.

Sure, pay more attention to the small religious groups that "punch above their weight" in terms of impact - good or bad - but most religious groups don't punch above their weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top