The cherry picking strategy

[Bear Wild]

My definition is simple - a religion is a worldview that includes a supernatural deity. That's the line that matters to me. Including atheistic worldviews such as atheistic Buddhism on the religion side of the line isn't helpful to me, so I don't do it.

The problem is that not all deities are supernatural according to their mythology. For example according to the Norse mythology the forces that created the Natural universe created everything including the giants, gods, and the world. So technically they are not supernatural. In addition they can be affected by the natural world and can die. The exist and operate within our would not outside of it. The definition including a supernatural deity would exclude many religions including pantheism, many indigenous religions, and even atheistic religions who feel they too follow a religious path just not with a supernatural god. The problem is in the western civilization post Christian colonization we have all been indoctrinated only one way to see religion. The Abrahamic religions are not the only true religions. This is reflected in when someone posts the word god they assume everyone will assume it is Abrahamic god. It is time to break the hold the Abrahamic religions have on our perceptions of what a religion is and accept the true diversity that exists.

But do we need to agree on a definition? Isn't it enough to know how the other guy uses the word - what he means when he uses the word religion. For some, it apparently means any world view or any part of a worldview, even a single opinion such as, "I don't believe in gods." That's a religion to some here, and if such a person tells me I have a religion, I know what he means, and it's not what I mean when I use the same word.

If, however, we do come up with an agreeable definition it cannot be so narrow to only include one type of religion which is typically the dominant religion. The most popular religion should not mean the others do not exist.

 

[MikeF]

The term as used today really emerged in a Christian context and doesn't readily translate as there is no trans-historical and trans-cultural way to define religion. This often leads to us misunderstanding beliefs and belief systems.

I've never seen even any robust way to differentiate religious from 'secular' belief systems and believe the distinction is generally meaningless and makes it harder for us to understand the world we live in.

The term religion may be a useful shorthand in many situations as we often need to prioritise brevity and convenience over accuracy, but if we are trying to be rigorous and create a clear category that belief systems either belong to or don't belong to then it is not really possible imo, even if we only included the major world religions.

You seem to be saying that we cannot group beliefs in any meaningful way ( and here I mean every and all beliefs, not simply religious). That we can find no set of criteria that would allow us to differentiate one set of beliefs from another. Essentially, that every belief is so completely unique that none share any characteristic such that any attempt a grouping would be meaningless.

Is this a fair assessment of your position?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam
Where the deer and the antelope play
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day

Thats the first verse of a nice old song we sing like its some kind of poem or nursery rhyme, sometimes to children.

What if you quote the first line only?

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam

Then tell someone "Look at this song. Its telling you to live with buffaloes"..

It could be that the person quoting this line took it from a website. This website maybe on a mission and they love cherry picking lines like that and listing the cherry picked lines for shock effect. But does not the one who cuts and pastes this line from a website have some responsibility to do some analysis? This is an everyday occurrence.

Why do you think people do this? I mean not the owner of the website, but the cut and paste guy. Why? What do they honestly gain by doing that?

I can jump into pop-psychology mode and try to answer, but the short version is 'it varies'. It's annoying, though. Context and nuance (rather than information) is what the world appears increasingly poor of.

So...to the question...lessee

1) People commonly like to feel intelligent, and this can give them a 'quick hit' of that.
2) People are commonly time poor, and regurgitating a short 'argument' is much quicker than forming a coherent and complete one.
3) People have it done to them, and respond with 'Well, if they can do it...' rather than taking the higher ground.
4) People come on the internet to have 'fun' arguing or destroying other people's arguments, rather than ACTUALLY trying to educate themselves on the much more difficult nuance many issues have.
5) People read something that agrees with their existing position, and mistake that for it being convincing to someone with an entirely different worldview.

Luckily, this sort of behaviour is limited to just one group. Humans.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism is a religion. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

It's not. And I'll tell people who want to listen. Can't do much about the ones too certain of their own opinion to use their ears.
But by all means, tell me the qualities of a 'religion'?

(worth noting, some theists are not religious, and some atheists are. But atheism is not a religion. Just as theism isn't. Your point is kinda...well...'not even wrong')

 

[firedragon]

I can jump into pop-psychology mode and try to answer, but the short version is 'it varies'. It's annoying, though. Context and nuance (rather than information) is what the world appears increasingly poor of.

So...to the question...lessee

1) People commonly like to feel intelligent, and this can give them a 'quick hit' of that.
2) People are commonly time poor, and regurgitating a short 'argument' is much quicker than forming a coherent and complete one.
3) People have it done to them, and respond with 'Well, if they can do it...' rather than taking the higher ground.
4) People come on the internet to have 'fun' arguing or destroying other people's arguments, rather than ACTUALLY trying to educate themselves on the much more difficult nuance many issues have.
5) People read something that agrees with their existing position, and mistake that for it being convincing to someone with an entirely different worldview.

Luckily, this sort of behaviour is limited to just one group. Humans.

So this is a quality of humans in general. Well, I agree.

Lessee? Thats a good one. Sounds like a debtor in a contract.

Thanks.

 

[Augustus]

You seem to be saying that we cannot group beliefs in any meaningful way ( and here I mean every and all beliefs, not simply religious). That we can find no set of criteria that would allow us to differentiate one set of beliefs from another. Essentially, that every belief is so completely unique that none share any characteristic such that any attempt a grouping would be meaningless.

Is this a fair assessment of your position?

More that trying to distinguish between ideologies/worldviews and religions is futile, arbitrary and leads to us being less knowledgeable about the world we live in.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So this is a quality of humans in general. Well, I agree.

Lessee? Thats a good one. Sounds like a debtor in a contract.

Thanks.

Heh...lessee is my stupid slang posting of 'let's see'. Bad habit.

And yeah. Just a human habit. I try to not fall into it. Takes effort and practise, as well as some self-honesty.

I suspect you already know that though.

 

[firedragon]

Heh...lessee is my stupid slang posting of 'let's see'. Bad habit.

I understood. I was only joking. Its no bad habit. Its nice.

And yeah. Just a human habit. I try to not fall into it. Takes effort and practise, as well as some self-honesty.

I suspect you already know that though.

I agree I agree. How could I not.

 

[MikeF]

More that trying to distinguish between ideologies/worldviews and religions is futile, arbitrary and leads to us being less knowledgeable about the world we live in.

Is it distinguishing between, or seeing commonalities?

 

[Augustus]

Is it distinguishing between, or seeing commonalities?

More the idea that if you can't differentiate a religious from a non-religious belief system it's not really a meaningful category.

It can have value as a conversational shorthand, but not really as a tool of cultural or historical analysis.

 

[MikeF]

More the idea that if you can't differentiate a religious from a non-religious belief system it's not really a meaningful category.

It can have value as a conversational shorthand, but not really as a tool of cultural or historical analysis.

Certainly a dominant religious belief system will affect and become intertwined in many aspects of society and culture. I am surprised that one would argue that it is not useful to recognize the commonality among religious beliefs or to compare and contrast their role in different societies. I would think it a useful tool in cultural and cross-cultural analysis. I am certainly willing to explore this issue.

 

[Augustus]

Certainly a dominant religious belief system will affect and become intertwined in many aspects of society and culture. I am surprised that one would argue that it is not useful to recognize the commonality among religious beliefs or to compare and contrast their role in different societies. I would think it a useful tool in cultural and cross-cultural analysis. I am certainly willing to explore this issue.

We can analyse worldviews and cultures of course including 'religions', but if we aim to analyse 'religions' across time and culture we need to be able to differentiate them from non-religious worldviews/cultures.

Otherwise just analyse worldview/ideology/culture/etc. as being the common type.

The word religion didn't even get its modern meaning until about the 18th or 19th C.

 

[MikeF]

We can analyse worldviews and cultures of course including 'religions', but if we aim to analyse 'religions' across time and culture we need to be able to differentiate them from non-religious worldviews/cultures.

Otherwise just analyse worldview/ideology/culture/etc. as being the common type.

The word religion didn't even get its modern meaning until about the 18th or 19th C.

I find it fascinating that you put some focus on when the word religion gained it's modern meaning. Clearly words can evolve over time, especially as understanding grows over time. It is current modern usage that we are concerned with.

To differentiate between religion and not religion we need a set of criteria. Once we have that we can fill our category Religion. It is only after we have populated our category that the analysis can begin. You are resisting the creation of the category.