What Is Religion?

[IDMclean]

I am Religious.

 

Does this statement mean anything?

 

I intend to carry on an examination of a word that evades definition. My initial position on the proposition "What is religion" is that it is not.

 

I expect that the outcome of this examination will reveal that the word religion is as meaningful as the statement "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

 

1. A true religion R teaches lessons authored one or more gods;

2. R may begin teaching lessons authored by one or more non-gods, and/or cease teaching lessons authored by their original, god author(s);

3. When [2] occurs R is no longer a religion

 

This seems to me to assume that religion equates with belief in god(s). Which would be as,

 

It is a trite verbal paradox, attempting to equate "religion" with "belief", though the two words have only a slight overlap in meaning. The statement is also a pun, depending as it does on blurring the distinction between "believe" (I believe we should turn left here) and "believe in" (I believe in equality, democracy, and free enterprise).

 

That is equating religion with god, is the same as relating religion with belief. Theist can be religious, but don't have to be. As Atheist can be religious but don't have to be.

 

Therefore these terms can not be the defining attributes for religion, as they are not constant requirements. Science is defined by the scientific method, if a given theorem can not be tested by the Scientific method, then it is not scientific, correct?

 

I have argued that Atheism constitutes religion, on the basis that religion and belief are equal. I have since conceded that this is a fallacy on my part, and that my understanding of the term religion is far from complete.

 

So on that basis I would absolutely have to ask, if religion can be without god, and without belief, then what is relgion?

 

And the word becomes meaningless.

 

I think that Pyro is more right than, perhaps, he knows.

 

These quotes are taken from the thread:

Can secular science ever oust religion?

and continues inquiry on the nature of religion, gods, and belief from:

Is atheism a religion?

 

Other related threads are:

Will science ultimately assimilate religion?

What is the purpose of unregulated religion?

Will Religions Survive in a High Tech World?

What is your Philosophical/Religious perspective?

Religion (or lack thereof) at Hypography

[hallenrm]

Perhaps these meanings of the word religious would be of some help! :hihi:

 

Scrupulously faithful or exact; strict.

[1913 Webster]

 

Thus, Indianlike,

Religious in my error, I adore

The sun, that looks upon his worshiper. --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

 

4. Belonging to a religious order; bound by vows.

[1913 Webster]

 

One of them is religious. --Chaucer.

[1913 Webster]

 

Syn: Pious; godly; holy; devout; devotional; conscientious;

strict; rogod; exact.

[1913 Webster]

 

Or the following from the thesaurus therein

 

meticulous,

micrometrically precise, microscopic, minute, monastic, monk,

monotheistic, moral, narrow, nice, noble, numinous,

overconscientious, overscrupulous, palmer, pantheistic, particular,

physicomorphic, physicotheological, pietistic, pilgrim,

pillar saint, pillarist, pinpoint, pious, polytheistic, prayerful,

precise, precisianistic, precisionistic, prior, punctilious,

punctual, refined, religieux, religiously exact, reverent,

reverential, righteous, rigid, rigorous, sacred, sacrosanct,

scientific, scientifically exact, scrupulous

 

My bolds! :shrug: :) :Clown: :umno:

[IDMclean]

Interesting Charlie, but respectfully I feel compelled to ask. What is faith? What is sacred? What is holy?

 

Also I am not going to accept circular definitions, as they beg the question. Also strict or exact is a different sense of the word.

 

Is devoutness a root, or a crucial element to religion? I must ask what differentiates a knight, samurai, politician, doctor, judge and lawyer from religiousness? They take vows and are devout to their ideas, in ideal. I won't accept being part of a religious order to be a defining element of religion. I call that an organization, and once again I would ask simply, what makes a priest religious and the aforementioned others not?

 

I will admit that I am a devout academician, truth seeker, and human. However, I seem to be unable to pin down how, and if that would make me truely religious, or something else entirely.

 

It was my understanding at the conclusion of the thread "Is atheism a religion?", that religion is defined by it's supernatural element. Though that to would seem circumspect.

 

Note to staff: I was unsure if this belonged in theology, philosophy, or linguisitics. So feel free to move it.

[hallenrm]

Dear KAC, First of all you must differentiate between organized religion, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and personal religion. Once you do that successfully all confusion will vanish! :esheriff:

[IDMclean]

Alright same question exists. What is religion?

 

If I look in a dictionary for the meaning of the word, what will I find. Try to keep it clear, concise, and definitive.

 

Elements which have been said to define religion.

 

Belief

Theism (belief in deity)

Faith

Sacred

Supernatural

Trancendence

 

Any other canidates?

[Kriminal99]

I found the "Is atheism a religion" thread interesting because I have often had conflict with other people who are religious over my views.

 

I found parallels in the fact that religous people live their life according to rules and those rules tend to be whatever interpretation someone has made of "god's word". Some common ideas I have heard are respect for authority.

 

Interestingly enough I also live my life by a set of rules, discovered from the world around me using careful deductive reasoning. From this I draw the parallel that I can be considered religious with truth as my god - for also any definition of god can be used to categorize this truth to. Truth is all powerful not in some hypothetical afterlife, but here on earth. For while a man can do as he wishes now he will be stopped from immoral actions because of the truth of the golden rule and how others respond when it is broken. The more you understand your surroundings the more capable you will be.

 

Here I am looking to submission to a greater power as the defining factor of religion. I would not go so far as to call it arbitrary but there are definitely other people who would hold other criteria for a religion.

 

I often take to drawing this parallel with religous people who often respond to my carefully picking apart their arguments against my behavior or beliefs with something like "You are self centered, you sit there and think and think but no human is capable of knowing what god knows. It's all about you - you are trying to appear better than everyone else with your arguments"

 

Drawing this parallel between religion and truth seems to be the only accurate way to counter this claim - for instance when I am in a position of power over others and one of them pokes a hole through something I have said, I do not admonish them for making me look bad... I thank them for their input or their feedback. The responsibility of that position was given to me because I was deemed capable of DISCOVERING the best way to help the company, and accepting feedback is a necessary part of that. I am not placed in a position like so that I can dictate what others should do or even what is best for the company.

 

This shows how I submit myself to a power greater than I, that of truth. In this situation religous people tend to take the opposite view - that the person in power was placed there by god and that anything they say goes.

[sebbysteiny]

I found parallels in the fact that religous people live their life according to rules and those rules tend to be whatever interpretation someone has made of "god's word". Some common ideas I have heard are respect for authority.

 

Interestingly enough I also live my life by a set of rules, discovered from the world around me using careful deductive reasoning. From this I draw the parallel that I can be considered religious with truth as my god

 

I'm trying to see what your PRINCIPAL is here. I think you're principal is that if you live under a centre of rules with an authority, then it is a religion.

 

But surely this could mean that Saddam is a god, and Tony Blair, George Bush and every judge is a god and by observing their rules you are following a religion.

 

I'm not convinved your principal actually holds as it creates absurdities.

 

Here I am looking to submission to a greater power as the defining factor of religion.

Reading this makes me think I correctly understood your principal. Now, according to you, your boss is a god :eek: .

 

I found the "Is atheism a religion" thread

 

Hmmm, I must have missed it. But I would say absolutely no. I've heard people, when confronted by truth, say that 'science is your god'. Bollocks. Science is observed fact.

 

I say that an absence of belief is fundamentally different to a belief of absence. Belief, is the key term. You have to have taken a completely irration leap of faith in my view.

 

Okay, so my attempt to answer what is a religion.

 

I agree with Hallenrm (so QP for him).

 

First of all you must differentiate between organized religion, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and personal religion. Once you do that successfully all confusion will vanish!

 

However, once that differential is made, one still needs to discribe what a 'religion' is.

 

A religion is any explanation for the workings of the Universe that requires a leap of faith rather than observation.

 

What makes a religion 'personal' rather than 'organised'?

 

Any religion that contains a written scripture or code that is believed to be of devine origin and is practiced by more than 1 person together is 'organised'.

 

'Devine' means caused by the part of the mechanics of the Universe that requires a leap of faith rather than observation.

 

'Personal' is anything that is not organised.

 

Problem solved :)

[IDMclean]

A religion is any explanation for the workings of the Universe that requires a leap of faith rather than observation.

 

I like this one, but I still must know. What is Faith? Why is it counter to observable phenomena? Can you perform science without a leap of faith? Can you perform science with a leap of faith? Why and why not?

 

Does your definition imply supernatural involvement? Or does it hinge upon the concept of faith's involvement?

 

What is the difference between faith, belief, knowledge, and fact?

[sebbysteiny]

I like this one, but I still must know. What is Faith? Why is it counter to observable phenomena? Can you perform science without a leap of faith? Can you perform science with a leap of faith? Why and why not?

 

What is the difference between faith, belief, knowledge, and fact?

 

Good question. I had to think about it over lunch to find an answer.

 

The difficulty of this question was distinguishing between a hunch or instinct (eg I think on a hunch the murderer is x, or I prefere this theory over the other even though evidence supports both) and a religious type 'leap of faith'.

 

'A leap of faith' is defined as being an acceptance of an idea about the nature of life that is dependant on phenomina or physical laws that have not yet been observed.

 

'Observed' means an event that has physically observerd and has or may be explained by our current or future understanding of the physical laws.

 

So an experiment amounts to the best form of observation as are all the established theories.

 

The only problem here now is that should a future phenominan occur, I have correctly allowed for new explanations to arise, but I just need to seal of the possibility that that explanation is made by 'religion'.

 

So,

 

'physical laws' is defined as being an explanation for the mechanics of the Universe that is supported by current physical observations and can potentially be repeatably varified at will by future physical observations.

 

Does your definition imply supernatural involvement? Or does it hinge upon the concept of faith's involvement?

 

Since I think I have ruled out any theories that require natural involvement, I think it leaves only the supernatural. But I have also ruled out microscopic life forms that have a guiding influence over us (eg Jedi religion). Is the latter supernatural? Maybe, but maybe not. But since there is no basis for their existance by the 'physical observations' currently made, it is still a relgion in my definition.

 

Can you perform science with a leap of faith? Why and why not?

 

The point about science is that all science is is physical observations that can be repeated at will backed up by explanations which are confirmed by yet more physical observations.

 

So the answer to your first question is no because science is backed up by physical observation; religion is not.

[cwes99_03]

Dear KAC, First of all you must differentiate between organized religion, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and personal religion. Once you do that successfully all confusion will vanish! :hihi:

 

Thanks, hallenrm. As this thread seems to be "stolen" from the philosophy vs religion thread, you would be on point with that thread.

 

KAC, I don't mind if you want to discuss this here as well, but what motivated you to move away from the philosophy vs religion thread?

 

In that thread, I define "personal religion" however to be philosophy, using much of the definition above provided as a synopsis of my earlier definition. BTW, that definition is a working definition in that thread.

[sebbysteiny]

Thanks, hallenrm. As this thread seems to be "stolen" from the philosophy vs religion thread, you would be on point with that thread.

 

Naugty naught :hihi: KickAssClown you thief :lol:. Wow, I'm in the middle of a turf war. But this time, it's not over drugs and guns, it's over ideas.

 

Seriously, I think your title suggests that, although there is some overlap, it is a different type of discussion to here.

 

However, even if they are the same, surely the best thing to do is to cooperate and refer to posts in each other's threads :eek:

 

Perhaps a summary of the relevant conclusions reached in your thread would be handy.

[cwes99_03]

That's why I said I didn't mind if it gets discussed here. The ideas seem to overlap quite a bit though. Perhaps my thread title was too specific?

 

I was not accusing when I said stolen, so that everybody is on the same page. The quote though at the beginning was on another thread, and I had been trying to get those people who were also discussing a lot of the same topics to discuss the philosophy vs religion thread. So I posed a question and CraigD responded with that definition which was restating the definition I had taken from the philosophy vs religion thread.

 

Ok. I have spammed enough links to my thread. I will check in here, and hope others will check out my thread. :0

 

PHILOSOPHY VS RELIGION

[InfiniteNow]

KAC, I don't mind if you want to discuss this here as well, but what motivated you to move away from the philosophy vs religion thread?

Don't worry. The mods and admins will handle this for you. You can stick to the discussion or reference another thread when needed.

 

 

Cheers. :girl_hug:

[cwes99_03]

I was asking a serious question. Perhaps this discussion is meant to take a different path. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this thread and it's similarities to the other one.

[IDMclean]

KAC, I don't mind if you want to discuss this here as well, but what motivated you to move away from the philosophy vs religion thread?

 

Well, I felt that the other threads on the subject were focused on answering the questions. Like yours is asking what is the difference between religion and philosophy. Which for me has become a fallacy of many questions, or at least is circumspect.

 

This thread, I am more aimed at comprehending what is ment when some one says the words "religion", "religious", "faith", "sacred", and "holy".

 

That is defining clearly what this symbol means, what it represents. I am seeking this because I can have no meaningful discussion on the topic until I know whether this is a non-topic or a topic. I may altogether eliminate religion from my book if I find it to have little to no symantic value.

 

I mean it seems to me that religion, like many of the things in so called religions, say clearly that "You can't define me, you can't know me. I am above and beyond that which exists. I am trancendant.", and being that I am strictly scientific, logical, and matterial, I can't accept anything like that. To me such declarations are declaration of irrelevance.

 

If such is the case, than I will cease touting myself as a religious scientist.

 

However, like I said, first I must evaluate the word, and clearly define it, or failing that eliminate it from my dictionary as a distinct entity. It may very well be that religion gets written under the topic of philosophy if it survives this process.

 

Supernatural is a no go for me. Anything that can be experienced in my book is natural, therefore nullifying such a notion.

 

There is a distinct difference between unknown-unknowable and unknown-knowable. My observations and contemplations of the universe support the latter, and as of current disprove the former.

[cwes99_03]

I hear you clearly. Okay, I'll put in my two cents and continue to audit this thread.

 

When I say religion, I refer to study and worship of a divinity in a way prescribed by that divinity.

There are occasions where the term religious may be applied to the non-divine. When someone does something religiously, they are said to be applying themselves in a way that is similar to the way a religious person applies themselves to their worship of their divinity. Thus someone who applies themselves whole-heartedly, whole-souled, and whole minded (that's a Biblical reference anyway but I think it transcends the topic) would be working at something religiously.

Now do they truly have to work at it with every fiber of their being? Not really, after all you have to eat and drink and probably work to support your living. But you would devote so much time to it and place so much value in it that without it you might feel lost or have a major amount of extra time. Thus I currently spend about 12 hours or more a week working at my religious study, not including the hours that I randomly think about it. I don't equate my secular work as religious, because at the end of the day I go home and don't think about it. I could change jobs tomorrow and still continue living the rest of my life without problems.

 

When you say that can be experienced, you might have to dig deeper. Some people say they experience life changing things after attending church. They change their lives, they are moved to do things. Others have "experienced" ghosts and many other things that they define as supernatural.

 

I agree with you on the unknown-unknowable part. I don't much care for it. I've met priests who when asked a question, reply "that is not for man to know, God works in mysterious ways." I never accepted that, and today study with a group of people who likewise don't agree with the concept. They will however admit that some things we don't know yet. I can only think of one thing in which they say that no man can know.

I'll explain. No man can be certain when I'm going to make a decision to do a particular action, unless I tell them. If I never tell them, then they can't know. They can make educated guesses, but they can't be certain. Likewise, the Bible says this of Armageddon.

[Boerseun]

..."that is not for man to know, God works in mysterious ways." I never accepted that, and today study with a group of people who likewise don't agree with the concept.

If you're discussing a deity who's to be believed in, acting in 'mysterious ways' is the deity under discussion's main claim to fame, and main stock in trade. The moment we can investigate this deity, we remove him/her from the realm of the 'unknowable' to the 'knowable', which means we don't have to believe in the deity anymore, we can know him/her from empirical evidence. A deity has to act in mysterious ways, otherwise he/she gets relegated from the realm of belief/faith to the shallow, vulgar pit of empirical knowledge...:cup: