What Is Religion?

[IDMclean]

Alright, let's introduce another possible defining element.

 

Zeal. Which would be related to but distinct from Devotion.

 

As for the bit's about experience, well simply put what those people profess to experience can be chalked up to a large number of knowable causes. Like social catharsis.

[cwes99_03]

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...;)

 

You are not using mysterious in the proper way. You are strictly equating mystery with the physical. A science fiction book is well known for explaining things that can't physically happen yet. The applicatoin of an explanation is all that is needed. In religion, which I know you equate with fiction and you realize others do not, the same can sometimes be said. An explanation that is acceptable to reason is made.

 

Thus when someone asks why does God allow suffering (speaking of the Christian god) and a priest says "it is not for man to know, God works in mysterious ways", then either he hasn't read the Bible well, or the Bible doesn't explain. I have read the Bible, and can say it does explain, but that is neither here nor there.

[Boerseun]

You are not using mysterious in the proper way. You are strictly equating mystery with the physical. A science fiction book is well known for explaining things that can't physically happen yet. The applicatoin of an explanation is all that is needed. In religion, which I know you equate with fiction and you realize others do not, the same can sometimes be said. An explanation that is acceptable to reason is made.

 

Thus when someone asks why does God allow suffering (speaking of the Christian god) and a priest says "it is not for man to know, God works in mysterious ways", then either he hasn't read the Bible well, or the Bible doesn't explain. I have read the Bible, and can say it does explain, but that is neither here nor there.

C, with all due respects, can I please ask you to explain in plain English what you've written above? The contradictions in the first paragraph are glaring to the extent where I have to ask you for clarification.

[cwes99_03]

Well it is like reading any work. If a person doesn't read it well, they might not be able to answer a question on a book report.

 

The basis for literature classes in the US school system is to assign the student to read the book, and then ask them questions about the book. If the student answers the question with a the character works in mysterious ways and the author didn't tell us why he did such and such, then either 1) it is an accurate response that requires verifying by anyone reading the book report (generally the teacher has already read the book and has knowledge) or 2) the student didn't thoroughly read the book and thus is creating an illusionary answer hoping no one will notice.

I assert that I have read the Bible well enough to be able to show it does contain an answer, thus the "mysterious" answer is false. Now, whether or not you choose to believe the answer is a different question, but whether or not there is an answer there is what we are discussing.

[Buffy]

I'd encourage those interested in this point to take a look at the various conflicting interpretations of the lines in "American Pie" (many available by Googling the title). In this case, the author is still alive and kicking, but when asked, all he says is "American Pie means that Don McLean doesn't have to work anymore."

 

Unless an author or authorized representative is available for confirmation, all intent of any particular statement in any work that is not independently verifiable is subject to interpretation. Of course in the case of this book, we have many "authorized" and unauthorized representatives, and I'm actually pretty sure that's a good thing even if they don't agree with each other a lot of the time... :hihi:

 

A long, long time ago, :hihi:

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

Yes, this is often a problem. That is where reason comes in. You would agree though that it is most unlikely that "any interpretation is acceptable."

 

A writer often has in mind their intents when writing. A later review may reveal to the writer how others viewed their works. The writer may say, "hey I like that" or they may say "that critic got it all wrong." As you have said, only the original author can say which is right or wrong.

I can say in the case of the Bible, there are many books, and many of them cover the same material, and they also claim the same author (God). Thus it isn't working off of one source, but off of many.

[Buffy]

That is where reason comes in. You would agree though that it is most unlikely that "any interpretation is acceptable."

No disagreement with that at all, but that's not the question: two interpretations can be entirely consistent with the text, which defies disambiguation via "reason."

I can say in the case of the Bible, there are many books, and many of them cover the same material, and they also claim the same author (God). Thus it isn't working off of one source, but off of many.

So which is it? One author or many? Or both? I'm not sure it matters:

• If there's one author, She's just repeating herself. That *might* clarify, but this is not necessarily going to ensure that enough "reason" or "logic" will always provide disambiguation.
  
• If there are multiple authors (citing the same source obviously!), you might have an argument that consistency shows that the quotation by the authors is accurate, but as with the other option, it still does not *ensure* that logic will always resolve the veracity of only one of any two conflicting interpretations.
  

 

The play's the thing, :)

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

For the sake of this thread, let's do the following concerning the Bible.

 

Let's identify God as the final editer of the texts attributed to him, and also say that men were the ones who actually penned the books in their own hand.

 

Thanks for the props. Consistency shows that the authors were 1) edited by the same individual, and 2) that the major parts of those Biblical scriptures that are consistent are easily reasoned and contain enough statements that are not left up to interpretation that the pillars or foundation of the religion can be laid and easily adhered to or identified by anyone. Yet, that simply is not done, because men want to live life in their own way, and claim the support of something higher for their ways, even when that support is not there.

[ughaibu]

No. Unless "god" can be demonstrated, the conjecture is absurd.

[IDMclean]

All right, Cwes99_03, I am going to have to call revelancy.

 

How does this relate to defining "religion", and eliminating the ambiguity of the word?

[Pyrotex]

Religion is like gold; it is where you find it.

 

The first step to understanding religion is to go to the anthropologists. These are the (hopefully) objective observors of Humanity in all its many forms; especially of those forms to be found in isolated groups.

 

Religion as practiced is not hard to understand and is difficult to miss. It centers around sacred rituals. Usually, these rituals are to thank, appease or importune one or more deities; or one or more dead ancestors. Often, these rituals are to inspire or teach.

 

Who gets to define when a religion is a religion? The participants, of course. Outsiders have no rights whatsoever to demean another religion by declaring that it is not "really" a religion. The participants know what they are doing, and why, and assuming they have a word equivalent to "religion", it is their call. Period.

 

Who gets to define whether a religion is "true" or not? Nobody and everybody. Since there has never been a "true" religion (or a "false" religion for that matter), it is a pointless excercise in hateful name-calling to accuse other religions of being either "true" or "false". Religions are just religions.

 

But what if its teachings have strayed from the "straight and narrow"? So what? It is still a religion; only its tenets have changed. All religions evolve just as all cultures and languages and economic systems and political systems evolve. It is in the nature of Human society and the uniqueness of each individual that no Human body of thought can remain unchanged for even one generation.

 

But a Jew isn't really a Jew if she doesn't follow the original teachings, right? Of course she is. She gets to identify her religion, not you. It is presumptious, even arrogant to think you have been exhalted to the seat of judgement in such matters. Religions evolve. Look at the Ford Model A. Now look at the Ford Taurus. Do they look the same? NOT HARDLY!!! Then how come the Taurus can call itself a Ford if it hardly resembles its origins at all??? Because, dufus, there is that Ford logo on the hood. That's all it takes.

 

It seems to me that there are those who are trying to make mountains out of anthills or sand dunes. Religion isn't that difficult. Even making the distinction between organized and personal religion doesn't matter that much. If Bohunkus takes the first fruits of his bumbleberry crop and puts it on the graves of his ancestors and grieves, it is a religion. And not "you" (generic) nor all the powers of church or state have the first damn flip-flappin geshtunkin mugger right to say otherwise.

[cwes99_03]

[non-sarcastically but in a very sarcastic tone] this includes dancing around piles of money, working 90 hours a week to increase the size of your [cough] bank account [/clears throat] and increase the number of possessions you have. [/jab of Pyro in the ribs]

[cwes99_03]

Since there has never been a "true" religion (or a "false" religion for that matter),

 

There has never been anything that wasn't white, nor anything that was. Logical fallacy? If there was never a true religion, how was there never a false one either.

 

I KNOW, I KNOW!!!!

 

There was never a religion at all right? What do I win?

Oh wait, if someone claims there to be a religion isn't there a religion? Not if it's a philosophy :evil:.

[IDMclean]

So in otherwise, the word religion is strictly privately defined, and means nothing outside the context of the self. Therefore Religion as a word is "meaningless" to anybody excepting the one who says it.

 

Alright then, what use is such a word to a person like me? Why not call it philosophy, doctrine, paradigm, and be done with it?

[pgrmdave]

There has never been anything that wasn't white, nor anything that was. Logical fallacy? If there was never a true religion, how was there never a false one either

 

This is a false analogy - Pyrotex seems to be saying that there's never been a proven true religion, and it isn't possible to prove religion false for the same reason. It is more like saying that there is no best President, nor, by the same token, a worst President.

[Pyrotex]

So in otherwise, the word religion is strictly privately defined, and means nothing outside the context of the self. Therefore Religion as a word is "meaningless" to anybody excepting the one who says it. Alright then, what use is such a word to a person like me? Why not call it philosophy, doctrine, paradigm, and be done with it?

Well, I actually did not say the word means nothing outside the context of the self. I said it is the individual's prerogative to declare that they have a religion and the name of their religion and how they practice it. Period.

 

At the objective meta-level, above the details of who worships which god and whether or not they "do it" correctly, we have the concept of "religion". Religion is a word used to distinguish a concept from other concepts. C'mon, this is kindergarten stuff! :evil: We have two people practicing some kind of ritual; we call the one "washing the car" and the other a "religious rite". If we didn't, we might do embarrassing things in church.

 

If you insist on your point of view that you get to define other people's religions, then I will just have to question your motives.

 

When you see someone genuflecting inside an ornate building in front of an alabaster statue -- and you say to yourself that they aren't REALLY practicing "religion"; that their ritual is not a REAL religion; do you find that you have certain strong emotions along with this? What would these emotions be called?

 

Just asking.

[Pyrotex]

...Pyrotex seems to be saying that there's never been a proven true religion, and it isn't possible to prove religion false for the same reason. It is more like saying that there is no best President, nor, by the same token, a worst President.

Well, lemme see here now by golly...

 

hmmm...

 

Okay, I'll bite. How do you prove a religion is "true" or "false"? You might start with giving me clear, concise, unambiguous, context-derived and context-specific definitions for "true" and "false".

 

Can a turnip be "false"?

 

Can a corporation be "true"?