What is "religion"?

[sman]

I’ve been pouring over any info I could find detailing indigenous world religions on my lunch breaks this week looking for common threads. O-M-G It’s overwhelming! And I’m hardly qualified to do it. I move freight for a living, for God’s sake! But I really wanted to post here with something of substance (for a change).

 

First of all, religion really is a human universal. There may be departures in atheism, agnosticism etc, but they are very few and only very recently - and they are exceptions that prove the rule. The rule is religion.

 

IMHO, religion is a belief system that incorporates worship.

 

Yes, but what is worship? In other words: what exactly am I looking for in all of these case studies? I find myself defining it in terms of behavior, which melded it with coldcreation’s suggestion: ritual. This makes it universal. All religions (that I’ve looked at so far) feature some kind of ritual: dance, singing, praying, producing physical art….any behavior - taking time and energy - that seems to have no other purpose than the religion.

 

 

Just wondering, is faith an element of religion?

 

 

Faith also seems to be universal, but I think it goes beyond religion. I think faith is something we all do. Nature does not grow good science. It grows organisms that must make decisions in real time based on limited information - who cannot always scrutinize the data or run controlled tests but must act upon tacit assumptions and crude rules-of-thumb about the way the world works. I see faith as an overarching cognitive strategy that’s been co-opted by religion.

 

Sacrifice - that is, giving up some otherwise valuable commodity (like money, or goats, or little girls) on the model of reciprocal exchange.

 

Dualism - the philosophy that the mind, or soul is separate and, by extension, separable from the body. This seems to be very intuitive for us. Very tempting. Check out this thread. Notice the premise does not have to invoke magic or spirits or anything we would think of as religious. Nevertheless, I submit this as religious thinking.

 

I think Q makes makes a good example of Judaism.

 

It seems enough for a belief system to have moral persuasions on conduct with a sense of the divine. A great example would be certain sects of ancient Judaism such as the Sadducees.

 

~modest

 

Ancient Judaism is itself an “indigenous religion” that I didn’t think of and a good case study as it is very well documented over a good stretch of time. Other good ones might be the cargo cults of the Pacific, UFOlogy, the Shakers and even atheism/secular humanism, if just as a control.

 

And there’s the comparative method. Worship/Ritual, Sacrifice, Dualism.

Let me know what you think.

[coldcreation]

yes, quite an interesting comparison, but the question is, is it like the "Farmers Market"

...

 

lol ;)

 

So cold seems to basically be agreeing with my points of what is a religion....

 

Yes, I agree.

 

That is, religion (along with its definition) have evolved over time. Surely its origins had to do with the attempt to elucidate the mysteries of the world. During the Upper Paleolithic hominids looking up at the stars, at lightning bolts, hurricanes, and other natural phenomena began the quest of explaining nature. That led most likely to explanations that were not valid (perhaps the origin of god began then, or at the very least belief in the supernatural). It was an attempt to explain the outside world.

 

And skipping a large chunk of history; 2000 years ago the 'message of Christ' began taking form. Belief and Faith took over, designed for the inner being (the inner world). Science was already taking over the outside world of events, sending religion down a spiral path inward.

 

Skipping another small but non-negligible chunk, to the present: religion, though bares both the attempt to explain the natural world, and the inner world, there is now something more. Indeed that more is based on the three points you offer in the OP, with money as the incentive for those who run the religion or its branches.

 

 

1) They all offer salvation (or benefits)

 

What else can they offer but deliverance from the power and penalty of sin; redemption?

 

It is debatable, of course, as to whether or not deliverance is achieved. I won't squeal :) but I see no evidence that it is attainable. Not have I seen any benefits.

 

So this could really be just a covert pretext. Salvation (or benefits) cannot be discarded from the equation though. After all, religion could not afford to overtly offer Nothing.

 

 

2) They all follow precise theology

 

Yes, and each theology (that differs between religions) is required, i.e., it cannot either be eliminated from the definition of religion, since this is what differentiates each clan. How else could one religion be 'better' than another, how else to bring disciples to follow your ranks (to give you the money).

 

One universal religion would have no sense. There can be no standard model in religious dogma. That would centralize power and money. So diversity enables and favors the survival of factions. Often, pitting groups against one another increases the power or force of the particular group dogmas. That is one reason why conflict has stricken religion for several millennia. (No time to word that better).

 

 

3) They recruit people into their ranks, either passively or actively.

 

Too an essential feature of religion that cannot be vacated. The more hominids in the group, the more power to it, and the more money it will generate. As in many businesses, religion could not survive bankruptcy. And you can't keep asking the same people to donate over and over again (especially when salvation is nowhere to be seen). So the new adherents bring life into stagnation.

 

 

So here is the vicious circle, both in its genesis and in its manifold outcomes, that reinforces itself through a feedback loop with no tendency towards equilibrium:

 

1 depends on 2


2 depends on 3


3 depends on 1

 

Religion offers new recruits salvation (benefits) if they adhere to its theological model that offers salvation to new recruits based a model that offers salvation to new recruits if they follow precise theology that offers salvation... :QuestionM

 

Religions offer salvation (or benefits) as a security in exchange for cash flow (donations). Salvation is nowhere to be seen, so the cash flow decreases as followers come to their senses and turn away. The given religion incurs losses and requires additional funds. New recruits are then sought both passively and actively. These unsuspecting souls are attracted by a precise theology and its offering of salvation. Cash flows in but will again dwindles due to disciple dissatisfaction after salvation fails to manifest itself. The outside intervention of recruiting new adherents is again required...

 

 

Eventually number 3 could be discarded if a particular religion could maintain a firm grasp on its adherents. That could work since individuals who seek salvation through theological doctrine experience societal disadvantages as a result of their need for salvation, which in turn increases their need for salvation. This means that adherents must remain adherents throughout their lives while waiting for salvation in accord with the precise doctrine. Any new adherents would then be icing on the cake.

 

 

That's quite a business plan...

 

 

The only external factor that can intervene to break the cycle is science.

 

 

 

CC

[freeztar]

Yes, but what is worship? In other words: what exactly am I looking for in all of these case studies? I find myself defining it in terms of behavior, which melded it with coldcreation’s suggestion: ritual. This makes it universal. All religions (that I’ve looked at so far) feature some kind of ritual: dance, singing, praying, producing physical art….any behavior - taking time and energy - that seems to have no other purpose than the religion.

 

Indeed. You raise a valid point. Worship is directly related to ritual.

Ritual, I would argue, is a facet of worship.

[Qfwfq]

What is the next argument i am to refute to show that there is indeed a pattern in those 3 "rules"?

I would replace salvation with the more general fact that the practicer hopes for some kind of benefit, not even necessarily spiritual.

 

I would completely strike out recruiting/proselytizing. It is simply absent in some religions (that are definitely such) including Judaism. I've had little time these days (oh the woes of ubuntu!) so I failed to address your last reply but neither of your statements about them is tenable. It is not Jewish doctrine that others are damned and they don't begrudge them knowledge of their doctrine. If you want to discuss the specific case of Judaism I recomend first taking a good surf through this interesting site and the second link in particular:

 

Judaism 101

Judaism 101: Jewish Attitudes Toward Non-Jews

[coldcreation]

I would replace salvation with the more general fact that the practicer hopes for some kind of benefit, not even necessarily spiritual.

 

I would completely strike out recruiting/proselytizing. It is simply absent in some religions (that are definitely such) including Judaism. [...]

 

Good point. Though the definition of salvation does include other forms of benefits that are not spiritual. For example:

 

2 : liberation from ignorance or illusion

3 a : preservation from destruction or failure b : deliverance from danger or difficulty.

 

Perhaps "benefits" is a better word to use, it seems more general, since it can include moral and social benefits.

 

Frankly though, I really wonder if these benefits and real; if religion actually is beneficial in this sense. My opinion is that it is not. There are religious individuals that are far from moral or social. Likewise there are individuals that are not at all religious that have a very high moral and social standard.

 

I can't even begin to think of a method of investigating the causal relationships among variables such as moral or ethics, or to test a hypothesis based on religions offerings in a controlled study. Certainly, an experiment would be the cornerstone of an empirical approach to acquiring data about the benefits of religion. What other way is there to test the hypothesis that the so-called benefits are real, or entirely illusory.

 

I would therefore eliminate "benefits" (and salvation), from the definition of religion, at least until such a controlled experiment can be carried out. Because as it stands now there appears to be, really, no more benefits in religion than there are in any other social arena (such as schools, work place, clubs, sports teams, and so on).

 

 

So number 1, "salvation" and/or "benefits," can be eliminated from the Alexander's three points.

 

Number 3, "recruiting/proselytizing" can be eliminated to, as you point out, since there is at least one religion (a major one) that does not seek to recruit or proselytize.

 

 

That would seem to leave but one definition of religion, number 2: they all follow precise theology.

 

Let's see if we can't debunk this one too, leaving religion with no definition at all.:(

 

Are there any religions that do not follow precise theology?

 

 

CC

[alexander]

It is simply absent in some religions (that are definitely such) including Judaism.

For the n'th frigging time, it is not absent in Judaism. There is plenty of clear historical evidence, showing Jews actively proselytizing during the Hellenistic era, and even though most, i do point out the word "most" branches do not actively proselytize, some groups, like chabad, aish hatorah and reform judaism, do welcome and encourage new rectuits. But that is not to say the judaism does not proselytize in other ways, tell me what religion, unconditionally and without a saying, are children of Jewish parents initiated in? And that is what i call unconditional recruiting, what a better way to spread the religion then force the children of the people you convinced to follow their "family" faith? Do you not agree on that?

 

And if you don't, then Nazi and Communists in USSR didn't proselytize either....

 

As an example of something that is not a religion, while kids of scientists are usually educated better, it is ultimately their choice to follow in their parents steps...

[alexander]

not even necessarily spiritual

salvation doesn't have to mean spiritual salvation...

 

simply

the act of saving or protecting from harm, risk, loss, destruction, etc

[C1ay]

Faith also seems to be universal, but I think it goes beyond religion. I think faith is something we all do. Nature does not grow good science. It grows organisms that must make decisions in real time based on limited information - who cannot always scrutinize the data or run controlled tests but must act upon tacit assumptions and crude rules-of-thumb about the way the world works. I see faith as an overarching cognitive strategy that’s been co-opted by religion.

 

While having faith in something, like gravity, does not imply that one is religious does the fact that someone is religious imply that they have a system of belief(s) based on faith?

 

While I agree that faith is universal and exists in many areas outside of religion does the premise that religions are based on faith-based beliefs have merit? Are there religions with belief systems that are not based on faith?

 

Alexander's proposition in this thread is that all religions follow the 3 basic rules of religions:

 

1) they all offer salvation

2) they all follow precise system of beliefs in a spiritual being/place/power

3) they recruit people into their ranks, as i have said either passively or actively

 

Is it true that 2 could actually be stated that, "they all follow a precise system of faith based belief(s) in a spiritual being, place or power"?

[alexander]

actually i like that, faith, being basically a confident belief works better for our purpose :) (by the way fait-based beliefs makes no sense, faith is a "confident belief in a thing, person or idea", its like saying "pin number" in a way )

 

NEW REVISION

1) they all offer salvation

2) they all follow precise system of faiths in a spiritual being/place/power

3) they recruit people into their ranks, as i have said either passively or actively

[coldcreation]

actually i like that, faith, being basically a confident belief works better for our purpose :hihi: (by the way fait-based beliefs makes no sense, faith is a "confident belief in a thing, person or idea", its like saying "pin number" in a way )

 

NEW REVISION

1) they all offer salvation

2) they all follow precise system of faiths in a spiritual being/place/power

3) they recruit people into their ranks, as i have said either passively or actively

 

I would word it a little different for clarity:

 

1) they offer salvation

2) they promote spirituality in which faith is required.

 

 

Note:

1) the word "salvation" here is wide-ranging.

2) they follow was changed to they promote. "Precise" was removed, since what is followed is often not very precise. Faith is byproduct of spirituality (it is implicit), so faith can be removed (I left it for clarity). "Being/place/power" can be removed as well, since "spirituality" implies the incorporeality, otherworldliness, unearthliness of a god or force (something outside the purview of science).

3) was removed since this is not particular to religion. Lots of non-religious organizations recruit people (the military, businesses, etc.). The fact is, in many organizations, people are required, and the more the better, so it goes without saying. 1 and 2 though are particular to religion.

[watcher]

what is religion?

The essence of any religion lies solely in the answer to the question: why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me? ... It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion (i.e. without any kind of relationship to the world) as it is for there to be a person without a heart. He may not know that he has a religion, just as a person may not know that he has a heart, but it is no more possible for a person to exist without a religion than without a heart. (Leo Tolstoy, 1879)

[alexander]

I would word it a little different for clarity:

 

1) they offer salvation

2) they promote spirituality in which faith is required.

 

 

Note:

1) the word "salvation" here is wide-ranging.

2) they follow was changed to they promote. "Precise" was removed, since what is followed is often not very precise. Faith is byproduct of spirituality (it is implicit), so faith can be removed (I left it for clarity). "Being/place/power" can be removed as well, since "spirituality" implies the incorporeality, otherworldliness, unearthliness of a god or force (something outside the purview of science).

3) was removed since this is not particular to religion. Lots of non-religious organizations recruit people (the military, businesses, etc.). The fact is, in many organizations, people are required, and the more the better, so it goes without saying. 1 and 2 though are particular to religion.

 

uh, you didn't read the beginning of the thread... my conclusions say that in order for something to be a religion, all 3 rules have to be satisfied, not one or the other.

 

why do I exist, and what is my relationship to the infinite universe that surrounds me?

uh, while i agree to some extent to the first part of that, though i would not call the term religion as something that solely ponders that question, but it is a question that lies at the core of the spiritual faith, most religions did not believe in an infinite universe, take Christianity for example...

It is impossible for there to be a person with no religion

depends on how we define religion, and if religion is, as you say, one's answer to the question "why do i exist", while i have pondered that question, a, i have never come to a conclusion, and be, it just doesnt matter to me, and i dont care about my connection to the infinite universe, i do what i do, i effect others, i learn from it, if i exist to do that, then i exist to do that, if i am doing something wrong and it ends up being that i existed to serve a super being, then i'll deal with that when that comes, i dont care right now...

 

By the way, that's a bad translation, the term "вера" which is mistranslated there would be more correctly translated as "belief", and i totally agree with the fact that everyone, religious or not, has a belief, or a system of thereof, that they live with/by...

[watcher]

alex,

 

i guess leo was not trying to define religion but explained its origin, as to why in general people had religion through out the ages. its (religion) invention was to explain that which is outside of man and an attempt to be "tuned" with it.

 

you can easily equate the infinite universe as a metaphor god, supreme being, eternal father, tao, buddha, braman etc. what ever the traditional or postmodern concepts of god people hold on today is irrelevant. infinite universe could also mean everything that is outside of you, the awesome forces of natures, its mysteries, its intelligence and by just its sheer huge size in relation to you ..

 

lastly you are connected to the universe whether you like it or not, so you are related to it in more ways than one. you're very elemental substance you owe to the bosom of the stars.

[coldcreation]

uh, you didn't read the beginning of the thread... my conclusions say that in order for something to be a religion, all 3 rules have to be satisfied, not one or the other.[...].

 

In fact, I did read the beginning of the thread.

 

But perhaps you were not 100% correct in your assessment of the situation. Indeed, if there is one religion that does not recruit (as seems to be the case with Judaism), then the third conclusion is not satisfied, it is only a special case of a more general definition. [edited to add: Or maybe Judaism is a special case in a more general schema where recruiting is a rule.]

 

It would make more sense to replace your number three with:

 

3) they require money for sustainability.

 

If that money comes from disciples, private donations, or the personal funds of the Guru in change, the fact remains, they need money to survive. Recruiting is not the only way of dealing with that, so it is not a prerequisite (or an essential conclusion).

 

That would be like defining the Military as such:

 

1) they offer the use of weapons to defend their country or interests.

2) they function as a society, often with its own rules or laws.

3) they recruit people into their ranks, passively or actively.

 

If you look at the link for 'recruit' you will note that several definitions are related to the military (almost all).

 

Number 3 here, though true in, say, the United States, is not necessarily how it works in other counties. Sometimes it's obligatory (e.g. in France), sometimes people are drafted (not recruited). So to define military that way would not be entirely accurate.

 

 

CC

[modest]

OMG idea, we should totally hold the world's first religion market.... "Next 5 minutes only, join orthodoxy and get salvation at 1/2 sins off"

 

I don't know. The catholic church tried something like that in the movie Dogma and as I recall the results were not good. I think god ended up in a coma :)

 

I think Q makes makes a good example of Judaism.

 

It seems enough for a belief system to have moral persuasions on conduct with a sense of the divine. A great example would be certain sects of ancient Judaism such as the Sadducees.

 

~modest

 

Ancient Judaism is itself an “indigenous religion” that I didn’t think of and a good case study as it is very well documented over a good stretch of time.

 

Yes, a funny example is Gen. 34. Right around verse 15 and 16 the children of Israel promise to let a neighboring tribe join their religion and right around verse 25 killed all the male converts, and around verse 29 raped and took as slaves the woman converts—so, yeah :)

 

Other good ones might be the cargo cults of the Pacific, UFOlogy, the Shakers and even atheism/secular humanism, if just as a control.

 

And there’s the comparative method. Worship/Ritual, Sacrifice, Dualism.

Let me know what you think.

 

I've got no idea what you're talking about there.

 

~modest

[sman]

 

 

I've got no idea what you're talking about there.

 

~modest

 

I’m sorry. I’ve been comparing indigenous religions for common features and then I called the whole thing :) the comparative method to make it sound more convincing.

 

But indigenous religions shouldn’t be the only informative case studies. The cargo cults of the pacific islands recently (last 100 years) sprung up and seems to have borrowed many features from Christianity. Carl Sagan made observations of some striking similarities between the current UFO/astrology/new age craze and the witches/demons ideology of the Middle Ages in his book The Demon-Haunted World. The Shakers are a religious community right near me in northern New England who (I understand) practice complete abstinence. The religion, and the population, grows entirely extra-genetically.

[sman]

Yes, a funny example is Gen. 34. Right around verse 15 and 16 the children of Israel promise to let a neighboring tribe join their religion and right around verse 25 killed all the male converts, and around verse 29 raped and took as slaves the woman converts—so, yeah :)

 

 

I LOVE these stories.

 

All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city was circumcised.

 

Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male.

 

I don't know what it is! I guess it's because these outrageous things are just laid down as so much mundane history events that gives it kind of a Monty Python feel.

 

A favorite of mine is from Judges 12:5 - 7 where some Hebrews systematically tested everyone for an accent (say “shibboleth”) and killed everyone with the divergent one (“sibboleth”). When I read passages like these from the Bible I can’t help but be reminded of the story of the Kasakela chimpanzees systematically eradicating the upstart Kahaman group as recorded in Jane Goodall’s The Chimpanzees of the Goombe River. The group grew to a certain(optimal) size and then split - according to some arbitrary behavioral features. These features could be pronunciation, or circumcision.

 

This is not a digression. The way this all strikes me is religion as an isolation mechanism, like the different colored spots on otherwise the same species of cichlid fishes, or different songs played by crickets...anything that creates a barrier to gene flow in an otherwise inter-breeding population. Some religions provide this.