What Is Religion?

[hallenrm]

What Is Religion?

 

Religion is a belief system.. an idea of what one person supposes to be true.. and given value.. this belief is then passed on to other people through a communication system we call language.. using words to explain to another person.. an idea one person gave value..

 

A religious person is a believer.. its very simple in its basic form..

 

Ashley

 

Not always true,:) I can assert that, not because it is written in a book, but from the experience of my own life and convictions.

[arkain101]

HappyTheStripper: What Is Religion?

 

Religion is a belief system.. an idea of what one person supposes to be true.. and given value.. this belief is then passed on to other people through a communication system we call language.. using words to explain to another person.. an idea one person gave value..

 

A religious person is a believer.. its very simple in its basic form..

 

To this and all definitions of religion.

 

What is anything without action?

 

I agree it is true; religion has a system of beliefs and an ajenda to align actions with those beliefs.

 

With that considered, a religion in basic truth and reality can not be or become without actions perfomed in alignment with the design.

 

The definition(s) of religion is useful, but is nothing for, what is knowledge if not put to use?

 

So I conclude no one is religious to the extent they can embody all action. A person of religion is by no means acting religious design at all times. There is moments they are unconcious, acting only with a force on their bedspread, and a consumption of air. There is moments they eject feces and human waiste while considering what time they might like to have dinner or sex this evening.

 

A mind can not be dominated by one thought, for there is a limited capacity a mind can contain, not to mention it would severly handicap ones intelligence to contain such an idealism of religion belifes in their concsious mind at all times.

 

Thus, I think scientists, or let us say, a person who can act, that are not in favour of religion are so because of the actions that transpire out of its design of belief system.

[cwes99_03]

And I'll have to disagree right back my friend. My religion wouldn't be mine if it were something I was required to believe just because it was classified as official. I don't get my religion from the clergy, from the pope, or from anyone else. My religion is my right of freedom to believe how and in whom I choose. If your religion is something that begins outwardly, it can never be a personal experience. And unless it's personal, it's nothing more than a passing fashion. If it's not personal, it's not faith. And if there's no faith, I wouldn't call it religion. I would call it following the nearest crowd. What I find hard to understand is someone calling themself religious and denying that it needs to be personal. And if I have to ask permission to believe just like the rest, it hasn't become mine, it still belongs to others................................Infy

 

I agree with that statement, in that religion is not something that you own. It is not yours and yours alone. That would be personal philosophy. You can have your own personalized philosophy, but a personalized religion is nothing more than that, personal philosophy.

 

Religion goes above and beyond a single person. Thus when you say you don't get your "religion from the clergy, from the pope, or from anyone else" I only have a problem when you say anyone (or anything) else. Your religion has to come from somewhere else, you can't invent it.

 

You make it yours (personal) by adhering to the rules of that faith. If you make it yours by changing the rules of the faith to your own personal will, then it is no longer what it was but whatever you want it to be (which is the definition of a personal philosophy).

 

When you say without faith there is no religion, I would like it if you could constrict that further down. Faith in what? People put faith in men (politicians, scientists, man's understanding of the physical laws). Does that make them religious, or their beliefs a religion?

[infamous]

This thread is being moved to the Theology forum.................Infy

[IMAMONKEY!]

I haven't read many of the previous posts. I would define religion as binding oneself to a set of morals and principles established by the founders of said religion. It is also the blind faith in a Deity or several for the purpose of preserving hope. Because we don't understand why some (well, many) things happen we created religions to instill hope that we may be safe from said events and not have to worry about them harming us. Black Plague was at the time of its major spreading believed to be an illness sent by god on random people. We now know that the Bubonic plague was in fact just spread by human contact and through the air.

 

As for myself, I would define religion as the quintessential of hope in a world surrounded by immoral religious fervists and radical extremists who "kill heathens in the name of [their] God"

 

Again most institutions set up by humans appear to be a means of grouping, and survival.

 

Let's all get together and go on a crusade to wipe out another race simply because we don't understand them because they are a separate group.

 

Religion causes problems as well as solves them. It is both bad and good depending entirely upon those who would twist it into a weapon for the mob.

 

Fear of the unknown. That is what drives us into these groupings. We don't understand what will happen when we die so we place all of this quivering hope into a religion where it flourishes in the warmth of other's convincing homilies and texts that "must" be from the "only" higher being that exists.

 

In the words of my gay uncle's partner: "if wishes and buts were clusters of nuts, we'd all have a bowl of granola" ;)

 

An example to me of blind faith would be my ex-girlfriend. She smokes, she drinks, she does VERY illegal drugs, and has very "inappropriate run-ins" with certain boys. I have no idea why i dated her but here's the point. As horrible of a person she may be, she is very religious. She goes to church 4 times a week. Much more then myself anyways. She prays every night, and yet she has no morals. She has not had a single boyfriend that she has not cheated on.

 

So my question is, will religion save her? Has it made her a better person? Or is it just giving her excuses to continue her immoral behavior? I think the last one is correct.

 

So obviously religion doesn't always make people better. Sometimes it may but definitely not all the time.

 

I'm still a little confused on the matter myself but what I've posted here seems to make sense to me. If only me. :China Man

 

Regards,

 

IMAMONKEY!

[IDMclean]

Though I appreciate the thought placed into many of these posts. I will point out that this is intended to be a discussion on the etymology and ontology of a glossary term refering to a word representing a concept. Particularly within the scope of a core ontology and glossary in a scientifically falsifable formal system sense.

 

Though fun it maybe to divert off into the content of the form, it is distracting and does not lend itself towards further investigation of the topic at hand. There are plenty of other threads to discuss theology, so try and keep it relevant to the linguistic necessities to define the word.

 

Like with Comics, Batman is a comic charater. He is not however the totality of comics nor is he even dependant on the form. Same goes for God and religion. God is a character, a piece of content often contained in the form of religion, but god does not define religion and vice versa.

 

Content does not equal form.

[IMAMONKEY!]

No but content can define form.:artgallery: Hence we are discussing the content to realize the form of said subject.

 

I guess if you want to get right down to it, religion is just a form of government. However it is loosely organized and doesn't enforce rules but rather gives suggestions and moral principles which it says you should live your life by. (Note this is a generalization and doesn't necessarily apply to all Religions)

 

If you want the short and simple of how I myself see religion it would be this: Religion is an institution of beliefs set up to give purpose to people's lives, give them an outlet for hope after death and during life, and in some cases give them excuses for their actions and thoughts with occasionally unethical justifications.

 

Religion seems to me to be both an evil:evil: and a good:) force in this world. It causes problems. It solves problems. I guess it all depends on which side you're on.

 

There is one thing that can change, warp, mask, or redefine truth. Perspective ;)

 

Anywho, I need to go to bed soon. I have a project to finish tomorrow.

 

Good Night everyone,

 

IMAMONKEY!

[IDMclean]

If you want the short and simple of how I myself see religion it would be this: Religion is an institution of beliefs set up to give purpose to people's lives, give them an outlet for hope after death and during life, and in some cases give them excuses for their actions and thoughts with occasionally unethical justifications.

 

We'll that is your opinion, obviously. However it does not match what is conventionally considered religion.

 

Now I understand that there has been alot done in the name of religion, and for those who don't care to look, on the surface it may appear that all that religion has done through out history is cause more problems than it solves.

 

However this is a pejoritive biased outlook. I will say yes, some religions, have enspoused down right dangerous morality and agendas, and I will say that some religions have been used for purely political reasons.

 

This however is not true of all religions, and does not define what religions is.

No but content can define form. Hence we are discussing the content to realize the form of said subject.

 

I would strongly disagree with this. A painting of a pipe is not a pipe. Playing football with a painting does not make football an art. A form is a definition. Content is amorphous and mallable.

 

Science is a field, a formal system. It is a form that is defined by it's shape. If you take out a theory (the content) of the scientific field, science (the form) still remains. Nothing makes it into science and survives that doesn't conform to the shape of science. Therefore the form of science is independent of the content of science. Cube that does not have six sides, four points and twelve perimeters is not a cube. The cube is the form. What exists inside the cube can be anything that can fit, that is the content.

 

What is often commited on this site when it comes to talking about religion is equating religion with a small subset, like christianity, of specific instances and making a fallacious generalization of that subset in an attempt to define religion.

 

This is the one place I feel that the people of hypography fail to keep objective of the material more often than not. Much of the discussion of religion turns into militiant religion bashing.

 

We don't appreciate it when people come around mistaking science for pet theories, belief, and quackery. I don't see why we should bring ourselves down to that level by debasing religion. Science is about being as objective as humanly possible in the examination of emperical phenomena. Religion, like philosophy, is a real field and domain, independent of the truth value of it's content. We can observe that people practice religion. The form itself is emperical, it is the content of much of the form that is questionable in the eyes of science.

 

What I am looking at defining, by observation and examination of a demographic of specific religions, is the form that is common to all religions, irregardless of their content. The difficulty is in sorting out what is the form and what is the content, but do not make the mistake of mixing the message with the messenger.

 

For those only sufficient in Christianity, I would ask that you expose yourselves, in fine scientific form, to more than just christianity, because Christianity is but a grain of sand in the vast landscape that is religion. If you want to discuss religion and examine it's whole to derive the form, then you must do so with a representative demographic.

 

I have small list here.

[cwes99_03]

I haven't read many of the previous posts.

It is also the blind faith in a Deity or several for the purpose of preserving hope.

I guess if you want to get right down to it, religion is just a form of government. However it is loosely organized and doesn't enforce rules but rather gives suggestions and moral principles which it says you should live your life by. (Note this is a generalization and doesn't necessarily apply to all Religions)

 

The above are not definitions of religion, but opinions of one person's view of a small set of religion, and in some cases inflamatory statements.

 

I don't know if KAC is intending to find a broad overreaching definition of what it means for anything to be considered a religion or not, but I do know he isn't looking for a religion, or one single religion, or a description of any religion, or why religions exist/were created but a general description of religion. That being said, the following I think fit that.

 

I would define religion as binding oneself to a set of morals and principles established by the founders of said religion.

I guess if you want to get right down to it, religion is just a form of government.

Religion is an institution of beliefs set up to give purpose to people's lives, give them an outlet for hope after death and during life, and in some cases give them excuses for their actions and thoughts.

 

From those three things, I have come to the conclusion that IMAMONKEY was saying: Religion is a set of commands/laws and principles/morals by which a group of people choose to live with respect to each other, which is basically the same as a government, however the origin of these rules is attributed to a deity or supernatural power (not personal belief or philosophy.)

How is that IMAMONKEY?

[Garry Denke]

Perhaps the question should be "What Is Your Religion?" because religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief. In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief—typically focused on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion can also be described as a way of life. The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation and responsibility. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system," but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions. There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality. Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence." The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way: "In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels - a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

 

Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

My religion is "G" because "JESUS" says "G'S US" being "666. x 10^-10 LENGTH^3/MASS-TIME^2", the mark, name, image, and number of Rev. geologist John Michell (1724-1793) and Rev. scientist Henry Cavendish (1731-1810). It was they who set the mark of my religion's metric unit definitions to Rev. chapter 13, "For all people, for all time." And so, my religion's "G" of seven heads (.0000000), three sixes (666.), ten horns (x 10), ten crowns (-10), and a beastly tail (CENTIMETRE^3/GRAM-SECOND^2) was defined perfectly, until CODATA redefined Michell and Cavendish's original metric unit definitions. Since the 1960s the International System of Units ("Système International d'Unités" in French, hence "SI") has been the internationally recognised standard metric system. Alas, the French religion conflicts to this day with the British religion. Viva la France, farewell to Rev. wisdom.

 

John Michell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Henry Cavendish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Gravitation's "G", the Letter of God, the mark.

Gravitation's "JESUS", the Word of God, the name.

Gravitation's "G'S US", the Sentence of God, the image.

Gravitation's "666. x 10^-10 CENTIMETRE^3/GRAM-SECOND^2",

the Wisdom of God, the number.

 

Gravitational constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

What Is Your Religion?

[cwes99_03]

Gary, there was some good in your thread, so I'll try to extract it.

 

... religion is the adherence to codified beliefs and rituals that generally involve a faith in a spiritual nature and a study of inherited ancestral traditions, knowledge and wisdom related to understanding human life. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to faith as well as to the larger shared systems of belief. In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of belief—typically focused on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion can also be described as a way of life...

 

Now of the bolded parts, what makes that different than say Draconian philosophy, or Platonic philosophy?

[Garry Denke]

...there was some good in your thread, so I'll try to extract it. Now of the bolded parts, what makes that different than say Draconian philosophy, or Platonic philosophy?

At their root, all philosophies, whether Absolutism, Aesthetics, African philosophy, Agnosticism, Altruism, Animism, Anti-realism, Analytic philosophy, Ancient philosophy, Anomalous monism, Applied ethics, Aristotelianism, Atheism, Axiology, Bioethics, Buddhist philosophy, Charvaka, Chinese philosophy, Christian existential humanism, Christian existentialism, Christian humanism, Christian philosophy, Collectivism, Compatibilism and incompatibilism, Computer ethics, Confirmation holism, Confucianism, Consequentialism, Continental philosophy, Critical rationalism, Cynicism, Czech philosophy, Danish philosophy, Deconstructionism, Deductive reasoning, Deism, Defeatism, Democratic transhumanism, Deontology, Determinism, Digital philosophy, Dualism, Eastern philosophy, Eliminative materialism, Emergent materialism, Empiricism, Environmental ethics, Epicureanism, Epiphenomenalism, Epistemology, Ethics, Experimental philosophy, Existentialism, Externalism, Falsificationism, Fatalism, French materialism, Functionalism, German idealism, German philosophy, Goodness and value theory, Greek philosophy, Hedonism, Hermeneutics, Heterophenomenology, Hindu philosophy, Holism, Humanism, Humanistic naturalism, Idealism, Individualism, Indian philosophy, Indonesian philosophy, Induction / Inductionism, Innatism, Instrumentalism, Internalism, Intraphilism, Intuitionism, Irrealism, Islamic philosophy, Jainism, Japanese philosophy, Jewish philosophy, Just war theory, Kantianism, Korean philosophy, Legalism, Libertarianism, Logic / Informal logic, Logical atomism, Logical positivism, Logicism, Marxism, Materialism, Medieval philosophy, Mereological nihilism, Meta-philosophy, Metaphysics, Metaethics, Medieval philosophy, Modernism, Monism, Moral absolutism, Moral objectivism, Moral realism, Moral relativism, Moral skepticism, Naturalism, Neo-Hegelianism, Neoplatonism, Neuroethics, New Wittgenstein, Neutral monism, Nihilism, Nominalism, Objective idealism, Objectivism, Ontology, Optimism, Pacifism, Pakistani philosophy, Pancritical rationalism, Panpsychism, Pantheism, Perennial philosophy, Perfectionism, Peripatetic, Personalism, Perspectivism, Pessimism, Phenomenalism, Phenomenology, Philosophical Satanism, Philosophy of art, Philosophy of action, Philosophy of biology, Philosophy of business, Philosophy of Common Sense, Philosophy of composition, Philosophy of copyright, Philosophical counseling, Philosophy of education, Philosophy of history, Philosophy of language, Philosophy of law, Philosophy of mathematics, Philosophy of mind, Philosophy of nature, Philosophy of neuroscience, Philosophy of perception, Philosophy of physics, Philosophy of psychology, Philosophy of sex, Philosophy of science, Philosophy of social science, Philosophy of space and time, Philosophy of religion, Philosophy of war, Physicalism, Platonic realism, Platonism, Pluralism, Political philosophy, Positivism, Postanalytic philosophy, Post-structuralism, Posthumanism, Post-modernism, Pragmatism, Praxis school, Presentism, Process philosophy, Property dualism, Pseudophilosophy, Pyrrhonian skepticism, Pythagoreanism, Qualia, Rationalism, Realism, Reconstructivism, Reductionism, Reductive materialism, Reformational philosophy, Relativism, Religious humanism, Reliabilism, Romanticism, Russian philosophy, Scholasticism, Secular humanism, Semantic holism, Singularitarianism, Skepticism, Social philosophy, Solipsism, Sophism, Stoicism, Structuralism, Subjective idealism, Subjectivism, Supervenience, Surrealism, Taoism, Teleology, Theism, Transcendentalism, Transhumanism, Type physicalism, Utilitarian Bioethics, Utilitarianism, Value-pluralism, Value theory, Verificationism, Virtue ethics, Vitalism, Western philosophy, or Zen Buddhism, just to type a few, are the same. Therefore, the bolded parts, save and except for the bolding, are no different. Same for your Draconian philosophy. They are letters, words, sentences, and numbers.

 

Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Philosophies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

My favorite letter, word, sentence, and number are: "G", "JESUS", "G'S US", and "666. x 10^-10 cm^3/g-sec^2"; the mark, name, image, and number of The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

What are yours?

[cwes99_03]

You seem incapable of answering the question, Gary.

 

Let's see, many philosophies are "codified beliefs and rituals", "practiced personally" or "practiced as a group", "focused on a system of thought or person", and "Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief".

 

Thus the difference between the religion and the philosophies you thoughtfully enumerated, is the presumed/assumed source of those codes, beliefs, values, and laws.

[Garry Denke]

You seem incapable of answering the question...

"What Is Your Religion?"

 

"What are yours?"

 

:eek:

[cwes99_03]

start a new thread, don't try to hijack this one.

[IDMclean]

This thread is not to answer "What is (a Specific Instance) of Religion?", It is "What is Religion?"; the question is purely oriented towards formally defining a glossary term and word that represents the concept of religion.

 

What you ask, Gary, differs in that it is a question of content, not form. Of which this thread is dedicated to the grammatic examination, and evaluation of purposed general definitions of the word religion. The aim is to hit on a universally applicable, and scientifically acceptable definition that best describes what religion is. As such this is a question of form, not content.

 

This is not a perscriptive definition hunt. I am not looking to say what Religion ought to be. I am merely looking to see and express what religion is.

 

EDIT: I will note I said earlier I was looking for a perscriptive definition, but deeper research into the term perscriptive lead me to favor descriptive.

 

A function this definition could serve is as a future definition for discussions on the form and function of religion and it's relation to other fields of experiential exploration.

[Buffy]

This thread is not to answer "What is (a Specific Instance) of Religion?", It is "What is Religion?"; the question is purely oriented towards formally defining a glossary term and word that represents the concept of religion.

Any definition that is scientifically useful will have to provide a fairly clear set of rules on decidability though, to be able to answer the question, "does a specific instance of a belief qualify as a religion."

As such this is a question of form, not content.

I don't agree with the position, but there are certain elements that some people believe are necessary content for a religion. I think that many of these end up being attempts to legitimize certain religions over others, but there are notions that have been proposed here such as "higher powers" or "laws" or "reasons for why things are the way they are" or "the existence of divinely created scriptures" are "content."

 

Moreover, there may in fact be lots of issues that are inextricably linked to meeting the qualifications for membership in the set that are valid in the *aggregate* rather than being absolute requirements.

 

Bottom line is that this is a very soft area, that I'm not sure lends itself to strict definition:

The aim is to hit on a universally applicable, and scientifically acceptable definition that best describes what religion is....A function this definition could serve is as a future definition for discussions on the form and function of religion and it's relation to other fields of experiential exploration.

Not to jump ahead, but I've got doubts about the achievability of "applicable" and "acceptable"!

 

Minimally defined,

Buffy