What Is Religion?

[Buffy]

Which as I have stated before in the thread, and ensueing discussion, is not the point of the thread.

I'll amplify KAC's point here: Stating specific instances of belief system elements is going way off topic here, so stop it. KAC gets to decide what's discussed in his thread, so please stay on topic.

You can not reasonably point to Judaism and go "That is what the definition of religion is".

I will say however that these irrelevant posts are pointing to what might be an essential element of religion: the insistence that other belief systems are not only wrong in their specific beliefs, but worse, are "not even religions."

 

When a belief is accepted solely by faith, there is not only a need but an imperitive--at least from the standpoint of the group development and dynamics that surround development of non-personal religions--to deny the validity of conflicting or competing religions.

 

Kinda like political parties these days.

 

The lack of this dynamic is why I prefer personal belief systems (even if they are based on organized religions).

 

Sneetches with stars upon thars,

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Religion is sort of a paradox. On the one hand, many religions preach some form of an all knowing and encompassing God. Yet most religions narrow God's infinite being down to only their group. In other words, God is everything, yet most religion try to reduce God to only one aspect.

 

For example, if one asked any religious person if they consider another person's different religious views just as important as their's. The common answer would be "their's is the true path". One group says God's little left toe is the most important part of God and another says it his right hand pinky. None seem to realize that an all knowing God contains both and even more than that. It may be due to market pressures. McD can not say BK's burgers are just as good or it risks losing market share.

 

The best religion is the least insecure. Such a religon may still center itself on one orientation (there is so much to learn) but tries to include the rest of the body.

[InfiniteNow]

Religion is sort of a paradox. On the one hand, many religions preach some form of an all knowing and encompassing God. Yet most religions narrow God's infinite being down to only their group. In other words, God is everything, yet most religion try to reduce God to only one aspect.

Interesting point, HB. I'm not sure it's completely on topic, but I've used a similar argument whilst discussing abortion, genetic research, sex, etc...

[REASON]

KAC,

 

My father is a retired methodist minister and we have had many discussions about this topic, as you might imagine. I asked him to explain the difference between spirituality and religion. He suggested that spirituality is something you experience, while religion is something you do, or practice. Being religious involves some sort of action, and someone is religious because they are thoroughly involved in, or do something repetitiously. Obviously, in most cases throughout the world, the term relates to some form of worship.

 

A simple definition I would give for religion would be - The act of worshiping something.

[REASON]

A simple definition I would give for religion would be - The act of worshiping something.

 

After considering my previous definition for religion, I decided it still wasn't correct. It would imply that the word religion is a verb. And you wouldn't describe someone worshiping as religion. Also, religion typically involves some sort of organization or group.

 

Therefore, my revised definition for religion would simply be - Organized worship.

 

Ultimately for me, a more interesting question would be: What is the lingering need of human beings to worship? But maybe that's better addressed in a different thread.

[InfiniteNow]

After considering my previous definition for religion...

Ah... you beat me to it. Well played. :beer:

 

Ultimately for me, a more interesting question would be: What is the lingering need of human beings to worship?

I'd suggest that you first offer proof that such a need, in fact, does linger, and also offer an explaination for those who do not worship. :beer:

 

But maybe that's better addressed in a different thread.

Indeed. Sorry KAC. Please carry on. :beer:

[Freddy]

I'll amplify KAC's point here: Stating specific instances of belief system elements is going way off topic here, so stop it. KAC gets to decide what's discussed in his thread, so please stay on topic.

I will say however that these irrelevant posts are pointing to what might be an essential element of religion: the insistence that other belief systems are not only wrong in their specific beliefs, but worse, are "not even religions."

 

When a belief is accepted solely by faith, there is not only a need but an imperitive--at least from the standpoint of the group development and dynamics that surround development of non-personal religions--to deny the validity of conflicting or competing religions.

 

Kinda like political parties these days.

 

The lack of this dynamic is why I prefer personal belief systems (even if they are based on organized religions).

 

Sneetches with stars upon thars,

Buffy

Excuse me but I was responding specifically to something KAC responded to. I did not bring up the subject. Just for the record more than 4.5 billion people belong to religions that either mandate or encourage giving or charity, which is about 90% of all the people who identify themselves as religious. Some give more than 10% while others give less, but giving is definitely a part of religion for most. Remember almost 1 billion do not identify themselves as religious. Giving is not a specific belief it is almost universal among the religious.

[IDMclean]

New policy on my part.

 

I am going to ignore the posts which are not congruent with the topic of the thread, within the bounds that I have so far set.

 

I will remind participants, this is not a free-form philosophical, ethical, moral, political, nor religious discussion, despite the confusing name.

 

It is a discussion of the semantics of the universal concept of religion, it's representation in a word, and it's formal definition.

 

The rules for this discussion follow from semantics, logic, and linguistics. That is the preferrential view point. Personal opinions will be rejected on priniciple.

[Heresiarch]

It might be useful to distinguish "religion" from related terms, such as philosophy, doctrine, theology, moral code, supernaturalism, ideology, and so on. I'm inclined to suggest that a religion is just an ideology involving the supernatural, but then I'm not sure what to do with Zen, which most people would classify as a religion, but which makes no supernatural claims. Or another sticking point: If you ask a Christian what a religion is, s/he might say something about what one believes. But to a Jew, belief is largely a matter of personal choice, and the hub of the religion is conduct, not belief.

 

How about this: A religion is a set of stimuli and/or practices that puts one into a particular psychological state characterized by either inner tranquility and magnanimity ---- or an impulse to smite that funny looking guy in the neighboring tribe!

[IDMclean]

How about this: A religion is a set of stimuli and/or practices that puts one into a particular psychological state characterized by either inner tranquility and magnanimity ---- or an impulse to smite that funny looking guy in the neighboring tribe!

 

Sounds like politics to me ;D

seriously though, nice post Heresiarch.

 

A friendly questions regarding your definition.

How does your definition apply to hardworker or non-violent fervored religions like the Amnish or Mormons?

 

It would seem to me, superficially at least, that your definition doesn't allow for high energy psychological states that are not geared towards smiting.

[Heresiarch]

How does your definition apply to hardworker or non-violent fervored religions like the Amnish or Mormons?

 

[. . . .] your definition doesn't allow for high energy psychological states that are not geared towards smiting.

 

Well, no, I said "A religion is a set of stimuli and/or practices that puts one into a particular psychological state characterized by either inner tranquility and magnanimity [or, that other thing]."

 

I'm a scientifically minded rationalist, but get peeved when people dis religion per se . I think the problem is dogmatic ideology, whether religious or otherwise.

[phoenixbyrd]

Religion is primitive superstition that has evolved over the course of human evolution. As we've learned more about our little blue dot and the big dark ocean it rest's in, the less religion has had a stronghold on shaping human beliefs. It's not a word that can be defined in one swift go. As you've no doubt already noticed. Atleast one would hope so!

 

There is no other way to describe it. You can play semantics and logic games and philosophise it all you want. But explaine why you feel the need to complicate the obvious. The problem with people (and sorry to go abit off topic here for a sec), is that people feel the need to complicate the most simplest things. It's like a bunch of people at my job. It's got to be the EASIEST job I've ever had. Take a box, put it on the right pallet. Take another box, put that on the pallet it belongs on. And yet people there make numerous errors and blame it on a whole host of other external reasons as to why they made those errors. Bad lighting, same product, same PO or other numbers on the label. Yet all they have to do is simply read the whole label to do the job right. I've yet to make one error. Yet I've taken the fall for ton's of errors from people who help me out sometimes. Managment notices this and soon I'm going to be lead/supervisor there. Less then 6 months after starting, yet there's been people there for over 6 years. That's a similar problem here in this thread. You already have your answer, but yet you guys feel the need to complicate the answer. It's all in your history lessons. You learned this all in school.

 

We all know what religion is, where it came from, what it's effects have been through history and on the human psyche, and where it's heading in the future.

 

So again, WHY complicate it by playing mind games with it? Why be like the people at my job who aren't getting anywhere and staying stuck doing the same laborous work because they just want to complicate the whole damn thing.

[IDMclean]

Why complicate it? Well, my aim is to simplify it for myself. I thought I knew what religion was, and then I tried to argue it and fell far short of expectation.

 

I realize all the time that I know less about somethings than I think I do. In this case religion is something I've taken for granted for many years, and have never really examined it's formal definition. When I did, I found there essentially isn't one.

 

Now, why play all these word games, talk semantics, and so on? Well for me it's moderately entertaining. Not to mention informative and idea sparking.

 

In the exploration of explanation, one sometimes finds new ways to percieve things. These insights once discovered can be used to shape things into entire new forms. Science is an example of this, being a modification of philosophy. Comics are once again another example of this, being a modification and synthesis of several of the other arts. Each form yeilds a different way to deal with and distribute data and information.

 

Now, if religion remains as this shapeless, definitionless, word, it remains useless. You can say it's meaning is obvious, but I doubt you can explain in less than a page what religion is. If the explanation is not obvious, then it's meaning is most likely, likewise, not obvious.

 

Now a well shapen definite word is a useful tool. That's just what the word Religion is, a tool. When you have quality tools you can make better quality tools.

 

An explorer, exploring for the sake of sanity.

[phoenixbyrd]

Well, let's look at what religion is then.

 

Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

That's the simplified definition. So, why complicate such a clear definition of what religion is? It doesn't mean anything else then what it means. Unless your in the bussiness of redifining age old definitions of course!

 

To put it even more aptly, religion is and always has been a primitive belief system. A way to expliane away the seemingly unexplainable. Whats the meaning of life? To serve god. Where do we come from? God created us. What is consciousness? etc etc etc...

 

These days, we even know WHY some people are more prone to have faith in religion as well as why they follow a certain particular religion. It's not some mystifying undefinable unknowable thing anymore. It's genetics, it's enviromental, it's cultural. I for example am unable to follow any religion since I lack a particular gene, or atleast it isn't as strong, that would otherwise make me more prone to follow a religion. Other reasons are my family never raised me religious. I don't have any religous friends. My life isn't surrounded by religion.

 

Why do you think they get at people when they are still children? They are mor impressionable. You can tell a kid ANYTHING and they WILL believe you are telling the truth. You continue that up into adulthood and you've won 99% of them for life. Yet, there are other factors that come into play.

 

Anywho, religion isn't a definitionless, shapless word at all. It's already been defined. You just want to complicate it and redifine it to please your own self. Which in a way is fine, but I just do not understand why people want to complicate the simplest things. If anything, my advice would be rather then trying to redifine it for yourself, learn more about it instead. Start with today's modernised religions and work backwards in time, see where they all come from, why people believed certain things in certain time periods etc etc.. It's really the ONLY eye opener you need. It's education.

[Buffy]

Actually you just pretty well proved how complicated it is! :)

 

Don't diss the scientific process of careful definition.

 

If you think its boring or pointless, you're probably not going to enjoy science much...

 

Devil in details,

Buffy

[phoenixbyrd]

How'd I prove how complicated it is? I'm not following you on that one. Perhaps it's because I've taken the time to learn an understand religion, rather then trying to redifine it because I didn't understand it. Or maybe I'm just missing something and it really is some mystical complex thing!

[phoenixbyrd]

I think I semi-understand what the issue is. It's not that religion's definition is complicated and hard to grasp, it's that the various practices of religion isn't clicking with anyone here.

 

It's almost as if no one's happy with the definition of a square. 6 sides of equal length and four corners. But why do we call it a square and not a circle? etc. And so then come's along someone who either doesn't understand a clear definition of what a square is and they try to redfine it as a circle since they understand circles better then squares.

 

But, a square is a square and religion is religion. How such a simple definition and concept has eluded everyone 14 pages later is beyond imaginable. If the core issue isn't the definition, which it is not... then someone should either resurface an old thread on the complicated belief structures of various religions and the key differences between them, or start a new one. Again, we're complicating the simple here. Hate to be a kill joy, but there's no viable reason to reinvent the wheel here or attempt to redefine something that you can't possibly redefine. It is what it is.