What Is Religion?

[Turtle]

. Personal opinions will be rejected on priniciple.

 

 

...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...

 

Rejected on principle. Get a dictionary - any dictionary - and religion is well defined. Another grand waste of bandwidth. :warped:

 

Religiously calling a fig a fig, a kneading-trough a kneading-trough,

:shrug:

[ughaibu]

"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?"

 

Quite, why not call it a tetrahedron?

[Freddy]

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.

Does a square have 6 sides?

[infamous]

Does a square have 6 sides?

No..........but a cube does. And what may I ask does that question have to do with 'What is Religion'?..................................Infy

[phoenixbyrd]

Bah, yea... cube. 4, 6 ... it's all the same.

[arkain101]

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.

 

Have you studied religion(s)?

 

Religion is well defined

 

It may be so but some definitions need be investigated.

 

I want to make a bit of an analogy.

 

Lets look at the saying: "Practice Makes Perfect

 

One argument might be. Thats it, thats all, it's just that simple. Saying it any other way just complicates it, makes it too wordy.

 

My argument is; Its true, practice makes perfect. But that statement is meerly spouting out the blatently obvious. It is a very vague way of describing or defining a way to get better.

 

It's good to know practice makes perfect, but what is the perfect practice to get better?

 

Then I would suggest a stratagy to help with gaining skills. One of such truth-basic. Stick with what you can understand, and always improve on your previous steps when the next step becomes too complicated.

 

 

 

So. Whats the use in defining religion?

 

Sometimes generalisations are false (<-- including this one)

 

religion: defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief.

 

Belief in practices associated with the belief?

 

What fits in there, and what doesn't.

 

Does a religion require practices to exist or can it truly exist on though alone?

 

Must there be effects produced by the system of belief also?

 

I find it is important to look into. As I see it a religion is word placed on a group of people that live in a similar way, regardless if it is referred to as a religion or not.

 

And because of that, I do believe whether we realise it or not, so called seperate religions or different religions can be described as a bit of an illusion.

 

As in most 'actions' or 'practices' there is an 'ajenda' with 'support' and educated faith in that specific system.

 

So sometimes when you generalise a system you infact create a simple lable for a complex compound operation, and if all you know is the label you tend to have poor understanding of the operation, and that can lead to poor classification.

 

Many things seem simple because you choose to have it that way. And at times it is good to keep it simple. Remember that saying keep it simple stupid.. well from a complex perspective keep them stupid and its simple.

 

But seeing the simple generalisation of things can seem to create a poor understanding, and that can create problems, such as no advancement or change.

[phoenixbyrd]

Yes, I have learned abit about religions. At the end of the day, religion is and always has been just as it's defined. SOME form of faith is SOME form of supernatural.

 

What your going on about is what different PRACTICES of that faith are around. I mean, if we want to discuss that, then we can.

[HappytheStripper]

“The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the sower of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger . . . is as good as dead.” --Albert Einstein

 

The Great Unknown

 

Imagine one of our ancient ancestors, suddenly stricken by illness or a near-fatal accident. Hovering near the brink of death, an ordinary person suddenly finds him or herself locked in an immersive visionary experience of shadowy figures, muted voices and blinding luminescence.

 

The cosmos opens its enfolding arms and infinity spreads out in a timeless panoply that dissolves all fear, all separation from the Divine. Fear of death vanishes in a comforting flood of bliss, peace and dazzling light – the ultimate ‘holy’ connection. Overwhelming conviction arises that this is the more fundamental Reality. The welcoming gates of a personal heaven open…

 

Suddenly back in the body, returned to ordinary reality, one is left to interpret that transcendent experience to oneself and others. This near-death experience may not have resulted in physical demise, but it has led to the death of the old self – the personal self -- and the rebirth, rapture, or resurrection of the soul or spirit. It brings a surge of emotions, conviction and even transformation in its wake. The soul has taken a journey from which one cannot return the same.

 

A descent into psychobiological hell can lead to a transcendent journey toward Heaven…or perhaps the yawning abyss of the Void. Shamans, priests, prophets, mystics, and gurus arose to show the Way of navigating these nether regions, of finding healing, the eternal moment, a peaceful heart, and unity.

 

Our human progenitors had to directly confront existential issues of survival, adaptation, stress, mating, birth, loss, and death. They gradually developed stories about the basics of life – social, physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual existence. They created myths, beliefs about creation and our creation to give meaning to life. They developed rituals, ceremonies, and practices to heal body and mind, mark life passages, and placate forces beyond their control. These accounted for their origins as well as voices, visions and experiences that seemed to come from the great Beyond.

 

The brain is hard-wired for mystical experiences to modify the threat of our hostile existential reality. Metaphysical explanations developed for the essentially unknowable, for sudden and irresistible seizures of ecstasy. Some of these accounts were more sophisticated than others depending on their cultural background, but all shared a common core by defining the mystery of the relationship between mankind and the Unknown. It might be called a peak experience, spirit possession, epiphany, religious rapture, nirvana, satori, shaktiput, clear light, or illumination. The difference is only one of degrees of absorption, of fulfillment.

 

The god-experience is a process, a subjective perception, rather than an objectively provable reality. Distractions cease, replaced by the direct impact of oceanic expansion, sudden insight, childlike wonder, ecstatic exaltation above bodily and personal existence, dissolution in a timeless moment, fusion, gnosis.

 

It is direct perception coupled with high emotion and deep realization of what appears to be ultimate truth. It rips away the veil of illusion, revealing the pure ground state of our existence without any emotional, mental, or belief filters. Left with only pure awareness, the natural mind is finally free of earthly trappings. Bathed in emotions of joy, assurance and salvation, Cosmos becomes a living presence. Immortality is sensed, so fear of death vanishes.

 

Many called that numinous mystery God. In some sense, religion is a reaction to what actually is. But to many, when it comes to their religion, those are fighting words – for theirs is the true way, the only way. Heaven on Earth cannot be achieved so long as those two realms are separated. God comes down to earth in our own psychophysiology, dwelling within us.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Phoenix's answer of Religion is used to explain the unexplainable (or that which hasn't been explained yet) made a lot of sense. I think you would have to agree with him on that.

 

Illnesses were percieved in the Dark Ages as punishments of God. The Black Death was thought to be a mass killing off of heathens and those that were sinners. Penance was a big thing back then. :lol:

 

Now we realize how silly that is. The Black Death was a disease. But Early Europeans didnt know about germs, viruses, and our immune systems.

 

Religion to me is ignorance of the universe's great mysteries.

 

We'll find the answers, but the impatient ones who cant grasp the fact that they dont understand everything will keep on believing in an answer made by man when he was desperate.

 

What is the purpose of religion? Because to define an object I would find it is easier to define its purpose.

 

The purpose seems to be to cover up mankind's questions with one big general answer. A fitting analogy would be Religion is like a Rug to cover up that spot in the living room... or rather several rugs to cover up that spot that takes up about 99% of the living room floor (universe) :hihi:

 

Just a few thoughts,

 

IMAMONKEY!

[IDMclean]

Yes, I have learned abit about religions. At the end of the day, religion is and always has been just as it's defined. SOME form of faith is SOME form of supernatural.

 

Well, if you have read many of the previous posts on the subject, both here in this thread and in other threads listed with the first post, you will find that definition to be formally lacking.

 

I will point out that in the wikipedia article that you posit as authority on the definition of Religion starts by saying that "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."; "Religion is commonly defined as...".

 

Which doesn't suite as you would find if you started to apply that "common" definition into "formal" arguments. Part of science is searching out common knowledge and either confirming or debunking it. Science, semantics, logic, and other such tools that are being applied here do not allow for such word salad; they are strictly formal languages, and care little for the common language's definition.

 

Now your definition of faith in supernatural would apply rather well excepting that there is a major complication. What happens if a demographic considers themselves religious, but reject all notions of "supernatural" things? That is places faith in the natural?

 

Would you simply discount this demographic as trivial, or would not this anomaly of data damage the authority of the definition you posit? Logically, of course.

[InfiniteNow]

Considering KAC's abhorrence for the trivial, I'll post the succinct.

 

 

Religion is a method.

 

 

Cheers. Do carry on. :hihi:

[phoenixbyrd]

KAC: What happens if a demographic considers themselves religious, but reject all notions of "supernatural" things? That is places faith in the natural?

 

I did a quick search to see if any such groups exist, but it came up empty. I've never heard of a religious group that puts faith on the natural, apparently neither has google. If you know of such a group I'd be very interested in learning more about it, but as it stands religion still equals faith in the supernatural. Of course, until I've seen a non supernatural based internationally recognized religion, if such a thing even exists, considering the current widely accepted definition that you seem so dead set against.

[REASON]

My definition - "Organized worship" - still works. It doesn't specify what is being worshipped, it is a "method," as InfiniteNow suggests, and it is inclusive of the other behaviors and practices contained in other definitions.

 

What do you think?

[phoenixbyrd]

I don't think that definition really hits home.

 

Like you said, it doesn't specify what is being worshipped. Then again, how many people do you know worship evolution, or gravity, or nuclear physics, or natural processes? I personally know of none, google doesn't seem to either, which is why I'm having such a hard time trying to find a religous group with those characteristics.

 

People of religous faith worship a supernatural diety, which means that the current definition still fits the bill as to what religion is and has always been, which is exactly why we have it defined as such.

[IDMclean]

As I have stated in previous posts, Buddhism, Taoism and Pantheism (some forms of), all hold nothing in the supernatural.

 

Buddhism actually is a rather scientific religion. It actively denies things which can not be observed as relevant to the world in which we exist.

 

Pantheism deliberately turns the supernatural god on it's head (or whatever it may have), saying that god is defined as that which is natural (existent).

 

Taoism describes something that is greater than the sum of it's parts, a system that is mysterious and perhaps even immposible to understand/comprehend in the entirity. It however does not ascribe this as supernatural. Only Mysterious.

 

There are many other religions like this once you really start looking into them. I, myself, am part of the demographic that would describe myself as religious and actively deny the supernatural.

[Boerseun]

Religion is merely the manifestation of a series of psychological needs.

 

Yep. I guess that kinda wraps up religion for me.

[infamous]

Before I dig into this question, I should make it clear that I'm a believer. What I believe in may not necessarily be the same thing others trust in and I think it safe to say, belief is a personal trait specific to the individual. Therefore, I'm certain nobody understands my faith the way I do.

 

Now then, when one starts talking about religion, I get real nervous. I place no particular value in organized religion and in fact, find it in most cases offensive. Organized religion, if that's what we're talking about here, is nothing more than a political means by which a self appointed authority dictates a moral persuasion unto it's followers. Being a very stubborn individual myself and not much of a follower, I resist others thinking for me and choose to seek out answers for myself.

 

I have found my answers and I don't need the clergy correcting me on my findings. But yes, I believe and this faith is very precious and personal to me. Not my government, nor my neighbor, nor a man dressed in a ritualistic white robe can ever take that from me.

 

That's what I think about Religion...........Infy