How's this for a definition of religion?

[ultrafilter]

This is the definition of religion that we used in my senior religion class in high school (yeah, I went to a Catholic school. How'd you guess?): "The expression in words and actions of a person or group's most deeply-held convictions."

I always kinda liked it, cause it captures some things that, while not traditionally considered religions, have some religious aspects to them (think about football fans). But it also captures atheism, which many people aren't going to like.

So is there any reason to reject this definition, other than consequences that some people won't like?

[TJdude825]

Originally posted by ultrafilter

So is there any reason to reject this definition, other than consequences that some people won't like?

Since when is someone not liking something a reason to reject it? If we rejected everything that someone didn't like, the world would not exist. Anyway, I guess that works. BTW, (slightly off topic) did you hear about the 70,509 people in Australia who told the Australian Bureau of Statistics that their religion was Jedi (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2218456.stm)?

[Genseric]

It would also seem to include racism, as well.

[SPOOFE]

So is there any reason to reject this definition, other than consequences that some people won't like?
I dunno, it seems too vague to be of any real use. I have a lot of deeply-held convictions that aren't religious in nature... does my trust in observation, evidence, and/or the scientific method count as a "religion"? I would venture to say no.

Replace "convictions" with "faith", and then I think you got something workable.

[Apos]

It seems about as good as any definition of religion needs to be, though plenty of others are useable as well, and probably appropriate for other contexts. When you get into questions of legal protections, for instance, it's probably not too workable.

I think trying to capture things like football fandom in "religion" are a little silly, personally, but if that's your bag...

The problem is getting to the point where a definition captures EVERYTHING: in which case you've pretty much destroyed it as a useful definition.
And it's important to not fall into equivocation with things like this, wherein you think you've captured something special and new about football fandom by calling it a religion, when what you are really doing is redefining the conventional understanding of "religion" to include things like football fandom. The real danger then is slipping back into the old definition by habit and connotation: your new definition pretty much eradicates the justifications for many of the connotations people previously placed on "religion": but these connotations die hard. The major warning flag about your thinking here is the idea of there possibly being "consequences people don't like." I would say that if merely changing a definition ever suggests to you any substantive "consequences" for the real world: then something is going very wrong in your thinking.

It might be a cute analougy to say that aspects of football fandom are "religious," but I don't think it conveys much more than pointing out that there are similarities between how SOME people practice their religions and SOME football fans practice their fandom.

I also don't think it captures atheism at all, if by atheism you mean simple non-belief/lack of belief. If someone has a hard conviction that no gods exist (what some call "hard atheism"), and this belief is really central to their worldview (which I can't really see the point of, but hey), then I guess there's no real problem with calling it a religion, at least in your sense.

[Mangetout]

Dunno; IMO the term Deeply-held spoils it.

[Apos]

Another major problem to watch out for: endlessly spawning religions in multiple people. Let's take your standard Christian: obviously they have a religion: Christianity. But what if this person also has a deeply held conviction that Mozart is superior to Bach? Is this religion #2? How about a deeply held conviction that democracy is the best form of government? Religion #3?

The problem also often arises with trying to define non-belief as a religion. A given non-believer could exactly like a Muslim in every way, except that they don't have Muslim beliefs. If we want to say that the non-believer has a religion, then it's kind of hard to escape the conclusion that the Muslim has TWO religions. Again, that seems sort of silly.

[Largo62]

For my part, the major objection to the OP's definition of religion is that it ignores entirely the element of the supernatural. Religion, by any definition that makes sense to me, is fixed on the worship of, or at least the subjection to something unseen, something that can not be seen, but must be experienced only by faith. It need not always be that way, I suppose. That is, if proof that a supernatural being or beings exist could be provided, the belief in and subjection to that being or beings would still constitute religion.

I don't see a "deeply held conviciton," whatever that convicition might be, as in and of itself "religion." For example, I might have the deeply held conviction that I am a perfectly superior being. While someone else (you, for instance) might say that I "worshipped" myself, I would hardly think that that could be called "religion." Self-delusion certainly, but religion?

Scientists have many "deeply-held convictions" about the nature of the universe. But, as scientists, they are nevertheless open to new evidence. That is why scientific theories change. But I don't think you can logically call the convictions of scientists religion.

[Apos]

The wrench in the works there, DG, is pantheism, which need not be supernaturalistic (whatever you take that to mean) or involve epistemological faith. You could say that they are an example of people with "proof" of their god, at least as good of a line of proof as anyone can have for anything. For while they don't claim to be able to see all of existence, and perhaps find it as mysterious as any supernatural god, it also seems sort of off-kilter to say that their deity is "unseen" and "supernatural." Yet it is, most certainly, a religion, whether organized or individualized. You have people who worship all existence as a god, ritualize their praise, etc.

[Latro]

I agree with DG that religion would have to involve supernatural beings.
Otherwise it would just be a 'worldview', 'belief' or 'conviction'.

I'm not that familiar with Pantheism but do they think that this all encompassing God is sentient?
If so, it would then be a 'supernatural' being, wouldn't it?

I'm not so sure about Faith. There's always proof. Isn't lightning proof that there is a God of Thunder? Faith is what you have when the proof comes under scrutiny.

A deity doesn't have to be unseen, a Holy Oak would be very visible.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Latro
I agree with DG that religion would have to involve supernatural beings.I predict somebody will be along to talk about Buddhism shortly.

[Latro]

Well, isn't the soul a kind of supernatural being?

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by Latro
I'm not that familiar with Pantheism but do they think that this all encompassing God is sentient? Not necessarily.

The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao.

[Dangerosa]

Originally posted by Mangetout
I predict somebody will be along to talk about Buddhism shortly.

Or UUs

[Mangetout]

Mu

[Drastic]

I hesitate to call myself a someone, but: some formulations under the Buddhist label-umbrella do include supernatural elements. Prayers, or callings-to and invocations of a laundry list of bodhisattvas, for instance, or those who think of various realms of rebirth as a literal truth. In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha gathers together a convocation of essentially infinite numbers of bodhisattvas, students old and new, all sorts of mythic beings, in a teaching-gathering that spans worlds and millennia--I've no doubt that there are very devout Buddhists who accepts those events as just as true as the more down-to-earth accounts of teaching the bhikkus at various parks and forests.

Some folks argue that Buddhism, in its formulations that don't involve supernatural elements (or at least, takes pains to establish the metaphorical nature of them), isn't actually a religion, but a philosophy. I can't really argue against that view, but it still doesn't quite sit right with me.

apos had a rather nice post in Polycarp's yonder "What Must a True S^H^H^H^H^H^HChristian Believe?" thread, and I think the gist applies here as well--it's one of those things where any number of definitions of it are possible, and it's probably much more interesting to ask what a person needs "religion" to mean, and why.

[Uncle Toby]

The best definition of religion I know is "that which gives meaning and defines value in life". This wouldn’t necessarily cover atheism or football fans but would imply that the most widely held religion in the US is sex. Which strikes me as about right.

It also would make science a kind of religion which I think is true, it’s the religion whose only faith is in human mind. A religion does not need to be about worship.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by SPOOFE

I dunno, it seems too vague to be of any real use. I have a lot of deeply-held convictions that aren't religious in nature... does my trust in observation, evidence, and/or the scientific method count as a "religion"? I would venture to say no.

Since there's no real action associated with that, it kinda fails, I think.

Replace "convictions" with "faith", and then I think you
got something workable.

Yeah, but then you have to start worrying about what "faith" is. There's no common agreed-upon definition for that.

[lissener]

Originally posted by Mangetout
Dunno; IMO the term Deeply-held spoils it. Yeah, that hyphen needs to come out of there.

[Apos]

---I'm not that familiar with Pantheism but do they think that this all encompassing God is sentient?---

Not necessarily, no.

[Mtgman]

I think what is missing from the definition is something that no organized religion has ever missed- execlusivity. Some exclusive benefit for the believers, often coupled with some sort of exclusive punishment for nonbelievers.

All religion is based upon exclusivity. Let's look at a few examples(emphasis mine).

Christianity. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. None come to the father, except through me"

Islam. "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet."

I don't have a similar quote for Judaism, but the compact with Abraham seems to be pretty exclusive. Follow Mosaic law and you're in, otherwise you're out.

Buddism offers enlightenment(haven't studied it enough to give details or quotes, any dopers who have?).

The Heaven's Gate cult offered passage on the mothership for members.

Scientology offers "deprogramming" and the removal of "Thetan" influences from your life.

The different flavors of Christianity and sects of Islam divide the communities further, but at the basic level this is the reward for faithfulness.

Revise your definition to something that incorporates the belief that their convictions and/or their actions will allow them benefits(such as escaping enternal damnnation) and you may have something that approaches a definition of religion.

Enjoy,
Steven

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Mtgman
I think what is missing from the definition is something that no organized religion has ever missed- execlusivity. Some exclusive benefit for the believers, often coupled with some sort of exclusive punishment for nonbelievers.

All religion is based upon exclusivity. Let's look at a few examples(emphasis mine).

Christianity. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. None come to the father, except through me"

Islam. "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet."

I don't have a similar quote for Judaism, but the compact with Abraham seems to be pretty exclusive. Follow Mosaic law and you're in, otherwise you're out.

Buddism offers enlightenment(haven't studied it enough to give details or quotes, any dopers who have?).

The Heaven's Gate cult offered passage on the mothership for members.

Scientology offers "deprogramming" and the removal of "Thetan" influences from your life.

The different flavors of Christianity and sects of Islam divide the communities further, but at the basic level this is the reward for faithfulness.

Revise your definition to something that incorporates the belief that their convictions and/or their actions will allow them benefits(such as escaping enternal damnnation) and you may have something that approaches a definition of religion.

Enjoy,
Steven

Unitarianism offers no particular benefit to its believers, except a spiritual community, which (in theory) is available in any religion. So that's a no-go.

[Apos]

Buddism doesn't really seem to fit with that: it doesn't necessarily have any special condemnation for non-Buddhists or even to other beliefs, and indeed, the insights they promise aren't necessarily specially accessed through any organized religious practice: they are supposed to be a "nature" that's part of all.

Patheism is even less apt: it simply holds that the universe/existence is MY god: not that it must be YOUR god.

I'd explain more about Taoism, but I'm afraid if I tried to explain it, a monk would come out of nowhere and smack me across the face. :)

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by lissener
Yeah, that hyphen needs to come out of there. Nice one ;) , but what I think you realised that I mean is that religion can be quite a shallow thing for some folks.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Mangetout
Nice one ;) , but what I think you realised that I mean is that religion can be quite a shallow thing for some folks.

I don't think so. If a person has only a small emotional investment in something, then I don't want to call it their religion.

[Mtgman]

ultrafilter I am aware of Unitarianism, but what I've been able to find on the religion does indeed grant a benefit to it's believers.

From http://www.carm.org/uni/unitarianism.htm
There is a group known as the Unitarian Universalists Association. This denomination which was formed in 1961 in the United States when the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America merged. Its membership is around 175,000.
The General Convention of the Unitarian Universalists formulated the five principles of the Universalist Faith in 1899.

The Universal Fatherhood of God
The spiritual authority and leadership of His Son Jesus Christ
The trustworthiness of the Bible as containing a revelation from God
The certainty of just retribution for sin
The final harmony of all souls with God

Additional beliefs generally held by Unitarian Universalists are:
Salvation is by grace through faith and not by works in any way.

Jesus became the Son of God at His baptism.
The Holy Spirit is not a person, does not have a will, etc.
There now is and will be rewards and punishments according to one's actions but this does not consist of the traditional doctrine of hell.
Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth.

The fourth bullet point in the first set of doctrinal beliefs seems to indicate that those who do not have a way to redeem themselves(presumably through faith in Christ) will suffer the "just retribution for sin."

They don't have a "hell" per say, but whatever this "just retribution" is, it seems that being a member of the church will allow you to bypass it. It just seems less hellfire-and-damnnation oriented than most religions.

Apos "special condemnation for non-[Insert Religion Here]" was an optional facet of religions. The primary factor is the carrot on the stick, not necessarially the gaping pit of spikes behind you. There are certainly religions who focus on the benefits of being a member of their group instead of trying to "scare" people into joining them through dire prophecies of what will happen to them if they don't. Would Pathiesm count as a religion?

Enjoy,
Steven

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Mtgman
ultrafilter I am aware of Unitarianism, but what I've been able to find on the religion does indeed grant a benefit to it's believers.

From http://www.carm.org/uni/unitarianism.htm


The fourth bullet point in the first set of doctrinal beliefs seems to indicate that those who do not have a way to redeem themselves(presumably through faith in Christ) will suffer the "just retribution for sin."

They don't have a "hell" per say, but whatever this "just retribution" is, it seems that being a member of the church will allow you to bypass it. It just seems less hellfire-and-damnnation oriented than most religions.

Yeah, but those are the Unitarian principles from 1899. The UUA (the current institution of Unitarianism) has no such list. Here (http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html)'s a list of everything that all* UU practitioners (myself included) agree upon.

*OK, so probably not *all*, but close enough.

[Mtgman]

I found that site after posting and I've been reading through it. Some interesting current doctrines on there. In fact, it's one of the most interesting religious sites I've ever seen. I wasn't able to find much of anything in the way of statements of doctrine. I did find the list of principles, but the majority of the site seems to be dedicated to the logistics of setting up and running a member church. If you look at the page of UU Bylaws (found online at http://www.uua.org/ga/bylaws.html ) it seems that doctrine is glossed over and logistics are spelled out in incredible detail. Of the 61-page document that the bylaws would make if printed, the "Principles and Purposes" take about 1 1/5 pages, beginning about 1/5 of the way down on page 8 and ending about 1/4 of the way through page 9.

Much of the bylaws, and the website in general, read like the instructions for setting up a franchise of a corporation. This is remarkable. I don't know WHY it's like this, even with small, local denominations I can usually find at least tracts or statements of their doctrines on the site. Perhaps they've had trouble with people setting up "Unitarian" churches and preaching all kinds of funky stuff and now they have a pretty formal and rigid "Here's how you set up an approved Unitarian church" thing?

Oh well, enough on my impressions of the UUA website. Back to their philosophy. Originally posted by ultrafilter
Unitarianism offers no particular benefit to its believers, except a spiritual community, which (in theory) is available in any religion.
This "spiritual community" seems like enough of a benefit to me. A place you can be accepted and not ridiculed or questioned about your faith. This type of open spiritual community is NOT available in most other religions. In fact I'd go so far as to say the exclusive benefit of Unitarian faith is that it's so non-exclusive. In other words, most humans have this driving need for a spiritual purpose or a sense of being part of something greater than themselves, something(preferably) eternal. The majority seem to seek this fulfillment through religion. The very existance of a church where you can have the fulfillment of a spiritual community without the burden of spiritual duties, such as saying rosaries or hail Marys, is appealing. Added to that appeal would be the knowledge that other churchmembers would be very unlikely to spew hate(a la KKK or Black Panthers) in the name of the church and I can see a very great benefit to the Unitarian principles. One could argue that it's not exclusive, but I would argue that it is, it excludes the bigoted and intolerant. Kind of the reverse of many other religions, which mostly require bigotry and intolerance(I have nothing but respect for those who do not display these traits, but that subset of "believers" is fairly small. *Sigh* I really wish more believers would leave the judging to their deity, but the reality is that far too many don't) where the bigotry is absolute adherence to their doctrine and the intolerance is of other doctrines/religions.

Quite frankly I think the principle holds. I don't think you can have a religion without basing it on some kind of benefit/reward(for believers) and/or some kind of punishment/damnnation(for nonbelievers). Even the ultimate "religion" where people simply believe in "karma" and "what goes around comes around" would have to hold that people who believe "what goes around comes around" would get the benefit of getting less of the bad stuff that "comes around" by practicing the guiding principles of restraint and tolerance and thereby reducing the amount they add into the queue of bad stuff that "goes around". Similarly, they would add more good stuff(generosity, kindness, sexual favors for random strangers ;)) into the queue for what "goes around" because of their belief that they would recieve more of this good stuff(generosity, kindness, sexual favors from random strangers ;)), when it "comes around". So their belief, and the way they live their life in reaction to their belief, grants them benefits that a person who did not hold the belief, or order their life with regards to the belief, would not recieve.

*Whew*
Enjoy,
Steven

[Dangerosa]

Steven,

You won't find any doctrine. UU is a "non-creedal" religion. Some churches have very Christian leanings - and what you particpate in looks and feels a great deal like "church" Other UU congregations have very Humanist leanings, where they never mention God. Then their are the pagan congregations. Many have a diverse group of members, where individual members are likely to say things like "my personal spiritual path is Goddess/Nature oriented" or "I have never understood the need for God." (I've heard both phrases from my congregation members).

There are intolerant UUs. They are usually intolerant of bigots and racists and Conservative Christians.

[Apos]

---If a person has only a small emotional investment in something, then I don't want to call it their religion.---

That would rule out millions upon millions of Christians, who certainly believe, but for whom this belief is a very small impact on their lives. True believers might well wish to deny that they are "really" Christians, but that mostly seems meanspirited. They might go to church occasionally, but the beliefs are still part of their lives, and they fit into whatever space they have in their head for "my religion."

---Would Pathiesm count as a religion?---

If anything would: damn straight!

[SPOOFE]

Since there's no real action associated with that, it kinda fails, I think.
I would disagree. Just as a Christian uses his faith in God to, say, go to church every Sunday, I use my trust in rationality to make my decisions and to shape my outlook of the world. Granted, there's no ritual connected to my conviction, but aside from that, I can't see a difference between my outlook and a Christian's faith.

Yeah, but then you have to start worrying about what "faith" is. There's no common agreed-upon definition for that.
True. But there's also no common agreed-upon definition of religion... perhaps if you defined one, you'd find the definition for the other? Or perhaps the true debate should be about a definition of faith?

[Banger]

This kind of reminds me of how I discussed defining godhood in this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=130905) thread.

[Father of Loki]

Originally posted by ultrafilter
This is the definition of religion that we used in my senior religion class in high school (yeah, I went to a Catholic school. How'd you guess?): "The expression in words and actions of a person or group's most deeply-held convictions."

I always kinda liked it, cause it captures some things that, while not traditionally considered religions, have some religious aspects to them (think about football fans). But it also captures atheism, which many people aren't going to like.

So is there any reason to reject this definition, other than consequences that some people won't like?

Reminds me of something I came across the other day: "A religion deals with the nature of man, but its interpretation is effected by men living in particular circumstances. In time the interpretation takes over as the essence of the religion."

[erislover]

I think whenever we try to pin down the definition of a standard word we are in trouble. It is a "problem of definition" whereby we exclude significant behavior we should like to include or (inclusive) include significant behavior that we should like to exclude.

I cannot imagine a strict definition that could apply to everything that would fall under the term "religion". And I am still not personally happy with mentioning the f-word (faith, natch) in any definition of it.

I think the OP is about as good as it gets, though I don't even think "deeply held" is necessary, as it is just as ambiguous upon inspection as "faith" is, and just as easy to argue over. I would replace "most deeply held" with "metaphysical" and be done with it. :)

[Banger]

Like the notion of "God" or "deity" or "divinity", there are certain things that people associate with "religion". Words like "worship", "faith", gods' names, life after death, existence, creation, and so forth are often thought of. That does necessarily not mean that every religion by definition must have these characteristics. Instead, people call things with some of these characteristics "religions". Some people hold certain characteristics more or less important than others in their notion of "religion", and people vary as to how many of the numerous characteristics are necessary for a thing to be called a "religion".

The problem occurs when we try to take these terms and fit them into a form that will include all that we want in the classification "religion" and exclude all that we don't want in the classification "religion". It's easy to make a definition; the problem is whether that definition will meet everyone's (or even one's own) satisfaction ;)

We all kind of know what the others are talking about when we're discussing religion, but we don't know exactly what others are talking about because of the difficulty in defining exactly what religion is.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended to influence the unknown power to react favorably toward the believer.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep
Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended to influence the unknown power to react favorably toward the believer.

Susma Rio Sep

The weakness in all the discussions so far on this OP, compared to mine repeated above, is the lack of contact with the actual world of religious peoples or peoples professing to practice a religion.

To know what is religion as to know what is sex, you have got to examine all the peoples and things and palces, and times, and actions, and whatever are involved in everyday life of religious people when they do practice a religious act or procedure.

Now, my definition above is precisely founded upon that point of departure, for being thus situated, I believe it is the most real and actual definition of religion, that will enable a Martian to know what and when peoples are doing religion, as distinct from what and when people are doing sex.

Susma Rio Sep

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep
Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended to influence the unknown power to react favorably toward the believer.

Susma Rio Sep
Not all religions believe such a "power" exists or have any interest in affecting "favorable action." I would say your definition could define theism, but it's an incomplete description of religion.

[Susma Rio Sep]

I have seen such exceptions from non-theistic religionists. But when you consider them in their practice, I think you will see all the elements of my definition also very conspicuous. Give me one non-theistic religion and show me how my definition is not validated in its practice by its adherents.

Best regards,

Susma Rio Sep

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Zen Buddhism has no concern with any deities. Neither does Advaita Vedantism. Philosophical Taoism or Jainism. Doubtlessly you are thinking of some Buddhist practices you have seen which involve some level of petitional prayer to saints or gods. There are other forms of Buddhism which do not have anything to do with such things.

[TVAA]

This definition is grossly inadequate. It makes no distinction between strongly-held opinions and actual theories about the way the world works.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Provisionally, I think I have to make a distinction between religion of the masses and religion of the elites. Religion of the elites are those who enjoy a standard of life whether materially or morally or both that allows them to prescind themselves from the normal earthly and human concerns of the eveyday man trying to make it in the earthly world.

I have to examine further what these elites are really after in religion. They can just as well engage themselves in environmentalism or the Red Cross or join the Green Peace or animal rights. Why religion?

Susma Rio Sep

[Zenmaster Mojo]

First let me say: I like ultrafilter's definition - at least as a first cut - though I think it should perhaps be expanded upon. Skimming through many responses in this thread I found, not surprisingly, a lot of religious & cultural bias against the defintion. I shall comment on a few before discussing my own preference for a definition of religion below.
DesertGeezer says:
"For my part, the major objection to the OP's definition of religion is that it ignores entirely the element of the supernatural. Religion, by any definition that makes sense to me, is fixed on the worship of, or at least the subjection to something unseen, something that can not be seen, but must be experienced only by faith. It need not always be that way, I suppose. That is, if proof that a supernatural being or beings exist could be provided, the belief in and subjection to that being or beings would still constitute religion.
This is incorrect. DG is showing his religious/cultural bias in assuming that "religion" implies the existence of a supernatural being. (No offense intended here. We all have biases based on our own particular experiences in life.)

Atheism can definitely be considered a religion. Atheism is NOT simply opposition to religion. It is a philosophical worldview that many people live their lives by - i.e. the belief that the universe & humanity was not created according to a divine plan & therefore meaning in life is up to the individual to discover for him/herself. (Perhaps I am showing my bias here - there may be other definitions of atheism as a worldview or "religion".) In fact, Buddhism is often said to be "an atheist religion". I have heard even the Dalai Lama say this specifically. Few would deny that Buddhism is a religion. To do so would be culturally/religiously biased to the extreme - essentially calling its billion or so adherents deluded.

DG missed the mark. Rather than "unseen" a more accurate claim would have been that all religions must contain something which is "unproven" and therefore requiring its adherents to make a leap of faith. "Belief" and "faith" IMHO are essential elements to any religion.

MTGMAN says:
I think what is missing from the definition is something that no organized religion has ever missed- execlusivity. Some exclusive benefit for the believers, often coupled with some sort of exclusive punishment for nonbelievers.

All religion is based upon exclusivity.
This too is incorrect. Mtgman is obviously extending his experience with certain religions to all religions. True, many religions have a stated central creed & therefore if one denies the creed they are out. But, the exclusivity that Mtgman sees, exists primarily in the big three western religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - which all derive their exclusivity from the Commandment "Thou shalt have no other god before me". Some religions have no problem with their adherents visiting other temples or studying & practicing other faiths. The historical Buddha is known to have often invited his followers to learn about other religions & to regard followers of other faiths with extreme respect. This is partly because Buddhism grew out of Hinduism (rather than the Ten Commandments). That is why Buddhism has never had a religious war nor does it send out missionaries to try to convert everyone to their way of thinking.

Also, Hindus who worship Vishnu don't fight with those who worship Shiva (though it is said they used to - thousands of years ago). Hiduism has many gods (though it is NOT a pagan religion). All of its gods are considered to be just useful images (created by humans for humans) of the one true divine force (which has no personality & did not create the universe, yet is a part of it & a part of every person). So, Hindu brahmin priests have no problem with their followers visiting a Christian church - though the Christian cleric might object to such divided loyalties. South India is majority Christian - though many there also follow Hindu traditions & vice versa. India had a national holiday when Mother Theresa died - she was Roman Catholic - though highly revered by many Hindus in Calcutta as well.

In Japan, most people are Buddhists, but they usually like to have Shinto weddings - because those weddings have more color & pageatry - even though Shintoism is an entirely different religion. No conflict is seen here because of the Buddhist respect for all faiths.

Many other non-western religions also see no problem with following the practices of several different faiths at once. Many Christians & even some more enlightened Christian sects see no conflict either.

In fact, I would claim that most people follow several religions in their lives. (Though I have a much broader definition of religion than most people.) - SEE BELOW

[Zenmaster Mojo]

There seems to be many on this board who are confusing "one's personal religion" with "organized religion".

I assume the definition proposed refers to the former, rather than the latter. The latter would be better termed: "Church", "Temple", "Congregation", "Sect" or "Religious Community/Sub-culture" (or perjoratively "cult") Note: one may be a member of a particular sect - e.g. Roman Catholic - yet not believe all of its tenets. In other words, one's "personal religion" may be quite different than their inherited or cultural membership in a particular "organized religion".

Any definition of religion should not confuse the concept of religion with the activities of particular institution.

Also there seems to be a lot of confusion on this board regarding "religion" and "religious-like devotion" to an object or cause. When somone says "football is my religion", they clearly mean the latter rather than the former. They are simply making an analogy between their devotion & that of a monk to his religion.

As I said above, I think any definition of religion must include some mention of 'faith' or 'belief' as central to it. Several people on this board take exception with the word 'convictions' in the above definition rather than faith. 'Convictions' is a bit weak, because peoples religious beliefs are not necessarily derived from logic alone. Faith may be simply a feeling or certitude rather than a fully formed idea or creed. Also, 'belief' is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for religion. My belief in the laws of gravity or that my car will start when I turn the key is not a religion.

I would define religion as:
A personal philosphical outlook or worldview that one lives by - i.e. acts & makes decisions according to - that is based on a system of beliefs that promise some sort of better life or salvation. Some of the concepts of this belief system may be logically derived, or based on the writings or experience of historical figures, but all religions also contains core concepts which can never be proven objectively, but are nonetheless accepted by adherents as articles of faith.

That definition is a bit too long perhaps but, IMHO, it covers the essentials. Like any discipline or school of thought - e.g. mathematics - there are those concepts that can be derived from others, but also at the base certain axioms that must simply be taken as given without proof. The existence or non-extistence of deities or souls or the effectiveness of different rituals or practices can never be proven absolutely. If they could, it would not be a religion, it would simply be an academic disciple, logical system, or science. It is these assumptions of truth that unite different members of a religion into a single 'faith group'.

'Organized religion' often starts out as a means to simply better define those core assumptions of faith of a particular group, but eventually often become highly political & culturally entrenched organizations which ultimately may have very little to do with personal faith. Organized religious sects often form as well to help preserve various common traditions & rituals. Religions (personal or organized) often have detailed mythical histories, reverered figures, and complicated symbolic rituals. They usually also have their own unique language and specific terminology on which all true believers can agree & refer to.

Based on my definition above, IMHO, many people follow several religions in their lives. I don't mean that in an analogous sense such as religious devotion to football. I mean people rely on various belief systems in their lives many of which cannot be proved absolutely, but often seem to feel true.

It may be as simple as firm belief in both Christianity & astrology or it may be an absolute belief in environmentalism or science as a cure-all for the woes of the world. That is not to say that science itself is a religion, but for some people their devotion to science or to some other school of though has the same religious fervor as devotion to any religion. Will medicine or free-market economics cure the world? Who knows, but some people claim that they know it it will and for them, the faithful, it may be safely said that it is their religion.

By my definition, Communism (& many other social movements) should be counted the same as a religion as well. Its faithful devotees have a belief system that they belief will save the world. Their system of beliefs has its own terminolgy, internal logic, mythical past, 'sacred' books, and revered historical figures & quotes. The fundamentals of communism - i.e. belief in class struggle & how to overcome it - can never be proved or disproved absolutely. It's adherents must accept these ideas on faith. If one accepts the basic tenets, then their is a clearly laid out path for how one should live their life & how to change the world for the better. But, as with any religion, you first must accept its first principles & have faith that all will work out as planned.

Most people are less dogmatic in their devotion to a particular political, economic, or academic school of thought. But, for those who are truly faithful - often despite all evidence to the contrary even - no amount of logical reasoning will undermine what they feel they know implicitly. So, I see no reason why such devotion to a particular philosphy of life or specific rules of behavior should not be termed a religion. It is more like what most people accept as 'religion' than it is unlike it. So, IMHO, there is no reason not to consider any internally consistent school of thought, if adopted as one's central philosphy of life, as also a religion.

I suspect the main reason why this is not more widely acknowledged is the Western-bias that each person should only have ONE RELIGION in their lives. That, and, the desire of the sciences to dissociate themselves from the mysticism & superstition often implied in the word 'religion'. But, all devotees, to whatever faith or unproveable worldview, all accept something as fact that they only believe to be true.

[Zenmaster Mojo]

Having said ALL THAT ABOVE. Whew! :o And now looking back to the original definition:

"The expression in words and actions of a person or group's most deeply-held convictions."

I find it to be pretty good in its simplicity.

I would perhaps improve on it only by changing:
"deeply-held convictions" to "philosophical worldview"
-OR- "deeply-held, yet unproveable, convictions".

Because workers on strike might, for example, have "deeply-held convictions" that their working conditions are terrible. But, such a conviction may be externally verified, it does not need to be accepted on faith.

I am not suprised, however, that a class at Catholic school would not want to point out to the students the fact that their core 'convictions' are ultimately unproveable. :rolleyes:

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Zenmaster:

I must commend you for your dissertation. However, I seem to have noticed your lack of any mention of relationship to a personality that is superior to human persons who are into religion.

Do you not see the essential ingredient of relationship with a superior person on the basis of belief, both as regards his existence and as regards his personalistic nature, namely, an essential ingredient of religion wherever and whenever religion is cultivated by humans?

On my part, as I said in my proffered definition of religion,* the personalistic relationship between man and the superior person is contained in the phrase: ‘affection and action intended to influence’.

You say that communism and atheism can be religions also, in that people believe in them and live by them, and expect to obtain benefits from observing them. Don’t you see that there is no need to bring religion to bear upon them. They are simply ideogical systems for living and acting; the first, communism, for living and acting in the politco-socio-economic world; the second, atheism, for living in a world where there is no invisible superior power involved even just in the mind of people. If anything, atheism is the broad but explicit denial of any religion.

For the reason explained above, the term ‘religion’ is not applied to communism and atheism except improperly in the speech of people who do use the word ‘religion’; because there is no personalistic superior power at play.

Susma Rio Sep


*Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affection and action intended to influence the unknown power to react favorably toward the believer.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Susmo there is no need whatever to believe in an "unknown power" in order to be religious. You are stating a western understanding of religion not a universal one.

[The Weak Force]

ultrafilter:"The expression in words and actions of a person or group's most deeply-held convictions."
I would reject it simply on the grounds that it's deeply-held convictions themselves that constitute religion, not their expression. I don't mean all deeply-held convictions, just the appropriate ones. Haven't gotten around to identifying those yet.