It has been brought up in other threads that you can be an atheist and still be religious. It seems to me that this is an oxymoron, since I assosiate religion with belief in at least something supernatural. Without such a belief, a religion is just a club with a set of rules and rituals, eg like the Freemasons.
So, I’d like to hear from Dopers, what is your definition of religion?
Bonus question: if in your definition faith in something supernatural is not required, what distinguishes religion from any club/group with rules of behavior and rituals?
Religion is a set of mythology and/or cultural traits that are accepted by their adherents as establishing a system of ethics, a way of life, and defining them as a distinct group. Religion very often includes a belief in god or gods and an explaination for the creation of the world, but not necessarily. Religion also typically (but not always) establishes a set of rituals for dealing with major life cycle events, such as weddings and funerals.
Are you talking about the thread about Judaism and atheism?
Judaism is a religion AND an ethical system AND and a tribal identification. You can practice the latter two without believing in God.
I’d define religion as “A coherent system of supernatural beliefs.” An isolated superstition like believing in ghosts doesn’t count. A religion is an organized collection of interlocking beliefs and practices that support and reinforce a supernatural view of the world.
Buddhism.
Really, by most definitions of the term “Religion”, it is possible to be a religious atheist, so long as the religion doesn’t entail a god. Religion and things like A-/Antipistevism, PEARLism, and Naturalism are, of course, a lot less compatible.
As one who considers himself a Christian and, this is fairly close to how I would define it as well. I don’t think that religion necessitates belief in a god or gods or other supernatural beings. I do think that it is a common religious belief because most religions are either old themselves or based on old belief systems before it was really possible to have a non-supernatural creation. In fact, I think it is entirely possible that a modern day religion could be define specifically stating that there is no god, accepting some explanation for for our existence as fact, and then extrapolating from that a set of morals and ethics and possibly habits or rites. Of course, they probably wouldn’t call it a religion because religion is so strongly associated with the supernatural, but I don’t think that makes it not one.
In this sense, I would argue that an atheist who accepts the current best scientific naturalistic explanation for how we got here (or even something other than the current best) and then extracts from that some set of morals like “this is it, do well and make well” or whatever isn’t meaningfully different from accepting that a god created everything and decides what is best to do because that god said so.
But in that same sense, I’m also specifically saying that atheism itself is not a religion and, in fact, neither is theism. Those are simply beliefs in the existence or non-existence of a god and don’t require that one use that as a basis for defining their morality; it’s a part of the equation and the rest may or may not be there. Similarly, science or mythology can provide explanations for how we got here, but beliefs in the veracity of the assertions that those mean that the whole equation is there.
In short, I basically look at it as a coherent answering to a set of important questions that most, if not all, people need to have some sort of satisfying answer to. Among those questions are “How did we get here?” “What does it mean?” “What is good or evil?” etc. And so, if you answer all of those sorts of questions based on the same sets of beliefs, particularly if they’re shared with a group of people, it’s probably a religion. If you don’t have answers to some of them, if you don’t care, or there’s no connection between some or all of the answers, then it’s probably not a religion.
It requires no particular moral system or ritual behavior and has no symbols or public acts associated with it. It is manifestly not a religion any more than, say, Global-Warming Skepticism is.
To my mind, it simply means a person who lacks belief in any god. I would argue it is not an opposite to “a religious person”, as many religions lack the requirement for belief in any god - as you note, Buddhism (well, many varieties of Buddhism, as some are more or less theistic).
Let’s take Greeks as an example: They have their own cultural traits, those traits are accepted by members as establishing a system of ethics, a way of life, and these traits define them as a distinct group.
That doesn’t mean ‘Greek’ is a religion. There is just a Greek culture.
If they are both simply providing instructions/rules on how to live, without an underlying supernatural explanation of how the world works, then how are they different?
If one of them provides an underlying supernatural explanation of how the world works, then of course that is a religion.
Huh? In what way does simply being Greek establish an ethical system?
Most Greeks would identify their culture as “Greek” and their religion as “Orthodox Christianity”. They get their style of food and the like from the one, and their essential mythology and system of ethics from the other.
This is why “Greek” isn’t a religion, but “Jewish” can be. Because if one idenifies as religiously “Jewish”, it implies a certain set of ethical values, agreed significant myths, etc. as well as simply a lifestyle.
Hence one’s “culture” and one’s “religion” may be the same in some cases (such as Jews) but different in other cases (such as Greeks).
A faith based belief system, worldview, and way of life. Gods are common but not required; supernatural aspects are also common but not required. The central defining features are that it’s based on faith, and that it’s a broad system of beliefs not just one or a few beliefs. So, I would regard communism as a religion under this definition but not the belief in luck rabbit’s feet.