How's this for a definition of religion?

Great Debates
21

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

22

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.

23

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. :slight_smile:

24

Nice one :wink: , but what I think you realised that I mean is that religion can be quite a shallow thing for some folks.

25

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.

26

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

[quote]
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.

[li]The Universal Fatherhood of God [/li][li]The spiritual authority and leadership of His Son Jesus Christ [/li][li]The trustworthiness of the Bible as containing a revelation from God [/li][li]The certainty of just retribution for sin [/li][li]The final harmony of all souls with God [/li]
Additional beliefs generally held by Unitarian Universalists are:
Salvation is by grace through faith and not by works in any way.

[li]Jesus became the Son of God at His baptism. [/li][li]The Holy Spirit is not a person, does not have a will, etc. [/li][li]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. [/li][li]Human reason and experience should be the final authority in determining spiritual truth. [/li][/quote]

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

27

Yeah, but those are the Unitarian principles from 1899. The UUA (the current institution of Unitarianism) has no such list. Here’s a list of everything that all* UU practitioners (myself included) agree upon.

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

28

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.

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

29

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.

30

—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!

31

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.

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?

32

This kind of reminds me of how I discussed defining godhood in this thread.

33

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.”

34

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. :slight_smile:

35

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 :wink:

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.

36

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

37

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

38

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.

39

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

40

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.