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