Rather than continue to hijack another thread, and because I’d like to discuss it…
What is Religion? Which is to say how can we define religion to include those groups commonly thought of as religious but exclude those groups that we consider non-religious.
Obviously I have an answer in mind, but I’d like to see what others have to say before going all in.
-Eben
A religion is an interdependent collection of related beliefs that have at their core a supernatural element.
That’s my understanding of the usual definition. Given that, how do we separate a religion from a cult? Or a religion from a superstition that’s pervasive (13)?
-Eben
Cults are religions. They’re just brand new ones that are unfamiliar and scary.
Superstitions are isolated beliefs. They’re not interdependent belief systems.
Indeed, let me pull some quotes from that reference:
How is that different than the idea of Democracy being the best government for the USA? (just a random example question there based on location bias 
)
From here I linked into the definition of ‘religious’ since it’s obviously crucial to definition 2…
in reverse order for the fun of it…
3 is not any different than patriotism except that patriotism is a specific form of religious belief by this definition
2 is clearly circular and doesn’t provide any way of discriminating religious from non-religious
1 says “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality **or **deity” (my bolding). I would claim that the pursuit of scientific truth is the manifestation of faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality.
The formal, classical definition is either circular or too broad to be of much use in the way that we pretend that it categorizes. So where do we go from there?
-Eben
“A church is the religious organization I belong to. A cult is the wacko outfit you belong to.”
There are some vague distinctions - follow the link for more detail.
I agree that cults are religions. From my own experience most mainstream religious organizations try to distance themselves from cults as much as possible, but (IMHO) unsuccessfully.
Given that cults are religions, what’s the difference between a cult and a government?
I’ve always seen superstitions as beliefs that seem to be interdependent by those that believe them and not interdependent by those that don’t believe them. What this leaves me with is that psychologically they are interdependent to the subject, and therefore perhaps religious.
-Eben
Ardor and faith being the key terms here, if you are a blind fanatic about democracy, to the point that you got no reason for your beliefs but you’re stickin’ to 'em anyway, then you’re making a religion out of them, for yourself. That doesn’t make democracy a religion for anyone else, though.
3: if you’re a foaming at the mouth uninformed fanatic patriot, maybe.
2: 2 isn’t circular; it refers to 1;
1: Bzzt! You said faithful. If you trust science due to faith, you’re not doing science.
But really, I don’t feel that this is that complicated or hard to understand.
LOL, I love that definition. It’s clearly the way the words are used. The problem is when we start talking about approaching religions in a scientific and legal way the distinction loses any real meaning. In a modern, practical way is Mormonism a cult because it has a charismatic leader? I’m betting Mormons will say no and non-Mormans will say either yes or maybe. How about Scientologists? How about Brights?
-Eben
slightly OT: Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die. -Mel Brooks
I honestly don’t see anyone supporting democracy without being a blind fanatic or completely apathetic about it. Culturally it seems to be a lot like Catholicism at this point.
Exactly my point. How do we tell the difference between someone who is patriotic and someone who is religious? I conjecture that we can not.
2 says that a religion does religious things. That adds nothing to the deffinition that helps categorize.
Let me expand on this a bit. It’s not that you trust science through faith but that you have “faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality” when you do science. After all, without taking there to be an ultimate reality as premise zero, the whole idea of reproducible results pretty much goes out the window. And as a philosopher I can use my paid for expertise to ensure you that the question of whether or not there is a reality is still an open question that we must take on faith on a daily basis.
In a slightly broader sense, we are often called upon to take on faith the works of scientist who are in areas we don’t know enough about to evaluate their works fairly.
-Eben
But really, I don’t feel that this is that complicated or hard to understand.
[/QUOTE]
As I see it, a religion is a collection of related, faith based beliefs. It is not necessary for the beliefs to be supernatural in nature.
As for the difference between a cult and a religion, I’d say that the defining feature of a cult is the attitude of it’s followers. If the Pope ordered all Catholics tomorrow to drink poison, no doubt a few would; the vast majority wouldn’t. In a cult, many or most would, and have. A cult is a group of fellow believers characterized by the prevalence of extremism among them.
An excellent point. Given this, are Vegan’s, PETA Supporters, Conservative Hardliners, AGW proponents, etc. all cults? Greenpeace would be one for sure. I think it’s important to note that the strict definition of cult is not a judgment, but the application of the word is. (side note, I’m not picking on organizations because I don’t like them, but because I see them in the news as having generally extreme views. Extreme doesn’t mean wrong however, so please don’t misread me.)
-Eben
That’s not faith, but simply a useful assumption, and an axiom. As long as everything we see does not contradict that axiom, there’s no reason to worry about it. And assuming that there isn’t some external reality is intellectually sterile; useless; so why bother ?
That isn’t faith either. That’s trust.
Some are, by my standard ( note that I didn’t specify that a cult had to be religious ), some aren’t. AGW proponents aren’t a “cult” because they aren’t nearly fanatic enough, as a group; they are rather moderate and rational as a group, in fact ( assuming the ‘A’ stands for anthropogenic ). PETA on the other hand seems to come pretty close, if it isn’t one. “Conservative hardliners” aren’t a cult because they aren’t really a single group. Vegans also seem to fail the “crazy enough as a group” test; Breatharians would be a better example of a diet-based group that qualifies as cult.
Just to make sure we weren’t talking past each other I looked up the definition of trust . It sure seems to me that the sense of trust in reality is the same as faith in reality. They’re synonyms in this sense.
The intellectual sterility of a “no-reality” hypothesis is exactly my point. It doesn’t add anything useful to the discussion of reality. In the exact same way the umbrella label religion doesn’t add anything useful to the discussion of reality.
Ultimately I’m looking for something that we can call a feature of religion that one could not then point to a recognized religion and say “That one doesn’t have it!” I do understand that as an umbrella term that’s not really possible. In the end the discussion must come to where the gray area at the edges gets so gray that it’s no longer acceptable to use the term religion as a descriptor for a group.
I lumped AGW (yes, Anthropogenic)proponents in the group of possible cults simply because, whether rightfully or not, they are as a group insisting that the world must change in many different ways regardless of the feelings of those not in the group. That seems extreme to me.
-Eben
Cults are a subset of religion therefore they are religions. A cult is defined by how many people think it’s a cult vs how many think it’s a religion. Majority wins.
A religion is a set of beliefs that transcend a person’s mortality in some fashion. If an atheist volunteers for a suicide mission, s/he has converted to humanism and is helping mankind flourish in some way, leaving a better world for the children (whether their own or not).
Humanism is just a label for custom religion based on a person’s ethical or moral compass.
So, when atheist zealots insist religion and all things supernatural are bollocks, they are really trying to convert people to humanism and bring about a golden era of peace, reason and tolerance to mankind. Noble goals indeed. Religious zealots are doing the same, only their golden age is supposed to happen after we die and be everlasting.
My view is that mankind is indissociable from religion, whatever form it may take.
No, they aren’t. We trust that the world is real, because all the evidence we have says it is. Faith exists without evidence, and generally is contrary to it. Not the same at all.
Wrong. Once you know that something is a religion, you can know better than to take it seriously; you can dismiss it as unworthy of trust or respect. Because, being a religion, it is at best baseless, and probably outright delusional.
Except that it’s not; it’s the norm. If, for example, some group thinks that it’s fun to set random fires, it’s perfectly normal and non-cultish for other groups to insist that they stop.
Trust *should *have evidence, and faith may or may not have evidence. But in the sense of believing what someone says mainly because they claim to know something you do not can only be seen as the point where the words trust and faith are synonymous. The only difference is the connotation, which means you gain a clue as to the emotional context of the speaker’s position based on word choice, but no actual change in the definition.
This is exactly why I started this thread. Your view here is, I think, very much the commonly held view for those who claim to be non-religious. It’s a way of saying that someone else’s group/beliefs are groundless to the point of not even needing to be considered.
My point is that if we accept that that is what it means to be a religion, a stereotypical fundamentalist Christian will claim that science is religion and therefore not even worthy of serious study.
I’m looking (perhaps vainly) for the point at which we can say that the world religion becomes a useful category. For it to be useful it must actually have distinguishing properties.
I’m not sure I follow you here. It seems like you’re saying that the majority opinion should be regarded as the norm. This is a fallacy of thinking that there is such a thing a a majority opinion. It’s kinda the point with AGW the extremism is that no one really knows how severe the problem is or what it would take to fix the problem, or what the cost would be to implement the fix.
I for one do not hear AGW proponents say “let’s all just hang out and see if the model proves out,” nor do I expect them to say such things. If they hold their beliefs to be true then they should act on them. Again, I’m not saying they’re bad people in any way for doing so. I’m just saying that faith (something that seems to be a key identifier for religion) takes a large part in being an AGW proponent, as with the other examples I’ve pointed out.
Rereading what I’ve written it kinda looks like I’m being hostile, but I don’t mean to be. I’m truly enjoying this thread and thinking about things more than my posts may indicate.
-Eben
I think this may be a workable theory. It’s more or less my current state of beliefs in any case. What I get from it is that the word religion is used as a derogatory label and nothing more in common speech when referring to others.
The thread that spawned this one was on whether religion (and religion’s claims) was open to scientific inquiry. I’d have to say that by your explanation (and by extension, mine) that the question comes down to being whether any given beliefs are open to scientific inquiry.
The answer must surely be yes. Not that science can necessarily remove any doubt regarding claims, but it can collect data on beliefs at the very least for later analysis.
-Eben