What is Religion?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Princhester]
And if you’ll permit me to develop your point, the manner in which science and religion differ in attitude when such shifts or changes occur is illustrative of why one has an “acknowledged ultimate reality” and the other does not.

When there is a paradigm shift of the type you mention, science discards the old theory and adopts the new, while admitting the old one existed: there is no set ultimate reality.

Religion absorbs change but then pretends that the way it is, is the way it always was. Because a religion has at any given time an acknowledged ultimate reality. It would not be permissable to say that what that god says now is not what that god said before.
[/QUOTE]

I’m fairly sure that I remember reading the Old Testament where God was mostly angry and punishing and then the New Testament where God was mostly caring and sympathetic. I’m not saying it makes a lot of sense, I’m just pointing out that religion *can * change and still acknowledge the old ways.

-Eben

82

[QUOTE=mswas]
I didn’t, it’s a common staple of the atheist argument to twist the meaning of the word faith.
[/QUOTE]

which definition has been twisted?:

[QUOTE=Merriam-Webster Online]
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

[/QUOTE]

You’re arguing that it is definition 2(a).2 that is meant. Why not 2(a)? or 2(b)? Those seem much more in line with religious faith.

So, no, we are not cherry-picking. We are using the word as it is understood. You are the one who is using the less-common definition of religious faith.

Like I said, you are playing semantic games because it is all you have. Your argument from other threads was torn apart, so this is what you are reduced to.

Where’s your sense of shame, man.

83

[QUOTE=Eben]
If we look at a religious belief in prayer healing and then look at a scientific belief in aspirin healing, we can study both of those through experimentation. Of course there is some controversy here, but the point is that the word religion is just an emotional label, and not a factual one.
[/QUOTE]

What controversy? Asprin has a demonstrable effect on the human body, and prayer does not. The ‘belief’ in aspirin isn’t faith, it’s trust. The belief in prayer is faith.

84

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
In a short but informative thread from a while back, I tried to give my own definition of what makes a religion:

** A set of beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality, including the Meaning of LifeTM, the existence and nature of a Supreme Being and/or other supernatural beings, the nature of humanity, an afterlife, etc.

  • A set of vocabulary, symbols, images, metaphors, by which to understand and refer to such matters

  • A set of rituals, ceremonies, practices, formalizing its people’s relations with God/gods/the universe and with one another

  • A set of moral and ethical rules, principles, guidelines by which to live in light of all of the above

  • A community who share more or less all of the above*

To which I added:

*I’m not even sure whether a religion has to have all of the characteristics I mentioned, or just some of them.

And “a set of beliefs about … the existence and nature of a Supreme Being and/or other supernatural beings” could well include a belief that they don’t exist, or that we can’t know whether they exist, or that it doesn’t matter whether they exist.

I would say that, while atheism per se is not a religion, an atheistic religion is not necessarily a contradiction in terms.*

I think that’s still the best I can do to define/describe religion.
[/QUOTE]

I think this is an excellent definition. Thank you Thudlow Boink.

From here on in the thread, let’s use this definition. It seems to capture everything said on the subject so far quite well.

I now throw out a question to those who have advocated a clear demarcation between religion and other groups (science being the most notable);

What groups are religious?

What groups are non-religious?

Is there a gray area? If so, what groups are in that area?
Please use specifics in answer. I don’t expect an exhaustive list, I just want an idea of the areas people consider to be in one category or the other.

Thanks,
-Eben

85

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Everyday in this world there are millions of miracles that science can not explain with its materialistic view.

complete remission of a fatal diseases
out of body experiences
near death experiences
spirit guides
angel visits
and many more personal miracles
[/QUOTE]
Science explains them easily. The body repairing itself, hallucinations, and “didn’t happen”.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I didn’t, it’s a common staple of the atheist argument to twist the meaning of the word faith.
[/QUOTE]
Hardly, it’s the believers who are doing the twisting. Of course, it’s a common staple of the believer’s arguments to attribute their own flaws to the other side.

[QUOTE=mswas]
There has never been a singular event in all of the universe’s history? It’s impossible that something may happen only once, rather everything that happens MUST cycle back around?
[/QUOTE]
That’s not a “miracle”. That’s EVERYTHING. Everything happens only once.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Who said the laws of physics were violated?
[/QUOTE]
That IS the most common use of the word, especially in a religious context. You appear to be trying more word games.

[QUOTE=Eben]
This is demonstrably not true. Science has shown that in most cases it produces fairly good predictibility. Which is to say that is has shown a better than random chance at predicting things on a regular basis. Unfortunately that doesn’t “prove” anything, which is really the point. If we look at a religious belief in prayer healing and then look at a scientific belief in aspirin healing, we can study both of those through experimentation. Of course there is some controversy here, but the point is that the word religion is just an emotional label, and not a factual one.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, please. Equating the mountains of evidence for science with the complete absence of evidence for religion is silly. Science HAS proven itself. We live in a world that works according to it’s principles, and build machines that work according to it’s principles. Religion has done nothing remotely like that.

You appear to be sidling towards the solipsist argument for religion; that since we can’t “prove” science in the mathematical sense of the term ( which is pretty much restricted to mathematics ), that means nothing has any better proof than everyone else, and therefore religion is true. Which is a silly argument.

86

Science is a method for discovering information. It’s not an ideology which can be proven or disproven. Sometimes people will try to attack the reliability of scientific method on epistemological grounds (which I think is little more than straw clutching), but that still doesn’t undermine the reliability of the method as a means of acquiring purely empirical information.

87

• noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief.

— ORIGIN Old French feid, from Latin fides.

88

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Science is a method for discovering information. It’s not an ideology which can be proven or disproven. Sometimes people will try to attack the reliability of scientific method on epistemological grounds (which I think is little more than straw clutching), but that still doesn’t undermine the reliability of the method as a means of acquiring purely empirical information.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly my point. Thank you Diogenes.

I believe that when in modern times when two contradictory views are held, one by a scientist and one by a priest, that we should usualy listen to the scientist. This is based on a history of predictability mainly.

For purposes of this discussion, the difference between the scientist and the priest are the ways they claim knowledge. The “truth” of their knowledge has nothing to do with whether or not science is a religion by denotation. An analogy would be trying to figure out what it meant to be a soldier. A modern soldier equipped with a rifle and other gear will scoff at someone holding a bamboo spear and nothing else, but they’re both still soldiers.

Simply being an effective predictibility-seeker in modern times does not make science non-religion.

Hm, having actualy written that I get the sense that I hit something important in the discussion here. There seems to be the idea that the definition of religion might include something to the effect that it is ineffective or impotent in regards to its stated outcomes. What do you all think of that idea?

-Eben

89

Eben,
Would you consider all epistemologies to be religions?

PC

90

[QUOTE=Eben]

Hm, having actualy written that I get the sense that I hit something important in the discussion here. There seems to be the idea that the definition of religion might include something to the effect that it is ineffective or impotent in regards to its stated outcomes. What do you all think of that idea?
[/QUOTE]

That’s exactly what I am getting at. The idea of adherents being idiots seems to be implied by the way they define religion and faith.

91

[QUOTE=mswas]

• noun 1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief.

— ORIGIN Old French feid, from Latin fides.
[/QUOTE]
I liked my dictionary better. Use it. Or definitions 2 or 3 in this one. (This sort of thing is the lamest type of argument-by-redefintion. We know what we mean by the word, thanks.)

(And the “complete” in that rules out your typical trust in science, anyway.)

92

[QUOTE=Eben]
For purposes of this discussion, the difference between the scientist and the priest are the ways they claim knowledge. The “truth” of their knowledge has nothing to do with whether or not science is a religion by denotation. An analogy would be trying to figure out what it meant to be a soldier. A modern soldier equipped with a rifle and other gear will scoff at someone holding a bamboo spear and nothing else, but they’re both still soldiers.

Simply being an effective predictibility-seeker in modern times does not make science non-religion.
[/quote]
Actually, it does; if religion actually worked, it wouldn’t be based on faith and wouldn’t be a religion any more.

And religion and science don’t seek truth by methods that are remotely similar.

[QUOTE=Eben]
There seems to be the idea that the definition of religion might include something to the effect that it is ineffective or impotent in regards to its stated outcomes. What do you all think of that idea?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not the “definition”, but the nature of religion that’s at fault. Being wrong, having a false view of the world, it naturally tends to fail. It’s not the definition of religion that will drown someone who tries to walk on water by faith.

[QUOTE=mswas]
The idea of adherents being idiots seems to be implied by the way they define religion and faith.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s being implied because they believe in something idiotic. That, after all, the the point of comparing God to Santa Claus, Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Judged by the standards we apply to everything else, religion is stupid.

93

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

No, it’s being implied because they believe in something idiotic. That, after all, the the point of comparing God to Santa Claus, Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Judged by the standards we apply to everything else, religion is stupid.
[/QUOTE]

Heh, snort.

94

[QUOTE=begbert2]
I liked my dictionary better. Use it. Or definitions 2 or 3 in this one. (This sort of thing is the lamest type of argument-by-redefintion. We know what we mean by the word, thanks.)

(And the “complete” in that rules out your typical trust in science, anyway.)
[/QUOTE]

So the Oxford definition is not sufficient because it doesn’t suit your bias well enough? Ok. I know what you mean by the word too, you are trying to make using it politically incorrect, then turning around and chastising me for not letting it slide.

95

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Eben,
Would you consider all epistemologies to be religions?

PC
[/QUOTE]

I think that for me the answer is yes, all epistemologies would be religions. This doesn’t absolutely exclude things which are not epistemologies from being religion.

I’d really like a way to disambiguate religious epistemologies from others, but the problem seems to be the gray area I see. For example, the idea of Karma where good things come back if you do good and bad comes back if you do bad. It’s pretty easy to see that this is just statistical averaging at work.

OTOH, if you live your life by it and try to do good, and everyone you come in contact does as well, you will get more good from the belief than without the belief. A lot of the gray area comes in at the moral side, I think. Perhaps the groups thought of commonly as religions we can relabel as practicing group psychologists. This then puts them in a position to be accounted for by how effect their methodologies are in doing what they state they want to happen.

-Eben

96

[QUOTE=Eben]
I think that for me the answer is yes, all epistemologies would be religions. This doesn’t absolutely exclude things which are not epistemologies from being religion.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree with this definition. Some sort of social organization is required. I can invent an epistemology in my bedroom but if it has no adherents it’s not a religion. One of the aspects of religion that is essential is adherents.

97

[QUOTE=mswas]
Heh, snort.
[/QUOTE]
Refusing to argue doesn’t make your position any more correct.

[QUOTE=mswas]
I disagree with this definition. Some sort of social organization is required. I can invent an epistemology in my bedroom but if it has no adherents it’s not a religion. One of the aspects of religion that is essential is adherents.
[/QUOTE]
Incorrect, given that there are dead and fictional religions that have no adherents.

98

[QUOTE=Eben]
I think that for me the answer is yes, all epistemologies would be religions. This doesn’t absolutely exclude things which are not epistemologies from being religion.
[/QUOTE]
I can understand this in a way. I’m not sure how one goes about non-recursively justifying an epistemology. But, for me, using the word religion in that way weakens its definition to the point of being useless. The only benefit seems to be being able say to folks who are generally considered non-religious “see, you’re religious too (in the broadest possible sense).” I suggest we can explore the pitfalls of knowledge more profitably without the considerable baggage carried by that word.

PC

99

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Actually, it does; if religion actually worked, it wouldn’t be based on faith and wouldn’t be a religion any more.
[/quote]

You’ve struck upon another issue here. Does religion work?

If by work you mean miraculously heal and such then, from what I’ve seen in studies on the subject, it works as well as any other placebo. Which in many cases is better than no treatment at all.

If by work you mean gives a community of belonging to people, then yes it works.

If by work you mean allows those at the top to enjoy positions of power and prestige, then yes it works.

If by work you mean tells about the truths of the universe (this is what I suspect you meant), then the answer is yes for many people who don’t need hard science knowledge to get through their lives.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And religion and science don’t seek truth by methods that are remotely similar.
[/quote]

That’s okay. Astronomy and biology don’t seek truth by methods that are remotely similar either. The review of knowledge in those two sciences is the part that’s similar. Part of the problem here is assuming that the pursuit of knowledge is all either organization is about.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It’s not the “definition”, but the nature of religion that’s at fault. Being wrong, having a false view of the world, it naturally tends to fail. It’s not the definition of religion that will drown someone who tries to walk on water by faith.
[/quote]

Um, careful there. It sure sounds like you’re claiming that science doesn’t have a false view of the world. Clearly science does have a false view of the world, in that not everything is perfectly known by science. If it was then there would be no need for further scientific study.

Science has excellent predictability. That’s no small feat, but it should not be equated with absolute truth. If having a flase view of the world leads to a tendancy to fail (whatever failure means in this case), then science would fail.

On the subject of drowning… has anyone ever died because science had a false view? The answer is yes, most definately! Besides the uneducated who dabble in science dangerously, how about dead astronauts? Surely trying to fly into space by means of science has dangers. The false view that science knew everything (or rather enough things) regarding spaceflight contributed to deaths.

All I’m saying here is that you’ve leveled criticism on religion that can be equaly leveled on science. The degrees are likely to be very different, but you’ve still failed to do more than use religion as a denigration rather than a seperation.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, it’s being implied because they believe in something idiotic. That, after all, the the point of comparing God to Santa Claus, Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Judged by the standards we apply to everything else, religion is stupid.
[/QUOTE]

I’d say that given what we know about quantum physics and relativity that believing in Newtonian Physics and Euclidean Geometry is idiotic. Idiotic, but useful to daily life.

I have no problem comparing God to any of the things you’ve listed. In terms of the discussion here, God has very little to do with religion as defined. Please take the time to read the definitions of religion we are discussing and comment on those instead of extrapolating out to specific religions.

-Eben

100

[QUOTE=mswas]
I disagree with this definition. Some sort of social organization is required. I can invent an epistemology in my bedroom but if it has no adherents it’s not a religion. One of the aspects of religion that is essential is adherents.
[/QUOTE]

I would agree with this as well. In some cases the adherents may well be deceased or imaginary (as in a fictional novel for example).

I think that’s essentialy what I’m advocating here. There might be a hypothetical boundary to the word, but it seems to be used mainly to provide a reason not to respect positions rather than listening to what they say. Note that this is true on both sides of religion / non-religion.

I don’t consider myself to be religious, but that doesn’t mean I automaticaly turn a blind eye to religion’s teachings. I’m very much in the camp that most religions boil down to “Hey, let’s all try to get along!” I can agree with that message without going to meetings :slight_smile:

So I guess the next move is to petition the removal of the word from common usage.

Uh-oh, what happens to religious freedom if the word is broad enough to encompass as much as it appears to? Here’s a look at tax law in particular, and the definition in regards to law. Essentialy the IRS comes down to the age and formal rituals are what define religion side of things. That definition does not include the possibility of things such as PETA being included, but also excludes Wiccans, Daoists, and others for various reason.

So let’s shift the debate a bit here. Should we define religion loosely (as I have) and subject all religions to scientific and legal scrutiny, or should we define religion tightly (as the IRS does) and give certain establishements a waiver from scrutiny and certain legal applications?

-Eben