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
which definition has been twisted?:
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.
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.
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
Science explains them easily. The body repairing itself, hallucinations, and “didn’t happen”.
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.
That’s not a “miracle”. That’s EVERYTHING. Everything happens only once.
That IS the most common use of the word, especially in a religious context. You appear to be trying more word games.
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.
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.
• 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.
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
Eben,
Would you consider all epistemologies to be religions?
PC
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Heh, snort.
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.
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
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.
Refusing to argue doesn’t make your position any more correct.
Incorrect, given that there are dead and fictional religions that have no adherents.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 
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