Defining 'Religion'

Well this is a subject that no one ever attempts, and I am not exactly sure why since it pretty difficult to debate anything when we dont know the meanings of the words we use in the debate. So I am posting this with the intent to identify how the word religion should be used going forward. What I have found is that most people simply pic up a cheap dictionary and slam dunk its worshiping the spagetti monster and they are done with it, but its not that simple since we have Budhists and Jainists and according to the supreme court secular humanists that are all classified as religions. Why dont we examine how a universal definition of religion would look like if we include non-theists.

So we will start with the definition given by the ox to see if possibilities exist;

c. Collectively: people devoted to a religious life.
b. A religious duty or obligation.
a. A particular system of faith and worship
6. The religious sanction or obligation of an oath or similar bond.

Those look fairly promising.

Now lets see some present day philosophy to see what they look at:

So we know the Buddhists and Jainists (both non-theistic) are arguably classified as a religion, and therefore the application of the word religion is not limited to theists.

We know from the above that it contains 'beliefs and practices' both 'social and personal' and 'values and commitments' views of 'knowledge and the self' and 'good and evil' of/by the practitioner.

Then finally: All known world religions address the nature of good and evil and commend ways of achieving human well-being, whether this be thought of in terms of salvation, liberation, deliverance, enlightenment, tranquility, or an egoless state of Nirvana.

So then is it fair to set up a Universal definition of religion which addresses and flows across all major religious cultures with a definition as follows:

Religion contains beliefs, practices, values, commitments, both social and personal, knowledge and self?

If not then what?

 

Source?

 

keep in mind this was intended to be a thinking exercise however, not a 'my dictionary is fatter than yours' contest since we now have non-theist and theist religions according to the courts.

ox, and stanford

 

What's the purpose of defining religion?

 

The problem you are faced with is the word 'religion' includes not only theists, as I said, but non-theists, so the typical 'sky pilot' and 'spaghetti monster' versions people like to throw around out here are incorrect, or the courts are incorrect, and I believe that the courts are in fact correct on this one. Others here I know disagree, which is all part and party to the reason for this thread.

 

Because having a discussion about other issues and matters where people use the word 'religion' out here reminds me of the meaning of the 'tower of babel'

God did not like the pride and arrogance in the hearts of the people. God caused the people to suddenly speak different tongues so they could not communicate and work together to build the tower. This caused the people to scatter across the land. The tower was named The Tower of Babel because the word Babel means confusion.

 

I agree, the definitions are usually the first thing to pin down, when one doesn't pin down the definitions early, the debate tends to either spiral out of control or revert back to discussing the definitions.

I think this is where my real disagreement with you lies. It is good to establish definitions in the beginning of a debate, but that does not mean that whatever definition is established should hold once that conversation has ended. As long as others understand what you mean by a word, you're good, but it does not make a certain definition fundamentally more true, just that it is one that you happen to use at the moment.

In particular, you suggest that definitions are set by the courts. I fully agree that courts need to define things as well, for their own purposes, but I don't see why that has any particular impact on the definitions of the language at large. I haven't seen anything conclusive, but I'm under an impression that you are libertarian, or at least sensitive to some libertarian ideas (I may be incorrect). I find it strange (even more so if you have libertarian leanings) to give the legal system the power to decide what words mean, that's some Newspeak stuff right there. I can't find any reference in the American constitution or anywhere else that gives the legal system that power. Besides, I live in England and I have never set my foot in the US, I don't see why American courts should have any power over me. The American courts provide excellent, well-constructed and influential examples of use of the English language, on par with an episode of Friends.

I should add that I hold that definitions are set by usage. Courts can influence usage insofar that people dynamically start using definitions decided in court and thereby influence the language. That is not to say that within their jurisdiction to make definitions correct, only that they in practice have the power to influence those who do define language, its users.

Each word does not have just a single definition. As you have shown, each word has several definitions, indicating that we can't pick one as the "correct" one and leave the others. I have no problem with people talking about religions defined like that, but that's not to say that those definitions then are decided and set in stone.

Having read the source (by the way, you should give a link), I don't interpret the text as you do. I don't read them as listing things which are religions, I read them as listing things which, when they are associated with religions, are included in the study of religion. For instance, I read "Philosophy of religion addresses embedded social and personal practices" not as "embedded social and personal practices is what defines religion" but "when one studies religion, one can/should/will study the social and personal practices which arises from religion" without defining religion as such.

I would prefer the view presented on for instance wikipedia: "Scholars have failed to agree on a definition of religion" and the one here (too long to quote). It states that there is no universal definition of religion, which means that one has to define what one means by religion every time one talks about it. That's not to say that you couldn't make specific arguments concerning specific definitions of religion, however, you can't expect the definition to stay true in some other context, or the arguments to remain valid.

I disagree, any such definition would not be universal. Nothing is keeping you from presenting this definition and making a related argument, but that does not make the definition universal.

It's not about "if not then what?". I hold that there is no universal definition, I'm not suggesting a conflicting "what".

You must have come across the argument presented in the wikipages, that there is no universally agreed upon definition (I believe I have argued it to you before). I'm a bit confused as to how you propose to deal with the disagreement. There are entire wikipages about people disagreeing on what religion means, I can't imagine you actually believed you saying "let's just all agree what I want" would resolve an age-old question.

 

The problem is that it has been shown over and over again that you edit the information you give, excluding bits you do not want to include, so as the forum rules state you must give sources DO IT!

 

So that we know what we're talking about. Every word we use has definitions. Sometimes they're obvious from context or otherwise agreed upon, but sometimes not, and then it's important.

 

Out of interest, where do you suggest this logic goes? Let's say for the sake of argument that there was no objection and that everyone agreed to this, where would your argument go next?

 

Yeah, this is more of linguistic thing.

The basic definition I would use is the belief in a creator.

That creator could be anything you choose so basically any multitude of things could be a religion.

Belief in evolution would be a religion but essentially religion would exist without a belief in something being in control of a process.

The works, requirements, all of that will vary but to have a religion something must exist to believe in.

 

The Bible defines religion in James 1:26-27.

 

Its far better to establish a Universal definition where one shoe fits all if possible, that is the purpose of this thread to get agreement from both theists and non-theists by using the 'substance' of religion instead of the political usage of religion throughout history.

I expect we would need to include theists as well,

So in single words;

Religion: beliefs, practices, values, commitments, both social and personal, knowledge and self, which may include a supernatural being or agency?

How about that, pretty much sums up the common denominator of everyones religion no?

 

No, everyone does not have a religion, no matter how you define it. So you cannot sum up everybody's religion.

 

But once again I was not talking with you, we all know from your previous posts you have made it perfectly clear that you have no beliefs, no practices, no values, no commitments, anti-social nothing personal, no knowledge no self, and the last thing no supernatural being or agency. nothing in common with all those religious people what so ever. we get it.

Yes we can sum up everyone's religion.

 

It's not a matter of if it would be better, it's a matter of consistent linguistics. It would be "better" if people all spoke the same language, but that doesn't make French incorrect. The fact that people mean different things when they talk about religion is not resolved by imposing a universal definition, it's resolved by specifying a definition when you use it.

I like the orange example. Orange is a colour and a fruit. We don't resolve this by demanding that we decide whether orange is a colour or a fruit, we simply use it either way, and if there is any confusion or risk of confusion, we specify which one we mean. Why can't we do that for the word religion as well, instead of trying to impose a definition that people might not agree with?

The disagreement in how to define religion doesn't arise just because nobody bothered to put together a decent list of descriptive traits. There are religions, or at least interpretations of religions that don't specify practices, that don't require commitments or knowledge of self, don't consider God supernatural, etc., or at least, we could imagine such an interpretation of religion and still identify it as a religion.

In the end, there is confusion about the term, and any solution which doesn't reflect that confusion runs the risk of people misunderstanding one another without knowing it.

 

Belief in religion = belief in fairy tales.

 

we arent talking about 2 different objects with the same name, we are talking about a multi element word that requires one or more of several characteristics. So your orange example isnt even in the same universe as religion.

Impose, trying to make a little negative political hay are we?

Ah more imposing. WTH you talking about there is no IMPOSING anything?

It most certainly is a matter of better or worse case in point:

Its a word that drives some people to the brink;

practices, = belief in fairy tales
values, = belief in fairy tales
commitments, = belief in fairy tales
social = belief in fairy tales
personal, = belief in fairy tales
knowledge = belief in fairy tales
self, = belief in fairy tales

The present use is incomprehensible.

So fine so we change it to read:

Religion: any combination of; beliefs, practices, values, commitments, both social and personal, knowledge and self, which may include a supernatural being or agency?

 

"Belief", of itself, is not inherently "religious". It is extremely powerful, however. We could even say it is the most powerful attribute of a human. An illustration can be found in something attributed to Jesus (putting aside Christianism and Biblical criticism). When asked how he had accomplished a certain act, he told his followers that if they truly believed, beyond doubt, they could make mountains move. If we take that for a statement about the human mind, it is obviously true. When people believe something is as it is, it is. There is no other definition of truth. "Belief", "truth" and "fact" are subjective terms created by and determined by humans. There is no objective meaning to them. They do not exist in the absence of humans. This being the case, when people believe something is an objective reality, it is impossible to effectively deny it to them. That is the power of belief, or faith, if you will. It is also a colossal, neurosis engendering subconscious conflict. The conscious mind may be able to master conscious concepts of truth such as these, but the 'cosmic/sub/un-conscious' may have a more difficult time of it.
That said, using the term 'religion' when speaking about what is, after all, 'belief' (atheism or socialism, for example), certainly seems a misuse of the word that tends to degrade the sense of it.

 

I don't see that that makes a difference. My argument is one about what to do when there is disagreement about a definition, whether it's "multi-element" or otherwise doesn't really play into it.

What is the difference between a "universal" definition and any other definition, other than the idea that you expect others to adhere to it?

I don't pretend that Wyrd's post is a well constructed argument, but I don't the bottle neck is the exact definition. I don't see a problem with the idea of asking Wyrd what definition of religion he's using, or frankly, deducing it from context. I do see a problem with deciding on a religion and then expecting him to know about and agree with some other definition, and then not consider any idea phrased differently.

This seems to have other issues. If I believe that I have an apple in my fridge, is that a religion?

 

It only shows that such a definition come up by humans is so superficial.

It's all about how humans can share can convey the different types of information. Let's start with history.

1)
History is the human information about what could possibly happened in the past. They are accounts of testimonies mostly unverifiable. Humans are confused to think that history can be verified by means of archaeological. However archaeological only works for the examination of mass activities instead of individual activities such as a historical figures deed and speech which are unverifiable by at all archaeological. History is the recording of extremely limited number of humans and events which are deemed "famous" usually to the public or an authority back then. Humans don't have the ability to keep track of 99.99% history ever happened such as what you ate on today 2015. We have 70 billion humans and we don't have a record about what they ate that day. Humans' capability can only record less than 0.01% occurrence deemed "famous" to us (humans at a certain point of time). History can be comprehended and speculated by humans simply because it's the the recording of human activities (instead of alien activities which, if any, may not be understandable to humans).

2)
Science is about something which can repeat. We can thus speculate repeatedly and in infinitive to get to a conclusion. It can be very accurate by the repeatedly research however this kind of truth is only limited to those phenomenon which can repeat themselves. Both science and evidence are provided that humans can physically go to a place to carry out experiments and observations to gather the so-called evidence. Science and evidence will not be applicable to time and space where humans don't have the ability to physically be there. These include the past, the future and realms outside our dimension (time-space). It is thus natural that human lack evidence of the past, no evidence of the future and lack evidence of anything could possibly exist outside our dimension (in terms of time-space), this includes the claimed spiritual realm.

3)
It's due to humans incapability to reach the future that the importance of religion is that it's about an advocate of what could possibly happen in the future. Humans don't have the ability to examine the future (or the spiritual realm if any). The only possibility for us to get to what could possibly lying ahead is through a super being who knows (if he exists at all). For an example, Christianity is about how a God, who has a good reason to hide behind, tries to convey the message of salvation (a future) among humans through accounts of testimonies, similarly to how our history conveys among humans. The difference is that it's not about human activities but rather super being activities thus some of the contents may not be speculated and comprehended by humans.

4)
Daily news in the forms of TVs, radios and newspapers are accounts of testimonies about what are currently happening or just have happened around the world. We rely on the credibility (instead of evidence as you might think) of our media to trust with faith that they are information ultimately coming from eyewitnesses.

Except for 2) science which is accessible to humans repeatedly and thus verifiable, all other 3 can be faked and they can be true. Regardless trusting human accounts of testimonies is the only way how they work even in the case of a truth.

 

BIG difference, since you should have noticed long time ago that most people are illiterate and plagued with mental blocks.

BIG difference again, people need to see all the elements in one line to comprehend its part of the definition.

So you see a problem with him know wth he is talking about is that it?

This definition includes all possible elements applied to every religion, with the exception to supernatural which is in a class by itself


Religion: any combination of; beliefs, practices, values, commitments, both social and personal, knowledge and self, which may include a supernatural being or agency?

Shouldnt you know what you are talking about, and how belief is applied to the word religion before you run around disagreeing with it?

Do you feel that a dictionary should add a 10 page philosophical treatise for every word used is that where you are trying to take this, or a vulcan mind meld or what?

 

and we know most of history is government imposed spin

 

It is a public forum, if you do not want to talk to me, you have a major problem, because I will comment on your posts.

Everyone does not have a religion unless you define it in such broad terms as to be meaningless!

 

And the sneering little jibes begin.

Most people understand that religion involves some element of worship or reverence, the problem is when translating western ideas of what a religion into eastern ways of life, we struggle to classify Taoism for instance into the western way of considering religion.

Again when challenged you have to result to sneering little jibes. As a philosophical exercise having decided on the conclusion and then trying to bend the discussion to fit is exactly the opposite of what philosophy is about.