Defining 'Religion'

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Jun 10, 2018.

  1. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's not what I said, I said it's not enough. You also need to not include incorrect things.
    Then why would you have a particular definition which you label as universal (regardless of what you mean by it)? I haven't read all of the other responses, in what sense does yours include usage that a dictionary doesn't?
    How would it be crystal clear to me? I can acknowledge that the universal remote definition of universal exists, but I had no reason to assume that's the one you're using until I dragged it out of you.
    What do you mean by several years? That it takes them a long time to put together a dictionary? Or that the dictionary will cover uses from more than one time, given that we may want to understand writing from the past as well as today?
    My argument here wasn't based on the accuracy of my representation of what you do. What makes you think your approach is better than the approach that linguists over the years have settled on? I mean, I'm sure there are those who disagree with the idea of dictionaries, but I'd like to see some discussion of the matter before I reject dictionaries as a concept.
    It wasn't an analogy. It was a direct description of how it seemed to me.

    So why is the approach you give any good? Having a definition is one thing, for further understanding, I would direct readers to an encyclopaedia.
    I see nothing about the context of the OP that indicated you were using the most-definition. Indeed, you talk about how the word "should be used going forward" which doesn't seem to acknowledge any space for other interpretations in the future.
    I don't think your fix will resolve their problem. Certainly, establishing a new way in which the word "should be used going forward" seems to me just to add to the confusion.
    It sure confuses me. In my understanding, a normal remote will control one device (or at least very few) whereas a universal one controls more than that. I can accept that universal can be used for things which are not strictly all-encompassing, but to use it as a qualifier specifically to say less than standard, I have never seen.
    Yes, I agree that merely taking the first definition is an incorrect approach. Google says the first definition for orange is the fruit kind, but it's still perfectly possible to talk about orange the colour.
    It's rarely a problem for me, I either explain what I mean, or ask others what they mean. I think you're the only one I've seen to actively resist providing enough explanation for me to know what you mean by a word or concept. Some try and fail, some don't seem to understand what I'm requesting, but only you hide your arguments.
    I expect maybe four or five lines that right it out. Less if possible, but not so much less that anything is left to unreasonable amounts of interpretation. When I tried to summarise what you had said, it came out to, I think four lines.
    That's not really a response to my point. If a "universal" definition is one such that all acknowledged religions satisfy 95% of the criteria in it, then "a religion is anything that can be thought" would be a very good "universal definition". However, it seems to me such a definition wouldn't be very good, so I'm guessing you've left something out of your understanding of a "universal" definition.
    I tried, and came up with the best-fit-to-gaussian explanation, which apparently wasn't right. In fact, that entire endeavour was a huge waste of time for the both of us, that's why I reckon we'd both waste less time if you were to just put it all in one place. I mean, you supposedly understand it, it should really take you less time to write it down than it does to write as many of these responses as you have, and presumably will.
    No, just the ones where there is room for misunderstanding, which at the moment I think is only one. And I only require a few lines (the version I provided was like four lines, I didn't even break a sweat).
    I think it's weird that a better fit to a bell curve distribution is more important that satisfying many of the criteria, I think it's weird that you write primarily about which things are included in the definition, and not which ones are rejected by the definition.
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well you should be more clear since its very reasonable that the other choice is wrong things.
    There is no 'regardless by what I mean', the definition is not about usage its about pandering to the growing number of illiterates who are incapable of determining the sense a word is used without a thesis on each each word, and even then they get it wrong.
    I gave you every reason since I explained it to you several times and you still feign ignorance
    both
    Because the illiterates cant read past entry #1, and often cant even read that.
    Because people are too ignorant to read beyond entry #1 and apply the one or several that fit the sense, and we live in a world of unthinking, anything not listed in #1 is too difficult to integrate, trolls need every possible contingency listed in #1.
    MOst likely because I explained it in a later post ya think?
    Do tell, how can you get more confusion than we have now. It has all applicable attributes in one sentence. easy peasy
    There is no standard, you are making it up
    Finally!
    Only in the case where its been explained several times, again wont help. Nothing hidden, I explained it, and its useless minutia since I already have shown it means 'most'
    Nope aint gonna get it, I'd run over the character limits to do that for every word.
    Ridiculous. Funny but ridiculous. Well maybe not, if every word has to be disputed and taken in an incorrect sence maybe, I'm sure you could find a way to make that true.
    and I gave you the answer how to make it right.
    We have already gone down the universal route, there is nothing wrong with my usage, I proved it.
    Many of 'the criteria' is there a secret agenda here that I dont know about?
    and now you expect me to write everything that is not the definition, it appears your argument isnt weak its nonexistent when you need to come up with those lines.
     
  3. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. Indeed, in that particular post, I then followed the sentence you quoted here with an example which does include all existing religions ("anything that can be thought") but which fails because it also includes a bunch of other stuff which is not a religion. I gave that example specifically to make that clarification.
    I don't see why you have to do that. Dictionaries already acknowledge that the order isn't definitive. Given that I don't really seem to have that kind of issue with anyone else and you seem to have it with everyone, I reckon you'd be better off taking a long hard look at your communication skills.
    Well each time you gave an explanation, you said different things. One time it's merely a percentage count of conditions met, another time, it's something to do with a bell curve. One time, you count the number of religions, another time, you count the number of people covered by each religion.
    And do you think your approach could outdo their performance? Given how long it's taken you to get through one word, let alone an entire dictionary.
    You keep coming back to this, and I can't say I've ever encountered that problem, could you provide an example? As I've said, I think wherever there is risk of confusion, there should be clarification. Using that maxim (sometimes in hindsight, identifying a disagreement and then simply clarifying what I meant) I have had no problems with anyone else, and I'm the kind of person who will get hung up on those points.

    I suggest that the details surrounding definitions are fluid, that in a conversation, you can use a stipulative or precising definition to get some wiggle room with a definition. I should also point out that this approach is used by most people, even if they don't always know it themselves. With that in mind, your approach of setting the definition in stone comes across as trying to get away with equivocation (using your definition to identify something as a religion, and then applying that to some argument which uses another definition). With that suspicion in mind, I imagine people are looking to the first definition in a dictionary not because they lose reading ability after one line, but because you're pushing the idea that there is some sort of primary, "universal" (in either sense) definition.
    Well that's my point, you did and it worked well. That's the approach I suggest we use all the time.
    Yeah, but now your approach is contesting with the approach I have suggested, and this now opens up for people using different approaches and not realising it. Definitely more confusing.
    I wasn't referring to a specific standard, it could refer to the standard number of devices a remote control can access or the standard number of nuts that a spanner can be used on.
    I have never said otherwise, you have merely misinterpreted what I've been writing.
    Then you need to work on your brevity, when I tried to do "universal" it came to about four lines.
    Of course it's ridiculous, that's my point. However, it conforms to the criteria you have given for "universal" (since more than 95% of currently accepted religions are included). The example is to show that the criteria you have given gives rise to ridiculous definitions. (In theory, that's not a problem if you're using stipulative definitions, I'm just suggesting that maybe that's not how you expected it to work).
    Maybe I'm reading in the wrong place (you haven't given it all in one place, so who knows) but your direct response to that bit was that I didn't understand how to use a bell curve (although it seems now the best explanation you have given has nothing to do with a bell curve, any 95% cutoff would work the same on distributions of any shape).
    I assume that's what the 95% was about (then again, you refuse to clarify, so who knows).
    I don't think that's weak, if you don't specify what isn't in the definition, then "everything that can be thought" is a good definition, and that's what seems weird to me.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Care to quote it? Unless court jester is your sock, there are no other that I can recall.
    Dictionary editors, academics, sure what about the bottom of the gene pool, the people who need those definitions most?
    Because you came from different angles and you really made a pretzel out of what I said. I suggest you reread the OP forward.
    Easily! PUHLEASE it took me a nano second, dont blame me because you had to make a federal case out of it.
    Sure, 'you'. Yep and I clarified and you argued and still continue to argue despite the several clarifications.
    The definition I provided is equally fluid, what makes you think it isnt fluid? I said in the op its fluid there is plenty of wiggle room, make your point and feel free to name a religion it does not cover.
    Ok so then whats the problem?
    Huh? You suggested status quo.
    You claimed universal meant all, and failed to acknowledge it also means many or most.
    This thread isnt about defining universal.
    huh? that was intended for the definition of religion
    You didnt and as far as I can tell understand how to bring in a proper analogy that actually fits or understand the data from the bell
    95-99 was the target range of different religions that would fit under the bell with that definition.
    Where did you dredge that crap up. If I dont bring it in the presumption is that its not included.
     
  5. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is now that you have come up with a definition so wide that it would include political parties, sports clubs, and street gangs as religions.
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense, I never added anything that would imply much less include political parties sports clubs and much less street gangs. Sounds more like a wild imagination to me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  7. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do political parties, sports clubs, and street gangs not have “beliefs, practices, values, commitments, both social and personal, knowledge and self, which may include a supernatural being or agency”?
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sorry about the dups something hung up and unfortunately it doesnt give me the option to delete them :(
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sorry about the dups something hung up and unfortunately it doesnt give me the option to delete them :(
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Normally, in most threads I am the OP I leave them reasonably open for the arguments to have significant deviation from precision on topic. HOWEVER with regard to the moderation policy of this board in combination with my desire to keep this thread reasonably free from parrots, spam, and trolls I cannot open up the floor to anything to much outside the words used in the definition, their application, usage etc, or if you have a word you feel should be added. Several useful suggestions have been made and incorporated. If you want to argue about what is religion, I'd be happy to make a thread for it but the past has proven it to be to much work to maintain a readable decorum. So I will not respond to that question other than to suggest arguing 'what is or is not a religion' in another thread.

    So feel free to argue the words used or omitted if you have issues with them and take the rest to another thread please.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  11. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am an atheist, I lack belief.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this thread is not about what you are or what you believe, you are off topic, please take your spam to another thread.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  13. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m arguing that in attempting to make a universal definition for religion, you have made the definition functionally useless.

    There’s a reason why words have multiple definitions: they don’t apply in all context.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    explain how that can be the case?
    people on the board cant read past line 1 however
    so whats the difference in functionality if a definition contains all the senses in one line or 40 ?

    I dont see anything wrong with this, its far more clear than any dictionary today, it even sums it all up in a manner that the supreme court is likely to agree.

    Definition of Religion:
    The comprehensive personal and cultural practices of value and faith based beliefs, morals, duties of conscience, self-knowledge, truth, often an associated world view, worship, and may include a supernatural being or agency.

    Personal - single individual
    Cultural - 2 or more individuals
    Practice - Corresponding actions or inaction resulting from a belief system
    Faith - Acceptance of beliefs which are not necessarily be provable
    Beliefs - Conclusions considered to be true
    Morals - Personal law, Accepted standards typically with regard to right/wrong, good/evil, value judgements of conscience.
    Commitments - The obligation to act in accordance with and adherence to ones strongly held beliefs
    Self-knowledge - Careful understanding and realization of ones religion.
    Truth - Recognition and acceptance of an ultimate reality
    World-View - Ones morals compared to others morals.
    Worship - Expression of reverence and adoration to that which one believes to be sacred.
    Supernatural-Being - God
    Agency - That thought to which fulfills the position of a God.
    Sacred - Highest possible level of trust, reverence and adherence to the beliefs, attributes, laws, and doctrines of ones religion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  15. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because using that definition of religion, you’ve made it so vague that things that are obviously not religions like political parties and street gangs would be defined as religions by it.

    You’ve made it functionally useless.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well like I said this is geared toward using existing definitions already on the books so to speak so take your arguments HERE as to 'why' naming the particulars you feel that is the case since this thread is not about arguing what is a religion then if it validates we can bring it back here.
     
  17. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, and I'm saying your definition is garbage because it widens the criteria for what a religion is so far that it is useless for practical purposes.
     
  18. yabberefugee

    yabberefugee Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    Messages:
    20,620
    Likes Received:
    8,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Religion is mans efforts to reach God. Christianity, different than all others, is God's efforts to reach mankind.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it would help to know which words you think should be removed or added and why, unless you are just in here to complain for no reason?
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  20. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remove “may” from “and may include a supernatural being or agency”.

    Replace it with “must”.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that would exclude all the recognized 'non'theistic religions
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2018
  22. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no such thing. All religions believe in some kind of supernatural agency, though they may not believe in a god.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The courts disagree with you and point out that you do not need a God or god to have a core belief system (religion) that you use to govern your life.

    I have provided qualifying references below, in this case from the court which bears heavy weight, therefore the only opposing views that will be considered require citations of qualifying references of equal or greater merit, standing, and weight.

    Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are

    • Buddhism,
    • Taoism,
    • Ethical Culture,
    • Secular Humanism and others.

    See:

    • Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127;
    • Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394;
    • II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293;
    • 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id. at 797;
    • Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313;
    • 1961 World Almanac 695, 712;
    • Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.


    I cant imagine what more that you would want.

    If you can cite and provide stronger weighter merits than those provided above I will happily change it to 'must'.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2018
  24. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Secular humanism and atheism are not religions, but they are treated as religions FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW.

    Ethical culture is not a religion. Buddhism and Taoism both believe in supernatural agency.

    If you change your definition to say “must” instead of “may”, then it will work.

    If you are defining “religion” as a “core belief system”, then congratulations we’re back to political parties and street gangs being religions.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    core belief system is a short hand way of saying it, for brevity, the actual requirements are in the definition we created.

    When the question is: does the supreme court require belief in a supernatural God or agency to consider it a religion the answer is 'no' they do not.

    You need to cite an authoritative reference since this definition building is based on authoritative references not your opinion or desire. In other words everything used came from some cited authoritative source therefore to dispute it you need to cite an authoritative source. Cant put it much more simple than that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2018
  26. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Supreme Court only determines things are religions FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW, ie “can the government interfere in this or not?”

    Outside of the legal definitions used for government purposes, every single religion has a belief in supernatural agency.
     

Share This Page