Definition of Religion

[creature386]

Apart from the bad definition of God, there also seems to be a bad definition of religion. At least scholars still debate:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Definitions
To some, it should be pretty obvious what religion is, but I still find it important to summarize the opinions.

I would say there are around of three types of definition:

1. The traditional religious people: People are religious if they are members of organized religions. Therefore religious people are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and ect.
The broader version of this religion would include theists, people following older religions (Nordic, Egypt or Greek/Roman) and people following not really serious religions. There are people who are like "I came to the conclusion that there has to be a God. Everyone can choose his own God, I choose the Flying Spaghetti Monster!". Even though this view sounds more omnistic, but I still classified it as one, as a God has been picked.

2. Belief in a God is enough: This definition includes even people who believe in a God which isn't considered as a God by many. Some have a broad definition of God, without including the believers as religious. Such believers include deists, pantheists or omnists.

3. Anything that is similar to a religion (and philosophies) is a religion: By far the most radical definition. To people who follow such a definition, it doesn't matter if you believe in a God, but how you live. This wouldn't just mean you are a Christian even if you go to church and celebrate Christmas without believing in God, but it would for example mean that communists and social-darwinists (because both are philosophies/worldviews) also are religious or the people who treat their dictators like Gods. My ethics book is even more radical. To it "Second Life" (where people spend all day with Internet and video games, searching for a "virtual identity"), diatribes and football/soccer (given how radical -my favorite word in this section!- football fans can be) are also religion. The book had some interesting viewpoints, for example if skyscrapers are religious symbols for supporters of market economy. One could also ask if landmarks are religious symbols for patriots. I actually believe this definition is the most interesting. It would change the statement "Humans don't need religion" in some way because you have to understand that some of your interests maybe serve the same purpose for you as religion does for others.

Thoughts?

[Fragillimus335]

The participation or the belief in a force that is currently unobservable, unfalsifiable, and untestable in the natural world.

[coherentsheaf]

I use the definition:
Religion: A set of traditions and practices that are set out to connect the person to a transcendent reality, which to the person is ontologically fundamental.

I believe this definition is superior to each definition proposed here as is captures most senses people use the word religion (i.e. Buddism is a religion by this concept and it excludes philosophical views like Deism.)

[creature386]

I know your definition very well. What I meant is that it is not clear what religion should include and it is not clear if Deism should be included. The definitions you two provided are connected to the first one, as this only goes for what is counted as religion in official statistics and (if broadened) would include things like Deism. I find the last one interesting because it deals with the question if there can be alternatives to religion and the reason why people even have religions.

[coherentsheaf]

I think an abstract philosophical position like Deism cannot be properly called religion. It is only an affirmative believe in a super natural ad in most cases timeless person that is all powerful. This has no immediate further implications and even given such a proposition I would not know how I would change my life because of it. I would not have any substantial shifts in behavior. In case of religions like Christianity being true it would have profound implication in many scientific enterprises ad would change my behavior substantially. I think this difference (an otherwise nonreligious deist behaving the same way as an atheist) makes a very reasonable distinction between religion and abstract philosophical positions.

Regarding the third defiitions: "The book had some interesting viewpoints, for example if skyscrapers are religious symbols for supporters of market economy." This seems to be nothing more than a subversion of terminology. I know a lot of bankers and I do not thinkthey even think about skyscrapers at all. This just the place they go to work and there literally nothing religious in even the widest sense about it.
Similarily "It would change the statement "Humans don't need religion" in some way because you have to understand that some of your interests maybe serve the same purpose for you as religion does for others." seems to be a perfect example why this definition is useless: If every human affiliation can be interpreted as religious then the word religious has no descriptive power at all. Saying something to be religious would be almost meaningless if this definition is in place.

[creature386]

I think you generalize a bit too much. As for the third, I only meant it when things become radical. What someones job is has nothing to do with that. But for example if there is some pro market economy propaganda (just to make something clear, I completely support market economy, so sorry for the wording), it can very well get some religious undertone with its symbols.
I know that some of the examples are pretty dumb, but I used the would subjunctive, so it doesn't mean I agree everything I have listed. A better example would be dictatorships (that doesn't mean that definition three is only for dictatorships, I just want to give a good example where something that is no religion can be very similar to it) where you can't deny that they have a lot of religious undertone and some can consider stuff like nationalism or extreme socialism as religion replacement.
As for the purpose to the life, I haven't meant any interest. Hence maybe, sorry for being so imprecise. There are examples when interests can become replacement religions:
www.hackwriters.com/footyjj.htm
This author doesn't think that football is a religion, but he admits that it come close and some broader definitions could accept it.
The reason why I picked it is because it lists many parallels between football (or soccer) and religion:

But is football anything like a religion itself? Fans worship every weekend in venues where they engage in communal singing. Heroes are praised with chants of 'We're not worthy'. Rival fans are very intolerant of each other, just as followers of different faiths can be, and conflict often erupts.[…] Both religion and football require obedience to particular rules, codes of conduct that must not be broken. Whether it's the Ten Commandments or the requirement to hate Celtic if you're a Rangers fan. Football does dominate the lives of many. Millions live for the teams they support; they will go great lengths to avoid missing a match, to catch the latest scores or team news.

Characteristics:
-Worshipping
-Praising heroes
-Commitment to it
To him, it is no religion, you can read the text to see why. I very well know that, I just wanted to explain my statement of interests as replacement religion. Admittedly, I should have been more precise there.

[coherentsheaf]

May 9, 2014 0:37:06 GMT 5 creature386 said:

I think you generalize a bit too much. As for the third, I only meant it when things become radical. What someones job is has nothing to do with that. But for example if there is some pro market economy propaganda (just to make something clear, I completely support market economy, so sorry for the wording), it can very well get some religious undertone with its symbols.
I know that some of the examples are pretty dumb, but I used the would subjunctive, so it doesn't mean I agree everything I have listed. A better example would be dictatorships (that doesn't mean that definition three is only for dictatorships, I just want to give a good example where something that is no religion can be very similar to it) where you can't deny that they have a lot of religious undertone and some can consider stuff like nationalism or extreme socialism as religion replacement.
As for the purpose to the life, I wrote maybe, so I haven't meant any interest. There are examples when interests can become replacement religions:
www.hackwriters.com/footyjj.htm
This author doesn't think that football is a religion, but he admits that it come close and some broader definitions could accept it.

Could you point to an example where I generalize too much?

Also even with market ideology people who mostly are capitalists (e.g. people who work in banks) I do not see what specific instances of their behavior should be called religious. It can be ideological, or wrong but religious? I just do not see it. Even worship seems to have secular application. If someone worships Ayn Rand this does not men he thinks she is a god. It just means he worships her. I also strongly disagree that soccer is a religion. It is something people are interested in with a passion, but calling all such areas of affiliation religion just makes the term meaningless.

[creature386]

It could be because of my wrong wording, but I have said the generalizing thing because you assumed I mean every interest. This was not meant in any derogatory way. The lack of a God is something I have acknowledged (see what I wrote about why that author doesn't think it is a religion), some could accept it some not. The reason for that is simply because 3 is completely about how the lifestyle of that person is and not his spiritual beliefs. Similar to how the second definition is only about beliefs and not about lifestyle. The first one includes both (spiritual beliefs and lifestyle).
Personally, I am not too pleased with a that broad definition either, but everything I was doing was anyway introducing and explaining it.

[coherentsheaf]

May 9, 2014 1:03:25 GMT 5 creature386 said:

It could be because of my wrong wording, but I have said the generalizing thing because you assumed I mean every interest. This was not meant in any derogatory way. The lack of a God is something I have acknowledged (see what I wrote about why that author doesn't think it is a religion), some could accept it some not. The reason for that is simply because 3 is completely about how the lifestyle of that person is and not his spiritual beliefs. Similar to how the second definition is only about beliefs and not about lifestyle. The first one includes both (spiritual beliefs and lifestyle).
Personally, I am not too pleased with a that broad definition either, but everything I was doing was anyway introducing and explaining it.

I understand that you just laid out the definition. I attacked the definition, not you. I believe it to be postmoder drivel, where words that should be clearly constrained are broadened.

[creature386]

OK.
My own would maybe be somewhere between one and two or the broader version of one. I sometimes use three in everyday language language though (you know, when you say things which you don't exactly mean like that), but this is not relevant here.

[creature386]

No idea if this belongs here, but do you believe a religion can be a race (*cough* zionism *cough*)?

[coherentsheaf]

Jun 16, 2014 22:03:02 GMT 5 creature386 said:

No idea if this belongs here, but do you believe a religion can be a race (*cough* zionism *cough*)?

Obviously not.

[creature386]

To bump this thread again, have you ever seen one of those fundies who claim "Christianity is not a religion, but a personal relationship with God" and "Atheism is a religion"?

I find this so ironic, particularly when remembering that there is even a Bible verse that calls Christianity a religion…

[coherentsheaf]

Well, they are wrong

Though there can be atheistic religions.

[creature386]

This was not really a question if they are right of wrong, I just needed this to write this because the bashing fever caught me.

But regarding these atheistic religions, I don't think they'd ever regard themselves as atheists, so this statement is maybe a bit problematic.