A definition for religion?

[John Powell]

POWELL:
At the suggestion of Jaltus, I'm posting this question in the atheists-only forum. The following was posted in the Comparative Religions 101 section in a thread called "A definition for religion?".

JALTUS:
I was reading a book last night (yes, I can read, shut up WUC), and the author mentioned how certain Greek philosophers in the Stoics and Epicurians talked about religion. One of the philosophers talked about how death is the most important issue in religious life, for it then determines your demeanor in all things.

So, this gave rise to the idea that perhaps religion should just be defined as one's beliefs about death and the practical outworkings thereof.

What do you think, is that even a moderately viable definition for religion?


POWELL:
There are important questions that pretty much every person has asked themself such as "who am I relative to everything else?", "where did I come from?", and "what will happen when I die?"

I don't think either the questions or the answers are unique to religion, although religious philosophers tend to be especially willing to give the answers that their alleged "spiritual" source has inspired.

I think few, if any, atheists consider either atheism or "promoting naturalism" to be a "religion" in the sense that Christianity is usually considered a religion, although one might call any "cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" a religion.

I don't think the particular Greek philosopher that Jaltus mentioned considered adequately what a non-religious person might think about death.

I think it's good that Jaltus is thinking freely, not just accepting how others (i.e., dictionaries) have defined things.

So, what do the rest of you think of Jaltus' definition?

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

"Religion" is defined however we decide to define it. We definitely want a term that includes Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. We'd like to be able to construct coffee table books about "The Religions of the World."

The essential property that puts something into the category of "religion" is definitely up for debate.

One way of looking at the decision is association and disassociation. There are a lot of Christians today who actually want to define "religion" in a way that does not include themselves...simply because they don't want to be grouped with the likes of Islam and Hinduism. Atheists also often do not want to be included in the "religion" category...for them disassociation is important. On the other hand, both these kind of Christians and these kind of Atheists want to be associated with "freedom of religion" groupings.

Some try to draw the boundaries for "religion" more objectively by the inclusion of certain kind of beliefs, or certain moral systems, or certain ritual practises. "Religion" will always be a category with fuzz around the edges because properties that some people emphasize differ...and such properties are variably present and not present in candidate "religions." What you get is a Ven Diagram with many circles. Forms of Christianity and Islam are located under more overlaps than usual...atheistic forms of Buddhism are under fewer overlaps.

The case of "religion" is a good example of how words are arbitrary but conventional...and not always that conventional.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Thanks for the input.

Seasanctuary:
Forms of Christianity and Islam are located under more overlaps than usual...atheistic forms of Buddhism are under fewer overlaps.


POWELL:
Oops. That reminds me of a boo boo.

POWELL:
I think few, if any, atheists consider either atheism or "promoting naturalism" to be a "religion" in the sense that Christianity is usually considered a religion, although one might call any "cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" a religion.


POWELL:
I need to remember there are some special groups commonly considered "religions" that don't believe in a God. I was not thinking of them when I said that.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

A related question is the definition of "a faith." As far as I can tell, it's an attempt to describe a similar set as "religion" except that it's spelled differently and so people are free to push around its semantic boundaries in different ways.

[zorathruster]

Religion is referred to by Susan Blackmore as a Memeplex (The Meme Machine). There are many reinforcing components that create the complex grouping.

Socializing - getting together outside of the competative economic marketplace with people who have the same life issues you do and are experiencing similar problems gives a sense of commonality with the community.

Support - It is reassuring that someone cares enough to "pray for you" when you have difficulties. Obviously it doesn't do anything but reassure you of concern by others.

Membership in an exclusive club - We are all going to paradise, all those rascals are going to burn on a spit. We're ok, everyone else sucks.

Structure - Here is the hierarchy - God, Family, Nation, Community - Real easy decision making process that follows hierarchy.

Easy solutions to hard problems - don't worry about death, we're all going to heaven where we can sing 24 hours a day and float in the clouds.

Solution for guilt - don't worry about screw ups you have made, we are all forgiven and don't have to fret over those things.

genuine care from other people - once you are in the club, we love you and support you through trials and tribulations, need a dinner?

Singing and songs - where else do we get a chance to sing out loud except the shower and church. Personally it is good that the shower is so loud that it drowns out my voice.


Take these and many more aspects of religion and you find a large support structure that reinforces continued support by the membership of churches. My major tiff with the atheistic community is that there is no alternative organization to address these NEEDs of the human being. We evolved to desire all these social interfaces and structural supports. To deny that humans should want all this is ignorant of our basic human desires. Like saying, "hey I got a great idea - sex is no longer specifically for procreation it is normally recreation, if you can do without a rollercoaster ride, you should be able to do without sex. It's just a form of recreation too." Of course this is my wife's position on the issue but I am still working on her..... right after church!:teeth:

[DunnySaze]

So, this gave rise to the idea that perhaps religion should just be defined as one's beliefs about death and the practical outworkings thereof.

Interesting idea, but it seems overly broad to me. Since everyone has their own concepts about the practical outworkings, what death means to them particularly, doesn't that mean each individual then has his or her own religion? And without some central structure like a church or scripture (oral or written) then this diffusion will only continue. Plus, it ignores the second part of the equation, namely, beliefs about how we conduct ourselves while alive. And, since animals has a concept of death of sorts (in that they avoid it when possible), do they then have a religion of sorts as well?

[John Powell]

ZORATHRUSTER:
Religion is referred to by Susan Blackmore as a Memeplex (The Meme Machine). There are many reinforcing components that create the complex grouping. <snipped>


POWELL:
Thanks.

A similar, but weakened memeplex-like process would seem to apply to those outside of religion, such as those who believe in magic, pseudoscience, or true science.

ZORATHRUSTER:
My major tiff with the atheistic community is that there is no alternative organization to address these NEEDs of the human being. We evolved to desire all these social interfaces and structural supports. To deny that humans should want all this is ignorant of our basic human desires. <snipped>


POWELL:
Good point. Apparently, the non-theist community needs to provide a better replacement for the social aspects of religion. Perhaps they hope that with the movement of people out of the churches then more such opportunities will become available. Singing in church is one of the things I miss.

ZORATHRUSTER:
Like saying, "hey I got a great idea - sex is no longer specifically for procreation it is normally recreation, if you can do without a rollercoaster ride, you should be able to do without sex. It's just a form of recreation too." Of course this is my wife's position on the issue but I am still working on her..... right after church!:teeth:


POWELL:
Women need to realize that for men, sex is more like a need such as eating and sleeping than mere recreation. If a woman expects her mate to continue to express his love for her then she should continue having sex with him. As my mother said, "Men give love to get sex. Women give sex to get love."

John Powell

[John Powell]

JALTUS:
So, this gave rise to the idea that perhaps religion should just be defined as one's beliefs about death and the practical outworkings thereof.


DunnySaze:
Interesting idea, but it seems overly broad to me. Since everyone has their own concepts about the practical outworkings, what death means to them particularly, doesn't that mean each individual then has his or her own religion?


POWELL:
Perhaps. That's not a conclusion that I would favor, so I would question Jaltus' suggestion.

DunnySaze:
And without some central structure like a church or scripture (oral or written) then this diffusion will only continue. Plus, it ignores the second part of the equation, namely, beliefs about how we conduct ourselves while alive. And, since animals has a concept of death of sorts (in that they avoid it when possible), do they then have a religion of sorts as well?


POWELL:
Good question. I would be inclined to accept that animals had a sort of religion if there were good evidence that they believed in some kind of God, but I wouldn't be so persuaded merely because they had a way for dealing with death. Elephants, for example, sometimes visit the bones of their dead.

John Powell

[DunnySaze]

POWELL:Good question. I would be inclined to accept that animals had a sort of religion if there were good evidence that they believed in some kind of God, but I wouldn't be so persuaded merely because they had a way for dealing with death. Elephants, for example, sometimes visit the bones of their dead.

John Powell

Yes, elephants do seem to have some sort of connection to their departed fellow elephants, sometimes protecting the carcass from scavangers, or returning to it as it skeletonizes and manipulating the bones. Whether this shows any serious contemplation of what happens to them after death is debatable.

I just find the definition as presented a bit too nebulous. To me religion also encompasses some kind of philosophy about life, a system of ritual, and a belief or disbelief in a deity or deities. Granted, finding a definition that's broad enough to include all recognized religions without catching things we don't generally recognize as religions is not simple task.