Definition of Religion

[Wasted Sapience]

Religion: A political and/or cultural movement using metaphysical claims to support enforcing others' thinking and behavior in the here and now.

Is there a better way to define it?

[premjan]

Claimed metaphysical authority.

[xunzian]

That works if you think that almost any ideological system is a religion. I'm not so sure that is satisfactory.

Supernatural might be a better term than metaphysical.

[premjan]

Buddhism then becomes a non-religion.

[joedad]

Religion is ritualized, shared superstition.

[Elijah]

My rough definition is religion is an attempt to answer the big questions.

Who are we?
Where did we come from or going?
Why are we here?
What created this?
How did it happen?

The questions all kids ask that we have no answers for.

[seebs]

An interesting question!

I tend to think of it in terms of a collection of criteria; most religions will have several of them, but I'm not sure there's any that are absolutely inevitable. There are non-supernaturalist systems which seem to serve all the functions of a religion. I tend to agree with Elijah's analysis; it's the attempt to answer the big questions, not the specifics of the answers, that make something act like a religion.

[WWJD4aKlondikeBar]

Buddhism then becomes a non-religion.As it should be! Buddha did not want worshippers.

stupid -> :notworthy:

[whichphilosophy]

Religion: A political and/or cultural movement using metaphysical claims to support enforcing others' thinking and behavior in the here and now.

Is there a better way to define it?

What you have given is not the definition of religion. A religion does not necessarily enforce beliefs for something that is subjective and something metaphysical does not have to be religious.

The laws of countries differ as to what qualifies something to be a religion.

We can say that aside from rites and rituals Religion or non religious philosopy is a set of beliefs appertaining to the causes, character, layout and purpose of the universe, taking int account our interactions and relationships with these factors. In this there will be many subjective opinions.

In this an Atheist and Theist/Deist doing research will be on the same track.

The Theist/Deist will believe the cause is live, the Atheist will not believe or state he/she has no reason to concur the cause is alive.

While the American Heritage will say often that religion often involves the moral code governing human affairs, so will any legal system based on law or otherwise.

China's laws on such moral codes are defined in statute and in many ways not unlike our own.

As for the best way to describe religion, that is a contraversy in itself as there are disputes as to the precise definition of religion.

[whichphilosophy]

Religion is ritualized, shared superstition.

No, but some religions may involve rites rituals and even shared superstition.

[whichphilosophy]

My rough definition is religion is an attempt to answer the big questions.

Who are we?
Where did we come from or going?
Why are we here?
What created this?
How did it happen?

The questions all kids ask that we have no answers for.

An Atheist and a Theist/Deist may ask the same questions. Their beliefs however may differ.

[RareBird]

Religion - A ritualized culture which unscientifically draws upon the lengend and lore of the past to glean archetypical instruction on how to act in the present. (According to me.)

[Elijah]

An Atheist and a Theist/Deist may ask the same questions. Their beliefs however may differ.

Not sure your point. Everyone asks these questions regardless of labels and everyone comes up with different answerers which explains why we have sooooooo many different ideas about just what is going on here.

[Wasted Sapience]

My rough definition is religion is an attempt to answer the big questions.

Who are we?

I'm Wasted Sapience and you're Elijah. We're Homo sapien sapiens. The people who gave humans that name must have done so long before homo meant that other thing...

Where did we come from

How far back do you want me to go on that one?

or going?

How far ahead?

Why are we here?

False question. We're just here. You can create the why for yourself, in fact you'd have to for there to be one. Talk to an existentialist.

What created this?

If by "this" you mean the universe, nothing. As far as we can tell. The universe is the result of natural, observable phenomena.

How did it happen?

Natural phenomena. Expansion of a hot, dense point in the universe, supernova, chemical reactions, changes in the gene pool. That's all for the E/C and Science forums.

The questions all kids ask that we have no answers for.

There are lots of answers to those.

[Wasted Sapience]

What you have given is not the definition of religion. A religion does not necessarily enforce beliefs for something that is subjective and something metaphysical does not have to be religious.

The laws of countries differ as to what qualifies something to be a religion.

We can say that aside from rites and rituals Religion or non religious philosopy is a set of beliefs appertaining to the causes, character, layout and purpose of the universe, taking int account our interactions and relationships with these factors. In this there will be many subjective opinions.

In this an Atheist and Theist/Deist doing research will be on the same track.

The Theist/Deist will believe the cause is live, the Atheist will not believe or state he/she has no reason to concur the cause is alive.

While the American Heritage will say often that religion often involves the moral code governing human affairs, so will any legal system based on law or otherwise.

China's laws on such moral codes are defined in statute and in many ways not unlike our own.

As for the best way to describe religion, that is a contraversy in itself as there are disputes as to the precise definition of religion.

By enforcing I didn't mean necessarily mean legally forcing people to do anything. But we can still be "forced" by the religious via widespread social attitudes.

[naturalist.atheist]

My rough definition is religion is an attempt to answer the big questions.

Who are we?
Where did we come from or going?
Why are we here?
What created this?
How did it happen?

The questions all kids ask that we have no answers for.

It is that but with a criteria of preference for answers that make you feel good.

It is also more than that.

I would add to that:

1) system of guidance
2) community of ritual
3) community of social interdependence
4) tradition of morality by providing examples of social exemplars and other tales
5) canned coping strategies for common fears and problems like death, abuse, panic, family responsibility and more. Most of the time the solutions are obtained in a similar way to the magic eight ball (praying with the bible).

[Elijah]

Wasted, those aren't the type of answers that are going to really explain anything. You'll have to go a little deeper then that.

Science can talk big bang and genetics but that's just part of the process not the reasoning behind it or us. If you believe in no reason or no purpose... nothing as you say started this then your answer to everything is nothing. Your religion is nothing, your god is nothing. Not the good kind of non being nothing either, just the lame simple kind. That's fine whatever works for you.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Ol Albert E

[naturalist.atheist]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Ol Albert E

Einstein should have stuck with what he knew. He never claimed to be an expert in the human condition. And even as a scientist there were some things that he thought and did that were questionable.

[naturalist.atheist]

Wasted, those aren't the type of answers that are going to really explain anything. You'll have to go a little deeper then that.

Science can talk big bang and genetics but that's just part of the process not the reasoning behind it or us. If you believe in no reason or no purpose... nothing as you say started this then your answer to everything is nothing. Your religion is nothing, your god is nothing. Not the good kind of non being nothing either, just the lame simple kind. That's fine whatever works for you.


That is nonsense. If it happens in reality then science can investigate it, and try to explain it. And if actual science is done I will guarantee that its explanations will certainly work a whole lot better on things that are real than anything that supernaturalism can dish up. And people are real.

[Elijah]

That is nonsense. If it happens in reality then science can investigate it, and try to explain it. And if actual science is done I will guarantee that its explanations will certainly work a whole lot better on things that are real than anything that supernaturalism can dish up. And people are real.

In regards to your first post. Thanks for the response but I don’t agree with any of your points. Religions can be lots of those things or none of them and many don’t try to make you feel good but instead control you with guilt. I think you’re thinking in strictly gentile terms when it comes to religion.

Science can only investigate things that are happening/changing in the present. They can’t investigate anything from the past or anything that is constant. It can make theories based on evidence it sees in the now about the past, but it can’t know for sure. It can make theories based on the constant laws that dictate the motion of the universe, but it’s all just theory. Anything prior to the singularity is super made up, no one can know.

Einstein was the man.

[Hex]

Though ungainly, this Anthropological definition seems to work well enough for me ...

Organized beliefs in the supernatural that rationalize rituals aimed at interpreting and controlling aspects of the universe otherwise beyond human control through systematic patterns of beliefs, values, and behavior, acquired by man as a member of his society.

[naturalist.atheist]

In regards to your first post. Thanks for the response but I don’t agree with any of your points. Religions can be lots of those things or none of them and many don’t try to make you feel good but instead control you with guilt. I think you’re thinking in strictly gentile terms when it comes to religion.

Some people do not feel good unless they feel guilty. Sometimes people hit themselves in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when it stops. It sounds stupid but stupid is as stupid does.

As for the list of things I added I think that many of them are crucial. Because in the end most people really don't understand much of anything. If you want to keep their butts in the seats you have to give them more than some lame explanation of reality.

Science can only investigate things that are happening/changing in the present. They can’t investigate anything from the past or anything that is constant. It can make theories based on evidence it sees in the now about the past, but it can’t know for sure. It can make theories based on the constant laws that dictate the motion of the universe, but it’s all just theory. Anything prior to the singularity is super made up, no one can know.

Science investigates things in the past all the time. The big bang is nothing if it is not the ultimate past event.

Einstein was the man.

He was a genius, I'll give you that, but being a genius in physics usually doesn't translate well to anything else. Dirac was also a genius but he had the good sense to keep his mouth shut when it came to things other than physics, not that he ever said all that much anyway.

[Elijah]

Some people do not feel good unless they feel guilty. Sometimes people hit themselves in the head with a hammer because it feels so good when it stops. It sounds stupid but stupid is as stupid does.
As for the list of things I added I think that many of them are crucial. Because in the end most people most really don't understand much of anything. If you want to keep their butts in the seats you have to give them more than some lame explanation of reality.
Science investigates things in the past all the time. The big bang is nothing if it is not the ultimate past event.

Man if scientists have time travel down I really really need to catch up on some literature. But seriously Science only investigates in the now because we only exist in the now. We theorize about the past and speculate about the future.

I think you have a shallow understanding of religion. Maybe you’re too focused on the organized religion and the church aspect of it. Don’t miss the forest thru the trees, or something like that.

[naturalist.atheist]

Man if scientists have time travel down I really really need to catch up on some literature. But seriously Science only investigates in the now because we only exist in the now. We theorize about the past and speculate about the future.

It would help to know about science if you feel competent to comment on it.

I can look back at least 3 million years with my naked eyes (well I need to wear glasses). I do it all the time. It is easy. And I do not use magical glasses.

I think you have a shallow understanding of religion. Maybe you’re too focused on the organized religion and the church aspect of it. Don’t miss the forest thru the trees, or something like that.

Nahhh, I just don't care about strawman religion. Only childish atheists concern themselves with such things.

Actual religions are something entirely different.

[Sarpedon]

A religion is a large, socially acceptable cult.

[Wasted Sapience]

Science can talk big bang and genetics but that's just part of the process not the reasoning behind it or us. If you believe in no reason or no purpose... nothing as you say started this then your answer to everything is nothing. Your religion is nothing, your god is nothing. Not the good kind of non being nothing either, just the lame simple kind. That's fine whatever works for you.



Thanks for telling me what I believe. I didn't know you knew so much about me. While you're in my head, could you help me learn to read Java coding?

What your talking about is nihilism. Nihilism can be overcome by existentialism. The universe didn't give us any meaning, just bodies and an environment to live in, but we're fully able to create meaning for ourselves. It's just that 95% of humanity would rather have their meaning given to them by their cultural Flying Spaghetti Moster.

Religion is a political and cultural movement. If religion were any of the ideal forms it's spouted to be, we'd be living in a different place.

[naturalist.atheist]

If religion were any of the ideal forms it's spouted to be, we'd be living in a different place.

Maybe, but as it actually exists close to my place, it sometimes makes me want to move to a different place.

[Elijah]

It would help to know about science if you feel competent to comment on it.
I can look back at least 3 million years with my naked eyes (well I need to wear glasses). I do it all the time. It is easy. And I do not use magical glasses.

Nahhh, I just don't care about strawman religion. Only childish atheists concern themselves with such things.
Actual religions are something entirely different.

I assume you’re talking about light traveling from a distant star. Yawn. Get serious. You're not looking into the past you're receiving a particle/wave of light that left a distant star millions of years ago.

Look past the straw men dude. Take your time with it… think for yourself.

[naturalist.atheist]

I assume you’re talking about light traveling from a distant star. Yawn. Get serious. You're not looking into the past you're receiving a particle/wave of light that left a distant star millions of years ago.

With each post you reveal that you know less and less about the actual universe and what can be known about it.

Look past the straw men dude. Take your time with it… think for yourself.

What you mean to say is that you want to do my thinking for me. But I will pass, because you do not appear to think all that well.

[Elijah]

With each post you reveal that you know less and less about the actual universe and what can be known about it.

What you mean to say is that you want to do my thinking for me. But I will pass, because you do not appear to think all that well.

I believe in the forms behind the universe. Sorry. Some people just believe just in what they see... the light on the cave wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave

This board is full of conformists that can't think beyond what the majority thinks. You sound like one. That's why I said think for yourself.

[Wasted Sapience]

I believe in the forms behind the universe. Sorry. Some people just believe just in what they see... the light on the cave wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave

This board is full of conformists that can't think beyond what the majority thinks. You sound like one. That's why I said think for yourself.

Yeah, I just read about Plato's cavepeople the other day. Some people might think the shadows were real entities themselves, while the scientific people would start to question that, and wonder if something was blocking all of the light as it was going to the wall. Cause and effect.

[naturalist.atheist]

I believe in the forms behind the universe. Sorry. Some people just believe just in what they see... the light on the cave wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave

This board is full of conformists that can't think beyond what the majority thinks. You sound like one. That's why I said think for yourself.

I am sure you "believe" that. But there is a better way. Just go look. Don't read what Plato thought about reality, go look for yourself. The universe is far grander and more interesting than Plato could ever have imagined. Frankly if he were alive today he would probably think that people that clung to his two plus millenia old ideas needed to get out more.

[Elijah]

I am sure you "believe" that. But there is a better way. Just go look. Don't read what Plato thought about reality, go look for yourself. The universe is far grander and more interesting than Plato could ever have imagined. Frankly if he were alive today he would probably think that people that clung to his two plus millenia old ideas needed to get out more.

Plato isn't my only source but he is the earliest clearest example of someone who saw the underlying aspects of the universe. He's my man. It blows my mind he was talking that stuff so long ago. Heisenberg had a version forms/numbers as a basis of the universe as well.

Just depends on how you model your universe and how you conceptualize your perception of it. Most never question consciousness or how the universe or time and space really work... worse they don't even try to come up with answers. They figure it's in a book somewhere and that someone else has already got that stuff covered.

[naturalist.atheist]

Plato isn't my only source but he is the earliest clearest example of someone who saw the underlying aspects of the universe. He's my man. It blows my mind he was talking that stuff so long ago. Heisenberg had a version forms/numbers as a basis of the universe as well.

I suppose it does blow your mind and that reveals a great deal. But you must also know that there are at least twelve different interpretations of quantum mechanics. With one of the top contenders from Feynman - 'Shutup and calculate.'

Just depends on how you model your universe and how you conceptualize your perception of it. Most never question consciousness or how the universe or time and space really work... worse they don't even try to come up with answers. They figure it's in a book somewhere and that someone else has already got that stuff covered.

Of course it depends on the model of the universe. But that doesn't mean that a 2,500 year old model is the one to settle on. Too much has been learned since then. And the reason why the models have changed is because there were people that didn't accept the status quo, they went out and looked. And saw that those models were not right in places. And it was these discoveries that lead to an entirely new set of startling models of reality.

But to presume that we know everything there is to know and thus we can lay back and relax because now we are know-it-alls is just silly.

But I have often found that the philosophy finds the person it matches best. And you have not disappointed me.

[Elijah]

I suppose it does blow your mind and that reveals a great deal. But you must also know that there are at least twelve different interpretations of quantum mechanics. With one of the top contenders from Feynman - 'Shutup and calculate.'
Of course it depends on the model of the universe. But that doesn't mean that a 2,500 year old model is the one to settle on. Too much has been learned since then. And the reason why the models have changed is because there were people that didn't accept the status quo, they went out and looked. And saw that those models were not right in places. And it was these discoveries that lead to an entirely new set of startling models of reality.
But to presume that we know everything there is to know and thus we can lay back and relax because now we are know-it-alls is just silly.
But I have often found that the philosophy finds the person it matches best. And you have not disappointed me.

I was only illustrating that platonic thinking is still being discussed. How many different interpretations of quantum mechanics is totally irrelevant.

I’m just going to assume you’re unfamiliar with Plato.

[naturalist.atheist]

I was only illustrating that platonic thinking is still being discussed. How many different interpretations of quantum mechanics is totally irrelevant.

I’m just going to assume you’re unfamiliar with Plato.

All of history both written and unwritten is being discussed. And I am familiar with Plato and his forms. He is singularly responsible for sending philosophy down a 2,500 year old dead end.

That was then. This is now. Times change. Hopefully we have learned a thing or two since then. If you are stuck on Plato then you have a lot of catching up to do.