Is Having a Religion a Sin To Rationalists??

[Riverwolf]

Having a ritual or not is a side issue. It is neither necessary or sufficient to qualify a belief system as a religion.

Religion surely is a "sin" to rationalist - Maybe not a cardinal, deadly type sin. It's a lesser sin equivalent to what Catholics think about masturbation.

Ritual is one of the defining aspects of religion, actually. In my studies and meditations, I've determined that religion (that is, the concept that we generally think of and reference with the word) is primarily made up of three things: ritual, mythology, and philosophy. They all work together, influencing and deriving from each other, and exist on a cultural (rather than an individual) level.

I don't think any of that is inherently contrary to rationalism.

I think many types of religion (such as Abrahamic ones) can be regarded as a sort of "sin" to rationalists, and that some of these rationalists might regard those types of religion as the only type, but I'd chalk that up to faulty knowledge or understanding (perhaps deriving from modern anti-religious propaganda about what religion is and its relationship to humanity and history).

 

[Uberpod]

Ritual is one of the defining aspects of religion, actually.

So, people with certain forms of OCD are engaging in religion?

In my studies and meditations, I've determined that religion (that is, the concept that we generally think of and reference with the word) is primarily made up of three things: ritual, mythology, and philosophy. They all work together, influencing and deriving from each other, and exist on a cultural (rather than an individual) level.

Will you be my guru?

I don't think any of that is inherently contrary to rationalism.

What about taking the myths as literal? Is that rational?

I think many types of religion (such as Abrahamic ones) can be regarded as a sort of "sin" to rationalists, and that some of these rationalists might regard those types of religion as the only type, but I'd chalk that up to faulty knowledge or understanding (perhaps deriving from modern anti-religious propaganda about what religion is and its relationship to humanity and history).

I still think faith in God stuff or other supernatural elements is the essential ingredient, but I will meditate on that.

 

[Riverwolf]

So, people with certain forms of OCD are engaging in religion?

Since when has a defining aspect of something been its SOLE defining aspect?

Will you be my guru?

Not qualified.

What about taking the myths as literal? Is that rational?

I said inherently for a reason. I don't consider intellectual elitism to be rational at all, despite rationality being so stressed by it.

I still think faith in God stuff or other supernatural elements is the essential ingredient, but I will meditate on that.

If it were the essential ingredient, then there'd be no such thing as atheistic or agnostic religions. As it stands, they do exist. Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Daoism, even certain forms of Paganism and Hinduism. To say nothing of fringe religions that only exist in local areas.

Therefore, it's not an essential ingredient.

 

[Uberpod]

Since when has a defining aspect of something been its SOLE defining aspect?

I am simply supporting the idea that ritual is nether necessary or sufficient in the definition. Two religions where you would have to strain to find ritual are Ayyavazh and Quakerism. Also, many persons in mainstream religions forego the rituals but maintain that they are to some degree religious.

I said inherently for a reason. I don't consider intellectual elitism to be rational at all, despite rationality being so stressed by it.

I will have to analyze that for a while.

If it were the essential ingredient, then there'd be no such thing as atheistic or agnostic religions. As it stands, they do exist. Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Daoism, even certain forms of Paganism and Hinduism. To say nothing of fringe religions that only exist in local areas.

Therefore, it's not an essential ingredient.

Those all seem to have supernatural or mystical elements. Otherwise, I would just call them philosophies.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am simply supporting the idea that ritual is nether necessary or sufficient in the definition. Two religions where you would have to strain to find ritual are Ayyavazh and Quakerism. Also, many persons in mainstream religions forego the rituals but maintain that they are to some degree religious.

Lack of sufficiency does not mean lack of presence. It's a defining aspect, but on its own insufficient in that definition. Hence the other two defining aspects of myth and philosophy.

Those all seem to have supernatural or mystical elements. Otherwise, I would just call them philosophies.

They're accepted as religions, regardless of whether they have supernatural or mystical elements or not. Many aspects of Buddhism, for example, have supernatural elements, but others do not. The Buddha, in fact, encouraged his followers to question and test his teachings, and discard what didn't hold up.

Myth is the culturally unifying story. Ritual recreates and applies the myth. Philosophy interprets the myth. Supernatural/mystical elements are often present, but not essential.

 

[LuisDantas]

Short answer: Yes.

Of course rationalists would not word the belief in this fashion as they reject the notion of sin. Having a religion at this point in history is at best a major mistake, insult, or/and faux pas. Logic and empiricism bear fruit, faith only caters to the lower reptilian regions of our brains and adds nothing. I will say more, but I would rather listen for now.


re·li·gion /rəˈlijən/ noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

I find that definition hard to support. It is kind of primitive and fails to see the point of religion, IMO.

 

[Riverwolf]

I find that definition hard to support. It is kind of primitive and fails to see the point of religion, IMO.

I find that dictionary definitions can be useful in recording how words are used, but I've come to learn that the bulk of definitions are, in many cases, the personal definitions of the people who submit them.

 

[joshua3886]

Reptilian? Don't tell me you're one of those people who believes in the lizard people.