Let's define Religion.

[mikkel_the_dane]

That any belief is the result of the factors you mention is not at issue. Of human beliefs, one can distinguish similarities and group them accordingly. One can recognize different political beliefs and label them as political and create a myriad of subcategories of political beliefs.

In the same way, one can recognize some sets of belief as similar to each other and distinct from others and label them Religion.

Yes, we just do the labeling slightly differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How are the criteria for any category determined. What determines Apple, or determines Dog, or determines ocean?

Categories can be useful. I don't see the concept being abandoned anytime soon.

We just do determining slightly differently.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've been told that Religion cannot be defined, or at the very least, any attempt will be so inadequate as to make the definition useless.

The above problem is true if you define religion as a set of beliefs, because they are far more than beliefs and often don't require shared beliefs. Its like saying "All fruits are apples." Saying religion is a set of beliefs is mostly a Christian fundamentalist local idea based on preaching the belief is everything, which in the first place denies that other legitimate religions exist. Of course that definition is not going to be useful for tagging religions. Its got no ability to distinguish religions in general. That's why I'm saying you can't define religions as sets of beliefs. Belief is either a commitment or a behavior, and all religions have commitments or behaviors or both.

Words evolve and change over time. Words can also be used in a variety of creative ways, through figures of speech, etc. Religiously cleaning and religiously exercising are figures of speech, not religions.

Yes, the label ‘religion’ has been inherited from other uses. The label is not what is important. What is important is that we see a variety of belief sets that seem to share certain characteristics. What are the characteristics that are shared, if any. I would argue that my definition presents characteristics that are shared by belief sets that are considered a religion.

No, I don't think its that way with the word 'Religion'. No one can master understanding all religions. We only need a way to distinguish, to group people, to label and to have enough places on the shelf to begin to study the different things. We can't just know what a religion is from its name. Religions are personal and require personal experience. If we try to say all religions are about faith we simply exclude what can be religion.

A tag or label requires a meaning to be associated with it, otherwise it is simply a meaningless group of symbols.

I think beliefs alone are not, are not enough, do not provide enough meaning. All religions have behaviors and some have commitments, and these are enough to distinguish between different religions. Better to say what people do: "Go to church, pay tithes and believe this or that." than to reduce it all to "They believe thusly." Belief doesn't begin to describe all religions. It describes several. Its not a good definition for religion, unless you want to limit what a religion can be to merely a few religions. Then it becomes a useless (or very imprecise) word for studying religions. No, its not meaningful that way.

When you say Zen, do you mean the physical practices disassociated from Buddhism or are you referring to Zen Buddhism? If you are simply referring to Zen practice devoid of any belief about the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos, then it would not be a religion, by definition. Perhaps it would be considered a Health and Wellness practice.

As for the warrior religion, if the goals you describe are part of a set of beliefs that include explanations for the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos, say in Norse Mythology, then it would be a religion. If the goals are not associated with any of that, then it would not be a religion, it would be better described as a warrior code or warrior ethos.

And last, I would in no way consider the Mason’s or the Rotarian Club to be a religion. I cannot see any consensus for the idea that commitment can be the sole criteria by which to define religion.

Zen Buddhism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The criteria of being structured and communal may feel like a necessary criteria for some religions, but how religion is practiced can vary. If we are trying to distill down to what is common, what is shared, this would not seem to qualify in my mind.

Criteria that are shared by some but not all religions would support the formation of subcategories of religion.

I would expect to find an element of custom and practice in anything that qualifies as a religion. A set of shared beliefs alone does not, imo, constitute a religion.

It’s common nowadays to hear people describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. I generally assume this to mean they hold some beliefs common to religious people, but do not engage in communal practice nor identify with any institution, it’s rituals or it’s obligations.

 

[Augustus]

To say that not all religions carry some set of beliefs does not seem logical to me. Certainly to consider something to have value one must believe something about it.

You state that not all religions hold their beliefs as being true and that would be something to explore. If the beliefs are not held to be true then perhaps the beliefs are not a religion or religious, by definition.

And here again, if the beliefs do not require faith, then perhaps the set of beliefs do not constitute religion, by definition.

And to your last point, the definition I provided does not require entities that are not bound by physical laws, simply that the belief system has elements that operate outside the bounds of physical laws. If this criteria is not met, then perhaps it is not a religion, by definition.

As to your point about the concept of secular not being common to most historical societies simply means that secular status would not be one of the criteria we would use to define religion. Again, the focus is on what they share, not all the many ways in which they are different. And really, differences that are shared simply provide opportunity to create subcategories of Religion.

If you are interested in an in depth discussion of the problems of defining religion, I'd recommend The myth of religious violence by William Cavanaugh which has a long chapter devoted to it. The idea of religion in the modern sense is mostly Western and modern:

A history of the term religion makes [the assumption that religion reflects a constant in human nature] deeply problematic. Ancient languages have no word that approximates what modern English speakers mean by religion; Wilfred Cantwell Smith cites the scholarly consensus that neither the Greeks nor the Egyptians had any equivalent term for religion, and he adds that a similar negative conclusion is found for the Aztecs and the ancient civilizations of India, China, and Japan.9 The word is derived from the ancient Latin word religio, but religio was only one of a constellation of terms surrounding social obligations in ancient Rome, and when used it signified something quite different from religion in the modern sense. Religio referred to a powerful requirement to perform some action. Its most probable derivation is from re-ligare, to rebind or relink, that is, to reestablish a bond that has been severed. To say religio mihi est—that something is “religio for me”—meant that it was something that carried a serious obligation for a person. This included not only cultic observances—which were themselves sometimes referred to as religiones, such that there was a different religio or set of observances at each shrine—but also civic oaths and family rituals, things that modern Westerners normally consider to be secular.10 When religio did refer to temple sacrifices, it was possible—and common among certain intellectuals—in ancient Rome to practice religio, but not believe in the existence of gods..
religio was largely indifferent to theological doctrine and was primarily about the customs and traditions that provided the glue for the Roman social order.12

Religio was a relatively minor concept for the early Christians, in part because it does not correspond to any single concept that the biblical writers considered significant...

According to John Bossy, the ancient meaning of religio as duty or reverence “disappeared” in the medieval period: “With very few exceptions, the word was only used to describe different sorts of monastic or similar rule, and the way of life pursued under them.”22 This meaning holds when the word passes into English around 1200; the earliest meaning of religion cited in the Oxford English Dictionary is “a state of life bound by monastic vows.” In time, the term came to include the condition of members of other nonmonastic orders; hence the distinction between religious clergy and secular clergy. It is still common Roman Catholic usage to speak of entering an order as entering the religious life. In the early thirteenth century, we find references to religion as indicating a particular monastic or religious order or rule, such that by 1400 we find references to religions in the plural. The religions of England were the various orders: Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc...

for Aquinas, religio did not belong to a separate, “supernatural” realm of activity; not until Francisco de Suarez’s work at the dawn of the seventeenth century was religio identified as supernaturalis.45 Religio was not separable— even in theory—from political activity in Christendom...

The point is that there is no transhistorical and transcultural essence of religion waiting to be separated from the secular like a precious metal from its ore. The term religio functioned in very different ways as part of a complex of power relations and subjectivities unique to medieval Christendom. Very different relations of power were involved in the invention of the twin categories of religion and the secular. The problem with transhistorical and transcultural definitions of religion is not just that all phenomena identified as religious are historically specific, but that the definitions themselves are historical products that are part of specific configurations of power.

 

[Yazata]

Interesting thread topic Mike. Thanks for starting it.

I've been told that Religion cannot be defined, or at the very least, any attempt will be so inadequate as to make the definition useless.

Yes, I think that I would be among those who say that. What I question is whether 'religion' possesses an essence, some defining characteristic that marks something as being a religion, something that all religions share in common and nothing that isn't a religion possesses.

I think for most people, there are certain sets of beliefs that seem to easily fit into a category with the label Religion.

Yes, despite what I just said about religion lacking a coherent essence, people are able recognize religions when they encounter them. So how is that possible?

I think that I might follow Wittgenstein in addressing that question, treating religion as a family resemblance concept. There are things that for historical reasons we already think of as religions. These things display a whole variety of properties and characteristics. While there may not be any single property that all of the things that we think of as religions share in common, at least without sharing them with many things that we don't think of as religions as well, we can nevertheless still recognize (more or less) a religion when we see one.

I think that's because what we perceive as being a 'religion' will resemble those things that we already think of as religions. It won't share all of its properties and it will have distinctive qualities of its own, which serve to make it a distinct religion. But it will share enough in common that it just... looks like a religion. A 'critical mass' of resemblances we might say.

What a 'critical mass' will need to be will probably vary depending on the individual or the culture. How the various qualities are weighted will vary as well. Many 'Abrahamics' will weight belief in a monotheistic God or at least an emphasis on divine powers and agencies very highly. Which might threaten to leave out the non-theistic religions, I guess. (It's why we sometimes hear Buddhism called a philosophy as opposed to a religion.) But those non-theistic religions might still share a ritual dimension, a personal spiritual practice dimension, a community dimension, an ethical dimension, an artistic dimension, they might possess monastics and religious specialists, religious architecture (viharas, temples), ancient scriptures and many other qualities like that, in common with whatever one already assumes as paradigmatic religions. And different individuals and different cultures are apt to choose different religions as paradigmatic. So our distinctions of what is and what isn't religion are going to be pretty fuzzy at times.

Bottom line... Religions just look like religions... that's how we recognize them.

 

[MikeF]

If you are interested in an in depth discussion of the problems of defining religion, I'd recommend The myth of religious violence by William Cavanaugh which has a long chapter devoted to it. The idea of religion in the modern sense is mostly Western and modern:

A history of the term religion makes [the assumption that religion reflects a constant in human nature] deeply problematic. Ancient languages have no word that approximates what modern English speakers mean by religion; Wilfred Cantwell Smith cites the scholarly consensus that neither the Greeks nor the Egyptians had any equivalent term for religion, and he adds that a similar negative conclusion is found for the Aztecs and the ancient civilizations of India, China, and Japan.9 The word is derived from the ancient Latin word religio, but religio was only one of a constellation of terms surrounding social obligations in ancient Rome, and when used it signified something quite different from religion in the modern sense. Religio referred to a powerful requirement to perform some action. Its most probable derivation is from re-ligare, to rebind or relink, that is, to reestablish a bond that has been severed. To say religio mihi est—that something is “religio for me”—meant that it was something that carried a serious obligation for a person. This included not only cultic observances—which were themselves sometimes referred to as religiones, such that there was a different religio or set of observances at each shrine—but also civic oaths and family rituals, things that modern Westerners normally consider to be secular.10 When religio did refer to temple sacrifices, it was possible—and common among certain intellectuals—in ancient Rome to practice religio, but not believe in the existence of gods..
religio was largely indifferent to theological doctrine and was primarily about the customs and traditions that provided the glue for the Roman social order.12

Religio was a relatively minor concept for the early Christians, in part because it does not correspond to any single concept that the biblical writers considered significant...

According to John Bossy, the ancient meaning of religio as duty or reverence “disappeared” in the medieval period: “With very few exceptions, the word was only used to describe different sorts of monastic or similar rule, and the way of life pursued under them.”22 This meaning holds when the word passes into English around 1200; the earliest meaning of religion cited in the Oxford English Dictionary is “a state of life bound by monastic vows.” In time, the term came to include the condition of members of other nonmonastic orders; hence the distinction between religious clergy and secular clergy. It is still common Roman Catholic usage to speak of entering an order as entering the religious life. In the early thirteenth century, we find references to religion as indicating a particular monastic or religious order or rule, such that by 1400 we find references to religions in the plural. The religions of England were the various orders: Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc...

for Aquinas, religio did not belong to a separate, “supernatural” realm of activity; not until Francisco de Suarez’s work at the dawn of the seventeenth century was religio identified as supernaturalis.45 Religio was not separable— even in theory—from political activity in Christendom...

The point is that there is no transhistorical and transcultural essence of religion waiting to be separated from the secular like a precious metal from its ore. The term religio functioned in very different ways as part of a complex of power relations and subjectivities unique to medieval Christendom. Very different relations of power were involved in the invention of the twin categories of religion and the secular. The problem with transhistorical and transcultural definitions of religion is not just that all phenomena identified as religious are historically specific, but that the definitions themselves are historical products that are part of specific configurations of power.

I think the author makes a critical error. The label does not matter, the assembly of specific symbols in a specific order does not matter. The etymology of a word does not matter. What matters is today, in modern usage, what are the criteria associated with the label and what beliefs match that set of criteria.

That we can look back through history with 20/20 hindsight and see patterns and similarities that the ancients could not, seems only reasonable to me.

One motivation that I can see to downplaying or devaluing the word 'religion' would be if one did not want their religion equated with all other religions. I suspect that motivation here.

 

[MikeF]

Interesting thread topic Mike. Thanks for starting it.



Yes, I think that I would be among those who say that. What I question is whether 'religion' possesses an essence, some defining characteristic that marks something as being a religion, something that all religions share in common and nothing that isn't a religion possesses.



Yes, despite what I just said about religion lacking a coherent essence, people are able recognize religions when they encounter them. So how is that possible?

I think that I might follow Wittgenstein in addressing that question, treating religion as a family resemblance concept. There are things that for historical reasons we already think of as religions. These things display a whole variety of properties and characteristics. While there may not be any single property that all of the things that we think of as religions share in common, at least without sharing them with many things that we don't think of as religions as well, we can nevertheless still recognize (more or less) a religion when we see one.

I think that's because what we perceive as being a 'religion' will resemble those things that we already think of as religions. It won't share all of its properties and it will have distinctive qualities of its own, which serve to make it a distinct religion. But it will share enough in common that it just... looks like a religion. A 'critical mass' of resemblances we might say.

What a 'critical mass' will need to be will probably vary depending on the individual or the culture. How the various qualities are weighted will vary as well. Many 'Abrahamics' will weight belief in a monotheistic God or at least an emphasis on divine powers and agencies very highly. Which might threaten to leave out the non-theistic religions, I guess. (It's why we sometimes hear Buddhism called a philosophy as opposed to a religion.) But those non-theistic religions might still share a ritual dimension, a personal spiritual practice dimension, a community dimension, an ethical dimension, an artistic dimension, they might possess monastics and religious specialists, religious architecture (viharas, temples), ancient scriptures and many other qualities like that, in common with whatever one already assumes as paradigmatic religions. And different individuals and different cultures are apt to choose different religions as paradigmatic. So our distinctions of what is and what isn't religion are going to be pretty fuzzy at times.

Bottom line... Religions just look like religions... that's how we recognize them.

I would certainly agree with your assessment as describing our intuition or gut instinct when presented with a particular belief system. However, I do believe we can go beyond this and identify common elements that are shared by all.

I would be interested to know if you think my definition of religion in the OP would include Buddhism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think the author makes a critical error. The label does not matter, the assembly of specific symbols in a specific order does not matter. The etymology of a word does not matter. What matters is today, in modern usage, what are the criteria associated with the label and what beliefs match that set of criteria.

That we can look back through history with 20/20 hindsight and see patterns and similarities that the ancients could not, seems only reasonable to me.

One motivation that I can see to downplaying or devaluing the word 'religion' would be if one did not want their religion equated with all other religions. I suspect that motivation here.

That is far and well. How deicides that? Notice associate as connect (someone or something) with something else in one's mind. If that is what you mean, what if I do it differently in my mind than you do it in your mind. The problem is even connects to what matters? That is also subjective.

So it is not that you are right and I am wrong or in reverse. It is that we do it differently individually.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would certainly agree with your assessment as describing our intuition or gut instinct when presented with a particular belief system. However, I do believe we can go beyond this and identify common elements that are shared by all.

I would be interested to know if you think my definition of religion in the OP would include Buddhism.

That is not certain what you believe and I believe differently, so there is no we. Again you subjectively do it differently with some variance than other people do, so how do you arrive at a we?
I subjectively think, it is subjectively important to be critical of if there really is "we" that you clam or that there in effect are similar, yet no one "true, proper or whatever" definitions of religion.

 

[Augustus]

I think the author makes a critical error. The label does not matter, the assembly of specific symbols in a specific order does not matter. The etymology of a word does not matter. What matters is today, in modern usage, what are the criteria associated with the label and what beliefs match that set of criteria.

That we can look back through history with 20/20 hindsight and see patterns and similarities that the ancients could not, seems only reasonable to me.

He doesn't make that mistake, his point is that the modern usage does not map onto any meaningful transcultural concept as it is really a construct of Christianity. The history of the term and noting it hasn't got any real equivalent in most languages is an illustration of this. It's nothing to do with the specific word-symbol used, but the fact that no word-symbol exists at all. If this was a common concept, we could expect similar terms to appear in many ancient languages.

The point is that there is no transhistorical and transcultural essence of religion waiting to be separated from the secular like a precious metal from its ore. The term religio functioned in very different ways as part of a complex of power relations and subjectivities unique to medieval Christendom. Very different relations of power were involved in the invention of the twin categories of religion and the secular. The problem with transhistorical and transcultural definitions of religion is not just that all phenomena identified as religious are historically specific, but that the definitions themselves are historical products that are part of specific configurations of power.


That we could look back at the ancients with a 21st C mindset and 21st C Western cultural assumptions and end up forcing square pegs into round holes also seems very reasonable.

It's hard to think outside of our own cultural framework, and we tend to overestimate the degree to which pre-modern people 'thought like us'.

One motivation that I can see to downplaying or devaluing the word 'religion' would be if one did not want their religion equated with all other religions. I suspect that motivation here.

You strike me as someone who wants to be fair-minded, but don't you see a pattern here? Almost every source I present you dismiss out of hand as being biased and acting out of bad-faith. There is no rational reason to make these assumptions based on the quotes you have been provided with, and the assumptions have all been completely wrong. You don't think engaging with texts assuming good faith unless clearly demonstrated otherwise is a better approach?

Why do you think it important to differentiate religious from non-religious belief systems?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Why do you think it important to differentiate religious from non-religious belief systems?

Yeah, I also like to know that.

 

[MikeF]

You strike me as someone who wants to be fair-minded, but don't you see a pattern here? Almost every source I present you dismiss out of hand as being biased and acting out of bad-faith. There is no rational reason to make these assumptions based on the quotes you have been provided with, and the assumptions have all been completely wrong. You don't think engaging with texts assuming good faith unless clearly demonstrated otherwise is a better approach?

I do wish to be fair-minded and open-minded. And when both parties endeavor to look at the same information in an impartial way and yet draw different conclusions, how does one set about reconciling the difference? I like to think that I apply reasoned skepticism to information that I am presented with, regardless of the source. The question is, how do we recognize confirmation bias in ourselves. If something rings as true, is it because it is true or simply in line with a strongly held belief? Do I reject your quotes because they clash with my bias or do you simply provide quotes that support your bias?

As to my dismissing things out of hand, I do not feel I did that in this instance, nor on the video about scientism, which I watched all the way through. In regards to Harrison’s lectures, I did draw conclusions based on the abstracts, however, I watched the first and last video afterwards. As I have said before, people can signal a point of view or agenda with the way they present material. I think it important as a critical thinker to actively look for such signs, or other indications that the whole story is not being presented.

Do you think that William T. Cavanaugh being a Catholic Theologian might have influence over his writing regarding religion? The effect of bias is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Might any of these apply to Dr. Cavanaugh? I did not look him up until this post, and I am not saying that it is impossible for him to be impartial, but he is writing from a particular belief system and to suggest that it can’t influence him would be naïve.

I am trying to give fair hearing to your arguments.

He doesn't make that mistake, his point is that the modern usage does not map onto any meaningful transcultural concept as it is really a construct of Christianity. The history of the term and noting it hasn't got any real equivalent in most languages is an illustration of this. It's nothing to do with the specific word-symbol used, but the fact that no word-symbol exists at all. If this was a common concept, we could expect similar terms to appear in many ancient languages.

The point is that there is no transhistorical and transcultural essence of religion waiting to be separated from the secular like a precious metal from its ore. The term religio functioned in very different ways as part of a complex of power relations and subjectivities unique to medieval Christendom. Very different relations of power were involved in the invention of the twin categories of religion and the secular. The problem with transhistorical and transcultural definitions of religion is not just that all phenomena identified as religious are historically specific, but that the definitions themselves are historical products that are part of specific configurations of power.

That we could look back at the ancients with a 21st C mindset and 21st C Western cultural assumptions and end up forcing square pegs into round holes also seems very reasonable.

I do not understand why the word-symbol must exist in the past for us to apply it to the past. Nor do I understand why ancient peoples have to have been aware of multiple types of religions for us to be allowed to consider their beliefs as a religion.

We have the word Animism in our modern English lexicon. If we discover an isolated tribe in a remote jungle that has Animistic beliefs, can we not call them Animistic even though they have no concept of any other kind of belief? We are simply recognizing certain belief expressions that are similar across different tribes and cultures. It is appropriate and useful to do so. We have the word Shamanism because we observe similar belief expressions in different groups and cultures. We have the word Polytheism because we observe similar belief expressions in different groups and cultures. All these categories are meaningful.

Perhaps you could provide some specific examples of historical sets of belief that have been erroneously considered a Religion as a means to illustrate the problem you describe.

It's hard to think outside of our own cultural framework, and we tend to overestimate the degree to which pre-modern people 'thought like us'.

It is not about ancient peoples thinking like us. It is about understanding how they thought, and in that understanding, recognizing similar patterns of thought throughout history.

 

[osgart]

Religion is ideas, ways, practices, and beliefs that are adhered to and relied on to give people a sense of eternal, or temporal significance and meaning.

There is a natural bias against ideas that are contrary to this aim that religion is and does.

Often religious people consider reason, a priori logic, and truth to have special meaning and evidential reality. Faith comes from that; the idea that self evident truthes exist by way of reason, logic, and truth alone.

 

[Augustus]

Do you think that William T. Cavanaugh being a Catholic Theologian might have influence over his writing regarding religion? The effect of bias is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Might any of these apply to Dr. Cavanaugh? I did not look him up until this post, and I am not saying that it is impossible for him to be impartial, but he is writing from a particular belief system and to suggest that it can’t influence him would be naïve.

Your claim was that he didn't like the category of religion because he didn't like his religion being linked to other 'religions'. If you read the book, you would know this is completely nonsensical, but your argument is not based on evidence, but on prejudiced assumption.

I am an atheist, you are an atheist, might that have influence over our writings on religion?

If someone dismissed your views out of hand as you are an atheist and thus are incapable of rational argumentation on the topic of religion, you would consider that an obvious ad hominem.

I spent many years doing exactly what you do, which is assume anyone religious is biased and can be dismissed out of hand. I always thought I was being fair when I did it too, but it was just irrational prejudice. Bad faith assumptions about anyone not from 'my group' are very much an impediment to learning and understanding.

The question is, how do we recognize confirmation bias in ourselves. If something rings as true, is it because it is true or simply in line with a strongly held belief? Do I reject your quotes because they clash with my bias or do you simply provide quotes that support your bias?

All of your prejudgements have been completely wrong though, yet you still defend them as being justified.

You can disagree with the authors' points based on reasoned argument of course, but notedly you have assumed everyone who say something that doesn't chime with your ideology is biased based on who they are, not what they say. This has caused you to make obvious errors, such as saying a scientist is biased against science because he is also a philosopher of science, assuming an author's religious supremacist position when there is nothing whatsoever to support that in the quoted material, and criticising a speaker for not discussing world religions in a lecture about Western European thought.

You don't reject what they said, you reject the author based on prejudice.

Why do you think this is not clear evidence of your bias?

 

[Augustus]

It is not about ancient peoples thinking like us. It is about understanding how they thought, and in that understanding, recognizing similar patterns of thought throughout history.

What are these patterns though? You still haven't created a working definition.

Why is animism a religion but Marxism isn't? Is pantheism a religion? Providential deism?Secular Humanism? Naziism? Diversity/'Wokeism'?

On what grounds are we differentiating?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yeah, go for social behavior.

What do you mean?

The criteria of being structured and communal may feel like a necessary criteria for some religions, but how religion is practiced can vary.

While they all vary in the minutiae, I can't think of a one that doesn't have some form of doctrine, community, and annual calendar. These are the common traits of a religion.

 

[MikeF]

What are these patterns though? You still haven't created a working definition.

Why is animism a religion but Marxism isn't? Is pantheism a religion? Providential deism?Secular Humanism? Naziism? Diversity/'Wokeism'?

On what grounds are we differentiating?

Maybe you missed it in the OP:

Religion - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos, with the existence of an agency or agencies not bound by physical laws or manifestations of existence not bound by physical laws, and such beliefs are held as true by Faith and do not require empirical verification.

To my mind, this definition eliminates Diversity/Wokeism, Secular Humanism, Naziism, and Marxism as qualifying as religion.

 

[MikeF]

Your claim was that he didn't like the category of religion because he didn't like his religion being linked to other 'religions'. If you read the book, you would know this is completely nonsensical, but your argument is not based on evidence, but on prejudiced assumption.
I am an atheist, you are an atheist, might that have influence over our writings on religion?
If someone dismissed your views out of hand as you are an atheist and thus are incapable of rational argumentation on the topic of religion, you would consider that an obvious ad hominem.
I spent many years doing exactly what you do, which is assume anyone religious is biased and can be dismissed out of hand. I always thought I was being fair when I did it too, but it was just irrational prejudice. Bad faith assumptions about anyone not from 'my group' are very much an impediment to learning and understanding.
All of your prejudgements have been completely wrong though, yet you still defend them as being justified.
You can disagree with the authors' points based on reasoned argument of course, but notedly you have assumed everyone who say something that doesn't chime with your ideology is biased based on who they are, not what they say. This has caused you to make obvious errors, such as saying a scientist is biased against science because he is also a philosopher of science, assuming an author's religious supremacist position when there is nothing whatsoever to support that in the quoted material, and criticising a speaker for not discussing world religions in a lecture about Western European thought.
You don't reject what they said, you reject the author based on prejudice.
Why do you think this is not clear evidence of your bias?

Well I guess that’s how bias works, I can’t ‘see’ what doesn’t fit with my bias.

The only source that I dismissed out of hand was the Harrison lectures, and again, in the spirit of being open to the argument, I watched two of the six videos. I have been presenting what I would consider reasoned arguments to support my conclusions. On the scientism video I did not even attempt to lay out all the reasons I felt his argument was flawed.

As to the Cavanaugh quote specifically, I have been presenting my reasoned opinion as to why I feel his argument falls short. If I had dismissed him out of hand I would simply say it was hogwash and leave it at that. Further, I rejected the argument before I was even aware that he was a Catholic Theologian. I looked him up because I was trying to understand why someone would make an argument that seemed so illogical to me, which in turn led me to speculate as to why. I’m hurt that my reasoned arguments have passed without awareness.

 

[rational experiences]

Science first. Before elitism trade status.
Science first studying religare to bind or bindings of ion.

Bindings holdings. Religare ion. Religion.

Said any form by law was bound by mother holy womb.

Science chose to abominate.

Science however is not abomination as science is not space. Conditions.

Hence law said metal particles owner ship form was by space pressure the womb.

Holy particle.

Ship a human reasoning. A vessel that moves.

As it travelled in space to inherit form.

Father said gods crystalline mass earth was used to not change God as first transmitters pyramid science. God not changed means no change. Hence no theory existed first to change God.

Why you are wrong. Said status innocent of God change.

Burnt out mass in crystal so did heavens gases burn out. Man's sin against God. Irradiated fallout burning gases. Attacked. First sin of man.

Then man sin began to accumulate as crystal mass on earth fusion combusted.

Why carbon pressurized owned a crystal substance diamond belonging inside earth.

Carbon problem UFO mass of earth heart core. Science activated.

Affected his head. The king thin king state.

God in crystal mass still existed til science burnt combusted origin crystal mass. Sent us all to hell.

Memory a spirit human living life recorded going to hell. A spirit vision voice screaming recorded memory.

All died then. Humans as humans about humans remembered by humans as spirit in vision memory. Recorded.

Humans AI transmitted in mind gain today by accumulated UFO mass forget mother father holy human life recorded memories heaven now only remember self becoming an evil irradiated human brain body status. The past visionary only.

Believed humans were an evil spirit. quoting human in the concept. Reason why. Memory only.

I know I endured seeing it.