Let's define Religion.

[infrabenji]

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. I think for most people, there are certain sets of beliefs that seem to easily fit into a category with the label Religion. I anticipate most of the difficulty will lie on those that fall on the boundary of a general definition, but alas, I might be completely wrong.

I would love to put this to the test. My idea is that I will provide an initial definition of Religion and have RF members delineate all the ways in which it is inadequate or misses the mark (which I am sure it will). Hopefully there will be suggestions on how to improve the definition along with discussion about the pro's and con's of possible changes. I would also be curious to know if folks think common usage of the word 'religion' is generally useful today or wholly problematic and why.

And remember, we want to identify those few characteristics that are felt to be shared by all beliefs under a heading of Religion. Here is my concoction for the definition of religion:

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.

OK, let me have it.

Definitions of Religion

 

[Augustus]

Maybe you missed it in the OP:

Your definition is basically monotheism with a token attempt to include polytheisms that resemble monotheism.

As pointed out before, most religions have been more about praxis than 'true by faith' beliefs, and there hasn't been any real distinction between what is 'religion' and 'secular'.

Almost all belief systems have origin myths, although they don't necessarily explain the 'cause, nature and purpose' of the cosmos and they are not necessarily held to be 'true'.

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.

Marxism covers cause, nature, purpose, it believes in something identical to Divine Providence, a teleological History, It has a 'devil', capitalism, and a heaven that will be reached when the righteous smite devil.

Naziism, created a mystical concept of the 'volk' imbued with special powers who would create a millenarian paradise once they smited the forces of evil in society. I'm sure you agree many of their views were not based on evidence.

"Wokeism" has an origin myth of whereby the ills of the day are caused by 'Whiteness' and 'Settler colonialism', and the purpose is for good people to smite these historical forces of evil. Attempts to do this are on 'the right side of history'. Such views are held true by faith, etc.

Secular Humanism, as reflects its Protestant origins, has a devil 'religion/unreason' and if it wasn't for this we'd be living in castles on the moon by now, Divine Providence as 'Progress', salvation via 'science and reason', a theological concept of 'Humanity' whose good we have to work towards, etc. 'Irrational' people need to be shown the error of their ways and brought to the true belief, etc.

As Western belief systems, many of these share a much bigger family resemblance with Christianity than Christianity does with other 'religions'. They are basically 'post-Christian' secular salvation narratives

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Definitions of Religion

The fun thing is that according to some of these and the descriptions in Encyclopedia Britannia this is a religion:
Our Vision | American Atheists

If you analyze it, it is even supernatural in the following sense: Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe. In effect metaphysical/ontological materialism is without evidence/observations, yet is about the universe, because it claims what the universe really is.

Now I am not saying atheism is a religion. I am saying it appears that some atheists are religious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your definition is basically monotheism with a token attempt to include polytheisms that resemble monotheism.

As pointed out before, most religions have been more about praxis than 'true by faith' beliefs, and there hasn't been any real distinction between what is 'religion' and 'secular'.

Almost all belief systems have origin myths, although they don't necessarily explain the 'cause, nature and purpose' of the cosmos and they are not necessarily held to be 'true'.




Marxism covers cause, nature, purpose, it believes in something identical to Divine Providence, a teleological History, It has a 'devil', capitalism, and a heaven that will be reached when the righteous smite devil.

Naziism, created a mystical concept of the 'volk' imbued with special powers who would create a millenarian paradise once they smited the forces of evil in society. I'm sure you agree many of their views were not based on evidence.

"Wokeism" has an origin myth of whereby the ills of the day are caused by 'Whiteness' and 'Settler colonialism', and the purpose is for good people to smite these historical forces of evil. Attempts to do this are on 'the right side of history'. Such views are held true by faith, etc.

Secular Humanism, as reflects its Protestant origins, has a devil 'religion/unreason' and if it wasn't for this we'd be living in castles on the moon by now, Divine Providence as 'Progress', salvation via 'science and reason', a theological concept of 'Humanity' whose good we have to work towards, etc. 'Irrational' people need to be shown the error of their ways and brought to the true belief, etc.

As Western belief systems, many of these share a much bigger family resemblance with Christianity than Christianity does with other 'religions'. They are basically 'post-Christian' secular salvation narratives

All of the above. You could include Objectivism by Ayn Rand and some versions of libertarian ideology.

Well, for the bold part a Danish politician once remarked that Scandinavian social democracy and the welfare state is Christianity without God.
It should also be noted that we are still influenced by the Greek philosophical idea of being totally rational.

 

[rational experiences]

Religion was argued against science so the subject topics are mainly about science.

Science thought by a human man agreed by group as men.

The brotherhood their status.

The theme what they thought the topic.

Theism.

So the paths of their thin king were stated.

Reasons. The basic info to ponder infer by vision observation the state a recording.

Flooded earth after sun mass conversion.

Pressure status.

Atmosphere.

UFO mass converting ∆ mountain tip above water line.

The recording of it reacting changing into a flat top mountain was first recording. We were not involved as recorded human image or voice.

Theory a pyramid to build.

The machination design human by mens thoughts. A design.

As a pyramid did not exist as rational science. Mountains are natural. Change occurred to natural is not science.

Natural changing is self owned

Coercion the status science.

The story theme discussing why science is fake and evil as it never represented any natural law.

The occult hot nuclear radiation is what causes satanic combustion. Changes to space womb natural history of pressures.

Pressure changes constantly as the holding of form why energy owned multi forms yet was just energy.

 

[MikeF]

Definitions of Religion

I reading through the list I found more than a few of the quotes to be commentary on religion as opposed to an attempt to define a class or category. Would you agree?

Do you consider the exercise of defining a category of religion useful?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I reading through the list I found more than a few of the quotes to be commentary on religion as opposed to an attempt to define a class or category. Would you agree?

Do you consider the exercise of defining a category of religion useful?

Too vague.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I reading through the list I found more than a few of the quotes to be commentary on religion as opposed to an attempt to define a class or category. Would you agree?

Do you consider the exercise of defining a category of religion useful?

Second take. It is not that I don't find it useful. It is that I find it more useful to compare different definitions and learn from than than trying to find The Correct one.

 

[wellwisher]

Religions are a set of beliefs, connected to human consciousness, that deal with higher human potential. Higher human potential is often unconscious, in part or in whole, so it may become projected into things and entities that can help one visualize this potential from the outside. The gods of mythology, for example, were entities that led various classes of human activities, and could take these to the extremes; love, farming and war. They were not about the human ego but about the inner self. The evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism implies all this higher human potential was in each of us. We were no longer confined to be specialists.

Faith is often important to religion, since one is dealing with aspects of the human psyche that are not yet fully understood by science. Science cannot yet agree on a definition for consciousness since one cannot analyze software with tools designed for material things. Yet religion tries to go beyond this consciousness limitation of science, using empirical evidence based on self observation through prayer and mediation, since the brain is the matrix for this software and consciousness is the interface.

Religions usually deal in the past, present and future instead of just the here and now, like an animal. This often requires controlling impulses through the understanding of the past, present and future and the time line this will draw. Religion often uses the imagination, which is connected to the most evolved part of the brain; frontal lobe. Religion is also connected to creativity, such as art, music, poetry and even construction, since creativity is part of higher human potential. Some such religious expressions of higher human potential, can be used to trigger deep subroutines in the human brain; art affect.

Religions can also create new neural subroutines within the brain. One such subroutine is called the conscience. This induced subroutine was designed to become like a set of cultural instincts for community living. Some religions through physical and mental exercises can control physiology that was assumed to be not controllable by science; stop the heart or punch through stone. Others can use the mind to control fear, even when animal impulse is being manipulated by the superego of culture, and herd instinct creates an impulse to run together into the pen.

Lying is not allowable in religions since this detaches one from the reality of higher human potential. Lying is more secular and ego based; marketing merchandise and ideas. Lying is also important in politics, when it needs to misrepresent inner and outer reality for short term gain.

Dreams and visions are often important to religion, since these are spontaneously created by the deep parts of the human psyche and often contain insight into our inner workers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religions are a set of beliefs, connected to human consciousness, that deal with higher human potential. Higher human potential is often unconscious, in part or in whole, so it may become projected into things and entities that can help one visualize this potential from the outside. The gods of mythology, for example, were entities that led various classes of human activities, and could take these to the extremes; love, farming and war. They were not about the human ego but about the inner self. The evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism implies all this higher human potential was in each of us. We were no longer confined to be specialists.

Faith is often important to religion, since one is dealing with aspects of the human psyche that are not yet fully understood by science. Science cannot yet agree on a definition for consciousness since one cannot analyze software with tools designed for material things. Yet religion tries to go beyond this consciousness limitation of science, using empirical evidence based on self observation through prayer and mediation, since the brain is the matrix for this software and consciousness is the interface.

Religions usually deal in the past, present and future instead of just the here and now, like an animal. This often requires controlling impulses through the understanding of the past, present and future and the time line this will draw. Religion often uses the imagination, which is connected to the most evolved part of the brain; frontal lobe. Religion is also connected to creativity, such as art, music, poetry and even construction, since creativity is part of higher human potential. Some such religious expressions of higher human potential, can be used to trigger deep subroutines in the human brain; art affect.

Religions can also create new neural subroutines within the brain. One such subroutine is called the conscience. This induced subroutine was designed to become like a set of cultural instincts for community living. Some religions through physical and mental exercises can control physiology that was assumed to be not controllable by science; stop the heart or punch through stone. Others can use the mind to control fear, even when animal impulse is being manipulated by the superego of culture, and herd instinct creates an impulse to run together into the pen.

Lying is not allowable in religions since this detaches one from the reality of higher human potential. Lying is more secular and ego based; marketing merchandise and ideas. Lying is also important in politics, when it needs to misrepresent inner and outer reality for short term gain.

Dreams and visions are often important to religion, since these are spontaneously created by the deep parts of the human psyche and often contain insight into our inner workers.

That is in effect morality, ethics and psychology.

 

[MikeF]

Your definition is basically monotheism with a token attempt to include polytheisms that resemble monotheism.

Would it help if I reverse the order of elements in the definition:

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

As pointed out before, most religions have been more about praxis than 'true by faith' beliefs, and there hasn't been any real distinction between what is 'religion' and 'secular'.

This is a bold statement. You claim that most religions ( 90%?, 75%?, 51%? ) are first and foremost about practice or ritual disassociated from any corresponding belief about the practice or ritual. That is certainly not something I have observed. I would be curious as to the percentage of RF members that would agree with this statement.

Almost all belief systems have origin myths, although they don't necessarily explain the 'cause, nature and purpose' of the cosmos and they are not necessarily held to be 'true'.

Then what we have is a category ‘Belief Systems’, with a subcategory of ‘Belief Systems Originating From Myth’, and a subcategory of that to be ‘Belief Systems Originating From Myths Explaining the Cause, Nature, and Purpose of the Cosmos’. This last one would be synonymous with Religion.

You’ve put the word ‘true’ in single quotes. This brings up the question of what belief means. Is it safe to say that a held belief cannot be something considered to be false? So belief, to me, would correspond to thoughts and ideas held to be true. I am certainly willing to concede that we can have degrees of confidence in belief. However, if a belief is held, it is held as true to whatever degree of confidence, and cannot be counterfactual.

Faith I would consider a subcategory of belief in which the thoughts and ideas are held as unequivocally true, independent of support for the belief or the belief being counterfactual.

Perhaps this will allow us to simplify the definition of religion even further. Since entities and existence not bound by physical laws is counterfactual, we can write the definition thus:

Religion - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos, with such beliefs held by Faith.

Marxism covers cause, nature, purpose, it believes in something identical to Divine Providence, a teleological History, It has a 'devil', capitalism, and a heaven that will be reached when the righteous smite devil.

And see, now we are getting somewhere. We have a set of criteria with which to evaluate belief sets and see if these criteria are expressed. If they are, then we can place those belief sets in the category.

Categories are artificial constructs, but they are useful in helping us organize and think about large amounts of information. By engaging in this process, grouping and cataloging what we observe, we can then begin to analyze the information, plotting different beliefs in time, observing when beliefs arise, how they may change over time, and what things influence that change. Additionally, we can look at how and why some beliefs may resist change over time. But the analysis cannot begin until we catalog what we have.

As to Marxism, if it espouses Divine Providence, then it would require Agency (The Divine), and therefore would be a religion. Is this really a true characterization of Marxism? And your use of the terms devil and heaven are not literal. They are figures of speech. Hardly the standard we want for this discussion. Marxism does not imbue Capitalism with properties outside the bounds of physical laws.

Naziism, created a mystical concept of the 'volk' imbued with special powers who would create a millenarian paradise once they smited the forces of evil in society. I'm sure you agree many of their views were not based on evidence.

To be quite frank, I have not studied Nazism. I did a quick review of the Wikipedia page on Nazism and did not find any reference to mysticism other than “Aryan mysticism” in reference to reinterpretations on the origins of Christianity. I also found reference to “Völkisch nationalism”, which was a nationalistic precursor to Nazism.

I would need more information on the mystical concept to which you refer and how integral it was to Nazism, or how Nazism was dependent upon it. As it stands, I do not consider Nazism a religion.

"Wokeism" has an origin myth of whereby the ills of the day are caused by 'Whiteness' and 'Settler colonialism', and the purpose is for good people to smite these historical forces of evil. Attempts to do this are on 'the right side of history'. Such views are held true by faith, etc.

Hmmm. You have couched your comments in specifically religious terms: ‘smite’, ‘evil’, ‘faith’. I think you are reaching here. To say that there are no social ills today that are the result of colonization or slavery, that such notions are groundless myth, I find surprising coming from someone I view as a student of history.

Regardless, Woke-ism is not a religion.

Secular Humanism, as reflects its Protestant origins, has a devil 'religion/unreason' and if it wasn't for this we'd be living in castles on the moon by now, Divine Providence as 'Progress', salvation via 'science and reason', a theological concept of 'Humanity' whose good we have to work towards, etc. 'Irrational' people need to be shown the error of their ways and brought to the true belief, etc.

A lot of emotional content in this characterization of “Secular Humanism”. It’s almost as if you have a dog in this fight.

I can only take these comments as hyperbole and not a meaningful argument for considering Secular Humanism as a religion.

I stand by my assessment that Secular Humanism is not a religion.

As Western belief systems, many of these share a much bigger family resemblance with Christianity than Christianity does with other 'religions'. They are basically 'post-Christian' secular salvation narratives

What an interesting statement. Nazism has a closer relationship to Christianity than Christianity has to Judaism? I would agree that modern western culture is heavily influenced by Christianity. But the world and its history is more than just the Christian story, and more than just Western culture. There was a whole lot of human expression going on before Christianity came on the scene. Since we are looking at expressions of human behavior and belief, we want to look at all instances of human behavior and belief that we can. Identifying and acknowledging the similarities across all expressions of humanity I think is a good thing. You seem to be advocating that Christianity should be kept separate and considered so unique that comparison to ‘other religions’ is meaningless. How very Christo-centric of you. Might such a position signal a bias?

 

[MikeF]

Religions are a set of beliefs, connected to human consciousness, that deal with higher human potential. Higher human potential is often unconscious, in part or in whole, so it may become projected into things and entities that can help one visualize this potential from the outside. The gods of mythology, for example, were entities that led various classes of human activities, and could take these to the extremes; love, farming and war. They were not about the human ego but about the inner self. The evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism implies all this higher human potential was in each of us. We were no longer confined to be specialists.

Faith is often important to religion, since one is dealing with aspects of the human psyche that are not yet fully understood by science. Science cannot yet agree on a definition for consciousness since one cannot analyze software with tools designed for material things. Yet religion tries to go beyond this consciousness limitation of science, using empirical evidence based on self observation through prayer and mediation, since the brain is the matrix for this software and consciousness is the interface.

Religions usually deal in the past, present and future instead of just the here and now, like an animal. This often requires controlling impulses through the understanding of the past, present and future and the time line this will draw. Religion often uses the imagination, which is connected to the most evolved part of the brain; frontal lobe. Religion is also connected to creativity, such as art, music, poetry and even construction, since creativity is part of higher human potential. Some such religious expressions of higher human potential, can be used to trigger deep subroutines in the human brain; art affect.

Religions can also create new neural subroutines within the brain. One such subroutine is called the conscience. This induced subroutine was designed to become like a set of cultural instincts for community living. Some religions through physical and mental exercises can control physiology that was assumed to be not controllable by science; stop the heart or punch through stone. Others can use the mind to control fear, even when animal impulse is being manipulated by the superego of culture, and herd instinct creates an impulse to run together into the pen.

Lying is not allowable in religions since this detaches one from the reality of higher human potential. Lying is more secular and ego based; marketing merchandise and ideas. Lying is also important in politics, when it needs to misrepresent inner and outer reality for short term gain.

Dreams and visions are often important to religion, since these are spontaneously created by the deep parts of the human psyche and often contain insight into our inner workers.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think you have captured many ways in which religious belief can be expressed. Many, however, are not exclusive to what might be considered religion. For example, art, music, and poetry can be used to express religious belief, but they can also be used to express non-religious beliefs or ideas.

The goal for me is to find that set of criteria that would be very specific to religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think you have captured many ways in which religious belief can be expressed. Many, however, are not exclusive to what might be considered religion. For example, art, music, and poetry can be used to express religious belief, but they can also be used to express non-religious beliefs or ideas.

The goal for me is to find that set of criteria that would be very specific to religion.

Have you ever heard of falsification and falsifiable?

The goal for me is find out if there is a set of criteria specific to religion or not?

 

[Augustus]

Would it help if I reverse the order of elements in the definition:

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

Makes no real difference. It still focuses mostly on belief, truth and abstraction.

In Ancient Greece being a Citizen with duties and obligations was basically a religious concept. Also the family was really a religious unit in the sense of ancestor worship.

These are more about ritual, social order and governance than 'beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos held as true by Faith". Their efficacy is also being validated empirically.

This is a bold statement. You claim that most religions ( 90%?, 75%?, 51%? ) are first and foremost about practice or ritual disassociated from any corresponding belief about the practice or ritual. That is certainly not something I have observed. I would be curious as to the percentage of RF members that would agree with this statement.

A Greek or Roman may not have believed in the gods, but may still have been religious. What defined religion was partaking in rituals, not holding certain doctrine as being true.

Then what we have is a category ‘Belief Systems’, with a subcategory of ‘Belief Systems Originating From Myth’, and a subcategory of that to be ‘Belief Systems Originating From Myths Explaining the Cause, Nature, and Purpose of the Cosmos’. This last one would be synonymous with Religion.

You’ve put the word ‘true’ in single quotes. This brings up the question of what belief means. Is it safe to say that a held belief cannot be something considered to be false? So belief, to me, would correspond to thoughts and ideas held to be true. I am certainly willing to concede that we can have degrees of confidence in belief. However, if a belief is held, it is held as true to whatever degree of confidence, and cannot be counterfactual.

An example: Genesis creation, Garden of Eden etc. was not held as 'true' by many Christians, even in the early days. Myths don't derive their value from being true, but from telling a story with broader meaning.

What an interesting statement. Nazism has a closer relationship to Christianity than Christianity has to Judaism?

Obviously not these two, I didn't say all religions, just some. But both of these would be closer to most secular Western beliefs than either are to Greek paganism.

As to Marxism, if it espouses Divine Providence, then it would require Agency (The Divine), and therefore would be a religion. Is this really a true characterization of Marxism? And your use of the terms devil and heaven are not literal. They are figures of speech. Hardly the standard we want for this discussion. Marxism does not imbue Capitalism with properties outside the bounds of physical laws.

Marxism doesn't espouse literal Divine Providence as it is materialistic, but any teleological view of history functionally equivalent to Divine Providence and thus has properties outside of physical laws.

To be quite frank, I have not studied Nazism. I did a quick review of the Wikipedia page on Nazism and did not find any reference to mysticism other than “Aryan mysticism” in reference to reinterpretations on the origins of Christianity. I also found reference to “Völkisch nationalism”, which was a nationalistic precursor to Nazism.

I would need more information on the mystical concept to which you refer and how integral it was to Nazism, or how Nazism was dependent upon it. As it stands, I do not consider Nazism a religion.

Völkisch movement - Wikipedia

Hmmm. You have couched your comments in specifically religious terms: ‘smite’, ‘evil’, ‘faith’. I think you are reaching here. To say that there are no social ills today that are the result of colonization or slavery, that such notions are groundless myth, I find surprising coming from someone I view as a student of history.

Regardless, Woke-ism is not a religion.

It's a salvation myth in the Christian tradition. The civil rights movement was very much driven by black evangelical Protestantism. As we see with Humansim, Marxism, etc. when people 'outgrow' their religious beliefs they mostly just reject the idea of god while retaining the same values that morph into slightly different concepts.

A lot of emotional content in this characterization of “Secular Humanism”. It’s almost as if you have a dog in this fight.

I can only take these comments as hyperbole and not a meaningful argument for considering Secular Humanism as a religion.

I stand by my assessment that Secular Humanism is not a religion.

It meets most of your characteristics and is basically just liberal Protestantism without god.

Which points do you believe are not generally true?

I would agree that modern western culture is heavily influenced by Christianity. But the world and its history is more than just the Christian story, and more than just Western culture. There was a whole lot of human expression going on before Christianity came on the scene. Since we are looking at expressions of human behavior and belief, we want to look at all instances of human behavior and belief that we can. Identifying and acknowledging the similarities across all expressions of humanity I think is a good thing. You seem to be advocating that Christianity should be kept separate and considered so unique that comparison to ‘other religions’ is meaningless. How very Christo-centric of you. Might such a position signal a bias?

Not at all. Precisely the opposite.

Of course the world is different, that is why I don't think it is helpful to try to shoehorn their belief systems into a category that is defined by Western assumptions and prejudices.

As I'm an atheist, have never believed in god and have never been remotely religious, I'm not sure why I would want to specifically keep Christianity separate. I just don't think it should be the standard by which we judge all religions which is what happens when we try to define things in terms of 'religion' and 'secular'.

Inadvertently, you are the one being Christo-centric as your definition of religion demonstrates.

And while we can acknowledge similarities, we shouldn't obscure differences. A category should enlighten more than it obfuscates, and I've not seen any evidence that the category of religion meets this criterion. Ultimately it makes us think that 'religions' are more similar than they are, that they are roughly analogous to Christianity in construct and social role (which they are not), and that religions share more in common than religions and secular belief systems (which is often not true).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Augustus

You might like this one: Our Vision
Read it to the end.

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus

You might like this one: Our Vision
Read it to the end.

American Atheists are very religious indeed, aren't they


"Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds."

"Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."

'Experience and the scientific method' might have something to say about the last sentence

 

[MikeF]

Makes no real difference. It still focuses mostly on belief, truth and abstraction.
In Ancient Greece being a Citizen with duties and obligations was basically a religious concept. Also the family was really a religious unit in the sense of ancestor worship.
These are more about ritual, social order and governance than 'beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos held as true by Faith". Their efficacy is also being validated empirically.
A Greek or Roman may not have believed in the gods, but may still have been religious. What defined religion was partaking in rituals, not holding certain doctrine as being true.
An example: Genesis creation, Garden of Eden etc. was not held as 'true' by many Christians, even in the early days. Myths don't derive their value from being true, but from telling a story with broader meaning.

Certainly we both agree that the dominant religion becomes incorporated into a society's customs, ethics, morays, etc.

In Ancient Greece being a citizen with duties and obligations can be considered a social concept. Those features are not religious unless dictated by or resulting from the religious belief set.

You have also brought up the issue that some Greeks or Romans did not believe in the gods. I would point out that the documentation we have of that period is from the POV of a small, elite segment of the population, we must take care extrapolating their view to the whole of society and the role of religion to all society members.

If we look at religion as expressed in the United States, I would argue that there are those that conform to religious practice and promote religious doctrine who are not religious, which I would suspect of some politicians and even clergy. But what is the overall statistical attitude of the US population in regards to religious belief? That some comply without belief does not make compliance the indicator of what is religion or religious.

As to Genesis, that some percentage of the whole of Abrahamic faiths consider it myth and not fact doesn’t mean that the adherents don’t attribute the cause, nature, and purpose of the cosmos to a mythic entity which they consider to be true. The religious tenets are believed true and the tenets are justified by myth.

Marxism doesn't espouse literal Divine Providence as it is materialistic, but any teleological view of history functionally equivalent to Divine Providence and thus has properties outside of physical laws.

Depends on who or what is assigning purpose. Who or what is assigning purpose in Marx’s view?

Völkisch movement - Wikipedia

Not all false beliefs are Religion. That they created false narratives around evolutionary biology has it grounded in the realm of physical reality. False belief or self-deception alone does not constitute a religious belief. And for that matter, not all magical or mystical beliefs would be considered Religion. If one believes in Leprechauns, it would not be religious because it is not part of a belief set relating to the creation, nature, and purpose of the cosmos. Not all myths are religious myths.

It's a salvation myth in the Christian tradition. The civil rights movement was very much driven by black evangelical Protestantism. As we see with Humansim, Marxism, etc. when people 'outgrow' their religious beliefs they mostly just reject the idea of god while retaining the same values that morph into slightly different concepts.

That there are social values that developed through religious belief is not in question. However, it can be argued that religion was used as justification for both sides of the civil rights conflict, be it civil rights for people of color, or women. Arguing for fair treatment is not a religion no matter how you want to spin it.

It [Secular Humanism] meets most of your characteristics and is basically just liberal Protestantism without god.
Which points do you believe are not generally true?

From the Secular Humanist horses mouth:

“Secular humanism emerges, then, as a comprehensive nonreligious life stance that incorporates a naturalistic philosophy, a cosmic outlook rooted in science, and a consequentialist ethical system.”
https://secularhumanism.org/what-is-secular-humanism/secular-humanism-defined/​

Not a religion.

Of course the world is different, that is why I don't think it is helpful to try to shoehorn their belief systems into a category that is defined by Western assumptions and prejudices.
As I'm an atheist, have never believed in god and have never been remotely religious, I'm not sure why I would want to specifically keep Christianity separate. I just don't think it should be the standard by which we judge all religions which is what happens when we try to define things in terms of 'religion' and 'secular'.
Inadvertently, you are the one being Christo-centric as your definition of religion demonstrates.
And while we can acknowledge similarities, we shouldn't obscure differences. A category should enlighten more than it obfuscates, and I've not seen any evidence that the category of religion meets this criterion. Ultimately it makes us think that 'religions' are more similar than they are, that they are roughly analogous to Christianity in construct and social role (which they are not), and that religions share more in common than religions and secular belief systems (which is often not true).

Well, I suppose it is up to the peanut gallery to decide. All I can say is that we first start with similarities to develop our overarching category, and then it would be differences in construct and social roles upon which one might create subcategories. To avoid the process altogether would seem to isolate us in our own culture and religious beliefs. Kind of a don’t ask, don’t tell scenario or an ostrich with its head in the sand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Well, I suppose it is up to the peanut gallery to decide. All I can say is that we first start with similarities to develop our overarching category, and then it would be differences in construct and social roles upon which one might create subcategories. To avoid the process altogether would seem to isolate us in our own culture and religious beliefs. Kind of a don’t ask, don’t tell scenario or an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Well, I am an atheist and with @Augustus.

What is that supposed to solve? If a majority of people agree on something then it is true?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This seems to be a prescription for a specific religion. For me, it does not seem to include all sets of belief that are generally considered to be Religion.

Yes, I find you are right. The 'prescription' is the Bible's Christian religion.
In the Bible there are both the 'wheat and the weeds/tares' .
Not just false religion outside of Christianity, but false Christians within so-called Christian.
Jesus said MANY would come in his name but prove false.- Matthew 7:21-23, 13-14.
This is why Jesus instructed to be on the 'narrow path' because many are on the wide road to destruction.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

......The goal for me is to find that set of criteria that would be very specific to religion.

To me the 'set of criteria' specific to the Bible is: that Jesus is: the 'way' the religious 'truth' and the 'life'. John 14:6
* The way for humans to be reconciled to God.
* The truth because what was foretold came to pass in Jesus.
* The life because by means of Jesus' ransom opens up the way for everlasting life either in heaven or on earth.