Let's try to summarize the main approaches for religion?

[LuisDantas]

So often in the last few months I have seen evidence that "religion" is a concept with a highly variable meaning that I feel like attempting to make a list and sort them out. Perhaps some actual terminology might be developed here, I don't know.

1. Religion as an attempt at connecting to God's will.

The premise is that there is a deity of some kind (often but not necessarily also the creator of existence itself) and that it is necessary or at least beneficial to attempt to be in harmony with his goals.

2. Religion as a point of reference for a whole community.

Historically, arguably most religions were a source of communal identity first of all. They gave people of a common geographical and/or ethnic origin several arguably mundane yet very significant elements for the development and maintainance of a solid sense of mutual support and commitment. Elements such as a consistent vocabulary (including terms for abstract concepts such as moral virtues), tales and fables to spread and explain that vocabulary, and the social habits and rituals to give people tangible, undeniable evidence of commitment to each other.

3. Religion as a political institution.

While falling in disfavor in recent centuries, there is no denying that historically this role was very much a significant reality. In such diverse places such as Japan, Tibet and Medieval Europe the political role of some sort of church was very well -accepted. Even today there are many who see it as something to long for, sometimes as a lasting bastion to bring certainty (and often enough actual sanctuary) in times and places that were otherwise rather uncertain.

4. Religion as a path to mysteries of power.

I'm sincerely uncertain about how frequent this abordage is or has been historically, and it seems that some people see it as somewhat distinct from "proper" religion. While for the most part other approaches are somewhat collective, this is specifically the path of seeking individual discovery and personal achievements of some sort. Perhaps by definition, it is often difficult to describe for others who are not directly involved.


I would like to know if you want to add some other perspective, and if you have any comments about those above. Particularly about how they deal with the passage of time and the changes in social structure. Thanks!

 

[lovemuffin]

I think a more generally correct phrasing of your (1) would be "Attempting to attain union with the Divine". Not all conceptions of the Divine involve the idea of a Divine Person or a Divine Will, but the aspiration to union is pretty universal, and within those traditions in which God is seen as Person union tends to include both the idea of carrying out the will of God, but also of something deeper than that.

 

[Nakosis]

I see religion as a set of rituals and a code of conduct one devoutly follows because of their belief in some truth they accept mainly on faith.

Maybe this fits in general with your entire list?.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see religion as a set of rituals and a code of conduct one devoutly follows because of their belief in some truth they accept mainly on faith.

Maybe this fits in general with your entire list?.

So, you mean dogma for dogma's sake?

 

[Sunstone]

Religion as a means of social control. This is such a significant function of the major religions that it deserves to be its own category. Religion as politics doesn't emphasize how important the social control function of religion is for the major religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you see social control as major goal in and of itself, Sunstone?

How consciously separate from the political role do you see it as being?

 

[Quintessence]

This looks very different from the kind of list I would create, though it is nevertheless an interesting approach. What seems fundamental to religion is that it asks the big questions of life and aims to seek and/or provide meaningful answers to those questions. That might be framed as:

#1) Religion as a map for meaningfully navigating the territory of our lives

In particular, it addresses the nature of the territory, or is an ontological reality map that informs our day-to-day experiences. And, perhaps more importantly, it establishes a map for developing relationships to the territory that informs our day-today behaviors. All of this is done with meaningfulness.

We can think of the nature of the territory as having three spheres: religions map the nature of the human world, the nature of the non-human world, and, in many cases, the nature of the otherworlds. It's through this that I tend to break down religions into having three main types based on their primary mapping focus: human-centered, nature-centered, and otherworld-centered.

 

[bain-druie]

This is a great idea for a thread, and framed pretty brilliantly.

My first thought is that (4) can be combined - and often has been - with any of the preceding, since by nature it is individual rather than collective. Every state-sanctioned religion has had its mystics, prophets, sages, and general oddballs.

I also think that in order to reach (3), a religion had to first be (2). [Sorry for playing Captain Obvious; I've only had one cup of coffee ]

Druidry was once (3), with druid priests attaining status above even royalty; before that I believe it could have been ascribed to either (1) or (2), perhaps both at once. In modern interpretation, the emphasis tends to be on the individual, but it has value to many of us as (1) and (2) also. I know I, for one, am largely solitary, but I prefer group interactions for high holidays at least.

My husband (native of western Japan) describes Shinto as pretty similar to Druidry in its time, though Japan is so easygoing about religion there was no problem assimilating Buddhism as well [and then largely ignoring both, for most people ].

I'll shut up now and look forward to the development of this thread [and also get more coffee].

 

[LuisDantas]

It is remarkable how often Shinto ends up being seen as similar to Paganism.

Not that I disagree, mind you. I just don't think there was much if any contact between Shinto and European Paganism.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

It is remarkable how often Shinto ends up being seen as similar to Paganism.

Professor Sokyo Ono wrote

People of all races and climes cannot help but express gratitude to the spirits of the land and of nature, to their ancestors, to the benefactors or society and the state. In so far as they recognise this feeling within them, they cannot but understand the spirit of Shinto …

If by paganism you mean a primal or ethnic religion rather than the appropriation of the term for neopaganism, then Shinto is pagan.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm no expect on what is proper or unproper paganism, David, but that does sound just about right to me.

 

[Quintessence]

I definitely classify Shinto as a variety of Paganism, along with pretty much any other indigenous polytheism. That said, I tend to avoid using that term because paganism is unfortunately used as a pejorative, and religions that have their own label for themselves prefer to be hailed under it. Neopaganism is a somewhat different beast, but I don't think we need to get into the nuances of any of this here.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My comments will be in parenthesis til i get my internet on my lap top tomorrow. Anyhow
----
1. Religion as an attempt at connecting to God's will.

(I disagree. When someone wants to find unity and wholeness with oneself and/or with others I believe they need a practice. Whether it be smiling at someone you dislike to lighting a candle for ones friend. Religion is a devotion, vow, discipline, and practice of ones morals or faith regardless if those morals have to do with world peace or deity)

The premise is that there is a deity of some kind (often but not necessarily also the creator of existence itself) and that it is necessary or at least beneficial to attempt to be in harmony with his goals.

-(not all faiths believe in a deity or any version of it or him. So those in those particular faith still practice religion just the focus is not on anything/one divine)

2. Religion as a point of reference for a whole community.

(I agree)

Historically, arguably most religions were a source of communal identity first of all. They gave people of a common geographical and/or ethnic origin several arguably mundane yet very significant elements for the development and maintainance of a solid sense of mutual support and commitment. Elements such as a consistent vocabulary (including terms for abstract concepts such as moral virtues), tales and fables to spread and explain that vocabulary, and the social habits and rituals to give people tangible, undeniable evidence of commitment to each other.

3. Religion as a political institution.

(Some ethnic faiths, personal religions, and some forms of modern paganism is not political and by far not organizational as its core tenents either.)

While falling in disfavor in recent centuries, there is no denying that historically this role was very much a significant reality. In such diverse places such as Japan, Tibet and Medieval Europe the political role of some sort of church was very well -accepted. Even today there are many who see it as something to long for, sometimes as a lasting bastion to bring certainty (and often enough actual sanctuary) in times and places that were otherwise rather uncertain.

-(true. Religion is not political. Many people who organize it may have political agenda; thats overgeneralizing all religions)

4. Religion as a path to mysteries of power.

(Not all the time. Some religious people find it religious to spend more time with family every evening)

I would like to know if you want to add some other perspective, and if you have any comments about those above. Particularly about how they deal with the passage of time and the changes in social structure. Thanks!

 

[Nakosis]

So, you mean dogma for dogma's sake?

Perhaps, but the "authority" may just be the perception of authority. Individually someone may have had the perception/experience of some divine or universal truth. So their faith maybe in that perception/experience. Others may just accept the claim of authority. Then their faith is in the claim, not the actual experience.

So dogma for the sake of the authority it is assumed to possess.

I don't think anyone would devotedly adhere to the rituals and practices based on the truth of something they don't believe holds any authority.

 

[Sunstone]

I think Shinto is more properly classified as a kind of animism, rather than a kind of paganism. It seems to me the major gods in Shinto are not nearly as important to people as the day to day spirits. At least that's my impression.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think Shinto is more properly classified as a kind of animism, rather than a kind of paganism. It seems to me the major gods in Shinto are not nearly as important to people as the day to day spirits. At least that's my impression.

You may well be right.

On the other hand, Shinto's Kami are supposed to be both the creators of the Islands of Japan and the literal ancestors of its people.

I admit that I know next to nothing about the role of spirits in Shinto, though. Just that there is a rich folklore about them and that Japanese tend to be remarkably wary of ghosts.

 

[Sunstone]

So you see social control as major goal in and of itself, Sunstone?

Pretty much.

How consciously separate from the political role do you see it as being?

Depends on what is meant by "politics" really. If you define politics broadly enough, then social control is merely a part of politics broadly defined. But if you define politics more narrowly, as pertaining to governance, then social control is often enough distinct from politics.

For instance, American fundamentalism has historically gone through decades-long cycles. During one half of each cycle, American fundamentalism attempts to shape and control society through political means. During the other half of the cycle, it withdraws from politics and no longer attempts to shape and control society through political means. But even when it withdraws from politics, it still exercises extraordinary social control over its adherents. So, the function of social control is then distinct from the political function. That's one reason among many that I believe social control deserves to be its own category when discussing religions.

 

[Sunstone]

You may well be right.

On the other hand, Shinto's Kami are supposed to be both the creators of the Islands of Japan and the literal ancestors of its people.

I admit that I know next to nothing about the role of spirits in Shinto, though. Just that there is a rich folklore about them and that Japanese tend to be remarkably wary of ghosts.

Well, generally speaking, religious scholars classify it as a form of animism. At least in so far as I know from my days studying Japanese culture, religions, and society at university. But that was 35 years ago, so I may have forgotten a lot by now.

I do recall that my second wife, who was Japanese and practiced Shinto, was indifferent to the creation myths and the major deities. She was much more attuned to the kami in everyday objects -- cars, computers, carpets, doors, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interesting how attitudes vary among cultures. Being indifferent to creation myths and major deities sounds very natural to me, but I often meet people who seem to take it for granted that no one will do that.

 

[bain-druie]

It is remarkable how often Shinto ends up being seen as similar to Paganism.

Not that I disagree, mind you. I just don't think there was much if any contact between Shinto and European Paganism.

There wasn't, as far as I know - I didn't mean to imply there had been. It came up in my response since it's been an interesting and somewhat ongoing conversation he and I have, in which we're both often surprised at the similarities of thought in such divergent cultures.