Please Define "Religion"

[mikkel_the_dane]

Morality is what a society will like its members to do, it is a sort of book of law of the society, very precise instructions. Some where it says it is OK to marry your first cousin (Muslims), some times it says do not marry your second cousin (Hindus), other times it says marrying within seven generations is incest (Jat, a Hindu caste).

Yeah, that is as objective as gravity and is called the scientific law of morality. Along with psychics, chemistry and biology it is a part of science and a natural law like gravity.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Mikkel was in the post you replied to though, so I was noting the difference between saying the world has material components and holding a materialistic worldview.

This post. Specifically addressing Mikkel's claim that one can't observe that the world is material, and objecting with the fact that the world is, in fact, made of material components. Nowhere in any of my replies and further clarifications on that point was the notion that material possessions are more important than spiritual values (that's materialism).

You were not "noting the differences" between two wildly unrelated statements, you were questioning the veracity of the material world citing "cognitive science" and human history with a completely unrelated subject.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Are you going to answer how this is related to the topic of religion? I have very little interest in a circular discussion.

Just follow backwards in the thread and you will find the connection to religion.

 

[dybmh]

So you aren't familiar with any religions that consider children to be members before they're old enough to make a commitment?

Again, you're talking about congregational membership. Apples / oranges.

If you think that merely self-identifying as a member of a religion constitutes a "commitment," then I have no idea what you mean by "commitment."

Just because it's a weak commitment, doesn't mean it's disqualified.

They're fine; it's just that they only represent one slice of the religious landscape.

Precisely! That's why the definition needs to include those who consistently practice but also don't believe. Otherwise the definition is incomplete. To do this, one needs to drop the assumed requirement of beliefs.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Just follow backwards in the thread and you will find the connection to religion.

So we're picking the circular option, eh?

"anyone who claims objective morality flats flad in my understand and the same declaring the world is material."

To which I asked for clarification, because even attempting to correct that as "Anyone who claims objective morality falls flat in my understanding, and the same as declaring the world is material" is completely and utterly nonsensical. Your own elaboration was wild claims that you can't see good and bad, or that you can't observe the world as material, both of which are demonstrably false and none of which are remotely exclusive to the (I assume) point of "Well you can't prove it comes from God".

Additionally, your original objection nowhere near touches my post to you (complete with examples) regarding that Religion can apply to non-theistic ideologies. I would like a refund of five hours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, you're talking about congregational membership. Apples / oranges.

I'm talking about religiosity. A religion is a community.

Just because it's a weak commitment, doesn't mean it's disqualified.

What do you mean by "commitment"?

Precisely! That's why the definition needs to include those who consistently practice but also don't believe. Otherwise the definition is incomplete. To do this, one needs to drop the assumed requirement of beliefs.

Sure, some religions are based on orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. Others are based on orthodoxy.

The only common thing between all religions is that they involve a community, and that community decides for itself what standards it will use when accepting or rejecting members.

 

[Augustus]

This post. Specifically addressing Mikkel's claim that one can't observe that the world is material, and objecting with the fact that the world is, in fact, made of material components. Nowhere in any of my replies and further clarifications on that point was the notion that material possessions are more important than spiritual values (that's materialism).

You went with the wrong definition of materialism

materialism | məˈtɪərɪəlɪz(ə)m | noun [mass noun]

1 a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values: they hated the sinful materialism of the wicked city.

2 (Philosophy) the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You went with the wrong definition of materialism

/sigh...

Go back to my post. Point to me exactly where I said that nothing else exists except the physical.

Oh, wait. Forgot the cheek.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So we're picking the circular option, eh?

"anyone who claims objective morality flats flad in my understand and the same declaring the world is material."

To which I asked for clarification, because even attempting to correct that as "Anyone who claims objective morality falls flat in my understanding, and the same as declaring the world is material" is completely and utterly nonsensical. Your own elaboration was wild claims that you can't see good and bad, or that you can't observe the world as material, both of which are demonstrably false and none of which are remotely exclusive to the (I assume) point of "Well you can't prove it comes from God".

Additionally, your original objection nowhere near touches my post to you (complete with examples) regarding that Religion can apply to non-theistic ideologies. I would like a refund of five hours.

Then give the evidence as per objective external sensations. That is how easy it is to refute me.

For the other part about religion I am sorry.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Then give the evidence as per objective external sensations.

If someone comes up to you and cracks you upside the back of your head with an aluminium bat, leaving you bleeding and concussed on the floor, are you going to say that's good? If another person comes up and tries to help you, are you going to somehow shove them away screaming that they're being bad and harmful?

It's preposterous, Mikkel. There are objective examples - again, myriad - that can be demonstrated for both objective good and bad. Related to religion in the only way I can imagine, such an objective demonstration is not necessitated by a holy book saying "God sayeth this is good". Spending all day putting forward example after example would quite literally be a waste of time so again, take the definition that I gave you (that which benefits and incurs minimal debt or harm) and apply ad infinitum in your day to day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If someone comes up to you and cracks you upside the back of your head with an aluminium bat, leaving you bleeding and concussed on the floor, are you going to say that's good? If another person comes up and tries to help you, are you going to somehow shove them away screaming that they're being bad and harmful?

It's preposterous, Mikkel. There are objective examples - again, myriad - that can be demonstrated for both objective good and bad. Related to religion in the only way I can imagine, such an objective demonstration is not necessitated by a holy book saying "God sayeth this is good". Spending all day putting forward example after example would quite literally be a waste of time so again, take the definition that I gave you (that which benefits and incurs minimal debt or harm) and apply ad infinitum in your day to day.

No, I am not going to say that it is good, But how do I know it is not good?

So here is how definitions work, they make the definition into a fact. So the definition of God as the creator of the universe, makes it a fact that God created the universe. I don't accept that. Do you?

So how do you know good and bad? I want to know that, not that you can define it. I want you to describe how it works.

 

[Koldo]

If someone comes up to you and cracks you upside the back of your head with an aluminium bat, leaving you bleeding and concussed on the floor, are you going to say that's good? If another person comes up and tries to help you, are you going to somehow shove them away screaming that they're being bad and harmful?

It's preposterous, Mikkel. There are objective examples - again, myriad - that can be demonstrated for both objective good and bad. Related to religion in the only way I can imagine, such an objective demonstration is not necessitated by a holy book saying "God sayeth this is good". Spending all day putting forward example after example would quite literally be a waste of time so again, take the definition that I gave you (that which benefits and incurs minimal debt or harm) and apply ad infinitum in your day to day.

Barging in...
But how do you figure those are examples of objective morality specifically?
As in, how do you rule out moral relativism or emotivism?

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
Just as we can distinguish Marxism from Secular Humanism, from Nationalism, etc, we can distinguish Religion from things we consider not-Religion.​

There is no definition of religion that I've seen that covers all religions and clearly differentiates them from "not religion".

Well, this statement indicates that you think there is something called religion and that sets of beliefs or concepts can be considered as such. As to differentiating what is religion from not religion will be dependent on our definition, yes? I would agree that there can be borderline cases, or cases that only seem to partially fit, but we have this issue with all forms of classification and should not be a reason to abandon the project entirely. Clearly, since you see the problem and consider some definitions as missing some beliefs you feel should be included, you have a definite concept of what religion is, and as such it is something we can define, if only to a level of approximation.

We tend to judge them on similarity to Christianity while grandfathering in a few other religions.

I will push back on this somewhat. Language, the words we use can change and evolve with the culture in which they are used. That this label Religion began in Christian cultures is perfectly fine. There were elements that defined what was meant by religion. In looking at other belief systems and finding they shared elements consider to be of Religion, it seems quite reasonable to me that the term would be used to encompass more than the diversity of Christian denominations.

For example it allows people to think there is something fundamentally different (and perhaps more harmful) about religions, which is an error. You also see in this thread that many people talk about 'belief' being a defining feature, whereas praxis has been far more important historically.

Fearing to define religion because one fears prejudice against religion does not seem intellectually honest to me.
There is a difference between religions, or religious concepts, an those that are not. That is why the category was born and we have academic departments dedicated solely to this topic.

MikeF said: ↑
secular and religious signals to me that there is something there that can be differentiated​

We can differentiate them because, again, we pretty much identify religions based on how similar they are to Christianity.

Yeah, I would disagree. If Christianity was the starting point of trying to define and understand what is meant by religion, that process has not been stagnant, rather it has grown as more and varied belief sets have been studied. The question is not how is this the same as Christianity, rather it has become what do all these different belief sets and concepts have in common or share. This is a perfectly valid intellectual exercise.

The first Europeans to have contact with Mesoamerican cultures recognized religion in those societies. Why? Because they recognized elements they considered to be of Religion.

The distinction was not made in the ancient world, even the concept of religion as a set of articulated principles that one believes in is a Christian concept that only emerged a few hundred years ago.

I can't speak to what ancient peoples articulated about religion or whether they recognized the concept as we use it. It is immaterial. Such categorization is useful to us. There are many concept we have in modern society that were not shared by ancient peoples. This in no way speaks to their validity in our use of such concepts.

Ancient peoples certainly understood theistic concepts and that not all peoples shared the same concepts or agreed on the details of shared concepts.

Prior to this, even within Christianity, religion was basically an internalised set of virtues than outward adherence to principles.
This ends up with us trying to view the world through a western Christian lens, and mash square pegs in to round holes.

Let's be honest here. Historically Christians have been quite hostile to any contrary belief, considering variations on Christianity as heresy and non-Christian religions as pagan superstition. We've grown beyond that, wouldn't you agree? Again, though, what religion meant to insular Christians hundreds of years ago does not dictate how we use the word today.

MikeF said: ↑
You refer to Religion as myth and imply secular ideologies are also myth. I would push back on this. We create many abstract social constructs and conventions, but to my mind and as is seen in common usage, we do not treat the word myth as being synonymous with abstract social construct. An example would be the abstract construct of money in which pieces of metal and paper are agreed to represent certain monetary values. This abstract system of money is not a myth. Myth would refer to a different kind of abstract social construction with different elements and role in society.​

Myths are stories/narratives that give meaning to a community, they may be completely imaginary or more or less true.

I do not think I can accept this definition of myth. If a story or narrative is true, then it is not a myth.

Money may not be a myth but it is dependent on many.
For example, the nation state for example is a legal entity, but only works because of adherence to a series of myths that grant it legitimacy. Many of these have been so internalised that we barely even think about them any more, but it was these myths that allowed us to create the ever larger bonds of fictive kinship necessary for civilisation.
It wasn't simply a collection of rational actors acting in a purely transactional manner on a cost/benefit basis.
Many 'secular' ideologies are really just founded on religious myths that have been internalised to the extent they are just seen as 'common sense' and stripped of Divine origin, that doesn't make them any less reliant on myth. If we took all human belief systems throughout history and tried to categorise them, something like Secular Humanism would be in the 'tree' of (Protestant) Christianity. Actually Western liberalism in general is absolutely grounded in (secularised) Christian myth.
This is why I think treating them as something completely different makes little sense. It is itself a myth.

I would agree that we have inherited many social constructs that were born, based, or justified in myths. That does not mean that we cannot recognize them for what they are, set aside the myth, and treat them as useful social constructs, as agreements between people. Nor does it mean we cannot set them aside entirely, if we choose.

In that same regard, it is perfectly legitimate to recognize the benefits of ethical and moral constructs that were originally intertwined and justified by myth, set aside the myth and still incorporate them as social construct based on the shared perception and agreement of their value and utility. This is what I see being done in the Secular Humanism movement.

Society and culture evolve. We are not bound to the myths and perceptions of our ancient ancestors. Beyond that, not every abstraction we create is to be considered myth, or fictional. The rules and requirements for a sport or a board game are not myth, simply a shared agreement to an abstract construct created by human beings, for human beings, and accepted as such.

We can grow beyond myth, and it is ok to do so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Previously you said that reason *can not* do morality, and now you indicate that it does, or has a role. In any case, you seem to feel that morality is a subjective creation of human beings and that it is verifiable with science as you seem to have confidence in what brain scans can show on the subject. This position also seems to conflict with your previous statement. If feelings are involved, if human beings are involved, I would think science would be helpful (and you seem to agree) as it is through science that we can understand how and why we work and behave as we do. With morality a human construct, understanding human beings should shed light on why we create moral constructs and why they are not uniform across all populations.

You have yet to comment on who you see as the arbiter of whether a belief or idea is true or false such that we can label the false ones as myth.

Reason can't do morality alone. It is in combination with feelings.

Well, if we use evidence and we can't observe neither good nor bad, then it is false that we can use evidence on it, because we can't use evidence as to determine good or bad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

MikeF said: ↑
Just as we can distinguish Marxism from Secular Humanism, from Nationalism, etc, we can distinguish Religion from things we consider not-Religion.​

Well, this statement indicates that you think there is something called religion and that sets of beliefs or concepts can be considered as such. As to differentiating what is religion from not religion will be dependent on our definition, yes? I would agree that there can be borderline cases, or cases that only seem to partially fit, but we have this issue with all forms of classification and should not be a reason to abandon the project entirely. Clearly, since you see the problem and consider some definitions as missing some beliefs you feels should be included, you have a definite concept of what religion is, and as such it is something we can define, if only to a level of approximation.



I will push back on this somewhat. Language, the words we use can change and evolve with the culture in which they are used. That this label Religion began in Christian cultures is perfectly fine. There were elements that defined what was meant by religion. In looking at other belief systems and finding they shared elements consider to be of Religion, it seems quite reasonable to me that the term would be used to encompass more than the diversity of Christian denominations.



Fearing to define religion because one fears prejudice against religion does not seem intellectually honest to me.
There is a difference between religions, or religious concepts, an those that are not. That is why the category was born and we have academic departments dedicated solely to this topic.

MikeF said: ↑
secular and religious signals to me that there is something there that can be differentiated​

Yeah, I would disagree. If Christianity was the starting point of trying to define and understand what is meant by religion, that process has not been stagnant, rather it has grown as more and varied belief sets have been studied. The question is not how is this the same as Christianity, rather it has become what do all these different belief sets and concepts have in common or share. This is a perfectly valid intellectual exercise.

The first Europeans to have contact with Mesoamerican cultures recognized religion in those societies. Why? Because they recognized elements they considered to be of Religion.



I can't speak to what ancient peoples articulated about religion or whether they recognized the concept as we use it. It is immaterial. Such categorization is useful to us. There are many concept we have in modern society that were not shared by ancient peoples. This in no way speaks to their validity in our use of such concepts.

Ancient peoples certainly understood theistic concepts and that not all peoples shared the same concepts or agreed on the details of shared concepts.



Let's be honest here. Historically Christians have been quite hostile to any contrary belief, considering variations on Christianity as heresy and non-Christian religions as pagan superstition. We've grown beyond that, wouldn't you agree? Again, though, what religion meant to insular Christians hundreds of years ago does not dictate how we use the word today.

MikeF said: ↑
You refer to Religion as myth and imply secular ideologies are also myth. I would push back on this. We create many abstract social constructs and conventions, but to my mind and as is seen in common usage, we do not treat the word myth as being synonymous with abstract social construct. An example would be the abstract construct of money in which pieces of metal and paper are agreed to represent certain monetary values. This abstract system of money is not a myth. Myth would refer to a different kind of abstract social construction with different elements and role in society.​

I do not think I can accept this definition of myth. If a story or narrative is true, then it is not a myth.



I would agree that we have inherited many social constructs that were born, based, or justified in myths. That does not mean that we cannot recognize them for what they are, set aside the myth, and treat them as useful social constructs, as agreements between people. Nor does it mean we cannot set them aside entirely, if we choose.

In that same regard, it is perfectly legitimate to recognize the benefits of ethical and moral constructs that were originally intertwined and justified by myth, set aside the myth and still incorporate them as social construct based on the shared perception and agreement of their value and utility. This is what I see being done in the Secular Humanism movement.

Society and culture evolve. We are not bound to the myths and perceptions of our ancient ancestors. Beyond that, not every abstraction we create is to be considered myth, or fictional. The rules and requirements for a sport or a board game are not myth, simply a shared agreement to an abstract construct created by human beings, for human beings, and accepted as such.

We can grow beyond myth, and it is ok to do so.

I like how you speak as a we for useful. What is your evidence for that?

 

[Augustus]

/sigh...

Go back to my post. Point to me exactly where I said that nothing else exists except the physical.

Oh, wait. Forgot the cheek.

Mikkel was talking about materialism, you replied to his point.

I was pointing out your reply didn't really address his point. Hence I contrasted observing the world has material components (what you said we can observe) with observing the world is materialistic (the point he was making)

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No, I am not going to say that it is good, But how do I know it is not good?

I imagine the concussion and blood loss would be a strong indicator. (That's heavy sarcasm)

So here is how definitions work, they make the definition into a fact.

No, they do not. Definitions express language; they may contain fact, but they are not entirely fact.

So the definition of God as the creator of the universe, makes it a fact that God created the universe. I don't accept that. Do you?

No, I do not. Namely in that such is not the definition of god, but rather (specifically using the one you've pulled from) 1.a. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe. All that conveys is that you worship this "supreme or ultimate reality" (Def. 1) as the creator and ruler of the universe, not that it is.

Also this damages your prior statement that "definitions make for fact" as there are many religions outside Abrahamic ones that do not view their gods in such a way, nor even as a "supreme or ultimate reality". So the definition is already incomplete, and limited by a single culture worldview that has narrowed the use of the word.

So how do you know good and bad? I want to know that, not that you can define it. I want you to describe how it works.

And I have told you, though I suppose you'll get some expansion below. I will not be repeating myself all day Mikkel. No one likes a sealion.

Barging in...
But how do you figure those are examples of objective morality specifically?

Morality is a human sense that requires context. It's equally as preposterous (as saying good and bad cannot be objective) to say that a wolf killing a deer is bad merely for the presence of death. This goes back to where I said that it is not a stark dichotomy, but a gradient. Yet if someone is, say, beating their dog to death just because, that is wrong and bad as it is senseless, cruel, and of detriment to the life of the dog and the person's view on creatures lesser than them. Plucking the wings off flies leads to experimentally killing frogs leads to drowning cats leads to shoving playmates off high places. Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, yet it is observably damaging to one's psyche and, in turn, those around them.

In contrast, alleviating hardships and struggles is objectively good for that very reason. We see its effects in immediate gratitude, or even in the absence of gratitude but the following effects of that subject thriving, if not for a day. This is as evident as the difference between noon and midnight, midwinter and midsummer. It requires no deep philosophical exploration, no dogma or religion, and no god to shepherd our way to knowing good and evil. We don't need to eat a fruit to see it.

And, in fact, I would argue that religion (particularly Christianity) has hindered objective morality by ascribing it to a deity and a holy book, with which those in power can craft the message to what they want and demonize entire populations of people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel was talking about materialism, you replied to his point.

I was pointing out your reply didn't really address his point. Hence I contrasted observing the world has material components (what you said we can observe) with observing the world is materialistic (the point he was making)

You are better at this than me. But I don't mind that.

 

[dybmh]

I'm talking about religiosity. A religion is a community.

No, that's too limited. A person can easily prostrate to the sun each morning without a community.

What do you mean by "commitment"?

consistent action on a regular interval. a consistent belief, btw, is an intellectual activity.

Sure, some religions are based on orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. Others are based on orthodoxy.

woohoo, we agree

The only common thing between all religions is that they involve a community, and that community decides for itself what standards it will use when accepting or rejecting members.

Dang-it, we're back to disagreeing. Do you need another example? Daoist wizards often cultivate in isolation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I imagine the concussion and blood loss would be a strong indicator. (That's heavy sarcasm)


No, they do not. Definitions express language; they may contain fact, but they are not entirely fact.


No, I do not. Namely in that such is not the definition of god, but rather (specifically using the one you've pulled from) 1.a. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe. All that conveys is that you worship this "supreme or ultimate reality" (Def. 1) as the creator and ruler of the universe, not that it is.

Also this damages your prior statement that "definitions make for fact" as there are many religions outside Abrahamic ones that do not view their gods in such a way, nor even as a "supreme or ultimate reality". So the definition is already incomplete, and limited by a single culture worldview that has narrowed the use of the word.


And I have told you, though I suppose you'll get some expansion below. I will not be repeating myself all day Mikkel. No one likes a sealion.


Morality is a human sense that requires context. It's equally as preposterous (as saying good and bad cannot be objective) to say that a wolf killing a deer is bad merely for the presence of death. This goes back to where I said that it is not a stark dichotomy, but a gradient. Yet if someone is, say, beating their dog to death just because, that is wrong and bad as it is senseless, cruel, and of detriment to the life of the dog and the person's view on creatures lesser than them. Plucking the wings off flies leads to experimentally killing frogs leads to drowning cats leads to shoving playmates off high places. Perhaps a bit hyperbolic, yet it is observably damaging to one's psyche and, in turn, those around them.

In contrast, alleviating hardships and struggles is objectively good for that very reason. We see its effects in immediate gratitude, or even in the absence of gratitude but the following effects of that subject thriving, if not for a day. This is as evident as the difference between noon and midnight, midwinter and midsummer. It requires no deep philosophical exploration, no dogma or religion, and no god to shepherd our way to knowing good and evil. We don't need to eat a fruit to see it.

And, in fact, I would argue that religion (particularly Christianity) has hindered objective morality by ascribing it to a deity and a holy book, with which those in power can craft the message to what they want and demonize entire populations of people.

Okay, so until further evidence I will assume that you conflate feelings with observation. Have a good day.