Religions as Value Systems

[Quintessence]

What is religion? It's a simple question. Yet it is a question that hardly has a simple answer. I myself have yet to come up with a satisfactory baseline for that question, and Patheos ran an article recently that got me thinking about what religion is again. Writer Aidan Kelly provides a rather interesting angle on this dilemma:

Taking the social-science viewpoint that “religion” is a label for a category of human behavior, I began to ask what all religions have in common, which is, in fact, very little. Theism immediately falls off the list. Theravada Buddhism is obviously a major religion, but is absolutely nontheistic; the existence or nonexistence of any divine reality is simply irrelevant to the teachings of the Buddha.

...

I think it was during my doctoral program in the 1970s that I hit upon a promising hypothesis: the one trait all religions have in common is their primary function of supplying a system of values, which humans must have in order to make important decisions, such as, “What should I do with my life?” The inverse of this hypothesis is that each person’s system of values is what serves as the functional equivalent of a religion—and it does not matter whether or not that system is labeled as a “religion.”

*full article here*

Let's focus on that idea of religion being the central axis of someone's value system. Does this seem to be a good way of defining what religion does in people's lives? What aspects of religion does it successfully capture and what aspects might it be missing? What are some examples of value through the eyes of religion?

I think of one of the most commonly cited "required" attributes of religion: theism. The concept of god found in a particular religion, when you get right down to it, is a reflection of values. Specifically, a reflection of sacredness, typically the greater-than or a sublime mystery or wonderment. In some religions, their god-concept functions to create a group identity around which values are anchored. The god of the Bible originally began this way - as a god of the tribe that later morphed into a more abstract and transcendent force.

I also think about the rituals and celebrations. While not often considered at the forefront by most in my culture when they think about religion, what we choose to celebrate is a reflection of values. That my religious celebrations focus around natural events like the turnings of seasons or coming of storms reflects that my Paganism is nature-centered. Some atheists celebrate things like the birthdays of seminal figures of science, which reflects their value of empirical naturalism and learning. I'm sure you guys can come up with many more examples.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I would say philosophy is what generates value, but not as a system, as it's far more complex than that, there are some philosophical groups out there that might be well fitting for calling a system of philosophy (and thus a value system) however it is philosophy as a whole, which people tend to forget is personal.

Religion looks at these values and constructs a useful system based off of them. In my opinion.

 

[Quintessence]

I would say philosophy is what generates value, but not as a system, as it's far more complex than that, there are some philosophical groups out there that might be well fitting for calling a system of philosophy (and thus a value system) however it is philosophy as a whole, which people tend to forget is personal.

Religion looks at these values and constructs a useful system based off of them. In my opinion.

So... would you say religion has to have the added component of rituals, practices, and/or dogmas, not just a grounding for values alone? Would that be an example of a "useful system?" You might be onto something there.

Philosophy is another one of those things that is difficult to define, though. It is often not a thing in of itself, but something that interweaves and interpenetrates. Arguably, all disciplines are like this; excessive compartmentalization of "this is ecology" and "this is chemistry" and "this is religion" is a bit of an artifice.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So... would you say religion has to have the added component of rituals, practices, and/or dogmas, not just a grounding for values alone? Would that be an example of a "useful system?" You might be onto something there.

Practically. I view religion as a word mixed up with spirituality or philosophy. Religion is an organized sentient of the two, jumbling philosophical opinions or spiritual concepts into one practice or way, rather than just being a concept gatherer, religions generally are organized by these opinions or spiritual concepts combined, and thus cannot be simply a set of beliefs, those are individual concepts that would be classified as spiritual concepts or philosophical opinions.

Philosophy is another one of those things that is difficult to define, though. It is often not a thing in of itself, but something that interweaves and interpenetrates. Arguably, all disciplines are like this; excessive compartmentalization of "this is ecology" and "this is chemistry" and "this is religion" is a bit of an artifice.

I agree, philosophy shouldn't be used as a noun or a collection of things, similarly as "science" shouldn't or "math" shouldn't. We often use those words to describe the "collection of history of science" the "collection of history of philosophy"

 

[Amechania]

Religion seems to me to be more than a system of values or a justification for a value system. Religion is a collective belief in a particuliar supernatural vision. This vision seems to be more than a justification for behavior but a means of identifying one's self and one's relation to the world in terms not of the world. Whatever values or rituals attatch to the central belief depends on the traditions that evolved around that belief. Similarities abound between religions as to these details but only so far as the faith vision coincides, it seems to me.

 

[Sunstone]

Jared Diamond spent thirty or thirty-five years studying the tribes of New Guinea. If I recall, he has stated that not one of the tribes he studied had a native religion which was used to justify or shore up a value system or morality. Diamond has gone on to suggest that tying values into religion is a relatively recent development in human history, and that our ancestors of, say, ten thousand years ago or before, probably seldom did it. Whether one accepts his speculation that our ancestors largely had value-less religions, his observations that the tribes he studied did not would by itself suggest that something more complex is going on here.

 

[LuisDantas]

What are those tribes' religions about then?

 

[Quintessence]

What are those tribes' religions about then?

I have to ask this too, because I cannot think of any religion that is is devoid of valuation or isn't somehow an expression of a culture's values.

I also want to add that we shouldn't conflate values with ethics or morals here, because that isn't what Kelly means by the term. I completely agree that ethics are not necessarily a unifying component of religions, but values? Like I said, I can't think of any religion whose dogmas (if it has them) or rituals (if it has them) are not expressions of the people's values.

 

[Levite]

I would agree that framework and construction of values is probably one of the elements common to the greatest number of religions, though not to all, and I think it can mean very different things in different religions. I might take it back a step and say that the most common element to all religions is the creation of systems of meaning-- which can, and usually do, include frameworks of values.

Additionally, subsidiary to the creation of systems of meaning (in much the same way values creation is subsidiary to the creation of systems of meaning), I think many if not most religions offer some opportunity for spiritual discipline of one sort or another: cultivating spirituality, awareness, etc. In some religions it may be in service of greater connection to God; but in some it may be for other purposes altogether, such as enlightenment, or even participation in some kind of ritual or mystical purpose to life (helping defeat the forces of darkness or renewing the earth or unifying the cosmic mind-spirit or whatever).

Nonetheless, I do think that creation of meaning, theology (if there is theology), and ritual practice inevitably either spring from the same source and/or end up tightly interwoven in many, if not most religions. I would be hard pressed to think of a religion where the meaning system is separate from the ritual and theology.

 

[psychoslice]

I would say philosophy is what generates value, but not as a system, as it's far more complex than that, there are some philosophical groups out there that might be well fitting for calling a system of philosophy (and thus a value system) however it is philosophy as a whole, which people tend to forget is personal.

Religion looks at these values and constructs a useful system based off of them. In my opinion.

And a good opinion at that.

 

[Sunstone]

What are those tribes' religions about then?

I think Diamond has published a book on the tribes he studied. I don't recall the title, though.

 

[Excaljnur]

I would agree that framework and construction of values is probably one of the elements common to the greatest number of religions, though not to all, and I think it can mean very different things in different religions. I might take it back a step and say that the most common element to all religions is the creation of systems of meaning-- which can, and usually do, include frameworks of values.

Additionally, subsidiary to the creation of systems of meaning (in much the same way values creation is subsidiary to the creation of systems of meaning), I think many if not most religions offer some opportunity for spiritual discipline of one sort or another: cultivating spirituality, awareness, etc. In some religions it may be in service of greater connection to God; but in some it may be for other purposes altogether, such as enlightenment, or even participation in some kind of ritual or mystical purpose to life (helping defeat the forces of darkness or renewing the earth or unifying the cosmic mind-spirit or whatever).

Nonetheless, I do think that creation of meaning, theology (if there is theology), and ritual practice inevitably either spring from the same source and/or end up tightly interwoven in many, if not most religions. I would be hard pressed to think of a religion where the meaning system is separate from the ritual and theology.

Could it be that a religion does not create meaning? It may be pure speculation to suggest that a religion is more than meaning, or less? I think it could be possible that a religion is simple a worldview, an ideological framework where logic is the only reason. In this worldview, it is up to the persons perceptions to determine the causality of nature which can attribute purpose to human behavior or the supernatural; but more fundamentally, I think that within everyone's world view, their beliefs that they hold closest to themselves (perhaps their most intrinsic values) are irrefutably logical beyond any reason.

I would say that it is within religion that people can find solace in the factual statement that they know they believe what it is they believe beyond any reasonable doubt, even if it is purely nonsensical to an outsider of that religion or perceptive framework.

This is not absolute certainty, but a psychological certainty that I would say defines a common element in all religions, the belief that your own worldview is logically correct.

 

[chinu]

Re+legion or religion in simple means Re-union with.. from where we all started this journey of life in the beginning.

 

[Sunstone]

I think one problem with positing that religions are value systems is that so many things besides religions are as well. Thus, the criterion doesn't serve to distinguish between what is religious and what is not.

 

[Sunstone]

It might be a fruitless endeavor to attempt to find one characteristic that is shared by all religions. Maybe it would be more fruitful to list, say, a dozen characteristics of religion and then say anything that shared eight or more of those characteristics was most likely a religion.

 

[Sunstone]

Another problem, I think, with Kelly's notion that it is religion which supplies us with a set of values is that it could very well be something else which supplies us with our core values -- our genes, for instance.

I might flatter myself that I have impressively derived my prejudice in favor of, say, racial equality or intellectual honesty from my religion or philosophy, but actually, it's more likely a "gut thing" with me. And not only a gut thing, but a gut thing I was born with. That is, a gene based thing. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Levite]

Could it be that a religion does not create meaning? It may be pure speculation to suggest that a religion is more than meaning, or less? I think it could be possible that a religion is simple a worldview, an ideological framework where logic is the only reason. In this worldview, it is up to the persons perceptions to determine the causality of nature which can attribute purpose to human behavior or the supernatural; but more fundamentally, I think that within everyone's world view, their beliefs that they hold closest to themselves (perhaps their most intrinsic values) are irrefutably logical beyond any reason.

I would say that it is within religion that people can find solace in the factual statement that they know they believe what it is they believe beyond any reasonable doubt, even if it is purely nonsensical to an outsider of that religion or perceptive framework.

This is not absolute certainty, but a psychological certainty that I would say defines a common element in all religions, the belief that your own worldview is logically correct.

Meaning has nothing to do with causality or the operational causes of the phenomena of the universe: it has everything to do with what we choose to make of those phenomena, and the phenomena associated with human life and behavior, what we will choose to value, why we decide to live and to do as we do. In other words, meaning is not about "what" but about "why."

Religion can be a system for helping people create meaning in their lives. So can philosophy. So can an art. So can the experience of love and compassion. But meaning can be created in reaction to negative experiences also-- it's just usually less healthy meanings.

For more about this idea, you may wish to read Man's Search For Meaning, by the psychologist Viktor Frankl.

Also, FWIW, not all religions-- perhaps even the minority of all religions-- are exclusivist in their theology/philosophy. Many religions see that their way is one effective way amongst many potentially effective ways.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's hard to imagine that a religion exists that doesn't have given values/ethics. I would define religion as a set of rituals and beliefs based around the concept of a higher existence/power. So while many religions do posit value/ethics systems, these aren't necessarily inherent in the system, although this is normally the case.

One example that comes to mind is the ancient Greeks. They had their beliefs, rituals, and worship of the gods, but normally this didn't inform one's values; that was left to the philosophers.