"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I attend Shabbat services and Torah class regularly along with a number of nontheists. It is interesting to see mball speak so confidently about areas in which he is clearly and thoroughly ignorant.

I attend Catholic Mass and read the Bible regularly, but I'm not a Christian generally or a Catholic specifically.

Personally, I tend to go by a person's own definition of religion: in my mind, if a person claims to be Christian, that's good enough for me; if a person claims to be Muslim, then fine - he or she is a Muslim. I'm not in a position to judge the quality of a person's religious faith or practice.

When it comes to Judaism, though, does the label apply solely to a religion? If someone says "I am a Jew", does this automatically have a religious connotation?

To look at it another way, would you be able to find two people who would both say that they are Jews, but both acknowledge that they follow different religions? Would you be able to find someone who says both that he is a Jew and that he follows no religion?

What this conversation once again makes me think is that religious liberalism has become so marginalized in this society that people don't even know it exists. People have accepted the conservative doctrine that religion must be the adherence to certain beliefs and/or practices (or else one is not x) and continue to accept this doctrine even as they claim to reject the authority of the religious conservatives.

You gave a definition of religion in terms of "ultimate concern"; based on it, what perspective do you have on how to judge the line where one religion ends and another begins?

 

[lilithu]

No, the problem is that you've moved away from your original argument, the one about your definition of religion, and how the dictionary definition is wrong. If you have discussed this with them in the context of your definition of religion versus the dictionary definition, and whether or not they consider themselves part of the religion of Judaism rather than just the culture (It's a very specific discussion), I'd be extremely surprised. Part of my surprise would come from discussions I've had with Jews that would tend to support my assertions (although I admit that I have not discussed this exact topic with them).

As for Jay, he's not even arguing the original argument.

True, those are two separate but related arguments. If religion is about meaning and identity, then it makes perfect sense that there are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. who still consider themselves to be part of their religion even if they do not accept all the tenets and/or practices. If religion is about beliefs and practices, then you are in this awkward dichotomy where you claim that certain people are "culturally" x but not "religiously" x.

As for Jay, ask him what his definition of religion is, and then tell me that he's not arguing the original argument.

 

[gnomon]

So does stating that everyone breaths remove any cohesive meaning from the term breathing?

The definition does not remove cohesion. Rather, what it does is cause the cohesion to hinge on a different paradigm. IMO, a much more useful paradigm.

Are we agreed that defining religion as belief in the supernatural is not an adequate definition, as it includes things that should be excluded and excludes things that should be included?

I would make the same argument for the dictionary definition of religion as a "set of beliefs and practices." Sorry but by that definition, the boy scouts is a religion.

The above definitions look at the outward form without understanding the underlying causes.

The fundamental intent of religion is to try to answer existential questions. It is an attempt to make meaning and identity. These attempts then get codified into beliefs and rituals, true, but the beliefs and rituals are the result, not the cause.

Religion is about meaning and identity.

Well I disagree with the breathing analogy. Breathing involves a biological fact based on empiricism. Religion/philosophy doesn't.

Of course I agree with the notion that not all religions are based on supernaturalism. I don't remember what my original statement was but I assume I misspoke.

I disagree with your fundamental definition of religion. I do not think the definition holds a historical context. I do agree that ritualistic behavior is a resultant behavior. I would also assert that religion's fundamental beginnings are derived from tribal cohesion and identity. There is no fundamental universalism in religion although the dominant religions of today adapted to assert such universalism.

The only disagreement I really see between your view and mine is that I use the term philosophy in regards to ultimate concern and existential questions. I may be Western biased in my view but philosophical methodologies transcended religious methodologies and I see no reason to exert a new paradigm as I do not see the necessity of one.

But in the end, all I really see here is that I use the term philosophy. You use the term religion. When I state that I do not adhere to any religion I see no traditional or modern definition of the term that the statement violates.

But I think you and I are basically debating the usefulness of the paradigm you assert. Or we are debating over the pronunciation of potato.

If I am still missing the mark let me know. I would assert everyone adheres to some basic philosophy with certain levels of religious, nationalist, ethnic and naturalistic elements comprising the whole of that individuals philosophy.

 

[gnomon]

You know what. I picked that book up a few months ago. I knew I should have read it by now. Too busy reading some historiography books right now, though.

 

[doppelganger]

You know what. I picked that book up a few months ago. I knew I should have read it by now. Too busy reading some historiography books right now, though.

I have that one on order.

Spong's "Jesus For the Non-Religious" is also a great read along these lines.

 

[lilithu]

I attend Catholic Mass and read the Bible regularly, but I'm not a Christian generally or a Catholic specifically.

Isn't that evidence that defining religious identity by certain practices is an inadequate definition?

Personally, I tend to go by a person's own definition of religion: in my mind, if a person claims to be Christian, that's good enough for me; if a person claims to be Muslim, then fine - he or she is a Muslim. I'm not in a position to judge the quality of a person's religious faith or practice.

As do I.

To look at it another way, would you be able to find two people who would both say that they are Jews, but both acknowledge that they follow different religions? Would you be able to find someone who says both that he is a Jew and that he follows no religion?

I think if you look hard enough, you will be able to find people of all different opinions. The more pertinent question is which definition of religion makes more sense.

You gave a definition of religion in terms of "ultimate concern"; based on it, what perspective do you have on how to judge the line where one religion ends and another begins?

As I said above, I let people self-define which religion they belong to, and this may be an "organized" religious tradition or it may be their own take on things. It is their "ultimate concern," after all.

 

[lilithu]

The only disagreement I really see between your view and mine is that I use the term philosophy in regards to ultimate concern and existential questions. I may be Western biased in my view but philosophical methodologies transcended religious methodologies and I see no reason to exert a new paradigm as I do not see the necessity of one.

But in the end, all I really see here is that I use the term philosophy. You use the term religion. When I state that I do not adhere to any religion I see no traditional or modern definition of the term that the statement violates.

ZenZero said in the Buddhism forum, and I absolutely agree, that religion is just philosophy put into practice. If you have a philosophy and you try to live by it in your daily life, then you have a religion.

I do see a Western bias in your view but at this point I am content to agree to disagree on terminology. At least we understand each other.

 

[lilithu]

Yup, so just keep ignoring the question...Do you believe in the religion of Judaism?

It would probably be helpful if you defined what you mean by "the religion of Judaism."

 

[Magic Man]

The more pertinent question is which definition of religion makes more sense.

Exactly. In certain contexts, yours might work, but I think in most situations, using the standard dictionary definition makes the most sense.

As I said above, I let people self-define which religion they belong to, and this may be an "organized" religious tradition or it may be their own take on things. It is their "ultimate concern," after all.

I tend to let people do that, too. However, if someone believes in Allah and the Koran, I would have to disagree if they wanted to call themselves a Christian. Also, the point is that even people with their own independent religion, like Storm for instance, have a set of beliefs that make up that religion. It's not just one belief or "ultimate concern".

 

[lilithu]

It's not just one belief or "ultimate concern".

Given the number of people here who are getting tripped up on the term "ultimate concern", I have to agree Jay, that your definition is preferable, even tho I think they ultimately are saying the same thing.

 

[Magic Man]

It would probably be helpful if you defined what you mean by "the religion of Judaism."

Actually, I'd rather he answer without my definition. I'd like to see whether he considers himself a believer in Judaism the religion. Just like we've been saying, I want to get his opinion on whether or not he's religious.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yup, so just keep ignoring the question...Do you believe in the religion of Judaism?

Do you believe that is an honest or, for than matter, a meaningful question? ( Sady, I suspect that you do ... )

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, I'd rather he answer without my definition. I'd like to see whether he considers himself a believer in Judaism the religion. Just like we've been saying, I want to get his opinion on whether or not he's religious.

Of course I'm religious ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It would probably be helpful if you defined what you mean by "the religion of Judaism."

It would be helpful only if he had a coherent and meaningful understanding of the term.

 

[lilithu]

Deleted that post awfully quick there, mball. lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't that evidence that defining religious identity by certain practices is an inadequate definition?

Except it was presented as support for the idea that a non-theist's religion can be Judaism. I'll let Jay confirm or deny this, but the message I got from his post was that to some people, practices do matter in the definition of religion.

I think if you look hard enough, you will be able to find people of all different opinions. The more pertinent question is which definition of religion makes more sense.

And I don't think yours does make sense. You've already said that if religion is defined in terms of "ultimate concern", then religion might include anything from actual theistic belief and practice to sports team support or appreciation of certain foods. I think it's so broad a label as to be meaningless.

As I said above, I let people self-define which religion they belong to, and this may be an "organized" religious tradition or it may be their own take on things. It is their "ultimate concern," after all.

But this appears to be inherently contradictory. If you let people self-define their religion but then define it for them in terms of "ultimate concern", then you undermine the idea of self-definition.

I mean, earlier in the thread, you rejected Alceste's self-definition of her religion (which she gave as "none", IIRC) and instead stated that her religion was actually whatever mattered to her most.

And does your definition of religion leave room for people who might refer to themselves as Jewish, but intentionally not in a religious sense?

 

[Magic Man]

Do you believe that is an honest or, for than matter, a meaningful question? ( Sady, I suspect that you do ... )

Yes, and the fact that you won't answer is answer enough for me. Thank you. (This was the question that started all of this several pages ago, and the fact that you don't want to answer it only tells me that you're not here to discuss the issue)

Of course I'm religious ...

I like the "...". So, again, do you believe in the religion of Judaism?

It probably is my fault for using the term "religious". That's too vague.

 

[Magic Man]

Deleted that post awfully quick there, mball. lol.

Yup, so that I could take his next post into account, too.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, and the fact that you won't answer is answer enough for me. Thank you. (This was the question that started all of this several pages ago, and the fact that you don't want to answer it only tells me that you're not here to discuss the issue)


I like the "...". So, again, do you believe in the religion of Judaism?

It probably is my fault for using the term "religious". That's too vague.

Yeah. It's not a meaningful question, because Judaism (or any religion) undeniably exists. Even your question presupposes it.

 

[lilithu]

Except it was presented as support for the idea that a non-theist's religion can be Judaism. I'll let Jay confirm or deny this, but the message I got from his post was that to some people, practices do matter in the definition of religion.

Certainly a non-theist can be Jewish. We are not disagreeing there. And I agree that some people will consider themselves practitioners of a faith because they observe certain practices, even if they disagree with some main tenets. I am not seeking to exclude them. My point is that defining the religion by whether one observes practices is not a good definition, as it includes people who observe certain practices but do not identify as the religion in question, and it excludes people who do not observe the practices but nonetheless consider themselves to be members of the religion.

And I don't think yours does make sense. You've already said that if religion is defined in terms of "ultimate concern", then religion might include anything from actual theistic belief and practice to sports team support or appreciation of certain foods.

Well at it's most absurd extreme, yes. But what "ultimate concern" is getting at is what gives your life meaning? As I said, Tillich was an existentialist. And frankly, I do think there are people for whom their team is a religion. They attend "services" regularly. They invest their identity in the team. And are truly affected when the team does well or poorly. Now, whether or not this is a good religion to be following is another matter.

Under Tillich's definition, the central question is no longer centered around whether or not you go to church, or believe in a certain creed, etc. It is centered around what it is truly most important to you, the value(s) that you build your identity around. (And that may change over time.)

But this appears to be inherently contradictory. If you let people self-define their religion but then define it for them in terms of "ultimate concern", then you undermine the idea of self-definition.

How so? Everyone defines their own ultimate concern. It could not be otherwise.

Yes, I am saying that everyone is "religious." And certain people are hearing that as me saying, everyone believes in superstitions, or everyone goes to church, etc. Obviously that's not the case, and would be a ridiculous statement. What I am saying is that everyone has certain values, ideals... things that they center their lives and identities around. Things that give their lives meaning. What those things are are defined by them, not just in a "literal" sense but in a lived sense.

Alceste insists that she doesn't. Cest la vie. I won't argue with her about that anymore.