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

[Magic Man]

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

Ah, I see, you're just looking at it wrong. That's not to say "Do you believe that the religion of Judaism exists", it's saying "Do you believe in that religion" like "Do you believe in God".

 

[lilithu]

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

True. I believe in the religion of Judaism too.

(Of course there are certain forms of Judaism that I believe IN more than others.)

 

[lilithu]

Ah, I see, you're just looking at it wrong.

Um, no. I'm pretty sure she's gently teasing you.

 

[Willamena]

Ah, I see, you're just looking at it wrong. That's not to say "Do you believe that the religion of Judaism exists", it's saying "Do you believe in that religion" like "Do you believe in God".

It's not so much a case of me looking at it wrong, as in that the question asked wasn't the question that was intended to be asked.

 

[Magic Man]

Um, no. I'm pretty sure she's gently teasing you.

That's certainly possible, but I get the feeling that isn't the case here.

It's not so much a case of me looking at it wrong, as in that the question asked wasn't the question that was intended to be asked.

No, the right question was asked. I intended to ask "Do you believe in the religion of Judaism", in the same sense as one would ask "Do you believe in God", and that's what I asked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I recognize this, which is why I suggested that the most straightforward way to approach the problem is just to accept each person's word for what their religion is, but you seem unwilling to do this.

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.

As is common sense and the members of the "religion's" own views, apparently.

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.)

So... by this definition, a cradle Catholic who attends Mass every Sunday for his entire life, goes to Confession regularly, never had a doubt in his mind of the truth of God or the Church, but whose ideas about how these beliefs should be expressed as values changed and grew as he matured has "changed religions"... perhaps many times.

I think you have to realize that this definition of "religion" that you're trying to impose on the irreligious has some very odd implications for people who actually practice religion.

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

Here's an example: say you have a person who claims to be Muslim, follows all the rituals of Islam, believes in God and reads the Qu'ran daily, but in his heart of hearts is really motivated by greed, not Islam. He has self-defined his religion as Islam. Would you then turn around and tell him that this is not actually his true religion?

In a more positive example, say you have a Jew and a Buddhist whose "ultimate concern" above all else is love. Do they follow the same religion? After all, they share the same "ultimate concern". What would they say?

The way you've applied your ideas in this thread, it seems like your intent is more to "claim" irreligious people for religion than it is to express a new definition generally. You've effectively expressed the idea that whatever a person says about their religious position should be taken at face value, except people who don't claim to have a religion.

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.

And in a sense that's not generally shared, which makes it less than useful for communication, where mutually understood definitions are the key to understanding.

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

I think the fact that you argued about it with her in the first place shows an inconsistency in your approach. I didn't notice you trying to ascertain Jay's "ultimate concern" before deciding whether his religion actually was Judaism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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)

It should tell you that the question is ignorant and shallow.

So, again, do you believe in the religion of Judaism?

So, again: the question is ignorant and shallow.

I do, however, believe:

• That religion, properly understood and pursued, is a verb.
• That the religious traditions of Judaism offer a valuable lens and framework for that effort.
• That these traditions are fully compatible with the perception of God as the reification of Godliness.

 

[lilithu]

No, the right question was asked. I intended to ask "Do you believe in the religion of Judaism", in the same sense as one would ask "Do you believe in God", and that's what I asked.

Which makes Jay's response all the more relevant:

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

 

[lilithu]

I recognize this, which is why I suggested that the most straightforward way to approach the problem is just to accept each person's word for what their religion is, but you seem unwilling to do this.

I think most of your post conflates two things: the definition of what religion is, and the definition of what different religions are.

The way you've applied your ideas in this thread, it seems like your intent is more to "claim" irreligious people for religion than it is to express a new definition generally. You've effectively expressed the idea that whatever a person says about their religious position should be taken at face value, except people who don't claim to have a religion.

My intent is to get people on both sides to stop using the word religious as a term that defines "us versus them." As I said in the beginning, I find that many who are distrustful of religion define "religion" to be all the things they dislike/disapprove of and "philosophy" to be all the things they like/approve of. That to me is not a meaningful definition. If you define everyone as religious, and religion as one's ultimate concern, the question then becomes "what is my ultimate concern"? What do I place value in? And what is yours? And do we agree? As opposed to something superficial like "Do you ascribe to this label?"

It had occurred to me that people might be less willing to consider my argument because they suspect my motivations. Perhaps, as a (panen)theist and overtly religious person, people might think I'm trying to say that "everyone believes in God" or something like that. When Jay joined the argument, I thought that would put those fears to rest. Apparently not.

I think the fact that you argued about it with her in the first place shows an inconsistency in your approach. I didn't notice you trying to ascertain Jay's "ultimate concern" before deciding whether his religion actually was Judaism.

For the record, I've never decided that Jay's religion is Judaism. Anyone who knows him would know it's more complex than that. If I were to venture to guess what his "ultimate concern" is based on knowing him over the years, I would say that it's justice. But I am of course open to correction by him.

 

[Magic Man]

It should tell you that the question is ignorant and shallow.

So, again: the question is ignorant and shallow.

I do, however, believe:

• That religion, properly understood and pursued, is a verb.
• That the religious traditions of Judaism offer a valuable lens and framework for that effort.
• That these traditions are fully compatible with the perception of God as the reification of Godliness.

No, it should tell me that you don't like the question because it proves my point, and that your calling it ignorant and shallow only helps prove my point even more.

I'm glad you have such an understanding of the term "religion". That does not discount the dictionary definition, though. You're welcome to yours. It would just be better to realize that that is your personal definition, and not what most people mean when they say "religion".

 

[lilithu]

I do, however, believe:

• That religion, properly understood and pursued, is a verb.
• That the religious traditions of Judaism offer a valuable lens and framework for that effort.
• That these traditions are fully compatible with the perception of God as the reification of Godliness.

Hey, I believe that too! :angel2:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hey, I believe that too! :angel2:

Luv ya, my friend. L'shalom ... :flower2:

 

[lilithu]

No, it should tell me that you don't like the question because it proves my point, and that your calling it ignorant and shallow only helps prove my point even more.

Your question, "Do you believe in the religion of Judaism?" is kinda like the question, "So tell me, when did you stop abusing you mother?"

It ASSUMES all variety of things and puts the person asked in a position where if he or she answers either way, yes or no, is forced to say something in which he or she does not believe.

Your question proves nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think most of your post conflates two things: the definition of what religion is, and the definition of what different religions are.

But the two are linked. If a person's religion is their "ultimate concern", then different "ultimate concerns" imply different religions.

My intent is to get people on both sides to stop using the word religious as a term that defines "us versus them." As I said in the beginning, I find that many who are distrustful of religion define "religion" to be all the things they dislike/disapprove of and "philosophy" to be all the things they like/approve of. That to me is not a meaningful definition.

Nor an accurate one, IMO, which would make it largely irrelevant.

If you define everyone as religious, and religion as one's ultimate concern, the question then becomes "what is my ultimate concern"? What do I place value in? And what is yours? And do we agree? As opposed to something superficial like "Do you ascribe to this label?"

But that's what I see you as doing. If your intent is to actually break down an "us vs. them" mindset, rather than externally imposing the label "religious" on people who do not want it (and in the process help to build up that "us vs. them" separation, IMO), why not look for actual points of commonality?

It had occurred to me that people might be less willing to consider my argument because they suspect my motivations. Perhaps, as a (panen)theist and overtly religious person, people might think I'm trying to say that "everyone believes in God" or something like that. When Jay joined the argument, I thought that would put those fears to rest. Apparently not.

I've seen it so far as closer to "science is a faith" more than "everyone believes in God".

For the record, I've never decided that Jay's religion is Judaism. Anyone who knows him would know it's more complex than that. If I were to venture to guess what his "ultimate concern" is based on knowing him over the years, I would say that it's justice. But I am of course open to correction by him.

So, then, would you presume to tell him that Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and irreligious people whose "ultimate concern" is also justice share a religion with him?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, then, would you presume to tell him that Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and irreligious people whose "ultimate concern" is also justice share a religion with him?

I see absolutely nothing presumptuous about such a suggestion. On the contrary, an awareness of shared religion is a valuable outcome of 'inter-faith' dialogue.

 

[lilithu]

So, then, would you presume to tell him that Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and irreligious people whose "ultimate concern" is also justice share a religion with him?

My guess is he already knows that.

I would presume to say that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians and people who don't identify with any organized religion but whose "ultimate concern" is also justice share the same religion as myself.

Which is why I see it as breaking down the superficial barriers of "us versus them." I honestly do not see how you can justify simultaneously saying that I'm defining religion so broadly such that it loses meaning while at the same time creating barriers where none existed before.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see absolutely nothing presumptuous about such a suggestion. On the contrary, an awareness of shared religion is a valuable possible outcome of 'inter-faith' dialogue.

So... out of you and the people who profess to follow the religions of Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, along with those who profess to follow no religion at all, which ones would be incorrect in their self-assessment and self-declaration?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So... out of you and the people who profess to follow the religions of Islam, Christianity and Buddhism, along with those who profess to follow no religion at all, which ones would be incorrect in their self-assessment and self-declaration?

That would greatly depend on the specific self-assessment and self-declaration. Please try restating the question.

 

[crystalonyx]

Ask a person of Jewish descent that doesn't "practice" the religion if they are Jewish. I think that's all that needs to be done. I have a niece that is half-Jewish, that
I don't think practices the religion, I think she would claim to be Jewish.

 

[lilithu]

I really need to get to work. I leave you to your fun, or whatever.