The Definition of Religion

Having taken part in several religious debates, many of the debates come down to how each side defines the words. One of the words that often gets defined differently by each side is the word religion.

Here's Merriam Webster's definition of religion:

Quote:

---

Definition of RELIGION

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

---

Generally, I've found:

If you're on the non-religious side of the debate, you'd likely define the word religion very narrowly to include the supernatural and God. It's easier to ague against a narrow definition, so people on the non-religious side usually argue that religion is the opposite of science. Science is verifiable and testable, they argue, while God and religion are not.

If you're on the religious side of the debate, you would tend to broaden the word religion to include ritualized attitude, beliefs and practices since there are a lot of religious activities that can be experienced. Many of these experiences can't be verified and tested, but they also don't necessarily fall under the supernatural category.

Which side of the debate do you fall on? How do you define religion?

The nicest answer I heard about it was that science tries explains the how, whereas religion tries explains the why. I don't see science and religion being incompatible just different ways of looking at the universe in general.

I tend to fall on the religious side of the debate because I tend to find the athiestic way of looking things too narrow minded and only concentrating on what is there in front of them and that little else is up for debate.

I would include ritualised beliefs and faiths in religion as a belief that there is something else beyond what our five senses can tell us.

I'm a little bit like CIAS, I think. I think religion has a role, in my life and in the world in general. So, even though I'm a bit of a doubter, I tend to take the religion side in questions like this. I've always thought that the modern idea of "well, science is now explaining the universe so we don't need religion" gives short-shrift to what religion actually means to people, which is to give a deeper meaning to it all, to answer the "why are we here?" kind of questions. I think that rituals and belief sort of go hand in hand, and I'm kind of skeptical of the "I'm spiritual in my own way" kind of religion as well as the "belief isn't important to me, but I like being part of a community" kind of religion. I tend to fall into the latter camp a bit, but I think both faith and practice are important.

I am one of those 'spiritual in my own way' types, though I've kind of been the look-out for some kind of community I could be a part of without feeling silly or hypocritical.

Anyways, I also fall onto the religious side of the debate, as you've framed it, Heffalump.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Orual

I am one of those 'spiritual in my own way' types, though I've kind of been the look-out for some kind of community I could be a part of without feeling silly or hypocritical.

---

I hope what I said didn't seem rude...I didn't mean I was skeptical of it terms of sincerity or anything like that. I am just not sure it's enough to be considered "religion."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Heffalump

Which side of the debate do you fall on? How do you define religion?

---

I define it for what it is: a massive con game designed to accumulate wealth and gain influence over its adherents.

Your answer falls short on two levels, Clothahump. First, it assumes insincerity on the part of religious adherents. SEcondly, it doesn't address Roo's question.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Your answer falls short on two levels, Clothahump. First, it assumes insincerity on the part of religious adherents. SEcondly, it doesn't address Roo's question.

---

Thank you, Sarah. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

I define it for what it is: a massive con game designed to accumulate wealth and gain influence over its adherents.

---

I didn't realise Amway was a religion.

Religion is a set of beliefs used to explain a particular worldview, which incorporates spirituality, mysticism, and ritual. Ritual can be a group activity or private. I've known a few solitary pagans who are absolutely religious, even if everything they are doing everything alone.

I've also met a few people who do Amway type stuff (Avon, those damned candle parties) that are bordering on being cult members, so make of that what you will.

Peeta, good point...I absolutely agree that the ritual can be private, but that it's an important component of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Your answer falls short on two levels, Clothahump. First, it assumes insincerity on the part of religious adherents. SEcondly, it doesn't address Roo's question.

---

It does answer her question, exactly. And the insincerity is primarily on the part of the people who invented the religion and those who currently carry it forward. The believers are victims who have been conned, and they believe the lie. The implementers know its a lie and yet they continue to spout it because they're making money off of it.

Or they could be adherents to the Sky Cake hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Your answer falls short on two levels, Clothahump. First, it assumes insincerity on the part of religious adherents. SEcondly, it doesn't address Roo's question.

---

It does answer her question, exactly. And the insincerity is primarily on the part of the people who invented the religion and those who currently carry it forward. The believers are victims who have been conned, and they believe the lie. The implementers know its a lie and yet they continue to spout it because they're making money off of it.

---

No, you didn't answer it. She wants to know what needs to be involved for something to be considered a religion, and you didn't answer that.

Regarding the rest of what you said here...you are assuming that there is insincerity on the part of people who "invented" the religion (whoever that might be). And you are assuming insincerity on the part of people who continue to propagate the religion, cause you know, the people who "invented" all the major religions have been dead quite a while. Those are pretty big assumptions, and most likely incorrect ones.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuul

Or they could be adherents to the Sky Cake hypothesis.

---

Damnit, Zuul! How many times do I have to tell you? IT'S PIE!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

And you are assuming insincerity on the part of people who continue to propagate the religion, cause you know, the people who "invented" all the major religions have been dead quite a while. Those are pretty big assumptions, and most likely incorrect ones.

---

For what it's worth, my father and uncle (both ministers) are very sincere in their faith. Actually, I've known many people in the ministry through my life, and I've never gotten the idea that any of them were doing it for any reason other than a desire to spread the word of God.

Back to the real topic, I've never really seen science and religious faith as really in opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Marsilia

Damnit, Zuul! How many times do I have to tell you? IT'S PIE!

---

It's CAKE, motherfucker! YOU'RE DEAD!

Quote:

---

Back to the real topic, I've never really seen science and religious faith as really in opposition.

---

Well, there are plenty who would disagree with you. It's unfortunate and ironic when there is an outspoken atheist scientist fighting with creationists who instead of focusing on taking down ignorance focuses on religion and thus the only people paying attention to him are the people who agree with him anyway. No creationists learn that they don't have to believe in a literal Genesis and that their faith can live side by side with scientific fact. Instead, they're taught through example that only through ignorance and insularity can their faith be safe from attack. Richard Dawkins, I'm looking at you.

The false dichotomy that says science and faith are in opposition perpetuates ignorance by making people feel like science is an attack on their faith. There's no reason that it should be. Shocking though the Internet might find this, there is a significant minority of scientists who are themselves religious. Even more of them apparently consider themselves "spiritual." Interesting paper on that here.

Personally, so long as the Sky Cake isn't creeping into school curriculum or being used to decide public policy, I don't much care if someone believes in a celestial snackfood.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarahfeena

Your answer falls short on two levels, Clothahump. First, it assumes insincerity on the part of religious adherents. SEcondly, it doesn't address Roo's question.

---

It does answer her question, exactly. And the insincerity is primarily on the part of the people who invented the religion and those who currently carry it forward. The believers are victims who have been conned, and they believe the lie. The implementers know its a lie and yet they continue to spout it because they're making money off of it.

---

No, you didn't answer it. She wants to know what needs to be involved for something to be considered a religion, and you didn't answer that.

---

A study of history shows us that all religions, in some manner, exploit the human fear of death. This is how they gain power over their adherents and/or accumulate wealth. Give us your money and/or services and in return, we will let you believe in our warm fuzzy: when you die, you get to go to heaven/valhalla/the elysian fields/wherever. But if you don't give us your money and/or services, then you don't get to believe in that and instead, you'll go to hell/hades/sheol/wherever. And historically, the obvious threat was, you'll likely go there a lot faster because we'll kill you for not doing what we say.

The founders of a religion live very well indeed.

Quote:

---

Regarding the rest of what you said here...you are assuming that there is insincerity on the part of people who "invented" the religion (whoever that might be). And you are assuming insincerity on the part of people who continue to propagate the religion, cause you know, the people who "invented" all the major religions have been dead quite a while. Those are pretty big assumptions, and most likely incorrect ones.

---

No assumptions whatsoever. Again, studying religion from an historical and social point of view shows very clearly that religions are all about power and/or money. The theology is simply the snake oil that they sell to their victims. They are nothing but gigantic con games.

And you don't have to look all that far back in history. Scientology is a "new religion"; it has started in my lifetime. And it was started for one reason and one reason only: to make money. L. Ron Hubbard is on record as repeatedly saying that the only way to make real money was to start a religion. And he, as the founder of the religion, got quite rich off of it.

Broad brush statements about multiple cultures show an almost laughable level of hubris. But, I'm an idiot who was raised in part by a snake oil salesman, so what do I know?

Ah, well, I tried to get him involved in the actual discussion, but it didn't work. Thanks for playing, though, Clothahump! :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The linked paper above

There is some truth to the perception that scientists and the academy are “godless.” Yet, to see the academy only from this monolithic view would overlook the significant numbers of scientists who do identify with some form of faith tradition (48 percent) as well as those who are interested in spirituality (about 68 percent).

---

Huh. I never would have guessed that the number was so high. It does make it a little harder to argue that science and spirituality are entirely opposed, if they so often go hand in hand.

Yeah, I find that pretty interesting, Peeta. Maybe it's part of what we were talking about before...the wanting to know the "why" of it, you know?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

A study of history shows us that all religions, in some manner, exploit the human fear of death. This is how they gain power over their adherents and/or accumulate wealth. Give us your money and/or services and in return, we will let you believe in our warm fuzzy: when you die, you get to go to heaven/valhalla/the elysian fields/wherever. But if you don't give us your money and/or services, then you don't get to believe in that and instead, you'll go to hell/hades/sheol/wherever. And historically, the obvious threat was, you'll likely go there a lot faster because we'll kill you for not doing what we say.

The founders of a religion live very well indeed.

---

I'm not so sure that is true. I don't think early Christians were raking in the wealth as much as spreading an idea that you should do the best you could for your fellow man to be rewarded in the afterlife and trying to avoid being put to death.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Clothahump

The founders of a religion live very well indeed.

---

I'm not so sure that is true. I don't think early Christians were raking in the wealth as much as spreading an idea that you should do the best you could for your fellow man to be rewarded in the afterlife and trying to avoid being put to death.

---

Pretty much. And, even now, not every pastor has a "mega-church" and a multi-book deal with Zondervan. And, my cousin's wife pretty much has to beg for money so she can go to impoverished and under-developed countries to help build schools and houses and give starving kids food and stuff.

The general tenor of weary sighing above suggests to me that Clothahump has a tedious habit of threadshitting wherever he gets the excuse to trot out his favourite line about religion - one I've heard from other lips and at other times and places. But the specific instance he cites above is retarded in the extreme: the fact that Scientology was recently founded by an unprincipled scoundrel does nothing to demonstrate that any genuine religion was so founded, still less that they all were. Nor even would the ability to demonstrate that, in fact, all of the senior churchmen in Christianity were pious-sounding hypocrites only in it for the wealth and the power. Even were such the case (and that may be far more than Clothahump can indeed show) it would not refute the hypothesis that Christianity itself was founded on utter truth, but has attracted parasitic chancers after the manner of many a secular organisation.

As to the definition of religion, I make no claim to enlightenment. :)

My theory is that one of the big disconnects that's suffered between some atheists and people of faith is that, as atheists they cannot fathom having faith in something intangible like that. And so, being unable to fathom it, they have to look for motivations that they can understand. So they look at cons and manipulation and people being duped, since those make more sense than a bunch of people all sharing the same "delusion" of their own free will.

And so that's where dueling definitions of religion come from, for the most part. I don't think it's out of a malicious desire to control the debate by narrowing definitions, but simply because if you don't have faith then the concept of religion is just plain weird to you.