What Is Religion?

[Pyrotex]

...I have ...better things to do with my time then discussing invisible...nonsense....

Then by all means, do so. Close this thread and start a new one about one of those "better things".

[IDMclean]

I don't mean that derisively, Pyrotex, friend. B) far from it. I believe the word has validity, hence my taking time to discuss it. I just won't accept nondefinition as an answer.

 

It is a word, it means something. Means so much that people have lived, fought, and died for this perceived meaning.

 

It is crystal clear to me that Religion has some kind of universally agreeable meaning. Specific kinds of religion will have specific traits that are not common to all religions, but all religions will have specific traits which are common to all religions. Very simple set theory here. B)

 

I am asking what are these common elements that define religion? Once we know the definition we can start making expressions. Without Definition, or axiom, we can make no theories regarding the concept. I have theories, I just am uncertain of the definition, and of the axioms involved. Clarifaction of these things can lead to a greater understanding of the concept as a whole. B)

 

I'll admit though that I did use rhetoric to push a point across. I spend time discussing this subject. Obviously it has meaning to me. You spend time discussing this subject. Obviously it has meaning to you. There is a intersection of the defining elements of our set that we call religion. I want to know explicitly what that intersection is.

[Pyrotex]

...It is crystal clear to me that Religion has some kind of universally agreeable meaning. Specific kinds of religion will have specific traits that are not common to all religions, but all religions will have specific traits which are common to all religions. Very simple set theory here.

Not so simple, KAC. "Religion" is not subject to set theory, theorizing, ANDs, ORs, Integration, Differentiation, Equality, Addition, Subtraction, or Geometrization.

 

And actually, there is no "universally agreeable meaning" except among a small body of anthropologists who specialize in such things.

[IDMclean]

Well what I mean by universally agreeable is, we agree, and a rather sizable majority agree that there is this entity (not as in the creature sense, but as something that exists) called religion.

 

Now, religion in my book is an entity, and like all entities it is subject to relations, expressions, communication and definition. It might be an irrational, or a rational but it is an entity none the less. It logically follows then, that Religion, as an entity, inherits properties from this. That is logic can be used as an operator on religion. just as logic can be used as an operator on itself or any other entity.

 

I understand the contention that religion is immune to classification, but I don't accept that. I can talk with people about what religion is and is not. Just as I am doing here now. Religion has a scope. I intend to find what that scope is, and how subsets of religion are convergant and divergant.

[IDMclean]

To try again, this is a linguistics and grammar focused discussion. On the symantic definition of the concept of Religion.

 

It is important to seperate the form from the content, so I am not talking about any specific religion, or instance of religion. I am talking about the object (form) which we call religion and which instances of religion inherit characteristics from.

 

The content maybe irrational and defy definition, by definition, but the concept is rational, as it is a concept and as such inherits the associated traits.

 

So the question remains, what is the necessary elements of the concept of religion? I understand that sufficient exists, but it is uninteresting for the purposes of this discussion as it is descriptive and not prescriptive.

 

I am interested in the formal sense of the word religion. Not the colloquialistic form of "christianity is a religion, and buddhism is sometimes a religion."

 

I am interested in the word and concept itself independent of implementation.

 

So far the only one which seems to be somewhat if not entirely necessary for something to be a religion is belief in the supernatural.

 

Let's see what that does. If Religion is defined as belief in the supernatural then, when implemented. Anything that is knowledge (belief + validation) is not religious. Anything that is natural is not religious.

 

Going back to Buddhism, the forms of buddhism that reject the supernatural would be the philosophical forms and the forms that accept the supernatural would be the religious forms.

 

This definition, on a surface scan would seem to match with empericial reality. Under this definition are there any accepted religions that would be excluded that exist currently?

 

Accepted Religions with supernatural belief:

Taoism (the Religion) X

Christianity X

Islam X

Buddhism (the Religious sects) X

Paganism X

Jeudaism X

 

The major players would seem to be clearly under the definition.

[paigetheoracle]

Religion, is in my opinion, (or should I say to be more precise, spirituality)something beyond words as an experience: Politics is all words but spirit is a feeling. To further try to clarify what I mean - it is a pristine response to experience (seeing a natural wonder for the first time, sex, anything supernatural but not abnormal or repulsive as this is the opposite: It's love or expansiveness as opposed to withdrawal from. It's something that makes you want to live as opposed to want to die (inspires you rather than depresses you - positive emotion rather than negative - heading upwards and outwards in exploration as opposed to down and in, in fear of your own life/survival).

 

It is seeing the connection in all things and wanting to be a part of it (connecting yourself to it too) rather than wanting to sever all connections and ignore the light of enlightenment as you cannot bare the thought of being responsible for anything and everything (being a God yourself, by being in the driving seat of existence). To be religious is to be positive and creative as opposed to being negative and destructive: To me it is like matter/anti-matter in other words religion/anti-religion cannot exist together in the same person at the same time but as forces can alternate and indicate opposite directions of attention and intention - thought or action/ presence or absence.

[mcewen]

Fortunately each individual tweaks their own version of whatever religion they claim to belong to - net result = diversity.

Cheers

[IDMclean]

MCEWEN, Welcome to Hypography.

 

I will just comment at the moment that what you are talking about is instances of religion, not the concept of religion itself. There is a major distinction between "A religion" and "reglion".

 

The distinction is one of definition/form and practice/content.

 

Paige might very well be right. That the necessary element of Religion might be emotional reasoning as opposed to intellectual reasoning.

 

I will just throw out in regard to paige's definition:

Religion: something beyond words as an experience

 

In trying to place Religion beyond words, you have used words to do so and have created a contruct from which a person may seek to experience what you describe.

 

Much like this:

is not a pipe.

"*This* is not meaning."

 

The observation being that words are objectively representational. The word "religion" is but a representation of a concept.

 

As a representation of concepts; words are subject to Measurement Omission, in my experience.

 

To me trying to define what religion is by the varieties of religion is like trying to define comics based on batman, x-men, and superman. or comics based on "genre" of comic. The problem being that Religion is the object, and the varieties of the religion are just that. Of Religion, and therefore a property.

 

The structure being:

Properties, set of P, Religion, set of R, and Specific instance, set of I.

I = P + R

 

Which means that if you take any specific Instance of religion and reduce it down to core components, you will find it's super class, Religion.

 

I - P = R

 

So something to chew on. Though for now we can test your definition of religion, Paige:

Something that is beyond words as an experience, (infered) or the practice of emotional reasoning and experience.

 

That might work as a definition but is much harder to use as a metric.

 

Buddhism, from the get go though is strictly ruled out. Buddhism advocates truth based on validation by way of perception. Very much like science. It advocates intellectual reasoning rather than emotional reasoning.

 

Which brings me to consider that perhaps your definition is better applied to spirituality than religion.

 

Which once again brings about an interesting facet, Religion does not have to be spiritual. In fact in Buddhism one denies the existence of the spirit (anatta). Though religion can be spiritual. Christianity would be a good example of this, expecially with the holy trinity.

 

Comments?

[mcewen]

Whilst I'd like to offer an intelligent response, I'm afraid I am way out of my depth here, so I'll just shut up and read what other intelligent being write instead.

Cheers

[InfiniteNow]

Whilst I'd like to offer an intelligent response, I'm afraid I am way out of my depth here, so I'll just shut up and read what other intelligent being write instead.

Cheers

I suggest you do not post at all if this is the case. Please consider yourself warned.

[infamous]

As has been demonstrated by the various views and opinions which have been offered so far, the meaning of religion depends almost entirely upon the individual possessing it. There are probably as many different religions as there are people willing to invest a faith in one. I possess a faith myself but find it incredibly difficult to convey the substance of it to another. And unless my partner in discussion has an honest interest, it is useless to even try. For this reason, unless I'm asked in earnest to explain my religious views, I choose not to go into detail. I really don't like the word 'Religion' to begin with, it falls so short of what my faith really means to me. Nevertheless, in short, my answer to 'What is Religion?' would be: Religion is the human attempt to understand a meaning for his existence which transcends himself. I think man has great difficulty accepting that he is alone in this universe......................Infy

[IDMclean]

Mood: :) :Clown: :smart: :eek:

 

I quite like that, it's simple, concise, communitive and powerful. It is a definition I can accept, expecially as it admits the possibility to the contrary.

 

Religion is the human attempt to understand a meaning for his existence which transcends himself

 

What all does that definition include? What all does it exclude?

 

Check that definition against these:

Science

Philosophy

Art

Governance

Education

 

Then it I would like to check it against:

Buddhism

Christianity

Judaism

Jainism

Hinduism

Islam

Taoism

Shintoism

 

Do the major accepted religions fit the description?

 

I really like that one. It maybe a necessary element, that spills over as a necessary element of other fields, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

[cwes99_03]

I suggest you do not post at all if this is the case. Please consider yourself warned.

 

Ouch, iNow. That didn't seem necessary. He seemed to be making an attempt to add to the discussion, and realized that he didn't understand the point of the thread. Then it seems you bit his head off. I don't think that was warranted, but then I've done something similar and got myself warned for it. http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/8627-jesus-married-post147244.html#post147244

 

As has been demonstrated by the various views and opinions which have been offered so far, the meaning of religion depends almost entirely upon the individual possessing it. There are probably as many different religions as there are people willing to invest a faith in one. I possess a faith myself but find it incredibly difficult to convey the substance of it to another. And unless my partner in discussion has an honest interest, it is useless to even try. For this reason, unless I'm asked in earnest to explain my religious views, I choose not to go into detail. I really don't like the word 'Religion' to begin with, it falls so short of what my faith really means to me. Nevertheless, in short, my answer to 'What is Religion?' would be: Religion is the human attempt to understand a meaning for his existence which transcends himself. I think man has great difficulty accepting that he is alone in this universe......................Infy

 

Infy, I don't really follow you or agree with your definition. 1) I don't think religion is just in the eye of the beholder. That actually refutes defining. Basically the way I read that is, religion is whatever you want it to be (the upper part of the quote above that is). Religion should be more definable than that.

2) You definition (at the bottom) says that religion is nothing more than a construct of humans. Again, I disagree with that, and so would a great many people (number more than 5 billion) on the earth. They do not believe that their religion is just some construct. However, I do accept this latter part as an opinion of what religion is from a non-religious evolutionary anthropologist's point of view, as that has been repeatedly stated time and time again on Hypography (see thread America doesn't believe evolution.)

 

Furthermore, this still leaves the question asked earlier, as well as on my thread philosophy vs religion, unanswered.

 

It would seem to me that all one has to do is say "This is my religion." and describe it. Then they are eligible for tax exempt status and legal protections...

 

Actually, this is pretty much the way it works in the US. It's an atrocity to me, too. I don't want a superstition driven government either, or to have economic or legal benefits given to businesses because they are associated with religion. At one time, New York City was going in debt because so much of its commerical real estate was owned by religions. Somehow they reversed that trend. {somebody correct me if that isn't historically true}

 

I will correct you. This is not the way it works. I do know that there are rigorous amounts of paperwork one must fill out and then it must go in front of a board for approval. What that board uses as a definition to determine religion I do not know. Various religions still own large amounts of real estate in New York City and are tax exempt.

 

In other countries religions are given (and revoked) tax exempt status on a whim. Not just in the eastern bloc either. Two to three years ago France revoked the tax exempt status of Jehovah's Witnesses and did so retroactively. From my understanding, this is still being fought in the European courts.

[InfiniteNow]

Ouch, iNow. That didn't seem necessary. He seemed to be making an attempt to add to the discussion, and realized that he didn't understand the point of the thread. Then it seems you bit his head off. I don't think that was warranted, but then I've done something similar and got myself warned for it. http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/8627-jesus-married-post147244.html#post147244

Normally, I'd negrep, but when I do that to a member it really hurts. I thought I was being nice by posting like I did. :) PM me if you wish to discuss, since that's not relevant to this thread.

 

 

"Since I had nothing at all to add to this conversation, I just thought I'd post saying that..." :doh:

[InfiniteNow]

Infy, I don't really follow you or agree with your definition. 1) I don't think religion is just in the eye of the beholder...2) Your definition (at the bottom) says that religion is nothing more than a construct of humans. Again, I disagree with that...

 

 

What that board uses as a definition to determine religion I do not know.

I'd suggest the boards use their own interpretations... their own contructs. :doh:

[infamous]

 

 

 

Infy, I don't really follow you or agree with your definition. 1) I don't think religion is just in the eye of the beholder.

And I'll have to disagree right back my friend. My religion wouldn't be mine if it were something I was required to believe just because it was classified as official. I don't get my religion from the clergy, from the pope, or from anyone else. My religion is my right of freedom to believe how and in whom I choose. If your religion is something that begins outwardly, it can never be a personal experience. And unless it's personal, it's nothing more than a passing fashion. If it's not personal, it's not faith. And if there's no faith, I wouldn't call it religion. I would call it following the nearest crowd. What I find hard to understand is someone calling themself religious and denying that it needs to be personal. And if I have to ask permission to believe just like the rest, it hasn't become mine, it still belongs to others................................Infy

[IDMclean]

So, infy, it would seem explicit from your post that you hold faith as a necessary element for religion.

 

Is this correct?