What is religion?

I would propose, as a hypothesis, that religion, in the broad sense, is the human impulse to understand the meaning of life, the impulse to understand one's relationship to world. (Wait...Are those two different concepts?)

I'm not sure that religion and philosophy are actually two different things. Particular religions, though, especially as they become institutional, tend to color things so that religion and philosophy would seem to diverge. But do they really?

I would propose, as a hypothesis, that religion, in the broad sense, is the human impulse to understand the meaning of life, the impulse to understand one's relationship to world. (Wait...Are those two different concepts?)

I'm not sure that religion and philosophy are actually two different things. Particular religions, though, especially as they become institutional, tend to color things so that religion and philosophy would seem to diverge. But do they really?

I suppose religion could be the practice of anything.

Maybe its something that makes us in our own mind, more than what we are.

When one searches for the "meaning of life" he is searching for the meaning of his own life. And when one ponders his relationship of himself to the world he is wondering what is his place in the world, and the world to him is everyone else on this planet, the instutions they create, the junk they make. So you could say they are differnet concepts.

(so far you have a the meaning of self, the meaning of self to mankind,) But there is something missing in your hypothesis, you left out the most important part of any relegion: God! If a religion didn't have God it wouldn't be call religion it would be call atheism. Isn't that the whole point of religion, one relationship with God?

All religion have some philosphy in it, but not all religions have logic. And the same rings true with philosophy.

Nature abhores a vacuum, and this is true in the spiritual side of people, if one does not have God to fill his soul then something else is filling his soul.

You mean it's something that causes delusions?

If a religion didn't have God it wouldn't be call religion it would be call atheism. Isn't that the whole point of religion, one relationship with God?

Don't ya ever wonder what it was like back when there was no religion? I do sometimes.

I would propose, as a hypothesis, that religion, in the broad sense, is the human impulse to understand the meaning of life, the impulse to understand one's relationship to world. (Wait...Are those two different concepts?)

I'm not sure that religion and philosophy are actually two different things. Particular religions, though, especially as they become institutional, tend to color things so that religion and philosophy would seem to diverge. But do they really?

But there is something missing in your hypothesis, you left out the most important part of any religion: God! If a religion didn't have God it wouldn't be call religion it would be call atheism. Isn't that the whole point of religion, one relationship with God?

All religion have some philosphy in it, but not all religions have logic. And the same rings true with philosophy.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and this is true in the spiritual side of people, if one does not have God to fill his soul then something else is filling his soul.

God is not the most important part of any religion, money is. No, the whole point of religion is to gather as many followers as possible and have them put money in that jar every week. If religions taught one relationship with God then this world wouldn't be so corrupt. Religion just adds to the corruption.

Religion, and I mean no disrespect, is simply another philosophy but it's a philosophy of people who follow a leader. The leader often times doesn't believe it himself, just ask Joel Osteen.

Religion is a philosophy. They really aren't different things because in order to devote yourself to religion it has to somewhat sit well within your philosophy.

Philosophy = The sum of what we know. Religion = the sum of what someone else knows.

In order to have a religion you must first have a philosophy. Then once your philosophy has enough followers and you've been able to draw money out your followers you form an organized religion based solely on your philosophy. Religion is just an organized form of this. It's a fellowship of philosophers who buy into the same thing and it's usually passed down from generation to generation.

God is not the most important part of any religion, money is. No, the whole point of religion is to gather as many followers as possible and have them put money in that jar every week. If religions taught one relationship with God then this world wouldn't be so corrupt. Religion just adds to the corruption.

Religion, and I mean no disrespect, is simply another philosophy but it's a philosophy of people who follow a leader. The leader often times doesn't believe it himself, just ask Joel Osteen.

Kierkegaard spent his life trying to distance authentic religion from money and organized religion (like Christendom). And I agree with that.

I think the difference is that religion takes things for granted, philosophy doesn't. In religions, the holy text outlines things that followers must adhere to; in philosophy, one doubts the text and solutions of philosophers and creates new problems.

And when was that? I'm not sure that modern man every lacked something we would call religion.

And religious people do not doubt? Are they never taught to doubt?

That's the philosophy part doing the doubting. Philosophy and Religion are interrelated yes, like Justin says. That's a difference between something like Christianity and Christian Existentialism. Christianity's New Testament is taken as a given. Kierkegaard's work doubts itself even!

There are differences between something like the Holy Bible, Koran and the Torah versus Meditations, Either/Or, Critique of Pure Reason, and the Republic. The former books contain commandments that says followers must adhere to. The latter books contain theorem, ideas, and they do not order readers to do things.

Why must it be philosophy, and not religion, that is "doing the doubting"? If we say that all doubt is philosophical, perhaps there may be an argument, but that all doubt is philosophical, I imagine, is false.

To say that religious doubts is a process of philosophy is to suggest that one cannot doubt in a religious way.

You mention Christianity and Christian Existentialism and say that they are different. And they are different in some ways. But let's ask: what is the difference? Isn't it true that Christian Existentialism is part of that umbrella term Christianity? That contained within Christianity is Christian Existentialism? So, then the difference is that Christianity is simply broader than Christian Existentialism, the latter being a label for a portion of the former. Example: my hand is different from me, but still a part of me.

Yes, these texts are different. And yes, those scriptures do contain commandments that followers should adhere to, but these books contain more than commandments. Like many philosophic treatises, those scriptures also contain ideas (I'm surprised you mentioned the inclusion of ideas in these works as a difference!). They contain early manifestations of what we now call thought experiments, as seen in the parables.
But this is all complicated when we begin to look at Eastern scripture. Some scripture in the east is nothing more than philosophic treatises along the lines of The Meditations and so forth: and recall the religious overtones of many of those treatises you mention. JS Mill claims, in Utilitarianism, that God is a Utilitarian: you cannot competently argue that the work is secular.
Further, these books may not order people to do things, but these books do give direction as to how/when/why we should and should not do things. The difference there is tone of voice.

If religion is philosophy, and philosophy is the same as the sum of what we know, then religion is also the sum of what we know.

More importantly: where do you get the notion that religion is necessarily "the sum of what someone else knows"? Have religious teachers never taught that practitioners should doubt and disbelieve the teachings until the practitioner sees the truth of the teachings for himself? As I recall, such things have been taught.

I can agree with a great deal of this, but the inclusion of money seems problematic. Even though what you describe may be the case, what you describe does not seem to be the case necessarily.

Again, you take what is sometimes the case and apply what sometimes occurs to all religion. Not only is the logic fallacious, but history even provides counter examples.

If your evidence is people like Mr. Olsteen, then the problem is obvious: you are looking at self-help gurus instead of spiritual teachers.

Religious people do doubt and criticize their holy texts. Religious people do create new problems and produce new contemplations: how else do you think religion has managed to change over time?

Well, archaeologists have found that paleolithic man had burial rituals, made idols, and some think certain cave paintings dating from this time have spiritual significance.

Why do people think religion is not natural to man? I still do not understand this. There has never been sustained human society without water, and never sustained human society without religion. Some people seem to think that man can carry on without religion: but why on earth do people think this? We may be able to go on without organized religion as we know today, and we might get along with remarkably different types of spiritual practice: but that does not mean that religion is completely out the window. We can replace myths, but they must be replaced with something. Pick and choose your mythology, but I have not seen one good reason as to why man can do without his myths, and man has always invented new myths when the myths of old seem alien and irrelevant.

Religion is natural because it obviously is. Man, in his separation created religions for many reasons including political. But basically to separate themselves from others with a label and an overall philosophy. Religion become political, money making machines and destruct everything in their path in the process. Religions, from the beginning were founded on mythology. Humankind created it all.

Through the ages man has not ceased seeking the unanswered questions. It's what drives us... all on a path to the same place from different and unique locations.

Religions offer a community where they share fellowship and do business with other members and influence the church and local economy and often times much more. They do a lot of good in many cases and I did enjoy church at times myself. But this is not about the Church it's about religion in general.

Religions have changed a lot through the years and so have the myths. What we fail to understand and that we have actually created everything in this world since the beginning of those myths.

If we tell ourselves a lie long enough we'll begin to believe it.

There are differences between something like the Holy Bible, Koran and the Torah versus Meditations, Either/Or, Critique of Pure Reason, and the Republic. The former books contain commandments that says followers must adhere to. The latter books contain theorem, ideas, and they do not order readers to do things.

Sure I agree. The sum of what we know to follow. It's all the same thing IMHO.

I'm sure there are some religious teachers have good stuff to preach that they believe in. Others have to convince themselves they believe in it as they age and evolve. Still others just lead people on tradition and mythology, influencing and leading them in ways they do not believe.

Money is a big part of it. It supports political agendas, wars, large companies and even larger scandals. Religions can be used as form of major money laundering among other things... and have. Religion, while all may not be bad, the majority God is the money.

I do want to prevent stereotyping so when I refer to Religion I'm referring to the big ones. I'm referring to the major Religions that control our entire economic and world systems.

No, this is not really what I'd call concrete evidence, it's just something I had run into on You tube that I thought interesting enough to inject into this thread. While Olsteen may be a self-help whatever, he's using the Bible and Jesus Christ and basically that religion to lead many people. I don't mean to single out Osteen, he's just one I'm familiar with and is a 'Big' Religious leader or many.

Of course. We were so mystified of our own existence back then, a meaning was all one was searching for. Wait a minute... that very same thing has not changed today. Man has still yet to find the meaning of it all.

Religions offer a community where they share fellowship and do business with other members and influence the church and local economy and often times much more. They do a lot of good in many cases and I did enjoy church at times myself. But this is not about the Church it's about religion in general.

Before I dig myself into a deep hole from which no man can ever return, when I said "Philosophy" I meant the intellectual thinking that accompanies rational thought in disciplines like philosophy, theology, mathematics, etc.

They say theology is the study of religion. Religion, then, is the set of maxims to adhere to to become a "follower" of this religion. If you have doubt about the maxim, Become one with the universe, you engage in a theological inquiry about the meaning of this religious maxim.

The difference is apparent. To use the body example again, the body needs oxygen and food to live. Do you need a book to tell you to do this or does the body "order" you for food (starvation) or oxygen (gasping). For religion, somethings are elementary. Others are guide books, like vitamin supplements or what have you.

Religion might be manmade.... maybe not. What about the subjects they talk about? "God", "Nirvana", "Reincarnation", etc. Just because Buddha was the first to talk about it, does it mean Buddha made it? What proves he wasn't "divinely inspired"? What proves he was? :detective:

So, by this usage, to say that it is philosophy which doubts can possibly mean the same thing as it is religion which doubts because the philosophy in question may be inseparable from religion. If i understand you, this clears up a great deal. So, just to be clear, religion can do the doubting, even if the doubt is conducted through the religious philosophy of the agent in question?

So let's get back to the point: does religion take things for granted? Sure, religion can take things for granted, but does religion necessarily take things for granted?

If you go ask a Buddhist (at least the last time I heard one talk of this matter) they will tell you that the dharma taught by the Buddha is not his invention but eternal. The Buddha was simply the last person in memory to introduce dharma to the world, and when the Buddha and his teachings are forgotten, another will come to teach the dharma.

Why do people think religion is not natural to man? I still do not understand this. There has never been sustained human society without water, and never sustained human society without religion. Some people seem to think that man can carry on without religion: but why on earth do people think this? We may be able to go on without organized religion as we know today, and we might get along with remarkably different types of spiritual practice: but that does not mean that religion is completely out the window. We can replace myths, but they must be replaced with something. Pick and choose your mythology, but I have not seen one good reason as to why man can do without his myths, and man has always invented new myths when the myths of old seem alien and irrelevant.