What is religion?

Then why try to introduce a dichotomy when there is not one to be had?

Sure, but where does this leave us? It seems to me that the sweeping generalizations you made earlier are false according to the above quote.

Money certainly seems to be the God of modern industrialized society: in the past, man's largest monuments were religious, today they are financial. But as I asked earlier, where does this leave us? Sure, we can and should criticize the rampant corruption to be found in religious and all circles. What we can, but should not do, is make generalizations about religion when those generalizations do not hold up. We have a duty to criticize religion when religion is misused, but it seems to me that we have an equally compelling duty to praise religion when it is used properly.

As for stereotyping, even if we limited your claims to the major world religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism) we can find plenty of counter-examples in each of these traditions which provide evidence against the accusations you make.

I appreciate your insight on these matters, Justin: you always seem to have a level head about this stuff. But while I share your criticisms of religion in certain contexts, the broad application of these criticisms to religion at large, even the major religions, just does not hold up.

And he's an impostor. Your criticisms show him to be an impostor and somehow who is, whatever he may be, not a teacher of spirituality but, instead, something closer to a used car salesman.

Sort of. Man, at least, still struggles with meaning. But you are right: we still struggle to find meaning. Whatever we call our path to meaning, that search is still religious even if all of the old expressions of religion are removed.

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.

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.

I just wonder sometimes, if there were ever a time when humans were just content on being, without the curiosity as to why. Maybe there wasn't. I don't know.

This is why I say all religions. Religions will be productive when there are none.

Victor Eremita:
"Kierkegaard spent his life trying to distance authentic religion from money and organized religion (like Christendom)."

Good point Victor, I would like to add:

Though Kierkegaard was a religious writer he spent much of his efforts in his writing trying to address what religion was notc'est bien autre chose!" SK.

Though the world is full of people with the "Christendom" mind set, we are still stuck with the question, what exactly is "Authentic religion"? Or what does Kierkegaard mean by "becoming a Christian"?

Yes, I think so. What does religion do? Present things as actual. Dharma as you said in the Buddhism example. Christ's resurrection in the New Testament. Muhammed's revelations from God in the Koran. They write these things as fact and they need to do so because it'd kinda suck for them if they themselves introduce doubt about these core beliefs.

Philosophers of Religion don't take these for granted. For example, Feminist philosophers in Islam, doubt the strict reading of the Koran, and it is this sense, that these philosophers try to present Islamic religion in a way that fits Feminism and Islam.

But there is one present and it's present all over even though there isn't. Just because I've used words to describe a separation, there is no separation aside from what mankind has created through the ages.

I understand where you are coming from and while I don't mean to make sweeping generalizations I'm flat out against religions. Religions introduce dichotomy and separate one human from another with labels. Separation causes broad and sweeping generalizations from one religion to another. Anything that divides mankind and instigates war is not something I'm going to agree with. While not all religions are bad per se, most religions divide people. Divide and conquer is not what I'd consider good but sadly enough religions do this.

When is religion used properly?

If religion simply divides mankind into categories of philosophical beliefs and continues to divide them even further as years pass, what good are they doing collectively for the overall consciousness and elevation of humankind?

If you join a religion you join a sect or a cult. You are automatically separated from your fellow man because your religion is the right one and damn you if you insult mine.

I'll buy that religious people do good deeds however, based on the current state of our world and under the consideration that around 90% of our world is into some sort of religion, what good has religion collectively done? It's funded wars, it's fueled hatred, it's judged and it's left a trail inequality in man and woman.

Sure, but let's not forget the state of our world today and the religions that have divided us for centuries. There may be good religions out there that do good things but collectively organized religion is destructive. They may all teach different things all of them have some good in them but collectively, again, they divide and conquer which is not healthy.

And before we go there, I realize it's not the religions that do it, it's the people following them in obedience.

He's a used car salesman that is influencing a lot of people in America and in other countries as well. He's considered one of the big religious leaders today. It's another form of Christianity.

I don't think it's religious at all. It's spiritual with absolutely no religious overtone whatsoever. Plant the seed of religion and we reap exactly what it's sewn. Again, flip on that television if you want to see what these seeds have produced within our societies.

In Religions, Buddhism is probably the closest to what I'd consider to be on track. Although I would never become a Buddhist because it's still a label of division. Man created all these silly labels to describe history and each others place in it.

If there were a religion that embraced all people and all religions and brought people together into the oneness of light and love, then that would be the start of a good religion. To my knowledge there are none. Christianity has preached this but doesn't practice.

DT,

I just wanted to note here that I don't think Justin is speaking about religious scriptures, teachings, or inner-workings of belief systems per se, but rather the organizations we call religion (remember we spoke of this before?) that have power (often political) over many. Religion, in the context illustrated here, does separate humanity; it is not just differing belief systems being shared, practiced, and evaluated: There is a pissing contest at hand. The organized religion spoken of here often does not reflect the actual religious teachings practiced -- all the organization becomes is another senseless label promoting war, raping those delusional of their money. On a large scale, what really has organized religion positively influenced?

Once again, it isn't the belief systems being judged here. Many can reap benefits of religious teachings, there's no doubt. But we are speaking of the larger scale - the handlings of the churches that hold political power, the organizations and people that abuse this power. When people feel they have the "right" answers, the ego does everything in it's power to *hold* that monopoly. The people dying because they believe their "God" is 'better', and the governments that allow such actions to continue: These are the people being spoken of here. I've rarely seen a prominent religious leader that promotes peace. Yes, there are some, but from my experience, I've seen the influence negative, war instigated, people suffering.

It is much easier to embrace sweeping generalizations than to dig in and find the nuance. But in the nuance rests the truth. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

But we must remember, it is us, not the teachings. If we discriminate against religion in general, we are only adding to the problem.

Then how do you explain the fact that religion does introduce doubt about these core beliefs?

You claim that religion necessarily takes things for granted. But this is demonstrably false. We find religious teaching that suggests practitioners take nothing for granted.
Then why claim that religion necessarily takes thing for granted if you admit that the claim is false? There are many cases in which the philosopher of religion is also a teacher of spirituality.

So, I think we could safely say that Kierkegaard would not of approved of Ann Coulters "fast track" theory of Christianity.

The religion itself cannot introduce doubt about these core beliefs. Other religion and other people can for sure.

What makes religion "Religion" is simply that it takes its account as factual, unlike philosophy which suggests hypothetical situations.

Take Scientology: A History of Man, by L. Ron Hubbard, with its aliens and thetans and dianetic fields, etc. etc. Of course people external to the religion are going to doubt it and even ridicule it. But the important thing is that Scientology itself takes that account of the "history of man" as granted and creates a core belief structure around it. Even if other Scientologists critize some aspects of original Hubbardian scientology, they are still taking some basic beliefs as granted in order to create their own version of Scientology. (Cruisean Scientology LOL:bigsmile:)

If they doubted all core beliefs, it wouldn't be that religion anymore. If they got rid of dianetic fields, thetans, aliens visiting Earth, etc. It wouldn't be Scientology anymore. In every religion, some things must necessarily be taken for granted.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

in no way proves that religion must take all stories as factually true.

...Religion is a heterogeneous group of traditional cultural practices that is centered around 1) major life events, 2) morality, and 3) the story of life. If you get too much more specific than that then you cut out things that most would agree are religions.

Great thread Elmud!

If a core belief is to doubt a core belief, and you actually do so, then the belief (of doubting) is being maintained. (e.g. you're not doubting the "doubting" belief)
Anyways, I think this more the exception then the rule; all religions have positive statements, even Buddhism has positive declarations like the Dharma example.

I did not say that, I just said that religion must take at least SOME things as factually true, as necessary and granted. In order to even be called "Christian" scientists, there must be something about "Christianity" that's undoubtable and necessary; maybe not Genesis, but definitely something else.

What is Religion? It's partly a way of life or outlook on life and it's partly a dogma.

Talk about semantic wrangling! You claimed that religion cannot introduce doubt about core beliefs, and then when I give an example of a religion introducing doubts about core beliefs you argue that the doubting is then a core belief and therefore not tantamount to actual doubting.

If the Buddha says "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Then we have a clear example of religion introducing doubt about core beliefs. Bottom line.

You example of dharma does not work either, because the Buddha clearly teaches to doubt even dharma. A religion can make positive declarations and simultaneously introduce doubt about those core beliefs.

You say that to be a Christian there must be something undoubtable. Well, like what? I cannot imagine something that is necessarily beyond doubt for the Christian. There are many things that are typically beyond doubt for the Christian, but necessarily beyond doubt is quite another matter.

Religion is certainly a way of life, that seems true. Probably even some sort of outlook on life. But the dogma stipulation, while typically the case, does not seem necessary.

When we set out to define something, including religion, we have to formulate a definition that is broad enough to include all varieties of that something yet narrow enough to eliminate everything that is not that something.

The inclusion of dogma, though it may apply to most instances, does not seem to apply to all instances of religion. Though, this also depends on how we use the word dogma: if it is an authoritative dictum, then dogma is not necessary for religion; if dogma is something that seems to be true, then I cannot imagine religion not having dogma.

Maybe religion is curiosity and wonder. ... If that is what it is, then i would agree with Didymos. It is a natural thing.