What is religion?

@Kolbe,

Kolbe wrote:

... Anyway what I think religion could have been back when it was formed, and I'm not sure if I've written it here before or elsewhere, is as a means of control. These were the times where a criminal, if careful, could get away with nearly anything. ... What better way to keep the masses under control than an all-powerful being? The idea of God could have been invented as some sort of omniscient system of Law and Order, with the tales of creation and the flood woven around it. ... By introducing the pillar of smoke in a tent or other such methods the tribes of Israel were kept in line. ...

When I look at the earliest writings and traditions within the various religions, I don't come away with the idea that somebody deliberately fabricated the accounts and myths in order to gain such political control. It seems much more plausible to me--and in fact I think it is easily demonstrated--that people with political agendas have often warped various religious traditions in order to use them as tools to control the populace.

2 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

When I look at the earliest writings and traditions within the various religions, I don't come away with the idea that somebody deliberately fabricated the accounts and myths in order to gain such political control. It seems much more plausible to me--and in fact I think it is easily demonstrated--that people with political agendas have often warped various religious traditions in order to use them as tools to control the populace.

Good point and nice insight, it took me thirty years to come to this realization. We are caught between two adages

On the one hand: "The priests came to Hawaii to do Good, and they did very well."

On the other hand: "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

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 say that, in the broadest possible sense, religion is humanity's desire to explain the world about them, explain the origin, maintenance, and future of their world and themselves...This is also why, in traditional paganisms, sufficiently powerful human and natural forces (wind, thunder, the sea, rivers, war, love, sex, etc.) were each allocated their own god, and as these paganisms developed (merged mythologies from different localities into a coherent regional mythology) we started to see a multiplicity of gods explaining the same force (this is especially prominent with sun gods). Furthermore, as paganisms further developed the earlier gods explaining natural forces would give way to later "mystery" gods requiring, instead of sacrifice, devotion in faith.

A technical answer to your question, I would suppose, is that religion is religion is a meta- (pseudo-?) philosophical system (unified metaphysico-cosmological and ethical system) with the understanding that we can change our world through ritual action or through sacrifice in knowledge (what we normally call belief or faith), or both...a major problem is that there are so many distinct religions from such disparate origins that it is difficult to cull similarities from them.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

I would say that, in the broadest possible sense, religion is humanity's desire to explain the world about them, explain the origin, maintenance, and future of their world and themselves...A technical answer to your question, I would suppose, is that religion is religion is a meta- (pseudo-?) philosophical system (unified metaphysico-cosmological and ethical system) with the understanding that we can change our world through ritual action or through sacrifice in knowledge (what we normally call belief or faith), or both...a major problem is that there are so many distinct religions from such disparate origins that it is difficult to cull similarities from them.

If we adopt this view, then religion would appear to be effectively obsolete for anyone that (a) understands the fundamentals of modern science, and (b) has adopted a coherent ethical system for himself.

From that perspective, I, being a modern and reasonably well-educated individual, should look to science when I want to understand anything about the universe, and I should adopt one or another ethical positions, as espoused in one or more schools of philosophical ethical thought, when I want to shape my behavior.

But, now, we still have people who are well-versed in modern science and appear to adhere to an ethical philosophy, yet they still practice religion. What's up with that?

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

On the contrary, I would say that all modes of human thought following the broad definition are forms of religion--that is, all science, all philosophy, all--well, anything--is religion. But in either sense the overly general meaning of "religion" is certainly unhelpful.

Also pestering is the fact that science developed out of philosophy, which itself developed out of religion...if we were to limit religion as merely those trains of thought that focused on the nature of and adherence to the wills of the god(s), then since philosophy developed out of Greek religious thought, then shouldn't it be considered a continuation of native Greek religion? And if that were so, then wouldn't we say that this "special" definition is merely the "general" description in disguise? The general description may have use in the language of literature, but here...we need a special description that tells us not only what it is but also what it isn't.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

On the contrary, I would say that all modes of human thought following the broad definition are forms of religion--that is, all science, all philosophy, all--well, anything--is religion. ...

Maybe you should expound on this, step by step. One issue is that, just because one thing (e.g., Greek philosophy) presumably grew out of some other thing (e.g., Greek religion), that does not necessarily mean that the second thing must remain a subcategory of the first.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Recall that I said, "in the broadest possible sense, religion is humanity's desire to explain the world about them, explain the origin, maintenance, and future of their world and themselves..." What I mean by this general definition is religion is the traditional pursuit of knowledge. Since all pursuits of knowledge have at some point in time been considered the ken of religion, in the broadest and most general possible sense of the term, all human knowledge can be considered religion.

Now a possible specific definition may be that religion is the propagation of theology, that is, that thoughts that emerged from the body politik of a given religion can also be considered themselves commentaries (and thereby new ideas) on said religion. This is certainly the case with Vedanta darshana, and since these commentaries are what's necessary for the survival of a religious tradition, then a string of commentaries that lead out from a given religious tradition can be considered said tradition's self-propagation through the years. Now from Greek (religious thought) arose the tradition of Eleaticism, from which Socrates derived much of his conceptualization; and from Socrates Plato, and from Plato Aristotle; the body of thought of these men is the earliest occurence of what we would call modern philosophy. The enduring chain of commentary--promulgation of theology--thus ensures a religious connection in the chain of philosophy; and since modern science developed from Bacon's naturalist interpretation of philosophy, the chain of commentary, the promulgation of a given religion, remains. Thus one can say that science and philosophy, under this definition, are merely the modern extensions of Greek religion. Needless to say, this conclusion is absurd, which means that the idea that religion is a chain of commentary or propagation of theology is a wholly inadequate definition of the distinction between religion and other modes of thought.

Therefore, I believe that the best definition of religion is a boundary definition, defining both what it is and what it isn't. A good definition of religion might be, "a system of philosophically interrelated concepts predicated on the acceptance, by faith, of said system, in spite of inherent methodological weaknesses." But then that has an overly fundamentalistic view of religion--what about enlightenment experiences? And doesn't that mean that no religion is good philosophy? Which is bad since I am convinced there are philosophical principles underlying good religion.

What religion is is precisely the series of things that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and paganism have in common. But the only things they have in common are traditions of commentary (which we have ruled out as being a definer of religion) and an appeal to a higher entity (which crops up in metaphysics as well!) But then there is a third thing religions have in common...modes of prayer. All religions have a mode of prayer, prayer or meditation or the recitation of koans and mantras, but no other system of knowledge does. Thus I think the best possible limiting definition of religion is "a system of thought involving a mode (or more) of prayer".

3 Replies

@hammersklavier,

Victor Eremita wrote:

Yeah, maybe it's just my study of Western religion that makes me say that religion must include dogma; that religion must necessarily include an undoubtable concept.

These are the definitions of dogma I'm operating with:
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner
2. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle ( something held as an established opinion ).
3. established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

So established opinion or belief: the Christians opinion that Jesus is a God-man, the Muslim's opinion of Allah as one, the Buddhist's opinion of Reincarnation, the Jewish opinon of Zion, the Taoist opinion of YinYang etc; are established opinions of beliefs: a religious text would include such and such established opinion and would not normally doubt these opinions.

If those are the definitions to be used, and they seem fine to me, then I do not think religion requires dogma as one may practice religion independent from any authoritative source. Such a person probably would not be a member of any particular religion, an organized religion, but I also do not think that one needs organized religion in order to have religion.

To take the example of Jesus as God-man, though this is typical of Christianity, I'm not sure it is true of all incarnations of that faith tradition. If we look at the earliest Christians, prior to Christianity being adopted by Rome, we find a far more diverse set of beliefs; some of these early Christians would not have considered Jesus God-man, but man who taught the word of God: a holy, enlightened teacher, but not the Trinitarian God-man notion. Even today a Christian might argue that Jesus denied being God
Matthew 19:17"Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

hammersklavier wrote:

Thus I think the best possible limiting definition of religion is "a system of thought involving a mode (or more) of prayer".

Or: a spiritual practice.

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

Recall that I said, "in the broadest possible sense, religion is humanity's desire to explain the world about them, explain the origin, maintenance, and future of their world and themselves..." What I mean by this general definition is religion is the traditional pursuit of knowledge. Since all pursuits of knowledge have at some point in time been considered the ken of religion, in the broadest and most general possible sense of the term, all human knowledge can be considered religion...

I want to do justice to your full post, but one thing I think we have to deal with is the distinction between the so-called sacred and profane. If I know how to make a snare or plant a seed or build a shelter (or computer), does that knowledge fall within the domain of religion? I think some would say no. They would say that falls into the category of technology.

On the other hand, there are those who would propose that true religion involves the realization that every act and every thought, upon analysis and reflection, may be expanded into the deeper consciousness of who we are and what may be the meaning of our lives. In that sense, I might be inclined to concur with your proposition that "all human knowledge can be considered religion."

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Maybe if philosophy is the sum of what we know, then maybe religion is the sum of what we feel. Another way of looking at it.

0 Replies

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

...Therefore, I believe that the best definition of religion is a boundary definition, defining both what it is and what it isn't. A good definition of religion might be, "a system of philosophically interrelated concepts predicated on the acceptance, by faith, of said system, in spite of inherent methodological weaknesses." But then that has an overly fundamentalistic view of religion--what about enlightenment experiences? And doesn't that mean that no religion is good philosophy? Which is bad since I am convinced there are philosophical principles underlying good religion....

(emphasis added)

Yes, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that religion necessarily involves faith in the typically misunderstood sense of the word. As I have argued elsewhere, the idea that faith means "believing something unreasonable or irrational" is purely a heresy arising from the Christian tradition. Admittedly, it is a very widespread and common heresy, so it would seem to be a integral part of Christianity. I think an unbiased examination of the NT refutes that notion.

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

How about something like this:

Religion is any set of teachings and traditions that include myth and ritual, understood by the adherents to provide guidance in the interpretation of their existence and how they ought to live.

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dicanthelium, in response to your earlier post, I too had misgivings about that definition. I made it, and I think it's biased, that's why I so quickly abandoned it. I think your latter definition works in some measure, but recall that Buddhism isn't so heavily into ritual; I think the appeal to prayer works better as a religious identifier. It may sound weak at first, but reflect on it: don't all religions you can conceive of require prayer or meditation of some sort? And don't all nonreligious traditions eschew the idea or practice of prayer?

And another weakness in your definition is that it definitely seems to make law its own religion. After all, isn't law played out in its own ritualistic manner (the courtroom), and doesn't law include its own arcane mythology (like the necessity of precedent)?

Religion involves prayer, and no other branches of human learning do. It's as simple as that.

3 Replies

@hammersklavier,

Dichanthelium wrote:

On the other hand, there are those who would propose that true religion involves the realization that every act and every thought, upon analysis and reflection, may be expanded into the deeper consciousness of who we are and what may be the meaning of our lives. In that sense, I might be inclined to concur with your proposition that "all human knowledge can be considered religion."

I think we should go further: not only can all human knowledge be religion, but all human action can be religion. This is an explicit teaching in Buddhism and Christianity (and I imagine other traditions as well). The idea is to be mindful in every moment, to make everything a practice. I recall some... Toaist or maybe Zen Buddhist... anyway... something about a very holy hermit. Someone seeks out this hermit, finds him, and asks of the old man "How do you become so holy?" The old hermit replies "Carry the water and chop the wood".

Dichanthelium wrote:

How about something like this:

Religion is any set of teachings and traditions that include myth and ritual, understood by the adherents to provide guidance in the interpretation of their existence and how they ought to live.

This sounds like something close. But with all definitions we have to make sure ours is broad enough to include all manifestations of what we clearly recognize as religion, yet also narrow enough to eliminate anything that is clearly not religion. Does this definition do these things? Can we thin of something that is clearly not religion that would fit the definition? Can we think of something that clearly is religion that would be excluded from the definition.

I think this one is close, but I sense some deficiencies. I'd like to hear your thoughts first, though.

3 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

In this case, I think the dictionary works just fine and seems to incorporate nearly all that's been discussed: "... relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity" (Source)

It doesn't constrain the reference to only those systems that have a deity or only those with established ceremonies, practices and procedures. It also seems to nicely encompass nearly all of what's being discussed.

What more should be included?

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Knethil, the definition you propose has me thinking:

How could any human, with the capabilities to rationalize, not be religious to some extent then?

For it seems to me there is faithful devotion to some ultimate reality in most processes every human strives to accomplish. Couldn't drive, motivation, be deemed faithful devotion to something: This something not necessarily having anything to do with traditional spiritual practice or ceremony? Couldn't life, at least human life, capable of rationally understanding the world around us with emotion, be susceptible to manifesting faith or devotion to something on some level, this something being deemed an ultimate reality? It seems to me this is ingrained within the will to live. It has me to think we're spiritual creatures, at least on some level, whether we deny notions of "God" or not, whether we deny certain practice or not, whether we deny our short-sightedness or not.

1 Reply

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

... I think the appeal to prayer works better as a religious identifier. It may sound weak at first, but reflect on it: don't all religions you can conceive of require prayer or meditation of some sort? And don't all nonreligious traditions eschew the idea or practice of prayer?

... Religion involves prayer, and no other branches of human learning do. It's as simple as that.

Okay, but while every form of religion may include some kind of prayer or meditation (I'm not actually sure they all do), I don't think that prayer itself sufficiently defines religion. Also, there are forms of meditation that are not part of any religion, aren't there?

hammersklavier wrote:

And another weakness in your definition is that it definitely seems to make law its own religion. After all, isn't law played out in its own ritualistic manner (the courtroom), and doesn't law include its own arcane mythology (like the necessity of precedent)?...

But law lacks some of the other attributes included in my definition, right?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I think we should go further: not only can all human knowledge be religion, but all human action can be religion. This is an explicit teaching in Buddhism and Christianity ...

Yes, with the emphasis on the can be.

Also, it occurs to me that any human being for whom this is true must be a Buddha or a Christ.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

You do not have to be enlightened to make a spiritual practice out of everyday activities. It's a meditative thing. To carry the water is not to carry the water and day dream about that night's soccer game, but instead to just carry the water.

To make all activities spiritual, then perhaps you are there... but how could any of us know for sure, given that we are not enlightened?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

You do not have to be enlightened to make a spiritual practice out of everyday activities. It's a meditative thing. To carry the water is not to carry the water and day dream about that night's soccer game, but instead to just carry the water.

To make all activities spiritual, then perhaps you are there... but how could any of us know for sure, given that we are not enlightened?

Is enlightenment a point in time, a stage of life, an accomplishment? Is there an end?

It makes more sense to me that it's a journey. One may be more enlightened than another, but how can we say the other is not enlightened at all?

I guess the more appropriate question to ask is: How do you define "enlightened"?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Is enlightenment a point in time, a stage of life, an accomplishment? Is there an end?

It makes more sense to me that it's a journey. One may be more enlightened than another, but how can we say the other is not enlightened at all?

I guess the more appropriate question to ask is: How do you define "enlightened"?

I cannot answer these questions as I am not enlightened. Even the Buddha, who I imagine was enlightened, refused to answer these sorts of questions. If you practice, you will find out for yourself; no sense wasting time wondering what enlightenment is or what it is like.

2 Replies

What is religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know