What is Religion?

Religion is an attempt by humans to project their species-centric perspective on the workings of the universe as whole.

 

But thats only the dictionary, there is much more to religion, there is both natural and supernatural and both combined since the beginning of time as you can see below:


Behavior reminiscent of ritual can be seen in many animals, including the ecstatic “rain dances” and directional drumming of chimpanzees (Goodall 1986; Nishida et al. 1999), which along with bonobos are our closest extant evolutionary kin. It is highly likely that archaic hominins would have exhibited ritualistic behavior in some form, but evidence for nascent religiosity remains difficult to infer from the archaeological record (Rossano 2006, 2009b).

The uniqueness of “natural” religions of hunter-gatherers, and likely those of our Paleolithic ancestors, cannot be overemphasized when compared with the “world” religions that have emerged along with the advent of agriculture.

Many hunter-gatherer societies have little or no concept of religion per se, though a religious dimension often permeates normal activities and is continuous with daily life (Lee 1989). Hunter-gatherer religions are seldom religions of protest or evangelism (Woodburn 1997).

Instead, each society focuses on maintaining its unique beliefs and culture, along with a sense of self-worth and the general health and well-being of the group (Woodburn 1997, 2005).

Simple egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups generally hold fewer religious beliefs and participate in less ritual (Marlowe 2010) than more complex groups. But hunter-gatherers do have religion, embodied in sacred healing dances and rituals marking life events.

Although there is considerable variation in specific religious traits among hunter-gatherer societies, a cross-cultural view reveals underlying similarities in cosmology, ritual, and belief (Rossano 2007). These often include gods and spirits with limited powers who are typically not omniscient and usually lack concern for morality and human affairs (Marlowe 2010; Norenzayan et al. 2016; Peoples and Marlowe 2012; Swanson 1960; Woodburn 1997), as Marshall describes:

The concept of sin as an offence against the gods is vague among the !Kung. Man’s wrong-doing against man is not left to #Gao!na’s punishment nor is it considered to be his concern. Man corrects or avenges such wrong-doings himself in his social context. (Marshall 1962:245)

What were the specific traits of early religion?

How did traits of nascent religiosity evolve and interact over time?

Recently phylogenetic comparative methods have been increasingly applied to the study of the evolution of material and non-material culture (Mace and Holden 2005; Mace and Jordan 2011), including religion (Matthews 2012; Watts et al. 2015). Reconstructing ancestral character states on phylogenies based on genetic or linguistic data has proven valuable in revealing the history of various sociocultural phenomena (Currie et al. 2010; Opie et al. 2014; Walker et al. 2011, 2012).

Although religious beliefs are regarded as one of those cultural traits that are historically labile and prone to cultural borrowing (Guglielmino et al. 1995), cross-cultural research suggests that religion (and mythology) can be surprisingly stable across time and space, and shared religious beliefs can be indicative of deep ancestry (Berezkin 2008; Blust 2013).

The use of phylogenetic methods is important for understanding not only the origins of religious traits, but also the behavioral systems that emerged from them that have determined patterns of social constraint and have impacted believers and non-believers alike.

Importantly, homology is not limited to morphology and its genetic and/or developmental underpinnings. Behavior, which is often evolutionarily conserved, is also a proper subject of homology relations and can be used in phylogenetic reconstruction (Hall 2013; Powell and Shea 2014; Rendall and Di Fiore 2007).

A behavioral homology need not have a particular structural basis. We do not argue for homology of the particular religious beliefs (e.g., different afterlife beliefs across hunter-gatherer societies that possess this trait) but for the homology of the fundamental religious concepts (e.g., the concept of afterlife itself) and their continuity. Even characters that cannot be hypothesized as strictly homologous among sampled cultures can be analyzed because they can represent non-homologous psychological-behavioral responses to identical selective pressures (see Murdock 1965 for similar reasoning in anthropology).

Broadly defined, religion is a set of beliefs and behaviors based on a shared worldview that separates the sacred, or supernatural, from the profane (Durkheim 1965 [1912]).
Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion


There is increasingly strong evidence that 'religion' started out as just plain living life in the hunter gatgherer era, no God or Gods required, then later down the road abstract thinking was added to the mix, the God and gods. I dont think your narrow definition adequately covers an accurate picture of religion.

I cant disagree that worshiping a deity is one form of religion neither can I agree with you that it started out as such.

 

I can't imagine why you would say such a thing since as you know over the course of this thread that there's many things starting with the value call stated way back in the OP that's required to be able to categorize something as a religion.

That makes your response a non sequitur composition fallacy.

Again that's not the case at all what is the case is that they don't recognize it as a religion they don't look at each other and say hey look this is our religion they just live it people who understand the meaning of religion look at them and realize that it's a religion. For instance just because you don't realize there's blood pumping through your veins that doesn't mean that there isn't blood pumping through your veins so that analogy fails.

Again this is a composition issue where you're looking at one small piece of the puzzle and trying to apply it to the whole, and it just simply doesn't work that way.

As you can see religion and culture are inherently linked to 'ANY' society:

The Religious Foundations of Culture
By R. J. Rushdoony
January 01, 2007

Every culture is a religion externalized, a faith incarnated into life and action. The mainspring of every culture is its basic faith, its religious beliefs which undergird its hopes, action, and perspective. When that faith begins to decay, the culture decays.
The Religious Foundations of Culture

more:

Religion, Culture, and Communication

• Religion, Culture, and Communication | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication

Religion is an essential element of the human condition. Hundreds of studies have examined how religious beliefs mold an individual’s sociology and psychology.

In particular, research has explored how an individual’s religion (religious beliefs, religious denomination, strength of religious devotion, etc.) is linked to their cultural beliefs and background.

While some researchers have asserted that religion is an essential part of an individual’s culture, other researchers have focused more on how religion is a culture in itself. The key difference is how researchers conceptualize and operationalize both of these terms. Moreover, the influence of communication in how individuals and communities understand, conceptualize, and pass on religious and cultural beliefs and practices is integral to understanding exactly what religion and culture are.

It is through exploring the relationships among religion, culture, and communication that we can best understand how they shape the world in which we live and have shaped the communication discipline itself.

Religion, Culture, and Communication | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication

more:

Finally websters!

Culture

1. the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group

As you can see religion and what we believe determines how we live why because it's what we believe is how we live and how we live is a social form yhat has material traits and those material traits are 'culture', there you go right straight from the dictionary no research required.

Its not if you actually read the material I supplied.

I don't know if you simply misunderstand the material or if this is a sleight of hand to avoid admitting religion is grounded in the natural as well as the spiritual?

So is this sleight of hand or misunderstanding? Since the thesis clearly expresses God's and spirits are an accessory to the natural and you seem to have switched it to imply God's and spirits are the primary, or maybe even the only feature, when in fact their whole point is that the natural existed before the supernatural.

Again you are either misunderstanding the presentation or somehow conflating it since I have posted the meaning and distinction a few times previously.

The sacred refers to those collective representations that are set apart from society, or that which transcends the humdrum of everyday life.

The profane, on the other hand, is everything else, all those mundane things like our jobs, our bills, and our rush hour commute.

Religion is the practice of marking off and maintaining distance between these two realms.

Rituals, for example, reaffirm the meaning of the sacred by acknowledging its separateness, such as when religious devotees pray to a particular statue or symbol. You can read more about Durkheim’s theory of religion by reading The Elementary Forms of Religious Life in the Social Theory Re-Wired reader.

Sacred and Profane | Social Theory Rewired
http://routledgesoc.com › category › profile-tags › sacred-...

If you are an atheist for instance and you have the belief that you don't practice rituals you'd be very wrong about that since you most likely go to funerals and weddings or engage in a wedding procession (all of which are sacred complete with ceremonies etc) if you're getting married and a whole host of different rituals that atheists engage in but don't realize that they in fact are rituals that they are engaging in.

That was the point of the citations I gave you, that there is extremely strong evidence that religion initiated through the natural which is life rather than starting with the supernatural such as a god that the dictionary definition that you prefer would imply.

So if what you're saying in this last statement is that religion has a very high probability of originating in the natural realm rather than the supernatural realm I'd absolutely agree with that, especially since durkheim also observed this in the tribes in his research.

....and of course originating through the natural validates agnostic and atheists nones, etc beliefs and practices as religion.

 

By your definition such beliefs can't be religious, since they don't involve god(s). But from a functionalist standpoint they might qualify, since they serve as the functional equivalent of theistic religion.Your profession of faith in science may make you a believer in scientism (AKA scientific naturalism or scientific materialism) , if it truly occupies a place in your life parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God". Scientism is the position that "the only legitimate questions about reality are those answerable by science and that, to the extent that anything can be known about reality, science alone is capable of providing that knowledge." Scientism, the limits of science, and religion | Center for Inquiry
Scientism http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html
Scientism: When Science Becomes Religion
That might explain why you require "a mountain of evidence" (i.e., scientific proof) to support a belief in Jesus, instead of just probable cause or substantial evidence which is sufficient to convince most scholars.

When people tell us how science will transform the world in the future, that's scientism--requiring faith as well as scientific knowledge. Imagining the Next 100 Years of Science and Technology | The New York Academy of Sciences
The view has one important thing in common with other religions--it is metaphysical (unfalsifiable) What is scientism, and why is it a mistake?
The Folly of Scientism
Religion and scientism: a shared cognitive conundrum - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
In fact, it has been described as a form of fundamentalism.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03080188.2022.2152246
Certainly they would meet theologIian Paul Tillich's definition of religion "a state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary, and which itself contains the answer to the question of the meaning of our life.”Tillich's Definition of "Faith" or "Religion"...
Atheist can have ultimate concerns about the meaning of life. Atheists, also, can have religious experiences. https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/09/16/348949146/is-atheist-awe-a-religious-experience

 

As pointed out previously, dictionary definitions reflect popular lay usage in the countries where the dictionaries circulate. The laity is predominantly theist, ergo their conception of religion is glued to god. What exactly is the standard dictionary definition?
"A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." Definition of religion | Dictionary.com Why should we limit ourselves to popular lay understandings when we are trying to understand such thins as the origin of religion and how religions compare and differ from one part of the planet to another. As mentioned earlier, serious secular scholars have been defining religion without reference to gods since the nineteenth century. starting with Durkheim.
--Emile Durkheim: a system around the sanctuary, that is, a system
of beliefs, practices and social behaviors that unites individuals in
a moral community
--Rudolf Otto: in the presence of a concept of special significance
and value, in the idea of ??the "sanctuary", which he calls numinous,
and it is this extraordinary (extraordinarily different) presence
that generates feelings of fascination, mystery and fear
--Clifford Geertz: Religion is a system of symbols that relate to the world,
human relations and ourselves. Religious symbols denote a
cosmological perception, but also shape a way of life.

Contrary to your theory, these scholars didn't develop their definitions out of religious fervor, but rather to purge it of theistic content so that pre-theistic and non-theistic religions could be included. Although it is possible to cling to the approaches of yesteryear, one might wonder why an atheist would be so insistent that religion must be about gods. My theory: certain atheists (we can use Sam Harris as an example) have turned to secularized versions of Asian godless religions as spiritual supplements to their atheism and don't want to admit a religious connection because of a strong allergy to the term. Or, alternatively, atheists might want to narrow the definition to theistic forms in order to convey the misimpression that religion is some regionally isolated and obsolete phenomenon. Why should we give you a break for rejecting godless religions? Fortunately, the courts aren't so narrow minded, as I've previously pointed out.

 

Of course not. It only approximates a religion if you think it is the be all and end all of human knowledge and can and eventually will solve all of our problems that are solvable. When you said that science occupies a place in your life "parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God", I thought perhaps that's what you had in mind. Of course, for IRS purposes, you'd have to be a member of a group with similar views, set them forth in a creed, and hold regular services to worship science. (I wouldn't try it though without first consulting a lawyer.)

By comparison, consider another group to which I belong, a group of freethinkers, consisting of atheists+me. We meet regularly for dinner and book discussion--always on topics relating to religion or atheism. (We just finished the entire Bible). And we meet in a church (Unitarian, of course), to which several of the members belong. But it's definitely not a religion. There is no common set of beliefs, except all of the other members except me do not believe in god and share that as a bond and strong unifying disbelief. There is no common moral code, although it's my sense that all of us are pretty moral, high-minded people. There is nothing approximating a ritual, unless regular meetings counts. We loosely qualify as a community, since we are bound together by a desire to study religion analytically and critically. I'm sure the IRS would turn us down.

But the UU itself qualifies as a religion--even though it lacks what many assume is a basic ingredient of a religion--a common creed. There are Christians, Jews, pagans and atheists meeting together for common service, and separately in subgroups. But there are minimal beliefs held in common: non-trinitarianism and universalism (the notion that none are damned for eternity). There are rituals for dedication of children, coming of age, marriage, and commemorating the dead. And there is a common weekly service with the lighting of a chalice, various members spontaneously sharing thoughts, and a sermon and hymns. This is rather minimal, but enough to satisfy the IRS. Somewhere between my freethinkers' group and the UU Church is the fuzzy boundary between religion and non-religion, which is a judgment call and more a matter of degree than of kind.

If it hasn't happened yet, it isn't science. But to be a religion, it would have to be group-shared and accompanied by some code of conduct and /or ritual.

It depends on how remote in the future they're talking and how confident they are about it. Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. But no, I don't think that would be religion. More likely, commercial hype!

Concern? No. Answers, maybe--particularly when you add community and ritual. I attended a meeting of the American Humanist Society once when they were discussing a ritual called "presentation of the child". I'd say that's getting there.

What do you think so-called "religious experiences" are? Again, one thing by itself doesn't make a religion, but they can add up. Not all atheism is a religion, but it can be. Think atheist megachurches. Atheist "mega-churches" take root across U.S., world - CBS News
Atheist 'mega-churches' are now a thing in the U.S as popularity spreads from U.K. | National Post

 

Murder is bad stealing is bad
cheating on your spouse is bad
hurting people is bad
marriage is good
love is good

these are all value calls since you can't prove any of them in science or by using the scientific method

That's like asking what are the many things that compromise 'philosophy' there's no single specific answer to it

that's why understanding religion is complicated and it requires more than a single yes no answer

there is simply no 'single' action or causation such as what you use like if it's not a deity it's not a religion which is clearly a composition fallacy

Yes I did and the reason I did is because you singled it out and as I continued to say over and over and over again there's more to religion than one single element.

You seem to feel that religion can be compressed into one single element and that's a reductionism fallacy.

Again that's because you are debating with an absolutist attitude, everything to you is either 100% one way or 100% the other way and when you bake a cake there's more ingredients than flour!

You can't use a single binary evaluation to answer a multifaceted condition, it's illogical and unreasonable, and that's what you seem to be trying to do, to throw everything under one tiny umbrella and it simply doesn't work that way.

It takes more than flour to make a cake it takes eggs and baking soda and flour and water and oil and heat to bake a cake so you can't say a cake is defined as flour like what you're trying to do with religion by saying religion is defined and limited to worshiping a deity or the Divine whichever, your whole premise is a composition fallacy I keep saying it over and over again b ut you seem to ignore the point, you certainly have not tried to rebut it on any level.

Being hard to infer and incapable of inferring is two completely different things, which should be quite obvious since they made 'exactly' that inference!

Ritual when used nonmetaphorically is part of the sacred, you did not understand that the sared meant, I posted that to educate you what was being referred to since you apparently missed the last 3 times I posted it.

See I have no clue how you manage to always compute exactly the opposite of the point I am making?

Ritual when used nonmetaphorically is part of the sacred, you did not understand that the sared meant, I posted that to educate you what was being referred to since you apparently missed the last 3 times I posted it. you manage to always compute exactly the opposite of the point I am making.

false again.
This is really starting to get boring for me.
I even drew a picture for you yet you completely miss the point.
Once again: Because something is undefined to you does not mean its undefined to someone else.
Its over the top to claim something does not exist on the basis its not recognized by the party under review.

You mean you didnt read that link either?
Shees....

Religion is what you do, you act according to your religion, mutually exercized religion is culture.

I dont agree with that. Only the points I posted in response to yours.

So that is one of the points I continue to try to make, and I am glad you agree.

This contradicts.....

.....this.

Worshipping rain, sun, good crops and on and on and on.....

Sure you did when you claim atheism which is grounded in natural beliefs cannot possibly be a religion.

It was just proven to you, or should have been that natural in the form of value especially is in fact religous.

some do some dont.

which is precisely what is also being said by Durkeim in the OP, and I agree with it.

that they are an accessory or extension of the natural, if not supernatural its synonym metaphysics.

Is there a value judgement in any of that?

Definitely worse penalizing the destruction of the flag in a nonreligious (disrespectful) manner.

If they do they are religious, is this admission atheists are religious?

I fail to see any value judgement or directive life course from that?
Explain please.

You are the one that ALWAYS USES ALL OR NEVER NOT ME.
so please STOP with the all or nothing responses, they are WRONG and getting old.

Sure all words have some sort of precognitive rationale applied to them.

Then you cant believe in metaphysics.

FALSE, religion is not made up, Gods I dont know about one way or the the other, I do know that many I have looked at are fiction, I wont go so far as to say ALL.

That is a rare exception to my rule, since ALL people endowed with reason have to some extent religion. Even animals have to some extent religion.

That may be their verbiage however religion is definitely someones concern about THEIR personal life, and what they 'value' which takes us right back to the OP!

 

If it is "just a guess" and presented as such, no religion. I've seen prognosications about the almost limitless potential of science that are a lot more confident than that.

It means that if an atheist, like the rest of us, wonders about the meaning of life, that isn't necessarily a religious attitude. If the atheist provides definite answers(e.g., BiGuy: "Religion is an attempt by humans to project their species-centric perspective on the workings of the universe as whole") its a step toward metaphysics, which can be an ingredient of religion if it is group-shared and accompanied by ritual and/or code.

Correct. Christian theologian Marcus Borg had a feeling of oneness with the universe while flying on an airplane (whether before or after cocktails were served, I don't know). Geneticist Francis Collins had his "born again" experience after viewing a waterfall, frozen in three strands, suggesting to him the Trinity. If it had been frozen in multiple strands, perhaps he would have become a pastafarian. I became a Christian after a passage in Genesis triggered a cascade of thoughts making me see all humans as reflections of God, and all religions as related fragments of truth.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Correct. Everything depends on mindset and how it is interpreted by the person having the experience. In my case, I always leave open the possibility of a psychotic break or some other psychological abberation. The important thing is that I chose to accept it as a life-changing spiritual experience.

They celebrate their lack of faith in God and heir faith in goodness. Good is great!

It's always a matter of degree. If there is a lot of ritual, sermons, and hymns, it becomes a megachurch--especially, if collections are taken!
Atheists embrace mega-church settings

 

LOL!
Make that 2 exceptions, since its impossible to define a word without a clue what to define a word as! LMAO

Maybe this is best said that there are cases where I do use the word all and never but not the ones meagain claims.

 

ah shuh soo mg'ee do' huh'o tuh

The above is language for prayer. It can be sourced from Africa and survives in the Georgia Sea Islands in America.
It is possible to respond to this inventively, intuitively. Make a string of freely associated phonemes, and I will translate
your response into English.

 

You pledge all liege to a flag representing what????

Very few Americans have so much as a clue what they are pledging!

Definitions of liege

1. noun
   a feudal lord entitled to allegiance and service
   synonyms:liege lord
   see more
2. noun
   a person holding a fief; a person who owes allegiance and service to a feudal lord
   synonyms: feudatory, liege subject, liegeman, vassal.
   see more
3. adjective
   owing or owed feudal allegiance and service
   “one's liege lord”
   “a liege subject”
   Synonyms:
   loyal
   steadfast in allegiance or duty

Liege - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms



Now to the flag issue: You can be fined and jailed for treating the flag disrespectfully and disposing of it without elevating it to a solemn item of worship, thank you tricky dick nixon.

You are pledging all liege to the flag, the proxy of the lord

That said, if you can SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrate that treatment of the flag requires solemn ritualistic treatment any different than a rag then it might NOT be profane.

The way its required to be treated presently is by the governments religious prescription and royal decree, yes disposing a flag is religious and the ritual grinding the pledge in the heads of little children that they are vassals to the state in the pledge ritual is also religious!!!

Both are value judgements that cannot be reconciled by science, ie scientific method!

Perfect example of the government establishing itself as a religion! Thanks for bringing it up.

 

If the gathering is simply a put-on and the people involved take it is such, of course it's not a religion. But the gatherings have spread to the U.S. and caught on, and they don't seem to be put ons. They are expressing deeply held values. When rationality , goodness, etc., are deeply held as the meaning of life, people get together to celebrate it, and perform rituals, I think has religious character from a functional standpoint. John Dewey described God as the summation of human idealism, so in that sense they may even be worshiping god, although I'm sure they don't think so.