What is Religion?

State and federal law 'tell' you what to believe.
If some religion tells you what to believe and you disagree you have roughly 4,000 other religions to choose from or invent your own.

Religion is the composite of what you 'choose' to believe, everything rolled up under one title.

 

Free of dogma and rules. Free of control. In my practice, yes I had to begin somewhere many many years ago but as I took hold of my practice as a Witch I learned how to work with my own energy creating my own methods of practice which resonates with my connection with a higher power. Then my practice becomes part of me as it relates to the Cretaor and the earth.

 

It sounds to me like you have a personal set of rules and dogma that you follow? Do you not? Like not murdering anyone, not raping, not stealing etc?

 

Morals are your valuations used for self governance, that is the most obvious element of anyones personal religion.

I am not sure how you tie quality into this.

In respect to one persons idea of quality compared to another I can see that.

So this goes beyond valuation to check quality?

Its not possible for quality in its generic scope to be objective. Maybe for a specific incontrovertible condition, but I cant imagine any this day in age.

Durkheim is comparing the essence of the elements of what makes a religion, and as I pointed out earlier there is no divine requirement for religion.

Now the quality of religion is something people decide based on their version of good/bad, which is good religion v bad religion which is outside the scope of cognitive/evaluative.

 

-- Not being in a Federal state or subject to its' law, I'm happy to live in a land where diversity - though criticised and flawed is at least a matter of topica; debate
-- I chose not 'a.n.other' Religion - but as stated, prefere a credo of Faith
-- Religion requires Order- though most things need a bit of chaos, ... methinks

 

Example, I have an old set of koss headsets that cost maybe 40 bucks, (ie low 'quality'), I have auditioned a set of 500 bucks senheisers, (high 'quality') headsets that have no value to me because the sound is not as linear as those old low quality koss.
Therefore I 'value' the koss, not the high 'quality' senheisers, even if they were marked down to 10 bucks.

philosophy by itself bears no action or commitment, its just banter, religion on the other hand does.

 

Sure, you have a set of beliefs, that suit you, and also have faith that your set of beliefs are correct for you. You go out and exercise your beliefs in practice, that is known as your religion.

 

Of course we all have a set of rules we live in a society which needs laws!!! Of course. I was talking about my spritual prcatice. It takes years to eventually have a practice which fits one's persona.

 

The 4 Stages of Taoism’s Spiritual Path

We've had this conversation before. Definitions aren't true or false, only more or less useful. Dictionary definitions are based on popular usage, and are useful in many contexts. Scholars, however, find them to be not useful in dealing with some subject matter--e.g., the comparative study of world religions. The notion that religion must be about supernatural beings or agents reflects prevailing Judeo-Christian notions, but may be too culture bound to be helpful in studying world relgions. In particular, we have phenomena like the so-called "godless" religions of Asia. You have large numbers of people following prescribed rules of conduct; accepting certain doctrines about reality (e.g., samsara, karma, non-self, upadana; engaging in elaborate rituals; in some cases, praying to devotional figures called bodhisattvas, and doing all this with co-religionists in a communal context. There obviously seem to be many things these folks have in common with their counterparts in churches and synagogues. What they lack is god(s) or a belief in supernatural being(s) who run the show. I think you consider such beings the sine qua non of religion, but most scholars in the field of comparative religious studies do not. Who is right? Impossible to say. You can name your pet dog "Religion" and be within your rights, so long as you make clear how you're using the term and don't insist that yours is the only correct usage. Functional and cluster approaches are widely in use by scholars of comparative religion because they judge that the "godless" faiths have more in common than otherwise with the godly ones. In the past when we've discussed this you've reacted as though I'm pushing some quirky personal view. But actually it seems to be the majority viewpoint in the field of comparative religion. Most standard textbooks on world religions include chapters on Buddhism and Taoism. (e.g., Houston Smith, World Religions; Robinson and Rodrigues, World Religions: A Guide to the Essentials:; Irving Hexham, Understanding World Religions; Halverson, The Compact Guide to World Religions; Aaron, The Religions of the World ; etc., \etc., etc.; etc.)The widely used cluster approach distinguishes religion by four basic elements: creed, code, cultus (rituals) and community. Prothero, God is not One; Mark Berkson, Cultural Literacy for Religion(Great Courses). I do think that religion should also incorporate devotion to the sacred, spiritual or transcendental. Transcendental refers to that which is beyond material reality. Spiritual has to do with sacred matters, or those relating to incorporeal needs. The eastern religions may not have gods, in the sense of superhuman beings, but they're recognized as having forms of spirituality. https://www.spiritrestoration.org/religion/spirituality-via-buddhism/ Many primal religions recognize the power of invisible forces permeating the universe: mana (Polynesia), orenda (iroquois), manitou (algonquian), wakan (Lakota)--and such concepts are prominent in Egyptian (Ma'at) and Hindu/Buddhist beliefs (Dharma). By letting go of our cultural blinders, we can expand our notions of religion.

Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life is a classic in the field of the sociology of religion, distinguishing religion in terms of "the sacred", as opposed to the profane, and showing the importance of society to its functioning. It's somewhat dated, and I take issue with some of its conclusions, but it's certainly a worthwhile contribution. The fact that you find it confusing is not surprising if all you're going on is ShyOne's brief description. I'd recommend reading the original. Even the wiki definition which you mention acknowledges the transcendental and spiritual as alternatives to "supernatural". I think of "supernatural " (literally above nature) as something that is presently beyond scientific explanation. We have concepts that many scientists believe in--e.g., quanta that behave like waves or particles depending on the circumstances. Feynman, himself a distinguished physicist, acknowledged that nobody understands QM, but we can use it for rather precise predictions.

Some scholars note the striking similarities between modern totalitarian movements and the old time religion: creeds (dialectical materialism, scientific racism); codes (I will go where the party sends me), cultus (goose-stepping pagentry) and community ( party, youth leagues, etc.) Robespierre's officially atheist government of the French Revolution had even added deities (the Goddess of Liberty). Again, this is not just a quirky personal view of mine, but one which is held by other scholars (Jules Monnerat, Emilio Gentile, Adolf Keller, Hans Maier, William Connolly, Christoph Deutscmann, Eric Voegelin, Raymnond Aaron, A.J. P. Taylor, etc. These writers find the analogy useful in describing notable similarities between secular religions or quai-religions and theistic ones. A.James Grego (2012). Totalitarianism and Religion: an Intellectual History.

 

Fine. As I said, you can define it as your pet dog if you want. I define it as scholars in the field of comparative religion do, because I think it's useful to recognize striking similarites between the godless religions and the godly ones. Do you know of any books on world religions that exclude Buddhism and Taoism?

The OP question was, "...which version (of a definition of religion) do you prefer and please also give us the reason why you prefer your choice?"
I stated my choice and gave my reasons.
I don't believe Shy's explanation had anything to do with "the sacred".
You have a lot of terms in this section such as, transcendental, spiritual, supernatural, sacred matters, incorporeal needs, and invisible forces. You seem to use them all to define something that is beyond material reality. You would have to clarify how you are using each of theses words if you are not referring to something that is beyond material reality.[/QUOTE] I think that spirituality and the transcendental are beyond material reality, in the sense that they are obviously not matter. They are feelings and ideas. Energy is not matter either, although interchangeable with it. Ideas are not material, although they may depend on physical processes to sustain them. When I talk about spirituality and the transcendent, I'm generally referring to certain categories of human thought and emotion--feelings of awe and wonder, thoughts about a realm of existence or experience beyond the ordinary (real or imaginary) which I don't think are meaningfully reduced to material processes. I define God as the felt presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live, and move, and have our being." Note the emphasis on feeling, stressing the subjectivity of the perception. For further reading, I refer you to the work of Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane.

I don't think you need to, but some of us don't find science to be the be all and end all of human knowledge. Science is the gold standard of reliable information about physical reality. But there are substantial areas of human interest in which science is inherently inadequate--matters that are not amenable to rigorous empirical testing of refutable hypotheses. We don't have to deal with such matters, but some of us are drawn to them, as Plotinus says, "like moths to a flame", because they seem to hold the meaning of life. Logical postivists like A.J. Ayer used to dismiss such empirically unverifiable matters as metaphysical nonsense, but even he (after his Near Death Experience) acknowleged that this is somewhat narrow-minded. Dewey defined God as the summation of human idealism. I agree that God is at least that, among other things.Whether or not you agree, it's hard to talk about religion without acknowledging the importance of such matters to believers. Religion, true or false, is about the meaning of human existence.

I don't think the laws of science should be confused with, or substituted for the divine, but I do think the integrated complexity and "fine tuning" of the universe is awesome!

 

What do you mean by "provable"? By enough evidence to convince any reasonable person? More likely than not? Beyond a reasonable doubt? I think of morality in utilitarian terms: that which contributes to the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Of course, it would be impossible to "prove" this scientifically. It's ultimately a judgment call. And we'd get into disputes about whether some pleasures are qualitatively superior to others. But I think it's reasonable to conclude that murder is a threat to the social order on which human well-being depends. Another approach is contractarian: what rules would people in a state of radical ignorance about their situation in a future society agree to. Again, I think it's reasonable for them to conclude they don't want to allow murder. I don't think right and wrong are values existing in Plato's heaven. They're norms that evolved to assure human survival

 

I agree with Meagain on this. It is abstruse and not very helpful in understanding the phenomenon of religion. It seems to say that the difference between philosophical and ideological beliefs and religion is commitment to conduct. But Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus are generally regarded as existentialist philosphers and atheists, who emphasized commitment to action as the basis of their philosophy. They were both atheists and individualists who eschewed religious dogma and community. Yet they were men of action, who defined their reality by their choices. Religion provides canned, ready-made choices for people that they're told they must accept. For many, that's its main value. Of course, believers are supposed to commit to these ready-made dogmas, or else. I think what Durkheim was trying to say, although not very effectively, is that religion goes beyond mere speculating about reality to embracing a value system that shapes actual conduct. For Durkheim, religion was about socially defined concepts of the sacred (as opposed to the profane), reinforced by rituals engaged in by the society. Put that way, I think there's a lot of truth to it, although the societies he was dealing with were primordial ones, rather than the pluralistic ones we're used to.

 

Yes for the most part unreliable to philosophy, which is not to imply dismiss them out of hand but it does support the ability for people to understand one another in the same terms.

I agree with this.

Its also applied to the 'extraordinary'.

Yes, your personal perception, which is not dependent solely on the divine, it can also be dependent on the profane as I have shown above.

I agree

Its not even possible to reduce them materially. Love for instance can not be reduced to a material realm.

I didnt but religion has many facets.

Preponderance of evidence. Reasonable doubt really doesnt apply in metaphysics.

Yes that is why its in the religion realm.

However that is a judgment call, if you believe its not please explain.

Religious norms go beyond survival do they not?

No, he is comparing judgments based in the cognitive philosophy alone which I read as the profane and materially provable to valuation as you said a judgment call that which is not material provable through philosophy.

But in the material world you cant legitimately use a speculation as 'determinate-conclusion' therefore those matters remain unanswered or null and if we governed our personal live like that we would be functionally paralyzed.
Religion on the other hand evaluates your personal needs which enables you to move forward.

the sacred would then be equivalent to your judgment call, the ritual is the equivalent to a commitment in action, and the only thing wrong with it is to place it under a social group decision because you are stripped of religion being personal to you enabling someone else to decide your religion for you and worse it now pushes religion into and under the jurisdiction of state law opening up a huge can of worms since its no longer a religion at that point unless you live in a theocracy.

 

I cant agree with this because it strips me of my 'personal' religious views/positions and converts it to socialism forcing someone elses religion on me.

An equitable measuring stick allows me to retain my personal religion within the social body such that each individual can have the most out of life as they see fit.

I think the best measuring stick is one that enables people to do whatever they want as long as they do not do unjust harm to another which removes it from a socialist democratic dictatorship into the hands of each individual.

Granted things universal such as murder which I expect if put to a vote would be universal across all religions could effectively be brought into state law even though it is religious because its universal.

 

I dont know that either, that was not the point I made. I gave a presumptive analogy as an example, not the results of a referendum.

Nope as I said IF it is universally accepted across all religions.

50.0000001% forces the remaining 49.9999999 % to exercise a religion chosen by the 50.0000001%.

I dont have a really big problem with people professing the same religious principles doing any level of nasty evil things to one another as long as it does not spill over on to someone eses turf and participants are given a choice to get out if they like.

Thou shalt take the vaccine or lose your job.
We never gave this government the authority to tell us what drugs we may ingest, like pot for instance.

I never speak in terms of all or never. (except to explain I 'never' post in those terms. lol)
I use socialism in terms of others 'collectively'