What is Religion?

I found this on another board while surfing and thought it to be a very kool philosophical explanation to define religion in a functional light. Combining two or more words to mean literally the same identical thing never struck me as legitimate lexicon. I have seen lots of discussions where people discuss matters using different definitions for the same word in an endless circle.

So I am putting this up for consideration as a 'functional' or substantial definition of religion that I found fascinating.


* Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathartic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.

This they share with ideological beliefs.

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from their point of view. -Emile Durkheim




* From Dictionary.com

re·li·gion
noun: religion

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

• a particular system of faith and worship.
  plural noun: religions
  "the world's great religions"
• a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
  "consumerism is the new religion"

* Wiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Religion is usually defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements;[1] however, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.[2][3] Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine,[4] sacred things,[5] faith,[6] a supernatural being or supernatural beings[7] or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life".[8]

Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities or saints), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that may also attempt to explain the origin of life, the universe, and other phenomena. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.[9]



I posted 3 sources for everyone's consideration.

I think the dictionaries choice to define religion did possibly the worst job in the sense that yes they give us black and white contrast, however the usage seems to be too narrow to really understand the nature or answer the question 'what is religion'.

Wiki appears to do a great job with massive elaboration, more than most people are willing to take the time to read through.

My choice is the philosopher Durkheim, which version do you prefer and please also give us the reason why you prefer your choice? Maybe some other choice not listed here? I'd be very interested to hear others take on this.

 

your personal relationship to the unknown. in simplest terms, which have of course little to do, with religious organizations of any flavor.
because the unknown owes nothing to what anyone, flavor of belief or otherwise, tells themselves or anyone else, what to pretend they know about it.

 

i would say, gods are real, its the religions that don't exist.
(obviously not literal the last part of that. paraphrase of that old saying about the airforce and ufos)

basically i mean, would a god be a god if it owed its existence to what humans tell each other to pretend they know about it?

ultimately of course, the unknown being unknown, neither requires nor prevents anything, even ourselves.

in all fairness to people of all faiths there is an experiential aspect to all of that.
i've been there and perhaps in some ways will always be.
but again for me, it exists more when there is no one trying to tell me what to believe,
then in any place or book what anyone is.

there certainly is a non-physical aspect to the experience.
but again that doesn't mean any brand name flavor, christianity included,
knows nor has any sort of exclusive rights, to what its talking about.

 

i guess i talked all the way around it both times.
religion, for all its excuses and denials, is humans, or physical people of whatever world, telling each other what to pretend, about what is not known, most likely, by anyone.
that on the face of it, seems to me, at least a little dishonest of a thing to do.
nothing wrong though, with feeling whatever connection you have to it personally.
and that, there are often good reasons to do.
invisible friends are as good to have as any.
and the unknown being unknown does not in any way prevent the possibility of their existence.

 

Welcome!!

Religon is made up bullshit for control!!!!!!!

 

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
Napoleon Bonaparte

 

Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.

Applicable definitions;

non-empirical

based on theory rather than on what is experienced or seen: She believed that sociology was a non-empirical field which must study social action using purely subjective means. Their methodology was criticized as being non-empirical.

NON-EMPIRICAL definition | Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › non-empir..

HOMOLOGUE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
https://dictionary.cambridge.org › dictionary › homolo...

— something that has a similar position, structure, value, or purpose to something else

Ideological is an adjective that describes political, cultural, or religious beliefs. An ideology is a body of ideas, and those who agree with the main idea of something take an ideological stand to support it.

Ideological - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › ideological

----------------------------

Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs,

He is making the distinction between things not provable as fact (beliefs) and things demonstrably provable as fact.

----------------------------

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

He is making the distinction between a religious belief and a philosophical belief, ie: its classified as philosophical until it becomes a commitment and part of your actions, then it can be said to be religious..

----------------------------

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Hmm, I guess an easy way to describe this is that you can create a philosophical (ethical) hypothesis that stealing is immoral, (a value judgment), and then you go out and steal because it was nothing more than a kool mental exercise, even though you believe its wrong to do such things it is not a religion under those circumstances, it remains a philosophical mental exercise.

On the other hand if you create the same philosophical hypothesis and as a result of the conclusion that stealing is morally wrong, and you consciously 'do not steal' by making it a commitment in action, that you use to govern your actions, the (cognitive) philosophical hypothesis now morphs because the focus of your interest moves from the cognitive to the (evaluative) which takes over and now falls under the definition of a religious belief. (the key here is that you made a commitment to act upon your belief)

----------------------------

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

While religion can be but in most cases is not scientifically provable, it is treated with the same attitude as beliefs that are scientifically provable, and opens the door to exercising your personal conclusions instead of someone elses.

----------------------------

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

Therefore religious ideas can be understood as answers to questions of 'meaning' in both (empirical) scientifically provable and non-empirical not scientifically provable senses.

----------------------------

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathartic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation. This they share with ideological beliefs.

So religious beliefs can be considered to be a blending of both science/philosophy (things provable) and nonprovable 'value calls' which may include a healthy cathartic (emotional energy) purge with regard to a situation. Basically he is saying a 'value call', value calls are not provable, for instance every moral judgment is a value call.

Catharsis Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › catharsis
descriptive of such a physically cleansing purge

-------------------------

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from their point of view. -Emile Durkheim

To survive "the vicissitudes of life" is thus to survive life's ups and downs, with special emphasis on the downs. Vicissitude is a descendant of the Latin noun vicis, meaning "change" or "alternation," and it has been a part of the English language since the 16th century.

Vicissitude Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com › dictionary › vicissitude

This relates to your personal interpretation of meaning of both the provable and nonprovable in a broader sense. What do the things we can prove such as mean to us.... the things we know or learn through cognition, nature, and human nature, also the things we believe and cant prove, our personal position on that as well as it pertains to life, basically regards our our worldview.

-----------------------------

I call religion the self imposed rules that you use to govern your life, ie morals as the most obvious example, since a moral starts with believing something is right than following through with action, unlic ethics for instance which is only the study of morals without any commitment to action. For instance if ethical prescriptions are committed to action it now morphs into a religious belief. Rthics are only part of your religion is you also believe them, if you dont then its someone elses religion being forced upon you since yhou have no commitment to it, but only do it because you have to.



Hope that clarifies it a bit?

 

moral

relating to the standards of good or bad behavior, fairness, honesty, etc. that each person believes in, rather than to laws:

• It's her moral obligation to tell the police what she knows.

• It is not part of a novelist's job to make a moral judgment.

• She was the only politician to condemn the proposed law on moral grounds (= for moral reasons).

• The Democrats are attempting to capture the moral high ground (= are trying to appear more honest and good than the other political parties).

This can also be related to personal preservation for instance, such as not injecting foreign materials into your body, like the covid vax.

It was the case with the marriage of 2 gay gals, this is all based in and grounded by their religion.

No, your first paragraph is precisely reversed.

Religion isnt tied to proof, its tied to 'valuation', your value system, and your value system can be linked to either the divine for theistic people, or the natural for the atheistic people, or some combination of both, can the source of your evaluative interest.

Religion is the composite of all morals held by a person, not just one for instance. We all have many regardless of our source affiliation.

Morals are value based. For instance philosophy or the study of behaviors/morals is ethics, that would fall under the cognitive sense. Simple acceptance of the truth of some ethical principle does not go beyond 'cognitive' until its adopted.

So the adoption of, meaning putting them into practice and actually 'exercising' and governing your actions based upon those accepted-adopted-evaluative principles in your life, this is your valuative interests (religion), the composite of all your valuative interests are your religion.

Social/public morals which we call politics, (one element of politics anyway), forming the culture of a society which presumably is composed of individual religions of its body members.

 

Religion can also be perceived as a philosophy and methodology to access natural bliss and joy in oneself rather than using sensory pleasures of an impermanent nature or intoxicants like drugs and alcohol which can be counter-productive, expensive and unhealthy in the long run.

Swami Vivekananda's Quotes On Pleasure - VivekaVani

Sadhguru has also stated that religion can be used as a tool to get stoned and productive at the same time...

You can be stoned and alert at the same time

I would say this is the proper function and definition of religion though with time, organised religion and conflicts based on religious ideologies, tampering by priests and politicians, resulted in blurring of religion's original purpose, disorientation and focusing instead on historical narratives and belief systems that foster conflict and strife.

Religin is actually a way of life that infused bliss and peace within the individual.

 

Oops looks like I forgot to post it.

The statement is mostly incorrect, it should be Philosophy, not religion. Its your personal religion after its acted upon.

Dont confuse the 'source' of someones religion with religion, they are not the same thing.

Sure, the word religion is polysemous, it has many meanings not just divine worship that is commonly associated with it.

Like I said your source can be God(s) (the divine) or natural.

Both are religious people, ones religion is guided by the divine the others is guided by the natural.

Both are 'bound to' and 'acting upon' their strongly held beliefs, the actual meaning of religion.

The distinction is not atheists/religionists, its atheists/theists.

 

I should have mentioned.....I think its important to realize that "Thou shalt not murder" is not possible to 'prove' in the natural world using the tools of the natural world, (science etc). Very few if any right v wrong morals are provable because they are 'valuations' as Durkheim stated and are outside our ability to 'prove' they are either right or wrong in the natural (material) world.

 

yes at least with regard to morals, beyond that gets a little spooky.
All religion is personal, the next guys beliefs do not clone yours. Even if they are in the same organized religion.
Sure, Levay started a recognized atheist religion and church worshiping a fun god.



Secular humanism combines the humanist ethic with the metaphysical doctrine that God does not exist (or the epistemological doctrine that knowledge of God is moot).

Is secular humanism a religion
https://uh.edu › ~psaka › dfhum


The Supreme Court briefly referred to Secular Humanism as a religion “which [does] not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God” in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins.Nov 19, 2014

Atheists and Secular Humanists are protected by the First ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › news › 2014/11/19 › a..





Title Author of The Satanic Bible, High Priest and founder of The Church of Satan

Born
Howard Stanton Levey
April 11, 1930
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.
Died October 29, 1997 (aged 67)
San Francisco, California, U.S.
Religion Satanism
Spouse
Carole Lansing
(m. 1951; div. 1960)
Blanche Barton
(m. 1984)
Partner Diane Hegarty (1960–1984)
Children 3 (including Karla LaVey and Zeena Schreck)
Denomination Church of Satan
Known for The Satanic Bible
Church of Satan
Profession Author, musician, priest

 

which are all non-provable valuations since every step is a judgment call, that some will agree with others will totally disagree with.