What is Religion?

You made a plethora of incorrect statements about the government and its intended purpose.
I took issue with that and posted several citations to clear up several points.

 

thats called supporting evidence.

Just like you claim you do not understand what the thread is about when I posted Durheim in the OP.

I read this as you have no qualified rebuttals or maybe you simply do not understand the material?

 

Seems my good friend Tish felt the4 need to derail the thread and became incorrigible.
As provided in the OP, Durkheim boiled down and reduced his social theory from the effects of a social group to the effects of a single person (the cognitive to evaluative) and tish cant seem to wrap his mind around that I presume most likely due to strong confirmation biases.

 

You seem to think that Durkheim has no right to present any other 'categories' or anything more in depth, or broadly, than specifically the one version of his work that supports your theme!

Durkheim thus arrived at his preliminary definition of the essential parts of any religious system: sacred things are those isolated and protected by powerful interdictions; profane things are those which, according to those interdictions, must remain at a distance from their sacred counterparts; religious beliefs are representations which express the nature of sacred things and their relations, either with one another or with profane things; religious rites are rules of conduct which prescribe how one should behave in the presence of sacred things; and finally, where "a certain number of sacred things sustain relations of co-ordination or subordination with each other in such a way as to form a system having a certain unity," the beliefs and rites [supporting actions] thus united constitute a religion.35
[emphasis added]
Durkheim's definition: " A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."40 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912)


Best I can tell from your writings so far is that you seem to have the belief, apparently misguided, that a church has to be institutionalized to be a valid religion.

Which is to say that I am not able to find 50 people worldwide that agree with the OP?

The OP merely digs a bit deeper to outline the philosophical basis for the roots of religion in the human brain that is the catalyst for religion in society, which he refers to distinguishes it from 'magical fantasies'.

 

Ok so we can take this another step deeper.

1) Religion does not start with a mob as the mobsters present.

2) Religion starts with a single person. Someone has a belief and stands by their belief.

(Like Jesus Christ for instance)

3) So person one has a belief and explains his belief to another person.

4) That person says wow that makes sense Im going to do the same thing.

5) Religion all starts with one person who says hey man if you eat pork it will kill you.

6) The next person says yeh maybe thats why my auntie gilgimesh! She died immediately after eating pork.

7) Repeat 2 through 6.

8) Now you have many people acting upon the same belief and the number of people in this religion increase exponentially all having the belief that pork will kill you passes on from person to person.

9) now you have a group of people that form a church all believe in the same thing without any state involvement.

10) If this keeps growing it becomes the beginning of a whole culture or even a nation.

Tada! Hence the creation of the foundation of religious belief not to eat pork!

Everyone has several beliefs that we believe in to keep ourselves healthy.

I like to use moral beliefs as an example of this since morals are the foundation of every religion I have looked into, however as we can see it goes considerably beyond morals.

Then again some person can point to something divine to believe in, the source changes but the constructs do not

 

...

 

Best we can say is that might be how it began. But by leaving out all reference to the nature of belief in the sacred, the spiritual, the transcendent, the supernatural, etc., you might as well be describing a stock tip, a political ideology, a social club,a new way of hunting, etc.

We usually don't think or some purely ethical system detached from the supernatural, spiritual, sacred, or transcendent, to be a religion. Historically, pagan religion didn't combine their morality and their religion. Pagans had morality, but it was separate from religionThe gods weren't a particularly moral bunch themselves, and they didn't much care how virtuous their worshipers were as long as they put the sacrifices on the altar. It was the latter that was regarded as religion.

 

Here is a list of "Nine Noble Virtues" as used by some Norse Pagans:

• Courage - the ability to face both the joys and the challenges of life fearlessly;
• Truth - honesty and integrity in one's words as well as one's actions;
• Honor - strength of character as reflected in one's behavior and trustworthiness;
• Fidelity - loyalty and faithfulness to family, tribal, and spiritual commitments;
• Discipline - consistency in effort toward reaching one's goals;
• Hospitality - kindness to strangers, travelers, and those who are in need;
• Industriousness - willingness to work hard toward excellence in productivity;
• Self-Reliance - pride in the ability to care for one's own needs;
• Perseverance - refusal to admit defeat or to let obstacles thwart one's efforts.

Principles of Moral Thought and Action

you must enjoy being corrected all the time.

Not eating pork is sacred, the definition was given to you earlier in the thread! Sacred includes spiritual, transcendent, and supernatural

 

Yes, the Norse had morals. So did the Romans and the Greeks. No argument there. But to say that "morals are the foundation of every religion is wrong. They were more concerned with ritual acts than with morals or ethics. Bart Ehrman, The Triumph of Christianity.

BTW. Your effort to define religion while leaving out spirituality, the sacred, the transcendental, or the supernatural is wrong. The Norse had gods--Oden, Thor, Loki,Freya, Frigg, Andvari, Balder, Freya, Frigg, Loki, Njord, the Norns, etc. Odin, Thor, and Tyr), Funny you should leave them out.

 

That's one theory, similar to that of Edward Tylor, who emphasized the explanatory function.

 

Secular religion

A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are Modern Satanism, Secular Buddhism, Secular Judaism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism, and the Cult of Reason and Cult of the Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution.

Secular religion - Wikipedia

 

So? I thought your latest effort was to explain religion in general, not secular religion . Are you trying to tell us that the first religions were secular.

 

To Jews and Muslims,not eating pork is tied to the sacred, or more accurately in this case, taboo. But you presented it as though somebody thought pork was unhealthy and recommended not eating it, which is just medical advice. As you know from your deep understanding of Durkheim, the same thing can be sacred or profane, depending on the circumstances. As for being given to me earlier in the 18 page thread, I think it would have been helpful to include it with your latest exposition of how religion came about.

Besides, your imaginary reconstruction of how religion might have happened is essentially a "just so story", in the same category with Kipling's "How the Leopard Got Its Spots"--devoid of evidence that anything like it actually happened.

 

I dont recall saying that, where do you see that?

 

How many more times do you need for me post it?
Unless you are prepared to argue that religion does not start with a 'belief'.

Oh yes religions have both do's and taboos!

 

Its far more realistic than your imaginary construction.

 

and you present like they had a fully equipped mayo clinic at their disposal 2000 years ago. All they had the ability to know is that it killed them if they ate it.

 

Right. I have relatives and neighbors who regularly give me home remedies and tips about what to avoid for my health's sake. No Mayo involved. Once again, you miss the point. If what you're trying to do is figure out how religion came about, there probably should be something numinous introduced at some point.