What is Religion?

I care more. The only way to understand religion and religions is to study them systematically. Comparative religious studies is a social science discipline which defines religion according to what they find useful for meaningful comparisons. There is no more reason to dismiss them as a bunch of biased flakes than to do so with any other academic discipline.

"Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches us all. People may describe a spiritual experience as sacred or transcendent or simply a deep sense of aliveness and interconnectedness." What Is Spirituality? | Taking Charge of Your Health & Wellbeing "Spirituality means different things to different people. For some, it's primarily about a belief in God and active participation in organized religion. For others, it's about non-religious experiences that help them get in touch with their spiritual selves through quiet reflection, time in nature, private prayer, yoga, or meditation." Spirituality The latter sounds like Buddhism to me.

This seems to go beyond opinion into dogma. You simply restate your position emphatically. Your mind is made up. Fine. That's your prerogative. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you assert it as an indisputable fact. You dismiss a whole field of scholarly study and offer your own pronouncement, as someone who admittedly "could care less" about comparative religious studies. I don't know how else we could understand religion without comparative religious studies.

Piobaire pointed out (post) #247: "In Merriam-Webster's definition of the word, only definition 2(1) mentions 'God or the supernatural' .Religion may also be defined as 'a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices', a 'commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance', or 'a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith'; i.e., no appeal to imaginary friends with superpowers necessary; a religion may be non-theistic and secular." Seems even your "conventional definition" is not as theistic as you think.

Britannica, which should know something about definitions, states that "religion is about: "human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world." Religion | Definition, Types, Beliefs, Symbols, Examples, Importance, & Facts But what do they know? Even the Christian apologetic site Got Questions: Your Questions, Biblical Answers tells us : "A general definition of religion can be distilled from these widely varied experiences as 'a system connected to spiritual and/or supernatural components that uniquely impacts the adherent’s worldview, behavior, belief, culture, morality, and approach to certain writings, persons, or places.'” It also tells us that examples include Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. Psychologist William James tells us: "Were one asked to characterize the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto. (1902) [1985: 51] " We mustn't leave out the anthropologists. Clifford Geertz, said to have provided “the most influential, certainly the most accomplished, anthropological definition of religion to have appeared in the last two decades”, Asad, Talal. 1983. “Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz.” Man, New Series 18(2):237-259. p. 237, defined religion as: "[1] a system of symbols which acts to [2] establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by [3] formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and [4] clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that [5] the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic”. Geertz, Clifford. 1966. Religion as a Cultural System, p. 4. No gods. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

You dismiss the terms of sacred, spiritual, metaphysical and supernatural, which have "conventional definitions" in any dictionary and are widely in use in multiple fields of scholarship, as B.S.? Ordinarily, deities are subsumed under the category "supernatural". Defining words to suit the needs of scholarship is legitimate, so long as they explain how and why they are using the terms in a given way. If they are in general use in the field that studies comparative religion, that supersedes lay usage in dictionaries any day. Besides, see the previous paragraph on how Webster's uses the term "religion".

Gods are not a part of Buddhism as a belief-value system. But as Professor Bloom points out: "In popular religion in every Asian country, the gods support Buddhism and provide for the worldly needs of the people for health, wealth and spiritual protection". Buddhism and Atheism | Shin Dharma Net. So for the average Buddhist on the street in Asian countries , gods supplement the Sutras in shaping everyday religion. (T)here are all kinds of god-like creatures and beings called devas populating the early scriptures of Buddhism. Vajrayana Buddhism still makes use of tantric deities in its esoteric practices. And there are Buddhists who believe devotion to Amitabha Buddha will bring them to rebirth in the Pure Land." Gods, Goddesses and Buddhist Tantra According to K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera: "Only in one sense can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal omnipotent God or God-head who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word 'atheism', however, frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications which are in no way applicable to the Buddha's Teaching. Those who use the word 'atheism', often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism advocate nothing of that sort." What Buddhists Believe - Is Buddhism Atheistic?

 

That's the only definition of God.

 

Did you get that revelation from Mount Sinai? Polytheistic religions have many gods who they thought had nothing to do with creation. In some societies (e.g.,China, India, Greece), the world hatched from a cosmic egg or pearl (Yazidi).

 

So, they don't believe in God. So what? That doesn't change the definition of God.

 

And their definition is not arbitrary, but based on reasonable assumptions and usefulness. We seem to agree now that it is legitimate to use the term "religion" in a way that doesn't include deities. Whew!

 

In other words, whether substantial civilizations believed it or not, and whether or not scholars studying religion agree, YOU know the right answer. That seems like religious faith at work, and is therefore beyond debate.

 

YOU know the right answer.

I do, yes. God is the source.

People can imagine the features of God all they like (like God is an egg or a pearl- whatever), but that doesn't alter the definition that God is the source of creation.

Nor does it change the meaning of the word "religion". It means "back to the source".

 

Thanks for sharing your point of view.

 

What about "She prayed to God religiously every evening"?

 

Ok, now lets look at "She religiously does not eat pork."
There is no deity being invoked in that, therefore by your standards it cant be a religious characteristic.
But in reality it is, so now what?

 

The problem is that it is in fact religious (for those in that religion) despite the fact I mentioned no deity.

That said we now have a case where no deity is referenced in the statement, yet it is none the less a religious rite which is well recognized fact.

Pigs should not be eaten because they don't chew their cud. The ban on the consumption of pork is repeated in Deuteronomy 14:8.
During the Roman period, Jewish abstinence from pork consumption became one of the most identifiable features of Jewish religion to outsiders of the faith.
Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Religious_restrictions_on...

In fact I will go further and point out that not eating pork has everything to do with pigs eating filth and nothing to do with any God or god.

Neither is any deity invoked in the creation of this religious rite! Maybe you can find some connection to a God or god, but Ive found none what so ever.

According to your rules not eating pork cannot be a religious characteristic since it did not come down from a God or god.

Yet it is a religious rite and attribute. This seems like quite the contradiction in your theory and remains a mystery how you constructed such claims.

 

Or it puts us back to defining religion with your preconceived notion of religion

BUT:

Atheism is often considered acceptable within Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism in India. However, an Atheist person does not follow any specific religion. That person may come from any religious background.

Hinduism
Atheism is a valid form of belief in Hinduism. Certain Hindu schools however view the path of the atheist as a very difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[23]

Buddhism
Buddhism is often described as non-theistic, since Buddhist authorities and canonical texts do not affirm, and sometimes deny, the following:

• The existence of a creation, and therefore of a creator deity
• That a god (deva), gods, or other divine beings are the source of moral imperatives. Instead, the Dharma is an attribution of the universe
• That human beings or other creatures are responsible to a god or gods for their actions

Unitarian Universalism

Unitarian Universalism (UU) is a liberal religion, first founded when Unitarians and Universalists came together in 1961.[27] According to the Unitarian Universalist Association, atheists and agnostics are accepted and welcomed into the UU religion. 'People with atheist and agnostic beliefs find a supportive community in our congregations. We are pro-science, pro-reason, and pro-Evolution...Unitarian Universalism honors the differing paths we each travel.


Satanism

LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic, rejecting belief in God and all other deities, including, to the surprise of many, Satan.



There are so many 'recognized religions' that have no deity, so it looks like your preferred definition is by general consensus too narrow?

What I would like to know is what justification you have to use such a narrow definition in the face of so many that have a much broader definition of religion? What purpose does your preferred definition serve that you believe is better than the general concensus?

This isnt some obscure notion, atheist religions have been well known to exist for a long time, so to claim they are not requires a full explanation imo.

 

Webster's does have as a third meaning "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." That might do for some principles, but if we're talking about something that deserves First Amendment protection, tax exemption, or protection from illegal discrimination. in Tor-
caso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court made clear that a person doesn't have to believe in a deity to qualify for First Amendment protection. And in United States v. Seeger religious faith in "a purely ethical creed" "involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation" would be sufficient for conscientious objector status, "if the belief whether belief is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God..." However, on Wisconsin v. Yoder, concerning whether compulsory secondary education could be required for Amish students, the Court said that mere philosophical and personal objection would not qualify as religious.

Some law review articles propose a functional approach based on theologian Tillich's concept of ultimate concerns, and "faith in something beyond the mundane observable world-faith that some higher or deeper reality exists." https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3412&context=clr
"Secular Humanism and the Definition of Religion: Extending a Modified "Ultimate Concern" Test to Mozert v. Hawkins County Public Schools and Smith v. Board of School Commissioners, 63 WASH. L. REV. 445 (1988). That, in conjunction with the functional and cluster approaches widely used by scholars of comparative religions, supports a concept that would allow sacred metaphysical, spiritual, or supernatural beliefs to substitute for god's, so long as these views are shared by a group and there are rituals involved. But would exclude abstinence from pork out of health concerns or personal taste. (I happen not to eat pork, cuz I don't like it. But I have no religious objection to it.) I don't think it would be fair to exclude the Ethical Culturalists and Secular Humanists from protection just because they don't believe in a deity.