What is a "religion"?

[Thomas]

Hi Phil -

That's a very good point, and probably worth a thread of its own.

In my own (Catholic) studies I have spent a lot of time rooting that pernicious little weed 'dualism' out of the teachings, but the thing reoccurs with alarming regularity and spreads like crazy.

The separation of religion and spirituality is a more recent example.

Thomas

[mandrill]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Skeptic44 raised the interesting issue of Atheism being a "religion".

Personally, I find this hard to justify - "religious belief" essential revolves around the ritualised worship of a supernatural deity - at least, according to my initial perception.

So I would normally class Atheism - like Agnosticism - as a philosophy.

However, the issue is further complicated by Buddhism, which in itself and at its heart (certainly in some traditions) does not seem to deal with either the worship or acknowledgement of Supernatural beings - certainly not in the idea of Divinity.

So is Buddhism therefore a philosophy, rather than a religion? In which case, should I remove the link from the left-hand nav bar?

Seriously, though - when does a personal philosophy actually become religious belief? What is actually required to define the differences between each? Are there actually key distinct differences? Or is there a muddy realm in meta-physics when personal belief cannot be defined wholly in terms of either a "religion" or as a "philosophy"?

An open query.

Well .. being at work today with nothing to do at lunchtime I've time to ponder this.

When in doubt about this kind of thing I sometimes just go to a dictionary. The one I found at hand defines "religion" as follows:

1. belief in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship
2. expression of this in worship
3. particular system of faith and worship
4. thing that one is devoted to

So, going by this, I'd say that Buddhism could fit in with either 3 or 4, while atheism could certainly fit into 4, but not agnosticism, since I think that agnostics, by their very nature, are not devoted to anything. Perhaps its more about a certainty of belief in something, so much so that one will base one's life on it. Hmm ... I should add 'faith' in there as well, since one believes in these things without any certain evidence that they are true. If one believes in something because it has been demonstrated to them, in some tangible way, that it is true, I would not call that a religion.

[Susma Rio Sep]

I contributed a good number of posts in this thread to examine what is religion.

And to the present I still have not come across any reasons which would make me change my conclusions about religion, what it is and other incidentals of religion.

Is atheism or agnosticism a religion?

Here I go again, with my findings:

Religion is a human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

-- Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

In atheism and in agnosticism there is no realization of the latter part of my definition, namely to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

In Buddhism I distinguish between the Buddhism of the masses and the Buddhism of the elitists, an example of which is Vajradhara.

My definition is completely realized in the former; but in the latter there must be a more careful examination of the elitist Buddhists, but I come to the conclusion that whatever their protestations to the contrary, they are also like the Buddhist masses, into influencing the power or powers that be to react favorably to them.

I invite you to look up my posts in this thread at the start and for a good number of posts onward.

About dictionary definitions of things, one must consider whether the definitions are referring to the text world or to the world of the man-in-the-street.

The text world is very often the world of religion, for example religious people can talk on and on about so many things, but almost always in their text world; because when they come down to the world of the man in the street, they also all behave like everyman that is in the streets.

Pachomius2000

[mandrill]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I contributed a good number of posts in this thread to examine what is religion.

And to the present I still have not come across any reasons which would make me change my conclusions about religion, what it is and other incidentals of religion.

Is atheism or agnosticism a religion?

Here I go again, with my findings:

-- Susma Rio Sep aka Pachomius2000

In atheism and in agnosticism there is no realization of the latter part of my definition, namely to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

In Buddhism I distinguish between the Buddhism of the masses and the Buddhism of the elitists, an example of which is Vajradhara.

My definition is completely realized in the former; but in the latter there must be a more careful examination of the elitist Buddhists, but I come to the conclusion that whatever their protestations to the contrary, they are also like the Buddhist masses, into influencing the power or powers that be to react favorably to them.

I invite you to look up my posts in this thread at the start and for a good number of posts onward.

About dictionary definitions of things, one must consider whether the definitions are referring to the text world or to the world of the man-in-the-street.

The text world is very often the world of religion, for example religious people can talk on and on about so many things, but almost always in their text world; because when they come down to the world of the man in the street, they also all behave like everyman that is in the streets.

Pachomius2000

Hello,
Thank you for your comments.

I actually did read some of your posts and found them quite interesting, and certainly your definition is compelling. Unfortunately, I was at work and only had one free hour to read, think and discuss, so was not able to comment further on the topic.

My thought was just that, in most religions that I've come across, the adherents are quite often passionately and rigidly attached to their beliefs, often condemning those whose beliefs differ from theirs. And it often seems that atheists are among the most vocal and rigid of believers, often going out of their way to ridicule and to attempt to falsify other religions. Agnostics, on the other hand, freely admit to not knowing what is the truth of things and tend to keep an open mind, so I would hesitate to lump them in with the atheists.

I do agree with you about the limitations of dictionaries, however I often find them to be a good starting out point when attempting to narrow in on a topic of discussion.

Much enjoy these discussions.

[Susma Rio Sep]

The atheists you mention about are almost all who have 'transited' from a strict theistic background, like from a conservative Catholic or Fundamentalist home and community.

The atheists here might hate me for saying that. But I think if you really go into their background that is exactly what you will find out.

Why are they " . . . among the most vocal and rigid of believers, often going out of their way to ridicule and to attempt to falsify other religions"?

This might sound simplistic, but the truth or fact is in many instances simple and common of human behavior. Maybe we might call it sour grapes of an extreme degree.

Sour grapes of a sort, because it's strictly not that they had been eliminated from their original faith, but they departed from it in order to be free in their heart and mind for the quests of more satisfying objectives. Kind of self-justification for not remaining within their original faith. Some guilty conscience, perhaps.

But no need for all such rationalization and self-confirmation mechanisms. They can just say to themselves that my original religion is not satisfactory, and I owe it to myself to choose a path more in consonance with what I want in life. So there, all in the spirit of "All men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The essential trouble is because all of us have been conditioned by civilization and society to feel shame for not remaining loyal to our original alliances whether by previous free choices or by birth in a social group of religion or politics. This of course is an instrument of society to ensure its own perpetuation as a distinct entity.

But the freed or free man is always a master of his own fate, whatever alliances he is born into or had earlier chosen to incorporate himself into.

What about myself? I consider myself a relativist atheist and a relativist theist, actually a lapsed Catholic according to the disciplinary language of the Catholic Church; but I prefer to call myself a postgraduate Catholic.

Pachomius2000