I would say living without religion is to either: 1)to will to be another and despair in not being a self, or 2)to despair over willing to be oneself, because will is illusory in that it has nothing absolute by which it can orient itself.

Each of those forms of existence is unnatural, because in each, the thing that does the existing is lost. And it is impossible to live naturally when lost in existence.

Religion is a set of beliefs about spirituality, bringing people together and giving them a sense of community. — Purple Pond

Is that a universal truth? or is it only a substrata taken off subjective reflection? and whether that's so or not, is Atheism a religion? if not only about spirituality, is a political party a religion?

It is ridiculous that I am pointing out linguistic challenges rather than just answering the question, however presupposing the definition of religion in order to gain a conclusion is begging the question. Man can live without any form of belief, religion doesn't have to be the unambiguous source of purpose and natural meaning, it can be anything in our daily lives. So I believe so, that you do not necessarily abstain from the benefits of religion without having one.

It is ridiculous that I am pointing out linguistic challenges rather than just answering the question — SethRy

I thought it was ridiculous that I was just answering the question rather than pointing out the linguistic challenges

Religion is a set of beliefs about spirituality, bringing people together and giving them a sense of community. — Purple Pond

Religion originally served to counteract the painful and humiliating awareness that what we most value in life is not our own physical existence - by projecting that value system onto something other than our sense of ‘self’. The resulting conflict and dialogue has resulted in this modern society that continues to pollute the environment and pursue dominance, independence and power over those outside of our set of beliefs and sense of community.

It is the process of striving to understand this sense of spirituality by bringing people together in community that is ‘natural’, in my opinion. Religion as a fixed or governing set of beliefs/traditions/rules need have nothing to do with it, and may in fact do more harm in modern society than living without religion as such.

Is that a universal truth? — SethRy

No, it's a definition I thought on top of my head. I didn't think much about it to be honest. Pick your favorite definition of religion. It doesn't matter much to me.

You cannot talk about what religion is because it is an immediate relation or direct existence. But you can talk about what it isn't, and communicate it indirectly (viz.metaphorically, allegorically, figuratively, &c.)

No, it's a definition — Purple Pond

Here we get a bit apprehensive. Frege believed in rigid, permanent definitions, Wittgenstein believed in cluster concepts, that use is meaning. Which one does that definition fall into?

Pick your favorite definition of religion. — Purple Pond

If so, then our conclusions would all be subjective, and not necessarily true, because our conclusions vary by its premises; which includes the definition of 'religion'. These shifting variations shadow the answer to your question. Your definition, like I said, is a presupposition, and therefore begs the question. If a permanent, stable definition of religion is not provided, then the answer will vary — that's not to say that's a bad thing. Otherwise, it's just chunking up words without developing an answer.

But one way or the other, my answer remains back in my first comment, religion is not essential to our voyage of purpose and constant pursuit of meaning. The benefits of religion and the absence of religion is not mutually exclusive.

I thought it was ridiculous that I was just answering the question rather than pointing out the linguistic challenges — Merkwurdichliebe

Lmao. It is true though, the meticulous details of our words contribute to to the certainty of our conclusions.

A definition of “RELIGION”?

This may suit the discussion:

“A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.” ― Clifford Geertz.

Kind of funny as it is almost a definition of “being human”.

Here we get a bit apprehensive. Frege believed in rigid, permanent definitions, Wittgenstein believed in cluster concepts, that use is meaning. Which one does that definition fall into? — SethRy

I'm not sure if I need to put my definition in the Frege or Wittgenstein box. 'Religion' is not like a mathematical definition with an exact meaning. And I never read Wittgenstein, so I don't really understand what he means by definitions.

If so, then our conclusions would all be subjective, and not necessarily true, because our conclusions vary by its premises; which includes the definition of 'religion'. These shifting variations shadow the answer to your question — SethRy

Then let's pick a definition that's most relevant. How about by 'religion' it means anything on this list?

That is proof in and of itself that “religion” hasn’t always been around then. In which case “religion” replaced your so-called “natural life” rather than providing it.

The only thing that seems relevant is the continuity of mythos as means to describe and navigate the world - that need not adhere to a strict religious form though (as in any kind of absolute belief in deities or an afterlife; it’s simply a functional way to function - to live rather than not live by being able to equip ourselves through cognition with a means to continue living in the world by following our natural disposition for the more basic elements of human sustenance.)

No one needs a belief in a deity to live. It would be a stretch to suggest that any will to live is based on a concept that must be applied to a deity of some kind.

I'm not sure if I need to put my definition in the Frege or Wittgenstein box. 'Religion' is not like a mathematical definition with an exact meaning. — Purple Pond

All good.

Then let's pick a definition that's most relevant. How about by 'religion' it means anything on this list? — Purple Pond

Same word remains for me; I don't see how any way the presence of religion is required for humans to garner, as you mentioned;

From social gatherings, to giving us a sense of purpose and meaning, religion brings a lot to the table. — Purple Pond

For the mentioned factors are contributed by family, other ministries, etc. I agree, religion is a profound contributor to our essential characteristics, but that does not mean it is the: main, sole-central source of purpose and sense of belongingness.

God gave religion the second he created us, so there was never a time where we were without religion.

I'm just kidding, I don't believe any of that.

You just turned my whole question around: Is it natural to live with religion? :wink:

Is it natural to live with religion? — Purple Pond

is it natural to live without religion? — Purple Pond

Maybe we can say that it is natural for humans to search for meaning, and the results of that search (if not the search in itself) is 'religion'. It also seems to be natural for humans to devise some organizing principles for society (do unto others...). Religion amounts to some organizing principles, among other things. It seems natural for humans to develop rituals which may have meaning only to the individual. Rituals are a piece of religion. Many people develop magical beliefs. These magical beliefs are either superstitious or religious. "Religion is magic you believe in; magic is religion you don't believe in.

All that said, it seems to be the case that it is natural to live with what are at least inchoate religious beliefs and practices.

Can a human being be 100% rational, relying on facts and facts alone? Is some sort of dry, pristine objectivity possible? No. We might wish we could, but we are not purely rational animals. We are born with emotions which are at the heart of our humanness. Eventually we will accumulate at least private beliefs and rituals, none of which may resemble any known "religion" but be, none the less, "religious". And that's OK.

God gave religion the second he created us, so there was never a time where we were without religion.

I'm just kidding, I don't believe any of that. — Purple Pond

Burials with grave goods date back a long way - even the Neanderthals did it. So its probably safe to say religion was a very early development. I believe that proto-religious ideas would predate the full development of language and that religion proper would develop rapidly soon after the development of language.

You just turned my whole question around: Is it natural to live with religion? — Purple Pond

Death, morality, and the nature of the world are all inescapable subjects that religion addresses. I think holding beliefs in all three areas is natural and religion is an expression of those beliefs. So I think religion is natural (but its role in understanding the world has been supplanted by science nowadays).

I agree with @Devans99 that religion is natural. I also agree with @SethRy that a person can live a fulfilling life without religion. Humans are the epitome of versatile in that we can get used to anything. This includes being non-religious. Just because religion is natural doesn't mean irreligion is unnatural. And even if irreligion is unnatural, so what? So are shoes, dentists, and vaccines. Unnatural doesn't equal bad. The fact that we can go beyond what is natural is a very human thing to do.

I also agree with @SethRy that a person can live a fulfilling life without religion — Purple Pond

I think that is the case. Atheists get what religion provides from other sources (like science).

How would a human would react to the world with no preconceptions? By no preconceptions I mean no education, upbringing or influences from others; what would a 'raw' human make of the world?

'Who made this place?' is a natural question for a raw human to ask. So I think religion surfaces naturally and quickly.

'No-one' is not such an obvious answer to that question, so atheist beliefs should trail religious beliefs in development, which seems to broadly agree with our history.

I don't want to start a whole debate about religion, but you brought it up.

'Who made this place?' is a natural question for a raw human to ask. — Devans99

It was also natural to believe that the earth was flat, and that things in motion want to rest.

'No-one' is not such an obvious answer to that question — Devans99

It's important to realize that often times the "obvious" answer is not always correct.

It was also natural to believe that the earth was flat, and that things in motion want to rest. — Purple Pond

It was. People still believe in the Flat-Earth theory, despite it being scientifically justified.

I don't want to start a whole debate about religion, but you brought it up. — Purple Pond

Agreed. There are other threads for that. I was just speculating on which is more natural.

t was also natural to believe that the earth was flat, and that things in motion want to rest. It's also important to realize that often times the "obvious" answer is not always correct. — Purple Pond

Many times the obvious explanations for reality have proved wrong, but that does not deny that the obvious explanations are the natural ones. So I'd maintain Theism is more natural than Atheism. Agnosticism was debatably where the smart money should have been but seems to have been an even later development than the other two.

"There have been some studies of how religion relates to happiness. Causal relationships remain unclear, but more religion is seen in happier people. Consistent with PERMA, religion may provide a sense of meaning and connection to something bigger, beyond the self. Religion may also provide community membership and hence relationships. Another component may have to do with ritual."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-being_contributing_factors#Religion_and_spirituality

Is it just the 'community membership' or is there something in religion that that makes theists happier that atheists are not getting? Dealing with death? Finding meaning in life?

I was just speculating on which is more natural. — Devans99

Fair enough.

What does "nature" refer to, exactly, if (a) we can do things contrary to nature, or alternately (b) we could avoid doing things contrary to nature?