If we're using the term "religion" within a community, it has meaning, even if the meaning amounts to delusional, confused, and inconsistent beliefs about the origins of the universe. To declare that the term is meaningless is to claim it's gibberish, just sounds conveying no thought whatsoever. "God" means something different from "cat" and different from "jldjlk." To say otherwise is just to impose an opinion on the validity of the concept that underlies the word "God." — Hanover

As I said, for some word to have meaning it needs to refer to something. So if the user of the word, "religion" isn't referring to anything then it would just be a string of meaningless scribbles or sounds from their mouths.

What one person means by "religion" someone else could mean something different, then how do we know that they are even talking about the same thing? To say that the word has meaning in that any person can use it however they want renders the word meaningless in that it is now to vague for anyone to understand how it is being used and that it would be more efficient to just say what you are referring to rather than use the word, "religion" at all. It becomes useless.

My belief in bigfoot is different from my belief in gorillas, but my belief in bigfoot doesn't dissolve into meaninglessness because there is no such thing as bigfoot. — Hanover

I understand that beliefs in bigfoot are not the same thing as bigfoot itself. We can talk about both but some people can confuse their belief with the real thing.

Your definition of religion is wanting and does not universally describe all religions. It's entirely possible to have a religion with gods that interact only on the "natural" level, which isn't entirely inconsistent with primitive religions, especially considering in primitive societies they don't have a real distinction between the miraculous and ordinary earthly events.

For your definition to be workable, you would be admitting to essentialism. — Hanover

It seems to me that if you want to posit gods on the natural level then you would be practicing science, not religion - which leads me to think of another definition for religion: The act of favoring one unprovable concept over all other unprovable concepts. There is no reason to value one concept that has no evidence over other concepts that don't have any evidence or even others that do have evidence. In this way, religion is a type of delusion. And in this way, atheists are not necessarily denying a theists claims, they simply find no good reason to believe what one theist says over another, or what one philosopher says over another - when none of them are able to provide any evidence for their claims. Essentially a non-religious person would be one that has an open-mind; one that understands that they and others are probably wrong when there is no evidence and questioning yours and others beliefs is a good thing.

What has happened in Western religious discourse, according to Karen Armstrong, is that the emphasis on belief and believing have distorted this meaning, by making religion a propositional matter, not a way-of-being. 'Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews and Muslims would say religion is something you do, and that you cannot understand the truths of faith unless you are committed to a transformative way of life that takes you beyond the prism of selfishness. All good religious teaching – including such Christian doctrines as the Trinity or the Incarnation – is basically a summons to action. Yet instead of being taught to act creatively upon them, many modern Christians feel it is more important to "believe" them.' And you see that reflected a lot in the debates about religion on this forum. — Wayfarer

This belies the common trait in religions that a practitioners can fail miserably, commit a wide range of transgressions, and still be held firmly in the fold, but should they merely question doctrine or those higher in the hierarchy they’ll promptly be stamped a heretic and considered an outsider. This has always been the case.

Very nice post. EVERYONE should read this one.

Thank you.

Not only that but Wayfarer seems to not realize that believing something is a way of being just as acting on those beliefs are. It still begs the question of why one person would choose to engage in the behaviors and rituals of one religion and not another if not because of some belief.

Humans are creatures of habit. Memory is applied to to the mundane making it sacred. Be this a football stadium, church, house or a simple rock.

The story we apply to lived experiences creates a narrative that can be passed on and repeated. Needless to say such a ‘habit’ is kind of useful in terms of evolution as it helps us adapt to the environment and approach it from different angles rather than as a mere set of lifeless variables.

Without value there is nothing there for us to pay attention to. Without a means of applying or removing value we are not anything as stagnation of value is just as dead as having no value at all.

I've made attempts in many posts at clarifying my conception, at least, of "religion" which is informed by historical, anthropological, archeological, sociological and theological studies. For what it's worth, maybe a scattering of further jumping-off points (links via my handle to related old thread discussions):

Sure, treat religion as a form of life; then what it means is what it does.

Which in the main is fleecing the sheep.
— Banno

Religion, n. A flock of sheep bound into a community (by imaginary fears & hopes) in order to facilitate fleecing by (a) shepherd(s). — 180 Proof

Religion is ritualized daily living as if (a) theology is true — 180 Proof

At the "heart" of religion (esoterica) is "the mystery"; the rest (exoterica) is public-facing, dumbed down, ritual reenactments via mneumonic narratives about aspects (metaphors?) of "the mystery". Philosophy is the rational exorcism of self-abegnating, stupifying, infantilizing, reality-denying/escapist "mysteries" of which religion (i.e. cultic (conspiratorial) thinking) consists. — 180 Proof

"The goal" of religion (i.e. to bind (them) together) is to (A) mytho-psychologically groom the naive[gullible] to sadomasochistically obey and (B) to theo-politically corral superstitious sheep. — 180 Proof

I think it's reasonable to claim 'to the degree a philosophy is fundamentally disembodied (immaterial) and/or transcendent (essentialist), it functions as a religion'. Spinoza has it right (reread his quote in my first post above) that philosophy is first and foremost an internal critique of its own religiosity (re: the disembodied, the transcendent), which, as a consequence, undermines any rational pretenses for "justifying" religious ideas and practices (e.g. theology, theodicy, theocracy). — 180 Proof

The degree to which "a coherent set of ideas" is dogmatic – appeals to Mystery (Ignorance) / Authority / Tradition / Popularity / Emotion - is the degree to which I'd classify it as belonging to religious[magical] discourse, or "a religion". — 180 Proof

A religion justifies[rationalizes] – exegetes, preaches, proselytizes – its fundamental sine qua non claims (i.e. doctrines, rites) primarily via appeals to ignorance, etc, thereby reinforcing incorrigibility in its adherents. Re: dogmatics, mysteries ... — 180 Proof

The pan-cultural ancestrality of religion is well-established and therefore its expression as well as amplification of human atavisms & biases (i.e. conspiracy-wishful-magical-group thinking) are abundantly manifest throughout history. — 180 Proof

I fancy the imagery of 'religions are the ancestors' of philosophy and 'the sciences are her descendents'. — 180 Proof

Magical thinking (e.g. religion) is as insidious as any retrovirus. Only smart, hyper-imaginative, loquacious apes would be neurotic enough to propitiate invisible friends (e.g. with animal/human sacrifices) for protection from invisible enemies ... " :fire: " — 180 Proof

A religion is just an official – socially institutionalized – cult. — 180 Proof

Thus, the (self-abnegating) religious mindset: denial that only 'here and now' ever matters here and now (re: the absurd .. ); denial of ephemerality and oblivion (re: the tragic ...); denial of nature (re: the fallibilistic (i.e. evidence, facticity)). — 180 Proof

As I said, for some word to have meaning it needs to refer to something. So if the user of the word, "religion" isn't referring to anything then it would just be a string of meaningless scribbles or sounds from their mouths.

What one person means by "religion" someone else could mean something different, then how do we know that they are even talking about the same thing? To say that the word has meaning in that any person can use it however they want renders the word meaningless in that it is now to vague for anyone to understand how it is being used and that it would be more efficient to just say what you are referring to rather than use the word, "religion" at all. It becomes useless. — Harry Hindu

What you say of the word "religion" is not unique to the word "religion," but is a universal limitation of word definition. The term "religion" includes a number of examples, all of which are clearly designated among speakers for what they are, for example: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hare Krishna, Janism, Hinduism, Islam, and then there are thousands of others in every corner of the world, many of which have come and gone over the millennia. We can try to find the element common to all that defines "religion," but, try as we might, we will continue to find that there is no essential element that must exist in order for the belief system to be a religion. The reason for this is because essentialism is not a sustainable argument as it relates to definitions of terms.

This problem with the term "religion" is no different from the term "cup," yet we use the term cup in a meaningful way. That is, I can give thousands of examples of cups (just like I can with religions), but there will always be some cup example that falls outside the definition that we keep trying to refine. There is no essential element of a cup for it to be a cup, but that hardly means we can't speak of cups.

It seems to me that if you want to posit gods on the natural level then you would be practicing science, not religion - which leads me to think of another definition for religion: The act of favoring one unprovable concept over all other unprovable concepts. — Harry Hindu

I just see this comment as positing a false dichotomy between (1) the scientific method and (2) religion. Most people use neither, but accept as proof just their instinct or general observations. We don't engage in rigorous experimentation for most of our beliefs. Someone who insists upon herbal remedies, for example, isn't practicing religion or science.

It's an error to also deny an overlap between the two also, as most religious people accept science (to greater and lesser degrees) and plenty of scientists allow for the unknown variable, which they to greater and lesser extent attribute to God.

In any event, nothing I've said is inconsistent with atheism or suggests, hints, or intimates there may be a god. My point is simply that your argument of the incoherency of the term "religion" effectively proves its non-existence is incorrect.

Humans are creatures of habit. Memory is applied to to the mundane making it sacred. Be this a football stadium, church, house or a simple rock.

The story we apply to lived experiences creates a narrative that can be passed on and repeated. Needless to say such a ‘habit’ is kind of useful in terms of evolution as it helps us adapt to the environment and approach it from different angles rather than as a mere set of lifeless variables.

Without value there is nothing there for us to pay attention to. Without a means of applying or removing value we are not anything as stagnation of value is just as dead as having no value at all. — I like sushi

Your meaning is not clear but I will point out that we are all saturated in values, narratives, and meaning. There's no shortage.

That was a very odd thread; it's origin and purpose remain a mystery.

@Ennui Elucidator has reduced his concerns to Israel killing Civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, it seems, and pretty much only interacts with you and @StreetlightX. Curious.

Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. — Wayfarer

Given the results of that practice, I can't help but see this as special pleading, as seeing what one wishes to see and not all that is there. Can what is good in religion - charity, ritual, what you will - not happen without the mythical background?

Can what is good in religion - charity, ritual, what you will - not happen without the mythical background? — Banno

I think something that is missed in its absence is any reason for 'being good'. After all, if life is the outcome of chance, and humans no more than physical, then there's no greater purpose to be served other than possibly warm feelings of self-justification.

A snippet from Josiah Royce:

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them.

I should probably leave it there, shouldn't I?

Well, no. The notion that one needs a reason for being good is... problematic. As if one needed a reason to do what one ought do...

The claim that ethical behaviour requires religion is very different to the claim that ethical behaviour requires, say, consideration of others, or self-awareness, or simple compassion. These, I think you will agree, do not require ritual within a community, and yet are taken by many to lead to being good.

And we had best steer clear of the fear of hell as the source of virtue...

The notion that it is religion that inspires virtue has little merit, philosophical and sociologically.

In reply to your quote, there seems to be nothing in the glimpse of a higher life that is not found in, say, eudaemonia... considered in the wider sense than mere happiness.

So, what is it that one receives from being a part of a ritualistic community that is necessary, or needed, to make one a good person? And when I put the question like that, your point seems to lack merit.

Can what is good in religion - charity, ritual, what you will - not happen without the mythical background? — Banno

As we noted before, science has been an aspect of religion for longer than it was separate.

So maybe we could back off of religion in general and specify a particular religious group.

*

As if one needed a reason to do what one ought do... — Banno

So one needs no reason not to murder, which means murder is just plain wrong in an absolute, objective, non-relative, non-subjective way?

What does that even mean? As if there is a reality composed of morality that exists regardless of the consensus opinion.

A truly bizarre position.

Surely there must be a reason not to murder, else what makes it wrong?

A snippet from Josiah Royce:

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself as homo viator, as a wayfarer or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them. — Wayfarer

It strikes me as a rather sad and shallow outlook to see the inclination towards religion as a random predisposition rather than a fundamental need for meaning and connection.

These types of threads typically comprise an attempt to elicit arguments from defenders of religious ideas. The aim of the game is then to successfully knock as many of the coconuts off the pole as possible - at least to the throwers satisfaction, which in such cases is not as objectively defineable as in the actual game. — Wayfarer

And visa versa, surely?

You seem to be arguing in favor of a foundational or transcendental guarantor for 'goodness' which you might consider to be an almost meaningless term without one.

Surely there must be a reason not to murder, else what makes it wrong? — Hanover

Leaving aside empathy, morality seems to be created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve their preferred forms of order. Murder fucks up order.

Leaving aside empathy, morality seems to be created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve their preferred forms of order. Murder fucks up order. — Tom Storm

If there is a reason, then it must apply for the act to be immoral. That is, if the slaughter of an innocent is necessary for the maintenance of order, then it is moral, correct?

If there is a reason, then it must apply for the act to be immoral. That is, if the slaughter of an innocent is necessary for the maintenance of order, then it is moral, correct? — Hanover

Obviously humans are creatures of empathy and caring which are a significant part of our nature - often limited or shaped by tribalism - in and out groups. Our sense of order also pivots on what we consider 'sacred'. I'd imagine very few cultures would sanction child sacrifice, but they have existed over the millennia and we sometimes come close during wartime.

And visa versa, surely? — Tom Storm

Indeed.

Wayfarer, one assumes that posts here are open for comment. You suggested that religion is justified because it provides a reason for being good. That will only work if there is no other reason for being good. Now I think that there are other reasons, including being a decent person. Hence I am critical of your post. Hence looks like an attempt to avoid discussion rather than a relevant reply.

Your first reply here was excellent. I agree with much of the Armstrong article you site, and especially with the concern that modern religion emphasises belief over practice. I can go along with you in agreeing that religion allows the expression of the "numinal", the ineffable. I agree also that there is a correlation between charitable works and religious affiliation. While I find no personal comfort in ritual, I acknowledge that many others do.

But much of what is said in religious contexts is contrary to this. Much of what is posited in the name of religion is immoral. Religion, like all human activities, is plagued by hypocrisy and authoritarianism.

Much of what is stated in religious contexts is false, and ought to be shown to be false.

So far as the topic goes, do we at least agree that ritual practice of some sort seems central to the concept of religion?

You seem to be arguing in favor of a foundational or transcendental guarantor for 'goodness' which you might consider to be an almost meaningless term without one. — Tom Storm

It's a question of reason, meaning, and purpose - and the absence of it. 'In social science, 'disenchantment' is the cultural rationalization and devaluation of [the spirit] apparent in modern society. The term was borrowed from Friedrich Schiller by Max Weber to describe the character of a modernized, bureaucratic, secularized Western society. In Western society, according to Weber, scientific understanding is more highly valued than belief, and processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society, in which "the world remains a great enchanted garden".[/quote]

The residue of Christian-inspired virtues remain, but they're under threat from many other forces in the absence of a compelling reason for their existence, beyond a wan kind of 'feel-good' humanism. But for instance in the People's Republic of China, you're seeing a post-liberal political order emerge, where human rights mean whatever the Leader deems them to mean - human beings are only worthwhile insofar as they're useful to the State, individual worth is not guaranteed in the way that is implicit in the Christian faith.

That will only work if there is no other reason for being good. Now I think that there are other reasons, including being a decent person. Hence I am critical of your post. — Banno

The problem is, I see a recurring pattern in your posts, which floats various topics to do with religion, but which nearly always seem driven by your fundamental conviction that religions are on the whole stupid and unworthy of respect. So you want to elicit arguments in favour of various kinds of religious ideas, to then be able to say:

Much of what is posited in the name of religion is immoral. Religion, like all human activities, is plagued by hypocrisy and authoritarianism. — Banno

Even though there's obviously truth in that, there's another factor at work, which Thomas Nagel calls out in his essay Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion:

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. — Nagel

And the argument from that perspective is one of the major voices on this forum.

do we at least agree that ritual practice of some sort seems central to the concept of religion? — Banno

But, why? What drives that? Mircea Eliade's answer is that religious ritual seeks to re-create the sacred in the midst of the profane. That the religious traditions seek to embody a relationship with the origin of all. Plainly much of that has become attenuated and trivialised and dessicated in today's world, but that was what was behind it.

My 'revisionist' understanding is that behind the religious philosophies that I think are meaningful is an insight into the fact that humans live in an unreal world, a false world, a sea of delusion. They go through their lives never suspecting that this could be so. But the awakened ones - sages, prophets, teachers of humankind - are those who see through this delusion and alone realise the actual nature of the human condition. What we know of as religious doctrines are historical attempts to capture and recall those warnings.

It's a question of reason, meaning, and purpose - and the absence of it. 'In social science, 'disenchantment' is the cultural rationalization and devaluation of [the spirit] apparent in modern society. — Wayfarer

I think this is a questionable trope. There's not a bigotry or human rights violation going that theism didn't enthusiastically enact or participate in. Nothing could be more disenchanting than religious wars and hatreds brought about by god beliefs.

The residue of Christian-inspired virtues remain, — Wayfarer

Putin would agree with you and claim he's restoring them.

And I would obviously not agree.

It's an interesting take. But, I think we are forced into the conclusion that whatever we end up doing or believing, is all an outcome of our the way we interpret the world, meaning, we can't help but "delude" ourselves in a way. I don't think anyone is exempt from this, though "sages", may be less liable into falling too deeply into whatever they believe.

So I think that even in belief, a mitigated skepticism is the best bet we have of being somewhat "on the right track".

And I would obviously not agree. — Wayfarer

Exactly and a good illustration of how theism offers no objective basis to morality. It simply allows a believer to cherry pick or intuit what they think a god would want. It's entirely down to the subjective interpretation of the theist. Which is why religions can't agree upon moral beliefs in the first place - they are all over the place when it comes to war, gay rights, the role of women, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, tax reform,... you name it.

The problem is... — Wayfarer

So psychologising in the place of answering. Yes, I have a dislike for what passes for conversation regarding religion, and yet an interest in the topic. But, please note, I have consistently argued against "the scientism and reductionism of our time." That's explicit in Wittgenstein, as I have enunciated his ideas, and in the various ethical threads in which I have participated or have started.

So I think your accusation, and your psychologising, misguided.

Here's promise of something more interesting:

But, why? What drives that? Mircea Eliade's answer is that religious ritual seeks to re-create the sacred in the midst of the profane. That the religious traditions seek to embody a relationship with the origin of all. Plainly much of that has become attenuated and trivialised and dessicated in today's world, but that was what was behind it. — Wayfarer

If this is so, then it matters not what religious practice one adopts. Further, this expression "...the origin of all...", expresses an ontological error.

So, perhaps religion ought confine itself purely to ritual, since any statement of it's concerns is fraught.

The residue of Christian-inspired virtues remain,
— Wayfarer

Putin would agree with you and claim he's restoring it. — Tom Storm

Yeah, that phrase left me cold. From what I can see charity derives mostly from Jesus' teachings, so I will grant that. Otherwise, that virtue is Christian-inspired is a convenient, self-serving myth.

Exactly and a good illustration of how theism offers no objective basis to morality. — Tom Storm

I'm at pains to point out that it's not exactly 'theism' that at issue. Or 'belief systems' as such. See this post again. I didn't seek confirmation in Christianity in my youth because it didn't seem to convey that insight, that it was something like a fossilised remnant. But - of what?

So I think your accusation, and your psychologising, misguided. — Banno

Fair enough. I withdraw it. I will plead 'bout of spleen'.

Here's promise of something more interesting:

But, why? What drives that? Mircea Eliade's answer is that religious ritual seeks to re-create the sacred in the midst of the profane. That the religious traditions seek to embody a relationship with the origin of all. Plainly much of that has become attenuated and trivialised and dessicated in today's world, but that was what was behind it.
— Wayfarer

If this is so, then it matters not what religious practice one adopts. Further, this expression "...the origin of all...", expresses an ontological error. — Banno

Have I pointed out John Hick's Who or What is God? I think he makes a case for the kind of insight I've been seeking.

Have I pointed out John Hick's Who or What is God? I think he makes a case for the kind of insight I've been seeking. — Wayfarer

There's a lot in that article. Not sure to what particular insight you are pointing. Care to elucidate?