How I this an arguement against anything I said? You need to rephrase.

Paraphrasing

Spock (bleeding): I'm pondering upon the meaning of life.

Dr. Leonard McCoy (applying compression to the wound): Feeling philosophical, eh? That's what massive blood loss will do to you. — Agent Smith

Better: Morpheus: "Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"

How I this an arguement against anything I said? You need to rephrase. — Harry Hindu

By calling something accidental, you are implying purpose. By implying that inanimate objects, like the universe, have accidents you are projecting purpose (anthropomorphism) onto things that have no purpose. There is no purpose outside a mind's own goals, therefore there are no accidents outside of some mind's goals. — Harry Hindu

You are saying there are no "accidents" in the world apart from the mind that conceives such things. Calling something an accident is simply saying it is contingent. All things are contingent, most philosophers would say, and this means they are not "stand alone" in the meaning they have. Meanings are contextual, and nothing that can be understood, stands outside of a context.
"The world" is contingent; to say otherwise is just bad metaphysics, with one exception. Value. And this really isn't an exception at all. Or is it? Value is where things get interesting.

How can there be matter without form? — Fooloso4

Yes, that's what I said?

There is no meaning without beings for whom things have meaning. Meaning is not inherent in form. Things can mean different things to different people. It is a matter of what we ascribe meaning to.

Doesn't matter taking the form of the various elements mean the opening up of all the possibilities which we see manifest today?

At the risk of dragging the thread back to the OP, the section on the history of the concept was interesting. Religio moved from being scrupulous in following practices religious or otherwise, through the rituals of the monasteries to the variation between schismatic protestant groups, broadened by conquest and empire to something like its present very broad usage. This might be seen to lend more weight to the notion of ritual as central to religion.

There is talk of contention between those who would include spirits or "a general order of existence", and those who think this too broad. But this moves over to a functional definition, more akin to what has been suggested by some in this thread, in which religion is concerned with a way of life. -apparently in an attempt to ensure nationalism and economics are not counted as religions...

None of these historical attempts at explication seem adequate.

The main quest here is to get a fix on the definition of "religion" and the biggest hurdle, as far as I can tell, here is that we've been lax with the rules of a good definition. It's a futile exercise i.e. such an attempt is doomed to fail. There's no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.

the biggest hurdle, as far as I can tell, here is that we've been lax with the rules of a good definition. — Agent Smith

Are you blaming the poor posters? Why should one assume that there might be such a thing as a good definition? I think the problem is rather that a "good definition" is impossible for such terms.

Are you blaming the poor posters? Why should one assume that there might be such a thing as a good definition? I think the problem is rather that a "good definition" is impossible for such terms. — Banno

What I meant was it's not going to be possible to find sense in nonsense or thereabouts. We've been using the word "religion" without paying attention to the rules of good definitions. To then look for a good definition for "religion" is pointless, pisssing in the wind so to speak.

the rules of good definitions — Agent Smith

So, if we do pay attention to these rules, we can provide such a definition?

Well, set them out, so we may proceed.

So, if we do pay attention to these rules, we can provide such a definition?

Well, set them out, so we may proceed — Banno

Yup.

An intensional definition, also called a connotative definition, specifies the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be a member of a specific set.

---

Certain rules have traditionally been given for definitions (in particular, genus-differentia definitions).

1. A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined.

2. Definitions should avoid circularity. To define a horse as "a member of the species equus" would convey no information whatsoever. For this reason, Locke adds that a definition of a term must not consist of terms which are synonymous with it. This would be a circular definition, a circulus in definiendo. Note, however, that it is acceptable to define two relative terms in respect of each other. Clearly, we cannot define "antecedent" without using the term "consequent", nor conversely.

3. The definition must not be too wide or too narrow. It must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies (i.e. not miss anything out), and to nothing else (i.e. not include any things to which the defined term would not truly apply).

4. The definition must not be obscure. The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. The violation of this rule is known by the Latin term obscurum per obscurius. However, sometimes scientific and philosophical terms are difficult to define without obscurity.

5. A definition should not be negative where it can be positive. We should not define "wisdom" as the absence of folly, or a healthy thing as whatever is not sick. Sometimes this is unavoidable, however. For example, it appears difficult to define blindness in positive terms rather than as "the absence of sight in a creature that is normally sighted". — Wikipedia

SO, going back to the article, isn't it an attempt at your first step?

Perhaps, but the point is we have a perfectly good method for formulating definitions, one which if we adhere to, Wittgenstein would instantly become irrelevant to philosophy.

So show us how it is done.

So show us how it is done. — Banno

Shouldn't we (have) follow(ed) the rules of a good definition?

How? What is it you think we need to do? How do we move forward? What's your next step?

How? What is it you think we need to do? How to we move forward? What's your next step? — Banno

When we start off we have to always remind ourselves that a good definition

1. Must focus on the essential features

2. Must not be circular

3. Must not be obscure or, inversely, must be clear

4. Must be neither too broad nor too narrow

5. Must be positive instead of negative when possible

So when we define the word "religion" I could list down the following sufficient and necessary conditions:

i) There should be a deity/deities

ii) Ethics is a component

iii) Explanatory framework for the universe's origins

As soo as we do this, it becomes crystal clear what is a religion (The Abrahamic Triad & Hinduism) and what is not (Buddhism).

You get the idea.

Well, no.

So, take (i)There should be a deity/deities. Taoism and Buddhism do not have a deity at the centre of their considerations. So are they religions?

It's the methodological concern I have here. If we decide that Taoism does not involve a deity, we have a choice: Do we decide that Taoism is not a religion, or do we decide that the definition of religion needs correcting?

So are they religions? — Banno

No, they're not (religions).

Please follow the rules (of what a good definition is) and it's smooth sailing.

I don't think religions need to have deities, I'm not even sure they need to involve the supernatural. I like part of Emile 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 in one single moral community..."

Do religions have to involve a search for meaning? Do they have to provide guidance for behaviour?

Please follow the rules (of what a good definition is) and it's smooth sailing. — Agent Smith

But your rules say "1. A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined" not "There should be a deity/deities"; so I am asking if you are indeed following your own rules. Perhaps "There should be a deity/deities" is not part of the essential attributes of religion.

So back to the methodological point: you are saying that if Taoism does not admit to deities, it is not a religion, and that's an end to the discussion? But it is equally valid to ask if "religions must have deities" is one of the essential features of religions.

But your rules say "1. A definition must set out the essential attributes of the thing defined" not "There should be a deity/deities"; so I am asking if you are indeed following your own rules. Perhaps "There should be a deity/deities" is not part of the essential attributes of religion. — Banno

Your disagreement stems from your exposure to a misused term viz religion. In other words, you're being misled by people who haven't followed the rules (of good definitions) when they coined the term "religion". To drive home the point, assume "religion" only applied to the Abrahamic Triad (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Would you still have written the OP?

So back tot eh methodological point: you are saying that if Taoism does not admit to deities, it is not a religion, and that's an end to the discussion? But it is equally valid to ask if "religions must have deities" is one of the essential features of religions. — Banno

Indeed, it's not wrong to ask whether deities are essential features of religions. However, once we define the word "religion" according to the rules set out for a good definition, there's no confusion at all.

, SO you are just an authoritarian with regard to definitions.

How ordinary.

@Banno It looks as though the word "like" and the concept that it represents plays a major role. So, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have a God but the Buddha is God-like.

SO you are just an authoritarian with regard to definitions.

How ordinary. — Banno

Well, if you wanna break the rules knowingly don't be suprised to find words like "religion" and "game" have no essence. You can't have it both ways, oui?

Report yourself to the police! :grin:

Point is, and you seem to have missed this, it is unclear as to whether you have applied the rules correctly. You have simply stipulated that religions must include a deity. Why? Why can't I just stipulate that religions must include porridge? You disagree, and I reply "if you wanna break the rules knowingly don't be surprised to find words like religion have no essence."

Point is, and you seem to have missed this, it is unclear as to whether you have applied the rules correctly. You have simply stipulated that religions must include a deity. Why? Why can't I just stipulate that religions must include porridge? You disagree, and I reply "if you wanna break the rules knowingly don't be surprised to find words like religion have no essence." — Banno

Why? :chin:

For the simple reason that deities seem to be the common factor we should focus on with regard to religions. It appears that words are designed to pick out classes of objects and then the individuals of that class. To classify we need to look at what properties are shared and religion is one such class/category.

If I were to look at Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, it should be a cinch to realize that I have nothing to go on if my objective is to group them together under one banner. In other words, if I then use the word "religion" for all of them, I've commited a glaring error, definitionally speaking.

But it appears that porridge is the common factor in religions - the real religions. Of course, if you go and consider the religions that do not include porridge, you will become confused as to what the definition of religion is...

But it appears that porridge is the common factor in religions - the real religions. Of course, if you go and consider the religions that do not include porridge, you will become confused as to what the definition of religion is... — Banno

Indeed, porridge is a common factor, but you lost the plot now, oui? The definition is too broad.