Originally posted by FabianFnasInteresting. I guess my reaction to this is that it is distorting the word "religion" by broadening it out too much until it kind of means nothing/everything! 🙂 Your examples seem to be covered by the word "superstition". And I do not think "superstition" and "religious" are synonymous at all, although they can overlap. I think the element of there being a "supernatural being" or a "divine authority" is indispensable in any definition of "religion".
In my definition, there are beliefs that falls outside the common one. Lucky numbers is one. Becuase if you really believe that you will win on lottery if you chose a number with a lot of seven in it, then you believe in supernatural things.
In my definition, there are also things that isn't supernatural, and yet one think it is supernatural. The Turin ...[text shortened]... es. This means that there is a barrier between religion and science. And you can never mix them.
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiI agree that superstition is not synonymous with religion. Some anti-religious perhaps say so, but I don't. Rather is superstition a subset of religion.
Interesting. I guess my reaction to this is that it is distorting the word "religion" by broadening it out too much until it kind of means nothing/everything! 🙂 Your examples seem to be covered by the word "superstition". And I do not think "superstition" and "religious" are synonymous at all, although they can overlap. I think the element of there be ...[text shortened]... a "supernatural being" or a "divine authority" is indispensable in any definition of "religion".
As long we use the word "science" according to the scientific definition, nothing in science can ever be religious. Science cannot ever prove nor disprove the existence of god, because science doesn't deal with supernatural phenomena. Religion cannot ever prove the existence of god, because then scientific methods must be used.
Religion have an ingredient: faith. Faith that the religion (in particular) is true. religion without faith isn't religion. Science with faith isn't science, because everything in science must undergo the MO of science.
But this is the definition I use and am happy with. Others can have theirs. But I like mine, because it is simple, and easily differs science from religion.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI suppose I am not convinced in that I don't see the usefulness of a word that encompasses buying a lottery ticket and (say) codes of sexual morality and my mum's fear of ghosts and literature charting centuries of history etc. etc.
I agree that superstition is not synonymous with religion. Some anti-religious perhaps say so, but I don't. Rather is superstition a subset of religion.
As long we use the word "science" according to the scientific definition, nothing in science can ever be religious. Science cannot ever prove nor disprove the existence of god, because science doesn't ...[text shortened]... an have theirs. But I like mine, because it is simple, and easily differs science from religion.
I think by lumping them all in together you are either consciously or unconsciously kind of wearing your contempt/skeptisism for religion right there on your sleeve! It strikes me as being more about you demonstrating your attitude to religion than making sure we have the necessary vocabulary to be able to discuss religion, which, I suppose, may be something you are not particularly concerned about! 🙂
I think the vocabulary item "religion" as I define it, for example, in my OP [and 4 point summary] is much more useful for talking about an enormously significant sub-section of both the human condition and human history, and I think that language that jumbles all that in with lottery tickets and ghosts is detrimental to communication.
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiWell, I could divide all phenomena to (1) scientific or natural phenomena and (2) non-scientific or supernatural phenomena. But to call (2) simply as religion, makes everything easier, in my opinion.
I suppose I am not convinced in that I don't see the usefulness of a word that encompasses buying a lottery ticket and (say) codes of sexual morality and my mum's fear of ghosts and literature charting centuries of history etc. etc.
I think by lumping them all in together you are either consciously or unconsciously kind of wearing your contempt/ske ...[text shortened]... nguage that jumbles all that in with lottery tickets and ghosts is detrimental to communication.
Nota bene - My definition is not in any sort judging. If you see believing in ghosts as derogative, then we have to chose another name for it, which is neutral. because the definition is not science is better, or religion is better. Just that they play on different playgrounds.
Yes, I am sceptic to religion. But more of how it is used, and not not what it is. Religion cannot be proven nor disproven, so therefore my door is open. Something that sounds right, then I wouldn't mind believing in it. I have my lucky number, I feel uneasy when I hear the small ones when I'm out in the dark forest, and so on. So religion has its merits, and science has its.
Originally posted by KellyJayWell-said indeed!
It is both with the most important part being God has called us into His
Kingdom to walk with Him and learn of Him. If God is not a part of our lives
than we have nothing but a belief system not unlike any other. There is a
very different foundation with Christianity and all other belief systems which
is that God sent His Son Jesus to die for us and cal ...[text shortened]... out, justify us. While
all other belief systems have us justifying ourselves before God.
Kelly
Originally posted by Nick Bourbaki"I have a relationship with Jesus, not a religion!" is nothing more that a clever marketing slogan that plays well with two large demographics.
Are you on the "Christianity is not a religion" side of this or the "Christianity is a religion" side?
1) People who don't have to worry about material needs, but lack in strong personal relationships. (Living in a consumer-driven society, like the US, tends to make people this way, which is why this re-packaging works so well here.)
2) People who need a strong personal relationship to convince them to quit behaving self-destructively.
It's Christianity re-packaged for the 21st century's emotionally-needy people.
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiGenerally, I would agree with that set but I am dubious about 1, given that I consider Buddhism to be a religion and it has, to my limited understanding, no supernatural and divine authority. Hinduism has thousands of gods. Is there a single ultimate authority there? Also, the anciant Greeks, Romans, Norsemen etc worshipped a pantheon of gods and I'm not sure they took much of a moral authority from them.
I think you are distorting the meaning of "doctrinal".
These four things are an attempt to define "religion" and to be reasonably objective about it.
1. it advocates a belief in a supernatural and divine authority
2. it has a membership defined by a common narrative and efforts
3. it has specific beliefs and doctrines not accepted by non-memb ...[text shortened]... it has designated literature and a theology creating a moral code
Do you disagree with them?
I think you are really defining monotheism here.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think you have this the wrong way round. Superstition is not a subset of religion, religion is a subset of superstition.
In my definition, there are beliefs that falls outside the common one. Lucky numbers is one. Becuase if you really believe that you will win on lottery if you chose a number with a lot of seven in it, then you believe in supernatural things.
In my definition, there are also things that isn't supernatural, and yet one think it is supernatural. The Turin ...[text shortened]... es. This means that there is a barrier between religion and science. And you can never mix them.
My definition is that a religion is a structured and fairly cohesive collection of individual superstitions. This covers mono and poly theisms and non-theistic religions like buddhism but does not include a simple belief in 'lucky' rituals or ghosts.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiOf course Christianity is a religion.
Are you on the "Christianity is not a religion" side of this or the "Christianity is a religion" side?
Now Scientology is not a religion, it is a money-making scheme, and a way to evade taxes, as L. Ron Hubbard said on more than one occasion.
Originally posted by PenguinNot to mention that calling something a "superstition" is just another way of calling it "not true". Your bias is driving your definition.
I think you have this the wrong way round. Superstition is not a subset of religion, religion is a subset of superstition.
My definition is that a religion is a structured and fairly cohesive collection of individual superstitions. This covers mono and poly theisms and non-theistic religions like buddhism but does not include a simple belief in 'lucky' rituals or ghosts.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt's Christianity re-packaged for the 21st century's emotionally-needy people.
"I have a relationship with Jesus, not a religion!" is nothing more that a clever marketing slogan that plays well with two large demographics.
1) People who don't have to worry about material needs, but lack in strong personal relationships. (Living in a consumer-driven society, like the US, tends to make people this way, which is why this re-packagi ...[text shortened]... destructively.
It's Christianity re-packaged for the 21st century's emotionally-needy people.
That is as may be, but a "strong personal relationship" IS central to Christianity, regardless of whatever nonsense the JWs say about it.
Originally posted by SuzianneWell that wasn't my intent. I did not actually put any truth value on the term 'superstition' and there are some superstitions that have an inherent truth to them. For example it really is unlucky to walk under ladders: it increases your chance of having buckets dropped on your head.
Not to mention that calling something a "superstition" is just another way of calling it "not true". Your bias is driving your definition.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinFair point.
I think you are really defining monotheism here.
Buddhism: is there nothing supernatural or divine going on or being strived for? I must admit it wouldn't be my chosen subject on Mastermind.
Polytheism: if we take "authority" as an uncountable noun, "divine authority" could refer to more than one being. I'm not saying that was what I had in mind though. #1: "divine authority or authorities"? Would work for Hinduism but not ~ I assume ~ Buddhism.
Morality: perhaps we could take it to mean (in this discussion anyway) stuff people have to do in order to obey or please a supreme being or beings?
But I certainly accept your observation on the limits to the kinds of religion that my 4-pointer describes.
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiChristianity is the man-made religious practices based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. However, I belief one can believe in Jesus and His teachings without being religious.
I realize that "Christianity is not a religion" is not a conventional Christian claim, nor is it one that is made by most Christians.
It's an interesting claim nevertheless.
I will offer a rebuttal.
Christianity advocates a belief in a supernatural power that controls human destiny.
Christianity has members by virtue of their common subsc ...[text shortened]... ligion.
Who wants to make the case in favor of the motion: "Christianity is not a religion"?