Define religion

Originally posted by Palynka
But if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?

It also seems you equate all social dogmatists (dogma in the authoritarian sense) with religion. Although this is an interesting euph ...[text shortened]... le) and, conversely, labelling all social dogmas as religious is then a purely literary device.

edit: "But if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?"

A "purely personal view" is a result of one's theory of reality, and we could maybe agree that some theories of reality are indeed religious.
Therefore I see not how do I deny the possibility of a personal view of religion since the individuals who share a specific view -which is anyway a social product!- are free to recognise and classify it as both "personal" and "universal". On the other hand, this is how a religion expands in the societies -and it seems to me that this is also the basis of the myth of the idea known as "absolute truth".

Furthermore, I do equate any given dogma with religionism because I see no contradition; and methinks that a religion -this is the case of the Abrahamic religions amongst else, no?- is indeed dogmatic to the hilt.
But I may be wrong; could you inform me about a religion that it is not based on a specific religious core belief that it must be blindly accepted in full by the believers of that religion?
😵

A definition of 'religion' I use is the following:

To be 'religious' is to believe in supernatural phenomena. Then you belive in a religion.

Originally posted by black beetle
edit: "But if you define religion as an apparatus of collectiveness, then you implicitly deny the possibility of a purely personal view of religion. Surely you agree that a purely personal view on a creator is a religious belief?"

A "purely personal view" is a result of one's theory of reality, and we could maybe agree that some theories of reality a ...[text shortened]... elief that it must be blindly accepted in full by the believers of that religion?
😵

Again you mix assertion with dogma. Only the first is required. You also now equate what you called "social apparatus" with "social product" as if they were equal. I'm not interested in mental contortionism, beetle.

Originally posted by Palynka
Again you mix assertion with dogma. Only the first is required. You also now equate what you called "social apparatus" with "social product" as if they were equal. I'm not interested in mental contortionism, beetle.

I will try to make myself clearer.
In my opinion the factual social product (religion/ human invention) follows a process based on its cornerstone (assertions and dogma, which they both can be personal and/ or universal and they are constituting a body of collective archetypes which in turn they become the basis of the invention of collective beliefs and practices endowed with a certain authority. This means that, along with the given plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages and worshipping of supernatural existences, “religion” can be understood too as an apparatus of collective representations that they express collective realities. And this is not “mental contortionism”. In fact, I see no contradictions and I also join hands with our good ole Durkheim.

Furthermore, since a religion -and therefore its believers too- are both a vital part of a given society, “religion” can be described as a specific social apparatus that triggers solidarity and identification of the believers within a society, providing a theory of reality, a meaning for a purposeful life, authority figures and “reinforcement” of the collective moral and social norms.

Now I hope that you clearly understand my thesis in full. But if we do not agree up to here, I am ready for your falsification
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I will try to make myself clearer.
In my opinion the factual social product (religion/ human invention) follows a process based on its cornerstone (assertions and dogma, which they both can be personal and/ or universal and they are constituting a body of collective archetypes which in turn they become the basis of the invention of collective beliefs a ...[text shortened]... tand my thesis in full. But if we do not agree up to here, I am ready for your falsification
😵

Oh! Thats a good definition. I was certainly scratching my head at this question, but fortunatetly Mr. BB has come along and given a nice definition.
I would like to add that religon can be made by anyone containing the godseed. (everyone)

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is this how you define it or a dictionary?
Kelly

It was copied from dictionary.com

Religion is what I believe in.

Cult is what others believe in.

Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

Originally posted by Badwater
Religion is what I believe in.

Cult is what others believe in.

Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

😵

Originally posted by Badwater
Religion is what I believe in.

Cult is what others believe in.

Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

A god is what I believe in.
An idol is what others believe in.

Morality is what I live according to.
Immorals is what others are.

Others are hypocrits.
I'm never a hypocrit.

Irony? Nooo...

Religion is essentially everything that makes up the "subjective world" -- as opposed to science which studies the "objective world".

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Religion is essentially everything that makes up the "subjective world" -- as opposed to science which studies the "objective world".

What about the people in the Funny Farm wearing white coates, and says "hmmm" on regular basis?

Originally posted by black beetle
I will try to make myself clearer.
In my opinion the factual social product (religion/ human invention) follows a process based on its cornerstone (assertions and dogma, which they both can be personal and/ or universal and they are constituting a body of collective archetypes which in turn they become the basis of the invention of collective beliefs a ...[text shortened]... tand my thesis in full. But if we do not agree up to here, I am ready for your falsification
😵

It's not about falsification. Durkheim (and you) focus on the social role of religion and how society shapes and is shaped by it. What I'm saying is that for me any belief about a non-chaotic supernatural is religious. This definition encompasses parts of yours (so it's not about proving you wrong), but excludes the political dogmas that you mentions.

You see, religion (in my definition) requires assertions, by definition of supernatural. It's a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. Moreover, by requiring assertions about the supernatural, they have a core of beliefs beyond the moral ones that are not falsifiable. This is not true of the political dogmas. Take a set of moral principles and one can check if these are consistent with those political views and confront them both in abstract and in practice.

So, in a sense, we're talking in cross-purposes.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What about the people in the Funny Farm wearing white coates, and says "hmmm" on regular basis?

What about the rest of us on the Serious Farm? Maybe we're the lunatics.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Religion is essentially everything that makes up the "subjective world" -- as opposed to science which studies the "objective world".

What about morality?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
What about the rest of us on the Serious Farm? Maybe we're the lunatics.

Hmmm...