Originally posted by whodeyWould that be William James?
James says that a true religion that is pure and not defiled is to visit the widow and fatherless.
Of course, you rarely hear that preached.
Somehow that doesn't sound like his definition, although he might have said something along those lines somewhere. If he did, though, you have interspersed the word "true" into his account. William James certainly would disagree with any claim to identify "true religion" as apart from false, except as a manifestation of the enthusiasm of certain sects.
2 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrThe book of James. You know, the BIBLE!!!
Would that be William James?
Somehow that doesn't sound like his definition, although he might have said something along those lines somewhere. If he did, though, you have interspersed the word "true" into his account. William James certainly would disagree with any claim to identify "true religion" as apart from false, except as a manifestation of the enthusiasm of certain sects.
Geesh, just can't relate to these heathen types. đ
James 1:27 This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit the orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep yourself unstained by the world.
Can't really argue with that definition now can ya?
Originally posted by MelanerpesI have a better way of saying it. Religion is the interpretation of the objective world. To simply make observations without any way to make them meaningful is of no benefit. Hence, the objective world is useless without the subjective.
Religion is essentially everything that makes up the "subjective world" -- as opposed to science which studies the "objective world".
Originally posted by KellyJayReading through this thread, I see only rwingett has made a serious effort to offer a general definition. Black beetle's collectivist sensibilities, drawn from the late Durkheim it would seem, have some merits, but they are embedded in definitions that fail through tautologies, several peculiarly limiting manifestations of certain religious expressions (archetypes), and other faults too numerous to delineate here. FabianFnas draws our attention back to a simple assertion of belief in the supernatural. If we substitute the word sacred for supernatural, we might have the beginnings of a working definition. But, dictionary.com, which rwingett copied, already develops these notions further.
How do you define religion?
Kelly
The beginning of the dictionary definition offers:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
This emphasis on beliefs is how the term is generally used in English in common, ordinary language. Alas, the definition "set of beliefs" seems slanted towards religious systems that are creedal, and slights many systems of practice that most folks recognize as clearly religious, but that cannot be explained through doctrines or dogmas. Fortunately, for our purposes here, anthropologists have been grappling with these failures of the common understanding of religion as long as that particular tribe of human inquiry specialists have existed.
I offer as provisional a definition that seems a good place to begin. Others have criticized this definition for many years; I have, as well. This is not my definition, but one that I find workable for discussions toward a definition.
Religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men and women by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.*
Mood are fluctuating, temporary states of being; motivations are propensities to behave in a certain way. A patriotic citizen may have a persisting tendency, a chronic inclination to perform in prescribed ways in specific situations, for example, to stand when the nation's flag (here understood as a sacred symbol) is carried by in a parade or when the national anthem is sung. This motivation is ever-present no matter what the citizen is doing, although it is not always observable. It stems from a sense of belonging, from self-identity as an member of a Nation with all its privileges and obligations. Moods, on the other hand, are temporary sensations. The patriotic citizen may experience a sense of exhilaration when the flag passes by, or she may feel angry when it is publicly burned. Even the protester that has chosen torching the cloth as an act of defiance is appealing to a shared sense of the sacredness of the flag as a symbol of the Nation, of its values, and of its history. Mood reflecting the entire range of human emotions may be invoked. Moods and motivations are both elements in an established pattern in which symbols act as the vehicle that conveys a sense of the nature of society into behavior consistent with such a perception.
*Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), p. 90.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'd say that religion is the expression of a belief system.
Belief in a non-chaotic supernatural.
I don't think 'non-chaotic' or 'supernatural' are absolutely necessary. In the first case, I think of, say, Satan. In the second, I think of Diocletian. (Let's leave Buddhism out of it).
Originally posted by Wulebgr"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
Reading through this thread, I see only rwingett has made a serious effort to offer a general definition. Black beetle's collectivist sensibilities, drawn from the late Durkheim it would seem, have some merits, but they are embedded in definitions that fail through tautologies, several peculiarly limiting manifestations of certain religious expressions (arch ...[text shortened]... a perception.
*Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973), p. 90.
Evolution is a religion, after all.
Who knew?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe modifiers are needed if you think that there are expressions of a belief system that are not religious.
I'd say that religion is the expression of a belief system.
I don't think 'non-chaotic' or 'supernatural' are absolutely necessary. In the first case, I think of, say, Satan. In the second, I think of Diocletian. (Let's leave Buddhism out of it).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo is good history by this logic and definition. Religion then comes to encompass so many disparate phenomena as to be a useless term.
[b]"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe."
Evolution is a religion, after all.
Who knew?[/b]
That's part of the inadequacy of this dictionary definition, which focuses of creedal formations instead of the more general, and clearly religious, manifestations of behavioral responses to sacred symbols.
If science has a set of central symbols that evoke a sense of the sacred, then it might resemble religion. Evolution, however, is only one manifestation of a broader science, even if it is a foundational theory like gravity. It is not accurate in any sense to say evolution is a religion, but science might have those qualities.
Originally posted by WulebgrIt's more likely that elements of evolutionary theory would be coopted into a belief system. Wasn't the formalisation of social Darwinism -- libertarianism?
So is good history by this logic and definition. Religion then comes to encompass so many disparate phenomena as to be a useless term.
That's part of the inadequacy of this dictionary definition, which focuses of creedal formations instead of the more general, and clearly religious, manifestations of behavioral responses to sacred symbols.
If science h ...[text shortened]... ate in any sense to say evolution is a religion, but science might have those qualities.
Originally posted by daniel58We've already noted that even William James, who was more interested in describing and categorizing religious experience than in presenting a clear definition of religion itself, nevertheless begins from a point that understands your suggestion to be utter nonsense. Such assertions bring us no closer to a definition of religion, although they inflame the possibilities of sectarian conflict.
I did, even though it's false... Like many others...