NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh, sure, we could look it up in the dictionary, but people on this board have expressed numerous varying ideas of what constitutes a religion.

Does it require a god? Does it require ritual? Is simply worship enough? Is simply belief enough?

What are your ideas of what constitutes a 'religion'?

(Please, let's not turn this into a shouting match. Everyone will have a different idea.)

I came to the conclusion that any religion requires three basic concepts.

1) personal dialogue with a deity/God/supreme essence (through personal prayer, through group prayer, or through the presence of a spiritual channel, object or person)
2) a moral doctrine
3) community and social aspects (celebrations, rituals, community sharing similar beliefs)

Thus...
- You cannot "invent your own personal religion" (since you don't have a community), and no individualist bullshit, a religion requires a group
- Atheists may have a moral doctrine and a community, but they don't engage in a spiritual dialogue; thus, atheism isn't a religion
- In many religions, these three aspects are heavily interconnected; for example, a group prayer on the subject of sins and redemption (prayer=dialogue, doctrine=redemption, community=group).

Well, i would argue that a social experience is not necessary for religion(what you believe is your religion). As well, there does not have to a God or higher being just some spirituallity, after all Buddhism has no gods but is considered a religion. Religion is ultimately a spiritual and philosophical doctrine, and philosophy and religion are not really different(religions can be philosophies and philosophies can be religions).

Is Buddhism then counted as a religion, as I believe it has no supreme essence/diety?

Edited: Heheh, looks like I was too slow.

Is Buddhism then counted as a religion, as I believe it has no supreme essence/diety?



It does. The Buddha is.

Is Buddhism then counted as a religion, as I believe it has no supreme essence/diety?
In Buddhism, there is a universal essence, as well as a personal essence that is part of the whole.

Hm...Thought that was Hinduism. Oh well.

Well, i would argue that a social experience is not necessary for religion(what you believe is your religion). As well, there does not have to a God or higher being just some spirituallity, after all Buddhism has no gods but is considered a religion. Religion is ultimately a spiritual and philosophical doctrine, and philosophy and religion are not really different(religions can be philosophies and philosophies can be religions).
The concept of personal or spiritual dialog with a god, many gods, or a supreme essence is perfectly compatible with any religion that includes meditation (communion with the universe) or other universal or "internal" essence. Including Buddhism. In Buddhism, you have a universal essence as well as a personal essence that is part of the whole; thus, it is not some kind of philosophical atheism but really, a religion. It's just that the divinity is "everything".
The social experience is necessary, it doesn't have to be a celebration or rites, but it can be group meditation, teaching or mentoring.

Please read the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

You'll find these 3 concepts in Buddhism as well.

It does. The Buddha is.

No he's not a deity. He was just a guy and said it himself. I always thought of buddhism as a philosophy more than a religion, sort of like it started out as just a philosophy but people wanted to make it more than that and started to deify buddha and introduce more religous aspects.

No he's not a deity. He was just a guy and said it himself. I always thought of buddhism as a philosophy more than a religion, sort of like it started out as just a philosophy but people wanted to make it more than that and started to deify buddha and introduce more religous aspects.

Which means it's a religion....lol...

Which means it's a religion....lol...

Which means people treat it as a religion, but thats not what it was intended to be and is not the way it is practised by all buddhists. At least thats the impression I've got from what I've read about buddhism, any actual buddhists out there to correct me?

Which means people treat it as a religion, but thats not what it was intended to be and is not the way it is practised by all buddhists. At least thats the impression I've got from what I've read about buddhism, any actual buddhists out there to correct me?
I'm not Buddhist but I have studied religions a lot -- sometimes first-hand, as I have visited temples and shrines for every faith in India. I even went through a Hare Krishna ceremony just to understand how it works.

Buddhism is a religion -- not because of Buddha, but because of the belief into a spiritual essence. It is much more than a philosophy. Shintoism would be a philosophy.

And by the way, there are Buddhist monasteries, monks, and all of this -- human institutions.

re·gion Pronunciation Key (rjn)
n.

1. A large, usually continuous segment of a surface or space; area.
2. A large, indefinite portion of the earth's surface.
3. A specified district or territory.
4. An area of interest or activity; a sphere.
5. Ecology. A part of the earth characterized by distinctive animal or plant life.
6. An area of the body having natural or arbitrarily assigned boundaries: the abdominal region.










































[/bad joke]

It does. The Buddha is.

The Buddhists would disagree, Buddhism is a philosophy, Buddha was the philosopher, you wouldn't call lockeism a religion would you?

I would argue that religion is more belief than anything. It's simply a way of seeing the world. Atheism, I would argue, is (if not a religion) at least damn close to one. Certain atheists are just as dogmatic about the non-existence of deity as religious groups. The one "sensible" near-religion is agnosticism, I would argue, because it really is impossible to prove either way.

And on those who say community is needed: I myself have figured out things for myself in a religious sphere. Many wicca are solitary practitioners, and history contains many isolated people who held on to faith as a lifeline. (Ie. in prison or on an island somewhere.)

And on those who say community is needed: I myself have figured out things for myself in a religious sphere. Many wicca are solitary practitioners, and history contains many isolated people who held on to faith as a lifeline. (Ie. in prison or on an island somewhere.)
Yeah, but before going into "solitary mode", you still need teaching & support from a community of believers.
Same for Wicca; these beliefs are common to a group of people, although today with books & the Internet, we're less dependent on gatherings and celebrations. Which is sad, I think.

Oh, sure, we could look it up in the dictionary, but people on this board have expressed numerous varying ideas of what constitutes a religion.

Does it require a god? Does it require ritual? Is simply worship enough? Is simply belief enough?

What are your ideas of what constitutes a 'religion'?

(Please, let's not turn this into a shouting match. Everyone will have a different idea.)

Religion in my view concerns any oriented "world-view", operated around or in conjunction with, any form of systematic theology (This includes Atheism; as a theology); thus ritual and a "god" figure is not necessarily needed. (Such as in Taoism and Confusianism)... It also does not have to be particularly "spiritual" but can also be "secular" (Like Confusianism)...

So Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Paganism, etc. are all religions; as are Buddhism, Taoism, Confusianism, etc.

The problem centered in considering a "God" or "gods" as a core definition of what constitutes religion; ignores Taoism, Buddhism and many "eastern" religions.... Same occurs limiting it's application to "spiritual" aspects alone...

You know in this day and age of information on the internet there really is no excuse for the misconceptions that actually get posted.

For clarity -

Both Hinduism and Buddhism are PANTHEISTIC worldviews, meaning YES they have belief in a pantheon of gods, but the gods are all part of an ultimate single reality. In a sense, Buddhism sprang out of the Hindu worldview, and in many ways could be considered a reaction to it's assertions.

Buddha asserted that worshipping these 'gods' was futile as they were caught in the very cylcle of rebirth he was trying to escape.

However, in the different strands of Buddhism that have evolved, we now have "Buddha-worship" amongst those who believe the Siddartha put off achieving Nirvana so he could help others reach it. In the merged religion of the Chinese (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism) we have the ultimate irony, in that all three are "godless" religions, yet there are many temples to the goddess of peace, or whatnot, that I've seen people pray to.

There is also ancestor worship, and Chinese people will buy "money for the dead."

But though Buddha is worship revered and followed, I do not think any would call him a "god", though they would believe him to, like them, be part of the ultimate one reality.

The difference though, between pantheism and monotheism, is that ulitmately, you could consider pantheism an atheistic worldview as all is just YOU. Monotheism contends that there is a creator awareness, a GOD that is before, after and outside creation, though his spirit can and does indwell in specific people and his power and awareness is omnipotent and omnipresent.

Thus... in answer to the original question, a religion, in my view, is the set of beliefs and ideals which underpin a set of regular actions.

Christianity is not by definition a religion, for it has nothing to do with actions, and everything to do with RELATIONSHIP. It's like saying a marriage is a religion.

However, I'll often pragmatically refer to Christianity as a religion. Certainly you can be a religious Christian - Roman Catholicism for example, is a very religious approach to Christianity. Judaism as another example, is Christianity without a relationship with Jesus. (Same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, same Law of Moses, same prophets, same necessity of an atonment for sin)

If you substitute "religion" for "worldview" everyone has one. Everyone has some idea of how the world is, whether there is a creator or not, what are 'good' or beneficial actions, and what are destructive ones. Everyone has habits - even if it involves habitually being nonhabitual. It's just something you can't escape.

Secularism, Atheism and Humanism, are as much religions as Confucianism, Christianity or Bahai'ism.

If you legislate one as mandatory, the others are supressed.

Thus it's completely incorrect to say "religion causes strife". The monotheistic religions seek to curb the primal animalistic desires that cause destruction, contention and strife. The pantheistic religions seek to withdraw a person from contention, destruction and strife, either physically through meditating away from physical sensations, or mentally through losing desires altogether.

I'm just glad that Jesus saves me and offers me eternal life. I don't need to be perfect or correct in my ideology. I just accepted his offer of love and grace. My faith is IN him, not about him. ;)

I would define spirituality as:

- a belief regarding a deity, deities, lack thereof, or irrelevance thereof
- a basic sense of the nature of the universe e.g. what happens after death, why unpleasant things happen, how one should act in life (morals)
- the conscious thought about these beliefs on a regular basis

To make it what I would call religion, it should include:

- an activity performed by members of the same religion, possibly together in groups, which is recognizes the spirituality of the religion and unites them in belief as a community

I think that I am spiritual, but not religious. I have beliefs regarding a deity(ies) and sense of how the universe works, and I consciously think about it. I even perform ritual in much the same manner and for much the same reason at the same times as Wiccans. However, I don't claim that name nor do I consider myself to connect to the Wiccan community when I do this, so I don't consider myself as belonging to a religion.

Most spiritual beliefs have a religious forum, and most religions can be relegated to the merely spiritual level. I think that often, we use religion as a synonym for spirituality when we label ourselves according to our beliefs, and use "practicing" to denote the religious ones of us. Now, to address a few controversial beliefs:

Atheism - can be a religion, but many atheists are only such in belief. The uniting activity for atheism is less clear, but mainly requires talking or debating about it in such a way that they feel connected to a community of atheism. The community is the important part.

Agnosticism - maybe could be, but I'm not sure entirely how. The nature of agnosticism is that it is unclear, so it would be difficult to construct an activity which would unite agnostics. Mostly, agnosticism is a personal belief.

All others are fairly clearly solved by the the criteria I laid down.

Agnosticism - maybe could be, but I'm not sure entirely how. The nature of agnosticism is that it is unclear, so it would be difficult to construct an activity which would unite agnostics. Mostly, agnosticism is a personal belief.
I believe Agnosticism could be defined as spirituality without religion. Although I suspect most agnostics to be people who:
1) believe in something
2) aren't sure exactly what
3) don't want to be affiliated with any religion because they either dislike the rituals, or find the moralistic judgements unjustified, or are appalled by the murderous history of most religions

Some agnostics don't really engage in a spiritual relationship with the divine -- let's call them "atheistics with a question mark".


PS: I think that any belief in the supernatural, existance of the "soul" (or karma), or in truths that exist beyond the reach of science, are a sign of spirituality. But this is probably not enough to be considered "religious", because a religion supposes that its members put these spiritual beliefs into action. Either through prayer, meditation, singing, studies (kabbale for example), contemplation, pilgrimage, ascetism, ...

You know in this day and age of information on the internet there really is no excuse for the misconceptions that actually get posted.
And yet, they seem to be compiling. Go figure. ;)

Thus... in answer to the original question, a religion, in my view, is the set of beliefs and ideals which underpin a set of regular actions.
Then it is nothing more than a philosophy? (just to clarify)

Religion in my view concerns any oriented "world-view", operated around or in conjunction with, any form of systematic theology (This includes Atheism; as a theology); thus ritual and a "god" figure is not necessarily needed. (Such as in Taoism and Confusianism)... It also does not have to be particularly "spiritual" but can also be "secular" (Like Confusianism)...


So you're saying all philosphies are religions? I think you're making up your own definitions there.

So you're saying all philosphies are religions? I think you're making up your own definitions there.
Well, the thread's purpose is to state opinions, so if that is what s/he thinks, then that is what s/he thinks.

All religions do certainly incorporate a shared philosophy, that shapes a unique "world view".

You know in this day and age of information on the internet there really is no excuse for the misconceptions that actually get posted.
Snip

I would argue that it gets harder in some cases to filter the crap out when everyone with an internet connection can have essentialy their own published articles

I'd define religion as anything involving faith in either the supernatural or the divine.

I'd define an agnostic as someone who either doubts the existence of the supernatural & divine, or doesn't follow any particular religion, but believes in divinity and/or the supernatural.

I'd define an atheist as someone who either disbelieves the supernatural & divine, or just divinity. Atheism isn't lack of religion or anti-religion. It's denial of divinity.

I myself would be the lack-of-religion type atheist, which I think is the most common type these days (historically speaking, atheists have been religious untill fairly recently).

I'd define religion as anything involving faith in either the supernatural or the divine.

I'd define an agnostic as someone who either doubts the existence of the supernatural & divine, or doesn't follow any particular religion, but believes in divinity and/or the supernatural.

I'd define an atheist as someone who either disbelieves the supernatural & divine, or just divinity. Atheism isn't lack of religion or anti-religion. It's denial of divinity.

I myself would be the lack-of-religion type atheist, which I think is the most common type these days (historically speaking, atheists have been religious untill fairly recently).
While I understand where you are coming from the more conventional and in my agnostic opinion of agnosticism is

A belief or feeling that proving or disproving a deity is impossible in the end (usually due to the un-falsifiable position that a deity is in)

So you can have agnostic atheists … agnostic theists deists Christians Mormons …. So on and so forth

Most agnostics fall in the soft atheism category

So you're saying all philosphies are religions? I think you're making up your own definitions there.

If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck; it's likely a duck...

I don't need to "make up" such a definition; as it falls in with an accepted definition:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

There are religious Christians.
Religious Jews
Religious Taoists
Religious Atheists
Religious Secularists
Religious Spiritualists

The core principle; in law; of creating an enviroment where states do not mandate "religious institution"; do not force people to religious observance against their own personnal views; nor bar people from adherance to their personal viewpoints and philosophy/religion...

There are several differing, self-admitted religious views; some of them (such as Confusianism) do not have any spiritual element; some (such as Taoism) do not rely on central spiritual or diestic beings; some do.....

A definition limiting it as spiritual only; denies confusianism it's status as a religion.

A definition limiting it to diety worship; denies Zen Buddhism and Taoism.

I develope my definition, as such, to encompass all views..... Yours is designed to discriminate....

If Humanism is not a religion, then it can be banned and limited.
If Confusianism is not a religion (since it has neitehr deity not spirituality), then it can be banned if you think they are necessary.
If Taosim is not religion (since it has no diet(y)(ies), then it can be banned if you think that is necessary.

A definition must account for all self-proclaimed "religions" or none of them....

Limiting it to diety alone; does not account for all self-proclaimed established religions
Limiting it to spirituality alone; does not account for all self-proclaimed established religions

Therefore defining it as such to be inclusive to that; cannot be a correct definition....

It's "made up" only in the sense that it takes into account all establishments of such, to include all of them; based on a logical extrapolation of the elements that exist in common to all of them...

I find that there is in common a theme in Humanism, whereby they want Spirituality and Deistic thought to be applied only to "religion"; and make such the core.... The reasoning being; that if Humanism is not a religion; it can take on all protections which religion recieves; yet not be subject to the same applicable limitations that institutions are subject to.... It's a definition designed to be disciminatory... And thus, logically, is automatically rejected...

Thank you, all, for your thoughts on 'religion'. My own definition has been broadened a bit by the ideas each of you expressed.

My definition of religion:
A set of beliefs focused on a deity/deities/or some power higher than oneself which describes the relationship between that power and yourself.

This does not have to have a specified dogma. In fact, I think dogma gets in the way of actually being religious.

In order to form religious beliefs, one must interact with others. However, to be a religion, it does not have to be dictated by others, nor do any others have to have the exact same beliefs.

If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck; it's likely a duck...

I don't need to "make up" such a definition; as it falls in with an accepted definition:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

Thats one of the four definitions of religion from dictionary.com and in my opinion its the least appropriate. In your previous post you said atheism is a religion yet many atheists couldnt care less about religion, let alone pursue it with zeal. Plus by this definition any activity such as protesting against the war in Iraq could be called a religion.


There are religious Christians.
Religious Jews
Religious Taoists
Religious Atheists
Religious Secularists
Religious Spiritualists

The core principle; in law; of creating an enviroment where states do not mandate "religious institution"; do not force people to religious observance against their own personnal views; nor bar people from adherance to their personal viewpoints and philosophy/religion...

There are several differing, self-admitted religious views; some of them (such as Confusianism) do not have any spiritual element; some (such as Taoism) do not rely on central spiritual or diestic beings; some do.....

A definition limiting it as spiritual only; denies confusianism it's status as a religion.

A definition limiting it to diety worship; denies Zen Buddhism and Taoism.

I develope my definition, as such, to encompass all views..... Yours is designed to discriminate....

If Humanism is not a religion, then it can be banned and limited.
If Confusianism is not a religion (since it has neitehr deity not spirituality), then it can be banned if you think they are necessary.
If Taosim is not religion (since it has no diet(y)(ies), then it can be banned if you think that is necessary.

A definition must account for all self-proclaimed "religions" or none of them....

Limiting it to diety alone; does not account for all self-proclaimed established religions
Limiting it to spirituality alone; does not account for all self-proclaimed established religions

Therefore defining it as such to be inclusive to that; cannot be a correct definition....

It's "made up" only in the sense that it takes into account all establishments of such, to include all of them; based on a logical extrapolation of the elements that exist in common to all of them...

I find that there is in common a theme in Humanism, whereby they want Spirituality and Deistic thought to be applied only to "religion"; and make such the core.... The reasoning being; that if Humanism is not a religion; it can take on all protections which religion recieves; yet not be subject to the same applicable limitations that institutions are subject to.... It's a definition designed to be disciminatory... And thus, logically, is automatically rejected...

This part I dont really understand. You're saying that if a philosophy is not described as a religion it should be possible to ban it? Why should freedom of religion get treated better than freedom of speach? I dont think it matters if certain things are left out of the definition of religion.

And yet, they seem to be compiling. Go figure. ;)


Then it is nothing more than a philosophy? (just to clarify)
Religious philosphy is a philosophy which underpins a set of actions, yes. The actions of a religion are 'religious', the ideals are 'philosophy' or 'theology', and the conviction they are true: faith, belief, trust.

A Religion, is the set of ideals, or philosophies that underpin the relevent religious actions.

Thats one of the four definitions of religion from dictionary.com and in my opinion its the least appropriate. In your previous post you said atheism is a religion yet many atheists couldnt care less about religion, let alone pursue it with zeal. Plus by this definition any activity such as protesting against the war in Iraq could be called a religion.

However, it is also the only one which covers ALL SELF-ADMITTING religions.


This part I dont really understand. You're saying that if a philosophy is not described as a religion it should be possible to ban it? Why should freedom of religion get treated better than freedom of speach? I dont think it matters if certain things are left out of the definition of religion.

Actually, yes and no, depending on the country. In the US no. An independent, private "secular" organization, can pool money to use the government to enforce their particular ideologies....

A "Religious" institution (assuming God and spirituality); cannot... Why? Because they have a God and are spiritual? Or because they are a "Religious Institution" ?

To be "equal" where must the line be drawn? And it cannot be drawn in such a manner as to discriminate... It must encompass all self-admited religions.

From Secularist Confusianism, through Anti-deistic Taoism, all the way to the Theistic sect religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity...