What is a religion?
Alright I have an interesting question to pose to you all. What, by definition, is a religion? Merriam-Webster states that a religion can be defined as simply as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
Must a religion include God or the supernatural? I think that our terminology today has become very clouded and ambiguous. Is philosophy or science, by definition, instrinsically different from, separate from, or opposed to religion? Why or why not?
What do you guys think?
posted by Seamus at 12:00 PM
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
8:44 PM
I think that Merriam-Webster definition is a little lacking. Houghton-Mifflin provides this:
NOUN:
1.a.Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b.A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4.A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
The last one, I would say, is merely a usage that basically means someone treats something like a religion (by belief in it). I don't think you can really equate the two. For example, I would not call an Olympic athlete who's dedicated to the high-jump, a devotee of the "church of athletics, high-jump demonination."
I agree with Alex that there really must be some element where supernatural forces either literally or figuratively explain the natural world. For example, although it is wrong to equate Shinto or shamanism with Christianity by calling all three religions, the current that runs underneath all is the use of the supernatural to explain the natural world.
I would only classify such belief systems as a religion not only when they have an institution, but when they have an orthodoxy. Now because of an imprecise definition, we call many kinds and systsems of beliefs religion, but I would really say that they should be described by other words.
4:48 PM
When I speak of religion, I intend to make a statement or a claim about someone’s world view. I believe that every person has a system of beliefs, whether they are stereotypical or unique to him or herself. Thus, when I say religion, I really mean a cross section of a person’s worldview; and I also mean that every person who exists has some sort of belief system in that cross section whether or not they subscribe to an organized religion. In other words, I would like to discuss it on a psychological level.
After a lot of thought about appropriate terminology, I have concluded that what I think truly fills this world view cross section is what a person considers to be “sacred truth”. This truth is not necessarily dependent upon the supernatural, but certainly could be. As far as I can tell, this should adequately describe the role that religion normally plays in an individual’s world view. What I get from my Christianity is “sacred truth”. It determines what I consider to be right and wrong, true or false, good or evil, and it also determines what I consider to be the truth about God and reality. Other beliefs that I may have, but fall somewhere other than “sacred truth”, are inevitably trumped by the “sacred truth” if there is a discrepancy. For example, I believe that science is valuable and, insofar as I consider the empirical evidence to be accurate, contains a great deal of truth. Where there is a discrepancy between science and my “sacred truth”, however, my “sacred truth” will always properly win.
I believe that everyone has a set of beliefs that fills their “sacred truth” file. A naturalist who believes that the natural world is all that exists and that everything within this natural world can be explained from within the world has their own “sacred truth”, though not necessarily any particular religion or belief in God. This person still believes these things as the most sacred truth that exists, and his world view is complete even though it could potentially be atheistic.
Things get interesting where sacred and non-sacred truth overlap. A person’s “sacred truth” is probably made up of some organized religion, some philosophy, some science, some politics, some nationalism, or any number of other things. But what if a person belongs to some organized religion, and yet trumps that religion’s truth claims with science? Well that would simply mean that this person has more science in their “sacred truth” than organized religion, or perhaps all science and no religion. But regardless of what fills that truth file, it is “sacred truth” to that individual.
Another, though not identical, way to say this is that everyone has both objective and subjective truth.
What I mean to say is that, psychologically, Christianity to one person is naturalism to another, and that these two systems of thought (even though one is not part of organized religion) are ultimately the same type of thing.
8:06 PM
Well, I can't say that I completely agree with that. If someone's sacred truth is that whatever is scientifically provable is true, then that person, if confronted with inarguable evidence of God, would then believe in God. Forget whether that will ever happen or not in truth, let's just speak in hypotheticals here. However, if someone whose sacred truth is Christianity is faced with the inarguable evidence that God does not exist, they would not then quit believing in God. That's because belief in non-natural explanations is not subject to any qualifications, where belief in all natural explanations is completely subject to tests.
I'm not asking for a judgment that one is better than the other, I'm simply saying you can't say that all people's sacred truths are a set of beliefs they'll hold to no matter what, because at least for some, it isn't so.
10:23 PM
I wasn't trying to say that a person's sacred truth is static their entire life. Sure a person can go through a worldview shift and change their sacred truth.
But I don't think you've said anything contrary to my comment. If a person's sacred truth is mainly scientific then their conclusions about absolute facts stem from science. Therefore if science leads them to faith in God they would receive it. They would believe it based on their scientific sacred truth which could just as easily turn around and cause them to doubt God's existence.
If a person's sacred truth is based on organized religion, then they would form conclusions about absolute facts from the standpoint of their religion; only if their religion led them to doubt God would they accept it.
I do think that a person's sacred truth it something they will hold to "no matter what". (Excluding an entire worldview shift). My point in the previous comment was to say that religions and non-religions (such as naturalism) can be the same thing, psychologically, based on the person.
2:17 PM
I can agree that plenty of people are zealous about things other than religion, but as for so-called "naturalism" I fail to see a parallel. People don't have faith in what can be proven. Faith is, by definition, belief in that which there can be no proof of. People can definitely believe that science can provide all answers about the world, but again, that's not faith. As an example, there are those who believe the world is flat and those who believe it's round. We know the Earth is round, so those who belief it to be flat have faith, whereas those who believe it to be round have knowledge. I really don't see a parallel between the two kinds of "beliefs".
1:54 PM
Nat, I completely disagree with your definition of faith. Blind faith might be belief in something that can not be proven, but faith is most certainly based on what is proven to be true. The majority of the New Testament is devoted to proving that Jesus is the Christ so that those who read (or hear) it might believe and have faith. What you might be confused over is the fact that in New Testament Greek the words believe (pistueo), faith (pistis) and faithfulness (pistos) are all basically the same word in different grammatical capacities. Faith, belief, and faithfulness are really the same thing (according to the New Testament anyhow). This is why certain passages, like Hebrews 11, speak of faith in "things hoped for but not yet seen" in reference to faithfulness to God's promises.
I know you didn't ask for a New Testament lesson, or even for the New Testament's definition of faith. But I think your definition of faith is wrong nonetheless.
But even if you were right, my point is that "sacred truth" can be either supernatural or completely "natural" and still function the same way within a person's worldview.
9:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home