What constitutes as a "religion"?

[leftace53]

ITT. What is a religion? To be considered a religion, does a believer have to believe in some sort of higher consciousness? Does this higher power have to be anthropomorphic? Do "spiritual" beliefs count?

I was talking to my aunt the other day, and we came across the topic of environmentalism. She brought up an interesting notion of environmentalism being as some sort of a religion. For instance, there is the idea of sin and repentance (if we harm the environment, we won't have a place to live), indulgences (well I recycled my pop can, I can buy a hummer), and the idea of a consciousness outside humans (natural phenomenon and what not). So I was wondering if there are any guidlines or something that a belief has to follow in order to constitute as a "religion".

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I think religion itself is just the study or realization of there being something above us, such as a god or there being something beyond us like the idea of Nirvana in Buddhism. So religion could be described as the seeking of self perfection or the seeking of favor from divine entity or force.

[leftace53]

I think religion itself is just the study or realization of there being something above us, such as a god or there being something beyond us like the idea of Nirvana in Buddhism. So religion could be described as the seeking of self perfection or the seeking of favor from divine entity or force.
Hmm. So would you say that a religious belief generally has the notion of an external entity or force? Or would an internal spirituality also suffice?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I think internal spirituality would suffice also, because when you look into Zoroastrianism, one of the oldest religions in the world, the focus isn't on God (Ahura Mazda), but on purity for the sake of the soul. They believe that their souls are split essences of these creatures known as the Fravashi, and that these Fravashi act as guardian spirits in the world of the living and in death, they merge with out souls and college our memories. And it is believed that it will be the good memories and the good experiences that will assist this Savior with the final purification of evil from this world.

Also, in the New Ageist sense, the internal spirituality also counts as a religion. :p

[leftace53]

Yes, I've heard about some sort of a soul with many religious beliefs, which makes me also wonder does a religious belief have to go hand in hand with dualism?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I don't think so, though the majority do. In fact, I think that religions that incorporate a "karma system" avoid the dualism by simply stating you get what you give with there being no real precedence for evil actions or good actions. In other words, if you do a bad thing, it is going to come back as a bad thing and not a worse thing. If you do a good thing, it is going to come back as a good thing and not a better thing. Wicca sorta incorporates this, but they have what is called the "Three Fold Law" which states that for every action given, three come in return.

[hatzel]

As somebody who studies comparative religion, I would strongly support the suggestion of religion being much broader than we often think. My personal favourite, rather than environmentalism, is veganism, which I can't see as any other than a religion. Or, as good as. I think that Europeans have had their idea of religion twisted beyond all recognition by a few millennia of Christendom. In fact, you can easily notice that 'religion', used in a 'religion does this' kind of phrase, is actually synonymous with Christianity, rather than any other religion. Which may be why the European Christian population (and, in this, I include even non-religious types of Christian descent, as they are still raised in a society where the religion they see, and use as their start point for comparison to any other religion, is Christianity) get so confused, even at their own Abrahamic brethren, who actually still have 'lifestyle' religions. As used to be the case in ancient Greece, for instance, when religion, culture and lifestyle were so integrally intertwined that there was no real difference between them. So why can't veganism be considered such a 'lifestyle' religion? Particularly that type of veganism which extends beyond merely eating vegan, but also wearing vegan, and living vegan.

Plus, if we want to get really extensive, we could even consider political ideologies are fulfilling the same 'need' for religion. I don't usually cite Jung, for various reasons, but I will here. His claim that the human psyche is naturally religious is interesting to this, and suggests to me that politic ideologies fulfil this need for religion. You're right to think that there is crossover between the two, and political ideologies, as religions, tell us what is and isn't acceptable, what actions we should take, how we should treat different people. I can't think of a single political opinion (by which I mean just a single thing, one part of a much broader ideology) which doesn't have some analogy in at least one of the many systems we would class as religious, rather than political. Sure, these basic ideas are sometimes bent slightly, and are arranged in different ways, but the difference between the religious and the political is very narrow. I could even return to Jung:


We do not know whether Hitler is going to found a new Islam. He is already on the way; he is like Mohammed. The emotion in Germany is Islamic; warlike and Islamic. They are all drunk with wild god. That can be the historic future

I don't want to be considered as associating Islam with Nazism in nature, as this isn't true at all, but there are some similarities. Jung is supposing that Muhammed was almost like the Hitler of this day - a charismatic leader, leading his followers into a battle for territorial expansion, on the back of a new system of thoughts and beliefs. This is by no means constricted to the right wing, though! Sure, we can look at videos of Hitler's speeches, and videos of the charismatic American preachers, and notice similarities. Similarities in rhetoric, similarities in the response of the gathered masses. But even the guy with a megaphone, giving some speech at a leftist protest march is no different from Jesus, giving his sermon on the mount. And how can anybody sit, read the Communist Manifesto, Kropotkin's 'Fields, factories and workshops' or any collection of leftist literature you want, and let these texts shape their opinions, perhaps even basing their actions on them, and then scoff at somebody who chooses to read the collection of books we call the Bible, and let these texts shape their opinions, perhaps even basing their actions on them. Pure hypocrisy, if you ask me, but we in Europe seem to have this idea that religion, such as the religion that Jung claimed is a fundamental human need, has to include believing in some deity/-ies, and praying to them. Which is a really Eurocentric viewpoint. I suggest we move on from this, and admit that our political groups, complete with the historical and present day figures, the texts they've written and the effect they have on our psyche is no different from the effect religion has, and is merely our way of fulfilling our need for religious stimulation...

Woah, even I thought that was verging on bullshit :laugh:

[danyboy27]

religions are memes.

[NGNM85]

As somebody who studies comparative religion, I would strongly support the suggestion of religion being much broader than we often think. My personal favourite, rather than environmentalism,

Environmentalism is not a religion, with perhaps the exception of the Gaia hypothesis, but most environmentalists don’t believe that.


is veganism, which I can't see as any other than a religion.

A dubious conclusion.


Or, as good as. I think that Europeans have had their idea of religion twisted beyond all recognition by a few millennia of Christendom. In fact, you can easily notice that 'religion', used in a 'religion does this' kind of phrase, is actually synonymous with Christianity, rather than any other religion. Which may be why the European Christian population (and, in this, I include even non-religious types of Christian descent, as they are still raised in a society where the religion they see, and use as their start point for comparison to any other religion, is Christianity) get so confused, even at their own Abrahamic brethren,

There is a perfectly logical reason for this. Christianity comprises over one third of religious people on earth. In Europe and the US it’s probably at least 75%.


who actually still have 'lifestyle' religions. As used to be the case in ancient Greece, for instance, when religion, culture and lifestyle were so integrally intertwined that there was no real difference between them. So why can't veganism be considered such a 'lifestyle' religion? Particularly that type of veganism which extends beyond merely eating vegan, but also wearing vegan, and living vegan.

This is absurd. You stretch the definition of religion to the point where it has no meaning. By this definition Trekkers are a religion, you can pick dozens of examples, it’s absurd. I think the first lines of the Wikipedia page is as perfect a definition as we could ever expect; “Religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or a set of beliefs concerning the origin or purpose of the universe. It is commonly regarded as consisting of a persons’ relation to god or a god, or spirits.” Now, we might be able to think of one or two exceptions that fit this criteria, however, that means nothing. All language is but an imprecise attempt to describe reality. First of all, from statistics the Abrahamic faiths alone make up around 65% of the planets’ faithful. There’s a majority right off the bat. If you add in all the other religions in the world, the aforementioned definition is perfectly sufficient for more than 90%. That’s a totally acceptable margin of error. Fundamentally, religion is about believing in something. Now there are plenty of people who observe the rituals but don’t actually believe, I know a Rabbi who is essentially an Atheist. At the risk of being offensive, these people are not religious. As the adage goes “sticking feathers up your….etc.”




Plus, if we want to get really extensive, we could even consider political ideologies are fulfilling the same 'need' for religion. I don't usually cite Jung, for various reasons, but I will here. His claim that the human psyche is naturally religious is interesting to this, and suggests to me that politic ideologies fulfil this need for religion. You're right to think that there is crossover between the two, and political ideologies, as religions, tell us what is and isn't acceptable, what actions we should take, how we should treat different people. I can't think of a single political opinion (by which I mean just a single thing, one part of a much broader ideology) which doesn't have some analogy in at least one of the many systems we would class as religious, rather than political. Sure, these basic ideas are sometimes bent slightly, and are arranged in different ways, but the difference between the religious and the political is very narrow. I could even return to Jung:

I don't want to be considered as associating Islam with Nazism in nature, as this isn't true at all, but there are some similarities. Jung is supposing that Muhammed was almost like the Hitler of this day - a charismatic leader, leading his followers into a battle for territorial expansion, on the back of a new system of thoughts and beliefs. This is by no means constricted to the right wing, though! Sure, we can look at videos of Hitler's speeches, and videos of the charismatic American preachers, and notice similarities. Similarities in rhetoric, similarities in the response of the gathered masses.

Nazism, and Soviet Communism, were like state religions. They were dogmatic, an excellent example of why dogmatism is bad.


But even the guy with a megaphone, giving some speech at a leftist protest march is no different from Jesus, giving his sermon on the mount.

First of all, it’s very likely Jesus never existed at all. Second, most people don’t believe the guy at the protest is a living god, endowed with supernatural powers.


And how can anybody sit, read the Communist Manifesto, Kropotkin's 'Fields, factories and workshops' or any collection of leftist literature you want, and let these texts shape their opinions, perhaps even basing their actions on them, and then scoff at somebody who chooses to read the collection of books we call the Bible, and let these texts shape their opinions, perhaps even basing their actions on them. Pure hypocrisy, if you ask me,

No, because there is a fundamental difference. You don’t have to suspend rational thought to accept the ideas of Marx and Bakunin. Religious texts differ in content because they deal with the supernatural, second, they differ in the way they are read and understood, religion is presumed to be self-evident and then people rewrite their concept of reality to comply, whereas Kropotkin and Marx were trying to use language and ideas to describe the world as it actually is.


but we in Europe seem to have this idea that religion, such as the religion that Jung claimed is a fundamental human need,

I think religion fills a human need, I don’t think it is a human need. I think humans are curious they want answers; they want to feel their lives have meaning, they want community, etc. Religion is often used to fill these needs, but it isn’t the only thing that can.


has to include believing in some deity/-ies, and praying to them. Which is a really Eurocentric viewpoint.

A number of Asian and African religions would also fit that definition.


I suggest we move on from this, and admit that our political groups, complete with the historical and present day figures, the texts they've written and the effect they have on our psyche is no different from the effect religion has, and is merely our way of fulfilling our need for religious stimulation...

That would presume people need religious stimulation and they don’t. Even if the internal effect is the same the external effect, not to mention the content, is radically different.


Woah, even I thought that was verging on bullshit

I was going to put it a little gentler than that. I’d say you offer an interpretationof religion that is almost infinitely elastic, to the point of absurdity.

[Adi Shankara]

religions are memes.

fuck Richard Dawkins.

[hatzel]

I was going to put it a little gentler than that. I’d say you offer an interpretation of religion that is almost infinitely elastic, to the point of absurdity.

I decided to only reply to this bit, because the rest seems to fit in with the whole idea of what I'm going to say. I'll point out that I'm not content with the word 'religion' in any case, because it isn't elastic enough. It's been entirely coloured by what we have termed religion, as if religion were totally different from all other things. The point that I was trying to approach here was that even systems which wouldn't be classed as religions fulfil many of the same basic demands of the human brain that religions do. Which is why I would suggest that drawing a line between what is and isn't religion is effectively useless, as the two sides of the line are very similar. As you yourself said, Nazism and Soviet Communism were like state religions, so why draw a line at all, if they reach and are processed by our brains in the same way.

Incidentally, I would argue that the comparison between veganism and religion is much more appropriate than anything involving Trekkers. That's really more of a social thing. Veganism, on the other hand, comprises a set of dietary rules, and, in some cases, rules about which materials ones clothes can be made of. So, in this case, even though the exact rules are different, it covers areas also covered by Judaism. Most vegans also support the ethical treatment of animals, something else outlined in Judaism, as well as Hinduism and other religions. Sure, it's a bit of a single-issue quasi-religion, but that's life :rolleyes:


And by the way, irrespective of whether or not Jesus did or didn't exist, many objective scholars will tell you that it is unlikely that a historical Jesus would have made claims that he was a deity, or the son of a deity, or capable of miracles. These claims were probably tacked on by his followers after his death. So it would also be right to say that the people at the sermon on the mount didn't think that Jesus was a living god with supernatural powers, either. Not that I'm the best person to defend the guy, nor would I particularly want to, but...w/e :thumbup1:

[Tablo]

religions are memes.
Does that mean 4chan is god? :crying:


fuck Richard Dawkins.
No you.


I think religion is an unbelievably broad term and it is really annoying when debating a religious person. I generally consider religion as organized belief in the superstitious, if only to simplify discussions surrounding it.

[danyboy27]

fuck Richard Dawkins.

please feel free to make refutation of his theory of meme, i am impatient to hear your articulated argumentation against it.

[Adi Shankara]

please feel free to make refutation of his theory of meme, i am impatient to hear your articulated argumentation against it.

well for one, it can be cosidered a form of pseudoscience, seeing as there is nothing hard-coded in our DNA or genes to even suggest that such a thing exists the way Dawkins says so. He says in his book "the selfish gene" that memes help guide evolutionary factors, yet there is absolutely zero proof that such a gene or dna structure supporting the hypothesis of memes even exists, so basically, he's pulling shit out of his ass.

I almost would go as far to say that Dawkins created the unscientific (seeing as there is zero documentation of memes existing in the sense he described) concept of memes just to justify his hatred of religion and bring it into the scientific realm.

read anything from any Semiotic or Linguistic scientist, they almost always have a strong criticism of memes, as they deal with something that is supposedly a meme in Dawkin's vision (language and the evolution of slang) but actually have no genetic or DNA proof for either.

Trust me, many have no problem with using the concept of memes in a cultural sense...but there is no genetic or biological proof for memes the way Dawkins supposes.

[synthesis]

please feel free to make refutation of his theory of meme, i am impatient to hear your articulated argumentation against it.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1039

edit: I figured I'd add a tl;dr excerpt, which is probably still tl;dr by Internet standards.


With the theories of Taleb and Frankfurt in mind, the narrative fallacies of The Selfish Gene in general – and Dawkins’ theories of memetics in particular – become readily apparent. Dawkins describes a meme as a unit of cultural transmission, yet fails to adequately define what he means by “culture”; a meme is more aptly explained as a unit of semiotic replication. As Dawkins’ critics have noted, a meme cannot be a sign in and of itself, as all signs require an interpretant in order to acquire meaning. However, even the second definition is somewhat lacking, or at the very least creates a false impression of “a kind of misplaced agency, that both genes and memes - replicators - can be understood without considering their embeddedness in a dynamic system which imbues them with their function and informational content.” Dawkins commits the fallacy of silent evidence when he depicts replicators as dominant over the “dynamic system” in which they exist.

Dawkins’ particular brand of bullshit is not predicated upon lies but rather a desire to force the dynamics and unpredictability of reality into his particular narrative concerning the omnipotent replicator. “However studiously and conscientiously the bullshitter proceeds,” says Frankfurt, “it remains true that he is also trying to get away with something.” Accordingly, Terrence Deacon argues that Dawkins’ theory of memetics “is not wrong, it just cuts corners that suggest that certain essential aspects of information processing in biological systems can be treated as merely derivative from the replicator concept. In fact, this inverts the reality.” Just as our genes are only patterns of DNA until they become information - on a context-dependent basis - memes are just “sign vehicles” until encountered by an interpretant.

Dawkins seems to acknowledge external factors influencing the fate of a replicator only when the factors are other replicators, thus distracting his audience from the context in which these replicators exist. Therefore, the idea that Christianity survived and thrived because the New Testament God was a more potent meme does not necessarily have to be wrong, but it does “cut corners” in that it ignores the context in which these memes existed, such as the shifting dynamics of the Roman Empire, the Crusades, and European colonialism.

In short, a critical analysis of The Selfish Gene, On Bullshit, and The Black Swan is essential to any thorough understanding of the post-modern system of belief. Through the examination of memetics, bullshit, and the fallacy of silent evidence, all three authors outline the potency of narratives and the methods by which narratives influence practically every aspect of human society. At the same time, the tendency to view all of society as a product of narratives or memes has become a narrative in and of itself, as evinced by Dawkins’ all-encompassing replicator. Therefore, any post-modern thinker has to be conscious of the broader context in which narratives exist; otherwise, one would risk remaining in the shackles of the “illusion of knowledge,” knee-deep in bullshit.

[Philzer]

ITT. What is a religion? To be considered a religion, does a believer have to believe in some sort of higher consciousness? Does this higher power have to be anthropomorphic? Do "spiritual" beliefs count?

Hi!

Religion is a step of conscious in the history of the anthropogenesis.
Let’s see what it brings for the individual:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1692105&postcount=125


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1847586&postcount=10


kind regards

[Dean]

The term 'religion' has no specific meaning. It tends to refer to certain cultural traditions.

Every 'objective' definition I've seen of the term has been little more than elitist pseudo-psychology.

[meow]

a good definition i saw once emphasized the supernatural.
so environmentalism and veganism obviously arent religion as such. but people might be either for religious reason.

communism is not a religion either. but again people could be communist for religious reason (tolstoy is an example).

buddhism doesnt require a god but still has supernatural elements and is religion.

another hint might be if it requires "faith". you have to believe even if you have no evidence for it. but i guess doesnt apply to all religion.

[Adi Shankara]

another hint might be if it requires "faith". you have to believe even if you have no evidence for it. but i guess doesnt apply to all religion.

Therefore, transhumanists are religious? :laugh:

[Queercommie Girl]

Therefore, transhumanists are religious? :laugh:

Actually certain rudimentary forms of "transhumanism" have already appeared, and transhumanism does not require any kind of faith, since no-one is saying that the future would necessarily be a certain way, only that it is logically and scientifically possible.

[Queercommie Girl]

fuck Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins may have used some unfounded idealistic concepts like "memes" in his theory. But rational idealism stills objectively beats the superstitious idealism of almost all forms of religious belief.

[danyboy27]

i dont agree with all the stuff dawkins say, but overall, i agree to a certain degree with his theory of meme.

Superstition, idea, principles of sciences, they are all meme in the sense that, from person to person, an idea evolve and can survive or temporary die beccause of the condition in wich they are.

some idea can coexist while other are in complete opposition, certain situation favor the creation and propagation of certain idea, other idea will be shunned or burried, to be dug up later if more favorable condition emerge for that.

[anticap]

A religion is a cult that has stood the test of time.