Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

because everybody believes something about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

I don't.

If you count random happen chance as a belief, but only if someone asks me, sure.  But I don't live my life trying to make randomness mean something.

[MrWiggles]

As Penn Juliet once said. Luck is statics taken personally.

[Neruz]

because everybody believes something about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

I don't.

If you count random happen chance as a belief, but only if someone asks me, sure.  But I don't live my life trying to make randomness mean something.

The Universe is something so impossibly beyond my comprehension that i don't waste any time trying to pretend i understand anythng about it.

[Grakelin]

Everybody is a religious person, yes, but you know the context that people use the term in. Colloquially, the question 'are you religious' is a question of a person's faith in a higher being. It isn't even a question of Atheism or Theism, since you can say 'No, not really' and still be a Christian, for example.

I'm using the definition provided in this thread by Neruz. This is also the definition given here.

Since we're using Wikipedia, maybe what we want to use is Nontheism, instead of Atheism, as circumstantial non-belief in a deity?

[Neruz]

That's actually a good link explaining the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, and, perhaps more importantly, the two main types of Atheism.

[dreiche2]

Everybody is a religious person, yes, but you know the context that people use the term in.

That's just not how people use the term, colloquially or not.

I'm using the definition provided in this thread by Neruz. This is also the definition given here.

Neruz' definition as given is just not sufficient. The linked definition actually is, you guys just ignored the rest of the paragraph after the very first snippet:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Yes, the later aspects are somewhat optional in themselves ("esp.", "usually", "often"), but that's just because not all of them have to be true always. You would expect at least some of them to be true for something to qualify as a religion.

There might be borderline cases such as certain forms of Buddhism. But science isn't one of them...

[Siquo]

You are all individuals!

I don't.

 

Religion and belief are again mixed up here, I think Grakelin meant belief, since that word fits his definition better.
Dreiche2: everyone (most people in this thread) already agreed science isn't one of them, but scientism is.

[Neruz]

I'm using the definition provided in this thread by Neruz. This is also the definition given here.

Neruz' definition as given is just not sufficient. The linked definition actually is, you guys just ignored the rest of the paragraph after the very first snippet:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Yes, the later aspects are somewhat optional in themselves ("esp.", "usually", "often"), but that's just because not all of them have to be true always. You would expect at least some of them to be true for something to qualify as a religion.

There might be borderline cases such as certain forms of Buddhism. But science isn't one of them...

You said it yourself, the later aspects are optional. Indeed, the vast majority of religions have some of them true as well, but a small handful lack the later aspects, yet still qualify as religions because the only requirements are the former, that of being a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Also, due to the way the English language works, it's possible that while all Religions are a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, not all sets of beliefs concerning the cause nature and purpose of the universe are Religions.

[dreiche2]

This is really getting silly.

It's a vague term. It doesn't have a strict definition. Those are the things that are usually associated with it. If none are them are present, it's probably not a religion.

Please tell me:

1. If the requirement ("a set of beliefs about...") by itself is sufficient to make something a religion:

Assume I believe string theory to be true. Does that mean I'm a religious person? That I follow the religion of String Theory?

2. If, however, the requirement is necessary, but not sufficient for something to be a religion, as suggested by your second sentence, but the further characteristics are completely optional: Then please tell me how you would ever tell that something that meets the requirement is not a religion.

3. Finally, please give examples of belief systems commonly or scholarly thought of as religions that do not meet any of the other criteria.

Edit: clarification

[Neruz]

Assume I believe string theory to be true. Does that mean I'm a religious person? That I follow the religion of String Theory?

Is String Theory a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? (As far as i am aware, it is not. String Theory might explain the nature of the universe, and perhaps could lead to an answer for the cause of the universe, but no science will ever explain the purpose of the universe.)

2. If, however, the requirement is necessary, but not sufficient for something to be a religion, as suggested by your second sentence, but the further characteristics are completely optional: Then please tell me how you would ever tell that something that meets the requirement is not a religion.

Well, since the only time the classification 'Religion' actually matters is for purposes of law, that's when a bunch of Politicians, and possibly Lawyers and other civil servants, get together and have a debate as to if the set of beliefs qualifies as a Religion or not for tax purposes and soforth.

3. Finally, please give examples of belief systems commonly or scholarly thought of as religions that do not meet any of the other criteria.

I'd need to go find some on the intertubes, and as it is 2am and i am about to go to sleep, that will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm sure there's at least one religion somewhere that lacks superhuman agencies, ritual activities and a moral code.

[dreiche2]

Is String Theory a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? (As far as i am aware, it is not. String Theory might explain the nature of the universe, and perhaps could lead to an answer for the cause of the universe, but no science will ever explain the purpose of the universe.)

Yes, I agree that science shouldn't usually be about "purposes". But I'm not sure if the sentence necessarily has to be read to mean that religion has to address all three of cause, nature and purpose. I can certainly come up with a counter example of a religion that does not address one of these things, either.

2. If, however, the requirement is necessary, but not sufficient for something to be a religion, as suggested by your second sentence, but the further characteristics are completely optional: Then please tell me how you would ever tell that something that meets the requirement is not a religion.

Well, since the only time the classification 'Religion' actually matters is for purposes of law, that's when a bunch of Politicians, and possibly Lawyers and other civil servants, get together and have a debate as to if the set of beliefs qualifies as a Religion or not for tax purposes and soforth.

Well, apparently the definition matters to us, or otherwise we wouldn't have this silly discussion. Actually, it doesn't really matter to me personally what the exact definition is - because there is none - I'm just trying argue against what I perceive as wrong definitions that lead to misunderstandings and wrong conclusions.

3. Finally, please give examples of belief systems commonly or scholarly thought of as religions that do not meet any of the other criteria.

I'd need to go find some on the intertubes, and as it is 2am and i am about to go to sleep, that will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm sure there's at least one religion somewhere that lacks superhuman agencies, ritual activities and a moral code.

I can wait  .

[Il Palazzo]

dreiche2 hits the thread multiple times with his logic and with clarity!
It is bruised!
It is bruised!

The thread cannot be killed this way, it's got to high a DAM_BLOCK(or was it DAMBLOCK?) in it's raws.

[Andir]

The thread cannot be killed this way

What's with the obsession on killing this thread?

[Micro102]

Because for some reason people who don't want to read it feels compelled to 

[Neruz]

Yes, I agree that science shouldn't usually be about "purposes". But I'm not sure if the sentence necessarily has to be read to mean that religion has to address all three of cause, nature and purpose. I can certainly come up with a counter example of a religion that does not address one of these things, either.

I would be most interested in a Religion that does not hit the 'cause, nature and purpose of the universe' part.