Defining religion

[Goldenmane]

Interesting.

But then again, ol' Xenu ain't supposed to be supernatural.

And yeah, that group who thought God existed, but was an evil fuck, still qualify for tax benefits.

But we're still not really any closer to having a meaningful definition for the sake of discussing the subject. I mean, it's obviously a subject. But it's still not defined.

Arrgh! Head hurting.

[Darwinsbulldog]

If atheism is totally based on a lack of evidence of god[s], then it follows that if there were good evidence for god[s], then it would be rational to be theist. So if an atheist is turned into a theist via a change in the weight of evidence, then atheism could not possibly have been a religion.
Religion has the property of linkage disequilibrium with fact.

[Goldenmane]

Interesting, Mr Black.

I was not aware that Secular Humanism, for example, was in any way concerned with ultimate questions, rather than consisting effectively of a shrug of the shoulders and a resolution to get on with things regardless of such questions.

[FSM]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

FSM:
The problem with that is that it isn't terribly rigorous, nor does it really encompass what people use the terrm to refer to - which includes rituals and dogmas and all sorts of other silliness.

I think #2 essentially covers that I think.
If you are talking about other wacky stuff that has nothing to do with god, then it's not really religion, it's "spritual" or whatever.
You essentially can't use the term religion to cover everything as you've noted, so the term is best left to the superhuman/supernatural being thing.

Scientology, for example, or Raelianism, has nothing to do with supernaturalism, being all about fucking aliens. Try telling me they aren't religious in nature.

Well, they are of course in many respects, and they have hijacked the term for obvious reasons.
A better term is of course "cult" I think, but that doesn't wash too well with the sheeple.
Personally, I don't call Scientology a religion.

Dave.

[Goldenmane]

But would you call it a cult?

[Atrax Robustus]

You've had me mulling this over for the last 24 hours Geoff!

As an alternative to the legal definition, the best I can come up with is:

Religion is a groupthink supported by doctrine and dogma derived from:

- interpretations, developed by a centralised corpus of adherents, of actions or words attributed to a charismatic individual; and

- the promise of exclusive right to intangible benefits for adherents, which are not available or must be denied to members of outgroups.

[Xeno]

Some thoughts meandering around this subject.

I very much like this:

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog

Religion has the property of linkage disequilibrium with fact.

with the proviso that religion involves also some observance, practice or ritual related to that which is not fact. It also tends to be authoritarian in nature and may involve passionate adherence. People who might, for example, become passionate about a game of bowls or AFL or some such, exhibit religious behaviour when their passion starts to influence meaningful areas of their life beyond the reach of reality, or impose on other facts.

I am recollecting a term used of people "No need to get religious about it." It is the set of behaviours normally the subject of such comment.

Perhaps we should just take the Berkeley definition of a cult and reduce the number of indicators needed to pass the test.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Xeno

Some thoughts meandering around this subject.

I very much like this:

with the proviso that religion involves also some observance, practice or ritual related to that which is not fact. It also tends to be authoritarian in nature and may involve passionate adherence. People who might, for example, become passionate about a game of bowls or AFL or some such, exhibit religious behaviour when their passion starts to influence meaningful areas of their life beyond the reach of reality, or impose on other facts.

I am recollecting a term used of people "No need to get religious about it." It is the set of behaviours normally the subject of such comment.

Perhaps we should just take the Berkeley definition of a cult and reduce the number of indicators needed to pass the test.

I think some people can definitely be religious about sport, but it is one of those areas where religiousity actually makes sense. Having a fantasy about getting a gold medal at the recent Olympics occasionally leads to the prophesy being realised, because of the absolute faith these talented people have in winning, which gives them the drive to win. I guess "real" religion [with gods and stuff] has the same sort of success.