Counterpoint Counterpoint at the outset: The term theistic religion might suffice. Give me time, I'm sure I'll come up with something better, and probably in the middle of a flame war or something. But, still, why would we define exclusively religion that include only that characteristic of including deities and supernatural agents? In the end, if it meets certain identifying criteria that qualify it as a religion, does it really matter what one idolizes? The only real difference I see is a matter of academic esoterica. That is, one might be able to write a dissertation on the differences between diverse brands of Shi'a, but to most people you'll encounter on any given day, they're all just Muslims. Yes, there is value in understanding the subtle differences, but most days there is theology and then there is religion. In terms of academia, though, theistic religion is nearly as simple as it will get. If you dig far enough, you can establish sectarianism in the Church of Baseball. American League or National? Designated hitter? Three-pitch heat, or four-pitch finesse? Contact, or power? There is a question of where to draw the line. There are perfectly useful reasons for drawing all manner of distinction, but in their most useful context, the general principle is to call things what they are while using as few syllables as possible. Theistic redemptionism, for instance. Premillennial dispensationalism. Hell, according to Clive Barker, the rulers of the world decide what happens by racing frogs. What the hell would we call that? Competitive atheistic ranidism? I mean, two aspects of religion I think are pretty constant are mystery and authority. That there is something out there, greater than us, that has some sort of authority over our obligations. Beyond that, it's hard to establish any strong criteria.
I agree completely on this point; some people view sports the way others view theistic religion. And some are not really interested in the heated debates of either (I raise my hand). Some pantheists (I raise my hand) believe something akin to what Robert Heinlein advocated in Stranger in a Strange Land: that is, that we're all a part of God. What would you call that?
Very interesting question - I can see in his definition why Dennett doesn't like religion. I'm sure how you define religion determines your attitude to 'God' - i.e. supernatural authority figure vs. ultimate unity. Here goes with a definition, that I hope includes Buddhism, but excludes football and Marxism. It's interesting that the demarcation of science from pseudoscience is similarly difficult to define. :scratchin:
Hmm. I don't see anything in his definition that reveals a distaste or dislike for religion. Indeed, in his works, Dennett doesn't appear to show that he "doesn't like religion" but, rather, some aspects of religious dogma. Indeed, Dennett acknowledges the positive aspects of religion in a variety of ways. Both of these characteristics are assumptions, eh? Moreover, one's definition of religion might reveal one's attitude toward multiple gods or gods other than "God," yes? I actually like this definition and find it intriguing. Is it your own or borrowed? If the latter, I'm curious of the source. Or, if you had influences, could you list them here? I would point out, however, that the inclusion of metaphysical ontology might be unnecessary. "Social construct" or "human construct" might be a more inclusive descriptor. Also, not all religions have scriptural texts or even charismatic leaders to which they can be traced. While any social group is going to have leaders of varied charisma, I'm not sure this can be said to be a requirement before a culture can be said to have religion. I'm thinking of many aboriginal religions like those of the Native American tribes. Plains Indians like the Crow or the Sioux have very obvious religious practices and beliefs but I don't think it can be said that a charismatic leader is always required. I suspect that without Black Elk, the Lakota would still have ritual practices to follow. In addition, it could be argued that the religious beliefs of Plains Indians is the progenitor of their religious practices. Indeed, this seems to be the case of many religions that Bellah would classify as "primitive" (not my preferred word choice, by the way, but it serves as a point of reference to Bellah's five stages): they have moral codes which are very centered around co-existing with the "Earth Mother" and being a part of the world from which religion is derived or based. I don't see this demarcation as either nearly as difficult or comparable. Pseudoscience is fake-science; very often the attempt by proponents of an idea to give an air of science to their assertions while they deceive others by using "science-like" words, terms, etc. Pseudoscience starts with a conclusion to which only data that are supportive are used -other data ignored, discarded, or fallaciously rebutted. Religion can make use of pseudoscience (i.e. "creation-science" or "intelligent design") but they aren't themselves pseudoscience (not that you were saying they were).
Can the script be composed of a sci fi novel or 20? If so, I like it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I also greatly enjoyed Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Ofcourse; the problem is that too few people truly understand the scientific method; if you don't properly understand science, you can easily believe that something pseudoscientific is scientific and vice versa.
We can agree so far. Where we would disagree in some cases is who ignores, discards and fallaciously rebuts good data. Not sure what you're saying there. I do believe that a religion, if it is essentially defined as a set of beliefs and follows the scientific method, doesn't have to be pseudoscientific.
Please stay on topic. The topic is religion, not pseudoscience. You are free to start a new thread on that topic in the appropriate forum. Further off-topic posts here will result in official warnings via infractions.
I think Dennett is trying to be fair to Religion, but to me the phrase "supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought" signifies (an) authority figure(s), or projected parent figure(s). This is an infantalising definition of religion. Intelligent theists seek a form of truth - behind/beyond surface appearance. An equivalent would be to say that philosophers or scientists publish books/papers to seek approval from their peers. There may be some truth in it, but it is a misrepresentation of the project. Yes, I meant God or gods... It gets a little cumbersome. The assumption revealed is probably my belief that multiple gods are like multiple aspects of a single truth. I think that is how many Hindus see things. Thank you SW! It's my definition, prompted by your original post but I had to go for a long walk to think about it! I think it is more than a social construct - it is a belief about reality. OK "atoms" are a social construct, but a scientific realist would argue they were also a reality. Fair point! Perhaps 'oral tradition' could be inserted as well i.e. "oral tradition, scriptural texts or charismatic leaders". Yes, I agree. I was trying to capture that very point (maybe not very well) - that regious beliefs may be the progenitor of practices. Yes, I was comparing the two definitions. It's famously hard to rule in all 'good' science and rule out all 'bad' science. Astrology and the I Ching for instance make predictions, which some people feel are accurate, based on a theory. That's a classical Popperian definition of science. It's similarly hard in this case to rule in all religions, rule out football, and avoid personal bias! LOL!! Why not... I really like Neil Gaiman too. And there's always the books of L.Ron Hubbard! :jason:
