There was a weak attempt to start a thread of a similar title, but it turned out to be a thinly-disguised reason to discuss 9/11 conspiracies. However mis-titled it was, there is a viable discussion topic that I think would be interesting and that's defining Religion. I've had the opportunity over the years in both undergraduate and graduate academic pursuits to read many different versions of definitions of religion and I'd like to start a thread that includes some of these and invite others to cite other definitions, discussing what these have in common, where they differ, and what utility they have. Indeed, what would a concise definition of "Religion" need to include in order to have utility in an academic discussion. For instance, there are definitions of religion that exclude Buddhism, or at least Theravada Buddhism, which holds that gods or deities (and worship of them) are unable to provide enlightenment. But there is a core doctrine and dogma that dictates a way of life (i.e. Four Noble Truths; The Eight-Fold Path). So definitions that include deities or supernatural agency seem to exclude Theravada Buddhism. And yet, when we edit definitions in attempt to be inclusive, we open the door to characterizing just about any human endeavor that can be called a "way of life" as a "religion." Baseball or Cricket could then be considered religions. Followers of fad diets, rock-bands, and football teams are then religious. And so on. I'm not convinced this isn't far from the truth, but it creates another problem: how then do we define the religions that include only that characteristic of including deities and supernatural agents? Here are some definitions I've found interesting: There's also an interesting paper titled The Scientific Definition of Religion (PDF), in which the author describes some of the bias and inadequate attempts of Western academia in pinning down Religion. I haven't had the chance to read it fully, but he concludes in part: What are some other definitions of Religion that others have encountered. If you can, please reference the source. If you're positing your own, personal, definition, please say so but state why you think it's more valid than others. I'm interested in how others overcome the problems other definitions have. I, personally, like Daniel Dennett's version above, but I'm not sure what to make of how it excludes many forms of Buddhism. Dennett, however, admits that his definition is only a place to start.
I found the the scientific definition of religion to be very good and I would like to attempt one myself. I would propose that its value is in its simplicity of constraints. RELIGION: A collection of methods for satiating human psychological needs and sharing resources.
I would define religion as communally agreed upon practices of a belief system. I think there is a community aspect to the practice of religion which gives it recognition as such.
Hmm, what sort of (or how do you define a) belief system? Deep Purple are worth paying money to see live, for example?
I would agree that most religions have a community aspect to them; however, I have encountered individuals with "personal" religions.
@Oli: Its already extended to such, is it not? You may have encountered individuals with personal belief systems. What makes it a religion?
I dunno. (Clue: I asked Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) So, by this definition, everyone on Earth has multiple religions. That sounds, um, useful as a definition. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Somewhat nebulous, neh?
Girl Scouts does this. So does joining the NRA or a political party. If we concede that scouting, organized gun owners, and liberal democrats or conservative republicans are religions, how then do we define those religions that are exclusively appeasing or appealing to supernatural agents or involve supernaturalism? Would you include environmentalism or holocaust denialism or global warming activists (both proponents and denialists) in this definition? They have communally agreed upon practices in a set of beliefs. And, again, what then do we do with those religious persons who go the extra step of including supernatural agency? Perhaps we could have two different terms differentiated by capitalization of the first letter: Religion for the supernatural; religion for the non-supernatural.
Like what? What communally agreed practices would you say environmentalists have that reflect their belief system?
Well do they get together to chant like Buddhists? Some music idols seem to generate the ecstasy that religion does, don't they? concert crowd: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They are, by definition surely, a community of sorts. But they don't have a communally agreed set of practices. (Buying a ticket for a gig and/ or listening to the music when at home can't reasonably count.) Unless, unless, I'm a Deep Purple atheist as well!!!
Ha! Is it a communally agreed practice? What about those who don't chant, but go to gigs anyway? What about the fans with, gasp, short hair?
Excellent points. I *think* there are religions out there that don't invoke paranomral / supernatural agents (the church of agnosticism comes to mind), so I am not sure we need to make a special case for those agents in the definition. Also, you are quite correct in that girl scouts, the NRA, and political parties seem to do the same... just like say the Vatican. There are some distinctions that might be useful in refining the definition. Girl scouts, the NRA, and political parties restrict the age range of their "official" members. Additionally, these entities primary focus isn't on psychological-needs satiation. What are your thoughts on the slight definition modification below? Like the original, it doesn't imply membership / age requirements but it does constrain it's usage. RELIGION: A collection of methods exclusively for satiating human psychological needs and sharing resources.