or gino fli fe

There are all sorts of conflicting definitions in dictionaries and law: some assert that a religion must be centered around supernatural being; some claim that a religion is simply a doctrine of beliefs and values. I'm curious to know how you, specifically, define religion. Must it be theocentric? Is there any circumstance which the extreme spectrum of atheism can be considered religious?

ELECTROGOD

No, but Christians (and some other theists) like to try and mischaracterize atheists that way when they are losing ground in a discussion or when they are training their followers in their brand of incorrect logic.
The funny thing is when they do this they aren't making a lot of sense as their point is that atheism is bad because we don't believe in "god", but that atheism is also a religion much like their own belief system. They cannot, however, demonstrate that their own religion is anymore real than other religions and their point then becomes "religion is bad...if you don't believe what I do", which is a criticism of religion and not atheism.
If this becomes confusing then you are not alone as this line of thinking doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Osbert

I think the word religion comes from the notion of " relegare or legare " which means "to rope you or tye you down". Same as the literal translation of Yoga (yoke) it is a knot.
In other words you are tied by the loyalty to your superstition, your faith etc..

Some people do say that atheists believe in nothing or absence of God and the having this belief makes them in an oblique way religious. I myself cannot see that, but it is a personal opinion.
Osbert+

Starlock

(blinks) WOW... where did you hear that translation? I learned in college that the etymology was traced back to 'to reconnect.'

Anyway, which definition I use personally depends on the discussion. More often than not I keep the definition extremely broad: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" with faith being "something that is believed especially with strong conviction." True, that includes many things not conventially considerd 'religion' under the umbrella, but that can be appropriate. At least it prevents non-Western faiths from sometimes being alienated by Western-centric definitions of religion (aka, requiring organization, dogma, etc).

dettus

If the term religion doesn't entail belief in the supernatural the term becomes too broad. So broad that almsot anything can be considered a religion, from politics to sports to meetings in an office. Such a broad term is virtually meaningless in any meaningful discussion.

Starlock

That's problematic though, because I bear a system which does not believe in the 'supernatural' per say. Rather, everything so-called 'supernatural' is viewed to be perfectly natural.

seebs

I think a religion ought to be a set of beliefs about cosmology and ontology which provides some kind of approach to answering moral questions. Typically, they include proselytizing, belief that one's own system is superior to others, and supernaturalism.

I have met people whose dogmatic atheism passes every test for "religion" except supernaturalism, and I have met people who, though supernaturalists, struck me as having no real religion. (Say, some of the fringes of the neopagan community, where you have people who don't really believe in any kind of divinity, but believe in magic.)

Alethias

My personal working definition that seems to serve me well is that religion is a system of thought or worldview that centers around worship. Worship in this context is expressed adulation or adoration given as part of a systematic belief system.

And I agree that a belief system doesn't have to embrace the supernatural to be classed a religion. Some forms of Objectivism are a religion by the above definition, with either the writings of Ayn Rand or Ayn Rand herself as the object of veneration. Communism as commonly practiced in the former Soviet Union would also fit the bill, with the object of veneration being the state/government, but neither of these 'religions' have any element of the supernatural in their belief structures.

I guess the main and specific lack that I find in religion that I think worldviews ought to have is reasonable skepticism. Anyone can make mistakes and therefore should be skeptical of their own ideas and beliefs. All beliefs or ideas, foundational or otherwise, should be open to testing for validity. Organized religions normally forbid this type of questioning, of course.

Alethias.

Starlock

Seebs, speaking as a Neopagan, I think there are some of us who do not distinguish between magic and the divine. If you look at them, their basic concepts seem little different at their foundation and perhaps originate from the same mystery.

Alethias, I'm not sure how religion neccessitates lack of skepticism. I think that skepticism is a trait aside from religion entirely (just like being open minded versus closed minded is). Those who are religious pluralists, for example, can be quite skeptical of any absolute truth claims, be they religious or otherwise.

dettus

If communism is a religion then so is capitalism and so is astronomy and so is baseball so is office life and so is driving and so on and so on and so on.

They were talking about this the other day on Point of Inquiry.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=61