or gino fli fe

This is very close to my (tentative) personal definition: any doctrine of beliefs which require the unconditional faith of its adherents. Though the supernatural is often employed, I don't think it needs to have a supernatural basis to be religious. To that end, I could imagine a case where an extreme sect of atheism could be considered religious, provided their assertions were not came to by reason and their adherents are required to accept the tenants of their beliefs without reservation. Suppose there were a group of folks who belief that the Darwinian world, a world which is, let's face it, brutal (99.9% of the species that ever inhabited the earth are extinct), should be applied to human affairs such as foreign policy and charity. Though their belief is centered around (an abusive form of) Darwanism, not a supernatural being, I could easily see how that ficitional (?) cult could be considered the crazy kind of religious (as they should be). For the record: I would not consider the prevailing concept of atheism to be the least bit religious.

Alethias

it is fine to be religious and be skeptical, as long as you dont challenge core or central belief structures of the religion. No religion that I know of is comfortable with that, but non-religious belief structures allow it.

Notice that I didnt make it a defining characteristic of my definition? I think it is a trait that religions commonly share, but not necessarily a defining trait.

Alethias.

Minnesota Joe

That is a world view.

That sounds more like the religion.

That is no excuse for engaging in rhetorical trickery.

I'm with Alethias: religion is service/worhsip of god or the supernatural.

seebs

The accusation of rhetorical trickery strikes me as inappropriate. I disagree with you about a word; that doesn't mean either of us is engaging in "trickery".

This word has a number of mostly-overlapping connotations. But, for instance, is Buddhism a "religion"? No worship, no service, but some supernaturalism.

What about the various other -isms out there? I tend to view this as a question of topic, rather than what's said. Claims about God are religious in nature.

Now, you may rightly point out that atheists do not necessarily make claims about God, and thus, that atheists are not necessarily religious. I'd agree.

But once you have people making claims about the subject matter of religion, proselytizing for their position, and exercising some amount of dogmatism about what beliefs or behaviors are acceptable for people holding those beliefs, I call it a religion.

Minnesota Joe

It's rhetorical trickery worthy of a Fundy.

I don't really care where Buddhism falls (not my problem), but your scrambling for Buddhism--which is unrelated to your definition involving dogmatism and proselytizing--just shows where your motivations lie.

The working definition agrees with the dictionary; I'll judge stipulative ones as I encounter them.

Only because you want to borrow the bad connotations that the word religion has gained because of religious people and apply it equivocally to those you don't like. Why not speak clearly and call them dogmatic? Or proselytizers? Or dogmatic proselytizers? Rhetorical trickery.

ziffel

religion = filling in gaps in knowledge with god-magic.

seebs

For it to be trickery, it'd have to be intended to deceive, rather than intended to use words more accurately.

Unless you're telepathic, you do not know my motivations.

Most people consider Buddhism a religion, but Buddhism doesn't involve anything I'd call "worship of" or "service to" the supernatural. Arguably, some Buddhists aren't really even supernaturalists.

Buddhism is called a religion, anyway.

My point is simply that I don't think the simple definition suggested matches reality.

Whose working definition? Which dictionary?

Languages are full of ambiguous words and conflicting senses of usage. The word "religion" is one of the words that has a particularly broad range of senses.

Says one dictionary:
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

It seems to me that, once again, you are making claims you can't possibly support, unless you do indeed have working telepathy.

Since your description is false, I would guess you have non-working telepathy.

Honestly, I don't necessarily care about the "good" or "bad" connotations. I certainly believe that some things ought to be proselytized and promoted, so merely arguing that a system which teaches this ought to be considered "a religion" is not necessarily an attempt to attack it.

I know some very active secular humanists that I would describe as religious. They have strong beliefs which they actively promote. Some of them are even active in a church, complete with church leadership, youth groups, and everything.

Looks like religion to me.

Or possibly a desire for precision in use of language, but a different set of connotations than you have? I know it seems wacky to imagine that someone posting to the internet might be trying to describe a position without dishonest intent, but it does happen sometimes!

Trying to determine whether or not a belief system is supernaturalist-enough to be a "religion" strikes me as a waste of time. If someone's got an approach to answering the traditional religious questions, and promotes it actively, I don't much care whether he calls it "natural" or not; it walks like a religion, it quacks like a religion, I'm gonna treat it like a religion.

The term is useful in a number of ways; for instance, it has predictive power in guessing how people will react to perceived attacks on their beliefs.

show_no_mercy

Religion = superstition + lots o' people believe it.

Minnesota Joe

You may just instinctively recognize its rhetorical advantage rather than be intending to deceive. The "trick" is in using the word equivocally when you know the common usage will be assumed.

I don't need to be telepathic to make a strong inference about your motivations. Besides, if you exchange enough with someone, they just might slip up.

Buddhism is called a religion for reasons unrelated to it being full of dogmatic proselytizers. Obviously, something essential to religion is always implicit in my working definition and the reason that Buddhism is called a religion: supernaturalism. Whether Buddhism is or is not supernaturalism would be relevant to what we called it (a religion or not), but that is for a different thread.

But you acknowledge that Buddhism is a religion and you acknowledge the reasons it is called such. This suggests that your own definition is "biting the bullet" and that you know it. By doing so you betray that your motivations for shifting the definition to something far broader and more negative aren't pure.

It's funny how the one you settle on allows you to condemn atheists for being "religious".

Almost all dictionaries have as their primary definition something close to my working definition. This is not just common usage, but historical usage as well--with all the stigma attached.

Language itself is an ambiguous tool; since I am accusing you of a rhetorical trick, I hardly disagree. But the word religion is not and has not been any more ambiguous than is usual.

I assume that 4--way down that list!--is the one you want to stress, because none of the others even come close to your definition. But number 4 is not your definition.

First, look at 1 to 3. They all capture something that has long been held to be essential to religion: worship, supernaturalism, spirituality, etc.

Now--and this is important--look at 4 and consider how neutral and non-negative it is. Zeal means eagerness and ardent interest. Conscientious devotion isn't negative. Nowhere is dogma or proselytizing mentioned. This is a very common number 4 too, although some dictionaries change "devotion" to faith and make it just a tad bit more supernatural.

Next look at your definition and tell me if it is as charitable as 4:

We see a massive shift from a positive to a negative definition. Rhetorical trickery. Come on seebs, we can all tell that you are using those words in a negative fashion here!

(By the way, I like your little viral meme at the end. It sort of dissuades as dogma any talk of what beliefs or behaviors are acceptable for people holding those beliefs. I'd hate to be called dogmatic after all, I had better not talk about it.)

To know if my description is false, we would have to have working telepathy. It seems you agree with this.

You obviously care about the "good" and "bad" connotations as you clearly took a positive definition and made it primarily negative.

Your confusion doesn't make it so.

As I've demonstrated, it isn't precise at all, but an emotional appeal. A position with honest intent is possible on the internet, but it isn't your position here.

What "strikes you" as a waste of time isn't necessarily a waste of time. We constantly have to figure out how to categorize things for other definitions, I don't know why religion receives special treatment here.

And to talk about religion quacking like a duck is to beg the question by assuming it quacks to your pet definition of religion. But that definition is the very thing in question here!

Do you mean it has incited a response from me and tends to do so from others when it is (mis)applied to them? Or do you mean that you have predicted that I would react this way because I'm a dogmatic proselytizer? Could it be that I react to an unjust label? Either way, that type of thinking and behavior is exactly what I wanted to establish--more evidence--so I consider the point made. See? No need for telepathy.

By the way, I thought your first definition more charitable:

But that is a world view, not a religion. I'll admit to a world view, but I have no religion. It cannot apply to an atheist much less a metaphysical naturalist.

seebs

Well, if you know what I'm thinking so well as to contradict my own impressions of what I'm thinking, I don't suppose there's much point in my saying anything! You can just assert I didn't mean it, or I'm making it up, or I have some sinister agenda.

So, uhm. I guess I'll just bow out, and go on thinking that you haven't got any idea at all what I think, believe, or want, and that you're unlikely to develop any such ideas while you're so sure you already know that you won't listen.