What is Religion?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The simplest explanation I could find is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Notice that it says "a superhuman controlling power" so that covers a very broad range. But I don't think that's what religion is at its fundamental level. I think religion leads a person to that behavior but I don't think that captures the religious experience entirely or properly.

Based on the religious people I've observed religion is more of an emotional experience than anything else, so I think religion has a very strong and foundational emotional component. In another thread I stated that a religious person experiences an emotion and mistakenly believes they have made an observation. This to me is the religious experience and defines what religion actually is for an individual.

Many of us here were raised in religious environments. Many of us actually experienced religion as I've just defined it. But many of us were simply miming those around us and following instructions. This is not really religion to me. Those of us who learned religious behavior by wrote and dictum were never religious. We never had that emotional, revelatory experience as a foundation. In short we never experienced religion.

 

[ruby sparks]

The 'supernatural' part can actually be stripped out. I'm not sure it makes it a better definition, in fact I don't think it does, because I can't think of a religion that doesn't involve the supernatural in some way. The word 'metaphysical' sometimes gets used more or less in place of 'supernatural'.

And then there's looser definitions. Football is my religion, in a loose sense.

Imo, atheism can be a religion, or perhaps better to say that a religion can be atheist, but I wouldn't start much of a fight with someone who said the former.

"Organised superstitions' or 'superstitions plus churches' are two that I think cover a lot of how religion manifests.

I agree with you that at the individual level it's basically a mental experience, with quite a bit of the emotional side of thinking involved.

And I agree that if you never really believed, then you probably weren't fully religious. I learned a lot of the stuff by rote as well, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I never believed it, because I can't actually remember whether or not, when I was very little and very impressionable, I did take some of it on board as full beliefs. I did partly believe, or at least I wasn't sure one way or the other, for a lot of my young adulthood. I only started calling myself an atheist about 20 years ago, when I was in my late 30's.

 

[skepticalbip]

What is Religion?

A firm belief that the absurd is reasonable, the impossible is common, and that believing makes it so.

 

[rousseau]

A cultural system with the aim of transcending human suffering and limitations is the best way to generalize it I think.

But it can get fuzzy depending on what angle you're looking at it from.

 

[DBT]

What is Religion?

A firm belief that the absurd is reasonable, the impossible is common, and that believing makes it so.

Perfect. Can't get better a definition than that.

 

[couch_sloth]

A cultural system with the aim of transcending human suffering and limitations is the best way to generalize it I think.

But it can get fuzzy depending on what angle you're looking at it from.

I would say that this possibly applies to the elite within a religion but not necessarily to the rank and file. And many religions have a long history of causing a lot of human suffering to weaker non-believing neighbors.

 

[southernhybrid]

Religion doesn't need any supernatural elements according to the IRS. The IRS considers Secular Humanism to be a religion and it gets the same tax breaks as any other religion. I learned this when I was treasurer of the now defunct Humanists of Georgia. And, according to some things I've read, some of the ancient religions had no gods. Maybe a religion is just a set of beliefs held by a group of people, that may or may not include gods or supernatural elements.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Religion doesn't need any supernatural elements according to the IRS. The IRS considers Secular Humanism to be a religion and it gets the same tax breaks as any other religion. I learned this when I was treasurer of the now defunct Humanists of Georgia. And, according to some things I've read, some of the ancient religions had no gods. Maybe a religion is just a set of beliefs held by a group of people, that may or may not include gods or supernatural elements.

At one time religion seemed nothing more to me than superstition practiced at the group level. It is certainly that, but I cannot discount the many observations I've made of religious persons who are attempting to communicate to me the veracity of their religious experience. Those experiences are all emotional, even if they're recounting some religious tale and how wonderful it is. The experience does not contain a rational component, it simply made or makes them feel good.

The fact that the IRS sees Humanism as religious has simply to do with law and separation, otherwise government would be favoring religion over non religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What is Religion?

A firm belief that the absurd is reasonable, the impossible is common, and that believing makes it so.

Perfect. Can't get better a definition than that.

But how does that happen if not by emotion alone. Is it rational to think there is an invisible thing living in the sky watching how we use our sex organs? No, that's an emotional experience. It really doesn't rain 725 feet everyday for almost six weeks. That isn't a rational belief to hold. The absurd only becomes reasonable to believe when the emotions are involved.

 

[ruby sparks]

But how does that happen if not by emotion alone. Is it rational to think there is an invisible thing living in the sky watching how we use our sex organs? No, that's an emotional experience. It really doesn't rain 725 feet everyday for almost six weeks. That isn't a rational belief to hold. The absurd only becomes reasonable to believe when the emotions are involved.

Whilst I agree with you up to a point, I don't think we can put thinking into two neat pigeon holes, one labelled emotional' and the other 'rational'. Well, we might be able to do it for machines and say that they have zero emotional content to their 'thinking' processes (assuming the human programmer's emotions haven't entered into the situation and as such are embedded in it and manifest it indirectly) but not, I think, for humans (or human machines if you like).

Superstitions can be considered to be rational, even if wrong, because they are often attempted, reasoned explanations for observed phenomena. God, in particular, is an explanation for observed phenomena, just not a very good one, in my opinion, or perhaps by any reasonable analysis of what appear to be the facts. 'Magic' is another explanation for stuff.

I'm not saying there's not in general more emotion involved with religion as compared to, say, science. But if we are talking about 'everyday thinking' then I think it's almost always a blend of the two, if they are even completely separate, which I'm not sure they are, though they're useful categories.

 

[rousseau]

A cultural system with the aim of transcending human suffering and limitations is the best way to generalize it I think.

But it can get fuzzy depending on what angle you're looking at it from.

I would say that this possibly applies to the elite within a religion but not necessarily to the rank and file. And many religions have a long history of causing a lot of human suffering to weaker non-believing neighbors.

I'm talking purely the why. That is, why does religion exist in human cultures, and why do people adhere to them. That's not a claim that they actually transcend human suffering, but rather that this is usually people's aim when they follow any particular religion.

If you want to tie together the atheistic religions of the East, Abrahamic, animist, poly-theistic - the common thread is that they're all aimed at influencing human suffering, whether in real terms or by assuaging cognitive dissonance.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you want to tie together the atheistic religions of the East, Abrahamic, animist, poly-theistic - the common thread is that they're all aimed at influencing human suffering, whether in real terms or by assuaging cognitive dissonance.

I think that alleviating human suffering is a big part of what religion and may indeed be part of every religion (I'd say it seems likely).

Imo, that feature could go at or near the top of a list of features that are arranged in descending order of importance or relevance to religion. And I wouldn't be shy of saying the alleviation is real, even allowing for cognitive dissonance, which I sometimes think is a bit overstated by atheists referring to the religious (perhaps because we find it so incredible that they believe what they do).

 

[Treedbear]

A cultural system with the aim of transcending human suffering and limitations is the best way to generalize it I think.

But it can get fuzzy depending on what angle you're looking at it from.

I would say that this possibly applies to the elite within a religion but not necessarily to the rank and file. And many religions have a long history of causing a lot of human suffering to weaker non-believing neighbors.

I'm talking purely the why. That is, why does religion exist in human cultures, and why do people adhere to them. That's not a claim that they actually transcend human suffering, but rather that this is usually people's aim when they follow any particular religion.

If you want to tie together the atheistic religions of the East, Abrahamic, animist, poly-theistic - the common thread is that they're all aimed at influencing human suffering, whether in real terms or by assuaging cognitive dissonance.

Maybe this is what John Lennon was getting at when he sang "God is a concept by which we measure our pain."

 

[abaddon]

If you want to tie together the atheistic religions of the East, Abrahamic, animist, poly-theistic - the common thread is that they're all aimed at influencing human suffering, whether in real terms or by assuaging cognitive dissonance.

More broadly they relate the individual (or "the people" as a society) to the cosmos.

Zen does this in its non-anthropomorphic way by training a person to re-identify what their self is so they may feel wonder at all experience -- which necessarily eases dissatisfaction with experience (or "suffering").

The common thread in religions is relating the self or tribe to the cosmos. Irt suffering, the way to heal it in many religion is "getting right" with the spirits or gods or God. And it's 'going with the flow' in more unitive conceptions of 'cosmos'.

Religion is not just a set of tenets you have to hold, but practices that relate "the people" to their surrounds. Why, what and how questions all come up and are answered. The most fundamental question is how to survive. The answer is: attain order, don't be out of sorts with nature. In the most anthropomorphic, dualistic conceptions, that involves a relation with The Other (all that is more powerful than you, which is everything). With things framed like that, you must keep the spirits or The Spirit happy. After all, nature's hostile. If it's moody, then it's a good idea to keep the spirits that control it in a good mood.

So religion is about relating well. It's about keeping order so chaos doesn't take over. Suffering's a form of chaos, so it's one of the things religion addresses. I think the reason it seems primary to you is because you're thinking of moderns who seek out religion or spirituality to deal with existential malaise. Which makes great sense that people do that, since secular society is a great stinking turd. Life without some ecstasy in it (opportunities to get out of one's self and relate to or unite with something bigger) is utterly stupid.

 

[rousseau]

So religion is about relating well. It's about keeping order so chaos doesn't take over. Suffering's a form of chaos, so it's one of the things religion addresses. I think the reason it seems primary to you is because you're thinking of moderns who seek out religion or spirituality to deal with existential malaise. Which makes great sense that people do that, since secular society is a great stinking turd. Life without some ecstasy in it (opportunities to get out of one's self and relate to or unite with something bigger) is utterly stupid.

A lack of order is almost central to human suffering, no? I don't disagree, but I think both suffering / order are tightly related concepts. The scary thought for most of us is that this is all random, arbitrary, and that we have no control over our fate. So yes, I'd agree that we all crave order, but I'd add that belief in that order is usually either assuaging some scary psychological dissonance which would otherwise make life unbearable, saying 'this bad shit that happened to you is ok because [x]', or literally an attempt to affect some material outcome so I don't, e.g. starve or get killed by something.

I'd be hesitant to call religion strictly about some kind of transcendence and relation to the cosmos, primarily because for it to be a part of our culture it has to be an evolutionary adaptation - that is the psychological conditions that give rise to it, and the ensuing systems, have to be adaptive. So religions themselves are actually kind of just.. by-products of human thought, and should be shaped in a way that leads to more fertility (probably via undue optimism, mostly). There is a connection with the cosmos/order there, imo, although where those beliefs exist they're usually aimed at the material conditions of a person's life - which is where suffering comes in.

 

[Treedbear]

...
So religion is about relating well. It's about keeping order so chaos doesn't take over. Suffering's a form of chaos, so it's one of the things religion addresses. I think the reason it seems primary to you is because you're thinking of moderns who seek out religion or spirituality to deal with existential malaise. Which makes great sense that people do that, since secular society is a great stinking turd. Life without some ecstasy in it (opportunities to get out of one's self and relate to or unite with something bigger) is utterly stupid.

If I'm quoting Lennon I might as well quote Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added):

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

(my bolding)

 

[southernhybrid]

Religion doesn't need any supernatural elements according to the IRS. The IRS considers Secular Humanism to be a religion and it gets the same tax breaks as any other religion. I learned this when I was treasurer of the now defunct Humanists of Georgia. And, according to some things I've read, some of the ancient religions had no gods. Maybe a religion is just a set of beliefs held by a group of people, that may or may not include gods or supernatural elements.

At one time religion seemed nothing more to me than superstition practiced at the group level. It is certainly that, but I cannot discount the many observations I've made of religious persons who are attempting to communicate to me the veracity of their religious experience. Those experiences are all emotional, even if they're recounting some religious tale and how wonderful it is. The experience does not contain a rational component, it simply made or makes them feel good.

The fact that the IRS sees Humanism as religious has simply to do with law and separation, otherwise government would be favoring religion over non religion.

True, but humanists do have a set of very idealistic beliefs or principles and if there are enough of them, they enjoy socializing together. I always referred to myself as a cherry picking humanist, because while I do love the philosophy of humanism, I find it to be as unrealistic as any religion that holds supernatural beliefs. And, then there are the UUs. You can be an atheist UU. As long as you hold very liberal beliefs, you can claim any religion and still be part of a UU fellowship. I don't think that religion necessarily has to include supernatural elements.

What about the Atlanta Freethought Society? They own an old church building. They meet at least once a month and listen to lectures. They collect money to support their organization. I used to be a member. It sort of reminded me of the things that I might like about religion, but without the nuttiest beliefs. Maybe secular religion is what is needed as the more irrational aspects of religion fade away. People like being part of a group, supporting a cause, doing charity work etc. Religion currently is a big part of those things, at least where I live. I'm not making any claims, just speculating as what might become religion in the future. Emotional experiences are nice highs if done for positive reason.

 

[ruby sparks]

..... just speculating as what might become religion in the future.

It has just occurred to me to say that religion is a bit like a chicken. You can cut its head (ie god) off and it can still run around for quite a while (up to two and a half years in the famous case of Mike the Chicken). In fact, what I need for my analogy is something that just lives forever after its head is cut off. Because I think there'll always be religion in some shape or form. Well, as long as there are beings like humans to have it I mean.

It could dwindle (continue to dwindle) and become unusual. It could be replaced by 'spirituality' or some other watered-down or pick 'n mix version of itself. Both of those are already strong trends in many if not most places.

One thing that slightly worries me about climate change is that if the s**t really starts hitting the fan because of that, and because of the consequences (wars, shortages, poverty, disease...) I think organised religion is going to make a storming comeback. We humans haven't really changed, underneath, in the relatively short time religion has been in decline. There's parts of our psychological make up just waiting to rise from the ashes. Which might take us back in the direction of rousseau's point about alleviating suffering. Existential angst is gonna seem like a very 1st world problem if there's actual, widespread plague.

 

[abaddon]

So religion is about relating well. It's about keeping order so chaos doesn't take over. Suffering's a form of chaos, so it's one of the things religion addresses. I think the reason it seems primary to you is because you're thinking of moderns who seek out religion or spirituality to deal with existential malaise. Which makes great sense that people do that, since secular society is a great stinking turd. Life without some ecstasy in it (opportunities to get out of one's self and relate to or unite with something bigger) is utterly stupid.

A lack of order is almost central to human suffering, no? I don't disagree, but I think both suffering / order are tightly related concepts. The scary thought for most of us is that this is all random, arbitrary, and that we have no control over our fate. So yes, I'd agree that we all crave order, but I'd add that belief in that order is usually either assuaging some scary psychological dissonance which would otherwise make life unbearable, saying 'this bad shit that happened to you is ok because [x]', or literally an attempt to affect some material outcome so I don't, e.g. starve or get killed by something.

I'd be hesitant to call religion strictly about some kind of transcendence and relation to the cosmos, primarily because for it to be a part of our culture it has to be an evolutionary adaptation - that is the psychological conditions that give rise to it, and the ensuing systems, have to be adaptive. So religions themselves are actually kind of just.. by-products of human thought, and should be shaped in a way that leads to more fertility (probably via undue optimism, mostly). There is a connection with the cosmos/order there, imo, although where those beliefs exist they're usually aimed at the material conditions of a person's life - which is where suffering comes in.

Maybe "relate to the cosmos" sounds too abstract and you'd prefer more specific material causes. But it comes to the same thing. Would saying "society" or "environment" instead of "cosmos" make it seem less abstract?

You either relate well or the tribe starves. The shaman figures out what offset the balance or you remain sick and maybe die. You either relate well or climate change happens.

Religions start with a tale of the cosmos - their creation story. That's where the rest derives from, down to all the little details about breeding and material conditions. It's why creationists are always on about origins. They feel the whole world and their individual life comes apart if their story about where they came from (and thus who they are and what they exist for) isn't true.

 

[ruby sparks]

..... secular society is a great stinking turd. Life without some ecstasy in it (opportunities to get out of one's self and relate to or unite with something bigger) is utterly stupid.

Could you elaborate. It just seems like two very unusual things to say, especially in sequence.