Are Belief in God and Religion the same thing?

[AthenaAwakened]

Can you have one without the other?

 

[DBT]

I guess it depends on how you define 'religion.'

The etymology being;

religion (n.) (Dictionary.com)
c. 1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s. ''


Based on this definition, it appears hard to separate the conviction in the existence of a 'higher power' - a God - from the concept of 'religion.'

 

[abaddon]

Are Belief in God and Religion the same thing? 

Can you have one without the other?

No they are not. Yes you can. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm

Some religions have no creator god in them which is what most mean by "God". Some pagans view their gods as metaphorical, so they don't exist as beings independent of the human imagination.

Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism, some schools of Hinduism, are instances of religions where no particular god is the creator and ruler of the universe. They have beings in them that might be referred to as 'gods' but that might get little or no emphasis. There are atheist Jews, not just the secular ones but some who consider themselves deeply religious but just don't believe in God.

And then there are religious naturalists too, so not even super-naturalism and religion are a complete overlap. It's possible to be 100% naturalist and atheist AND religious too.

 

[DBT]

But isn't the OP question specifically in relation to a belief in God, and not necessarily related to the philosophical aspects of a set of beliefs and practices such as Buddhism?

 

[Underseer]

Can you have one without the other?

Yes.

Depending on how you define "God," Buddhists are theist or atheist because they believe in higher spirits that are kind of on the border between what many would define as "god" or "spirit." I don't think anyone denies that Buddhism is a religion.

Further, many animistic religions qualify as nontheistic religions.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think you can. In fact, were I to guess, I think more people believe in religion than actually believe in god than many would dare admit. Belief in belief, as it were. They think that religion is needed to properly run society and provide us with morality. A lot of those I've found that seem to believe this don't seem to actually believe in god themselves, although they often profess to. They seem to think it vitally important that everyone else does. I find this a very dim view of humanity.

 

[abaddon]

But isn't the OP question specifically in relation to a belief in God, and not necessarily related to the philosophical aspects of a set of beliefs and practices such as Buddhism?

There are comments on both Jewish atheism and Christian atheism at the link I gave. It’s a short read, but a fairly good summary of what I’m guessing the OP’s asking about.

Im not sure why there’d be a divide between the religion and “the philosophical aspects” of Buddhism. Is an atheist monk devoutly practicing his religion because he believes its philosophy (that to manage suffering one must mind his own mind utilizing just such practices) a religious Buddhist or a philosophical Buddhist?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't his what deism falls under?

Can't deism be a creator, where religion is dogma?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I do not believe in god

I do not believe in the existence of things outside of the natural world

I go to church every Sunday

I pray everyday

So, I do believe you can have religion (or devotion if you prefer) and not have a god.

And thank god you can.

 

[ronburgundy]

Only by making the terms religion and God so vague as to be largely meaningless, can they be separated.

There is no such thing as a Christian atheist, unless at least one of those words is stripped of its common usage meaning. Also, there is plenty of argument that Taoism, Buddhism and other non-theistic "religions" are not in fact "religions", unless the term is meant to mean nothing more than a way of thinking or a general orientation toward life, which makes it a word hardly ever worth using since it conveys almost nothing and is more likely to mislead than inform about the thing one is trying to reference.

The online etymology dictionary used historical references to terms and its definition of religion is rife with references to gods, divine powers, worship, etc..

[P]Religion: c. 1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion "piety, devotion; religious community," and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness," in Late Latin "monastic life" (5c.).

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s. [/P]

 

[Underseer]

Isn't his what deism falls under?

Can't deism be a creator, where religion is dogma?

That depends.

Many deists do believe in a god, they just don't any claims about said god beyond "he/she/it created the universe."

 

[abaddon]

Only by making the terms religion and God so vague as to be largely meaningless, can they be separated.

There is no such thing as a Christian atheist, unless at least one of those words is stripped of its common usage meaning. Also, there is plenty of argument that Taoism, Buddhism and other non-theistic "religions" are not in fact "religions", unless the term is meant to mean nothing more than a way of thinking or a general orientation toward life, which makes it a word hardly ever worth using since it conveys almost nothing and is more likely to mislead than inform about the thing one is trying to reference.

The online etymology dictionary used historical references to terms and its definition of religion is rife with references to gods, divine powers, worship, etc..

What if the way of thinking or general orientation toward life isn’t so vague as you make it sound, but is replete with practices, devotions, rites, celebrations, symbols and stories that are very detailed and very specific so that the tradition being practiced can’t be mistaken as Jewish or Buddhist or anything other than Christian... and yet God is not a certainty for them?

Also it might depend on in what way the 'Christian atheist' is atheist. Is a person an atheist who accepts that God is a meaningful metaphor to them, or Christ an exemplar par excellence to emulate, and not externally existing entities? Maybe they believe in Jesus but he was a historical person, or maybe they don't but he's still an ideal model anyway. If the answer to “Do you believe in god?” is “Not in the way you mean it, not as a supernatural anthropomorphic being” then are they an agnostic atheist or a variant of god-believer?

And anyway, just how necessary is Jehovah to Christianity? What if Jehovah seemed kind of antediluvian to the Christian and it was specifically 'the Christ' as an Ideal Model, an exemplar par excellence, that deserved devoted attention?

 

[DBT]

I do not believe in god

I do not believe in the existence of things outside of the natural world

I go to church every Sunday

I pray everyday

So, I do believe you can have religion (or devotion if you prefer) and not have a god.

And thank god you can.

Yes, it is a religion.... but is it your religion? Does that religion exist without someone actually believing in its core teaching; the existence of that believed to be real God?

Would you start such a religion...not believing in the reality of its foundation, the existence of its God?

 

[bigfield]

I do not believe in god

I do not believe in the existence of things outside of the natural world

I go to church every Sunday

I pray everyday

So, I do believe you can have religion (or devotion if you prefer) and not have a god.

And thank god you can.

Poseur!

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I do not believe in god

I do not believe in the existence of things outside of the natural world

I go to church every Sunday

I pray everyday

So, I do believe you can have religion (or devotion if you prefer) and not have a god.

And thank god you can.

Yes, it is a religion.... but is it your religion? Does that religion exist without someone actually believing in its core teaching; the existence of that believed to be real God?

Would you start such a religion...not believing in the reality of its foundation, the existence of its God?

God worship is idolatry and idolatry is a sin.

 

[bilby]

Yes, it is a religion.... but is it your religion? Does that religion exist without someone actually believing in its core teaching; the existence of that believed to be real God?

Would you start such a religion...not believing in the reality of its foundation, the existence of its God?

God worship is idolatry and idolatry is a sin.

Sin is just as fictional as God, or Superman. It's all fiction; Potentially entertaining, but dangerous if taken as directly applicable to reality.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

God worship is idolatry and idolatry is a sin.

Sin is just as fictional as God, or Superman. It's all fiction; Potentially entertaining, but dangerous if taken as directly applicable to reality.

You do know that's word play, right?

 

[bigfield]

Sin is just as fictional as God, or Superman. It's all fiction; Potentially entertaining, but dangerous if taken as directly applicable to reality.

You do know that's word play, right?

You're the one who prays to nobody--how can we tell whether you're serious or not?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You do know that's word play, right?

You're the one who prays to nobody--how can we tell whether you're serious or not?

You don't have to PRAY TO, you can pray about. And as a cultural christian I like the language of church and religion. I know some people here don't but I do. But then again I was raised in a predominately black church with the really good music and some really funny memories.

 

[bilby]

Sin is just as fictional as God, or Superman. It's all fiction; Potentially entertaining, but dangerous if taken as directly applicable to reality.

You do know that's word play, right?

Not at all. If you consider idolatry to be unacceptable, then say so, and (if you care to support your claim) give your reasons. Calling it 'sin' is not a reason; it is an appeal to fiction, and appealing to fiction, (as an alternative to the use of reason) is stupid and dangerous.