What Is A Religion?
	found on New York Review Of Books written by chlim01, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 29 Oct 10:44am
		These longstanding questions have become acute to all of us reeling from recent terrorist attacks, and struggling to comprehend the fanaticism that drove them. We tend to associate religion with humanity's noble side, not with its evil side: Why does religion sometimes preach murder and suicide? "In his review of David Sloan Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, Jared Diamond tackles some tough questions about religion. Consider the nature of religion itself: Can a religion be agnostic, much less atheistic?," writes chlim01. "And how does one account for the depressing historical reality of the religious leading to wars and atrocity? And does being human predispose us toward the mysteries and explanations of religion?"

	"Diamond himself identifies 4 characteristics of religion ('explanation, standardized organization, moral rules of good behavior toward in-groups, and (all too often) rules of bad behavior toward out-groups'); whether this is adequate is up to debate. Also consider the vexing question of what are the essential components of an established religion like Buddhism: is the essence solely its doctrines (and what if the doctrines are inconsistent?), or should one include its rituals, or even the beliefs of its worshippers, even if these contradict its foundational doctrines? Lest some think these questions belong in the Ivory Tower, the challenge of identifying what makes a religion a religion remains pertinent even in this postmodern age. As Toby Lester points out in The Atlantic Monthly, the constant creation and destruction of new religious movements remains unchanged in this day and age, and these are important since ever so often one of these either blossoms into a bona fide religion or descends into atrocity. Consider, for example, the unexpected blossoming of Joseph Smith's tiny cult into respectable Mormonism, and the similarly unanticipated explosive growths of Pentecostalism and the Falungong."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 91 commentsbest: 12 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Can a religion be agnostic, much less atheistic?   by David Flores       at Tue 29 Oct 11:34am score of 2.5 incoherent     Can a religion be agnostic, much less atheistic? Yes, of course. One need only examine the beliefs of many 20th century adherents of Marxism. Marxism provided a holy book: Das Capital A God and Son: Marx and Lennin A doctrine with orthodoxies and schisms: Marxism, Trotskyism, Maoism etc. A teleological vision of history: Dialectical progress An unending stream of saints: Trotsky, Che Guevara (to name the two most famous) A vision of Paradise: The Worker State ...and they were avowed atheists to boot! I believe Bertrand Russell has a quick rundown of this is his book Why I Am Not A Christian. Of course, I guess you could begin arguing the question of whether people who believe all that stuff are truly atheists. But I'd suggest that if you believe that when you die, you trun to dust, and that's the end of you, and the same goes for everyone that ever was and ever will be, then you're pretty much an atheist by just about any definition of the word. And that's pretty much what orthodox Marxists believe, even if you could call the rest of their belief system a religion of sorts. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: beat me to the punch   by gordon shumway       at Tue 29 Oct 11:42am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 1     I agree, and would also that the attitude of Marxists toward non-belivers is also highly similar to fundamentalist religions, but the teleological and eschatological aspects of Marxism are what most make it a religion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by nme!       at Tue 29 Oct 2:45pm score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 1     I think another interesting way of looking at that question is this: Can a system that revolves around a central belief of the non-existence or indeterminate existence of a god(s) be called a religion? Anyway, I've been in the middle of a large Pentecostal church service (several times) and in the middle of a not-as-large Young Communist League meeting. When I closed my eyes, (obviously, the two groups dress very differently) I had a hard time telling the difference. One's "strong with the Lord", and one's "Strong with the cause." They're both annoying. -nme! Virgo: (Aug. 23 - Sept. 22) It's all over but the shouting, but don't worry: It's going to be great shouting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Another religion weighs in on Athiesm.   by Rampant Raven       at Tue 29 Oct 3:23pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 15     When at a Southern Baptist retreat during my childhood one sermon emphasized that atheism should, indeed, be considered a religion. That was mainly an effort to make believers understand that atheists were an organized threat as much as other 'rival religions' were. In spite of my Christian upbringing, I've always been suspicious of the motives of any church, since that kind of influence is so easily abused. Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by jonathanjo       at Wed 30 Oct 9:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     I think another interesting way of looking at that question is this: Can a system that revolves around a central belief of the non-existence or indeterminate existence of a god(s) be called a religion? You theists crack me up. It's amazing to watch how in America and Europe people are so Christian-centered in their thinking that they vehemently critique "religion," when they're specifically critiquing Fertile-Crescent-style theism. Look at Buddhism. Or Taoism or Confucianism. Or some of the more pantheistic flavors of Hinduism. Or some forms of Animism. See comment #4, about an outsider's perspective on Koran Buddhism. Another example of Christian bias in critics of "religion" in the West is the assumption that religion=dogma -- in other words, you are a member of a religion if and only if you believe a particular set of propositions. This is roughly true of Christianity; the central thing the New Testament asks you to do is to accept Christ (and all the related dogma) in your heart. Compare this to, say, Judaism. The main definition of "who is a Jew" is one whose mother is a Jew, or who has been through a conversion. The practice of religious Judaism consists of following the rules -- eating the right foods, praying at the right times, following the Sabbath, filleting your sons, and the like. Though the religious doctrine holds that these rules come from Yahweh, belief doesn't seem to enter into it. (I think the Talmud has God say, "It would be ok if my people forget about me, if they follow my laws.") And again, look at Buddhism. No requirements, really, at all; just a set of practices (like meditation and chanting) recommended to help you reach enlightenment, and if you're really interested in signing up, some helpful rules to follow. No extraneous beliefs necessary. The answer, nme, is yes, belief in an external Supreme Being is one feature of many religions but by no means a requirement for a cultural system to qualify as a 'religion.'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by nme!       at Wed 30 Oct 1:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 74     Funny how you assumed that I was a theist. I was actually looking to see how people view my own set of beliefs. At any rate, you didn't exactly answer the question. Note the difference between "revolves around" in the query, and "by no means a requirement" in the answer. -nme! Virgo: (Aug. 23 - Sept. 22) It's all over but the shouting, but don't worry: It's going to be great shouting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by empathogen       at Tue 29 Oct 4:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I'd suggest that if you believe that when you die, you trun to dust, and that's the end of you, and the same goes for everyone that ever was and ever will be, then you're pretty much an atheist by just about any definition of the word. Gee, that's kinda funny, cuz I always thought that being atheist implied that one believes there is no god, and implies nothing else; the term "atheist" implies nothing about any other spiritual believes. One can be atheist(or agnostic) and have all kinds of spiritual beliefs about souls and afterlives and origins of the universe, if they so choose. They just don't believe(or are uncertain of) the existence of a god, that's the only things these terms mean.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by David Flores       at Tue 29 Oct 8:02pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 35     Gee, that's kinda funny, cuz I always thought that being atheist implied that one believes there is no god, and implies nothing else; the term "atheist" implies nothing about any other spiritual believes. One can be atheist(or agnostic) and have all kinds of spiritual beliefs about souls and afterlives and origins of the universe, if they so choose. They just don't believe(or are uncertain of) the existence of a god, that's the only things these terms mean. You've got to look at my comments within their context, and be careful about reading things into them that I didn't say. For starters, if you believe that everyone that ever was has turned to dust, and everyone that ever will be will also, then clearly you do not believe in an everlasting, immortal God. I said this so that one could maintain that Marxists treat Marx as something akin to a deity (within the structure of their belief system) and at the same time, justifiably consider them to be atheists. Never did I say that lack of belief in a spirit world or afterlife was a necessary condition for atheism. It is merely a sufficient condition. If you don't believe in a spirit world, then you must perforce be an atheist, since the spirit-world is God's realm. Conversely, I suppose one could well believe in a spirit world, and ghosts and faeries and goblins etc. but not believe in a god. I suspect, however, that this is a pretty rare case. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by kindall       at Tue 29 Oct 9:07pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 51     f you believe that everyone that ever was has turned to dust, and everyone that ever will be will also, then clearly you do not believe in an everlasting, immortal God. There's no logical contradiction between believing in an immortal god and believing that we are not immortal ourselves. Maybe this god created us this way. It's not the Judeo-Christian conception of God, naturally, but it's certainly not inconsistent. I'm not incoherent, you're just dumb.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by David Flores       at Wed 30 Oct 4:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 54     There's no logical contradiction between believing in an immortal god and believing that we are not immortal ourselves. When I say "everyone" I mean the word to include any god figure also. That's what I mean by saying that you can't believe that everyone who ever was or ever shall be has or will turn to dust, and simultaneously believe in an immortal god. Your God, if you believe in him, might not be human, but he is someone. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by evilpuppetmaster       at Tue 29 Oct 7:04pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 1     stretching the metaphor just a little, no? if marxism can be considered a religion by that definition then maybe the definition needs some amendment. i agree marxism is a belief system, but then so is the 'scientific method'. everything you 'know' is in fact just what you believe. nothing can be proven true, only false. so if believing = religion then we're all fanatics. i think that a better definition would include some element of the supernatural or spiritual. -- The real father of Liz Hurley's baby --   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by David Flores       at Tue 29 Oct 8:14pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 46     i agree marxism is a belief system, but then so is the 'scientific method'. The difference is that the scientific method is not beholden to a "founder" or to personalities in the same way that religions are. Nor does the scientific method promise some sort of ultimate salvation, an "end of history" as it were. Really, when one looks at Marxism and compares it to Christianity, one is struck by the degree of syncretism, that is, the degree to which one can effortlessly discover analogous doctrinal elements between them. I'm not sure you could do that very easily with the scientifc method. It's not a question, simply of believing in something very strongly. It's a question of the various structural elements which, combined, form the edifice of one's beliefs. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Your own lying eyes   by gordon shumway       at Wed 30 Oct 12:13am score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 46     "everything you 'know' is in fact just what you believe. nothing can be proven true" Nothing? Here's a true proposition: the earth is round. I've got pictures.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Your own lying eyes   by tdahnsn       at Wed 30 Oct 8:14am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 57     Pictures of artists' conceptions painted on the walls of a soundstage in Arizona. Round? Round!?! You claim to have tiny space vehicles 'orbiting' the planet at this very moment? This all seems a preposterously expensive movie and PR campain designed to increase public spending on a military-scientific-industrial complex whose only apparent goal is to increase the power and wealth of a few important families. And these Soviets with whom we had a 'Space Race', where are they? Can you prove that's not Iowa? I thought not. Your beliefs are bunk, good sir. All your history is lies. Man was sprung forth from the fertile soil (notice the closeness of that word to soul, hmm?) of Kansas (6 letters? There are 6 letters in the word HEAVEN, too!) in the 1920's and into a technologically stagnant world of dying aliens. All else cannot be true. You are an agent of THEM, confess! Hmm, perhaps the special sugar cubes should be kept in a different container, afterall. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  And what does that prove?   by Seastone       at Wed 30 Oct 8:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 57     Pictures don't prove a thing since they are in fact only two dimensional. To be sure you'll have to go up there and take a look for yourself. Or what?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Your own lying eyes   by Seastone       at Wed 30 Oct 8:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 57     Damn! Didn't look down far enough and ended up saying the same as tdahnsn but in a rather uninteresting way. Thumbs up, tdahnsn!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: Your own lying eyes   by tdahnsn       at Wed 30 Oct 9:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 67     Oh sure, try and lull me into a sense of security with kindness and praise. I've seen that type. Spying, controlling, manipulative agents!!! If you listen carefully, they're everywhere, man! I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to take away the "special" sugar cubes the little orange elves gave me! You can't have them! They're all mine!!! Oh wait, never mind. Thanks! This not sleeping thing I've been doing may not really be such the good plan it seemed at first. I mean, really, on paper it looked great. 24 hours a day, 8 at work, 8 at home, 8 wandering the streets...I mean 8 EXTRA hours, just by giving up sleep. Sure, I'm spending more than I used to on coffee and amphetamines, but man do I get a lot more done. Like this memo I sent my boss that he said he's just pretend never happened. Or stop by the police station to tell them all about my neighbor's plans -- he's an evil genius from North Dakota or maybe Korea -- and they get all uppity, but then it's ok... hmmm...yeah. Ok. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by Adept       at Thu 31 Oct 10:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 52     The difference is that the scientific method is not beholden to a "founder" or to personalities in the same way that religions are. Nor does the scientific method promise some sort of ultimate salvation, an "end of history" as it were. I'm not sure I'd agree with this. The Scientific Method didn't just spring into existence, nor was it cobbled together by philosophers and scientists over several generations. It was created by Francesco Redi. And, there is a definate end point that is logically, if not explicitly, presented. That is, naturally, that the universe is ultimately knowable. That, eventually, using the scientific method, all secrets will be revealed, all mysteries solved and so forth. Fact Checker.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: Your own lying eyes   by Adept       at Thu 31 Oct 10:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 57     Bigfoot is real! I have pictures. Oh, Nessie too. Fact Checker.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by David Flores       at Thu 31 Oct 11:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 92     I'm not sure I'd agree with this. The Scientific Method didn't just spring into existence, nor was it cobbled together by philosophers and scientists over several generations. It was created by Francesco Redi. And you are, like, one of eight guys outside of his home-town of Florence, that knows that fact. I had to surf on over to google before realizing that the was the guy we'd studied about in grade-school who disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Seriously, though, his relative obscurity (compared to practitioners of the method such as Darwin, Newton and Einstein, for instance) pretty much proves my point. It's hard to imagine anybody genuflecting before a statue of Redi (though his contribution to our undestanding of nature is doubtless very significant). And, there is a definate end point that is logically, if not explicitly, presented. That is, naturally, that the universe is ultimately knowable. That, eventually, using the scientific method, all secrets will be revealed, all mysteries solved and so forth. There was a point, shortly after Newton published his Principia that people felt that Nature's mysteries had finally been unlocked, and that all that there was left to do was tidy things up a bit here and there. Now, maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't really get the feeling that scientists these days feel that we will ever really reach a point in our knowledge in which we can feel satisfied that we know all there is to know about the universe. Still, even if you do believe that fans and practitioners of science are guided, in part, by a vision of sopihstic enlightenment, an intellectual end times, as it were, I don't think that by itself would be enough to consider science a religion. It would hold a shared vision of its own progress with religions such as Christianity and quasi-religious ideologies such as Marxism, but little else. Which is not to say that I haven't run accross believers in the perfection of "Science" who hold their views with an almost religious fervor, and show an intolerance of skepticism and dissent thereof which resembles that of the fiercest religious fundamentalists. I most certainly have... but that's a story for another day. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by Adept       at Thu 31 Oct 1:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 94     Well, Decartes is associated with the Scientific Method and, due to his being a "big name," he could also be considered a head figure. All in all, points well taken, but I'm still forced to disagree with your point that science no longer believes in the finality of knowledge. In fact, most physicists still talk about the inevitablity of the GTE (grand theory of everything). Even as recently as 95, when I was taking High School physics, my teacher explaining that the GTE was probably just right around the corner. In fact, ironically enough, I recently read a scientific editorial about the quasi-religious aspects of the search for the GTE. In a nutshell, it said that most of quantum physics seems to demonstrate that - on a fundamental level - things just don't make sense, and that people still cling to the idea of making it all make sense despite all logic. He wrote it better, of course. Fact Checker.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Your own lying eyes   by Katfish       at Thu 31 Oct 2:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 87     he's an evil genius from North Dakota Damn, and here I thought I'd found a niche no one else had claimed yet. You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by oddman       at Tue 29 Oct 9:18pm score of 2.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 1     Hello David,       I will start by saying that I was going to mod you down as incoherent but I decided to respond to some of your arguments and conclusions instead. Thereby, giving you a chance to respond in kind. Also I will quote text from your original post and other posts in this string. Please don't take this opening to be antagonistic I just decided to be upfront about my feelings. "But I'd suggest that if you believe that when you die, you trun to dust, and that's the end of you, and the same goes for everyone that ever was and ever will be, then you're pretty much an atheist by just about any definition of the word. And that's pretty much what orthodox Marxists believe, even if you could call the rest of their belief system a religion of sorts." this is a series of argument statements leading to a conclusion, the conclusion being that you are an atheist if you believe you turn to dust when you die (etc..) This conclusion of yours is not set in any context, despite what you may think, if it was the context would be argued for in the supporting statements. Second it is a false conclusion, Spinoza was certainly not an atheist but he did in fact believe the arguments that you propose, granted his idea of G-d is weird. But Democratus held your arguments to be true and he was not an atheist either. I am sure I could find others. Belief in the continuity of the soul is not necessarily related to belief in G-d. Which is something you yourself state. "Never did I say that lack of belief in a spirit world or afterlife was a necessary condition for atheism. It is merely a sufficient condition. If you don't believe in a spirit world, then you must perforce be an atheist, since the spirit-world is God's realm." I am sorry, but I think you misunderstand the notions of necessity and sufficiency. If an argument is sufficient then its conclusion may be true, if it is necessary it's conclusion must be true. You last sentence here, implies necessity not sufficiency. Secondly the spirit world is not necessarily G-ds world, there are many religions and religious views that have G-d(s) existing in the material world in Spinoza G-d is the material world and some african religions held that while G-ds are immaterial they are not in a separate realms from ours. Some religions do not even have a G-d in any "realm" Aristotle certainly did not locate G-d anywhere and its unlikely that Descartes did either. While Bhudists have what might thought of as a spirit world but no G-d to worship. I see your point about Marxism, but your conclusions are hastily drawn and do not follow directly from your arguments. Further I think that a rule of religion is that the people involved must considere themselves as being in a religion, I do not think that this is the common view of most communists.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by David Flores       at Wed 30 Oct 5:51am score of 1 nuanced   in reply to comment 55     I will start by saying that I was going to mod you down as incoherent That would have been unfortunate. this is a series of argument statements leading to a conclusion, the conclusion being that you are an atheist if you believe you turn to dust when you die (etc..) This conclusion of yours is not set in any context, despite what you may think, Sure it is. The context is my examination of Marxist doctrine. Furthermore, the problem that you and others here seem to be having with my explanation is that for some reason when I say the word "everyone" you are not including God under that rubric. Once you do, hewever, you realize that it is logically inconsistent to believe that "everyone dies" and that there is an immortal God. So why is the context of my comments important here? Because I was explicitly drawing a parallel between Karl Marx in Marxist doctrine and God in Christian doctrine. Marx plays the same role as God, but nonetheless, one can hold Marxist beliefs and also be an atheist. I am sorry, but I think you misunderstand the notions of necessity and sufficiency. If an argument is sufficient then its conclusion may be true, if it is necessary it's conclusion must be true. You last sentence here, implies necessity not sufficiency Lack of belief in a spirit world is a sufficient condition for atheism, since without a spirit world there is no God. God being a spiritual being, whetever world he inhabits is the spirit world even if it also happens also to be the material world. Lack of belief in a spirit world is not a necessary condition, as one can believe in a spirit world that would be the world a God would inhabit if he existed but which is inhabited by ghosts and other spiritual beings, but no God. Aristotle certainly did not locate G-d anywhere and its unlikely that Descartes did either. One can get into some very drawn out ontological discussions about what it means for something to "exist" but at the same time, not to "exist anywhere," or, if you prefer, to "exist nowhere." The proposition "God exists, but he exists nowhere" is, IMHO rather problematic, not unlike the statement "Unicorns exist, but they exist nowhere." Examples of things that exist, but at the same time, exist nowhere are things such as prepositions and the number three. One could get into a long and very drawn out ontological discussion as to whether someone who believes that God is "just as real as the number three or a preposition ('to the right of,' for instance)" can properly be called a theist. I for one, am quite happy to hold to the proposition that if you believe that something exists, but that it exists nowhere, then you don't really believe that thing exists. I am happy to believe that my coffee cup is 'to the right of' my keyboard, but I don't believe that the existence of my coffee cup and my keyboard, in a particular arrangement, implies the existence of a third thing. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by eeksypeeksy       at Wed 30 Oct 1:23am score of 2 clever   in reply to comment 1     You gut the meaning of the word "religion" when you remove the supernatural. By your watered-down definition, Americanism, for example, also could be construed a religion: Holy book: US constitution God and son: Washington and Lincoln A doctrine with orthodoxies and schisms: democracy, republicanism, capitalism, etc. A teleological vision of history: free market Saints: Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. A vision of Paradise: The American Dream   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by David Flores       at Wed 30 Oct 6:00am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 58     By your watered-down definition, Americanism, for example, also could be construed a religion: And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. Jingoism and religious fervor are often difficult to distinguish. I would however, disagree with your claim that the "free market" is somehow teleological. It really is no more teleological than evolution by natural selection. That is to say, it is not. Instead I would probably substitute the 19th century doctrine of "manifest destiny" which clearly was a teleological vision of American history and national purpose. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by Spaced       at Wed 30 Oct 9:02am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 1     ...And that's pretty much what orthodox Marxists believe, even if you could call the rest of their belief system a religion of sorts. If Marxism is a religion, then surely Capitalism is one too? Whilst capitalism does not explicitly define belief (or otherwise) in a God, Atheism is not an explicit definition of Marxism, rather, a product of the ideology; I think atheism is assumed, but Marxism is identifiably political. Holy Book? Das Capital. It's a dreadful book - at least the Bible is readable! (But point taken) God and Son? I don't believe Marx can be seen as "God" - he did not seek to endow himself with any godlike powers and all the attributed qualities he did have were a result of Cults of Personality, and indoctrination, rather than ideology. Many argue Engels was at least partly responsible for formulating Marxism, so it's certainly not one man's work. And he certainly isn't perfect by ANY measure - Gods, as a rule, tend to be "perfect" beings - yet even in the Soviet Union under Stalin Marx's life was published fact. And that was a flawed existence - if memory serves some members of his family starved to death as a result of their lack of money. The fact that there are schisms does not, I think, provide ANY evidence of a religious position. Numerous groups, religious and otherwise are split ideologically. Simply look at capitalism, at free-market capitalists, Social Democrats and so on; these differences are no less pronounced, but they are perhaps more difficult to see because we're so familiar with them. Similarly, any movement has it's martyrs; Saints are merely a specific type of martyr for a cause. I think Trotsky would have been offended of any comparison with a Saint (though that is immaterial...) YES, Political groups and Ideologies do have identifiably similar features to religion, especially along the far-left, which can be particularly dogmatic. But does that make them religions? No. I'd say the value of Atheism within Marxism is incidental rather than a fundamental value (it's the effect, not the cause). If you are prepared to widen the definition to political ideologies, Capitalism is just as acceptable; it, too, has many features of religions. I see little point in listing them though as the fact it has points comparable to a religion is not evidence is a religion. A plane has wings, and can fly, and so can a bird, but they are hardly the same things...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by David Flores       at Wed 30 Oct 11:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 68     If Marxism is a religion, then surely Capitalism is one too? Not by itself, no, it's just an economic system (just as Central Planning by itself isn't a religion either) but I think that if you were to examine the beliefs of a group of dogmatic Capitalists such as, say, Ayn Randian's Objectivists, you might well be surprised at the traits that they share with Christians. The reification of Ayn Rand is pretty well evident to anyone who spends a little while listening to and reading them, and they certainly promote Laissez-Faire capitalism as a kind of Utopian ideal much in the same way as Christians promote Heaven and Marxists promote the Worker-State/Dictatorship of the Proletariat. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: Can a religion be agnostic, much less   by Chevalier Mal Fet       at Wed 30 Oct 10:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     I liked your post, but the remark about the bible being readable made me recall biblical passages like Numbers 26: 12 The sons of Simeon after their families: of Nemuel, the family of the Nemuelites: of Jamin, the family of the Jaminites: of Jachin, the family of the Jachinites: 13 Of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites: of Shaul, the family of the Shaulites. 14 These are the families of the Simeonites, twenty and two thousand and two hundred. 15 The children of Gad after their families: of Zephon, the family of the Zephonites: of Haggi, the family of the Haggites: of Shuni, the family of the Shunites: 16 Of Ozni, the family of the Oznites: of Eri, the family of the Erites: 17 Of Arod, the family of the Arodites: of Areli, the family of the Arelites. 18 These are the families of the children of Gad according to those that were numbered of them, forty thousand and five hundred. 19 The sons of Judah were Er and Onan: and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. 20 And the sons of Judah after their families were; of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites: of Pharez, the family of the Pharzites: of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites. 21 And the sons of Pharez were; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites: of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites. 22 These are the families of Judah according to those that were numbered of them, threescore and sixteen thousand and five hundred. 23 Of the sons of Issachar after their families: of Tola, the family of the Tolaites: of Pua, the family of the Punites: 24 Of Jashub, the family of the Jashubites: of Shimron, the family of the Shimronites. 25 These are the families of Issachar according to those that were numbered of them, threescore and four thousand and three hundred. 26 Of the sons of Zebulun after their families: of Sered, the family of the Sardites: of Elon, the family of the Elonites: of Jahleel, the family of the Jahleelites. 27 These are the families of the Zebulunites according to those that were numbered of them, threescore thousand and five hundred. 28 The sons of Joseph after their families were Manasseh and Ephraim. 29 Of the sons of Manasseh: of Machir, the family of the Machirites: and Machir begat Gilead: of Gilead come the family of the Gileadites. 30 These are the sons of Gilead: of Jeezer, the family of the Jeezerites: of Helek, the family of the Helekites: 31 And of Asriel, the family of the Asrielites: and of Shechem, the family of the Shechemites: 32 And of Shemida, the family of the Shemidaites: and of Hepher, the family of the Hepherites. 33 And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 34 These are the families of Manasseh, and those that were numbered of them, fifty and two thousand and seven hundred. 35 These are the sons of Ephraim after their families: of Shuthelah, the family of the Shuthalhites: of Becher, the family of the Bachrites: of Tahan, the family of the Tahanites. 36 And these are the sons of Shuthelah: of Eran, the family of the Eranites. 37 These are the families of the sons of Ephraim according to those that were numbered of them, thirty and two thousand and five hundred. These are the sons of Joseph after their families. 38 The sons of Benjamin after their families: of Bela, the family of the Belaites: of Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites: of Ahiram, the family of the Ahiramites: 39 Of Shupham, the family of the Shuphamites: of Hupham, the family of the Huphamites. 40 And the sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman: of Ard, the family of the Ardites: and of Naaman, the family of the Naamites. 41 These are the sons of Benjamin after their families: and they that were numbered of them were forty and five thousand and six hundred. 42 These are the sons of Dan after their families: of Shuham, the family of the Shuhamites. These are the families of Dan after their families. 43 All the families of the Shuhamites, according to those that were numbered of them, were threescore and four thousand and four hundred. 44 Of the children of Asher after their families: of Jimna, the family of the Jimnites: of Jesui, the family of the Jesuites: of Beriah, the family of the Beriites. 45 Of the sons of Beriah: of Heber, the family of the Heberites: of Malchiel, the family of the Malchielites. 46 And the name of the daughter of Asher was Sarah. 47 These are the families of the sons of Asher according to those that were numbered of them; who were fifty and three thousand and four hundred. 48 Of the sons of Naphtali after their families: of Jahzeel, the family of the Jahzeelites: of Guni, the family of the Gunites: 49 Of Jezer, the family of the Jezerites: of Shillem, the family of the Shillemites. 50 These are the families of Naphtali according to their families: and they that were numbered of t read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Perhaps you mean that   by vurt       at Thu 31 Oct 12:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 78     Communism, not marxism, acquired some characteristics of religion throughout its colorful history. I think this is an important distinction--marxism, coming straight out of the enlightenment tradition, is closer to classical Liberalism than it is to the bizarro Lenin n' Stalin embalming, cult-o' personality-buildin' antics of those wack Russkies. Good point re Ayn Rand--one suspects that most any ideology, taken to its extreme, will acquire "religious" characteristics. And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  More to religion than just group behavior   by madison       at Wed 30 Oct 12:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     It sounds to me like you are starting out with the opinion that Marxism is bad, and that religion is bad, and then trying to equate the two things somehow, because they're both bad. As many people have pointed out, features like gods, holy books, and paradises are not necessary features of religion. The write up asks the question, "What is a religion?", but your post completely ignores the question in favor of making a joke. I don't think Marxism genuinely qualifies as a religion, because it does not offer any of the personal aspects of religion. It is exclusively about organizing people to acquire political power, ostensibly for public benefit. Religion, on the other hand, does seem to provide something of purely personal benefit to its adherents. Religious groups may form to practice together, but once formed these groups can work together for material goals like political power in the same way Marxists, or Republicans do. Once a religious group becomes a multipurpose group, you'll see a diversity of views within the group, and you'll see new sects, schisms, reform movements, cults, etc. I think the fact that once a group forms it can serve multiple purposes is where a lot of the confusion about what a religion is comes from. If we just look at religion as group behavior and neglect the personal aspects, then the word religion will become useless, because so many of the things that people do, they do in groups.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Congress shall make no law about what?   by wrestler       at Tue 29 Oct 11:43am score of 2.5 interesting     If 'religion' is so hard to define, how do we set the scope of first amendment rights to religious freedom? What is it that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof? If the legal definition of religion is sufficiently broad, Congress has little power. If it is sufficiently narrow, Congress has little limitation. The answer to this question inevitably leads to the only relevant question: why do we seek to protect religion? What is it about religion that deserves special protection? When we figure that out, we can include that special attribute in the legal definition. Here are some possibilities: 1. There is no way to authoritatively determine the 'best' religion, therefore Congress should have no authority to make -- or act on -- such a determination. This is hardly specific to religion. Congress routinely makes choices about the best approaches to things like retirement savings and health care that cannot, by their nature, have authoritative 'best' answers. 2. Religious beliefs form the world views of individuals. A civilization benefits from a rampant diversity and experimentation in world views. Therefore Congress should not be allowed to constrain that diversity. Again, the benefits of diversity are hardly limited to religious world views. Diversity is just as important to secular world views, as well as to diversity in much more specific views, like how much auto safety is sufficient and affordable. 3. Religious issues are highly emotional. Constraints on religious behavior have historically resulted in violent social upheaval. Such violence can largely be avoided by an official policy of religious tolerance. Again, religion is hardly the only the subject on which violent passions are aroused. 4. Religious beliefs are intrinsically personal, and government owes it's citizens a basic human right to privacy in forming and acting on those beliefs. Yet again, the personal nature of religious beliefs is hardly exclusive. Why should religious beliefs be privilaged over financial or health beliefs, etc.? In the end I can find no aspect of 'religion' that deserves a more stringent limitation to government. It seems to me that individual decisions about God should be just as protected as individual decisions about which drugs to take (medically or recreationally), how to invest for ones retirement (including funds now going to Social Security), what is the best nutrition (there should be no official state 'food pyramid'), etc. I read somewhere that many founding fathers argued that there should be no bill of rights, because listing specific constraints on government would imply that other constraints don't exist, or are less important. The fact that 'religion' is so hard to define, and the possible definitions are so un-special, suggests the wisdom of this argument. 'Religion' doesn't have a fixed consensus definition, and religious rights shouldn't be privilaged over any other right that doesn't interfere with someone else's rights. This isn't an argument for less religious protection, it's an argument to elevate many other rights to the same status.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  A small quibble which may put the skids ...   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 29 Oct 11:51am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     ... on your plan to raise up any other rights. What the First Amendment says is that Congress shall make no law "establishing a religion". It does not say anything about protecting a religion or protecting religious practice. The drafters of the First Amendment were largely Theists. Some of them belonged to a denomination but many of them had no firm attachment to a religious order. They were more concerned about the government they were forming doing what you are proposing by elevating one above all (even though, in fairness, you're talking about elevating all to the same level). They were in favor of secular government butting out of that arena entirely by just saying that it was none of the government's business how or what people practiced their belief. In fact, the First Amendment protects the rights of those to not believe, should they decide not to. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: A small quibble which may put the skids ...   by wrestler       at Tue 29 Oct 12:26pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 5     What the First Amendment says is that Congress shall make no law "establishing a religion". It does not say anything about protecting a religion or protecting religious practice. Sure it does: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 'Free exercise thereof' sure sounds to me like 'protecting religious practice.' They were in favor of secular government butting out of that arena entirely by just saying that it was none of the government's business how or what people practiced their belief My argument is that they should butt out of many other arenas entirely, and for the same reasons. Government should no more tell people what they should eat (etc.) than who they should worship.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Who is being protected from what?   by Philosawyer       at Tue 29 Oct 12:09pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 3     "Why do we seek to protect religion? What is it about religion that deserves special protection?" I think you have it partly backwards. The first Amendment is not so much designed to protect religion as it is to protect the people and their religion from a dominant religion. Part of the aim was to avoid a theocracy. If government is permitted to establish an official religion the combination of the powers of the state and a specific religious organization has a tendency to undermine democracy and allow one religion to use the state apparatus to dominate all others. If your religion tells you what is right and wrong and your religion dominates the government, why bother with pesky voting. While you are at it if your religious beliefs encourage a desire to share the word with others so that they also can enjoy everlasting salvation, then who could object to banning all of those other "false" religions. Similar issues can be drawn to why some religions seemed to be used to justify war. In other words we have protections from religion because it often has a tendency to be an anti-democratic force (not all religions but many who would seek to become an official government religion in the first place). Religion is clearly a powerful force in any case. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: Who is being protected from what?   by Airbag       at Wed 30 Oct 7:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     The first Amendment is not so much designed to protect religion as it is to protect the people and their religion from a dominant religion. Part of the aim was to avoid a theocracy. The figure cut but by Cromwell's dictatorship certainly points to what you say. But I think the protection reaches further than warding off such radicalism. The amendment finally puts to an end the dynamics set in motion by the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. It was then that the principle of cuius regio eius religio was established. The USA was the first state to opt out.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Congress shall make no law about what?   by Mimolette       at Tue 29 Oct 3:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     I figure that the freedom of religion granted is really just a way of saying that there can be no 'thought-crime'(although they didn't have that word at the time). Before the founding, there were some rampant problems with 'thought-crime,' the culmination of which is remembered as the Salem witch trials. The founding fathers probably didn't want more of the same in that regard.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Buddhism for me   by gparizot       at Tue 29 Oct 11:47am score of 2.5 interesting     First, of all, I do not pretend to speak for Buddhism, nor do I claim to understand all of its tenets. That out of the way, here goes... My wife, a Korean Buddhist, sometimes asks/forces me to go to the Korean temple here in Houston. As I've said before, I used to think nothing is more boring than going to church. I was wrong. Going to "church" in a language you don't understand is worse. So, why go? Well, the food is good. And the people are nice. And sometimes, just sometimes, I understand what's going on. The thing that always bugged me about Christianity (at least the way I saw it), was that its basic beliefs are "just trust us!". Being of an analytical mind, I could never get my arms around that. Buddhism is different. Believe nothing, believe in yourself, believe in the tooth fairy, it's all good. So, where does this get you? Well, I kinda think most major religions/organized belief systems teach you to be good to one another. Buddhism does that too. It also teaches you to learn for yourself. That's what "enlightenment" is all about. And the idea that nothing is hidden from you - there is no mysterious God you can't know pulling the levers behind the curtains - that I like. While others may find dismay in there being no god, god is what you make it to be. I'm god (lower case, don't want to be too presumptuous). You're god too. That tree is god. Everything is god. So you better treat everything nice. As I said, I'm only casual about Buddhism, but what I see, I respect. My occasional appearances are about as close as I care to come to belonging to an organized religion. People who don't force their beliefs down my throat, treat me with respect, and serve a mean chopchae after the service. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  OT - my experience with foreign language church   by empathogen       at Tue 29 Oct 5:04pm score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 4     I used to think nothing is more boring than going to church. I was wrong. Going to "church" in a language you don't understand is worse My parents are Croatian, so every Sunday of my childhood, my mother would dress me and my siblings up and take us to the Croatian church for mass. In Croatian. I have never had much more than a very, very, (very) basic grasp of the Croatian language. Honestly, though, I didn't mind(though I probably wouldn't have gone if I had the choice). For me, church was the hour and a half a week where I was alone with my thoughts(with musical accompaniment). Actually, now that I think about it, this probably had a lot to do with me questioning and rejecting the religion. What is to most church-going children a constant reinforcement of church-prescribed values, was to me just a familiar ritual of listening to gibberish, and playing along, while I reflected on my thoughts. Who knows what would have become of me if I had actually understood what the hell they were saying? I guess my lack on language skills saved my ass this time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Church in a language you don't understand...   by mrjeff3000       at Wed 30 Oct 9:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     There are those who might disagree. Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum, adveniat regnum tuum, fiat voluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie; et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: Church in a language you don't understand...   by gparizot       at Wed 30 Oct 10:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 71     They chant a lot at Buddhist temples. The Korean one I go to is kind enough to have Romanized texts of the chants. I still don't know what I'm saying, but at least I can follow along. So, after many times of doing this, and getting tired of the nonsense chanting, bowing, squatting, getting up, bowing, chanting (repeat 10,000 times), I asked my wife after the service, "Um, what are we saying in there, anyway?". Her answer - she didn't know!!! That's right, it's nonsense to the Koreans as well. Turns out it's the Hangeul (Korean alphabet) version of the original Sanskrit. Completely blew my mind, and lowered my opinion of Buddhism a couple of notches. I mean, if the philosophy is to "know everything", then why chant in gobbly-gook? I don't buy the response that the chants are soothing, and put you in the right frame of mind. Next service, maybe I'll chant "Klaatu verada, nikto! Klaatu verada, nikto!" And your point is well taken about Catholic mass. "Can't let those great unwashed know what we're saying about them up here!" "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Grass shoe is Buddha   by madison       at Wed 30 Oct 4:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 77     I mean, if the philosophy is to "know everything", then why chant in gobbly-gook? I don't buy the response that the chants are soothing, and put you in the right frame of mind. Next service, maybe I'll chant "Klaatu verada, nikto! Klaatu verada, nikto!" Actually chanting nonsense like "Klaatu verada, nikto!" would work. I suppose falsehoods could work too. It's not the content of the chant that's important, it's the attitude with which you chant.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Chanting in a language you don't understand...   by Katfish       at Thu 31 Oct 3:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 77     In a Wicca class I once took, we were taught a ritual chant that included the syllables "Ye-ho-vo El-o-him". I pointed out that this was, in fact, invoking the name of the Judeo-Christian god we purported not to believe in, and questioned whether it was appropriate. The teacher had evidently never considered this before, but quickly rationalized: "It doesn't matter what the words mean; it's the energy they call forth, which is the same whether you understand them or not." Hmm. Okay. So you're saying that even though we don't believe in that deity's existence, he still exists nonetheless and will come when we inadvertently call him? Which religion are you promoting here, again? I also once had an (American-born, English-speaking) Buddhist coworker, who did a lot of chanting in English. But she'd learned the chants pretty much by rote. In order to explain them, she had to mutter the words verbatim under her breath first, think a moment about what she'd just said, and then paraphrase. Count me in as firmly believing that for words (as opposed to sounds or the repetitious act of chanting) to have any real effect, one must first understand their meaning. You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Chanting in a language you don't understand...   by madison       at Thu 31 Oct 10:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 97     I also once had an (American-born, English-speaking) Buddhist coworker, who did a lot of chanting in English. But she'd learned the chants pretty much by rote. In order to explain them, she had to mutter the words verbatim under her breath first, think a moment about what she'd just said, and then paraphrase. Count me in as firmly believing that for words (as opposed to sounds or the repetitious act of chanting) to have any real effect, one must first understand their meaning. Believing what the chants mean isn't actually that important in Buddhism, because the purpose of the practice is to develop concentration, not to brainwash yourself into believing some creedal statement through constant repetition. In fact it could actually be harmful to concentration if pondering what the chants mean prompts a lot of discursive thought. The sound of the chant is the object of meditation, not the meaning. Concentration is considered to be a very beneficial state of mind in Buddhism, because as the meditator increases his skill in concentrating, the mind becomes more "pliable" and easier to inspect, which leads to insights about the mind.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  predisposition to religion   by Ernest333       at Tue 29 Oct 11:55am score of 1 astute     And does being human predispose us toward the mysteries and explanations of religion?" That there is a tendency in modern humans to subscribe (submit) to an organized religion is obvious. The vast majority of people adopt the religion of the local society they are born into. There seems to be an instinctive desire/need for such a shared structured belief system in the human psyche. The big question is: Why do we have such instinctive leanings? One explanation is that religion is not just a passive product of the human psyche, but has actively played a hand in our mental evolution. One of the most common behaviors historically associated with organized religion has been intolerance of "non-believers". Too often this intolerance manifests itself in the non-believers being, um, removed from the gene pool, so to speak. These pogroms, inquisitions, and other such weeding out of religious non-conformists continued for most of recorded history and presumably pre-historic times too. It's no wonder why we have evolved a predisposition to religion: We've selectively breed ourselves that way. We are, after all, the descendants of the jihadists and crusaders, not the atheists and infidels they slaughtered. government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: predisposition to religion   by Mad Ogger       at Tue 29 Oct 4:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Nah, that can't be right. Religious warfare was invented too recently. Human biology has hardly changed in that time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: predisposition to religion   by hohesC       at Tue 29 Oct 4:52pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 6     i read somwhere (sorry, no link) that some sort of religion is practised in most cultures because of the biological trait of pattern recognition inherent in humans. humans try to find patterns in what happens around them, and whenever something doesn't fit into a pattern, we try to make up a pattern just to satisfy this biological need of ours. religions comes pretty handy when trying to explain strange events, be it solar eclipses or death. since i can't recall where i read that and can't explain this theory further, somebody might help out a little - it sounds pretty interesting. yes. no.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: predisposition to religion   by Katfish       at Wed 30 Oct 9:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     ...religion is practised in most cultures because of the biological trait of pattern recognition inherent in humans. Exactly. I wish I had some mod points left to give you for pointing that out. And I'm sorry I don't know offhand any specific sources explaining it either. One reason the human species is so successful is that our brains are wired to recognize patterns. Without this ability, no discoveries could be made, no inventions invented. Sometimes the pattern proves to be correct ("Ships appear to sink below the horizon, indicating a round surface"); sometimes a lack of understanding leads to a false conclusion ("A big man in a chariot pulls the sun across the sky every day"). Another, closely related, hard-wired human trait is the ability to distinguish among individuals - anyone who's seen Sesame Street knows the fundamental importance placed on knowing "same" and "different". The rare lack of this ability is now a manageable handicap - but at one time, being unable to tell one's own tribe member from a stranger (possible enemy) could be deadly. The third component is humans' tendency to form social groups. As misanthropic as some of us purport to be, we're still very interdependent on one another. Put these together: - Recognition of patterns leading to stories explaining the unknown - Distinguishing between people similar to oneself ("us") and those who appear different ("them") - Gathering in groups of those who are similar (geographical proximity leads to shared experiences as well as likelihood of genetic relation) to reinforce and protect those commonalities ...you've got religion. The nature of the underlying belief (sun chariot; vengeful man in the sky; force that's all around us or no, wait, it's only in some people's blood) is irrelevant. Whether that belief is provable is perhaps even less relevant. It's just what humans do, and we're not likely to stop doing it any time soon. You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  group selection and identity politics   by lopati       at Tue 29 Oct 12:05pm score of 3 scholarly     [xpost] it's interesting to compare and contrast religion and nationalism (and party affiliation :) esp in the current situation! benedict anderson writes thusly: It is probably fair to say that all organized societies in former times depended (in part) for their cohesion on visions of the past which were not too antagonistic to one another. These visions were transmitted by oral tradition, folk poetry, religious teachings, court chronicles, and so forth. What is extremely hard to find in such visions is intense concern about the Future. When nationalism entered the world late in the eighteenth century, however, all this changed fundamentally. The accelerating speed with which social, cultural, economic and political change took hold, motored by the industrial revolution and modern communications systems, made the nation the first political-moral form which based itself firmly on the idea of progress. and in an interview: why isn't there a single democratic society covering the entire globe, or why aren't there 300 million democracies in the world? The answer to this of course, in our time, is nationalism. Which is not about process, and it's not even about rational interests in many cases, but is about collective solidarity and collective imagination. howard bloom wrote some interesting stuff on group selection and global brains as did jesper hoffmeyer on swarm semiotics and more generally biosemiotics :) also going beyond religion and nationalism samuel bowles and herbert gintis recently published a paper on the origins of human cooperation, Central to our explanation will be human cognitive, linguistic, and physical capacities that allow the formulation of general norms of social conduct, the emergence of social institutions regulating this conduct, the psychological capacity to internalize norms, and the basing of group membership on such non- kin characteristics as ethnicity and linguistic behavior, which facilitate highly costly conflicts among groups. while it's also interesting to note its treatment in literature (self-link), like in justin denzel's boy of the painted cave or john gardner's grendel, as well as sam vaknin's explication on the role of the artist. "Why is there something, when there could have been nothing?" it could be there really is nothing! Because everything is attracted to everything else by gravity, that gravity is acting, in effect, as negative energy. Add together the negative gravitational energy in the universe and the positive energy (including all the mass around), and the result is zero. Or so Dr Linde and Dr Vilenkin assert. And observations of the amount and distribution of stuff in the universe do not contradict them. Given that the universe actually consists of nothing at all, explaining its existence becomes rather easier. The separation of the nothing into energy and gravity is a result of the uncertainty principle. it's just that we're not certain of it :D   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  respectable?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 29 Oct 12:08pm score of 0.5 funny     Consider, for example, the unexpected blossoming of Joseph Smith's tiny cult into respectable Mormonism. Perhaps the author confuses size with respectablity. Mormonism has grown in size, there is no doubt, they still believe in magic underwear! You expect me to respect that. I can't keep a straight face whenever I see Orin Hatch on the Senate floor knowing that under his suit, he's wearing these underoos he thinks will protect him from all harm!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Magic underwear   by LostBoyJim       at Tue 29 Oct 12:40pm score of 3 funny   in reply to comment 8     (just mod me down now, I deserve it) As a gay man in Utah 1990-2000, it was always a special challenge to attempt to collect the underwear of young mormon boys. Ah, to be young and in (constant) lust again! LostBoy jim   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Veto   by marduk_kur       at Tue 29 Oct 12:15pm score of 2 brilliant     We tend to associate religion with humanity's noble side, not with its evil side... Sez who? Sad lad, he really couldn't handle starting from scratch on the very first level. But he died the death of a warrior.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: Veto   by curve06       at Tue 29 Oct 2:35pm score of 0.5 obnoxious   in reply to comment 10     No kidding! I tend to associate religion with fear and the inability to face reality (i.e.: x happened because [insert god here] wanted it to). I think people need to consider morality for the sake of morality. If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  eye guess, bill   by ray       at Tue 29 Oct 2:43pm score of 1 funny     What is a religion? 1)A community of persons who agree to profess belief in one or more doctrines designed to create the illusion of strength in order to offset the reality of fear and individual weakness. 2)A hierarchical institution providing a psychological means for an elite to dominate individuals through dogmatic practices and threats of ex-communication (eviction from the community). 3)A pseudo-political construct designed to lend plausibility to a group's, or individual's, self-proclaimed right to rule the masses. 4)A cult with good PR. 5)Mass hysteria hyper-activated by ignorance. 6)Swamp gas ...Oh wait ... Someone should put us out of Dick Cheney's misery.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: eye guess, bill   by mrwarmth       at Tue 29 Oct 2:51pm score of 1 incoherent   in reply to comment 14     Wow, that's a perfect definition of Marxism! -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: eye guess, bill   by ray       at Wed 30 Oct 1:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     I would say Stalinism, rather than Marxism, but that might be picking nits. I do see your point. Someone should put us out of Dick Cheney's misery.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: eye guess, bill   by NH4       at Tue 29 Oct 3:06pm score of 2.5 novel   in reply to comment 14     How else might one define a religion, Ray? 1. A non-chemical anti-depressant; 2. The only effective drug-treatment program; 3. An explanation for some of the weird things that happen to us; 4. An attempt to address silly questions like "Who am I?" or "What am I doing here?" that everyone asks anyway; 5. A source of ideas like "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"; 6. A way to feel ecstasy without purchasing and consuming a hallucinogen; 7. A way to make it easier to deal with the pains and setbacks of daily life; 8. A group of techniques to achieve fakir-like powers ... Oh, wait ...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: eye guess, bill   by zengerkin       at Tue 29 Oct 3:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     1. A non-chemical anti-depressant; Nope, church always depressed the shit outta me 2. The only effective drug-treatment program; Hmm, the only time i felt an even vague affinity for Christianity I was tripping my face off, so probably not... 6. A way to feel ecstasy without purchasing and consuming a hallucinogen; See responses to entries one and two... Congressmen. Think of the House as being the condom that DC wears while it assfucks the nation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: eye guess, bill   by NH4       at Tue 29 Oct 4:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     I have no special animus against psychedelic substances, Zengerkin, having consumed copious quantities thereof a few decades ago. But if "church always depressed" you, either (a) you were going to the wrong one (in my experience, lots of religious groups, spanning a range of Christian and non-Christian belief systems, maintain a strong presence of spirit in their meetings), or (b) you now reject the spiritual implications of some of the experiences you had when you were "tripping [your] face off." If the latter, perhaps you should go back and refresh your recollection.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: eye guess, bill   by zengerkin       at Tue 29 Oct 4:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Well, I'm a preacher's kid, so my relationship to religion is a little problematic. I have tried quite a few religions and a couple cults, too. Same result every time. I have an inherent distrust of any form of group-think, so any organized religion tends to make me itch. As for revisiting my psychedelic salad days, I don't think that hallucinating that you are the living embodiment of the Christ consciousness has anything to do with actually achieving it. So why bother? Congressmen. Think of the House as being the condom that DC wears while it assfucks the nation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: eye guess, bill   by NH4       at Tue 29 Oct 5:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 37     I hear you, Zengerkin. Group-think doesn't appeal much to me either. "[H]allucinating that you are the living embodiment of the Christ consciousness" may not have anything to do with achieving that consciousness, except in that it provides some indication that such consciousness exists and is worthy of being achieved.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Who changed the rules of logic and didn't tell me?   by Katfish       at Wed 30 Oct 9:34am score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 42     Wait...wait. Hallucinating that something exists is an indicator that it actually exists? Explain to me how that's supposed to work. No, don't bother explaining. You won't convince me anyway. You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: Who changed the rules of logic and didn't   by NH4       at Fri 1 Nov 11:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 72     Experiencing a frame of mind or state of consciousness, even if under the influence of a hallucinogenic substance, should be dispositive as to the existence of that frame of mind or state of consciousness, Katfish, even though hallucinating a three-headed dragon clearly has no bearing on the actual physical existence of three-headed dragons. When we talk about a mental state, we're not talking about something physical, tangible, or even objective, are we? But don't worry, I'm not explaining the matter to you, since you have indicated that you aren't open to new thoughts in this area. I'm explaining it to anyone who might have been initially taken in by your rhetorical sleight of hand.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: eye guess, bill   by durstann       at Tue 29 Oct 3:32pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 14     Your definitions of a religion seem designed to paint religion as nothing more than a tool to control people. As an alternate definition, I present the following: A religion is a collection of rituals and symbols. I like this definition because it removes the question of faith, and allows people who believe in (slightly?) different things to still belong to the same religion. When two people practice the same rituals and recognize the same symbols, they are of the same religion. As an example: Catholics go to mass, receive communion, recognize the crucifix, etc... Diamond's definition of religions offer too narrow a scope, and potentially exclude anyone who does not bow down to church authority. To continue to use Catholics as an example, there are many Catholics that think that women should allowed to be priests and that birth control should be used. By Diamond's definition, many people who claim to be Catholic would not be able to make such claims since their views on world matters don't coincide with the papal view. I do however agree with the excerpt from the book: Religion is sometimes defined as a belief in supernatural agents. However, other people regard this definition as shallow and incomplete. Defining religion in terms of the supernatural is faulty since for many religions (ex. animism, ancestor worship, nature spirit based religions) don't believe the agents are supernatural at all. Defining religion with the word supernatural is too ethnocentric.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: eye guess, bill   by madison       at Tue 29 Oct 4:29pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 24     A religion is a collection of rituals and symbols. In some ways this is a great definition. It makes a lot of sense when you apply it to Catholics, as you show. But in some ways I think the definition is inadequate, because it could cover things that we might not ordinarily consider religious. Consider American holidays like Halloween and Thanksgiving, that many people observe regardless of their religious affiliation. Christmas gift-giving is a very popular practice in Japan despite the fact that most people aren't Christian. If we treat religion as if it was only about group activity, then almost anything social could be considered "religious", and the word becomes useless. For example, is baseball a religion?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: eye guess, bill   by durstann       at Tue 29 Oct 6:07pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 33     For this definition, remember that it is not enough that something be a religion just by virtue of having rituals. Symbols are also a requirement. I'm going to go ahead and use the definition of symbol from dictionary.com: Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention... The symbols are just as important a part of religion as rituals are. The definition of symbol should probably also be tightened a bit when we use it in this definition, lest symbol be used to describe any random object. A symbol should not just be a representation of a physical object, but should, in some manner, point to a concept. For instance, many people consider the American Flag and the Statue of Liberty to be symbols of freedom and democracy. In the case of Christmas, consider that the act of gift-giving does not completely describe the Catholic (Christian?) ritual associated with Christmas. There is generally also a special Christmas mass that goes along with this gift giving. The giving of gifts itself, is supposed to be reminiscent of the Three Wise Men bringing their gifts. For Catholics, there is quite a bit more involved in the Christmas ritual than just gift-giving. As for baseball, no it isn't a religion. I'm not a baseball fan, so I don't know the intricacies, but I can't think of any symbols (using our above definition) that baseball contains. It certainly has it's rituals though: games, playoff, seventh inning stretch. My attempt at a definition of religion specifically tries to remove the question of faith. This is because even within a religion, what different adherents to the religion believe can vary greatly from person to person. I've also tried to leave out any mention of a central authority, or of a group activity requirement. These are elements that are not present in all religions, such as (to some extent) Wicca and some forms of Buddhism.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Believe in the Power of the Rally Monkey!!!   by madison       at Tue 29 Oct 6:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 44     As for baseball, no it isn't a religion. I'm not a baseball fan, so I don't know the intricacies, but I can't think of any symbols (using our above definition) that baseball contains. It certainly has it's rituals though: games, playoff, seventh inning stretch. What about the Rally Monkey? By convention it represents the desire of the Angels' fans for a rally. For instance, many people consider the American Flag and the Statue of Liberty to be symbols of freedom and democracy. So is democracy a religion? We have rituals like elections and jury duty. In the case of Christmas, consider that the act of gift-giving does not completely describe the Catholic (Christian?) ritual associated with Christmas. What about Thanksgiving? The meal has some symbolic significance. What religion do Thanksgiving meal eaters belong to?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  religion vs. spirituality.   by ktlyst       at Tue 29 Oct 3:07pm score of 0.5 incoherent     I posit that religion is mores imposed from without. Spirituality is your worldview as discovered from within. That which is imposed on you, you will likely rebel against, hence Congress shall make no law.... That which is imposed on you is ripe for abuse, since it is an external structure that is not available for questioning (cf Roman Catholic child abuse troubles) Since it is imposed on you, you may want to impose it on others, to alleviate your own discomfort at bending to the will of others. That which is imposed on you may take the form of rituals and behaviors which you may find meaningless. On the other hand, life may be very confusing for you, and you might want other people to tell you how to live it so you don't have to make decisions. In this case, please don't live in my democracy. (I really don't like religion) However, a constant quest within for higher truth and love, to discover why you work the way you do, and to have an end of working for a civil society for all is not inconsistent with belief in God/higher power/etc. And it is not inconsistent with discovery through the scientific method, which some dogmatic scientists believe. But it's a constant struggle to make sure that you haven't fallen back on pure faith, that you are being mindful of your biases and preconceived notions. Do I have a point? Only that religion with ritual, etc., seems to be less likely to help you maintain a mindful state necessary for spiritual development.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Ah ha, so it's this!   by plutocracywatch       at Tue 29 Oct 3:43pm score of 1     From the article: 1) "Religions...offer practical, social, and motivational benefits to the adherents." 2) "Religion exist primarily for people to achieve together what they can-not achieve alone." We call it government. Frederick Hayek, the classical liberal economist, labelled this particular heresy (by Christian standards, as a base of referral only) as stateolotry, the worship of the coercive collective to enforce righteousness. And they told you that you were a Unitarian! BTW, can God ever forgive us for monotheism? read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  institutional religion vs personal religion   by madison       at Tue 29 Oct 4:10pm score of 1     Diamond's four characteristics are only part of the story of religion. William James tells the other part: The field of religion being as wide as this, it is manifestly impossible that I should pretend to cover it. My lectures must be limited to a fraction of the subject. ... This, in fact, is what I must do, and I will now preliminarily seek to mark out the field I choose. One way to mark it out easily is to say what aspects of the subject we leave out. At the outset we are struck by one great partition which divides the religious field. On the one side of it lies institutional, on the other personal religion. Ibn Khaldun also looked at institutional religion in the 1300's as a means by which group feeling or asabiyah is formed. Religion certainly can be agnostic and/or atheistic. Buddhism is the only example I can think of though. I don't think Marxism really counts, because it only has the institutional features and not the personal features of religious experience.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

69.  Re: institutional religion vs personal religion   by Airbag       at Wed 30 Oct 9:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Thanks for turning me on to Ibn Khaldun. His interest in Sufiism echoes your quote of William James. In contrast to the different ways religion has to do with "group feeling", there is another element that encourages an individual to see one's life as a path. This other element also suggests another sort of association than that depicted by "asibiyah", that is, the relation of teacher to student. The relationship is a living metaphor. One common element in many "personal" religions is the idea that being a kind of apprentice is the form of one's life.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people?   by beelerspace       at Tue 29 Oct 4:39pm score of 1.5 brilliant     Diamond's viewpoints are certainly valid and noteworthy, but I get the impression that he strongly dislikes Christianity and Islam while really liking his New Guinian friends' religion. Fine. I just always hestitate whenever I hear people blaming wars and atrocities on religion. It's really a shallow argument upon deeper reflection. On the surface, it's easy to blame wars like the Crusades or atrocities like the Holocaust on religious beliefs, but peer beneath the outer skin and I think you'll find that leaders like to use religion as an excuse to fight but in the end it has little to do with religion. Likewise, the people fighting a seemingly "religious" war may again claim to be doing it for religious reasons; but truly they're doing it because they're forced, or because they need to defend their homes, or because of basic human prejudice. Diamond notices that, "among New Guineans, religion is never invoked to justify killing members of an outgroup." Something to be proud of, I'm sure, but Diamond seems to also insinuate that merely because fanatics use religion as a blanket to cause violence invalidates the religion itself. Secondly, while certainly unintentional, he almost spouts out that violence is somehow "better" or more noble when religion isn't attached to it. ". . . fantatical Christians and Muslims inflicted death, slavery, or forced conversion on the heathen." So why do Christians and Muslims get bad rap, but society in general doesn't? The basic end result is that people will kill people regardless of whether they're using religion as an excuse to do it. I can assure you that some deeper research would reveal that the New Guineans use some other psychological method in justifying their violence. Merely because people use religion as a way of justifying their violence doesn't mean that the violence is any less "noble" than killing without religion, nor does it mean that the religion itself is somehow flawed. In the end, violence - with or without the excuse of religion - is still people killing people for stupid reasons. "Property. The whole fucking thing's about property." - First Sgt. Edward Welsh, Thin Red Line. As a postscript, I think it's fair to point out that Christianity was largely pacifist in its early growth and only lost this extreme martyr-esque pacifism when Constantine created the monster of a hybrid state-church. If violence invalidates a religion, does non-violence then validate it? If so, why does Diamond ignore the some of the most vocal non-violence proponents, Tolstoy and MLKjr, both of whom were vigorous Christians? Why does he ignore the tremendous effect of Christ's teachings upon Ghandi? Diamond's New Guinean religion may have no motivation in creating violence, but it apparently also has no part in stopping it either.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  You seem to make the common mistake ...   by BigBoote66       at Tue 29 Oct 5:02pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 34     ... of many of the people who dislike Diamond's writing/ideas. His tone here is similar to that in Guns, Germs & Steel, but I never really saw it as saying "look how great New Guineans are", but more from the perspective of an anthropologist fascinated by the unique opportunity to compare modern societies to pre-modern ones offered by the New Guineans. My take: he's not saying that the New Guinean way is better, but merely that religion is necessary in order to extend a society beyond the tribal level the New Guineans operate at. The NG way of rules based on personal relationships breaks down when your group numbers in the thousands, and religion offers a group a way of regulating behavior. Spirituality is the bridge between pre-law socieities & post-law ones. Only long after a post-law society has matured is it able to separate the law from religion, and the religion can return to its spiritual roots. Given that, it's not so surprising that Islam is still tied to the medieval relationship between religion and state. The modern idea of "pure" Christianity (as a personal relationship with God) was pretty much unheard of 500 years ago. I think the people that get defensive over Diamond's stuff (including the hackles that get raised over people that misinterpret GG&S as some sort of attack against Western socieities - it's not, unless you are the type who believes that Western economic/political superiority is the reward for the "right" way of thinking) are just forgetting that for most of our history, the religions we peacefully practice now weren't always that way, especially those people who don't realize that "that old time religion" never was. -BbT   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  another question   by madison       at Tue 29 Oct 5:03pm score of 1 brilliant     And how does one account for the depressing historical reality of the religious leading to wars and atrocity? I'd like to add another question to discuss: How does one account for the historical reality of the religious leading to justice and peace?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

82.  Re: another question   by NomiMalone       at Wed 30 Oct 4:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 39     From the writeup: And how does one account for the depressing historical reality of the religious leading to wars and atrocity? And your response: I'd like to add another question to discuss: How does one account for the historical reality of the religious leading to justice and peace? I don't think the question in the writeup is phrased all that well - I want to know, religious what? Religious leaders? Movements? It's a little vague. But your answer is also vague, and an oversimplification. Tutu, Gandhi and Dr. King were individuals. Religious individuals, yes, and exemplary practitioners of their religious principles, but individuals nonetheless. And each of them did what he did not just out of a desire to obey the golden rule or to be a "good" man, but to fight against the oppression of his people. To single them out as a counter to the argument that wars have been started & atrocities committed in the name of religion is a nice start, but it's not an answer in itself. I'm loud, and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because someone's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: another question   by madison       at Wed 30 Oct 4:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 82     Tutu, Gandhi and Dr. King were individuals. Religious individuals, yes, and exemplary practitioners of their religious principles, but individuals nonetheless. And each of them did what he did not just out of a desire to obey the golden rule or to be a "good" man, but to fight against the oppression of his people. They were individuals of course, but the only reason they are of any significance is that they led mass movements. Gandhi did not free India all by himself. He had a lot of help. Looking at the example of the civil rights movement in the U.S., we see that much of the movement was based in churches, and its leaders frequently used religious rhetoric to motivate people and to win over new members. To single them out as a counter to the argument that wars have been started & atrocities committed in the name of religion is a nice start, but it's not an answer in itself. I wouldn't call it an argument, but a stereotype. Organized religion gets a lot of bad press, and it deserves most of it, but it also deserves some good press. It should be clear that both good and evil and have been committed in the name of religion. When people do good or do evil, it's not their professed relgion that should get the praise or the blame.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  Re: another question   by NomiMalone       at Wed 30 Oct 4:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     When people do good or do evil, it's not their professed relgion that should get the praise or the blame. I agree completely; I just wasn't sure that that was the point you were making in your original statement. Thanks for clarifying your response. I'm loud, and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because someone's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  Common element to all religions   by jeffbiss       at Tue 29 Oct 5:31pm score of 1     The common element is belief; religions depend on a disregard for proof or evidence of the validity of dogma and doctrine. There may or may not be a deity, or ritual but there is always acceptance of the unprovable. The propensity toward religion is a direct result of us being social animals. We have evolved to function within a group. A group always has a hierarchy, and a god is a natural conceptual extension of that hierarchy. Also, our personal desires provide the basis for the concept of "effect at a distance"; by really, really wanting something we believe we can get it. So, we paint pictures of prey on the walls or the deaths of our enemies so that we help guide the universe. Unfortunately, religion will always exist at the expense of truth because we are biological machines.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

49.  Re: Common element to all religions   by ifjuly       at Tue 29 Oct 7:44pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 41     The common element is belief; religions depend on a disregard for proof or evidence of the validity of dogma and doctrine. There may or may not be a deity, or ritual but there is always acceptance of the unprovable. I think some anthropologists would argue with you about your emphasis on the belief system over, say, ritual. It is unclear to many religious studies scholars and anthropologists that belief precedes ritual. Likewise it is unclear that belief is necessarily "the core" of all religions while ritual provides the supplementary footwork to act out belief--what if ritual acts out the sacred directly, and belief isn't the mediating channel between the two? etc. Clyde Kluckhohn claimed that ritual is the edge of the knife of religion, not the handle. Faith or an ordered belief system is the rationalization of ritual--ritual cuts deeper, to base, material, psychological needs and drives (I'm bad at having effective links at hand; I rely more on books in thus realm...but here and here). It is arguably also as compelling and singularly powerful, i.e. sufficient as "religion" in itself, as "belief" because it is an attempt to place the person in the realm of the sacred through direct sensory experience. Though, I can see how the abstraction of "holy texts" or theo-logical ordering may, to you, be inherent in any notion of the religious (i.e. it somehow "escapes" the senses or the profane, mundane experience of them). But the acceptance of that definition will no doubt result in a narrower (perhaps culturally so) set of world "religions." Perhaps the following is a useful example. In The Japanese Today , Edwin Reischauer claimed the Japanese are "confused" religiously in that they can accept and incorporate Buddhism and Shintoism into their lives without finding any opposition between the two theologically problematic. An anthropology professor I had about a year ago, whose field of expertise was Japanese culture, had a real problem with this notion. He claimed we tend to have a problem reconciling what we see as their facile acceptance of different theological systems because we (I suppose he meant we as "Westerners;" forgive me for that ominously vague generalization; you may not even be Western...) place such emphasis on theology over ritual. His interviews with locals of the village he frequently visits left him with the conclusion that for many Japanese people, it is a matter of doing ritual correctly rather than any "hardcore" hashing out of a single, explicit belief system (as for the need of a direct moral ordering, he pointed to Confucianism as a separate element--but that does not discount the common Buddhist/Shinto traditions' "religiosity"). He noted that he was chastised when his form during rituals was slightly off. One thinks of the tea ceremony, of flower arrangement, even of chanting (including that of those amazing "chord" vocalists, who chant in multiple notes simultaneously!), and how these acts are defined by form explicitly. Not to run in circles here, but indeed, it becomes an issue of how you define "religious," and for him the definition was not purely "theology-based." That opens the doors for many more to be considered religious. Of course, there is the question of whether such a harmony between Buddhism and Shintoism relates to whether polytheism allows for more "wiggle room" than monotheism--once you make the sacred a single identifiable entity, perhaps the likelihood of fundamentalism and narrow acceptance of any deviation from "the One" grows. I recall students mentioning Irish violence over what relatively speaking seems such a narrow issue (only in "purely theological" terms perhaps...eh) versus the acceptability of Buddhism and Shintoism. Though, I myself feel uneasy trying to compare those while ignoring the political differences. But, I'll mention it at least as a consideration.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Ritual relies on belief   by jeffbiss       at Wed 30 Oct 8:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 49     I don't limit belief to only a deity but also the acceptance that ritual works to achieve an end. Without belief one would require proof that ritualistic behavior functions as intended; there would have to be a provable connection between cause and effect. This is why religion is difficult to define. There are people who "control" fate through personal ritualistic bahavior such as always putting their socks on first followed by their shoes. To do otherwise increases risk. Whereas some people worship a deity, others paint horses on their walls, and others repeat actions. Religion is all about limiting chaos.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

47.  religion (again)   by graywyvern       at Tue 29 Oct 7:06pm score of 1     grow up, neoteric apes--into the peaceful gorillas you really are   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

48.  I would argue...   by Ernest Scribbler       at Tue 29 Oct 7:22pm score of 1     that religious warfare is a prehistoric trait of human culture, but that in their case it was what our advanced society calls tribal warfare, with "rules of bad behavior toward out-groups" that are perfectly clear, but "explanation, standardized organization, moral rules of good behavior toward in-groups," that is less so, or maybe just lost to us. On the subject of atheism vs. agnosticism, I have always been divided. Taking a cue from science, I am urged not to make statements with doubtless finality. All statements of how the world works are supposed to be associated with some measure of uncertainty. Though a paleontologist might tell us "with certainty" that we are descended from early primates, the reality is that we must keep an open mind; perhaps some piece of evidence will come forth that throws this theory into doubt. The bottom line is that it's unscientific to say that you have proven or disproven a hypothesis. What then, about God? Can the statement that God created the universe be treated with the same accord? Can any statement of religious dogma be given the same treatment? If so, then the scientific attitude is that of the agnostic, while the atheist can be said to be speaking with unreasonable confidence. I hope this makes sense. Born, raised, and remaining an atheist, the question has always held some interest for me, but on the same coin, I haven't felt a need to ponder spiritual issues often.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Ambrose Bierce defines pithily   by rmo314       at Tue 29 Oct 7:52pm score of 1.5 succinct     See my tag line for definition of religion. Nothing more, nothing less. Religion: A daughter of Hope and Fear,explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable - Ambrose Bierce   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

73.  Or:   by jazzofone       at Wed 30 Oct 9:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 50     "religion is a socio-political institution for the control of people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing." (unfortunately I couldn't find the author of this quote) - blasphemous comment goes here -   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

75.  Of course, sometimes patterns DO mean something...   by JackH       at Wed 30 Oct 9:51am score of 1     Just because people are built to believe something doesn't mean it's not true. People are built to eat - that doesn't mean that the need for food is merely a trick of the brain. "If you demonstrate a personality deficit in comparison to the likes of John Kerry, you've got major problems" - Anon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

76.  Ultimate concerns and hence hostile disputes   by ifjuly       at Wed 30 Oct 10:12am score of 1     The Marxism example is a good one for illustrating the idea deities aren't explicitly part of a definition of religion. As for the "why is religion at the roof of many wars and atrocities" question, I can't help but think of Paul Tillich, Emile Durkheim, and Robert Bellah.* Tillich claimed religion is anything which is a person's "ultimate concern" and that hence, all people are religious (yeah, it's a controversial claim and has been met with hesitant reception). Hence, for example, an atheist's ultimate concern may in fact be his/her atheism (if it's integral to his/her identity and/or belief system and hence motivations). It seems to me Bellah's well-known argument about "civil religion" is one most people can find somewhat convincing, perhaps especially in the United States (the rallying cry of democracy as an ultimate end, the actions taken supposedly in the name of it, etc). And Durkheim's idea that ritual or religious attention arises in any area of a person's life which gives that person a social identity he/she finds relevant also ties in with the why-problems-in-the-political-sphere question. Of course, it's also easy to point out that these definitions necessitate such conclusions (especially Tillich's) about social and political activity; by making "religion" such a general topic and blurring the lines between religion and politics/social conflicts, inevitably and a priori you've made room for such conventionally "non-religious" activity (i.e. political warfare) in the realm of religion. It's a sort of bundling of terms...but nonetheless, Tillich's proposed definition is something to consider...especially given a propensity in the modern world to claim to be "above" religion in many conventional ways. Perhaps indeed the nature of religion has simply changed and some of us have not yet recognized it in its newest forms. Eh. Maybe. It also does seem to offer (at least some) insight into religions we can even all agree are "religions," i.e. conventional ones. It makes sense that that in which you place your ultimate concern would be "less up for grabs," at least generally speaking. (*And sorry if this sounds all book reportish; it's just that these questions have been plaguing me for about a year now. I'm still uncertain myself about what religion is, is not, and from that, what it has to offer, both good and bad.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

90.  Re: Ultimate concerns and hence hostile disputes   by Mad Ogger       at Thu 31 Oct 1:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 76     I resist the notion that I have an ultimate concern. I am more of a bundle of urges and desires that are vaguely sorted out by reflection. But maybe Tillich means something else by "ultimate concern" that I do have. I think ultimate concern is a good, if vague, characterization of "modern" religions but I think it's not quite right for older preliterate religions. Personally, I think trying to define the word religion is a waste of time. (Except for Supreme Court justices.) In English it must have referred originally to Christianity, and then by extension to things that were sort of like Christianity, at least at a first, ignorant glance. I would rather just say that Buddhism is actually a religion-2, ancient polytheistic religions are religion-3s, and so on. Then we can go on to more interesting questions, like what are the differences between a religion-1 and a religion-2, why they're generally not found together, and why societies choose one over the other.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: Ultimate concerns and hence hostile disputes   by ifjuly       at Thu 31 Oct 6:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 90     Basically, I tend to agree with you. The biggest problem in tackling the idea of an ultimate concern is that none of us (the kids I was talking about it with) could get down to it for ourselves. How do you reach it? It is vague. Purposely so, but indeed it becomes problematic. Someone tried to word an ultimate concern like a commandment, such as "don't kill" but then issues of when he'd be willing to kill came up, which pointed to something greater ("life" maybe? family? etc)...in the end we couldn't conclusively burrow down to it. Which implies maybe we are more like what you describe--urges and desires. The degree to which urges and desires are contextual is maybe one avenue to pursue...is the ultimate concern the "Regardless of," etc. That reminds me of Kant and the notion of numina vs phenomena--that morality must come from non-contexualized space. ...Which makes sense, as apparently Tillich's idea was asserted in strong reaction to cultural and moral relativism. As for defining religion and the futility or uselessness of trying... (laugh) I also tend to agree. But I also realize, for myself anyway, that it took asking the question, and rethinking the scope of what I generally assumed was religion, to reach this seemingly frustrating conclusion. I mean, I do think for many people in modern urban settings, religion is loosely cast aside with "suspicion;" that is, its implied definition becomes "that which I don't believe (because I'm too smart for that), but someone else somewhere apparently does or did." This bothers me, not because I feel people should "be more religious" or anything (nope, I'm not a new ager nor have I crystals or incense on hand :) but because we look at religion historically and point to it for its power in motivating (at least partly) both horrific and tremendous acts (at a group or individual level). And then some of us basically go, whether we admit it or no, "That's such a tragedy; religion is bad. I'm beyond religion; I know better." Wrong! The whole point of examining that history is to recognize forces you yourself may be under, unthinkingly. It pads the ego to think you aren't susceptible to such powerful and seemingly murky affiliations, but I'd argue many Catholics or Protestants centuries ago thought about their own religion in a similar sense, because it was a pervasive ordering system. The sticky part is, you believe it. So it almost becomes cloaked, naturalized (not to sound too much like Marx!). Also, asking the question indeed motivated me to discover oh yeah, Christianity's components (deity, abstracted/text-embedded belief system, etc) do not define religion for quite a large number of people. Mana and all that. So yes, it's futile perhaps in the end--but the paths getting there, to that skepticism over any definition, are enlightening indeed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

86.  Bad time for defenders of "spirituality"   by advancedatheist       at Wed 30 Oct 8:01pm score of 1     I'm finding it extremely interesting that certain lines of inquiry are converging regarding human religious behavior. From one direction we see evidence from advances in neuroscience how the brain forms beliefs and how certain areas of the brain can generate experiences usually identified as "spiritual," "out-of-body," "otherworldly," etc. when they aren't induced artificially. (These experiences also resemble accounts of "alien abductions.") From another direction, combining insights from conventional social science & evolutionary psychology, we are seeing how religions get started & how some of them are unusually successful at propagating themselves. (Apparently it's not that hard to start a new religion. I couldn't do it, because I don't have the right sort of personality. But there are plenty of people in the world who do.) It is getting increasingly hard to see where some "supernatural" element comes into play in this aspect of human behavior that generates such intense emotions in most of us. Before long scientists will know enough about religious behavior that it's conceivable they could deliberately create religions that sweep through human populations like the smallpox epidemics we're so afraid of being unleashed by terrorists. Perhaps future wars will be fought by competing teams of religious engineers, who release virulent new beliefs into society to try to change people's behavior in desired ways. I'd rather they use this knowledge to create & release more pro-social religions. It would be cheaper & a lot more humane to fight militant Islam with a pacifying alternative worldview than bombing their countries into oblivion. "There was a time before reason & science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on "SG-1"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

98.  Re: Bad time for defenders of "spirituality"   by Katfish       at Thu 31 Oct 3:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 86     Perhaps future wars will be fought by competing teams of religious engineers, who release virulent new beliefs into society to try to change people's behavior in desired ways. God bless America! United we stand! Buy an SUV so you'll have somewhere to put your flag sticker! You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]