Korzybski was a bright guy, but his main area was the logic of language. I’m not sure he was really qualified as an expert in defining religion and science. I could agree if one considered only those who weren’t knowledgeable (insiders) in either field.
Occam
Emphatically, yes. Religion is how we humans orient ourselves within an environment/universe of which we understand only a little. I’m using the classic Latin definition of the term: to look upon all things (re) and bring everything together into a coherent whole (ligare). Seen this way, quite literally, no one can live without religion.
If you define religion as a belief in a supreme being or a fealty to an institution or other external authority on human values, then I give a completely different answer. I decline to accept such a definition because it ignores the broader meaning of the term, and the tremendous promise of this concept of religion. John Lennon captured the idea beautifully in his song “Imagine.” That’s a religious anthem for non-theists. Why is this so hard for us to accept and endorse?
One of the major problems I’ve seen that prevents effective communication is when one person insists on using a non-standard definition of a word, often one that has been out of date for many years or one that is based on the original etymology of the word parts. I just googled for definition of religion. While there were many following references, this is what showed up first:
re·li·gion
/riˈlijən/Noun
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
It’s not at all hard for me to accept and endorse this, and it means for me, that I have no religion. I just don’t accept the definition you wish to use, PLaClair.
Occam
One of the major problems I've seen that prevents effective communication is when one person insists on using a non-standard definition of a word, often one that has been out of date for many years or one that is based on the original etymology of the word parts. I just googled for definition of religion. While there were many following references, this is what showed up first: re·li·gion /riˈlijən/Noun The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. It's not at all hard for me to accept and endorse this, and it means for me, that I have no religion. I just don't accept the definition you wish to use, PLaClair. OccamI could swear we've had this discussion, and that on previous occasions people who are posting on this topic, conflating religion and theism, have previously acknowledged that there is a distinction between the two. Yet here were are again, as though none of those discussions ever happened. I could be wrong but that's my recollection. Any any event: It's not about communication. Each of us knows what the other means. It's about taking available opportunities. There are several non-theistic religions, including Ethical Culture, which is explicitly Humanistic. Religion, as I've defined it, has a valuable role to play in life and society. In fact, it is essential to both. If the objection is that the broader and more etymologically accurate definition is anachronistic because theism has become so dominant, the answer to that is to insist on taking our place at the table. Doing it your way is giving up, ceding the entire field to the theists, and effectively agreeing that by definition religion implies theism. It's not true and it's unproductive, and therefore I decline to do it. The word "insist" has to be put in context. I do insist on looking at religion in broader perspective but I also acknowledge that many people do not do that. So I don't insist that religion has to be defined in one way. Few words are. On the contrary, I made it clear that the word can be defined in any of several ways. For us, however, we have a choice. I am interested in the best strategies for advancing Humanism within cultures and societies, and within the world. Occam, your approach presumes that all religion must be rejected and opposed. Mine recognizes that there are elements in religion that are worth preserving, endorsing and advancing. I suggest that the latter approach is not only more sound intellectually but by far the more effective. Let's consider the elements within the proposition. I maintain that by distinguishing between religion one the one hand, and theism and other forms of supernaturalist thought on the other, we can make ourselves seem more reasonable (by being more reasonable and more incisive), more accessible and more open (by not casting our net more broadly than is necessary), and thereby gain a wider and more receptive audience. What does your approach accomplish, except to satisfy some of the people within our ranks that we've taken no prisoners?
I tend to side with PLaClair, IMO the social effects and organizing posibilities of the various religions are the important part. Theology matters much less when it goes beyiond basic morals and is more of a badge of belonging to the group than anything else. Belief in the supernatural may be a key point in Western relgions, but not necessarily all such as some schools of Buddism or Confuciusism.
The modern belief in science and rationality is similar to religion in that it provides a worldview to many of us in a manner similar to religion. However it doesn’t provide the social structure and organization that most religions do. IMO until it does we will continue to have the conflict between the religious and non-religious.
We’ve had the discussion about word definitions before, but I don’t recall one specifically on “religion”.
Put simply, I have a set of ideas, morals, philosophy that I live by and they do not include the concept of any god/s. By your definition, everyone has a religion, however, by my definition along with my antipathy for theistic beliefs, I do not have a religion.
Occam
Occam, it goes without saying that you are free to have any definition you want. However, if you, or anyone, adopts a definition of religion that excludes what some people see as religious, of necessity that narrows your view of the world. In doing that, if you’re using a definition that excludes all definitions of religion that are consistent with scientific naturalism, then obviously religion won’t seem like a viable option for you; but that’s only because you’ve chosen to limit your vision. It has nothing to do with what is available to us as Humanists.
There is a fundamental distinction in the ways you and I are looking at this. You’re looking at what religion means to you. I’m looking at what religion can mean to a scientific naturalist and Humanist. My focus is on advancing Humanism and scientific naturalism as social forces - as movements. I won’t presume to speak for you but it doesn’t seem to me that your focus is in the same place.
Well, sports fanaticism certainly seems more like a religion than “advancing Humanism and scientific naturalism as social forces,” although nobody would refer to them as religion. (Hmm, except maybe for this one, “Football as a Religion: The Church of Maradona.”] Do watch it if you haven’s see it before. It’s unbelievable!)
So, Paul, would you call sports fanaticism a religion?
Well, sports fanaticism certainly seems more like a religion than "advancing Humanism and scientific naturalism as social forces," although nobody would refer to them as religion. (Hmm, except maybe for this one, "Football as a Religion: The Church of Maradona."] Do watch it if you haven's see it before. It's unbelievable!) So, Paul, would you call sports fanaticism a religion?I offered two criteria for religion. As you observe, it is unlikely that even the most diehard sports fanatic would think that sport meets them. Such a worldview likely would reflect an underlying pathology, though probably not as destructive a pathology as we see in members of Al Qaeda or the Westboro Baptist Church
There are many definitions of “religion”.
Here is a chart found in Jared Diamond’s “The World Until Yesterday”
Some proposed Definitions of Religion
- Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience (Concise Oxford Dictionary)
- Any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy.
(Webster’s New World Dictionary) - A system of social coherence based upon a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions and rituals associated with such belief or systems of thought. (Wikipedia)
- Religion, in the broadest and most general terms possible, . . . consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto. (William James)
- Social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. (Daniel Dennett)
- A propitiation or conciliation of superhuman powers which are believed to control nature and man (Sir James Frazer)
- A set of symbolic forms and acts which relate man to the ultimate conditions of his existence. (Robert Bellah)
- A system of beliefs and practices directed toward the “ultimate concern” of a society. (William Lessa and Evon Vogt)
- The belief in superhuman beings and in their power to assist or harm man approaches universal distribution, and this belief-I would insist- is the core variable which ought to be designated by any definition of religion. . . I shall define “religion” as "an institution consisting of culturally patterned interaction with culturally postulated superhuman beings. (Melford Spiro)
- The common element of religion cross-culturally is a belief that the highest good is defined by an unseen order combined with an array of symbols that assist individuals and groups in ordering their lives in harmony with this order and an emotional commitment to achieving that harmony. (William Irons)
- A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden-beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. (Emile Durkheim)
- Roughly, religion is (1) a community’s costly and hard to fake commitment (3) to a counterfactual and counterintuitive world of supernatural agents (3) who master people’s existential anxieties, such as death and deception. (Scott Atran)
- A religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. (Clifford Geertz)
- Religion is a social institution that evolved as an integral mechanism of human culture to create and promote myths, to encourage altruism and reciprocal altruism, and to reveal the level of commitment to cooperate and reciprocate among members of the community. (Michael Shermer)
- A religion we will define as a set of beliefs, practices and institutions which men have evolved in various societies, so far as they can be understood, as responses to those aspects of their life and situation which are believed not in the empirical-instrumental sense to be rationally understandable and/or controllable, and to which they attach a significance which includes some kind of reference to the relevant actions and events to man’s conception of the existence of a “supernatural” order which is conceived and felt to have a fundamental bearing on man’s position in the universe and the values which give meaning to his fate as an individual and his relationship to his fellows. (Talcott Parsons)
- Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. (Karl Marx)
PP 327-8
What all these definitions miss IMO, is that relgion was and still is in many places a valuable survival tool, in that it organizies people to work together, as well as the fact that particularly in oral socities it was the means for ingraining valuable information about the physical and social worlds into into indivuals and groups thought patterns. One of my biggest concerns, even as a non-believer in the supernatural, what if anything is going to replace religion, not just a memory aid but as a basis for social organization.
As for science being today’s relgion, it certainly is the basis for many of our current views on the physical world, but it doesn’t give us much on the social, political and cultural aspects. It may be much of the resistance to science espically evolution is coming from people who instictively realize the lack in these areas.
- The attempt of people to find orientation and meaning in a universe that will kill them in the end. Mostly this is done by giving quick but ungrounded answers on people’s questions, given by self proclaimed authorities, but this is not necessary. E.g. humanists find the orientation in enabling good life for all humans (sometimes extended to other animals), without contradicting science.(GdB)
In response to PLaClair’s post #26 above: PlaClair, it seems that almost every area of belief is defined differently by different humans. Many members of various religions are quite certain that anyone with a different set of ideas will be consigned to hell, that any nonbeliever must be immoral, that only they have the truth. Many political conservatives and liberals believe those on the other side are ill-informed or stupid. Essentially all of them believe that their views are broad and encompassing while those of others are narrow and simplistic. I have met humanists who are also theists, and humanists who are secular.
This seems to fit our differences: You see my definition as personal and non-inclusive while yours is “on advancing Humanism and scientific naturalism as social forces - as movements." I see yours as overly broad and controlling while doing nothing to advance any movement or philosophical stand.
You’re looking at what religion means to you. I’m looking at what religion can mean to a scientific naturalist and Humanist.I can’t help but smile at your implication that I am not a scientific naturalist and Humanist while you are. I’d guess that it would be more likely that a scientist would be a scientific naturalist than would a lawyer. Apparently we both see the definition of the other as narrow and parochial, and since this is a forum to discuss disparate ideas we seem to be functioning well within its structure. Occam
In response to PLaClair's post #26 above: PlaClair, it seems that almost every area of belief is defined differently by different humans. Many members of various religions are quite certain that anyone with a different set of ideas will be consigned to hell, that any nonbeliever must be immoral, that only they have the truth. Many political conservatives and liberals believe those on the other side are ill-informed or stupid. Essentially all of them believe that their views are broad and encompassing while those of others are narrow and simplistic. I have met humanists who are also theists, and humanists who are secular. This seems to fit our differences: You see my definition as personal and non-inclusive while yours is “on advancing Humanism and scientific naturalism as social forces - as movements." I see yours as overly broad and controlling while doing nothing to advance any movement or philosophical stand.Wow, did you misread me! I was acknowledging that we are both Humanists and scientific naturalists, not suggesting that you are not. If you place the emphasis on the word "can," the intended meaning should be clear. Here is the genesis of my disagreement with you. You wrote: ". . .when one person insists on using a non-standard definition of a word, often one that has been out of date for many years or one that is based on the original etymology of the word parts . . ." That is nowhere close to being accurate. In the first place, it isn't just one person. Gary posted 16 definitions of religion, drawn from some extraordinarily erudite people, and GdB added one more. They are all standard definitions, in common use today, and each of them has its practitioners, whether by direct intention or not. Most of the secular definitions are variations of each other, and are fully consistent with the definition that I proposed. I didn't make that definition up. It is rooted not merely in etymology but also in psychology and history. The statement that these are not-standard definitions, or are out of date is simply not true. Let's assume, arguendo, that your statement was true; in fact, let's go a step further and imagine that all religions were theistic. That still wouldn't alter the historical and psychological roots of religion, and the relevance of at the very least our psychology today. As Gary observes, religion probably developed as a survival tool - or at least that's how people saw it. Thousands of years ago, people lived at the mercy of nature, predators and pests. A drought or a plague could wipe out an entire community. A predator could carry off your children. So in the evening, around the fire, people tried to figure it all out. Having little means to understand these matters, they listened to the elders who told them about rain gods and fertility gods and charms that would ward off predators. The mere fact that they gave piss-poor answers to the questions doesn't mean that they weren't trying to do something noble and important: understand their world and figure out a way to live within it. That is the genesis and essence of religion: the attempt to understand and bring that understanding to bear on life (my definition), or to understand and align oneself with the unseen order (James' and others' definition). They're the same thing. You're saying we shouldn't do that. According to you, and many others within our organizations, we should narrow the definition to fit within the narrow confines of the dominant religious view in our culture. You couldn't devise a more bass-ackward, self-defeating strategy if you tried. You're saying culture has dumbed down religion, so we should say that's all religion is. Even though we know that's not true. That's the same argument as would justify saying that the word "theory" implies an absence of proof, just because the knuckleheads in our society say so. I get the sense that you, and many others, react viscerally against religion. Having had that reaction myself, I'm all the more inclined to think that's what is going on. I have no other way to explain why we wouldn't discuss the psychological roots of religion - beyond insisting that anyone who believes in a god must be delusional - and try to come up with ways to interact with people who call themselves religious, and their organizations; ways of interacting that respect and honor the dignity of their undertaking, if not particular ways they go about it. There seems to be a vision of smashing and eliminating religion. In the first place, such a vision is pure fantasy. Religion is one of history's most enduring institutions. In the second place, the religious quest is good, noble, and in fact indispensable. I have no problem at all with the religious quest; my problem is with many of the answers people have given. So let's be about offering a different set of answers. Trashing the entire undertaking is counterproductive. We need to fashion new answers to the old questions. That is in perfect keeping with the stated goals of CFI. If we don't do it, others will.You’re looking at what religion means to you. I’m looking at what religion can mean to a scientific naturalist and Humanist.I can’t help but smile at your implication that I am not a scientific naturalist and Humanist while you are. I’d guess that it would be more likely that a scientist would be a scientific naturalist than would a lawyer. Apparently we both see the definition of the other as narrow and parochial, and since this is a forum to discuss disparate ideas we seem to be functioning well within its structure. Occam
I’m not arguing that religion hasn’t been around fairly universally. However, my personal view of myself is defined by the words I use, and what they mean to me. Had you said much earlier that almost everyone has a religion, I’d probably not have bothered questioning that statement. When you say everyone has a religion, I recognize that statement includes me. As long as we’re dealing with a description of me, I get to use my definition of the descriptive word. Part of myself, by my own definitions, is to recognize that I don’t have any religion as I define it. If you continue to state that everyone has a religion it seems tantamount to saying, “Yes, you do” or “You don’t know some things about what you are,” and that annoys me.
Occam
OK, Occam, so we can annoy each other, or we can recognize that everyone has a way of getting through life; of considering things the best he can, making sense out of them the best he can and navigating through life. Everyone does that. We can only hope that people will do it through a universal ethic, a commitment to reason and other good human values. Arguing about whether to label it “religion” has the tail wagging the dog. However, the fact is, that background is the psychological root of religion. Whether it annoys you or not, that is the human condition. I can see no reason or excuse for a group of people in an organization explicitly committed to a planetary ethic not to consider broad picture, except that they are reacting emotionally to a set of phenomena that, per their stated goals, they should be considering through objective and reasoned analysis.