Religion vs Science

Religion and Secularism
81
I caqn only wonder what advantage there is to calling every human group interaction a religion?
No one has suggested that.
If we drop the word from Humanistic endeavors are we any worse off?
For those who do not wish to apply the word that way: It’s irrelevant. You don’t have the power to do that. People, such as Ethical Culture members, are free to call their activities religious. You can’t stop it, so the question poses a hypothetical situation that does not and will not exist. The question for you is whether you will honor their use of the term, or insist that it’s simply not how humanists behave. For those who do wish to apply the word that way: yes, we would be a bit worse off. We would be forced into a stilted situation where our language would be arbitrarily constricted. The word “religion" is the best one for us to use, for the reasons I described in response #32, part “5." There’s no reason to force us out of using it, and you can’t do it anyway
I would much prefer to leave the concept of religion to theists, which is how most people define the word.
Ah, now we’ve shifted from the word to the concept. Lois thinks we should use the word as most people use it, even though it’s less accurate than “theism." That might make sense if its use would generate confusion but it doesn't, and won't. The reason most people do not use the word “theism" is that they do not draw the distinction between religion and theism. We do. It’s not that they oppose the distinction, they just don’t think about it, because theism has so taken over the field of religion in our culture, it doesn’t occur to them. So we should use the word to make the distinction clear, and bring it to people’s attention. I want people to think about it. That’s one of the main points of freethought.
We are better off without the confusion, IMO. Don't we freethinkers have enough confusion and misunderstanding to deal with without adding fuel to the fire?
There’s no confusion in using the word “theism" when that is what we mean. Just the opposite, it’s a clearer and narrower term that better expresses our critique.
Refusing to refer to what non-believers do as religion has no down side, in my view. Calling what non-believers do a religion is destructive. it looks like a no-brainer to me.
And here we reach the crux of it. For Lois, this is a no-brainer. She has absolutely no clue that this is exactly what I’ve been telling her the whole time. For her, it’s about not having anything to do with what the other side does. If the theists are over here, then we need to be over there. We want to be sure we’re distinguished from those guys. Whatever they do, we should do the opposite. I’ve been telling her the whole time that she’s just reacting to them. And she just said so, without realizing it. Of course it seems like a no-brainer to Lois. As I’ve been saying all along, the rational parts of her brain are not processing any of this. “No-brainer" is an apt description but not for the reasons Lois thinks. I’d be interested in hearing from the rest of you on this rather sad example. I don’t like picking on anyone but this one is a coffee-snorter. This is an extreme example of what is getting us in trouble, making us look foolish to nearly everyone. I may as well tell you that this makes me laugh, because if anyone outside our ranks sees this, they’re gonna laugh – at us. The irony here would be jaw-dropping funny if it didn’t reflect something that is damaging humanism as a movement. Lois is not the only person in our groups who does this, not the only one by a long shot. Call this a rant if you like, you know damn well it’s true, and if you don’t then you ain’t lookin’. Try to hear Rachel Maddow saying this. So I ask the rest of you: do you see this?
82
Placlair wrote: Religion as “whatever pulls together and addresses life’s central concerns" Make it that broad and it means nothing andeverything. That's the problem with the word and the concept. Lois
False. It doesn't mean baseball. It doesn't mean music. It doesn't mean underwear. It means religion.
83
I caqn only wonder what advantage there is to calling every human group interaction a religion?
No one has suggested that.
If we drop the word from Humanistic endeavors are we any worse off?
For those who do not wish to apply the word that way: It’s irrelevant. You don’t have the power to do that. People, such as Ethical Culture members, are free to call their activities religious. You can’t stop it, so the question poses a hypothetical situation that does not and will not exist. The question for you is whether you will honor their use of the term, or insist that it’s simply not how humanists behave. For those who do wish to apply the word that way: yes, we would be a bit worse off. We would be forced into a stilted situation where our language would be arbitrarily constricted. The word “religion" is the best one for us to use, for the reasons I described in response #32, part “5." There’s no reason to force us out of using it, and you can’t do it anyway
I would much prefer to leave the concept of religion to theists, which is how most people define the word.
Ah, now we’ve shifted from the word to the concept. Lois thinks we should use the word as most people use it, even though it’s less accurate than “theism." That might make sense if its use would generate confusion but it doesn't, and won't. The reason most people do not use the word “theism" is that they do not draw the distinction between religion and theism. We do. It’s not that they oppose the distinction, they just don’t think about it, because theism has so taken over the field of religion in our culture, it doesn’t occur to them. So we should use the word to make the distinction clear, and bring it to people’s attention. I want people to think about it. That’s one of the main points of freethought.
We are better off without the confusion, IMO. Don't we freethinkers have enough confusion and misunderstanding to deal with without adding fuel to the fire?
There’s no confusion in using the word “theism" when that is what we mean. Just the opposite, it’s a clearer and narrower term that better expresses our critique.
Refusing to refer to what non-believers do as religion has no down side, in my view. Calling what non-believers do a religion is destructive. it looks like a no-brainer to me.
And here we reach the crux of it. For Lois, this is a no-brainer. She has absolutely no clue that this is exactly what I’ve been telling her the whole time. For her, it’s about not having anything to do with what the other side does. If the theists are over here, then we need to be over there. We want to be sure we’re distinguished from those guys. Whatever they do, we should do the opposite. I’ve been telling her the whole time that she’s just reacting to them. And she just said so, without realizing it. Of course it seems like a no-brainer to Lois. As I’ve been saying all along, the rational parts of her brain are not processing any of this. “No-brainer" is an apt description but not for the reasons Lois thinks. I’d be interested in hearing from the rest of you on this rather sad example. I don’t like picking on anyone but this one is a coffee-snorter. This is an extreme example of what is getting us in trouble, making us look foolish to nearly everyone. I may as well tell you that this makes me laugh, because if anyone outside our ranks sees this, they’re gonna laugh – at us. The irony here would be jaw-dropping funny if it didn’t reflect something that is damaging humanism as a movement. Lois is not the only person in our groups who does this, not the only one by a long shot. Call this a rant if you like, you know damn well it’s true, and if you don’t then you ain’t lookin’. Try to hear Rachel Maddow saying this. So I ask the rest of you: do you see this? It is you that anyone with a grain of sense is going to laugh at (or cry for for such a lack of understanding).Incidentally, it's you who has no clue as to what I and others have been telling you. You are the pot calling the kettle black. You show yourself to be completely clueless with every post.
84
Placlair wrote: Religion as “whatever pulls together and addresses life’s central concerns" Make it that broad and it means nothing andeverything. That's the problem with the word and the concept. Lois
False. It doesn't mean baseball. It doesn't mean music. It doesn't mean underwear. It means religion. It means you've gone off the deep end! How's that for a definition of religion?
85
....... If a fundie came here and invited us to ask him tough questions, we’d flatten him with questions he couldn’t answer. I do it. It’s one of our guilty pleasures,.... .... Kindly use the word “theism" ......... not the broader term “religion," which overlooks any distinction between a theist and a religious humanist. There is a difference, which I ask each of you to acknowledge with your words. It’s not much to ask.
There have been christian apologists who have participated for months and it's been interesting... PLaClair's comment about theism vs. religion is a interesting one. A problem is that the common use of the word "religion" presupposes theism and the common use of the word theism is [perhaps appropriately] argumentative. However I think it's a delightful shortcut to one key point of the matter which is there isn't a lot 'data' to support the choice of one theistic religion over another,
86
Refusing to refer to what non-believers do as religion has no down side, in my view. Calling what non-believers do a religion is destructive. it looks like a no-brainer to me.
And here we reach the crux of it. For Lois, this is a no-brainer. She has absolutely no clue that this is exactly what I’ve been telling her the whole time.
I figured PLaClair would pounce on that last bit. I'm not going to flesh out why I agree with Lois, my comments on the subject on in this thread, if you can find them in between all the whining and lamentations of how abused religion is. Poor things, they had the world and they lost it. Thanks for all the input, not you Paul, I'm thinking the only word that doesn't carry a ton of baggage with it is "reasonable". Relying on your religion as evidence is not considered reasonable, outside of your religion anyway, unless of course it is something reasonable, then it's usually one of those things that all religions as well as non-believers agree on. Often someone who "is being too scientific" is also considered unreasonable. Reaching agreement on simply what is reasonable is usually not that hard.
87

The term “religion”, for me, and I expect most folks, (very naturally, I think) evokes what understanding that I have of the world’s great religions and their history of promoting supernaturalism through dogma and required rituals that support that dogma and which, in effect, exerts influence and control over the masses.
I think that in in-depth conversations about religion, it probably is a good idea to specify theistic religions, as opposed to non-theistic ones, e.g., Buddism is generally thought of as a religion and I view it as more benign than most and it is non-theistic.
Still, PLaClair, it seems to me that your personalized definition of religion, would make someone like Bill Nye a “religious” proselytizer of Science. A bulk of posters on this forum might be thought of as “religious” proselytizers of atheism. Thus I am skeptical of the practicality of your definition.
Where I agree with you is that it is probably more supportive of the causes of humanism, that we who identify ourselves as humanists, are respectful of each other despite any of our individual identification with a religion.
But religion, itself, as thought of by most people, is not something, IMO, that is worthy of respect. What you describe as your “religion”, I hold in higher esteem than say Buddism, which has supernatural elements. Buddism I hold in higher esteem than most theistic religions, as it seems to me to primarily teach a philosophy of life for individuals to behave positively toward the world and others so as to attain “enlightenment”. (That seems pretty benign to me, but my knowledge of Buddism is not particularly vast.)

88
The term "religion", for me, and I expect most folks, (very naturally, I think) evokes what understanding that I have of the world's great religions and their history of promoting supernaturalism through dogma and required rituals that support that dogma and which, in effect, exerts influence and control over the masses. I think that in in-depth conversations about religion, it probably is a good idea to specify theistic religions, as opposed to non-theistic ones, e.g., Buddism is generally thought of as a religion and I view it as more benign than most and it is non-theistic. Still, PLaClair, it seems to me that your personalized definition of religion, would make someone like Bill Nye a "religious" proselytizer of Science. A bulk of posters on this forum might be thought of as "religious" proselytizers of atheism. Thus I am skeptical of the practicality of your definition. Where I agree with you is that it is probably more supportive of the causes of humanism, that we who identify ourselves as humanists, are respectful of each other despite any of our individual identification with a religion. But religion, itself, as thought of by most people, is not something, IMO, that is worthy of respect. What you describe as your "religion", I hold in higher esteem than say Buddism, which has supernatural elements. Buddism I hold in higher esteem than most theistic religions, as it seems to me to primarily teach a philosophy of life for individuals to behave positively toward the world and others so as to attain "enlightenment". (That seems pretty benign to me, but my knowledge of Buddism is not particularly vast.)
And therefore, if we use the word "theism" or the phrase "theistic belief systems" to refer to theistic belief systems, the result will likely be . . .?
89
(That seems pretty benign to me, but my knowledge of Buddism is not particularly vast.)
If you want to look into that, I recommend this guy
http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/stephen/confession-of-a-buddhist-atheist
He met the Dalai Lama, but in this more recent book, he exposes some of the more dogmatic and not always benign practices of Buddhism in the East. We in the West get a watered down version of it. And that's fine, Buddhism can evolve just like all the others. I agree, descriptive qualifiers are necessary when using the word "religion" these days.
90

OP

Just putting a few thoughts together, wondering what y’all think. Even Rodin.
In the community of scientists, when an idea is put out there, everyone is expected to comment on it, if they have knowledge of the topic. It is a way to share experiences and find out if others feel the same. Scientists from many countries and cultures cooperate to look into these questions. People put aside their differences to work on things they are passionate about.
Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience. It is the one theological argument that can’t be argued with. Religions attach themselves to cultures as a way to help them compete. Sects continue to splinter as they argue about who has it right. They can’t agree on the details, only that there is something they experience that is innate, therefore validating their brand. But if you suggest looking at the similarities, few are interested. That’s why it’s unsocial to discuss religion, it brings up those passions that separate us.
It seems science is better at one of the things religion says it is it does best, build community.

IMO,
Belief in a supernatural (external) intelligent entity which governs the wholeness and requires worship and ritual is a “theistic religion”.
Belief in a natural condition of wholeness which requires worship and ritual is a “deistic religion”.
Belief in a natural condition of wholeness and connectedness which does not require worship and ritual, but respect for the way it functions is “atheism”
The discipline of trying to figure out how the wholeness functions and how we relate to it is “science”

by PLaClair, The second part of your post gets into community. Science may encourage more open dialogue but it does not address the arts, social interaction, family, community and other matters the way religion (not only theistic religion) does. So science may invite fewer of a certain kind of conflict but an argument that it is better for community building than religion is, will not fit with most people’s experience, and here’s where subjective experience is a valid test for what works.
I understand the thrust of your argument, but when science discusses a specific topic, the rules (and participation) are much stricter than religious rules.
When did I use the word "religion" to criricise it?
It's not just a lapse, Lois. You do it routinely. I opened one other topic to see if I could find an example, and sure enough, in "What is the non-believers story," yours is the first response, in which you refer to religion in a negative sense. Please don't tell us after all you've written that you have a favorable view of religion. No, I don't. I think all religion has the potential to be destructive, but some more than others. Religion that forces a belief system on people and threatens them with harm if they leave is the worst kind. Unfortunately, those are the kinds of religions that we hear most about--the ones people are afraid to leave. Religions are so potentially harmful that I think we should be wary of all of them. Lois I agree with Lois on the term "potentially dangerous". The fact that people can take individual action based on their subjectie belief makes it a highly unstable foundation for "inclusive social intercourse".
PlaClair, "a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns" as a definition, seems to me to refer to an individual's personal paradigm or worldview. It does not define what I think of as the world's religions. If one's worldview excludes dogma, that seems to me to be a good thing, but most of the world's predominate religions embody dogma.
But they don't all, and they don't have to. Religion can be something else, something positive. Why is that so hard for people here to accept? Did you read what I wrote about religion in my life? I am far from alone. Maybe you haven't had experiences like that but much of our population has. I agree. I have an intuitive feeling that our bicameral brain requires both (verifiable) physical information and (reasonable) temporal analysis, in order to "make sense" of it all. Right Brain and Left Brain Characteristics (please ignore any implied male/female characteristics) http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_left_brain_characteristics.htm
91

Per Write4U: “The discipline of trying to figure out how the wholeness functions and how we relate to it is ‘science.’ . . . . when science discusses a specific topic, the rules (and participation) are much stricter than religious rules.”
I concur, and like how you appreciate nuance. To me, science is central to religious humanism. I think most religious humanists would agree. Religion adds personal experience and perhaps other elements.
As many have observed, science alone cannot tell us what our values should be. That’s why I think religion is necessary, whether a person looks at it as “religion” or not.
Of course, anything is potentially dangerous. Religions have been dangerous in particular ways, and far more dangerous than baseball, for example. The dynamics of their potential dangers could change, as could their potential for good.

92
Right, but "science" doesn't provide the social connections, or emotional fulfillment that "religion" does.(I mean religion in the traditional sense). For most people, that is.
I think it does in the sense that it allows all voices to be heard. You can be heard in church, as long as you are singing from the hymnal (metaphorically or otherwise). We build connections by listening to each other, and the scientific method demands that.
This sounds like extreme wishful thinking. Really, isn't that basically democracy? Not that the American experiment is going that well at the moment, but democracy seems to be the trend, inclusiveness seems to be the trend.Haha, you're probably right.
93
So what is a religion? Of course, anyone can define it as they please but when I look at religious history, I can condense it down to this statement: a person’s religion is the way that person pulls together and addresses life’s central concerns; or we could say that it is a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns.
Well, I would consider that a definition of "philosophy". Like most people, I tend to think of religion as "a belief in a supernatural creator figure worthy of worship". If this is your definition of the noun "religion", how do you use it as an adjective? If you say a person is "religious", does it mean "a person who addresses life's central concerns"? It sounds a bit redundant, doesn't it? In that case, isn't EVERYONE religious? And what about those of us who eschew the word "religious" and call ourselves "secular" humanists? Does that mean we DON'T "address life's central concerns"?
So why does it matter? It matters because it affects how we will approach these issues. We can choose to declare war on the whole of religion, to critique it categorically and do whatever we can to wipe the “scourge of religion" from the earth.
Nope. I wouldn't know how to wipe something like religion off the face of the Earth. As long as there are people, there will be religions.
94
If this is your definition of the noun "religion", how do you use it as an adjective? If you say a person is "religious", does it mean "a person who addresses life's central concerns"? It sounds a bit redundant, doesn't it? In that case, isn't EVERYONE religious? And what about those of us who eschew the word "religious" and call ourselves "secular" humanists? Does that mean we DON'T "address life's central concerns"?
He gives several more definitions in the "What's the problem with the division of humanists...." thread but I don't think they address your question. His definitions don't leave us with much to describe those institutions that believe in gods and have hierarchies controlled by tradition rather than merit or democracy. I think he wants me to call those "theistic religions", so we switch from calling the thing that has always been known as "religion" to having a qualifier, and the more open-minded philosophical thing now becomes just "religion". As you point out, that leaves the question, what do we call open-minded philosophers who aren't members of a church?
95
As you point out, that leaves the question, what do we call open-minded philosophers who aren't members of a church?
Philosophers. Advocatus' questions go much deeper than that. I'm working on a response, which I will post soon.
96
As you point out, that leaves the question, what do we call open-minded philosophers who aren't members of a church?
Philosophers. Advocatus' questions go much deeper than that. I'm working on a response, which I will post soon. I stumbled on this thread earlier today and joined the forum. I wanted to agree with what you said early on about gradual change both for individuals and society. I joined a very liberal Christian church a few years ago after being apostate for many years. I'll try to post more later about why and what I get from it.
97

I stumbled on this thread earlier today and joined the forum.
I wanted to agree with what PLaClair said early on about gradual change both for individuals and society.
I joined a very liberal Christian church a few years ago after being apostate for many years. I’ll try to post more later about why and what I get from it.
But it doesn’t require me to have any dogma or supernatural beliefs at all. They are very accepting of atheists and agnostics as well as all other religions. Religion is indeed evolving and helps fill very common human needs

98
I stumbled on this thread earlier today and joined the forum. I wanted to agree with what PLaClair said early on about gradual change both for individuals and society. I joined a very liberal Christian church a few years ago after being apostate for many years. I'll try to post more later about why and what I get from it. But it doesn't require me to have any dogma or supernatural beliefs at all. They are very accepting of atheists and agnostics as well as all other religions. Religion is indeed evolving and helps fill very common human needs
That sounds like a very liberal Christian Church indeed. What is a typical sermon like or about?
99

advocatus:
I’ll preface my answer with an observation, not to be confrontational but just to point something out. You seem to have responded to my answers before I gave them, suggesting that you assume what my answers must be. We approach religion in widely disparate ways, so if either of us is to understand the other, we will have to evaluate the other person’s comments from that person’s perspective. I can see how, from your perspective, my concept of religion is redundant to, or indistinguishable from, “philosophy." But that is not true from my perspective. Like Dewey, though not in precisely the same ways, I distinguish a bit between “religion" the noun and “religious" the adjective, the former referring to the whole of religion in all domains of Being (thought, emotion and action), and the letter referring to a person’s attitude. (I omit for the time being the further dynamic of religion as a form of social organization.) William James also wrote of “the religious attitude of the soul." Einstein expressed a (perhaps the) pivotal difference between the religious attitude and the non-religious attitude with this statement (paraphrased): “There are two ways of looking at things. One is that nothing is a miracle. The other is that everything is." So a through-and-through (hard core?) secularist, as you’ve described yourself to be, may pull his life together and address his central concerns in a particular way, and perhaps that is the closest you come to having a religion; however, you may not approach it with a religious attitude. I could even insist that it is your religion by my definition but what would be the point, or as I keep asking others, to what end? If you say you don’t have a religion, I want to understand that from your perspective and respect it as fully as I can. In other words, I want to know what you intend to say (what you mean) and why. Then I want to see what truth and dignity I can find in it.
Some people might say, “there we go with the ‘different perspectives’ nonsense again." Only it’s not nonsense in this context. The statement “I believe there is one God, who created the universe and everything in it, but that may not be true for you" is nonsense. Either the person is making a statement about objective reality, or not: if so, it is objectively true, which means it’s true for everyone; if not, then don’t frame it as a statement about objective reality.
Our discussion, however, is about something else. Religion is not the physical universe but a human construct, with multiple dimensions. It’s a little like the category “snowflake," only it doesn’t refer to a physical object. There is general agreement about what a snowflake is but where do we draw the precise definitional boundaries of “snowflake?" How is it distinguished, for example, from hail or slush, at the boundary where one is finely distinguished from the other? To that ambiguity in our classification system, add that religion includes another vast dimension, in that it describes human activity, thought, emotion, action and interaction, perhaps among other things. As with snowflakes, we cannot reasonably expect any two people’s respective concepts of religion to be precisely the same. All human classifications are partly arbitrary. That is why we must account for different perspectives when we discuss religion: different perspectives both on the various expressions of religion and on what a religion is. In doing that, it would help immensely to know why we are asking the question, and why we draw the lines where each of us does.
So why does it matter? As you observe, religion is not about to go away. In fact, it occupies an important, sometimes a central role in people’s lives and in society, culture and politics. So how should we respond to this as humanists?
Germane to the discussion at hand, we should not define religion solely as a belief system, not only because that is not all it is but also because it is unwise strategically. The eminent religious historian Ninian Smart identified seven dimensions of religion: ritual, narrative/mythic, experiential/emotional, social/institutional, ethical/legal, doctrinal/philosophical and material. There may be others, and even in Smart’s formulation, the categories are subdivided into more than seven clearly distinct categories. Dictionaries may focus on belief as the primary definitional characteristic of religion; that may be what most people say and believe. But it is not how most people approach and practice their religions. These other elements matter a great deal, often more than the belief systems, whether the followers of the religion recognize that fact or not. Consider a devout Christian who says his religion is all about his relationship to Jesus Christ. Quite often, when he tells the story of his religious conversion experience, he will focus on how a group of Christians took him in, accepted him and made him feel accepted and loved. Take that away or let his once-loving community reject him, and see what happens to his beliefs. Consider what happened after Vatican II, when the Catholic Church in the United States changed the mass from Latin to English. Some people liked it better, while some left the Church. Consider any religion, and take away its rituals and community: this can profoundly affect how the congregants view the religion, and even decrease their enthusiasm to such an extent that they leave the church. And even if they do not leave, a change in any of these dimensions will affect how the religion is presented to the next generation, which can in turn either increase or decrease its number of followers, the strength of their commitments and other important elements of what they identify as their religion and how they relate to it and pass it on - or do not pass it on. (To be continued.)

100

(Part 2)
Then let’s address the matter of definition. Each person’s ordering of these seven dimensions is unique, as is each person’s approach to each of them and to the whole. For example, some people lead from the intellect, others from emotion, still others by acting first and thinking about it later. There are enough combinations, permutations and variations in the way each person puts together her religion to make it virtually inevitable that each person’s definition and concept of religion will be as remarkably unique as every snowflake is. Most germane to the discussion at hand, each person has a unique perspective in the ordering of these various factors. By no means is belief the only element or even the most important. Theistic belief is pretty much what we say it is: a rationalization for what people have already made up their minds to do. Yet many of us in our humanist communities ignore our own observation and focus solely on belief in defining religion. That is self-defeating, patently contradictory and utterly illogical.
In giving my very general definition, I thought I made it clear that it was the best reduction to the core of religion that I could think of. Note an important caveat: in response #78, I pointed out that this addresses religion from the standpoint of motivation, or concern – to use another word, from the standpoint of human desire and longing. I choose that approach because it cuts to the emotional core from which most people operate. It is not the only way to define or address religion. In fact, the very idea of trying to define religion succinctly enough so that it fits on a bumper sticker is naïve and contrary to essential tenets of Humanism.
We are all about nuance, accepting uncertainty and embracing ambiguity. Theists are the ones who think they have us outfoxed because they have an answer to the ultimate questions (“God did it"), while we don’t. Neil Tyson makes this point routinely: “I don’t know, and I’m fine with that." Insisting on a simple and clear definition of religion ignores our own worldview and overlooks religion’s many complexities: those complexities may not appear in dictionaries but they are clearly evident in the way people actually think about, address and practice their religions.
I ask why so many non-theists and self-described humanists overlook or ignore these key points. (“Self-described" is not intended here as a term of disparagement.) Plainly, Lois and Lausten have an aversion to religion, to such an extent that they react to the term. Notwithstanding your closing lines, advocatus, you are not shy about the fact that you do not have a favorable view of religion, to the point that you eschew the word “religious." This is the common element I’ve noted when this subject comes up within our ranks: an aversion to the words themselves. As I’ve asked repeatedly, to what end? I can understand why people who hold an unfavorable view of religion would want to have a clear definition of what it is: that makes it easier to criticize it (though not to criticize it rationally and in a way that you can defend). Problem is, approaching it that way can cause us, as critics, to lose our objectivity by becoming invested in the critique, and lose our sense of nuance because considering the non-belief dimensions of religion makes a categorical critique much harder to make. And because I know firsthand how frustrating the mind-bending illogic of theistic belief systems can be, I also know how easy it is to allow this frustration to overwhelm our own logic and reason. In short, it appears to me and most of the general population that we have – pardon the expression – a very large bug up our collective arse about religion. Just look at which discussions draw the most attention on this forum.
I advocate an approach that does not derive our definition of religion solely from the first line in dictionaries but that also considers less common definitions, and how people relate to their religions in practice. With all due respect to the fine etymologists at OED, religious historians probably have more to offer us on the subject than etymologists. I take this approach because I am interested in doing more than – again, pardon the language – bitching about religion. I want to do my tiny part in helping to change how people view and understand religion. Accepting the generally stated definition of religion, mainly so we can put it in a bag and hit it with a big stick, forecloses our opportunity to change minds. I wish to point out to people that while they may say their religion is all about their belief, they do not act that way. I’ve written about a girlfriend from thirty years ago who said that her life was all about Jesus, and what he wanted her to do. She said Jesus Christ, her Lord and Savior, who died on the cross to save her soul from eternal torment, didn’t want her to have sex outside of marriage. And there we would sit, naked on her bed during those intervals when the heat of passion had temporarily subsided, arguing about it. Apparently the irony of that scene escaped her. It did not escape me. Her belief was not central to her life. She was – pardon the expression – full of shit; well-meaning and sincere but thoroughly full of shit, up to her lovely brown eyes, to such an extent that I had to end the relationship. She wasn’t unique in that at all. As Thornton Wilder observed, wherever human beings are involved, there are layers and layers of nonsense. People can say whatever they like about their religions. I want to look deeper and understand what really drives them. That is how we can reach them, if we ever can.
I think I’ve answered most of your questions. If you see philosophy as all-encompassing, then your philosophy could indeed be your religion. However, most people see philosophy as an intellectual pursuit, as opposed to religion, which encompasses all three domains of being. In a sense, everyone is religious, but not everyone has what James and Einstein referred to as a religious attitude.
If you think I’ve missed anything you asked, please tell me and I will try to give you a more direct answer.