The Nature of Religion

[Dan Rowden]

I recently momentarily engaged a conversation at Kelly's Forum regarding the nature of religion. I've decided not to continue there because there's not enough persons of interest involved to warrant the effort. However, Laird tossed his hat into the ring and I wanted to respond to his points so I'm going to bring them here and address them. Just to set the scene, here's the relevant quotes:

Dan Rowden: If a religionist bases his beliefs in evidence, he is no longer being religious! He is either being philosophical or scientific. Those elements in his belief framework that exist without evidence are those which are of a religious nature.

A religious belief system may contain certain facts of history, philosophical constructs and even scientific models, but it also must contain elements of belief that exist in an absence of evidence and are faith based, otherwise it simply isn't religious.

Laird: That's what you seem to want to believe, but unfortunately for you, James is correct, and you are wrong. I'll demonstrate why in two ways, starting with the definition of "religion". Here's the first definition of "religion" from dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." See anything about "in the absence of evidence" in there? Me neither. By the way, I checked a few other definitions, and none of them mentioned absence of evidence either.

In case that's not enough, here's a hypothetical that ought to demonstrate your error. Imagine that tomorrow, everyone on Earth hears a loud inspiring voice coming out of the sky, which asserts itself to be God's, whereupon it talks us all through various miracles which are simultaneously performed, such as causing everyone to levitate, and imparting knowledge directly into everyone's minds. That knowledge consists of a doctrine, which details various spiritual practices that we must perform, some communal and some individual, that will result in our evolution into a higher plane of existence; the divine moral code; as well as a certain level of understanding of metaphysical truths, such as God's true nature, why He has not acted so dramatically until now [...], the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, and where we are headed. He then informs us that He must leave for a higher plane of existence and will be away indefinitely.

Now, subsequent to that event, the world would be united in a single religion. It would meet all of the criteria of the definition that I quoted (in case of confusion, the individual and communal spiritual practices of the hypothetical correspond to the ritual observances of the definition). Would it be fair though to say that in the case of this religion, there are any "elements of belief that exist in the absence of evidence and are faith based"? Nope. This hypothetical demonstrates that "absence of evidence for belief" is not an essential element of religion.

[Dan Rowden]

Now my response:

That's what you seem to want to believe, but unfortunately for you, James is correct, and you are wrong. I'll demonstrate why in two ways, starting with the definition of "religion". Here's the first definition of "religion" from dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." See anything about "in the absence of evidence" in there? Me neither. By the way, I checked a few other definitions, and none of them mentioned absence of evidence either.

Your obsession with doing philosophy from the dictionary is noted. The folly of it is something you need to discern. Your argument is that no-one can say anything about religion as a general fact of it that isn't mentioned in the dictionary. Surely you can see how absurd that is? If you look at the multitude of dictionary definitions of religion you'll find the elements that require said faith in an absence of evidence: supernatural, God, gods, divinity, deity, soul etc etc. These are the hallmarks of a system of belief that we would call "religion". Since there is no evidence for the existence or fact of any of these elements, they constitute the part of such systems that requires faith, which is belief in an absence of evidence.

In case that's not enough, here's a hypothetical that ought to demonstrate your error. Imagine that tomorrow, everyone on Earth hears a loud inspiring voice coming out of the sky, which asserts itself to be God's, whereupon it talks us all through various miracles which are simultaneously performed, such as causing everyone to levitate, and imparting knowledge directly into everyone's minds.

Please note that part: imparts knowledge directly into our minds.

That knowledge consists of a doctrine, which details various spiritual practices that we must perform, some communal and some individual, that will result in our evolution into a higher plane of existence; the divine moral code; as well as a certain level of understanding of metaphysical truths, such as God's true nature, why He has not acted so dramatically until now [...], the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, and where we are headed. He then informs us that He must leave for a higher plane of existence and will be away indefinitely.

Sounds nifty, but the details are actually irrelevant after the former point.

Now, subsequent to that event, the world would be united in a single religion.

No, it would not. It would be united in a single fact of experience, one that requires no belief in anything. Calling it "religion" is nonsensical. It would be scientific and philosophical knowledge, due to the fact of the provision of actual knowledge.

It would meet all of the criteria of the definition that I quoted (in case of confusion, the individual and communal spiritual practices of the hypothetical correspond to the ritual observances of the definition).

No, it would not meet those criteria because, for one thing, belief would not be involved.

Would it be fair though to say that in the case of this religion, there are any "elements of belief that exist in the absence of evidence and are faith based"? Nope. This hypothetical demonstrates that "absence of evidence for belief" is not an essential element of religion.

Acting on the basis of personal knowledge is not what religion means. This scenario does not describe anything that conventionally fits the notion of what religion is.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

Calling it "religion" is nonsensical. It would be scientific and philosophical knowledge, due to the fact of the provision of actual knowledge.

Along this same line of thought, I'd like to add that the words "supernatural" and "magic" refer to processes for which there is no knowledge or evidence. If in the future we understand how those alleged processes work, then they would be natural.

Actually, the concept of supernatural is nonsensical, because there can be nothing outside of nature. Our concept / definition of nature would have to expand or be upgraded to include new findings. Because of this God, which I would define as a supernatural being, cannot possibly exist.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Calling it "religion" is nonsensical. It would be scientific and philosophical knowledge, due to the fact of the provision of actual knowledge.

Along this same line of thought, I'd like to add that the words "supernatural" and "magic" refer to processes for which there is no knowledge or evidence. If in the future we understand how those alleged processes work, then they would be natural.

Yes, exactly, they would cease to be denoted as religious and would rather become scientific or some such.

Actually, the concept of supernatural is nonsensical, because there can be nothing outside of nature. Our concept / definition of nature would have to expand or be upgraded to include new findings. Because of this God, which I would define as a supernatural being, cannot possibly exist.

This God is either supernatural, and therefore believed in on the basis of faith in an absence of evidence, or it is a natural entity whose existence and nature we can know through science, making it a scientific entity, like, say, a zebra.

[Shahrazad]

Exactly.

Next topic?

[rebecca702]

In case that's not enough, here's a hypothetical that ought to demonstrate your error. Imagine that tomorrow, everyone on Earth hears a loud inspiring voice coming out of the sky, which asserts itself to be God's, whereupon it talks us all through various miracles which are simultaneously performed, such as causing everyone to levitate, and imparting knowledge directly into everyone's minds.

Please note that part: imparts knowledge directly into our minds.

So I'm left wondering... if it was imparted directly into our minds in this scenario, no need for faith. But then as soon as new people start being born (as tends to happen), then it would become religion - requiring faith - because this knowledge would be second-hand for those who weren't present for the magicking. Right?

[Shahrazad]

Second-hand knowledge is still knowledge.

[Dan Rowden]

Exactly.

Next topic?

Ha, not so fast. Laird will have more from dictionary.com, just wait and see!

[Dan Rowden]

In case that's not enough, here's a hypothetical that ought to demonstrate your error. Imagine that tomorrow, everyone on Earth hears a loud inspiring voice coming out of the sky, which asserts itself to be God's, whereupon it talks us all through various miracles which are simultaneously performed, such as causing everyone to levitate, and imparting knowledge directly into everyone's minds.

Please note that part: imparts knowledge directly into our minds.

So I'm left wondering... if it was imparted directly into our minds in this scenario, no need for faith. But then as soon as new people start being born (as tends to happen), then it would become religion - requiring faith - because this knowledge would be second-hand for those who weren't present for the magicking. Right?

Very good point. Yes, it would become religion, unless maybe God niftily placed this knowledge in our genetic code. God is nifty, remember. He has ultimate nift on his side.

[guest_of_logic]

Dan,

Thanks for finally responding.

I'm a little low on energy and motivation right now, so I won't respond in detail to your post. Instead I'll pose a second hypothetical:

Christ's miracles and preaching were documented meticulously by a great many contemporary, respected secular historians, from multiple countries across the world, who followed him around, systematically noting down everything that he did in public. Furthermore, those reputable secular historians witnessed his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven. Not only did we have the biblical gospels (which in this hypothetical are free of contradiction), but we had many secular accounts of his life, as well as of the events that occurred at the time of his crucifixion, such as the earthquake and the tearing of the curtain. Many of the crowds who witnessed his ministry likewise documented his life, and many of these personal diaries later came to life and proved to be remarkably consistent. Furthermore, in this hypothetical, the Old Testament is not the pile of garbage that it actually is, but is a sensible, consistent account of the progress of man; also in this hypothetical, good theological reasons are given in the Bible to reconcile the existence of God with evil, such as those that I've previously canvassed on this forum - e.g. that God is not actually omnipotent, and that some evil is ineradicable - as well as why He speaks only to the chosen few.

Now, you might be able to argue about exactly how compelling this historical evidence would be, but it would certainly constitute legitimate evidence, and anyone who believed in Christianity on that basis could not be said to be doing so "in the absence of evidence", as you claim is necessarily the case for believers in religion.

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Thanks for finally responding.

I'm a little low on energy and motivation right now, so I won't respond in detail to your post. Instead I'll pose a second hypothetical:

Christ's miracles and preaching were documented meticulously by a great many contemporary, respected secular historians, from multiple countries across the world, who followed him around, systematically noting down everything that he did in public.

What? Oh, sorry, I forgot it's a hypothetical......

Furthermore, those reputable secular historians witnessed his crucifixion, resurrection and ascension into heaven. Not only did we have the biblical gospels (which in this hypothetical are free of contradiction), but we had many secular accounts of his life, as well as of the events that occurred at the time of his crucifixion, such as the earthquake and the tearing of the curtain. Many of the crowds who witnessed his ministry likewise documented his life, and many of these personal diaries later came to life and proved to be remarkably consistent. Furthermore, in this hypothetical, the Old Testament is not the pile of garbage that it actually is, but is a sensible, consistent account of the progress of man; also in this hypothetical, good theological reasons are given in the Bible to reconcile the existence of God with evil, such as those that I've previously canvassed on this forum - e.g. that God is not actually omnipotent, and that some evil is ineradicable - as well as why He speaks only to the chosen few.

Now, you might be able to argue about exactly how compelling this historical evidence would be, but it would certainly constitute legitimate evidence, and anyone who believed in Christianity on that basis could not be said to be doing so "in the absence of evidence", as you claim is necessarily the case for believers in religion.

Um, that really sucked :) Where is the supernatural, divine, God content in any of that? One could propose a quasi-sensible scientific theory that Jesus was an alien with superior "niftiness". Where is the religion? What you've described is merely a slightly more impressive account of the life of any historical figure. Is belief in (emulation of) the life and philosophy of, say, Hannibal, a religion? Is every son who emulates their father a religionist?

[guest_of_logic]

Where is the supernatural, divine, God content in any of that?

Christ's ministry was based on affirming his relationship with a supernatural, divine, God, and attributing all of his miracles and his future resurrection and ascension to the power of that God. Also, I forgot to mention the Pentecost: the many historians also documented the Holy Spirit falling upon the apostles, and the flames and the speaking in tongues, etc.

One could propose a quasi-sensible scientific theory that Jesus was an alien with superior "niftiness".

One could propose almost an infinite number of theories to fit any given set of facts, the question is which is most plausible. The theory that a highly powerful man with an apparently impeccable morality, who makes a personal sacrifice for the benefit of others, would be lying, is far less plausible than accepting him at his word.

In any case, even assuming that people did go with your alien theory, there would still be strong evidence that Christ was a highly powerful being, who knew certain truths about reality, and any system of worship based on that (evidentially supported belief) would still constitute a religion.

Where is the religion?

Are you serious? It's essentially Christianity, just more consistent and believable. If Christianity is a religion, then so is what I've described.

[marcothay]

Reading this thread from an higher point of view, one thing can be observed.
What we could see from that point is that each one of you
is right and at same time wrong, depending on how "religion" is defined.
We know that this word is being defined in many ways.

We also have to define what exactly means "philosophical religion" like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Zen, etc...

Thus, let see if we can find a better definition of 'religion' on which, everyone could agree.
This is essential, because I believe in this logical and proven axiom:
"definitions of terms used to discuss a problematic are necessary and they have to be agreed upon by both parties, for the problematic be resolved"

What if "religion" could be defined as nothing less than: "an attempt of Man consciousness to find in someone else (Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Lao Tse Tung etc...) a "confirmation" of his
personal and INNATE feeling in immortality and/or eternity.?

From that assumption alone you can create many new religions as well.
Can you see it?

[David Quinn]

What if "religion" could be defined as nothing less than: "an attempt of Man consciousness to find in someone else (Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Lao Tse Tung etc...) a "confirmation" of his personal and INNATE feeling in immortality and/or eternity.?

If the reaching out to eternity is done rationally, logically, intelligently, with the desire to understand the nature of reality directly with one's own mind, without relying on assumptions, without relying on second-hand information, etc, then it isn't religion, but a process of philosophical development.

The difference between religion and philosophical development is as stark as stark can be.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Where is the supernatural, divine, God content in any of that?

Christ's ministry was based on affirming his relationship with a supernatural, divine, God, and attributing all of his miracles and his future resurrection and ascension to the power of that God.

Yeah, no kidding. That's where the religion comes in because all those things are believed on the basis of faith - in an absence of evidence.

Also, I forgot to mention the Pentecost: the many historians also documented the Holy Spirit falling upon the apostles, and the flames and the speaking in tongues, etc.

Are you still in hypothetical mode, because if you're seriously offering that shit to me as an argument, you're insulting me.

One could propose a quasi-sensible scientific theory that Jesus was an alien with superior "niftiness".

One could propose almost an infinite number of theories to fit any given set of facts, the question is which is most plausible. The theory that a highly powerful man with an apparently impeccable morality, who makes a personal sacrifice for the benefit of others, would be lying, is far less plausible than accepting him at his word.

A man's word is not evidence, however many circus tricks he can perform.

In any case, even assuming that people did go with your alien theory, there would still be strong evidence that Christ was a highly powerful being, who knew certain truths about reality, and any system of worship based on that (evidentially supported belief) would still constitute a religion.

Um, so, people who based their thinking and lives around Nietzsche, say, were engaged in religion?

Where is the religion?

Are you serious? It's essentially Christianity, just more consistent and believable. If Christianity is a religion, then so is what I've described.

You keep evading the fact that religion, by definition, contains elements such as the supernatural, God, gods, deity and so forth, all of which are and must be believed in an absence of evidence - because there is no evidence. Your hypothetical scenarios are far other than this. They constitute direct evidence; direct experience of things being physically manifested. Don't you understand that if the function of, let's say a faith healer, whose work is believed in on the basis of faith, came to be understood and scientifically verified that faith would cease and it would become part of medical science. Is medical science a religion?

[Dan Rowden]

What if "religion" could be defined as nothing less than: "an attempt of Man consciousness to find in someone else (Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Lao Tse Tung etc...) a "confirmation" of his personal and INNATE feeling in immortality and/or eternity.?

You can't find confirmation of such things in someone else. You can only do so through your own being.

[rebecca702]

What if "religion" could be defined as nothing less than: "an attempt of Man consciousness to find in someone else (Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Lao Tse Tung etc...) a "confirmation" of his personal and INNATE feeling in immortality and/or eternity.?

You can't find confirmation of such things in someone else. You can only do so through your own being.

Right. If it is "INNATE" then why would you need confirmation from some other?

O Lord my God
How Nifty Thou Art

[guest_of_logic]

Are you still in hypothetical mode

Yes, of course.

Um, so, people who based their thinking and lives around Nietzsche, say, were engaged in religion?

Nope. There's no evidence (that I'm aware of) that Nietzsche had any superhuman powers, or any special relationship with divinity, or made any notable physical sacrifices for his fellow man, or claimed to be returning at the end of times to finally set everything aright, or anything of that nature.

Don't you understand that if the function of, let's say a faith healer, whose work is believed in on the basis of faith, came to be understood and scientifically verified that faith would cease and it would become part of medical science.

I'm not sure that what you're saying is coherent. If the (scientifically verified) mechanism itself is faith, then faith could never cease without the mechanism ceasing to function too.

I'm going to take a step back now, and analyse your responses to my two scenarios. Of the first one, you wrote:

[The world] would be united in a single fact of experience, one that requires no belief in anything. Calling it "religion" is nonsensical. It would be scientific and philosophical knowledge, due to the fact of the provision of actual knowledge.

Of the second one, you wrote:

Christ's ministry was based on affirming his relationship with a supernatural, divine, God, and attributing all of his miracles and his future resurrection and ascension to the power of that God.

Yeah, no kidding. That's where the religion comes in because all those things are believed on the basis of faith - in an absence of evidence.

and:

A man's word is not evidence, however many circus tricks he can perform.

It seems to me that we're playing a game of Goldilocks here. She tried the first bed, but it was far too hard: the evidence was so strong that it resulted in scientific and philosophical knowledge, not religious belief. She tried the second bed, but it was far too soft: the evidence was so weak that it required faith, and did not justify religious belief. Somewhere in between is the bed that's just right for Goldilocks to lie down in and finally get some sleep (but not without saying her prayers first, of course).

I have an idea of how we can resolve this debate, and this quote of yours gives me a clue:

You keep evading the fact that religion, by definition, contains elements such as the supernatural, God, gods, deity and so forth, all of which are and must be believed in an absence of evidence - because there is no evidence.

So maybe we could resolve this debate as follows:

You acknowledge that in principle, evidence-based religious belief is possible.

I acknowledge that I've never yet encountered a religion with sufficient evidence to justify belief, and that I consider the chances of ever encountering one, or that one has ever existed, to be effectively zero.

In other words, I'm right in theory, and you're right in practice.

What do you say?

[Dan Rowden]

So maybe we could resolve this debate as follows:

You acknowledge that in principle, evidence-based religious belief is possible.

No, I'm saying the exact opposite. "Evidence-based religious belief" is oxymoronic to me. The introduction into a belief system of actual, verifiable evidence automatically puts it into a different category and nullifies the need for belief itself.

I acknowledge that I've never yet encountered a religion with sufficient evidence to justify belief, and that I consider the chances of ever encountering one, or that one has ever existed, to be effectively zero.

I'm saying the reason that you've never done so is because of the dimension of "religion" - which makes it religion - where there's a faith-based belief in the non-demonstrable.

In other words, I'm right in theory, and you're right in practice.

What do you say?

I say I'm right in theory and in practice because the practice actually expresses the nature of the theory.

[guest_of_logic]

The introduction into a belief system of actual, verifiable evidence automatically puts it into a different category and nullifies the need for belief itself.

Please consider the difference between evidence and proof. The former does not imply certainty or a necessary truth, and does not nullify the need for belief.

I say I'm right in theory and in practice because the practice actually expresses the nature of the theory.

Well there go my dreams of pursuing a career as an international diplomat negotiating peace treaties. I can't even negotiate a peace treaty on an internet forum. But perhaps it's not so much my lack of negotiating skill, as your excess of stubborness.

[Dan Rowden]

Get Religion Now

[Jamesh]

Religion – accepting as true certain statements of certain others of whom one has some personal connection, without analysing these statements in relation to reality, but rather accepting or rejecting such statements relative to there emotional effect.

Science – Understanding reality by investigating and finding patterns, consistency and predictability by observation of appearances or accepting as evidence the statements of others who are believed to have done so. Logically assessing the relationships between things, or sets of things, but not all things.

Philosophical development - - rationally, logically, intelligently attempting to understand the nature of reality directly with one's own mind, by noting broad patterns among appearances, but without accepting the statements of others or one’s existing assumptions as being The Truth, but only as possible or limited truths or falsities (pointers).

[rebecca702]

Get Religion Now

That was pretty good. Have you heard of Tarvuism? http://www.tarvu.com/

[Dan Rowden]

Hmm, I do like things that are easy to join.

[DHodges]

Have you heard of Tarvuism? http://www.tarvu.com/

I assume that's a parody, but it can be so hard to tell with religion. I mean, it makes more sense than Scientology.

Um, so, people who based their thinking and lives around Nietzsche, say, were engaged in religion?

I don't know about Nietzsche, but there are some Marxists and Randians that seem to have some religious elements to their thinking.


The way I see it, since religions as they actually exist rely on faith (at least in general, if not all of them), whether you include it in the definition or not is largely a matter of purpose.

For instance, in the US there have been some legal questions involving whether "atheism" should count as a religion.

The way I understand it, there are a lot of people that consider themselves Jews that are atheistic or agnostic. (Judaism apparently puts a lot more emphasis on action than thoughts.) But of course you could make some sort of distinction between religious and cultural Jews if you were so inclined.

Although I am atheistic, I might at times count myself as a member of some religion, such as Buddhism or Pastafarianism. ( I have a nice chrome Flying Spaghetti Monster on my car, kind of like those Christian fish.)