What qualifies as a religion?

[Non Sequitur]

Martin Luther once said: “Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.” This I think is a good starting point for the following question: what qualifies as a religion or how do you define religion? I once has a friend who said to basically said to me "the trend of history is progressive. Through science and rational discussion we can solve almost all of the world's problems" would this qualify as a religious statement? It certainly makes a faith based assertion. Can our economic systems be religions of sorts requiring their own faith based assertions and methods of acting (ethics if you will). Another common argument goes as follows: dogmatic atheism is a religion (it makes a truth claim that cannot be proven). Is this true?

I open the floor for debate.

[Greendruid]

The anthropological definition is a set of beliefs and practices pertaining to the supernatural. The problem with using a word like "faith" or even "ethics" is that it is not generally applicable to some very obscure but nonetheless human versions of religion in remote places you've probably never heard of. The anthropological definitions have to be, by their very nature, broad enough to include all possible human versions of these large concepts. In other words, the only common denominator the world over is a belief in the supernatural, which is simply defined as something existing beyond the known world (however your particular culture defines the known and knowable). To apply the words "faith" and "ethics" becomes Abrahamicentric in many ways. Because faith and ethics are features of the Abrahamic religions these are immediately thought of as the basic requirements of religion. However, sometimes the supernatural isn't/aren't even a god or gods; sometimes they don't exist in a metaphysical universe of good and evil. Sometimes, they just ... are.

[Donkey]

I postulate (drunkenly) that it is important to decide (as a group) as to whether or not "religion" hinges on the assertion or acceptance of a divine entity.

I would hazard not, for instance Buddhism, so that would leave the door open for extreme, for instance, Marxism, as a religion.

I certainly got that impression from a Marxist that I lived with...

*hic*

[Michael]

Martin Luther once said: “Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.” This I think is a good starting point for the following question: what qualifies as a religion or how do you define religion? I once has a friend who said to basically said to me "the trend of history is progressive. Through science and rational discussion we can solve almost all of the world's problems" would this qualify as a religious statement? It certainly makes a faith based assertion.
I believe that particular statement demonstrates a clear statement of faith and as such, is very similar to many/most religious statements.

Can our economic systems be religions of sorts requiring their own faith based assertions and methods of acting (ethics if you will).
Yes, I'll agree here too. Our economic systems are certainly predicated on a form of faith (called "debt" or "fiat money").

Another common argument goes as follows: dogmatic atheism is a religion (it makes a truth claim that cannot be proven). Is this true?
Again, I will agree that dogmatic atheism is 'religious-like' with respect to the commonality of faith

Sidenote: Atheist I may be, but my argument is pragmatic, not dogmatic. I hold my atheism as a rational choice - as freely held as any other human choice.

I open the floor for debate.
And an interesting debate topic it is - given that you and I appear share some similar ground here (and an admiration for Martin Luther!).

One question for you Non Sequitur - do you not fear that Luther's question might 'lower the bar' for religion? That is to say, if everything is faith and religion, then faith and religion has no substantive meaning left. It is as human as eating, sleeping and defecating (i.e. instinctual and thus on a par with 'animals').

[The Aussie]

what qualifies as a religion or how do you define religion? .

To have 'a religion' is to be part of a group. It isn't singular.

But one can be 'religious' by themselves without ever coming into contact with another human being.


Religion itself is the belief of a supernatural and sacred being or object.

[Donkey]

To have 'a religion' is to be part of a group. It isn't singular.

But one can be 'religious' by themselves without ever coming into contact with another human being.


Religion itself is the belief of a supernatural and sacred being or object.
Would you then classify Buddhism as not a religion?

[The Aussie]

Would you then classify Buddhism as not a religion?

I cannot draw a conclusion from your question. It doesn't seem to have any bearing on what I said.

[partofme]

I cannot draw a conclusion from your question. It doesn't seem to have any bearing on what I said.

You said religion is belief in the supernatural but Buddhists do not have a deity. Buddha just showed them a way to live.

[Dominick]

Plain worship of the sun (and maybe moon and stars) would I think qualify as a religion without having any supernatural aspect to it.

What's definitely an aspect of qualification as a religion is numbers. If a single person believes something outrageous, (s)he's considered a weirdo or nutter. When a thousand believe the same it's a sect. When a million or a billion do, it's a religion.

My buddy the OED describes two definitions that actually fall into three:
1. the belief in and worship of a human controlling power, especially a personal God or gods -> a particular system of faith and worship [Ed.: that's something altogether different IMO]
2. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
I'd reject the second definition as it would include things like hobbies or even courtship :)

[The Aussie]

You said religion is belief in the supernatural but Buddhists do not have a deity. Buddha just showed them a way to live.

Is that so. Who are these guys then? Always thought that they had lived on Earth and were now worshiped.




Gautama Buddha (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Gautama_Buddha), founder of Buddhism (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddhism), clan name Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Gotama), personal name said to be Siddhārtha (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha), epithet Śākyamuni (Sanskrit; Pali: Sakyamuni or Shakyamuni), commonly known as "The Buddha"
The Buddhist concept of Buddhahood (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddhahood)
Buddharupa (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddharupa), a statue or other representation of a Buddha


Other Buddhas

Other figures considered to be Buddhas by various Buddhist groups include:


Amitābha (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Amit%C4%81bha), principal Buddha of Pure Land sect
Vairocana (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Vairocana), embodiment of Dharmakaya (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Dharmakaya)
Dipankara (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Dipankara), First Buddha of the current world age

[partofme]

Is that so. Who are these guys then? Always thought that they had lived on Earth and were now worshiped.




Gautama Buddha (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Gautama_Buddha), founder of Buddhism (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddhism), clan name Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Gotama), personal name said to be Siddhārtha (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha), epithet Śākyamuni (Sanskrit; Pali: Sakyamuni or Shakyamuni), commonly known as "The Buddha"
The Buddhist concept of Buddhahood (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddhahood)
Buddharupa (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddharupa), a statue or other representation of a Buddha


Other Buddhas

Other figures considered to be Buddhas by various Buddhist groups include:


Amitābha (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Amit%C4%81bha), principal Buddha of Pure Land sect
Vairocana (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Vairocana), embodiment of Dharmakaya (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Dharmakaya)
Dipankara (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Dipankara), First Buddha of the current world age



Those represent ideas and are not thought of as actual supernatural beings. Guatama Buddha is considered to have been a real person that happened to be the first to attain enlightenment and so could show others the way. Generally Buddhism is considered nontheistic. The Four Noble Truths and The Eight Fold Path which are the core of Buddhism just as The Bible is for Christianity do not mention any sort of God or any worship of any deity.

I actually know a few guys from Thailand who where raised Buddhist and came to American and at one point became Christians yet still practiced Buddhism. They felt that there was no contradiction at all.

[dilettante]

You said religion is belief in the supernatural but Buddhists do not have a deity. Buddha just showed them a way to live.

But there's more to believing in the supernatural than just believing in deities; one simply has to believe that there is more to reality than the material world. Belief in a soul or spirit, in reincarnation, in the Tao, in karma, in magic, in a "life force," or in the Buddhist conception of Rebirth (amongst other things) all qualify as belief in the supernatural.

[Donkey]

Is that so. Who are these guys then? Always thought that they had lived on Earth and were now worshiped.




Gautama Buddha (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Gautama_Buddha), founder of Buddhism (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddhism), clan name Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Gotama), personal name said to be Siddhārtha (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha), epithet Śākyamuni (Sanskrit; Pali: Sakyamuni or Shakyamuni), commonly known as "The Buddha"
The Buddhist concept of Buddhahood (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddhahood)
Buddharupa (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Buddharupa), a statue or other representation of a Buddha

Other Buddhas

Other figures considered to be Buddhas by various Buddhist groups include:


Amitābha (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Amit%C4%81bha), principal Buddha of Pure Land sect
Vairocana (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Vairocana), embodiment of Dharmakaya (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Dharmakaya)
Dipankara (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/wiki/Dipankara), First Buddha of the current world age

Not gods...

[SMadsen]

Martin Luther once said: “Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.” This I think is a good starting point for the following question: what qualifies as a religion or how do you define religion? I once has a friend who said to basically said to me "the trend of history is progressive. Through science and rational discussion we can solve almost all of the world's problems" would this qualify as a religious statement? It certainly makes a faith based assertion.
It is indeed an assertion but the answer to your question depends on what you call faith. It is not a religious assertion. It's no more based on "faith" than the assertion that an expensive bottle of wine will buy you more credit with the hostess of a dinner party than a cheap bottle.

Can our economic systems be religions of sorts requiring their own faith based assertions and methods of acting (ethics if you will).
No, economic systems can't be religions of sort.

Another common argument goes as follows: dogmatic atheism is a religion (it makes a truth claim that cannot be proven). Is this true?
No, technically it is not a religion.


Religions presuppose the supernatural. None the above qualify as statements that involve the supernatural.
And now I will read the other replies in this thread :)

[SMadsen]

One question for you Non Sequitur - do you not fear that Luther's question might 'lower the bar' for religion? That is to say, if everything is faith and religion, then faith and religion has no substantive meaning left. It is as human as eating, sleeping and defecating (i.e. instinctual and thus on a par with 'animals').
It leaves the same taste in my mouth. I think Luther's statement is merely a product of his environment, i.e., a world where lack of religious faith was a non-isssue.

[SMadsen]

Plain worship of the sun (and maybe moon and stars) would I think qualify as a religion without having any supernatural aspect to it.
Worship of the sun is always based on the supernatural, i.e., on properties that have no other ways to exist other than by being projected unto an entity.

Fairies, lepricorns and unicorns are similar examples of entities that could exist just as well as the sun does, but their properties could not exist without being projected unto them.

Santa Claus, well, he also has properties projected unto him but, logically, he's just a logistic marvel. He could actually exist, as is, in the natural world :)

I actually think Santa has become subject to another kind of projection (of the scape goat kind).

[Dominick]

Worship of the sun is always based on the supernatural, i.e., on properties that have no other ways to exist other than by being projected unto an entity.
Not in the experience I have with a 'pagan' group. The Sun was worshipped because it's the sole origin of light, warmth, and life. Which is scientifically correct.

PS : I parenthesized pagan because that word covers so many meanings it's pretty meaningless.

[SMadsen]

Not in the experience I have with a 'pagan' group. The Sun was worshipped because it's the sole origin of light, warmth, and life. Which is scientifically correct.

PS : I parenthesized pagan because that word covers so many meanings it's pretty meaningless.
Does this pagan worship might be based on a belief that the sun has a "will"?

[The Aussie]

Not in the experience I have with a 'pagan' group. The Sun was worshipped because it's the sole origin of light, warmth, and life. Which is scientifically correct.

PS : I parenthesized pagan because that word covers so many meanings it's pretty meaningless.

A pagan group? Does this mean you worship the Devil?

[partofme]

A pagan group? Does this mean you worship the Devil?

Not at all. Do you even know what the word pagan means?

[The Aussie]

Not at all. Do you even know what the word pagan means?

Although I was asking the question of Dominick and am unsure why you are answering for him,...........yes I know very well what it is.
It encompasses many old religions which actually include the heathen beliefs of American Indians and Australian aboriginals, however it's roots go back to the old pagan/ heathen religions of early Europe and have a very close affinity to Wicker or Devil worship.

Here is a photo of a modern Pagan procession in Austria, which is a remnant of a practice performed by the historical pagans of the area. Many elements of modern European culture and folklore originate among pagan beliefs and practises.


I therefore as again, if your brand of Paganism includes leanings to Wicker practices?



http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn101/Pictures77_2008/Paganworship.jpg

[partofme]

Although I was asking the question of Dominick and am unsure why you are answering for him,...........yes I know very well what it is.
It encompasses many old religions which actually include the heathen beliefs of American Indians and Australian aboriginals, however it's roots go back to the old pagan/ heathen religions of early Europe and have a very close affinity to Wicker or Devil worship.

Here is a photo of a modern Pagan procession in Austria, which is a remnant of a practice performed by the historical pagans of the area. Many elements of modern European culture and folklore originate among pagan beliefs and practises.


I therefore as again, if your brand of Paganism includes leanings to Wicker practices?



http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn101/Pictures77_2008/Paganworship.jpg

That's a crock.

[Greendruid]

A pagan group? Does this mean you worship the Devil?

The Devil, or Satan, "the fallen one", the morningstar, or Lucifer is a Judeo-Christian deity figure, not a pagan one.

[Dominick]

Does this pagan worship might be based on a belief that the sun has a "will"?
Good question. I concede that if it were it would indeed be supernatural, but for the life of me, I cannot remember if this was the case.

[Dominick]

A pagan group? Does this mean you worship the Devil?
No, I wasn't part of it, I just knew some people in it. But neither did that group actually. As Greendruid already mentioned, the Devil, if you mean Satan/Lucifer, is a Christian concept (though there are plenty of embodied concepts of evil in other religions too).
This particular pagan group wasn't into the duality of good/evil. It basically considered Nature as a Life Force, without accrediting it with anthropomorphic concepts. An earthquake or a hurricane are neither good or bad, they just are. The view was that if you got any kind of hurt from Nature, it was because of a choice you made. For instance, living on the San Andreas Fault isn't a bright idea, or as they would have said, shows a lack of respect to Nature.
I must admit it made a lot more sense to me than any deity-based religion.

[partofme]

No, I wasn't part of it, I just knew some people in it. But neither did that group actually. As Greendruid already mentioned, the Devil, if you mean Satan/Lucifer, is a Christian concept (though there are plenty of embodied concepts of evil in other religions too).
This particular pagan group wasn't into the duality of good/evil. It basically considered Nature as a Life Force, without accrediting it with anthropomorphic concepts. An earthquake or a hurricane are neither good or bad, they just are. The view was that if you got any kind of hurt from Nature, it was because of a choice you made. For instance, living on the San Andreas Fault isn't a bright idea, or as they would have said, shows a lack of respect to Nature.
I must admit it made a lot more sense to me than any deity-based religion.

Really it isn't a good idea to live anywhere. When you consider hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, and others there really isn't a place that doesn't have a good shot at some sort of natural disaster effecting you from time to time. Here we are in danger of earthquakes, tornadoes, and of course flash flooding from time to time. Before they put up the flood wall in the town I grew up in a huge chunk of it got flooded back in the 30s. Oddly enough those being the possible disasters people think of it was a ice storm this past winter that caused a huge amount of damage knocking out power and water for many and causing people to have to live in shelters for almost a month in some places. I totally agree that it is neither good or bad in a cosmic sense since I see those as man made distinctions but where would be a wise place to live in order to avoid natural disasters? I'm sure some places are better than others but still. Sorry for the off topic tangent.

[Greendruid]

I'm going to make another clarification on the choice of the word supernatural, at least from the anthropological perspective. The term is in reference to a relative concept, that of the concept of what is natural about the universe that each culture perceives. If you have a natural explanation for something's existence/behaviour/occurrence then it is, by definition, natural.

Unfortunately, this isn't the same for every culture and even what basis for judgement of what is natural can be very different. We would use a system of empirical evidence and hypothesis testing as the manner of establishing natural phenomena in a Western science approach. What qualifies as empirical evidence is, well, subjective.

The point I'm trying to make about the word supernatural is that it doesn't presuppose a deity, though that is probably the most commonly constructed form amongst the world's cultures. By this definition I think that Buddhism could be argued as containing definite properties of belief in the supernatural. Enlightenment is attained through specific behaviours in the natural world but enlightenment itself is an amorphous, supernatural state of being.

[dilettante]

I'm going to make another clarification on the choice of the word supernatural, at least from the anthropological perspective. The term is in reference to a relative concept, that of the concept of what is natural about the universe that each culture perceives. If you have a natural explanation for something's existence/behaviour/occurrence then it is, by definition, natural.

Unfortunately, this isn't the same for every culture and even what basis for judgement of what is natural can be very different. We would use a system of empirical evidence and hypothesis testing as the manner of establishing natural phenomena in a Western science approach. What qualifies as empirical evidence is, well, subjective.

The point I'm trying to make about the word supernatural is that it doesn't presuppose a deity, though that is probably the most commonly constructed form amongst the world's cultures. By this definition I think that Buddhism could be argued as containing definite properties of belief in the supernatural. Enlightenment is attained through specific behaviours in the natural world but enlightenment itself is an amorphous, supernatural state of being.

A good point, if I'm reading it correctly. "Naturalness" (and hence "supernaturalness") are subjective, culturally defined terms.

[Greendruid]

A good point, if I'm reading it correctly. "Naturalness" (and hence "supernaturalness") are subjective, culturally defined terms.

Indeed, let me provide a quick example borrowed from one of my mentors' fieldwork in Western Samoa.

The Western Samoans had never, until the arrival of Europeans, performed internal investigations of the human body. They nonetheless, have had to make sense of the human body as all cultures do. In their efforts to understand what goes on internally, without looking at what is there, they've almost gotten the systems right through methods of palpation of the healthy and sick bodies and observation of illnesses and their various processes. However, one very interesting organ was theorised and certainly became a reality in the Samoan system of traditional healing. The organ known as a to'ala is a sort of stomach-like organ whose role it is to take digested energy derived from food and migrate throughout the body to redistribute that food energy where needed. It's sort of shaped like a stomach with lots of tubes coming off of it and, it's a free-ranging organ in the sense that it literally can go anywhere in the body. The ability is both its blessing and its curse. In being able to supply all the areas of the body with food energy, the to'ala and its many tubes are subject to becoming tangled up in other organs/muscles/vessels of the body. This can then of course restrict, constrict and even asphixiate both the organ/muscle/vessel and the to'ala itself. To fix this requires a to'ala massager, whose role it is to massage the to'ala back into place and allow the passage of the now spoiled food energy from the body.

The empirical evidence in this case includes the symptoms of various illnesses that would accompany this as well as the excreted nasty food energy that follows the successful massaging of the to'ala back into place. This is not dissimilar to the ways in which Westerners identify themselves as having a "cold" by way of various symptoms and expulsions of mucus from the nose and mouth.

Any way, my point is that this is a relative system. What is deemed natural is indeed culturally relative. We know very well that if we grabbed a Samoan off the street and a Westerner (whatever that is) and cut them both open that there would be no to'ala in either of them and they'd probably have the exact same organs, muscles and vessels in relatively the same locations. What is important to appreciate is that natural phenomena can only be appreciated as such if you accept the terms of definition within the cultural system of what is natural. If you don't share these, you might as well believe that we're all filled with Jell-o on the inside because any deviation from your cultural system will seem as strange as that. Both are natural.

[The Aussie]

Really it isn't a good idea to live anywhere. When you consider hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, and others there really isn't a place that doesn't have a good shot at some sort of natural disaster effecting you from time to time.

I agree with this. You shouldn't be here. Do the world a favor.:rofl:

[SMadsen]

Indeed, let me provide a quick example borrowed from one of my mentors' fieldwork in Western Samoa.

The Western Samoans had never, until the arrival of Europeans, performed internal investigations of the human body. They nonetheless, have had to make sense of the human body as all cultures do. In their efforts to understand what goes on internally, without looking at what is there, they've almost gotten the systems right through methods of palpation of the healthy and sick bodies and observation of illnesses and their various processes. However, one very interesting organ was theorised and certainly became a reality in the Samoan system of traditional healing. The organ known as a to'ala is a sort of stomach-like organ whose role it is to take digested energy derived from food and migrate throughout the body to redistribute that food energy where needed. It's sort of shaped like a stomach with lots of tubes coming off of it and, it's a free-ranging organ in the sense that it literally can go anywhere in the body. The ability is both its blessing and its curse. In being able to supply all the areas of the body with food energy, the to'ala and its many tubes are subject to becoming tangled up in other organs/muscles/vessels of the body. This can then of course restrict, constrict and even asphixiate both the organ/muscle/vessel and the to'ala itself. To fix this requires a to'ala massager, whose role it is to massage the to'ala back into place and allow the passage of the now spoiled food energy from the body.

The empirical evidence in this case includes the symptoms of various illnesses that would accompany this as well as the excreted nasty food energy that follows the successful massaging of the to'ala back into place. This is not dissimilar to the ways in which Westerners identify themselves as having a "cold" by way of various symptoms and expulsions of mucus from the nose and mouth.

Any way, my point is that this is a relative system. What is deemed natural is indeed culturally relative. We know very well that if we grabbed a Samoan off the street and a Westerner (whatever that is) and cut them both open that there would be no to'ala in either of them and they'd probably have the exact same organs, muscles and vessels in relatively the same locations. What is important to appreciate is that natural phenomena can only be appreciated as such if you accept the terms of definition within the cultural system of what is natural. If you don't share these, you might as well believe that we're all filled with Jell-o on the inside because any deviation from your cultural system will seem as strange as that. Both are natural.
Greendruid, while very interesting, I don't see how it has anything to do with a difference between the natural and the supernatural?

The to'ala and its properties seem to be explanations of observations of natural phenomena. If the Samoans gave the it qualities with other purposes than those directly linked to observations then it would indeed move into a supernatural zone. But without that it sounds no different, really, than our current model of the atom. It works for all practical purposes but it's most probably not the real thing.

[Dominick]

Indeed, let me provide a quick example borrowed from one of my mentors' fieldwork in Western Samoa.

The Western Samoans had never, until the arrival of Europeans, performed internal investigations of the human body. They nonetheless, have had to make sense of the human body as all cultures do. In their efforts to understand what goes on internally, without looking at what is there, they've almost gotten the systems right through methods of palpation of the healthy and sick bodies and observation of illnesses and their various processes. However, one very interesting organ was theorised and certainly became a reality in the Samoan system of traditional healing. The organ known as a to'ala is a sort of stomach-like organ whose role it is to take digested energy derived from food and migrate throughout the body to redistribute that food energy where needed. It's sort of shaped like a stomach with lots of tubes coming off of it and, it's a free-ranging organ in the sense that it literally can go anywhere in the body. The ability is both its blessing and its curse. In being able to supply all the areas of the body with food energy, the to'ala and its many tubes are subject to becoming tangled up in other organs/muscles/vessels of the body. This can then of course restrict, constrict and even asphixiate both the organ/muscle/vessel and the to'ala itself. To fix this requires a to'ala massager, whose role it is to massage the to'ala back into place and allow the passage of the now spoiled food energy from the body.

The empirical evidence in this case includes the symptoms of various illnesses that would accompany this as well as the excreted nasty food energy that follows the successful massaging of the to'ala back into place. This is not dissimilar to the ways in which Westerners identify themselves as having a "cold" by way of various symptoms and expulsions of mucus from the nose and mouth.

Any way, my point is that this is a relative system. What is deemed natural is indeed culturally relative. We know very well that if we grabbed a Samoan off the street and a Westerner (whatever that is) and cut them both open that there would be no to'ala in either of them and they'd probably have the exact same organs, muscles and vessels in relatively the same locations. What is important to appreciate is that natural phenomena can only be appreciated as such if you accept the terms of definition within the cultural system of what is natural. If you don't share these, you might as well believe that we're all filled with Jell-o on the inside because any deviation from your cultural system will seem as strange as that. Both are natural.
I've got two issues with this.

One of them is rather :offtopic: and concerns the West Samoans specifically. Were or are they remarkably pacifistic ? It's just that much knowledge about the interiors of the body came literally from hacking people to pieces in wars, tribal feuds, domestic fighting, human sacrifice, etc.
My point is that, unless they were indeed remarkably peaceful, the West Samons must have had -it would appear- at least some empirical evidence of the absence of the to'ala. If they had, then the concept of the to'ala must have survived through things like religious taboo and therefore must have had a supernatural aspect to it.
Note that I don't know a thing about actual anthropology. It just seems logical.

The other point is that such knowledge is only culturally subjective when one compartementalizes culture. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy so to speak. If the central tenet were the accumulative knowledge of all cultures, much less, including the to'ala would become supernatural.
It's the initial classification, the individualistic approach to cultures that renders these items culturally subjective, not the items themselves. The to'ala is natural relative to the knowledge of the West Samoans, but not relative to all current knowledge. Therefore, it is the field of view in which the subjectivity originates, which is not surprising as the choice of that field of view is already subjective.

[dilettante]

Perhaps the larger question here would be, if religion is defined such that it requires belief in the supernatural, whose definition of "supernatural" is relevant in determining whether or not something is a religion? The definition of the person who believes-in/practices that something, or our own definition?

And how relevant is it that the very concept of a drawing a meaningful line between "natural" and "supernatural" is itself mostly a modern (i.e. culturally constructed) notion?

[Non Sequitur]

sorry for the long response time, term papers are due.



One question for you Non Sequitur - do you not fear that Luther's question might 'lower the bar' for religion? That is to say, if everything is faith and religion, then faith and religion has no substantive meaning left. It is as human as eating, sleeping and defecating (i.e. instinctual and thus on a par with 'animals').

I do sometimes think that Luther's definition has this problem, but the more i think about it the more I think he is right. In Christian theology, "religion" is not necessarily a positive term. While religion can mean true love for and faith in the divine (specifically God as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ) it can also mean a variety of human systems and attempts to obtain and control knowledge that is not theirs ("the knowledge of good and evil" in Genesis 2-3). These attempts are nothing short of idolatry, attempting to put man where God belongs. Thus, I think the definition does degrade religion, but names a part of human life for what it is.

[Non Sequitur]

It is indeed an assertion but the answer to your question depends on what you call faith. It is not a religious assertion. It's no more based on "faith" than the assertion that an expensive bottle of wine will buy you more credit with the hostess of a dinner party than a cheap bottle.


No, economic systems can't be religions of sort.


No, technically it is not a religion.


Religions presuppose the supernatural. None the above qualify as statements that involve the supernatural.
And now I will read the other replies in this thread :)


alright, so religion involves a discernment of the divine (what ever that may be). So is not the dogmatic Atheism a discernment of the divine? it might be a rejection of the divine, but it still could be read as a faith statement that cannot really be proven. And does the supernatural have to be the big guy in the clouds or can it be making a faith statement about forces we don't fully understand (for example modern global economics?)

just playing devil's advocate.

[SMadsen]

And how relevant is it that the very concept of a drawing a meaningful line between "natural" and "supernatural" is itself mostly a modern (i.e. culturally constructed) notion?
It's as relevant as the question itself, which is a "modern" notion as well. One can only ask what qualifies as religion if oneself recognizes one's own religion as religion, which, as Non Sequitur has just implied, can be a hard thing to do.

At the time of Luther, as well as within religious communities/societies/states today, having no religion was and is inconceivable, so anything else than one's own religion is, as Non Sequitur very precisely put it, "a variety of human systems and attempts to obtain and control knowledge that is not theirs". Also known as heathen, koffer, renegade, idolater or whatever derogative designation can be thought of to let others know that oneself is on the only true path. Kinda like a missionary preaching his faith to the heathens who only have their religion.

Point being that if the religious doesn't recognize his religion as a religion on par with all other religions, any talk about natural and supernatural is utterly irrelevant to him. But it's not irrelevant to the question. In fact, I think it is the only answer to the question.

[SMadsen]

alright, so religion involves a discernment of the divine (what ever that may be). So is not the dogmatic Atheism a discernment of the divine? it might be a rejection of the divine, but it still could be read as a faith statement that cannot really be proven. And does the supernatural have to be the big guy in the clouds or can it be making a faith statement about forces we don't fully understand (for example modern global economics?)

just playing devil's advocate.
:)
As far as the latter I will definitely say no. Again, it depends on your definition of faith but since this is in context with religion I take it that you mean faith in a religious sense. If faith is about forces we don't fully understand then everything is faith. But clearly, not everything is religion. Not even to the deepest religious person.

Making statements about global economics, regardless of any degree of understanding, is nothing more than making statements about natural phenomena.


As far as dogmatic atheism is concerned, well, I'll get back to you on that :)

[SMadsen]

Better late than never (I actually fell and cracked my elbow open so I couldn't use my right arm for a couple of days).

If there is nothing supernatural, divine or sacred in a belief then the belief is not of a religious kind. Religious faith is predicated upon the existence of specific supernatural, divine and sacred entities. Hence, lack of belief in, or, since this concerns the so-called "dogmatic atheism", belief in the non-existence of such entities is not religious.

Since atheism is lack of belief in theisms and doesn't actually exclude other forms of religious beliefs (some Buddhist variants and Taoism are atheistic in nature), this often gets expressed as the "all gods minus one" argument. That is, it is no more a religion to disregard, or, again, since this concerns "dogmatic atheism", to deny, the existence of theistic gods than a deist to disregard/deny theistic gods, a theist to disregard/deny deistic gods or a monotheist to disregard/deny the existence of all gods minus one.

In short, it is not a religion for, say, a Christian to deny the existence of Ymir, Anubis, Mithra and Orisha. Likewise, it is not a religion for a person to deny the existence of theistic gods. Or, for that matter, to deny the existence of gods alltogether.

[Michael]

sorry for the long response time, term papers are due.
No worries. A good discussion forum doesn't come with time limits. :)

I do sometimes think that Luther's definition has this problem, but the more i think about it the more I think he is right. In Christian theology, "religion" is not necessarily a positive term. While religion can mean true love for and faith in the divine (specifically God as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ) it can also mean a variety of human systems and attempts to obtain and control knowledge that is not theirs ("the knowledge of good and evil" in Genesis 2-3). These attempts are nothing short of idolatry, attempting to put man where God belongs. Thus, I think the definition does degrade religion, but names a part of human life for what it is.
Excellent answer!

I think your reading of Luther is correct here. Luther was no fan of "religion" at all (which to him was represented by the RCC). Faith yes, religion no. That's part of the essential 'protestant' doctrine which originates with Luther.

[Michael]

alright, so religion involves a discernment of the divine (what ever that may be). So is not the dogmatic Atheism a discernment of the divine? it might be a rejection of the divine, but it still could be read as a faith statement that cannot really be proven. And does the supernatural have to be the big guy in the clouds or can it be making a faith statement about forces we don't fully understand (for example modern global economics?)

just playing devil's advocate.
Btw, we're still working on trying to acquire a "devil's advocate" smilie! ;)

Dogmatic atheism is characterized entirely as a matter of 'faith'. This is correct.

But I don't believe that is a true property of 'atheism' itself.

That is to say, 'atheist fundamentalism' is not characteristic of atheism itself. Dogmatic atheism is a statement of faith. Non-dogmatic atheism is a simply the rejection of a statement of faith.

[Michael]

It's as relevant as the question itself, which is a "modern" notion as well. One can only ask what qualifies as religion if oneself recognizes one's own religion as religion, which, as Non Sequitur has just implied, can be a hard thing to do.

At the time of Luther, as well as within religious communities/societies/states today, having no religion was and is inconceivable, so anything else than one's own religion is, as Non Sequitur very precisely put it, "a variety of human systems and attempts to obtain and control knowledge that is not theirs". Also known as heathen, koffer, renegade, idolater or whatever derogative designation can be thought of to let others know that oneself is on the only true path. Kinda like a missionary preaching his faith to the heathens who only have their religion.

Point being that if the religious doesn't recognize his religion as a religion on par with all other religions, any talk about natural and supernatural is utterly irrelevant to him. But it's not irrelevant to the question. In fact, I think it is the only answer to the question.
:thumbsup:

Excellent post SMadsen. :)