Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Religion: an institution consisting of culturally patterned interaction with culturally postulated super-human beings.
Source:
M. Spiro, "Religion," in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion , ed. M. Banton (London: Tavistock, 1966): 85-126.
Could Atheism and Agnosticism be "religions" by this definition? I think yes; the only question would be do Atheism and Agnosticism have "institutions" and the answer would likely be "barely."
It also fits most of actual Buddhism quite nicely as a religion instead of just a philosophy with superstitious religion attached. As well as modern and ancient religions that wouldn't call their postulated venerable beings "gods."
Atheism: interact with it as if the culturally postulated super-human being is not there.
Agnosticism: interact with it as if the culturally postulated super-human being is not surely known or is unknowable.
And mixes of these ideas.
The only downside of Spiro's definition is how to define what "super-human beings" are. I guess the implication would be that none of the other animals are "super-human". But a concrete definition for "super-human" is likely highly subjective.
It is rather a question of my constructing a definition to fit my views, but I have in mind that I have to factor in Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Taoism and note the rites and ceremonies that is a distinctive difference between religion and non -religion, and why Buddhism is a religion and very definitely one though it does not have a god but a man as its object of veneration.
"An organization having a belief in the existence of an invisible and supernatural entity the propitiation or veneration of which through ritual acts will obtain benefits to the believer in this life and a postulated next one."
It is rather a question of my constructing a definition to fit my views, but I have in mind that I have to factor in Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Taoism and note the rites and ceremonies that is a distinctive difference between religion and non -religion, and why Buddhism is a religion and very definitely one though it does not have a god but a man as its object of veneration.
"An organization having a belief in the existence of an invisible and supernatural entity the propitiation or veneration of which through ritual acts will obtain benefits to the believer in this life and a postulated next one."
This is definitely not atheism.
Veneration stops short of worship. It is more of an eastern concept of extreme respect and deference for someone of superior accomplishment, experience, and often merely age.
I regard a religion as an organization having a belief in the existence of "the supernatural", either invisible realms and/or ineffable forces of indeterminate source, such that its adherents order their lives by these beliefs. Gods are optional but usually included at no extra charge.
The basic idea of religion is that something is missing from / deficient about reality and this something must be found. My attitude is that reality is in fact deficient in many ways but it just is what it is. There is nothing to BE found in that regard. Religion is really denial of the parts of reality the religion does not like -- things like mortality, bad luck, and human foibles. It does not find the materialistic / prosaic explanations for these things adequate and so invents new ones, mostly out of whole cloth.
Religion also IMO has a sort of lazy streak inherent in it ... the hard work, multigenerational in scope, to improve the human condition, is too difficult, too slow, and so religion offers some quick fix or other in the form of salvation in its various forms.
None of this activity requires a god, but gods come in handy for appeals to authority and so usually get employed somewhere along the way.
I agree. Veneration stops short of worship. In Buddhism for example (Therevada, at least) it is is showing respect to a teacher. Where it becomes a religion in my definition at least is through belief (on Faith) in a supernatural entity (Karma) that can be propitiated through certain rites. That is what makes it a religion.
Confucianism is perhaps more like a non-religion.The rites are there more to please the worshipper than Confucius. Of course, there is a religious aspect in that the rites and ceremonies -particularly the prayers - have the belief that gods and ancestors (still existing in the spirit) have to be propitiated, more to ensure that life on earth is conducted in accordance with the Heavenly will.
If so, that is a view that atheists would not accept - though I imagine they would be very tolerant about it. But it does mean that our decisions about our way of life is somewhat taken out of our hands and put into the invisible hands of a lot of Gods.
It is rather a question of my constructing a definition to fit my views, but I have in mind that I have to factor in Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Taoism and note the rites and ceremonies that is a distinctive difference between religion and non -religion, and why Buddhism is a religion and very definitely one though it does not have a god but a man as its object of veneration.
"An organization having a belief in the existence of an invisible and supernatural entity the propitiation or veneration of which through ritual acts will obtain benefits to the believer in this life and a postulated next one."
This is definitely not atheism.
Most Buddhists that consider Sidhartha Gautama to be merely a man (or dead-man) don't venerate Prince Sidhartha but instead merely respect him as their role model. On the other hand, most Buddhists that believe that Buddahood is the ultimate existence surpassing the natural and "above" all other "supernatural" planes, don't think Sidhartha is a "man" and instead believe the Prince exists above all Demiurges and even above all other Enlightened Immortal Powers.
Anyway,
"Rites and ceremonies" fall under Spiro's definition of "culturally patterned Interactions."
I suppose most people who lean towards atheism don't have nor believe in rites and ceremonies for "unproven entities," but atheists do have a certain "culturally patterned interaction" with these "postulated beings." Plus, atheists can uptake "rites and ceremonies" and "venerate" people through cults of personality and group identity just as the theists do.
Also,
I like your definition, but I'm sure atheists can uptake religions and remain atheist. I would change you definition to the following:
"A culturally patterned organization having a common belief in the actual existence of unproven mechanisms for which various described methods will obtain benefits in this life and/or postulated later ones." [i.e. everything else would likely be a science.]
These could easily contain atheists, as they contain all supernaturalists and religionists I have come across.
Still, I was wondering specifically about Spiro's definition.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 03-16-2014 at 11:20 PM..
Those are ok. In fact they are different ways of saying the same thing. However, they could be misused.
"culturally patterned Interactions." with Gods or quasi- gods like Karma or 'space brothers' (yes, that's been a religion) or Thetans (that IS a religion). was made to include atheism above. But atheismis not really interaction with them except in a real stretch of not believing in them. So, my definition avoids the possible ambiguity of 'interaction' with postulated religious - belief entities.
"common belief in the actual existence of unproven mechanisms" is also ok, but again open to misuse, since some 'scientific' mechanisms like abiogenesis, dark matter and string theory could fall under that heading and the religious are only to willing to claim that science, materialism and atheism are all religions with the implication that they are also faith-based.
This is all part of the ongoing ploy of religion to sideline validated evidence and logical reasoning and make out that it is a purely Faith-based matter 'believe or not'. Evidence is given no weight or credit.
And again, I repeat that Buddha is neither here nor there (in Therevada, at least). It is belief in the effects of Karma as a natural law (though I think it cannot work without some ability of discrimination) that makes Buddhism a religion. It is belief in a supernatural entity that can be propitiated with particular behaviours and procedures.
That for instance would make it different from the more non-religious Karma which is mere cause and effect. You poke someone in the eye and they flatten your nose. karma. Nothing religious about that.
You donate a gold plate to a stupa and you get Karma to give you some advantage after you die.That's religion.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-17-2014 at 04:38 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
