How to define "Religion" as a whole?

I'm currently writing an essay for an introductory religious studies class, and one of the topics that was given to me was defining what religion is exactly. Now, this isn't as easy as writing a succinct sentence that explains what Christianity or Islam is. It has to define all the world's religious groups while not including things like superstitions that aren't part of a religious tradition, philosophies (though some could argue that Buddhism is a philosophy), etc.

Or at least, as close as ever-changing society will allow.

Some things to consider:
--Not all religious traditions have a deity from a higher realm of existence. Most of these are from so-called primal religions AFAIK.
--Not all religious traditions involve worshipping or otherwise paying homage to a deity to be rewarded.
--Not all religious traditions have eternal punishment of sorts. Sure, you could degrade in standing, but nothing like Christ's Hell.

Currently, one definition I've found that's looking very good is this: "Religion is orientation to ultimate reality." I can't stop there because for one thing -- and this is my biggest complaint -- is that taken out of context, one could mistake that as atheism, which is an opposite of religion, or irreligion. There are also several other things I could point out, but I won't say just yet for the sake of hearing your thoughts.

So Southperry, what do you think a suitable definition of religion should include and/or exclude?

Religion is the source of answers to the unanswered questions of humanity. Whatever you can't explain with logic/science/whatever falls to religion to explain.

It's also a source of confort in moments of hardship.

Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values

@above
Religion will try it's hardest to attribute what science HAS explained to their religious idol. It's not exclusive to the un-explained, if anything it serves only as an "alternative" answer.

Whether atheism is religion or not is a controversial topic. Then again, the entire definition of religion is controversial as well. I wouldn't throw out your theory merely for the sake of there being small exceptions. Is Newton's theory any less relevant because it doesn't cover the realm of the small? It's a definition that should serve you well considering the aim of the paper for you to state how you define religion. In a humanities course, there is no correct answer. Personally, I think your definition is pretty damn good.

I would simplify it to, "Religion gives reason to the existence of reality." However, that definition pre-supposes that all people are religious.

a set of beliefs concerning [U]the[/U]cause, [U]nature[/U], and purpose of the universe, especially 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.

Totally agree with it.

What a hard topic.

Just imagine if everyone in the class used the dictionary. It'd be a lot of lame essays.

The challenge is to get you to think - not take a generally accepted definition.

I think of religion as something to give purpose, outside of just survival. Even used too prevent chaos and keep order, to give consequence too those who see things in a more, instinct way. I mean the beginning thread's of Christianity that divided them was the evolution of the devil, and then followed the truth of jesus. Although this does not confront all religions obviously, it does give a basic understanding of what religion tries to teach and control.

^ I think the purpose thing applies to more modern religion.

Personally I agree with Shidoshi's definition. Religion at its essence was something to provide an explanation to the unknown. Humans fear the uncontrollable/unknown, so religion not only gave them a "comprehensible" explanation, but also a sense of comfort.

Nowadays, the most popular ones focuses more on giving an individual a purpose for their life, and it proposes a certain lifestyle instead of providing answers(science has pretty much taken that role). Imo, this definition does not apply to religion as a whole though. It's pretty hard to give a short description of what religion if one focuses on it as a whole and what it meant for people back in the past and in the present.

Interesting topic.

^ I think the purpose thing applies to more modern religion.

Personally I agree with Shidoshi's definition. Religion at its essence was something to provide an explanation to the unknown. Humans fear the uncontrollable/unknown, so religion not only gave them a "comprehensible" explanation, but also a sense of comfort.

Nowadays, the most popular ones focuses more on giving an individual a purpose for their life, and it proposes a certain lifestyle instead of providing answers(science has pretty much taken that role). Imo, this definition does not apply to religion as a whole though. It's pretty hard to give a short description of what religion if one focuses on it as a whole and what it meant for people back in the past and in the present.

Interesting topic.

I think it still applies to religions even younger, especially since they were in such fathom, corruption and lack of comfort in general. It was kind of "If I'm a good person, I'll be rewarded with infinitive leisure!"(This is just a general, thought process, I'm aware it's a lot more complicated). It was by blood, not work that made you successful or not. Though I do see how modern religion priorities have changed since, as you say, science is quickly overlapping it.

"Religion is orientation to ultimate reality." I can't stop there because for one thing -- and this is my biggest complaint -- is that taken out of context, one could mistake that as atheism,

Atheism is arguably a religion or belief system what follows are explanations that are non divine in nature but also not necessarily certainties. IF you define religion as that and atheism fits under it, roll with it.

Atheism is arguably a religion or belief system what follows are explanations that are non divine

Atheism does not deny the possibility of divine, simple that there is not enough evidence to support the claim of the divine.

As well it has nothing to do with the explanation of the natural world. It is simply

Religious person: There is God.
Atheist: Prove it.
Religious Person: I can't.
Atheist: Then I don't believe you.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of divine, simple that there is not enough evidence to support the claim of the divine.

As well it has nothing to do with the explanation of the natural world. It is simply

Religious person: There is God.
Atheist: Prove it.
Religious Person: I can't.
Atheist: Then I don't believe you.

>agnosticism

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Just because you want to make your belief system broader than it is doesnt make it not a belief system.

And in my first post when i'm talking what follows, what actually follows isn't a part of atheism. It's just where the belief invariably takes you.

At it's truly simplest, atheism is the belief that there is no god. the reasoning behind or following is irrelevant.

>agnosticism

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Just because you want to make your belief system broader than it is doesnt make it not a belief system.

And in my first post when i'm talking what follows, what actually follows isn't a part of atheism. It's just where the belief invariably takes you.

At it's truly simplest, atheism is the belief that there is no god. the reasoning is irrelevant.

Due to a lack of evidence not a rejection of evidence. It is not (but can be) just saying "There is no God because I say so" it's saying "There is no God because there has yet to be enough substantial evidence that the claim can become plausible".

Agnosticism is the belief that we can't know everything so anything is possible.

@ second part: If anything I narrowed it. I suppose if you REALLY wanted to push it, you could say atheism belief system is that atheist believe there is not enough evidence to support the existence of god, but most atheist don't restrict what is and is not credible to god. As well I suppose you could say what determines somethings credibility is an "trait" of atheism, but that way of thinking is not restricted to atheism

@ second to last part: That's not really 100% accurate. The Piraha are a tribe of what falls under the definition of "atheist" (even by your quotes), but are spiritual in their own way, in that things are not always "just natural".

@last part: It is in determining it's basis for cataloging it as a religion. This is a bit overused, but it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby, even if every other person in the world does it, you not doing it does not catalog you within the same category of those that do collect stamps. Then again I suppose it's a chicken and an egg thing in that if religious people claimed god and someone claimed "no" then it doesn't really fall into category, however if the opposite were true you'd be right (although history supports the former).

There's many different types of atheisms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Each one has different ways to go about not believing in god. They are not at all the same and have very different ways in them.

@last part: It is in determining it's basis for cataloging it as a religion. This is a bit overused, but it's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby, even if every other person in the world does it, you not doing it does not catalog you within the same category of those that do collect stamps. Then again I suppose it's a chicken and an egg thing in that if religious people claimed god and someone claimed "no" then it doesn't really fall into category, however if the opposite were true you'd be right (although history supports the former).

You are claiming that all religions believe in god, when none of the definitions until now have claimed a religion must have a god/deity. Not even your dictionary definition says it.

There's many different types of atheisms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Each one has different ways to go about not believing in god. They are not at all the same and have very different ways in them.


You are claiming that all religions believe in god, when none of the definitions until now have claimed a religion must have a god/deity. Not even your dictionary definition says it.

It can apply across the bored to the definitions listed so far, as well some of the definitions given aren't restricted to religion (unless you REALLY want to stretch something, E.G. I could probably call "Physics" a religious belief system with some of the definitions given). For mine in particular in can refer to not attributing symbols to humanity.

That's why I said you can't just rule out Atheism as not a religion when the whole point of the thread would be to DEFINE what religion is. First you define what something is before you start saying what belongs or not in that category.

That's why I said you can't just rule out Atheism as not a religion when the whole point of the thread would be to DEFINE what religion is. First you define what something is before you start saying what belongs or not in that category.

Agreed. But still be aware of vague definitions, there are several things that could be called a religion by some of the definitions given (especially the ones being used to argue that atheism is a religion).

Agnosticism is the belief that we can't know everything so anything is possible.

er. i disagree with this definition as well. It's a bit harder to define as it can vary more and the entire concept is comparatively new. Agnostics generally don't believe in the possibility of anything, and therefore everything, that's essentially blind belief, which is more or less against the entire point of agnosticism. It's about the truth (certain truths, not necessarily all of them, or the same truths for every agnostic) being unknown or unknowable. It sounds the same as what you're saying but agnosticism doesn't inherently take a stance on the possibility of anything. (it was also a lazy definition i just came up with but i'm just trying to be as basic as possible)

Agreed. But still be aware of vague definitions, there are several things that could be called a religion by some of the definitions given (especially the ones being used to argue that atheism is a religion).

Atheism is arguably a religion or belief system what follows are explanations that are non divine in nature but also not necessarily certainties. IF you define religion as that and atheism fits under it, roll with it.

I'm not seeing why you bothered to disagree with me in the first place. Especially since i didn't really take a hard stance on anything.

er. i disagree with this definition as well. It's a bit harder to define as it can vary more and the entire concept is comparatively new. Agnostics generally don't believe in the possibility of anything, and therefore everything, that's essentially blind belief, which is more or less against the entire point of agnosticism. It's about the truth (certain truths, not necessarily all of them, or the same truths for every agnostic) being unknown or unknowable. It sounds the same as what you're saying but agnosticism doesn't inherently take a stance on the possibility of anything. (it was also a lazy definition i just came up with but i'm just trying to be as basic as possible)

Well i should clarify that in my definition that it's an openness to a possibility not the acceptance of whether that possibility is true.

I'm not seeing why you bothered to disagree with me in the first place. Especially since i didn't really take a hard stance on anything.

Well I was saying that it really doesn't fit even if you restricted to that particular definition... unless you look at it as the rejection of another person's perception of truth to be a perception of truth (E.G. if person A is wrong therefore person B is right) but even with that thinking it still doesn't match up, in that atheism has nothing to do with an explanation on how the world works, granted there are shared views among most open atheist, but those ideas are not dogmatic or exclusive to atheism (e.g. you don't have to accept evolution to be an atheist).

Well I was saying that it really doesn't fit even if you restricted to that particular definition... unless you look at it as the rejection of another person's perception of truth to be a perception of truth (E.G. if person A is wrong therefore person B is right) but even with that thinking it still doesn't match up, in that atheism has nothing to do with an explanation on how the world works, granted there are shared views among most open atheist, but those ideas are not dogmatic or exclusive to atheism (e.g. you don't have to accept evolution to be an atheist).

It's not my definition. Still not seeing your point.