HUM MAYBE TO SIMPLIFY EVERYTHING... RELIGIOUS BELIEF and RELIGION are ironically what you believe you believe in or dont believe you believe in so you regularly or religiously speak, and follow or act on it. AN ANTITHESIST AND AN ATHEIST regularly preach that they dont have a belief, TO THEM, thier faith in what they believe is the action of creating a youtube channel and deticating years months and days in a life time of touting how their ideas are better then people who believe in God or a god. THEY religoiusly act on telling people they believe they don't have a belief and ironically believe this is not religious or ritualistic in nature. BUT, they choose eternal death and hell because they are unwilling to pick a god or the GOD. you can believe all day that stopsigns are just suggestions to stop but a cop will still give you a ticket if they see you zooming through a stopsign.
I have defined 'Religion'....the problem is people don't realize there is a difference between 'Religion' and 'Religous'...they are two different things.
RELIGION = A theoretical belief of what happens to "living" entities after death (including "non-existence"). Both 'Religous' & 'Spiritual' groups can be included. RELIGOUS = A non-theoretical belief of a deity "God" SPIRITUAL = A disbelief of a deity "God"
Loved the video, as always, and I can't wait for the next one. Fantastic to see an actual academic discussion of religion on a place like RU-vid. Please do keep up the great work.
What would you call a belief system that lacks the pertaining to either the order of existence, origins, cultural practices or morality? If one or more of those four is lacking, but at least one out of four still applies? Would you consider it not to be a religion at all or rather and incomplete religion?
I think there's no better demonstration of how subjective definitions of "religion" are than the ones that center on community and culture. For those of us who are extremely introverted, such definitions carry a high likelihood of irrelevance.
Watching this video has been enlightening. My understanding of religion is for more simplistic, but it is kind of a summary of the family resemblances. In other words, it seems to me that most religions, ancient and modern, had three conponents that, in essence, bound communities together: mythology (where did we all come from and what's our place in the universe); rituals (communal activities that reinforce the individual's a) belief in the community's mythology and b) sense of being part of a community); and lastly ethics (the rules for getting along with each other in society). Why is ethics so far down the line? Because not every culture has a specific story about a Moses like figure receiving a code of ethics, and in the case of Judaism, the Bible implies that God waited a long time before giving his people one. It's almost like an afterthought. It appears that the necessity to have certain rules set in stone seems to have only arisen once people find themselves living in much larger communities.
“Yesterday we obeyed kings and leaders and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love and the need of money”
Thank you. As my first port of call in my search for an answer to this question you have given me much to think about. I will rest here on my journey for a little while and try to unthink what I previously thought I used to think religion was.
I grew up in evangelical circles, where people commonly would claim, "Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship." This video comes to mind now, particularly the "family resemblances" part of it, whenever I hear people attempt to separate "Christianity" from "religion."
I heard that a lot growing up too. It is part of a discourse among Evangelicals that attempts to cast "religion" as an undesirable thing...a word that means "empty ritual" or "devoid of true belief."
@@txvoltaire Which reminds us that, for Americans, the US constitution (or at least its 2nd amendment) is part of their religion, brought down from the mountain by King James engraved on tablets of stone.
I would classify religion as: 1. a belief or theory about life after death 2. Ideas of the spirit or soul 3. Belief in the message of a supernatural being or founder of that belief 4. The immateriality of the world 5. Concepts of right and wrong. Or positive actions and negative actions 4/5 is acceptable.
+Studley Muffin I think that is related to the “terror management” theory of religion. That religion is a response to a fear of death and suffering. So yes, you can probably find scholars that would agree with you. Though any definition won’t be perfect.
Of course not. We are doing philosophy here and in philosophy no one is wrong. We just have different perspectives. Then I do not share your perspective, but that is my perspective.
There's a lot of pagans, myself included, who experienced the gods and then went into religion with a sense of awe or familial love, and a desire to befriend and have relationships with the gods. Basically, there's a lot of examples of not going into religion because of questions, instead it is going in in the way that one goes into a friendship, not to discover more about life but to form a bond with someone they've met. Of course it crosses into territories of death/suffering/well being, but I think that everything does that - all areas where humans are thinking are open to thoughts and actions going to that sort of thing, it's an integral part of all aspects of life - to say that all religion is a reaction to that desire imo is too narrow from what I've seen to include every example of religion, let alone encompass it!
This subject deserves more analysis than I have time to give it this morning but please discuss this definition of religion until I have time to jump back into the discussion: Religion is the sum of those beliefs, practices and prohibitions that pertain to a person’s concept of the highest powers of the universe.
@@apaislam5465 My parents were Christians. Like Mohamed, my parents disagreed with some of the teachings of people whose religious beliefs and practices are based on traditions, even those traditions which are widely considered Christian. Like Mohamed, my parents disagreed with some of the teachings of people whose religious beliefs and practices are based on traditional Judaism. In 1958, my parents hosted “discussions” with LdS (Mormon) missionaries. I read most of the Book of Mormon before telling the missionaries I had decided to adopt what I called “the principle of prior reference”, i.e. the principle that anything purported to be special revelation should be evaluated and interpreted by older revelation. At that point in time, I didn’t even have an opinion about which “scriptures” were oldest. Within a year after that, I had studied enough to be satisfied that the writings of Moses were the oldest currently extant. About nineteen years ago, I started reading an English paraphrase of the Qur’an. I finished reading it within a few months. I now think if I had started with the Conclusion, then read Surah 114, then Surah 113, etc. I would have understood Islam differently than I did from starting with the Introduction, then Surah 1, Surah 2, etc. I have the impression that many Muslims think of their religion as personal rather than institutional. So when the man in the video says “We don’t force our religion on anybody”, to whom is he referring? Is there a subset of Muslims who don’t force their religion on anybody?
@@rogermetzger7335 Thanks for reply Sir. Surprised that you have read Quran translation. Islam honor all prophets from Adam, Noah, Moses, David to Jesus, peace all upon them. As they brought the same message, submission only to one Almighty God. 9 of 10 commandments of Moses are part of Islam teachings, except Sabat day. Quran from God, corrected some of human mistake of interpreation about God's prophets, like Jesus is God. What he said is from Quran: no force on religion/Islam. Submisson to the Almighty come from heart n mind. Many misconceptions about Islam of this issue. No muslim, if he has power, to force others to Islam. As muslim follows Quran. Appreciate if you want to learn more about Islam. More than welcome if I can help and answer your questions. Here channel to get some information about Islam: ru-vid.com/show-UCL1gM3QMrmPp2hPqlywJjLA
@@apaislam5465 It is my understanding that, according to Islam, the Qur’an cannot be translated. That’s why I referred to my reading of a “paraphrase”. Well, actually, my reading was in two phases. First I borrowed a paraphrase from the public library. I had read some of it already when a couple came through my line where I was a cashier at a big-box store. I asked whether they would mind me asking whether they were Muslims. They indicated that they were. I told them I had started reading the paraphrase of the Qur’an I had borrowed from the library but asked whether they could direct me to a place where I could buy a copy. The gentleman said, if I would give him my address, he would bring me a copy. I asked what he would charge me. He said no charge. My wife and I have several Bibles, a Book of Mormon and that Qur’an paraphrase. Some people read the Hebrew Bible and reject their concept of the God of Moses based on their perception that he is harsh - maybe even vindictive. Some people read the Gospels and think the message of Jesus is very different from the message of the Hebrew Bible. My parents’ parents read both to them when they were children - the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels. My parents - even before they met - were of the opinion that the message of Jesus is found in many parts of the Hebrew Bible. So my parents never considered those two sources to be antithetical to each other. I think many non-Christians are confused about Christianity because of the apparent difference between those professed Christians who promulgated the Inquisition in the past (and some who wish to revive the Inquisition in the twenty-first century) as compared to professed Christians who don’t even want civil governments to legislate a Christian version of morality. I think many English-speaking westerners are confused about Islam for a number of reasons. One of them is the apparent difference between those Muslims who say there is no compulsion in religion and those Muslims who (it seems to us) are very much dedicated to requiring people - under threat of death, even - to “convert” or pay an infidel tax. I suspect that the only English-speaking westerners who ever subscribe to Islam are those who have found a way to reconcile such passages as Surah 2:256 and 3:110 with those other passages that seem to encourage killing “unbelievers”. Given that I have been trying for nearly two decades to understand that, please don’t get upset if I fail to understand whatever evidence you can give me.
what are the higher powers of the universe? is modern theoretical physics religious since it has very strict rigorous ideas about the 'powers' which govern our entire reality?
An interesting exercise would be defining what isn't a religion rather than what it is. A sort of "via negativa" can come to the rescue to help contain this problem.
Religion can be a reaction to a near-death experience or a personally perceived miracle. Religion can be a part of your enculturation into a society. Religion can be a manipulative tool. Religion can be a test of political loyalty. One can be asked to do what might strain conscience or even seem absurd, in order to demonstrate to a religious leader that one's personal integrity can be set aside or overcome and the bidding of the leader carried out, cultic. Religion can be a sincere quest to know God. The speaker does well to say it is not a settled matter, and anyone does well to realize religion can be a very dangerous thing.
It sounds kinda counterintuitive to have religion as a whole be defined by a group that’s realistically a drop in the bucket when you consider all the historic practices and different cultures that came before and will come after. Also if religion isn’t a native term what did various cultures call their practices and how does the etymology of all those terms work into religion as a term?
What about this definition of religion: Religion - individual or group devotion to what is considered supernatural or sacred, manifested by a simple or elaborate faith-based knowledge consisting of prescribed beliefs (creed), practices (cult or rituals), and norms of conduct and morality (code). This includes scientology, astrology, positive thinking, superstition, science, body building, and communism if the mentioned elements are present. What do you think?
*Religion - individual or group devotion to what is considered supernatural or sacred* ummmm......Religion is a group thing. Not really an individual thing. *This includes scientology, astrology, positive thinking, superstition, science, body building, and communism* 1. Astrology is not really a religion. That's just a mythical belief. 2. positive thinking is just an attitude. Not really a religion. 3. Superstition. The same as #1 4. Bodybuilding is just a physical exercise. Not really a religion.
Here is my definition: Religion can be conceptualized as a socio-cultural system that emerges from the inherent human predisposition towards seeking comprehension of the unknown, often imbuing these mysteries with a sacred or divine significance. This inclination reflects a deeper evolutionary trait wherein individuals possess an intrinsic need to affiliate with entities or collectives that transcend their individual existence, thereby offering a profound sense of identity and belonging. Concurrently, within the fabric of human societies, there exists a subset of individuals who exhibit a pronounced desire for dominion and sway. These individuals capitalize on the aforementioned human tendencies by establishing or propagating religious doctrines, thereby garnering a base of adherents. Through the strategic utilization of religion, they aim to exert control and manipulate followers, leveraging the foundational human yearning for understanding and belonging to consolidate power and influence.
My MTS degree is from Perkins school od Theology SMU my Ph.D is history of ideas, my view is based upon Dr. McFarlad of SMU, Religions do three things: a) to identify the human problematic, b) to identify an ultimate transformative experience (UTE) which resolves the problematic, and c) to mediate between the two.
I agree with your perspective,I love Durkheim I'm not trying to boiold it all down to simple definition, but I think those three things give focus that unites all religions in functionality.
Religion is a coping mechanism that helps people process the harshness and chaos of reality: while simultaneously providing a sence of meaning and personal identity.
@@kshri101 I never said religion was neccessary. Some like myself find other other to fulfill the same purpose. Counseling works for some, joining a social group like crossfit could work for others.
@@williamw3501 oh yea sure. I was just trying to show, if we were to take the above as a definition of Religion, then there are other things in our society which satisfy that definition but fall out of the category of Religion as we know it today, nevertheless it can be a description. :)
There is another way to define religion: defined by the state. I think that this is common in "religious" countries, such as my country, Indonesia. Even though my country is not a theocracy, such as Iran, and does not not have a single state religion, like Malaysia or Cambodia, the government sanctions 6 official religions, which consists of most major religions, except for Judaism. According to the definition stated in our laws, religion is a system of belief in God(s) (although it does not say explicitly that it is monotheistic, it has a very strong emphasis on monotheism), has messenger(s) to deliver the God(s) Words in forms of Holy Book(s). As you can see, this is clearly biased definition of religion, which is biased to Abrahamaic religion. So, in order to be acknowledged as a religion, the "practice" must have a strong tendency of monotheism, has sets of prophet as the messenger, and has holy books, and of course many known religions would fail this litmus test.
There is a simple, universal definition of what religion is: Every human being (and presumably animals, too) has an implanted drive to ask and search for its source. The answers, which we find during this search and which we accept as true, constitute our religion.
What is dharma or religion ? Answer is there are some of the fundamentals about dharma… (A) First, dharma is the natural characteristic or inherent value of something. The dharma of fire is to burn and the dharma of a bird is to fly. (B) Second, the yogis say that human dharma is based on expansion (vistara), flow of mind (rasa), and service (seva). Vistara means expanding our psychic boundaries to include one and all; rasa means keeping steadiness of mind; and seva means caring for and serving others. (C) Another way of describing human dharma lies in the 10 characteristics of dharma: 1. Dhrti (patience) 2. Ks’ama (forgiveness) 3. Dhama (self-control) 4. Asteya (non-stealing) 5. Shaoca (cleanliness) 6. Indriyanigraha (control over organs) 7. Dhii (benevolent intellect) 8. Vidya’ (spiritual knowledge) 9. Satyam (benevolent truthfulness) 10. Akrodha (non-anger) Certainly, each of the above points is a discussion unto itself. As we all have a general understanding of what these points are, suffice to say here that the more we adhere to these tenets, the greater we are following our manava dharma, or human dharma.
It's funny, because the religions that lived through Roman times (Judaism and Christianity) still hew closely to the original meaning of religio as the meaning of religion. Where outsider academics saw different groups being labeled religio and superstitio and concluded that the modern term religion should encompass both, the Jews and Christians simply think that the different groups all think they are religio and are simply being labeled and mislabeled throughout time.
Do you mean undergraduate or graduate studies? If you want to go to a theology school, anywhere, just contact that college or university. They will gladly help you with all the requirements needed.
I have been thinking recently that any particular religion is itself a 'philosophy.' A way of viewing the world or explaining the world and then from that knowledge, dictating how to behave in the world. Perhaps this is too general, or I haven't bothered to properly understand what 'philosophy' is. But this is my current working definition of all religions, they are sub-branches (rightly or wrongly) of philosophy in general. Many religions prefer to view the universe as being created by god(s) and act according to their 'reasoned' beliefs as to what that/those god/s want/s. (I say 'reasoned' here in parentheses because many will argue such a view lacks reason, not because I necessarily think it lacks reason). You might attempt to argue against the fundamentals/tenets of any particular religion, but proponents might simply not accept your criticisms and continue believing the world is what their religion propounds and will go on practising their customs according to those beliefs. I'm not against religions or supernatural beliefs (I think I am Agnostic), I just accept that people each have their own view of the world and act (including certain cultural practices/customs) according to those beliefs. Is this definition too general? Doesn't cover all the options?
You should go to the peruvian amazon to the center Takiwasi, so you can learn about "Religion" from the inside, love your videos but studying religion from the outside can't give you a full picture.
Thank GOD I found this channel. I really want to expand my knowledge on the Faith and also increase my awareness in general of religions. I am so done with close-minded, dogmatic people who believe that science is right and religion is wrong, etc. Also, I'm wondering, why religion still exists if the research, technology sectors of today have made much progress relative to the past centuries. Many scientists, scholars and the like have predicted that religion would die out with our technology and the scientific method of obtaining information.
That's a tough question why religion hasn't disappeared despite all these advances in science and technology. I go a little bit into the question in one of my older videos: "Is Religion Declining?" I argue that the "secularization theory," the theory that religion will eventually disappear, has been proven false again and again. Religion apparently is VERY resilient and has an ability to adapt to new social realities and technological realities.
Amy, Much of the confusion with regard to “faith” or “religion” can be traced to geocentricity--the doctrine promoted by the Roman Church during the dark ages that a) the earth is the center of the universe, b) the universe revolves around the earth, c) hell is a place “under” the earth and that d) heaven is a place “above” the earth. For more than a thousand years, geocentrists divided all phenomena into two categories: 1) what can be explained without reference to anything beyond what we can perceive with our senses and 2) what cannot be explained without a reference to supernatural beings. Phenomena in the first category were considered to be in the realm of “science”; Phenomena in the second category were considered “miracles” or “special revelation”. As more and more phenomena that had previously fallen in the second category were “explained” by “science”, fewer and fewer phenomena were considered miraculous--so much so that many people decided that A) everything will eventually be “explained” by “science” (and that, therefore, there are no such things as miracles) and B) that references to special revelation (revelation from one or more supernatural sources) must, therefore, be considered “fictional” or “mythological” Instead of the biblical definition of faith as the evidence of things not seen, faith was redefined to mean a belief for which there is inadequate evidence or none. (Or, to use Archie Bunker’s definition, “Faith is believing something that nobody in his right mind would.”) It was thus that many people were induced to trust in “science” as their source of “truth” and to reject anything and everything that claimed to be special revelation. Our parents taught my siblings and me to use critical thinking skills so we were (or at least I wasn’t) so quick to both accept “science” and reject special revelation as “the” source of “truth”. One example of my reason for this is the theory that was taught as a “fact” in public schools--grade schools, high schools, colleges and universities--that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Now that we live in the atomic age, we not only know that matter can be transformed directly into energy but two different ways to do that. Based on that knowledge, it is possible to theorize that if enough energy could be concentrated in very specific ways, energy could be transformed directly into matter. It may be “incomprehensible” that there is a being who is himself the source of unlimited energy and that he also knows how to “create” matter. But then, a hundred years ago, destroying everything within a mile radius by using a quantity of materials the size of a grapefruit was likewise incomprehensible. I have to ask myself, “If the fact that matter can neither be created nor destroyed has been disproven within my lifetime, how many more supposedly scientific facts will be disproven over the next hundred years? My maternal grandfather was a member of the National Geographic Society. I enjoyed reading his National Geographic magazines when we visited our grandparents home. Within a few years, however, I grew weary of reading scientific theories being presented as facts--I wanted to be presented with evidence (clearly labeled as evidence) so I could think for myself. Many people are weary of religious beliefs being presented as facts; many people are disgusted by the use of discrimination, intimidation, coercion and civil laws to promote religious beliefs or religious practices and are particularly disgusted by the use of those same methods to enforce religious prohibitions. It is possible to study theology (based on the Bible or any other “authority”) or to study the history of theology as a branch of history without resorting to discrimination, intimidation, etc. There is, admittedly, a tendency for theologians to create hierarchies, creeds and dogmas and then try to impose those dogmas on everyone in a given society. Most people who think they have rejected God have only rejected a caricature of him but I think careful theology can enjoy a significant boost to the extent that it can be divorced from hierarchy, creedalism and dogmatism.
I think that the statements "Religion is right/wrong." or "Science is right/wrong." don't make all that much sense. Religion is something that all human societies do - and probably have for 100, 000 years - like music, art, storytelling, or poetry. What sense does it make to say that music is _wrong_ or that storytelling is _right_ ? Science is a process for understanding the natural world. It can't be _right_ or _wrong_ . If you going to an address you're not familiar with and you get off of the highway on the wrong exit, you may be going the wrong way but the process of driving to an address isn't wrong. Driving is just driving: a way of getting from here to there. Einstein, Lord Kelvin, Newton and Galileo were all great scientists are they were all wrong about certain things. Einstein was wrong about the Big Bang, Lord Kelvin was wrong about the age of the Earth, Newton was wrong about the existence of ether, and Galileo was wrong about Saturn's rings. But science itself can't be wrong because it's just a method. Some religious beliefs are wrong. The Muslims are wrong when they say Muhammed split the moon in half, the Mormons are wrong when they say that the Native Americans are descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel, and the Christians are wrong when they say the Romans made Jews go back to their hometowns for a census. But religion itself is not wrong. It isn't right either. Some charitable organizations turn out to be fraudulent but I don't see how anyone can say charity is wrong. _Pace_ Ayn Rand.
Edwin Luciano Ah, I see your misinterpretation of my statement. Of course, I am very well aware that religion and science are two very complex, broad things. But I am merely addressing to all the people who think that science is all truth and religion nothing but (I know this is overly generalized but it is the truth that I have observed from many of my past anti-religion contenders) a 1000-year-old book filled with myths in attempt to explain the human condition and the origin of the world. I completely agree that both of them are neither black and white. I see, or at least I desire to, the importance of both religion and science. As Einstein puts it, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." But then again, many images pop into our heads that most probably have nothing to do with these things when we read it. I agree that science is a method of understanding the universe (we have to be wholly openminded here, now) and religion is not just a belief in supernatural beings, but (I myself can't find the exact words to define it) rather a set of social, uniting beliefs about the universe and how one should live his/her life.
We have allowed individuals to cloud the issue and over complicate a VERY SIMPLE thing. Any religion that is not a cause of Love and Unity IS NO RELIGION [Scientist - Max Planck].
Webster entomology RELIGION: To hold back. To tie down. To SUPERNATURALLY RESTRAIN if you don't think they are "supernatural restrained" go and try to explain this to them. #SpellBound
The religion of skateboards being about all technology being able to be viewed like a skateboard and being able to Walk away without losing your life because objects don't have life. And paramotoring regarding robots. Zumiez solved the issues of the religion of robots and people becoming computers using the reduction of a skateboard religion. Regarding the issues about schizophrenia and robots being gods. Regarding how the context of a religion should be something that can be walked away from. Like, when does a person become a skateboard? Regarding science, the religion of robots is like being a robot means having science but without one it's like not having science, the issue is parachuters and planes / paramotoring. Religion should cure something not support problems.
There are people in sociology arguing that "otherkin" is a religion - if you put "otherkin" and "dissociative disorders" next to each-other you don't see any difference but one is a "religion" and the other is a "mental disorder". Go figure.
I was wondering if you had a source for the Robert Audi list of family resemblances? I tried to find the source for it but it looks like a lot of what I found attributed it to William Alston (1967), who may have done some work with Audi.
When ever I use the word religion, and whenever I hear other people use it, the definition seems to be quite clearly "an identity used to summarize the beliefs we hold." If someone asks "what is your religion?" The response is often "I'm Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu." You'll even hear people respond "Atheist" to this question. Strangely, "beliefs" isn't even listed in the Wikipedia definition of religion, which makes me think scholars take issue to the definition I gave. What do you think my definition?
To be truthful religion is principles, but that word do not fit strong enough to control the people. So they had to find something more stronger to make the people to understand what going on. That we know from different cult like religions how they used rules to keep things in over, or disorderly. That we see the people find away to get around that also. We just have to face the facts that the way our system is designed throughout the world, it design the minds to function that way. That we know principles is not one of the things we function by, it just one of the things we hear all the time, but it is not allow on our human play ground. Only in a places where there not to much sound, like in school classes, or place of worshipping. That in every religious book, you will hear stories about principles, or against principles, but some how people pick up the stories against principles to patent themselves by. Why is that? Is it because the world system surround the people's with more negative throughout the system that ninety percent is all we see? That principles is like a drive by that do not stay around to long. That when kids in school, they can't wait for the bell to ring, and those in church can't wait for it to be over. Because all the wrong things is like a addiction that calling them to come out to take care of their needs. Is why we see more disrespect throughout of day than principles to help us show a better way. By having limited complaints in how we play, from school, church, and at home to straighting us up when we wrong, that do not control our day.
Yes. I very much agree as I amtrying to get.a clear understand of what I call religionism. I do agree here with the psychologist Durkhiem and Wittenstein here...movies as religion like Lord of the Rings or t.v. Xena Warrior Princess and Zoro that have followers like "The Flat Earth Society or Shakespeare's groups who live out the mythos. Staci
The more I think about it, the more I like Tyler's definition. Where is the religion that doesn't believe in supernatural beings? I can't think of one. Even Confucianism thinks that there are gods and Confucius was brought to his mother by a Ki-lin from heaven. I can see why people might take exception to Tyler, on the grounds that the most important part of religion is social... but face facts... ultimately, all religions appeal to a belief in supernatural beings as the source of their moral authority, and THAT cannot be overlooked. So for my part I am going to laugh my ass off and define religion as: "A belief that ultimate moral authority in one's society derives from culturally specific supernatural beings". P.S. I enjoyed the video because it made me have to seriously think about the issue. Thanks R4B, I am off to worship some bacon and eggs.
+Soylent Green There are some, but they're mostly non-Western, which means you probably don't know much about them. For instance, more than a quarter of Buddhists don't believe in gods or spirits. It's debatable whether or not the cognitive sciences' model of "counterintuitive agent" adequately subsumes Buddhist ideologies about buddhas under that broadened umbrella, but the framework of "belief" is precisely one of those modern analytical categories to which we've fallaciously reduced religion. Treating religion as fundamentally a question of belief is a product of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Additionally, significant segments of JudaismHinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc., reject the existence of supernatural beings, and only 92% of atheists in the US don't believe in God. So, as the video points out, the question is really much more complicated than our conventional wisdom--which is just built on those modern analytical categories we tend to not even think about--would lead us to believe.
+Dan McClellan Eventually I do want to do a video on non-theist Buddhism. I think it's a good way to imagine religion without "gods." Good point bringing up the so-called "Protestant bias" in religious studies too...we always seem to think religion is all about "belief" and forget that it is mostly "practice."
Dan McClellan Heh, if anything I am an atheist first and a Buddhist second. I draw a strict distinction between philosophical Buddhism and Buddhism the folk religion. Buddhism the folk religion definitely believes in gods who have been converted to being "dharma protectors". A philosophical Buddhist would hold such folk beliefs as being a cruel, dishonest and corrupting diversion of the core teaching, used by unscrupulous monks to keep temples financed by the credulity of the peasants. Next up, you puzzle me with the statistic that only 92% of atheists don't believe in god. Surely those 8% are therefore not atheists, because atheism sets the bar pretty low for entry, you just have to "not believe in gods". If you can't manage that, well, you don't fit the definition. The information is sufficiently amusing that I think I need to go and investigate it. Now I would personally class people who belong to a religion but don't accept its mythology as being agnostic members of religion (a) (b) or (c). Such agnostics have some big problems philosophically speaking. For example, if Jesus isn't God's Son, then his whole doctrine that he is somehow able to forgive sins is hideously evil and invalidates his whole philosophy's "good" points. Or if Mohammed didn't ride on Buraq to Jerusalem, is he really a Prophet of God or just a pervert with narcissistic delusions of grandeur? I am somewhat surprised that you didn't include the more New Age beliefs as examples of religions that don't fit a belief in supernatural creatures... unless you count the person experiencing these things as the supernatural creature...
+Soylent Green Strict dichotomies are highly problematic when it comes to conceptual categories, and for a few different reasons. Among other things, it's not how the human mind forms them, and more often than not, asserting them is just a prescriptive means of structuring power and values in someone's favor. Next, suggesting Buddhism is a priestly corruption of a more pure core of teachings strips Buddhism of its history and materialism and phenomenology and laughably rebuilds it as a contemporary philosophy that has absolutely no connection to any previous iteration. Just as critical, though, it's an Enlightenment era rationalization for natural religion's ethical superiority over Protestant revealed religion. Here's what Lord Herbert of Cherbury said about unscrupulous priests corrupting his rationalistic notion of the "undeniable propositions" of pure religion by introducing polytheism: “I must lay this down for an Establisht Truth, That the Religion of the Antient Heathens was not so absurd and stupid as is generally imagin’d. . . . When the Heathens had receiv’d the Notion of the Attributes of the Supream GOD mention’d before, there sprung up a Race of Crafty Priests, who not thinking it sufficient that there should be just one GOD in all this Universe, judg’d it would conduce much more to their Interest, to join and associate some others to this Supream Deity. . . . Their Design of Introducing other Gods, drove farther . . . They also expected to reap more Profit, and have larger Stipends from the various Rites, Ceremonies, and Sacred Mysteries which they contriv’d and divulg’d.” You're taking a page right out of a deist's 17th century playbook. Now, regarding the 92% thing, it's not your prerogative to declare whose self-application of the label "atheist" is legitimate and whose is not. Words mean what people use them to mean and absolutely nothing more or less. You commit the etymological fallacy when you insist your prescriptive definition governs all use of the word. The information is amusing to you because you believe linguistics is about dividing up categories by etymologies and definitions and necessary and sufficient features, but that's not how language works. Your pejorative rants about doctrines and beliefs betray a rather simplistic and naive conceptualization of the form and function of religion, which is precisely what the video above is trying to help the viewer move beyond. Reducing everything to beliefs and doctrines is, as I said earlier, a thoroughly Protestant reductionism. Hopefully you can see the irony in adopting a Protestant worldview to belittle traditionalist religions. If you're somewhat surprised, maybe you need to go do some research on how different scholars approach the question of religion these days. Here are some good places to start: Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion Jonathan Z. Smith, "Religion, Religions, Religious," in Critical Terms for Religious Studies Talal Asad, The Genealogies of Religion Timothy Fitzgerald, The Ideology of Religious Studies Russell McCutcheon, Manufacturing Religion Timothy Fitzgerald, Discourse on Civility and Barbarity David Morgan ed., Religion and Material Culture: The Matter of Belief Manuel Vasquéz, More than Belief: A Materialist Theory of Religion Ilkka Pyysiäinen, How Religion Works Brent Nongbri, Before Religion Pascal Boyer, The Fracture of An Illusion Ilkka Pyysiäinen, Supernatural Agents
Dan McClellan The so-called priestly adjunct to Buddhism is a primarily Chinese addition as a result of the so-called Mahayana vehicle which was perverted by Nestorian Christianity to include practices alien to the philosophy of Buddhism. Philosophical Buddhism is monastic and ascetic and derives from the core texts of the Pali Canon. Probably the single most corrupting text was the fraudulent "Karma Sutra" (not the Kama Sutra of Vātsyāyana, note) which purports to derive from the teachings of Ananda, but make the obvious mistake of referring to Idols of the Buddha, when in fact there are no Buddhist idols until the conquest of Western India by Alexander the Great, who insisted upon them. This was of course well after the time of Ananda, hence the fraud. The document was put together by Chinese Buddhists and inserted into the Tripitaka, and details the supposed "karmic benefits" of certain offerings and prayers to the Buddhas and is entirely antithetical to the teachings of the rest of the Buddhist canon. Buddhism is not a religion of veneration, but a teaching of internal philosophy and practice that was hijacked by the unscrupulous who saw it as a vehicle to wealth and power at the expense of a credulous peasantry. Consider if you will what Bodhidharma said when the Emperor of China asked him what merits he had earned by building many temples and monasteries, Bodhidharma said "none at all", but went on to form the least exploitative branch of Chinese Buddhism, "Chan" which became "Zen" in Japan. Chan as a sect, being Mahayana, yet maintaining the traditions of earlier Buddhism was the only branch to survive the purges of Buddhists during the Tang dynasty. As to whether the 92% is my prerogative or not, sorry, but atheism has a strict definition and those clowns who still think there is a deity but call themselves atheists are failing on the ONLY definitional point of atheism, and I would happily argue it out with each of them. There is no such thing as a cultural atheist in the way there are cultural Christians because atheism has no doctrine to promulgate, no festivals and traditions to observe, no rituals; merely a few texts that refute religions. It is however amusing that you raise the issue of Deists, who fall in a grey area between theism and atheism. Deists are not atheists however, and I suspect that they have been falsely included in the sample statistics from which you draw. It is also possible that the Raelians may muddy the water. Now to accuse me of Protestantism is particularly absurd because you literally know nothing of my religious background, which incorporates literally no formal Christianity on any level. I have (for example) never even been baptised, and have made a point of insisting that the Mormons apostatize me and withdraw my baptism in absentia because their cult was "a pernicious nonsense of contemptible pedigree, that no person in possession of their faculties should even apologetically tolerate." I also extended that to include all descendants of my bloodline unless they, "in a state of moral and intellectual depravity, actively choose to opt in". The Mormons acceded. In fact your accusations of "Protestantism" against me say far more about your own prejudices than about my own.
Saul was a religious man before he met Christ face to face. Afterwards Christ gave him a new name. He became Paul. He left religion and become Saint Paul. A faithful servant of God most High. No religion could hold him back. He spoke with God! Through the Holy Spirit, his spiritual eyes and ears were opened. He saw and heard things which a religious person could never apprehend. He was taken into seventh heaven to be encouraged by The Most High that his suffering is not in vain. Religion is a system in which people live by. Religion has many different ways of worship. While faith in one and only living God is personal. you have personal relationship with Him! You are able to see Him as he is. He speaks with you, he consuls you, he directs you in a path to go. People have written many books, have read many books. Thinking by doing so they will find God. God Almighty is not for professors. The learned can never find God, they can only find religion.
I would simply expand the definition of: "Belief in the supernatural." to "Belief which is not scientific." It might seem like no change at all, but now takes into consideration cult practices which extend beyond belief in spirits: I.E cults of personality, lifestyle cultures like Veganism or even dogmatic atheist groups.
Seems like a sensible improvement on the definition to me, though yet I think there is a better one. Seeing the oxford dictionary it can have several meanings: 1 [mass noun] The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 1.1[count noun] A particular system of faith and worship. 1.2count noun A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. Hence for something to be able to be considered to be a religion, we have options 1.1 and 1.2. When considering meaning 1.2, there have been various scientists pursuing science with interest and great devotion, and hence in that regard even science can be considered to be a relgion. When considering meaning 1.1, even then we can consider science to be a religion since among scientist there is faith and even worship (oxford dictionary 1.2 great admiration or devotion shown towards a person or principle) in and towards scientific truths. We can't speak about reality, all we have is our model of reality and we attempt to fit what we observe into that model, if it doesn't fit we are incapable of speaking about it. Each of us has their personal model of reality we believe to be true, and in that sense our personal religion. Only if the models of two people overlap can a sensible discussion take place, it's what usually gets referred to as 'common ground'.
Hello sir please cite the book of robert audi where he stated the characteristics of religion in the approach of family resemblance thank you :) need asap help
Actually I think religion is one of the personal way to connect with the creator( GOD ).. and everyone have the right to select their way..as it's the matter of father and his child..the one who created all of us...
Nope. Religion is re-connection Any form of connection occurring more than once between yourself, others or a Deity. Prayer = religion, enjoying nature = religion, spending time with your family and loved ones = religion. If the whole world understood this I bet they chill the flip out. It’s adding nuance to every word that is ruining what it means to be human. Elucidation is the best thing we can do to grow in the inevitable mixing of the world cultures.. with a dash of empathy.
Ah so that makes sense. Now I'm starting to believe Christianity IS NOT a religion but a relationship with God. There's other evidence that convinced me but I had to be sure where the word religion and the meaning came from. "Western experts" you say..
Religion is an institutionalized form of spirituality. I'm not a huge fan of it. I don't see any good coming from mediating your relation to the divine. I do believe in the existence of god more or less. I do not believe in an anthropomorphized god. I think that is incredibly limiting to something which is both betwixt and beyond. It's a ridiculous and primitive product of asinine human ego. The most important aspect of the divine is utterly absent in the man-god; its omnipresence. So basically I'm a pantheist. And a "none" when it comes to religion.
the past 100 years, yes, but basically Kantian or neo-Kantian...: no such thing as "religion" out there but only something that is subjectively constructed and put as a kind of grid on "reality", whatever that is... i myself think that a "religion" is a kind of loose system with components of creed, code and cult in various kinds of arrangements... one question that can be posed to any kind of definition of "religion": is it reductionist? is it something the goes: religion is nothing but...? a functionalist approach to religion would say: religion is nothing but...a social function. a propositionalist would say: it is nothing but...propositions about reality. i think a more cultural-linguistic approach is better, a phenomenological one really excellent, etc. an analytical approach could be restrictive...and reductionist, given the analytical frame adopted...
A bunch of roosters claiming they laid the egg. So have left the hen house unprotected from the foxes. Now they come to devour the hens and our children.
@3:35 , 4:52 , 6:00 , :38 no sir Durkheim or John Smith but i hope i can share a manna for thought i had earlier. i can only simplify what i wrote on my notes since there are drawings and patterns on it.. It could be that as of the highlighted time above, it could be that instead of me searching what is religion, i could also type in how is true religion? yes there are tribes, families, beliefs, groups, denominations, neighbors, pagans, mentioned in the Holy Bible and not really being specific of it being a religion, as religion could be a singular process / act / renewal / application as mentioned by James as of what is true religion {to visit} Thus people who go to church are religious people, people inside churches are all Almighty God's people and people who apply divine learning from The word within the church is true religion. a church is a place, faith is a road/path , religious is walk , act, religion is the state of being born again to apply and higher than that is only then to be a Christian which is of being born again is with a relationship of the Holy Spirit. Like a Cross standing... at the very bottom those who chose to be at the bottom for starters are believers ... the walking of that path to the center is faith and being religious... In the center is a big R which to the left side is SVC - (service, visitation, charity and to the left is CSP - ( Church, Seeking , Praying ) being able to move from the center and reaching both ends is true religion, and through this you obtain divinity and The Holy Spirit to reach the top which is becoming a Christian by the path of the cross. A certain group can never be religion, they are either just a group, neighbors or God's people ... its like a stair case, one sitting on the chair and chose to pick up a Holy Bible when he decides to stand up he does the first act and becomes a believer, the moment he walks towards the staircase is called faith, the moment he climbs up the steps is becoming religious but the moment he on the top extends a helping hand, a rope to others on the other part of the lower bottom , that is true religion.. and when many of them are gathered they are Almighty God's people. like the story of LEGION , MANY unto one temple was a story of possession. (profit, authority, control) But the ACT of ONE to the MANY , this proves more RELIGION. Thus, they can call whatever types of groups they can and say it is religion, but there is no JUDGEMENT via GROUP !!!!! that is truth ! Verily, one as according again to James in James, 1:27 TRUE RELIGION does not carry a GROUP NAME but a SINGULAR ACT ! for which would a believer would want to be called? to be a part of a religion ? AMONGST THE MANY OF YOU divided who think you are all correct and true and right?? or to be called The people of Almighty God, who does what is right as instructed among all in the Glory of Almighty God , freely giving what is freely received, and must be perfect as your FATHER in heaven is perfect Matt 5:43-48 is better than religion. So maybe my post is looking at such topic being an interesting discussion of scholars that instead of what is religion as a question, ....on a different view it could be how is True Religion.? Thank you. Again, this is just my own.
Seven or churches and tribes , churches in places that received good news. Could be,... as Paul wrote letters not to specific religions but of churches on places where The Word has been preached. But imagine if people in Corinth which received it first would declare a religion not Catholic but say CORINTH, converted and named their own land and people a religion... does this mean their religion is more True (truer/truest) and correct? for they came first than many denominations . This makes sense too 🤔
Sorry got a bit carried away The path of the Cross is Christianity and of being a Christian, the relationship and of The Holy Spirit mentioned above as what a real Christian is was not for me to conclude or illustrate, felt wrong to reflect of my conclusion. The path of the Cross is what makes a Christian, relationship and of The Holy Spirit is of each his own and outside my interpretation.
*"Find out which made-up invisible God or glorified religious figure a person has been fooled & indoctrinated to consider sacred & if you follow the sacredness you will find a ring of motivated ignorance, intellectual dishonesty & dogma as well as a constant urge to play mental acrobats to defend the sacredness."*
The Great Creator The Great Creator Saturates and Surrounds all Existence. Matter, Energy, Knowledge, Space, and Time are just different viewpoints and concepts of the Great Creator. They all are just components of the Great Creator from different perspectives. There are a Great many Gods, and Gods are just imaginary mythical personages of worship. Gods are not Creators. Gods and Religion has been the failed and futile attempt to search for the Great Creator and to the understanding of creation. And creation is only the rearrangement of Matter. We just call that rearrangement, creation. Matter is not created from nothing; Matter has always existed. And knowledge is not created in the human brain. The brain was only designed and created to receive Knowledge. Truth is all that truly exists. Other than Truth there is just the understood concept of an absence. Even lies, whether intended to deceive or not, are Fantasy. Lies remain in the Fantasy realms, in the nonexistent realm. And as for those who are in the Fantasy World, thinking that the creation of the universe and life was created without intelligence, are in the prison of fantasy. True Science has proven the complex intelligent design and engineering of all creation. It is only intelligence that makes Creation posable. This is just words to the honest and wise: honesty and understanding is the only true belief. Without honesty and understanding we do not know what to believe. To accept others opinion of the truth without proving it to yourself; it is being deceived it is not believing. We must understand to believe. Until Next time; Sweet Dreams: truth will solve all our problems before we create them; and ignore or reject the truth; problems will multiply all by themselves; those problems will need no help. Have a great and a meaningful life if it is at all possible. Just whispers, of the Ghost of Reality.
I don't consider Buddhism to be a religion. Why? Well, to which god do Buddhists pray? I think the main feature in all religions is the belief of one or more god-like entities. And most often sacrifices and/or prayer.
Buddhism is a religion. So just keep in mind that not all religions need to have a concept of a god in order to be one. Religion is a social institution that involves a unified system of beliefs, and practices that recognize the sacred. *I think the main feature in all religions is the belief of one or more god-like entities.* Nope. Not really, dude. There are plenty of people who do believe in the existence of god. But that doesn't qualify them being religious, because literally, anybody can do that. Just like there are plenty of people who believe in the existence of ghosts, and supernatural things. But that still doesn't qualify them being religious, because religion is a lot more complicated than just believing. It's an external practice that you do with a group. *And most often sacrifices and/or prayer.* ummmm....Prayer is not really a religious thing, either, because you can pray without any procedure. There are plenty of "non-religious theists" who do pray in a non-religious manner. :-P
Religion is primarily a means for establishing cultural identity. There is power in group membership and social alignments, and we are power-seeking organisms. That's essentially what religion provides. The dogma and belief systems are incidental.
Christianity is superstecio, that changed only because the church became the power. Than those in power remake the rule to seem righteous. Your discussions seem to come from a very pro modern religion viewpoint. What if the romans and greek and egyptian religions were actually right in their spirituality, and were connected to true stories?
If religion is subjective, how can we, with certainty, not burn forever? I just want to play by the rules and lead a good life, but it always seems where you lay your chips in this life is what dictates the next. For years I've battled with this and I don't know how long I can go on with the uncertainty of eternal torment on the line. What in the world do I do?! Or should I just leave it to what my priest says?
Ryan, I’m 72 and a theist. Over the years, I have had opportunity to speak at some length with people who called themselves “atheists”. I have asked several of them to describe the god they “don’t believe in”. In each case, the self-styled “atheists” have made a list of several doctrines that are considered “traditional” in western society and, in each case, they were doctrines which I don’t consider biblical, so I have been able to reply, “If I thought there was a god anything like the one you describe, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with him either.” Most people who think they have rejected God have really only rejected a caricature of him. The FIRST doctrine on their lists has always been the doctrine that there is a place where “sinners” are being tortured for their sins (or for rejecting Jesus) and that they will continue to be tortured for eternity. I’d be delighted to explain the reason I think of “hell” as an event rather than as a place but that is a different subject. My point here is how to avoid “hell”, regardless of whether it is a place or an event. Onetime my wife and I went on an equestrian camping trip with her sister and some of her sister’s friends. When one of them and I scouted ahead in a pickup to see whether a bridge had been washed out, he told me he know there were things he had to do if he wanted to avoid hell. I knew he had been raised by Lutheran parents so, when we got back to civilization, I paid a visit to a Lutheran pastor, told him about the conversation and asked him whether he had any Lutheran literature that could help my new acquaintance understand the protestant doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. The pastor gave me a copy of Luther’s Small Catechism and marked several passages for consideration. I later gave the catechism to the gentleman in question. I haven’t had opportunity to converse with him and we’ve moved a thousand miles away from where I met him so I might not. I’m not suggesting that you “accept” everything in Luther’s catechism but it might be worthwhile to at least consider that particular perspective on how to avoid hell. The older I get the more convinced I become that, in the final judgment, we will be judged, not so much on whether our theology is “correct” or “biblical” as on how we treat those with whom we disagree--particularly how we treat those whose lifestyles we abhor. My advice is to read for yourself, study for yourself, think for yourself and be particularly leery of priests, pastors, rabbis or imams who urge you to use discrimination, intimidation, coercion or civil laws to impose on everybody else a particular set of religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions.
Ryan Johnson Never leave your beliefs in the hands of what one man says. For the love of God is to constantly seek him. You wouldn't get all your water from one well or all your food from one grocery store. Do not get all your information from one source. I'm not a believer in the religious and mainstream media definition of Hell being eternal burning and I'm not trying to tell you what to believe. But I was once like you, asking those same questions, and I hope you find answers that frees and soothes your spirit as well as your mind. Journey on! Godspeed!
Before watching yet: I hope you can explain me the difference between religion and dogma. Because Science can be a dogma, with Elon musk fans and colonizing mars prophecy. I am thinking of the video Rare Earth - The Spear that Pierced a Living God
Long time watcher, I am now teaching Intro to Religious Studies at a small liberal arts college. These videos have been incredibly helpful, especially for my students who get most of their information in a RU-vid format. Very well done, thorough, and thoughtful approaches to all these topics. Thank you for your work!
Person: *tries to draw a border between ideology and religion* Confusianism: Prepare for trouble! Theocracy: Make it double! Divine right and co. (mandate of heaven, god-kings...): Meowth yes!
Hello Andrew, I know you have a back catalogue of topics for the future, but considering your studies in the Roman -Greco world, a not oft touched upon subject of Socrates' Daemon and his critique on divination would be fantastic. All about Delphian oracles and companion spirits, not so hot on animal entrails and bird flight patterns. He was as much the mystic as he was the sceptic. You won't regret it!
I think that is a great suggestion. I'll definitely put it on the backlog of topics. I was going to do a few episodes on demonology...which of course would cover Socrates' famous "daemon" statement.
Careful of the scholarship out there. I've seen some 'interpretations' (ahem, whitewashing) saying it was purely his "inner promptings" or conscience and daemon was metaphor. He's specifically stated that this spirit had a preference of advice giving to his companions whereas Socrates had none and treated his friends equally in his advice giving. A distinct separate personality. I can imagine some academics being somewhat disappointed in a stoic philosophical hero also actively engaging in a claimed form of mediumship, a type of "quackery," hated among all areas of academia. I know this is a fact, as I've read it in studies and this is exactly what happened in the seminar room as my lecturer clumsily spoke of the "happy spirit" and socratic questioning as applied in cognitive behavioural psychotherapy. PhD lecturers aren't free of bias I'm afraid. I freely admit I'm very biased, but in the opposite direction....but I'm not paid to be impartial. :D
Well, the type of scholars I hang out with are perfectly fine with the idea of Socrates believing in a daemon that possessed him. We who study demonology/daemonology and the archaeology of magic aren't surprised by these beliefs.
Hey, great video! You have somehow managed to explain this massive concept in an articulate manner. You have talked about Robert Audi's list of characteristics for religion family resemblance here, can you please share its source too? It would help a lot!
