Name three good things about religion.

[Hermit]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )

Utter crap, easily refuted by history. One of Weinberg's most regrettable utterances.

I go with what Gallstones said: "Since most people claim to be theistic or religious and yet are still dicks--most dicks are theistic or religious. It is a percentage thing involving a human trait."

And following on, FedUpWithFaith expressed the consequence of the above like this at the defunct Richard Dawkins Forum: "If our wildest dreams of an atheist world are someday achieved, I can assure you that atheists will be responsible for all the murders, rapes and whatnot worldwide."

[apophenia]

You seem to be implying that religion provides as much if not more solace and comfort than competing world views, such as atheism, secularism, science or skepticism — are you?

Indeed I am.

And if so, how are you measuring how much solace and comfort these worldviews provide? (You can stick to Christian, general religion, and atheism if you like.)

One metric would be the number of people who hold religious beliefs, which is something like 80 percent of the population of the planet. One needs to ask why 80 percent of the planetary population hold to some form of religion. I don't think a credible argument can be made that it's some authoritarian aspect of religion, given that such authoritarian actions by governments lead to governments being overthrown, and yet religions are almost never overthrown.

I think its reasonable to say that religion persists because it provides that which people seek, and I don't think it's going too far to say that people seek peace, solace, comfort and support in general, and that religion provides this to many people.

Well, see, this is why one needs metrics rather than just head counts. By that same argument, since a third of the world's population lives under a communist regime, you would have to grant that communism provides comfort and solace for its peoples, apparently such which other governments don't. Or tailbones. Apparently, 100% of the population takes comfort and solace from having a tailbone. Or living in debt — that's apparently very consoling. The problem is, people do things for reasons other than them providing comfort and solace, so you can't conclude that 100% of the people who do something — worship for example — do so because it provides comfort and solace. No, the only way to know is to apply some metric which measures the comfort and solace derived, and differentiates it from confounding factors like, "I worship so I don't fry in hell," or, "because my parents would have a cow if I didn't." No, your procedure is entirely too simplistic and unrefined.

I'll bring up this point to forewarn you. You neglect one possible explanation for religion, and that is that it is an evolutionary Spandrel — something that persists in the human genome because it is a consequence of having something else which does provide evolutionary benefit, while religion itself is just a useless byproduct of having that useful thing. I tend to lean in this direction myself, that while many aspects of religion themselves may be either useless or even harmful, the neuroanatomical features which give rise to religious type thinking themselves are useful and beneficial. Regardless, only one way to tell if religious practices yield concrete results or not and that is to measure it. You may notice there's a difficulty here. It may be possible that religion and religious thinking is a biological Spandrel, but if it is, as it were, piggy-backing on some trait or brain feature that is useful, and which results in the individual achieving greater happiness, comfort and solace, there appears to be no straight-forward way to detect whether it is an adaptive feature, or just a freeloading Spandrel.

Well, it's your argument that religion is the cause of comfort and solace. How do we measure it? How do we measure it in the non-religious, and in what groups? And how do we separate its impact on people's lives irrespective of other factors, social, economic, etc., but also how do we discern whether or not it is a biological Spandrel or not.

I may get back to your other answers, re: sadomasochism — running out of steam here. Later.




Oh, just briefly.

I see no claims on the part of atheism (which I believe is defined simply as "a lack of belief in gods" by those who deny that atheism can be a religion in itself) regarding any sort of comfort or support provided by the classic formulation. Do you?

I've seen Dawkins ask the rhetorical question as to why people need God and can't be satisfied with the beauty of nature, but I've not seen him actually address why people adhere to religion. He merely discounts it as "delusion." Some solace that provides.

I notice, particularly in self-selected populations of atheists, skeptics, and secular humanists, that they have a tendency to pour more energy into things like social activism, self-education, and other pursuits (one of my secular humanist groups gets together once a month to discuss poetry, and these groups may be preferentially attracted to Unitarian Universalist churches, which emphasize social activism, social justice and ecological ethics). Certainly one has to consider whether these activities provide the same, or different yet equally attractive benefits, as religion does. Your metric needs to reflect this if it is not going to be guilty of circular reasoning (religious people deriving more benefit from religious things solely because those things which religion does well are the only things counted).

Which religions provide the most solace and comfort? Do some religions offer very little solace and comfort? Are some religions better bargains than others, in terms of commitment per solace and comfort delivered?

I don't know, possibly, and it appears to be highly individualized.

Just briefly, do you think there is a categorical difference between so-called atheistic religions, where one does not, for lack of a better term, have a personal relationship with God or The Divine? That would seem an obvious place to draw a line and look to each side of it. What do you think — do you think that makes a critical difference in how much comfort and solace one derives from one's religion?

[Gallstones]

Incense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Incense.

... about what?

[Seth]

You seem to be implying that religion provides as much if not more solace and comfort than competing world views, such as atheism, secularism, science or skepticism — are you?

Indeed I am.

And if so, how are you measuring how much solace and comfort these worldviews provide? (You can stick to Christian, general religion, and atheism if you like.)

One metric would be the number of people who hold religious beliefs, which is something like 80 percent of the population of the planet. One needs to ask why 80 percent of the planetary population hold to some form of religion. I don't think a credible argument can be made that it's some authoritarian aspect of religion, given that such authoritarian actions by governments lead to governments being overthrown, and yet religions are almost never overthrown.

I think its reasonable to say that religion persists because it provides that which people seek, and I don't think it's going too far to say that people seek peace, solace, comfort and support in general, and that religion provides this to many people.

Well, see, this is why one needs metrics rather than just head counts.

True enough. I believe some scientific research has been done regarding religion and its social effects, but I'm not particularly interest at this juncture in looking it up.

By that same argument, since a third of the world's population lives under a communist regime, you would have to grant that communism provides comfort and solace for its peoples, apparently such which other governments don't.

This might be true, but not terribly relevant.

Or tailbones. Apparently, 100% of the population takes comfort and solace from having a tailbone. Or living in debt — that's apparently very consoling.

I smell herring.

The problem is, people do things for reasons other than them providing comfort and solace, so you can't conclude that 100% of the people who do something — worship for example — do so because it provides comfort and solace.

I don't conclude that 100 percent of people do anything except perhaps breathe and circulate blood to their organs.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that people cling to religion because it gives them solace and solace. Religion is not, after all, like breathing or having a tailbone, it's for the most part a voluntary act, and while there are some people who engage in harmful, painful and self-destructive acts voluntarily, I don't think that can be rationally said of human beings in general.

If they don't get solace and comfort from religion, why else would they participate in it?

No, the only way to know is to apply some metric which measures the comfort and solace derived, and differentiates it from confounding factors like, "I worship so I don't fry in hell," or, "because my parents would have a cow if I didn't." No, your procedure is entirely too simplistic and unrefined.

It's a general claim in response to a general question, not a scientific hypothesis that I'm interested in spending the next 20 years of my life researching. I believe the research has probably been done though.

I'll bring up this point to forewarn you. You neglect one possible explanation for religion, and that is that it is an evolutionary Spandrel — something that persists in the human genome because it is a consequence of having something else which does provide evolutionary benefit, while religion itself is just a useless byproduct of having that useful thing.

That's certainly a credible theory.

I tend to lean in this direction myself, that while many aspects of religion themselves may be either useless or even harmful, the neuroanatomical features which give rise to religious type thinking themselves are useful and beneficial.

Well, first you would have to show that many aspects of religion are either useless or harmful I suppose. It seems somewhat counter-intuitive to suggest that religion would be an evolved behavior based on neuroanatomical features if religion did not provide benefits that would reinforce the neuroanatomical structures. Did the "God genes" evolve because of religious experiences that are beneficial to humans, or did religion evolve because "God genes" are an accident of nature that reinforces religious belief?

It's an interesting question, that.

But what we're left with is the evidence that religion appears to be a strongly-favorable behavior that is perpetuated in the vast majority of human beings, to the extent that I don't think it's unreasonable to say it's a genetic trait of human beings. Without further investigation then it is not irrational to conclude that religion is more beneficial than no religion to the species.

Regardless, only one way to tell if religious practices yield concrete results or not and that is to measure it. You may notice there's a difficulty here. It may be possible that religion and religious thinking is a biological Spandrel, but if it is, as it were, piggy-backing on some trait or brain feature that is useful, and which results in the individual achieving greater happiness, comfort and solace, there appears to be no straight-forward way to detect whether it is an adaptive feature, or just a freeloading Spandrel.

All valid points.

Well, it's your argument that religion is the cause of comfort and solace. How do we measure it? How do we measure it in the non-religious, and in what groups? And how do we separate its impact on people's lives irrespective of other factors, social, economic, etc., but also how do we discern whether or not it is a biological Spandrel or not.

I don't know, nor do I really care. All that interests me at the moment is acknowledging that religion is more beneficial to humanity than irreligion is, based on the common and long-held experience of humanity through the ages. Religion exists and persists because it has evolutionary utility to the species, that's what I believe. Therefore, it seems to me that messing about with evolution by trying to suppress religion might be as bad an idea as messing about with the 1918 flu virus and accidentally making it 100 percent lethal and then releasing it on the world.

I may get back to your other answers, re: sadomasochism — running out of steam here. Later.

I'll wait. Thanks.




Oh, just briefly.

I see no claims on the part of atheism (which I believe is defined simply as "a lack of belief in gods" by those who deny that atheism can be a religion in itself) regarding any sort of comfort or support provided by the classic formulation. Do you?

I've seen Dawkins ask the rhetorical question as to why people need God and can't be satisfied with the beauty of nature, but I've not seen him actually address why people adhere to religion. He merely discounts it as "delusion." Some solace that provides.

I notice, particularly in self-selected populations of atheists, skeptics, and secular humanists, that they have a tendency to pour more energy into things like social activism, self-education, and other pursuits (one of my secular humanist groups gets together once a month to discuss poetry, and these groups may be preferentially attracted to Unitarian Universalist churches, which emphasize social activism, social justice and ecological ethics). Certainly one has to consider whether these activities provide the same, or different yet equally attractive benefits, as religion does. Your metric needs to reflect this if it is not going to be guilty of circular reasoning (religious people deriving more benefit from religious things solely because those things which religion does well are the only things counted).

Well, frankly, I would have to conclude that such groups are actually practicing religion, albeit a non-theistic style of religion. I've said this many times before. Much of what self-professed atheists do can clearly be defined as religious in nature, which only adds to the strength of my argument.

Which religions provide the most solace and comfort? Do some religions offer very little solace and comfort? Are some religions better bargains than others, in terms of commitment per solace and comfort delivered?

I don't know, possibly, and it appears to be highly individualized.

Just briefly, do you think there is a categorical difference between so-called atheistic religions, where one does not, for lack of a better term, have a personal relationship with God or The Divine? That would seem an obvious place to draw a line and look to each side of it. What do you think — do you think that makes a critical difference in how much comfort and solace one derives from one's religion?[/quote]

It's very important to recognize that the definition of "religion" does NOT necessarily imply theistic or so-called supernatural claims.

Religion is a set of beliefs and behaviors (belief/practice set) that does not in and of itself require belief in God or gods. There are plenty of examples of non-theistic religions out there to choose from to demonstrate this point.

[Gallstones]

A smidge of perspective.

Warning: Amongst the good points there is some RDF rahrahrah.

[apophenia]

It's very important to recognize that the definition of "religion" does NOT necessarily imply theistic or so-called supernatural claims.

Religion is a set of beliefs and behaviors (belief/practice set) that does not in and of itself require belief in God or gods. There are plenty of examples of non-theistic religions out there to choose from to demonstrate this point.

What is your definition of a religion. I thought I had a definition of religion once, now I don't think I do. You've alluded to religion being any set form of beliefs and practices, and, not sure where you go from there. Without some concrete criteria, a bound, which ropes off beliefs and practices which are religious from those that aren't, it would seem that everything is a religion. I spent three hours this evening debating ecological ethics with an organized group of fellow philosophers. We meet every three weeks, we share beliefs about rational and irrational reasoning, what constitutes a valid argument and not, we share the same practices — from what I recollect of prior statements of yours, this would constitute a religion. If the definition of religion is so permissive that any regular, organized activity becomes a religion, the word loses its meaning. Sun Tzu remarks that defense everywhere is defense nowhere, meaning that if you try to cover all bases you will end up covering none of them well. I think a definition of religion, to be maximally useful, must be as restrictive as possible without excluding legitimate religions. I'll let you define religion for me, but your thoughts that I've heard in the past (seem to) have entirely too much slack — and perhaps even purposefully so, as perhaps your goal is not to reason about religion, as to unreason about irreligion. How do you navigate the waters between Scylla and Charybdis, too loose or too tight, and what practical aspect of your definition is, for lack of a better term, optimized, by placing the boundary where it is. (e.g. an atheist may place a more restrictive boundary for many reasons from avoiding complicity in shared behaviors to justifying bigotry; what positive function does your definition serve?)


(Btw, regarding the Spandrels, it seems counter-intuitive but that's the way evolution works — a feature doesn't have to itself be adaptive to persist if a feature it's resultant from is adaptive; you didn't eliminate confounding variables either — if people believe that worship will keep them from burning in hell, they have adequate motivation to worship, regardless of whether that belief is true and regardless of whether worship provides positive benefit — in that instance, it would produce the positive benefit of reducing anxiety about suffering for eternity, whether it provides any other comfort or solace. I find it interesting that you're not particularly concerned about what the research data says, you sound as if you'll believe it provides benefit even if the research says otherwise; what little investigation I've done seems to indicate that it's not clear that it provides any special benefits at all, that there are studies going both ways, and, I suspect the behaviors of the religious, on average, are no more nor less beneficial than non-religious activities — however you define that. I personally think it is irrational to conclude that religion is beneficial without reference to scientific measurement — that sounds like a position grounded only in faith. I would argue that, failing some proof that it is, it is more rational to remain agnostic on the question.)


Bleah. Babbling again.

[Seth]

It's very important to recognize that the definition of "religion" does NOT necessarily imply theistic or so-called supernatural claims.

Religion is a set of beliefs and behaviors (belief/practice set) that does not in and of itself require belief in God or gods. There are plenty of examples of non-theistic religions out there to choose from to demonstrate this point.

What is your definition of a religion.

re·li·gion
 
 /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, 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.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I thought I had a definition of religion once, now I don't think I do. You've alluded to religion being any set form of beliefs and practices, and, not sure where you go from there. Without some concrete criteria, a bound, which ropes off beliefs and practices which are religious from those that aren't, it would seem that everything is a religion. I spent three hours this evening debating ecological ethics with an organized group of fellow philosophers. We meet every three weeks, we share beliefs about rational and irrational reasoning, what constitutes a valid argument and not, we share the same practices — from what I recollect of prior statements of yours, this would constitute a religion. If the definition of religion is so permissive that any regular, organized activity becomes a religion, the word loses its meaning. Sun Tzu remarks that defense everywhere is defense nowhere, meaning that if you try to cover all bases you will end up covering none of them well. I think a definition of religion, to be maximally useful, must be as restrictive as possible without excluding legitimate religions. I'll let you define religion for me, but your thoughts that I've heard in the past (seem to) have entirely too much slack — and perhaps even purposefully so, as perhaps your goal is not to reason about religion, as to unreason about irreligion. How do you navigate the waters between Scylla and Charybdis, too loose or too tight, and what practical aspect of your definition is, for lack of a better term, optimized, by placing the boundary where it is. (e.g. an atheist may place a more restrictive boundary for many reasons from avoiding complicity in shared behaviors to justifying bigotry; what positive function does your definition serve?)

My particular favorite as applied to Atheists is definition number six. I think the determinative factor would be whether the belief/practice set is a "a point or matter of ethics or conscience." This I think takes it beyond the rather broad realm of simple interest or association, such as a football team or pie-making. But I would indeed agree that an organized group of philosophers discussing ecological ethics under a specific set of beliefs and practices that reaches the level of a matter of conscience or ethics would indeed qualify as "religion."

I acknowledge the difficulty this raises with respect to the broadening of the classical theistic definitions of religion to include a much wider scope of belief/practice sets, but I see no inherent conflict with the concept and the inclusion of a much broader segment of society than heretofore has been considered "religious." I quite deliberately eschew the narrow definition of religion as being inherently theistic or as requiring supernatural belief or other restrictions specifically intended to exclude Atheism as a religion because it's simply irrational to keep the definition so narrow in the face of modern religious practice by non-theistic groups who characterize themselves as having religious belief.

Scientology is the quintessential example of a non-theistic religion that completely qualifies under pretty much all of the definitions we see above. Secular Humanism is another religion that started out proudly proclaiming that it was a religion, only to abandon that claim when it was realized that being a religion took a lot of wind out of the sails of the Atheists who comprised Secular Humanists. But it's clear that Secular Humanism remains a religion notwithstanding their denials. And other examples of non-theistic religion including Buddhism and Jainism have been pointed out in the past.

It is the nature of the association, it's practices and beliefs that make some group into a religion, and one need only rationally examine that belief/practice set to make that determination. If it meets the criteria in the definition, then it is by definition a religion.

And Atheism as I view it most certainly qualifies in every respect except for the theistic and devotional aspects of a couple of the definitions.

Religious Atheists demonstrate all the characteristics of definition six, and because most Atheists rely upon science as the foundation for their belief/practice set, it's reasonable to conclude that this comprises "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Science itself may not claim a purpose for the universe, but I can argue that the claim that the universe is purposeless meets the definition as well. All of the spiritual aspects of the first definition you will note are optional and not required.

(Btw, regarding the Spandrels, it seems counter-intuitive but that's the way evolution works — a feature doesn't have to itself be adaptive to persist if a feature it's resultant from is adaptive; you didn't eliminate confounding variables either — if people believe that worship will keep them from burning in hell, they have adequate motivation to worship, regardless of whether that belief is true and regardless of whether worship provides positive benefit — in that instance, it would produce the positive benefit of reducing anxiety about suffering for eternity, whether it provides any other comfort or solace.

Well, yes, of course. And what's wrong with that, exactly? People may have anxiety about what happens to them after death even if they don't believe in eternal hellfire and damnation. Take the religions that believe in reincarnation and Karma as examples. Religion therefore serves the purpose of giving them solace and comfort about the anxiety of not knowing what comes after death, which appears to be of evolutionary benefit to the species.

I find it interesting that you're not particularly concerned about what the research data says, you sound as if you'll believe it provides benefit even if the research says otherwise; what little investigation I've done seems to indicate that it's not clear that it provides any special benefits at all, that there are studies going both ways, and, I suspect the behaviors of the religious, on average, are no more nor less beneficial than non-religious activities — however you define that. I personally think it is irrational to conclude that religion is beneficial without reference to scientific measurement — that sounds like a position grounded only in faith. I would argue that, failing some proof that it is, it is more rational to remain agnostic on the question.)

Well, I admit to relying on empirical evidence in such arguments, but that's mostly because there is generally little reason to go deeper than that because very, very few atheists (or Atheists) have any interest in a closer examination of the subject which might require reference to actual research. My main claim is simple but seems to be quite durable due mostly to the simple endurance of religion in society over such a long period. I have not heard any compelling arguments as to why religion would persist if it was actually more harmful to the species than it is helpful over such a long period. I'm not aware of any research that shows that religion is more harmful than it is beneficial, but would be happy to review anything you're familiar with.

It's difficult enough to simply convey the hypothesis and defend the notion without things devolving into insults and evasions, much less have some sort of deep research-based discussion on the matter. Most Atheists refuse to even consider the notion that religion might be beneficial because their entire religious belief/practice set is built on the fundamental proposition that religion is harmful to society, much less that they are exhibiting religious behavior. I do appreciate your scholarship here, that must certainly be said.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"How to be wrong in one million words or more." You should write that book.

[John_fi_Skye]

"How to be wrong about everything in one million words or more." You should write that book.

[Seth]

"How to be wrong in one million words or more." You should write that book.

Why would I want to lionize your ignorance like that?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"How to be wrong about everything in one million words or more." You should write that book.

tl;dr

[apophenia]

Regarding your comments on Scientology, Scientologists believe in God, past lives, the soul (or souls), extra-terrestrials who predate the accepted origin of this/the universe and practice a form of confession called auditing. Granted, getting them pinned down on what they mean by God is tricky, but Scientology doctrine is riddled with beliefs and practices which are supernatural, pseudo-science based on revelation from "Ron" or both. To suggest that Scientology isn't religious in the classical sense, I think either embodies an ignorance of Scientology, or, more often, a desire to limit the scope of religion so as to exclude Scientologists from the protections we afford other religious practitioners, usually by claiming that Scientology's religious elements are merely cover for illegal and manipulative practices.

As to whether definition 6 is acceptable, I read that as using the term "religion" or "religious" as a metaphor, as in, I'm religious about only using quality meats in my cooking — I think you would find few people to agree with you that this person's cooking practices thus constitute a religion. But, I confess, that's a theory, which would require etymological research to verify. But, it would seem that that is what you are saying, that someone who only eats all beef weiners is practicing a religion. That would seem to lead toward the sort of inflationary usage in which, what used to be called religion no longer has a word for it, because you've debased the currency so much that it is practically worthless.

As to the origin of the universe, I would suggest that the place of natural versus supernatural explanations, faith versus reason play a role, though I sympathize in one regard, that being that popular attitudes toward science trend towards a religion when it borders on groundless scientism. However, well evidenced natural explanations, imo, no matter how strongly held — unless held dogmatically — do not constitute a religion or a religious explanation. Aside from 6, which I think is not meant literally but figuratively, all the other current meanings use supernaturally based beliefs as exemplars.

[Seth]

Regarding your comments on Scientology, Scientologists believe in God, past lives, extra-terrestrials who predate the accepted origin of this/the universe and practice a form of confession called auditing. Granted, getting them pinned down on what they mean by God is tricky, but Scientology doctrine is riddled with beliefs and practices which are supernatural, pseudo-science based on revelation from "Ron" or both. To suggest that Scientology isn't religious in the classical sense, I think either embodies an ignorance of Scientology, or, more often, a desire to limit the scope of religion so as to exclude Scientologists the protections we afford other religious practitioners, usually by claiming that Scientology's religious elements are merely cover for illegal and manipulative practices.

I'd not heard that Scientologists believed in supernatural deities, I thought it was all couched in terms of planes of existence and other pseudo-scientific junk. I'll defer to your knowledge but point out that I never said Scientology wasn't a religion, I said explicitly that it IS a religion.

As to whether definition 6 is acceptable, I read that as using the term "religion" or "religious" as a metaphor, as in, I'm religious about only using quality meats in my cooking — I think you would find few people to agree with you that this person's cooking practices thus constitute a religion. But, I confess, that's a theory, which would require etymological research to verify. But, it would seem that that is what you are saying, that someone who only eats all beef weiners is practicing a religion. That would seem to lead toward the sort of inflationary usage in which, what used to be called religion no longer has a word for it, because you've debased the currency so much that it is practically worthless.

Well, does he eat all beef wieners devotedly, as a matter of conscience or ethics? For example, does he eschew pork-based wieners because he has an ethical objection to factory hog farming? Does he only eat all-beef wieners because he worships them as a phallic symbol which he believes will give him extraordinary sexual prowess?

The point is that it is not just the ritualized activity that creates a religion, it's whole of the belief/practice set that includes some or all of the elements found in the definition that causes the behavior to be religious in nature.

Is it inflationary usage? Yes, clearly the modern definitions I've cited are substantially broader than the ancient or classic theism-based definitions, but that's because world cultures have become increasingly more complex and fragmented and so new religions are constantly popping up. Like Scientology, or New Age spiritualism, which comes in all sorts of flavors, or earth-worship without supernatural claims.

The definitions of words change over time as society changes, and it's evident from the fact that the new, less "supernatural" definition exists for a reason, and that reason seems to be that people have indeed begun making religions out of all sorts of beliefs and practices.

Heck, I made my own religion, called Tolerism™, precisely because my belief/practice set has all the hallmarks of a religion found in definition six.

Does that render the word useless? I think not. What it does do is annoy the ever-living hell out of Atheists, so they go though all manner of gyrations trying to deny that what they are doing is religious.

As to the origin of the universe, I would suggest that the place of natural versus supernatural explanations, faith versus reason play a role, though I sympathize in one regard, that being that popular attitudes toward science trend towards a religion when it borders on groundless scientism. However, well evidenced natural explanations, imo, no matter how strongly held — unless held dogmatically — do not constitute a religion or a religious explanation. Aside from 6, which I think is not meant literally but figuratively, all the other current meanings use supernaturally based beliefs as exemplars.

What argument do you provide that supports the notion that a religion must be FALSE in its claims? Moreover, what argument do you have that faith is a requirement of religion and that reason is not?

Religion is not what you practice or believe, it is how you go about it. That's the clearest distinction that I can make between religion, theism, atheism, scientism, science or any other specific set of beliefs and practices and the fact that one holds those beliefs "religiously" and practices them as a religion.

I see no reason why science cannot be defined as a religion merely because it is based in reason and falsifiable evidence. It meets most of the requirements of most of the definitions given. Let's examine that proposition:

Is science "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

It's certainly a set of beliefs concerning the cause and nature of the universe. I suppose that there is no reason why science cannot likewise propose a theory of purpose for the universe that might be falsifiable. For example, if science does discover that this universe was created by some science major in an extra-universal membrane universe, then the "purpose" of this universe might be "as a science experiment." Nothing theistic or supernatural about that proposition, so I have to judge that it meets that basic criteria of the first (and therefore most commonly used) definition of "religion."

How about the add-ons, "especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances,"

Probably not, though I have argued that science is indeed filled with rituals. The simplest example I like to use is the ritual of properly washing lab glassware to ensure that it is acceptable for use in various other scientific rituals like titration or mixing.

How about "and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"?

Certainly the ethics and morals of scientific investigation constitute a form of dogma that can be viewed as religious in nature. Science certainly has it's "sacred" texts (Darwin for example) and it has both it's rituals of observation, documentation and replication as well as its heretical acts (falsification of data, improper methodology, deliberate fraud) which govern the conduct of scientists.

So, science pretty much meet all but the "superhuman agency" part of the first definition.


Now let's consider if Science is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects."

Yes, I'd say that is clearly and unequivocally true. Each branch has its own set in fact, so it meets the second definition too.

Now how about "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"? I'd say the IPCC alone proves that without any doubt whatsoever.

What about "the life or state of a monk, nun, etc."? I'd say that the devotion of some scientists to their research is certainly equal to the devotion of a monk or a nun, and while it's a bit of a stretch, it's not completely unreasonable to suggest that this definition applies.

Now for "the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith." Well, certainly the first half if arguably not the second. Faith is not a requirement for religion, you see, so while it doesn't apply to science, (although there is a degree of faith shown by scientists) it's not preclusive of science also being a religion.

And now for "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." There's no doubt that science fits this definition squarely.

So, it appears that absent the ritualistic observations of faith and belief in supernaturalism, science fits almost all of the criteria for being defined as a religion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"So, it appears that absent the ritualistic observations of faith and belief in supernaturalism, science fits almost all of the criteria for being defined as a religion."