What is religion?

[LeaF]

These are four great people's ideas of what religion is....

 

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless circumstances. It is the opium of the people. The obolition of religion as the illusiory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusiors about their condition is a demand to give up a condition that requires illusion." Karl Marx (1818-1883)

 

"Religion would then be the universal obessional neurosis of humanity: like the obessional neurosis of children... If this view is right it is to be supposed that a turning away from religion is bound to occur with the fatal enevitabilty of a process of growth" Sigmund Froud (1856-1939)

 

"If religion has given brith to all that is essential to society it is because society is the sould of religion" Emile Durkheim (1858- 1917)

 

"Religion has it's own independant roots in the hidden depts of the spirit itself." Rudolf Atto (1869-1937)

 

I must say that I agree partly with each of these difinitions altough I think I agree with the third one the most Got these from religion class today and thought I would share them. Which definition do you most agree with and why?

[LeaF]

I find it very difficult to believe that noone has any kind of opinion or input concerning this topic....but yet I see no replies

[omnifinite]

Just like the mcdojos, I tend to see religion as mcspirituality. Fast prepackaged belief systems on auto-pilot suitable for the masses who might not feel like putting too much thought into that sort of thing. Religion might help you figure out what you believe, but whatever conclusions you come to probably won't exactly match the doctrines (if they can even agree amongst themselves). So applying a common exterior label to what's in your head will probably be inaccurate anyway. You believe what you believe, and you believe it for a reason (hopefully).

 

I guess that means I go for the first two definitions.

[G95champ]

Anything that tries to answer the 5 big question is IMO religon.

 

1. What is the nature of Man?

 

2. What is the nature of Society?

 

3. What is the nature of Nature?

 

4. What is the nature of the Universe?

 

5. What is the nature of God?

[AndrewGreen]

LeaF,

 

Religion is often a touchy subject, and this is a martial arts board not a philosophy board.

 

However all of your quotes are somewhat onesided. If you want to poll people on their thoughts on religion it might help to have quotes from some of the supporters, perhaps Anselm or Aquinas could be quoted on this.

 

That said, I tend to agree most with Freud with a little David Hume thrown in.

 

But the quotes you give are somewhat incomplete. Without being more familiar with the quoted authors writings it would be hard to make a such a call.

 

For example, As far as I know Freud never claimed that any religion was wrong. He just explained that religion would have occured regardless of whether or not their was any truth to it. But the quote may be read that he is claiming religion is wrong, which he doesn't.

 

An argument against beleif in religion can be formed based on his writings, but their is nothing which can be used to prove that any given religion is false. More like if its true, its just a coincedence, but that is a bit of an oversimplification.

[AndrewGreen]

Anything that tries to answer the 5 big question is IMO religon.

 

1. What is the nature of Man?

 

2. What is the nature of Society?

 

3. What is the nature of Nature?

 

4. What is the nature of the Universe?

 

5. What is the nature of God?

 

I have to disagree, Philosophy and Science try to do this, and they are not religions.

 

What makes a religion a religion is not so much what the beliefs are about, but how they are achieved and maintained.

 

Religion is based on faith. More then the 5 you listed I think religion is more about morals & ethics and how you should go about living your life. If I remember correctly that was part of what Freud said, that religion is to create a state of order, this is done by having ethical standards attributed to something higher then Humans. This higher entity acts as a father figure, punishing wrong behavior and rewarding good behavior. It helps to create a state of order. - Paraphrased and interpreted from memory, so I may be mixing things up.

 

It has also been stated the religion does whatever science can't. As science evolves religion evolves filling in the new unexplainable areas.

 

Religion could also be considered something which is to create a sense of community among a large group of people.

 

Not to mention that these all assume religion is created, to many their religion is the truth, it has been passed down through the generations and was formed through divine revelation. They cannot prove this to you, nor can you prove they are wrong.

 

Temptation and faith are a part of many schools of thought. No matter what you are shown as evidence against a religion, you must keep faith, as it is a test of how strong your faith really is.

[G95champ]

I agree Religon is Faith and Science is fact. However most will argue that science takes something like the BIG BANG and says its fact. It may be but we don't know that for sure. So its still faith. I honestly feel science is a religon. Most religons are tied to some sort of great thinkier. Jesuse, Budda, Mohomad, Zoroaster, etc..... So Religon, Science, and Phill... are much close than most think IMO.....

[DeeLovesKarate]

Just like the mcdojos, I tend to see religion as mcspirituality. Fast prepackaged belief systems on auto-pilot suitable for the masses who might not feel like putting too much thought into that sort of thing. Religion might help you figure out what you believe, but whatever conclusions you come to probably won't exactly match the doctrines (if they can even agree amongst themselves). So applying a common exterior label to what's in your head will probably be inaccurate anyway. You believe what you believe, and you believe it for a reason (hopefully).

 

I guess that means I go for the first two definitions.

 

This is what I've been tryying to explain to people who get mad that I don't label myself as a religion. Their automatic answer is that I am what my parents are. Does that mean beliefs are hereditary? Is it in the genes? I hardly believe that it is my DNA. Just because I'm not a religion doesn't mean I don't believe in god, or that I'm rebelling against a church, or a book, because I am not.

 

Thanks for saying it all,

 

Grrrr,

 

Dee

[Don Gwinn]

No, science requires no faith. Many may accept scientific discoveries on faith (I myself have not worked out the geometry of our solar system, I simply accept that it works as presented) but that does not mean that science requires this.

 

No one who tells you that the Big Bang is factually known to have occurred is a scientist. That's why it is always referred to as the "Big Bang Theory." It's a theory, and theories are not facts. That doesn't mean it didn't occur, but the leap of faith is not demanded in order to be a physicist, whereas you cannot legitimately be called a Christian unless you believe Christ was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead and healed the sick by miraculous powers. Thus Christianity requires faith where science does not.

 

Whether this means that science is superior to religion because science can't be wrong (only individual theories) as long as it's applied rigorously, or whether it means that religion is superior because it allows us to believe in things that science can never establish as fact (like the existence of God) is up to you.

[taskpaul]

Religion, broadly, is any attempt by man to understand and/or reach out to God. This often leads to "traditions" and "rituals" that people say help them focus on their "god". Of course, Christianity is a "religion" in the borad sense of the word, but has a deeper aspect. Where other religions (faiths) have abstract images of gods and goddesses and must appease them by offering some ritual or dedication or gift, Christianity has God reaching out to man. In this it is unique.

 

An example (obviously) is God sending His Son, Jesus to die for man rather than man sacrificing for God. Where does this leave Christianity? Better terms for this is a relationship with God, rather than religion. Man can reach out to God, but this does not necessarily lead to a faith that converts; when God reaches out to man, He offers Himself freely and in response to this love man reaches back and accepts this relationship with God.

 

Of course, if you are not a Christian you will see things differently, that's why I broadly defined all faiths as religion. There are excellent tenets and teachings in all religions, but remember that philosophically no two opposing views can be correct at the same time. Either they are both wrong or only one of them is right. With thousands of religions in the world today it's hard to digest which is right and which wrong, and this explains the eclectic mix we see in the New Age Movement. However, the philosophical argument still stands and only one can be right.

 

Science can be broadly defined as religion too, because some conclusions of sciencerequire man's acceptance of what he can never be sure of. This is called faith in any vocabulary. This isn't true of all science of course.

 

Hope that helps a little?

 

Paul