Modernity, Religion, Progress

[Legbiter]

"Religion" is a fairly hard term to pin-down.  It encompasses the complex theology of the Catholic Church as well as the Animist who thanks the trees for giving up their fruit.

Yeah, also there's a big difference between a a cuddly Lutheran with a spiritual approach to life, say, and a Wahhabi with a narrow legalistic one.

I like Nassim Taleb's take on religion as a heuristic for intergenerational risk management (avoiding, for example, gambler's ruin and similar hazards).

[The Minsky Moment]

Lawyers, students, warriors, priests, children -- are all members of specific communities, and all human communities have considerable rituals that enforce, and assign identities to themselves, and these sub-groups.

Students, warrior and lawyers aren't members of specific communities; people are members of those communities, and some people hold some of those roles some of the time.  The set of rituals and practices that extends across the community and binds all at all stages of life is the religio

Its fair to accuse me of "conflating ritual with religion" but you also aren't advancing an alterative.  Any definition can be easily deconstructed or accused of incompleteness, over-inclusiveness or conflation. Pick your poison. 

Malthus did present a coherent definition of sorts - the mark of religion being a set of beliefs regarding a supernatural agency or agencies and its/their relationship to the world.  But if we focus as CC suggests on what actual adherents to the religion do and believe, much of what they do and think about regularly in relation to their religion has nothing to do with that set of beliefs.  It would be odd if much of what people do and believe concerning their religion is bereft of the thing that defines it as a religion.

[The Minsky Moment]

You are talking about the division between orthodoxy and heresy within a given religion, but that debate all takes place within a religious belief.

yeah and what belief is that?
An educated Christian would say immortality of the soul is fundamental to belief, which arguably makes that person more of Neo-Platonist than a follower of the man-being who preached the Gospel and seems to know nothing about that concept.

If you are going to define religious belief as that which must be orthodox or in keeping with what "an educated" member of the religion might think then you are rendering non religious a lot of people who might be surprised by their new status.  There are people who consider themselves Christians who believe that "saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces" exist.  But the don't meet your definition and so, by the stroke of your pen/keystroke are given a status which non of them would recognize as valid.

My point is not the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy.  It's the distinction between (1) what scriptural texts actually say; (2) the "official" set of dogmas or doctrines, and (3) what people actually do and believe. I accept your point that Christians are the people who consider themselves Christian. But the actual content of their beliefs is probably closer to that of their pagan ancestors than what is taught in the seminaries. If that is so then to define religion as a set of beliefs concerning a supernatural being is problematic, because it means Christians have beliefs that are un-Christian.  If one defines Christianity as simply that set of things that Christians do, that problem goes away.

[Malthus]

Lawyers, students, warriors, priests, children -- are all members of specific communities, and all human communities have considerable rituals that enforce, and assign identities to themselves, and these sub-groups.

Students, warrior and lawyers aren't members of specific communities; people are members of those communities, and some people hold some of those roles some of the time.  The set of rituals and practices that extends across the community and binds all at all stages of like is the religio

Its fair to accuse me of "conflating ritual with religion" but you also aren't advancing an alterative.  Any definition can be easily deconstructed or accused of incompleteness, over-inclusiveness or conflation. Pick your poison. 

Malthus did present a coherent definition of sorts - the mark of religion being a set of beliefs regarding a supernatural agency or agencies and its/their relationship to the world.  But if we focus as CC suggests on what actual adherents to the religion do and believe, much of what they do and think about regularly in relation to their religion has nothing to do with that set of beliefs.  It would be odd if much of what people do and believe concerning their religion is bereft of the thing that defines it as a religion.

Well, I can see someone conducting a ritual - say sacrificing to Zeus the Father of the Gods - without caring much about the theology of it all, and more concerned about 'is my sacrifice making a good impression on my neighbours and rivals? Is it too ostentatious, or not rich enough?'.

I still think it makes more sense to classify that as a 'religious' activity, despite the fact that it may in many ways be no different from any other type of conspicuous consumption like buying a flashy car (or chariot), because ultimately it is set in motion by a set of beliefs we define as 'religious'. 

Admittedly the line gets very thin at times - indeed, arguably the Reformation was set in motion exactly because Italian nobles of the Renaissance treated the Catholic Church as just another forum in which to compete for wealth and status, which pissed the actual religious people off.

[Oexmelin]

Students, warrior and lawyers aren't members of specific communities; people are members of those communities, and some people hold some of those roles some of the time.  The set of rituals and practices that extends across the community and binds all at all stages of life is the religio

In which case, the State, or the Nation, becomes a religio.

Again, I think I have addressed that in my post above which everyone seems to have ignored. The problem we face is two-fold.

1) How can we have a definition of religion that keeps out forms of belonging, which we know and experience, and which we would not be comfortable in defining as religion - except in a polemical way. (i.e., things I hate are a religion, things I subscribe to are perfectly rational forms of engagement).

2) How can we have a definition of religion that accommodates the wide diversity of human spirituality. One way that has historically been done, has been to identify as religion only those sets of belief that are institutionally enforced by a dedicated priesthood (as opposed to, say, enforced strictly by a community).

As I suggested above, these two problems seem to be linked to the fundamental rupture that is instantiated by the invention of "secularism", of which we are very much the product. It is a rupture that allows us to distinguish between rote, ritualism, and meaningful engagement with religious idea - whereas such a distinction would have been unthinkable in most human societies. In other words, you may doubt the efficacy of the sacrifice you perform, but you would not doubt the existence of a very porous border between this world, peopled by "us humans" and a different world(s) peopled by entities, and governed by very different rules. 

It is also the rupture which has allowed the State, and the Nation, to be distinguished as entities independently from religious belief, precisely capable of "linkages", of overseeing all aspects of life, and binding everyone into the community.

This is why I suggested contrasting concern with transcendence with concern with materialism. It does not create a very neat divide, but I think it is at least intellectually productive.

[crazy canuck]

You are talking about the division between orthodoxy and heresy within a given religion, but that debate all takes place within a religious belief.

yeah and what belief is that?
An educated Christian would say immortality of the soul is fundamental to belief, which arguably makes that person more of Neo-Platonist than a follower of the man-being who preached the Gospel and seems to know nothing about that concept.

If you are going to define religious belief as that which must be orthodox or in keeping with what "an educated" member of the religion might think then you are rendering non religious a lot of people who might be surprised by their new status.  There are people who consider themselves Christians who believe that "saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces" exist.  But the don't meet your definition and so, by the stroke of your pen/keystroke are given a status which non of them would recognize as valid.

My point is not the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy.  It's the distinction between (1) what scriptural texts actually say; (2) the "official" set of dogmas or doctrines, and (3) what people actually do and believe. I accept your point that Christians are the people who consider themselves Christian. But the actual content of their beliefs is probably closer to that of their pagan ancestors than what is taught in the seminaries. If that is so then to define religion as a set of beliefs concerning a supernatural being is problematic, because it means Christians have beliefs that are un-Christian.  If one defines Christianity as simply that set of things that Christians do, that problem goes away.

The definitional exercise you are embarked on leads to odd results.  Of course Christianity grew out of what had existed before it.  The whole concept of an "official dogma and what the texts actually say are very problematic as it engages questions of whose version, what texts, what version of the bible etc etc.  That gets us back into a debate of what became orthodox and heretical.   Are all the variations of Christianity around the world who have to one degree or another taken on local beliefs not religious?

[The Minsky Moment]

Historically I don't think the issue is Christian communities drifting away from orthodoxy to alternative or heterodox beliefs.  It's more that existing belief communities accepted a basic or titular form of conversion, changed some labels around, and were designated "Christian" without much if any fundamental alteration in belief structure.  Similar dynamic occurred in the history of Islam, which has very low immediate barriers to entry and a historical penchant for mass conversion events.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is why I suggested contrasting concern with transcendence with concern with materialism. It does not create a very neat divide, but I think it is at least intellectually productive.

It does also sweep in a lot of thought that isn't typically considered religious.
Also where does Marxism sit on this dichotomy - the idea of transcendence through the embrace of a materialist worldview?

[Oexmelin]

This is why I suggested contrasting concern with transcendence with concern with materialism. It does not create a very neat divide, but I think it is at least intellectually productive.

It does also sweep in a lot of thought that isn't typically considered religious.

Could you provide some examples?

Also where does Marxism sit on this dichotomy - the idea of transcendence through the embrace of a materialist worldview?

I think Marxism is precisely the attempt at recognizing, and bridging that dichotomy. There is a reason, I think, why the materialism of Marxism has retained explanatory power, while its transcendent aspect has considerably receded, including in nominally Communist regimes. (North Korea certainly does its best to intertwine transcendence with materialism, though).

[grumbler]

Which ancient religions did not have a creation story?

Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism off the top of my head. 

[Valmy]

Hinduism? Huh. They don't have anything about creation in there someplace? They have so many stories.

[grumbler]

Hinduism? Huh. They don't have anything about creation in there someplace? They have so many stories.

According to Hindu beliefs, the world is an illusion.  It was never "created."  All that we think of as the world is just how our Atman, contaminated with matter, (mis)perceives the ultimate reality, or Brahman.  The secret is to achieve moksha, where you are not longer distracted by the false reality, and directly perceive Brahman.  You will be reborn until you achieve moksha, but you are reborn into the illusion, not the reality.

For all you know, says Hindu philosophy, you might be the last bit of Atman that has not yet achieved moksha.  Everyone you know might be an NPC, and you could never tell.

[The Minsky Moment]

Could you provide some examples?

The entire field of metaphysical philosophy for starters.

I think Marxism is precisely the attempt at recognizing, and bridging that dichotomy. There is a reason, I think, why the materialism of Marxism has retained explanatory power, while its transcendent aspect has considerably receded, including in nominally Communist regimes. (North Korea certainly does its best to intertwine transcendence with materialism, though).

Yes the transcendent aspect of Marxism doesn't have the best track record.  The materialist aspect is more mixed: on one branch you get the Bernsteinist welfare state, on the other, the Holodomor.

[crazy canuck]

Which ancient religions did not have a creation story?

Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism off the top of my head.

You should probably give it a bit more thought.

Hinduism definitely has a creation story.   In fact it has many.

Buddhism check out the Aggan̄n̄a Sutta although more of a cyclical tale then a true beginning

Confucianism - I see what you did there 

Taoism - check out the universal egg

[Malthus]

There are huge problems with generalizing about things like "Taoism", "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" - even moreso than about generalizing about things like "Christianity" and "Islam". And these problems point directly to the subject under debate.

Basically, these former labels each cover a huge range of beliefs, creeds and philosophies. "Hinduism", for example, is often used as a short-hand for the religious traditions of India (where they aren't labelled as something else, like Buddhism or Jainsim). There are aspects of these which are clearly religions, and other aspects which are more philosophical systems. The religious aspects include creation myths (several!).

Similarly, Buddhism has aspects which are clearly philosophical ways of looking at the world, and aspects which are clearly religious - some sects of Buddhism are very similar to Catholicism, having saints, heavens, hells, prayers, etc.

Taoism is likewise often divided into "religious" and "philosophical" Taoism; the former is very similar to some types of Buddhism.