Modernity, Religion, Progress

[The Brain]

I'm a bit of a Wang Ch'ung man myself.

[Malthus]

Is there widely accepted definition for "Religion"?

There are several, more or less, but the whole excercise has come under criticism for being basically a construct of the West.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion

My own would go something like this:

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe when considered as the creation or emanation of a superhuman agency or agencies, or of humanity's relationship with this agency (or agencies), usually involving devotional and ritual observances based on these beliefs, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs, derived from these beliefs.

This is, for example, why I don't think Neo-Confucianism is a good "fit". Certainly, it supports the use of rituals and it has a significant moral code. However, the link between the support of the rituals and the code and any supernatural agency is weak.

[The Minsky Moment]

Similarly with rituals and ceremonies. Every society has rituals and ceremonies, and certainly Confucianism put a lot of emphasis on them - most importantly, that they be performed correctly. This is because correctly performing rituals was supposed to be good and civilizing in and of itself, regardless of the content and meaning of the rituals.

Again that seems to be a defining mark of a religion.  Much of religious practice, even in modern Western religions, revolves around correct performance of rituals, without necessarily reflecting on content and meaning.  How often have you participating in candle lighting rituals for example - ubiquitous in the Jewish faith - yet what does it mean?  Where did it come from?  it's not in the Torah, or any other Scripture, or even the Mishnah.  It's a long-standing custom around which rituals were built.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is there widely accepted definition for "Religion"?

There are several, more or less, but the whole excercise has come under criticism for being basically a construct of the West.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion

My own would go something like this:

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe when considered as the creation or emanation of a superhuman agency or agencies, or of humanity's relationship with this agency (or agencies), usually involving devotional and ritual observances based on these beliefs, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs, derived from these beliefs.

This is, for example, why I don't think Neo-Confucianism is a good "fit". Certainly, it supports the use of rituals and it has a significant moral code. However, the link between the support of the rituals and the code and any supernatural agency is weak.

Ancient religions didn't typically delve very deeply into the "cause, nature and purpose of the universe" - addressing human interaction with supernatural agencies was more common.

[Oexmelin]

Again, rituals exist well beyond religion. Commencement, court proceedings, fraternities, military salutes, etc.

[crazy canuck]

Ancient religions didn't typically delve very deeply into the "cause, nature and purpose of the universe" - addressing human interaction with supernatural agencies was more common.

Which ancient religions did not have a creation story?

[The Minsky Moment]

Again, rituals exist well beyond religion. Commencement, court proceedings, fraternities, military salutes, etc.

The legal profession in America has often been compared to a priesthood.  Military lifers often describe their devotion to the service and its rigors in religious terms. The categories can blur. But religion is the set of practices and disciplines one follows not because one adheres to a particular profession but because one recognizes oneself as a member of a particular community of people.  One is a student some of the time, a solider others, still others a lawyer or litigant, but always a Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc.

If the sine qua non of religion is acceptance of a set of dogmatic beliefs about the supernatural, most present day or historical Christians are/were not Christian at all, but pagans whose spiritual world is dominated by beliefs in a multiplicity of saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces.

Judaism emerges as a recognizable faith sometime around the 400s BC but there is no attempt to set forth any systematic dogma or theology until 1300 years later. 

[viper37]

Point is that if Orthodox Jews (or Communists, or anything) are given total power, they could become a severe impediment to progress; but here in the West at least they lack that power.

we're saying exactly the same thing: it is a question of numbers. With numbers comes power.  If left unchecked, any ideology or religion can become problematic through an increase in radicalization.

[Eddie Teach]

Communists had an easier time gaining converts than Orthodox Jews.

[crazy canuck]

If the sine qua non of religion is acceptance of a set of dogmatic beliefs about the supernatural, most present day or historical Christians are/were not Christian at all, but pagans whose spiritual world is dominated by beliefs in a multiplicity of saints, demons, angels, and various spiritual forces.

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

[viper37]

Communists had an easier time gaining converts than Orthodox Jews.

I think Orthodox Jews do not seek converts and do their best to actively discouraged conversion from non Jews.  I may be wrong though, Malthus and Minsky will surely correct me.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ancient religions didn't typically delve very deeply into the "cause, nature and purpose of the universe" - addressing human interaction with supernatural agencies was more common.

Which ancient religions did not have a creation story?

Many of them had several. Even now. Genesis has at least two; the profession of editor was still being evolved in those days.
Origin stories for just about anything are always thick on the ground.  There is a reason why Near Eastern scriptural texts have lots of similarities; they are all recycling the repackaging the same oral histories, legends, travelers tales, and tall stories. The texts are just packaging together stories we already know and linking them to the local supernatural bigwig. Everyone in the northern Jordan valley knows about the odd rock formation and everyone knows the local legend that it's a woman whose tears turned her into a pillar of salt.  It all gets packaged into the official story - that's how the locals know it must be true and recognize it as theirs.

You can search through the Synoptic Gospels in vain to learn about the "cause, nature and purpose of the universe."  The early Jewish religion takes at its basis a local land contract between an ancestral notable and a diety.  The "universe" ain't in the picture, despite cameos from assorted Moabites and Edomites, and featuring for this showing only the Pharaoh Ramses.

[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. 

[Oexmelin]

But religion is the set of practices and disciplines one follows not because one adheres to a particular profession but because one recognizes oneself as a member of a particular community of people.

You seem to be conflating ritual with religion. 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. Sure, one engages into the ritual of the trial only briefly -- and the point of this ritual is to recognize one as part of the community which will judge you, and which requires you to submit to the judgment. And similarly, one is a children for a limited time - then comes the coming of age ritual. These rituals can have considerable religious, or spiritual overtones. But many do not. It's just "how it's done", within the Cuivas, or the Jews, or the Igbo, or the Cherokees, or the English, or the Marines.

Again, rituals are not the marker of religion. They exist precisely to maintain and sustain group identity, whether that group is based around religious belief, age, profession, activity, status, etc. The religious content of rituals can be quite poor, as you note. And many religious belief are not tied to any specific ritual.

The main reason why rituals are associated with religion is precisely because "how it's done" in the majority of human communities in history has been tied to some ancestral past, held to be witness to the event, and guardian of tradition. This can be heavily enforced by institutions, and dogma. Or it can be loosely enforced by elders and wise women.

We may well decide that ritual is only reserved for these group-enforcing practices that concern religion - and thus ascribe, as you do, other types of rituals as "religious-like", but that robs us of some capacity to understand how identities are generally ascribed and enforced AND of the capacity to understand the specificity of religion. 

[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.