How do you separate religion and the supernatural?

[Lotan]

This question was originally brought up by RevJP on the "Why Attack Christianity?" thread. Is there a religion that doesn't include supernatural elements? Could there be, or would it be considered a 'philosophy' or something else?

And, while we're at it...

Some of you may be familiar with the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offered by magician and professional skeptic James Randi. In my opinion though, real evidence for the supernatural shouldn't come cheap, so I am prepared to offer...{doing my best Dr. Evil impression}... One BILLION Dollars (!!!!!) for incontrovertible, hard evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Don't worry, I'm good for it!
Now for a billion bucks you'll have to come up with something pretty choice. Never mind your uncle's NDE or a cheesy shaped like Benny Hinn. I want something good, like a staff that turns into a snake, or maybe a live demon. Also please avoid any quantum physics weirdness or arguments about strange events or coincidences that must be supernatural unless they are presented by a talking donkey. Best of luck to all!

[otseng]

Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

I still fail to see how gravity can be considered negative energy.

As the site above quotes:

If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.

Also, what does "more nothing" mean? And why does this cause "more something"?

You quite sensibly wondered why there were no BB creations going on all the time given that we exist in a sea of every appearing particles, so I tried to present a simple analogy to the more complex issue of vacuum density

You'll have to break this down for me. Why do we not see subatomic particles not going haywire anymore if it once did to create the entire universe?

To add to the list of a religion without the need for the supernatural... I believe it is possible to be a Unitarian and still not believe in the existence of the supernatural.

[QED]

Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

I still fail to see how gravity can be considered negative energy.

It can be put in simple terms: Two apples close to each other have less energy than when they are further apart. This is because you need to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force pulling them together. The negative energy of gravity is consistent with relativity:

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. The energy of matter, however, is positive. So the entire universe-creation scenario could unfold without breaking conservation-of-energy laws.

(From http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slock ... 0Guess.htm )

You quite sensibly wondered why there were no BB creations going on all the time given that we exist in a sea of every appearing particles, so I tried to present a simple analogy to the more complex issue of vacuum density

You'll have to break this down for me. Why do we not see subatomic particles not going haywire anymore if it once did to create the entire universe?

Because the energy density required only existed during the so called "Inflationary phase" of the big bang:

Inflationary theory postulates the emergence of the observable universe through an exponential rapid expansion phase from an unstable vacuum state. (A "vacuum" is the state of lowest possible energy density). More specifically, the universe emerges from a "false vacuum," a temporary vacuum with enormous energy density. Matter at high densities experiences negative pressure. If this negative pressure sufficiently outweighs the positive density, it can create a repulsive force. This repulsive gravitational field can drive an exponential expansion, like a balloon suddenly being filled with air at an incredible rate.

(from: http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion ... Primer.htm )

To add to the list of a religion without the need for the supernatural... I believe it is possible to be a Unitarian and still not believe in the existence of the supernatural.

It probably is but people like me just don't have the instinctive need to be seen belonging to any religion.

[BeHereNow]

Lotan poses the question: Is there a religion that doesn't include supernatural elements? Could there be, or would it be considered a 'philosophy' or something else?

Otseng makes the case that religion, by definition, does not require the supernatural. His first reason for saying this is referenced to Michael Nedrow writings which defines several levels of the usage of the word “religion”. He uses a political context to tell us what “religion” means. I would suggest that this is a very specific, extremely subjective, usage of the word and not suitable for our purposes. A much more objective definition can be provided from a philosophical perspective. If I take course titled “The History of Religions” in the humanities department, I do not expect to be studying Atheism or other secular philosophies.
At their heart, virtually all of the threads we encounter here are in essence philosophical discussions. It is the philosophical that that binds the threads. It should have preference over the policical for definitions and word usage.

Otseng then says that Unitarians do not necessarily believe in the supernatural. Which is of course true, but is simply begging the question, is the Unitarian Church really a religion?
I submit that philosophically speaking, if there is not belief in the supernatural, there is no religion. There is only a belief system or philosophical life style. I would think there are other elements as well for possible discussion, but this thread is about the supernatual and religion.

[MagusYanam]

So you would argue that Confucianism (which is wholly concerned with the affaires of this world, even though it does not discount the supernatural) and certain schools within Buddhism et cetera are not religions? A definition of religion that excludes Confucianism would be, in my book, an extremely strange one.

Just a thought...

[BeHereNow]

So you would argue that Confucianism (which is wholly concerned with the affaires of this world, even though it does not discount the supernatural) and certain schools within Buddhism et cetera are not religions? A definition of religion that excludes Confucianism would be, in my book, an extremely strange one.

Confucianism, like Zen, does not have a position on god. Followers can accept or reject the supernatural. Confucianism often also incorporates ancestor worship, closely linked with the supernatural.
For me, Zen Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions in the philosophical sense.

If you accept them as religions, can I assume you include Atheism as a religion?

Just a thought. . .

[BeHereNow]

What is it that distinguishes a belief system from a religion?
Are they congruent?

[MagusYanam]

religion:

1a: the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of ~) b(1): the worship or service of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalised system of attitudes, beliefs and practises

Atheism is by definition 2 a religion, though not necessarily by the first. I personally tend to hold the view that religion is wider than just worship and service of God and / or the supernatural, so I would go with the second definition. Am I correct in the assumption that you hold more with the first (specifically, b1)?

I grant you, Merriam-Webster's definition 2 is almost too wide. Political parties by this definition (for example) could be considered religions, and I must admit from my standpoint that most political parties do have some striking similarities to, for example, Christianity or Islam. So, for that matter, do atheism, Confucianism and the Chan (Japanese 'zen') school of Buddhism. All of these rely on certain precepts, certain articles of faith, certain ideologies, even if some of these do not encompass the supernatural.

That being said, I think definition 1b also to be a valid one. If you hold it, all well and good - I won't disagree with you, although the semantic point did need some clarification.

[BeHereNow]

So we agree that religion will require the supernatural, and that many belief systems categorized as religion are in fact secular belief systems, not religions. I trust you agree with me that the distinguishing characteristic of religion which separates it from other belief systems is belief in God and/or the supernatural (Satanism, for example, should be considered a religion).
I wonder if we have convinced the others.

[QED]

Certain beliefs can be tested and in doing so proved to be definitely false. Other beliefs may be tested and remain unfalsified. The more tests passed the greater the probability that the given belief is true - although such beliefs can never be considered as definitely true.

But there is a special class of beliefs that presents no opportunity for testing and as such are unfalsifiable. As a result no conclusion can be drawn over their status in truth. I would suggest that religion is defined by the adherence to any such belief.

[trs]

So we agree that religion will require the supernatural, and ...

Yi-Fu Tuan, in an article titled "Humanistic Geography" appearing in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 66, No. 2: 266-276, defines religion as

• the impulse for cohesion and meaning.

I find this to be an engaging - perhaps even powerful - definition in that it recognizes religion as an imperative rather than a narrative, the impulse to explication rather than the explication itself. There is no requirement that meaning come from superstition rather than science and, therefore, no barrier to a religious humanism predicated upon methodological naturalism.