The nature of religion

[bluethread]

At the request of another poster, I have opened this thread on the nature of religion. There are several questions posters often presume that everyone answers the same way and this often leads to confusion.

First is the topic question, is religion a type of philosophy, a behavior, or both?
Second, must it be theistic?
Third, must it involve an organization?
Fourth, is nontheistic mysticism religion?

Though as I said most presume agreement on the answers to these these questions, but I do not think that is the case. Let's test that.

1. I find in the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings the religion is the behaviors that follow from the espoused philosophy, and proof of actual belief in that philosophy.

2. Using that construct, I do not think religion needs to be theistic, but am willing to view it that way for discussions sake, as long as an alternative term or phrase is used to nontheistic philosophy and practice.

3. I do not think that religion requires an organization, but since philosophy and behavior are involved, organizations are generally involved.

4. Since, I view all philosophical practices as religion, I believe that all mystical practices are religion. That said it is common for people to limit religion the theism, but make an exception for nontheistic mysticism and also refer to it as religion.

So, how do you answer those questions?

[OnceConvinced]

My opinions of course, but backed up with reasoning.

First is the topic question, is religion a type of philosophy, a behavior, or both?

I reckon I'd say both. It definitely includes behaviour, ie religious rituals and practises. Even praying and daily bible readings I would class as religious activity. Going to church every Sunday, communion, baptism...all these things are religious rituals, which would all be part of a religion.

James in the bible states: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

Definitely behavioural if we were to go by what the bible says.

Second, must it be theistic?

I think so. I don't think that if you say someone religiously eats Weetbix for breakfast each morning that he's involved in religion. There would surly have to be doctrines and beliefs for it to be a religion.

My son plays a lot of League of Legends on his PC against his friends on the Internet, but I would not call that a religion. It's just playing a game which he is passionate about.

Third, must it involve an organization?

No, I think you can be part of a religion without having to be part of a larger group, although by classing yourself as a specific religion, eg Christian, Muslim, Buddhist you are kind of aligning yourself with an organisation. Some may like to distance themselves from them, but from the outside we see them as all part of the one organisation.

Fourth, is nontheistic mysticism religion?

It does seem to be

.

[Divine Insight]

At the request of another poster, I have opened this thread on the nature of religion. There are several questions posters often presume that everyone answers the same way and this often leads to confusion.

I find that people often have totally different ideas of what specific works or terms should mean. We can even find dictionaries that offer different definitions for various words. In fact, even single dictionaries often offer several different possible meanings for any given word.

So the problem with questions like these is that they often boil down to semantics, and what different people mean when they use different terms.

I'm personally very open to the usage of individual personalized semantics. The only thing I ask is that people simply explain what they mean by a term, and accept what I mean by the same term. If we disagree on the meaning, this should not be a problem. All we need to do to facilitate a meaningful discussion is be aware of what the other person means when they use a word.

And now I can only answer your following questions based on what these terms mean to me:

First is the topic question, is religion a type of philosophy, a behavior, or both?

I think the term religion here means different things to different people. It's not an important term to me personally because I don't need to refer to any of my philosophies or behavior as being 'religious'. So on a personal note I don't even really have any use for the term "religion", other than how other people might use it.

(more on this when I address your next question)

Second, must it be theistic?

Again, what does "theistic" mean? I just looked it up and the first dictionary I found defines it as "a reference or belief in a god or gods".

This can even become more confusing because people don't even necessarily use the term "god" to mean the same thing. For some people we're not talking about a "god" unless we are talking about a fully sentient individual entity that basically has an "ego" (i.e. a well-defined sense of self). However, some other people use the term "god" for an undefined higher dimensional essence to reality that they may even believe to be a part of directly.

So theistic simply means to believe in a "god" but the term "god" can itself be illusive.

Getting back to the term 'religion'. For me the term "religion" has roots in the concept of doing things dutifully, with dedication, with great repetition, or "religiously".

In other words if I walk my dog every morning at 6 AM one could say that I walk my dog "religiously". You it then be proper to call walking my dog a "religion"?

I personally don't think so. I prefer to reserve the term "religion" to refer to philosophies, and other paradigms that to have a theistic element (i.e. a belief in some higher consciousness or "god")

That being the case, then all "religions" need to be theistic (based on my semantic use of the term religion) other people may use this word differently from how I use it.

Third, must it involve an organization?

I would say no. This is because (based on the semantics I just offered for the term 'religion') there is no need to define what a person means by 'god' in any organized fashion. Especially if they don't claim to know a lot about their concept of 'god'.

Clearly many religions are based on large volumes of doctrine that have been organized into canons called "Holy Scriptures". In that case those religion are organized if for no other reason than they are based on organized scriptures.

Fourth, is nontheistic mysticism religion?

This is a more difficult question because what is meant by "non-theistic"? No god or higher consciousness involved? Is that necessarily a "mysticism"?

In fact the term "mysticism" is one of those terms that often has multiple meanings. I just looked up the term on the Internet to see what they had to say and they offer two different definitions (same dictionary)

1. belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
2. belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.

One has to do with theism (i.e. a belief in a Deity or higher spiritual knowledge)
The second one uses the term in an almost derogatory sense suggesting self-delusion (possibly this dictionary was written by people who frown on mysticism?)

I would even add a third possibly. Mysticism could simply mean that someone believes that there is something mysterious going on, but they have no clue what it is.

Agnostic mysticism perhaps?

In any case, based on my preferred definition for "religion" meaning a belief in some god (i.e. theistic), then a non-theistic mysticism would not qualify as a religion since it's not theistic. (i.e. does not believe in any concept of 'god' or a higher consciousness.)

Semantics is quite variable. It's best to define terms for a specific discussion. Otherwise we often end up arguing over semantics instead of addressing the important concepts.

Though as I said most presume agreement on the answers to these these questions, but I do not think that is the case. Let's test that.

1. I find in the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings the religion is the behaviors that follow from the espoused philosophy, and proof of actual belief in that philosophy.

I can accept that definition. However, if a person gives me this explanation it sure sounds to me like they are purposefully avoiding any theistic references. If that's the case, then this conflicts with how I personally use the term "religion" because recall that, for me, a religion has to be theistic, otherwise it's a meaningless term, (my personal preference for the use of the term 'religion'.)

2. Using that construct, I do not think religion needs to be theistic, but am willing to view it that way for discussions sake, as long as an alternative term or phrase is used to nontheistic philosophy and practice.

My position is that if you are discussing a nontheistic philosophy then why not just make this crystal clear and reject the term "religion" entirely? Instead of using the term "religion" why not refer to it as a nontheistic tradition?

After all, isn't the ultimate goal clear communication?

3. I do not think that religion requires an organization, but since philosophy and behavior are involved, organizations are generally involved.

I would suggest that you are presenting this view based upon your point #1 where you had already defined philosophy and behavior to be a 'religion'.

So you are already using the term differently from how I would normally use the term.

If we were discussing this topic, we would at least now be aware that we are using words in totally different semantic ways.

4. Since, I view all philosophical practices as religion, I believe that all mystical practices are religion. That said it is common for people to limit religion the theism, but make an exception for nontheistic mysticism and also refer to it as religion.

I don't view all philosophical practices as "religion". So we differ on our usage of semantics on that point.

I also have no clue what you mean when you say 'non-theistic mysticism'?

What are you calling 'non-theistic'? Any philosophy that doesn't view the concept of "god" as an individual egotistical entity like Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, etc?

Buddhism doesn't view 'god' as an egotistical anthropomorphic deity. But I wouldn't call Buddhism a "non-theistic' mysticism. I see Buddhism as being a very theistic mysticism. It just doesn't view the concept of 'god' as an egotistical anthropomorphic deity.

So, how do you answer those questions?

Well I hope my answers helped to demonstrate that almost all these questions require a common agreement on the semantics of the terms.

Just based on your questions and your use of the terms "non-theistic mysticism" this causes me to think that if the concept of 'god' is not seen as an egotistical anthropomorphic deity then it doesn't count as "theistic".

If that a fair assessment of how you are semantically using these terms?

In fact, I would like to hear your view on Buddhism. Would you consider Buddhism to be a theistic or non-theistic mysticism? And can you clarify why you chose the view you have?

[bluethread]

Second, must it be theistic?

I think so. I don't think that if you say someone religiously eats Weetbix for breakfast each morning that he's involved in religion. There would surly have to be doctrines and beliefs for it to be a religion.

My son plays a lot of League of Legends on his PC against his friends on the Internet, but I would not call that a religion. It's just playing a game which he is passionate about.

Fourth, is nontheistic mysticism religion?

It does seem to be

.

Thank you. I will wait for more responses before I speak to the question of common usage, that I referred to in the OP. However, I would like to point out that these two answers appear to be contradictory. Can you explain how you reconcile them?

Divine Insight wrote:

In fact, I would like to hear your view on Buddhism. Would you consider Buddhism to be a theistic or non-theistic mysticism? And can you clarify why you chose the view you have?

Thank you. I appreciate you pointing out the problems with a standard usage of the word religion. Again, I will wait for further responses, before discussing that further. That said, I will respond to your request regarding Buddhism.

First, my references to non-theistic mysticism are mostly in response to scientific humanists, who like to reject the idea of deities, because they have not been scientifically verified. That begs the question of those who do not believe in deities, but do hold to other beliefs that have not been scientifically verified, i.e. many health effects related to auras, phrenology, homeopathy, etc.

I am not really well versed in Buddhism and therefore just have a general impression. My impression is that it is kind of a cross between Hinduism and Confucianism. Not that it is connected to them but that it seems to occupy the middle ground between a world where everything is spiritually connected and an attempt to rationally analyze the various possibilities. Hinduism is definitely theistic. It has multiple deities, but not all are egocentric. On the other hand, from what I understand, Confucianism is not necessarily theistic, because it seems to be more concerned with rational living than spiritual things. Buddhism seems to me to split the difference. It acknowledges a spiritual reality, to which it applies reason.

[Divine Insight]

Hinduism is definitely theistic. It has multiple deities, but not all are egocentric.

I would agree that this is the case with "Modern Hinduism". And it's difficult to even pinpoint when "Modern Hinduism" came to be. I don't mean that it had to have occurred recently in history.

My point is that the underlying philosophy of Hinduism did not begin with multiple deities. To the contrary, the underlying philosophy was originally based on the idea that life is a dream being dreamed by "God" which they called "Brahmin". And this specific idea of "God" was more of a pantheistic idea than a deistic one. All the other so-called "gods" of Hinduism were invented later over time. So the ultimate basis of Hinduism is that life is a dream in the mind of a single monotheistic (or pantheistic) consciousness.

As a pantheistic philosophy it's actually as monotheistic as a religion can get. The additional gods that were added as the religion evolved were added by the culture, they were not a part of the underlying foundational philosophy.

On the other hand, from what I understand, Confucianism is not necessarily theistic, because it seems to be more concerned with rational living than spiritual things.

I agree, Confucianism appears to me to also be focused more on ethics than spirituality. It could be viewed as a secular humanistic ethos.

In fact, I personally view Confucianism as a philosophy, not as a religion. (but this goes back to your original question of what we even mean when we use the term "religion") Does a religion need to be theistic? Or can it also be atheistic?

Buddhism seems to me to split the difference. It acknowledges a spiritual reality, to which it applies reason.

Again, I agree. However, Buddhism doesn't specifically embrace the "modern" polytheism of Hinduism. By the way when I say "modern Hinduism" this may very well apply to the Hinduism of the time of Buddha. Because Hinduism had already evolved from a purely pantheistic view to one of polytheism.

I see Buddhism as embracing reincarnation as a self-evident truth. So this covers the spiritual aspect. In other words, the very concept of reincarnation is a concept of pantheism.

So yes, I agree that Buddhism isn't then preaching this spirituality. It has already accepted this spirituality as a self-evident truth. So what the Buddha does at this point is to simply address this worldview from a deeply reasoned perspective. So he was working from a previous premise, and that is the idea that reincarnation is self-evident.

There are also views in Buddhism that the idea is to escape this cycle of reincarnation. But I'm not convinced that this originated with Siddhartha Gautama. Instead, it was most likely a later interpretation based on the idea of others that there is a way to end the cycle of reincarnation.

There are other interpretations as well. I won't go into them here. But Buddhism was definitely based on the premise that reincarnation was already a self-evident truth. This was accepted in India at that time and so Siddhartha also embraced this cultural view.

For this India culture the idea of reincarnation wasn't questioned, it was accepted as a self-evident truth. I think a lot of people in the west don't fully understand this.

[OnceConvinced]

Second, must it be theistic?

I think so. I don't think that if you say someone religiously eats Weetbix for breakfast each morning that he's involved in religion. There would surly have to be doctrines and beliefs for it to be a religion.

My son plays a lot of League of Legends on his PC against his friends on the Internet, but I would not call that a religion. It's just playing a game which he is passionate about.

Fourth, is nontheistic mysticism religion?

It does seem to be

.

Thank you. I will wait for more responses before I speak to the question of common usage, that I referred to in the OP. However, I would like to point out that these two answers appear to be contradictory. Can you explain how you reconcile them?

I was thinking that my words might be seen as a contradiction even when I typed that. I think my question would be is nontheistic mysticism really nontheistic?

[bluethread]

I was thinking that my words might be seen as a contradiction even when I typed that. I think my question would be is nontheistic mysticism really nontheistic?

If a empiricist is talking to someone who believes in a spirit world, but no deities, should the latter be considered a theist or a non-theist and why?