What is religion?

[Propianotuner]

[youtube][/youtube]

In my career I've run across a variety of ideas as to what a religion is, that are more often than not terribly inconsistent when applied to everything under the scope of the definition, and naturally they contradict one another in their definitions. So, what is a reasonable, generally acceptable definition of religion?

There are a few main questions to start with, and after that a few definitions I need to get out of the way in order to set the record straight for the discussion. Is there a specific theological belief that religions all have to subscribe to in order to fit the definition? What separates a religion from another general worldview? Totally aside from the plethora of ways that religions have been used, what is the basic function of a religion?

Given the omnipresence of the claim in such discussions that secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, "agnostic atheists", and the like are "not religious", we need to get some key definitions out of the way before we define religion itself. That is so that once we have a more holistic picture of religion we can apply some of these definitions to disentangle markedly different instances of religion from the stigmas that have been associated with the term.

I'll be divesting a good bit more details in the first definition because there has been widespread confusion about it, fueled by popular misconceptions today.

Atheist- first used in Attic, Ionian, and Lacedaemonian Greek, the term indicated "one against deity/deities".

Theo, it's root term, indicated deities in general, and in this form it begins with a negative (in fact antagonistic depending on the intended connotation) prefix and ends with the Greek suffix that means the word is a pronoun. Prior to this form, and prior to the 5th century B.C., the Greeks used the term átheos which simply meant "godless", and it was more of a vague pejorative than it was actually descriptive of someone's beliefs.

Probably the most famous early exhibit of the word is it's use as a charge against Socrates in the Apology. The first Greek group, as opposed to individual person who was an atheist, was the Cyrenaics.

They shared notable characteristics with a contemporary sect of Hinduism, which did not view the Vedas as ultimately authoritative, called the C�rv�ka school. However, Samkhya and Mimamsa are two older atheist sects which were accepted within orthodox Hinduism. The C�rv�ka sect was not accepted as orthodox because they advocated a protozoic form of Empiricism called Materialism (the Cyrenaics were also Materialists).

Before it's use in the English language, Cicero simply transliterated it into Latin (i.e. same meaning, same spelling), and later on it was the Old French word atheiste. For the most part this term was a pejorative charge amongst philosophers and theologians (especially slung back and forth by Hellenic and early Christian thinkers), until 15th century French philosophers of the Franco-Flemish school began advocating atheism and explicitly defining it as "one who positively argues that there is no deity/deities".

It should be abundantly obvious to our readers that the Franco-Flemish school, or Atheiste school as they also liked to style themselves, didn't get the best reception in a time and place like 15th century France. In fact, the very first instance that we know of with this term being used in English was John Martiall's A Replie to Mr Calfhills Blasphemous Answer Made Against the Treatise of the Cross, and it criticized French atheists.

The point being? The meaning was already fairly well established, and it became explicit under Reformation era philosophy. While modern philosophy was developing, and virtually all of the schools of thought that persist in the same form within the sciences today were formed, the definition stayed the same as the 15th century French definition. The same definition was maintained for the crucial purpose of continuity.

Heedlessly changing the definition like they do today, making it mean "does not believe in" as opposed to "positively argues against", is destructive to the student of philosophy's ability to understand the great ongoing dialogues in modern philosophy. It nullifies differences between the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", further confusing anyone who is interested in reading from a broad series of philosophers (who are called "modern" because their ideas still hold very much water today).

Theist- a theist is one who positively argues for the existence of deity/deities.

Agnostic- an agnostic is someone who sees no positive grounds either way, and on those grounds suspends judgement.

Fideist- a less commonly mentioned but notable group, and comprising the fourth category of thinkers on the most basic debate in theology (technically speaking, arguing for atheism is taking a theological position), fideists find themselves in the same footing as agnostics but believe in the existence of deity/deities on those grounds. At first blush, it may seem odd that there even is a category of thought like this, believing in something without any sufficient grounds. Typical fideist arguments go along lines similar to Blaise Pascal's Wager.

A basic summary of Pascal's argument would be that he preferred erring on the side of caution. Think of it like a chart divided up into quarters. On the believing end you either rot in the ground if you're wrong, or come up with spectacular results if you're right. On the other end you either rot, or have deplorable results.

So, now that we've cleared up the fact that none of these four are an actual condition for being religious, and that atheism and agnosticism don't preclude religion at all, let's go about defining religion in a way that is not only internally consistent but explanatory of what goes on in the world.

Religion- a religion is, first and foremost, a social phenomena. It is not a particular belief about theology, and it doesn't even need to say anything about theology to function as one (e.g. Confucianism, some early sects of Taoism). Rather, a religion meets most if not all of these several conditions:

1. It is a held to by a group.
2. It is a general worldview that motivates a specified sense of ethics.
3. There is ritualized behavior associated with it.
4. It has it's own primary literature that is agreed to virtually unanimously.
5. People identify themselves with it.

Now, think to yourself of the kind of behavior, political and not so public, great and not so great, that is normally attributed to people throughout history who followed what would fit the more typical standard of what religion is. Highs and lows, atrocities and also exhibits of greatness in human nature, etc. Now look at all of these other worldviews out there that generally operate(d) like those religions, and see the exact same variance of patterns in behavior.

Some examples to think of: Nazism, Laveyan Satanism, secular humanism, Darwinism and especially Social Darwinism, and Communism; notice my emphasis on the phenomenon of stage religions. Notice that all of these had groups of people who met every criteria from 1 through 5. Those examples aren't all intended to be negative, and anyone unfamiliar is definitely encouraged to look up Laveyan Satanism, or the contrasts between Darwinism and Social Darwinism (which was not from Darwin but his cousin Gaston).

What do you think religion is? I've left one of the best initial questions unanswered, because I would very much like to see your opinion on it: what is the function of a religion?

[Divine Insight]

A basic summary of Pascal's argument would be that he preferred erring on the side of caution.

I think a very important thing to consider in Pascal's wager is that he is making this wager with respect to the theology, mythology, or dogma, that describes a jealous God who become angry and vengeful if not acknowledged and worshiped.

In short Pascal was thinking in term of the Abrahamic God and most likely Christianity specifically.

There would be no need to be "cautious" about religious beliefs if there were no reason to suspect that a God might be angry if someone doesn't believe that it exists.

So Pascal's wager really only applies to potentially vengeful angry Gods.

Religion- a religion is, first and foremost, a social phenomena. It is not a particular belief about theology, and it doesn't even need to say anything about theology to function as one (e.g. Confucianism, some early sects of Taoism). Rather, a religion meets most if not all of these several conditions:

I personally see no reason to demand that religion must be a social phenomena. To demand this would imply that solitary individuals could not be religious unless they are following some larger group.

My take on the points on your list is as follows:

1. It is a held to by a group.

For me this is totally irrelevant. I can see an individual being religious based on their own personal beliefs and not being dependent upon anything beyond that.

2. It is a general worldview that motivates a specified sense of ethics.

I also have extreme problems with this. I agree that a religion would need to be associated with a general worldview to be meaningful. However I disagree that it needs to be associated with a specific sense of ethics at all. In fact, I actually don't care much for religions that lay claim to the "ownership" of what morality should be.

Some religions merely have suggestions for what types of behaviors, and actions may be more productive or positive than others. But then other religions lay claim to very specific commandments, directives, and expectations they claim their deities demand from people.

I personally don't feel that this sort of thing needs to be associated with "religion" and I actually find religions that are obsessed with morality to be repugnant.

3. There is ritualized behavior associated with it.

Yes, I would agree with this completely. In fact, I would question the validity of using the term "religious" to describe someone who doesn't practice any rituals "religiously".

I am not a very "religious" person specifically because I do not practice religious rituals "religiously".

4. It has it's own primary literature that is agreed to virtually unanimously.

This may very well be true of "World Religions", but once again, I would not hold this up as a criteria. I would say that a single individual who simply has their own religious ideas within their own mind would qualify as being "religious".

5. People identify themselves with it.

Once again, I think this is far more important to religions that have dogma that proclaims that martyrdom or allegiance to the deity is of paramount importance. For example, I think there are a lot of pantheistic religions where identifying with the religion (especially on an egotistical level) would actually be the anti-thesis of what that particular religion holds up as a worldview.

What do you think religion is? I've left one of the best initial questions unanswered, because I would very much like to see your opinion on it: what is the function of a religion?

When it comes to the semantics of the word "religion", I feel that people should be free to define what the word means to them. I don't see where there is any benefit to trying to force them to accept a definition that is carved in stone.

In short, depending on whose defining the term, I may or may not be religious. I'd simply have to hear their definition of the concept first and then I could tell them whether I satisfy their idea of what they think religion should be.

Obviously I have my own ideas of what it means to be religious. And because of this I would say that by my own definition there are times when I am quite religious and times when I am not.

My best answer to the question of whether or not I'm "religious" would be to simply say that sometimes I practice religious rituals, and at other times I don't.

When it comes to worldviews, I consider two possible worldviews. Either the world has a mystical essence to it, or it doesn't. I confess that I don't know which worldview is truth.

The important part is that from my perspective it doesn't even matter.

As I mentioned in the numbered list, I don't obtain my moral values from religion. Therefore my morality is precisely the same for both a mystical or non-mystical worldview. My moral values come from me, not from my worldview.

When it comes to rituals that I would associate with a religious worldview, I have many rituals that I practice on occasion. But I would be the first to confess that I don't practice them "religiously" in the sense of doing them dutifully on a regular basis. I tend to practice my religious rituals when I feel like it.

But I think it's important to also realize that in my "religion" (i.e. my religious worldview) there is no jealous God who is demanding to be worshiped in a timely or consistent manner. Therefore I only practice religious rituals when I feel like it. Not because I think some God is demanding that I do it lest he will become angry with me.

~~~~~

Thanks for the topic. These are just my views on how I see the concept of religion. But I do agree that many of the things you've listed do indeed seem to apply to how many world religions are viewed and treated by the masses. I just don't agree that religion necessarily needs to be like that.

In fact, I personally believe that religion would be far less socially disruptive if everyone would view their own religious beliefs as being their own, instead of part of a social group that need to defend and support a very specific written dogma. The latter seem to be potentially quite dangerous actually.

[Propianotuner]

I think a very important thing to consider in Pascal's wager is that he is making this wager with respect to the theology, mythology, or dogma, that describes a jealous God who become angry and vengeful if not acknowledged and worshiped.

In short Pascal was thinking in term of the Abrahamic God and most likely Christianity specifically.

There would be no need to be "cautious" about religious beliefs if there were no reason to suspect that a God might be angry if someone doesn't believe that it exists.

So Pascal's wager really only applies to potentially vengeful angry Gods.

Right. Not being a fideist myself, I don't think there are any logically coherent arguments that a fideist could even hypothetically make, for anything other than a concept of deity such as Aristotle's Prime Mover.

I personally see no reason to demand that religion must be a social phenomena. To demand this would imply that solitary individuals could not be religious unless they are following some larger group.

That's exactly what I'm implying. So far as I understand it, a definition contrary to points 1-5 (notice that points 2-5 merely build on point 1) would involve a pretty nondescript concept, inclusive of basically any general worldview that an individual could conceivably spend time doting over.

1. It is a held to by a group.

For me this is totally irrelevant. I can see an individual being religious based on their own personal beliefs and not being dependent upon anything beyond that.

While I can assent to that kind of thinking, the question has to be raised at each stage here in this post of yours whether or not the definition you're proposing is all that functional or useful. What is there to separate your definition of religion from any pervasive worldview?

2. It is a general worldview that motivates a specified sense of ethics.

I also have extreme problems with this. I agree that a religion would need to be associated with a general worldview to be meaningful. However I disagree that it needs to be associated with a specific sense of ethics at all. In fact, I actually don't care much for religions that lay claim to the "ownership" of what morality should be.

Some religions merely have suggestions for what types of behaviors, and actions may be more productive or positive than others. But then other religions lay claim to very specific commandments, directives, and expectations they claim their deities demand from people.

I personally don't feel that this sort of thing needs to be associated with "religion" and I actually find religions that are obsessed with morality to be repugnant.

What is it that you find repugnant? The fact that people are motivated by ethical questions, or that they form conclusions in response to those questions? If not one of those two, are you repulsed by the idea that groups form such ideas?

Whether or not you look upon it as hubris, people do indeed think and behave as if they possess ownership over the subject matter of their ideas, and ethical ideas in particular are of interest to basically everyone. Haven't you formed such ideas of your own, and don't you feel strong compunctions at times according to the dictates of those ideas?

3. There is ritualized behavior associated with it.

Yes, I would agree with this completely. In fact, I would question the validity of using the term "religious" to describe someone who doesn't practice any rituals "religiously".

I am not a very "religious" person specifically because I do not practice religious rituals "religiously".

So, this is to you the essential element? The criteria that appears necessarily inherent to the definition? I have to wonder on what grounds you feel so strongly that this is the central criterion.

4. It has it's own primary literature that is agreed to virtually unanimously.

This may very well be true of "World Religions", but once again, I would not hold this up as a criteria. I would say that a single individual who simply has their own religious ideas within their own mind would qualify as being "religious".

Wouldn't that merely qualify them as being a typical human?

5. People identify themselves with it.

Once again, I think this is far more important to religions that have dogma that proclaims that martyrdom or allegiance to the deity is of paramount importance. For example, I think there are a lot of pantheistic religions where identifying with the religion (especially on an egotistical level) would actually be the anti-thesis of what that particular religion holds up as a worldview.

Identifying with something doesn't necessarily imply any egoistic connotations.

When it comes to the semantics of the word "religion", I feel that people should be free to define what the word means to them. I don't see where there is any benefit to trying to force them to accept a definition that is carved in stone.

If we were to throw up our hands at every issue worthy of academic appraisal and just say "people should be free to define it however they like", there wouldn't be any way to build a proper universe of discourse. Of course people are free to think and speak however they please. That doesn't necessarily mean that what they're doing is functional or all that constructive.

In short, depending on whose defining the term, I may or may not be religious. I'd simply have to hear their definition of the concept first and then I could tell them whether I satisfy their idea of what they think religion should be.

The aim here isn't interpersonal satisfaction. The aim is a definition that has explanatory power, in order to further the purpose of edification.

Your implied definition doesn't seem to have any use when it comes to explaining human behavior or thinking. As it stands, there is no differentiation between your concept and any worldview that is beholden to the criterion that there is some sort of ritualistic behavior involved.

My definition was constructed to explain what it is that people do with worldviews, and critically compare worldviews under that light. No doubt, it didn't escape your attention that part of the use in that kind of definition, is pointing out how what we traditionally think of as the "world religions" share essential similarities to other worldviews. If we are going to blame Christians and the like for so many of the ails of the world, it behooves us to also understand history in the light that some basically identical modes of thinking were behind Stalinism, etc.

Obviously I have my own ideas of what it means to be religious. And because of this I would say that by my own definition there are times when I am quite religious and times when I am not.

My best answer to the question of whether or not I'm "religious" would be to simply say that sometimes I practice religious rituals, and at other times I don't.

My best answer to the question of whether or not I'm "religious" would be to simply say that sometimes I practice religious rituals, and at other times I don't.

When it comes to worldviews, I consider two possible worldviews. Either the world has a mystical essence to it, or it doesn't. I confess that I don't know which worldview is truth.

The important part is that from my perspective it doesn't even matter.

As I mentioned in the numbered list, I don't obtain my moral values from religion. Therefore my morality is precisely the same for both a mystical or non-mystical worldview. My moral values come from me, not from my worldview.

When it comes to rituals that I would associate with a religious worldview, I have many rituals that I practice on occasion. But I would be the first to confess that I don't practice them "religiously" in the sense of doing them dutifully on a regular basis. I tend to practice my religious rituals when I feel like it.

But I think it's important to also realize that in my "religion" (i.e. my religious worldview) there is no jealous God who is demanding to be worshiped in a timely or consistent manner. Therefore I only practice religious rituals when I feel like it. Not because I think some God is demanding that I do it lest he will become angry with me.

Are you comfortable sharing what those rituals might be, and some of the thinking behind them?

Thanks for the topic. These are just my views on how I see the concept of religion. But I do agree that many of the things you've listed do indeed seem to apply to how many world religions are viewed and treated by the masses. I just don't agree that religion necessarily needs to be like that.

We're in agreement, at least in essence, that pervasive and common worldviews don't necessarily need to be that way.

In fact, I personally believe that religion would be far less socially disruptive if everyone would view their own religious beliefs as being their own, instead of part of a social group that need to defend and support a very specific written dogma. The latter seem to be potentially quite dangerous actually.

Is it a surprise to you then, that I am wholeheartedly a Christian, and yet I agree with your assessment here of the pitfalls of religion?

[Divine Insight]

The aim here isn't interpersonal satisfaction. The aim is a definition that has explanatory power, in order to further the purpose of edification.

Thank you for your eloquent clarification of your aim here.

I would suggest that your very goal for defining the term "religion" should be very useful in your own efforts to construct such a definition. I would also suggest that since you desire a definition that has explanatory power for the purpose of furthering edification, then perhaps this should be a major part of how you define "religion".

Your definition could begin as follows:

Religion - a system or practice aimed at furthering human edification.

Of course, this would then require some details on precisely how you also define "edification". Because the question would immediately come up asking whether standard academia qualifies as "religion", if so, why? If not, why not?

Having said the above, I do tend to agree with your basic idea here. I would suggest that my views on religion also see value in it as a practice that can contribute to personal edification.

Having said this, I wouldn't restrict the definition of religion to this single point. And I would also suggest that there may be many other systems and practices that can also contribute to personal edification. Because of this, I would suggest that this potential aspect of religion is not unique to religion.

In fact, to think that it is unique to religion is dangerous, for the very reason that religious people would then view "atheists" (i.e. people who reject religions) as people who have no interest in personal edification. And that is simply not true.

So defining religion in this way, can cause unwanted side-effects of inadvertently suggesting that people who are without religion must then have no interest in personal edification.

So that's just my thoughts on that.

~~~~~~

I'm going to try to answer some of your other question very briefly in an effort to try to clarify my position. However before I begin let me state the following:

I am personally against "Organized Religion". Specifically when it is taught as dogma (unquestioned doctrines), that are being preached in the name of an invisible higher entity, deity, or God. I also sincerely question whether those types of religions are actually useful in furthering the personal edification of individuals.

Having said the above, I have no problem with loosely organized "Paradigms" for the purpose of giving people a psychological model that they can use for the purpose of helping them to further their own personal edification. (This would be the basis of my own religious practices and rituals, as I'll elaborate on below).

None the less, I don't claim that these religious practices and rituals are actually required for personal edification, but rather that can be used for that purpose assuming the person in question already has a desire to further their own personal edification.

In fact, allow me to offer one possible definition for edification just to give an idea of how I'm using that term:

Edification - the instruction or improvement of a person morally or intellectually

With this understanding of edification, I would say that my own religious practices are merely tools that I use to help further my own edification. However, I would be very quick to add that these are not the only tools available, and that the edification doesn't truly come from the religious practices in any case.

An Analogy Aside:

I would like to take a moment here to give an analogy along these lines.

Imagine a painter who would like to paint a picture. Well the painter could do this just using finger painting. (i.e. no tools required) The painter might also become inventive and use pigments such as grape juice as paint and find creative ways to spit or spray it onto the canvass or cave wall. I'm just pointing out that an individual can find creative ways to further their own painting (their own edification in this analogy) without the need for any tools at all. (i.e. no religion or other structured practices)

Now we could imagine "religion" being a set of paints and paint brushes. Now the painter has more control over how he or she can apply the paint to the canvass, and therefore is able to paint far more detailed pictures. So in this way "religion" (or the paint brushes) have given the artists a greater ability for self-edification (i.e. to paint a picture). But I hold that it is still the painter him or herself who will ultimately determine what that picture will be.

Also note that this analogy is actually quite good, because we can quickly see that even given brushes, a painter can still paint very "dark and demonic pictures". Those pictures would just have much greater detail than had they finger-painted them. This is a good analogy, because religions can ultimately be used in this very same way. In other words, even though a religion may be useful for furthering personal edification for some, for others it could actually be used to further darker and demonic purposes.

(note: This is why I would argue that edification does not come from religion. Edification come from the painter (the practitioner of religion). So the religion itself is not the source of edification, it's simply a set of tools that can unfortunately be abused if not in the hands of a decent practitioner who already has a purpose of self-edification.)

Finally, to make the analogy complete we need to consider "atheism", so let's do that by introducing technology instead of paint brushes.

The last analogy: Now the painter is given graphic computer software and has the ability to not only create extremely detailed paintings with special effects, but can even create animated movies. The "tools" allowing for personal edification have become extremely powerful now. But the same truths apply as did with "religion" (or the paint brushes). In other words, the painter is still free to further their own edification by painting positive optimistic and constructive paintings, or they can ignore their own edification and paint dark demonic and destructive paintings.

In short, the edification of the painter is always in his or her own hands in all cases. Religion itself never serves to be the source of edification. But it can be a tool, like many other things.

END OF An Analogy Aside:

So this is why I would hesitate to define religion primarily as as source of edification.

And now with that in mind I would like to respond to some of your questions and concerns.

While I can assent to that kind of thinking, the question has to be raised at each stage here in this post of yours whether or not the definition you're proposing is all that functional or useful. What is there to separate your definition of religion from any pervasive worldview?

I haven't actually offered a precise definition for religion. I guess I haven't really thought about it much because I don't personally care much for the word in any case. I would much rather speak to the issues of "spirituality".

For me, if we're going to speak about a "religion", I would suggest that we must necessarily include in that definition somewhere a "Belief a Higher Power", and specifically in a "Higher Consciousness".

For discussion of those topics I would prefer to use the term "spirituality". And just ignore the term "religion" entirely. For me the term "religion" has become to entangled with "dogma" (historically speaking). So historically, the term "religion" is almost the same as saying, "Adherence to, or belief in, dogma".

So for me, I would rather talk about spirituality. A term that doesn't seem to have the same chain and ball with dogma that the term "religion" does.

Just sharing my perspective on what comes to my mind when I hear these terms.

What is it that you find repugnant? The fact that people are motivated by ethical questions, or that they form conclusions in response to those questions? If not one of those two, are you repulsed by the idea that groups form such ideas?

This was in regard to my comment that religions seem to be obsessed with morality.

What I find repugnant is not that people are motivated by ethical questions. There is no religion require for that. Philosophers and even atheists are concerned with questions of ethics.

What I find repugnant about religions is that they often allow (or even demand) that ancient dogma should be worshiped as the source of our morality. And IMHO, many of the principles taught in those ancient texts are as "Immoral" or "unethical" as can possibly be.

So this is what I find repugnant about dogmatic religions that are obsessed with pushing this immoral principles onto people as if they are the directives and commandments of some supposedly omni-ethical God.

That's what I find repugnant.

Whether or not you look upon it as hubris, people do indeed think and behave as if they possess ownership over the subject matter of their ideas, and ethical ideas in particular are of interest to basically everyone. Haven't you formed such ideas of your own, and don't you feel strong compunctions at times according to the dictates of those ideas?

I have my own ideas of morality and ethics to be certain. And I think this is precisely the way that it should be. I see nothing wrong with this.

Also, I don't push my moral values onto other people. Let's take monogamy in a relationship. I personally prefer monogamy. I'm not sure if this is even an issue of morality or ethics though. My desire for monogamy may actually be quite selfish. But if asked my thoughts on monogamy versus polygamy I would choose monogamy. I wouldn't care to be involved in polygamous relationships if it were legal, or even if some God said it was ok. I would still prefer the privacy and intimacy of monogamy.

Is that ethics and morality? Or am I just catering to what I personally prefer? I don't know.

However, when it comes to other people I'm not going to start screaming that they are being unethical or immoral if they prefer monogamy. On the contrary, if they can find others who enjoy that, then more power to them.

In short, I don't push my sense of ethics or morality onto other people in any case.

We can do the same things with heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. I personally prefer to only engage in heterosexual behaviors, and I have absolutely no desire to partake in homosexual behaviors. Is this an ethical or moral decision on my part? Or am I just selfishly choosing what I personally prefer?

I don't know the answer to those questions.

What I do know is that if other people want to engage in homosexual behavior it's no my place to judge them as being immoral or unethical.

In fact, I think we can apply this to everything, including murder. I have no desire to murder anyone. Does that make me a moral person? If someone else murders someone do I judge them to be "immoral"? No. But I will support having police incarcerate them to keep innocent people from being murdered.

In short, we don't even need a concept of morality to even make laws.

I can have my own values of morality and ethics within any need to push my values onto others.

What I find repugnant about religions, is that not only do they have many moral codes and concept that I personally find disgusting, but they also tend to push their sense of morality onto others. And that's what I find repugnant about religions that do this.

Religions that don't do this, are not repugnant. At least not for this particular reason.

So, this is to you the essential element? The criteria that appears necessarily inherent to the definition? I have to wonder on what grounds you feel so strongly that this is the central criterion.

This is in reference to your point #3 in the OP where I'm agreeing that ritual is an important part of what defines religion. I would not say that this is the "essential" element at all. But I would suggest that it's an important element for me to consider labeling something as "religion".

For me personally, I think the single most essential element of "religion" is the belief in a higher power or higher consciously, usually a personified deity, but not necessarily restricted to personified deities.

Having said this, I think we can focus on that concept using the term "spirituality" which I would much rather use than the term "religion". The term "spirituality" isn't typically chained to dogmatic ideas of what constitutes ethics or morality.

If we were to throw up our hands at every issue worthy of academic appraisal and just say "people should be free to define it however they like", there wouldn't be any way to build a proper universe of discourse. Of course people are free to think and speak however they please. That doesn't necessarily mean that what they're doing is functional or all that constructive

The above is in reference to the semantics of the term "religion".

I agree, if we wish to convey our thoughts and ideas using words, then it's important that we both have a common understanding of what these terms mean.

However, I would suggest that we keep in mind that language was invented for the purpose of communicating our thoughts. Therefore dictionaries should not be used as hammers to demand that certain words must refer to very precise thoughts and ideas.

Instead, if we are truly interested in communication (i.e. the original purpose of language), we should seek to better understand that other person's thoughts, rather than just demanding that all possible thoughts have already been defined by authors of dictionaries.

After all, what's the point in asking someone, "What does religion mean to you?", if the only purpose of this question was to bang them over the head with a dictionary if they get the definition wrong?

Our best hope at communicating our actual thoughts and ideas is to allow semantics to take a back-seat to our actual discourse.

The aim here isn't interpersonal satisfaction. The aim is a definition that has explanatory power, in order to further the purpose of edification.

This was your quote that I opened this post with. But here if you are suggesting that "religion" has the purpose of edification, then you've already defined it for yourself right there.

Your implied definition doesn't seem to have any use when it comes to explaining human behavior or thinking. As it stands, there is no differentiation between your concept and any worldview that is beholden to the criterion that there is some sort of ritualistic behavior involved.

I don't feel that "religion" is required to explain human behavior or thinking.

Also, I did not define religion as being solely rituals. I simply stated that I can't see calling something "religion" if there are no rituals to "religiously" perform.

This is what "religion" means to me. This is why I prefer a term like spirituality. A person can be "spiritual" but not necessarily be religious at all.

One large criteria for any "religion", (the main criteria IMHO) is a belief in a "Higher Power", and specifically a "Higher Consciousness".

Having said this, I don't think this alone defines the term "religion" because a belief in a higher power or higher consciousness doesn't necessarily constitute a "religion".

So while it's an important component of any religion, it can't be the sole definition of religion.

My definition was constructed to explain what it is that people do with worldviews, and critically compare worldviews under that light. No doubt, it didn't escape your attention that part of the use in that kind of definition, is pointing out how what we traditionally think of as the "world religions" share essential similarities to other worldviews.

But what they don't share with other worldviews is the distinction that makes them uniquely "religion".

I would hold that the most distinctive aspect of any religion is a belief in a higher entity, consciousness or God.

If we are going to blame Christians and the like for so many of the ails of the world, it behooves us to also understand history in the light that some basically identical modes of thinking were behind Stalinism, etc.

I agree. But can't we blame both religions, and other worldviews, for the ills of the world for different reasons?

I think the one thing that places something like Stalinism and Christianity in the same basket is because they both represent dictatorships.

Stalin was a mortal dictator. Christianity imagines having a jealous God as a dictator.

So there's your similarities right there.

They both represent oppressive dictatorships.

Are you comfortable sharing what those rituals might be, and some of the thinking behind them?

This question is in regard to my own personal "religious" rituals.

I basically practice "Shamanic Journeying". This can also be called "Psychic Journeying" since it is a journey taken through the psyche.

It's way to complicated to explain here. In fact, my rituals and Shamanic journeys are very complex. I actually have 16 basic spiritual entities that are a mainstay in my psychic journeys. The origin of their creation is a long story that I won't go into, but I will list the main entities that I use in my rituals.

1. Assiah - a female pixie who represents the spirit of Earth, or Body
2. Yetzirah - a female pixie who represents the spirit of Air, or Mind
3. Atziluth - a female pixie who represents the spirit of Fire, or Spirit
4. Briah - a female pixie who represents the spirit of Water, or Emotion

5. Ariel - a female archangel who represents the sovereignty of the soul
6. Raphael - a male archangel who represents well-being, healing, and health
7. Michael - a male archangel who represents security and protection
8. Gabriel - a female archangel who represents empathy, compassion, and love

9. Cernunnos - a male God who represents the creator of physical incarnation
10. Merlin - a male wizard who represents wisdom
11. Taliesin - a male bard who represents all manner of human artistry
12. Eros and Psyche - a young couple who represent love and relationship

13. Gaia - a Goddess who represents the nature of Earth
14. Cerridwen - a Goddess who represents knowledge and wisdom
15. Hecate - a Goddess who represents sorcery and magick.
16. Artemis - a Goddess who represents intuition.

~~~~~

There are actually other archetypes associated with this paradigm as well, but they would be more difficult to explain.

I don't view any of these archetypes as being actual deities. They are precisely what they are, psychological archetypes. "paint brushes" (from my earlier analogy) that are useful for personal edification, although definitely not necessary.

The actual "rituals" of how these archetypes are used would be difficult to explain in a post. But I do envision them having some connection with a "Higher Consciousness".

Having said this, and just for clarity, I even tell secular atheists that I would maintain this psychological even if I were convinced of pure secular materialism.

Why? Because, as you have suggested, this paradigm is still useful for personal edification. Plus it's an enjoyable practice anyway. Why give up something I enjoy just because it's nothing more than my own imagination?

Isn't imagination itself worth something?

Is it a surprise to you then, that I am wholeheartedly a Christian, and yet I agree with your assessment here of the pitfalls of religion?

Nothing would surprise me about anyone who calls themselves a "Christian".

I've met "Christians" who have extremely diverse beliefs and understandings of what Christianity means to them.

In fact, Christians are so diverse in what they actually believe that as far as I'm concerned the term "Christian" is basically meaningless.

All it means to me is that someone believes something and they have decided to associate their belief with the term "Christian".

At this point that's all it means to me. So no, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised by anything any "Christian" claimed to believe or stand for.