There was a weak attempt to start a thread of a similar title, but it turned out to be a thinly-disguised reason to discuss 9/11 conspiracies.
However mis-titled it was, there is a viable discussion topic that I think would be interesting and that's defining Religion.
I've had the opportunity over the years in both undergraduate and graduate academic pursuits to read many different versions of definitions of religion and I'd like to start a thread that includes some of these and invite others to cite other definitions, discussing what these have in common, where they differ, and what utility they have. Indeed, what would a concise definition of "Religion" need to include in order to have utility in an academic discussion.
For instance, there are definitions of religion that exclude Buddhism, or at least Theravada Buddhism, which holds that gods or deities (and worship of them) are unable to provide enlightenment. But there is a core doctrine and dogma that dictates a way of life (i.e. Four Noble Truths; The Eight-Fold Path). So definitions that include deities or supernatural agency seem to exclude Theravada Buddhism.
And yet, when we edit definitions in attempt to be inclusive, we open the door to characterizing just about any human endeavor that can be called a "way of life" as a "religion." Baseball or Cricket could then be considered religions. Followers of fad diets, rock-bands, and football teams are then religious. And so on.
I'm not convinced this isn't far from the truth, but it creates another problem: how then do we define the religions that include only that characteristic of including deities and supernatural agents?
Here are some definitions I've found interesting:
There's also an interesting paper titled The Scientific Definition of Religion (PDF), in which the author describes some of the bias and inadequate attempts of Western academia in pinning down Religion. I haven't had the chance to read it fully, but he concludes in part:
What are some other definitions of Religion that others have encountered. If you can, please reference the source. If you're positing your own, personal, definition, please say so but state why you think it's more valid than others. I'm interested in how others overcome the problems other definitions have. I, personally, like Daniel Dennett's version above, but I'm not sure what to make of how it excludes many forms of Buddhism. Dennett, however, admits that his definition is only a place to start.
However mis-titled it was, there is a viable discussion topic that I think would be interesting and that's defining Religion.
I've had the opportunity over the years in both undergraduate and graduate academic pursuits to read many different versions of definitions of religion and I'd like to start a thread that includes some of these and invite others to cite other definitions, discussing what these have in common, where they differ, and what utility they have. Indeed, what would a concise definition of "Religion" need to include in order to have utility in an academic discussion.
For instance, there are definitions of religion that exclude Buddhism, or at least Theravada Buddhism, which holds that gods or deities (and worship of them) are unable to provide enlightenment. But there is a core doctrine and dogma that dictates a way of life (i.e. Four Noble Truths; The Eight-Fold Path). So definitions that include deities or supernatural agency seem to exclude Theravada Buddhism.
And yet, when we edit definitions in attempt to be inclusive, we open the door to characterizing just about any human endeavor that can be called a "way of life" as a "religion." Baseball or Cricket could then be considered religions. Followers of fad diets, rock-bands, and football teams are then religious. And so on.
I'm not convinced this isn't far from the truth, but it creates another problem: how then do we define the religions that include only that characteristic of including deities and supernatural agents?
Here are some definitions I've found interesting:
There's also an interesting paper titled The Scientific Definition of Religion (PDF), in which the author describes some of the bias and inadequate attempts of Western academia in pinning down Religion. I haven't had the chance to read it fully, but he concludes in part:
What are some other definitions of Religion that others have encountered. If you can, please reference the source. If you're positing your own, personal, definition, please say so but state why you think it's more valid than others. I'm interested in how others overcome the problems other definitions have. I, personally, like Daniel Dennett's version above, but I'm not sure what to make of how it excludes many forms of Buddhism. Dennett, however, admits that his definition is only a place to start.
)