Working definition of religion?

[one_raven]

It seems pretty simple and straight-forward...
A-Gnostic - without knowledge.
A-Theist - without God.

 

[cato]

it does seem pretty simple, but what is the definition of agnosticism? is it this:

"1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" [www.m-w.com]

the first part says nothing about their belief (or lack there of) in a god. the second ("broadly") does. some people think agnosticism means that god is unknown and unknowable, which says nothing about belief, while other believe that agnosticism means "The agnostic believes only what is knowable", which does speak to belief.

so how do you get around the confusion of two definitions of agnosticism? call yourself a weak atheist, which is the latter definition I gave above.

I think it is simply a problem of language. atheism, agnosticism, and theism are the only 3 words we have to describe our beliefs, but there are actually four possible categories (positive belief, positive disbelief, negative disbelief, and lack of knowledge).

to make things clear, I believe that we need to either splinter atheism (to strong and weak) or adopt a fourth word (Bright?) to describe our belief (or lack of)

 

[lightgigantic]

what about animistic religions? many don't have a "higher state" but believe in "supernatural" things.

then the supernatural is held to be higher

that is the only kind I have encountered =]

then you are unfortunate

Cato's definition: Religion is the positive belief, of a person or group, that there exists an agent or process that can have an effect on a person, despite a lack of repeatable evidence for the agent or process.
anyone have thoughts on this one?

sounds like MTV

 

[lightgigantic]

"Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing." ~ Ambrose Bierce

even nilhism is a philsophy

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it." ~ Cicero

close to nilhism is absurdism

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself." ~ Mencken

ironically the attempt to deconstruct philosophy automatically makes one a philosopher

 

[one_raven]

"1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" [www.m-w.com]

the first part says nothing about their belief (or lack there of) in a god. the second ("broadly") does.

See, I don't think it does.
It says committed to not believing in either, - which is the same as saying, unwilling/unable to make a definitive statement without proof, or the same as weak, atheism.

so how do you get around the confusion of two definitions of agnosticism? call yourself a weak atheist, which is the latter definition I gave above.

I don't think they are inconsistent at all.

I do think there is one inconsistency with Agnostics, however, and that there is a flavor of Agnosticism that is a positive belief system, and THAT may need to be clarifed or splintered.
Some people not only simply will not believe in God without proof, but claim that it is impossible to have proof about God, thus we never will.

to make things clear, I believe that we need to either splinter atheism (to strong and weak) or adopt a fourth word (Bright?) to describe our belief (or lack of)

Oh God, not Brights.

 

[one_raven]

I will get back to the definiton(s) of religion tomorrow.

 

[cato]

"1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god" [www.m-w.com]

the first part says nothing about their belief (or lack there of) in a god. the second ("broadly") does.

See, I don't think it does.
It says committed to not believing in either, - which is the same as saying, unwilling/unable to make a definitive statement without proof, or the same as weak, atheism.

a person can be a Christian and still think that they don't know, and cannot know god ("god works in mysterious ways"). so if god is unknown and unknowable, that makes them agnostic, yet they still believe in said god, so they are also theist. there are also a lot of people (perhaps incorrectly) calling themselves agnostics who, if asked, will say that they are unsure whether there is a god, which is the "fence sitter" stance. additionally, if you said that such an agnostic didn't believe in god, they would probably correct you and say that they are agnostic.

 

[cato]

what about animistic religions? many don't have a "higher state" but believe in "supernatural" things.

then the supernatural is held to be higher

what about people who worship plants and animals, but don't believe that they are anything "supernatural" or "higher." they simply worship the plant/animal/other because they like it?

also, how does my definition "sound like mtv." what does that mean? doyou see a problem with my definition? if so, could you please point it out?

 

[one_raven]

After reading all this, here are the definitions I propose:

Athest - One who asserts a position of a belief that God(s) do(es) not exist. "I believe that God(s) do(es) not exist(s)."

Personal Agnostic - One who subscribes to the concept that, without material evidence, assertion of a position of belief on the existence or non-existence of any entity is invalid. Due to the lack of material evidence for the existence of God (as far as the Personal Agnostic is aware), claiming belief in said entity is absurd. "I do not believe that God(s) exist(s)."

Universal Agnostic - One who believes that it is impossible to have material evidence of God. "We will never know whether or not God(S) exist(s) while we are in this material existence."

Theist - One who asserts a position of a belief that God(s) do(es) exist and plays at least some role in the lives of humans. "I believe that God(s) exist(s) and is part of my life."

Deist - One who believes that creator God(s) exist(s) (or existed) and served as "The Initial Cause", but sometime after that God(s) ceased being a part of human lives and existence. "God started this all, but now we are on our own."

Religion - A codified philosophical system that asserts a belief in the existence of at least one transcendental state or plane of existence beyond that which can be materially verified, and attempts to ascertain or teach the ideology that will assist the practitioner in transcending beyond this material existence to the other state(s) or plane(s).

 

[cato]

I think "Personal Agnostic" should be Weak Atheist. after all, a person who does not believe in a theology (A-Theist) is what you describe there. I believe that agnosticism is more about the philosophy of knowledge than a stand on whether on thinks there is a god. though you may be correct in your use of the word, many will see "agnostic" and think "fence-sitter." so, for the sake of clarity, I think you should change "personal agnostic" to "weak atheist."

otherwise, I think your definitions are pretty good.

 

[cato]

this, I think, proves my point about weak atheist vs personal agnostic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist

the pitfall that you are falling into, raven, is that you think that people must be intellectually honest and coherent.

edit:
link from wiki/about that explains it:
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

 

[one_raven]

the pitfall that you are falling into, raven, is that you think that people must be intellectually honest and coherent.

That has often times been my downfall.
I've been told I expect too much from people.
I think people expect to little from themselves.

 

[lightgigantic]

what about people who worship plants and animals, but don't believe that they are anything "supernatural" or "higher." they simply worship the plant/animal/other because they like it?

then it indicates the appreciation of higher or unique qualities -

also, how does my definition "sound like mtv." what does that mean? doyou see a problem with my definition? if so, could you please point it out?

Cato's definition: Religion is the positive belief, of a person or group, that there exists an agent or process that can have an effect on a person, despite a lack of repeatable evidence for the agent or process.

if you examine ideologies, you will see that they all work like this (ie convince people of something as factual when the means used to arrive at the facts is suspect)

like for instance suppose I am a jungle chief and I see a ship on the horizon. I convince the villagers that this is a powerful god and they accept it. - that is basically an ideology in a religious format.

One could establish that religion is an ideology by bringing into focus the direct perception of persons who make the initial claims of direct perception (you could take the villagers to a shipyard and show them the rusted out hulls).

So in order for you to establish that religion is an ideology, it is not sufficient for you to say that it bears a social influence (since there ar emany things that bear a social influence ... MTV being one of them - its not that religion becomes more acceptable if it doesn't bear a social influence ...which would make it absurd actually)

In other words have to approach the direct perception of what the originators of religion claim to be perceiving and reveal it for what it is (it requires more than tentative claims and theorizing - like the shipyards, it requires hard evidence)

Then you can make substantial claims about its lack of repeatability

 

[cato]

I feel that you are mistaken about the nature of ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

anyway, i think Raven has a better definition, so let use his.

 

[cato]

I propose these definitions (alterations to yours)

Strong Atheist - One who asserts a position of a belief that God(s) do(es) not exist. "I believe that God(s) do(es) not exist(s)."

Weak Atheist - One who subscribes to the concept that, without material evidence, assertion of a position of belief on the existence or non-existence of any entity is invalid. Due to the lack of material evidence for the existence of God (as far as the Personal Agnostic is aware), claiming belief in said entity is absurd. "I do not believe that God(s) exist(s)."

Agnostic - One who believes that it is impossible to have material evidence of God. "We will never know whether or not God(S) exist(s) while we are in this material existence."

Theist - One who asserts a position of a belief that God(s) do(es) exist and plays at least some role in the lives of humans. "I believe that God(s) exist(s) and is part of my life."

Deist - One who believes that creator God(s) exist(s) (or existed) and served as "The Initial Cause", but sometime after that God(s) ceased being a part of human lives and existence. "God started this all, but now we are on our own."

Religion - A codified philosophical system that asserts a belief in the existence of at least one transcendental state or plane of existence beyond that which can be materially verified, and attempts to ascertain or teach the ideology that will assist the practitioner in transcending beyond this material existence to the other state(s) or plane(s).

 

[one_raven]

How about the term "Agnostic Atheist" in place of "Weak Atheist" and just plain old "Atheist" in place of "Strong Atheist"?

 

[Sarkus]

How about the term "Agnostic Atheist" in place of "Weak Atheist" and just plain old "Atheist" in place of "Strong Atheist"?

Weak atheists merely state "I do not have a positive belief in God".

There is no requirement to be an Agnostic.
Admittedly, most agnostics tend to be weak atheists (IMO), but they are not the same.

Also - it is entirely possible to be an "Agnostic Strong Atheist" that BELIEVES GOD DOES NOT EXIST - but also that God is an unknowable concept.


I know also Weak Atheists that are such out of apathy - not through any claim of agnosticism.

 

[one_raven]

I know also Weak Atheists that are such out of apathy - not through any claim of agnosticism.

Excellent point.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Let's go with lame Atheists.

 

[S.A.M.]

This thread should be in Comparative Religion (minus the trolling).