What is religion ?

[Belinda]

The question seems to be trivial. When we talk about religions, every one knows what it refers to : Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

We have an idea of the extension the term refers to. But we don't have a true comprehension of this word.

Traditional definition of religion implies the belief of a superior principle.

In what extent this belief implies only what we call religions, and not other things such as ideologies.

Ideologies seems to have legitimacy on the public space whereas religion doesn't.

What does this difference tell to us about the signification of religion ?

These conceptual distinctions don't matter when you reduce everything to axiology, because the choice to collapse; or draw the distinciton is arbitrary.

What you come to recognize as a legitimizer of beliefs - that which distinguishes legitiate from illegitimate ideas functions as a "superior principle".

This "superior principle" produces a set of cognitive distinctions (or lack thereof) you use as a lens for viewing the world.

In some instances this "superior principle" may draw a sharp line between ideology and religion; in other cases it may erase the line entirely. It maters not, because the classifier itself exists.

To a stigmatist who perceives religion as something negative then religions are simply all the ideologies the stigmatics wishes to devalue. That's the entire purpose of such distinctions: valuing and devaluing otherwise functionally similar philosophies.

Does one include as an axiomatic value that religion, whichever it be, is that which tends towards divisiveness?

[Skepdick]

Does one include as an axiomatic value that religion, whichever it be, is that which tends towards divisiveness?

You can frame it that way if you so choose. Then you'd have to conclude that anything non-divise is not religion.

Much of Christianity preches unity (and its various forms such as sanctity of marriage); and condemns the various historical schisms. Not sure how you'd reconcile that.

[Belinda]

Does one include as an axiomatic value that religion, whichever it be, is that which tends towards divisiveness?

You can frame it that way if you so choose. Then you'd have to conclude that anything non-divise is not religion.

Much of Christianity condemns the various historical schisms...

That's true. I hope that those who condemn Christianity come to understand that Jesus of Nazareth himself urged people to cooperate not separate. Please see the parable of the Good Samaritan, and " who is my neighbour"(Jesus of Nazareth).

I do know that some Christian sects do foster divisiveness instead of love. And some people have been thus brainwashed or otherwise indoctrinated . I hope that media such as this can sometimes restore freedom of thought.

[godelian]

That's true. I hope that those who condemn Christianity come to understand that Jesus of Nazareth himself urged people to cooperate not separate.

If you go to Thailand or Burma, you will see that they have local marriage customs.

Buddhists follow them. Muslims follow them. Christians, however, invent their own ceremony and insist that it should take place, of all places, in a fucked-up church building.

Who the hell are they to overrule the local customs?

Furthermore, where did the Christian clergy find the temerity and the audacity to claim that they would have authority over marriage and divorce? Christianity is not a religion. It is a power grab. Seriously, who the hell do they think they are?

Do you see a Buddhist monk trying to grab control over my private life? Or a Muslim imam? Only the Christian clergy is delusional enough to try a thing like that. Seriously, Christianity is the most detestable religion on earth!

[Belinda]

Godelian wrote:

Who the hell are they to overrule the local customs?

Furthermore, where did the Christian clergy find the temerity and the audacity to claim that they would have authority over marriage and divorce? Christianity is not a religion. It is a power grab. Seriously, who

The Christian clergy of whom you speak are representative of the (usually) white men who felt and still feel entitled to infiltrate, shaft, corrupt, and generally settle within other people's lands ,cultures, and freedom of choice.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Who are you to judge?

I am not an influencer myself. I do not seek to have followers.

I studied a bit of Q Arabic and the Q for 3 years full time analyzing the 114 chapters, 6236 verses, 70K of words thoroughly resulting in a Analysis with 20 main themes and >1400 sub-themes in Excel. I don't think anyone has done that. I don't claim to an expert but has at least reasonable credibility.

There are people with long years of Quranic study under their belt who do not have followers at all. It is not enough to study the subject. Not everyone manages to become a popular influencer.

Furthermore, you do not even like Islam. You are critical about some fragments taken out of context. How could you ever become a popular influencer for Muslims? Impossible. You would not even manage to become popular to a following of Islamophobes because you are not saying anything new or particularly interesting on the subject.

I am just a user of Islam like I am a user of linux or a user of Bitcoin. I like its consistent moral theory. I use it to figure out what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.

Like Islamic influencers who had influenced so many to commit terrible evil terroristic acts.

From a rational POV, there is obviously something reasonable one can grasp from a detailed analyzes the 114 chapters, 6236 verses, 70K of words thoroughly resulting in a Analysis with 20 main themes and >1400 sub-themes in Excel.

If one were to apply 50% of the above effort to any text book, one would be able to understand the full theme and details of the book reasonably.

It is critical to understand the truth and how it impacts humanity as well as beside for self-interests.
Do you deny this?

[godelian]

Like Islamic influencers who had influenced so many to commit terrible evil terroristic acts.

There is no centralized control over influencers, which is exactly how I like it. Some influencers may have questionable influence, but that is the price that you pay for decentralization and freedom. Under centralized control, all influencers will just be parroting the narrative of the powers that be. I don't want that.

From a rational POV, there is obviously something reasonable one can grasp from a detailed analyzes the 114 chapters, 6236 verses, 70K of words thoroughly resulting in a Analysis with 20 main themes and >1400 sub-themes in Excel.

If one were to apply 50% of the above effort to any text book, one would be able to understand the full theme and details of the book reasonably.

It is critical to understand the truth and how it impacts humanity as well as beside for self-interests.
Do you deny this?

What you are doing, is merely a failed attempt at tafsir, i.e. Quranic exegesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير, romanized: tafsīr [tafˈsiːr]; English: explanation) refers to an exegesis, or commentary, of the Quran. An author of a tafsir is a mufassir (Arabic: مُفسّر; plural: Arabic: مفسّرون, romanized: mufassirūn). A Quranic tafsir attempts to provide elucidation, explanation, interpretation, context or commentary for clear understanding and conviction of God's will in Islam.

According to American scholar Samuel Ross, there are 2,700 Qur’an commentaries extant in manuscript form, and 300 commentaries have been published. Considering that around 96% of the Arabic-language manuscripts remain unstudied, Ross argues that "by extrapolation there may be thousands of additional commentaries still waiting to be discovered."[4]
[1]

You do your own failed attempt at tafsir even without reading any existing tafsir. Therefore, you are just trying to reinvent the wheel but badly. Furthermore, tafsir is a relatively unimportant branch in Islamic studies. The admiral ship of Islamic studies is al fiqh, i.e. jurisprudence, which consists of rulings to determine if a particular behavior is halal or haram, good or evil, moral or immoral. There is an entire database of existing jurisprudential rulings. This is what Muslims use for practical guidance.

The starting point for a discussion on the morality of a particular practical decision is never an exegetic commentary. The starting point is always a jurisprudential ruling. For example, is abortion halal or haram? It is the rulings that influence the believers and not the commentaries. You can never become an influencer just by analyzing the Quran. Instead, you need to publish jurisprudential rulings on questions that your followers find important. That is why nobody cares about your "detailed analyzes" because these things are not rulings. You cannot have any influence in this realm, if only, because you are going about things in the completely wrong way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Like Islamic influencers who had influenced so many to commit terrible evil terroristic acts.

There is no centralized control over influencers, which is exactly how I like it. Some influencers may have questionable influence, but that is the price that you pay for decentralization and freedom. Under centralized control, all influencers will just be parroting the narrative of the powers that be. I don't want that.

From a rational POV, there is obviously something reasonable one can grasp from a detailed analyzes the 114 chapters, 6236 verses, 70K of words thoroughly resulting in a Analysis with 20 main themes and >1400 sub-themes in Excel.

If one were to apply 50% of the above effort to any text book, one would be able to understand the full theme and details of the book reasonably.

It is critical to understand the truth and how it impacts humanity as well as beside for self-interests.
Do you deny this?

What you are doing, is merely a failed attempt at tafsir, i.e. Quranic exegesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير, romanized: tafsīr [tafˈsiːr]; English: explanation) refers to an exegesis, or commentary, of the Quran. An author of a tafsir is a mufassir (Arabic: مُفسّر; plural: Arabic: مفسّرون, romanized: mufassirūn). A Quranic tafsir attempts to provide elucidation, explanation, interpretation, context or commentary for clear understanding and conviction of God's will in Islam.

According to American scholar Samuel Ross, there are 2,700 Qur’an commentaries extant in manuscript form, and 300 commentaries have been published. Considering that around 96% of the Arabic-language manuscripts remain unstudied, Ross argues that "by extrapolation there may be thousands of additional commentaries still waiting to be discovered."[4]
[1]

You do your own failed attempt at tafsir even without reading any existing tafsir. Therefore, you are just trying to reinvent the wheel but badly. Furthermore, tafsir is a relatively unimportant branch in Islamic studies. The admiral ship of Islamic studies is al fiqh, i.e. jurisprudence, which consists of rulings to determine if a particular behavior is halal or haram, good or evil, moral or immoral. There is an entire database of existing jurisprudential rulings. This is what Muslims use for practical guidance.

The starting point for a discussion on the morality of a particular practical decision is never an exegetic commentary. The starting point is always a jurisprudential ruling. For example, is abortion halal or haram? It is the rulings that influence the believers and not the commentaries. You can never become an influencer just by analyzing the Quran. Instead, you need to publish jurisprudential rulings on questions that your followers find important. That is why nobody cares about your "detailed analyzes" because these things are not rulings. You cannot have any influence in this realm, if only, because you are going about things in the completely wrong way.

The Q is the constitution of Islam and to be a Muslim one must comply with its Constitution.
According to the Q a Muslim must enter into a contract with A and comply with the terms of the contrast within the Q.

From what you posted I don't see you acting as a real Muslim as dictated in the Quran, you don't seem to understand you are in a binding agreement with your God.

In Surah Maida, Ayah 7, Allah says,
And [always] remember the blessings which God has bestowed upon you, and the solemn pledge by which He bound you to Himself when you said, 'We have heard, and we pay heed.' Hence, remain conscious of God: verily, God has full knowledge of what is in the hearts [of men].1

"The word mithaq is derived from wathiqa meaning to place confidence in someone Thus, mithaq means the covenant, occurring 25 times in the Koran.

If there is a contract, then there must be terms of the contract which can only be from God stipulated in his only holy text the Q.

What I am doing is a rational analysis of the Q to understand what it all about and especially what are the obligation of a believer.
I can conclude you are merely a pseudo Muslim, i.e. not acting in accordance to what your God stipulated.

From what I had surveyed, my analysis is unique and no one ever has done that sort of detailed analysis in ensuring completeness and systematicity of the whole theme.
Do a survey and show me whether there is an analysis like mine [call it tafsir or whatever].

[godelian]

From what I had surveyed, my analysis is unique and no one ever has done that sort of detailed analysis in ensuring completeness and systematicity of the whole theme..

Why don't you publish it and see if anybody is interested?

[Dr Faustus]

quote=godelian post_id=739516 time=1731240825 user_id=22539]

Actually, why can't we extend that to spreading religions such as christianism or islam which often also have an object of hatred, gentiles.

In religion, it is never the essence of the idea. Worship of God is the essence of religion. The moral code is the essence of religion. Hatred of people of other religions is not, if only, because it is unproductive. Sometimes, episodes of religious strife may occur, but it peters out rather quickly. It never remains at the forefront for long.
[/quote]

. Worship of God is the essence of religion

So, what about bouddhisme is it a religion ?

The moral code is the essence of religion.

What about civil Law ? Is it a religion ?

in addition, a moral code when it is thought of universally can result in rejection and hatred of those who do not apply it, which can be embodied by other peoples, other religions, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

From what I had surveyed, my analysis is unique and no one ever has done that sort of detailed analysis in ensuring completeness and systematicity of the whole theme..

Why don't you publish it and see if anybody is interested?

I am looking for someone to do it.
Knowing 5:33 I [admittedly chicken on this] want to be anonymous.

If I publish it will be something like this:
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ... ook=q&id=2
This only has ~15 themes [rough ones] compared to my precise 20 main & 1400 sub-themes.

5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption [fasadin فساد] in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified,
or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

In the Islamic World, [fasadin فساد] which extend to the slightest threats against the religion and there many tafsirs which include non-believing as a threat; if more people disbelieve the religion, that is a potential threat to the religion.
If only 10% of Muslims are influenced by highly regarded influencers that would be 150 millions of believer driven to commit the above evil upon the slightest thread.
If we take away children, it would still total to say 75 million .

Youtube introduced this Video a few days ago:

Season 5: Episode 4: Malaysia: Where is Pastor Raymond Koh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_GVHsmeKEM

This guy was merely talking to Muslims likely with intention to convert them.
For this, he was kidnapped and likely to have been killed.
Muslims all over the world are striving to convert non-Muslims and vice-versa but we don't hear of non-Muslims killing Muslims for that.

There are so many other fatal incidents where non-believers are killed [by duty bound believers] for the slightest offence [e.g. drawing of cartoons] that are deemed as a threat [fasadin فساد] to the religion.

The present Hamas-Israel War is driven mainly by 5:33 and other similar verses; this is why the Shia-Iran and Gang are helping their arch enemies the Sunni-Hamas. The other political reasons are secondary to the religious hatred. Some [duty bound] Sunnis would have no hesitance in killing another Shia if given the choice [as evident] which is also based on 5:33 because the Shias [supposedly deviants] are a threat to their religion.

A quickie search:
Tourist accused of blasphemy killed by mob in Pakistan
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cedd00z7dpyo
There tons of other such minor issues where non-believers are killed.

Point is no believers would dare to kill another humans in the name of the religion if they are not convinced it is permitted by their God; I have provided the evidence 5:33 and there are >300 other violent verses that support the killing of non-believers and 1000s of verses that has hate-sentiments against non-believers.
In addition, believers are rewarded 10 fold in paradise more than the ordinary if they carry out such acts [normally evil] to protect the religion.

Do you pray 5 times a day?
If so, you are being brainwashed with negative sentiments against Jews and Christians 17 times a day subliminally.

• 1:6 Show us the straight path
  1:7 The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those [the Jews] who earn Thine anger nor of those [Christians] who go astray.

I have put "Jews" and "Christians" in [..] and which is supported loads of verses in the holy text.
Those influencers who spent their whole life reading the holy book would have known this and conveyed this [negative sentiments] to their followers.

[Dr Faustus]

I don't share your optimism. I am very skeptical about the idea that genetics could explain each character of our being, particularly behavioural character such as intelligence, immorality, religions, etc. This is too complex to find a specific relation with DNA. So i don't think that there exist such thing as a gene of religion.
I think that this conception of life as a genetic program will be called into question in the future. This is a process that is already underway.

I did a certificate course in genetics with MITx, so I am quite familiar with it.
I did not hypothesize a specific gene for religion.
I asserted the root cause of religion is driven by the existential crisis which generate existential pains and angsts that manifest subliminally most of the time and at times consciously.
The existential crisis is the resultant of the 'survival - will to live' and self-awareness which I believe can be traced to the DNA codes - given the human gene is completely sequenced within genomics.

My hypothesis, if there is no existential pains and angsts in humans, there would be no religion [typically defined], especially those with soteriological promises.

As above religions can be reduced to existential pains an angst - the ultimate root cause.
There are other aspects of religion, e.g. tribalism and its rituals.

If there is no life, there would be no religion, but religion can't be reduced to life. It is not sufficient to explain religion. Reduction implies a specific explanation. Otherwise, we speak about two ontologically different things.

I have explained the root of religion above.

It is very obvious, the abrahamic religions were efficient, at present the Abrahamic Religion represent appx 75% of theists; prior to that it was more. There are other valid reasons for this high percentage, and efficiency is one of them.
However, the efficiency of the Abrahamic religions are slowly wearing off at present as shown by the trend in its % as compared the secular.

So you measure the efficiency by the spread of abrahamic religions around the world. But the spread of religions does not mean that people does not suffer of existential pains and angsts while they believe on these cults.
So the spread of theism could be linked to many other things than existential pain and angsts, but as a simple effect of the spread of empires.

I stated the existential pains and angsts are inherent and unavoidable, so we cannot get rid of it but merely suppressed it via inhibitors.

It is true the spread of religion is not driven 100% by the existential pains and angsts; there could be many other reasons, but the core reason is due to the subliminal pains and angsts. If one is born into a religion [main reason for the spread], most [of the appx 5 billion] would have stuck to it because it has some contribution in dealing with the subliminal angsts in some degrees.
It is just like the drinking of coffee and tea, which many do for social reasons and others, but the main reason for the majority continuing to drink is the caffeine therein. It is the same with alcohol.

However, at present humanity need to take steps to wean off the Abrahamic religions and eventually ALL religions in the FUTURE* and replace them with secular ["spiritual," moral] alternatives that are 100% foolproof to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential pains and angsts.
* it may take another 100, 150, 200 years or more to do the job.

This is the point I wanted to come. How do you define secular and distinct it from religion ?

It is not an easy task to have a complete distinction between religion and the secular.
One of the main elements that is associated with religion is theism which represent 95% of all religions.
There are non-theistic religions like Buddhism, Jainism and others.
In this sense, religion is related the resolving the existential pains and angsts within an organized structure of religious authorities.

What is secular is non-religious.
"Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion." WIKI

Secular Activities re this discussion can be divided into;
1. Dealing with existential pains and angst significantly - pain killers, opioids, drugs, meditation [non-religious], related self-development programs, etc.
2. Those not dealing with existential pains and angst directly, not 1 above, politics, economics, science, social, etc.

Agree/disagree?

I have explained the root of religion above.

You have explained the root of religion and non religion.
So, we don't really understand what a religion is with your explanation.

It is just like the drinking of coffee and tea, which many do for social reasons and others, but the main reason for the majority continuing to drink is the caffeine therein. It is the same with alcohol.

I think that this is a minority who drink coffee, tea or alcohol for its substance. Majority drinks it for cultural reasons.

What is secular is non-religious.
"Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion." WIKI

This definition is interesting because it opposes religions to naturalism.
This opposition is forged in eighteen century with the opposition of christianism and what they called natural religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion

They seemed to have a naturalistic approach of God and moral, but they spoke about a religion.
Knowing that, this opposition between religion and secular is questionable.

[godelian]

If I publish it will be something like this
This only has ~15 themes [rough ones] compared to my precise 20 main & 1400 sub-themes.

Publish it and ask the public for comments. I am not going to waste my time on unpublished materials.

[Dr Faustus]

To Godelian,

Is there such a concept of religion in Islam?

There are three terms translated as religion in Islam: din, milla and sharia. But none of them seem to correspond with the Roman and Christian notion of religion.

[godelian]

To Godelian,

Is there such a concept of religion in Islam?

There are three terms translated as religion in Islam: din, milla and sharia. But none of them seem to correspond with the Roman and Christian notion of religion.

Take a look at the basic beliefs in Christianity:

God is a man. That man is the son of God. That man is also God.

If Christianity were closed under logical consequence, the following would also be true:

Therefore, God is the son of himself.
Therefore, that man that is God was actually praying to himself.

and so on.

The above is not true, however, because the most notorious characteristic of Christianity is that it is not closed under logical consequence.

All other religions are closed under logical consequence, but Christianity is not. This means that the logical notions of true and false do not apply to Christianity. The Christian notion of religion is unique in the sense that a good number of its beliefs are openly in violation of the most basic rules of logic.

Can you compare Islam to that? Can you compare Buddhism or Judaism to that? No, because these religions do not violate the rules of logic. Christianity is a religion that requires you to adopt elements of the absurd. There are good reasons for that. As soon as you have accepted that logical consequence does not apply to Christianity -- Christianity effectively makes you stupid -- you are ready to adopt its even more absurd moral theory, which is not even a legitimate theory, because as everything else in Christianity, it violates the laws of logic.

Christianity is the only religion that will systematically lose the debate against atheists, simply because atheists can trivially point out that quite a few Christian beliefs are simply stupid. Every other religion will be able to defend itself against atheism, but not Christianity.

That is also where the opposition science versus religion comes from. Science accepts logic. Christianity does not. Hence, science and Christianity are not compatible. This opposition does not exist and is not needed in other religions.