What is religion ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You keep deviating from the fundamentals
When Christ first spoke in the Gospels he did not advocate for the bastardized clergy, institutional or politicized Christianity.
What had happened in the past and even now with organized Christianity in many ways is evil.

In all practical terms, Christianity comes with at least two rules that are unacceptable to me (and unacceptable to lots of other people).

(1) They want to control your private life by grabbing control over marriage and divorce.
(2) They keep the system of personal income tax afloat in the West by insisting that you "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar".

I do not want the clergy (nor the ruling mafia) to control my private life.

There is no system of personal income tax outside the West. It may sometimes be on the books, but they do not enforce it. Personal income tax was invented in the USA in 1913 to prop up the Federal Reserve. I do not want to pay that crap. I do not want to hold my assets in fiat money. I keep it in crypto. Therefore, I do not want to prop up the fiat money system.

Christianity is not good for my private life and not good for my finances.

The central theme of the Christianity, i.e. constituted by the Christ's Gospel is this;

John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life".

This is an 'offer' and those who 'accept' with a surrender of themselves enter into an agreement [contract, covenant] with Christ/God to comply with the terms of contract with a promise of everlasting life in heaven.

There is none nor any terms of what you portray above, i.e. rule 1 or 2 within the contract in Christianity-proper.

What Christianity expect of the believer contractually is to extend peace and love to all.

On the other hand, with the "religion of pieces" believers are obligated to harm, kill non-believers if there is the slightest threat [fasadin] to the religion re 5:33.

[godelian]

What Christianity expect of the believer contractually is to extend peace and love to all.

Christian nobility would happily kill for a living. How do you explain that from your religion of so-called "love to all"?

On the other hand, with the "religion of pieces" believers are obligated to harm, kill non-believers if there is the slightest threat [fasadin] to the religion re 5:33.

The Islamic clergy, just like the Jewish Rabbis, are influencers only.

They are not a separate social class with their own privileges. They cannot compel anybody to do anything. You may accept their advice or you may not. That is completely up to you.

They do not have the authority to decide over marriage and divorce. They do not seek to control your private life.

Unlike Christianity, neither Judaism nor Islam are clerical religions. They are scriptural only. So, they are represented only by their books. You can read these books or refuse to read them. That is completely up to you.

I was not born a Jew from a Jewish mother, but I consider Judaism to be equivalent to Islam. So, in terms of religion you can call me as much Judaic as Islamic. I was originally born a Catholic. However, I completely reject the very notion of clerical authority. Hence, I cannot be considered a Christian as I reject the very essence of Christianity, which is clericalism.

I find it merely silly that you make derogatory remarks about Islam. I did not grow up in Islam. I do not consider insults against Islam to be somehow personal insults. Same for Judaism. You can make derogatory remarks about the books of Moses all you want. I will just find that silly.

To tell you the truth, if Judaism were evangelical, I would probably choose that instead. Still, the Jews would never take me in, as I wasn't born a Jew, while the Muslims think it's actually great for outsiders like me to adopt their scriptures.

By repudiating Christianity, I have liberated myself from obnoxious clerical control over my private life. The ruling mafia has no control over my private life either. Without the Christian clergy bamboozling people into doing civil marriage before doing one in church, nobody right in his mind would do a civil marriage.

Hence, by repudiating Christianity I have liberated myself from the most dangerous scam on earth.

I repeat, I reject, repudiate, reprobate, and utterly condemn the Christian clergy. The Christian clergy are the accomplices of Satan.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

[godelian]

In this sense, religion is related the resolving the existential pains and angsts within an organized structure of religious authorities.

In every other religion than Christianity, the only religious authority are the scriptures.

When the French Revolutionary Councils decided in 1793 to completely eradicate the Christian clergy, they knew exactly why this was necessary.

When the Soviet Revolutionary Councils decided in 1917 to attack and destroy the entire Christian clergy, and earmarked them for wholesale extermination, they also knew perfectly well that it had to be done.

No other society would ever need to do that, because unlike with Christianity, it would simply not be necessary.

The Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists have never exterminated their own clergy, while the Christians had to. It was simply not optional, because every Christian cleric is a dangerous threat to mankind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this sense, religion is related the resolving the existential pains and angsts within an organized structure of religious authorities.

In every other religion than Christianity, the only religious authority are the scriptures.

When the French Revolutionary Councils decided in 1793 to completely eradicate the Christian clergy, they knew exactly why this was necessary.

When the Soviet Revolutionary Councils decided in 1917 to attack and destroy the entire Christian clergy, and earmarked them for wholesale extermination, they also knew perfectly well that it had to be done.

No other society would ever need to do that, because unlike with Christianity, it would simply not be necessary.

The Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists have never exterminated their own clergy, while the Christians had to. It was simply not optional, because every Christian cleric is a dangerous threat to mankind.

That right, the only authority, the contractual terms, obligations are in the scriptures, i.e. in solely the Gospels.

A Christian is one who enters into a binding agreement [contract, covenant] with Christ/God and not any organization.
If the person enter into another contract with a clergy-organization that is not Christianity per se.

As I had stated, the trend had already started long ago where Christians are moving away from the clergy [Catholic, Protestants to personal] and focus on their personal relationship & contract with Christ/God.
They may seek assistance from a group or organization for knowledge but they know that is besides their personal contract with Christ/God.

[godelian]

That right, the only authority, the contractual terms, obligations are in the scriptures, i.e. in solely the Gospels.

A Christian is one who enters into a binding agreement [contract, covenant] with Christ/God and not any organization.
If the person enter into another contract with a clergy-organization that is not Christianity per se.

As I had stated, the trend had already started long ago where Christians are moving away from the clergy [Catholic, Protestants to personal] and focus on their personal relationship & contract with Christ/God.
They may seek assistance from a group or organization for knowledge but they know that is besides their personal contract with Christ/God.

There does not exist a Christianity without an authoritarian, power-hungry Christian clergy. That is pie in the sky. That is vaporware. It cannot be done. Seriously, where can we find that elusive phenomenon that only exists in your fantasy?

If you want a religion without dangerous clerical autocrats, then choose something else.

Judaism would work, if the Jews would accept you, which they won't. Islam would work. The Muslims are certainly willing to take you in. Buddhism would work. The Buddhists are also very laid back in that regard. They also take in whoever shows up.

If you want to move away from the power-hungry aberrations of the Christian clergy, there is currently no other practical solution than moving away from Christianity altogether. You won't have the time to pull off some kind of future vaporware solution of Christianity-without-clergy.

Christianity is doomed. The French and the Russians already beat the hell out of the Christian clergy, and God knows that they had asked for it. The Mexicans did that too. In the end, every country with a Christian clergy will turn on them and drown them in the nearest ocean. The Christian clergy is simply insufferable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That right, the only authority, the contractual terms, obligations are in the scriptures, i.e. in solely the Gospels.

A Christian is one who enters into a binding agreement [contract, covenant] with Christ/God and not any organization.
If the person enter into another contract with a clergy-organization that is not Christianity per se.

As I had stated, the trend had already started long ago where Christians are moving away from the clergy [Catholic, Protestants to personal] and focus on their personal relationship & contract with Christ/God.
They may seek assistance from a group or organization for knowledge but they know that is besides their personal contract with Christ/God.

There does not exist a Christianity without an authoritarian, power-hungry Christian clergy. That is pie in the sky. That is vaporware. It cannot be done. Seriously, where can we find that elusive phenomenon that only exists in your fantasy?

If you want a religion without dangerous clerical autocrats, then choose something else.

Judaism would work, if the Jews would accept you, which they won't. Islam would work. The Muslims are certainly willing to take you in. Buddhism would work. The Buddhists are also very laid back in that regard. They also take in whoever shows up.

If you want to move away from the power-hungry aberrations of the Christian clergy, there is currently no other practical solution than moving away from Christianity altogether. You won't have the time to pull off some kind of future vaporware solution of Christianity-without-clergy.

Christianity is doomed. The French and the Russians already beat the hell out of the Christian clergy, and God knows that they had asked for it. The Mexicans did that too. In the end, every country with a Christian clergy will turn on them and drown them in the nearest ocean. The Christian clergy is simply insufferable.

When Christians first accepted Christ ~2000 years ago as their savior there was no clergy.
The Clergy was a later human invention.
As I had asserted there is a trend at present that is moving away from clergy-based Christianity.

Non-denominational Christianity (or nondenominational Christianity) consists of churches, and individual Christians,[1][2] which typically distance themselves from the confessionalism or creedalism of other Christian communities[3] by not formally aligning with a specific Christian denomination.[4]

In North America, nondenominational Christianity arose in the 18th century through the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, with followers organizing themselves simply as "Christians" and "Disciples of Christ".[note 1][4][5][6][7] The nondenominational movement saw expansion during the 20th century Jesus movement era, which popularized contemporary Christian music and Christian media within global pop culture.

There is also the trend of 'spiritual not religious' Christians.

[godelian]

When Christians first accepted Christ ~2000 years ago as their savior there was no clergy.
The Clergy was a later human invention.
As I had asserted there is a trend at present that is moving away from clergy-based Christianity.
There is also the trend of 'spiritual not religious' Christians.

All of these things are vaporware experiments. Other religions are ready-made solutions, available right now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When Christians first accepted Christ ~2000 years ago as their savior there was no clergy.
The Clergy was a later human invention.
As I had asserted there is a trend at present that is moving away from clergy-based Christianity.
There is also the trend of 'spiritual not religious' Christians.

All of these things are vaporware experiments. Other religions are ready-made solutions, available right now.

You don't seem to be in the know.

The clergy and authorities of Christianity has been condemned for the abuses by many since hundreds of years ago to the present.

It is based on this that the trend is moving away from clergy-based Christianity.
With the exponential expansion of knowledge via AI [LLMs and various] and others, it is likely the Catholic Church will soon be depleted, so with other clergy-based Christianity and ALL religions in the future.

[godelian]

You don't seem to be in the know.

The clergy and authorities of Christianity has been condemned for the abuses by many since hundreds of years ago to the present.

Yes, of course.

It is based on this that the trend is moving away from clergy-based Christianity.

That is easier said than done. Religious law is not a thing in Christianity. Therefore, there is no systematic moral theory available, to take over governance. That is why the Reformation essentially failed. In fact, the Reformation has only exacerbated the problem. The Reformation has made Christianity even more clerical.

With the exponential expansion of knowledge via AI [LLMs and various] and others, it is likely the Catholic Church will soon be depleted, so with other clergy-based Christianity and ALL religions in the future.

The other religions have never had that problem. Judaism is not a clerical religion. Islam is not a clerical religion. They have always been scriptural religions with numerous influencers providing advice.

Current AI is not a suitable replacement for human influencers. AI suffers from the "garbage in - garbage out" syndrome. AI just repeats the bullshit that it was fed while training the model. It may be possible to safely train AI models but we are still far away from that point. Furthermore, even if a machine could eventually be used for providing advice, a machine cannot lead the believers in prayer. I do not believe that anybody would accept that.

The goal is not to get rid of human influencers in religion. Why would that even be a goal? As long as there is demand for human influencers in religion, they will have their place. It is the followers who ultimately decide about that. The goal is to get rid of autocrats who want to control people's private lives by requiring their authorization in matters of marriage and divorce. It is enough to get rid of the Christian clergy if you want to protect your freedom in matters of private life. The other religions are not a danger at all in that realm.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You don't seem to be in the know.

The clergy and authorities of Christianity has been condemned for the abuses by many since hundreds of years ago to the present.

Yes, of course.

It is based on this that the trend is moving away from clergy-based Christianity.

That is easier said than done. Religious law is not a thing in Christianity. Therefore, there is no systematic moral theory available, to take over governance. That is why the Reformation essentially failed. In fact, the Reformation has only exacerbated the problem. The Reformation has made Christianity even more clerical.

With the exponential expansion of knowledge via AI [LLMs and various] and others, it is likely the Catholic Church will soon be depleted, so with other clergy-based Christianity and ALL religions in the future.

The other religions have never had that problem. Judaism is not a clerical religion. Islam is not a clerical religion. They have always been scriptural religions with numerous influencers providing advice.

Current AI is not a suitable replacement for human influencers. AI suffers from the "garbage in - garbage out" syndrome. AI just repeats the bullshit that it was fed while training the model. It may be possible to safely train AI models but we are still far away from that point. Furthermore, even if a machine could eventually be used for providing advice, a machine cannot lead the believers in prayer. I do not believe that anybody would accept that.

The goal is not to get rid of human influencers in religion. Why would that even be a goal? As long as there is demand for human influencers in religion, they will have their place. It is the followers who ultimately decide about that. The goal is to get rid of autocrats who want to control people's private lives by requiring their authorization in matters of marriage and divorce. It is enough to get rid of the Christian clergy if you want to protect your freedom in matters of private life. The other religions are not a danger at all in that realm.

What I can see is Christianity is moving away from its past and current clergy-based system.

All believers of the Abrahamic religions has to enter into a binding agreement [covenant, contract] with their God to comply with the contractual terms with a promise of eternal life in heaven or paradise.

The clergy has no divine authority on the individuals.
In the case of Christianity the overriding contractual terms within the Gospels is 'love all even enemies' as such it is sinful for any Christian to kill even their enemies.
If they do, they will have to hope for God to forgive them if they deserved it.

Whilst Islam is not clergy based, all believers had entered into a binding agreement with God to comply with the contractual terms which is in the Q with a promise of eternal life in paradise.
The contractual terms in the Q provide and condone all believers to kill non-believers if the religion is threatened 5:33 plus a ton of other evil laden verses against non-believers.
As such, even without a clergy, the individual believers are obligated to kill non-believers as a obligation to their agreed terms of contract with God.

The clergy can be abandoned in time, but the contractual terms with the individual[s] which are evil laden cannot be nullified or amended except if one apostasizes from the religion.

[godelian]

The contractual terms in the Q provide and condone all believers to kill non-believers if the religion is threatened 5:33 plus a ton of other evil laden verses against non-believers.
As such, even without a clergy, the individual believers are obligated to kill non-believers as a obligation to their agreed terms of contract with God.
The clergy can be abandoned in time, but the contractual terms with the individual[s] which are evil laden cannot be nullified or amended except if one apostasizes from the religion.

You often make the same mistake: you are not an influencer in Islam with followers listening to you. You are not one in Judaism either. So, your own interpretations are not particularly relevant. They are only as relevant as your follower count.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The contractual terms in the Q provide and condone all believers to kill non-believers if the religion is threatened 5:33 plus a ton of other evil laden verses against non-believers.
As such, even without a clergy, the individual believers are obligated to kill non-believers as a obligation to their agreed terms of contract with God.
The clergy can be abandoned in time, but the contractual terms with the individual[s] which are evil laden cannot be nullified or amended except if one apostasizes from the religion.

You often make the same mistake: you are not an influencer in Islam with followers listening to you. You are not one in Judaism either. So, your own interpretations are not particularly relevant. They are only as relevant as your follower count.

Who are you to judge?

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.

[godelian]

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.

[Skepdick]

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.