What Is Religion?

[KickAssClown]

This thread is not to answer "What is (a Specific Instance) of Religion?", It is "What is Religion?"; the question is purely oriented towards formally defining a glossary term and word that represents the concept of religion.

What you ask, Gary, differs in that it is a question of content, not form. Of which this thread is dedicated to the grammatic examination, and evaluation of purposed general definitions of the word religion. The aim is to hit on a universally applicable, and scientifically acceptable definition that best describes what religion is. As such this is a question of form, not content.

This is not a perscriptive definition hunt. I am not looking to say what Religion ought to be. I am merely looking to see and express what religion is.

EDIT: I will note I said earlier I was looking for a perscriptive definition, but deeper research into the term perscriptive lead me to favor descriptive.

A function this definition could serve is as a future definition for discussions on the form and function of religion and it's relation to other fields of experiential exploration.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

This thread is not to answer "What is (a Specific Instance) of Religion?", It is "What is Religion?"; the question is purely oriented towards formally defining a glossary term and word that represents the concept of religion.

Any definition that is scientifically useful will have to provide a fairly clear set of rules on decidability though, to be able to answer the question, "does a specific instance of a belief qualify as a religion."

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

As such this is a question of form, not content.

I don't agree with the position, but there are certain elements that some people believe are necessary content for a religion. I think that many of these end up being attempts to legitimize certain religions over others, but there are notions that have been proposed here such as "higher powers" or "laws" or "reasons for why things are the way they are" or "the existence of divinely created scriptures" are "content."

Moreover, there may in fact be lots of issues that are inextricably linked to meeting the qualifications for membership in the set that are valid in the *aggregate* rather than being absolute requirements.

Bottom line is that this is a very soft area, that I'm not sure lends itself to strict definition:

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

The aim is to hit on a universally applicable, and scientifically acceptable definition that best describes what religion is....A function this definition could serve is as a future definition for discussions on the form and function of religion and it's relation to other fields of experiential exploration.

Not to jump ahead, but I've got doubts about the achievability of "applicable" and "acceptable"!

Minimally defined,
Buffy

[KickAssClown]

Well I will admit to limitation of the formal system. The acceptable is limited in scope to the scientific realm. It is further limited to a descriptive definition. I prefer the reductionist approach for general concepts like this.

Which means to reduce a given concept to it's core definition. Now what differentiates acomponent of the form from the content is the hard part in such reductions. The form is what is necessary for something to be called what it is. Buffy for instance is the form following the function of what. If I eliminated an your sense of humour and intellegent reponses I wouldn't have Buffy now would I?

Same thing can and does apply to religion, as well as science. There are certain things that if you eliminate obviously make religion less than religion, which is a null set, or no solution. In my particular view it is obvious that religion is not philosophy. Therefore if the definition I arrive at is definitely philosophy, then I have removed too much of something. If the definition I arrive at is definitely political, then once again I have removed something critical.

If I remove something, like god(s) for instance, and still have a religion, albeit one that is no longer theological, then I have eliminated content, not form. Content is always contained by the form, the form defines what can be held, but does not directly define the content.

Like I have said Earlier, an analogous example is the Hulk or Batman, or anyother comic character. You remove them from the comic, and you still have a comic. You might not have a Batman comic if you remove Batman, but you still have a comic. Therefore the caped crusader is content, not form. The form being Comics, not Batman.

Which brings me to another interesting point. Any form is content neutral. Like Science. Science doesn't care if a theory is weird or non-intuitive, only that it emperically checks out and follows the form of science and scientific method.

The form carries the content. Form is not the content, and the content is not the form.

Now when I say applicable, I am talking purely in discussion. Here on Hypography Religion is discussed often and with much fervor, however this is often without a proper formal definition and understanding. Many of the issues that arise, the conflicts and points of contention come from a non-standardized view of the concept of religion. Of what does and does not constitue a religions. When no consensus can be reached on the meaning of a given sign, or icon, definitions used for discussion purposes are essentially hypotheticals at best, opinions at worst.

It degrades the quality of discussions of "religion" here at hypography. Most of what is said is heavily biased by each individuals opinion or pet hypothesis of religion. Not by emperical, or logical reasoning.

So far I have seen a few definitions of religion which had merit in part but not in whole. The definition I put forward:

Religion is the willful faith in, assent to, and embrace of, a self-transcendental purpose or purposes; subject to individual experience, and/or perception.

I feel is comprehensive, and according to 15 other people I talked too, they felt it was comprehensive also. Of which 1 felt that the definition was close to word salad, "meaningless"; though with greater explination of the terms used came to understand the meaning. 1 felt that the definition was somehow inadequate though couldn't explicitly express what, why and how.

Admittedly the sample is small, but none the less did prove adequate for prototypical testing and evaluation of the purposed definition.

Religion is one of the most difficult to discuss because for scientist, in particular, it is a loaded term. I intend to see if it is possible to unload the term and turn it into a formally defined, descriptive, neutral word, useful for debate, argumentation, and otherwise formal discussion purposes.

[IMAMONKEY!]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

From those three things, I have come to the conclusion that IMAMONKEY was saying: Religion is a set of commands/laws and principles/morals by which a group of people choose to live with respect to each other, which is basically the same as a government, however the origin of these rules is attributed to a deity or supernatural power (not personal belief or philosophy.)
How is that IMAMONKEY?

No that pretty much sums up about what i was trying to say. Granted it wasn't a very good observation on my part (apparently as judged by others)

And most of what I say on here is observations I have made and the opinions formed by them. Sadly I do not have much real life experience yet. Getting there, but it will take time. I think I myself am not yet done growing as a person so maybe my posts are very inncurate or sometimes insightful.

My apologies for not being up to par ,

IMAMONKEY!

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

Now when I say applicable, I am talking purely in discussion. Here on Hypography Religion is discussed often and with much fervor, however this is often without a proper formal definition and understanding. Many of the issues that arise, the conflicts and points of contention come from a non-standardized view of the concept of religion. Of what does and does not constitue a religions. When no consensus can be reached on the meaning of a given sign, or icon, definitions used for discussion purposes are essentially hypotheticals at best, opinions at worst.

It degrades the quality of discussions of "religion" here at hypography. Most of what is said is heavily biased by each individuals opinion or pet hypothesis of religion. Not by emperical, or logical reasoning.

So far I have seen a few definitions of religion which had merit in part but not in whole.

Religion is one of the most difficult to discuss because for scientist, in particular, it is a loaded term. I intend to see if it is possible to unload the term and turn it into a formally defined, descriptive, neutral word, useful for debate, argumentation, and otherwise formal discussion purposes.

Said more eloquently than I have been able to say to this point. I started the philosophy vs. religion thread on the same basis. I realized that too many people discussed personal/group philosophies as if they were a religion, but I sought a prescriptive definition.
Unfortuneatly, I don't think many of the heavy hitters on this site want such a definition. They are happy with the state of religion and philosophy being confused.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Unfortuneatly, I don't think many of the heavy hitters on this site want such a definition. They are happy with the state of religion and philosophy being confused.

Hoping to be a part of your ubergroup, heavy hitters, can you please lay out for me exactly what else I'm happy with? I'm very curious to know.

[cwes99_03]

Unnecessary. Group membership does not equal membership in the group of people who find no difference between philosophy and religion. Nor does the opposite apply (that being not finding a difference between philosophy and religion meaning you are a heavy hitter.)

[Garry Denke]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

The aim is to hit on a universally applicable, and scientifically acceptable definition that best describes what religion is. As such this is a question of form, not content. This is not a perscriptive definition hunt. I am not looking to say what Religion ought to be. I am merely looking to see and express what religion is. A function this definition could serve is as a future definition for discussions on the form and function of religion and it's relation to other fields of experiential exploration.

Fair enough, KickAssClown, universal and scientific, that I can do.

Here is Rev. geologist John Michell's four-dimensional space/time universe, described in universally applicable and scientifically measurable form. Note that length is measured "space", and note that Rev. geologist John Michell and Rev. scientist Henry Cavendish's original metric unit definitions are used (for seeing and expressing what religion is).

c^4 = 8.10000000... x 10^41 space^4/time^4
c^4 = 8.10000000... x 10^41 cm^4/sec^4

c^3 = 2.70000000... x 10^31 space^3/time^3
c^3 = 2.70000000... x 10^31 cm^3/sec^3

c^2 = 9.00000000... x 10^20 space^2/time^2
c^2 = 9.00000000... x 10^20 cm^2/sec^2

c = 3.00000000... x 10^10 space/time - (tree over one)
c = 3.00000000... x 10^10 cm/sec - (tree over one)

G = 6.66666666... x 10^-11 space^3/mass-time^2 - (two over tree)
G = 6.66666666... x 10^-11 cm^3/mg-sec^2 - (two over tree)

1/c = 3.33333333... x 10^-11 time/space - (one over tree)
1/c = 3.33333333... x 10^-11 sec/cm - (one over tree)

1/c^2 = 1.11111111... x 10^-21 time^2/space^2
1/c^2 = 1.11111111... x 10^-21 sec^2/cm^2

1/c^3 = 3.70370370... x 10^-32 time^3/space^3
1/c^3 = 3.70370370... x 10^-32 sec^3/cm^3

1/c^4 = 1.23456789... x 10^-42 time^4/space^4
1/c^4 = 1.23456789... x 10^-42 sec^4/cm^4

This is St. Michael and All Angels (at Thornhill in Yorkshire) rector's, Rev. geologist John Michell, model of the universe (1.23456789... x 10^-42 time^4/space^4). Note that he unified religion's mathematics and physics with the milligram (mg), Michell's standard unit for mass, by casting out Rev. 12's dragon (.666 x 10^-7 cm^3/g-sec^2).

Religion is Big G's higher power...

power = c^5 / G
power = (3 x 10^10 cm/sec)^5 / 6.66... x 10^-11 cm^3/mg-sec^2
power = 2.43 x 10^52 cm^5/sec^5 / 6.66... x 10^-11 cm^3/mg-sec^2
power = 3.645 x 10^62 cm-mg^2/sec^3

force = c^4 / G
force = (3 x 10^10 cm/sec)^4 / 6.66... x 10^-11 cm^3/mg-sec^2
force = 8.1 x 10^41 cm^4/sec^4 / 6.66... x 10^-11 cm^3/mg-sec^2
force = 1.215 x 10^52 cm-mg/sec^2

...God of forces

[KickAssClown]

Jargon, Danke. Jargon. That is technical language without introduction, thrown out to the audience in order to wow them.

The use of Jargon can show one of two major things about a person. Ignorance of the audience, or Rhetorical manipulation.

I am tending towards the Rhetorical manipulation for you.

I have to ask what relevance does your definition have to anything, other than trying to appear scientific?

[Garry Denke]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

I have to ask what relevance does your definition have to anything...

According to Gary Danke, in 1986, Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson drew attention to the central importance of relevance in reasoning and communication. They proposed an account of the process of inferring relevant information from any given utterance. To do this work, they used what they called the “Principle of Relevance”: namely, the position that any utterance addressed to someone automatically conveys the presumption of its own relevance. The central idea of Sperber and Wilson’s theory is that all utterances are encountered in some context, and the correct interpretation of a particular utterance is the one that allows most new implications to be made in that context on the basis of the least amount of information necessary to convey it. For Sperber and Wilson, relevance is conceived as relative or subjective, as it depends upon the state of knowledge of a hearer when they encounter an utterance. Sperber and Wilson stress that this theory is not intended to account for every intuitive application of the English word "relevance". Relevance is restricted to relationships between utterances and interpretations, and so the theory cannot account for intuitions such as the one that relevance relationships obtain in problems involving physical objects. If a plumber needs to fix a leaky faucet, for example, some objects and tools are relevant (i.e. a wrench) and others are not (i.e. a waffle iron). And, moreover, the latter seems to be irrelevant in a manner which does not depend upon the plumber’s knowledge, or the utterances used to describe the problem. A theory of relevance that seems to be more readily applicable to such instances of physical problem solving has been suggested by Gorayska and Lindsay in a series of articles published during the 1990s. The key feature of their theory is the idea that relevance is goal-dependent. An item (e.g., an utterance or object) is relevant to a goal if and only if it can be an essential element of some plan capable of achieving the desired goal. This theory embraces both propositional reasoning and the problem-solving activities of people such as plumbers, and defines relevance in such a way that what is relevant is determined by the real world (because what plans will work is a matter of empirical fact) rather than the state of knowledge or belief of a particular problem solver.

Relevance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gary Danke says "Religion" is an eight (8) letter word, however,
Garry Denke says "Religion" is a seven (7) letter word, "i" twice.

Are there eight (8) letters in "Religion",
or seven (7) letters in "Religion",
KickAssClown? Thanks all!