HUM MAYBE TO SIMPLIFY EVERYTHING... RELIGIOUS BELIEF and RELIGION are ironically what you believe you believe in or dont believe you believe in so you regularly or religiously speak, and follow or act on it. AN ANTITHESIST AND AN ATHEIST regularly preach that they dont have a belief, TO THEM, thier faith in what they believe is the action of creating a youtube channel and deticating years months and days in a life time of touting how their ideas are better then people who believe in God or a god. THEY religoiusly act on telling people they believe they don't have a belief and ironically believe this is not religious or ritualistic in nature. BUT, they choose eternal death and hell because they are unwilling to pick a god or the GOD. you can believe all day that stopsigns are just suggestions to stop but a cop will still give you a ticket if they see you zooming through a stopsign.
Long time watcher, I am now teaching Intro to Religious Studies at a small liberal arts college. These videos have been incredibly helpful, especially for my students who get most of their information in a TH-cam format. Very well done, thorough, and thoughtful approaches to all these topics. Thank you for your work!
I grew up in evangelical circles, where people commonly would claim, "Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship." This video comes to mind now, particularly the "family resemblances" part of it, whenever I hear people attempt to separate "Christianity" from "religion."
I heard that a lot growing up too. It is part of a discourse among Evangelicals that attempts to cast "religion" as an undesirable thing...a word that means "empty ritual" or "devoid of true belief."
@@txvoltaire Which reminds us that, for Americans, the US constitution (or at least its 2nd amendment) is part of their religion, brought down from the mountain by King James engraved on tablets of stone.
I have defined 'Religion'....the problem is people don't realize there is a difference between 'Religion' and 'Religous'...they are two different things.
RELIGION = A theoretical belief of what happens to "living" entities after death (including "non-existence"). Both 'Religous' & 'Spiritual' groups can be included. RELIGOUS = A non-theoretical belief of a deity "God" SPIRITUAL = A disbelief of a deity "God"
Loved the video, as always, and I can't wait for the next one. Fantastic to see an actual academic discussion of religion on a place like TH-cam. Please do keep up the great work.
What would you call a belief system that lacks the pertaining to either the order of existence, origins, cultural practices or morality? If one or more of those four is lacking, but at least one out of four still applies? Would you consider it not to be a religion at all or rather and incomplete religion?
Thank you. As my first port of call in my search for an answer to this question you have given me much to think about. I will rest here on my journey for a little while and try to unthink what I previously thought I used to think religion was.
Hello Andrew, I know you have a back catalogue of topics for the future, but considering your studies in the Roman -Greco world, a not oft touched upon subject of Socrates' Daemon and his critique on divination would be fantastic. All about Delphian oracles and companion spirits, not so hot on animal entrails and bird flight patterns. He was as much the mystic as he was the sceptic. You won't regret it!
I think that is a great suggestion. I'll definitely put it on the backlog of topics. I was going to do a few episodes on demonology...which of course would cover Socrates' famous "daemon" statement.
Careful of the scholarship out there. I've seen some 'interpretations' (ahem, whitewashing) saying it was purely his "inner promptings" or conscience and daemon was metaphor. He's specifically stated that this spirit had a preference of advice giving to his companions whereas Socrates had none and treated his friends equally in his advice giving. A distinct separate personality. I can imagine some academics being somewhat disappointed in a stoic philosophical hero also actively engaging in a claimed form of mediumship, a type of "quackery," hated among all areas of academia. I know this is a fact, as I've read it in studies and this is exactly what happened in the seminar room as my lecturer clumsily spoke of the "happy spirit" and socratic questioning as applied in cognitive behavioural psychotherapy. PhD lecturers aren't free of bias I'm afraid. I freely admit I'm very biased, but in the opposite direction....but I'm not paid to be impartial. :D
Well, the type of scholars I hang out with are perfectly fine with the idea of Socrates believing in a daemon that possessed him. We who study demonology/daemonology and the archaeology of magic aren't surprised by these beliefs.
I think there's no better demonstration of how subjective definitions of "religion" are than the ones that center on community and culture. For those of us who are extremely introverted, such definitions carry a high likelihood of irrelevance.
“Yesterday we obeyed kings and leaders and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love and the need of money”
Watching this video has been enlightening. My understanding of religion is for more simplistic, but it is kind of a summary of the family resemblances. In other words, it seems to me that most religions, ancient and modern, had three conponents that, in essence, bound communities together: mythology (where did we all come from and what's our place in the universe); rituals (communal activities that reinforce the individual's a) belief in the community's mythology and b) sense of being part of a community); and lastly ethics (the rules for getting along with each other in society). Why is ethics so far down the line? Because not every culture has a specific story about a Moses like figure receiving a code of ethics, and in the case of Judaism, the Bible implies that God waited a long time before giving his people one. It's almost like an afterthought. It appears that the necessity to have certain rules set in stone seems to have only arisen once people find themselves living in much larger communities.
I would classify religion as: 1. a belief or theory about life after death 2. Ideas of the spirit or soul 3. Belief in the message of a supernatural being or founder of that belief 4. The immateriality of the world 5. Concepts of right and wrong. Or positive actions and negative actions 4/5 is acceptable.
Reference books are good for details and also for larger context ..... Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion, 2016, 862 pages. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 2005, 550 pages. Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, 2009, 609 pages. Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, 2013, 632 pages. Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, 2007, 708 pages. Oxford Handbook of Mystical Theology, 2020, 704 pages. Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology, 2017, 627 pages. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 4th ed., 2022, 2 vols., 2143 pages.
Person: *tries to draw a border between ideology and religion* Confusianism: Prepare for trouble! Theocracy: Make it double! Divine right and co. (mandate of heaven, god-kings...): Meowth yes!
+Studley Muffin I think that is related to the “terror management” theory of religion. That religion is a response to a fear of death and suffering. So yes, you can probably find scholars that would agree with you. Though any definition won’t be perfect.
Of course not. We are doing philosophy here and in philosophy no one is wrong. We just have different perspectives. Then I do not share your perspective, but that is my perspective.
There's a lot of pagans, myself included, who experienced the gods and then went into religion with a sense of awe or familial love, and a desire to befriend and have relationships with the gods. Basically, there's a lot of examples of not going into religion because of questions, instead it is going in in the way that one goes into a friendship, not to discover more about life but to form a bond with someone they've met. Of course it crosses into territories of death/suffering/well being, but I think that everything does that - all areas where humans are thinking are open to thoughts and actions going to that sort of thing, it's an integral part of all aspects of life - to say that all religion is a reaction to that desire imo is too narrow from what I've seen to include every example of religion, let alone encompass it!
Hey, great video! You have somehow managed to explain this massive concept in an articulate manner. You have talked about Robert Audi's list of characteristics for religion family resemblance here, can you please share its source too? It would help a lot!
I always just thought whatever you expect to see in the afterlife is what you get, i mean it would make the most sense considering all the religions that were created in the world
Do you mean undergraduate or graduate studies? If you want to go to a theology school, anywhere, just contact that college or university. They will gladly help you with all the requirements needed.
This subject deserves more analysis than I have time to give it this morning but please discuss this definition of religion until I have time to jump back into the discussion: Religion is the sum of those beliefs, practices and prohibitions that pertain to a person’s concept of the highest powers of the universe.
@@apaislam5465 My parents were Christians. Like Mohamed, my parents disagreed with some of the teachings of people whose religious beliefs and practices are based on traditions, even those traditions which are widely considered Christian. Like Mohamed, my parents disagreed with some of the teachings of people whose religious beliefs and practices are based on traditional Judaism. In 1958, my parents hosted “discussions” with LdS (Mormon) missionaries. I read most of the Book of Mormon before telling the missionaries I had decided to adopt what I called “the principle of prior reference”, i.e. the principle that anything purported to be special revelation should be evaluated and interpreted by older revelation. At that point in time, I didn’t even have an opinion about which “scriptures” were oldest. Within a year after that, I had studied enough to be satisfied that the writings of Moses were the oldest currently extant. About nineteen years ago, I started reading an English paraphrase of the Qur’an. I finished reading it within a few months. I now think if I had started with the Conclusion, then read Surah 114, then Surah 113, etc. I would have understood Islam differently than I did from starting with the Introduction, then Surah 1, Surah 2, etc. I have the impression that many Muslims think of their religion as personal rather than institutional. So when the man in the video says “We don’t force our religion on anybody”, to whom is he referring? Is there a subset of Muslims who don’t force their religion on anybody?
@@rogermetzger7335 Thanks for reply Sir. Surprised that you have read Quran translation. Islam honor all prophets from Adam, Noah, Moses, David to Jesus, peace all upon them. As they brought the same message, submission only to one Almighty God. 9 of 10 commandments of Moses are part of Islam teachings, except Sabat day. Quran from God, corrected some of human mistake of interpreation about God's prophets, like Jesus is God. What he said is from Quran: no force on religion/Islam. Submisson to the Almighty come from heart n mind. Many misconceptions about Islam of this issue. No muslim, if he has power, to force others to Islam. As muslim follows Quran. Appreciate if you want to learn more about Islam. More than welcome if I can help and answer your questions. Here channel to get some information about Islam: th-cam.com/channels/L1gM3QMrmPp2hPqlywJjLA.html
@@apaislam5465 It is my understanding that, according to Islam, the Qur’an cannot be translated. That’s why I referred to my reading of a “paraphrase”. Well, actually, my reading was in two phases. First I borrowed a paraphrase from the public library. I had read some of it already when a couple came through my line where I was a cashier at a big-box store. I asked whether they would mind me asking whether they were Muslims. They indicated that they were. I told them I had started reading the paraphrase of the Qur’an I had borrowed from the library but asked whether they could direct me to a place where I could buy a copy. The gentleman said, if I would give him my address, he would bring me a copy. I asked what he would charge me. He said no charge. My wife and I have several Bibles, a Book of Mormon and that Qur’an paraphrase. Some people read the Hebrew Bible and reject their concept of the God of Moses based on their perception that he is harsh - maybe even vindictive. Some people read the Gospels and think the message of Jesus is very different from the message of the Hebrew Bible. My parents’ parents read both to them when they were children - the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels. My parents - even before they met - were of the opinion that the message of Jesus is found in many parts of the Hebrew Bible. So my parents never considered those two sources to be antithetical to each other. I think many non-Christians are confused about Christianity because of the apparent difference between those professed Christians who promulgated the Inquisition in the past (and some who wish to revive the Inquisition in the twenty-first century) as compared to professed Christians who don’t even want civil governments to legislate a Christian version of morality. I think many English-speaking westerners are confused about Islam for a number of reasons. One of them is the apparent difference between those Muslims who say there is no compulsion in religion and those Muslims who (it seems to us) are very much dedicated to requiring people - under threat of death, even - to “convert” or pay an infidel tax. I suspect that the only English-speaking westerners who ever subscribe to Islam are those who have found a way to reconcile such passages as Surah 2:256 and 3:110 with those other passages that seem to encourage killing “unbelievers”. Given that I have been trying for nearly two decades to understand that, please don’t get upset if I fail to understand whatever evidence you can give me.
what are the higher powers of the universe? is modern theoretical physics religious since it has very strict rigorous ideas about the 'powers' which govern our entire reality?
President Sunday did a great response to your video that you ought to check out called: 'What is "Religion?"' I really expands on what you're talking about and it's worth seeing.
Hi ! Love your videos, I'd be interested in reading more about Robert Audi's "family resemblances" for religion, but I can't find the source - do you remember where it's from ?
An interesting exercise would be defining what isn't a religion rather than what it is. A sort of "via negativa" can come to the rescue to help contain this problem.
The issue is breaks into two quite simple parts: If you believe there is a giant flying spaghetti monster or other lord of the universe or local god of rivers and streams, it's a religion. If you believe in a code of conduct, it's a philosophy.
Are there flaws with the definition, "principles concerning the belief in, and the worship of, the Devine"? I think this is a good definition. It might just push the problem back to the definition of Devine, instead, however.
Religion can be a reaction to a near-death experience or a personally perceived miracle. Religion can be a part of your enculturation into a society. Religion can be a manipulative tool. Religion can be a test of political loyalty. One can be asked to do what might strain conscience or even seem absurd, in order to demonstrate to a religious leader that one's personal integrity can be set aside or overcome and the bidding of the leader carried out, cultic. Religion can be a sincere quest to know God. The speaker does well to say it is not a settled matter, and anyone does well to realize religion can be a very dangerous thing.
You should go to the peruvian amazon to the center Takiwasi, so you can learn about "Religion" from the inside, love your videos but studying religion from the outside can't give you a full picture.
Great video. I came here because of Genetically Modified channel. Would love to know how religion compares to cults then. I recently (6 months ago) left a cult that I not only was in for 16 years, but also taught in. Just curious how the two terms differ in your understanding
This is so fantastic!!! I wish you and I could discuss some concepts you commonly go over in your videos. I am a PhD student in neuroscience and I primarily study neurophilosophy and evolutionary religion. Is there a way to get in contact with you?
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century: E=∞BCP (Everything is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]). Alternatively, and more simply, expressed as: E= A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]). For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06. Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are EXTREMELY hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, if one understands what constitutes actual religion, which is why the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the King of Sciences and the King of Confidential Knowledge. In summary, actual science and actual religion/mysticism are IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of observable phenomena, whilst the other deals mainly with the inner-world of man, particularly with the subject (i.e. the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to psychotherapy, combined with verified metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter, apart from the so-called “humanities”. Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication and information. To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion, scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism. Without objective scientific evidence, spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism. “Consciousnesses is [defined as] that in which all experience appears, is that in which all experience is known, and that in which all experience is made.” ************* “Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness; just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.” ************* “Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’). This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you. With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited. Because the happiness which is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature. However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken? You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again. What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.” Rupert Spira, English Spiritual Teacher. “Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one who reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.” ************* “In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.” ************* “Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.” ************* “Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.” David Bohm, American Theoretical Physicist, From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
EB Tyler had it right: all that we now call religion evolved from simple belief in spirits. However, that original spirit based belief can acquire elements derived from the nature of the purported spirits, and then belief in the spirits themselves can be lost, but the elements based on them can remain. For example, Buddhism evolved from Hinduism, but lost the spirits. A religion is a disciplined (regular or regulated) system of belief derived from belief in spirits, so even Atheism can be a religion (depending on individual motivation and practices) since its rejection of belief in spirits is derived from belief in spirits. If belief in spirits (yours or that of others) were not an important part of your life then why would you take the trouble to explicitly disbelieve in them? This definition also addresses the question of the "spiritual but not religious." Yes, this is possible, if you have a vague notion that spirits exist, but no firm ideas about them or how to deal with them. But people usually take this to mean that they have absorbed principles and mysticism originating in spiritual beliefs (one's own or someone else's) without maintaining the belief in the spirits.
"Religion is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses". Oh wait, that's the definition of economics. Nevermind, forget what you just read.
My MTS degree is from Perkins school od Theology SMU my Ph.D is history of ideas, my view is based upon Dr. McFarlad of SMU, Religions do three things: a) to identify the human problematic, b) to identify an ultimate transformative experience (UTE) which resolves the problematic, and c) to mediate between the two.
I agree with your perspective,I love Durkheim I'm not trying to boiold it all down to simple definition, but I think those three things give focus that unites all religions in functionality.
I define Religion as someone else's definition of "god". I believe everyone experiencing Life, defines "god" through their experience. An infinite number of decisions...is this "god" or not? Our reality is solely based on our perspectives and the results of everyone's choices. Cause and effect.
Religion is a coping mechanism that helps people process the harshness and chaos of reality: while simultaneously providing a sence of meaning and personal identity.
@@kshri101 I never said religion was neccessary. Some like myself find other other to fulfill the same purpose. Counseling works for some, joining a social group like crossfit could work for others.
@@williamw3501 oh yea sure. I was just trying to show, if we were to take the above as a definition of Religion, then there are other things in our society which satisfy that definition but fall out of the category of Religion as we know it today, nevertheless it can be a description. :)
personally, for you, what it means religion (or believe)? For me religion is my own fiction, a set of axioms that allow me to interpret reality and make changes in it, a powerful point of view. I can create rituals around that axiom to reaffirm my believes, I can create a mythology to distinguish between sacred and profane. thank you as always
What about this definition of religion: Religion - individual or group devotion to what is considered supernatural or sacred, manifested by a simple or elaborate faith-based knowledge consisting of prescribed beliefs (creed), practices (cult or rituals), and norms of conduct and morality (code). This includes scientology, astrology, positive thinking, superstition, science, body building, and communism if the mentioned elements are present. What do you think?
*Religion - individual or group devotion to what is considered supernatural or sacred* ummmm......Religion is a group thing. Not really an individual thing. *This includes scientology, astrology, positive thinking, superstition, science, body building, and communism* 1. Astrology is not really a religion. That's just a mythical belief. 2. positive thinking is just an attitude. Not really a religion. 3. Superstition. The same as #1 4. Bodybuilding is just a physical exercise. Not really a religion.
Durkheim's definition works for a lot of religions, but not necessarily for highly personal religious beliefs, because of the focus on belonging to a community of the like-minded. My own spiritual beliefs fulfill #1-7 of Audi's list, but I don't have a spiritual community. How does a social definition of religion work when it's a religion of one person?
It sounds kinda counterintuitive to have religion as a whole be defined by a group that’s realistically a drop in the bucket when you consider all the historic practices and different cultures that came before and will come after. Also if religion isn’t a native term what did various cultures call their practices and how does the etymology of all those terms work into religion as a term?
I would go with World View as a definition of religion. A deeply held set of belief you live by and produce works based on them. The legal definition is basically the same.
Here is my definition: Religion can be conceptualized as a socio-cultural system that emerges from the inherent human predisposition towards seeking comprehension of the unknown, often imbuing these mysteries with a sacred or divine significance. This inclination reflects a deeper evolutionary trait wherein individuals possess an intrinsic need to affiliate with entities or collectives that transcend their individual existence, thereby offering a profound sense of identity and belonging. Concurrently, within the fabric of human societies, there exists a subset of individuals who exhibit a pronounced desire for dominion and sway. These individuals capitalize on the aforementioned human tendencies by establishing or propagating religious doctrines, thereby garnering a base of adherents. Through the strategic utilization of religion, they aim to exert control and manipulate followers, leveraging the foundational human yearning for understanding and belonging to consolidate power and influence.
I'm less sceptical than you that we can define religion; I think I've come up with a decent set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Also the fact that 'religion' is a concept of the last century of Western intellectual discourse rather than being some essential, natural and universal category is not a problem: such discourse needs such concepts if it's going to address the issues we find under 'religion'. It doesn't matter whether people in specific local cultures accept that something they have is a 'religion' or not, because they're just looking at things from the point of view of their particular culture. Western intellectual discourse is trying to discover truths about certain features of all or many cultures, and it can be critiqued with regard to that, but pretty much only from within itself, because nothing else is trying to do the same thing.
ReligionForBreakfast I have a pretty simple and objective definition. One that isn't just a list of a bunch of superficial characteristics that religion appear to often have. This definition is more of a model of human sociology and how religion plays a core roll in what it means to be a human. Here it goes... The fundamental parts of any religion is not the ideas that have been attached to it. The most fundamental part of every religion is sharing. Humans socially interact trough languages. Humans socially binds in three different ways; conceptual sharing, showing that you are competent and altruistic actions. By sharing the same beliefs, behavior, culture, experiences and values. This is what every religion has. If a religion is about the belief in god or not doesn't matters to humans as much as the fact that they can share it with people to befriend them. Also called preaching to the choir. In this definition includes every socialsystem that is based on the sharing of of something personal. Which is far broader than what most people normally think of when they hear the word "religion". But the thing is that there is in a broader sense no difference between a bunch of atheists coming together to socially interact based on their shared views and a christian church. There is absolutely nothing special with any of the religions most people actually call religions if we strip them from what I have just been talking about. Then we are left with only cultural artifacts similar to the tempel ruins in Egypt. This is a form of system that defines who we should trust or not. If a person behaves similar to you, likes the same things as you do, believes the same thing that you do and have been shaped by similar experiences then that person becomes more predictable from your perspective. A person that is more predictable is also more trustworthy. To spend much of your time with such people increases your ability to survive. From a psychological perspective it goes very fast for humans to change their views to adapt to what is norm. This is because what we believe is far from as important as to why we do it. Our own moral code might shape our beliefs when it comes to the choice of social group. But the demand for social interactions also shapes our beliefs to fit social groups. If what we believed really mattered much, beyond any social context, then there wouldn't be so many different belief-systems all over this world Another thing is how we immediately become friends with people that likes the same tv-series, -books, -films, -games, holds similar values, -beliefs, works with similar professions, does similar things on their spare times and so on. This fits in to what I have been talking about. Anyway, all this type of social behavior based on conceptual sharing is what I call religious behavior. "Social behavior/interactions based on conceptual sharing" is pretty much simplifies all of this in to a single sentence. The more we need social structure the more extreme we become. There is a reason why ISIS formed at the border of two countries that have been strongly terrorized by war and oppressive regimes. The greater the fear for ones own safety the more religious we get.
HI, thanks for your videos. Where can I find the religion tree graphic you use, relating to EB Tylor. I appreciate the evolution theory is bunk but I would really like to see it (is it contemporary to Tylor for example?). Thanks v much
I do think Durkheim is on to something when he ties religion to society. But I do think it is more basic, though still social. I think It is not until one asks the question "where did they go?" after they recognize the absence of the person they once knew has vacated the body they had previously occupied, that the question of origin starts to take shape. And I suspect that all religion has their foundation in this integration between relationship, life, and death, then begins to stew a pot of ideas that grow into the religious institutions we examine today. I expect that religious institutions are the tie between culture and authority. A kind of social glue, if you will.
There is a simple, universal definition of what religion is: Every human being (and presumably animals, too) has an implanted drive to ask and search for its source. The answers, which we find during this search and which we accept as true, constitute our religion.
What is dharma or religion ? Answer is there are some of the fundamentals about dharma… (A) First, dharma is the natural characteristic or inherent value of something. The dharma of fire is to burn and the dharma of a bird is to fly. (B) Second, the yogis say that human dharma is based on expansion (vistara), flow of mind (rasa), and service (seva). Vistara means expanding our psychic boundaries to include one and all; rasa means keeping steadiness of mind; and seva means caring for and serving others. (C) Another way of describing human dharma lies in the 10 characteristics of dharma: 1. Dhrti (patience) 2. Ks’ama (forgiveness) 3. Dhama (self-control) 4. Asteya (non-stealing) 5. Shaoca (cleanliness) 6. Indriyanigraha (control over organs) 7. Dhii (benevolent intellect) 8. Vidya’ (spiritual knowledge) 9. Satyam (benevolent truthfulness) 10. Akrodha (non-anger) Certainly, each of the above points is a discussion unto itself. As we all have a general understanding of what these points are, suffice to say here that the more we adhere to these tenets, the greater we are following our manava dharma, or human dharma.
Despite the scientific and technological advancement the present society is facing moral decline and mental anarchy. In these circumstances describe the importance and effectiveness of Religion.
Religion is systematic ideology. Ideology is systematic philosophy. Philosophy is systematic theory. Theory is systematic thought. Trust is confident dependence. Dependence is support reliance. Independence is support rejection. Faith can extend beyond the focus on God, but other forms of faith, are derived from this base faith in God. For ex. you might trust me, if you think, that I'm divinely inspired. In such case, you don't just trust me. You still primarily trust God, that I'm inspired in the right way.
There is another way to define religion: defined by the state. I think that this is common in "religious" countries, such as my country, Indonesia. Even though my country is not a theocracy, such as Iran, and does not not have a single state religion, like Malaysia or Cambodia, the government sanctions 6 official religions, which consists of most major religions, except for Judaism. According to the definition stated in our laws, religion is a system of belief in God(s) (although it does not say explicitly that it is monotheistic, it has a very strong emphasis on monotheism), has messenger(s) to deliver the God(s) Words in forms of Holy Book(s). As you can see, this is clearly biased definition of religion, which is biased to Abrahamaic religion. So, in order to be acknowledged as a religion, the "practice" must have a strong tendency of monotheism, has sets of prophet as the messenger, and has holy books, and of course many known religions would fail this litmus test.
From these comments I'm getting that most people are only familiar with Abrahamic religions. We need more info on general anthropology before being thrown into this question, or else... this comment section.
True religion is fundamentally about KNOWING, in our own direct EXPERIENCE, the difference between Truth and illusion. Hence the teaching of Jesus " you shall know the Truth, and the truth shall set you free ". No language, or scripture, can be the actual truth itself, as the truth concerns our true God given nature.
I would simply call it an "anchor" in your life. Something you can believe in and that stays intact. From a psychological perspective, the world is often just too complex for the human brain. And so we need a way to simplify it. Religion is one way. I think traditions and habits is another. Simply having breakfast consisting of a toast with jam, every morning at the same time, is a type of religion-like ritual. You do it because you have always done it, and it makes you feel comfortable just because of that fact. Now if I told you that there's better ways to start your morning, you wouldn't want to listen to me, because that would fill you with a lot of doubt about the choices you've done until now. I think religion in any sense of the word is an essential part of society. We aren't ready to be thrown into the void of purely nihilistic belief.
That would be a metaphorical anchor. We do simplify the real world to fit our personal model of reality, when we speak we can only speak about our personal model of reality, which does not necessarily has to be reality itself (it merely has to relate to it) and therefor is not the same as (objective) reality even though to the person speaking it usually is, since most people I know of tend to not consider this distinction.
@@BlacksmithTWD, in your initial comment you wrote: "We do simplify the real world..." Then you stated that reality is absolute. Therefore, it seems that you consider this world to be absolute (unless, of course, by "real world" you are NOT referring to this spatio-temporal, phenomenal sphere).
I was amazed that he failed to etymologically analyze the root meaning of the Latin word "religio", from which our word "religion" derives, so I will do it for him: It derives from "re", meaning "again" and "ligio", meaning to tie or bind. In other words, religion is that which ties man back into the spiritual, unseen world from whence he came. And to the ancient Romans, that was the world of the gods.
You ever hear of the etymological fallacy? A symbol's "true" meaning is whatever it means to whomever it means something to. We're not at the end of semiotic history.
It's funny, because the religions that lived through Roman times (Judaism and Christianity) still hew closely to the original meaning of religio as the meaning of religion. Where outsider academics saw different groups being labeled religio and superstitio and concluded that the modern term religion should encompass both, the Jews and Christians simply think that the different groups all think they are religio and are simply being labeled and mislabeled throughout time.
Next watch "What is Sikhism?" th-cam.com/video/MWsClPXLApA/w-d-xo.html
First
@@gachatube5739 cap this was four years ago
@@xanderbrown3602, just let him bask in the glory of his delusion, Mr. Brown. ;)
HUM MAYBE TO SIMPLIFY EVERYTHING... RELIGIOUS BELIEF and RELIGION are ironically what you believe you believe in or dont believe you believe in so you regularly or religiously speak, and follow or act on it. AN ANTITHESIST AND AN ATHEIST regularly preach that they dont have a belief, TO THEM, thier faith in what they believe is the action of creating a youtube channel and deticating years months and days in a life time of touting how their ideas are better then people who believe in God or a god. THEY religoiusly act on telling people they believe they don't have a belief and ironically believe this is not religious or ritualistic in nature. BUT, they choose eternal death and hell because they are unwilling to pick a god or the GOD. you can believe all day that stopsigns are just suggestions to stop but a cop will still give you a ticket if they see you zooming through a stopsign.
Long time watcher, I am now teaching Intro to Religious Studies at a small liberal arts college. These videos have been incredibly helpful, especially for my students who get most of their information in a TH-cam format. Very well done, thorough, and thoughtful approaches to all these topics.
Thank you for your work!
I grew up in evangelical circles, where people commonly would claim, "Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship." This video comes to mind now, particularly the "family resemblances" part of it, whenever I hear people attempt to separate "Christianity" from "religion."
I heard that a lot growing up too. It is part of a discourse among Evangelicals that attempts to cast "religion" as an undesirable thing...a word that means "empty ritual" or "devoid of true belief."
Oh wow, I had an evangelical tell me this the other day. It was the first time I had heard this, I thought this girl was just a bit weird.
Becca Hawkins A relationship with fictional people is a religion.
But they never say that when the 1st Amendment is being discussed!
@@txvoltaire Which reminds us that, for Americans, the US constitution (or at least its 2nd amendment) is part of their religion, brought down from the mountain by King James engraved on tablets of stone.
This channel is one of the best to understand religion, on a scholarly perspective.
What is the VERY best religion channel?
I like the cluster "family resemblance" definition of religion you used in this video. It makes more sense and it's unbiased.
Honestly its the only "definition" that makes sense to me. Religion is just too diverse to capture in a single definition.
+ReligionForBreakfast Indeed
I have defined 'Religion'....the problem is people don't realize there is a difference between 'Religion' and 'Religous'...they are two different things.
RELIGION = A theoretical belief of what happens to "living" entities after death (including "non-existence"). Both 'Religous' & 'Spiritual' groups can be included.
RELIGOUS = A non-theoretical belief of a deity "God"
SPIRITUAL = A disbelief of a deity "God"
Stunned silence...you're both shocked I was able to define Religion in one sentence.
Loved the video, as always, and I can't wait for the next one. Fantastic to see an actual academic discussion of religion on a place like TH-cam. Please do keep up the great work.
+CainGrey Thanks! I'm going to have fun with this series. Some might find the theory of religion a little boring, but I think it is important stuff.
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@ReligionForBreakfast😊 diff DD
Religion is the belief system pertaining to the order of existence, origins, cultural practices and morality, as it all relates to humanity.
Good definition.
What would you call a belief system that lacks the pertaining to either the order of existence, origins, cultural practices or morality? If one or more of those four is lacking, but at least one out of four still applies? Would you consider it not to be a religion at all or rather and incomplete religion?
Thats good
I think everything would just be a little bit better if everybody watched your videos
th-cam.com/video/kMbu_iAoB_0/w-d-xo.html
For comparative study of Religions Visit my channel.
th-cam.com/video/7d16CpWp-ok/w-d-xo.html
I'll second that.
Definitely
Response video:
th-cam.com/video/SO-7qHLp4Jc/w-d-xo.html
Thank you.
As my first port of call in my search for an answer to this question you have given me much to think about.
I will rest here on my journey for a little while and try to unthink what I previously thought I used to think religion was.
Your channel is amazing! Thanks for all the great, free info...
Always a pleasure. Thanks for your work.
Loved the smash brothers shout out in this and I feel like I learned a lot.
Hello Andrew, I know you have a back catalogue of topics for the future, but considering your studies in the Roman -Greco world, a not oft touched upon subject of Socrates' Daemon and his critique on divination would be fantastic. All about Delphian oracles and companion spirits, not so hot on animal entrails and bird flight patterns. He was as much the mystic as he was the sceptic. You won't regret it!
I think that is a great suggestion. I'll definitely put it on the backlog of topics. I was going to do a few episodes on demonology...which of course would cover Socrates' famous "daemon" statement.
Careful of the scholarship out there. I've seen some 'interpretations' (ahem, whitewashing) saying it was purely his "inner promptings" or conscience and daemon was metaphor. He's specifically stated that this spirit had a preference of advice giving to his companions whereas Socrates had none and treated his friends equally in his advice giving. A distinct separate personality. I can imagine some academics being somewhat disappointed in a stoic philosophical hero also actively engaging in a claimed form of mediumship, a type of "quackery," hated among all areas of academia. I know this is a fact, as I've read it in studies and this is exactly what happened in the seminar room as my lecturer clumsily spoke of the "happy spirit" and socratic questioning as applied in cognitive behavioural psychotherapy. PhD lecturers aren't free of bias I'm afraid. I freely admit I'm very biased, but in the opposite direction....but I'm not paid to be impartial. :D
Well, the type of scholars I hang out with are perfectly fine with the idea of Socrates believing in a daemon that possessed him. We who study demonology/daemonology and the archaeology of magic aren't surprised by these beliefs.
I think there's no better demonstration of how subjective definitions of "religion" are than the ones that center on community and culture. For those of us who are extremely introverted, such definitions carry a high likelihood of irrelevance.
“Yesterday we obeyed kings and leaders and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love and the need of money”
Watching this video has been enlightening. My understanding of religion is for more simplistic, but it is kind of a summary of the family resemblances. In other words, it seems to me that most religions, ancient and modern, had three conponents that, in essence, bound communities together: mythology (where did we all come from and what's our place in the universe); rituals (communal activities that reinforce the individual's a) belief in the community's mythology and b) sense of being part of a community); and lastly ethics (the rules for getting along with each other in society). Why is ethics so far down the line? Because not every culture has a specific story about a Moses like figure receiving a code of ethics, and in the case of Judaism, the Bible implies that God waited a long time before giving his people one. It's almost like an afterthought. It appears that the necessity to have certain rules set in stone seems to have only arisen once people find themselves living in much larger communities.
I would classify religion as:
1. a belief or theory about life after death
2. Ideas of the spirit or soul
3. Belief in the message of a supernatural being or founder of that belief
4. The immateriality of the world
5. Concepts of right and wrong. Or positive actions and negative actions
4/5 is acceptable.
Reference books are good for details and also for larger context .....
Oxford Handbook of the Study of Religion, 2016, 862 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion, 2005, 550 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology, 2009, 609 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, 2013, 632 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, 2007, 708 pages.
Oxford Handbook of Mystical Theology, 2020, 704 pages.
Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology, 2017, 627 pages.
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 4th ed., 2022, 2 vols., 2143 pages.
Person: *tries to draw a border between ideology and religion*
Confusianism: Prepare for trouble!
Theocracy: Make it double!
Divine right and co. (mandate of heaven, god-kings...): Meowth yes!
Would it be wrong to say that religion is a systematic response of the human desire to answer questions related to human suffering and well-being?
+Studley Muffin I think that is related to the “terror management” theory of religion. That religion is a response to a fear of death and suffering. So yes, you can probably find scholars that would agree with you. Though any definition won’t be perfect.
Of course not. We are doing philosophy here and in philosophy no one is wrong. We just have different perspectives. Then I do not share your perspective, but that is my perspective.
that would include pretty much all of science, wouldn't it?
I still like that idea tho
There's a lot of pagans, myself included, who experienced the gods and then went into religion with a sense of awe or familial love, and a desire to befriend and have relationships with the gods. Basically, there's a lot of examples of not going into religion because of questions, instead it is going in in the way that one goes into a friendship, not to discover more about life but to form a bond with someone they've met. Of course it crosses into territories of death/suffering/well being, but I think that everything does that - all areas where humans are thinking are open to thoughts and actions going to that sort of thing, it's an integral part of all aspects of life - to say that all religion is a reaction to that desire imo is too narrow from what I've seen to include every example of religion, let alone encompass it!
Electro-Cute “in philosophy no one is wrong”
Today I learned logical fallacies aren’t real, it’s just “differences in perspective”
Hey, great video! You have somehow managed to explain this massive concept in an articulate manner. You have talked about Robert Audi's list of characteristics for religion family resemblance here, can you please share its source too? It would help a lot!
I always just thought whatever you expect to see in the afterlife is what you get, i mean it would make the most sense considering all the religions that were created in the world
Sorry Sir, I want to ask if the theology school is S1 or S2?
I want theology school in your place but what are the requirements?
Do you mean undergraduate or graduate studies? If you want to go to a theology school, anywhere, just contact that college or university. They will gladly help you with all the requirements needed.
This subject deserves more analysis than I have time to give it this morning but please discuss this definition of religion until I have time to jump back into the discussion: Religion is the sum of those beliefs, practices and prohibitions that pertain to a person’s concept of the highest powers of the universe.
Here purpose of life in Islam: th-cam.com/video/WSEEQtXNacs/w-d-xo.html
Anything not make sense?
@@apaislam5465 My parents were Christians. Like Mohamed, my parents disagreed with some of the teachings of people whose religious beliefs and practices are based on traditions, even those traditions which are widely considered Christian. Like Mohamed, my parents disagreed with some of the teachings of people whose religious beliefs and practices are based on traditional Judaism.
In 1958, my parents hosted “discussions” with LdS (Mormon) missionaries. I read most of the Book of Mormon before telling the missionaries I had decided to adopt what I called “the principle of prior reference”, i.e. the principle that anything purported to be special revelation should be evaluated and interpreted by older revelation. At that point in time, I didn’t even have an opinion about which “scriptures” were oldest.
Within a year after that, I had studied enough to be satisfied that the writings of Moses were the oldest currently extant.
About nineteen years ago, I started reading an English paraphrase of the Qur’an. I finished reading it within a few months. I now think if I had started with the Conclusion, then read Surah 114, then Surah 113, etc. I would have understood Islam differently than I did from starting with the Introduction, then Surah 1, Surah 2, etc.
I have the impression that many Muslims think of their religion as personal rather than institutional.
So when the man in the video says “We don’t force our religion on anybody”, to whom is he referring? Is there a subset of Muslims who don’t force their religion on anybody?
@@rogermetzger7335 Thanks for reply Sir. Surprised that you have read Quran translation. Islam honor all prophets from Adam, Noah, Moses, David to Jesus, peace all upon them. As they brought the same message, submission only to one Almighty God. 9 of 10 commandments of Moses are part of Islam teachings, except Sabat day.
Quran from God, corrected some of human mistake of interpreation about God's prophets, like Jesus is God.
What he said is from Quran: no force on religion/Islam. Submisson to the Almighty come from heart n mind. Many misconceptions about Islam of this issue. No muslim, if he has power, to force others to Islam. As muslim follows Quran.
Appreciate if you want to learn more about Islam. More than welcome if I can help and answer your questions.
Here channel to get some information about Islam:
th-cam.com/channels/L1gM3QMrmPp2hPqlywJjLA.html
@@apaislam5465 It is my understanding that, according to Islam, the Qur’an cannot be translated. That’s why I referred to my reading of a “paraphrase”.
Well, actually, my reading was in two phases. First I borrowed a paraphrase from the public library. I had read some of it already when a couple came through my line where I was a cashier at a big-box store. I asked whether they would mind me asking whether they were Muslims.
They indicated that they were.
I told them I had started reading the paraphrase of the Qur’an I had borrowed from the library but asked whether they could direct me to a place where I could buy a copy.
The gentleman said, if I would give him my address, he would bring me a copy.
I asked what he would charge me.
He said no charge.
My wife and I have several Bibles, a Book of Mormon and that Qur’an paraphrase.
Some people read the Hebrew Bible and reject their concept of the God of Moses based on their perception that he is harsh - maybe even vindictive.
Some people read the Gospels and think the message of Jesus is very different from the message of the Hebrew Bible.
My parents’ parents read both to them when they were children - the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels. My parents - even before they met - were of the opinion that the message of Jesus is found in many parts of the Hebrew Bible. So my parents never considered those two sources to be antithetical to each other.
I think many non-Christians are confused about Christianity because of the apparent difference between those professed Christians who promulgated the Inquisition in the past (and some who wish to revive the Inquisition in the twenty-first century) as compared to professed Christians who don’t even want civil governments to legislate a Christian version of morality.
I think many English-speaking westerners are confused about Islam for a number of reasons. One of them is the apparent difference between those Muslims who say there is no compulsion in religion and those Muslims who (it seems to us) are very much dedicated to requiring people - under threat of death, even - to “convert” or pay an infidel tax.
I suspect that the only English-speaking westerners who ever subscribe to Islam are those who have found a way to reconcile such passages as Surah 2:256 and 3:110 with those other passages that seem to encourage killing “unbelievers”.
Given that I have been trying for nearly two decades to understand that, please don’t get upset if I fail to understand whatever evidence you can give me.
what are the higher powers of the universe? is modern theoretical physics religious since it has very strict rigorous ideas about the 'powers' which govern our entire reality?
heres my definition
a set of coherent ideas that overcome your mind and your actions reflect those ideas
Absolutely brilliant, thank you!
President Sunday did a great response to your video that you ought to check out called: 'What is "Religion?"'
I really expands on what you're talking about and it's worth seeing.
here it is: th-cam.com/video/SO-7qHLp4Jc/w-d-xo.html
Hi ! Love your videos, I'd be interested in reading more about Robert Audi's "family resemblances" for religion, but I can't find the source - do you remember where it's from ?
An interesting exercise would be defining what isn't a religion rather than what it is. A sort of "via negativa" can come to the rescue to help contain this problem.
The issue is breaks into two quite simple parts: If you believe there is a giant flying spaghetti monster or other lord of the universe or local god of rivers and streams, it's a religion. If you believe in a code of conduct, it's a philosophy.
Are there flaws with the definition, "principles concerning the belief in, and the worship of, the Devine"? I think this is a good definition. It might just push the problem back to the definition of Devine, instead, however.
Religion can be a reaction to a near-death experience or a personally perceived miracle. Religion can be a part of your enculturation into a society. Religion can be a manipulative tool. Religion can be a test of political loyalty. One can be asked to do what might strain conscience or even seem absurd, in order to demonstrate to a religious leader that one's personal integrity can be set aside or overcome and the bidding of the leader carried out, cultic. Religion can be a sincere quest to know God. The speaker does well to say it is not a settled matter, and anyone does well to realize religion can be a very dangerous thing.
You should go to the peruvian amazon to the center Takiwasi, so you can learn about "Religion" from the inside, love your videos but studying religion from the outside can't give you a full picture.
What is it like on the inside?
Great vid. For those of you who want a concrete, absolute definition of religion, or indeed of anything, I think you need religion for that.
Great video. I came here because of Genetically Modified channel. Would love to know how religion compares to cults then. I recently (6 months ago) left a cult that I not only was in for 16 years, but also taught in. Just curious how the two terms differ in your understanding
i appreciate the Tatooine poster on the wall behind him
This is so fantastic!!! I wish you and I could discuss some concepts you commonly go over in your videos. I am a PhD student in neuroscience and I primarily study neurophilosophy and evolutionary religion. Is there a way to get in contact with you?
The following formulae is the so-called “THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, much sought-after by theoretical physicists for the past century:
E=∞BCP (Everything is Infinite Being-Consciousness-Peace [“satyam jnañam anantam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
Alternatively, and more simply, expressed as:
E= A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness [“sarvam khalvidam brahma”, in Sanskrit]).
For a thorough explanation of the above equations, refer to Chapters 05 and 06.
Those persons who criticize religion for being unscientific are EXTREMELY hypocritical, since they invariably accept the legitimacy of the so-called “soft sciences” (sociology, economics, political science, history, et cetera). Those branches of science are arguably far less “scientific” than religion, if one understands what constitutes actual religion, which is why the author of “Mahābhārata” (considered by many authorities to be the greatest work of literature ever composed) regarded yoga/religion to be the King of Sciences and the King of Confidential Knowledge.
In summary, actual science and actual religion/mysticism are IDENTICAL, because Reality is singular. However, one deals in the realm of observable phenomena, whilst the other deals mainly with the inner-world of man, particularly with the subject (i.e. the ultimate observer of all phenomena, as described and explained in Chapter 06) and with teleological matters. To put it in other terms, authentic religion is akin to psychotherapy, combined with verified metaphysics, whist the material sciences generally do not venture away from the study of gross matter, apart from the so-called “humanities”. Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of humanity rarely, if ever, comes into contact with those rare spiritual masters who are qualified to teach actual religion, even in this current age of rapid mass communication and information.
To quote Austrian-American physicist Fritjof Capra, “Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science. But man needs BOTH.” Without authentic religion, scientific endeavour is prone to moral corruption and nihilism. Without objective scientific evidence, spirituality is susceptible to sentimentality and fanaticism.
“Consciousnesses is [defined as] that in which all experience appears, is that in which all experience is known, and that in which all experience is made.”
*************
“Everything that we know or experience is known by consciousness, appears in consciousness and is a play of consciousness;
just like the dream you have at night appears in your mind, is known by your mind and is a play of your mind.”
*************
“Consciousness is always already awake. Or, more accurately, awakeness or awareness is one of its ‘qualities’. (Beingness and happiness are two of its other ‘qualities’).
This consciousness ‘from time to time’ takes the shape of a thought which imagines itself (consciousness) to be limited to a particular body. It is as if you were to dress up as King Lear and by doing so forget that you are you.
With this thought, consciousness seems to forget its own unlimited nature and seems instead to become a separate entity, a person. Once this identification has taken place, most of our thoughts, feelings and activities come from and express this belief and feeling of being separate, localised and limited.
Because the happiness which is inherent in the knowing of our own being is lost when we forget our own being, the apparent person that results from this identification is in a perpetual state of unhappiness or seeking. In other words, it is the apparent person that is unhappy, that is seeking, that wishes to awaken to his or her true nature.
However, this ‘person’ is itself the apparent veiling of its own true identity (consciousness). The person cannot awaken, because it only exists as the thought that thinks it. How could a thought, an illusion, awaken? King Lear cannot awaken, because King Lear is simply a costume that the actor wears. Can a costume awaken?
You are already awake. That is, you, consciousness, that is seeing these words, is already and always awake, only it has lost itself in objects and thereby seemingly forgotten its own self. All that is required is to ‘remember itself’ again.
What you call awakening (or remembering) is the clear seeing of your true nature and, as a result, the clear seeing of the non-existence of the separate person. That which is always awake is always awake. That which is not awake can never awaken.”
Rupert Spira,
English Spiritual Teacher.
“Both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one who reality, which is indivisible and unanalysable.”
*************
“In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather, they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement.”
*************
“Relativity and quantum theory agree, in that they both imply the need to look on the world as an undivided whole, in which all parts of the universe, including the observer and his instruments, merge and unite in one totality. In this totality, the atomistic form of insight is a simplification and an abstraction, valid only in some limited context.”
*************
“Science itself is demanding a new, non-fragmentary world view.”
David Bohm,
American Theoretical Physicist,
From “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
EB Tyler had it right: all that we now call religion evolved from simple belief in spirits. However, that original spirit based belief can acquire elements derived from the nature of the purported spirits, and then belief in the spirits themselves can be lost, but the elements based on them can remain. For example, Buddhism evolved from Hinduism, but lost the spirits. A religion is a disciplined (regular or regulated) system of belief derived from belief in spirits, so even Atheism can be a religion (depending on individual motivation and practices) since its rejection of belief in spirits is derived from belief in spirits. If belief in spirits (yours or that of others) were not an important part of your life then why would you take the trouble to explicitly disbelieve in them? This definition also addresses the question of the "spiritual but not religious." Yes, this is possible, if you have a vague notion that spirits exist, but no firm ideas about them or how to deal with them. But people usually take this to mean that they have absorbed principles and mysticism originating in spiritual beliefs (one's own or someone else's) without maintaining the belief in the spirits.
This video actually made me wide minded in term of religion
"Religion is the study of the use of scarce
resources which have alternative uses". Oh wait, that's the definition of economics. Nevermind, forget what you just read.
I'm afraid you going to parse-out that one for me. :D
My MTS degree is from Perkins school od Theology SMU my Ph.D is history of ideas, my view is based upon Dr. McFarlad of SMU, Religions do three things:
a) to identify the human problematic,
b) to identify an ultimate transformative experience (UTE) which resolves the problematic, and
c) to mediate between the two.
I agree with your perspective,I love Durkheim I'm not trying to boiold it all down to simple definition, but I think those three things give focus that unites all religions in functionality.
Thank you in the name of every anthropology student.
Thank you. Simplified.
I define Religion as someone else's definition of "god". I believe everyone experiencing Life, defines "god" through their experience. An infinite number of decisions...is this "god" or not? Our reality is solely based on our perspectives and the results of everyone's choices. Cause and effect.
Religion is a coping mechanism that helps people process the harshness and chaos of reality: while simultaneously providing a sence of meaning and personal identity.
Positive thinking? American dream? ;)
william w, I think your definition fits the idea of "spirituality" better. "Religion" tends to be a corporate activity.
For many, a set of good psychological counseling sessions can do that job. So, can we call it religious practice?
@@kshri101 I never said religion was neccessary. Some like myself find other other to fulfill the same purpose. Counseling works for some, joining a social group like crossfit could work for others.
@@williamw3501 oh yea sure. I was just trying to show, if we were to take the above as a definition of Religion, then there are other things in our society which satisfy that definition but fall out of the category of Religion as we know it today, nevertheless it can be a description. :)
I like watching your videos on 0.75 playback speed so I can get more of what you say.
personally, for you, what it means religion (or believe)?
For me religion is my own fiction, a set of axioms that allow me to interpret reality and make changes in it, a powerful point of view. I can create rituals around that axiom to reaffirm my believes, I can create a mythology to distinguish between sacred and profane.
thank you as always
What about this definition of religion: Religion - individual or group devotion to what is considered supernatural or sacred, manifested by a simple or elaborate faith-based knowledge consisting of prescribed beliefs (creed), practices (cult or rituals), and norms of conduct and morality (code). This includes scientology, astrology, positive thinking, superstition, science, body building, and communism if the mentioned elements are present. What do you think?
*Religion - individual or group devotion to what is considered supernatural or sacred*
ummmm......Religion is a group thing. Not really an individual thing.
*This includes scientology, astrology, positive thinking, superstition, science, body building, and communism*
1. Astrology is not really a religion. That's just a mythical belief.
2. positive thinking is just an attitude. Not really a religion.
3. Superstition. The same as #1
4. Bodybuilding is just a physical exercise. Not really a religion.
Durkheim's definition works for a lot of religions, but not necessarily for highly personal religious beliefs, because of the focus on belonging to a community of the like-minded. My own spiritual beliefs fulfill #1-7 of Audi's list, but I don't have a spiritual community. How does a social definition of religion work when it's a religion of one person?
Society may accept actions resulting from shared beliefs, whether rational or not, whereas it may not tolerate your acting on your own belief.
It sounds kinda counterintuitive to have religion as a whole be defined by a group that’s realistically a drop in the bucket when you consider all the historic practices and different cultures that came before and will come after. Also if religion isn’t a native term what did various cultures call their practices and how does the etymology of all those terms work into religion as a term?
Is there a modern/more accepted version of the religion evolution theory? I find that very interesting.
Hi everyone. The time is yours... Enjoy your day! 🎆
Sir I want to ask which community first used this word actually . I believe Christians are the first
Great video, but: What about the definition of religion as a cultural system by Clifford Geertz?
I would go with World View as a definition of religion. A deeply held set of belief you live by and produce works based on them. The legal definition is basically the same.
Here is my definition: Religion can be conceptualized as a socio-cultural system that emerges from the inherent human predisposition towards seeking comprehension of the unknown, often imbuing these mysteries with a sacred or divine significance. This inclination reflects a deeper evolutionary trait wherein individuals possess an intrinsic need to affiliate with entities or collectives that transcend their individual existence, thereby offering a profound sense of identity and belonging. Concurrently, within the fabric of human societies, there exists a subset of individuals who exhibit a pronounced desire for dominion and sway. These individuals capitalize on the aforementioned human tendencies by establishing or propagating religious doctrines, thereby garnering a base of adherents. Through the strategic utilization of religion, they aim to exert control and manipulate followers, leveraging the foundational human yearning for understanding and belonging to consolidate power and influence.
great video, thanks man
Totoo at tama lahat ang rehiyon ay isang commiunutiy hindi isang uri ng paniniwala sa sariling kapakanan
Religion is systematic truth. Language is symbolic binding. Culture is systematic civilization.
I'm less sceptical than you that we can define religion; I think I've come up with a decent set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Also the fact that 'religion' is a concept of the last century of Western intellectual discourse rather than being some essential, natural and universal category is not a problem: such discourse needs such concepts if it's going to address the issues we find under 'religion'.
It doesn't matter whether people in specific local cultures accept that something they have is a 'religion' or not, because they're just looking at things from the point of view of their particular culture. Western intellectual discourse is trying to discover truths about certain features of all or many cultures, and it can be critiqued with regard to that, but pretty much only from within itself, because nothing else is trying to do the same thing.
ReligionForBreakfast
I have a pretty simple and objective definition. One that isn't just a list of a bunch of superficial characteristics that religion appear to often have.
This definition is more of a model of human sociology and how religion plays a core roll in what it means to be a human.
Here it goes...
The fundamental parts of any religion is not the ideas that have been attached to it. The most fundamental part of every religion is sharing.
Humans socially interact trough languages. Humans socially binds in three different ways; conceptual sharing, showing that you are competent and altruistic actions.
By sharing the same beliefs, behavior, culture, experiences and values. This is what every religion has.
If a religion is about the belief in god or not doesn't matters to humans as much as the fact that they can share it with people to befriend them. Also called preaching to the choir.
In this definition includes every socialsystem that is based on the sharing of of something personal. Which is far broader than what most people normally think of when they hear the word "religion". But the thing is that there is in a broader sense no difference between a bunch of atheists coming together to socially interact based on their shared views and a christian church.
There is absolutely nothing special with any of the religions most people actually call religions if we strip them from what I have just been talking about. Then we are left with only cultural artifacts similar to the tempel ruins in Egypt.
This is a form of system that defines who we should trust or not. If a person behaves similar to you, likes the same things as you do, believes the same thing that you do and have been shaped by similar experiences then that person becomes more predictable from your perspective. A person that is more predictable is also more trustworthy. To spend much of your time with such people increases your ability to survive.
From a psychological perspective it goes very fast for humans to change their views to adapt to what is norm. This is because what we believe is far from as important as to why we do it. Our own moral code might shape our beliefs when it comes to the choice of social group. But the demand for social interactions also shapes our beliefs to fit social groups.
If what we believed really mattered much, beyond any social context, then there wouldn't be so many different belief-systems all over this world
Another thing is how we immediately become friends with people that likes the same tv-series, -books, -films, -games, holds similar values, -beliefs, works with similar professions, does similar things on their spare times and so on. This fits in to what I have been talking about.
Anyway, all this type of social behavior based on conceptual sharing is what I call religious behavior. "Social behavior/interactions based on conceptual sharing" is pretty much simplifies all of this in to a single sentence.
The more we need social structure the more extreme we become. There is a reason why ISIS formed at the border of two countries that have been strongly terrorized by war and oppressive regimes. The greater the fear for ones own safety the more religious we get.
So it's a word we should delete from society? It means nothing.
HI, thanks for your videos. Where can I find the religion tree graphic you use, relating to EB Tylor. I appreciate the evolution theory is bunk but I would really like to see it (is it contemporary to Tylor for example?). Thanks v much
@religionforbreakfast Cheers
Nice video as usual!
you re so so awesome thank you for your glorious content ! ! ! ! ! !
I do think Durkheim is on to something when he ties religion to society. But I do think it is more basic, though still social. I think It is not until one asks the question "where did they go?" after they recognize the absence of the person they once knew has vacated the body they had previously occupied, that the question of origin starts to take shape. And I suspect that all religion has their foundation in this integration between relationship, life, and death, then begins to stew a pot of ideas that grow into the religious institutions we examine today. I expect that religious institutions are the tie between culture and authority. A kind of social glue, if you will.
Well done
There is a simple, universal definition of what religion is:
Every human being (and presumably animals, too) has an implanted drive to ask and search for its source.
The answers, which we find during this search and which we accept as true, constitute our religion.
Good video.
What is dharma or religion ?
Answer is there are some of the fundamentals about dharma…
(A) First, dharma is the natural characteristic or inherent value of something. The dharma of fire is to burn and the dharma of a bird is to fly.
(B) Second, the yogis say that human dharma is based on expansion (vistara), flow of mind (rasa), and service (seva). Vistara means expanding our psychic boundaries to include one and all; rasa means keeping steadiness of mind; and seva means caring for and serving others.
(C) Another way of describing human dharma lies in the 10 characteristics of dharma:
1. Dhrti (patience)
2. Ks’ama (forgiveness)
3. Dhama (self-control)
4. Asteya (non-stealing)
5. Shaoca (cleanliness)
6. Indriyanigraha (control over organs)
7. Dhii (benevolent intellect)
8. Vidya’ (spiritual knowledge)
9. Satyam (benevolent truthfulness)
10. Akrodha (non-anger)
Certainly, each of the above points is a discussion unto itself. As we all have a general understanding of what these points are, suffice to say here that the more we adhere to these tenets, the greater we are following our manava dharma, or human dharma.
I think that's all very well said. Thanks. 👍
Worship is the meaning of religion way of life
Just wondering if you have read, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, by Gordin Clark. The first chapter is dedicated to answering this question
Despite the scientific and technological advancement the present society is facing moral decline and mental anarchy. In these circumstances describe the importance and effectiveness of Religion.
In Hebrew the word religion is "death" which means a set of laws (not necessarily religious).
oh my god J.Z. Smith died Dec. 30th 2017... rest in peace
Yeah, I've been meaning to make a tribute video. Huge influence on this field.
Religion is systematic ideology. Ideology is systematic philosophy. Philosophy is systematic theory. Theory is systematic thought. Trust is confident dependence. Dependence is support reliance. Independence is support rejection. Faith can extend beyond the focus on God, but other forms of faith, are derived from this base faith in God. For ex. you might trust me, if you think, that I'm divinely inspired. In such case, you don't just trust me. You still primarily trust God, that I'm inspired in the right way.
There is another way to define religion: defined by the state. I think that this is common in "religious" countries, such as my country, Indonesia. Even though my country is not a theocracy, such as Iran, and does not not have a single state religion, like Malaysia or Cambodia, the government sanctions 6 official religions, which consists of most major religions, except for Judaism.
According to the definition stated in our laws, religion is a system of belief in God(s) (although it does not say explicitly that it is monotheistic, it has a very strong emphasis on monotheism), has messenger(s) to deliver the God(s) Words in forms of Holy Book(s). As you can see, this is clearly biased definition of religion, which is biased to Abrahamaic religion. So, in order to be acknowledged as a religion, the "practice" must have a strong tendency of monotheism, has sets of prophet as the messenger, and has holy books, and of course many known religions would fail this litmus test.
Great Content.
From these comments I'm getting that most people are only familiar with Abrahamic religions. We need more info on general anthropology before being thrown into this question, or else... this comment section.
Thumbs up for the food for thought; but, you didn't convince me that religion is subjective and blurry.
True religion is fundamentally about KNOWING, in our own direct EXPERIENCE, the difference between Truth and illusion.
Hence the teaching of Jesus " you shall know the Truth, and the truth shall set you free ".
No language, or scripture, can be the actual truth itself, as the truth concerns our true God given nature.
(FACTS OVA FEELINGS). RELIGION IS THE MASTERPIECE OF THE ART OF ANIMAL. TRAINING FOR IT TRAIN PPL AZ TO HOW THEY SHALL THINK
what is religious
I would simply call it an "anchor" in your life. Something you can believe in and that stays intact. From a psychological perspective, the world is often just too complex for the human brain. And so we need a way to simplify it. Religion is one way. I think traditions and habits is another. Simply having breakfast consisting of a toast with jam, every morning at the same time, is a type of religion-like ritual. You do it because you have always done it, and it makes you feel comfortable just because of that fact. Now if I told you that there's better ways to start your morning, you wouldn't want to listen to me, because that would fill you with a lot of doubt about the choices you've done until now.
I think religion in any sense of the word is an essential part of society. We aren't ready to be thrown into the void of purely nihilistic belief.
That would be a metaphorical anchor. We do simplify the real world to fit our personal model of reality, when we speak we can only speak about our personal model of reality, which does not necessarily has to be reality itself (it merely has to relate to it) and therefor is not the same as (objective) reality even though to the person speaking it usually is, since most people I know of tend to not consider this distinction.
@@BlacksmithTWD, in your own words, define "REALITY".
@@TheWorldTeacher
Existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.
@@BlacksmithTWD, in your initial comment you wrote:
"We do simplify the real world..."
Then you stated that reality is absolute.
Therefore, it seems that you consider this world to be absolute (unless, of course, by "real world" you are NOT referring to this spatio-temporal, phenomenal sphere).
@@TheWorldTeacher
What do you mean by 'this world'? the real world or the model we made of it?
Once you are free from all religions then you can be religious” -sinkiy
All religion is plain and simple... A Belief in a Deity and it's teachings.. No complication about that!!
I think this is what it should be.
I like your glasses 🤓
A more interesting question is; are we all, descendants of "Adam and Eve"; then the Noah family? If so; then everybody is " Religious "?
i agree with your statement/question
pretty useful thanks
YOU WIN!
🛸
I was amazed that he failed to etymologically analyze the root meaning of the Latin word "religio", from which our word "religion" derives, so I will do it for him: It derives from "re", meaning "again" and "ligio", meaning to tie or bind. In other words, religion is that which ties man back into the spiritual, unseen world from whence he came. And to the ancient Romans, that was the world of the gods.
You ever hear of the etymological fallacy? A symbol's "true" meaning is whatever it means to whomever it means something to. We're not at the end of semiotic history.
It's the way most Church-folks start their week.
The one unifying trait of religion is a Belief of a super Natural Being Teaching people how to live the good life.
Not all Buddhists believe in a supernatural being: they may, but it's not required of them.
When you talk my brain keeps drawing a kippah on your head. Not sure why
It's funny, because the religions that lived through Roman times (Judaism and Christianity) still hew closely to the original meaning of religio as the meaning of religion. Where outsider academics saw different groups being labeled religio and superstitio and concluded that the modern term religion should encompass both, the Jews and Christians simply think that the different groups all think they are religio and are simply being labeled and mislabeled throughout time.
Great info
Yuval Noah Harrary gave a definition for riligion. A "devine" or not men made set of rules or filosofi which interpreter to a social set of rules.
Do about Seth, I had argument with my friend about him, I think he was Satan in Egyptian religion. Am I correct or not?