|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2007 : 14:12:57 [Permalink]
|
I think it's important to remember that dictionary definitions are supposed to reflect usage. Answers.com offers a boatload of different definitions, most of which mention something about faith or the supernatural or at least something "sacred." Take their copy of Columbia, for example, which identifies three "basic" types of religion (well, one is "prereligious") and then says,Beyond these more elementary forms of religious expression there are what are commonly called the “higher religions.” Theologians and philosophers of religion agree that these religions embody a principle of transcendence, i.e., a concept, sometimes a godhead, that involves humans in an experience beyond their immediate personal and social needs, an experience known as “the sacred” or “the holy.” This clearly and directly contradicts the idea that there can be a religion without something transcendant, especially if their anonymous experts agree.
And while the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry has been discussed, that entry goes on to say:Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.
Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.” According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. Now this definition makes every "worldview" a religion, and so it's insanely broad.
The Wikipedia entry also quotes the Encyclopedia of Religion for its definition:In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture." Frankly, "depth dimensions of experience" is just word salad to me, and so the definition holds no weight.
Now, legally speaking, the Supreme Court has basically decided that it's not the government's place to determine what's a religion and what's not, so whatever it is that you "honestly believe" to be your religion is your religion in the eyes of the law. And for First Amendment and equal protection reasons, the legal definition includes atheism as a religion (even though, as famously said, that's like having a hobby of not collecting stamps). This sort of definition is really only useful inside a court of law, and only then in defending one's innocence at breaking some other law ("One of the tenets of my NASCAR religion is that I have to drive as fast as possible on Sundays, your Honor. I was up to about 97 and just getting ready to begin communing with The Earnhardt when Officer Numbnuts here pulled me over, violating my right to Free Exercise."). Legal definitions don't tend to mesh well with other realms of knowledge, anyway.
One of the problems may be with marf's adjective "recognized." Who's doing the recognizing when she says that Humanism is a "recognized religion?" The U.S. Government certainly isn't, but its adherents certainly are. Were I to be presented with Humanist documents from which words like "religion" have been stripped - and I knew nothing else about it - would I recognize (classify) it as a religion? What would I think of a high school graduation ceremony if I knew nothing about them? I'm sure both may look religious (meaning, "like a religion") at times...
...but "Go Fish" can look like poker, too.
(Edited for an inappropriate apostrophe.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2007 : 14:45:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Now, legally speaking, the Supreme Court has basically decided that it's not the government's place to determine what's a religion and what's not, so whatever it is that you "honestly believe" to be your religion is your religion in the eyes of the law. And for First Amendment and equal protection reasons, the legal definition includes atheism as a religion (even though, as famously said, that's like having a hobby of not collecting stamps). |
I was going to use almost this exact same example, but ran out of steam before I could address what constitutes a religion in the eyes of the law. Great points, Dave.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2007 : 17:30:00 [Permalink]
|
Wonderful, thoughtful post, H.H.! You got me thinking about this in ways I hadn't before.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2007 : 17:38:58 [Permalink]
|
Since I accept H.H.'s idea that the key is "faith," I'd like to suggest that in most cases where we have formerly used the word, "religion," we might be better off using the more-definable word, "faith." I am going to try to remember to do this, myself.
Call me faithless, if you will. But call me.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2007 : 10:05:13 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| What!? I have a whole section where I explain why skepticism is NOT a religion. |
Sure. But you then go on to define "unknowable" in such a way that you end up including science and skepticism in your definition of religion.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2007 : 14:21:25 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert.....
Your plea to understand the classical definition of "religion" as necessarily inclusive of The Skeptics Dictionary definition of "faith" is indeed eloquently written and powerfully persuasive.
To review. Carroll's definition:| Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. A non-rational belief is one which is contrary to the sum of evidence for that belief. A belief is contrary to the sum of evidence for a belief if there is overwhelming evidence against the belief, e.g., that the earth is flat, hollow or is the center of the universe. A belief is also contrary to the sum of evidence if the evidence seems equal both for and against the belief, yet one commits to one of two or more equally supported propositions. |
The somewhat more used M-W on-line says:| 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> |
It would seem that Carroll's definition would of necessity be included in that especially subset of the broader definition, and is properly found in a Skeptics dictionary!
I would think, then, that it would be appropriate for a person who chose to utilize the more inclusive M-W (and there are similar alternative definitions in many other general-use dictionaries) definition of the word "faith", to then speak of "religion" in a context that did not have any reference to non-rational beliefs.
You state:| For starters, the word religion is inherently tainted with such concepts as worship of unseen personalities or forces, belief in immaterial life essences which often survive death, and the belief that purely material processes cannot account for the Universe as it is today. To pretend that the word religion can be divorced from such baggage is ideological blindnes |
The point has been clearly made, elsewhere in this forum, that "religion" is frequently used in a colloquial sense without any reference to the classical meaning of the word. Actually, in that usage context, 'religion' can mean anything that the speaker wants it to mean, as long as it is made clear that there is not intent to use the word in its traditional (inclusive of Carroll's "Faith") meaning.
I believe that it is perfectly possible to say "sports are a religion to many" without divorcing the word from its "baggage" or suffering from ideological blindness. In fact, I submit that such constructions are used constantly in literature, in news commentary and in ordinary conversation. Frequently it is said that "X is Y", where X is a commonplace and Y is sacrosanct, as a colloquial shortcut to the full, explicit explanation of intended meaning. Much humor is developed out of this common use of the language!
So your commentary is directed to those that say that "Skepticism is a religion", if they are meaning and intending to convey the meaning that skepticism is to be understood in exactly the same way that Catholicism is understood to be a religion, inclusive of a Faith! And that commentary would be eminently correct and properly directed, as long as Carroll's definiton of faith holds.
But if I say that skepticism is similar to religion in that it is 'something that is believed especially with strong conviction', am I confusing the listener into understanding that my meaning is that Skepticism is a mind-set that necessarily requires a Faith (in Carrol's definition)?
I feel that the statement "Skepticism is a religion", shorn of context, could well be an inaccurate definition of the practice of Skepticism or Critical Thinking. But the same statement in a context of humor, or a general discussion of shibboleths, should be no more "insulting" to a Skeptic than "Football is a religion" would be to a sports fan (or fanatic, to use the complete word)
It seems to me that a irrefutably logical, totally inclusive, completely Critically Thought-Out argument as to why Carroll's definition of "faith" must be the only definition that the language will allow, needs to be made!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2007 : 15:10:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Actually, in that usage context, 'religion' can mean anything that the speaker wants it to mean, as long as it is made clear that there is not intent to use the word in its traditional (inclusive of Carroll's "Faith") meaning. |
That's true of any word. For example,The sky is garbage. And by "garbage," I mean "blue." Is there a reason to do this outside of slanging (where, 20 years ago, "bad" meant "good") or cryptography? Really, this sentence,Donate fish hummus turd by thirty ornithopter frank makes perfect sense if I were to give you the translation key, a dictionary of entirely new meanings for all those words. But is this a good way to communicate? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2007 : 15:19:09 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
I would think, then, that it would be appropriate for a person who chose to utilize the more inclusive M-W (and there are similar alternative definitions in many other general-use dictionaries) definition of the word "faith", to then speak of "religion" in a context that did not have any reference to non-rational beliefs.
|
There are already more appropriate words available for that use.
Also, word usage here (on the SFN) is mostly intended in the academic sense. This helps to clearly define words, and be able to then use those words to make equally clear distinctions. Which is the language mechanism that makes communication possible in the first place.
When we blur words and concepts, our ability to communicate in a clear and concise manner becomes impaired.
So yes, saying that football is a religion is perfectly acceptable in a literary or dramatic context. That type of word usage allows us to be poetic, artistic, and eloquent and can add great value to the written word! I don't think many would disagree with you on this point, as long as the context is clear.
But in this context, that of critical thinking, formal argument and skepticism, words necessarily must have a more clinical precision. We have to be able to make very clear distinctions, or we are wasting out time. So precise academic definitions are not only desired, but mandatory. The less precisely defined your words are, the less precise your arguments and conclusions become.
If I am doing drug research on the pill that is going to keep you alive for another 10-15 years, do you want my lab journal filled with vague poetic colloquialisms, or precise academic terminology?
The default context for a forum dedicated to skepticism is the academic one. Perhaps those of us who are longtime members here take that for granted, and maybe it isn't clear to new members. Here, in this context, the more precicely defined a word is, the better it is!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2007 : 17:18:57 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | Inclusiveness is a noble goal, except when it comes to vocabulary. For a word to mean anything at all, it has to designate something. |
I agree! Writers of dictionaries and encyclopedia look at usage to come up with definitions. Every once in a while there are words like "religion" and "art" which have no qualities that are both necessary and sufficient to all things labeled with that word. In such cases, the most accurate definitions describe the most common and significant qualities, while admitting that no one of these qualities is essential.
The objection people here are having with that kind of definition is that it does not exclude things which also fit such a general definition but which are not actually religions (such as philosophy clubs). Okay, that's fair, there is a problem. So how about this for a definition that is both inclusive, fully accurate when it comes to usage, and still designates only religions:
Religions are institutions which define themselves as such and which are recognized by other social institutions as such. They generally generally… (go into all the other tendencies we've discussed.)
This is where I ended up with art too: Art is that which is presented by someone as art. That is the only definition I've ever been able to come up with that doesn't exclude some groups' regular and real-life application of that word.
I started this conversation because I think the narrow definition of religion is overused to the point where it encourages severe confusion about and further marginalizes vast numbers of religious adherents. If people want to criticize supernatural beliefs (which I'm all for and would join in on btw), is it so much to ask that they say that?
| I understand that Marf tires of arguing whether something qualifies as art or not and simply prefers to jump into the discussion of what qualifies as good art—but this approach is particularly disastrous when applied to the topic of religion. |
I don't think it is ever disastrous to ask that when people criticize something that they criticize what is bothering them specifically rather than criticizing broader institutions and thereby denouncing things which don't apply.
| For starters, the word religion is inherently tainted with such concepts as worship of unseen personalities or forces, belief in immaterial life essences which often survive death, and the belief that purely material processes cannot account for the Universe as it is today. |
I agree that it is tainted, but not that it is inherently tainted. It is tainted in that way specifically because the most successful organized religions, especially in the West, have those characteristics. But why should minorities which are different become the target of guilt-by-association?
Religion is also associated with such concepts as morality and ethics, social networks for the purpose of helping each other in times of need, cathartic rituals, as well as reinforcing a shared ethic. Not only are these things not bad, they are very good! And in places where there either is no public or other secular institution doing the job or doing it sufficiently for certain individuals, religions can be a force for social benefit.
Because "religion" also has these very positive and powerful connotations that words and phrases such as "secular fellowship", "association", and "community group" don't culturally match up to, liberal adherents such as the founders of Ethical Culture have all the more reason to reclaim the word. These dissenting minorities need to be recognized by t |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2007 : 23:29:10 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
I started this conversation because I think the narrow definition of religion is overused to the point where it encourages severe confusion about and further marginalizes vast numbers of religious adherents. If people want to criticize supernatural beliefs (which I'm all for and would join in on btw), is it so much to ask that they say that?
|
You have defined religion to mean whatever someone says is a religion, is a religion.
The word then becomes useless, devoid of meaning and value. The entire purpose of definitions is to create distinctions. This is what gives language its communicative power.
Art, I would agree, is in the realm of the purely subjective. You say some pile of shit molded in clay is art, I say its a pile of shit molded in clay. That argument ends there, as there is no possible way to resolve it.
This is not the case with most words, including "religion". But what you have done with your definition is reduce the concept to mean nothing at all. If we don't have in-context objective definitions of a given word, then that word can be applied to anything at all! My motorcycle club, your profession, my loose association of friends who scuba and spearfish regularly.
What is the point of altering the definition of a word so it means that little? None. Especially not is this context, skepticism and critical thinking. Is there anything at all that you couldn't label as religion (like art) with your definition?
No.
So your definition must be discarded as not useful here. Defining religion as a 100% subjective concept serves no purpose. Besides, all religions (not your definition, and not as a defining trait) make some assertions of fact.
You can't claim somehting is 100% subjective and then turn around and use it to make claims of fact. Just doesn't work.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 00:35:23 [Permalink]
|
The question really is, if we're going to define something subjectively, then why should something that objectively shares only the ceremonialism and a fraction of the ethic - and none of the faith - of the "big four" examples of religion also be called a religion? If "under God" in the Pledge is "ceremonial deism," then I propose that people who practice the rituals of Humanism have a ceremonious ethic. And if they don't practice the rituals, then all they've got is the ethic.
The majority of definitions we've seen of the word "religion" include reference to faith or something numinous, so they already leave Humanism as "not religion." Same with Ethical Culture. But then some people will take some of the tenets of these ethics on faith (assuming, rather than reasoning, that the goals of the ethic are good and worthwhile), making them religions again. And some of us who might share the ethics for pragmatic reasons - adopting an identical worldview on purely utilitarian grounds - may not want to be thought of as "religious."
Mooner's right that there's been a meaning problem. When I, for one, have used the term "religion" around here, I've always meant something that includes faith. Not necessarily in anything supernatural, because people can have faith in what should be empirical matters, also (for example, faith in the essential goodness of humans). Check out what Wikipedia has to say about Ethical Culture:The movement does consider itself a religion in the sense thatReligion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors and emotions which bind human beings to something beyond their individual selves and foster in its adherents a sense of humility and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one's world-view and requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which transcends personal interests. The Ethical Culture 2003 ethical identity statement states:It is a chief belief of Ethical religion that if we relate to others in a way that brings out their best, we will at the same time elicit the best in ourselves. By the "best" in each person, we refer to his or her unique talents and abilities that affirm and nurture life. We use the term "spirit" to refer to a person's unique personality and to the love, hope, and empathy that exists in human beings. When we act to elicit the best in others, we encourage the growing edge of their ethical development, their perhaps as-yet untapped but inexhaustible worth. My first reaction on reading that was "what a bunch of new-age crappola," but the movement is clearly faith-based in that this stuff is so vaguely worded as to be untestable.
And what had I said in the previous thread about transcendance? The word is right there in the Ethical Culture definition of religion. The founder of Ethical Culture was an American Transcendentalist, one of those fighting against some deterministic, empirical philosophies of the 19th century. The roots of Ethical Culture clearly stand opposed to the sort of skepticism we try to practice here, and the position of the movement as late as 2003 is simply unamenable to skeptical investigation. I would go so far as to use the word 'incompatible' but I'm not sure I want to stir that definitional hornet's nest again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 08:08:03 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Who's doing the recognizing when she says that Humanism is a "recognized religion?" The U.S. Government certainly isn't, but its adherents certainly are. |
Humanism is legally regarded as a religion. The Humanist Society is categorized as a "religious organization" for the purposes of officiating weddings.
Also, in the transcript of the Supreme Court Case Torasco v. Watkins we see Judge Hugo Black in a footnote applying the broad definition of religion: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488
| Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. |
The Humanist Manifesto was originally written to establish it as a religion, similar to Ethical Culture. Over the years, more and more Humanists have been changing their minds and saying it is not a religion, and eventually some of them broke away and created the label "Secular Humanist". There is no difference in the literal beliefs between the two groups. And while Wikipedia says that religious Humanists add rituals to the practice of our worldview, in reality, most of the rituals of religious Humanists are the same as Secular Humanists. The only genuine difference at all is that Secular Humanists agree with Dude and Humbert's definition of "religion". Frankly, I think it is because they want to feel they are special, more enlightened, and more out-of-the-box. And they conveniently never mention that there have been other naturalistic religions in history and still are today.
Humanists shedding the label "religion" has been directly in reaction to Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians attacks on our worldview and institutions. Fundies have used the label "religion" against Humanists and created confusion between what is a secular society and what is capital-H Humanists pushing our specific worldview on the public. Paul Kurtz and the damn self-declared Secular Humanists have compounded this problem by putting the word "secular" in their name. Secular government and secular society means religiously neutral. It doesn't mean that private institutions and personal individuals can't be religious. But when an explicitly atheistic organization puts the word "Secular" in the name of their worldview, that confuses things for a lot of people. Then again, they did have a precedent for it since "secular" has been applied to individuals as a euphemism for atheists and agnostics, such as in the plays of Bernard Shaw.
Again, from the start my point has been that religion is not a simple concept. It is not easily definable or understandable. And that makes is especially susceptible to manipulation by groups with a particular agenda.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 11:38:52 [Permalink]
|
Again, if you define religion to mean whatever you declare, then why not just use MARKLAR!
The word marklar stems from an alien race named the Marklars, which appeared in an episode of the animated series South Park. The Marklars use the word marklar as a generic word, similar to a pronoun, that can refer with specificity to any thing, place, person, idea, concept, or otherwise represent the meaning of any noun, including proper nouns.
Marklar: "You see, young marklar. Those marklars don't care about marklar marklar. They just want to take your marklar and marklar their own marklar. The only marklar for this is to marklar."
A word that can be substituted for any noun.
Last marklar, I took my marklar to the marklar, and we had marklar for marklar. Then, I went to marklar.
|
While your definition of religion isn't quite so absurd, you are certainly approaching Marklar territory.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 12:49:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Humanism is legally regarded as a religion. |
Yes, I'm well aware of that, as the legal definition of religion is even more broad than the one you've put forth. The courts reject your "generally regarded as" clause, and instead stick with a definition almost identical to yours for art: if the adherents "honestly believe" that they're a part of a religion, then they are. But to offer equal protections under the law, the courts have also come to the absurd conclusion that atheism is a religion.
The current interpretation of the First Amendment puts the courts into the bizarre position of having to treat every person as if they have a religion, whether they do or not (the question under discussion here, really), and so I believe we're forced to reject the courts' definition. We don't use the legal definition of "evidence" or "truth," either, so it's not like there's no precedent for this. In matters of law, then we're forced to switch contexts and use whatever definitions the courts have found necessary, but this thread shouldn't do so, other than to note the courts' as-broad-as-possible position, forced upon them by legal necessity.Also, in the transcript of the Supreme Court Case Torasco v. Watkins we see Judge Hugo Black in a footnote applying the broad definition of religion: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488| Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. |
|
Yes, and I don't give a fig about "belief in the existence of God" when so far as I can tell, Buddhism, Taoism and EC (at least) all still rely on articles of faith. Not faith in a deity, but faith that one or more unprovable assertions are true.
Simply having "tenets of faith" is what I would use to distinguish religion from non-religion. It would keep Scientology, Buddhism and EC all firmly within the "religion" box where they belong, but exclude chess and motorcycle clubs. I haven't read the Humanist Manifesto in a long, long time, so I can't say there.| Again, from the start my point has been that religion is not a simple concept. It is not easily definable or understandable. And that makes is especially susceptible to manipulation by groups with a particular agenda. |
Actually, I think you've got that backwards: it's because religion has been usurped and distorted by groups with peculiar agendas that it is difficult now to define. For example, what motivation was there to intentionally found Humanism as a religion, instead of just an ethic or philosophy? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2007 : 20:14:38 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert.....
I stated, among other things:| It seems to me that a irrefutably logical, totally inclusive, completely Critically Thought-Out argument as to why Carroll's definition of "faith" must be the only definition that the language will allow, needs to be made! |
Do you have one?
I feel it has to be made to validate your argument! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What is religion?
