Dear Banjo,

So you did not present your own definition only your own view about what is the essence of Geertz’s definition. As said above, since I am not an anthropologist I cannot offer arguments for or against this, although I doubt Geertz meant it as something that could have a multitude of applications as a “brainwashing” technique.

So you have to take the “definition” as you can understand it, the same as I do. The “300 definitions” are not mutually exclusive - as it would be in case of mathematics - but rather they mutually enhance our understanding of the complex phenomenon.

.

Dear George,

.

« I doubt Geertz meant it as something that could have a multitude of applications as a “brainwashing” technique »

I’m sure he didn’t.
.

« So you have to take the “definition” as you can understand it, the same as I do. The “300 definitions” are not mutually exclusive - as it would be in case of mathematics - but rather they mutually enhance our understanding of the complex phenomenon »

Agreed.

I imagine that it is just another instance of the antagonistic effect of well-meant ideology producing an unintentional result.

A classical example of this phenomenon is the campaign which was organised in Hanoi under French colonial rule, prior to the Second World War. The campaign was launched to eradicate rats whose numbers had reached plaque proportions. People were paid a bounty for each rat pelt handed in but instead of eradicating rats it prompted the Vietnamese to farm them.

And so I hear the following words of wisdom ringing in my ears :

« … forgive them; for they know not what they do …»

.

It also brings to mind that wonderful story of Hans Christian Andersen: “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. It’s worth reflecting upon.

Here is a remarkable, modern rendition, that even the most brilliant anthropologist would be capable of seeing :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CX1Dx-5k1k

.

There is no definition of religion we can all agree on. We can’t even agree on whether a particular phenomenon is a religion. Germany does not regard Scientology as a religion. Australia does. I seem to remember Yuyutsu denying that Judaism is a religion. Most people would disagree.

Popper’s “The Open Society and Its Enemies” mentions a study of the effect of shifting dunes on a seaside village. The study referred to ‘mounds of sand between certain heights’. This made it unnecessary to define a dune. Avoid unnecessary definitions.

Sells found it objectionable when I mentioned the Crusades, the Inquisition and other deleterious effects of religion. He only wanted to consider the good features. However, I do not feel a sense of the sacred is a good feature. I feel nothing should be regarded as sacred. Seeing something as sacred makes it immune to question. IMHO everything should be subject to question.

There is an Irish prayer about Sellick’s religion:

“Fág uaim do eaglais ghallda
Is do chreideamh gan bonn gan bhrí
Mar gurb é is cloch bonn dóibh
Magairle Anraoi Rí."

The Irish quatrain is by Antoine O Reachtabhra and can be translated as:

Away with your foreign religion
And your baseless meaningless faith
For the only rock it is built upon
Is the bollocks of King Henry the Eighth.

Apparently the Irish sense of what is sacred does not correspond to that of Sellick. Not only does one religion differ from another, the sacred of one religion differs from the sacred of another.

Wittgenstein said, “For a truly religious man nothing is tragic.”

Religion can give one the strength to bear the vicissitudes of life.

He also said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

That’s why I can’t define religion.

Dear david f,

One has to distinguish between religion (no plurals) and a religion (e.g. Christianity or Islam).

In order to speak of the former you have to “define” it: as I pointed out above, unlike in mathematics, there can be more than one “definition” of the abstract concept studied differently, but not mutually exclusively, by the “six (or more) blind men”. If you can’t define it - or can’t accept any or more of the many available “definitions” - then indeed Wittgenstein's maxim “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” applies.

On the other hand, you can usually speak about a particular religion, e.g. Christianity, without having to say what you mean by the word.

Dear George,

It is even difficult to speak of a particular religion. Religions change with time and circumstance. Christianity differs one sect to another. Catholicism is far from a monolith. In reading the history of Christianity one becomes aware of the many schisms, the effects of political accidents on the acceptance of doctrine and, unfortunately, the lack of knowledge of many Christians of that history. The 'eternal truths' may be only opinion of religionists at a particular time and place.

Religion has supported and opposed slavery. God is claimed to support a nation's armies while the opposing forces make the same claim.

One of the worst effects of religion is the certainty which one feels in justification of a wrong act.

Yeats says it well:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Dear David,

I believe that you have read my posts here long enough to know that I reject the idea as if God exists. It is therefore not for me to answer for those who claim that He does. Since God does not exist, it follows that He does not exist anywhere, including in the human mind. Since you claim that he does exist there, it is you who actually claim that God exists.

---

Dear Banjo,

Yes, man is part of nature, but within nature, man has the hardware which supports a combination of certain faculties (i.e. rationality, emotionality, ingenuity and will-power) that other bodies seem to lack and by the use of those faculties one can accelerate one's progress toward God.

Neither rocks nor man can un-become part of nature and neither rocks nor man are responsible for anything - yet WE are responsible, for identifying ourselves as rocks, plants, animals, or humans as the case may be. Though we seem to be IN this world, we are not OF this world.

Nothing is different from God, although that's how it appears: the apparent separation is merely an illusion, hence the very concept of "creation" is illusory. An (imperfect) analogy is the dream-state: nothing in our dreams is real, it's all in our minds and even the existence of a dream is an illusion. Within a dream, one could speak of some "creator" who made all this, but in fact that "creator" is YOU, the dreamer! Similarly, though even this analogy is imperfect, you would be closer to the truth by conceiving the world as [one of] God's dream[s], which is in fact YOUR dream.

---

Dear Pogi,

I am not contemptuous at all towards those who believe that God has attributes. Believing so is a common and valid religious-method which I respect greatly and has lead billions closer to God. One needn't study physics and understand the sun's thermonuclear reactions in order to enjoy its light and warmth.

---

Apologies, I'll be travelling in the next few days, so it may be difficult for me to respond.