Dear david f,

Please note the “usually” in my last sentence.

The difference between a definition (that you simply accept or ignore) and a statement (theorem) that you can agree with or ask for a proof of, is clear-cut only in mathematics. However, even outside maths one ought to be able to distinguish between a “definition” of e.g. religion, and a statement about it (where instead of proof one speaks of arguments for or against what the statement claims).

I know that for many people it is hard to make that distinction. They offer their own world view preferences (beliefs) when only a “definition”, that reflects what is known about the phenomenon, is sought. Admittedly, this knowledge is also subjective, hence the “six blind men”.

My last couple of posts here were about clarity of language not about defending or condemning this or that religion or religion as such, whichever "definition" one prefers.

.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word religion means : « the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods ».

In “Of the Nature of the Gods”, Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), considered to be a model of Classic Latin, had this to say (book 2, section 28, page 71) :

« … for our ancestors, as well as the philosophers, have separated superstition from religion. They have prayed whole days and sacrificed, that their children might survive them (ut superstites essent,) were called superstitious, which word became afterwards more general; but they who diligently perused, and, as we may say, read or practised over again, all the duties relating to the worship of the Gods, were called religiosi, religious, from relegendo “reading over again, or practising;” as elegantes, elegant, ex eligendo, “from choosing, making a good choice;” diligentes, diligent, ex diligendo, “from attending on what we love;” intelligentes, intelligent, from understanding, for the signification is derived in the same manner. Thus are the words superstitious and religious understood; the one being a term of reproach, the other of commendation. »

There is no consensus among scholars on the etymology of the word religion. Some of the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and some modern writers trace its etymology to religare "to bind fast". In this sense, religion links people together. It acts as a catalyst in engendering and maintaining social and political cohesion.

Hence its importance for political leaders who have promoted and exploited it from time immemorial and continue to do so, within the limits of applicable secular law and in so far as it is applied.

In his Blackfriars Lecture at the Australian Catholic University in 2014, Tim Wilson, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, observed that :

« Freedom of religion is a close ally and friend of the absolute freedoms of thought and conscience ... Equally, it is closely allied to freedom of expression »

Though he did not press the point, religion is also closely associated with intolerance and bigotry.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

Religious discrimination, persecution and war are by no means things of the past and there is no end in sight. In fact, they seem to be getting worse.

The overall balance sheet of religion on the planetary level is clearly negative. The world would be better off without it. But there is no unified global organisation of religion on the planetary level, no code of ethics common to all, no provision for mediation of inter-religious conflicts and no effective disciplinary mechanisms. Religion as a profession has made no attempt to implement any form of autoregulation.

Not only is there very little or no coordination, exchange of information or communication between religions, the situation is often not much better within individual religions. They are poorly organised and operate in a shroud of secrecy.

Nevertheless, the appeal of religion to the masses is considerable, particularly among the poor and the uneducated. Its message is simple: have faith in your god or gods, follow the teachings of your religion and you will receive protection, relief from your sufferings, comfort and the reward of eternal life with your loved ones.

Faith was the strategy that primeval man devised to pacify his early hostile environment. It brought him hope and comfort when he was terrified by the ferocity of natural phenomena that he neither understand nor controlled. He invented gods, worshiped them and offered them sacrifices in exchange for their pacification and benevolence.

That was the rock on which our modern-day religion was built but despite its subsequent development and refinement, the basic concept no longer holds true. It has been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired of the workings of nature.

The initial religious concept can be discarded but many would have difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of daily life without some form of faith. A new, credible safe haven must be found for faith.

That is the challenge facing humanity today. Religion will have to rise to the occasion if it wants to continue to serve humanity (and continue to be served by humanity).

.

Dear George,

The reason I brought in the example of the study of the dunes cited by Popper is that I think neither definitions nor proofs are the important descriptors of religion. Religion is a complex phenomenon existing in many forms in many societies. In this case the Bible’s recipe for evaluation I think cannot be improved on.

Matthew 7:16 In the King James Version of the Bible: Ye shall know them by their fruits.

What do religions do? What they do defines them.

Dear George,

The reason I brought in the example of the study of the dunes cited by Popper is that I think neither definitions nor proofs are the important descriptors of religion. Religion is a complex phenomenon existing in many forms in many societies. In this case the biblical recipe for evaluation I think cannot be improved on.

Matthew 7:16 In the King James Version of the Bible: Ye shall know them by their fruits.

What do religions do? That defines them.

Dear david f,

>> What do religions do? That defines them.<<

Yes, this refers to one group among the “300” possible “definitions” (Emile Durkheim?).
[I also think that Mt 7:16 is about judgement not definition.]