AJ Philips,

Here we go again. If you call highlighting my remark that probably this is what a third person had in mind, so be it. I agree that no dictionary is perfect but doubt that you know better than those “people at Oxford” how to compose an authoritative dictionary, what it should or should not contain.

I also agree than some posts here are written “to denigrate the person/people that (they were) directed towards”, be they religious or non-religious, theists or atheists, etc. I tend to ignore offensive posts directed at my worldview, and I think so should you.

Finally, I am not an expert on philosophy of religion, even less on how to summarise in a reasonably concise dictionary how the word "religion" is used in the heaps of literature dealing with it. And, I am afraid, from what you have written neither are you. So I think we should leave it at that - you have your favourite dictionary (dictionaries), I have mine.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have to agree with Ponder that the Census Form is not an invitation to write a philosophical (psychological etc) essay on some term mentioned in the question, e.g. religion, but to tick off one of the offered alternative answers (or, in exceptional cases, suggest an additional alternative).

It's amazing what an innate fear of death will make normally rational people believe.

It also makes them do some incredibly evil things and provides an ongoing excuse for their personal prejudices.

The only remotely positive thing religion provides is an occasional sense of community and some degree of consolation - otherwise it's poison and because it's based entirely on the salvation of the self - also totally amoral.

In the end it's their own chance at eternal life adherents are working toward - nobody else's.

Science made people fly. Religion made them fly into buildings.

George,

I haven’t claimed that I know better than the people at Oxford. I have, however, clearly outlined, from multiple angles, why it is incorrect to treat the third definition of religion that you listed as equally formal as the first. Which is why I have suggested that Oxford qualify that definition as with ‘Informal’, ‘Slang’, or ‘Derogatory’, just as they describe other definitions of words that have multiple meanings and senses with ‘Noun’, ‘Adjective’, ‘Law’, ‘Slang’, etc. Take the word ‘matter’ for example. It has three additional senses: ‘Printing’, ‘Logic’, and ‘Law’. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/matter)

If you disagree, then please explain to me how the third definition is equally valid to the first when it is only used colloquially, in jest, or in a derogative manner. Why would -isms such as atheism, environmentalism, or secularism not be officially classified as religions by any serious government body if the third definition were equally valid to the first? Appealing to the authority of those at Oxford or questioning my knowledge of the philosophy of religion, without explaining why my reasoning is wrong, is fallacious.

<<I also agree than some posts here are written “to denigrate the person/people that (they were) directed towards”, be they religious or non-religious, theists or atheists, etc.>>

You seem to have missed my point. It’s obvious that some posts here are written to denigrate and belittle others or their beliefs. What I was getting at, however, was that when this is done by labelling other’s beliefs/interests/pursuits as ‘religions’, it demonstrates why the third definition is less formal, and not to be taken as seriously as the first definition.

At the end of the day, a statement from an individual that labels their most hated -ism as a ‘religion’, cannot be taken as seriously as those using the word ‘religion’ to reference actual religions, and I think I have provided ample reasoning as to why this should be reflected in a dictionary definition. Indeed, it already appears that those at Oxford agree with me to at least some extent given the numbering system and layout that they’ve used.

Dear George,

Of course, the census form is not an invitation for anything, but a dictate from the regime, demanding personal information. It is best (and legal) to not answer this particular "religion" question at all and if possible, to avoid filling the census altogether.

Now if you do end up filling the census, then there comes the interesting moral question, whether one is obliged to tell the truth to tyrants (for example, whether it's wrong to tell Pharaoh that the newborn is a girl, so he survives). Without getting into the difficult subject-matter, if your answer is 'No', then indeed you may tick any box, who cares.

If you do however believe in truth-telling, even to a tyrant, then you want to make sure that your answer is correct. Saying "I am not aware of having" is always safer in the sense that it reduces the risk of telling an untruth. Say the question was "Do you have diabetes? If so, which type?", then even if you saw a doctor recently, how can you tell that you didn't just get it in the last 5 minutes? so it's best to tick/write "Not that I'm aware of".

I do understand that some people would not agree with me that nothing can exist which has no religion - fair enough and it might be too philosophical for many, but why not cater for ordinary people who stand fast in their principle of truth-telling and rather say "I don't know" in order to remain on the safe side? What's there to lose? "I don't know" is also a good answer for those who are hesitating and unsure whether and/or which religion they hold.

Politicians unfortunately, being habitual liars, cannot even conceive of the difficulty which truth-telling people face when they have to tick one of several incorrect answers.

Shame really; reading these posts is a bleak walk through a tortured landscape of ruined heritage and culture!
Decadent times give birth to decadent monsters!

Space prevents my answering each one of you but I’m noticing some trends in your responses.

1. Ignoring the extended definitions I gave beyond the 1997 Macquarie Dictionary (large 3rd ed). I included information from eminent NT scholar who has taught at Oxford University, Prof N T Wright and also by Michael Bird and James Anderson.

2. There was a range of logical fallacies committed (this is a limited number of examples):
(a) Appeal to Ridicule (‘Putting your religion on the census form just tells us that you are incapable of making sense of life and have resorted to some pre-packaged explanation for it all’, phanto Tues; (b) Red Herring Fallacy (Plantagenet, Tues, THOR);
(c) Genetic Fallacy (Cobber the hound, Tues ‘A poor argument poorly made, well worthy of a PHD in religious studies’);
(d) Ad hominem Fallacy (Suseonline, Tues, ‘Especially the far-right loonie-toons’). All of these involve fallacious reasoning.

3. Jardine (Tues): ‘Everything – every human action – amounts to worldview in action. If you go up the shop to buy some milk, that, according to your definition, is “religion”…. This means your theory is wrong. And useless’. For you to reach that conclusion, you didn’t carefully read the contents I gave of the meaning of religion and worldview.

4. Shadow Minister (Tues): You say that ‘most of us simply don't believe in anything, and don't give a crap what anyone else believes as long as they keep it to themselves’. If that were the case, you wouldn’t be making your comments here. Your argument is self-defeating.

Many of you disagree with the perspective I have presented. I didn’t expect much support or unanimity, but I thank you for engaging with the content of my article with OLO (contd).

Spencer