Next watch "What is Sikhism?" kzread.info/dash/bejne/f4unpc6JiK-noKQ.html

@gachatube5739

4 жыл бұрын

First

@xanderbrown3602

2 жыл бұрын

@@gachatube5739 cap this was four years ago

@TheWorldTeacher

2 жыл бұрын

@@xanderbrown3602, just let him bask in the glory of his delusion, Mr. Brown. ;)

@Rhythm_Renegades

7 ай бұрын

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 KZread 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."

@ReligionForBreakfast

6 жыл бұрын

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."

@Danquebec01

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@hornypervert3781

6 жыл бұрын

Becca Hawkins A relationship with fictional people is a religion.

@txvoltaire

5 жыл бұрын

But they never say that when the 1st Amendment is being discussed!

@faithlesshound5621

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

Always a pleasure. Thanks for your work.

Your channel is amazing! Thanks for all the great, free info...

Loved the smash brothers shout out in this and I feel like I learned a lot.

This channel is one of the best to understand religion, on a scholarly perspective.

@TheWorldTeacher

2 жыл бұрын

What is the VERY best religion channel?

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 KZread. Please do keep up the great work.

@ReligionForBreakfast

8 жыл бұрын

+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.

@TheWorldTeacher

2 жыл бұрын

Are you a THEIST? 🤔 If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓

@TheMikeGep

10 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@howtubeable

5 жыл бұрын

Good definition.

@BlacksmithTWD

5 жыл бұрын

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?

@mercedessilbano2656

3 жыл бұрын

Thats good

Absolutely brilliant, thank you!

I like the cluster "family resemblance" definition of religion you used in this video. It makes more sense and it's unbiased.

@ReligionForBreakfast

8 жыл бұрын

Honestly its the only "definition" that makes sense to me. Religion is just too diverse to capture in a single definition.

@mug9591

8 жыл бұрын

+ReligionForBreakfast Indeed

@KingOfGamesss

8 жыл бұрын

I have defined 'Religion'....the problem is people don't realize there is a difference between 'Religion' and 'Religous'...they are two different things.

@KingOfGamesss

8 жыл бұрын

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"

@KingOfGamesss

8 жыл бұрын

Stunned silence...you're both shocked I was able to define Religion in one sentence.

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.

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 think everything would just be a little bit better if everybody watched your videos

@studyofreligions3465

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/nYGW18GicdKoj5M.html For comparative study of Religions Visit my channel.

@ideaedesing1433

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/aZhlmKWph9OTn84.html

@billdefranza4927

2 жыл бұрын

I'll second that.

@Lost_Scarf

2 жыл бұрын

Definitely

“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”

great video, thanks man

you re so so awesome thank you for your glorious content ! ! ! ! ! !

Nice video as usual!

Thank you. Simplified.

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!

@ReligionForBreakfast

8 жыл бұрын

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.

@sarahharris2729

8 жыл бұрын

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

@ReligionForBreakfast

8 жыл бұрын

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.

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.

I remember in my religious studies intro class in college I read a definition of religion as “an orientation toward an ultimate reality.” Meaning religion is any system that explains the ultimate nature of how things work in the cosmos. So that can mean that the system will give guidance on how to act within the cosmos to have happiness, success, etc but it doesn’t have to.

@MysticOceanDollies

25 күн бұрын

That definition can easily include many philosophies that we do not consider religion, but it’s still one of the better definitions I’ve seen.

I think that's all very well said. Thanks. 👍

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?

@TheWorldTeacher

2 жыл бұрын

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”.

Great Content.

heres my definition a set of coherent ideas that overcome your mind and your actions reflect those ideas

Is there a modern/more accepted version of the religion evolution theory? I find that very interesting.

Great video, but: What about the definition of religion as a cultural system by Clifford Geertz?

This video actually made me wide minded in term of religion

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 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

i appreciate the Tatooine poster on the wall behind him

pretty useful thanks

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 ?

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

Great info

Hi everyone. The time is yours... Enjoy your day! 🎆

I was wondering if you had a source for the Robert Audi list of family resemblances? I tried to find the source for it but it looks like a lot of what I found attributed it to William Alston (1967), who may have done some work with Audi.

Just wondering if you have read, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, by Gordin Clark. The first chapter is dedicated to answering this question

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

Good job.

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.

@RareSeldas

2 жыл бұрын

here it is: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hYNhmdOBfNOaesY.html

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.

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.

@joehinman1026

5 жыл бұрын

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.

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.

Well done

Thank you in the name of every anthropology student.

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?

@ReligionForBreakfast

6 жыл бұрын

+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.

@MegaBanne

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@michaelsteinle

6 жыл бұрын

that would include pretty much all of science, wouldn't it? I still like that idea tho

@dragonwarsro

4 жыл бұрын

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!

@glof2553

3 жыл бұрын

Electro-Cute “in philosophy no one is wrong” Today I learned logical fallacies aren’t real, it’s just “differences in perspective”

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.

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!

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.

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.

Hello sir please cite the book of robert audi where he stated the characteristics of religion in the approach of family resemblance thank you :) need asap help

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

@gavtoye9605

3 жыл бұрын

@religionforbreakfast Cheers

Thumbs up for the food for thought; but, you didn't convince me that religion is subjective and blurry.

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.

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.

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.

In Arabic counterpart of word religion "din" means "dept"

@faithlesshound5621

3 жыл бұрын

An abbreviation for department? Depth? Debt? Depot? Deputy ...

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.

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 like watching your videos on 0.75 playback speed so I can get more of what you say.

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?

@faithlesshound5621

3 жыл бұрын

Society may accept actions resulting from shared beliefs, whether rational or not, whereas it may not tolerate your acting on your own belief.

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?

@onisuryaman408

3 жыл бұрын

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

3 жыл бұрын

Here purpose of life in Islam: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iYd5p7OtiLHHk9Y.html Anything not make sense?

@rogermetzger7335

3 жыл бұрын

@@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?

@apaislam5465

3 жыл бұрын

@@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: kzread.info/dron/L1gM3QMrmPp2hPqlywJjLA.html

@rogermetzger7335

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@iosefka7774

2 жыл бұрын

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?

I'm currently writing a book on religion and a look at what exactly religion is and what gods are. The basic idea is that religion is a system of transmitting a social group's acquired knowledge across generations. It is a proto-science and an educational system before it was formalized. God's need not be a part of a religion, but when they are, they serve as a personification of the society's coalesced knowledge.

@siddhantdubey7689

11 ай бұрын

did you finish it?

@Arucaurd

11 ай бұрын

@siddhantdubey7689 The notes were all done, I just needed to organize them into a logical, coherent order and it was good. I got rejected by a publisher because it was religious but would upset traditional Christians, even though it ultimately confirms God's existence as an abstract. Then I lost a majority of the notes during a tornado. Destroyed my laptop and my physical notes. Some day I'd love to come back to it and self publish.

Great exposé!

Religion a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

@ReligionForBreakfast

7 жыл бұрын

What about a single person who invents their own belief system? A cult leader for example? I'm not saying yours is a bad definition, but I can find exceptions to your "generally agreed upon by a number of persons" phrase.

@themirrorofthetruth2055

7 жыл бұрын

ReligionForBreakfast Jesus was also called a cult leader,! By the Roman emperors.! a cult is a Bunch of people that do together Some rituals and practices. That there have inventive Them self, but that is not the proved that this being truth.! and therefore is this a euphemism for One religion..' only than used by the ruling class of One society to demonize, one particular religion that the Ruling class Dislike.! So this seems to me, that the two being in Basic the same.

@MegaBanne

6 жыл бұрын

ReligionForBreakfast If a person invents their own belief system then it is not a religion. A system of beliefs and a religion is not the same. The first one is what is says and the other one is a social structure.

@chris-solmon4017

6 жыл бұрын

ReligionForBreakfast - cults ARE religions.

@stephengibson2912

5 жыл бұрын

How is he a cult leader if he's a single person with an invented belief system? Who's he leading? Himself? You gave an alternate definition. Take a break, let reality catch up to you, and stop filling your head with pseudo-academic nonsense. I had to do the same.

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?

@americanliberal09

2 жыл бұрын

*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.

Sir I want to ask which community first used this word actually . I believe Christians are the first

I like your glasses 🤓

In Hebrew the word religion is "death" which means a set of laws (not necessarily religious).

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.

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.

"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.

@TheWorldTeacher

2 жыл бұрын

I'm afraid you going to parse-out that one for me. :D

Once you are free from all religions then you can be religious” -sinkiy

oh my god J.Z. Smith died Dec. 30th 2017... rest in peace

@ReligionForBreakfast

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I've been meaning to make a tribute video. Huge influence on this field.

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.

@useodyseeorbitchute9450

5 жыл бұрын

Positive thinking? American dream? ;)

@cernowaingreenman

5 жыл бұрын

william w, I think your definition fits the idea of "spirituality" better. "Religion" tends to be a corporate activity.

@shridharhegde1272

3 жыл бұрын

For many, a set of good psychological counseling sessions can do that job. So, can we call it religious practice?

@williamw3501

3 жыл бұрын

@@shridharhegde1272 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.

@shridharhegde1272

3 жыл бұрын

@@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'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.

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.

Durkheim’s definition kinda falls apart when considering hermit religions

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.

The one unifying trait of religion is a Belief of a super Natural Being Teaching people how to live the good life.

@faithlesshound5621

3 жыл бұрын

Not all Buddhists believe in a supernatural being: they may, but it's not required of them.

ok i know

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.

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.

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.

When you talk my brain keeps drawing a kippah on your head. Not sure why

When being chased away like birds for being a nuisance becomes a religious experience and you say things like," Do not thump the book of G" Quan" The even older Shadows call it the cycle of things. That's why they play this game. They're in it to win it. Its their sandbox. What do you want?

“Statement of beliefs” I guess

@shridharhegde1272

3 жыл бұрын

Then almost everything is a religion. Eg: You believe in yourself or your existence? You're religious!

YOU WIN!

@nadia_margaret_3458

3 жыл бұрын

🛸

Totoo at tama lahat ang rehiyon ay isang commiunutiy hindi isang uri ng paniniwala sa sariling kapakanan

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.

@cooljunky

4 жыл бұрын

What is it like on the inside?

Here's my definition: "The shared beliefs about the supernatural between an aggregate of people that are believed for social cohesion."

@cinammonstyx7622

4 жыл бұрын

But there are some religions that don't have supernatural elements, or don't have elements that their practitioners would consider supernatural anyway. Or religions that one can participate in regardless of whether they believe in those supernatural elements.

@shridharhegde1272

3 жыл бұрын

Electromagnetic waves were "Supernatural" in your experience until its existence was verified by scientific methods. So, by your definition, if you believed in the possibility or the existence of radio waves before 1887, you were religious but then one fine morning after it was proved, suddenly you are factual and being scientific.

@aspieatheist6040

3 жыл бұрын

@@shridharhegde1272 But that belief is not believed by an aggregate of people for social cohesion, in any instance, scientists didn't look at radio waves as "Supernatural" until 1887. It just looked at it as something that science can't describe, just how quantum mechanics is looked at now.

I have been thinking recently that any particular religion is itself a 'philosophy.' A way of viewing the world or explaining the world and then from that knowledge, dictating how to behave in the world. Perhaps this is too general, or I haven't bothered to properly understand what 'philosophy' is. But this is my current working definition of all religions, they are sub-branches (rightly or wrongly) of philosophy in general. Many religions prefer to view the universe as being created by god(s) and act according to their 'reasoned' beliefs as to what that/those god/s want/s. (I say 'reasoned' here in parentheses because many will argue such a view lacks reason, not because I necessarily think it lacks reason). You might attempt to argue against the fundamentals/tenets of any particular religion, but proponents might simply not accept your criticisms and continue believing the world is what their religion propounds and will go on practising their customs according to those beliefs. I'm not against religions or supernatural beliefs (I think I am Agnostic), I just accept that people each have their own view of the world and act (including certain cultural practices/customs) according to those beliefs. Is this definition too general? Doesn't cover all the options?

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.

So it's a word we should delete from society? It means nothing.

Actually I think religion is one of the personal way to connect with the creator( GOD ).. and everyone have the right to select their way..as it's the matter of father and his child..the one who created all of us...

@Danquebec01

6 жыл бұрын

What about non-theistic religions? What about polytheistic religions?

A more interesting question is; are we all, descendants of "Adam and Eve"; then the Noah family? If so; then everybody is " Religious "?

@tallboi3139

3 жыл бұрын

i agree with your statement/question