Religion

[DLH]

With most things, especially spiritual things, it is important to look at them from the perspective of what they are compared to what they were and are supposed to be. Given the interpretive and syncretistic nature of - lets say, religion for example - this can be an interesting and often surprising exploration. Such an exploration could, theoretically, involve looking at the individualistic interpretation, that of the scholar vs. the layman for example, cultural, theological, sociopolitical, etc.

It seems it is often thought that religion equates with theological, which seems odd since so many of the world's religion are atheistic. Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism. Not to mention that probably more often than not the theistic religions consist in sometimes equally of atheistic and theistic adherents. It's often about community, and the aforementioned sociopolitical and cultural, or even legal, financial or familial. Religion can be more about survival in a community where dissent is a capital offense, or a means for familial and traditional adhesion or stability, believe it or not.   

To me, religion is defined most accurately by, of all things, the dictionary: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
 

[Fenris]

To me, religion is defined most accurately by, of all things, the dictionary: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

On Superbowl Sunday, football is my religion. That goes double when the Giants are playing.

[DLH]

On Superbowl Sunday, football is my religion. That goes double when the Giants are playing.

Sure, I get it. Some people go to church and some people obsess over the, uh, oddly enough, proverbial pigskin. 

[Athanasius]

My religion is telling people that Buddhism is non-theistic, not a-theistic. And also, listening to that one R.E.M song on a Sunday morning.

[Fenris]

Sure, I get it. Some people go to church and some people obsess over the, uh, oddly enough, proverbial pigskin. 

Well you did provide this helpful definition: "To me, religion is defined most accurately by, of all things, the dictionary: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

[DLH]

Well you did provide this helpful definition: "To me, religion is defined most accurately by, of all things, the dictionary: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

Yes, absolutely, and though you joke, I do not. In 332 BCE Alexander the great took over the world and the Jews welcomed him inside the gates. They showed him where in the scrolls he was foretold.



Alexander the Great in the Temple of Jerusalem by Sebastiano Conca: c. 1736

You know of this? The Greeks would have a devastating effect on Jewish thinking. For example, gymnasiums built where the young people gathered. The games they played there were always connected with religion. Very much like your football today is with nationalism. 

[DLH]

My religion is telling people that Buddhism is non-theistic, not a-theistic. And also, listening to that one R.E.M song on a Sunday morning.

Theism means with gods. Atheism is without gods. There is nothing wrong with either. I don't think there is such a thing as non-theistic. If there were, it would be atheism. Not anti-theism, or non-theism. Of course, I don't subscribe to atheism as a reality because there is no one that is without gods. 

[Athanasius]

Theism means with gods. Atheism is without gods. There is nothing wrong with either.

Morally wrong? Factually wrong? Some other kind of wrong?

Because I'd imagine if theism is true, then one would be factually wrong to hold to atheism. If atheism is true, then one would be factually wrong to hold to theism. Whether the epistemic question can be answered is a different question, and so one could sincerely hold to atheism just as one could sincerely hold to theism. In this sense, neither is morally wrong, but of course, this is a simplification.

I don't think there is such a thing as non-theistic. If there were, it would be atheism. Not anti-theism, or non-theism. Of course, I don't subscribe to atheism as a reality because there is no one that is without gods.

Buddhism is non-theistic because (1) it describes no creator God and (2) isn't monotheistic. Buddhism proposes supernatural beings regardless, such as yidams, devas, asuras, nagas, etc. Well, what were you saying earlier about anything being a God so much as it is "mighty"?

I'm not sure why you're conflating 'gods' with 'God(s)'. The businessman who treats money as his god isn't doing so in a theistic way, such that theism or theism would apply. Of course, here, 'god' has a peculiar meaning. It's not helpful for you to confuse the mighty being with the thing around which a person organises their life.

[RabbiKnife]

The the that  gets to define right is deity.

[DLH]

Morally wrong? Factually wrong? Some other kind of wrong?

Correct. It would be none of those things.

Because I'd imagine if theism is true, then one would be factually wrong to hold to atheism. If atheism is true, then one would be factually wrong to hold to theism.

I'll say it again. Theism means with gods and atheism means without gods. Neither of those are wrong. That would be like saying love or hate were right or wrong. Either you have one or the other. Theism, in other words, isn't dependent upon the actual existence of the deity. A god doesn't have to literally exist. Also, if you think you are atheist - or non-theist if you insist - you just don't know what a god is. It isn't that you don't have any it's that you think you don't have any because you don't know what one is.

I can give you some examples of all of this. Shinto, for example, has become such a part of Japanese society that people don't even know that they are practicing it. The Shinto gods may or may not exist. For example the Royal family are gods. Deities. Divine. They conscripted the Nihongi and Kojiki in order to instruct Japanese youth. The gods, like the Goddess Amaterasu I mentioned earlier somewhere, wasn't thought to be or introduced as literally existing. Nor were any of the others. Remember, a god is simply someone or something which is of supreme importance to the individual or group (each individual of a collective).

Paul mentions that to some their God is "their belly," meaning food. To others it could be money. Or school. Or sex, drugs, politics, anything. Anyone. God or Trump. Japanese Royal family or Pharaoh, Zeus (Roman senate or mythological person), Kim Jong-Un, Eric Clapton, etc.

Whether the epistemic question can be answered is a different question, and so one could sincerely hold to atheism just as one could sincerely hold to theism. In this sense, neither is morally wrong, but of course, this is a simplification.

Perhaps just ignorance or ideology, though, as well. It is simple. The epistemologist may not want you to think so and the atheist and theist with ideological fixation may not, but, well, that doesn't mean much.

Buddhism is non-theistic because (1) it describes no creator God and (2) isn't monotheistic. Buddhism proposes supernatural beings regardless, such as yidams, devas, asuras, nagas, etc. Well, what were you saying earlier about anything being a God so much as it is "mighty"?

That it could be supernatural or natural? Not that I disagree with your facts on Buddhism I just disagree with your conclusion regarding theism. Monotheism, henotheism, atheism, polytheism, has nothing to do with Buddhism. Their consideration of supernatural beings doesn't change that in any way. A god doesn't have to be supernatural and the supernatural doesn't have to be gods or God. Supernatural doesn't mean god. God means respect. Worship. Veneration.

I'm not sure why you're conflating 'gods' with 'God(s)'.

Think of it like Lord or King. Charles is a king. Charles isn't my king. He is King of the brits. Jehovah is my King, Lord, God. Jehovah is a god. Not your God.   

The businessman who treats money as his god isn't doing so in a theistic way, such that theism or theism would apply.

This is what I meant when I said occidental culture projecting the Abrahamic theistic concept universally. You think of religious tradition as being worship. Buddhist, Confucianist, Taoist ritual don't involve gods but that doesn't mean they aren't religious. Religious means significant, repetition. You do something religiously doesn't mean you do it in church or temple. If you do laundry religiously that doesn't mean you pray, dance, sing, etc.

The business man respects money more than life, family, etc. That is what religion or worship or veneration is. Not just a specific set of rituals occidental culture is familiar with. Not just Christian or Jewish.

Of course, here, 'god' has a peculiar meaning.

No it doesn't. God or god only has one meaning. It's just applied to different examples. Jehovah and Jesus and Kim Jong-Un are all gods. God is only a reverential capitalization. To one person Jehovah is God to another person Brahman. This can also be utilized out of ignorance in a cultural sense. For example, someone in one of the specific cultures involved with those deities may be ignorant of any other.

It's not helpful for you to confuse the mighty being with the thing around which a person organises their life.

Which mighty being? Jehovah? If no one worshipped Jehovah then Jehovah would no longer be God or a god. The organization of their life is the primary point there. God isn't a name, it's a title or category of bieng.

[DLH]

The the that  gets to define right is deity.

Okay, I think I know what you mean. A god calls the shots by appointment, whether supernatural, natural, political, familial, financial, etc. Is that what you mean. If so I agree. 

[Fenris]

Yes, absolutely, and though you joke, I do not. In 332 BCE Alexander the great took over the world and the Jews welcomed him inside the gates. They showed him where in the scrolls he was foretold.

That would be news to me.

You know of this? The Greeks would have a devastating effect on Jewish thinking. For example, gymnasiums built where the young people gathered. The games they played there were always connected with religion.

Yes, that would explain all the great Jewish sports stars. Part of the religion.

[Fenris]