Talk:Religion/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Philosophical Question

What was first used by man, faith or reason?

I would go with reason. I doubt faith can exist without it. Serf

Are you crazy? Its because lack of reason that faith exists. I would go with Lindelöf. Not_Serf

Interesting question... I would say reason came first. Without reason man wouldn't have survived very long, faith wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be asking this question! :) Unknown Man 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Put new threads at the bottom. (I made this mistake when I first wikied. Now I know people start reading at the bottom of the discussion page.) Rick Norwood 21:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Which Religion will survive In the world?

Hindus,Christians and all other religions except Islam are brothers,because they worship the god. If Hindus & Christians will meet together then the world will becomes theirs. User:Not listed

I would say that it is impossible to answer this question as we cannot predict the future. Unknown Man 22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In what way do Hindus and Christians worship the same god, Hindus worship multiple gods and Christians worship one god. In case it had escaped your notice Islam and Christitinty worship the same god which comes from the Jewish god, but the humans who worship this god say slightly different things about it.--Rhydd Meddwl 17:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In Christians,Hindus worship ideology are same.You know what happens in Afganistan? One uncivilised man wants to civilise,he pay it's prise.Then dear Meddwl how you can say Christian & muslim warship pattern is same.If you are saying this, then somthing is benefit for you. (User:Unknown Man)

Shinto, only 4 million adherents?

Can someone elaborate on why only 4 million adherents are counted for Shinto? That would be less than 1 in 30 Japanese but Meiji Shrine alone has a total of 3 million worshippers on January 1st to 3rd for "Hatsumoude" and there are literally hundreds of shrines that has worshippers during that 3-day period. Since the official counting by Japanese government's The Agency for Cultural Affairs according to the number submitted by shrines is 106 million, that number should be used here. -- Revth 09:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The 4 million number comes from Adherents.com. I believe this survey is a stronger source than the Shinto shrine records, and have made a note on the page. Rnapier 03:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

the recent change in numbers

When numbers are given, a source should also be given. Rick Norwood 00:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added references to the big table. Rnapier 03:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

New material from user:SROSET

I have moved the new material from User:SROSET so that it can be threaded into the article rather than taking such a predominant position on the intro.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Religion is a concept which is all of the following at the same time, teleological, normative, and orienting (which also explains its enormous importance). It is teleological in that it aims at practice, or a way of living. It is normative, in that it is concerned with providing standards of both morality (right and wrong), and teleology, or right purpose. And it is orienting, in that religions offer an account of the nature of human beings, the universe, and the relationship between the two.
Religions are bodies of doctrine that specify a way of life centered on the maximization of the good, where the good includes both morality and right purpose. Religions often do this in the context of providing an understanding of human nature and its best orientation to the universe as a whole ("best" here meaning "most value maximizing").
Religion has been defined as, "whatever it is in life for which a person really lives, and all that he or she does in regard to that for which he or she really lives is worship." Religion is a matter of opinion. Your opinion defines your religion.

Sources:

Garman, Gene. "Your Questions Answered." Religion Defined . Sunnetworks. 26 Nov. 2005 <http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/religiondef.html>.

The above is just an opinion. In my opinion, it has no place in the article. Rick Norwood 22:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Religion

<Commenting on this phrase in Religion—Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes,...>


Religion is an hypothesis designed to find peace-of-mind; it therefore has great cash value.


Peace of Mind (PcM) is being JOYFUL (when knowing why is not necessary); or being SORROWFUL (say, losing an arm) but understanding why, or by a leap-of-faith acceptance saying "the understanding resides in a higher intellect—i.e. the chain of natural causes and their natural effects and the knowledge that things could not have been different than they are. (Whatever is, is caused, and by hypothesis, the cause is knowable.) The sorrow still remains. It is the will of G-D; that is Life; or that is Nature."— all mean the same and bring, somewhat, PcM.

As long as people have non-understood wants, they will have loss of peace-of-mind. That is why religion persists.

Descriptions given for a Religion are properties of that Religion; not its essence, which for all of them, is seeking to find peace-of-mind.

Yesselman 17:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


That's one claim, I suppose. Not too many religious believers would agree with you about it, whatever this William James character may say. Besides, you will find that thoughtful religious believers are at least as interested in ontological truths as epistomological. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Does not what religious believers think, or what they are interested in, bring them a bit of peace-of-mind? Yesselman 16:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Why do you think it should in all cases, or even most cases? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily??, please give me a case. Yesselman 01:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
In any religion that requires or encourages self-examination to more fully identify one's faults or sins so that one might more thoroughly repent of them, such as Eastern Orthodoxy, in the normal course of events one continually finds more faults than one formerly believed one had. The process of correction for these faults, repentence, is a difficult struggle in which one may never be fully victorious. There are two ends of a spectrum here where peace of mind is actually achieved. In the nominal church member this introspective process is never really carried out, so he remains blissfully unaware of his sins and never takes much trouble over them. In the tiny minority at the other end, the saints, they have achieved a certain measure of theosis and so in full trust in God and in a love and forgiveness they palpably experience, they enjoy peace not only of mind, but of body and soul. Most Orthodox Christians fall somewhere in the middle, however, and for those who are aware of them but whose faith, while perhaps growing, is not quite strong enough to trust God as they should and does not therefore impart full confidence in their forgiveness, their sins are a constant source of worry. Peace of mind is for many therefore a goal rather than an attainment.
Dear TCC. Thank you for your most thorough response. I see where I did not make myself clear. I mean that the peace-of-mind found is only fleetingly found and then, is sought for again. The processes you describe are such searches. Religion, such searches, is an hypothesis designed to find peace-of-mind however fleetingly attained and then, at that moment, called blessedness, grace, bliss, nirvana.
Such things are not attained fleetingly for those that truly attain them. But you conflate several words that are not equivalent. "Grace" is a freely given unmerited gift which indeed confers peace of mind among other favors, including salvation; "blessedness" is also a gift, but which may or may not have any effect on one's state of mind depending on what exactly you mean by it; "bliss" is a state of mind which may or may not have its source in the divine (I used it myself in the latter sense above); "nirvana" must be earned. (I know it's fashionable to identify Christian ideas with various Hindu or Buddhist ones, but this is not really valid.) For a Christian saint, to be "in the Holy Spirit (as St. Seraphim of Sarov put it) is a recognizable state quite apart from peace of mind. In other words, you confuse a side effect with the real goal, which is communion with God.
Religion is not a search. Search implies an object which is unknown in either place or nature. But the very idea of a "revealed religion" is that a search in those terms is over; there are now signs pointing the way. The metaphor of a road is therefore more apt. We have only to travel it. It's a narrow road, this "royal way", and easy to stray from, but it's always plainly marked. The question between the various religions is which of them is pointing you to the correct road? That they often lead in different directions is self-evident. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
But that's not quite fair of you. You made a blanket assertion about all religions. It ought to be up to you to prove it, and you haven't even attempted to. I don't know who this William James is or why I should believe him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Forgive me; I meant my assertion as an hypothesis and of course I can't prove it. My hypothesis is based on my 84 years life experiences and a thorough study of Spinoza and the Hebrew Bible and less so of the Religion of Einstein. Please see William James, of course there is no reason for you to believe him.
Again thank you.
Yesselman 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
PS: What is your definition of Sin; mine.
Your definition of sin is more or less correct. I don't have a personal definition of sin but refer to that of my Church, by which lights I say "correct" or "incorrect"; I make no judgement on my own. In many languages other than English it carries the literal meaning "to miss the mark"; everything attached to it is derived from that idea. Or ought to be, if it is to be correctly understood. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
My 'sin' definition implies "no praise - no blame." Yesselman 17:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I see that claim made, but I don't think it follows. The idea does not fall out of the etymology of the word as stated unless we imagine that all sins are inadvertent. I think that's nonsensical. One may, after, miss a mark because one is deliberately aiming in the wrong direction. The quote you give from Mark Twain starts from a false premise: although there is indeed a predisposition to sin there's no necessity for it by nature. (As, in Orthodox understanding, the Mother of God demonstrated.) Perhaps this is one of Spinoza's themes, but if so then he has a false understanding of sin. (I kept following your "no blame" links in hopes of further insights or at least some argument that I could sink my teeth into, but found none. Perhaps I missed something.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The idea does not fall out of the etymology of the word as stated unless we imagine that all sins are inadvertent. Yes, all are inadvertent, if the person is rational and not bent on suicide. Again, I think, crime and scarlet fever are in the same category. Yesselman 18:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a very bold claim, and runs contrary to daily experience. I cannot accept it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
One may, after all, miss a mark because one is deliberately aiming in the wrong direction. Is this not an indication of cunning or ignorance; how the man is programmed by nature or nuture? Yesselman 20:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe people can be irremediably "programmed" by "nurture", nor do I believe that even fallen "nature" is all-controlling. To believe the first is to deny free will; to believe the second is tantamount to subscribing to the doctrine of total depravity, which I cannot do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear TCC. I believe, that because of our different 'world views' we are talking past each other. It is not a new problem; but, pray, we respect each other. Please see JBYnote1 and Theisim. Yesselman 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well of course we're talking past each other! It was obvious from the beginning. Theists and non-theists speak from entirely different paradigms, and this isn't the first time I've been around this particular bend. But I respect any self-honest thinker. (I wonder if you might clarify your "Theistic/non-Theistic" diagram though. I'm afraid it's not clear at all points whether it's talking about the universe or about God.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
<whether it's talking about the universe or about God>
I think it means the Universe as it is considered a part of the infinite G-D.
Everything ALL is in G-D. Yesselman 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
That's fine for the right-hand column, but it doesn't work at all for the left-hand. The transcendent God is believed to be present in his creation, but is not part of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
"but is not part of it". Please see Transcendence. Yesselman 17:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I don't see what you're trying to tell me here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
to discuss our different views on 'Transcendence'. Yesselman 13:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
But I don't think we have different views. The extreme "otherness" of God is fundamental to Orthodox Christian theology. Unless I have misunderstood something on that page... TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Cash Value

From William James's Pragmatism; ISBN: 0915145057; p. xiv. From the Introduction by Bruce Kuklick.

James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of 'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitableworld. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness. If what was true was what worked, then scientific truths were just those beliefs found to be workable. And we could investigate religion's claim to truth in the same manner. The enduring quality of religious beliefs throughout recorded history and in all cultures gave indirect support for the view that such beliefs worked. James also argued directly that such beliefs were satisfying—they enabled us to lead fuller, richer lives and were more viable than their alternatives. Religious beliefs were expedient in human existence, just as scientific beliefs were.

Yesselman 20:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Neurobiological findings on belief

Hello. I moved a section which was available in God page. It got discussed there (God talk page). And I foolow what we concluded: section better fitting in a general religion article. Please edit for misspelling/grammar/...Gtabary 13:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

problem of religion

As a percentage of the population, are the subscribers to religion increasing or decreasing? --Username132 05:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

position of Religion and science section

I wonder if it is not POV to have the Religion and science section so high up in the article. The conflicts between religion and science, though important, are not really a major part of what religion is. Rick Norwood 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And that bit at the end about Hinduism that mentions "freezing human thought in a medieval time frame?" That is extremely POV, an obvious shot at the current debate going on in the US. The paragraph should be shortened and linked to the main science and religion article; discussing such a specific example doesn't belong on this page. Benandorsqueaks 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How to create a new religion?

Why cannot we create new religions that will not impede with existing religions and their practices.

L. Ron Hubbard did it.

Just curious to know if it is desirable for US congress or other democratic nations to ratify progressive religions.

The US does not "ratify" religions. A determination is made concerning the nature of any organization that claims to be a religion -- whether it actually conducts itself as a religion or is a commercial entity attempting to present itself as a religion -- strictly for tax purposes. (A religious body is not subject to the income tax.) European nations make this determination becuase in many cases religions there are supported by taxes collected for that purpose, and the monies are redistributed only to those bodies determined to be bona fide religions. Also, in the 20th century Europe has had a very bad experience with religious/mystical/political extremists, and feels it necessary to take proactive steps to avoid the same problem arising again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead new religions should create a ecosystem of hope within the context of current social, economic, cultural and national hierarchies.

Jesus tried. Rick Norwood 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rick. Please vote my poll at http://ictreligion.blogspot.com/

All religions start off as a Cult.The Romans considered Jesus a cult leader. —This unsigned comment was added by 70.66.4.102 (talk • contribs) .

The present first paragraph seems uneven

It seems like the present version has an uneven view on the possible results of religous belief. For example, it mentions that religous people could be violent, but not that they could be charitable.

I added the POV tag at the start of this paragraph because I thought the point of view was not neutral.

"Religion is the practice of worshiping an imaginary figure or figures often referred to as a god or deity in order to deal with issues that seem beyond their control. This often leads to irrational or possibly violent behavior. It is not uncommon for these “religious” people to blindly hate, hurt, or kill people who do not share their ludicrous beliefs. Religion is mostly seen in the uneducated and the weak willed but it has been known to infect strong intelligent people as well."

Peter

Random comment - that opening paragraph is about as anti-religion as H.L. Mencken, and about the most un-encyclopedic-sounding thing I've ever read on this website. Not that it offends me, it should just embarrass whoever wrote it.

You mistook a rant for the real intro. It is a good idea, when you read something as bad as the above, to check back and see what the intro was like a day or two in the past. I'll revert the POV now. Rick Norwood 14:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that Rick Norwood. I'm still figuring out how to be a Wikipedia editor. Peter

Random commenter's response - Yes, I figured it was vandalism, but it still must be embarrassing for the period of time that it's left up. Either way, I didn't change it because I figured I'd leave my occasional edits to fixing grammar and typos.

Hinduism, Christianity, and Science

"Because of its emphasis on verification of Truth and exploration of Truth, Hinduism does not have to force the theories of Darwin or Mendel out of school rooms in order to survive, nor suffer from the compulsions of freezing human thought in a medieval time frame in order to justify itself."

I removed (now, for the second time) the above "comparison" between Hinduism and Christianity, since it's highly based on POV. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 18:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You gave the reason that this is Hinduism's comparision with Christianity. Can i ask How? Theories of Drawin and Mendal are not just connected to Christianity. Any religion can be connected with these theories for positive or negative reasons.-Holy Ganga 14:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Holy Ganga -- how would you feel if this article said something like "Iran is one of the most religious countries in the world today, and Islam is not afraid of the truth but, unlike Christianity, accepts science." Everyone likes to think good things about their own country and their own religion, but when you promote your country or your religion as better than others, especially without references, you are not being encyclopedic. Rick Norwood 13:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, if Islam really accepts science and if Iran is really a most religious country , then why not? That claim should definately be included here. Thats a fact that scientific theories have never worried Hinduism because basic ideology of Hinduism is very different from Abrahmic religions -Holy Ganga 14:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
But why Islam and Iran in particular? Lots of countrys are religious, and lots of religions accept science. Not to mention that it is particular members of a religion that accept science and not the religion as a whole, so any statement like that is flawed. Also note that the statement in question is clearly portraying Hinduism as superior to Christianity(Judaism, Islam) and that is definitaly POV. Plus it's openly insulting non-Hindu religions. By the way, I suggest replacing that whole paragraph with. "Some religions, including Hinduism, do not have any conflicts with science and so the preceding section does not apply to them."Snake712 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hinduism is a major religion like Christianity. We can't give whole paragraphs dedicated to Christianity's positive or negative relationship with science and just one line to other major religions like Hinduism. Also, can i ask how Hinduism views on scientific theories can be termed as comparision with Christianity? Both religions have different basic ideologies, so both of them have there own views and there views shouldn't be seen as comparision with each other. -Holy Ganga 09:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Hinduism is a major religion like Chirstianity, but the part about religion and science does not only apply to Christianity, it also applys to Judaism and Islam, and if it has a non-evolution creation story, it also applys to Hindusism. And please tell me how "Because of its emphasis on verification of Truth and exploration of Truth, Hinduism does not have to force the theories of Darwin or Mendel out of school rooms in order to survive, nor suffer from the compulsions of freezing human thought in a medieval time frame in order to justify itself" is NOT a comparison with Christianity. Note: the part above is obviously POV, as it implys that other religions do have to "force the theories of Darwin and Mendel out of school rooms in order to survive"(They don't) or "Suffer from the compulsions of freezing human thought in a medieval time frame in order to justify itself"(They don't, either). I'm deleting it right now for the reasons above.Snake712 01:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


If, in fact, India is more religious than most other countries, you need an objective source for that information. The same for the relationship between Hinduism and science. Otherwise it is original research. Rick Norwood 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no doubt that India is a very religious country. In Religious festivals like Kumbh Mela, gathering of 70 million people at one place shows in itself the level of religious roots within Indian masses. It is estimated that there are more than 13 million holymen in India.BBC poll showing India with very high level of belief in God (more than 90%) compared to UK, Russis and Korea (between 20-40%) -Holy Ganga 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Collection of famous World Intellectuals studies on Hinduism's attitude towards Science.Intellectuals, Scientists and Philosphers on Hindu CosmologyAdvanced Scientific Concepts of Hinduism -Holy Ganga 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Good. This is exactly what I hoped you would find. So, instead of writing "India is one of the most religious countries...", why not write, "According to a BBC poll India has a very high percentage of people who believe in God (more than 90%) compared to UK, Russis and Korea (between 20-40%)." This would be much more encyclopedic. Rick Norwood 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Some Minor Improvements

I feel that a link to the Religious Studies and Religious Phenenomology pages on wiki would be useful. This is justified on the grounds that links to related disciplines such as the Philosophy of Religion are listed. Also the related pages section looks disorganised with no visible order or structure. Otherwise,from my perspective as student of Theology and Religious Studies at Cambridge University I regard this page as very comprehensive and informative article. 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology as "modern religion"?

Hi,

I just read about the "modern religion scientology" in this article (mysticism) and was quite horrified.

In Europe Scientology is being treated as cult, because of the heavy toll it takes on the freedom of most of its members (excepting their "public faces"), so I don't see it as anyhow fit to be an example of "Esotericism and mysticism". - Draketo 08:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you describe Scientology as a cult depends on how you define cult. Most cults are at least outwardly religious; and the religious characteristics of Scientology definitely seem to categorize it as an esoteric or gnostic movement. -- MatthewDBA 12:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Except where it behaves more like a commercial entity. It's well documented that Scientology setting itself up as a religion was more or less a business decision.[1] Also, in modern usage "cult" indicates primarily an extremist, authoritarian movement. See [2]; its older meaning is now secondary. 192.31.106.34 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Point taken about it being a very "business-like" entity -- although Scientologists would probably disagree, and the site you cite isn't exactly the most unbiased. As far as the usage of the word cult, you do in fact describe the current popular usage. But the description of religions as undertaken in this article seems to be from a primarily sociological and anthropological viewpoint; and the "older" meaning of the word is in fact primary in most of these contexts. In addition, there may be differences in the way an organized religion is viewed by its administrators, its adherents, and those outside the religious organization. -- MatthewDBA 12:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Meme Theory

I just looked for the meme theory of religion but could not find it on the page. Is there some reson it is not mentioned, or did I just miss it ? Springald 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It should probably go under "Methods of studying religion objectively". Rick Norwood 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Weasel tag

I removed the weasel tag since I see no opinions on the matter on this talk page. Hope it is appropriate.

I, for one, approve, though it would be good if you signed your post. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Opps. My apologies. Fairly new at this. - Dodo bird 15:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Delldot

I was aware that my recent reversion restored a spelling error, and I was looking for it when you fixed it. Thanks. Rick Norwood 21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

request for fact by Pranathi

Pranathi asked for a reference for this sentence. "Even today, countries with a Christian background are still providing much of the foundation to scientific development in the world [citation needed]."

Looking at Nobel prizes in Physics and Chemistry for 2000 - 2002, there are 17 winners. Of the 17, ten are from countries with a Christian background. I think 10 out of 17 qualifies as "much". Rick Norwood 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • What defines a country as Christian background? A majority in population? Many countries themselves separate State from Religion.
  • Also, 9 of the prize winners were born the US and most of the rest studied there - in the wealthiest nation in the world, with abundant resources to commit to research. Other factors can be at play.
  • One third of the world's population is Christian. 2/3 rd of the researchers come from Christian majority countries. one/tenth of the world's population is Buddhist and 1/2000 Shinto but a fourth (4 winners) of the winners come from Japan. So, by the same logic Shinto and Buddist 'background' countries would come before those with Christian 'background' --Pranathi 02:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The passage did not claim, and I do not believe, that the scientific discoveries were made because of the Christian background. Jaki believes that, not I. I just offered the documentation you requested that the sentence was factually accurate. As for "Christian background" that includes all of North and South America, Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia and Africa. I left out Russia, but I could have included it by going back to the Nineteenth Century. I would not argue against removing the passage, but not on the grounds of factual inaccuracy. Rick Norwood 13:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was looking for a reference more than a discussion to it's accuracy. I think the sentence what would classify as a weasel sentence. It makes an assumption based on an iffy generalization. You could make many such generalizations (positive and negative) based on commonalities between these countries. It seems like a defensive argument and is not encyclopedic. I will remove shortly unless someone disagrees. --Pranathi 23:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, have no objection. Rick Norwood 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By the definition for a weasel sentence (here Weasel word and here WP:WEASEL), I think that this phrase can't be regarded as so. Also, as Rick Norwood wrote: "The passage did not claim (...) that the scientific discoveries were made because of the Christian background". Since the statement is factually accurate, I'd like more than a subjective feeling of it being "not encyclopedic" for it to be removed. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the proper reason for removal is that it is a non sequetur. It suggests post hoc ergo propter hoc without actually coming out and saying so. Rick Norwood 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Theravada Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

The view that Buddhism and Advaita are philosophies as opposed to religions is misguided. Both provide Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and show a respect for life (human and non-human) that Christian Civilization has never been able to remotely emulate. The destruction of God's Earth has been undertaken by Christians and Jews, not by Buddhists or Hindus. The Sacred is a commonplace everyday reality in these Indian faiths whereas in Christianity it is mere lip service. Furthermore, the doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven and Eternal Life that constituted a higher revelation of what the old religion had taught was, to Indian minds, nothing new, for all that Jesus taught had been taught long ago in the Upanisads, by the Buddha or by Mahavira. Philosophy is speculation about obscure matters but religion is a vehicle by which a person may attain to the highest Truth as a Living Reality. In these respects Advaita and Buddhism (as well as Jainism and Taoism) are religions par exellence. User: Langdell. 5th March 2006

Much of what you say could be disputed, but nevertheless, you are right that it would be a tragedy to ignore the religious nature of Advaita Vedanta or Theravada Buddhism, despite their reception in the West. Ig0774 20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Based on the definition offered on this page itself, it is simply wrong to exclude either Advaita Vedanta or Theravada Buddhism as religious traditions. Advaitins quite clearly have a notion of the sacred (Brahman) as to Theravada Buddhists (dhamma). Theravada may be excluded if the definition of religion specified a need for the worship of a divine figure, but it doesn't. I am not sure how Advaita cannot be counted as a religion (it is, perhaps, a philosophical school within a religious tradition, which would still not forbid mention on this page). Ig0774 02:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In listing these beliefs as philosophy rather than religion, I intended to promote, not demote them. Religion is the superstitious belief of the masses, philosophy the intelligent belief of the few. (Don't worry -- I know better than to ever try to get this into an article, but here on the talk page we can be honest.) Thus, the split between Mahayana Buddhism and Thedavada Buddhism. Mahayana has many more followers -- it is the great chariot -- but Thedavada actually makes sense. (On the other hand, I don't think everything that Jesus taught is in the Upanishads. The parable of Mary and Martha comes to mind.) Rick Norwood 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the claims about Jesus having been summed up by earlier Indian thinkers are somewhat less than credible. On the other hand, to deny that Theravada Buddhism is a religious tradition is rather to neglect how it operates in practice (and one cannot deny that, in practice, Theravada has an element of the "superstitious belief of the masses", however its doctrines may seem). Ig0774 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've never been to a Theravada service, so I really don't know. From reading, you get the impression that Theravada is closer to Buddha's original teaching, which seems to me much more philosophical than religious. On the other hand, if Unitarianism is a religion, then anything that wants to be a religion is. Rick Norwood 15:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst Theravada Buddhism has no concept of God at its centre it is clearly a religion as the Buddha taught about salvation. You'll Never Be at John's! 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

this article is a mess

This desperately needs a cleanup. Use of first person language, use of "..", made-up words, and huge spelling mistakes abound. If possible, please help clean this up. Thanks! --BWD (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Large amount of article is poorly written

Religion, philosophy and metaphysics (as a section) drastically needs to be rewritten, if not deleted, immediately. It seems as though the editor scattered "..."s all throughout the section. In addition, the editor used the word "u" meaning "you," the word "us," and the word "we." For example:

  • Both can be equally truthful and factually proven and stated....science and some ideas of belief.
  • But though both are real, only one is....u know the rule that the simplest thing is most often the correct answer...comes from occams's razors law...yet it supports both...which at first seem very unsimplistic, but in the end really are not all that unbelievable.
  • At least not the one that says... of a consciousness of some kind some way thing or how unknowing or otherwise life or a type of something different again yet the same like it, had and has in fact directed it... is it not more easy to believe that something or someone else beyond us is responsible on some knowing level and reasoning for us?
  • or is it more so that we just got there from the nothing that was until... then? when? exactly u can't even give it a number or date... of mathematical logical or reasoning, something that everything no matter what it be of anything has in this something that is where we think to understand really nothing.
  • it wasn't until we were, we weren't until somewhere else it became and here it was....so where are we now...science...or some kind of godliness... or creator essence?

In addition to that, the subsections Modern reasons for adherence to religion and Modern reasons for rejecting religion have many spelling and grammar mistakes, and are generally strangly written. They should be rewritten entirely or be deleted.

Opinions? GofG ||| Contribs 23:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm editing this section right now. Most of it has to go for the simple fact that I cannot figure out what the hell it's trying to say. Other than that, a lot of it isn't verifiable. Would the original author of this section please assist in clarifying the meaning of it? --BWD (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, none of it is salvagable. Original author: you will have to rewrite that to conform with encyclopedic standards and sources. --BWD (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the original author, but I wrote a teeny little replacement stub that really needs to be expanded. The point of this section will be to investigate some common questions addressed by both religion and philosophy. -- MatthewDBA 12:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. At least now I can understand what it's trying to say. ;) --BWD (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of section on Religious studies

I've removed the section on "Approaches to the study of Religion..." (below). In an article that is already way too long, it adds little that couldn't be gained from a tightly worded summary of Religious studies and reference to other articles such as Religious studies, Anthropology of religion, Psychology of religion, and so forth.

What do others think? Sunray 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. The article is way too long and a lot of it is unsourced. --BWD (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
==Approaches to the study of Religion on an Individual and Comparative level ==

Methods of studying religion subjectively (in relation to one's own beliefs)

These include efforts to determine the meaning and application of "sacred" texts and beliefs in the context of the student's personal worldview. This generally takes one of three forms:

Mosque; Aswan, Egypt.
Mosque; Aswan, Egypt.
  • one's own — efforts by believers to ascertain the meaning of their own sacred text or other traditions, and to conform their thoughts and actions to the principles enunciated in those traditions. For most believers, this involves a lifetime process of study, analysis, and practice. Some faiths, such as Hasidic Judaism, emphasize adherence to a set of rules and rituals. Other faiths, such as Christianity, emphasize the internalization and application of a set of abstract principles, such as Love, Justice, or Faith. Some believers interpret their scriptures literally, and apply the text exactly as it is written. Other believers try to interpret scripture and other tradition through its context, to derive abstract principles which they may apply more directly to their lives and contexts.
  • another's compared to one's own — efforts by believers of one belief system attempt to describe a different belief system in terms of their own beliefs. One example of this method is in David Strauss's 1835 The Life of Jesus. Strauss's theological approach strikes from the Biblical text the descriptions of angels and miracles which, due to his presupposition that supernatural events do not occur, he does not believe could have occurred. He then concludes that the stories must have been inserted by a "supernaturalist" merely trying to make an important story more convincing. In this course of his argument, Strauss argues that the supernaturalist who inserted the angels into the story of the birth of Christ borrowed the heathen doctrine of angels from the Babylonians who had held the Jews in captivity. That is, the New Testament's fabulous role for angels "is evidently a product of the influence of the Zend religion of the Persians on the Jewish mind." Due to his presumption that supernatural events do not occur, he dismisses the possibility that both cultures came to believe in angels independently, as a result of their own experiences and context.
  • another's as defined by itself — efforts by believers of one belief system to understand the heart and meaning of another faith on its own terms. This very challenging approach to understanding religion presumes that each religion is a self-consistent system whereby a set of beliefs and actions depend upon each other for coherence, and can only be understood in relation to each other. This method requires the student to investigate the philosophical, emotional, religious, and social presuppositions that adherents of another religion develop and apply in their religious life, before applying their own biases, and evaluating the other faith. For instance, an individual who personally does not believe in miracles may attempt to understand why adherents of another religion believe in miracles, and then attempt to understand how the individual's belief in miracles affects their daily life. While the individual may still himself not believe in miracles, he may begin to develop an understanding of why people of other faiths choose to believe in them.

Methods of studying religion objectively (in a scientific and religiously neutral fashion)

[[Image:Swamithoppe pathi .jpg|250px|thumb|pathi, Swamithoppe, India.]] There are a variety of methods employed to study religion which seek to be religiously neutral. One's interpretation of these methods depends on one's approach to the relationship between religion and science, as discussed above. Many of these methods are discussed and adopted by those working in the field of Religious Studies, an academic discipline which seeks to study religion in an neutral manner.

The term "religion" is problematic for anthropologists, and their approaches to the subject are quite varied. Some take the view that religion, particularly in less technically complex cultures, is a form of proto-science, i.e. a primitive attempt to explain and predict phenomena in the natural world, analogous to modern science but less advanced.
However, most modern anthropologists reject this view as antiquated, ethnically and intellectually chauvinistic, and unsupported by cross-cultural evidence. Science has very specific methods and aims, while the term "religion" encompasses a huge spectrum of practices, goals, and social functions. In addition to explaining the world (natural or otherwise), religions may also provide mechanisms for maintaining social and psychological well-being, and the foundations of moral/ethical, economic, and political reasoning.
While many early anthropologists attempted to catalogue and universalize these functions and their origins, modern researchers have tended to back away from such speculation, preferring a more holistic approach: The object of study is the meaning of religious traditions and practices for the practitioners themselves--religion in context--rather than formalized theories about religion in general.
  • Cognitive psychological approaches take a completely different approach to explaining religion. Foremost among them is Pascal Boyer, whose book, Religion Explained, lays out the basics of his theory, and attempts to refute several previous and more direct explanations for the phenomenon of religion. Religion is taken in its widest sense (from holy mountains and ancestral spirits to monotheistic deities). An explanation is offered for human religious behaviour without making a presumption, to the positive or the negative, about the actual subject matter of the religious beliefs. Essentially, the reasoning goes that religion is a side effect of the normal functioning of certain subconscious intuitive mental faculties which normally apply to physics (enabling prediction of the arc a football will take only seconds after its release, for example), and social networks (to keep track of other people's identity, history, loyalty, etc.), and a variety of others. For instance, the same mechanism that serves to link, without explaining, an event (e.g. rustling of tall grass) with a cause (the possible presence of a predator) will help to form or sustain a belief that two random events are linked, or that an unexplained event is linked to supernatural causes. The reasoning would imply that there is no direct causal link between the subject matter of a belief (e.g. whether the ancestors watch over us) and the fact that there is such a belief.
Critics assert that cognitive psychological theories are unfalsifiable and hence are unscientific speculation.
  • Historical, archeological, and literary approaches to religion include attempts to discover the sacred writings at the "dawn of humanity." For example, Max Müller in 1879 launched a project to translate the earliest sacred texts of Hinduism into English in the Sacred Books of the East. Müller's intent was to translate for the first time the "bright" as well as the "dark sides" of non-Christian religions into English. [4]
  • Neuroscientific approaches seek to explore the apparent similarities among religious views dominant in diverse cultures that have had little or no contact, why religion is found in almost every human group, and why humans accept counterintuitive statements in the name of religion. In neuroscience, work by scientists such as Ramachandran and his colleagues from the University of California, San Diego [5] suggests evidence of brain circuitry in the temporal lobe associated with intense religious experiences. See also neurotheology, the scientific study of the biological basis of spiritual experience.
  • Philosophical approaches include attempts to defend or undermine religious claims by subjecting them to a process of rational investigation. Epistemological and ontological approaches to philosophy of religion deal with the very nature of how one comes to accept any belief or assumption as true on its own terms and question such matters of the nature of reality and existence of the universe and humanity. Such approaches may begin from philosophic first principles of epistemology and philosophic logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle and others. This is perhaps one of the strongest approaches, as one's assumptions here will underlie one's assumptions and subsequent approaches to analysis of all of the history, people, sciences (or pseudosciences), humanities and social sciences, texts, ideologies, literatures, emotions and experiences associated with religions.
Some philosophers have attempted to derive classifications of the views of the world that religions preach as in Immanuel Kant's 1788 Critique of Practical Reason. Within a philosophical approach, the reason for a religious belief should be more important than the emotional attachment to the belief. [6] And in attempting to provide a reasonable basis for morality, Kant proposed the categorical imperative: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." [7]
  • Psychological approaches. The Psychology of religion involves the gathering and classification of data (usually wide ranging) and the building of the explanations of the psychological processes underlying the religious experiences and beliefs. It includes a wide variety of researches (psychoanalytical and others) : Sigmund Freud (Oedipus Complex, Illusion), Carl Jung (Universal archetypes), Erich Fromm (Desire, Need for stable frame), William James (Personal religious experience, Pragmatism), The Urantia Book (A psychological approach to humankind and religion in history, Dr. Wm. Sadler and associated authors), Alfred Adler (Feeling of inferiority, Perfection), Ludwig Feuerbach (Imagination, Wishes, Fear of Death), Gordon Alport (Mature religion and Immature religion), Erik Erikson (Influence on personality development), Rudolf Otto (Non-rational experience), James Leuba (Mystical experiences and drugs).
  • Sociological approaches include attempts to explain the development of the ideas of morality and law, as in for example, Auguste Comte's Cours de philosophie positive hypothesizing in 1842 that people go through stages of evolution 1) obeying supernatural beings, then 2) manipulating abstract unseen forces, and finally 3) exploring more or less scientifically the social laws and practical governmental structures that work in practice. Within a sociological approach, religion is but the earliest primitive stage of discovering what is morally right and wrong in a civilized society. It is the duty of intelligent men and women everywhere to take responsibility for shaping the society without appealing to a non-existent Divinity to discover empirically what moral concepts actually work in practice, and in the process, the shapers of society must take into account that there is no Divine authority to adjudicate between what are only the opinions of men and women. Comte wrote, in translation, "It can not be necessary to prove to anybody who reads this work that Ideas govern the world, or throw it into chaos; in other words, that all social mechanism rests upon Opinions. The great political and moral crisis that societies are now undergoing is shown by a rigid analysis to arise out of intellectual anarchy." The intellectual anarchy includes the warring oppositions among the world's religions. [8]
Other psychological work includes that of Rodney Stark, who has looked at the social forces that have caused religions to grow and the features of religions that have been most successful. For example, Stark, who claims to be an agnostic, hypothesizes that, before Christianity became established as the state religion of Constantinople, Christianity grew rapidly because it provided a practical framework within which non-family members would provide help to other people in the community in a barter system of mutual assistance. Similarly, evolutionary psychology approaches consider the survival advantages that religion might have given to a community of hunter-gatherers, such as unifying them within a coherent social group.
Critics assert that this sociological approaches are inadequate insofar as they asserts that people subscribe to religions merely because of practical advantages.

Possible move of sections on adherance/rejection of religion

These two long sections could become a separate article. I propose to do that if others don't disagree. Sunray 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, move them, and summarize them in this article. -- Jeff3000 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Moved. I will add to slightly to the summary - though not much. We are now down to 37 KB, which is a much more manageable size for an article. Sunray 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I've also moved the following sub-sections to the Religious belief article: Pluralism; Syncretism; Universalism and Systemization. These are essentially types of belief systems. Both articles are now 31 KB. I would say that with a comprehensive edit of each article, we could remove the "clean-up" tag. Sunray 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Great edit Sunray. -- Jeff3000 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Section reordering

I don't think the current ordering of this article is great. I'm not sure what is the best way, but having Science and religion at the top seems wierd. The first section should be what religion is, and that information is not in the article (it is slightly in the science and religion).

I suggest something like this

1. What religion is (source of knowledge?, etc) (need to write this section)
2. Development of religion
3. Demographics
4. Reasons for adhering to religion
5. Reasons for rejecting religion
6. Related forms of thought
6.1 Science and religion
6.2 Religion, metaphysics and cosmology
6.3 Esotericism and mysticism
6.4 Spirituality
6.5 Myth
6.6 Section on the nature of the universe
7. Approaches to relating to the beliefs of others
8. Nuerobilogical findso on religious belief
8. Etymology

What do you guys think? -- Jeff3000 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. In line with the earlier discussion, I would sumarize and combine #'s 4 and 5 in a drastically reduced section, perhaps renamed "Religious belief" or "Reasons to believe or not." I would also add a short section on "Religious studies" (also per discussion above) near the end of the article. Sunray 19:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Soungs good Sunray. I'll do a little work regarding the first paragraph, and if you could work on shortening the "reasons" section, and then we'll re-arrange the article if no-one else finds it problematic. -- Jeff3000 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Any other comments regarding this section reordering, anyone against it? -- Jeff3000 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Sections 4, 5, 7 & 8 (above) have now been moved to a new article on Religious belief. Sunray 01:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Two more things: 1) I think that the Etymology section should appear as the first or second section since it is definitional. 2) I forgot to add the Religious studies section, which I will summarize from the material above. So here's what the order might look like now:

1. What is religion (source of knowledge?, etc) (need to write this section)
2. Etymology
3. Development of religion
4. Demographics
5. Religious belief
6. Related forms of thought
7.1 Science and religion
7.2 Religion, metaphysics and cosmology
7.3 Esotericism and mysticism
7.4 Spirituality
7.5 Myth
7.6 Nature of the universe
8. Religious studies

Sunray 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm undecided about the etymology section. I can see why it would be useful at the beginning, and the same time that info is more of a dictionary use, and I don't see people coming to this page, wanting to know right off about the word religion, but instead about religion. -- Jeff3000 02:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok this is done. I've left etymology as the second section. -- Jeff3000 03:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is interesting, so I'm glad you left it in. Rick Norwood 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the "Approaches to forming beliefs about the nature of the universe" subsection. It looks to me like most of the things mentioned in it are actually the subjects of other subsections in the "related forms of thought" section. Do we really need this? In addition, the last paragraph (I'm not clear, from the layout, whether it's intended to be in the same subsection or not) contains a number of claims about necessary components of a religion. This seems to be intended as a sort of definition of religion, it doesn't provide any sourcing for the claims (they look like original research to me), and the claims seem (to me as a religious believer) to be outright wrong. I'm eliminating that paragraph. -- MatthewDBA 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree MatthewDBA, I would remove the section on the universe. -- Jeff3000 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I rather like that little section. It seems to sum up the various attitudes in the previous sections.
Let me mention, I think the new order of the sections has greatly improved the article. Rick Norwood 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
If we need a section to sum up, then should we have a new sub-article with this as a summary? -- MatthewDBA 11:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

The images presently on the page are pretty skewed to Hinduism. Can we get a diversity of images on here? --Tydaj 03:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, maybe a Jewish and a Christian related picture to replace two of the hinduism pictures. I think that would make the article better. -- Jeff3000 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I like most of the pictures, but I think the new one under Etymology could go. Rick Norwood 23:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs more balance; I'll start bellow a gallery of pictures that could be used to that effect. (Other users’ contributions are welcome, of course.) --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Gallery of sugested pictures for this article (see discussion above).
Stpetersbasilicaholyspiritwindow.jpg
241530 7953 torah.jpg

I'd say the Redentor.jpg and torah.jpg are good and could replace the Swamithoppe_pathi_.jpg and Akshardhamindelhi.jpg images. -- Jeff3000 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the Redentor and the Mecca one. Since we are going by numbers, the Islam picture is more appropriate than Jewish.--Pranathi 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't think we are really going "by numbers", just trying not to lean to far in any one direction. I'm going to make the change. Rick Norwood 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion and politics

I have started a page on Religion and politics - to go with the Christianity and politics page someone has already created. Anyone wishing to expand - or create articles for other religions - please do so. Jackiespeel 16:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)</gallery>

I think this subject is more appropriate for an essay than for an encyclopedia article. Rick Norwood 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

== I would love your help. ==

Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. Empty2005 00:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)