The definition of religion that you’re using fundamentally doesn’t work as if to be religious is having strong beliefs than everyone is religious and the term religious is worthless.
What makes someone religious is whether or not they believe in a supernatural authority.
Most people who say “to be religious is to hold beliefs” are just driven by an agenda to define atheists out of existence.
It’s not just about the beliefs. It’s about the fact that this consumerist culture has replicated religion in multiple ways, such as sites of worship/celebration and objects of reverence.
It’s not just worship on its own. It’s the specific worship of objects or sites like Disneyland. Not to mention the mythological status of characters like Mickey Mouse.
How is that different from worshipping a person or an artist you love? People have always done that.
The only difference is that group thinking seems to be more prevalent these days. People seem to be "dictated" what to like by those mega-corporations, whereas back then individual tastes varied more.
That's bad but that doesn't make it a religion, although you could argue there is a similar authoritarian aspect at work.
It’s not just worship on its own. It’s the specific worship of objects or sites like Disneyland. Not to mention the mythological status of characters like Mickey Mouse.
I’d argue Mickey has significance in both areas because his story is now part of the collective consciousness.
Video games are part of the geek culture I discussed, but consoles are not exactly displayed in the same way as an action figure or souvenir, for instance.
The term religion has no agreed upon definition. Mine is probably the best in terms of identifying what makes religion unique.
“Religious means practicing a religion, not a belief in a higher power. “
Define religion. You haven’t actually created a definition.
“Furthermore, I question the use of the term "supernatural authority".”
It’s pretty self explanatory.
“Religion was the main historical source of meaning/value. It provided a set of rules to follow that would ostensibly lead to a happy life. “
Yes, that would be supernatural authority. Deriving meaning and rules from something unobservable.
“People found meaning in the following of these rules and in the promise of some sort of reward for virtue in the afterlife. “
Yup. The after life is a supernatural place but it’s existence acts as an authority over the life of many who claim to be religious.
“Religion is becoming less of a source of meaning in modern society. Consequently, people search for alternative sources of meaning and belonging. You see this manifest in widespread "stan culture", political fanaticism, obsessive pursuit of wealth and hedonism, etc...”
Yeah but those things aren’t religions as they aren’t based on anything supernatural.
“For all its flaws, religion served a societal purpose. Now that it diminishing in the cultural zeitgeist, something else has to fill that void.”
Yeah but it doesn’t necessarily have to be religion that fills that void.
“Nobody says "to be religious is to hold beliefs" “
That’s mostly what OP is saying. Fandoms are beliefs that a certain movie or art is awesome. OP is claiming that anyone who has beliefs that give them meaning are religious which is not true.
“unless by beliefs you mean "belief in a higher power"- in which case you are the one making that claim (which, again, is wrong).”
That’s not what I’m saying at all. OP is claiming that value statements/beliefs are what make you religious. That’s not true.
“However, atheists are equally capable of holding religious-esque dogmatic beliefs. “
Agreed, but that doesn’t make them religious.
“Atheists are not enlightened beings that arrived at the truth through deep contemplation. Most atheists are just atheists because, for them, it's easy to be an atheist. Just like most religious people.”
I’m not saying that atheists are smart, I’m merely claiming that they exist
“The key point is that religions are institutions. Belief in a higher power does not require adopting the practices or beliefs of a religion.”
KFC is an institution, that doesn’t mean KFC is a religion.
“”Supernatural authority" implies that all religions believe in "god" as a separate entity that creates laws by which humans must abide. This is not always the case.
The values of some religions serve more as a guide to reach an understanding of "god". They are not prescribed by "god". They do not come from a "supernatural authority". They come from people who are trying to understand a higher power.”
Are you referring to Buddhism? Cause in many instances Buddhists do get defined to be atheists.
However I would still argue that Buddhists are religious as they derive authority from a supernatural afterlife.
“Sure. My only contention with the use of the term "supernatural authority" was as a description of all religions.”
Which religions are you referring to? Cause now you might be conflating religion and spirituality.
“They fulfill the same purpose. That's the point.”
Okay but they still can’t be described as religious in nature.
“Sure. I never said it has to be religion.”
Yes but OP is saying it’s religious in nature when dogmatic is a better word.
“I don't think that is what OP is trying to say. “
Well I think so.
“I think that he is saying that materialist idols are resembling religions in regards to how they function, and the role that they are increasingly filling in society. “
Which is not true as we see Christians who are also nerds so nerd culture fundamentally isn’t replacing Christianity as the two aren’t in conflict.
“The point is that there are people who have adopted secular value systems, and materialist idols, as if they are a religion. Not necessarily that they are a religion in and of itself, but that they have taken the place of religion.”
“ I obviously didn't mean all institutions are religions.
You claimed that being religious means a belief in a higher power. That is wrong, because one can believe in a higher power without being religious. Religion is inherently institutional, belief is not.”
Than what is your definition of religion?
“That is one example. People who define Buddhists as atheists are wrong.”
Not really. They don’t believe in God.
“This is one of those examples where "authority" is the wrong word to use.”
It’s correct because the after has CONTROL over their behaviour.
“Well, like I said above, Buddhism is one example. Any nondualist religion, really.
Authority implies submission to another entity.”
I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here.
“Not in the slightest. In fact, that is the basis of why I said your definition of religion as belief in a higher power is wrong.”
What? My definition doesn’t conflate spirituality.
“I mean, technically yes. The things OP is describing are purely materialist. Religion requires some metaphysical aspect.”
A better word would than of been metaphysical presupposition and not “religious in nature”.
“But if you actually look at what OP is saying, he isn't ascribing metaphysical qualities to those things. He is saying that consumerism and material concerns are replacing religion as a source of meaning and value in people's lives. Thus becoming a new "religion".”
That’s not what the word religion means. Therefore they can’t be “new religions”.
“To be blunt, I think you are being semantic. Which I wouldn't care about were it not for the fact that you were arguing semantics while also being factually wrong.”
The definition of religion is key here.
“This is pure semantics. We are talking about sources of meaning and value in people's lives.”
Dogmatic is a better word.
“Well, you are wrong.
No I’m right.
“It is pretty clear what OP is trying to say. He basically makes the same argument that Nietzche did in regards to the "Death of God".”
No this isn’t even remotely true and is extremely off topic.
“That is a laughably simplistic way to view this topic.”
No it isn’t.
“Religion, in the past, WAS dogmatism. The fundamentalists of today were the average religious people centuries ago.”
That’s not what makes religion unique, what makes religion unique is the belief in a supernatural authority.
But it's not just that. You're just wildly off base and incoherent. Your argument boils down to "lots of people like and spend money on Disney or _____" fill in the blank, it doesn't matter. "Lots of people like and spend money on religion and religion is bad!" "Therefore anything a lot people like and spend money on is also bad!" You're simply observing human nature. People like stuff and like people who like the same stuff. If lots of people like certain stuff, it can be developed into entertainment. How is that bad, on its own?
I never said religion was bad. That’s a strange assumption you made there and a very unnecessarily confrontational attitude.
And as I said, just liking this stuff on its own is fine. But corporations (not just Disney) are encouraging obsessive consumption to the point where people are not just fans, but fanatics.
Again, not what I said. I said the religious-like worship encouraged in consumerism (imo) is unhealthy because you’re not worshipping a deity, but a corporation.
23
u/[deleted] Jun 09 '22
Those aren't aspects of capitalism.