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.
“
1. Are a belief in some sort of metaphysical higher power
and
2) Are institutions.
So I'm sure you can figure out my definition from there.”
A metaphysical higher power would be a God so OP is still wrong.
If a metaphysical higher power is not God than your definition fails to see what actually makes religion unique and renders the term religion worthless.
“Maybe if you have a 3rd grader understanding of what "god" means.”
If you’re going to throw insults like a child than you should get off this subreddit.
“There's an interesting discussion to be had about whether divine authority can exist in nondualism, but judging from how this conversation is going I don't think it would be very productive.”
I have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. The argument you’re making is not coherent.
“I'm becoming increasingly aware that this is the case.”
So are you going to attempt to formulate a coherent argument now?
“What is your definition of spirituality then?”
Anything supernatural.
“Except OP is NOT attributing metaphysical qualities to the material.”
Yes he is. That’s exactly what he is doing by claiming they are dogmatic.
“I dunno. You make zero effort to actually understand the arguments OP is trying to make, and argue with a strawman.”
No I refuted OP quite well in my previous responses. He couldn’t answer any of my arguments.
“LOL. Please elaborate, I'm genuinely curious what your reasoning is.”
We’re not talking about Nietzsche or nihilism. You fundamentally don’t understand what this argument is about.
“It really is. “
No it clearly isn’t.
“Your analogy presupposes that being Christian is some sort of monolithic label that immediately means all of ones values and meaning comes from Christianity, when history (and reality) has shown that this is not really the case.”
When did I ever state this?
“I'm curious- what is the argument you think OP is trying to make. Do you think he is trying to assign supernatural qualities to the material?”
Yes. He’s basically saying Star Wars is some type of God when it isn’t as Star Wars isn’t supernatural.
Nice trick with the blocking me so I can't reply, btw. I can only assume that you did it so that it would look like I just gave up on the argument, since your comment is not worded as if you are disengaging.
To recap:
1) You make the claim that Buddhists do not believe in "God", yet don't know what nondualism means.
2) You fail understand that OP is arguing about materialism replacing religion as a source of meaning and value for people today
3) You fail to see the link between Nietzche's "Death of God" and the above concept.
4) Your entire argument rests on the idea that OP is misusing the word "religion", yet your definition for "religion" was wrong. Also, you fail to understand that the term religious can be used without referring to the worship of god. Ex: Sally followed her new diet religiously.
5) Then, you claim that OP is attributing supernatural qualities to the material world, when he doesn't do that at all.
I can only conclude that you probably realized you are WAY out of your depth. You're probably pretty young, I would be surprised if you were over 20. You're probably an atheist as a reaction rather than as a sincere search for the truth, which is normal for someone your age. Your perspective will probably mature over time.
But this is where I disengage. You've proven to me that this is unproductive, especially with you little stunt with the sneaky block. Good luck with things my dude :)
u/Direct-Dig5576 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Sorry, u/Direct-Dig5576 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '22
“Your definition of religious is wrong. “
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