There are it is said as many different definitions of what the word “Religion” means, as there are people on the planet, and many people say that it is indefinable. Which is religious speak for. “If I define it, you will knock it down, so I will pretend ignorance.”
I have however a personal definition of religion, which seems to work very well for me, in practice anyway, and which I think would be useful to sceptics generally. Which is. Religion is a synonym for the fallacy of. “Proof by authority."
When someone says something like. "I believe males should be dominant over females, because the tradition of our sacred musk ox, says so. We put out two boards out on the tundra, with male and female written on them, and our sacred ox pissed on male. Which clearly proves that it prefers males to be dominant."
The problem with that line of thinking being that it by claiming fake authority, the supernatural powers of the ox, it attempts, unfairly, to unbalance or even quash any debate.
Also by forcing believers to accept the use of fake evidence, it forces the believers and their sub-culture, to accept high levels of cognitive dissonance, and poor levels of sceptical thinking. Which spills over into all other spheres of thinking and life, like politics and social science, bad habits are like the word says, habitual.
Which is why I feel that it is useful, to separate honest unsupported beliefs, which may be needed to determine moral positions, from dishonest beliefs supported by fake evidence/authority, or in other words religion. And I find a use for the definition. "Religion is a synonym for the fallacy of proof by authority."
Do you have a good definition of your own ?
My simplified definition of religion: belief in something in the absence of any independently-verifiable evidence.
That is in part my point. But belief in something without any evidence, could be honest belief or superstition. The point of my definition, is that what makes religion different from those two, is fake evidence or claims to justfy it by appeal to fake authority.
@Fernapple My simple definition covers all that. Fake evidence & fake authority ≠ independently-verifiable evidence.
@Flyingsaucesir It does indeed.
I prefer to define religion and mythology separately. I realize it's not the common way to view spirituality, but it's the way I think about things.
For me, religion is my feeling of connection to the source of creation and all that supports my being, physically, and what I understand to be the practical means of our survival. I like to base this on the science for what we know so far. I might create metaphors in my mind for finding a greater understanding for what we don't yet know, but I know in my mind, it's just my brain trying to make sense of things. So, I kind of have my own spirituality which works for me, but its not an organized religion I'm sharing outwardly for society to follow along with blindly, without thinking, it is MY thinking.
The religions from past generations won't work in today's world, because there is too much that has been proven false by science. A religion HAS to jive with the science of the day. Past religions are now called mythologies.
To me, a mythology is a set of stories about our creation that are made up as an explanation which might be taken literally when first presented, but end up holding more metaphorical or cultural connection value than truth as time goes on. While perhaps they aren't true, they do hold metaphorical value in trying to make sense of the world around us and our place in it... until it doesn't.
For me, a mythos is like a pair of eyeglasses through which we view the world. An infant sees the world through naked eyes, perhaps selfish and self absorbed at first. Society puts a pair of magic glasses on him which puts him in a grand program where he has a role to play. As long as the prescription for those magic glasses is kept updated, everything goes along smoothly. If you try to put an old pair of glasses on the child, the distorted view won't jive with the real world and he will have troubles.
We've come to a time in our history where we have so many groups of people seeing the world through outdated prescriptions/mythos, when maybe we don't need a prescription/mythos at all, or if we do, it needs to be more accurate, more plausible in today's world.
If we are to combine religion, mythology, spirituality, cultural traditions and so on, maybe we just need to be a bit more easy breezy with it all and not get so stuck in adhering to one thing or another. Times are changing, and it takes a few generations to move a group think as much as necessary to get us all on the same page for a clear explanation of how we got here and what we should be doing, so far as we know. This means going forward, not backward toward something that no longer jives with the world around us.
Really good definition, thank you. My definition is of course mainly for established organized religion and not so generalized as yours. I like the metaphor of glasses, that is very clever.
@Fernapple Yes so many ways to describe religion, some personal, some organized. I have friends who say the beach is their religion, some say basketball is their religion, etc., I think what ever a person gets solace and direction can be a personal religion. Science can even be a religion for some, I suppose.
Organized religion with followers rather than thinkers is a bit scary!
The main problem here is that todays religion is tomorrows mythology.
Fealty to memes in the hope of gaining special favors. (Superstition)
I note your substitution of 'argument by authority' with 'proof by authority'. For religionists, I'm not sure either are really appropriate, and that it might be better with 'persuasion by authority' or 'conversion by authority' or along those lines.
Both argument from authority and proof by authority have existed for a long time. I just chose proof because those within a faith, would not admit to it being merely an argument.