1458
It's all lip service (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/atheism@lemmy.world
132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

If you want to use a definition of religion that requires belief in the supernatural, go for it. But that usage isn’t universal

I said the definition is contested, so you picked your preferred one and declared it "the practical one." Practical for whom? Ethical Culture members with clergy, congregations, and 150 years of continuous practice? Defining religion as "philosophy plus magic" and then citing that definition as your evidence is just assuming your conclusion.

You're welcome to the definition. Just notice you got there by defining the counterexamples away, not by addressing them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Alright, let's dig into the counterexamples.

    Ethical Culture, or Ethical Humanism, doesn't call itself a religion but recognizes it fills some roles parallel to religious practice. The Ethical movement started as an explicitly secular idea and has grown/split/changed over a couple hundred years. Some branches call themselves religions, some even embrace spirituality (and not just in the way Felix Adler tried to redefine it as a kind of moral drive.) Already we're in a space where we have to accept that words mean multiple things depending on context, and I'm being flippant because it seemed obvious that in this conversation it isn't useful to use the term "religion" to mean multiple things when alternatives exist. It's not "contested" there are several valid definitions but that can't be applied interchangeably. Language should facilitate the communication of ideas, not muddy it. Furthering that point is the concept of a secular religion. This started as a critique of Christianity or "any religion, for that matter" and through that it should be assumed that subsequent use of the word "religion" in the thread was the type or types that could be applied to Christianity.

    Regardless, we carry on.

    Humanistic Judaism is essentially the same thing as Ethical Humanism but retaining the cultural heritage and rituals of Judaism (or part of it, they aren't a monolith). They make a distinction between "religious and secular traditions" implying that secularity is explicitly nonreligious in their point of view.

    Unitarian Universalists do call themselves a religion and they are not a secular movement. The belief in a "higher power" of some kind is important to their identity and they don't shy away from language like "faith" or "religious practice." It's a rejection of dogma or enforcing specific creeds and will accept pretty much anyone because they're more interested in inclusiveness than spirituality but it's a beige religion attached to cuddly social justice movement.

    So yeah, I stand by what I said. For the purposes of this conversation the difference between a religion and a philosophy is magic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    You just conceded my original point. "Several valid definitions that can't be applied interchangeably" is... what contested means. All I claimed at the start was that religion doesn't necessarily require magical thinking. So if several valid definitions exist and some of them cover nonmagical traditions, then the "necessarily" is dead.

    Which gets at the actual problem here. Zarkanian made a point, you swapped in your own narrower definition of religion, and then argued against that instead. That's a strawman. And "assume we meant the Christianity type" doesn't fix that, because the thread explicitly widened to "any religion, for that matter." You can't broaden the scope to every religion and then retroactively narrow the definition when the counterexamples show up.

    Also, some of this is just wrong. Ethical Culture was founded by Adler as a religion, and they literally went to court to be recognized as one (Washington Ethical Society v. DC, 1957). So "doesn't call itself a religion" is an interesting claim. And you've got UU backwards. They're creedless on purpose, humanism is one of their six official sources, and a big chunk of their members are atheists. Belief in a higher power isn't "important to their identity," it's explicitly optional. That's kind of their whole thing.

    Everything you've argued follows from picking a definition, applying it to someone who wasn't using it, and treating the mismatch as their mistake. That's not a disagreement about religion. It's a disagreement you manufactured. You may not like religions, but you sure debate like you're in one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    That's not what contested means. The definition of "theory" is not contested because it means different things in different uses. You're still probably right about "religion" here because even in what should be the same use we're arguing particulars, but that some definitions apply and some don't isn't scoring you the point.

    Second, I can't know because they haven't followed up, but I'm pretty sure I'm using the word the same way Phoenixz was and Zarkanian is who swapped in their definition to fit their interpretation of Satanism. I am confident that, in any case, Phoenixz did not mean "every possible definition of religion, up to and including metaphor and hyperbole."

    Fighting for the legal protections that exist for religions does imply mean sincere religious belief, it can easily be pragmatism. (Further, Adler was doing this 150 years ago with the vocabulary that was available. And he knew he was so limited. "The word 'spiritual' becomes a synonym of muddy thought and misty emotionalism. If there were another word in the language to take its place, it would be well to use it. But there is not.") I could well be wrong in this case. But I don't think I'm wrong about UU, at least in general terms. The embracing of (almost) all beliefs and philosophies means that various forms of spirituality are a common thread that weaves through much of their identity. Or less charitably, accepting nonsense is supporting nonsense.

    You may not like religions

    You can get rid of that "may." I'm openly and unapologetically hostile to all forms of magical thinking, religion-excused ignorance and abuse, and the protected status as "cultural default" theistic thought and structure has enjoyed forever (and especially the Abrahamic faiths in the modern world). It's fucking weird and I'm tired of pretending it isn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent