Talk:Religion/Archive 2

message: The title of this section is, admittedly, ambiguous enough to allow for the inclusion of a vast array of exiguously-connected people. However, it is evident from the language of the body and the names of the figures that what is meant is clearly those men and women who participated in the religion, had an effect on it growth, and most importantly, taught and/or changed the teachings in accordance with principles they had been spiritually/rationally inspired to disseminate. People like the Buddha, Christ, St. Francis, and Paramahansa Ramakrishna, then, seem like perfect candidates and it is jarring to see Henry VIII wedged in with them.
I have taken out his name for the reason that he has not been deemed a religious figure by any respected or reasonable historical study. He was a monarch who, for the sake of his proclivity for numerous betrothals, defied the Pope. He did not contribute to religious doctrine in any meaningful or lasting way, or aid in reformation of a particular system such as Protestantism, and his separation from Catholicism resulted merely in the looting of monastaries and churches about his kingdom. The political ramifications of a conversion made for convenience do not point to his being a religious figure, in spite of his supposed charisma and effect on religion. I don't know many Protestants either in England or elsewhere who view Henry VIII as a religious leader. In this case any political figure who has a hand in politics that relate to religion is a 'religious figure.'
If he is to be included, then we need to completely alter and revamp the whole religious leaders section, because Ashoka, for instance, is even more of a cornerstone monarch for religion (in his case Buddhism) than is Henry VIII. Personally, I don't feel like such a broad and pointless stretch of the definition of "religious leader" would benefit anyone, and thus am of the opinion that Henry VIII represents the "what doesn't belong here"-item on the list currently proferred.
Oh yeah, I archived the Talk Page, because it was getting to be as monstrously large as 1) Henry VIII and 2) the number of his matrimonies. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:19, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
:I was suprised to find Henry VIII deleted from the minor section "Role of charismatic figures" since he was a very charismatic figure that impacted both the Church of England (for obvious reasons) and the Catholic church.  His breakaway and reasons for doing so are of great religious importance.  Just because he was only a figurehead religious leader does not exclude him from a "role" as a "charismatic figure" in the shaping of religious history.  I feel he should be included on those grounds.  There is no restriction that only religious leaders can be listed as having significant roles. - Tεxτurε 15:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of charismatic leaders 

message: Back to section 1.1, what's with dividing the second definition into a third and fourth definitions?
The third one looks like a garbled restatement of the second definition, so garbled that I am not sure of its meaning. I think I understand what was intended.
The fourth definition is definitely a formal one, hence a subset of the second one.
So if they are listed at all, why not list them as subsets of the second one, or move them to the Approaches_to_distinguishinging_religion_from_non-religion article?
I thought we want to keep this section lean so as not to kill our readers with excess wordiness. Let's kill those two definitions, adding maybe a sentence or two to the second definition for sufficient completeness, to cover what was deleted.
Melamed 22:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I gotta go with rednblue on this one -- i think there is a substantive difference between the second, third and the fourth definition -- the second focuses on the origin of the beliefs (from non-observable phenomena) -- the third focusing on the excess assumptions (an analytical definition that could actually be used to define atheism as religion and deism as non-religion, depending on the assumptions you bring to occam's razor), and the fourth focusing on the bureaucratic structures.  i think they're all distinct definitions of religion ... although i think 2 and 3 are within SPITTING distance of each other.  i can't see them all as "form" in my mind -- therefore i think it would be pov to say that they are all variants of form ... unless we can cite that book of yours:).  Ungtss 23:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Previous discussion of this topic is archived here.
There seems to be some confusion in this section concerning some definitions used. "Hebrew" in "Hebrew thought" is not a linguistic designation, rather a historical artifact: namely the oldest book in Western tradition using "Hebrew thought" is Tanakh, which just happened to be written in Biblical Hebrew language. Likewise "Greek" in "Greek thought" is related to its use by Greek philosophers, in particular Plato and Aristotle, and not as a linguistic designation. An example is that the New Testament, which was written in Koiné Greek, was written using "Hebrew thought". Another example that "Hebrew" and "Greek" are not linguistic designations is that the Protestant Reformation was based on "Hebrew thought" even though it was expressed in European languages, in which Martin Luther, who did most of his work in German, has been recognized as being most consistently "Hebrew" in his theology.
The reason for including this section is to show that these two approaches, function and form exist, and they result in very different understandings as to what is and what is not a religion and religious belief.
Understanding these two different ways of thinking is important. Especially in the United States, many of the public controversies are directly and indirectly related to how one defines what is a religion. For example, should evolution be the only theory of origins to be taught in public schools? From a functional approach, evolution is a religion, making the government supported teaching of evolution, especially when it is the only theory taught, a de facto violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment. From a formal approach, evolution is science, not religion, making this argument moot. Similar arguments fly in the case of vouchers for private schools.
Other issues are indirectly related. For example, is abortion a religious or secular issue? From a functional approach, it is religious and public funding thereof tyranny to those who disagree and consider it murder, from a formal approach not so. "Gay rights" is another such issue.
Should not an understanding that there are these two approaches to the definition of what is religious be the first step in an intelligent discussion of the issue? Can we count on others to understand these ramifications? Is it not incumbent on us to educate ourselves?Melamed 16:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: A religion-neutral person would write of religion as he would of any other line of thought that man has devised, such as mathematics or Super Hero Comics.  A religion-neutral person does not believe that God exists since there is no empirical evidence that God exists--other than the stories and writings that men and women have made up; at least that is what the empirical evidence suggests.  To a religion-neutral person, there is no special power or truth in the words "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth"--at least no more special power or truth than there is in the words of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness--because the religion-neutral person goes with the empirical data whether the data agrees or disagrees with any known or unknown religion.  And the religion-neutral person does not mind that the empirical evidence indicates that some man or woman wrote all the phrases and Hebraic precursor phrases ever written without one whit of assistance or hinting by God.  The religion-neutral person does not resist or mind that the empirical evidence indicates that God does not exist any more than any of the other supernatural phantoms that man has created--such as Santa Claus or Babe the Blue Ox.  A religion-neutral person would not care if his conclusion agreed or disagreed with any religion--because all of any religion was invented by some man or woman--or so the empirical evidence indicates.  Are there any religion-neutral people?  I would guess that there have been many.  You may disagree; if you think there have been none, then you are not religion-neutral.  And that is all right.  ---Rednblu 06:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Approaches to the study of religion

message: :Previous discussion of this topic is archived here.
There seems to be some confusion in this section concerning some definitions used. "Hebrew" in "Hebrew thought" is not a linguistic designation, rather a historical artifact: namely the oldest book in Western tradition using "Hebrew thought" is Tanakh, which just happened to be written in Biblical Hebrew language. Likewise "Greek" in "Greek thought" is related to its use by Greek philosophers, in particular Plato and Aristotle, and not as a linguistic designation. An example is that the New Testament, which was written in Koiné Greek, was written using "Hebrew thought". Another example that "Hebrew" and "Greek" are not linguistic designations is that the Protestant Reformation was based on "Hebrew thought" even though it was expressed in European languages, in which Martin Luther, who did most of his work in German, has been recognized as being most consistently "Hebrew" in his theology.
The reason for including this section is to show that these two approaches, function and form exist, and they result in very different understandings as to what is and what is not a religion and religious belief.
Understanding these two different ways of thinking is important. Especially in the United States, many of the public controversies are directly and indirectly related to how one defines what is a religion. For example, should evolution be the only theory of origins to be taught in public schools? From a functional approach, evolution is a religion, making the government supported teaching of evolution, especially when it is the only theory taught, a de facto violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment. From a formal approach, evolution is science, not religion, making this argument moot. Similar arguments fly in the case of vouchers for private schools.
Other issues are indirectly related. For example, is abortion a religious or secular issue? From a functional approach, it is religious and public funding thereof tyranny to those who disagree and consider it murder, from a formal approach not so. "Gay rights" is another such issue.
Should not an understanding that there are these two approaches to the definition of what is religious be the first step in an intelligent discussion of the issue? Can we count on others to understand these ramifications? Is it not incumbent on us to educate ourselves?Melamed 16:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A religion-neutral person would write of religion as he would of any other line of thought that man has devised, such as mathematics or Super Hero Comics.  A religion-neutral person does not believe that God exists since there is no empirical evidence that God exists--other than the stories and writings that men and women have made up; at least that is what the empirical evidence suggests.  To a religion-neutral person, there is no special power or truth in the words "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth"--at least no more special power or truth than there is in the words of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness--because the religion-neutral person goes with the empirical data whether the data agrees or disagrees with any known or unknown religion.  And the religion-neutral person does not mind that the empirical evidence indicates that some man or woman wrote all the phrases and Hebraic precursor phrases ever written without one whit of assistance or hinting by God.  The religion-neutral person does not resist or mind that the empirical evidence indicates that God does not exist any more than any of the other supernatural phantoms that man has created--such as Santa Claus or Babe the Blue Ox.  A religion-neutral person would not care if his conclusion agreed or disagreed with any religion--because all of any religion was invented by some man or woman--or so the empirical evidence indicates.  Are there any religion-neutral people?  I would guess that there have been many.  You may disagree; if you think there have been none, then you are not religion-neutral.  And that is all right.  ---Rednblu 06:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous discussion on "Approaches to the study of religion"

message: I have no emotional objection to what you say, Melamed.  Allow me to translate your statement into a draft of a verifiable statement.
:Hypothesis of Pattern Indistinguishability. There is no God or divine spirit.  There are only various forms of 1) "quanta" and 2) "void" within which "quanta" move.  Within the human form Melamed and within the human form Rednblu, there is a concatenation of neuron firings, sensations, and thoughts which Rednblu calls "religion-neutral inquiry" and which Melamed calls "religious inquiry."  However, the pattern in the concatenation of neuron firings, sensations, and thoughts within Rednblu when Rednblu makes what Rednblu calls a "religion-neutral inquiry" is empirically indistinguishable from the pattern in the concatenation of neuron firings, sensations, and thoughts within Melamed when Melamed makes what Melamed calls a "religious inquiry."
I have no emotional objection to the above hypothesis being true.
However, I have empirical objections to the Form and Function sections of the Religion page because what is written in the Form and Function sections of the Religion page contradict and severely distort what Max Müller, John Lubbock, August Comte, William James, Immanuel Kant, and 99% of the other scholars theist and atheist have written about "religion."
That is, the Form and Function sections of the Religion page have nothing to do with the general scholarly understanding of "religion."  Hence, I move that we proceed to excise the sections Form and Function from the Religion page and put them on another page with an appropriate title, such as Science is a religion.
I have no objection to the assertions you make in Form and Function as long as you can quote scholars, such as William James, that have a biographical page in Wikipedia.  But the assertions in the Form and Function sections of Religion should be moved to another page because those assertions have nothing to do with Religion. ---Rednblu 16:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly – and I myself was unaware of it – will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know. 
Martin Luther was not comparing either Form or Function.  That is merely pulling the old-time religion trick of "asserting that I am right and you are wrong."  Similarly, C.S. Lewis spent his time trying to prove that Christianity was right; for example, in Mere Christianity, he describes his conversion from atheism to Christianity in an attempt to convert similarly swayable atheists.  And Francis Schaeffer, for example in Back to Freedom and Dignity, spent his time trying to convince people that freedom and dignity were God-given, despite what B.F. Skinner had to say about people being in Skinner boxes, and that therefore his readers should convert to Christianity.
Maybe you could make sense out of this section by changing the master heading to "Approaches to the proselytizing of religion."  At least, the section would then make sense if you used the writings of Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis, and Francis Schaeffer.  But then you would have to characterize the attitudes of the other world religions toward proselytizing.
In any case, what is in the Form and Function sections has nothing to say about "religion" generally and should be moved to a different page.  If "Form versus Function" is used in proselytizing Christianity, to preserve a Neutral Point of View then, the sections should be shrunk to be proportional to the fraction of the world population that these proselytizing Christians are among all religious devotees in the world.
This is just an opinion.
In any case, I myself will not revert your writing unless there is an outcry from other Wikipedia editors even though I assert that the Form and Function sections do not belong on the Religion page.  I have enjoyed our brief discussion, Melamed.  I learned a lot in reviewing all the thoughts and people you cited.  Have a good life. :)) ---Rednblu 22:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion: We should revert the [[Religion]] page to the version prior to the insertion of the Form and Function sections 

message: Rednblu:
I have not made surveys to find out what percentage of writers ascribe to the functional approach, as my main work has been elsewhere. However, the functional approach to define what is and what is not a religion was used by Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, as well as other, lesser known authors. I spoke with Nancy Pearcey, whose book Total Truth sold out on Amazon in only a couple weeks, and she uses the functional approach. There are millions of other people who use the functional approach, but who are not well known writers.
One common, easily recognizable sign that a person is using the functional approach is when he calls evolution "religion".
My understanding is that an NPOV article about a somewhat controversial subject does not limit itself to one view, rather it will mention, without taking sides, all views that are extant in the general population. It is not a NPOV violation to mention that one view is a minority view. But is it not censorship to limit discussion only to those authors who come from one tradition of thought? Are only "scholarly" authors whose writings can pass "peer review" (often used as a means to censor unpopular ideas and authors) fit to be cited in wikipedia articles?
Because even the basic question "Which beliefs are religious?" has different answers depending on which mode of thought a person uses, whether function or form, therefore would it not be an NPOV violation not to mention that these differing answers exist? The existence of these different answers and the thinking behind them is based on empirical observation.
I utterly oppose your motion as an NPOV violation.
Melamed 19:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly – and I myself was unaware of it – will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know. 
Martin Luther was not comparing either Form or Function.  That is merely pulling the old-time religion trick of "asserting that I am right and you are wrong."  Similarly, C.S. Lewis spent his time trying to prove that Christianity was right; for example, in Mere Christianity, he describes his conversion from atheism to Christianity in an attempt to convert similarly swayable atheists.  And Francis Schaeffer, for example in Back to Freedom and Dignity, spent his time trying to convince people that freedom and dignity were God-given, despite what B.F. Skinner had to say about people being in Skinner boxes, and that therefore his readers should convert to Christianity.
Maybe you could make sense out of this section by changing the master heading to "Approaches to the proselytizing of religion."  At least, the section would then make sense if you used the writings of Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis, and Francis Schaeffer.  But then you would have to characterize the attitudes of the other world religions toward proselytizing.
In any case, what is in the Form and Function sections has nothing to say about "religion" generally and should be moved to a different page.  If "Form versus Function" is used in proselytizing Christianity, to preserve a Neutral Point of View then, the sections should be shrunk to be proportional to the fraction of the world population that these proselytizing Christians are among all religious devotees in the world.
This is just an opinion.
In any case, I myself will not revert your writing unless there is an outcry from other Wikipedia editors even though I assert that the Form and Function sections do not belong on the Religion page.  I have enjoyed our brief discussion, Melamed.  I learned a lot in reviewing all the thoughts and people you cited.  Have a good life. :)) ---Rednblu 22:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What scholars use the distinction Function versus Form to classify religion and non-religion? 

message: One has to define first what is a religious belief before he can have an approach to studying it. Therefore, I rearranged the order of the first couple of sections.
I took out the statement "  An early discovery of Christian scholars was that many religions of the world think they are right and that the Christian religion is wrong.  For example, Bishop Beveridge in about 1700 wrote of his discovery that the "heathen" are self-righteous in their anti-Christian religions: "And why, say they, may not you be mistaken as well as we? Especially when there is, at least, six to one against your Christian religion; all of which think they serve God aright; and expect happiness thereby as well as you."" 
First, in the history of Christianity, 300 years ago is late. The early history is defined as before the Nicene convocation of Emperor Constantine at 325 AD, or about 1700 years ago and earlier.
Secondly, I have no idea who this "Bishop Beveridge" is, but from the name I suspect that he may be Roman Catholic or a member of a "Protestant" state church, by 1700 many members, even leaders, of both groups were no longer "Christian" in their teaching, as defined in the New Testament.
I removed "John Lubbock was a neighbor of Charles Darwin until 1861. " because it is irrelevant to the question of religion.
I removed "Until Darwin discovered how natural selection could create new species with no intervention by an Intelligent Designer, religion served as the best explanation.  However, the hypothesis of natural selection provided science with a means of providing only explanations that could be verified by repeatable demonstrations. " first because Darwin was not the originator of "natural selection", Aristotle postulated the same idea, secondly because the theory of evolution was already widely taught at the time Darwin attended college and he had one of Charles Lyell's books with him on the Beagle, and thirdly, probably should have been first, it is irrelevant to the discussion on what is a religion.
The teaching that biological evolution started with Darwin is modern legend. In the PhD dissertation Zur Datierung der Genesis "P" Stücke by Dr. Samuel R. Külling (remember, a dissertation has to pass peer review) the earliest book quoted dated from 1807 and by 1820 many authors in England, France, Holland and Germany based their theories on the theory of biological and social evolution. Darwin was just a late popularizer.
In this "Approaches" section, there seems to be a very parochial view on who is a scholar. Namely, it is one who is a follower of Western philosophy. Among some of the Hasidic Rebbes there are some who are very learned about the Talmud, Responsa and other Jewish writings, but because they are not part of Western tradition, therefore they are not "scholars"? The same could be said of other leaders within their respective religions.
Melamed 12:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Approaches'' revisited

message: === Successive storage containers to save time ===
--- Begin suggested section title
Modern causes for rejecting religion
--- End suggested section title
--- Begin suggested parallel headings -- this is a list of faults found in some religion
* Restrictiveness:
* Self-promotion:  
* "Promotion of ignorance":
* Dulling the mind against dealing with reality:
* Unsuitable moral systems: 
* Unappealing forms of practice: 
* Flaunting "Common sense": 
* Irrational and unbelievable creeds: 
* Making law based on religion: 
* Forsaking traditional practices and beliefs: 
* Tensions between proselytizing versus secularizing: 
--- End suggested headings  ---Rednblu 00:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storing Karl Marx's opinion here until later 

message: --- Begin suggested section title
Modern causes for rejecting religion
--- End suggested section title
--- Begin suggested parallel headings -- this is a list of faults found in some religion
* Restrictiveness:
* Self-promotion:  
* "Promotion of ignorance":
* Dulling the mind against dealing with reality:
* Unsuitable moral systems: 
* Unappealing forms of practice: 
* Flaunting "Common sense": 
* Irrational and unbelievable creeds: 
* Making law based on religion: 
* Forsaking traditional practices and beliefs: 
* Tensions between proselytizing versus secularizing: 
--- End suggested headings  ---Rednblu 00:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successive storage containers to save time 

message: Is there something that you need to say in the "Promotion of Ignorance" paragraph?  Or do you think the "Dulling the mind against dealing with reality" section does not summarize what Hegel, Feuerbach, and Karl Marx wrote about religion?  If you think the "Dulling the mind against dealing with reality" section inaccurately quotes Hegel, Feuerbach, or Marx, it might be more appropriate to quote from Hegel, Feuerbach, or Marx. 
There is redundancy between the two paragraphs right now.  But we can combine them later.  What is it you want to say with the "Promotion of Ignorance" section? And I wonder why you need Marx to say it when Marx did not argue that religion promoted ignorance.  And opium does not promote ignorance.  So what are you trying to say?  ---Rednblu 16:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Anonymous 62.188.156.190 

message: : <<I just wanted to chime in and say that i think the section on form v function is brilliant, and absolutely essential to an NPOV on the subject.>>
Overnight, in my opinion, the Religion page has become a page of undocumented, unreferenced, and self-contradictory personal research.  For example, the headings do not reflect the opinions of the scholars that are cited under the headings.  I suggest that the massive changes should be reverted and then discussed here on the Talk Page.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: -Rednblu, The content of the present article Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion may be personal opinions but there is a lot of scholarly research available, especially with regards to the question whether scientology is a religion. Andries 20:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds good to me. :)  Can we get some of that scholarly research on the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page to replace the current only personal opinions? Probably, if we want to salvage that page, we want to Move it to a more standard Wikipedia name. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  added a couple sources on function v. form ... anybody got any more? -- Ungtss
---
I cannot see that the Scientology cases provide any scholarly support for the function versus form personal opinions on the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page. Do they? Surely you jest! Can you paraphrase for me how this test for "religion" versus "non-religion" works?  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Rednblu I do not remember, sorry. I read that scientology fulfilled a certain nr. of items on a scholarly checklist for a religion but I do not remember the details. But I am certain that the debate surrounding scientology involved scholarly sources on this dispute. I think the Dutch court did not bother to use the scholarly checklist though. Andries 22:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: summary:
*:the form-based approach says it's religious if it appeals to some religious authority like sacred texts or prophets or something, deals with "spiritual matters," or relates to the "divine" -- so it's limited to "supernatural" belief systems.  
*:the function-based approach says it's religious if it's a view of the world that answers fundamental questions about the meaning of life, ethics, or the existence (or non-existence) of God -- so it includes atheism, buddhism, jainism, and agnosticism.
---
Ok. In my opinion, that kind of distinction is not logically consistent--BUT I hasten to add, my opinion does not matter here.  Can you cite me one published scholar that uses the distinctions you have defined to distinguish between religious and non-religious? The cited scholars Stark and Gluck, Durkheim, Bellah, and Milton do not use form versus function to distinguish religious from non-religious, do they?  Why wouldn't it be better to summarize the tests that those scholars actually DO use to distinguish religious from non-religious?  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudden NPOV problems in the [[Religion]] page 

message: I think it is a great endeavor to redefine "religion" in a better way--or even three new ways--as is suggested in Mr. Ungtss's proposal.  However, as I remember, redefinitions of anything is not a legitimate Wikipedia project.  I suggest that on Wikipedia we are to be NPOV--which by my understanding requires that we document how established scholars have defined "religion."
In particular, the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page is not a legitimate Wikipedia page--because the categorization scheme--form versus function--has not been used by any published scholar to categorize the approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion.  Hence, the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion is only the POV of several Wikipedia editors who perhaps have invented a brilliant new piece of personal research but have failed to produce a legitimate Wikipedia NPOV page--in my opinion. :)  I suggest we submit the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page to Votes for deletion to check on the Wikipedia community's standard for NPOV.  Or alternatively the Wikipedia community will in the VfD process bring the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page up to Wikipedia NPOV standards.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 16:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to submit [[Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion]] to [[Vfd|Votes for deletion]] 

message: i think that most of the debate here stems from a semantic problem: "religion" is used in a variety of ways, and carries a lot of baggage.  perhaps, if we used greater clarity in the article, we could resolve many of the disputes.
uses for the term "religion":
1) Belief in a set of supernatural assertions that are not scientifically verifiable (typified by the form-based definition, and distinct from "secular")
2) Worldview of any type (typified by the function-based definition, including EVERYONE, and applied in the approaches to studying religion and ways of relating to the religions of others)
3) Religious Institutions (including churches, creeds, and bureaucracies, and typified by the section on spirituality vs religion)
proposal: i propose we work together to come up with acceptable terms that effectively capture those three uses for the word "religion," to clarify meaning throughout the article, define our terms at the beginning, and then be SURE to use our terms consistently throughout the article.  any thoughts? -- ungtss
proposed text:
===Approaches to defining "religion"===
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "religion" as follows:
1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion)
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
b(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Due to the variety of uses and definitions of the word "religion," a great deal of confusion can surround the use of the word.  Therefore, for purposes of this article, three aspects of the definition will be assigned separate terms, to provide clarity.
* "Faith" will be defined as definition b(1): "the service and worship of God or the supernatural."  This definition, otherwise known as a form-based approach to defining religion, includes all sets of beliefs which makes claims beyond the realm of scientific observation, according to some authority or personal experience with the Divine, as well as actions which purport to interact divine with the Divine or Supernatural.  This definition places "faith" in contradistinction with Materialism, Secular Humanism, Communism, and Agnosticism, which claim to be based entirely on the study and interpretation of observable and verifiable phenomena.
* "Worldview" will be defined as definition 4: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith."  This definition, otherwise known as a "function-based" approach to defining religion, will define any set of beliefs or practices that has the function of addressing the fundamental questions of human identity, ethics, death and the existence of the Divine (if any).  This will encompass all systems of belief, including those that deny the existence of any god, those that affirm the existence of one God, those that affirm the existence of many gods, and those that pass on the question for lack of proof.
* "Organized Religion" will be defined in accord with definition 2: "an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices."  This definition will include the formal church organizations of all religions, creeds, and rituals that are associated with religious activity.  It will be distinct from "Faith," in that while "Faith" includes only Spiritual beliefs and actions, "Organized Religion" includes only the formal institutionalization of that Faith.
For a more complete discussion, see Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion
what say ye? Ungtss 21:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for semantic clarity 

message: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines "religion" as follows:
1 a : the state of a religious (a nun in her 20th year of religion)
b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
b(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Due to the variety of uses and definitions of the word "religion," a great deal of confusion can surround the use of the word.  Therefore, for purposes of this article, three aspects of the definition will be assigned separate terms, to provide clarity.
* "Faith" will be defined as definition b(1): "the service and worship of God or the supernatural."  This definition, otherwise known as a form-based approach to defining religion, includes all sets of beliefs which makes claims beyond the realm of scientific observation, according to some authority or personal experience with the Divine, as well as actions which purport to interact divine with the Divine or Supernatural.  This definition places "faith" in contradistinction with Materialism, Secular Humanism, Communism, and Agnosticism, which claim to be based entirely on the study and interpretation of observable and verifiable phenomena.
* "Worldview" will be defined as definition 4: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith."  This definition, otherwise known as a "function-based" approach to defining religion, will define any set of beliefs or practices that has the function of addressing the fundamental questions of human identity, ethics, death and the existence of the Divine (if any).  This will encompass all systems of belief, including those that deny the existence of any god, those that affirm the existence of one God, those that affirm the existence of many gods, and those that pass on the question for lack of proof.
* "Organized Religion" will be defined in accord with definition 2: "an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices."  This definition will include the formal church organizations of all religions, creeds, and rituals that are associated with religious activity.  It will be distinct from "Faith," in that while "Faith" includes only Spiritual beliefs and actions, "Organized Religion" includes only the formal institutionalization of that Faith.
For a more complete discussion, see Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion
what say ye? Ungtss 21:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Approaches to defining "religion"