Can you describe the category you are presenting without using the word “religion”, and then say why it is “good, actually”?
This is literally in the body of the post, but I can copy paste it here for you?
a cultural and social thing where people seriously dedicate themselves to something, demonstrate their dedication via acts and beliefs, and by doing so live a life they consider more worth living than if they didn’t.
The rest of it is all in the post. I mean I could just make up a word to sub in for religion, but I’m pretty sure you can do a find and replace for yourself if you really can’t bear to read the word “religion”.
(Sorry that this reply is a bit snarky, but I’m basically at the point where I feel like we’re talking past each other and this isn’t likely to be a fruitful conversation. I think I’ve addressed many of your concerns in various places in this comment section, but you seem really set on this point about how I used the word “religion” as if it has some magical power that other words don’t. Like words mean things to people but also the categories that words point to can change. It’s fine if you don’t like attempts like this to shift the category of “religion”, but your objections seem likely fully general objections to me against words shifting in meaning, and you’re picking on “religion” because maybe you especially don’t want it to be that anything you like gets called “religion”? I think it’d be more useful if you made an object-level argument for why “religion” should be framed as most people you know seem to frame it and why my attempted reframing is bad because then we could actually discuss something maybe. I’m not sure, and I don’t actually feel like I can or should make any specific demands of you to keep the conversation going. Anyway, this is all to say I think I’m going to drop this thread unless you have something to say that wouldn’t be addressed by me pointing to you something about how I think words work, like this or this or this.)
Ok, I had lost sight of that in this conversation.
“A cultural and social thing where people seriously dedicate themselves to something, demonstrate their dedication via acts and beliefs, and by doing so live a life they consider more worth living than if they didn’t.”
That seems a worthwhile thing (provided the thing they are dedicating themselves to is worthwhile, or at least not actively bad). It happens everywhere. I just don’t get why you want to associate this general phenomenon to the more limited instances of it that the word “religion” covers, when that requires dropping everything from the narrower concept that touches on the supernatural, the moral, and the spiritual.[1] Whatever debates scholars have over the boundaries of what-it-is-that-they-study, I doubt if anyone would look at your characterisation of the-thing-that-you-want-to-point-at and unpromptedly call it “religion”.
My religious upbringing was similar to yours, except that it was similar to everyone else’s in my environment. No-one seemed to take it as anything more than “the done thing”. Anyone showing signs of actually believing would have been thought a bit odd. Church twice a year, Christmas and Easter, of course you don’t pay any attention to the sermon, it’s just something that happens in church, you sing the hymns because you sing the hymns, you get married in church because of course you get married in church. Pure simulacrum level 4. I once described this to someone who was brought up in an actually believing Mormon family, although having left that faith himself for atheism, and he responded, “that’s not a religion, it’s barely even a social club.” Some “religion” is like that, a dead shell of what was. Is a dead pig a pig? It doesn’t matter, what matters is, is it fresh enough to turn into bacon?
This is literally in the body of the post, but I can copy paste it here for you?
The rest of it is all in the post. I mean I could just make up a word to sub in for religion, but I’m pretty sure you can do a find and replace for yourself if you really can’t bear to read the word “religion”.
(Sorry that this reply is a bit snarky, but I’m basically at the point where I feel like we’re talking past each other and this isn’t likely to be a fruitful conversation. I think I’ve addressed many of your concerns in various places in this comment section, but you seem really set on this point about how I used the word “religion” as if it has some magical power that other words don’t. Like words mean things to people but also the categories that words point to can change. It’s fine if you don’t like attempts like this to shift the category of “religion”, but your objections seem likely fully general objections to me against words shifting in meaning, and you’re picking on “religion” because maybe you especially don’t want it to be that anything you like gets called “religion”? I think it’d be more useful if you made an object-level argument for why “religion” should be framed as most people you know seem to frame it and why my attempted reframing is bad because then we could actually discuss something maybe. I’m not sure, and I don’t actually feel like I can or should make any specific demands of you to keep the conversation going. Anyway, this is all to say I think I’m going to drop this thread unless you have something to say that wouldn’t be addressed by me pointing to you something about how I think words work, like this or this or this.)
Ok, I had lost sight of that in this conversation.
“A cultural and social thing where people seriously dedicate themselves to something, demonstrate their dedication via acts and beliefs, and by doing so live a life they consider more worth living than if they didn’t.”
That seems a worthwhile thing (provided the thing they are dedicating themselves to is worthwhile, or at least not actively bad). It happens everywhere. I just don’t get why you want to associate this general phenomenon to the more limited instances of it that the word “religion” covers, when that requires dropping everything from the narrower concept that touches on the supernatural, the moral, and the spiritual.[1] Whatever debates scholars have over the boundaries of what-it-is-that-they-study, I doubt if anyone would look at your characterisation of the-thing-that-you-want-to-point-at and unpromptedly call it “religion”.
Words do shift in meaning, but that is not licence for anyone to arbitrarily redefine a word, as in the old conundrum about how many legs a dog has if you call its tail a leg.
But I am happy to end this here, as I think everything has been said, even if agreement has not been reached.
My religious upbringing was similar to yours, except that it was similar to everyone else’s in my environment. No-one seemed to take it as anything more than “the done thing”. Anyone showing signs of actually believing would have been thought a bit odd. Church twice a year, Christmas and Easter, of course you don’t pay any attention to the sermon, it’s just something that happens in church, you sing the hymns because you sing the hymns, you get married in church because of course you get married in church. Pure simulacrum level 4. I once described this to someone who was brought up in an actually believing Mormon family, although having left that faith himself for atheism, and he responded, “that’s not a religion, it’s barely even a social club.” Some “religion” is like that, a dead shell of what was. Is a dead pig a pig? It doesn’t matter, what matters is, is it fresh enough to turn into bacon?