Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
You are confusing the dictionary definition of "religion," which is a fact about linguistic usage, with the actual social phenomenon of religion. We can't prove that atheists aren't religious by definition until we know how well our definitions map onto reality. The argument of someone like Stephen Cahn is that the dictionary definition of religion shouldn't include a requirement of belief in the supernatural because that is not logically necessary or empirically supported by actual religious practice. Thus, you can't refute him by appealing to a dictionary. The correctness of that definition is the subject of the argument.
FWIW, I think it is obviously true that you can be religious and an atheist. I personally know many religious Jews who are atheists. I've talked with a couple Shinto priests (and lay people as well) who are atheistic naturalists.
The dictionary definition of religion is basically what the anthropological definition was in the 19th century, i.e in E.B. Tylor ("belief in spiritual beings"). But the definition has always been pretty contested. On the far end of the spectrum, you have Geertz' definition:
Quote:
Religion is
(1) a system of symbols
(2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men
(3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
Which has been criticized as not leaving enough of a conceptual distinction between religion and the notion of culture more generally. Although Geertz might argue that the distinction westerners make isn't universal to begin with. I think Geertz is closer to a universally useful definition than Tylor though.
This wiki article seems like a pretty good introduction to different theories. I have
this book which I think is very good for anyone interested.
My opinion is the most obvious failure of popular definitions of religion is that they reduce religion to ideology (and hence to something like belief in spirits), which is obviously an important aspect of religion as a social phenomenon but not the only one. Evans-Pritchard makes this point when he discusses the impossibility of understanding Azande religion outside of the context of the structure of their society in general. I think it's also fairly central to Geertz' ideas about the relationship between "world view" (the ideological part) and "ethos".