I have seen this argument also, along with the claim that “atheism is a religion.” But while the meanings of words do change, one is not free to redefine commonly-understood terms to suit an argument. This whole thing rather reminds me of the scene in Alice In Wonderland, when she objected to Humpty Dumpty using the word “glory” in a completely idiosyncratic way.

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.

Most people have a very hard time distinguishing the defining characteristics of a concept from ancillary information about it. “But it’s important!” I hear from colleagues who want to include usage info or technical details in a definition for a term.

A term loses its value in communication if it is not characterized by unique attributes. Religion might or might not include community and security and charity, but those are not defining attributes, at least not in the principal or literal sense of the term. The most important defining attribute involves a service or worship of a God or the supernatural (Merriam-Webster).

There’s glory for you!

But what EVERY local congregation of whatever size has, is a tribal identity. These people live with each other, share each others’ joys and sorrows; they have a shared culture, a shared memory, and shared habits and rituals specific to their LOCAL congregation. “But we ALWAYS have a bake sale the Thursday before Easter!”

That is what we need to find a way to build.

Your criticism of my comment is puzzling and difficult to respond to, since the things that you attribute to me are exactly the opposite of what I actually wrote. It looks like you only skimmed it and responded to some other similar-sounding argument that you’ve seen somewhere else. So I’m going to ignore the mis-aimed critique and respond to a separate point you made.

Furthermore, if you ask adherents (even casual ones) of these religions why these rituals exist, they will – almost every last one of them – point to some godhead or other source of divinity and worship (or veneration or observation or honor) of that source of divinity.

The argument that you suggested was a genetic fallacy. Adherents to religions at the present time don’t have to define their religion by its original beliefs. I’ll agree that it’s the historical origins that made a set of rituals and taboos into a religion, but some have evolved to the point that they do not require any commitment to supernatural beliefs.

@ Greta Christina #17

Are you really arguing that any institution that’s “institutionally bound together in attitudes, beliefs, and practices” is a religion?

Of course not. That was just a dictionary definition I pulled for (failed) non-controversiality. There seems no good reason to believe that there even are any necessary or sufficient conditions for identifying religions based on their modern instantiation. What earns the designation “religion” looks like largely a historical accident.

Thus the counterexamples to the “religion requires supernatural belief” condition that I listed in comment #5. Of course, as stated in the comment’s opening, I agree that your (Christina’s) condition is a broadly correct generalization. But the analogy you made gets its force from the condition being a necessary condition, not just a reliable association.

FWIW, I think a more reliable association for religion is “taboos and rituals treated as being vital, together with their justifying ideology”. Even then there are counterexamples like revolutionary communism, which is certainly religion-like, but due to historical development of the terms involved, isn’t classed as a religion.

@ Paul W., OM #50

We may be differing on what counts as “supernatural” belief. I’m talking about dualism of pretty much any sort (or maybe anomalous monism or dual-aspect Idealism)…

You have a point! The LessWrong community uses “ontologically basic mental entities” to describe the supernatural. Catholicism only uses “supernatural” to refer to things from God, and “preternatural” for other types of woo. I like this dictionary definition: “unexplainable by natural law or phenomena”, which sounds to me like a good generalization of what you said above.

….and, wrong. Theravada Buddhists will generally claim that the rituals are simply the “best way to live”. Arrogant and authoritarian but not particularly supernatural, worshipful, or veneration-oriented.

The rituals are the key here, not the supernatural belief.

As I understand Theravada, this is false. Theravadins generally buy the metaphysics of reincarnation, breaking the ten fetters to attain Nirvana, and breaking the cycle of rebirth and suffering. Even if some don’t, most do, and I think that’s one of the motivating and immunizing beliefs that keeps the religion a going social phenomenon.

(I’m no expert, though. Wikipedia backs me up, but Wikipedia could be wrong too. It happens.)

We may be differing on what counts as “supernatural” belief. I’m talking about dualism of pretty much any sort (or maybe anomalous monism or dual-aspect Idealism), e.g., with souls that can survive death to be reincarnated.

I think that even if very austere, minimalism Buddhism does not explicitly require something like dualism, its plausibility and attractiveness typically depend on dualistic assumptions. Achieving nirvana is a lot less attractive if then you just cease to exist, and avoiding rebirth, attachment, and consequent suffering is not motivating if you don’t believe in rebirth anyhow.

I also think that even among those practitioners who don’t believe any of those specific things, most think there’s Something More beyond the mundane physical aspects of the universe, in something like a dualistic sense—there’s typically a belief in Soul Wisdom of some kind that adepts are better at experiencing. That is one of the things that lends “factual” authority to the traditional practices. Beliefs generally matter.

Buddhism is often combined with features of other religions with more floridly supernaturalistic ontologies, and almost always combined with at least some of them, at least a simple dualistic Something Moreism. I don’t think you can analyze Buddhism correctly without recognizing that—it’s part of what makes Buddhism tick as both a psychological phenomenon and a social one. I suspect that Buddhism as a religion would wither away if people stopped believing in anything like dualism.

That should not be surprising, because people are naturally prone to dualistic thinking.

Paul W., OM @ #37: I strongly disagree. I think it’s very clear which of these three things is “most essential.”

Yikes. You are quite right. What I wrote there is not what I meant to say, and it makes no sense given what I say after that.

I meant to say that that which of the other two features was more essential is unclear. My following comment was explaining why the supernatural thing is key, and not optional. (I agree with you on that—I don’t think there’s much wiggle room about the supernaturalism criterion. There is more wiggle room on the social and moral aspects.)

The rituals are the key here, not the supernatural belief. Veneration is a popular form of ritual, but far, far from the only form. Modern “devotional” Hinduism engages in veneration, but the older “Brahmanic” Hinduism is all about, basically, magic spells; this is another common and older mix of belief and rituals, a (frequently non-theist) system where the rituals are believed to give humans magical power over the world. Ritual is the big thing which they both have. In fact, ritual is so key that at least one Confucian tradition emphasizes that you should practice the rituals to appease the ancestor spirits *even though the ancestor spirits don’t exist*. Hmm.