Talk:Religion/Archive 2

Role of charismatic leaders
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. -  Tεx  τ  urε  15:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Approaches to the study of religion
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)

---

We understand. There are at least two points-of-view on Approaches to the study of religion No one has cited a recognized scholar on religion who supports POV 2. And there are recognized scholars that explicitly state some form of each of the four Approaches itemized on the Religion page as being expressly and unalterably different from each of the other three. As you will see from the lengthy discussion, we would all benefit if you had published your book so that we could cite you as the authority for the Form vs. Function POV on Approaches to the study of religion. :) But we have been unable to find a copy of your book. :((  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) POV 1: There are four Approaches, at least.
 * 2) POV 2: There are ONLY two Approaches; "The third one looks like a garbled . . .," and "The fourth definition is definitely a formal one."


 * 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)

This is a "Doh ...!" moment.

Anyone with half a brain should be able to recognize that an approach that defines religion according to its "formal institutions, creeds, organizations, practices, and rules of conduct, of all major, institutionalized religions" is clearly defining what is a religion according to its formal aspect. As such, by definition it is a subset of definition #2. Do you need to quote a book to see the obvious?

Definition #3 appears to say that if there is a naturalistic answer sufficient to explain a belief, it is not religious. If I understand it correctly, it too is a formal characteristic, hence making this definition a subset of definition #2 as well. In fact, it looks like a garbled restatement of definition #2, adding only Occam's razor.

I don't deny the possibility of further definitions, but these don't even meet the standards of logic.

A third one that I have proposed is that people define religion by emotion, "because if feels like a religion." Sadly, that is more common that what we'd like to admit, but it is very subjective and cannot be systematized.

As for definition #2, it is defective in that it mentions only the beliefs, while a formal approach to "religion" also includes the institutions, rites, structures and other formal aspects connected with the beliefs.

Melamed 20:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Let's take the easiest one first. An "organizational approach" to defining religion is not form for at least two reasons.
 * 1) The organization historically has often redefined the form to be something that was not previously the "form" of religion.
 * 2) Furthermore, the "organizational approach" often does not recognize religion in the Form if the Form is not organizationally sponsored by the organization.  ---Rednblu | Talk 21:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Previous discussion on "Approaches to the study of religion"

 * 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)

---

If you are interested in summarizing for an encyclopedia page the approaches of mankind in attempting to define "what is and what is not a religion and religious belief," the distinction between Form and Function fails. The Form and Function sections of Religion both fail to describe the problem of distinguishing Religion from Non-religion.

For example, to any religion-neutral anthropologist, the distinction between Religion and Non-religion is a meaningless distinction--whether you attempt to distinguish on the basis of Form or Function. To any religion-neutral anthropologist, religion is just an early stage of mankind's attempts to explain the world in which people found themselves. And that statement uses both Function and Form. That is, Religion has the function of "explaining," and certain Forms of "explaining" are called Religion--based on political biases that have nothing to do with either the Form or Function of the "explaining."

A similar combination of Form and Function in "explaining" occurs in "explaining" the evolution of the whale's hind legs. That is, if you examine a whale's skeleton, you will see that the whale has two hind appendages that have the Form of "legs." But these appendages do not have the Function of "legs that you can walk on." It is a meaningless distinction to try to find out if the whale's appendages are "legs." And the statement that "the whale cannot use its rear appendages to walk" shows favor for neither Form nor Function; it is just a statement of an empirical observation.

Similarly, the statement that "evolutionism has a better explanation than does creationism" shows favor for neither Form nor Function, and the usefulness of the statement is independent of whether or not creationism is a Religion or a Non-religion.

If you are objecting to the banning of "religious" speech that the U.S. Supreme Court does, then you are right that it is not fair for the U.S. Supreme Court to ban the teaching of creationism merely because it is "religious." That is, the U.S. Supreme Court has violated its own rules against "religious tests" in banning the teaching of creationism. However, the "religious tests" that the U.S. Supreme Court uses to ban the teaching of Creationism are not a proper subject for the Religion page.

What is it that you want to say with the Form versus Function distinction? That distinction between Form and Function says nothing about Religion or about general Approaches to the study of religion. ---Rednblu 19:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, but I'm back now- and quite amazed to discover that Rednblu has expressed my own thoughts on this issue better than I could.

The discussion has moved on since I was last here, so I'll only answer (what I take to be) the main thrust of Melamed's last reply to me. You wrote: "How do you know that person A holds belief X? What is the basis for that claim? How can you verify it? What if there are conflicting claims concerning his beliefs, how do you resolve them? How can you tell whether or not he is being hypocritical? What about "Institution Q advocates ritual practice P"? ... Such a claims are not "uncontroversial facts". That you should even think that they might be indicates that you hold to other, unstated, a priori assumptions."

I agree that many of these questions are not easy to answer. But they are the easiest by far. I contend that it is far easier to find out what one believes and practices than, say, what effect one's belief about the origins of the universe has on one's personal moral code. Furthermore, I see no way to answer the latter question without knowing the answer to the former ones. Am I wrong? Is there a way to do this?

You also wrote: "This is making an arbitrary, a priori assumption that studying the external form can lead to answers concerning the inward reality. From a functional standpoint, that's backwards. It is also an arbitrary assumption made before collecting any information. It is also making arbitrary decisions concerning methodology and the nature of religion."

Assumption? Maybe. Arbitrary? No. The "assumption" that by studying simple facts and raw data we can derive explanations for highly complicated phenomena is necessary for all of science, and has to a large extent been validated.

This dispute does not appear likely to be resolved within the near future, and until it is, I would suggest this revision of the section as a consensus- it mentions "Hebrew thought" as a means of studying religion without focusing too much on the flawed form-function dichotomy. The current section could then be moved to a different article. I'm biased, of course, since that revision of the section was mine.

If it's decided not to revert, then the section as it stands now will need some major trimming. And in either case, it also needs some perspectives from other schools of thought; I'd add that information myself, but I don't trust myself to do a good job writing about something I have so little knowledge of. Rednblu's list on the archived talk page seems like a good start. -Didactohedron 03:05, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

---

First to Rednblu:

If you are interested in summarizing for an encyclopedia page the approaches of mankind in attempting to define "what is and what is not a religion and religious belief," the distinction between Form and Function fails. Oh? Then how do you explain the different descriptions of the theory of evolution? Those who follow the function approach call it "religion", while those who follow the form approach call it "secular science". Do you claim that both groups are saying the same thing? Another example, you wrote to any religion-neutral anthropologist: a "religion-neutral anthropologist" is an oxymoron. There is no such critter. From a function based approach, he has his own creation myths, his sense of present self and future beliefs. He is intensely religious. Functionally, there is no difference between him and the people he is studying. He just has different explanations. Even from a formal approach, he has to admit that he has such beliefs, but because he has a priori defined his beliefs as "secular", he can honestly claim that he believes that he is "religiously-neutral". (I question how much such an anthropologist would miss in his studies, if he is so blind to his own beliefs?)

Even in the above paragraph, the difference between the functional and formal approaches should be evident: in the formal approach, what is "religious" is based on the content of the answers to the basic religious questions; in the functional approach, the question is "do these beliefs function as an answer to one of these basic religious questions?" irrespective of the content of the belief.

(Off topic: I did not bring up creationism because it is irrelevant to the question. The same goes for the Supreme Court and its often un-Constitutional rulings.)

Didactohedron:

First of all, I agree that the section has become too long. It has ballooned to close to 20% of the total article, and that to cover just one question. I can see splitting it, or as was the practice of some encyclopedias back in paper days, have a short one to two paragraph introduction to the question, along with Rednblu's suggested intro that has a one to two paragraph explanation to each catagory, then using the present section (edited) to be an expanded explanation below, just as there is an expanded section on each of Rednblu's catagories already in the article. But it is important enough that I do not agree with cutting it out as you had done in your archived version. (I'm biased to keeping it as is, as I wrote it.)

That there are opposite answers to questions such as "Is evolution religious?" shows that the dichotomy between functional and formal approaches exists. The flaw is not in the dichotomy, but in recognizing it.

You mentioned other schools of thought. Of the logical schools, there are only two schools that I know of: function and form. Can you explain and show how other schools of thought are logical? Or how they could be used systematically to define what is religious or not? I would like to see that. All the ideas summarized by Rednblu are based on the form school of thought.

You questioned the importance of what effect one's belief about the origins of the universe has on one's personal moral code. There it is important to analyse the stated goals of the religion, for some have an effect, others no effect. For example, the justification for capital punishment in ancient Judaism and Reformation Christianity is directly based on one's belief about the origins of the universe (Genesis 9:6). The same for the Sabboth (Exodus 20:8-11). Even the seven day week has its historical roots in that. Similarly, Lenin's repeated urgings to greater cruelty, and Hitler's and Stalin's mass murders (Stalin claimed he killed more Soviets from 1928-1930 than the Soviet Union lost in WWII) were directly based on their views on creation, their "creation myths" so to speak. But other religions have no connect between their creation myths and present morality. The creation myth is just an interesting story. The same questions should be asked about every other teaching in a religion under study: some have extensive moral codes, others little to none. I can go on, but this is getting a bit long.

The purpose of a NPOV article like "religion" is not to censor ideas, nor push only one's own agenda, rather describe in a short summary what exists, even if one does not agree with it or even thinks it is unsound (such as I think the "historical" and "psychological" origins of religion are unsound), but I think they should be included because they are widely believed. Do you agree?

In closing, what do you think of the idea having me to write a short description, at most two paragraphs, mentioning that there are two ways of looking at the question of religion--function and form--then adding Rednblu's proposed introduction, giving tags to the relevant expanded sections below? 66.81.78.131 23:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's with the login? I thought I had an automatic response to Melamed, not 66.81.78.131 ---Melamed 00:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

You might try the "Show preview" button below the edit window next time to check first how your signature will appear before you do "Save page."

You wrote: ''<>''


 * 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)

---

Rednblu:

Thanks. I could hardly have found a better example illustrating the differences between functional and formal approaches to "religion". A bit long, but a good illustration nonetheless.

In this illustration, you referenced faith: faith in a particular view of ontology and epistemology, and indirectly a certain creation myth. If a person has faith in those propositions, that makes him "religiously neutral".

This reminds me of the founding of Logical Positivism. One of the founding statements reads "We believe in no presuppositions." not recognizing that, functionally at least if not also by form, that statement is itself a presupposition accepted on faith. Functionally, Logical Positivism, with its modified solipsism and blind faith in "science", is no different from the Yanomamö who see a personality behind every event. The only difference is the form expressed by the content of the beliefs.

I don't claim to be religiously neutral. Because I use function to analyze all of the universe, that approach automatically brings with it certain a priori assumptions. Likewise, the formal approach that you adopt is not religiously neutral, rather it too automatically brings with it certain a priori assumptions. Is it possible to analyze another's religion accurately, if one does not recognize and admit to his own presuppositions accepted on faith, his a priori assumptions that influence even what should be called a "religion"?

Melamed 13:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Motion: We should revert the Religion page to the version prior to the insertion of the Form and Function sections
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)

What scholars use the distinction Function versus Form to classify religion and non-religion?
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)

Ps: Re. your hypothesis:

"There is no God or divine spirit." This is a presupposition accepted on blind faith. " There are only various forms of 1) "quanta" and 2) "void" within which "quanta" move." again presupposition based on blind faith in mathematical models, which reminds me of Bertrand Russell's favourite definition of mathematics: "the subject in which we never know what we are talking about nor whether what we are saying is right." Since these statements are based on blind faith, how are they verifiable? ---Melamed 19:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Surely not, my friend. That whole paragraph is labeled "hypothesis." Hence, every assertion in it is falsifiable by inviting you to bring forth a demonstrable counter-example. If the text of that paragraph had been "No even number is evenly divisible by two with no remainder," that assertion does not imply blind faith--no matter how clearly black and white the writing. The hypothesis rather invites you to say, "Try the number four."

Furthermore, in my opinion, Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer did not use Form versus Function to classify "religions" and "non-religions." For example, Martin Luther wrote the following analysis of the differences between Judaism and Christianity.


 * 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)

Rednblu:

Thank you again for a stimulating discussion. However, this last effort was not up to the standards of your previous entries. For the most part, it was made up of red herring arguments.

In looking at the question "Which teachings are religious?" the three most common responses I have heard are:


 * emotion, subjective feeling, "It is religious because I feel it is so." The main weakness of this approach is that it cannot be systematized. However, in a post modern age with its lack of absolutes and standards, it is a common approach. Maybe we should add this as an approach in the section.


 * function, if a teaching functions as an answer to the basic religious questions of origins, ontology and teleology. This is an objective standard, but not widely used in modern academia. It is, however, more widely used outside of academia.


 * form, certain teachings are defined as religious based on the form, the content, of the teaching. So, for example, if a teaching promotes a god or gods, it is religious while an atheistic teaching is not religious unless those who promote it claim that it is religious. There are other rules as well, mentioned in the section. Like function, this approach is systematizable and contains objective standards. It is the approach most widely used in academia.

The reason I mentioned C.S. Lewis' and Francis Schaeffer's writings is not for proselytism, rather it was to highlight that they used the function approach to define what is a religious belief. The question I asked is not "What is the main purpose of their books?" but "How did they define what is a religious teaching?"

How does one define what is a religious belief? From empirical studies, there are two standard ways people define "religion": one because it acts like a religion (function) and the other because it looks like a religion (form). This section belongs.

Thanks again.

Melamed 01:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Approaches revisited
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)

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)

--- Begin storage container -- Cut from archive of "Modern causes for rejecting religion"


 * Dulling the mind against dealing with reality: Many atheists and agnostics see early childhood education in religion and spirituality as a form of brainwashing or social conditioning that dulls the child's moral capacity to deal with a world of temptations in which, in reality, there is no God to inform or assist.  Men and women of today have the capability of taking responsibility for their condition where there is no God to assist them.  But dealing with reality is sometimes painful.  And religion in modern times serves as an "opiate" leading to addictions where the "opiate" gives false hopes and a distorted view of reality with less pain.  Perhaps, before the advent of science and the modern understanding of evolution, religion was a valid "stage of growth in human self-consciousness."  But today the "opiate" of religion dulls the users' minds, leaves the users in a stupor, and makes the users incapable of fixing their "inhuman condition" where the harmful condition includes the addiction of "the masses" to religion.

--- Stored here until later ---Rednblu 23:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--- Begin storage container ---


 * Dulling the mind against dealing with reality: Hegel, Feuerbach, and Karl Marx developed views that men and women of today have the capability of taking responsibility for their condition where there is no God to assist them.  But dealing with reality is sometimes painful.  And religion in modern times serves as an "opiate" that gives false hopes and a distorted view of reality with less pain.  Perhaps, before the advent of science and the modern understanding of evolution, religion was a valid "stage of growth in human self-consciousness."  But today the "opiate" of religion dulls the users' minds, leaves the users in an "opiate"-induced stupor, and makes the users incapable of fixing their "inhuman condition" where the harmful condition includes the addiction of "the masses" to religion.  Hence in 1844, in Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right', Karl Marx said of religion, "It is the opium of the people."

--- End storage container --- ---Rednblu 16:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Anonymous 62.188.156.190
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)

Atheism is not the same as science
I am adding this new debate because some people want to use atheism as a synonym to science. This is seen in the header Atheistic attempts to explain religion. The parties involved consider it POV to say that it is scientific instead. It is quite silly to use the word because in the intire section not once is atheism mentioned. All are from a scientifically positivist view. It would also be valid to say that atheism could not have an attempt to explain anything more than the monotheists could attempt explain the trinity. Just think of it that way. Atheism is not a religion, cult, sect or whatever. Besides one could believe in everything that science has found out in the brain and still belive in a higher power, thereby not being an atheist. It is just one more thing that god built into the human phyche to be able to talk to his peole. --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  21:08, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say secular instead. It seems a bit less POV than atheistic or scientific. Bruce 21:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I like secular alot better myself. Sorry I reverted so fast, I agree things should be discussed in talk, but the fact you had just reverted me elsewhere, combined w me being pretty well PO'ed w the insinuation that scientific necessarilly leads to atheism/secularism made me a bit trigger happy. I'll make the necessary changes. Sam [Spade] 22:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sometimes I make people mad. (I even do it on purpose sometimes) I would prefer scientific, however, secular is agreeable. --Sunborn

---

I don't disagree with using "secular", but for the record I'd like to make the following comments:
 * I certainly agree that atheism is not the same as science.
 * I don't believe that changing "scienctific" to "atheistic" means that the two are synonyms. It could just as easily be that the person who changed it thought that "atheistic" was a different but more appropriate word to use.
 * I disagree that atheism is not a religion. According to the article, whether or not it is considered a religion depends on whether one is using "function" ("Hebrew thought") or "form" ("Greek thought").  I subscribe to the former, and I believe that this makes more sense.  To pick out some key phrases from the article:
 * Function: "The main advantage of this approach is its ability to incorporate seamlessly all of the belief systems ..."
 * Form: "...a priori assumptions ..." and "it conforms to widely held societal and academic norms".
 * In other words, there is sensible reason to use "function", whereas "form" is used by most people because most people use it and because of their a priori assumptions.

Philip J. Rayment 02:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The "scientific"/secular attempts at explanation appear to make an a priori assumption that there is not a supernatural explanation. Whilst recognising that science is incapable of directly testing the supernatural, this is not a valid reason to make this assumption.  As such, an explanation that assumes no supernatural could fairly be described as "atheistic".


 * I roundly agree with everything Phillip has just said. Hear Hear! Sam [Spade] 12:00, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I would agree if he were not missing the point. It doesn't matter if I argue from form or function, it will be the same. A major requirement for a religion is an organization. You can be spiritual with respect to function however spiritual is not your religion unless you belong to a spiritist organization, you would be irreligious. American Atheists is a religion, atheism in general is not, unless you regard theism a religion. Communism is only a religion in the context of Juche because communism is a general term (like atheism) and Juche is an actual organization. So a Communist party might be a religion however Communism itself is not. --The Sunborn


 * <>
 * Not at all. Many Christians, for example, meet in home groups, not part of an organisation.  Also, to take a hypothetical example, suppose a Christian was stranded on an island with nobody else around.  He (perhaps) has his Bible, and he continues to believe, pray, and read the Bible.  Has his Christianity ceased to be a religion because he is not part of an organisation?  Of course not.  An organisation may be a typical characteristic of a religion, but it is not a defining one.  Atheism, like theism, is religion.
 * Philip J. Rayment 04:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As long as you consider Monotheism, Pantheism and whatever, a religion then be my guest to call Atheism a religion. I will have no quarrel with you. However, I doubt many would agree with you. --The Sunborn

My Philosophy of Religion Professor reccomened using Non-religious explanations instead of secular explanations because it in theory encompases ideas of secular, science, atheism. Irrelgious explanations is theoretically the same too. I will quote directly from his lecture: "A non-religious explanation of religion is any explanation of religous experiences, beliefs, practices, or institutions that does not rely on fundamental religous assumptions." --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  12:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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. it is a bit long, tho ... so i was wondering if it might be appropriate to put a brief summary of it in this article and then link to a fuller discussion in an article of its own -- any thoughts? -- Ungtss


 * I don't think that I have a problem with that. And by the way, I generally like your changes, at least the ones I've had a good look at.  However, your changes are so extensive that the history comparison pages fail to line up the equivalent paragraphs, making the changes hard to inspect!  Philip J. Rayment 14:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * thanks, man -- and thanks for catching me on the development of writing:).

Sudden NPOV problems in the Religion page

 * <<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)

heya -- my changes -- and reasonable minds disagree on whether it's more or less pov now (see above) -- in my opinion, the page was extremely POV before -- designed specifically to make religion look like a foolish relic of the past. the vast majority of humans are religious, so religion deserves a fair shake. let's hash this out, shall we? -- Ungtss

---

I suggest that the first step in hashing this out is to revert all changes to about October 24, 2004. Then we can hash out the next step. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

any other votes aye or nay? -- Ungtss

---

The normal Wikipedia procedure on a controversial page like Religion with a long TalkPage and long archive is to discuss massive changes on the TalkPage before making the changes. A vote would be appropriate after discussion of proposed massive changes. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- i can understand that ... and i apologize for barging in. at the same time: 1) two other people have already spoken positively of the changes, and already made changes of their own, consistant with those i made, and improving upon them. that's three that are neutral to positive, and one negative.  reverting would undo the changes of three people. 2) i made structural changes which broke the page into topics, making it easier to deal with POV problems as they arise in the future. 3) i did not delete any of the substantive material that was on their before -- i just took the formal view out of its position of superiority. 4) if we revert, i'm going to propose every single one of those changes again ... and we'll have to negotiate each one. redundant. so why don't you go through the new page and eliminate my bias and inaccuracies? i won't cry:). -- Ungtss

---

Ok. My primary concern here is that we have a good quality set of pages that represent documented scholarly points-of-view. So, my first recommendation is that we submit the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page to Votes for deletion since there is no published scholarly book that supports the opinions in that page. Hence, there is no NPOV valid reason to keep that page around; it is perhaps high-quality personal research, but it is not a valid Wikipedia page. But I would not make that submission to VfD without discussion here first. :) Any thoughts? ---Rednblu | Talk 19:58, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * -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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

---

<<the page was extremely POV before -- designed specifically to make religion look like a foolish relic of the past.>> I agree with this statement, and in my opinion the only saving grace was the section on form vs. function and the comment that the reset of the article was based on the latter. Whilst I hadn't heard the terms (form vs. function or Hebrew thought vs. Greek thought) before, the description of Form matches my understanding of religion (and the understanding of others whom I know) and Function matches the understanding that many sceptics appear to have. <<''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?''>> No, that's not the point. Form vs. Function is not a way of distingishing between religious and non-religious. Form has one way of distinguishing between religious and non-religious, and Function has another way of distinguishing. The article said that most scholars use Function to distinguish. But there clearly is another way to distinguish than that used by Function. This precise topic is not an area on which I've read scholars, so I can't cite authorities on this, but I can at least point to dictionary definitions. As with most words, "religion" has several meanings. For example, Merriam-Webster online lists one definition as the service and worship of God or the supernatural. This is clearly consistent with defining religion according to the principles described for Function. But another definition it lists is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. This definition can include atheism, for example, and is clearly consistent with defining religion according to the principles describe for Form. Now that Ungtss has made the changes, and they are quite extensive, and they are not vandalism, my thought is discuss them without reverting first. Philip J. Rayment 03:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Motion to submit Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion to Votes for deletion
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)

Proposal for semantic clarity
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)

Proposal for clarifying exclusivism etc
also, i would like to propose putting in passages from islam, christianity, hinduism, and judaism that illustrate ALL the approaches -- exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism, etc, to demonstrate how all streams of thought have arisen in all religions. also, i'd like to propose adding a link to a new stub for Inclusivism i started. any thoughts? -- ungtss
 * I admire your entrepreneurial spirit, but--pardon me--this is an NPOV project here on Wikipedia! I suggest this is not an original research project--though it may look like it! :)  You might consider the already existing NPOV page on religious pluralism rather than develop a new definition.  You might consider Karl Rahner's extensive writings on "inclusivism"--no need to invent a new set of definitions.  What do you say?  Let's try NPOV for a change?  NPOV would mean to quote and paraphrase published scholars rather than do brilliant original research! What do you say?  This is Wikipedia, after all. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words ... i'm new around these parts, as i'm sure you can tell:). i guess i had understood that Wikipedia WAS an entrepreneurial endeaver -- that we aren't here just to rehash the ideas of "academics" (why not read THEIR books?), but to develop, through the Wiki Process, a unique synthesis all our own.  beyond that, there ARE reputable sources for these ideas, as has been shown thusfar.  atheism hasn't been proven yet:).  i appreciate your concern for "academic integrity," and how it keeps "cowboys" like me on our toes ... and i PROMISE to find reputable sources (just like i did for form v function) to maintain academic integrity, and accept all critiques and edits in good faith, if you promise not to drag your feet in support of your bias against "religious people."  wadduyasay?

ps -- would you prefer to eliminate all descriptions of pluralism etc, and just provide links to the respective sites? -- ungtss

NPOV = "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points." nothing in there about having to limit ourselves to a rehash the ideas of "experts."

---


 * You have done a great job here. But I am afraid that your "reputable sources" in no way talk about function versus form. :((  Did one of those "reputable sources" distinguish function versus form in categorizing methods for telling religion from non-religion?  No, I am afraid not.  What you did, if I may say so, is sort those "reputable sources" into the, perhaps, brilliant assumed categories of some Wikipedia editor's original research!  Find me please, if you would, some scholar that categorizes the methods for distinguishing between religion and non-religion into "form versus function" types.  If you cannot find such a scholar, then it is only some Wikipedia editor's POV original research to use "form versus function"--and that argument is POV.  I refer you to the NPOV document which states that NPOV is non-negotiable.  And the way you get NPOV on religion is to collect all the statements about religion and then lay them out in a nice logical story like
 * A said ... But B said A missed ...  C looked at what A and B wrote and said "I have a better way! . . ."
 * Does that make sense? You were close with your "reputable sources," but your "reputable sources" did not talk about form versus function, so those "reputable sources" leave the form versus function as only unattributed POV.  Would you want to commit the wrong of POV? :-/ ---Rednblu | Talk 20:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * A said Form. B said Function.  There are two modes of thinking, and both are explained in their own terms.  supporting scholars are cited who think in both modes, using the terms described.  no judgment is made between the two, and no "better way" is proposed.  webster's DICTIONARY contains both definitions, contrasting the two, if you like.  what more do you want?  i agree that NPOV is non-negotiable.  that's why i had no qualms about revamping the whole page, which SCREAMED pov.  the goal here is to describe religion neutrally.  let's stop wasting our efforts here, and start spending them on the page:).  -- Ungtss
 * Nope. We are not wasting our time.  Believe me.  You would not want me to structure the whole Religion article by creating the two categories 1) Idiots who read the Bible and 2) Idiots who don't read the Bible; then I could sort all the religions into either 1) or 2).  That would be very POV and very wrong.  The reason that would be POV and wrong is that there are many worthy scholars who object to being in either 1) or 2).  The same is true for your form versus function categories.  Those scholars Stark and Gluck, Durkheim, Bellah, and Milton would all rightfully object to being classed as either 1) form or 2) function.  Any reputable scholar views herself as using form and function whenever appropriate--not predominantly one or the other.  Even if you found one scholar, which you have not found yet, who analyzed thinkers into either 1) form or 2) function, you would have to acknowledge all the other scholars who rightfully claim themselves to be neither 1) form nor 2) function--but just rational using form and function whenever appropriate. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * alright ... i think i'm beginning to understand. is it the LABELS you object to?  What if it was just, "some people define religion as X, and some define it as Y."  would that work with you? Ungtss 22:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) You are generous. To tell you the truth, I personally rather like the LABELS 1) form versus 2) function.  I think those labels are rather clever, and we have User:Melamed's personal research to thank for those labels.  Mr. Melamed should write a book; he does not realize how original his dichotomy is.  But unfortunately the labels of that dichotomy--form versus function--are not the labels that Stark and Gluck, Durkheim, Bellah, and Milton use to categorize the various methods for distinguishing religion from non-religion.  So I guess an NPOV set of labels would be:
 * Stark and Gluck LABEL for distinguishing religion from non-religion -- a good LABEL to start with would be a chapter heading from Stark and Gluck's book.
 * Stark and Gluck's method for distinguishing religion from non-religion
 * Durkheim LABEL for distinguishing religion from non-religion
 * Durkheim's method for distinguishing religion from non-religion
 * Bellah LABEL for ...
 * Something like that. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:43, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * alright -- i hearya. anybody wants to go through and find the chapter headings, go 'head:).  personally, those labels make PERFECT sense to me, based on personal research of my own (this fits in REMARKABLY with the dynamics of the open theism debate).  melamed, willya write a book for us to cite?  in the mean time, i see no reason to believe personal research is POV -- as long as virtually all rational minds can agree on it, we're good to go.  any rational minds think it's incorrect?  if so, explain why.  if not, let's drop the topic and move on. Ungtss 01:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does not require that all we do is quote sources. Quoting sources is one way of achieving NPOV, but it is not a requirement in itself. And I can't see that "original research" is automatically POV. In defence of Rednblu, however, he was accused by one person of mendacious conversations on talk pages, but I saw no evidence of him being deceptive. In fact his accuser was an evolutionist who, in my opinion, could not conceive that an evolutionist could give creation any credence at all, and that Rednblu therefore had to be a closet creationist. Philip J. Rayment 00:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm the person of whom you speak, and once again I advise you to refrain from labeling me an "evolutionist"; I am not. At least you were right to state that your appraisal of the allegations and why they were brought is a matter of your personal opinion and not fact. And your opinion here does not reflect the substance of the allegations or my motive for bringing them. As far as Rednblu's actions here, I have no opinion other than to say that other user's here will have to judge for themselves and that any pattern that indicates excessive ideological ax-grinding or POV campaigning by anyone here need not be suffered; there are policies to protect against that sort of behavior.--FeloniousMonk 01:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * My response is at User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment.


 * sorry for my overreaction to rednblue's talkpage -- i'm still learning:). rednblue, be straight with me -- do you REALLY think npov necessarily excludes personal research?  if so, prove it.  if not, drop it. Ungtss 01:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your humanity here at this moment in time, given all the circumstances. :( I think Mr. Rayment is right--quoting and paraphrasing sources are only two ways of achieving NPOV.  Personal research that everyone would agree with I also would call NPOV.
 * But I think few people would agree with the personal research in the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page; hence, I would call it POV. I can see from everyone's comments that the function versus form dichotomy is useful.  That is why I keep looking for a way to bring that page up to my understanding of Wikipedia standards.
 * It is a shame that Mr. Melamed has not written a book--because if he had written his book, we could title the page Melamed's approach to distinguishing religion from non-religion and then the page would be NPOV--because everybody could read Melamed's book and say, "Yep. That for sure is Melamed's approach to distinguishing religion from non-religion!  That is what he wrote in his book!"
 * As proof that the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page is POV personal research not acceptable by Wikipedia standards, I could submit that page to Votes for deletion. And either the Wikipedia community would delete the page as POV personal research--or they would jump in and supply the LABELS, quotes, paraphrases, and references of published experts that would make it NPOV.
 * My preference would be that we make the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page actually provide the LABELS that scholars like Stark and Gluck, Durkheim, Bellah, and Milton actually use to categorize the various methods for distinguishing religion from non-religion. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 10:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright ... so as i've understood it, you've said that NPOV allows personal research that "virtually" all reasonable minds agree with. you've further said that you think the distinctions are "clever, brilliant, etc," and everybody else that's spoken up either agrees with them or wrote them.  so please: do you disagree that the two schools of thought exist, despite the references + definitions?  do you think the labels are inappropriate, given the substance of the schools?  do you know anyone who does?  can any of you or them explain why you or they think it's wrong?  if so, PLEASE provide some reasons.  if not, PLEASE let it be.


 * hold the phone -- how about, "some people divide thought about religion into the following schools ... the labels, however, are not necessarily adopted by the authors, and some people deny that the distinction is valid." i'm trying to work with you, man, help me out:).


 * do you honestly think the page was more or less NPOV before the reset? Which is more NPOV: a page that takes Atheism as Science, and as objective, or a page that takes a more post-modern approach, focusing on the presumptions underlying belief and disbelief in religion, placing the minority atheists and agnostics on the same plane as the majority religious?

---

To Mr. Ungtss:


 * 1) I think using the dictionary definitions as Mr. Rayment also suggested would be a good idea.  I suggest we spell out those definitions quoting the dictionary--you pick the dictionary.  However, I am quite sure that most religious scholars, most atheists, and most spiritualists would object to being put into either the form or function categories.  So it seems to me that we would have to state also the views of the religious scholars, atheists, spiritualists, . . . who object to the form versus fuction distinction.
 * 2) <<do you disagree that the two schools of thought exist>>  I personally do not think that the form versus function division is a useful distinction--because in my opinion a group of 100 Wikipedians could not agree into which of those two categories the religious thought and religious writing of Stark and Gluck, Durkheim, Bellah, Milton, Robert Ingersoll, Jesus Christ, Paul the Apostle, Joseph Smith, Henry VIII, and George Bush would fall.  :(   However, from my attempt at NPOV, I can see that many people think that the distinctions are useful--and clever and even possibly brilliant.  So I am working toward a NPOV presentation of the form versus function distinction to contrast with the very differing categories of religious thought employed by Stark and Gluck, Durkheim, Bellah, Milton, Robert Ingersoll, Jesus Christ, Paul the Apostle, Joseph Smith, Henry VIII, and George Bush.  Does that make sense?
 * 3) <<"some people divide thought about religion into the following schools ... the labels, however, are not necessarily adopted by the authors, and some people deny that the distinction is valid.">>  But wouldn't you have to say who it was that divides religion into the following schools; and wouldn't you have to quote the majority scholars who do object to dividing religion into form versus function?
 * 4) <<do you honestly think the page was more or less NPOV before the reset?>>  No.  So I admire your boldness in trying to do something about it.  I agree with you that, since this is the Religion page, the dissenting views on religion should be condensed to less than 10% of the page space and moved to the bottom of the page.  The form versus function problem was already in the page, but I was looking for some NPOV means of presenting form versus function to preserve the usefulness that I could see that some got from the distinction.  However, to move that form versus function problem into a separate Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page in my opinion produces a page that would not survive Votes for deletion.
 * 5) I suggest we get other Wikipedia voices involved in this discussion.  And the useful Wikipedia mechanism for doing that would be to submit the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page to Votes for deletion.  Would you agree on submitting the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page to Votes for deletion, and I will let that Wikipedia decision be? :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

To Mr. Ungtss:

<<I think using the dictionary definitions as Mr. Rayment also suggested would be a good idea. I suggest we spell out those definitions quoting the dictionary--you pick the dictionary. However, I am quite sure that most religious scholars, most atheists, and most spiritualists would object to being put into either the form or function categories. So it seems to me that we would have to state also the views of the religious scholars, atheists, spiritualists,. . . who object to the form versus fuction distinction.>>


 * sounds fair. i agree.

<<<<do you disagree that the two schools of thought exist>> I personally do not think that the form versus function division is a useful distinction--because in my opinion a group of 100 Wikipedians could not agree into which of those two categories the religious thought and religious writing of Stark and Gluck, Durkheim, Bellah, Milton, Robert Ingersoll, Jesus Christ, Paul the Apostle, Joseph Smith, Henry VIII, and George Bush would fall.>>


 * alright ... i think i'm beginning to understand. so your objection is that there are many more definitions of religion v. non-religion than the ones presented?  i.e. Muhammed said Religion is the five pillars and everything else is non-religion, while Jesus said Religion is loving the lord your god and loving your neighbor as yourself, and everything else is non-religion, and Luther said belief in the saving power of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is religion and everything else is non-religion?  does that capture your thought?  if it does, thank you -- it's very insightful and popped a POV i didn't even realize i had:).  if not, could you explain it to me more clearly?
 * Bingo. Thank you. We can figure out some way to rewrite the pages to capture what all these great people actually said and wrote about the difference between religion and non-religion. I think you have a good team here. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<<Would you agree on submitting the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page to Votes for deletion, and I will let that Wikipedia decision be?>>


 * not yet ... i think we can fix it first ... and i'm willing to try. because i didn't write it, i have no attachment to the prose itself, and i think we could wikify it to incorporate the constructive ideas of everybody close to the topic, before we threaten to wipe it out of existence.  i think we have a very valuable insight here ... even if the form is not up to wikistandards.  but if, by working together (and hopefully with the author, if he's willing) we still can't get it up to your very admirable standards, i'll consent to the submission.  deal?

Ungtss 18:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You are generous. Sounds to me like a plan that can include everybody. :)  ---Rednblu | Talk 22:54, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Here are two links that may assist us. These links also give everyone clear data about, for example, Rednblu's personal entanglement with the history of attempting to get the diamonds out of the rough from this form versus function comparison. :) You will notice that several of us particularly discussed one scholar's comparison of Hebrew thought versus Greek thought--namely Thorlief Boman's book Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek.   But I found that Boman's book did not address the notion of distinguishing between religion and non-religion.  Maybe someone can see what I did not see.  Hence, in my opinion, Mr. Melamed has a very useful and very original view of distinguishing religion from non-religion that he should write into a book.  I hasten to add that there are several crucial lines of support and research that, in my opinion, Mr. Melamed has not addressed yet. ;) So here we are on an adventure. :))) The adventure continues.  I hope Mr. Melamed and anyone else interested will join us.  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Votes for deletion record for the deleted Hebrew thought page which summarized the "Function" side of Function versus Form.
 * TalkPage of the deleted Hebrew thought.

holy crap -- suddenly i'm a mouse among intellectual giants:). this is gonna take some reading and research on my part -- i'll be back soon:).
 * Surely you jest. You have done admirably.  And I think everyone looking on would agree.  A bow to you, my friend.  We can be bold in talking things over.  :)  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

In saying to love the lord your god and love your neighbour as yourself, Jesus was not defining religion. I don't think the Bible anywhere defines religion.
 * <<So it seems to me that we would have to state also the views of the religious scholars, atheists, spiritualists, . . . who object to the form versus fuction distinction.>>

On what grounds could people object to the distinction? Remember that we are talking about two different methods of making a distinction between religion and non-religion. Rather, I think that some of the groups that are referred to (atheists, etc.) disagree not with there being more than one method, but with the conclusions of applying that method. To give a specific example, atheists (generally) don't agree that atheism is a religion. So they don't agree that Form, by which method atheism would be considered a religion, is a valid method of distinguishing. But that is not a disagreement that the Form method exists and is used by some. Philip J. Rayment 00:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * People could object on the grounds that everybody uses the same method of distinguishing. Clearly there is more than one possible method of distinguishing, but some could argue that everybody uses the same method.  But clearly, based on the dictionary definitions if nothing else, more than one method is in use.
 * People could object on the grounds that the other method is not a valid method. But this is POV.  Personally, I don't agree with the Function method; I think that it is a less-than-useful method of distinguishing.  But I recognise that not everyone agrees with me on that.  So, to be NPOV, I have to recognise that there exists more than one method of distinguishing.



alright:). just picked my jaw up off the floor and put it back in my mouth:). y'all are a helluvabunchasmartpeople:).

i noticed in the hebrew thought talkpage, you (rednblue) noted that you had found hebrew vs. greek / function v. form thought to be an interesting distinction, but limited primarily to (or perhaps characteristic of) christian thought. as a christian, i'm obviously immersed in the pov and so probably unable to answer this question objectively -- i was wondering what made you think that form v function / greek v hebrew were uniquely christian distinctions? do you yourself see the distinction? i.e. can you understand how and why we believe there is such a distinction, or is the distinction so steeped in some aspect of the christian pov that it's foreign to non-christians, except as an academic curiosity? i ask this not in order to incite a debate, but to try and understand if i have another invisible pov here that you could help me transcend by showing me a different way of looking at it. finally, do you yourself (or anyone you know) distinguish religion from non-religion differently from those two?

i like your thinking, mr rayment -- and i agree with you. my thought on exclusivist claims that "religion is what i say it is and everything else is not religion" is that that's just a semantic game. in reality, even the most vehement exclusivist acknowledges "True" and "False" religions. religions are sets of beliefs, practices, and institutions, independent of their truth or falsity. i really can't see this question any other way, and can't imagine how anyone else would, either -- any ideas, rednblue?

also, placing the "methods of distinguishing" page to the side for a moment, what do y'all think of the three definitions for religion that are on the religion page now? are they fair and useful?

Ungtss 01:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

one more thought -- the bible defines PURE religion: Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27. but again, the existence of pure religion implies the existence of other religions.

---


 * <<To give a specific example, atheists (generally) don't agree that atheism is a religion. So they don't agree that Form, by which method atheism would be considered a religion, is a valid method of distinguishing.  But that is not a disagreement that the Form method exists and is used by some.>>


 * <<do you yourself see the distinction? i.e. can you understand how and why we believe there is such a distinction, or is the distinction so steeped in some aspect of the christian pov that it's foreign to non-christians, except as an academic curiosity?>>

Good questions and good statements everyone, in my opinion. Of course, I don't have the answer as you well know, :(( but I have some thoughts about how make the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page NPOV. :)))

For simplicity, let us examine just the atheist objections to the form versus function classification of the methods for distinguishing religion from non-religion.

Even if Mr. Melamed would finally decide to write his book, carefully demonstrating that all of the world's distinctions between religion and non-religion fit uniquely into either form or function, still we would have a problem in using Mr. Melamed's form versus function as the sole POV of the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page--because most atheists, for example, define their own atheism as non-religion. That is, from the atheist POV, Mainstream atheism, it seems to me, has the POV that atheism will go wherever the physical evidence leads. So maybe there are three dimensions 1) form, 2) function, and 3) physical evidence--if we base the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page on just the two POVs: Accordingly, to get the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page to be NPOV, giving the consideration that is due to the other POVs of major scholars of the distinction between religion and non-religion would add about three more "dimensions" in addition to the 1) form and 2) function "dimensions" that are there now on that page, by my estimation. ---Rednblu | Talk 07:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) non-religion is following the physical evidence wherever it leads and
 * 2) religion is whatever beliefs that Occam's Razor would eliminate as recognizing causes that are more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence.
 * 1) Mr. Melamed's POV and
 * 2) Atheism.


 * thanks everyone! i think we have a misunderstanding over terminology underlying this -- and perhaps it's the language the page assumes that makes this difficult to understand, and makes it seem POV to some people, and NPOV to others.

if i understand correctly, rednblue, you are looking at form and function as FACTORS (or dimensions as you said) in defining religion -- and so you would add another FACTOR -- i.e. physical evidence.

i think we may have a fundamental misunderstanding here, because this model doesn't assert that form and function are DIMENSIONS of religion in one common definition of religion -- it asserts that form and function are DISCRETE and SEPERATE DEFINITIONS.

the form approach says "you are religious if you believe in things beyond the observable" -- while the function approach says, "you are religious if you believe ANYTHING, observable or not, with respect to Fundamental Questions."

let me try to put it another way: the form approach bases its definition on the FORM of the belief system -- if you believe X, you are religious, but if you believe Y, you are not religious. the FUNCTION approach, tho, defines religion REGARDLESS of the content of one's belief -- because those beliefs address Fundamental Questions.

what you described as the atheist approach is by DEFINITION what melamed called the form approach. you said, "religion is whatever beliefs that Occam's Razor would eliminate as recognizing causes that are more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence." if you notice, that is the definition currently on the religion page, virtually word for word, and ascribed to the Form approach. essentially, the paper is TRYING to say that ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS etc. think the "Form" way, and THEISTS think the "Function" way. or, to put it another way, the Form approach is characterized by Modernism, with its faith in Science, while the Function approach is characterized by Postmodernism, saying that "NOONE is objective, EVERYONE has a POV, and we call your POV your religion, regardless of what it is." Is that following? do you have any suggestions as to how to word it more effectively toward that end?

i'm thinking maybe this distinction appears uniquely christian because we are the only ones that CARE. in large part, our faith DEPENDS on the Functional view for coherence -- at the same time, we live in a world that takes the Form view for granted. it makes us very aware of our "different" way of thinking -- and apt to put a label on it. Am i following?

Ungtss 12:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---


 * <<what you described as the atheist approach is by DEFINITION what melamed called the form approach. you said, "religion is whatever beliefs that Occam's Razor would eliminate as recognizing causes that are more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence."  if you notice, that is the definition currently on the religion page, virtually word for word, and ascribed to the Form approach.>>

Quite. What you have expressed is Mr. Melamed's POV on classifying the distinguishments of religion versus non-religion. And would it not make sense that mainstream atheists would have a very different POV on classifying the distinguishments of religion versus non-religion?


 * <<i think we have a misunderstanding over terminology underlying this>>

Not at all. What we have is two POVs on applying the terminology to existing distinguishments between religion versus non-religion. I acknowledge that Mr. Melamed claims that his POV is free of POV; there are some mainstream atheists who similarly claim that the atheist POV is free of POV.


 * <<i think we may have a fundamental misunderstanding here, because this model doesn't assert that form and function are DIMENSIONS of religion in one common definition of religion -- it asserts that form and function are DISCRETE and SEPERATE DEFINITIONS.>>

Alternatively, I suggest that we have fundamentally different POVs on how the actual data of distinguishments between religion versus non-religion plots on the form versus function axes. Mr. Melamed concludes that plotting the distinguishments in the form-function plane results in all the data lying on either the
 * 1) form axis, with zero function content or
 * 2) function axis, with zero form content.

In contrast, atheists conclude that plotting all religions--that is all those beliefs that ignore the physical evidence--gives data points scattered all over the form-function plane. Would you be surprised that two different POVs would give two different plots of the data?


 * <<what you described as the atheist approach is by DEFINITION what melamed called the form approach. you said, "religion is whatever beliefs that Occam's Razor would eliminate as recognizing causes that are more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence.">>

I understand. Because Mr. Melamed ignores the dimension of the physical evidence, he sees no difference between religion and atheism. That is merely a reflection of Mr. Melamed and atheists having very different POVs on religion and atheism. I am afraid that mainstream atheists would not agree that the definition "religion is whatever beliefs that Occam's Razor would eliminate as recognizing causes that are more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence" has necessarily anything to do with Form. For example, some applications of that definition would perform all of the Functional functions of the Functional "worldview that has the function of addressing the fundamental questions of human identity, ethics, death and the existence of the Divine (if any)." I cite to you the 400BC atheism of the Atomists which said very simply, "You had better wake up and realize that there ain't no God out there! To be responsible, women and men will have to form their own human-made identity, ethics, and understanding of death because there ain't no God out there that you can trust to help you."


 * <<i'm thinking maybe this distinction appears uniquely christian because we are the only ones that CARE. in large part, our faith DEPENDS on the Functional view for coherence -- at the same time, we live in a world that takes the Form view for granted.  it makes us very aware of our "different" way of thinking -- and apt to put a label on it.  Am i following?>>

No. If I may say so, ;) you are merely expressing your POV and ignoring the equally valid POVs of the Functional functions of atheism. In my opinion, many mainstream atheists are even more concerned than Christians are about the Functional importance of "addressing the fundamental questions of human identity, ethics, death and the existence of the Divine (if any)."  For according to the Functional functions of atheism, Christians are being irresponsible in teaching their children that morality, ethics, self-sacrifice, or any other important positive value comes from God -- because it is simply not true.  And, if the child goes into adulthood believing that moral values come from God, then the young adult will be unprepared to resist effectively the natural temptations that business, politics, and relationships present to cheat, lie, and steal. (Raymond Firth, Religion: A Humanist Interpretation (Routledge, 1996:215-216)) ISBN 0415128978. Excerpts ---Rednblu | Talk 16:57, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Historically correct use of the terms "Scientist" and "Scientific/Science"
Neither term was in use (as they are understood today or otherwise) in a manner useful to the article's readers until the 17th Century. Prior to that the term used to refer to matter we would now call Science was Natural_philosophy, conducted by "Natural Philosophers". See Scientific_revolution for additional reference. Considering this, I've rephrased a passage in the article under that referred to "medieval" scientists. Overall, this is a well-structured, reasoned and balanced article, and I appreciate the efforts of those involved in making it so.--FeloniousMonk 17:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * thank you, sir! i appreciate your insight as well, and would like to continue trying to develop a truly NPOV article here, with your help:).



rednblue: hmm ... so if i understand you correctly, atheists could (and apparently sometimes do) define religion as "having the form of appeal to the supernatural" AND "having the function of allowing humans to cope with fear" ... therefore neither entirely form nor entirely function ... and possibly incorporating ANY combination of form and/or function components. if that's a fair assessment of your argument, then once again, sir, i thank you for your insight:).

further, i think i understand you to be saying (in reference to the atomists) that ockham's razor is not NECESSARILY associated with the form approach -- that people can (as the atomists apparently did) apply ockham's razor for FUNCTIONAL reasons (i.e. religious explanations will have PRAGMATIC flaws), and not use formal reasons at all. if that's a fair assessment, once again i thank you.

ironically, it appears i have been thinking of "function" in terms of its "form" -- as a certain TYPE OF THOUGHT -- rather than thinking of it in other, more PRAGMATIC functions, such as the FUNCTION of making sure your kids have a TANGIBLE basis for their ethics, which is better able to stand the test of time.

i can also see how this distinction is EXTREMELY POV, and has the "function" (ha ha!) of protecting religious POVs from scientific criticism, as well as make non-religious POVs look biased and unfair.

so if i may try and redefine your objection to the form v function distinction (now that -- i THINK -- i have a more complete understanding of how definitions can utilize both), you could (and perhaps do) define religion in both formal and functional terms as both "asserting supernatural propositions" (formal) AND "coping with fear" (functional) terms ... or any number of other explanations.

thank you, sir. i've learned more in the past 3 days than in the last 3 years.

my next question is ... how does the proposed "evidentiary dimension" of the newly multifaceted definition resolve the problem in your mind? what exactly is that dimension? how would you define it in contrast to form and function? how can it be applied? is there a certain point on the "evidentiary" dimension when a belief becomes religious? or does it only work in concert with OTHER dimensions of the definition?

Ungtss 18:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---


 * <<how does the proposed "evidentiary dimension" of the newly multifaceted definition resolve the problem in your mind?>>

To be pragmatic, I suggest something like the following. What do others think?
 * The Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page should have at least a third category added making the major headings 1) Function, 2) Form, and 3) Physical evidence. There may be a couple of other "dimensions" that we will need in order to achieve NPOV by including the POVs of other major scholars that categorize distinguishments between religion and non-religion.
 * The dictionary categories that begin Religion I think are an excellent way to start. And we should probably add the "Physical evidence" dimension to that list as well to make the Religion page and the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page synchronized.  I could draft a paragraph there that everyone then could edit. :)
 * I think the "spirituality" versus "organized religion" dimension that you hint at might have to be another dimension also--because many scholars claim "I am very spiritual--but I am not religious. My spirituality is non-religious because I have no organized dogma and no formal organization--I just surround myself with people that think like I do."  So maybe that makes four headings for the Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion page to be: 1) form, 2) function, 3) formal organization, and 4) physical evidence.


 * <<you could (and perhaps do) define religion in both formal and functional terms as both "asserting supernatural propositions" (formal) AND "coping with fear" (functional) terms ...>>

Yes. In many scholars' views, many of the Form methods for distinguishing religion from non-religion also contain Functional measures of whether or not the belief "addresses the fundamental questions of human identity, ethics, death and the existence of the Divine (if any)." Could anyone disagree on that? :(

See also, e.g., Jonathan Fox, The Effects of Religion on Domestic Conflicts, TERRORISM & POL. VIOLENCE, Winter 1998, at 43, 44 (stating "four basic social functions" that religion fulfills: 1) provide a logical framework and vocabulary for analyzing events in the physical world, 2) set standards of behavior that have a high probability of improving life in the physical world, 3) mobilize members for political action, and 4) give authorization to political activists and political organizations). ---Rednblu | Talk 19:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

alright -- i'm persuaded. i still don't understand your "physical evidence" dimension, tho -- do you just mean, "religion is that which one believes without evidence," or "religion is that which one believes contrary to evidence?" or something else ...? Ungtss 20:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Draft fourth paragraph.
 * A fourth definition, sometimes called the "Physical evidence approach," defines religion as the beliefs about cause and effect that Occam's Razor would remove as recognizing causes that are more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence. By this definition then, non-religion is any worldview that admits no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearance. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

very nice! just want to make sure we avoid redundancy ... if we eliminated the label "form" from the def that's form right now ... would there be any substantive difference?

also ... i was wondering if, for the "what is religion?" page, maybe we could have both ostensibly objective and subjective definitions of religion -- i.e. the analytical definitions we've been developing, plus more opinion-oriented ones (like the one on your personal page) to make it more substantive and encyclopedic. would that be more "wikiesque?"

---


 * <<if we eliminated the label "form" from the def that's form right now ... would there be any substantive difference?>>

Yes. There are two opposing POVs involved.
 * The "form-based approach" definition is constructed according to how "believers" see the difference between religion and non-religion: Religion is "any worldview which makes claims beyond the realm of scientific observation, according to some authority or personal experience with the Divine."
 * The "physical evidence approach" definition is constructed according to how "atheists" see the difference between religion and non-religion. Religion is "beliefs about cause and effect that Occam's Razor would remove as recognizing causes that are more than what is both true and sufficient to explain the physical evidence."
 * The "physical evidence approach" makes many claims beyond the realm of scientific observation--but only makes claims which are both true and sufficient to explain appearances.
 * The "physical evidence approach" has nothing to do with determining whether a worldview contains an "authority" or a "personal experience" or a "Divine."

An interesting clash between the "form-based approach" and the "physical evidence approach" is the controversy over Intelligent design. Several clever "believers" constructed what they thought was the Form of a scientific theory to come up with the "Intelligent design theory." But the "physical evidence approach" is not concerned with the Form; the "physical evidence approach" is concerned only with the "true and sufficient" criterion which has nothing to do with Form but rather is dictated entirely by what is discovered within the physical evidence. Since from the atheists' POV of the physical evidence, an Intelligent designer is not needed to explain the physical evidence, the atheists reject the "Intelligent design theory" as just another garden-variety religion.


 * <<maybe we could have both ostensibly objective and subjective definitions of religion. . .>>

In my opinion, both objective and subjective definitions of religion should be appropriate for NPOV--as long as we can quote or paraphrase published scholars to express those objective or subjective definitions.

We are working through a lot of details. :) That is good.  :)  We will see if these details work in practice when we put them to work on the pages with the scholarly quotes and paraphrases that we can find. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 02:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)



gotcha. so you're saying the form-based approach says it's religion if it comes from a certain type of source, while the evidentiary approach says it's religion if it violates a certain rule of evidence. and an example of a difference would be the believer's assertion that "the idea that life arose on earth by evolution through no divine hand" is religion, because it makes an unprovable assertion, while an atheist would say it's non-religious, because it is the simplest, most coherent means of explaining the physical evidence of evolution today, coupled with the lack of evidence of any god -- in accord with occam's razor. did i get it? if so, thanks again:).

as i think about it, tho, i think the currently "form-based" definition could be refined to incorporate the ACTUAL definition of atheism by occam's razor -- we don't need to set up any straw men, and i think any definition (such as the currently form-based one) that defines "what believers think nonbelievers think belief is" ... is a straw man, and irrelevant. in the absence of any credible authority asserting that non-religion is ONLY what we can see + touch ... i think that definition is simply inaccurate.

and in fact, the more i think about it, it IS inaccurate -- because you can't observe or verify memory -- but nobody says THAT'S religion.

what about: religion is any set of beliefs which are accepted due to personal intuition, experience, or authority, and are in violation of occam's razor? (obviousliy fleshing it out better).

i'm just trying to keep our definitions as inclusive as possible -- and if nobody USES the form-based as it now stands ... we should modify it to adequately reflect those whose views it is intended to reflect:).

whatcha think? Ungtss 13:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

On seeing the last changes in the definitions, I had the feeling that we are going backwards. So I ask you the following questions:
 * Weren't the definitions clearer to you with the labels 1) function, 2) form, and 3) organization?
 * Wasn't the form-based definition clearer to you without the reference to Occam's razor?
 * What does Occam's razor have to do with "beyond the realm of scientific observation," "authority," "personal experience," or "Divinity"?
 * Shouldn't we clearly define the POVs on distinguishing religion versus non-religion in this section before we clash them against each other later?
 * How do you get the wording of the Function-based approach from the Webster's Online Dictionary? ---Rednblu | Talk 16:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

good points all.

1) yes, you're right -- i guess i was just trying to consolidate the definitions as much as possible, by eliminating the labels if necessary. on further reflection, tho, i think you're right.  i guess we need a fourth definition. 2) yes, you're right -- same thing -- just trying to consolidate too much:). 3) i guess i meant that religion could be defined as choosing "revelation" OVER the conclusions of occam's razor. but then again, occam's razor sometimes leads to religious conclusions ... so you're right again:). 4) definitely. so you're okay with form v function as long as we add evidentiary? 5) admittedly quite a stretch:).

lemme try this again:).

Ungtss 16:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Re: Your 3).  I think the choice between "revelation" and Occam's razor would be an important point to make on the detail page.

Re: Your 4).  In my opinion, Form v. function are great--as long as we accurately represent the POV of the scholars that used Form and those that used Function to distinguish between religion and non-religion.  Some scholars used both, I think.  Someone may object that we haven't found a scholar that actually used the labels "Form" and "Function."  But we will get Mr. Melamed to publish his book quickly. :)  I think those labels Form and Function bring a clarity to how some people, but not all, distinguish between religion and non-religion. In my opinion, the "Physical evidence based" approach, which includes Occam's razor would have to be stated somewhere to represent accurately the POV in the distinguishment between religion and non-religion that is the basis, for example, for the scientific community rejecting ID as only a religion and not a valid theory. And that "Physical evidence based" approach appears to me to contain often some Form and often some Function, so it should be described separately, in my opinion.

Re: Your 5).  I am looking for the best scholarly reference to support that Function-based approach.  We could just cite the reference for each definition at the end of the definition.  The dictionary is just a place to start. :( but :) also.

Another question: I like the idea of summarizing the POVs on distinguishing religion from non-religion. But that is my opinion. Are you sure that an "Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion" section is important for the Religion page? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * you make a good point ... the page is obviously extremely long, and could be turned into a nexxus for a number of topical pages with ease. of course, we don't have to call it "methods of distinguishing ..." we could just call the section "definitions of" -- and then it's VERY relevent to the page -- even indispensible -- because it's definition of the term, pure and simple.


 * i think that defining religion is absolutely essential to NPOV here, because i think that much of the debate over such things is based in large part on people misunderstanding each other's meaning -- when i say religion i mean one thing, when you say religion you mean another. in fact, it seems to me that virtually all the disagreements you and i have had so far have stemmed from semantic misunderstanding.  i think that, in order to get a CLEAR NPOV on this stuff, we HAVE to lay out the various definitions clearly and concisely on the page, so a reader has the opportunity to say, "OH!  so THAT'S why people think that way!"  otherwise, we're trying to communicate using, for all intents and purposes, different languages.  whatchathink? Ungtss 19:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. And all those watchers out there are letting us do it so far.  :)  ---Rednblu | Talk 20:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * good deal -- love the picture, too -- descriptive and NPOV:). shall we turn our attentions to the proposed "what is religion?" page?  firstly ... any ideas for a more wikiesque title?
 * I am thinking about page names. And I am consulting the alphabetic list of Wikipedia page names as of August 2004 here.  ---Rednblu | Talk 04:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I suggest that the above discussion be copied, NOT cut, to the "what is religion" page?

And let us continue this discussion on that "what is religion" page. Probably the name of the page will change from its current name of Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion ---Rednblu | Talk 22:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * sounds good ... not sure how much you want copied tho ... so have at it:). Ungtss 22:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I will copy--straight to an archive. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)