Define religion

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If you logically adumbrate an illogical premise, you end up with a magnificently rococo edifice, don't you? That's the joy of this whole thing: the founding premise doesn't have to be logical, but the working out of it has to be logical to the point of mania -- as in Calvinism.

Well, Buddhism is commonly defined as a religion yet it does not entail belief in any supernatural, chaotic or otherwise. Therefore it eludes your definition.

Ha! I do like that image, but I'm not sure if I agree. If the premise leads to a rejection of itself, I don't see how one can say that the whole edifice is not contradictory. Anyway, I'm sure that I could find other inconsistencies. Perfect consistency may be something to aspire for but it's a Herculean task to achieve.

As for Buddhism, I do see the supernatural in it, as I think rebirth or karma require it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How does dualism fit into that?

I don't understand the question.

Originally posted by Palynka

As for German National Socialism, then I'd have to say no as in its core (of its abstract representation - see above) I don't see any beliefs about a non-chaotic supernatural.

This is frustrating, since Nazism at its hysterical height clearly showed signs of religious mania. I'd say Nazism can be likened to a religion based on belief in the historical destiny of Leader, People and Fatherland.

Now with Stalin's diamat you have History as a sort of substitute deity, shuffling the cards ...

Originally posted by black beetle
When I say that a “religion is not necessarily just a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages and worshipping of supernatural existences" I have the feeling that I anyway define religion as "a plexus of symbols, rites, temples, religious personages and worshipping of supernatural existences".

Furthermore, I am more specific and I clai ...[text shortened]... e also an apparatus of collective representations that they express collective realities.
😵

The first part contains religious in your definition of religion and the second I already addressed.

Originally posted by Palynka
I don't understand the question.

Manicheism, for example. Belief that there are two deities, one responsible for good, one for evil, battling it out for eternity.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is frustrating, since Nazism at its hysterical height clearly showed signs of religious mania. I'd say Nazism can be likened to a religion based on belief in the historical destiny of Leader, People and Fatherland.

Now with Stalin's diamat you have History as a sort of substitute deity, shuffling the cards ...

Yes, but these are metaphors! Religious mania has some characteristics and you draw a parallel with political mania. That's fine. But it doesn't make the second religious.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Manicheism, for example. Belief that there are two deities, one responsible for good, one for evil, battling it out for eternity.

I think I'm not following. That sounds like a non-chaotic supernatural to me...

Originally posted by Palynka
The first part contains religious in your definition of religion and the second I already addressed.

The first part is the definition of the religion, and the second part is the definition of the dynamism of the religion within our societies.
😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Ha! I do like that image, but I'm not sure if I agree. If the premise leads to a rejection of itself, I don't see how one can say that the whole edifice is not contradictory. Anyway, I'm sure that I could find other inconsistencies. Perfect consistency may be something to aspire for but it's a Herculean task to achieve.

As for Buddhism, I do see the supernatural in it, as I think rebirth or karma require it.

Herculean or Newtonian, as the case may be ...

Karma is merely the law of moral causation, which requires no supernatural. Rebirth (an approximation of the Buddhist concepts of jati and bhava) may appear to be a supernatural belief to you, but is considered to be a natural process within the Buddhist paradigm. So their understanding of nature may or may not be incorrect, but there is no need to believe in supernatural forces from within the Buddhist paradigm.

Originally posted by black beetle
The first part is the definition of the religion, and the second part is the definition of the dynamism of the religion within our societies.
😵

You don't think it's a problem to define religion with "religious" in its definition?

Originally posted by Palynka
I think I'm not following. That sounds like a non-chaotic supernatural to me...

One deity is orderly, the other chaotic, so its a binary system requiring belief in chaotic and non-chaotic supernatural forces.

Old religions abound with chaotic forces, all supernatural, with Chaos frequently the matrix of being. I'm just not sure why you insist on the non-chaotic part.

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, but these are metaphors! Religious mania has some characteristics and you draw a parallel with political mania. That's fine. But it doesn't make the second religious.

Assume a pure belief in the historical mission of one's Leader, Folk and Fatherland. Assume that one's dispositions and actions are predicated on this belief. Add costumes, rituals and festivals. Haven't we got ourselves a religion? A state religion? (Remember Diocletian -- emperor as god?)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Herculean or Newtonian, as the case may be ...

Karma is merely the law of moral causation, which requires no supernatural. Rebirth (an approximation of the Buddhist concepts of jati and bhava) may appear to be a supernatural belief to you, but is considered to be a natural process within the Buddhist paradigm. So their understanding of nature may o ...[text shortened]... rrect, but there is no need to believe in supernatural forces from within the Buddhist paradigm.

To me a law of moral causation requires the supernatural. How does the cause lead to the effect?

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, but these are metaphors! Religious mania has some characteristics and you draw a parallel with political mania. That's fine. But it doesn't make the second religious.

I think it does, because it is totally unreasonable, it is based on faith and fanaticism, it serves an “absolute truth” and its aim is the establishment by any means of a specific social control system that reassures “cohesion” and “purpose for the people”, which it forces the individual to obey, communicate, interact, behave and live under specific social norms that are supposedly designed for him for "his own wealth"
😵

Originally posted by Palynka
To me a law of moral causation requires the supernatural. How does the cause lead to the effect?

Your moral choices partially determine your destiny, more or less. Drastic simplication of the fine-spun web that is the meaning of karma, but anyway. Oh, and, The Butterfly Effect 😵