#1 ·
Why are atheism and agnosticism even in this "Religion" PDF?
The PDF titled "Religion - Institutional Belief as a Key Component" includes sections on atheism and agnosticism. It makes me wonder, though—if that's the case, why is the document titled "Religion," especially with that specific emphasis on "institutional belief"?
I won't even bother getting into the whole debate over the etymology of *religare*. It's a rabbit hole that doesn't really move the needle here.
In "What is Religion and What is its Purpose: A Sociological Approach", Siniša Zrinščak provides two distinct definitions of religion:
a) "Naturally, researchers vary in their answers, but the most obvious is the substantive definition: belief in a supernatural being and the sense of power and strength associated with that being. This sense of power is tied to the concept of the sacred—that which stands in opposition to the profane. Thus, belief in the sacred, or a special relationship with sacred things, is the core of a substantive definition. Because this definition aims for precision, it incorporates institutions, practices, beliefs, language, and symbols into its framework. It seems to hit the mark regarding the essence of religion, specifically through the concept of the sacred, which clearly separates the religious from the everyday, distinguishing what is otherworldly from our mundane existence (p. 26)."
b) "Again, you can find many different functionalist definitions in the literature, but they almost all involve the creation of meaning or identity. The actual content of the belief or practice matters less than the consequences religion has for the individual and society: explaining or justifying natural or social events, creating a sense of meaning or wholeness in life, transcending biological constraints, and so on (p. 27)." (
If you take a look at these two links: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_religion.htm
and
http://atheism.about.com/od/religion...definition.htm
you'll see that atheism simply doesn't fit the definition of religion. So, my suggestion is either rename the PDF entirely, or remove atheism and agnosticism since they don't fall under the umbrella of "Religion," let alone "institutional belief."
If the topic doesn't belong under Religion, then just move it over to Philosophy.
The PDF titled "Religion - Institutional Belief as a Key Component" includes sections on atheism and agnosticism. It makes me wonder, though—if that's the case, why is the document titled "Religion," especially with that specific emphasis on "institutional belief"?
I won't even bother getting into the whole debate over the etymology of *religare*. It's a rabbit hole that doesn't really move the needle here.
In "What is Religion and What is its Purpose: A Sociological Approach", Siniša Zrinščak provides two distinct definitions of religion:
a) "Naturally, researchers vary in their answers, but the most obvious is the substantive definition: belief in a supernatural being and the sense of power and strength associated with that being. This sense of power is tied to the concept of the sacred—that which stands in opposition to the profane. Thus, belief in the sacred, or a special relationship with sacred things, is the core of a substantive definition. Because this definition aims for precision, it incorporates institutions, practices, beliefs, language, and symbols into its framework. It seems to hit the mark regarding the essence of religion, specifically through the concept of the sacred, which clearly separates the religious from the everyday, distinguishing what is otherworldly from our mundane existence (p. 26)."
b) "Again, you can find many different functionalist definitions in the literature, but they almost all involve the creation of meaning or identity. The actual content of the belief or practice matters less than the consequences religion has for the individual and society: explaining or justifying natural or social events, creating a sense of meaning or wholeness in life, transcending biological constraints, and so on (p. 27)." (
If you take a look at these two links: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_religion.htm
and
http://atheism.about.com/od/religion...definition.htm
you'll see that atheism simply doesn't fit the definition of religion. So, my suggestion is either rename the PDF entirely, or remove atheism and agnosticism since they don't fall under the umbrella of "Religion," let alone "institutional belief."
If the topic doesn't belong under Religion, then just move it over to Philosophy.