What is religion?

Since Darwinists keep referring to ID as 'merely' religion I thought I should take a look at just what religion is or is not. To do so I'll make comments on the article below.

Attempts to Marginalize ID as Religion Abound - Michael Francisco Evolution news and views

Quotes and comments;

1. 'It’s no secret that critics of intelligent design desperately want to link design theory with religion. The critics know how guilt-by-association will make it much easier to simply ignore and marginalize the actual arguments.'

2. 'The article (1.) quoted Lawrence Krauss, a long time critic of intelligent design, as saying, “It's a cop–out to say design theory is not religious." Apparently Krauss considers intelligent design to be religious, with the clear implication being that intelligent design is not science.'

- I think the best way to deal with such a charge is to get Krauss to define religion. If he's not willing to do so (and I doubt if he is) then he's not really saying anything, merely quacking like a duck.

- in my view evolutionary Humanism is a religion... although I don't recommend using the term religion, as it no longer has any meaning. Once (at least in the West) religion meant Christianity; this is no longer the case. The term world view is a far better terms. (On this particular point I would say ID is not a world view; while evolutionary Humanism certainly is.)

- Krauss is taking the parochial (and narrow) view that 'religion' is a set of ideas about a supreme being. (Apparently he hasn't heard of Buddhism and Zen, etc.) What he's trying to do is win the debate by defining the terms in a way friendly to his cause. This is a child's game; if we all could do this we could all win every debate we entered.

3. 'In the AP article about Gonzales, the author was careful to point out that Gonzalez “identifies himself only as a Protestant,” making the personal religious viewpoint of the design theorist apparently relevant. However, the same author made no mention of Lawrence Krauss’s religious identification. Anti-religious views of leading Darwinists have been well-documented, but are typically ignored by the media, courts, and of course, the Darwinists.

- in my view atheism is Not anti-religious. It is in truth one of the major religions (world views) in our day. Whether it is or isn't religious depends on who gets to define the terms. Atheism is certainly a religion in God's view. (I can't remember who it was, but someone defined religion as any view of God; i.e. theism, agnosticism, or atheism.)
- I challenge anyone to come up with a meaningful definition of religion that everyone will accept. It simply can't be done in my opinion.

4. 'The AP article reports Gonzalez's observation that “Darwinism does not mandate followers to adopt atheism; just as intelligent design doesn't require a belief in God.”

- this is a good point, and one the ID critics never bring up. (Are they really unaware of all those staunch defenders of evolution within the church? In my opinion many of the most severe critics of any kind of creationism, or of any critique of Darwinism are the people who call themselves theistic evolutionists. You or I might find this bizarre, but there it is... it can't be denied.)

- another big problem in this debate (which is so confused because it uses such confused terminology) is this talk about God. God is a word without content. The bible doesn't talk about some generic idea called god, but about a real being named Jehovah, etc. One can talk meaningfully about Yahew, but not about God. One can talk meaningfully about a Creator but not about a word. One can talk meaningfully about Jesus Christ, but not about ultimate Goodness.

5. So what then is religion. Irving Hexham (2.) tells us there are hundreds of definitions. But let's look at a popular dictionary to see what it says.

Religion; American heritage dictionary.
- ETYMOLOGY: Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religi, religin-, perhaps from religre, to tie fast. See rely.

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
- Any kind of evolutionary belief is consistent with #4.

- Rely;
1. To be dependent for support, help, or supply: relies on her parents for tuition.
2. To place or have faith or confidence: relied on them to tell him the truth.

- We could say that religion is what a man ultimately relies on in his life. e.g. is it his political party? his church? his race? his country? his money? his fists? In terms of ultimate ideas, religion is what one has confidence in, what one has faith in. The materialist no less than the theist must hold his metaphysics (what reality is, who man is, etc.) on faith. You can't prove the case for materialism any more than you can prove the case for a form of theism.

- some say the root of religion is 'religre' to tie fast. This would imply a religion is a set of public beliefs that has sanctions attached to it. (i.e. penalties for violating standards, and rewards for conforming.) We can see how communism would easily qualify for a religion under this understanding.

- the idea that all people in a 'community' should be bound by rules has been considered a main element of religion since ancient times... and what do we find now? We find evolutionists demanding that 'scientists' (science) be bound by rules drawn up by an E. elite. We find that the teaching of biology should be bound by rules drawn up by the same elite. Man can't escape his nature; man has been called by many a 'religious' animal. (I would prefer religious being.) I think this is basically correct; but I wouldn't expect that people in this fractured society could ever agree on what this amounted to. This is why I prefer world view.
- It's in man's (religious) nature to seek to understand who he is, and what ultimate reality is. It's in his nature to set up a system of what is right and wrong. It's in his nature to try and force people to commit to a system of beliefs, and to be bound by them. It's in man's nature to collect around such systems... and to force others to accept them or be forced out.

- part of metaphysics is the concern with definition. We see this urge strongly expressed in the American opponents to ID. They want to define all things in terms of their wview. This urge to definition is clearly a religious' urge.
- We could define religion as the attempt to define all the key concepts and things in a society, and the attempt to force others to accept those definitions, with sanctions and rewards handed out for conformity or violation. (We might call this the Definitional Imperative.)

6. When Evolutionists refer to any critique of Darwinism as being religiously motivated they presumably have in mind a definition of religion like the one offered by Noah Webster (1828.)

Religion; n. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]
a. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties.

- Webster was giving a basically Christian definition of religion. But I think he's much on the mark (as usual) when he points to the essence of religion as obligation.

Obligation; (American heritage dictionary)
1. To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means.'

- The evolutionist who tries to constrain all teaching on origins to materialist evolution is clearly involved in a religious undertaking. We've seen evolutionists (materialists) use every means possible to make sure evolution is the only account of origins students know of. One has an obligation to 'science' we're told. One has an obligation to tell students the truth. One has an obligation to the economy, to medicine, to fight superstition, etc. That evolutionists (atheists) use the courts in their fight, shows that they see evolution as the preferred State religion.

- I offer my own definition of religion; what one imagines one's obligations to be, and why one thinks this to be the case. i.e. one's rationale for what one believes a man's obligations in life are. (And so; Libertarianism is a religion where one is only obligated to self; and communism is a religion where one is obligated to serve the State.)

Notes;
1. 'A recent AP article in the Hawk Eye about the treatment of Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University highlights two common variants of this guilt-by-religion fallacy.
2. 'Hundreds of different definitions of religion exist each reflecting either a scholarly or a DOGMATIC bias depending in the last resort on the PRESUPPOSITIONS of the person making the definition. Religion clearly contains intellectual, RITUAL, SOCIAL and ETHICAL elements, bound together by an explicit or implicit BELIEF in the REALITY of an unseen world, whether this belief be expressed in SUPERNATURALISTIC or IDEALISTIC terms. - Irving Hexham
3. It makes sense to talk of world views; it makes little or no sense to talk of religion. There is no such thing as religion. It's as meaningful to speak of apples and toasters as both being entities; they are, but having said that one hasn't contributed much to human understanding. Materialists like to see themselves as progressive; why then are they still using this obsolete word religion? why haven't they adopted a term better suited to the modern world?
- the Bible speaks of true and false religion; but in the above I was referring to a generic definition.