[Note: Much more can be said about these issues, so some of the statements below should be taken as somewhat roughly phrased expressions of matters that people have written books to discuss, and doing so without quite getting all of it out all the same. Take this as a general warning on blog comments, perhaps.]
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
-- "religion" as defined by dictionary.com
To continue on the Sweeney points, we are told by Richard Dawkins that religion is the most dangerous threat to the world's well being. This leads me to wonder what this "religion" thing is. I was thinking about this walking home last night and it led me to re-affirm my general sentiments on the thing. In effect, "religion" is usually seen as somehow related to God, that is, belief in a supernatural being or force and the rules and so forth that grow out of this belief. The "force" deal helps bring in various Eastern religions and so forth that might not have a clear "God" entity in their belief systems. Likewise, belief and faith generally are seen to have a lot to do with it, as compared to things like reason and science per se.
The two sets of things are not mutually exclusive, but it seems in some sense they are felt clearly to be on different planes to some degree. The split really is not totally clear. Let's take "God." I do not quite understand how we are to think that such a being is "supernatural." The whole point of the enterprise is to have God as the creator of all things, the master of our domain and so forth. The "unmoved mover" etc. IOW, God is clearly part of nature. The fact we cannot see (but can "feel" them ala the wind) electromagnetic forces or gravity in many ways does not mean they are not "natural." Basic building blocks and forces that fill the universe are natural -- they are not even limited to the earth ("terrestrial"). And, there remain many things of this sort that we do not truly understand.
Now, it is quite true that "God" has not been proven by scientific guidelines, though some have gamely tried. This is where things like "intelligent design" comes in where it helps if you actually believe in the first place and are trying to justify the belief with a reasonable sort of argument (this is a useful technique in rhetoric, but not as much in science). Philosophy also comes in here. Thus, we have something called an "ontological argument," which honestly goes over my head. It has something to do with "perfection" being the ideal, existence being perfection, and thus there has to be uh some sort of perfect existent being. Or something. Now, philosophy was never quite my subject -- philosophers tend to be tedious to read -- so maybe I'm missing something. But, that sounds stupid.
Anyway, so God in that sense is not a "scientific" concept at the current time -- God is a product of faith, though as mentioned in the quote last time, faith is in some fashion a result of reason and experience. We have "faith" as a result of various emotional experiences, for instance, not out of the blue or anything. In fact, science discovery and so forth at times comes from sudden "feelings" or "eureka" moments that have an almost "faith" like quality to them. Such experiences in various cases clearly are wrong -- they have led people down dark paths -- and suggest why some argue religion is so dangerous. But, here's the thing -- "religion" is a rather complex animal. First, quite a few religious individuals do a lot of good with their faith. This alone makes it dubious to label "religion" as a great danger as if it is some united force of darkness. A religious couple gave us Julia Sweeney.
Second, quite a lot of religious people -- one might even say a clear majority, though perhaps not in all things -- are quite reasonable. It might be, in some of our minds, that they have a sort of blind spot in some areas. Thus, maybe, the idea is that people can avoid the perils of religious belief by putting it aside, not letting it overwhelm their lives. Sort of like using a match to light a gas stove, even though too much of both might cause an explosion. But, reason is a quite important part of religion. The two fit together. Let's go back to religion. Religion has various things apart from God, which often takes a lot of our time. Thus, there are ethical rules, rituals, and so forth. Reason plays an important part in formulating these things.
These all ultimately are said to arise from and are in place to honor in some fashion a "superhuman agency." Again, push comes to shove, many think this entity/force is required for religion. But, the dictionary definition uses the word "especially." The need to avoid using "always" is best seen in more colloquial uses of the time, like when someone is said to have "found religion" in respect to let's say politics or something. But, I would go further. I think that we can have religion in the regular sense of the word without a God. We can see this in respect to "nature religions" in which people honor nature. Some have set up a whole mythology about the whole thing, but many clearly think this is largely metaphorical.
They ultimately honor nature overall, do not always believe nature in effect has consciousness that can "hear" us or something. But, they still have rituals, set forth ethical guidelines growing out of our existence in nature ("laws of nature?"), and so on. Consider as well the typical old fashioned burnt offering. Quite often this was not in place because it was felt God needed something to eat or something. It was a means to show one's respect for the gods as well as a means to commune with them in some fashion. It was a type of ritualized metaphor of sorts ... the same might be said of the much (by Israelites especially, as noted by some versions of the Second Commandment) of idols. Many did not think they were actual beings. They served as means to focus one's worship. And, if we replace "God" with "nature" or "good," such things retain value. [Crystals and the like can have similar purposes.]
Bottom line, I would argue that we can define "religion" pretty broadly, perhaps by comparing things to the more common understanding of the term. In effect, I am thinking of something akin to "conscience," which is appropriate since things are often phrase that way -- "freedom of conscience," "conscientious objector," and so forth. We can even say "person of faith" is a broad deal -- we have faith in people, institutions, and so forth. Still, when I think of freedom of religion, I ultimately think of freedom of conscience, freedom to set forth a set of beliefs that guide your life, be it resulting from a God or a framework formulated by reason and one's own emotional experiences. Such things tend to have religious-like things including "sacred" events, special rituals, and even some sort of community of faith. The word "purpose" in the opening definition is particularly useful here -- science does not really have an ultimate "purpose," does it? It just is.
[It is true that certain matters of religion make a clearer case than others. Thus, we particularly are concerned when the government favors certain sectarian beliefs and are particularly concerned about certain religious symbols and so forth. But, conscience too is particularly focused upon as well -- we see this especially in the CO status area. Likewise, if certain things like the moral status of abortion should be seen as "religious," it is equally important that government does not favor one side or the other as "good" or "bad" in the religious sense. Thus, only having "choice" license plates would be as bad as only having "choose life" ones.]
Science after all is not in some sense "right" in a moral sense that approaches what I am talking about here. And, though some like Sam Harris in End of Faith might like to compare it to nefarious "religious belief," science can lead us to do particularly horrible things, or rather, a twisted view of what it tells us. Eugenics, for instance, arises from scientific thought mixed with the usual presumed notions that it apparently reaffirmed. See also, social darwinism generally, and the idea that just because something might be "good" for us, society should in effect totally stigmatize those who do not follow that path.
The dangerous thing is not religion or faith per se, but dangerous religion and faith. Atheists have rather strong beliefs, though perhaps they do not like that word too much given its implication, but a good sort of belief in their view. Hard as it might be to understand, I would argue they too have a sort of religion. We all have some sort of "faith" as well, if one that often might be called a "reasonable faith." It is when it becomes unreasonable and destructive that things become scary. And, yes, irrational faith has no clear stopping point, but you can say that about various things as well. Our emotional experiences, for instance, is basic to our being, but we cannot just deny them. But, it can be quite destructive as well.
I think "religion," broadly defined, is natural to humans. We can define it more narrowly, like some define "marriage" or whatnot, but this would be misguided.
---
* There is a promo for the morning show on the local Air America station, one co-starring Armstrong Williams, the black conservative that the Bush Administration paid to promote their educational policies. I have noted my annoyance this show is on the local affiliate, a holdover from its previous line-up.
The co-host in effect notes that power corrupts, but apparently Republicans are worse because they are in control. IOW, if Democrats were in power, they would be about as corrupt. Equalization -- why in effect should we vote Democrat, hmm? Clearly, Republicans are not particularly corrupt. Noooo. Events have proven otherwise, though divided government (cannot have that! means we have to vote for Democrats!) overall helps, but it is a crafty talking point.