Meaning of Religious Belief

One thing that interests me is religion. I went to Catholic school from sixth to twelfth grade. Catholicism was not a big part of my family's life. It was a given for my parents. But, we were not raised strongly believing it. This opened the way for my move toward non-belief. 

I remain very interested in the Bible and religion. For instance, Bart Ehrman's weekly podcasts are on the schedule. I am not anti-religious. Many religious people are good people. We believe in God for various reasons. Our understandings are diverse. The abuse of religion by some should not ruin it for everyone.  

What "religion" entails is one interest. Merriam-Webster defines "religions" as "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity." People are "religious" and do not believe in a God. Some Buddhists do not believe in a god. Universalism includes followers who do not believe in a god. Some people believe in some divine essence. Some religions like Taoism believe in some sort of "divine force."

I skimmed Tim Crane's The Meaning of Belief: Religion From An Atheist's Point of View. He states:

Religion, as I am using the word, is a systematic and practical attempt by human beings to find meaning in the world and their place in it, in terms of their relationship to something transcendent. 

So, it is a set of beliefs that fit together into a system. It is practiced with rituals, doctrines, stories, and the like. It provides a meaning of life as a whole. (A common term used here is "ultimate truth" though he does not seem to use it.)  And, the meaning is found in our connection to something transcendent, something beyond normal existence.

The last part is special. Humanism, in his view, is not a religion. We can have things special to us, but only religion has "sacred" things since that means a connection to the transcendent. A person can even have a "religious temperament," be an atheist, and follow religious rituals. But, to be truly religious, you need a religious impulse. A belief in that transcendent existence.  

Tim Crane also explains that the bad things -- such as violence or sexism -- laid on religions regularly are not purely religious. Also, in part, since there are so many religious people and religion is not the problem, the best approach is overall tolerance of religion. Not support; tolerance.

I agree with that last part. People use religions, including Justice Alito in today's Order List (see last entry), beliefs to discriminate. But, there is nothing unique to religion that requires this. Crane notes that the 20th Century also shows that religion alone is not the path to perdition. 

Many religious people promote equality.  Religion need not be particularly the path to irrationality either. Catholics, for instance, nearly always reject the official policy regarding birth control. Many religions, including Judaism and Islam, provide room for a lot of debate and freethinking. Religion provides a lot of things for people too.

I don't know about the line drawing for "religion" though. The idea a person can have religious temperaments belonging to religious groups, but not really be "religious" to me is a bit silly. The idea atheists cannot really have a concept of sacred also seems off to me.  Religion often has an emotional component that does not require belief in the supernatural.

Exact line drawing often could be of limited importance. I think, for instance, there are three ways to approach the First Amendment. First, "religion" can be defined in a very open-ended way. Second, we can take a type of "penumbra" approach (Griswold v. Connecticut) involving aspects of religion, including rituals, matters of conscience, and so on. Third, religious choices can include the rejection of traditional religious beliefs.

What lacunae really result from the different accounts? Sometimes, "conscience" will be more open-ended, but you don't need to have much more to have it fall into "religion." Courts and so on don't want to limit "religion" in close cases. Other factors, including harm to others, should be the deciding matter. If humanist groups are not "religious," they often will fall within an exception (such as a tax break). 

Tim Crane's book lost me at various points. But, it has some interesting aspects.  And, I agree the heavy-handed approach of some "New Atheists" is both counterproductive and misguided in general. A respectful examination is appreciated.  

ETA: Speaking about religious issues, Alabama's ruling recognizing frozen embryos as "children" included a justice firmly supporting "theologically" based laws. Very troubling and something Justice John Paul Stevens' in particular flagged in various opinions. 

More here. Various concurrences, partial dissents, and full dissent provided different takes, none of which seem particularly liberal. But, more sensible.