Talk:Religion

---

• Approaches to defining religion ... *User:Melamed's approach to distinguishing religion from non-religion

---

Suggestions of changes to the article

Since the article is locked against editing by anonymous users, I have created this section to suggest changes to the article.

• I suggest that the link infidels in the Memetic theory of religion section be changed to infidels, as now it incorrectly leads to a musical collection, instead of a religious concept. 95.103.50.222 (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

New edits

With regrets, I just reverted a large number of edits. I think the edits were really changing the direction of the article, towards a focus on the study of the idea of religion as a concept, and away from many of the traditional components of this article. I'd like to suggest that, either, the proposed changes be userfied, or, that they be listed first in this talk, and that editors have an opportunity to discuss them in this talk before they are enacted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the traditions of this article are outdated and no longer needed in modern society. The progress of science demands that we continue to revise and improve this article, bringing it into a newer and richer century. But seriously, do you have any specific problems with my rewriting, or the citations I've used? You seem to think that I've deleted the "criticism" section, but I've actually just moved it a few paragraphs upwards. Shii (tock) 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have a POV agenda, and one this is a minority view at that. Hardyplants (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I am pushing a POV too horrible to be mentioned by name, the Lord Voldemort of POVs. Suggestion: Read Talal Asad, read his critics (Tweed maybe), come back later. Shii (tock) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that I do not mean to be disrespectful towards the work you are putting into the page. However, yes I do have problems. The overall change in emphasis seems to me to be OR and maybe COI. But most of all, you are making it difficult for other editors to follow what is or is not changing. You said in your edit summary reverting me (which you really should not have done) that you did not delete the criticism section. Well, I looked pretty carefully before I made my revert edit, and it looked to me like it was no longer there. In one edit, you removed some seemingly noncontroversial see also links, why? Please take it as a given that, in this case, your edits are not necessarily agreed to. That being the case, please consider listing here the specific changes you want to make, and then I and perhaps others can give you specific feedback. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The reason I reverted you is because I am not a fan of people who revert without explanation. You still haven't explained what I've done wrong, only, that I made a big change. I do not take it as default that this article has owners who want it to remain in its current state, or that I need to state my case before the Wikipedia Court. This is the intent of the WP:BOLD policy.
2. Actually, this article is a piece of crap that could not possibly survive a GA review. I'm trying to improve it by adding recent scholarship. It's neither OR nor COI, but rather an encyclopedic summary of the religious category as currently understood by people who study religion, using cited sources. I apologize that I haven't cited Asad yet. He will come later, as soon as I'm sure that I won't be subject to revert wars.
3. I want to change the page to what it looked like before you reverted me the second time. This is an improvement on its current ignoble state.
4. The entire "criticism" section was moved to "atheism" (although you could rename that section "criticism"-- it's sort of a moot point), and I only added Feuerbach, rather than removing any names.
5. The meme section was integrated with the religious studies section. This was sloppy on my part because I am aiming for an agreed upon structure first.
6. The see also links weren't relevant to that section. They were leftovers that came along with the image I was moving.

Shii (tock) 23:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted you once, and I do not understand what you mean by "second time." Much of your comments are angry in tone, so please calm down. Please remember that it is the responsibility of the editor making the changes to substantiate them; there is nothing WP:OWN about expecting that. From what you said here, some of what you did was, in your own word, "sloppy". Maybe I just misunderstood what you were doing as a result of that sloppiness. If you explain calmly and clearly what you are doing, I'm sure we can come to an understanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the Philosophy article right now you can see what I'm trying to do with this article: rewrite it in terms of religion as it was understood in each time period of history, giving ample weight to the issues of today, but not necessarily in the messy form it's in right now. I've requested a peer review to get some ideas for structure, so this is just a start, but it's an improvement over looking backwards and representing the past in terms of modern religion, which is something no scholarly text has done in decades. (Imagine if you will a Philosophy article that described the entire history of Western philosophy through the eyes of Derrida. That's the POV that gets me so incensed.) Shii (tock) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's a start. Can you be more specific about what that rewrite entails (as opposed to your overall goal)? There is no need in any of this to be "incensed". You can see now that a second editor in addition to me has concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for approaching this in such a confrontational way. I am still very much in 2002 mode and don't like the idea of "revert first, ask questions later". I decided to take a break, and thinking about it more, I understand the impetus to write a draft in userspace and make it tidy before moving it in. But the previous edition of this article was just plain bad. I had tried to fix it in little increments but it was a disconnected mess.

First, let's assume that this article defines the concept of religion, singular, since religions redirects somewhere else (to a far worse article, but that's a story for that talk page). In that case, the history section as it previously existed did not belong on this page; it was a history of religions plural, as opposed to a history of religion and religiousness, a category that has had real influence for centuries and is not just the idle curiosity of scholars. That's why I merged the definition sections and history section. Second, let's assume that as the article currently claims, religion is a category that has had strong ties to various other cultural categories. In that case, it is our duty to report on the existence of opinions on religion, but also to place them into social and historical context rather than acting like they exist in a void. That's why I moved the atheism section and why I added other sections on older historical opinions.

My ideal for the future of this article is to begin with these historical and modern views of religion, then proceeding to the list of religions, and then tackle the overlaps with other cultural categories (although this is part of the sloppiness of the original article; I would recommend not being so generic and wishy-washy and using specific cultural precedents where religion was unified with X, Y, and Z). Beyond that I'm open to suggestions. Shii (tock) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I appreciate it (and have reverted the tag). I do realize that you are putting a lot of serious thought into these issues. Please understand that I was only coming from a position of WP:BRD. I can now get more specific:

• Let's start with that distinction between "religion" and "religions". I'm far from an expert on the academic scholarship, but I take your point about how academic scholarship regards it. At the same time, I think that Wikipedia is writing for a general public audience, as an encyclopedia rather than as an academic text. Therefore, I think most of our readers will come to this page (rather than to Major religious groups) when they are looking for information of the sort that academics would (instead) call "religions". I'm concerned that your revisions will make it less user-friendly in that regard.
• Similarly, I am unsure as to whether what you have characterized as present-day scholarship really is present-day academic consensus. (As I say, I'm no expert.) I looked at Talal Asad, and he certainly looks to me like someone with a controversial thesis. I'm really not competent to argue the point with you, but I'd like to see what other editors think about that. Perhaps we may decide to have an RfC or a 3O.
• I'd probably prefer to change the "atheism" header back to criticism of belief. There can be (and around the Wiki, there is) endless argument about whether atheism is a religion and whether it belongs here, and the section is more concerned with atheist critiques of religion than with atheism in its own right. On the other hand, I think NPOV makes a good case for having a criticism section.
• I think "History of the religious category" sounds stilted as a section title. The page is about religion, not something called "the religious category".
• On the other hand, I think it is pretty typical of Wikipedia articles to have a "Definitions" section.
• I'd like to understand a little better the rationale for your current organization of the history section, what specifically was wrong with the old version, and what specifically this new one does better.
• It's a little hard to follow from the edit summaries, but I think that some of your edits moving things around have also deleted content. I feel we need to look carefully at all deletions to see whether they really have consensus.

OK, I think that will do for a start. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points. There are opponents to Talal Asad, and I'm going to be reading about them for my "integrative exercise" class starting in January and summarizing what I learn here. They are indeed currently missing from this article and I will do my best to "write for the opponent", but I don't think anyone denies that the meaning of religion has changed over time, or that it developed in different countries through intercultural dialogue-- some people just think that history necessitates an essentialist definition in the case of modern issues. For example, David Chidester: "After reviewing the history of colonial productions and reproduction on contested frontiers, we might happily abandon religion and religions as terms of analysis if we were not, as the result of that very history, stuck with them." Thomas A. Tweed: "The term religion... has prompted further conversation, more contestation. It has done its work." Also, I hate to play the broken record, but before I revised this article everyone was missing; the article was out to lunch. (P.S. The reason I prefer Asad to Tweed or Chidester is that the latter two mainly study Christianity, whereas Asad is a Muslim trying to make Islamic culture accessible for Western understanding and, e.g., encyclopedic summary.)

You can feel free to make large changes yourself as long as we have agreed upon this new combined section as a precursor to a proper discussion of religious discourse in context. I'm only trying to rearrange this article for the benefit of all editors and readers, not to own it. Restore anything I've deleted, like the summaries of meme theory, if it was well sourced. I changed the topic headings--change it again if you like. I'm actually writing a paper on Ambedkar and need to get back to work. I feel kind of stupid now. Shii (tock) 05:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. We can take our time with this. It's hard for me to know exactly what we have or have not agreed to. I appreciate that you have already fixed some of the things I mentioned, and I will probably be bold in fixing other things as I see them, particularly with regard to restoring material that was deleted. I may ask for a 3O about the overall direction and its relation (or, perhaps, lack of relation) to scholarly consensus, as well as to how it impacts usefulness for a non-scholarly audience. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the version that exists now, I observe some issues about the organization and content:

• It would make better sense for the section on religious belief to come earlier, before the major religions section.
• The secularism/criticism section isn't really history, and is important enough to be its own major section lower on the page. (I will probably change these first two things myself. √ Done.)
• The history section as it is now has problems with balance. It is very skewed towards the Abrahamic religions at the expense of others, and it is more concerned with the history of the concept of religion (as an academic study) than with the history of religious belief, thus omitting much early history. (Tagged for that reason.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally doubt that a history of religions can exist as a coherent narrative. It would read something like "In 1300, X happened in Africa. Meanwhile, in India, Y happened. In Japan, Z happened." That's what the old article looked like, and it's a back-construction; we would be hard-pressed to explain what X, Y, and Z had to do with each other at the time. Keep in mind the Philosophy article as reference: it separates Eastern and Western philosophy (in fact, "ne'er shall the twain meet"... we don't have to do that in this article). It is possible to understand how different cultures interacted with each others' religions, and with the concept of religion itself, over time. State Shinto, for example, was a challenge to our understanding of religion-- much like atheism is today-- and if the History section were its own article I'd list that there. Would you prefer, say, linking to the history of each separate tradition?

On another note, I would say that the secularism/criticism section is grounded in history, just as everything else is, but it's pointless to dispute this point in a discussion that only includes two people. I'll come back to it in 3 months or whatever. Shii (tock) 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Take your time (and please indent). About the history, an approach might be to link, as you said, and also to cover the history of belief, beyond just the history of how people have conceived of belief, for example, early archaeological evidence of religious practices. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you added to the page, are we supposed to write a history on the assumption that there has been an unchanging category called "religion" throughout history? That seems like a POV to me. Shii (tock) 06:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please indent. I assume you are asking about the tag at the start of the History section? I thought I already explained it, but I'll try to make it clearer. Most readers of Wikipedia are from the general public. They will come to this page looking for information about religion in general. The section as it is now is skewed towards the Abrahamic religions and ignores others. It also is about the history of how scholars have thought about the idea of religion as a category of scholarly study, while failing to cover at least some of the history of how people have practiced religion or believed religious beliefs. I have never said that we should assume that there was an unchanging category; rather, I am saying that there is more to the history of religion than the history of how scholars have thought about changes in the category. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"I am saying that there is more to the history of religion than the history of how scholars have thought about changes in the category." And who are the reliable sources that will discuss such an objective history? Shii (tock) 23:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose they would be the scholars who have studied the history of religion, as opposed to the scholars who have studied whether such an objective history exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So basically, this article should be written from the perspective of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" I doubt there is anyone who currently studies religion and is unfamiliar with these historical problems. Shii (tock) 02:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That's strange, in that I'm not the one who has been making the recent edits! Please understand, I have never objected to adding the material you have added, only to leaving out the material you want to leave out. You and I have reached the point where this dialog is no longer accomplishing anything constructive. I note that another editor has now gotten involved, in the new etymology section. I think the issues where you disagree with other editors will best be figured out by having more editors look at this page with fresh eyes. Let's see if that happens on its own. If not, I'll start an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this has been a very productive discussion so far, but we do need new voices to help us decide the direction for this article. I don't know if RFC would be the best forum, but I'm not up to date on how new voices can find articles these days (it seems that Peer Review is backlogged), so do whatever you like. Shii (tock) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. (About Peer Review, it's more about assessing article quality as a prelude for GA or FA.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You probably noticed this if you monitor this article, but I'm attempting once again to draw "criticism of religion" into the flow of the article by grouping it under a subheading. However, this time I didn't change the text. I think all sections of this article should be reference each other by context if it is to reach GA status. Shii (tock) 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that, and at first glance, it looks good to me. I haven't had time lately to look closely at some of the other details I raised earlier, but I will come back to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored the section tag that was deleted. As I understand it, the reason for the deletion was that a source was added indicating that the word "religion" was not used in its present-day sense prior to a relatively recent date. Even if that is true, it doesn't change the fact that religion existed before that date, and it had a history. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is worth mentioning that there are certain criteria that a "religion" has to fulfill before becoming a religion and being included on this page. Otherwise I can see people editing in a plethora of homebrew religions that do not contribute to the article. “Religions assure salvation; religions believe in a precise theology; and religions convert nonbelievers.” (The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown) I thought this was an interesting way to see it, and I was wondering if citing a novel (although it is researched) is appropriate. Furthermore this description is probably from another source, if someone knows of it, I think it will be a valuable inclusion to this article. Can a more experienced user clarify/verify this? User1618 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research in the Etymology section

I have edited this original message which had suffered for my stress level Shii (tock)

User:Meieimatai has been repeatedly adding a very silly Etymology section which I have repeatedly removed because nobody else is getting involved. I really just wanted him to go away because the section is worthless. But it looks like he's here for good, so here's a little breakdown. His original claims are as follows:

1. The single most reliable source for the etymology of "religion" is Cicero.

   And my reply: The importance of Cicero is not attested by anyone in particular. And for good reason, because it's a figura etymologica, as anyone who read the cited passage would understand. Cicero is being about as scholarly as Plato was when he derived anthropos from anathron ha opope. Little did Cicero know that one day his figure of speech would be cited as the very height of linguistic research.

2. Cicero should be included here but all other information belongs on "Wikidictionary". (his comment on my talk page)

   This article needs an Etymology section like Barack Obama needs an Etymology section. You read this article to understand what "religion" means, where the idea came from, the types of practices that people call religion today, etc. If you wanted to know that the root is Latin you'd go to Wiktionary. I removed the etymology section from the word Library in 2007 and nobody ever added it back. But nobody had a theological agenda to explain where libraries came from either.

3. No, nobody has ever claimed that Cicero was talking about Jews here, but "Cicero being who he was could not have been ignorant of [Jewish oral tradition], and it is this socio-cultural environment that I brought to the attention of the Wikipedia reader." (his comment on my talk page)

   A pure fabrication, not found in any reliable source. Nothing else to say about this. It's the definition of WP:OR.

4. Therefore the word "religion" came from describing something that Jews did.

   I invite the curious reader to check out Meieimatai's user talk page and consider why Meieimatai might want to write an Etymology section that reads this way.

Yeah, I just spent 2 days edit warring instead of doing this point by point. I handled this the wrong way, but I was quite stressed by this debate. He left many condescending messages claiming he knows way more about etymology than me. Rather than owning up to his POV pushing he called me an anti-Semite. He has also claimed on my talk page to be associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Etymology editing for the benefit of all curious readers, whereas in reality this is the first non-Jewish article he's edited since July 2008 (the month he registered). Shii (tock) 06:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please take care to use more civil language. I reverted this back to your version again. The other version is poorly written while stressing the less common (in modernity anyway) interpretation of religio. I also do not understand why the part about Judaism was there. It seems like original research. I highly suggest discussing these and future disagreements here instead of revert warring with each other, something that always takes at least two parties by the way (hint, hint to those engaged accusing only the other party of doing so).PelleSmith (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

PelleSmith - I am highly curious why you reverted to a version which is even less substantiated and certainly less referenced, never mind selectively quoting original source in Latin?

As for the points raised by the un-named editor (wonder why?)

1. Cicero is not the single most reliable source, simply the first known one, and is commonly accepted as such by all.

2. Have you red the cited passage? You assumed the average Wikipedia reader is fluent in Latin, and chose not to translate it.

3. I linked the Wikidictionary entry to the section, which you chose to ignore.

4. What "religion" means, where the idea came from, the types of practices that people call religion today, etc. surely starts with the word itself! It seems to mean different things to different people in different times and that seems to me to be significant.

5. As you have perfect knowledge of Latin, you no doubt have read Cicero. The discourse on religion in his time was fairly limited and Jews, who were represented in Rome by a small community, were a noticeable difference of monotheists to the rest of the polytheistic practices. This is relevant to the article as a whole, but more so in the sense of observance, which is related to the core of Judaism, a religion that has reading and reciting at its core. The OED may not say so, but an online etymological dictionary says that

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

is sourced from several specialist dictionaries including Weekley's "An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English," Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language," "Oxford English Dictionary" (second edition), "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology," Holthauzen's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache," Ayto's "20th Century Words," and Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang." To me this doesn't look like OR at all.

5. I did not suggest that the word religion came from something Jews did! All I said is that in a given interpretation, suggested by several authoritative sources, it is very applicable to the practice contaminator to its origin with Cicero. It is not OR, but a fact, and besides that informs the reader as to possible derivation of the term. Cicero, and other Romans, often cited practices that other people did, including the Jews. In Cicero's time this was news because Judea had just become a latest addition to the Roman Empire.

6. What has my user page got to do with this editing? PelleSmith user page says he is semi-retired. Should I extrapolate from this? As it happens I did a course on Talmudic discourse, and being left with course material, and noting a decided lack of some articles in the Talmudic are decided to add to them and make that a project. Unfortunately I got sidetracked into some other editing.

7. I never received an answer to how you assumed that it is my "attempt to promote Judaism as the true religion is hilariously transparent" or "attempt to promote primitive tribal myths remains hilariously transparent", though you seem to be having a lot of fun at my expense. I never attached any value judgements to the section, and I'm sure you managed to offend a great number of people by suggesting that their beliefs, which clearly you do not share, are "tribal myths". I do however suggest that the religious obligation to know how to read and write is not such a bad "tribal myth" highlighted by my edits--Meieimatai? 07:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I edited a compromise version. I have no bone in this, with the exception that I believe Meieimatai's version included OR while lacking a balanced presentation of the two etymological possibilities. I also removed the citation to Cicero's with the addition of his original Latin. I suggest getting a better citation from an English language source that is secondary or tertiary. I also reversed the order of the options if only because this is how the OED presents the etymology. I assume it has to do with ligere being older in Cicero than ligare in Lactanitus but I really don't know. The point is that at least we have a good basis to go by if we follow the OED. Please flesh out this section more if possible, but lets not go back to edit warring over it. In the end the ultimate origins of the term are extremely trivial.PelleSmith (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a trivial point and I should not have edit warred over it. It's finals week for me now so I won't be working on this immediately-- hopefully we can come to a reasonable consensus. Shii (tock) 18:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Header image

It's not very nice to revert people without giving a reason. Look at the tertiary sources which were used for this image. Do any of them show Iran as the same color as Saudi Arabia? No? Then there's nothing more to discuss. Shii (tock) 09:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits to retain some neutrality

These lines seem to bias against religion, and should be edited to maintain neutrality:

"Religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, but more generally is interwoven with society and politics."

The bolded section makes religion sound like it is mainly used as a societal or political tool. Some people do use religion in this way, but others use it for the purposes mentioned before that (meditation, worship, prayer, etc).

Suggested edit: "Religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, and is often interwoven with society and politics."

At the moment, that is the only real problem I have with this article.

Chargee (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming

Under list of religions, Global Warming Movement was left out. Believe this movement fits the definition of 'Religion' as stated in this article and has a wide enough following of 'believers' that it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Global warming and climate change are concepts that have a sound baking backing from the scientific community. The environmental movement, which is attempting to mitigate the effects of global warming use the scientific consensus. It is nothing to o with religion. It is not a religion. Some may pursue the goal with a religious fervour but that does not make it a religion. If that were to be the case we could class sport as a religion. To believe in anthropogenic global warming does not need prayer, churches and deities. Finally, Wikipedia documents the dominant opinion of society that is gleaned from all of the referenced, reliable source. None of these classify global warming as a religion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Book of Lists lists "scientism" as a religion, but that was the 1970s. Shii (tock) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I just thought that they were (the IPCC and the angclian uni.) just cought to hiding the decline and the mass of 'professionals' seems to be out of peer pressure. So if the IPCC lied, the science is not settled and all is not well. I would very much want to see you produce this scientific concensus. I think it's all about carbon trade and mass control. I see no real climate change except for the norm. See 'climategate' orth. But yes. Climate change fanaticism is approaching religion, which is allso belief without proof. --82.181.195.240 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"The use of the term "nonreligious" or "secular" here refers to belief or participation in systems which are not traditionally labeled "religions." Of course, in the absence of traditional religions, society exhibits the same behavioral, social and psychological phenomena associated with religious cultures, but in association with secular, political, ethnic, commercial or other systems. Marxism and Maoism, for instance, had their scriptures, authority, symbolism, liturgy, clergy, prophets, proselyting, etc. Sports, art, patriotism, music, drugs, mass media and social causes have all been observed to fulfill roles similar to religion in the lives of individuals -- capturing the imagination and serving as a source of values, beliefs and social interaction. In a broader sense, sociologists point out that there are no truly "secular societies," and that the word "nonreligious" is a misnomer. Sociologically speaking, "nonreligious" people are simply those who derive their worldview and value system primarily from alternative, secular, cultural or otherwise nonrevealed systems ("religions") rather than traditional religious systems. Like traditional religions, secular systems (such as Communism, Platonism, Freudian psychology, Nazism, pantheism, atheism, nationalism, etc.) typically have favored spokespeople and typically claim to present a universally valid and applicable Truth. Like traditional religions, secular systems are subject to both rapid and gradual changes in popularity, modification, and extinction." ([1])

"In 2001, a US district court judge ruled that Alcoholics Anonymous is a religion." (Clarke & Beyer, The World's Religions, Routledge, 2009, page 138)

Peter jackson (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

This page is bereft of mentions of this monumental religion. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 15:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Damages religion causes

This page is also bereft of mentions of these monumental ideas: "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice," by Nathaniel Branden (1963), in Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.

Please see full text here. Retrieved today.

Warmest Regards, :) 94.230.82.161 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps more directly related to Criticism of religion? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Latin

Under etymology, religio has the o marked as long, but not the e. Is this right? In Lucretius' famous line "tantum religio potuit suadere malorum", the metrical pattern of the verse seems to imply the e is long too. Peter jackson (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the macron redundant/unnecessary for the O even? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins

i am a little hesitant to leave Dawkins in the religious studies section

"Although evolutionists had previously sought to understand and explain religion in terms of a cultural attribute which might conceivably confer biological advantages to its adherents, Richard Dawkins called for a re-analysis of religion in terms of the evolution of self-replicating ideas apart from any resulting biological advantages they might bestow. He argued that the role of key replicator in cultural evolution belongs not to genes, but to memes replicating thought from person to person by means of imitation. These replicators respond to selective pressures that may or may not affect biological reproduction or survival.[23] Susan Blackmore regards religions as particularly tenacious memes.[24] Chris Hedges, however, regards meme theory as a misleading imposition of genetics onto psychology."

None of these People are exactly experts on the subject of religous studies, it seems like pov was inseted and added to as much as i am a fan dawkins i cant help but feel that this uhm has LITTLE to do with the subject of religous might work better in section called origins of religoin or something. i dont think its in appropirate for the article but uhm but not quite in the same paragraph as Lindbeck. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. None of these people have degrees in religious studies... maybe we should remove the paragraph, which is just one aspect of criticism of religion. Shii (tock) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please learn how to spell? None of your "arguments" have any value because you can't even spell... . This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for people who can't even spell to spout their opinions. And, in case your first language is NOT English, please limit your stupid remarks only to that language forum. 173.168.177.217 (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)