If you believe in a god or gods or supernatural beings, does that make you religious?

[FormerFundie2004]

Just trying to see what kinds of definitions of "religious" are floating around here...

[Dingfod]

It might, but it might not. I know of a lot of people that profess to believe in God and Jesus but aren't religious at all, by any definition, church-going, piety, charity, righteous (not self-righteous), etc. I also know people that are religious that don't go to church at all and show no external signs of except in intimate conversation. I know people that go to church that aren't religious at all, some don't even believe in God.

[wildernesse]

I don't think that belief in god(s)/supernat. beings makes you religious. It simply means that you have a belief.

Being religious means IMO that you follow some religion in some way. Which may mean that you attend worship, or participate in a ritual, or that you pray or that you model your behavior after your ethical guide. It is active, whereas to me belief is simply passive.

[seebs]

There are multiple definitions. I think they're properly orthogonal, but that there's a strong correlation.

[maddog]

I'm not sure I can answer the question, as it's asked. The only thing I have any access to at all is nature (and everything I see leads me to think it is the same for all human and all sentient beings), so the very idea of the "supernatural" does not compute for me. It's utterly incoherent. If I saw something weird that I couldn't explain, I wouldn't say, "Oooh, that must be god/God/supernatural." I would say, "Hmm. That seems weird." The ONLY people I know of who USE the word "God" are religionists. To me, therefore, as a proposition of language, "God" and "gods" are INHERENTLY religious words. If it weren't tied up in religion, you'd use a different word/words.
#174

[livius drusus]

What about Deists? It seems to me one could hold to the notion of a prime mover god with no involvement in human affairs without holding to any particular religion. Fideists, who allow for the possibility of an involved god, might also fit into that category.

[maddog]

What about Deists? It seems to me one could hold to the notion of a prime mover god with no involvement in human affairs without holding to any particular religion. Fideists, who allow for the possibility of an involved god, might also fit into that category.
Interesting questions. What about Deists? Why would a Deist posit a "prime mover god," which functions exactly like a "first cause of the universe," unless they were engrafting the language of the culture around them (heavily populated by religionists) onto an idea that doesn't need the word "god" at all? I don't really know what a Fideist is, so I don't have any understanding of what they mean when they say "god."
#175

[wildernesse]

There are multiple definitions. I think they're properly #($*)$(#*@, but that there's a strong correlation.

:argh:

I'm going to have to ignore your post because of the evil word.

[viscousmemories]

I voted yes 'cause I typically use the word 'religious' to indicate "believes in god(s) and/or other supernatural entities". And that definition coincides with the definitions at dictionary.com, merriam-webster.com, and my OED Home Reference. However in any serious discussion or debate I would expect the term to be defined at the outset or along the way, since I think it's fairly ambiguous.

[Beth]

I voted no. I think you can believe in a god, but be totally secular and irreligious.

[livius drusus]

Interesting questions. What about Deists? Why would a Deist posit a "prime mover god," which functions exactly like a "first cause of the universe," unless they were engrafting the language of the culture around them (heavily populated by religionists) onto an idea that doesn't need the word "god" at all?

I don't really understand the question. Why wouldn't a deist use the language of the culture he inhabits? What other language would he use to describe his understanding of an omnipotent entity?

I don't really know what a Fideist is, so I don't have any understanding of what they mean when they say "god."

A fideist believes the question of whether there is a god is an emotional choice, not one to be determined by the application of reason. Famous skeptic and CSICOP co-founder Martin Gardner (http://www.csicop.org/si/9803/gardner.html) is pretty much the only one I know of.

Carnap had a major influence on me. He persuaded me that all metaphysical questions are "meaningless" in the sense that they cannot be answered empirically or by reason. They can be defended only on emotive grounds. Carnap was an atheist, but I managed to retain my youthful theism in the form of what is called "fideism." I like to call it "theological positivism," a play on Carnap's "logical positivism."

Shortly before he died, Carl Sagan wrote to say he had reread my Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener and was it fair to say that I believed in God solely because it made me "feel good." I replied that this was exactly right, though the emotion was deeper than the way one feels good after three drinks. It is a way of escaping from a deep-seated despair. William James's essay "The Will to Believe" is the classic defense of the right to make such an emotional "leap of faith." My theism is independent of any religious movement, and in the tradition that starts with Plato and includes Kant, and a raft of later philosophers, down to Charles Peirce, William James, and Miguel de Unamuno.

[seebs]

I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as the fideists, but I think their basic claim is sound; we have no way of knowing. If you'd rather just pick the answer you like, I see no reason not to.

[maddog]

Interesting questions. What about Deists? Why would a Deist posit a "prime mover god," which functions exactly like a "first cause of the universe," unless they were engrafting the language of the culture around them (heavily populated by religionists) onto an idea that doesn't need the word "god" at all?

I don't really understand the question. Why wouldn't a deist use the language of the culture he inhabits? What other language would he use to describe his understanding of an omnipotent entity?Well, yes, a person uses the language of the culture he/she inhabits. At the time the concept of "Deism" arose, the culture surrounding the Deists was already deeply infused with religion, and the religious idea of "God" or "god." That culture also imposed heavy penalties for NOT being religious. So I think it was quite natural for the Deists, starting as they did from the point of view of having to overcome a lifetime and a culture saturated with religion, to couch their understandings of the universe in words that would not get them excommunicated, ostracized or punished. If they had not had to begin their inquiries from the assumption of religion, however, they might have been able to see that what they really had concluded was simply that the observable universe might logically require a "first cause" to get started. They might think that a "first cause" was logically required because they did not like or did not know how to overcome perceived "problems" with infinite regress. If they had been able to do their thinking without the heavy bias of religion all around them, however, they might have been able to see that what they had concluded did not need or require the word "god" or "God" at all. They might then have been able to discard that word, which actually obscures their meaning because of its inherent religious bias and thus its ambiguity. They might instead have been able simply to say what they think -- "I think that some kind of first cause had to get the universe started," without calling it "God." I think they used the word "God" for that first cause for unclear and culturally biased reasons -- those cultural and ambiguous reasons have all to do with religion, with the existence and pervasiveness of religion, and the consequences religion imposed for not being religious.

I don't really know what a Fideist is, so I don't have any understanding of what they mean when they say "god."

A fideist believes the question of whether there is a god is an emotional choice, not one to be determined by the application of reason. Famous skeptic and CSICOP co-founder Martin Gardner (http://www.csicop.org/si/9803/gardner.html) is pretty much the only one I know of.

Carnap had a major influence on me. He persuaded me that all metaphysical questions are "meaningless" in the sense that they cannot be answered empirically or by reason. They can be defended only on emotive grounds. Carnap was an atheist, but I managed to retain my youthful theism in the form of what is called "fideism." I like to call it "theological positivism," a play on Carnap's "logical positivism."

Shortly before he died, Carl Sagan wrote to say he had reread my Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener and was it fair to say that I believed in God solely because it made me "feel good." I replied that this was exactly right, though the emotion was deeper than the way one feels good after three drinks. It is a way of escaping from a deep-seated despair. William James's essay "The Will to Believe" is the classic defense of the right to make such an emotional "leap of faith." My theism is independent of any religious movement, and in the tradition that starts with Plato and includes Kant, and a raft of later philosophers, down to Charles Peirce, William James, and Miguel de Unamuno.
I'm not sure what this means at all. I guess I would have to say flatly that I don't understand it. To say that you "believe in x" because it "feels good," is, to me, no different from saying "I feel good/better/comforted when I wish that x," or "when I imagine x," or even "the mere possibility of x." To say that "the question of whether there is a god is an emotional choice," is, again, to me, simply using language badly. To say that "something is," is a reality statement. Period. To argue that language about a reality statement means something, when it doesn't (and isn't intended to) describe any reality, but simply describes wishing or emotion, is incoherent to me.

To say "I retained my youthful theism," is, to me, an inherently religious statement. To say "I made a leap of faith," is also, to me, an inherently religious statement. I rather doubt that one may come to one's "faith," totally "independent[ly] of any religious movement," inasmuch as, if there were no religion, the person would not use the word "god" or "God" to describe what is essentially a psychological proposition: "I feel better when . . ." To use the word "God" or "god" for this is, again, engrafting religion and religious language (because of the overwhelming historical influence of religion, even if your own conclusions are not the result of some mass religious "movement") onto something that (1) has no need of that word, and (2) obscures its actual meaning when using that word.

If you don't mean to be religious, when saying the word "god" or "God," then don't say that word. It has so much religious baggage and history that it is virtually impossible for you to be actually understood for what you mean. If you don't mean to be understood, then what are you doing? Why be deliberately ambiguous? If you DO mean to be understood, then use language that doesn't have such a huge inherent ambiguity built in. Just say what you mean, instead.


. . . we have no way of knowing. If you'd rather just pick the answer you like, I see no reason not to. In terms of what people choose, I think you're right. If you can't know which of several possible or conceivable answers is right, then you can pick a system or a doctrine, or something which has an emotional appeal to you. But then don't muck it up by using poor language to describe your choice. You should not then say, "There is a God/god." You should say, "I like to think there is a God/god." or "I wish there were a God/god." Or "I feel better when I imagine there is a God/god." or whatever. You could make it even more precise (since there is no knowing if there is such a thing as a God/god, and perhaps there is not even any knowing what the word "god" or "God" could possibly mean) by saying "I wish there was a benevolent person who loved me." Or, "I feel better when I imagine a friendly ghost inhabiting the universe, which otherwise seems emotionally cold to me."

#177