This diary and the comments that went with it got me thinking (in all fairness, so did this one, and this one, and, well, let's face it... I could probably name every diary I've read on DKos, but I'm not going to). What it (they) got me thinking was this: a lot of us are religiously illiterate, insofar as there's good literature out there.
That's nothing to be ashamed of, most of us are probably illiterate in a variety of fields: some of us are scientifically illiterate, some mathematically, and some of us in any number of other fields. That doesn't, of course, mean we don't know anything, it just means we don't know as much as, maybe, we should. And that's unfortunate. Nothing to feel bad about, just unfortunate.
But Why Should We Care About Religious Literacy?
It's a question that has to be answered. The answer, fortunately, is quite simple: Religion(s) play(s) an important role (or important roles) in American politics. This is not only true of conservatism evangelical Christianity (probably the religious set we most readily identify as having influence in American politics, especially within the Republican party), but of other forms of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and a variety of other religions. Whether our government or culture(s) embrace(s) or rebel(s) against a specific religion, those religions that we embrace or rebel against influence how our government and culture(s) operate(s).
This is true in the non-conscious as well. American culture, and most cultures worldwide, are affected in some way by religion(s). This means, on the one hand, that religion participates in the creation of culture (in broad terms). On the other hand, it also means that culture (in broad terms again) participates in the creation of religious ideas and ideas about religion. We can see this in how marriage is sometimes spoken of as a historically religious institution, even though it's not. American culture (and other cultures), however, has influenced our views on marriage's relationship with religion, in effect creating a new view on marriage. The interplay between religion and wider culture can be incredibly complex, and thus it is important to be religiously literate, so that we can know what the religious influences are and thus create strategies on how we will deal with those influences, especially when, in turn, culture and politics interact (as though we could pretend those are really two separate things).
So, without further ado, let me introduce some concepts that might help in becoming more religiously literate.
What is Religion?
This is a complicated question, and one that is difficult to answer. Almost any definition of religion is likely to include things that are not commonly thought of as religion (such as certain philosophies) or fail to include things that are commonly thought of as religion (such as Taoism). That being said, a rudimentary definition which is somewhat accepted (which is to say, it appears in literature about the study of religion) is based on the four C's. By this definition, a religion is something that has:
- Creeds: explanations about the meaning of human life,
- Codes: rules which govern everyday behavior (an ethos),
- Cultuses: rituals to express what is found in the creeds and codes, and,
- Community: religion is not practiced alone but with others.
Thus, Christianity is clearly a religion: there are statements on the meaning of human life, rules which govern (or are supposed to govern) daily life, rituals that are supposed to express things found in the creeds and codes, and communities that believe and practice (or try to practice) these things. Likewise, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca, etc. are all religions. Philosophies are not identical with religion (there are, as far as I know, no rituals of Hegelianism; though we should be careful to remember historical connections between philosophy proper and religion proper, each has influenced the other quite heavily).
What is Theism?
While the above definition may prove useful for a broad understanding of the term 'religion', we are usually (here at DKos, at least), not overly concerned with religion in general (or with certain religions in particular, I've never seen anyone get upset or angry over, say, Mandaenism). I generally see the issue here being one of theism, usually as opposed to atheism. So, let's define.
Theism is generally defined as the belief in at least one personal god. Often, it should be added, this god or these gods is/are rather anthropomorphic. Thus, Christianity is a theistic religion, as are Islam and Judaism (generally, at least, these three are, though some branches/theologians of each attempt to get away from theism). Taosim is not a theistic religion (again, generally, in some forms there are beliefs in gods, though these are not supreme beings). The term 'theism', in short, belongs to a subset of religions.
Atheism is the opposite of theism. This can be confusing as there are two opposites. One is the simple statement 'One does not believe in a personal god because there is no proof/evidence for one.' This is weak atheism. The other is the statement 'One does not believe in a personal god because there is proof/evidence against one.' This is strong atheism. Note that, strictly speaking, neither of these precludes religion, only theism. One can be an atheistic Buddhist, for example, as Buddhism does not require the belief in a personal god or personal gods.
Agnosticism should probably also be defined here. Strictly, agnosticism is a statement about the possibility of knowledge about god/the supernatural/the ground of being/etc. Usually, this is related to some aspect of a creed of a particular religion. In essence, however, I would define it as the suspension of belief based on lack of evidence for a particular position (or particular positions).
Concepts of God
If we want to be more particular, we can't simply talk about whether theism is a good position to take. Instead, we have to talk about particular concepts of god (or some other supreme reality; the word 'god' does not always refer to a theistic construct). The idea of one supreme male deity who rules from the sky and is creator, law-giver, and judge, for example, is merely one concept of god (or some supreme reality), and there are any number of others that are in competition with that one. Since DKos arguments/debates often seem to be over a certain concept (or a certain family of concepts) of god (or some other...) this is an especially crucial point to make.
So, let me make it clear. If one claims to have evidence in favor of god (or some other...), one claims to have evidence for a particular concept of god (or some other...). Likewise if one claims to have evidence against god (or some other...). One can easily claim to have evidence against an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent deity, based simply on the existence of evil as evidence against (theologically, this is the problem of theodicy, the question of why god allows evil). However, this is not an argument against all concepts of god (or some other...). It is not an argument, for example, against the Tao, or against the reality of karma (both important aspects of the creeds of other religions). This is vital. I can argue for or against a particular concept of god (or some other...), but that argument against a particular does not constitute an argument for or against all concepts of god (or some other...).
Giving Pause
I realize that this is getting long, and while I like long diaries, I don't dig the epic ones, so I'll leave this for now. Hopefully, there will be a part 2, in which I'll talk about classifying religions, families of religion, and subsets of particular religions. Anyway, I hope this has contributed a little clarity to the conversations.
Update Info
I'm just going to collect this info here as people point out deficiencies and I strive to fix them.
The definitions of atheism used to contain the word 'ought'. This was inappropriate. The ought was removed on 11/25 at 11:35pm CST.