Talk:Religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religion article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Religion, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.

Archives of previous discussion

• Archive01 -- To August 2004
• Archive02 -- August 2004 to November 2004
• Archive03 -- November 2004 to April 2005
• Archive04 -- April 2005 to October 2005
• Archive05 -- October 2005 to March 2006

---

Links to selected topics in the archives

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

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2006#{Section}|2006 press source]] article for details. The citation is in: Andrew Stephens. "God of all things", The Age, 9/4/2006.

---

Contents 1 demographics 2 Mormonism 3 Dreams 4 Press source 5 Hinduism in the US 6 Caption 7 Hindusim, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism 8 Juche 9 Latin Word 10 Religion Size Rankings 11 "Faith" and "Belief System"? 12 New section on Oldest religion and weasel words 13 Religion and Class 14 Images (part 2) 15 Questionable section removed and placed here until proper sourcing and POV slants can be resolved properly 16 How many religious Jews? 17 Evolutionary Theology 18 Section removed and placed here for further discussion 19 Misleading Numbers 20 numbers 21 Religion and State 22 Religion the myth stories. Removed from primary and secondary education around the world. 22.1 Myth, Mythology, Religion and Mythology, Philosophy of Religion 23 Christianity Numbers 24 Mass edits placed here for consideration 25 Religion, myth, real and imaginery or imagined 26 Religious conversion in international law 27 Hinduism 28 Criticism 29 some suggestions about the basic definition 30 New intro 31 Religions are pseudoscientific 32 Fear of god 33 Adhrents.com numbers... 34 Seperation? 35 2.1 Billion??? 36 Image moved here 37 Extra etymological discussion by Robert Graves 38 Request for Comment 38.1 Organized religion 39 Revert again 40 Religion and Terrorist Activities in Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. 41 ABCs of Faith 42 Fastest-growing religion? 43 Practitioners of yoga as excercise are not Hindu. 44 Link suggestion 45 Semiprotection 46 The first paragraph 47 Hinduism, Revival and Demographic Trends 48 Starvation and self-strangulation part of mysticism? 49 Statistical breakdown 50 Marx's Quote (Opium of the People) 51 Functionalist nature of the article 52 Lead change 53 Inclusion of Satanism as a religion 54 Vandalism on the Article page: "Petroism" 55 Request for Comment: Demographics 56 Request for comment: Demographics (continued) 57 Diane de Poitiers 58 Dab link 59 Adherents.com numbers should be replaced with accurate 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia data or recent World Christian Database data 60 Best way is to study other Religion. 61 From the opening paragraph:. . .? 62 Please do not Spam Wikipedia Entries 63 Is this link SPAM? Please weigh in. 64 Suggestions re: Religions as progressively true/as absolutely true 65 The influence of reason in modern man's religious beliefs. 66 Religion as a Byproduct of Evolutionary Psychology; Does anyone have any thoughts on how to integrate this material? 67 Power wiki admin, please help to add the following info.... 68 Mormon apologists at work here? 69 Atheism should be removed from the "Belief Systems" block 70 Worst Article on Wikipedia Award 71 Important update reverted... 72 Disputed Lead addition 73 General to the Specific 74 Way of life 75 Development of Religion Section 76 Modification to "Skepticism" 77 Religion by country map

[edit] demographics

there is a lot of space after the demographics part. can somebody delete that space---from the most irritating person born yet

The demographics animation is wrong please change it, for the Philippines Luzon and Visayas and Mindanao were mainly paganistic then Islamic then now Catholic, Only small parts of Mindanao are Islamic (5% of population). Thanks. 124.104.41.174 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC) AARON

[edit] Mormonism

It should also be noted that many consider Mormonism to be a distinct denomination of Christianity, because of their fundamental belief in Jesus Christ. However, it has been deemed appropriate to list Mormonism as a separate religion for practical purposes.

No...believe it or not, Mormonism is Christianity. This statement is biased. I would like to hear these so-called practical purposes. The numbers for Mormonism should be included in the Christianity section. Mormons are just as Christian as Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Baptists. bob rulz 16:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Mormons consider themselves to be Christians but most non-Mormon Christians do not consider them to be Christians. A similar situation occurs with Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, I am told that most Roman Catholics do not consider non-Roman Catholics to be Christian while some Baptists do not consider Roman Catholics to be Christians. It makes it hard to count. Rick Norwood 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholics do consider many non-Roman Catholics (like Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans...) to be Christians. At least that seems to be the official Catholic teaching. But, AFAIK, Mormonism is not recognized as a Christian denomination by the Catholic Church. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear a good reason why Mormonism is not Christianity. It's considered Christianity in both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Christianity articles, why should it be any different here? For all intensive purposes, Mormons are Christian. bob rulz

It should be noted that the Christianity article claims only the Mormons "self-identify" as Christians. Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says only that Mormons "count themselves" as Christians (a POV that is also in several other articles on Mormonism / the Latter-day Saint Movement cf. Mormonism and Christianity). So, let's return to your question: why should it be any different here? The distinction this page makes is quite in line with the distinctions made elsewhere on Wikipedia (though may, perhaps, be too specific to properly belong to an article as general as this one.

If the issue is only one of demographic figures, then it should be noted that adding 12 million Mormons to 2.1 billion Christians would make no statistical difference and would only eliminate Mormonism from the list altogether (which may not be a bad idea as this is the path the original source [Adherents.com] seems to have taken).

In any case, it does not seem to be the intention of that passage to claim that Mormonism isn't Christianity so much as to indicate that listing it separately may give the wrong impression. Ig0774 13:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• It all boils down to what these various religions believe: Who is Christ? Mormonism, unlike say, Catholism and Christianity, does not believe Christ is the Son of God, or, holds any Deism as fully God (IOW, he is just a good man/prophet/etc.). That's one major reason why Mormonism is considered not to be part of any religious Christian denomination. Mormonism also denies the Christian belief variation of a Trinity, denies that the Bible is the absolute truth, sees a complete different path to salvation (Christians would say by "works"), and believe that man can work his way to a level equal with Christ and ultimately God. Their messengers even witness to "Christians".
• But also, we need to clarify exactly what a "Denomination" is, too. Note that in the Wikipedia articles on "Denomination" (even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination) does not include Mormonism.

Colonel Marksman 18:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC) PS: Not that it shouldn't be included. If it should, then someone ought to change that.

I don't normally try to argue with ingorant people, but in this case what you said is so incredibly not true that it's ridiculous. I grew up in a Mormon family, and while I'm an Atheist now, I still firmly support the Mormon faith and try to clear up misconceptions about its religion. Mormons do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I would like to hear where you heard they didn't believe that. And just because there's a few minor differences between Mormonism and a few other Christian beliefs doesn't mean that they're not Christian. bob rulz 19:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There are huge, major differences between Mormonism and Christianity about the nature of God, the meaning of Sonship, the creation of humanity and its relationship to God, and numerous other subjects. These cannot be simply glossed over as "a few monor differences". They're major enough that even Christians who are informed about Mormonism cannot consider it a branch of Christianity. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the statement above me. If what I've read is true, Mormons are *not* Christians and it can be plainly seen through the discrepancies between the one and only 100% true Word of God (the Bible) and the majority of the Mormon scripture. My main point would have to be the fact that Mormons believe in a completely different God. I've done extensive research in this area, at least more than the average person, and I have solidly come the conclusion that Mormonism is a cult. One website sums it up quite nicely...

"As we can clearly see, the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are sharply opposed to biblical Christianity. Because of this, the LDS Church is not just another Christian denomination, but is a non-Christian cult."

http://www.towertotruth.net/Mormon/articles/mormonism_uncovered.htm

The predicament with people “Bob rulz”, and many other former Mormons/current Mormons, is that they are taught morals, values, and beliefs that contradict or do not take into account what the older generations of Mormons are taught. In addition, if what I’ve learned is accurate, current (and especially the younger) Mormons don’t even know half of the principles, history concepts, and beliefs that their religion takes part in! This, in addition to the information gap between the generations I explained earlier, would explain why they constantly wonder where we come up with statements like “Mormons do not believe in the Trinity” and “Mormonism denies the Virgin Birth”.

In summary, Mormonism is not a distinct denomination of Christianity, in fact, it is a completely separate entity. Being considered a “denomination of Christianity” would entail more than just a belief in Christ… it also includes believing in the only true version of Christ, found in the Bible, and the fundamental doctrines taught in the Bible. ~Andrew, 5/15/06

Odd, you'd think that a church with the name "the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" would believe in Christ. Thier teachings clearly reflect this. They teach that he was the son of god, etc. The main difference is that we believe that Christ =\= God.

Icezebra 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)In order to agree on whether or not Mormonism is part of Christianity we need to first agree on the definition of Christianity. The current accepted Wikipedia definition is:

“Christianity is a monotheistic religion centred on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah prophesized in the Old Testament.”

This boils down to 2 key issues, that Jesus was the Son of God; and that Jesus was the Messiah prophesized in the Old Testament. The other key point is rather more subjective. Not every Christian follows the teachings “religiously”[pun intended] (indeed, to follow them to the point you are expected to give up your family and never speak / have contact with them again... madness!).

Thus we are left with the two criteria, religions that conform to these should regard themselves as part of Christianity and vice versa. I’m not an expert on Mormonism, and so will leave this particular point to you to decide on. I have though, in a brief search, found two Mormon – run sites. One proclaims:

“We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostles—that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come.” http://www.mormonwiki.com/mormonism/Jesus_Christ

Immanuel – another word for messiah. This statement seems to suggest Mormons are Christians, no?

Another site (http://www.lasvegasmormontemple.org/What_Do_Mormons_Believe.html) offers a whole diatribe on their beliefs regarding Jesus.

On a related note; the preceding comment makes a point about Mormonism being a cult, and then takes the jump to non-Christian cult. I’d like to see the evidence behind this, rather than just the conclusion as stated above.

The problem with this statement is that “cult” is a subjective word, there are several definitions of this all revolving around:

“an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers”

A slightly more specific definition related to the issue at hand: “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader”

There is essentially no difference between Christianity and Mormonism except in numbers, and neither can claim substantially to be “the true faith”, indeed, neither can even claim substantially (or, even logically, reasonably, scientifically et cetera) to be true...

To conclude; if Mormonism is a cult, then so is Christianity, however this doesn’t really help the argument at hand. The best definition would be that Mormonism is a sub-cult of the Christian cult, just as Protestantism, Methodism, Jehovah's Witness(ism?) are all sub-cults of the same.

What does help is that Mormons themselves base their beliefs on Christ and the Bible, and conform to the definition of Christianity. Surely that’s enough... I feel there's sufficient evidence to include it as a denomination of Christianity.

Furthermore, quoting "the one and only 100% true Word of God (the Bible)" in an argument, discredits the validity of your research... If you're going to believe the Bible without any reasoning or logic applied, how can we trust (without sight of evidence / reasoning process) your reasoning and logic in this area? Can you elaborate more on your extensive research? Icezebra 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreams

I like the idea of adding a section on dreams, so I will not at this time revert the recently added paragraph, but as it stands it is much too informal and POV, and needs a rewrite. The Wiki manual of style says, "no contractions", BTW. Rick Norwood 13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree very much. Dreams that people have had has had a strong effect on the history of many religions, but the current statement is POV and does not cite any references. It needs to be updated/revised/changed. -- Jeff3000 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can provide a "dream." It's http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Developing_A_Universal_Religion But, what do I/we do with it? David H 13:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's what we want. We want a section that provides references about how dreams have affected the current religions. -- Jeff3000 13:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.David H 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Press source

Today The Age, a newspaper in Melbourne Australia used the list of religions by number of followers in an article on relgion. It is online here at the moment, but I don't know how long it will stay up for though. Also, if anyone can make the press source template work better, please go ahead. --Apyule 10:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

--203.164.225.106 08:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)==World's Oldest== Did we ever clarify the world's oldest religion? I see the picture there at the top stating that "Hinduism" might be, but I think that requires some rewording.

There are religions older than Hinduism, but religions still in practice is a different story. Still, wouldn't Judism be even older? That is, 4,000 years old (far older than the Siva Temple from 1,100 years ago)? Colonel Marksman 17:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is highly debatable (one might note for example that there are temples in India that far predate most scholarly dating of Solomon's Temple or even the Exodus). Scholarly opinion also place the completion of the Pentateuch and the completion of the Rg Veda (the oldest of the Vedas) at around the same time (give or take 300 years). On the other hand, there is debatable archeological evidence that points to Vedic religion deriving from earlier practices (circa 4th millenium BCE), which places it somewhere around the traditional dating of the creation of the world (according to the Jewish calendar). In general, I dislike attempts to find the "oldest still extent religion" for many reasons. First of all, the gap between what is even remotely verifiable and what is claimed by many religious traditions is enormous (e.g. attempts to date the Tirthankara Rsubha or Avram). Secondly, the focus on "still extent" tends to ignore the massive (verifiable) changes that most (if not all) religions have undergone since their founding (e.g. worship centered in Jerusalem / the temple cult / the Rabbinic schools or the rise in prominence of Siva and Visnu, displacing the apparent earlier prominence of e.g. Agni and Indra). In short, I don't think that there is really any way to determine the oldest religion that is still practiced (or, for that matter, the oldest religion). Ig0774 18:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Have a point there. There are perhaps millions of religions that claim it began right then and there with their god(s) creating them from the beginning of the creation of Man.
• However, you yourself might not care, but I would think that noting the world's oldest religion would be information that could be noted in the article (it IS an article on religion). Around 1446 B.C. sounds pretty favorable amongst scholars as the Exodus (ref. http://www.1260-1290-days-bible-prophecy.org/1446BC-exodus-1260000-tsunami.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus, http://www.google.com/search?q=Exodus+B.C.&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N, etc..). To me, 1446 B.C., and even 40 years after that is still a pretty dang long time ago!
• Now, I'm not going to put that into the article without settling the issue first that we can establish at LEAST that (so-and-so religion has/says this, and so-and-so religion has/says this, just a single, short paragraph). Colonel Marksman 00:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Going by large numbers of female figurenes from more than 10,000 years ago, the world's oldest (male) religion is worship of the female breast, which is alive and well today at Hooters. Rick Norwood 18:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You're probably on to something there Rick...

To Col.: Its not so much that I don't "care" about the world's oldest religion (it is, I think, an interesting question). The problem is that the scholarship surrounding this question is increadiably speculative, really denying the possibility of a verifiable claim that religion X is the world's oldest religion (and this is largely because some religions claim to have started a very long time ago). If you looked over the Exodus page, you might have noticed something of this problem with the numerous competing theories for dating the Exodus it covers. Basically, the date arrived at depends on what particular evidence you use. I have no problem with saying religion X says this or that about its creation, as long as it cites reliable sources, but, you have to realize that some religions, e.g. Jainism, believe that they are eternal (and even if one pins down Jaina traditions to more exact "dates", there are still figures like 8,400,000 years ago). I similarly have no problem about saying that scholar Q say that religion X started so long ago, but I do have to question whether this really adds anything valuable to the page. For the most part, however, I am inclined to think that any dating of particular religions belongs to the article(s) on those particular religions and not on an article about religion in general. Ig0774 19:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• The oldest religion? That's easy. "Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Christianity is the oldest religion because God has been around from the start. This religion is the only way to go. If you believe that some other religions have been around for longer than Christianity, that is impossible. How can another religion have been around earlier than Adam and Eve walking with God and talking to him everyday. When you think about it, Christianity has to be the oldest religion around. Also check out the below website. It rocks! Planetshakers

• • That assumes that the Bible is literally correct; also that "Adam and Eve walking around with God" constitutes the Christian religion. Since Christianity requires an acceptance of the saving death and resurrection of Christ, which hadn't happened at the time of Adam and Eve, it's doubtful that one could reasonably make such a claim.

• The Bible is a belief of the catholic faith. It beholds different events of the catholics for example "adam and eve" which counting on the religion you truly believe in you may or may not believe in this which is fine it is your choice!!!!1=] 72.209.71.249 06:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)ME:)

[edit] Hinduism in the US

While the plain numbers of the ARIS study do show that the number of Hindus in the US did grow to three times its size, I think that calling Hinduism "the fastest growing religion in the USA" is deceptive. First of all, the number of Hindus, according to the study, is quite small (0.3% of the total population). Drawing conclusions from such a statistically insignificant number can be misleading at best (as is drawing conclusions just from the numbers in the survey themselves). Secondly, ARIS themselves attribute the growth in Hinduism primarily to immigration[1]. After all, at least in the US, virtually no branch of Hinduism, except ISKCON, can be considered a prostelytizing religion. Finally, one might note that a better indicator of the growth of a religion is conversions. Drawing on ARIS' research[2] Baptists (which includes a wide array of congregations) is numerically the quickest growing group, with Evangelical/Born Again picking up the largest statistical gains in terms of conversions. Hinduism apparently is too insignificant to be counted on the chart (notice, for example, there are more self-identified Seventh Day Adventists than Hindus). As a result of all this, I think that the current wording in the demographics section is, at best, deceptive.

NB: ARIS is the group which provided the statistics used on both adherents.com and gita-society.com Ig0774 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

According to ARIS... Hinduism is .4%, Buddhism and Islam are .5% of total population. So Hinduism numbers are definately not negligible or insignificant numbers when compared with other major religions (excluding Christianity). Among major religions Christianity's growth rate is 5%, Hinduism's 237%, Buddism's 170% and Islam's 109% in United States. How can this be neglected? Conversions, Immigration and High birth rate are 3 main reasons for growth of religion in a particular country. Ofcourse, Immigration is the main reason in case of Islam and Hinduism and also we can't exclude ISKCON and strong visible Yoga influences on American Society. You are connecting conversions with prostelytizing which is a wrong approach. Converions can happen even without prostelytizing in Eastern approach. Immigration, Conversions or High birth rate....fact is Islam is fastest growing religion and in a similar way Hinduism is fastest growing religion in United States.

Also, If you compare 1990 and 2001 data of NSRI and ARIS....Hinduism's growth is from .2% to .4%, Islam continue to be at .5% and Buddhism grows from .4% to .5%. This high rate of growth (237%) in Hinduism can't be neglected and again this is not insignificant. - Holy Ganga 09:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

But that is just the point: Hinduism is insignificant in the USA. Making the growth of Hinudism in the USA important enough to be noted in the main text about religion (as opposed to a text about either religion in the US or Hinduism in general) implies that this is somehow significant on a worldwide scale. This is not an encyclopedia for Americans alone. The growth of Hinduism in the US is insignificant when you look at the numbers worldwide, and even more so because it is mainly caused by immigration and thus has no implication whatsoever on the growth of Hinduism worldwide. Fram 12:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That very section is discussing religious habbits in various parts of world. Why just America? 1) Because no where else Hindu immigration has increased to such an extent as in America. Infact, Indian Immigrants (more than 82% Hindus) have become third largest asian community and fastest growing community in America.[3]. 2) Because no where else in west ISKCON and Yoga etc. Eastern thoughts have influenced society more than America. 3) Hinduism is growing in many countries but fastest in America, therefore from Eastern religion's prespective also it should be mentioned because Wikipedia is not only for America as you said. - Holy Ganga 16:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually would be nice to see that sentence removed from the article only on the grounds that it is relevant only to the US and thus seems to perpetuate the idea that the English Wikipedia is overly concerned with the US and the UK. I don't quite understand why this should be "mentioned" "from Eastern religions prespective" (if such a thing exists). I did not mean to portray prostelytizing as the only means of religious growth. I was only trying to emphasize the fact that the growth in Hindu population in the US seems mainly due to immigration. Counting yoga practioners (at least in North America) as "Hindu" is misleading at best. This is not to deny that there is a great deal of yoga practiced or that some of it has a spiritual dimension, but by and large, yoga is presented in North America as an exercise technique, not a gateway to liberation (one might compare this to the reception of karate in the West, though its not a perfect analogy). But at any rate, this is not a worry as the ARIS study measures religious self-identification and, presumably, most people who practice yoga as an exercise technique would not identify themselves as Hindu. The point about the statistical insignificance is not to claim that Hinduism is not significant (in other senses) in the US, but, with an estimate of 0.4% (sorry, I read the wrong row), we need to tread cautiously about relying on the precise numbers — especially given that the margin of error is ±0.5% (there were about 50,000 people interviewed by ARIS, so 0.4% represents about 200 respondents who identified as Hindu). One might also point out that according to ARIS' actual data, the fastest growing religion in the US is, in fact Wicca which over the 11 years grew ~1675% [4] (or about five times the rate of growth in Hinduism). Of course, the number of self-identified Wiccans is ludicrously small (0.06% of the population or about 30 respondents), though there are reasons to be suspicious that this is indicative of the real growth rate. Ig0774 20:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here is a well known example of the misuse of statistics. Student A's grade has gone from a 70 to a 90, while student B's grade has gone from a 10 to a 20. Yes, student B's grade has undergone the greatest improvement measured as a percent, but this is not remarkable, because it is easy to increase a very low grade and difficult to increase a high grade. This is, by the way, what is going on the the US in the No Child Left Behind program. It financially rewards schools based on their "improvement", so if a wretched school becomes even slightly less wretched, it is rewarded, while an excellent school is punished if it cannot go from 99% success to 100% success, because it did not "improve". Rick Norwood 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Simple question: Why not just mention growth rate of all religions in the States? Colonel Marksman 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this really important enough to include in an article on world religion? Rick Norwood 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Short summary of my last two comments: nope. Ig0774 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caption

Could someone clarify the relation between the painting Fishers of Men featured in the intro and the topic, by writing a better caption? CG 12:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindusim, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism

I fail to understand when Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism are part of Hinduism or evolved from hinduism; similar to protestians, angelic, etc from christianity.. why when ranking the followers or hindusim... different sects have to be shown different from hinduism...

is it just, when british colonial rule came to asian countries and for their own understanding took buddhism and jainism etc as different religion?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.237.47.4 (talk • contribs) 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pls note that Buddhism is NOT a part of Hinduism. Buddhism has no gods and it is a philosophy, a pathway to freedom. Buddha was a human who showed others the pathway to Nibbana. Buddhists also believe in Re-birth and Karma. Buddhists strongly believe in that saying "What goes around comes around" and the philosophy is evolved through the concept of Karma and how to escape the sufferings of the world.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.165.168.23 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be entirely wrong to conceive of Sikhism, Jainism, or Buddhism as a part of Hinduism. The picture is somewhat more difficult than that. All four of these religions share some common ideas (or at least common terms, often understood slightly differently). The relationship between them is hardly like the changes after the Reformation (though one can track similar movements within Sikhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism sometimes inspired by one or another of the other religions). Jainism and Buddhism, the two surviving Shramana schools, can be differentiated from Hinduism quite early in their history (circa 800 BCE for Jainism circa 500 BCE for Buddhism — these dates roughly correspond to the Tirthankara Parsva and Gautama Buddha). Sikhism is traditionally traced to Guru Nanak in the 15th century CE (that is, around the time of the Muslim-ruled Mughal Empire — Islam having a significant impact on the formation of Sikhism). In fact, the blanket term "Hinduism" itself is problematic as it covers over the vast differences that often lie between various Hindu beliefs (though the majority of Hindus at present follow some form of Smartism, not all do). Etymologically speaking, "Hindu" comes from the Sanskrit word sindhus, refering to the Sindus river. The term "Hindu", however, first came into use among the Persians, not the inhabitants of the Sindus River valley (hence, it is considered a "foreign" word). Thus, "Hinduism" is composed of a massive array of sects and cults (which, historically speaking, far outstrips the diversity of Christian churches). The long and the short of it is that these really are separate traditions, incomparable to the differences between Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Ig0774 05:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juche

Almost the entire population of North Korea is listed as an adherant of Juche, which is also refered to as "Kimilsungism." I'm not sure that this makes any more sense than listing Maoism as one of the world's largest religions because China is still officially Maoist. Juche isn't really a religion, it's more like a loose collection of poorly thought out political ideas used by the government of North Korea to excuse their behavior. Even if it was a religion, I would seriously doubt that the great majority of North Koreans could be said to believe in it in a religious sense. Obviously, very few people outside North Korea are Kimilsungists, so few that I would think that they would be statistically irrelivant. Bottom line is that I don't think Juche is a religion, and I don't think that 19 million people believe in it. --Descendall 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Juche is included here because the list on this page is pretty much ripped off of adherents.com. His explanation for its inclusion is here. Basically, he claims that Juche is more "religious" (whatever that means) than Maoism, and makes the implicit claim that its a religion of nationality (sort of like Hinduism or Judaism) rather than essentially of belief. Juche seems to present itself as a philosophy, not a religion, and its inclusion seems to be on the basis of one author (Thomas Belke). On the other hand, I am pretty indifferent to whether or not it "qualifies" as a religion, and would lead that up to the consensus of other editors of this page. Ig0774 01:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That page admits that he's just using the population of North Korea. That's a terrible way to define who is a believer in Juche. Hardly anyone actually belives it; even it's arcitect, Hwang Jang-yop, doesn't believe it. He defected to South Korea and is now an anti-North Korean activist. The only real reason it seems to have been included on adherents.com is because it has "more adherents than Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism or Zoroastrianism," meaning that "it has so many adherents" (bold in original). But this is faulty logic; I'm sure way more people claim to be adherents of democracy than of Zoroastrianism, but we don't include democracy on the list. --Descendall 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending its inclusion on the list, just explaining why it seems to be there. If it irritates you that much, get rid of it. No one seems interested in defending it as a religion. Ig0774 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that you weren't defending it. I simply wanted to present my argument before I unilaterially deleted it. --Descendall 16:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many better sources of data than adherents.com, The World Almanac for example. Rick Norwood 13:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Word

In the article, it lists "Res + Legere" as a latin root. It is my understanding that Lego, Legere meants "To Write," rather than "To gather." It could mean that "writing" is "gathering words", I know translations can differ. I would just like a source for this, or at least some clarification. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See Lewis & Short, one of the standard authoritative Latin dictionaries. -- MatthewDBA 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion Size Rankings

The world's population is approximately 6.5Bn. If you look at present day adherents and add some of the upper values, however, you get 7Bn!

2.1+1.3+1.1+.9+.7+.4+.3+.1+.023+.019+.015+.014+.012+.007+.007 = 7Bn.

What gives?

I believe that rounding up, being more common than rounding down, caused this admittedly strange sum. As stated below the list, exact numbers are impossible. I don't think it should be changed; the approximations seem accurate, and rounding to the next decimal over would be cluttering an already large article. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 23:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Another factor in this may be that many religions (especially Christianity) do not count adherents correctly. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest denomination of Christianity, counts "Christian" as anyone who was baptized and did not officially renounce his/hers Christianity. As a result, a person could be counted a Roman Catholic Christian and also a Satanist. I've added a new edit section (see below) on this matter. MickeyK 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't the religious size rankings match those from adherents.com which is claimed to be the source for this information? The numbers on the Wiki are inflated relative to the numbers from that source. Wiki values are: Christianity up 40M, Islam up 200M, Hinduism up 102M. Also the source has 22 religions and the wiki 23. --02:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)61.30.32.169

I am surprised by the number (2.6 million) previouly listed for Zoroastrianism. It is far too high. I haven't seen such a large number in any published source and even the wikipedia page on Zoroastrianism contradicts it. Rohan1 02:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Zoroastrianism does not contradict the 2&1/2 million estimate, but rather states the trend in very recent years, which is for encyclopedias to report a far higher number than previously. Offhand I don't know what accounts for the revision..Kenosis 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Faith" and "Belief System"?

From the introduction:

It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system."

What is the intent of saying it's sometimes used interchangeably as a belief system? It seems wrong to me that religion can be used for any belief system (e.g., humanism). Whilst some people may use it as such, that does not mean such a definition is notable or correct. Later the article says "Unlike other belief systems, which may be passed on orally, religious belief tends to be codified." stating (correctly, in my opinion) that religious belief is different to non-religious belief systems

Whilst I'm here, I'm not sure what it means by comparison to faith. It's true that one of the definitions of "faith" is "religious belief" or "religion", but it's not true that "religion" is used for any of the other meanings of faith. What is this trying to say? Mdwh 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There are any number of possible things that may be said in reponse to this. Certainly "belief" and "faith" have been important, historically, in defining what constitutes "religion" as opposed to whatever else it may be in vogue to define it against (this, of course, has its roots in Hegel, or, more accurately, Friedrich Jacobi, at the very latest). Whether or not "religion" is truly interchangable with "belief system" is probably controversial — needless to say, however, that there are those who would describe "humanism" as a religion (Nietzsche springs readily to mind) — and, of course, what "humanism" itself is remains an open question.

That sort of thing said, this sentence itself seems, to me, to be intended to point to the importance of "faith" and "belief" in defining what constitutes "religion" rather than to say that "religion" is found wherever there is "faith" and "belief" (in the philosophical terminology I am more familiar with, "faith" and "belief" are a necessary but insufficient cause for "religion"). In colloquial English, it is not uncommon to use "belief" or "faith" as homonyms of "religion", as in "she was a follower of the Christian faith" or "he believes in Islam". I think it is in this latter sense that the article claims that "religion" is interchangable with "belief system" or "faith".

All that said, I, for one, am not particularly attached to this particular sentence and if you think it is really likely to be misread, then, by all means, feel free to delete it. But, if that is your decision, bear in mind that "religion" is not the same beast as "organized religion". Ig0774 08:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section on Oldest religion and weasel words

The new section has no references and uses tons of weasel words. Wikipedia guidelines state that weasel words should not be used; see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. Specifically "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." Thus the author of that section must give names and sources for those "some historians" statements. The weasel tag is used to give the author a chance to fix the problem, and if after some time it isn't fixed, the content can be removed. -- Jeff3000 00:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. I've added a date, and if nothing is forthcoming in a few days I'll delete the section as uncited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A degree of caution is in order about [possibly parochial] assertions of an oldest surviving religion. Central and South American, as well as indigenous African religions have similar claims to make as well, perhaps along with others of which we may not be aware. I have tentatively adjusted the apparently good-faith and well-considered content of the article to accommodate this additional possiblity too..Kenosis 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not to happy with this section. I don't know if it adds anything to the article, but cause controversy. I would support removing it. -- Jeff3000 04:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with any of the article. It has nothing to do with putting principle into actual practice, at least thus far...Kenosis 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

True, there should be a section on that, but for many religion is just a belief that unfortunately is not put into practice. But what about removing the section? -- Jeff3000 04:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no complaint with the section as far as the article goes. There is a synchronistic aspect in there somewhere; or maybe it has more to do with the "Silk Road" of the day. Anyway, take care for now...Kenosis 04:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You meant "syncretic", perhaps? Certainly there's something between the Vedic religion and Zoroastrianism, but that probably has more to do with the spread of Indo-Eurpoean peoples than anything else. The Silk Road was likely active at the time, but I think that has more to do with the spread of artistic motifs (which would certainly have found their way into religious iconography) than religious ideas as such. I don't know whether lines can be drawn from Judaism to much of anything else outside the Levant. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed mean synchronistic in the sense Jung used it. If it's merely a matter of the Silk Road, such debate about "etherial" immanence of spirit/consciousness (call it whatever one chooses) tends to be fairly quickly settled, though it would not fully explain some amazing coincidences of timing among cultures that had never met (such as indigenous Central Americans). One is then left with the occasional revelation and the like to one true faith or another, or a completely Deistic picture. Appreciate seeing your thoughts about it. ..Kenosis 12:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and Class

There should be an article on Religion and Class - will start the stub. Jackiespeel 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images (part 2)

I tried to make the images in this article flow a little better with the text (there's already a discussion above) by moving the image that had the caption with the "Hinduism is possibly the oldest religion" to that section, but I'm still not fully happy with the results. It causes the religion and science picture (which I think is a really good image) to start a little later. Suggestions anyone... -- Jeff3000 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable section removed and placed here until proper sourcing and POV slants can be resolved properly

I have removed this section and placed it here. First off, it is not proper to remove several citations from credible sources and replace them with a website that holds a view consistent with HolyGanga's preference. If there is a disagreement about the content, it should properly be brought onto this talk page. This is fairly standard...Kenosis 11:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

==Oldest surviving religions==

Hinduism is considered to be pre-dated 3000 BC by modern scholars. The earliest evidence for elements of the Hindu faith also dates back as far as 3000 BC. [5]

Judaism is dated through the earliest patriarchal references in Genesis to the time of Abraham (2000-1800 BCE)^[1] A typical dating of the first writings in Judaism is around 1250-1150 BCE,^{[citation needed]} later collected into the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Torah, around the 5th Century BCE.^[2] Zoroastrianism is dated from around 1200 BC.[6]

Two of the numerous well established citations for the 1200BCE date for Rg Veda which were arbitrarily replaced with a controversial new theory are as follows:

^ Matthews, Warren, World Religions 3rd Ed., (1999) p.110.

^ Knipe, David M., Hinduism (1991) xi

The newer propositions Holy Ganga is referring to, I imagine may be those that hold among other things that the relatively recent archeological finds of such items as a stamp depicting a yogic posture, and a bath of some kind, are indeed religious, rather than, for example, just a way of sitting without a chair, or just a bath with decorations of the day. There is to date no compelling evidence of a religious connection, and thus far these are mere speculations of the type based upon archeological finds that have been found on every continent worldwide of late. Also interesting is the new proposition that the Aryan influence (theorized by some to be through Persia rather than from Europe or the Baltic directly) was a gradual peacible assimilation rather than through invasion and forcible domination in the Indus River Valley. But none of these are conclusive; what is agreed is an approximate date for the Rg Veda...Kenosis 12:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I can also accuse you that you want to add your preference by going directly against latest archeological advancements. Full information is always better than misguided, outdated or incomplete information and BBC site is presenting both old and latest views of modern scholars. BBC has added that information on History of Hinduism section and just because of your personal preferences, you are completely trying to ignore them by hook or crook. - Holy Ganga ^talk 14:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The BBC link clearly supports the (rather bland and unremarkable) statement that Hinudism is among the world's oldest existing religions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How does it do that? There is no mention of the word oldest or derivatives of, and it doesn't compare it to the dates of other religions. It is a logical fallacy to assume that given a date of X that seems old that there are no religions before that. I don't doubt that Hinduism is probably the oldest religion, but the page doesn't state it. I will be reverting in an hour or so if a reason why the page is an appropriate citation. -- Jeff3000 14:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation now says "Modern scholars now believe it to be pre-dated 3000 BCE" and that is from the BBC article and that is ok, but "modern scholars" uses weasel words (Wikipedia doesn't recommend the use of weasel words, see WP:AWW), and the BBC article is a secondary source. I think it best to find the original primary sources that state that, and use those to remove the ambiguity and the weasel words. -- Jeff3000 14:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore after reading the BBC article again, I don't think the BBC is stating which date is correct, they just state the two POV and state that it is controversial. Given Kenosis comment's I can see there is no consensus on the date here on Wikipedia either. So until we either have consensus, I think both dates and POV should appear. The caption is not the best place to argue these things, so I will be removing the date from there. -- Jeff3000 15:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's possible the names primary source and secondary source have caused some confusion. For Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, Nobody is claiming here that Hinduism is the oldest religion. BBC has presented a modern scholars view which says it is pre-dated 3000 BCE. Even if you don't accept latest advancements of Modern scholars and want to believe outdated things, still Hinduism will remain among oldest existing religions and this link fits with that claim. I prefer BBC link because it presents both old and Modern scholar views. Full information is always better than misguided, outdated or incomplete information. I think that section was deleted in haste.- Holy Ganga ^talk 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As Tom noted I think I used primary and secondary sources incorrectly. What I meant is that instead of using the "some scholars" say this and "others" say that from the BBC article which is noting them, we should find those scholars and reference them directly. Second, the "modern scholars" that Holy Ganga is noting from the BBC article is controversial as noted by the BBC article "There is ongoing controversy over which version of Hindu history is the correct one." and thus both POV have to be noted, and the BBC article doesn't state that all modern scholars believe this but some, note the term various scholars. The best solution is to find those scholars and note the different points of view. -- Jeff3000 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a controversy and thats why to present both views i selected this site. You should note that in support of Modern scholars view of 3000 BCE, site directly uses archeological evidences...

The earliest evidence for elements of the Hindu faith dates back as far as 3000 BCE.

Archaeological excavations in the Punjab and Indus valleys (right) have revealed the existence of urban cultures at Harappa, the prehistoric capital of the Punjab (located in modern Pakistan); and Mohenjo-daro on the banks of the River Indus.

The excavations have revealed signs of early rituals and worship.

• In Mohenjodaro, for example, a large bath has been found, with side rooms and statues which could be evidence of early purification rites.
• Elsewhere, phallic symbols and a large number statues of goddesses have been discovered which could suggest the practice of early fertility rites. - Holy Ganga ^talk 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind using the site, but the citation has to be used fairly. BBC gives two points of view, so it's unfair to quote 3000BCE and not the other from the article, given that the BBC states the date is controversial. In regards to other proofs, note Kenosis's objections. Once again the problem would be solved if we could find the scholars that state one thing and the others that state other things. From WP:AWW: "It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." Regardless as Tom noted the best place to have this noted is in the History of Hinduism. -- Jeff3000 15:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, you can't discuss this controvery here. I never said traditional view shouldn't be mentioned. That was the main reason i selected this site to present Modern Scholar views also. - Holy Ganga ^talk 15:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Hinduism is among the world's oldest existing religions. Dates for the origin of Hinduism range from 3000-1000 BCE.[1] Shown here is a 1100-year-old Siva temple in Indonesia." That looks pretty good to me. I do not object, I guess, to exploration of the origins of the major religions, but some of the details we are discussing might go better in History of Hinduism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Archeological finds of the type that brought Hinduism into its current controversy about origins are being found worldwide, not just on the subcontinent of Southern Asia. Two things are happening as a result: (1) many of the holy books are being given newer dates than originally supposed; and (2) a number of finds on every continent has set into motion many controversies about aspects of faiths that predate the writings. I don't have time to list the ones I know of or do further research of it right now.

What I vehemently object to is the removal of two solid, standard citiations (among numerous ones that are available) and replacing them with a link which immediately and clearly states that there is a controversy about it, and to neglect to mention the controversy, picking only the oldest date argued. To lean on the older pre-history speculations is not solid scholarship, but rather an attempt to put a predermined conclusion into the article on the part of the editor who made those changes a bit earlier.

The date range 3000-1000BCE accurately reflects the range of current argument about when "Hinduism" began...Kenosis 15:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your refs. were only providing old traditional views of 1200 BCE and hence that information was incomplete, outdated (wrt to modern scholar views). You even rejected BBC claim for your personal preference of traditional dates. It's nice to see that now you are comfortable with that site and it's views. - Holy Ganga ^talk 16:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This recounting of the events relating to the article's history is not quite factually correct. The text I provided already made reference to the archeological finds and an earlier date for the tradition, but didn't specify because there is a politically charged controversy about it. The history of the Religion article indicates that you then chose to remove the standard citations and replace it with the link to the BBC which plainly mentions the controversy, but with text supporting the earlier date as the definitive one. In either event, this discussion obviously does not any longer belong in this article. Many indigenous African and Asian religions hold equivalent claims. Next thing you know, proponents of a pre-Abraham form of Judaism will be arguing here too. Similarly, Sumerian predecessors of Zoroaster will perhaps feel the need to make their claim as well. Best we leave it alone here and explain such arguments about origins of particular religions in their respective articles...Kenosis 16:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many religious Jews?

There may be 14 million Jewish people, but they do not all follow the Jewish religion, which is the only proper subject for this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.108.121 (talk • contribs) .

From [7] it seems there are 10.4 million. There is also an article about religious and non-religious Jews in America here -- Jeff3000 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary Theology

At which point is a religion condisidered to be distinct from it's predessor? What sepparates one religion from another? Is there an exact distinguishing factor (standard in linguistic or biological classification) or more like any set of varying factors (standard in ethnic/musical classification)? For instance, Christianity and its parent faith of Judaism are considered to be completely and distinct religions, of course. It's not the God Jews and Christians worship that set them apart, though the way they relate to God is very different. Perhaps it's just the fact that most of both faiths have claimed to belong to different religions for several centuries? Many works, including this article, define religion in there own way but few focus on what exactly destinguishes one from another.--J. Daily 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are different views of this. I think a religion is considered to be distinct from it's predecessor when it claims that it has a newer revelation and abrogrates the laws of the previous revelation. I think Christianity fits that description. On the other hand Islam states that Islam has always existed and that all peoples of the Book (Judaism, and Christianity among others) are really Islam just corrupted, and that Muhammad has just set religion back on the same track. The Baha'i Faith sees things as an amalgom of the two. Religion is seen as one progressive plan from God, and each religion is from God, but each messenger reveals new teachings and abrogates the previous religion's laws to help humanity progress; in this scheme, again it's the changing of laws that distinguish the different religions, but they are still under the same God. -- Jeff3000 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

These thoughtful comments, in sum, indicate why we so quickly removed the controversial section on "Oldest surviving religion(s)". I appreciate seeing these insights here....Kenosis 05:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed and placed here for further discussion

It is not the place of this article to get involved in contests about the lineage and precise beginnings of religions. Therefore this new section is being placed here for further consideration and discussion as deemed appropriate by the various editors, ,,,Kenosis 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

===Oldest living religion===

Main article: Major world religions

Hinduism is generally considered to be the oldest living religion. Modern Indology traces the roots of Hinduism to around 1500–1300 BC based on literary datng of the Rig Veda, one of the world's oldest living religious texts. Some claim Judaism to be the oldest living religion, claiming their religion was started by Abraham around 1800 BC, according to the Bible. However, most beleive that Judaism was started around 1250 BC by Moses, when he received the Torah on Mount Sinai, and even this has been called into question, as it is a religious belief and has no proof. Zoroastrianism is also a very old religion. It is believed to have been founded around 1000 BC by the writing of the Gathas, though some believe the Gathas were written even earlier, around 1500–1250 BC, though most doubt this date and affirm the former. ... 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Numbers

Just a small gripe... I think the numbers of the religious adherents of the world religions is very deceptive. Number 1 is Christianity with 2.1 billion adherents and number 22 is Scientology with half a million adherents. Many people don't grasp numbers well... so I think it would be better to have a seperate chart for the other religions. 1 billion is exponentially larger than 500,000 on a scale that most people are incapable of grasping conceptually. Individuals who view the chart may be lead into thinking extremly small religions (as compared to the global population) are more popular in society then they actually are.

[edit] numbers

are these numbers actually right? I find it hard to believe some of it.

See adherents.com. Some of them might be inflated somewhat, but it can be very difficult to get an accurate count of religious believers. Since they vary greatly in their degree of observance, it becomes a question of where the line between membership and non-membership is drawn. To a degree, you have to use the religions' own definitions of membership as well, which might yield a number that's surprising in either direction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and State

In Democratic and Republic countries, Religion should be separated from Individual. Any support to religion means at the cost of those who do not believe in Religion. India is a Democratic and Republic country where political parties Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are deeply involved in Religion and Caste based system. vkvora 05:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion the myth stories. Removed from primary and secondary education around the world.

[edit] Myth, Mythology, Religion and Mythology, Philosophy of Religion

vkvora 04:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop spamming the talk page with this stuff. If you have a point to make with regard to article content, then make it. This is not a forum for promoting your personal causes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From Religion. Religion is commonly defined as a group of beliefs concerning the myth of the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system" In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals.

From Myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false.

vkvora 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point appears to be that you are an atheist and want everyone to know it. That has nothing to do with article content, discussion over which is the purpose of this talk page. This is not your personal sounding board or a general discussion forum. We are writing an encyclopedia here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he might have been referring to the fact that the word myth is included in the intro, and that the popular use of the word is used to refer to something that is false, which would imply that religions are false also. However, the myth article also states "Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false." jaco♫plane 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We measure the accuracy with false precision

vkvora 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vkvorka, that isn't even a sentence... please don't edit if you can't write clean English, that is basic wiki courtesy. Anyway, concerning the use of the word myth at the very beginning of the article, I gave up telling my students to use a wiki for just this sort of thing... humanities articles in a wiki are hopeless amalgams of fact and personal axe-grinding. I can tell you, as someone in the academy, that even atheist scholars of religion wouldn't use the word myth at the very beginning of their definition in the way you have used it. I've never heard it used this way at an AAR meeting. To be sure, I have heard many papers given on myth and religion - but always with the idea that religion is larger than myth, or, put another way, myth is a part of religion, a very important part, but not the other way around. Speaking in terms of both religious phenomenology and religious experience, there is more than myth creation going on. But I'm not going to remove the word myth, prominently placed at the very top of this article, because it will just be re-inserted. THIS is why professionals in the humanities rarely edit a wiki (or remain to see an article through to a solid NPOV form- the journal Nature's judgement that Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica was only for science/nature articles for a reason), and this is what will keep potentially good articles from being all they can be. Please stop the POV mess; the plea will fall on deaf ears, but there it is for what it's worth. This is not a scholarly definition of religion. Myth certainly is a part of it, but to reduce it all to myth is a mistake not even my undergraduate students make, whether or not they believe in anything. It certainly does not belong in an encyclopaedia. I'll fix it this time. That said, someone else is going to have to change it, because I've muddied myself for the last time with wiki POV mess. I've learned my lesson. Good luck, those of you with more stomach for it than I have. Morgaledth 22:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, [[User:Vkvora2001|vkvora] didn't add that word; he's just expanding on it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Numbers

Some denominations of Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church, count "Christian" as anyone who has been baptized and did not officially renounce his/her Christianity. As a result, many people who were baptized as babies but grow up to be non-Christian are still counted as Christian. (This is according to Canon law.) Also, some of the people who are counted as "Christian" are from the 1800's!. This is due to a lack of proper updating system. While each religion may count its adherents diffirently, shouldn't this be mentioned below the "Present Day Adherents" section? MickeyK 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't counting adherents from the 1800's be consistent with the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and of life everlasting? ;-) May as well keep including them while waiting for the Kingdom come. ... Kenosis 05:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting the information that deceased people are being included in current census figures? Who's doing this? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No one knowingly counts dead people as current members, even catholic (Roman, Anglican, Orthodox) groups who pray for the dead, or Christian sects such as Mormons, who also have elaborate rituals concerning deceased members (there is a reason they are the geneological sine qua non in the States). If you can show that someone does (with some type of attribution), you should write an article on it, someone is bound to publish it. As it is, this is just false and should be stopped. There is no doubt that membership rolls need updating, from the local church to the local mosque to the local coven. But it will not change the overall numbers by the amount you seem to imply. Please, give us some reference, or occupy yourself constructively on another article. Morgaledth 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am working on obtaining information that deceased persons are included in Christianity membership counts (probably not on purpose; most likely due to not updating the member rolls). However, the main point of my discussion is that due to Catholic canon, anyone who has been baptized are counted as Christians (Unless they officially renounced their Christianity to a senior cleric). Surely this will result in a misleading count. Many people that I know have been baptized at an early age, yet have never touched a Bible in their lives. I am sure this sort of scenario occurs extremely frequently, as Christian parents in the 70's and 80's had their children baptized, who grow up in the modern, more secular world. MickeyK 14:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I really doubt the statistics used on this page (adherents.com) include people who are deceased, regardless of if some Christian denominations do include them. Also regarding your second comment regarding participation, all religious numbers include some people who are not active in their religion. For a discussion on this topic see this adherent.com page. -- Jeff3000 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my snide remark above. I was baptized Roman Catholic and haven't participated for nearly 40 years, yet continue to be counted. I am by no means unique in that regard. ... Kenosis 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The site www.adherents.com admits that these numbers are towards the high end of estimates. I accept that all religious numbers include some people who are not active in their religion, but shouldn't those two facts be included within the article? MickeyK 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass edits placed here for consideration

I have removed these major edits to the section on "Definition of Religion" for further consideration and discussion as to the validity and usefulness of their content... Kenosis 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

William Alston has suggested that the presence of a number of the following characteristics would make a set of practices a religion: 1) Belief in supernatural beings (gods), 2) a distinction between sacred and profane objects, 3) ritual acts focused on sacred objects, 4) a moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods, (5) characteristically religious feelings, 5) prayer and other forms of communication with gods, 6) a world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein, 7) a more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view 8), a social group bound together by the above (Alston 1967, pp. 141–142). ... 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While the above indicates a set of beliefs and practices, Asian religious traditions, on the other hand, generally emphasize an inner state of realization instead of a merely instrumental rite or doctrine. ... 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alstons polythetical approach has been enhanced and modified by Benson Saler (Saler 1990) utilizing Wittgensteinian Family Resemblance Theory and Roschian Prototype Theory. ... 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, the analytical category 'religion' may be conceptualized by a certain set of aspects (attributes, characteristics etc.) which in themselves does not constitute the category, but rather when they relate to each other in certain patterns. In this way one religion Buddhism, may resemble Hinduism, but be more or totally different from say Raëlism. In any case, however different, they may all be religions. In other words: Religions resemble each other likes members of a family. There is not one essential attribute, but rather "distinct patterns". Recently this promising approach has been modified by cognitivist scholar of religion Ilkka Pyysiainen. ... 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

These approaches are those ideally employed by the Scientific Study of Religion today, and they naturally deconstruct rhetorical instrumentality and biased perspectives. In this way scholars of religion pay little heed to elite Moslem theologians claiming that all Moslems believe only in one god and the precepts of the Quran exclusively, to elite Buddhist theologians claiming that there are no gods in Buddhism or to members of Share International saying their organization is not a religious one. Just because these have more access to media, does not mean that Indonesian farmers does not sacrifice to ancestor spirit-gods, that Bodhisattvas have not every attribute a god needs to have - analytically - to be a god or that Share International, believing in ancient Masters of wisdom in the Himalayas, meditation and adorcism does not constitute a religious movement. A "insider" defines 'religion' recognizing the impenetrability of its ultimate integrity. Such perspectives, however, are of little use to either scholars or "outsiders" whether they are religious or not. ... 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you took them out, I don't know if they really fit. I think the current section has enough information and is of the right length. -- Jeff3000 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wrote some of this stuff, and I see why and how it does not really fit - sorry for that - but some of what's left is really archaic stuff and does not tell very much about the definition of religion or how it is dealt with in the scientific study of religion... Sorry again. Most of the source material is from Benson Saler's 'Conceptualizing Religion...', which I put in the sources at the bottom of the article. --Yanemiro 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, ideally, there should be an stand-alone article on the definition of religion and related problems? --Yanemiro 18:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I took religous studies as my minor in university, and while I didn't get as far as I'd like in it I observed a few things. In particular, the "Science of Religion" approach to Rel. Std. is incredibly dry. While the analytical categories you mention are useful, they entirely work from the outside of a religion, as if one could externally analyse and understand it without an internal persepective. While I agree it is useful to analyse externally, you cannot understand Muharram or Flagellants without understanding the personal identification of the practitioner with the sainted figure with whom they are empathizing. An external, rational analysis must needs find such behaviour insane, because it rarely is equipped to take into account the internal motivations of such actions.

Often such methodologies take the neutral mode of scientific inquiry as if it meant antagonistic skepticism. It was very disheartening. Post-modern deconstructionism has inherent limits that render it unable to adequately explain some social phenomena. In my experience, it sometimes leads to faux-rational, self-satisfied, smugly superior and elitist critique of a subject, rather than honest intellectual inquiry. This is especially true with respect to definition of terms and identity. Granted the orientalists of the 1800s had their own issues. :) They sort of went to town on the whole "immerse yourself in the object of your study" thing. But if we were to add such definitions of religion (based on scientific study of religion tools); if we were to apply definitions to groups other than their self-definition; if we were to re-define terms used within a religion in describing its aspects, then such must be done in such a way ss to preserve NPOV rigorously, and in such a way as to bound and contextualize both the internal and external definitions or characterizations. Only there can we both deconstruct and be respectful.

That, in essence, is my problem with the scientific study approaches - they tend to not be respectful, and some advocates thereof are quite self-righteous about not being required to be respectful. Personally, I feel quite strongly (POV) that respect is important. I think that encyclopedically we can mention such scientific definitions, but carefully and respectfully and neutrally. Anyway, sorry for the minor rant. It's only been pent up for about 16 years. :) Cheers. --Christian Edward Gruber 03:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Hey Jeff3000... I'm not stalking you. :-p

Christian; thanks for your thoughts, they bring a necessary and valuable focus to this discussion. I do, however, have some objections. You say the scientific approach is "incredibly dry", but I think it _needs_ to be dry. Religion is a progressive part of the human condition/human activity that needs to be understood on a trans-cultural and trans-temporal basis. You cannot understand Islam from a Shinto perspective, or Hinduism from a Christian perspective (which most of the Orientalists did). If that would be the case, Allah would be a kami and Visnu would be a god (which in both cases are wrong). Therefore a relevant approach to religion needs to transcend the conceptual constraints of each religion, while also informing on insider concepts or perspectives. Truth-claims however, or self-reflection, are of little interest to an outsider ....

Infact: understanding, rather thanbeleiving in things, tend tobe dry rather than exciting. In fact, things tend to become dry when you take on a very respectful perspective. Take Predicate logic; thats dry. Most users of Wikipedia are not Baha'i, they stand outside it, as they stand outside shintoism, islam and so forth. And the users of Wikipedia, dont want to have their knowledge about Shintoism, or religion in general to be coloured by Baha'i ideas. Therefore religions should be described and analysed in neutral, secular terms. Science (knowledge) may be more disheartening than Religion (faith), but that is the nature of science.

"In my experience, it sometimes leads to faux-rational, self-satisfied, smugly superior and elitist critique of a subject, rather than honest intellectual inquiry". You seem to pefer a culture-relativistic, insider approach to the study of religion, and I totally agree - but such perspectives have proven to have little value in analyzing religion as a transcultural, transtemporal phenomenon, exclusively. The Scientific Study of Religion is often called the Comparative Study of Religion, which kind of illustrates the out-side (etic) perspective that is normally utilized. Of course, such a perspective is not welcomed or natural / logical to any insider (emic) of religion.

The thing is: emic insider scholars / student of religion have proven to be more condemming and more biased than secular comparative scholars. Baha'i (and Mormon) scholars are good examples. There have been many Bahaist studies of religions (for example native ones, e.g. Bribri), but they have proven to be extremely biased and prejudgemental, as the minor Baha'i faith "logically" transcends all prior attempts to understand or approach the ultimate God or Universe.

My day to day work (as a master in the scientific study of religion) relates to religious insiders of all kinds (I am a specialist in Bahaism, Mormonism, Shintoism). My thesis deals with the highly controversial Yasukuni-jinja. My impression is that all religions (through discourse) seek to transcend any out-sider vocabulary to stand out as the unique and untouchable example. That's one (their) way of doing it, but in a secular and pluralist society (which I quite strongly believe WikiPedia reflects), no one counter-intuitive faith should dominate. There are other wiki-projects meant for the promotion of value-strong systems of interest.

Conclusively I would like to quote scholar of religion Bruce Lincoln's theses (taken from Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 8.3 (1996): 225-227.) (http://people.uncw.edu/bergh/par103/L03RThesesOnMethod.htm):

"5. Reverence is a religious, and not a scholarly virtue. When good manners and good conscience cannot be reconciled, the demands of the latter ought to prevail."

"13. When one permits those whom one studies to define the terms in which they will be understood, suspends one's interest in thetemporal and contingent, or fails to distinguish between "truths", "truth-claims", and "regimes of truth", one has ceased to function as historian or scholar. In that moment, a variety of roles are available: some perfectly respectable (amanuensis, collector, friend and advocate), and some less appealing (cheerleader, voyeur, retailer of import goods). None, however, should be confused with scholarship."

Wikipedia - and especally this article! -, I think, should be oriented towards secular and not religious truth-claims.

--Yanemiro 12:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Yanemiro. Thanks for your response. While I understand where you are coming from, I would suggest that the "secular and pluralist" society represented is, in itself, a religious bias. Actually that's not true. I would distinguish secular from pluralist. A pluralist society reflects and represents a multitude of beliefs. A secular society reflects no belief (though it may make room for the private presence of belief). France would, in some ways, be reflective of a secular society, but not a pluralist society. French government tolerates, but does not support and embrace a plurality of the belief of its citizenry. Canada, though nominally an Anglican Christian state with protection for Catholic belief is, in practice a pluralistic socity far from secular.

The reason I make this distinction is to note that the citations you provide, and the perspective from which you analyze is a religous perspective. You assume that all religions are equally valid expressions of human religiosity, which is fine, but you necessarily eliminate the validity of truth-claims from the analysis. Because of this, you eliminate the basis for belief, in a lot of cases. Or rather you posit (assert) that the basis for belief is socio-cultural, or systemic/psychological in nature. These stem from the a-priori of the approach you describe. Further, in support of my contention that your secular approach is, in itself, a religious perspective, you offered us a truth-claim from Bruce Lincoln as "conclusive". I disagree with his statement #5 on its face, and did so when I was an agnostic before I discovered and accepted the Baha'i religion. Reverence is an entirely scholarly virtue. Many scientists throughout the 20th century had, as their core motivation, a sense of reverence for the world, for (in their view) God's creation, and profoundly pushed the boundaries of physics, biology, chemistry and so forth, always with a sense of reverence. Reverence did not, however, make them blind. Reverence need not alter one's perception of data, but it can provide one with a deeper appreciation of what one learns from data. My mother, a molecular-geneticist, is for me a prime example. Science, to her, is an inquiry into God's creation and it is immensely beautiful and reverent.

Lastly, I agree with you that no one religious view should take precedence in describing other religions, but the views of scholars who have a contrary set of a-priori cannot take precedence over the views of "believing" scholars for precisely the same reason. They should not, on the other hand, be squelched either. If you think Baha'is are necessarily chauvenistic and exclusivist in your academic analysis of the implications of their beliefs in progressive revelation, for instance, that would be something that could be referenced in a wiki-oriented sentence like "Some scholars find the progressive revlation concept to be one that tends to encourage a minimization of others' beliefs as less valid, seemingly in contradiction to the view that Baha'is must accept other faiths as true and valid - (ref: some study)" If some published scholar said it and it had currency among academia, include it. However, just because a scholar said it about the Baha'is, it does not adequately explain why Baha'is would both believe that other religions are true/valid and why Baha'u'llah's views on religion should be preferred. Not unless you cop-out and say that they are hypocrites, or that the don't sufficiently self-analyze. You can believe that, but I know of several Baha'is (hello!) who do a heck of a lot of analysis and self-analysis who would disagree with that oversimplification of the implications of progressive revelations. (That last sentence sure sounded like Al Sharpton... :)

Anyway, Y, my point is merely that secularism is another religious perspective. My own study of Taoism was informed by my faith, but in learning about Taoism I uncovered plenty of new understandings about my own, and I studied all of them from the perspective of that practice, to "put myself in their shoes". I understand Muharram today because I can empathize with Shi'ih belief in Ali's righteusness and Husayn's "terrible betrayal" at the hands of Yazid. I also understand Sunni views of the same event and why they would feel differently. I understand the sublimity of holy communion, even though to a Baha'i friend of mine with a Zoroastrian background, the whole thing was some sort of crazy blood ritual. Upon explaining the ritual from the Christian perspective, and giving her some background and empathy, she began to understand it, even though she differed in her own belief after receiving the clearer understanding. In short, I do not believe it ever requires irreverence to study a religion, and I think the comparison of good manners and good conscience is largely a false dichotomy. I hope you do contribute the values of psychology and sociology to religious analysis in these articles. Just be aware of the natural bias and don't accidentally and arrogantly assume that your perspective has more validity in the exchange than a believers. This is something those involved with inter-faith activity have to learn, often through great difficulty and trial-and-error. Not validating or invalidating truth-claims is fine, but don't cross the line to assuming they are all false, which asserting certain psychological motivations does implicitly. Cheers and respect. -- Christian Edward Gruber 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Christian. You are right, there is an important distinction between secular and pluralist. Further, you make a pretty strong case for the inclusion of emic perspectives (I really like your tone and your style of argumentation), but I - of course - still disagree. I will not comment on it all, but rather sum up my arguments (because this boils down to faith/religion versus knowledge/science in the end)...

(1) I think only a secular society / authority may grant / stimulate a relatively pluralist environment. - Religious communities, forexample (as a specialist I would say 'especially') the Baha'i, are restrictive and seek to transform knowledge on a non-empirical, or transempirical basis (in the Bahaist case their influence on native groups in especially South America (e.g. the Bribri) and the Zoroastrians. This is not wrong, but in a world where most things - even for example terrorrism - seem to have a quite empirical discernable point-of-origin, a focus on empirical evidence is crucial, because in enables us to promote humanist values, toleration and non-prejudice, something e.g. Bahaists are not known to practice in the long run.

(2) Secularism is another religious perspective. Embedded in Christian values and thought. I am agnostic myself, but I agree. Science still originated in this setting, and should stay there. It grew from conflicts with religious authority, and this, I think, should be its ultimate nature. We agree that no one religious view should take precedence in describing other religions. But what is "precedence over"? Media-coverage? Right to dominate Wikipedia? Secular/agnostic scholarship, is secular/agnostic scholarship. Do adherents to religions have a right to enter the universities and claim the right to be heard or to write books. We have some bahaists that regularly enter the Institute at my University, they do a minor and so forth, but tend to stop because they feel the 'dryness' of it all suffocating. Well, this is the nature of science. If transformed, it is not science any more.

Secular scholarship, or pluralist scholarship, have - as you said - an agnostic bias. And this is good. None of my professors and me myself would never rule out God, but we deal with the cognitive and systemtic expressions of religion. We say: if god speaks to man, he does it through mans cognitive faculties, and if man changes the world at the command of god, man does it through social organization. Scholars do not rule out God, but seek to know as much as possible about the context of God adherence and the consequences of such.

(3) I do not believe that my perspective has more validity than believers perspectives. But when it comes to cognitive and social/organizational knowledge about religion, scholarship is much less biased than religious knowledge about religion. Because it is interested in emperically discernable effects, it is less influenced by the normative positions we find "within" religions. Both perspectives, however, are complementary (and therefore a true scientific project allows both a voice), but - my final argument - for Wikipedia, I think a relatively neutral scholarship is the ideal and what is wanted by the masses.

(4) This discussion started with that I wrote some things about the ANALYTICAL definition of religion, the one utilized by scholarship. I believe the Religion article do have some stuff on emic perspectives. As much as I respect you arguments and your case (you have taught me some good lessons, Chris); I say we move on to discussing the matter at hand; namely "the validity and usefulness" of having a stand alone article (as I suggested) on different ways of defining religion, with both emic and etic points-of-references.

Thanks for your dedication so far, Chris =) And thanks for your patience relating to my crappy English ;) --Yanemiro 10:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Yanemiro, quite a lot to digest and discuss. I agree with much of what you say and disagree with much of your conclusions and assertions. Other things I don't know enough about to have formulated an opinion. You're right, however, this is not the right forum for what is evolving into a very interesting discussion.

I would particularly be interested in understanding more of your specialist experience with the Baha'i faith (especially your assertions that Baha'is will necessarily be less tolerant over time, etc.), but would like to do that off-line. I am getting quite interested in this discussion, but other Wikipedians may not be, so let's leave it off, even though there are some tough claims left unanswered here. Please also bear in mind that claims to scholastic authority will not carry very far with me - any more than claims to scriptural authority would go with you. We'll have to meet on the neutral ground of clear-minded analysis and examination of real cases, I suspect, in order to get anywhere. But I encourage you to e-mail me (my wiki-home describes my e-mail with some anti-spamming obfuscation which you should be able to decode). Anyway, I agree, we can get back to the main discussion, and maybe make a new topic to restart that discusion, so people don't have to wade through our stuff... and your english is fine. :) --Christian Edward Gruber 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion, myth, real and imaginery or imagined

I have seen the article on religion, myth but there is no article on imaginery or imagined.

The word myth from first para of religion is removed to adjust the real part of the religion.

vkvora 13:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Previously it was :

Religion is commonly defined as a group of beliefs concerning the myth of the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system" The words "belief system" may not necessarily refer to a religion, though a religion may be referred to as "belief system." In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals.

Now changed.

vkvora 02:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious conversion in international law

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines religious conversion as a human right: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, ...." (Article 18).

Based on the declaration the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) drafted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a legally binding treaty. It states that "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, ..." (Article 18.1). "No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice." (Article 18.2).

The UNCHR issued a General Comment on this Article in 1993: "The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views [...] Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert." (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, General Comment No. 22.; emphasis added)

vkvora 04:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

Being only the 4th largest religion, yet 4 pictures of Hinduism, and no pics of Christianity. Something wrong here? Chaldean 15:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First pic (Fishers of Men) is of Christianity. Jerusalem is of Christianity (and others). Medieval painting of man with halo is Christian. So 2 pure Christian pictures, and one about the three monotheistic religions. No problem! Fram 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Hinduism is 3rd largest religion (excluding atheist ideologies). From another angle i would say there is only one picture of Hinduism (last one related to Hindu philosphy) . Other three pictures are actually pictures of an Oldest existing religion, most visiting religious shrine in the world and Largest religious gathering of humanity. It's logical that in an article on religion...pictures giving information about this Oldest, Most and Largest will definately get a place. As Fram has already explained, Christianity definately has more than one picture in this article. So, No problem! - Holy Ganga ^talk 15:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest switching one of the Hinduism pictures with a Buddhist picture. -- Jeff3000 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion reveals a poverty among Wikipedia contributors. Of what relevance is having many or fewer pictures related to each religion. Whether a picture is included, should depend on how relevant it is to elucidating the article.Shyamss 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The article Religion contains nothing about criticism and hence it is incomplete. Experts on Religion article are requested to add some information about criticism.

vkvora 04:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but don't put an empty section on the article. Requests for additions are done on the talk pages, just as you did above. -- Jeff3000 04:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's completely sacrilegiousthat no criticism is given at all. Hundreds of millions of people died in wars with a religious roots. Failure to mention that is inhumane.

As I said, there's an entire articles on Criticism of religion, and also Religious violence which are linked to under "See also". If you want to link to them more prominently, knock yourself out. But really, get some perspective. On the scale of what's really inhumane, the content of this article is negligible -- even if (or especially if) hundreds of millions really have been killed because of religion. (They haven't.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

See Criticism of Religion. The topic has an entire article to itself, which is linked from here via the {{Religion-related topics}} at the bottom. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some suggestions about the basic definition

I am sure it is striking to any reader that religion defined as a system of belief is not a normal usage. For example, it does not distinguish religion even from science. However it is probably the right starting point.

My first suggestion is that we must realise that in modern western society religion is basically understood as any system of belief which can not be supported by rational argument based upon evidence. This might sounds simple, but I think this is how the word mostly gets used. The basic understanding we westerners have is that science and religion are two contrasting types of explanation. Other cultures did not have such an understanding, meaning that pagans, for example, did not see any obvious conflict between researching how the planets move, and being pious. The crucial difference is the development of a unquestionable traditions, which are formally unquestionable and not just relatively unquestionable like any tradition (and even scientists).

The other modern meaning is secondary: we refer to communities after the beliefs they share.

Then we need to explain to ourselves how this connects to the other meanings, which are non modern, non western.

1. I'd say that most broadly, religion is a system of beliefs relating man not only to the universe, but also to whatever is said to lies behind the universe.

2. But it must be understood that "laws of nature" (as in modern science) won't do. All religions seem to include accounts of how what lies behind the universe has strong implications for how man should live. In other words, it asserts that there are human-like intentions behind the things we see.

--Andrew Lancaster 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely that religion is a system of belief that cannot be supported by rational argument based upon evidence. People can follow religious practice and see the effects on their lives and the lives of the people around them, thus confirming their beliefs. Secondly, in the Islamic sense, there are at least two methods of going by to show the truth of the religion; they are the proof based on establishment proof based on verses. Sure you might not agree with these proofs, but that doesn't mean that for all people there is no rational argument involved in believing in religion. -- Jeff3000 13:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to repeat, I distinguish, and the article should distinguish, two common usages of the term religion. I do think that most people, including religious people, in western countries, tend to use the word in a special way, which you disagree with. But I also accept, and the article should point out, that there is another meaning. Please consider what I wrote another time. Thanks. --Andrew Lancaster 21:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Small point, but really before the enlightenment, religion and science in the west (or western europe and clients) were largely connected, with most sciences being practiced by the literate class, which was largely (though not always exclusively) the priesthood. So the whole "west has a different concept" thing is really that post-enlightenment secular society has a different concept. In that connection, while religion as separate from science may not have been entirely clear before, religion all the way back to pre-enlightenment times, back to Zoroastrianism clearly shares some features. Those features are what are described on this page. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are only disputing the time when science and religion came into conflict in the west? You might be right. I guess I was considering the roots of the problem. As I guess you know, the problem is sometimes called "Athens versus Jerusalem" and it appears that these cities were grappling with the problem from an early date, and that their alternative answers define the later split between science and religion. I have heard it said that the "west" drawn into this debate is a "Greater West" which included the Arab world from an early date also.--Andrew Lancaster 11:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New intro

The new intro by Andrew is

Religion is a human phenomenon that defies easy definition. Like a scientific school or a traditional community a religion is a "belief system". In other words it is defined by a group of beliefs which are shared by members of a particular community who are in turn bound together by this shared belief.

To contrast religion to other belief systems, the type of subject matter of religions must be considered:-

(a) Religions always involve beliefs about Objects which are not directly observable: the supernatural, sacred, or divine. In modern western societies, the term "religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith". Indeed, the term religion is often used to mean any belief which can not be justified on the basis of directly observable evidence. This is to some extent unsatisfactory partly because it arguably no longer covers all religions, and partly because some would argue that even modern science believes in unobservable “laws of nature”.

(b) More specifically, religions involve an understanding about how people should live, which (in contrast to an ethical theory in philosophy) is linked to the above-mentioned shared understanding of the divine which can not be observed in everyday life. This normally involves an assertion that there are divine beings who are interested in what humans do, and are able to affect them. Religions therefore typically specify sacred duties, such as rites and rituals.

By extension, "religion" often also refers to the community which shares the belief system under discussion. And occasionally, the word "religion" is used in the more restricted sense of "organized religion" — that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization).

There are multiple problems with this intro, and I will revert to the old version until the problems are fixed.

1. It is much too detailed for a lead.
2. It is POV that the understanding of the divine cannot be observed in everyday life. Not all religions are so. The intro has to be generic enough to fit all religions.

You might be right, but I can't see how. Is there any religion which really only refers to direct observable phenonoma? Even science does not achieve this?--Andrew Lancaster 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

1. There is no citations for any of the assertions. While the old one does not have many citations either (has one), the status quo should stay for such a big change until citations can be found. -- Jeff3000 17:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. It is probably nearly always possible to ask for better citations, but perhaps adding more detail in this introduction will conflict with the implications of point 1?--Andrew Lancaster 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to begin putting in citations for already consensused material. This article's introduction has been noteworthy and quite stable in introducing the topic to readers, particularly for a subject this broad. I believe I recall seeing several sources brought up in discussion in recent months. Perhaps we can begin to refer to them in footnotes? . ... Kenosis 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religions are pseudoscientific

Religions are pseudoscience - they say they know how the world works and they say they have evidence, yet the evidence isn't falsifiable and there are no experiments that can verify their "information". If that's not a false science, then what is? 205.188.117.13 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that diverges from the usual standards required for scientific work, or which is unsupported by sufficient, substantial or verifiable scientific evidence and research. - opening paragraph of "Pseudoscience" article - certainly suits the mythologies and even theology of just about all of the religions out there. 205.188.117.13 02:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Your quotation only means that wikipedia's article about pseudoscience sucks. In a nutshell, one shall not confuse knowledge and belief. And certainly mythologies, fairy tales, science fiction, sentimental novels, dreams, sexist jokes, etc., etc. are not pseudoscence, although Yo Mama jokes are "unsupported by verifiable scientific evidence". (BTW, don;t you see that the quoted definition contains a logical fallacy: "pseudoscience is what is not science"? Exercise: find out the name of this logical fallacy (there is a game in wikipedia called "wikihunt") `'mikka (t) 16:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Your generalization without knowing all the basic understanding of all religions are what keeps religion from being pseudoscience. Indeed, while most are not scientific, some (eastern philosophical religion) do employ scientific method and some (eastern philosophical religion) do employ experiments and can be verified by modern science. Meditation, for example, is scientifically proven to have clear changes in brain waves. The scientists have not determined whether meditation results in calm-mind or whether calm-minded person is drawn to meditation. But those "religions", can be argued as a philosophical way of life, so it not necessarily the religion you had in mind. Monkey Brain 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fear of god

I am utterly surprized that there is no "Fear of god" article, which is the very basic topic in religion. (There does exist "Fear of God" article, but this is an abomination.) `'mikka (t) 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adhrents.com numbers...

They had only 4 million for Shinto. Are they accurate? The cia fact book states that 84% of Japanese population are profess to both Shinto and Buddhist. And last time I checked 4 million is not 84% of Japanese population. How accurate is Adherents.com? I do not know the accuracy of that site. Monkey Brain_(talk) 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See [8] for an explanation of that number. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok. Hadn't read that. However their estimates are not too favorable. They do seem to redifine the word adherents to fit the bill(about shinto) and that their judgement seems to interfere with the actual statistics(Note the "non-religious" definition on the pie chart). Monkey Brain_(talk) 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. They base their information on self-identification when they can. Their point is that most Europeans identify themselves as Christian even if they're not observant. The same is not true for Japanese and Shintoism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperation?

Is it time to seperate the religions by their nature? Theistic and Nontheistic? I have encountered many people who have beliefs that religions are all same; theistic by nature. Should it now be noted? I know it would be a pretty big step by categorization religions as either Theistic or Nontheistic, but if this would help solve the confusion, then shouldn't it be categorized? Monkey Brain_(untalk) 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, it's kind of surprising this hasn't been done yet. Theistic/nontheistic seems like a pretty basic division. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet this would be a problematic distinction because traditions that are regularly classified as nontheistic (e.g. Buddhism) frequently involve deities in common practice. If such a distinction is made I would suggest some qualifications. If Buddhism, for instance, is expressedly nontheistic in its textual cannon, and/or in what is termed its "philosophy" then it needs to be compared on those grounds, and not simply as a religion. Otherwise readers will be left with the false assumption that all or most Buddhists, to continue with the same example, do not worship or even believe in the existence of deities or other extra-human beings.PelleSmith 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2.1 Billion???

According to this article there are 2.1 billion "professed adherents" of christianity. This is absurd. How was this figure arrived at? I see that it comes from 'adherents.com' which is hardly likely to be an objective source! Looking back at the talk page I can see that this is questioned very frequently. Please put in some elements of doubt over these figures. As it stands the article looks ridiculous. Poujeaux 14:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Adherents.com is a reliable source, with extensive information about methodology. It is used accross Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Adherents.com is not a reliable source:

• As the article admits, the numbers don't even add up!
• The main source seems to be something called the 'World Christian Encyclopedia'!
• That obviously biased source claims 1.9 billion. The 2.1 billion is a 'projection'.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poujeaux (talk • contribs).

Adherents.com has one of the most comprehensive databases of statistitics on religious adherents. They don't gather any statistics themselves, but rather collect them from other sources. They state: "We present data from both primary research sources such as government census reports, statistical sampling surveys and organizational reporting, as well as citations from secondary literature which mention adherent statistics. Adherents.com is an Internet initiative and is not affiliated with any religious, political, educational, or commercial organization." -- Jeff3000 13:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Adherents.com recognizes that different sources may provide slightly different or even contradictory information. and Adherent statistics are usually not precisely comparable. In other words they recognize that they do get their info from biased sources, in which they do list the source that they are getting the info from. Out of all the sources, I would say 1.9 billion is an appropriate number. This number coincides with almanacs and other non-biased sources. Somerset219 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because a database is voluminous does not make it valid or verifiable. Let's just take one example: France. adherents.com claims that there are 45,624,000 adherents to "Christianity" in France (using the highest of their several figures for the category). Contrast this with the Norris (Harvard) & Inglehart (U of Michigan) analysis of the Eurobarometer survey data that indicates that fewer than 10% of the French population "participates" in religious activity (see Figure 2 of http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1070-3535.2005.00406.x?cookieSet=1). In the same analysis, only 56% of those polled in France expressed a "belief in God" (Table 1). The CIA World Factbook reports the population of France at 60,876,136 as of July 2006 (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html). From the arithmetic, Christian "adherence" in France would fall in a range of 6,087,613 (low est.) to 34,090,636 (high est.). Note further that these estimated figures are from surveys of general religious sentiment or activity, not affiliation with any particular religious denomination. Therefore they should probably be discounted further by roughly 25%, being the percentage of non-Christians in France using adherents.com's own numbers: (61M - 46M)/61M. And for a true NPOV estimate, there would need to be some research into whether within the roughly 34M who expressed a belief in God there was a positive bias within a non-Christian cohort (e.g. the second largest community per the CIA reference noted above, Muslims).

Now, none of this is to assert any particular number as correct for the number of "Christians" in France. But, it is to show that other reliable sources either directly give or estimate numbers for one archetypal Christian country which would be roughly 50-85% lower than adherents.com's figure. Apply the same scrutiny to the larger supposedly "Christian" countries like Germany, UK, USA, Brazil, Mexico and so on and the aggregate total would likely drop below 1 Billion "Christian" "adherents" worldwide. (Using the CIA's own raw data, for what they are worth, the total is less than 1.8 Billion.) Ubarfay 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image moved here

I've removed the image of the Tirupati temple and am placing it here for future reference. It was getting crowded in that part of the article, and the map image of the Pew Research Center study of demographics is far more relevant to that section on "demographic trends" than any photo. As well, before I removed it, four of the ten pictures (excepting the multi-faith symbols at beginning) were drawn from Hinduism. Now it's three of ten, which seems a reasonable representation for this article. ... Kenosis 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Tirumala svtemple.jpg|thumb|250px|right| The [[Tirupati]] Hindu temple is the most visited religious shrine in the world and the second richest religious shrine after the [[Vatican City|Vatican]].<ref name=Tirupati>[http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/apr/27tirupati.htm "Tirupati temple"]</ref>]] ... 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra etymological discussion by Robert Graves

Here is the somewhat bloated blockquote discussion from The White Goddess, submitted yesterday by anon IP, in case there is useful material to be gleaned from it. ... Kenosis 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"The dictionaries give its etymology as 'doubtfull'. Cicero connected it with relegere, 'to read duly' - hence 'to pore upon, or study' divine lore. Some four-and-a-half centuries later, Saint Augustine derived it from religare, 'to bind back' and supposed that it implied a pious obligation to obey divine law; and this is the sense in which religion has been understood ever since. Augustine's guess, like Cicero's (though Cicero came nearer the truth), did not take into account the length of the first syllable of religio in Lucretius's early De Rerum Natura, or the alternative spelling relligio. Relligio can be formed only from the phrase rem legere, 'to choose, or pick, the right thing', and religion for the primitive Greeks and Romans was not obedience to laws but a means of protecting the tribe against evil by active counter-measures of good. It was in the hands of a magically minded priesthood, whose duty was to suggest what action would please the gods on peculiarly auspicious or inauspicious occasions. When, for example, a bottomless chasm suddenly opened in the Roman Forum, they read it as a sign that the gods demanded a sacrifice of Rome's best, one Mettus Curtius felt called upon to save the situation by choosing the right thing, and leaped into the chasm on horseback, fully armed. On another occasion, a woodpecker appeared in the Forum where the City Praetor, Aelius Tubero, was dispensing justice, perched on his head and allowed him to take it in his hand. Since the woodpecker was sacred to Mars, its unnatural tameness alarmed the augurs, who pronounced that, if it were released, disaster would overcome Rome; if killed, the Praetor would die for his act of sacrilege. Aelius Tubero patriotically wrung its neck, and afterwards came to a violent end. These unhistorical anecdotes seem to have been invented by the College of Augurs as examples of how signs should be read and how Romans should act in response to them."

Robert Graves: The White Goddess (p477)

... 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Which version of the intro is better?

• Kenosis version (which Kenosis claims has been "consensused")
• Xosa version (which is made by an editor who would never try to use "consensused" in a sentence)

1. I like the Xosa version because it's better. Saying that "Religion is a human phenomenon that defies easy definition" doesn't tell me anything. An encyclopedia primarily conveys what we do know, not what we don't. Check any reference in Britannica for an example. Giving a non-definition may avoid controversy, but so would leaving the article blank. A first line that actually conveys some sort of information is definitely better. Always improving, going with the better edit, is the Wiki way. --Xosa 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, very quickly at the moment, I don't know for sure what's "better". But longstanding editors of this article arrived at basically the current version (now dubbed the "Kenosis version") in order to introduce the subject fairly in light of the many questions that surround the idea of "religion", and the range of folks that lay claim to the term. The idea of "faith", also standard, may in my opinion have a place in the intro. But that is not what was previously consensused. I'm willing to talk further about this later, but for now, good regards to all participating editors. ... Kenosis 04:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't even support the edit that you made, I feel confident that mine is preferable out of the two. The Wiki way is to be bold and change the article to what we believe is most useful while also taking into consideration the views of others. That is exactly what I did. You reverted it without using any of my contribution and apparently without even believing in the edit you made. I responded by requesting the help of others to solve the dispute. It seemed to work out well, but I attribute that only to my keeping a cool head after you reverted my contribution. You may find that others aren't quite as gracious. --Xosa 04:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I dislike an opening sentence that's as wishy-washy as the "Kenosis version", which I'm pretty sure Kenosis didn't write so it's not an entirely fair label. However, if the "Xosa version" is to be used I think we need a few cites, for the claim that religion is always faith-based if nothing else. "Faith" has connotations in Christianity it lacks in most other religions, and for many it's easy to over-emphasize its importance. Between wishy-washy and inaccurate, the former is the lesser sin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you personally disagree with the assertion that religion is based largely on faith? --Xosa 04:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly interesting enough for me to stay with it a bit longer for the moment. We have one editor whose previous edit was to Conan the Barbarian and another whose previous edit was to God the Father. So let's talk about this a bit further (it's late night here), and see what the various other current and longer-term participating editors have to say. ... Kenosis 04:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All I ask is that the editor believe in and support the edit he makes. If there is a dispute, it should be more than just a mental exercise. It should reflect ones actual feelings on the subject. --Xosa 04:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia gold standard is actually verifiability. Feelings don't enter into it at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer Xosa: That depends on how you define "faith". In the Christian sense, no, obviously not. If one means mere "belief", then yes, but such a definition could also include a number of systems that are purely philosophical in intent. Either way, this is a positive statement, novel and potentially controversial, and should be cited. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kenosis is very true that the current lead has gone through many revisions, and has had consensus. That said I think both versions have their good points. I've combined the versions into this new Jeff3000 version

Religion is a system of social coherence commonly understood as a group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object (real or imagined), person (real or imagined), or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"^[3], but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal revelation and responsibility.

What do you think? -- Jeff3000 04:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Support, if we're taking a vote. It comes close to saying what I was about to say, but for an edit conflict. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also in regards to Xosa's statement regarding if religion is largely based on faith. While it may be true for some people, I do not think it is generally true. True study and practice of religious teachings one can understand the purpose, and at that point it becomes much more than faith. Regardless it is a controversial topic, and making such an assertion should be left out of the lead. -- Jeff3000 04:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How about saying, "belief or faith?" --Xosa 04:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent on the word "faith"? What do you mean by it?

But I don't think this is useful. Belief is a component of faith, so "belief" is the more generally applicable term. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think use of the word "faith" is highly relevant in describing religion in more than just an "interchangeable" connotation. If you feel that faith isn't always present, the conjunction "or" removes it as a requirement. --Xosa 04:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The current intro uses "or". -- Jeff3000 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

However, Jeff: I think you underestimate what is meant by faith. Study and practice deepen faith, they don't render it obsolete. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think people start with doubt, and then through study and practice one can obtain faith, but I think the final stage, which is done through more study and practice is to reach certitude. -- Jeff3000 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Faith is more than mere belief. There's also an element of trust, which never goes away no matter how deep the mystical certitude. In Orthodoxy, it's said that even the demons believe, and tremble -- but you'd scarcely credit them with any faith. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you there. I think we're mostly on the same page. -- Jeff3000 04:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting question: Why not stick with "faith" as a primary criterion right in the intro?. Jeff3000, though, has seen many more of these discussions than I have. 'Night for now... Kenosis 04:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm off to bed as well. -- Jeff3000 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd chime in to say that I really like the version currently up- the Jeff3000 version. It's a definite improvement on both the other two proposed versions. --Alecmconroy 12:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organized religion

"'Organized religion' generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization)."

Isn't the "prescribed" requirement the only difference between an organized religion and any other? It's my understanding that any type of religion can be a legal entity, not just one organized with a top-down hierarchy. --Xosa 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Usually there is also some sort of organization; meetings, administration, etc (it doesn't necessarily have to be top-down). As for your second question/assertion, the statement in the text of the article is not stating anything about if unorganized religion can or cannot be a legal entity, but stating that most often organized religion takes the form of a legal entity. -- Jeff3000 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert again

Xosa, please stop changing the intro. You asked for comments, both here and the RFC page, and so far everyone but you is happy with the current intro (an amalgam of your intro and the original intro). -- Jeff3000 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and Terrorist Activities in Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

Terrorist activites are supported by Religious Leaders.

Is there any relation between religion and Terrorist activites?

vkvora 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In a way. People who advocate violence will often interpret their religion in such a way as to either justify or condone it, whether that interpretation is accepted outside their violent circle or not. Religion as such is rarely a cause of violence, although it frequently serves as just one more way into which some divide the world along the lines of "us/not us". It might as well be nationality, language, or skin color. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, vkvora, of course there is a relation. See the wikipedia articles on religious terrorism, religious violence, religious wars and criticism of religion. Terrorists are often religious extremists who abuse religion to justify killing those who don't share their belief. Religion is more divisive than the other things mentioned by TCC, because it encourages the 'we are god's chosen people' viewpoint. We could put something on this in the main article but it would be immediately deleted by someone - see your earlier attempt to include some criticism of religion.Poujeaux 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No. More often than not, being "God's chosen people" requires that you not kill. That this is frequently ignored, and that adherents to such religions find ways to rationalize their killing anyway -- even to the point of twisting their religions teachings to the point where killing appears to be condoned even when it explicitly says the opposite -- is more a condemnation of man than his religions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him" - Leviticus 24:16 Poujeaux 13:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABCs of Faith

We have many interesting articles about Religion and Faith on the web site

href="http://www.abcsoffaith.com/html/home.html"ABCsofFaith

Would you consider linking to it.... ````EDwin

[edit] Fastest-growing religion?

I just removed the reference to "due to high birth rates", which was based on a citation to non-notable "futurist John Gary" who hasn't published, hasn't cited his sources, and who can't seem to be found. (see http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm ) . Moreover, a reasonable citation is needed for the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, so I added a "citation-needed" to that claim. The religioustolerance.org webpage cites only a claim by Al Islam that the growth rate was 6.4% in 1994-1995 at a webpage that can no longer be found, not exactly an objective and credible source. ... Kenosis 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to remove reference (which I put in!). Have linked to Fastest Growing Religion instead, and said it is "claimed to be" (which is definitely true). Hope this is OK Mike Young 18:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We should not be stating claims, but facts. Claims is a weasel word, and is not precise (Weasel words are not recommended in Wikipedia). Finally, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, see WP:V. I'll put it back to the original statement until a citation can be found. -- Jeff3000 18:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I've found the source for Islam (see Fastest Growing Religion). Christianity seems of have the fastest growing absolute numbers (but Islam is close) and Wicca the fastest growing in terms of percentage rise. Islam may be able to claim to be be "the fastest growing major religion in terms of percentage change per year", provided that the growth of non-religious is not counted. But that's a bit of a mouthful to put in. What do you think? Mike Young 09:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Given this good reference [9] from (David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 4) I would note in the text that Christianity has the fastest grown by numbers and Islam has the fastest growth by percentage (actually Zorastrianism seems like the fastest growing religion by percentage, but I think we can ignore the smaller religions for the sake of this statement). -- Jeff3000 19:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Have changed it... Wonder how long that will last ;) Mike Young 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If "smaller religions" are still "religions" and one of them has a faster growth rate by percentage than Islam then the statement about Islam is simply false. It is even more problematic because the estimated number of Zoroastrians, who belong to a religion which may have such a higher growth rate (see above), is clearly displayed on the page. The statement about Islam either needs to be qualified in a way that makes it true (e.g. by saying that within a certain group of religions it has the highest rate) or it should be dropped.PelleSmith 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between types of growth is also problematic. If something is growing faster or fastest then what is measured is a growth rate and growth rates are, as far as I know, always measured by percentage increase. Having a higher annual number of new adherents does not mean faster growth, it simply means gaining more adherents annually. The terminology should be changed, though I think it makes sense to distinguish between the raw amount of adherents gained annually and the percentage growth (the growth rate) annually, especially since people may not realize that what a growth rate is.PelleSmith 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the changes. Also see this article at adherents.com. -- Jeff3000 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I only changed the word "fastest" to "greatest" in terms of absolute numbers. This clarifies the "rate" issue. Thank you for the adherents.com article but I believe it is unfortunately misleading in its use of the term growth rate. See for instance the wikipedia entry on population growth, which summarizes the growth rate measure used in demographics. I will not make other edits because I cannot verify the statstics used in this article. I will suggest again, however, that if someone is comfortable with these stastics, like the original or recent authors/editors of this section and those stastics show that there are religions with faster growth rates than Islam then they should qualify the statement about Islam in a way that makes said statement cohere with the stastics used--if even by simply adding something like "Within the world's four largest religions ... " for instance. My appologies for refusing to make those kinds of edits, but it is an ethical matter given my uneasiness with the stastics themself.PelleSmith 23:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Practitioners of yoga as excercise are not Hindu.

To claim that they are is erroneous and false. A link to a page about the Vedic roots of yoga does not even back it up either. Go ask someone at the gym who takes a yoga class every week if he/she is Hindu, and/or converesely ask a majority of Hindus the same question. No scholarly sources either, would ever consider conflating the two. Please do not simply add the information back. If you doubtfully have a shcolarly source, provide it here first so that other editors can discuss the matter with you.PelleSmith 13:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestion

Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner, apologize):

Philosophy and religion: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 08:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection

The template at the top of the page says that the page is semiprotected, but it isn't (and, according to the logs, never has been). So... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first paragraph

The first paragraph seems to have gotten out of control and no longer makes sense:

Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1], but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.

Somebody please fix it. For example look at the last sentence which has the form "A is sometimes equated to B, but is actually different from C", and what is a system of social coherance? Does this say the same thing?

Religions are communally shared systems of beliefsconcerning the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with the community itself. They are also normally understood to be more than just a "faith" or "belief system" because they including belief about the supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth.

Andrew Lancaster 13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism, Revival and Demographic Trends

The section I just deleted needs to be seriously edited before being put back. If Hinduism, as a religion, is having a "revival" then noting so is completely appropriate if citations are given, not to mention a much better contextualization. Where are temples being built? How many? Are people converting to Hinduism? What I deleted was absurdly vague. In fact it would be prudent to reference all the so called trends mentioned in this section. However, the influence of Hinduism on Western culture does NOT BELONG in this section. It has nothing to do with trends in demographics, or adhrence to Hinduism at all. While I find the influence of Eastern religious concepts, including those of Hinduism, fascinating I fail to see mentioning them as relavent to this section.

The footnote given, was also not relevant. It does not come from an academic source, and it doesn't provide support for anything written in the section. It most definately needs to go.PelleSmith 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. People borrowing beliefs from Hinduism != Hinduism. I know a lot of people into the whole karma and reincarnation thing, but they aren't Hinduists. I've never seen anyone actually convert to it, either. Of course, this is all my own personal experience, and hardly indicative of percentages and trends. Still, it seems highly unlikely to me, and I've seen no mention of this sort of phenomenon, anywhere. --Karafias ^{Talk • Contributions} 19:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A general comment as well: This section has nothing to do with whose religion is bigger or better than anyone else's. Like the rest of the entry and Wikipedia in general it is meant to be informative. As such people expect the sections to give them the appropriate information. Please keep that in mind when editing.PelleSmith 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That section talks about trends (not conversions) and if trends of Islam like "Islam has grown in significance and in popular awareness even in countries where it is still a minority religion" and "Increased Christian missionaries in middle eastern countries" then why similar trends which talks about spread of Hindu basics and increased number of Hindu gurus and organizations in western can't get place? Bias!? - Holy Ganga ^talk 19:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, lets fix those too! Just give me one second.PelleSmith 19:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Editors Please Note and Review

I deleted several other statements, as per Holy Ganga's point, because they in fact had nothing to do with trends in adherence. Some simply pointed out geographic distrubutions, but not in terms of a trend, and others were about trends in "significance" and not adherence. This issue of "significance" is dubious, needs to be substantiated with references, and most certainly is not the same as adherence.PelleSmith 19:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope the additions of 1900-2000, based on an already used reference and a second occurance of the same, are useful.--Smkolins 15:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starvation and self-strangulation part of mysticism?

Rather, physical disciplines such as yoga, starvation, self-strangulation, whirling (in the case of the Sufi dervishes), or the use of Psychoactive drugs such as LSD, lead to higher states of consciousness that logic can never hope to grasp.

I had a good laugh reading this. While mystics can use non-traditional rituals to find the greater meaning in life, harming oneself through starvation or self-strangulation is not a standard practice, except for the extreme individual. The mystics I know are very health conscious eating the best food and practicing breathing techniques that oxygenate the blood. We do not list sticking your hand in a box of poisonous snakes as a standard practice of Christians even though there is a sect that ascribes to this practice. I recommend replacing "starvation" with "fasting" and removing "self-strangulation". Meditation and contemplation are also disciplines used to reach higher states. --SummerLights 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a fast change. Are we sure that "fasting" encapsulates the specifics of what the original use of "starvation" was getting at? Fasting is a very ambigious term which can signify a great range of consumption limitations. It also has quite varied religious conotations. For instance would the ascetic fasting of mystics be like the fasting during Ramadan (and I mean particularly "as practiced")? Maybe the change is appropriate but I just want to be sure. Is there a more specific term, or maybe adjective to use with "fasting", in this case?PelleSmith 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice your comment until now, so sorry for my late response. The reason why I acted quickly was that the Starvation article, after a quick read, is more about the type of starvation happening in Africa, and not the self-imposed starvation, that can occur during fasting. I agree that fasting has different components to it, and if a better term can be found it should be used, but I do think starvation as it was linked previously, was not the correct term. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I hadn't noticed the link. How about "stringent fasting" with the same link to the fasting article? Of course "mystic" is itself a very ambigious category applied to varied types of people historically and culturally. But I think part of the idea is that as an ascetic the mystic would practice more severe forms of behavior than the average adherent. Anyway I'll make the change.PelleSmith 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistical breakdown

<<...Unitarian Universalism 800,000 Rastafari movement 600,000 Christianity encompasses many different denominations but the statistics in the source for this document consider them all together for the purposes of analysis. >> No it does not! See Unitarian and Rastafarianism! All the Unitarians and Rastafarians I ever met all regarded themselves as Christians. I will change this to <<Christianity encompasses many different denominations but the statistics in the source for this document consider most of them all together for the purposes of analysis.>>

[edit] Marx's Quote (Opium of the People)

I have replaced the mistranslated "opiate of the masses" quote with the correct "opium of the people" quote. Indeed, even the source material linked to from this article translates the line from the german correctly. 'Masses' wrongly implies that Marx was talking soley of the working and lower classes, whereas his actual wording implies no such thing. More discussion on this is available at Opium of the People. --68.35.221.241 02:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Functionalist nature of the article

I would like to point that article does seem to reproduce the bsics tentants of Functionalist viewpoint on religion and to that end I would like see some differenting opinions. I feel that the new edition of this article should include the views of Marx and Freud as a minimum. Thank you

It is always good to read an article in its entirety before commenting on what it lacks. Marx is mentioned in the "religion as a social construction" section. Freud could be added, but I'm assuming its not in the article because the Freudian reading of the origins and function of religion are held by virtually no one at this point in time. As for the functionalist undertones I partially agree, however the intro is mildly functionalist in a very Protestant vain. This may be a sign of our times, but if you ask me it is the strong emphasis on "belief system"/"faith" instead of other aspects of religion that is more problematic than the mild functionalist undertones. Take for example the seemingly innocent assumption that "the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals" are simply "associated with such belief or system of thought". In other words they are secondary. A true functionalist (from Durkheim on) would make the "moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals" primary. Food for thought. On that note, if you have constructive ideas about how to improve the article by all means suggest them here, but make sure you read the entry carefully first.PelleSmith 13:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead change

Stevertigo has changed the lead which had been decided by consensus a couple times above. I like the old version, and wanted to get thoughts before I change it back. -- Jeff3000 14:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Satanism as a religion

Weather it is Anton LaVey's Atheistic religion or a matter of reverse Christianity, or even the accusations of the Inquisition, Satanism/Demonology has a long history in almost all religions and deserves mention in this article. A note on Atheism that is commonly over looked; Athiesm is a belief, no more or less valid than any other belief.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a group in Iraq that worship Satan-They are not from the European Satanic mind set and seem to be closer to Islam or Judaism in essence. They are mentioned in a big budget BBC TV series by a British historian about five great civilisations including-as I remember (It is a while since I saw them) Iraq, Europe,Pre Columbian America, China and India. The Iraq portion was filmed shortly after the first US/Iraq war --Roton89 04:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on the Article page: "Petroism"

As a new contributor to Wikipedia, I am unclear on the protocols for dealing with what appears to be a case of vandalism. Note the reference to "Petroism" on the table of adherents to religions in the middle of the article. Ubarfay 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Demographics

I have flagged the POV aspects of this section in the article itself as well as on this discussion page (see "2.1 Billion???" above). I believe the list of concerns below are adequate to warrant a rewrite of the section:

1) the section is framed by the concept "adherence", which is nowhere defined -- in normal usage, this term indicates more than just nominal membership in some category (e.g. those who abide by the laws of their countries may be deemed adherents to those laws; habitual criminals who merely live in the countries but do not abide by the laws would not be so considered) -- and there are other sources quoted in the article that use more verifiable statistics (e.g. frequency of participation in religious activities or survey responses to fundamental questions like belief in God)

2) the section is derived from a single source, adherents.com, whose NPOV and verifiability are contested -- more specifically this single source defers to the authority of a single person, David Barrett, as the source for most of its data on Christianity, and Barrett is identified as an "Evangelical Christian" (see http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity)

3) even accepting the single source as (quasi-)authoritative, it is internally inconsistent -- specifically, it quotes multiple sources for a given religion in a given country, but does not clearly identify which is used for the global roll-up (e.g., it quotes seven different numbers for "Catholic" in Brazil, ranging from 105,000,000 to 143,556,992 (see http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/Wh_41.html#88))

4) the section states "a person can be an adherent of more than one religion", without citing a source for this assertion, which is contrary to the tenets of the two largest religions, Christianity and Islam

Other opinions? --Ubarfay 10:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Another methodological issue:

5) it seems that the adherents.com figures include children -- e.g. they reference a US study which extrapolates a total population figure from a survey given to adults only (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions) -- and it is not universally accepted that children should be counted as "adherents" to any particular belief system --Ubarfay 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Further analysis of the data at adherents.com: The total of 2.1 Billion adherents to Christianity cannot be derived from this site's own published country-by-country detail (http://www.adherents.com/adhloc/indexWhere.html). Summing both the lowest and highest numbers for "Christianity" (or its major sub-denominations when there is no roll-up for Christianity listed) given for each country listed that is also named in the CIA World Factbook yields the following range of estimates:

Low end of the range = 1,472,946,142

High end of the range = 1,922,627,498

The 2.1 Billion figure is merely a repetition of the total asserted by The World Christian Encyclopedia^[4]

A change in the adherence category of >600 Million individuals would likely alter the rankings of the categories listed. --Ubarfay 04:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns are very well founded, but in the end it would be very difficult to have an informative and stable demographics section if we accounted for them without great care. I don't particularly trust any of these stastics. If a better way of presenting demographics data, and a better way of sourcing it, is availble it would be of great service to the entry if you or anyone else could produce it. Might I suggest, however, if a total rewrite is going to happen that you do so off of the entry and then present it here so we can discuss it. Does that work? For instance, I removed the tidbits about a range in Christianity, and a range in the "nones" because they are Original Research--see WP:OR. If you want me to explain how/why I will be glad to. But the OR in this case causes particular problems in the new range estimate you produced for religious "nones". For starters why are the missing numbers, after adjusting ONLY the Christianity figure, necessarily non-religious?PelleSmith 13:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely that none of the statistics are particularly trustworthy. There's no original research here, I simply presented adherents.com's own ranges, rather than the rollup they quoted from a separate source whose objectivity is prima facie questionable. Rev. Barrett may be a thorough and scrupulous statistician, but given the importance of this particular table I would think the NPOV standard would require a second source that is either aligned with one of the other major religions, or that at least has the appearance of greater neutrality like a government or inter-government agency.

To answer your final point: The Christianity figure of 2.1 Billion is the one that is the most suspect, given the POV of its source and the other methodological issues raised above. (I note now that the Islam page claims 1.4 Billion adherents, the Hinduism page claims 1 Billion, the Chinese folk religion page claims 850 Million and the Buddhism page claims 230 - 500 Million. Fair enough. Would you be satisfied with listing high/low ranges for all (or at least the Big Five) religions? That said, the "nones" are simply from the arithmetic -- they are those not claimed by any of the religions, therefore, from the definition "non-religious". Did I miss your point? What methodology would you propose for allocating them to the other religions? --Ubarfay 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is a mess, but by what standards do we chose these ranges? I think chosing Adherents.com as a source was done to simplify the process and to forget about the fact that no accurate population estimates really exist. That said I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe someone needs to go dig into some academic literature on this and see if it helps.

In regards to the OR problem, have you read over WP:OR? You have added up the country by country estimates presented on Adherents.com and then presented the sum as a viable low range estimate. On what grounds can we do that? Are they themselves calculated using similar methodologies? Are all individuals accounted for in this calculation? Are all nations even? What is the margin for error? I would ask those questions, but even they are besides the point in regards to WP:OR because you have done this calculation on your own, based upon information presented on another site. You can't source the claim because Adherents.com does not present such an estimate itself. However this OR, done in order to get the low range Christianity estimate, isn't half as problematic as the second step in which you calculated a high range for religous "nones" (the secular/atheist/agnostic group). Lets say, for the sake of argument, there is a lower number of Christians in the world. Simply knowing that tells us absolutely nothing verifiable about the number of non-religious people in the world. You can't just add to the none column when you subtract from the Christianity column. Those extra people could fit anywhere. This is, of course assuming that world population figures are even correct. Anyway, again, all of this is besides the point because the calculation itself is clearly OR.PelleSmith 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant OR language as I see it. "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"PelleSmith 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read WP:OR, and do not find anything in the list of seven criteria that would exclude the attempts I have made to remove what appears to me (and others before, from previous sections of this Discussion page) pro-Christian bias from this important section of this important article.

Starting with your final point: How does the Excel "SUM()" function "introduce an analysis or synthesis [...] without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"? I guess at a stretch you could question the reputability of Microsoft, but this verges on the absurd. If a source lists detailed information (from which detail it partly derives its credibility ... in the present case, for "thoroughness") but then does not tally its own data, rather substitutes another party's tally which is more favorable to the case it's trying to build, that's considered less POV on Wikipedia than doing the tally for them as a matter of simple arithmetic??? What sort of fact-checking process is this?

To your earlier concerns. Separate what you call the second step from the central issue of establishing NPOV estimates for the major religions. Do you not accept that showing ranges is less biased than using a single number? If we're going to use a single number, should we not give each religion the same courtesy that we're giving Christianity and let one of their experts put forward their number? Do you not agree that at a minimum we'd have to accept the high end numbers from the other articles I listed in my previous response? Why is it only Christianity that gets to use its high end estimate? (And if there is a reputable estimate for Christianity higher than 2.1 Billion, I would appreciate someone forwarding it.)

I agree completely, by the way, that the whole thing is a mess. Simply punting and letting adherents.com, which parrots Rev. Barrett's figures, be the sole source of this important data seems to me like a total abdication of the encyclopedist's responsibility not to present opinion as fact. Which is why this RfC is calling for a complete re-write of the section. At a minimum take the grossly POV current version offline until some sort of collective editing and/or appeal process can run its course. The alternative is tantamount to saying "It's such a hard and messy problem, let's just keep it simple and let a Christian Evangelical Professor of Missionmetrics be our source of fact/truth." Surely that's not what you're suggesting, given your rigorous and largely valid critique of my contributions to this article. I am asking that you (and the others who care about the validity of this article) direct that same rigor to the section as currently written. --Ubarfay 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think using adherents.com is just fine. It has a repository of many different statistics, and cleary delineates the difficulties in obtaining accurate statistics, the different enumeration mentods, and that the numbers may not be an indicator of activity in a religion. In the end the interested reader can always find the sources that adherents.com used (which there are many) and I think that is the most important thing. -- Jeff3000 03:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that adherents.com uses a boatload of different sources. From adherents.com "We have used books which range from scholarly anthropological studies to children's books. Most of the material is from objective, academic, or sympathetic sources. It should be noted, however, that we have included some citations from opposing sources." [10]. Also, adherent.com is clear that the definition of adherent may vary. [11] In my mind adherents.com is the best repisotory of religious statistics, it states its sources, and any biases and difficulties that arise. It's very open. -- Jeff3000 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so adherents.com uses a boatload of different sources. Why are we only using their pass-through of the World Christian Encyclopedia? They may be the best "repisotory" of religious statistics, but they also seem to be a shill for the Evangelical Christian POV. The key statistic here is the high end range estimate for Christianity, which is not corroborated by any source other than a Professor of Missiometrics. Their own notes (see http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Islam) give a high range for Islam, which they omit from their ultimate tally quoted in our article: "Contemporary figures for Islam are usually between 900 million and 1.4 billion, ..." while on the very same page they admit "These numbers [for the summary table quoted in the section of the article at issue] tend toward the high end of reasonable worldwide estimates...." It is transparent POV to use a number not "toward", but at (nay, above), the "high end" of the "reasonable worldwide estimates" for Christianity, but something other than the high end number for the other religions. This is bunkum of the first order. --Ubarfay 11:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. For those following this thread, take a gander at the take from our Francophone confreres on the topic at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion. The table they present is:

• Christianity: 1.868 billion
• Non-believers: 1.8 - 2.8 billion^{[citation needed]}
• Islam: 1.4 billion
• Hinduism: 900 million

and so on ... pity the poor 11 year olds in Montreal struggling with their homework. --Ubarfay 13:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment: Demographics (continued)

[continuation of Talk:Religion#Request_for_comment:_Demographics]

Per User:PelleSmith's suggestion in the previous exchange, I would like to propose the following NPOV framework for this section of the article: Rather than relying on any single source as "best we could find" (and therefore providing it with a Wikipedia endorsement of sorts), I think a tabular approach (where the rows are the geographies and the columns represent the various reputable and verifiable perspectives on religiosity) would hit the right balance between offering too little and too much information. To avoid WP:OR concerns around arithmetic addition/summation as a form of analysis, we could leave the tallying of total counts and percentages, as well as graphical visualizations of the data as an exercise for the reader. There are several sources that seem to be accepted as reputable and verifiable, but which unfortunately use different methodologies and consequently reach very very different conclusions about the religiosity profile of the world's population.

Specifically, we could seed the table with the current adherents.com (or, more precisely, World Christian Encyclopedia) data, so as to allow for a certain amount of stability in the article, then lock the table and require any new columns to be submitted to some form of peer review. (Assuming that the Wikipedia process allows for an approach like this, from observing that various other contentious articles are locked in part or in whole.)

Opinions? --Ubarfay 03:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:RS guideline states:

Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic. [...] In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ. [Emphasis added]

On this basis, I propose that the data and interpretations of the World Values Survey with respect to self-identified religious denomination affiliation be incorporated into this section of the article. --Ubarfay 12:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC) [reformatted Ubarfay 02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)]

Once again I disagree that adherents.com is biased in any way. Dave Barett and the World Christian Encyclopaedia are world-class, and are accepted by Encyclopaedia Britannica. Leading people to adherents.com also allows users to find all the sources of statistics, and a discussion of how statistics are obtained. I believe it is the best sources -- Jeff3000 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, that's not responsive to any of the specific issues I've raised. Yes we can stipulate that you accept Rev. Barrett and the other reputable secondary and tertiary sources that quote him. We can further stipulate -- my personal opinion aside -- that I accept him and them as reliable secondary and tertiary sources according to the spirit and letter of the WP:RS guideline. What I am questioning is the use of any sole source for this section, based on the language in WP:RS quoted above. Do we have deadlock here? Do you not accept my interpretation of the guideline as it applies to this section of the article? Please clarify your position on this point. --Ubarfay 02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In my mind adherents.com by publishing and using many different sources fulfills the guideline. -- Jeff3000 03:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just sophistry. The WP:RS guideline isn't about how many sources sit behind an external source. It's about how many sources we cite here. For the data at issue, adherents.com is a tertiary source for the WCE as a secondary source for Barrett, for all the reasons I've documented above. I'll put up an alternative academic perspective, per the WP:RS guideline, and we can let the community and appeals processes take it from there if you wish to violate the guideline by attempting to prevent the inclusion of such an alternative perspective. I'll do you the courtesy of letting you select from among the non-Barrett/WCE sources cited on adherents.com if you'd prefer to do it that way, in deference to your seniority as an editor of this important page. --Ubarfay 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Adherents.com says that the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) reports 2.1 billion Christians in 2000. One reason why this figure probably seems high is that it is higher than the actual figure reported in the 2001 WCE, where table 1-1 lists 1,999,563,838 Christians as of mid-2000. In short, adherents.com does not quote the 2001 WCE accurately. While adherents.com is a convenient resource, it would probably be better to gather data from the 2001 WCE directly or to gather data from the updated online World Christian Database (WCD). The WCD is subscription based but recent WCD religious composition figures are avaiable at: http://www.thearda.com/Archive/CrossNational.asp. Goodhack 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diane de Poitiers

• May I ask why the symbol of Diane de Poitiers is included in the image at the top of the page? Unless I'm missing something here, I wasn't aware that she started a religion... -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing. Majolo 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get it either until I followed the link on the image, which links further to Triple_Goddess. It would probably be less confusing for the legend to say "Triple Goddess" rather than "Diane de Poitiers". --Ubarfay 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dab link

The whole point of dab lines are when people are searching for alternate definitions. When one term has much more appeal than others, instead of creating a disambiguation page, with links to multiple different pages, one instead creates a dab reference at the top. People searching for Religion, the movements, of course will just skip over the dab reference, but if someone is searching for the Religion the album, they will be able to be forwarded to the correct article. This is how Wikipedia works; if not there would be no easy way to find the album, or in general any search term that is is identical to another search term that is more popular. For example, London goes to the capital of the United Kingdom, but one could be searching for any other number of cities in the world. Please read, WP:DAB for more information. Specifically:

"disambiguation links — at the top of an article, a note that links the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that the reader may seek instead of the current article." -- Jeff3000 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adherents.com numbers should be replaced with accurate 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia data or recent World Christian Database data

There is a lot of debate about the adherents.com figures for world religions. As has been noted, they rely on the World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) but do not necessarily quote the WCE accurately. Adherents.com says that the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE) reports 2.1 billion Christians in 2000 whereas the actual figure reported in the 2001 WCE (table 1-1) is 1,999,563,838 Christians as of mid-2000. The relevant table seems to be replicated here: http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm. While adherents.com is a convenient resource, it would probably be better to gather data from the 2001 WCE directly or to gather data from the updated online World Christian Database (WCD). The WCD is subscription based but recent WCD religious composition figures are avaiable at: http://www.thearda.com/Archive/CrossNational.asp. While the reliability of the WCE/WCD has been questioned for various reasons, the reality is that there is no serious contender for reliable worldwide religious composition data. WCE reliability is certainly not increased by quoting its figures from a secondary source, especially when, in this case, the secondary source has incorrectly relayed data. Goodhack 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with the gist of this comment, and wholeheartedly endorse the use of "closer to the source" data. But I disagree that there are no serious contenders for reliable worldwide religious composition data. I also continue to be surprised that the transparent POV of sources with the word Christian in their name has not been cause for greater concern among the editorial community of this article. That personal opinion notwithstanding, my recommendation would be that the Demographics section of the article contain only a sample of reliable analyses, without endorsing any particular one, and then link to Major_religious_groups where the topic be given a more thorough treatment, with other perspectives afforded the same space as that given to Rev. Barrett and the secondary (tertiary?) sources that quote him. --Ubarfay 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What other source would you recommend Ubarfay? Above you mention the World Values Survey. This is a useful resource but it has two signficant limitations. First, it does not cover all countries in the world like the WCE does. Second, it produces a lot of unreliable estimates. Take the United States for example, where every year there are probably several major social surveys asking a national sample about their religious affiliation. I challenge you to find one major U.S. social survey such as the General Social Survey, the American Religious Identification Survey, the National Election Surveys, or the various Pew surveys on religion and public life that produce compositional estimates anywhere close to the WVS estimates for the U.S. There is a lot of consistency between these other sources about the % Catholic, mainline Protestant, evanglical Protestant, and Black Protestant but WVS estimates differ significantly. Goodhack 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. I mentioned the WVS because as I scan the Googleplex, it seems to be one of the primary data sources for scholarly research into the topic of religiosity/secularism. And, yes, it does not purport to be as comprehensive as the global numbers collected by Rev. Barrett's army of missionaries from all points of the compass. Not clear to me whether that's a strength or weakness where validity and reliability are concerned. The table that I had included briefly (temporarily removed pending its planned publication in a peer-reviewed journal) compared the WCE, WVS, Pew, the US State Dept and the US CIA. Those seemed to me like a fine start, if perhaps a tad US-centric.

Barrett may have biases and he does seem to get some data from on-the-ground missionaries in various countries but he relies on many other sources as well including national censuses, scholarly estimates, UN data, etc. Goodhack 14:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say he's not a reliable source. Just one with an obvious POV. --Ubarfay 17:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the ranges of estimates available for any given country, quite so! See my example re France above. Or, note the CIA entry on Argentina^[5]:

Religion nominally Roman Catholic 92% (less than 20% practicing), Protestant 2%, Jewish 2%, other 4%

Um ... okay, then, which is it for Catholic: 92% or <20%? On a population of 40-ish million, that's a swing of 28 million or so. And on and on. (Let's not even get into China yet.) I think it would be great to publish country by country estimates from all major reliable sources. Any references that you can pass along to the GSS, ARIS, NES data? Are the differences between these and the WVS based on differences in data collection or content of the surveys? The whole thrust of my critique of sole-sourcing the Demographics section of the article to Rev. Barrett (and using his high end estimate only for Christianity) is that it does not seem to me to uphold the WP:RS guideline concerning presenting multiple perspectives when there is difference of opinion. There is clearly such difference of opinion among the experts in the matter at hand, at least as far as the relative sizings (and thus the all-important stack rankings) of the Muslim, Christian and Non-religious cohorts are concerned. All constructive suggestions welcome. --Ubarfay 09:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can analyze GSS data here: http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm. Barry Kosmin has published a couple of books with data from ARIS (2000) and a similar 1990 survey. ANES data is here: http://www.electionstudies.org/. Pew data is available here: http://people-press.org/dataarchive/. Offhand, I am not sure why the WVS U.S. data differs so much from these other respected surveys. To the extent it is reliable, the WVS is only useful for estimating the religious populations of the countries it surveys (though it samples from an increasingly large portion of the world's population). Goodhack 14:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Ok, let's just zero in on the difference between the GSS and WVS figures for the USA. The GSS says 85.5% of the US population "has a preference" for either "Protestant" or "Catholic". (Fwiw, ANES, which also uses "preference" says 80%.) The WVS says that 50.1% "belong to [the] denomination[s]" "Orthodox", "Protestant" or "Catholic". Pretty big difference -- a swing of about 100 million. (And let's not forget that this is still counting minors.) But assuming that both survey data collection methodologies were rigorous, the difference can be explained by the wording. Strikes me that "belong to" is closer to a notion of "adherence" than is "preference". I think if we follow the WP:RS guideline here, we should show both numbers. Picking one and only one to put up for the homework crowd is majorly POV. --Ubarfay 17:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would personally love to see multiple estimates for all religious populations along with a discussion of the relative merits of each estimate, including the method by which it was produced. You have picked up on imporant differences between the GSS and the WVS for the U.S. My point is that there are many social surveys like the GSS that consistently produce similar estimates of U.S. religious adherance and the WVS is an aberration from all these surveys. Yes, membership is a more strict criterion than what may simply be a nominal sense of religious belonging tapped into by the GSS. But in the U.S., there are a lot of people who claim Catholic, Baptist, and many other identities though they don't formally belong to any church. Some of these people attend services all the time and some never attend. These matters could all be discussed in an entry on the religious composition of the U.S. However, at the world level, the WVS doesn't even include all the necessary countries to use it to derive world population estimates. For better or worse, at least with Christians, the WCE does attempt to subcategorize and quantify nominal and committed adherents. Goodhack 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are a cluster of surveys that use various vague and similar concepts like "affiliation", "preference" and "adherence" and these all tend to reflect the same general Christianate heritage of the USA. But other surveys that use, as you say, "a more strict criterion" like stated membership, frequency of participation, or belief in God, paint a very different profile. I have no objection to presenting profiles based on, as you say, "nominal sense of religious [something-or-other]". (That Princeton paper, btw, shows that the WCD claims roughly 30 million more Christians in the US and Canada alone than does the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches (2005).) My objection is to presenting only such profiles, which, as I believe I have documented adequately, overstate both aggregate religiosity and Christianity specifically. At the world level the issue really boils down to China and Latin America. In the case of China, the pro-religion POV is that there are 700-ish million religious Chinese, while the official PRC statistics -- granted, with an obvious communist/atheist POV -- give a figure <100 million. Is it really appropriate for Wikipedia, given the WS:RS guideline, to pick a side in that dispute? In the case of Latin America, it's all in the difference between official/registered and "practicing" Catholicism (e.g. the example of Argentina I gave in the previous post). So even if we accepted the Barrett estimates for countries not covered by other reliable sources, there's somewhere between a half and an entire Billion persons at issue between reliable sources. (Still counting minors, of course.) Seems to me that we ought to present these differing views. --Ubarfay 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best way is to study other Religion.

I request all Christians to study about Hindu Religion and Hindu should and must study about Islam and Islam for Christian than and only than (complete the sentence). vkvora

hello religion is very complecated but what you believe in is great and you should be very proud and happyy. But you should never make-fun of anyones religion because if your very proud of what you believe in they should be able to believe in theirs too!!!! thank you for looking at the updat and keep checkin it out but remember everyone is equal!!!

peace to you all!!!

[edit] From the opening paragraph:. . .?

This seems a little slanted and definitely unjustified.

"Also, religion is the reason there is war. There would be less killing without religion and the world would be better off." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.239.159 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Please do not Spam Wikipedia Entries

Regarding your recent addition of links to Religion among other entries: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.PelleSmith 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am new and unfamiliar to your rules. Sorry. After reading the links in your note, I am still unclear as to your specific objections. The linked blog is the latest update to a Webpage that is part of a Free Education Site - World Religions. The subject is very pertinent to the subject under study. Will you please scan the linked material and then cite your particular reason for deleting. If necessary, I can change the blog link to the original (but unedited) Webpage link - http://www.innerquest.org.ph/messagemadeplain/iq3131lesson3.htm. Thanks. Angel 02:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Blogs and personal webpages are not acceptable by default. -- Jeff3000 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Thank you Jeff3000. Am I correct then to conclude that if I am to change the link from the blog to the Webpage, this would be acceptable?

I have also added 2 other links to Spiritual Studies and Biblical Studies. These links were actual Webpages. Both materials are not only new perspectives, but pertinent, appropriate and provide useful and helpful information in my opinion. However, PelleSmith without even going over the material also similarly reverted them citing linkspam as his justification. I would like to hear from PelleSmith concerning his reasons for doing this. May I also hear from the others here how they feel concerning similar situations.

In my understanding as specifically expressed in your Rules, all Rules are not inflexible or set in stone but can be bent if such can be shown to be in the best interest of most users. More information sheds more light the better for everyone to come to an informed conclusion. Both pros and cons, all sides, should be aired in order that the Truth may out.Angel 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with this site? If you are then linking it is inappropriate because it is self-promotion. (And on the blog it says "Angel Luz - Innerquest"). So is that you Angel2000? If you are not officially affiliated then how do your links enrich the entries in question? The website www.innerquest.org.ph provides a particular view of religion, a very specific POV and interpretation of spiritual experiences. Is it a view held by many? Just because this site isn't officially a "blog" doesn't make it any less of a narrow point of view on the subject matter--much like a blog. Read the link again that that Jeff posted. The point of External Links in terms of an entry like this one is to provide space for relevent, enriching information that cannot otherwise be put into the entry. If we accommodated everyone's, or every organizations own spiritual point of view and/or insight the entry would be 99.99% External Links. This applies to the other two entries as well.PelleSmith 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Yes. I am affiliated and I am the writer, in fact. The site has been adjudged worthy of inclusion in the DMOZ Directory since 1999 under Society: Religion and Spirituality: New Age: Ascended Masters.

Other editors after much study and evaluation do not consider the site contents as being limited to a narrow point of view. They have instead opted to include the site in their directory and some readers have given it a 4 and ½ star rating.

I have not attempted to edit the information into your article so as not to upset your trend of thought. However, as in the other Wikipedia articles, opposing views are inserted where they can least be disruptive – as here in the links.

You would not want Wikipedia to be viewed as a less than comprehensive source or an encyclopedia that does not include as much relevant and important information as your other competitors.

I ask that those here relax the rules for the greater benefit of your users and allow the inclusion of this link in the articles. Angel 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. For content to be placed in the article, it has to be published by verifiable and reliable sources. Self-published material with no editorial oversight are not acceptable, and your website, regardless of if it is in a blog or other format does not pass Wikipedia policies. -- Jeff3000 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In regard to your reference to reliability (Non-scholarly sources):

Attributability – Everything anyone needs to know about us is available by visiting http://www.innerquest.org.ph/aboutus.htm

Expertise – Who best would know what the Spirits of Truth teach but those who are their students in their schools or centers. We have gained our knowledge direct from the source by way of our own personal experiences. All others can only come to know in part by hearing of them from other direct witnesses or reading Scriptures and books written by others.

Bias – Everyone who writes writes with a bias. Most are biased in favor of the traditional and the conservative, the old knowledge rather than the new. This is not a NPOV. The old and the traditional have always undergone and will undergo some new changes over time. This is fact. Where possible, we always try to integrate the new with the old. However, more often, this is not possible. Instead, an encyclopedia, the purpose of which is principally to provide credible and comprehensive information, can present both sides and all important aspects bearing on the subject and allow its users to choose and determine for themselves which among the alternatives or positions offered are best applicable and acceptable to them. While presenting different POVs, it should not favor any. Full disclosure is best.

Editorial oversight – Less than half of the materials admittedly underwent editing by others. Students of the Spirits of Truth are different from others. To us, sources, authors and authorities, and all messengers be they sanctioned or divine are not important. It is the message that is all-important. We should question and subject all propositions to analysis and test. Only those that test true in the light of our personal experience should be accepted and everything else should be rejected or judgment suspended until it can be subsequently verified and validated.

Replicability – All seekers and students of Truth will eventually arrive at the same conclusions provided they do their own seeking. Truth is One. However, there are levels in the order of evolution. Everyone proceeds forward grade by grade.

Declaration of sources and Corroboration – A comprehensive discussion of how the Spirits of Truth assist and guide their students can be found by visiting http://www.innerquest.org.ph/secretsofthekingdom/iq325holyspirit2.htm. In addition, it is important to note that the InnerQuest materials do not represent the writer’s own POV, but is in fact the integration of all POVs. Confirmations are available by cross-referencing the teachings and beliefs espoused by all sectors of society, both worldly and spiritual – the scientific, the academe, all the religions and all new sources. Many are featured in Wikipedia, including the Bible, Aquarian Gospel, Theosophy, Spiritualism, Spiritism, Allan Kardec, Edgar Cayce, Lobsang Rampa, Ruth Montgomery and others. The Spirit Guides speaking through InnerQuest connects them all in One.

Confidentiality – In our studies, almost nothing is secret. Most everything is revealed and explained. Further, confirmations are available through one’s own personal experiencing. However, understanding depends on the student, according to his efforts and just deserts. There are levels to every teaching even here on earth.

Recognition by other reliable sources – The materials in the InnerQuest Website are mostly New Teachings that form part of the New Age. Nevertheless, they originate from and relate to some earlier sources. These sources are named in the appropriate Webpages.

Age of the source and rate of change of the subject – Divine revelation is as old as man. However, for our purposes we quote the words of Jesus:

"I have used proverbs to tell you these things, but the time is coming when the truth shall not be so veiled and I will speak to you plainly about the Father." (JN 16)

"If you adhere to my teaching, you will really be my disciples; and you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free." (JN 8)

"Oh, there is so much more I want to tell you, but you cannot understand it now. When the Spirit of Holiness and Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth." (JN 16)

Persistence – The InnerQuest Website has been online since 1999. Except for minor editing for grammatical, literary and factual errors, there have been very few changes made and none where the divine principles are concerned. God’s Truth is eternal. All true sources will concur.

I will appeal no further than what I have already written here, except to answer your questions or provide clarifications.

I must remind you that Wikipedia constitutes the collective will of every user. Let yourself be heard. Each of you individually must decide for yourself what is in the best interest of Wikipedia and its users. It is your consensus that will decide this issue. Choose not to withhold vital information from yourselves and others that will enable you to more properly appreciate the Divine Teachings.

I ask again that you allow the inclusion of the InnerQuest links in Wikipedia articles. I will await your collective final decision. Angel 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry your arguments just don't pass muster.

• Attributability: Yes, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is verifiability, and while your website might be verifiable (it is not at this point since it is a personal website and doesn't pass Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, not every thing that is verifiable is included in Wikipedia. You should read What Wikipedia is Not.
• Expertise: Your comment on expertise that "Who best would know what the Spirits of Truth teach but those who are their students" is besides the point. The point is who is Spirits of Truth and why would their view be important. Sources on the views of the Spirits of Truth would only be acceptable in a Spirits of Truth article. (From the verifiability policy, "Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material") Also from the neutral point of view policy section on undue weight section "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia" (I should mention at this point that for there to be a Students of Truth article, there must be third-party verifiable sources about the organization and it must be notable under Wikipedia's Notability guidelines.)
• Bias: Yes there are biases, but Wikipedia only publishes things that are published in reliable sources under the neutral point of view, and once again note that minority views need not be published. Your website does not pass the reliable source guideline and is a tiny minority view.
• Editorial oversight: While your organization's belief of what is important or not important and that everything should be tested may be a good technique (I sincerely believe in Independent Investigation of Truth), but your organization's belief is besides the point. The point is Wikipedia policy, and self-published resources by definition are not acceptable in Wikipedia.
• Replicability: What does this have to do with inclusion in Wikipedia. It might be a claim of of Students of Truth, and would only be acceptable in an article on Students of Truth.
• Declaration of sources and Corroboration, Confidentiality, and others: All your arguments have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies including verifiability, reliable sources and undue weight. -- 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. To us students, the term Holy Spirit means just that -- a spirit that is already holy. But instead of calling them by their collective group name, we prefer to call them Spirits of Truth or Spirits of Light, our ascended Brothers. Their group constitutes the First Class of Spirits - Pure Spirits. In their work of assisting us in our development, they are joined by others below their rank. Based on one classification, there are 10 Groups, from the Pure and Holy Spirits to the Impure. For more on them, click on http://www.innerquest.org.ph/articles/iq2305orderspirits.htm.

FIRST ORDER and CLASS — PURE SPIRITS

General Characteristics — The influence of matter, null; a superiority, both intellectual and moral, so absolute as to constitute what, in comparison with the spirits of all the other orders, may be termed perfection.

Spirits of this order have passed through every degree of the scale of progress and have freed themselves from all the impurities of materiality. Having attained the sum of perfection of which created beings are susceptible, they no longer have to undergo either trials or expiations. Being no longer subject to reincarnation in perishable bodies, they enter on the life of eternity in the immediate presence of God. They are in the enjoyment of a beatitude which is unalterable, because they are no longer subject to the wants and vicissitudes of material life; but this beatitude is not the monotonous idleness of perpetual contemplation. They are the messengers and ministers of God, the executors of His orders in the maintenance of universal harmony. They exercise a sovereign command over all spirits inferior to themselves, aid them in accomplishing the work of their purification, and assign to each of them a mission proportioned to the progress already made by them. To assist men in their distresses, to excite them to the love of good or to the expiation of the faults which keep them back on the road to the supreme felicity, are for them congenial occupations. They are sometimes spoken of as angels, archangels or seraphim. They can, when they choose to do so, enter into communication with men. Angel 05:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please STOP This has ceased to be a discussion of the Religion entry and has become a staging ground for preaching. Please take this form of discussion to your user talk pages at the very least. This talk page, as are all entry talk pages, is a space for discussing the entry and its contents. Thanks.PelleSmith 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this link SPAM? Please weigh in.

User Angel2000 desires some kind of "collective decision" about whether or not the links to his own web page are considered SPAM as he posts them on Wikipedia entries like this one (the original post was a copy from his blog but the materials all come from the website below). Can others please offer some insight to Angel since apparently neither Jeff nor I are convincing him.

http://www.innerquest.org.ph/secretsofthekingdom/iq325holyspirit2.htm

Are these links SPAM?PelleSmith 12:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: SPAM. While interesting, adding such a link would be no better than using Wikipedia as a directory. There is already a link available to New Age. Moreover, many of these recent posts have taken on form of evangelizing. That is not acting in good faith of the rules, however flexible we would like them to be. We could certainly list the thousands of websites that proclaim a unique view of the world and faith...but isn't that the job of Google? This in no way deligitimizes the views or beliefs of the Inner Quest organization. However, the following quote demonstrates the POV that Wikipedia is trying to avoid:

If you believe you are already saved, needing to do nothing more, if you think you already know the Truth or that you don't and no one can, if you feel that there is nothing more that you need to learn or you are content not knowing, then STOP — close this page, and don't ever come back. (http://www.innerquest.org.ph/index.html)

So, I suggest keeping this out of the entry. Cheers--Jonashart 14:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies to everyone for being a pain. My intentions however are honorable. This is to clarify my request for inclusion of the following links to Wikipedia articles for reasons already enumerated, previously:

Religion: Continuing progressive revelations and the unity of all religious teachings -- http://www.innerquest.org.ph/secretsofthekingdom/iq3231worldreligions.htm

Spiritual studies: Inner Quest, a Free Education Website -- http://www.innerquest.org.ph/

Biblical studies: The Message made plain – The Inner Quest free study course on the Teachings of Jesus -- http://www.innerquest.org.ph/messagemadeplain/iq31messagemadeplain.htm

Please feel free to express your true sentiments. Everyone is entitled to his own views. I will abide by your decision. Thank you. Angel 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam, definitely, all three. Proselytizing POV website. Fram 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do respect your views, I notice that only a few of you have expressed their opinion and I suspect that these opinions were rendered without you first conducting even a cursory study of the matter. Hence my clarifications. Further, it is questionable whether a true consensus can be reached where only a very few opt to signify their decision while the rest keep silent.

I feel that content, substance and perceived benefit to all users should be the main determining factors in deciding whether to include information and links in Wikipedia articles. Certainly not popularity. The rules are secondary and should be enforced or relaxed depending on the merits.

I ask that you please go over the proposed linked Article on World Religions comparing it with the contents of other already inserted links and evaluate this matter more throughly before rendering your individual decision to INCLUDE or NOT INCLUDE.

As it stands now, PelleSmith, Jeff, Jonashart and Fram have voted to NOT INCLUDE based solely on the basis of the Rules. Do they speak for all of you?

I will wait 30 more days to allow ample time for everyone to come to a decision. Thank you. Angel 03:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assumptions, but I have checked the links and done more than a "cursory study of the matter". I don't see any useful content, little substance, and certainly no benefit to all users in your links (they have no benefit for me, so they can't have benefits for all users). Furthermore; what you feel should be the determining factors for including links is irrelevant here. We have to stick to the guidelines and policies, like WP:EL. If you think those are wrong, try to change consensus there. I'll grant you one thing: some of the other links may well have to be removed as well. All in good time though, and this is not a reason to include these ones as well. Fram 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions re: Religions as progressively true/as absolutely true

Here are some of my observations and information that you might want to include or insert in the Entry Religion:

1. Bahai according to its official Website has about 5M believers. Spiritism alone, not counting Spiritualism and Channeling count for more and teach basically the same truths. Yet the latter are not mentioned in this regard in this Entry. Perhaps you might consider inserting this information.

2. Hinduism believes in Avatars, advanced beings who volunteer to reincarnate in flesh and aid us in our development providing additional instruction and examples, as needed.

3. Judaism is still waiting for its Messiah.

4. Buddhism awaits the coming of Maitreya who is to provide the next progressive step forward.

5. Christianity insists that Christ will come again. Even as many Fundamentalist Christians insist that Truth is already revealed in full, Jesus affirms that his parables will be further explained and he will speak more plainly, and adds that the Holy Spirit will guide us to “all truth”.

6. New Age – The Aquarian Gospel expressly declares that Christ comes at first of every new age. Theosophy, Lobsang Rampa for Lamaism, Spiritism of Kardec and the ARE of Edgar Cayce all teach that the entire Physical Plane is simply a school system for evolving spirits. References are made to Root Races and Rounds of Existence in the Eastern Teachings and to Ascending Orders of Spirits in the Western counterparts. New Agers in general and all of these 5 major groups expect that Christ, not necessarily the same entity as Jesus, is coming in the flesh in this Age of Aquarius.

Personalized instruction and guidance is specially fitted to each individual spirit-student according to his level in the order of evolution. This accounts for the wide-spread disagreements in regard to what the true teachings are. Precisely, the New Age Movement is the actual preparation for this upgrading in our instruction in this New Age and the coming again of Christ.

Note that while there are references in the Religion Entry relating to past prophets up to the present, these observations relate to future happenings.

I do not care to upset another’s work. Different writing styles may not be compatible and could result in disjointed and ineffective presentations. Although I may differ in certain aspects, we are all different, I nevertheless find the article on the whole to be reasonably well-written.

If you should also find that these information are worthy of mention, then I would request the previous writers to please help in the re-drafting and edit them into the Article. Angel 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The influence of reason in modern man's religious beliefs.

I respectfully recommend that the topic of Religion should include the topic of reason's influence in modern man's religious beliefs. For this purpose, and in its support, I submit the reference: [12]. To do otherwise and ignore this recommendation, failing in said inclussion, I believe simply promotes narrow mindedness, shortchanging the reader and perpetuating myths. Sincerely, Xavier March 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable as sources in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Your recommendation does not support a NPOV, it seems to be stating that religious beliefs are narrow minded and are myths. That is not neutral. Faranya 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion as a Byproduct of Evolutionary Psychology; Does anyone have any thoughts on how to integrate this material?

In a recent edit, the following (see below) was added to the entry. This type of theory is more generally covered in the "religion as a social construction" group. Is there a way to work a summary of material below into this group or another part of the entry? In my view, this information regards a theory too specific to be granted the space it was given. Since the theory is really a sub genre of the social construction group it also comes of as awkward and a matter of undue weight as it was posted. Anyone have any thoughts? Here is the afore mentioned text (follow the link above for the diff):

"Religion as a Byproduct of Evolutionary Psychology

This model holds that religion is the byproduct of the cognitive modules in the human brain that arose in our evolutionary past to deal with problems of survival and reproduction. Initial concepts of supernatural agents may arise in the tendency of humans to "over detect" the presence of other humans or predators (momentarily mistaking a vine for a snake). For instance, a man might report that he felt something sneaking up on him, but it vanished when he looked around.[3]

Stories of these experiences are especially likely to be retold, passed on and embellished due to their descriptions of standard ontological categories (human, artifact, animal, plant, natural object) with counterintuitive properties (humans that are invisible, houses that remember what happened in them, etc.). These stories become even more salient when they are accompanied by activation of non-violated expectations for the ontological category (humans that are invisible activates our intuitive psychology of mind; i.e. we automatically attribute thought processes to them). [4]

One of the attributes of our intuitive psychology of mind is that humans are interested in the affairs of other humans. This may result in the tendency for concepts of supernatural agents to inevitably cross connect with human intuitive moral feelings (evolutionary behavioral guidelines). In addition, the presence of dead bodies creates an uncomfortable cognitive state in which dreams and other mental modules (person identification and behavior prediction) continue to run decoupled from reality producing incompatible intuitions that the dead are somehow still around. When this is coupled with the human predisposition to see misfortune as a social event (as someone's responsibility rather than the outcome of mechanical processes) it may activate the intuitive "willingness to make exchanges" module of the human theory of minds resulting in the tendency of humans to try to interact and bargain with their supernatural agents (ritual). [5]

In a large enough group, some individuals will seem better skilled at these rituals than others and will become specialists. As the societies grow and encounter others, competition will ensue and a "survival of the fittest" effect may cause the practitioners to modify their concepts to provide a more abstract, more widely acceptable version. Eventually the specialist practitioners form a cohesive group or guild with its attendant political goals (religion). [6]"

Like I said, any suggestions?PelleSmith 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for moving my inputs to this section for discussion instead of just deleting them. In the future I will "test run" material in a similar manner before altering an already accepted article. I did not feel that the current evolutionary psychology theories of religion belonged under the "religion as a social construction" group due to the fact that the concepts of supernatural agents arise initially from individual brains due to their vary nature. However, they do go through a social "vetting" process when repeated and passed along. The theories derived from evolutionary psychology might fit better if the section were re-titled "Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" instead of "Religion as a Social Construct." The only section in the "religion as a social construction" group that seemed similar was the line: "The Theory of Religion Model states that religion arose from some psychological or moral pathology in religious leaders and believers." However, this is not the same theory, as evolutionary psychologists do not regard religion as arising from a "malfuntioning" brain, but rather as arising from a normal functioning brain while still being a misperception. The current theories are relatively new (Pascal Boyers book Religion Explained was only published in 2001) but have enormous predictive power. The theory successfully explains the cross cultural similarities of supernatural beliefs and the types of supernatural agents that inevitably arise. It also explains the nearly universal anthropomorphic nature of those agents. Finally, the theory gives detailed, testable explanations for each of the steps in the origin and evolution of religious concepts. I look forward to reading you comments. Keyrok

I thought this was a high quality, well referenced addition. IMO it does belong under the "social construct" section, which I support renaming as suggested here. (Humans are naturally social animals, so any social construct that arises as universally as religion can arguably be taken as natural. I am, however, no sociologist, and would defer to expert opinion.) Yes it was lengthy, but frankly the other "social construct" theories could use some expansion. They're covered here in far too sketchy a way to be useful. If that means splitting the article at some point, fine. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against renaming the social construction section as suggested. If we get down to it anything and everything is a "natural" phenomenon. The idea that human beings, given social contexts, create religions is quite different from the idea that religion is encoded in the biochemistry of our gray matter. Perhaps we should create a fourth category named as suggested. Then we could move relevant theories there, along with the one associated with Boyer. However, this one theory cannot be afforded more than the short paragraph that other specific theories are afforded. These categories after all are theory "groups". The place for more lengthy explanation would be in an entry of its own. Then you could link to it from here. So you will need to boil this down to a couple of good sentences either way. Also, Keyrok, as much as I realize you like this particular theory, its not necessary to try to sell it to us on the grounds that it has great predictive value, etc. The issue will never be whether or not any one of us find the theory more convincing than other theories (and I personally do not). The issue is most practically, is this theory prominent enough to go in? If the answer is yes, then it gets afforded no more space than any other. Does that make sense?PelleSmith 02:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly your point makes sense. Perhaps it fits better in the expanded link DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGION which already has a link to it on the RELIGION page. I have included it there under the Social Construct section for now. Would you consider a two line description on the main RELIGION page under the RELIGION AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT section along the lines of: A recent theory that has arisen from the science of evolutionary psychology is that religion is essentially a byproduct of the cognitive modules in the human brain that arose in our evolutionary past to deal with problems of survival and reproduction (agent detection, contagion avoidance, intuitive theory of mind, etc.). The interplay of these various modules produces concepts of supernatural agents that care about human behavior and can be interacted with through rituals. Keyrok

OK. I think there may still be a notability problem. I did some research, and I could only find 3 reviews of this book by searching the religion database (ATLA) which covers all major journals dealing with religion in the United States (along with several European ones). The two reviews not written by psychologists are rather disparaging. Now, the issue isn't whether or not they are correct in their critiques of Boyer, but that his relatively NEW theory is clearly not a very well received one at the moment. Given that it is so recent, it is difficult to see how any argument could be made for its notability. It is new, it is novel, and it has been met with criticism by most people who have bothered to pay any attention to it. That's not a good start. Above I wrote: "The issue is most practically, is this theory prominent enough to go in?". Unless you can convince me otherwise I believe the answer to this question is NO. However, maybe I'm misguided on this, and also it is possible that other "theories" mentioned in the entry should also be similarly tested. So in my opinion I think we shouldn't include even this much. Maybe you can make an entry for this theory and we can name drop it with a link. Anyone ideas?PelleSmith 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) FYI ... 3 reviews since the date of publication in 2001 is very, very little, especially for a relatively well known name like Pascal Boyer.PelleSmith 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am quite certain that the article would benifit from inclusion of some reference to these theories. First, the Karl Marx and Bertrand Russell quotes are really nothing more than trite aphorisms and are not being used as models for the study of religion by any modern researcher. As such, if the theories based on evolutionary psychology don't belong, then these don't either. Second, the use of evolutionary psychology and cognitive neurology to explain the phenomenon of religion is clearly a growing field of study as evidenced by the large number of books readily available on the subject.

Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer, Basic Books (2001)</

www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/boyer_religious_concepts.htm, Funtional Origins of Religious concepts, Pascal Boyer</

Faces in the Clouds, Stewart Elliot Guthrie, Oxford University Press (1995

How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion. By Ilkka Pyysiainen

In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Evolution and Cognition Series) by Scott Atran

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Matt Ridley

The evolutionary psychology of religion.(Cover story): An article from: The Humanist [HTML] (Digital) by Steven Pinker (Author)

Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (Hardcover) by Raymond F. Paloutzian (Editor), Crystal L. Park (Editor)

Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion (Hardcover) by Lee A. Kirkpatrick (Author)

Where God and Science Meet [Three Volumes]: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion (Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality) (Hardcover) by Patrick McNamara (Editor)

Also, I found several reviews of the Boyer book Religion Explained. Although they don't agree on all points (but do on many) they clearly recognize it as a theory worth consideration.

http://www.kellybulkeley.com/articles/reviews_boyer_pyy.htm

http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/religion/boyerp.htm

http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/rev1_9_02.html

If you still do not believe that the Wikipedia readers would benifit from awareness of the latest theories can you provide a few references for books or articles that list the most accepted current explanations for the origin and development of religions? I do not believe that the article, as written, does justice to the topic. Keyrok (7 Feb 2007)

First and foremost we are not here to judge or decide on what "Wikipedia readers would benefit" from. We are here to attempt to create and refine encyclopedic entries on various subject matters. The judgments we make are not in terms of what theories are "better" than others but on what theories are notable or prominent enough. You may claim that quoting Marx is trite, but a great deal of English speakers can identify Marx with a particular view of religion quite readily. This says nothing about how well Marx has elaborated his theories, but how recognizable they are--how much they "mean" in reference. In terms of the overarching theoretical inclination that you point to in your laundry list of books, your point is well taken. I think there is an increasing tendency to reduce religion to psycho-somatic, neurological, and/or other such phenomena. This tendency is quite notable presently, but through the more popular works you have mentioned and not, as far as I know, through Pascal Boyer. In academia, I'm afraid, explaining the origin or development of religion has long fallen out of fashion. The closest thing to a well received and often quoted recent work in that vein, is Roy Rappaport's "Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity". By this I mean most specifically that more than just a narrow group of academics have found Rappaport's work of use in understanding the roots of religion and society. But most academics feel that theories attempting to explain what Boyer's theory tries to account for are more problematic than productive.PelleSmith 00:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am endeavoring to reach a consensus here. Earlier you said that "The place for a more lengthy explanation would be in an entry of its own" and so I moved the bulk of the discussion to the link page for Development of Religion. You also said that "you will need to boil this down to a couple of good sentences either way" which I did on the main religion page before you deleted that also. Then you said that "The issue is most practically, is this theory prominent enough to go in?" so I provided a list of authors and books that are approaching the study of religion from this standpoint. In fact, one of the references already used in the section on the development of religion (Johnson, George (2006-01). Getting a Rational Grip on Religion: Is religion a fit subject for scientific scrutiny?. Scientific American. Retrieved on October 12, 2006.) makes reference to the Pascal Boyer book. I have not found a copy of Rappaport's book yet, but the Cambridge web page sums it up as "Combining adaptive and cognitive approaches to the study of humankind, he mounts a comprehensive analysis of religion’s evolutionary significance, seeing it as co-extensive with the invention of language and hence of culture as we know it." (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521228732) which, although not the same in all aspects, is similar in some (namely, the evolutionary roots of religion in human cognition). According to the "About Wikipedia" page, "Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." Along those lines, I believe the following addition to the Religion as a Social Construction section of the Development of Religion area fits the standards of Wikipedia (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research) and should be included:

A recent theory that has arisen from the science of evolutionary psychology is that religion is essentially a byproduct of the cognitive modules in the human brain that arose in humanity's evolutionary past to deal with problems of survival and reproduction (agent detection, contagion avoidance, intuitive theory of mind, etc.). The interplay of these various modules produces concepts of supernatural agents that care about human behavior and can be interacted with through rituals. ^[6]

Of course, if you think it could be worded better, I would certainly appreciate your editing input. If you still disagree, it would probably be best if we requested mediation or arbitration from other editors. Let me know what you think. Keyrok, 11 Feb 07.

[edit] Power wiki admin, please help to add the following info....

I wish to see the relevant accademic periodicals to be listed in the article. These include:

http://www.nlx.com/journals/rvm.htm

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-8294&site=1

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cmhr;jsessionid=y1kcojl3oqlk.victoria

http://www.leaonline.com/loi/ijpr?cookieSet=1

http://www.leaonline.com/loi/jmr

http://rra.hartsem.edu/reviewof.htm

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/ ---- review needed

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-6571/

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1368-4868

http://www.religionandnature.com/journal/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/13537903/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/rsr

http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/jjrsMain.htm

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1479-2206&site=1

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1350-7303&site=1

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0384-9694

http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cjbv

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JR/toc.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/jra

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/crss

Please elaborate. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. The only reason a journal would be listed is through a reference to a specific article with a relevant piece of information. What exactly is your wish?PelleSmith 12:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

----Please have a look at my comment regarding this issue at Talk:Christianity. Sadly, none of the above journals are referred by the artile. The information contained in those journals represents the most current religious movement authentically and veritably on the earth. I would like to know how the front article reflects the modern religous movement which is current and updated? If not, the article is at least partially propagating cults rather than religion, I'm afraid

[edit] Mormon apologists at work here?

It seems to me that a general article on religion should not include claims by Mormon apologists (obviously) about the uniqueness of their religion as a via media between all the squabbling others: "The model of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is nuanced differently than either the progressively true model or the absolutely true model, in that its leaders have taught (etc.)" This claim is not obviously true, nor do the references cited substantiate the claim in the least. The claim in the article is not whether Mormons believe this, but whether this belief is unique to Mormons alone.

The paragraph I cite seems a classic apologetic "setup" -- pose two alternatives which, in conflict, seem equally unattractive; then offer a via media that will seem attractive to anyone of good will. It's a fallacy of oversimplification.

Furthermore, it's not obvious that Mormonism poses the only possible via media. That it's the only one mentioned suggests that for this Wikipedia article, "the Mormons got here before anyone else."

Finally, for a general article about religion to get as granular as to dote on a single sect on the fringes of Christendom -- well, it smacks of apologists at work.

rasqual 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur (although I had to look up Via Media in Wikipedia to understand what you were saying). As it is written, it seems to fit more in the "Progressively True" section. Keyrok, 12 Feb 07.

[edit] Atheism should be removed from the "Belief Systems" block

It should be placed in a "Non-belief Systems" block to avoid confusion, as atheism is in no way based on belief.

Atheism isn't based upon belief? It isn't a system of belief? I don't even know where to begin understanding how someone would substantiate that claim but please do so we can have a reason to make this change.PelleSmith 18:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Atheism is not based upon belief. Atheists in general do not have a belief that deities do not exist in the same sense that theists have a belief that a deity does exist. Atheists lack belief in deities, which is not the same as believing they do not exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimmy111988 (talk • contribs).

And a Pure Lands Buddhist doesn't have "a belief that deities exist" in exactly the same sense as a Catholic. So what are we to make of that? By the way, atheists do not simply lack belief in deities. In order to "lack belief in deities" as opposed to affirmatively believing that deities do not exist, you either have to acknowledge the question "do deities exist?" yet be unsure of the answer, making you an agnostic and not an atheist, or you have to be totally ignorant of the whole question, which is rather absurd. Atheism is the term given to the affirmation, or "belief", that deities do not exist. Or to quote the entry Atheism: "Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist". While I agree that the type of belief isn't exactly the same, as I have suggested, the types of belief in deities between traditions isn't always either. Atheism is just as much a system of belief, of believing something, as various theisms are. I don't agree with your suggestion to remove it from the box.PelleSmith 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Even the weakest forms of "weak atheism" affirm a belief about the question of belief in a deity. The only form that doesn't is the one I mentioned above as being absurd, because in our present context it is. That is being unaware of the idea of a deity in the first place--or being totally ignorant of the whole question.PelleSmith 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you will find upon reading atheist literature that very few atheists affirmatively believe no deities or higher powers exist. The definition of atheism on the Atheism entry seems to be the theist definition and not the one atheists define it as. Belief for and belief against something are not the only two options. Between them lies doubt, which is what atheists have.

And doubt is also what most "theists" have. Do you think most people who consider themselves religious think they know with certainty that a deity exists more so than people who claim to be atheists know with certainty that no deity exists? Look, the fact remains that atheism is as much of a belief system as the religious traditions, and non-religious traditions, in that belief system box. By the way, the atheism you are identifying, this weak atheism that you claim most "atheists" have is a very new phenomenon. "Doubters" similar to today's weak atheists would in the past never have called themselves "atheists". Many of us today, who might also fit this "weak atheism" category refuse to identify as such as well given the literal and classical understanding of what atheism is -- the affirmative belief that there are no deities. But this is all mincing words. We all believe something.PelleSmith 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I seems fine where it is to me. If you removed it you'd also have to remove agnosticism, humanism, etc. based on the same logic. On the other hand, while humanism is a full belief system (Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience and superstition) atheism is generally just a stance on a particular topic. However, I think it fits in the section as a list of alternative beliefs about religion in general. Keyrok, 16 Feb.

What would you say is a more accurate description of atheism - the definition given by atheists, which states that most atheists are "weak" atheists, or the definition given by theists, which is designed to discredit atheism by asserting that it is based on just as much belief as their system is?

How about we leave them in there, asterisked or "(see note below)"ed, and put a prominent note immediately below the list that "Atheism is not a belief system per se..." or however you want to word it (I'm not trying to weasel-word it to suggest, "Atheists sort of have a belief system, but not reeeeaallllyy..." -- which is why I'm suggesting someone else write the text). If atheism, agnosticism, etc are not listed, one might come to think that their omission indicates that their numbers are negligible, rather than excluded because of a strict definition of belief. Given the contentious nature of (and around) religion, I think it's important to include all the numbers possible of all the (non-)belief (non-)systems. Just a thot. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 23:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's transparent belief-ist/faith-ist/theist POV to assert that Atheism is simply another form of belief. That line of reasoning is designed to nullify the atheistic worldview advantage in the predominating epistemology of our time (at least among the world's educated elites), which is so strongly biased to empiricism. It turns on the meanings of the words Belief, Truth and Knowledge. PelleSmith quotes the Atheism entry too selectively above. The full lead reads as follows: "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist. However, others—including most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities." All of that said, I also concur with his point in Talk:Religion#Disputed_Lead_addition below, that the article risks becoming over-focused on the contentious belief aspects -- which for this style of community process will leave it in a perpetual state of dispute, edit, counter-edit and flamefesting -- rather than the more factual behavioral aspects of Religion, which are much more suited to an NPOV treatment. I like the idea of creating a separate article as a home for the philosophical debates and trying to keep this one as neutral and stable as possible. Ubarfay 02:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worst Article on Wikipedia Award

"Religion" has my vote for the Worst Article on Wikipedia. It is such a convoluted concatenation of compromises, that it conveys nothing. If you didn't know what the term meant, could you get any sense of it from reading the first paragraph, or even the entire introduction? This definition reduces the power of the English language to convey concepts with terms. According to Wikipedia, "religion" has no associated concept, just a bunch of conflicting compromises designed to keep anyone's toes from being stepped on. If we can't come up with something better than this, those accusing us of groupthink are right: Wikipedia is nothing more than compromise by the masses except when overpowered by a self-proclaimed authority. Sorry to be so hard on you, but despite all your efforts, the cumulative result of the work done here is a big stinking pile of cow dung. --Peter the Great 19:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which of course is why it's rated a "B". You sound like one of those "self-proclaimed authority" people.--Smkolins 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important update reverted...

Jeff3000 reverted my addition to the beginning of the Religion article. He coded it a "(rvt POV)". I'm asking for clarification. There are 2 components to my addition--firstly, that "Most commonly held religions suggest that God exists", and secondly, that "There is no empirical evidence for God's existence." Which part do you question, Jeff? -- Murftown 06:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The second; there are many proofs of the existence of God, based solely on logic, such as William Hatcher's proof, which you can find in his book, "Love, Power and Justice." You're statement is a major oversimplification of the discussions of the existence of a supernatural being, and has no placement in the lead of an article. -- Jeff3000 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But I was not speaking of purely logical proofs. I was speaking about empirical evidence. The source I cited compiles all well-known arguments for and against the existence of God, and it does not mention any empirical arguments for the God's existence. Maybe we just had a misunderstanding? -- Murftown 06:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Only mentioning one type of evidence by ignoring other types of evidences is not NPOV, and is not allowed, especially in the lead of the article which is supposed to be a summary of the article. This article is not about the existence of God. -- Jeff3000 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community places a very high priority on verifiability (see wiki:verifiability). While the article itself is not about the existence of God, most widely-held religions do center around it. Therefore, when people learn about religion it's very appropriate and important for them to think about the verifiability (by empirical evidence) of God. That's why I'm making this update. -- Murftown 7:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, verifiability is one of the three core policies, but so is Neutral point of view. From the verifiability page about the three core policies: "They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." From the Neutral Point of View policy page: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source". Thus you addition, not only was in not totally relevant to this page, it is not neutral. -- Jeff3000 07:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is very important. What I posted is factual and, I feel, revelant to people who are reading about religion, but I will try to improve my update, paying special attention to NPOV. -- Murftown 7:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What you feel is revelant is besides the point. This is an article about religion, not an article about the existence of God, and might I also add that there are non-theistic religions. Your addition does not fit within the confines of WP:LEAD. -- Jeff3000 07:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits again. Who says that the existence of God is "crucial to a well-grounded study of religion", and why does that statement have any place in the lead when it plays no part in the rest of the article. -- Jeff3000 07:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, your edit is still not NPOV, since it clearly implies in it that belief in a God is an unreasonable belief, when there are tons of totally logical proofs of the existence of God. Instead of placing your POV edits in the article, place them here, and let others comment on them. -- Jeff3000 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Instead of placing your POV edits in the article, place them here, and let others comment on them."

I think the best way to get feedback from others is to leave my edit on the page so people can see it. With your understanding, I will post it back there shortly, with some edits that will hopefully make it more agreeable to you.

"...there are tons of totally logical proofs of the existence of God."

As far as logical proof of God is concerned, I'll say "fair enough" about Hatcher's proof--with his 3 assumptions and a little 1st-order logic, Hatcher shows that there is some unique, atomic cause of everything. To me, "unique, atomic cause" sounds as much like a description of the gravitational singularity that may have preceded the Big Bang as it does like any kind of God we talk about in relation to modern religion. (Do note that Wikipedia says that God is "the sole creator, or at least the sustainer...", indicating that his/her main role is not to be a First Cause.) However, because my words and his proof together could create confusion for some, I'll go ahead and specify that I'm talking about "a God who holds sway over the present world." Hatcher doesn't even try to prove that.

"Secondly, your edit is still not NPOV, since it clearly implies in it that belief in a God is an unreasonable belief..."

My edit does not imply that. It notes the lack of empirical evidence, and notes that some persist in their belief in God for other reasons that they feel outweigh this lack of empirical evidence. For example, many justify their beliefs using the many non-empirical arguments for the existence of God provided right here on Wikipedia. I mention in my edit that fact that many persist in their faith because I am attempting to "represent fairly and without bias all significant views..." (WP:NPOV) so that we can come to an agreeable state for this page.

"Who says that the existence of God is "crucial to a well-grounded study of religion", and why does that statement have any place in the lead when it plays no part in the rest of the article."

But the existence of God is all over this article! For example, the "Religious Belief" section says "Religious belief usually relates to the existence, nature and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life." The Criticism also section discusses the existence of God, and the "Development" section discussing the various ways a religion may be held to be "true" is conceptually related to the existence and nature of God. I think most people will agree that their religious beliefs (or lacks thereof) are strongly correlated with their thoughts on the existence of God.

"...and might I also add that there are non-theistic religions." (from a previous comment)

True. I am talking about the "most commonly-held religions". For clarity, I'll narrow my focus to the 3 most commonly-held ones, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Correction by Murftown--Judaism is not actually one of the 3 most commonly-held religions. Nonetheless, these 3 religions are very important in our world, so I will narrow my focus to them.

"I have reverted your edits again."

I see that. I'll put up a new version, with changes made in response to your concerns, and we can discuss it. Please, in the open spirit of the Wikipedia community, leave it up while we discuss this important addition to Religion. That way, others can see the change and contribute their thoughts to the discussion. -- Murftown ~8:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit as it currently stands is both POV and factually incorrect. Judaism is not and never has been one of the most commonly-held religions. The third most commonly-held religion that still is a religion and not the absence of religion altogether is Hinduism. Judaism would be lost in the statistical noise if it were not so prominent for other reasons. You acknowledge this above, but didn't correct your text. Your judgment of which religions are the most important is also POV. You have supplied no standard for why Judaism should be included. Buddhism is at least as important from an NPOV both culturally and historically, and since it's non-theistic it would be very inconvenient to the point you're trying to make.

It's really not at all the case that the existence of God has any bearing on religion as a human phenomenon -- which, in order to be NPOV, is the tack this article must take. If it is as important as you claim, you should provide a cite; otherwise it's OR. (Yes, I saw your counterargument to Jeff above. I disagree. Belief is one thing; the truth of that belief is another.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Judaism is not and never has been one of the most commonly-held religions."

Yes it is. How many religions are there? 1000? Many more than that, I'm sure. But how many religions have more members than Judaism? 10 or 11. We can reword this if it will make you feel better this doesn't seem like a factual error.

"You acknowledge this above, but didn't correct your text."

I did. I changed it from "the 3 most commonly-held religions" to "three of the most commonly-held religions".

"Your judgment of which religions are the most important is also POV."

I made no such judgment. I'm talking about "three of the most commonly-held religions". Nothing about "importance".

"It's really not at all the case that the existence of God has any bearing on religion as a human phenomenon -- which, in order to be NPOV, is the tack this article must take. If it is as important as you claim, you should provide a cite; otherwise it's OR."

Let's be clear about OR. Wikipedia does not allow us to contribute "facts" that come from our own original reserach, without backing them up with sources. What Wikipedia does not do is require you to back up you decisions regarding what to write about with sources. All the facts in my writing are either generally accepted or cited. My assertion that the existence of God is important to consider when learning about religion does not technically require justification in the form of a reference, but I provided a good reason for its placement so that readers and fellow authors would not be confused. As a good bit of this article itself is written about the ways religions may or may not be "true", the Wikipedia community has already stamped my judgment (that truth, not just the belief phenomenon, is important with respect to religion) with their approval. -- Murftown 12:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

About "There is no empirical evidence for God's existence." and issues of verifiability.... I thought the policy about verifiability is not about whether something is true or not but whether it is verifiably maintained as a fair statement of the understanding in the field of knowledge being discussed. So the point isn't if God's existence is empirically verifiable. The point from a wikipedia pov is whether a substantial and fair statement is to point out a stance on the question of the existence of God. I would suggest that the argument over the existence of God by any means of proof is itself the fair statement to make - that there is no concensus that any methodology has proved God does or does not exist to the majority of people, but that most people don't question the existence of God on the grounds of proof (though many incorporate elements of one side or the other of the "proof" question as an adjunct to their point of view.)--Smkolins 12:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to your comment, but first I will go dancing. -- Murftown 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Lead addition

Here is the disputed addition to the lead in its entirety. I have reverted it again because, as others have pointed out at the very least it does not belong in the lead. However, finding the above discussion confusion to look at I am repasting the text here with some additional comments as to why I reverted despite the ongoing conversation.

• Because three of the most commonly-held religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) center around the existence of a divine God who holds sway over the present world and universe, careful consideration of the existence of God is crucial to a well-grounded study of religion. There is no empirical evidence that God exists and wields present influence on our world^[7]; however, many people believe in his/her existence anyway, some of whom suggest that it is an element of good character to have faith strong enough to outweigh empirical data.

Problems:

1. The existence of a "divine God" is not part of all religious belief systems (in their essentialized forms), nor is it a matter of great importance to many sects, subgroups, and/or individuals adhering to or identifying with religious belief systems that in their essentialized forms are said to "center around the existence" of such a God. The latter aspect should be considered here--particularly by someone so interested in "empirical evidence". The manner in which the existence of a deity is conceived of in theory, expressed in practice, and held in matter of importance within the larger picture of the religious tradition varies drastically even within the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths mentioned above. An "empirical" picture of even these three traditions shouldn't essentialize the importance of the existence of God as much as the above statement has done.
2. The fact that discourses about religion seem to so often center around this issue--belief in a deity or deities--has been throughly criticized several times over by numerous scholars as a product of a particularly Western, Christian, and even more so Protestant way of conceptualizing religion. Do we fall pray to this discourse which is a product of monotheistic theologies and the interaction with such theologies by atheists, doubters and other critics of Christianity? Or do we attempt to present "religion" based upon empirical evidence of "religion", in its multiform existence?
3. Now I actually agree that there is "no empirical evidence that God exists" given the fact that I agree with standard scientific and philosophical notions of what constitutes "empirical" evidence--"logical proofs" are not empirical evidence. But the issue here isn't theism, or the proof of God. The type of empirical evidence that should concern us here is the type of evidence that supports the existence of religion and not the existence or non-existence of one or many deities. This means explaining the ways in which people believe in a or many gods, and what forms of practice they engage in relation to these ways of believing. That is what an empirical study or religion is concerned with.
4. What you ended up presenting is a point of view falling within the view of religion as a social construct. It implies that if we accept the presumptions of the current scientific community there is no empirical evidence of God. So what we would be describing, continuing the above logic, are belief systems based upon other forms of adjudication. This idea, is one I personally agree with, however many people who believe in God do not even agree with that. They do not see even an empirical problem (of course others don't care, others see compromise, etc. etc.). So why should we privilege one position on the existence of God in the lead to the entry on "religion", and not even "God"? This is why I also find your addition to the lead to be POV. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead.
5. Finally, in relation to what I have already written, I would like to make a more general appeal. This entry is already too wrapped up in an approach that privileges the "belief" side of religion. Religions aren't simply systems of belief, and the intricacies of systematic belief have usually been worked out by a very small minority of elites--historically and cross-culturally. Practices, folk traditions, and other forms of expression are as, or perhaps even more important to how religion actually takes shape on the ground. Your addition to the lead accentuates this problem even more. Lets work to tone down the theism, and belief orientation of the entry instead of accentuating it.PelleSmith 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for an eloquent and well argued point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General to the Specific

A great article starts with the most general thing held about the meaning of the term, something with which everyone agrees. In order for a term to have meaning, it must convey at least one small universally accepted piece of information. Otherwise the term is useless as part of a universal language.

Making the English language useless is the most common detraction we hear of Wikipedia. Are we going to prove our detractors right, or is there something about the term "religion" with which we can all agree?

• Can we agree that a religion must be held by more than one person? If it were held by only one person, wouldn't it just be called a belief?
• Can we agree that a religion espouses beliefs that cannot be proven via the scientific method? If it could be proven empirically, wouldn't it be called science?
• Can we agree that using the word "general" in the first sentence signifies that we have failed to come up with anything at all that is universally accepted about the term?

I tried my hand at creating a first sentence that conveys information about "religion." Do you think my edit conveys more information or Jeff3000's revision of my edit? --Peter the Great 14:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first sentence espouses a POV that religion is unrational and illogical. While certain things about religion cannot be proven scientifically, others are logical, and have shown to be useful. Thus a statement like yours is not appropriate in a lead. I checked the definition of religion in multiple dictionaries and encyclopaedias, and none started like the way you did. -- Jeff3000 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the sentence I believe best conveys information about "religion:"

A Religion is a set of beliefs that are held by more than one person and are in excess of what can be proven via the scientific method or any other universally accepted means of authentication.

Nothing about that sentence implies that the beliefs are irrational or illogical. In fact, there isn't a single person on Earth who adopts only beliefs proven through the scientific method or other universally accepted means of authentication. You may want to put a positive spin on Religion, but definitions aren't about spin. They are about codifying exactly what people mean when they use a term. As a minimum, everyone means the above sentence when they say "religion." --Peter the Great 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Jeff on this. In no definition of religion I've ever seen is there a qualification regarding the scientific method. To do so strikes me as a pro-science bias. There is a general tendency to compare science and religion, as if they are diametrically opposed entities. Both exist outside the other. Let's put it this way: should the definition of "scientific method" include something about religious systems or faith? Probably not. The intro, as it stands, should be changed.--Jonashart 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The stated method of editing Wikipedia is to improve on the previous version. A version that conveys information is an improvement on one that does not. Using the word "generally" in the first sentence of a definition conveys no specific information about the term. Are we are so afraid of offending anyone that we can't write a definition that means anything? Is Wikipedia the ultimate example of groupthink? Language is only as powerful the ability of its terms to convey specific concepts. What, as a minimum, does "religion" convey? Instead of saying what doesn't work, let's concentrate on improvement. What does work?

• Can we agree that a religion must be held by more than one person? If it were held by only one person, wouldn't it just be called a belief?
• Can we agree that a religion espouses beliefs that cannot be proven via the scientific method? If it could be proven empirically, wouldn't it be called science?
• Can we agree that using the word "generally" in the first sentence signifies that we have failed to come up with anything at all that is universally accepted about the term? --Peter the Great 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PTG: Yes to #1, no to #2, unsure about #3. The problem with number two is that it suggests that something needs to be proven. Again, it's a forced head-to-head with science and religion. Religion wasn't invented to contradict science, nor vice versa. Thus, I see no reason to engage in that sort of dichotomization from the get-go. Certainly, there's need for the discussion within the article, but not in the 'definition'. What defines religion is not it's difference from "science". Not at all.--Jonashart 16:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can agree that a religion must be held by more than one person, but I disagree with your formulation that those beliefs cannot be proved via the scientific method. Some of those beliefs cannot be proved by the scientific method while others can. Parts of religion have nothing to do with the supernatural (and thus nothing to do with being proved or unproved) and even when regarding the supernatural there are proofs of the existence of a god based solely on the rules of logic. Such a statement, which cannot be explained in detail, does not have a place in the lead of the article.

As for the word generally, from definitions of religion found on dictionary.com:

"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

Notice that the word generally is included because not everyone of the same denomination agree with all the beliefs, and so there is a generally accepted set of beliefs. -- Jeff3000 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, religion does not have to disagree with science. In fact, all eight of the world's great base religions were in exact agreement with known science at the time of their inceptions. That is why I specifically used the phrase "in excess of what can be proven."

A Religion is a set of beliefs that are held by more than one person and are in excess of what can be proven via the scientific method or any other universally accepted means of authentication.

If a religion were only based on scientifically proven concepts, it would cease to be a religion; it would be science. I'm pretty sure most of the people on Earth would agree with that. Science can be a subset of a religion, but science and religion are not the same thing. --Peter the Great 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PTG: Right, science and religion are not the same thing. But, they're also NOT diametrically in opposition. That's why adding anything about science in the definition is incongruous. What I believe you're getting at is the issue of faith, and it's role in religion. And yes, faith and science tend not to see eye to eye. However, I think we can trust Wiki readers to distinguish between the two. If we define with "faith" rather than "lack of science", it might be a better tact.--Jonashart 16:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

To do that, you would need an agreed and precise definition of faith. --Peter the Great 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

HA!! Now you're just being funny. But, of course, you're right. Nice little corner we've chatted our way into, eh? Ok, I'm willing and happy to keep hashing it out. Certainly not trying to butt heads.--Jonashart 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Faith has some cleanup issues of its own, but I would consent to defining it as a separate issue. In my opinion, faith is belief in something that cannot be proven via a universally accepted means of authentication. Therefore, if religion were based on faith, at least to some extent, religion would be in excess of what can be proven via a universally accepted means of authentication. We could phrase it as, "A Religion is a set of beliefs that are held by more than one person and based, to some extent, on faith," but wouldn't that mean the same thing, while giving the user less immediate information? --Peter the Great 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How are we getting more precise with our definition if we include the phrase "universally accepted means of authentication" as if that meant anything? What does does it mean? What is it? Empirically speaking a "universally accepted means of authentication" does not exist for more reasons that anyone here would like anyone else to start enumerating. Mentioning the scientific method is problematic for all the reasons already discussed, and this other phrasing just doesn't signify anything tangible thus making the definition even more ambiguous. That's my 2 cents.PelleSmith 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that we are never going to come up with a strong definition with which we can all agree, but consent can be larger than agreement. The term "religion" should mean something. When we say "religion," we are trying to convey a specific concept. That concept should be the content of this article, not some pussy footing around to avoid stepping on anyone's toes. An encyclopedia is not a soapbox from which to proclaim your spin, nor is it a compromise of POVs. It is a means of making a language stronger. A language is only strong if its terms mean something. In that respect, this was the worst article on Wikipedia when I arrived. I don't want to hear any more about what doesn't work. I want to hear what DOES work. If you can't come up with something better, something definite to which you agree, then you aren't helping the creation process at Wikipedia; you are only proving what its detractors say about groupthink. I'm sorry to be so direct, but this article was way off course.

Moving forward, unless I'm mistaken, it appears we all agree that a religion is a set of beliefs held by more than one person. Is there anything else to which we can all agree? --Peter the Great 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also safe to say that every religion on Earth includes the assumption of some truth that is not universally accepted. Is there any disagreement on that point? --Peter the Great 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. My objection above was to a universally accepted "means" of authentication. This implies a universal method for authenticating a truth. Clearly religious belief systems contain truths that are not universally accepted ... but this hardly differentiates religious belief systems from other non-religious belief systems. Also, I strongly oppose this emphasis on beliefs in the first place. I wont regurgitate the pro-practice oriented drivel I usually post and I'm sure many don't agree with but if you are interested see above.PelleSmith 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly religious belief systems contain truths that are not universally accepted..." Then that's something we can agree on. Working from the general to the specific requires us to start with what is generally agreed upon about the term. Whether you want that dangerous of an idea in an article is irrelevant to an encyclopedia. This isn't an advertisement for or against religion. It is a definition. It explains what people mean when they say "religion." As you noted on my talk page, people mean different things, but there definitely is some common ground. You've just found some. That common ground is part of the generally accepted definition of the term and therefore goes nearer the beginning of the article. Writing a great encyclopedia definition isn't rocket science when you leave out the spin. --Peter the Great 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PTG: As it stands now, are you still dissatisfied with the present opening? I've just reread it, and perhaps while not perfect, it's pretty good. Are you still waiting to add something related to scientific 'provability'? For what it's worth, I agree that we should be striving for a strengthening of linguistic constructs. One of the problems we find in defining religion is the notion of theory vs. practice. Is 'religion' a set of beliefs? Or must the actions of the adherents be taken into consideration? As I've asked my students: If every (fill in your member of your faith-of-choice) disappeared one day, and all we were left with was their sacred texts (for instance, for those that are textually based), would that religion still "exist"? Do you have to have adherents enacting those beliefs for any religion to "exist"? If so, that very much affects the definition. The opening we have now addresses this to an extent, but we may want to be clear on this. Is religion a theory, a set of guidelines? Or is religion whatever that religion's people do? A combination? Not sure we'll even agree on this, but it's fairly important for definition purposes.--Jonashart 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "generally" is confusing and weakens the definition. Jeff explained what he means in discussion, but the word isn't necessary. Of course people are going to also believe concepts outside of the religion, but the extent to which they adherence to collective belief is the notable concept in this article. Also, when anyone says "religion," they mean something more than just a belief held by many people. As you've noted, they could also be talking about the rituals and associated actions, but not always. The first sentence needs to include those things that people always mean when they say "religion."

• Religion always has something to do with belief
• Religion always has something to do with more than one person
• Religion always contain truths that are not universally accepted
• Religion always contain methods of determining truth that are not universally accepted

On the above four points, I think we can all agree. Whether you want people to focus on those four points is irrelevant. This isn't damage control. This isn't an influential writing. This is an encyclopedia. It focuses on the general to the specific, and these are the generally accepted concepts of religion. Am I leaving any out? --Peter the Great 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now this is good. I think you raise an interesting challenge: to what does "religion" always refer? And as you know, the easy answer is "well, we can't answer that". But I like the idea of trying, so I'm with you. One thing you've avoided, probably rightly, is the issue of divinity/supernatural. Confucianism is always a good example of a "religion" for which divinity doesn't really (traditionally/historically) come into play. But then, do we really define Confucianism as a religion? We have to define religion based on what exists as "religion": what's out there and how do we classify it. At which point, aren't we back to the question of theory vs. practice? I know, I know...this gets a bit circular.

I think your 4th point is getting very close to achieving our intended goal.--Jonashart 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As interesting as this exercise is can we take a step back for a minute and consider something. The above referenced posting I made on PTG's talk page was an appeal for PTG to consider the fact that hundreds and hundreds of academics in multiple disciplines (humanities as well as social sciences) have agonized and fought over this issue for quite some time now. "Religion" as we popularly use the term has referents so disparate that attempts to define it usually either fail to take into account its multiplicity or are so general that they are virtually meaningless. Take for instance a well known and widely referenced definition of "religion" by anthropologist Clifford Geertz:

• (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (From "Religion as a Culture System").

This definition falls into the latter category and if you want a lovely treatment of that fact you can read Talal Asad's criticism in Genealogies of Religion. My point isn't that because the academy has failed so must an encyclopedia. My point is that there is a very well worn tradition for just the kind of problems faced here in the present with this entry. This isn't just any old entry either. "Religion" has a rather specific and peculiarly troubled passed. Lets not just gloss over that and think that we can solve this issue once and for all with some simple logic.PelleSmith 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: You of course make an excellent point. And nice Geertz add. I'm a big fan of his description of religion as "primordial".

So ultimately, we going to strive for that which is perhaps unobtainable? Sounds remarkably....religious ;) Yes, I suppose you're right. And maybe we're missing the simplest explanation as to why that is: "religion" is inherently subjective. Despite the throngs and throngs of believers in the world, religion is personal. So, like any individual faith, the overall concept of religion is "created" by the religious. Ok PS, I just gave you that one...but I'm not totally convinced :). Hmmmm....this one will bug me for a while.--Jonashart 21:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Monotheistic religions may be circular, self negating and inherently subjective, but encyclopedia definitions are not. In fact the only way you can avoid a strong definition is by purposefully trying to make it vague. Obfuscating the concept of religion may serve the interests of some of the members here, but it does not serve the purpose of a stronger language.

The method of creating a strong definition is actually extremely simple. You start with the generally accepted concepts associated with the term and work your way toward the specific and less accepted. The first sentence contains only those things that are always meant when people say "religion." The following sentences cover the term in various contexts. The body of the article can be about more controversial aspects with citings of who feels each way. None of the article is about selling a concept, so there is absolutely no reason for people to be scared about conveying too much information. We are simply reporting how the term is used, not whether the concepts inferred in that usage are correct. Stating that there is no intersection in how the term is used is bullshit. I've listed four intersections. While you may not want to focus on these intersections, that is too bad. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Its purpose isn't to give things your spin, to sell them, or to keep information from the public. We define terms here. We explain what people mean when they say something. Wikipedia is now the most cited reference in the world. When its definitions convey distinct information, that's a good thing, but when they convey nothing specific, like this article does, it weakens the language and the means for people to communicate.

Concentrate on what people mean when they use the term "religion." What do they always mean? What do they mean most of the time. This will dictate the first sentence and the first paragraph. The second paragraph will concentrate on notable departures from the norm. This is what makes a great article and it is totally doable when the people involved want the term to convey distinct information. Those who do not want terms to convey distinct information are in the wrong place because that's what an encyclopedia does. --Peter the Great 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK then, lets look these four propositions within the bounds of what has and still is deemed "religion". One example each should suffice since you're looking for what religion is "always":

• "Religion always has something to do with belief"

False--see the numerous times anthropologists have been confronted with this answer to questions about why certain "religious" ritual enactments take place or must take place in a certain manner--"That's just how it has always been done", or "I don't know that just how you do it". What beliefs do these "religious" actions have to do with? And don't tell me that because some comparative-religionist in a cushy office at Oxford can give you an answer that it proves anything about the "beliefs" being enacted by the religious actors.

• "Religion always has something to do with more than one person"

False--Is there always someone else involved when a pious Protestant is praying to his/her God or when a Buddhist meditates on the nature of the self? Sure, as a social scientist I would not say that religions exist unless there are shared systems of practice, belief etc., but "religion" can be quite solitary--that is not all aspects of the religious have to be in reference to the shared nature of the religious system. Hence, "religion" does not always have something to do with more than one person. Of course sociologist Robert Bellah is attributed with reporting an even less social form of religion popularly called "Sheilaism", because of the name given to his religiously individualistic informant. Sheilaism doesn't even have a "shared system of practice or belief".

• "Religion always contain[s] truths that are not universally accepted"

This one is more difficult. Clearly no one will disagree with this statement here. No "truths" are universally accepted. However, all truths contained within a religion are not equally unaccepted or unacceptable. Given the rather high degree of variation that could be found between religions as well, as to what "truths" they contain and how locally or universally they are accepted this statement becomes even more meaningless.

• "Religion always contain methods of determining truth that are not universally accepted"

Kind of true. It is true just as the last statement is true. No "method of determining truth" is universally accepted. However, again methods of determining truth can be eerily similar across religions and radically different across others. Again, I have to say, given the generality of the affirmative aspect of the statement how much does it actually tell us? Of course we haven't even discussed the differences that may exist in the very nature of truth. We are assuming that all religions claim some "truths"--claim some things that we can adequately categorize as "truths" internally to the religious belief system--and that they all have "methods for determining truths".

Clearly in my view the attempt to find absolute answers here is futile. You cannot make statements like "always this" or "always that" and think they are going to go down like a glass of warm milk. Why do you think this has been such a problem in academia? Because scholars are just quibbling fools incapable of simple common sense deductive reasoning? I'm beginning to think you're not willing to consider the larger picture of this problem. I'm not happy about the fact that "religion" encompasses more than we can chew neatly but lets get a grip on what it encompasses before we start looking for universals. I really do highly recommend the first couple of chapters of the book Conceptualizing Religion by anthropologist Benson Saler.PelleSmith 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

ALSO I would like to note that I think people following this conversation are quite familiar with your method of creating a more linguistically affirmative entry. I also think that as you keep on repeating your point over and over about what (universally it seems) makes a great entry you keep on failing to account for any of the particular problems with making this entry a great one. PelleSmith 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. You don't want religion to mean anything, so it won't. It becomes another non-word, just like half the shit in Wikipedia. I give up. There's nothing wrong with the concept of crowdsourcing, but the reduction tools have to favor the most useful implementation, not the most dogmatic or heavy handed. The Wiki engine is popular today because it has no competition, but as soon as anything with a reduction method better than chronological comes along, the Wiki is going to seem absurdly unsuitable for enabling consensus. --Peter the Great 05:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Peter the Great for your very enlightening observations, comments and suggestions. I totally agree with you. Everyone is entitled to his own opinions and beliefs, of course.

However, the current Wiki policies won’t work in the long run in my view. It must be improved on. As it is, I too am inclined to give up on Wiki, for the same reasons.

Right now, this article rates a B. And I don’t see that it will ever rate higher unless something of a “miracle’ happens or the Superior Editors intervene. But that’s just me. Angel 00:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't all this discussion about the best way to rewrite the definition to match ones own conception of the term a form of Original Research? You shouldn't be coming up with your own definition but instead using a definition from a Reliable Source and I'm sure there are plenty. In fact, there are probably a lot of conflicting definitions of religion and it isn't our place to decide among them, so there should probably be more than one definition of religion on this page. --JeffW 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way of life

I removed the sentence in the lead section "Religion can also be described as a way of life" because it is too general and vague, i.e., fluff. This is not POV (what is the bias?). Cj67 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

POV does not equal "bias". POV means "point of view"--having only one POV represented in an entry, or specifically excluding other POVs is often deemed "bias", and this is why the two concepts are frequently used together. Your point of view is that this is "fluff", but I am not claiming nor did I ever claim a bias in the entry or in your edit. I hope that is clear. My argument is that however vague or general you may think that "way of life" is as an expression, it is commonly used to describe religion(s). The reason to include it is, at the very least, on a sociological basis. Also, in regards to your second edit summary, the sentence has never stated that religion is the "only" way of life, but that it "can also be described as a way of life". I will change the phrasing so that the usage aspect is made more explicit.PelleSmith 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After looking up POV on wiki, the essence is bias. You also should add sources, since you are repeatedly asserting that things are "often deemed" or "often described" a certain way. Back to the main point, what does it mean to say that "religion" is "a way of life"? How would that help anyone understand what religion is? It seems to me that this description is contrary to the rest of the article, which distinguishes religion from philosophy. Cj67 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To call a philosophy a "way of life" is just as problematic as, if not more problematic than, saying that a religion is, by way of your criticism. The historical "world religions", in their various forms, for instance all contain several dogmatic and ritual proscriptions that specify actual "ways" in which human being are to "live"--are to carry on with life. On top of this, like some philosophies might, they also provide ideas or suggestions of "ways" one is to go about living life. While I agree that the phrase is vague I also understand why people use it. In terms of referencing the phrase are you actually saying that you are unfamiliar with this usage or do you just not agree with it?PelleSmith 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You say "To call a philosophy a "way of life" is just as problematic as ... saying that a religion is" -- but you don't think it's a problem to say religion is! I don't understand. You say that you agree that it is vague, but you rely on the fact that people say it. People say lots of things, like religion is the cause of many problems in the world. That doesn't mean it goes in the first section. It doesn't mean it's helpful. The essence of religion is not that it is a way of life, even if it has secondary effects in this direction. Is science a way of life? Politics? My complaint basically is that, while religion can affect how people live their lives, it is not correct to say that religion "is" a way of life, even if people say it. Cj67 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I called them both problematic "by way of your criticism". I hedge towards calling a philosophy a way of life more problematic, "by way of your criticism", given that at least religions tend to have mechanisms that regulate ways of living. Clearly in my view it is meaningful to call both "some philosophies" and most religions "ways of life" even though it is also a rather vague descriptor. I have given you reasons why this is the case (dogmatic and ritual mandates, as well as ideas and suggestions as to how life should be lived). Now maybe you could address your claim that "it is not correct to say that religion 'is' a way of life", and then maybe also address my answers which do not just boil down to "religion can affect how people live their lives" as you would have it. Sometimes, and to varying degrees, religions mandate how people live their lives. Lastly I would also ask that since you say that this is "not the essence" of religion you may tell us what is or at least how we may know that this is not.PelleSmith 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, neither the initial phrasing or my altered phrasing ever said that "religion is a way of life". I would like to make this abundantly clear. The initial phrasing said that religion "can also be described" as a way of life and my new phrasing says that religion "is often described as" a way of life. Lets be clear on what got us here, though I'm still interested to hear why religion isn't a way of life.PelleSmith 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I should add, that the aspects I am arguing for you to consider as integral to the description of religion as "a way of life" (dogmatic and/or ritualistic ways of regulating human experience and human behavior) happen to be very close to what several scholars have argued is the most essential aspect of religion--from Emile Durkheim, to Mary Douglas, to Roy Rappaport.PelleSmith 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development of Religion Section

This section is just a long rehash of the Development of religion article. I think that all the sub-headings can just be deleted and leave the summary and the link to the article at the top. --JeffW 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modification to "Skepticism"

The article had stated that "By definition, skeptics of religion are atheists or agnostics", with links to the definitions of atheist and agnostic. This was backwards: the definition of atheist or agnostic can only show that they are some subset of the "skeptics of religion". A counterexample to illustrate the original statement would be the existence of a single critic of religion who was not an atheist or agnostic; I don't think this would be very difficult to do.

I reversed the statement, although I would have preferred just to delete it. I assume the author mentioned atheists and agnostics to justify the section, "Criticism of Religion", by implying that these "skeptics of religion" must be critics of religion. I find this problematic for a number of reasons. A hypothetical person born in isolation from religion and free of religious thought is necessarily an atheist or agnostic; however, without knowledge of religion, this person cannot be a skeptic of religion. Furthermore, there is no explanation for what exactly a "skeptic of religion" is skeptical of; this person is probably not skeptical of the existence of religion, nor of the popularity of religion, nor of the significance of religion belief in the development, and so on. So, what is this "skeptic" skeptical of?Cgb8176 00:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion by country map

This map provides more misleading information than useful information, and I propose that it be removed. One example of the absurdities include Tibet following "Chinese religions". Why do we need this map ? A better map would be along the lines of Image:Human Language Families (wikicolors).png, and I am sure data is available. example deeptrivia (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)