If I am going to say that something is "bullshit", I need to define my terms.
By religion I principally mean belief in God (Theism), gods, the supernatural in general, and human existence after death.
This is the more conventional meaning of the term.
There are those who define religion as meaning things other than these things - usually involving the social aspects of religion rather than the beliefs. I will discuss these in this post.
Generally speaking, I think that religion is bullshit in every possible sense of the word "religion", whether using the conventional meaning or the social meaning.
By "bullshit" I mean simply "nonsense" and "waffle".
I would say that Buddhism in reality does sometimes include a belief in the supernatural - if not in God - and a belief in existence after death. It is sometimes more of a philosophy and a practice than a creed, but it certainly qualifies as a religion in the social sense of the term.
-----
In Sociology and the social sciences in general, the social meaning of religion can often be emphasized.
For example, according to Anthony Giddens:
"Religion is
NOT (just)
1) Monotheism
2) Moral prescriptions
3) Explaining how the world came to be as it is
4) Belief in the supernatural
because there are religions that do not include any of these things.
Religion IS
- Symbols
- Reverence and Awe
- Rituals
- Community of Believers."
I think that to use the term "religion" exclusively for a social phenomenon is a mistake.
I think it is important to maintain the conventional meaning of the term as outlined above in points 1-4 as well as the social meaning.
I do not believe that every one of points 1-4 has to be included however, but I
would say that usually they should be included in the definition.
In the social sense of the term, I would add that maybe religion can include the following features:
- Dogma
- Hierarchy
- Leader figures or founder figures - sometimes charismatic and idolized/worshiped.
- Heretics
- Exclusivity
- Persecution of those who dissent from dogma
Along with other features.
If one employs an exclusively social definition, supporting a football team could qualify as a religion.
I don't think that supporting a football team could or should be classed as someone's religion, since it does not include any definite beliefs about life and the Universe.
Also, being a fan of a particular team is not necessarily a "way of life" or a matter of "ultimate concern" - which are two other definitions of religion.
I am not convinced that humans are "religious animals" by nature - as some contend - however one defines religion.
John Gray has a similar looser definition of "religion", as he makes clear in his interesting
if infuriating book "Seven Types of Atheism".
In it he writes that "religion is universal, theism is a local cult."
I disagree that religion is universal, however the term is defined.
This implies that religion is an inevitable part of human nature, which I think simply cannot be true.
If anything I would say that humans are philosophical animals rather than religious animals.
Yuval Noah Harari in his books "Sapiens" asserts that there are humanistic religions in which humanity is effectively worshipped.
These supposed "religions" do not include any beliefs included in the conventional meaning of the term religion.
I do not really think that these qualify as religions.
Humanity is a concept - a concept that can be valued. It is a concept that has a basis in reason.
I regard religion as bullshit in all senses of the term. I regard it is bullshit principally in the conventional sense.
But I also think that it is bullshit in the social sense.
I mean that I think that the social phenomenon of religion is also mainly nonsense.
If we define religion as exclusively a social phenomenon, as some argue that we should, and often from an atheist perspective, then in my view we forget what is wrong with it - which I think is mainly irrationality.
Also, if we include ideologies like communism or Darwinism in our definition of religion, we are stretching the definition too far and ignoring their very great differences that these ideologies have from conventional religion. There may be social similarities that these ideologies have with religion, but I think it is a mistake to include them in the definition.
Of course religion is a social phenomenon and usually a very oppressive one at that.
And such oppression of the individual is also bullshit and an evil.
I oppose religion as a social phenomenon in the light of anarchist and libertarian thought.
I oppose religion as a doctrinal phenomenon in the light of rationalist philosophy.
It is perhaps very difficult to define our terms, but I still think we can say with some certainty and moral confidence that religion is indeed bullshit.
-------
The term "religion" as a term in sociology and social science is obviously descriptive and describes a social institution and a social reality. In this sense it is not really a bullshit term.
But if the term is used to imply that religion is natural and inevitable, or has to follow certain patterns or possess certain features, or if it implies that religion is universal then I think it can be a misleading term.