Before you reply, please let me explain what i base this on...
I have been in many discussions with more or less religious people about whether or not i am an atheist. Fact is that i do not believe in any God, Allah, Budah (even Satan for that matter) or whatever people believe in. I would, however, like to state that i respect the belief of anybody and their reasons to believe (the way religion i practiced and sought spread is another matter though).
The statement that i would like to make is that i consider nature, the science of nature and the instincts that all animals' (yes, that includes us!) actions are influenced by, to be a religion. I consider all religions to be an explanation of the reason for all things to happen. In light of this I choose to believe in the laws of nature and all that follows from this to be the reason for all things and actions to occur.
I would like to ask for your opinion on this and your definition of religion. Looking forward to your reply...

Hello Maros, welcome to Allforums.

The dictionary defines religion thusly:

re·li·gion n.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

It would seem that definition 1(a) might fit your belief that nature is a religion, except for the word supernatural.

Most religions involve the belief in a power that lies outside of nature, indeed many give this supernatural power dominion over nature itself. I would say that most christians, for instance, believe that nature follows God's whims and desires, and God can do things like make the sun stand still in the sky, or flood the whole planet and so on. This leads one to the conclusion that God can control "nature" however he wants. I would have to say therefore that "nature" itself is not a religion and can only become one if you believe that nature is controlled by some undefined intelligence.

I would agree with vile, that without a belief in a higher power, it can not be defined as a religion, rather the opposite, a more rational approach to belief, based on science/the natural world, which I would think would make you an athiest.

Thanks for your replies. I go out on a limb here by saying that dictionaries are not good scources for definitions of somethin like religion. I am sure that it fits perfectly with christianity and other "mainstream" religions... the problem is that the natural laws are not, to a great extent, unknown and mysterious. My point is that nature can be unpredictable but still explainable and, as I see it, what you link with religion is some sort of inexplainable and undefined intelligence.
I would like to bring up the egyptians. Many egyptian gods are based on, or are phenomena of nature (the sun, the river nile and so on). we know now that the sun and the nile, for instance, are influenced by an incredible number of factors, but the egyptians did not. Does that make their religion invalid or would you still accept people believing in the sun as a god?

My view is that religion was a way of explaining the unexplainable due to lack of scientific knowledge, so therefore I would say that the Egyptians beliefs could be explained in this way, although I would not say that there religions were invalid, as a belief surely cannot be invalid, perhaps more scientifically inaccurate.

Welcome Wiccan, Taoist, etc.(any other nature sects that I can't remember off the top of my head, oh Panthiesm). Duff, remove "due to lack of scientific knowlege", because that is just moronic, many religions get support from science. For instance, many pillars of asian beliefs were strenghtened due to scientific proofs, what the western world thought was strange and wrong was "proved" right. What I'm talking about is acupuncture and auras. And another thing, many of egyptians beliefs are scientifically accurate, of course stories were added around, but the religion showed a great understanding of nature, science and mathematics. More often than not, ancient religions make more scientific and logic sense than modern ones.

Nature is a part of all that is.A part of the River of Knowledge that flows around us.
Religion is man.

No blibblob, its a widely accepted view, you just don't happen to agree with it. That does not make it moronic, that makes you moronic.

maros:

You must love to play as a Druid in RPG and AD&Dgames...

No blibblob, its a widely accepted view, you just don't happen to agree with it. That does not make it moronic, that makes you moronic.
It is a widely accepted view, but does that mean it's true? Majority doesn't mean right. It is illogical, many beliefs stem from science. First, what is science? People had science back then, and that is what it told them, it told them that the stars moved this way, they moved that way, and they related to other paterns down on earth, thus it was accepted as truth, and it still stands today in many places. Religion doesn't stem from lack of lack of scientific reason, it stems, often, from it. Religion is not a simple story, it is not just something that was made up, that is the simple way to look at it, to stare at it and say "somebody thought this up when they were bored just to explain something". No, religion is very indepth, it has a lot of scientific backing and it is intricacies within themselves. That's something that a general athiest doesn't understand. Something that they hope isn't true, because it destroys much of their structure on which to stand. To just toss off religion as myths without backing is stupid.

I do realize what you mean though, but you, like many others, can't get out of the little box that you live in and look at it from a different view. You think science is telescopes and microscopes, little electronic testing devices. Something specific and irrefutable. Wake up.

Im not saying that it is true, or that I am right, but I is true that expalnations that seemed logical in previous times would not seem logical now.

I think that it was Einsten that said something like ( I am paraphrasing) The more that he learned about the universe the more he came to believe in a higher power. I guess that the more you learn the more that you start to see holes in science. Where a higher power could fit in.

So maybe duff and blibblob you are both right.

Im not saying that it is true, or that I am right, but I is true that expalnations that seemed logical in previous times would not seem logical now.
They are logical. People, now, are just conditioned not to believe them because their old "myths". When you look up egyptian religion, what do you type into google? "Egyptian myths" is the wisest choice. The catholic church did a good job at destroying the ancient religions. Look at them in an unbias view, they make perfect sense. Just get passed the names and the gods having constant sex.

I think that it was Einsten that said something like ( I am paraphrasing) The more that he learned about the universe the more he came to believe in a higher power. I guess that the more you learn the more that you start to see holes in science. Where a higher power could fit in.
Here's a couple of his quotes:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein

"There remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion"
--Albert Einstein

"If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God." -- Lord Kelvin

This is too deep for me. I've seen alot of things in my days and it seems that the only safe way to be is to respect each others religion, teach our children right, and never say never.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Im not saying that it is true, or that I am right, but I is true that expalnations that seemed logical in previous times would not seem logical now.
They are logical. People, now, are just conditioned not to believe them because their old "myths". When you look up egyptian religion, what do you type into google? "Egyptian myths" is the wisest choice. The catholic church did a good job at destroying the ancient religions. Look at them in an unbias view, they make perfect sense. Just get passed the names and the gods having constant sex.

I think that it was Einsten that said something like ( I am paraphrasing) The more that he learned about the universe the more he came to believe in a higher power. I guess that the more you learn the more that you start to see holes in science. Where a higher power could fit in.
Here's a couple of his quotes:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein

"There remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion"
--Albert Einstein
Thank you blibblob I couldn't remember the quotes !!!

I view religion as an explanation of the world around us.By that definition I suppose science could be a religion. I obviously don't follow the dictionary definition here. I don't view science as a religion for one key reason though. Science changes.

Though I tend to follow science as a guide to what I believe I am always on the lookout for changes. In 1900 it was believed that we knew all there was to know in the field of science. This was before we knew about DNA, antibiotics, etc. I like to watch the fringes of science to keep an eye out for what might possibly become the next big discovery.

Times change. Paradigms change. Religions don't change. Science does. With this reasoning I have to say that I don't believe that science or nature as you put it is a religion.

Originally posted by muad_dib
I view religion as an explanation of the world around us.By that definition I suppose science could be a religion. I obviously don't follow the dictionary definition here. I don't view science as a religion for one key reason though. Science changes.

Though I tend to follow science as a guide to what I believe I am always on the lookout for changes. In 1900 it was believed that we knew all there was to know in the field of science. This was before we knew about DNA, antibiotics, etc. I like to watch the fringes of science to keep an eye out for what might possibly become the next big discovery.

Times change. Paradigms change. Religions don't change. Science does. With this reasoning I have to say that I don't believe that science or nature as you put it is a religion.

I disagree: Religion changes a lot. Why do you think there is so many different denominations? My definition of religion is simple. It is an organized way of believing. As soon as someone comes up with a better way of thinking and believing...whamo.. a new religion is created.

Take the Catholic church for instance. It is always changing its rules and beliefs. Look at their feelings about birthcontrol over the years.