Christianity didn't invent the word, that was a bizarre complaint.

Yes, in durkheims description..and in mere reality, there are churches which have precisely zero adherents. Because the religion is dead.

Many of these were christian churches, heretics rooted out. Some of our first inklings that you may not be responsible with the authority of the state.

In mere reality, as you say, a church with no adherents is said to no longer exist.

Well, there we have it. If we get rid of all the christians then christianity isn't a religion and those churches weren't churches.

You're being ridiculous..for no reason. There's nothing to argue here. There's no gotcha. Nothing hidden around the corner that will or is even meant to be an argument against your religion or against your god. Nothing in this definition which contradicts your religion or reality.

A belief in ghosts is not a religion, a belief in ghosts that produces normative content in all who hold it, is, and the term durkheim uses for whatever number of people do hold that belief, is a church.

We separate church and state on account of conflicts of normative content. Turns out that when people hold a normative belief they vote in it's interests, they seek to organize society in a particular way, because they think that this is the right way to organize society. That's not at all surprising, right? We all do that.

To hammer the point further home - if someone refused to obey our laws because his religion told him he didn't have to, we wouldn't say "no, you do, because there's only one of you in your church, only one of you that follows your religion" - we would say - "sorry buddy, separation. We don't tell you what you can believe, and your religion doesn't tell us what is and isn't the law or who does and does not have to obey it."

Your criteria creates a very strange reality.

By your definition there are innumerable religions coming into existence with every normative thought people have pertaining to sacred things. Given that each variation has the potential to be a unified system of beliefs and practices, and you require exactly zero adherent to actually do so.

Durkheims criteria, and it's been pretty simple to show that it describes mere reality all night long.

Anyone can read his definition, anyone can read what I've posted.

By durkheims criteria, a religion is a set of belief or practices about sacred things that unite all who adhere to them in a moral whole. Not every thought that pops up about the sacred does that. Still, sure, yeah, alot of distinct religions. Alot of distinct churches. 30k under the christian header alone. Even more failures to start. Looks like it's mapping to reality pretty well.

And yet you say "all who adhere to them" can mean zero people and it still qualifies. You can "unite states of just one state" and that sentence is coherent to you.

That's not English.

How many people are united in a moral whole by their adherence to the beliefs and practices of a dead religion?

None.

Dead religions are still religion - and again, this shows the thorough nature of the criteria. It accurately describes living or dead religions. Remember, it the definition of a religion, not the definition of your specific religion, today. If christianity dies out tomorrow, as so many others have, we will still be able to talk sensibly about the religion of christianity, the church of christianity.

If the us were invaded, occupied, and dissolved, we could still sensibly discuss the united states of america, likewise.

Exactly. The answer to "how many adhere?" can be zero and it still qualifies as a religion according to you. Every normative claim I make about sacred things is it's own religion, no adherents required.

According to mere reality.

Let's try again. Dead religion has zero members. I presume we agree, what with the dead in there and all?

(November 16, 2020 at 6:52 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: According to mere reality.

Let's try again.   Dead religion has zero members.  I presume we agree, what with the dead in there and all?

Yeah, I’m having a hard time understanding John’s objections to this. 

Let’s say there’s one, single person left alive who believes in the religion of classical Greece. This person takes the religion very seriously - the gods, the rites, the ritual sacrifices, the whole bit. That person is on his way to the traditional site of a local shrine to propitiate Minerva when he is run over by a bus load of Armenian tourists and is killed instantly.

There are now no more believers in the religion of classical Greece. Why would it stop being a religion?

Boru