What's your opinion on Liberal Religion?

[The Grand Nudger]

Try Durkheim, Em.

A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden-beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.

Gods - a figurative expression of society.

Obviously, that’s been Christian belief for the west for the last few centuries, and is commonly some sort of theism for many people in the world- but a definition of religion which excludes the entirety of religious beliefs beyond Christianity or theism is insufficient for anything beyond common use in the west- as exemplified in this thread.

Insomuch as religion in the uk is middle of the road- I’d call that the effect of liberalization in the context of beliefs about the divine which are fundamentally illiberal- such as a capitol g god.

[Neo-Scholastic]

With respect hylomorphism, I agree with Belaqua that many passages of Scripture are suggestive though none seem explicit enough to be dogmatic about. IMO to be human is to be embodied, either materially, or in a "glorified" state, whatever that may entail. However, I am not committed to any theory of mind nor do I think maintaining a Christian faith requires one to do so.

---

As for the OP and specifically in America, I consider the alignment of politcal conservatism and religious traditionalism to be largely, but not entirely, accidental. Afterall, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, was the first self-proclaimed evangelical "born again" president. Ultimately though, I think the abortion issue became a near perfect proxy for both religious traditionalism and social conservatism in this country.

[The Grand Nudger]

It wasn’t accidental at all, but an intentional political strategy to squash the beef between the warring Christian factions in the us in order to preserve what they saw to be their diminishing political authority. This happened in living memory. The catholic issue, as American Protestants used to call it, was settled upon because it was a good social wedge that people had strong feelings about.

[emjay]

has 'belief in a god' as the core principle of religion, and anything else as secondary.

I think that Christianity has emphasized belief. And you're right to say that this generally entails belief as assent-to-proposition, even when in practice it behaves as commitment-to-principle. 

I'm not sure how general this has been in history, in non-Christian or pre-Christian cultures. And I don't mean that people are faking things and doing things they feel are dishonest. Just that assent-to-proposition may well be minor compared to the ritual, performative, inclusive aspects of the religion in other times and places.

This comes in part from my experience in Japan. Normally we are listed as one of the two most atheistic countries in the world (along with China). And certainly STEM studies get great honor here, and I have never heard of an evolution-denier. But there is a kind of non-Western disconnect between how a person might answer a questionnaire and how a person behaves. Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines are still common and well-maintained, and certain rituals are important to people who would no doubt call themselves atheists. 

For example, there's a late-August Buddhist holiday called Obon which is the day when dead souls revisit their graveyards. It is extremely common to go to clean the tomb and decorate it with a paper lantern at that time. My area is almost all True Pure Land sect, so the lanterns are very colorful. I knew an American guy one time who asked people coming back from the graveyard whether they really believed the souls were visiting. Some said they'd never really thought about it. The most common response was that very useful Japanese shrug-and-smile combination which allows one to avoid impertinent questions. 

Or if you have a major life-event coming up, like an entrance examination or major surgery, a large percentage of people would go to a shrine, write their wish in a wooden plaque, and hang it on the hook provided. If asked "Do you think there is a kami in the shrine who will assist you in your entrance into medical school?" I suspect most would say no, but they still took an afternoon off studying to climb up to the shrine. 

So I think we have to think of religion in all its roles. The role in which it serves as failed science is probably the least important. A sense of integration into the community, and a sense of how one fits into the universe, has traditionally been bigger, I suspect. To some extent this entails belief, but again, it isn't the full-on recitation of a credo which Christianity may demand. 

In Plato's Symposium, for example, nobody seems to question the fact that there's a goddess called Aphrodite. But everybody feels perfectly free to describe her however he wants. One person says there are two of her. One person says that Eros isn't really her son. It's very freewheeling, and nobody worries about heresy. 

I also suspect that this forum's moralistic approach to science is an inheritance from Christianity. People who reject science's authority are seen as bad people. We are free to insult them. Some people will recite their credo in praise of science on any thread where it's at all relevant. Science is the way and the truth and the life, and those who doubt it are not only incorrect but bad for the world. In fact science has no moral values built in, but some people find them nonetheless. 

Terry Eagleton wrote a book recently called Culture, which is in part about recent attempts to find something in society to fill the role of religion, now that religion is fading. If religion no longer gives us our values, how do we find values that aren't merely a reflection of what our capitalist masters want? Like it or not, we are propagandized from birth, and if it's not the pastor it's going to be the TV. I have never seen a more moralistic hour of propagandizing than the time I was forced to watch CNN while waiting to change planes at O'Hare -- and that all pretended to be objective news coverage. Eagleton concludes that none of the suggested substitutes has worked, and that none can. (This doesn't mean that religion is true; just that it has filled a unique role.) Science and capitalism came up in this world together, and the values generally associated with them very often support each other in ways that may not actually be good for us. 

And yes, religion can push bad things. Zen Buddhists in Japan were intimately involved in the pre-War militarism. Zen mindfulness is a useful tool for people about to die in a suicide airplane. But to say that that is intrinsic to religion and the good parts aren't is just lopsided.

Try Durkheim, Em.

A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden-beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.

Gods - a figurative expression of society.

Obviously, that’s been Christian belief for the west for the last few centuries, and is commonly some sort of theism for many people in the world- but a definition of religion which excludes the entirety of religious beliefs beyond Christianity or theism is insufficient for anything beyond common use in the west- as exemplified in this thread.

Insomuch as religion in the uk is middle of the road- I’d call that the effect of liberalization in the context of beliefs about the divine which are fundamentally illiberal- such as a capitol g god.

---

Again to both of you, I think from this discussion it's pretty clear I have indeed been using the word 'religion' wrong all my life (or at least not using the best definitions or interpretations of those definitions) - conflating belief and behaviour (where I'm using behaviour here as basically a catch-all term that includes all outward manifestations of those beliefs; individual, social, ceremonial, ritual etc), or at least overemphasing the belief aspect of religion/assuming its presence where it's not strictly necessary.

But looking at my upbringing I think it's understandable that I interpreted it that way, in the sense that my family's (Protestant) beliefs have always emphasised belief over custom/ritual/ceremony etc (as we've talked about elsewhere)... indeed the latter being generally frowned upon... where a church was defined more as a gathering of people itself, and nothing more, rather than anything material or ritual... to the extent that none of the churches I went to growing up ever even had their own buildings, always meeting in rented rooms or schools etc, and rarely had so much as a cross on the wall. That's not to say that under your definition GN there aren't still unifying beliefs and practices and sacred things, even in that sort of church, just that they are less visible/tangible than more materialistic/ritual churches. Basically, in contrast, if my upbringing had been Catholic or even CofE, where the focus is much more material/ritual, then I probably would have understood the word 'religion' differently, maybe swinging in the opposite direction, emphasising behaviour over belief.

Anyway, going forward, I think this means I have to be very careful in distinguishing between whether I'm talking about religion or belief. To be clear, the reason I joined this site was primarily to discuss belief, not religion, under these terms. But that comes from a perspective of not only an upbringing that focused more on belief, but also from living in a country, with as you say, liberal religion... where religion has very little effect (political or otherwise) on day-to-day living for the most part. In contrast, it's understandable why other people would come to this same site and be more interested in discussing religion than belief, under these terms (sorry, it still feels weird to separate the two, but I'll get used to it) those who come from countries, like the US, where religion is much more intertwined with everyday living, and often oppressive. I'm sorry if failure to make that distinction has ever caused any problems in the past.

[polymath257]

When polymath loses his watch in a dark alley, we'll find him looking for it under the street lamp where the light is better.

I certainly wouldn't be looking for a watch that cannot be detected (even in theory), nor using methods that cannot detect watches. But light isn't the only detection method.

[The Architect Of Fate]

When polymath loses his watch in a dark alley, we'll find him looking for it under the street lamp where the light is better.

I certainly wouldn't  be looking for a watch that cannot be detected (even in theory), nor using methods that cannot detect watches. But light isn't the only detection method.

Or you could just buy a new watch

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s probably a mistake to think that religion, liberal or otherwise, has little effect on the day to day life of a citizen of the uk. You describe a liberal culture, and a liberal religion has produced that culture ( or was produced by it) in stark contrast to the illiberal religion which founded and still maintains a grip on ours in the us.

Your monarch is ceremonial, but ours is contended to be the lord of the cosmos who must be obeyed in all respects. Religious beliefs compel (or are not religious beliefs at all) and the practices they compel towards or are described by run the gamut from your meetings to our governance. Food for thought.

[polymath257]

I certainly wouldn't  be looking for a watch that cannot be detected (even in theory), nor using methods that cannot detect watches. But light isn't the only detection method.

Or you could just buy a new watch

Or go without. I usually use my cell phone when I want to know the time.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and as to bels comment you quoted, asking where we’ll get our values from if not religion or as religion wanes….we never got our values from religion in the first place. We gave our values to religion, described our values -as- religion. So, we’ll get them from the same places we ever did.

[Belacqua]

But looking at my upbringing I think it's understandable that I interpreted it that way, in the sense that my family's (Protestant) beliefs have always emphasised belief over custom/ritual/ceremony etc (as we've talked about elsewhere)... indeed the latter being generally frowned upon... 

I don't know your background, of course, but I suspect you've put your finger on something important here. 

Protestants, as you know, put much more emphasis on one's "personal relationship with God," including what one personally holds to be true about God.
 
Catholicism grew up in feudal times, when people were more comfortable with a hierarchy. What the experts held to be true about theological issues was a matter for experts, and the rank and file weren't expected to know. Any more than most I-phone users can explain how a touch screen works -- that's just something that specialists know and the rest of us just take for granted. 

Charles Taylor's book A Secular Age goes into a lot of the ramifications of the change in people's approach. He describes how particularly holy people were considered to be something like spiritual athletes -- really really good at things that the rest of us just don't have the talent for, just as there was never any chance that I'd compete in the Olympics. 

Obviously the Counter-Reformation and the challenge of Protestantism forced Catholics to adapt, but the difference in emphasis between one's assent-to-propositions and one's participation in rituals most likely remains. I imagine. 

But overall I may have overstated my case, for which I apologize. "Exaggerated for emphasis," as the diagrams used to say. I don't mean to claim that there has ever been a hard-and-fast split, in which what one holds to be true is irrelevant. I just think the description of religion as an early and failed version of science misunderstands the role that religion plays in people's lives.