Separation of Science and State

[The Grand Nudger]

A church is a community of believers who have been united in a moral whole by a religion.

These sorts of questions are bizarre. You can see for yourself how durkheim defined it - it's been posted multiple times - and you seem to have read it.

[Sal]

Religion is hardly a primitive form of science.   It is a form of governance that is without knowledge but nonetheless pretend to be informed.

Religion is many things for sure—framework to define and enforce moral code (governance) etc—but first and foremost it is a discipline that makes claims—claims rooted in reality as it sees it. This is similar to making deductive inferences and forming hypothesis and theories.

Existence of god, afterlife, causal relationships between deeds and calamities etc (sins) are all hypothesis and theories that develop the basis on which religion further concocts social moral code and laws etc.

(bold mine)

I disagree.

Those are not hypotheses, although I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of atheists think that. Those are systems of control, keeping people captured by faith 'thinking', disguised as hypotheses about the Nature of Reality. They have all the appearances of saying something about Nature, but under the bed covers, it's about control. That's my view, informed by my apostacy.

This isn't something I just pull out of my ass; what is and how is the 'afterlife' hypothesis being tested, in a religious context? You can ask the same thing about any test about how religions form and say shit - 'afterlife', 'god', 'deeds and calamities' ... but I do agree they use these appearances for 'social moral code', 'laws' and so on ... the latter part is the control part, in that aspect I agree with @Anomalocaris.

Am I incorrect in this? If so, how?

I would love to see the perspective of someone who was never a believer, no matter the religion. I have my insight, the non-apostates have theirs.

---

No I'm still waiting for your explanation

Dude, your mind is poisoned, how many times does TGN have to repeat himself in his replies before you get it?

Are you trolling?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You're switching words around. Either a religion is united into a moral community by a Church. Or a Church is united in a moral whole by a religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have, Sal. I'd call it a system of government that employed primitive sciences.

Giving a credible explanation to some observed phenomena (credible to them) was the same sort of activity with the same ort of value then as now. That's -why- science has to drag these primitives kicking and screaming along. They've filled their descriptive sets with non-negotiable items claimed as fact in the process of conveying normative content.

John....anyone can read what I've posted. Anyone can read durkheims definition of religion. I'm honestly amazed that you're pushing back here. That religion is normative isn't exactly controversial. I could cycle through a half dozen other definitions of a religion and while they may differ in every other respect, they will all agree that normativity is an essential component of a religion.

[Sal]

You're switching words around. Either a religion is united into a moral community by a Church. Or a Church is united in a moral whole by a religion.

This is so sad to read. Genuinely. I even suspected you to be trolling, but you really think that TGN is being obtuse. He's not.

Here's some 'homework', John, re-read your and TGNs back-and-forth, in a new light, later.

---

You have, Sal.  I'd call it a system of government that employed primitive sciences.  

Giving a credible explanation to some observed phenomena (credible to them) was the same sort of activity with the same ort of value then as now.  That's -why- science has to drag these primitives kicking and screaming along.  They've filled their descriptive sets with non-negotiable items claimed as fact in the process of conveying normative content.

John....anyone can read what I've posted.  Anyone can read durkheims definition of religion.  I'm honestly amazed that you're pushing back here.  That religion is normative isn't exactly controversial.  I could cycle through a half dozen other definitions of a religion and while they may differ in every other respect, they will all agree that normativity is an essential component of a religion.

That's actually very illuminating, bright even. Thanks. Much appreciated.

I cannot deny the scars that being a believer has done to my mind, but they are there. I really need the, almost comforting, reassurance that there are people who never believed.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It's strange to think repetition satisfies as an explanation. Can you elaborate on the difference between a Church and a Religion?

[The Grand Nudger]

A religion would be a set of beliefs and practices relative to things set apart and forbidden which unite a group of people who adhere to them in a moral whole.

A church, is the group of people.

Think - a denomination. You know that you are all "x" because of the set of beliefs like those described above. It may be the case that others who are not x share some of your beliefs, but the differences between you make you two different churches. Your beliefs, like those described above, differ.

[John 6IX Breezy]

What beliefs must be shared to be part of the same religion but not the same church?

[The Grand Nudger]

A non starter under durkheims definition. If you're from a different church, it's because you have a different set of beliefs and practices.

A different religion.

The protestant religion is not the same as the catholic religion. Thus, we refer to the group of people united by the beliefs and practices of protestantism in a moral whole as the protestant church...and we call the group of people united by the beliefs and practices of catholicism in a moral whole....the catholic church.

(I'll note, at this point, that believing in the shared god above does not make one a catholic, a protestant, or even a christian. They could be pagans. They could be satanists. They could be jewish. The could be antitheists. They could be apathetics.)

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's what clarification looks like. Given that it is not common to view individual churches as separate religions, that missing information makes your previous statements more coherent.

Does Durkeim give a minimum number of people required for a church?