Hi Ken,
I’ve got to focus especially hard this week on study/work, so can’t follow this up too much, but suffice it to say that quite obviously it’s a definitional issue, and we’d have to agree on a definition and then talk about the relationship of the ‘matisteria’ from there.

Here is a quote from Gould “defining” relgion (I think from his Rock of ages book – defining the NOMA concept):

“I will accept both Huxley’s view and the etymology of the word itself – and construe as fundamentally religious (literally, binding us together) all moral discourse on principles that might activate the ideal of universal fellowship among people.”

Of course, he then goes on and uses the normal supernatural definition (I think almost always implying theism) in the rest of his book. And the latter approach is used by almost everyone else who talks about the NOMA concept.

So while the original definition he used gave me a role in the “religious” part of NOMA – in practice my role is ignored or denied – and was by Gould in practice too.

Re your last comment, Dale. I guess I sometimes look at things and say “that’s wrong” (although these days I try not to be too judgemental). If that’s me doing religion why can’t I get a tax exemption? The law is clear – because it’s not a supernatural activity.

So legally, and I presume legislatively, your definition of religion (and Gould’s original definition) is just not acceptable in New Zealand.

But looking at things in their context and development I think there is a lot of value in recognising Gould’s definition (binding us together) as being very relevant to the origin and development of religion. We have to recognise, though, that the “binding us together” role is filled by quite a few things in our modern world which no-one defines as religion (normally).

a hypothetical example of someone “doing religion”

…a person sees someone doing a certain action and says “that’s wrong!”
((not that I think religion is only about seeing things and declaring them to be wrong!!! ))

I’m still confused. “Doing science” is characterised by how it investigates things, not what it investigates. How can we describe “doing religion” in this way? Perhaps a hypothetical example of someone “doing religion” would help me figure this out?

‘doing religion’ (as distinct from ‘doing science’) is to enagage in a mode of enquiry which is different from the mode that science uses (scientific method, etc.). Religion is that tool by which we investigate things like meaning, value and purpose – or meaninglessness, valuelessness or purposelessness.

I’m still not clear on what religion brings to the table as a tool. For example I can see science as a group of people and I can understand the phrase “to do science”. On the other hand I can see religion as a group of people but I can’t understand the phrase “to do religion”…

a tool enquiring about things. Science being one kind of tool, with one flavour of enquiry; religion being another kind of tool with another flavour of enquiry.

Could you expand on this notion of religion as a “tool of enquiry”?

Yes, when defining terms, its always good to acknowledge common variances. I.e. ‘religion’ is a noun that can refer to a group of people, a set of beliefs, a ‘phenomena’, etc. I think Gould may be using the terms (science/religion) in a sense of two different ‘tools of enquiry’?

Perhaps slightly off track but I think they are necessarily related since science can of course investigate how a religion come to be, quite aside from the accuracy of the claims of religions. I think the complication comes where science can mean a “phenomena” but usually refers to a process or way of doing things. Religion on the other hand is, in my opinion, just a “phenomena”. Both science and religion (as phenomena, i.e. groups of people) can investigate claims and potentially have different domains of interest. However science as a process doesn’t have an equivalent called religion as far as I can tell, making the issue of magesterium rather irrelevant in that discussion.

Hmm that’s an awkward way to phrase it but it’ll probably get worse if I try and rephrase it so I’ll stick with it lol.