Is belief in "supernatural" requirement for religion?

[Ace101]

Hypothetically what if someone was in a religion which believed that "God" was actually an alien from another universe. So technically he wasn't a "supernatural" being since he was governed by natural laws of his own universe.

Would this still make their beliefs a "religion" - or are supernatural beliefs required for religion?

[TomFoolery]

Hypothetically what if someone was in a religion which believed that "God" was actually an alien from another universe.

Isn't this scientology?

[trdsf]

Hypothetically what if someone was in a religion which believed that "God" was actually an alien from another universe. So technically he wasn't a "supernatural" being since he was governed by natural laws of his own universe.

Would this still make their beliefs a "religion" - or are supernatural beliefs required for religion?

If said alien's existence hasn't been demonstrated, but is assumed and adhered to and asserted as fact without regard to evidence, then yes, it's a religion.

[Solitary]

If anyone believes in anything that is beyond science and it's laws it is a belief in the supernatural by definition. Is it required to be a religion, this depends on what definition of religion is used, even atheism is a religion by one definition, so no, being supernatural is not a requirement to be a religion, but the belief in a supreme being that defies the laws of physics is a supernatural belief. I would also say one that is beyond common sense from magical thinking that people take religiously.

[Baruch]

Y'all are trapped in the Matrix of modernity.  Where did the division between natural and supernatural come from?  Thales and Pythagoras, 2500 years ago.  Modernity is in part, a channeling of the long dead Greek geeks ... those guys were very much a minority view even among Greeks, in their own day.  They were opposed by several Greek nerds ... Xenophanes and Heraclitus.  And all four opposed the fathers of Greek literature, Homer and Hesiod.  Aren't the Greeks still arguing today?  A living person isn't an individual, but is a branch of a tree going into the distant past ... human ideas or memes ... are not new to our own time, but are recycled brain drain from past cultures.  Did you invent the English language yourself, or did you learn it from others?  Then almost none of your thoughts are original to you, because your thoughts and words are derivative works.  But then, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery ... and you don't have to pay residuals either ;-)

In olden times, there was no word for religion ... it simply was implied by how you lived, an unspoken and unanalyzed concept.  So if you accept, uncritically, the division of natural into supernatural ... then you are already assuming that the Illuminati of 500 years ago, that inherited non-theistic parts of Greek philosophy, were correct.  So I have to reject your definition ... it is too modern, too uncritical.  I do not accept Greek philosophy, except as something interesting.  I have returned to the Ur-definition of No-definition for natural/supernatural.  I don't choose to recognize that they are different.  I experience what I do, and you experience what you do, and sometimes we can talk about it and understand each other, but sometimes not.  But I don't need to give it either label.

Now in that context, to answer the original question ... no, the supernatural is not required for religion ... but it is often found in association with it ... as moderns define the supernatural (hence my initial segue).  And by definition of science ... there is nothing supernatural ... but then again, Euclid said that geometry was flat, because he assumed it was ... and his geometry is still taught ... but along with other less circumscribed former of geometry where the flatness is not assumed.  This Euclidean meme was so strong it resisted new math for 2000 years.  Was Euclid wrong or just incomplete?  So I would say, that science while useful, it is incomplete just like Euclidean geometry.  And I have no reason to be bound by word definitions defined by people 500 years ago, or even 2500 years ago.

Now as for alien gods.  Von Daniken anyone?  This is a modern meme for 50 years.  But belief in other worlds is as old as religion itself, they just didn't have post-Galilean astronomy.  A lot of people in GB identify as Jedi religion ... it is an official religion there.  All because of C3PO being done by a British actor I suppose ;-)  If SciFi isn't a religion, it is an ideology (and as valid as other folk beliefs of our ancestors, like fairies).  Scientology I think goes farther, and would count as a religion, because it teaches reincarnation of dead aliens.  I have a friend who believes that demons aren't supernatural, but are hostile trans-dimensional aliens.

Now the question of whether any deity is governed by natural laws ... is a theology question.  Shall we just pass by in silence?  An alien would be governed by natural laws ... but then we are just talking about superior life forms (we have plenty of aliens here already, they are called plants and animals).

[trdsf]

I want to touch on just these two points.

Where did the division between natural and supernatural come from?

The natural is that which is amenable to study by the scientific method, or mathematical analysis, or any other means that does not require faith or belief but can in principle be studied and give consistent results to anyone who chooses to look into the matter.

The supernatural is that which is not.

If you ask fifty astronomers where Mars was relative to a particular place on the surface of the Earth on a particular date at a particular time, you will get fifty answers that are essentially the same.

If you ask fifty astrologers what it means that Mars was there, you will get up to fifty different answers, many of which will be mutually exclusive, and yet all fifty astrologers will claim that astrological effects are real.

This in a nutshell is the difference between the natural and the supernatural.

But belief in other worlds is as old as religion itself, they just didn't have post-Galilean astronomy.

The existence of other worlds is not a matter of belief.  I know, I've co-discovered one myself (well, okay, a planet candidate, it's not confirmed yet, but dayamn that was an amazing email to get).

[Sargon The Grape]

Y'all are trapped in the Matrix of modernity.

3edgy5me

[Sylar]

Supernatural entities aren't required in religion per se; what's required is dogmatic assertions, at which point supernatural or not it matters not, for such belief lacks evidence and is therefore null.

[Baruch]

trdsf - you just proved my point ... but it is hard to see beyond one's own culture/language.  Since I am multi-cultural, it is theoretically easier for me to see the many sides of any argument ... just like being multi-lingual (I wish, but I am still trying) ... helps me escape the idea/expression trap of monolingualism.  But that doesn't mean I don't like you ... you are smart, and I like smart.  That is why I like Mike CL too.

Hijiri - love your dynamic avatar.  There are worse things than being trapped in the world of anime ;-)  Say hi to Naruto for me.

Sylar - you get it.  Dogmatism is necessary for any institution, including the Army.  Sarge doesn't care what you think.  Individual thinking, outside of a foxhole, is deleterious to the mission.  It is in dogmatism that we can cross freely between theology and ideology and back again.

[SGOS]

Individual Pantheists may or may not ascribe supernatural qualities to the universe.  Those that don't, simply worship it and call it God.

[Brian37]

No, you do not have to believe in the supernatural to be superstitious. There are new age wooers who view the universe as a giant living thing. There are also si fi woors who stupidly take QM to mean there is a cosmic Bill Gates making all this a computer program. Religion is when you take bad claims to an organized political level. It is quite possible in the future, for Star Wars fans or Star Trek fans to take a mere show or movie and turn it into a religion. Much like si fi writer L Ron Hubbard concocted a religion.

But even with the religions of Asia and the Orient commonly called "atheistic" is quite misleading. No, they don't have a central god figure, but they still have rituals, holy people, holy places, and their own superstitions including beliefs in spirits and demons.

None of the world's religions believed today, were around 200,000 years ago, much less 4 billion years ago, much less 14 billion years ago. And in the future every religion will either morph into something else or completely die out. And regardless, our species will go extinct and our planet and sun will die, and the universe will continue on with absolutely no record of our existence or the the religions humans concoct, god or not.

[Atheon]

Supernatural entities aren't required in religion per se; what's required is dogmatic assertions, at which point supernatural or not it matters not, for such belief lacks evidence and is therefore null.

What about homeopathy? People dogmatically assert that it's true. I'd say an element of reverence is required, too. The believer should feel that he or she is privy to some kind of Great Truth, and feels a sense of reverence toward it. Homeopathy is considered by most believers to be just a form of medical treatment.

[Mike Cl]

What about homeopathy? People dogmatically assert that it's true. I'd say an element of reverence is required, too. The believer should feel that he or she is privy to some kind of Great Truth, and feels a sense of reverence toward it. Homeopathy is considered by most believers to be just a form of medical treatment.

That's an interesting thought.  I think of homeopathy as almost herbology of the ancients.  It is treatments that were used in various cultures way back when--that's how I view it.  Most of the treatments don't work, but some seem to.  I can't name them, but I've know people who swear by these things and seem to have lived as long as most others.  Medicine is not a pure science and it is one area where 'belief' seems to play a role.  What I mean by that is that two people with the same disease treated by the same medications can have different outcomes.  It seems that those who have and maintain a positive attitude do better.  I don't have scientific facts to back this up, just personal observation.  But there seems to be something that is very important about what we think will happen or not happen.  This is kind of a disjointed post, but it does seem to me that in the area of our health, our attitudes greatly affect it.

[Hydra009]

I think of homeopathy as almost herbology of the ancients.  It is treatments that were used in various cultures way back when--that's how I view it.  Most of the treatments don't work, but some seem to.  I can't name them, but I've know people who swear by these things and seem to have lived as long as most others.

Hoemopathy is actually a fairly recent development - circa 18th century.  It's literally a textbook case of pseudoscientific methodology and shouldn't be confused with traditional medicine (much older and somewhat based in experience/knowledge, though lacking rigor).

Medicine is not a pure science and it is one area where 'belief' seems to play a role.  What I mean by that is that two people with the same disease treated by the same medications can have different outcomes.  It seems that those who have and maintain a positive attitude do better.

That's true to some degree, but only to a degree.  Disease is ultimately based in chemistry/biology.  Medicines that are not based in the same simply do not work.

[the_antithesis]

are supernatural beliefs required for religion?

No, but arrogance is.