Reply #5: No, not a good definition - it's too loaded with value words. [View All]

[Rabrrrrrr]

It's also rather one-sided - it seems to have been written by a Christian, perhaps a not very sophisticated one, that equates being religious with being Christian but who also knows that he can't just go and say that. He also doesn't have a good enough command of English for this definition to work: it's full of grammatical nonsensicals.

It's also far too specific - it's claiming that religion drives a person to humility and selflessness. Some religions, maybe; and maybe for some adherents within those religions. But not all religions.

But to make these kinds of absolutist claims like "religion connects a person with a larger world" (this has within the degfinition the implicit assumption that there is a larger world, while at the same time failing entirely to define what a "larger world" is) and "creates a loyalty that extends to the past, the present and the future" (it might create some kind of loyalty, but not necessarily, and not necessarily to historical events or future ones), or "it creates a sense of humility", which is just clearly false based on looking around at fundy Christians and Muslims and Jews, and "makes one feel grateful", which is also pure bullshit.