From Religiosity to "God": Putting things in proper order.

[Mars Man]

To open with a quote from Albert Einstein (even in the face of sarcastic ridicule 'as though there haven't been enough of his already?.'):

It is very difficult to elucidate this [cosmic religious] feeling to anyone who is entirely without it . . . The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma . . . In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.​

IN OPENING EXPLANATION OF THIS THREAD'S PURPOSE:

Just the other day, Glenski brought a question before me in the midst of a short exchange on the matter of religion (in a thread which I will not link to here). His otherwise seemingly peculiar question was as follows:

Apes believe in God? ​

There is, however, a very specific reason for having asked such a strange question. In a post earlier than that, I had written the following:

This knowledge and understanding will not be void of the innate emotion of religiosity that humans and maybe the primates have, yet it will focus on laying the old belief-systems with their databases aside,​

There had been, therefore some degree of reason for the question, as we can see. Can we say, however, that the immediately above quote is sufficient for the confusion? It would be hard to answer in the positive here, due to the wording and modifying used. It is also a fact that we later came to see where the source of the confusion was; and that was not so nearly inherent in the souce statement for that confused question, as it was in the English word usage that rules the day.


We can crack open a number and range of English Dictionaries and find not only a prescription of word/term definition, sense, and usage, but, actually, much more so a description of the same. 'This is how it has been and (more so, depending on the work) is used' is what is more heavily given concern to.

I argue that it is about time to investigate (if not past that point in time that such should have been undertaken) usage of some number of English words today, and reform or recover present and/or more original definitions, senses and usages. I will start with the word 'religion' and work towards, and up to 'religiosity.' I will clearly explain and show the preference that stands to reason better, for usage of the English word 'god,' and that of 'God.'


While this thread will not only be about usage in the English Language, it is true that some points in our language have become to rustic and ill-informed so as to make such a strong effort to cling to--so as to possibly not allow any paradigm shifts. I hope to keep this in the public's eye so as to encourage learning, and forward growth in understanding.

I will followingly make the first post: religion.

 

[Mars Man]

Under the entry religion in Webster's II New College Dictionary, on page 936, we will find the following explanation:

2. The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers.​

Here, we find this in opposition, or contrast, to that which falls under 1., because in 1., ...a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe is provided for. Thus what is seen, is actually the development of a noun, a label, for a matter of concern with which the Homo sapien has most obviously had for some time--and this has, with recent discoveries in Africa, been pushed back a little bit [essentially art form expressing that innate emotion to have 'religion.'

In checking the adjective form of that noun, religious, in the same work, we will see:

2. Adhering to or manifesting religion : PIOUS
3. extremely faithful : CONSCIENTIOUS​

Points that we must keep in mind is that 1) this modifier is rooted in essential definition and meaning with its noun forum, and that 2) it also can return onto itself by being made into a noun again from the adjective form--viz. religiousness.

We will soon enough discover a synonym with the inflected-to-noun adjective 'religiousness,' namely, religiosity. What our source gives there, is 1. the state of being religious.


Under the religion entries, we can find the likes of :

7.b. a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing. Webster's 3rd Ed. New International

6.a. Devotion to some principle, strict fidelity or faithfulness, conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment. (obs) OED, Vol VIII
5. a thing that one is devoted to The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English​

What can be gleaned from the aggregate consensus of these works, is that the English word religion, while far more commonly and firstly used in the sense of a present religious belief-system (such as is found in Judaism, Buddhisim, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Shikhism, and so on), need not only refer to such a social construct, but can also, with equal validity refer to the innate human (at least for now) hard-wired emotional aspect more closely defined in the very first entry provided above.

On top of that, we can now know that the progression of the Homo sapien over time, and through various stages of social development--tribal-separate, tribal-conjunct, agricultural social adhesion, etc.--the development of more and more structured religious belief-systems which stood as social laws to instill coherence through out-group definitions so as to strengthen in-group bonding, had sprung from an original, simple human emotion that lies at the heart of it all. That emotion, thus, is best called religiosity.

Religiosity is the emotion which Albert Einstein had been trying to put a finger on, but had experienced a 'loss of words'--due to (I aruge) the lagging behind in understanding. It is awe that perhaps Galileo may well have had a rush of when having noticed, with his even simple telescope, bodies were revolving around Jupiter; when on first observation he had noticed three tiny dots, and after a few days, one disappeared, and then a few days later, there were 4 dots.

Religiosity is the emotion that Tsuyoiko and I have shared when sitting on those rocks on the plains of Mars, observing that softly glowing point in the sky, and thinking, with a big sigh, 'to think, we spend time on that speck of dust and water from time to time too. . . '

I will next further the explanation as to why using simply 'religion' is not good enough today, and that religious belief-system' should, and ought, to become the norm in English. I will go on from there with points about 'god' versus "God."

 

[Half-n-Half]

Religiosity is the emotion that Tsuyoiko and I have shared when sitting on those rocks on the plains of Mars, observing that softly glowing point in the sky, and thinking, with a big sigh, 'to think, we spend time on that speck of dust and water from time to time too. . . '

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this definition of religiosity could also be described as spirituality. That is, the feeling of a deeper connection with the world around us outside what is observable.

 

[Mars Man]

Yes, Half-n-Half san, I think that will fit quiet well. The noun 'spirituality' (which again, is inflected) that comes from the adjective spiritual, which carries the elements of spirit, can be very much related to the intelligent part of man, or mental or moral condition or attitude, mood.

It would always be good to distinguish, or point out, the sense being used, I'd always like to stress, due to it's being used in religious belief-systems' settings to refer to a quality of an immaterial entity--which, of course, is extremely hardly a reality.

 

[Bellevance]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this definition of religiosity could also be described as spirituality. That is, the feeling of a deeper connection with the world around us outside what is observable.

I agree, Half-n-Half. Religiosity might be a word for our reverential awe at the essential mystery of existence. This sense of religiosity would also be in accord with Albert Einstein's. He said:

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."

 

[Pachipro]

2. The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this definition of religiosity could also be described as spirituality. That is, the feeling of a deeper connection with the world around us outside what is observable.

I understand that this is only one definition, but that definition in itself implies to me that one Knows of, by firsthand experience, the existance of a superhuman power or powers. Since I know of no one in modern times who has ever come across one such person or powers, nor has said person ever shown himself. Should not the word "recognize" be replaced with "believes"? or does the word recognize in itself mean "to believe"?

It's just a little confusing and leads one reading the definition to assume that such a power does exist beyond just a belief or faith in such a power or being.

 

[Bellevance]

Should not the word "recognize" be replaced with "believes"? or does the word recognize in itself mean "to believe"?
It's just a little confusing and leads one reading the definition to assume that such a power does exist beyond just a belief or faith in such a power or being.

I think you're right; the writer's unconscious bias is at work. This example illustrates why dictionaries are often weak authorities in discussions like these. Not only do they often disagree in subtle ways, but some dictionaries are simply not well written or well edited. What's more, they tend to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive resources.

 

[Mars Man]

If I may here, I'd think it might prove to be clarifying to notice that area of my post a little more carefully. Here again, is that area; I reason there is no confusion at all:

Under the entry religion in Webster's II New College Dictionary, on page 936, we will find the following explanation:

2. The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers.​

Here, we find this in opposition, or contrast, to that which falls under 1., because in 1., ...a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power accepted as the creator and governor of the universe is provided for...​

While I do agree that there is room for confusion, there should not only not be, but, even more so, that it would be for those who can help clarify such matters through public education, to do so, because there is a difference between any one of the god-models humans have made (supernatural powers), and a superhuman power.

You see, gravity is a superhuman power, electromagnetism is a superhuman power, just as wind is a superhuman power, yet none of these are supernatural powers; none of these are god-models in todays major living religious belief-systems.

It will always be most rewarding and productive to help encouage careful use and attention to words and wordings. That is one way that we can help the world make progress in our ever so slowly, but nevertheless maturing, worldwide human social togetherness.

 

[Mars Man]

Pachipro san, I would argue that in this case, when one finds the verb 'recognize,' it will be used (again, note...in cases of the type under discussion in this thread) in the sense of 'take something, or a matter, to be as it has been stated by someone, or some group; to take a given thing, person, or group as being, or holding the office, that has been suggested, claimed, or rendered it by another.' Here, that verb would not carry the sense of cognitively identifying some thing or person . . . such as--I recognized my son in the photo, almost right away.

Now, as far as the descriptive nature of dictionaries, I had hoped that my having pointed that out in my first post, would have done the job; yet again, am sure it will need to be pointed out a number of times to get that message across.

I had written there, in paragraph number four under the opening explanation heading:

We can crack open a number and range of English Dictionaries and find not only a prescription of word/term definition, sense, and usage, but, actually, much more so a description of the same. 'This is how it has been and (more so, depending on the work) is used' is what is more heavily given concern to.​

 

[Bellevance]

2. The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers.

In the citation Pachipro refers to (above), the word "recognizes" clearly carries this primary connotation: "to admit the fact, truth, or validity of, to acknowledge formally," as my Webster's Third Unabridged has it.

This unfortunate usage reflects the faith bias of the writer of the cited definition. Moreover, "superhuman powers," as Mars Man goes to some lengths to point out, is an inexact term, since it may comprise "powers" that are not unobservable and unmeasurable (for instance, gods, demons, angels, and so forth), but also the wind and gravity, whose existence no one has trouble recognizing.

 

[Mars Man]

Yes, I would agree that we could see it as there being some possible bias there in the second description, and we should always be in an attentative mode for all bias, regardless of the direction from which it comes.

In the context of that one dictionary, we would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the editor(s), and posit that there was to have been no contradiction nor tautology with the first entry. Thus, actually, the editor(s) had likely been trying to leave room for such superhuman figures such as, say, Achillies, Krishina, and, maybe, Elvis Presely?--well, maybe not. . . but you get the point. Nevertheless, as pointed out above, we can plug in a lot of things, so I say, let's do it! Let's plug in nature-as-it-is-better-known.

However, we can also glean one other matter here, and that is the difference between the English words 'god,' and 'God.' I'd like to go into those next. . . again. (as I have spelled this out before in a thread that migrated to Europe, then got wiped out in a tidal wave of sorts)