There are two main types of meaning realists: those who regard the deter- minate meanings as fixed by the relation of the expression to extra-linguistic reality (externalism) and those who regard them as independent of relations to such a reality (internalism).
A definition is an opinion. How can one come to a factual definition when it is opinion based. We follow the majority.
DEFINITION 15 theory of meaning (see Gardiner/Engler, “Semantics,” this volume). One crucial distinc- tion is that between meaning realism and antirealism.
Symbols in other religions could mean something else in another.
pecifying the Definiens
There can be many versions of a definition but one will pick the one that resonates with them the most.
Specifying the Definiens
This is for the last sentence of this [paragraph: Religion has subtopics and can fall under various other subtopics.
DEFINITION 13
I have noticed after reading this page specifically, that things keep going in circles. All definitions and ideas could contribute to the definition of religion. It could be defined but it shouldn't be. All ideas could lead to one definition and in some way they are all the same. It is also the way we perceive the definition.
hen Schilbrack’s definition of religion as “forms of life predicated upon the reality of the superempirical” (2013, 313) is viewed as expressing an equivalence, it can be inferred that all religions are forms of life, that all religions are committed to the reality of the superempirical, and that anything that is a form of life committed to the reality of the superempirical is thereby a religion. This definition can be critiqued by way ofa counterexample: some logicians regard the logical properties (tautological, contrary, valid, etc.) as real, knowable, but inaccessible to the senses, and assert that we have an (intellectual) duty to correctly apprehend them in order to adjust our inferential ‘forms of life’; is formal logic then a religion? On the other hand when a definition is proposed and received in elucidatory terms, failure of the applicability of the definiens does not logically entail failure of the applicability of the definiendum, or vice versa. When Schilbrack’s definition is viewed as elucidatory, the counterexample is not as threatening. Rather, both ‘form of life’ and ‘reality of the superempirical’ can be viewed as offering a sound and useful way of understanding religion\s, at least in the context in which the definition is advanced. F
There could be three perceptions of religion: What you personally believe, What others believe, and what it really is. Is it all based on the way one words it?
aca me link is to be conceived of either (i) as an equivalence or (ii) as a0 eluci a > a “a of “efinitions aS equivalences (i) the definienda are taken to be semanncany equivalent to definiens in the sense that €ach is essential] unequivocal yan stylistic variant of the other (such aS defining ‘c; n ? ¢ ot as > aol in the other conception de 2 educa as al sibling ), whereas (ii) Cidate t k a definiendyum (expression to be efining), Because these are expressed Proposed
Why make it a definition? Why not just define each individual belief and practice?
Fange of observe “Ot, uncontroversially labeled as religions or qualified as religious, and distil g stateme IDgs what they appear to have in common. Starting from the conceptual, on the other e of the method of intension (named from the term in logic for the criteria by which nd thing is to be included in a word’s extension, sometimes called connotation) } an intuitively plausible conception of what delimits the religious from the non and sorts through actual cases accordingly.
Then could things such as politics or fandoms be considered religious? what are the physical criteria? Where do we draw the line?
Some con- clude that instead of attempting to define religion the study of religion\s should focus its efforts elsewhere: to “focus on deconstructing the category and analyzing its function within popular discourse”
Does religion need a definition? is it the practice that defines it or does the definition define the practice? It would be like defining the word sport. There are different kinds of sports practiced in different ways, meaning they all have different definitions even ones that are debated on, such as ballet or MMA. It doesn't make the sport any less real. The definition of sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Many sports fall under that category and many don't, yet we still consider them sports whether or not we get excitement out of them. The definition is not what matters but what physically is being presented. It is not the actual belief but more of the similar physical practice.