What is religion?

In London, a debate was held yesterday in which the motion put forth was "We'd Be Better Off Without Religion." Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens each took part on the "pro" side of the argument.

Unfortunately, no one bothered to define "religion," which frequently happens in these types of debates. No one bothered to differentiate one religion from another, either. This invariably leads to someone attacking "religion" on the grounds that it has caused horrible things to happen (the Crusades, 9/11), which leads someone else to defend "religion" on the basis that it has given us great works of art and philanthropy.

In (non)defense of religion
Christians should not attempt to defend "religion" unless the word is given meaning within a context. Often, "religion" is used to mean something like "a specific set of doctrinal statements and rituals observed by a specific group of people." In those cases, why should a Christian be required to speak on behalf of Buddhism or Islam? It's akin to asking a New Democrat to defend the divine right of kings simply because they are both "politics." Discussions of religion without boundaries, where a discussion about the dual nature of Christ suddenly veers off into a debate about Middle Eastern terrorism, as is typical of web forums, are worse than useless. Christians and nonChristians alike are guilty of these context-wrenching "drive-by comments."

We all have got religion
But that's only one definition of "religion." Another definition, which I prefer, is "one's view of ultimate reality." I strongly dislike attempts to separate "religious" beliefs from the rest of life, because our "religious" beliefs and presuppositions shape everything else we do, on a fundamental level. Atheism may not have specific rituals associated with it, but it assuredly affects life decisions just as much as traditional Catholicism.

One of the best recent comments along these lines came from, ironically enough, an atheist on a religion and philosophy web forum. She pointed out that, until the Enlightenment, the whole of life was considered part of "religion," making it impossible to distinguish "religious" motives from nonreligious. Criticizing events of the past because of "religion" therefore makes no sense, because everything in the past was based on "religion." I would extend this to current events as well. How can you glibly attribute something as complicated as, say, the troubles of Northern Ireland or the situation in the Middle East to "religion?" You might as well say that "politics," "geography," or "history" are to blame - such a statement says nothing.

I wish that the organizers of last night's debate had been so thoughtful about defining their topic.