If we go for a very technical take, the term “religion” refers only to Christianity. That’s because the term was adopted during the Reformation era, and later expanded during the Enlightenment, to make some sense of what was going on between the different Nation States going for this or that version of Christianity, and then by contrasting all of those takes with the novel alternatives of Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism, of political power grounded on the people vs. on God etc., all the while “back porting” it to the question of the earlier disputes between Christendom’s (the original term) original great schism and earlier heresies, and between those as a whole vs. Judaism, Islam, and so-called Paganism. As such, any attempt of extending it to anything beyond primarily Christianity internal disputes, and secondarily Abrahamic disputes, is fraught with complications, since one’s operating more on the basis of analogies than on a strictly defined conceptual axis. For more details, check Catholic philosopher Edward Feser’s blog post What is religion?
Given that, taking Confucianism to be a religion, or taking it not to be a religion, are both arguably valid, since it comes down to which aspects one’s emphasizing and deemphasizing in their analogical approach.
Now, I consider Confucianism a religion because it had and has a priesthood, rites, temples, and presented itself as a continuation and development of ancient Chinese beliefs. Confucius himself, for instance, was a well regarded and accomplished expert in the art of ritual animal sacrifices, and it’d be very odd to try and disengage his religious piety from his intellectual work, when both in fact complement each other. It’d be akin to thinking of the Neoplatonic philosophers, and Neoplatonism, as non-religious despite many of them being pious worshippers of several Greek deities, deities who in turn can be taken to be as abstract as Confucianism’s Tian. In fact, the very Physis referred to by the scholar mentioned in the Wikipedia article was a duly worshipped primordial goddess in the Orphic tradition in Greece.
Other polytheistic and/or ancestor-worshipping belief systems have similar traits. In fact, in the set of human belief systems, it’s modern Western ones that stand out as somewhat weird—or rather WEIRD—in their sharp distinction between secular and religious spheres of influence and action. Most everyone else doesn’t do that. Hence, maybe it’d be more accurate to say neither that Confucianism is a religion, nor that Confucianism isn’t a religion, but rather that Confucianism, Neoplatonism, Hinduism and others are all holistic paths (that they’re “daos”), and that both Western religions and non-religions alike are, all of them, so many daos.
Not sure of the preferred method of making qualifications to previous posts, so I guess I’ll just make another post.
After doing a little due diligence to the discussion by following up on Wikipedia, I think I understand better the points being made. I was unaware of the more modern developments of Contemporary Confucianism, and my comments relate only to what the Wikipedia entry refers to as Official Confucianism which ended in 1905.
The abolition of the examination system in 1905 marked the end of official Confucianism. The intellectuals of the New Culture Movement of the early twentieth century blamed Confucianism for China’s weaknesses.
After 1905, the cultural revolution changed China. At this point, I would say that Contemporary Confucianism has become a religion. Were it up to me, I believe a rebranding would be in order.
Hence, maybe it’d be more accurate to say neither that Confucianism is a religion, nor that Confucianism isn’t a religion, but rather that Confucianism, Neoplatonism, Hinduism and others are all holistic paths (that they’re “daos”), and that both Western religions and non-religions alike are, all of them, so many daos.
I agree and disagree. As it pertains to Confucianism, I agree it is more of a holistic concept than is acknowledged by a term like religion.
From the Blog you linked to:
So, the definition is telling us that doctrines, rituals, and moral principles are among the key elements of religion.
I would argue that Confucianism is a tradition not of morals, but of ethics; that the primary concern is not with ‘feeling’ that something is right or wrong, but ‘thinking’ about whether something is right or wrong, and doing the ‘correct’ thing regardless of how you feel about it.
If we go for a very technical take, the term “religion” refers only to Christianity. That’s because the term was adopted during the Reformation era, and later expanded during the Enlightenment, to make some sense of what was going on between the different Nation States going for this or that version of Christianity, and then by contrasting all of those takes with the novel alternatives of Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism, of political power grounded on the people vs. on God etc., all the while “back porting” it to the question of the earlier disputes between Christendom’s (the original term) original great schism and earlier heresies, and between those as a whole vs. Judaism, Islam, and so-called Paganism. As such, any attempt of extending it to anything beyond primarily Christianity internal disputes, and secondarily Abrahamic disputes, is fraught with complications, since one’s operating more on the basis of analogies than on a strictly defined conceptual axis. For more details, check Catholic philosopher Edward Feser’s blog post What is religion?
Given that, taking Confucianism to be a religion, or taking it not to be a religion, are both arguably valid, since it comes down to which aspects one’s emphasizing and deemphasizing in their analogical approach.
Now, I consider Confucianism a religion because it had and has a priesthood, rites, temples, and presented itself as a continuation and development of ancient Chinese beliefs. Confucius himself, for instance, was a well regarded and accomplished expert in the art of ritual animal sacrifices, and it’d be very odd to try and disengage his religious piety from his intellectual work, when both in fact complement each other. It’d be akin to thinking of the Neoplatonic philosophers, and Neoplatonism, as non-religious despite many of them being pious worshippers of several Greek deities, deities who in turn can be taken to be as abstract as Confucianism’s Tian. In fact, the very Physis referred to by the scholar mentioned in the Wikipedia article was a duly worshipped primordial goddess in the Orphic tradition in Greece.
Other polytheistic and/or ancestor-worshipping belief systems have similar traits. In fact, in the set of human belief systems, it’s modern Western ones that stand out as somewhat weird—or rather WEIRD—in their sharp distinction between secular and religious spheres of influence and action. Most everyone else doesn’t do that. Hence, maybe it’d be more accurate to say neither that Confucianism is a religion, nor that Confucianism isn’t a religion, but rather that Confucianism, Neoplatonism, Hinduism and others are all holistic paths (that they’re “daos”), and that both Western religions and non-religions alike are, all of them, so many daos.
Not sure of the preferred method of making qualifications to previous posts, so I guess I’ll just make another post.
After doing a little due diligence to the discussion by following up on Wikipedia, I think I understand better the points being made. I was unaware of the more modern developments of Contemporary Confucianism, and my comments relate only to what the Wikipedia entry refers to as Official Confucianism which ended in 1905.
After 1905, the cultural revolution changed China. At this point, I would say that Contemporary Confucianism has become a religion. Were it up to me, I believe a rebranding would be in order.
I agree and disagree. As it pertains to Confucianism, I agree it is more of a holistic concept than is acknowledged by a term like religion.
From the Blog you linked to:
I would argue that Confucianism is a tradition not of morals, but of ethics; that the primary concern is not with ‘feeling’ that something is right or wrong, but ‘thinking’ about whether something is right or wrong, and doing the ‘correct’ thing regardless of how you feel about it.