A good start, but not concretely grounded enough. I would imagine that in every case where marriage where it exists at all has become part of the cultural norm, it has been through the aegis of the endemic religious system. The mores and customs of marriage are in fact a microcosm of the binding quality of religion the literal meaning of which comes from the word "bind".
A system which through dogma binds to followers to accept the authority of the church hierarchy, and by extension bound also to god. As man is bound to god, the wife is bound to the man.
Thus in a modern context where the link with religion has been broken the ritual and meaning of marriage remains. The binding might be vocalised as love, but it is a binding nonetheless.
How can we remain silent while Christians are being persecuted? - Telegraph
These tools are powered by two things. The first is the fact that the majority of humans can be hardwired at childhood with only very few escaping this hard wiring and continue thinking to develop new ideas that improve the survival of the group. The process is a dynamic one.
So you have certain survival experiences hard wired in childhood that are considered absolute truth and essential for living -continuously tested by everyday experience, Then comes a wise person.. Part of the society do not get convinced and keep the old knowledge- leading to cultural, religious and lingual splits and fragmentation.
Thus what we see is only a mix of the various stages- the old and the new and the very new of this ongoing process- leading to this mix up between culture and religion. It seems to me that a rudimentary table of differences, that only classifies without proper explanation, creates to large a room for misunderstanding and confusion.
When I say Religion, it is only a catchword.. When I put Science or Reason in Culture, I point out to the non-dogmatic nature of culture, which is open to change. This doesn't mean that religion doesn't embrace or is not born in cultures. It only tries to separate the one from the other. For instance, the gods and goddesses of Hinduism are still always portrayed as wearing Sarees and Dhotis General Hindu Dress.
It might be considered an offence to portray them in Western clothes. This talks about the stagnancy of "religion's culture". However, Hindus don't necessarily wear only sarees and dhotis. They don't find wearing jeans or western coats as offensive. But, in a ceremony where religion its stagnancy is dominant, for instance during a Hindu marriage, what one wears can be an ethical issue. Similarly, modern armies use guns and bombs, but the gods and goddesses of religion may still be only pictured with swords and arrows.
That depicts the difference between what culture is by itself in historical development and how religion differs from it in its conservative holding to the "original culture" in which it originated. Another example would be the dynamics of linguistic development versus the language-culture of religion. For instance, in Islam Arabic is considered to be the divine language. However, modern Arabic has a dynamic history of development and modern Arabic is not totally the same as the Arabic of the 4th century.
Similarly, in Vedic Hinduism, Sanskrit is considered the language of the gods; but, in modern times Sanskrit is no longer used for conversation. It is taught in the schools but never used. That talks about the dynamics of culture versus culturalism of religion and should highlight that their difference. Religion will have to use cultural elements for sure, because it is always born in some culture or the other. However, cultures don't remain stagnant; they progress, inter-change, embrace new patterns.
But, there is a kind of dogmatic stance, an absolutist aspect to religion in general. There are many such examples that can be cited in this regard. When I say culture is about aesthetics, but religion is about ethics, I mean that cultural context plays an important role in what is considered beautiful or valuable and what is not for instance, in some cultures a long neck would be considered beautiful and in some cultures girls are fed to make them look stout because leanness is considered unattractive. For instance, one cannot say that in modern American culture, homosexuality is not wrong.
One can say that most Conservative Evangelicals believe homosexuality is sin; and, many liberals and atheists consider homosexuality to be okay. When I put entertainment in culture and worship in religion, I am using the terms only as exemplary symbolic representations. Culture contains entertaining elements like dance, arts, drama, and music. Religion will use these elements and give them a particular form for instance, church music or Hindu bhakti bhajan. In some cultures, religion even becomes the patron of some form of arts.
For instance, the god Shiva Hinduism is called the god of dance. But, those are religious attempts to claim cultural elements. Shiva has only a particular form of dance; and for sure, the orthodox dance-system doesn't approve modern dance or non-traditional dance forms even the Western.
Yet, one sees as fact of matter that the common man not the traditionalist would be more attuned to modern and popular art-forms and appeals of entertainment than to the traditional. I know that the elaboration is too short; but, I hope it helps in clarifying some misunderstandings and provide some rationale for the differentiation.
I would request scholars who comment to kindly cite some empirical cases when trying to disagree with this proposal. This will help in providing more empirical footing to the discussion here. It is a respectful greeting to you all. Second, I have had one or two issues getting access to these forums, so please forgive me for reviving this topic. When considering the differences between culture and religion, I think it is worthwhile starting at the beginning, and there are two perspectives on religion, which I want to articulate.
This is best seen in the Judaeo-Christian traditions which includes Islam , in that the prophets have revelations from a divine source, and in the actual presence of the divine in the physicality of Jesus of Nazareth in the Christian tradition. Mohammed, Isaiah, John of Patmos, John the baptist, all received divine revelations from the perspective of a believer. This, then, means that religion has a source other than this world. For believers, each religion has a metaphysical origin.
In that sense it is quite different to culture, though most religions, from this perspective, inform culture. The biblical Acts of the Apostles and the Qu'ran both give clear messages of the type of society, and therefore the culture, which is legitimized and expected by adherents to that religion. Cultures change and develop in response to the physical world, and in negotiation with other members of the group. Religion is part of the interactions of people and environments that give rise to culture and religion. There are major interactions between religion and culture, but they are of this world.
So, when the question is asked "What is the difference between religion and culture?
Services on Demand
The two positions lead to quite different answers. Apologies that I just noticed your reply. I agree with Wittgenstein about usage. My argument is merely that even within a given culture people can have ranges of experiences that expand their usages. That is one of the reasons that individuals in a culture coin new hybrid-words etc, in order to express those wider usages.
- 5 Reasons to Be Silent?
- The Scientifically Proven Reality of Life After Death;
- Advances in Earthquake Engineering for Urban Risk Reduction: 66 (Nato Science Series: IV:).
- The Infinite Village-The Visitor The Village & A Day to Remember.
Cultures do not blind us. Rather, they merely silence us since humans speak on the basis of subconsciously perceived outcomes. A Proposal Requesting Response Reply to Domenic Marbaniang Jesse Porter In addressing a difference between culture and religion one must consider the apposition between life and death; or the difference between the law of entropy and the theory of evolution.
5 Reasons to Be Silent
What foundation supports the law of entropy and what supports evolution. Do the same set of observations prove both. Life seems to support evolution in the growth and reproduction phases, yet death, while less apparent in those early phases, is never-the-less detectable there and is seemingly obviously the ultimate end of the individual life and possibly that of both culture and humanity.
I would posit that the difference between the two, seemingly both deniable and undeniable, is that religion is concerned with the ultimate source of life, both physically nature and spiritually supernatural , and the source of evolution more precisely. That posit may seem counter-intuitive, but I suspect that it will bear more scrutiny I think that most of the replies to the proposal presuppose that the study has already occurred and therefore attempt to rebut it.
I think it both worth proposing and interesting to contemplate. I would love to see its results. The society influence is not arguable and the dissent is not always tolerated. Please note many Asian societies with the corresponding cultures; they are not tied to religion, any religion. Perhaps one can say that culture incorporates religion, when it is present. However, religion is not necessarily a component of culture. Sign in Create an account. A Proposal Requesting Response. Culture and Religion are not the same, though they are very close. Steven Goldman Portland State University.
A people is its social heritage — the learned patterns for thinking, feeling and acting that are transmitted from one generation to the next. Difference Between Culture and Religion: However, this is not due to society but rather experience. In fact experience is so critical according to Wittgenstein that it can lead to borrowing terms from an existent social language in order to create a private vocabulary Murphey , The most common approach to this matter views religion as a dimension of culture, along with politics, economics, recreation, art, and so forth.
Christian, Thanks for the input! I think it is too much to say that Akbar failed. Akbar's project Din-E-Illahi failed to continue. Akbar I think would encourage us to take a skeptical and inquiring approach without coming too quickly to any definitive conclusion -- especially one that pits vehement believers against one another. By saying that religious elements are not cultural and cultural elements are not religious, I am trying to engage in a clarification of language. Christian missionaries from centuries past, Troeltsch, and even Tillich were clueless about the anthropological concept of culture that is now in use in a range of disciplines from sociology to history to religious studies.
- A new evil is sweeping the Middle East and the Foreign Office is failing to confront it.;
- Inspirational Thoughts.
- ;
- The Corgi Chronicles.
I understand that there are a varieties of definition. Of course, the differentiation should not rule away the possibility of cultural deification, for instance, as in cultural nationalism which is akin to religion, right? This post is based on a false dichotomy.
Navigation menu
I can appreciate your position on this topic but will have to disagree with your whole premise that culture and religion can be separated as if religion has nothing to do with cultural life development or life styles. Jeremy Paavola University of St. The distinctions proposed here are highly biased and ethnocentric. How do you justify the separation of culture from religion as one were not part of the other?
The usual trope on historical and anthropological studies is to oppose culture and nature. Actually, one hundred years ago all anthropologists would claim that culture is an emanation from a religion. Neil Parker University of Ottawa. An interesting, but too-simplistic comparison, I think.
Criticism of Christianity
The idea that marriage might be non-religous is a very new one indeed. In my opinion, religions, cultures and languages among others are important tools of social survival. I would like to thank everybody for taking time to respond. In addressing a difference between culture and religion one must consider the apposition between life and death; or the difference between the law of entropy and the theory of evolution. The vast majority of the self-identifying Catholic population in the Netherlands is now largely irreligious in practice.
In China, the term "Cultural Christian" can refer to intellectuals, openly religious or otherwise, who are devoted to Christian theology, ethics and literature, and often contribute to a movement known as Sino-Christian theology. Traditionally, Christianity has been considered a "foreign religion" Chinese: This attitude only started to change at the end of the 20th century. In China, the term "Cultural Christians" Chinese: A small number of them are openly religious, some others keep their religiosity secret to protect their academic positions in Communist China , some express sympathy with Christianity but do not associate themselves with it, while the majority are non-religious.
Liu Xiaofeng is the best known Chinese cultural Christian of the first type. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate. July Learn how and when to remove this template message. Christian symbolism Early art Church architecture Icons.
American Catholic literature Bible fiction Christian drama Christian poetry Christian novel Christian science fiction Spiritual autobiography. I'm a cultural Christian". I Guess I'm a Cultural Christian". History has repeatedly shown how, under such circumstances, regime change can be followed by a descent into sectarian chaos. Extremists can easily start fights along religious or ethnic lines by assassinating a leader, or blowing up a shrine. The result can be civil war as with Bosnia and Rwanda , even leading to partition as with India and Cyprus.
The Foreign Office has been typically slow to recognise the gathering threat, despite repeated warnings. The biggest one of all came a fortnight ago, when the Archbishop of Canterbury opened a gripping debate in the Lords about the widening persecutions, and what the Government ought to do. Lord Patten, the former education secretary, revealed that he spent a year failing to persuade the Foreign Office to help a group of Anglicans in the Anatolian peninsula, who are banned from worshipping in any public place.
So why the British reticence? It might be that the Foreign Office sees this as part of a soppy equalities agenda, unworthy of diplomatic attention. Those who have raised the issue directly with William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, say he is unenthusiastic. When Mr Hague visited Algeria recently, he did not raise its ban on any Christian activity outside state-licensed buildings. Yet there is plenty Britain can do. Countries could be denied aid until Christians or Jews, or Sunnis are allowed to worship freely. British diplomats could be empowered, even instructed, to advocate freedom of religion.
When a peer of the realm alerts the Foreign Office to some persecuted Anglicans, a red alert ought to sound. Mr Hague might even publish an annual audit of religious freedom in various countries, making clear its importance to Britain. It might make its own estimate about the scale of the flood of refugees. The Foreign Office did not realise the full evil of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans until it was too late: It can do better now, making clear that it regards religious cleansing as an emerging evil that ought to be confronted wherever it is being incubated.
Article 18 of the UN Charter of Human Rights guarantees freedom of religion — and yet outright religious oppression is quietly ignored, from Saudi Arabia to the Maldives.