I think the real problem is that so many people believe that explanations of the world, whether religious or scientific, are literally true. They CAN'T be. Our senses give us only a sliver of the information that might be available if we could see the world as it is. And even what we perceive may be suspect. Cognitive scientist Dan Hoffman has realized that, from an evolutionary standpoint, perception is about survival, not seeing what's truly there. So he writes that perception is an illusion. And work by theoretical quantum physicist Amit Goswami suggests that the world around us becomes fully real only when we observe it, creating one of many possibilities. As to God, or the gods, this is a metaphor for the powerful forces that shape our lives. We need to be able to think about those forces so we can learn to cope with them -- think floods or illness. But if we accept these metaphors as TRUE, everything goes wapperjawed.

Dear Erik,

Yes, I do admire your comment.

Best,

Dmitri

Mainz, Germany

Dear Lindberg,

Webster's dictionary says:

Definition of religion

1a :  the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 :  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness

4 :  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

---End quotation

Notice the neutrality to theism in 4. Buddhism is often said to be a non-theistic religion.

Also of interest is the etymology, from the Latin:

According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.

---End quotation,

see:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

On the second account, the root "-ligion" is the same as that we find in "ligament," and "religion" would be that which binds us, or that which re-binds us--to what is regarded as sacred. 

In ancient Roman religion, the chief priest (called Pontifix Maximus), would sacrifice a bull in a yearly ceremony to create the "bridge," "pons," between the city and the gods --presumably to bind the city by maintain or remaking the "bridge" to the gods. This title was later taken over by the head, "Pontiff" of the Roman church.

H.G. Callaway

H.G., the purpose of this project is to delve into religion at a level deeper than the definitions you cite, all of which I accept. I've been able to trace religion to the human answer to a challenge all living things must face -- the need to create models of an extremely complex, continually changing world, enabling survival. From this point of view, religion seems to be the way we humans adapt to both natural and cultural change. Religion -- and its sisters philosophy and science -- allow us to understand and cope with the powerful forces that shape our lives.

As human beings we are curious. We do not know why!

We invent languages so we can communicate concerning our observations.

We make models of our observations. We discuss our models.

We BELIEVE in our models if they "agree" with our observations.

We invent concepts in connection with our models.

We do not understand concepts like TIME, ZERO and INFINITE.

Religion, Erik, is man's futile attempt to fathom what cannot be grasped, and to grasp what cannot be fathomed. And so, in utter frustration, he forces a conclusion upon that which has none and labels it accordingly. He stakes a claim in the Nothing and declares it a Something, and remains in denial of the fact that all of his knowledge is based upon presumptions he himself invented. And thus, way in the beyond sits God, roaring in laughter (Psalms 2:2).

Given the current situation of the world, and the degree to which it has resulted from a worldview grounded in Newtonian science, would you agree, Gershon, that science is a religion?

I would agree. Yes. I've always distinguished betwixt Science and Scientism. Like a wise elder once told me: "Once an ideal becomes a movement, it stops moving."

Erik, I would disagree that the same God must be behind all religions, that is unless you wish to argue for major misunderstandings of that God by humanity.  Most, but not all, religions agree that God is loving, but some few find God to be a spiteful hateful entity, and science seems content with a neutral God.  Likewise there are major differences as to the nature of God.  Some religions suggest that God is all there is and we humans are components of God somehow, while other religions emphasize that God is separate from the rest of creation.  

But nevertheless, the various religions as well as science, seem to be attempts to discover what is truth.  Each approach operates within the limits of its foundational assumptions, and these assumptions lead to unnecessary conflicts.  The assumption that all can be explained via materialistic means being one such troublesome assumption.  For those who make it I would merely note what is often used against a non-materialistic approach, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I have seen no proof that a purely materialistic approach can provide all the answers.  I think we need both a materialistic and a non-materialistic approach, using the scientific method as much as possible as I am not aware of a better one.  Insight or revelation is great, but it needs supported  by evidence.

Abraham Joshua Heschel put it this way: "There is only one truth, but there are many ways of misunderstanding it."

Religion is the path that leads to the knowing of the beliefs of persons regarding the relationship they have with the super spirits, its affiliates and mode of worship.

Dickson Adom

Ramkrishna said jato mat tato path. God is one. Ways are different.

Drawing on the work of twentieth-century philosophical theologian Paul Tillich, I would define religion as contact with the depth dimension of human experience, namely, the dimension of meaning, value, and being inaccessible through the five senses but which is existentially unavoidable.

Many roads lead towards God - some of them are paved by religion

The English words "religion" and "belief" have etymological ties to the concepts "re-connection" and "belove"; and the word "concept" has etymological ties with "conceit."

Put a bit simplistically, from within a Western and, especially, modernist outlook, religious belief can either be a matter of heart- and mind-opening connection with experiential realizations which are more simple and fundamental than constructed, conceptual conceits, or it can be effectively the opposite of that, namely, a dogmatic, personally concocted system of made-up ideas. 

And whether from within a religious discourse or a scientific one, the terms "God" and "truth" can gesture either towards living realities that are always already there, before we have conscious, waking-state concepts and language for them, or they can be terms that express conceited presumptions which are essentially unconscious of their own status as concocted models.

(The word "theory," too, has a kind of bivalent etymological pedigree. In earlier centuries in the Wast, it carried meanings related to "seeing" and to "meditative contemplative experience" [θεωρία]. Nowadays it is of course more associated with a "possessed idea" or a "created model.")

So, as a part of a condensed reply to the question, "What is religion?", I would suggest that it can either be an experiential practice of communion with the miracle of life and existence, before and, as it were, in spite of any of our constructed notions about things, or else it can be a kind of idolatry, wherein we effectively tell the world what is true, based on our own created notions about what reality is.

Religion is the collective name of laws and regulations to spend the human life including its all chapters like marriage, divorce , earning , spending, saving , sexual habits, social relations with other human beings and creatures, worship, fulfillment of commitments and abiding from the worst and delve things harming others or self. In a single sentence a complete code of life is called religion that is provided by GOD ( ALLAH).

No God but Allah? What is the meaning of Allah if not God?

Therefore the statement 'No God but Allah' means No God but God or in other words: There is only One God. Strict monotheism. A Christian who believes in the Holy Trinity could not agree with the Islamic formulation. A panentheist who believes that God is All There Is could accept it.

Lots of wisdom on this score is to be found in Mark Twain:

http://www.twainquotes.com/Religion.html

https://www.thoughtco.com/religion-quotes-by-mark-twain-2832666

Judaism insists that there is no God but YHVH (Jehovah); Christianity, the Trinitarian God; Hinduism, Brahman. Studying the circumstances in which each emerged, it is tempting to conclude that all of them are trying to understand the powerful forces of the universe as they manifest themselves in various times and places, just as biophysicist Stuart Kauffman currently calls them the Creative.