RE: “This isn’t addressing the fundamental question: what makes a practice count as religion.”

Well, you suggested that entries on bureaucratic forms are a good basis for determining if something “counts” as a religion. I’m suggesting that one is perhaps more likely to reach an informed opinion about any putative religion by studying it carefully and in depth. One might then be in a position to categorise it – though it may well turn out that neither term – “religion” or “spirituality” – really suits well. After all, those are Western terms.

Re: “And because of the assumption that religion is important, that it addresses some deep, universal human need, people come up with unintelligible, highfalutin, useless definitions, like ‘the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern’ (Tillich).”

So you don’t think religion addresses some deep human need?

You call religion ”institutionally organized metaphysics + ritual”. First, this sounds extremely dry and slightly unreal. (How exactly does one “organize metaphysics institutionally” And will any old ritual do?) Second, what is metaphysics for you? I presume you rule out the kind of thing Tillich seems to have in mind?

DA