An essay donated by Kile Jones

"Defining religion"

Sponsored link.

Abstract:

What is ‘religion’? How are we, within Psychology of Religion, to define such a broad and seemingly ambiguous term? This paper examines ways in which we can define religion and the different approaches that can be taken. The first half deals with the issue of definition and second with scholarly definitions that have been given in the 20^th century. The hope is that by understanding how we define religion we may better understand the conclusions we arrive at about religion.

Introduction: Defining "Religion:"

The inquirer cannot presume to be able to define religion in every conceivable sense, for such an intention runs contrary to the nature of a definition. It is only after the subject has been captured within a specific frame of reference that the inquirer can proceed to formulate a definition.

"Religion" is a difficult word to define. This commonly used word seems to have arrived at entire ambiguity in modern times, apparently reflecting the multi-ethnic and philosophically diverse global culture that we currently find ourselves in. Therefore the task of definition finds itself in troubled times, having feet planted firmly in mid-air. Yet this word is not without reference or meaning, and is employed quite often in every day conversation. When we speak of "a Religion", we are using the term to classify something, and when we speak of "the Religious", we are seeking to capture those with some distinguishable characteristics. So what do we actually mean when we use the word "Religion"? Or better put: "How do we define Religion?" This leads us to back to where we started: the task of definition.

Methodology and Presuppositions:

When coming to the challenge of defining the word "Religion" there must be a realization of one's own methodological assumptions and pre commitments. David Wullf notes this when he says that "how one defines religion, it is apparent, determines in large measure where one will look for its representation". This is true of anyone who takes on the task of definition and must be analyzed in order to construct somewhat of an objective answer. The temptation here is to ignore one's own presuppositions and then define the term based on individual preference, rather than anything remotely consented to by other scholars. Sharpe sees this difficulty and points out that "the tendency is there, to make 'religion' mean neither more nor less that what a person chooses that it should mean, irrespective of the whole host of observables which can be identified on other criteria as belonging within the orbit of religious belief and behavior". Some scholars insist that religion is defined sociologically (Durkheim, Weber), some psychologically (Feuerbach, Freud, Jung), some anthropologically (Levi-Strauss, Firth), and some theologically (Rahner, Tillich). Each of these camps seem to agree on the basic fundamentals of religion, yet each seems to emphasize what they feel to be the most important aspect of religion, and this is usually based upon their perspective field of scholarship. What is needed then is a balance between ones owns presuppositions and definition of religion and that of scholars in other areas of expertise.

Inclusive and Exclusive Definitions:

Within methodology one quickly finds two camps of definitions: inclusive and exclusive. An inclusive definition of religion emphasizes the universal nature of religion, seeing man as intrinsically homo religio. In this view every person is "religious" in some way: habitual behaviors, strong convictions, moral ideals, and beliefs about what is most meaningful. Paul Tillich seems to lean this way when he defines religion as "ultimate concern," for every human has "ultimate concerns" in one way or another. What follows in this definition of religion is that worldviews such as Atheism, Agnosticism, Secular Humanism, Scientism, and Buddhism can be thoroughly held to be religions. This broad definition focuses more on the subject, or the one who believes, then on the actual content or propositional doctrine that is adhered to.

The second way of defining religion is exclusive in nature. Using this method, in order for a worldview or belief to be considered a religion, it must hold to specific theological teachings. Some of these teachings include: the spiritual realm, the deity(ies) dispensing of reward and punishment, cosmology, symbols, and an historical tradition. Under this definition none of the earlier included worldviews fit nicely, if at all. This method of definition was the most utilized pre-enlightenment and still finds adherents today.

Many papers could be written merely arguing which one of these methods is more appropriate for religious studies, but for the sake of this paper the author will seek to include both of these camps within his working definition. The author feels that both of these methods can be used, each in their own way, to arrive at an understanding of what religion truly is. The exclusive approach may help narrow down what is actually in question, while the inclusive method might assist in discovering man as an existentially concerned being.

What Religion Has To Do With:

Before a definition can be made we must make some preliminary separations as towards what is in question. Are we going to define religion based on the doctrines within a worldview, or are we concerned with the practices of people? It seems that a simply theological definition could be given by comparing different religions one to the other and finding some common strands of similar teachings and beliefs within them; or we could examine people that seem to repeat certain acts and behaviors and analyze them and find a definition. For the sake of finding some "working definition" it seems best to utilize both of these techniques to discover what religion truly is. Therefore in the definition two parts will be made: the first concerning similar doctrines, and the second with apparent ritual actions.

As a theological definition it appears that religion has to do with the beliefs of individuals that there is some meaning and purpose for their lives. This meaning and purpose may be found from outside of themselves (Theism and Polytheism) or from within themselves (Atheism and Buddhism). Similarly, this meaning and purpose can be discovered spiritually, intellectually, and/or morally and is that worldview by which people gather and interpret phenomena, make judgments, and live ethically.

As a behavioral definition it seems that religion has to do with the actions, patterns, and practices that are done as a result of individual’s beliefs about what is most crucial in life. This could be actions done for Jesus Christ, Allah, Buddha, Zarathustra, or for the self. Yet these action are more than normal, they are religious. They are done frequently with distinguishable characteristics from and for a set of beliefs.

Anthropology of Religion:

Regardless of which religion is true or not there is still a universal anthropology of religion that needs explanation and clarification. Religion from an anthropological and sociological level is not synonymous with the theological and philosophical debates over truth and warrant and therefore needs to be treated differently. Religion, from an anthropological view, is one of many creative phenomena of mankind, specifically one that separates us from the animal kingdom and is universal in application. Wherever humans dwell, there is some form of religion and religious practice that needs clarification and interpretation. Yet coming from a religious worldview makes one view religion from a different lens, thus the insider/outsider debate comes in. In all of these different opinions on how to interpret religion there are vast amounts of knowledge that can be shared between those inside of religion, and those outside of it.

Similar Scholarly Definitions:

Building upon these ideas let us now consider the opinions of religious scholars and their definitions of religion that resemble my own. William James’ famous tentative definition of personal religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider divine" is inclusive enough to parallel the definitions we have been using. The difference in this definition than in mine is the emphasis on personal spiritual solitude and the term "divine". James, by his very definition, seems to deemphasize ritual and communal aspects of religion which I define as the actions, patterns, and practices that are done as a result of individual’s beliefs about what is most crucial in life. This could be going to Church, partaking of the Eucharist, going to Synagogue, practicing group meditation, or participating in religious and philosophical group discussion; all of these construct a framework though which we define and understand religious meaning as well as discover our place in the world, and therefore cannot be underestimated in the role it plays within religion. Similarly, when James uses the term "divine", this excludes Atheists and Dialectic Materialists from being under the banner of religion, which I find problematic in many ways. Yet it must be said that James’ humbly identifies his definition as tentative, therefore I am sure he would not be mad at our revising of it.

Another well known religious scholar that undertook my current assignment is Friedrich Schleiermacher. For Schleiermacher the sine qua non of religion was experience; a vibrant, deep, and transcendent feeling of the divine which caused him to define religion as "absolute dependence". This feeling of dependence is what Schleiermacher sees in all of the world religions as the tremendous sensation invoked at the thought of standing before what is Supreme in the universe. Schleiermacher’s broad but experiential definition finds itself as one of the central elements in religion, but like all definitions does not exhaust religion’s entirety. What I find most appealing about his definition is that it captures the meaning and purpose conveyed through religious experience. To stand beneath and up against the Ultimate is to find one’s self shadowed by its presence, and this experience creates an ardent sense of meaning in discovering where it is that you stand and who it is that you are. Unfortunately, as with James, Schleiermacher tends to deemphasize corporate religious experience and relegates his definition to individual existential interaction with the divine. Likewise Schleiermacher’s definition leaves out the ritual cultic actions of religious persons and their impact; you could say that Schleiermacher needed to dialogue with Durkheim and Weber to find more of a balance between the personal and social elements which make up religion.

Differing from the pragmatic and existential ways of defining religion are those who have defined religion in terms of God’s mystery, power, transcendence, majesty, and wonder, and religion as the response to these concepts. Under this heading we find such prominent theologians as Augustine, Calvin, Barth, and the scholar who we will now turn to, Rudolf Otto. Rudolf Otto defines religion in terms of "the Holy" (heilige), that is, the mysterious dread and wonder conveyed by the idea of the Ultimate. "The Holy" to Otto is a way in which we understand the aesthetic elements within religion which emphasize beauty, truth, and goodness. This category of interpretation stresses the great wonder and awe brought about through religion, as well as the earnest moral desire to know and do the good.Otto coined another term which is used to categorize and understand religion called the numinous. The numinous, as Walter Capps points out, "refers to an intangible, unseen, but compelling reality that inspired both fascination and dread". For Otto, the numinous is a lens through which we can understand the irrational aspects of religion, for the tremendous mystery (mysterium tremendum) of reality is beyond us and therefore cannot be truly understood in rational categories of thought. What I find fascinating about Otto's concepts is the emphasis on awe and reverence in religion. Through Otto's ideas we can understand why Muslims pray the way they do, why Christians evangelize the way they do, and why various ascetics live as they do. All of these religious acts are done in reverence to the dread of ultimate reality and impact the daily lives and thought pattern of religious people. The difficulty that I find in Otto's thought is the Kantian abandonment of the reaches and use of logic in understanding theology. All of the concepts that Otto uses are employed to understand and systematize some rational process in the minds of religious devotees, and so to deny the uses of logic and rationality as a way of understanding religion is to miss one side of the coin.

There is another strand of definition which, unlike Otto who sees religion as something externally relating to individuals, views religion from the inside out. Religion by this standard is something psychologically produced within human beings and transferred or projected as something outside of themselves. Ever since the dawn of psychology there have been many who define religion this way, most notable Freud and Feuerbach, but the one to whom we will now turn is C.G. Jung. Jung emphasizes the psychological process involved within religious phenomena and thus finds himself in relation to other psychologists in history. Jung defines religion as such:

Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as "powers": spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

What I find most notable about this definition is how Jung refers to religion as an "attitude of the mind". For Jung the mind plays a central role in religious phenomenology and must be given its due place as the determining factor. Likewise, for Jung the role of the psychologist and interpreter of religious phenomena must be neutral regarding the claims of religion: "The psychologist, if he takes up a scientific attitude, has to disregard the claim of every creed to be the unique and eternal truth. He must keep his eye on the human side of the religious problem". From this outsider perspective religion must be defined in terms of a human condition which has originated within the mind of man. What I find most agreeable in the Jungian definition is its emphasis on the very human interaction with religion. Although I would not be as reductive as Jung nor arrive at some of his conclusions, I still find him useful in understanding some of the psychological processes within religious people. Jung hits a note in his definition that resembles Otto's focus on the divine as external power; Jung defines what humans consider divine as "powers", that is those objects of though that have the ability to bless or curse, empower or destroy, and save or damn. For Jung then, religion is that mental process by which we adapt ourselves to our concepts of external "powers" and seek to please them by ritual action and contemplation. What I disagree with Jung on is not so much his definition; rather it is some of his presuppositions and reductive conclusions about the genesis of religion.

The last scholar that we will look at is the one who introduced a new way of understanding religion as our relationship with the eternal, is Anders Nygren. Nygren sees the idea of eternality and immortality as pivotal to religious thought and definition. To Nygren man is seeking that which will abide when all else has changed, to the unchanging truth and absolute anchor to which we can run to for protection. The concept of the eternal led Nygren to study central Christian motifs which he viewed as central to religious thought, particularly the idea of Agape. Although Nygren was himself a Lutheran Scholar, his category of the eternal extends broadly into other religions as well. We can see that spiritual views of religion place strong emphasis on what is unchanging, eternal, consistent, absolute, simple, and impassible, and seek refuge in them. Man according to Nygren, is caught in the changing and fluxuating tides of experience groping after that which can hold him through; what he is groping for is the eternal. Therefore to Nygren, the eternal is a category for understanding religious phenomena and is the central existential concern for spiritualists. We can see that this category does not apply to Atheism or Secular Humanism, although one might be led to say that even these views find the eternal in the physical world, although I am not ready to say so.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we have seen both the immense difficulty in defining religion as well as the intense efforts of various scholars to do so. Although the task may seem to be in disarray, under further investigation we come to discover the richness of understanding brought about through the task of definition. Religious scholars have a keen way of disagreeing with definitions other than their own; they forget that the disagreement lies within emphasis not within substance. Each definition is a piece of the whole, limited by individual’s presuppositions and perspective fields of study. Yet when we analyze the definitions throughout religious studies we can come to some sort of consensus of what religion truly is about. It is apparent that religion can be seen as a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phenomenon of human kind. To limit religion to only one of these categories is to miss its multifaceted nature and lose out on the complete definition.