See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318300546

Whitehead and Religion: How His Concept Differs From The Traditional
Approach.

Article · December 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 1,316

1 author:

Dorival Pimenta Do Nascimento

Claremont Graduate University
5 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Protestant Reformation in Zurich/Switzerland View project

The Jesuit Order in Colonial Brazil View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dorival Pimenta Do Nascimento on 09 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Whitehead and Religion: How his Concept differs from the

Traditional Approach
DORIVAL DO NASCIMENTO

“Religion is what individual does with his own solitariness.”1

“Thus, religion is solitariness; and if you are never solitary, you are never religious.”2

Introduction

The word religion seems to express by itself her meaning. Yet scholars still debate over

its real meaning and role in human history. An attempt to demonstrate the importance of

Whitehead’s innovative approach to religion is the focus of this essay. His magnificent book,

Religion in the making3 will be the foundation for the discussion. It is necessary to affirm from

the outset that it is not just a simple matter of comparison between whitehead’s statement about

religion and what traditionally has been said about it, especially from Christianity. It is more than

conceptualization. It is about the huge implications that an understanding of religion can have

and does have over the lives of all human beings.

“Many observers of religion have attempted to provide a definition which would be as inclusive as they
themselves considered religion to be: The following are a few of the best known definitions of religion:
‘The essence of religion consists in the feeling of an absolute dependence’ (Friedrich Schleiermacher); A
religion is an unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things…’ (Emile Durkheim);
religion is that which grows out of, and gives expression to experience of the holy in its various aspects’
(Rudolph Otto); Religion is what an individual does with his solitariness’ (Alfred North Whitehead);
‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature…it is the opium of the people’ (Karl Marx); Religion is the
state of being grasped by an ultimate concern’ (Paul Tillich) “ 4
Part I

1
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926), 16.
2
Ibid, 17
3
Ibid
4
John R. Hinnells, The Penguin Dictionary of Religion, (London: Clays Ltd. 1997), 415
 2

The etymology of the word surely expands the semantics of the word in such a way that

adds up to the level of complexity when attempting to grasp the meaning of it. The word

religion, when analyzed through the lens of Europe’s religious history shows that there are

different explanations that follows, to a certain extent, the preferences that the author had in

mind. Cicero, for instance the word religion had its roots in relegere that reflects his own Roman

religion with its repetitive veneration practices. 5 It was Lactantius, 4th century Christian writer

who interpreted the root of the word as coming from religare thus pointing to a possible close

connection between God and humankind.6 This etymological interpretation is still largely used

and taught in many Seminaries and Christian universities in the United States and thus exported

to different countries in the world through missionary work.

In ancient and medieval times Christians spoke of their religion in terms of fide(belief),

secta (line to be followed), law rather than religio which has become the general term used to

designate Christianity only in more recent times, after the reformation.7 Maybe here resides the

difficulty in defining the term religion even recurring to etymology. Terms such as belief, secta

and law are easier to grasp.

The definitions mentioned above are to some extent very intriguing. Is the essence of

religion about feeling of an absolute dependence as proposed by Schleiermacher? Or is it a

unified system of beliefs as Durkheim said? The point is a consensus does not exist. In some

Christian denomination, what seems to prevail is the definition proposed by Lactantius which is

the idea that religion comes from religare.

5
Ibid,414
6
Ibid,414
7
Ibid,414
 3

It is already well established that the word religion through the lens of Europe’s religious

history is not easily defined. The multiplicity of meanings attributed to the word clearly proves

it. Thus, the following questions can be raised: What about the non-European traditions? What is

the impact of religion in their lives? Is an attempt to analyze and compare them even justifiable

since the language used carries a meaning that is compromised by its own context and

historicity? In other words, the cultural differences will certainly get in the way. An all

embracing analyzes seems to be impractical.

To add up to the difficulty in conceptualize religion in Europe or in non-European

countries, the Germans deals with a unique problem which is the attempt to study religion apart

from theology, Religionswissenschaft. This term was introduced by Friedrich Max Muller (1823-

1900). Wissenschaft refers to sciences and Humanities.8 With the addition of this term the

possibility of a definition became harder. Why this term was introduced in the discussion? The

answer is that it must do with the complexity of conceptualizing religion as such. Without having

a proper definition adding an extra-word to it as wissenschaft or geschichte does not make it

easier.

All the definitions presented so far fails to provide an understandable concept of religion.

Undoubtedly, they all make a huge contribution to the discussion of religion as such.

Nevertheless, Whitehead’s contribution through Religion in the Making9 not only facilitates the

understanding of the term religion but also take the reader to a further and deeper apprehension

of the term encompassing all that is to be analyzed and understood.

Whitehead’s concept of religion differs from the traditional approach. Some of these
differences are evident in the preface of RM. “…a concise analysis of the various factors in human
8
Ibid,416
9
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926)
 4

nature which go to form a religion, to exhibit the inevitable transformation of religion with the
transformation of knowledge, and more especially to direct attention to the foundation of religion on
our apprehension of those permanent elements by reason of which there is a stable order in the world,
permanent elements apart from which there could be no changing world.10

It is fascinating the clarity of his objectives: He affirms that his aim is to give a concise

analysis. Concise means giving a lot of information in a few words, brief but comprehensive. An

analysis marked by brevity of expression or statement: free from all elaboration and superfluous

details. 11

It is noticeable that Whitehead is deeply interested in the’ numerous factors in human

nature for these factors form a religion. The point here is that he from the onset already ties

religion to the human nature suggesting, so it seems, that religion must do in some way or the

other with human nature. It seems that he is pointing out to the importance of something that is

within rather than outside of human beings. It is already clear in the preface that there is

something extremely important to whitehead in terms of connectedness. In other words, there are

a range of factors. These factors acting together form a religion. These same factors exhibit the

inevitable transformation of religion. Subsequently, transformation of knowledge also occurs.

Religion according to Whitehead’s preface has a foundation. It is his intention to show

the importance this foundation on our apprehension of the permanent element in religion which

allows changings in the world. How that happens? What are these elements? By doing a close

reading of RM it will be possible to determine with accuracy the major differences between

Whitehead’s approaches to religion versus the traditional approach.

Part II

10
Ibid
11
Merriam- Webster Dictionary
 5

As mentioned before, whitehead set a goal for this writing. It had to be concise. It had to

be about religion in a broader sense. It had to be thorough. That is exactly what he did. Some of

the definitions of religion mentioned in this essay emphasize society and some emphasize men’s

value or some other aspect. To some extent, at least in my view point, they all touch important

points but without enough information to clarify what religion really is. Whitehead in the other

hand creates an encompassing argument where he touches points that were conveyed in the

definitions by this or that scholar. He in RM touches all the points and goes beyond all of them.

Whitehead’s arguments are authoritative and marked with an admirable coherency.

For Whitehead religion has a historicity. It is necessary to examine it to define it

properly. Religion differs from arithmetic insofar “you use arithmetic, but you are religious.” 12

Being religious has something to do with the way one faces the world. It must do with all that

pertains to life as such. It refers to afterlife as well. Whitehead is precise in choosing the terms

that will carry his arguments. It is a mathematical precision. For instance, it can be negated that

“no one is invariably justified by his faith in the multiplication table…one’s character is

developed according to his faith.” 13 Traditional approach to religion normally does not address

this element. At least not with this clarity. Religion has a transforming agency while arithmetic

does not. In just one-page Whitehead brings elements that are crucial to the understanding of

religion. He also presents for instance, the idea of justification by faith, not only in Christianism

but as the basis of all religion, “in some sense or other14 as he puts it; the correlation between

character development and one’s faith; Religion as a force of belief cleansing the inward parts.15

12 12
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926), 5
13
Ibid,15
14
Ibid
15
Ibid,15
 6

Religion, as mentioned from the onset of this work is a highly debated theme. There are

multiple definitions of the term as shown in prior pages. While Whitehead precisely guides his

readers through the understanding of religion as such, some scholars of religion have

concentrated their attention on the impact that religion can, positively or negatively cause in

society. Those are essential elements to be considered as well. However, without a clear

understanding of what religion is the sociological impact that it causes cannot be satisfactorily

well understood. On the other hand, if a well-balanced definition is reached far greater will be

the contribution to humankind. Whitehead gives such well-balanced definition in RM.16

Whitehead focuses his attention primarily on the individual. Most modern writers focus

on the collective. This aspect shows a major difference on Whitehead’s approach to religion. The

transformation that religion can do resides on the individual. It is within the individual that the

transformation occurs. It is from one to many. I argue that Whitehead’s approach is a powerful

tool to explain why religious actors while having well-crafted arguments to use religion or to

instruct major religions to use their strength and influence towards peacebuilding have being

incapable of effectively deal with the challenges that the world have being facing throughout the

history of mankind and is still facing today.

Whitehead’s approach offers a paradigmatic change. It shifts focus from the collective to

the individual. When the individual’s character is transformed the collective becomes powerful

and changes occur in other level.

16
Ibid
 7

In regards of religion and violence the analysis seems to be most of the time directed to

the collective as can be seen in the works of prominent scholars such as R. Scott Appleby,
17
William T. Cavanaugh, 18Stanley J. Tambiah,19 and others.

The title of some works already suggests to the reader that the book will be dealing

religion and that the focus will be the collective. Any proposal regarding definition of the word

religion, its role, its importance, it impact or its place in society will be addressed to the

collective. In whitehead’s Religion in the Making, though it is not about conflict resolution,

violence or peacebuilding it does lays out the foundation for a treatment of these crucial

elements. The fundamental thing is considering religion and its close relationship to the human

being as an individual. Just one example will suffice in showing how modern scholars situate

religion in a context as violence.

“When I refer in this book to religious actors, I mean to include people who have been formed by a
religious community and who are acting with the intent to uphold, extend, or defend its value and precepts. The
spiritual freedom of individual religious actors notwithstanding, the term religion (from the Latin religare, ‘to bind
together) suggests a communal orientation and common purpose, and conflict analysts tend to be concerned with
collectives-movements, groups, organizations, militias, and denomination-about whose behavior reasonable
generalizations can be made. Religious NGOS and other voluntary associations that operate outside formal
denominational structures fall within my definition of a religious collective. 20

Appleby does use the terms that whitehead refers to in his book. Communal and

collective are two of them. It appears that Appleby is using the term in association with religion.

It is an acceptable assumption on my part since Appleby’s book is about religion. Thus, taking

17
R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred- Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (New York: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2000)
18
William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence (New York: Oxford, 2009)
19
Stanley J Tambiah, Leveling Crowds Ethnonationalist Conflicts and Collective Violence in south Asia (Berkley:
University of California Press, 1996)
20
R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred- Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (New York: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2000), 9
 8

this statement into consideration one immediately notes that it is being used in a way that differs

from Whitehead. Whitehead’s definition of communal in the words of George L. Kline is:

Communal religion is thus a misleading expression since communal religion is not truly religion

at all for him, but is simply a stage on the way to its development. In other words, communal

religion is a proto-religion, just as the speculations of Pythagoras might be termed proto-

science.21

Appleby’s example is very useful to stress the distinct levels in which both writers are

operating. Certainly, Appleby has a clear intention to present his arguments regarding religion

and its connectedness with political life, international diplomacy and violence in distinct parts of

the world especially after the Cold War. It is undoubtedly a very significant contribution to the

field. Nonetheless, Whitefield’s contribution is even greater since it deals with the foundation of

religion. It deals with the essence of religion as such.

It is interesting to mention that Appleby accepts the etymological definition of religion.

Thus, contrasting with what was already demonstrated that etymology is not sufficient to render

a clear understanding of what religion is.

Cavanaugh also deals with religion in the context of violence. The point aimed at here is

that he also does not define religion as such. What he intends to demonstrate in his book is that

religion is a social construct that benefits the nation state, especially in Western civilization. He

says: Religion is constructed as Trans historical, transcultural, essentially distinct from public,

21
Lewis S. Ford and George L. Kline, Explorations in Whitehead’s Philosophy (New York: Fordham University Press,
1983), 150
 9

secular rationality. To construe Christianity as a religion, therefore, helps to separate loyalty to

God from one’s public loyalty to the nation state. 22

The contrast with Whitehead is evident. It seems that it is not necessary to elaborate too

much on this point. His main argument is that religion is not intrinsically violent as the nation

state portrays it. The tendency to violence, attributed to religion, is a thesis that was formulated

by western civilization to cover the violence that the nation state has being disseminating

throughout the history of mankind. In that sense, Cavanaugh’s work is also very important

contribution to the discussion of religion. He does not define religion. He is after the causes of

religious violence.

Part III

Whitehead’s words in RM, 23is just like a fountain of fresh water to a thirsty soul

walking in the deserts of life. He presents definitions of religion in almost every page.

So far, a general idea about traditional approach to religion was presented. Now, I will

elaborate on Whitehead’s main points: Collective enthusiasms, revivals, institutions, churches,

rituals, bibles, codes of behavior, are the trappings of religion, its passing forms. They may be

authoritatively ordained or merely temporary expedients. But the end of religion is beyond all

this.

The words Whitehead uses are perfectly clear. The interpretation of these lines does not

necessitate the application of the rigorous techniques of hermeneutics. It is, in terms of

complexity not even close to Whitehead’s magnum opus, Process and Reality. 24

22
William T. Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence (New York: Oxford, 2009), 59
23
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926),
 10

The elements that are most important to modern scholars of religion are exactly the ones

that Whitehead affirms as not being so significant. In fact, he says that ‘the end of religion is

beyond all this’25

Religion has an end. Religion is by no means necessarily good. It may be very evil.26

Whitehead allows religion to speak for herself. It is undeniable that both aspects of religion are

easily seen throughout the history of mankind. The ambiguity of that which is sacred permeates

the religious experience. The end of religion is to bring about individual worth of character.

However, the potentiality for what is considered negative is there. Why so? For the reality or fact

of evil, ‘interwoven with the texture of the world’27 and, this shows that ‘things there remains

effectiveness for degradation.’28

To accomplish its end religion must be dealt with in respect to individualized experience

of human beings. Thus, solitariness must be seriously viewed for this simple reason: ‘religion is

solitariness,’ and if you are never solitary, you are never religious. It seems to me that this point

is presented as an axiomatic expression where you can easily do the substitution of terms without

changing its value. One of the implications here is that individual religious experience is pivotal.

History has an important function in the development of Whitehead’s argument. It also

has a prominent place in the main argument of this essay which is that Whitehead’s approach to

24
Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1978)
25
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926), 17
26
Ibid, 17
27
Ibid,17
28
Ibid,17
 11

religion differs from the tradition. Whitehead emphasizes the individual while the tradition the

collective.

“Solitariness is discernible as constituting the heart of religious importance.”29 Whitehead

comes to this conclusion after stating that religion has, in respect to its manifestation in human

history, four characteristics, ritual, emotion, belief and rationalization. Each one has its own

importance and influence.

“The religious idea emerged gradually into human life, at first barely disengaged from

other human interests.” 30 The stages are gradual. It is a clear description of an unfolding process.

Each one, at certain time in human history, takes the lead. Whitehead points out to the way in

which they work. That is in inverse order. Rationalization and belief in the beginning are not so

significant although actively present in the equation. In relation to emotion Whitehead affirms

that it can be considered as a “secondary result of ritual.”31 Whitehead moves forward with his

explanation as if he was working in a mathematical equation where he plays with some variables

until he is able to come up with a single result which is in this case the word solitariness.

“It is not until belief and rationalization are well established that solitariness is

discernible as constituting the heart of religious importance. The great religious conceptions

which haunt the imaginations of civilized mankind are scenes of solitariness…”32 Whitehead

gives convincing examples in the history of mankind that corroborates the importance he

attributes to solitariness in religion. The gospels have plenty of situations where one can observe

the reality of it. For instance, the temptation of Jesus:

29
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926),19
30
Ibid,18
31
Ibid,18
32
Ibid,19
 12

“Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting

forty days and nights, he was hungry.” 33

Evidently more scriptural passages could be shown, including the Old Testament, to

confirm Whitehead’s statement. Whitehead also draws attention to the meditation of the Buddha

and Mahomet brooding in the desert. These elements also make a distinction between Whitehead

and the tradition.

Part IV

Whitehead is very descriptive in his approach to religion. He considers it from a variety

of angles. He introduces novelty to the field. God is a major component in the study of religion.

Questions about the impact of religion in the history of mankind can be posed, analyzed and

answered. Scholarly articles and books have been written without engaging in the discussion

about God. Whitehead on the other hand gives a full attention to the topic. Religion in the

Making 34 is divided in four parts, namely: Religion in History, with seven subdivisions;

Religion and Dogma, with four subdivisions; Body and Spirit, with seven subdivisions; and,

Truth and Criticism, with four subdivisions plus conclusion.

The word God appears in all divisions. The parts in which the topic about God is

specifically addressed are found in the Second division, in subdivision III (God) and IV (The

quest of God); Third division, subdivision IV (God and the Moral Order) and V (Value and the

Purpose of God); Fourth division, subdivision IV (The Nature of God).

33
The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1973) Mathew 4:1-2
34
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926
 13

The Quest of God, arbitrarily considered, will be taken into consideration in this final

analysis. “If the modern world is to find God, it must find him through love and not through fear,

with the help of John and not of Paul. Such a conclusion is true and represents a commonplace

of modern thought. But it is a very superficial rendering of the facts.”35

A commonplace of modern thought represents the continuation of tradition. Whitehead

points at it. He brings novelty by analyzing what historically happened in the trajectory of

religion, specifically Christian religion.

Whitehead suggests a way of finding God who is lost by the agency of Christianity. Is it

possible to lose God? It seems so, according to Whitehead. And, this happened by the gradual

return of the church to the Semitic concept of God, with the addition of the threefold

personality…it was supported by an unquestioned religious tradition36

The depiction of a God that instils fear was supported by a religious tradition and by the

conservative instinct of society. In addition to it, a history and a metaphysic constructed

expressly for that purpose.37 These are the reasons why God was lost. The collective gradually

started operating on this level. It started dictating the path in which Christianity was supposed to

walk on. “The Christian world was composed of terrified population.”38

It is quite liberating and uplifting to see through Whitehead’s lens that it is possible to

find God. However, as he puts it: “If the modern world is to find God, it must find him through

love and not through fear, with the help of John and not Paul.

35
Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making, (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926), 76
36
Ibid, 74
37
Ibid,75
38
Ibid,75
 14

Whitehead’s approach creatively offers new possibilities in the field of religious

studies. It certainly helped my understanding of some of the concepts he deals with in Process

and Reality.
 15

Works Cited

Appleby, R. Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred. Boston, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.

Audi, Robert, editor. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. New York, Cambridge, 1995.

Cavanaugh, William T. The Myth of Religious Violence. New York, Oxford, 2009.

“Dictionary of Religions.” The Penguin Dictionary of Religion, edited by John R. Hinnels, New

York, Penguin Books, 1995.

Ford, Lewis S., and George L. Kline, editors. Explorations in Whitehead’s Philosophy. New

York, Fordham University.

The Holy Bible. New International Version, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1973.

Tambiah, Stanley J. Leveling Crowds. Los Angeles, California, 1996.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. New York, Free Press, 1978.

---. Religion in the Making. Macmillan, 1926.

View publication stats