MODULE 1: Introduction to
● Based on Christian biblical theology,
Religion M1: OBJECTIVES
At the end of the lessons, the students are
expected to:
● Describe the approaches to this course.
● Define religion in various ways.
● Relate the study of religion to other
disciplines.
● Compare and contrast the terms and
theories about religion.
● Reflect on the importance of religion to
one’s life.
Mysteries of the World and Human
Existence Why is there a world? Why do I
exist? Why should I do good?
What will happen to me when I die?
Reflections constitute religions, religious
experiences, and spirituality.
Approaches to Religions, Religious
Experiences, and Spirituality
● Open-minded Approach
🡪 We acknowledge that we have our own
individual religious beliefs that we so
dearly hold. We may encounter ideas
which may be in direct contradiction to
our beliefs, but we have to welcome
them for our own intellectual growth in
this course.
● Academic Approach
🡪 This course is a requirement in the
college program being a part of the
school curricula which all of you as
students must take up.
● Interdisciplinary Approach
🡪 We will study religions, religious
experiences, and spirituality from the
perspectives of many different
disciplines, such as philosophy, history,
psychology, anthropology, ethics, law,
political science.
What is “RELIGION”?
● Etymology: LATIN: re ligare = ENGLISH:
“to rebind”
when Adam and Eve had eaten the
forbidden fruit, their relationship with God
was broken by sin; and the human race
was separated from God. Through
religion, people would again be united
with God.
● Religion is the means of
rebinding/reconnecting the relations
between human beings and God.
● LATIN religio is distinct from superstitio ●
In Roman culture, the term “religion” was
opposed to “superstition.”
● Religion referred to socially acceptable
practices that the Roman people
considered to be the proper way of
relating to their gods.
Superstitio
● Superstition meant what the Romans
regarded to be unconventional and
incorrect beliefs about God and improper
manner of worship.
● Christianity was in the beginning a
superstition, but had become a religion
when institutionalized in the Roman
empire.
Religion
● is “an organized system of beliefs,
ceremonies, and rules used to worship a
god or a group of gods.” (Merriam
Webster Dictionary)
🡪 organized: social institution such as a
church, an association, or a nation
🡪 system of beliefs: body of dogmas,
doctrines, conventions, or traditions that
the members adhere to in every religion
🡪 ceremonies: formal activities that people
do like praying or performing rituals
🡪 rules: principles of ethics or moral codes
that regulate people’s actions
🡪 gods: supernatural, divine, or sacred
beings as subject of worship
Characteristics of Religion
● Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of language 🡪
 No exact definition of religion, only similar
characteristics called “family resemblances”
● Belief in a supernatural being (God) ●
Distinction between sacred and profane ●
Ritual acts focused on sacred or profane
object
● Religious feeling of awe
● Direct communication with divine being ●
Worldview concerning the role of humanity
in the universe
● Collective organization bound up in this
worldview
Anything to be considered a religion have
these characteristics, but not necessarily all.
Substantive Definition (Kirkland)
● “What religion is?”
🡪 Religion is the worship of sacred being. 🡪
It teaches doctrines and moral codes. 🡪 It is
about formal ceremonies and rituals.
Functional Definition (Kirkland)
● “What religion does?”
🡪 Religion unites the people in a community
together.
🡪 It regulates people’s moral life and
actions.
🡪 It provides acceptable cultural behaviors
of the members of the society.
Emile Durkheim
● “A religion is a unified system of beliefs
and practices relative to sacred things—
beliefs and practices which unite in one
single moral community called a church
all those who adhere to them.”
Consolatory Definition (Russell)
● Religion satisfies our philosophical and
psychological longing for the
explanations regarding our lives and the
existence of the universe.
Bertrand Russell
● Premise: We encounter difficulties in life.
🡪 uncontrollable events, sickness, and
death, uncertainty, injustice, scarcity or
deprivation, hostility of others
● “Religion is humanity’s means of coping
with basic problems of human existence.” ●
Religion brings out the ultimate meaning of
life experiences; it provides models and
guideposts for the meaningful integration of
all one’s experiences.
● It not only allows the person to
understand what phenomena and events
mean singly; but it also shows him how
they fit together into a single
homogenous reality. It thus provides a
comprehensive worldview and means of
orienting one’s life in all its facets.
● If dissected, this comprehensive system
might be seen to consist of a conceptual
complex and a set of values pertaining to
various aspects of life.
Basic Theories
● Theism is a theory which affirms the
existence of God.
● Atheism denies God’s existence.
● Monotheism theorizes that there is only
God.
● Polytheism says that there are many
gods.
● Pantheism asserts that everything is
God.
● Animism is a belief that God resides in
natural or inanimate objects such as
stones, trees, or rivers.
● Agnosticism asserts that God cannot be
known by human reason; whether we
claim to know about God cannot be
certain and always subjected to doubt.
● Fideism maintains that God can only be
known by faith.
Basic Terms
● Cult
🡪 An underground, small, organized religion
not socially acceptable and with
unconventional and radical beliefs and
teachings.
● Sect
🡪 A religion with unpopular and usually
fundamentalist doctrines formed by a
 minor group of people who separated
themselves from one major religious VIDEO 1
group. THE BIG STORY: ORIGINS OF RELIGION
● Denomination Stone age people’s experience what
🡪 A mainstream religion with big POISONED and SATISFIED their hunger
membership but not official or state
sponsored. It is one religion among Survival --- empirical realities
many. (Protestant: Presbyterian, : they are the center of the universe --- flat,
Episcopal, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist) small, under the sky
● Ecclesia
🡪 Originally, an assembly of the citizens of “the people” = themselves
the Greek city-states. Now, a religion Stranger = creature of another sort
where most or all members of the society Eats strong beast = acquiring spirit
belong: it has a national boundary and Eats portion of the body = acquiring special
officially connected with the state. qualities
Interdisciplinary Approach Sun and moon = animate beings
● Religion and History rock with human-like structure = living spirit of
🡪 The development of religions depends on someone
the prevailing historical events of the preserve corpse = preserve spirit
period, and history unfolds as
Movement = will = spirit = God
conditioned by religion. Reflection on water = their spirit
● Religion and Psychology, Anthropology,
or Sociology SPIRIT and MAGIC (lightning, thunder, rain,
🡪 Religion as an essential part of the procreation, FIRE [manifestation of spirit])
behavior and culture of people in the
Exceptional to universal order = work of demon
society. spirit
● Religion and Law or Political Science 🡪
Religion exists with law and politics in the 1st religious ritual --- IMITATION
context of power relations since the ex. Painting a face on the belly of a pregnant
beginning of nation-states. woman to encourage birth
● Religion and Philosophy
🡪 Both deal with the ultimate cause.
Example: reality and existence of the VIDEO 2
world, meaning of human life, relation WHAT IS RELIGION
between human beings and God
RELIGION?
● Religion and Ethics
- a system of doctrine
🡪 Religion has ethical component or moral
- Set of cultural practices shared by a
codes in its doctrines. Example: Ten
society
Commandments, Golden Rule
- Body of myths
● Religion and Theology
- OR all these things at the same time
🡪 Religions of the world have their own
theologies. Example: Catholicism has
RELIGION IS A SUBJECTIVE TERM with blurry
doctrines for 2 thousand years. (Biblical
definition and CONTESTED definition
Theology, Dogmatic Theology, Moral
Theology, Christology, Mariology, and
English: “Religion”
Eschatology)
Latin: “Religio”
 - socially acceptable cultic duties that
people did for the Gods
OPPOSITE to…
“Superstitio” (Roman)
- unsanctioned, suspicious rituals and
beliefs
Western Scholars and their Definitions
E.B Tylor
⁃ anthropologist
⁃ Most minimalist definition
“Religion is a belief in supernatural beings” -
belief in spirit was the foundations of all
religion— ANIMISM, vague belief in
spirits
- Animism —polytheism — monotheism
TODAY: define religion as a fundamentally
social phenomenon which reflects the needs
and concerns of society above everything else.
Emile Durkheim
“A religion is a unified system of beliefs and
practices relative to sacred things, that is to
say, things set apart and forbidden, beliefs
and practices which unite one single moral
community called a church all those who
adhere to them.”
- religion is a “form of custom” that
socializes individuals into a larger
community and which provide an
obligation to that individuals to live by
that society’s rules.
- Ultimate significance to society and the
ideology that the society holds as
important
Robert Audi (univ of Notre Dame)
RELIGION FAMILY RESEMBLANCES
1. Belief in supernatural beings
2. A distinction between sacred and
profane
3. Ritual acts focused on sacred / profane
objects
4. Moral code believed to be sanctioned by
divine beings
5. Religious feelings of awe
6. Direct communication with divine beings
7. Worldview concerning the role of
humanity in the universe
8. A collective organization bound up inthis
worlview
NOTE: not all can be present to consider
something as religion. 5-6 = religion
Jonathan Z. Smith
- “Gandalf of religious studies
“Religion is not a native term; it is a term
created by scholars for their intellectual
purposes and therefore is theirs to define”
“It is a second-order generic concept that plays
role in establishing a disciplinary horizon that a
concept such as ‘language’ plays in linguistics a
‘culture’ plays in anthropology”
- there is no archetypal definition of
religion that can we perfectly apply to
any religion
Other definitions
Lucas F. Johnson
“Religion is a subjective analytical term whose
meaning depends on kn the person using it and
on the questions, they use to illuminate”
Sam Harris
“Religion is essentially a failed science”
Ted Cruz
“Climate change is not science. It’s religion”
Karl Marx
“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed
creature…”
VIDEO 3
THE ACADEMIC [INTERDISCIPLINARY] daily life
STUDY OF RELIGION EXPLAINED

Religious studies the - academic discipline - ● Psychological Approach

draws from multiple methods:
- anthropology
- Sociology
- Hard science (nueroscience)
Main approaches to the academic study of
religion
● Sociological Approach
Sociology - scientific approach of society
including the structures, interactions, and
collective behavior of human beings.
Emile Durkheim’s
- “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life”
describes the origins and function of
religion in society
Max Weber
- analyzed the role of religion played in
economic and social structures with his
essay “The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism”
Nancy Ammerman (Boston University) -
studies the social structures and
practices of religion as its practiced in
● Scientific Approach
- how the human mind, our thoughts, our
emotions, and even the biological
processes of our brain influence
religious belief and practice
Sigmund Freud
- compared religious rituals to obsessive
compulsive behavior in his essay
“Obsessive Actions and Religious
Practices”
(Freudian Approach)
Gananath Obeyesekere (Princeton Emeritus)
- uses psychoanalytic methods when studying
the religions of Sri Lanka
(Cognitive Science Approach)
Pascal Boyer (Washington Univ)
- applied evolutionary psychology to
religion
- In his book “Religion Explained” he
argues that the tendency towards
religion is hardwired into the human
brain

Dimitris Xygalatas
- measures different levels of hormone
production and extreme rituals

Patricia Sharp
- studied neural underpinnings of
meditation and mindfulness

David Hume
- religious beliefs and behaviors could be
explained naturalistically, without and
applied the theological explanations or
personal spiritual experience

REMEMBER:
Religion is embedded in all aspects of culture:
our politics, our literature, gender, race, and
ethnicity, all influence it.
MODULE 1
Introducing Religion
Prepared by ACO
M1. TOPIC OVERVIEW

MYSTERIES OF THE WORLD AND HUMAN

EXISTENCE

Why is there a world? Why do I exist?

Why should I do good? Why not bad?
What will happen to me when I die?
Speculation on this thoughts constitute
religion, religious experience and
spirituality

Please watch M1. Video 1

“The Big Story: Origins of Religion”
in https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=V9mFNgu6Cww.
M1. OBJECTIVES
At the end of the lessons, the students
are expected to:
1. Describe the approaches to this
course.
2. Define religion in various ways.
3. Relate the study of religion to other
disciplines. 4. Compare and contrast the
terms and theories about religion. 5.
Reflect on the importance of religion to
one’s life.
M1. READINGS

M1. Reading 1. Russell Kirkland (1976),

“Defining Religion,” in http://
faculty.stage.franklin.uga.edu/sites/faculty.frank
lin.uga.edu.kirkland/file s/RELDEFINE.pdf
M1. Reading 2. “World Religions,” in
https://courses.lumenlearning.
com/sociology/chapter/wor ld-religions/.
M1. Reading 3. Mohammad, Alashari (2019)
“Introduction to Religion,” in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336
698414_Introduction_ to_Religion.
M1. VIDEOS

M1. Video 1. “The Big Story: Origins of

Religion” (2013) in https://www.
youtube.com/watch? v=V9mFNgu6Cww
M1. Video 2. “What is religion” (2016) in
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=c5KHDR8jdbA
M1. Video 3. “The Academic [Interdisciplinary]
Study of Religion Explained” (2017) in https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VAx4jZbBr8
M1. LECTURES
Religion: Studies and Approaches
Approaches to the Course
Etymology of “Religion”
Dictionary Meaning and Characteristics
of Religion Substantive and Functional
Definition of Religion Consolatory
Definition of Religion
Basic Theories and Terms about Religion
Interdisciplinary Approach to Religion
APPROACHES TO RELIGION,
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND
SPIRITUALITY
• OPEN-MINDED APPROACH: We acknowledge
that we have our own individual religious
beliefs that we so dearly hold. We may
encounter ideas which may be in direct
contradiction to our beliefs, but we have to
welcome them for our own intellectual growth
in this course.

• ACADEMIC APPROACH: We bear in mind that

this course is a requirement in the college
program being one part of the school curricula
which all of you as students must take up.

• INTERDISCIPINARY APPROACH: We will study

religion, religious experience and spirituality
from the perspectives of many different
disciplines such as philosophy, history,
psychology, anthropology, ethics, law, political
science.
WHAT IS “RELIGION”?
Etymological Definition
LATIN re elegare = “to rebind”
ENGLISH
Based on Christian biblical theology, when
Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit,
their relationship with God was broken by sin;
and the human race was separated from God.
Through religion, people would again be united
with God.

Religion is the means of rebinding

the relations between human
beings and God.
“RELIGION”
Etymological Definition
LATIN religio distinct from superstitio

• In Roman culture, the term “religion” was

opposed to “superstition.
• Religion referred socially acceptable practices
that the Roman people considered to be the
proper way of relating to their gods.
• Superstition meant what the Romans
regarded to be unconventional and incorrect
beliefs about god and improper manner of
worship

Christianity was in the beginning a

superstition, but had become a religion
when institutionalized in the Roman
empire.
DICTIONARY MEANING
Religion is “an organized system of
beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to
worship a god or a group of gods”
(Merriam Webster Dictionary).

Organized: Social institution such as a church,

an association or a nation

System of Beliefs: Body of dogmas, doctrines,

conventions or traditions that the members
adhere to in every religion
Ceremonies: Formal activities that people do
like praying or performing rituals Rules:
Principles of ethics or moral codes that regulate

people actions God: Supernatural, divine or

sacred beings as subject of worship

CHARACTERISTICS OF RELIGION
No exact definition of religion, only similar
characteristics called “family resemblances”
based on the philosophy of language by
Wittgenstein.

1. Belief in a supernatural being (God)

2. Distinction between sacred and profane
3. Ritual acts focused on sacred or profane
object
4. Religious feeling of awe
5. Direct communication with divine being
6. Worldview concerning the rule of humanity
in the universe 7. Collective organization bound
up in this worldview

Anything to be considered a religion have these

characteristics, but not necessarily all.

Please watch: M1. Video 2. “What is religion”

(2016) in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5KHDR8j
dbA
Please read: M1. Reading 1. Russell Kirkland
(1976), “Defining Religion,” in
http://faculty.stage.franklin.
uga.edu/sites/faculty.
franklin.uga.edu.kirkland/files/RELDEFINE.pdf

Substantive Definition: “What

religion is.” • Religion is the worship of
sacred being
• It teaches doctrines and moral codes
• It is about formal ceremonies and
rituals

Functional Definition: “What

religion does.” • Religion unites the
people in a community together. • It
regulates people’s moral life and actions.
• It provides acceptable cultural
behaviors of the members of the
society.
By Emile Durkheim

“A religion is a unified system of beliefs

and practices relative to sacred things,
that is to say, things set apart and
forbidden– beliefs and practices which
unite in one single moral community
called a Church, all those who adhere to
them”.
Consolatory Definition: Religion satisfies
our philosophical and psychological
longing for the explanations regarding
our lives and the existence of the
universe.

• Premise: As human beings, we

encounter difficulties in life.
• We experience uncontrollable events,
sickness and death, uncertainty,
injustice, scarcity or deprivation, hostility
of others.
• “Religion is humanity’s means of
coping with these basic problems of
human existence.”
This consolatory definition is the one we
will use in our course.
“Religions brings out the ultimate
meaning of life experiences; it provides
models and guideposts for the
meaningful integration of all one’s
experiences.
That is, it not only allows the person to
understand what phenomena and
events mean singly; but it also shows
him how they fit together into a single
homogenous reality. It thus provides a
comprehensive worldview, and means of
orienting one’s life in all its facets.
If dissected, this comprehensive system
might be seen to consist of a conceptual
complex and a set of values pertaining to
various aspects of life.” (Russell,
“Defining Religion”)
BASIC THEORIES ABOUT RELIGION
• THEISM is a theory which affirms the
existence of God. • ATHEISM denies God’s
existence.

• MONOTHEISM theorizes that there is only

one God. • POLYTHEISM says that there are
many gods.
• PANTHEISM asserts that everything is God.

• ANIMISM views that God resides in natural or

inanimate objects such as stones, trees or
rivers.

• AGNOSTICISM stresses that God cannot be

known by human reason; whatever we claim to
know about God cannot be certain and always
subjected to doubt.
• FIDEISM maintains that God can only be
known by faith.
BASIC TERMS ABOUT RELIGION
• CULT refers to an underground, small,
organized religion that is generally not socially
acceptable and with unconventional and radical
beliefs and teachings.

• SECT is a religion with unpopular and usually

fundamentalist doctrines formed by a minor
group of people who separated themselves
from one major religious group.

• DENOMINATION is a mainstream religion with

big membership but not officially sponsored by
any secular entities.

• ECCLESIA originally referred to an assembly of

the citizens of the Greek city-states. Now, it
refers to a religion where most or all members
of the society belong; this group has a national
boundary and officially connected with the
state.

Please read: M1. Reading 2. “World Religions,”

in https://courses.lumenlearning.
com/sociology/chapter/world-religions/.
INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO THE
STUDY OF RELIGION
Please watch: M1. Video 3. “The Academic
[Interdisciplinary] Study of Religion Explained”
(2017) in https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VAx4jZbBr8

• Religion and History: the development of

religions defends on the prevailing historical
events of the period, and history unfolds as
conditioned by religion.

• Religion and
Psychology/Anthropology/Sociology: We look
at religion as an essential part of the behavior
and culture of people in the society.

• Religion and Law/Political Science: . Religion

interacts with the fields of law and political
science in the context of power relations that
have been going on ever since the beginning of
nation-states.
• Religion and Philosophy. Both of these fields
of learning deal with the ultimate cause, such
as the reality and existence of the world, the
meaning of human life, and the relation
between human beings and God.
• Religion and Ethics. Religion has ethical
component because of the moral codes
inherent in its doctrines, such as the Ten
Commandments and the Golden Rule.
• Religion and Theology. Religions of the world
have their own theologies. The Christian
religion, particularly Catholicism, has a very rich
and consistent body of theological doctrines
which have spanned for a period of two
thousand years. There are Biblical Theology,
Dogmatic Theology and Moral Theology, and
major topics like Christology, Mariology and
Eschatology.
Please read: M1. Reading 3. Mohammad,
Alashari (2019) “Introduction to Religion,” in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336
698414_Intro duction_to_Religion.

THANK YOU. ZGE 4305

RELIGION, RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES AND SPIRITUALITY

MODULE 1
RELIGION: STUDIES AND APPROACHES
 Prepared by ACO

M1. TOPIC OVERVIEW

Have you ever encountered an abrupt moment of thinking when you ponder about the mysteries
of the world and human existence? You look up the sky and you behold the seemingly endless
space above you, or you imagine about what would happen to you after you die. Profound
moments like these comes once in a while to every person. Perhaps, you too have already been
confronted with this meditative instance. Speculation on these thoughts is said to be the starting
point of religion. To learn more about this insight, please watch the documentary: “The Big Story:
Origins of Religion” (in https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=V9mFNgu6Cww). In this module,
you will be introduced to the basic concepts concerning the study of religions, and the approaches
to it, and you will reflect on the importance of religion in the level of personal experiences.

M1. OBJECTIVES

At the end of the lessons, you are expected to:

1. Describe the approaches to this course.

2. Define religion in various ways.
3. Analyze the different meaning of religion.
4. Relate the study of religion to other disciplines.
5. Compare and contrast the terms and theories about religion.
6. Reflect on the importance of religion to one’s life.

M1. READINGS

M1. Reading 1. Russell Kirkland (1976), “Defining Religion,” in http://faculty.stage.franklin.

uga.edu/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.kirkland/files/RELDEFINE.pdf
M1. Reading 2. “World Religions,” in https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/wor
ld-religions/.
M1. Reading 3. Mohammad, Alashari (2019) “Introduction to Religion,” in https://www.resea
rchgate.net/publication/336698414_Introduction_to_Religion.

M1. VIDEOS

M1. Video 1. “The Big Story: Origins of Religion” (2013) in https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=V9mFNgu6Cww
M1. Video 2. “What is religion” (2016) in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5KHDR8jdbA
M1. Video 3. “The Academic [Interdisciplinary] Study of Religion Explained” (2017) in https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VAx4jZbBr8

M1. LECTURE NOTES

Approaches to the Course

First of all, we need to be reminded of the approaches from which we will take up Religion,
Religious Experience and Spirituality. For some of us, this course may contain extremely
sensitive topics that go into the heart of our cherished beliefs and very personal experiences.
Realizing the seriousness of this matter, there are vital words of caution that everyone of us has
to embody in our way of thinking, attitudes and actions before we could ever begin our study.

Most importantly, all of us should be open-minded in our approach to this course. We freely
acknowledge that, as individuals, we have religious beliefs that we so dearly hold. In one way or
another, we may encounter ideas which may be in direct contradiction to our own religious
convictions, but we have to welcome these ideas for the sake of our intellectual growth in this
course. We have to remember that the purpose of our discussions is not to shake or challenge our
own beliefs about the subject, which in turn would cause an adverse reaction on our part. The aim
is to widen our understanding for a more comprehensive views in friendly exchange of ideas.

We will also maintain the academic approach by bearing in mind that this course is a requirement
in your college program, being one part of the school curricula which all of you must take up.
This course is not a way of proselytizing performed by religious ministers in order to
indoctrinate you to some preferred teachings and dogmas. This is an academic course, with its
educational lectures delivered to you as students by your professor, accomplished within the
setting of the university and according to the approved syllabus of the course. Please always
remember: in this class, we are not in the church, rather, we are in the school! Thus, everything
we do here is purely academic.

Lastly, regarding the academic approach, we will employ the interdisciplinary perspective in the
study of this course. We will approach Religion, Religious Experience and Spirituality based on
the insights of many different disciplines, such as Philosophy, Ethics, Theology, History,
Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology, Law and Political Science. Looking from the view points
of other social sciences, we expect that we will have a more comprehensive understanding of the
course. We will tackle fully the topic of interdisciplinarity at the last part of this module.

Etymology of “Religion”

What is religion? We start with the etymological definition. The word “religion” was derived
from the Latin phrase re elegare, which in English means “to rebind”. This meaning has a
reference particularly to Christian biblical theology. When Adam and Eve had eaten the
forbidden fruit, their relationship with God was broken by sin; and by extension, the whole
human race was separated from God. It is through religion that people would once again be
united with God. Religion, in this sense, is the means of rebinding the relations between
human beings and God.

In the culture of Rome during the ancient times, religio (“religion”) was distinct from supertitio
(“superstition”). The term religio refers to socially acceptable practices that the Roman people
regarded to be the proper way of relating to their gods, like praying and offering gifts to them in
the temples. On the other hand, superstio means what the Romans judged to be unconventional
and incorrect beliefs about god, and improper manner of worship. The denotations of these terms
were highly relative; they always defended on the prevailing culture of the time. Do you know
that Christianity was assumed to be a superstition by the Romans during the early period of its
development? But later on, it was considered by the next generations to be a religion when it was
institutionalized in the empire, and they had embraced its teachings.

Dictionary Meaning and Characteristics of Religion

We need a general definition of religion in order to give it an all-encompassing application to

include non-Christian religions and non-Roman cultures. The definition must also be adapted to
the present condition. At this point, a dictionary meaning may help us in universalizing its
meaning. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, religion is “an organized system of beliefs,
ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.”

From the dictionary definition, we may gather some elements or descriptions of religion. First,
religion is “organized”, meaning, there’s a social institution involved with it such as a church, an
association or even a nation. Next, it is a “system of beliefs”, that means, there is a body of
dogmas, doctrines, conventions or traditions that the members adhere to in every religion. There
are also “ceremonies” or formal activities that people do in a religion, like praying or performing
rituals. In addition, religion involves “rules” or “codes” to regulate moral actions. And finally,
religion is about worshipping a single or a plurality of supernatural, supreme or sacred beings
referred to as gods; there are different proper names for these beings in various religions.

There can never be one exact usage of the term “religion”. Different religions have some similar
characteristics called “family resemblances” based on the philosophy of language by Ludwig
Wittgenstein. This means that, whatever religion is, it depends upon people’s way of talking about
it according to various and changing contexts. These similarities are the following: (1) belief in a
supernatural being, (2) distinction between sacred and profane, (3) ritual acts focused on sacred or
profane objects, (4) religious feeling of awe, (5) direct communication with divine being, (6)
worldview concerning the rule of humanity in the universe, and (7) a collective organization
bound up in this worldview. Every religion has these characteristics, but not necessarily all.
Please watch the documentary, “What is Religion” (in https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=c5KHDR8jdbA), to learn more about this notion.

Substantive and Functional Definition of Religion

According to Russell Kirkland, in his article “Defining Religion” (1976), the term “religion” is
very complicated. We may agree what religion is not, for example, that it does not refer to “a
telephone, an airline or a presidential election”. But there is no single definition of religion that
may be formulated acceptable for everyone of us dealing with the question. However, it would
still be fruitful to make one in order to widen our understanding of religious phenomena.

Russell classified two approaches to formulating the meaning of religion. Substantive definition
concerns with what religion is, while functional meaning is about what religion does. Both of
these have limitations. The dictionary meaning, which we mentioned earlier, is an example of
substantive definition: that religion is about doctrine and sacred being, or it involves worship and
ceremonies. Substantive definition tends to generalize, but it doesn’t mean that every religion
necessarily has all of these elements, for instance, Buddhism is one of the great religions of the
world, but is has no concept of god. On the other hand, functional definition tends to be
reductionistic by making it exclusive to be used only within certain areas of human concerns,
such as the claim that religion is a social bond that unites the people in a community together, or
it is a cultural construction intended to regulates our way of life.

A definition of religion may be a combination of substantive and functional connotations. This

the case of the oft-quoted formulation by the sociologist Emile Durkheim: “A religion is a
unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and
forbidden–beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all
those who adhere to them”. This meaning contains the fundamental elements of religion, as well
as its primary purpose in the society. But the definition by Durkheim still lacks the requirements
by which we understand the usage of the term “religion” in this course.

Consolatory Definition of Religion

In order to give an alternative meaning of religion, Russell proposed what he calls “consolatory”
definition. This kind of definition satisfies our psychological and philosophical longing for the
explanations regarding our lives and the existence of the universe. The fundamental premise of
this view is that, as human beings, we encounter problems or difficulties in life such as, Russell
enumerated, “uncontrollable event (sickness and death), uncertainty, injustice, scarcity or
deprivation, hostility of others.” From this we may state the consolatory definition that, “religion
is humanity’s means of coping with these basic problems of human existence.”
Russell further said: “Religions brings out the ultimate meaning of life experiences; it
provides models and guideposts for the meaningful integration of all one’s experiences. That is, it
not only allows the person to understand what phenomena and events mean singly; but it also
shows him how they fit together into a single homogenous reality. It thus provides a
comprehensive worldview, and means of orienting one’s life in all its facets. If dissected, this
comprehensive system might be seen to consist of a conceptual complex and a set of values
pertaining to various aspects of life.” This consolatory definition of religion is the one we are
going to employed consistently in our lessons, mainly because it captures the basic meaning of
the related terms “religious experience” and “spirituality” which are also primary components of
our course.

Basic Theories and Terms about Religion

We may now identify the basic theories and terms with their brief meanings that would help us in
our understanding of religion, religious experience and spirituality. These are general insights
about the course which you should always bear in mind. For now, we will only identify the
theories about religion. We will study them comprehensively in the course of our lessons,
especially on the part that involves the conceptual relation of religion to philosophy.

Concerning whether there is such a supreme and divine being we call “God”, theism is a theory
which affirms the existence of God, while atheism denies God’s existence. With regards to the
number of God, monotheism theorizes that there is only one God, while polytheism says that
there are many gods, and pantheism asserts that everything is God. About the presence of God,
animism views that God resides in natural or inanimate objects such as trees, stones or rivers.
Concerning our knowledge of God, agnosticism stresses that God cannot be known by human
reason; whatever we claim to know about God cannot be certain and should always be subjected
to doubt. If God cannot be known by reason, fideism maintains that God can only be ascertained
by faith. Religions adhere to these theories in different ways and at various degrees.

This internet article is very helpful to us for classifying and describing the relevant concepts
about religions with respect to different groups
(https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/ world-religions/). The term cult refers to
an underground, small, organized religion that is generally not socially acceptable, and with
unconventional and radical beliefs and teachings. While a sect is a religion with unpopular and
usually fundamentalist doctrines formed by a minor group of people who separated themselves
from one major religious organization. A denomination is a mainstream religion with big
membership, but not officially sponsored by any secular entities. Originally referred to an
assembly of the citizens of the Greek city-states, an ecclesia is a religion where most or all
members of the society belong; this group has a national boundary and officially connected with
the state. The use of these terms to a particular religion is shifting and highly relative. A religion
may categorize itself according to one term, but it may have different classifications from the
perspectives of others.

Interdisciplinary Approach to Religion

As we said, our approach in this course is interdisciplinary. By looking at religion from the
perspectives of other fields of learning, we would see a more comprehensive view of the subject.
To learn more about this topic, please watch the video “The Academic [Interdisciplinary] Study
of Religion Explained” (in https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VAx4jZbBr8).

Religion and history are allied disciplines in the sense that the development of religions defends
on the prevailing historical events of the period, and history unfolds as conditioned by religion.
For instance, the modern history of India mentality during the first decades of the 1900’s, as the
country revolted against British colonization, was heavily identified with the uprising backed up
by Hindu religious. Likewise, in our experience as a nation, religion had played an essential role
in the development of the Philippine colonial history.

Religion relates to anthropology, sociology and psychology as they concern the culture, the
collective behavior, and the individual personalities of the people living their lives in the society.
One basic theory which come from these areas is that religion may be seen as a form of cultural
or mental conditioning used by the society to regulate the actions of its members. The role of the
church in social formation, the performance of religious rituals and ceremonies, the concepts of
the customary and the taboo, the meaning of institutional and folk religiosity, and other related
conventional practices—all of these employ the theories and methodologies used in sociological,
anthropological and psychological researches.

The study of religions also utilizes the disciplines of law and political science. The codifications
of religious laws have influenced the formulations of the civil and political laws, such as the
policies on church-state separation, on the role of church in national and international politics, on
marriage and gender relations, on criminal acts and penalties, on the concepts of justice. Religion
interacts with the fields of law and political science in the context of power relations that have
been going on ever since the beginning of human communities. Understanding the mechanisms
and dynamics of this powerplay between the religious institution and the secular institution
demonstrates how truths have been constructed in the society.

More theoretically, religion is closely connected with philosophy. Both of these areas of
knowledge deal with the ultimate cause, such as the reality and existence of the universe, or the
meaning and purpose of human life. Philosophical speculations serve as the background for
conceptualizing the systems of religious doctrines, dogmas or teachings. Religion has ethical
component too, because of the moral codes inherent in its doctrines. Academically, Oriental
religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Islam, are considered parts of the study of
philosophy and ethics in Western educational set-up. The teachings of Christian religion had been
heavily influenced by, and was even identified with, the scholastic philosophy of the medieval
period. Studying philosophy would make us understand in a deeper way the fundamental
teachings of religions, like the existence and attributes of God, the essence of good and evil, the
relation between human beings and God, the meaning of the sacred and the profane, as well as the
creation and the existence of the world. These are intellectually heavy topics we need to tackle
for a deeper understanding of the subject.

Finally, we will use theology in taking up this course. Religions of the world have their own
theologies. The Christian religion, particularly Catholicism, has a very rich and consistent body of
theological doctrines which have spanned for a period of two thousand years. In this tradition,
there are various divisions of theology such as Biblical Theology, Dogmatic Theology and Moral
Theology, and major topics like Christology, Mariology and Eschatology. Going on to the details
of these Christian doctrines would make us understand the theories concerning religion, in
comparison with the theological teachings of the other major religious traditions. For a
comprehensive discussion, you may refer to the article by Mohammad Alashari “Introduction to
Religion” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336698414_Introduction_ to_Religion); the
author presented insights from the perspective of Islam.

Prepared by Dr. Allan C. Orate

World Religions
The major religions of the world (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Christianity,
Taoism, and Judaism) differ in many respects, including how each religion is organized
and the belief system each upholds. Other differences include the nature of belief in a
higher power, the history of how the world and the religion began, and the use of sacred
texts and objects.

Types of Religious Organizations

Religions organize themselves—their institutions, practitioners, and structures—in a

variety of fashions. For instance, when the Roman Catholic Church emerged, it
borrowed many of its organizational principles from the ancient Roman military and
turned senators into cardinals, for example. Sociologists use different terms, like
ecclesia, denomination, and sect, to define these types of organizations. Scholars are
also aware that these definitions are not static. Most religions transition through different
organizational phases. For example, Christianity began as a cult, transformed into a
sect, and today exists as an ecclesia.

Cults, like sects, are new religious groups. In the United States today this term often
carries pejorative connotations. However, almost all religions began as cults and
gradually progressed to levels of greater size and organization. The term cult is
sometimes used interchangeably with the term new religious movement (NRM). In its
pejorative use, these groups are often disparaged as being secretive, highly controlling
of members’ lives, and dominated by a single, charismatic leader.

Controversy exists over whether some groups are cults, perhaps due in part to media
sensationalism over groups like polygamous Mormons or the Peoples Temple followers
who died at Jonestown, Guyana. Some groups that are controversially labeled as cults
today include the Church of Scientology and the Hare Krishna movement.

A sect is a small and relatively new group. Most of the well-known Christian
denominations in the United States today began as sects. For example, the Methodists
and Baptists protested against their parent Anglican Church in England, just as Henry
VIII protested against the Catholic Church by forming the Anglican Church. From
“protest” comes the term Protestant.

Occasionally, a sect is a breakaway group that may be in tension with larger society.
They sometimes claim to be returning to “the fundamentals” or to contest the veracity of
a particular doctrine. When membership in a sect increases over time, it may grow into
a denomination. Often a sect begins as an offshoot of a denomination, when a group of
members believes they should separate from the larger group.
Some sects dissolve without growing into denominations. Sociologists call these
established sects. Established sects, such as the Amish or Jehovah’s Witnesses fall
halfway between sect and denomination on the ecclesia–cult continuum because they
have a mixture of sect-like and denomination-like characteristics.

A denomination is a large, mainstream religious organization, but it does not claim to be

official or state sponsored. It is one religion among many. For example, Baptist, African
Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, and Seventh-day Adventist are all Christian
denominations.
The term ecclesia, originally referring to a political assembly of citizens in ancient
Athens, Greece, now refers to a congregation. In sociology, the term is used to refer to a
religious group that most all members of a society belong to. It is considered a nationally
recognized, or official, religion that holds a religious monopoly and is closely allied with
state and secular powers. The United States does not have an ecclesia by this standard;
in fact, this is the type of religious organization that many of the first colonists came to
America to escape.

One way to remember these religious organizational terms is to think of cults, sects,
denominations, and ecclesia representing a continuum, with increasing influence on
society, where cults are least influential and ecclesia are most influential.

Types Of Religions

Scholars from a variety of disciplines have strived to classify religions. One widely
accepted categorization that helps people understand different belief systems considers
what or who people worship (if anything). Using this method of classification, religions
might fall into one of these basic categories.

Religious

Classification What/Who Is Divine Example

Polytheism Multiple gods Belief systems of the ancient Greeks and Romans

Monotheism Single god Judaism, Islam Atheism No deities Atheism

Indigenous nature worship (Shinto)

Animism Nonhuman beings (animals,
plants, natural world)

Totemism Human-natural being connection Ojibwa (Native American) beliefs

Religious

Classification What/Who Is Divine Example

One way scholars have categorized religions is by classifying what or who they hold to
be divine.

Note that some religions may be practiced—or understood—in various categories. For
instance, the Christian notion of the Holy Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) defies the
definition of monotheism, which is a religion based on belief in a single deity, to some
scholars. Similarly, many Westerners view the multiple manifestations of Hinduism’s
godhead as polytheistic, which is a religion based on belief in multiple deities,, while
Hindus might describe those manifestations are a monotheistic parallel to the Christian
Trinity. Some Japanese practice Shinto, which follows animism, which is a religion that
believes in the divinity of nonhuman beings, like animals, plants, and objects of the
natural world, while people who practice totemism believe in a divine connection
between humans and other natural beings.
It is also important to note that every society also has nonbelievers, such as atheists,
who do not believe in a divine being or entity, and agnostics, who hold that ultimate
reality (such as God) is unknowable. While typically not an organized group, atheists
and agnostics represent a significant portion of the population. It is important to
recognize that being a nonbeliever in a divine entity does not mean the individual
subscribes to no morality. Indeed, many Nobel Peace Prize winners and other great
humanitarians over the centuries would have classified themselves as atheists or
agnostics.

The World’s Religions

Religions have emerged and developed across the world. Some have been short-lived,
while others have persisted and grown. In this section, we will explore seven of the
world’s major religions.

Hinduism

Hindu women sometimes apply decorations of henna dye to their hands for special
occasions such as weddings and religious festivals. (Photo courtesy of Akash
Mazumdar)

The oldest religion in the world, Hinduism originated in the Indus River Valley about
4,500 years ago in what is now modern-day northwest India and Pakistan. It arose
contemporaneously with ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures. With roughly one
billion followers, Hinduism is the third-largest of the world’s religions. Hindus believe in a
divine power that can manifest as different entities. Three main incarnations—Brahma,
Vishnu, and Shiva—are sometimes compared to the manifestations of the divine in the
Christian Trinity.
Multiple sacred texts, collectively called the Vedas, contain hymns and rituals from
ancient India and are mostly written in Sanskrit. Hindus generally believe in a set of
principles called dharma, which refer to one’s duty in the world that corresponds with
“right” actions. Hindus also believe in karma, or the notion that spiritual ramifications of
one’s actions are balanced cyclically in this life or a future life (reincarnation).

Buddhism

Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama around 500 B.C.E. Siddhartha was said
to have given up a comfortable, upper-class life to follow one of poverty and spiritual
devotion. At the age of thirty-five, he famously meditated under a sacred fig tree and
vowed not to rise before he achieved enlightenment (bodhi). After this experience, he
became known as Buddha, or “enlightened one.” Followers were drawn to Buddha’s
teachings and the practice of meditation, and he later established a monastic order.

Buddha’s teachings encourage Buddhists to lead a moral life by accepting the four
Noble Truths: 1) life is suffering, 2) suffering arises from attachment to desires, 3)
suffering ceases when attachment to desires ceases, and 4) freedom from suffering is
possible by following the “middle way.” The concept of the “middle way” is central to
Buddhist thinking, which encourages people to live in the present and to practice
acceptance of others (Smith 1991). Buddhism also tends to deemphasize the role of a
godhead, instead stressing the importance of personal responsibility (Craig 2002).
Buddhism promotes peace and tolerance. The 14th Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso) is one
of the most revered and influential Tibetan Buddhist leaders. (Photo courtesy of Nancy
Pelosi/flickr)

Meditation is an important practice in Buddhism. A Tibetan monk is shown here engaged

in solitary meditation. (Photo courtesy of Prince Roy/flickr)

Confucianism

Confucianism was the official religion of China from 200 B.C.E. until it was officially
abolished when communist leadership discouraged religious practice in 1949. The
religion was developed by Kung Fu-Tzu (Confucius), who lived in the sixth and fifth
centuries B.C.E. An extraordinary teacher, his lessons—which were about self-discipline,
respect for authority and tradition, and jen (the kind treatment of every person)—were
collected in a book called the Analects.

Some religious scholars consider Confucianism more of a social system than a religion
because it focuses on sharing wisdom about moral practices but doesn’t involve any
type
of specific worship; nor does it have formal objects. In fact, its teachings were developed
in context of problems of social anarchy and a near-complete deterioration of social
cohesion. Dissatisfied with the social solutions put forth, Kung Fu-Tzu developed his
own model of religious morality to help guide society (Smith 1991).

Taoism

In Taoism, the purpose of life is inner peace and harmony. Tao is usually translated as
“way” or “path.” The founder of the religion is generally recognized to be a man named
Laozi, who lived sometime in the sixth century B.C.E. in China. Taoist beliefs emphasize
the virtues of compassion and moderation.

The central concept of tao can be understood to describe a spiritual reality, the order of
the universe, or the way of modern life in harmony with the former two. The ying-yang
symbol and the concept of polar forces are central Taoist ideas (Smith 1991). Some
scholars have compared this Chinese tradition to its Confucian counterpart by saying
that “whereas Confucianism is concerned with day-to-day rules of conduct, Taoism is
concerned with a more spiritual level of being” (Feng and English 1972).

Judaism

After their Exodus from Egypt in the thirteenth century B.C.E., Jews, a nomadic society,
became monotheistic, worshipping only one God. The Jews’ covenant, or promise of a
special relationship with Yahweh (God), is an important element of Judaism, and their
sacred text is the Torah, which Christians also follow as the first five books of the Bible.
Talmud refers to a collection of sacred Jewish oral interpretation of the Torah. Jews
emphasize moral behavior and action in this world as opposed to beliefs or personal
salvation in the next world.
 Islam

Islam is monotheistic religion and it follows the teaching of the prophet Muhammad, born
in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, in 570 C.E. Muhammad is seen only as a prophet, not as a
divine being, and he is believed to be the messenger of Allah (God), who is divine. The
followers of Islam, whose U.S. population is projected to double in the next twenty years
(Pew Research Forum 2011), are called Muslims.

Islam means “peace” and “submission.” The sacred text for Muslims is the Qur’an (or
Koran). As with Christianity’s Old Testament, many of the Qur’an stories are shared with
the Jewish faith. Divisions exist within Islam, but all Muslims are guided by five beliefs or
practices, often called “pillars”: 1) Allah is the only god, and Muhammad is his prophet,
2) daily prayer, 3) helping those in poverty, 4) fasting as a spiritual practice, and 5)
pilgrimage to the holy center of Mecca.

The Islamic house of worship is called a mosque. (Photo courtesy of David Stanley/flickr)
cornerstones of Muslim practice is journeying to the religion’s most sacred place, Mecca.
(Photo courtesy of Raeky/flickr)

Christianity

Today the largest religion in the world, Christianity began 2,000 years ago in Palestine,
with Jesus of Nazareth, a charismatic leader who taught his followers about caritas
(charity) or treating others as you would like to be treated yourself.

The sacred text for Christians is the Bible. While Jews, Christians, and Muslims share
many of same historical religious stories, their beliefs verge. In their shared sacred
stories, it is suggested that the son of God—a messiah—will return to save God’s
followers. While Christians believe that he already appeared in the person of Jesus
Christ, Jews and Muslims disagree. While they recognize Christ as an important
historical figure, their traditions don’t believe he’s the son of God, and their faiths see
the prophecy of the messiah’s arrival as not yet fulfilled.

Different Christian groups have variations among their sacred texts. For instance,
Mormons, an established Christian sect, also use the Book of Mormon, which they
believe details other parts of Christian doctrine and Jesus’ life that aren’t included in the
Bible. Similarly, the Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, a collection that, while part of
the 1611 King James translation, is no longer included in Protestant versions of the
Bible. Although monotheistic, Christians often describe their god through three
manifestations that they call the Holy Trinity: the father (God), the son (Jesus), and the
Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a term Christians often use to describe religious
experience, or how they feel the presence of the sacred in their lives. One foundation of
Christian doctrine is the Ten Commandments, which decry acts considered sinful,
including theft, murder, and adultery.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336698414

Introduction to Religion

Article · October 2019

 Muhammad Alashari
1 author: READS 368
CITATIONS 0

SOAS, University of London

62 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

projects: Economic Studies View project

Religious Studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Alashari on 21 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Introduction to Religion
Muhammad Alashari

Note the title of this paper. This paper discusses on the concept of religion and not on
discussion of world religions, even though context will arise that will discuss some aspects of
world religions. It primarily tries to shed light on the nature of religion and what comes with it.
Religion has two stakeholders: a) People who believe in religion as true and understand it [The
Believers] b) People who believe religion as a social activity of humanity and thus understand it
as a social construct [The Observers]. Scholars divided study of religion in four categories: a)
Origin of religion (Starting point) b) Functionality of religion (How does it work) c) Meaning of
religion d) Truth value of religion (What is the truth about a religion?). Academia studies a, b
and c while ignoring d.

Modern form of religious studies started during the time of Prophet of Islam. Quran has
discussed about other religions in detail1. Quran's address has been to mainly Judaism,
Christianity, Polytheism, Paganism and Atheism. Prophet of Islam also engaged in religious
arguments2 and dialogue with non-Muslims and this trend continued through the imams of Ahl

bayt3 4 and early Muslim theologians and philosophers. Unlike in Christian west religious
dialogue and discussion in Islamic world was done on equal footing, that is to say, other
religions were given a platform without being branded as heretics as was the practice in

1
Muhammad AlAshari (2015). Quran’s Dialogue with World Faiths & Beliefs. [online] Academia.edu. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/39072843/Qurans_Dialogue_with_World_Faiths_and_Beliefs [Accessed 14 Oct. 2019].

2
MIRZA, M. (2011). A Delegation of Christians from Najrān Visits the Prophet Muḥammad: Contemporary English
Sīrah Literature for a Western Audience. Islamic Studies, 50(2), 159-170. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41932587

3
BYISLAM. (2015). Debate of Abu Abd Allah (al- Sadiq) with an Arab unbeliever. [online] Available at:
http://www.byislam.com/en/debate-of-abu-abd-allah-al-sadiq-with-an-arab-unbeliever/ [Accessed 14 Oct. 2019].

4
BYISLAM. (2015). Debate of Imam Musa Kadhim with a Christian monk. [online] Available at:
http://www.byislam.com/en/debate-of-imam-musa-kadhim-with-a-christian-monk/ [Accessed 14 Oct. 2019].
Christian west5. However, this claim is not entirely true as the Shias school of thought had been

largely persecuted even in academic circles6.

While Islamic intellectual practice was to safeguard knowledge, practice of the European
colonialism spearheaded by Christian missionary was to destroy knowledge through eradicating
natives and their cultures and imposition of European ideals and values. European colonialism
had a devastating effect on Islamic and Muslim practice of knowledge and academia. This had
given birth to cultural imperialism favoring one religion over others so much so that many
native religions vanished7. Religious censorship can also occur in academia when some religions
or some aspects of religious scholarship are favored and focused over others thereby impeding
the knowledge, information and research of other religious studies.

Religion models transcendent experience. Such transcendence could be divine or metaphysical,

which is beyond the self of humans, even though humans themselves may have modelled the
transcendent experience. Religion is thus a way of human expressing their servitude to a
transcendent existence. Transcendence is two types: a) transcendent from creation b)
transcendent from human physical experience. Here for example Islamic concept of God is a
divine transcendence where as the Hindu concept of deities such as Ganesh or Hanuman are
metaphysical transcendence. It is because Hindu idolatry is a symbol of powerful
communicators for Hindus because this generates a religious experience among Hindus. Quran
identifies polytheism and idolatry as unsanctioned medium towards the divine experience. This
is due to the reason that divine transcendence cannot be shared with any creation and thus the
divine experience cannot be achieved through any medium such as idolatry.

5
khaleel Shaikh (2019). The Abbasids’ House of Wisdom in Baghdad « Muslim Heritage. [online]
Muslimheritage.com. Available at: https://muslimheritage.com/abbasids-house-wisdom-baghdad/.

6
Al-Islam.org. (2015). Chapter 27: Persecution of the Shia. [online] Available at: https://www.al-islam.org/the
hidden-truth-about-karbala-ak-ahmed/chapter-27-persecution-shia [Accessed 14 Oct. 2019].

7
Introducing World Religions, pg 9-15. Worldreligionsebooks.com. (2019). [online] Available at:
http://worldreligionsebooks.com/eBooks/worldReligions/worldReligionsOnline/ [Accessed 14 Oct. 2019].
The experience of this transcendence varied among religious figures in form and manner.
Prophet of Islam had a miraculous experience with the transcendent entity called angel. It was
miraculous because he was commanded to read even though he was illiterate. He experienced
a transcendence outside of him. In a similar way Jesus also experienced God’s voice during
Baptism by John. However, Jesus did not relate this experience like Muhammad did. It was
Jesus’s disciples who related this experience in the bible. Moses also experienced a
transcendent outside being when God spoke with Him. As to Buddha’s experience can be said
as self-experience. He did not experience an object outside of him. He realized the
transcendent nature of life and salvation without God or angels. To Buddha transcendence is
not divine but metaphysical. In a similar way the Rishis of Vedas also experienced a form of
transcendence which related to them Vedas. It can be said also self-experience because there
was no divine transcendent entity outside them which communicated. It is thus fair to say two
kinds of religion exists: a) religion of divine transcendence b) religion of self-experienced
transcendence.
A mind can have different approach towards a religion depending on its perspective and
purpose. A practitioner often believes in the religion and its message. The practitioner’s outlook
and understanding are affected by the realities that have been formed and shaped in his or her
mind. The practitioner thus gives an explanation of these realties and viewpoints risen as a
consequence of his or belief in the religion. Such practitionist view may be inherited from the
past practitioners and founders of the religion or it may be new and not perceived or realized
before.

However, a student of religion (the observer) tries to understand it in a socio-existential context

of human activity. It is because more often than not a student of religion wants to connect the
religion with other human activities that may not be religious unlike the practitioner who seeks
to make sense of the metaphysical primarily. However, the focus may vary depending on the
volume, extent and details of the religious heritage of practitioners and scriptures of the
religion the practitioner adheres to.
Studying religion can thus be a challenge. Religious studies are influenced by what one thinks of
religion. A practitioner will approach religion differently from someone who does not practice it
because one believes in religion and the other merely wants to observe it. Both of them focuses
differently depending on their priorities and purpose of study. The practitioner strives to
experience the religion and its metaphysical constructs whereas the observer will not achieve
this due to lack of effort or belief in the metaphysical. This will produce different results of the
study and thus the religious interpretation. To the practitioner religion is sui generis that is
unique on its own while to the reductionist religion is a product of social, cultural and
psychological contexts. According to Eliade and Otto8religion is unique and has an identity of its
own due to three aspects: a) The religious human identity b) Power of the Sacred and the Holy
c) Hierophany (a powerful metaphysical experience).

The perspective surrounding the religion of both a practitioner and an observer may also differ
if they intend to focus on a specific theme or collection of themes with in the religion. Perhaps
they will try to define and establish the focus of the religion on these very specific themes. Yet
some will try to generalize the central themes of the religion and then approach the whole
religion on the basis of these essential themes. This is influenced by the authority and textual
nature for both the practitioner and student except that the student also considers the various
practices of the different followers of the religion in question which the practitioner may seem
alien or contradictory to religion. This is seen when heresy is used to reject certain practitioner
perspectives. Some religions do have very clarified and clear-cut textual authority such as Islam
while some have varying standpoints on the authority of essential religious texts such as
Hinduism or Christianity. This textual certainty can definitely influence both the practitioner
and scholar’s perspectives.

An example of thematic vs holistic approach and religious interpretation based on such can be
seen among Muslims. There are Muslims who focus on certain aspects of Islam such as personal
character and charity and they build entire Islamic outlook based on these themes. There are
also those who approach the religion through God’s sovereignty on creation and their approach

8
Csun.edu. (2019). The Sacred and the Profane. [online] Available at:
http://www.csun.edu/~rcummings/sacred.html [Accessed 3 Oct. 2019].
is political because they propose God’s absolute authority to legislate and govern including our
personal character and collective activities as a nation and society. The former approach is
narrow and selective while the latter is universal and holistic.

Religious performance by its practitioners constitute the functionality of a religion. This

performance can be more or less explained in the following categories: a) Donation and charity
such as Islamic taxation b) Restoration and purification such as repentance and sacrifice c)
Pilgrimage such as Hajj in Islam d) Symbolization of religious sentiments and spirit such as
Sunnah dress in Islam e) Transformation through actions and practices such as fasting or
circumcision f) Accession such as prayer g) Transmission such as passing of knowledge and
scholarly heritage . Not all religions may have these features, and some may have more than
others in content and details. For example, Islam has a detailed exhaustive body of law and
legal system encompassing all these mentioned categories in the form of Shariah Law while
Zoroastrianism for example has a less detailed and less pervasive body of literature and rules to
address these categories.

In summary religion is a field of interest for reductionist and practitioner. This interest involves
origin, function, meaning and truth. Religion can be said to be sui generis. Religion is like a
drama with players, textures and performance of adherents. Religion identifies actions, objects,
places and time with significance. In the study of world religions, it is difficut to have much if
any historical certainty about the lives (or even the existence) of ancient figures. Many religious
founders lived in societies that never recorded their deeds in writing. This is true not only of
Gautama Buddha or Jesus Christ but also of far less influential personages, such as Marko
Kraljevic or Dieudonné de Gozon. The only exception being Prophet Muhammad who has been
documented exhaustively. Modern form of religious studies started during the time of Prophet
of Islam. While Islamic intellectual practice was to safeguard knowledge, practice of the
European colonialism spearheaded by Christian missionary was to destroy knowledge through
 eradicating natives and their cultures and imposition of European ideals and values. Religion
remains to be an issue of discussion, debate, catalyst and performance.
View publication stats

DEFINING "RELIGION"

Russell Kirkland
(1976)

The past decade has seen an efflorescence of concern for theory and methodology in the
study of religion. Since about 1970 an increasing part of that concern has centered around the
1
problem of defining religion. One element in that discussion has been the work of Robert D.
Baird, particularly his Category Formation and the History of Religions. In brief, Baird notes
that most historians of religion have ignored the ambiguity of the terms which they employ,
especially the central term "religion." He goes on to argue that attention to the problem of
definition is an essential prerequisite to the accurate presentation and examination of
"religious" data.2
This paper is an attempt to determine (1) whether religion should be defined, and (2) if
so, how? We shall examine the types of definition available, and the presuppositions and
implications of each type. We shall then attempt to determine which type of definition will be
most useful in the study of religious phenomena. Finally I shall put my conclusions into
practice, and attempt to construct a definition which will be useful in the study of the religious
aspects of human cultures.

Robert Baird on Defining "Religion"

Robert Baird asserts that most historians of religion falsely assume that "religion" is an
unequivocal word referring to "a something out there whose `essence' can be apprehended by the
historian of religions." Any writer on religion who does not preface his study with a definition of
"religion" betrays such an assumption, and is to be categorized as an "essential-intuitionist." That
category includes not only Mircea Eliade and C. J. Bleeker, but George Foot Moore, and even
3
Hans Penner. Now Baird will find a number of scholars who will agree that phenomenologists
have tended to utilize overly vague terminology; most members of the Groningen school, for
4
instance, brand such terms as "power" and "the sacred" worse than useless. But whether Baird's
category of "essential-intuitionist" can serve any useful purpose in methodological discussions is
another matter. I feel that most scholars will agree that Baird could have made his point quite
satisfactorily without trying to squeeze Moore, Eliade and Penner into the same category.
Pummer, for instance, agrees that to define religion in terms of "the sacred" "either
implies a theological or ontological understanding of the sacred, or, in the absence of such an
5
understanding, requires a definition of it." But Baird's thesis is that one should adopt only a
"functional definition" (i.e., an arbitrary definition to specify how a given term will be used
6
in one's work); by this means one avoids the ontological question of whether one's
definition really reflects the nature of the assumed objective referent.7
However, it has been argued that such a position avoids the issue of what religion really
8
is. For if twenty different scholars choose to use the term "religion" in twenty different ways,
does that not merely cause confusion? How can they use the single term if by it they mean
twenty different things? Would it not be simpler to use twenty different terms, each one
universally accepted to be used in a single specific way? But such a course would evidently be
impractical, since universal agreement on the meaning of all the terms would be difficult to
obtain. And what if each of the twenty insisted on using the term "religion" and demanded that
the other nineteen use other terms? In fact, that is somewhat like the present situation, since
dozens of scholars have dozens of different ideas of what religion is, and all want to use the
same term.

Defining "Religion": Preliminary Considerations

We do all share certain basic ideas about religion: no one, for instance, would think that
the word "religion" referred (tout court) to a telephone, an airline, or a presidential election.
Since we could all agree to a certain extent on what religion is not, it follows that to that extent
we can agree on what religion is. The problem is (1) whether the extent of that agreement is
great enough to warrant our usage of the single term, and if so, (2) whether a single definition
can be advanced which will meet with general acceptance? The answer to the second question is
probably negative, but that fact does not mean that the endeavor would necessarily be a futile
effort: even if not everyone accepted the new definition, it at least might serve to stimulate (1)
one's understanding of the topic, or (2) one's understanding of one's colleagues. Therefore I
conclude that the search for a "real definition" of religion is not only possible, but perhaps even
very fruitful for the study of religious phenomena.
At this point we come to another hurdle: should one's definition precede analysis of the
data, or should it follow the analysis? Some scholars contend that unless we start out with a
definition of what we are looking for, we shall have no way to separate relevant from irrelevant
data: we must have some preliminary concept of "religion" (explicit or implicit), or we might
end up studying culture, or philosophy, or psychology. Others retort that if one define the
9
subject beforehand, he might distort the data owing to preconceptions, or at very least he
might miss some data which really are relevant, but which have been mistakenly excluded from
the outset. Weber, for one, stated that a definition of religion "can be attempted, if at all, only at
10
the conclusion of the study." This is obviously a classical dilemma.
The solution must take both sides into account. In the terms of Ugo Bianchi, a
11
"dialectical" solution is called for, one which "unite(s) the two requirements." Bianchi,
however, does not specify exactly how such a dialectical solution is to be obtained; nor, it seems,
has anyone else ever solved the dilemma.
I propose to solve the problem by suggesting that we split the definition into two parts, each part
serving the appropriate function and only the appropriate function. That is, we should start out
with some criterion/criteria for determining the relevance of data, and conclude by deducing
further generalizations from the data which have been ajudged relevant. We might term the first
"definition" our "field-delimitation" or delimitative definition. The final "definition" we may
style an "inductive definition" or determinative definition. The delimitative definition need not
predetermine one's later findings, nor need it imply anything about the "nature" of the
phenomenon investigated (although it might be used to do so should one later decide that the
delimitative definition should be incorporated into the determinative definition).
Before going further into our discussion, I shall propose at this point a delimitative definition
for religion. For my purposes, I believe that the most useful delimitation of religion
can be derived from religious actions or behavior: religious activities are non-pragmatic, they

are conscious, compulsory activities performed without any obvious utilitarian purpose.12
For instance, in preparing an analysis of the religion of the Scythians, the historian of religion
could open Book IV of Herodotus and note the following items:
1) sacrifices of horses or cattle;
2) sacrifices of a small percentage of enemies captured;
 3) collection of the scalps of enemies killed;
4) soothsaying (divination);
5) embalmment of a ruler's body, followed by the carrying of it throughout the tribe,
whereupon the men who see it mutilate themselves in honor of the deceased;
the ritual execution of servants, horses, and a concubine of the deceased; and
other subsequent rituals.
None of these actions have any discernible morphological similarity. Yet they may still be
classed together in that they all have no utilitarian value sufficient to account for their
origination and endurance. We shall thus consider them all under the rubric "religious actions."
This is not to assert that all non-pragmatic acts are necessarily religious acts. It is merely a
device for assessing the relevance of data. After we have analyzed the data assembled by that
field-delimitation, we might decide that "religious acts" is a subset of "non-pragmatic acts," i.e.,
that religious acts are non-pragmatic acts of a certain particular type. But whether that is so, and
what that "particular type" might be, remain to be settled by an examination of the relevant data.
When all data judged relevant have been analyzed and assessed, then, and only then, can one set
about formulating a determinative definition of what religion is.

Alternative Approaches to Defining "Religion"

Now we have reached the point at which we can begin to discuss and evaluate
different types of (real) definitions which one might employ to define religion (in the
determinative sense).
There are two broad types of definition in general use in the study of religion. The first is
substantive definitions, i.e., definitions in terms of the supposed content or "substance" or
religious thought and values. An example is the Tylorian definition of religion in terms of
supernatural or superhuman beings; this definition is still employed in various forms by some
13
respectable scholars of religion. Others who have wished to employ a substantive definition
14
have dismissed such a definition as too narrow, and chosen to define religion in broader terms,
15
as e.g. man's relation to "the sacred" or to "sacred power." Yet, as we have seen, in recent
years a number of scholars have objected to such terms, since they consider the terms vague, and
16
since assertions in terms of "the sacred" can not be empirically verified. But it is false to assert
17
that any substantive definition must fall victim to the problem of vagueness. There is no a
priori reason that a substantive definition cannot be clear and precise. As for the demand for
empirical verification, we shall return to such matters later. We can conclude with Milton Yinger
that substantive definitions of religion can be of great value under appropriate conditions.18
The main alternative to a substantive definition of religion is a functional definition,
i.e., a definition of religion in terms of its supposed consequences or functions within (1) the
human
psyche, (2) human society, or (3) human culture in general. The alleged advantages of a
functional definition are as follows:

1) it can be applied equally well to theistic and non-theistic belief-systems; to

societies which recognize a supernatural order apart from the natural, and to
those which make no such distinction;
2) it can account for historical change and discontinuity better than any
substantive definition;19
 3) it can be readily incorporated into empirical research, so that it can (theoretically)
be proven true or false.
One can argue, however, that those "advantages" are illusory, since (1) it is possible that a
definition could be devised which is not strictly functional and which could yet satisfy the first
two demands, and since (2) it is questionable whether the third demand is valid (a point to
which we shall return).
On the other hand, functional definitions of religion have some disadvantages, the major
one being that they tend to lead to a functionalistic explanation of religion, and functionalistic
explanations tend to lead to reductionism. A "functionalistic explanation" of religion is an
explanation which finds that there is nothing to religion (or a specific religion) beyond the social
20
or psychological functions which it performs. Such an explanation reduces religion to a social
or psychological phenomenon. As Streng says, "It is comparable to reducing the aesthetic value
of a great masterpiece of art to a study of the fiber used in the canvas, the pigments in the oils,
21
and the number of brush strokes made by the painter." To understand art, one must take such
things into account, but they do not themselves constitute art; there is something further
involved, a distinctive "artistic factor."
Likewise, one can study the mind of a composer, the nature of the instruments at his
disposal, and the social effect that his composition might have upon its audience; but such studies
22
would not suffice to account for the musical quality of a Brahms symphony. Why, then, does it
make sense to say that by analyzing the psyche of a religious person and the social influence on,
and effects of, his words and acts, one has exhausted that person's religion?
Is it a priori impossible that there might be something abstract and subjective which is essential
to the existence of religion? That can hardly be asserted. At most, one might object that if there
were some such subjective element as a "religious quality" of human life, empirical analysis has
no way to go about studying it. But does that necessarily mean that the "religious quality" does
not in fact exist? After all, we know that love exists, but empirical analysis has no method by
which to measure or analyze it. The reductionist fallacy is that if one can study only the
functions of religion, then religion can be concluded to consist solely of said functions.
A functional definition of religion does not necessarily entail a functionalistic
23
explanation which reduces "the religious" to "the social" or "the psychological." But a
definition or explanation of religion which takes into account solely its functions inherently
tends toward the reductionist fallacy. It is well-known that a substantive definition essentially
concerns what religion is, while a functional definition is basically concerned with what religion
does. The reductionist fallacy may be avoided by stating simply that whatever one may find that
religion does, one may not assume that that is all religion is.
A classical example of a functionalistic explanation of religion is Durkheim's equation of
religion with society: religion, Durkheim said, is the integrative or socializing power of society.
Examples of the Durkheimian confusion may be found even in recent works by respected
scholars, as for instance Milton Yinger:

...religion brings each individual into a fellowship that emphasizes shared

experiences....Religion is the attempt to relativize the individual's desires, as well as his
fears, by subordinating them to a conception of absolute good more in harmony with
the shared and often mutually contradictory needs and desires of human groups.24
But what of religious movements which engender beliefs and values antagonistic to the existing
norms of the overall society? (Cf. Matthew 10:34-36.) Or what of religious groups which take
25
up arms against each other? Do such groups "relativize" divisive fears and desires, or do they
rather aggravate them? And is a "fellowship that emphasizes shared experiences" necessarily
religious? Does not any grouping of human individuals (even to some extent kinship) produce
such an integrative effect? If so, where does "religion" come in? Yinger's explanation falls into
the category of functional explanations which "impute to religion some of the functions of a
total sociocultural system."26
As Milford Spiro has noted clearly, any social solidarity which religion might provide

furnishes us with an explanation not of religion, but of society.27

If social solidarity is a consequence--an unintended consequence--of the practice of
religion, social solidarity is properly explained by reference to the religious behavior by
which it is explained; but religion, surely, is improperly explained by reference to social

solidarity.28
The same argument can be made for the distinction between religion and socio-political
29
legitimation. Other sociologists of religion have correctly pointed out that even if religion
does serve an integrative or legitimatory function in some societies, it is fallacious to assume
30
that such a function accounts for the existence of religion in general. The fallacy is again that
of explaining what religion does (or actually, can do) and claiming to have explained what
religion is. Because of the nature of such a definition, no purely functional definition of religion
can legitimately claim to explain all that religion is.31
Another problem with functional definitions (cf. Yinger's above) is that anything which
performs the prescribed functions thereby becomes "religion." There is thus no clear line
32
separating religion from non-religion. The only way to differentiate clearly between a
religious belief and a non-religious belief, a religious act and a non-religious act, is to
introduce some substantive element in terms of which to make the distinction.33
Thus it would seem that if substantive definitions of religion tend to be imprecise and
less useful in empirical research, functional definitions tend to be reductionistic and
insufficiently restrictive.
Let us then look at some suggested definitions of religion which are, strictly
speaking, neither substantive nor functional. In general, such definitions tend to stress the
power of religion to answer life's basic questions and resolve its apparent problems. Such
definitions usually consider religion in psychological or existential terms, or both. For lack of
a better characterization, I shall refer to such definitions as explanatory/consolatory. The
basic premise of this view of religion is that humanity faces certain "ultimate
problems" in life, which cannot be escaped. Those problems are usually explained as follows:
1) Uncontrollable events (e.g. sickness, death, natural disasters);
2) Uncertainty;
3) Injustice;
4) Scarcity or deprivation;

5) Hostility of others.34
All of these factors (as the view goes) work to produce frustration and anxiety, for which people
need some solution if life is to be bearable. Religion is humanity's means of coping with these
basic problems of human existence. This conception of religion has been propounded by such

widely diverse figures as Max Weber, Clyde Kluckhohn, E. O. James, and Milton Yinger. 35
Now few will deny that religion aids people in coping with these basic problems of
human existence. I would only pose the same question here which was directed at the functional
definitions: is that all there is to religion, or is there something more? Does the
explanatory/consolatory view exhaust the nature of religion, or does it, like the functionalist
explanations, only describe what religion can do?
 Frederick Streng includes two elements in his definition of religion: "ultimacy" and
36
religion's "effective power" (the explanatory/consolatory aspect). It would seem reasonable to
follow that scheme and consider the explanatory and consolatory aspects of religion a power of
religion, which excludes neither other powers or functions nor some more fundamental aspect of
religion. But if there is a more fundamental aspect of religion, what is it?
I believe that we may get at the answer to that question by noting a crucial omission in
the explanatory/consolatory position. It defines religion as a set of beliefs and practices designed
to allow people to cope with life's "ultimate problems." But it does not say how those beliefs and
practices accomplish their intended end. What is there about religious acts and beliefs (as
opposed to profane acts and beliefs) which serve satisfactorily to explain the most profound
problems of human existence?
It would seem that the explanatory/consolatory explanation might prove serviceable if
it included some dynamic or transformative element, by which otherwise incomprehensible or

unbearable facts of existence become truly comprehensible and manageable.37

Several scholars have proposed that that transformative element should be, in Tillich's
terms, "ultimate concern." Robert Baird understands that term to refer to whatever "is more
38
important than anything else in the universe for the person involved." But such a definition
quickly falls victim to Spiro's criticism: "if communism, or baseball, or the stockmarket are of
ultimate concern to some society, or to one of its constituent social groups, they are, by
39
definition, sacred" or religious. Once again, no objective distinction can be made between
religion and non-religion.
Robert Bellah avoids that pitfall by apparently sticking more closely to the explanatory/
consolatory position. Religion, says Bellah, may be defined "as a set of symbolic forms and acts
40
which relate man to the ultimate conditions of his existence." This definition is wonderfully
equivocal: the "ultimate conditions of existence" can be taken to refer to the ultimate dimensions
of reality (or "God," as Bellah himself sees it), or it can be construed as referring to the
aforementioned ultimate problems of existence (as Yinger interprets it). Because of its
ambiguity, Bellah's definition is rather difficult to attack. However, one may note that,
appearances to the contrary, Bellah's definition lacks the stipulation of intensity, which is the
core of Baird's Tillichian definition. Hence if intensity is indeed to be deemed an essential
characteristic of the definition of religion, Bellah's formulation is deficient. The question is
whether intensity is indeed essential to religion.

The Problem of Reductionism

At this point we must stop and ask a basic methodological question: to what degree
41
should our analysis of religion be "etic" and to what degree should it be "emic"? In other
words, do we pose as objective observers and analyze religion by means of our own categories,
or do we seek to understand religion "from within," in terms comprehensible and agreeable to
the subjects of our study? The problem with "emic" explanations is that they sometimes tend to
adopt the preconceptions and value judgments of the subjects; in Smart's terms, they become
42
"Expressive" of the religion under examination. The problem with "etic" explanations (such as
most functional explanations) is that they tend to distort the views of the subjects by translating
43
those views into alien categories, which are themselves based on preconceptions and value
judgments.
What is at issue here is a fundamental dichotomy in the study of religion: many scholars
see religion as pertaining basically to the humanities, while many other scholars demand that the
44
study of religion should be a science. The basic disagreement is whether there is something to
religion which science cannot fathom, or whether religion, like everything else in the world, can
be satisfactorily explained by "science" alone. The "scientific" school accuses the humanists in
general and phenomenologists in particular of being "dogmatic" and even "theological,"
because the humanists oppose purely empirical treatments of religion, and seek to "understand"
45
religion emically. But is it valid to imply that only empiricists can be objective (hence
perceiving actual reality), while phenomenologists alone can be swayed by preconceived "a
prioris"?
It is only beginning to be appreciated that the empiricists, too, approach the materials
with preconceptions, which can distort said materials and prejudice their interpretation. Almost
every definition or explanation of religion, humanistic or scientific, starts with certain axioms
46
which cannot be definitely proven. The assumption of the empiricist view is that science can
prove everything true or false, and nothing is a priori outside the purview of scientific analysis.
That thesis is an unwarranted assumption, for it itself cannot be proven true or false. Hence the
true scientist will, like the phenomenologist, "bracket out" any ultimate truth claims which might

be made on the basis of his findings.47

To say that because science finds no evidence for the existence of supernatural beings, such
48
beings cannot exist, is fallacious. Science by definition deals with empirical realities alone.
Since religion, by any reasonable definition, contains non-empirical elements, religion is
clearly an unfit object for application of the scientific method. To attempt to apply scientific
methods to fields in which such methods are inherently inapplicable is not science: it is
scientism. Scientism, particularly in a field such as religion, is methodologically indefensible.
Why, then, do so many insist on approaching religion scientifically? Because science has proven
so successful in achieving its goals that for decades, workers in other fields have longed to
incorporate the scientific method into their research (witness the transformation of the "social
studies" into the "social sciences"). Some scholars have been so envious of science that they
have ignored the inherent limitations of the scientific method, and applied it under invalid
circumstances. Hence scientism arose, and today plagues the study of religion, engendering
fallacious conclusions regarding the nature of religion.
There are two fine examples of scientism in the study of religion. One is the
"methodological atheism" once proposed by Peter Berger, by which religious conceptions (such
as supernatural beings) are reduced to productions of the human mind projected upon an
49
otherwise vacant universe. As a truth claim, such a hypothesis regarding religion is clearly
false. No one can prove scientifically that the gods about which men speak do not in fact exist.
As non-empirical entities, their existence can be neither proven nor disproven by empirical
methods. Therefore "methodological atheism," in so far as it assumes that gods truly do not
50
exist, is inherently fallacious. Berger now realizes this flaw in the "projection" theory, and
concludes that "if transcendence is to be spoken of as transcendence, the empirical frame of

reference must be left behind."51

A second way in which scientism has illicitly influenced the study of religion is by its
depreciation of (1) substantive definitions of religion, and (2) Verstehen as a valid approach to
52
the study of religion. Those two elements of the study of religion are not inherently related,
but they have been deprecated (often together) by those who have insisted upon a functional
explanation of religion.
Peter Berger has recently taken a critical look at those who assume a functional view of
religion. Berger concludes that such scholars have an "ideological" motive for adopting a
functional definition: they presuppose a "secularized world view," and therefore appeal to

functional explanations for a "quasiscientific legitimation of the avoidance of

transcendence."53 In our society, religious experiences and beliefs have lost their plausibility
and legitimacy;54 therefore, scholars who represent accepted social positions cannot treat
religion as an autonomous reality: religion, in so far as it coincides with reality, has to be an
55
aspect of something else, something socially legitimate (such as society, or the human mind).
Hence functionalism arises, and from it reductionism.
Yet even when the functionalists manage to stay clear of blatant reductionism, they infallibly
omit the religious factor which the humanists generally claim to be essential. Their only excuse
for that omission has been that empirical research cannot take seriously any factors which
cannot be empirically verified. But such a position in regard to religion ipso facto shows the
inability of empirical methods to deal with this subject matter. Can it be proven that the criteria
for empirical validity are the same as the criteria for actual reality? Clearly not. Those who
insist on an empirical approach to religion display an implicit "ideological" stance, i.e. they are
clinging to assumptions which cannot be proven, but yet which are never questioned. To make
truth claims as to the nature of humanity and reality based on such unverifiable assumptions is
to overstep the boundaries of science and land in fallacious scientism.
How, then, can we avoid such fallacies? It is clear to me that there is only one way to
define religion without making unwarranted assumptions concerning reality. That is, we must
define religion in a manner which neither adopts (or in Smart's term, "Expresses") the religious
view, nor rejects it. We should treat a religious phenomenon in a way which fully allows for the

autonomous "religious factor" without presupposing or requiring it.56

Other Factors in Defining "Religion"

What else should our definition be? First, it should be free from criteria which are
culturally determined. In other words, we may not look at two or three cultures and base our
definition solely on their religious structures (as, for instance, by defining religion in terms of
supernatural beings, for in some systems with good claims to be "religions," deities are
totally
insignificant, or even lacking). The definition must be sufficiently broad to apply equally to any
culture (without presupposing that "religion" must necessarily exist in every human culture).
Secondly, the definition should be narrow enough to afford a clear distinction between what is
57
"religious" and what is not. We have noted above that many functional definitions are
deficient in this respect, but other types of definitions also share this problem. For instance, Van
Harvey has defined religion as
...a perspective, a standpoint in which certain dominant images are used by its adherents
to orient themselves to the present and the future...a way of interpreting certain
elemental features of human existence.58
Erich Fromm has proposed a similar definition: religion is
...any system of thought and action shared by a group which gives the individual a
frame of orientation and an object of devotion.59
Both of these definitions stress the orientative capacities of religion. But even if we argue that
orientation is a characteristic and not merely a capacity of religion, we might ask if these
definitions are sufficiently limitative. Either might function well as a definition of "world-view,"
save that they emphasize the "depth" of the views, or their affective significance for the
individuals concerned. Moreover, they resemble certain definitions of "culture":
...Culture is a system of symbolic meanings which supply man with his orientation
to reality (that is, to his natural environment, to his relations with his fellowmen, and
to himself).60
The above definitions of religion fail to provide a criterion to differentiate clearly between
religion, culture, and world-view. Even if we add the stipulation that religion is intensive, that it
concerns humanity ultimately, would that satisfy the demand for specificity in our definition?
Evidently, Ferré is correct that a definition of religion must contain a "referential
61
characteristic." It must contain some element specific enough to permit a clear distinction
between religion and non-religion. This element cannot be functional, for then any variable
which could perform the prescribed function would be religious. The referent must be in some
sense substantive. It must also, as mentioned earlier, be transformative, i.e. it must not only
explain what religion does, but it must further explain how religion does what it does.
In my view, Streng is correct that "the conceptual formulations, ethical practices, and
social institutions that are generally labeled as the religious data are not in themselves the sum of
62
that reality with which the student of religion must deal." Therefore in order to explain
religion fully (substantively and transformatively), we must take into consideration not only "the
concrete data, the forms of religious expression, but also the intention of these forms which seek
63
to point beyond themselves." Or, as Waardenburg puts it, we must "analyze the ideational
contents of a given religious expression or phenomenon in such a way that the meaning which it

has for the people concerned...can be ascertained."64

Such a goal demands a real sensitivity to the subjects concerned, and, at least to a certain
65
degree, an empathy for their religious experiences. This is not to say that one should become
a proponent of those particular religious concepts or practices; one must maintain, in Smart's
66
terms, "an empathic objectivity, or if you like a neutralist subjectivity." Nor do I wish to
imply that participation (real or vicarious) in a religious experience is sufficient for explaining
the experience and associated phenomena. At no point may "objective" analysis of the
observable (or recorded) data be dispensed with. But such analysis alone cannot fully explain
the experience (since the transformative power of the experience is non-empirical). Full
explanation of a religious phenomenon requires both subjective and objective comprehension;
and full description requires accurate communication of both the objective and the subjective

aspects of the phenomenon.67

If we then proceed with an "empathic objectivity" based on the delimitative definition of
religion formulated earlier (p 4), what do we find religion to be? We may begin, I believe, with
Jacques Waardenburg's observation:
Within any given society there are a number of data which have, beyond their implicit
'everyday life' meaning and beyond their functional--technical,economic, social, and
so on--meaning, some kind of 'surplus value' which strikes the outsider through its
gratuitousness if not apparent uselessness, and which distinguishes itself thereby from
utility and everyday life meanings. Part of such data are, in terms of the culture
concerned, called 'religious'; they generally contain significations relating to realities

different from the verifiable one.68

Why do these data not concern ordinary, observable reality? Because religious persons tacitly
assume that there is more to life, more to reality, than physical existence, observable events, and
commonsensical notions. There is a wider reality of which the physical, the observable, is
merely a part; and for those respects which are beyond sensory perception, ordinary common
 69
sense does not hold. The other aspect of reality is sensed to be deeper than physical existence,
to be real in a different way and (usually) to a fuller degree. That is the aspect of reality which
70
needs no further referent; it is so of itself, beyond the contingency of ordinary events.
Hence I conclude that one element of our inductive definition of religion should be that
religion assumes a transcendent (superempirical) order of reality, beyond which no further reality
71
is conceivable. Precisely how that reality is conceived, and what its relationship to humanity
and the sensible world is felt to be, varies widely from culture to culture, and even from
individual to individual. It is possible that we can make one broad distinction. The "ethnic"
religions of non-literate peoples (so-called "primitive religions") strongly tend to assume the
72
unity of reality, empirical and trans-empirical being inherently closely related; while the
"founded" religions of more sophisticated cultures (the so-called "high religions") tend to feel a
real difference between the sensory and the transcendent, a gap which needs somehow to be

bridged.73
Let us ask a further question: if, however it be conceived, the transcendent level of
reality is of great concern to religious people, what accounts for its importance to him? In other
words, what is there about the superempirical that accounts for the fact that, once perceived, it
is not forgotten or ignored?
74
First of all, we must note that religion, in Ferré's terms, belongs to "a valuational genus." That
is, no religious thought or action is possible except insofar as the actor evaluates, finding certain
things preferable or more worthwhile than other things. Now, once trans empirical reality is
perceived, it enters the valuational sphere: ordinary life, being more limited, must now be
75
assessed in light of the transcendent (sub specie aeternitatis). Since super empirical realities
are viewed as completing empirical realities, and since the transcendent cannot be completed by
anything further removed, the transcendent tends to be evaluated as the
source of all completeness, of all true reality. "Thus," as Luckmann states, "both the ultimate
significance of everyday life and the meaning of extraordinary experiences are located in this

'different' and 'sacred' domain of reality.76

This is the second crucial factor, as I see it. Religious people assess their everyday experiences
and ask what they add up to: such people want to understand what life means, both in its
77
wholeness and in its individual components. By reference to the super-empirical aspect of
78
reality, they discover the meaning and value of their life experiences. Life is meaningful (or
worthwhile) to the religious person only insofar as it reflects the transcendent.
A specific religious system can provide meaning in two ways, depending upon
historical circumstances:
1) it can keep life meaningful (within a stable, "static" context); or

2) it can make life meaningful (within a revolutionary, "dynamic" context).79 Either

way, religious realities are the fountain from which flow the reality and worth of everyday
experiences.
Since religion brings out the ultimate meaning of life experiences, it provides models and
guideposts for the meaningful integration of all one's experiences. That is, it not only allows the
person to understand what phenomena and events mean singly, but it also shows him how they
80
fit together into a single homogeneous reality. It thus provides a comprehensive worldview,
81
and means of orienting one's life in all its facets. If dissected, this comprehensive system
might be seen to consist of (1) a conceptual complex and (2) a set of values (pertaining to
various aspects of life).
Inasmuch as religion provides a set of values related to the meaning of life, it furnishes
guidelines or prescriptions for most (if not all) of one's thoughts and acts. This is religion's
prescriptive and motivational aspect, its power to provide direction for carrying out the various
82
activities of life. It gives people a means of deciding what is relevant, what is important, what
83
is best, what is proper, what is true. But no one will accept the value-dictates of any person,
group, or institution, except insofar as those values serve a meaningful purpose in his or her own

life.84
Finally, there are the empirical or observable components of religion: symbols (visual or
otherwise nonverbal images of religious truths), myths (verbal portrayals of transcendent
realities and their relations to ordinary reality), and rituals (non-pragmatic acts intended to
actualize -- or re-actualize -- the ideal relationship to the transcendent). It is records (or relics) of
these phenomena, and the writings of intellectuals concerned with the transempirical and man's
relation thereto, that the historian of religion studies.
These, then, are the characteristics of religion, which together may be taken to comprise
85
the "nature" or "essence" of religion. Our task, then, is to integrate all of the above
observations into a single determinative definition. A one-sentence synthesis of so many inter
related elements will invariably strike a certain number of persons as "counter-intuitive," owing
mainly to vagaries of phraseology. Yet I would consider my efforts fruitless were I not to provide
a complete and concise definition of religion. Therefore I offer the following formulation, in the
hope that it might help serve others in constructing definitions more amenable to their own
sensitivities.

Religion is humanity's sensitivity to the ultimate meaning of existence, which derives

from his relationship to a transcendent or super-empirical plane of reality.
Comprehension of the meaningfulness of things serves to integrate harmoniously
every aspect of one's being -- cognitive, evaluative, motivational, and existential -- and
to
provide the individual with orientation, purpose, and direction for his life. It further
provides guidelines for thought and action under all circumstances (which guidelines
can be incorporated into a shared cultural system, though losing thereby much of their
meaning through loss of immediacy). Humanity's religion may be expressed in various
ways, as through myths, symbols, rituals, or intellectual constructions. As a group of
persons with the same basic views come to share and exchange their individual views
and religious expressions, traditions evolve which tend to become more or less
systematized. However, in order to have true religion, each individual in every culture
needs to have some direct experience of the transcendent source of life's meaningfulness;
otherwise, he will not obtain the full benefits of integration and orientation which
religion can provide.

No doubt many readers will take a certain part (or parts) of this definition as most meaningful,
dismissing the rest as extraneous. But it is my hope that a significant number of people might be
able to agree to its basic points (even if they disagree with the manner in which those points are
expressed). If such is in fact the case, the goal of this paper will have been achieved.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W., The Individual and His Religion: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: MacMillan, 19van
Baaren, T. P. and H. J. W. Drijvers, ed., Religion, Culture, and Methodology. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1973.
Baird, Robert D. (1971), Category Formation and the History of Religions. The Hague/Paris:
Mouton, 1971.
---------- (1975), ed., Methodological Issues in Religious Studies. Chico, CA: New Horizons Press, 1975.
Banton, M., ed., Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. London: Tavistock, 1966.
Berger, Peter L. (1967), The Sacred Canopy. New York: Doubleday, 1967.
---------- (1970). A Rumor of Angels. New York: Doubleday, 1969.
---------- (1974), "Some Second Thoughts on Substantive versus Functional Definitions of
Religion," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (1974), 125-133.
Bianchi, U., C. J. Bleeker, and A. Bausani, ed., Problems and Methods of the History of
Religions. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.
Bleeker, C. J., The Sacred Bridge: Researches into the Nature and Structure of Religion.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963.
Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, ed. J. D. J. Waardenburg. The Hague/Paris:
Mouton, 1973.
Demerath, N. J., and P. E. Hammond, Religion in Social Context. New York: Random House,
1969.
Dobbelaere, K., and J. Lauwers, "Definition of Religion: A Sociological Critique." Social
Compass 20 (1973-74), 535-551.
Eister, A. W. , ed., Changing Perspectives in the Scientific Study of Religion. New York: Wiley,
1974.
Ferré, F., "The Definition of Religion," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 38 (1970), 3-16.
Goody, J. , "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem." British Journal of Sociology 12 (1961),
142-164.
Helfer, J. S., ed., On Method in the History of Religion. History and Theory, Beiheft 8 (1968).
King, W. L., Introduction to Religion: A Phenomenological Approach. 2nd ed. New York:
Harper & Row, 1968.
Kishimoto, Hideo, "An Operational Definition of Religion." Numen 8 (1961), 236-240. van
der Leeuw, G., Religion in Essence and Manifestation. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1967
c 1938.
Luckmann, T., The Invisible Religion. New York: MacMillan, 1967.
Norbeck, E., Religion in Human Life: Anthropological Views. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1974.
Parsons, T., Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: Free Press, 1965 c 1960.
Pummer, R., "Recent Publications on the Methodology of the Science of Religion," Numen
22 (1975), 161-182.
Pye, M., Comparative Religion. Newton Abbot: David and Charles, 1972.
Radin, P., Primitive Religion: Its Nature and Origins. New York: Dover, 1957 c 1937.
Robertson, R., ed., Sociology of Religion. Baltimore: Penguin, 1972 c 1969. Saliba, John A.,
'Homo Religiosus' in Mircea Eliade: An Anthropological Evaluation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976.
Smart, N., The Phenomenon of Religion. New York: Herder & Herder, 1973. Smith, J. E.,
"Ultimate Concern and the Really Ultimate," in S. Hooke, ed., Religious Truth and Experience:
A Symposium (New York: New York University Press, 1961), pp. 65-69. Streng, F. J.,
Understanding Religious Man. Belmont, CA: Dickenson, 1969. Waardenburg, J. D. J.,
"Research on Meaning in Religion," in van Baaren and Drijvers, 109-136. Wallace, A. F. C.,
Religion: An Anthropological View. New York: Random House, 1966. Williams, J. P., "The
Nature of Religion," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2 (1962- 63), 3-14.
Yinger, J. M., The Scientific Study of Religion. New York: MacMillan, 1970.

NOTES
 1
A good example of the state of the definitional problem before
about 1965 is a Symposium on "The Problem of Attempting to Define
Religion," in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2
(1962-63).
2
See esp. Baird (1971), 15. Cf. Baird (1975), 111ff., and
Kishimoto, 236-37.
3
Baird (1971), 1-4; (1975), 116. It is most remarkable that there
are still scholars who fall victim to precisely such difficulties
as Baird protests: J. G. Oosten recently answered the question,
"What is Religion?" by stating, "We go by the accepted meanings
of the concept religion in this culture." (van Baaren and
Drijvers, 102) Baird's point is that there are no such "accepted
meanings." Yet many scholars do believe that

there are: for instance, we have an "American Academy of

Religion," yet the academy has never defined "religion." Does
that fact make the entire association "essential-intuitionist"?
According to Baird's criteria, the answer is obviously yes.
4
L. Leertouwer says that such terms are vague, hence
"mysterious," hence "mystifications"; they are useless for
scientific analysis, and can only play a "dogmatic role." (van
Baaren and Drijvers, 81, 83-84; cf. Penner in Baird, 1975, pp.
54f., 90) Drijvers declares that definitions or descriptions of
religion employing such terms as "essence of religion" or
"ultimate concern" "are no more than `definitional tautologies.'"
(ibid., 57, quoting Baird, who, incidentally, uses "ultimate
concern" as his definition of religion: 1971, p. 18) For an
earlier critique of sacred "power" by a phenomenologist, see
Bleeker, 40ff.
5
Pummer, 164.
6
It must be borne in mind that to Baird, a "functional definition"
defines only the word "religion"; it does not define religion (the
"thing") in terms of its supposed functions. For someone who is so
hard on other scholars for imprecise terminology, Baird looks rather
absurd using such a term, for now the phrase "functional definition"
is ambiguous, and itself requires a functional definition at the
beginning of any discussion. My "functional
definition" of a "functional definition" shall be a definition in
terms of functions of the object defined (in Baird's terms, this falls
into the category of a "real definition").
7
Cf. Kishimoto, 237; Pye, 9. As regards basic points, Baird says
little that Kishimoto did not say ten years earlier.
8
See e.g. Williams, 3.
9
Baird, for instance, once said that a preliminary definition is
necessary, but that it thus predetermines the conclusions. (Baird
in Helfer, 24) Hence he now urges definitions of only the word
"religion," never the "thing" religion (1971, 14f.).
10
Weber, quoted in Dobbelaere, 536.
11 12
Bianchi, in Bianchi, Bleeker, and Bausani, p. 20. This concept is
usually associated with Branislaw Malinowski, but Talcott Parsons
traces it back to certain ideas of Durkheim: see Parsons in
Robertson, 55. Cf. Saliba, 79 and n., and esp. Waardenburg,
 quoted below, p. 21. By "conscious, compulsory activities" I mean
actions which the actor feels must be done, and/or must be done
in a certain way. I exclude such actions as the actor might feel
free not to do, or to do in different ways, according to an
arbitrary decision.
13
Among those who have adopted this definition are J. Goody
(157f.), A. F. C. Wallace (52, 107, etc.), M. E. Spiro (in
Banton, ed., 91 et passim), and most recently T. P. van Baaren of
the Groningen school (van Baaren and Drijvers, 38). A "classical"
formulation of this theory is to be found in P. Radin, 3f and 6;
but besides adding other factors, Radin asserts (8-9) that the
idea of spiritual beings originated in

"compensation fantasies" à la Freud: primitive people "postulated

the supernatural" (p. 15, emphasis mine). Cf. now also Saliba,
149-50.
14 15
Cf. Kishimoto, 238-39, and more recently, Ferré, 7. This definition
was first formulated by Durkheim (see e.g., the selection in
Robertson, 42ff.) and more recently popularized by Mircea Eliade,
16
though even Peter Berger makes heavy use of it. Vide supra, note 5,
and cf. Dobbelaere, 543.
17
Dobbelaere declares that any substantive definition of religion
"searches for the essence of religion and defines it as
`sacred.'" (542; cf. Eister, 2) That is false on several counts.
First, no one who has defined religion by means of the term "the
sacred" has ever stated that "religion" is "sacred"; rather "the
sacred" is that to which religious phenomena refer. Secondly, the
Tylorian definition disproves the implication that a substantive
definition of religion must needs utilize the concept of "the
sacred."
18
See Yinger, 4.
19
Ibid., 4-5.
20
Cf. ibid., 5-6; Norbeck, 65.
21
Streng, 41.
22
I have here borrowed and elaborated upon an analogy used by
Ninian Smart, 143.
23
Cf. Yinger, p. 5 n. 6.
24
Yinger, 15, inverted.
25
For example, the Crusades; monastery-burnings by Buddhist monks
of opposing sects in medieval Japan; the Protestant-Catholic
strife in Northern Ireland; etc. For a recent study of religion
and its negative as well as positive impact on society, see R. K.
Fenn, "Religion and the Legitimation of Social Systems," in
Eister, 143-161.
26
Spiro, in Banton, 90. Cf. also Saliba, 23.
27
Ibid., 118.
28
Ibid., 108.
29
I have elsewhere distinguished a religion from a legitimation
system, which is based on the metaphorical investment of worldly
events with a (reputed) transcendental significance in an effort
to justify the collective will and/or certain existing social
 institutions. An example of such a system is the "American Civil
Religion" of Bellah and others (which I prefer to term
"Americanism"). A legitimation system can be fashioned out of a
religious tradition (as with Americanism) or out of an ideology
(as with Maoism), but religions and ideologies do not necessarily
function as legitimation systems. I use "ideology" to mean an
intellectual system which applies purportedly axiomatic
propositions to practical affairs, and presents as a result of
that critique an outline for reforming said affairs to conform
with what is axiomatically "right" or "true." Obviously such an
intellectual system could only exist in the Modern world:

opposing as it does the acceptance of traditional assumptions,

ideology traces its roots back to Socrates, whose influence on
modern thought has been inestimable.
30
E.g., Demerath and Hammond, 39-40; Goody, 147; and cf. van
Baaren 37 (quoting V. Turner) and Parsons, 303. Gordon Allport
notes further that "the place of religion in the personal life is
basically different from its place in society." (Allport, 27-28)
31
Cf. Saliba, 151.
32
Cf. Yinger, 10; Dobbelaere, 547; Drijvers and Leertouwer in van
Baaren and Drijvers, 164-65.
33
Cf. Spiro, in Banton, 90; Bianchi, 16ff.
34
See esp. Dobbelaere, 537 (citing Parsons and T. F. O'Dea); and
C. K. Yang, Religion in Chinese Society (Berkeley, 1970 c 1961),
p. 1.
35
See Streng, pp. 30 and 5; Berger (1970), 25-26; Spiro in Banton,
110, 112-13; Yinger, 6ff.; Norbeck, 23; Geertz in Banton, 12-24;
Drijvers in van Baaren and Drijvers, 71-72; Pruyser in Eister,
195; C. K. Yang, loc. cit. Cf. W. H. Goodenough in Eister, 169;
and L. G. Thompson, Chinese Religion, 2nd ed. (Encino, CA:
Dickenson, 1975), 18. Cf. now also Saliba, 138.
36
Streng, 4-5.
37
Cf. Kishimoto, 239-240.
38 39
Baird (1971), 18, citing W. A. Christian; emphasis Baird's. Spiro
in Banton, 96. Cf. Ferré, 10; Bianchi, 17; Smith, 67. Spiro holds
that such things may be "sacred," but cannot be "religious,"
since he has defined that word in terms of reference to
supernatural beings. Such a distinction does not diminish the
validity of the criticism when applied to definitions such as
Baird's. For a brief critique of Baird's definition, see T.
Ahlbäck's review in Temenos 8 (1972), 136.
40
In Bellah's famous "Religious Evolution," in Robertson, 263. Cf.
41
Yinger, 6; Berger (1974), 127; and Kishimoto, 240. For an explanation
of these terms, see A. J. Vink in van Baaren and Drijvers, 149f.
42
See Smart, 12-13 et passim.
43
Cf. Berger (1974), 126.
44
Cf. Saliba, 38. This dichotomy is well exemplified by the
antagonism of W. C. Smith and Hans Penner in the symposium edited
by Baird (1975). The vociferous scientific school can be well
studied in two other recent anthologies: van Baaren and Drijvers
 (in which Jacques Waardenburg is the sole humanist), and Eister.
Another sign of the dichotomy in the U.S. is the separation of
the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion from the more
humanistic American Academy of Religion. The excesses of certain
of the scientific school can be seen in van Baaren's demand for a
"systematic science of religion" (45ff.), as if any "science"
could be "unsystematic."
45
See esp. van Baaren and Drijvers, 64f., 81-84, 159-160. Van
Baaren is so opposed to "understanding" (45, 48-49) that he fails

to take care to understand the methods of the phenomenologists:

he says that "understanding" is differentiated from other forms
of explanation (sic) only by assuming the values and beliefs of
the people being studied (45). That is unquestionably an
inaccurate oversimplification, as can be verified by careful
attention to the fundamental process of epoche or "bracketing"
(cf. Smart).
46 47
Cf. Dobbelaere, 549; Ferré, 4; Pummer, 165; etc. Cf. e.g. G. Abell,
Exploration of the Universe, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston, 1969), 6.
48
Cf. Kishimoto, 238.
49
Cf. Berger (1967), 28, 23, 180, and (1970), 45-46; and see esp.
Norbeck, 7-10; Geertz, in Banton, 4. Berger has since backed down
from such a theory of the nature of religion.
50
These arguments are mine, but cf. Smart, 58-61.
51
Berger (1970), 83.
52
See note 42 supra on van Baaren, etc.
53 54
Berger (1974), 128-29, emphasis his; cf. Dobbelaere, 547-48.
Berger (1974), 132; cf. Berger (1970), 1-27.
55
This is my analysis, not Berger's.
56
Cf. Pye, 18.
57
Cf. Ferre, 7-8; Smith, 65.
58
Harvey, The Historian and the Believer (New York, 1966), 258-59,
cited by Jacob Neusner in Baird (1975), 31, cf. 37 and 75.
59
Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion (Yale, 1950), 21, cited by
Demerath and Hammond, 132.
60
J. Tennekes, Anthropology, Relativism and Method (Assen, 1974),
61, cited in van Baaren and Drijvers, 141.
61
Ferré, 11. Cf. Vink (van Baaren and Drijvers, 143) who cites
Spiro's statement that "viewed systemically, religion can be
differentiated from other culturally constituted institutions by
virtue only of its reference to superhuman beings." (Spiro in
Banton, 98)
62
Streng, 8-9.
63
Streng, 8.
64
Waardenburg, 120.
65
Cf. ibid., 130; Smart, 67; Berger (1974), 126-27, 129; and even
Baird (1971), 59. Cf. also Saliba, 31.
66
Smart, 6.
 67
Smart (32-34) discusses "evocative phenomenology" by analogy
with the rhetorical device of oratio obliqua.
68
Waardenburg, 113.
69
I am here building upon certain points made by the following
scholars: Streng, 4, 48; Berger (1970), 2, 94, and (1974), 129-
132; and Clifford Geertz, in Banton, 27.
70
Williams, 8.
71
Cf. Waardenburg, 122, 129, 132f.; Luckmann, 58, and Dobbelaere,
538; G. Winter, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2

(1962-63), 61. Cf. also Demerath and Hammond, 35-36; Berger

(1974), 128; Yinger, 15-16; C. K. Yang, loc. cit.; R. H. Lowie,
Primitive Religion (1924), xvi, cited by Williams, 10; and esp,
A. Leroi-Gourhan, La Religion de la Prehistoire (Paris, 1964), 5,
cited by van Baaren, 35. Cf. also Saliba, 57, 62.
72
Cf. e.g. Saliba, 97.
73
This is my own formulation. Two articles by scholars in
philosophy shed great light on the structure of the "high
religions": J. E. Smith has found a common structure of Ideal
(religious object and goal), Need (flaw or defect in ordinary
existence), and Deliverer (a power bridging the gap to the
Ideal). (Smith, "The Structure of Religion," Religious Studies 1,
1965-66, 63-73) Smith's structure fits most of the high
religions, and certain elements of some non-literate mythologies
(e.g. African creation myths); but it possesses a conceptual
sophistication absent in most "primitive religions." R. L.
Franklin has the same problem, though by stressing a
transformative experience he seems more concerned with individual
experience than with conceptual patterns. (Franklin, "Religion
and Religions," Religious Studies 10, 1974, 419-431)
74
Ferré, 8-9; cf. Parsons, 317ff.; Kishimoto, 236; Saliba, 171-72.
75
Cf. Streng, 82. The modern West tends to view superempirical
concerns in light of the empirical because its inherited concepts
of such concerns no longer have meaning in our secularized
worldview.
76
Luckmann, 58; cf. Berger (1970), 96; Saliba, 153. Luckmann,
being a sociologist devoted to a "scientific" analysis of
religion, assumes this "sacred cosmos" to be a human construction
not corresponding to objective reality. But he falls victim to
the scientistic fallacy, by assuming a truth-claim which cannot
be verified. Science cannot prove that the "sacred cosmos" is
created by human beings rather than a pre-existent reality merely
perceived by human beings. The truly neutral researcher assumes
neither view, but merely attempts to understand and clarify human
experience.
77
See esp. van der Leeuw, II, 679-680; Allport, 19-20, 25-26;
78
Parsons (citing Weber) in Robertson, 59-60; Smith, 66; etc. See
esp. Waardenburg, 109, 118, 133; Streng, 47-48; Saliba, 51, 65,
and M. P. Nilsson, in Classical Approaches, I, 615. Allport (150)
presents empirical evidence for this point, citing an Illinois
poll during the 1940s asking people why they were religious (if
they were): "Out of sixty-five suggested answers the one most
 commonly endorsed was that `religion gives meaning to life.'" I
use "meaning" in a completely different sense from Hans Penner
(in Baird, 1975, 79-94), who attempts to reduce religious meaning
to semantics, and the study of religion to a subbranch of
semantics (92). Baird is correct (ibid., 116ff.) that Penner
fails to distinguish between words and their referents. Anything
can have religious meaning independent of the meaning of any or
all words used to refer to it: a doorway can have the
mythico-religious meaning of a gateway between

heaven and earth (or the sacred world and the profane world)
regardless of the word (in any language) one might use to refer
to it.
79
I have developed the concept of "static" and "dynamic" religions
based upon categories proposed by Henri Bergson. In some
instances, static religions are "ethnic" ones and dynamic
religions are "founded" ones, but that is not the basic
distinction. (The great founded religions began as revolutionary
religious movements, but owing to powerful historical forces they
all became static after a certain period; in many cases new
revolutionary movements were then born out of the old, static
founded religion.) The basic distinction is that in the static
tradition, a given phenomenon is viewed as legitimate insofar as
it accords with, and maintains, traditional norms; while in a
dynamic religious movement, legitimacy is conferred through some
new revelation or insight of a specific individual (or group) who
stands (by virtue of said innovation) outside the inherited
social order. It is significant that both types of religious
activity can be viewed as the re-actualization of a paradigm--
even simultaneously--provided it be recognized that the pattern
re-actualized would be different. It should also be remembered
that neither type of religion (particularly the "dynamic") need
be inherently social.
80
Cf. Allport, 141, 78; Saliba, 51.
81
The importance of religion's integrative potential should not be
underrated, but neither should it be overrated. Wach once
cautioned, "It must be understood that this integration should
not be viewed as a `purpose' of religion; on the one hand it
should be regarded as a precondition and on the other as a result
of religious experience." (Joachim Wach, Comparative Study of
Religions, New York: Columbia, 1969 c 1958, 34-35) Obviously the
religious individual does not hold a belief, perform an act, or
cherish a symbol in order to integrate his psyche and his world
-- even though it may well serve to do so; he does so because it
would be absurd, inconceivable, to do otherwise. The belief, the
act, the symbol represent to him the ultimate truth of life, the
source of the highest meaning and value. To disregard them is
something for which there could be no conceivable motive or
rationale once he has encountered Transcendent Meaning. Only
those who have not had such an experience (or who had it so long
ago that it no longer seems real or compelling) could disregard
the belief, rite or symbol.
82
Cf. Allport, 141.
83
Cf. Streng, 5; Allport, ibid.
84
Cf. Allport, 28.
85
Ferré (6) points out that use of the phrase "essence of
religion" does not imply postulation of "immutable essences
either in rebus or ante rem." What is meant by "the essence of
religion" is simply "the minimum set of characteristics that are
laid down as both necessary and sufficient for the application of
the term to whatever possesses them."