What is Religion?

Jonathan Z. Smith is an outlier extremist in his view that there's no such thing as religion. Considering he made his living as a scholar of religion, it's somewhat paradoxical he'd take a stand that religion doesn't exist. What he seems to mean is that many early societies who worshiped spirits and gods didn't think of themselves as having religion because it was so much a part of their life that they didn't view it as a separate sphere. Later scholars did, and argued over how to define it. The notion that religion doesn't exist outside the academy simply means that it's the academics who study a phenomenon that religious folks take for granted. While there may be something to his view, it is exaggerated beyond all reason.

 

I don't think so. I think a belief system to be religious must incorporate values related to the supernatural, the sacred, the spiritual, or the transcedent. In my opinion a secular philosophical system lacking any of those ingredients doesn't qualify as religious.

I think those that are purposed to returning to the creator represent one approach to religion. But I think people can be religious without thinking they will return to a creator or even that three is one..

 

But lots of western atheists claim to be influenced by Buddhism and follow this or that aspect, mostly meditation and some of the philosophy minus the songha and dharma--two of the three refuges. Is that so wrong? Anyhow, what are your credentials for disparaging the work of many scholars who have studied the subject. Which of their published works have you read?

 

His opinion. Seems incorrect to me, but he was reacting to the "must have" positions like of Eliade and others (like you) who insist on an essential ingredient or sine qua non in any definition of religion. Dispelling the Magic: Blogging in the Religious Studies Classroom on JSTOR His perspective is useful in emphazing that "religion is not a 'thing' but a term of art, and that it is that different dimensions of it are appropriated in different disciplines and areas of life." Three approaches to the study of religion Such objections contributed to the development of the "cluster" approach to better accommodate the diversity of religion.

But he goes too far. Sure some people are so wrapped up in their own religion that they don't even think of it as a separate thing, but in a pluralistic society like ours where there is internet access to other parts of the world it would be hard to do. And we know from our own experience that defining religion is difficult but it seems obvious that it occupies a special niche in the lives of believers. As Durkheim put it, it separates the sacred from the profane (the everyday other stuff). There's a professor at Oxford, Nick Bostrom, who thinks our reality is a computer simulation. They pay him well, but he's not necessarily right. I tend to use my judgment about such things--the best I can do--and never claim to be infallible. I don't take him or Jonathan AZ Smith too seriously, because I don't think that the much larger population of scholars who conclude otherwise are fools or charlatans, and my own experience tells me religion is a real thing.

I learned at an early age that there were Calvinists and Jews, as well as Catholics, in the neighborhood. The Jews didn't say the Lord's prayer and went to services a day earlier than us. The Calvinists went to the church next door but had a radically different set of beliefs. Would I say I had religion and they had some counterfeit imitation of it? Even us Catholics didn't go that far. (We just said that there was no salvation outside the Catholic church, but those other folks could be saved by their invincible ignorance). Certainly what the Jews and Calvinists and Catholics were doing was quite a bit different than the folks who simply went about their normal routines, washing their cars or mowing their lawns on weekends, one day like the next, and didn't believe in a Higher Power. And when I tried internet dating services, there was always a "spiritual but not religious" category.

But really, Meagain, I've never said that my way of looking at religion is the only right way, or that it would be "improper" for anyone to look at it differently. That seems to be what you've been saying about your own view. And unlike Johnathan AZ Smith, you don't seem to be saying there is no such thing as religion. What you seem to be saying instead is that there is such a thing as religion, that it MUST be defined as a belief in God or supernatural beings, and that such a belief is wrong. Pardon me for saying, but that seems kinda dogmatic.

 

Supernatural - A range of phenomena that interact with us mostly through our minds or which indicate some kind of tendency toward disembodied mentation, but which still have some kind of specific causal efficacy.

The distinction between supernatural and metaphysics is nearly imperceptible fine line.

Sacred and Profane
Durkheim noted two distinct areas within religions: Sacred and Profane objects. Sacred objects, rituals and people are regarded as having special significance and will be treated with awe and respect.

For example; the ‘Shroud of Torin’ would be a sacred object, which is treated with respect and pilgrimages to this object are ways of strengthening religious beliefs. However, it must be noted that these objects may not be intrinsically special but rather special meaning is attached to the object by the social group.

Profane objects, activities and people are ordinary and every day with no special meaning attached to these objects. For example; even though the bible is a sacred text it is a profane object which individuals use to strengthen belief systems.

Sacred and Profane

 

More:

Rituals

Rituals are a feature of all known human societies. They include not only the worship rites and sacraments of organized religions and cults, but also rites of passage, atonement and purification rites, oaths of allegiance, dedication ceremonies, coronations and presidential inaugurations, marriages, funerals and more.

Ritual - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Ritual

Even Atheists have lots of rituals they practice!
No God or divinity required.
Thou shalt not stomp on the American flag, the religious icon of the United States Government. <-(Its so obvious, just couldnt resist that one!)

Each December, Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, among others, take over our thoughts and our wallets as we participate in ceremonies our ancestors have practised for as long as we can remember. These are all example of traditions. And in most cases, traditions are accompanied by rituals.

What’s the difference?

In scientific terms, a “tradition” refers to the passing down of customs and beliefs from one generation to the next. A “ritual”, on the other hand, is a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order, and which is often embedded in a larger symbolic system, such as religion or philosophy.

For example, while celebrating birthdays is a tradition, blowing out the candles on a cake is a ritual. Similarly, while getting married is a tradition, exchanging vows is a ritual.

New rituals can be created at any time. To become tradition they only need to be understood and replicated by a wider community.

Why rituals have been crucial for humans throughout history – and why we still need them

 

a few thoughts

There is a HUGE interest for many large organizations and the government to keep the word religion under wraps as long as possible.

Theists want exclusive billing and therefore insist its all about God(s)

Atheists insist religion has to include a God to seperate themselves due to their constant fight with theists so they want no association with religion under any circumstances.

Government, particularly the US, wants to destroy the meaning of religion entirely to expand their own power.


Lots of BIG interests all working against Durkheims definition of religion due to their selfish interests..

 

If a usage is "generally accepted" in an academic field, I think that good enough for me, and it's ridiculous to talk about "right" and "wrong" in the context of word usage. Definitions can be more or less useful.The one that you're pushing is the one of popular "layman's" usage, considered old fashioned by many scholars of comparative religion and not particularly useful. It is culture bound and puts scholarship in the straitjacket of layman's understandings. But if you like it, use it. Just don't try to impose it as the "proper one" for the rest of us.

Sure. Functional approaches to religion derive from the sociological and anthropolgical perspectives of Durkheim, Malinowski, Talcott Parsons, et al. They focus on how religion operates or functions in society, what human needs it serves, as opposed to structuralist approaches which try to identify particular structures that all religions must have, like gods, churches, etc.

https://revisesociology.com/2018/07/13/functionalist-perspective-religion-revision-notes/

Cluster approaches were developed to address criticisms of both the structural and functional approaches. For functional approaches, the major one was that it might overemphasize the functional over the dysfunctional aspects of religion. Basically, the cluster approaches identify several traits, including structualist ones, which are generally associated with the phenomena commonly thought to be religion. Catherine Albanese, distinguished professor emerita in comparative relsigion at the University of Chicago, defines religion as “A system of symbols (creed, code, cultus)...by means of which people (community) orient themselves in the world with reference to both ordinary and extra ordinary values, powers, and meanings”. Cultus refers to rituals. These are known as the "four Cs". The important thing to understand is that not all of them have to be present in order to characterize a phenomenon as "religious"--just most of them. Her approach has been used extensively by other writers like Stephen Prothero in an excellent comparative analysis of eight major world religions: Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Yoruba Religion, and Daoism . And he even includes a discussion of atheism in the same framework. Prothero, God is Not One. Far from blurring distinctions among religions, he brings them out masterfully in his framework. The uses of the cluster approach are also brought out in Prof. Mark Berkson's lectures Cultural Literacy for Religion (The Great Courses), covering a dozen religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Shamanism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and Ba'hai

I tend to use a combination of functionalist and cluster approaches in thinking about religion. I do include one structural or essentialist element. Although I don't think a supernatural being is necessary, I do think, following Durkheim and Eliade, that a primary orientation toward the sacred, spiritual, metaphysical, or transcendental is a necessary element. Again, my opinion, not dogma.

 

...

 

I don't think it would be. Some might object that westerners are selectively fashioning a new religion and calling it "Buddhism". Far be it from me to raise that objection, since the same could be said about my Christianity. But the gist of what you were saying which brought it up is that students of comparative religion are "Westerners placing their values and understandings onto Eastern systems and claiming they are the same."

I have no doubt that you're a highly intelligent man and well read in many areas. However, you just stated you have "little interest in reading some work on comparative religions as I have little interest in most religions, if not all." That's fine. Your choice. There are many subjects that I have little interest in and don't read about. That makes us uninformed on the subjects we don't read about. That would make me hesitant to offer strong opinions in those areas, since my opinions would likely be considered uninformed and possibly unsound.

 

Right!

I prefer to say "sacred, spiritual, transcendental, or metaphysical" to accommodate the range of religious experience. In tracing the origins and development of religion, we can only make inferences from archaeological evidence and the behavior of modern-day hunter-gatherers. Most of those seem to have beliefs which are similar to ours in many ways, but tend to be more animistic, pantheistic, or panendeistic than theistic, often seeing everything as animated by its own spirit or guided by impersonal forces like orenda, wakan, mana, etc. And really, Taoism and Buddhism are generally thought to be spiritual and to include metaphysical beliefs. My own beliefs tend toward the panendeistic.

I was thinking more of "characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts ". Definition of DOGMATIC Your insistence that religion must include divinity, that nothing else is right or "proper", struck me as bordering on that. Of course no one can prove that your definition is wrong.