Definition of Religion: A Continuing Debate

[opuntia]

What is revelation? Do we have it today or is it an item of the past? Many will likely claim that it is of the past, as in the Biblical days. But to say that is to say we have not sufficient faith to call down a revelation from God, that the peoples of earlier generations had more faith. Does that mean we are inferior to former generations that had actual revelations come down to them? Are we not all created equal by God or did He create the best in the old days? If we are created equal, then why do we not have additional scripture today to guide us in present circumstances?

Floyd V. Filson wrote that the epistles of Paul were instructions to the saints on how to conduct themselves in their present problems:

“The letters of Paul, therefore, are not theological essays but direct responses to the situation and needs of the readers, and they are unsurpassed sources concerning the life of Paul and his churches. They were preserved and finally placed in the New Testament canon not because they dealt with general timeless topics but because they dealt with current specific situations in the light of the basic gospel, and dealt with them so helpfully that they can continually speak to the church about Christian faith and life.” A New Testament History: The Story of the Emerging Church (The Westminster Press, 1954), p. 239.

The Scriptures are a record of a people going through then current circumstances and their God from time to time gave them instruction on how to deal with pressing issues of the day. We do not have that today; we have only ancient records to sustain us. That may be fine to some, but present circumstances are at times crucial in that it would be nice if God could communicate with us and comfort us in our hour of need.

For instance, how do we deal with the fact that we have so many forms of religion that not one can speak for all concerned? All is a jumble when someone wants to find out what the truth is. Where can they turn to for help? Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, etc? Can all these forms of religion be the Church of God? Catholicism perhaps? The Reformation movement of the 16th century, led by Martin Luther, was a revolt against the Catholic Church and led to the formation of Protestantism. Catholicism originally began about the second or third centuries A.D. The original Church Jesus formed had apostles at the head of leadership. Where are they today? Who speaks as Moses today, having the final authority in all matters ecclesiastical?

Religion today cannot be sufficiently defined by the best books. See for instance:

“As you study world religions, you may think about finding a good definition of religion. You may be surprised that few scholars agree on any ‘essential’ definition of religion.” Warren Matthews, World Religions, 3rd Edition (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1999), p. 17.

Websites contain the same thread of thought on the subject:

Wikipedia:

“There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.” (Last modified 21:35, 26 March, 2006.)

Harvard Human Rights Journal (Vol. 16: Spring 2003):

“Although many international and regional human rights instruments guarantee rights related to freedom of religion or belief, none attempts to define the term ‘religion.’ There was one major international effort to explain the underlying rights protected under the concept of religion or belief, and the UN Human Rights Committee issued an important General Comment on the scope of freedom of religion or belief within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nevertheless, the term ‘religion’ remains undefined as a matter of international law. The absence of a definition of ’religion’ is not peculiar to international human rights conventions; most national constitutions also include clauses on freedom of religion without defining ’religion.’ Thus we are presented, on the one hand, with important provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights pertaining to religion, but on the other hand the term itself is left undefined. Of course, the absence of a definition of a critical term does not differentiate religion from most other rights identified in human rights instruments and constitutions. However, because religion is much more complex than other guaranteed rights, the difficulty of understanding what is and is not protected is significantly greater.

“It is fairly common for legal analyses of freedom of religion or belief to avoid a serious discussion of the definitional problem, even among the most important works. Among non-legal scholars in philosophy and religion there is a very lively debate as to whether the word ’religion’ can or should be defined. It has been observed that the ’effort to define religion is as old as the academic study of religion itself.’ [FN 11. William E. Arnal, Definition, in Guide to the Study of Religion 22 (Willi Braun & Russell T. McCutcheon eds., 2000)] In fact, ‘dozens, if not hundreds of proposals have been made, each claiming to solve the definitional problem in a new and unique way. Needless to say, no one definition of religion has garnered a consensus, and the definitional enterprise, as well as the debate over the very need for definitions, continues in full vigor.’ [FN 12. Brian C. Wilson, From the Lexical to the Polythetic: A Brief History of the Definition of Religion, in What is Religion? 141-42 (Thomas A. Indinopulos & Brian C. Wilson eds., 1998)]

The most arcane of all subjects of study is the definition of religion, but to an all-knowing God that would not be an insurmountable issue. All we have to find is someone who can open up the Heavens and find the answer or solution to the problem. Any volunteers? In the days of Moses, Jesus, and Paul the Apostle, we could probably have an answer through one of them. Since we cannot, we are relegated to the method of debate to find truth--which so far has yielded no solution.

 

[Popeyesays]

Any word one uses should have a definition, or it is not a word.

Think about this definition: "Religion, then, is the necessary connection which emanates from the reality of things; and as the supreme Manifestations of God are aware of the mysteries of beings, therefore, They understand this essential connection, and by this knowledge establish the Law of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 158)


Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Here's another definition which might be different from most of those definitions people consider: "The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 215)

Regards,
Scott

 

[Maxist]

I consider it scripture.

 

[zasetsu57]

The term "religion" was originally believed to have been derived from the word "religare", meaning "to bind".....from this we also get the word ligature...describing the manner in which tendons are bound to bone in support. It was meant (it is thought) to represent the manner in which man is "bound" to his perception/concept of the Divine, eventually evolving in a religio-socio set of rituals to forge a connection to God. Interestingly enough...the term "nirvana" originally meant to "unbind"...and the imagery invoked was the "unbinding" of flame (lust/greed/delusions) from it's fuel (desire/clinging/grasping)....eventually evolving to the concept of "extinguishing a flame"....

 

[Real Sorceror]

It can be defined, though I'm not the one to do it.

 

[Sunstone]

I have never come across a satisfactory definition of religion. Most of the definitions I've heard have either failed to be inclusive enough, or have been too inclusive. When they have failed to be inclusive enough, they have excluded one or more religions. When they have been too inclusive, they have turned nearly everything into a religion.

 

[Buttercup]

If churches want to keep their tax exempt status it sure as heck should be defined. And lawfully.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm going to pull a Jay...

See Tuan.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

It can be defined, though I'm not the one to do it.

That's my answer, too.

 

[bender118]

I think religion is just a series of myths, stories and literature bound together that teaches ideals, then is blown way out of proprotion as people interpret everything literally, rather then looking at the deeper message, such has how one should live his/her life

 

[ayani]

how about... "religion is a set of beliefs, ideals, ethical preceps, and rituals which binds a person to his relationship with a trans-human reality, being, or goodness towards which he should strive".

maybe.

 

[michel]

I'm going to pull a Jay...

See Tuan.

I can see that that definition is apt and maybe accurate coming from a non-theist. I don't think it addresses the question fully;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm have this rather apt answer........
Problems with definitions:

The English word "religion" is derived from the Middle English "religioun" which came from the Old French "religion." It may have been originally derived from the Latin word "religo" which means "good faith," "ritual," and other similar meanings. Or it may have come from the Latin "religãre" which means "to tie fast."
Defining the word "religion" is fraught with difficulty. All of the definitions that we have encountered contain at least one deficiency:
Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might include belief in a God or Goddess or combination of Gods and Goddesses who are responsible for the creation of the universe and for its continuing operation. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and many forms of religious Satanism which have no such belief.Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious. Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion -- fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature.Some define "religion" in terms of "the sacred" and/or "the spiritual," and thus necessitate the creation of two more definitions.Sometimes, definitions of "religion" contain more than one deficiency.

Our compromise definition:

This website's essays use a very broad definition of religion: "Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview." (A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a "belief about deity" -- their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist.

From a legal point of view, there is a rather lengthy explanation of the difficulty of defining religion here:- http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml

The 'main points' being:

the term “religion.” There was one major international effort to explain the underlying rights protected under the concept of religion or belief,[5] and the UN Human Rights Committee issued an important General Comment on the scope of freedom of religion or belief within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[6] Nevertheless, the term “religion” remains undefined as a matter of international law. The absence of a definition of “religion” is not peculiar to international human rights conventions; most national constitutions also include clauses on freedom of religion without defining “religion.”[7] Thus we are presented, on the one hand, with important provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights pertaining to religion, but on the other hand the term itself is left undefined. Of course, the absence of a definition of a critical term does not differentiate religion from most other rights identified in human rights instruments and constitutions. However, because religion is much more complex than other guaranteed rights, the difficulty of understanding what is and is not protected is significantly greater.[8]

and
B. Typical Deficiencies in Legal Interpretations of “Religion”

As discussed above, definitions of “religion” typically begin with assumptions about the nature of religion, and then are presented in either essentialist or polythetic form. Legal definitions of “religion” (whether in statutes or court decisions) follow this same general pattern. However, in addition to the difficulties that surround all attempts to define the term, legal definitions also must take into account other factors that standard definitions may ignore. Legal definitions of “religion” generally appear in the complicating contexts of either: (a) protecting freedom of religion, or (b) prohibiting discrimination (or persecution) of religion. Legal definitions do not simply describe the phenomenon of religion, they establish rules for regulating social and legal relations among people who themselves may have sharply different attitudes about what religion is and which manifestations of it are entitled to protection. Legal definitions, as a result, may contain serious deficiencies when they (perhaps unintentionally) incorporate particular social and cultural attitudes towards (preferred) religions, or when they fail to account for social and cultural attitudes against (disfavored) religions.
1. Incorporating Societal Value Judgments Regarding Familiar or Favored Religions

Statutory and judicial characterizations of religion may wrongly assume that familiar or favored creeds are real religions, while different or new creeds are either not religions or are only pseudo-religions. The most troubling examples of this deficiency are laws that differentiate between tradi-
*** Top of Page 196 ***
tional and non-traditional religions (as in Russia), or that differentiate between religions and sects (as in France). One extreme example from a judicial opinion is that of Judge Valticos on the European Court of Human Rights, who differentiates between the (acceptable) Greek Orthodox Church and the (unacceptable) Jehovah’s Witness faith. A member of the latter faith, who has been convicted in Greek courts for proselytism, is described by the judge as
a hardbitten adept of proselytism, a specialist in conversion, a martyr of the criminal courts whose earlier convictions have served only to harden him in his militancy . . . . He swoops on her, trumpets that he has good news for her (the play on words is obvious, but no doubt not to her), manages to get himself let in and, as an experienced commercial traveller and cunning purveyor of a faith he wants to spread, expounds to her his intellectual wares cunningly wrapped up in a mantle of universal peace and radiant happiness. Who, indeed, would not like peace and happiness?[26]...............

 

[Green Gaia]

I can see that that definition is apt and maybe accurate coming from a non-theist. I don't think it addresses the question fully;

Only when theists insist that a definition of religion must include the supernatural.