Scholarly Definition of Religion - Essay Example

A SCHOLARLY DEFINITION OF RELIGION: ITS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES INTRODUCTION: From research on the of religion, it appears that scholars have found that any single attempt to define religion proves inadequate because of the complexities and the different contexts in which the concept of religion is generally used. Markham and Ruparell (2001) observe that the definition of religion will influence what is chosen to be included when religion is discussed, what one is able to learn about and what one is able to learn from religion. DISCUSSION: A Scholarly Definition of Religion: Dr. William K. Wright had taken into account both the findings of psychological science and the first-hand researches of anthropologists all over the world, to develop the concept of religion from an integrated and new point of view (E.W.S, 1923). King (1992) states that he found Dr. William K. Wright’s concept of religion to be “something broad and universal, covering the whole of life” (p.384). It appeared to King that the universality and perpetuity of religion result from the fact that it “endeavours to secure the conservation of socially recognized values”. In the review by E.W.S (1923) of Dr.W.K. Wright’s book A Student’s Philosophy of Religion, Dr. Wright’s definition of religion is stated as: “Religion is the endeavour to secure the conservation of socially recognized values through specific actions that are believed to evoke some agency different from the ordinary ego of the individual, or from other merely human beings, and that imply a feeling of dependence upon this agency” (p.341). The Strengths in Dr. W.K. Right’s Definition of Religion: King (1992) observes that in order to determine the exact meaning of religion both the genus and the differentia of Dr. Wright’s definition have to be dealt with. In the genus of his definition of religion, the author had tried to include every conceivable form of religion to broaden the focus of the term as much as possible, and in the differentia he attempts to be sufficiently narrow and specific to exclude from the species of religion everything included within the genus which is not properly religious. Each of the separate expressions in Dr. Wright’s definition of religion is scrutinized by King (1992): By “values” many be any of a number of things depending on the level of progress achieved by the religion and of the civilization in which it appears. “Natural religions” is the term used by Dr. Wright for lower or less advanced religions: having values which are all concrete and practical wants, with belief in the supernatural. Relief from carcity of food or water, requirement for efficiency in cultivating the soil or requirement for protection against natural perils such as earthquakes, floods, etc, protection from disease, deliverance from pestilence and famine, and the desire for long life, riches and posterity are values with which natural religions have been concerned. In this context, Stark and Bainbridge (1985) assert that there can be no wholly naturalistic religion; that a religion lacking supernatural assumptions is no religion at all. “Ethical religions”on the other hand, are those in which man is more self-conscious and reflective, and possesses deeper moral insight. Moral conduct becomes the chief value to conserve. The greatest evil that man has to overcome is his own sinful nature, which curses him and threatens to harm him in future life as well. So ethical religions are usually “religions of redemption” and show man a way out of his sinfulness (King, 1992). One characteristic applies to both natural and ethical religions, is its values. The values are all “socially recognized”. That is, they are either values that are recognized by many persons, if not by all, to concern the welfare of a whole of the social group, or else they are values recognized to be morally right and proper for individuals to seek for their own benefit. Religion, then is something that comes from within the social whole, rather than from a revelation from without. “The logical conclusion of this point seems to be that no one can make a religion for himself any more than he can devise a language of his own; religion is a slow development of group life and common experiences”, according to King (1992). Similarly, Ames (1909) observes that different kinds of religious intensity, volume and symbolic expression are reached by the ideal values of each age and each type of social development. “Religious consciousness is the consciousness of the greatest interests and purposes of life, in their most idealized and intensified forms”(p.52). Religion as an “endeavor to secure the conservation of socially recognized values” is the genus of the definition of religion and is sufficiently all-encompassing to include all types of religions. “Conservation” includes quantitative increase of commodities: such as food, water, and other material goods. It also includes enhancement or intensification of the values, especially in the case of more spiritual goods: such as bravery, loyalty, purity of heart, social solidarity, sense of divine presence and support, and the like. In relation to religion being an “endeavour” to secure the conservation of socially recognized values, King (1992) states that the “endeavour” need not be successful as in the case of the Australian ceremonies to secure rain and to increase the food supply. In Dr.Wright’s definition of religion, he differentiated the field of religion from other forms of endeavour such as science, art, law, magic, morality, etc: to secure the conservation of socially recognized values that are not religious. “Specific action” seems to have been employed in order to make it clear that it includes any kind of act whatsoever that has been employed to serve the purpose: whether a magic spell or incantation, or purely mental acts like concentrating one’s thought upon the eightfold path of the Buddha, through meditation upon the meaning of life or the sublimity of nature, or the silent prayer a Christian might momentarily make when confronted by a sudden emergency. Such an action, whatever it may be, is always in the mind of him who makes it, definite and specific. King (1992) states that Dr. Wright describes the agency involved as “different from the ordinary ego of the individual, or from other merely human beings”, and that it greatly varies in different religions, and different individuals of the same religious faith may have their own conception of it. The agency may even be a human being like an Egyptian King or a Roman emperor provided he is not believed to be merely human, but in some respects divine. It may be the Blessed Virgin or one of the saints; it may be nature as conceived by a romantic poet like Shelley or a philosopher life Marcus Aurelius; it may be the deceased spirit of a respected person, or it may be some other spirit or God. It is observed that in order to differentiate between science and religion, the variance was clearly set forth in the differentia of the definition. The scientific attitude toward nature always reveals a mechanical exploitation of nature. Nature is inert, passive, and man may bend and manipulate it according to his needs if he understands the “laws” or phenomena of nature. On the other hand, there is no exploitation of power in religious attitude in which there is a “feeling of dependence” toward power greater than our ordinary selves. It is observed , according to King (1992) that Dr. Wright’s definition of religion has successfully differentiated religion from morals, ethics and aesthetics associated with higher religions and from animism and magic related to primitive religions. The values of religion are all in some sense moral values, and the peculiar nature of the agency through which the religious value is conserved: differentiates between religion and merely moral values. Similarly, religion is one of the agencies for conserving ethical values which give a systematic basis for and philosophically defend the principles of morals. The differentiation of religion from aesthetics is also provided for in Dr. Wright’s definition by the emphasis upon the agency employed, and the fact that aesthetic contemplation is an end in itself. On the other hand, religious meditation and prayer are always for the sake of conserving socially recognized values which important to the believer not only at the moment of worship, but even more so at other times. Thus, it is clear that religion differs from other ways to “secure the conservation of socially recognized values” The Weaknesses in Dr. W.K. Wright’s Definition of Religion: From Dr. Wrights definition one gets the impression that anything, even man’s dealings with physical forces, can be religious. According to the author, actions must be believed “to evoke some agency different from the ordinary ego of the individual, or from other merely human beings, and that imply a feeling of dependence upon this agency.” This encompasses within the concept of religion: man’s dealings with merely physical forces when he uses them for the conservation or the production of values, and when he feels dependent upon them. The ordinary physical forces: heat, and electricity, for example, are agencies different from “the ordinary ego of the individual, and from other merely human beings,” and we are dependent upon them. This is supported by Leuba (1912) who states that the many “specific actions” by which these forces are used, would make it possible to include them in the realm of religion. It is observed that significantly important physical forces like heat and electricity have to be excluded from the concept of religion. Hence, Leuba (1912) has added the adjectives “psychic” and “anthropopathic” in his definition of religion, which is: “Religion is the mode of behaviour in the struggle for life, in which use is made of powers characterized here as psychic, superhuman and usually personal. In its objective manifestations, religion appears as rites, creeds, and institutions. In its subjective expression, it consists of impulses, desires, purposes, feelings, emotions, and ideas connected with religious actions and institutions” (p.642). Futhermore, Leuba (1912), states that he would like to add the word “increase” to Dr. Wright’s definition of religion as: “the endeavour to secure the conservation and increase of socially recognized values”. In the genus of his definition Mr. Wright limits the values involved in religious consciousness to those already socially recognized. Hypothetically, supposing a person wants to be religious. He has some values which are not socially recognized, but he wants to see them conserved. Would he be excluded from the concept of religion, asks King (1992). If a prophet, dissenting from socially recognized values appeals to a higher standard, would that exclude him from the group of worshippers? It is significant that Dr. Wright is convincing in his description of religion as the basis for a certain amount of social and moral solidarity and conservatism among those who believe in and practise religion. Society needs a strong conservative, centripetal agency to solidify its forces and keep it from losing the values it has learned to recognize and appreciate. Dr. Wright is able to successfully convince the reader that this agency is found in religion. This is reiterated by King (1992) who agrees that by becoming properly adjusted to the divine power of religion one is able to become adjusted to himself and to his fellow man. CONCLUSION: Since the Enlightenment, most western intellectuals have anticipated the decrease and eventual death of religion. Social scientists termed it as the impending triumph of reason over superstition. But as one generation followed another, religion has persisted. Though secularization is a major trend in modern times, it is in fact a process found in all religious economies and in all societies, stimulating revival and religious innovation. Stark and Bainbridge (1985: 3) state that “the history of religion is not only a pattern of decline, but also a process of birth and growth.” Religion in all its manifestations is a vital part of human life. REFERENCES Ames, E.S. (1909). “Religion and the Psychic Life”. International Journal of Ethics, October, 1909, Vol.XX: pp.49-52. E.W.S (1923). A Book Review of A Students’ Philosophy of Religion by W.K. Wright, London: Hodder and Stoughton, Journal of the Royal African Society, 1923: pp.341-242 King, Martin Luther; Luther, Ralph E; Carson, Clayborne; Russell, Penny A. (1992). The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. England: University of California Press Ltd. Leuba, James H. (1912). “The Definition of Religion: A Propos of Mr. W.K. Wright’s Definition”. The American Journal of Theology, 1912: pp.642-645. Markham, Ian S; Ruparell, Tinu. (2001). Encountering Religion: An Introduction to the Religions of the World. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers. Stark, Rodney; Bainbridge, William Sims. (1985). The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation. England: University of California Press Ltd. Read More