Ways to recognize what is a religion

From Wikinfo

See also Religion.

Religion as a subject generates much study and discussion in the fields of theology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Specialists in these fields, as well as ordinary people — theists, atheists, and agnostics alike — often disagree about the fundamental nature of religion. Consequently, any meaningful discussion of religion should begin by answering certain "basic" questions such as:

• "What constitutes a religious belief?"
• "What is the difference between religious and secular beliefs?"
• "How do we identify religious beliefs?"
• "Are religions individual or group activities?"
• "What methodology shall we use to investigate these questions?"

The answers to these and similar questions can then serve as a common ground upon which to base further discussion.

With the aim of making the conclusions of such discussion acceptable to people from diverse religious backgrounds, that discussion must make as few assumptions as possible. However, this article starts with the following a priori assumptions:

• Sets of beliefs exist, labelled "religious".

• Observers can recognize such beliefs as "religious" and can distinguish them from non-religious beliefs.

• (The most controversial:) Ways exist to classify beliefs either as "religious" or as "non-religious".

The last assumption generates the most controversy because two main logical ways of looking at the world exist, each bringing with it certain a priori assumptions that nobody usually recognizes as such. While studies of a particular religion made from each viewpoint may come to many of the same conclusions, the two approaches differ over (for example) what beliefs to regard as religious, and the effects of religions.

Those concerned with distinguishing religion from non-religion divide into two broadly defined schools of thought: function-based and form-based.

Contents 1 Function-based school of thought 2 Form-based school of thought 3 Intuition 4 Practical examples 5 References 6 References

Function-based school of thought

One approach, sometimes referred to as "Hebrew thought", defines "religion" as any set of beliefs that fulfills certain functions in an individual's life, especially answering basic religious questions about our origins, present existence and purpose, thereby forming the individual's attitudes, values, morality and actions. Consequently, adherents of this approach regard any belief-system which answers any of these questions as "religious", including such non-theistic belief systems as Communism, secular humanism, and (neo-)Darwinian evolution.

The main advantage of this approach lies in its ability to incorporate seamlessly all of the belief-systems popularly or traditionally considered religious, including some of the agnostic forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. Advocates of the functional approach point out another advantage: its recognition of the fact that the phenomenon usually perceived as conflict between "religion" and "anti-religion" reduces to competition between different fundamentalisms.

One difficulty in applying this approach arises from the fact that many individuals (just like many groups) hold multiple belief-systems, some of which may contradict others, and some of which people feign; consequently, difficulties can often arise in recognizing the effect that any particular belief system has on an individual. Another inter-related difficulty with the functional approach emerges in that it tries to evaluate what act as the inner guiding principles within an individual, his "religion" as it were, by the fruits those principles produce in his attitudes, values, morality and actions. It does not necessarily agree with those beliefs and associations he admits to in public. Though a difficulty, the evaluation process can serve to distinguish true adherents to a particular religion from those who merely join the organization for reasons other than belief.

When studying specific religions or comparative religion, a functional study typically starts with an analysis of the teachings of the belief system, which includes an analysis of the "sacred writings" connected with the belief system if they exist. In this analysis the researcher looks for:

• internal consistency
• whether the belief system answers the basic functional questions of origins, ontology and teleology
• how well it correlates to observation
• how it guides an individual's attitudes, values, morality and actions, even how he thinks.

The research may assess how well the religion studied integrates with daily life: is it merely ritual that once acted upon can be forgotten as done, or is it a belief that informs every action an individual does?

A functional study also looks at those who claim to follow the religion: to see if they truly follow it or not, and why.

Questions concerning group beliefs, actions and institutions, though important, remain secondary because they result from doctrine and from individual response. Group beliefs may actually represent cultural norms and institutions rather than individual belief and practice, so that though they may appear to constitute a religion, they actually do not do so.

Form-based school of thought

Also called "Greek thought", the form-based method occurs most widely by far. Academia, sociologists, anthropologists and Western philosophers use it almost universally.

Most people, particularly those influenced by "Western" culture, almost instinctively recognize which of their beliefs they recognize as "religious" and which as "secular". Usually unconsciously, they have already made a priori assumptions such as "There are beliefs that are 'religious'", "Religious beliefs are not the same as secular beliefs". Typical assumptions imparted by Western culture which aid in recognizing "religious" beliefs include:

• A belief counts as religious if those who believe in it label it as "religious".
• A belief counts as religious if it deals with "spiritual" matters.
• A belief counts as religious if it results in ritual practices designed to invoke a higher reality (examples include meditation, prayer and worship).
• If a belief is agnostic or atheistic and does not result in ritual practices, it counts as "secular".
• If a belief, organization and rituals associated with them are not intended to promote a "religious" teaching, then they count as "secular". Secular political parties in secular government with their beliefs and rituals exemplify secular organizations.
• "Scientific" beliefs count as secular.

When studying specific religions and comparative religions, discussions typically begin by answering questions about uncontroversial, easily verifiable facts, such as:

• "What beliefs do different groups of people hold?"
• "What practices do these beliefs inspire?"
• "What institutions arise as a result of these beliefs and practices?"

Hopefully, answering these questions will create a body of data to serve as a basis for all further discourse, including the answers to the "basic" questions mentioned in the first paragraph of this section.

This method offers at least three advantages:

1. people who hold to agnostic and atheistic belief systems can decide for themselves whether what they believe is a religious or secular belief-system
2. it conforms to widely-held societal and academic norms, aiding in communication
3. in that it conforms to societal and academic norms, it avoids misunderstanding and conflict that can arise when using minority approaches, such as the functional approach discussed above.

In contrast to the functional approach, the use of Greek thought as the methodology to study religion, with its emphasis on the inherently uncontroversial statements about religion's external manifestations, its expressed statements and rituals, occasions less controversy and seems easily recognizable; therefore people with widely differing views of religion find Greek thought more readily acceptable. Consequently, most major thinkers prefer to begin by examining the easily-observable external forms of religion.

However, there is a weakness to the form based approach, namely in that it studies a religion’s external manifestations and “believers’” statements, it is not able to differentiate between true believers and hypocrites, nor able to recognize when different religions share a similar to same vocabulary but differ widely in their beliefs. The former failing is self-explanatory from the definition of the words. The latter is far harder to recognize, as when the same terms are used with different meanings, it often appears to the external observer that they are the same, or at least similar, religion, when in actuality they can use the same terms to represent very different beliefs, hence very different religions.

The fourth definition of religion in Webster's Online Dictionary also illustrates the formal approach: it defines religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Also definition 1b: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural."

Intuition

Perhaps the most common method to distinguish a religious belief from one that is not religious is intuition, feelings. While this method is widely used, it lacks the theoretical rigor needed for systematic study of religion.

Practical examples

The question as to how to distinguish a religion from a non-religion does not just arise in theoretical discussion. In the case of Scientology courts of law have considered the problem, for example in the Netherlands. Classification as a religion may give tax privileges. Some critics of Scientology portray it as a business and not as a genuine religion. See Scientology controversy.

Taking the above methods to bear on this question, one can see why it is a controversy. Using the functional based definition, does Scientology give an answer to the basic religious questions of origins, ontology and purpose? If so, then it fits the functional definition of a religion. Using the form based definition of religion, i.e. does it lack teachings concerning a deity or deities, rituals, and other external manifestations commonly connected with religion, then it is not a religion. Which definition do people accept?

Do the “moderates” and “conservatives” in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church and in the Southern Baptist Convention share the same beliefs? According to the form based analysis, both groups state beliefs in the same basic teachings using the same or similar terminology, so it appears that they merely disagree on minor details. But a function based analysis shows that their beliefs are very different: the “moderates” as a group in both church bodies redefine terms to inculcate teachings almost indistinguishable from secularized liberal teachings that deny almost every teaching held dear by “conservatives”.

Specific examples include to the “conservative”, the statement “Jesus rose from the dead” means that the grave is empty, Jesus is no longer dead, his resurrection demonstrated that he is creator God come to earth who therefore is to be worshipped and obeyed; to “moderates” that could mean that Jesus “rose in our hearts” as an inspiration, even though as a mere mortal his bones may still be in a grave somewhere. “The Bible is the word of God” means to “conservatives” that the Bible is a historically accurate book, useful as a guide to all teaching and life; “the Bible contains the word of God” to a “moderate” allows the teaching of the Documentary Hypothesis which denies the historicity of the Bible, further it allows that the Bible can contain many errors as befitting a book of myths written long after the events related in its narratives, therefore it is not a binding rule and guide for all life. There are many other subtle, function based clues that indicate that “moderates” and “conservatives” in both church bodies teach very different religions even as the forms as revealed by terminology show similarity. Similar differences are found in Judaism and Islam.

Some social scientists now define religion by its consequences in the personal life of individuals. These authors define religion as “a combination of forms and symbolic acts which relate the individual to the ultimate conditions of his existence", (Bellah 1964: 358) or as “a system of beliefs and practices through which a group of people faces the fundamental problems of life”. (Yinger 1970: 7) While this at first appears to be a functional way to define "religion", or at least a blurring of the division of form verses function as a means to define what is a religious belief, ultimately it appears that the beliefs are still defined by their form.

Some commentators have described Discordianism both as an elaborate joke disguised as a religion, and as a religion disguised as an elaborate joke. Some followers of Discordianism see it as "a religion disguised as a joke disguised as a religion". Episkopos Aloysius Thudthwacker in an article has pointed out a few similarities between Christianity and Discordianism. Some Discordians have described Discordians as Taoists with a strange sense of humor and with the inability to sit still. Readers may try their hand at classifying Discordianism, for it provides a very difficult case-study to unravel.

Again the question comes up, which methodology do we use to define what is a religion, function or form? The answers may be the same, or different.

References

• Bellah, Richard: Religious Evolution, 1964
• Online Dictionary: Webster's Online Dictionary
• Thudthwacker, Aloysius: "Faith" - retrieved 16 December 2005
• Yinger, J. Milton: The Scientific Study of Religion Macmillan, 1970

References

• Adapted from the former Wikipedia article, “Approaches_to_distinguishing_religion_from_non-religion” which I originally wrote to be part of the Wikipedia article, "Religion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion but was spun off into its own page. The article has been deleted from WikiPedia.