The term "religion" gets thrown around a lot in books, TV shows, everyday conversations, and blogs (including this one!). But what does the term "religion" actually mean?
This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. If we ask our friend Merriam-Webster, we find three definitions of religion:
1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods
2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
3. an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or groupWhile these three definitions may look similar, they are quite different. Definition 1 defines religion as a mere belief; Definition 2 defines religion as a system of beliefs, practices, AND rules; and Definition 3 defines religion as either an interest, belief, OR activity. So which is it?
The answer, of course, is it can be all three, depending on how a person uses the word. The subjective nature of religion can be seen by the fact that certain traditions are considered a religion by some, and not by others. For this article, we will be looking at one such contested tradition, Theravada Buddhism, to see how it lines up with our three example definitions above.
Like other forms of Buddhism, Theravada monks are attempting to achieve Enlightenment, a kind of mystical experience that frees one from the cycle of reincarnation (called Samsara). They believe that life here on earth will always ultimately lead to suffering due to its ever-changing nature. Their goal, then, is to escape this life (which we are constantly being reborn into after we die) by achieving Enlightenment, thereby escaping Samsara and entering Nirvana, a state of existence that is unknowable to those who are not Enlightened.[1]
Theravada Buddhist monks generally believe in the existence of what we would call gods, but their gods are part of the cycle of reincarnation. Indeed, while their gods can live much longer than humans can, they will eventually die, and will be reborn into another body, which can be a god, human, animal, or ghost body. So gods are stuck in Samsara just as humans are. In other words, they are a product of the problem of this world, not part of the solution. Theravada Buddhists believe that only by following the teachings of the Buddha, a man who once obtained Enlightenment many years ago, can they escape the cycle of reincarnation and enter Nirvana. Their religious practices, then, generally have little to do with the gods they technically believe exist.[2]
Now let's see if Theravada Buddhism counts as a religion according to Definition 1:
Religion is the belief in a god or in a group of godsTechnically Theravada Buddhist monks believe in the existence of gods, but these gods are not worshiped, nor are used in what most of us would call their religious practices or goals. This definition, then, technically includes Therevada Buddhism, but this is problematic, since we are making the essence of their religion the belief in gods, something that they would say is NOT actually essential to their tradition.
If we look at Definition 2, however, Theravada Buddhism is now excluded as a religion, simply because they do not worship the gods that they believe exist:
Religion is an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of godsWhile many would include Theravada Buddhism as a religion (as would I, which is why I taught on this form of Buddhism in my Religions of the World class), this definition does not allow it to be labeled as such.[3]
Definition 3 is the most inclusive definition offered, since it describes pretty much any phenomenon that anyone would label as a "religion":
Religion is an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or groupTheravada Buddhism would certainly count as a religion by this definition. However, this is by far the most problematic definition of the three due to its vagueness. It calls any interest, belief, or activity that is merely important to people to be a religion. I often go running. This is both an interest and a practice of mine, and is very important to me for both mental and physical reasons. But is running an essential part of my religion? No, of course not. The problem with Definition 3 is that what is "important" to people is too inclusive to be a useful definition.
Definitions of religion often run into one of two problems:
Problem 1: the definition is too narrow, and excludes or misrepresents certain traditions that are generally considered religions, like we saw in Definitions 1 and 2
Problem 2: the definition is too vague, and while it includes most, if not all, of the traditions that are generally considered religions, it also includes many things that are generally NOT considered religionsWhat I hope we can take away from Merriam-Webster's definitions is that "religion" is not an easy concept to define, at least in a way that everyone can agree with. If we think about it, this shouldn't be too shocking. Religion is a category we humans have come up with to understand groups that we consider different than our own, so it makes sense that there is no universal standard for defining what a religion is. Despite the fact we often think of religion as a cross-cultural phenomenon, our conception of religion actually reflects our own cultural norms. Theravada Buddhism is only contested as a religion because their relationship with their gods is different than what we typically see in the West.
Our own cultural influence can also be seen in our definitions of religion above. Why is belief an important element in all three definitions? Probably because in the West, our understanding of religion has been shaped by Christianity, which has historically stressed faith in Jesus Christ to be its essential feature. For most Christians, belief is the essence of their religion, because that is how they determine if other traditions are inside their group (have "correct" faith in Jesus Christ), or outside of it (have no faith in or deviant beliefs about Jesus Christ). This Christian concept of religion has largely stuck around in American minds, even in those who don't identify as Christian.[4]
The human mind is an amazing tool that has helped us understand the world by categorizing things around us. However, often times when we press these categories, such as religion, we realize that our understandings are influenced by our unique cultural contexts, and perhaps are not as neatly coherent as we might have previously thought.
Engaging in a better understanding of our categories may seem pointless to some. Who cares how different people use the term "religion?" However, I would argue that it can be incredibly helpful in developing our own ideologies as well as understanding others'. Religion can be a controversial topic, and it is not uncommon for people to have strong opinions concerning it. Many people I have encountered in my day-to-day life have made claims like "religion is incompatible with science" or "religion is the root cause of human violence." On the other end of the spectrum, I have met people who believe all religions are a force for good in this world, or that all can be reduced to teachings of love for fellow humans. I would disagree with all of the above positions.
Because religion can mean so many different things to different people, such extreme positions of the goodness or badness of religion really mean very little, and should encourage further questions directed at the one making the claim, such as:
"What makes science different from all religions?"
"Can't atheists be violent too?"
"Is the religion of ISIS or Westboro Baptists really a force for good in this world?"
"Can all religions really be reduced to mere moral teachings?"By reflecting on our own understanding of religion, we can learn to think deeper than our superficial prejudices. It's easy to paint all things we consider to be religious with a broad stroke of opinion, but in my experience it is much more fruitful to study the exceptions to our rules, and to think critically about how we mentally organize the world around us.
Notes
[1] Nirvana is often called the opposite of Samsara (the cycle of reincarnation). Since we are all bound by Samsara, it takes many lifetimes of meditation to actually obtain Enlightenment and understand the nature of Nirvana.
[2] Theravada Buddhism can be contrasted with Mahayana Buddhism, the largest form of Buddhism in the world today. Mahayana Buddhists believe that Buddhas and other special beings called Bodhisattvas can actively help people in their everyday life, as well as to obtain Enlightenment, and they often serve as objects of worship in their religion (or in other words, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas would be considered gods in this form of Buddhism). Indeed, while Theravada Buddhists believe that the original Buddha was merely a man, Mahayana Buddhists believe that the original Buddha was actually a manifestation of a god known as the Cosmic Buddha. Like "religion," our understanding of "gods" has issues as well when applied cross-culturally. But to keep my sanity, I will only focus on "religion" in this article.
[3] Theravada Buddhism is not the only tradition that's status as a religion is debatable by various definitions of religion. Atheism, Marxism, Confucianism, and Daoism are all traditions that are a topic of debate as to whether or not they count as being a religion.
[4] For my own purposes, I define religion as follows:
A shared submission to a commonly-identified meta-human force(s), being(s), and/or goal(s) that often creates self-identifying groupsUnlike many, I do not view the essence of religion to be belief. While this works well with religions like Christianity and Islam, other religious traditions like Theravada Buddhism and Confucianism don't fit in so well. From my studies, it seems that most cultures from ancient to modern have actively demonstrated their submission to a higher force/being/goal than humanity or its products. I think this is the key aspect of religion. However, I am working with the goal to try to include as many social phenomena I perceive as "religious" as I can. This is certainly not an objective or "correct" definition, only a working definition that is attempting to be more useful and inclusive to other traditions.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.