Is there such a thing as "religion"?
Is it at all appropriate to speak of "the" religion or "the religions"?
I'd like to plead for a modular conception of religions, not as homogeneous "things", but as a bundle of elements that are and were composed differently in different cultures and at different times.
These (core) elements/modules include (the list is not exhaustive):
1- Dealing/exchange with supernatural actors or entities (ancestors, spirits, gods, karma, dharma)
2- Myth (proto-scientific narrations that give explanations of the world)
3- rituals
4- magic
5- taboos
6- emotionally charged symbols
7- Music and dance
8- Changed states of consciousness
9- notions of the hereafter
10- moral rules
11- sacrifices
12- Dichotomy sacred/profan
13- Dichotomy pure/impure
The following is important:
(a.) Not all of these modules occur in every religion.
(b.) Each of these modules can also be found in non-religious contexts, they can "migrate" to the realms of politics or art, so that the impression can arise that fascism or the cult around a star is "quasi-religious". The litmus test would be whether one ascribes supernatural abilities to the leader or the idolised star. Only if this is the case it could be called a genuinely religious phenomenon.
I'd like to plead for a modular conception of religions, not as homogeneous "things", but as a bundle of elements that are and were composed differently in different cultures and at different times.
These (core) elements/modules include (the list is not exhaustive):
1- Dealing/exchange with supernatural actors or entities (ancestors, spirits, gods, karma, dharma)
2- Myth (proto-scientific narrations that give explanations of the world)
3- rituals
4- magic
5- taboos
6- emotionally charged symbols
7- Music and dance
8- Changed states of consciousness
9- notions of the hereafter
10- moral rules
11- sacrifices
12- Dichotomy sacred/profan
13- Dichotomy pure/impure
The following is important:
(a.) Not all of these modules occur in every religion.
(b.) Each of these modules can also be found in non-religious contexts, they can "migrate" to the realms of politics or art, so that the impression can arise that fascism or the cult around a star is "quasi-religious". The litmus test would be whether one ascribes supernatural abilities to the leader or the idolised star. Only if this is the case it could be called a genuinely religious phenomenon.
Comments (33)
ALL institutes rely on authority. I’ve always had a hard time delineating between religious institutes and religious people - in the broader sense of ‘religious’ where belief in a deity is not necessary and/or symbolic in nature.
The incentives are identical, though the paths may differ.
You may cross the street by using the crosswalk, underpass or bridge; nonetheless you will be crossing the street, but you won't be crossing two of the three paths.
So, to answer the query, there is religion, and it is not instigated by the provided list - but the list provides a sieve; one that may used for any activity.
Much as how the distinction between technology and magic may be washed away, so the one 'tween religion and science, even if that science happens to be 'slicing bread'.
Well, the comment was slightly facetious. Christianity seemingly divorced itself from Catholicism wrt. to appeals to authority, Lutheranism, etc.
But, even in Christianity, there's a fundamental appeal towards the final word of Christ on most matters.
Are you sure that's a good idea? :wink: A modular conception? Hmm.
Quoting Matias
Ah, that sounds a little more like it! :smile: :up:
[My underlining.]
From a perspective opposed to religion, this is a common view, and it does hold some truth, especially when we consider human religious organisations, as opposed to religious teachings. But religion also helps us come to terms with the unknown, in a way that helps us to lead our lives. When we had little in the way of philosophy (or similar stuff), simple animism helped us come to terms with a very scary world that we just couldn't understand. Not that much has changed, has it? :wink:
Does this provide any insight?
Take a look at Poetics thread. This is an area that has intrigued me for a long time. Ritual is an interesting element of ‘religion’. Looking at how rituals play a part in the lives of religious people is, in my view, more revealing than looking at the common laws and views held by religious groups.
No; but, he was the go-to-guy when things turned sour...
Like I said, in your outline a shaman is ‘religious’ - in most cases too. I emphasis this because many people tend to refer to “shamanism” as a religion (it isn’t!)
I do believe that shamanic techniques kick started ‘religion’.
If you can suggest any material to read in this area I’d be interested? (Religion in general and/or shamanism specufically)
Is a mailman religious?
I'd argue that there are no essences to anything, including everything from cups to religion. For example, we can construct a religion of pure spirituality, where there is no authority figure, just sort of where we all live in harmony with nature or some such shit.
Mr. McFeely never really revealed his religious affiliation that I'm aware of.
The term 'numinous' came to prominence in the writing of Rudolf Otto, whose book The Idea of the Holy is a standard text in comparative religion. Granted, Otto himself was a Christian, but the book is magnanimous in its treatment of religions other than his own, and attempts to identify a common core of experience or insight which manifests in different cultural traditions and is depicted in archetypal symbols.
There's another thing which might be mentioned, which is the customary identification of two possible sources for the word 'religion':
The first is the most straightforward, derived from the Latin 'religio' meaning 'attitude of awe/reverence to the Gods or holy beings' - no surprises there.
The second, however, is a derivation from 'religare' which is an archaic word related to 'binding' (same root as ligature or ligament.) This is etymologically suggestive of the Indian idea of 'yoga' as 'yolking or joining' - the idea of 're-binding or re-joining to the sacred'.
This hints at the fact that one of the ancient, but often forgotten, cultural roots of religion was shamanism and its medicinal/meditative practices aimed at divination, healing, attaining trance-states, and so on (amply documented by scholars including Mircea Eliade[sup] 1 [/sup] and Georg Feuerstein [sup] 2 [/sup]). However these elements remain more visible in Oriental and other non-Western spiritual traditions, such as Tibetan Buddhism, Hinduism and other folk-religious traditions (even Santiara and other African religious movements). However, when you study the vast diversity of belief and practice across these traditions, the question does come up as to whether mainstream Christian religion and Tibetan Buddhism, for instance, are really even two instances of the same phenomenon, or whether they're 'alike like bats and birds', so to speak.
But, overall, I am in agreement with the approach, it does draw attention to what a complex and multifaceted aspect of culture and society religion is.
"The term religio does not derive, as an insipid and incorrect etymology would have it, from religare (that which binds and unites the human and the divine). It comes instead from relegere, which indicates the stance of scrupulousness and attention that must be adopted in relations with the gods, the uneasy hesitation (the “rereading (rileggere)") before forms — and formulae — that must be observed in order to respect the separation between the sacred and the profane. Religio is not what unites men and gods but what ensures they remain distinct. It is not disbelief and indifference toward the divine, therefore, that stand in opposition to religion, but “negligence," that is, a behavior that is free and “distracted” (that is to say, released from the religio of norms) before things and their use, before forms of separation and their meaning. To profane means to open the possibility of a special form of negligence, which ignores separation or, rather, puts it to a particular use". (Agamben, In Praise of Profanation).
If we consider that well known means of inducing altered states of consciousness are fasting, sensory deprivation, trance dancing, hyperventilation, isolation, etc., it doesn’t take a genius to see the common features relating to any prophet you dare to mention.
When it comes to the common religious institutes today they have inevitably been politicized, thus covering up the more subtle techniques for inducing such experiences - prayer, mediation and ritual all play into such things (not to mention the practice of fasting and pilgrimage).
It depends on what you mean by 'authority' but we all pretty much have to, certainly for the first 18 years in purely legal terms. But even after that: we can certainly pick and choose what authority we wish to critique and analyze, but there is only so much time in the say. Most people will accept a lot of other people's already arrived at conclusions. Imagine questioning everything. Often people do take the step, on some issues, of choosing new authorities - finding an expert alternative to the one their parents would have consulted or followed, say. If you have the luxury of time (which generally means money or the equivalent) you can challenge, in your own research and exploration, many authorities. But you will still likely be accepting authority on all sorts of issues while doing this.
Well sure. I took acid when it was still legal to so, and experienced the clear light. Had a big impact. I read The Politics of Ecstasy when it came out; ‘ecstasy’ meant something else then (as did ‘straight’ :-) .)
But I think a distinction that can be drawn is between the idea of ‘illumination’ and ‘religious belief’. Not that they’re utterly distinct, but I equate the former with the gnostic element in religion, and the latter with the ecclesiastical element - which is what most people understand religion to mean. There are many reasons for that, but among them is the suppression of Gnosticism in the formation of the early Church. And you can see the rationale for that - ‘orthodoxy’ (which means ‘right belief’) is a much easier thing to manage than knowledge/gnosis. (Hence the ‘centrifugal’ model of Catholicism, with all power devolving from a central source, as opposed to the ‘centripedal’ model of Buddhism comprising loosely-related lineages of initiation.)
The model of the gnostic religions, of which some forms of Mah?y?na Buddhism are paradigmatic, is one of empowerment through the imparting of insight; whereas the model for ecclesiastical faith is obedience to rules and adherence to ‘doxa’. Again, they’re not totally distinct, as Buddhism also has monastic rules; but their starting point is ‘right view’, which is subtly different to ‘correct belief’. Which converges with what you say about the politicisation of religion in Western culture. The gnostic element in Western religion has generally been underground, alternative or counter-cultural; hence the connection between hallucinogens and counter—cultural spirituality.
//apropos of which, I have recently discovered the excellent work of a current US scholar of religion, namely Arthur Versluis.//
Two more elements of most religion are:
Monopoly on truth, and by implication, contempt or hostility towards other religion and alternative world views.
http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion
How old were you when you took it?
??
Not the way I read scriptures and the message for salvation I see.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
As you can see, we are to ne the final arbiters and not Jesus.
Jesus came to free us from religions. Not tie us to his. All he offers us is a way to be like him.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded
Regards
DL