The Antichristian Phenomenon

As the only person who seems actively interested in social science beyond the layman perspective, I’ve come to realize that even though this site is about religion (and the lack thereof); we have written nothing about what we mean by religion and how it’s possible to study various religious groups and organizations. One of the reasons why could possibly be because religion is a very troublesome term in and by itself. It is not constructed with a scientific perspective in mind, so when people refer to religion it can have vastly different meanings, especially within the academia. As a social anthropologist, it is not possible for me to attempt to frame in all these different definitions within social science, but I can at least start by referring to the most common definitions used in anthropology.

The broadest definition in anthropology of what a religion is “is a belief in Spiritual Beings” (Bowie, 2006). This seems to agree with the more common and general definition of religion in everyday language. When someone says that he or she is religious, it is most likely a reference to a belief in a spiritual being, for example the Christian God. From a philosophical perspective, spiritual can be replaced with metaphysical, and it becomes possible to understand this being as existing beyond or after the physical (world) . What is implied here is that this spiritual being is more often than not a single substance on its own residing outside the universe as we know it. The problem with this definition is that there are religions that can be classified as atheistic in nature. A classical example includes Hinduism while more modern examples are modern Satanism and thelema. Pantheistic religions are not necessarily included in this definition either, especially the naturalistic strain. So while Bowie’s definition is useful especially when studying more classical religions, it also leaves something more to be desired.

Clifford Geertz offers another which doesn’t refer to the actual belief system itself, but rather the social meaning a religion can carry to those who practice it. To him, religion is

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

The positive side of this definition is that religion certainly fulfils such a social role in different societies. Christianity wasn’t really that questioned as an authentic and realistic belief system until the Enlightenment which led to such beliefs that the earth was indeed flat and in the center of the universe. Atheistic religions such as modern Satanism and thelema are also safely encompassed because they too function in such a manner to the practitioners. The biggest critique against this definition is how it is possible to basically take any system of symbols and make it seem like a religion. Is it a religion to be a vegetarian? To be a vegetarian usually includes following specific norms and ethics which are felt as true to those who are professed vegetarians.

Same problems arise when attempting to refer to how the word religion is described in a dictionary:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow .

It is possible to ignore point 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. So instead I will start by addressing the first point. The biggest problem with this definition is that superhuman agencies should preferably be involved, and as discussed against Bowie’s definition, same critique applies here. It also assumes that religious practice must contain some kind of rites of rituals. In this day and age where individual spirituality is becoming increasingly popular , it is questionable whether it is needed for a person to be classified as religious. A deist is a very typical and good example of this. A deist is not necessarily a part of any organization, does not necessarily perform and rites and rituals in his or her worship and a deist might even follow a typical scientific approach when it comes to the creation of the physical universe. It is therefore highly questionable whether these beliefs can actually be called “beliefs” except for the actual belief in a spiritual being, in this case a deity of unknown properties. Pantheists also fall short in this definition since there’s nothing that says that a pantheist cannot follow a typical scientific description of the universe, and the most common interpretation of pantheism usually excludes any form of spiritual being. It becomes even more troublesome when studying modern Satanism which falls short on everything but on a moral code that dictates how people should attempt to live, but even then there is such a large difference between individual practitioners even this point can be questioned.

A fault of this definition therefore lies in its assumption that a person must be a member of a religious institution or organization and how it presupposes a belief in a spiritual being in order to be classified as religious.

2 is very similar to Geertz’ definition and same critique applies there. Don’t members of the Weightwatchers agree on certain fundamental beliefs and practices of how to lose weight? Here I mean that it is actually a belief to consider it better and healthier to lose weight than not to, as there are plenty of serious studies showing that the relationship between obesity and unhealth are not as crystal clear as have been previously believed.

3 is not very different from 2 except that it attempts to frame in a more global and general perspective, so same critique again applies. Even if the way of how to lose weight may be different among those who attempt to eat according to different diets, they all seem to share and espouse similar ideas why overweight is bad and what general methods to use to lose weight.
To sum it up, there is no real good definition of what a religion is as all of them got some major critique against them for not being inclusive enough or for being too vague and broad. It is however possible to attempt to find suitable definitions depending on what kind of definitions one is looking for, and then have an open discussion why that definition would be better over the other.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 30th, 2010 at 7:14 pm and is filed under Philosophy, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.