Definition: Religion

 

"Religion" is a term which has proven resistant to definition.

Indeed, from frustration and despair some have gone so far as to argue that there is no "general essence" which may be detected in all religions, and that for this reason no definition of religion can be offered (see, for example, Ninian Smart's discussion in "The World's Religions"). However, the "difficult" and the "impossible" are two entirely different things.

The (Relatively Non-Controversial) General Essence of Religion

The key to arriving at an acceptable definition of religion lies in recognizing that religion is a concept which is at once teleological, normative, and orienting (which also explains its enormous importance). It is teleological in that it aims at practice, or a way of life. It is normative, in that it is concerned with providing standards of both morality, or right and wrong, and teleology, or right purpose. And it is orienting, in that religions offer an account of the nature of human beings, the universe, and the relationship between the two.

We would define religion, then, in this way: religions are bodies of doctrine that specify a way of life centered on the maximization of the good, where the good includes both morality and right purpose.

 

Religions often do this in the context of providing an understanding of human nature and its best orientation to the universe as a whole ("best" here meaning "most value maximizing").

The (Bitterly Controversial) Issue Dividing Religions

Having said this, we've said nearly all that can be said of all of the major world religions. What remains to be said lies, therefore, beyond the essence of religion, at least for now.

While there are many issues that lie outside the question of the essence of religion, probably the most important of these, and the one that does most to forestall any hope of ecumenism, is the issue concerning the respective roles of reason and revelation in religious conviction. This highly controversial divide accords, to some degree, with the divide between natural theology and scriptural theology. Natural theologists aim to discuss the nature of God, insofar as that nature can be known to reason alone. Scriptural theologists acknowlege no rational bound to religious conviction, and affirm the legitimacy of a non-rational faith (or "supra-rational" faith, as C. S. Lewis would have it), andthe acceptance of revelation. The latter term generally refers to the acceptance of the truth of scripturewithout the requirement that that scripture be either rational (that is, internally consistent, at a

 

minimum) or fully in accordance with scientific, historical, or other forms of empirical evidence.

Discussion of Reason vs. Revelation in Religion

Regarding this controversy, philosopher Mortimer Adler has said "it would be quite improper to argue about the reasonableness of the first article of religious faith, that Sacred Scripture represents God's revelation of himself to us. That belief can be neither proved nor disproved, nor is it really a proper subject of argument pro and con."

Strictly speaking, Adler is right. That which makes no claim to rationality cannot be argued to, or from, rationally. However, when he says that convictions of this nature aren't a proper subject of argument "pro or con" he has perhaps gone further than his argument (which, after all, assumes the reasonableness of reason) warrants. While it is true that the non-rational acceptance of revelation is beyond rational debate, it is also true that we may be concerned about the consequences of securing beliefs on this basis.

Adler neglects to mention that anyone could commit any belief to paper, and that anyone else could then accept it as Sacred Scripture —the revealed word of God —on the same non-rational (or "supra-rational") basis. Unfortunately, this means that there is

 

a terrible price to be paid for securing religious conviction solely on the basis of faith. Faith alone can provide adherents of any belief with an equally legitimate ground for his or her own conviction. Indeed it paves the way to an individual having any belief whatsoever. Once reason and evidence have been abandoned, no reasonable counter-arguments can be offered against even clearly pernicious beliefs. For example, there is nothing to prevent a KKK member from claiming legitimacy for his beliefs on the basis of faith.

Almost as fatal, reliance on faith alone means that when religion x and religion y are at odds on some issue, there is no way to choose rationally between the two views. Even within the scripture of a given religion, vague or contradictory passages, which are not uncommon, cannot be resolved, which can well lead to a fragmented or confused belief system. Finally, faith alone provides no way to decide between different factions within a given religion, a situation which has resulted in the fragmentation of religions into a legion of denominations.

We believe religion is of such paramount importance that consequences of this nature are too damaging and dangerous to accept, and that the further advancement of religion entails full rationality.