Introduction — definitions of religion

Christianity:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ‘ The god of Christianity is a supreme being, his word is the ultimate truth, his power is omnipotent. His followers worship him and praise him and live by his commandments.

Scientology

Scientology originated in the writings of a US science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard. It started as a type of therapy called Dianetics in which a therapist (or auditor) questions a subject (known as a preclear) wired to a machine similar to a lie detector (called an e-meter). The aim is to clear the mind of the preclear of negative blockages, known as engrams. But Scientology also contains spiritual beliefs. Alan Aldridge describes these beliefs in the following way: ‘Scientology built a complex cosmological and metaphysical system on the basis of Dianetics. Human beings are in essence spiritual entities, thetans. Immortal, omniscient and omnipotent, thetans created the universe . . . but foolishly became trapped in their own creation . . . eventually forgetting their own origins and status as thetans’ (Aldridge, 2007). In this belief system, humans are in effect gods, but gods who have lost their way.

The Degum Dani

The Degum Dani live in the Highlands of New Guinea. They have no god, but their world is inhabited by a host of supernatural beings known as mogat. The mogat are the ghosts of the dead. They cause illness and death and control the wind and the rain. The Dugum Dani are not pious — they do not pray. Their rituals are not to honour or worship the mogat but to placate and appease them.

Religious beliefs of one sort or another are present in every known society, but their variety seems to be endless. Any definition of religion must encompass this variety. However, it is difficult to produce a definition broad enough to do so without incorporating phenomena that are not normally thought of as religions.

FUNCTIONAL & SUBSTANTIVE DEFINITIONS OF RELIGION:

Two main approaches have been adopted in tackling this issue: those that rely upon functional definitions and those that use substantive definitions.

FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS:

One way of defining religion is to see it in terms of the functions it performs for society or individuals. An example of this approach is provided by Yinger, who defined religion as ‘a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life‘ (quoted in Hamilton, 1995). However, in evaluation - Hamilton notes two main problems with such a definition:

It allows the inclusion of a wide variety of belief systems in the category ‘religion’. For example, by this definition communism could be regarded as a religion even though it explicitly rejects religious beliefs.

It is based upon assumptions about the roles and purposes of religion. However, these roles and purposes might vary between societies and it should be the job of sociology to uncover them by empirical investigation, not to assume what they are from the outset.

Phrases such as ‘the ultimate problems of human life’ are open to varied interpretations. Hamilton points out that for some people the ultimate problems of life might be ‘simply how to enjoy it as much as possible, how to avoid pain and ensure pleasure’. It is clear that many other aspects of social life, apart from religion, address such issues — for example, medicine and leisure.

SUNSTANTIVE DEFINITIONS:

Other approaches are based upon substantive definitions; This means that they are more concerned with the content of religion rather than its function or purpose. Substantive definitions can take a number of forms. Durkheim (1961, first published 1912) defined religion in terms of a distinction between the sacred and the profane. Sacred objects — for example, the cross in Christianity — produce a sense of awe, veneration and respect. Profane objects do not produce these effects. However, religious objects are not always treated with respect.

Max Weber (1905) Also has a substative approach to the study of religon. Weber defines religion as a belief in a superior or supernatural power that is above nature and cannot be explained scientifically.

Substantive definitions are EXCLUSIVE – this means that they draw a clear line between religious and non-religious beliefs. It is more difficult to label a belief system as religious. There is a more rigorous systematic analyis that is afforded to religion.

To be a religion, a set of beliefs MUST INCLUDE a belief in God or the supernatural.

A common approach to a substantive definition of religion is to define it in terms of supernatural beliefs. Thus Roland Robertson (1970) states that religion ‘refers to the existence of supernatural beings that have a governing effect on life’. A supernatural element is combined with institutional aspects of religion in Melford Spiro’s (1965) definition of religion as ‘an institution consisting of culturally patterned interaction with culturally postulated superhuman beings’. However, as Hamilton points out, such definitions run into problems because certain belief systems which are commonly regarded as religions, such as Buddhism, do not contain a belief in supernatural beings.

All definitions emphasise certain aspects of religion and exclude others. Alan Aldridge (2007) distinguishes between more inclusive definitions and exclusive definitions.

Inclusive Definitions: Within an inclusive definition of religion one can easily qualify a ‘way of life’ as a religion.

Exclusive Definitions: An exclusive definition of religion is where the criteria that define religion are more restrictive. To define a group or ‘way of life’ as a religion is much more tricky than if it is an inclusive definition.

Functional definitions tend to be more inclusive.

Substantive definitions tend to be more exclusive.

Individual sociologists have their own theoretical assumptions. These determine whether or not they subscribe to the inclusive or exclusive definitions of religion. We can see the biases (according the theoretical stance the hold) are very apparent in the debates that have formulated amongst sociologists around the issue of secularisation. These sociologists include, and exclude aspects of religion and theory as they see fit. Not very object you may say, but this area is difficult to ‘police’ and remain objective about.

If one looks at religion – realistically, the debates around the area are really not that pronounced. These so called sociological disputes about the definitions of religion tend to be around religions that are on fringes of more mainstream religions, and society. For example, New Age movements. Some sociologists would not include the New Age movements within their definitions of what constitutes a religion.

In general sociologists would agree the belief systems such as, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism are religions. Thus, perhaps, the disparities and disputes are really not as pronounced as we may initially think.