There have been a lot of threads popping up lately about the
nature of religion (where did it come from, why does it start, what is it about religion that causes people to believe it, etc.).
But one thing I haven't seen is a discussion of "what is religion?" (Those of you who have taken a world religions course in college or wherever may now roll your eyes... you know what's coming).
Now, religious studies scholars have pretty much given up on finding a definition of religion that "works". Once upon a time, someone actually even compiled a list of more than fifty definitions of religion (
Psychological Study of Religion by Leuba). This prompted Jonathan Z. Smith to say that "The moral of Leuba is not that religion cannot be defined, but that it can be defined, with greater or lesser success, more than fifty ways."
Well, I'm sure we can come up with at least fifty more of our own good definitions... with greater or lesser success to boot.
I'll start things off with kind of a cop-out response. Quoting again from the brilliant Jonathan Z. Smith (seriously... go read some of his stuff. It'll make your brain hurt!):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathan Z. Smith “Religion” is not a native term; it is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes and therefore is theirs to define. It is a second-order generic concept that plays the same role in establishing a disciplinary horizon that a concept such as “language” plays in linguistics or “culture” plays in anthropology. |
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to define religion.
Ready?
Set?
On your marks.... get set.... go!