What Is Religion?

What is Religion?

Religion is a term which is easily used but not so easily understood. We all know what it means and have experienced it on some level, yet we find great difficulty in creating a formal definition despite the fact it plays such a key role in the world around us. Perhaps at this stage I should clarify two things about this essay; Firstly I will attempt to reach a definition of what religion 'is' or is thought to be rather than debating the validity of religion itself, or the existence of God. Secondly it should be noted that I shall try to reach this definition as a philosopher rather than a theologian. Although the questions discussed in both philosophy and theology are similar; what is good? Why are we here? How should we treat each other? There are some real differences between the two;

Firstly only religions have rituals; there are ceremonies for important life events (birth, death, marriage, etc.) and for important times of the year (Easter, Christmas, etc.). Philosophies however do not require a following of ritualistic actions, students are not expected to ritually wash their hands before studying Hegel and professors do not celebrate a 'Utilitarian Day' every year. Secondly philosophy tends to principally emphasise the use of reason and critical thinking, whereas theology may make use of reason but must ultimately rely on some reference to faith, sometimes using faith to the exclusion of reason.

The final point we should consider is that religions tend to include some sort of belief in what can only be labelled the 'miraculous' or events which either defy normal explanation or which are outside the boundaries of what we accept occurs in the universe. Miracles may not play a very large role in every religion, but they are a common feature which you do not find in philosophy. 'Nietzsche wasn't born of a virgin, no angels appeared to announce the conception of Sartre, and Hume didn't make the lame walk again'.

However, despite these differences we should recognise that although these schools are distinct it does not mean that they are entirely separate. They both address many of the same issues and consequently one can be thinking of a topic (such as the definition of religion) in both a religious and a philosophical context simultaneously, hence the distinct topic 'Philosophy of Religion'. However whilst considering a definition of religion we should keep in mind that although the philosopher and theologian would ask similar questions, they would still approach an explanation in different ways, and as such it should be noted that I will be considering the problem as a philosopher.

Arriving at a definition however is no easy thing. Everyone seems to have their own subjective opinion as to what religion might be, and since it is ultimately a human creation, definition can vary widely amongst us. But a wide variety of definition does not explicitly mean there isn't some 'core essence' present in religion (be it Jewish, Muslim e.t.c.) that we can encapsulate into a single definition, so we should consider the options. An obvious starting point would be to look in the dictionary.

Good definitions for English words often begin by citing the meanings of the original Latin or Greek words from which the word is derived. However, no one is certain about which Latin words gave rise to the actual term 'religion' although various suggestions have been proposed. The most commonly accepted explanation (made by St. Augustine around 1600 years ago) is that 'religion' comes from the words 're' and 'ligare', which together mean 'to tie back' i.e., to reunite a broken bond. If the 're' is also taken to allude to the Latin word 'res' (meaning 'substance' or 'reality'), then we could say that religion is the human experience of reuniting the broken bond between mankind and some transcendent Reality, called 'God' in most religions. Considering this description, perhaps we should first consider the actual medium in which a definition exists; language.

It is evident that language plays a pivotal role in religion, practises of religion (such as services or rituals) comprise of carefully considered language, teaching (which is a fundamental aspect of religion) is constructed out of specific words, and most religions are based upon texts (and therefore language). In my opinion language appears to be the basis and the expression of religion. What is more noteworthy however is that the actual language used in religion is often very different to the language we use in our day to day lives. The 'religious language' used crucially involves metaphor and is typically language trying to describe the inexpressible. The idea of analogous religious language was first articulated by Aquinas (although he ultimately expanded upon Aristotle) who argued a theory which questions how we can 'extend meaningful discourse from familiar circumstances to circumstances in which normal experience no longer applies'; Simply put, this is questioning how ordinary predicates such as 'good' or 'wise' can apply to God. Aquinas argued that these predicates have a univocal meaning when applied to God and an equivocal meaning (which is totally different) when applied to creatures. Aquinas aimed to show how ordinary terms can have analogical meanings which follow a set of technical rules. He ultimately hoped to account for the fact that discourse about God has already been taking place throughout human history despite the fact there are various considerations that would seem to make this impossible.

Tillich expanded upon this idea by claiming that all religious language has to be understood symbolically. Tillich argued that there are levels of reality besides that which can be known empirically and that these religious symbols give us access to a level of divine reality. 'They have connotations in situations in which they appear so that they cannot be replaced. They have become not only signs pointing to a meaning which is defined, but also symbols standing for a reality in the power of which they participate'. But how does this affect our hopes to arrive at some sort of definition of religion? If the language used is of the indefinite article, specifically designed as analogous and open to interpretation, how can we reach a definite conclusion with only one interpretation? The reason I believe this view is noteworthy is not for the problems it demonstrates in referring to God, but instead the fact that for something to be 'religious' it must contain what has been hinted upon as 'religious language'. The difficulty here is recognising 'that thing