, HEANNG N RELGON AND '::'HE BEANNG Qi' RELGON )' Ninian Smar Colloquium Paper: December 1969:,,universiy of Lancaser 1.1.-.
., T",. aim of his y;;"j:lclr is o show: (1) Tha 'reli~i0ni c~n be defined; (2) Tha here is poin in defiring xriigink 'religion'; (3) 'Tna -c i;,he meaning o.f 'religion' r:v.ises imporan ques:i.ons abou he mehods o be employed in exploring religion. Secion 1 deals wih difficulies in he definiion of 'religion' and suggess a way of defining he erm releyanly o he sudy of religion. Secion 2 exp%nds on he moives ha we migh have in defining, 1",.. enq1,1iries h re ~g~on, ~n rela~on o various ~~~X~~ sue as he sociology of religion, he psychology of religion and so forh. Secion 3 draws so~e furher morals abou meaning in religion. SECT.(j~ ; :. 1.1 There is a XR prevalen feeling ha religion canno be defined. l~ll Firs, because here is no such hing as religion, bu only paricular religions, which have wh~ 'inebriaing variey'. Canwell Smih has called an 1.12 S~cond, because even he noion of ~ religion is misleading, and is a relaively recen \'Jesern invenion lead.iuig o he acl<in~ ljl::f on of he suffix -ism' hing?). in wild wayc ('Hinduism' -- is here any such 1.13 Third, because religion has o be defined in erms o~ is eoal God, nirvan~, he religious ulimae: and his goal is indefinable. 1.14 Fourh, because los of definiions have been aemped, all seemingly unsuccessful. 1.15 Fifh, because even if a definiion were successful i would be empy becau~6 ): hu variey of he phe~omena i would have o fi (noe for insance he empiness and. quesion-beggingness of he phrase have used, 'he religious ulimae')~'! - 1.2 ~here is also a quesion abou he poin of aempinc a definiion. We ca~ i.i b0neral use words wihou having hem formally defined. And furher, we woulci wan o know wha aim is in view before framing a de1iniion -- defining is no a conexless aciviy. 1.21 Agains his laer objecion, would simply poin ou ha various people are insiuionally engaged in various aciviies, such as he sociology of religion, h~ philosophy of religion, he hisory of religions, relicious sudies and so forh. Boh from a heoreical and fro~ a pra~ical poin of view here is advanage in beins clear abou he scope of hese enquiries. 1.211 Theoreically, because if we find ha a religion has various,;:8.r} :.5 or ypical charzc.m"isics and ha some of hese are shared by ~ idc~s roliical n oveman, i is no ~priori ruled ou ha he BPd echniques of, say, he sociology of religion will be --~~- -_-...,.-.-_...----------'"-~----.,...,.---'
... relev21n'c "Co poliical sociology and conversely...,. 1.212 Pracic~llYl ~ecause he insiuionalizaion of enquiries should no sim91y be deermined by r~diion bu also by he lo ic' of he siuaion. is no alogeher clear ha academic invesmen in ~i~ ccunry, for example, has been very logical in relaion o he sudy of religion. Reurning however o he firs se of objecions, he following riposes are in order: l~lll The noion ha here migh be somehing like religion in general, forming a subsance worked ino:vqrious molds in acual religions, in par arises from an essenialis approach o definiion, and iu Par ~o he noion ha an essence mus be relaively simpl~. The laer noion does no follow from essenialism -- a definiion can be as long as you like, running o hree or four pages. n any even essenialism may no be he correc appro~ch o cgfiniional ~.112 ~ par he search for 'religion in general' has been assised by he desire o find he essence in experience -- consider he radiion of Schleiermacher and Oo. Th~ quesion of wheher here are universal religious senimens (universal a leas in he sense ha hey are deeced cenrally in religions or among religious folk) is doubless a vexed one. Bu i does no follow, even if here were a core of religious senimen, ha his by iself enables one o alk of religion in general, since oher facors han experience may be equally or more all his is by he Wi1}~ for ev0n if here are only religions and no such hing as religion in general, i in no way follows ha here can be no definiion of r~ligion. Thus is in one sense no such hing as'picorial ar in )~ l. f r general bu only paricular painings, bu i may sill be possible : o give a general accoun of wha picorial ar is.! 1~113 Anoher source of he drive o discover religion in general is ~ h0 hook-up beween definiion and explanaion. The fashion for ~rying o discover he origin of religion, wheher in ime or srucurally, has depended on rying o ninpoin cenral characerisicer,, Gf religion. These can ea~ily be seleced in order o conform o a ~ or ~v~n a heological diagnosis. For example, he reamen in S0rne conemporary heology of religion as a human projecion, a produc of human culure, ec., depends on excluding f~om religion hose elemens regarded as no being a human projecion. ec. is wise, in my view, o define religion in a manner which is iniially inde~enden of any heory, so far as ha is possible, o avoid he possibiliy of circulariy in explanaions -- or, o pu i more blunly. cheaing'..) ( \?-. l.l~l An exponen of hisjobjecion is Wilfred Canwell S~ih, who i concludes ha a he end of he day i is religious persons we have ~. o deal wih i no ~~RS±Xli~Xg reifying conrucs called religions. A l~ of wha he says abou '-isms' and so forh is sound and refreshing. i.! ~"..., ~~_._~--..._...-~_...,..._-...i...,...c r ~ i f
'. However, o say '~3 we only have o deal wih religious persons is open o criicig~. 1.1211 persons roligion can b~ can be more or less religious. is no clear more or les6 religious. To say ha a ib " ry religio~s may m2an ha h~ is assiduous in relir,iou5 pracice3~ much SeiiS ) sincere in his ques for God, ec.; bu i does no o say "Chrisianiy is a very sincere r,eligion". person 1.1212 Secondly, a religiop,,~il{ ypically has' insiuions, and in make dealing wih (say) he Church Assembly one is no dealing jus or ~ all wih a mere collecion of religious persons.again, a religion has eachings and ries handed down, buildings Bnd wha have you. Canwell r Smih 1 s ~ccoun, hen, is no sufficienly sociological and corporae. 1.131 Even if we have o define a religion in par by reference o is go~l and hough he goal may be in some sense indefinable, i does no f;).'..:jj-.,' ha he definiion of relic:lon is impossible. 1.1311 F~rs, because he goal is no oally uncharacerized, direcly' or indirecly. f i were oally uncharacerizable i could no be ~ goal baca~58 here would be nowhere o urn, no pah o read, no worship or prayer which was relevan o i. 1.13l~ n any case, somehing iself indefinable may ener ino a definiion. 'rhub co10u's may be held o he indefinable (save osensively, a queer case), bu can define 'brindled'. 1.141 The fac ha here have been los of unsuccessful definiions should no rouble us unduly. 1.1411 Firs? because he sudy of religion in he modern sense is sill very young. 1.1412 Seco~d, because ofen people have aemped epigrams raher han definiions proper. Epigrams can be illuminaing r bu no as.... definiions (consider Whiehead's epigram). 1.1413 The subjec of religion brisles wih axes being ground and wih srong e~pressions of deep-ieaed,feeling. is no surprising if here is a cerain lack of professionalism in many approaches o f r l~ f. ~ 1.151 Success a he price of empiness is no he necessary oucome. Bu hare he proof of.~he pudding is in he eaing. 2.1 There arc differen approaches o he problem of definiion. One.. is v:h8. :lave called essenialism'; namely ha he:oe is a.~o~mon essence of he various phenomena o be defined -- or more linguisically, ha here is a form of words no including disjuncions, which applies o he hings o be defined, such ha i does no apply o hose which do no properly fall under he word D~xrk~a&e which is being defined. 2.2 The second is he family resemblance heory, owing much o,ji censein, which could be crudely represened as meaning ha ;.r.1... D! b an,(~, c are fll~urrlamrril{ hings falling under a 'general' name, i is in viruf.) of he fac ha properies P, Q, R, S apply o a, Q,R,S,7 o band P,Q, R,T o c. (Bu ha i6.a very crude accoun,
such ha a quasi-kbrb eseenialio disjuncive definiion could', akm care mi of family resemblance. Of his, more anon.) 2.3 The hird is o presen a model of he definiendum, relying on he ypical and no oo worried by he odd excepion.,2.11 The rouble wih essenialism is ha i may sacrifice he crucial for he ~eneral. Thus Melford Spiro defines religion as 'an insimion consising of culurally paerned ineracion wih eulurally;posulaea superhuman beings' (Banon, 96). He is reacing here agains a oo d6crinal and idealisic acc6un of,e.g., Theravada '",, Buddhism, '~hioh he ha~ encounered 'deeply a~ an anhropologis. Ye '. o use his definiion o cover Theravada. B'uddhism is o miss he main poin ha 'superhuman' beings are, no sraegic in he faih. Consider some problems here. 2.111 Less imporanly, here is rouble wih he w~rd 'superhuman'. Does, if. :::ean.>.0l31~ ii,mdo'j'!o~ wih POw~i:' greaer han men's (or believ~d ~o be), as S,ir0 suggess lb~non" 98)? Bu no all spiris are like his in fxll%l[xil[!i:a:b Theravadin counries. They may be " ' hrea ening or beneficen, 'bu wha of he king" for a sar? can hardly be said ha all spiris were' hough o be more powerful han Parakrama Bahu, e. 2.112 More imporanly, he Budd~a and oher liberaed follow~.~ are culurally posulaed aa being superior o superhuman beings. They are human no superhuman. The definiion misses he main poin abou nirvana and liberaion. 2.11; One: major conclusion abou definiion of reli~ion follows from..~ ') ~-\'l l f-l hese criicisms (and~ ohers ha could be made of Sipr'(j):(-9 aemp). One should' no be oo influenced by Wha he majoriy of adherens seem o believe, looking a hem in one paricular conex. This is, however, a dangerous conclusion and can raise quesions abou he essence no o~ religion as such bu of a paricular radiion. A any rae, i would look as hough Spiro has sacrificed he crucial in relaion o Theravada Buddhism. 2.12 Conversely, essenialism can sacrifice he acual for wha is aken o be'- crucial. is no uncommo. o rea Buddhism as a philosophy raher han as a religion, on he groun! of looking only o he 'commanding heighs' of he docrines (acuaily no so much ; ". philosophical as somehing: els~ -- our Wesern caegories do no easily fi~). This mov~ is o negle~ he acua~ insaniaion of Buddhism as a religion "wih ri,uals, myhs, insiuional embo'dimen anq. so,on. '2.13 Thus i is nec,essary o drive a middler.pah beween he ac-ual '~nd he ideal. This is no absur~, since he ideal is iself acualized in heprinciples adhered o, in he sense of being recognized. n brief.a religion is boh iself and is idea of iself. This follows from is very naure, as will be seen. 2.21 The family resemblance heory is a licence for disjuncions in., ~efiniion. i~x Bu i can only be a final soluion if here are analogies (raher han sraigh similariies). beween he major iems in he disjuncions. To simplify: f religion a has crucial properies A and B, while religion b only has A and religion ~ only has B, he hree can only be clusered ogeher mf here isa
., 5 'reason why A and B should go ogeher in religion a -- an analogy. To ake a ~o~-religious example: Governmen a is described as fascis because i shoos Sll!!EXilsi::sX:s workers and is capialis; governmen b is deucribed as fascis 'because i is capialis; governmen c is dascribed as fascis because i shoos :s!x~ workers. The lfasc~a'bracke only works if here is some inrinsic connecion beween being sapi~lis and shooing workers.oherwise one should enerain he possibiliy (o pu i no more srongly) of csegorising he 'hree governmens in diff~ren ways. The disjuncion incidenally is his: a fascis governmen is defined as one which viher shoos workers or is capialis~ or boh. 2.22 The family resemblance approach is no iself convincing, bu here is no reason why disjuncions should no be used Eariall~ in a ~efi~iion of religion~ One could have a mongrel beween essenialism and family resemblance, in principle, so long as here were differen crucial aspecs of religion, some a be reaed essenially and some o be reaed disjuncively. 2.31 The reaaon for no aking family resemblance as oo convincing ha he model heory does is job beer. 1, The poin of a model is ha i ypifies he definiendum: i can also 'ride' counerexamples, provided ha he laer can be shown o be aypical, marginal. 2.4 We can now move in he direcion of providing a model. Bu firs here are some imporan obs6~vaions o make abou ypes of religion and religiousness. 2.41 Firs, here are several sors of problem abou idenifying a religion. 2.411 rehus firs religious riuals, senimens, ec., may be buil ino he life of a ribe or ehn:j.,c group in such a way ha i is arificial o disinguish he religion from he res of he aciviies of he group, as hough hey were insiuionally separable. Religion could here be reaed 8S an aspec of he group's life no insiuionally separable from oher aspecs. This ype migh be called 'group-ied inegraed aspec of life'. Our hesiaion abou calling such a phenomenon a religion simply arises from he fac ha we hink of.i.religion more ofen as a cross-socieal radiion o some exen separaely insiuionalized. And one does no ge conver~d o B group-ied inegraed aspec of life: one is simply..,born ino a group which has his aspec. 2.412 Second, a Varian on he group-ied aspec ype is foudd in condiions where he religious aspec is in principle group-ied, bu whe~e no~ all member~ of he group may pracice or recognize he validiy or imporance of he aspec. Thus one could rea JUdaism as group-ied, bu no all Jews pracice Judaism. This would be a case of ~XZK a group-ied separ~ely insiuionalized religion, such ha he insiuion is idenifiable wihin he aciviies of he group bu no coerminous wih i. For shor shall call his
J. 8 j -,. 2.4~1 is realisic o say ha some riuals are an ingredien of all acual xmj religions which are indispuably religions. This is a small sep in explaining he funcion of he insiuional aspec of religion -- i exiss parly for he coninuance of he riuals8 The way ii which his occurs varies, of course: here may be riual specialiss, such as priess; or here may in effec be lile specializaion. Where riuals hemselve~ are seen srongly as effecive in hemselves, and no as means o ~xisenial encouners wih ulimae realiy, ec., he insiuional aspec of a religion ends o be more specialized and more sacred in iself. 2.442 Embodying he riual dimension hen- in our characerizaion of religion, we can say: a religion (or he religion of a group). is a se of insiuionalized aciviies of a riual kind. Bu his is of course avery inadequae model of religion, parly because o undersand wha ~~ligious riuals are we have o move on o senimens and beliefs. 2.45 Bu here we mus-pause for a momen o consider briefly he role of, noraliy and social cusom in religion. Alhough i is possible o have people who possess a non-religious moraliy, in he sense ha heir moral aiudes are no inegraed wih riual aciviies, religious senimens and religious beliefs, i is obvious ha moral beliefs and social cusoms ypically form par of he fabric of a religion (or of he religion of a group). shall coun a moral aiude as religious where i is affeced by and seen in he ligh of religious beliefs - for insance Chrisian agape as disinguished from humanis love of fellow men (as fellow men and no also as children of God, brohers h«xaxr in Chris, ec.). Similarly marriage is a religious cusom when i is also inerpreed in he conex of riual, ec: for insance kz Chrisian marriage seen as a sacramen). Thus -in -he ensuing lis of senimens which may be aken as ypically religious i mus be rememberedl' ha hose which are also moral aiudes are or sub specie salvaionis,. ec. held sub specie sacrameni 2.46 The following senimens can be cou~ed as ypically religious:! awe, dread, peace, exalaion, compassion, zeal, XRXX sense of sin, rus, ec. Some of hese senimens are aroused by riuals or in he.. conex of riuals; and some hing or person wih a propensiy o arouse hese senimens will end o acquire a religious aura. Hore dramaically~ serain experiences, such as conversion, propheic experience, he sense of mysic union, he achievemen of higher gnosis and so forh Kixx~~±k will boh incorporae and simulae such senimens. Though Oo's delineaion of he numinous is no enough o cover properly some crucial cases, such as he aainmen of nibbana in Theravada B~ddhism, i caches a lo of he flavour of many ypical religious senimens. Wha i ends o under~lay is he sense of gnosis and of peace and insigh i~ ha conex. Wha is needed is a caegory o unie and bring ogeher everyhing from ~R~«xmx dread and fear o a sense of beaiue and sereniy. Of course, i is no only hard o characerize human senimens in isolaion from heir ypical objecs,
riu~l aciviies expressing and evoking sacral senimens, 2S~~~ 9 bb also ~ver-opimisic o ry o define religion from a psychological i ~bin of view. How ofen does i hen become necessary o say: No.. [. illy sor or rus, bu religious rus -- and so forh. ~.461 However, le us chea a bi and inven a caegory o cover he r specrum from fear o sereniy. Le us call hese 'sacral' senimens, being one najor aspec of he exisenial impac of riuals. Wha is ~, being achieved here is merely a nomenclaure concealing ha family ~ resemblance of senimen$ is being used. The jusifi~aion --namely. he demonsraion of he analogies beween he'numinous and he conemplaive-mysical senimens -- would ake long here: bu Hould claim ha he jusificaion is available for hose who wish o f, read i. ~ 2.462 Cfollolling 2.442) The sage of definiion now o be reached is his:f ~ religiori (or he religion of a group) is a se of insiuionalized riual aciviies expressing and evoking sacral senimens. 2.~621 ~eave aside for a momen he objecion ha a religion is idenified wih riual aciviies. Laer we ~±XXXX2H adjus he wording raher considerably in any case. 2.l~7 shall need o Bu one canno hang everyhing on senimens, and he senimens need o be hung on o heir phenomenological objecs. Wh~ are he ypical objecs of religious belief? 2.471 is oo easy o begin by saying 'gods'. For one hing are we concerned wih eniies or, say, evens -- God raher han he Exodus? However, le us begin wih eniies and he like. We shall see laer he way ha hese ener ino he fabric of religious beliefs. Of eniies or quasi-eniies ha one migh lis as ypical foci of religious acigiies and senimens he fol~owing are a selecion: Creaor-God, gods, spiris, ancesors, holy men, cows, sacred mounains, he Self, ~ibbana, demens. Some of hese,however, are raher incidenal. Le us leave aside mounains, demons and cows as being mere pars of a wider fabric: hey ener ino sories and ries, of ourse, bu he ries fll~±:::r±xfllxll2rand sories poin o a wider fqric of belief. Le us say ha an eniy or group of eniies form he cenral focus of a given religion Cor of he religion of a group). By 'cenral focus' mean ha he r~ligion ends o inerpre oher relaionships in he li[h of our relaionship ~~Xk2X~ o his focus. Someimes he focus is a se of gods, someimes one God, someimes a libera~d sae xxxhhax;i.i:)(nibbana, for example), someimes a se of differen sors of en~iies -- God, a ho~y man, liberaion, for insance. Wha do hese eniies have in common? 2.472 The difficuly of saying wha hey have in common is a reason why we end o alee fligh in empy place-filling phrases, like ulimae ~ealiy, he ranscenden And so on. is doubful wheher such phrases :i he gods of Olympus, in any case. 2.473 f, hen, we are going o be empy le us be so consciously, for h~ ime being a leas. Le us simply alk abou 'he cenral focus'. A religion (or he religion of a group) ig so far hen: ~ se of, ~ f' l ~,,'
10, 'which are rolaed mos crucially o a cenral focus r (Remember ha he focus can be a se of eniies.) Bu we immidiae1y here wish o ask: Wha sor of focus mus i be if riuals are appropriae o i? do no pray o my pyjamas. 2&474 Here we begin o arrive a a soluion o he problem of empiness. For i is n common observaion ha a god is he sor of eniy one would expec o worship. (conversely a demon he so!~ of eniy o ward off riually). The problem only arises because some eniies or quasi-eniies are no properly speaking divine -- e.g. nibbana and ~~nya;. Bu by a happy coincidence such eniies or quasi-eniies a leas ranscend he gods: hey are of more worh, if realized, han anyhing else and hey lie 'beyond' he realm of he gods. (Thus oo he Buddha, who displays enlighenmen, nibbana, sunyaa, ranscends he Gods.) We also arrive a a soluion which ges over he Spiro defec. would be re~lisic o say of he cenral focus of acual religions ha i eiher is divine (god or gods) or ranscends he divine. 2.4741 Thus religion is: an insi~uionalized se of riual aciviies expressing and evoking sacral senimens which are cenrally direced o a divine or rans-divine focus. 2.48 Bu Mk how and why does he direcion occur? 2~48l Firs r as o he 'how': he riuals somehow are insrumenal i~ bringing abou a good relaionship of he group or of ome individuals in he group wih he cenral focus -~ his may be because hey express and evoke appropriae senimens, where he relaionship is considered psychologically. Bu his in urn ypically implies ha he riuals derive heir validiy from he focus in some way. 2.4811 Such a derivaion is above all undersood in erms of myh (laer, docrine -- bu no all religions are much docrinalized). Thus he riuals ofen are he repeiion of a myhic even (consider E1eusis and he Euc~~ris) and ofen hey are,hough no repeiions, validaed by reference o origins **xknx (hus homage o he Buddha is jusified by he fac ha from his enlighenmen here sems he whole possibiliy of our aaining nibbana). By 'myh', of course, mean sacred sories, which can be hisorically rue or non~his orically rue -- or false in boh ways oo. 2.482 Hence we can say ha he 'why' of direcion has o do wih a s~peme of myhic belief which shows how he beneficial cenral focus has enered ino relaionship wih men. 2.483 Thus a religion {or he religion of a group) is a se of insiuionalized riual aciviies expressing or evoking sacral.. di~ine or rans-divine.. sanlmens d~reced a a h~h~xx~xxxx~~xx~a~ rocus arzrrxxkgaxm~kx which is parially described by sxrrxrax3~xigx~ myhs. 2.484 However, i has o be noed ha he ar beneficen cenral focus ig naurally conceived as having relaionships wih hings and beings oher han ~en: for insance he gods have o do wih. he environmen. This environmen has o be regarded no merely as he acual
... ". ' 11 environmen b~ raher as he phenomenological one. Thus he world of a given group i~ no necessarily he pl~ne earh (i depends on heir educaion) or more generally he cosmos, bu he world-as-conceived-byhem. A whole ~pecrum of myh and docrine will concern he relaions of he cenral focus wih he phenomenological environmen. This ma;y' be one of virual ideniy or inclusion -- for he eosmos iself may be reaed as divine, and he gods may be an imporan par~ of he phenomenological environmen. 2~435 Thus more fully: a religion (or he religion of a group) is a se of insiuionalized riuals expressing and evoking sacral senimens direced owards a divine or rans-divine focus seen in he conex of he human phenomenological environmen and parially described by myhs. 2.49 is worh noing ha mx a number of religions, including he major world faihs, end o have evolved a docrinal scheme which refines ~± and meaphysicalizes elemens of and presupposiions of he myhic sories. This is especially obvious ~n religions aimed a a rans-divine focus. is no unreasonable o add his poin on o our definiion: a religion (or he religion of a group) is a se of insiuionalized riuals expressing and evoking sacral senimens direced owards a divine or rans-divine focus seen in he conex of he human phenomenol-' ogical environmen an~ parially described by myhs or by myhs and docrines. 2.50 Bu we sill need o idy hings up~ Wha is no brough ou here is he fac ha a religion has a hisory, a biography so o say (for i mus be seen ha in many cases a religion sill has he res of is life o live, and re fuure has o be aken ino accoun). n alking of he Chrisian religion or of he religion of he Kikuyu we are no simply alking abou wha happens now -- his ime-slice. Bu i is no enough o say ha he insiuionalized riuals are radiional or raher i is oo much o say his: for riuals and beliefs and so forh change, while he implicaion of 'radiional' in such a conex is ha he riuals are simply he same as hey were. We can perhaps overcome his objecion, and simulaneously bring ou a poin abou idenificaion mad,,; earlier, by saying ha: a religion (or he religion of a group) is a se of insiuionalized riuals idenified wih a radiion and expressing an~ evoking sacral senimens direced a a XR divine or ransdivine focus seen in he conex of he human phenomenological environmen and ~~rially described,by myhs or by myhs and docrines. 2.51 migh be objeceilihroughou his discussion ha riuals have been over-emphasized. Bu hope ha i is clear ha hese can be very informal (like a ~eeing of Friends). Furher, differing religions place differing emphases, as do differing groups wihin a given religion. Tnus some religious movemens, ec., sress Eiual, some experience (senimens, ec.), some he insiuion, some myhs,-some illo~aliy. Here (wih regard o definiion) we do no need o give an accoun of differences of emphasis, save ha hey are here.
2.60 Our definiion hen: a religion (or he religion of a group) is. a se of insiuionaxized riuals idenified wih a radiion and expressing and/or evoking sacral senimens direced a a divine or rans-divine focus seen in he conex of he human phenomenological environmen and a leas parially described by myhs or by myhs and docrines. ~. SECTON 2 3.1 The poin of a definiion such as he above is ha i calls in ~uesion of a number of sudies de~ned: in erms of religion, such as he psychology of religion, he hisory of religions, he sociology of religion (heology need no be called in quesion, because i ough o be he sy(~emaic, expression of a religious posiion, namely a phenomenon raher han a'direc consiuen of he sudy of religion). :,.. 2 Thus we mel;! a nice dilemma. Two ~osi iona:; h~re could be adoped. 3.21xii:± is possible, firsly, ha a definiion such as he above is a 'igh' definiion. Religion is ighly definable or he edges of he sldy of religion are squashy. Bu if hey are squashy hen he sudy of religion has a wide reach, because (for insance) here is no deerminae soc~ology of religion, bu raher he sociology of various facors which are in differiing conexs common o religion and o oher hings (e.g. ideology) 3.22 Or we rely on analogies o kni ogeher family resemblances. This is in effec wha has been done in he above definiion. n brief he conclusion is " as foresgadowed in 3.21. 3.3 The conclusion is his: ha he sudy of religion has a leas analogical connecions wih he sudy of ideologies, non-religious o riuals, and so on~ n brief, he sudy off religion should no be 'Jxclusively insiuionaliz'ed. There is, for i~sance'0 no a priori.:ea60n for hinking ha he sociology of religion should no hrow ligh on he sociolqgy of Maoism. Again, here is like o be an anabgy beween religious senimen~and 'ohers' -- for he simple reason ha religious senimens as above described do no uniquely, ~ collec hegr phenomenolqgical objecs. Once.he sen~mens are' operaiv~, so-called non-religious oqjecsmay be invesed wih a religious aura (consider charisma in poliics). 3.4 Consequenly, he definiion of religion raises he quesion of he relaion beween so-called religious sudie~ and oher fields. Here.J 1. X~~ am no alking abou heology in he proper sense, bu religious sudies. Theology in he proper sense can alk abou anyhing, because ~ is isel an e~ression of a religious posiion -- i is par of religion -- and religion can have aiudes o virually everying, as, being he human,phenomenological envionmen.
, :. -... 13 \ SECTON 3 4.1 The definiion used above,is inenional. is no possible o deermine wha is consuen pars mean wihou seeing ~a riuals (for insance) ~re 'direced' a a 'focus'and so forh. 4~11 follows ha, he sudy of religion, if,i is he sudy of religion as here defined, involves inelucably he sudy of he inenional. 4.12 Or o pu i beer: in sudying a riual or eher aciviy m is necessary o undersand ~ focus a which i iffidireced -- in brief he 'suden' mus in imaginaion mimic he adheren. (He may he no need, however, o mimic, if he is percgance an adheren of he religion in quesion.),': 4.2 f MX~±zXRg he suden paricipaes imaginaively in he phenomenon he sudies, hen he lives mehodologically in imaginaion. Tha is, he wces he focus seriously, even if i be imaginrively, backeed (o use a erm of coninenal phenomenologiss). His mehodology hus is, negaiv,ely,. sricly agnosic. is no he 'mehoiological aheism' of Peer Burger, for insance. 4.3 All his has o do wih mehod and he erms of reference of he 'scienific' suden of ~eligion (noe how he erm 'science' has o 3uffer a sea-change wih he subjec-maer: quie righj,y 'science.' is mehodologically defined for no insiuionally in erms of he presen big brohers in science~ such as physics, which does no have o boher wih inenionaliy -- elec;ons no having senimens). Bu he mehod iself canno deermine who is good or bad a he sudy of religi6n. This is a more p~~sonan issue. All ha can be said is ha commimens, whermr religious or, aheisic be of a qualiy o preven he persons in quesion from being can Xlll XXllK senniive and effecive in he sudy of ieligion. Bu mos acual commimens are no of his qualiy. 4.~ A any rae mehodologicall X*XR~13X sances should no be c0nfuse~ wih selecion cri~ria ior sudens of religion. Mehodological agnos~'icism is a quie ~ differen level from heisic, aheisic or any oher sor of ide-ological commim.rn.. v,.\'