What is a religion? How do we decide whether something is or is not a religion?
One standard definition is that a religion is a community with ritualistic practices and an overarching supernatural belief system. But it depends on who you ask.
One standard definition is that a religion is a community with ritualistic practices and an overarching supernatural belief system. But it depends on who you ask.
There are at least a few good things that come out of philosophy. The philosophical analysis of concepts and categories is one of those good things. One important lesson is that concepts and categories don't necessarily have definitions.
It's worth learning about the prototype theory of concepts vs the classical theory of concepts. (I will only introduce these theories, and if you'd like to read more in depth, there are better resources for that.)
The classical theory of concepts says that every concept has a definition. A bachelor is an unmarried man. A triangle is a polygon with three sides. A chair is a piece of furniture intended for one person to sit on. However, this cannot explain why many concepts have a strong association with particular items. For example, why, when we think of a bird, are we quicker to think of a robin than an ostrich? Why, when we think of a fruit, are we quicker to think of an apple than a plum?
The
idea behind prototype theory is that most concepts have one or more
prototypical examples which serve as focal points. Other objects are
judged by their proximity to the prototypical examples. Prototype
theory comes from psychological research in the 1970s (although it has
some roots in Wittgenstein's philosophy in the 1950s). Note that
prototype theory is not necessarily a completely correct description of
how we think of concepts, but it is a decent approximation, and a step
forward from the classical theory.
When
people attempt to explain what religion really is by coming up with a
definition, they've gotten it wrong from the beginning. On a fundamental
level, religion does not have a definition, because that's not how we
think of most words. In the US, we tend to think of Christianity,
Judaism, and Islam. And then maybe Buddhism and Hinduism. These
different examples provide prototypes for what "religion" is. Any other
objects are judged by their proximity to the prototypes.
Definitions of religion are essentially attempts to interpolate the prototypes, to identify common features so that we can more easily decide whether other things are religions or not. In some sense, we know that Hinduism is a religion before we reflect on the definition of religion, before we even learn any details about Hinduism. If your definition does not include Hinduism, then something is wrong with that definition.
But sometimes I see people using more nonstandard definitions of religion. For example, religion as "any all-encompassing belief system". This definition clearly is not an attempt to interpolate prototypes (or it's a very inept one), nor is it an attempt to describe how we actually think of the concept of religion. I am forced to consider that these overly broad definitions are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
Definitions of religion are essentially attempts to interpolate the prototypes, to identify common features so that we can more easily decide whether other things are religions or not. In some sense, we know that Hinduism is a religion before we reflect on the definition of religion, before we even learn any details about Hinduism. If your definition does not include Hinduism, then something is wrong with that definition.
But sometimes I see people using more nonstandard definitions of religion. For example, religion as "any all-encompassing belief system". This definition clearly is not an attempt to interpolate prototypes (or it's a very inept one), nor is it an attempt to describe how we actually think of the concept of religion. I am forced to consider that these overly broad definitions are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
It's not that prototypes are
above criticism. For example, we here in the US have a bias towards
certain religions. To us, the prototypical religion has a god or gods,
an eschatalogy, a sacred text, and it perpetuates itself through evangelism and inheritance. But not all these properties apply to Eastern
religions. Maybe there are some good reasons to have such a biased
prototype, but in this case we don't have good reasons. It just comes
down to ignorance and unfamiliarity with religions outside our immediate
surroundings. It comes down to western colonialism, because if eastern
civilizations had more cultural power, they'd be the ones controlling
the concept of religion. Perhaps a prescriptive definition may help to
remedy our cultural bias.
But for most prescriptive definitions of religion, I have to ask why. Why is it good to consider, say, Marxism or Capitalism a religion? We cannot draw any novel conclusions from a novel definition. Although sometimes certain conclusions are made more cognitively accessible. So what does this definition help us understand? That's what I want to hear when people propose definitions of religion.
But for most prescriptive definitions of religion, I have to ask why. Why is it good to consider, say, Marxism or Capitalism a religion? We cannot draw any novel conclusions from a novel definition. Although sometimes certain conclusions are made more cognitively accessible. So what does this definition help us understand? That's what I want to hear when people propose definitions of religion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment