Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
NON-THEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
Cioclteu Anda
Intercultural Management, First Year
I.
Introduction
The idea of religion has been a constant debate for the common man as well
as scholars in vast areas of study: arts, psychology, anthropology, sociology,
philosophy and so many more.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines religion as the service and
worship of God or the supernatural or as a commitment or devotion to religious
faith or observance. But as we are about to see, such simplistic definitions
cannot suffice to such diverse point of views. Without exception, religions around
the world have always played an important role in all the life surrounding us.
Throughout time there have been numerous important figures that have managed
to embrace the spirituality discovered in the practice of different religions. Some
wanted to pursue a higher meaning or a universal truth while others simply
wanted the comfort of knowing that there is something beyond this humble
human life. From my own limited experience, I do not see religion as being
interrelated with some sort of Godly figure or supernatural being. Personally, I
think any experience that you might have and consider sacred or infinite and
in which you believe strongly, counts as religious, especially in todays society. It is
II.
that our way of life is indeed good and fulfilling and that without them it would be
completely meaningless.
Geertzs definition conveys some quite basic facts about religion in general
but without being too specific. Emile Durkheim, though a founding figure in
sociology, comes in addition with his own thoughts about what religion means to
him. He stipulates that people have already made up their own idea about what
religion is even before there was any methodology. Our existence and its
necessities compel all of us, religious or not, to represent ourselves and the things
surrounding us in a specific matter that forms our behavior. Unfortunately, he
thinks that because all our ideas regarding religion were formed before we could
configure a method, we cannot trust religion and for that we cannot be biased and
must be rational and objective.
After a serious debate of what is sacred and profane, the supernatural
factor of it all, or if we should consider magic or rituals as being important
factors, he concludes by saying that religion is a unified system of beliefs and
practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a
Church all those who adhere to them. He was not concerned with the individual
experiences, but rather a communal binding that, in the end, brings different
kinds of people together. He believed that religion was a product of society and
not the work of something supernatural or divine, and that it provided a meaning
for our lives and gave us a strong, empowering figure. Also, he claimed that
without the collective engagement people would slowly lose faith in their own
beliefs, hence the need for religion to constantly remind us that we must act in a
collective manner.
Bronislaw Malinowski also claims that religion promotes solidarity, helping
religious people to cope with stress and minimizing the disruptions of the day-today life but, at the same time, he states that death is the staple of religion and
that without it there would be no point in the existence of religion.
We might say that these were factual and to the point definitions seen from
an anthropological and sociological point of view. As for Mircea Eliade and Rudolf
Otto it is more about the experiential approach and, by all means, religion should
be about experience. Otto stated that these experiences do not come from a
rational part of the human mind and that the answers that we all seek about life
or death cannot be answered by a scientific input. Furthermore, he saw religion
as something that can work on its own and cannot be reduced to a social,
psychological or economical view. As far as Eliade is concerned, he believed that
religion was the creation of human spirit and it was a necessary element in
society. Not only did he want to systematize the religions of the world, but also to
find the common elements of them all, which is the consciousness of the sacred.
He chose to study religion from the practitioners point of view and managed to
make a distinction between sacred and profane. The sacred entails some sort of
response from the individual that will be externalized as values or a perceived
reality, while the profane interacts with the objects and the space surrounding us.
In addition to the discussion of what is sacred or profane, he points out the
importance of rituals and myths in the religious life: for religious men,
reactualization of the same mythical events constitutes his greatest hope; for with
each reactualization he again has the opportunity to transfigure his existence, to
make it like its divine model.but repetition emptied of its religious content
necessarily leads to a pessimistic vision of existence. As we can see, for the
people in the archaic societies this repetition has a lot of meaning as he believes
that they can be saved from nothingness and death. On the other hand, this
perspective takes a different turn when he argued that intellectual elites detach
themselves from the patterns of the traditional religion. We should point that
Eliade was not really detached in this assertion, maintaining a preference for the
archaic religions.
After we managed to establish from various points of view what religion
means and implies, I think we should reassess the word itself. Wilfred Cantwell
Smith compels us to abandon the notion of religion altogether in exchange for
faith and cumulative tradition, which he thinks are more adequate and
accurate, or as he defines it a inner religious experience or involvement of a
particular person. He suggest that by using these terms we will be able to
conceptualize and describe anything that has ever happened in the history of
mankind regarding religion. He observed that people are more susceptive towards
faith than, in fact, religion. Unfortunately, religion becomes in some individuals
minds a narrow and redundant term that entails very strict rules and norms that
may corner someones spirituality. He proposes that by using these terms we do
not coerce people to abide by the appointed tradition that lies in religion, but
instead they can respond in their own personal way and undergo some unique set
of feelings to what is otherwise this transcendence experience.
At the same time, some will claim that there is no such thing as a religion.
Jonathan Zittel Smith defends this idea by saying that while there is a staggering
amount of data, phenomena, of human experiences and expressions that might
may be a little far-fetched, but it almost seems that if we eliminate death from our
life cycles, the whole purpose of religion would become scarce. In fact, he
considered that, contrary to the previous opinions regarding the endless attempts
to find a meaning in this human life, the philosophy of meaninglessness was
essentially an instrument of liberation. This may be in fact extremely revealing,
and I personally agree with this assertion: that the moment we establish
ourselves as members of a supreme and meaningful community, we claim to be
more powerful than we actually are and we forget who we are deep inside as an
individual and so economic nationalism becomes more intense, rival
propagandas grow even fiercer and general wars become increasingly probable.
As we can see, he clearly states that some may find peace and comfort in
nothingness or in a meaningless life.
I feel that I should at least mention Friedrich Nietzsches take on this
matter, as he dismembered Christianity, in particular the idea of afterlife that he
believed made its believers less able to cope with the earthly life, having no goals
or aim. The statement that is mostly known is, of course, God is dead. God
remains dead. And we have killed him. Of course, Nietzsche thought that a holy
presence can only be in the minds of those who believed in it, therefore, only they
could have killed it. We rarely stop and think of the moral aspect of religion and
how something otherwise inspiring could become extremely hypocritical. Without
a spiritual figure, also known in this particular case as God, which people must
obey and listen to, individuals rarely have a purpose, direction or a sense of
morality. He is inclined to act in a good manner just because he knows that
otherwise he might be punished. Nietzsche also thought that religion, especially
Christianity, was established for weak people who despise themselves, so they will
find comfort in the idea that a God will accept them if they ultimately repent so
they will have a chance for an afterlife.
Hereinafter, I bring into discussion Alan Watts, famous for his
popularization of the Eastern philosophy in the West, who considered that religion
nowadays cannot handle the constant evolution of the society. At the same time,
he proposes that the standard religions managed to transform guilt into a virtue:
Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of one-upmanship
because they depend upon separating the saved from the damned, the true
believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group. . . . All belief is
fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty. He refuses to
consider a world where a God would make all its followers depend upon one book
for answers and meaning. Instead, he proposes that we get to know ourselves
independent of our religion or beliefs by separating ourselves from the ego for a
better understanding of who we are, not having to cling to some preconceived
ideas.
On the other side, we have Karl Marxs famous input that says that religion
is the opium of the masses. We must take into consideration that religion served
as an illusory form of happiness for the lower classes who weren t privileged with
enough material supplies.
From a psychological point of view we have Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung,
both having some interesting approaches over the subject. In The Future of an
Illusion Freud wrote: Religion is a system of wishful illusions together with a
disavowal of reality, such as we find nowhere else but in a state of blissful
hallucinatory confusion. Religion's eleventh commandment is "Thou shalt not
question. He refers to religion as an illusion and wishful thinking that provides
Last but not least, I would like to offer a present-day opinion regarding
religion, by none other than Richard Dawkins, a personal favourite, although very
controversial: There is no all seeing, all loving God who keeps us free from
harm...By disclaiming the idea of the next life, we take more excitement in this
one. The here and now is not something to be endured for eternal bliss or
damnation. The here and now is all we have and is an inspiration to make the
most of itLook around you. Nature demands our attention, begs us to explore,
to question. Religion can provide only facile, unsatisfying answers. Science, in
constantly seeking real explanations, reveals the true majesty of our world in all
its complexity. The reason why I agree with this particular opinion is because
religion teaches us to be complacent with not knowing or understanding what
happens in the world. Just the simple act of acknowledging your being in this
world and your role in it may have a significant impact for your spirituality.
III.
Conclusion
References