Struggling for Definition

It is not surprising to discover that most present day scholars tend to avoid definitions when they discuss religions. The reasons for evasion become obvious as we look at some of the many earlier efforts to define the term. For example, in his Gifford Lectures (1902), the psychologist William James defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine". Obviously, this definition is too limited; religion is more than affect and more than what people do in their solitariness. As William Newsman pointed out: "regardless of what else may be said of religion, it is also a social phenomenon — it is something that people do in groups." Mircea Eliade the Roman Catholic historian of religions, rejected the study of religions solely from psychological or sociological perspectives and sought to examine the patterns or forms of religious expression. He would separate the sacred from the profane, even though he recognized that religion has the capacity to transform the profane into the sacred. The Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich wrote of religion in terms of "ultimate concern" within which he would include secularism: "For secularism is never without ultimate concern." The sociologist, Emile Durkheim, linked religion to the concept of "church:" "A 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." Obviously, this definition runs counter to the recognition of the ascetics who express their beliefs outside of a community.

Into this struggle for definition, others have introduced a number of special terms. … For example, Rudolph Otto in The Idea of the Holy produced a battery of Latin terms that suggest aesthetic dimensions in religion. He wrote of human confrontation with the "numinous," which is "wholly other" or outside normal experience and which is indescribable, terrifying, fascinating, characterized by dread and awe. The experience is of a mysterium tremendum et fascinosum, an "awe-filled and fascinating mystery." He wrote of the numen tremendum, which refers to the sense of the uncanny or that which renders a person "awestruck." All of these feeling responses he associated with religion. However, these terms refer to reactions not unlike those expressed by astronomers as they are awestruck, fascinated and moved by the immensity of space; or by our cosmonauts when, with deep emotion and fascination, they viewed the earth from space; or by poets and artists as they struggle to articulate the wonder they experience in everything from nature to human technological creativity; and by paleontologists and other scientists as they confront the mysterious beginnings of life on planet earth. As we noted above, some of us experience similar feelings as we view the majesty of the mountains, the beauty of a sunset, the power of the ocean, the deepest chasm in the crust of the earth, or the shaking of the earth during an earthquake or violent storm. These are human aesthetic responses to the wonders of our cosmos. They are not limited to "true believers" nor are they necessarily to be defined as "religious," although some would accept the term "spiritual," indicating the deep emotional stirrings evoked, but without any supernaturalistic implications.

Nor is it possible to link religion in a singular way to values, as Ames has done in his definition of religion as "the consciousness of the highest social values". Values rise out of society and can exist quite apart from religion. Religion is not alone in seeking meaning for existence. Joseph Gaer described religion as a person’s thoughtful response to the question "why?" This implies that religion alone seeks meaning for existence. But philosophy, psychology and the sciences also pose this question. Nor can religion be linked simply to "impulse directed to the conservation and preservation of life," as Jane Harrison phrased it. And the list goes on and on.

The question arises: How does one handle this problem? Perhaps the answer lies in "no definition."