Religion



         




Religion, sometimes used interchangeably with faith, is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief.

Occasionally, the word "religion" is used to designate what should be more properly described as a "religious organization" – that is, an organization of people that support some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity. See religion-supporting organization.

Borobudur, a Buddhist stupa built between 750 and 850
Fishers of men; Oil on panel by Adriaen van de Venne (1614)
Contents
1 The nature and content of religion

1.1 Defining "religion"
1.2 Questions that religions address
1.3 Religious practices
1.4 Contrasts among religions

1.4.1 Number of gods
1.4.2 Gender of God or gods
1.4.3 Sources of authority
1.4.4 Organizational Structure
1.4.5 Ethical focus
1.4.6 Afterlife

2 Approaches to Relating to the beliefs of others

2.1 Exclusivism
2.2 Inclusivism
2.3 Pluralism
2.4 Syncretism

3 Religion in relation to other closely related topics

3.1 Religion and spirituality
3.2 Religion and science
3.3 Religion and myth

3.3.1 Myth as "mere story"
3.3.2 Myth as defining and explaining belief

3.4 Religion and Occam's Razor

4 Approaches to the study of individual religions

4.1 Methods of studying religion subjectively (in relation to one's own beliefs)
4.2 Methods of studying religion objectively (in a scientific and religiously neutral fashion)

5 Development of religion

5.1 Origin of religion

5.1.1 Physical evidence of prehistoric religion
5.1.2 Physical evidence of the origins of the major world religions
5.1.3 Documentation of contemporary religions' beginnings

5.2 Role of charismatic figures in the development of religions
5.3 Religion in modernity

5.3.1 Modern adherence to religion
5.3.2 Modern causes for rejecting religion

6 See also
7 External links
[edit]

The nature and content of religion

[edit]

Defining "religion"

Beyond the above, very broad definition of religion, there are a variety of uses and meanings for the word "religion." Some of the approaches are as follows:

For a more complete discussion, see Approaches to distinguishing religion from non-religion

[edit]

Questions that religions address

Religions are systems of belief which typically seek to answer questions about the following concerns:

Generally, the different religions and the non-religious all have different answers for the above concerns, and many religions provide a range of answers to each question.

[edit]

Religious practices

Practices based upon religious beliefs typically include:

Adherents of a particular religion typically gather together to celebrate holy days, to recite or chant scripture, to pray, to worship, and provide spiritual assistance to each other. However, solitary practice of prayer and meditation is often seen to be just as important, as is living out religious convictions in secular activities when in the company of people who are not necessarily adherents to that religion. This is often a function of the religion in question.

[edit]

Contrasts among religions

Religions diverge widely with regard in the answers they provide to the questions listed above, and the practices of the religious faithful. For example:

[edit]

Number of gods

The syllable Aum or ॐ is the primordial mantra in Vedic tradition.
[edit]

Gender of God or gods

Main article: God and gender.

[edit]

Sources of authority

[edit]

Organizational Structure

[edit]

Ethical focus

(It should be noted that, to one degree or another, most religions draw from all types of ethics; however, most traditionally emphasize one over the others)

[edit]

Afterlife

[edit]

Approaches to Relating to the beliefs of others

Adherents of particular religions deal with the differing doctrines and practices espoused by other religions in a variety ways. All strains of thought appear in different segments of all major world religions.

[edit]

Exclusivism

People with exclusivist beliefs typically explain other religions as either in error, or as corruptions or counterfeits of the true faith. Examples include:

Exclusivist views are more completely explored in chosen people.

[edit]

Inclusivism

People with inclusivist beliefs recognize some truth in all faith systems, highlighting agreements and minimizing differences, but see their own faith as in some way ultimate. Examples include:

[edit]

Pluralism

Main article: Religious pluralism

People with pluralist beliefs make no distinction between faith systems, viewing each one as valid within a particular culture. Examples include:

[edit]

Syncretism

Main article: Syncretism

People with syncretistic views blend the views of a variety of different religions or traditional beliefs into a unique fusion which suits their particular experience and context.

[edit]

Religion in relation to other closely related topics

[edit]

Religion and spirituality

It is common to distinguish the concept of "religion" from the concept of "spirituality."

Individuals who ascribe to this distiction see spirituality as a belief in ideas of religious significance (such as God, the Soul, or Heaven) without being bound to the bureaucratic structure and creeds of a particular organized religion. They choose the term spirituality rather than religion to describe their form of belief, perhaps reflecting a large-scale disillusionment with organized religion that is occurring in much of the Western world (see Religion in Modernity), and a movement towards a more "modern" — more tolerant, and more intuitive — form of religion.

Many members of organized religion, of course, see no significant difference between the two terms, because they see spirituality at the heart of their religion, and see the church organization as a means of preserving that spirituality. Many of them associate themselves with an organized religion because they see the religious community as a means of maintaining and strengthening their Faith in fellowship with other believers. They see amorphous "spirituality" movements as "religions of convenience," in which individuals can choose whatever beliefs make them feel comfortable at the time, without being bound to any external standard of accountability.

Finally, it should be noted that many individuals, while still associating themselves with an organized religion, see a distinction between the mundane, earthly aspects of their religion and the spiritual dimension. They note that people may take part in organized religion purely for mundane reasons, for example, gaining security from such things as regular attendance at churches or temples, or the social comfort of fervently agreeing with other believers; they note that this sometimes is done without a corresponding spiritual dimension. They then conclude that such behavior is "religious" without being "spiritual." Further, some aspects of religion (for example, the Catholic Inquisition or Islamic Terrorism), are seen as completely contrary to the teachings of the religions' founders, who many believe taught tolerance and love. In support of this belief that religions may "lose their way," many cite things such as Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees, who represented organized religion in his context.

As a result, many who consider themselves deeply involved with the Divine may have come to reject much of the recognised aspects of established religion, in an effort to free themselves of the mundane trappings or perceived corruption of "religion."

[edit]

Religion and science

Generally speaking, religion and science use different methods in their effort to ascertain Truth. Religious methods are generally subjective, appealing to personal intuition or experience, or the authority of a perceived prophet or sacred text. Scientific methods are generally objective, appealing only to observable and verifiable phenomena.

Similarly, there are two types of questions which religion and science attempt to answer: questions of observable and verifiable phenomena (such as the laws of physics, or human moral codes), and questions of unobservable phenomena and value judgments (such as how the laws of physics came to be, and what is "good" and "bad").

People apply the two methods to the two categories of questions in a variety of ways.

[edit]

Religion and myth

The word "myth" has two meanings, according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

  1. a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
  2. a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
[edit]

Myth as "mere story"

Ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Vikings, etc., are often studied under the heading of mythology. Religions of pre-industrial peoples, or cultures in development to industrial conditions, are similarly observed by the anthropology of religion. Mythology can be a term used pejoratively by religious and non-religious people both, by defining another person's religious stories and beliefs as mythology. Here myths are treated as fantasies, or "mere" stories.

[edit]

Myth as defining and explaining belief

The term myth in sociology, however has a non-pejorative meaning, defined as stories that are important for the group and not necessarily untrue. Examples include the death and resurrection of Jesus (which, to Christians, explains the means by which they are freed from sin, as well as being ostensibly historical), or the theory of evolution (which, to Secular Humanists, illustrates the course of history, and inspires them to strive to further the evolution of Mankind, as well as being ostensibly scientific). Joseph Campbell, in The Power of Myth, held that myth was a universal human trait, and necessary to well-being. By this definition, therefore, there is no essential difference between the myths of extinct religions, those of extant religions, and those of ostensibly "non-religious" people.

[edit]

Religion and Occam's Razor

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not take more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred.

Some, such as atheists, secular humanists, and agnostics assert that Occam's Razor makes religious belief unreasonable, because religion requires an individual to make many more assumptions regarding causes in the natural world than Atheistic and Naturalistic explanations require. For instance, some religious beliefs require the believer to assume that an invisible God created the universe, is concerned with our moral behavior for some reason, yet does not reveal himself, and will judge us after death for decisions we made in relative ignorance, sending us to either an assumed Heaven or an assumed Hell. Atheists conclude that such belief requires a myriad of assumptions, that naturalistic explanations require significantly fewer assumptions, and that the religious beliefs are therefore less reasonable than naturalistic ones.

Others (such as William of Occam himself, who was a Christian and Franciscan friar), assert that Occam's Razor makes religious belief reasonable. Some, for instance, note the empirical phenomena of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicate that over time, the universe passes from greater to lesser levels of organization. They further note that the only observable instances of increased organization are caused by life (in the context of evolution) or by persons (in the context of human creative efforts to alter and organize our universe). They then assert that naturalistic explanations alone are insufficient to explain Order in the universe, because they provide no mechanism by which order may arise from disorder, other than Persons. They conclude that the most reasonable explanation for the origin of Order in the universe is a Person of one form or another, who provided the creative impetus that brought about the remarkable order and structure evident in the universe.

Others assert that Occam's Razor is not a fair test for reasonable belief in all cases, because it is dependent on the available amount of evidence. They note that the history of science is the history of simple and intuitive explanations giving way to more complex and less intuitive ones. They note that belief in a flat Earth gave way to belief in a round Earth; that belief in strict Newtonian physics gave way to the much more complex Einsteinian relativity; and that belief in the doctrine of humors gave way to modern medicine. They note that Occam's razor was the means by which many nay-sayers of these scientific revolutions held back scientific discovery, because new theories required significantly more evidence and assumptions than traditional theory, and were therefore discouraged by many. They conclude that since the universe is often much more complex than our evidence allows for at any one time, one ought not rule out significantly more complex interpretations, simply because they require more assumptions than current theory. One ought instead to devote oneself to the investigation of all hypotheses, both religious and non-religious, allowing one's beliefs to change naturally with one's experience.

[edit]

Approaches to the study of individual religions

[edit]

Methods of studying religion subjectively (in relation to one's own beliefs)

These include efforts to determine the meaning and application of "sacred" texts and beliefs in the context of the student's personal worldview. This generally takes one of three forms:

  • one's own — efforts by believers to ascertain the meaning of their own sacred text, and to conform their thoughts and actions to the principles enunciated in the text. For most believers, this involves a lifetime process of study, analysis, and practice. Some faiths, such as Hassidic Judaism, emphasize adherence to a set of rules and rituals. Other faiths, such as Christianity, emphasize the internalization and application of a set of abstract principles, such as Love, Justice, or Faith. Some believers interpret their scriptures literally, and apply the text exactly it is written. Other believers try to interpret scripture through its context, to derive abstract principles which they may apply more directly to their lives and contexts.
  • another's compared to one's own — efforts by believers of one belief system attempt to describe a different belief system in terms of their own beliefs. One example of this method is in David Strauss's 1835 The Life of Jesus. Strauss's theological approach strikes from the Biblical text the descriptions of angels and miracles which, due to his presupposition that supernatural events do not occur, he does not believe could have occurred. He then concludes that the stories must have been inserted by a "supernaturalist" merely trying to make an important story more convincing. In this course of his argument, Strauss argues that the supernaturalist who inserted the angels into the story of the birth of Christ borrowed the heathen doctrine of angels from the Babylonians who had held the Jews in captivity. That is, the New Testament's fabulous role for angels "is evidently a product of the influence of the Zend religion of the Persians on the Jewish mind." Due to his presumption that supernatural events do not occur, he dismisses the possibility that both cultures came to believe in angels independently, as a result of their own experiences and context.
  • another's as defined by itself — efforts by believers of one belief system to understand the heart and meaning of another faith on its own terms. This very challenging approach to understanding religion presumes that each religion is a self-consistent system whereby a set of beliefs and actions depend upon each other for coherence, and can only be understood in relation to each other. This method requires the student to investigate the philosophical, emotional, religious, and social presuppositions that adherents of another religion develop and apply in their religious life, before applying their own biases, and evaluating the other faith. For instance, an individual who personally does not believe in miracles may attempt to understand why adherents of another religion believe in miracles, and then attempt to understand how the individual's belief in miracles affects their daily life. While the individual may still himself not believe in miracles, he may begin to develop an understanding of why people of other faiths choose to believe in them.
[edit]

Methods of studying religion objectively (in a scientific and religiously neutral fashion)

There are a variety of methods employed to study religion which seek to be scientifically neutral. One's interpretation of these methods depends on one's approach to the relationship between religion and science, as discussed above.

Critics note that historical, archeological, and literary approaches are scientific insofar as they uncover the facts of ancient religions, and seek to understand and interpret those facts within their context. They assert that the approaches are unscientific, however, insofar as they make value judgments as to which parts of ancient religions are "bright" and which are "dark," because value judgments are beyond the realm of the verifiable phenomena of science.
Critics note that the anthropological approach is scientific insofar as it observes that people naturally want explanations, and observes that people ascribe to a variety of explanations, including science and religion. Critics assert that it is unscientific, however, insofar as it makes the value judgment that science is the natural and more mature "successor" to religion, because value judgments are beyond the realm of the verifiable phenomena of science.
Critics note that the sociological approaches are scientific insofar as they note that the three "stages" are empirically observable, but unscientific insofar as it makes the value judgment that any one is superior to another, because value judgments are beyond the realm of the verifiable phenomena of science.
Critics note that the psychological approaches are scientific insofar as they document and describe experiences of the divine, but are unscientific insofar as they attempt to refute the proposition that the phenomena also contain a supernatural component, which is, by its very nature, beyond the realm of science.
Critics assert that while philosophical approaches are competent insofar as they logically systematize and compare sets of a priori fundamental values, they are incompetent insofar as they attempt to assert those a priori fundamental values.
In sociology, Rodney Stark has looked at the social forces that have caused religions to grow and the features of religions that have been most successful. For example, Stark, who claims to be an agnostic, hypothesizes that, before Christianity became established as the state religion of Constantinople, Christianity grew rapidly because it provided a practical framework within which non-family members would provide help to other people in the community in a barter system of mutual assistance. Similarly, Evolutionary psychology approaches consider the survival advantages that religion might have given to a community of hunter-gatherers, such as unifying them within a coherent social group.
Critics assert that while neuroscientific and evolutionary approaches are scientific insofar as they note the practical advantages religions provide their adherents, it is unscientific insofar as it asserts that people subscribe to religions merely in order to take advantage of those advantages, and exclude the religion's purported attraction: closer experience with Truth and God.
Critics assert that cognitive psychological approaches are unfalsifiable pseudoscience, because they assert that religious experience is a "side-effect" of another cognitive faculty without showing any actual connection between the two, and without providing any way to falsify the cognitive psychological explanation by showing the religious experience to be genuine.

For a discussion of the struggle to attain objectivity in the scientific study of religion, see Total Truth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581344589/qid=1098733705/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-1239504-1311215#product-details), by Nancy Pearcey, who argues that some studies performed pursuant to these methods make claims beyond the realm of observable and verifiable phenomena, and are therefore neither scientific nor religiously neutral.

[edit]

Development of religion

[edit]

Origin of religion

Each religion has its own interpretation of its origin, based on its scriptural account, and often has an account of the origin of other religions. In addition, Western secular humanism has developed an account of the origin of all religions.

The earliest records of organized religion date from 4000 years ago, concurrent with the earliest extant examples of writing. It is not known whether organized religion was in practice before this time, because no evidence is available. Adherents to religions assert that their scriptures contain historically accurate accounts of the development of their faiths before this time, such as the Biblical account of Genesis, the Islamic Qur'an and Sunna, as well as ancient Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, and Shinto writings. Many secular humanists assert that religions developed through folklore passed orally through generations, until finally being formalized after the development of writing.

[edit]

Physical evidence of prehistoric religion

Interpretation of archaeological evidence regarding prehistoric religions is difficult or impossible, due to the scant evidence, and the absence of any cultural or religious reference to aid in interpreting the evidence.

Nevertheless, evidence for early civilizations' religious ideas can be found in elaborate burial practices in which valuable objects were left with the deceased, intended for use in an afterlife or to appease the gods. This custom has clearer motives as it is usually accompanied by tomb paintings showing a belief of afterlife. It reached a spectacular form with the creation of the pyramids of Giza and the other great tombs of ancient Egypt; the Sumerian royal burials, and other prehistoric (pre-written records) monument builders.

[edit]

Physical evidence of the origins of the major world religions

Interpretation of archaeological evidence has been mixed as to the historical accuracy of the accounts in Jewish, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic sacred books, with conflicting claims leading to no clear resolution. See The Bible and history.

[edit]

Documentation of contemporary religions' beginnings

Religions created in modern times are often reasonably well documented (for example, Scientology).

[edit]

Role of charismatic figures in the development of religions

Many religions have been deeply influenced by charismatic leaders, such as Jesus, Martin Luther, Saint Francis of Assisi, John Calvin, Joseph Smith, Adi Sankara, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Swami Vivekanada, Sai Baba, Muhammad, Gautama Buddha, etc. These leaders are either the central teacher and founder of the religion (e.g. Muhammad, Jesus, or Gautama) or reformers or prominent persons.

The historical or legendary founders of some of the major world religions include Abraham and Moses (Judaism), Zoroaster (Zoroastrianism), Siddartha Gautama (Buddhism), Jesus (Christianity), Muhammad (Islam), and Bahá'u'lláh (Bahá'í).

[edit]

Religion in modernity

In the late 19th century and throughout most of the 20th century, the demographics of religion has changed a great deal.

Some historically Christian countries, particularly those in Europe, have experienced a significant decline in religion, shown by declining recruitment for priesthoods and monasteries, fast-diminishing attendance at churches, synagogues, etc. Explanations for this effect include disillusionment with ideology following the ravages of World War II, the materialistic philosophical influence of science, Marxism and Humanism, and a reaction against the exclusivist claims and religious wars waged by many religious groups.

In the United States, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa, by contrast, studies show that Christianity is strong and growing stronger, and many believe those areas to have become the new "heart" of Christianity. Islam is currently the fastest growing religion, and is nearly universal in many states stretching from West Africa to Indonesia, and has grown in world influence in the West. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism remain nearly universal in the Far East, and have greatly influenced spirituality, particularly in the United States. Explanations for the growth of religion in these areas include disillusionment with the perceived failures of secular western ideologies to provide an ethical and moral framework. Believers point to perceived terrors such as Naziism, Communism, Colonialism, Secular Humanism, and Materialism, and the havoc wreaked by such movements around the world. Particularly vehement in this regard are Islamic fundamentalists, who view Western secularism as a serious threat to morality itself. They point to perceived decadence, high rates of divorce, crime, depression, and suicide as evidence of Western social decline, which they believe is caused by the abandonment of Faith by the West.

[edit]

Modern adherence to religion

Additional reasons for continuing adherence to mainstream religion include the following:

[edit]

Modern causes for rejecting religion

As noted above, in some places, such as Europe, mainstream religions have been on the decline. This decline is apparently in parallel with increased prosperity and social well-being. It appears increasingly common for people to engage in far-ranging explorations, with many finding spiritual satisfaction outside of organized churches. This is a demographic group whose numbers are growing and whose future impact cannot be predicted. The people that reject religion often state the faults that they find in mainstream religions; these faults include the following:


[edit]

See also

[edit]

External links






-This article has been brought to you by BambooWeb and Wikipedia-



  View Live Article   This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License