‘Is there a thing in the world we can define as ‘religion’?’ WC: 1525 words.
Throughout the history of humanity, scholars have presented differing definitions on what a ‘religion’
constitutes, examining the phenomena through different lenses, such as anthropologically or theologically,
and during different periods of history. Despite these efforts, many scholars conclude that the search for
such a definition will always be fruitless, since defining a concept often leads necessarily to defining similar,
related phenomena (e.g. the transcendent or sacred,) leading to an endless cycle of definitions and
clarifications.1 Indeed, others suggest that the sustained efforts to define the concept demonstrate that the
term should be disregarded, as it clearly is too distorted to be of use.2 Ultimately, the quest to define
‘religion’ is ongoing, and this essay will argue that if defining the concept is necessary (some would argue
that ‘special terms’ are not needed to make a concept real or true3), then the most accurate depiction of
‘religion’ may come through synonyms and associations.
The main thing to keep in mind is the fact that the long history of attempting to define and uncover
‘religion’ entails different meanings for words depending on which period or work one is examining. For
example, whilst in 45 BC Cicero’s ‘De Natura Deorum’ argued that ‘religio’ is an attitude, 4 in 1590, Joseph de
Acosta defined ‘religion’ as the belief system which results in ceremonial behaviour.5 Clearly, both writers
conceive of ‘religion’ differently, using different titles for their concepts, which highlights changing
language, and perceiving the concepts as relating to everyday human life in distinct ways. Therefore, in
examining concepts throughout history, one must keep in mind the context of the definition, and the ways
in which it was linked to human structures and life. On the one hand, this demonstrates the difficulty in
reaching a concise, universal definition for ‘religion.’ The personal experiences and ideologies of a person
will always influence the conclusion they draw or definition they come to. For example, one person’s idea
of justice may be that of equal treatment, whilst another’s may entail harsh punishment for crimes. Indeed,
Wilfred Cantwell Smith suggests that the words we use to describe phenomena are often inadequate
expressions of the concept of that phenomena we have in our minds, which in turn is different from reality
itself.6 This may give weight to the idea that whilst there is evidence of what can be called ‘religious
activity,’ any human words used to define it will ultimately fall short of the true reality of the concept.
However, it also shows that throughout human history, individuals and civilisations have uncovered
something transcendent (again, difficult to define, but for the purposes of this essay transcendence refers
to the ‘Other’) and have followed ritualistic practices, or formed groups that have come to be known as
religious. Indeed, ‘religio’ in its context as described by Cicero, denoted a sense of rite with a cultic
association, which has over time become associated with the transcendent reality for which the rituals are
carried out.7 Firstly, this shows that civilisations have felt the need to take the term, and adapt it for their
own purposes as structures change. Secondly, the historicity of attempts to define ‘religion’ suggest that
there is such a thing in the world that exists in relation to this concept. However, the issues come in trying
1
Smart, Ninian. The World’s Religions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pg12.
2
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. The Meaning and End of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Pg17.
3
Ibid., Pg18.
4
Ibid., pg23.
5
Smith, Jonathan Z. Religion, religions, religious, in ‘Critical terms for Religious Studies.’ Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 1998. Pg270.
6
Smith. The Meaning and End of Religion. Pg17.
7
Ibid., pg21.
Throughout the history of humanity, scholars have presented differing definitions on what a ‘religion’
constitutes, examining the phenomena through different lenses, such as anthropologically or theologically,
and during different periods of history. Despite these efforts, many scholars conclude that the search for
such a definition will always be fruitless, since defining a concept often leads necessarily to defining similar,
related phenomena (e.g. the transcendent or sacred,) leading to an endless cycle of definitions and
clarifications.1 Indeed, others suggest that the sustained efforts to define the concept demonstrate that the
term should be disregarded, as it clearly is too distorted to be of use.2 Ultimately, the quest to define
‘religion’ is ongoing, and this essay will argue that if defining the concept is necessary (some would argue
that ‘special terms’ are not needed to make a concept real or true3), then the most accurate depiction of
‘religion’ may come through synonyms and associations.
The main thing to keep in mind is the fact that the long history of attempting to define and uncover
‘religion’ entails different meanings for words depending on which period or work one is examining. For
example, whilst in 45 BC Cicero’s ‘De Natura Deorum’ argued that ‘religio’ is an attitude, 4 in 1590, Joseph de
Acosta defined ‘religion’ as the belief system which results in ceremonial behaviour.5 Clearly, both writers
conceive of ‘religion’ differently, using different titles for their concepts, which highlights changing
language, and perceiving the concepts as relating to everyday human life in distinct ways. Therefore, in
examining concepts throughout history, one must keep in mind the context of the definition, and the ways
in which it was linked to human structures and life. On the one hand, this demonstrates the difficulty in
reaching a concise, universal definition for ‘religion.’ The personal experiences and ideologies of a person
will always influence the conclusion they draw or definition they come to. For example, one person’s idea
of justice may be that of equal treatment, whilst another’s may entail harsh punishment for crimes. Indeed,
Wilfred Cantwell Smith suggests that the words we use to describe phenomena are often inadequate
expressions of the concept of that phenomena we have in our minds, which in turn is different from reality
itself.6 This may give weight to the idea that whilst there is evidence of what can be called ‘religious
activity,’ any human words used to define it will ultimately fall short of the true reality of the concept.
However, it also shows that throughout human history, individuals and civilisations have uncovered
something transcendent (again, difficult to define, but for the purposes of this essay transcendence refers
to the ‘Other’) and have followed ritualistic practices, or formed groups that have come to be known as
religious. Indeed, ‘religio’ in its context as described by Cicero, denoted a sense of rite with a cultic
association, which has over time become associated with the transcendent reality for which the rituals are
carried out.7 Firstly, this shows that civilisations have felt the need to take the term, and adapt it for their
own purposes as structures change. Secondly, the historicity of attempts to define ‘religion’ suggest that
there is such a thing in the world that exists in relation to this concept. However, the issues come in trying
1
Smart, Ninian. The World’s Religions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pg12.
2
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. The Meaning and End of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Pg17.
3
Ibid., Pg18.
4
Ibid., pg23.
5
Smith, Jonathan Z. Religion, religions, religious, in ‘Critical terms for Religious Studies.’ Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 1998. Pg270.
6
Smith. The Meaning and End of Religion. Pg17.
7
Ibid., pg21.
