'“Everybody knows what religion is, and so, we do not need to define it.” Essay\r'

'The adopt of organized organized devotion may be as old as gaykind itself consort to one author. Defining godliness is toilsome as there argon numerous a(prenominal) translations as there argon many authors. The word holiness is the most operose to unsex because of the lack of a univers all in ally accepted description. Specifi offery the root nub of the word theology rouse be traced to Latin. Releg be or righteousness mien of keep to halt oneself, emanating from the Latin religio, which is translated to re-read emphasising tradition passing from coevals to generation. Douglas Davies says â€Å"some have simply exposit godliness as a flavour in spiritual universes.” (10).\r\nIn the hand The benignantkind Religion there is a suggestion of approaches for tackling the question of trust such(prenominal)(prenominal) as viewing it anthropologically, sociologically, through history, in a scholarly way, theologically and by reductionism. In this paper I lead try and assess the definition of religious belief from aforementioned views and severalise the problems of defining religion.\r\n mob Cox states that in their introductory standard on religion the American scholars Hall, Pilgrim and Cavanagh identify four characteristic problems with traditional definitions of religion; these are: vagueness, narrowness, compartmentasation and prejudice (9). The authors argue that vagueness core there are so many definitions that they do not distinguish the weigh of religion from other(a) field of battles of study. Tilich’s defines religion as ultimate denote or a simple head of religion meaning living a good heart (9).\r\nLiving a good life is consequenceive to an individua tendency since the concerns and values we have are influenced by gardening and the community that we live in. The definition of religion may excessively be viewed as narrow by means of compensating for the vagueness. In most cases the study of religion is fixated on a plastered field or line of thought. Hall, Pilgrim and Cavanagh use doubting Thomas Aquinas’ claim that religion denotes a relationship with a god, thereby excluding non-atheistic or polytheistic forms of religion (Cox 9). Most definitions are narrowed down to religious whimseys such as Christianity among other world religions. In narrowing down the definition of religion it excludes\r\nother religions such as African Traditional Religions.\r\nDue to the fact that African religions lack most characteristics needed of World religions they are excluded from being religion. Atheism is a growing phenomena in the world that does not believe in a God, which I feel have its own vox populi system. Many definitions focus too narrowly on only a a few(prenominal) aspects of religion; they tend to exclude those religions that do not fit well. It is apparent that religion can be seen as a theological, philosophical, anthropological, sociological, and psychological phe nomenon of human kind.\r\nTo limit religion to only one of these categories is to miss its multifarious nature and lose out on the complete definition. The selfsame(prenominal) authors by way of compartmentalisation explain religion in terms of still one single, additional aspect of human life. This compartmentalisation reduces religion to one part of human life and ignores its relevance to the amount of human human beings. They also argue against Schleiermachers’ definition of religion as a feeling of absolute habituation which might reduce religion to a mere psychological condition, (Cox 9).\r\nBy compartmentalisation you are taking the part of the full-page to be the whole, thereby reducing religion to one aspect of human existence ignoring the totality of existence. Religion is not just a feeling besides encompasses the totality of existence in a human being his beliefs, culture and language. Religious or religion is not static entirely high-energy from one ge neration to other and they are ever developing in accordance with time and nature. Religion is not only a compartment in life of a human being but a totality, a large elephant it is long and complex.\r\nMost definitions of religion may be viewed as prejudice because they are critical in process which cannot present an documentary picture of what religion actually is. The same scholars argue giving the example of Karl goo that religion is the opium of the people which is intelligibly dark-skinned (Cox 9). A scholar by the reboot of Barnhart criticizes traditional definitions of religion identifying in them fivesome issues in prejudice: belief in supernatural, critical definitions, diluted definitions, expanded definitions and on-key religion. In his inclination, Barnhart denies that religions must not ensure a belief in God or supernatural beings to qualify as religions. He believes that such definitions restrict the subject matter of religion and thus are too sole(a), ( Cox 9).\r\nIn the same argument he concurs with Hall and company call on narrowness of definition of religion. In the same view disagrees with E.B Tylor ‘religion consists of beliefs in spiritual’ beings as too narrow. In asserting that religion definitions are appraising(prenominal) in nature, Barnhart concurs with Hall that these definitions are prejudiced. He argues against Marx and Freud saying the ultimate concern is itself an evaluative concept imposed on religion from the perspective of Western philosophy.\r\nCiting Clarke’s bidding that ‘religion is the life of God in the soul of man’ tells us nonentity about either God or the soul thereby diluting the definition and affirming other scholars view that religion’s definition is vagueness. Compartmentalisation of the definition of religion can also be likened to what Barnhart calls expanded definitions. He argues against Russell who tries to expand the definition of religion so far as t o make it reckon an effort to seek comfort in a terrifying world. The argument follows that by trying to define religion as a way of expanding a list of what comprises religion to accommodate one compartment of human existence it has an opposite effect of diluting the definition rather than searching for consolation, (Cox 10).\r\nLastly Barnhart finds a problem in defining all religions in terms of one religion which by definition claims itself to be true. He gives the example of ‘Religion is belief in Jesus’ or ‘there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet’. This clearly categorises the definition of religion are inseparable (Cox 10). The example also clearly shows how exclusive some definitions of religion are and proves the preliminary mentioned problem of prejudice against one belief system or being traditionally fixated on belief systems of faith. The problem of masses according to Roger Schmidt religion is difficult to define because it i s a collective term employ to a wide range of phenomena. The phenomena complicate beliefs and practices that all religions have in common.\r\n most related to plurality is the problem of culture as religion and culture are closely linked. Religion is a minor of culture, which is a result of religion being found in a certain contextual culture, therefore, difficult to define religion in all cultures. Religion itself is dynamic the Buddhism of a hundred years agone is not the same today. This shows that religion is not static but dynamic.\r\n'